No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-COMSERV-2004-11-10 Page 1 of 2 COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE MINUTES - UNAPPROVED November 10, 2004 Committee Members Present: Alderpersons Maria Coles, Robin Holtham Korherr, Michael Taylor, Mary Tomlan, and David Whitmore (Chair) Staff and Other Council Members Present: Tim Logue, Neighborhood and Economic Development Planner; Marty Luster, City Attorney; Pam Mackesey, Common Council; Carolyn Peterson, Mayor; Lauren Signor, Police Chief; Steve Thayer, City Controller 1. Meeting called to order at 7:02 pm 2. Greeting from the Chair 3. Approval of Minutes On a motion by Coles, seconded by Taylor, the October 13, 2004 minutes of the Community Services Committee were approved unanimously (4-0) as written (Korherr had not arrived yet). 4. Review Agenda There were no changes to the agenda. Korherr arrived at 7:09pm 5. Public Comment James DeChene, a representative of the Association of Builders and Contractors and not a resident of Tompkins County, spoke against the Apprenticeship Policy resolution. Brian Noteboom, of the Empire State Regional Council of Carpenters, Local 281 and a resident of Tompkins County, spoke in favor of the Apprenticeship Policy resolution. Jerry Stevenson, a resident of the Town of Ulysses and the owner of McPherson Builders, which is located in the City of Ithaca, spoke against the Apprenticeship Policy resolution. David Marsh, a representative of the Tompkins Cortland Trades Council, spoke in favor of the Apprenticeship Policy resolution. Tin Man:Users:navigatordave:Docimients:Common Councii:Community Services:12-8-2004:11_1004 CS minutes.doc Page 2 of 2 Richard Hinkley, a business agent for the local painter's union, spoke in favor of the Apprenticeship Policy resolution. Joel Harlan, a resident of the Town of Newfield, spoke in favor of the the Apprenticeship Policy resolution. He also said the City needs nightclubs and strip joints to bring people downtown, but cautioned the City to watch out for drugs and alcohol. Carolyn Peterson and Pam Mackesey arrived at 7:20pm. 6. Response to Public Comment/Committee Privilege of the Floor Taylor announced that he would have to leave the meeting for a short while, but that he hoped to return in time for the Apprenticeship Policy discussion. 7. Intermunicipal Communications A. Report from Tompkins County Liaison - No report B. Town of Ithaca Liaison Report- No report 8. Ithaca Police Department - Report Police Chief Lauren Signor gave a short presentation on recent police department work. She discussed the Collegetown Creeper case and a recent violent rape case. She noted that the department has hired a new officer, that a few entry-level positions are still open, and that interviews with deputy police chief candidates are currently taking place. Lastly, she invited people to come see the recent painted stairwell in the Police Department, which was painted by Cornell student volunteers. A short question and answer period followed. 9. Apprenticeship Policy - Resolution Whitmore gave some background on the item and outlined the proposed resolution. Discussion ensued. Thayer provided a list of capital projects from the last two years that would have been affected by such a policy. Coles spoke in favor of the resolution and made a motion to approve it. Korherr seconded the motion, but noted that she would be interested in a more gradual implementation. Thayer voiced some concerns about the resolution: that it would reduce the number of qualified bidders, increase costs, and burden city employees. Tomlan spoke in favor of the goals, but expressed some concern about how the City can track its effectiveness. After some further discussion, no action was taken. 10. On a motion by Coles, seconded by Korherr, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:10pm. Tin Man:Users:navigatordave:Documents:Common Council:Community Services:12-8-2004:11_1004 CS minutes.doc •, . , , ____,„,„„ . .. CITY OF ITHACA Cr~re. , `„ itt:,, 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 TlflfTl! �'-iS''(1`�7 ruD ,,�` — �, COMMON COUNCIL '`.1:60=- Telephone: 607/274-6570 Date: December 1,2004 To: Community Services Committee From: David Whitmore,Chair, Community Services Committee Re: Apprenticeship Policy Proposal Attached please find answers to the questions raised by Council members during the last Community Services Committee meeting. I propose that we again consider the resolution to create an apprenticeship policy for City construction contracts above$500,000 with the 25% exemption. Given the responses that I have compiled,I believe this proposal would serve the goals of creating apprenticeable positions in our community while not creating a negative economic impact for the City. An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 0 • Apprenticeship Question and Answer 1) How many bidders did the contracts over$500,000 have over the last two years? See attached spreadsheet. 