HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-31-10 City Administration Committee Meeting AgendaCITY ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Wednesday March 31, 2010
7:00 PM
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
1. Chairperson Greeting & Opening Statement
2. Announcements
3. Agenda Review and Amendments
4. Approval of Minutes
5. Statements from the Public
6. Employee Comments
7. Common Council Response
8. Workforce Diversity Committee
9. Safety Committee
10. Regular Reports from Departments Reporting to CA
11. IURA
11.1 Housing Fund 2009 Funding Round – Review of Projects Recommended for Funding
- Resolution
12. Common Council
12.1 Approval For Continued Funding of City Hall Security – Resolution
12.2 Approval of Modification of Certain Terms of the Lease Between the City and Center
for the Arts at Ithaca, Inc. (commonly known as the Hangar Theatre) - Resolution
13. Human Resources
13.1 Director’s Report
14. Finance/Controller’s Office
14.1 Controller’s Report
15. Reports
15.1 Mayor’s Report
15.2 Sub-Committee Updates
15.3 Council Members’ Announcements
15.4 Next Month’s Meeting: April 28, 2009
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS\City Admin Comm\2010\3-31 CA Agenda.doc 3/31/10
12. IURA
1. Housing Fund 2009 Funding Round – Review of Projects Recommended for Funding
WHEREAS, review of the first round of funding applications to the Housing Fund has been
completed and the following three housing projects are recommended for funding:
Applicant Project Dollar
Amount
Recommended
Number of
Units
Location
INHS Holly Creek
Townhomes
$200,000 11 for-sale
townhomes
Town of
Ithaca
INHS/Pathstone Women’s
Community
Building
$75,000 50 apartments City of Ithaca
Tompkins
Community
Action
Magnolia
House
$70,000 14 SRO units
for homeless
women
City of Ithaca
, and
WHEREAS, on April 1, 2009, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca authorized the Mayor
to execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Ithaca, Tompkins
County and Cornell University to develop, fund, and administer the Community Housing
Affordability Program and the Community Housing Trust Program (Collectively known as the
“Housing Fund”), and
WHEREAS, on April 1, 2009, the Common Council further found that the most appropriate
locations for new housing units assisted through MOU funds are project sites located within
existing urbanized areas of the County, rather than in new growth nodes or other areas of the
County, and
WHEREAS, the Community Housing Affordability Program assists with pre-development costs
associated with residential, and mixed-use real estate development projects primarily benefiting
low- and moderate-income households, and the Community Housing Trust Program is a program
designed to ensure that newly constructed or rehabilitated homes that are made available to low-
and moderate-income households remain affordable to future generations of buyers, and
WHEREAS, per the MOU, in the first year Cornell committed to contribute $200,000 and the
City of Ithaca and Tompkins County each committed to contribute $100,000, thereby providing a
pool of up to $400,000 to fund housing projects, and
WHEREAS, City funds committed in year one of the MOU shall derive from Gateway Loan
proceeds held by the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency, and
WHEREAS, a Program Oversight Committee (POC) has been established to govern the Housing
Fund made up of representatives from each funder, including Maria Coles, J.R. Clairborne and
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS\City Admin Comm\2010\3-31 CA Agenda.doc 3/31/10
Doug Dylla from the City, but that final funding decisions regarding expenditure of City MOU
funds shall be approved by the Common Council, and
WHEREAS, the POC is scheduled to meet on April 8, 2010 to develop a specific funding plan
matching funding sources with housing projects recommended for funding; and
WHEREAS, each funding entity has internal guidelines for use of its funds; and
WHEREAS, the City’s representatives on the POC seeks guidance from the Common Council on
this matter; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council for the City of Ithaca hereby recommends that up to
$100,000 of City MOU funds be directed to support either, or both, of the recommended housing
projects located within the City for assistance through the Housing Fund, and be it further
RESOLVED, That City’s appointees to the Program Oversight Committee, upon the advice of
the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency, are authorized to craft a proposal for specific use of City
funds to result in fully funding all three housing projects recommended for funding through the
first year of the Housing Fund program.
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS\City Admin Comm\2010\3-31 CA Agenda.doc 3/31/10
HOUSING FUND
SUMMARY OF DECEMBER 2009 FUNDING ROUND
Overview:
The Housing Fund received six applications: 2 from not-for-profit organizations, 2 from for-profit
organizations, 1 from a not-for-profit/for-profit partnership and 1 from a not-for-profit/not-for-profit
partnership.
The total amount of funding requested was $685,000: $385,000 for the Affordability Program and
$300,000 for the Trust Program.
There are a total of 180 new housing units being proposed.
Two projects are located in the City of Ithaca; 1 project in the Town of Ithaca; 1 project in Danby; 1 in the
Village of Lansing; and 1 in Newfield.
Program
Applied Trust Trust Affordability Affordability Affordability Affordability
Applicant INHS Seven
Circles
Better
Housing/NRP INHS/PathStone Shelter Valley
Homes, Inc.
Tompkins
Community
Action
Project Holly Creek
Townhouses
White
Hawk
Ecovillage
Lansing
Reserve
Women’s
Community
Building
Shelter Valley
Low Income
Housing
Project Phase II
(Ineligible)
Magnolia
House
Dollar Amount
Requested $200,000 $100,000 $75,000 $100,000 $140,000 $70,000
Number of
Units
11
townhomes
5 single
family
homes
80 unit multi-
family 50 apartments 20 homes
14 units of
permanent
housing
Type of
Organization
Not-for-
Profit For-Profit
Not-for-Profit/
For-Profit
Partnership
Not-for-Profit/
Not-for-Profit
Partnership
For-Profit Not-for-
Profit
Location Town of
Ithaca
Town of
Danby
Village of
Lansing City of Ithaca Town of
Newfield City of Ithaca
Expected Total
Cost of the
Project
Per
Mortgage/Rent
of Units
$2,446,109/
$90,656-
120a,782
(mortgage)
$5,062,000/
$130,000-
200,000
(mortgage)
$12,285,715/
$404-980
(rent)
$14,361,915/
$600-1,000
(rent)
$3,400,000/
$170,000
(mortgage)
$2,792,166/
$795
(rent)
Project Summaries:
Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services – Holly Creek Townhomes
INHS is requesting a total of $200,000 to support the development of the Holly Creek Townhome project
in the Town of Ithaca. The Holly Creek project will create 11 new 2-and 3- bedroom townhomes that will
be sold to low-income first time homebuyers. Holly Creek is being developed under the INHS
Community Housing Trust Program, which ensures that these homes will remain permanently affordable
to low-income households. These homes will be extremely affordable and will target households earning
between 65% and 80% of the Area Median Income.
