Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2013-10-03 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Thursday, October 3, 2013 at 5:30 p.m. 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Agenda 1. Call to Order 2. Discuss and Consider the Supervisor's Town of Ithaca Tentative Budget for 2014 3. Consider Adoption of the Town of Ithaca Tentative Budget for 2014, with any changes, as the Town of Ithaca Preliminary Budget for 2014 4. Consider setting a public hearing regarding the Town of Ithaca Preliminary Budget for 2014 for Thursday, November 7, 2013 5. Consider Recommendation and Approval of Elected Official's Salaries 6. Continue review of Draft Comprehensive Plan Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Thursday, October 3, 2013 Minutes Board Members Present: Herb Engman, Supervisor; Bill Goodman, Deputy Town Supervisor; Pat Leary, Tee-Ann Hunter, Eric Levine, Rich DePaolo, and Rod Howe Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning, Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Mike Solvig, Director of Finance, Judy Drake, Director of Human Resources; and Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk Item 1- Meeting was called to order at 5:37 p.m. Board Comments Mr. Engman reported on a radio news report he had heard earlier today. The news report stated that Cornell had put out a news release criticizing the Mayor for having mentioned the fact that the City would like to have a greater contribution from Cornell to help with their budget; not mentioned was the fact that the Town, through him, has also had those conversations with Cornell. He also thought it was odd that the news report also stated that Cornell is implementing their$20million promise to the community for the transportation and housing initiative. That was not his understanding. If they are initiating it, they have not notified the municipalities of that fact and the last he was told was that very small projects can go forward but anything large has to go to the Board of Trustees for approval. Mr. Engman explained that this is exactly what he and the Mayor had talked about with President Skorton; that we don't want to be in a position where we cannot plan for our projects because we don't know if the Cornell portion is going to be there. Cornell wants to be able to approve where its monetary contribution is spent but then again, every citizen would probably love to designate how their taxes are going to be applied but that isn't possible. Mr. Engman went on to say that what we need from Cornell is an allocation that better matches what their peer institutions are giving to their communities in lieu of taxes and an amount that we can count on in a year-to-year basis. Mr. Engman noted that sometimes the Cornell projects cost more than expected; an example is the Pine Tree Road project. When the Town put that project together we had an initial budget that would have covered the cost, but partially because Cornell would not allow the bike and pedestrian trail to go through the property as proposed, the County had to get an extra $500,000 to build a retaining wall and to make the project more handicap accessible due to the grade of the project being changed to accommodate changing the original plan. Therefore, the public, through the County, had to subsidize that project and it shouldn't have been necessary. If Cornell had given a little bit more of their land the original plan and budget would have been sufficient. Cornell also would not tell us what the intended use of the land we needed would be except they might want to use it sometime in the future. Right now that land is a horse pasture. Mr. Engman felt it was odd and it cost the public money it shouldn't have. He stated that this the type of problem we get into when we have designated funds. What the Town and the City would Page 11 like is to have a better conversation with Cornell about an allocation on a yearly basis that can help pay for other things; code inspections,public work projects, things like that that do primarily benefit Cornell. Mr. Engman noted that Cornell says that they give money to the City and they do. It is about $1.2 million a year and$724,000 is for fire protection so the Town gets a little bit of a benefit out of that. But if you took the number of services that are given to Cornell in fire protection and then looked at their assessed valuation,which is how we are billed for fire protection, they should be paying $1.2 million a year for fire protection alone. Mr. Engman summarized by saying he felt it was not fair to the Town or the City to somehow say we are just complaining again about the lack of money from Cornell. This is a discussion that will continue and Cornell is scolding the City for holding negotiations in public,but it is obvious that Cornell has a whole cadre of people that can put out news releases and comments like they did and that is more like negotiating in public than what the Mayor said. Item 2 -Discuss and Consider the Supervisor's Town of Ithaca Tentative Budget for 2014 Mr. Solvig reviewed the budget highlights for each fund. (Attachment 1) Overview • Typical house of$190K will pay $14 more per year in taxes and $8 more per year for water/sewer service. • Tax exempt property in the Town represents 47% of our total assessed valuation. • Hydrilla amount of$5,000 was taken out because we had not received any request for the money we had allocated. Mr. Engman did hear last week that the Town will be receiving a bill for hydrilla efforts and other municipalities are also contributing. He would like the Board to consider reinstituting the $5,000 for hydrilla eradication effort. General Fund Mr. Goodman asked about overtime vs. regular overtime benefit time and Ms. Drake answered that line is where all vacation, sick and personal time is put for the department and putting it in that particular line helps with our worker's compensation costs. Ms. Hunter asked about the cost of highway equipment and whether it was broken out into different funds. Mr. Solvig answered that