►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
F
All
right,
so,
let's
pick
up
where
we
left
off
I
have
one
more
comment
that
I
was
gonna
read.
This
is
a
comment
from
John
Gutteridge
on
the
proposal
for
the
C
pace.
Legislation
he
writes
pace
is
an
energy
improvement
financing
program
that
allows
commercial
property
owners
to
finance
energy
improvements
that
get
paid
for
on
the
municipal
tax
bills.
F
This
is
attractive
because
it
moves
the
capital
cost
to
an
operating
expense
line
that
offsets
another
operating
expense,
meaning
that
commercial
property
owners
are
incentivized
to
make
the
investments,
even
though
their
tenants
are
ultimately
getting
the
benefit
of
reduced
energy
bills.
In
the
case
of
many
commercial
leases,
the
tax
bills
are
passed
through
to
tenants,
in
addition,
because
the
financing
lives
with
the
property.
C
F
F
F
The
most
commercial
property,
our
owners
don't
like
to
make
investments
in
energy
improvements
that
payback
over
a
period
longer
than
five
years,
because
they
do
not
know
if
they'll
be
holding
the
building
longer
and
the
value
of
energy
improvements
at
a
sale
often
does
not
get
reflected
in
the
sale
price.
The
city
adopted
pace
a
few
years
ago,
but
that
program
from
the
state
expired
I'm,
going
to
ask
that
you
act
at
PD
for
council
as
appropriate
to
adopt
C
pace,
which
is
the
updated
program
to
allow
local
property
owners
access
to
this
program.
F
F
F
To
close,
the
public
hearing
moves
please
Cynthia
second
player
on
favor,
and
that
carries
your
name.
So
are
there
any
announcements
or
updates
okay?
Seeing
none
first
action
item
on
our
agenda
is
Co
vid,
19
months
and
there's
a
resolution
then
to
packet,
as
well
as
a
breakdown
and
I,
believe
that
yes,.
G
F
I
Well,
first
of
all,
it's
it's
great
to
see
all
of
these
programs-
and
there
was
a
quite
a
few
submittals
and
I
think
that
those
that
were
selected
are
those
that
would
have
the
most
immediate
impact.
So
I
appreciate
that
the
thinking
that
went
into
this
election
in
part
of
the
review
was
it
considered
that
one
group
might
be.
It
might
be
better
to
sort
of
have
larger
funds
with
one
group
rather
than
a
small
funds
distributed
among
several
groups.
H
They
had
requested
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
and
the
committee
or
I'm
sorry,
the
Board,
discussed
all
of
the
different
elements
of
it
and
certain
elements
of
it
might
have
possibly
been
difficult
to
prevent
duplication
of
services.
So
they
kind
of
honed
in
on
some
of
the
services
that
Salvation
Army
could
provide
that
others
weren't
proposing
to
provide
and
scaled
it
back
due
to
that,
but
they
didn't
really
talk
about
in
specifically
the
way
that
you
were
just
asking
yeah,
you
know
the
value
of
distributing
like
higher
amounts
to
some
groups.
Okay,
thank.
I
B
H
Think
you
did
get
that
right.
Those
were
definitely
issues.
They
were
discussing
Laura.
They
did
make
known
on
the
RFP
that
issues
relating
to
yes,
that
the
three
priorities
that
the
IRA
was
looking
to
fund,
but
it
could
fund
other
priorities
or
you
know
that
were
coming
forward
from
the
applicants
were
housing
issues
like
he
said:
emergency
rental
assistance,
services
that
witnesses
people
experiencing
homelessness
during
the
time
of
Kovan
and
the
issues
related
to
nonprofits
that
might
struggle
with
reopening
and
then
the
issues
that
you
enumerated.
Laura
were
definitely
all
part
of
that
discussion.
H
F
H
F
Okay,
next
up
is
the
break
and
access
at
fifth
Street
in
route
13.
This
is
a
resolution
of
support.
You
have
we've
seen
this
this
proposal
before
it's
tied
to
the
carpenter
park,
development
which
they
want
to
put
it
break,
and
access
on
Route,
13
and
the
project
ran
into
some
issues
with
the
d-o-t
that
had
learned
about
the
traffic
impacts
that
the
project
would
generate.
F
So
we
kind
of
pushed
pause
on
this,
bringing
it
back
now,
because
those
projects
are
moving
forward
and
the
choice
is
really
between
whether
we're
gonna
do
four
way
intersection
or
whether
we're
gonna
do
a
three
way.
