HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023_10_18 Town Board Minutes o
_ ��9_1_ Town of Mamaroneck
0 Town Board Minutes
W m Wednesday, October 18, 2023, Courtroom, Second Floor of
n Town Center 5:00 PM
FOUNDED 1661
PRESENT: Jaine Elkind Eney, Town Supervisor
Abby Katz, Councilwoman
Sabrina Fiddelman, Councilwoman
Jeffery L. King, Councilman
Robin Nichinsky, Councilwoman
ABSENT:
ALSO PRESENT: Allison May, Town Clerk
Meredith S. Robson, Town Administrator
Connie Green O'Donnell, Deputy Town Administrator
William Maker Jr., Town Attorney
Tracy Yogman, Town Comptroller
5:00 PM THE TOWN BOARD WORK SESSION
CALL TO ORDER
Moved by Councilman King, seconded by Councilwoman Katz, the meeting
unanimously opened at 5:08pm.
WORK SESSION ITEMS
1. Request for Executive Session
Moved by Councilwoman Fiddelman, seconded by Councilwoman Katz, the
Town Board entered into Executive Session to discuss pending litigation
including Westchester Joint Water Works and Save the Sound, as well as the
proposed acquisition or sale of property.
Carried
Moved by Councilwoman Fiddelman, seconded by Councilwoman Katz, the
Town Board unanimously agreed to resume the Work Session.
Carried
2. Discussion - Street Banner Honoring Local Veterans
The Board considered an opportunity presented to Town Supervisor Elkind Eney to
honor Town of Mamaroneck veterans using banners. Neighboring municipalities
honor their local veterans by placing pictures of them on banners on their streetlight
posts. The banners would be purchased by the families of the veterans, so would be
of no cost to the Town. The Town Board requested that the Town Supervisor provide
more information on timing of the banners, as well as funding support for families that
cannot afford a banner on their own.
Town Board
October 18, 2023
3. Discussion - Property Tax Levy in Excess of the Limit Established in General
Municipal Law
The Town Administrator explained that the Town Board passes a similar local law
every year, which allows the Town the flexibility to go above the New York State
mandated tax cap of three percent. The Administrator added that passing this local
law does not mean that the Town will budget above the tax cap, it simply gives the
Town the flexibility if it chooses to do so.
4. Discussion - Stormwater Study Intermunicipal Agreement (IMA)
The Town Supervisor presented the Town Board with the IMA with Westchester
County to conduct the comprehensive stormwater study in the Town. The IMA is
retroactive to January 1 , 2023, and continues through December 31, 2024. The
Supervisor noted that the Town must sign this IMA in order to get funding, as there is
no flexibility in the agreement.
5. Updates
The Board discussed the Waverly Avenue Bridge project, including the Town
Supervisor preparing a robocall regarding the project starting to go out this Friday.
Councilman King addressed the rates for Hommocks Ice Rink rentals. Councilman
King pointed out that at Freestyle Sessions, which offer rental time for figure skating
practice with a coach, attendance has been steadily dropping. These sessions are not
as popular as other ice-time rentals and are losing money. The Recreation
Commission is considering whether or not to maintain the Freestyle Sessions at two
days a week. The Board agreed that the Recreation Commission should look at
cutting them back.
Councilwoman Nichinsky shared that the Housing Authority would like to take the
Town Board on a tour of the renovated Hommocks Park Apartments. The Board was
interested and said they would not speak during the tour, so the tour need not be
noticed as a meeting of the Town Board.
The Board asked about the development of the Town's Police Dashboard.
Administrator Robson said the Police Department is finalizing the items on the
dashboard. The Town Administrator has requested that the Police Department
present the Dashboard to the Town Board at a meeting in early 2024.
Councilwoman Katz updated the Town Board on the Traffic Committee, which had
recently reviewed the speed hump policies of surrounding municipalities. Captain
Maher has a list of specific criteria, including speed and several other factors, that
neighboring municipalities are using to evaluate whether or not a specific street
should have a speed hump. In addition, Councilwoman Katz recommended the Town
address resident-only parking on Plymouth and Winthrop.
Councilman King requested verification on the requirements for speed cameras,
wondering if they are only allowed in cities? The Town Administrator agreed to look
into speed camera requirements for municipalities.
Councilwoman Fiddelman and Councilman King again requested that the Town look
into Recreation Scholarships. There was discussion about reaching out to a
community partner to be `Friends of the Hommocks' or such, which is one way that
many other municipalities offer scholarships.
The Town Supervisor updated the Board on Town Engineer Robert Wasp getting a
quote for the next step for the Hommocks Fields/Fields for Kids project.
Town Board
October 18, 2023
6. Discussion - Tree Law
The Town Board agreed to have a meeting on the proposed Tree Law after their
Budget Meeting on October 24, 2023, at 5:45pm, to further address the proposed
Tree Law. Councilwoman Nichinsky and Councilwoman Fiddelman reviewed their
suggestions on the proposed Tree Law, which they had emailed into the Town
Supervisor.
See Attachment A.
7. Additions to Regular Meeting Agenda
There were no additions to the Regular Meeting.
8:00 PM TOWN BOARD REGULAR MEETING
The Town Board meeting convened in the Courtroom Located on the second floor at the
Town Center. The Public was to view the meeting on cable access television (Optimum 76/
Fios 35) or on LMCMedia.org
CALL TO ORDER
The Regular Meeting of the Town Board was called to order by Supervisor Elkind Eney at
8:02 p.m. Supervisor Elkind Eney noted that the Town Board met for a Work Session
beginning at five o'clock this evening.
STAFF COMMENTS/ PRESENTATIONS
1. Proposed 2023 Water Rate Increase
Mr. David Birdsall, Business Director of Westchester Joint Water Works (WJWW),
presented the attached titled 'Town of Mamaroneck Water Rate'. Mr. Birdsall included
a review of the history of Rye Lake, which he said had been out of compliance with
EPA water treatment rules since 1990. Mr. Birdsall then reviewed the history of the
water filtration plant, the need for WJWW to address the byproducts in the water
supply, and their income distribution projection. Mr. Birdsall then spoke about
WJWW's increasing debt service, difficulties in the supply chain, the increase in New
York City water rates, and the potential settlement of compliance issues with both the
federal and state government. In order to close the budget gap, Mr. Birdsall said,
WJWW is asking for a 25% water rate increase in the Town of Mamaroneck, which
equals an increase of approximately $272.27 per year for the average household.
See Attachment B.
Mr. Luke Brussel, an audience member, asked a question after Mr. Birdsall spoke. Mr.
Brussel suggested if there is a million dollar-plus distribution to the Town of
Mamaroneck, rather than increasing the rate to the consumer, why not just reduce the
revenue for the Town? Mr. Birdsall answered that if WJWW did not provide the
revenue to the Town, then the Town would have to cover the cost of the water service
through our General Fund. The way it is set up now, residents pay for the water that
they use, rather than having everyone assessed the same cost through their taxes.
This way, people that use more water, pay more, and those that use less water, pay
less. Town Comptroller Yogman added that WJWW cannot issue debt, the Town
issues debt and then the Town water fund receives money netted in revenue from
WJWW to pay the debt service within that fund for the Town's water projects.
Lastly, Mr. Birdsall introduced Mr. Frank Arcara, General Superintendent of WJWW,
and stated that Mr. Paul Kutzy, Manager and CEO of WJWW, could not attend
because of a family emergency.
Town Board
October 18, 2023
2. Presentation of the 2024 Tentative Budget
Town Administrator Meredith Robson and Town Comptroller Tracy Yogman
presented an overview of the Town of Mamaroneck 2024 Tentative Budget.
Supervisor Elkind Eney noted that this is the first iteration of the budget, and the first
step in a collaborative effort with Department Heads and the Town Board to arrive at
the final budget.
The Town Administrator began with two significant operational changes affecting the
tentative Town Budget in 2024. In 2024, the Town has two major operational
changes. First is the Housing Assistance Fund, valued at $7.7 million. This was our
Section 8 Program which was transferred to New York State in 2023, which then
transferred it to a nonprofit entity to administer for both our residents and those in the
Village of Mamaroneck. It is a big number, but the expenditures and revenues cancel
each other out. The other significant change is with the Board of Control that used to
administer the Town's cable franchise fees and peg money. There is no longer a
Board of Control as there is no longer a joint agreement with the two villages. The
Town will receive the franchise fees directly from the two cable companies. With the
franchise fees, the Town is now netting $125,000 into our General Revenue fund,
which we will use to support the LMC Media program.
Administrator Robson continued, Total Expenses budgeted equal $53 million, which is
a decrease of $6.4 million verses 2023. The decrease in Housing Assistance of $7.7
million again plays a factor here, as does a decrease of$1 .9 million in capital project
funding. Contractually obligated compensation increases, as well as New York State
mandated increases in Health Insurance and Retirement benefits, debt service, and
other increases drove Operating Expenses up $3.1 million.
Administrator Robson highlighted the 2024 budget risks which include uncertainty
over market forces, sales tax, and mortgage tax. The Administrator noted that housing
sales have continued to slow, with mortgage tax actuals for the past three months
down forty-five percent. The 2024 budget revenue has been reduced by $400,000,
which is equal to the estimated 2023 budget shortfall. Comptroller Yogman then
provided a breakdown of the 2024 tentative budget, noting the largest changes in
revenue and expenses. Administrator Robson wrapped up by highlighting several
budget investments planned for 2024, noting how critical it is to maintain our capital
infrastructure in the Town.
The Town Administrator then highlighted the changes in revenue in the budget,
including the Housing Assistance Program again (decrease of $7.7 million);
Appropriated Fund Balance (down $2.1 million); Investment Earnings are bouncing
back, and we are estimating they will be up $1.2 million next year; there is a Tax Levy
increase of$1 .8 million estimated; and a Water Revenue increase of $.5 million. The
Administrator pointed out that we are still expecting a shortfall in Mortgage Tax in
2023, so 2024 is reduced accordingly. Sales Tax is estimated to remain the same.
