No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 1984-12-31 TOWN OF ITHACA SPECIAL BOARD MEETING December 31, 1984 At a Special Year End Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, held at the 'Town Offices at 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 10:30 A.M., on the 31st day of December, 1984, there were: ® PRESENT: Noel Desch, Supervisor George Kugler, Councilman Shirley Raffensperger, Councilwoman Marc Cramer, Councilman Henry McPeak, Councilman Gloria Howell, Counciluwian Robert Bartholf, Councilman ALSO PRESENT: Robert Parkin, Highway Superintendent Peter Novi, Planner Wntgomery May, Chairman, Planning Board PLEDGE; OF ALLDGIANCE The Supervisor led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allelgiance. OFFICIAL BONDS Supervisor Desch noted that the money exposure hasn't changed, therefore, he saw no need to increase the Official Bonds, even though they had not been increased for several years. RESOLUTION NO. 227 Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilman McPeak, RESOLVED, by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca that the bonds for the following Town Officials and Town employees, in the following amounts, be approved for the year 1985: Town Supervisor, Noel Desch $350,000 Town Clerk - Receiver of Taxes Jean Swartwood 50,000 Justice, Warren A. Blye 5,000 Justice, Merton J. Wallenbeck 5,000 Superintendent of Highways, Robert Parkin 5,000 All other Town Employees, each 5,000 ® (Desch, Kugler, Raffensperger, Cramer, McPeak and Howell voting Aye. Nays - none) . DEPOSITORIES OF TUIN FUNDS RESOLUTION NO. 228 Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilman Kugler, ilT Town Board 2 December 31, 1984 RESOLVED, by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca that the Tompkins County Trust Company and the Security Trust Company of Ithaca be and the same hereby are designated as depositories for all monies coming into the hands of the Supervisor, the Town Clerk and Receiver of Taxes for the year 1985. (Desch, Kugler, Raffensperger, Cramer, McPeak and Howell voting Aye. Nays - none) . OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER RESOLUTION NO. 229 ® Motion by Councilwoman Raffensperger; seconded by Councilwoman Howell, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby designates the Ithaca Journal as the official newspaper for the year 1985. (Desch, Kugler, Raffensperger, Cramer, McPeak and Howell voting Aye. Nays - ncne) . SCHE1XME OF 1985 TOWN BOARD f-EETINGS Supervisor Desch noted that the schedule of meetings is based on the first Monday after the first Tuesday, except for budget meetings. It was noted, for the record, that even 'though public hearing are scheduled to begin at 7:00 P.M. , sometimes when a particular meeting has a heavy schedule of public hearings, it may be necessary to begin the hearings at 6:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 230 Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilman Kugler, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby adopts the following schedule of meetings of the Town Board for the year 1985: Monday, January 7, 1985 Monday, February 11 , 1985 Monday, March 11, 1985 Monday, April 8, 1985 Monday, May 13, 1985 Monday, June 10, 1985 Monday, July 8, 1985 Monday, August 12, 1985 Monday, September 9, 1985 Monday, October 7, 1985 Thursday, November 7, 1985 Monday, December 9, 1985 Tuesday, December 31 , 1985 OAND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED, that all Board meetings will begin at 5:30 P.M. , public hearings to begin at 7:00 P.M. , (unless specified in advance) . (Desch, Kugler, Raffensperger, Cramer, McPeak and Howell voting Aye. Nays - none) . HIGHWAY DEPARTMWr PAY SCALE 911 7'°n Board 3 December 31, 1984 Supervisor Desch noted that the reason for the large spread is the additional new employees who start at the lower end of the scale and senior employees at the top of the scale. The 1984 range was from $4.80 to $9.55. 'This year the increase amounts to a 40C to 50� per hour. RESOLUTION NO. 231 Motion by Councilman McPeak; seconded by Councilman Cramer, WHEREAS, the Highway Superintendent and the Town Engineer have reviewed supervisory responsibilities, and employee performance, among other measures of accomplishment of the Highway Department, ® NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby establishes the range of regular hourly pay rates for the Town of Ithaca Highway Department ranging from a minimum of $5.25 per hour to a maximum of $10.00 per hour for the year 1985. (Desch, Kugler, Raffensperger, Cramer, McPeak and Howell voting Aye. Nays - none) . TOWN OF I'THACA FEPRESMqTA= CN THE MMPKINS COUNTY PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 232 Motion by Councilwoman Raffensperger; seconded by Councilwoman Howell, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby reappoints Carolyn Grigorov as the Town of Ithaca representative on the Tompkins County Planning Board for a three year term beginning January 1, 1985. (Desch, Kugler, Raffensperger, Cramer, McPeak, Howell and Bartholf voting Aye. Nays - none) . TOMPKINS COUNTY EC0,�10tUC ADVISORY BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 233 Motion by Councilman Cramer; seconded by Councilman McPeak, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby reappoints Robert Bartholf as the Town of Ithaca representative on the Tompkins County Economic Advisory Board for a three year term beginning January 1, 1985. (Desch, Kugler, Raffensperger, Cramer, McPeak, Howell and Bartholf voting Aye. Nays - none) . BUILDING OFFICIALS EDUCATIONAL OONFE204CE ® RESOLUTION NO. 234 Motion by Councilman Bartholf; seconded by Councilman Kugler, RESDLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorizes Building Inspector, Lewis D. Cartee to attend the Tenth Annual Building Officials Educational Conference at the Holiday Inn, in Rochester, New York, April 22, 23, and 24, 1985. RTT Town Board 4 December 31, 1984 (Desch, Kugler, Raffensperger, Cramer, McPeak, Howell and Bartholf voting Aye. Nays - none) . REFUND CN DEPOSITS FOR STATER MAIN pHASF II 1984 IMPRO aVgTS Supervisor Desch stated that LaFayette Pipeline, Inc. , who was awarded the bid on the water main project had originally planned to start in March, however, but because of the nice weather may be able to start sooner. RESOLUTION NO. 235 Motion by Councilman Cramer; seconded by Councilman Kugler, WHEREAS, the bidders who submitted bids on the construction of the Water Main Phase II, 1984 Improvements, which were opened on October 31, 1984, have all returned the plans and specifications, NCW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorize the $40.00 deposit be refunded to the following, in accordance with the advertisement section of the specifications: SET # 