The City Council is looking to get more involved in the business of preserving landmarks.

A bill introduced yesterday by Council Member Tony Avella, a Democrat of Queens, would empower the legislative body to determine what buildings and neighborhoods are considered by the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission. Twice a year, the council would submit a list to the commission of potential landmarks and historic districts to be brought before a public hearing within 60 or 90 days.

“There are many sites in this city that people have put forward for 20 years that haven’t moved ahead,” Mr. Avella said. “It would be a rather lengthy list.”

Mr. Avella said the bill would open up the landmark designation process and expose the criteria that the commission uses in its designations.

“This would put the onus on the administration — why not do a particular landmark?” Mr. Avella said, adding that the borough of Manhattan “has gotten a lot of attention.”

Council Member Leticia James, a Democrat of Brooklyn, said the legislation was not about substituting the expertise of the commission with that of the city council, but “democratizing” the landmarking process and increasing transparency. Ms. James said the commission has favored Manhattan landmarks over other boroughs.

Currently, the chairman of the Landmarks Preservation Commission, Robert Tierney, who was appointed by Mayor Bloomberg, ultimately decides which potential landmarks go before a public hearing and are voted on by the 11-member board. Hundreds of requests by the public are processed every year and reviewed by a research team, which presents its findings to Mr. Tierney.

All designations must be approved by the council. Last year, the council overturned two landmarks that the commission put forward for designation, the Austin Nichols & Co. warehouse in Brooklyn and the Jamaica Savings Bank in Queens.

A spokeswoman for Landmarks said the commission is reviewing the legislation and declined comment.

Critics of Mr. Avella’s bill said the role of evaluating potential landmarks should not be the role of council members, who are responsible to their elected constituency, receive financial contributions for their campaigns, and are unlikely to have expertise in the field of preservation. Critics also say the bill has little chance of passing, and, because it would represent a transfer of power from the mayor to the city council, would require a public referendum.

Several prominent preservation groups, including the Historic Districts Council and Landmark West, gave their support yesterday to the proposed legislation.

The director of the Historic District Council, Simeon Bankoff, said the legislation was part of a “multi-pronged” agenda to save the city’s neighborhoods from overdevelopment. “We need some accountability,” Mr Bankoff said.

Preservation experts say neighborhood preservationists and community leaders are often frustrated by the commission’s “pocket veto,” or refusal to hold a public hearing on a potential landmark or historic district.

Tensions flared last year when Mr. Tierney refused to consider 2 Columbus Circle, a 1965 building with a unique façade designed by Edward Durell Stone. That building is now being remade by the Museum of Arts and Design.

Some residents of the Queens neighborhood of the Richmond Hill have long sought historic designation.

Preservation experts said the commission’s decisions not to consider certain landmarks could be due to political pressure from the mayor’s office, or from an internal calculation that the sites were unlikely to pass a vote by the commission’s board.

The chairwoman of the council’s subcommittee on landmarks, Jessica Lappin, a Democrat of Manhattan, also introduced a bill yesterday that would seek to improve the commission’s performance internally, rather than outsourcing potential designations to the council. Ms. Lappin’s bill would establish a survey division at the commission to devise “a more formal and proactive landmarks review process.”

Preservation experts say several reincarnations of Mr. Avella’s bill have surfaced over the years. Last year, a former council member, Bill Perkins, proposed a similar bill that sought to give more preservation power to the council.

At that time, the general counsel of the The Landmarks commissioner, Mark Silberman, testified before a city council subcommittee on the negative effects of Mr. Perkins’ bill.

Mr. Silberman said the requirement to hold public hearings over proposed designations within 60 days would significantly disrupt the commission’s ability to achieve its goals, and that the commission regularly consults with local council members over potential landmarks, according to testimony provided by the city’s law department.

“While this doesn’t mean we don’t disagree from time to time, in general the process has worked reasonably well for the last 40 years,” Mr. Silberman said.

The city council this year increased the Landmarks Commission’s budget for fiscal year 2007 by $250,000.