There is so much fluctuation in pricing right now, so our estimated costs have
changed by the time we finance and start a project. These costs can be significantly
different than planned. The Town Administrator confirmed that the Town does
everything we possibly can to address the fluctuation in pricing, but this remains the
biggest budget concern financially that the Town is currently facing. The Comptroller
then highlighted the largest changes in Budget revenues and expenses, compared to
2023 by category. The Administrator added that our policy is to use the fund balance
for one-time capital projects -- not for operating expenses.
The Comptroller estimated that the fund balance at the start of 2024 will be $16.35
million and $13.1 million at the end of 2024. At the end of 2024, we are projected to
be at 25% of the operating expenses of the Town, ensuring the Town remains
compliant with the Town's fund balance goal of between 15 and 25%. The Town
Supervisor added that our fund balance is not only critical to our operations but also to
Town Board
October 18, 2023
our AAA Moody's credit rating. That way, the Supervisor noted, when the Town must
borrow money, the Town can do so at the best rate possible. The Comptroller
continued, explaining that the Town tries to balance the impact on the taxpayer and
the impact on the fund balance and the impact on the expenses that we have. Right
now, it is very difficult as prices change almost daily, so we do our very best.
The Comptroller continued by explaining that the tax levy is the amount of money that
we need to raise to balance our budget and our expenses. This year we need
$31 .956 million, which is a $1.776 million increase over 2023. That equates to a
5.88% tax increase. The New York State tax cap is 3%, but that is difficult to achieve
when you have the state mandated expense increases that our Town has. The tax
rate is a function of taking the tax levy and dividing it by the total amount of the
assessed values in Town. The assessed values in the Town increased 1.91% and the
average value of a home increased from $1.3 to $1 .4 million. The 2024 proposed tax
rate equals 5.48% which is down from 5.59% in 2023. This equates to about a $544
increase in taxes for the average $1 .537 million-priced home in the Town.
This is a plan, noted the Town Administrator, not a promise. The Administrator
continued, stating that this 2024 budget provides for capital investments, critical to
upgrade and maintain infrastructure and move the community forward. The
Administrator then highlighted some of the Town's 2024 capital budget investments,
including the Baldwin Avenue sump pump station, road resurfacing, vehicles/heavy
equipment, the Town Center generator, technology investments, and water
system/stormwater improvements. The Administrator finished by noting that the Town
of Mamaroneck Preliminary Budget will be presented to the Town Board at their
meeting on December 6th
See Attachment C.
Mr. Phil Greven asked the Town Comptroller for clarification on the chart titled '2024
Expense Budge Increase of $1 .3 (Without Housing Assistance Transfer)'. Mr. Greven
stated that it looked like the costs of staff and benefits are increasing enormously and
the amount spent on capital projects is decreasing enormously, and he asked if that
was correct. Comptroller Yogman stated that without the $7.7 million in Housing
Assistance, the chart shows that salaries and benefits are going up $2 million and the
amount we are spending from the Town's operating budget on capital projects is
going down. The Town bonds for capital projects as well, the Comptroller noted, but
that funding would not be reflected in these numbers. Administrator Robson added
that in the five-year capital plan, you will see significant funding, which sometimes
comes from grants but generally comes from bonding.
PUBLIC HEARING(S)
The following Notice of Public Hearing is entered into the record as follows:
1. Notice of Public Hearing - Town of Mamaroneck Tree Law
The following notice of Public Hearing is entered into the record as follows:
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
LEGAL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to Section 130 of the Town Law of
the State of New York, a Public Hearing will be held on Wednesday, October 4, 2023,
at 8:00 PM or as soon thereafter as is possible, to consider the "Town of Mamaroneck
Tree Law", at the Town Center, 740 W. Boston Post Road, Mamaroneck, New York.
Town Board
October 18, 2023
Purpose:
The Town Board finds and declares that the preservation of trees, as defined herein,
within the Town is necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the
Town because trees provide shade, impede soil erosion, aid water absorption and
retention, inhibit excess runoff and flooding, enhance air quality, offer a natural barrier
to noise, provide a natural habitat for wildlife, provide screening, enhance property
values and add to the aesthetic quality of the community. However, the Town Board
also recognizes that property owners have the right to develop, use and enjoy their
properties and that sometimes trees must be removed in order for property owners to
be able to achieve full enjoyment of their property. This law strikes a balance between
the rights of property owners and the maintenance of trees within the Town.
You may also view the meeting on local municipal access television (Cablevision 75,
76, 77 or Verizon 34, 35, 36) or on LMC Media's website, https://lmcmedia.org/.
The full text of this document can be viewed on the Town's website,
https://www.townofmamaroneckny.org/calendar.aspx, or by calling the Town Clerk's
Office at 914-381-7870, for a mailed copy.
BY ORDER OF THE TOWN BOARD
OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK
Published: September 27, 2023
Moved by Councilwoman Nichinsky, seconded by Councilwoman Fiddelman,
the Public Hearing was unanimously reopened after being adjourned at the
Town Board's October 4th meeting.
Carried
The Town Supervisor reminded everyone where we left off on the proposed Tree
Law, with a review of the current Tree Law verses the current tree law. (For further
details on the comparison, please see introduction in the October 4, 2023, minutes.)
We're going to resume the public hearing on a proposed amendment to the Town
Tree law. The current tree law applies to lots greater than 20,000 square feet, which is
about twenty percent of all the lots in the Town. That is all it applies to. And it doesn't
provide any limit on the number of trees that are taken down. The proposed law, when
it is fully phased in, will apply to all lots in the town. The proposed law provides a limit
on the number of trees that can be taken down in any two-year period. And,
depending on the size of the lot, the proposed law requires that every tree taken down
has replacement trees planted, again depending on the size, the bigger the tree and
the more replacement trees taken down. Since the last public hearing, the Town has
received numerous emails. We have now had a chance to review them, and we've
discussed some of them. And now, some of you have sent multiple emails, so you
know, you're well represented.
Since the last hearing, we have received another sheaf of emails, and the emails are
all over the place. There is a group who feel that this law is way too lenient, and it
should be much stricter. And I think many of you are here tonight. And there is
another group who feels that this proposed law is too stringent, and that they should
be able to take down trees on their property, and they should not be required to get
permits. So right now, everybody is mad at us -- either because the law is too strict, or
the law is too lenient. What we have tried to do here is to find a balance. Please do be
assured, we did listen to all your comments. We have read the comments that came
in. We just got another batch tonight, which we will also read. And so, we are not
making any decision on the law, because we take very seriously listening to the
resident comments that we get both at a public hearing and also by email. We are not
doing this in a vacuum. So, the first thing I want to do is ask the Town Attorney
Town Board
October 18, 2023
William Maker once again to fully describe the law. Last week, he was away with
COVID, but now you are seeing him in person.
Attorney Maker said I would characterize this particular law as a tree replacement law.
Essentially it allows people to remove trees with certain limitations, numerical
limitations, depending upon their lot size. But it also requires people who remove what
are called regulated trees to replace those trees. And again, it is not always a one-to-
one ratio. So, if you take down a larger tree, one that's over twelve inches in diameter,
you will have to replace it with two trees. If it is eighteen inches, I believe it has to be
replaced by three trees. There are stringent fines for violating the law. There is a
requirement that all regulated trees that get removed be replaced. The environmental
planner is charged with the responsibility of making sure that the replacement trees
are planted, and that they survive for at least one year.
Attorney Maker continued, there is also a period of time when a person cannot apply
for a tree removal permit. A person cannot apply for another tree removal permit until
one year after the anniversary of the planting of their replacement trees. The concept
is that you cannot come in and, say you have a lot that you are limited to taking down
six trees in a given year, you cannot take down the six trees allowed in year one and
then come back the next year and get a permit to take down another five trees. One
cannot cumulatively denude the property of trees. There are staggered periods of time
where you cannot apply for the removal of trees.
In addition, Attorney Maker explained, there are fines that would be assessed for
people who violate this law. There is a tree fund for those situations where a piece of
property may not be conducive to having new trees planted. This way money will be
put aside to into a Town Tree Fund, which will be used by the Environmental Planner
to plant trees elsewhere within the Town.
Attorney Maker added, often tree removal will come up in the context of a residential
site plan review. In that instance, a person would go to the Planning Board like they
currently do to get a site plan review for, let's say, an extension to their home. The
Planning Board customarily requires them to submit some kind of landscaping plan so
they can judge the efficacy of what the people are proposing in that landscaping plan.
Tree removal will be mandatorily included. There would be a section of the plan that
would show an x, I am taking out these trees and I am replacing them with these. And
each of the ones I am replacing them with, this is where they are going to go. And of
course, the Planning Board in its judgment could alter the landscaping and planting
plan and could suggest that instead of planting the trees in the northwest quadrant of
the property, some should be planted in the southeastern quadrant of the property.
That would be part of the overall planning review that the Planning Board would
complete in response to any application. And of course, the site plan and tree
removals would be subject to the same number of limitations. If you have a lot of a
certain size, you can only remove a certain number of trees in a given year. So,
before one goes before the Planning Board, they will need to review their application
to ensure they are not removing more than the law would allow.
Supervisor Elkind Eney thanked Attorney Maker and stated that this law is an attempt
at a balance between those people that feel there should be no restriction on
removing trees and those that feel the removal of trees should be highly restricted.
