HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB 2024-10-25 TB 2024-10-25
Final
TOWN OF DRYDEN
TOWN BOARD MEETING & BUDGET WORKSHOP
October 25, 2024
Zoom Hybrid
Present: Supervisor Jason Leifer, Cl Daniel Lamb, Cl Spring Buck,
Cl Leonardo Vargas-Mendez, Cl Christina Dravis
Other Town Staff: Amanda Anderson, Bookkeeper
*Cassie Byrnes, Secretary to Supervisor
Chris O’ Connor, Town Fire Coordinator
Loren Sparling, Deputy Town Clerk
“*” denotes attendance via Zoom
Supv Leifer opened the meeting at 2:11 p.m.
Selection of Land Development Consultant
Supv Leifer reported that the Dryden Recreation and Youth Commission (DRYC) voted
to recommend CHA as their selection of consultant for recreational development of the lands
near Town Hall. They came to this decision for four reasons: 1) lower submitted cost ($29,400
as compared to EDR’s $48,000); 2) their experience with field and sport design; 3) streamlined
in-house staff; and 4) references. The DRYC did not hear from any of EDR’s references.
In order to accommodate this expense, Supv Leifer proposed increasing A1440.4 in the
2025 budget from $20,000 to $30,000.
RESOLUTION #160 (2024) – SELECTION OF CHA AS LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
WHEREAS the Dryden Recreation and Youth Commission (DRYC) was charged by the
Town Board on January 11, 2024, with finding a consultant to “study the potential uses of the
lands behind Town Hall owned by the town,”
WHEREAS the DRYC narrowed its pool of applicants to two finalists in August 2024
and conducted interviews in September 2024,
WHEREAS the DRYC evaluated the proposals of the two finalists at their meeting held
on October 23, 2024, and
WHEREAS the DRYC voted to recommend CHA to the Town Board as their selection of
consultant for the following reasons:
1) CHA demonstrated more specialized experience in field and sport design,
2) CHA submitted a cost that was significantly less than its contender,
3) CHA is more streamlined in regard to having more in-house specialists and
resources from which to pull, and
4) CHA’s references provided glowing reviews of the company, whereas the references
of its contender did not respond,
BE IT RESOLVED THAT this Town Board hereby selects CHA as the Town’s consultant
to prepare a plan for the recreational development of Town-owned lands east-northeast of Town
Hall.
2nd Cl Dravis
TB 2024-10-25
Final
Roll Call Vote Cl Vargas-Mendez Yes
Cl Buck Yes
Cl Dravis Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
2025 Budget
Board members planned to review the tentative budget one page at a time, reserving
any discussion of Town personnel for executive session.
A reduction to the amount budgeted for court security (A1110.105) was briefly
mentioned, as was a reduction to legal (A1420.402).
A Anderson broached the subject of a line item being created under the heading of
General Government Support for grant writing services (A1989.4). Board members determined
that $5,000 would befit this new line item.
Various aspects of the Town’s Information Technology (IT) infrastructure and services
were then explored, including updating the large meeting room for virtual meetings. In answer
to a question posed to her, C Byrnes stated that the initial term fee for the website was $6,170
(which has already been paid); the recurring term cost starting in 2025 will be $5,170. It was
determined that A1680.402 (website) be decreased to $8,000 and A1680.2 be increased by
$5,000. This will help address the audio issues in the large meeting room.
A Anderson suggested to Board members that the Town apply for the Local Government
Citizens Re-Organization Empowerment Grant (CREG) through New York State to do a study
for moving the fire departments to a district. It would initially be a 50-50 grant match to
undertake the study. But if the Town decides to implement the study, it will become a 90-10
match for implementation and study. By putting in some money this year, we can get the study
done, and then the Town Board can make further decisions on how to move forward. There is
precedent; the Town of Corning and the Village of Corning worked together to get that grant
and eventually moved their fire departments to a district.
If there was interest, a new account code (A3310.401) would have to be created. A
Anderson proposed that $25,000 be attributed to this line, as the grant maximum is $50,000
and a study alone would necessitate that 50% of this be matched. Another hurdle that she
foresees is having the villages sign on to this, given that two of the Town’s fire departments are
village departments.
