The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMN-CC-1999-12-08 1 COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK Regular Meeting 7:00 December 8, 1999 PRESENT: Mayor Cohen Alderpersons (10) Shenk, Sams, Blumenthal, Marcham, Hershey Manos, Farrell, Vaughan, Spielholz, Taylor OTHERS PRESENT: City Clerk – Conley Holcomb City Attorney – Geldenhuys City Controller – Cafferillo Deputy Controller – Thayer Planning and Development Director – Van Cort Superintendent of Public Works – Gray City Chamberlain – Parsons Human Resources Director – Michell-Nunn Fire Chief – Wilbur Environmental & Landscape Planner – Cornish Economic Development Planner – Lee Alderperson Elect – Pryor Alderperson Elect – Glasstetter PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Cohen led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA: New Business Mayor Cohen requested the addition of Item 21.1 – Resolution Supporting City Court Reform. No Council member objected. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: 4.1 Pride of Ownership - Announcement of Awards Alderperson Blumenthal presented the Pride of Ownership Awards sponsored by the City of Ithaca and the Rotary Club of Ithaca. This award recognizes property owners who develop projects, or maintain their properties in ways that enhance the physical appearance and quality of life in city neighborhoods and commercial areas. The following individuals received awards: Owner-Occupied Housing – Mary Love Don and Carol Randel Rental Property – Flora Sagan Robert Terry Commercial Property – Ken Young and Madeline Schuler Ken and Lynette Scofield Special Award – Tracy Farrell Teen Center Mural Youth Horticultural Apprentice Program December 8, 1999 2 Fire Chief Wilbur recognized and thanked Assistant Fire Chief Guy VanBenschoten for all his hard work in coordinating the Integrated Emergency Management Course that 70 representatives from the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, Cornell University, Ithaca College, Red Cross, Bangs Ambulance, Cayuga Medical Center, and various emergency management personnel attended in Emmitsburg, Maryland. This course provided area representatives training in how to provide an integrated response to large scale disasters. Common Council and the Mayor applauded Assistant Fire Chief VanBenschoten’s efforts. 4.2 Public Hearing – Inlet Island Waterfront Zoning District Revisions Resolution to Open Public Hearing By Alderperson Spielholz: Seconded by Alderperson Hershey RESOLVED, That the Public Hearing to consider the Inlet Island Waterfront Zoning District Revisions be declared open. Carried Unanimously Gary Jaynes expressed grave concerns regarding the proposed zoning and its potential affect on emergency access to residents. Joel Harlan distributed news articles regarding the waterfront development in Oswego and urged the City to consider similar development. Resolution to Close Public Hearing By Alderperson Hershey: Seconded by Alderperson Vaughan RESOLVED, That the Public Hearing to consider the Inlet Island Waterfront Zoning District Revisions be declared closed. Carried Unanimously 4.3 Public Hearing – Consideration of the Proposed Disposition of a 3.3 Acre Subdivided Portion of Parcel 127-1-1 Resolution to Open Public Hearing By Alderperson Spielholz: Seconded by Alderperson Manos RESOLVED, That the Public Hearing to consider the Proposed Disposition of a 3.3 Acre Subdivided Portion of Parcel 127-1 be declared open. Carried Unanimously Tony Ingraham, Greg Spence Wolf, Christiann Dean, Liz Browman, Richard Hepburn, Danny Tourance, Dan Hoffman, Susan Titus, Molly Adams, Doria Higgins, Daniel Coggan, Joe Wetmore, Michael Culotta, Betsy Darlington, Chris Gilbert, and Fay Goughakis spoke in opposition to the proposed disposition of the land. Joel Harlan spoke in favor of development and commercial growth. December 8, 1999 3 Resolution to Close Public Hearing By Alderperson Manos: Seconded by Alderperson Spielholz RESOLVED, That the Public Hearing to consider the Proposed Disposition of a 3.3 Acre Subdivided Portion of Parcel 127-1 be declared closed. Carried Unanimously PETITIONS AND HEARINGS OF PERSONS BEFORE COUNCIL: Joel Harlan distributed articles regarding panhandling and the homeless. Doria Higgins, Town of Ithaca, spoke about false information given out by Mayor Cohen regarding the Lake Source Cooling Project. Andy Ruina, City of Ithaca, Vice-Chair, Bicycle-Pedestrian Advisory Council spoke about the Northern Routes – Bike Plan Phase I. Will Burbank, Town of Ithaca, spoke about Southwest Park development and the impact on area residents and local businesses. Mr. Burbank also requested that Common Council forward the GEIS to the Conservation Advisory Council for review. Paul Glover, City of Ithaca, spoke in support of the Bike Plan, and spoke regarding the Southwest Area Environmental Impact Statement. Jennifer Dawson, City of Ithaca, spoke in support of the Bike Plan, parking studies, and parking needs. Dan Winch, Town of Newfield, spoke about the hardfill composting materials being moved from Southwest Park to a site located in the Town of Ithaca. Tony Petito, Town of Newfield, spoke in opposition of the new proposed composting and hardfill dump site. Dave Colt, Robert Vanderland, Don Persus, City of Ithaca, and Bill Carini, Town of Newfield, spoke in support of the Bike Plan. Esther Gass, member of the Bicycle-Pedestrian Advisory Committee, submitted a petition supporting the Bike Plan. David Henderson, City of Ithaca, spoke in support of the Bike Plan and the lowering of street speed limits to 25 mph. Herman Glasier, City of Ithaca, spoke in opposition to the Bike Plan due to the amount of traffic on Cayuga Street. Michael Culotta, City of Ithaca, spoke about the Southwest Park sale of land to Widewaters and the related fill permit. Joe Wetmore, Town of Ithaca, spoke about missing calculations in the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement. December 8, 1999 4 Bob Wolfe Jung, David Krenick, and David Nutter, Greg Spence Wolfe, City of Ithaca, all spoke in support of the Bike Plan. John Beach, Chair, Bicycle-Pedestrian Advisory Council, thanked the Mayor and Council for the skate park built last Fall. He also voiced his support for the Bike Plan David Kay, Vice-Chair, Planning Board, supports working together on the Bike Plan. Betsy Darlington, City of Ithaca, requests that the public be given 60 days to comment on the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement - Determination of Completeness. She also requested that the document be put on the City’s website. Guy VanBenschoten, City of Ithaca, spoke in opposition to the bike plan as proposed. Fay Gougakis, City of Ithaca, spoke about the sale of Southwest Park, Cornell University not contributing to the cost of the Sagan Bridge, and experimenting with the Bike Plan. RESPONSE TO THE PUBLIC: Alderperson Shenk requested that the Bike Plan and the Sale of Land to Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency be moved up on the agenda. Alderperson Vaughan clarified the description of the property for sale on Elmira Road and noted that the property is not directly across from Buttermilk Falls. Alderperson Hershey responded to comments made by Mr. Vanderland regarding the Bike Plan. Alderperson Taylor stated she takes offense at the suggestion that a member of Council would decide something “willy-nilly” without reading material or being informed of the issues. RECESS: Common Council recessed at 9:30 P.M. RECONVENE: Common Council reconvened into regular session at 9:45 P.M. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE MAYOR: Mayor Cohen wished Happy Holidays to all his colleagues and City residents. REPORT OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: City Attorney Geldenhuys reported on the acquisition of substitute parkland for Inlet Island. All the parcels are under contract, and all but three parcels have closed. December 8, 1999 5 CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: 16.1 Chamberlain – Request to Extend Period to Redeem Tax Liens By Alderperson Marcham: Seconded by Alderperson Vaughan WHEREAS, the property owner of 140 College Avenue has requested an extension of time for property redemption from the 1996 City tax lien, and WHEREAS, the Budget and Administration Committee has reviewed the request and recommends approval of the extension; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the existing owner be permitted to redeem the property at 140 College Avenue, for the total lien amount outstanding, plus additional interest, penalty and related costs for the 1996 City tax lien through the date of redemption. Carried Unanimously 16.2 Human Resources – Request to Establish Capital Project for Human Resources Office Automation Software By Alderperson Marcham: Seconded by Alderperson Vaughan WHEREAS, the Human Resources Department is in need of software that will automate the office and vastly improve office efficiency by eliminating office functions which are currently done manually, and WHEREAS, the Human Resources Department has received software proposals and is recommending that Per Soft, Inc. of Rochester, New York be selected to automate the HR Office at an estimated total project cost of $30,000, including the following modules: Civil Service Employee Tracking – Roster cards Position Tracking – Control cards Personnel Actions Report & Statistics now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby establishes Capital Project #388 in an amount not to exceed $30,000 for the acquisition of Human Resources software and awards the contract to Per Soft, Inc. of Rochester, New York, and be it further RESOLVED, That funds necessary for said acquisition will be derived from the issuance of Serial Bonds. Carried Unanimously 16.3 Finance/Controller – Request Authorization to Cover Red Accounts By Alderperson Marcham: Seconded by Alderperson Vaughan RESOLVED, That the City Controller be empowered to make transfers within the 1999 Budget appropriations, as needed, for the remainder of the 1999 Fiscal Year. Carried Unanimously December 8, 1999 6 REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: Planning and Economic Development Committee: 17.1 Ordinance amending Chapter 276 entitled “Site Development Plan Review” of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code – Determination of Environmental Significance By Alderperson Blumenthal: Seconded by Alderperson Spielholz WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is proposing an ordinance to repeal the current Chapter 276 entitled “Site Development Plan Review” and add a new chapter to be known and designated as Chapter 276 entitled “Site Plan Review” to be added to the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, and WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the preparation of a Short Environmental Assessment form (SEAF), and WHEREAS, the proposed action is an Unlisted Action under the City Environmental Quality Review Act (CEQR Sec. 176-12B), and WHEREAS, the Common Council for the City of Ithaca, acting as Lead Agency, has reviewed the SEAF, submitted by Planning Staff for the City of Ithaca, dated 12/3/99, and supplemental information, and has determined that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the environment; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby adopts as its own, the findings and conclusions more fully set forth on the Short Environmental Assessment Form, and, be it further, RESOLVED, That this Common Council, as lead agency, hereby determines that the proposed action at issue will not have a significant effect on the environment, and that further environmental review is unnecessary, and, be it further RESOLVED, That this resolution constitutes notice of this negative