2) In the cases in which there were more than one bidder,how much more were the other bids? And who did these other bids come from? See attached spreadsheet. 3)How long does the Department of Labor application process take? According to Dan Scanlin, NYS DOL Apprenticeship Coordinator for Tompkins County, the application process takes a maximum of six weeks as long as the applicant does not have a conviction for a crime under state or federal law,a federal suspension, debarment, or wage violation. There is no cost for applying for a NYS DOL Apprentice Program. There are costs related to classroom-based training. Locally,the training is provided by BOCES or TC3. Apparently, it is not unusual for non-union apprentice programs in the Binghamton, NY area to combine their training to make it more affordable. The training cost may be offset by payroll savings from the employment of apprentices as opposed to journeypeople. Training funds are built into the prevailing wage rate for laborers as well. 4) What has been the financial impact,if any,on other municipalities that have implemented similar proposals? There is no reliable data from any other municipality that has implemented an apprenticeship policy. There are two reasons for this. First,the state authorizing legislation was only approved two years ago. There has not been sufficient time to evaluate the impact. Secondly, it is difficult to tell whether increased costs in certain situations is a result of apprenticeship policies or other factors,especially given the sharp increase in materials costs over the last year and a half. However,all of the contractors on the attached spreadsheet, with one exception, have DOL-certified apprenticeship programs. In other words,if Common Council had approved an apprenticeship policy two years ago, we would have seen little or no difference in our bid history above the $500,000 limit. In the case of the one contractor which does not maintain a certified apprenticeship program,McPherson Builders, the primary subcontractor in the Seneca Street Parking Garage—Phase 2 project,Ace Masonry, does have an apprenticeship program. This may have qualified McPherson Builders to bid given the provision allowing up to 25% of the contract be performed by contractors without a certified apprenticeship program. 5)Is there a way to monitor the financial impact of the apprenticeship policy if we do approve it? There are two ways that we could go about monitoring the effects of this decision. First, the City could compare the cost of future contracts for construction to the cost of past contracts. As you saw in point 4 above, however,it can be tricky to ascertain the exact reasons for change in project costs. Alternatively,the City can keep track of which bids are disqualified for lack of an apprenticeship program thereby illustrating the cost difference in each case. This is also not completely reliable because some contractors may choose not to bid knowing they will not be awarded the project because they do not run an apprenticeship program. 6) How do other municipalities administrate/enforce their apprenticeship program? Upon completion of the NYS Apprenticeship Certification Program, a contractor is given documentation proving certification. This certification can be included in the bid documents. 4)Is an out of state contractor required to have a NYS certified apprenticeship program? Yes. According to Dan Scanlin, out-of-state contractors would be required to register their apprenticeship program with New York State. However, any out-of-state general contractor can hire NYS subcontractors that have NYS certified apprenticeship programs. It is also important to note that,according to the Controller's Office,all of the bidders on the attached spreadsheet are based in NY State. Winning Responsible Contract Date Project Name Bidder Bidders Amount Range of Bids Dec-02 Stewart Avenue Bridge Over Fall Creek X Fahs Rolston Paving Corp $1,500,000 $1,500,000 - $1,730,000 Vector Construction Feb-03 Seneca Street Parking Garage-Phase 2 X McPherson Builders $1,052,000 $1,052,000 - $1,125,000 The Pike Company Jul-03 Traffic Signal Upgrade-Phase 1 X O'Connell Electric Co $650,000 $650,000 - $670,000 Power Line Constructors Inc. Planed Utility Inc. Jul-03 S.Meadow Street Bridge Widening Over Six Mile Creek X Economy Paving Co. $1,085,000 Only Bidder Aug-03 S.Meadow Street Highway Widening X CCI Companies,Inc. $2,400,000 $2,400,000 - $2,434,000 Economy Paving Co. Dec-03 West Spencer Street Reconstruction X R.DeVincentis Construction $2,220,000 Only Bidder May-04 Tertiary Phosphorus Upgrade Project c IAVWVTP X Crane-Hogan Structural Systems $3,500,000 $3,500,000 - $4,278,000 (Construction contract only) Patrick Constructors,Inc. Pinnacle Construction,Inc. C.O.Falter Construction Corp. LeChase Construction Resolution to Create an Apprenticeship Policy for City Construction Contracts Whereas,the