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS\City Admin Comm\2010\3-31 CA Agenda.doc 3/31/10
INHS is one of Tompkins County’s leading developers of green housing. This project advances many of
the basic tenets of the smart growth movement. It is located in an existing development node that is
served by public infrastructure and proximate to public transportation, stores and conservation areas. The
location near the intersection of Danby Road and King Road makes it extremely convenient to all of
Tompkins County’s employment centers. These homes will be LEED-certified, making them energy-
efficient, safe and environmentally-responsible. (From the application.)
INHS/PathStone – Women’s Community Building
PathStone Development Corporation and Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services have created a joint
venture to redevelop the site of the Women’s Community Building, located at 100-108 W. Seneca Street,
Ithaca, NY. The developers have an option to purchase this building from the City Federation of
Women’s Organizations of Ithaca, the owner of the building. The proposed project involves the
demolition of the existing structure and construction of a new six story building that includes 50
residential units and community meeting space. The development will be affordable to households
earning between 48% and 90% of the area median income. The proposed financing for this project
includes funding from the NY State Division of Housing Community Renewal through the Low Income
Housing Tax Credit and Housing Trust Fund programs. Additional financing proposed will include a loan
from the City of Ithaca’s Urban Renewal Agency, a conventional construction and permanent loan and
funding from the NeighborWorks America Corporation. INHS and PathStone are requesting $50,000
from the Community Housing Affordability Program to be used for predevelopment. This funding will be
paid back with construction proceeds. (From the application.)
Tompkins Community Action – Magnolia House
Tompkins Community Action, Inc. is requesting $70,000.00 to continue the development of Magnolia
House (308-20 North Meadow Street, Ithaca), a supportive housing program for homeless women in
recovery from substance abuse. The initial feasibility study is complete and we plan to proceed by this
request to cover the cost of design and development of construction documents. We previously requested
$2.7 million in funding from New York State Homeless Housing Assistance Program for acquisition,
demolition and new construction. In addition we are preparing a request for construction funds as well as
Project Based Vouchers through the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal
Unified Funding to ensure the long term affordability of the housing units. Magnolia House will create 14
units of new permanent housing within the City of Ithaca. This project fills a gap in our local continuum
of care for homeless persons and addresses key issues outlined in the Tompkins County Comprehensive
Plan and the City of Ithaca Consolidated Plan by providing a low income special population an affordable
housing option with supportive services. The design of the project meets nodal requirements and green
building practices. The total development funding necessary to complete the project is $2,792,166.00.
Tompkins Community Action, Inc. is applying for funds through the Community Housing Affordability
Program. (From the application.)
Recommendations from the Application Review Committee
February 24, 2010: Second Review Meeting of the Application Review Committee
Kathy Schlather reported that Tompkins Community Action received unconfirmed awarding of State
funding for Magnolia House. It is unconfirmed at this time because Tompkins Community Action has
not received the official award letter.
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS\City Admin Comm\2010\3-31 CA Agenda.doc 3/31/10
The Women’s Community Building project has requested $100,000. The maximum amount that can
be requested is $75,000.
The funding recommendations were moved by Bob Abrams and seconded by David Richardson. By a
unanimous vote of those present (Art Pearce was excused) the Application Review Committee makes
the following funding recommendations:
Applicant Project Dollar Amount
Recommended Number of Units Location
INHS Holly Creek Townhomes $200,000 11 townhomes Town of Ithaca
INHS/PathStone Women’s Community
Building $75,000 50 apartments City of Ithaca
Tompkins
Community
Action
Magnolia House $70,000
14 units of
permanent
housing
City of Ithaca
The Application Review Committee recommends a total of $345,000 to be disbursed for the December
2009 funding round. The remaining $55,000 will be rolled over to the next funding round.
The committee would like to provide the following comments regarding those projects that did not
receive funding:
o Better Housing/NRP
The construction costs provided do not seem consistent with the current costs
associated with construction in upstate New York. More information is required that
outlines how the saving proposed will be achieved.
The exact location of the parcel was not clear in the application.
o Seven Circles
Clarification of the relationship with INHS would be helpful.
More specifics need to be provided to ensure the mechanism for the affordability of
the homes.
* Shelter Valley Homes, Inc. – Shelter Valley Low Income Housing Project Phase II
Shelter Valley Homes was removed from the applicant pool because the proposal was deemed
incomplete. In addition, the County Planning Department received notice from the County Health
Department that the project faces serious public health deficiencies.
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS\City Admin Comm\2010\3-31 CA Agenda.doc 3/31/10
13. Common Council
.1 Approval For Continued Funding of City Hall Security
1 WHEREAS, the 2008 Common Council resolution approving the City’s Workplace Violence
Prevention Policy notes that:
In January 2006, the New York State Legislature enacted a workplace violence
prevention law which mandated that public employers must develop and
implement programs to prevent workplace violence. These programs are
mandated to consist of three (3) components: an evaluation of the workplace, a
written workplace violence prevention policy, and training of all employees. In
June 2007 New York State promulgated regulations concerning Public Employer
Workplace Violence Prevention Programs (12 NYCRR Part 800.16). In
response, the City of Ithaca formed a committee of staff from the various City
departments, including Police, Legal, Human Resources, Building, Information
Technologies as well as a Common Council liaison. To develop and implement
programs to prevent workplace violence, including the drafting of a proposed
workplace violence prevention policy.
,and
2 WHEREAS, the City’s Workplace Violence Prevention Policy adopted by Common Council
on April 2, 2008, states that:
The City of Ithaca is committed to providing a safe workplace environment for
all employees. Acts or threats of violence including intimidation, harassment,
and/or coercion, which involve or affect the City and/or its employees, will not be
tolerated. Similarly, acts or threats of violence including intimidation,
harassment, and/or coercion will not be tolerated in City buildings or on City
property. All employees are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that is
consistent with this policy.
It is also City policy that all employees have the right to work in an environment
where the safety of each individual is paramount.