Councilwoman Katz thanked everyone that had emailed, everyone that spoke at the
last meeting, and everyone in attendance. Councilwoman Katz said that she
understands the sentiment stated by many speakers: that trees are a shared
resource and provide benefits outside of property boundaries. I think, Councilwoman
Katz said, that everyone on the Board understands the importance of trees and we all
believe climate change is real. (Hope you don't mind me saying that Councilwoman
Katz said to the Board.) And we all also want to maintain or increase our tree canopy.
The Town Supervisor has already explained some of the differences between what
Town Board
October 18, 2023
exists now and what we are proposing. I understand that some people feel this law is
too lenient. But this is like a huge change to what is allowed on private property.
Councilwoman Katz continued, I think there are many residents who are going to be
surprised by this law and disagree with the Town infringing on their rights to do what
they want on their property. I compare these changes to our Zoning Code. One can
build a zoning-compliant addition to their house without public notice or hearing. I
think there is some amount of tree removal you should be allowed to do without your
neighbor's approval or a public hearing. The Town Board has spent a lot of time
working on this law. Despite what you might have heard, we have used a lot of input
from the Sustainability Collaborative from the Town staff, which includes our Town
Attorney, our Environmental Planner, and Highway Department, which includes a
certified arborist. We have spent lots of hours reviewing other codes in municipalities,
mainly in Westchester. And I view this as a very good first step. With the
implementation of this law, we will have a mechanism to keep track of how many
trees are being removed. And this will allow us to determine what, if any, changes to
the law may be warranted. I do not think we are ever going to craft legislation that is
going to make everyone happy. But I think this is an important law. And we should
continue to move forward with this after we have had time to review all the feedback
and the issues that you were just discussing. Thank you.
Councilwoman Nichinsky stated, as she did at the last time, I'm going to defer my
comments to the next session. I am here to listen to the people in the audience
tonight. I do not want anyone to interpret that as I have nothing to say, I am just
deferring.
Councilwoman Fiddelman said that she had nothing to add at the moment.
Councilwoman Fiddelman stated that she is really interested in hearing what people
have to say.
Supervisor Elkind Eney then reminded audience participants to sign in with Mark
Romero. Supervisor Elkind Eney added to please wait to be called up to the podium
and to keep their comments to three minutes. Supervisor Elkind Eney then asked
those that spoke at the hearing on October 4th not to speak tonight. And we ask that
everyone limit their comments to three minutes. Again, we have worked on this law for
a long time. And we do recognize the importance of trees in our community. So
please try to focus your comments on specifics about the proposed law that you agree
or disagree with, rather than general comments about the importance of trees in the
community. And also, if you agree with the previous speaker, and you do not feel you
want to repeat what the previous speaker said, you can come up to the podium and
just say, "I agree with the previous speaker" and your comments will be so noted.
Again, we are here because we do want to hear what you say, and we want to listen.
So, I'll get started, who would like to speak first?
Thank you. My name is Andy Reinmann, I'm an Assistant Professor of Environmental
Science at the CUNY Advanced Science Research Center and at Hunter College. I'm
not a resident of Mamaroneck. I'm a resident of Pleasantville, working on a similar
ordinance. But the Sustainability Collaborative asked me to come and speak. This is
an important issue and so I agreed to do so. The reason that they reached out to me
is my lab, we do a lot of work on canopy cover in municipalities. And we recently
completed a project quantifying spatial and temporal patterns in tree canopy cover
and forest cover across Westchester County over a two-decade period.
In an odd way, Mr. Reinmann continued, it may be fortuitous that the budget
discussion came before our discussion of tree canopy cover. And I say that because
often what's left out of discussions of infrastructure is tree canopy cover. Trees cool
things in ways that nothing that we build can. And trees mitigate stormwater runoff
and flooding in ways that we would typically have to spend a lot of money building
other things to solve that problem. I won't go into the issue of why trees matter. But
what I wanted to do is to briefly comment and provide some suggestions. Now that I
have had time to read the ordinance in a little bit more detail, in hopes of helping the
Town Board
October 18, 2023
Town create an ordinance that could more meaningfully address its objective of
slowing rates in decline of canopy cover across the municipality, I summarized some
of the key points as I read it.
Mr. Reinmann continued, there is a removal limit for a 12-month period. And the
number of trees that can be removed I think was like 10 trees per lot varies based on
lot size. In the work that we've done, we've looked at different ordinances and drivers
of canopy cover loss across Westchester, we suggest trying to limit allowances for
tree removal to no more than five trees per lots of 7500 square feet or larger, and
ideally only two or three trees per year for a lot smaller than 7500 square feet. In
addition, what's great about what you're proposing is there's a tree replacement
requirement. We know from our work that an ordinance alone does nothing, an
ordinance needs to require a permit for a tree to be removed. And there needs to be a
clause and some incentive to plant new trees. Those are the only things that we find
any evidence of that will curb the rate of canopy cover loss.
What you have now is a good start, Mr. Reinmann said. But I would argue that you
would want to consider replacing one tree for every six inches of diameter of a tree
size. So, for a 24-inch diameter tree, you would want to replace it with four trees. The
reason that I say this is typically you are replanting a two, two-and-a-half-inch
diameter tree. Our work and work from other places suggests that it will probably take
10 to 15 years for that tree to attain six inches in diameter. Overnight, you don't regain
the services you've lost by cutting a tree. But if we can think about this over the
course of 10-to-20-year time horizons, that's helpful. And so that is the justification for
one replacement tree for every six inches diameter of a tree as a minimum.
Also, Mr. Reinmann suggested, I would urge the Town to carefully quantify what the
cost of replacing a tree actually is. If it is indeed the $300 that's proposed, that's great.
But it doesn't do a whole lot of good to charge someone $300 to replace a tree, to find
out that it costs $600 to actually replace it. So, I would look into those costs. I just
have a couple more quick points. When this law is passed, I would urge the Town to
use a certified arborist ideally. You do not want someone that is already employed by
the Town. That will eliminate any conflict of interest. And that arborist should be the
one who determines if a tree is indeed a hazardous tree, rather than just being
removed based on a homeowner's opinion. It's an objective way to quantify this.
In addition, Mr. Reinmann added, if you are having someone replant a tree, it needs
to stay alive for longer than one year. That's not a huge benchmark to reach. I would
suggest extending that to five years, which is what we're proposing in Pleasantville.
The arborist comes back a couple of years later and certifies that the tree is still in
good shape and is properly being maintained.
Two other quick points, Mr. Reinmann continued. There's no mention of, or another
clause for Heritage Trees in this plan. I would suggest adding that. The way these are
defined varies by municipality. Generally, there's a size threshold, but these are trees
that exhibit some sort of character, size, or species, something like that, that is of
cultural or historic significance. I would recommend thinking about a threshold of
something like 24 inches, or anything larger than that be a Heritage Tree. We say that
because those trees tend to be quite large, replacing it with a tree could take that new
tree well over 100 years to attain the services provided by the one that got cut down.
Sorry, almost done.
My understanding from reading this, Mr. Reinmann explained, is that the Town's own
property would be exempt from the tree ordinance. I would suggest reconsidering
that. If for no other reason, then it's going to be hard to get your constituents to buy
into something that the Town itself is not adhering to. And I would also consider, in
any new development, trying to limit clearing to no more than 20% of the current
canopy cover on that property.
Town Board
October 18, 2023
Mr. Reinmann then suggested that the Town also consider programs to incentivize
the planting trees. That way, he said, you can disincentivize cutting trees. The last
thought that I'll leave you with is that Mamaroneck is currently at a little over 40% tree
canopy cover. Every place in Westchester is declining. Mamaroneck is in the same
position. A generally thought of rule is that you want to keep your municipality above
40% canopy cover to realize the benefits of the trees. The Town of Mamaroneck is
getting close to that threshold. And so, if you are going to go through the effort of
having an ordinance, it behooves everybody involved to do what you can to make it
actually meet its objective of reducing canopy cover loss. Mr. Reinmann then thanked
the Board and apologized for going over his allotted time.
The Town Board asked Mr. Reinmann about Pleasantville's ordinance that is in
development. Mr. Reinmann said, 'in Pleasantville, we were still working through our
ordinance. But we have different allowances for tree removal based on the lot size. In
Pleasantville, there's some larger lots and like the one I live on, that's like 5000
square feet is very different. And so we sort of come to this number thinking, thinking
about 7500 square feet, if you remove 10 trees on a lot that size, I think you
oftentimes be hard pressed to find 10 trees more than six inches in diameter. And so,
I think it's just appropriate to think about scaling the allowances for tree removal,
based on the lot size. I would suggest that the numbers that are currently what you
have would result in many cases of someone theoretically being able to cut down all
the trees on their property.
Councilman King stated that we do have a sliding scale. Yes, I was just curious as to
the larger lot sizes, what ratios they're looking at, you know, to have 20,000 square
feet or less, or 14,000 square feet or less, you know, what are they looking at?
Mr. Reinmann responded that Pleasantville's cut off is at 7,500 square feet. At 7,500
square feet or larger, they are proposing to limit removals to no more than 5 trees.
Another way to consider the larger lots, Mr. Reinmann suggested, is to review the
percentage of canopy cover on the property, but he acknowledged the number of
trees is an easier metric to quantify. `Rather than someone going into Google Earth
imagery and outlining the area they want to clear, what we came to is somewhere
around five or so trees would probably in most cases limited to no more than 20 or
30% canopy loss on larger properties.'
Councilman King then asked how difficult it is to plant a larger tree? Councilman King
stated that in his experience is it difficult to plant a tree bigger than 2.5 inches in
diameter.
