Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CC-2001-05-02 1 COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK Regular Meeting 7:00 May 2, 2001 PRESENT: Mayor Cohen Alderpersons (10) Pryor, Sams, Blumenthal, Glasstetter, Manos, Farrell, Vaughan, Spielho1z, Taylor, Hershey OTHERS PRESENT: City Clerk – Conley Holcomb City Attorney - Schwab City Controller – Cafferillo Deputy Controller – Thayer Planning and Development Director – Van Cort Deputy Director of Planning and Development – Cornish Economic Development Director - McDonald Superintendent of Public Works – Gray Human Resources Director – Michell-Nunn Manager of Operations and Maintenance, TCAT - Oltz PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Cohen led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. YOUTH AWARD: Alderpersons Hershey and Taylor presented the May 2001 Distinguished Youth Award to members of the Tompkins County 4-H Fair Board, for conceiving, developing, administrating the Duck Race on Cascadilla Creek. This was an extraordinary event that raised funds for the annual Tompkins County 4-H Fair and brought hundreds of area residents to Ithaca’s second and fifth wards on Sunday, April 22, 2001. The fair, itself, which will be held July 26 – 28, 2001 will showcase the projects and achievements of 4-H members throughout the county. Thanks to members of the fair committee, the fund raising event was itself an exhibit of the outstanding work the youth of our community can accomplish. Working with the County Cooperative Extension office, the 4- H’ers sold twenty-three corporate sponsorships and carried out most of the arrangements for the event that attracted more than eleven hundred participants, and grossed more than $5,000 which will pay for all the expenses for their fair. ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA: Human Resources Committee Alderperson Manos requested the addition of Item 19.3 - Possible Motion to Enter into Executive Session to Discuss Pending Litigation and Possible Resolution. Planning Committee Alderperson Farrell requested the deletion of Item 17.5 A, B, and C which all relate to zoning changes in the Southwest area. She stated that further clarification is needed on comments made by the Planning Board. May 2, 2001 2 Mayor Cohen requested the addition of the Mayor’s Communications on downtown traffic circulation. B & A – Item 20.10 substitute resolution MAYOR’S PROCLAMATIONS: Mayor Cohen proclaimed the month of May to be Mental Health Month. Mayor Cohen proclaimed May 5, 2001 as Suicide Survivor’s Day and the week of May 5-12, 2001 as Suicide Prevention Week. Mayor Cohen proclaimed May as National Drug Court month. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: 5.1 Designation of 2001 City of Ithaca Polling Locations By Alderperson Vaughan: Seconded by Alderperson Sams RESOLVED, That the following locations be designated as City of Ithaca polling locations for the year 2001: FIRST WARD 1st District Alternative Community School Chestnut Street 2nd District Alternative Community School Chestnut Street 3rd District Titus Towers I 800 S. Plain St 4th District South Hill School 520 Hudson St 5th District South Hill School 520 Hudson St SECOND WARD 1st District GIAC 300 W. Court St 2nd District GIAC 300 W. Court St 3rd District Central Fire Station 310 W. Green St 4th District Central Fire Station 310 W. Green St THIRD WARD 1st District Robert Purcell Union Jessup Road 2nd District Belle Sherman Annex Cornell St 3rd District Belle Sherman Annex Cornell St FOURTH WARD 1st District Class of '22 Hall 659 Stewart Ave 2nd District #9 Fire Station 309 College Ave 3rd District #9 Fire Station 309 College Ave FIFTH WARD 1st District Fall Creek School 202 King St 2nd District Fall Creek School 202 King St 3rd District Robert Purcell Union Jessup Rd 4th District Fall Creek School 202 King St Carried Unanimously 5.2 Annual Appointment to the Tompkins County Board of Assessment Review By Alderperson Manos: Seconded by Alderperson Farrell RESOLVED: That Mayor Cohen and Alderperson Sams be appointed to the Tompkins County Board of Review. Carried Unanimously May 2, 2001 3 5.3 A Public Hearing to Consider a Proposed Amendment to the FY 1998 Community Development Block Grant Program Resolution to Open Hearing By Alderperson Hershey, Seconded by Alderperson Manos RESOLVED that the Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of the funding year 1998 Community Development Block Grant Program be declared open. Carried Unanimously No one from the public appeared to provide comment. Resolution to Close Hearing By Alderperson Hershey: Seconded by Alderperson Manos RESOLVED, That the Public Hearing to consider the Adoption of the funding year 1998 Community Development Block Grant Program be declared closed. Carried Unanimously 5.4 A Public Hearing to Consider an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 325 Entitled” Zoning” of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code Regarding Minor and Non-Substantive Changes to the Zoning Ordinance Resolution to Open Hearing: By Alderperson Hershey: Seconded by Alderperson Sams RESOLVED, That the Public hearing to consider the adoption of the “Minor and Non-Substantive Changes” to the Zoning ordinance be declared open. Carried Unanimously There was no discussion Resolution to Close Hearing By Alderperson Spielholz: Seconded by Alderperson Hershey RESOLVED, That the Public Hearing to consider the adoption of the “Minor and Non-Substantive Changed” to the Zoning ordinance be declared closed. Carried Unanimously Alderperson Pryor arrived at the meeting at 7:20 p.m. 5.5 A Public Hearing to Consider an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 325 Entitled “Zoning” of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code to Change the Zoning Designations of Certain Areas and Establish District Regulations Resolution to Open Hearing: By Alderperson Hershey: RESOLVED, That the Public Hearing to consider the adoption of an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 325 Entitled “Zoning” of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code to Change the Zoning Designations of Certain Areas and Establish District Regulations be declared open The following people addressed comments to Common Council regarding the proposed zoning changes: May 2, 2001 4 Scott Whitham – City of Ithaca, Chair of the City Planning and Development Board thanked Alderperson Farrell, Council and the Mayor for tabling legislation to allow further discussion and recommendations by the Planning Board. Steven Ehrhardt, City of Ithaca, Vice-Chair of the City Planning and Development Board expressed his support for re-zoning in the South West area and asked that the following three items be considered during the process review: First, to clarify for the Planning and Development Board the process by which overall development of retail and office space in the south west area, Elmira Road corridor is to be kept within the million square foot limit assumed by the GEIS. This is important because the scope of development should not exceed the GEIS stated limits on the community’s capacity to gracefully absorb such development and mitigate any negative impacts. Second, clarify for the Planning and Development Board the process you have in mind for which the Board is to go about planning the physical layout of this area with respect to siting buildings, roads, and public spaces among other things and whether you would support in principle allocating reasonable funds for the Board should we require outside assistance to do this. Thirdly, clarify for the Planning and Development Board the process by which the Board is to coordinate our approval of individual development projects with mitigation efforts that neither the direct nor the full responsibility of the developer and if no such process exists to reiterate Council’s commitment to follow through on mitigation efforts. In short, there is no guarantee of timely and sufficient mitigation other than the political will of the Mayor and Common Council to pursue the policy of providing it. The Planning Board knows that you’re committed to a policy of adequate and timely mitigation, it will be much easier for the Planning Board to do their job with confidence that the overall result will be positive for the citizens of Ithaca. Phil Zhad, Town of Danby, expressed his concern about hydrological data/impacts. Fay Gougakis, City of Ithaca, stated that the long environmental assessment form has inconsistencies. Joel Harlan, Town of Dryden, supports development in SW area. Neil Oolie, City of Ithaca, spoke in regards to storm water drainage concerns/developer mitigation fees. Gary Jaynes, City of Ithaca, spoke in regards to safety concerns for West End traffic. Joe Wetmore, Town of Ithaca, requests that public hearings not be closed, but after discussion of Planning Board’s comments give the public another chance to speak. Resolution to Close Hearing By Alderperson Hershey: Seconded by Alderperson RESOLVED, That the Public Hearing to consider the adoption of an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 325 Entitled “Zoning” of the City of May 2, 2001 5 Ithaca Municipal Code to Change the Zoning Designations of Certain Areas and Establish District Regulations be declared closed. Carried Unanimously MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS: Youth Bureau Advisory Board By Alderperson Pryor: Seconded by Alderperson Spielholz RESOLVED, That David Delchamps be appointed to the Tompkins County Youth Bureau Advisory Board. Carried Unanimously COMMUNICATIONS: City Clerk Holcomb read one communication from Broome County/Triple Cities Economic Development zone. They are requesting that Common Council hold a public hearing regarding the business re-location of FBM/BMX Incorporated from Ithaca to downtown Johnson City. New York State Law requires a municipality to approve a business re-location when the business plans to move from outside of an Empire Zone to a location within the Empire Zone without the approval from Ithaca FBM/BMX would not be eligible for the benefits associated with the Empire Zone. City Clerk Holcomb has been in contact with them and wanted to bring it to your attention. She will be requesting that Mayor Cohen put it on the Economic Development Committee agenda so that they have an opportunity to explain their situation to council and the need for a public hearing June 6, 2001 meeting exists at which time a resolution will be presented. Any questions should be directed to City Clerk Holcomb. PETITIONS AND HEARINGS OF PERSONS BEFORE COUNCIL: Bill Seldin, Town of Ithaca, Co-President of GIAC, stated that GIAC is in desperate need of renovations and that the Thomas Associates has presented a proposal to perform an evaluation on the facility’s needs. He would like to see GIAC acknowledged as a provider of exceptional youth services to the community and not be combined into a city-wide facilities renovations plan. The proposal to renovate Common Council Chambers should be not be a higher priority than making the GIAC building safe for Ithaca youth. Frances Weissman, East Hill resident, speaks here tonight on two issues that will be considered tonight. The issues that I usually come and talk about are those that preserve and enhance the quality of life in our neighborhoods. The first one I want to speak about is the proposed zoning changes on East Hill. I am particularly interested in the down zoning of Linden Avenue which is a street just west of the street that I live on. I think this measure can be an important first step in encouraging owner occupancy and owner occupancy, I’m sure we agree, I’ve heard Council Members say is a desirable goal and a condition which is usually a very positive one in residential neighborhood areas and one that the City has stated is a goal it’s trying to foster. I would also like to say that I can’t see any problems with this, any unfairness in changing the zoning, because my understanding is that a property has to be utilized in the new zoning charge for a year before the change actually become effective. It will be something that if you allow the community May 2, 2001 6 in the long run will decide and so I urge you to support that. The second thing I want to say is that I am in favor of the proposed changes to the new Exterior Property Maintenance Law. Having sat on that committee for little more than a year that it was in session, I know how arduous a task it was to write an ordinance which reflects the current reality in the City and with the measures that will be something that can used effectively. The controversy that I’m aware of and that is the fine structure and I’d like to say that the procedure of the building department really makes that a fair proposal. Anyone who is noted by the building department as having a violation on their property gets a letter and period of time in which to make amends before any fine is even considered. That can happen numerable times. A property owner is notified, has a chance to make amends, I don’t see that as an unfair proposal and so I urge you to support this as well. Harriet Becker, to speak about the Ithaca Children’s Garden. She is one of the co-founders and I’m on their Board of Directors and they’ve been working on this project for about three years now. We’ve been working with the City on trying to obtain a site for our community park and we’ve worked with numerous community groups, school kids and we’ve gotten all their input on what they’d like to see put in the garden and we gave all our ideas to Rick Manning, our landscape architect. Council should have a copy of the draft of what the garden could look like. We’re going to go from there, we’re open more opinions/suggestions. We’ve been working with the City on getting this site and the planning committee passed a resolution on it last week and we’re hoping that you will follow through on it to give us the lease. We look forward to working there. Fay Gougakis, City of Ithaca, several points tonight. 1) I’m very concerned about the assaults that happened last night. I predict that that will continue and it’s going to get worse in the City until we really tackle the problems that we face here. 2) Economics Committee that was separated from the Planning and Development. I’m appalled Mayor Cohen at what you did. I’m also appalled at the fact there are no cameras at that meeting, there is no public speaking at that meeting. It’s not on the agenda, is that correct. Is that correct Julie? It’s never on the agenda – public comment at that meeting. That’s the problem, you don’t want to respond and we’ll get to that point in a second. That committee is not televised that committee makes very important decisions, that committee needs public input. Not only do I agree with Susan Blumenthal, I’m appalled that no one else on Council has said anything about this. This is a community that values democracy, this is a community that values public hearing and public input. My third point is this, In the ‘Daily Sun” that I read recently, it said Cohen returned from 4th visit to the Ithaca sister city in the Ukraine. She read part of that article to the all. Joel Harlan, if you listen to these communists, you have nothing to say. Dick Booth, lives on Mitchell Street, I would like to comment on the implications of your decision regarding Rick Eckstrom. I’ve waited until now until the time for your filing of an appeal had May 2, 2001 7 passed because I felt that was appropriate. I’ve sat here at Common Council for ten years as a representative of the third ward. I know you make difficult choices. I know that many of the most difficult choices are the personnel choices. In the years since I left Common Council I have made a conscious decision to stay out of your hair. I have avoided criticizing you in public and I’ve avoided applauding you in public at various times. The Eckstrom case raises a number of serious implications that I think that require comment and you deserve the severe criticism of the City of Ithaca. At the outset, let me make two points very clear, one I strongly condemn any decision made on the basis of a public official on a racially motivated basis. I don’t believe Rick Eckstrom acted on the basis in this case, the hearing officer made clear that his decision was not based on those allegations and I believe that your decision ultimately was not based on those allegations. Secondly, I strongly favor council oversight of major city administrative heads and other employees. This is not a statement in favor of advocation of strong over sight by Common Council of those that carry on the City policy. My comments break into three parts, first, regarding Rick Eckstrom, he was Building Commissioner for much of the time that I was on Common Council. My assessment of him was that he was straightforward, honest, hardworking and above all fair. I didn’t always agree with Rick, in fact, I quite often substantially criticized his administration of various decisions particularly in terms of resources. It was never of any question that he was a valuable, hardworking, city employee who had a very hard job and who did it well and was aware of the ambiguities and difficulties of applying overlapping city codes and to try to do so to the best of his ability. Secondly, regarding your decision respecting Rick Eckstrom, you participated in and made a very unfair and illogical decision. You badly hurt a valuable, highly capable city employee on baseless grounds. I’ve read the hearing officer’s 99 page decision and I will admit that you were badly served by a person that should have been more capable in exercising his responsibility. The decision is illogical, it’s wandering, it is highly speculative and over and over again it makes clear that the codes that Rick Eckstrom applied were open to a number of interpretations and he chose reasonable interpretations and yet the hearing officer recommended termination of this gentleman. Dan Hoffman, resident of Giles Street in the City, I am speaking to you tonight as Chairperson of the Natural Areas Commission. You have on your agenda a vote on approval of the proposed master plan for the southwest natural area. I think you all know that the Natural Areas Commission spent quite a bit of time analyzing the proposed master plan and crafting comments and recommendations. Those comments which were pretty lengthy were submitted in a timely fashion, not only that, representatives of the NAC attended meetings of both the planning board and the planning committee to discuss those comments. The Commission is very happy that the City is putting together a master plan, we think that is the right direction. However, we did have several things that we thought could be improved in the master plan and we made over a dozen substantive recommendations, we understood, particularly from our attendance at the planning board meeting that that group at least agreed with several of our May 2, 2001 8 recommendations. I don’t know if you’ve received anything in writing from the planning board or not, however member of the NAC were very surprised to see that none of our recommendations are mentioned or reflected in the resolution of approval which appears on tonight’s agenda. It would appear to us that none of our comments are being incorporated into the master plan, instead it is being approved as it was submitted in September of 2000. We hope that you have read our comments and would be interested in hearing the reasons that none of those concerns are reflected or added to the original proposed master plan. We think that the plan could be approved by making certain changes in it. RESPONSE TO THE PUBLIC: Alderperson Pryor, in response to Mr. Hoffman’s petition. Council has on the table tonight a revised resolution which does incorporate some of the changes that had been recommended and there will be another change included with that. Wanted to thank Mr. Hoffman for his comments. City Clerk Holcomb wanted to clarify for your purposes what she explained to Ms. Gougakis on the phone when she expressed concerns regarding the lack of public speaking session on the Economic Development Committee agenda. I explained to her the open meeting law provides that the public has to have the opportunity to witness its government in action. However, we are not required to let people speak. They have to be able to witness it. A number of committees do allow public speaking on their agenda but that is absolutely the option of the chairperson of that committee. Mayor Cohen added that public speaking is allowed at the Economic and Development Committee meeting. The one meeting that Fay went to, it was not included on the agenda itself and that’s where her conception comes from. It is allowed and the public should be aware of that. As to the question of televising these meetings, we’re constrained at present by our current franchise agreement with Time Warner and can only televise four out of our six meetings. We have other meetings that are also not televised and we would like to see them televised and we’re working on that at present in our current franchise negotiations. Alderperson Farrell wanted to concur with Alderperson Pryor and to say that they got the recommendations quite late from the Planning Board because they had to meet later than usual this month. Mayor Cohen wanted to make a general comment, Mr. Hoffman’s comments are interesting and I think it raises questions as to how we actually go forth and develop some of these plans. He was impressed by the diversity of the people on that Natural Area Plan, it included representatives from the Natural Areas Commission and I’m not sure if the Planning Board was represented, it was. We try to bring forth a balanced approach, then we send forth for additional comments to these other boards after we gone through a consensus driven process. It’s an interesting way that we do this and I’m not sure if we’re undermining that consensus driven process after we’ve gone to May 2, 2001 9 that effort to bring different points of view to the table. It’s something I think we should think about and look at in the future the next time we put another committee together. REPORT OF CITY BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES: None COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMON COUNCIL: None COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE MAYOR: Mayor Cohen reported briefly on one of the trips he took recently. Prior to his trip he had the opportunity to participate in something called “The Mayor’s Institute on City Design.” It’s a bi-monthly seminar that’s held for mayors across the country. They bring eight mayor and eight design professionals together from various design disciplines. Each mayor presents a particular design question or scenario. It’s critiqued by the design professionals and the other mayors in the sessions