, and
3 WHEREAS, the goals and objectives of the City of Ithaca’s Workplace Violence
Prevention Policy are:
1. to reduce the potential for violence in and around the workplace;
2. to encourage and foster a work environment that is characterized by respect
and healthy conflict resolution;
3. to mitigate the negative consequences for employees who experience or
encounter violence while at work.”, and
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS\City Admin Comm\2010\3-31 CA Agenda.doc 3/31/10
4 WHEREAS, recent regional and national violent events which have resulted in loss of life
have underscored the basis for the New York State Legislature’s mandate for safe working
environments for public employees, and
5 WHEREAS, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2007, assaults and violent acts
were the second leading cause of workplace fatalities, and that workplace murders have
accounted for one of every 6 fatal occupational injuries, and
6 WHEREAS, in October 2006, the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that a total of 2,520 local
governments with an employee workforce of between 250 and 999 experienced an incident
of workplace violence, and
7 WHEREAS, on September 2, 2009, Common Council approved a resolution to fund private
security services at the Ithaca City Hall on a trial basis, until April 9, 2010, at which time the
services would be evaluated with results reported to Common Council, and
8 WHEREAS, RISCS, Inc., has been providing approximately 60-70 hours a week for armed
security services at City Hall since September 21, 2009, and
9 WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Workplace Violence Prevention Committee, in conjunction
with the Ithaca Police Department, evaluated the services provided by RISCS and compiled a
comprehensive Performance Evaluation Report (undated; final version circulated via email
on 3/23/10), and
10 WHEREAS, the Workplace Violence Prevention Committee and the Ithaca Police
Department strongly support continued funding for private security services at City Hall, and
11 WHEREAS, in the recent (2010) City Hall Security Performance Evaluation Survey the
responses on the part of City employees indicate that a clear majority of respondents feel
more secure and psychologically comfortable as a result of the enhanced security, that these
majorities have increased since previous survey in 2009, and that in the 2010 survey 65% of
City Hall respondents want security to continue at the same level a 58% increase over the
2009 responses, and
12 WHEREAS, the Ithaca Police Department is prepared to continue to oversee security
services at City Hall and to ensure that proper training is provided and documented, and
13 WHEREAS, the 2010 City budget includes $55,000 in Restricted Contingency Funds for the
continuation of said private security service, through the remainder of 2010, and
14 WHEREAS, the estimated cost of continuing said private security services from April 9,
2010 through December 31, 2010, is now (as a result of further experience) $66,000; now,
therefore be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby approves the continuation of private security
services at City Hall, as provided by RISCS, Inc., through December 31, 2010, and be it
further
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS\City Admin Comm\2010\3-31 CA Agenda.doc 3/31/10
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS\City Admin Comm\2010\3-31 CA Agenda.doc 3/31/10
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby transfers authorizes the transfer of $55,000 in
funds for said services from Account A1990 - Restricted Contingency to Account A3120-
5434-5009 – Contracts, as well as the transfer of any additional amount required for such
services in 2010, up to a maximum of $36,000 from Account A1990 - Unrestricted
Contingency to Account A3120-5435-5009 - Contracts.
CITY HALL SECURITY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Presented by the Workplace Violence Prevention Team
Introduction
On September 2, 2009 Common Council passed a resolution to fund, on a trial basis, the private
security services of RISCS for security at City Hall. The resolution also required that an evaluation
be performed of the private security services before Common Council approves extending the
funding for such services through the remainder of 2010. The resolution tasks the Ithaca Police
Department (IPD) and Workplace Violence Prevention Team with conducting the evaluation, and
with presenting their findings to the City Administration Committee during the March 2010 meeting.
The Ithaca Police Department and Workplace Violence Prevention Team identified six (6)
components/sections in the evaluation report. The components/sections include; an employee
survey, data collected, Ithaca Police evaluation, argument for continued security, nationwide
events, and recommendations.
Employee Survey Results:
The Workplace Violence Prevention Team as a component of this overall report, conducted two
City Hall Security surveys; one in August of 2009 which only included City Hall occupants, and one
in February 2010 which included the entire city workforce.
The February 2010 survey consisted of thirteen (13) questions regarding varying security
measures that are currently in place, and proposed security measures considered for
implementation. Survey questions 1-5, and question # 8 in the February survey were identical to
the questions posed in the August 2009 survey. The February survey also included additional
questions regarding employee screening, frequency of business conducted in City Hall, and what
security measures should be taken in departments outside City Hall.
The results of the February survey are broken down into two separate areas; the responses of City
Hall employees, and responses of employees from departments outside of City Hall. The results of
the entire survey can be found in Appendix A of this report.
Summary City Hall Employees:
A comparison was done of the August and February surveys noting any response difference by
City Hall employees. Questions 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 in the August survey, and 1,2, 4, 5, and 8 of the
February survey are identical in both surveys. The comparison below notes the question, possible
choices, the response for the respective survey year, and any response changes.
1.) Since the implementation of enhanced security at City Hall, how would you rate your
psychological comfort level at work? Much Better___ Unchanged___ Less___
09- Response: 50%-Much Better, 50%-Unchanged, 0%-Less
10-Response: 59%- Better, 43%-Unchanged, 0%-Less
An 18% increase in psychological comfort level in 2010
2.) Do you feel more secure in your work environment since the enhancement of security at city
hall? Yes No
09-Response: 55%-Yes, 41%-No
10- Response: 65%-Yes, 37%-No
1
A 18 % increase as feeling more secure in the work environment.
4.) Have you found the closing of the Green Street doors as being positive?
09- Response: 29%-Yes 47%-No___
10- Response: 46%-Yes 37%-No
A 55% increase found closing of the Green St doors as positive.
6/8.) Should the City:
__ continue security at the same level
__ eliminate all security
__ continue security but not armed guards
__ conduct employee security searches
__ other
09-Response: 41%- continue security at the same level,
11%- eliminate all security
14%-continue security but not armed guards
8%- conduct employee security searches
23%- other
10-Response: 65%- continue security at the same level,
12%- eliminate all security
3%-continue security but not armed guards
9%- conduct employee security searches
12%- other
A 58% increase for continued security at the same level. A significant response change
Those questions in the survey that allowed participants to elaborate on their responses can be
viewed in Appendix A of this report.
Data
The City’s Workplace Violence Policy (adopted on April 2, 2008) defines different actions by an
individual that constitute an act of violence. The policy also defines weapons carried either by the
public/or the workforce which are not permitted on City premises. Weapons are defined as
follows: firearms, chemical sprays, clubs or batons, and knives (except non-spring pocket knives),
and include any device, tool, chemical agent, or other implements that can be used to inflict bodily
harm if it is used as a weapon or displayed in such a manner to cause harm or threaten a person
with harm.