Mr. Reinmann responded, that's a great question. That's a question we talked about a
lot because we had one person on the conservation Advisory Committee, we had one
person say, well, why don't we just plant a bigger tree? And the problem with that is,
the bigger the tree you plant, the lower the likelihood of survival. Just the amount of
stress that it goes under and getting moved is problematic. The other thing I will add is
we've got lots of great research that suggests a tree growing in somebody's yard can
grow three or four times faster than that same tree in a forest. And so, if you're
planting a two-and-a-half-inch diameter tree that has, let's say...an 80% chance of
survival, versus planting a four-inch diameter tree that has a 40% chance of survival,
over the course of a couple of years, they would wind up being pretty similar in size.
You're better off planting something smaller, that's going to survive, right. These are
long-term investments that we're making. And in Mamaroneck, in particular, you have
over a little bit 40% canopy cover, but over 75% of that is the trees in our yards in our
streets. It's not in forests. And so, the ordinance is targeting, or should be targeting
what the majority of your canopy cover is. I would worry less about the size of the tree
that you're planting. You want to make sure it's going to survive. If it survives, it'll grow
really fast if it is in the right condition and is well cared for.
Councilwoman Nichinsky, requested some clarification, asking that if it is not
necessarily then the size of the tree, is it then the type of tree?
Town Board
October 18, 2023
Mr. Reinmann said yes, right tree, right location. Mr. Reinmann continued; the
inclination is like let's plant the biggest tree that's going to get to the biggest size
possible wherever. And I would take a little bit more of a creative approach. Like if
you're cutting down a large oak tree next year powerline, it doesn't always make
sense to replace it with an oak tree that you're going to be confronted with the same
problem. Fifty years from now, there's trees of all different shapes and sizes. And that
should be tailored to the conditions in which the trees are growing. If you have a big
yard, those are the best places for big trees. If you have a tiny yard, and you're
planting things right up next, right up next to your house, plant a smaller tree. You'll
still get a lot of benefits from it. Of course, the bigger trees do more. But at the end of
the day, you don't want to be in a situation where you plant a tree and then in 30 to 40
years, you've got to cut it down and start all over again. Different trees grow at
different rates. And if we're thinking about it on a municipal scale, if you're planting a
bunch of different trees. That's biodiversity, right? There's also the cooling benefit of
our tree canopy. And it also means that the next invasive nonnative pathogen coming
through and attacking our trees isn't going to kill all of your trees. Diversity is key in
the tree planting palette.
A Councilmember stated, 'I think that's why we have in our statute, if you plant a
certain number of trees, they have to be different species.'
Mr. Reinmann stated New York City has really set the benchmark for a lot of this,
they're investing hundreds of millions of dollars in planting trees, their canopy covers
increasing over time, while everywhere in Westchester is decreasing. And their
estimates are that for every $1 you spend on a tree; you get over $5 back in services.
They can be a really good role model for how the rest of our municipalities in the area
should be thinking about this. Mr. Reinmann thanked the Town Board and apologized
for taking up so much time.
Councilman King commented about the rate of growth of trees in our area with such a
high-water table. Mr. Reinmann agreed and added that most trees, especially trees
growing in the open in someone's yard, will grow very fast with abundant water. Mr.
Reinmann noted that half of the rain that falls over the course of a summer, will get
pulled back into the atmosphere by a tree, rather than running off and exacerbating
floods.
Frank Buddingh spoke next. Mr. Buddingh currently lives in Ossining but lived in the
Town of Mamaroneck for many years. Mr. Buddingh is an arboricultural consultant.
Then, Mr. Buddingh stated: I gave you a written submission for the first meeting. And I
like to add a few remarks. In addition to the submission that are tabled. I would like to
make further comments on the importance and the need to implement community tree
ordinances covering both public and private trees. No matter how many tree
protection bylaws are put in place. For these ordinances to be successful, there needs
to be an extensive consultation process to create tree protection laws that have the
community's full support. I refer as a further point for discussion to a document
published by the North Carolina State Unit of Forestry, and it is a guide -- I gave you a
live link in my email to you -- who was responsible for the trees as Citizens Guide to
Trees in the Community. And it has quite a number of interesting aspects that serves
both the local authority and the community. Eastern Westchester where we are living
here has topography with many rock formations and shallow topsoil. And as a result,
trees develop very shallow root systems because of this. Indeed, when observing
mature trees, they develop roots of distances easily up to three four times their
canopy projection. Shallow roots will extend into neighboring properties, and as a
result, your tree can be negatively affected by your neighbors' building activities. A
varied mixture of tree species and ages makes root systems intertwine and also inter-
graft with each other. All trees, regardless of size and age, collectively contribute to
landscape preservation, erosion control, water absorption, etc. Therefore, tree
management laws must be applied to all private and all public trees to manage our
landscape and keep the community safe. A tree conservation plan that allows for the
Town Board
October 18, 2023
removal of trees even in restricted numbers, on an annual basis juxtaposes proper
management of vulnerable landscapes such as ours, thank you.
Hi, my name is Melissa Hughes. I have been living in Mamaroneck for 16 years. I
have two boys that have grown up here. And we all really love it. It's an amazing
community. And I appreciate that you're trying to do something to take the right steps
to protect the trees and grow and increase the canopy. Ironically, in 2022, my oldest
son Zach who's 17, joined the Sustainability Collaborative and worked a lot with
Arlene and Mark. They introduced us because Zach was very passionate about trees.
And so, we actually met Dr. Reinmann the first time at The Power of Trees: A
Bedford 2030 Community Forum'. And that really got Zachary very excited, and he
actually got permission through the New York State Department of Conservation, as
well as the Principal of Mamaroneck High School to work with Liz Aitchison to plant 25
trees on MUFSD property. There are some at MHS and there are some at
Hommocks. And then we also tried to plant some at the conservation site behind
Hommocks. So, I echo everything that he shared. I think that, you know, those were
the same facts and figures that he shared in the conversation The Power of Trees: A
Bedford 2030 Community Forum'. And so, you know, I do think that this is great. I'm
glad we're taking this step. I think it's not enough. More needs to be done to protect
and help grow and increase the canopy, especially with everything that's going on in
the environment these days. Thank you, thank you.
I [Ralph Engel] am actually here to serve wearing two hats. The first one is as chair of
your Town's Planning Board. And, as such, I want to read what the planning board
submitted. The following comments to the town boards for proposed tree law were
submitted on behalf of the town's Planning Board. Based upon its discussion at its
regular meeting on October 11, 2023. They are as follows. The Planning Board
members have found many problems with the proposed law, including but not limited
to a lack of standards, which opens the town to article 78 challenges, which may be
difficult to defend insufficient guidance for decision makers and lack of procedures to
deal with emergencies, such as dangerous, dangerous tree conditions and
inadequate incentives to preserve trees. Board members also specifically objected to
the availability of paying to replace a tree rather than preserving trees in connection
with the site plan review. The lack of an explicit set of standards for permitting tree
removal is inconsistent with some of the evaluation criteria that the planning board is
expected to apply in connection with site plan review. If it is permissible to permit tree
removal without a compelling justification, in exchange for planting quote,
replacement trees, which could be significantly less desirable than the trees being
removed, or to contribute to a tree fund It doesn't actually even have to be spent
planting trees. If you read what's in the law, this would deprive the planning board of
its current ability to mandate retention of critical trees in connection with its site plan
review process. That is something that I'd like to say on behalf of myself. It's only
three short paragraphs. First of all, the proposed Tree Law does nothing whatsoever
to protect the many big, beautiful trees that are all over our Town. Second, despite the
provisions in the law, that look as though they limit the number of trees, that a
landowner may cut down in any year. The proposed Tree Law, actually right on the
next page, permits any owner of real estate in our town to get a permit from our town,
which will permit him or her to cut down any or even all of the trees on his or her
property. And there's absolutely nothing in the proposed law to stop or to permit the
town environmental planner, or the Town's planning board to prevent such a result.
And third item. It is now unfortunately clear to me. Why it is so very hard to get
anything done to slow much less to stop climate change. Even though even in the
highly educated town of Mamaroneck with a lot of expertise on our town board. We
the residents of our town apparently cannot get our own town government to adopt a
law that actually protects our town's existing trees. Thank you.
Arlene Novich spoke next. Hello again, Ms. Novich said, I live in the Town. And this is
from the minutes from a Board meeting during August of 2021 . And this is the quote
the Town Board agreed that 'the tree code needs to be updated to address tree
preservation, not just removal.' And that has not happened. The Board knows very
little about trees or tree codes. And yet they did not seek out enough experts. Nor did
Town Board
October 18, 2023
it appear that they did enough research on municipal tree codes, in addition to our
Town's, all of which were necessary. And I and members of the tree team knew very
little about trees and tree codes either when we embarked on this task, but we spent
long hours researching, meeting with experts, and looking at codes. But the Board
decided to start from scratch, assured that they could do a better job and they didn't.
The Board is misguided regarding the tree code when they talk about balancing the
code with the rights of the residents. A strong code is the right of the residents to a
healthy and safe environment. To say that residents have the right to do what they
want regarding cutting trees violates the needs of the community for a safe, healthy
environment. Without a strong tree code, the Town is violating the New York State
constitutional amendment that provides for a healthy environment and opens the
Town to possible litigation. That amendment speaks to the rights of the residents. The
Board has passed the Climate Emergency Declaration, which indicates that we are in
an emergency situation, and we must act accordingly. This declaration specifies that
the Sustainability Collaborative is to work closely with the Town Administrator and the
Board. But that hasn't happened. Although we are happy to do so.
The Town of Mamaroneck has endured severe flooding at great costs to members of
our community, as well as cost to taxpayers to repair and mitigate the damage that
flooding has created. We are in an emergency situation even though we've been very
lucky around here so far compared to other parts of the country. And the benefits
derived from trees must supersede individual residents wants with regard to their
property. The health and safety needs of the collective community, as well as of
individual residents, are of paramount importance. Therefore, the code should not let
residents remove trees for no valid reason. This tree code hands out permits to take
down trees for any reason with minimal provisions for oversight, making the whole
code ineffective. New Tree planting is a long-term plan. The code addresses tree
planting but not tree saving. And many of the large trees have been growing here long
before the residents, and whose yards they inhabit, ever lived here.