1 Randsco Pipeline, Inc. 3700 East Avenue Rochester, New York 14618 SET # 4 Vacri Construction Corp. 33 Otseningo Street Binghamton, New York 13903 SET # 5 FLC Contractors, Inc. 1861 Hanshaw Road Ithaca, New York 14850 SET # 6 Schooley Enterprises, Inc. 146 York Street Auburn, New York 13021 SET # 7 LaFayette Pipeline, Inc. Route 11 LaFayette, New York 13084 SET #10 Over & under Piping Contractors, Inc. P. 0. Box 278 Auburn, New York 13021 SET #12 Masciarelli Construction Co. , Inc. 784 Conklin Road Binghamton, New York 13903 SET #17 DaShar Construction Corp., Ltd. 783 Sprague Road Memphis, New York 13112 O (Desch, Kugler, Raffensperger, Cramer, McPeak, Howell and Bartholf voting Aye. Nays - none) . PURCHASE OF PAPER S14REDDER Supervisor Desch stated that there was a need to dispose of old accounting records. The accounting department would like to purchase a desk top paper shredder at a cost of $805.50 to dispose ozT Town Board 5 December 31, 1984 of the records, after the Town Clerk applies for and receives permission to dispose of same. Councilman Kugler stated that when Ithaca College wishes to dispose of records, they load them on one of their trucks and take them to the land fill, at the last possible minute in the day and then watch the bull dozer push fill over the records. Town planner Lovi questioned the volume of records that would need to be shredder after the initial shredding operation. He asked if the Town could not rent a shredder cheaper? Councilman Kugler asked why a Town Highway dump truck could not be ® used to transport the records to the dump, as Ithaca College does. Highway Superintendent Robert Parkin stated that there was no problem using one of the highway trucks. RESOLUTION NO. 236 Motion by Councilwoman Raffensperger; seconded by Councilman Cramer, WHEREAS, the Accounting Department would like to dispose of old, outdated accounting records, and WHEREAS, shredding the old records is the most desirable way of disposing of same, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,, that the `Down Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorizes the purchase of a Wilson-Jones Paper Shredder at a cost of $805.50 . Funds to come from the Town Hall Renovation Account #H1620, AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED, that no records be destroyed until the Town Clerk has applied for and received permission fran the State of New York Educational Department for the disposal of same. Councilman Bartholf asked if anyone had taken the time to analyze the amount of time it would take an employee to feed one paper at a time through the shredder, times the amount of paper to be shredded and then determine this cost opposed to the cost of trucking the material to the land fill? Supervisor Desch responded no. He then asked Councilman Bartholf to do a cost analysis. Supervisor Desch asked Councilwoman Raffensperger and Councilman Cramer, who made and seconded the motion, if they would be opposed to the tabling of the resolution until the January 7, 1985 meeting. They were both in agreement. BUILDING INSPECTION COMPACT WITH THE TOWN OF ULYSSES Supervisor Desch asked Building Inspector Lewis Cartee if the Ta'm of Ulysses was going to change their Building Permit Fee Schedule? ® Building Inspector Cartee responded no, they do not intend to change their fee schedule. He went on to say that he had a problem with the language, in the proposed contract, regarding the days and hours he was to spend in the Town of Ulysses. By putting in the hours, he noted, he was then bound. He went on to say that he would be in the office for a period of time and out in the field certain times, depending on the circumstances. However, he was not working eight hours in Ulysses and never will. He stated that he wanted to give -the Town of Ulysses service but that he did not want to be tied down. He also stated that he gave the Town of Ithaca 35 �ZI Town Board 6 December 31, 1984 hours per week but could not give 8 hours to the Town of Ulysses also. We have gaited since April for this contract and feel that it should be correct before it is signed. Councilwoman Raffensperger suggested that the contract might state, a portion of each Tuesday and Thursday. Supervisor Desch stated that Section 3a, of the proposed contract, prepared by the Attorney for the Toun of Ulysses, should include a fee schedule. Building Inspector Cartee responded that the fee schedule for the Town of Ulysses was the same as the lbwn of Ithaca's. ® Supervisor Desch responded, without the present schedule included in the contract, there is nothing to prevent the Town of Ulysses from reducing their fees. Building Inspector Cartee remarked that records would prevent this. He went on to say that he gives his report to the Town Clerk, who in turn sends a check to the Town of Ithaca. Supervisor Desch noted that it costs approximately $35. per inspection and the Town of Ithaca is recovering $25. per inspection. He went on to say that he had given the Town of Ulysses the option of either increasing their fees or giving a portion of their State Aid designated for building inspections to the Town of Ithaca. Also, a savings could be realized if the Building Inspector were not required to inspect accessory buildings on new construction. Supervisor Desch suggested that the Board look at both proposals, one being prepared by the Town of Ithaca Attorney and the other by the Town of Ulysses Attorney. In the meantime, the Supervisor stated that he would write a letter to Martin Luster, the Supervisor for the Town of Ulysses, stating the nature of the problems with the contract. SEWER CONNECTICN WAIVER POLICY ON WEST HILL Supervisor Desch stated that he had received a letter from one resident asking for a five year grace period before hooking up to the sewer. The resident stated that his septic system was in good working condition. He ant on to say that the sewer Line was run in the back yards and that it was Only a matter of 15' that the resident have to pay for connection. Perhaps, if we decide to grant the grace period we might want to ask the County Health Department to perform a dye test, before granting the extension. The Supervisor went on to say that he had also received a letter from Margaret Marion who lives on the Slaterville Road, asking for an extension. He noted that if the Board starts the issuance of extensions, there is no way to stop it. ® Building Inspector Lewis Cartee reminded the Board that they had already granted Mrs. Marion an extension three or four years ago. Supervisor Desch stated that unless.he heard a strong outcry from the Board he would assume this mean that the Board intends to grant no extensions. Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that the criteria for hardship cases needs to be reviewed. PZI Town Board 7 December 31, 1984 Councilman Kugler remarked that if the Board had already granted an extension for hardship and now the person was asking for another extension, we should take a long hard look before granting any further extensions. Supervisor Desch remarked that he had a list of the property owners that had not connected to the sewer, after the grace period was up. Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that she 4n:)rried about the Town having a policy of absolutly no extensions. REVIEW OF ENVIRONMEMAL ASSESSMENT FORMS ON ZONING ORDINANCE ® REVISroNS ' Supervisor Desch reminded the Board that Resolution #1 and 2 pertained to site plan review for Light Industrial and Industrial Zones. Resolution #3 pertains to the permitting of professional offices in R-15 Districts and is more restrictive than R-9 and R-30 Districts. Resolution #5 a, b, c, and d, the intent is similar and will now require that applications be reviewed by the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals. RESOLUTION N0. 237 Motion by Councilman Kugler; seconded by Councilwomen Raffensperger, RESOLVm, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves the negative declaration on the Short Environm ntal Assessment Form pertaining to the amendment to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance establishing requirements for Site Plan approval in Industrial Zones and Light Industrial Zones in the Town of Ithaca. (Desch, Kugler, Raffensperger, Cramer, McPeak, Howell and Bartholf voting Aye. Nays - none) . RESOLUTION NO. 238 Motion by Councilman McPeak; seconded by Councilman Bartholf, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves the negative declaration on the Short Environmental Assessment Form pertaining the the amendment to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, Article IV, Section 12, Number 1, allowing no more than two additional persons not residing on the premises to be employed. (Desch, Kugler, Raffensperger, Cramer, McPeak, Howell and Bartholf voting Aye. Nays - none) . RESOLUTION N0. 239 Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilman Cramer, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves ® the negative declaration on the Short Environmental Assessment Form pertaining to the amendment to the 'Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 4; Article IV, Section 11; Article V, Section 18; Numbers 3, 5, 6 and 7. Such amendments shall provide that churches; other places of worship; convents; parish houses; publicly owned parks or playgrounds, including accessory buildings and improvements; fire stations or other public buildings necessary to the protection of or servicing of a neighborhood; and golf courses shall be permitted in Residential District R-15 by special approval of the Board of Appeals in accordance with Section 77, Number 7. These amendments further provide that all applications 9ZT TOWN Or ITHACA SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM RESOLUTION #1,2 INSTRUCTIONS: (a) In order to answer the questions in this short .EAF it is assumed that the preparer will use currently available information concerning the project and the likely impacts of - the action. It is not expected that additional studies, research or other investigations will be undertaken. (b) If any question has been answered Yes the project may be significant and a completed Environmental Assessment Form is necessary. (c) If all questions have been answered No it is likely that this project is not ignificant. (d) Environmental Assessment 1 . Will project result in a large physical change to the project site or physically alter more than 10 acres of land? Yes _x No 2. Will there be a major change to any unique or unusual land form found on the site? Yes A _ No 3. Will project alter or have: a large effect an an existing body of water? Yes x No h, Wi l l project have a potent:ial ly large impact on groundwater quality? Yes x No 5. Will project significantly affect drainage flow on adjacent s i-tes? Yes x No 6. Will project affect any threatened or endangered plant or animal species? Yes x No ]. Will project result in a major adverse effect on air quality? Yes x _ Na $. Will project have a major effect on visual character of the community or scenic views or vistas known to be important to the community? Yes x No 9. Will project adversely impact any site or' structure of historic, pre-historic, or paleonto- logical importance or any site designated as a critical environmental area by a local agency.? Yes x No 10. Will projec•i have a major effect on existing or future rect .• ;t ional opportunities? Yes x__ No 11 . Will project result in major traffic problems or cause a major effect to existing transportation systems? Yes x No 12. Will project regularly cause objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturbance as a result of the project ' s operation? Yes x No Short Environmental Assessment Form Page ,Two 13. Will project have any impact on public health or safety? Yes x No l�. Will project affect the existing community by directly causing a growth in permanent population of more than 5 per cent over a one-year period or have a major negative effect on the character of the community or neighborhood? Yes x No 15. Is there public controversy concerning the project? Yes x No Signature of Applicant S.ignature of Reviewer Town P l a n er Date Title Town of Ithaca Agency December 28, 1984 Date Rev i cwcd Reviewer' s Recommendations: This amendment will formally increase the Planning Board ' s authority to require site plan approval for projects in existing Light Industrial and Industrial districts. Such authority will enable the Planning Board to exercise greater control over the J size, arrangement, and manner of industrial development in the Towb. As such, the environmental impacts resulting from this enabling legislation will be important and ---beneficial---berieficial and I recommend that a negative declaration be made. Determination by Toan of Ithaca Town Board: Negative Declaration - &-! crmination of non-significance. Action may be of significant environmental impact - EAF required. Signature of Chairperson Data . TOWN OF ITHACA SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM • ° ' RESOLUTION #3 INSTRUCTIONS: a In order to answer the questions in this short EAF it is assumed that the preparer will ?se currently available information concerning the project and the likely impacts of the action. It is not expected that additional studies, research or other investigations will be undertaken. (b) If any question has been answered Yes the project may be significant and a completed Environmental Assessment Form is necessary. (c) If all questions have been answered No it is likely that this project is not