Since the implementation of RISCS services on September 21, 2009, RISCS has been tracking the
type of weapons collected from the public during screening at the Security Desk of City Hall. The
collected weapons are retained by security personnel at the Security Desk until the owner is
prepared to exit City Hall, at which time the item is returned to the owner. While the weapons
collected by RISCS personnel are not illegal outside City Hall, they do meet the definition of
weapons as noted in the City’s Workplace Violence Policy (April 2, 2008) and are not permitted on
City premises.
During the 3rd and 4th quarters for 2009, RISCS collected 427 weapons. Since the first of the year
(2010), 198 knives, 16 razors 1 chemical spray, 1 scissors and 3 other contraband (i.e.: marijuana)
2
have been collected. In spite of media coverage and word of mouth communication by the public,
the number of weapons collected has increased.
These weapons collected from the public represent an external source of potential violence against
City employees. Though it can not be verified that any of these weapons were intended to be used
in a violent act, they do nevertheless identify the potential and very real danger that does exist.
According to an FBI report, external sources represent the largest percentage (93%) of threat for
workplace homicides. Portions of the remaining 7% of homicides in the workplace come from an
internal source, the employee workforce itself. At this point, no means of controlling the potential
internal sources have been implemented and no funds were ever allocated for dealing with this
aspect of possible danger. However, plans for such implementation have been discussed at length
by the Workplace Violence Team. Aspects of the plan are discussed in subsequent sections of
this report.
Ithaca Police Department Evaluation
Ithaca Police Department Evaluation of RISCS Inc.
On September 21st, 2009, RISCS was awarded a contract for security services at the Ithaca City
Hall previously provided by the IPD.
RISCS is a local company owned and operated by Brian Robison, and staffed by Tim Williams,
Doug Bowman and Bill Vinti. All four are retired Ithaca Police Officers with a known history of
treating people with dignity and respect.
The transition from police to private security at City Hall was seamless. The IPD provided policy,
equipment, and training geared toward successful security screening operations at City Hall.
Not only is it more feasible to have private security, but it is cost effective when compared to
staffing by the IPD. Based on initial costs over the last six months, funding for private security cost
roughly $44,000 which equates to a savings of approximately $37,000 if security had been
provided by the IPD.
RISCS and the IPD continue to share important information, BOLO’s etc. related to the Ithaca City
Hall and public safety in general.
The lines of communication remain open and unhindered. Questions or concerns have been
promptly addressed by Brian Robison who is timely and responsive. In addition, Brian Robison
joined and continues to serve on the Workplace Violence Team providing valuable insight.
Brian works closely with the City Clerk regarding meeting schedules in an effort to improve
efficiency and keep costs down.
To date, there have been no staffing issues with RISCS requiring the IPD to step in and operate
security for an unscheduled absence.
Informal feedback received from members of the public, indicate that the interactions with RISCS
staff are courteous, friendly, polite and screening is timely.
IPD Employees on occasion have also observed interactions between RISCS employees and
members of city staff, city government and the public, and have witnessed professional and
respectful interactions.
3
From the perspective of the IPD Administration, security operations at the Ithaca City Hall
managed by RISCS Inc., have been, and continue to be a success. The IPD Administration
strongly encourages the continued safety and security screening at the Ithaca City Hall and
recommends extending the contract for RISCS security services.
Argument For Continued Security
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, assaults and violent acts was the 2nd leading cause of
workplace fatality in 2007. Workplace murders accounted for 1 of every 6 fatal occupation injuries.
Firearms were used to commit more than 80% of all workplace homicides. Workplace homicide is
the fastest growing category in the U.S. Homicides are now the leading cause of on-the-job death
for women, and second leading cause for men. Each year 1 in 4 workers is attacked, threatened
or harassed, costing:
$13.5 billion in medical costs
1.75 million days away from work/year
41% increased stress levels
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2008) the 2nd leading cause of workplace fatality is
homicide. From 2006 to 2007, workplace homicides rose 13% to 610 for the year. In 2007 there
were a total of 5,488 workplace fatalities, of that 36 % were related to workplace violence; 610
homicides, 839 assaults or violent acts, 491 shootings, and 43 stabbings.
According to a Bureau of Statistics report in October 2006, a total of 2,520 local governments with
an employee census of 250-999, experienced an incident of workplace violence in the past 12
months. The effect of those incidents on the workforce resulted in:
6.3% absenteeism,
42% of the workforce exhibit some sort of effect
1.2% increase in health insurance costs
2.4% turnover
27.8% elevated fear level
8.7% decrease in productivity
21.8% decrease in morale
In that same report, 7,210 local governments, with an employee census of 250-999, provided
selected electronic surveillance:
53% intruder/burglar alarms
72% surveillance cameras,
27% motion detectors,
14% metal detectors,
The anatomy of workplace violence can take on many faces, from a simple verbal exchange to life
threatening violence. Preparing for such an event requires a series of preventative measures.
These measures entail minimizing any external and internal threat source. In spite of the
preventative measures recently taken for City Hall security, we can never ensure 100% security.
However, if we remain proactive we can try either to eliminate or minimize the opportunity for
violence in City Hall. The data component/section indentified some of the types of weapons
currently found during security screening of the public (external source) entering City Hall.
The most famous incident, one that strikes home, is the February 7, 2008 Kirkwood City Council
shooting, in Kirkwood Missouri (see full article in Appendix B). The reason this incident strikes so
closely to home is because the City of Ithaca shares a comparative likeness to Kirkwood. Kirkwood
4
“ Queen of the St. Louis Suburbs," is a nine-square-mile community with a population of 27,324
that boasts high property values, quality schools, and safe neighborhoods.
Nevertheless, Charles Lee Thornton shot and killed six people, two police officers, the Public
Workers Director, two Council Members, the Mayor, and injured two others. Mr. Thornton had a
long history of disputes with the city leading as far back as 12 years earlier. Mr. Thornton left a
one-line note saying: ”The truth will come out in the end” or “The truth will win out in the end”. This
incident as well as many others, point out the level of frustration an individual is capable of feeling.
Whether the source of potential violence is external or internal, the city is a target for disputes and
conflicts possibly leading to a violent act. The myth “It can’t happen here” no longer exists.
As noted earlier, screening for the (external) threat by staffed security, is only one aspect of the
overall security system. The other aspect involves the screening of the city workforce (internal)
entering City Hall. To-date, the city workforce is not required to pass through any form of
screening upon entering City Hall. Upon presenting a city identification card, city employees are
permitted to bypass any screening of personal effects being brought into the building. This is a
recognized void in the present security system, related both to funding and a gradual approach to
the workplace violence prevention approach taken by the City.
