Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PLED-2016-10-12 Approved at the November 9, 2016 PEDC Meeting City of Ithaca Planning & Economic Development Committee Wednesday, October 12, 2016 – 6:00 p.m. Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street Minutes Committee Members Attending: Joseph (Seph) Murtagh, Chair; Graham Kerslick, Ducson Nguyen, and Cynthia Brock Committee Members Absent: Josephine Martell Other Elected Officials Attending: Mayor Svante Myrick and Alderperson George McGonigal Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Department of Planning, Building, Zoning, and Economic Development; Nels Bohn, Director, Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA); Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner; Jennifer Kusznir, Senior Planner; Deborah Grunder, Executive Assistant Others Attending: Phil Maguire and Tom Schickel, Maguire TMPUD Application; Joseph Bower, Director of Real Estate Development, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services; Form Ithaca Chair Seph Murtagh called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. 1) Call to Order/Agenda Review No changes were made to the agenda. 2) Public Comment and Response from Committee Members Deborah Dawson, 51 Dart Drive, Village of Lansing, stated she cannot understand how the City can even consider a huge parking lot at this location. From a county perspective, we need housing; not another car dealership. Put thi s where the rest of them are. People come to see our beautiful area – our parks, wineries, etc. – they don’t come to buy an automobile. Approved at the November 9, 2016 PEDC Meeting Fay Gougakis, 171 East State Street, is opposed to the Maguire project. She suggests the City really think about it. Development is moving at such a fast pace – we are going to use up all of our land. Parking is also an issue. The hotel isn’t even open yet and there isn’t any parking. The sandwich boards have been removed on the Commons. Who took them away? The DIA says the City did; the City says it was the DIA. She wants to know who’s responsible. Hayden Brainard, Iradell Road, he works for Maguire and stated that no vote should be taken today since the public hearing wasn’t advertised for today. Irene Weiser, Brooktondale Road, Caroline, the Waterfront is used by many not just the City of Ithaca residents. She commended the City’s Comprehensive Plan, but plans take a long time to cook. Wait for the right developer. “Make the Waterfront Great Again.” Dan Hoffman, 415 Elm Street, spoke on the Maguire project. What you have here is a willingness to work with the parties involved. Maguire has offered a great deal to the gardens which will help the City’s relationship with the gardens. Extending Fifth Street is not necessary to make this project go forward, but a traffic light with a left-hand turn into the site would make it much more attractive. Another thing to note is that this is not waterfront property. It is located close to the Waterfront. Brenda Westfall, Ithaca Housing Authority, she is very interesting in the dredging update. She serves as the president of the Ithaca Housing Authority. She is very concerned about the senior citizen complex namely Titus Towers which came very close to an evacuation in the middle of the night due to the ice jams in the City in 2015. Hannah Kinsella, 408 Center Street, spoke against the Maguire project. The Fifth Street intersection is already a busy area. The children need to be kept safe. The care of the water is also a concern. Although not right on the Waterfront, it is very close to the Waterfront Trail that is used by many families. Do we want to promote our citizens and those coming in to use more cars? Affordable housing is a much better choice for development. Kevin Kinsella, 107 Hickory Place. Growing Ithaca is inevitable, but we must be careful. We need to keep our town a cool town that it has been. We need to protect our water views. He is in opposition of this project. Chair Murtagh read into the record the comments made by Alderperson Fleming which is attached to these minutes. He further stated there are 250+ letters in opposition of this project. He also read into the record Approved at the November 9, 2016 PEDC Meeting Josephine Martell’s comments were read by Chair Murtagh st ated her opposition of the Maguire project. The Waterfront trail has recently been finished and now it’s time for us to work on the Waterfront. Chair Murtagh further stated that the public hearing was closed at the September 14, 2016 meeting. 