Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CC-2001-12-19 1 COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK Special Meeting 7:30 p.m. December 19, 2001 PRESENT: Mayor Cohen Alderpersons (10) Pryor, Sams, Blumenthal, Manos, Spielholz, Farrell, Vaughan, Taylor, Hershey, Mack OTHERS PRESENT: City Clerk – Conley Holcomb City Attorney - Schwab Deputy Controller – Thayer Director of Planning and Development – VanCort Deputy Director of Planning and Development – Cornish PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Cohen led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS A Resolution Making Certain Determinations in Relation to and Approving The Establishment Of The Proposed Benefit Assessment District for the Southwest Area of the City By Alderperson Pryor: Seconded by Alderperson Hershey WHEREAS, a map, plan and report, entitled “City of Ithaca Proposed Benefit Assessment District for the Southwest Area”, have been prepared in such manner and in such detail as has heretofore been determined by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York (the “City”), relating to the establishment of a proposed benefit assessment district for local vehicular traffic improvements in the Southwest area of the City, such district to be known as the Benefit Assessment District for the Southwest Area of the City of Ithaca (the “District”); and WHEREAS, the District is proposed to encompass the commercial properties in the Southwest Study Area of the City and the commercial properties on the east side of South Meadow Street south of Clinton Street to Elmira Road, commercial properties on Old Elmira Road, and commercial properties on the southeast side of Elmira Road to the City/Town of Ithaca line, and shall be bounded and more fully described as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the improvements proposed for the District are proposed to consist of the widening of Route 13 to five lanes, at a maximum estimated cost of $1,767,000, and the construction of a new extension to Taughannock Boulevard, to be known as the Taughannock Boulevard Extension, at a maximum estimated cost of $7,513,250, for an aggregate maximum estimated cost of $9,280,250, including incidental improvements and expenses in connection therewith, all as more fully described in the aforesaid map, plan and report; and WHEREAS, it is proposed that the aggregate maximum cost of the proposed improvements shall be apportioned between the City at large and upon the commercial properties within the District, with 35.3% of such cost being the portion of the cost proposed to be borne by the City at large and with 64.7% of such cost being the portion of the cost proposed to be assessed upon commercial properties within the District; and December 19, 2001 22 WHEREAS, the proposed method of financing the aggregate maximum cost of the proposed improvements shall be by the issuance of serial bonds of said City; and WHEREAS, it is proposed that assessments upon commercial properties within the District shall be benefit assessments the basis or formula therefor being annually determined based on the square footage of commercial buildings, as provided by the Tompkins County Division of Assessment, on commercial properties within the District; and WHEREAS, an order/resolution was duly adopted by said Common Council on November 28, 2001, reciting a description of the boundaries of the District, the improvements proposed, the aggregate maximum amount proposed to be expended for said improvements, the fact that said map, plan and report were on file in the City Clerk's office for public inspection and specifying the 12th day of December, 2001, at 7:30 o'clock P.M., Prevailing Time, and the City Hall, in Ithaca, New York, in said City, as the time when and the place where said Common Council would meet for the purpose of holding a public hearing to consider the establishment of the District and said map, plan and report filed in relation thereto and to hear all persons interested in the subject thereof concerning the same; and WHEREAS, notice of the aforesaid public hearing was duly published and served in the manner and within the time prescribed by Section 4 of that certain Local Law of the City providing for the establishment of a benefit assessment district for local vehicular traffic improvements in the Southwest Area of the City (“Local Law, Section 4”), and proof of publication and service has been duly presented to said Common Council; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was duly held at the time and place in said order/resolution, as aforesaid, at which all persons desiring to be heard were duly heard; and WHEREAS, said Common Council has duly considered said map, plan and report and the evidence given at said public hearing; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, By the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, as follows: Section 1. Upon the evidence given at the aforesaid public hearing, it is hereby found and determined as follows: (a) The notice of hearing was published and served as required by Local Law, Section 4 and is otherwise sufficient; (b) All the property and property owners within the boundaries of the proposed District are benefited thereby; (c) All the property and property owners benefited by the proposed District are