Nationwide Events
Nationwide, it seems as though not a day goes by without a news headline about a workplace
homicide event. In those instances, the perpetrator has an issue with the specific entity targeted,
and possibly individuals associated with the institution. It is often the case, that the victims have no
direct relationship with the perpetrator.
The following are places where, within the last year, workplace homicide(s) resulted from an act of
violence:
Binghamton, NY Civic Association-13 dead
Orlando, FL.- 1 dead
Ft. Hood, TX-13 dead
Ohio State University, OH-1 dead
Columbine Elementary school, CO-2 dead
ABB Plant, St Louis MO-4 dead
Washington DC-1 dead
University of Alabama, AL-3 dead
During the 1990’s as a result of the recession, there was an upsurge in workplace homicide(s), and
then a decrease in the early years of 2000. Once again we are faced with an economic crisis
which started in latter 2007, and continues. As a result of the current crisis, there has been an up-
swing of workplace homicides starting in early 2008.
5
Recommendations
In today’s society no entity is immune from the threat of workplace violence; prudent, proactive
measures can reduce the likelihood of a tragedy and reduce the risk to our City and employees.
There is evidence to support the fact that due to violent attacks the workplace has become the
least desirable place in which to be. Knowing and understanding that the problem exists and that
it can happen to any institution, is key
The Workplace Violence Prevention Team has been working on an overall security program for all
City facilities. The Team chose City Hall as the pilot project because City Hall is the heart of local
government and represents the most likely target for external and internal threat sources. There
are always special challenges faced in implementing a security program which not only protects
the employees and public from acts of violence, but makes it a friendly and efficient place of
business. The pilot project chosen consists of three (4) components, security personnel, a Keyless
Entry/Card Access system, screening of all persons entering City Hall, and the reconfiguration of
the 1st Floor. Each component is dependent on the other to be fully functional. The
recommendations presented are prudent and proactive in countering violence in the workplace. A
Keyless Entry/Card Access system vendor has been selected, and contract negotiations are
progressing. It is hoped the system will be operational by the end of summer.
Specific Recommendations
1.) Private Security Funding.
Continued private security services are an integral part of the proposed enhanced security
program to be implemented at City Hall. Without private security, the effectiveness of the
other components noted would be severely hampered. The installation of City Hall private
security has already reduced the external threat source by screening the public. Once an
employee screening process is implemented, the internal threat source will be reduced, and
further supported by the Keyless Entry/Card access system. Because of their training, security
personnel are able to rapidly interpret situational information as it becomes available. Live
interactive personnel are the eyes and ears to any security program.
RISCS personnel have made several recommendations for reducing security costs through a
more efficient usage of City Hall during evening hours, thereby reducing the need for security
personnel.
The City Hall Security Survey (2010) indicates that the private security personnel: have created
a feeling of security, provide public customer assistance and direction, make it a point of
learning department functions, are training to recognize suspicious behavior, and have
established a good dialog between security and staff.
It is the recommendation of the Workplace Violence Prevention Team that funding for private
security services be continued for the remainder of 2010, and incorporated as part of City’s
annual budget.
2.) Implementation of an Employee Screening Process
To-date the City employees are not required to pass through any form of screening upon
entering City Hall. Upon presenting a City identification card, employees are permitted to
bypass any screening of personal effects being brought into the building. Although this has
been a recognized void in the present security system, screening of employees will be possible
when the Keyless Entry/Card Access system has been fully implemented.
6
7
Two formats of employees screening have been considered, 100% or random. Either process
presents challenges of its own, involving security personnel, logistics, the Keyless/Card Access
system, and employee acceptance.
The cost difference between implementing a 100% versus random employee screening is
significant. Implementing a 100% employee screening would increase the volume of persons
having to pass through the 1st Floor security point by 200-300%. In response to the increased
volume of persons, a second security person would need to be added during normal business
hours costing approximately an additional $60,000/year. Due to the limited existing entrance
space and increased screening volume, physical structural changes to the 1st floor
entrance/security point need to be considered for improved screening flow and efficiency. It is
viewed that 100% employee screening would have a more negative impact on employee
morale.
The random screening process though having an impact on flow of persons through security,
considerably reduces the number of employees required to be screened, eliminates the need
for a second security person, and is more apt to be accepted by the workforce. Physical
structural changes to the 1st floor entrance/security point still need to be considered for
improved screening flow and efficiency.
It is therefore, the strong recommendation of the Workplace Violence Team to incorporate a
random employee screening, once the Keyless Entry/Card Access system is operational, but
not before then.
Additional Considerations
The Workplace Violence Prevention Team recommends that before Common Council
considers any lesser alternative to the current security services in place, it is suggested, that a
thorough review be conducted of all the consequences associated with such decision.
APPENDIX A
RESULTS CITY HALL SECURITY SURVEY 2010
RESULTS CITY HALL SECURITY SURVEY 2010
The following narrative is a representation of the responses to the second City Hall Security Survey posed to the City
employees. Though the survey focused on City Hall security, the surveys intent was to obtain input from the entire
workforce whether they worked at City Hall or had minimal interaction with security at City Hall. The survey consisted
of 13 (thirteen) questions regarding current security and proposed measures. The questions ranged from psychological
comfort to impressions about different security measures considered for implementation.
The survey was e-mailed and printed to all City employees, with a requested response by February 22, 2010. The
payroll census on February 22, 2010 was 431 permanent employees. A total of 69 employees from all areas of the City
responded, resulting in a 16% employee response rate.
This report is broken down into two separate areas, showing the results of the responses by City Hall employees, and
employees from departments outside of City Hall. Below you will find the original 13 (thirteen) questions presented
and the responses to those questions. The degree of accuracy often was skewed due to the lack of response to all
questions, therefore reflecting less than 100%.
City Hall
3.) Since the implementation of enhanced security at City Hall, how would you rate your
psychological comfort level at work? Better___ Unchanged___ Less___
Response: 59%- Better, 43%-Unchanged, 0%-Less
4.) Do you feel more secure in your work environment since the enhancement of
security at city hall? Yes No
Response: 65%-Yes, 37%-No
Summary Response
Never felt endangered, more divide with public
Reduced weapons
Security assists with angry individuals
If someone wanted to cause harm they could
5.) What are some of the benefits you have noticed by having the enhanced security?