declaration and that the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the same, together with any attachments, in the City Clerk’s Office, and forward the same to any other parties as required by law. Carried Unanimously 17.1A An Ordinance Amending Chapter 276 entitled “Site Development Plan Review” of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code By Alderperson Blumenthal: Seconded by Alderperson Spielholz ORDINANCE NO. 99 – BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, New York, as follows: Section 1. That Chapter 276 Chapter 276 entitled “Site Development Plan Review” of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code is amended as follows: 1. That the current Chapter 276 entitled “Site Development Plan Review” is hereby repealed. December 8, 1999 7 2. That a new Chapter to be known and designated as Chapter 276 entitled “Site Plan Review” is hereby added to the City of Ithaca Municipal Code to read as follows: CHAPTER 276 SITE PLAN REVIEW 276-1. Intent 276-2. Definitions A. Conformance with Zoning Ordinance Terms B. Terms Specific to SPR 276-3. Applicability A. General Applicability B. Projects of Limited Scope C. Exemptions D. City and Other Government Projects 276-4. Other Permits and Approvals A. Building Permit B. Use Variance C. Area Variance 276-5. Authorization to Review Site Plans A. Planning Board Authorization B. Planning Director Authorization 276-6. Site Plan Review (SPR) Procedures A. Process Initiation B. SPR Procedures 1. Sketch Plan Conference 2. Submission of Application Materials 3. Environmental Review 4. Public Notice 5. Coordination and Consultation 6. Planning Board Meeting 7. Public Hearing 8. Action on the Application of Site Plan Approval 9. Communication of Decision C. Changes to Approved Site Plan D. Extension of Deadlines 276-7. Review Criteria A. General Criteria B. Criteria for Parking Areas 276-8. Fees A. Application Fees B. Public Notice Sign Fee and Legal Ad Fee 276-9. Performance Guarantee 276-10. Expiration of Approval, Extension of Approval 276-11. Enforcement 276-12. Appeal December 8, 1999 8 276-13. Severability Historical Notes Chapter 276 was enacted by Ordinance #89-1 of the Common Council, which was adopted on February 1, 1989. General References Approval of certain uses. Gen City L 30-a(1)[b]. Approval of site plans. Gen City L 30-a(1)[a]. hearing and decision. Gen City L 30.a(2). review by court. Gen City L 30-a(3). Article 78 proceeding; 30 day limit. Gen City L 30- a(3). Immunity of municipality from site plan approval. Matter of County of Monroe, 72 NY2d 338 SEQR, compliance with 6 NYCRR, Part 617. Site plan approval. Planning Board was under no obligation to suggest alternative measures after disapproving site plan. Matter of Mascony v Richmond, 71 AD2d 896; affd 49 NY2d 969 Subdivision plat approval; authority of planning board to approve zoning changes. Gen City L 37. Cross-References Building Code Enforcement. Chapter 146 Environmental Quality Review. Chapter 176 Flood Damage Prevention. Chapter 186 Subdivision Regulations. Chapter 290 Zoning. Chapter 325 276-1. Intent The intent of this ordinance is to provide for the review of site plans for certain land uses in the City of Ithaca for the purpose of 1) preserving and enhancing neighborhood character, 2) achieving compatibility with adjacent development, 3) mitigating potentially negative impacts on traffic, parking, drainage, the landscape and similar environmental concerns, and 4) improving the design, function, aesthetics, and safety of development projects and the overall visual and aesthetic quality of the City. 276-2. Definitions A. Definitions of specific terms or words as used in this chapter shall conform to the definitions of the same terms in the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 325, section 325- 3. B. In addition to the definitions in Chapter 325, the following terms shall be used in this Chapter as they are defined in this section: December 8, 1999 9 1. AFFECTED SITE AREA - Any area (including new and modified gross floor space) that is physically changed as a result of the proposed development. Such changes do not have to be permanent or irreversible for the area to be considered affected. For example, a construction staging area will be considered an affected area if tree damage or significant soil compaction is likely to result. 2. BOARD - The Planning and Development Board, unless otherwise specified. 3. DEVELOPMENT - Any land use activity or project which requires a permit from the Building Department and will result in changes to the physical condition, appearance, or type of use, or intensity of use of property. Development projects include, but are not limited to: a) new construction, reconstruction, modification, or expansion of existing structures or site improvements; b) landfilling, excavation, grading, parking lot construction, or any other disturbances to the natural or existing topography or vegetation of the site; c) demolition of structures or site improvements. A project shall not be considered a development if it is one or a combination of the following: a) replacement in kind only, or b) interior construction only, or c) infrastructure maintenance only. 4. EXPANSION - An enlargement of, or addition to, an existing structure or a paved area, including driveways, parking areas, and sidewalks. 5. MODIFICATION - Rearrangement of site layout or an exterior alteration to an existing structures (including any changes to a building facade, except replacement in kind). 6. PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE - Any security that may be accepted by the City as a guarantee that the improvements required as part of Site Plan Approval will be satisfactorily completed. 7. RECONSTRUCTION - Construction of buildings or site plan improvements following [a] total demolition of a previous development. 8. REPLACEMENT IN KIND - Replacement of materials (for maintenance purposes) which does not have an effect on the appearance of the existing building and site. December 8, 1999 10 9. SITE IMPROVEMENT - Features including but not limited to planting, paving, retaining walls, drainage culverts and swales, fences and gates, lighting, site furniture, fountains, pools, bridges, dams, decks, boardwalks, pergolas, signs, and any other accessory structures, devices, or landscape materials on the site. 10. SITE PLAN - The development plan on which is shown the existing and proposed conditions including but not limited to: topography, vegetation, drainage, floodplains, marshes and waterways; open spaces, walkways, means of ingress and egress, utility services, landscaping, structures and signs, lighting, and screening devices; any other information that reasonably may be required in order that an informed decision can be made by the Board or the Director of Planning and Development. 11. DIRECTOR – The Director of Planning and Development for the City of Ithaca, NY. 12. COMMISSIONER – The Building Commissioner for the City of Ithaca, NY. 276-3. Applicability A. General applicability Site Plan Review (SPR) is intended to apply to all development (except that excluded by 276-3.C) that is within the thresholds described below. When determining the applicability of these thresholds, the scope and definition of the proposed development shall include all previous development on the property occurring within the past two years within 200 feet of the proposed development which, when considered together, may have a substantial aggregate effect on the surrounding properties. (See definitions of “development” and of “affected site area” in 276.2B.1). Applicability Thresholds: The following shall be subject to Site Plan Review: 1. New construction and reconstruction of residential development other than single-lot development of a single-family detached or semi-detached dwelling or a two-family dwelling. 2. New construction and reconstruction of non-residential development. B. Projects of limited scope The Director of Planning and Development shall have the authority to review and act on a development proposal if the proposed project meets the thresholds described in 276-3.A. but is below the thresholds described below. December 8, 1999 11 For such projects of limited scope, reviewed by the Director of Planning and Development, a public hearing is not required. The Planning and Development Department shall be the lead agency in the environmental review of such projects. There shall be no requisite review of the Environmental Assessment Forms (EAF) by the Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) in these cases. See 276-5.B. for situations when projects of limited scope will be referred to the Board for a full review. The upper thresholds for projects of limited scope are: 1. For modification and expansion of residential development, an upper threshold of 4,000 square feet (sf) of total affected site area. 2. For new construction, reconstruction, modification or expansion of non-residential development in residential zones, an upper threshold of 3,000 sf of total affected site area. 3. For modification and expansion of non-residential development in non-residential zones, an upper threshold of 10,000 sf of total affected site area. When an application is received for Site Plan Review under the provisions for Projects of Limited Scope as noted above, the Director of Planning & Development shall notify within ten (10) working days of the date of the submission of the application the Council members in whose ward the projects is to be located. C. Exemptions 1. Existing uses and developments which in their present configuration and use are legally authorized as of the date of this legislation shall not be subject to SPR. 2. Single-lot development of a single-family detached or semi- detached dwelling or a two-family dwelling shall not be subject to SPR. D. City and Other Government Projects For City and other government projects, the threshold of applicability, the review procedure and the review criteria shall be the same as for all SPR applicants unless the Common Council decides that any particular government project shall be reviewed on an advisory basis only. However, even if a project is subject to advisory review only, no construction shall begin until the Board or Director has completed the review, including the issuance of any findings and recommendations that the Board or Director determines to be appropriate. Projects subject to advisory SPR only shall be presented to the Board for periodic review beginning as early as possible, and in any case no later than when the environmental review is started. The Board may or may not be the lead reviewing agency of the environmental review of projects subject to advisory SPR only. December 8, 1999 12 276-4. Other Permits and Approvals An approved site plan shall be binding on all further permits and approvals needed for the project. The Board's or Director's decision to approve a site plan does not excuse an applicant from complying with all other permits and approvals that may be needed, including but not limited to Street and Sidewalk Permit, Utility Permit, and Tree Permit. A. Permits from the Building Department For projects subject to SPR, a permit from the Building Department shall be issued only after SPR Approval. When an application is for a permit for sitework only, the permit may be issued based on Preliminary or Preliminary Conditional SPR Approval, following adequate review of at least the layout and grading components of the site plan. In a case where a Conditional SPR Approval has been given, no Certificate of Occupancy or Completion shall be issued until Final SPR Approval has been given and all provisions of such Final Approval have been met. See also 276-9. B. Use Variance Any required use variance must be obtained from the Board of Zoning Appeals before a site plan can be approved by the Planning Board. C. Area Variance For development projects subject to SPR, the Planning Board shall have the sole authority to grant area variances in accordance with the standards and regulations as described in the Zoning Ordinance. 