Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CC-2011-09-07COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. September 7, 2011 PRESENT: Mayor Peterson Alderpersons (10) McGonigal, Dotson, Rosario, Clairborne, McCollister, Zumoff, Rooker, Myrick, Cogan, Mohlenhoff OTHERS PRESENT: City Clerk – Conley Holcomb City Attorney – Hoffman City Controller – Thayer Planning & Development Director – Cornish Building Commissioner - Radke PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Peterson led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag. ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA: New Business: City Attorney Hoffman requested the addition of a Possible Motion to Enter into Executive Session to Discuss Current Litigation. No Common Council member objected. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS BEFORE COUNCIL: 5.1 Dredging/Southwest Property Update City Planner, Lisa Nicholas and Director of Planning and Development JoAnn Cornish, provided the following update to Common Council: Dredging/Southwest Property: Common Council voted in July, 2010 to proceed with use of the Southwest Site as a Sediment Management Facility (SMF) under the assumptions that it would initially be approximately 20 acres, shrinking to a permanent maintenance footprint of 8-10 acres, and that the duration of the restoration dredging would be 3-6 years. New information developed in the process of engineering the SMF permanently enlarges its size to 23 acres and lengthens the duration of the dredging project to approximately 20 years. Other factors, enumerated below, also impact the project: Current Status The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the development of a SMF on the city-owned Southwest Site is nearly complete. As part of the DEIS, the City is working with EcoLogic and TG Miller to develop a conceptual level site design and protocol for managing the sedimentation basin and the quality of the return flow, and has met with Canal Corporation to discuss the timing of the project. This effort has revealed several important considerations: • The size and placement of sedimentation basin(s) on the site are constrained by the existence of power lines, legacy buried waste materials and jurisdictional wetlands. • The current estimates are that a sedimentation basin could not exceed approximately 23 acres due to the site constraints. • The permanent maintenance facility, originally envisioned as occupying approximately 8 acres should remain at, or close, to 20 acres. • Sediments deposited within the Inlet and Flood Control Channel are a mixture of 35% sand, 45% silt and 20% clay sized particles. The fine grained materials (silts and clays) take longer to settle. Water residence time is the key variable for basin sizing, and ultimately determines dredging production rate. • Preliminary calculations indicate that a basin of +/- 23 acres can handle a maximum of 80,000 cy in one season, given the sediment texture. This estimate was completed using conservative 2 assumptions. With site specific information (a settlement test) the estimate of annual basin capacity could be refined. The project team has requested assistance from Canal Corporation and NYSDEC in getting Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE) to complete the settlement test. September 7, 2011 2 • Even with the annual discharge to the basin capped at 80,000 CY, additional measures such as addition of polymer would be needed to meet the anticipated discharge limit on suspended solids (turbidity) for a return flow to the Relief Channel. • Calculations indicate that the drying time for the sediments will be 18-24 months. • Canal Corporation is responsible for removing about 70,000 CY of sediment to restore navigation (a channel 100 ft wide and 10 ft deep, within their jurisdictional area) and is willing to remove a total of 300,000 cy from the lower reaches of Cayuga Inlet for the partial restoration of flood control capacity. If a larger dewatering site were available, they would contract the dredging and remove the 300,000 cy in one continuous, probably 2 year operation. However, due to the small capacity of the SMF, Canal Corporation will be required to mobilize a dredge operation for several years, each for a short dredging period – which is highly inefficient. They have given a commitment to begin dredging in the Fall of 2012 and to over time remove the 300,000 cy. However, due to their statewide commitments and backlog of dredging, they cannot commit to mobilizing a dredging operation to Ithaca every other year for the eight years required to complete the project. (300,000 cy/ 80,000 cy = 4 years X a two year dredging/drying/ removal cycle = 8 years). • Considering the 80,000 cy annual capacity of the proposed SMF, the time needed for sediments to dry and be removed from the basin, the quantity of sediments dredged needed to restore both navigational access and flood protection (estimated as 663,000 cy), dredging could extend beyond 20 years. This estimate assumes that the SMF as currently designed is the only recipient of dredged material from the southern tributaries, and that the project is continuously staffed, managed and funded. • No maintenance dredging is factored into the 20 year time period required for removing the accumulated sediment from the stream channels. Other new information to consider: The recent discovery of hydrilla, an invasive aquatic plant species, in the Flood Control Channel and associated waterways: The discovery of this highly invasive plant means that mechanical dredging will likely be more challenging, and that the potential for in water disposal is completely off the table. Update: Housing on the Southwest Development Site Current Status: A series of site investigations has been concluded. The conclusion of the investigations, when considered together, is that the City’s vision for the property as an urban neighborhood with 600+ units of economically integrated housing is not feasible for the site. SW Site Investigations and Conclusions: The conclusion of the investigations when considered together is that the City’s vision for the property as an urban neighborhood with 600+ units of economically integrated