HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-B&A-2001-01-31 BUDGET AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE JANUARY 31,2001
G.DPW/Engineering
1 . Request to Amend Capital Project for Linn Street Bridge
Replacement - Discussion/Possible Resolution
H. Reports
1 . Approval of minutes from Budget Meetings of 10/10, 10/12,
10/16, and 10/19/2000 .
2 . Mayor' s Report
3 . B & A Sub-committee Reports
4 . Next Month' s Meeting: February 28, 2001
CITY OF ITHACA--UNRESTRICTED/RESTRICTED CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT SUMMARY 2001
A1990
UNRESTRICTED
CONTINGENCY
BALANCE UNRESTRICTED CONTINGENCY 1/31/01 $50.000.00
RESTRICTED
CONTINGENCY
Work Environment Task Force Funds _ Council $35,000.00
Downtown Marketing Study Council $10,000.00
Youth Recreation Partnership Facility Study Council $15,000.00
Contractual Salary Increases Council $50,000.00
Funds from 2000 Contingency balance Council $10,025.00
Council $0.00
Council $0.00
Council $0.00
BALANCE RESTRICTED CONTINGENCY 1/31/01 1120.025.00
BALANCE UNRESTRICTED/RESTRICTED CONTINGENCY 1/31/01 $170.025.00
February COUNCIL PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS:
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
---- - - -- $0.00
--- - - $0.00
$0.00
- _ ---- $0.00
0.00
0.00
Balance Unrestricted Contingency after Feb Proposed Resolutions 00 00
CITY OF ITHACA-UNRESTRICTED/RESTRICTED CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT ACTIVITY 2001-1/31/01
-- - -- -- --- -------- -- - ------ - --
COUNCIL TYPE OF CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT
MONTH AMOUNT CONTINGENCY_ TITLE DESCRIPTION TRANSFERRED TO
Jan-01 $16,000.00 RESTRICTED Prior Year To fund Executive Unit Compensation Study A1430-5435
$50,000.00 UNRESTRICTED To fund outside litigation fees A1420-5435
Feb-01
Mar-01 $0.00 RESTRICTED
$0.00 RESTRICTED r
Apr-01 $0.00_ _UNRESTRICTED
$0.00 RESTRICTED Council _
$0.00 UNRESTRICTED
$0.00 UNRESTRICTED _
$0.00 UNRESTRICTED _
$0.00 UNRESTRICTED
$0.00 UNRESTRICTED _
$0.00 UNRESTRICTED
$0.00 UNRESTRICTED
$0.00 UNRESTRICTED
$0.00 RESTRICTED Council
May-01 $0.00 UNRESTRICTED _
Jun-01 __$0.00 UNRESTRICTED _
$0.00 RESTRICTED Council
_ $0.00 UNRESTRICTED
$0.00 UNRESTRICTED
Jul-01 $0.00 UNRESTRICTED
$0.00 UNRESTRICTED
Aug-01 $0.00 UNRESTRICTED
$0.00 UNRESTRICTED
$0.00 UNRESTRICTED
$0.00 UNRESTRICTED
$0.00 RESTRICTED
$0.00 RESTRICTED
i
Sep-61 $0.00 UNRESTRICTED Council
$0.00 UNRESTRICTED
Oct-01 $0.00 RESTRICTED Council
$0.00 RESTRICTED Council
$0.00 UNRESTRICTED
Nov-01 $0.00 UNRESTRICTED
$0.00 UNRESTRICTED
Dec-01 $0.00 UNRESTRICTED
$0.00 UNRESTRICTED
$0.00 UNRESTRICTED
=L09m
SUMMARY AMOUNT
UNRESTRICTED CONTINGENCY $50,000.00
RESTRICTED CONTINGENCY 16 000.00
TOTAL
Amendment to Personnel Roster — DPW - Water and Sewer
WHEREAS, current staff levels are not adequate to permit existing and
future sewer infrastructure project requirements, and
WHEREAS, staff salaries and benefits for an environmental engineer
position shall be funded through capital project authorizations; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby adds a contingent permanent
position of Environmental Engineer to the Water and Sewer Division Roster
for the period of planning and construction of sewer infrastructure projects,
and be it further
RESOLVED, That the continuation of this position shall be contingent upon
the existence of sewer infrastructure capital project funding.
Retired City Employees — Prescription Drug Co-Pay
WHEREAS, on December 6, 2000, Common Council enacted a resolution
which postponed the effective date of the implementation of the increase in
prescription drug co-payments for retired City employees who participate in
our Health Insurance Program, and
WHEREAS, the Human Resources Committee reviewed information
provided by retirees, and data developed by City staff relating to the
Prescription Drug Program; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That, effective March 1 , 2001, the Prescription Drug co-
payment for City retirees be hereby adjusted to $2 for generic drugs and $5
for name brand drugs, and increase the maximum allowable prescription
which may be filled to a 90 day supply, and be it further
RESOLVED, That this co-payment is not reimbursable through any section
of the Health Insurance Program.
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
333 EAST WASHINGTON STREET
SYRACUSE, N.Y. 13202
JON P. EDINGER,P.E. JOSEPH H. BOARDMAN
REGIONAL DIRECTOR COMMISSIONER
January 24, 2001
Mr. William J. Gray, P.E.
Superintendent of Public Works
City of Ithaca
108 East Green Street
Ithaca,New York 14850
Dear Mr. Gray:
RE: PIN 375236, BIN 2210560, D011569
LINN STREET BRIDGE OVER
CASCADILLA CREEK
CITY OF ITHACA, TOMPKINS COUNTY
We have reviewed and approved the award documents submitted for the subject project and
concur with the selection of FMV Contracting, Inc., with a bid of$843,167.60, as your
construction contractor.
You are now authorized to proceed with the construction phase of your project. If you have
any questions, please contact George Doucette at(315)428-4409.
Very truly yours,
N-:U
.ALBERTETTER, P.E.
Regional Planning and Program Manager
01/22/2001 03:13 6072723017 WOMENS COMM BLDG PAGE 02/02
Patricia Vaughan
From: "Stuart Stein"<s"80comell.edu>
To: "Pat Vaughan" <pvaughan@lightlink.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 8:50 PM
Subject: Room tax resolution
Hi Pat,
Thanks for offering to have the city pass a resolution of support for
increasing the room tax.
It will be helpful for our representatives at the state legislature to have
such a resolution. As you suggested, I have drafted a resolution for you.
It's in the form that we use at the County Board. If the City Council uses
a different form, please make the necessary changes.
I am leaving town for about two weeks, so won't be able to answer an
further questions about this. If you need to check anything out about the
room tax, call Barbara Blanchard. I call you when I get back.
Stu
WI1EREAS, the Tompkins County Board of Representatives on January 16,2001
approved a Home Rule Resolution requesting that the State Legislature
increase the current limit pertaining to the levy of a room tax from three
to five percent, and
WHEREAS, the County plans to use the income raised from this increase for
economic development purposes pertaining to the development of cultural
tourism for the entire county, including the City of Ithaca, and
WHEREAS, such efforts to develop the tourism sector of the economy can be
of considerable benefit to the businesses and residents of the City of
Ithaca, now therefore be it
RESOLVED that the Common Council of the City of Ithaca strongly supports
the County Board of Representative's Home Rule Resolution, and urges our
State Assemblyman and State Senator to support the County's request to
increase the current limit from three to five percent for the County Room
Tax, and be it further
RESOLVED that this resolution be sent to Assemblyman Luster and Senator
Seward.
01/22/01 MON 15:12 [TX/RX NO 59821 11002
INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROPOSED INCREASE OF THE ROOM TAX FOR
CULTURAL TOURISM,THE ARTS AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENTS
(Prepared by Stuart W.Stein. January 8,2001)
1. Summary of the Proposal
The proposal would increase the current room tax from 3% to 5%. This increase would paid by visitors
who stay in overnight transient accommodations in hotels and inns in Tompkins County, unless they are
here for activities that qualify as tax-exempt. It is proposed that the increase not apply to the 54 bed and
breakfast establishments of less than 10 rooms, as listed in the directory established by the Convention
and Visitors Bureau.
2.Rationale for the Increase
Economic development has been a primary goal for county government in recent years. An economic
development program is broad-based, and includes tourism as but one of many components. Tourism,
itself,is broad-based and includes many types of special activities aimed at bringing people to the county
to spend their money here. Visitors are attracted here for many reasons, and spend their money in many
ways. Some just pass through making a brief stop, some come for a specific event and then go home,and
some stay overnight or for a longer period of time. Tourism programs aim at attracting all of those
potential types of customers; tourism programs are not limited solely to bringing people to the county to
stay at hotels or inns,as important as that may be.
The county funded the preparation of a detailed economic strategy plan which was prepared by Tompkins
County Area Development (TCAD). This plan is the county's guide to decision-making related to all
aspects of economic development. Several important points are made in that strategy document and
summarized here:
A. There is a difference between tourists and non-tourists who visit the county. Non-tourists
(who come for business,to visit family and friends,etc.)may be encouraged to stay for extra days
or return to become tourists if they have a high-quality experience. The county,therefore,has an
interest in improving the resources and access to those resources that are tourist attractions.
B. The economic development objectives for improving the tourism sector are identified as: 1)
improving the experience of tourists, personal and business visitors; and 2) strategically
expanding the tourism sector by developing weekday, shoulder and off-season visitation to
support tourism oriented businesses.
C. Tourism helps promote the arts, heritage and culture that contribute to the region's image, to
the community's self-perception,and to its quality of life. These are all in the public interest.
Looking at economic development more broadly, TCAD, the Chamber of Commerce and other local
organizations that are charged with attracting new businesses and industries to Tompkins County must
sell the community as a good place to live, as well as to do business. We must show prospective
businesses that we have a good quality of life for its employees and owners. That includes many things
such as education, low crime rates, good housing and neighborhoods,etc. Quality of life also includes
opportunities to partake in activities for recreation, culture and the arts. A study prepared for the U.S.
Congress entitled "Central City Business - Plans and Problems" identified cultural attractions as one of
the seven most important variables influencing businesses in their relocation and/or expansion decisions.
Studies of our tourism program have consistently pointed to several problems and several opportunities.
Fortunately, the county's potential tourism assets mesh very well with our larger community goals. The
three areas that almost always are identified as opportunities are: eco-tourism (focussing on our natural
1
resources such as the parks, trails, waterfalls, nature centers, etc. ); edu-tourism (focussing on our
educational institutions such as elder-hostels, alumni programs, high-school and college off-year
programs, etc.): and cultural tourism (focussing on the arts, theatre, historic resources, museums, etc.).
There is also growing interest in developing alternative-food and natural-healing-related tourism.
Interestingly, each of these specific areas of tourism offers the opportunity to attract visitors during the
shoulder and winter seasons,if they are developed and marketed appropriately.
It is generally agreed that we are not now tapping our full potential in these special areas of tourism. An
expanded vision is needed to look ahead and embark on an effort to develop our special assets. To say
that tourists are not coming today for cultural attractions misses the point. This is a building process that
takes time to reach a goal where the county eventually will be seen as a special place to visit and to stay
for awhile. It has been pointed out many times that we do not have a single major attraction for tourists
(such as Cooperstown, Corning, Chautauqua, Niagara-on-the-Lake, or Lake Placid). The Davidson-
Peterson Associates study of tourism done for this county states that: "there is no single overriding focus
point for a leisure trip to Tompkins County - no single compelling reason to visit." To deal with this
problem, we need to develop clear reasons for visitors to come here other than for business, to visit
families or to take their children to Cornell or Ithaca College. We need to develop our special tourism
markets(those noted above), and do what industry does-develop an identity or"brand"of tourism.
3. Proposed Distribution of Additional Revenue from the Room Tax (see attachment 1)
Attached is a memo outlining how the approximately$400,000 generated by the increase would be used,
what group would be responsible for analyzing needs, recommending expenditures and providing
oversight functions. In all cases, since these would be public funds, all final decisions for their
expenditure will rest with the County Board of Representatives. This distribution proposal was put
together by an ad hoc committee (at the request of Stuart Stein) including individuals experienced in
business and economic development,tourism,the arts and local history.
4. Room Tax in Other Counties in New York State and Elsewhere(see attachment 2)
Many counties in NY State currently have a room tax. The range of tax rates in NY counties varies from
2% to 6%, as shown in the attachment. In upstate NY,Monroe/Rochester increased its room tax to 6%in
2000. Erie/Buffalo and Onondaga/Syracuse are at 5%. Chemung, Saratoga and Niagara Falls are at 4%.
Tioga, Seneca, Cayuga and Cortland are at 3%.
Elsewhere in the country there is a broad range of room taxes. The "Total Average" room tax listed on
the attachment is 6%,there are tax levels as high as 13 or 14%.
5. Groups Supporting and Opposing this Proposal(see attachment 3)
To date, support for the proposal has been expressed by formal resolution by the following organizations:
The Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors
The Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce County Affairs Committee
The TCAD(Tompkins County Area Development)Board of Directors
The Ithaca Downtown Partnership Board of Directors
The Community Arts Partnership Board of Directors
To date,opposition has been expressed by formal resolution by the following organizations:
The Greater Ithaca Innkeepers Association
The Bed and Breakfast(Association)of Greater Ithaca
2
The Tompkins County Strategic Tourism Planning Board has the proposal under consideration and will
be acting on it at its meeting of January 10,2001.
6.Arguments That Have Been Raised Against the Room Tax Increase
During the past three months, there have been discussions with groups and individuals primarily involved
with economic development,with the cultural activities,and with tourism. Following is a list of the most
often voiced arguments,with information pertaining to them:
A. Increasing the room tax will severely harm the business of existing hotels, motels,
inns and bed and breakfast establishments.
The argument states that increasing the tax by 2%will cause fewer people to stay at local
establishments. The increase will make local establishments less competitive, and
potential customers will go to other counties, or they will not come here at all. A
research document from the Cornell Hotel School library claims that customers are fully
aware of the room tax and do not differentiate between the basic cost of the room and the
tax,but see it as a total cost when they make a decision to book a room. Each increase of
1% in cost (basic rate plus tax)will bring about a loss of 0.44% of occupancy. It is not
known what the source of this data was, i.e. what cities or what geographic regions were
included,or whether the data would pertain to Tompkins County.
To evaluate this claim, several directors of convention and visitors bureaus in other New
York communities were contacted by telephone. In addition, many individual travelers
living here were asked if the 2% would make a difference to them when they traveled
elsewhere.The results of this informal survey has put into question the claim made by the
Cornell research document. Saratoga Springs has had a 4% room tax since 1991. The
CVB director in Saratoga states that it is "unequivocally not true" that there was an
impact from the tax on hotel/motel occupancy in his community. Moreover, he states
that he detected no resistance by visitors to the room tax,because customers look only at
the basic rate, and they know they have to pay a room tax wherever they go.
(Incidentally,half of the room tax that is collected in Saratoga goes into the general fund
of the county and city).
Monroe County-Rochester this year increased its room tax from 4% to 6%. The
increased funds will be used for several things including the financing of a soccer
stadium. In addition, a share of the increase will be used "to make some impact
investment in the community, particularly in the areas of image and economic
development. And, really, those two things are closely tied" according to the Assistant
County Executive, as reported in the Rochester Democratic Chronicle (Dec. 31, 2000 -
see article in appended items). The CVB reported that the local hotel and motel owners
support this increase in the room tax to 6%.
Essex County-Lake Placid implemented a room tax in January, 2000. It was reported by
the director of the Lake Placid Tourism Bureau that,prior to the start of the tax,there was
a fear that it would have a negative impact on hotel occupancy. After one full year of the
tax, it can now be shown that there has not been a negative impact. In fact, according to
the tourism director, occupancy has actually increased in some cases. Close to 90 % of
the lodging community supported the tax.
Many Tompkins County residents travel regularly as tourists. In private discussions with
these local travelers, there was nobody who said that a 2% increase would make a
difference in their decisions about where to stay. While nobody likes to pay the tax when
3
they travel, and, if asked, will say they don't want it, all recognized it as part of the cost;
a $2 increase on a$100 room would hardly cause them to go elsewhere.
A strong argument has been made against the room tax increase by the association of Bed
and Breakfast establishments. It is pointed out that many of these establishments are very
small and limited financially (figures show that the 54 B&B's in the county average
between 3 and 4 rooms in size, with the largest being 9 rooms). It is argued, further, that
the location of many of these B&B' s in the rural areas, particularly in the towns that are
adjacent to other counties (Ulysses, Groton and Dryden) would be put at a disadvantage
competitively with B&B's located nearby, but across the county line. Because of this, it
is being recommended that all B&B's be exempted from the room tax increase.
B. Increasing the room tax would be harmful to local businesses who bring people into
the county for training or for other reasons related to their businesses.
To evaluate this argument, and to determine to what extent the local business would find
this increase to be harmful, the director of TCAD was asked to survey local business to
get their perspective on the proposal. A memo summarizing his findings is appended
(see attachment 4). Fourteen businesses were contacted ranging in size from small to
large, and varying in type from durable goods manufacturing to high tech, including
biotech, software and information technology. All of the businesses contacted have
visitors that travel to Ithaca and stay in local hotels in order to visit the local businesses.
All of the businesses contacted responded that the 2% increase in room tax would have
no impact on their demand for overnight accommodations paid for by their businesses.
They gave the following reasons: 1) a 2% increase in cost is not a large enough amount
to impact this kind of decision; and 2) other costs associated with bringing someone to
Ithaca,particularly airfare,are much higher.