276-5. Authorization to Review Site Plans A. The Planning and Development Board is authorized to conduct SPR according to the procedures described in 276- 6. B. The Director of Planning and Development is authorized to conduct SPR of projects of limited scope as defined in 276-3.B. In the following cases [T]the Board shall conduct SPR according to the procedures described below in 276-6 including the provisions marked by an asterisk [in the following cases]: 1. There is public controversy concerning the proposed development, as determined by the Board or Director of Planning and Development. December 8, 1999 13 2. The application is referred to the Board by the Director of Planning and Development. 3. The applicant appeals to the Board after decision by the Director is made. 276-6. Site Plan Review (SPR) Procedures A. Process Initiation The Building Commissioner shall determine whether SPR is required when a building permit, or a demolition permit, or a fill permit, is applied for. Such determinations may be appealed to the Planning and Development Board within 30 days of the written notification that SPR is required. B. SPR Procedures (*paragraphs do not apply to projects of limited scope which require Director of Planning and Development review only.) 1. Sketch Plan Conference This step may occur before the application for a building permit if it can be reasonably assumed that SPR would be required, in order to inform the applicant of the SPR process and to explain the standards for approval, before substantial time and effort are invested in the preparation of plans. The Director of Planning and Development should determine at this stage whether the proposal is a project of limited scope as defined in section 276.3B. 2. Submission of Application Materials (N. B. This sub-section was amended in the draft dated 9/20/99.) Applications are to be stamped by a licensed landscape architect. This requirement may be waived by the reviewer (Director or Board). Additional application procedures and submittal requirements are to be developed by the Board. Depending on the scope and complexity of the project, applicants may be encouraged to engage the services of one or more additional licensed design professionals and other experts such as [landscape architects,] architects, engineers, ecologists, [and] or surveyors. 3. Environmental Review An environmental review of the proposed development shall be conducted prior to SPR approval. 4. Public Notice Upon application for SPR, a public notice of the proposed development shall be posted at the project site for a minimum of ten (10) days. This notice December 8, 1999 14 must remain in place at least until a decision to approve or disapprove the SPR application is made. The notice shall specify: a) the type and size of the development project; b) the time and place of the public hearing should the development project be subject to one; and c) to whom and by when any public comments are to be communicated. The notice must be placed at or near the property line in the front yard so that it will be plainly visible from the street, and, in cases where a property has frontage on more than one street, an additional sign must be placed at or near the property line on any additional street frontage so that the sign will be plainly visible from the street on which it has such additional frontage. *5. Coordination and Consultation SPR projects requiring the review and approval of the Board may also be reviewed by the Building Department, the Engineering Office, the Fire Department, the City Forester, and any other City officials or non-City consultants deemed appropriate by the Director of Planning and Development. Any comments from these reviewers shall be summarized and forwarded to the Board to aid its decision on the proposal. *6. Planning and Development Board Meeting Following timely receipt of a complete application for site plan approval, the Board shall schedule consideration of the application at its earliest possible scheduled meeting. The Board may establish its procedures and requirements, within the framework provided by this ordinance, for conducting site plan review. *7. Public Hearing Prior to rendering any decision on an SPR application, the Board shall first hold a public hearing on the proposed development. This may begin concurrently with any required public hearing for the purpose of environmental review of the same project, and may continue after any such environmental review public hearing is closed. Public hearings are not required of projects of limited scope as defined in section 276-3.B, unless the project is referred to the Board for SPR. 8. Action on the application for site plan approval a) Within 45 days of the submission of a complete SPR application including completed environmental review, the Board (or the Director of Planning and Development if it is project of limited scope as defined in section 276-3.B) shall render one of the following decisions: December 8, 1999 15 i. Preliminary Approval only ii. Preliminary Approval with conditions iii. Preliminary and Final Approval iv. Preliminary and Final Approval with conditions v. Disapproval of the site plan b) In the case where a Board’s action is required and where Preliminary Approval only is granted, Final Approval shall be considered at the earliest scheduled Board meeting subsequent to the applicant’s submittal of an adequately revised site plan, whereupon the Board shall render one of the following decisions: i. Final Approval ii. Final Approval with conditions iii. Disapproval of the site plan 9. Communication of Decision The Building Commissioner and the applicant shall be notified in writing of a Site Plan Review decision no later than ten (10) working days after the date of decision. When a site plan is approved, a stamped copy of the approved site plan, including any conditions of approval shall accompany the notification to the Building Commissioner. C. Changes to Approved Site Plan Proposed changes (whether before or after construction) to approved site plans must be submitted to the [Building] Commissioner for review to determine whether the effect of the proposed changes warrants reconsideration of the project's approval status. The Commissioner in consultation with the Director shall make one of the following determinations: 1. That the proposed changes do not affect the approval status of the site plan. 2. That the changes are significant and shall require a reopening of the review. 3. That the proposed changes are likely to have such an extensive or significant effect on the project that a new SPR application is required. D. Extension of Deadlines All deadlines for decisions on an SPR application may be extended upon mutual agreement by the Board and the applicant. December 8, 1999 16 276-7. Project Review Criteria A. General Criteria 1. Avoidance or mitigation of any negative environmental impacts identified in the environmental review. The following shall be emphasized in particular: a) Erosion, sedimentation, and siltation control. b) Protection of significant natural features and areas, including, but not limited to, trees, views, watercourses or bodies of water, and land forms, on or near the site. The protection of existing mature vegetation, especially trees over 8-12" DBH (diameter-breast- height) may be required unless a justification for their removal can be made by the applicant. c) Protection of, and compatibility with, other nearby features and areas of importance to the community, including but not limited to parks, landmarks, neighborhoods, and historic districts. 2. Compliance with all other regulations applicable to the development. These include, but are not limited to, the Zoning Ordinance, Sign Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations, Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, Environmental Quality Review Ordinance of the City of Ithaca, and the State Environmental Quality Review Act. 3. Improvement of the visual quality of the site and its vicinity through: a) the presence of a perceivable form and order in the basic layout of the major landscape elements, b) the proper and effective use of landscape architectural elements such as plantings, land forms, water features, paving, lighting, etc. c) an appropriate arrangement, form, scale, proportion, color, pattern, and texture of buildings and other site improvements. d) an appropriate relationship between the proposed development and the nearby streetscape and landscape. 4. Adequate storm water management. Calculations of the existing and estimated increased loads on the system may be required. 5. Adequate waste water and sewage disposal facilities. Calculations of the existing and estimated increased loads on the system may be required. 6. Adequacy of fire lanes, and fire and emergency access, and the availability of fire hydrants. December 8, 1999 17 7. Safe arrangement of vehicular access, circulation, intersections, and traffic controls. Analysis of the project’s impact on parking and traffic may be required. 8. Safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access and circulation, and provision of bicycle racks when appropriate. 9. Handicap accessibility of buildings, pathways, and parking. 10. Open space for play areas and informal recreation in the case of a residential development. 11. Conformance to any adopted urban design plan or comprehensive plan relevant to the proposed site. 12. Screening of dumpsters from public view and from adjoining properties. 13. Shielding of noise from mechanical equipment and other sources to the extent reasonably practicable. C. Criteria for plant materials and maintenance All projects shall provide for adequate types and arrangements of landscaping, both to enhance the site and to complement the architectural components of the development and to screen or buffer adjacent uses in public ways. Where possible and reasonable, trees shall be planted in a strip adjacent to the road. The City Forester shall, when appropriate, be consulted regarding specifications governing tree species, size, spacing and method and location of planting. Appropriate guaranties for tree health may be required. Where possible and reasonable, any trees greater than ten (10) inches in diameter at breast height of desirable species and in good health and sound structure, as determined by the City Forester, should be retained on the site and protected during development per the requirements of §306-7B of Chapter 306, Trees and Shrubs. [Amended 12-5- 1990 by Ord. No. 90-16] (1) Deciduous trees shall have at least a 2½ inch caliper at the time of planting. Size of evergreen trees and shrubs shall be allowed to vary depending on location and type of plant material (species). (2) Only nursery grown plant materials shall be acceptable. All trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be planted according to the accepted standards of the American Association of Nurserymen. (3) Dead, dying and/or seriously damaged plant materials shall be replaced within a reasonable time period during the current (or immediate next) planting season, by the owner. Any other damaged or missing elements, including but not limited to fences, bollards, signs, curbs, street furniture, etc. of the December 8, 1999 18 approved plan, must be similarly replaced by the owner. This will assure that landscaping remains in compliance with the Final Site Plan as approved by the Planning and Development Board. (4) Not withstanding any provision in this or any other City Ordinance or Regulation to the contrary, an approved site plan may not be modified without express written approval of the Board of Planning and Development except as approved by the Building Commissioner upon consultation with the Director of Planning and Development as specified herein above. C. Criteria for Parking Areas where applicable The general criteria in section A. shall apply also to parking area development. These are intented to be minimum criteria. The Board may make such additional reasonable stipulations as it deems appropriate to carry out the intention of the ordinance. The following criteria shall apply (see accompanying illustration): 1. There shall be screening with a minimum 5’ wide planting area or fences between a parking area and adjacent properties and public ways except where there is parking that is shared by one than one property, or where commercial properties abut. In such cases the Board may require landscaping as it deems appropriate. 