they were, but page C-3 under Capital, there is a summary of the equipment and that will give the total cost. Mr. DePaolo asked how compensation for salaried employees who work over a 40 hour workweek is handled. Ms. Drake responded that it is included in their salary. She added that we tract time by giving"additional time worked" for anything over 40 hours and salaried can use that time to "shore up"their 40 hour week. So if someone worked 50 hours one week and 27 the Page 12 next, they could use additional time to add the 3 hours to make their 80 hour work week. All additional time goes away at the end of the year. It is not paid out in any way so there is no line for it. Water Fund Mr. DePaolo asked about the Community Science Institute's Water Monitoring Program. He asked when they make their request for continuing funding, how do they lay out their deliverables in terms of what we are getting? Mr. Engman explained they list out the number of samples they have taken and the laboratory expenses for analyzing them. Mr. DePaolo asked if the shared expenses amongst the contributing municipalities are broken down by geography or something else. Mr. Engman contributions have been whatever the individual municipalities wish to give. He noted that one of their biggest deliverables recently was discovering the leak at the sewage treatment center in Trumansburg. He felt the lake has benefitted quite a bit from this project and the Town has kept it at the same level of contribution since 2010 even though they have asked for slight increases each year. Ms. Hunter asked why we are not considering an increase in the benefit assessment areas. Mr. Solvig responded that our projections are pretty good and it is at the discretion of the Board; it would increase the tax levy. She asked if it would decrease the amount we are looking to bond and if a small increase in the assessment would impact the amount we would have to bond for? She also asked if it was discussed at the committee level and a determination made not to increase it and if so, why? Mr. Engman responded that he thought they looked at the 5-year projections and thought the fund balance would be healthy. It is the old debate about raising money now and putting it in the bank where it loses money because the interest rate doesn't keep up with inflation or do you borrow the money at a very low rate and spread the cost over time to those that are going to benefit by the improvement. Mr. Solvig said we would have to more than double the benefit charge to pay for a water tank and Ms. Hunter responded she was not thinking of covering it all but maybe a portion. She asked what an increase would yield and Mr. Solvig responded that a$5 increase in the assessment gets you$40,000 in revenue. Discussion followed with no change being put forth. Risk Retention Fund Mr. DePaolo asked about the wellness programs and hospital bills line. Ms. Drake responded that this fund is how we reduce some of our risk by paying small, first aid type claims as opposed to claiming them through our insurance which would increase our rate. Wellness benefits are CPR, first-aid training, defensive driving etc. as well as our deductible if we have one. Fire Protection Fund Mr. DePaolo asked if there was an assumption that our relationship with fire services will remain the same for the foreseeable future. Mr. Engman responded that our contract ends with the City at the end of 2014 and discussions continue on what we can or should do ranging from contract negotiations or forming our own department. We are very happy with the Cayuga Heights service and cost but the City contract is too expensive so we continue to explore options. Page 13 Light District Funds No questions from the Board. Budget Changes Mr. Engman brought the Board back to the hydrilla funds. Ms. Hunter moved to reinstate the $5,000 for the Hydrilla Task Force for hydrilla eradication and outreach efforts and Mr. DePaolo seconded. Unanimous Mr. Engman noted that we have voted to support the Town of Ulysses in the amicus briefs on hydro-fracking and at the first level they paid for almost all of it through contributions but now with the appeal,there will be more costs coming in. There are about 15 municipalities that had signed up but everyone is having financial difficulties and the Towns of Dryden and Ulysses have done the bulk of the work and funding and we have gotten the benefits. He recommended that we allocate $5,000 this year and next out of our legal expenses line to pay some of the legal bills associated with the effort. Mr. Howe addressed the issue of funding for TCAT. He felt pretty strongly that it is a relationship builder and feels that public transportation is central to how we want to move forward as a town and he understands maybe it would not be $50,000 but he would like to make some contribution towards TCAT. Mr. DePaolo agreed saying it sends a wrong message, not only to TCAT but to the community at large if we produce planning documents that rely heavily, conceptually, on mass transit and they we are not seen as supporting that in a way that would help realize those goals. He went on to say he understands there are no other municipalities in our situation or that are contributing more, but if you look at usage, the argument can be made that the Town of Ithaca is benefitting disproportionately over some of the rural municipalities anyway. He thought we should consider reinstating the full amount but tie it to having some representation even if it is not a voting membership so we have someone there to receive information and deliver the Town's message on a regular basis. He was curious if there has been any movement on that representation and he thought that although there is an argument that could be made that the contribution should continue just based on ridership and what mass-transit means to the community, he though at this time, we should not continue unless we are guaranteed some sort of representation. Ms. Hunter stated that she was uncomfortable taking the full $50K out and she would