Board of Trustees Agenda Village of Mamaroneck

Village of Mamaroneck 123 Mamaroneck Ave., Mamaroneck, NY 10543ph: (914) 777-7700

Board of Trustees Agenda

VILLAGE OF MAMARONECK BOARD OF TRUSTEES AGENDADecember 12, 2016 AT 5:00 PM - Courtroom At 169 Mt. Pleasant Avenue

NOTICE OF FIRE EXITS AND REQUEST TO TURN OFF ELECTRONIC DEVICES

OPEN MEETING

1. DISCUSSION ITEMS

A. No parking in between signs IFO 137 and 131 Washington StreetB. Update on study of Ambulance and Emergency Medical Service costs to the Village

of MamaroneckC. Recreation Fees (initial discussion; need updated in January for 2017 brochure and

camp)D. Fees and Fines (initial discussion)E. Land Use Regulations (ongoing discussion)F. Parks storage building replacement (initial discussion)G. Traffic Commission Recommendation re: Dubois and Spruce StreetsH. ODMD/PKR re: Audit - no back upI. Car for the Building DepartmentJ. Cameras in Jefferson Avenue Lots and in Florence ParkK. Police Car - replacement needs and order plan for upcoming Fiscal Year 2017-2018L. Sewer Vac Truck replacementM. Tree Management Plan (update)N. Draft Local law to allow theaters in C-1 districtsO. Sale of old Fire Truck Engine 42 by negotiated saleP. Home Rule Request - Red Light Cameras by schoolsQ. Katherine Desmond CFTE Appointment correctionR. Sidewalk Café Law - date correction for penalty date to match end of season dateS. Comprehensive Plan 5-year Review - initial discussion regarding 5-year reviewT. Reestablishment of the Advisory Committee on Water Quality (LWRP

recommendation)U. Sustainability InitiativeV. Update of the traffic study for Washingtonville and other areasW. Motel License renewalsX. (Pursuant to the Board's Procedures) - Presentation for Next Board Meeting -

Community Resource Center and Suicide Prevention

2. EXECUTIVE SESSION-ADVICE OF COUNSEL

A. Executive Session - Advice of Counsel

ADJOURN

ANY HANDICAPPED PERSON NEEDING SPECIAL ASSISTANCE IN ORDER TO ATTEND THEMEETING SHOULD CALL THE VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 914-777-7703

All Board of Trustee Regular, ZBA, Planning Board, and HCZM Meetings are Broadcast Live on LMC-TV:Verizon FIOS Channels 34, 35 & 36Cablevision Channels: 75, 76 & 77And Streamed on the Web: www.lmc-tv.org

http://www.lmc-tv.org

Village of Mamaroneck, NY

Item Title: No parking in between signd IFO 137 and 131 Washington Street

Item Summary: No parking in between signs IFO 137 and 131 Washington Street

Fiscal Impact:

ATTACHMENTS:Description Upload Date Type1A 12/8/2016 Cover Memo

RESOLUTION RE:

ESTABLISHING A NO PARKING RESTRICTION ON WASHINGTON STREET

RESOLVED, that the following amendment to Chapter 326 (Vehicle & Traffic Law) of

the Code of the Village of Mamaroneck be and is hereby amended as follows.

Section 80 Schedule XIII: Parking Prohibited At All Times

Add

Name of Street Side Location

Washington Street North From a point 170 point west of Old White

Plains Road to a point 60 feet west thereof


Item Title: Update on study of Ambulance and Emergency Medical Service costs to the Village ofMamaroneck

ItemSummary:

Update on study of Ambulance and Emergency Medical Service costs to the Village ofMamaroneck

FiscalImpact:

ATTACHMENTS:Description Upload Date TypeEMS 12/8/2016 Cover Memo

Emergency Medical Services in Mamaroneck Review of Service of the Mamaroneck Ambulance District to the Village of Mamaroneck

Scot Phelps, November 2016

EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES IN MAMARONECK �1

IntroductionIn September, 2016, the Village of Mamaroneck Board contracted with Scot Phelps to

answer the following three questions: • Determine the number of emergency medical service responses in the Village of

Mamaroneck.• Determine the costs of emergency medical service response in the Village of

Mamaroneck.• Determine the revenue from emergency medical service response in the Village of

Mamaroneck.

Structure of the Town & Villages

The Town of Mamaroneck encompasses the Village of Larchmont, the unincorporated area of the Town of Mamaroneck, and part of the Village of Mamaroneck. The remainder of the Village of Mamaroneck is located in the Town of Rye. Having a village in two towns is not unusual in New York State- there are 70 villages that are in two towns and four villages in three towns. The Town of Mamaroneck provides a wide scope of government services, both 1

to the Town and at least in part, to the Villages. The Town of Rye, in contrast, provides almost no government services at all, in part because there are no unincorporated areas. The Town of Rye encompasses the Villages of Rye Brook, Port Chester, and Mamaroneck (in part). The Town of Rye is also not continuous- the City of Rye separates Rye Brook and Port Chester Villages from the Village of Mamaroneck.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_villages_in_New_York. 1


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_villages_in_New_York

Emergency Medical Services in Mamaroneck

Emergency Medical Services is provided according to a two-tiered system of community-based Advanced Life Support (ALS) ambulances staffed 24/7 with a career Paramedic from the Mamaroneck Ambulance District partnered with a volunteer Emergency Medical Technicians on both Mamaroneck Emergency Medical Services (68A1, 68A2) and Larchmont Volunteer Ambulance Corps (66A1, 66A2) ambulances who respond to most emergencies , and Basic Life Support (BLS) ambulances staffed with Emergency Medical 2

Technicians (EMTs) who respond to some Basic Life Support emergency calls (68B1 and 68B2 at MEMS, 66B1 and 66B2 at LVAC) . The Mamaroneck Ambulance District maintains two 3

Supervisor vehicles (4911 and 4912) and occasionally will field a non-transport paramedic unit (49M1). This primary model of Paramedic/EMT ambulances is common in Westchester County (although New York City required two paramedics on each paramedic ambulance for the 10% of calls which require either complex decision making or rapid interventions) as is the combination of paid Paramedics working side by side with volunteer EMTs. Mamaroneck Emergency Medical Service is a non-profit corporation with volunteer staff who provide the EMTs and ambulances to the Village of Mamaroneck. Larchmont Volunteer Ambulance Corps is a non-profit corporation with volunteer staff who provide the EMTs (with the ambulances owned by the Town of Mamaroneck) to the unincorporated Town of Mamaroneck and to the Village of Larchmont. The Mamaroneck Ambulance District provides Paramedic response for the entire Town of Mamaroneck and the portion of the Village of Mamaroneck located in the Town of Rye is provided by the Mamaroneck Ambulance District. Ambulances are dispatched by Westchester County Emergency Services Dispatch, known as “60 Control.”

Paramedic vs Emergency Medical Technician Care

Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT) have approximately 200 hours of education in medical emergencies and provide “basic life support” care, consisting primarily of non-invasive “first aid”-type care, while Paramedics are EMTs with approximately 1,800 hours of

When no volunteer is available, the Mamaroneck Ambulance District will also supply a career Emergency 2

Medical Technician as needed.