3) Updates, Announcements, Reports a) Dredging Update Senior Planner Lisa Nicholas gave an update on the $2 Million NYS Capital Assistance Grant that was allocated to the City in 2007 through the help of Senator Lifton for dredging. Over the years there have been many ideas on how to use the money, but we were waiting to see the scope and timeline of the State's project to dredge the Flood Control Channel (FCC) as we were hoping to use the money for that project. The timeline for the state project is protracted, and we became concerned that the money would no longer be available to the City if we waited much longer to use it. We would like to use the money to dredge the lower reaches of Cascadilla Creek and install a sediment trap near the Rte. 13 Bridge. We have engaged a consultant to do project scoping and cost estimates for this project. The project will complement the DEC's dredging of the FCC, but can be done sooner. Committee members agreed with this concept and asked staff to look into two additional items: 1) extending a permanent water line from the IWWTP up Cascadilla Creek (to be used in case of a future ice jam, and 2) using a portion of the funding to dredge Six mile Creek. Nicholas agreed to look into these questions and return to the committee next month Alderperson Brock asked whether any of the allocated money can be used for the Titus Tower area. That question needs to be asked. Alderperson Nguyen asked what will be done with the sediment. Nicholas stated it will be recycled and used in other areas of the City. Nicholas further stated that it should take five months to prepare the scope and budget for the allocated funds. Approved at the November 9, 2016 PEDC Meeting 4) Action Items (Voting to Send on to Council) a) INHS Scattered Site Preservation Project Authorize Commitment Letter to Receive Grant Funds to Support the INHS Scattered Site Preservation Project Moved by Alderperson Brock; seconded by Alderperson Nguyen. Carried Unanimously. Whereas, INHS has an opportunity to receive grant funding to renovate existing rental units owned and managed by INHS as affordable rental housing, and Whereas, as a result of the February 11, 2016 Settlement Agreement between Morgan Stanley and the New York State Attorney General, grant funds are being made available to the Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) to address affordable rental housing needs in New York State, and Whereas, LISC has established the New York State Housing Stabilization Fund (NYSHSF) to support the preservation and development of affordable rental housing, and su pport services and programs for such housing throughout New York State, and Whereas, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. (INHS) has applied to LISC for up to $4,000,000 of funding through the NYSHSF program to support the INHS Scattered Site Preservation Project to refinance and renovate 98 affordable rental housing units in 44 buildings located in the City of Ithaca (the “Project”), and Whereas, the NYSHSF program requires the host municipality to execute a grant commitment letter to receive grant funds and pledge to use the proceeds of the grant solely for the Project, and Whereas, the objectives for the Project include:  Improve the quality of life for residents of the Project;  Renovation of each building;  Energy efficiency enhancements at each building;  Establishment of capitalize reserves for future maintenance;  Contractually restrict assisted units as affordable housing for at least 50 years; and, Whereas, the Project directly advances Housing Goal #5 in the City’s 2015 comprehensive plan, Plan Ithaca: “The existing stock of affordable housing will be preserved and well-maintained”; now, therefore, be it Approved at the November 9, 2016 PEDC Meeting RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council hereby endorses the INHS Scattered Site Preservation Project to refinance and renovate 98 existing units of affordable rental housing located on scattered sites in the City of Ithaca, and be it further, RESOLVED, that the Mayor, upon advice from the City Attorney, is hereby authorized to execute a commitment letter with LISC to accept up to $4,000,000 in grant funds to be used for the INHS Scattered Site Preservation Project, and any other documents necessary to receive and disburse such grant funds. b) Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund: Northside Community Celebration RESOLUTION: Request for Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Funds for the Northside Community Celebration, August 2016 Moved by Alderperson Brock; seconded by Alderperson Nguyen. Carried unanimously. WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council established the Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund in 1995 to provide financial assistance to city residents seeking to improve the quality of life in their neighborhoods, and WHEREAS, the fund is intended to support residents' interest in community improvement and to encourage, not replace volunteerism, and WHEREAS, the funds are intended to be used for projects or events that provide a general neighborhood benefit and not for the limited benefit of individuals or a select few residents, and WHEREAS, activities specified by the Common Council as eligible for the funding include but are not limited to neighborhood clean-ups, plantings in public places, and neighborhood events like block parties or meetings, and WHEREAS, neighborhood groups are required to submit a completed application specifying other project donations, estimated volunteer hours, estimated costs to be covered by the fund and signatures of residents in the immediate neighborhood, and WHEREAS, to streamline the process the Common Council has delegated authority to approve applications to the Planning & Economic Development Committee, and WHEREAS, each neighborhood