ignificant. '(d) Environmental Assessment 1 . Will project result in a large physical change to the project site or physically alter more than 10 acres of land? Yes Y No 2. Will there be a major change to any unique or unusual land form found on the site? Yes x No 3. Will project alter or have a large effect on an existing body of water? Yes x No 4. Will project have a potentially large impact on groundwater quality? Yes No 5. Will project significantly affect drainage flow on adjacent sites? Yes x No 6. Will project affect any threatened or endangered plant or animal species? Yes x No ]. Will project result in a major adverse effect on air quality? Yes x No B. Will project have a major effect on visual character of the community or scenic views or vistas known to be important to the community? Yes x No 9. Will project adversely impact any site or' structure of historic, pre-historic, or paleonto- logical importance or any site designated as a x critical -environmental area by a local agency-? Yes No 10. Will project have a major effect on existing or future recreational opportunities? Yes No 11 . Will project result in major traffi.t. problems or cause a major effect to existing t : • .sportation x systems? Yes No 12. Will project regularly cause objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturbance as a result of the project's operation? - Yes x No Short Environental Assessment Form Page Two m 13. Will project have any impact on public health or safety? Yes x No 14. Will project affect the existing community by directly causing a growth in permanent poFAulation of more than 5 per cent over a one-year period or have a major negative effect on the character of x the community or neighborhood? Yes No 15. Is there public controversy concerning the project? Yes __X_ No Signature of Applicant Signature of Reviewer Town Planner Date Title Town of Ithaca Agency ^- December 28 1984 Date Reviewed Reviewer's Recommendations: _ Professional offices for resident professionals and n,o more than -th er e co-workers are permitter! in R9 and R30 districts. The present amendment permits no more than two co-workers in R15 districts. I do not believe that this amendment will have any significant environmental impacts as presented, though I have not heard a convincing rationale for a restriction on two, rather than three co-workers. In either case, I recommend a declaration o negative significance. Determination by Town of Ithaca Town — Board: Negative Declaration - determination of non-significance. Action may be of signif!,�ant environmental impact - EAF required. Signature of Chairperson • Date - —. TOWN OF 1THACA SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM RESOLUTION Sa,b,c,d . , INSTRUCTIONS: (a) In order to answer the questions in this short EAF it is assumed that the preparer will use currently available information concerning the project and the likely impacts of the action. It is not expected that additional studies, research or other investigations will be undertaken. (b) If any question has been answered Yes the project may be significant and a completed Environmental Assessment Form is necessary. (c) If all questions have been answered No it is likely that this project is not ignificant. '(d) Environmental Assessment 1 . Will project result in a large physical change to the project site or physically alter more than 10 acres of land? Yes _ X _ No ' 2. Will there be a major' change to any unique or unusual land form found on the site? Yes x No 3. Will project alter- or have a large effect an an existing body of water? Yes x No h. Will project have a potentially large impact on groundwater quality? Yes x No 5. Will project significantly affect drainage flow on adjacent sites? Yes x No 6. Will project affect any threatened or endangered plant or animal species? Yes x No 7. W I project result in a major adverse effect on air quality? Yes x No 8. Will project have a major effect on visual character of the community or scenic views or vistas known to be important to the community? Yes x No 9. Will project adversely impact any site or' structure of historic, pre-historic, or paleonto- logical importance or any site designated as a critical . environme•ntal area by a local agency? Yes . x No 10. Will project have a major effect on existing or future recreational opportunities? Yes x No 11 . Will project result in major traffic problems or cause a major effect to existing transportation systems? Yes x No 12. Will project regularly cause objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturbance as .7 result of the project's operation? _ Yes x No Short Environmental Assessment Form Page Two 13. Will project have any impact on public health or safety? Yes x No 14. Will project affect the existing community by directly Causing a growth in permanent population of more than 5 per cent over a one-year period or have a major negative effect on the character of the community or neighborhood? Yes x No 15. Is there public controversy concerning the project? Yes No Signature of Applicant Signature of Reviewer Town Planner Date Title -- TQwn o f I J c a Agency _ December 28, 1984 Date Reviewed Reviewer' s Recommendations: The uses which will now be reviewable by the Planning Bo rd`and- the Boni g Beard of Appeals have been permitted by right in the past. Each project will be subject to a specific environmental review, for which the Planning Board should be the Lead Agency. Since the level of environmental protection afforded by a rrrore complete review process is usually higher, I cannot foresee any adverse environmental impacts resulting from these amendments. I therefore recommend a declaration of negative significance. Determination Town of Ithaca Town Board: Negative Declaration - determination of non-significance. Action may be of significant environmental impact - EAF required. Signature of Chairperson • - - Date - TOWN OF ULYSSES YEAR END SUMMARY 1984 - BUILDING INSPECTOR Lewis D. Cartee BUILDING PERMIT SUMMARY MONTH NEW HOMES/VALUE ADDITIONS/VALUE OTHER/VALUE MONTHLY TOTAL/FEES May 6/ $288,500.00 5/ $85,749.00 2-Decks/ $3,300.00 $ 317,549.00/ $485.00 June 2/ $ 56,494.00 2-Garage/ $19,785.00 Pool / 7,000.00 $ 83,279.00/ $100.00 ly 3/ $ 43,000.00 4/ $20,500.00 Garage/ $ 4•,000.00 Pool / 10,000.00 $ 77,500.00/ $ 95.00 ug. 5/ $151 ,900.00 3/ $14,200.00 Pool / .