housing is not feasible for the site. Some major factors contributing to this conclusion are as follows: • The far northern of the site (area 7) is unsuitable for residential development due to its environmental conditions and the constraints of the high tension power lines. • Areas 4, 5 & 6 of the site have significant geotechnical and potential environmental challenges. Subsurface conditions in these areas will require extensive soil preparation as well as deep foundations. Some environmental exceedences where found in the area and there is also a concern in Area 6 of potential methane and the need for venting due to its proximity to the former dump site. • The remainder of the site, Areas 1, 2, & 3 are the most developable from a geotechnical perspective. However, 9.08 acres of jurisdictional wetlands present an intractable regulatory and environmental barrier. Also, the position of the wetlands – at the eastern boundary of the site isolates any potential development behind it. This is September 7, 2011 3 contrary to the idea of a neighborhood –style development, connected to the surrounding urban fabric. In addition the Vision stipulated that approximately 20 acres flood plain forest in Area 1 should be permanently preserved. • The project as envisioned would require significant public and private investment. The high cost of site preparation and foundation construction due to subsurface conditions would increase the upfront investment costs. • The project was envisioned at scale that would rationalize the development of infrastructure, and support bus service, neighborhood commercial and a live work environment. This scale was not achievable due to the site constraints. Dredging Considerations: The smaller than expected annual dredging capacity of proposed 23 acre Sediment Management Facility (SMF) on the northern portion of the site means that the SMF will exist in its proposed configuration for over 20 years. Preliminary engineering also indicates that it will not be feasible to significantly reduce the size of the SMF when it converts to a permanent maintenance facility. Staff recommendation for moving forward: Although it is clear that the original vision is not possible, we do not know what is technically and financially feasible for the site. In order to determine this we need an analysis that synthesizes the technical data with potential development scenarios, time horizons and associated costs. This type of analysis would best be done by issuing an RFQ and procuring outside professional services since available staff time and resources are constrained and since the capital project still retains money that was intended for the master planning of the site. The cumulative conclusion of the above studies is that the originally proposed vision for the property as adopted by Common Council and described in the SW Vision Statement is not feasible. This is due primarily to the fact that the most developable portions of the site for housing as identified in the Site Characterization Report are located in the same area as the jursidictional wetlands. The remaining most developable areas for housing in the southern portion of the site are not large enough to support the vision and were also specifically identified in the Vision Statement as a part of a 20 acre buffer area to be permanently preserved. The study concluded that most of the site is not impacted by contaminants above action levels. However, there are areas which have constituents above action levels requiring oversight from NYSDEC to determine future steps to be taken in order to safely develop the site. The report recommended that the City apply to the NYSDEC Brownfield's Program for any potential future remediation work. Discussion followed on the floor regarding the appropriateness of the site for housing. Common Council referred these items to the Planning and Economic Development Committee for further discussion and development of next steps. PETITIONS AND HEARINGS OF PERSONS BEFORE COUNCIL: Fay Gougakis, City of Ithaca, urged Common Council to enact a ban on hydrofracking. Pete Meyers, City of Ithaca, and representing the Tompkins County Workers’ Center and Labor Relations Coalition, expressed his support for the proposed sweat-free legislation. Michelle Courtney Berry, City of Ithaca, addressed Council regarding safety in the community, and how neighborhoods can work with the City to address safety concerns. She further addressed Council in support of community police patrols in the neighborhoods, and zero tolerance for drug related violence. John Simon, City of Ithaca and representative of Cleveland Avenue/Southside neighborhood, expressed his concerns regarding violent crimes being committed in residential neighborhoods. He read a letter from the neighborhood that outlined improvements that could be made to increase safety in neighborhoods such as: a new system of communication between the city and residents, cultural/community police detail, police attention to pick-up/drop-off of kids at Southside Community Center, and neighborhood watch formation with signs and education to go along. September 7, 2011 4 Joel Harlan, Town of Newfield, addressed Council regarding the closure of K-Mart, violence in the southside neighborhood, the need for ward meetings, and homeless issues related to the jungle. Trisica Munroe, City of Ithaca, expressed concern regarding recent violence in the Southside neighborhood, and what neighbors can do to make the neighborhood safer. Kelly Valdez, City of Ithaca, shared her personal experience with the recent shootings in the Southside neighborhood. She noted that the police did a good job in responding to the event; however, communication between the City and the neighborhood could have been better. Alderperson McGonigal arrived at 7:00 p.m. Steve Shiffrin, Village of Cayuga Heights, expressed concerns about “closing” the “Jungle”. He encouraged Council to look for an alternate site and to take the time it needs to make the right decision. Janis Kelly, City of Ithaca, addressed Council to express her opposition to the proposed sweatshop-free procurement policy and her concerns that it would eliminate much needed jobs in other countries. Gordon