included within the boundaries of the proposed District; (d) the proposed apportionment of the aggregate maximum cost of the proposed improvements between the lands benefited and the City at large is fair and equitable; (e) the proposed benefit assessment basis or formula for the portion of the aggregate maximum cost to be raised by benefit assessment upon properties within the District is fair and equitable; December 19, 2001 33 (f) the proposed improvements and the aggregate maximum amount to be expended for the construction of the proposed improvements and the proposed method of financing are in the public interest; and (g) The establishment of the proposed District is in the public interest. Section 2. The establishment of the Benefit Assessment District for the Southwest Area of the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, to be bounded and described as hereafter set forth, and the improvements proposed therefor, consisting of the widening of Route 13 to five lanes and the construction of an extension to Taughannock Boulevard, to be known as the Taughannock Boulevard Extension, including incidental improvements and expenses in connection therewith, all as more fully described in the aforesaid map, plan and report, at an aggregate maximum estimated cost of $9,280,250, of which 35.3% shall be borne by the City at large and of which 64.7% shall be assessed upon commercial properties within the District, are hereby approved. Section 3. The District shall be bounded and described as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof. Section 4. This resolution shall take effect immediately. Alderperson Manos stated for the record that her husband owns property in the proposed Benefit Assessment District therefore she will recuse herself from the deliberation of this legislation and the vote. Alderperson Vaughan stated for the record that she owns property within the proposed Benefit Assessment District and she is recusing herself from the discussion and vote on this legislation. Extensive discussion followed on the floor with Planning and Development Director VanCort and Deputy Planning and Development Director Cornish answering questions from members of Council. Alderperson Sams stated that she was distressed that some of the affected business owners were not talked to. She stated that she is not comfortable voting on this legislation until sufficient input has been obtained from affected businesses. Alderperson Farrell questioned the statistical changes in the proposed fees being assessed. Deputy Planning and Development Director Cornish explained that the original figures were based on property information from the City’s GIS system. The revised figures are from the tax rolls provided by the Tompkins County Assessment Department which is what the Benefit Assessment District will be established from. Alderperson Blumenthal asked whether language should be added to the Resolution to include potential phasing of the two projects. City Attorney Schwab stated that she does not believe it is wise to obligate the City in that regard at this point. Alderperson Taylor arrived at the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Further discussion followed on the floor regarding on how the assessments were derived. Planning and Development Director Van Cort stated that property owners would only be charged for projects for which debt has actually been issued. The assessment December 19, 2001 44 fees would begin approximately two years after the issuance of the debt, based on the Tompkins County Assessment Department’s records on building size at that point. Planning and Development Director Van Cort and Mayor Cohen noted that the Planning Department will seek outside aid very aggressively, however some aspects of the project are more fundable than others, for example the bridge. Alderperson Pryor asked why other assessment alternatives were eliminated. Planning and Development Director stated that the City Controller’s Office worked with the City’s Bond Counsel, and the Tompkins County Assessment Department to determine which alternative would be the most equitable. Other alternative considered included: parking spaces, trip generation, road frontage, lot size, assessed value. The consensus was the most equitable alternative to use was building square footage. Alderperson Blumenthal questioned whether a broader assessment district had been analyzed. Deputy Planning and Development Director Cornish stated that outside Counsel determined that the best approach was to keep within the boundaries developed by the Southwest study area, and the area to be re-zoned. The boundaries could be changed in the future, but it would require additional studies including a new traffic study. Alderperson Mack asked what the process would be if Council approved the Benefit Assessment District now, and changed the boundaries in the future. Mayor Cohen explained that Council would have to go back through the legislative process. Alderperson Farrell questioned whether there was an assessment appeal process for property owners. City Attorney Schwab explained that if the Benefit Assessment District is adopted, property owners would be notified once the actual assessment is complete. Common Council is required to hold a public hearing for property owners to appeal their