group is eligible to receive up to $300 per year as a reimbursement award payable on the submission of original receipts or invoices for approved activities, and WHEREAS, the City cannot reimburse residents for sales tax expenses, and WHEREAS, on behalf of Northside United, Karen Friedeborn has submitted an application for up to $300 in reimbursement funds to off-set expenses from the annual Northside Community Celebration, and Approved at the November 9, 2016 PEDC Meeting WHEREAS, notice of the celebration was circulated throughout the neighborhood via flyers, banners, the Northside United newsletter, and the neighborhood listserv, and the event provided an opportunity for socializing with diverse groups of residents; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Planning and Economic Development Committee approves the funding request from Karen Friedeborn in the amount of $300 for reimbursement upon presentation of original invoices and/or receipts. c) Maguire TMPUD Application Moved by Alderperson Brock; seconded by Alderperson Nguyen. The resolution was re-entered for discussion and a vote. Phil Maguire thanked the committee for their consideration of this project. He stated that a building permit was submitted while the site was zoned industrial and then switched to the TMPUD. He stated that they have listened and agreed to what City government has suggested and is willing to work with the City to come up with a workable plan. He understands that the vote tonight is a vote to approve the project. It’s a vote to allow Maguire to continue with the project. Chair Murtagh stated that the City has changed since the property was purchased. The City is working toward a more mixed-used zoning. The rationale of the TMPUD is to allow the City to work on what the Waterfront Zone will be. Alderperson Brock thanked the Maguire group for working with the City, listened to the Community Gardens and provide a permanent home, etc. She really thinks Maguire has really done a phenomenal job working with the City. She stated that she doesn’t see this site to be a perfect site for housing because of the gas company, the railroad tracks, the power lines, etc. JoAnn Cornish stated that what is being voting on tonight is the go ahead to go through the site-plan review process. If the Council wants to vote move it through the process, they may do so or stop it now. Alderperson Kerslick thanked Maguire for all the work they’ve put into this project. It has very good features, but doesn’t feel that it fits into the Comprehensive Plan. Alderperson Brock stated her concern is what the impact of a high volume of car dealerships has on the City. The fact that there are car dealerships from the North entrance as well as the South entrance is of concern. This site has all the bones for light industry. If it’s not used in that way, it seems like a wasted opportunity. Alderperson Nguyen stated his focus is efficient land use. The project on that site should be efficient use of the land. Alderperson McGonigal stated that he disagrees that this site is a perfect area for the housing. The buried gas storage tanks from Morabito would make this site unfundable and the location is out of the way from any other recreational areas in the City. He likes the idea of breaking up the site as mixed use. He further stated that the efficient use of land is a key component. Due to the electrical lines which cause restrictions on this site, what other use is there but parking and a garden. Approved at the November 9, 2016 PEDC Meeting Alderperson Kerslick stated he is not convinced that this is the best efficient use of the land. There are a lot of paving in the south end of the City already. He would like to see a true mixed use with light industry use. He sees this as a passive use of the site. Chair Murtagh stated that this has not been one of the more enjoyable processes yet since being on Council. We are not dealing with a huge developer, but we are dealing with a local and long-time employer in the area. He doesn’t see this as the right project for the site. He would not like to see the Council give the go ahead only to get huge community opposition of the project. We need to be concerned of the voice of the community. If Council is not in favor of this site, are you willing to look at a different location in the City? Phil Maguire stated they were very open to a lot of different scenarios. The reality is where will we go? What side of the street can we be on? He pointed out that there are many areas that are zoned commercial that could be used for a car dealership until this site being zoned TMPUD. Alderperson Brock stated that this site is not anywhere near the Waterfront Trail and is not clear where the criticism is coming from. This project has provided significant amount of access to the Waterfront Trail. Mayor Svante Myrick joined the meeting at 7:40 p.m. Alderperson Brock stated that moving this forward to allow the applicant to provide a new proposal. Chair Murtagh stated that this is not the first TMPUD to be reviewed by the City. Alderperson Nguyen moved the resolution with does not; Alderperson Kerslick seconded it. Carries Unanimously. Alderperson Brock moved a friendly