Cl Lamb spelled out that we would only be able to provide fire contracts or services to
non-city and non -village municipalities and towns. We cannot run our own but can establish a
joint fire district with the villages if this is the direction in which the Town and villages decide
to go. Such a district is independent inasmuch as it has its own commission and is not part of
municipal government. They have their own taxing authority. They have their own board of
commissioners. Basically, they would be like a school board. If they want to raise their taxes by
more than, say, 2%, they will have to send it to a public vote.
Discussion briefly turned to an apparatus study for the Town as had been done for the
Varna Volunteer Fire Company. Cl Lamb saw that paying for such a study would be in conflict
with matching funds for the CREG study.
J Leifer turned Board members’ attention to dog control. He reported that the RFP for a
Dog Control Officer has been amended and will be put out on Monday. The kennel lease is a
TB 2024-10-25
Final
four-year contract and 2025 will be the last year of that contract; 2026, however, will need to
be sorted out. J Leifer left the numbers as is for DCO because he does not know what
responses the Town will receive back in terms of the RFP.
Under the heading of Economic Assistance and Opportunity, Cl Buck verified that
money would be provided in support of Lifelong. Ulysses puts in about $4,000 and the Town of
Ithaca about $8,000. Board members settled to clear the middle, with $6,000 being devoted to
the A6772.404 line item. (In 2012, Dryden set aside $3,600 for the organization.)
On the subject of the Rail Trail, Cl Lamb stated that Cornell’s Design Connect program
is not very expensive and will be a benefit to the trail. For that, we would need $500.
In the Board’s review of the DA funds, A Anderson acknowledged that $100,000 needs
to be added (to DA9950.9) for the 25% local share of the streambank stabilization grant. The
budget has a $410,000 subcontractor that needs to go out to bid as early as late winter or early
spring.
During the evaluation of the DB funds, it was noted that personnel expenditure
increased due to the new contract.
A history of the Town’s tax rate and tax levy was displayed. A Anderson explained that
it was Supv Leifer’s intention to keep the tax levy increase between 4% and 4.5%. A tax levy
increase of 4.46% would take the tax rate down 12%. Because of property reassessment, this
would result in a potential tax levy of $7,397,251.05. Incorporating all budgetary changes thus
far, the total of all Town funds as it stands amounts to $8,068,373, a figure that is
$671,121.95 over budget. Discussion then turned to how to make up this difference. The
consensus of the Board was to do so from fund balance, specifically $45,000 from the A fund,
$50,000 from the B fund, $176,121.95 from the DA fund, and $400,000 from the DB fund (for
a total of $671,121.95 from all funds). This would leave the fund balance at around $4.9
million, prior to the Board’s deliberation about personnel.
Board members then shifted their attention to the fire department contracts, addressing
them one by one. Cl Lamb was surprised by the 26% overall increase in Neptune’s budget. A
Anderson stated that the 26% includes their New York State grant as well as their NYCLASS
interest estimate. Cl Lamb added that their last big increase was 2020-2021 when they went
from $400,000 to $518,000; but since then, to their credit, they have been less dramatic with
their year-to-year increases.
Cl Lamb asked C O’Connor if he had any further comments on Neptune’s budget. C
O’Connor responded that, for all departments, it might be wise to see whether they are going in
the right or wrong direction in terms of their capabilities. For all of them, a very large
percentage of their money goes to future apparatus purchases. Whatever is not spent on a
given line is rolled into apparatus replacement reserves. Sometimes they overspend on what
they budgeted, but not very often. It is up to Town Board members to determine whether the
departments have given you enough bang for your buck and whether they are headed in a
positive (or not-so -positive) direction.
Cl Buck recalled that the Freeville department stated that they had been underasking
for years, and this is why everything has now come to a head. Cl Lamb does not know if that is
accurate, given that last year their budget increased by as much as 30%. Supv Leifer added
that Freeville also received money last year outside of their budget towards the purchase of a
vehicle. For C O’Connor, Freeville made a fairly convincing case that they had indeed fallen
behind in terms of paying their actual costs, so that is why he recommended two years ago that
they get $94,000 for apparatus replacement; almost immediately, they ordered a new truck.
TB 2024-10-25
Final
Cl Lamb wondered if there was a built-in incentive among the departments to overreach
so as to add more money to their reserves. C O’Connor acknowledged the possibility, but felt
departments were rather setting themselves up to address large, unexpected issues when they
arise (e.g., major pump repair, new brakes, or a blown jug on an engine). A Anderson
understands this, but observed that all of the departments have very healthy reserves. C
O’Connor responded that the departments historically have not dipped into their reserves,
except to buy new trucks. Cl Lamb recognized this but felt that the departments should list the
money that goes into their reserve accounts as such, rather than under, say, “repairs.” Supv
Leifer ventured that the departments would just end up shifting funds around to what they feel
they need to shift them to.
