Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CC-1981-10-22COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK Special Meeting 4:30 P.M. October 22, 1981 PRESENT: Mayor - Bordoni Aldermen (9) - Banfield, Boothroyd, Dennis, Gutenberger, Holman, Nichols, Saccucci, Schuler, Slattery ABSENT: Aran (1) - Boronkay (Excused) OTHERS PRESENT: City Controller - Spano Dep. City Controller - Cafferillo Personnel Administrator - Collins Purchasing Agent - Clynes Fire Chief - Tuckerman City Engineer - Cox Dir. Planning $ Development - Van Cort City Attorney - Shapiro Police Chief - Herson Supt. of Public Works - Kinsella City Clerk - Rundle PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Bordoni le all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. 341 MINUTES: By Al erman Boothroyd: Seconded by Alderman Slattery RESOLVED, That the Minutes of the October 7, 1981 meeting be approved as recorded by the Clerk. Carried Unanimously RECOGNITION OF CANDIDATES: Mayor Bordoni reqognizeT the following candidates who were present; L. Morgan Rep. aldermanic candidate 5th Ward 11. Shaw Rep. Mayoral candidate W. Meyers Dem. aldermanic candidate 2nd Ward D. Slattery Dem. candidate for Tomp. Co. Bd. of Rep. 1st Dist. E. Nichols Dem. candidate for Tomp. Co. Bd. of Rep. 4th Dist. R. Saccucci Rep. aldermanic candidate 1st Ward J. Gutenberger Dem. Mayoral candidate SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: igna ization Status" of Rail Crossing in the West End City Engineer oxaddressed the Council, giving the background, from 1975 on, of the city's efforts at trying to persuade Conrail or NYSDoT to fix the rail crossings at West State, West Seneca and West Buffalo Streets near Fulton Street. As a result, in 1980 Conrail did fix the three rail crossings under contract with NYSDoT. At the same time the City, under a similar contract, provided for detours, necessary traffic control, etc. The money was Federal Aid Highways Projects funds. One condition for the work was that the signal system be modernized., basically replaced. Mr. Cox reported that he, Mayor Bordoni and Supt. Kinsella, on September 30, 1981, met with the Railway Safety Division of NYSDoT. • In discussions concerning the new signal system, and the necessity of stopping all trains in the West End (time estimated to stop and clear the crossing- -10 -15 minutes which is double our present problem), this was unacceptable to the City. The NYSDoT asked that the City write them, telling them we are basically happy with the signal system as is and ask to be relieved from this prior commitment. The other idea discussed was means of radio communication directly with the trains which they didn't think was a good idea. An alterna- time was to try to establish indirect communication with the train. The City wrote to Consolidated Rail Division Superintendent, pointing out the problems, and asked about a way, through the County Disaster Coordinator, of communicating with the train. They replied, saying that an emergency vehicle could radio to the central dispatch point, the dispatcher could call Conrail's train dispatcher's office in 342 -2- October 22, 1981 Hornell, notify them an emergency vehicle had to cross the tracks, they could radio and stop the train. This sounding like a good idea, City Engineer Cox made the following recommendations: 1) Turn the letter from Consolidated Rail Division Superintendent over to the Tompkins County Fire and Disaster Coordinator, and ask that they open this line of communication with Conrail and implement this particular system; • 2) Authorize the Department of Public Works to request the NYSDoT to leave the signal system alone, at least for the time being. Discussion followed on the floor. Resolution y erman Nichols; Seconded by Alderman Slattery RESOLVED, That the recommendations be referred to the Planning and Development Committee for review and report back to Council. Carried Unanimously Mayor Bordoni requested City Engineer Cox to send a copy of the recommendations to J. Miller, the Tompkins County Fire and Disaster Coordinator. RECOGNITION OF CANDIDATES: Mayor Bor oni recognize the following additional candidates: R. Schlather Dem. aldermanic candidate 1st Ward ' D. Hoffman Dem. aldermanic candidate 5th Ward SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: Mao 'o5e Executive Budget •. Mayor Sordoni ma e t e ollowing comments relative to the presenta- tion of the MayoTl,s Proposed 1982 City Budget; "You Council members have before you a step -by -step procedure list, explaining the process that will have to be followed as required by the Administrative Code. I urge each and every one of you to put aside partisan politics, try to remove from your thoughts the influence of the election season, and apply your most conscientious efforts to accepting this budget