This survey made other points of some interest. Local businesses stated that, when they
send local employees out of town on business, they usually pay much more for overnight
accommodations in other cities. Also, interestingly, about half of the respondents raised
concerns about the value received here as it relates to the cost of local hotel
accommodations. They noted that local hotels seem overdue for renovation of individual
rooms, common areas and meeting space. They also noted the inconsistency of service
for meetings or conferences held at local hotels.
C. Cultural Activities Do Not Bring in Tourists, So the Room Tax Should Not Be
Increased to Enhance Cultural Resources.
Given the long-accepted concept among tourism professionals that cultural tourism is an
important part of any tourism program,this is a difficult argument to comprehend. Many
residents of this county go to Cooperstown each summer to attend the Glimmerglass
Opera. They stay in hotels and B&B's, eat at local restaurants and buy gas. Similarly,
thousands of visitors go to Niagara on the Lake, Stratford, Ont., Chautauqua, the
Corning Glass Museum and countless other places to visit their cultural attractions. It is
recognized by professionals as an important, albeit, not the only reason to visit a
community.
The argument may be posed that people do not NOW visit Tompkins County for cultural
attractions and the arts. That may be partially true, but as noted above,the strategy is to
build an identity in this sector. That takes vision, time and a concerted development
effort.
4
But there are, in fact, out of town visitors who currently attend local cultural events.
Many out of town visitors to cultural attractions do not stay overnight,and some come for
other purposes, but they participate in the cultural events while here. Some data about
these visitors is available, but limited, and the data is susceptible to various
interpretations. A survey of out of town purchasers of tickets to the local theatres is now
possible with the recent establishment of the on-line ticket center. That data will be
forthcoming shortly.
Another survey was done in July 2000 for the Partnership for Lifetime Learning. This is
a seven organization partnership of local cultural institutions: the Cayuga Nature Center,
Cornell Plantations, the Johnson Art Museum, PRI, The Sciencenter, Tompkins County
Museum, and the Tompkins County Public Library. This survey showed that 28% of the
combined July attendance was from out of state. In the case of the Johnson Art Museum,
it was found that 64% of the visitors were from out of state. Some may have been CAU
people attending summer sessions at Cornell, but the Plantations, presumably, would
have had just as many CAU people; it did not. 60% of the visitors to the Johnson
Museum were over fifty years old, so presumably they had more money to spend than
their younger counterparts.
D. If Money is to be Raised for Cultural Programs, It Should Not Be Done by Placing
the Sole Burden on the Inn-Keepers.
The local inn-keepers association has stated that it is not against supporting the arts, but
that funds should be taken from general tax sources (property tax, sales tax) rather than
room tax, since the arts serve the local residents and not the visitors. It is further
recommended that consideration should be given to levying a package of taxes for this
purpose, including a tax on restaurant meals and a tax on tickets to cultural events. Data
and other information was collected as a guide to any consideration of the inn-keepers
proposal. The number of ticket sales susceptible to a fee annually currently is being
estimated. However,if we assume that there are 50,000 tickets sold a year, and a$ 1 tax
is put on each ticket,the proceeds would be only$50,000. However a problem may exist
in doing this. All of the tickets are sold by cultural institutions that have non-profit status
and are, therefore, tax-exempt. This local situation is quite different, therefore, from
taxing a ticket to a Broadway show, or to a major league baseball game. It is not clear
whether a tax or fee can be levied legally.
As for taxing restaurant meals, the latest data (1997) shows that Food Services and
Drinking Places in Tompkins County generated a total of$86.76 million in total sales. If
we assume a 0.50% tax on these sales, approximately$400,000 would be generated(the
same amount as would be generated by a 2 % increase in the room tax). If this were
done, a $5 meal would cost an extra 2 1/2 cents; a$10 meal would cost an extra 5 cents;
a $30 meal would cost an extra 15 cents; and a $50 meal would cost an extra 25 cents.
There may be considerable administrative problems involved with collecting this tax, but
if the idea is acceptable to county board members, this suggestion can be explored.
E. Taxing Visitors is Unfair Because They Do Not Vote Here
This is the "taxation without representation" argument, seriously being put forth by some
people in the hotel industry. It is difficult to know how to respond to this. If this is,
indeed, a legitimate issue, then this county and all others would have to examine how
sales taxes and property taxes are applied. For example, if someone is travelling through
the county and stops to buy gas, should they be exempt from the local sales tax? And
5
should out-of-town property owners be exempt from the local property tax? These are
only two of many hundreds of examples. Also, if we do not levy a room tax on this basis,
should we demand of Congress that room taxes in other parts of the country be removed
because we don't vote there?
7. Steps in the Process to Enact the Room Tax Increase
Room taxes are enacted under so-called "home rule" legislation. This is essentially a three-step process.
The County must first request the increase from the NY State Legislature by passing a resolution. The
Legislature then enacts a law permitting the County to increase the room tax. (In this case, the legislature
would amend existing legislation.) The final step in the process comes back to the County which then
enacts a local law putting into effect the increase.This final step would be taken after a legally advertised
public hearing.
It is not possible to know how long this process will take, as it will depend upon action by the NY State
Legislature. It is likely to be late Spring or early Summer before there is a local law considered.by the
County Board of Representatives. However, it could be sooner if the State Legislature acts early in the
current session.
6
y € €
CULTURAL TOURISM,THE ARTS,AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENTS
The proposed 2 percent increase in the Tompkins County room tax rate from 3 to 5 percent
would be used for tourism and tourism-related activities including the cultural tourism,the arts,
beautification,and tourism infrastructure.The 3 percent room tax rate that is currently in effect
would continue to be used for tourism purposes,particularly marketing.
These additional funds would be dispersed in several ways to enhance a visitor's stay in the area.
In evaluating the strengths of our County,and in comparing it to others in the region,we
recognize that some of what makes us special exists on very shaky ground.These funds would
be a catalyst,gelling our position as an attractive Community to visit and to invest in. By defining
and strengthening our cultural resources and highlighting the county's natural beauty with
plantings and beautification projects throughout the city and towns,Tompkins County will stand
out far above other communities not only within the region but also within the state and nation.
Distribution of Increased Revenue—Summary
40%
s• sustain not-for-profit cultural organizations
By stabilizing these organizations,.they will be able to continue to grow their programs as well as
develop more collaborative efforts towards becoming a primary draw to our area for visitors, new
residents,and new businesses.
30%
•= Imps sIgnage
•: beautify our county with significant annual plantings
•: public art
These programs will create a tasting impression for visitors and help to create a visual unity for
the county.The majority of these funds would be used for beautification.We expect that the
costs for signage will diminish within a few years once most signs have been erected. However,
there will be some cost for maintenance.
25%
:• capital improvements
This would focus on major visitor-generating projects such as a new meeting Center,the State
Theater,and museums.
5%
:• enhance historical celebrations in the city,towns and villages.
2
Distribution—Details and Procedure
A) 40%for support of cultural organizations:
I. (80%)General operating support for 501(c)3 arts organizations the primary
mission of which is to present programs to the general public.The organizations
must:
1) Maintain professional standards of operation including paid,full-time,
professional executi%Wmanaging director
2)Operate,own or rent a designated facility(to include an office)
accessible to the general public
3) Not be registered with the NYS Board of Regents
Currently,such organizations include the Hangar Theatre,The IGtchen Theatre,the
Firehouse Theatre,the Cayuga Chamber Orchestra,and the Ithaca Ballet.
U. (20%)Program support for not-for-profit arts and cultural organizations that do
not fit the above guidelines.
Program support includes such areas as artistic salaries,exhibits, readings,event
faa7ity rental,publicity and marketing,etc.
All applicant arts organizations must demonstrate sound governance,administrative and financial
practices,show long-range program-planning,must have an articulated,executable marketing
and public relations plan in place for the coming program year,show a commitment to
collaborative cultural tourism efforts and Initiatives.All performing arts organizations must sell
their tickets through the Ticket Center at Clinton House.
The Community Arts Partnership would serve as administrator and grantor for these funds.
B. 300/a for Tourism Infrastructure:Beautification,Public/Outdoor Art,and
Signage Projects
These funds would be used for a program of planning, planting and maintaining plantings at
major sites throughout the county,and at entrances to the county and city in cooperation with
local governments.All county funds would be matched by local contributions.The Convention
and Visitor Bureau's Beautification Committee,which has representation from the Downtown
Visitors Bureau and other appropriate groups,would coordinate this work.The Beautification
Committee will also recommend possible sites and funding for public art.They will also continue
to coordinate the signage project and support road signs directing visitors and residents to tourist
sites, parks,shopping areas, museums,etc.The need for new signage should decrease over the
next few years, but maintenance costs will continue.
The Tompkins Co.Chamber of Commerce will administer and serve as grantor of these funds
-through the Convention and Visitors Bureau.
C. 25%for capital projects and related feasibility studies
These funds could be used for feasibility studies of potential capital projects, seed money or one-
time investments in unique capital projects,and ongoing debt funding of building projects.
A. l
3
Eligibility: large, tourist/visitor generating not-for-profit or public sector projects. Examples are
the proposed wine-center,the State Theater,and the proposed meeting center. PRI,the
Sciencenter,and the Dewitt Historical Society would be eligible for capital project funding.
Tompkins County Area Development(TCAD)would serve as administrator and grantor for these
funds.
D. 50/o for Celebrations
The County Historian would serve as administrator and grantor for these funds that would help
fund community celebrations
rs1 Al'YR SIIR.yyy -
CVB NAme ToW S 2000 2000 hl S 2000 ToW%Sales %of I.odtint Total Fat. N of FT Staff/ 1'Chis Rooms Chaste for Badlel
Budtel VT% Tat Paid By Tat Rec6t by 2000 LT$ Nemben PT Siff Rooens Commit SeMM7 Bre&kbown
Visitor Baeeau Cemartlaa SBIPI/OY/O
ALBANY $1,190,+42 568,103 3% ilei 33% $2.2 million 272 12(25 5,200 2,300 (lousing- S04854/Kt33Y.
CtorLionall OV 17%
BINGHAMTON S393,503 $64,303 34 l t% 30% 5650,000 1,200 Sb 2,70D 1,300 Nu SO 5045/A(41514
OV 3514/Free P--m
811FF.A.L0 S3 nullion 573,000 3% 13:14 30115 SS million TVA 2313 4,000 4,300 Nu SO 4M.;/A(454
t5pZI E OV 1544•
1771 ACA 5485,000 $68,103 )% 11% 33% S540,000 NIA 4(2 500 No SB 35%/M 3U%
OV 13%/0204
I.AKE PL.%CID S2.836,450 SI 11,500 3% 10% 95% 5900,000 362 17/2 2,000 2.000- No SO 264.1 M 601/6
OV 14'•14
LUNO ISS1..,VD S:6 mi 11w 1719.000 tru" i1i p 66% $1.7 million 400 12/2 9,800 No SO 36%1 61 524
N'k✓(;_AU J 10 t 170 O,' 105,1 0 2%
.VVC SII miluon 5.440,000 51iplus 13.21%p(ua 0 Y/,1 1,200 60/3 66,000 25,000 Nu SH W411141%
a1%
VI.per room S2 per room JV 1 Kt.' •S3
million is 1:md
'41.•1G.aRA FALLS $961,892 0 V4 11% 80% 5919,000 200 1310 1,900 3,900 No SB 36%1 AI 2D%
OV 44%
ONEID,% $470,30D $64,869 2!4 1054 1004; 5352,300 120 413 1,109 731 No SO 39!6'6l 33%
(7V 23%
ONT.-R10 5501,007 S69.Olo Ot5 70,4 0 0 0 4.3 300 1.000 No SO40'i.'!,1?5%
nV 355:
R(-,�NESTER S2 7 willion S73,469 -i40 13',fr e�. 50!4 lest 51,970,000 411 21/13 6,400 3,000 Housing- SO 19%:X(31%
0oIZO45 1p �o � YJ 5100,000 (keaaionall OV IO%.-*Y"
SARAT00,% S470,000 SJ8,0D0 4% 1145 50!5 $398,000 313 614 2,700 1.800 Yes- so 55%1 AI)ON
Housing OV 15:5
STtl1IIEN $44,719 568,303 304 11014 77% 5473,000 0 310 1,123 300 No S1130'../AI 52%
OV 17%1O 5%
Fre<Rem
SULLIV.VJ -2-
SYRACUSE
SYRACUSE SI.051.03 569,835 S% 12% F7 al S3.4 million 2,000 11/2 S,ODO 4,000 No SII 52%1 hl 42%
AEON Allocation Sub Cowsct OV 6!e
2800 I lousin
THOI1S.4.NO 5030300 S97,996 3% 10% 3055 S500,000 0 SIS 934 750 No SO 29%1 ht 53%
ISLANDS OV 7!t/O 11^'.