Mrs. Novich continued, the street behind mine, for example, is at a slightly higher
elevation. And when my new neighbors moved in behind me, they were told to take
down the two large trees that bordered my yard. Those trees were large when we
moved into Town 40 years ago. I asked them not to cut them, since if they ever came
down, they would fall across my yard, not theirs. And I was not worried. On the
contrary, what worried me was if they cut them, all the shade in my yard would be
gone. My house would be hotter in summer, raising my electricity costs. And, the
water runoff and erosion, since we are at a lower elevation, would increase
tremendously. I am convinced that the Board wants to do the right thing. Now is the
time for the board to come together and do the right thing. Thank you.
The next speaker was Kevin Crowe. I'm Kevin Crowe, I've been a resident of the
Town of Mamaroneck for a long time. It's my personal opinion that the new Tree Law
falls short of actually protecting this important and wonderful natural resource. It's a
known fact that trees help mitigate excessive flooding as well as help prevent
overheating in our neighborhoods. It would be better for the environment if the general
public changed their mindset from focusing exclusively on their individual rights and
was more concerned about the collective good. I think one of our Town government's
mandates is to be a good steward of our natural resources, and doing so the Town of
Mamaroneck can set a good example for our community and other communities. For
instance, a white oak tree supports more life forms than any other American tree,
almost 400 species of living things. It's a tremendous loss of animal and bird life. And
trees such as this are cut down. Removing too many trees is inconsistent with
Pollinator Pathway and so many other Town initiatives. I mentioned Pollinator
Pathways because it's one of the environmental groups I'm involved in. Our Town
needs to be seen as a role model by exercising sound judgment over our tree
removals. The Town should take into consideration anything that's adverse. These
are times when the common good is more important than the less environmentally
focused. Also, by exercising sound judgment over any tree removals, it takes into
consideration any adverse effect. I think I'm finished, thank you.
Town Board
October 18, 2023
Robert Herbst, of 76 N Chatsworth, was next. Madam Supervisor, Honorable
members of the Board, esteemed Mr. Maker, I've been a resident of the Town of
Mamaroneck since 1965. I've been in my current house for 31 years. I will try not to
say what's been said and repeat prior comments, prior speeches. I just would like to
address a few points and not be cumulative. It was suggested tonight, for example,
that this law would be a good start, because it would allow us to collect data. Frankly,
we don't have time to collect data. I live in a house that was built in 1923. As a 100-
year-old house, our next-door neighbor, three years ago, cut down what was probably
a 100-year-old tree. It had a giant canopy. It was beautiful. Since that was cut down
the entire ecology of our yard has changed. We get sun where we never had sun.
Nobody visits our bird feeder anymore. We don't see Cardinals. Ironically, or
interestingly, our bedroom now gets hit by the full moon, which it never did. I've joked
with my wife about perhaps becoming a werewolf. We didn't know for the first almost
30 years, but what it illustrates is that when one of these trees goes, it changes
everything. And it would take forever, like 100 years to get that tree back again.
When you say it's been suggested that a lot of the public would be surprised perhaps
if this law goes into effect. I've looked at the Town oversight, the Town has received
some 300-plus comments, most of which were critical of this law. I think what the
Town Board needs is to take another look at the law. Look at the various submissions.
Look at all the work that's been done by many volunteers, many boards. And, you
know, candidly, with all due respect, the members of the Board should put any of their
personal views aside about whether someone should be able to put up a swing set. If
they put up a swing set, great, but in five years that kids off doing something else.
Maybe make a tire swing from the tree. The Town Board should put aside any
personal thoughts they may have on this and listen to the overwhelming views of the
community. You are our public servants. We're electing you. I see your signs with
your name on them coming up. We hope you do the right thing. Thank you.
Next was Anna Capelli. I'm Anna Capelli. I live at 98 Willow Avenue. And I support
first of all, everything they've said. I agree totally. But one thing that came to my mind
as I heard all these people saying that on their property, they should have the right to
do wherever they want, I thought nonsense. Quite honestly, I could buy a house
tomorrow. I could take out all the trees, or six trees whatever, 60 years old each. If I
stop paying my taxes, I get bounced out of my house, but I've just destroyed that
area. I've just taken that away from everyone, someone else has to come in and live
with that. So quite honestly, I know people feel like I own my property, I could do
whatever I want. None of us own our property. We stop paying our taxes, we all get
kicked out or a flipper comes in and levels the property. flips the house. He doesn't
care about the trees; he just wants to make money. And he just did. So, quite
honestly, I don't even understand why a consideration is they `should be able to do
whatever they want on their on their property'. I don't think they should at all. Because
that's a short-term vision. Long-term is these trees are 100 years old. Everyone in this
room wants them to live. And we just decided to level them, like it was nothing. That's
my perspective on that. I think that has to be rethought. It's not about what any one
person wants, we don't own our property at all. We lease it, as long as we pay for
everything. And we end up paying for the long term. You can't allow [flippers] to make
these short-term decisions that affect the entire community long term because they
are on it for however long, a year even maybe. So that's my personal perspective. I
wanted to leave you guys with that, and I support fully everything else that has been
said. Thank you.
The next speaker was from the Village of Mamaroneck. Thank you so much for the
proposed law, she said. And I agree with everybody. I live near Warren Avenue Park.
I would like to ask the Board to please consider the consistency and coherence
between the Town's proposed law and the Village regulations on the trees, especially
on in terms of emergency decree that may allow the Village to do anything, including
cutting down the trees along the river, which happened maybe two or three weeks
ago before the rain. So just as an example, definitely a six-inch-diameter tree was cut
down which was holding the bank together. We as residents could not stop them from
Town Board
October 18, 2023
doing that. If the Town could consider the coherency between the implementation of
the decree and the law or these kinds of things, that would be great. Thank you.
Reed Belladonna spoke next. I live on Lafayette road in the Town of Mamaroneck, I'm
not a tree expert. I was a Marine Corps infantry officer for a long time. So, I spent a lot
of time out in the woods. But as a homeowner today I'm in the position of spending
about $2,000, to save about a 90-year-old tree that's out in front of my house. And I
just think it's, it's money well spent, both for the looks and the value of the property,
for the health and aesthetics of the neighborhood, for the overall ecosystem, and for
all of those things combined. I know that's not a model that everybody can follow, but
just as an example of a citizen of the of the Town who values the natural environment.
It also struck me -- I've never been in this room before -- all three panels behind you
and most of the illustrations on the mural over to the right, depict the natural
environment. They depict the flora and fauna of the Town of Mamaroneck and this
area, so it comes down to the question of what do we really value? Is this what the
Town of Mamaroneck is about? Or ae we frankly telling ourselves a fairy story by
putting up pictures like that to represent the Town of Mamaroneck? That's all I have to
say.
Hi, my name is Beatrice Weinberger. I'm about a 30-year resident of the Town of
Mamaroneck. I submitted written comments before the last meeting, and I have some
additional specific concerns. These include that no certified arborist is included in the
current proposal, only a Town environmental planner. I looked at tree codes in similar
communities to Mamaroneck and saw that they require certified arborists not a tree
removal service, but certified arborists to assess trees. And the assessments include
things like specifying the necessity of the removal of the tree and the effect of that
removal on the ecological system. In addition, the noteworthiness of the tree to the
character of the community is considered. Another concern of mine is that in the
existing proposed code, the replacement trees are not specified. So, a mature oak
tree (which can reach 40 feet tall and is one that other people have mentioned are
credible hosts, absorb water and are cooling), can be replaced by something like a
Kousa dogwood, which can reach 40 feet but would not serve any of those purposes.
Also, something that no one has brought up is that existing trees are not properly
protected during construction or demolition. We've all seen yards where if not, let's not
even when it's a demolition, but when there's just an addition put on, and you see a
little fence right around the base of the tree. And within two years, those trees are
usually dead. So finally, I think the fines that are proposed are so minimal as to pretty
much be ineffective. I have seen looking at other communities that sometimes fines
go up to $5,000 for not complying, including sometimes even incarceration, but I
wouldn't want to go there. Certainly a $300 fine for a developer is really not a
significant fine. Thank you.
Elizabeth Poyer rose and addressed the Board. I wasn't really going to speak but I did
want to say one thing. Some of you may have read an article about Singapore, a
couple weeks ago in the New York Times. Singapore is a very small nation on the
water. We're not a nation, but we're a town. They are very affected by heat, and other
aspects of climate change, flooding, and many things like that. And they did a lot of
research. They have a lot of very well-educated people, and they have a lot of money.
And they put a lot of funding into researching over a few years what they could
actually do as a small nation affected by these factors. And guess what they came up
with. The solution is trees! I was flabbergasted and delighted to read this article
because they are really a small city. And we have more tree cover than they do. But if
they did all that research and they came up with the fact that this would help lower the
temperatures, and also improve the flooding, and every other aspect of what we're
dealing with here. I think it's a wonderful model for us.
The only other thing I'll mention, really quickly, is that this is an opportunity for the
Town to provide leadership. A lot of people living in our area come from cities. They
move out to the suburbs, because they want this wonderful area for their children and
the schools, and they love everything we love about being here. They haven't been
homeowners or owners of properties with trees before. They can be afraid of trees
Town Board
October 18, 2023
and storms. They don't know that if you have an arborist who inspects your tree, then
this is not a dangerous situation. It has to be managed rather than just eliminated.
And I think sometimes they're influenced by fear and a lack of knowledge. So, the
Town has an opportunity to show leadership here to help people to understand that
this is really going to be much more for the benefit not only of the community, but for
them and their children. Thank you.
