HomeMy WebLinkAboutCapital Improvements Review Comittee August to September 1990 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES
AUGUST 22 , 1990 MEETING
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
PRESENT: Alderperson Hoffman, Alderperson Booth, Director of Planning
Van Cort, Superintendent of Public Works Thadani, BPW
Commissioner Berg, City Controller Cafferillo, Deputy
Controller Thayer, (BPW Vice Chair Reeves was not present,
however her vote was included through Commissioner Berg)
The following are the Capital Improvement Review Committee ' s
recommendations for the 1991 Capital Budget. Please note that the
earlier portion of the meeting will be summarized in minutes by Planning
Department Staff member Jon Meigs .
The following reflects the voting summary of the Committee and their
recommendations to the Mayor and the B&A Committee during the upcoming
1991 Budget discussions .
1 . IAWWTP Sludge Composting Facility ($3 , 600 , 000) - Defer Capital
Project set-up - The consensus of the Committee was to defer
the establishment of the project and implement into the five
year Capital Improvement plan. No action taken.
2 . Raw Water Reservoir Renovation ($2 , 500 , 000) - Defer Capital Project
set-up - The Consensus of the Committee was to defer the
establishment of the project and implement into the five year
Capital Improvement plan. No action taken.
3 . Treatment Plant Replacement ($7 , 500 , 000) - Defer Capital Project
set-up - The consensus of the Committee was to defer action
on this Capital Project. However, the Committee stressed
that this project was a high priority item and that a study
out of existing funding in Capital Project #502 is
recommended.
4 . Exhaust Extraction System ($84, 000) - High Priority Project - The
consensus of the Committee was that because of health and
safety risks to Fire Department Personnel that this project
was a high priority item.
5 . City Court Facility ($1 , 270 , 000) - High Priority Project - The
Committee felt because of the New York State law change for
the Court Facilities, that this project is very important and
must be established to meet current required time schedules
imposed by the New York State Court System.
6. Elmira Road Sidewalks ($250 , 000) - It was noted that this is an
existing Capital Project #237 and the Committee recommended
that the project be started so that costs attributable to
this project can be recouped through the use of benefit
assessments .
Capital Improvements Revicw Committee - Meeting of 8/22/90 page 2
7 . S . Meadow St. Widening ($75 , 000+/-) - Medium Priority Project - The
Committee recommended that the Engineering Department arrive
at a more reflective cost than the $75 , 000 estimate
requested. The Committee felt the project would have a
greater cost.
8 . Parking Facility Study ($150 , 000) - Medium Priority Project - The
consensus of the Committee was to classify this project as a
medium priority project and that the $150 , 000 include a
Study and Design for the possibility of a new Parking
Facility Structure in the City. Planning Director Van Cort
felt this project was of high priority to the City.
9 . Parking Structure Graphics ($2 , 500) - Do not establish capital
project - the consensus of the Committee was that the dollar
amount was too small for a capital project and that such a
project should be funded by the operation budget.
Alderperson Booth stated the project should be done, but not
as a capital project.
10 . Green St. Ramp ($1 , 250 , 000) - It was noted that the capital project
#224 has already been established for this purpose . The
Committee felt this project should be started as soon as
possible .
11 . N. Cayuga St. @ Cascadilla St. Bridge ($524 , 856) - this project has
been already established as capital project #234 . The
project is currently in the design phase . No action was
taken.
12 . Marshall/Monroe Bridge ($50 , 000) - High to medium priority
project - Voting on this project was 4-3-1 (high priority,
medium priority, low priority) . The consensus of the
Committee was that the project was a high to medium
priority.
13 . Bikeway Acquisition & Bridge ($40 , 000) - Medium Priority Project -
the consensus of the Committee was to convert the $40 , 000
currently in Restricted Contingency to a capital project for
said purpose.
14 . City Signage and Design ($15 , 750) - Low Priority Project - The
consensus of the Committee was that the project was a low
priority project. Planning Director Van Cort stated that he
felt the project was important and should be of high
priority. The project amount was noted to be for the design
portion of the project only.
15 . Commons Repairs ($300 , 800) - The presentation for this project was
presented in two forms . The high priority items of the
repairs were presented as one dollar amount, $132 , 000 , and
the other repairs totalled $168 , 800 . The Committee voted on
the repairs separately.
Capital Improvements Review Committee - Meeting of 8/22/90 page 3
The Commons Repair ($132 , 000) - The Committee consensus was
that this project was of high priority. The project
included repairs on the Commons to brickwork,
grates/manholes, patch holes and playground. The Committee
also stated that current dollars available in the General
Fund will be attributed to the $132 , 000 .
The Commons Repair Other ($168, 800) - The Committee voted 2-
1-4 that this project had a medium to low priority.
16 . Southwest Master Plan ($105 , 000) - Medium Priority Project - Voting
on the project was 2-5-1 . The consensus of the Committee
was to classify the project as Medium Priority. Planning
Director Van Cort stated that the project was a study of
existing conditions at the Southwest Park area and the
establishment of an Infrastructure Plan and area mapping.
BPW Commissioner Berg stated that the study should be
performed prior to the development of land in this area, but
at this time the land development will not be done for some
time.
17 . Cascadilla Creek Bridge Lighting (Dollar Allocation Unknown) - Low
Priority Project - Voting on the project was 0-0-7 . The
consensus of the Committee was that because of the unknown
amount of dollar allocation for the project it is a low
priority project.
18 . Skateboard Site ($65 , 000) - Medium Priority Project - Voting on the
project was 1-3-3 . The Committee felt the project was a
worthwhile endeavor, however some questions still needed to
be answered concerning insurance and liability issues .
19 . Northside Neighborhood Park ($55 , 000) - Low Priority Project -
Voting on the project was 2-2-4 . The Committee was unsure
as to the exact nature of the park and how the estimated
cost request was developed.
20 . Six Mile Creek Land Acquisition ($145 , 000) - Medium to High
Priority Project - Voting on the project was 4-2-2 . It was
stated that this project would involve the use of lands
below the water shed.
21 . Youth Bureau Landscaping ($40 , 500) - Low Priority Project - Voting
on the project was 0-3-5 . It was the consensus of the
Committee that this project was the least important of the
Youth Bureau requested projects .
22 . Youth Bureau Floor Repair ($15 , 000 - $100 , 000) - Low Priority
Project - Voting on the project was 1-3-4 . The Committee
recommended that an improved cost estimate of the dollar
amount needs to be established before the project can be
recommended.
Capital Improvements Review Committee - Meeting of 8/22/90 page 4
23 . Youth Bureau Air Conditioning ($100 , 000) - Medium Priority
Project - Voting on the project was 2-5-1 . It was noted
that to improve the working environment for the summer
months at the Youth Bureau, this project needs to be done.
24 . Youth Bureau Acoustics ($80 , 000) - High Priority Project - Voting
on the project was 6-1-1 . The consensus of the Committee
was that this project was important to the Youth Bureau
because of the noise problem that is currently occurring due
to the poor design of the building.