$ 8,000.00 Garage/ *,' 2,000.00" Storage Bl'd,g/$169.00 $ 176,269.00/ $215.00 Sept. 2/ $104,000.00 3/ $ 9, 100 2-Garage/ $26,302.00 Storage Bldg/S300.00 $ 139,702.00/ $210.00 Oct. 2/ $104,000.00 Garage/ $15,000.00 Pool / 7,000.00 2-Storage Bldg/$500.00 4-TV Dish/ 9, 100.00 $ 135,600.00/ $190.00 Nov. 2/ $163,750.00 1-TV Dish/$ 5,000.00 Work Shop/6,241 .00 $ 174,991 .00/ $195.00 Dec. TAL 22/ S911 ,644.00 15/ $129,549.00 23/ $123,697.00 $1 , 164,890.00/$1 ,490.00 TOWN OF ULYSSES YEAR END SUMMARY - 1984 - BUILDING INSPECTOR LEWIS D. CARTES CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE ISSUED 131 Cold Springs Road 1616 Trumansburg Road 1874 Trumansburg Road 8 Iradell Road 89 Rabbit Run Road 73 South Street 271 Agard Road 202 Agard Road 89 Rabbit Run Road 202 Agard Road 158 Perry City Road d 32 Mayo Road 1833 Trumansburg Road 700 Halseyville Road 45 Mayo Road 1 Halseyville Road Halseyville Road 1 Swamp College Road 25 Searsburg Road i i �1 �v J ANNUAL REPORT OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF ITHACA January 1 , 1984 - December 31 , 1984 PAID TO: New York State. Health Department Marriage .Licenses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 137.50 Tompkins County Clerk Conservation Licenses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1 ,200.00 Tompkins County Budget Officer DogLicenses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$2,156.20 Tompkins County Budget Officer SPCA Contract. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3,334.30 Town Supervisor Clerk' s Fees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3,120.65 TOTAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$9,948.65 �I ANNUAL REPORT Receiver of Taxes 1984 TOTAL WARRANT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1 ,721 , 018. 53 Paid to Supervisor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1 , 371 , 210. 05 Franchise Tax Paid. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 109 , 648 . 13 Paid to County Budget Office. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 159 , 676 . 78 Unpaid Taxes Returned. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 80,483. 57 Interest and Penalties Paid to Supervisor $19 , 855 . 11 I Town Board 8 December 31, 1984 shall then be referred to the Planning Board an no building permit shall be issued unless the proposed structure is in accordance with the site plan approval under the provisions of Article IX. (Desch, Kugler, Raffensperger, Cramer, McPeak, Howell and Bartholf voting Aye. Nays - none) . REPORT OF COUNTY REPRESERMTIVES No County Representatives were present at the meting. ® PERSONS TO BE HEARD There was no one present at the meeting who wished to address the Board. REPORT OF TOWN aTICIALS Town Supervisor's Report Supervisor Desch stated that he would present his year end report in January, therefore, he had no report other than to express his appreciation of support from the Town Board members and staff during 1984. The Supervisor noted that 1984 started out with a certain amount of question on the future of the sewage treatment plant project. February 3, we received the comments and advanced treatment report from EPA. The report was consistent with what EPA had indicated. The only extra requirement was the need to monitor the lake for one year before and one year after the completion of the project. A weather station is under construction by the breakwater. we will be able to test the surface, 5' below surface and 10' below surface and show the mixing process. we received our Segment I funds in March. The bids came in below the budget. 1,800 piles have been driven to date on the $36,000,000 sewage treatment plant project. Funding success is without a doubt the major accomplishment of the year. Also, our credit rating situation showed our paper is very heavily sought after. We had eleven bidders and the City had nine bidders. The Town now twice has had the edge on competitiveness with interest rates. We do draw down on our fund balances but not to the point of jeopardizing our credit rating or our operations. Long term (permanent financing) shows steady improving financial picture which is good for the bond market. In the last -two months, municipalities have been getting rid of short term notes and going for permanent borrowing. It will be to our advantage to try to borrow on the sewage treatment project for 15 years instead of 20 years. 1985 will be a challanging year for negotiations with the City on ® the long term fire situation. It should prove to be quite a challange. It will be difficult for the City with the turmoil that is going on there now. We made a cam'itment to complete the Master Plan by mid-year, but this may not be achievable. The Supervisor ended by saying that in January he would have a series of objectives worked out for the Board to consider in January and February. Town Engineer's Report gZj Town Board 9 December 31, 1984 Supervisor Desch stated that Town Engineer Larry Fabbroni would be presenting his year end report at the January meeting. Town Highway Superintendent's Report Superintendent Robert Parkin stated that he would also present his year end report at the January meeting. He reported that the highway employees had attended a one day safety course put on by the State. It is expected that the course will become manditory each year. ® AUDIT AND APPROVE RECORDS Building Inspector Building Inspector Lewis Cartee presented his year end report for the Town of Ithaca and the Town of Ulysses to the Town Board. He noted there was an increase in the total number of building permits in 1984. The Town of Ulysses issued about one-third of the total permits the Town of Ithaca issued. Supervisor Desch noted the increase in total fees. Building Inspector Cartee responded that there was quite an increase due to the new fee schedule adopted the Town of Ithaca. Building Inspector Cartee reported that the Tompkins County Trust Company was planning to put a branch bank at the East Hill Plaza. There was a question on the signage, it may be necessary for them to go before the Zoning Beard of Appeals for a sign variance. RESOLUTION N0. 241 Motion by Councilman Cramer; seconded by Councilwoman Howell, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, having received the accounts and records of Town Building Inspector Lewis Cartee for the year 1984, hereby approves the same, a copy of said accounts and records being made a part of the Town records. (Desch, Kugler, Raffensperger, Cramer, McPeak, Howell and Bartholf voting Aye. Nays - none) . Tc;m Clerk's Report RESOLUTION NO. 241 Lotion by Councilman ticPeak; seconded by Councilman Kugler, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, having received the accounts and records of Town Clerk Jean Swartwood for the year 1984, hereby approves the same, a copy of said accounts ® and records being made a part of the Town records. Receiver of Taxes Report RESOLUTION NO. 242 Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilman Cramer, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, having received the accounts and records of Receiver of Taxes Jean OCT Town Board 10 December 31, 1984 Swartwood for the year 1984, hereby approves the same, a copy of said