in the 'spirit' that it is submitted. To expand a bit on the word 'spirit,' keep in mind the tax increases that the City has had to live with for 1980 and 1981. The 1980 actual city tax increase was only 8% until the county reassess- ment process boosted that figure to approximately 180. There were also other causes. First, we increased the amount of appropriations from the General Fund to help pay for the Police and Firemen's Retirement Funds to avoid the dependency on Revenue Sharing funds. Second, our Contingency Fund account for 1980 built in $80,000 more than in 1979. Third, the 312 Housing Improvement Program was in effect in 1980, and not in 1979. Third, the commencement of the payments for the notes on the following projects: the Downtown Peripheral Streets, the Cass Park Lights, the Dasher Boards for Cass Park, the Parking Ramp, the Parkin I.ot E Improvements and the Fall Creek Plan of Action to prevent futur� flooding problems for the Fall Creek residents. Also, our revenues for 1979 were approximately $522,000, whereas in 1980 the revenues were approximately $145,000, or resulting in $377,000 more revenues in 1979 than in 1980. What must also be included is the rate of inflation and other escalatin factors. Also, remember that the first budget that I, as your Mayor, offered was for the year 1981. The 1981 budget was carefully worked out by practically all the Council members working jointly in the early stages, and in the end by the full -3- October 22, 198f343 Council. As you all know, many hours of reviewing, questioning, e- valuating and adjusting were spent with-the--most -serious effort possible. Again, in 1981 this was done by all of you, including myself. Asking you to reflect back to the 1981 budget, I will remind you that it was a bare bones budget, simply but realistically arrived at, to reflect the need to place the tax rate in its proper perspective relative to the financial condition of the times and reflecting on the ever increasing cost of running our city. Again, I will remind you that just like the industrial sector, the educational institutions, • the retail - wholesale business and commercial areas, as well as the experiences we all have as home owners, many factors are involved. The escalating costs of salaries, fringe benefits, materials, supplies, equipment, utilities and the ever - increasing interest rates on borrowing money are readily apparent to all of us regardless of the fact whether we be elected officials or citizens of the city. Considering the main sources of our revenues, the Real Property Tax, the New York State Sales Tax, the State Aid per Capita and the Federal Revenue Sharing Funds: i� The New York State Sales Tax depends on the economy. With high J interest costs major purchases decline, but fortunately and because of a positive attitude on the part of the business community and the yfaith in the City, our sales taxes have proportionately increased over the last few years. I ask you to compare our sales tax picture with other cities throughout New York State. I also ask you to think about our Commons; there are no empty store fronts and the second, third and fourth floors of the business district are more fully utilized today than ever before. Compare that with other cities. I also ask you to consider that for the first time in 10 -12 years- - it's been so long I can't remember the exact number of years - -we now ,• have a development in our last 'Urban Renewal hole.' Compare the Urban Renewal holes that are very apparent in dozens of cities through- out the industrial Northeast. Think about it. We-have no Urban Renewal holes. Center Ithaca is a project that, when it is completed, will provide up to 300 full -time jobs. It will pay back to the city money that was given to the city as a grant, ladies and gentlemen. 'Grant' means money given to the city by the federal government; money we do not have to pay back to the federal government, money in the amount of $1.7 million of which we, the City of Ithaca, keep $250,000 for our own city improvements; money in the amount of $1.45 million we the City loan to the developers and they will pay back to the city in excess of $3 million over the terms of the loan. These payback monies will be placed into special accounts and will be reloaned to the community's business and industrial sector, as well as used for neighborhood improvement loans. It will be a loan fund that will continue to improve our community. The property tax that this project will pay to the City of Ithaca will be approximately $37,000 in the first year and up to $75,000 by the end of ten years. And finally, but not least, it is estimated that the project, when in its normal operation, will pay in sales taxes to the Ithaca area $200,000 to $300,000 per year, of which the City of Ithaca will receive $100,000 to $150,000 per year. It is also important for everyone to remember that in preparing the • 1981 budget for the City of Ithaca our State Aid per Capita was reduced by approximately $160,000. This added more than 50¢ per every $1,000 on the tax rate for 1981. The loss of State Aid per Capita was not expected to be so drastic. Again I will remind you tae suffered an even greater loss in our Federal Revenue Sharing Funds, to approximately $200,000 less for the 1981 budget year. This amounts to about 664 per every $1,000 on the tax rate for 1981. In addition to these very great revenue losses that totaled $360,000 for the year 1981 we minimized our capital expenditures and programs. 