City of Ithaca from time to time undertakes construction contracts which involve the construction,reconstruction, improvement, or rehabilitation of buildings, facilities, and structures in the City of Ithaca, and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is making considerable efforts to increase the number of jobs in the city, and is consistently advocating for quality employment opportunities for city residents, in particular young people in the city, and WHEREAS, maintaining a qualified and skilled labor force is essential to a healthy and dynamic local economy, and WHEREAS, it is desirable to establish employment principles to guide future decisions of the city, and WHEREAS, Article 23 (Apprenticeship Training), Section 816-b of New York State Labor Law states, "in entering into any construction contract, a government entity which is to be a direct or indirect party to such contract may require that any contractors and subcontractors have, prior to entering into such a contract, apprenticeship agreements appropriate for the type and scope of work to be performed, that have been registered with, and approved by, the commissioner pursuant to the requirements found in this article." Now,therefore,be it RESOLVED, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby order and direct each department as follows: 1. Any construction contract, as defined under Article 23, Section 816-b, in excess of $500,000 must include contractors that participate in New York State certified apprenticeship programs. 2. All bidders and all subcontractors under the bidder must maintain or participate in a bona fide New York State Apprentice Program approved by the Division of Apprentice Training of the Department of Labor for each apprenticable trade or occupation represented in their workforce and must abide by the apprentice to journeyman ratio for each trade prescribed therein in the performance of the contract. 3. Any bidder who fails to comply with the requirements laid out in numbers 1 and 2 above shall be subject to any or all of the following sanctions: a. temporary suspension of work on the project until compliance is obtained; and/or b. withholding by the City of payment due under the contract until compliance is obtained; and/or c. permanent removal from any further work on the project; and/or d. recovery by the City from the bidder of 1/10 of 1% of the contract amount or $1,000.00, whichever is greater, in the nature of liquidated damages assessed for each week that the contractor is in non- compliance. Resolved,further,that a total of 25 percent of the monetary value of the general contract may be exempted from this requirement to permit the use of small or specialty subcontractors who would otherwise be excluded. • • = °� c' CITY OF ITHACA Vt im11W&K it 1\ 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 C+ , �, COMMON COUNCIL !°�RATEO= Telephone: 607/274-6570 Date: December 2,2004 To: Community Services Committee From: David Whitmore,Chair,Community Services Committee Re: TCAT Appointment Process As we discussed at the most recent Common Council meeting,the Community Services Committee is tasked with discussing and recommending an appropriate appointment process for representatives from the City of Ithaca to the TCAT, Inc. Boards of Directors. I have attached a memo from Assistant City Attorney Patricia Dunn which outlines the varied processes used by Council in the past. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." (1) • McaA-L1`s © ry ,,,,,,,,,,,s, •� ¢ CITY OF ITHACA V '1F�T--__- _�T1i�1i�11'i 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 III7 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY !PjO� Martin A. Luster,CIty Attorney Telephone: 607/274-6504 Patricia Dunn,Assistant City Attorney Fax: 607/274-6507 Robert A. Sarachan,Assistant City Attorney Khandikile M.Sokoni,Associate Attorney Dawn M.L.Tordel,Legal Assistant MEMORANDUM To: Joel Zumoff, Common Council From: Patricia Dunn, Assistant Citey Date: December 1, 2004 Subject: TCAT Appointments Per your request I am distributing the attached resolutions to all members of Common Council and to the Mayor. The first, dated January 7, 1998, states that two of the three city appointees shall be members of Common Council and that the Mayor's appointments to the TCAT board shall require approval of a 2/3 majority of alderpersons. The second, dated February 4, 2004 amends the appointment of city representatives to the TCAT board of directors by requiring that all three representatives from the City be members of Common Council. Please note that the February 4, 2004 resolution appears to also amend the 1998 resolution in a de facto manner because it states that "Common Council hereby appoints alderpersons ..." rather than "Common Council hereby approves the following mayoral appointments ..." /dmlt Attachments K:\dunn\Memoranda\Zumoff re TCAT board.doc 1 "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." Ca