accounts and records being made a part of the Town records. (Desch, Kugler, Raffensperger, Cramer, McPeak, Howell and Bartholf voting Aye. Nays - none) . Justice Reports Supervisor Desch noted that the Governor had vetoed legislation that would have returned $15.00 to the Town in Court fees instead of the $5.00 the Town now receives. ® RESOLUTION NO. 243 Notion by Councilwoman Raffensperger; seconded by Councilman Cramer, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the 'l'lown of Ithaca, having received the accounts and records of Town Justice Merton Wallenbeck and Tawas Justice Warren B1ye for the year 1984, hereby approves the same, a copy of said accounts and records being made a part of the Town records. Councilwoman Raffensperger questioned why cases referred to the Town of Ithaca was down one-third. Supervisor Desch responded that perhaps other courts had became more active and, therefore, taking care of more of their oxm cases. (Desch, Kugler, Raffensperger, Cramer, McPeak, Howell and Bartholf voting Aye. Nays - none) . CCMMIITEE REPORTS Codes & Ordinance Committee Councibnan Cramer reported that the local law regulating alarm systems had been redrafted and would be ready for the January Comnittee meeting. Parks & Recreation Ccmittee Councilwoman Raffensperger reported that the Board members had received a copy of the Town of Ithaca Parks and Recreaticn Planning Committees Annual Report for 1984. (Copy attached) . Mrs. Raffensperger noted that the plans reflect the priorities set at budget time. Councilman Cramer asked if the preliminary drawings on the spurs for the East Ithaca Recreational Trail were available. Councilwoman Raffensperger responded that they were available and she would bring them to the Board meeting now that she knows the ® Board is interested in seeing them. Public Safety & Youth Ccnvdttee Supervisor Desch stated that he had no further report than what he had already reported on regarding the Eire Service Master Plan. TGWN OF II'HACA 1Qd RAM'S 991 STATISTICAL REPORT ACTIVITIES OF THE TOWN JUSTICE 1983 1984 No. Amount No. Amount TOTAL COMPLETED CASES - - - - - - - - - 1882 50569 . 50 1321 40209 .20 TOTAL FINES, FEES , SURCHARGE, FORFIETS -- 50569 . 50 40209 : 20 VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC - - - - - - - - 1333 34870 . 00 897 27483. 20 Speeding - - - - - - - - - - - 331 8860 . 00 233 7083 . 20 Other Moving violations - - - 257 3220 . 00 155 2950. 00 Non-Moving Violations - - - - 597 5990 . 00 382 4710 .00 D.W.I . & Dr.w/. 10% BAC 72 (16600 . 00) S6 (1-2740 .00) Indicted - - - - - - - - - (4) (3) :. Misdemeanor convict. - - - (12) (3) 1090 .00 Reduce to D.W.A.I . - - - - (46) (48) 11650.00 Dismissed - - - - - - - - (9) (2) Tax Law Violations - - - - - - 4 200 .00 0 - - CRIMINAL - - - - - - - - - - - - 521 7840 . 00 379 5845.00 Felony Arraignments - - - - - - 65 - - 44 Indicted - - - - - - - - - (48) - - (34) - - Rnduced to Town Court (6) - - (2) . - - Dismissed - - - - - - - - '(11) - - (2) Penal Law Misdemeanors - - - - 63 1170 . 00 56 550 . 00 Penal Law Violations - - - - - 84 2655 . 00 57 2230 .00 New York Code Rules & Regulatior 200 3190 . 00 137 2470.00 Enviromental Conservation - - - 35 670 .00 17 340.00 Navigation - - - - - - - - - - 10 155 . 00 12 255 .00 CIVIL & LOCAL LAW Civil - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 70 .50 6 60 .00 Small Claims - - - - - - - - - 12 24 .00 14 28.00 Dog Control Law Violations - - 25 300 . 00 17 250. 00 Zonang Law Violations - - - - - 1 - - 0 - - Civil Marriages - - - - - - - - 15 - - 14 - - MISCELLANEOUS New York State Surcharge - - - - - 5340 .00 - - 6250 . 00 Bail Fortietures - - - - - - - 16 2125 .00 5 710.00 Arraignments - Other Courts - - 90 - - 96 - - Jail as sentence - - - - - - - 8 - - 8 - - (or_part of sentence) Probation - - - - - - 8 - - 7 - - (may include jail%fine) Respectfully Submitted Mer-ton-J--Wa l lenbeck STATISTICAL REPORT �CG, ACTIVITIES �V 7Nr6_- 1G!K' J'JST1,GGE - '1983 1984 No. Amount No. Amount TOTAL COMPLETED CASES -,----------- -- 1342 N/A 1,150 NSA TOTAL FINES, FEES & FORFIETURES ------ 18,656 12,338 VEHICLE &_TRAFFIC --------------- 1,101 16,700 1,106 10,300 S Peden g ---- ----- ----- ---- 168 4,125 13u 3,605 Other Moving Violations ---- 254 3,625 274 3,445 Non-Moving Violations ------ 379 3,220 286 3,250 D.W.I. & Dr.W/IO%BAC ------- - 1 350 0 0 Indited ------------------ .3 . © 2 0 Misdemeanor Convictions 0 0 0 0 Reduced to .O.W.A.'I. -- 22 4,470 ' ' 14 1.1110' Dismissed ------------ 3 0 2 , 0 Tax' Law Violations --- 4 300 1 110 Transpotation Law Violations 7 610 3 1100 :CRIMINAL Felony'Arraignments -------- 53 . - 23 Indited --•----------- - 41 3 Reduced to' Town Court� 9 6 Dismissed 8 0 Penal Law Misdemeanors 19 255 10 80 i 1 Penal Law Violations -- ---= 26 420 13 160 New York Code Rules & Regs.- 4 105 1 Navigation -,---------------- 0 0 CIVIL & LOCAL LAW Civil - ....--=----------- 1 56 3 40 Small Claims - --- - , 4 6 2 4 Dog Control Late Violations - 83 385 32 225 Zoning Law Violations ------ 0 0 0 Civil Marriages ----,-------- . 22 0 23 0 Dnagerous Dog Compliants --- 0 0 0 0 MISCELLANEOUS Bail Forfietures ---- - - 1 S0 0 0 Arraignment - Other Courts - 48 0 23 0 I Committed in lieu of Fine -- 6 300 4 150 (Release when paid) Jail as Sentence ---------- * 0 2 0 (Or part of sentence) Probation ------------------ 5 0 5 0 . (May include fine/jail ) Scofflaw cases filed with DMV 160 0 200 0 Failure of defendant to ans. Uniform traffic tickets. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED �i'� TOWN JUSTICE TOWN OF ITHACA PARKS AND RECREATION PLANNING COtIMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT 1984 Work Accomplished, Parks and Recreation Ways Construction: - Salem Park play structure. - Tudor Park play structure. - Tareyton playfield topdressing and reseeding (contribution of topsoil from State Parks Commission) . Eastern Heights Park sled hills- regrading and seeding. East Ithaca Recreation Way completion from Maple Ave. to Game Farm Rd. - Forest Home Walkway completion. Installation of trash cans and benches at all parks. - Installation of No Hunting signs at Eastern Heights, Salem, Tudor, and Northview Parks, and on East Ithaca Recreation Way, Game Farm section. -- Replacement of park entrance signs (ongoing) . Work Accomplished, Parks and Recreation Ways Planning - Comprehensive Park and Open Space Plan Update . - Inlet Valley Park Plan, contribution to City ' s application for recreational land substitution. - Pleasant Grove Road Recreation Way Plan. - East Ithaca Recreation Way spur, vicinity C. U. Graphic Arts Bldg. : preliminary approval 'from Cornell, license application in process. Staff: - Planner-Consultant 80€ full-time. - Maintenance Foreman full-time . - Summer: 2 Landscape Architecture interns-crew foremen. 