25 . Cass Park Facility Additions ($300 , 000) - The project was split
into two votes by the Committee . The Facility addition
project included two large projects, the Rink end enclosure
and the Lobby expansion.
The Rink End Enclosure was given a low priority by the
Committee. Voting results were 0-3-5 . The Lobby Expansion
was given a medium priority by the Committee . Voting
results were 1-5-2 .
26 . Southside Center Renovations ($240 , 000) - Medium to Low Priority
project - Voting on the project was 1-3-4 . Discussions on
ownership and renovations to the Southside Building took
place .
27 . Cass Park Water Slide ($50 , 000) - Low Priority Project - Voting on
the project was 1-0-7 . The consensus of the Committee was
that Cass Park had more important projects that needed to be
done before the addition of a water slide.
28 . GIAC Renovations ($450 , 000) - High Priority Project - Voting on the
project was 5-3-0 . It was the consensus of the Committee
that this project was important and needed to get started.
The Committee decided to establish the capital project for a
study of the building only in the amount of $25 , 000 . Then,
at a later date , the project can be amended for the
remaining amount of the project. It was noted that $14, 000
was already allocated for this purpose in restricted
contingency and, when needed, should be used for this
project.
29 . DPW Consolidation ($2 , 500 , 000 to $3 , 000 , 000) - High Priority
Project - Voting on the project was 8-0-0 . The consensus of
the Committee was that the project was important, but a
study to evaluate a possible site for this project was more
important. Planning Director Van Cort estimated that such a
reorganization study would cost approximately $65 , 000 . It
was noted that the study would need to come back to the B&A
Committee for review before any expenditures are made.
Capital Improvements Review Committee - Meeting of 8/22/90 page 5
30 . City Hall Windows ($207, 000) - Medium Priority Project - Voting on
the project was 3-4-1 . The Committee felt that further
review was needed for this project and that the estimated
funding of $207, 000 was too low and should be adjusted to
better reflect the actual cost of such a project.
31 . City Hall HVAC ($150 , 000 to $450 , 000) - High Priority Project -
Voting on the project was 7-1-0 . The consensus of the
Committee was that this was a much needed project because of
all the problems with the current City Hall HVAC System.
The Committee suggested that a Study be done to determine
the alternatives and to develop- a better cost estimate.
The range in cost was due to the type of system installed.
After the Committee discussed each project the following list was
developed by priority to be recommended to the Mayor:
High Priority
1 . City Court Facility $1, 270, 000
2 . Commons Improvements/Repairs $132 , 000
3 . Youth Bureau Acoustics $80 , 000
4. DPW Study/Consolidation $2 , 500 , 000 - $3, 000, 000
Study: $65 , 000
S . Exhaust Extraction System $84, 000
6. City Hall HVAC $150, 000 - $450 , 000
7 . GIAC Study/Renovations $25, 000
Medium Priority
8 . Marshall/Monroe Bridge $50, 000
9 . Six Mile Creek Land Acquisition $145 , 000
10 . Parking Facility Study $150, 000
11 . Southwest Master Plan $105 , 000
12 . City Hall Windows $207, 000
13 . Bikeway Acquisition & Bridge $40, 000
14. S . Meadow Street Widening $75 , 000 +/-
15 . Commons Improvements/Repairs Other $168, 800
16 . Youth Bureau Air Conditioning $100 , 000
17 . Cass Rink Lobby Expansion $150 , 000
18 . Skateboard Park/Site $65 , 000
Low Priority
19 . Southside Center Renovations $240, 000
20 . Northside Neighborhood Park $55 , 000
21 . Youth Bureau Floor Repair $15 , 000 - $100, 000
22 . Cass Rink Enclosure $150, 000
23 . City Signage and Design $15 , 750
24 . Youth Bureau Landscaping $40 ,500
2S . Cascadilla Creek Bridge Lighting (Unknown)
26 . Cass Park Water Slide $50, 000
Meeting adjourned 12 : 55 P.M.
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Mayor Ben Nichols and Members of Common Council
FROM: Capital Improvements Review Committee
DATE: September 19, 1990
RE: Capital Improvements Review Committee's
Recommendation to the Mayor for Capital
Project Funding for the 1991 Budget
I. Background
The Capital Improvements Review Committee met five times to
review departmental requests' for 1991 Capital Projects.
The objective of the Capital Improvements Review Committee
was to thoroughly review each request for a capital project
and recommend, in order of priority, to the Mayor which
capital projects should be funded in the 1991 Budget.
Each Department Head that submitted a capital project
request had the opportunity to discuss with the Committee
the details of the capital project submitted. The
Committee, which was made up of two Common Council members,
various Department Heads and/or staff, and members of the
Board of Public Works, reviewed each request and eventually
ranked each project in one of three categories: High
Priority, Medium Priority and Lower Priority. The projects
within each category were then ranked by priority.
The following are the results of the Capital Improvements
Review Committee project reviews for the submitted 1991
capital projects. Included are the prioritized listing of
the Committee's final recommendations to the Mayor and the
Committee's summary vote and discussion for each requested
capital project. The recommendations are based on a
complete review of the capital project documentation and
discussions with the submitting Department Head. The
Committee is also listing the possible funding amount for
each project, but stresses that if a project can be funded
through the use of existing funds, that project should be
funded in that manner.
II. Recommendations and Discussion
A. Recommendations
The listing of the Committee's recommendations for the 1991
capital project funding are as follows:
CIRC RECOMMENDATIONS TO MAYOR & COMMON COUNCIL - 9/11/90
High Priority (in order of priority)
1. City Court Facility - Capital Funding
Recommendation: $1, 300, 000
2 . Commons Improvements/Repairs - Capital Funding
Recommendation: $132, 000. This amount
represents new funds over and beyond the $39, 000
already encumbered.
3 . Youth Bureau Acoustics - Capital Funding
Recommendation: $80, 000
4. DPW Consolidation Study - Capital Funding
Recommendation: $65, 000
5. Exhaust Extraction System for fire stations -
Capital Funding Recommendation: $84, 000
6. City Hall HVAC - Capital Funding Recommendation:
$150, 000. DPW will establish a more specific cost
estimate based on the study done for this project.
7. GIAC Renovations Study - Capital Funding
Recommendation: $25, 000
8. Parking Facility Study and Conceptual Design -
Capital Funding Recommendation: $150, 000
To a significant degree this relatively short list of high
priority capital projects reflects the Committee' s
recognition of the fact that the City currently has a number
of already authorized capital projects that have not been
completed. The Committee feels it is important that already
authorized projects be completed before many new projects
are instigated.
It is the Committee's recommendation that (with the
exception of project #13) the projects below this point
should not be funded in 1991.