In Westchester County, the first two letter designate the town, the letter A is a paramedic ambulance, B is and 3

EMT ambulance, and M is a non-transport paramedic unit, and the final number indicates the vehicle series, e.g., how many similar units are there in a given town.


additional education who provide “advanced life support” care which included assessment, diagnosis, and treatment for a wide range of medical emergencies. Invasive care by Paramedics includes IVs, advanced airway management including endotracheal intubation and cricothyrotomy, interpreting 12-lead ECGs, medication administration, and surgical procedures like chest decompression. Traditionally, a significant percentage of ambulance calls only require the EMT skill set. In addition, the EMT skill set has been increasing over the past 20 years, with EMTs now defibrillating, administering medications for asthma, severe allergic reactions, cardiac events, and drug overdoses, and using advanced airway procedures like continuous positive airway pressure devices. For the past 15 years, every town and city in Westchester County has had paramedic-level response available, although EMS system design varies significantly.4

Data Sources

Data was obtained from Westchester County Emergency Services Dispatch Center “60 Control” logs for Larchmont Volunteer Ambulance Corps (LARCH/6600) and Mamaroneck Emergency Medical Service (MAMVL/6800) for the 2013-2014, 2014-2015, and 2015-2016 years. Later, because we wanted to make sure we had the complete picture, we also requested the Mamaroneck Ambulance District (TMMED/4900) data for the same time frame.

Data was provided in June-to-June format in PDF which because of the formatting could not be directly copied and pasted into a spreadsheet. 2015 data had to be copied and pasted into a Word document, which then had a first pass to remove all non-pertinent data other than location. That data set then had to have all formatting removed, and was pasted into an Excel spreadsheet. That resulting data set then had to have all dispatcher comments removed by hand, duplicate responses (common when there was a page break) were removed, and mutual aid responses to other towns were removed. Colloquial dispatch terms such as (Mamaroneck Ave/I95) converted into a format that Google Maps could read and

Westchester has a staggering variety of EMS system designs, including volunteer ambulance corps/fire 4

department with part-paid/volunteer EMTs working with police department paramedics, hospital paramedics, third service career/volunteer paramedics, or fire department paramedics in a non-transport vehicle; volunteer ambulance corps with a career paramedic on the ambulance, in a non-transport vehicle, or using a contracted private EMS agency paramedic; Police department paramedics working in an ambulance; Private EMS agencies working exclusively in the 911 system; a mixed 911 and private system; or responding from a neighboring town.



Town of Mamaroneck Ambulance District Budget

REVENUES 2016 2015 2014

Real property taxes

$540,409 $452,727.00 $338,521.00

Departmental income

$855,190.00 $805,692.00 $850,465.00

Intergovernmental charges

$112,002.00 $93,957.00 $70,201.00

Use of money and property

$7.00 $53.00 $96.00

Sale of property and compensation for loss

$9,742.00 $3,366.00 $7,146.00

State aid $224.00 $3,969.00

Miscellaneous $10,555.00 $1,932.00 $559.00

Total Revenues $1,528,129.00 $1,357,727.00 $1,270,957.00

Mamaroneck EMS Basic Life Support Calls in Village of Mamaroneck, 2015


Larchmont VAC Basic Life Support Calls in Village of Mamaroneck, 2015


All Basic Life Support Calls in Village of Mamaroneck, 2015


Mamaroneck EMS Advanced Life Support Calls in Village of Mamaroneck, 2015


Larchmont VAC Advanced Life Support Calls in Village of Mamaroneck, 2015


Mamaroneck Ambulance District Special Paramedic Response in Village of Mamaroneck, 2015


All Advanced Life Support Response in Village of Mamaroneck, 2015


All Emergency Medical Service Response in Village of Mamaroneck, 2015


All Emergency Medical Service Response in Town of Mamaroneck, 2015

plot, and files were exported into CSV format which was then uploaded into Google Maps.

Emergency Medical Service Response in the Village of Mamaroneck

In 2015, primary Emergency Medical Service response (n=1,616 in the Village of Mamaroneck were provided by a combined response of Mamaroneck Emergency Medical Service (MEMS) (84% of EMS responses, n=1,360), the Larchmont Volunteer Ambulance Corps (LVAC) (16% of responses, n=256). There may have been a few instances where another ambulance organization responded into the Village, but those responses did not appear on the 60 Control data that was provided. MEMS and LVAC responded to 349 calls 5

categorized as requiring Basic Life response (BLS) by Emergency Medical Technicians and 1,268 calls categorized as requiring Advanced Life Support (ALS) response by Paramedics. There were also 54 calls in which a Mamaroneck Ambulance District vehicle, most commonly an ambulance supervisor, responded into the Village in 2015. While these non-transport vehicles do not have the capacity to transport, they may have responded to provide supervision, as the primary paramedic provider if there was no available ambulance, or as a second paramedic in the event of multiple patients.

While we do know the number of calls that were categorized as requiring paramedic care, we do not know the actual number who, once assessed by a paramedic, actually required that care. 60 Control utilizes medical categorization software known as Medical Priority Dispatch, which is known to be overly sensitive to categorizing emergency calls as requiring paramedic care in order to

In contrast, Mamaroneck EMS ambulances provided mutual aid response to emergencies in Harrison, Rye, 5

New Rochelle, Scarsdale, White Plains, and Hobbs Ferry.


2015 Ambulance Calls in Mamaroneck Village by Town/Village Resources (Source: 60 Control)

Mamaroneck EMS

Larchmont VAC

BLS Call Type by 60 Control (includes BLS, Fires, non-ALS MVCs, Standbys, etc)

285 64

ALS Call Type by 60 Control 1,075 192

Total by Ambulance Agency 1,360 256

Total 1,616

miss as few of them needing a paramedic as possible. But wealthy 6 7

communities typically have a healthy population with access to primary care, transportation, and health insurance, which means that although there may be some ambulance misuse, it will be minimized compared to other communities.

To put this into context, Town-wide there were 2,864 calls with response almost evenly divided between MEMS and LVAC. Both LVAC and MEMS regularly response to each other's response areas.

Financing Emergency Medical Services in Mamaroneck

Emergency Medical Services are reimbursable by Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance. The government programs pay a fixed rate according to how sick the person is- Basic Life Support (BLS) only required the care of Emergency Medical Technicians for an ill patient, Advanced Life Support, (ALS) Level 1 requires Paramedics for a seriously-ill patients, Advanced Life Support (ALS), Level 2 requires Paramedics for a critically-ill patient. In the Town of Mamaroneck Ambulance District, the District does all health insurance billing.

Conceptually, the public insurers (Medicare and Medicaid) pay for the ACTUAL cost of the ambulance transport, without overhead. Medicare comes close to paying the actual cost, with a rate of $378.91 per transport, and a mileage rate of $10.97 per mile, but Medicaid pays only about 1/3rd of that, $123.00 per transport and $3.15 per mile. Unfortunately, the actual cost of ambulance transport only accounts for about 1/3 of the overall EMS system costs. Neither public insurer will pay two separate ambulance bills for one patient (so when Mamaroneck Ambulance District transports a patient with Mamaroneck EMS, they

Fitch & Associates. Westchester County, NY Emergency Medical Services System Evaluation. 2008. 6

Available at: http://www.westchesterlegislators.com/pdf/2008_EMS_Study_Final_Report.pdf.

Reilly, Michael. Accuracy of a priority medical dispatch system in dispatching cardiac emergencies in a 7

suburban community. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2006 Mar-Apr;21(2):77-81.


Mamaroneck EMS

Larchmont VAC

Mamaroneck Ambulance District

ALS Call Type by 60 Control 1163 928 116

BLS Call Type by 60 Control (includes BLS, Fires, non-ALS MVCs, Standbys, etc)

322 335 NA

Total 1,485 1,263 116

Ambulance Calls in Mamaroneck, 2015 (Source: 60 Control)

effectively ‘lease’ that ambulance for that time so the District can bill the patient at the ALS rate). Neither public insurer will pay for a response where the patient is not transported to the Emergency Department- say, a diabetic who the Paramedic fixes by starting an IV and giving them glucose to raise their blood sugar. Neither public insurer pays for the 60% of the time the EMS system is on “standby” waiting to respond to an emergency call (the best systems in the country are busy only 40% of the time to ensure that the ambulance is available to respond to the next emergency.) Finally, neither public insurer pays for the costs of the radio system & dispatch, first responders, physician medical direction, EMS quality assurance, or EMS education costs.