Here are the minutes/resolution related to how the City appoints three members to the TCAT Board: January 7, 1998 19.2 Common Council -Approval of City of Ithaca TCAT Board Representatives By Alderperson Shenk : Seconded by Alderperson Gray WHEREAS, in naming Ithaca city appointees to the TCAT board,the city must consider the concerns of 3 key constituencies: City taxpayers,transit customers, and transit employees, and WHEREAS,the proposed TCAT agreement safeguards city taxpayers by requiring support from 2 out of the 3 representatives from each partner--the city,the county and Cornell -- in order to increase the partners' subsidies faster than the rate of inflation, and WHEREAS,this provision,which was added at the city's insistence,implies that 2 of the city's 3 appointees should be elected officials,because they can be held responsible for their financial decisions;but meanwhile it is also important that customer and employee concerns be represented in the voting membership of the TCAT board; now,therefore,be it RESOLVED,That 2 of the 3 city appointees shall be members of Common Council and the third seat shall be undesignated,but one of the 3 city appointees must be chosen for sensitivity, experience and working knowledge of labor concerns and one of the 3 must be chosen for sensitivity, experience and knowledge of user concerns (preferably a frequent transit customer), and be it further RESOLVED,That the Mayor's appointments to the TCAT board shall require approval by a two-thirds majority of Alderpersons. Carried Unanimously January 2, 2002 Mayor Cohen distributed Standing Committee and Committee Liaison appointments to Common Council members. He asked Council members to speak with him if they had concerns about their assignments. He further stated that Common Council needs to make appointments to the TCAT Board (three appointments,two of which need to be elected officials),and the Ithaca Downtown Partnership(one appointment). (eh q Ciry of Ithaca GCPM. inuteManager 12.2 Appointment of City Representatives to TCAT Board of Directors - Resolution By Alderperson Whitmore: Seconded by Alderperson Korherr WHEREAS, Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit (TCAT) was formed to provide enhanced public transportation services to Tompkins County, and WHEREAS, the TCAT Board of Directors consists of three representatives from Cornell University, three representatives from Tompkins County and three representatives from the City of Ithaca, and WHEREAS, it is desirable that all representatives from the City to the TCAT Board of Directors be members of Common Council, and WHEREAS, Alderperson David Whitmore has agreed to remain on the Board, and WHEREAS, there is currently two vacancies from the City of Ithaca on the TCAT Board of Directors; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby appoints Alderpersons Dan Cogan, Pam Mackesey and David Whitmore to the TCAT Board of Directors for a term of two years ending December 31st, 2005. Discussion followed on the floor regarding the membership make-up of the TCAT Board. A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows: Carried Unanimously 1 CITY OF ITHACA ti . ', '�� t AF, _� 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 s I E r=Lr�TTfl 1 �► ;rr 0,' COMMON COUNCIL PoA11YE_= Telephone: 607/274-6570 Date: December 2, 2004 To: Community Services Committee From: David Whitmore,Chair, Community Services Committee Re: Taxi Rates As you will recall, in July Common Council approved a temporary increase in the taxi rates in order to offset the significant increase in fuel costs. The ordinance indicated that this increase would sunset on December 31,2004. As we approach the end of the year,we need to decide whether to continue the rate increases,revert to the rates before July or take another approach. Please be prepared to discuss what action you feel is appropriate. I will alert the owners of the two cab companies in Ithaca so that they may attend Monday's meeting to give their input. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." �� s July 7,2004 WHEREAS,the Intermunicipal Recreation Partnership(IRP)was founded in 1994 as a creative solution to the varied recreational needs of County youth,and WHEREAS,Tompkins County was an essential partner is supporting the establishment of the Intermunicipal Recreation Partnership,and WHEREAS,Tompkins County has provided on-going financial support to the Recreation Partnership:these funds totaling one quarter of the IRP's annual operating budget, and WHEREAS,in May 2003,the Tompkins County Legislature formally reaffirmed its support for the Intermunicipal Recreation Partnership,recognizing the unique intermunicipal nature of the IRP,its benefit to the County and its relatively low cost to taxpayers, and WHEREAS,Tompkins County voted in November 2003 to decrease financial support to the IRP for fiscal year 2004 and designated this funding as a one-time