Medium Priority (in order of priority)
9. Marshall/Monroe Bridge Requested: $50, 000
10. Six Mile Creek Land Acquisition
Requested: $145, 000
11. Southwest Master Plan Requested: $105, 000
12. City Hall Windows Requested: $207, 000
2
CIRC RECOMMENDATIONS TO MAYOR & COMMON COUNCIL - 9/11/90
13 . Bikeway Acquisition & Bridge
Requested: $40, 000
14 . S. Meadow Street Widening Requested: $75, 000+/-
15. Commons Improvements/Repairs Other
Requested: $168,800
16. Youth Bureau Air Conditioning System
Requested: $100, 000
17. Cass Rink Lobby Expansion Requested: $150, 000
18. Skateboard Park/site Requested: $65, 000
Lower Priority (in order of priority)
19. Southside Center Renovations Requested: $240, 000
20. Northside Neighborhood Park Requested: $55,000
21. Youth Bureau Floor Repair
Requested: $15, 000 - $100, 000
22. Cass Rink Enclosure Requested: $150, 000
23 . City Signage and Design Requested: $15,750
24 . Youth Bureau Landscaping Requested: $40, 500
25. Cascadilla Creek Bridge Lighting
Requested: Unknown
26. Cass Park Water Slide Requested: $50, 000
The Committee feels that many of the requested funding
amounts for medium and lower priority projects are at this
time very indefinite and will require further detail and
elaboration.
B. Discussion of High, Medium and Lower Priority Projects
The following discussion reflects the Capital Improvements
Review Committee's individual project discussions; including
voting summary and recommendations. Voting results are
classified as follows: High Priority, Medium Priority, Lower
Priority.
3
CIRC RECOMMENDATIONS TO MAYOR & COMMON COUNCIL - 9/11/90
1. City Court Facility - Proposed Funding: ($1,270,000) -
High Priority Project. The Committee felt because of the
New York State law change for the Court Facilities, that
this project is very important and must be established to
meet current required time schedules imposed by the New York
State Court System.
2 . Commons Repairs - Proposed Funding: ($300,800) - The
proposed funding for this project was considered in two
forms. The high priority repair items were reviewed as one
dollar amount, $132, 000; the other repairs totalled
$168,800. The Committee voted on the repairs separately.
Commons Repairs ($132,000) - The Committee consensus was
that this project was of high priority. The project
included repairs on the Commons for brickwork,
grates/manholes, patch holes and the playground.
The list of items recommended for this project is as
follows:
Repair all damaged brick work $72, 054
Repair concrete pavement, patch
holes, repair sunken portions 20, 000
Playground repairs 25, 000
Grates, valve covers, manholes 15, 000
Total $ 132, 054
Establish the project and fund the $132, 000. It was noted
that the $132, 000 represents new money and does not include
$39, 000 already encumbered in the General Fund.
3. You Bureau Acoustics - Proposed Funding: ($80,000)
High Priority Project - Voting on the project was 6-1-1.
The consensus of the Committee was that this project was
important to the Youth Bureau because of the noise problems
that are currently occurring. The Committee recommended that
the project be established for 1991 and funded for $80, 000.
4 . DPW Consolidation - Proposed Funding:$2,500,000 to
$3,000,000) High Priority Project - Voting on the project
was 8-0-0. The consensus of the Committee was that the
project was important, but a study to evaluate the
Department's organization was more important. Planning
Director Van Cort estimated that such an organization study
would cost approximately $65, 000. It was noted that the
study would need to come back to the B&A Committee for
review before any expenditures are made. The Committee
recommended that the study be funded for $65, 000 and that a
capital project be established for the $65, 000 only, which
represents the study.
4
CIRC RECOMMENDATIONS TO MAYOR & COMMON COUNCIL - 9/11/90
5. Exhaust Extraction System - Proposed Funding: ($84,000)
- High Priority Project - The consensus of the Committee was
that because of health and safety risks to Fire Department
personnel that this project was a high priority item. The
Committee recommended that the project be established and
funded for the $84, 000. The Committee discussed the
possibility that this project could be incorporated into the
renovations and new construction capital projects. An
amendment to those existing projects would be the only
possible way of incorporating this project into the existing
projects.
6. City Hall HVAC - Proposed Funding: ($150,000 to
$450,000) - High Priority Project - Voting on the project
was 7-1-0. The consensus of the Committee was that this was
a much needed project because of all the problems with the
current City Hall HVAC System. The Committee suggested that
a study be done to determine the alternatives and to develop
a better cost estimate. The range in cost was due to the
type of systems that might be installed. The Committee
recommended that the capital project be established and
funded at $150, 000, with further recommendation of an
accurate cost to be made by the Superintendent of Public
Works at the October B&A meeting.
7. GIAC Renovations - Proposed Funding: ($450,000) - High
Priority Project - Voting on the project was 5-3-0. It was
the consensus of the Committee that this project was
important and needed to get started. The Committee decided
to establish the capital project for a study of the building
only in the amount of $25, 000. At a later date, the project
can be amended for the remaining amount of the project. It
was noted that $14, 000 was already allocated for this
purpose in restricted contingency and, when needed, should
be used for this project. An additional recommendation to
roll over the restricted contingency amount to 1991, so that
the monies would not lapse was agreed upon by the Committee.
8. Parking Facility Study and Conceptual Design - Proposed
Funding: ($150,000) - High Priority Project - The original
consensus of the Committee was to classify this project as a
medium priority project. However, to have a new facility
built by 1992 the project planning must be started in 1991,
so the Committee moved this project up to a high priority
classification.
Planning Director Van Cort suggested that a new downtown
parking facility may cost approximately $7, 000, 000, with
design costs of $300, 000 to $400, 000. The Committee
stressed the fact that they are recommending only the
establishment of this project with funding of $150, 000 for
study and schematic design, including environmental review,
and that there is currently no commitment to the undertaking
development of a parking facility.
5
CIRC RECOMMENDATIONS TO MAYOR & COMMON COUNCIL - 9/11/90
The Committee also recommended that should the City
eventually decide to build a new parking facility the full
down payment and design cost for that project could be
funded from the following sources:
$150, 000 this recommendation - study and design costs
200, 000 Capital Reserve #14 - parking areas
$350, 000
Projects #9 - #26 have not been recommended for funding for
the 1991 Budget.
9. Marshall/Monroe Bridge - Proposed Funding: ($50,000) -
High to medium priority project - Voting on this project was
4-3-1. The consensus of the Committee was that the project
was a high to medium priority. A number of the Committee
members felt this project was listed too high on the
recommendation list.
10. Six Mile Creek Land Acquisition - Proposed Funding:
($145,000) - Medium to High Priority Project - Voting on
this project was 4-2-2 . It was stated that this project may
involve the use of lands below the Reservoir watershed.
11. Southwest Master Plan - Proposed Funding: ($105,000) -
Medium Priority Project - Voting on the project was 2-5-1.