Unfortunately, even when patients are transported, billed revenue doesn’t equal received revenue because of incomplete paperwork or coding errors. Even though Mamaroneck Ambulance District uses a third-service coding and billing company, according to Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the received Medicare revenue in 2014 was literally half (51%) of billed revenue ($475,767 billed/$243,814 received). Unlike private 8

insurance, Medicare reimbursement is fixed and the rules are well-defined, so there shouldn’t be any significant gap. This needs to be reviewed and improved.

https://projects.propublica.org/treatment/doctors/1285627018 utilizing data from https://data.cms.gov/8

utilization-and-payment/providers/1285627018.


2013 2014

Insurance Revenue (Actual) $850,465 $805,692

Inter-Governmental Transfer (Rye Neck)

$70,201 $93,957

Tax Dollars $338.521 $452,727

Revenue from Primary Sources $1,259,187 $1,325,376

Town of Mamaroneck Ambulance Department Income From Primary Sources, 2013 and 2014 (Source: Town of Mamaroneck 2016 Adopted Town Budget)

Medicare Revenue for Town of Mamaroneck Ambulance District 2014 (Source: Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services)

Number of Events

Medicare Billed

Medicare Received

Average Revenue

Mileage (A0425) 3702 (miles) $51,458 $20,768 $6

Basic life support (A0429) 334 $196,349 $104,284 $312

Advanced life support, Level 1 (A0427) 301 $218,845 $112,700 $374

Advanced life support, Level 2 Service (A0433) 11 $9,115 $6,062 $551

https://projects.propublica.org/treatment/doctors/1285627018

https://data.cms.gov/utilization-and-payment/providers/1285627018

https://data.cms.gov/utilization-and-payment/providers/1285627018

We have no data on billing to Medicaid, self-pay, and commercial insurance sources, although we know that 2014 Medicare revenue was $244,000 and total insurance revenue was $805,692, resulting in $561,692 of revenue from non-Medicare insurance. We do not know the amount billed or the amount collected by insurance type.

In addition to billing the patient’s health insurance, Emergency Medical Services in the Town of Mamaroneck are paid for by a specific ambulance tax on Town of Mamaroneck properties at a mil rate of $0.058761 (resulting in $563,027 of projected tax-based revenue in 2016), and a fee-based system of $14.71 per capita for Village of Mamaroneck properties in the Rye Neck section ($112,002 in 2016). All patients who are transported are billed for ambulance service, even those transported by volunteer EMTs. According to the Town of Mamaroneck, 63% of the Ambulance District budget comes from a combination of patient billing and the pro-rate fee-based system. .9

Emergency Medical Services are reimbursable by Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance.

http://www.townofmamaroneck.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/669


Mamaroneck Ambulance District (2015)

Unincorporated Town of Mamaroneck (2015)

Village of Larchmont (2015)

Village of Mamaroneck-TOM (2015)

Village of Mamaroneck-Rye Neck

Units 8960 4017 1908 3035 2231

Value $10,312,657,627 $4,364,971,428 $2,905,714,082 $3,041,972,117 NA

Exemptions $731,009,273 $211,816,150 $110,584,273 $408,608,850 NA

Taxable Value $9,581,648,354 $4,153,155,278 $2,795,129,809 $2,633,363,267 NA

Ambulance Tax Per $1,000

$0.058761 $0.058761 $0.058761 $0.058761 NA

Ambulance Tax

$563,027 $244,044 $164,245 $154,739 $112,002 Payment in

Lieu of Taxes (PILOT)

Ambulance Tax, From 2015 Town of Mamaroneck Assessor Rolls (With Supplemental Information from Town of Rye and Town of Mamaroneck Budget Data)

http://www.townofmamaroneck.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/66

These numbers are aligned with comparable rates both for Westchester Emergency Medical Service Special Districts and aligned with comparable rates for combination paid-volunteer Fire Departments in the area. Among Westchester Emergency Medical Service Special Districts, the Mamaroneck Ambulance District has the lowest mil rate (cost per $1,000 of property value) of all the Westchester County Special Districts for Emergency Medical


Westchester EMS Tax Rates 2015 (Source: Westchester County Special District Tax Rates)

Westchester County Special Districts for EMS, 2015

Residences Taxable Mil Rate Revenue From Taxes

By Town

Town of Cortlandt Ambulance District 2,855 24,239,156 12.380000 $300,080.75

Town of Cortlandt ALS District #2 1,466 7,141,016 11.210000 $80,050.79

Town of Cortlandt ALS District #3 6,645 44,899,606 5.460000 $245,151.85 $625,283.39

Town of Mount Pleasant-Pleasantville Ambulance District

6,745 62,779,012 7.508689 $471,388.08

Town of Mount Pleasant-Mt Pleasant West Ambulance District

283 5,666,893 6.677205 $37,839.01

Town of Mount Pleasant-Valhalla Ambulance District

1,923 37,896,595 5.713311 $216,515.03

Town of Mount Pleasant-Hawthorne Ambulance District

1,831 19,424,952 4.575405 $88,877.02

Town of Mount Pleasant-Sleepy Hollow Ambulance District

1,678 17,876,446 4.421909 $79,048.02 $893,667.16

Town of North Castle Advanced Life Support District #1

892 15,581,589 5.263000 $82,005.90

Town of North Castle Advanced Life Support District #2

3,884 112,240,119 1.749200 $196,330.42 $278,336.32

Town of Yorktown Emergency Medical Services District

13,812 130,097,949 3.931500 $511,480.09 $511,480.09

Town of Ossining Ambulance District 7,340 167,180,050 3.665258 $612,758.02 $612,758.02

Town of Bedford Paramedic District 6,266 584,999,517 0.579460 $338,983.82 $338,983.82

Town of New Castle Advanced Life Support

5,940 1,024,752,454 0.283480 $290,496.83 $290,496.83

Town of Mamaroneck Ambulance District

8,734 8,769,933,121 0.061660 $540,754.08

Average $272,783.98 $507,286.52

Services in 2015, and a comparable amount of total tax revenue compared to Westchester Towns when the tax rate was aggregated .10

Because some of those ambulance districts were all volunteer, and thus did not have to incorporate the cost of labor and benefits, which is the largest cost of providing emergency medical services, we also wanted to compare the Mamaroneck Ambulance District costs to some of the relevant Westchester County part-career fire departments, in revenue per employee, mil rate, and budget. Comparing Mamaroneck Ambulance District to area fire districts using data from the 2015 Westchester County Special District Tax Rates, Mamaroneck Ambulance District had a cost per FTE of about half that of the Town of Greenburgh fire districts. The mil rate, equalized by

dividing it by the 2015 Westchester County Tax Equalization Table was also a fraction of the fire departments, ranging from 1/200th to 1/40th of the fire department rates.

Source: Westchester County 2015 Special District Tax Rates. Available at: http://www3.westchestergov.com/10

images/stories/tax/2015SpecialDistrictTaxRates.pdf.


Comparable Part-Career Fire Districts (Source: Westchester County Special District Rates 2015)

Homes Taxable Mil Rate Equalization Factor (from West City

Tables)

Equalized Mil Rate

Projected Tax Revenue

Billable Revenue

Staff Revenue Per

Employee

Greenburgh-Fairview Fire District

4,199 $79,867,240 156.734700 3.09 $51 $12,517,968 39 $320,974

Greenburgh-Hartsdale Fire District

3,638 $65,132,599 170.882900 3.09 $55 $11,130,047 39 $285,386

Greenburgh-Greenville Fire District

2,517 $69,785,887 119.784600 3.09 $39 $8,359,275 32 $261,227

Eastchester Fire District

9,260 $106,092,083 155.367900 1.27 $122 $16,483,304 72 $228,935

Town of

Mamaroneck Ambulance District

8,734 $8,769,933,121 0.061660 1 $0.062 $540,754 $1,270,957 12 $150,976

Yorktown-Mohegan Lake Fire District

6,524 $50,731,898 60.841100 2.56 $24 $3,086,584 40 $77,165

Comparing it to similarly sized municipal fire departments of 12-17 FTE, the Town of Mamaroneck Ambulance District budget had a budget that was a fraction of the fire departments, with the Town of Mamaroneck Fire Department budget more than double the Town of Mamaroneck Ambulance District

budget.11

Proportioning Costs For Emergency Medical Services in Mamaroneck

The aggregate costs for Village of Mamaroneck for ambulance service include $154,739 in direct property taxes, $112,002 in payments in lieu of taxes, and a estimated 50% pro-rated proportion of the insurance revenue of $805,692, or $402,846, for a total cost to taxpayers of $669,587. Dividing this amount by 5,266 taxable units gives you a per-unit cost of $127.15, or a little more than $10/month per household.