expenditure, and WHEREAS,the total withdrawal of County funding would lead to a significant loss in recreation programming for County youth,and WHEREAS,the City of Ithaca feels it is in the best interest of all participating municipalities that Tompkins County continue its support for the IRP,now,therefore be it RESOLVED,the City of Ithaca strongly urges the Tompkins County Legislature to reaffirm its commitment to the Intermunicipal Recreation Partnership,and,be it further RESOLVED,the City of Ithaca strongly urges the Tompkins County Legislature to continue its financial support for the Intermunicipal Recreation Partnership in 2005. Alderperson Whitmore explained that if the County withdraws its funding for 2005,the city would realize an increase of$10,000 or face a significant reduction in programming. A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows: Carried Unanimously 11.2 An Ordinance Amending Chapter 232.Entitled"Licensing of Businesses& Occupations"of the City of Ithaca Munidpal Code Regarding Taxi Cab Rates By Alderperson Whitmore: Seconded by Alderperson Coles Ordinance 04- BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, New York,as follows: Section 1. The City of Ithaca Municipal Code,Section 232-70 entitled`Rates°,and the Taxicab Zones and Rates Schedule is hereby amended as follows: Zone Charges-One Passenger Departure Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 4.60 5.10 5.10 5.10 5.60 5.60 2 5.10 4.60 5.10 5.10 5.60 5.60 3 5.10 5.10 4.60 5.10 5.10 5.10 4 5.10 5.10 5.10 4.60 5.10 5.10 5 5.60 5.60 5.10 5.10 4.60 5.10 6 5.60 5.60 5.10 5.10 5.10 4.60 Section 2.Late night surcharges. Section 232-70 B(5)is hereby amended to read as follows: "A taxicab driver may charge an adcfitional$0.50 per passenger for each trip commencing or terminating between 8:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m." 15 July 7,2004 Section 3.SEVERABILITY.Severability is intended throughout and within the provisions of the ordinance. If any section,subsection,sentence,clause,phrase or portion of this ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 4. SUNSET. This Ordinance shall sunset on December 31,2004. Section 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of notice as provided in the Ithaca City Charter. Alderperson Whitmore explained that this Ordnance represents a$.25 increase across the board, and an increase in a surcharge for people who use cabs between 8:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m.. He further explained that Mr. John Kadar, owner of Ithaca Dispatch, attempted to minimize the increases to people who rely on the services of a cab for their daily needs. Discussion followed on the floor regarding the use of a sunset clause in regards to temporary high gas prices. and how price increases are affecting different constituencies. A vote on the Ordinance resulted as follows: Carried Unanimously 11.3 Request of Ithaca Downtown Partnership to Permit Sale of Beer at Race Day 2004—Resolution By Alderperson Whitmore:Seconded by Alderperson Coles WHEREAS, the Ithaca Downtown Partnership has requested that Common Council authorize its request to sell beer at Race Day 2004,and WHEREAS, the Ithaca Downtown Partnership provided the attached plan to address the logistical concerns raised by the Community Services Committee, now,therefore be it RESOLVED, That the Ithaca Downtown Partnership shall be authorized to arrange for the sale of beer within a permitted area in Bank Alley delineated by the map and in accordance with the revised plan dated June 22, 2004, at Race Day 2004 on Wednesday August 11,2004,taking place on the Ithaca Commons;and,be it further RESOLVED, That the Ithaca Downtown Partnership and the associated businesses shall comply with all applicable state and local laws and ordinances, and shall enter into an agreement providing that it will hold the City harmless and indemnify the City on account of any claims made as the result of the sale of beer in the designated area on the Ithaca Commons,and,be it further RESOLVED, That the Ithaca Downtown Partnership and associated businesses shall agree to maintain liability insurance in the amount of$1,000,000 and Dram Shop Act coverage in the minimum amount of$1,000,000,and evidence of such insurance to the City Clerk,and,be it further RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca shall be added as an additional insured under the insurance policies of the Ithaca Downtown Partnership and businesses associated with this event Discussion followed on the floor with Alderperson Zumoff staling that he had discussed this issue with the Commons Advisory Board and found their response to be neutral. The Ithaca Downtown Partnership has addressed many of the concerns expressed including additional port-a-johns,and higher fencing. Alderperson Whitmore thanked the Community Services Committee members for attending an additional meeting to get this issue addressed. 16