John, a resident of the Town, spoke next. I'm a resident of the Town. I just wanted to
bring up a couple points that echo some stuff that people have said and maybe repeat
it. So first, the Sustainability Collaborative was created to advise the Town on
environmental issues, so as to protect the natural environment, improve water quality,
reduce flooding, energy, use our carbon footprint and noise. All things that trees do by
the way, those are not my words, those are direct from the Town's website verbatim
describing the Collaborative's mandate. Everyone here should know that the Board,
I'm sorry to say, did not consult with, consider, or incorporate any of the
recommendations of its own environmental committee, the Sustainability
Collaborative, offered continually over the last two years. There was not one joint
meeting. And I asked why not? It feels wrong. And dare I say undemocratic. And the
end result is as we people have spoken about a proposed tree law that has dozens of
loopholes and weaknesses. And that brings me to my second point, I now realize that
as Jaine [the Town Supervisor] said, the proposed tree law is an equivocation and
attempt to appease those who want no ordinance, not those like the Collaborative
members who want a strong ordinance. It's right in the middle. So, as you can see,
neither side is happy with it. And this is even though over two thirds of your
constituents stated in a poll that strong tree protection and preservation was one of
the most important parts of the comprehensive plan before it was passed. The other
1/3 were the ones that probably commented online and said that they didn't want any
code. So, I'll just say this. If you want Mamaroneck canopy to decrease year over
year, like Andy [Reinmann] mentioned, you should approve the code. If you want
summers that are 100-plus-degrees for weeks on end, and soaring energy bills, you
should approve this code. If you want your homes and businesses to flood from a
500-year storm every year, approve this code. And if you want dirtier air and ugly,
clear-cut properties, by all means approve the code. But this is not the code that the
residents want or need, and we can do better. And the final thing is I have some
images that I brought that I wanted to show people to put a face to this whole
discussion that show what this proposed code will allow, which is the unfettered
removal of trees and decreasing canopy. But I don't know how I can show it. I have a
projector; we could turn off the lights. I have a printout right here that's been
submitted.
Town Supervisor Elkind Eney responded, "We have it, you submitted it. We have
copies. Every single thing that anybody submitted, all went to Alli [the Town Clerk]
and Alli duplicated it for all of us, so we do have every submission. The Good, the
bad, and the ugly. We have them all." John thanked the Town Supervisor.
Next speaker was Arthur Katz, resident for over 50 years. We've lived in the town and
our house now, for a little over 50 years, Mr. Katz said. We do have one very mature
tree on our property, which was quite mature when we moved in. Unfortunately, it's
gotten to the point where a risk assessment needs to be made because it's now
leaning at a significant angle, and limbs have been falling off of it. I am in favor of
revising the tree law that we [currently] have, so that it covers all of the properties in
the Town. However, the comments that I read on the record, that were made at the
last meeting, and the comments in letters received, as well as the comments made
today, make it clear to me that revisions need to be made to the proposed Tree Law.
The Tree Law should properly handle the issues that need to be handled, make it
internally consistent, to remove a number of inconsistencies, and also to provide
something that's not as draconian when you have an emergency that needs to be
taken care of, which unfortunately, I do not believe the current proposed law provides.
The Town Board responded that was something they had recognized during their
discussion earlier today.
Town Board
October 18, 2023
Mr. Katz continued, well, I'm assuming based upon everything that I've heard, and
what I've read, that the Board is now going to reconsider what has been proposed.
We'll come up with a new proposal, which hopefully will correct the issues which have
now been brought up. If there's still some minor concerns, we can address it at that
time, as opposed to me going into the various provisions that I think need to be
changed, in fact, all of which I think have either been raised at the last meeting or
tonight.
Allen Reiter was next to speak. Mr. Reiter began, I'm going to endeavor not to repeat
myself. Thank you. And I appreciate the opportunity to address you for a second time.
I tallied the number of non-duplicative participants who either have spoken or
submitted written documents as of October 4th. If my numbers are correct, I've
counted, including tonight, around 99 duplicative participants. Of those, just a handful
favored the code. And if you read their comments, there were none. They simply said,
we support the code. And so, there's no way for us to know the extent to which, if any,
they read the code or simply accepted the Town's announcement, stating that this will
be protective of trees.
Mr. Reiter continued, the New York State public offices law mandates the conduct of
this hearing, implicit in that is that a municipality that permits this kind of open hearing,
the kind of hearing that we're engaged in today, will listen to what its constituents are
saying. The overwhelming number of those constituents are now on record either in
writing or via statements made here, opposing that code. And the reason for that,
other than three people which I'll get to in a moment, is that the people coming up
here believe that the code is insufficiently protective of the tree canopy. I counted
three people who oppose the code, because they thought it was too restrictive. One of
whom said it would lead us to communism, a statement, that's a statement that
speaks for itself. The canopy is irreplaceable. New trees will take decades to replace.
And perhaps the most telling comment I've heard in the two days of hearing and in all
their submissions I read is from the Town Attorney who said this is a tree replacement
code. A tree replacement code is not a tree protection code. And trees that are
planted tomorrow will take 30, 40, 50 or 100 years to replace. What we have is not a
path for us to preserve a tree canopy or the benefits that that canopy provides. The
balance struck here ignores the community's interests. We are your constituents, and
we urge you to recognize that the community is opposed to this law, as it has been
drafted by you, because the community believes overwhelmingly, that the code is
insufficiently protective. The code as written is deeply flawed. It fails to provide the
protection that we need and, based upon Council's own remarks, is not even
designed to do that. I submit to the Board that you engage with the Sustainability
Collaborative as partners to try to work out a code that will protect that canopy. And it
is only by doing that, that we will be able to achieve that. Once again, I appreciate the
opportunity to address you a second time.
Jake Levitt stated next, that the ability to protect the trees of the Town is a function of
the sentiment at the top. And the sentiment the top is presumably the Town Board
directing the environmental planner. You have a moral and functional responsibility or
obligation to protect the trees. And one, you cannot just replant trees. Now regardless
of the law, look to New York City, you can be strict on permitting. Now, regardless of
the law, three, I think each tree should require a permit -- not just take out six without
a permit -- that will truly help you track what's going on. And if you say it's too much
work for the environmental planner, it's a red flag that we're taking out too many trees.
Maybe you consider some numbers for the Town, say no more than 50 a year. And
once you get to 50, you really scrutinize. I don't know, there's got to be a way to make
a compromise. With replacement trees, you might think about the area of the tree
rather than just the number, so it would not be one for one. If you have a pi r squared,
you make sure that the same area is replanted, so for one large tree removed, it is
going to be like twenty little trees for replacement that covers an equal size area. And
finally notice to residents, it's just unconscionable to be able to come home one day
and find the tree in your neighbor's yard is gone. Trees affect the look and feel of the
neighborhood. That's a criterion for the zoning board. You know when that's
Town Board
October 18, 2023
something that they think about, and people have a right to know if the tree is going to
come down. They have a right to at least you know, you know, submit a grievance,
and maybe come to some kind of compromise of pruning instead of taking it down. I
think that's about it. Thank you.
Ms. Karen Khor spoke next, stating that the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee
would like to convey to you our deep concern that the proposed Tree Law does not
reflect the input received from residents of our Town calling for strong tree
preservation and protection. Ms. Khor explained, this is based upon the feedback that
we, who participated in the Town's Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee,
received through the community engagement process for the development of the
Town's Comprehensive Plan at last year's public workshops and pop-up events, as
well as responses to the community needs survey conducted by the Town as part of
the plan development process.
Please also note that a majority of residents who responded to the online community
needs survey identified the three community needs listed below as most important to
them, among other choices, in the Environment section. All three community needs
depend on the protection and preservation of trees:
• 71.83%, or 515 respondents, wanted the protection of wetlands, native habitat,
flood plains, and critical environmental areas from development; and
• 60.95%, or 437 respondents, requested the preservation and protection of
existing trees on both public and private lands; and
• 78.66%, or 564 people, wanted the prevention, mitigation, and management of
flooding from storm events.
*These are extracts from the final results of the Town's online community needs
survey.
Ms. Khor stated, so we respectfully urge you to reconsider and improve the proposed
tree law to ensure that it aligns with broad based resident support for strong tree
protection and preservation for our Town. Thank you for your consideration.
Thankfully yours, Jack DeMasi, Ralph Engel, Melissa Kaplan-Macey, Joe Liberti, and
myself.
Mark Kramer, cochair of the Sustainability Collaborative, thanked the Town Board
very much for listening to the comments tonight. And on October 4, we know you've
spent a lot of time listening, reading, et cetera, what's been submitted by residents,
experts, and others in the Town, and the surrounding community. We hope you will do
the right thing, and listen, and evaluate the comments, and act accordingly. Thank
you for your time and your patience. And thank you audience for being civil. And
thank you, Jane, and the rest of the Board for letting those people who spoke last time
speak again. There are many issues that have been brought up tonight that were not
brought up previously. So, thank you very much.
Supervisor Elking Eney, then agreed. Enforcement is a big issue. I agree with you. I
agree with you that enforcement is a big issue. And whatever law we pass, we have
to enforce it. Because if you don't enforce the law, what's the point of having a law?
So that is something that we have to work on with all of our laws? Okay, is everybody
done now? All right, let me invite you all to stay for the rest of the Town Board
meeting with us, because we are going to get lonely without you. We're not going to
adjourn yet, I'm not ready. The Supervisor then asked if anyone wanted to continue to
chat to please go outside, so that the Town Board could continue its meeting.
Then, Supervisor Elkind Eney asked for a motion to adjourn the public hearing.
Moved by Councilman King, seconded by Councilwoman Nichinsky, the Public
Hearing was unanimously adjourned to the meeting of November 1st.