344 -4- October 22, 1981 The one project we approved and had to pay for out of the General Fund, with no outside funding available, is the handicap Access to City Hall which is estimated to cost approximately $60,000. This was and is a state -,and federal- mandated project. It did add approxi- mately 21¢ per every $1,000 to the tax rate. I, for one, and I know I speak for most of the Council members, am proud of the fact that we have begun the process to allow our handicapped citizens to have the same privilege the rest of the citizens of the City of Ithaca have, and that is the ability to participate in the process of city govern- ment operation, it's long overdue, and we certainly all welcome it. Having covered the basic factors involved in the 1980 and 1981 budget you have before you my recommendations as the Mayor, my proposed budge with a '0' (Zero) tax increase. The first question everyone might ask is, 'how is this possible ?' First, I assumed the role of Mayor knowing very well the responsibili- ties involved in running the city. I could have reflected on the economic conditions of the world, the United States and the City of Ithaca. As many people have said, 'the way the economic conditions are going to be and were in late 1979, I wouldn't take the job for twice the salary.' Again, I assumed the position because of my four (4) years of service as a councilman and my experiences in doing the types of things that I always felt were in response to the needs of the city and its citizens. And here is where the distinctions are made. Here is the point in which we can place all people. Basically, in my opinion there are two types of people- -the 'givers' and the 'takers.' I place myself and this council and many of the good citizens of the city in the category of the 'givers.' The givers are people that are dedicated to serve the people by working very conscientiously in a dedicated manner to do what is best for the majority of the citizens and the best possible operation of the city. Therefore, in accordance with the Administrative Code and the Charter of the City of Ithaca, the proposed budget for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 1982 is herewith submitted for your consideration. The Annual Budget is the • means used to present in financial terms the comprehensive plan for accomplishing municipal objectives during the coming year, The budget document is the most important single instrument prepared by municipal government during the year. Its preparation, adoption and administration reflects sound business practices in projecting community needs and desires, and relating those needs to the financial resources available. This budget includes an estimate of the anticipated revenues and necessary expenditures for the various operating departments of the city, as well as the annual debt service requirements for retiring outstanding bonds of the city. Appropria- tions for all operating funds for the year 1982 total $14,049,901, an increase of $574,121 over the 1981 adopted budget. A brief analysis by funds is presented as follows: `General Fund Budget In the General Fund Budget, which is supported primarily by real property taxes, 1982 appropriations.are estimated to be $11.682,328. n increase over 1981 es This represents atimates of $366,279, or approximately 3.2%. The most significant items giving rise to this increase are 1982 negotiated salary increases and the overall effects• of inflation on the costs of providing city services. Estimated revenues, other than real property taxes, indicates a $23,159 overall reduction from 1981. Approximately $440,000 of new revenue has been budgeted for 1982 in such areas as sales tax, bus operations, interest earnings, fire protection and utilities gross receipts tax. The 1981 estimated revenues included one time items not recurring in 1982. Of those items, Federal Aid for Cherry Street in the amount of $329,490 and completed capital projects of $93,000 are the largest. Appropriated Cash Surplus The Finance Department is pleased to disclose that when aided by higher than expected sales tax revenues, increased interest