Terry, addressed Council regarding the recent death of Keith Shumway. He encouraged immediate attention to resolving mental health issues in the community, which might have prevented this unfortunate incident from happening. Alex Bores, City of Ithaca, addressed Council in support of the proposed sweatshop- free procurement policy, and clarified statements that had been made regarding the protection of jobs. Leslyn McBean-Clairborne, City of Ithaca – Tompkins County Legislator and Deputy Director of GIAC, addressed Council to read a message from her niece regarding the recent drive by shooting in the Southside Neighborhood. City Clerk Holcomb, read for the record a statement from the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency regarding the City’s Consolidated Plan – “Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) – Public Comment Period. The City of Ithaca is required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to annually report on its progress in implementing its Consolidated Plan. The report, known as the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER), will be submitted to HUD on September 23, 2011. The report is available for public comment from September 3 through September 22, 2011 and may be reviewed in the City’s Community Development Office, Third Floor, City Hall, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York. Citizens should submit their comments in writing to the address above before Noon on September 22, 2011. Public comments will be attached to the CAPER and forwarded to HUD.” PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR – COMMON COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR: Alderperson Dotson responded to comments about hydro-fracking, and thanked speakers from the Cleveland Avenue neighborhood for their comments. Alderperson Mohlenhoff thanked the neighbors from the Southside neighborhood for their comments. She acknowledged that there was a breakdown in communication regarding recent events in that neighborhood, and invited all Common Council members to attend neighborhood meetings to listen and respond to concerns raised. Alderperson Rosario thanked the speakers for all their comments. He acknowledged the courage of the Southside neighbors for sharing their thoughts. He thanked IPD for the swift arrest of one of the persons involved in the shooting, and their efforts with the neighbors. He further noted that it was also frustrating for Common Council members as they did not have information, and he is looking forward to discussions on improving information sharing. He encouraged the availability of resources to provide neighborhood watch signs, and noted the importance of the partnership between government and residents. September 7, 2011 5 Alderperson Myrick thanked the speakers for their comments on these difficult issues. He noted that he is interested in pursuing a Common Council notification system for situations such as just occurred in the Southside neighborhood. He also thanked John Simon for the letter on behalf of the neighborhood. Alderperson Clairborne made the following announcements: • School is in session and motorists are encouraged to slow down for school buses. IPD is increasing their enforcement of those laws. • There will be a 9/11 commemoration service on Sunday, 9/11 at 8:30 a.m. at Ithaca Fire Department. GIAC will host a community conversation about 9/11 on September 8th at 5:00 pm. There will be a community celebration for Dr. Turner and his wife Dean Turner on Sunday, 9/18 from 4 pm to 6 pm at the Women’s Community Center. Alderperson Clairborne further responded to comments about the recent violence in the Southside neighborhood and the need for better communication to the community and Council members from the City; issues surrounding mental health concerns; and the “jungle” situation. Mayor Peterson thanked all of the speakers for their comments. She announced that the Rothschild’s building will be hosting the 9/11 Exhibit that will be on display for the next month and noted that the Downtown Ithaca Alliance would also be holding an event on 9-11-11 at 10:30 a.m. to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. There will also be a special commemoration for emergency responders at the Rothschild’s building on Friday, 9-9-11 at 11:00 a.m. Mayor Peterson announced that a meeting of the Homeless and Housing Task Force regarding the Jungle will take place soon and they will explore ways to get services to people who need them. She noted that she will also be setting up a meeting with the City Clerk/Public Information Officer, the Police Chiefs, and herself to discuss communication issues. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: City Administration Committee: 8.1 Controller’s Office - Request to Approve Civil Service Agreement for the Year 2011-2012 - Resolution By Alderperson Cogan: Seconded by Alderperson Mohlenhoff RESOLVED, That the Mayor and City Controller be authorized and directed to execute an agreement between the City of Ithaca and the Ithaca City School District for performance by the City for services in connection with Civil Service matters, for the period July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012, in an amount of $58,060, payable to the City of Ithaca on or before November 1, 2011. Carried Unanimously (9-0) Alderperson Zumoff absent from vote PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: 9.1 Local Landmark Designation of John Snaith House, 140 College Avenue – Resolution By Alderperson Dotson: Seconded by Alderperson McCollister WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) may designate landmarks and districts of historic and cultural significance, and WHEREAS, on June 28, 2011, the ILPC conducted a special public hearing for the purpose of considering a proposal to designate the John Snaith House, 140 College Ave., as a local landmark, and WHEREAS, the designation of a local landmark is a Type II action under the NYS Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and as such requires no further environmental review, and WHEREAS, the ILPC found that the proposal meets criterion “C.,” defining a “Local Landmark,” under