amendment to strike the second bullet that it doesn’t improve connection etc., seconded by Alderperson Kerslick. Carries unanimously. Consideration of Common Council Conditional Approval for Maguire at Carpenter Business Park Application for Temporary Mandatory Planned Unit Development (TMPUD) - Resolution WHEREAS, on March 2, 2016, the Common Council adopted legislation establishing a Temporary Mandatory Planned Unit Development (TMPUD) for a period of 18 months in the Waterfront Study Area, and WHEREAS, on July 22, 2016, Schickel Architecture submitted a completed TMPUD application on behalf of Carpenter Business Park, LLC, and WHEREAS, the proposal is to construct an approximately 50,000 SF Ford Lincoln Nissan dealership, including three new showrooms, a cafe/restaurant, and outdoor merchandise display, all fronting the Route 13 corridor, with a proposed sidewalk that will be tree lined and protected from Route 13 by a decorative fence, and Approved at the November 9, 2016 PEDC Meeting WHEREAS, in accordance with the adopted City process for consideration of a planned unit development, the application was circulated to City boards and committees, as well as to the County Planning Department, and WHEREAS, a public information session, hosted by the applicant, was held on August 31, 2016, and WHEREAS, in accordance with the TMPUD, the meeting was advertised in the Ithaca Journal, signs were posted on the property, and property owners within 500 feet were notified by mail of the meeting, and WHEREAS, a notice was posted in the Ithaca Journal on August 30, 2016, in order to advertise a legal public hearing to be held on September 14, 2016, and WHEREAS, the process for consideration of an application for a Planned Unit Development requires that the applicant obtain an approval in concept from the Common Council prior to beginning the site plan review process, WHEREAS, the Common Council reviewed all of the comments that were received and discussed the proposal at their meeting on September 14, 2016, and WHEREAS, according to the City Comprehensive Plan the development site is located across the Enterprise district, the West End Mixed Use District and the Waterfront Focus Area, and WHEREAS, any approved development in this area should be mixed use and will need to be compatible with the adjacent waterfront uses and nearby neighborhoods, and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive plan describes the West End district as a gateway to the City from the north and the west and further states that any uses approved in this area should be carefully considered for their visual impacts when entering into the City, WHEREAS, comments and discussion on this proposal concluded that it is not desirable to have a large parking lot as a gateway to the City, and WHEREAS, given the existing adjacent uses to the south, the approval of this development would result in nearly a half mile continuous corridor of automobile focused uses on the west side of Route 13, and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan calls for development in this district to provide a pedestrian -scale street – level experience with slower traffic, safer pedestrian and bike crossings of major transit corridors, and improved connections to the adjacent waterfront area and existing trail network. New development should feature multi - story mixed use buildings that define a street edge and provide pockets of green space, and WHEREAS, this proposal does not meet the goals of the Urban Mixed Use district for the following reasons:  Proposal does not create pedestrian scale street level buildings along the street edge.  Proposal is for a primarily single story single use building surrounded by a large parking area WHEREAS, the City Comprehensive Plan notes that parking for private vehicles has significant implications for land use, fiscal health, community livability, and environmental management, and further notes that nearly all privately-owned surface parking lots are tied to single landowners or businesses, rather than allowing shared parking, and Approved at the November 9, 2016 PEDC Meeting WHEREAS, the proposed development includes a large single user surface parking lot, and WHEREAS, the City Comprehensive Plan discourages new construction of impervious surfaces and encouraging conversion of existing impervious surfaces into pervious surfaces and landsca ping, and now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Common Council has reviewed the application for the Maguire at Carpenter Business Park project and has determined that it does not comply with the goals of the City Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the Common Council does not hereby grant an approval in concept to Maguire at Carpenter Business Park. d) Change to Definition of “Mezzanine” in City Code To: Planning & Economic Development Committee From: Office of the City Attorney Date: October 6, 2016 Subject: Ordinance to amend the Zoning and Housing Standards Code definitions of “Mezzanine” and “Story” ________________________________________________________________________ Staff have identified ambiguities and inconsistencies between the City’s Zoning and Housing Standards Code