Conclusion

The Village of Mamaroneck has slightly more than 1,600 emergency medical service responses annually, of which 15% are answered by Larchmont VAC. There is considerable overlap between Mamaroneck EMS and Larchmont VAC in response, and the depth of resources in the Town of Mamaroneck EMS system provides a large margin of safety for

Town/Village Part-Career Fire Departments of Similar Size Career Staff 2015 Budget

Town of Mamaroneck 14 $2,918,776

Village of Larchmont 15 $1,859,440

Village of Pelham Manor 17 $2,299,130

City of Rye 17 $5,472,243

Town of Mamaroneck Ambulance District 12 $1,403,772

Village of Larchmont Annual Budget 2016. Available at: http://villageoflarchmont.org/wp-content/uploads/11

2016/04/FY-2016-17-Adopted-Budget.pdf. Town of Pelham Manor Annual Budget 2016. Available at: http://www.pelhammanor.org/sites/pelhammanorny/files/file/file/fy_16-17_budget.pdf. City of Rye Annual Budget 2016. Available at. http://www.egovlink.com/public_documents300/rye/published_documents/Budget/2016/City%20of%20Rye%202016%20Adopted%20Budget.pdf.


Comparing Town of Mamaroneck Ambulance District Budgets to Comparable Town Fire Departments (Source: Town Budgets for Town of Mamaroneck, Village of Larchmont, City of Rye.)

http://villageoflarchmont.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/FY-2016-17-Adopted-Budget.pdf

http://villageoflarchmont.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/FY-2016-17-Adopted-Budget.pdf

http://www.pelhammanor.org/sites/pelhammanorny/files/file/file/fy_16-17_budget.pdf

http://www.pelhammanor.org/sites/pelhammanorny/files/file/file/fy_16-17_budget.pdf

residents. The aggregate system cost is slightly less than $1.5M, which seems reasonable for the level of service and is less than comparable agencies in the area. Total cost to Village of Mamaroneck taxpayers approaches $300,000 in direct costs (including taxes, PILOT, and insurance copayments) or $700,000 in aggregate direct & indirect costs (including taxes, PILOT, insurance copayments, and insurance payments to Mamaroneck Ambulance District). Approximately 50% of the Mamaroneck EMS system’s calls are within the Village of Mamaroneck.


Comments & Limitations

There is significant overlap between Mamaroneck EMS and Larchmont VAC., including additional responses by Mamaroneck Ambulance District, which makes apportionment difficult. Mutual aid calls to other towns were removed from analysis, and mutual aid calls into Mamaroneck by outside agencies could not be determined from the data available.

None of the EMS agencies listed here publish an annual report. None of the towns listed numbers of full-time equivalent (FTE) employees in their budget documents.

Assumptions were made about Mamaroneck Ambulance District FTE staff based on two administration staff plus FTEs required to staff the MEMS and LVAC vehicles 24/7/365. We did not account for any FTE EMT staff, although interviews indicated that is becoming more common.

Because of the time involved in preparing the raw data, only 2015 ambulance calls were mapped. This data may not be representative of trends (although we believe it is.)

Cost data, from municipal budgets, is accurate, although there are several confounding issues, such as ambulance purchases and maintenance of ambulance buildings that were outside this analysis.

Revenue data was only partially available- for Medicare and in total. We did not know the denominator of billed insurance amounts, billed copayments. We assumed an equal distribution of insurance types.



Item Title: Recreation Fees (initial discussion; need updated in January for 2017 brochure andcamp)

ItemSummary:

Recreation Fees (initial discussion; need updated in January for 2017 brochure andcamp)

Fiscal Impact:

ATTACHMENTS:Description Upload Date Type1C 12/9/2016 Cover Memo


Item Title: Fees and Fines (initial discussion)

Item Summary: Fees and Fines (initial discussion)

Fiscal Impact:

ATTACHMENTS:Description Upload Date Type1D 12/9/2016 Cover Memo


Item Title: Land Use Regulations (ongoing discussion)

Item Summary: Land Use Regulations (ongoing discussion)

Fiscal Impact:

ATTACHMENTS:Description Upload Date Type1E 12/9/2016 Cover Memo

{00708109.DOCX.}

On April 5, 2016, Anna Georgiou and I met with Village staff to discuss the establishment of procedures

for the Village’s land use boards. Based upon the discussion at that meeting the following procedures

and guidelines were agreed to:

I. Application Submission Procedures and Deadlines

A. Planning Board Applications (site plan, subdivision, special permit and wetlands permit)

(1) The Applicant shall submit to the Building Department twelve (12) printed copies and one

(1) electronic copy of all application materials.

(2) The Applicant’s initial submission of application materials to the Building Department

must be made at least twelve (12) days prior to the date of the meeting at which the application will be

first heard. All applicable notice and sign posting requirements must also be timely complied with in

order for the application to appear on the Planning Board’s agenda.

(3) For subsequent meetings, unless otherwise permitted by the Chair and/or the Board, the

Applicant’s submissions must be made to the Building Department at least seven (7) days prior to the

meeting date.

B. Zoning Board of Appeals Applications (variance, special permit, appeals and interpretations)

(1) The Applicant shall submit to the Building Department sixteen (16) printed copies and one

electronic copy of all application materials. NOTE: The 16 comes from the ZBA Rules of Procedure. The

ZBA Rules cite the Village Code as authority. The only reference in the Village Code as to number of

copies pertains to special permits.

(2) The Applicant’s (or Appellant’s) initial application materials must be submitted to the

Building Department at least twenty-two (22) days prior to the scheduled hearing/meeting date. Unless

otherwise permitted by the Chair and/or Board, Subsequent Applicant submissions, including

submissions responsive to the Board’s request for additional information, should be made to the

Building Department at least fourteen (14) days prior to the next scheduled meeting/hearing date so

that Board members have adequate time for review of those submissions. However, submissions by

Applicants will be accepted throughout the period in which the public hearing record remains open. All

applicable notice and sign posting requirements must be timely complied with in order for the

application to appear on the Zoning Board of Appeals’ agenda and to be heard.

C. Harbor and Coastal Zone Management Commission (marine structures permit, perimeter

permit and consistency)

{00708109.DOCX.}

(1) The Applicant shall submit to the Building Department fifteen (15) printed copies and

one (1) electronic copy of all application materials.

(2) The Applicant’s initial meeting and subsequent meeting submissions must be made to

the Building Department at least fourteen (14) days prior to the scheduled meeting date. All applicable

notice and sign posting requirements must also be timely complied with in order for the application to

appear on the Harbor and Coastal Zone Management Commission’s agenda.

D. Unless otherwise permitted by the Chair and/or Board, Applicant submissions not made in

accordance with these procedures and deadlines should not be discussed at a land use board meeting.

II. Submission of Staff and Consultant Memoranda to all Land Use Boards

A. To the maximum extent reasonably practicable under the circumstances, staff and consultant

memoranda to the land use boards should be submitted at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the

meeting date at which the memoranda is expected to be discussed.