1VESTCIIESTFR 5654,750 566,491 3:4 115 101%: $4 million H/.A 3/0 4,300 3,500 No SO 44%/1.(41% +u"`
(1V 151i%in-kind
SIO,000
.Iroornc County CVB• A(arrh 2000
Sl1-S.lu6rs Q llerutlts,M-Markellnt.OV-0verheael,0-- her
CmtZ`Ct�rl-s�D ��o
-no e-A 7o e,-tTj a+cl �i1o�J
SCvtU`(L-ER 2 `lam C�`f t)c�oA �j`?� C° ,�v►JG �{' `
Of.G C U jak a n Tax Survey
CVB CVB Occupancy %given Dollar amount %of Budget Metro
Under S1Million Budget Tax CVB from tax from occ.Tax Population
Aberdeen,SD 285,000 1 66% 285,000 100.00% 35,000
Abilene,TX 660,000 7 50% 660,000 100.00% 125,000
Alachua County,FL 500,000 3 40% 500,000 100.00% 200,000
Athens,GA 421,000 7 31% 386,170 91.73% 147,700
Beckley,WV 750,000 3 50% 300,000 40.00% 96,000
Billings,MT 180,000 4 11% 150,000 83.33% 120,000
Brown County,IN 500,000 5 100% 500,000 100.00% 15,900
Brownsville,TX 700,000 7 65% 615,000 87.86% 150,000
Bryan-College,TX 765,000 7 45% 755,000 98.69% 140,000
Cedar-Rapids,IA 812,000 7 100% 700,000 86.21% 1,800,000
Charlottesville,VA 621,034 5 17% 326,029 52.50% 119,300
Columbia,MO 900,000 4 100% 1,200,000 133.33% 80,000
Columbus,OH 230,000 3 66% 200,000 86.96% 60,000
Edmond,OK 220,000 4 95% 190,000 86.36% 68,000
Fargo,ND 825,000 2 100% 775,000 93.94% 140,000
Fox Cities,WI 900,000 3 95% 930,000 103.33% 200,000
Grand Forks,NO, 438,000 . 3 66% 280,000 63.93% 100,000,
Granbury,TX 345,000 7 86% 220,000 63.77% 66,050
Hattiesburg,MS 550,000 2 100% 350,000 63.64% 110,000
Holland,MI 325,000 2 100% 310,000 95.38% 75,000
Iowa City,IA 365,000 7 24% 300,000 82.19% 90,000
Ithaca,NY 500,000 3 80% 412,000 82.40% 130,000
Jackson,IN 250,000 5 75% 250,000 100.00% 35,000
Juneau,AK 908,000 7 57% 548,500 60.41% 30,000
Kansas City,KS 250,000 6 75% 240,000 96.00% 140,000
LasCruces,NM 846,000 5 88% 830,000 98.11% 78,000
Manhattan,KS 614,000 5 70% 420,000 68.40% 50,000
Middletown,CT 750,000 1.5 14% 750,000 100.00% 300,000
Midland,TX 500,000 7 40% 500,000 100.00% 250,000
New Haven,CT 999,999 6 25% 999,999 100.00% 800,000
Portsmouth,VA 569,000 6.5 100% 569,000 100.00% 1,500,000
Prince George,MD 665,000 5 10% 390,000 58.65% 780,000
Roanoke,VA 840,000 6 29% 703,500 83.75% 240,000
Salisbury,Mf) 500,000 5 80% 500,000 100.00% 60,000
SanBernardino,CA 500,000 10 20% 400,000 80.00% 220,000
Santa Cruz,CA 865,000 10 8% 620,000 71.68% 2,500,000
Sheboygan,WI 250,000 6 90% 215,000 86.00% 51,000
State College,PA 800,000 1 100% 330,000 41.25% 132,000
Stillwater,OK 281,500 4 100% 230,000 81.71% 40,000
Tocoma,WA 850,000 4 18% 600,000 70.59% 650,000
Topeka,KS 676,000 5 52% 676,000 100.00% 165,000
Utica, NY 470,000 2 97% 352,000 74.89% 250,000
Wheeling,WV 265,000 3 50% 225,000 84.91% 150,000
CVB CVB Occupancy %given Dollar amount %of Budget Metro
Under S1-3 Million Budget Tax CVB from tax from occ.Tax Population
Amarillo,TX 1,468,000 15 20% 1,468,000 100.00% 200,000
Ann Arbor,MI 1,114,000 2 75% 1,114,000 100.00% 312,000
Arlington,VA 1,100,000 5.25 5% 750,000 68.18% 180,000
Asheville,NC 2,900,000 3 100% 2,900,000 100.00% 200,000
Augusta,GA 1,292,940 6 17% 930,000 71.93% 450,000
Buffalo,NY 3,000,000 5 50% 2,500,000 83.33% 1,000,000
Coastal Fairfield,CT 1,665,000 12 95% 1,665,000 100.00% 595,840
Dayton,OH 1,300,000 3 70% 1,300,000 100.00% 950,000
Doylestown, PA 1,800,000 2 97% 1,200,000 66.67% 600,000
Evansville, IN 1,066,000 5 60% 1,230,000 115.38% 168,000
Fairbanks,AK 1,700,000 8 65% 1,400,000 82.35% 80,000
Galena, IL 1,050,000 3 90% 607,000 57.81% 26,600
Grand Junction,CO 1,125,000 3 100% 680,000 60.44% 86,000
Jacksonville,FL 2,200,000 6 70% 2,200,000 100.00% 1,000,500
Knoxville,TN 1,627,000 5 40% 1,540,000 94.65% 585,960
Lake Placid,NY 2,800,000 3 95% 1,000,000 35.71% 40,000
Lansing,MI 2,600,000 4.5 88% 2,500,000 96.15% 500,000
Lexington,KY 2,900,000 5 60% 2,900,000 100.00% 350,000
Madison,WI 1,500,000 8 16% 800,000 53.33% 400,000
McAllen,TX 1,000,000 7 28% 665,000 66.50% 110,000
Montgomery,AL 1,200,000 6 33% 1,200,000 100.00% 300,000
Newport,RI 2,400,000 5 47% 1,950,000 81.25% 1,000,000
Niagara Falls,NY 1,200,000 4 80% 919,000 76.58% 50,000
Pensacola,FL 1,700,000 3 33% 1,200,000 70.59% 80,000
Peoria,IL 1,347,000 5.5 40% 650,000 48.26% 348,000
Piano,TX 1,000,000 7 43% 1,000,000 100.00% 210,000
Rochester,NY 2,500,000 4 50% 1,900,000 76.00% 1,100,000
Sacramento,CA 2,200,000 12 83% 2,000,000 90.91% 1,200,000
Saint Paul,MN 1,700,000 6 53% 1,250,000 73.53% 2,700,000
Santa Monica,CA 1,200,000 12 43% 1,004,800 83.73% 90,000
Southern Pines,NC 1,500,000 3 97% 1,100,000 73.33% 70,000
Springfield,IL 1,500,000 4 75% 1,000,000 66.67% 125,000
St.Charles,MO 1,200,000 6 16% 120,000 10.00% 65,000
West Chester,PA 1,600,000 2 96% 1,200,000 75.00% 475,000
Williamsburg,VA 1,900,000 5 100% 1,683,000 88.58% 60,000
York,PA 1,000,000 2 100% 700,000 70.00% 45,000
.zCVBA --2-
CVB
CVB Occupancy %given Dollar amount %of Budget Metro
Over$3 Million Budget Tax CVB from tax from occ.Tax Population
Albuquerque,NM 5,000,000 5 44% 3,200,000 64.00% 750,000
Anchorage,AK 6,300,000 8 50% 5,000,000 79.37% 265,000
Atlanta,GA 15,009,917 7 23% 9,000,000 59.96% 3,600,000
Chattanooga,TN 3,487,000 4 75% 2,130,000 61.08% 400,000
ColoradoSprings,CO 3,100,000 2 67% 2,500,000 80.65% 505,000
Columbus,OH 6,238,000 5.1 29% 4,118,000 66.01% 1,300,000
Covington,KY 3,200,000 4 100% 3,100,000 96.88% 1,300,000
Daytona Beach,FL 5,500,000 5 60% 5,200,000 94.55% 400,000
Denver,CO 7,000,000 14 13% 5,500,000 78.57% 2,200,000
Fort Myers,FL 6,500,000 3 54% 5,500,000 84.62% . 420,000
Gulfport,MS 4,000,000 3 66% 3,000,000 75.00% 400,000
Irving,TX 5,100,000 13 55% 5,100,000 100.00% 186,000
Kissimmee,FL 33,000,000 5 100% 22,000,000 66.67% 1,580,000
Long Beach,CA 4,200,000 12 33% 3,400,000 80.95% 550,000
Memphis,TN 4,700,000 5 40% 4,400,000 93.62% 1,000,000
Palm Beach,FL 7,000,000 4 53% 7,000,000 100.00% 1,000,000
Richmond,VA 3,276,896 8 12% 1,618,100 49.38% 800,000
San Antonio,TX 14,000,000 9 45% 14,000,000 100.00% 1,200,000
Snowmass Vill.,CO 6,500,000 4 100% 3,000,000 46.15% 1,800
South Padre,TX 4,100,000 13 57% 4,000,000 97.56% 2,000
Tunica,MS 3,100,000 3 100% 2,000,000 64.52% 9,000
Valley Forge,PA 3,600,000 2 100% 2,600,000 72.22% 709,000
Totals:
Average Under 1M 568,408 5 62% 481,237 84.93% 290,441
Average 1-3M 1,676,526 5 62% 1,339,606 78.80% 437,581
Average above 3M 6,995,992 6 58% 5,334,823 75.14% 844,445
Total Average 3,080,308 6 61% 2,385,222 79.6276 524,156
Canada:
Windsor,ON 2,040,000 0 0% 0.00% 358,000
Calgary,AB 3,700,000 5 0% 0.00% 890,000
Quebec,PQ 5,600,000 14.5 0% - 0.00% 700,000
Comments:
• Convention center opened in 1995 and budget has gradually increased each yr.
• Hattiesburg,MSConvention bureau is under contract to manage the new convention center,so it has a significant input on marketing,
but a fairly small increase in marketing budget.
• Knoxville,TNNew convention center is under construction.Looking to increase budget by S350,000 next year(2000/01)and an additional
SIO0,000+a year up to$2.5 million by 2005/06.
• Memphis,TNReceived a joint S1.8M between bureau and building that is not reflected in CVB budget,but is for three years of marketing.
• CVB's that have expanded centers and their budgets before,during,and after construction:
Before During After
Evansville,IN 850K 850K 1.066
St.Paul,MN IAM 1.6M 1.71VI
Covington,KY 2.OM 1.3M 3.2M
Gulfport,MS 2.OM 3.OM 3.5M
Long Beach,CA 2.2M extra 500,000 3.2M
A&TCAD
Business expansion, retention and attraction
RESOLUTION OF THE
TOMPKINS COUNTY AREA DEVELOPMENT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
The Board of Directors of Tompkins County Area Development resolved at their meeting
of December 7, 2000 to support in concept a proposal to increase the Tompkins County room tax
rate from 3% to 5%.
It is the Board's understanding that the increased revenues would be used to support arts
organizations and other tourism infrastructure, such as beautification and tourism-related capital
projects, that will enhance the experience of Tompkins County for tourists and business visitors.
Board of Directors, Tompkins County Area Development
Arthur W. Pearce, Chair
Dated: December 7, 2000
Tompkins County Area Development
200 East Buffalo Street,Suite 102A
Ithaca,New York 14850
(607)273-0005 0 fax:(607) 273-8964
Jean McPheeters,11/6/00 4:11 PM -0500,room tax 1
Status: U 4
From: Jean McPheeters <Jean@tccofc.org> / , . 3
To: "'sws8@cornell.edu'" (Stuart W Stein) <sws8@cornell.edu>
Subject: room tax
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 16:11:49 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Stu: THe County Affairs committee gave its unanimous support to a room tax
increase to support the arts. We'll be bringing this forward to the full
board on Nov. 29.
THanks again for all your work on this.
Jean
Printed for Stuart Stein <sws8@corne11.edu> 1
A•3
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
Regarding
TOMV PKINS COUNTY ROOM TAX INCREASE
November 14, 2000
The Board of Directors of the Ithaca Downtown Partnership hereby endorses the following concepts
concerning the proposed initiative to increase the Tompkins County room tax and redistribute these
proceeds to arts related activities:
(l) Increasing tourism in Tompkins County, and particularly downtown, is an important part of the
Downtown Ten-Year Development Strategy. The Ithaca Downtown Partnership supports efforts
that will enhance the development of new tourist attractions and improve marketing to attract
more visitors to the County and downtown.
(2) The Board supports the concept of increasing the room tax from 3%to up to 5%. Such an
increase in the County room tax should not, on its own, be an impediment to increased tourism
and visitation.
(3) Use of the new revenue from an increased room tax to provide assistance to arts and culture
related tourism makes sense and is provisionally supported. Final Board support for using funds
for arts and culture tourism will be dependent on the preparation of a more detailed plan that will
outline project and program priorities. We would also expect this plan to be compatible with the
Downtown Ten-Year Development Strategy.
(4) Recognizing that these funds could and should support projects and programs from throughout
the County, we believe this initiative could be a valuable catalyst for such downtown tourism
projects as sculpture and mural art programs, downtown artist studio programs, a museum store
project, a wine center project as well as our existing downtown theaters and museums that cater
to visitors.
AT BY: HOLIDAY INN; ztZiuvu; wVV-zQ-VV t:e rm; ro.uc L/J
Grestor lttbuts lwniwepen Aavociad4m
C/o Homy IBM--Ithaca,NY
222 86ath C"ga Mtge
Itba",NY I"SO
Minutes
Special Meeting of Greater Ithaca Ittktepers Association
Novcmtxr 16, 2000
1'resont: AM Hide(Stader Hotel),Joe Kelly(Holiday lnn), Dorothy Sturdevant
(Meadow Court Hotel),Kathy Hildreth(Gmybaven Motel), Eleanor Carcy(Blue willow
B &B), Leslie Leonard(LaTouretle),`Shirley Wang(Area Bed and Breakfast).
Not Present; Sent a letter in oppositioh of a proposed tax increase,however she was out
of town,Joann Muniak(Comfort Inn).
Kathy 14ildreth,Gmybaven Motel, is S*nerally in favor of an increase limited to 1%. She
believes thut if the additional mvenuvis docived firm the immase were used for
beautification projects or to performs Aasibllity study for a convention/conference
center that the money would be w ell-ipent.
All others in attendance were opposod for a variety of ret"ns. Some of the opinions
expressed were:
I. Any increase in the room tax would be a ragative to attracting mare tourism business
to Tompkins County. It is felt thalhe hotel business in Totnpkins County has just
turned the corner in terns of attelphig a level of occupancy that puts the hotel
industry above a break-even vcntitir. TE,e Marriott Courtyard will increase the supply
of hotel rooms by 100/9 in the county. This will create lower occupv"--ies fvr vii
hotels,considering incrcascd supply,con*htcd with a w urldwide-recognized brand
hotel. The obvious economic cfftvt vn'll be lower aceupancics,hence less ability to
provide capital farads for rwwvjrkw, wbkb in turn rakes us less coutpctitive.
2. An increase in bed tax will incrcaso even further the strain on the coat of doing
business for Tompkins County conVanies. Local bidsisiessw pay hotel bills for their
customers, employees,or vendors that tmvsl to Tompkins County. This tax will
increase the cost ofdoing business in our County.
3. The Finger t..akev Dian has Uwafited from tourism due to the wineries, barks and
recreation opportunities. Many counties in this are csompoting for the travelers to stay
11/27/00 17:00 TX/RX \0.8691 P.002
NT 8Y: HOLIDAY INN; 2721000; NOV-24-00 2:27PM; PAGE 3/3 h-3
in their coanties while visiting the finger Lake-S• This tax will make us less likely to
compete for these tourists dollars,
4. A number of hotels have given tbek guests surveys eta to their support of a bed trot
increase to support the arts in Tompkins County. The reaction is overwhelmingly
negative.
5. All members feel that the Arts orgy izatiotts should too suppottad by those who are �=
most Likely to utilize them, i.e.through pr6 c7ty tax..'a tax on restauram meals,or a
general county sales tax,not thsowh a raom occupancy tax that would rax vixitors
who have no say im the decision;.`If tbo Arts Organi=tions in Tompkins CoUnly
provided zip code data showing saka to non-residents, we,as a soup,would be more
inclined to support gush an incrcasc.
6. The Greater Ithaca Innkeepers AWciatiou mWests`thm a taxon the sale of tickets to
Arts events provide funding far the Arts.
Meeting ended with agreement that vw would share these opinions.
11/27/00 17:00 TX/RX N0.8641 P.003
A.3
INNTEL
HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT
December 13, 2000
Stuart W. Stein
Tompkins County Representative
11 Cornell Walk
Ithaca,NY 14850
Dear Representative Stein:
Some fifteen years ago, along side of several Motel and Bed&Breakfast owners, I stood in
opposition to the then proposed initiative to create a tax on hotel rooms in Tompkins County.
We were not opposed to the proposed use of the funds,but rather we feared that once the tax was
enacted,it might be increased and misused. In the end,we reluctantly supported the tax with the
assurance that the enabling legislation would be written in such a way,that the use of the funds
for anything other than its original intent would be impossible and illegal.
Although your current concern for funding the Arts Community in Ithaca is a worthy one,to
fund it by increasing the room tax by 2%would be a breach of good faith on the part of you and
our other elected officials. Using room tax dollars for a purpose other than what it was originally
intended and agreed to,would simply not be in the best interest of the community. Recent
history has demonstrated that excess taxes,such as those you are proposing,will ultimately
discourage tourism in Tompkins County. Such a tax is not only inappropriate but would be
counterproductive and would put the hospitality industry in our county at a disadvantage with
other cities and destinations in New York.
As an owner of two major hotels in Ithaca,I urge you to rethink your proposal and seek other
sources to fund the Arts Community.
RAMADK INN 9 11 N CHI
Denny's
2310 North Triphammer Road 0 Ithaca,New York 14850 • 607-257-3100 • FAX 607-257-5116
A-3
Respectfully yours,
' cam+.•-+
Daniel Homik
President
Cc: Senator James Seward
Assemblyman Martin A. Luster
Jean McPheeters,President--TC Chamber of Commerce
Bridget DeBell, Executive Director--TC Chamber of Commerce
Daniel Murphy,President--NYSHTA
Jim Hisle,General Manager--Statler Hotel
A -3
BED AND BREAKFAST OF GREATER ITHACA
P.O. BOX 4125
ITHACA,N.Y. 14852-4125
December 13,2000
Stuart W. Stein
11 Cornell Walk
Ithaca,N.Y. 14850
Dear Mr. Stein:
We write to you as an association of 24 Bed and Breakfasts in Tompkins County. We
account for over 120 rooms in this community. Six of our members have between 6 and
13 rooms and eighteen Bed and Breakfasts have five rooms or less. Our organization is
also a member of the Ithaca Inn Keepers Association and we join them in their position
that an increase in room tax is not warranted based on its proposed uses and that any
increase would be greatly detrimental to the hospitality industry in Tompkins County.
Contrary to popular belief,the bed and breakfast business is a marginal business with
several contributing factors. One of the major factors is the already significant tax
burden we all bear in the form of property and school taxes.. In general we have large
properties with large assessments. Many of the properties are over 100 years old and
therefore require extensive maintenance. One of the reasons people seek the bed and
breakfast experience is the age and unique qualities of our properties. A significant
portion of our income goes into maintaining the property and into utility bills.These and
other overhead costs have a major impact on our ability to maintain profitability and
more importantly,viability.This is particularly true since we are a seasonal business with
very little activity at least 3 months of the year. Since our properties have a finite
number of rooms to generate revenue, the only way to offset escalating costs is to either
increase room rates(which increasing taxes make very difficult to do)or cut services.
Since our business is to a large extent dependent on repeat business a room tax increase
would have a significant impact. Many of our guests are indeed price sensitive and this
tax increase would be detrimental to return visits to the area. It is not difficult to see the
multiplier effect that return guests have on the total community. Revenue would be lost
across all sectors such as restaurants,retail,etc. In addition,this tax places support for
local arts squarely on visitors coming to this area. Local people who utilize the arts in
this area do not use overnj,ght accomodations.
Our guests visit the area for many reasons. These include the state parks and the outdoor
activities offered in our naturally beautiful area, the wine trails, and for family weddings
and reunions. It is true that Cornell and Ithaca College provide us with guaranteed
reservations,but in reality,that accounts for only six weekends a year. Association
member B&Bs were recently polled to determine the percentage of guest that visit
primarily due to the arts. Unfortunately,the poll revealed that this is NOT the reason
they visit and studies done by the county have reaffirmed this fact.
We gladly embrace any ideas that clearly increases tourism but we do not believe the arts
does this. We applaud the efforts of the arts community and it is evident that many of
our individual members support this work through season tickets,room donations and
other fund raising activities.
We respectfully ask that you consider the detrimental effect that the proposed room tax
increase would have on B&Bs in this area and find another way to raise money for the
arts.
Very-Truly Yours
Eleanor Carey
Chairman
Bed and Breakfast of Greater Ithaca
Ni WT If
MEMORANDUM
To: Stu Stein
From: Michael B.Stamm
Date: December 29,2000
Re: Business Response to Room Tax Increase
Introduction
During the early stages of the development of the proposal to increase the room tax you
asked.TCAD to try to get the perspective of the local business community. You
anticipated that the burden on the local business community might be raised as an issue
since local businesses often pay for the accommodations of people visiting them in
Ithaca.
When Surveyed
During the latter part of November and throughout December 2000,we asked a small
group of local businesses for their opinion of the proposed 276 increase to the room tax.