regarding the terms “mezzanine” and “story” and have asked this office to address the issue. Below are the issues and proposed code changes. First, Section 325-3 of the Zoning Code, which sets forth “definitions and word usage,” contains no definition for the word “mezzanine,” despite its inclusion in Section 210-5, “definitions,” of the Housing Standards Code. The proposed ordinance defines mezzanine in the Zoning Code in a manner consistent with the recently updated New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code and amends the existing Housing Standards definition of mezzanine to match. Second, the definition of “story” in the Zoning Code conflicts with the word’s definition in the Housing Standards Code. The Housing Standards Code provides a mezzanine shall not be deemed a story, while the Zoning Code dictates a mezzanine that exceeds “1/3 of the area of the floor immediately below” shall be deemed a story. The proposed ordinance would remove the conflicting portion of the Zoning Code definition and replace it with language indicating a mezzanine is not a story. With this memorandum, please find the proposed ordinance, which: Approved at the November 9, 2016 PEDC Meeting (i) adds a “mezzanine” definition to the Zoning Code; (ii) amends the Housing Standards Code definition of “mezzanine” to match; and (iii) amends the Zoning Code definition of “story” that conflicts with the Housing Standards Code. Moved by Alderperson Brock; seconded Alderperson Kerslick. Carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. ___-2016 An Ordinance Amending Chapters 325 – “Zoning” – and 210 – “Housing Standards” – of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code to Add a Zoning Definition for “Mezzanine,” Amend the Housing Standards Definition of “Mezzanine,” and Amend the Zoning Definition of “Story.” WHEREAS, Chapter 325 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, full title “City of Ithaca, New York, Zoning Ordinance,” in Section 325-3 of that Chapter, sets forth “Definitions and word usage” for certain words and terms used throughout the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, Chapter 210 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, “Housing Standards,” in Section 210-5 of that Chapter, sets forth “Definitions” for certain words and terms used throughout the Housing Standards; and WHEREAS, the Common Council, to eliminate any ambiguity or inconsistency in its Municipal Code that may result from current Sections 325-3 and 210-5, wishes to (i) add a definition for the word “Mezzanine” to Section 325-3 consistent with the definition in Section 210-5, (ii) amend the definition of “Mezzanine” in Section 210-5 to be consistent with Section 325-3 and the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code, and (iii) amend the Section 325-3 definition of “Story” to remove its above-described sentence regarding “Mezzanine” that conflicts with the definition of “Story” in Section 210-5; now therefore BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows: Section 1. Findings of Fact. The Common Council finds that: 1. Staff have identified the following ambiguities and inconsistencies in the definitions sections of the City’s Zoning and Housing Standards codes in regarding the words “mezzanine” and “story.” 2. Section 325-3 does not define the word “Mezzanine.” 3. Section 210-5 of Chapter 210 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, “Housing Standards,” defines the word “Mezzanine” as “An intermediate level between the floor and ceiling of any space that is completely open or provides adequate visibility to the level below as defined in the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code.” 4. The definition of the word “Story” in Section 325-3 provides, in part, “If a mezzanine floor area exceeds 1/3 of the area of the floor immediately below, it shall be deemed to be a story.” Approved at the November 9, 2016 PEDC Meeting 5. The definition of the word “Story” in Section 210-5 provides, in part, that “[a] mezzanine as defined in the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code” shall not be deemed a story. Section 2. Creation of a Zoning Definition for “Mezzanine.” The “Definitions and word usage” Section 325-3 of the Municipal Zoning Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to add a definition of “Mezzanine,” in alphabetical order, and to read as follows: MEZZANINE An intermediate level or levels between the floor and ceiling of any space as defined in the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code. Section 3. Amendment of the Housing Standards Definition of “Mezzanine.” The “Definitions” Section 210-5 of the Municipal Housing Standards Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to read as follows: MEZZANINE An intermediate level or levels between the floor and ceiling of any space that is completely open or provides adequate visibility to the level below as defined in the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code. Section 4. Amendment of the Zoning Definition of “Story.” The word “Story” in “Definitions and word usage” Section 325-3 of the Municipal Zoning Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to read as follows: STORY The portion of a building which is between one floor level and the next higher floor level or the roof. If a mezzanine floor area exceeds 1/3 of the area of the floor immediately below, it shall be deemed to be a story. A mezzanine as defined in the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code is not a story. A basement shall be deemed to be a story when its ceiling is six or more feet above the finished grade. A cellar shall not be deemed a story. An attic shall not be deemed to be a story if unfinished and without human occupancy. Section 5. Severability. 