assessments. Council is further required to conduct an annual public hearing to hear appeals throughout the life of the assessment district. Alderperson Spielholz read the following correspondence received from the Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce into the record: “December 19, 2001 To Mayor Alan Cohen, members of Common Council Since our last communication to the Council, the Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce’s Executive Committee has met with Mayor Cohen and one of the property owners who would be most affected by the proposed Benefit Assessment District. The Executive Committee now understands that the City of Ithaca Planning Board has indicated its unwillingness to move forward with the Southwest Area development projects without a clear commitment from City Council to implement all of the traffic mitigation projects outlined in the Six Point Plan. The Tompkins County Chamber strongly supports development in the Southwest Area of the city and realizes that establishing a Benefit Assessment District appears to be the most effective approach to the continued development in the Southwest. If the Benefit Assessment District is approved by Council, the Chamber offers its assistance to work with the Council, the City December 19, 2001 55 administration, and area businesses towards a mutually beneficial agreement.” Alderperson Spielholz questioned what type of assistance the City can expect from the chamber. Mayor Cohen stated that the Chamber of Commerce is willing to facilitate as much communication as necessary between the City and the affected property owners and businesses within the Assessment District. Further discussion followed on the floor with Mayor Cohen estimating project and study timelines. Alderperson Pryor addressed concerns raised by the public and Alderperson Sams regarding the by-passing of traffic on Route 13 due to the Taughannock Boulevard extension. She stated that she believes the by-pass will be an overall benefit to the traffic flow within the grid. Alderperson Pryor extended her thanks to Council along with a special thanks to Alderperson Blumenthal for her vision, hard work, and planning on the Southwest area development. Alderperson Blumenthal stated that with difficulty, she will not support this legislation as she has concerns about the process that was followed specifically the lack of sufficient time and notice to property owners in the proposed district. She stated that she does not believe people understand how this district will affect them, and hopes that the City will strive for process improvement in the future. A vote on the resolution resulted as follows: Ayes (5) Taylor, Hershey, Mack, Spielholz, Pryor Nays (3) Blumenthal, Farrell, Sams Recusals (2) Manos, Vaughan Failed Planning Department – Request To Establish Capital Project #450 Southwest Area Improvements By Alderperson Pryor: Seconded by Alderperson Hershey WHEREAS, the Six Point Traffic Plan has been adopted by Common Council, and WHEREAS, two points of the Six Point Plan relate to the Route 13 widening to five lanes and the Taughannock Blvd. Extension, and WHEREAS, cost estimates from Wilbur Smith Associates for construction, land acquisition and contingencies for the Route 13 widening are $1,767,000 and for the Taughannock Blvd. Extension are $7,513,250; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby establishes Capital Project #450 Southwest Area Improvements at an amount not to exceed $9,280,250 for the purposes of making street and road improvements as described above in the Southwest Area per the approved Six Point Plan, and be it further RESOLVED, That funds necessary for said project shall be derived from the issuance of Serial Bonds. December 19, 2001 66 Alderperson Hershey stated that he will vote in favor of this Resolution as he believes these roads need to be built to accommodate future traffic resulting from the development of the Southwest Area of the City. Mayor Cohen stated that the City will not commit to projects if funding is not available. Alderperson Sams questioned the approval process for these projects, as the Plain Street pedestrian bridge did not come back to Council for approval. Alderperson Vaughan stated for the record that due to previously disclosed property interests she had recused herself from consideration, deliberation, and voting on actions pertaining to the enactment of a benefit assessment district. She will be voting on matters pertaining to financing and bonding of the improvements contemplated. She has been informed by the City Attorney that the decision to do so, is not a conflict of interest, the decision on financing and bonding will not impact her anymore than it will affect any other member of the general public. Alderperson Manos stated for the record that due to previously disclosed property interests she had recused herself from consideration, deliberation, and voting on actions pertaining to the enactment of a benefit assessment district. She will be voting on matters pertaining to financing and bonding of the improvements contemplated. She has been informed by the City Attorney that the decision to do so, is not a conflict of interest, the decision on financing and bonding will not impact her anymore than it will affect any other member of the general public. Alderperson