HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CC-2001-11-28
1
COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Special Meeting 8:45 p.m. November 28, 2001
PRESENT:
Mayor Cohen
Alderpersons (8) Pryor, Blumenthal, Manos, Vaughan, Spielho1z,
Hershey, Sams, Mack
OTHERS PRESENT:
City Clerk – Conley Holcomb
City Attorney - Schwab
Planning and Development Director – Van Cort
Deputy Director of Planning and Development – Cornish
City Controller – Cafferillo
Deputy City Controller - Thayer
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS:
2.1 Benefit Assessment District Report and Call for Public Hearing
Mayor Cohen noted for the record that Alderpersons Manos and
Vaughan have expressed a conflict of interest regarding the
creation of a benefit assessment district in the Southwest Area
and are therefore leaving the floor of Council and recusing
themselves from any discussion and vote on this topic.
Deputy Planning and Development Director JoAnn Cornish reviewed
changes made to the Common Council Order to Call for a Public
Hearing, and the City of Ithaca Proposed Benefit Assessment
District for the Southwest Area Report.
Alderperson Blumenthal asked how long the project would be bonded
for. City Controller Cafferillo explained that components of the
project have been separated for bonding purposes, and that the
project would be bonded for 19.8 years.
Alderperson Blumenthal questioned why the public information
session was never held. Alderperson Hershey stated that there was
not enough information compiled to present to the public.
Alderperson Blumenthal requested the addition of a public
information session before the scheduled public hearing. Mayor
Cohen scheduled two public information sessions for December 6,
2001, from 5:00 – 6:30pm, and from 7:30 – 9:00 pm.
Deputy Planning and Development Director Cornish stated that a
mailing would be sent to property owners affected by the
assessment district to notify them of the information sessions,
along with a legal notice published in the Ithaca Journal.
Alderperson Blumenthal questioned the need for environmental
review. Deputy Director Cornish noted that the information will
be forwarded to both the Planning Board and the Conservation
Advisory Council immediately, and both bodies have scheduled
meetings before the December 12, 2001 Public Hearing.
Alderperson Blumenthal questioned the assessments of vacant lots.
City Controller Cafferillo noted that vacant lots would not have a
fee assessed, but once the property was developed, the owners
would begin paying the assessment fee.
Alderperson Pryor requested that clarification be made to indicate
that the assessment district only includes commercial properties.
November 28, 2001
2
Alderperson Hershey requested clarification of whether tax-exempt
properties would be charged the assessment fees. City Controller
Cafferillo stated that tax-exempt properties are not included in
the assessment district unless they conduct a taxable, commercial
business.
Common Council Order to Call a Public Hearing for the
Establishment and Adoption of a Benefit Assessment District for
Local Vehicular Traffic Improvements in the Southwest Area of the
City of Ithaca, November 28, 2001
By Alderperson Hershey: Seconded by Alderperson Pryor
WHEREAS, on October 18, 2001, Common Council enacted "A Local Law
Providing the Establishment of a Benefit Assessment District for
Local Vehicular Traffic Improvements in the Southwest Area of the
City for the Sale and Efficient Flow of Vehicular Traffic within
the Southwest Area", and
WHEREAS, a map, plan, and report entitled "City of Ithaca
Proposed Benefit Assessment District for the Southwest Area"
report has been prepared and is attached hereto as “Exhibit A”
and is in the City Clerk's office where same are available for
public inspection, and
WHEREAS, the proposed Business Assessment District (BAD)
encompasses the properties in the Southwest Study Area, and the
commercial properties on the east side of South Meadow Street
south of Clinton Street to Elmira Road, commercial properties on
Old Elmira Road, and commercial properties on the southeast side
of Elmira Road to the City/Town line as shown on the aforesaid
map and report, and
WHEREAS, under a phased construction program, the improvements
proposed in the Benefit Assessment District are the widening of
Route 13 to five lanes and the Taughannock Blvd. Extension, and
WHEREAS, the total estimated project cost is proposed to be
established at $9,280.250.00 for the widening of Route 13 to five
lanes estimated at $1,767,000.00 (Phase I) and the Taughannock
Boulevard Extension estimated at $7,513,250.00 (Phase I), for a
total of $9,280,250.00, and
WHEREAS, the apportionment of costs associated with the local