So
is
there
a
motion
to
move
the
resolution
moved
by
Donna
seconded
by
law,
discussion.
F
I
E
I
If
you
try
to
come
down
on
Hancock,
you
can
only
go
right
and
then
5th
Street
would
be
the
next
opportunity
that
you
could
actually
turn
left
off
of
5th
Street
into
route
13.
So
maybe
it's
too
late
to
add
that
as
a
discussion
and
now
that
I'm
talking
about
it,
it
probably
is
but
I
was
wondering
if
there
had
been
any
conversation
around
fifth
Street
being
one
way,
if
that
would
make
any
difference
in
terms
of
traffic
impact
and
on
thirteen
and
one
way
to
mitigate
additional
traffic
in
the
neighborhood
I.
C
C
It
seems
to
me
that
it
would
help
relieve
a
little
bit
of
the
burden
on
day
Street
and
3rd
Street
and
I,
like
the
arguments
presented
in
materials
that
this
conforms
to
our
vision
of
the
urban
boulevard,
although
that
seems
like
a
really
long
term
vision
and
ideally
have
traffic
mitigation
and
more
pedestrian
and
bicycle
access.
I
mean
I'm,
certainly
in
sympathy
with
people
who
who
will
live
on
the
dead
end
and
who
enjoy
the
having
their
dead
end
of
the
cul-de-sac.
F
F
Could
say
that
I
can
say
that
you
know
I
I,
still
support
of
the
three-way
option
and
the
reason
is
that
I
am
concerned
about
the
traffic
impacts
in
the
neighborhood.
You
have
Ithaca,
Housing
Authority
is
right.
There
you
have
a
lot
of
families
and
young
kids
that
live
there.
I
think
my
biggest
concern
is
that
there's
gonna
be
a
lot
of
trips
that
are
generated
from
corporate
or
business
Park,
people
that
just
drive
straight
through
that
intersection,
especially
if
there's
traffic
buildup
on
route
13.
F
G
E
G
E
F
C
D
C
C
C
F
Streets
have
had
serious
problems
with
traffic
and
all
kinds
of
debates
about
traffic
calming
and
traffic
calming
measures.
I.
Think
that's
my
concern
is
that,
like
we
could
do
this
gonna
be
right
back
here
and
like
a
year
to
having
a
conversation
about
putting
like
race
crosswalks
in
there
or
having
you
know,
traffic,
you
know,
I.
Think
you
look
at
Cleveland
half
is
a
good
example
of
a
street
that
dead
ends
over
13,
and
you
know
it's
a
very
quiet,
residential
street.
It's
very
pleasant
for
families.
F
F
B
B
B
Reduce
the
feeling
of
a
major
highway
by
changing
Route
13
into
more
of
an
urban
Boulevard
I'm,
not
persuaded
that
opening
up
Fifth
Street
changes,
the
nature
or
the
feel
of
who
thirteen
and
I
am
concerned
with
the
number
of
families
and
children
who
live
near
that
intersection
of
Hancock
and
Fifth
Street.
We
saw
an
awful
lot
of
traffic
on
Hancock
Street.
There
have
been
new,
stop
signs
included
on
Hancock.
That
seems
to
have
helped,
but
I
would
be
concerned
about
people
from
carpenter,
Park
cutting
through
5th
Street
I.
F
F
I
Thanks
I,
one
of
my
concerns
is
I,
I,
guess
I
I
understand
what
Laura
is
saying
is
that
people
would
come
out
of
carpenter
and
and
go
through
this
intersection
to
get
into
the
neighborhood
rather
than
take
third
Street.
My
concern
is:
is
that
what
will
happen
is
with
the
increased
traffic
and
without
this
additional
break
in
access,
we're
actually
going
to
see
a
much
higher
volume
of
traffic?
That's
going
to
be
utilizing
3rd,
Street
and
Willow
to
avoid
the
development
as
they
get
into
town.
I
So
what
they'll
do
is
they'll
come
off
the
hill
come
down
13
and
then
either
take
willow
or
or
3rd
to
get
into
the
neighborhoods
to
get
straight
downtown
rather
than
going
through
the
stoplights,
because
now
it'll
be
the
backup
will
be
farther
up
the
hill,
so
I
feel
like
by
having
more
avenues
where
people
can
go
around
the
congestion
of
Fulton
and
meadow.