Manos further stated that she will not support this Resolution or the next Resolution regarding the widening of Spencer Street and the Plain Street Pedestrian Bridge tonight as the public has stated that they are not yet comfortable with these changes, and has asked for time to provide additional input. She reaffirmed her commitment to the Six Point Plan, but would like to step back and gather more public input. A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows: Ayes (6) Mack, Hershey, Vaughan, Farrell, Pryor, Blumenthal Nays (4) Spielholz, Taylor, Sams, Manos Carried Planning Department – Request To Amend Capital Project #447 By Alderperson Pryor: Seconded by Alderperson Hershey WHEREAS, on September 19, 2001, Common Council passed a resolution establishing the Southwest Area Traffic Improvement Capital Project, at a maximum estimated cost of $2,000,000, and WHEREAS, the 2002 Authorized Capital Projects included a $500,000 project for Six Point Plan Street and Road Construction Improvements, including the converting of Spencer Street to two- way traffic, and rebuilding the Plain Street Pedestrian Bridge over Six Mile Creek as a traffic bridge, and December 19, 2001 77 WHEREAS, it has been determined by staff that the initial construction estimates did not include potential land acquisition costs, demolition fees and other project-related costs; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That Capital Project #447 for the Six Point Plan Street and Road Construction Improvements be hereby amended by $2,200,000 from the previous $2,500,000 authorization to a maximum authorized cost of $4,700,000 to reflect the revised estimate, and be it further RESOLVED, That the financing necessary to fund said additional project costs shall be derived from the issuance of Serial Bonds. Mayor Cohen clarified that the increase in the cost of the project is due to the fact that the original figure was not a project cost estimate, it was designed to be a place-marker capital project in the budget. The full amount of the project was not put into the budget as he did not want more than $2 million of bonds issued in 2001. Alderperson Sams stated that she would vote in opposition to this Resolution as this issue has caused discord in the community, and she feels that Council should facilitate bringing the community together, with input from all of the stakeholders, to cause positive effects. Alderperson Farrell asked for the costs of the full projects. Alderperson Pryor reported that the report estimated the approximate costs for the projects as follows (not including property acquisition): $1,590,650 Plain Street Pedestrian Bridge $1.7 million Spencer Street – narrowest option $2.1 million Spencer Street – middle option $4.6 million Spencer Street – Widest option Alderperson Spielholz stated that she will support this Resolution as it is an amendment to an existing capital project. A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows: Ayes (5) Pryor, Vaughan, Spielholz, Taylor, Hershey Nays (4) Blumenthal, Farrell, Sams, Manos Abstentions (1) Mack Failed REQUEST TO SEEK LEGAL COUNSEL: Alderperson Pryor requested to seek the advice of legal counsel. Mayor Cohen clarified that the City Attorney has spoken with Robert Freeman, Executive Director of the Committee on Open Government regarding Council’s ability to seek legal counsel during public meetings. Mr. Freeman stated that seeking legal counsel is not an item for Executive Session, it is an item that is exempted from the Open Meetings Law due to Attorney-Client privilege, so an Executive Session is not needed. Mayor Cohen and Common Council adjourned into a session with the City Attorney. December 19, 2001 88 EXECUTIVE SESSION: By Alderperson Farrell: Seconded by Alderperson Pryor RESOLVED, That Common Council adjourn into Executive Session to discuss the employment history of an individual employee. Carried Unanimously Alderperson Blumenthal left the meeting at 10:20 p.m. RECONVENE: Common Council reconvened into Regular Session at 10:30 p.m. REQUEST TO RE-VOTE: Alderperson Mack stated that he did not understand the voting procedure and requested the ability to re-vote on the Request to Amend Capital Project #447. The Mayor called the question regarding the re-vote. Ayes (7) Pryor, Farrell, Vaughan, Spielholz, Mack, Hershey, Taylor Nays (2) Manos, Sams Carried Re-Vote on the Request to Amend Capital Project #447 A re-vote on the Resolution to Request to Amend Capital Project #447 resulted as follows: Ayes (6) Pryor, Vaughan, Spielholz, Mack, Hershey, Taylor Nays (3) Manos, Sams, Farrell Carried REQUEST TO RECONSIDER: Alderperson Spielholz requested the ability to reconsider on the Request to Establish Capital Project #450 Southwest Area. The Mayor called the question regarding the re-vote. Ayes (7) Pryor, Vaughan, Spielholz, Mack, Hershey, Taylor, Farrell Nays (2) Manos, Sams Carried Vote to Reconsider the Request to Establish Capital Project #450 Southwest Area Mayor offered new language for the Request to Establish Capital Project #450 Resolution By Alderperson Spielholz: Seconded by Alderperson Taylor WHEREAS, the Six Point Traffic Plan has been adopted by Common Council, and WHEREAS, two points of the Six Point Plan relate to the Route 13 widening to five lanes and the Taughannock Blvd. Extension, and