We contacted all the businesses by telephone with the exception of one occasion when
we spoke to a representative of the business after an unrelated meeting
Who Surveyed
Fourteen businesses were contacted.They ranged in size(number of employees)from 3
to 1500 and in type from durable goods manufacturing to high tech including biotech,
software and information technology. All the businesses contacted have visitors that
travel to Ithaca and stay in local hotels in order to visit the local businesses.These
visitors may represent customers,suppliers,potential employees,consultants,or
employees from another site or division.They may be individuals that stay for one
night,groups of over 100 attending a multi-day users group conference,or consultants
visiting for weeks at a time.
For the larger companies,we usual spoke to a vice president or manager.For the
smaller companies we spoke with the CEO. We spoke to the businesses with the
commitment to strict confidentiality.
Question Asked
The businesses were asked if a 27o increase in room tax would have an impact on their
demand for local hotel accommodations.
t
Responses
All of the business contacted responded that the 2% increase in room tax would have no
impact on their demand for overnight accommodations paid for by their businesses.
The reasons cited were as follows:
1. A 2% increase in cost is not a large enough amount to impact this kind of decision
2. Other costs associated with bringing someone to Ithaca,particularly airfare,are
much higher. Almost all of the visitors would be coming to Ithaca via air.
Related Issues Raised by Businesses
After answering the initial questions,virtually all of the businesses took the opportunity
to raise concerns or questions related to the room tax issue and the cost of doing
business in Ithaca. A summary of these issues follows:
1. The high cost and inconvenience of traveling to and from Ithaca by air is a major
concern for local businesses that have visitors that must come to Ithaca. Examples
cited included airfare of$400 to$600 to fly from Boston and Washington to Ithaca.
The room tax increase pales in comparison to this cost of doing business.
2. Local companies that send local employees out of town on business are usually
paying much more in overnight accommodations in other cities.
3. About half of the respondents raised concerns about the value received as it relates
to the cost of local hotel accommodations. They noted local hotels seem overdue for
renovation of individual rooms,common areas and meeting space. They also noted
the inconsistency of service for meetings or conferences held at local hotels. Some
wondered about the viability of the hotel industry in Ithaca since these renovations
seemed long overdue. Others suggested the new or proposed hotels would increase
competition and result in investment in older existing facilities.
4. Most of the respondents wondered how the proceeds of the tax would be used,that
is,who would decide how the proceeds were spent and how would the investment
be monitored. Some of the respondents were familiar with the existing room tax
and some of the respondents are or have been involved in supporting local arts
organizations.
Conclusion
There was clear consensus that the proposed 2% increase in the room tax would not
have an impact on the local businesses that pay the accommodation costs of visitors to
Ithaca. It is important to note,however, that this was by no means a "scientific survey"
and that the number of businesses contacted, fourteen,is relatively small. If the impact
on local business is considered a major issue,we recommend a more formal survey to a
larger number of businesses.
The respondents' concern about the quality and service at local hotels may be worth
further study.
Jan-03-2001 12:201)m from-GREATER ROCH VIS ASSOC +7163943568 T-793 P.002/003 F-238
AGWAY MU16KI
�iw&UYPMUXAM. &%25Brockpo"psnaerponRoad
t�'ls)aa�aevo
wNMI 94
r
Monroe hotel flax to help set[
image
_ WINWID By James Goodman
Democrat and Chronicle
(December 31.2000)--The Greater Rochester Visitors Association
_ will be the biggest monetary winner kum the increase this year in
Monroe County's hotel-motet tax.
- The Visitors Association will receive about$1.1 million from the
additional$1.9 million expected to be raised in 2001.The newly formed
i f�11St 9ll�l' y Greater Rochester Sports Authonty will receive$719.862.
-~`-- - The county raised the tax from 4 percent to 6 percent to help finance a
soccer stadium for the Rochester Rhinos.Next month the County
Legislature is expected to vote on a plan to earmark the money for the
association and the authority.
The hotel-motel tax is projected to raise about$5.7 million in 2001.
Assistant County Executive Kevin Cr rand said the$1.1 million more
going to the Visitors Association will help in the marketing of
Rochester.
"We want to make some impact investment in the community,
particularly in the areas of image and economic development.And,
really,those two things are ciosety tied,"he said.
The Visitors Association,which this year was stated to receive$1.8
million in hotel-motel tax revenue, is currently in the process of
completing a marketing plan.
"All the additional monies will be used strictly for marketing the
community,"association president Ed(-tall said.
Last spring,the Visitors Association completed a blueprint setting forth
goats—Hall calls it a"wish list"—and the money could be used to help
fund related projects such as increasing tourism, securing conventions,
promoting the region through the media and boosting the status of the
Rochester-Finger Lakes Film Commission.
The Sports Authority was established to build and run the new soccer
http://w-wvv.rochestemews.com/1231hotel tax.html 01/03/2001
01/03/01 11:28 TX/RX N0.8780 P.002
Jan-03-2001 12:21 pm From-GREATER ROCK VIS ASSOC +7163943568 T-793 P•003/003 F-238 A[
stadium for the RoJhester Rhinos and is also expected to help run
Frontier Field.
The money for the Sports Authority is part of the county's$7 million
commitment to help finance the W million project. Hotel-motel
revenue wilt pay for the entire county shale.
The Sports Authority will be ran by a three-member board that soon
expects to have its organizational meeting.
Board member George F.T."Gaff"Yancey Jr. said it is premature to
say how the Sports.authority t+viif use its share of the sales tax revenue.
But the money could be used to help pay for the issuance of arty bonds
related to construction of the stadium.as well as any other work
connected to its planning.
569K_10 NEWSQIGEST
Weather tiety wa y Bug iMess NCn8M y Entertainry3ent j SpDlig J flulletin
BoarQ Community)Cfassifeds j EMWaynZ (Cars(Real Estate
ARyartments I NewHomeNetwork I Personals I W_qddirtas 4 Advertising
info I Newspaper Info I Di9ital Edition info I Search I Feedback
AGWAY ,,! "DOING BUSINESS
M . YOUR WAY"
M0I
Copyright 2000 Rochester Democrat and Chronicle.
Use of uft%e tin sig Kwo your agreement to the Teems of Service(updated April 21,2000).
http://www.rocheacmews.com/1231hotel tax.html 01/03/2001
01/03/01 11:28 TX/RX N0.8780 P.003
Gary Stewart
274-9213
� J
"Mlle Ithaca Bruce Estes
t.4e:1ay:;ry Ed1tOf that
da nCro
A Ganneti Ne„ Melinda Asst a Cro wcrott Editor Irks the Ithaca City School
Di�triet have a >;imine interest WALIF_R BUI
Carol Becker in retaining administrators of
123 W.Slate St. Advertising Director ,
Ithaca,New York 14850 r"lir
(607) 272-2321 Craig Hester As recently as Nov. 5. 1997, Does t h e
CrrculauonDirector Ithaca Journal reporter Mar-
Barry Rothfeld John Semo Saret Clailxirnc noted the con- I)ro eed u I e
President and Publisher Production Director tinutng decline in the number of retaining sta
administrators of color in the
Margaret Kane ICSD. At that time, Beverly have been r
Pubhshed duty except Sunday by the Ithaca Human Resources
Joufnarrdews Director Ivey (principal of Belle Slier-
Member
h W110 Collie,
1
Member of the Associated Press and Audd elan) and Maria De La Vega ,
Bureau ofGrcutations. Leslie Forcier (director of state and federal
Copyright 19913 The Ithaca Journal Controller
programs, English as if Second
Language, testing and evalua-
tion)had resigned. "Does the ICSD h:
EDITORIALS Claiborne noted the status in interest in retainin
the district: "The district has tors of color?”Th
four (remaining) administrators answer is obviously
of color Affirmative Action Does the ICSC
Room
Director Deborah Manning, Ingsta for )coati?
�k�a�x. Beverly J. Martin Elementary rng sta[f of color'?School Principal Edsel Rocker, the district's 1
South Hill School Principal staffing to retlec
Michael Ouckama, and Ithaca population it serve
more, for a s High School Associate Principal been made by th
Jtlii v Thomas Baskin-Bey." Action Commit)
Within seven short months Latino and Afric
Whenever friends or relatives spend the night at a from that date, Rocker professionals to I
local hotel,motel or bed and breakfast,they're adding resigned.And now Dr.Pastel is those who con
to an interesting debate.Revenues from the 3 percent demanding the resignation of remain.The ques!
Tompkins County Room Occupancy Tax—totaling Ouckama,as a necessary condi- is"Why?"
about$500,000 a year—are coveted by any number of tion for his remaining at South Support grout
groups.As has been the case since the tax's inception HU1 one more year.There is no of color have orl
in 1986,what do to with the money draws a lot of educational value in dismissing mentary and higl
ideas,ranging from het in the homeless to communi- this extraordinarily successful to address needs
g g p g' administrator of color. is unable or unH
ty festivals.. Ouckama's transfer appears Parents of Afri(
From where we stand,Tompkins County can't.do to have been done with no long- and Latino Studr
enough to promote the arts,which attracts visitors and range plan in mind.The BJM the Ithaca High'
more room-tax. staff and community have been of African Amer
At a meeting next week,the Tompkins County Advi- unmistakably clear in their students) and
sory Board on Tourism Development will discuss the desire to have a long-term Children of Aft
coming fiscal year and hear presentations from differ- administrator.Thus,one is left Latin, Asian, A l ent groups who want a piece of the tax pie,including with the perplexing question, and Native Am
the Finger Lakes Association and the Convention and
Visitors Bureau.The board will eventually give its rec-
ommendations to a related arts-culture-tourism com-
mittee made up of county-board representatives.
IAppropriately,most of the past room tax money has
been earmarked for the Tompkins County Chamber of
Commerce,from$347,630 in 1996 to an estimated
S374,500 in 1998.In that same period,the contribution
to the Community Arts Partnership has stayed at fi
$36.000.
The chamber does a good job in highlighting local
theaters,galleries,etc.,and its visitors bureau has .
developed an effective teamlike approach with the
Community Arts Partnership to market the area's
diverse venues and talents.Still,it's time to up the II ,
CAP's share,especially considering that the State and
Ithaca theaters have hopes of reopening in the future.
It has proved it can do the job in an important com- I
ponent of tourism that requires nurturing and net- I �'
working,along with steady operating capital.
A, 5
STATLER HOTEL 5jp 13ow7d n9embe_,?5
CC= 44,,t 6�euq
Document Page 1 of 6
Nett
Occupancy Taxes: No Free Lunch
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly;Ithaca;Oct 1992; Hiernsu-a,Stephen 1.;
Ismail Joseph A.;
Volume: 33
Issue: 5
Start Page: 84
LSSN: 00108804
Subject Terms: Statistical data
Price elasticity
Market segments
Hotels &motels
Hotel occupancy taxes
Effects
Classification Codes:9190: United States
9140:Statistical Data
8380:Hotel&restaurant industries
7100: Market research
Geographic Names: US
Abstract:
The effects of room taxes on the lodging industry were measured in a statistical analysis based on
a national survey of the members of the American Hotel and Motel Association. An estimate of the
average price elasticity of demand for lodging services in the US is derived. The overall elasticity
relationship was measured at-.44. Data on price elasticities and resultant impacts on room
rentals are presented for 16 industry segments because the tax eflSect differs significantly among
different parts of the industry. The data are stratified into 4 different room-rate segments and 4
size-of-property groups within each room-rate segment to reflect these different segments. On
average, the price elastidties decline (in absolute terms) as property sizes increase, and the
eiasticities increase as room rates Increase. The adverse impact of taxes on the number of rooms
rented was found to be tfie same as a comparable increase in room rates, after allowing or
inflation. --
Full Text:
Copyright Cornell University. School of Hotel Administration Oct 1992
Taxes on away-from-home lodging services are often viewed as a painless way to raise revenues in a
community,particularly if the need is for revenues to build convention centers,to purchase assets for
use by tourists,or to promote local tourism.However,room-tax receipts often are collected for other
purposes,such as general support of the government,or even for no purpose specifically designated at
the time of the imposition of the tax.The purpose of this article is to consider and discuss the hotel
guests' economic behavior in reaction to room taxes.
The taxes usually are ad valorem taxes applied to room rates, but sometimes are applied as a flat
charge per room-night, either alone or in combination with an ad valorem tax. These taxes may be
imposed either in place of or in addition to a general sales tax in a community.
Room taxes are intended to be imposed on nonresidents who do not have a voice in the imposition or
use of the tax. Perhaps for that reason they are considered to be a"free good" to the community. Room
taxes have gained considerable popularity,with little or no consideration for the impacts of the tax on
the lodging industry.
2/12/00 13:08 FAX 6072542529 STATLER HOTEL tih03 �
Document Page 2 of 6
Until recently, the general consensus regarding room taxes has been that such taxes have little adverse
effect on the lodging industry because the taxes are paid largely by businesses indirectly or by people
on vacation with relatively high incomes.Indeed,early studies of this subject seem to confirm these
assumption.()Demand was found to be relatively inelastic;that is,relatively large price increases
were associated with relatively small decreases in quantities of services purchased_
More recently, people are beginning to question the earlier studies and the conventional wisdom that
the taxes have little adverse impact. In a study of Hawaii,for example,J.Mak found that the effects
there likely are quite large.(2)Furthermore,the tax rates are getting high enough that they cannot be
ignored_When confronted with a double-digit tax on a 5100-a-night room,guests have been known to
be quite upset That,in itself, indicates that room taxes must be having an impact on consumer
behavior.
An additional question to consider is the nature of the consumer response to a room tax, or,indeed, to
any increase in room rates_ Some observers suggest that guests have little alternative except to pay the
tax if the tax is applied uniformly in a given metropolitan area. Others point to the options available to
guests_ One of them is to stay in less expensive rooms so that the total outlay is about the same_
Another is to stay in the next county or municipality,which ma have lower taxes.Travelers may also
stay withfriends or relatives,or shorten their stay by a day or two. Of course,some guests are not
concerned with costs and therefore will make no change in their behavior_ Obviously,the reactions
will differ among various guests on the basis of their sensitivity to prices.
THE COST OF ROOM TAXES
The effects of room taxes on the lodging industry were measured in a statistical analysis based on a
national survey of the members of the American Hotel and Motel Association(AH&MA).We derived
an estimate of the average price elasticity of demand for lodging services in the United States.
Development of the model is explained in the box on page 89,and the results are presented in the
accompanying tables,by various industry segments,as defined by room rate and size of property.The
results are expressed in terms of loss in the number of rooms rented and drop in percentage of
occupancy at various levels of taxation.
The overall elasticity relationship was measured at-.44(see Exhibit I)-(Exhibit 1 omitted)That
number means that for every increase of 1 percentage point in the tax,which amounts to a 1-percent
increase in room rate,one would expect to have 0.44-percent fewer rooms rented per day.
If that doesn't seem to be a large figure, let's examine the effect of that demand elasticity on a typical
property. The U.S_average room tax was measured at 9.8 percent in spring 1990,including lodging-
specific taxes, general sales taxes applied to rooms,and taxes assessed by all state and local
jurisdictions.(3) At that level of tax, the industry as a whole would experience a decline of 3.1
percentage points in occupancy rate, and the average property would record a loss of 5.3 rooms rented
per day.
Document Page 3 of 6
rate segments and four size-of-property groups within each room-rate segment to reflect these different
;egmcnte. An individual properWs approximate price elasticity is determined by selecting the
and rnnm-rate c�nt(`Qnry within Exhibit 1.
community, a property's managemeit Ua,.t dppiumittaw tum%ILL„VW ,,, ..._ _ _ - A. �J
of rooms rented_
Selection of the segments for analysis was based on the results of the statistical model used_ As can be
-O:ed from the model in the box on page 89,room-rate and property-size categories were among the
most sigpificant variables in the model. The segments were chosen rather arbitrarily to divide the
sample into meaningful groups of somewhat equal size.
The room-rate segments were identified as(1)less than $40 per day,(2)between$40 and $75, (3)
between $75 and$100,and(4) $100 and over per day.The four room-size groups were(1)fewer than
150 rooms, (2)between 151 and 300 rooms,(3)between 301 and 600 rooms,and(4)more than 600
rooms. The resulting 16 categories conform to usual groupings,but they are not necessarily optimum.
Data for two of the segments were omitted in both tables because those outlying groups lacked a
sufficient number of sample observations for reliable estimation even though property size was used as
the basis for stratifying the original sample.
EXAMINING ELAST1CTi'Y
To use the table in Exhibit 1 for assessing the tax effects for a specific property,one needs to locate,at
the top of the table,the appropriate"Number of Rooms"range within which the property is identified
Then, locate the appropriate"Room Rate"range for this property_The number at the intersection of the
selected column and row is the price elasticity for the segment exhibiting the selected combination of
number of rooms and room rate.For example,for a property with raider 150 rooms and an annual
average nightly room rate between$40 and$75,the approximate elasticity is-.68-
At the mean number of rooms and room rates for this particular segment,a.68-percent decline in
number of rooms rented normally will be expected for each 1-percent increase in price reflected in the
room rate. This increase in price should be interpreted as being above the current rate of inflation in
the economy, as perhaps measured by the Consumer Price Tndex. All net additional price increases to
the consumer would be expected to have an adverse impact on consumer re nse.It makes no
erenee whether the price increasewas dMto an increase rn the room rate charged by the property
or duni to a tax added y the local government_This conclusion was tested in the statistical model and
ven Med by the results.
to Exhibit 1, average elasticities for each room-rate category are given in the far right column, and the
average elasticities for each property-size group are given in the bottom row.These averages are more
stable than for the individual cells.They show that,on average,the price elasticities decline(in
absolute terms)as property sizes increase and that the elasticities increase as room rates increase.