III. Posting of Materials on the Village’s Web Site in Advance of Meetings

A. Applicant submissions shall be posted on the Village’s web site at least forty-eight (48) hours in

advance of the meeting at which they are scheduled to be discussed. To the extent practicable in

accordance with the Open Meetings Law, staff and consultant memoranda subject to disclosure under

FOIL, communications from governmental agencies, and land use board resolutions and policies shall be

posted on the Village’s web site in advance of the meeting at which they are scheduled to be discussed,

or copies thereof shall otherwise be available to the public at the meeting.


Item Title: Parks storage building replacement (initital discussion)

Item Summary: Parks storage building replacement (initial discussion)

Fiscal Impact:

ATTACHMENTS:Description Upload Date TypeGarages and Workshops 12/9/2016 Cover Memo12059 12/9/2016 Cover Memo

GROSSFIELD MACRI PC CONSULTING ENGINEERS

8 SUNSET PLACE, HAWTHORNE, NY 10532 914.747.4145

34 SHADBLOW HILL ROAD, RIDGEFIELD, CT 06877 203.431.7700 WWW.GROSSFIELDMACRI.COM

14 May 2012 Village of Mamaroneck 123 Mamaroneck Avenue Mamaroneck, New York 10543 Attention: Daniel J. Sarnoff Assistant Village Manager Re: Harbor Island Park Garage Harbor Island, Mamaroneck, NY Dear Mr. Sarnoff: At your request, we met with you at the referenced site to conduct a survey of the structural condition of an existing building. The one story brick building appears to have been used as single car garage but is not currently occupied. You asked for our structural assessment of the integrity of the building along with an evaluation of its potential for re-use. The roof framing consists of steel trusses supporting wood joists, sheathing and wood shakes. The exterior walls are of brick with steel angle lintels at the openings. The floor is a concrete slab. Roofing shakes are missing and storm water has been able to penetrate into the building. The wood framing at the roof is in poor condition due to long term exposure to moisture. The steel lintels are severely rusted. We observed large diagonal cracks in the exterior clay brick units and in mortar joints, particularly at the upper corners of windows and doorways. This cracking can be attributed to the volumetric expansion of the steel due to corrosion. The brick chimney has collapsed. Extensive rehabilitation work is required if this building is be re-occupied. The roofing, sheathing and wood joists should be replaced. The brick chimney must be re-built or totally removed. The building envelope must be made water tight. Mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems will need replacement.

Village of Mamaroneck 14 May 2012

Page 2 The costs involved in replacing the roof framing, rehabilitating the brick walls, along with the shoring of the existing structure and the labor is estimated at $80,000. The cost for demolition of the existing structure coupled with construction of a new pre-fabricated building in the same location is estimated at $30,000. Based upon our observations and experience, we believe that the cost of rehabilitating the existing structure will outweigh the cost of demolition and construction of a new structure. It is our opinion that the most economical option is to demolish the current structure and construct a new building suited to the needs of the proposed user. Please contact this office with any further inquiries regarding this matter, thank you. Respectfully submitted,

Grossfield Macri, P.C.

By:

Michael A. Macri, P.E.

MM/12059


Item Title: Traffic Commssion Recommendation re: Dubois and Spruce Streets

Item Summary: Traffic Commission Recommendation re: Dubois and Spruce Streets

Fiscal Impact:

ATTACHMENTS:Description Upload Date TypeMinutes of November 10, 2016 12/8/2016 Cover MemoResolution 12/8/2016 Cover Memo

RESOLUTION RE:

ESTABLISHING A NO PARKING RESTRICTION ON SPRUCE STREET AND EAST

BOSTON POST ROAD

RESOLVED, that the following amendment to Chapter 326 (Vehicle & Traffic Law) of

the Code of the Village of Mamaroneck be and is hereby amended as follows.

Section 88 Schedule XXI: Parking Prohibited Certain Hours

Add

Name of

Street Side

Hours/Days Location

Spruce Street East

7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and

3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Monday through Friday

School Days

From the corner of East Boston

Post Road to a point 200 feet

north thereof

Name of

Street Side

Hours/Days Location

East Boston

Post Road North

7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and

3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Monday through Friday

School Days

Between Spruce Street and

Dubois Avenue

Section 93 Schedule XXVI: Loading Zones

Delete

Name of

Street Side Location

East Boston

Post Road North

From the northeast corner of Dubois Avenue to a point 20 feet

east thereof, Saturday, Sunday and holidays


Item Title: ODMD/PKF re: Audit - no back up

Item Summary: ODMD/PKR re: Audit - no back up

Fiscal Impact:


Item Title: Car for the Building Department

Item Summary: Car for the Building Department

Fiscal Impact:

ATTACHMENTS:Description Upload Date TypeMemo I 12/8/2016 Cover Memo

M E M O R A N D U M

To: Richard Slingerland, Village Manager

From: Daniel J. Sarnoff, Assistant Village Manager

Re: Vehicle for Building Department

Date: December 8, 2016

For several months, the Building Department was operating at less than full staff capacity. With

the recent hiring of Messrs. Perez and Tavolacci the department is at full staff, but down one (1)

vehicle. Given that the majority of time for Building Department staff is inspection work done

in the field, it is appropriate to procure another vehicle for the department. There are several

contracts we can purchase the vehicle through including NY State Contract, Westchester County

Contract and National Joint Powers Alliance contract.

In speaking with The Cruisers Division, the holder of the current Westchester County Contract

for mid-size Hybrid Sedans, the current vehicle is a Ford C-Max at a contract price of

$22,043.72 which compares favorably to the NJPA price of $23,510. Pricing on the New York

State contract varies from dealer to dealer with some offering discounts of as much as 8% off list

to as little as 1% off list.

This requires further discussion with the Board of Trustees which can be held at the December

12, 2016 work session. If you have any questions, or require additional information, please

contact me.

Village of Mamaroneck

P 914-777-7703

F 914-777-7760

www.villageofmamaroneck.org


Item Title: Cameras in Jefferson Avenue Lots and in Florence Park

Item Summary: Cameras in Jefferson Avenue Lots and in Florence Park

Fiscal Impact:

ATTACHMENTS:Description Upload Date Type1J 12/9/2016 Cover Memo

M E M O R A N D U M



Re: Cameras in Jefferson Avenue Lot and Florence Park


As it relates to the above captioned matter, irrespective of a policy decision as it relates to

cameras in the central business district, the Village staff is desirous of installing security cameras

at the Jefferson Avenue commuter lots and in Florence Park.

In regard to the Jefferson Avenue commuter lots, it is quite common for any medium to large

scale parking facility to install cameras as these types of facilities are common targets due to

their space and lack of activity after the peak morning rush. This is consistent with other parking

lots/properties the Village manages. The major complexity is the Jefferson Avenue commuter

lots is m are a number of options we could pursue vis a vis technology and the costs of such

systems have come down in price over the years.

For Florence Park, we have experienced acts of vandalism over the years, and given the major

capital investments we have made in the park over the past several years and potential future

projects to enhance the park, staff recommends the installation of cameras in this park, similar to

what has already been installed in Harbor Island Park.

In both cases, were the Village to move forward, we would like to work off existing New York

State contracts. Additionally, it is noted that the Village would likely not actively monitor the

cameras, rather they would be used as a deterrent or for investigative purposes.

Regardless, these items should be reviewed with the Board of Trustees at their December 12,

2016 work session meeting.