give input. You not only benefit from the critique of your own plan, but from listening to the critiques of the other seven proposals as well. He presented the Cayuga Green project and he got back many interesting comments. He shared a few right now, he will be getting an audiotape of the entire seminar and he’ll provide members of Common Council with a copy of that. Some written materials may also be provided as well. The understanding that the design professions were looking at this completely objectively because they’re not from this community, they made some interesting comments. For example, the Green Street garage, they said to get rid of it. I informed them that we had some resource constraints in that regard. They were very interested in the kind of activity of the site to the Ithaca Commons and talked a little about that. There were concerns of the scale and massing of the project on the site. How it relates to the library and also its relationship to the creek. One of the interesting comments we heard about the creek was an idea of eliminating the straight wall on the library side and actually terracing back the that creek wall so that the end result would be a wall that is just as high as it is now but the vista to the creek would be opened up and we could actually create a new public space for people to hang out in downtown. Another idea was the possibility of a little farther downstream putting in a damn to raise the water level in this certain area of the creek in the downtown area to make it a nicer amenity and that could be utilized during low water times of the year. There are issues of course with the DEC on that particular idea, but I’m still relating it to you. Pedestrian transportation issues were discussed, they were all very vociferous about eliminating our one way streets to the greatest extent possible and coincidentally we do have a presentation on two of those one way streets, Cayuga and Aurora Streets. That’s part of the downtown circulation plan so we’ll be hearing more about that in a little while. All the information will be shared with Council. Mayor Cohen stated that he came back with a lot more confidence May 2, 2001 10 about the direction the City is going and he also came back with some insights as to how we need to look at this project from different perspectives. All in all, they were very positive about the project, they thought it would a very good addition to our downtown if it was done appropriately so to speak. He looks forward to sharing further information with you when he gets it from the institute. Mayors from Rome, NY, Masa AZ, Lakewood CO, Indianapolis and Carmel, Indiana; Birmingham, AL, and Monroe, MI. The city’s ranged in size from 20,000 upwards to 900,000. It was an interesting group. The Mayor of Masa, AZ almost didn’t go. This institute is funded by the National Endowment for the Arts. People had some very interesting outlooks about the National Endowment and they don’t realize that they fund many different types of arts and design-related activity. He was cajoled by some fellow mayors to go and he didn’t regret it. He was very excited and he said he would go back and talk to his other colleagues that might be hesitant to do this as well. Mayor Cohen will urge whoever is the next Mayor of Ithaca to attend this institute as well. It’s something any mayor of any city should try to take advantage of. MAYOR’S APPOINTMENTS: Youth Bureau Advisory Board By Alderperson Pryor, Seconded by: Alderperson Spielholz RESOLVED, That David DelChamps be re-appointed to the County Youth Advisory Board. Carried Unanimously REPORT OF THE CITY CLERK: No report REPORT OF THE CITY CONTROLLER: No report May 2, 2001 11 CONSENT AGENDA: 16.1 Human Resources - Request to Designate Managerial Position By Alderperson Manos, Seconded by: Alderperson Glasstetter RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby designates the position of Safety and Health Coordinator to the Managerial Compensation plan, salary grade 2. Carried Unanimously PLANNING COMMITTEE: 17.1 An Ordinance Amending Section 325 of the Municipal Code Regarding Exterior Property Maintenance - Call for Public Hearing By Alderperson Farrell: Seconded by Alderperson Pryor RESOLVED, That Common Council shall hold a public hearing in the matter of the adoption of AN ORDINANCE DELETING SECTIONS 325- 23B(2), 325-23B(3), 325-23B(4), AND 325-23C FROM CHAPTER 325, ENTITLED “ZONING,” ADDING CHAPTER 197, ENTITLED “EXTERIOR PROPERTY MAINTENANCE,” ADDING SECTION 325-29.2, ENTITLED “DUMPSTERS” AND AMENDING SECTIONS 325-15D AND 325-46C OF CHAPTER 325, ENTITLED “ZONING,” AMENDING SECTION 1-1B OF ARTICLE 1, ENTITLED “PENALTIES,” SECTIONS 276-7A(2) AND 276-7A(12) OF CHAPTER 276, ENTITLED “SITE PLAN REVIEW,” THE TITLE TO CHAPTER 196 AND SECTIONS 196-1, 196-2A, 196-3B, 196-3C(1), 196-3D, 196- 3F, 196-4, 196-5, 196-7, AND 196-8 OF CHAPTER 196, ENTITLED “GARBAGE, RUBBISH AND REFUSE,” OF THE CITY OF ITHACA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO GARBAGE, RECYCLING, EXTERIOR PROPERTY MAINTENANCE, SITE PLAN REVIEW AND YARD SALES, in the Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street, in the City of Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 6, 2001, and be it further RESOLVED, That the City Clerk shall give notice of such public hearing by the publication of a notice in the official newspaper specifying the time when and the place where such public hearing will be held, and in general terms describing the proposed ordinance. This notice shall be published once at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, and be it further RESOLVED, That the City Clerk shall transmit forthwith to the Tompkins County Planning Board and to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board true and exact copies of the proposed zoning ordinance for their reports thereon. Alderperson Blumenthal stated that a comprehensive review of the legislation was conducted by the committee, and the proposed revisions to the ordinance are a result of that review. There are a number of new provisions that will significantly strengthen the ordinance related to the designation of an agent for out-of-town landlords. There is a new penalty structure, fee schedule, and civil penalties have been added. There are new provisions related to dumpsters and appropriate screening. Included in the legislation is the addition of regulation of garage sales and new construction. The criteria for the handling of solid waste has been discussed extensively as it pertains to the fee structure, and using closed containers at the curb instead of plastic bags. May 2, 2001 12 Alderperson Hershey noted that there was a 3-2 vote in the Planning Committee to change the recommendation for closed containers, and to stay with the plastic bags. He explained the numerous problems being experienced throughout the City from animals and vermin strewing garbage from plastic bags around the neighborhoods. He spoke in support of closed containers and addressed cost concerns, as well as concerns raised relating to physically challenged people and senior citizens regarding the weight of lidded trash cans. Amending Resolution By Alderperson Hershey: Seconded by Alderperson Blumenthal RESOLVED, that the section 197.3B be amended to read as follows: “B. [(2)] That all garbage, when stored outside is completely contained in nonabsorbent, watertight, durable containers having a tight-fitting lid in place. Plastic bags are not considered durable containers. All property owners shall be responsible for providing their tenants with such containers, and the containers shall be sufficient in size and number to assure all garbage is completely contained within such containers. Garbage containers shall not be stored in front yards or any other yards that have frontage on a public street unless all yards on the property have frontage on public streets. Composting materials, so long as they are maintained as defined by this section, shall not be considered garbage.” Extensive discussion followed on the floor regarding the difficulty this language would cause to the large population of elderly and physically disabled people in the community who may have to navigate stairs and other obstacles when taking their garbage to the curb. Further discussion followed on the floor regarding the removal of choice for residents as to how they set out their trash, bags or cans, and where they can take their trash, curbside or and approved refuse disposal site. Alderpersons Pryor, Taylor, Sams and Farrell voiced their opposition to the Amending Resolution. Alderperson Spielholz stated that she lives in a neighborhood where 99% of the residents are students that are not always sure what days and weeks to take out their trash and recycling. In some neighborhoods, nuisance wildlife and vermin are an important issue. Alderperson Glasstetter stated that the primary issue one of enforcement. He stated that he fully supports the increase in fines and increasing the enforcement. A vote on the Amending Resolution resulted as follows: Ayes (3) Blumenthal, Hershey, Spielholz Nays (7) Pryor, Manos, Farrell, Sams, Vaughan, Glasstetter, Taylor Fails May 2, 2001 13 Amending Resolution: By Alderperson Blumenthal: Seconded by Alderperson Farrell RESOLVED, That the Chapter number for the new Exterior Property Maintenance Chapter be changed from 197 to 178, and that the references to Sections in Chapter 197 be changed to Chapter 178. Carried Unanimously Amending Resolution: By Alderperson Glasstetter: Seconded by Alderperson Manos RESOLVED, That Section 3 of the Proposed Ordinance, Section 325- 29.2 Dumpsters, subsection C(3) be amended to read as follows: (3) A dumpster in the R-1 and R-2 zoning district can serve only the property on which it is located and can serve only one property. Responsibility for the dumpster exists with the property owner where the dumpster exists. Alderperson Glasstetter stated that he felt the City should take advantage of opportunities to consolidate, and have one dumpster serve two or more separate tax parcels, which are owned by the same individual or company. He stated that it makes sense in the R3 and possibly the RU zones to have an exemption in allowing multiple property use for an individual dumpster. Extensive discussion followed on the floor regarding the use, placement, screening, and enforcement issues pertaining to dumpsters. A vote on the Amending Resolution resulted as follows: Ayes (1) Glasstetter Nays (9) Pryor, Manos, Sams, Farrell, Vaughan, Blumenthal, Spielholz, Taylor, Hershey Fails Main Motion A vote on the Main Motion as Amended, to Call for a Public Hearing on the Proposed Exterior Property Maintenance Ordinance resulted as follows: Carried Unanimously The proposed legislation reads as follows: ORDINANCE NO. _________, 2001 AN ORDINANCE DELETING SECTIONS 325-23B(2), 325-23B(3), 325- 23B(4), AND 325-23C FROM CHAPTER 325, ENTITLED “ZONING,” ADDING CHAPTER 178, ENTITLED “EXTERIOR PROPERTY MAINTENANCE,” ADDING SECTION 325-29.2, ENTITLED “DUMPSTERS” AND AMENDING SECTIONS 325-15D AND 325-46C OF CHAPTER 325, ENTITLED “ZONING,” AMENDING SECTION 1-1B OF ARTICLE 1, ENTITLED “PENALTIES,” SECTIONS 276- 7A(2) AND 276-7A(12) OF CHAPTER 276, ENTITLED “SITE PLAN REVIEW,” THE TITLE TO CHAPTER 196 AND SECTIONS 196-1, 196-2A, 196-3B, 196-3D, 196-3F, 196-4, 196-5, AND 196-8 OF CHAPTER 196, ENTITLED “GARBAGE, RUBBISH AND REFUSE,” OF THE CITY OF ITHACA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO GARBAGE, RECYCLING, EXTERIOR PROPERTY MAINTENANCE, SITE PLAN REVIEW AND YARD SALES. May 2, 2001 14 WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca wishes to provide a minimum standard for the maintenance of the exterior grounds and visible facades of all properties within the City, and help provide stable and inviting neighborhoods and business and commercial districts, and WHEREAS, the City has received numerous complaints about garbage and sanitary conditions, and wishes to prevent conditions that attract rats, insects and other vermin, promote public health and safety by prohibiting certain deficiencies in exterior property maintenance which create or contribute to unhealthy or hazardous conditions, and prevent deficiencies that could become an attractive nuisance with regard to children, trespassers or household pets; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to protect property investment and the tax base by maintaining and enhancing the quality of life in City neighborhoods, preserving the aesthetic character of residential neighborhoods, and ensuring attractive commercial districts; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, New York as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 325, Section 325-23B(2), entitled “Exterior property maintenance,” Sections 325-23B(3)-(4) and Section 325-23C are hereby deleted in their entirety from Chapter 325 and the entire text is inserted in its entirety in new Chapter 178, entitled “Exterior Property Maintenance,” with the following amendments: Chapter 178, EXTERIOR PROPERTY MAINTENANCE § 178-1. [325-23B(2)(a)] Declaration of purpose. The purpose of this Chapter [subsection] is to provide a minimum standard for the maintenance of the exterior grounds and visible facades of all properties within the city. This Chapter [subsection] is intended to help provide stable and inviting neighborhoods and business and commercial districts and to promote public health and safety by prohibiting certain deficiencies in exterior property maintenance which create or contribute to unhealthy or hazardous conditions. This Chapter [subsection] is also intended to ensure that property owners or their delegated agents perform such repair and maintenance of properties as will prevent deficiencies that could become an attractive nuisance with regard to children, trespassers or household pets or that may attract insect or animal pests. The adoption and enforcement of this Chapter [subsection] is intended to serve as a deterrence to substandard exterior property maintenance and as a tool for protecting property investment, the tax base and the health, safety and welfare of all city residents. § 178-2. [325-23B(2)(b)] Definitions. For the purposes of this Chapter [subsection], the following definitions shall apply: May 2, 2001 15 BULK ITEMS – Large items and materials, including furniture (other than aluminum and plastic yard furniture), house furnishings and large appliances, such as refrigerators, stoves, washing machines and clothes dryers. COLLECTIBLE YARD WASTES – Grass, leaves, brush, and other plant wastes and soil materials from gardens, lawns and yards, prepared for collection in conformance with city requirements. DUMPSTER – A bulk storage container for garbage, recyclable materials and other solid waste that can be hauled directly to the point of disposal or emptied into a compactor-type truck for disposal. GARBAGE – A. Discarded materials generated from the activities of a household, business, institution, or public or quasi- public facility, consisting of (1) Food wastes, including but not limited to kitchen and table scraps, decaying or spoiled vegetable, fruit and animal matter, and fallen fruit. (2) Any other used or discarded waste materials such as paper, plastic, metal, rags, food wrappings and containers, sweepings, rubber, leather, cloth, clothing, waste materials from normal maintenance and repair activities, pasteboard, crockery, shells, dirt, ashes, wood, and glass. B. “Garbage” does not include properly prepared and stored recyclable materials or collectible yard wastes, properly stored and maintained composting materials, rubble, bulk items, industrial waste, hazardous materials, automobile or other motor vehicle tires, or any other material that the City or private waste hauler has specified will not be picked up curbside at a property as part of the regular collection. [Food wastes, food wrappers, containers, non- recyclables or other materials resulting from the use, consumption and preparation of food or drink, as well as other expended, used or discarded materials, such as paper, plastic, metal, rags or glass, etc., or any other wastes generated from the day-to-day activities of a household, business or public or quasi-public facility. The term “garbage” does not include properly prepared and stored recyclable materials or properly maintained compost areas.] HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – means, without regards to amount and/or concentration, petroleum, petroleum distillates or products, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos, formaldehyde, radioactive materials, and any substances which are defined as (or otherwise included in the definition of) “hazardous substances,” “hazardous materials,” “hazardous wastes,” “toxic substances,” “toxic pollutants,” “pollutants,” or “contaminants” under any federal or New York State law, statute, rule, regulation, or code. May 2, 2001 16 INDUSTRIAL WASTE – Any substance resulting from any process of industry or manufacturing, including but not limited to chemical waste, sludge from air or water treatment facilities, and incinerator residue. RECYCLABLE MATERIALS OR RECYCLABLES – Materials that are defined as recyclable materials or recyclables pursuant to Tompkins County laws, rules or regulations, have not become contaminated through household or other use, and are fit for recycling. REFUSE – Garbage, recyclable materials and collectible yard wastes resulting from the normal day-to-day operation of a household, business, institution or a public or quasi-public facility. Refuse does not include properly stored and maintained composting materials, rubble, bulk items, industrial waste, hazardous materials, automobile or other motor vehicle tires, or any other material that the City or private waste hauler has specified will not be picked up curbside at a property as part of the regular collection. ROOF – The outer cover and its supporting structures on top of a porch or building. RUBBLE – Waste material typically resulting from construction, demolition and major renovation activities, including but not limited to waste cement, concrete, masonry, bricks, tiles, sheetrock, plaster, shingles, lumber, telephone poles, railroad ties, wooden pallets, doors and door frames, windows and window frames and any similar material. SOLID WASTE – [Includes] Any materials or substances that are discarded or rejected as being spent, worthless, useless or in excess to the owners or users at the time of such discard or rejection, including but not limited to [materials or substances such as] garbage, refuse, industrial waste, [and commercial wastes,] hazardous materials, [sludge from air or water treatment facilities, rubbish,] tires, [ashes, incinerator residue, construction and demolition debris,] rubble, discarded motor vehicles, and discarded bulk items. [household and commercial appliances and discarded furniture.] Notwithstanding the foregoing, “solid waste” shall not include properly prepared and stored recyclables or collectible yard wastes, or properly stored and maintained composting materials. An object shall be presumed to be discarded or rejected solid waste when the object is stored, placed or left on the grounds or exterior of the property in the view of neighbors or passersby under circumstances which meet any of the following criteria: (1) The object produces an offensive smell. (2) The object is of a type designed for interior use or made of materials which are suitable only for interior use and the object is left outside and exposed to the weather [precipitation]. (3) The object has reached a degree of dilapidation or disrepair that can reasonably be presumed to render the material May 2, 2001 17 unsuitable for or incapable of being used for its original intended purpose or some other reasonable purpose. (4) The object is left, placed or stored in a manner which appears likely to cause injuries. § 178-3. [325-23B(2)(c)] Standards for grounds and exterior property. It shall be the duty and responsibility of all owners of property in the City of Ithaca to ensure: A. [(1)] text unchanged. B. [(2)] That all garbage, when stored outside, is completely contained in nonabsorbent, watertight, durable containers having a tight fitting lid in place. Plastic bags are not considered durable containers. Strong, waterproof plastic bags may be used to place garbage at the curbside on the evening before scheduled collections or may be taken to an approved refuse disposal site. Garbage containers shall not be stored in front yards, or any other yards that have frontage on a public street unless all yards on the property have frontage on public streets. Composting materials, so long as they are maintained as defined by this section, shall not be considered garbage. C. [(3)] That solid waste, other than garbage stored in proper containers and in the locations described above, and other than recyclable materials stored in accordance with Section 197-3K below, is not stored in the public view, except that construction and demolition debris related to an ongoing construction project with a valid building permit may be stored in the public view for not more than 30 days. Rest of text unchanged. D. [(4)] That[, within all residential zoning districts] no more than one unlicensed motor vehicle may be stored in the public view in a side or a rear yard, and such storage shall be in compliance with § 325-20. If there is no side or rear yard, one unlicensed motor vehicle may be stored in the front yard in compliance with § 325-20. However, this section shall not apply to a motor vehicle which constitutes solid waste as defined in § 197-2 [§ 325-23B(2)(b)] above, nor shall it apply to licensed car dealers in non-residential zoning districts. E. [(5)] text unchanged. F. [(6)] That the area along public rights-of-way adjacent to or on the property, including but not limited to the area between the front property line or sidewalk and the curb or street pavement, is maintained in a reasonably clean and sanitary condition free of garbage and/or solid waste, with any grass, weeds and brush in said area cut or trimmed in compliance with [§ 325-23B(2)(c)(5)] Section 178-3E above. Rest of text unchanged. G. [(7)] text unchanged. May 2, 2001 18 H. [(8)] text unchanged. I. [(I)] text unchanged. J. [(10)] text unchanged. K. That recycling containers and recyclable materials shall not be stored in front yards, or any other yards that have frontage on a public street unless all yards on the property have frontage on public streets. If recyclable materials are stored in plastic bags, such bags must be made of clear plastic. Recyclable materials placed at curbside before a scheduled collection may not be in plastic bags. This prohibition against the use of plastic bags at curbside shall not apply to collectible yard wastes as long as the provisions of Code Section 196-3C(1) are