HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-LEG-2009-11-23 DRAFT COPY- NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
Legislative Committee Meeting Minutes
Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. November 23, 2009
PRESENT:
Mayor Carolyn Peterson
Alderpersons (5) J.R. Clairborne Chair; Mary Tomlan Vice Chair; Maria Coles;
Jennifer Dotson; Deborah Mohlenhoff
OTHERS PRESENT:
Eric Rosario - Alderperson- Regulation of Outdoor Smoking
Joel Zumoff- Alderperson
Dan Hoffman-City Attorney
Julie Holcomb -City Clerk
Donna Este-Green - Assistant City Attorney-City/Town Fire contract
Tom Dorman- Acting Fire Chief-City/Town Fire contract
Steve Thayer -Controller -City/Town Fire Contract
Chair Clairborne called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
Public Comment
Alex Parillo, Laborer's Local 785 , spoke to the Committee regarding Apprenticeship legislation
passed in ? Concerned and discouraged with the possibility of suspending the policy. Thought it
was the will to make it work. Hope if it's suspended hope the City will look at another way to give
rewarding careers to local youth.
Dave Marsh, regarding the Apprenticeship resolution. Pride themselves in the way they can teach
these young folks to be crafts people. Hopes the suspension is temporary. Looks forward to
working with City to develop.
Joel Philip, supports the Apprenticeship program. Provided a great living for him and his family.
They want to be involved with the process.
Response to the Public by Committee Members; Privilege of the Floor
Tomlan, thanked the speakers for coming to this and other meetings. Appreciates continued
willingness to help explore ways to improve the policy.
Mayor Peterson stated she did not support one year timeframe. (Listen to what she said)
Approval of Minutes
a. July 27, 2009 On a motion by Coles, seconded by Deb? with corrections as noted -
passed unanimously. (circulate July corrections to Committee)
b. September 28, 2009
Action Items
Posthumous Honors Protocol
On a motion by Dotson, seconded by Coles for discussion.
1
i
WV S£:6 900Z/Z/1 I ZZ3o b
•l puaujd•lsuo5
•d•D•S•n •sosodznd luowpuautd Isltd ioj`sognp luuotssajotd s,a3Xold=agl jo odoos oql utgitnn s►:lsul oql�iutlonpuoo
Itgl aluzisumop of luatogjns .tou �,tussaoau .tagltau st uoildt.tosap qof uouli 1 s,00Xoldwa uu ut NStl uaAtl�t 30 5WISli
aql `.suotldt.tosop qof puo.tq Xjl)AIssaoxa 5utlt313 Xq slgOu goaads ooij sanXojdwo lotalsat lou Xuw s.ta�oldwo otlgnd
sasrD pale isoW•luaucXoidwg otlgnd'31 Z'L i'063IZ6
s.talluW logt'I L i'06�IZ6
suotlmtuctg put suotssatdxg.tulnotl.tud 1'06NZ6
ss3Jd NI JO put goaadS jo mopoat3 06NZ6
slq2 d Itotltlod put MAID`[tuostad AZ6
murl ltuotlnitlsuOD Z_6
(Z'L)1'06=3 Z6 nnug luuol;nll;suo3 j£Tf
I •puauzd•lsuoD d•D•S•fl•sognp gof.taq.to stg2utuuo3.t3d Xldurts st ao,Colduta aql uagnn luasqu
si Autlnios3o 3ol5ap gotgm`saouanbosuoo slt put goaads oql 5utpunouns slsatalut 5upodwoo agl3o 5utouuluq altotlap
U sa.unbal luautpuautd ls-ttd atll `utaouoo otlgnd 3o iallim t Outssatppt uortlto t su s)ltads aa/Coldm otlgnd u uaq/A
sash p31!D Isow•Iu3wXoldutg otlgnd')I Z'L I'06xZ6
s.talluW'oqu I W i'06XZ6
suotlul►tut"I put suotssoldxg ttlnotltud I'06)IZ6
ssaid 3gl3o put goaadS 3o uzop031A 061Z6
Slg011d Itotltlod put ItA►D`Ituos.tad AZ6_
mV-1 luuotlnitlsuOD Z6
(Z'L)1'06=:3 Z6 Mu'l luuol;nll;suoj Z j
'£861 V'�'S'f1 Zb`t 'puautdlsuo�-V-0-S•n'aoutuuojtad
stg OutlunitAa tuozl s.tosw3dns stq ltgtgoid lou ptp olt.im .to 31tads of unq pannbw saunlautos satlnp stq Iugl
lotj put`uortlto u su lou`aa,iolduta luauzu taAO�j t st palot bwollu lotustp`uuo3.tad of ptud suns aq s1sul oql pauuoji3d
put Niom of luam aq uagm`.luauzpuawV lsmj oql Xq papalold lou stns goaads stq os put `lonpuoostut luluautu.tanOO
pollodind jo ststq agl uo asuo ltuturtio 5utpuod t 3o lusstutstp papuaututooa.t oq gotgm ut tunpuuiouzaut uotltsodstp
U ololm aq`Xlndop.tupuolto u su satinp lutogjo siq of lutnsind`uagnn uaztlto u su 31tods lou pip Xautollt lot.tlstp flndaQ
sasuo paltD Isow•luounutoddd•31 I £Ii£I
salnitlsgnS put`sluulstssV`satlndaCj £3ii£i_
sXautolld Outlnoasotd put lot-ustQ I£t
�T)£�
ICI sSau tolld 2utlnaasoad put lo►ilstQ
sasu:)paliD IsoW•luaw,oldwg otlgnd'I Z'L I'06IZ6
s1311tl joqu-l. L I'06)IZ6
suotlulitut l put suotssa.tdxg.tulnotuud 1'06NZ6
Ssatd agl JO put goaadS jo uzopaa J 061Z6
slg2t2l luotltlod put 1tAID`ItuosK)d AZ6_
muq ltuotlnitlsuoo Z6
(Z'L)1*06c* Z6 Mu'I luuol;nll;suoj Ff 17
•l puowv.lsuoo d•D•S.fl
•aulldtostp jo,(oldtua wozj suotltotununuoo.nagl alulnsut lou saop uotlnitlsuoD aql put `sasodind luawpuawV ls.n3.to3
suortlto sr 5utltads lou on sa;)Xoldwo aql `satlnp lutogjo.ttagl of luunsind sluamoluls 33ltuz saoXoldma otlgnd uagm
sash poilD ISOW•luautAOldutg oilgnd'1 Z'L i'06XZ6
s.talluW.toqu-1 TLTI'063IZ6
suotlultun-1 put suotssa.tdxg.tulnoiVEd 1'061Z6
SSOJd agl JO put goaadS 3o mopaa.d 0OZ6
siq&,d Iuo►Iitod put[!At
D`Iuuos rad AZ6_
mt?l ltuotltutlsuOD Z6
"'llt utlsap:ylti dS=AS�xdsu•wuoilslutid/lutid/woo•mL Ilsann•Zgam//:dllq
DRAFT COPY- NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
Clairborne stated there were two amendments under 1D and on page 2, 6D, not voted on at
last month's meeting.
Mohlenhoff suggested modifying the language (for #1) (this to replace all of#1) as "this is any
recently deceased City resident past or present who has at any time... " County language -
cleaner and easier to understand. Feels it would be better as a generic recommendation vs. a
long list to try to remember. Mohlenhoff feels everybody is a-f is included in"public service".
And scratch 6. "Public service includes but is not limited to..." Rendered public service and
then they go on to define public service.
Clairborne wouldn't want to replace the list but feels that language is clearer. Feels the list is
necessary to define who the protocol applies to. Feels all things don't apply to all people.
Tomlan wanted to be sure it includes both elected officials and employees (what Deb read).
Mohlenhoff: You could state City Government employee...
Coles wondered how would that work as an introduction? Felt either one would work okay.
Would it serve better to have both in there?
Mohlenhoff moved to replace #1 and say "Protocol ... Public service includes but is not
limited to...", not seconded. Would like to see it added
Clairborne moved to delete 1D and 6D, seconded by Coles - passed unanimously
Clairborne moved the whereas and resolveds, Coles seconded - passes 4 -1, Tomlan opposed.
Coles: do we want to add a version of the sentence that Deb suggesting as an introduction in
#1?