18 Park workers from Summer Youth Employment and Summer Job Training Programs. Maintenance: Mowing, weed control, and repairs were accomplished primarily during the summer work program. Spring, fall, and winter maintenance has required the full • time attention of the maintenance foreman. Other Work Accomplished by Staff: - Burns Road revegetation (in progress) . - Bundy Road Water/Sewer Project garden relocations, job inspection. - Water Pump Station painting and landscaping. - Town Hall Sign redesign and replacement (in progress) . - Election polling places signage, setup, breakdown. - Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant, revised planting plan. City of Ithaca Circle Greenway Committee, Town representation. 1985 Objectives, Parks and Recreation ways Construction: - Eastern Heights Park: complete play area, driveway from Tudor Rd. , parking area. - Inlet Valley Park: grade and seed playfields, improve driveway, build parking area (pending site acquisition by City of Ithaca) . - Cayuga Heights Community Center : level and topdress playfield. - Northeast Recreation Way: improve Pleasant Grove Road from Jessup Road to Community Corners for pedestrians and bicyclists. - East Ithaca Recreation Way: build trail spur from existing trail at railroad bridges to Judd Falls Road. 1985 objectives, Parks and Recreation Ways Planning: - Schedule a public informational meeting to review park facilities and proposed improvements. - Continue the planning, selection, acquisition and design of parks and recreation ways in East Ithaca, on South Hill, West Hill, and in the Northeast . - Coordinate park and recreation way planning with the City of Ithaca and with other governmental and institutional agencies . - Enhance program efficiency and accountability through the use of computer systems for cost estimating and work scheduling. - Seek funding sources for park and recreation way projects. - Conduct an inventory of scenic and historic sites in the Town. REPORT: TO: Ithaca Town Board FROM: Peter Lovi DATE: December 28 , 1984 FE: Report on the effect of the veterans exemption What follows is a brief study into the effects of the veterans exemption on the tax base and tax rate of the Town. I would be happy to review its premises, methodology, or conclusions with you at any time. Introduction / Existing Exemptions In order to evaluate the prospective effect of the revised veterans tax exemption on the Town of Ithaca, I first described the effect and distribution of the existing exemptions. A list of all properties in the Town presently receiving a reduction in assessment because of the veterans exemption was prepared and summary statistics computed. There are at present 184 parcels receiving a reduction in assessment under the present veterans exemption. TABLE 1 : Summary Information - Total assessed value of all taxable properties in the Town of Ithaca $165 ,553,900 - Number of properties 3,088 - Average assessed value of properties not owned by veterans $53, 682 - Total assessed value of properties owned by veterans in the Town of Ithaca $9 ,660, 311 - Number of veterans 184 - Average assessed value of properties owned by veterans $52,502 - Total value of all exempt property $7 , 524, 199 - Total value of veterans ' exempt property $515,450 - Average value of exemption $2,801 - Percentage of exempt total value attributable le to veterans exemption 6. 85% . Average value of veterans exemption as percentage of average veteran ' s assessment 5.34% TABLE 2 : Frequency Distribution of Veteran' s Assessed Valuations and Assessment Exemptions Assessed Valuation Assessment Exem tion $0 - 20 , 000 4 . 9% $1 - 1 , 000 21. 7% $20 ,000 - 40 ,000 15 . 8% $1 ,000 - 2 ,000 22.3% $40 , 000 - 60 , 000 50 . 0% $2 , 000 - 3 ,000 13. 6% $60 ,000 - 80, 000 25 . 5% $3 ,000 - 4 , 000 8.2% $80 ,000 + 3 . 8% $4 , 000 - 5, 000 34.2% TABLE 3 : Total Exemptions of all Types in the Town TYPE NUMBER VALUE AVERAGE % % NUM VAL Miscellaneous 4 $3 , 067, 800 766 , 950 1% 41% ONP (T&S) 1 $1 , 880 ,200 1 ,880 ,200 * 25% Tax Sale 14 $37, 300 2 , 664 5% Veterans 184 $515,450 2 ,802 61% 7% Paraplegic 1 $62, 000 62 , 000 * 1% Clergy 3 4 ,500 1 ,500 1% Ag Buildings 9 $217, 100 24 ,122 3% 3% Ag Ceiling 21 . $388 ,800 18 ,514 7% 5% Aged All 61 $1 , 123, 789 18 , 422 20% 15% Aged C/T 1 $19, 750 19 ,750 All 4 $207,510 51 ,877 1% 3% TOTAL 303 $7 , 524 ,199 49 ,664 * - less than 1% Interpretation : From these summary statistics it is observed that, though the numerical majority of assessment reductions are taken by veterans, their exemptions account for only 7% of the total value of all such reductions . In addition, the average exemption per veteran accounts for an average of less than 5 .5% of their property' s assessed valuation. The majority of present tax exemptions are taken by several large business properties. The remaining types of tax exemption are substantially proportional to their propor- tion in the tax exempt population . Alternative Veterans Exemption Plans: There are four levels of exemption created by the State law: Exemption level Maximum % Exemption 1) Basic 15% 2 ) Basic + Combat 15+10 = 25% 3) Basic + Disability 15+50 = 65% * 4) Basic + Combat + Disability 15+10+50= 75% * * - The disability level is computed as one half the veteran's disability rating (e.g. a 80% disability rating would qualify a veteran for a 40% property tax exemption) . The 65% and 75% figures given above are the exemptions available to veterans with 100% combat disability . For each of the four levels of exemption, the legislation allows the local municipality to adopt one of three sets of maximum exemptable value thresholds. Alternatively, the municipality may "opt out" of the new law by passing a local law prior to January 31 , 1985 to retain the existing veterans exemption program. The statutory limits , which will be used if the local government does not adopt a 'lower set of thresholds or choose to retain the existing exemption law, are: Exemption level Statutory Maximum 1 ) Basic $12 ,000 2) Basic + Combat $20 ,000 3 ) Basic + Disability $52 ,000 4) Basic + Combat + Disability $60 ,000 Local municipalities may select one of two lower sets of exemptable value thresholds Exemption level Reduced Maximum #1 1 ) Basic $ 9 ,000 2) Basic + Combat $15 ,000 3 ) Basic + Disability $39 ,000 4 ) Basic + Combat + Disability $45 , 000 Exemption level Reduced Maximum #2 1) 'Basic $ 6 ,000 2 ) Basic + Combat $10 , 000 3) Basic + Disability $26 , 000 4) Basic + Combat + Disability $30 ,000 NOTE - the maximums given above refer to the amount of each veteran ' s total assessment which may be exempted . L Number of Eligible Veterans An important variable in determining the potential effect of the veterans exemption in the Town is the number of eligible veterans. Two methods of estimating this number are recommended by the State. One method is to take the number of veterans presently receiving an exemption (184) and multiply this number by 1 . 