It
would
distribute
it
in
perhaps
a
more
even
fashion
than
really
just
channeling.
I
All
the
traffic
to
to
Willow
and
third
I
will
say
that
you
know
if
I
am
coming
from
downtown
and
I
want
to
get
on
to
13.
I
I
do
remind
myself
that
Hancock
is
a
right
turn
only
which
then
drives
me
into
the
the
neighborhoods
towards
BJM
to
get
back
onto
13,
so
by
having
5th
Street
there.
You
know
remember
that
the
ICSD
streets
and
facilities
building
is
is
in
that
neighborhood.
There's
this
the
stone
distributorship
there's
a
towing
company
and
and
other
commercial
areas
there.
C
I
did
have
my
hand
up
but
Cynthia
kind
of
said
what
I
wanted
that
a
pile
and
stone
company
that
right
now
probably
works
its
way
through
4th
Street
with
I
assume,
big
delivery,
trucks,
I,
don't
know,
and
also
3rd
Street
has
plenty
of
families
with
children
on
it
and
there's
and
that
crosses
route.
13
is
far
away
so
again,
I'm
in
complete
sympathy
with
the
people
on
Fifth
Street,
but
I
want
to
know
what's
best
for
the
city.
B
I
I,
too,
want
to
do
what's
best
for
the
city,
I
too,
very
much
value
the
input
of
staff
when
we're
considering
these
tough
and
less
than
completely
transparent,
completely
obvious
choices.
So
I
do
respect
that
I
mentioned
families
that
are
especially
along
Hancock,
3rd
and
5th.
We
also
have
the
Finger
Lakes
independence,
Center
and
flick
has
serves
population
that
may
be
a
more
vulnerable
population
and
I
am
concerned
with
increasing
traffic
in
that
in
that
area,
as
well.
J
J
You
know
what
we
do
know
about:
building
cities
is
that
dead
ends
are
not
dead.
Ends
are
less
conducive.
That
ends
create
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
other
problems
and
I'm,
not
sure.
If
this
already
was
a
pass-through,
if
we
would
create
a
dead
end,
there
I
can
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
the
argument
for
like
the
reverse
argument
and
I.
It's
not
there's
not
much.
That's
resonating
with
me
and
I
think
and
I
think
when
it
comes
to
an
urban
boulevard.
J
If
there
is
a
good
medium
there,
if
there
is
a
good,
if
there
is
nice
flow
through
there,
if
you
are
creating
a
scenario
that
is
easy
for
bicyclists
and
pedestrians
to
navigate
and
get
around,
then
I
think
that
you
can
end
up
with
something
that
feels
a
little
less
like
a
highway
as
it
does
right
now.
So
I
I
think
you
know,
the
best
thing
for
a
city
is,
is
gridded
infrastructure
and
I.
Think
we
have
an
opportunity
to
complete
it
right
here,
so
I'm,
supportive
of
that
all.
F
C
F
Next,
up
on
the
agenda
is
the
the
open
pace,
financing
local
law
and
municipal
agreement.
So
this
is
an
incentive
program
that
allows
property
owners
to
do
energy
upgrades
on
their
properties
and
we
had
a
program
pace
program
but
to
my
knowledge,
I,
don't
think
anyone
in
the
city
took
advantage
of
it
and
it
expired,
but
we
kind
of
local
developer.
John
Gutteridge
I
read
out
his
comment
earlier
today
tonight:
who's
requesting
that
we
move
forward
with
this
because
he
wants
to
apply
for
the
program
so
so
in
your
agenda.
Packet
is
a
resolution.
F
Authorization
for
municipal
agreement
with
the
energy
Improvement
Corporation
to
implement
the
energized
NY
open
seat
based
financing
program.
I
believe
there
might
be.
Is
there?
Was
there
gonna,
be
a
guess?
Oh
yes,
Sarah
smiley
is
here.
If
people
have
questions
about
this
this
program
and
how
it
works.
So
maybe
we
just
start
off
with
a
motion
on
the
resolution.
Is
there
a
motion
moved
by
Laura
seconded
by
Donna
discussion.
I
And
I
think
Sarah,
you
might
have
been
doing
the
presentation
last
time.
So
if
I
recall
this
is
the
third
iteration
of
this
program.
That's
coming
to
us
and
I
I
must
say
out
of
the
the
three
iterations
I
do
like
this.
The
most
I
appreciate
the
the
changes
that
were
incorporated
at
the
state
level.