P 914-777-7703

F 914-777-7760



Item Title: Police Car - replacment needs and order plan for upcoming Fiscal Year 2017-2018

Item Summary: Police Car - replacement needs and order plan for upcoming Fiscal Year 2017-2018

Fiscal Impact:

ATTACHMENTS:Description Upload Date TypeResolution 12/8/2016 Cover Memo

RESOLUTION RE:

PURCHASE OF POLICE VEHICLES

WHEREAS, the Village of Mamaroneck Police Department protects and assures

the safety and welfare of the citizens of the Village of Mamaroneck; and

WHEREAS, in order to maintain the integrity and reliability of its fleet of police

vehicles, the Village of Mamaroneck Police Department has adopted an annual vehicle

replacement schedule; and

WHEREAS, the Police Department has determined that three Police Cruisers,

are no longer serviceable or dependable for use in police operations; and

WHEREAS, the replacement vehicles, two (2) 2016 Ford Police Interceptors

available through Rockland County Contract #RFB-RC-2015-059 from Vance Country

Ford, through their local distributor, The Cruisers Division, 420 Mt. Pleasant Avenue,

Mamaroneck, NY 10543 at a contract price of $45,173.25 each or $90,346.50 for two (2)

vehicles; and

WHEREAS, as we are approaching the end of the build-out for these vehicles, it

is appropriate to procure the vehicles now as the new build-out may entail a delay of

several months in the delivery of the vehicles and impact the efficacy of our fleet; and

WHEREAS, adequate funds exist in the Fiscal Year 2016/17 General Fund

Budget for the purchase of these police vehicles; now therefore be it

RESOLVED, that the Village Manager and Police Chief are hereby authorized to

purchase two (2) Ford Police Interceptors and Vance Country Ford, through their local

distributor, The Cruisers Division, 420 Mt. Pleasant Avenue, Mamaroneck, NY 10543 for

a total price of $90,346.50 pursuant to the terms of the Rockland County purchasing

contract # RFB-RC-2015-059; and be it further

RESOLVED, that all costs associated with the purchase of these vehicles be

charged to Fiscal Year 2016/2017 General Fund Budget Account #’s A.3120.022


Item Title: Sewer Vac Truck replacement

Item Summary: Sewer Vac Truck replacement

Fiscal Impact:

ATTACHMENTS:Description Upload Date TypeSewer Vac 12/9/2016 Cover Memo


Item Title: Tree Management Plan (update)

Item Summary: Tree Management Plan (update)

Fiscal Impact:

ATTACHMENTS:Description Upload Date TypeDraft 12/9/2016 Cover Memo

Mamaroneck Urban Forest Management Plan Proposed Narrative & Recommendations - 11/4/16

FOR REVIEW

I. Plan Message / Main Narrative II. Recommendation Concepts

III. Revised Schedule

______________________

I. Plan Message / Main Narrative After reviewing the village tree inventory, meeting with the tree commission and general public, assessing current canopy levels in Mamaroneck, the Comprehensive Plan and using our knowledge of urban forestry best practices, we are recommending the management plan convey the following points/narrative:

● Point 1: Trees are more than aesthetic - they are a tool to achieve city goals. 1. List out city goals from comprehensive plan:

a) increase walkability b) strengthen retail c) conservation of floodplains/wetlands d) beautification of the village e) ensuring traffic doesn’t impinge on quality of life for residents f) stream restoration g) reductions in CO2

2. How trees help achieve those goals (benefits)

● Point 2: Current canopy is good, the challenge is keeping it. (State of the Urban Forest)

1. Mamaroneck 46% (high) canopy, benchmark against other cities. 2. Discussion on risks to canopy loss - removal of trees on private property, aging

canopy, storms and coastal flooding, other sources. 3. Canopy cannot be quickly replaced. 4. Assessment of Existing Management. Summarize other items in place and

their current status: ordinance (in review), inventory (all trees inventoried, but not with complete data), tree committee in place, some public engagement efforts to-date.

5. Items missing for comprehensive management: formal management plan, planting plan, risk management plan, initiation of cyclical care, community that values this asset, arborist on staff, etc.

6. Assessment of funding (needs vs. current funding)

● Point 3: Resulting Goals Required: Preservation & Management: As canopy is already high, focus must be on tree preservation and initiation of a comprehensive management plan, and engagement of community.

1. Institution of a comprehensive and proactive care program and 2. Preservation of the existing tree canopy.

● Point 4: Resulting recommendations to achieve the two goals above follow:

1. Recommendations (list) 2. Prioritization / Next Steps: a recommended timeline on what can be done in

first year, first three years, first ten years, etc.

II. Recommendations Below is a list of 13 recommendations proposed for Mamaroneck’s urban forest management plan currently under development. These are submitted in a brief and informal format for review, and meant to convey concepts only at this stage. Also note that these recommendations will be sorted and prioritized into long and short term goals (they are in no particular order currently).

We recommend the following:

GOAL #1: Proactive Management

1. Clarify and Formally Adopt a 3-5 Year Management Plan for Public Trees. Define and implement a proactive care program (or plan to get city to a proactive program). Includes instituting a cyclical care program (not just pruning and removals but planting and new tree care as well). This will include steps, related costs and potential partners to:

i. Update/complete the tree inventory (condition data is incomplete) ii. Build and implement an annual proactive tree care cycle

(pruning/removals/assessments) iii. Establishment of risk thresholds and risk management program iv. Plan for regular tree canopy assessments to measure progress. v. Plan for a full urban tree canopy assessment.

2. Create a Position for a Dedicated Arborist. Proactive landscape tree management requires

an experienced certified arborist available on a regular basis to perform tree condition monitoring as well as other tasks critical to the success of Mamaroneck urban forest. A number of options can be considered here, including funding a village arborist (either full time or part time), or sharing a dedicated arborist position with surrounding communities, or if hiring is not realistic, this role could be filled in by a qualified urban forestry consultant on an as-needed basis. Cost ranges will be provided in the plan. This position would be utilized for:

i. Risk assessments (TRAQ qualified)

ii. Tree protection ordinance assistance and enforcement iii. Management of annual care program iv. Potential role to engage the public in tree efforts.

3. Develop a Well-Defined Planting Strategy for Future Years. In an established community like

the Village of Mamaroneck, tree succession will only happen with purposeful planning and planting. Considering the age of many of Mamaroneck’s trees, storm events, climate change, and future loss from single family lot construction, tree loss is inevitable. A tree succession strategy should be developed to keep the tree population and its many benefits sustainable. This will be built using inventory data, on-the-ground observations, and center around the goals/objectives defined in the city comprehensive plan. Details on the recommended succession strategy will be provided in the plan.

i. Overall goals ii. Species direction

iii. Setback policy BROW

4. Enhance Young Tree Care Program. The young tree population in Mamaroneck is likely to grow in numbers given this renewed emphasis on urban tree canopy. Getting trees purchased and planted is often the “easy” part; keeping them well tended until they are established is the challenge. Professional, proactive landscape managers will not allow additional tree planting unless there is a sufficient amount of funding for maintenance and a detailed program for what and when maintenance will occur and who will do the work. This work can also be managed by volunteer “tree stewards” and is an effective way to create and maintain public engagement. These concepts will be discussed further in the plan.

5. Develop an Outreach/Roll-Out Plan. Defining in advance the outreach and implementation strategy is key to avoiding the “plan on the shelf collecting dust.” This is where planning turns into implementation. It involves defining audiences, partnerships, potential champions, and reaching out to the public, with the goal of getting the audience to learn about and join in on the work called for in this plan. This is also where the connection is made to the community between trees and the goals of the city overall (comprehensive plan). The use of public outreach and partnerships to maintain (and potentially increase tree canopy levels) is essential. City actions alone have limitations to increasing canopy partially due to limited resources, but also because public land accounts for only a small percentage of municipalities. Positive public sentiment and a collective sense of priority for tree canopy can also result in more support / funding for public tree care budgets, and outreach efforts often also unearth new partners and funding sources that otherwise can go untapped.

i. Identify audiences and approaches (young people, businesses, landscape architect firms, regional groups, general public, city departments)

ii. Initiate partnerships, assign work (what can the city do, tree committee members, businesses,regional partners, etc.)

iii. Clearly plan out steps: This can include planning public meetings, press releases, advertising, fundraising efforts, and incentive programs to name a few.