2. In parking areas a minimum of 12% of the interior ground area (i.e. excluding any peripheral planting area) shall be planting areas that include trees with potential mature height of at least 50’, and at least 2 ½” caliper at the time of planting. 3. Interior planting areas shall be a minimum of 80 sf with no dimensions being less than 8’. The planter shall be curbed and have a minimum 3’ deep excavation. 4. The City Forester and the Shade Tree Advisory Committee shall be consulted in plant species selection and planting soil specification. 276-8. Fees A. Application Fees The application fees shall be based on the total sitework, construction, and landscaping cost, and shall be charged in accordance with the following schedule. Fees shall be payable to the City of Ithaca upon the submission of an application for SPR. Estimated Cost Application Fee Less than $10,000 $50.00 $10,000 to $50,000 $100.00 $50,000 to $100,000 $200.00 December 8, 1999 19 More than $100,000 $1.50 per $1,000 of cost B. Public Notice Sign Fee and Legal Ad Fee These fees shall [reflect the actual] be in addition to the cost[s] of all signs and legal notices. Such required signs and legal notices shall be paid for by the applicant. 276-9. Performance Guarantee No Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Completion shall be issued until all improvements required by Site Plan Approval, including any conditions placed on such approval, are installed, or until a sufficient guarantee, in the form of a performance bond, letter of credit, or other security, is in place. The Building Commissioner shall be responsible for the overall inspection of site improvements. 276-10. Expiration of Approval, Extension of Approval If the construction of a development has not commenced within two years of the date of the site plan approval, such approval shall expire, unless an extension has been granted by the Board following a written request by the applicant. An application for an extension of SPR Approval shall not be considered a new SPR application. 276-11. Enforcement Development projects may be periodically inspected for conformance to the approved site plan, including the maintenance of the viability of the planting required as part of the site plan approval. If there is non- conformance, or if any conditions of SPR Approval are not fulfilled, no Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Completion shall be issued. Where a development reverts to non-conformance after the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Completion, current owners of the development shall be notified in writing and given the opportunity to correct the situation. If the Director of Planning and Development determines that the corrective measures are inadequate, the City shall implement any necessary changes to the site to bring it into conformance, the cost of which shall be charged to the property owner. In addition, a $50.00/day fine may be imposed for any violations of the provisions of this ordinance, or of any conditions imposed by a permit issued pursuant to Site Plan Approval. Development projects shall be inspected at least once two years after the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Completion. 276-12. Appeal A. The determination (by the Building Commissioner) of whether a development proposal is subject to SPR may December 8, 1999 20 be appealed to the Board within 30 days of the written notification that SPR is required. B. Any person aggrieved by any decision of the Director of Planning and Development may appeal to the Board. C. Any person aggrieved by any decision of the Board, or any officer or agency of the City, regarding SPR, may apply to the Supreme Court for review by a proceeding under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. 276-13. Severability If any section, paragraph or provision of this ordinance shall be determined to be invalid, such invalidity shall apply only to the section, paragraph or provision adjudged invalid, and the rest of this ordinance shall remain valid and effective. 276.14 Effective Date This Ordinance shall take effect immediately in accordance with publication of a notice as provided in the Ithaca City Charter. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this chapter and any Urban Design Guidelines adopted for a specific geographical area, the provisions of the Urban Design Plan will prevail. Carried Unanimously 17.2 Designation of Lead Agency Status for Environmental Review Subdivision and Disposition of Surplus Portion of Parcel 43-1-4 By Alderperson Blumenthal: Seconded by Alderperson Taylor WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca acquired parcel 43-1-4 on Inlet Island in 1967 as part of the Cass Park purchase, and WHEREAS, The Report of the Inlet Island Land Use Committee (1992) and The Inlet Island Urban Design Plan (1998) recommend that the non-waterfront portion of the property be made available for private sector development, and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca intends to retain a small portion of parcel 43-1-4 for construction of a public waterfront promenade along the Flood Control Channel, and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca intends to make the remaining portion of parcel 43-1-4 available for private sector development by transferring the property to the IURA for disposition to a qualified and eligible sponsor, and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is nearing completion of the alienation and conversion process to allow parcel 43-1-4 to be used for non-park uses, and WHEREAS, any conveyance of the property to a private sector entity will be subject to completion of the park land alienation and conversion process, and December 8, 1999 21 WHEREAS, the City has begun an environmental review for the subdivision and disposition of the surplus portion of the parcel, and WHEREAS, State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review, the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby declare the non-waterfront portion of parcel 43-1-4 as surplus property, and, be it further RESOLVED, That Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby declare itself lead agency for the subdivision and disposition of the surplus property of parcel 43-1-4, and, be it further RESOLVED, That staff be directed to refer the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) to the Conservation Advisory Committee for comment. Carried Unanimously 17.3 An Ordinance Amending the Official Zoning Map of the City of Ithaca, New York, of Chapter 325, entitled “Zoning” of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code regarding the Waterfront Zoning District – Determination of Environmental Significance By Alderperson Blumenthal: Seconded by Alderperson Vaughan WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is proposing to amend the official zoning map of the City of Ithaca as stated above, to show a new zone to be known as the Waterfront Zoning District, WF-1, and WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the preparation of a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), and WHEREAS, the proposed action is an unlisted action under the City Environmental Quality Review Act (CEQR Sec. 176-12B), and WHEREAS, the Common Council for the City of Ithaca, acting as Lead Agency, has reviewed the SEAF, dated 11/12/99, prepared by City of Ithaca Planning Staff, and supplemental information, and has determined that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the environment; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby adopts as its own, the findings and conclusions more fully set forth on the Short Environmental Assessment Form, and, be it further RESOLVED, That this Common Council, as lead agency, hereby determines that the proposed action at issue will not have a significant effect on the environment, and that further environmental review is unnecessary, and, be it further December 8, 1999 22 RESOLVED, That this resolution constitutes notice of this negative declaration and that the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the same, together with any attachments, in the City Clerk’s Office, and forward the same to any other parties as required by law. Carried Unanimously 17.2A An Ordinance to Amend the Zoning Map to add a Waterfront Zoning District By Alderperson Blumenthal: Seconded by Alderperson Vaughan ORDINANCE 99- BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, New York as follows: Section 1. The Official Zoning Map of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended as follows: The zoning district designation for portions of certain tracts of land is hereby changed from M-1 (Marine Commercial District) and B-4 (Business) to “WF-1 (Waterfront Zoning District)” as indicated on the map entitled “Proposed Waterfront Zoning district (WF-1) Existing Conditions” dated November 1999. The new Waterfront Zoning District, WF-1, shall include: all of Inlet Island, bounded on the west by the center line of the Flood Control Channel; on the east by the centerline of the Cayuga Inlet, to the north 30 feet from the tip of Inlet Island, and to the south, by the center line of Six Mile Creek. Section 2. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately in accordance with publication of a notice as provided in the Ithaca City Charter. Carried Unanimously 17.4 An Ordinance Amending Section 325-4, of Chapter 325 entitled “Zoning” of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, regarding an error in the language of and additions to Ordinance 99-11 - Determination of Environmental Significance By Alderperson Blumenthal: Seconded by Alderperson Vaughan WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is proposing to correct errors in the language and to make additions to Ordinance No. 99-11 entitled “An Ordinance Amending the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, Chapter 325, Section 325-4 ‘Zoning’ to Change the Zoning Designation of Certain Areas of the City from M-1 (Marine Commercial District) and B-4 (Business) as Applicable to Waterfront Zoning District (WF-1)”, and WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the preparation of a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), and WHEREAS, the proposed action is an unlisted action under the City Environmental Quality Review Act (CEQR Sec. 176-12B), and December 8, 1999 23 WHEREAS, the Common Council for the City of Ithaca, acting as Lead Agency, has reviewed the SEAF, dated 11/12/99, prepared by City of Ithaca Planning Staff, and supplemental information, and has determined that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the environment; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby adopts as its own, the findings and conclusions more fully set forth on the Short Environmental Assessment Form dated November 12, 1999, and, be it further RESOLVED, That this Common Council, as lead agency, hereby determines that the proposed action at issue will not have a significant effect on the environment, and that further environmental review is unnecessary, and, be it further RESOLVED, That this resolution constitutes notice of this negative declaration and that the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the same, together with any attachments, in the City Clerk’s Office, and forward the same to any other parties as required by law. Carried Unanimously An Ordinance Amending Section 325-4, of Chapter 325 entitled “Zoning” of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, regarding an error in the language of and additions to Ordinance 99-11, Adoption of Revisions By Alderperson Blumenthal: Seconded by Alderperson Vaughan ORDINANCE NO. 99- ____ BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca that Chapter 325, Section 325-4 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca be amended as follows: Section 1. Declaration of Legislative Findings and Purpose The Common Council finds that this Ordinance: 1. Will help to create greater public access to the waterfront. 