Clairborne stated there are only 3 people that can order flag to be flown at half mast-President
of U.S, Governor, and the Mayor. Not CC members. Zumoff pointed out that throughout it
says "May" which means its guidelines.
Rosario stated felt they should add in a category for employees who die in the line of their
employment, in addition to fire or police personnel. Suggested that they insert a new 6 b.
"current employees who die in the line of duty". Moved by Coles, seconded by Clairborne
passed unanimously. Current b becomes C and current c becomes D.
All in favor 4-1, Tomlan opposed.
Apprenticeship Policy
2
i
WV S£:6 90OZ/Z/1 i ZZ3o S
u of sltnoo lut3pa3 puu 3luls Itwwoo pinom `Itno iD g1utN ay; Cq paidopn `31nt Xaviluoo p3sodoid so1lugoD •suojluwado
.uagl aoeuew of uotlwostp Iuatogps siaXoldw3 lu0tuwgA0�? OUIPtoJ3u uo pun goaads 3a/Coldwa jo anit'n lt'la130S
lutluolod oql uo stsugdwa .tot.td s,lino:) 3q1 gl!m Iuaistsuoo st llnsal sigL
-jo •p3lua.zo .to pauotsstwwoo suq 313slt.taXoldwa
agl;e14M MO lozluoo ia/Coldwa jo asiojoxa aql slowgat XIdwts II •uaztlto alent.td u se p3,COfua 3nuq IgOIW a3,Co1dw3
oql satytagq Xuu aoutgut lou saop s3tl11tgtsuodsat leuotssajoid s,3aXoldw3 otlgnd u of 3oualstxa slt s3mo Iugl gaaads
Outlotzlsal aammuopad stq Outlnnlnna wog paltgtgold a.wom siostnt3dns stq ueaw lou saop alum to 31u3ds of uttq
pannbal saunlawos satlnp stq lugl lou3 aq,L 'l1 Owipm Xq uaztlta u se loe lou P?P OH -op of pa,ioldwa sum aq ingm jo
uecl st legl asneoaq owaw uotltsodstp stq alotm sof1egao autIdiosip isutzin uotlooloid s3ptnoid Iu3wpuawd ls-ttd 0141
gotgm ut asogl wo.g osuo stgl sa14stn2upstp uojlutaptsuoa jpgj •satlnp letogjo stq of luensmd opuw alum suotssatdx3
,sollug0:) lugl st lolou3 OwIloiluoo aql `jaglu2i a `aas `lu3wXoldwg
stq 3o tallm Ions aql pawaouoo ow3w 9141 Iugl.tou
`•8•a `aas `Xlotlgnd uugl ni pw `3ogio stq 3ptsut smatn stq pass3.tdx3 sollt'g3D Iugl
lou st anq.tolouj 3ntltsodstp aqs 'Itu3 lsnw uotluqulai luuotlnitlsuooun 3o uotlu23i1u stq`boOwo stgl olut sllu3 ow3w
,solluga:)osnuoag•satltltgtsuods3.i lt'togjo of luunsmd opera suotss3adxo s,33Xoldw3 ut'uo pasuq 3utldtostp 1uu32euuw
ltgtgotd Iou saop Iuawpu3wd Isltd 31q1 lugl uotsnlouoo oq1 of spool sluapanid s,linoo aql jo uotlt'otlddu .tadoid (q)
'6561 -L961 Ad
`•8•a`aaS•Xlant130j33 put'Xlluatog33 31u.t3do of st3Xoldwa.ttagl lo3 Xjtss333u 31e lugl
suollottlsw go33ds asogl Xluo 3ou3 lsnw Xag1`tuaouoo b961*otlgnd 3o s.talluw Inoqusuaztlto su Outiluods 3n,s33Xoldw3
su Ou01 OS aaS •suaztlta 31unt.td su satltoudt'o
.uagl ut Xofua s33Yio1dw3 satlzagtl 3ql `X11uuotlu3lut .to Xllulu3ptout `Iotusat of dtgsuotlulal Iu3wfo1dw3 3qI 327213nai
of Clgtqu s,.taXoldw3 atlgnd u quail luawpuawd Isitd 3qL •uaztlto t' lids ssalaglauou st Iu3wwanoO 3q1 toj sj.toM
oqm uaztlto u `puuq i3g10 3ql up •suotlundo slt loojju of lutlualod 3wos suq Iug1 goaads lu palowip oq lsnw s3sodun
It suotlotzlsoi aqI lnq `olol 13Xoldw3 s1[ ut siou It uagm goaads Iotalsat of uotlatostp 13puolq suq /Qtlug lu3wwan05
u `sntU 3D 'filu3tog33 saotn.tas otlgnd 3ptnotd of aouugo 0111!1 a^uq pinom
n Coldw3 Iuautw3noii t' `suotlot' puu sptoM,so3Xoldw3 slt .nano 101JU00 3o ool2op ;uuogiuOts u InogltM•Iu3wXoldw3
put' suotssatdx3 s,.oVDds aql uaawaq dtgsuotlt'la.t 3ql 3o aouuliodun oq1 slo3gal uotlt'.t3ptsuoo slgL
aaS •otlgnd 1ujoua2 ag13o.tagwow.taglo Xuu wog CIluwgjpp ooXoldwo aqI Outleati
io3 uotluogtlsnf alenbapu ue puq ioXoldwa lu3ww3no2 aql.t3glogm sawoo3q uopsanb oqj •sost.te wtu[o lu3wpuatud
Is-HA u 3o �I?Itgtssod aql `saX st iomsuu 314131 aaS goaads agl 01 uotloeat
s,laXoldw3 gill uo pasuq uotlou 3o asnuo luatupuatud Is ttA ou seq aoXoldw3 gill`ou st iamsue agl3l
aaS •waouoo otlgnd jo.talluw a uo uaztlto u se a3lods aa,Coldwa aql iaglagm outumuolop saiinbgJ
isig aqZ •goaads ggXoldwg otlgnd poplomu suotlo31o.td luuotlnitlsuoo aql 3o uotlelaid olut 3ptn5 sat.nnbut omZ (u)
7961 -L961
Ad •autldtastp loXoldwa wog suotlt'otunwwoo nags alt'lnsut lou saop uotimpsuoJ oqI put' `sosodtnd lu3wpuowv islij
lo3 suortlto su Ounluads Iou alu Xagl `satlnp lutogio.ttagl of luunsmd sluawalt'ls xiuw soaXoldwo atlgnd uagM :plOH
SL TN9 t ';J-S tO l 'xt t 'S'11 19b �'aan/y n �/utuuuJ pat' -t 19 PZ-PA-l OZ -t tL l -IJS 89 -£9S -5-11 l6t n/J IFAI
`90Z WK7 100i/09 q 1H rr/sumto,L oho p.rvog 'a but "O!d ut sts,Clt'ut'luawpuawd Is n3 0141 tapun paloalotd atom
suolluoallu s,owow aq1 lugl plaq Itnomo qjt tK 3qI `tuts ana21 •satlnp luotu,Coldwo stq of luunsind It alotm sollug3D
asnuooq goaads poloalold lou sum owaw 0141 lugl `vily dalul `i?utlnl `luaw2pnf/Uuwwns sa3uotltlad paluuB lino:)
ImilstQ oqL •ltns £861§ 'D•S'fl ZbZb e P3Ig soliugaD`s1u wpuowV glu3alzno3 pue Is.ttJ OqI JO uojlulotn ut ouzatu slq
lo3 unq IsutOe palutlelol u3141 saauotlpod Iugl Outwtulo •32ua11ugo aqi paloafal Itnoo Ietzl agl Inq `ltnupgju oql Inoqu
suotlentasgo stq pglun000l sollugaD `lue.uum aq1 aiugliu o of uotlow asuajap u uo Out.zeaq u Id •uotlnoasold 3ql gltm
pop0000ld ssal3gltan3u stauotltlad •lusstws[p 2tttpuaw o3i wnpuutowaw uotltsodstp u 14ltm do p3mollo3 puu `;)loq
stauotlpad`siostntadns stq of s5utpug stq paXelai solleq D `suotluluasoldwstw snotias apuw Itnupg3e aql lugl MOIA31
gql jolp, 5utpnlouoo •alumoouut sum Iuuuem plugs lubtlyo u utulgo of pasn aotlod Itnupg3u 3ql `pawtulo lasunoo
�gotgm ut Oseo u Matna.I of lasunoo asuajop Xq poNsu sum`Xowouu lowslp 4lndop guismndns u `sollugao luapuodsag
'66b'Pd•"109 'Z8Z ID'S 9Z L££ iZ£
S'fl OOZ ',oJ iaqurn7 .iagaulL ;ro diaQ a sa1v7S papu0 aaS •13pu31 3g1 3o 3ougtugnuoo 3qj loj suotstoaQ
jo joliodnd oq1 Xq pondold u3aq suq lnq l.tnoD oq1 jo uotutdo 3gl3o lied ou sal►Utlsuoo snqullXs oqL *NA
sngvllfS F96I*
rA/d
•••tlt'utlsopWItldS—nsZxdsu•wua usluud/lut.td/woo•mullsam•Zgam//:dug
DRAFT COPY- NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
Clairborne distributed Tompkins County's current Apprenticeship policy to Committee
members. A working group was formed and had their first meeting. The group was in favor
of continuing the policy. However, upon learning of some City projects to be undertaken this
winter, the group felt it best to suspend the policy. It was felt that a 6 month time frame would
be too tight therefore they agreed on 1 year.