Intuitively,one might be surprised that higher mom-rate segments face more price-sensitive customers
than do lower room-rate segments_However,in a sense,higher room-rate groups perhaps face stronger
competition than do lower room-rate groups- if rates increase, guests can easily"trade down"by going
to a budget property.
EFFECT ON OCCUPANCY
_._/pgdweb?TS=976234352&Did=000000000274439&Mtd=1&Fmt=3&Sid=2&ldx=27&Deli=1 12/7/00
13:08 FAX 6072542529 STATLER HOTEL �04 •
12/12/00 _
Document Page 4 of 6
Exhibit 2 shows the conversion from the price elasticities shown in Exhibit I to actual declines in
terns of number of rooms sold and the resultant drop in occupancy rates.As in Exhibit 1,the data are
presented for each of the 16 room-rate and property-size segments previously identified.However,
Exhibit 2 adds a third dimension by listing effects at various tax-rate levels rather than showing results
only for a I-percent change as in the case of Exhibit 1.This third dimension makes the table a bit more
complicated but it eliminates some calculations for the typical user.
Use of Exhibit 2 involves the same procedure as outlined for the table in Exhibit 1,with two additions.
First,for each segment identified by"Number of Rooms"and"Room Rate Group,"the impact of taxes
is given in two columns both in terns of changes in number of rooms rented per day and changes in
occupancy rate.Secondly,these two measures of impact for each segment are given for five levels of
taxes ranging from 1 to 20 percent The appropriate level of tax rate to use is the total of all room taxes
that prevail for a given property in a local community.However,the effect of taxes from different
sources(e.g.,county sales tax,city occupancy tax)can be determined separately because the effects of
each tax are additive.The occupancy rates indicated are given in terms of percentage changes.
It is possible to determine the impact of tax rates other than the five levels represented by simply
multiplying the tax impact for a 1-percent rate by the actual tax rate for that segment. Similarly,the
impact of,say,a 6-percent rate is equal to the effect of a 5-percent rate plus that of a 1-percent rate.
This calculation is possible because the effects by segment are linearly proportional over various tax
rates.That is, the effect of a 2-percent tax is twice that of a 1-percent tax,and the impact of a 20-
percent tax is approximately twice that of a 10-percent tax.The statistical model was specifically
tested using interaction and squared terms to measure any lack of linearity in the data,but such terms
were not found to be significant(with the single exception noted in the model).
As noted earlier,the adverse impact of taxes on the number of rooms rented was found in this study to
be the same as a comparable increase in room rates,after allowing for inflation_Some observers have
questioned the validity of this finding on the basis that taxes are assessed at checkout and that tax rates
are often not advertised by the lodging establishment.
However,the statistical model was run by defining room rates both with and without room taxes
added,and the resulting effects were almost identical.Certainly,the findings were not significantly
different This finding verifies the maxim about fooling some of the people some of the time,but not
all of the people all of the time.After paying high"exit taxes"once or twice,price-sensitive guests are
on the alert for those add-ons.
NOT TRIVIAL
As we stated earlier,the results showed that when the average elasticity of-.44 was applied to a total
room-tax assessment of 9.8 percent,nearly 5 fewer rooms were rented per day by the average property
of 107 rooms.Applying this loss of rooms rented to the average occupancy rate of about 65 percent
implies that the occupancy rate would be about 3 percentage points higher,or about 68 percent,in the
absence of all room taxes.
These are not trivial results. A change in occupancy rate of 3 percentage points is a substantial gap that
often would make the difference between profit and loss.Moreover,the impact varies substantially in
different segments of the industry.The effects were found to be proportionately highest for the smaller
properties and those charging relatively high room rates.But the adverse effects of room taxes on
/nnrlwPh�TQ=47��'id'tS�x.n;a-nnnnnnnnm�,,.+�nv.,,,�.a- o.r._._, o�• ,� * �--� -- - ._._.....
12/12/00 13:08 FAX 6072542529 STATLER HOTEL lib 05
Document Page 5 of 6
industry sales are considerable for all segments of the industry.
TANSTAAFL.(4)_We conclude that it is not true that taxing room rentalis a "free lunch" as some have
claimed.The lodging industry finds itself as the target for"taxation without representation"by state
and local officials looking for revenue without having to face a taxpayer at a oils. !n oimation that
is avai a e from earlier studies suggests that the upward trend in tax rates has been substantial.
Witness the recent tax increases in New York City and Chicago of about 5 percentage points.
On the other hand,room taxes offer some offsetting benefits to the lodging industry from the use made
of the tax receipts.This study found that about 22 percent of room-tax revenues were being used
directly for some type of visitor-related purposes, such as supporting activities of convention and
visitor bureaus and supporting the operation or construction of civic centers. It is also known that
many state and local areas use some general funds for these purposes as well.
After making an allowance for general funds used for lodging-related purposes,we estimated that the
equivalent of about one-half of all room taxes collected goes to support lodging-related activities in
some way. However,it was beyond the scope of this study to determine the efficiency in use of these
funds in generating increases in rooms actually rented.Further study of this question would be a
logical follow-up to the study presented here.
DERIVING THE DATA
1.The first step in the study was to conduct a broad survey of individual properties in the lodging
industry to collect basic information about the behavior of their guests in relation to the tax.A
stratified national random sample of the membership of the AH&MA was used for this purpose.
Usable information was obtained from a total of 375 individual properties-
2.We determined how much tax was being assessed on the lodging industry.This process proved to be
complex. We turned to several different sources to determine the tax rates on lodging,including Gavel
International Directory,published by Meetings&Conventions Magazine;a report by the Advisory
Commission on Intergovernmental Relations,Significant Features of Federalism; and 1989 survey data
from the International Association of Convention and Visitor Bureaus.These major sources of
secondary data were supplemented by a survey of state offices in all 50 states.
Tax rates were identified by convention and visitor bureaus and by state,as well as by type of taxing
jurisdiction and type of tax-In particular,taxes were identified to the extent that they were lodging_
specific as opposed to being general sales taxes applied to this industry. In addition,an attempt was
made through phone calls to the states to identify the extent to which use of the taxes was lodging-
relatcd.(1)
3.Next,we analyzed this information to determine the statistical relationship between room rates
including taxes and the number of rooms rented,after allowing for differences among the properties
due to size of property,average room rates,types and location of properties,and ownership and
management of those properties. Similar relationships were measured for room rates without room
taxes to see how the relationships compared with room rates including taxes.
For this purpose,we established a cross-sectional,multiple-regression model.The final model used is
shown here. It included a number of variables to explain statistically the factors associated with
differing numbers of rooms rented among the sample properties_ Only by holding constant a large
1_4 .•rr0_n-74)IAI4CI AIna?AA•a-I v.r-t-1 Q.c:a-)P.ra.._-1'7 I 1 1/'7/An
A.
12/12/00 13:08 FAX 6072542529 STATLER HOTEL 06
Document Page 6 of 6
number of these factors is it possible to measure the net relationship between room rates and number
of rooms rented The results of this analysis were used in calculating the price elasticities of demand
found in Exhibit L(2)
4.Then we multiplied the statistical price-quantity relationships(elasticities)by the tax rates,to
estimate the overall tax impacts on the lodging industry in terms of number of rooms not rented Those
results were translated into overall impact on occupancy rates.
5.We applied the results of the model to various segments of the industry,the results of which are
presented in Exhibit 2.This step amounts to disaggregating the overall totals in step four into their
components.This process is accomplished by holding constant most of the variables in the model
while varying,in turn,the values of the segment of interest,such as room rates or size of property.In
addition,the results are applied to the various levels of taxes assessed on properties in those segments.
1 For further information on the levels of taxes found and how the tax rates were determined,see
Hiemstra and Ismail, 1990.
2 Applying demand parameters developed from cross-sectional data to infer changes in behavior over
time implies that time-series changes can be approximated by studying responses of different
individuals to common variables after adjusting for differences in those variables among the
individuals.
Stephen J_ Hiemstra, Ph.D.,is a professor of hospitality marketing in the Restaurant,Hotel,and
Institutional Management Department at Purdue University,where Joseph A.Ismail,who has ten
years'industry experience,is a Ph.D.candidate-
1 J.P.Combs and B.Elledge,"Effects of a Room Tax on Resort Motel/Motels,National Tax Journal,
32,No.2(1979),pp. 210-207;and J.Mak and E.Nishimura,The Economics of a Hotel Room Tax,"
ournal of Travel Research, 18(1979),pp.2-6-
2 J.Mak, "Taxing Hotel Room Rentals in the U.S.,"Journal of Travel Research,27(1988),pp. 10-15.
3 J.A. Ismail and S.J.Hietnstra,"Room Taxes:A Growing Burden on the Hospitality Industry,"The
Bottomline,6,No. 2 (April/May 1991),pp.20-28.Also see: Hiemstra and Ismail,"Amounts and
Types of Room Taxes Levied on the Lodging Industry,"April 1990,Information Center,AH&MA
(1301 New York Ave. N.W.,Washington,D.C.20005).
4 "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." See,for instance:Robert A. Heinlein,The Moon Is a
Harsh Mistress(New York: Ace Books, 1987).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission_
Request of Ithaca Downtown Partnership to Permit Wine and
Hard Cider Tasting and Sale of Bottled Wine and Hard Cider
at Various Events on the Commons in 2001
RESOLVED, That the Ithaca Downtown Partnership shall be
authorized to arrange for the sale of wine and hard cider
and to permit tasting of wines and hard cider at booths 47- 774
during various events taking place on the Ithaca Commons etoa Gt°1c1I-
throughout 2001; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the Ithaca Downtown Partnership and
participating wineries shall comply with all applicable
state and local laws and ordinances, and shall enter into
an agreement providing that it will hold the City harmless
and indemnify the City on account of any claims made as the
result of the sale or tasting of wine and hard cider on the
Ithaca Commons, and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the Ithaca Downtown Partnership or the
participating winery or cider company shall agree to
maintain liability insurance in the amount of $500, 000 . 00
and Dram Shop Act coverage in the minimum amount of
$500, 000 . 00, and shall provide notification of each event,
and evidence of such insurance to the City Clerk.
01/10/2001 15:25 6072776691 ITHACA DTN PRTNRSHP PAGE 01
Ithaca Downtown Partnership
277-8679 FAX 277-8691 email: ithaca@lightlink.com
MEMO o Q U
JAN I 0 2001
Date: January 10,2001
To: City Clerk/Julie Conley Holcomb By
Re: Request to Permit Wine and Hard Cider Tastings and
Sale of Bottled Wine and Cider at the 3'Annual
Chili Cook-Off
Date of Event: Saturday,February 24,2001
Place: The Commons
Time: Noon to 4p.m.
The Partnership in compliance with the State of New York
Department of Agriculture and Markets guidelines,will host
three bonafide New York State farmers as vendors at the 3rd
Annual Chili Cook Off.
Therefore,we are requesting the Council to permit
tastings and sale of wine and hard cider at this event.
They would include two wineries from Cayuga Wine Trails,
and.Heron Hill Winery and the Bellwether Hard Cider
Company.
The Partnership accepts responsibility for claims that may
result-from this activity,with maintenance of liability
insurance as requested by the City of Ithaca.
Thank you.
Res y submitted.
Christina Morrison
Marketing Director
ITHACA DOWNTOWN PARTNERSHIP
01/10/01 WED 14:33 [T%/R% NO 59181 2 001
THE
r i
DOWNTOWN PARTNERSHIP
If
January 30, 2001
TO: Paulette Manos
FROM: Gary Ferguson
RE: COMMONS EVENTS SCHEDULED BY THE ITHACA DOWNTOWN
PARTNERSHIP FOR THE YEAR 2001
The following are the special events currently scheduled by the Partnership for 2001.
Please use this list for your resolution. If this list changes, we will make appropriate
applications to the Council. Call our office if there are any questions. Thanks for your
help.
February 24 Chili Cook-Off/Winter Festival
May 5/6 Art Show and Sale
June 2 Ithaca Festival Craft Show and Sale
June 7—Sept 6 Summer Concert Series
- Tuesday evenings
- Thursday evenings
- Friday noontime
- Sunday afternoons
June 16 Vintage Car Show/Flag Day Celebration
August 2/3/4 Sidewalk Sale Days
September 15 College/Community Expo
October 5/6/7 Apple Harvest Festival
December 6/7/8/9 Holiday Stroll
202 The Commons,Suite 304 • P.O.Box 6884 • Ithaca,New York 14851-6884
607/277-8679 • Fax 607/277-8691
E-mail: ithaca@lightlink.com
6�v 1
a
Ithaca,Dow h tow w Pa,rtn4?-rj;1.iP
Catrtidar of EventY 2001 .:
Chili Cook-Off/Winter Festival
Saturday, February 24, 2001
Art Show & Sale ,
May 5 & 6, 2001
Ithaca Festival Craft Show & Sale
Saturday, June 2, 2001
Summer Concert Series
June 7 through September 6, 2001
Vintage Car Show/Flag Day Celebration
Saturday, June16, 2001
Sidewalk Sale Days
August 2, 3, & 4, 2001
College/Community Expo
September 15, 20013.
Apple Harvest Festival
October 5, 6, & 7, 2001
Holiday Stroll
December 6, 7, 8, & 9, 2001
ead(607)277-8679. ?ax(607)277-869/,at�'-neailit(acaoGy, ` .ee.,
%r mote uiotnedden or to yet involved/
AM
0
2ooi
pC� C� C� � dC�
JAN' J. 7 2001
SIT City of Ithaca By
Office of the Chamberlain
a 108 East Green Street,Ithaca,NY 14850 Ph: 607 274-6580 Fax: 607 272-7348
e
8
To: Budget and Administration Committee
From: Debra Parsons, City Chamberlain
Re: Adjustment to 2001 City Tax Roll
Date: January 8, 2001
The sidewalk assessment for 417 Cascadilla Street was added to the 2001 City First Installment
taxes. It has come to my attention that the Board of Public Works adjusted this bill prior to the
sidewalk levy and warrant, so that the amount I added to the tax bill was incorrect. The original bill
was $1,432.81. The correct amount with interest should be $1,012.81. Mr. Brann, the owner of the
property, would like to pay this bill in installments, separate from the tax bill. We accept installment
payments on sidewalk assessments if the first payment is made within six months of the original
billing. Mr. Brann had not started this process because the billing was wrong.
Whereas, a sidewalk assessment in the amount of$1,432.81 with additional interest of$84.01 was
added to the 2001 First Installment taxes for 417 Cascadilla Street, and
Whereas, a reduction in the original bill as determined by Board of Public Works was not reflected in
the amount added to the 2001 City First Installment, and,
Whereas, the owner has requested the opportunity to pay the corrected bill in installments, separate
from the City tax bill, now, therefore be it
Resolved, that the Common Council hereby authorizes the City Chamberlain to correct the 2001 City
Tax Roll by removing the amount of the added sidewalk assessment $1,516.82 from the tax bill for
417 Cascadilla Street.
1
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
8
OFFICE OF THE CHAMBERLAIN
APo� O Telephone: 607/274-6580 Fax: 607/272-7348
To: Budget and Administration Committee
From: Debra Parsons, City Chamberlain
Re: Request to Remove Water Delinquency from Tax Bill
Date: January 24, 2001
Last February,Council approved a request to remove a water bill from the first installment of the 2000 City
taxes for property at 635 W. State Street. No payments were made on the bill during 2000,and I again
added it to the City taxes.
Joe Ciaschi called,requesting that Council again approve removal of this bill from the taxes,so that DJJP
Inc.could pay the bill in installments over the next year. The failure of Farmers and Shippers caused
severe hardship for the owners of this property. Income from the property has only recently stabilized.
The owners believe they are now in a position to pay the water bill over time,and to pay the taxes. They
do not believe they can pay the taxes and the full water bill at this time.
I have offered to move this bill to the second installment,or to divide it between the first and the second
installment. Mr.Ciaschi felt neither option would meet the needs of DJJP,Inc.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 4a
�o I CITY OF ITHACA
V~�j �'•;f� 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
OFFICE OF THE CHAMBERLAIN
APoQATEO Telephone: 607/274-6580 Fax: 607/272-7348
To: Budget and Administration Committee of Common Council
From: Debra Parsons, City Chamberlain
Re: Request to Adjust City First Installment Tax Bill
Date: January 18, 2000
Please find attached a request from Dave and Pat Mikula to remove a water bill that has been added to the
2000 City First Installment taxes for 635 W.State Street.
In November 1998,I transferred the outstanding water bill for the property to a payment arrangement. The
tenants and owners of Farmers and Shippers had abandoned the property,leaving a large water bill for the
owners of the property. No payments were made on the bill during 1999. On or about October 15, 1999,I
notified the owners that the bill would be added to the fust installment taxes unless it was paid by
November 1. Subsequently,the bill was added to the taxes.
Bills transferred to payment arrangements are collected like other miscellaneous billings,and as such,
accrue penalty at 1%per month,much like the tax bill. Penalty accrued on this bill from November 1998
through January 2000,and would continue to do so if Common Council agrees to remove it from the tax
bill as the owners request. However,I am reluctant to recommend removing it from the tax bill,since no
payments were made on the bill during the period of November 1998 to November 1999.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." �a
D.J.J.P.Inc.
