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
•