Dotson asked about raising the limit instead of suspending the policy. Would rather replace it
with something rather than suspend it.
Hoffman stated that the underlying problems aren't related to the limit, they are related to the
language of the policy.
Peterson stated the working group did discuss the possibility of changing the number but did
not want to do so.
Coles felt suspending it for a few months should give the group some incentive to get the
work done. Has concerns about how we have interpreted the policy. Why is it that we went
for years without encountering the problems we encountered this past year? If we answer it
maybe it will help to ensure we don't have the same problems in the future. In favor of 6
months, not a year.
Tomlan suggested a half way, interim progress report, would keep the group on track.
Coles suggested 8 months because one year seems to allow too much time to lose the focus.
Thayer stated the problem of end of year, holiday season, end of year crunch both personally
and professionally. Felt 6 months not long enough,felt a year was reasonable, with a report at
6 months, with the hope of finishing before the year.
-Question of 8 months vs. on .a year time frame
-Coles volunteered for the working group, especially as Tomlan will be leaving.
Increase the threshold to buy time without suspending while the working group works on
improvement of the policy?
Mohlenhoff sounds like compromise would be 8 month goal with 4 month progress report.
Feels it should suspend for 8 months (early July) with 4 months progress report so the policy
can be improved and finished.
Tomlan stated it suggests it would be suspended until a certain date but if ...
Peterson felt 4 month check-in could help answer that
Rosario stated felt to souspend temporarily rather than having something on the books that
does not work. In favor of suspension temporarily to have time to create a better policy.
Zumoff if this is suspended certainly want to be sure the public realizes they are in favor of the
policy. One issue of projects -quite a few of the companies with apprenticeship programs had
3
i
£ :)OP*SIUg qulOOH\HD'dVHS92I\I(IMVHN\:f
`sillIud iH
•000Lgoi
uugi iagio soomisgns jo Builows aql uotltgtgojd agi ut opniout lou saop ing suuoj
snotzLIn ut 000 qol jo OuiNouzs oqi sung Xiluogtoods ioV mV joopul molo S'A'N oq L
:NOISfllloxoo
« 000vgol sureiuoo gotgnn oomisgns jo aalim zagio (uu jo odid `opoi Ito
`.redo polgOil L,jo Outwng aql „ su Ouplows sauig3P (I I)u-66£I § 9-£I 313111V •00072gol
ump joglo s3ou7aisgns jo Ouplows oqi Outiotjlsai jo nnul aql ul uotluow ou si amigl
ItZ 'o `6861-1 Jo l uotioaS ,,o lows 000Lgol of wnsodxa Ouillwil Xg alrls stgl jo aidoad
3111 Jo luauzuoatnua pue pojuzoo `gllSaq aql anozduu pare aniasazd ol•••„ pur «•••otlgnd
aql of uodo scare ioopui ut olows 000Lgol puugpuooas of amsodxo faulunionut ILUOJJ
sj33louzsuou iooloid of aiiels sigl jo oldood oql jo sisazalut lsag oqi ut st it„ wgi Outputd
s,ojnlvlst2ai aql of anp iWi lows ioopui sltgtgoid IoV iiV aoopul u z)ID 'S-,I-N aqL
NO SSfloSIQ
•000tgol uPgl.iaglo soomisgns
jo Out�iows agi C�ii�oidtoads iou saop pue 000ugol jo Out�louzs all siotzlsaz Mul ;)q 1,
:NHA1SNV JUINU
DRAFT COPY- NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
higher bids than companies without the program. ?? The motivating factor should not be
what is going to be cheapest for the City. The Apprenticeship program is important.
Dotson suggested recognizing the working group in the resolution. Dotson moved with
changes and read new resolved, seconded by Coles: Add a whereas as the last whereas,
whereas an existing working group, staff and council members to better address the concerns
that have come to light in the past few months...." To replace first resolved date -July 31,
2010
Second resolved with: " resolved that the working group is directed to report back to an
appropriate Council committee as directed by the Mayor in April 2010 and again with a
complete proposed new policy in June 2010 - get language from Jennifer.
Tomlan wondered whether important in whereas's affirm the value of the policy
Get the new language from Julie for Apprenticeship resolution
On a motion by Tomlan, seconded by Mohlenhoff- deletion of whereas #4 passed
unanimously (the Thurston Ave whereas)
Moved by Dotson, seconded by Coles - add first 5 whereas to the resolution. Passes
unanimously.
Suspension for 8 months with a 4 month check-in. Passed unanimously.
Raising the threshold seems disingenuous. They didn't want to do that.
Dotson out at 9:48
Dotson returned at 9:49
City/Town of Ithaca Fire Contract
Este-Green stated numerous negotiating meetings. Town passed at their meeting on Nov. 9t".
Dorman stated ...
Peterson stated calculating of the other services provided
Thayer lingering question seemed administration fee ... looked at multiple ways of coming up
with that figure. We came up with$170,000 admin fee bumped up each year It's less than
what City wanted and more than what town wanted but felt a comfortable result.
Coles Page 13, sect. 8 B. maximum equipment expenditures: each year to spend for
equipment? Thayer - speaks about other pieces of equipment other than out of the capital
expenditures??
On a motion by Coles,with noted corrections by the Mayor, Coles read the resolution;
seconded by Tomlan;
Clairborne suggested last whereas, write out"October 23, 2009"
4
i
Sticky note 1
S y
Printed 12/1/2009 8:36:46 AM
greenedipse.com/stickypad
10
Phyllis borrowed Gen. Municipality, Vol 20 on 10/26/09
i
DRAFT COPY- NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
Mohlenhoff feels she may have a potential conflict of interest-
Conflict is that being a spouse to a city of Ithaca firefighter - as this doesn't suggest financial
benefits to him and then to her - feels this would not be a conflict of interest because of that.
Passed unanimously
Tomlan out at 9:17
Tomlan returned 9:19
Regulation of Outdoor Smoking
Rosario stated the boundary would be up to the entrance of TC3 Extension building. Important to
keep some part of bank alley,the entrance, open to smokers. Wanted with all the main entrances
of the Commons.
As answer to #1 (in Dan's memo) - members state "Yes".
" #2 (in Dan's memo) -
Dotson personally would like 25 foot buffer everywhere but willing to give up around outdoor
dining vs. going to 10 feet buffer.
Mohlenhoff asked Schiele- per Schiele Clean indoor air act-NYS law allows outdoor dining areas
are required to be smoke-free but restaurants are allowed to designate 25% of the available
seating as smoking area-we would be making a stronger law than NYS says.
Tomlan stated 10 feet buffer is preferable
Mohlenhoff wants it to be 25 feet but feels causes too many enforcement issues. Concerned for
businesses on Aurora St. Sounds like 10 feet is consistent and easier to enforce. She is comfortable
with 10 feet for everywhere
Mohlenhoff suggested err on the side of making it stronger, put it out there and see what the
public reaction is.