vehicular traffic improvements identified in the Southwest Area
Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS), resulting from the
total future p.m. peak hour trip allocation, yields 64.7% to be
assessed upon all the properties benefited (existing and future
developments), and 35.3% of the cost is to be borne by the City
at large (non-local pass-through trips), and
WHEREAS, the benefit assessment roll shall be established
annually, based on the square footage of commercial buildings, as
provided by the Tompkins County Division of Assessment. The
annual July 1 final assessment roll data shall be used to
calculate said assessments. If the Benefit Assessment Boundary
runs through a building, the entire square footage of the
building will be included in the benefit assessment formula, and
WHEREAS, the capital improvements to be undertaken within the
Benefit Assessment District shall be financed through the
issuance of Bond Anticipation Notes or Serial Bonds, and
November 28, 2001
3
WHEREAS, two public information sessions will be held on December
6, 2001. The first from 5:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., and the second
from 7:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., and
WHEREAS, at 7:30 p.m. on December 12, 2001, Common Council will
meet and hold a public hearing to hear all persons interested in
the subject of the Benefit Assessment District, and
WHEREAS, a copy of this order and a notice of public hearing will
be published at least once in The Ithaca Journal not less than
ten nor more than twenty days before the day of the public
hearing, and
WHEREAS, a copy of this order and the notice of public hearing
will be served upon each owner of real property (residential
properties exempt) within the proposed Benefit Assessment
District, as shown upon the most recently completed assessment
role of the City, not less than ten nor more than twenty days
before the day of the public hearing; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council adopts this order and enters the
same in the minutes of these proceedings.
Carried Unanimously
Report Prepared by City of Ithaca Staff with assistance and
Information provided by SRF Associates, Wilber Smith Associates,
And the Chazen Company
November 28, 2001
Introduction
On October 18, 2001, Common Council passed “A Local Law Providing
the Establishment of a Benefit Assessment District for Local
Vehicular Traffic Improvements in the Southwest Area of the City
for the Safe and Efficient Flow of Vehicular Traffic within the
Southwest Area”. The following report is submitted pursuant to
the above-mentioned local law. (See Appendix A)
Background
In January 1992 the City of Ithaca Common Council passed a
resolution calling for the creation of a committee to develop
recommendations for land use, zoning, and circulation for
Southwest Park. Shortly after it began to meet, the committee
expanded its study area to include not only Southwest Park, but
also adjacent areas south of Clinton Street, east of the Flood
Control Channel, and north and west of Meadow Street and Elmira
Road. The work of the committee led to the preparation of The
Southwest Area Land Use Plan (The Plan) and the Generic
Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS). The study area for both
is shown on Figure 1. The area encompasses approximately 381
acres of which approximately 160 acres are potentially available
for development. In addition, there are approximately 60 acres
of undeveloped land (±25 acres in the study area plus ±35
additional acres owned by the City) that have been designated as
substitute parkland in conjunction with the alienation of
Southwest Park. (Page 1-1, Southwest Area Land Use Plan, Draft
Generic Environmental Impact Statement)
The Southwest Area Land Use Plan, which was completed in 1994 and
amended in 1998, makes several recommendations, one being to
rezone the Southwest Area to provide opportunities for large-
scale development currently lacking in other parts of the City.
November 28, 2001
4
The Plan also calls for restrictions on the number of small
stores allowed in this area, given that small stores could
potentially limit the amount of land available for large-scale
development. Currently, the Elmira Road/Meadow Street Corridor
(in the Southwest Area) features approximately 1,013,391 square
feet of mixed-use commercial development. With the recent
adoption of the mixed-use commercial zoning, known as the
Southwest District, (See Appendix B) vacant properties are
expected to undergo intensive development and developed
properties are expected to be redeveloped for their highest and
best use. Approximately, 800,000 square feet of new commercial
development within the Southwest Area is expected in the future.