2. Will guide development in this area of the City for the purpose of creating a unique waterfront experience. 3. Allows the City to enhance the value of waterfront property in this area of the City. 4. Allows the City to create an area on the water having multi-story buildings intended for mixed use. 5. Will protect and enhance views of the waterfront and surrounding areas for public enjoyment. Section 2. Chapter 325, Section 325-5 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to change the zoning designation of the following areas from M-1 (Marine Commercial District) and B-4 (Business) as applicable to Waterfront Zoning District (WF-1), portions of which are shown on attached map. December 8, 1999 24 Section 3. Section 325-8 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended as follows to establish district regulations for the new WF-1 district as follows: Permitted Primary Uses 1. Any use permitted in B-2. 2. Parking Lot. 3. Recreational or cultural facility such as a park, playground, art museum, fishing pier or yacht club. 4. Public Recreation. 5. Boatel. 6. Sale, rental, repair or storage of marine related recreation equipment such as boats, marine engines, sails, cabin equipment. 7. Light manufacture of marine recreation related products involving substantial hand fabrication such as sails, boat hulls, cabin fittings. Permitted Accessory Uses 1. Home occupation. 2. Boat fuel dispensing. 3. Snowmobile sales, service, rental in conjunction with boat sales, rental or service. 4. Signs as permitted by Sign Ordinance. Off-Street Parking Requirements – None Off-Street Loading Requirements – None Area in Square Feet – 3,000 Width in Feet at Street Line – 30 Width in Feet at Waterfront – 30 Maximum Building Heights: Waterfront – WF1a, no building allowed. Waterfront –WF1b, one story, 12 - 15 feet with an additional 5 feet for cornice allowed. Waterfront – WF1c, minimum two stories, maximum three [3] stories, not to exceed a height of thirty eight (38) feet. [12 – 15 feet for first story measured from grade, 12 feet for each additional story, with an additional 5 feet for cornice allowed.] Waterfront – WF1d, minimum three stories, maximum five (5) stories, not to exceed a height of 63 feet. [12 – 15 feet for first story measured from grade, 12 feet for each additional story, with an additional 5 feet for cornice allowed.] (Refer to Code of the City of Ithaca, Chapter 325, Zoning, §325- 3.B., Definitions and word usage, HEIGHT OF BUILDING) December 8, 1999 25 Maximum percent lot coverage by buildings 1. On parcels of fifty (50) feet or less in width, 100% lot coverage allowed except as may be required for provision of pedestrian ways and protection of view corridors. 2. On parcels with three or more boundaries greater than fifty (50) feet, 90% lot coverage allowed except as may be required for provision of pedestrian ways and protection of view corridors. Yard Dimensions Front Yard – None Side Yards – None Rear Yard – 10 Feet Minimum No new structure shall be located nearer than forty (40) feet to the bulkhead or to the bank of the Flood Control Channel, measured at an average water level, except for those structures directly connected with marine or public or commercial recreation activities. No new structure shall be located nearer than twelve (12) feet to the bulkhead or to the bank of the Cayuga Inlet, measured at an average water level, except for those structures directly connected with marine or public or commercial recreation activities. Minimum Height WF1a – 0 feet WF1b – 12 feet WF1c – 24 feet WF1d – 36 feet Two Story Minimum: Any building constructed within the minimum 2-story height zone shall have a height of at least 24 feet and have two habitable stories covering 75% or more of the footprint of the building. Three Story Minimum: Any building constructed within the minimum 3-story height zone shall have a height of at least 36 feet and have three habitable stories covering 75% or more of the footprint of the building. As an alternative within this zone, a building may satisfy the minimum height requirement if 75% of the building over its footprint is at least 36 feet in height and has two or more habitable stories. (Refer to Code of the City of Ithaca, Chapter 325, Zoning, §325- 3.B., Definitions and word usage, HABITABLE SPACE, NONHABITABLE SPACE, STORY, PUBLIC SPACE) Section 4. Chapter 325, Section 325-16 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca entitled “Height Regulations” is hereby amended to add a new subsection to be known [as] to read as follows: “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, in the WF-1 district: December 8, 1999 26 (1) No building shall be erected in any of the areas designated WF1a on the map entitled “Proposed Waterfront Zoning District (WF-1) Existing Conditions” [“Inlet Island Urban Design Plan”] dated November 1999 [July 1998] a copy of which map is on file in the Ithaca City Clerk’s Office. (2) No building shall be erected that is greater than one story in the area designated WF1b on the map entitled “Proposed Waterfront Zoning District (WF-1) Existing Conditions” dated November 1999, a copy of which is on file in the Ithaca City Clerk’s Office. (3) No building shall be erected that is less than two stories or greater than three stories in any of the areas designated WF1c [b] on the map entitled “Proposed Waterfront Zoning District (WF-1) Existing Conditions” [“Inlet Island Urban Design Plan”] dated November 1999 [July 1998], a copy of which is on file in the Ithaca City Clerk’s Office. (4) No building shall be erected that is less than three stories or greater than five stories in any of the areas designated WF1d [c] on the map entitled “Proposed Waterfront Zoning District (WF-1) Existing Conditions” [“Inlet Island Urban Design Plan”] dated November [July] 1999 a copy of which is on file in the Ithaca City Clerk’s Office. (5) The restrictions contained in this section shall not apply to buildings less than 15 feet (maximum) in height, which are intended, designed and maintained as amenities for adjacent trails such as gazebos and rest rooms. (6) The restrictions contained in this section shall not apply to existing buildings within the designated areas. Such existing buildings may be maintained and repaired provided their height and footprint are not altered so as to make the buildings non-compliant with the restrictions of this subdivision. Section 5. [6.] Chapter 325, Section 325-20 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca entitled “Off-Street Parking” is hereby amended to add a new subsection to be known as subdivision (A) (4) (c) to read as follows: “(1) Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, there will be no off-street parking requirements in the WF-1 district. Section 6. [7.] The City Planning and Development Board, the City Clerk and the Planning Department shall amend the zoning map and the district regulations chart in accordance with the amendments made herewith. Section 7. [8.] Effective date. This ordinance shall take affect immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter. Carried Unanimously December 8, 1999 27 17.5 Approval of IURA Disposition of Parcel 127.-1-1 By Alderperson Blumenthal: Seconded by Alderperson Manos WHEREAS, at its March 3, 1999 meeting the Common Council of the City of Ithaca authorized conveyance to the IURA of a 3.3 acre surplus parcel to be subdivided from parcel 127-1-1 for disposition, and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca has completed appropriate environmental review associated with conveyance and disposition of the surplus parcel, and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca has duly filed an approved subdivision plan establishing the boundaries of the 3.3 acre surplus parcel with the Tompkins County Registry of Deeds, and WHEREAS, at its March 8, 1999 meeting the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) accepted conveyance of the 3.3-acre parcel for the purpose of disposition in accordance with GML §507 and approved disposition of the parcel to the Widewaters Route 13 Company II, LLC at no less than fair market value, and WHEREAS, the IURA further authorized the Mayor, upon review by the IURA Executive Director and the City Attorney, to negotiate a satisfactory purchase contract with the Widewaters Group and directed staff to complete disposition procedures in accordance with GML §507, including, as necessary, the publication of a public notice in a newspaper of general circulation, at least ten days prior to disposition, containing the following information: 1. identity of the proposed sponsor; 2. the price to be paid by the sponsor and all other essential terms and conditions of the sales; and, 3. proposed use of the parcel, and WHEREAS, an acceptable purchase contract has been submitted and reviewed by the IURA Executive Director and the City Attorney, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Common Council hereby approves the September 22, 1999 purchase offer from Widewaters Route 13 Company II, LLC to acquire the IURA-owned 3.3-acre parcel subdivided from parcel 127-1-1 for a purchase price of $80,000 plus conveyance to the City of Ithaca of (1) an approximately 2.86 acre parcel to be subdivided from tax parcel 126-1-2.2 (SW2) (2) an approximately 9.09 acre parcel to be subdivided from tax parcel 127-1-2 (SW3), and, be it further RESOLVED, That the Common Council hereby agrees to pay for any and all reasonable expenses associated with the IURA’s acquisition, holding and disposition of this parcel. Alderperson Shenk asked for clarification regarding the fill permit issued by the Building Department. Planning and Development Director Van Cort explained in detail the procedures that have been followed. He stated that there have been a number of studies of the proposed filling in of the parcel that is across the street from Buttermilk Plaza. December 8, 1999 28 Alderperson Shenk questioned the amount of water raised versus the amount of time standing water sits in the substitute parkland. Planning and Development Director Van Cort explained that floods have resulted from lake level flooding as opposed to creek level flooding. Planning and Development Director Van Cort explained the fill permitting process. Alderperson Spielholz expressed concern over trees being cut down on the property while Common Council was not aware of it. Planning Director Van Cort stated there was miscommunication between Widewaters, the Planning and Economic Development Department, and