Schiele urged the Committee to work with the 25 feet
Holcomb wanted to speak on behalf of the Aurora St. businesses - expects they will feel
strongly about the 25 foot buffer, that is the middle of the road.
Peterson out at 9:45
Zumoff out at 9:45
Rosario and Schiele mentioned concerned about signage that is clear and can be understood by
the public. This needs to be able to be explained to people so that they can understand it.
Much discussion regarding agreeing on a consistent buffer, not 10 feet for one area and 25 feet
for another, poses enforcement issues.
Coles recommends going to 10 feet buffer everywhere.
5
i
oop po puss ill Xosd=Cr\llo3\:f
DRAFT COPY- NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
Hoffman left at 10:00
Dotson would rather see 25 feet almost everywhere with no buffer for outdoor dining rather than
10 feet everywhere; Mohlenhoff agrees
#3 can the City really do anything about it. We can ask that no smoking there however we
can't enforce it. Committee feels we have no standing when it comes to private property.
Mohlenhoff out at 10:30
Returned at 10:31
Discussed Schiele's suggestions:
Coles left at 10:34
Hoffman will update draft ordinance.
For special public sessions for information: prefer is Subcommittee could be there. May need
to schedule via email.
On a motion by Dotson and read resolved, seconded by Deb;
Tomlan has concerns with playing fields, pavilions etc. Didn't want people to think Commons
targeted.
Passes unanimously with Coles absent to send resolution
On a motion by , seconded by, Chair Clairborne adjourned the meeting at 10:49 p.m.
Next committee meeting. December 21,2009
6
i
Z 30P•SJL'g gPN00H\HDXVHS3N\IGXVHX\:f
�slonpozd
000ugol jo Ouixows 3111 Xluo jo 2upiows pp,loijisw l3V'IV aoopul uualD S•A'N a11l saoQ
:CIHJ,Ng.LSHNd NOI.LSgfli) QNODHS
•mu-l'NalvlS aqT japun apgissiuuod ag pinom
li uogl saa,(oldwo pred Xuu Xg ponpuai Outag saainias ou glim uoilttoossr digszaguzaux
le su Xllopis polundo sum nq 11t,)Ioo11 u 31111111 smoddu li Suioga.zoj 3qi uo posug
-66£I§ 'IHdl ,*sailnp dons 3o om uop3d 311l zo3••• uoiluioosse digsjaguxauz all uzoij
pupl fur 3o uoilt'suodwoo aniaoW lou op oqm uoiluioossu digsiaguuauz 11ons 3o sj3gw3uz
Xg poump3d are•••S32VJ3nag puu poo3 3o uoijundoid 311l `ol paliurtl lou ing `i?uipnpoui
`uoilieioossu dons 3o uoilUndo 3111 of loodsai Tim sognp 3111 I1-0 113111m ut suollupossu
diips.mgwow ui pomolp, ag Xluo jjUgS OuiNoWS lBLjl `Janamoq papinoid :suotlPioossv
digszagLu3W,, of sal-elaa uoildooxo aa11lo oup •olo `sossouisnq 000vgol prim `suxooz paloq
`Sauzo11 oltnild ui XIddr lou op anogle of a.z.z pi suop!gigozd ftNows 311l 1V111 Sapinoid
b-66£I uotloaS :suoiloi.zlsoj ftnjouzs 3111, of suoildaoxo autos a.re a.za11l `zanamoH as�o
a11l joSuol ou si 1x111 `sluumulsaz se gons s3ovId ut suoir ftipuzs opisu Jos of apgissiuuad
sum li `,ilsnoinazd srojoigm •olo `slu urgsilgvlso oomjos poo3 `snug `luowXolduza
3o saould of pollmil lou ing ftpnloui sa uld aoopui otlgnd plu Xplunljin ui 2UDIouzS uo
suoiloizlsai ftdaams Sapinoid 0-66£1 uotloaS •saovId otlgnd ui futNouzs suj3no2 (mr-I
ullL'aH otgnd 'S A'N O11l 3o g-£I aloilJV 3") IOV JTV Joopul uuolD 'S'A'N 311.E
NOISSfloSIQ
DRAFT COPY— NOT YET APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
POSSIBLE FUTURE COMMITTEE TOPICS (not listed above):
City's Apprenticeship Policy
Bus Idling
Construction on Steep Slopes
Educational Uses & Special Permits
Emergency Planning
Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) revision
Recovery of Rescue Costs
Fees &Penalties - new process for changing them?
Solicitation Ordinance
Statute of Limitations for Article 78 challenge to ILPC Certificate of Appropriateness
Chickens —allow them in the City?
7
I
I oop'siug gt'xooH\HDXVHS9'd\I(IMVHN\:f
-[gt,looH/t)l!m/ 1o•uipadi)i!m•uo//:dllq] •rutnfizeui io`000ugol`sl[n.g Ingl3q su gons
`saouulsgns,Cuero Wuplows zo3 pasn ag uuo li •luaq lompui puu uoiluu►g-njlvA,Cg solulodo goigm �uplows
JOJ aoinap ue►sV glnoS zo Luolsug aipp!W luuo[lipe.il a sr(sauzeu jaglo/Corot,Cg umoul oslu)qu3iooq V
•adtd.oinM v fo aploq N:,,gtlooq„3o uo►liugap,luuotlotQ s,ialsgaM r
•saa�olduza
pred Xq paiopuai Outaq somias ou ql!m gnlo digszagw3w u sp �Ipius pajonpuoo
3.i3m ji 3i mp-I olvIS zapun algissiuuad oq (Iuo pinom «z-eq tlejoou„ u jo uopplodo 3ql
:NEMSNV AHIN9
zloV ziV aoopul
uualo olplS N.zoA moo oqj npun olgissiuuod si ,jLq gmioog„L,Io uoilLiado auj aaTaMl
ClHiNgSHNJ NOI.LSgfio LSllIA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tyu3iooH,, VMV) sang 2uinotuS :.LD:IPgf1S
900Z `I jaquianoN ::IlvG
XQWOITV XTD `ut'WJJOH •'I PIUPQ :OZ
xawoUV,�ji3 IurjsissV `iuo3loS *W aliNipuugN :WOHA
INITIAL DRAFT -- PROPOSED REGULATION OF OUTDOOR SMOKING
12/11/09—Reflecting Legislative Committee decisions through 11/23/09
-----------------------
-----------------------
For Public Review & Comment
Proposed New Chapter in City of Ithaca Code:
CHAPTER 280 — Smoking, Outdoor
§280-1. Authority.
Pursuant to the New York State Constitution,the Common Council of the City of Ithaca may
adopt and amend laws pertaining to the protection, conduct, safety,health and well-being of the persons
and property in the City. Similarly, the Charter of the City of Ithaca provides that the Common Council
may enact and enforce any ordinance (not repugnant to the Constitution or laws of the State) for any local
purpose (except fluoridation of the water supply) pertaining to the preservation of order,peace and health,
and the safety and welfare of the City and the inhabitants thereof.
The Clean Indoor Air Act adopted by the New York State Legislature(Public Health Law, Article
13-E, Sections 1399-n,et seq) addresses indoor smoking only, and, in any case, specifically provides that
"nothing herein shall be construed to restrict the right of any county, city, town, or village to adopt and
enforce additional local law, ordinances or regulations which comply with at least the minimum
applicable standards set forth in this article."
§280-2. Purpose.
The primary purpose of this chapter is to reduce the proximate exposure of the public, especially
children, to the hazards and annoyance of second-hand tobacco smoke. Furthermore, this legislation is
intended to reduce litter and possible contamination from discarded cigarette butts, in public places, and
to reduce the likelihood that young persons will initiate tobacco use (by reducing the incidence of public
smoking in places where young persons are likely to be present).
§280-3. Definitions [not finished]
For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms shall have the following definitions:
- Child Care Center
- Children
- City-owned Building
- Dining
- Entrance
- Exit
-Mobile vending
- Outdoor Recreation Area
- Pavilion
- Playground
-Playing Field
- Permit
- School
- "Smoking"means the burning of a lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe or any other matter or
substance which contains tobacco.
i
PAGE 2
§280-4. Prohibition of outdoor smoking in certain public places.