4 ; the alternative is to divide the total number of veterans in Tompkins County (6200) by the `Gown of Ithaca ' s percentage of the total county population (18 . 4 %) . The first estimating procedure gives 258 eligible veterans, the second gives 1148 . Since there is a considerable discrepancy between these two figures, I would recommend that these figures be considered as upper and lower boundaries. In the following tax rate analyses, I will present the tax losses computed in terms of both the high estimate and the low estimate as well as an average, "best guess" figure. First Year Tax Rate Impacts: Low Est. High Est. Average Statutory Maximum ($80 , 000) $15, 918 $70 , 600 $43,259 Reduced Maximum 01 ($60 ,000) $15 ,918 $70 ,600 $43,259 Reduced Maximum #r2 ($40 ,000) $12 , 127 $53 , 788 $32,957 Continuing Present Exemption $ 2,811 NOTE: The statutory and reduced maximums yield identical estimates as a result of the distribution of property values in the Town and the formulas used. In practice, there should be a somewhat higher tax loss under the statutory maximum, though the amount is most likely to be slight. 10 - Year Tax Loss Projection: In making the following projection of prospective tax losses, the following assumptions were used: 2% annual increase in nominal assessed valuation 8% annual increase in local government spending no secular change in tax base Low Est. High Est. Average Statutory Maximum ($80 , 000 ) $215 , 120 $954 , 112 $541,357 Reduced Maximum #1 ($60 , 000) $215 , 120 $954 , 112 $541,357 Reduced Maximum #2 ($40 , 000) $147 , 576 $654,536 $368,098 Continuing Present Exemption $31,392 Town Board 11 December 31, 1984 RESOLUTION NO. 244 Motion by Councilman Kugler; seconded by Councilman Bartholf, RESOLVED, that the 'T'own Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves the Town of Ithaca Warrants dated December 31, 1984, in the ' following amounts: General Fund - Town Wide. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$27,745.96 General Fund - Outside Village.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$14,727.12 Highway Fund. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .$11,021.36 water & Sewer Fund. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .$ 377.20 Parks Reserve Fund. . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .$ 987.57 Councilman Cramer noted that the 9% interest figure was not noted in the legal documents for the Borg-Warner Corporation 1983 tax refund. Supervisor Desch responded that is correct and he agreed that he also felt the interest was rather high, however, the County agreed to this rate rather than the alternative which would have been a retroactive adjustment. (Desch, Kugler, Raffensperger, Cramer, McPeak, Dwell and Bartholf voting Aye. Nays - none) . VETERAN'S EXEMPTION Town Planner Peter Lovi reported that the State of New York has prepared an aid to enable the Town to estimate the amount of the impact of the proposed Veteran's exemption. He went on to say that using that guide, he went through the tax rolls. 184 veterans are presently receiving the existing veteran's exemption. Mr. Lovi noted that 50% of the exempt property owned by the veterans in the Town is in the range of $40,000 to $50,000. (Copy of report attached) . Supervisor Desch remarked that the $165,000,000 figure is the value of that portion of the Town outside of the Village of Cayuga Heights and that there is also exposure for the Town from property owners who are veterans who live in the Village. 'fawn Planner lovi remarked that Table 3 shows the veteran's exemption in context with other property exempt in the Tbwn. Well over 50% of the exempt property is awned by three large owners. Mr. Lovi went on to say that there are two ways of projecting. First, take the total number of veterans now receiving exemptions and multiply by 1.8. Or second, divide the number of veterans in the County by the Town of Ithaca veterans population (1429) . The exemption equals about 10% of the population of the Town of Ithaca. Councilman McPeak asked if the mortality rate was important? Supervisor Desch responded no, because of the new people coming in ® and the age of the veterans. Supervisor Desch went on to say that he did not know what the effect of the Federal Government cuts (Revenue Sharing) would be. It could trickle down through the State. He went on to say that he felt the Board should look at the exemption at 1986 budget time. Town Planner Lovi responded that increase would be between 25C and 30C: each year, per thousand of assessed valuation. Supervisor Desch noted that the veterans exemption would amount to about a 6% tax increase plus 7% to 8�% for other Town requirements. Town Board 12 December 31, 1984 Councilman McPeak asked what effect the $60,000 cap would have on the taxes? Supervisor Desch responded, between 7 and 8%. He went on to say that it was hard to know the percentage of veterans that would apply. The exemption does not apply to school taxes, therefore, a reduction in Town taxes oould be used by veterans to pay for expected increases in school taxes. Councilman McPeak remarked that he felt better about these numbers, than just saying the exemption was not fair to all veterans. Councilwman Raffensperger noted that the City ran into problems on ® their legal advertisement. She questioned if the Town would consider a box advertisement? Councilwoman Raffensperger asked what would happen to the present exemption. Town Planner Lovi responded, that veterans have the option to keep the old exemption or apply for the new exemption. He went on to say that in going through the tax rolls, he would go for pages and pages and not see an exemption. Then there would be three or four together. He stated that he felt the neighbors talk while they are raking leaves. Councilwoman Raffensperger remarked that if you have a Veterans Administration Loan, then they give you papers to fill out, so you would automatically know about the exemption. Councilman McPeak remarked that the Veterans feel like they were accepting welfare when they apply for the exemption. Councilwoman Raffensperger questioned where the Association of Towns and the local legislative representatives were when this law was being considered. OID HOSPITAL Councilman Cramer asked if any word had been received from the County on the sale of the old hospital? Supervisor Desch responded, no. HEALTH INSURANCE Supervisor Desch stated that the Civil Service Law will not allow employees to pay for 50% of their insurance, if the 50% is less costly than the State Plan. ADJOURNV9EnTr ® The meeting was duly adjourned. ,c To 9CE