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. Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect in accordance with law, and upon publication of notice as provided in the Ithaca City Charter. Approved at the November 9, 2016 PEDC Meeting e) Carbon Fee and Dividend Resolution Resolution Urging United States Congress to pass Carbon Fee and Dividend legislation Moved by Alderperson Kerslick; seconded by Alderperson Nguyen. Carried 3-1 (Brock) Whereas climate scientists worldwide are in near-unanimous agreement that the planet Earth is warming rapidly and to a degree that is perilous to human civilization, to numerous species, and to the global ecosystem, Whereas human activity is a significant contributor to global warming, especially through the accelerating combustion of fossil fuels that create carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as a byproduct; and Whereas the City of Ithaca Common Council has a record of acknowledging the reality of climate change as well as the city’s responsibility to reduce its contribution to the causes of global warming, as evidenced by the City of Ithaca’s Energy Action Plan and Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas a prompt and major shift away from fossil fuels is a necessary cornerstone to any meaningful response to global warming, and; Whereas a steadily increasing fee on fossil fuels at the point of their entry into the economy would be straightforward and make effective use of free-market mechanisms to promote the transition to greater energy conservation and renewable sources of energy, and Whereas this revenue-neutral carbon fee and dividend is an effective method to reduce carbon emissions for the following reasons: 1) The fee would motivate everyone to conserve and adopt renewable energy without the need for extensive governmental regulatory controls or infrastructure, encouraging consumers and the market to replace consumption of carbon-based energy with innovative, sustainable energy sources, whether by being more efficient or choosing other, less carbon intensive energy sources; and 2) The fee would employ a market approach to encourage innovative processes, not only in energy production, but also in every field in which energy is consumed, e.g. electric cars, mass transportation, architectural planning and construction, water heating, lighting, and air conditioning in residential and commercial buildings; 3) Levying the fee at the point of production would be more efficient, less expensive and provide more accurate signals than would doing so at the point of consumption; 4) The fee would incentivize the development and use of alternative energies and attendant technologies, eliminating the need for government subsidies that attempt to forecast alternative energy winners and losers; 5) Because the fee is levied on the same basis on all businesses, it is fairer to every business and easier to administer than alternatives, such as a cap and trade system; Approved at the November 9, 2016 PEDC Meeting 6) A border adjustment would assess a fee on goods traded with countries without a comparable carbon price, thereby maintain the competiveness of US businesses and discourage relocation to such countries; and Whereas such a policy would protect lower and middle-income households, as the dividend would allow more than 70% of American households to benefit financially, break even, or have only minimal increased costs from this policy; the policy would also create jobs, as the dividend puts money back into local economies; and Whereas further delay in responding to this crisis increases the risk of catastrophic climate change, imminently threatens low-lying coastal areas and land and sea species, threatens water supplies, increases the frequency of severe weather events, increases the cost of undertaking adequate responses, and increases risks to the global economy; now, therefore be it Resolved that the Ithaca Common Council endorses a carbon fee and dividend and urges our representatives in the United States Congress to enact it into law. Approved at the November 9, 2016 PEDC Meeting 5) Special Order of Business a) Form Ithaca: Presentation and Discussion After the presentation, it was agreed that Form Ithaca will construct a resolution and bring it back to the November meeting for discussion and a possible vote. 6) Review and Approval of Minutes a) September 2016 Moved by Alderperson Kerslick; seconded by Alderperson Kerslick. Passed unanimously. 7) Adjournment Moved by Alderperson Kerslick; seconded by Alderperson Nguyen. Passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:06 p.m.