Smoking shall not be permitted and no person shall smoke in the following outdoor areas, subject
to the limited exception for streets open to regular traffic as set forth in Section 280-5,below:
A. At or near playgrounds,child care centers and schools, as follows:
1. At any playground that is open to use by the public, or on any public property that is within
25* feet of such a playground.
2. On any public property that is within 25* feet of any licensed child care center.
3. On any public property that is within 25* feet of any entrance, exit, window or ventilation
intake for a school or school building.
4. The owner of any such playground, child care center or school shall be required to post
and maintain signage acceptable to the City advising the public of the above restrictions.
B. In other areas or at events where persons cannot readily escape nearby second-hand smoke, as follows:
1. Within any outdoor dining area(whether covered or not)located on public property, including the
Ithaca Commons,as follows:
a. Within any seating area for outdoor dining and/or drinking associated with a bar or restaurant,
that is on City property and subject to a City license, and that is in use for that purpose; and
b. Within any seating area for outdoor dining and/or drinking established or maintained by the
City of Ithaca or its agent,and that is in use for that purpose; and
2. On any public property that is within 25* feet of the area occupied by a mobile vending cart
or other mobile vendor operating on City property.
3. At outdoor events on public property, as follows:
a. Within the outdoor seating and viewing areas for open-air concerts, dances,parades,
other performances,lectures,motion picture or video presentations, or similar open-air
presentations, for which a permit from the City is required and when in use for that purpose;
b. Within the outdoor seating and viewing areas associated with unenclosed(or partially
enclosed)sports areas or similar open-air recreational facilities;
c. During outdoor festivals,block parties and similar events, on public property, for which a
permit from the City is required,that will involve the concentration of persons in small or
constrained spaces. For such an eve , smoking is prohibited within the area covered by the
City permit,except within a designat d smoking area as described in Section B3d,below.
d. If the sponsor of an outdoor event(p Section 133a,133b or 133c,above)wishes to allow
smoking at the event,the sponsor mu;t propose and request(from the permit issuer) a
"designated smoking area"associate with event(which must be so marked,may not be in a
permanently smoke-free area,and wc uld result in little or no direct exposure of non-smokers to
2nd-hand smoke); if no such excepti is requested and granted,the event must be entirely
smoke-free. For an event occupying portion of the Ithaca Commons, the designated smoking
area shall be that part of Commons where outdoor smoking is not otherwise prohibited. (See
Section 208-4.C.1,below.)
4. Any licensee or permit holder for an outdoor dining area, vending or outdoor event on City-
owned property shall be required to inform members of the public of applicable restrictions
on outdoor smoking (for example, through signs at the perimeter of an outdoor dining area,
mobile vending cart, or outdoor event, and/or in the publicity for an event).
PAGE 3
C. hi certain other areas, as follows:
1. On a portion of the Ithaca Commons(and the entrance alley to the south of it), as follows:
At all times,within the inner portion of Ithaca Commons(as shown on the map attached hereto),
which area is intended to encompass the entire playground,the public outdoor dining area just
east of middle of Commons,the Bernie Milton pavilion and the"brick circle"area in front of it,
the outdoor dining area to the west of the Bernie Milton pavilion and the amphitheater complex to
the west of that dining area; also,the area north of the brick circle that includes designated spots for
several mobile vending carts,to a point that coincides with what is now the doorway for Tompkins
Cortland Community College offices; also,the so-called Home Dairy Alley and its southerly
extension beneath the Green Street Parking Garage.
2. Outside City-owned buildings,as follows:
At all times,on any public property within 25* feet of any entrance or exit or window or
ventilation intake for any building owned by the City of Ithaca.
3. In City-owned parks,as follows:
a. Within certain City-owned parks or areas of certain City-owned parks,as follows:
(1) In Stewart and Cass Parks, as follows:
Smoking is prohibited in designated, smoke-free areas(see below); outdoor
smoking is otherwise permitted in these parks,except that the managers of City-
operated programs in these parks shall have authority to designate(with
appropriate signage) additional smoke-free areas when in use for those programs,
when such designation is reasonably necessary for the protection of public health.
(a) Cass Park smoke-free areas(in addition to playground areas) are:
i. All playing fields when in active use for recreational purposes, and
within 25* feet of the boundary of a playing field when the field is in
use for such purpose;
ii. Inside any pavilion, or within 25* feet of it;
iii. Inside the skating rink structure, or within 25* feet of it; and
iv. Within the fenced area around the swimming pool.
(b) Stewart Park smoke-free areas are:
i. The"Playground/Pavilion Area,"namely, the area bordered by
the"inner"park roads, plus the large pavilion and a 25*-foot
buffer around it(includes carousel and sprinkler area; runs
to Lake shore);
ii. The tennis courts,when in active use for recreational purposes; and
iii. Inside the Boathouse and within 25* feet of any entrance or exit
(2) Anywhere within any other City-owned or operated park(including DeWitt Park),
except that this prohibition to the City-owned"Festival Lands"/Off-Leash Area,
currently operated as part of Allan H. Treman State Park.
4. On City-owned trails and special,multi-purpose walkways(other than regular sidewalks),
including but not necessarily limited to the following:
a. Cayuga Waterfront Trail
b. Six Mile Creek Creekwalk
c. Inlet Island Promenade
i
PAGE 4
5. In City-owned Natural Areas,as follows:
No smoking within the following designated(or otherwise specified)Natural Areas,both within and
outside the boundaries of the City of Ithaca:
a. Six Mile Creek
b. Fuertes Sanctuary
c. Ithaca Falls
d. Southwest Substitute Parkland(pending designation as natural area)
6. At Other City-Operated Facilities,as follows:
No smoking in the following places:
a. Elevators in City parking 0rages(if not covered by NYS law or Fire Code)
b. Inside, or any public property!within 25* feet of,any transit shelter, or, at a stop
where there is no officially designated shelter/seating area,within 25* feet(on public
property)of any transit stop(4s measured from the sign post for the stop)
c. Within the fenced area of the Xal ex Hale Pool or within the fenced area of the
adjacent Melvyn Bell Memo basketball court when in use for basketball.
7. At facilities leased or licensed to others,as follows:
a. Whenever the City is negotiaOng a new or renewed lease or license for use of City
land or buildings,the City shill include in such lease or license a provision that will
apply outdoor smoking rules comparable to those for other,comparable City property.
b. As for existing leases,where this ordinance would not apply automatically,the City
shall ask its lessees to agree (voluntarily)to operate the outdoor areas of the leased
premises in a manner that is consistent with City regulation of smoking in comparable
outdoor areas.
§280-5. Exception for streets open to regular traffic.
Streets open to regular vehicular traffic are exempt from the prohibitions on outdoor smoking
emanating from an adjacent area(such as outdoor dining on an adjacent sidewalk), except that such
prohibition shall extend into the parking lane of such a street and to persons in or on a vehicle in any other
affected parking area on public property.
§280-6. Enforcement; penalties [Not finished]
Any person who violates any provision of this ch ipter,by smoking in an area where outdoor smoking is
hereby prohibited, shall be guilty of an offense punishable as follows:
I"offense: $75
2nd offense: $150
3rd offense: $250
[No jail time for violation or conviction]
§280-7. Effective date.
This chapter shall take effect on , 20' 0. [Date to be determined.]
*NOTE: Summary of proposed ordinance in legal notice listed 10 foot buffers; notes of 11123
Legislative Committee appear to show that this was changed to 25 feet.
L�
From: "Theresa Lyczko" <TLYCZKO @tompkins-co.org>
To: <JULIEH @ cityofithaca.org>
Date: 12/14/2009 4:17 PM
Subject: proposed reg of outdoor smoking
To the Legislative Committee of the City of Ithaca Common Council:
am in favor of the proposed regulation of outdoor smoking - Proposed New Chapter in City of Ithaca
Code: Chapter 280 - Smoking Outdoor for the reasons stated in 280-2 Purpose, i.e.to reduce the
proximate exposure of the public, especially children to the hazards and annoyance of second-hand
smoke.... and to reduce the likelihood that young persons will initiate tobacco use (by reducing the
incidence of public smoking in places where young persons are likely to be present.) As a health
professional I recognize the health hazards of tobacco use to those who smoke and to those who are
exposed to second hand smoke. I am a City of Ithaca resident (316 Ithaca Rd.) who frequently visits the
Ithaca Commons and the City's parks and trails. Those visits would be more enjoyable if I could be
confident that smoking would be restricted in the areas designated in this proposal.