the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance and on June 28, 2011, voted to designate the John Snaith House as a local landmark, and September 7, 2011 6 WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, the Planning Board shall file a report with the Council with respect to the relation of such designation to the master plan, the zoning law, projected public improvements and any plans for the renewal of the site or area involved, and WHEREAS, a copy of the Planning Board's report and recommendation for approval of the designation, adopted by resolution at the meeting held on July 26, 2011, has been reviewed by the Common Council, and WHEREAS, Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code states that the Council shall, within ninety days of said designation, approve, disapprove or refer back to the ILPC for modification; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Common Council finds that the designation is compatible with and will not conflict with the master plan, existing zoning, projected public improvements or any plans for renewal of the site and area involved, and be it further RESOLVED, That the John Snaith House, 140 College Ave., meets the definition of a local landmark as set forth in the Municipal Code, as follows: A structure, memorial or site or a group of structures or memorials, including the adjacent areas necessary for the proper appreciation of the landmark, deemed worthy of preservation, by reason of its value to the city as: A. An outstanding example of a structure or memorial representative of its era, either past or present; B. One of the few remaining examples of a past architectural style or combination of styles; C. A place where an historical event of significance to the city, region, state or nation or representative activity of a past era took place or any structure, memorial or site which has a special character and aesthetic interest and value as part of the development, heritage and cultural characteristics of the City of Ithaca, including sites of natural or ecological interest and be it further RESOLVED, That the Ithaca Common Council approves the designation of the John Snaith House and the adjacent areas that are identified as tax parcel #68.-6-2 as a local landmark. Carried Unanimously 9.2 Local Landmark Designation of Grand View House, 209 College Avenue – Local Landmark Designation - Resolution By Alderperson Dotson: Seconded by Alderperson McCollister WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) may designate landmarks and districts of historic and cultural significance, and WHEREAS, on June 28, 2011 and July 12, 2011, the ILPC conducted a special public hearing for the purpose of considering a proposal to designate the Grand View House, 209 College Ave., as a local landmark, and WHEREAS, the designation of a local landmark is a Type II action under the NYS Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and as such requires no further environmental review, and WHEREAS, the ILPC found that the proposal meets criterion “C.,” defining a “Local Landmark,” under the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance and on July 12, 2011, voted to designate the Grand View House as a local landmark, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, the Planning Board shall file a report with the Council with respect to the relation of such designation to the master plan, the zoning law, projected public improvements and any plans for the renewal of the site or area involved, and September 7, 2011 7 WHEREAS, a copy of the Planning Board's report and recommendation for approval of the designation, adopted by resolution at the meeting held on July 12, 2011, has been reviewed by the Common Council, and WHEREAS, Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code states that the Council shall within ninety days of said designation, approve, disapprove or refer back to the ILPC for modification; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Ithaca Common Council finds that the designation is compatible with, and will not conflict with the master plan, existing zoning, projected public improvements or any plans for renewal of the site and area involved, and be it further RESOLVED, That the Grand View House, 209 College Ave., meets the definition of a local landmark as set forth in the Municipal Code, as follows: A structure, memorial or site or a group of structures or memorials, including the adjacent areas necessary for the proper appreciation of the landmark, deemed worthy of preservation, by reason of its value to the city as: A. An outstanding example of a structure or memorial representative of its era, either past or present; B. One of the few remaining examples of a past architectural style or combination of styles; C. A place where an historical event of significance to the city, region, state or nation or representative activity of a past era took place or any structure, memorial or site which has a special character and aesthetic interest and value as part of the development, heritage and cultural characteristics of the City of Ithaca, including sites of natural or ecological interest and be it further RESOLVED, That the Ithaca Common Council approves the designation of the Grand View House and the adjacent areas that are identified as tax parcel #67.