WHEREAS, cost estimates from Wilbur Smith Associates for construction, land acquisition and contingencies for the Route 13 widening are $1,767,000 and for the Taughannock Blvd. Extension are $7,513,250, and WHEREAS, Common Council has undertaken significant efforts to establish a Benefit Assessment District; now, therefore, be it December 19, 2001 99 RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby establishes Capital Project #450 Southwest Area Improvements at an amount not to exceed $9,280,250 for the purposes of making street and road improvements as described above in the Southwest Area per the approved Six Point Plan, and be it further RESOLVED, That it is the intent of the Common Council to continue working on the establishment of a Benefit Assessment District, and, be it further RESOLVED, That funds necessary for said project shall be derived from the issuance of Serial Bonds. Ayes (7) Pryor, Vaughan, Spielholz, Mack, Hershey, Taylor, Farrell Nays (2) Manos, Sams Carried A Resolution Authorizing The Issuance Of Serial Bonds To Pay The Cost Of Various Objects Or Purposes By Alderperson Pryor: Seconded by Alderperson Hershey WHEREAS, all conditions precedent to the financing of the capital projects hereinafter described, including compliance with the provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, have been performed; and WHEREAS, it is now desired to authorize the financing of such capital projects; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, By the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, as follows: Section 1. For the specific objects or purposes or classes of objects or purposes of paying the costs of the following capital improvements in and for the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, there are hereby authorized to be issued $21,810,461 serial bonds of said City pursuant to the provisions of the Local Finance Law, apportioned among such improvements in accordance with the maximum estimated cost of each. Such improvements are as follows: a) The construction or reconstruction of works for the improvement of drainage, and electric lighting improvements, each in connection with road and bridge improvements located in the Southwest area of the City, including incidental improvements and expenses in connection therewith, at a maximum estimated cost of $1,821,362. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid class of objects or purposes is thirty years, pursuant to subdivision 94 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law, as each of the objects of purposes in said class has a period of probable usefulness of at least thirty years under subdivisions 3, 4 or 5 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; b) The making of various improvements to City bridges located in the Southwest area of the City, including incidental improvements and expenses in connection therewith, at a maximum estimated cost of $3,516,933. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid class of objects or purposes is twenty years, pursuant to subdivision 10 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; c) The making of various improvements to City streets and roads located in the Southwest area of the City, including December 19, 2001 1010 incidental improvements and expenses in connection therewith, at a maximum estimated cost of $3,941,955. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid class of objects or purposes is fifteen years, pursuant to subdivision 20(c) of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; d) To pay the cost of a 2002 street and road construction program to be undertaken by Department of Public Work employees, throughout and in and for said City, including incidental improvements and expenses in connection therewith, at a maximum estimated cost of $1,180,315. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid class of objects or purposes is fifteen years, pursuant to subdivision 20(c) of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; e) To pay the cost of park improvements at Ithaca Falls, in and for the City, including incidental improvements and expenses in connection therewith, at a maximum estimated cost of $115,000. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid specific object or purpose is fifteen years pursuant to subdivision 19 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; f) To pay the cost of street and road improvements for traffic calming purposes, throughout and in and for said City, including incidental improvements and expenses in connection therewith, at a maximum estimated cost of $100,000. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid class of objects or purposes is fifteen years, pursuant to subdivision 20(c) of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; g) To pay the cost of the reconstruction and replacement of various City sidewalks, throughout and in and for said City, including incidental improvements and expenses in connection therewith, at a maximum estimated cost of $103,000. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid class of objects or purposes is ten years, pursuant to subdivision 24 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; h) To pay additional costs of the acquisition and installation of City computer network improvements, including incidental expenses in connection therewith, at a maximum estimated cost of $676,654 (including the $346,050 serial bonds authorized by bond resolution dated and duly adopted December 6, 2000; revised maximum estimated cost of this class of objects or purposes is now $676,654; amount of serial bonds authorized by this bond resolution, $330,604. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid class of objects or purposes is five years, pursuant to subdivision 32 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; and i) To pay costs of the acquisition and installation of additional GIS computer equipment, including incidental expenses in connection therewith, at a maximum estimated cost of $25,000. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid class of objects or purposes is five years, pursuant to subdivision 32 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law]; and j) To pay costs of the acquisition and installation of additional voting machines, including incidental expenses in connection therewith, at a maximum estimated cost of $15,000. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid class of objects or purposes is December 19, 2001 1111 five years, pursuant to subdivision 32 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; and k) To pay additional costs of the acquisition and installation of parking meters, including incidental expenses in connection therewith, at a maximum estimated cost of $128,656 (including the $65,000 serial bonds authorized by bond resolution dated and duly adopted December 6, 2000; revised maximum estimated cost of this specific object or purpose is now $128,656; amount of serial bonds authorized by this bond resolution $63,656). It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid specific object or purpose is five years, pursuant to subdivision 50 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; and l) To pay costs of the acquisition and installation of equipment and related software to develop a City document management system, including incidental expenses in connection therewith, at a maximum estimated cost of $34,000. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid class of objects or purposes is five years, pursuant to subdivision 32 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; and m) To pay the cost of the purchase of various equipment and vehicles for construction and maintenance purposes, in and for said City, including incidental improvements and expenses in connection therewith, each item of which will have a maximum estimated cost of $30,000 or more, at a maximum estimated cost of $387,136. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid class of objects or purposes is fifteen years, pursuant to subdivision 28 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; and n) To pay the cost of the purchase of various equipment and vehicles for construction and maintenance purposes, in and for said City, including incidental improvements and expenses in connection therewith, each item of which will have a maximum estimated cost of more than $15,000, at a maximum estimated cost of $140,500. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid class of objects or purposes is ten years, pursuant to subdivision 28 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; and o) To pay the cost of renovations to the Greater Ithaca Activities Center Facility, in and for said City, including incidental improvements and expenses in connection therewith, at a maximum estimated cost of $270,000. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid class of objects or purposes is twenty years, pursuant to subdivision 12 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law, because said Facility is a class “A” building within the meaning of subdivision 11 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; and p) To pay the cost of the reconstruction or replacement of various sanitary sewer lines in and for the City, including incidental improvements and expenses in connection therewith, at a maximum estimated cost of $2,316,000. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid class of objects or purposes is forty years, pursuant to subdivision 4 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law. q) To pay the cost of the reconstruction or replacement of various water lines in and for the City, including incidental improvements and expenses in connection therewith, at a maximum estimated cost of $3,621,000 (including the $916,000 serial bonds authorized by bond resolution dated and duly December 19, 2001 1212 adopted December 6, 2000; revised maximum estimated cost of this class of objects or purposes is now $3,621,000; amount of serial bonds authorized by this bond resolution, $2,705,000). It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid class of objects or purposes is forty years, pursuant to subdivision 1 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law. r) The making of various improvements to City bridges in and for said City, including incidental improvements and expenses in connection therewith, at a maximum estimated cost of $1,630,000. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid class of objects or purposes is twenty years, pursuant to subdivision 10 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; s) The making of various improvements to City streets and roads in and for said City, including incidental improvements and expenses in connection therewith, at a maximum estimated cost of $3,070,000. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid class of objects or purposes is fifteen years, pursuant to subdivision 20(c) of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; t) To pay the cost of conceptual design and a hydrology and engineering study for the Cayuga Green Development Project, in and for said City, including incidental expenses in connection therewith, at a maximum estimated cost of $45,000. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid specific object or purpose is five years, pursuant to subdivision 62 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; Section 2. The aggregate maximum estimated cost of the aforesaid specific objects or purposes and classes of objects or purposes is $21,810,461, and the plan for the financing thereof is by the issuance of the serial bonds authorized by Section 1 hereof, allocated to each specific object or purpose or class of objects or purposes in accordance with the maximum estimated cost of each set forth in Section 1 hereof. Section 3. Subject to the provisions of the Local Finance Law, the power to authorize the issuance of and to sell bond anticipation notes in anticipation of the issuance and sale of the serial bonds herein authorized, including renewals of such notes, is hereby delegated to the City Controller, the chief fiscal officer. Such notes shall be of such terms, form and contents, and shall be sold in such manner, as may be prescribed by said City Controller, consistent with the provisions of the Local Finance Law. Section 4. The faith and credit of said City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, are hereby irrevocably pledged for the payment of the principal of and interest on such obligations as the same respectively become due and payable. An annual appropriation shall be made in each year sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on such obligations becoming due and payable in such year. There shall annually be levied on all the taxable real property in said City a tax sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on such obligations as the same become due and payable, except to the extent otherwise provided for through the collection of benefit assessments. Section 5. The bonds authorized pursuant to this bond resolution shall be in fully registered form and shall be signed in the name of the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, by December 19, 2001 1313 the manual or facsimile signature of the City Controller and a facsimile of its corporate seal shall be imprinted or impressed and may be attested by the manual or facsimile signature of the City Clerk. Section 6. The powers and duties of advertising such bonds for sale, conducting the sale and awarding the bonds, are hereby delegated to the City Controller, who shall advertise such bonds for sale, conduct the sale, and award the bonds in such manner as he shall deem best for the interests of the City, including, but not limited to, the power to sell said serial bonds to the New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation, provided, however, that in the exercise of these delegated powers, he shall comply fully with the provisions of the Local Finance Law and any order or rule of the State Comptroller applicable to the sale of municipal bonds. The receipt of the City Controller shall be a full acquittance to the purchaser of such bonds, who shall not be obliged to see to the application of the purchase money. Section 7. The power to issue and sell notes to the New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation pursuant to Section 169.00 of the Local Finance Law is hereby delegated to the City Controller. Such notes shall be of such terms, form and contents as may be prescribed by said City Controller consistent with the provisions of the Local Finance Law. Section 8. The City Controller is hereby further authorized, at his sole discretion, to execute a project financing and loan agreement, and any other agreements with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and/or the New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation, including amendments thereto, and including any instruments (or amendments thereto) in the effectuation thereof, in order to effect the financing or refinancing of the specific object or purpose described in Section 1 hereof, or a portion thereof, by a serial bond, and, or note issue of said City in the event of the sale of same to the New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation. Section 9. The intent of this resolution is to give the City Controller sufficient authority to execute those applications, agreements, instruments or to do any similar acts necessary to effect the issuance of the aforesaid serial bonds and, or notes without resorting to further action of this Common Council. Section 10. All other matters, except as provided herein relating to such bonds, including determining whether to issue such bonds having substantially level or declining annual debt service, including prescribing whether manual or facsimile signatures shall appear on said bonds, prescribing the method for the recording of