Thank you for your consideration of this proposal. I urge you to vote in favor.
Theresa Lyczko, MS, CHES
Director, Health Promotion Program
Public Information Officer
Tompkins County Health Department
401 Harris B Dates Drive
Ithaca, NY 14850
607.274.6714
tlyczko @tompkins-co.org
Susan J. Olmstead
PO Box 328—89 Hurd Road
Freeville, NY 13068
December 14, 2009 `
Mayor Peterson
Common Council Members
I am writing this letter in support of the proposed smoking ban in the City of Ithaca.
While I am not a resident of the city, I am a life-long resident of Tompkins County. My
late father spent his entire career as a merchant on State Street. I grew up shopping in
downtown Ithaca. As a child, our family ate every Friday evening dinner downtown
while my father was on his dinner break. My children spent countless hours playing on
the Commons play area.
In recent years I have chosen to avoid the Commons. The large number of loitering
smokers is very unpleasant. It is almost impossible to avoid them at times. More than
once I have not been able to enter a store without passing through a group of individuals
who are smoking. For my health, I choose to not shop in downtown Ithaca.
I have spent my adult life working as a Registered Nurse in Tompkins County. I have
witnessed first hand the detrimental effects of smoking. I have cared for individuals with
coronary disease, pulmonary disease and cancer that were directly related to their
smoking or exposure to second-hand smoke. Unfortunately, I have seen too many of
these individuals die from these conditions. I have also cared for countless children
suffering from asthma triggered by their parents' smoking.
It is well documented that smoking bans not only decrease smoking rates in their
population. Evidence also exists that smoking bans have a direct correlation to decreased
rates of smoking related illnesses. For this reason alone, I implore you to pass the
proposed legislation on a smoking ban in the City of Ithaca.
Sincerely,
From: <kris @downtownithaca.com>
To: "Julie Holcomb" <julieh @cityofithaca.org>, "J.R. Clairborne" <jclairbo @c...
CC: <gary @downtownithaca.com>
Date: 12/14/2009 2:17 PM
Subject: the smoking legislation
Hello Julie and J.R., My concern with this legislation is this: that the City agrees to purchase and maintain
an adequate number of metal smoking stations at the edges of the non-smoking area so that the number
of cigarette butts which will be concentrated there will be dealt with in as aesthetic a manner as possible. I
don't see anything in the legislation that specifically deals with the litter which will most probably be heavy
in the "smoking areas".Thanks for giving this some thought. Kris
Legislative committee—Smoking Ordinance Public Hearing: i I e�l
JR explained the agenda for the meeting.
DAN COGAN presented the overview of the ordinance (on behalf the sub-committee).
(Ask Dan for a copy of this powerpoint—also—can we work with Duane to get copies of powerpoints
presented at meetings to be posted on the web?)
DAN HOFFMAN reviewed the proposed ordinance and provided supportive documentation on the legal
authority that the City of Ithaca has to enact this type of legislation (although there is no current
comparative legislation anywhere in New York state.)
QUESTIONS:
JENNIFER DOTSON: How do the maps reflect what was just explained? DH answer—there are some
mistakes on the maps—but they are still a work in progress.There is still a question about regulating
smoking in the parking garages—we need to look at how it is classified.
FAY GOUGAKIS: Clarification about the NYS law—we can make it less than the state legislation? What
about bus stops?What about butterfly alley?What about behind Center Ithaca.
UNKNOWN:Signage—how can this be bolstered to not be removed? Bus shelters and enforcement—
can they call the police and ask for someone to come and be ticketed? Would TCAT be involved? DAN
COGAN spoke on behalf of TCAT and also commented on the idea of peer enforcement.
UNKNOWN: Merchant on the Commons—college crowd drives his business—will this push business
away from the Commons and the drinking crowd? Tremendous amount of commerce during the late
night hours will go away. His concern was specifically about the area near Moonshadows. (He owns
Subway)
MARTY MOSES:What about the State Theater? DH answers this is a private area and is not covered by
the current ban.
PETER P: Is this a done deal?DAN COGAN says not at this moment—that is why we are having this
meeting—so that our draft is as good as we can get it right now—and we know everyone will not be
happy.
PETER PARKS: What is the little orange square at the end of the smoke-free zone? Peter thinks it is the
chess table area—so we need to think about whether this will divide this area in the final demarcation
of the zones.
FAY GOUGAKIS:These maps are really bad—I want more clarification of the Commons again—where
will you not be allowed to smoke? DH reviewed the map.
(WE CLEARLY NEED MAPS WITH MORE DETAIL AND ZOOM BEFORE WE VOTE ON THIS.THERE IS
DEFINITE CONFUSION ON THE MAPS.)
PETER PARKS:Concern is the demarcation in the inner Commons—does not include the Chess table
area.This area measures 35 feet and it is not included on the proposed map—it's just west of the
amphitheater. If we are doing this to protect children—we have to include the Chess area.This would
give each end of the Commons the same amount of space for smokers.
TONY JOHNSON:Owns Alphabet Soup—children are my business—would like to see this ban go into
effect.You're not going to make the smokers go away—this will concentrate smokers in small areas. Ban
smoking on the entire Commons.
FAY GOUGAKIS: Disappointed with community for using electronic devices. Landlord—smoking is
allowed in residential areas—gets into her apartment. Agree that concentration of smokers is a major
problem -as the back of Center Ithaca will now endanger her health more due to the congregation of
smokers. Suggests a limited ordinance—only playgrounds.
CHRIS KUSHNER: Carefully executed this could be a great thing for Ithaca. 24 years old—starting
multiple local businesses—the kind of person that you want here. This ordinance as proposed will affect
his business directly.Solution—concentration of bars—have to enforce the same for other bar district.
Wants time zones to be a compromise.
COMMON COUNCIL:
MARY TOMLAN:We should get a range of comments on the parks and natural areas as well.
NANCY SCHULER: Natural Areas& IYB support this. In order to get to all the non-smoking areas you
have to pass through smoking areas.
JENNIFER DOTSON: Is there proof about businesses clothing?
SVANTE MYRICK:Thanked Robin for coming forward as an involved youth and was pleased to hear the
positive support from the public.
1R CLAIRBORNE:Thanks for your time. Your comments were some of our comments as we drafted this.
From: <chocol8man @aol.com>
To: <jclairbo @cityofithaca.org>, <erosario @cityofithaca.org>, <smyrick @cityo...
CC: <Julieh @cityofithaca.org>, <mayor @cityofithaca.org>
Date: 12/15/2009 8:24 AM
Subject: Additional comments from Jeff B. that might be helpful to you
Thanks again for your leadership on this. I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on this one-pager
when you have a chance to read through it.
Best,
Jeff
Per J.R.'s request, I am sending along the partsof my prepared remarks that I did not have time to share
yesterday evening,including a few more thoughts on what I think could be a workable solution youmight
want to consider. I had understood (erroneously) from my e-mail exchangewith Julie prior to the meeting
that based on the number of people anticipatedif I had prepared a longer comment I would likely be able
to share it in full.She had meant that I could share some of it verbally and some in writing. Themistake
was mine. --Jeff
To the Legislative Committee of the IthacaCommon Council,
understand that the City is trying to createsome reasonable compromise between smokers and non-
smokers at the North andWest ends of the Commons while also trying to avoid presenting
excess ivehardship for owners and patrons of bars. The presence of the popular play areaat the East end
of the Commons creates a different situation. I appreciate thatyou are not trying to create a"one size fits
all policy" and I thinkreasonable people could see that the smoking areas do not have to besymmetrical;
they have to work.
One can reasonably assume that when you passyour plan, smokers walking from the West will go as far
but only as far—asthey need to go to reach the designated, legal smoking area. It would not takea formal
study to anticipate that smoking in the area just adjacent to theplayground would therefore likely
INCREASE if the draft proposal is passed asis. This area is either IN the playground itself by one
reasonabledefinition, or at least so close to it that smoke moves, in most weatherconditions, right onto the
kids who play there.
