Loading...
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