Summary Response:
Someone at the door for late night meetings,
Reduction in non-business visitors stopping to chat,
Likely to have less difficult/irate customers
Less individuals hanging out in the hallways & restrooms
end of shift office checks
No unannounced strangers showing up in the office
Security personnel make a point of learning dept. functions
Better public customer assistance & direction
Wasting taxpayer money
Not fooled by perception of increased security
No benefit, but no one knows what issues have been averted
2
4.) Have you experienced any inconveniences since the implementation of the enhanced
security? If yes, how?
Response: 34%-Yes 62%-No.
Summary Response
Our office affected by noise and levels and public being screened, very distracting
People are reluctant to come into the office, especially individuals serving on city boards
or commissions. Tend to hold meetings away from office
Inconvenient, not be able to use back stairwell and Green St. exit. Constantly asked to
“work” on computer issues, very disruptive to my schedule and circumvents “Help
Desk”. Can no longer use fire stairwell, must pass several offices who want my
attention, very disruptive to schedule.
Less likely to leave building during day
Members of public especially those who do not speak fluent English, less likely to
attend public hearings and meetings intended for public input
5.) Have you found the closing of the Green Street doors as being positive?
Response: 46%-Yes 37%-No
6.) Have you found the RISCS personnel helpful in assisting the public to their final
destination? ___Yes ____ No
Response: 68%-Yes 3%-No.
7.) What are some of the benefits you have noticed since RISCS began their services?
Summary Response:
Someone to greet.
If problem, issue addressed,
likely to have less difficult/irate customers
more welcoming than uniformed personnel
security staff knowledgeable in a variety of subjects
Brian helpful in identifying potential security personnel cost savings & building
efficiencies
Less intimidating
Have a doorman now
Good communications between security and staff
Trained to recognize suspicious behavior
Consistency & friendliness
8.) Should the City:
__ continue security at the same level
__ eliminate all security
__ continue security but not armed guards
__ conduct employee security searches
__ other ___________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
3
4
Response: 65%- continue security at the same level,
12%- eliminate all security
3%-continue security but not armed guards
9%- conduct employee security searches
12%- other
Summary Response:
RISCS should have keys to all offices
Current system appears overkill
Dollars could be better spent
Make clear statement to all employees regarding City policy & procedures
regarding employees carrying weapons on duty
Re-assessment of 1st floor layout
To many violence incidences across the country
Use CSO’s instead
If budget allows, only provide security guard at Bldg. Dept and Mayors Office
9.) If security is continued:
a.) At some point the City will implement employee screening! Do you believe
that all employees should be screened? Yes_____ No_____
Response: 50%-Yes, 46%-No.
b.) Do you believe that random employee screenings should be done (ie; every
50th employee)? Yes____ No____
Response: 15%-Yes, 75%-No.
10.) How often does your job require you to go to City Hall for business? Often____
Occasionally_____ Never________
Response: Often 8 + Hours
11.) If you have business at City Hall, how much time do you spend there when you do
go?
Response: N/A
12.) If you are not located in City Hall, what security measures should be taken in your
facility?
Response: N/A
13.) Which Building do you work in?
Response: City Hall
DEPARTMENTS OUTSIDE CITY HALL
1.) Since the implementation of enhanced security at City Hall, how would you
rate your psychological comfort level at work? Better___ Unchanged___
Less___
Response: 16%-Better, 75%-Unchanged, 10%-Less
2.) Do you feel more secure in your work environment since the enhancement
of security at city hall? ___Yes ___ No
Response: 19%-Yes, 70%-No
3.) What are some of the benefits you have noticed by having the enhanced
security?
Summary Response
I feel more secure at City Hall, but not here at work
I think citizen behavior is more civil toward employees when secure is
present
Less public use of restrooms
A more efficient business like decorum
Waste of taxpayers money
People ask security for directions instead of bothering the staff
Less confrontation with staff
More relaxed
6.) Have you experienced any inconveniences since the implementation of the
enhanced security? If yes, how?
Response: 32%-Yes 54%-No.
Summary Response
Uncooperative
Loud conversation and milling about in lobby area
Forgot ID card
Forgot ID, screening of person and personal effects
Delayed for meeting
5.) Have you found the closing of the Green Street doors as being positive?
Response: 35%-Yes 48%-No
5
6.) Have you found the RISCS personnel helpful in assisting the public to their
final destination?
Response: 37%-Yes 27%-No
7.) What are some of the benefits you have noticed since RISCS began their
services?
Summary Response:
None.
Do not know
They direct the public to where they want to go, fewer lost individuals
wandering the halls
Visitors treated positively , accountability
Anyone meaning harm would be aware of trained ex-police officers on duty
8.) Should the City:
__ continue security at the same level
__ eliminate all security
__ continue security but not armed guards
__ conduct employee security searches
__ other
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
_______
Response: 48%- continue security at the same level,
9%- eliminate all security
16%-continue security but not armed guards
9%- conduct employee security searches
27%- other
Summary Response :
Continue at current level. Please schedule regular assessment of need.
If security kept, need better layout of 1st floor. Controllers Office should
be behind security.
Train Supervisors to create welcoming inclusive environment to prevent
Workplace Violence.
Instead of teaching to be suspicious, intelligence gathers, thereby
increasing chance of workplace violence.
Less costly steps, building renovations to increase security and make
City Hall welcoming.
9.) If security is continued:
a.) At some point the City will implement employee screening! Do
you believe that all employees should be screened? Yes_____
No_____
6
Response: 40%-Yes 54%-No
b.) Do you believe that random employee screenings should be
done (ie; every 50th employee)? Yes____ No____
Response: 33%-Yes 70%-No
10.) How often does your job require you to go to City Hall for business?
Often____ Occasionally_____ Never________
Response: 45%- Often
48%- Occasionally
12%-Never
11.) If you have business at City Hall, how much time do you spend there when
you do go?
Response: 0-4 hours, depending on the type of business.
12.) If you are not located in City Hall, what security measures should be taken
in your facility?
Summary Response :
Lock Admin area,
Card access and upgrade camera system.
Building wide alarm system
Better parking lot lighting
Repair and adjust door locks
After hours security
Increased police patrols , especially on weekends
Chain link fence around perimeter with card access to prevent illegal
dumping
Lock door between reception area and hall that access the rest of the
building
None, if City can’t bring up our pay, then why pay for security
Same as City Hall
Hook up panic alarms to 911, buttons have been installed for 3 weeks.
I do not feel safe or secure at my workplace
DPW is difficult to ensure 100% security. Floor plan at W&S has
multiple ingresses & egresses, unless building redesigned would be
difficult to change.