The consensus of the Committee was to classify the project
as medium priority. Planning Director Van Cort stated that
the project would include a study of existing conditions in
the Southwest Park area, the establishment of an
infrastructure plan, and area mapping. BPW Commissioner
Berg stated that the study should be performed prior to the
development of land in this area, but land development will
not occur for some time.
12 . City Hall Windows - Proposed Funding: ($207,000) -
Medium Priority Project - Voting on the project was 3-4-1.
The Committee felt that further review was needed for this
project and that the estimated funding of $207, 000 was too
low and should be adjusted to better reflect the actual
costs of such a project.
13 . Bikeway Acquisition & Bridge - Proposed Funding:
($40,000) - Medium Priority Project - The consensus of the
Committee was that the $40, 000 currently in Restricted
Contingency for this purpose should be converted to a
capital project for said purpose.
14. S. Meadow St. Widening - Proposed Funding: ($75,000+/-)
- Medium Priority Project - The Committee recommended that
the Engineering Department arrive at a more specific cost
estimate than the $75, 000 initially requested. The
Committee felt the project would have a greater cost.
6
CIRC RECOMMENDATIONS TO MAYOR & COMMON COUNCIL - 9/11/90
15. Commons Improvements/Repairs Other - Proposed Funding:
($168,800) - Medium to Lower Priority Project - Voting
results were 2-1-4. This request was made as a part of a
total request for Commons Improvements/Repairs of $300,800.
The Committee felt that $132 , 000 of the total request were
necessary repairs for the Commons. The consensus of the
Committee was that the remaining $168,800 of the original
request had a medium to lower priority compared to other
projects.
16. Youth Bureau Air Conditioning - Proposed Funding:
($100,000) - Medium Priority Project - Voting on the project
was 2-5-1. It was noted that to improve the working
environment for the summer months at the Youth Bureau, this
project eventually needs to be done.
17 . Cass Park Facility Additions - Lobby Expansion -
Proposed Funding: ($150,000) - Medium Priority Project -
Voting on the project was 1-5-2 . This request was made as a
part of a total request for Cass Park Facility Additions of
$300, 000. The Committee decided to split the project into
two smaller projects: Lobby Expansion and Rink End
Enclosure.
The Lobby Expansion project was given a medium priority by
the Committee.
18 . Skateboard Site - Proposed Funding: ($65,000) - Medium
Priority Project - Voting on the project was 1-3-3 . The
Committee felt the project was a worthwhile endeavor;
however, some questions still needed to be answered
concerning insurance and liability issues.
19. Southside Center Renovations - Proposed Funding:
($240,000) - Medium to Lower Priority project - Voting on
the project was 1-3-4 . Discussions on ownership and
renovations to the Southside building took place.
20. Northside Neighborhood Park - Proposed Funding:
($55,000) - Lower Priority Project - Voting on the project
was 2-2-4 . The Committee was unsure as to the exact nature
of the park and how the estimated cost request was
developed.
21. Youth Bureau Floor Repair - Proposed Funding: ($15,000
-$100,000) - Lower Priority Project - Voting on the project
was 1-3-4. The Committee recommended that an improved cost
estimate of the project's costs needs to be established
before the project can be recommended.
22 . Cass Park Facility Additions - Rink End Enclosure-
Proposed Funding: ($150,000) - Lower Priority Project -
Voting on the project was 0-3-5. This request was made as a
7
CIRC RECOMMENDATIONS TO MAYOR & COMMON COUNCIL - 9/11/90
part of a total request for Cass Park Facility additions of
$300, 000.
23 . City Signage and Design - Proposed Funding: ($15,750) -
Lower Priority Project - The consensus of the Committee was
that the project was a lower priority project. Planning
Director Van Cort stated that he felt the project was
important and should be of high priority. It was noted that
the project amount would cover only the design portion of
the project.
24 . Youth Bureau Landscaping - Proposed Funding: ($40,500)
- Lower Priority Project - Voting on the project was 0-3-5.
It was the consensus of the Committee that this project was
the least important of the Youth Bureau's requested
projects.
25. Cascadilla Creek Bridge Lighting (Proposed Dollar
AllocationUnknown) - Lower Priority Project - Voting on the
project was 0-0-7. The consensus of the Committee was that
because of the unknown amount of money needed for the
project it should be ranked as a lower priority project.
26. Cass Park Water Slide - Proposed Funding: ($50,000) -
Lower Priority Project - Voting on the project was 1-0-7.
The consensus of the Committee was that Cass Park had more
important projects that needed to be done before the
addition of a water slide.
C. Discussion of Other Projects
The following proposed projects were discussed during the
review of capital projects and were not prioritized because
they have been previously established or were recommended to
be deferred or not established.
1. Parking Structure Graphics - Proposed Funding: ($2,500)
The consensus of the Committee was that the dollar amount
was too small for a capital project and that such a project
should be funded by the operation budget. Alderperson Booth
stated the project should be done, but not as a capital
project.
2 . Green Street Ramp - Proposed Funding: ($1,250,000) It
was noted that capital project #224 has already been
established for this purpose. The Committee felt this
project should be started as soon as possible.
3 . N. Cayuga Street at Cascadilla Street Bridge - Proposed
Funding: ($524,856) - This project has been already
established as capital project #234 . The project is
currently in the design phase. No action was taken.
8
CIRC RECOMMENDATIONS TO MAYOR & COMMON COUNCIL - 9/11/90
4. Elmira Road Sidewalks - Proposed Funding: ($250,000) -
It was noted that this is an existing capital project
(#237) , and the Committee recommended that the project be
started so that costs attributable to this project can be
recouped through the use of benefit assessments.
5. IAWWTP Sludge Composting Facility - Proposed Funding:
($3,600,000) The consensus of the Committee was to defer
the establishment of the project and implement it in the
five year Capital Improvement plan. No action was taken.
It was noted that the Sludge disposal problem is being dealt
with by Tompkins County and the City. Tompkins County is
the lead agency in regard to sludge disposal. However, the
City, through the Special Joint Subcommittee of the
Wastewater Treatment Facility, is also looking into the
possibility of building its own sludge disposal facility.
At this point, the sludge disposal facility project will be
deferred until a final determination is made as to which
government entity should build the facility.
6. Treatment Plant Replacement - Proposed Funding:
($7,500,000) - The consensus of the Committee was to defer
action on this capital project. However, the Committee
stressed that this •project was a high priority item. The
Committee also recommended that a study, to determine if
renovations or replacements are needed for the Treatment
Plant and Raw Water Reservoir, be performed. Such a study
would look at all relevant factors, including but not
limited to, plant replacement and merger of the City and
Bolton Point Water Systems. After the results of such a
study are reviewed, it then can be determined what action
should be taken in relation to the two proposed capital
projects for the Water Reservoir renovation and the
Treatment Plant replacement. The funding for such a study
should be done from existing monies in capital project #502 .