I
appreciate
that
the
municipality
itself
is
no
longer
the
body
that
is
either
building
or
receiving
the
funds
on
behalf
of
the
applicant
I,
it
wasn't
consistent
and
I'm,
not
quite
sure.
I
I
You
know
I
I,
do
appreciate
that
this
program
is
limited
to
commercial
and
business
properties
and
residential
properties
of
three
units
or
more
I
felt
very
strongly
that
this
is
not
a
program
that
is
ended
easily
understandable
by
your
average
residential
owner
and
the
reason
for
that
is
and
and
Seraph
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong.
The
reason
that
I'm
concerned
about
it
for
residential
use
is
twofold:
one
is
is
that
there
is
no
accelerating
the
payment
on
a
loan
like
this.
So
if
it's
a
30-year
financing
agreement,
it
must
be
paid
over
30
years.
I
It
was
silent
on
that,
but
I
think
that
that
I'm
gonna
assume
that
that's
the
same
on
the
other
aspect
to
this
is
that
it
is
a
financing
agreement
that
takes
priority
over
traditional
financing,
so
it
only
in
a
second
in
priority
to
municipal
taxes,
but
would
take
priority
over
any
kind
of
bank
financing.
So
if,
if
an
applicant
thought
that
they
might
need
a
loan
against
their
property
at
some
future
point,
they
might
be
hard
pressed
to
find
a
banking
institution
who
would
be
willing
to
be
subjugated
after
the
repayment
of
this
loan.
I
So
so
I
guess
my
questions
to
you
for
clarification
is:
is
it?
Is
there
a
place
in
the
agreement
that
I
must
have
not
read
carefully
and
missed
that
articulates
that
the
municipality
is
no
longer
financially
responsible
for
for
the
loan
payments
that
are
utilized
in
in
our
region
as
a
part
of
this
program?
My
second
question
is:
could
you
confirm
that
that
you,
you
can
or
cannot,
accelerate
repayment
of
the
loan
and
then
well?
I
K
You
for
those
questions,
I'm
Sarah,
smiley
and
director
Member
Services
for
energy,
Improvement,
Corporation
or
AIC
the
Kiester,
not
aware
where
the
nonprofit
local
development
corporation,
that
administers
the
peace
finance
program,
and
we
do
that
on
behalf
of
our
member
municipalities
across
the
state.
So
to
answer
your
questions,
this
new
version
of
the
program
and
I
appreciate
that
the
city
has
gone
through
with
us
on
a
couple
of
iterations
of
US
Open
CPS
was
designed
to
remove
any
administrative
burdens
from
the
city
as
well
as
any
financial
obligations.
K
The
city
is
any
municipality
who
participates,
is
not
on
the
hook
and
is
not
involved
in
any
payment
collection
or
remitting
payment
to
the
capital
provider,
so
a
north.
To
achieve
that,
we
have
taken
it
off
the
tax
bill,
so
the
pace
charge
that
secures
repayment
of
the
financing.
It's
a
special
assessment
on
the
property,
but
we've
taken
it
off
the
tax
bill.
So
it's
been
able
to
subordinate
it
to
municipal
taxes,
so
that
gives
security
to
the
municipality
that
you
will
receive.
You
know
anything
Oh
to
first,
and
it
is.
K
So
one
of
the
benefits
of
pace
and
what
makes
it
unique
and
different
from
a
traditional
bank
loan
is
that
does
not
accelerate,
which
allows
it
to
run
with
the
property
and
that
motivates
building
owners
who
might
otherwise
be
hesitant
to
make
energy
upgrades
because
they
don't
know
how
long
they'll
hold
onto
the
building.
This
motivates
them
to
go
forward
and
make
those
improvements,
because
future
owners
of
the
property
would
receive
the
benefit
and
continue
paying
the
annual
assessment
payment,
just
as
they
would
for
other
public
benefits
on
the
property.
K
That
being
said,
the
property
owner
enters
into
a
finance
agreement
directly
with
the
capital
provider.
We
currently,
it's
called
open
CPS,
because
it's
an
open
market,
commercial
peace
program,
which
is
another
major
change
from
how
it
used
to
be
operated
in
the
past
exe
provided
financing
directly
on.
So
now
we
have
a
list
of
currently
11
capital
providers,
they're
listed
on
our
website,
and
that
also
allows
property
owners
to
shop
around
to
see
who
gets
who
can
give
them
the
best
read
for
their
project.