Returning to Neptune, Supv Leifer offered that the Village does not get into the details
in the way that the Town does. If we want to lower Neptune’s number, we should pick a
number to lower it to and they will figure it out. Cl Lamb rather felt that there should be some
methodology in place behind the allocation of Town funds to the department. Cl Buck went on
to say that part of the reality is that the Town does not have the money.
Board members once again ruminated about the numbers. Supv Leifer informed Board
members that he had asked Neptune to come in with a budget capped at a 4.2% increase
relative to last year. A Anderson related that Etna came in with a 3% increase, Freeville a
29.5% increase, Neptune Hose a 4.7% increase, and Varna a 3.75% increase (request #1).
The consensus of the Board was to administer a 4.2% increase to all fire departments
that requested a higher percentage increase, specifically Neptune and Freeville. Etna asked for
a 3% overall increase, and the Board settled on granting them their request.
Varna submitted two budget proposals. Request #1 advanced a 3.75% increase, while
request #2 tendered a 10% increase. The Board’s target of 4.2% is above Varna’s lower request,
but significantly less than their higher request.
C O’Connor voiced his concern to Board members that, in giving every department a
raise, they are rewarding departments regardless of whether they have been working to get it or
not. In terms of answered calls (which includes EMS calls), Freeville is ahead of both Dryden
and Varna. Etna trails way behind, answering about 30% of them. They don’t take any of their
fire service calls (Monday through Friday); Varna covers them. Freeville stated that they have
been picking up Etna’s EMS calls.
Cl Buck pointed out that if the Town renews Etna’s contract, the Town should pay them
accordingly. If we fund them to the point that they can’t function, that is on us. We should not
decrease their pay and expect them to perform to standard.
With regard to Varna, Board members determined that a 4.2 % increase would suffice
plus an additional $2,000 for taking over Brooktondale’s jurisdiction.
Board members next turned their attention to ambulance services. A Anderson had
provided Dryden Ambulance with a range of 4% and 4.5% for a levy increase, and they came
back with the maximum of 4.5%. She said that her impression was that they never fully know
what their revenue will be from the private sector, so that is why they opted high. Any leftover
funds they may have would be directed towards operations, future building costs, and other
things along those lines.
Dryden Ambulance goes to other towns (40% of their calls are outside of town), and
because of this, Supv Leifer urged that they seek funding from these other towns. As a member
of the EMS subcommittee, Cl Lamb reported that there is currently no mechanism to get
funding from these other towns, but they are hoping to find one soon.
TB 2024-10-25
Final
Cl Lamb opined that it does not appear that Dryden Ambulance needs an increased
revenue stream from the Town, other than to go into a reserve fund. A Anderson noted that
their 2025 budget does not account for interest income, which in 2024 was already $70,000. If
the Board were to keep the contract at the same amount as 2024, the line item would decrease
by $60,000, but this could be offset by their interest income.
Board members opted to keep ambulance service funding the same as last year.
A summary of the changes to the tentative budget from today’s discussion follows:
Account
Code
Tentative
Budget
Proposed
Amount
Change
(+/-)
A1110.105 36,000 30,000 -6,000
A1420.402 30,000 20,000 -10,000
A1440.4 20,000 30,000 10,000
A1680.2 10,000 15,000 5,000
A1680.402 25,000 8,000 -17,000
A1989.4 0 5,000 5,000
A3310.401 0 25,000 25,000
A6772.404 0 6,000 6,000
A9950.902 0 200,000 200,000
DA9950.9 0 100,000 100,000
SF1-3410.401 0 595,503 595,503
SF1-3410.403 0 419,046 419,046
SF1-3410.405 400,450 322,499 -77,951
SM-4540.401 1,280,819 1,222,659 -58,160
Board members agreed to meet at 5:00 p.m. on Monday, October 28, 2024, in order to
discuss non-union staff salaries in executive session.
There being no further business, on motion made by Cl Vargas-Mendez and seconded
by Supv Leifer, the meeting was adjourned at 4:09 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Loren Sparling
Deputy Town Clerk