Carried
Town Board
October 18, 2023
RESIDENT COMMENTS
Mr. Justin Dupree of Larchmont Gardens Civic Association (LGCA) introduced himself. Mr.
Dupree thanked the Town for putting down additional soil and reseeding around the stream
after the most recent storm. A few weeks ago, the Police Department and Fire Department
were called to investigate the stream to address a heavy odor like turpentine or some kind of
leakage that the neighbors believed was coming from the golf course upstream. The Town
put up baffles to track the seepage and the Civic Association was wondering if the Town
determined where the odor was coming from? Mr. Dupree also asked for an update of the
Arches and graffiti on Rockland Avenue Bridge. Mr. Dupree also mentioned that the duck
pond path was damaged as a result of the last storm and the LGCA wanted to just bring that
to the Town Board's attention. The Town Administrator said that the RFP is out on the
forebay work. The Town will begin power washing the arches soon and the Town will attempt
to complete the repointing before winter.
SUPERVISOR'S REPORT
(Out of order, first came staff comments and presentations.)
Welcome to the October 18, 2023, meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Mamaroneck.
The Town Board met today for a Work Session in Conference Room C, starting at 5:00pm,
which is open to the Public.
The Waverly Avenue Bridge will be CLOSED beginning Friday, October 20th, 2023, at 10:00
AM. The closure is necessary to facilitate the replacement of the bridge. Motorists should
follow the posted detour utilizing Hoyt Avenue as an alternate route. Access to local
businesses in the vicinity of the bridge will be maintained at all times. The duration of the
Bridge Closure is currently expected to be 10 months. Motorists are urged to slow down and
drive responsibly in work zones. For updates, go to the Town Website
https://www.townofmamaroneckny.org/733/Waverly-Avenue-Bridge-Replacement-Project .
We just received word that our 2023 Budget document has been awarded the Distinguished
Budget Presentation Award from the Government Finance Officers Association. This award
is the highest form of recognition in governmental budgeting and represents a significant
achievement, and it is the 4th year in a row that we have received it. Kudos to Town
Comptroller Tracy Yogman who is doing an outstanding job, thank you Tracy.
The events of the past two weeks in the Town were overshadowed by the Hamas terrorist
attacks on Israel. There was a public outpouring of support for the State of Israel, and we
held a Tri-Municipal Vigil for the State of Israel last Wednesday at Harbor Island Park.
Hundreds of people gathered to speak up, to stand in solidarity with the State of Israel, to
grieve collectively, and to hold each other up and to find peace and comfort in our
community and hopefully we find peace in all of this and never have to do a vigil like this
again.
October 5 I was pleased to be invited to the Village of Mamaroneck Fire Inspection Dinner. It
is always important to gather to honor such dedicated volunteers in our community.
On October 10 I was honored to be in Albany with the families and friends of Dennis
Tortorella and Brian Payne, two TMFD volunteers, as their names were added to the NYS
Fallen Firefighters Memorial. Both of them went down to the city to serve on 9.11 and have
died since then of 9.11 related illnesses. We will never forget their service or their sacrifice.
October 11 , I attended the LMC Media 40th Anniversary Gala. LMC Media connects our
community, the local government and the school districts through broadcasting municipal,
school board and local organizations' meetings, news and information, live election
coverage, parades, graduations, varsity sports and much more.
October 12, I attended the Mamaroneck Chamber of Commerce meeting where we
discussed issues facing the business community, most notably the impact on the business
Town Board
October 18, 2023
community of the closing of the Waverly Avenue Bridge and the upcoming Spooktacular
events in the Village to be held on October 22. Also, on October 12, I attended, along with
Abby and Meredith, the Westchester Municipal Officials Association meeting in White Plains.
This month's speaker will be Ruthanne Visnauskas, President and CEO of NYS Homes and
Community Renewal. She spoke about the Pro Housing Community Program which provides
incentives to cities and counties in the form of additional points or other preferences in the
scoring of competitive housing, community development, and infrastructure programs. We're
looking into qualifying for this program.
On October 15, I attended, with Deputy Supervisor Abby Katz, the Town of Mamaroneck
Repair Café sponsored by the Sustainability Collaborative. "Repair" volunteers fixed items
from electronics, lamps, jewelry and much more. These items can now be used, rather than
end up in the waste stream. Kudos to all involved.
On October 16, I attended with Meredith a TVS meeting where we discussed issues that are
common to the municipalities and the schools, among them field use and increases in the
population.
October 17, I attended a Westchester Putnam Association of Town Supervisors meeting
where we discussed, among other things, upcoming budgets and their effect on property
taxes, and tree laws in the various communities.
BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS
1. Call to Order
Commissioner Elkind Eney called the meeting to order, then on motion of
Commissioner Fiddelman, and seconded by Commissioner Katz, the Board of Fire
Commissioners was unanimously declared open.
Present were the following Members of the Commission:
Commissioner: Jaine Elkind Eney
Commissioner: Abby Katz
Commissioner: Sabrina Fiddelman
Commissioner: Jeffery L. King
Commissioner: Robin Nichinsky
Carried
2. Salary Authorization - Fire Department
Moved by Commissioner Nichinsky, seconded by Commissioner Fiddelman, it was
RESOLVED that the Board of Fire Commissioners hereby approves the
appointment of Melissa Brady to the position of Fire Lieutenant at an annual
salary of$118,857, effective October 23, 2023.
Carried
3. Fire Claims
Moved by Commissioner King, seconded by Commissioner Fiddelman, it was
RESOLVED that the Board of Fire Commissioners hereby approves the
attached list of fire claims in the amount of$15,716.75.
Carried
Town Board
October 18, 2023
4. Other Fire Department Business
There being no further business to come before the Fire Commission, on
motion of Commissioner King, Seconded by Commissioner Fiddelman, the
Commission unanimously adjourned and the Town Board reconvened.
Carried
AFFAIRS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK
1. Set a Public Hearing - Property Tax Levy in Excess of the Limit Established in
General Municipal Law
Moved by Councilwoman Katz, seconded by Councilwoman Fiddelman, it was
RESOLVED that the Town Board hereby sets the date for a Public Hearing on
"Authorizing a Property Tax Levy in Excess of the Limit Established in General
Municipal Law" for November 1, 2023.
Carried
2. Authorization - Proposed 2023 Water Rate Increase
Moved by Councilwoman Fiddelman, seconded by Councilwoman Katz, it was
RESOLVED that the Town Board does hereby authorize an increase of 25% to
be applied to all applicable water use rates charged by the Westchester Joint
Water Works effective with next month's water bill.
Carried
3. Authorization - Stormwater Study Intermunicipal Agreement (IMA)
The Town Supervisor introduced the IMA between Westchester County and the Town
of Mamaroneck. The goal of the IMA is to conduct a comprehensive stormwater study
to evaluate the Town's stormwater sewer network and provide recommendations and
alternatives to reduce the frequency of flooding. The Town received a grant for
$150,000 for use this year and another $150,000 for next year. Supervisor Elkind
Eney pointed out that this is the County's standard agreement and is not negotiable.
Moved by Councilman King, seconded by Councilwoman Katz, it was
RESOLVED that the Town Board hereby approves the intermunicipal agreement
with Westchester County for the comprehensive stormwater study retroactive
to January 1, 2023, and continuing through December 31, 2024, and hereby
authorizes the Town Administrator to execute the agreement and any related
documents necessary to carry out its implementation.
Carried
REPORTS OF THE COUNCIL
Councilman King
• Attended the vigil at Harbor Island in support of Israel last week and thought it was a
healing and uplifting event that showed the solidarity of our community. He suggested
that when events like those in Israel occur, it is important for all of us to stop and take
stock.
Town Board
October 18, 2023
Councilwoman Katz
• Attended the vigil at Harbor Island as well as the Westchester Municipal Officials
Association meeting last week.
• Attended the Larchmont Library meeting. They have added the Greenburgh Nature
Center to their free pass program.
• Announced there will be hydrant flushing over the next few weeks. After the flushing is
complete, it is recommended that one run cold water from a tap in the lowest level of
the house until clear.
• Organic waste pickup ends Oct. 27th. Leaf pickup will continue after that, but please
do not mix organic waste in with your leaves.
Councilwoman Fiddelman
• Attended a Board of Architectural Review meeting.
Councilwoman Nichinsky
• Attended the community vigil for Israel, noted that it was nice to see the community
come together.
• On Sunday, attended the Repair Cafe.
• On Monday, attended a Housing Authority meeting.
• On Tuesday attended a Sustainability Collaborative meeting.
• On Wednesday, attended the Planning Board Meeting.
• Attended the WMOA meeting on Thursday.
TOWN CLERK'S REPORT
• Monday, October 23, 2023, is the last day for a change of address to be received by
the Board of Elections, and Saturday, October 28, 2023, is the last day a voter
registration application must be received by the Board of Elections, for the upcoming
election on November 7th.
• Early Voting starts at the Town Center on October 28th and continues through
November 5th.
ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Councilwoman Fiddelman, seconded by Councilwoman Katz, the meeting
unanimously adjourned at 11:10pm.
Carried
REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING - November 1, 2023
Submitted by
Allison May, Town Clerk
Town Board
October 18, 2023
Attachment A
Odierna, Sue
From: Robin Nichinsky <rnichinsky@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday,October 09,2023 9:11 AM
To: Eney,Jaine Elkind
Subject: Tree Law Responses
Hi Jaine, Here is my response based on the public comments:
1. Add definition of trees 24 DBH and over as an exception to trees that can be removed"as of
right." Permits for these trees can come before the Planning Board(since Liz does not want
jurisdiction).
2. Prevent abuse of term"might endanger"in 207-5,by requiring arborist confirmation.
3. Fines under 207-17(A)and(B)should specify that,in addition to the fine,replanting is
required. If not possible,double fines.Otherwise,fines are cheaper than replanting,so why
bother.