K
So
they
enter
into
a
finance
agreement
with
the
capital
provider
and
they
can
arrange
to
prepay,
but
that
is,
but
that
would
be
in
the
finance
agreement.
So
we
don't
govern
whether
or
not
they're
able
to
do
that.
But
normally
the
financing
runs
with
the
property,
because
it's
for
permanent
improvements
to
the
property.
I
This
is
a
very
interesting
new
one,
so
so
a
property
owner
can
prepay,
but
even
though
they
prepay
with
the
financing
agreement,
the
the
lien
against
the
property
for
lack
of
a
better
term
will
continue
for
the
duration
of
of
the
term,
and
if
they
sell
that
property
it
will
attach
with
the
property,
sale
and
the
buyer
would
need
to
know
that
any
future
financing
that
they
would
achieve
would
be
subordinate
to
this
existing
agreement
unless
it
had
been
repaid
by
the
previous
by
the
seller.
Correct.
K
So
whatever
is
remaining
on,
the
entire
benefit
assessment
remains
with
the
property,
so
if
they
don't
prepay
the
full
amount
than
any
future
annual
installment
would
be
paid
by
the
next
owner
so
because
it
is
takes
priority
over
non-
billions
and
it
does
that
because
it
can
only
be
created
by
the
municipality.
That's
part
of
the
public
benefit
of
it.
The
we
do
require
lender
consent,
there's
a
mortgage
holder
on
the
property,
and
you
know
the
nation.
K
There
are
pace,
programs,
nationwide
and
I,
believe
it
there's
a
list
of
between
170
and
200
financial
institutions
that
have
given
lender
consent
to
pace
financings
generally
because
it
improves
their
collateral.
You
know
there:
it's
improving
the
cash
flow
of
the
property
owner
because
they're
making
these
improvements
that
reduce
their
expenses
and
you
improve
their
cash
flow
and
and
also
because
the
loan
doesn't
accelerate,
it's
only
the
any
annual
delinquent
payment
that
can
be
enforced.
K
C
So
I
wanted
to
ask
if
this
is
so
commercial
some
financial
organizations
lend
money
to
property
owners
so
that
the
property
owners
can
make
energy
improvements.
I,
don't
really
understand
what
role
the
municipality,
why
they
miss
pouty
isn't
needed.
What
role
does
the
municipality
have
so
so
I
think
the
answer
is
that
we
implement
this
lien.
C
K
It's
only
the
municipality
that
has
the
authority
to
create
this
lien
that
runs
with
the
property
and
allows
these
this
financing
to
be
paid
back
over
such
a
long
term.
So
you
know
you
might
be
able
to
get
a
loan
from
your
bank
for
the
you
know,
five
years,
which
would
really
limit
how
much
you
could
improve
your
property,
because
each
annual
payment
would
be
that
much
larger
right
if
you're
paying
it
back
within
five
years,
but
because
it's
secured
by
this
assessment
on
the
property
that
runs
for
such
a
long
term.
K
Property
owners
can
afford
much
more
significant
improvements
to
their
properties
because
they're
paying
it
back
over
twenty
to
thirty
years.
Generally,
so,
even
though
our
in
our
program,
the
financing
is
coming
from
private
capital
providers,
it
still
requires
to
be
enabled
by
the
municipality,
because
that's
where
CIC
gets
the
authority
to
create
the
lien,
and
we
can
then
assign
that
lien
to
the
capital
provider
and
if
I
could
just
clarify
one
thing.
K
This
Brock,
you
mentioned
that
the
three
units
or
more
is
listed
in
the
local
law.
Just
want
you
to
know.
We
also
have
a
higher
requirement
in
our
program
beyond
within
the
local
law.
We
require
that
there
are
five
units
in
the
building
just
because
we
want
to
make
sure
it's
strictly
commercial
properties.
So
that's
part
of
our
program
guidelines.
That's
in
the
handbook
on
our
website.
C
I
F
Comment
so
I'm
glad
we
were
able
to
move
this
forward,
I
mean,
obviously
it's
it's
in
line
with
our
goals
for
reducing
greenhouse
gas
emissions
and
climate
change
and
the
green
new
deal
so
I
think
this
makes
a
lot
of
sense
and
we
have
a
property
owner
who
wants
to
do
it
so
I
think
this
is.
This
is
great
and
I
definitely
support
it.
So
if
there's,
if
there's
no
further
discussion,
we're
probably
ready
to
vote
all
those
in
favor.