met. L. That all provisions regarding dumpsters set forth in Code Section 325-29.2 are met. § 178-4. [325-23B(2)(d)] Standards for exterior structures. It shall be the duty and responsibility of all owners of property in the City of Ithaca to ensure: A. [(1)] text unchanged. B. [(2)] text unchanged. C. [(3)] text unchanged. D. That no furniture shall be permitted on any roof that has not been specifically designed for occupancy and does not have guardrails meeting the State Building Code requirements at the time of construction. Roofs shall be kept free of solid waste. §178-5. [325-23B(2)(e)] Responsibilities of agents delegated by property owners. Property owners who do not reside in Tompkins County or one of its contiguous counties must file an agency agreement with the City Building Department designating an agent (i) to be responsible for all of the responsibilities outlined in this Chapter, and (ii) to accept service of process on behalf of the property owner. Property owners residing within Tompkins County or one of its contiguous counties may delegate the [The] responsibilities outlined in this Chapter [§ 325-23B(2) may be delegated] to an agent [by the property owner], so long as at the time of any violation of this subsection, an agency agreement is on file in the City Building Department. The property owner and agent shall both be liable for violations of this Chapter and the City may bring an enforcement action against either the property owner or agent, or both. If a property owner who does not reside in Tompkins County or one of its contiguous counties fails to file an agency agreement with the Building Department within sixty (60) days of the effective May 2, 2001 19 date of this law, then the City Clerk shall be deemed to be the owner’s agent for the limited purpose of accepting service of process on behalf of the owner. All agency agreements shall be in the form specified by the City Building Department and [which contains] shall contain at a minimum the following information: the identity of the owner and the agent, the owner’s and agent’s addresses and current phone numbers, the property or properties the agent is accepting responsibility for, the beginning and ending date of the agreement, [the exact sections of this Code assigned to the agent] and the signatures of both the property owner and agent, along with each party’s date of birth. The agent must be a resident of or maintain business in Tompkins County. Post office boxes will not be accepted as addresses for agents. The owner shall be responsible for informing the Building Department in writing of changes to the owner’s and agent’s addresses and telephone numbers that occur after the owner files the agency agreement with the Building Department. The property owner may not designate a residential tenant as the agent pursuant to this section, except where such designation is contained in an employment agreement between the property owner and the tenant. The employment agreement shall not be contained in the lease agreement between the property owner and the tenant, and the tenant’s acceptance of designation as the agent shall not be a condition of the lease agreement. § 178-6. New construction. For new construction of multiple dwellings, commercial buildings, and office buildings, facilities for the storage and collection of solid waste and recyclable materials shall be subject to and meet the requirements of Code Section 276-7A(12). § 178-7. [325-23B(3)] Notification when City intends to correct violation. In any case in which the city intends to correct a violation of this Chapter [§ 325-23B(1) or (2)] and then bill the property owner for the correction [the of] of the violation, the Building Commissioner or his/her designee shall notify the owner of the property, and, where relevant the registered agent who has assumed responsibility as outlined in § 197-5 [325- 23B(2)(e)] of this Code, in writing, of any violation of this Chapter [section]. Such notice shall be served in person or by mail to the address appearing on the city tax roll, requiring such person, within a time specified in such notice but in no event less than five days from the service or mailing thereof, to comply with this Chapter [section] and to cause the grass, brush or solid waste [rubbish] to be cut back or removed or, if graffiti, to have the same removed so as to comply with this Chapter [section]. Rest of text unchanged. § 178-8. [325-23B(4)] Board of Zoning Appeals exemptions. In cases where the Board of Zoning Appeals finds that a property is of such size or of such topographical characteristics as to make compliance with this Chapter [section] impractical or a financial hardship to the owner, the Board may grant an exemption (or a partial exemption to the May 2, 2001 20 extent dictated by the special circumstances) from the requirement. Similarly, if the Board finds that there exists a situation involving desirable plant species or animal habitats deemed worthy of preserving, it may grant an exception from the requirements. § 178-9. [325-23C] Liability for area between sidewalk and curb. Property owners shall be liable for any injury or damage resulting from or caused by reason of omission, failure or negligence to maintain the area between the sidewalk and the curb of the street in the manner described in § 197-3F [325- 23B(2)(c)(6)]. § 178-10. Enforcement. Violations of this Chapter and of Section 325-29.2 (Dumpsters) shall be punishable as follows: A. Criminal Penalties (1) Any property owner and/or agent who violates any provision of this Chapter or of Section 325-29.2, except those provisions specified in subsection (2) below, shall be guilty of an offense and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine of fifty dollars ($50.00) for a first offense at a property within a twelve (12) month period, two hundred dollars ($200.00) for a second offense at the same property within a twelve (12) month period, and three hundred dollars ($300.00) for a third or subsequent offense at the same property within a twelve (12) month period. (2) Any property owner and/or agent who violates any provision of Section 197-3E, 197-3G, 197-3I, 197-3J, or any of the provisions in Section 197-3F regarding grass, weeds, brush, plantings, or obstruction of views, shall be guilty of an offense and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine of forty dollars ($40.00) for a first offense at a property within a twelve (12) month period, sixty dollars ($60.00) for a second offense at the same property within a twelve (12) month period, and one hundred dollars ($100.00) for a third or subsequent offense at the same property within a twelve month period. (3) Each violation of this Chapter or of Section 325-29.2, and each day during which a violation continues, shall be deemed to be a separate offense. (4) Violation of any provision of this Chapter or of Section 325-29.2 shall be a violation as defined by Section 55.10(3) of the New York Penal Law. B. Civil Penalties (1) Any property owner and/or agent who violates any provision of this Chapter or of Section 325-29.2, except those provisions specified in subsection (2) below, shall be liable for a civil penalty of fifty dollars ($50.00) for the first violation at a property within a twelve (12) month period, two May 2, 2001 21 hundred dollars ($200.00) for a second violation at the same property within a twelve (12) month period, and three hundred dollars ($300.00) for a third or subsequent violation at the same property within a twelve (12) month period. (2) Any property owner and/or agent who violates any provision of Section 197-3E, 197-3G, 197-3I, 197-3J, or any of the provisions in Section 197-3F regarding grass, weeds, brush, plantings, or obstruction of views, shall be liable for a civil penalty of forty dollars ($40.00) for the first violation at a property within a twelve (12) month period, sixty dollars ($60.00) for a second violation at the same property within a twelve (12) month period, and one hundred dollars ($100.00) for a third or subsequent violation at the same property within a twelve month period. (3) Each violation of this Chapter or of Section 325-29.2, and each day during which a violation continues, shall be deemed to be a separate violation. (4) The City Attorney or his or her designee may commence an action or special proceeding against the violator in a court of competent jurisdiction to collect these penalties, together with costs, disbursements and recoverable attorneys’ fees, and/or to compel compliance with or restrain by injunction any such violation. (5) When the City Attorney obtains a judgment in an action or proceeding under this section either against the property owner or agent, or both, in addition to the appropriate methods for enforcement of judgments established in the Civil Practice Law and Rules, such judgment for penalties may constitute a lien, be a lien on the subject property and on the rents therefrom, or may be collected in the manner of any other civil judgment. C. Appearance Tickets and Appeals Notwithstanding any contrary Code provision, appearance tickets may be issued by the Building Commissioner and/or Commissioner’s designee(s) charging violations of this Chapter or of Section 325-29.2 whenever there is probable cause to believe that said violations have occurred. Any rights to administrative appeals to any board or commission of the City of Ithaca mentioned elsewhere in this Code shall not apply as a condition precedent to issuing an appearance ticket charging a violation of this Chapter or of Section 325-29.2. Any right to an administrative appeal from a decision or determination of the Building Commissioner or other city official with regard to the above Code Chapter and section shall apply only in cases in which the city intends to correct the violation and seek to charge the property owner or agent for the costs of correction. SECTION 2. Section 1-1B of the Ithaca City Code, entitled “Penalties for offenses,” is hereby amended to delete the reference to Code Section [325-23B(2)] and the phrase [(Exterior property maintenance)]. May 2, 2001 22 SECTION 3. Chapter 325, entitled “Zoning,” is hereby amended by adding Section 325-29.2 as follows: § 325-29.2. Dumpsters. A. Declaration of purpose. The purposes of Chapter 197, as set forth in Section 178-1, are hereby incorporated into and apply to this section. B. Definitions. The definitions in Chapter 178, as set forth in Section 178-2, are hereby incorporated into and apply to this section. C. It shall be the duty and responsibility of all owners of property in the City of Ithaca to ensure the following: (1) No dumpster may be placed or allowed to remain on any properties in the R1 or R2 zoning district except pursuant to a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals, as provided by this section. Dumpsters for which variances are granted must be out of the public view or meet all of the screening requirements of subsection 7 hereof and may be located in front yards only if the Board of Zoning Appeals finds there is no practical alternative location. (2) Dumpsters may be placed and allowed to remain on properties in the R3 or RU zoning district if they are out of the public view or meet all of the screening requirements of subsection 7 hereof. Screened dumpsters may not be placed or allowed to remain in place in front yards unless the Board of Zoning Appeals finds there is no practical alternative location and grants a variance, as provided by this section. (3) A dumpster in the R-1, R-2, R-3 or RU zoning district can serve only the property on which it is located and can serve only one property. (4) All dumpsters must have tightly fitting covers that are kept closed at all times except when the dumpster is in the process of being filled or emptied. Garbage, recyclable materials, and other solid waste must be completely contained within the dumpster and shall not accumulate so that the dumpster cover cannot be firmly closed. (5) Dumpsters shall not be located in any area that the City Code requires must be constructed or maintained unencumbered to comply with fire, building or public safety laws or requirements. (6) All dumpsters shall have the name and telephone number of the company or individual owning such dumpster clearly printed, in letters at least three inches high, on either the front or back of the dumpster. (7) Dumpsters in the R-1, R-2, R-3 or RU zoning district that are located in the public view must meet the following screening requirements: May 2, 2001 23 (a) Dumpsters shall be surrounded on all sides that are visible from the public view by enclosure walls or vegetation screens such as trees or hedges. There shall be a minimum of two (2) feet of clearance between the dumpster and each wall or vegetation screen. The walls or vegetation screen shall be a minimum of four (4) feet in height, but in any event the walls or vegetation screen shall be higher than the dumpster and shall fully screen the dumpster from the public view. (b) Constructed enclosure walls shall be made of wood, masonry or other materials compatible with the main structure or surroundings. Chain link fencing shall not be considered acceptable screening material. Enclosure walls must be constructed of masonry or other noncombustible materials if they are within the fire limits of the City, as that term is defined in Section 181-13 of the City Code. The minimum dimension for wood screening materials shall be 1 inch by 4 inches. Enclosures and partial enclosures shall be constructed to be as inconspicuous as possible. (c) Where vegetation screens are used, they shall form a year-round dense screen at least four (4) feet high, and in any event at least as high as the dumpster, within two (2) years of the initial planting. (d) Where a gate is necessary to provide access to the hauler, the gate shall either swing fully outward or slide parallel to the wall of the enclosure. Gates shall be designed to be secured when in the open and closed positions. Gates shall be closed at all times except when the dumpster is being accessed. There shall be a minimum of ten (10) inches of clearance between the bottom of the gate and ground. (e) All enclosures and partial enclosures (whether constructed or created by vegetation screens) shall be easily accessible to collection vehicles and personnel. The area directly in front of an enclosure or partial enclosure shall have less than a two percent (2%) slope to make manipulation of dumpsters as easy as possible. Steel poles or other types of stop devices shall be placed near the back of the enclosure/partial enclosure to prevent damage from the dumpster when it is set back in the enclosure/partial enclosure. In addition, where vegetation screens are used to screen one or both sides of a dumpster, the plantings shall be curbed or otherwise protected from damage by collection vehicles and the dumpster as it is moved in and out of the enclosure. (f) Property owners must keep constructed enclosures and partial enclosures in good repair and in a safe and structurally sound condition. Property owners must maintain the effectiveness of vegetation screens by properly caring for and replacing, as necessary, the plantings that serve as screening devices. (g) The property owner shall be responsible for the cleanup of the interior of each enclosure and partial enclosure. Enclosure areas and partial enclosure areas shall be kept free from litter and other solid waste except for that which is placed in dumpsters. Enclosure areas and partial enclosure May 2, 2001 24 areas shall be maintained to prevent odors and rodent and insect infestation. Garbage and other solid waste shall not accumulate in any manner that creates a visual or public health or safety nuisance. (h) Recycling receptacles may be located inside the enclosure or partial enclosure. (8) Property owners in the R3 or RU zoning district who have dumpsters on their property as of the effective date this subsection and who intend to comply with this section by screening the dumpster shall have one (1) year from the effective date of this subsection to complete the plantings or the construction of the enclosure or partial enclosure and other related construction requirements. (9) Property owners in the R1 and R2 zoning districts who have dumpsters on their property as of the effective date this subsection, apply for a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this subsection, and obtain a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals to maintain a screened dumpster shall have one (1) year from the date of the variance to complete the plantings or the construction of the enclosure or partial enclosure and other related construction requirements. D. In making any determination with respect to any proposed dumpster, the Board of Zoning Appeals shall be guided by the general purpose of this section, as stated in Section 325-29.2A, and shall also consider the following: (1) Need for the dumpster: the number of tenants to be serviced by the dumpster and the availability of alternative methods of solid waste storage and disposal. (2) Proximity to neighbors: the proximity of the proposed dumpster to neighboring properties and residences. (3) Other dumpsters: other dumpsters in the vicinity of the proposed dumpster. (4) The character of the neighborhood: the proposed use shall not be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood character so as to cause a devaluation of neighboring property values or material inconvenience to neighboring inhabitants or material interference with the use and enjoyment by the inhabitants of the neighboring property. E. In granting any variance, the Board of Zoning Appeals shall specify the exact location of any dumpster on a property, make a determination as to whether the dumpster will be out of the public view, require the dumpster to be screened as provided in subsection 7 hereof if it will not be out of the public view, and impose other requirements as necessary to meet the general purpose of this Chapter. F. Any person aggrieved by any decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals may have the decision reviewed by a Special Term May 2, 2001 25 of the Supreme Court in the manner provided by Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. G. The provisions of this section shall not apply to dumpsters used solely for construction and demolition debris. The use of such dumpsters shall be regulated by Building Department construction or demolition permits. SECTION 4. Chapter 325, Section 325-46C, entitled “Penalties for offenses,” is hereby amended as follows: [Violations of § 325-23B(2) shall be punishable in accordance with § 1-1 of this Code.] Violations of § 325.29.2 shall be punishable in accordance with Section 178-10 of this Code. SECTION 5. Chapter 276, Section 276-7A(2), entitled “Project review criteria,” is hereby amended as follows: 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, Exterior Property Maintenance Ordinance and Environmental Quality Review ordinance of the City of Ithaca, and the State Environmental Quality Review Act. SECTION 6. Chapter 276, Section 276-7A(12), entitled “Project review criteria,” is hereby amended by deleting [Screening of dumpsters from public view and from adjoining properties] and adding the following: For new construction of multiple dwellings, commercial buildings and office buildings, adequate and appropriately located facilities for the storage and collection of solid waste and recyclable materials shall be required. Developers of new commercial and mixed occupancy buildings must design a waste management system that can support the needs of any allowable use in the building, including those uses that could result in maximum garbage generation. Screening of these facilities, as well as other actions relating to the appearance of the facilities, may be required. SECTION 7. The title of Chapter 196 is hereby amended as follows: GARBAGE[, RUBBISH] AND REFUSE. SECTION 8. Chapter 196, Section 196-1, entitled “Definitions,” is hereby amended as follows: BULK ITEMS – Large items and materials, including furniture (other than aluminum and plastic yard furniture), house furnishings and large appliances, such as refrigerators, stoves, washing machines and clothes dryers. COLLECTIBLE YARD WASTES – Grass, leaves, brush and other plant wastes and soil [waste plant and dirt] materials from [vegetable and flow] gardens, lawns and yards, [and brush] prepared for collection in conformance with city requirements. COMPOSTING MATERIALS – Yard trimmings, vegetable wastes and other organic matter managed for the purpose of natural transformation into compost and stored in a container or compact pile that contains no sewage, sludge or septage; contains no inorganic materials, such as metal, plastic or glass; and is May 2, 2001 26 maintained in a manner to minimize odors and the attraction of insect and animal pests. GARBAGE – A. Discarded materials generated from the activities of a household, business, institution, or public or quasi- public facility, consisting of (1) Food wastes, including but not limited to kitchen and table scraps, decaying or spoiled vegetable, fruit and animal matter, and fallen fruit. (2) Any other used or discarded waste materials such as paper, plastic, metal, rags, food wrappings and containers, sweepings, rubber, leather, cloth, clothing, waste materials from normal maintenance and repair activities, pasteboard, crockery, shells, dirt, ashes, wood, and glass. B. “Garbage” does not include properly prepared and stored recyclable materials or collectible yard wastes, properly stored and maintained composting materials, rubble, bulk items, industrial waste, hazardous materials, automobile or other motor vehicle tires, or any other material that the City or private waste hauler has specified will not be picked up curbside at a property as part of the regular collection. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – means, without regards to amount and/or concentration, petroleum, petroleum distillates or products, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos, formaldehyde, radioactive materials, and any substances which are defined as (or otherwise included in the definition of) “hazardous substances,” “hazardous materials,” “hazardous wastes,” “toxic substances,” “toxic pollutants,” “pollutants,” or “contaminants” under any federal or New York State law, statute, rule, regulation, or code. INDUSTRIAL WASTE – [Chemical waste generated by any industrial process or operation.] Any substance resulting from any process of industry or manufacturing, including but not limited to chemical waste, sludge from air or water treatment facilities, and incinerator residue. RECYCLABLE MATERIALS OR RECYCLABLES – [These include materials defined as recyclable materials or recyclables pursuant to county law.] Materials that are defined as recyclable materials or recyclables pursuant to Tompkins County laws, rules or regulations, have not become contaminated through household or other use, and are fit for recycling. REFUSE – [The rubbish,] Garbage, recyclable materials and collectible yard wastes resulting from the normal day-to-day operation of a household, business, institution or a public or quasi-public facility. [“Refuse” may be generated by a household, a business establishment or a public or quasi-public facility.] “Refuse” does not include properly stored and maintained composting materials, rubble, bulk items, industrial waste, hazardous materials, automobile or other motor vehicle tires, or any other material [not covered under this definition] May 2, 2001 27 that the City or private waste hauler has specified will not be picked up curbside at a property as part of the regular collection. [RUBBISH: A. Includes: (1) Food wastes, including but not limited to table cleanings; fruit, vegetable and animal matter parings and scraps; decaying or spoiled vegetable, animal and fruit matter; and fallen fruit. (2) Any paper, plastic, cardboard or other material used to wrap, cover or contain food, other than certain materials defined in this section as “recyclable materials,” and any other household waste resulting from the use, consumption and preparation of food. (3) Any other waste materials, other than those materials defined as “recyclables,” such as plastic, metal, rags, drugs, health aids and materials, sweepings, excelsior, rubber, leather, cloth, clothing, waste materials from normal maintenance and repair activities, pasteboard, crockery, shells, dirt, filth, ashes, wood, glass and brick. B. “Rubbish” does not include recyclable materials as defined in this section. However, “rubbish” shall include recyclable materials which cannot be recycled because of secondary household use.] SOLID WASTE – Any materials or substances that are discarded or rejected as being spent, worthless, useless or in excess to the owners or users at the time of such discard or rejection, including but not limited to garbage, refuse, industrial waste, hazardous materials, tires, rubble, discarded motor vehicles, and discarded bulk items. Notwithstanding the foregoing, “solid waste” shall not include properly prepared and stored recyclables or collectible yard wastes, or properly stored and maintained composting materials. An object shall be presumed to be discarded or rejected solid waste when the object is stored, placed or left on the grounds or exterior of the property in the view of neighbors or passersby under circumstances which meet any of the following criteria: (1) The object produces an offensive smell. (2) The object is of a type designed for interior use or made of materials which are suitable only for interior use and the object is left outside and exposed to the weather. (3) The object has reached a degree of dilapidation or disrepair that can reasonably be presumed to render the material May 2, 2001 28 unsuitable for or incapable of being used for its original intended purpose or some other reasonable purpose. (4) The object is left, placed or stored in a manner which appears likely to cause injuries. SECTION 9. Chapter 196, Section 196-2A, entitled “Collection,” is hereby amended as follows: The Department is authorized to collect on a regular basis those waste materials that constitute refuse, namely [rubbish] garbage, recyclable materials and collectible yard wastes. SECTION 10. Chapter 196, Section 196-3B, entitled “Preparation and placement at curb,” is hereby amended as follows: No person shall place any [rubbish] garbage at or near any curb, sidewalk or street for purposes of collection [by the Department] unless that person complies with one or both of the following requirements: (1) Each person shall provide and utilize separate containers for disposal of [rubbish] garbage. Any such containers shall be made of metal, plastic or other suitable material, shall have tight-fitting covers, shall have handles on the top and sides and shall be shaped so that all materials flow freely when the container is dumped. No such container shall exceed 32 gallons in capacity, and, when filled, no such container shall weigh more than [100] seventy (70) pounds. (2) Each person shall provide and utilize disposable plastic bags for disposal of rubbish. Any such bag shall be at least 1.5 mils thick and sufficiently strong to contain the materials enclosed. When filled, each such bag shall be securely tied and shall weigh no more than fifty (50) pounds. SECTION 11. Chapter 196, Section 196-3D, entitled “Preparation and placement at curb,” is hereby amended as follows: No person shall place any recyclable materials at or near any curb, sidewalk or street for purposes of collection [by the Department] unless that person separates the recyclable materials, [and] prepares and places them at or near the curb, sidewalk or street in a manner consistent with that required by county and state rules and regulations, and complies with the requirements of City Code Section 178-3K. SECTION 12. Chapter 196, Section 196-3F, entitled “Preparation and placement at curb,” is hereby amended as follows: Refuse, as well as any other waste material the Superintendent announces will be collected, shall be placed for collection [by the Department] at or near a curb, sidewalk or street after 2:00 p.m. on the day prior to the day designated for collection and before [5:30] 4:00 a.m. on the day designated for collection. For collections performed by the Department, there [There] will be no callbacks to collect refuse or any other wastes that are placed for collection after [5:30] 4:00 a.m. on the designated collection day. SECTION 13. The first sentence of Chapter 196, Section 196-4, entitled “Removal of empty containers,” is hereby amended as follows: All empty refuse containers and any other empty May 2, 2001 29 waste containers shall be removed from the curb, sidewalk or street where they have been placed as soon as possible after collection [by the Department] and, in any event, on the same day as collection. SECTION 14. Chapter 196, Section 196-5, entitled “Removal of uncollected materials,” is hereby amended as follows: Where the Department or private hauler has not collected certain refuse and/or waste materials because those materials were not placed or prepared in accord with the provisions of this chapter and/or the private hauler’s requirements, the person responsible for putting those waste materials at or near a curb, sidewalk or street for collection [by the Department] shall remove those wastes from that location as soon as possible after the Department or private hauler has refused collection and, in any event, by the end of the designated collection day. SECTION 15. Chapter 196, Section 196-8, entitled “Collection or removal of recyclables,” is hereby amended as follows: From the time any person places any recyclable materials at or near any curb, sidewalk or street for purposes of collection [by the Department], no person who is not acting under authority of the city, Tompkins County, or [its] their authorized agents [agent] shall collect, pick up, remove or cause to be collected, picked up or removed any recyclable materials so placed for collection, and each such unauthorized collection, pickup or removal shall constitute a separate violation of this chapter. However, where the Department or County has refused to collect certain recyclable materials because they have not been placed or treated in accord with the provisions of this chapter, the person responsible for initially placing those materials for collection may and shall remove those materials from any curb, sidewalk or street side in accord with the provisions of this chapter. SECTION 16. Chapter 325, Section 325-15D, entitled “Use regulations,” is hereby amended as follows: Garage sales. No household, garage, porch or yard items for sale may be stored in the open or continually displayed within any district where the same may be construed by proper authority to be a menace to the public health or safety or may be held to have a detrimental influence upon adjacent properties or upon the neighborhood at large. Household, garage, porch or yard sales shall not be held on a property for more than seven (7) days (including weekends) in a calendar month, nor shall such sales be held on a property during the weekend for more than two consecutive weekends or for more than two weekends in any month. For the purposes of this subsection, “weekend” shall mean Saturday and/or Sunday. This prohibition should not be construed to ban household, garage, porch or yard sales themselves as long as they do not exceed the frequencies listed in this subsection. SECTION 17. Severability is intended throughout and within the provisions of the ordinance. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. May 2, 2001 30 SECTION 18. This ordinance shall take effect immediately in accordance with law upon publication of a notice as provided in the Ithaca City Charter. 17.2 Ithaca Children’s Garden – Resolution of Requesting State Authorization for Lease By Alderperson Farrell, Seconded by: Alderperson Blumenthal WHEREAS, the Ithaca Children's Garden has requested permission to lease for an extended period of time a portion of the southern end of Cass Park in the City of Ithaca, and WHEREAS, the Ithaca Children's Garden will provide an opportunity for hands-on educational opportunities for youth of all ages, and WHEREAS, the Ithaca Children's Garden would be a tourist attraction, and WHEREAS, the Ithaca Children's Garden activities would complement existing youth focused, sports recreation and summer camp activities already in existence in the park, and WHEREAS, the Ithaca Children's Garden would provide a highly visible, attractive entrance to the City, and WHEREAS, the southern end of Cass Park is the least intensively used part of the park and has space which could be made available to the Ithaca Children's Garden, and WHEREAS, the Ithaca Children's Gardens would complement the recently approved Waterfront Development Plan, and provide a stopping point on the proposed New York State Black Diamond Trail, and WHEREAS, existing infrastructure facilitates the development of the Children’s Garden in that area, and WHEREAS, the site is served by public transit during the summer months, and WHEREAS, the Ithaca Children's Garden has strong organizational and community support, and WHEREAS, the Ithaca Children’s Garden has offered to make improvements to the area in Cass Park that they wish to lease in lieu of lease payments, WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, by resolution dated September 6, 2000, gave conceptual approval for locating the Children’s Garden in the southern end of Cass Park, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Common Council does hereby request that Senator James Seward and Assemblyman Martin Luster introduce legislation in the New York State Senate and Assembly respectively, authorizing the City of Ithaca to enter into a long term lease with the Ithaca Children’s Garden for a site at May 2, 2001 31 the southern end of Cass Park. Carried Unanimously 17.3 (a) CDBG Program Amendment to Fund Phase I of the State Theatre Restoration Project - Declaration of Lead Agency By: Alderperson Farrell, Seconded by: Alderperson Manos WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176.6 of the City Code require that a lead agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law, 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, and WHEREAS, the proposed plan adoption is an Unlisted Action pursuant to the City of Ithaca Environmental Review Ordinance which requires review under the City's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Common Council for the City of Ithaca does hereby declare itself lead agency for the environmental review for the proposed CDBG program amendment to provide funding for Phase I of the State Theatre restoration project being undertaken by Historic Ithaca, Inc. Carried Unanimously 17.3 (b) CDBG Program Amendment to Fund Phase I of the State Theatre Restoration Project - Determination of Environmental Significance By: Alderperson Farrell, Seconded by: Alderperson Pryor WHEREAS, Historic Ithaca, Inc. (HI) is undertaking a two phase project to restore the State Theatre located at 117 W. State Street, and WHEREAS, Phase I restoration focuses on basic stabilization and code compliance work necessary to reopen the theatre is estimated to cost $1.3 million, and WHEREAS, HI requested funding from the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) to fill a projected financial gap to complete Phase I restoration of the State Theatre, and WHEREAS, at their 1/23/01 meeting, the IURA approved funding for Historic Ithaca, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $320,000 for phase I of the State Theatre restoration project, and WHEREAS, the IURA recommended that such funding shall derive from the following sources: 1. FY 1998 Small Cities CDBG, activity 1.1, W. State Street Commercial Loan Program (approximately $280,000), and 2. Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) repayments (approximately $40,000), and May 2, 2001 32 WHEREAS, use of CDBG funds for the State Theatre restoration project requires approval by the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development of program amendment, and WHEREAS, at the March 7, 2001 meeting, the Common Council authorized submission of a request to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for a program amendment to the 1998 CDBG award to provide up to $282,000 of funds from the W. State Street Commercial Loan Program (Activity 1.1) to a Community-Based Development Organization (CBDO) to fund the Phase I State Theatre Restoration project on behalf of the City as a neighborhood revitalization and community economic development activity in a low/mod income neighborhood in accordance with CFR 24 §570.204, and WHEREAS, the proposed action is classified as an unlisted action under the City Environmental Quality Review Act [CEQR Sec. 176- 12], and WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), 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 Environmental Assessment Form dated April 2, 2001, 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 17.4 An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map Established Pursuant to Chapter 325 Entitled "Zoning" of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code -- Call for Public Hearing By: Alderperson Farrell, Seconded by: Alderperson Pryor RESOLVED, That Ordinance ___-___ entitled “An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map, Section 325-5 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code” is hereby introduced before the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, New York, and be it further RESOLVED, That Common Council shall hold a public hearing in the matter of the adoption of the aforesaid ordinance in the Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street, in the City of Ithaca, New York, on Wednesday, June 6, 2001, 7:00 p.m., and be it further RESOLVED, That the City Clerk shall give notice of such public hearing by the publication of a notice in the official newspaper specifying the time when and the place where such public hearing will be held, and in general terms describing the proposed ordinance. This notice shall be published once at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, and be it further May 2, 2001 33 RESOLVED, That the City Clerk shall transmit forthwith to the Tompkins County Planning Board and to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board true and exact copies of the proposed zoning ordinance for their reports thereon. The ordinance to be considered shall be as follows: ORDINANCE NO. -- An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map, Section 325-5 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code. BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, New York, as follows: Section 1. The City of Ithaca Municipal Code, Section 325-5 entitled "Zoning Map" is hereby amended to add the following: "Section 325-5. Zoning Map. That an area generally bounded by the western boundary of Tax Parcel 83-6-2 and extending northward along the rear lot lines of properties facing on Linden Avenue to the northern boundary of Tax Parcel 67-2-6, then easterly across Linden Avenue and along the northern boundary of Tax Parcel 67-3-2 to the eastern boundary of said parcel, then southward along that boundary and the rear lot lines of properties facing on Linden Avenue to the southern boundary of Tax Parcel 84-1-1, then across Mitchell Street to the beginning, is reclassified from the R-2b and R-3b districts to the R-1b district. (LOWER END OF LINDEN) That an area generally bounded by the southern boundaries of Tax Parcels 67-2-5 and 67-3-23, extending along the rear lot lines of properties facing Linden Avenue to Bool Street on the west side of Linden Avenue and, on the eastern side of Linden Street to the northern boundary of Tax Parcel 67-3-28, is reclassified from the R-3b district to the R-2b district. (LINDEN BUFFER) That the following Tax Parcels are reclassified from the R- 2b district to the R-1b district, 68-7-9, 68-7-10, 68-7-11, 68-8- 1, 68-8-2, 68-8-3, and 68-8-4. (ORCHARD PLACE) That the following Tax Parcels are reclassified from the R- 3a district to the R2-b district, 68-7-1, 68-7-2, 68-7-3, 68-7-4, 68-7-5, 68-7-6, 68-7-7, 68-7-8, 68-7-12, and 68-7-13. (NORTH OF ORCHARD PLACE TO COOK ST) Motion to amend By: Alderperson Blumenthal, Seconded by: Alderperson Farrell That Tax Parcels 67-4-1, 67-4-3, 67-4-9, and 67-4-2 are reclassified from the R-2a district to the R-1b district. (BRYANT TRIANGLE) Carried Unanimously That the following Tax Parcels are reclassified from the B- 2a district to the B2-d district, 63-1-5, 63-1-6, 63-8-1, 63-8- 22, 63-8-23, 63-8-24, 63-10-3, 63-10-4, 63-10-5. (WILLIAMS & STEWART) Motion to amend By: Alderperson Glasstetter, By: That the following Tax Parcels are reclassified from the {B- 2b} district to the B-2d district, 63-8-11, 63-8-12, 63-8-13, and 63-8-14. (400 BLOCK WEST SIDE OF EDDY ST) May 2, 2001 34 Motion failed for lack of second Section 2. Effective Date This Ordinance shall take effect immediately in accordance with law upon publication of a notice as provided in the Ithaca City Charter. Alderperson Vaughan as someone who represents citizens in areas that are largely concerned with this, she thinks this is an excellent piece of work and she would like to thank the group that worked on it. Alderperson Glasstetter stated that he was unable to be here for the committee discussion about this. He would just like to briefly get some explanation about the connection between the two very different changes here. The more residential one and what’s going on on Stewart Avenue and Williams Street. Just want to figure out the rationale there. He doesn’t understand the connection. He understands what ‘s going on in the other area, but taking the four story buildings on Eddy Street and then the basically three stories down on Stewart Avenue, and reducing those area’s maximum building heights from six to four. He’s just trying to figure out what the incentive is. Especially down on Stewart Avenue where you’re much further down on the hill. It doesn’t seem to me like there would be a radical kind of impact there. He could understand more on top of the hill on Eddy Street. He doesn’t see the rationale at this point, it just seems like there are some rather unattractive buildings there that are serving a purpose and he doesn’t see why we would put ourselves in the way of progress in those areas. Alderperson Blumenthal stated that there’s progress and then there’s progress. She’s not sure she followed all of the questions, but the is the question about Stewart Avenue? Both of those are within these four districts for one thing. The Eddy Street buildings are in the historic district and the Stewart Avenue buildings are in the historic district and so the building height. There is a 70’ allowable on Stewart Avenue which she thinks the committee worked on this which she was a part of felt that that was not in keeping with the neighborhood character of that east hill area and the same thing for the Eddy Street. Alderperson Glasstetter doesn’t understand why? We don’t have the choice of saying what is going to go there, but we do have the choice of providing incentives or not allowing certain opportunities to exist. Alderperson Blumenthal stated that if we had 70’ buildings on Stewart Avenue, there would be a real anomaly given the residential character of the residential neighborhood. Those area seen as provisions for local services with mixed commerical buildings. That doesn’t prevent those buildings from changing in the future, it doesn’t stop anything. It just provides the zoning envelope for something to happen there. May 2, 2001 35 Alderperson Glasstetter questioned about what about Eddy Street though. Alderperson Blumenthal stated that those are in the historic district and same holds true. Alderperson Glasstetter asked where the historic district was on Eddy Street. Alderperson Blumenthal stated that he was calling into question the whole East Hill Historic District. She doesn’t have the boundaries with her. Alderperson Farrell expressed her thanks to Pat Pryor for chairing the client committee that worked on this. 17.5 (a) 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 B-5, B-2a (Business), I-1 (Industrial) and MH-1 (Mobile Home) as applicable to the Southwest District (SW-1/SW-2/SW-3 WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is proposing a zoning amendment which would create a new zone to be know as the Southwest District, SW, and WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the preparation of a Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF), and WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type I action under the City Environmental Quality Review Act (CEQR Sec. 176-12B), and WHEREAS, Pursuant to § 239 –l and –m of the New York State General Municipal Law, the Tompkins County Department of Planning has reviewed and commented on the proposed rezoning, and WHEREAS, The Conservation Advisory Council for the City of Ithaca (CAC) has reviewed and commented on the proposed rezoning, and WHEREAS, on April 4, 2001 Common Council adopted the Southwest Area Land Use Plan which included rezoning certain areas of the City from B-5, B-2a (Business), I-1 (Industrial) and MH-1 (Mobile Home) as applicable to the Southwest District (SW-1/SW- 2/SW-3, and WHEREAS, the Common Council for the City of Ithaca, acting as Lead Agency, has reviewed the LEAF Part I and Part II, dated July 17, 2000, and Part III dated July 17, 2000, revised April 26, 2001, for the Southwest Zoning District, submitted by the applicant, and prepared by City of Ithaca Planning Staff, comments prepared by the Tompkins County Department of Planning and the City of Ithaca Environmental Advisory Council, and supplemental information, and has determined that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the environment; now, therefore, be it May 2, 2001 36 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 Long Environmental Assessment Form Parts I, II, and III, 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. 