Potential Participants: City staff (specifically), Tree Committee.

GOAL #2: Preservation

6. Storm Plan Related to Urban Canopy. An urban forestry-focused disaster management plan is critical in tree canopy preservation and can take many forms. It can serve as an addendum to a city-wide emergency management plan, or simply as a summary of the urban forestry division’s expected role in a disaster for staff education and preparedness purposes. It should also look further than immediate response tasks. A disaster management plan can play a critical role in tree preservation after the skies clear as well. This concept and key points will be discussed further in the plan.

7. Addressing Utility Impacts. This recommendation will detail improvements or opportunities to work more closely and in sync with Con Edison, and include a draft MOU.

8. EAB Strategy. Options for management of emerald ash borer effects on ash trees in Mamaroneck.

9. Tree Protection Ordinance. Recommendations will be made on missing items and ineffective existing provisions within the current tree protection ordinance.

10. Develop and Implement Training Programs in Tree Care and Values. The work involved in tree care, tree planting, invasive plant control, and habitat restoration has to be performed by trained, knowledgeable persons. MHC should have a comprehensive, ongoing, and consistent training program for both staff and volunteers. A quality training program is essential for keeping workers on the ground safe, efficient in their work, and motivated about learning new skills. Training does more than just educate workers. Training supports professional development and job advancement of the staff, and positively influences attitudes and behaviors of volunteers. This concept will be discussed further in the plan.

11. Develop a Heritage Tree Program. Without mature and majestic trees, Mamaroneck would be an entirely different place. A program directed at the promotion of these trees is highly useful to the effort to preserve them, conveying the value of trees as a Village asset and even obtaining funding for future projects and tree care. Work will include identification of potential trees, investigating potential state or national champion status, utilize a historic tree walk app that brings together the locations, photographs, species, facts, and historic descriptions and updating/completing plaques for historic trees. This work can include local historical groups and/or local businesses (particularly ones established over 100 years ago) or other donors to “adopt” a historic tree to help fund its preservation.

Overall Recommendations:

12. Define and Pursue Required Funding. What are our needs? What monies do we have now - is it being spent where we need it most? Opportunities for new sources will be discussed as well. Make sure they know this is a strategic work. Potential Owners/Participants: xx Currently there is an admitted and great need for more dedicated tree management funding for MHC, as well as a need for the funding to be steady and reliable. Beyond the “catch-up”

projects needed, there are ambitious plans for restoring the landscape as laid out in the MP & CLR. While staff and supporters recognize the critical lack of funding, others in the community likely do not. We will analyze budget shortfalls, justify the need, set program priorities, and effectively communicate the gaps in funding. This information can then be used externally to a wide regional, and even national, audience to appeal for funding. Funding needs and suggestions for partners and sources will be provided in the plan.

13. Explore Partnerships. With limited resources and reach, municipalities cannot expect to make significant progress without involving partners’ efforts. Options for involvement of other “players” in the urban forest to achieve the previously described goals will be discussed further in this recommendation.

IV. Revised Schedule

Friday, 11/4 - Delivery of Plan Outline & Recommendations.

We will deliver to you by end of day a short (3 page) document that will contain our proposed plan

outline and narrative, plus a list of the recommendations we will be making.

You'll have one week you to review (include tree committee if you deem appropriate)

and get feedback to me. If this isn't enough time, let me know and we'll adjust.

Friday, 11/11 - Comments Due on Outline/Recommendations.

We can discuss via phone or you can write out your feedback. At this point, once we agree on this

piece, we will start writing up the full plan.

Monday, 12/19 - Delivery of Plan Draft for Review.

We will have a draft plan for you to review. If you have multiple people review, all edits should be

combined into one document before submitted it back to me.

You'll probably need a couple weeks to review (include tree committee if you deem

appropriate) and get feedback to me. This ends up being over the holiday period, so I look to

you to tell me what is realistic as far as when to get changes back to me. I'm guessing it would

be after the new year. Let me know if we need to adjust.

Wednesday, 1/4 - Draft Plan Comments Due.

Once we get your edits, we'll make all changes and have the document reviewed with a fine-toothed

comb for everything from concepts to grammar to layout.

Friday, 1/13 - Final Plan Delivered.

Final Deliverables:

1. Written plan

2. Wall map


Item Title: Draft Local law to allow theaters in C-1 districts

Item Summary: Draft Local law to allow theaters in C-1 districts

Fiscal Impact:

ATTACHMENTS:Description Upload Date TypePLL BB 12/9/2016 Cover Memo

Revised 11/17/16

PROPOSED LOCAL LAW BB – 2016

To amend the Zoning Code Chapter 342-30A(1) Permitted Principal Uses in the C-1 Zoning

District to add theaters as a permitted use

BE IT ENACTED by the Board of Trustees of the Village of Mamaroneck as follows:

Section I §342-30A(1) General Commercial Districts, Permitted Principal Uses is amended to

add new subsection (q) to read as follows:

(q) Theaters, places of public assembly or other places of amusement. (This use is subject to

the approval procedure set forth in Article X and shall conform to any additional requirements

made in connection with such approval.)

Section II. Severability

If any section, subsection, clause, phrase or other portion of this Local Law is, for any reason,

declared invalid, in whole or in part, by any court, agency, commission, legislative body or other

authority of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and

independent portion. Such declaration shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions

hereof, which other portions shall continue in full force and effect.

Section III. Effective Date

This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon adoption and filing in the office of the

Secretary of State in accordance with Section 27 of the Municipal Home Rule Law.


Item Title: Sale of old Fire Truck Engine 42 by negotiated sale

Item Summary: Sale of old Fire Truck Engine 42 by negotiated sale

Fiscal Impact:

ATTACHMENTS:Description Upload Date Type1 O 12/9/2016 Cover Memo


Item Title: Home Rule Request - Red Light Cameras by schools

Item Summary: Home Rule Request - Red Light Cameras by schools

Fiscal Impact:

ATTACHMENTS:Description Upload Date TypeItem P 12/8/2016 Cover Memo

M E M O R A N D U M



Re: Red Light Cameras


As it related to the above captioned matter, the use of red light cameras is authorized pursuant to

the New York State Vehicle & Traffic (V&T) Law. To date, such traffic devices have been

authorized as follows:

1) In Cities of one million (1,000,000) or larger (i.e. New York City) at no more than

150 intersections within the city.

2) City of Yonkers at nor more than 25 intersections within the City.

3) Nassau County at no more than 100 intersection under the jurisdiction of the County.

4) Rochester at no more than 50 intersections with the City.

5) Suffolk County at no more than 100 intersection under the jurisdiction of the County.

6) City of New Rochelle at no more than 12 intersections within the City.

7) City of Mount Vernon at no more than 12 intersections within the City.

8) City of Albany at no more than 20 intersections within the City.

9) City of White Plains at no more than 12 intersections within the City.

It is noted that locations noted above include 3 of the 4 most populous cities in New York State

and the two largest counties in New York State. Additionally, all of the above authorization

have sunset clauses to expire as of December 1, 2019 unless reauthorized.

It is also noteworthy that in cities in New York State, they are typically responsible for State

highways (e.g. Post Road in New Rochelle and Central Avenue in Yonkers) and for the most

part, major arterial roadways are usually State or County highways.

In reviewing the studies performed on such systems, there are a mixed bag of results. In terms of

crashes sought to be prevented, red light cameras are much more effective at preventing right

angle collisions (T-Bone) and somewhat effective at reducing rear end collisions. For instance in

New York City, which has used such devices since 1994, the reported the following, they

reported that in the year prior to installing cameras, there were 367 citywide collisions and in

2014, there were 190 -- a near 50% reduction. For rear end collisions, there were 717 such

accidents prior to the cameras and 600 in 2014 – a 16% reduction1. Given the difference in

1 http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nyc-red-light-camera-program.pdf


P 914-777-7703

F 914-777-7760


traffic volume and without comparable data for the Village, it is not appropriate to make any

interpretation as to how effective these cameras would be in a suburban environment.