like to look at other items in the budget that we may be able to delay so reinstating some to TCAT would not result in a tax increase. She added that she has to think about the wisdom of shifting the burden to the county and that should be aggressively explored over the next year. She didn't know what the effect of that would be on the arrangement with Cornell, but the whole county benefits from TCAT and we are in the position that the Town, because we have historically been in a good cash situation, we have been asked for money and contributed it because of our support for mass-transit,but now we are not in as good a cash situation and our$50K is not going to solve their budget issues. Ms. Hunter thought there were big questions that need to be discussed and regional funding needs to be explored. She also agrees with Mr. DePaolo that a seat at the table is essential to our continued support. Page 14 Mr. Levine stated that the Town Board as a whole has been very supportive of TCAT in the past and we have given a quarter of a million dollars over the last 5 years. It has been a voluntary contribution because we believe in mass transit, shared services, etc. but he is struggling with one taxing authority asking another taxing authority for money. He thought that the $50K can be funded by the County through taxing the entire county where as that money coming from the town is placing that burden on town residents alone. He added that when we decided to contribute the $50K a year, we were hoping other municipalities would join in and they haven't. That should change and he didn't know what was going to incentivize other towns to contribute but it needs to happen. He went on to say that he has heard that the Town's ridership is 30%but he wondered how much of that is attributable to Ithaca College and Cornell because that's a destination and TO in Dryden and the mall in Lansing are other destinations and those municipalities get a benefit without a contribution. Mr. Levine also noted that since that first contribution, the tax cap has come in to play and that extra money would have much less of an impact on the County's percentage than ours. He understood that it is a symbolic gesture, but as a custodian of the Town's money, it is hard to make symbolic gestures. Mr. Goodman said he was also still on the fence regarding the contribution. He felt he needed more information and more discussion. His big issue has been that when Pam Mackesey and Dan Coggin came to us back in 2008 or so asking us to start contributing, he was under the impression that they would be going to other municipalities to get them to chip in too and that hasn't happened in the last 5 years. So to him it is important to figure out how to get other municipalities and the county to figure out how to make TCAT work because in reality our$50K is such a small percentage that in some ways it is symbolic and he wants to think about that symbolism and what do we want to accomplish it. Mr. Goodman thought maybe we could take a break and say its someone else's turn and use that as an incentive. If other municipalities contribute, we could start again. He also thought it sounded like the agreement does not allow any of the three major partners to increase their input and that should be looked at. TCAT is the County, the City and Cornell so it is not just municipalities and we should get some deliverables and maybe we need new deliverables. There is also the county getting the mortgage tax and they are not giving it all, and he is concerned that that money is just going to offset some of the money they have been giving to TCAT. He would like to look at what the county's responsibility for TCAT is and what is the other municipalities' responsibility. He added that when you look at County responsibilities, the Town puts $20,000 into the public library so it isn't like we are not willing to help out with community efforts. Mr. Goodman summed up his thoughts by saying that he is not ready to make a decision tonight and hopes to have more information by the public hearing in November. Ms. Leary stated that she echoes Mr. Goodman. Her greatest concern is she would like to see some concrete changes to the bylaws that would allow partners to pay in more than the others and that needs to happen before we continue with any contributions. She would also like to see other municipalities contribute and have seats at the table, but mostly changing the prohibition on different amounts by the partners. Mr. Engman wanted to emphasize that the reason he suggested deleting the funding for TCAT was that we have a budget problem. We have to decrease our costs or increase our tax levy and Page 15 when he looked through our discretionary spending, what he found was the only contract he felt we had not gotten our deliverables from was TCAT. After$250,000 it was time to try a different course of action. We made cuts to our own programing at the same time we are looking at other spending. He went on to address the ridership, saying that if the town has 20% and people have argued we should make a contribution because of that, then you follow that argument to its logical extreme, then 100% of the ridership is from the county and therefore the county should be funding it not other municipalities. He has suggested that TCAT representatives come to TCCOG and maybe we could work out something on a broader scale. If the county is not willing to increase their taxes enough to cover their costs, then maybe TCCOG as a whole might be willing to come up with something else and maybe that would be more than what they are getting from us alone. He said the other thing that should be considered is whether there should be a collective vote from the other municipalities. He did not think we should continue funding and expect any different outcome because we have gotten no indication that any of our needs in the town are going to be better taken care of than if we did nothing. He didn't think a simple non-voting seat was any better than what we have stating that getting a no