17.5 (b) DRAFT – January 10, 2001 (Revised 3/12/01) (Revised March 14, 2001) (Revised March 28, 2001) (Revised April 9, 2001) (Revised April 26, 2001) ORDINANCE NO. ________ AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ITHACA, CHAPTER 325, ENTITLED "ZONING" TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN AREAS OF THE CITY OF ITHACA AND TO ESTABLISH APPROPRIATE DISTRICT REGULATIONS. BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by Common Council of the City of Ithaca that Chapter 325, Section 325-4 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca be amended to create a new zoning district to be known as the Southwest District (SW-1/SW-2/SW-3). Section 1. Declaration of the Legislative Findings and Purpose The Common Council finds that this Ordinance: 1. Will support the goals set forth in the Southwest Area Land Use Plan. 2. Will ensure development in this area of the City creating an urban pattern. 3. Will reinforce the Design Guidelines for the Southwest Area, Meadow Street, and Elmira Road Corridor. 4. Will provide opportunities for large-scale development currently lacking in other parts of the City. 5. Will restrict the number of small stores allowed in the Southwest Area that could potentially limit the amount of land available for large-scale development. 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 area from B-5, B-2a (Business), I-1 (Industrial) and MH-1 (Mobile Home) as applicable to the Southwest District (SW-1/SW-2/SW-3), portions of which are shown on the attached map. May 2, 2001 37 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 SW District and Sub-Districts as follows: Permitted Primary Uses: SW-1: 1. Any use permitted in B-5 except offices as a primary use, (with the exception of medical and dental, or unless the office is a minimum of 25,000 square feet with a single tenant), motor vehicle sales and service, gasoline stations as a primary use, and redemption centers. 2. Light industrial and manufacturing; wholesaling, warehousing, storage and handling of bulk goods, lumberyards, printing, heating, plumbing, welding, and air conditioning. 3. Recreational or cultural facility such as park, playground, and museums. SW-2: 1. Any use permitted in B-5. 2. Light industrial and manufacturing; wholesaling, warehousing, storage and handling of bulk goods, lumberyards, printing, heating, plumbing, welding, and air conditioning. 3. Recreational or cultural facility such as park, playground, and museums. SW-3: Same as SW -1 Permitted Accessory Uses: SW-1: Any accessory use permitted in B-5, except gasoline filling stations and redemption centers. SW-2: Any accessory use permitted in B-5 SW-3: Same as SW - 1 Off-Street Parking Requirements: SW-1: Same as B-5 SW-2: Same as SW-1 SW-3: Same as SW-2 Off-Street Loading Requirements: SW-1: Same as B-5 SW-2: Same as SW-1 SW-3: Same as SW-2 Minimum Lot Size: SW-1: 1. Area in Square Feet - 10,000 2. Width in Feet at Street Line - 40 ft. SW-2: Same as B-5 2. Width in Feet at Street Line – Same as SW-1 SW-3: Same as SW-2 Maximum Building Heights: SW-1: 1. Number of Stories - 5 2. Height in Feet - 60 SW-2: Same as SW-1 May 2, 2001 38 SW-3: 1. Number of Stories – 2 2. Height in Feet – 40 Maximum percent lot coverage by buildings: SW-1: Maximum 60% SW-2: Same as SW-1 SW-3: Same as SW-2 Subject to further provisions of § 325-30. Yard Dimensions: SW-1: 1. Front Yard - maximum 30 feet from curb1 2. Side Yards - none required 3. Rear Yard - 15% or 20 feet, whichever is less SW-2: 1. Front Yard - minimum 15; maximum 34 feet from curb. 2. Side Yard – Same as SW-1. 3. Rear Yard – Same as SW-1. SW-3: Same as SW-2. Subject to further provisions of § 325-30. Minimum height of building: SW-1: None. SW-2: Same as SW-1 SW-3: Same as SW-2 Minimum store size: SW-1: 5000 square feet SW-2: None SW-3: Same as SW-1 Section 4. Chapter 325, Article V of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca entitled "Supplementary Regulations" is hereby amended to add a new section to be known as Section 325- 30 Southwest District to read as follows: A. General Note. Any and all development projects within the SW-1 district and sub-district SW-2 and SW-3 shall be subject to the guidelines set forth in the Design Guidelines for the Southwest Area, Meadow Street, and Elmira Road Corridor. The design guidelines shall be implemented by the Planning Board during the Site Plan Review (S.P.R.) process. No building permits shall be issued until the Planning and Development Board has granted final site plan approval and all conditions of site plan approval have been met. B. Building Setback. SW-1: A minimum of sixty percent (60%) of a lot's street frontage must be occupied by a building or buildings. The building or buildings, which occupy the front yard, may not be setback more than 30 feet from the curb. The Planning Board may allow a portion, not to exceed a third of the 1 General Notes: 10. All columns established by this section are subject to the supplementary regulation stated in Article V of this ordinance. (Please see Chapter 325, Article V Supplemental Regulations, Section 325-30 Building Setback.) May 2, 2001 39 required 60% building frontage to be occupied by an integrated architectural wall. SW-2: A minimum of 35% of a lot’s street frontage must be occupied by a building or buildings. The building or buildings, which occupy the front yard, may not be setback more than 34 feet from the curb. The Planning Board may allow a portion, not to exceed a third of the required 35% building frontage to be occupied by an integrated architectural wall. SW-3: Same as SW-2 C. Minimum Store Size. SW-1: Retail store size must be a minimum of 5,000 square feet with the exception of individual freestanding structures having only one tenant, food establishments, banks, and light industrial uses. A freestanding structure is considered one that has a minimum of fifty (50) feet of separation from any other building. For buildings with multiple tenants, each retail space must be at least 5000 square feet except that in any one building, there may be one tenant with square footage of less than 5,000 square feet. SW-2: None SW-3: Same as SW-1 Section 5. The City of Planning and Development Board, the City Clerk and the Planning Department shall amend the zoning map and district regulations chart in accordance with the amendments made herewith. Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter. 17.6 (a) Adoption of the Southwest Natural Area Master Plan as Parat of the City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan – Declaration of Lead Agency By: Alderperson Farrell, Seconded by: Alderperson Manos WHEREAS: State Law and Section 176.6 of the City Code require that a lead agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law, 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, and WHEREAS: the proposed plan adoption is a Type I Action pursuant to the City of Ithaca Environmental Review Ordinance which requires review under the City's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, now therefore be it RESOLVED: that the Common Council for the City of Ithaca does hereby declare itself lead agency for the environmental review for the proposed adoption of the Southwest Natural Area Master Plan. May 2, 2001 40 Alderperson Farrell expressed her thanks to Pat Pryor for chairing the client committee that worked on this. Carried Unanimously (Spielholz absent from vote) (b) Adoption of the Southwest Natural Area Master Plan as Part of the City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan – Declaration of No Environmental Significance By: Alderperson Farrell, Seconded by: Alderperson Pryor Whereas, the City of Ithaca Common Council has reviewed the proposed final draft of the Southwest Natural Area Master Plan, City of Ithaca, dated September 12, 2000, prepared by Trowbridge and Wolf Landscape Architects and Planners, and Whereas, appropriate environmental review for the adoption of the Southwest Natural Area Master Plan has been conducted including the preparation of a Long Environmental Assessment Form Parts 1 and 2, and Whereas, the action necessary to adopt the Southwest Natural Area Master Plan is a Type I Action under both the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (CEQRO) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA); and a Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF) including Parts I, II, and III has been completed and reviewed by appropriate City staff and agencies, and Whereas, the Tompkins County Department of Planning, the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, and the Natural Areas Commission have all commented on the plan, and recommended a negative declaration of environmental impacts, and Whereas, Common Council of the City of Ithaca, acting as lead Agency, has reviewed the LEAF Parts 1 and 2 dated December 9, 2000 and supplemental information, and has determined that the adoption of the proposed plan will not have a significant effect o 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 Long Environmental Assessment Form Parts I, II, and III, and be it further Resolved, that this Common Council, as lead agency, hereby determines that the proposed action will not have significant environmental impacts and that a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact be issued, and further Resolved, that this resolution constitutes notice of this Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance 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 (Glasstetter absent from vote) May 2, 2001 41 (c) Adoption of the Southwest Natural Area Master Plan as a Part of the City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan By: Alderperson Farrell, Seconded by: Alderperson Pryor WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council has reviewed the proposed final draft of the Southwest Natural Area Master Plan, City of Ithaca, dated September 12, 2000, prepared by Trowbridge and Wolf Landscape Architects and Planners, and WHEREAS, key proposals and components of the plan include:  a detailed site inventory and analysis  vegetation management  site access and circulation  programming  stormwater management WHEREAS, members of Common Council recognizes that the proposed Southwest Natural Area Master Plan is the product of an extensive process that involved public participation including public review and comments of proposals developed by a client committee, a consultant, and Planning Department staff, and WHEREAS, members of Common Council also recognize that the Southwest Natural Area Master Plan includes sufficient flexibility for future decision-makers to allow for the implementation of items proposed in the plan, and, WHEREAS, the Southwest Natural Area Master Plan and supplemental information has been reviewed by the Tompkins County Planning Department Pursuant to §239-l–m of the New York State General Municipal Law, which requires all actions within 500 feet of a county or state facility, including county and state highways, be reviewed by the County Planning Department, and has also been reviewed by the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, and WHEREAS, the Tompkins County Planning Department has had the requisite 30 days to review and comment on the Southwest Natural Area Master Plan, and WHEREAS, the required public hearings have been held for the adoption of the Plan on February 7, 2001 and on April 4, 2001, and WHEREAS, concerns have been raised regarding certain activities proposed for the Southwest Natural Area, specifically picnicking, and WHEREAS, it s recommended that all references t picnic sites and picnicking be removed from the recommendations in the Southwest Natural Area Master Plan and WHEREAS, Common Council has considered comments from the Tompkins County Planning Department, the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, the City of Ithaca Natural Area Commission and recommendations made by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, dated April 30, 2001, attached to this resolution and May 2, 2001 42 RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Common Council hereby adopts the September 12, 2000 Southwest Natural Area Master Plan as part of the City of Ithaca’s Comprehensive Plan. Carried Unanimously 17.7 (a) An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 325 Entitled “Zoning” of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code Regarding Minor and Non- Substantive Changes to the Zoning Ordinance – Declaration of Lead Agency By: Alderperson Farrell, Seconded by: Alderperson Hershey WHEREAS: State Law and Section 176.6 of the City Code require that a lead agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law, 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, and WHEREAS: the proposed zoning amendment is a Type I Action pursuant to the City of Ithaca Environmental Review Ordinance which requires review under the City's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, now therefore be it RESOLVED: that the Common Council for the City of Ithaca does hereby declare itself lead agency for the environmental review for the proposed amendments to the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, Chapter 120, and Section 325-45 of Chapter 325 entitled “Zoning”. Carried Unanimously (b) An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 325 Entitled “Zoning” of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code Regarding Minor and Non-Substantive Changes to the Zoning Ordinance – Declaration of No Environmental Significance By: Alderperson Farrell, Seconded by: Alderperson Hershey WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is proposing a zoning amendment whereby Chapter 120 of the Code of the City of Ithaca, entitled “Zoning Amendments Procedure” shall be amended and transferred to Chapter 325 of the Code of the City of Ithaca, entitled “Zoning” and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is also proposing to amend Section 325-45 of chapter 325 of the Code of the City of Ithaca, entitled ‘Zoning”, and WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the preparation of a Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF), and WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type I 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 LEAF Part I, and Part II, prepared by City of Ithaca Planning Staff, comments prepared by the City May 2, 2001 43 of Ithaca Environmental Advisory Council, 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 Long Environmental Assessment Form Parts I, and II, 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 Alderperson Blumenthal stated that she would like to propose a small change in language. There is some concern at the Planning Board about minor and non-substantive changes. They had actually requested that we send them all changes. We have a memorandum from them and so in an attempt to allay some of their concerns, it would defeat the purpose if we did start sending them back and she supports this effort. She has actually worked with the City Attorney on this a bit. She would consider under what is now she’ll just call it the second page. Mayor Cohen interrupted to say that we’re on b right now which is the Neg. Dec. So if you could save your comments. (c) An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 325 Entitled “Zoning” of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code Regarding Minor and Non-Substantive Changes to the Zoning Ordinance By: Alderperson Farrell; Seconded by Alderperson Blumenthal Discussion by Alderperson Blumenthal, under 1 on the second page “minor and non-substantive” changes. There was a concern that revision. In particular the number. If we could add, alterations that do not modify existing zoning concepts and then add content or substance. There is a concern that the numbers could be changed someway. It just clarifies it. ORDINANCE NO. 01 – BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows: Section 1. Chapter 120 of the Code of the City of Ithaca, entitled “Zoning Amendments Procedure” shall be amended and transferred to Chapter 325 of the Code of the City of Ithaca, entitled “Zoning.” May 2, 2001 44 Section 2. Section 325-45 of Chapter 325 of the Code of the City of Ithaca, entitled “Zoning,” shall be amended as follows: § 325-45. Amendment procedure outlined. A. Compliance with General City Law. The Common Council may from time to time, on its own motion, on petition or on recommendation of the City Planning and Development Board or the Department of Planning and Development, amend, supplement or repeal the regulations and provisions of this chapter after public notice and hearing as required by the General City Law. B. Referral to City Planning Board. Every such proposed amendment or change, except for those of a minor or non- substantive nature, whether initiated by the Common Council or by petition, shall be referred to the City Planning and Development Board for report thereon before the public hearing hereinafter provided for. Section 3. A new subsection “C” shall be added to section 325-45 consisting of the former Chapter 120, as amended, and the remaining subsections renumbered as appropriate: C. [Chapter 120,] ZONING AMENDMENTS PROCEDURE [§ 120-]1. Procedural guide adopted. The guide for Zoning Ordinance amendments dated October 3, 1990, as amended, is hereby adopted by the Common Council to serve as a procedural guide for the consideration of proposed amendments to Chapter 325, Zoning. [§ 120-]2. Construal of provisions. [A] a. The adoption of this guide shall not in any way substitute for or obviate the need for strict compliance with the procedural requirements for Zoning Ordinance amendments contained in state or local laws. [B] b. The adoption of this guide shall not constitute a new set of binding procedural requirements for the amendment of Chapter 325, Zoning, and failure to follow the procedural suggestions in this guide shall not cause a defect in the approval of a Zoning Ordinance amendment, provided that all legal requirements are met. [§ 120-]3. Guide for amendments. [A] a. This guide for the review of Zoning Ordinance amendments is designed to accommodate three different types of situations. The procedure used would depend on the complexity of the zoning amendment being considered. The Planning [and Economic Development] Committee would determine which procedure is appropriate. The steps May 2, 2001 45 outlined are intended as a guide, not as rigid requirements. [B] b. The three different procedures are as follows: Motion to amend By: Alderperson Blumenthal, Seconded by: Alderperson Farrell (1) Minor and non-substantive changes or amendments (minor word, number, placement, or other similar changes, modifications, or alterations that do not modify existing zoning concepts. – add content or substance) Alderperson Blumenthal withdrew her request to amend the above. (a) The Planning and [Economic] Development [Department] staff or other interested parties provide an explanatory memorandum to the Planning [and Economic Development] Committee. This explanatory memo will set forth the current zoning language and the proposed change of a minor or non-substantive nature. The memo should also propose how to correct the unclear provision (i.e., how to correct a typographical error, numbering change, or better placement within the Zoning Code Chapter 325). If the Planning [and Economic Development] Committee desires additional information, the information shall be provided. (b) Referral to Common Council for action: the Planning [and Economic Development] Committee shall forward the proposed changes, with its endorsement, to Common Council; Common Council votes on the proposed amendments. (c) The procedures in the remaining subsections of this part shall not apply to minor and non-substantive changes or amendments. Section 4. Chapter 120-3(B)(i) shall be deleted in its entirety, as follows. [(1) Expedited Zoning Ordinance amendment (minor word or number change which only modifies the existing zoning concept). (a) Referral. The Planning and Development Board or the Common Council refers a zoning issue to the Planning [and Development] Committee. Changes may also be undertaken by the Planning [and Development] Committee without referral. (b) Concept memo. The Planning [and Development] Committee directs the Planning and Development staff to draft a memorandum explaining the concept of the proposed zoning change. The memorandum is referred to the Planning and Development Board for review and comment. If, in the opinion of the Planning [and Development] Committee, the concept does not require drafting of a concept memorandum, May 2, 2001 46 the proposed concept may be referred orally to the Planning and Development Board by the liaison to the Board. (c) Comments received. Comments on the proposed change are brought back to the Planning [and Development] Committee through an oral report from the liaison. Comments may also be referred in writing. The Planning [and Development] Committee may advance the proposed amendment, modify it, request more information or terminate consideration. The Planning [and Development] Committee may request that the Planning and Development Board take a lead role in drafting a zoning amendment. (d) Amendment first draft. The Planning [and Development] Committee directs the Planning and Development staff in conjunction with the City Attorney to draft the proposed change. Environmental review is initiated. If possible, the Planning [and Development] Committee Chairperson reviews the draft. The draft, edited by the Chairperson, is circulated to the Attorney, the Building Commissioner, the Engineering Department, the Conservation Advisory Council and the Planning and Development Board. (e) Referral to the committee of the whole (or a combined meeting of the affected committees or boards). The Planning [and Development] Committee receives comments on the draft and directs the Planning and Development staff to make appropriate modifications to the amendment. The modified amendment is referred by the Planning [and Development] Committee to the committee of the whole (or a combined meeting of the affected committees or boards). The committee of the whole refers the amended draft to the Common Council. (f) Public hearing. The Common Council calls for a public hearing and directs that the change be advertised. (g) Council