In your overall plan,some degree of concentration of smoking will be a necessary trade-off to limitsmoking
elsewhere. It looks a lot right now, however, like your currentproposal for the East end would unwittingly
compromise the well-being ofchildren for the convenience of smokers and bar owners. This is a
verydifferent calculus than that at the other two ends of the T. I know that partof your impetus and one of
your great priorities is to focus on preventingsmoking in areas where children would be present, if not
concentrated. Whywould the city not ask smokers to walk an additional 18 seconds in order tolook out for
the health of our children? The solution is to have a designatedsmoking area, nicely landscape with good
seating, extending East South-east ofthe SW corner of Aurora and MLK/State toward the site of the
present day busstop. This would truly prioritize the safety of kids in the play area andcreate one entrance
to the Commons that was more smoke-free, which I thinkcould be important.
We often hear people say that they do not come to the Commonsbecause it is hard for them to avoid the
smoking. I am concerned that if noneof the three major entrances to the Commons is smoke-free, we
would still havesome people staying away because they do not want to walk through the smoke.This
would truly hurt businesses more than I believe businesses would be hurtby the designation of the
smoking areas.
have now spoken with more than fifty parentsof children using the play equipment and fifty smokers
either standing outsidethe Rothschild building or sitting between the climbing equipment and theAurora
Street pavilion. I have been amazed by the consistency of viewpointsexpressed within each group and
excited to see what appears to be clear commonground.
I spoke the other day, for example, with a womanwho introduced herself as Jennie Cunningham Ryan.
Jennie, whose two kids wereplaying on and around the playground equipment, describes herself as a
"formersmoker who is very sympathetic to smokers and smokers' rights."Jennie waswatching her kids
play on the slide as two adults sat on the wall NE of theslide and smoked. Note, they were sitting in an
area which, in the currentproposal would be a designated smoking area. I asked Jennie if she noticed
whenpeople smoke by the playground and if she cares. She said it bothers her a lotand she often takes
the kids elsewhere even though she would like to come tothe Commons. I asked her what she would
think if there were a non-smoking areathat ended at the point designated on the map in your current
proposal. Shesaid "that would be like a "bad joke." She said "you have to not just drawlines on a map in
an office somewhere, you have to go to the Commons indifferent conditions and watch and smell where
the smoke blows onto the kids."
I will attest to the fact that if the proposal passesas it, it would not be possible to spend an hour playing
with one's child onthe play equipment without the child having to absorb at least part of onecigarette.
Even when the smokers are sitting on the ledge just to the West ofthe Aurora street pavilion. People often
sit to have a smoke on the ledge rightin front of the Crested King Heron sculpture just West of the Aurora
streetpavilion and parents in the play area regularly complain that their kidsare having to breathe that
smoke. I will remind you of the Surgeon General'sconclusion that with multiple smokers, appreciable
exposure can still occur atmore than ten feet. I will note, in case you find it relevant that there isalso
regular conflict at this end of the Commons about smoking. I have had tomediate multiple encounters
between smokers and angry parents.
I have also discussed the option of the onlysmoking area at the East end of the Commons being located
by the site of thepresent day Aurora street bus stop with numerous smokers standing outside theNorth
side of the Rothschild building. NONE has complained about this proposedoption. I spoke last Friday, for
example, a VERY cold day, with two women whowere standing and smoking North of the Rothschild
building. I asked them ifthey knew that there is legislation pending that would regulate smoking on
theCommons. "We know,"they said, almost in unison. I asked them where they would wantto smoke if
they could. The first one said "I would want to smoke in a spacethat had an option of some kind of shelter
but one not too enclosed and toosmoky." I asked how it would feel if instead of being able to smoke
where theywere currently standing (on the north side of the Rothschild building), theonly designated
smoking area in the vicinity were on the East side of thebuilding, by the bus stop on Aurora Street. They
said "lots of people go outthat entrance, anyway; it would be no problem."
While looking out for the air quality for all, (would also look out for the comfort and feelings of smokers. I
do not thinksmokers should be made to feel like pariahs. Why don't we (and I mean thebroader
community not just the city) come together and create some comfortableseating and some really nice
landscaping on Aurora street (if not in othersmoking areas too) to create a pleasant area for smokers to
enjoy withouthaving them right on top of a playground. I believe the bus stop is slated tore removed,
though I am not sure the status of this or where the replacement issupposed to go. Perhaps that bus stop
could be conveyed by TCAT to the city aspart of the newly created smoking piazza.
Having the East end of the Commons smoking areahere rather than right on top of (and partially IN!) the
play area would bebetter for business would make it much less likely people would smoke instairwells and
basements and it would be MUCH BETTER FOR THE KIDS I know we allcare about. Keep the area
where children play, meaningfully—not just nominally--smoke-free.
Here is a thought I am adding AFTER last night'smeeting:
If you conclude that the option I am proposingwould present too much hardship for bars and the
businesses that benefit fromthe presence of bars, I would rather see you make an exception to the
smokingban in the play area after 10p.m. so that patrons would have the option ofsmoking closer to the
bars, rather than making an area that has so many kidsaround it, filled with smoke by day and night. I will
note that with this approach,you would see more cigarette butts in the play area and people who wanted
tohave the windows open in their apartments, studios etc when they were thereafter 10 pm would be
adversely effected. Perhaps, however, this is a reasonabletrade-off to make. At least having the smoke
free area extend from its proposedboundary, all the way to Aurora street in order to really create a safe
spacefor kids in the day time would make much more sense, whether or not you onlyhave the ban in
place up to 10 p.m.
Jeff Bercuvitz
President
Center for Leadership, Innovation and Community
To the Legislative Committee of the Ithaca Common Council,
I applaud the leadership you are showing in addressing the challenging issue of
regulating outdoor smoking. I start from the position that I am a strong supporter of
individual rights, however it is important for the City of Ithaca to also consider the
individual rights of business owners, workers, apartment renters, shoppers, eaters,
walkers who are non-smokers, in addition to the rights of smokers. Most importantly,I
want to encourage you to give much more significant weight to the well-being of
CHILDREN than you are giving with your current proposal.
You probably already know that many people, including many who run businesses on the
Commons, STRONGLY support the move to eliminate smoking on the Commons
altogether. I think you basically have the right formulation of the issue to not go this far
but also try to accommodate the needs of smokers. There is, however, one very serious
problem that I think the proposed legislation will likely CREATE if you don't head it
off at the pass. It would be unfortunate indeed if, after all the work that has gone into this,
you did not solve the problem or problems that you set out to solve. It would be much
worse, however, if you unwittingly exacerbate one of the principal problems you are
trying to solve, that is "the hazard and annoyance of second-hand smoke,especially
on children."
The current proposal has the non-smoking area of the "Inner T" end in the middle of what
is, de facto, still part of the playground. I watch kids play all the time on the sculpture just
East of the green benches. Just this afternoon I took pictures of kids playing there, even
on a day when the weather was not particularly pleasant. This sculpture was actually
designed with the expectation that kids would play on and around it. Most days I witness
at least one conflict between a smoker sitting just North AND EAST of there who
(correctly) asserts their right to sit and smoke in that location and a parent who complains
that the smoke blows right onto them and their children while they are playing on the
ONLY play area for kids on the Commons. Adults could choose to sit elsewhere on the
Commons; kids have many fewer options.
It is not possible to spend an hour playing with one's child on the play equipment without
the child having to absorb at least part of one cigarette, even when the smokers are sitting
on the ledge to the West of the Aurora street pavilion. People often sit to have a smoke on
the ledge right in front of the Crested King Heron sculpture (just West of the Aurora
street pavilion). Parents in the play area regularly complain that their kids are having to
breathe that smoke.
The research put together by Alderperson Rosario is extensive and impressive. As an
occasional smoker myself and new parent I was really struck to read the Surgeon
General's conclusion that "there is no risk free exposure to second hand smoke and that
even brief exposure to SHS may have adverse effect on the heart and respiratory systems
and may increase the severity of asthma attacks."
One can reasonably assume that when you pass your plan, smokers walking from the
West will go as far--but only as far—as they need to go to reach the designated, legal
smoking area. It would not take a formal study to anticipate that smoking in the area
just adjacent to the playground would likely INCREASE if the draft proposal is
passed as is. This area is either IN the playground itself by one reasonable definition, or
at least so close to it that smoke moves, in most weather conditions, right onto the kids
who play there.