-1-12 as a local landmark. Carried Unanimously CITY ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE: 10.1 Request for Waiver of Penalty Fee – Resolution By Alderperson Clairborne: Seconded by Alderperson Zumoff WHEREAS, Common Council established guidelines for the waiver of penalty on taxes to assist in consistency when considering requests, and WHEREAS, the owner of 940 E. State Street has requested a waiver and refund of the penalty collected by the City of Ithaca on 2011 City and Tompkins County taxes, and WHEREAS, while the circumstances leading to his request do not fit the guidelines allowing waiver of penalty previously established by Common Council, it is apparent the owner intended to pay his taxes within the penalty free period, now therefore be it RESOLVED, That the request to refund paid penalty is approved. Discussion followed on the floor regarding the City’s policy for this type of appeal. The bank statement showed that check was written during the penalty-free period and funds were available, but the Chamberlain’s office did not receive the check until March. A Vote on the Resolution Resulted As Follows: Ayes (6) McGonigal, Dotson, Clairborne, Zumoff, Myrick, Cogan Nays (4) McCollister, Rosario, Rooker, Mohlenhoff Abstentions (0) Carried (6-4) 10.2 Planning and Development – Amendment to Personnel Roster - Resolution By Alderperson Clairborne: Seconded by Alderperson Myrick WHEREAS, the position of Historic Preservation and Neighborhood Planner recently became vacant due to a retirement, and September 7, 2011 8 WHEREAS, due to fiscal constraints, the Vacancy Review Committee only authorized this position to be filled on a part-time basis, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the workweek of the position of Historic Preservation and Neighborhood Planner is hereby reduced from thirty-five (35) hours/week to twenty (20) hours/week, effective September 6, 2011. Carried Unanimously 10.3 Common Council - City of Ithaca Policy Statement on Sweatshop-Free Procurement of Apparel and Textiles - Resolution By Alderperson Rooker: Seconded by Alderperson Myrick WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca endorses efforts to improve working conditions and to eliminate illegal and exploitative employment practices, such as the operation of “sweatshops,” and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is entrusted with assuring the prudent and economical use of public money in the best interest of the taxpayers and facilitating the acquisition of quality goods at the lowest reasonable cost under the circumstances and to guard against favoritism, improvidence, extravagance, fraud and corruption, and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca affirms that the manufacture of apparel and textiles in violation of reasonable labor or human rights standards is an improvident, fraudulent, and corrupt practice, and purchase of such goods is not a prudent or economical use of public money, and WHEREAS, informed purchases of apparel and textiles manufactured in compliance with labor and human rights standards helps the City to fulfill its duties to use public money in the best interest of the taxpayer, to acquire quality goods at the lowest responsible cost, and to guard against favoritism, improvidence, extravagance, fraud and corruption, and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca recognizes that the violation of labor or human rights standards in the garment industry, whether in the United States or internationally, is not “responsible,” as that term is intended when applied to the selection of the “lowest responsible bidder” for a contract with the City, and WHEREAS, the State of New York gives local governments the authority to enact local laws, ordinances, regulations and policies not inconsistent with the provisions of the State constitution or any general law, pursuant to which authority the City of Ithaca may reasonably define what constitutes a responsible bidder, and may investigate a bidder’s skill, judgment, and integrity in considering whether that bidder is in fact a responsible bidder, and WHEREAS, in its role as a market participant, the City of Ithaca seeks to assure that the integrity of the procurement process is not undermined by contractors or subcontractors who engage in or benefit from sweatshop practices, as such contractors are able to underbid responsible contractors who pay fair wages and maintain humane work environments and conditions, which practice places responsible contractors at a competitive disadvantage and may even dissuade them from participating in the City’s procurement process, and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca, as a market participant, also seeks to protect the interests of local residents, workers, and businesses, while respecting internationally shared concerns about human rights and workers’ labor rights, by exercising its home rule powers to establish a sweatshop-free procurement policy statement so as to ensure that textiles and items of apparel (such as uniforms) procured by the City of Ithaca are produced in workplaces free of sweatshop conditions; now therefore be it RESOLVED, That, for the reasons set forth above, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca hereby adopts the following City Policy Statement on Sweatshop-Free Procurement of Apparel and Textiles, and declares its intention to modify existing City policies and ordinances and to take other steps, as needed, to reflect and support the adoption of this position: September 7, 2011 9 Effective January 1, 2012, the City of Ithaca and every department and division within the City government shall take all steps within its authority to ensure that, whenever possible, City purchases of apparel or textiles, in excess of $1,000, are from contractors or suppliers confirmed to be “sweatshop-free” – i.e., whose products are confirmed by a credible, independent source to be manufactured or assembled without violating the wage and hour, labor, safety, health, environmental, building, fire, or anti- discrimination laws, rules, codes, regulations or standards that are applicable in the country of manufacture or assembly, or that are contained in the International Labour Organization (ILO) Core International Labour Standards (whichever is stricter). Carried Unanimously 10.4 A Resolution Authorizing Enrollment by the City of Ithaca in the Sweat-free Purchasing Consortium By Alderperson Rooker: Seconded by Alderperson Myrick WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca has on this date, by resolution, adopted a City Policy Statement on Sweatshop-Free Procurement of Apparel and Textiles, and WHEREAS, in said resolution, the Council declared its intention to modify existing City policies and ordinances and to take other steps, as needed, in order to implement its Sweatshop-Free position, and WHEREAS, the Sweat-Free Purchasing Consortium is organized for educational purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, for the purpose of assisting public officials and others who seek to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not spent