805 Taber Street
Ithaca,NY 14850
Pat Vaughan
Chairman of the Budget and Administration Committee
Ithaca,NY 14850
Dear: Pat Vaughan
On or about September 1998 our tenant, Blackstone Ave. Inc. DBA FARMERS &
SHIPPERS Restaurant breached their lease and abandoned our property, leaving us
with thousands of dollars of unpaid debits that we were not aware of.
We have been trying to repay these debits in a timely fashion.
One bill that we have not yet been able to repay, is the City Water& Sewer bill in
the amount of $4230.40 that they left us. It has recently been added to our city
tax bill.
We are currently unable to pay this bill in full and would like you to consider taking
this amount from our tax bill and putting it in a Misc. Receivable Account,so that
we may make payments to satisfy this bill.
Our corporation has been keeping our current account paid on time since the
Hargett's (Blackstone Ave. Inc.)abandoned our property.
Any help you could be to us in solving this problem would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Pat Mikula �✓`'`9'
Dave Mikul
Fiscal Year:.01/01/2000 THRU 12/31/2000 Warrant Date U 1/O1/2000 Sequence: 3407 Bill No. 4332
(Owner DJJP INC SW
IS Tax Map Number Bank Code Class Code
500700 72. 5.1
�. t _-421
Property Location
635 STATE ST W ,(Jake eheekf pnroble to: In J'erson Payment:
School Code: 500700 City of Ithaca Weekdays 8:30- 4:30 -
108 E. GreenStreetClosed Weekends
Estimated Aid: Ithaca NY 14850 and Holidays
City: $1,513,982 (6107) 274-6580
PROPERTY TAXPAYER'S BILL OF RIGHTS Uniform Percentage of Value: 100 96 CITY 2000.FIRST
Full Market Value as of January 1, 1999: $216,000.00 INSTALLMENT TAXES
Assessed Value as of July 1, 1999: $216,000.00
Exemptions:
PROPERTY TAXES
Levy lk-§L ripflon Total Tax 7.,avy Levy"/o ChangeTaxable Assessed hates per$1000 or ` Tat Amount
From Prior Year Value or Unitsyet-tdnit
CITY OF ITHACA TA7w 53,875.35R:fN) 1.6 Ne 216,0.00; 4.747750 - ;$11025.31
DELINQUENTCHARGE 50.00 0,0°a 4.230,40 MT 1.00000() $4,230.40
Tares Duo by Jon 3f;: 55,256_91
RETURN BOTH STUBS WITH PAYMENT —_———__._.._—,..._——_—__
REMITTANCE STUB Warrant Date 01/01/2000 Bill Number 4332
Owner Location Tax Map No
DJJP INC 635s-rA-1*1s'rt1' 500700 72,-5.1 CITY 2000.FIRST
I
INSTALLMENT TAXES
Payable by Jun 31 '
to city ahi=Sr,tin
Tax Amount $5,255.91
_ . _ Panal ty..&..Interest :.:. 4I
Pard By l 1 Cash Daie 1
rr
I.
I NO POSTDATED CHECKS 1-1 Check itnhaF _, Total Paid $5,255.91 fill
If you wish a receipt for payment of this tax bill,place an"X"In this box. [] `
TAX RECEIPT Bill Number 4332
CITY 2000 FIRST
Owner Location Tax Map No INSTALLMENT TAXES
DJJP INC 635 s,rA'lT.s'r w 500700 72.-5-1 Payable by Jan 31
to city chamberlin
Tax Amount $5,255.91
(+gid lay" 17:Cash Date ~� Penalty& Interact
Total Paid $5,255.91
�,� .f• .�' CITY OF ITHACA
t�,tare 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
1
�CO�'•..... r.`�� OFFICE OF THE CHAMBERLAIN
A0RATEO Telephone: 607/274-6580 Fax: 607/272-7348
C�
To: Budget and Administration Committee of Commo6 Council {
From: Debra A. Parsons, City Chamberlain
Re: Request for Waiver of Penalty on School Taxes
Date: January 24, 2001
Stephen Shore is requesting an adjustment of penalty on his 2000-2001 school taxes. He had issued a
check to the school district that was received by the district on November 29,2000. Unfortunately,he
made an error on his check(the number amount and the written amount did not agree).The school district
returned his payment,which he filed without opening. He requests that we consider waiving the additional
$132.46 in penalty that accrued after the check was returned.
There is no precedent for waiving this penalty,although I consider this an honest error that we all have
made on occasion. Perhaps a waiver of half of the penalty would be acceptable.
CJ
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." �a
January 11, 2001
Ms. Debra Parsons
City Chamberlain
108 E. Green St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
Dear Ms. Parsons:
I am recapping our 1/10/01 phone conversation by submitting this letter. It's purpose is to
take this opportunity to bring to your attention a situation regarding payment of taxes for my rental
property located on 410 E. Yates St.
As directed by personnel at the Ithaca City School Tax Office, I made my tax payment to them
on November 28, 2000. 1 understood it had to be in their hands by 11/30/00. The copy of enclosed
check verifies that I had sent it out and they received it by 11/29/00. As you can see, I didn't
correctly fill out the script line.
The check was returned to me in an envelope that contained other printed material from the
school district. The busy holidays provided enough "cover" for the envelope that, until 1/11/01, 1
never saw the check. Like I mentioned to you on the phone, I called the bank to verify my total tax
payment for the year 2000 and they said it was never cashed. I figured it was lost somewhere out
there in the postal "landscape". Never thinking it was hiding in a pile on my desk.
What this means is that I have missed the payment deadline of 11/30/00. As you can see, I
did sent the check in. I admit to being in a hurry and erroneously filling it out.
For the purpose of review, I am asking you to submit this letter and the enclosed information
to the Tompkins County Budget and Administration Committee. What I am asking (more like
begging on my knees) for is a waiver of any additional late fee penalties. I did submit my payment
on time, unfortunately making a mistake on one line.
Thank you for considering this request and please feel free to contact me with any questions
or to request additional information.
Sin e
f
Stephen Shore
enclosures
P.S. With the intent of bribing anyone who will entertain this request, I promise to keep their cookie
jar full of the best, homemade oatmeal raisin or chocolate chip cookies for the period of one year.
ITHACA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
Tax Office
607-274-2217
/00
Dear School District Taxpayer:
Your recent payment of 2000 school taxes is being returned for the reason(s) checked
below:
❑ This is a duplicate payment. 2000 school taxes have already been
paid.
Or payment has not been applied and taxes are still due because:
❑ The tax bill did not accompany payment.
❑ Payment by the escrow agent did not identify the tax bill number.
❑ The payment amount was incorrect for the tax bill number
identified. Only the exact amount can be accepted. When
checking the amount due, make sure to consider the time period
when payment is made. Note:
no penalty included: October 1 through November 4
2%penalty included: November 5 through November 30
3%penalty included: December 1 through December 29
The bank can not accept your check for payment because numeric
and written amounts on your check do not agree.
❑ Payment was mailed to an incorrect address. Payments must be
sent to:
Ithaca City School District
°% Tompkins County Trust Company
P.O. Box 6533
Ithaca, NY 14851
❑ Other:
If payment has been returned for other than a duplicate payment, please correct the
deficiency noted and send the tax bill along with the correct payment to the address
indicated above.
Thank you for your cooperation.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
O OFFICE OF THE CHAMBERLAIN
Telephone: 607/274-6580 Fax: 607/272-7348
To: Budget and Administration Committee
From: Debra A. Parsons, City Chamberlain
Re: Request to Expunge Sidewalk Assessment
Date: January 29, 2001
Jagat Sharma has requested an expungement of a sidewalk assessment for property located at 511 E.
Buffalo Street. The assessment was added to the 2001 City first installment tax bill.
Mr.Sharma had contested his bill for sidewalk work. His letters of protest were referred to the Board of
Public Works. Upon review,we determined that,while the Board had discussed the appeal,no formal
action was taken,and no notification was forwarded to Mr.Sharma. I have discussed this account with Bill
Gray. He will present the appeal to the Board again.In the meantime,I recommend removing the
assessment from the first installment tax bill,pending a decision from the Board.
Whereas,Jagat Sharma had appealed the sidewalk assessment for 511 E.Buffalo Street before the Board of
Public Works,and
Whereas,the Board of Public Works reviewed the appeal,but took no formal action,and
Whereas,the assessment has since been added to the 2001 City First Installment Tax bill,now therefore be
it
Resolved,that the City Chamberlain is authorized to remove the assessment from the 2001 tax bill,and be
it further
Resolved,that the appeal of the sidewalk assessment be referred back to the Board of Public Works for
formal action.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." ��
py ITI�q
,�-t..••• •��' CITY OF ITHACA
`tib �'••;�� 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
��.,,�••• fr`� OFFICE OF THE CHAMBERLAIN
APoitG?EO Telephone: 607/274-6580 Fax: 607/272-7348
T
To: Budget and Administration Coittee �
From: Debra A. Parsons, City Cham rl
Re: Sidewalk Assessment at 124 . ourt Stre
Date: January 25, 2001
Suicide Prevention and Crisis Center is requesting that the sidewalk assessment on the above referenced
property be expunged. The assessment was added to the City first installment tax bill.
I have copies of some of the file for this property maintained by the Engineering department. The original
request to repair the sidewalk was sent to David Ferris,the owner of the property at the time,in 1990.
Another request was sent to Mr.Ferris in 1995 and in 1998. Mr.Ferris responded,contending that the
sidewalk was on City property,and that his attorney had advised him that New York State case law does
not support the City's position that he was responsible for its repair: During the summer of 1999,the City
again contacted Mr.Ferris,and ultimately replaced the sidewalk.
Mr.Ferris sent a letter to the Board of Public Works on March 6,2000 to contest the bill and the repair.
Mr.Ferris again contended that the City was responsible for the repairs. He also was very upset that the
City had replaced slate with concrete in the Historic District. Ultimately,Council approved a policy that
would subsidize slate replacement when necessary,although it is not clear to me that the policy was a result
of Mr.Ferris's complaint or of others. Also,no action was taken to expunge or reduce the bill for the
repair.
Concurrently,this property was being sold to Suicide Prevention. Our tax search is dated January 14,2000.
The closing occurred on February 14,2000. The warrant for the sidewalks was approved at the April
Council meeting. This property was not on our list of pending sidewalk repairs,possibly because the
original notices were so old. Suicide Prevention does not want to pay the bill. I have requested an opinion
from the Attorney's office regarding our recourse against Mr.Ferris.
V'
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." �a
Suicide
Prevention
Foundation, inc:
January 8,2001
Budget and Administration Committee
Common Council
'City of Ithaca -
108 East Green Street
Ithaca,NY 14850
Petition for relief,from sidewalk assessment, 124 E. Court Street
Suicide Prevention Foundation, inc.,purchased the property at 124 E. Court Street on
FebruaryX14,2000,for the use of Suicide Prevention'and Crisis Service.
On June 8,2000 four months after'the purchase,we received notice of a sidewalk
assessment of$1,909:60 for work completed in August 1999,six months before-we
purchased the building.
We made a prompt inquiry about this assessment.to which we received no response until
December 27,2000 when we_were told that"an indication that a bill for sidewalk repair
was pending should have appeared on the tax search." However,the tax search prepared _
'by City Chamberlain Debra A.Parsons January,14,2000,(copy attached):reported no
sidewalldcurbing assessments.
Having no knowledge of the pending assessment and having relied on the Chamberlain's
report of no.outstanding assessments at the time of the purchase of the building,we believe
that Suicide Prevention Foundation,inc.,should not be responsible for this assessment and,
therefore, request relief from this assessment.
Res ully submitted,
/Jane 1.Hammond
` President
Box 312, Ithaca, New York, 14851
JAN 1. 9 2001 � C
�o s
'B
CITY OF ITHACA
'By
-
CITY
WEST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
OFFICE OF TEL (607)272-1234
BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS FAX (607)272-2793
TO: Budget & Administration Committee
FROM: Ithaca Board of Fire Commissioners
Christine M. Wilbur, Clerk/'11-0
RE: Resolution
DATE: January 18, 2001
At the regular meeting of the Ithaca Board of Fire Commissioners held on
January 9, 2001 , the following resolution was offered by Commissioner
Alexander, seconded by Chair Romanowski and carried unanimously:
Whereas, volunteer companies 1 , 2 and 3 of the Ithaca Fire Department have
been requested by the Chief to temporarily vacate their offices at the
Central Fire Station due to space needs of administration and other
personnel;
Resolved, the Board of Fire Commissioners are requesting the City of Ithaca
to pay for any costs incurred due to the displacement of the before said
company's artifacts (which represent a part of the history of the Ithaca Fire
Department) and personal property or to make arrangements for the safe,
secure storage of these items.
Q OLS �J
Ilk
n
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" Recycled Paper
I
FJA 2, ?001
CITY OF ITHACA By
1 JAMES L. GIBBS DRIVE
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
OFFICE OF TELEPHONE: 273-8364
YOUTH BUREAU CODE 607
To. Dominick Cafferillo City Controller
From: Allen Green �• Acting Deputy Director
Re: Agenda items for the January B&A Meeting
Date: January 19,2001
Piease include the attached items on the agenda for the January meeting of the Budget
and Administration Committee.
Thanks !
xc:Alice W.Green
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
i
CITY OF ITHACA
1 James L. Gibbs Drive Ithaca, New York 14850
... .•+'�� YOUTH BUREAU
7E0 Telephone: 607/273-8364 Fax: 607/273/2817
To: Budget and Administration Committee
From: Allen Green Youth Development Coordinator
Re: Youth Development Budget Amendments
Date: January 4, 2001
1)We have been advised by the Ithaca City School District that we will be receiving
$5741.00 in additional revenue in order to support and expand the work that we've been
doing in partnership with BJM(Beverly J. Martin)Elementary School.This funding
originates from a federal 'Twenty First Century Grant—A Bridge Across Cultures." The
project involves the development of community learning centers at three schools: Enfield
Elementary School,BJM and Dewitt Middle School
We would like to amend the 2001 Youth Development budget as follows:
Increase anticipated revenue:
Ithaca City School District
Account# A 3820-1203 Special Projects $5741.00
Increase expenses: Special Projects
Account# A 7310-120-1203 Part Time Seasonal $3386.00
Account# A 7310-460-1203 Program Supplies $2016.00
t 0 ,
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification."
2)We have been advised by the Advisory Board of the Paul Schreurs Memorial Program
that we will be receiving$5136.00 in additional revenue in order to support and expand
the work that we've been doing in this academic support program.This funding will be
used for temporary part time staffing that will enable us to complete several short term
projects between now and the end of the school year.
We would like to amend the 2001 Youth Development budget as follows:
Increase anticipated revenue:
Paul Schreurs Memorial Fund
Account# A 2070-1201 Paul Schreurs $5136.00
Memorial Program
Increase expenses: Paul Schreurs
Memorial Program
Account# A 7310-120-1201 Part Time Seasonal $4670.00
Thank you. +�
l
CITY OF ITHACA
C+~ ,ire 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
H. MATTHYS VAN CORT, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DOUGLAS B. McDONALD, DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Telephone: Planning&Development-607/274-6550 Community Development/IURA-607/274-6559
Fax: 607/274-6558
TO. Budget and Administration ConmUttee LJAN 6 2oQ1JI"
FROM: H. Matthys Van Cort
Director of Planning & Development
�;
SUBJECT: Route 13 Bridge funding
DATE: January 12, 2001
Several months ago Bill Gray and I went to the Budget& Administration Committee to request
additional funding for the Route 13 Bridge. You will recall that the City received a$250,000
Multi-Modal Grant through Senator Seward's office for construction of this bridge, which will
connect the Black Diamond Trail to Buttermilk State Park, South Hill and beyond.
The bridge design requires the approval of the Town of Ithaca,NYSDOT, and New York State
Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation(NYSOPRHP). Their review (especially
NYSDOT and NYSOPRHP) added significantly to the scope and cost of the project. While
these increases are unfortunate and essentially unforeseeable, they are unavoidable. Since it
crosses a State highway, we cannot build the bridge without NYSDOT approval, and, since the
bridge will be maintained by NYSOPRHP, they have the authority to add to the capital cost of
the project through their design changes. The long and short of it is that the estimated cost has
risen from $250,000 to $365,000.
When, in the fall of last year, Bill and I informed the B&A Committee of this cost increase and
requested the necessary additional funding for construction of the bridge, the Committee directed
that we meet with the Town to Ithaca to discuss the possibility of their providing the funding for
part of the increase. Bill took this request to the Town Board in November or December of last
year. During that same time period Mayor Cohen had met separately with Ithaca Town
Supervisor, Cathy Valentino, to discuss the Town's participation in the project. The Town's
position was that they were not a party to the original application, and they were being asked at
the l Ith hour to participate in funding a cost overrun, caused by the State's changes to the design.
The conclusion of their discussion was that the Town would not make a contribution to the
project at this time.
So we are back where we were last fall when we first requested an increase of$115,000 in
Capital Project 421 from $250,000 to $365,000.
M
�o1 )
An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification."
The reasons for funding this important project remain unchanged. The bridge is an essential link
for connecting the City's new Southwest Natural Area and the State-funded Black Diamond
Trail to the South Hill Recreation Way and beyond to the Circle Green Way and the growing
system of trails to the east of the City of Ithaca. The bridge is expensive to build and will be
expensive to maintain. Under the agreements that have been developed, the City's $115,000
leverages the $250,000 Multi-Modal grant for construction, and, equally important,provides for
perpetual maintenance of the bridge at no cost to the City.