The purpose of the Southwest Area Land Use Plan is to develop a
coordinated design for land use in the Southwest Area. Common
Council as the Lead Agency, recognized that under the zoning that
existed at the time the plan was being developed, there was the
potential for significant development, and that if such
development was not properly coordinated, potentially significant
adverse impacts could occur. Examples of such impacts are
offsite traffic impacts caused by the addition of traffic to
surrounding roadways from development, and flooding and drainage
impacts caused by uncoordinated development in which drainage
systems do not work together. The Lead Agency further determined
that it would be desirable to coordinate the aesthetic and design
principles guiding development in the Southwest Area, and that
the GEIS should explore ways in which infrastructure costs
associated with new development could be fairly apportioned among
both the general public and the development projects benefiting
from those expenditures. (City of Ithaca Common Council Findings
Statement, Southwest Area Land Use Plan Generic Environmental
Impact Statement, Adopted August 24, 2000)
The GEIS, for development in the Southwest Area, recognized that
significant traffic impacts were likely to result from
development in the Southwest Area. The GEIS recommended a series
of road improvements, including improvements to the Elmira Road
corridor, and the construction of a new roadway to be known as
the Taughannock Boulevard Extension. The purpose of these
improvements is to provide adequate capacity for existing traffic
as well as future traffic from development in and around the
Southwest Area, including Elmira Road.
Benefit Assessment District Boundary
The proposed Benefit Assessment District (BAD) encompasses the
properties in the Southwest study area, and the commercial
properties on the east side of South Meadow Street south of
Clinton Street to Elmira Road, commercial properties on Old
Elmira Road, and commercial properties on the southeast side of
Elmira Road to the City/Town line. (See Figure 2). The purpose of
the BAD is to create an especially benefited area for the levy
and collection of benefit assessments to fund the portion of
specified improvements, principally to Elmira Road and the
construction of the Taughannock Boulevard Extension, which will
especially benefit properties within the BAD. These improvements
will directly benefit existing properties on Elmira Road as well
as new development on both Elmira Road and within the Southwest
Area. The BAD boundary differs from the GEIS boundary because
the GEIS boundary looked at areas of new development within the
Southwest Area while the BAD boundary is based on all commercial
November 28, 2001
5
properties in the Southwest Area that will be benefited by the
improvements made to the transportation system. (See Figure 1)
Benefit Assessment District Boundary—Legal Description
The Benefit Assessment District shall include all properties in
an area bounded by a continuous line beginning at the
intersection of Elmira Road, Park Street, South Albany Street,
West Spencer Street and Spencer Road; thence proceeding southerly
following the western boundary line of West Spencer Street which
is also the easterly boundary line of tax parcels 105-7-1.2 and
105-7-1.1; thence following the southerly boundary line of tax
parcel 105-7-1.1 to the eastern boundary line of Elmira Road;
thence proceeding southerly along the boundary line of Elmira
Road and tax parcel 116-1-1 for approximately 22 feet to a point
of intersection with the northeasterly corner of tax parcel 116-
1-3; thence proceeding in a southerly direction along the
easterly boundary line of tax parcel 116-1-3 and the westerly
boundary line of tax parcels 116-1-1 and 116-1-2; thence
continuing in a southerly direction along the easterly boundary
line of the B-5 Zone as depicted on the Official Zoning Map of
the City of Ithaca, New York, dated November 4, 1998 and amended
May 1, 1999, which boundary line passes through the following tax
parcels: 116-1-4, 116-1-6.2, 116-1-7, 116-1-8, 116-1-11, 117-3-1,
continuing through tax parcel 117-3-1, running between the two
buildings on said parcel, and running through tax parcel 123-1-
5.2 to a point of intersection of tax parcels 123-1-5.2, 123-1-6
and 117-3-1; thence, still following along the boundary line of
the B-5 Zone, proceeding along the westerly boundary line of tax