on products made in sweatshops; and the Consortium serves as a coordinating body and resource center for public entities and other organizations that share this goal, by sharing information and providing a forum for collaboration in improving the economy and efficiency of procurement policies designed to eliminate sweatshop labor from supply chains, and WHEREAS, as a dues paying member of the Sweat-Free Purchasing Consortium, the City of Ithaca will utilize and refer to the resources of the Consortium and its other members, to assist prospective bidders that are seeking a contract to supply apparel or textiles to the City, and/or may ask the Consortium to perform a preliminary verification of the bidder’s sweatshop-free status; now therefore be it RESOLVED, That the Common Council hereby authorizes the Mayor to enroll the City of Ithaca in the Sweatshop-Free Purchasing Consortium, as a member city, to pay the annual dues (initially $500.00), and to participate in the Consortium’s annual membership meetings. Carried Unanimously 10.5 Resolution Amending and Adding an Addendum to the City of Ithaca Purchasing Policy By Alderperson Rooker: Seconded by Alderperson Myrick WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, has, on this date, adopted by resolution a City of Ithaca Policy Statement on Sweatshop-Free Procurement of Apparel and Textiles, and WHEREAS, in said resolution, the Council declared its intention to modify existing City policies and ordinances as needed, in order to implement its Sweatshop-Free position; now therefore be it RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Purchasing Policy be amended as follows, effective January 1, 2012: (1) Paragraph 4(F) (entitled “AUTHORIZED LIMITS AND CONTROLS”) of the City of Ithaca Purchasing Policy is hereby amended as follows: F. Award will be made to the lowest responsible bidder. The term “responsible” means: financially responsible; accountable; reliable; sufficient resources; skill; September 7, 2011 10 judgment judgment; integrity; responsive; and moral worth. In deliberating the responsibility of a bidder, contractor or a subcontractor, all contracting agencies shall give due consideration to any credible evidence or reliable information regarding the guidelines set forth in Chapter 39 of the City Code. (2) The City of Ithaca Purchasing Policy is hereby amended so as to include the following as an Addendum: ADDENDUM: Policy on Sweatshop-Free Procurement of Apparel and Textiles 1. Any purchasing contract for the procurement of apparel or textiles shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, including the City of Ithaca Purchasing Policy and Chapter 39 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca. 2. To the extent allowed under General Municipal Law, Section 103, the City of Ithaca and its departments shall only purchase apparel or textiles confirmed to be sweatshop-free, as those terms are defined herein, unless: a) The Controller certifies that no confirmed sweatshop-free apparel or textiles are available and that the acquisition of the apparel or textiles sought is essential or time-sensitive, the contracting agency may select a supplier that is not confirmed to be sweatshop-free; or b) The purchase of apparel or textiles is for less than $1,000. 3. For purposes of this Addendum, “sweatshop-free” shall refer to apparel or textiles that are manufactured or assembled without violating laws, rules, codes, regulations or standards regarding wage and hour, labor, safety, health, environmental, building, fire, or anti-discrimination, that are applicable in the country of manufacture or assembly, or that are contained in the ILO Core International Labour Standards (whichever is stricter). 4. Apparel or textiles may be confirmed to be sweatshop-free by: a) Certification or otherwise credible data, information, or reports submitted to the City Controller from the Sweat-Free Purchasing Consortium or its agency members; b) Certification or otherwise credible data, information, or reports submitted to the City Controller from another comparable independent monitoring organization as selected by the Common Council or its members; or c) Self-certification by affidavit of the supplier or vendor that the apparel or textiles are sweat-free, provided that such certification is not contradicted by credible information received by the City Controller. 5. As a member of the Sweat-Free Purchasing Consortium, the City will receive information from the Sweat-Free Purchasing Consortium regarding manufacturers, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, or vendors found to have violated human rights or labor standards. The City Controller shall advise Department Heads of violation information from the Sweatshop-Free Purchasing Consortium, and Department Heads shall provide such information to all staff in a position to purchase City-required apparel. 6. The City encourages its officials and staff to strive to uphold the standards of the City Policy Statement on Sweatshop-Free Procurement of Apparel and Textiles, in making purchases of work-related apparel. Carried Unanimously September 7, 2011 11 10.6 An Ordinance to Amend The City of Ithaca Municipal Code Chapter 39 entitled “Contracts” By Alderperson Rooker: Seconded by Alderperson Myrick WHEREAS, by resolution approved on September 7, 2011, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca adopted a City Policy Statement on Sweatshop-Free Procurement of Apparel and Textiles; and WHEREAS, in that resolution, the Council declared its intention to modify existing City policies and ordinances as needed, in order to implement its Sweatshop-Free position; now therefore ORDINANCE NO. ________ BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows: Section 1. Chapter 39 (“Contracts”) of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to read as follows: (1) Addition of the following as Subsection 39-2(A)(12): (12) Noncompliance by any bidder proposing to supply apparel or textiles (or by any subcontractor or supplier of that bidder) with any of the wage and hour, labor, safety, health, environmental, building, fire, or anti-discrimination laws, rules, codes, regulations or standards of the country of