7 . Raw Water Reservoir Renovation - Proposed Funding:
($2,500,000) - The consensus of the Committee was to defer
the establishment of the project and implement it in the
five year Capital Improvement plan. The Committee felt this
project was important and should be studied in relation to
the Treatment Plant Replacement or renovation project study.
(See #6 above) .
The remaining items attached are designed to assist the
Mayor and Common Council in making a decision as to which
capital projects should be funded for 1991. Schedules
include:
1. Established/unfunded Capital Projects
2 . Uncompleted Capital Projects
3 . Estimated Payment of 1991 Proposed
Capital Projects
9
CIRC RECOMMENDATIONS TO MAYOR & COMMON COUNCIL - 9/11/90
4 . Authorized Projects for the last three years
5. Capital Expenditures related to Budgets'
for the last three years
6. Past payments on Bonded Debt
7. Legal Debt Limit at December 31, 1989
10
CITY OF ITHACA
ESTABLISHED/UNFUNDED
PROJECTS
1990
The following list represents current capital projects that have been
established with an authorized amount, but are currently unfunded and
may need funding in 1991 :
Authorized Unfunded
Capital Project Project # Amount Amount
GIAC Pool 217 $450 , 000 $ 427, 500
Elm Street
Reconstruction 223 500, 000 475 , 000
Green St. Parking Ramp
Renovation 224 1, 250 , 000 1, 187, 500
Streets & Facilities -
Reroof 236 40 , 000 20, 000
Elmira Road Sidewalks 237 250 , 000 250, 000 (Benefit
Assessment;
Commons Power 238 20 , 000 20 , 000
Total Unfunded $2 ,380, 000
September 1990
CITY OF ITHACA
UNC014PLETED
CAPITAL PROJECTS
1990
RE14AINING BALANCE '
CAPITAL PROJECT PROJECT'# YEAR AUTHORIZED OF AUTHORIZATION FUND
GREEN ST. RAMP IMPROVEMENTS # 200. 1985-1330 $40{532 GENERAL
SENECq 5T. RAMP IMPROVEMENTS # 200A 1984-1988 $132,454 GENERAL '
STREET CURBING CONSTRUCTION # 206 1984-1939 $55,486 GENERAL
WEST END DEVELOPMENT # 207 1985-1987 $78,350 GENERAL
SOUTHWEST PARK DEVELOPMENT p # 208 1985-1987 $66,127 GENERAL :': .
COMPUTER ACQUISITION # 211 1986-1989 $43,522 GENERAL ,
GREEN ST. RAMP PtEMDRAhIE '# 213 1987 $172,407 GENERAL
FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION to 21s 1987-1989 $373,707 GENERAL
GIAC POOL # 217 1988-1903 '6447,930 GENERAL
FIRE STATION RENOVATIONS # 221 1988•-1989 $152,976 GENERAL
THURSTON AVE. BRIDGE REHABILITATION to 222 1987-1990 $286,162 GENERAL
ELM ST. RECONSTRUCTION # 2"1 198`3 $489,358 GENERAL
GREEK: ST. PARKING RAMP RENOVATION # 224 1989 $1,c50,000 GENERAL
HUDSON ST. RECONSTRUCTION # 225 1939-1990 $1,032,227 13ENERAL
TIRE: VEHICLES OCU. # 227 1987 l'>112,336 GENERAL
MCnDOW ST. PAVING # 228 191•110 $58,668 GENERAL
JOINT TRANSIT FACILITY CONSTRUCTION # 229 1990 ?45,000 GENERAL
CABS PARK FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS to 230 1990 $99,764 GENERAL
A5EI4STU5 Rct4UVAL4 231 1)'30 $147,G2G GC_'NE RAL
TELEPHONE SYSTEM—CITY HALL # 232 1991 $59,781 GENERAL
ROUTE 13 INDUCiI'EtIAL PARK # 233 1996 $360,337 GENERAL
N.CAYUGA ST. @ CASCADILLA CRK. BRIDGE to 234 1990 $524,356 GENERAL
STREETS & FOCI LITIES—REROOF # 236 1))0 240,000 _ GENERAL
ELMIRA ROAD SIDEWALKS # 237 1990 $250,000 'GENERAL
COMMONS POWER it 238 19)0 $201000 `,GENERAL
TOTAL tib,392,150
WATER SUPPLY la DISTRIBUTION IMP. # 500 1964-1988 $37,011 WATER
WATER PLANT POWER REDUCTION PROJECT # 501 1937 '6118,500 WATER
WATER SUPPLY I14PROVEMENTS to 502 1938 $890,390 WATER
VAN NATTA PUMP STATION STABILIZATION # 1503 .1989 $150,.000 WATER
TOE'AL $1,193,901
TOTAL ALL FUNDS $%,588,051
CITY OF ITH'ACA ;
[-_S'TINATED PAYMENT
1991 RE'D;ESTED CP
OF PF;INCIP(1L/INTEREST PRINCIPAL/INTEREST.
t:<1''IT"riL E'RCJC%T AMOU." REG!U[:9TEIf) U 7E FUL('•�f'_1S 1111, EiA•F E PAYMENT FIRST' YEAR LIFE OF THE PROJECT
IAt-UTP SLUDGE: CC?i'rli't t:;1'iidE; $3,GoO,000 c::7 Es.L iti, $414,000 $5,940,Oc)tJ
RAW WATER RESERVOIR $2,500,000 30 E.50/ $245,833 $4, 125,000
TF<EATmDIT PLAT"'f REPLACENC',NT $6,5OO,.c)OO ;•.0 61 t30 $747,500 $10,72.5,000
EXHAUST EXTRACTION SYSTEM x(5) $B11,000 5 G. 50% 'vm,2G0 $138,600
CITY C0UPI* FACILIT`! x (!) $1,304,000 3t) i .150y. $127,833 $2"145,00c)
ELMIRA RD SIDEWALKS $250,000 lit G.50/ $41,250 $412;500
N CAYUG•1 sl* @ Cf iGC E.R I D;GE $524,856 r20 .:it)'/. S'GO,358 $866,012 >.