Vehicle barriers to protect critical structures, improve gate layout, radio
frequency readable IDs for vehicles
Lockable windows, cameras, gate, alarmed doors
Lock doors on night shift.
Alarm system carried by on duty plant operator (24/7), like carried by
elderly. When activated, alarm to IPD, followed by telephone contact.
7
8
Security problem after hours.
Caller ID
Check in station for visitors
Employee entrance only
13.) Which Building do you work in?
Response: IPD, S&F, W&S, IFD, IYB, GIAC
APPENDIX B
KIRKWOOD CITY COUNCIL SHOOTING
Workplace Violence Policy
April 2, 2008
1. Purpose
The City of Ithaca is committed to providing a safe workplace environment for all
employees. Acts or threats of violence including intimidation, harassment, and/or coercion, which
involve or affect the City and/or its employees, will not be tolerated. Similarly, acts or threats of
violence including intimidation, harassment, and/or coercion will not be tolerated in City buildings
or on City property. All employees are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that is
consistent with this policy.
It is also City policy that all employees have the right to work in an environment where the
safety of each individual is paramount. For that reason, we expect all employees to accomplish
their work in a businesslike manner with concern for the well-being of their co-workers.
Workplace violence of employees by fellow employees is not permitted, regardless of working
relationships or supervisory status. Violation of these guidelines will result in corrective action up
to and including termination of employment.
2. Definitions
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE is the use of abusive or violent behavior, including threats and
intimidation, between people who have an ongoing or prior relationship. This could include
people who are married, live together or date or who have been married, lived together or dated.
INTIMIDATION is engaging in acts that includes, but is not limited to, stalking or behavior
intended to frighten, coerce, or induce duress.
PHYSICAL ATTACK is unwanted or hostile physical contact such as hitting, touching, fighting,
pushing, shoving or throwing objects.
PROPERTY DAMAGE is intentional damage to property and includes property owned by the
City, employees, visitors or vendors.
RETALIATORY ACTION means the discharge, suspension, demotion, penalization, or
discrimination against any employee, or other adverse employment action taken against an
employee in the terms and conditions of employment.
THREAT is the expression of intent to cause physical or mental harm. An expression constitutes
a threat without regard to whether the party communicating the threat has the present ability to
carry it out and without regard to whether the expression is contingent, conditional or future.
Examples of conduct that constitute a threat include, but are not limited to:
Hitting, pushing, kicking, tripping, shoving or engaging in any type of assault;
Stalking another employee;
Distributing “hate” literature or engaging in other communications that advocate violence;
Any behavior that would qualify under the City’s Anti-Harassment Policy.
WEAPONS are defined as firearms, chemical sprays, clubs or batons, and knives (except non-
spring pocket knives), and include any device, tool, chemical agent, or other implement capable
of bodily harm if it is used as a weapon or displayed in such a manner to cause harm or threaten
a person with harm.
WORKPLACE means any location away from an employee’s domicile, permanent or temporary,
where an employee performs any work-related duty in the course of his or her employment.
WORKPLACE VIOLENCE includes, but is not limited to, intimidation, threats, subversive acts,
physical attack, domestic violence or property damage and includes acts of violence committed
by employees, clients, customers, relatives, acquaintances or strangers against employees in the
workplace.
3. Goals and Objectives
The goals and objectives of this policy are as follows:
1. reduce the potential for violence in and around the workplace;
2. encourage and foster a work environment that is characterized by respect and healthy
conflict resolution;
3. mitigate the negative consequences for employees who experience or encounter
violence while at work.
4. Prevention
The City policy of ensuring that all employees, including supervisors and managers, comply with
work practices that are designed to make the workplace more secure and do not engage in verbal
threats or physical actions which create a security hazard for others in the workplace include:
1. Informing employees, supervisors and department heads of the provisions of the City’s
program for workplace security;
2. Evaluating the performance of all our employees in complying with the City’s security
measures;
3. Recognizing employees who perform work practices which promote security in the
workplace;
4. Providing training and/or counseling to employees whose performance in complying with
work practices designed to ensure workplace security is deficient;
5. Establishing a Threat Assessment Team to investigate any workplace violations or
allegations of workplace violations; and
6. Taking corrective action for failure to comply with workplace security practices.
5. Responsibilities of Managers, Supervisors and Employees
A. Managers and Supervisors
Managers and supervisors are responsible for assessing potentially violent situations, responding
appropriately and then communicating information regarding the situation to their department
head, where appropriate, and to the Human Resources Department. Any report of violence will be
evaluated immediately and confidentially by management, and appropriate action will be taken in
order to protect employees. Appropriate action will be taken when it is determined that a City of
Ithaca employee has committed an act of violence. Where issues of employee safety are of
concern, managers and supervisors should evaluate the workplace and take appropriate steps, if
any, to eliminate the potential for workplace violence. The Common Council and Mayor will hold
managers and supervisors accountable for implementing and maintaining the City’s workplace
violence prevention program.
B. Employees
The City requires employee participation in designing and implementing the workplace violence
prevention program. Because the City wants to maintain a safe and secure environment for our
residents and employees, the City requires applicants for employment and employees to disclose
felony convictions and guilty pleas. This information must not only be disclosed on the
Employment Application, but must also be promptly and fully disclosed to Human Resources
regardless of when or where the conviction or guilty plea was entered.
All individuals who apply for or obtain a protective or restraining order which lists City of Ithaca
sites as being protected areas, must provide their immediate supervisor and the Human
Resources Department a copy of the order(s) so as to assist in eliminating any chance of causing
the employee or any fellow employees harm at the workplace. The City of Ithaca understands
the sensitivity of the information requested and will respect the privacy of the reporting
employee(s).
The City maintains an Employee Assistance Program (EAP), which provides help to employees
who suffer from personal/emotional problems. The EAP provides professional counseling on a
strictly confidential basis. The City encourages employees with personal/emotional problems to
seek professional help before job performance is affected or continued employment is at risk.
6. Prohibited Behavior
The City will not tolerate any type of workplace violence committed by or against employees or
City officials. Employees and City officials are prohibited from making or encouraging threats or
engaging in violent activities. This list of behaviors, while not inclusive, provides examples of
conduct that is prohibited:
1. Employees of the City of Ithaca shall not engage in, encourage or promote acts of
harassment, intimidation, violence, threats, coercion, abusive and/or assaultive behavior
toward any person while in the course and scope of employment.