manufacture or assembly, or that are contained in the International Labour Organization (ILO) Core Labour Standards (whichever is stricter). Evidence of such noncompliance may include, but shall not be limited to: (a) citations or other evidence of employment-related violations of said laws, rules, codes, regulations or standards; (b) credible information or reports from the Sweatshop-Free Purchasing Consortium or its agency members submitted to the City Controller; (c) credible information from interested third parties submitted to the City Controller; or (d) failure by the bidder or contractor to self-certify its compliance with applicable laws, rules, codes, regulations or standards. (2) Renumbering of the former subsections 39-2(A)(12) through 39-2(A)(14), so as to maintain the proper numerical sequence. (3) Insertion of the following new definitions into Section 39-3, in alphabetical order: APPAREL OR TEXTILES All articles of clothing, cloth or goods, produced by weaving, knitting, or felting, or any similar goods. SWEATSHOP-FREE Refers to a supplier of apparel or textiles that are manufactured and/or assembled without violating the wage and hour, labor, safety, health, environmental, building, fire, or anti-discrimination laws, rules, codes, regulations or standards that are applicable in the country of manufacture or assembly, or that are contained in the International Labour Organization (ILO) Core International Labour Standards (whichever is stricter). (4) Insertion of the following [underlined language] into Section 39-3, in Subsection “A” (definition of “BIDDER, CONTRACTOR AND SUBCONTRACTOR”): A. Any person or business entity submitting a competitive bid for, receiving the award of, or submitted for approval as a subcontractor on September 7, 2011 12 a contract by any one of the contracting agencies. A subcontractor on a contract for the purchase of apparel or textiles shall also include any beneficiary of bankruptcy, assignment, transfer, sale of operations, or other successorship intended to evade liability or responsibility for assertions or certifications made in a bid submitted to or contract with the City of Ithaca or a contracting agency. (5) Modification of the definition of “CONTRACT,” in Section 39-3, as follows: CONTRACT Any purchasing, construction, or service contract, including those that are that is required to be let by competitive bid to the lowest reasonable responsible bidder, but not including the individual purchase of employment-related apparel or textiles, e.g. uniforms, by and for individual employees of the City of Ithaca, pursuant to the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement. (6) Insertion of the following as Section 39-4: § 39-4 Administration and Enforcement of Sweatshop-Free Purchasing Policy (A) Pursuant to the Policy Statement on Sweatshop-Free Procurement of Apparel and Textiles, adopted by resolution of the Common Council on September 7, 2011, the City of Ithaca and its contracting agencies shall enter into contracts to purchase or obtain for any purpose any apparel or textiles only with those bidders confirmed to be sweatshop- free, as that term is defined in this Chapter, except as set forth in subsection 39-4 (B), below, and subject to the provisions of subsection (J), below. (B) In the event that the City Controller has certified that no confirmed sweatshop-free bidders of apparel or textiles are available and that the acquisition of the apparel or textiles sought is essential or time- sensitive, the contracting agency may select a bidder that is not confirmed to be sweatshop-free. (C) For the purpose of implementing the City’s policy, a bidder may be confirmed to be sweatshop-free by either of the following means: (1) Certification as such by the Sweatshop-Free Purchasing Consortium or other comparable independent monitoring organization as selected by the Common Council; or (2) Self-certification by affidavit of the bidder, provided that such certification is not contradicted by credible information received by the City Controller. (D) The City Controller shall collect and maintain information concerning the City’s apparel and textile contracts that are awarded after the effective date of the enactment of this section, and shall ensure that the following information is available to the public, upon proper request: (1) For each such contract, a statement from the contractor that such apparel or textiles are manufactured in accordance with the sweatshop-free criteria set forth in this chapter; (2) A list of the names and addresses of each subcontractor to be utilized in the performance of each such contract; (3) For each such contract, a list of each manufacturing operation of the contractor and all subcontractors involved in performance of the contract, and the location, address, and telephone number of each such facility; and (4) For each such contract, a statement signed by the contractor showing that it agrees that it will, at the request of the contracting September 7, 2011 13 agency, allow independent monitoring of the contractor’s or any subcontractor’s facilities, to verify compliance with the requirements of this section, and that the contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that its subcontractors comply with the independent monitoring requirements of this subdivision. (E) Upon information and belief that a contractor or subcontractor may be in violation of this section, the City Attorney may take such action as may be appropriate and provided for by law, rule or contract. In circumstances where a contractor or subcontractor fails to perform in accordance with any or all of the requirements of this section, and there is a continued need for the service, a contracting agency may obtain the required service as specified in the original contract, or any part thereof, by issuing a new solicitation of bids. Administrative charges may be assessed against the breaching contractor by the City. The City may, as appropriate, invoke other sanctions as are available under the contract and applicable law. (F) A contractor shall be liable for a civil penalty of not less than $5,000 upon a determination, made through litigation or arbitration, that a contractor or