actions. The Common Council votes on the proposed amendment.] (2) Complex Zoning Ordinance amendments (extensive changes to the rules for a zoning district, a map change or similar major modification to the Zoning Ordinance). (a) Referral. Planning and [Economic] Development staff, t[T]he Planning and [Economic] Development Board or the Common Council refers a zoning issue to the Planning [and Economic Development] Committee. Changes may also be undertaken by the Planning [and Economic Development] Committee without referral. (b) Concept memo. The Planning [and Economic Development] Committee directs the Planning and [Economic] Development staff to draft a memorandum explaining the concept of the proposed zoning change. The memorandum is referred to the Planning and Development Board, the Conservation Advisory Council, the City Attorney, the Building May 2, 2001 47 Commissioner, the City Engineer, [and] the Director of Planning and [Economic] Development, and other relevant boards, commissions, or City departments, for review and comment. (c) Comments received. The Planning and [Economic] Development Department receives and compiles written comments for consideration by the Planning [and Economic Development] Committee. [Written comments are preferred.] The Planning [and Economic Development] Committee may advance the proposed amendment, modify it, request more information or terminate consideration. The Planning [and Economic Development] Committee may request that the Planning and Development Board take a lead role in drafting a zoning amendment. (d) Amendment first draft. The Planning [and Economic Development] Committee directs the Planning and [Economic] Development staff in conjunction with the City Attorney to draft the proposed change. Environmental review is initiated. If possible, the Planning [and Economic Development] Committee Chairperson reviews the draft. The draft, edited by the Chairperson, is circulated to the Attorney, the Building Commissioner, the Engineering Department, the Conservation Advisory Council, [and] the Planning and [Economic] Development Board, and other relevant boards, commissions, or City departments. (e) Referral to the Common Council or to the committee of the whole (or a combined meeting of the affected committees or boards). The Planning [and Economic Development] Committee receives comments on the draft and directs the Planning and [Economic] Development staff to make appropriate modifications to the amendment. The modified amendment is referred by the Planning [and Economic Development] Committee to the Common Council, the committee of the whole (or a combined meeting of the affected committees or boards). If the amendment is referred to the latter two groups, t[T]he committee of the whole will refer[s] the amended draft to the Common Council. (f) Public hearing. The proposed change shall be advertised and a public hearing shall be held. [The Common Council or the Planning [and Economic Development] Committee or the Planning and Development Board arranges [calls] for a public hearing and directs that the change be advertised.] (g) Council action. The Common Council votes on the proposed amendment. May 2, 2001 48 (3) Extensive Zoning Ordinance amendments (development of a new zoning district or ordinance section or extensive map changes). The procedure shall be the same as in Subsection [B(2)] C(2) above, except that the draft amendments may be referred back to the various boards and committees for comments. Several drafts of the ordinance will likely need to be prepared. [C.] D. [The Common Council, or the Planning [and Economic Development] Committee, or the Planning and Development Board by resolution, shall fix] T[t]he time and place of a public hearing on the proposed amendment shall be fixed and [cause] notice shall [to] be given by publishing a notice at least 15 days prior to the date of the public hearing in the official newspaper of the City of Ithaca. [D.] E. Compliance with General Municipal Law. In amending this chapter, the Common Council shall, before taking final action thereon, comply with General Municipal Law § 239-l and 239-m. [E.] F. Conduct of public hearing. The public hearing shall be held by the Common Council [or the Planning [and Economic Development] Committee or the Planning and Development Board] in accordance with its own rules and General City Law § 83. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of notice as provided in the Ithaca City Charter. Carries Unanimously 17.8 A Local Law to Amend Chapter 4 Entitled “Administration of Government” of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code Regarding the Duties of the Planning and Development Board By: Alderperson Farrell, Seconded by: Alderperson Hershey Local Law -2001 BE IT ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows: Section 1. Chapter 4 Entitled “Administration of Government”, Article V, Section 4-23 Entitled “Planning and Development Board” is hereby amended as follows: Section 4-23, B1(c) Advising the Common Council regarding the preparation and revision of the city ordinances related to planning, zoning, site plan review, signs, mobile home parks, subdivisions, historic landmarks and/or districts, land use and related subjects properly within its jurisdiction (with the exception of minor and non-substantive changes or amendments as set forth in Section 325-45 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code). Section 2. Effective Date. May 2, 2001 49 This Local Law shall take effect immediately in accordance with law upon filing with the Secretary of State. Carried Unanimously May 2, 2001 50 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: 18.1 SUPPORT OF THE 2000-2010: DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY" By: Mayor Cohen, Seconded by: Alderperson Pryor WHEREAS, Downtown is the physical and emotional center of the greater Ithaca region, and WHEREAS, Downtown is an urban, multi-use, multi-dimensional, organically-built environment that is fundamentally different and distinct from other commercial centers and neighborhoods, and WHEREAS, Downtown is a geographic area shared by all members of the greater Ithaca community, a place that belongs to us all, and WHEREAS, Downtown reflects the identity of the entire Ithaca community, and WHEREAS, Downtown should be a place where residents want to visit regularly, and tourists want to explore, and WHEREAS, Downtown is a cherished community asset that should be presented and enhanced, and WHEREAS, The vitality of downtown is important to us all, and WHEREAS, The community needs long term strategy to guide the allocation of staff and financial resources to downtown, and WHEREAS, A development strategy will provide the community with a blueprint for future growth and revitalization activity, now therefore be it RESOLVED, The Ithaca Common Council supports and endorses the 2000-2010 Downtown Development Strategy and will work to use it as a tool for future downtown growth and revitalization decision-making. Carried Unanimously May 2, 2001 51 HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE: 19.1 DPW-Request to Hire Above Minimum Salary – Resolution By: Alderperson Manos, Seconded by: Alderperson Farrell WHEREAS, the Department of Public Works TCAT operation has four positions to fill, and WHEREAS, TCAT has had difficulty hiring individuals for the City positions because comparable Cornell University TCAT positions are offered at a significantly higher salary, and WHEREAS, the starting salary for the City TCAT Bus Drivers is $9.28/hour since 1994 and the new hire rate for Cornell University TCAT Bus Drivers is $11.20/hour; and WHEREAS, the CSEA DPW unit contract provides for hiring at a rate above the minimum in view of special circumstances or scarcity of qualified employees upon approval by Common Council, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Common Council hereby grants approval to fill the four current Bus Driver vacancies at a salary rate of $10.02, $.74 above the contract rate. Carried Unanimously 19.2 Youth Bureau – Request to Create a Temporary Position - Resolution By: Alderperson Manos, Seconded by Alderperson Sams Whereas, The current Cass Park Recreation Supervisor has announced her resignation effective August 10, 2001, and Whereas, This position has a major responsibility for managing the aquatics program, ice rink scheduling and concessions, and Whereas, In order to ensure uninterrupted services and a smooth transition the Youth Bureau is requesting the opportunity to overlap the newly hired Recreation Supervisor with the current Recreation Supervisor to allow training for three weeks (from July 23, 2001 – August 10, 2001), now therefore be it Resolved, That Common Council authorizes the creation of a temporary position for three weeks at a cost of $1,662 for which $1,294 is budgeted and $368 will be transferred from Cass Park Account A7310-5120-01513 (Cass Park Pool hourly part-time) to the 110 line. Carried Unanimously 19.3 Resolution for settlement agreement between City of Ithaca and Richard Eckstrom By Alderperson Manos: Seconded by Alderperson Hershey RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds to satisfy the Settlement Agreement to be entered into between the City of Ithaca and Richard Eckstrom, wherein all pending and asserted claims, as of the effective date of the Settlement Agreement, against the City of Ithaca, its Common May 2, 2001 52 Council, as a whole and individually, its Mayor, and any other employee or agent, are settled, resolved, and released by Richard Eckstrom, in exchange for: The payment to Richard Eckstrom of Three Hundred Seventy Five Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($375,000) to be paid out in twenty (20) even installments over the next five (5) years Payment to True, Walsh & Miller, LLP, as counsel for Richard Eckstrom, the sum of One Hundred Sixty Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($160,000) Such monies to be derived from the following sources: One Hundred Twenty Five Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($125,000) from insurance funds to settle claims against the City The remainder to be derived from current and future budget appropriations. Carried Unanimously Alderperson Hershey stated that this was discussed extensively in Executive Session. What we do tonight is effectively carry out the budgetary aspects of the vote that we took in Executive Session already. I’ve thought a lot about this and with your permission, I’ve reduced a few of my thoughts to paper. The matter we propose to bring to closure tonight first came to the attention of many of us more than two years ago, at a meeting at what was then called the Community Issues Committee. How taken aback I was to see this room packed to the rafters that March night for what seemed to be a fairly mundane agenda. We soon understood why. Dozens of Ithaca’s African Americans had come with friends and sympathizers to protest what they said was the racially inspired eviction of a black owned barbershop on Cayuga Street on orders from the City. It was a serious charge demanding immediate action on at least two fronts. First, we had to determine how the shop could re-open, then we had to discover what had happened and why. To accomplish this second task we turned to the Tompkins County Human Rights Commission. It was clear from the Commission’s report of that July allegations of racism aside, that our building department was in chaos, with almost all of the men and women under his supervision convinced that the commissioner was ill suited to lead them or interpret City regulations. This was hardly an insurrection, members of the department had been encouraged to testify with assurances of confidentiality, instead they were identified by name and the document leaked to the press practically before the ink was dry. Premature exposure of such a deep-rooted dispute may have been a good story but it was also a damaging development. It eliminated any chance we might have had to air the issues internally with an eye toward mediation. Instead, the City Attorney and Human Resources Director were instructed to investigate, evaluate and report. Their findings, in my estimation, as true today as they were the day we first day we heard them late in the summer of 1999, placed the blame squarely with the Commissioner. Worse, as I saw it, we were now confronted with a second substantiate issue at least as troubling as the allegations of racism over the barbershop. We were told May 2, 2001 53 that our Commissioner had overruled members of his own staff and liberalized requirements for the conversion of a multi-unit residence in ways that they believed would jeopardize the lives of inhabitants in the event of a fire. Would you say that was a serious charge? In most organizations, managers of major departments serve at the pleasure of their employer or under renewable term contracts. They can be demoted or invited to resign if they act in less than best interest of the organization, providing that the disciplinary is not arbitrary, capricious or discriminatory. But, Ithaca’s executives seem almost immune from such accountability. As Judge Walter Relahan noted with apparent puzzlement when he finally ruled on the matter in November. In the wake of a 1997 referendum this City is not free to terminate a number of ranking officials, including the Building Commissioner, merely because of policy differences or a loss of confidence. More is now necessary. A termination requires the service of written charges, a formal hearing may be demanded, proof of misconduct or incompetence or both must be produced. To conduct that hearing and rule on the case Common Council reviewed the resumes of a half dozen experts in such matters. We settled on a attorney who seemed especially well suited to the task. He had acceptance of credentials and no discernable bias. I gather he conducted the hearing with great care, members of Common Council were advised to stay away so as not to prejudice our own reaction to the findings because in the event of a recommendation to terminate, we would have to make the ultimate determination, and we did; although it has turned out to penultimate. Why did we follow Mr. Crotty’s advice? And vote to terminate Mr. Eckstrom? Read his review of the facts. Crotty cited Eckstrom’s own account of the circumstances that lead him to recommend termination. It was Rick Eckstrom who acknowledged that he conducted back gentle conversations with a realtor. Threatening to act in a way that would deprive the barbershop landlord of tens of thousands of dollars of property value unless the shop was evicted. Even giving the man a deadline. Forget about the motivation, would you want our Building Commissioner to act that way under any circumstances? It was Rick Eckstrom who testified that he refused to ask the State for an independent opinion on the level of fire protection needed at Whiton House because he knew the State would side with his subordinates and he already decided otherwise. Eventually, the higher standard was required and I don’t know about you, but as the parent of a college age youngster, I think that alone could have been the pain and expense of what we have gone through here. I’m not happy about the expense, far from it. It is a price we pay for being a City, State and Nation of laws. Judge Relahan ruled that given the City’s peculiarly high standard for dismissal and the State’s very wide latitude of discretion afforded such officials as our Building Commissioner. Mr. Eckstrom was not incompetent in the legal sense of the word and thus should not have been dismissed. But even Judge Relahan suggested that it was impractical to have Mr. Eckstrom return to work and later rebuffed our efforts to find a way to do that without jeopardizing the employee’s who had spoken out. And so, as Judge Relahan broadly hinted we should in his decision, we are settling. I will vote aye on this resolution as well as with every other action taken with every twist of the case since that March night of 1999. I do so because I believe that it is in the best interests of the residents and the employees of the City of Ithaca. Thank you. May 2, 2001 54 Alderperson Pat Vaughan spoke that her first reaction to Mr. Eckstrom’s settlement demands was shock. Surely he had confused this employment controversy, profound though it might be, with winning the lottery. His first demand was for a million dollars. A sum vastly out of proportion to the circumstances. We urged our professional staff to work diligently toward a solution that would permit an honorable return to work. At the same time, we pursued discussions which explored what shade the settlement might take should we not be able to find common ground for future employment. Then we were informed that even if Mr. Eckstrom were returned to work, he was planning to sue the City in Federal Court, requiring the City to spend a very large amount of money to defend against this new suit. Though it might have been possible for us to prevail in the Federal case, we would be required to spend a great deal of money doing so and if we did not prevail, our exposure would be substantially greater than before. Probably in the millions of dollars. Though paying money to settle this case, was distasteful to us, we came to understand that not settling would put the City at risk of being required to pay Mr. Eckstrom extraordinary amounts of money, money which could be used far more productively to provide service for our citizens. Roads, Youth Programs, Planning, all of these basic services and more could be placed in jeopardy by this Federal suit and the astonishing sums claimed as damages. As chair of the Budget and Administration Committee, am I comfortable with the amount of this settlement? Only when I look at the probable consequences of not settling. Council and the professional staff did their collective best to limit what was paid and to obtain insurance reimbursement for as much as possible of the cost. After more than two years of controversy and months of haggling over the numbers, I believe that this settlement of the case is the best option for the City. Alderperson Spielholz spoke on behalf of our City employees in the Building Department. Their show of courage during these past two years, working under the most difficult conditions cannot be heralded enough. We are all paying a price for this human tragedy, but these are the men and women who continue to find a way to function under the close scrutiny of the public microscope. In the very beginning of this crisis, these City workers stepped forth to speak honestly when called upon by the Humans Rights Coalition. Their hope was to reveal, under individual anonymity, the chaos that had already existed in the City of Ithaca’s Building Department. They had no hidden agenda, there was no conspiracy, but the inquiry by the HRC had hurt nerve with individuals who found that coping with their everyday workplace lives had become more stressful. And there was no anonymity. When the HRC report was leaked out to the public, there were names for all to see. We do care about the welfare of our employees and have a responsibility to create a civil and functional workplace. Our workplace development task force survey highlighted the need for more attention to human resource issues and we, the Common Council, the City Attorney and the Human Resources Department were faced with the task of reinstating Mr. Eckstrom as the Building Commissioner as ordered by Judge Relahan. I do believe we tried to accommodate the judge’s wishes and simultaneously preserve the equanimity of our employees who feared for constant confrontation. We looked for honest solutions and for equitable remedies, we envisioned the possibilities that two building commissioners doing prescribed tasks could co-exist and that the City’s work could May 2, 2001 55 continue without further interruption. But it was not to be. This whole affair was a tragic experience for our entire community. We need to heal, we need to put this behind us. Alderperson Manos stated that this has truly been a long and difficult process for everyone. Common Council adhered to the procedures stipulated in Section 26.1 of the City code with regard to discipline and removal of selected officers. Objectivity and fairness were of utmost importance to us as we chose to appoint a hearing officer to make findings of fact and to recommend possible penalties. We selected a hearing officer with extensive experience in this type of hearing and whom we were assured would be impartial and non-biased in the performance of his duties. Council then chose to take on the responsibility as the final decision-maker in this matter. In time, Council’s decision to terminate was overturned and Judge Relahan ordered the City to return Mr. Eckstrom to his position as Building Commissioner or try to settle the matter. Council spent countless hours discussing the options: appeal, try to settle, or reinstate. Each of those options came with a high price tag. We realized again that we were in a no-win situation. With regard to reinstatement, we discussed again and again, what the overall impact would be on our most valuable resource, our employees. Clearly, the employees of the building department were and continue to be the most directly affected, but the impact has and would reach far beyond the building department. We knew that colleagues of Mr. Eckstrom as well the building department staff has also had to endure these last 20 months. In an attempt to comply with Judge Relahan’s decision to return Mr. Eckstrom to work, and in recognition of how difficult and unhealthy it would be for the building department and Mr. Eckstrom to just return him to work without a functional transitional plan, we created the second Building Commissioner position. In doing so, Common Council restored Mr. Eckstrom’s Commissioner responsibilities with the exception of direct supervision over the staff that had testified against him during the hearing. All along it had been our intent to protect the building department staff as well as Mr. Eckstrom. Because Judge Relahan disagreed with our belief that we had an obligation to protect the rights of the building department employees, in addition to Mr. Eckstrom’s rights, we felt that settling with Mr. Eckstrom was the only way to ensure that they would continue to work as admirably and efficiently as they had done over the course of the last 20 months. The Judge ordered Mr. Eckstrom reinstated as Building Commissioner, including previously assigned supervisory duties. We then began to what kind of settlement we could agree upon and were able to negotiate Mr. Eckstrom’s demands down to what you see in this resolution. We received much advice from our community and we thank you. We heard don’t appeal, appeal, don’t settle, settle, just bring him