to one's face or a no via email is the same. Ms. Leary responded that there is a slight advantage to having a seat at the table because you participate but she still prefers to have a different formula allowing votes from other minor partners and a different financial structure that allows the county paying more for what is essentially a county service or Cornell paying more. She especially didn't want to contribute this year in view of the mortgage tax. Ms. Leary thought it was a real disincentive for the county to give TCAT the full amounts they are getting if they know the town is coming in with money. She thought taking a years' break and having some of these issues resolved and seeing some real change in the TCAT structure would help her to reconsider next year. Mr. Goodman used an anecdote from the evening before, saying he saw people getting off the bus at EcoVillage and they were all from Cornell so when Ms. Mackesey and Mr. Coggan use town ridership as justification, it backfires because Cornell gets more benefits by not having to build more garages and not having to deal with all that traffic on campus. He said Cornell is not doing much for us in the way of contributions so they could and should put in more. He thought maybe when they were setting up the structure they were thinking more about voting seats than the contribution but it doesn't have to be set up that way. Bolton Point is an example where votes do not depend on the monetary contribution and TCAT could be set up like that. He would like to hear more from residents at the public hearing and we can decide then. Mr. Engman added that again, we should take a pause especially since the county has a new funding source through the mortgage tax and Cornell has agreed to increase their subsidizing of individual rides, so of any year for us to take a break this year makes the most sense. Being a part of a citizen advisory committee has been suggested in the past but you don't have to pay to attend those and this talk about having a non-voting seat is new and there is no guarantee. Mr. Engman stated that he prefers taking a hiatus and getting our information clear. He added that the county didn't hesitate to cut $175,000 from the youth funding and we absorbed some of those costs because we didn't want to see the youth hurt and we shouldn't be criticized for being generous in the past. Page 16 Mr. Howe asked about the process, saying it seems there is time to hear input and gather more information before a final decision and Mr. Engman said that depends on the Board and whether someone wanted to move a change tonight. We can hold off but a budget must be adopted no later than November 18tH Mr. DePaolo thought waiting was the prudent thing to do especially since TCAT has a meeting next week and we might learn more after that. Mr. Howe wanted to thank the Committee and Mr. Solvig on all the work they did and asked if they felt comfortable with the tax levy they are proposing and what the process was for deciding this was the lowest we could get it. Mr. Levine and Mr. Engman responded that they looked at the 5-year projections and the past increases and we knew we couldn't make the tax cap, but keeping it under 4%was important. They then looked at our discretionary spending and made decisions on those. Mr. Weber added that the Committee questioned and discussed their budget in a lot of detail. Mr. Howe stated he was satisfied with the explanations and felt comfortable in understanding the process now. Mr. DePaolo asked about the $15,000 for the sustainability planner and what the rationale was for that figure. Mr. Engman responded that is the figure for continuing through March and they didn't put anything else in there because it is dependent on getting a grant. Mr. DePaolo noted that the Advisory Committee is recommending continuing the position and Mr. Goodman thought the benefit of putting it in now is that it would be in the tax rate and if we decided not to fund it because we did not get the grant it would go into the General Fund Balance whereas if we don't put it in now, and we needed funds to match the grant, we would have to take that money from somewhere else. Mr. Engman said it is up to the Board as far as how much money we are willing to put in to fund this position and how we want to do it. Mr. Goodman said that he would be willing to consider funding the position even if we didn't get the grant, at least for a little while. Mr. DePaolo asked about the funds for the Intermunicipal Organization and the grant which Ms. Hunter has made a huge effort to energize and does that need to be a line item since we are being asked to front the money. Mr. Goodman moved to add$29,000 into the budget on whatever line is appropriate with an offsetting revenue line so there is no bottom line effect on the budget. Ms. Hunter seconded. Unanimous. Mr. DePaolo asked about the Planning Study with $150,000 and whether that is the charrette? Ms. Ritter responded that it could be or it could be the beginning implementation of the Comprehensive Plan and used to hire some consultants for zoning and implementation. Mr. Goodman asked about the 2013 budgeted money and it seems there will be a balance there and Ms. Ritter responded that she had hoped to be farther along and we have been putting portions in the budget each year. Implementation of the zoning will probably be over the $200,000 but it would not be indefinite and we will be going after grant monies also. Page 17 Mr. DePaolo asked about the emergencies, like the Elm Street Extension washing out and if there isn't some type of insurance for these things? Ms. Drake responded there is not, and Mr. Engman added that if the road had completely washed out we could have gone after disaster relief funds, but it didn't. Ms. Hunter had questions on equipment purchases and the absolute necessity for all of them. She started with the emergency generator and what would happen if we didn't get one? It is an expensive item and we haven't had one yet and she wondered if we have suffered any hardship