During the next 25 years,the green way system, of which the proposed bridge is an essential
link, will become an increasingly important part of the City and County's recreational
infrastructure. With the aging of the baby bomber generation, more and more people will be
utilizing the trails for exercise, recreation and a way of enjoying the extraordinary beauty of the
natural setting in which the City is located. Within the City, the trails will provide a safe and
attractive system of linkages between and among the City's many exceptional parks and open
spaces.
Copy: Leslie Chatterton, Historic Preservation and Neighborhood Planner
Bill Gray, Superintendent of Public Works (SPW)
Donna Payne, Administrative Secretary for SPW
CITY OF ITHACA
Cr~ !t 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
i
0pAw,�� .,,,✓`� DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Po� O H. MATTHYS VAN CORT, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DOUGLAS B. McDONALD, DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Telephone: Planning& Development-607/274-6550 Community Development/IURA-607/274.6559
Fax: 607/274-6558
MEMO TO: Budget and Administration Committee
FROM: H. Matthys Van Cort, Director of Planning and Development
DATE: September 19, 2000
SUBJECT: Gateway Pedestrian Bridge over Route 13 South—9/18/00
I have been informed by Bill Gray that the estimates for the Gateway Pedestrian Bridge over
Route 13 now indicate that the project will be over budget. The increases in the project cost are
due to mandates from the New York State DOT and the New York State Office of Parks,
Recreation and Historic Preservation. While the city is constructing this bridge, it will become
the property of the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation and in addition DOT
has authority over it since it crosses a state highway.
As you may remember this project was authorized as capital project 421 in the 2000 budget at
$250,000. This sum will be available from multi model funds secured through the good offices of
Assemblyman Marty Luster. It appears now that the budget will be approximately $365,000. In
order to proceed we will need an additional allocation of$115,000.
I've briefly discussed this with Mayor Cohen and he has directed that I supply you with this
information for your consideration at an upcoming meeting of the Budget Committee. Thank you
very much for your attention to this matter.
Bill Gray's memo of July 281h is attached for your information
cc: Mayor Alan J. Cohen
Dominic Cafferillo
Bill Gray
Leslie Chatterton
q:\planning\staff\thys\memos\2000\route 13 ped bridge sept 19.doc
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." ��
1
.�oFITiL
K?Oy CITY OF ITHACA j
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
V
e DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
fC�`• ,•0� William J. Gray. PE., Superintendent/City Engineer
.....
.. Telephone: 607/27.1-6527 Fax: 607/274-6567
p� A7E0
MEMORANDUM LP
TO: Alan J. Cohen, Mayor
Thys Van Cort, Director of Planning and Development
FROM: William J. Gray, P.E., Superintendent of Public Works
RE: Gateway Pedestrian Bridge over Route 13 South
DATE: July 28, 2000
Attached for your information is an updated memo from Hernando Gil to me concerning
the status of this project and its associated budget. As you can see we have almost all of the .
approvals that we need. Then you will note that the current budget for this project is $330,000
plus allowances for internal costs such as bonding, engineering and legal expenses of roughly
10% bringing this project budget to approximately $365,000.
The City of Ithaca stated its desire for a prefabricated bridge. The department of
transportation has established requirements for that structure because it's installed over a state
highway and the installation must meet their requirements for safety and traffic control. In
addition, they administer the requirements for the multi-modal projects. The NYS Department
of Parks has some direct control over the project. It must meet their requirements because they
eventually are the owner and maintainer of the facility. Peter Novelli has a level of control
because as the designer, he has to put his professional engineering stamp on the specifications
and drawings. We have yet to hear from the Town of Ithaca and any requirements that they
might wish to place on it other than that it should accommodate Town vehicles used for the
maintenance of trails.
This project is listed as CP#421 and was authorized in the year 2000 budget at a level of
$250,000 reflecting the multi-modal funds you have procured through Assembly Luster's Office.
At this point I can complete the design specifications and the process of obtaining all the
necessary permits and approvals to put the project out to bid. However, I cannot award a bid
until there is an adequate budget to cover the costs. We have no agreement with the Town of .
Ithaca and it seems that they have an equal interest in seeing this bridge installed.
At this point, I recommend that the city enter into negotiations with the Town of Ithaca.
We need to establish funding of the local portion of this Capital Project and for maintenance of
the trail, which will result from the combined city and town effort to connect the Black Diamond
Trail to the South Hill Recreation Way. Please advise means to how you wish to proceed.
cc: Board of Public Works
Hernando Gil, Bridge Systems Engineer
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." ��
City of Ithaca
Department of Public Work
GATEWAY PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE Project ID # S563
MULTIMODAL APPROVED VS. COSTS ESTIMATED
Approved by Costs Estimated
D.O.T. City of Ithaca
Preliminary Engineering
Architectural Design $ 1,700.00
Survey $ 1,300.00
Preliminary Design $ 7,400.00
Traffic Control Plan $ 1,500.00
City Engineer $ 2,025.00
Sub-total $ 12,000.00 $ 13,925.00
Construction
Mobilization $ 10,000.00
Bridge fabrication $ 229,900.00
Erection $ 10,500.00
Traffic Control $ 5,500.00
Backwalls $ 9,000.00
Overhead 15% $ 39,735.00
Sub-total $ 224,400.00 $ 304,635.00
Supervision Inspection
Inspection ( Peter Novelli ) $ 10,700.00
City Engineer $ 2,025.00
Sub-total $ 12,000.00 $ 12,725.00
TOTAL $ 248,400.00 $ 331,285.00
n- )
Rice,
Williams �vCu'�'� F
��Associates Approvals By Jennifer Kusznir 'u 1
Original Contract Amount: $120,000.00
Account#Charged A8020 5430 By
Date Processed Total Invoice Amount Reimbursable Amount Expended Balance
Paid Expenses from Contract
5/26/98 $2,346.00 $786.00 $1,560.00 $117,654.00
10/16/98 $6,180.75 $6,180.75 $111,473.25
11/30/98 $1,788.06 $224.06 $1,564.00 $109,685.19
1/8/99 $9,975.50 $4,645.50 $5,330.00 $99,709.69
1/8/99 $650.00 $650.00 $99,059.69
3/8/99 $18,962.75 $1,412.75 $17,550.00 $80,096.94
3/19/99 $4,288.23 $258.23 $4,030.00 $75,808.71
3/26/99 $910.00 $910.00 $74,898.71
5/3/99 $2,934.54 $594.54 $2,340.00 $71,964.17
6/1/99 $4,544.50 $904.50 $3,640.00 $67,419.67
6/18/99 $520.00 $520.00 $66,899.67
8/20/99 $650.00 $650.00 $66,249.67
9/24/99 $1,040.00 $1,040.00 $65,209.67
12/3/99 $2,600.00 $2,600.00 $62,609.67
12/10/99 $4,877.61 $67.61 $4,810.00 $57,732.06
12/17/99 $2,495.88 $675.88 $1,820.00 $55,236.18
2/11/00 $3,013.98 $933.00 $2,080.98 $52,222.20
2/11/00 $3,510.00 $3,510.00 $48,712.20
3/28/00 $2,668.19 $718.19 $1,950.00 $46,044.01
3/28/00 $887.70 $42.80 $844.90 $45,156.31
5/9/00 $1,040.00 $1,040.00 $44,116.31
6/6/00 $4,555.31 $915.31 $3,640.00 $39,561.00
7/14/00 $7,378.74 $2,048.74 $5,330.00 $32,182.26
9/1/00 $1,950.00 $1,950.00 $30,232.26
9/22/00 $4,963.00 $13.00 $4,950.00 $25,269.26
10/6/00 $910.00 $910.00 $24,359.26
11/24/00 $1,443.00 $13.00 $1,430.00 $22 916.26
12/15/00 $5,460.00 $0.00 $5,460.00 $17,456.26
TOTALS $102,543.74 $14,253.11 $88,290.63
�2 LAg
C` //s-
V4110
171
/N CK . 2,
Rice, Williams Telergy and FOIA are not part of above contract
Approvals By The following have been paid by Ping Dept and need to be reimbursed
Original Contract Amount:
Account#Charged A8020 5430
TRANSFER Transferring TW to 8,000.00
Telergy Charges PROJECT TW/AOL
Total Invoice Total Invoice
Date Processed Amount Date Processed Amount Balance
May 9, 2000 $1,040.00 3/3/00 $3,250.00 $4,750.00
June 15, 2000 $3,380.00 6/15/00 $2,470.00 $2,280.00
July 14, 2000 $2,730.00 7/14/00 $2,730.00 ($450.00)
July 14, 2000 $1,430.00 Totals $8,450.00
July 26, 2000 $6,646.05
TOTALS $15,226.05
RIGHT-OF-WAY
ORDINANCE
Total Invoice
FOIA(Foil) Related Work Date Processed Amount
Total Invoice
Date Processed Amount 3/26/66 $1,040.00
October 15, 1999 $2,089.50 9/1/00 $2,600.00
Total $2,089.50 9/22/00 $1,353.00
TOTAL $4,993.00
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
s
_ DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
William J. Gray,P.E., Superintendent/City Engineer
RA7 'f�� Telephone: 607/274-6527 Fax: 607/274-6587 F�AN
MEMORANDUM 2 A
TO: Board of Public Works By
Pat Vaughan, Chair, B&A Committee
FROM: William J. Gray, P.E., Superintendent of Public Works
RE: Increased Authorization Requested, Linn Street Bridge
Project Cost: $788,000(3/98)to$1,130,000, CP 280
City Cost @5%: $39,500(3/98)to $56,500
DATE: January 24, 2001
Attached is a memo from Hernando Gil recommending the reauthorization of the Linn
Street Bridge Project at the level of$1,130,000, which reflects the post bid budget for the
project. The cost to the city will increase from roughly$40,000 to $56,000. The city's actual
final cost will be 5%of the approved costs plus any other expenses that the city requires(which
are not part of the approved project). We don't anticipate any added costs. Hernando was very
successful working with our consultant to get the approved project to cover all the items we
wanted in the project.
The change in the project cost is substantial, and reflects several things. The two major
components are the length of time for project design/approval which has put us in a new bidding
environment (higher) and the involvement of state and federal agencies in the in review. In this
case, the NYS Office of Parks and Historic Preservation by itself added roughly $100,000 to the
construction by adding a landscaped brick plaza in the intersection design, making the bridge
longer and the finished surfaces more expensive. The project includes much more pavement
than we originally estimated would be approved and included.
While it has taken us a long time to get to this point, I believe we will be proud of the
finished project (late fall 2001) and that the increased final cost to the city is a bargain.
�o
cc: Hernando Gil, Bridge Systems Engineer
0
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." ��
I
t CAV-"LA CREEK
xiao PARKING
NYTIME I
NO �I � i
wa
PARKING PAWING !
3: STIM Sowtmy
°"
NO ANYTIME
PARKING —,
ANYTIME !ASft
,x
N0,MDrJG
It
evtaec , , r quSSr+— R+T r
t r i ST<t i W50
CON
t MASS ' . " r 11NN STREET coa,+CURB
s
7 cu
„ U41T OF _
-- _ '.
yy tONSiRIILTIpr .le-r—._.,.... —:1 ... — „__fit Bas
UWJK
4 • -.rte
pRWOSO GLASS
CUM anv
' ^ /
' -'r•"'_ ` �'.,
PARK CLOSED
DUSK TO DAWNNO
PARKING � /i � �.._. �� ! ..� I 'rr �Fq'oF r
i
ANYTIME i fa
Vd
NO NO
PARKING PARKING
ANNE iNNO
RU ANYTIME I
TRAFFIC
CITY OF ITHACA
Department of Public Works
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
V� l
OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER
�Po�1�0 Telephone: 607/274-6530 Fax: 607/274-6587
MEMORANDUM �) I ;;'� 2 3 2001
J
To: Budget and Administration Committee 18y
From: Hernando Gil, Bridge Systems Engineer
Ref: Linn Street Bridge Project, Cost Updated
Date: January 18,2001
On March 17, 1999, the City of Ithaca Common Council authorized the Capital
Project 280 in the amount of$ 788,00.00 for the reconstruction of the Linn Street Bridge
over Cascadilla Creek
On January 9, 2001 the Department of Public Works held a public bid opening
and the lower bid came out in the amount of$ 843,167.60.
The up dated cost estimated is:
Design $ 200,000.00
Construction $ 850,000.00
Construction Inspection $ 80,000.00
TOTAL $ 1,130,000.00
The federal government will pay 80%, the state government 15% and the City of Ithaca
5%.
Federal 80% $ 904,000.00
State 15% $ 169,500.00
City of Ithaca 5% $ 56,500.00
I request the capital project 280 be re-authorized in the amount of $ 1,130,000
An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." ��
Common Council
March 17, 1999
2 . 6A - Linn Street Bridge Project
By Alderperson Blumenthal : Seconded by Alderperson Vaughan
WHEREAS, a project for the replacement of the LINN STREET BRIDGE
B. I .N. 2210560, P. I .N. 375236, T. I .P. 94-10 for $788, 000 ("the
Project" ) is eligible for funding under Title 23 U.S . Code as
administered by the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA" ) , as
amended, that calls for the apportionment of the costs such program
to be borne at the ration of 80% Federal funds and 20% non-federal
funds, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca desires to advance the Project by making
a commitment of 100% of the non-federal share of the costs of
Scoping, Design (Phases I-VI) , Construction, and Construction
Inspection, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works is responsible for the operation
and maintenance of city streets and bridges as well as city capital
construction as charged by the City Charter, and
WHEREAS, Common Council authorized Capital Project 280 in 1994 for
reconstruction of the Linn Street Bridge which must be re-authorized
in order to undertake the project and to provide the state and
federal government proof that the City is authorized to front the
monies required to start the project, up to the full project
authorization, . to cover the cost of change orders and any authorized
scope change required to complete the project; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council re-authorizes Capital Project 280
in the amount of $788, 000 as requested by the Board of Public Works,
and, be it further
RESOLVED, That in the event the full federal and non-federal share
costs of the project exceeds the amount appropriated above, Common
Council of the City of Ithaca shall convene as soon as possible to
appropriate said excess amount immediately upon the notification by
the NYSDOT thereof, and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the Mayor be authorized to sign all necessary
Agreements with NYSDOT to secure Federal Aid and Marchiselli Aid on
behalf of the City of Ithaca and the Superintendent by authorized to
sign all necessary construction documents, contracts, certifications
and reimbursement requests, and, be it further
RESOLVED, That this project be undertaken with the understanding
that the final cost to the City will be roughly five percent (5%) of
the final approved project cost, in monies and in-kind services as
managed by the Superintendent and monitored by the City Controller,
and, be it further
RESOLVED, That a certified copy of this resolution be filed with the
New York State Commissioner of Transportation by attaching it to any
necessary Agreement in connection with the Project, and, be it
further
RESOLVED, That this resolution shall take effect immediately.
Carried Unanimously
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS SS:
CITY OF ITHACA
I, Julie Conley Holcomb, City Clerk of the City of Ithaca, do hereby
certify that the foregoing resolution is a true and exact copy of a
resolution duly adopted by the Common Council of said City of Ithaca
at a special meeting held on the 17th March, 1999, and that the same
is a complete copy of the whole of such resolution.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the Corporate
Seal of the City of Ithaca, this 28th day of March, 2000.
' Julie Conley Holcomb, CMC
City Clerk
City of Ithaca, New York
'ti
a
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
333 EAST WASHINGTON STREET
SYRACUSE, N.Y. 13202
JON P. EDINGER,P.E. JOSEPH H. BOARDMAN
REGIONAL DIRECTOR COMMISSIONER
January 24, 2001
Mr. William J. Gray, P.E.
Superintendent of Public Works
City of Ithaca
108 East Green Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Dear Mr. Gray:
RE: PIN 375236, BIN 2210560, D011569
LINN STREET BRIDGE OVER
CASCADILLA CREEK
CITY OF ITHACA, TOMPKINS COUNTY
We have reviewed and approved the award documents submitted for the subject project and
concur with the selection of FMV Contracting, Inc., with a bid of$843,167.60, as your
construction contractor.
You are now authorized to proceed with the construction phase of your project. If you have
any questions, please contact George Doucette at(315)428-4409.
Very truly yours,
ALBERT . VETTER, P.E.
Regional Planning and Program Manager
tier ��
CITY OF ITHACA
'IOB EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA,NEW YORK 14850
COMMON COUNCIL TELEPHONE: (607)274-6570
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frank Proto
George Totman
Tompkins County Board of Representatives
FROM: Pat Vaughan, Chairperson �`
Budget and Administration Committee
DATE: January 26, 2001
RE: Backup Material for B & A Agenda
Due to the large amount of paperwork to be copied for the
B&A agendas, we will just be sending you a copy of the agenda.
If there is anything on the agenda that you would like to
receive, please contact Carol Shipe at 274-6576, and she will
fax it to you immediately.
Thank you for your understanding.
PV:cs
'An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program' L*? Recycled Paper
PROJECT: Replacement of the Unn Street Bridge over Cascad,tla Creek /11 .ISIDTq8,
OWNER: City of Ithaca-Department of Public Works
LABELLA PROJECT a: 99007
BIO OPENING: 2:00 P.M.focal time
DATE: January 9,2001 1
ENGINEER'S F Contracting,Inc. G.DeVincentis 8 Son Con.Co.Inc. R.DeVincentis Construction,Inc. CCI Companies,Inc. Slate Hill Constructors,Inc.