back, don’t bring him back, to one couple who e-mailed us asking us to “reinstate Mr. Eckstrom as long as he agrees not sue the City.” I want you to know that that was never even a possibility. Every option, except the one we were able to negotiate included more law suits against the City. We balanced the information before us, we thought things through carefully, we argued some, we agreed some and over and over again. And then we resolved this matter in the best way that we could under the circumstances. May 2, 2001 56 Alderperson Sams spoke that after all her colleagues said, she wants to say thank you for last two years of this, we’ve had some really rough times in executive session. She knows that she hasn’t been as cooperative as some thought she should be, but there has been some stress and she thinks that the public needs to know that Council did agonize long and hard over all this situation and had a hard decision to make. Actually, she has always been the one who has abstained or said no all the time with this, but tonight after revealing and going over it, it has been a lot of soul searching. She thinks that we have come to what is best for the staff and for what is best for this community. She is going to support this tonight, with some real hurt, but she’s going to go ahead and support it. Also, she thinks that is important to note to clear a staff member’s name and myself that it needs to be known that Mike Dickerson or myself did not leak any information to the press as it was said. The press had that information long before Council ever got the report. She thinks that it is important that that is cleared up and really understood. Mayor Cohen stated that given the gravity of the situation, he took the unusual step of actually writing down some of his thoughts down as well. There are so many things that he would like to talk about pertaining to this situation, but when he thought about it, he realized that doing so would end up sounding like he was trying to explain the situation away. So, instead, he will simply point out some specific things that trouble him. He thought that code enforcement was a fairly objective cut and dry process, he has learned how subjective it can be. At present, we simply do not have the organizational capacity to recognize and deal with all the problems that might exist within City government. While we have made important strides in this regard, we still have ground to cover. I am troubled by the disciplinary process itself. The way the Charter was changed in 1997 ties the hands of the City in cases when there are problems in the organization and actions need to be taken. Judge Relahan specifically pointed out this fact in his decision as Mr. Hershey just spoke about a minute ago. This should be addressed. As Paulette just spoke about, the City hired a hearing officer with impeccable credentials and whose objectivity could not be called into question, yet his decision was overturned. After 13 days of testimony, and many more months of reviewing the record, he made a very clear recommendation to terminate the employment of Rick Eckstrom. While we now know that his technical decision was flawed, what was it that this person saw in those hearings that so thoroughly convinced him that Rick Eckstrom should not get his job back? I am disheartened that to this day, some members of this community have not been able to objectively review the facts of this case. The improper leaking of the Human Rights Commission report caused an uproar and whatever action was taken after that, was looked upon in light of that first report. His actions were independent of that report as were the actions of Common Council. Until people can set aside their anger over what first happened, they will not be able to reasonably consider our actions. He is troubled by what this settlement decision might signal to some people. This is not a vindication of an innocent person. This is a damnation of a long and convoluted process. Were it not for the fact that this settlement is truly in the best interests of the City, he could not support it and he knows his colleagues could May 2, 2001 57 not either. He supports the settlement, but he is still sick about it. The charges he filed were based on administrative misconduct and incompetence. There are still questions of racial motivation to be decided. He was now presented with enough evidence to file sustainable disciplinary charges on these grounds. Our investigation was specifically limited by the City Charter to the previous twelve months from the data that the charges were filed. A broader body of evidence exists and still needs to be fully explored and I hope that both the NYS Attorney General and the NYS Human Rights Commission will now step in and investigate the situation. He wants to close his remarks by acknowledging the efforts of our staff and elected officials. The situation has been terribly straining on the staff of the building department, they stuck their necks out and testified on the wrong doings of their boss and they have lived under the shadow of this situation ever since. Despite the uncertainty and anxiety about what might happen, they not only continued to perform their jobs, but the building department has never operated more efficiently or effectively. His thanks go out to Phyllis and Mike and their entire staff for hanging in there and getting the job done. The offices of Human Resources, City Controller and City Attorney have put in countless hours on this as well. In particular, Norma and Schelley have worked with other City staff and with Common Council to keep things going and to find workable solutions. He is deeply grateful for the extra effort they put in to help bring us all through this. He acknowledges the efforts of this Common Council. From the outset, it would have been easier to walk away from this, but you understood that something had to be done to right a wrong. None of us ever expected what would happen next, but through it all you maintained your objectivity and your commitment to doing what was right. You’re to be commended for your dedication to the employees of this organization and to the people of this community. 20. BUDGET AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE: 20.1 Common Council – Approval of 2002 Guidelines for Community Service Funding By: Alderperson Vaughan, Seconded by: Alderperson Pryor WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca has in the past appropriated funds to agencies for cultural enrichment, economic promotion, and other purposes aside from human services, and WHEREAS, the Common Council intends that all such requests be subject to a standardized review process; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Budget and Administration Committee of Common Council be authorized to review all fiscal year 2002 requests for non-mandated city funding from private, non-profit agencies who have been granted IRS 501 status, or whose application for such status is pending, and that are not subject to Human Services Coalition review, and be it further RESOLVED, That the following requirements and criteria shall be applied to all such requests: Requirements All applications for 2002 funding must be submitted in writing to the City Controller by June 15, 2001. May 2, 2001 58 Each application must include a statement that explains how the activity proposed for City funding will benefit the social, cultural, economic, and/or environmental well being of city residents, in terms as specific as possible. Information presented should include the groups or individuals to be served, the number of people to benefit from the activity, and the duration of the benefit (long term or short term). A) Each application must include budgets for 2001 and 2002, financial reports from 1999 and 2000, and an enumeration of other funding sources. B) The application should also include a count of individuals served, by municipality, for prior years, and a report on any positive impacts and benefits of programs previously funded. C) The application must include a description of methods for measuring positive outcomes from funding requested for fiscal year 2002. Criteria and Evaluation Scoring The Committee shall assign points for the degree to which the proposed use of City funds meets each of the following criteria. If the applicant does not supply sufficient information for the Committee to make a judgment, the proposal shall receive zero points in each such case. These criteria and evaluation scores will be used by the Budget & Administration Committee as guidelines in evaluating requests for funding: 1. The proposed activity will benefit the social, cultural, economic and/or environmental well being of residents of the City of Ithaca. A) The proposal will service city residents in proportion to City funding requested. B) The sponsor of the proposed activity: has received funding, or is reasonable assured of receiving funding, or has made a good faith effort to receive funding from the County, appropriate towns, school districts, or other funding sources in proportion to non-city residents served. 2. The proposed activity will serve an identified need in the city and does not duplicate another service. 3. The proposed activity is designed to effectively meet the needs of those to be benefited; and the proposal includes measurable objectives and outcomes. 4. The applicant demonstrates sound management practices. May 2, 2001 59 5. The proposed activity will especially benefit a population in financial need (i.e., below federal poverty guidelines) or the disabled. 6. The proposed activity will produce a long-term benefit. Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That by August 1, 2001, the Budget & Administration Committee shall forward its recommendations to the Mayor for consideration in the 2002 budget. Carried Unanimously (Blumenthal absent from vote) 20.2 Common Council – Request to Approve Participation in the Financial Assistance to Business Program and Filing of an Application with the NYS Environmental Facilities Corporation By: Alderperson Vaughan, Seconded by: Alderperson Manos WHEREAS, pursuant to the Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act of 1996, being Chapter 413 of the Laws of New York of 1996, the New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation (the “Corporation”) through the Financial Assistance to Business Program (the “FAB Program”) is authorized to provide state assistance to villages, towns, and cities with a population of less than one million, for small business environmental compliance assistance projects which enhance the quality of the air or waters of the State through compliance with environmental laws and regulations, or to remedy or prevent environmental deficiencies; and WHEREAS, the governing body of the City of Ithaca (hereinafter, the “Municipality”), after due consideration, has determined that participation in the FAB Program is desirable and in the public interest; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE MUNICIPALITY AS FOLLOWS: 1. The filing of an application, or applications, with the Corporation for financial assistance under the FAB Program in the form required by the Corporation is hereby authorized, including all understandings and assurances contained in said application. 2. The individual holding the following office is directed and authorized as the official representative of the Municipality to identify entities that will participate in the FAB Program, to execute and deliver said application(s), to execute and deliver any other documents necessary for participation in the FAB Program, to provide such additional information as may be required, and to take all actions on behalf of the Municipality as may be required in order to effectuate the intent and purpose of this resolution: Alan J. Cohen, Mayor. 3. The Corporation is hereby authorized, on behalf of the Municipality to deliver payments made pursuant to the FAB Program directly to the entities identified above, or such further entities as may from time to time be named by the individual identified in paragraph 2 above. May 2, 2001 60 4. A certified copy of this resolution shall be prepared and delivered to the Corporation as part of said application. 5. This resolution shall take effect immediately. Carried Unanimously (Blumenthal absent from vote) 20.3 Common Council – Request for Funds for First Friday Program By: Alderperson Vaughan, Seconded by: Alderperson Spielholz WHEREAS, First Friday of Central New York (FFCNY) is requesting funds from the City to assist the program in May, June and July of 2001, and WHEREAS, FFCNY is a monthly business and social networking event meeting on the first Friday of every month, which fosters communication, interaction and involvement among professionals of color in the Central New York Region, and WHEREAS, First Friday is a nationally recognized institution that brings people of color together in approximately 35 locations all over the United States and Canada, and WHEREAS, FFCNY is requesting $3,800 in funds from the City to assist with their upcoming monthly events; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby approves funding in the amount not to exceed $3,800 for First Friday of Central New York for 2001 from the following sources: Unrestricted Contingency account A1990 transfer to A1012-5435 $1,800 Human Resources account A1430-5450 transfer to A1012-5435 $2,000 and be it further RESOLVED, That FFCNY is encouraged to submit application for 2002 Community Service Agency funding through the City’s established funding procedures. Carried Unanimously (Blu 20.4 DPW – Request to Approve Exchange of Land from Johnson Boat Yard By: Alderperson Vaughan, Seconded by: Alderperson Manos WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works is interested in working with Tom Cleveland and Johnson Boat Yard to clear up a number of property issues to both parties’ mutual benefit by addressing lot lines and permanent easement locations, and WHEREAS, the proposed exchanges of land and relocation of a sewer easement will recognize current uses the city has made of private property, such as the sewer lift station and the turn around at the west end of Pier Road, and will improve the utility of the boat yard to the property owner, and May 2, 2001 61 WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works at its April 11, 2001 meeting approved the land swap and recommends it on to Council; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby approves the sale of land in exchange for the purchase of land of equal area as shown on the survey map of Johnson Boat Yard by T. G. Miller, P.C. dated October 14, 1992 last amended July 21, 1999, as well as the exchange of sewer easements and other easements, and be it further RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby authorizes the Mayor in consultation with the City Attorney and the Superintendent of Public Works to negotiate said land exchange. Carried Unanimously (8-0) (Blumenthal absent from vote) 20.5 DPW – Request Amendment to Stewart Avenue Bridge at Cascadilla Street By: Alderperson Vaughan, Seconded by: Aldeperson Pryor WHEREAS, Common Council at its regular meeting of July 1, 1998 approved the Stewart Avenue Bridge Rehabilitation Project in the amount of $526,000, of which 95% would be funded by federal and state funds, and 5% would be City-funded, and WHEREAS, bids were received on April 3, 2001 reflecting a post bid budget of $1,270,000 as follows: Design $ 210,000 Construction 976,071 Construction Inspection 83,929 $1,270,000 and WHEREAS, the cost increases of the project were associated with the two-year delay in bidding, the additional cost associated with replacement of major portions of the bridge’s substructure and substantial increases in the amount of bridgework in the bid; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby amends Capital Project #266 Stewart Avenue Bridge Rehabilitation by an amount not to exceed $744,000, for a total project cost of $1,270,000, and be it further RESOLVED, That the Mayor be authorized to sign all necessary agreements with New York State Department of Transportation to secure Federal Aid and Marchiselli Aid on behalf of the City of Ithaca, and the Superintendent be authorized to sign all necessary construction documents, contracts, certifications, and reimbursement requests, and be it further RESOLVED, That this project be undertaken with the understanding that the final cost to the City will be five percent (5%) of the final approved project cost, currently estimated at $63,303 of the $1,270,000 authorized for the project, in monies and in-kind May 2, 2001 62 services as managed by the Superintendent and monitored by the City Controller, and be it further RESOLVED, That the funds for said project amendment shall be derived by the issuance of Serial Bonds with later reimbursement from Federal and State funds. Carried Unanimously 20.6 DPW – Request to Amend Capital Fund for Various Streets and Facilities Projects By: Alderperson Vaughan, Seconded by: Alderperson Pryor WHEREAS, the New York State Retirement System has incurred losses from its investments during the recent downturn of the world’s stock markets, and WHEREAS, the City has been notified by the New York State Retirement System that it plans on billing local municipalities an additional 1.5 percent of their total payroll, over the initial estimates, as their contribution to the Common Retirement Fund for 2001, and WHEREAS, the budget impact of this additional bill could be as much as $250,000 - $300,000 in additional funds required by the City not originally budgeted in the 2001 City Budget, and WHEREAS, as a result of this possible additional bill from the NYS Retirement System, the City Controller’s Office is recommending that a budget amendment be made to offset the needed funds, and WHEREAS, the Controller’s Office and the DPW have reviewed various options and are recommending that several force account DPW Capital Projects be implemented to offset the $300,000 needed in additional funds; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby amends the 2001 City Budget by an amount not to exceed $300,000 for the possible increase in contribution needed to the New York State Retirement System as follows: Increase Revenue Account: A2803 Transfer from Capital Fund $300,000 Increase Appropriation Accounts: A9010 & A9015 Employees, Police and Fire State Retirement (amounts will be distributed by Controller’s Office based on program budgets) $300,000 and be it further RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby establishes and amends the following Capital Projects in a total amount not to exceed $300,000: Establish Capital Project #441 Flood, Erosion and Storm Water Improvements $128,810 May 2, 2001 63 Establish Capital Project #442 Various Park Improvements 21,600 Amend Capital Project #430 DPW Street & Road Programs 128,226 Amend Capital Project #386 Commons Improvements 21,364 $300,000 and be it further RESOLVED, That said funds for Capital Projects shall be derived from the issuance of Serial Bonds. Carried Unanimously 20.7 DPW – Request to Amend City Hall Renovation Project By Alderperson Vaughan: Seconded by Alderperson Hershey WHEREAS, the City’s Information Services and Technology (IT) Department will be increasing in staff over the next few months, and WHEREAS, there is a need to improve the IT Department’s City Hall work space to allow for the office to function effectively with the increased staff, and WHEREAS, funds were originally budgeted in the Computer Network Project for said structural improvements, but will be better utilized if they are used for computer networking purposes, and WHEREAS, the City’s Engineering Department has estimated the IT Work Space improvements will cost $42,000, $35,000 in renovation work and $7,000 in code compliance work; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby amends Capital Project #381 City Hall Renovations by an amount not to exceed $35,000 for a total project authorization of $842,000 to make structural improvements to the Information Services and Technology Department, and be it further RESOLVED, That $7,000 of $42,000 total improvement budget shall be derived from Capital Project #423 Code Compliance, and be it further RESOLVED, That said new money shall be derived from the issuance of Serial Bonds. Carried Unanimously 20.8 Police Department – Request to Amend Budget for Grant By Alderperson Vaughan: Seconded by Alderperson Manos WHEREAS, the Ithaca Police Department has been notified by the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles Governor’s Traffic Safety Committee that the City will receive a $7,500 grant to purchase Sobriety Checkpoint Equipment; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby amends the 2001 Authorized City Budget as follows to account for said Sobriety Checkpoint Equipment grant: Increase Revenue Account: A3120-3389-05001 $7,500 May 2, 2001 64 Increase Appropriation Account: A3120-5225-05001 $7,500 Carried Unanimously 20.9 Police Department – Request to Amend Budget for Grant By: Alderperson Vaughan, Seconded by: Alderperson Hershey WHEREAS, the Ithaca Police Department has been notified by the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles Governor’s Traffic Safety Committee that the City will receive a $7,090 grant for Vehicle and Traffic Enforcement, and WHEREAS, the grant funds will allow the Police Department to purchase new equipment to assist in vehicle and traffic enforcement; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby amends the 2001 Authorized City Budget as follows to account for said Vehicle and Traffic Enforcement grant: Increase Revenue Account: A3120-3389-05001 $7,090 Increase Appropriation Account: A3120-5225-05001 $7,090 Carried Unanimously 20.10 Planning Department – Request to Approve Contract with the National Development Council By: Mayor Cohen, Seconded by: Alderperson Pryor WHEREAS, the City has determined that it needs the professional services of an advisor to work with the City to develop and assist in the implementation of their community and economic development programs, and WHEREAS, the Planning Department has selected The National Development Council to assist the City with community and economic development at an estimated cost of $50,000, and WHEREAS, the contract period will begin June 1, 2001 and end April 30, 2002; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby authorizes the Mayor, subject to the final review of the City Attorney, to enter into the attached lump-sum contract with The National Development Council at a cost not to exceed $50,000 to assist the City with its community and economic development programs for the period May 1, 2001 through April 30, 2002, and be it further RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby authorizes a Capital