MAR%IALUMONROE BRIDGE $50,000 $82,500
CCPEMONS REPAIR x (c'.). >132,000 b G.:N:Y *34,9130 X217,80c)
SW MASTER PLAIN! 2105,000 i 6.:°!0'r: $27,825 $173,^c50
Cil?f1Tc EiCA'r2D SITE $65,000 ).�? Ci. ilii. 410,725 $107,250
NURTHSIDE: Hnl4D PARK $55,000 1.0 $9,075 $90%750
SIX MILE: CREEK LANO fUD $145,000 .io s..5(? $14,258 $239,250
YB LANDSCAPING cK40,500 5 G.54� $i0,733 $66,825
`f Li FLUOR REPAIR $11.10,00o 5 i:;.CiQY $2(i,500 . $165,000
Y3 A/(: $Icoo,000 ii. 0% $2G,500 :$165,000
YD ACOUSTICS (i;) . $80,000 G.EiO;; $21,2('0 X5132,000
CRSS PARK FACILITY ADDITION5 5300,000 f a 6.S0X $49,500 $495,000
SS CT"R Itl hlOVA'!""IGM i $240,000 6.;ic)Y• $G3,5�i0 $39GI OC.n)
CASS PARK WATER SLIDE $5(),000 10 G.50'/• $8,250 432,500
GIAC RrrdUVAI'ICh1S STUDY tc•(7) $25,000 iG.tiU'/• $91`33 $41,250
MAPPING/SIS SYSTEM $180,cloo 10 S.5(t! $29,700 $297,000
5E'14 L.Oh!S[l..IDf1T"ION (4) $615,000 G.5-0/1 'G?5,8`;r? $107,250 '
CITY MALL WINDO",15 $207,000 (,.'i0i: $54,85 $341,550
CITY MfhLL MVf1C X((;) $30o,000 10 G.t"c)'/. 947,0Otl
$495,000
I='Al2KIP1G FACILITY STUDY £YDESIGN*(8) $150,000 3 6.5101/ $59,750 $247,500
DIKr!•!AY ACGUISII"ION & BRIDGE '1,40,000 20 6.5c)/. $4,GOO $GG,000 ±
S.MEADOW S"fREET WIDENING $75,000 10 S.I50%• . $12,373 $123,750
COMMON a REP-A I RG OTHER $168,300 0 'G. Y $44,732 $278,520
CITY SIGhIAsE= nhln E)ESIGi! `;115,750 5 6. .50'/. 5.4, 17/ $25,988
TOTPI_ FIRST 'i'`!R PAYMENT $2,263,4G7
TOTAL LIFE OF ,P[MJE_CT PAYINIENT $28,787,043
rj ±. *.0"u',",lr_.'N }` •1 9 '.t`+ 5•`.11,3 f3 $3,524,400
,Tt:•E�' (ES) FSC f•t."1'1 E2t:.... _I .C?-•,U�f'L.
1
. : ..
,
I I .>L
.
."t ra
la:.l ` t t4 ] rt r Ya.?3 r <.
�Y r t ti" 2 :5., a I d + +! , f•%.;9 ) �C }' r J' ,z-?
« ! Y t
t '}F { '` ! { 5 _f- 1 5 j is
�T .t"F'. r 1 I' CITY OF. ITHACA` r
.tom 4 •,Y 6 Jc t'+ r'z t. 1 4 t? ri!r'. - ; •1
M.y, t , . r y:„ YEARS -,
5Y,4. k&� �. - .AUTHORIZED. PROJECTS LAST,.THREE
i : m, d .{ h a$r: s, '4c Li { ,t am ;.a k t , 4�'
.V w>53y ay :1 , y;k . ti' .•Y'V { •'�!M 5:. t o
- 1
w >. 63 5 2/31/.90 ! 4
,c A ., * ci't,.5 ra p
.-Vii: n'.. ',.:. "{:r '...• ilf 5."..',,! t ].id_: y.,::, ..- F ::..: 4 -is t ' �. 1
'z «�`.:f. �, a ! rr,�5r t! pr r y , -.ti' :i., 5 a f., S �:; , ;:"r' r
r..7 'q ..,.r h"r.:,t^,;.r, ✓ r:..,..; :.-+ k_,v-y t ti <',,, '' ,: ,. t, r, r ,t � :,i +' +..r.
rs :N••7 f n _ e..,q� .-. 1'S ::,,F ;::� a. .. ..:. .1.t .r r;�., r S3
+, g .x,r r;)X'4i'::4 s H,. }:NO.,,t,0� a,S t } w... ..n �'r: ! " I
_. ,. :-
r..;,•p',>. \rd. .:,•,. 4 ''<.. Ir :4'., "r r ':i£^J a j, t'y., ;t,;,:
_,-� `�.: ,"4 ::AMOUNT AUTHORIZED..,;
E 4,•,. AUTHDRI ZED`PROJECTS LARGEST`C AP,I7AL PROJECT: 70TFlL ;' „� ' . ;;'
Y AR.
,.. �:. 45., ',,;,,. i 151 ,I ,',,, ,.. , ,.i,: c'I: 'r'�i<, �,,- Yt :? _.i
.1r,:t:: ,,•, .., "iA"}.<l. , r v,: .:. > V, ..r.'., .. ..,t,.:r ., t r .. t. r(
t yr, tr,rr S`:7r"` i „ r ,..-� . ,, r rt ..tr •L ...., , ..,i y i... e' r.... ,. ! a 'i.'J .r i'y
4. > J. ...u` r S...., ..Y',..1 , •- las. + y .r-..',.• .. .. ,. { �.n 5 t .:
:i ', 19881;',,,;-•r Y 7 ,, J::r 4:r;NOR7HY`QUARRY: RETAINING <WAL.L'. :. 187 .00C) �70G,300 ,a. , .r
r 1<• r>,�r`.1..,`. ...,•`:a z�, 4•±`'i t•• -;Vs tY., qh,,y: 1. I r t 1 0 + r
1. ;' ., .:v Y.J ,� .... i. :.,. 5 - .. . V ..,.. ,,: '• 5.. J'
v, Y,..'.1..x.t, 6.rk!.. 4, ...•i'" .'%�-C• .'1': ,.,.y,:,. , ,:..:£:y yN. 1- !�t' t ,'f 1'' ', +
G j Q is M.i. i r r
'-!. .`X 1�.{a,.: t^ .,,C, r ,,, C "i' f:` a s `.f 1 a t
4"fit r:; .,;9"f,{t >ot:Y:*J >,. ,:: .:.dr q..., ,:: x. n .fir; ,.,.. ry 'a :^r1
-.r"P.- t:h'a ,, GnJ :,r,- 5 ,.0 y Ir d YY'., r ..i.
,,' Frf. +; , ti .8 ` "-rrr,: HUDSON';8T. `RECbNSTRUCTION $1 .,OO.000i "$4;.,76';845 J r
,, 1989 {
@ a!. -�C N.p" ti '�'2A t ,r. p ; .i:ti` 'r ,,T , :'t 1 }'.
! -: Ew H A+f I.:p;:'.a .. .{' . �: t i,�.t "ifs •` ,;'j,k F.:l• , 1. �, r l.�
', iG ',.A ? t nt:. f'i`r,.,..,t, A.. r b. ,� '7 '., } 7
,.