subcontractor has made a false claim under the provisions of this section, to the contracting agency. (G) Every bid solicitation for supplying apparel and textiles to the City shall contain a statement notifying bidders of the provisions and requirements of this section. Every contract for the supply of textiles and apparels shall contain a provision or provisions detailing the requirements of this section. (H) Any investigation conducted under the provisions of this section by the City Attorney shall not extend to work performed more than two years prior to (i) the filing of a complaint pertinent to any provision of this section; or (ii) the commencement of the investigation, whichever is earlier. (I) This section shall not apply to any contract entered into prior to the effective date of this ordinance, except that renewal, amendment or modification of such contract occurring on or after said effective date shall be subject to the conditions specified in this section. (J) This section shall apply except when federal or state law precludes the City of Ithaca from attaching the procurement conditions herein. Section 2. 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 3. Effective date. This ordinance shall take on January 1, 2012, and in accordance with law, upon publication of notice as provided in the Ithaca City Charter. Carried Unanimously 10.7 City Controller’s Report Discussion followed on the floor regarding budget discussions at City Administration Committee meeting, and revised budgets being submitted. Mayor Peterson questioned Council members to see whether they would support going above the 2% property tax cap implemented by New York State. Several Council members indicated that they would support an override of the 2% property tax cap; however, they did not want to see the tax rate set much higher than the level of past years. City Controller Thayer explained that the property tax cap would be 4.3% with the exemptions allowed by the State. Questions followed on the floor regarding the impact that labor negotiations would have on the budget. City Attorney Hoffman noted that the Miller discrimination case will be handled by the City’s insurance carrier. The insurance carrier will retroactively idemnify the City of all costs of the defense. In addition, Asst. City Attorney O’Rourke will now be available to work on other cases. September 7, 2011 14 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEES: Alderperson Mohlenhoff provided an update on the resident survey which is currently underway. She noted that they have received 200 successful responses to date and two of the questions are directed toward budget issues. Alderperson Cogan reported that the Public Works Governance Working Group and the Charter and Code committee are winding down their work. The Charter and Code Committee is working on a revision of the department head search process, which will go to the City Administration Committee in October for consideration. He stated that he would write a final report about what the committees have learned, and what issues need further consideration. He suggested that a joint forum between Common Council and the Board of Public Works review work of the Public Works Governance Working Group in order to share information and make recommendations. Alderperson Dotson reported that the TCAT Board is in the midst of budget deliberations and labor negotiations, and there have been proposals for cuts in services. NEW BUSINESS: 12.1 Request of Downtown Ithaca Alliance to Permit Wine, Beer, and Hard Cider Tasting and Sale of Bottled Wine, Beer, and Hard Cider at the 2011 Apple Harvest Festival – Resolution By Alderperson Myrick: Seconded by Alderperson McCollister WHEREAS, the Downtown Ithaca Alliance has requested permission for wine, beer, and hard cider tasting and sales as part of the 2011 Apple Harvest Festival; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Downtown Ithaca Alliance be authorized to arrange for wine, beer, and hard cider tasting and sale of bottled wine, beer, and hard cider at booths during the Apple Harvest Festival on the Ithaca Commons, September 30 – October 2, 2011, and, be it further RESOLVED, That the Downtown Ithaca Alliance and participating wineries 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 or tasting of wine and hard cider on the Ithaca Commons, and, be it further RESOLVED, That the Downtown Ithaca Alliance or the participating winery or cider company shall agree to maintain liability insurance in the amount of $1,000,000.00 and Dram Shop Act coverage in the minimum amount of $1,000,000.00 naming the City of Ithaca as an additional insured, and shall provide evidence of such insurance to the City Clerk prior to the event. Carried Unanimously REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY: Motion to Enter Into Executive Session to Discuss Current Litigation – Resolution By Alderperson Mohlenhoff: Seconded by Alderperson Myrick RESOLVED, That Common Council enter into executive session to discuss current litigation. Carried Unanimously Reconvene: Common Council reconvened into regular session with no formal action taken. City Attorney Hoffman reported that a new lawsuit had been filed against the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board regarding the Collegetown Terrace Project, with a response due in November. MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS: 18.1 Approval of the August 1, 2011, August 3, 2011, and August 18, 2011 Common Council Meeting Minutes – Resolution By Alderperson Zumoff: Seconded by Alderperson Myrick RESOLVED, That the minutes of the August 1, 2011 Special Common Council Meeting be approved with noted corrections, and be it further September 7, 2011 15 RESOLVED, That the minutes of the August 3, 2011 Regular Common Council Meeting be approved with noted corrections, and be it further RESOLVED, That the minutes of the August 18, 2011 Special Common Council Meeting be approved with noted corrections. Carried Unanimously ADJOURNMENT: On a motion the meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. ______________________________ _______________________________ Julie Conley Holcomb, CMC Carolyn K. Peterson, City Clerk Mayor