not having it? She also wondered if there was a cheaper model? Mr. Weber responded that it is a philosophical discussion. Our Emergency Management Plan identifies the highway department as our Emergency Management Center. We have no permanent emergency generator; we have two portable generators for field emergencies to keep pump stations going. Ms. Hunter asked if Mr. Weber expected the same amount of equipment expenditures going out over the next few years. Mr. Weber explained that they have extended their fleet replacement plan out over 15 years and it varies. Ms. Hunter asked if maybe we should split the cost of the generator over two years. Ms. Hunter thanked Mr. Weber for the narrative on his budget requests and asked about what seems to be two trucks replacing something and then another says replacing something that is to be determined. Mr. Weber explained that some trucks may be handed down to extend their use. We look at getting the worst vehicle out first and that can change depending on how a vehicle holds up in engine, body, etc. So it is a shuffle and you never know which piece is going to need replacement at an exact time but you can guess. Ms. Hunter asked about the crack sealer and Mr. Weber explained what it does and noted that we try to borrow other municipality's but everyone seems to do it at the same time because weather is a big factor and so there have been scheduling conflicts in the past. He added that companies charge by the linear foot and it adds up quickly. Mr. DePaolo went back to the generator and asked what the capacity and fuel type was? Mr. Weber responded that he doesn't have the details on the capacity yet, but the fuel source would be natural gas. Mr. DePaolo thought we could buy it lot cheaper and asked how many kilowatts we need. Mr. Weber responded the cost includes site work to set the generator, permits and connections to the gas, and all the electrical connections; the whole package in place. Mr. DePaolo commented that it is a lot of money and is essentially an insurance plan. Mr. Weber added that we had to have our Emergency Preparedness Plan in place to go after funds and the Plan designates Public Works as being the command center in an emergency and that requires power to all the buildings and machinery in those buildings. Some discussion followed on the feasibility of trying for shared services for this and the fact that in most cases our neighboring municipalities would be affected also and using their generators themselves. Mr. DePaolo stated that the argument is not whether we need one, but whether we need one at that cost and the cost is what needs to be researched. The Board had no more questions or comments at this time and will discuss the budget again after the public hearing and with additional information on TCAT and the generator. Page 18 Item 3 - Consider setting a public hearing regarding the Town of Ithaca Preliminary Budget for 2014 for Thursday,November 7, 2013 TB Resolution No. 2013 - 118 : Setting a Public Hearing Regarding the Town of Ithaca 2014 Preliminary Budget Whereas the Town Supervisor filed his 2014 Tentative Budget to the Town Clerk on September 30, 2013 and the Town Clerk presented it to the Town Board at its October 3, 2013 Budget meeting, and Whereas the Town Board discussed and considered the 2014 Tentative Budget, and Now, therefore,be it Resolved that the Town Board accepts the 2014 Tentative Budget as the Preliminary Budget for 2014 for the Town of Ithaca; and be it further Resolved,that the Town Board hold a public hearing at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, on the 7th day of November 2013, at 5:30 pm, for the purpose of hearing public comments on the Town of Ithaca 2014 Preliminary Budget. Moved: Eric Levine Seconded: Rich DePaolo Vote: Ayes—Levine, DePaolo, Hunter, Engman, Goodman, Leary and Howe Item 3 - Consider Recommendation and Approval of Elected Officials' Salaries TB Resolution No. 2014- 119 : Proposed Elected Officials Salaries. WHEREAS, the governing Town Board of the Town of Ithaca has reviewed the proposed salaries, indicated below, for the elected officials for the year 2014 at a 2% cost of living adjustment increase; now, therefore,be it RESOLVED,the governing Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve the below proposed salaries for the elected officials for the year 2014 at a 2% cost of living adjustment increase; SUPERVISOR $ 36,254.00 (Paid Biweekly) (includes Supervisor's Administrative Function pay) DEPUTY TOWN SUPERVISOR $ 29,684.00 (Paid Biweekly) (includes Board Member pay) TOWN BOARD MEMBERS (5) $ 13,400.00 Each (Paid Biweekly) TOWN JUSTICES' (2) $ 22,250 Each (Paid Biweekly) And, be it further Page 9 RESOLVED, the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish the said proposed salaries as required by Section 108 of the Town Law. MOVED: Rod Howe SECONDED: Bill Goodman VOTE: Ayes—Howe, Goodman, Engman, Leary, Levine, Hunter and DePaolo Meeting was adjourned upon motion and a second at 8:05p.m. Page 110 TOWN OF ITHACA FISCAL YEAR 2014 BUDGET SUMMARY BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS • Total Budget increase of$1,265,374 or 5.95%; from $21,251,104 in 2013 to $22,516,478 in 2014. • The budgeted total for Personnel Costs increases to $5,263,980 in 2014 from a budgeted total of $5,113,900 in 2013, an increase of $150,080 or 2.9%. Personnel costs represent 23.4% of the Town's total budget. • The 2014 Budget includes a 2% increase for employee salaries and wages. Total for Personal Services increases from $3,245,030 in 2013 to $3,299,940 in 2014, an increase of$54,910. • The budgeted total for Employee Benefits increases to $1,964,040 in 2014 from a budgeted total of $1,868,870 in 2013, an increase of $95,170 or 5.1%. Total employee benefits are now 59.5% of the total for employee salaries and wages. - Payments for employee retirement are budgeted for $610,000 in 2014, an increase of $57,500 or 10.4% over the$552,500 total budgeted in 2013. - Payments for employee health insurance are budgeted for $951,100 in 2014, an increase