the Building Department. Next week there will be a Project Coordinating Committee meeting to ensure that all involved departments are informed of the status of this project. City Attorney Geldenhuys addressed how the environmental review of the fill permit was handled. She stated that there was environmental review of the fill permit, and conditions were in place for environmental protection. Environmental/Landscape Planner Cornish stated that the developers still have to go through Site Plan Review. Planning Director Van Cort explained that you cannot deny a building permit unless you have moratorium legislation in place, and that the GEIS is not meant to be an overall moratorium on any building permits. Other permits have been applied for and received. Mayor Cohen stated that the sale of the property should be separate from the actions taken, and that a genuine mistake was made. Once the mistake was identified, the work immediately ceased. Alderperson Hershey stated that the budget was passed with promises of development of land, and that developers will be held to high standards. Alderperson Sams expressed concern that the process be well thought out and conducted properly. Alderperson Marcham stated that the City needs a Project Coordinator who oversees the interests of all departments. Alderperson Farrell expressed concern over lack of coordination between departments. The property in question is zoned industrial and connected to the commercial property next to it. Alderperson Manos reminded Council members that information was received from the Conservation Advisory Council and that this information should be reviewed carefully. Environmental/Landscape Planner Cornish stated that the Conservation Advisory Council comments were taken into consideration when the fill permit was issued. There were conditions placed on the permit that stemmed from the information December 8, 1999 29 provided by the Conservation Advisory Council. She further stated that the Building Department monitors this site daily. Alderperson Shenk stated that there are no compelling reasons for the City to go ahead with the sale at this time. Alderperson Hershey and Alderperson Blumenthal stated that the City should go forward and sell the land. A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows: Ayes (7) Manos, Farrell, Blumenthal Vaughan, Marcham, Hershey, Taylor Nays (2) Shenk, Spielholz Abstention (1) Sams Carried 17.6 Commons Area Improvements Capital Project - Report This report will be deferred until the January Common Council meeting. 17.7 Collegetown Moratorium Parking Study – Report This report will be deferred until the January Common Council meeting. 17.8 Substitute Parkland Acquisition for Inlet Island: Agreement with Property Owner - Agreement By Alderperson Blumenthal: Seconded by Alderperson Vaughan SCHEDULE B AGREEMENT This Agreement is entered into this _____ day of _____________, 1999, by and between the Ithaca Monthly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, hereinafter called the “Friends”, and the City of Ithaca, New York, a municipal corporation, hereafter referred to as the “City” WHEREAS, the parties entered into a contract dated ____________ for the purchase by the City of a portion of the property located at 227 Willard Way, Ithaca, New York (hereafter referred to as “the Property”) from the Friends; and WHEREAS, this area has long been used by the Friends for reflection and meditation; and WHEREAS, the public has long unofficially used the Property for scenic views of the Ithaca Falls; and WHEREAS, the City acknowledges that it is necessary to limit use of the Ithaca Falls Area to low impact or passive recreational and educational use in order to preserve and conserve its natural and archaeological characteristics; and WHEREAS, the City has agreed to certain terms relating to management of the Property; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: December 8, 1999 30 1. Description of Property. The Property is described in Schedule A attached hereto. 2. The City agrees that it will delineate the boundary line between the Property acquired by the city and the portion retained by the Friends by planting hedges, and constructing a temporary wooden fence until the hedge has grown sufficiently to provide screening. 3. The Property will be maintained as a quiet zone where the use of sound amplifying devices such as radios, CD and cassette players, and microphones are prohibited. 4. Except as necessary for the safety of public safety personnel patrolling the area, there shall be no nighttime artificial lighting on the Property. 5. The Property shall be closed to visitors between dusk and dawn, or similarly restrictive hours, and posted to that effect by the City. 6. The City acknowledges that there may be a parking problem in the area and will make necessary efforts to address it. 7. The Friends will establish a thirty year wood lot management plan for the Property which will be subject to the approval of the City Forester. The Friends will perform the wood lot management of the Property for as long as they own the adjacent property, subject to oversight by the City Forester. 8. This contract and all the provisions herein shall inure to the benefit of and be binding on the successors and assigns of the respective parties hereto, whether by sale, transfer, merger, consolidation, or any other means. Carried Unanimously 18. HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE: 18.1 City Buyer – Establishment of Standard Work Week – Resolution By Alderperson Manos: Seconded by Alderperson Sams WHEREAS, the City Buyer position is a unique title within the City of Ithaca, now therefore be it RESOLVED, That Common Council establishes the standard work week for the City Buyer position be set at thirty-two (32) hours per week. Human Resources Director Michelle-Nunn stated the request was made by the employee. City Controller Cafferillo noted that this is a request to the State Retirement System, and that the final determination will be made by the State. December 8, 1999 31 Amending Resolution: By Alderperson Blumenthal: Seconded by Alderperson Hershey RESOLVED, That the following language be added as a second Whereas Clause: “WHEREAS, the New York State Retirement System requires the City to establish a standard work week for the position in order to determine the benefits level for the position.” Carried Unanimously A vote on the Main Motion as amended resulted as follows: Carried Unanimously 18.2 Senior Account Clerk Typist – Establishment of Standard Work Week - Resolution By Alderperson Manos: Seconded by Alderperson Hershey WHEREAS, the New York State Retirement System requires the City to establish a standard work week for the position in order to determine the benefits level for the position; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, That Common Council establishes a standard work week for the Senior Account Clerk Typist position at a minimum of thirty-two (32) hours per week. Ayes (9) Shenk, Manos, Sams, Vaughan, Farrell, Marcham, Spielholz, Hershey, Taylor Alderperson Blumenthal was absent from vote. Carried 9-0 19. BUDGET AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE: 19.1 Finance/Controller – Approval of 1998 City of Ithaca Single Audit By Alderperson Marcham : Seconded by Alderperson Vaughan RESOLVED, That the Single Audit Report for the period of January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1998, prepared by the accounting firm of Ciaschi, Dietershagen, Little and Mickelson, CPAs be accepted to comply with all of the City’s applicable Federal Single Audit and related Audit Requirements. By Alderperson Marcham : Seconded by Alderperson Vaughan RESOLVED, That the Year 2000 Budget Meeting minutes for October 7, 1999, October 12, 1999, October 14, 1999, October 18, 1999, and October 21, 1999 be hereby approved. Carried Unanimously Alderperson Marcham thanked the City Controller, the Deputy City Controller, and Administrative Secretary Carol Shipe for continuing to do an excellent job. Mayor Cohen thanked staff and Common Council for making sound financial decisions. December 8, 1999 32 19.2 Chamberlain – Request Approval of Capital Project for Document Processing Equipment By Alderperson Marcham : Seconded by Alderperson Spielholz WHEREAS, the City prints 25,000 post cards; 25,000 parking ticket mailers; 20,000 paychecks and 6,000 payable checks a year on continuous paper stock which are run through a burster and check signer, and WHEREAS, funds were approved in the 1999 Budget to replace the failing burster/check signer machine, and WHEREAS, staff has reviewed various printing and document processing equipment and procedures to become more efficient, reduce annual maintenance costs and provide for future opportunities, and WHEREAS, staff is recommending the acquisition of two laser printers, a folder/inserter machine, a postage machine and related software at an estimated total cost of $35,500 less current pre-approved operating funds of $10,500 to accomplish said document equipment acquisition; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby approves the establishment of Capital Project #389 Document Processing Equipment Acquisition in an amount not to exceed $25,000, and be it further RESOLVED, That funds necessary for said equipment acquisition shall be derived from the issuance of Serial Bonds. Carried Unanimously 19.3 Planning/City Attorney – Request Approval of and Funding for a Request for Proposal for Adult Entertainment Moratorium Study By Alderperson Marcham: Seconded by Alderperson Vaughan WHEREAS, the Common Council has enacted a temporary moratorium on the establishment of certain types of adult entertainment structures within the City of Ithaca, and WHEREAS, the Common Council has directed that a study be conducted of the possible deleterious impacts of such entertainment; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That $10,000 for hiring a consultant be transferred from account A1990 Unrestricted Contingency to account A8020-5435 Planning and Development Contracts. Amending Resolution By Alderperson Blumenthal: Seconded by Alderperson Vaughan RESOLVED, That after the word “establishment” in the first Whereas clause, the following wording be added: “and expansion of.” A vote on the Amending resolution resulted as follows: Ayes (8) Manos, Sams, Farrell, Vaughan, Blumenthal, Marcham, Hershey, Taylor Nays (2) Shenk, Spielholz Carried December 8, 1999 33 A vote on the Main Motion as Amended resulted as follows: Ayes (8) Manos, Sams, Farrell, Vaughan, Blumenthal, Marcham, Hershey, Taylor Nays (2) Shenk, Spielholz Carried 19.4 City Attorney – Request to Amend Personnel Roster By Alderperson Marcham : Seconded by Alderperson Spielholz WHEREAS, the City Attorney’s Office work load has increased over the past four years due to increased development projects, increased administrative duties, increased supervisory duties, and increased litigation, and WHEREAS, a half-time City Attorney position is no longer sufficient to meet the increased needs and duties of the City Attorney’s Office, and WHEREAS, a full-time City Attorney position would eliminate potential conflicts and the necessary recusal resulting therefrom, as well as scheduling conflicts resulting from a private practice, and requisite duties of the position; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the personnel roster for the City Attorney’s office is hereby amended as follows: Delete: One half-time City Attorney position Add: One full-time City Attorney position at 40 hours per week and, be it further RESOLVED, That funds for said full-time position will remain in the Restricted Contingency account until Council action is taken at a later date after the Management Compensation Study