A 2005 study by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) echoed the same findings2 as the

NYC Study, however, it is noted that The FHWA advises local municipalities to investigate

traffic engineering solutions for problem intersections or roadways before employing such

technology3. A study undertaken by the Chicago Tribune as to the effectiveness of Chicago’s

red light camera program also found that the results were minimal4 and would seem to buttress

the recommendation from the FHWA that traffic engineering solutions be used first to assess the

existing problems and identify potential solutions.

If this is a policy matter that the Board would like to pursue, it would be appropriate to retain the

services of a professional traffic engineering firm to review existing traffic data (including

volume and accident data), identify problems and potential solutions. If red light cameras are the

recommended solution, staff would work with our State elected officials to initiate the process of

preparing a special act of the New York State Legislature.

2 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05049/ 3 http://www.uspirg.org/reports/usp/trafficcamreport 4 http://www.chicagotribune.com/ct-red-light-camera-safety-met-20141219-story.html#page=1


Item Title: Katherine Desmond CFTE Appointment correction

Item Summary: Katherine Desmond CFTE Appointment correction

Fiscal Impact:

ATTACHMENTS:Description Upload Date TypeCFTE Correction 12/9/2016 Cover Memo

RESOLUTION RE:

CORRECTION OF APPOINTMENT TO THE COMMITTEE FOR THE

ENVIRONMENT

WHEREAS, at its Annual Organizational meeting, the Board of Trustees appointed

Katherine Desmond to the Committee for the Environment, however, said appointment

resolution contained a technical defeciency which should be corrected; now therefore be it

RESOLVED; that Katherine Desmond be and is hereby appointed a member of the

Committee for the Environment, such term to expire at the 2017 Annual Organization meeting.


Item Title: Sidewalk Cafe Law - date correction for penalty date to match end of season date

Item Summary: Sidewalk Café Law - date correction for penalty date to match end of season date

Fiscal Impact:

ATTACHMENTS:Description Upload Date Typechapter 285 12/9/2016 Cover Memo


Item Title: Comprehensive Plan 5-year Review - initial discussion regarding 5 year review

Item Summary: Comprehensive Plan 5-year Review - initial discussion regarding 5-year review

Fiscal Impact:

ATTACHMENTS:Description Upload Date TypeExtract 12/9/2016 Cover MemoMemo 12/9/2016 Cover Memo

dsarnoff

Typewritten Text

dsarnoff

Rectangle

M E M O R A N D U M

To: Richard Slingerland. Village Manager


Re: Comprehensive Plan 5-Year Review


The 2012 Comprehensive Plan, for which the Village was recognized by the Westchester

Municipal Planning Federation with their Outstanding Planning Achievement Award, is

approaching a milestone of having been in effect for five (5) years.

As noted in Section 12.2 of the Comprehensive Plan, adopted by the Board in February 2012,

within five years of adoption, a progress report should be prepared to assess the degree to which

the plan has been implemented as well as identify opportunities for changes to enhance and

improve it.

Given this timing, it is appropriate that such a progress report be prepared and we should review

the parameters of how it is to be undertaken with the Board at their December 12, 2016 work

session meeting.


P 914-777-7703

F 914-777-7760



Item Title: Reestablishment of the Advisory Committee on Water Quality (LWRP recommendation)

ItemSummary: Reestablishment of the Advisory Committee on Water Quality (LWRP recommendation)

Fiscal Impact:

ATTACHMENTS:Description Upload Date TypeiT 12/9/2016 Cover MemoExtract 12/9/2016 Cover Memo

M E M O R A N D U M

To: Richard Slingerland. Village Manager


Re: Comprehensive Plan 5-Year Review


The Final LWRP submitted to the New York State Department of State earlier this month

contains several proposed projects. Among these is the re-establishment of the Advisory

Committee on Water Quality to help develop a draft water quality assessment and improvement

plan.

As it relates to this proposed Committee, the LWRP recommends that members to committee be

composed of a representative from the HCZMC, the Committee for the Environment, the Flood

Mitigation Advisory Committee and each of the other Land Use Boards.

In regard to the final approval of the LWRP from the State and final adoption by the Board of

Trustees, there is no impediment to moving forward with the reformation of the Committee,

however, this should be reviewed at the December 12, 2016 work session to review procedures

for such reformation as well as the mechanism for appointments to the Committee.


P 914-777-7703

F 914-777-7760


dsarnoff

Rectangle


Item Title: Sustainability Initiative

Item Summary: Sustainability Initiative

Fiscal Impact:

ATTACHMENTS:Description Upload Date TypeSustainability 12/9/2016 Cover Memo


Item Title: Update of the traffic study for Washingtonville and other areas

Item Summary: Update of the traffic study for Washingtonville and other areas

Fiscal Impact:

ATTACHMENTS:Description Upload Date TypeMemo 12/8/2016 Cover Memo

M E M O R A N D U M



Re: Washingtonville Traffic Study


An item on the December 12, 2016 work session meeting of the Board of Trustees is an update

on the Washingtonville Traffic Study. We have been attempting to schedule a meeting with the

consultant since mid-November, however, given holidays, vacation schedules and other

conflicts, it has been difficult to do so.

We are scheduled to meet with our consultant on Friday, December 9, 2016 and will be able to

apprise the Board more fully after that meeting.

As it relates to the traffic study for the Rye Neck area in the vicinity of Frank, Wagner, Keeler, et

al., we met with our consultant Brian Dempsey, PED, PTOC, of Provident Design Engineering

to review this matter. Mr., Dempsey provided a basic scope of services. I reviewed this with the

Traffic commission at their November 10, 2016 meeting to elicit their comments and

suggestions. Based on such, we amended the scope slightly. We will review this matter as well

during our meeting and can update the Board on Monday evening.


P 914-777-7703

F 914-777-7760



Item Title: Motel License renewals

Item Summary: Motel License renewals

Fiscal Impact:

ATTACHMENTS:Description Upload Date TypeReso vincent 12/9/2016 Cover Memoreso - mamaroneck 12/9/2016 Cover Memo2017 DI 12/9/2016 Cover Memo

RESOLUTION FOR RENEWAL OF MOTEL LICENSE

(VINCENT & SONS MOTEL)

WHEREAS the application for motel license renewal for 2017 was sent to Vincent and

Sons Motel; and

WHEREAS the Clerk-Treasurer’s office is in receipt of the completed application,

payment for such, insurance requirements and inspection reports from both the Building and

Police Departments; and

WHEREAS Vincent and Sons Motel has passed all inspections, copy of such inspections

attached; and

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Motel License for Vincent and Sons

Motel be and is hereby renewed for a period of one year, such period to expire on December 31,

2017.

RESOLUTION FOR RENEWAL OF MOTEL LICENSE

(MAMARONECK MOTEL)

WHEREAS the application for motel license renewal for 2017 was sent to Mamaroneck

Motel; and

WHEREAS the Clerk-Treasurer’s office is in receipt of the completed application,

payment for such, insurance requirements and inspection reports from both the Building and

Police Departments; and

WHEREAS Mamaroneck Motel has passed all inspections, copy of such inspections

attached; and

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Motel License for Mamaroneck Motel

be and is hereby renewed for a period of one year, such period to expire on December 31, 2017.


Item Title: (Pursuant to the Board's Procedures) Presentation for Next Board Meeting - CommunityResource Center and Suicide Prevention

ItemSummary:

(Pursuant to the Board's Procedures) - Presentation for Next Board Meeting - CommunityResource Center and Suicide Prevention

FiscalImpact:


Item Title: Executive Session - Advice of Counsel

Item Summary: Executive Session - Advice of Counsel

Fiscal Impact:

Documents

Board of Trustees Agenda Village of Mamaroneck