ESTIMATE
ITEM EST, UNIT I ESTIMATED UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT 810
NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION DUAN. UNIT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT
HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS
201.06M Clearing and Grubbing I LS S 1,000.00 $1,000.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $14,000.00 $14,000.00 $5,500.00 $5,500.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00
203.02 M Unclassified Excavation and Disposal 900 CM $10.00 $9,000.00 $12.00 $10,8-.00 826.00 $23,400.00 $15.50 $13,950.00 $8.50 $7,650.00 $20.00 $18,000.00
203.07M Select Granular Fid 240 CM $25.00 $6,000.00 $40.00 $9,fioom $23.50 $5,640.00 $53.00 $12,720.00 S25.00 $6,000.00 $45.00 $10,800.00
203.99 SPM Structural Soil 56 CM $50.00 $2,800.00 $100.00 $5,600.00 $150.00 58,400.00 $71.00 $3,976.00 $85.00 $4,760.00 $120.00 $6,720.00
206.02M Trench&Cuv Excavation 290 CM $19.00 $
5,510.00 $20.00 $5,800.00 528.00 $8,120.00 $33.00 $9,570.00 $10.00 $2,900.00 $23.00 $6,670.00
209.0402M Check Dam(Haybale/Strawbale) 3 EA $15.00 $45.00 $75.00 5225.00 $150.00 $450.00 $100.00 $300.00 $150.00 $450.00 $50.00 $150.00
304.06 M Subbase Course,Optional Type 420 CM $26.00 $10,920.00 $3000 $12,600.00 $23.50 $9,870.00 $38.50 $16,170.00 $50.00 S21,000.DO $45.00 $18,900.00
403.11 M Asphalt Concrete-Base Course Type 1 283 MT $75.00 $21,225.00 $52.00 574,716.00 $51.00 $14,433.00 $61.00 $17,263.00 $55.00 S15,565.00 $62.00 $17,546.00
403.13 M Asphalt Concrete-T 3 Binder Course 160 MT $80.00 $12,800:00 $56.00 $8,960:00 $53.00 $8,480.00 $63.00 $10,080.00 $55.00 $8,800.00 $68.00 $10,880.00
403.19 M Asphalt Concrete-Type 7F Top Course 130 MT $80.00 $10,400.00 $6100 $7,930.00 $57.00 $7,410.00 $68.00 58,840.00 555.00 57,150.00 $70.00 $9,100.00
552.16 M Excavation Protection System 815 SM 5150.00 $12,225.00 $1000 $8,150,00 56.00 $4,890.00 $1.20 $978.00 $1.45 $1,181.75 $0.50 $407.50
603.980112 M Smooth Int.Cont.Poly.Culv.d Storm Pipe,305 mm dia. 75 M $62.50 $4,687.50 $45.00 $3,375.00 $46.00 $3,450.00 $45.00 $3,375.00 $150.00 $11,250.00 $80.00 $6,000.00
603.980124 M Smooth Int.Con.Poly.Cut,8 Storm Pipe,600 mm dia. 50 M $20.00 $1,000.00 $50.00 $2,500.00 $85.00 $4,250.00 $84.50 54,225.00 $175.00 $8,750.00 $125.00 56,250.00
604.070301 Mit
ABerin Drina a SWclurcs 3 EA $2,500.00 $7,500.00 5500.00 $1,500.00 $200.00 5600.00 $825.00 $2,475.00 $400.00 $1,200.00 $900.00 02,700.00
604.302192 MRect.Drainage Su.Type U for 12PCB Welded Frame 6 M $325.00 $1 950.00 $800.00 $4,500.00 S789.00 $4,734.00 $1,400.00 $8,400.00 51,250.- $7,500.00 EB50.- $5,100.00
604.4048 MPrecast Round Marurole 12 M $325.00 53.900.00 $S-.- 59,600.00 $480.00 55.760.00 $1,000.00 $12,000.00 $900.00 $10.800.00 $700.00 $6.400.00 -
605:0901MUnderdrain Filter,Type 1 42 CM $45.00 $1,890.00 $50.00 $2,100.00 $32.00 $1,344.00 $67.00 52,814.00 $45.00 $1,890.00 $65.00 $2,730.00
605.1502 M52 mm Pert.Con.Polyethylene Underdmin Tubing 213 M $10.00 $2.130.00 $6.00 $1,278.00 $23.00 $4,899.00 55.00 $1.065.00 $30.00 $6.390.00 $16.00 S3,40SO0
608.0101 M Concrete Sidewalks and Driveways 50 CM $350.00 $17,500.00 $360.00 $18,000.00 $540.00 $27,000.00 $450.00 $22,500.00 $325.00 $16,250.00 $350.00 S17.SW.OD
608.020101 M Asphalt Concrete Sidewalk,Driveway,8 Bike Path 10 MT $90.00 5900.- $160.00 $1,600.00 $95.00 5950.00 $140.00 51,400.- / $100.00 $1,000.00 $115.00 $1,150.00
609.0401 M Cast in Place Concrete Curb 223 M 555.00 $12,255.00 544.00 $9,812.00 $60.00 $13,380.00 $51.00 $11,373.00 $40.00 $8,920.00 562.00 $13.826.0
610.0203M Establishing Turf 285 SM 50.50 $142.50 $3.00 $855.00 $1.50 $456.00 $5.00 $1,425.00 $1.45 $413.25 $100 $285.00
611.99 SPM Planting-Trees 4 EA $400.00 $1,600.00 5550.00 $2,200.00 $560.00 $2,240.00 $460.00 51,800.00 $450.00 $1,800.00 $500.00 $2,000.-
. 613.0101 M Topsoil 30 CM S33.00 $990.00 $50.00 $1,500.00 $30.- $900.00 $80.00 $2,400.00 $45.00 $1,350.00 $70.00 $2,100.-
614.0301 M Tree Removal 5 EA SS-.00 $2,500.00 $500.00 $2,500.00. $500.00 $2,500.00 $1,000.00 $5,000.00 $400.00 $2,000.00 $250.00 $1,250.00
615.98 SP M Tree Protection Barrier 200 M $4.00 $800.00 $10.00 $2,000.00 $30.- $6,000.00 $7.00 $1,400.- $25.00 $5,000.00 $6.00 $1,2-.00
00
619.01 M Basic Maintenance 8 Protection of Traffic 1 LS $15,0 .00 315,000.00 $36,000.00 $38.000.00 $7,000.00 37,000.00 $9,000.00 $9.000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.-
619.02M Construction Signs 1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $18,000.00 $18,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $9,800.00 $9,800.00 $3,000.00 S3,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00
619.0413 M Type III Construction Barricades 70 M $50.00 $3,500.0 $60.00 $4,200.00 570.00 S4,900.00 $100.00 $7,000.00 $35.00 $2.450.00 532.00 $2.240.00
619.0502 M Lighting for Type III Construction Barricades 35 M $50.00 $1,750.00 380.00 $2,800.00 $20.00 $700.00 $54.00 $1,890.00 $25.00 $675.00 532.00 $1,120.00
634.01 MSurve a Stakeout 1 LS $5,0- -
.00 $5,000.00 $9,000.00 $9,000.00 $9,OOD.00 S9, 0.00 $7,600.- $7,800.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $18,D-.00 $18,000.00
637.0602M Engineers Office.Type B S MO S1,2W.W $6,000.00 $1,500.00 $7,500.00 51,500.00 07,500.00 $1,400.00 $7,000.00 $I'S00.00 $7,500.00 S850.- $4,250.00
645.71 M Ground Mounted Sign Panels MUTCD Codes R,P,W,8 M 0.6 SM $300.00 $180.00 $225.00 $135.00 $360.00 -$216.00 5360.00 $21600 $120.00 $72.00 $400.00 $240.00
647.01 M Removal of Signa-Size A(0.0 to 1.0 SM) 4 EA $16.00 $64.00 $25.00 $100.00 $25.00 $100.00 560.00 $240.00 $10.00 S40.00 $25.00 $100.00
647.11M Rebcatkg Signs-Size A(0.0 to 1.0 SM) 12 EA $150.00 $IAW.- S40.00 $480.00 $100.00 S1,200.00 $90.00 $1,080.00 $75.00 $900.00 $250.00 $3,000.0
655.0301 M Frames and Grates ParclNl Barr 6 SM $700.00 $4,2(10.00 SS-.- $3,000.00 $680.00 $4,080.00 5680.00 $3,960.00 5625.00 $3,750.00 $700.00 $4,200,0 -
SUBTOTAL-WITHOl1TMOSILIZATION $191,174.00 $241,216.00 $210.252.- $237,465.00 $204,057.00, 0296,222.50
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 4,.
202.120001 M Remove Existing Supe h- 1LS $12,000.00 $12.000.00 $69,000.00 -W 569,0 . $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $37,000.00 - 50 - 00.-$37,0 .00 $50,000.00 $ 000.00 0195,000. $195,0 _
202.19 M Removal of Existing Substructure 1871 CM - $40.00 $74.840.00 S1O.00 $18,710.0 $18.60 $34,800.60 $25.50 $47,710.50 525.00 546,776.00 $50.00 $93,550.00
203.21 M Sel$at Structural Flt 820 CM SWOO $24,600.00 $34.00 527,8110.00 $20.00 $/6,400.0 546.00 $37,720.0 545.00 536,900.00 $45.00 $36,900.-
2-.01 M Structure Excavation 2110 CM $2200 $46,420.00 $6.00 $12,660.00 $39.00 $82,290.00 $12.00 $25,320.00 $15.00 $31,650.00 525.00 552,750.00
209.08M Silt Fence 60 M $8.00 $640.00 SIO.- $800.00 570.00 SaW.00 $13.50 $1,080.- $7.00 f5B0.W .$14.00 $1,120,00 --
304,06M Subbase Course,Optional Type 40 CM $26.00 $1,040.00 $30.00 $1,200.00 $23.50 $940.00 S50.00 $2,000.00 $35.00 $1,400.00 $45.00 $1,800.0
403.11 M Asphalt Concrete,Base Course,Type 1 25 MT $75.00 $1,875.00 $52.00 $1,300.00 $51.0 $1,275.00 $61.00 $1,525.00 $55.00 $1,375.00 $6200 $1,550.00
403.13 M Asphalt Concrete,Binder Course Type 3 15 MT $80.00 $1,200.00 $56.00 $840.00 $53.00 $795.00 $63.- $945.00 $55.00 $825.00 $68.0 $1,020.00 "
403.19 M Asphalt Concrete,Type 7F Top Course 15 MT $80.00 $1,200.00 $61.00 $915.- $57.00 5855.00 $68.- $1,020.00 $55.00 $825.00 $70:00 $1,050.00
17551.0461 M Rack Sockets for Soldier Pile and Lagging Wal 850
22 M $ .0 - -$16,700. $1,000. $22,000.00 $900.00 $19,8- 546
.00 $2,100.00 ,200.00 -$1,100.00 $24,200. $1,600.00 $35,200.-
17551.0462 M Installing Solder Piles for Soldier Pile and Lagging Wag so 5200.- $16,000.00 $330.00 $26.400.00 $450.00 $36,000.00 5336.00 $26,880.0D $105.00 $8,400.00 $230.00 $18,400.00
17551.0463 M Installing Lagging for Soldier PIN and Lagging Well 70 SM $150.00 $10,500.00 $170.00 $11,900.00 $320.00 $22,400.00 $168.- $11,760.00 $125.00 $5,750.00 $80.00 $5,600.00
552.16 M Excavation Protection System 215 SM $15.00 $3,225.00 5100.00 $21,500.00 $190.00 $40850.00 $160.00 $34,400.00 $350.00 $75,250.00 $10.00 $2,150.00
553.03 M Temporary Waterway Diversion Structure 1 EA $3,000.00 53,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $8,000.00 58,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $120,000.00 $120,000.00 ft 510,000.00 $10,000.00
555.0104M Foa' Con *Cl.-A 104 CM $400.00 541.600.00 $300.0 - S31,2W.W 5350.- $36,400.00 $335.00 $34,840.- 5255.00 $26,520.- $470.00 $48,880.00
18555.9805 M Concrete lax Structures,Cies$HP 50 CM 5650.00 $32,500.00 $600.00 - 530,000.- $792.- $39,600.- $1,254.00 $62,700.- $1,100.0 $55,000.00 51,000.00 $50,000.00
556.0201 M Uncoated Bar Reinkecement 3637 KG $1.50 $5,455.60 $1.30 54,728.10 $1.40 $5,091.80 $1.50 $5,455.50 $1.75 $6,364.75 $120 $4,364.40
556.0202 M Epoxy Coated Bar Reinforcement 3623 KG $2.00 $7,246.00 51.50 55,434.50 $2.70 $9,782.10 $2.00 $7,246.00 $2.00 $7,246.00 $1.45 55,253.35 -
SSO98 SP M Remove and Store Existing Stone Masonry 10 SM $450.00 $4,5W.00 $324.- 53,240.- $198.00 $1,980.00 $300.00 $3,000.00 $220.00 $2,200.00
560.99 SP M Instal Stored Stare Masonry 10 SM $250.00 $2,5-.W 5432.- $4,320.00 5319.00 $3.190.00 $750.00 $7,500.00 $750.00 $7,500.- -
16562.951025M Precast Reinforced P.C.C.Span Units 22 M 37,000.00 $154,000.00 $8,000.00 $176,000.00 $9,000.00 $198,000.00 Sa,2-.W $180,400.00 $7,360.00 $161,920.00 $7,200.00 $158,400.00
16552.9770 M Precast Reinforced P.C.C.Was Units wt Footings 10 M $2,000.00 $20,000.00 $2,600.00 $26,000.00 $2,600.00 $26.000.00 $3,860.00 $36,600.00 $5,325.00 $53250.00 $3,000.00 $30,000.00
18559.1690M Protective Sealkg of Structural concrete 110 SM $10.0 -$1,100.00 $10.- $1,100.00 $9.90 $1,078.00 $23.50 $2,585.00 $7.50 $825.00 $7.50 $825.0
18595.52 M Membrane Waterproofing System for Culverts 456 SM $30.00 $13,6110.00 $20.00 $9,120.00 $40.00 $18,240.00 $13.50 $6,156.00 $10.25 $4,67.4.00 $17.50 $7,980.00
605.0901M Underdrain Filter Type 1 26 CM $45.00 $1,170.00 550.00 $1,300.00 $38.00 $988.00 $68.00 $1,766.00 $50.00 $1,300.00 $60.00 $1,560.00
605.1502M 152 mm Perforated Corr.PVC Underdrain Tubing 80 M SiOOO SSW.- $10.00 $800.00 $16.00 $1,280.00 $14.50 $1,100.00 $30.00 $2,400.00 $16.00 $1,280.0
608.99 SP M Precast Concrete Paving(Granular Mal'I.Setting Bed) 200 SM 5100.00 $20,000.00 $105.00 $21,000.00 $100.00 $20,000.00 $96.00 $19,200.00 5109.50 $21,900.00 $55.00 511,000.00
609.0401 M Cast in Place Concrete Curb 21 M $55.00 $1,155.00 $44.00 5924.- $62.00 $1,302.00 551.00 $1,071.00 $42.50 $892.50 - $62.00 $1,30200
615.99 SP M Pedestrian Handraifing 10 M $300.00 $3,000.00- $250.00 $2,500.00 $593.00 $5,930.00 $608.00 $8,060.00 5475.00 $4,750.00 $750.00 $7,500.00
620.04M Stone Filling(Medium) 165 CM $65.00 $10,725.00 $60.00 $9,900.00 $90.00 $14,850.- $75.00 $12,375.W $55.00 $9,075.00 $85.00 $14,025.00
670.99 SP M Bridge Ughtkg 4 EA $4,000.00 $16,000.00 53,000.00 $12,000.00 $4,333.0 -$17,332.00 $3,600.00 $14,400.00 $6,740.00 526,960.00 $1,500.00 $6,000.00
670.2602M Rigid Plastic Conduit 58 M $35.00 $2,030.00 560.00 53,480.00 $56.00 $3,248.00 $44.00 $2,552.00 $35.00 $2,030.00 $25.00- $1,450.-
670.3006 M Puilboxes 0.14 CM to 0.21 CM Inside Volume(Lighting) 1 EA $700.00 $700.00 $600.00 $600.00 $865.00 5885.00 5500.00 5500.00 $1,175.00 $1,175.00 $300.00 $300.00
670.7006M Single Conductor Cable 78 M 535.00 $2,730.00 $20.00 $1,5110.0O $7.00 $546.00 $6.50 $507.00 $4.00 $312.00 $6.00 $468.00
670.7501M I Ground Noe No.6 AWG 10 M 1 $3.00 $30.00 $20.00 1 $200.00 1 $230 1 $23.00 $5.00 550.00 $1,001 $10.00 $4.00 540.00
SUBTOTAL-WITHOUT MOBILIZATION '
80 $688,341.50 S7-,356.-
$804,014.25 5816,417.75 -
699.04 Mobircation Shall not exceed 4%of Sublofa 613.12 -
1 LS $29, 529,613.42 f32.0-.W 532,0 .W 529,406.50 529,4-.50 $36,159.00 $36,159.00 S40000.00 I $40000.00 540,000.00 $40,000.00
TOTAL BIDINCLUDING MOBILIZATION 5769,948.92 3843,167.60 $928000.00 5977,00000 $1,046,071.25 11 57,152,840.25