2. Employees shall not engage in aggressive or hostile behavior that creates a reasonable
fear of injury to another person or subjects another individual to emotional distress or
intimidation;
3. Employees shall not intentionally damage or threaten to damage employer property or
property of an employee.
4. Any employee who threatens, harasses, or abuses someone at the workplace or from the
workplace using any City resources such as work time, workplace phones, facsimile
machines, mail, e-mail, or other means may be subject to corrective action, up to and
including termination.
5. All Employees, except employees carrying self-defense weapons pursuant to sub-section
6 below, are prohibited from carrying weapons (except non-spring pocket knives) while
engaged in City business unless carrying a weapon is required by the job classification of
the employee and there are specific policies and procedures which govern the use and/or
display of a weapon by individuals in such job classification.
6. Employees engaged in City business shall not carry self defense weapons without a valid
permit or when required or in violation of any law or this policy. Employees who carry a
legal self defense weapon (except non-spring pocket knives) shall notify the department
head and Human Resources in writing of what type of weapon is being carried.
Employees who carry legal weapons for self defense may be in violation of this policy
and may be subject to personal civil liability and legal prosecution in the event of:
accidental discharge or loss of the weapon; use, threat of use, or display of the weapon
while engaged in City business, or violation of any law related to carrying a legal self
defense weapon while engaged in City business. Examples include but are not limited
to: concealed weapon (handgun permit); mace, pepper spray or other chemical agents;
stun guns.
7. Reporting Requirements
1. Any employee or representative of employees who believes that a serious violation of this
workplace violence policy exists or that an imminent danger exists shall bring such matter
to the attention of a supervisor and the Human Resources Department in the form of a
written notice and shall afford the employer a reasonable opportunity to correct such
activity, policy or practice. This notification shall not apply where imminent danger or
threat exists to the safety of a specific employee and the employee reasonably believes
in good faith that reporting to a supervisor would not result in corrective action
2. If, following notification of such matter to the employee’s supervisor and to the
Department of Human Resources, and after a reasonable opportunity to correct such
activity, policy or practice the matter has not been resolved and the employee or
representative of employees still believes that a violation of this workplace violence policy
remains, or that an imminent danger exists, such employee or representative of
employees may request an inspection of the workplace by giving notice to the
Commissioner of Labor of such violation or danger at the following address:
New York State Department of Labor
Division of Safety and Health
Binghamton District Office
44 Hawley Street, 9th Floor
Binghamton NY 12091
3. Such notice and request shall be in writing (New York State Complaint Form PESH 7 is
available in the Human Resources Office or on the web at
http://www.labor.state.ny.us/workerprotection/safetyhealth/DOSH_PESH.shtm), shall set
forth with reasonable particularity the grounds for the notice and shall be signed by such
employee or representative of employees.
4. A copy of the notice shall be provided by the Commissioner to the employer or the
person in charge no later than the time of inspection, except that on the request of the
person giving such notice, such person’s name and the names of individual employees or
representatives of employees shall be withheld.
5. Such inspection shall be made forthwith, pursuant to the regulations promulgated by the
Department of Labor.
8. Retaliation
No employer shall take retaliatory action against any employee because the employee does any
of the following:
1. makes an application pursuant to this subdivision;
2. requests an inspection as authorized by this subdivision;
3. accompanies the Commissioner on the inspection of the workplace.
12. Common Council
.2 Approval of Modification of Certain Terms of the Lease Between the City and Center
for the Arts at Ithaca, Inc. (commonly known as the Hangar Theatre)
(1) WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca (hereinafter “City”) has leased City land and buildings to the
Center for the Arts at Ithaca, Inc. (hereinafter “CAI”), a not-for-profit organization that operates
a performing arts program and theater commonly known as the Hangar Theatre, for at least 35
years, and
(2) WHEREAS, the current, 20-year lease with CAI, for the premises at 801 Taughannock
Boulevard, expired on or about December 31, 2008, and has been extended on a year-to-year
basis since then, and
(3) WHEREAS, after discussion and negotiations, City and CAI representatives agreed upon the
terms of a new, long-term lease for the premises CAI has occupied, and the City gave its consent
for CAI to undertake substantial improvements to the site and the buildings on it, at a total cost
estimated at more than $3,000,000, primarily at CAI’s expense (except for certain site work
which the City agreed to perform and/or pay for), and
(4) WHEREAS, on July 1, 2009, this Common Council approved the terms of a new lease
agreement between the City of Ithaca and CAI (as outlined in a summary dated 6/18/09), and
authorized the Mayor, upon the advice of the City Attorney, to execute a lease containing
substantially such terms, on behalf of the City, and
(5) WHEREAS, subsequently, representatives of CAI realized that certain of the lease terms as
described in the aforementioned summary could have the effect of limiting CAI’s ability to be
financially self-supporting, and, as a result, CAI is requesting clarification and/or modification of
such terms, and
(6) WHEREAS, allowing CAI to offer either not-for-profit or for-profit entities the opportunity
to operate a refreshment concession during theater performances was and is the City’s intention,
even though the current language of the lease terms as approved by Council could be interpreted
to limit such operation to not-for-profit entities, and
(7) WHEREAS, the request of CAI to be permitted under its lease to sublet the performance
space, on an incidental and short-term basis and at a fair-market rate, to other entities for the
production of performing arts events (such as a concert, dance or film), whether such entities are
not-for-profit or for-profit, is consistent with the City’s hope and intention that this leasing
arrangement will strengthen the viability of CAI as an ongoing operation, and bring more and
more varied cultural and artistic experiences to the City and its residents; now therefore be it
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS\City Admin Comm\2010\3-31 CA Agenda.doc 3/31/10
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS\City Admin Comm\2010\3-31 CA Agenda.doc 3/31/10
RESOLVED, That the Common Council hereby approves a modification of the terms of the
previously-approved, new, long-term lease arrangement between the City and CAI, such that:
(1) The lease will make it clear that any refreshment sales conducted at the time of
performances may be operated by either a not-for-profit or for-profit entity; and
(2) The CAI will be permitted to sublet the performance space, on an incidental, short-
term basis and at a fair-market rate, to another entity that is either not-for-profit or for-profit, but,
in the latter case, only for the production of a performing arts event (such as a concert, dance or
film),
and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Mayor, upon the advice of the City Attorney, is hereby authorized to
execute a lease with the Center for the Arts at Ithaca, Inc., that contains substantially the same
terms as described immediately above (together with the other terms listed in the summary dated
6/18/09).