4. Require notice to adjoining property owners,who are directly affected.
5. Definition of"Clearing"(10 trees or more)conflicts with 207-5(C)numbers of trees that can
be removed during a 12-month period as of right.Change numbers to 9,6 and 3.
Clarifications:
6. Make clear these limitations"run with the land,"as you said. I don't see this in the law.
7. Make clear that mandated placement of PB appeals on agenda at"next available scheduled
meeting" under 207-15 assumes PB notice requirements have been satisfied.
8. As a matter of policy,the Board can request Liz recommend acceptable replacement trees
that are fast-growing. In lieu of requiring this by statute,we can encourage it as a Board.207-7
(D).
9. I personally believe the Tree Law should not supersede the designated powers of the
Planning Board.
Town Board
October 18, 2023
Attachment A (Cont'd)
Odierna, Sue
From: Fiddelman, Sabrina
Sent: Monday, October 09,2023 3:23 PM
To: Eney,Jaine Elkind
Subject: Tree Law comments
Hi Jaine.
You asked for our feedback on the Tree Law in light of the comments we received at the Public Hearing.
Here are mine. I look forward to seeing the other Board members'comments and discussing them on the
18th. I have been looking through other community's tree laws again, and ours is on the relatively highly
regulated side although it allows for the removal of quite a few trees.
See you when I return from Texas.
Sabrina
-Can we ensure that we are not in violation of the due process clause of the State Constitution?And,that
we aren't in violation of the Environmental Rights Amendment(pretty vague amendment. I'd imagine we
are not, but since it was mentioned I think we must address this).
-Can we discuss dealing with large diameter,old growth trees separately from other trees?We needn't
label them with any particular title. But, if we separated 24 inch diameter+trees out and dealt with them
separately,that might be a benefit.
-Can we define danger and emergencies and allow for emergency removal instead of the vague situation
we have now. Emergencies can be something unexpected that requires immediate action. Dangerous
trees can be labeled as such by an arborist.
-Is it in conflict that we define clearing as removing 10 or more trees but allow the removal of 10 trees
from large lots?I'd decrease that number.
-Does this law create a situation whereby someone removes trees with a permit then goes to the
Planning Board for site plan and works with them to remove additional trees?How do we prevent that
without hamstringing the Planning board?
-We should probably be consistent and refer to landscaping plans not planting plans.
-One of Ralph's issues was 207-15(2) in which we say an appeal of a denial by the Environmental
Planner will be heard at the next available schedule meeting of the Planning Board.Should this be
clarified to indicate if notice is needed,that might make the first available meeting not the next meeting
of the Planning Board?
-Perhaps we should include with the permit a requirement to give notice to direct property line sharing
neighbors.
-I think we should increase fines to make it possible for us to replace trees with fine money.
Get Outlook for iOS
Town Board
October 18, 2023
Attachment B
TOWN. OF MAMARONECK
2024 TE ITATIVE BUDGET
trl
7 s ' * 4
r--.' pig `` y
•
i?' 1p 'rJ-lea -s; trI�: 0 `'�q, � ��~
ik . „1e �`PJrITiY j , �y
III � it
9ti4o. tau! y�
„=_•x,� --�- atj $�' Tom' aea
•
2024 Major
Operational Changes
Two major operational changes for efficiency in 2023:
➢ Housing Assistance Fund - the program was transferred to
the State who in turn contracted with a local non-profit
organization that solely manages such housing programs
reducing the budget by $7.7 million
➢ Board of Control- The Town is no longer part of a joint
agreement with the Village of Larchmont and the Village of
Mamaroneck to manage franchise fees. Franchise fees will
be received directly from the two cable companies. The
budget includes a net increase of $128k as a result of this
change.
Town Board
October 18, 2023
Attachment B (Cont'd)
2024 Budget Expenses
Total Expense Budget of $53 million is a decrease of $6.4 million:
➢ Operating Expense Increase of $3.1 million
✓ Compensation -Contractual Obligations of $414k
✓ State Mandated Increases
Health Insurance - Budget increase of $475k
Retirement - Budget increase of $489k
Debt Service — $507k
✓ Contractual Expenses $500k
➢ Operating Expense Decrease of $9.6 million
✓ Housing Assistance Transfer — Decrease $7.7m
✓ Capital Project Funding- Decrease $1.9m
3
2024 Budget Revenue
Revenue changes based on program transfers and trends of
a decrease of $6.4 million:
"Housing Assistance Program ($7.7m)
"Appropriated Fund Balance ($2.1m)
"Mortgage Tax ($.4m)
"Sales Tax $.2m
"Investment Earnings $1.2m
"Tax Levy Increase $1.8m
"Water Revenue 25% rate increase $ .5m
*Sewer Rent Rates will remain unchanged
1„II
Town Board
October 18, 2023
Attachment B (Cont'd)
2024 Budget Risk
•Mortgage Tax-Housing sales have continued to slow down. The 2024
budget revenue has been reduced by $400,000 and we're hopeful
that we receive that. Actuals for the last three months have
indicated a 45% decline from current revenue levels. It is anticipated
that the 2023 budget shortfall is estimated to be $400k.
•Sales Tax- General price increases indicate sales tax will be slightly
higher than budgeted if consumer purchasing remains the same.
•Unknown Market Forces-impact on purchasing and capital
improvement costs
2024 Tentative Budget Revenue
FY22 FY23 FY24
REVENUE Actual Adopted Tentative Budget
Budget Budget Increase
Property Taxes $29,459,100 $30,180,305 $31,956,000 $1,775,695
Sales Tax 3,331,982 3,050,000 3,200,000 150,000
Mortgage Tax 2,088,272 1,600,000 1,200,000 (400,000)
Departmental Income 6,363,895 6,140,843 7,177,525 1,036,682
Use of Money/Property 718,396 558,159 1,687,364 1,129,205
Other Income 13,918,420 12,232,159 4,329,353 (7,902,806)
Appropriated Fund Balance - 5,518,910 3,368,350 (2,150,560)
Total $55,880,065 $59,280,376 $52,918,592 ($6,361,784)
%Increase (10.73%)
Town Board
October 18, 2023
Attachment B (Cont'd)
2024 Tentative Budget Expenses
FY22 FY23 FY24
EXPENSES Actual Adopted Tentative Budget
Budget Budget Increase
Personnel Services $27,564,085 $30,058,681 $31,446,992 $1,388,311
Other Services $18,240,235 $21,137,396 $14,592,081 ($6,545,315)
Debt Service $4,060,908 $4,316,689 $4,823,869 $507,180
Transfers to Capital Fund $3,808,379 $3,767,610 $2,055,650 (1,711,960)
Total $53,673,607 $59,280,376 $52,918,592 ($6,361,784)
% Increase (10.73%)
2024 Expense Budget Increase of $1.3m
(Without Housing Assistance Transfer)
$2,500,000
159%
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
v
ro
v• $1,000,000
43% 38%
• $500,000
u
c
as
$0
Salaries/Employee Contractual Debt Service Capital Projects Inteld transfers
Benefits Funding
-$500,000
$1,000,000 --
$1,500,000 — -
-129%
-$2,000,000
8
Town Board
October 18, 2023
Attachment B (Cont'd)
2024 Fund Balance
Fund Balance-Estimated @ 1/1/24 $16,345,726
Revenue- 2024. Tentative Budget $49,650,242
Expenses-2024 Tentative Budget ($52,918,592)
Fund Balance-Estimated @ 12/31/24 $13,077,376
% of 2024 $52.9m Expenses 25%
TAX LEVY
2024 Tax Levy $31,956,000
2023 Tax Levy $30,180,305
Tax Levy Increase @ 5.88% = $1,775,695
2024 Tax Levy Increase at Cap 3.00% = $ 905,272
2024 Tax Levy Increase Over Cap @ 2.88% = $ 870,423
Town Board
October 18, 2023
Attachment B (Cont'd)
TAX RATES -TOWN
2024 Town Tax Rate Per $1k AV $5.48
2023 Town Tax Rate Per $1k AV $5.59
2024 Town Tax Rate Decrease (2.07%)
2024 Town Tax (Per average AV$1.537m) $8,428
2023 Town Tax (Per average AV$1.408m) 7,844
2024 Town Tax Increase $ 544
2024 Town Tax % Increase 6.91%
TAX RATES-VILLAGE
2024 Village Tax Rate Per $1k AV $.59
2023 Village Tax Rate Per $1k AV $.60
2024 Village Tax Rate Decrease (1.04%)
2024 Village Tax (Per average AV$1.537m) $ 911
2023 Village Tax (Per average AV$1.408m) 844
2024 Village Tax Increase $ 67
2024 Village Tax % Increase 8.02%
Town Board
October 18, 2023
Attachment B (Cont'd)
2024 TOWN TAXES
BYAVHH s.
AV TOWNWIDE VILLAGE
Annual Town Tax Annual Town Tax
$ 500,000 $ 2,742 $ 296
$ 800,000 4,387 474
$ 1,000,000 5,484 593
$ 1,251,000 6,860 742
$ 1,308,000 7,173 776
$ 1,408,000 7,721 835
$ 1,537,000 8,428 911
$ 1,800,000 9,871 1,067
2024 Budget Investments
• Baldwin Avenue pump station
• Resurfacing of 15 Townwide roads
• Sidewalks and Curbs- Howell Ave & ADA ramp at New
Jefferson/N Chatsworth
• Town Center generator and other renovations
• Vehicle/Heavy Equipment replacement plan
• Traffic signal replacement at Palmer/Richbell Ave
• Sign Shop at Memorial Park
• Tree Equipment Garage at Highway
• Technology investments
<;
• Water System improvements • •