of $27,600 or 3.0% over the $923,500 total budgeted in 2013. • Capital Projects increase to $3,825,000 in 2014; an increase of $195,000 or 5.4% over the $3,630,000 total in 2013. Capital projects represent 17.0%of the Town's total budget. • Contractual Services increase to $10,241,665 in 2014; an increase of $420,470 or 4.3% over the $9,821,195 in 2013. Contractual services represent 45.5%of the total budget. • Equipment/Capital Outlay decreases to $789,500 in 2014; a decrease of $20,000 or 2.5% from the 2013 total of$809,500. Equipment/capital outlay represents 3.5% of the Town's total budget. • Sales Tax collections for 2014 are budgeted at $2,825,000. Sales tax collections for the Town remain strong, with 2012 collections of$2,907,213 exceeding the prior year's total by 3.48%. Sales tax collections represent 13.0% of the Town's total budgeted revenues. • Contributions to community organizations/programs will total $391,081 in 2014. This is a decrease of $43,480 from the prior year, and eliminates the Town's annual contributions of$50,000 to TCAT and $5,000 for hydrilla outreach activities. Of the total, $372,341 is budgeted in the General Townwide Fund, with the remaining $18,740 budgeted in the Water Fund. • The Town will transfer (re-designate) $75,000 from the unreserved fund balance in the General Townwide Fund to the Parks and Open Space Plan Reserve. • The 2014 Property Tax Levy will total $7,029,625, an increase of$260,300 or 3.85% over the prior year. This increase will exceed the current property tax limit growth factor of 1.66%. Property taxes are the Town's largest revenue source, representing 32.4%of total budgeted revenues. • The property tax bill for a typical property in the Town of Ithaca will increase from $1,352.55 in 2013 to $1,366.53 in 2014, an increase of$13.98 or 1.03°/x. The typical property in the Town of Ithaca is a single family residence with an assessed value of $190,000. The property tax totals shown include water and sewer benefit assessment charges. • Water rates will increase 2.6% to $5.99/1000 gallons of consumption. Sewer rates, also based on water consumption, will increase 1.2% to 4.25/1000 gallons. The combined effect on the quarterly water & sewer bill will be an increase of $1.90 or 2.1%, increasing from $92.00 per quarter in 2013 to $93.90 per quarter in 2014. 2 ()/0 TOWN OF ITHACA,NEW YORK SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2014 BUDGET BY FUND ESTIMATED APPROPRIATED AMOUNT TO BE TOWN FUNDS: APPROPRIATIONS REVENUE FUND BALANCE RAISED BY TAX A GENERAL TOWNWIDE FUND $ 4,884,913 $ 1,921,800 $ 463,113 $ 2,500,000 B GENERAL PART-TOWN FUND 1,483,625 1,222,650 260,975 DB HIGHWAY PART-TOWN FUND 3,650,300 2,536,500 113,800 1,000,000 F WATER FUND 5,444,650 5,097,000 (417,274) 764,924 G SEWER FUND 2,592,270 2,112,000 282,601 197,660 R RISK RETENTION FUND 15,500 25,000 (9,500) - _ TE INLET VALLEY CEMETERY FUND 1,500 - 1,500 _ V DEBT SERVICE FUND 994,700 780,383 214,317 TOTAL-TOWN FUNDS $ 19,067,458 $ 13,695,333 $ 909,532 $ 4,462,59:3 SPECIAL DISTRICT FUNDS: SF FIRE PROTECTION FUND $ 3,435,000 $ 35,000 $ (100,000) $ 3,500,000 SL1 FOREST HOME LIGHT DISTRICT 3,400 - - 3,400 SL2 GLENSIDE LIGHT DISTRICT 750 100 650 SL3 RENWICK HEIGHTS LIGHT DISTRICT 1,100 150 950 SL4 EASTWOOD COMMONS LIGHT DISTRICT 2,200 300 1,900 SL5 CLOVER LANE LIGHT DISTRICT 270 - 45 225 SL6 WINNER'S CIRCLE LIGHT DISTRICT 800 100 700 SL7 BURLEIGH DRIVE LIGHT DISTRICT 900 - 100 800 SL8 WESTHAVEN ROAD LIGHT DISTRICT 2,900 - 400 2,500 SL9 CODDINGTON ROAD LIGHT DISTRICT 1,700 - 200 1,500 TOTAL-SPECIAL DISTRICT FUNDS: $ 3,449,020 $ 35,000 $ (98,605) $ 3,512,625 GRAND TOTAL-ALL FUNDS: $ 22,516,478 $ 13,730,333 $ 810,927 $ 7,975,218 1 TOWN OF ITHACA FISCAL YEAR 2014 BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS GENERAL TOWNWIDE FUND • The General Townwide Fund budget will decrease from $5,422,907 in 2013 to $4,884,913 in 2014, a decrease of$537,994 or 9.9%. • The budgeted total for Personnel Costs increases to $2,592,845 in 2014 from a budgeted total of $2,458,060 in 2013, an increase of $134,785 or 5.5%. Personnel costs represent 53,1% of the General Townwide Fund's total budget. • Personal Services (employee salaries and wages) increases from $1,575,560 in 2013 to $1,629,345 in 2014, an increase of$53,785 or 3.4%. • The budgeted total for Employee Benefits increases to $963,500 in 2014 from a budgeted total of $882,500 in 2013, an increase of$81,000 or 9.2%. - Payments for employee retirement are budgeted for $310,000 in 2014, an increase of$40,000 or 14.8% over the$270,000 total budgeted in 2013. - Payments for employee health insurance are budgeted for $483,000 in 2014, an increase of $33,000 or 7.3% over the $450,000 total budgeted in 2013. • Capital Projects are budgeted at $325,000 for 2014; a decrease of $825,000 from the 2013 total of $1,150,000. Capital projects budgeted in 2014 include: Public Works Facility Emergency Generator $100,000 Winner's Circle Drainage Improvements 200,000 South Hill Trail Culvert Repairs 25,000 The Winner's Circle Drainage Improvements will be financed with the issuance of new long-term debt. The remaining projects will be paid for out of current year revenues. • Contractual Services increase to$1,513,405 in 2014; an increase of$17,170 or 1.1% over the 2013 total of $1,496,235. Contractual services represent 31.0% of the General Townwide Fund's total budget for 2014. • Equipment/Capital Outlay increases to $224,875 in 2014; an increase of $17,375 or 8.4% over the $207,500 total budgeted in 2013. Equipment/Capital Outlay represents 4.6% of the General Townwide Fund's total budget for 2014. - $189,250 is budgeted for the replacement of existing vehicles and heavy equipment. - $35,625 is budgeted for the purchase of new equipment. • $60,000 is budgeted under Transfers to Capital Projects for the proposed Forest Home Drive Walkway. This project will construct a new 4' wide walkway (sidewalk) along the northern side of Forest Home Drive between the upstream and downstream bridges. The Town has applied for grant funding for this