I spoke the other day, for example, with a woman who introduced herself as Jennie
Cunningham Ryan. Jennie, whose two kids were playing on and around the playground
equipment, describes herself as a "former smoker who is very sympathetic to smokers
and smokers' rights." Jennie was watching her kids play on the slide as two adults sat on
the wall NE of the slide and smoked. Note, they were sitting in an area which, in the
current proposal would be a designated smoking area. I asked Jennie if she noticed when
people smoke by the playground and if she cares. She said it bothers her a lot and she
often takes the kids elsewhere even though she would like to come to the Commons. I
asked her what she would think if there were a non-smoking area that ended at the point
designated on the map in your current proposal. She said "that would be like a "bad
joke." She said "you have to not just draw lines on a map in an office somewhere, you
have to go to the Commons in different conditions and watch and smell where the smoke
blows onto the kids.
To me this gets to the heart of the matter. I understand that the City is trying to
create compromises between smokers and non-smokers at the North and West ends
of the "Inner T"but the presence of the popular play area at the East end of the
Commons creates a different situation and it looks a lot on this end like you would
actually be compromising the interests of children for the convenience of smokers,
which is very different than the calculus at the other two end of the T. I know you
have set out to focus on areas where children would be present/concentrated. Why
would the city not ask smokers to walk 18 seconds in order to look out for the health
of our children? The Surgeon General has also stated that with multiple smokers,
appreciable exposure can still occur at more than ten feet. I know that contrary to some
cynical assertions, the Council is not just trying to LOOK like it is doing something about
this matter. I believe the City is committed to protecting the health of kids and I
would urge you accordingly in the strongest terms to extend the non-smoking area
to the SW corner of Aurora and MLK streets.
I have discussed this option with numerous smokers standing outside the North side of
the Rothschild building. NONE has complained about this. In fact, I spoke last Friday, a
VERY cold day, with two women who were standing and smoking at that location. I
asked them if they knew that there is legislation pending that would regulate smoking on
the Commons. "We know," they said, almost in unison. I asked them where they would
want to smoke if they could. They said no one had asked them that before. The first one
said "I would want to smoke in a space that has some kind of shelter but is not too
enclosed and too smoky." I asked how it would feel if instead of being able to smoke
where they were currently standing (on the north side of the Rothschild building), the
only designated smoking area in the vicinity were on the East side of the building, by the
bus stop on Aurora Street. They said "lots of people go out that entrance, anyway; it
would be no problem."
While looking out for the air quality for all, I would also look out for the comfort and
feelings of smokers. I do not think smokers should be made to feel like pariahs. Why
don't we (and I mean the broader community not just the city) come together and create
some comfortable seating and some really nice landscaping on Aurora street (if not in
other smoking areas too) to create a pleasant area for smokers to enjoy without having
them right on top of a playground. This would be better for business would make it much
less likely people would smoke in stairwells and basements and it would be MUCH
BETTER FOR THE KIDS I know we all care about. I understand that you are trying to
balance different interests and considerations. I understand your choice to have smoking
areas at the West and North ends of the Commons. I urge you in the strongest terms to
amend your proposal to extend the inner T to the SW corner of Aurora street and MLK
and keep the area where children play meaningfully—not just nominally--smoke-free.
Jeff Bercuvitz
President
Center for Leadership, Innovation and Community
Dear Legislative Committee Members:
Thank you for your time. My concern is the demarcation of the"inner Commons"area.
This designation does not currently include an area known to many as the"chess table
area". This area measures 35' and is just west of the amphitheater, in front of Race,
which has a designation as an outdoor dining area. The chess area which has tables and
seats invites people to gather, socialize,hang-out, smoke, encourage workers to eat their
lunch, etc. The purpose of this legislation as stated is" intended to reduce litter and
possible contamination from discarded cigarette butts, in public places, and to reduce the
likelihood that young persons will initiate tobacco use(by reducing the incidence of
public smoking in places where young persons are likely to be present". This area is a
perfect example of how this legislation can work! It just needs to be included in the
buffer zone. It meets all the criteria, standards you have set—up and in doing so will be
equitable to all Commons patrons and businesses.
To be fair in your demarcations and make it easier for police enforcement let me lay out
the distances. The distance from the chess area west of the pavilion on Cayuga street
(curb) is 130',which not coincidently is the same distance from the playground buffer
zone to the east of the Aurora street pavilion(curb). The buffer zone distance from the
amphitheater to the Cayuga street curb is 175'.
Please consider extending the buffer zone demarcation from the amphitheater to the end
of the"chess table"area—a mere 35'. This would:
1- Give each end of the commons a balanced, fair representation of smoking areas
and a positive policing opportunity to monitor.
2- This area is an outside dinning area, and should be considered as such, as it
provides seating for two restaurants, Japanese and pizza, it also has two bars next
to the area, 2°d floor bar and Moonshadows, both similar to establishments already
on the Commons in the proposed buffer zones, as well as restaurants and bars on
Aurora street which are designated buffer zones.
3- It would discourage young people from smoking and hanging out in this area and
let this space be used by employees and patrons to use for lunch and dinner
seating without the risk of second hand smoke, exactly what this legislation was
intended for.
4- My recommendation provides equal demarcation on each end of the Commons at
130' for smoking, and I also would recommend the same 130' demarcation on the
"bank alley entrance to the commons on Tioga and Seneca streets.
Thank you for thoughtfully listening to me and I encourage you to walk and see exactly
what I am proposing. It's a mere 35' for the good.
Sincerely,
Peter Parkes,President
Benjamin Peters
120 E. State Street
Comments to Legislative Committee at Public Hearing on Proposed Regulation of Outdoor Smoking, 12/14/2009
Ted Schiele,Tompkins County Health Department, Coordinator,Tobacco Free Tompkins
I am thrilled to be at this public hearing. Members of this Common Council, and the City Attorney's office
have worked hundreds of hours in this proposed ordinance, and I believe that history will show that it will
have been well worth the investment. Congratulations.
Two points I would like to make, to remind us of why we are doing this:
First,the science.Here are quotes excerpted from abstracts or news reports for six different peer-reviewed
studies published over the last 5 years:
Heart Risks
Study results consistently indicate that exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of coronary heart
disease by 25 to 30 percent. (Institute of Medicine, Oct 2009)
Outdoor Tobacco Smoke
The often cited Stanford study (2007): A person sitting or standing next to a smoker outdoors can breathe in
wisps of smoke that are many times more concentrated than normal background air pollution levels. A
person near an outdoor smoker might inhale a breath with 50 times more toxic material than in the
surrounding unpolluted air. According to the Environmental Protection Agency,exposure to fine particulate
matter [PM2.5] can lead to serious health problems, including asthma attacks, chronic bronchitis, irregular
heartbeat, nonfatal heart attacks and even premature death in people with heart or lung disease.
Secondhand smoke vs. Diesel
A study published in Tobacco Control, 2004: Secondhand smoke produces fine particulate matter pollution
up to 10-fold that emitted from an idling ecodiesel (low sulfur diesel) engine.
Third Hand Smoke
Regarding what is now referred to as third-hand smoke: Similar to low-level lead exposure, low levels of
tobacco particulates have been associated with cognitive deficits among children.
Visual Impact
Just seeing someone smoke can trigger smokers to abandon their nascent efforts to kick the habit, according
to new research conducted at Duke University Medical Center(2009).
Perceptions of Second-hand Smoke Risks Predict Future Adolescent Smoking Initiation
A new paper just published in the J Adolesc Health(2009 Dec) shows that concern over secondhand smoke
is a powerful motivator of adolescent smoking behavior. Perceptions of risks associated with second-hand
smoke significantly deterred adolescent smoking initiation.
Second,the community.I recently heard a comment questioning the need to limit people's smoking
outdoors. The comment was, "I think people should be able to do what they wish outdoors as long as it does
not affect me."
Smoke-free outdoor areas are not for"me", they are for"we",and for"us", and for"they" who cannot be
exposed to secondhand smoke,for"those" who do not want to be exposed to secondhand smoke, and lastly,
for our children and youth, who all too often do not have a choice in the matter. We cannot afford another
generation of tobacco addiction.
Thank you