�:=t. ( :'.. t iGIl "570 000 {
1 r x1990 f 8 'ROUTE' 1., INDUSTRIAL PARK �J80,OC , ,
;yr { v ] t 14 1
r '� t• '.�S 7 r�',•4-' •tai,. [r , 11 t 1 :.:) t
''�+. s.. ..�f w M. 1 !' 1. t
r y l f
�j: Val),) je.xF L .+ ,• * F ) 5 r ',
( 1 " , J k t r"
t
h Y.,.9.1 4 Y 11�f +'"i s" (:� i" r 7 t 1 �...y ! �',
r i t,a J'' ro t t.. , x ". .l , :t a 1 1 :!
r :Lbr, Y , '^ i >>t99r:T=t r S.n. a r.� t r ' r jl ';4: d, 5t
:'.' a t§ t d.'r+�{•t ,f: t s a �:i. i:• a '.�af, 4 0, , s
r.�':firytr r.,ar `t lt."! �, \ .t1 ! t'�', + F
t't(1 t 1'F * ,t t G
•b t ik+ )4 F ) 1 } t
�25,t^r 2'f� fL'C�,.i"rt fr :ti y Ori; 4 .;,c• 4 t 1 :1., Y
�•'�.t6 ��rr k•a .�,. a'1.-} 1}'�� t ,T.,� , X 1:/', t�- j': `I',.
T ,a. q. -A� 3 r, r !.. " , t. i, t
t!t Jt>,r y.t.,lrs-,! .w}., , V.# }` `+ s I ri >. r ?: •:1` t \
" S-,t r Y l
t..fiaan .d�, ;�lir...r�r r 't } .m } t t 7 r _yi t r a
'.l r Y :Y t'ti I` rY rt :i Je ! �5 rr :.d ij 1 ' .�rr Y
}a S.r.Mr i e .s, d v G', r ) f '1 } :3s k k ,i
y.( .• r y++.!qx:•,'.. 1. ,� �.4 .r. r '}i>"'' , r,.; t .`_ , .,f •..3:. ., t,t v a' a
t...., ..%. ,r..,.. d 5t+.,..n rt, -?,r.5.,l, 6 .t x ,,.I. y ,';..x +Tt '" -," +.' a�'.
•,.,•w.d :f. ,,..,";Y,l +::.. 4}:. t] :.{y; .., .: 1Ar; r#1 t4.-\. •,,,., } i+.,, ). i,
.,....:.F,..:h .d .e+. ,4n<, y ,:z a, .c. i", ,t r / J` ,°'b;, 'f 'd I '•" .I. .,�.� �'.
r,.•5 5t ,-e,�c, :..a Jr, ;I.. i rr ,. i, :,r..: '� ,1, ',
,a ...,. ,.t, .F. ..i. ,y ) .4, r { ,:t ,7.` np '.,s..}r, n .i
�• ltr 5'G,.w.h ca-t .,. ,r.,+ t, rl, l ,yr. x :b r•, t.
!h ,M Y P u ':J �.' .rt. l z t..y,. ,-u .t'At+l I.6t! P::� r .le
a. 'g,..' ?. "fie 'i "t. '',i ,N,, '.1 '
t. .•t+. ..a e:,, _ y..,r L 4 ';.C;'C. :• h. .,4,. ',.•:d .N)? r." f t. .'h,.v
X 1V
t_,,..• „..y , n. .-, .4>.:• s....ta.. ., ,r: .. a, a .•R, r.�s. i, !:, -t,. 1, e;c t. a
.-',<, ,'i I. SA' +a ..s r ,,,6.. , a, r•. .. ..,, re. t <. „ 1, fi tia
.?)\ le fir- r. .!;.. r r .. ,.r?`,o.., ;.P. ^.6. .} ...".. '14 s t { £ r.•. +' ,1..ra.
C- -:t, , „ l., �.,, ,: r „ ,ra,. ,J''rr :d N.r..,,• ..1';.� .,.,, .,, r•:; t, 't ..bs ^�\ sf-. ,y
f. �f�<r % K",l.a�,J e, i. r ,K,iR .r ). Y,-. 1F / 1 ,r f
r.r rb ., t tr se ,4. u, -c '� rF
J, t. ,t ...r; 5, a
r 0 'r
A 5'. . .!, 5�.��I p,N C,:,�f ,...,br..}. -:x. 1 ..� . 1 , , .. y :� .. 1i.l. "';5. I. a t',', '.4+. ,,Z '.'.5,r d K
��WW nr„..s ;L'i 'lY `!N ,. , ,, v, . .. , , \I"2. 'P:P, �. a.1. 9..: .SPY :r ,..C,n., o-+f'-ile-r.,, :-'. e,, �.b yr 4 7
r„'"..... .�.. . , 'y 'r.,'i nY,.., vn v-'t./S:a t� . .. •, .( „e F 1, ,,I,-'...a ,✓,•'... }+ F, ,t -iI 1 ,. k�
l,, J. 9 :] ), J yUr ,,r ,.. N,dJ,aC f t•:., • C, c yy� ar 4 z j'
r .- 1. 'lei +.+, .f.a ...,o t'c f:t „P. 1'...! .){r,. ...� �jr. a' C9:+! .' f x 4
::..; ,{/t .M': .b. _S+ ua, .S .. t.. •I. (k' a „'. .•.r•t. r' •y, .a... 'ia'; a o- ,•Lr
,� �, 2.
', e...0 3 ..5 .wyt5. ?4''.,R t. ..,: Y.6... ,r.�' 'e^ u.!::,, E', :_'trM d.. t.,.,. .., •1•dr „s.r , i+ s ).
ar tY•.$!r: dr, r-r4+K_ :"'h'�. .fit.. .•st,,.". r}.st, J%' ? .t ! s�C't C ':\
t 7I ..• ..,C•:g', �i• s' rra a ..r tom;':.
>' fr..w .- a' .S.-t'•* Irt' .7: :T 5,t! P.t, o.arj:, �;w7r t "r. �t
t!• j), ..
-r.- ^i .,'t .l,�.. rr,. J.+w. #.x,...n}t.,,�. .,;.. ,C;.[' SilS.. ,'ra rrz hJ,4:.': !''- w yt.i k ,r.:
•w "w `i, r W.y •r,4 r' •a ,w•,r a., '.•ar, R r
T..'A'f `.t ?"'. { !�' .L- .l. •� t. a i' ) a ! ,rr i 3
'T 1.+k. e�''.. i $ ..` '.r%xc #AA.... w nY.n ;,,r�•.• k ri •<T:+Cr.��P2: .,,.c }' t., 'r kl S "
f.- h n r'. 'l' tri. :• f.. 5 W , 1. ! „1
K'.'s� ), tI1 l''%7Li;r�.Y •'b! .'1;.:1> 3 .yr,,.•'. pb'a"? '7 rt d ', ! .yei_
,,::r, .,p.. ..i. ! �. 9 r: ''1..' ;i.1, ,tSe ...G; 4 r.! :r .i
4�. :r4� - 1' E.d.•b'. .�vy?.I^;1 n t of E
:.
"t • „- >
:'e .i.- tr' .... .i. ,.r.-. {'!,..Y _;.•d!• '� 2 .,j r• f.' <. a ,, c+;! )h.c YK,� 'L .�
I. s c_<.o: ' , t.uS nn'' ; k K'' r.J<I t r r n A
•y .,t.,a 5r -`. 4 a• .�.. ,yr:, `.aS-`;t{.dk,•.r, r. ,,+a 1:.>. "i:J '.r�•� .W.s - l: ,F..