is completed. Alderperson Marcham stated that she would like this item returned to the Budget and Administration Committee for further discussion. City Attorney Geldenhuys reported that the Program Analysis Study submitted a year ago was not based on previous year’s statistics because records were not kept on workloads in the past. Amending Resolution By Alderperson Blumenthal: Seconded by Alderperson Shenk RESOLVED, That the following Resolved clause be added to the Resolution: “RESOLVED, That expansion of this position to full-time is predicated at it remaining an appointed position, and that the transfer of the position to a civil service classification would be subject to a referendum by City voters”. December 8, 1999 34 A vote on the Amending Resolution resulted as follows: Ayes (6) Shenk, Sams, Blumenthal, Vaughan, Marcham, Spielholz Nays (4) Taylor, Hershey, Manos, Farrell Carried Alderperson Hershey spoke in opposition of the Resolution, stating that the decision is moving too quickly with not enough information. Motion to Table By Alderperson Marcham: Seconded by Alderperson Hershey RESOLVED, That this item be tabled until further information is received. Ayes (6) Vaughan, Marcham, Hershey Taylor, Farrell, Marcham, Nays (4) Shenk, Spielholz, Sams, Blumenthal ` Carried 19.5 Common Council – Request to Amend City Parking Fines By Alderperson Marcham: Seconded by Alderperson Vaughan WHEREAS, a sub-committee was established to examine the City’s current parking fine structure and make recommendations for amendments, and WHEREAS, the sub-committee included Judge Rossiter, Police Chief Basile, Deputy Chief Barnes, Officer Sterling, Chamberlain Parsons, Controller Cafferillo and B & A Chair Marcham, and WHEREAS, after review of the current parking fine structure, the sub-committee recommended changes to various parking fines, waiving the first ticket on certain fines and establishing an amnesty period; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby approves the following City parking fines and procedures effective March 1, 2000: Current New Violation Fine Fine Overtime meter $ 5.00 $10.00 Overtime zone 5.00 10.00 Parking overnight in city ramp w/o permit 15.00 15.00 Parking more than 12” from curb 5.00 10.00 School zone 5.00 15.00 Prohibited area 15.00 15.00 Between curb and walk 15.00 15.00 Bus stop/taxi stand 15.00 15.00 Fire hydrant 20.00 20.00 Crosswalk 15.00 15.00 Sidewalk 15.00 15.00 Overtime night (Odd/even) $ 8.00 $10.00 Other 8.00 10.00 Driveway 20.00 20.00 Private Property 15.00 15.00 Wrong direction 5.00 10.00 Truck zone 10.00 15.00 Double parking 15.00 15.00 December 8, 1999 35 Uninspected 15.00 15.00 Abandoned 15.00 15.00 Handicap $50.00/75.00/100.00 $50/75/100 Yard parking 20.00/30.00/50.00 20/30/50 The first overtime meter, overtime zone, overtime night (odd/even) ticket written to an individual for every twelve- month period shall be waived, accompanied by a written notice explaining that the city extends this courtesy and informing the violator about city parking regulations and fines. An amnesty period shall begin on December 13, 1999 and continue to March 1, 2000 and apply to past-due tickets with accrued late payment penalty. A waiver of 50% of the late penalty on all tickets, shall be offered, provided the vehicle owner signs a waiver of the right to further appeal. On March 1, 2000, all tickets, with appropriate additional penalties, will be turned over to an outside agency for collection. Alderperson Shenk stated that she believes $10.00 is a steep penalty for overtime meter fees. Alderperson Blumenthal expressed her opposition to the Resolution because of the $10.00 overtime meter fee especially in downtown. Amending Resolution By Alderperson Blumenthal: Seconded by Alderperson Shenk RESOLVED, That overtime meter fees remain at the present rate of $5.00 per violation. Alderperson Vaughan stated that Collegetown is filled with cars with $5.00 tickets because it is an affordable way to park for the day. Alderperson Hershey spoke in favor of the original resolution. Alderperson Taylor spoke in opposition to the resolution. Alderperson Marcham explained that other municipalities charge $10.00, and that a $5.00 violation gets no respect. She also explained that the City budget would need to be amended if Council decides to change the proposed fee structure. Alderperson Sams spoke in opposition to the resolution stating that a $5.00 violation on a fixed income does make a difference Mayor Cohen spoke in favor of removing some meters in the downtown business district. A vote on the amending resolution resulted as follows: Ayes (3) Shenk, Sams, Blumenthal Nays (6) Hershey, Spielholz, Marcham, Vaughan, Farrell, Manos Alderperson Taylor was absent from the vote. Motion Fails December 8, 1999 36 A vote on the Main Motion resulted as follows: Ayes (8) Hershey, Spielholz, Marcham Vaughan, Farrell, Manos, Shenk Sams Nays (1) Blumenthal Alderperson Taylor was absent from the vote. Carried 8-1 19.8 Fire Department – Approval of Sale of Fire Station No. 7 By Alderperson Marcham: Seconded by Alderperson Vaughan WHEREAS, the Board of Fire Commissioners has the authority to sell property now or formerly used by the Fire Department of the City of Ithaca pursuant to section C-93 of the City Charter, subject to final approval of Common Council, and WHEREAS, the Board of Fire Commissioners and Common Council have determined that it is in the best interest of the Fire Department and the City to sell Fire Station No. 7, located at 1012 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, and WHEREAS, the Board and Common Council seek to obtain the best price for the property, while taking into account the historic significance of the building and the character of the surrounding neighborhood; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Board of Fire Commissioners and Common Council hereby approve the conveyance of Fire Station No. 7, and, be it further RESOLVED, That the sale of the property shall take place by solicitation and consideration of sealed bids, and, be it further RESOLVED, That the following terms and conditions shall apply to the sale of the property:  All proposed bids shall contain a narrative description of the bidder’s plans for interior and exterior modifications to the building, and the proposed use of the building. Preference shall be given to bids which contain plans to preserve the historic exterior of the building, and proposed uses that are in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood.  The Purchase and Sale contract will contain provisions requiring that modifications to the property after the purchase conform with the bid proposal. All plans for modification of the exterior, and any proposed changes in such plans, shall be subject to review and approval by the Neighborhood Preservation Planner of the City of Ithaca.  Prospective bidders will be informed that the property may be designated as a historic building under the City of Ithaca’s Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, which will require review by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission of all plans to modify the exterior of the building.  The property shall be conveyed in “as is” condition.  The property shall be conveyed by bargain and sale deed. December 8, 1999 37  The purchaser shall post a non-refundable ten percent (10%) of the purchase price within five days after acceptance of the proposal following approval by Common Council.  The closing shall take place within sixty days after acceptance of the bid.  The balance of the purchase price shall be paid in cash or certified check.  The closing shall take place in City Hall.  The City shall provide an abstract of title showing good and marketable title, subject to easements of record. and, be it further RESOLVED, That the proceeds from the sale of the Fire Station No. 7 shall be allocated through a mutually agreed-upon arrangement between Common Council and the Fire Department. Ayes (9) Shenk, Manos, Sams, Farrell, Blumenthal, Vaughan, Marcham, Spielholz, Taylor Alderperson Hershey was absent from the vote. Carried 19.9 Fire Department – Y2K Status Report Fire Chief Wilbur reported that contingency planning is undergoing vigorous review to ensure readiness. Details for operation plans are being finalized, and resource availability to meet potential threats is being re-evaluated. Information is being received daily regarding Y2K issues relating to compliance information on computers and preparedness of certain outside agencies. Studies identifying where mission failure as a result of a Y2K event could adversely affect the City’s operations are being conducted. Mayor Cohen thanked Alderperson Vaughan for her hard work regarding Y2K issues. 19.10 Common Council – Approval of 2000 Budget Meeting Minutes - Resolution By Alderperson Marcham: Seconded by Alderperson Vaughan RESOLVED, That the Year 2000 Budget Meeting Minutes for October 7, 1999, October 12, 9999, October 14, 1999, October 18, 1999, and October 21, 1999 be hereby approved. Carried Unanimously 20. COMMUNITY ISSUES COMMITTEE: 20.1 Traffic Calming – 25 MPH Speed Limit – Resolution By Alderperson Taylor : Seconded by Alderperson Sams WHEREAS, the Neighborhood Council of the City of Ithaca, comprised of residents from various areas within the city, have come forward to Common Council on numerous occasions requesting measures be taken to calm traffic throughout neighborhood streets, particularly a reduction in the City speed limit, and WHEREAS, the Neighborhood Council has come forward to the Community Issues Committee with the request to forward on to full Council that certain streets be designated as a 25 mile- per-hour zone, as opposed to the current 30 MPH zone on most city street, and December 8, 1999 38 WHEREAS, the Community Issues Committee, with the assistance of the City Attorney’s office, concurred that under the Vehicle and Traffic Laws, Section 1643 which authorizes a city to establish maximum speed limits throughout a city at no less than 30 miles- per-hour, except on “designated streets” where speed can be determined no lower than 25 MPH with the exception of school zones, and WHEREAS, the Community Issues Committee voted unanimously to move forward with the concept of designating certain neighborhood streets as 25 MPH zones that would meet a certain criteria, to be preliminarily established by the Neighborhood Council in conjunction with the Department of Public Works, now therefore be it RESOLVED, That Common Council, in its continuing efforts to implement traffic calming measures throughout City neighborhoods, requests the Neighborhood Council and the Department of Public Works to work cooperatively to determine a potential criteria neighborhood streets would need to meet prior to being established as 25MPH zone, and be it further RESOLVED, That such preliminary criteria will be presented by the Neighborhood Council and Department of Public Works to the Community Issues Committee and the City Attorney’s Office for any necessary reworking and then forwarded onto full Common Council for a final vote, at which time a committee comprised of members of Council, the DPW, the Neighborhood Council, City Attorney’s Office, and the Ithaca Police Department will be formed to begin work toward implementation of the 25 MPH zone in designated areas. Alderperson Marcham expressed concern about variable speed limits within the City, and stated that she would rather see better enforcement of the speed limits currently in place. In response to questions raised by Alderperson Hershey, Mayor Cohen explained that the Ithaca Neighborhoods Council is functioning and it is a council that is representative of all active neighborhoods across the City. A vote on the resolution resulted as follows: Ayes (9) Shenk, Manos, Sams, Farrell, Blumenthal, Vaughan, Hershey, Spielholz, Taylor Nays (1) Marcham Carried 20.2 Bike Plan – Summary of Discussion – Resolution By Alderperson Shenk: Seconded by Alderperson Blumenthal WHEREAS, Common Council hired the firm of Trowbridge and Wolf to develop a bicycle plan for the City of Ithaca, and that plan, entitled the “Ithaca Bicycle Plan”, was published in 1997, and WHEREAS, Common Council adopted the Ithaca Bicycle Plan in October of 1998, and charged the Board of Public Works with facilitating the process of implementing the plan, and December 8, 1999 39 WHEREAS, the significant negative public comment about the bicycle plan at a public hearing on September 29, 1999, the Board of Public Works passed a resolution on November 3 recommending that Common Council send the bicycle plan back to the BPAC, asking them to rewire the plan so that no parking would be removed, and WHEREAS, Common Council disagrees with the Board of Public works recommendation and desires to move ahead with the implementation process of the Ithaca Bicycle Plan in a way which allows for neighborhood input and creative problems solving, now therefore be it RESOLVED, That Common Council appoint a Bicycle Plan Implementation Steering Committee to work with the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Council (BPAC) to develop a reasonable and workable initial plan for implementation of the Ithaca Bicycle Plan which may include minimal impact on parking and which may also include bicycle lanes in some places, and be it further RESOLVED, That the Bicycle Plan Implementation Steering Committee shall work collaboratively with representatives from affected neighborhoods, as segments of the plan are considered for implementation, and be it further RESOLVED, That Common Council appoints a sub-committee consisting of two Common Council members and two BPAC members to recommend membership for the Bicycle Plan Implementation Steering Committee to Common Council by its January meeting. Alderperson Hershey clarified that he does not consider losing parking along the entire stretch of North Cayuga Street from the Fall Creek Bridge to the Cascadilla Creek as “minimal”. A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows: Carried Unanimously Alderperson Shenk and Alderperson Hershey volunteered to choose the make-up of the sub-committee. 21. NEW BUSINESS: 21.1 City Court – Endorsement of OCA Department Proposal #127R By Alderperson Hershey : Seconded by Alderperson Sams WHEREAS, the 61 City Courts in this State (outside of New York City) play a vital role in their respective communities, and WHEREAS, the changes in caseload filings and other demands upon the courts that preside in those areas have made it necessary to re-evaluate each City Court’s judicial allocation on a periodic basis, and WHEREAS, such a re-evaluation recently was undertaken be panel chaired by the Deputy Administrative Judge for the Courts Outside New York City, and WHEREAS, this re-evaluation, which included a court-by-court examination of past caseload and local demographics, produced a series of recommendations for change in the number and status of judgeships in certain City Courts of the State, and December 8, 1999 40 WHEREAS, these recommendations have been submitted by the Chief Administrative Judge to the New York State Senate and Assembly as OCA Departmental Proposal 127R, for enactment during the 2000 session of the Legislature, now, therefore be it RESOLVED, That we strongly endorse OCA Departmental proposal #127R, and urge that it be promptly introduced in the Senate and Assembly, passed by those Houses, and signed into law by the Governor. Carried Unanimously 21.2 Federal Emergency Management Agency/Integrated Emergency Management Course - Resolution By Alderperson Vaughan: Seconded by Alderperson Shenk WHEREAS, one of the primary missions of government is to assure the life safety of its citizens, and, WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council of the City of Ithaca, New York realize that natural or man-made disasters may strike any community without warning, and WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council have enacted local legislation regarding Emergency Preparedness for the City of Ithaca, and WHEREAS, the scope of any man made or natural disaster will require an integrated response by the component groups of local, state, and federal, private, public and voluntary agencies, and, WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, through its Emergency Management Institute, provides a valuable training resource for community disaster management planning via the Community Specific Integrated Emergency Management Course, and, WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca did participate in an Ithaca Specific Integrated Emergency Course November 29-December 3, 1999, and WHEREAS, the Greater Ithaca Community is now better prepared to respond to and recover from natural or man-made disasters as a result of its participation; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca expresses its deep appreciation to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and specifically the Emergency Management Institute for providing the Ithaca Community with a comprehensive, realistic, exercise simulation-based educational opportunity in its preparation for and delivery of an Ithaca Specific Integrated Emergency Management Course. Carried Unanimously 21.3 New York State Stage Emergency Management Office and Integrated Emergency Management Course - Resolution By Alderperson Vaughan: Seconded by Alderperson Manos WHEREAS, one of the primary missions of government is to assure the life safety of its citizens, and December 8, 1999 41 WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council of the City of Ithaca, New York realize that natural or man-made disasters may strike any community without warning, and WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council have enacted local legislation regarding Emergency Preparedness for the City of Ithaca, WHEREAS, the scope of any man-made or natural disaster will require an integrated response by the component groups of local, state and federal, private, public, and voluntary agencies, and, WHEREAS, the New York State Emergency Management Office by law is the official liaison between local emergency management officials and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and WHEREAS, the New York State Emergency Management Office did indeed work closely with City of Ithaca Emergency Management Office in preparing a grant proposal for a community specific Ithaca Integrated Emergency Management Course, and WHEREAS, the New York State Emergency Management Office did wholeheartedly endorse the Ithaca grant proposal and request the Federal Emergency Management to act favorably upon the grant proposal, and WHEREAS, Ithaca, New York is the first community in New York State to participate in an on-campus Integrated Emergency Management Course at the Emergency Management Institute, Emmitsburg, Maryland, and WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, through its Emergency Management Institute, provides a valuable training resource for community disaster management planning via the Community Specific Integrated Emergency Management Course, and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca, interacting with personnel from the New York State Emergency Management Office, participated in an Ithaca Specified Integrated Emergency Course November 29- December 3, 1999, and WHEREAS, the Greater Ithaca Community is now better prepared to respond to and recover from natural or man-made disasters as a result of its participation; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca expresses its deep appreciation to the New York State Emergency Management Office for its valuable assistance in securing an Ithaca Specific Emergency Management Course at the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Emergency Management Institute, Emmitsburg, Maryland. Carried Unanimously 21.4 EXECUTIVE SESSION: By Alderperson Taylor: Seconded by Alderperson Marcham RESOLVED, That Common Council adjourn into executive session to discuss the employment history of an individual Carried Unanimously December 8, 1999 42 RECONVENE: Common Council reconvened into regular session at 1:05 A.M. and brought forth the following items: 19.6 City Attorney – Request Funds for Legal Assistance – Executive Session By Alderperson Marcham: Seconded by Alderperson Manos WHEREAS, disciplinary charges were brought against the Building Commissioner on August 25, 1999, and WHEREAS, prosecution of said charges by the City was expected to require approximately one hundred twenty (120) hours of attorney time, and WHEREAS, by resolution of the Common Council at a regularly scheduled meeting on September 1, 1999, the City Attorney’s office was authorized to enter into a contract with Paul E. Wagner as an independent contractor for legal services, to be reimbursed at the rate of $125.00 per hour for a total of not more than one hundred twenty (120) hours, for a total amount not to exceed $15,000, and WHEREAS, due to the unprecedented nature of this matter, the estimated time for completion of this matter will be an additional two hundred eighty (280) hours, and WHEREAS, it would be in the best interests of the City to extend the contract of the independent contractor hired to prosecute this matter under the same conditions as the original contract; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the City Attorney’s office is authorized to enter into a contract with Paul E. Wagner as an independent contractor for legal services, to be reimbursed at the rate of $125.00 per hour for a total of not more than two hundred eighty (280) hours, for a total amount not to exceed $35,000.00, and be it further RESOLVED, That the sum of $35,000 shall be charged to account A1420-5435 (City Attorney – Contracts), and be covered by the end of the year transfers. Alderperson Shenk spoke in opposition to the procedure used, and the fact that Council has not been involved in determining how this money is being spent. Carried Unanimously 19.7 City Attorney – Request Funds for Contract – Executive Session By Alderperson Marcham: Seconded by Alderperson Hershey WHEREAS, disciplinary charges were brought against the Building Commissioner, Richard Eckstrom, on August 25, 1999, and WHEREAS, by resolution of the Common Council at a regularly scheduled meeting on September 1, 1999, Common Council designated John M. Crotty, Esq. as hearing officer to preside over a hearing in this matter, and December 8, 1999 43 WHEREAS, the per diem fee for said hearing officer is seven hundred ($700) dollars plus expenses, and WHEREAS, due to the unprecedented nature of this matter, the expenses to date of said hearing officer are six thousand one hundred sixty-seven ($6,167) dollars and the estimated expenses of the hearing officer are an additional eighteen thousand four hundred seventy ($18,470) dollars, for a total amount of twenty- four thousand six hundred thirty-seven ($24,637) dollars; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby approves the transfer of an amount not to exceed $2,982 from account A1990 Unrestricted Contingency to account A1420-5435 (City Attorney – Contracts) for a portion of the fee of said hearing officer, and the remaining amount shall be covered by the end of the year transfers. Carried Unanimously Mayor Cohen extended appreciation to Alderperson Shenk and Alderperson Marcham for their years of dedicated service to the City. ADJOURNMENT: On a motion the meeting adjourned at 1:10 A.M. ________________________ _______________________ Julie Conley Holcomb, CMC Alan J. Cohen, City Clerk Mayor