Project in the amount not to exceed $50,000 for the planning and related feasibility studies in connection with economic and housing projects, which may lead to the reconstruction or new construction May 2, 2001 65 of one or more parking facilities, or other capital improvements, and be it further RESOLVED, That the funds for said contract shall be derived as follows: A. Transfer unneeded funds from existing Capital Project #250 $28,000 B. Transfer of unneeded funds from Capital Reserve #14 to this new Capital Project $22,000 Dan Marsh, Eastern Regional Director, of the National Development Council gave a quick explanation of what the NDC is. The NDC is a National, not-for-profit, charitable foundation. Established in 1969. Since 1969 it has been doing financial consulting, real estate consulting, and general community development, planning and consulting work around the country. They currently work for about 130 different municipal governments around the country ranging in size from the Federal government down to very small communities of 5,000 or less. They provide technical assistance services as well as product services to their municipal clients and they assist them not only in developing programs but structuring financing for specific projects, negotiating on behalf on the City and providing equity and loan capital for projects that occur within the client’s city. They are headquartered in New York City and they have offices across the United States and they currently work in the continental United States plus the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. They are considered a training organization, a technical assistance consulting organization and a product service delivery organization and their client’s projects range from housing to public facilities to neighborhood economic development revitalization. They’ve have been doing this since 1969. They’re happy to be here and hope that if the City decides to hire them that they can start immediately on some of these exciting projects that they’ve heard about over the last several months coming to Ithaca and meeting with staff and most of you. He’ll be glad to answer any specific questions about NDC and what they’ve been doing if you have any. Alderperson Pryor spoke that she was really appreciative of the fact that although she is not on the Economic Development Committee, she had the opportunity to have a briefing between a person from the NDC and she was able to ask a lot of questions at that time. Alderperson Sams spoke that she was glad to have an opportunity to speak with NDC and get some questions answered. Her questions are more for Council and the ED Committee and some of the processes and procedures that are going to be done and her concern and she thinks this is a wonderful idea, it’s good and she really wishes that it had been thought of before and it had come before Council before now. Her concern is about the fact that when she talked with NDC earlier, housing was talked about and the community and so on and so forth, her concern and it’s put out to Council and it’s really not for you, but for Council itself that we have just given two million dollars to INHS to do some housing stock, but NDC can only with CHODOS on housing which is mutual housing. She has great questions about that and she has in front of her the May 2, 2001 66 mutual housing handbook which talks about permanent life time residency and all the things that we talked about that they’ve written grants on and we’ve supported which is not happening. Which as of just last week, another resident was evicted which was a black female, a head of a household which makes three which I’m not sure on what grounds, but she is concerned that if we are going to support CHODOS that we are supporting CHODOS that believe in what they say and they do and she’s hoping that’s what the NDC can really do for this CHODA if it plans to take it on. To take a look at that and to take a look at the commitment that it made to the community, not just some of the community, but all of the community. Lifetime residency means lifetime residency and she doesn’t think they’re living up to it. She feels really bad that the City has continued to support somebody/organization that hasn’t lived up to their commitment and has intentionally written another grant, not living up to their commitment. She’s hoping that when NDC comes in, if that is the thought of the CHODAs and what is going to be done that that will be investigated and looked into thoroughly before we move forward with anymore of that. She is also concerned about the two million dollars that the City has given INHS as to exactly what is going to be happening in the scheme of things with this picture if we’re going to be doing these things, where does all that fall in? She is concerned about process and procedures as to where things go and how they go and if something comes up that isn’t ED where does it go? How does it work? Who makes these decisions? She’d like to know a little bit more about that, not that she doesn’t support this because she does, but she’d like to see some things ironed out for her on the process. Mayor Cohen explained that Alderperson Sams was referring to a new housing program that the City funded. There might be some misunderstanding where those funds are being directed and perhaps, he has not done a good enough job of communicating in that regard. The funds are in the hands of the City of Ithaca, not in the hands of INHS and will continue to remain in the hands of the City. Alderperson Sams replied that she knew this, Mayor Cohen stated he wanted to clarify for the public to think the City turned over two million dollars to INHS notwithstanding that they are a wonderful organization and could do good work with that money. Mr. Marsh stated that his work with CHODOS or any neighborhood organization is at the direction of the client. What they would do is look at projects and programs at the City’s direction and they would assist those CHODOS or other neighborhood organizations only if they are directed by staff and council to do so. Alderperson Spielholz thanked Mr. Marsh for his time to adjust to all of council’s schedule because of schedule conflicts and for the many, many briefings. The oneness is on the City now. If the City requests the NDC’s services they have to figure out what the requests pertain to and the list is very, very long and it will be difficult to hone down to use you the best we can. She hopes the City is up to the test. Alderperson Blumenthal had a question about the staff training and training in general. Certainly development efforts will require City efforts, but also we’ll be working with private developers and non-for-profits which have already been mentioned. There is a May 2, 2001 67 clause in here that there would be staff training provided in- house and she is wondering about possibilities for training for private developers, not-for-profit that would increase the knowledge base in the community so that we have more highly skilled people in a greater capacity to work with us and benefit us in the end. Mr. Marsh responded that that was something that is very important. Their contract provides, he believes, for two different training vehicles. One is onsite staff training to teach staff more about financial underwriting, project development, project negotiating, which can be general in nature or it can be very specific. It could be in a classroom setting or it could be in a project work setting. That really is a discussion that our staff will have to have with your staff to figure out what is best. The other part of the training that is in the contract, he believes that there a free tuition slots to their classroom training program for staff that the City designates. He’s not sure if there’s one or two in the contract. There’s one in the contract. What that is, is a free tuition slot to one of their training courses whether it be housing, economic development, finance or economic development finance professional. That’s a very rigorous week long program, one is in four week session, the other is a three week session. That is available to your staff that you designate. The question of training the community and training developers which really is knowledge building or increasing the knowledge base of the people who you are going to rely upon to help implement some of your programs here in Ithaca. It’s not included in our base contract price, it is something they have done in the past for large cities, for small communities, we do it on a continuing basis for State organizations such as housing/finance agencies. If it is something that appears to be important to the community once we know precisely what the goal is, we can talk to the staff about ways to possibly accomplish that. It would have to be an add on to the contract which would then need approval from Common Council. An intensive training program could not be included in this contract. They have the capacity and time within their contract to work on a general basis with the community and with developers, to set up a training program with workbook products and textbooks and the way they normally run a training program, that cost is not included in the contract. They would have to talk about that. Certainly neighborhood information sessions, maybe a day long session on tax credits, maybe a day long session on balance sheets and profit/loss statement analysis for the community. They can certainly look at that as part of the contract, but if they were to do formal training with textbooks and materials like that we’d have to look it up. Alderperson Blumenthal asked if that was something in this provision that they could assume that those kinds of sessions which sound very good like the tax credits and so forth would be in the contract? Mr. Marsh responded affirmatively. He said that would be something that they normally provide as part of their base contract. May 2, 2001 68 Alderperson Blumenthal brought up the question of how the information gets processed. Discussion had taken place at the ED meeting about sending materials to you. This is really somewhat an internal question. There was a comment from the Mayor that materials would be sent directly to you. For example, we have a list of 17 items now and they vary from very large – Cayuga Green to some smaller ones that are more abstract in their feasibility. She wanted to ask Council to consider whether we should be reviewing the documents prior to submission to the NDC because there will be descriptions of the programs and projects. There will be proposals for funding, for feasibility, for what the projects contain. For example we talked about Marcos Flats for example that was added on here, there might be interests of neighborhoods that we would want to insert and put in for them to understand and consider. She has a resolved clause that she wants to proposed Mayor Cohen stated that the City Attorney did review the contract, there were three particular areas that were focused on and he’d like to review those. They’ve been discussed with the NDC and they need to be re-written and that’s why he’d like this resolution to reflect that before he signs anything, it has to go back to the City Attorney first. There was a clause in the contract regarding the status of the NDC as independent contractors when we do work with independent contractors, we always insure that they provide certain benefits like worker’s compensation in particular to their employees so that will be added, the discrimination terminology used in NDC contract does not match ours. Ours is much broader and NDC has agreed to include our broader discrimination language. Lastly, there is an indemnification clause that indemnifies the NDC, we have asked for mutual indemnification so they will be providing the City with indemnification. Basically, we’re both saying you take care of yourself, if you mess up; we take care of ourselves if we mess up. Those are three things that are going to be added, reviewed by the City Attorney before the Mayor would sign it. That’s why he wants that language in there, so that you’re aware of it and he would not sign it without the City Attorney’s final review. The reason the substitute resolution was put before you is there was initially a question about the funding source, the City Controller has reviewed that and has come up with these funding sources instead which comply with all of the State Laws and would fulfill Common Council’s wishes. Main motion Carried Unanimously Proposed Amendment By: Alderperson Blumenthal, Seconded by: Alderperson Farrell RESOLVED, that the Economic Development Committee shall review all written materials [related to public facility, economic and/or housing development] for projects and proposals prior to submission to the National Development Council, as described in Sections 203.1, 203.02, and 203.03 of the NDC contract agreement and be it further Alderperson Vaughan asked why Alderperson Blumenthal thought this particular resolution was necessary. May 2, 2001 69 Alderperson Blumenthal stated that because the information that the Planning Department sends to the NDC has a lot of description about a proposal about the intentions and the components and financial feasibility, what kinds of public support there might be and that we might have some thoughts on the input because what goes to them gets molded or shaped and there are essentially a lot of policies and things and components that she thinks Council might want to shape more than what’s given to the NDC because then what comes back is based on that and essentially it can save us time because if we get something back that we haven’t had any input on then we may want them to look at something that hasn’t been looked at. For example, I don’t know what the Marco’s Flat, if the neighborhood wants the daycare center or they don’t want a daycare center or if it’s housing or a roller skating rink, we don’t know what the Planning Department is giving them, could be for space whatever and ideally it would come to all of council, but in the interest of time, since it’s only a year contract, the most efficient way is to have the ED Committee review the material and then hopefully everyone that’s not on the committee gets the material if they have things they want to suggest, they can come to the meeting or they can call staff. It’s in our interest to have some input and that’s our responsibility to do that. Alderperson Hershey agrees that there ought to be a gateway. He thinks that the nature of the contract suggests it to me that there’s no dollar amount per hour that’s clicking away. In theory, assuming that we don’t ask for items outside the scope, that we can use you three times or thirty times depending on how many. He is concerned about the specifics. There should be some rational way, a liaison if you will, between the City whether it’s the Economic Development Committee or Doug or Thys VanCort or somebody, it ought to channel through someone, whether it stems out of a ED or Neighborhood and Community Issues or wherever it should come or perks up within our own departments. He has a problem with the term written materials and committee review. Only because it seems that one of the things this committee will do for us will be in very incubatory way look at projects and do it’s own brainstorming. He thinks that he doesn’t want to get involved with anything that puts a limitation on our ability to get that going. Mayor Cohen stated that he thinks this is good, as Susan points out, some review is needed. He thinks this is reasonable, he hates to disagree with Alderperson Hershey, he just doesn’t see any harm with this at all. He stated that it will add to the workload of the committee, but somebody has to be looking at it and Doug if you would add this to our agenda next week because we want to start sending materials out as soon as possible to take advantage of this contract because we only have a year so we’ll start working on this posthaste. Alderperson Farrell stated that she sees this as helping to provide accurate background information and ideas as far as the City has thought on things and that Committee members may also be able to add some important some background there. Alderperson Pryor stated that her initial reaction was similar to Alderperson Hershey’s because one of the things she thought of would result in several months delay in what we’re able to get. May 2, 2001 70 The way that it’s worded it said “shall review written materials” doesn’t that imply approve. What if you get together month to month to review, you’re not satisfied with it, keep reviewing it, you need to come back with, she’s just a little concerned. She thinks that it is really important that there be a group/committee that works closely with the work that’s going to be going on to NDC, she doesn’t have any problem with that, she thinks the issues related to the contract, there ought to be a point person, like Doug in terms of contact. She would want to see this process, cause unnecessary delay when her perception as she understood it as it was described to her is that the NDC would essentially become a partner with us and there might be a real benefit of having their input very early on in the process because of the breadth of the expertise that they could bring. We might for months try to hash out something that could get passed on to NDC and get results quicker. She doesn’t want to see the process get bogged down. Alderperson Sams stated that she looked at it slightly differently. She looked at it as the review being that if it was added information. These are our wards and districts and everything that we’re talking about. We may know something that the staff may not know that would help NDC with the process so that’s what she’s looking at is that maybe Susan can correct her if she’s was looking at it wrong, that was the way she was looking at it. We have the responsibility to our community, not just the staff has that responsibility, but to make sure that input and oversight is there. Then it goes to the committee and it goes on to NDC and they make that decision and that’s what we’re hiring them for. We still need to have a process where if the community is not being heard from that the representation from the community is being heard from. That has to be a step that has to be thought about because otherwise she thinks that we’ve thrown something out that might be missing and would come back in front of Council and say nope that’s not because, she looks at it as a step less than a step more. Alderperson Spielholz doesn’t really see where this ties the hands of NDC in anyway. She sees this as a way of having oversight and one of the reasons for having the extra committee and going through the processes of having this extra committee is so that we have more of a handle on review that is open to public review too. These are all done in public meetings. The only question she had Susan, is why it doesn’t say “shall review all written materials and proposal prior to submission” and why is only related to public facility, economic, housing development projects. The list is so long, she doesn’t know why it needs to be so specific even. Why not have them review all materials for projects and proposals prior to submission? Alderperson Blumenthal responded to this by stating that it just fits into the language on the contract. Those are categories that describe what those things are. She could add the word all. Alderperson Pryor stated that she is reiterating that she is not disagreeing with the need for oversight and input of the community and council in any. She just wants to make sure that we think about this carefully so that it doesn’t prevent us from doing what we want by the DNC. She totally understands Alderperson Sams May 2, 2001 71 thoughts and she agrees with it and with Alderperson Spielholz and the other people that have spoken. Alderperson Blumenthal stated that there is no attempt to bog us down. She thinks that if something is that difficult to decide and review, if it takes endless discussion then she’s not sure it’s something we want to send to somebody. Most of these projects have a lot of support in the community or there is at least a lot of interest at this point in pursuing and she thinks that there will be general agreement in that we’ll be taking about some of the details and we’ll say okay and they can look at it, but at least our opinions and our input is there at the outset. She doesn’t think that some of the elements that will be talked about will be make or break. Our input will be there for background for the NDC to consider. Mayor Cohen stated that in order that we don’t continue to have endless discussion on something that we all seem to agree on. All in favor of the proposed amendment. Date to begin will change from May 1, 2001 to June 1, 2001. Carried 9 to 1 The meeting adjourned for a brief recess 21. NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY ISSUES COMMITTEE: 21.1 An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 164 Entitled “Dogs and Other Animals” of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code By: Alderperson Pryor, Seconded by: Alderperson Spielholz ORDINANCE NO. 01 - BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows: Section 1. Section 164-9 Entitled “Prohibited Acts” of Chapter 164 Entitled “Dogs and Other Animals” of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code be amended to include the following addition: A-1 Exemption: Subdivision A above does not apply to owners of dogs whose dogs are off-leash in an area to be established and designated as an off-leash dog park pilot project sponsored by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation and the non-profit Tompkins County Dog Owners’ Group (TCDOG). The dog park is to be located within the boundaries of Treman Marina and the City owned land adjacent to it as shown on the map entitled “Proposed Dog Park Area” dated May 1992. The part of the dog park located on City land shall be regulated by the Board of Public Works. This exemption shall extend for the one year trial period of the pilot, but in no event shall this exemption extend beyond August 31, 2002. Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately in accordance with law upon publication of a notice as provided in the Ithaca City Charter. Carried Unanimously May 2, 2001 72 22. NEW BUSINESS: 22.1 Possible Motion to Enter into Executive Session to discuss Pending and Potential Litigation By: Alderperson Manos, Seconded by: Alderperson Pryor Carried 6-3 (Spielholz, Hershey, Farrell) UNFINISHED AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: None REPORT OF COUNCIL LIAISONS: None ADJOURNMENT: On a motion the meeting adjourned at 11:45 P.M. ________________________ _______________________ Julie Conley Holcomb, CMC Alan J. Cohen, City Clerk Mayor