Y K'1r• F. ' - . i -+yrsi ). 'p-tt :Tw ! -S'. "" •:!:i4.. .1' l..'d ;1 _
a•- :u' ..•i: ,. ?i t" S:}...:':'j 4 a ,. +.. g:r t1-, .,5 ,r H r. ..^ ! i.-.. Sa,",+t 'r '' :'!t m r, a•:
uxa '�c;;- t is Y :-f .r^- .'.. -)_n.4. ..J y.4'y� ).') -! r w
c
. "al„ ,3. f , Y: 4... :t..f:' � .. ,.Ya ,r r.. } ri ::,. -.1�• y1 r 2 -
.,. )4 .,.... e.. t <,t. ,)....- . yr. ,.. r <...»' e t?(.r�?, r d,r 3 t,
-T,a's �k: L. yr r,.,:Wr sk i. .�., J }, 'Y .l; ). '1,4..:` .r
r.,. p.0 ., -a., i•,l•,'.�{ ....r4•r s i< c.., *.,, -YK,° ->,, n'44 ?5t;:. .:.5}.. a.. 1• ..-fit ..t; .i' r +
rf{: .t t Rn::Y_,� '4. Y., t.r., tt ,. u•. Y- ) i,r a. •:v ;!' .)t :t. ;.i ;'.r
,.,l.11 Y3- :,' s7t+•'s, fF'. JS 2 n.4', t ,.til .fr, ;dJ \- •k a /f t •f .r 1'. F. ,.. ;M'
.1_,a.. ,^rs� 71. c }" 4N F r '.+ t yc� ! r,n
t a�'a s r k,t c x ),:i.e
:1';rr,, s JL'.{{ S ;t: aw11 %, �i}' .. 1 I ;>, . .. 1' .. ,,y. {�� •1 s -;'.,_
�_ F
't',;ir�.';4f._..,r •��', 4.. .. T ++ a- -.%.. Sl.>;, s F'S •, 't:! xy " 7 :j r k„ .it iii
t r?t.}"a .'„t,i h54t:,qt.,, - ::1.. �t',t. 3 _.-", �,5 {.:r- r - ''. .♦" !
?x.}'?i'+ )r t; s rr ..p ;t x,? i ; 1 {:' 1: 1 r4' ' i .!.�
t•frrtar3 .} ;t o -:r i 41...'r ty 1 5t 1 s�1 f , :t r
9 d•- tt ,.+J�'.};4 M %" .}:. 3,.., )1 1! L a 1),ri i f •t 'r . ,
,., ,.- . :.:, .,
CITY .OF'ITHACA ,
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES RELATED TO BUDGETS
12/31/.90
• .;: , ,:: 'CAPITRL EXPENSES AS A V.
YEAR ' CARITAL;EXRENDI�URES LRf2GE PROJL""CTS TUl'AL DUDGET TO 1'NE TOTAL 1lUllCE1
1997 $2>104 507;' COLLEGETOWN IMPftOV.$962 116/SENEGA ST.. $550 344 $21 966 674 9.9%
> ,
/ : r
1988` '.$
` 724,854 .SENECA ST. 'RAMP $194,1361 $22,7G6,069 3.2%
1989 ? , /$3,116,593 .FIRE STATIONS CONSTRUCTION $1,232,141/FIRE STATION RENOV.$596,023/ $25,175,110 12.4%
"-STEWART AVE. BRIDGE '$485,712 ,
1990 $2,436,693
*FIRE STATIONS CONSTRUCTION $64G,410/FIRE VEHICLES $534,341/ $c8,354,697 `, 8.G%
HUDSON.ST. RECONSTRUCTION.$423,553 ;,.,
t Y'
r v',
"*—NOTE,THAT EXPENDITURES,.
ARE ONLY:THROUGH 7/31/.90 ti
t ` y
_ c
PAST PAYMENTS ON BONDED DEBT
TEN YEAR HISTORY
i
OUTSTANDING ISSUED PAID OUTSTANDING
BEGINNING DURING DURING END OF
YEAR OF YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR
1980 $7,535,000 $ $ 715,000 $ 6,820,000
1981 6,820,000 695,000 6,125,000
1982 6,125,000 695,000 5,430,000
1983 5,430,000 615,000 4,815,000
1984 4,815,000 590,000 4,225,000
1985 4,225,000 476,510 637,651 4,063,859
1986 4,063,859 3,184,000 637,651 6,610,208
1987 6,610,208 700,651 5,909,557
1988 5,909,557 6,275,000 700,651 11,483,906
¢` 1989 11,483,906 645,651 10,838,255
Issued in Past 10 Years $ 9,935,510
Paid in Past 10 Years $6,632,255
t:
The full faith and credit of the City are behind all bonds issued by the City,
whether tax support or self-supporting bonds. This is for the protection of
the credit of the City of Ithaca.
The City has always been punctual in the payment of its obligations, has.never
defaulted, postponed or delayed the payment of principal or interest on its
bonded debt, and pays all obligations within thirty days or discount period.
There is no overlapping debt or political subdivision capable of levying taxes
on real property, except the County of Tompkins.
is
Y,.
-4'frY
-59-
LEGAL DEBT LIMIT
ASSESSED VALUE STATE FULL VALUE
LINE OF TAXABLE EQUALIZATION OF TAXABLE
FOR YEAR ENDED NO. REAL ESTATE RATE REAL ESTATE
December 31, 1983 1 $ 302,725,373 101.74 $ 297,548,037
December 31, 1984 2 300,612,495 97.50 308,320,507
December 31, 1985 3 304,082,898 93.95 323,6641*606
December 31, 1986 4 309,692,061 79.95 387,357,174
December 31, 1987 5 311,973,071 69.17 451,023,668
Total of Lines 1 thru 5 6_ $1,767,913,992
Average Full Tax Valuation 7 $ 353,582,798
Debt Limit - 77. of Line 7 $ 24,750,796
NET INDEBTEDNESS SUBJECT TO DEBT LIMIT
INCLUSIONS
Bonds Outstanding $ 10,838,255
Bond Anticipation Notes Outstanding 4,753,285
Total $ 15,591,540
EXCLUSIONS
Sewer Bonds $ 2,425,000
Water Bonds. 1,034,490
Water Bond Anticipation Notes -0-
Sewer Bond Anticipation Notes 172,335
Total 3,631,825
Net Indebtedness Subject to Debt Limit $ 11,959,715
Debt Limit $ 24,750,796
Less: -Indebtedness Subject to Debt Limit 11,959,715
Debt Contracting Power Available $ 12,791,081
Percentage of Debt Contracting Power Available 52%
Percentage of Debt Contracting Power Exhausted 487
-58-