project through NYSDOT under the Transportation Enhancement Program. The Town of Ithaca's local share of the estimated $898,405 project cost will be $179,681, which will be budgeted for$60,000 in each of the next three fiscal years. • The 2014 Property Tax Levy for the General Townwide Fund is budgeted at $2,500,000, an increase of $223,800 or 9.8% over the prior year. The estimated Property Tax Rate for the 2014 Tax Year is $1.931 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. The property tax levy is the General Townwide Fund's largest revenue source, representing 56.5% of total budgeted revenues. A-1 TOWN OF ITHACA FISCAL YEAR 2014 BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS GENERAL PART-TOWN FUND The General Part-Town Fund budget will increase to $1,483,625 in 2014 from $1,470,110 in 2013, an increase$13,515 or 0.9%. • The budgeted total for Personnel Costs increases to $1,011,525 in 2014 from a budgeted total of $990,060 in 2013, an increase of $21,465 or 2.2%. Personnel costs represent 68.2% of the General Part-Town Fund's total budget for 2014. • Personal Services (employee salaries and wages) increases from $634,410 in 2013 to $654,175 in 2014, an increase of$19,765 or 3.1%. • The budgeted total for Employee Benefits increases from $355,650 in 2013 to a budgeted total of $357,350 in 2014, an increase of$1,700 or 0.5%. - Payments for employee retirement are budgeted for $120,000 in 2014, a decrease of$4,000 or 0.3%from the$124,000 total budgeted in 2013. - Payments for employee health insurance are budgeted for $175,000 in 2014, an increase of $4,000 or 0.2% over the $171,000 total budgeted in 2013. • Equipment/Capital Outlay decreases to $55,000 in 2014; a decrease of$22,000 from the 2013 total of$77,000, and includes funding for the following: - $30,000 to complete the purchase and implementation of the Municity software. This project, originally scheduled for completion in 2013, has been delayed by conflicts in the vendor's schedule,and is currently expected to begin implementation in the last quarter of 2013. - $25,000 for the purchase of a new staff vehicle for the Planning Department. • Contractual Services increase from $323,650 in 2013 to $336,600 in 2014; an increase of $12,950 or 4.0%. Contractual services represent 22.7% of the General Part-Town Fund's total budget for 2014, and include funding for the following: - $95,000 for legal services. - $150,000 for planning studies. • The Sales Tax is the General Part-Town Fund's largest revenue source, representing 73.6% of total budgeted revenues. Other revenue sources for this fund include: - Departmental Income, budgeted at$169,500 and representing 13.9% of total revenues. - State Aid (per Capita), budgeted for$87,650 and representing 7.2% of total revenues. - Cable TV Franchise Tax, budgeted at$65,000 and representing 5.3% of total revenues. B-1 TOWN OF ITHACA FISCAL YEAR 2014 BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS HIGHWAY PART-TOWN FUND • The 2014 Budget for the Highway Part-Town Fund will decrease from $3,777,660 in 2013 to $3,650,300 in 2014, a decrease of$127,360 or 7.2%. • The budgeted total for Personnel Costs decreases to $1,285,070 in 2014 from a budgeted total of $1,361,860 in 2013, a decrease of $76,790 or 5.6%. Personnel costs represent 35.2% of the Highway Part-Town Fund's total budget. • Personal Services (employee salaries and wages) decrease from $846,760 in 2013 to $790,520 in 2014, a decrease of$56,240 or 6.6%. • The budgeted total for Employee Benefits decreases to $494,550 in 2014 from a budgeted total of $515,100 in 2013, a decrease of$20,550 or 4.0%. - Payments for employee retirement are budgeted for $135,000 in 2014, an increase of $10,000 or 8.0% over the $125,000 total budgeted in 2013. - Payments for employee health insurance are budgeted for $222,000 in 2014, a decrease of $26,500 or 17.8%from the $248,500 total budgeted in 2013. • Capital Projects are budgeted at $1,000,000 for 2014; a decrease of $200,000 or 16.7% from the 2013 total of$1,200,000. Capital projects budgeted in 2014 include: Sand Bank Road (Lower End) Improvements $ 750,000 Winners Circle Improvements 250,000 The above listed projects will be financed with the issuance of new long-term debt. Capital Projects represent 27.4% of the Highway Part-Town Fund's total budget for 2014. • Contractual Services increase to $775,600 in 2014; an increase of $58,650 or 8.2% over the 2013 total of $716,950. Contractual Services represent 21.2% of the Highway Part-Town Fund's total budget for 2014. • Equipment/Capital Outlay is budgeted for $339,750 in 2014; a decrease of$250 from the $340,000 total budgeted in 2013. - $318,500 is budgeted for the replacement of existing vehicles and heavy equipment. - $21,250 is budgeted for the purchase of new equipment. Equipment/Capital Outlay represents 9.3% of the Highway Part-Town Fund's total budget for 2014. • The 2013 Property Tax Levy for the Highway Part-Town Fund is budgeted at $1,000,000, an increase of $700 over the prior year. The estimated Property Tax Rate for the 2014 Tax Year is $1.094 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. The property tax levy is the Highway Part-Town Fund's second largest revenue source, representing 27.4% of total budgeted revenues. • The Sales Tax remains the Highway Part-Town Fund's largest revenue source, budgeted at $1,425,000 in 2014, representing 39.0% of total budgeted revenues. DB-1 TOWN OF ITHACA FISCAL YEAR 2014 BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS WATER FUND • The 2014 Budget for the Water Fund will increase from $4,016,137 in 2013 to $5,444,650 in 2014, an increase of $1,428,513 or 35.6%. This increase in the total budget is largely attributed to a $1,200,000 increase in capital projects budgeted for 2014. • The budgeted total for Personnel Costs increases to $252,170 in 2014 from a budgeted total of $182,580 in 2013, an increase of$69,590 or 38.1%. Personnel costs represent 4.6% of the Water Fund's total budget. • Capital Projects budget increases $1,200,000 or 141.2%, moving from $850,000 