ownership of said bonds, appointing the fiscal agent or agents for said bonds, providing for the printing and delivery of said bonds (and if said bonds are to be executed in the name of the City by the facsimile signature of its City Controller, providing for the manual countersignature of a fiscal agent or of a designated official of the City), the date, denominations, maturities and interest payment dates, place or places of payment, and also including the consolidation with other issues, shall be determined by the City Controller. It is hereby determined that it is to the financial advantage of the City not to impose and collect from registered owners of such serial bonds any charges for mailing, shipping and insuring bonds transferred or exchanged by the fiscal agent, and, accordingly, pursuant to December 19, 2001 1414 paragraph c of Section 70.00 of the Local Finance Law, no such charges shall be so collected by the fiscal agent. Such bonds shall contain substantially the recital of validity clause provided for in section 52.00 of the Local Finance Law and shall otherwise be in such form and contain such recitals in addition to those required by section 52.00 of the Local Finance Law, as the City Controller shall determine. Section 11. The validity of such bonds and bond anticipation notes may be contested only if: 1) Such obligations are authorized for an object or purpose for which said City is not authorized to expend money, or 2) The provisions of law which should be complied with at the date of publication of this resolution are not substantially complied with, and an action, suit or proceeding contesting such validity is commenced within twenty days after the date of such publication, or 3) Such obligations are authorized in violation of the provisions of the Constitution. Section 12. This resolution shall constitute a statement of official intent for purposes of Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-1. Other than as specified in this resolution, no monies are, or are reasonably expected to be, reserved, allocated on long-term basis, or otherwise set aside with respect to the permanent funding of the object or purpose described herein. Section 13. This resolution, which takes effect immediately, shall be published in full in the Ithaca Journal, the official newspaper, together with a notice of the City Clerk in substantially the form provided in Section 81.00 of the Local Finance Law. Alderperson Sams stated for the record that she is in favor of some of these projects, but not all of them, so she will not vote in favor of this Resolution. A roll call vote resulted as follows: Pryor – Yes Vaughan – Yes Manos – Yes Spielholz – Yes Sams - No Mack - Yes Farrell - Yes Hershey - Yes Blumenthal – Absent Taylor - Yes Carried Alderperson Taylor left the meeting at 10:40 p.m. Discussion Of The Mayor’s Veto On The Residency Requirement Ordinance – Possible Resolution Alderperson Manos read the Mayor’s Veto Message dated December 10, 2001, into the record: “I am respectfully submitting this veto message for the residency requirement resolution. I do believe that residency requirements are appropriate in some circumstances. Department Heads have a profound impact on the development and implementation of city policy. They should live in the community where these decisions are being made. December 19, 2001 1515 The primary reason for my objection to the resolution as written is that it does not provide for exceptions for promotional situations. If every city employee is told when they are first employed that, if they aspire to a management position, they will have to live in the city, then each person can knowingly make plans for where they live with this knowledge in mind. While the charter does already have a residency provision in it, I doubt many city employees have read it or have been given a copy to read. And given our lack of enforcement to date because of the weaknesses of the current provisions, why would they take is seriously? I also recently started questioning whether deputies should be subjected to this requirement. Other questions were raised at the Common Council meeting that merit discussion as well, and deserve an airing. While Council has the right to discuss and override this veto at its next meeting, I hope the opportunity for further discussion at the committee level is afforded so that we can ultimately craft a better resolution.” Alderperson Manos clarified that the Mayor did have an opportunity to work with the Human Resources Committee to offer input. The Mayor asked Common Council to review residency requirements for direction. Mayor Cohen stated that he did raise promotional opportunities as an issue to the Human Resources Committee. Discussion followed on the floor regarding the notification of existing employees of the residency requirement, and the definition of domicile. Alderperson Sams questioned how this legislation would affect minority hiring. Resolution: By Alderperson Manos: Seconded by Alderperson Hershey RESOLVED, That the Residency Requirement Ordinance be referred back to the Human Resources Committee for further discussion. Carried Unanimously ADJOURNMENT: On a motion the meeting adjourned at 11:00 P.M. ________________________ _______________________ Julie Conley Holcomb, CMC Alan J. Cohen, City Clerk Mayor