earnings and -5- October 22, 19 0 45 various other unanticipated revenues, we can project an available cash surplus of approximately $725,000. Of that amount, I am proposing to appropriate $412,464 toward the reduction of 1982 real property taxes. Additionally, $354,000, the city's entire expected share of the 1981 Special State Aid Package announced in July of this year, is also being allocated to the reduction of 1982 taxes. Proiected 1982 Tax Rate • In summary, by appropriating the available cash surplus of $412,464 and the special state aid of $354,000, coupled with a sincere attempt to hold the line on budgeted appropriations, I am therefore pleased to recommend a 1982 tax rate of $12.50 which represents no increase over 1981. Revenue Sharing Fund The balance in the Revenue Sharing Fund at December 31, 1981 is estimated to be $452,000. I am proposing to use $417,350 for the 1982 budget, leaving a balance of $34,650. . The items to be funded are as follows: R.S.V.P. $ 1,000 Gadabout 5,350 Police and Fire Retirement 200,000 Capital Projects 211,000 417,350 In 1981, $321,621 of Revenue Sharing Funds was allocated to pay Police and Fire Retirement. We are continuing our efforts to reduce the General Fund's dependence on revenue sharing for operating purposes in view of the questionable availability of these funds after 1983. • During 1982 the city expects to receive $358,387 from the federal government. With prudent investing, the Finance Department anticipates interest earnings of $45,000. `Water and Sewer Fund Budget The 1982 appropriations of the Water and Sewer Fund reflects an increase of $124,588 over 1981, or 7.10. The most significant items giving rise to this increase are 1982 negotiated salary increases and the overall effect of inflation on the costs of providing water and sewer service. These funds are financed solely through water and sewer rents and are completely self - supporting. Commons Assessment Fund Budget The 1982 appropriations of the Com-ions Assessment Fund in the amount of $651575 is for the payment of principal and interest on the outstanding bonds. During 1982 $83,948 will be received by the city from payments assessed against the benefited property owners, The balance of $18,373 is due the General Fund as repayment of advances previously made. Constitutional Debt Limit • Bonded indebtedness, for which the full faith and credit of the city is pledged, will aggregate $7,105,428 as of December 31, 1981. The total indebtedness after considering excludable water bonds of $141,000 represents 45.47% of the city's debt contracting power. The city continues to enjoy an excellent Double A rating which we have carried for the past several years. Capital Program The Capital Improvement Review Committee was given a list of fourteen project's for consideration for financing during 1982. These projects were reviewed and subsequently two were given a high priority. These projects chosen were the West Clinton and Meadow Street Improvements for $107,000 and South Aurora Street Widening for $104,000. 346 -6- October 22, 1981 I propose that these projects be financed using Federal Revenue Sharing Funds. There is much more to be said and I'm sure once you've all had a chance to review this, 'The Mayor's Budget Recommendations,' I'm sure that there will be questions; however, to bring this presentation to a close and to reflect on the spirit or the real intention of this budget, I ask you all to consider my recommendations. I have spent many hours on this budget. The City Controller, Mr. Spano, has been an invaluable help in guiding and advising me on many of the very complicated budget questions. Many of the decisions made were diffic• The decisions do however allow us to maintain the level of services that we've offered in the past. And the decisions made will still maintain the quality of life we have come to expect and enjoy. Keep in mind our past city operations have made Ithaca the wonderful city that it is. We have the lowest unemployment rate in the state. We have the distinction of being 1 of only 5 cities in New York with a population growth. We have a number of vital commercial districts. We have improved neighborhoods. We have increased sales taxes and much more, all resulting in positive growth. It's a better- than -a- good city; let's keep it that way. With your help it can be done. The decision is in the hands of this Council. Thank you, Ray Bordoni" Resolution By Alderman Slattery: Seconded by Alderman Nichols RESOLVED, That the Mayor's Budget for 1982 as presented be accepted by the Council as a Whole, and be referred to the Budget and Admini- stration Committee for review. Carried Unanimously ADJOURNMENT: On a motion the meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m. J seVh A. Rundle, City Cle m • Raymond Bordoni, Mayor •