budgeted in 2013 to $2,050,000 in 2014. Capital projects budgeted in 2014 include: Christopher Circle Water Tank Replacement $ 850,000 Coddington Road Water Main Improvement- Phase 1 1,200,000 The above listed projects will be financed with the issuance of new long-term debt. Capital Projects represent 37.7% of the Water Fund's total budget for 2014. • Contractual Services increase to $2,361,140 in 2014; an increase of$93,500 or 4.1% over the 2013 total of$2,267,640. - The budgets for Common Water Supply will total $2,079,000 in 2014, an increase of$85,000 or 4.3% over the 2013 total of$1,994,000. This increase is due in part to Bolton Point's proposed increase for treated water of $0.08/1000 gallons. This will increase the water rate paid to Bolton Point from $4.00/1000 gallons in 2013 to$4.08/1000 gallons in 2014. - The Town's contribution of $18,740 for the Water Quality Monitoring Program remains budgeted in the Water Fund for 2014. The budget for this item was moved to the Water Fund from the General Part-Town Fund in 2013. The budgeted amount of $18,740 remains at the prior year's amount. Contractual services represent 43.4% of the Water Fund's total budget for 2014. • Equipment/Capital Outlay is budgeted for $101,925 in 2014; a decrease of $75 from the $102,000 total budgeted in 2013. - $95,550 is budgeted for the replacement of existing vehicles and heavy equipment. - $6,375 is budgeted for the purchase of new equipment. Equipment/Capital Outlay represents only 1.9% of the Water Fund's total budget for 2014. • Revenue from Metered Water Sales is budgeted to increase $120,000 or 4.1%, increasing from $2,900,000 in 2013 to $3,020,000 in 2014. Metered water sales represent 51.5% of total budgeted revenues in the Water Fund for 2014. • The Town will increase the water rate charged to our customers from $4.84/1000 gallons in 2013 to $5.99/1000 gallons, an increase of 2.6%, in 2014. • The minimum quarterly utility bill (includes water and sewer charges) will increase from $92.00 in 2013 to $93.90 in 2014, an increase of$1.90 per quarter or 2.1%. • The Water Benefit Assessment Charge is proposed to remain at $95.00/unit in 2014. Revenues from the water benefit assessment charge are used to pay for capital projects and debt service expense. F-1 TOWN OF ITHACA FISCAL YEAR 2014 BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS SEWER FUND • The 2014 Budget for the Sewer Fund will increase from $2,476,540 in 2013 to $2,592,270 in 2014, an increase$115,730 or 4.7%. • The budgeted total for Personnel Costs increases to $122,370 in 2014 from a budgeted total of $121,340 in 2013, an increase of $1,030 or 0.8%. Personnel costs represent 4.7% of the Sewer Fund's total budget. • Capital Projects budget increases $20,000 or 4.7%, moving from $430,000 in 2013 to $450,000 in 2014. Capital projects budgeted in 2014 include: Sewer Rehabilitation $ 100,000 Manhole Rehabilitation 50,000 Jointly-owner Interceptor Improvements 300,000 The above listed projects will be paid for out of current year revenues. Capital Projects represent 17.4% of the Sewer Fund's total budget for 2014. • Contractual Services increase from $1,677,200 in 2013 to $1,783,650 in 2014, an increase of $106,450 or 6.3% from the prior year. - $1,150,000 is budgeted for the treatment of sewage at the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant. This is an increase of$50,000 or 4.5% over the prior year. - $210,000 is budgeted for the transmission of sewage through sewers owned by the Village of Cayuga Heights. This is an increase of$10,000 or 5.0%over the prior year. Contractual services represent 68.8% of the Sewer Fund's total budget for 2014. • Equipment/Capital Outlay is budgeted for$67,950 in 2014; a decrease of$15,050 from the $83,000 total budgeted in 2013. - $63,700 is budgeted for the replacement of existing vehicles and heavy equipment. - $4,250 is budgeted for the purchase of new equipment. Equipment/Capital Outlay represents only 2.6% of the Sewer Fund's total budget for 2014. • Revenue from Sewer Rents is budgeted to increase $35,000 or 1.7%, increasing to $2,100,000 in 2014 from $2,065,000 in 2013. Sewer rents represent 90.9% of total budgeted revenues in the Sewer Fund. • The Town will increase the sewer rent charged to our customers from $4.20/1000 gallons in 2013 to $4.25/1000 gallons, an increase of 1.2%, in 2014. • The minimum quarterly utility bill (includes water and sewer charges) will increase from $92.00 in 2013 to $93.90 in 2014, an increase of$1.90 per quarter or 2.1%. • The Sewer Benefit Assessment Charge will remain at the 2013 level of $25.00/unit for 2014. Revenues from the sewer benefit assessment charge are used to pay for capital projects and debt service expense. G-1 TOWN OF ITHACA FISCAL YEAR 2014 BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS FIRE PROTECTION FUND: • The 2014 Budget for the Fire Protection Fund will increase from $3,307,500 in 2013 to $3,435,000 in 2014, an increase $127,500 or 3.9%. • Contractual Services represent 100% of the Fire Protection Fund's budget, and include the contracts with the City of Ithaca and the Village of Cayuga Heights that provide the fire protection services for the Town. - City of Ithaca - Fire protection services are budgeted to increase $125,000 or 4.0%, from $3,100,000 in 2013 to $3,225,000 in 2014. - Village of Cayuga Heights - Fire protection services are budgeted to increase $7,500 or 4.2%, from $177,500 in 2013 to $185,000 in 2014. - New York State 2% Fire Insurance Tax - Budgeted for$20,000 in 2014. As the Town does not have its own fire department, fire insurance tax received from the state is redirected to the City of Ithaca and Village of Cayuga Heights on a 50/50 basis. • The 2014 Property Tax Levy for the Fire Protection Fund is budgeted at$3,500,000, an increase of $34,500 or 1.0% from the prior year. The estimated Property Tax Rate for the 2014 Tax Year is $3.536 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. This is a decrease of 1.8% from the 2013 Property Tax Rate of$3.602 per$1,000 of assessed valuation. SF-1