parcels 123-1-6, 123-1-8, 123-1-10, 123-1-11; thence running
along the former boundary line of tax parcel 122-3-1 in a
northwesterly direction to its intersection with South Meadow
Street at a point located 303.52 feet south of the northwest
corner of tax parcel 122-3-1; thence crossing South Meadow Street
and proceeding in a northwesterly direction along the boundary
line separating tax parcels 122-2-5 and 122-2-6; thence
proceeding southerly along the western boundary line of tax
parcels 122-2-6, 122-2-7, 122-2-8, 122-2-9, and 122-2-10; thence
proceeding in a southwesterly direction, following the eastern
boundary line of the SW-2 Zone, through tax parcel 122-2-2 to a
point in the southerly boundary line of tax parcel 122-2-13;
thence along the southerly boundary line of tax parcel 122-2-13
to its point of intersection with the northeasterly boundary line
of tax parcel 122-2-1; thence proceeding in a southeasterly
direction along the northeasterly boundary line of tax parcel
122-2-1; thence proceeding along the southern boundary line of
tax parcel 122-2-1; thence, continuing along the easterly
boundary of the SW-2 Zone, proceeding along the northwesterly
boundary line of tax parcels 124-1-5, 124-1-6, 124-1-7, 124-1-18
to a point of intersection with the northeasterly boundary line
of tax parcel 124-1-2; thence continuing in a southwesterly
direction more or less bisecting tax parcel 124-1-2 to a point of
intersection with the northeasterly corner of tax parcel 124-1-
12; thence, proceeding along the northwesterly boundary line of
tax parcels 124-1-12, 124-1-13, and 124-1-14; thence proceeding
in a southwesterly direction through tax parcel 125-2-4 to a
point of intersection with the northeasterly corner of tax parcel
124-1-17; thence proceeding along the boundary line separating
tax parcels 124-1-17, 125-2-5, 125-2-6, and 125-2-7 from tax
parcel 125-2-4; thence continuing along the boundary line of tax
parcel 125-2-4 and crossing tax parcel 125-2-3.2 at or near the
rear wall of the Salvation Army Building to a point of
November 28, 2001
6
intersection with tax parcel 125-2-2, which point is located
approximately 111 feet southeast of Elmira Road; thence, still
following the southern boundary of the SW-2 Zone, along said
boundary line of tax parcel 125-2-2 approximately 50 feet,
crossing tax parcel 125-2-2 to a point of intersection with the
northwesterly boundary line of tax parcel 129-1-2; thence along
the northwestern boundary line of tax parcels 129-1-2 and 129-1-
3; thence in a southeasterly direction along the boundary line of
tax parcel 125-2-3 approximately 99 feet to a point of
intersection with the northwesterly boundary line of tax parcel
129-1-4; thence along the northwesterly boundary line of tax
parcel 129-2-4 to a point of intersection with tax parcels 129-1-
5 and 125-2-1; thence crossing tax parcel 129-1-5 to a point of
intersection with the boundary line separating tax parcels 129-1-
1 and 129-1-6.2; thence crossing tax parcel 129-1-6.2 to a point
of intersection of tax parcels 129-1-6.2 and the southeast
corner of tax parcel 129-1-1; thence crossing tax parcel 129-1-
6.2 in a southwesterly direction to a point in the southeasterly
boundary line of tax parcel 129-1-1 where it intersects with tax
parcel 129-1-6.2; thence proceeding along the southeasterly
boundary line of tax parcel 129-1-1 for a distance of
approximately 126 feet to a point of intersection of the
southeasterly boundary line of tax parcel 129-1-1 with the
northwesterly most corner of tax parcel 129-1-7.2; thence
continuing, more or less, along the southeasterly boundary line
of tax parcel 129-1-1, which is also the northwesterly boundary
line of tax parcel 129-1-7.2, a distance of approximately 57
feet to a point of intersection in the northerly boundary line of
tax parcel 129-1-10.2 and the westerly boundary line of tax
parcel 129-1-7.2; thence proceeding in a southeasterly direction
along the boundary line of tax parcel 129-1-7.2 to a point of
intersection with the southeasterly boundary line of tax parcel
129-1-10.2 and the northwesterly most corner of tax parcel 129-1-
8; thence proceeding along the southeasterly boundary line of tax
parcel 129-1-10.2, which is also the northwesterly boundary line
of tax parcels 129-1-8 and 129-1-9, to a point of intersection
with tax parcel 128-2-3; thence crossing tax parcel 128-2-3 a
distance of approximately 42 feet to a point of intersection with
the northwesterly most corner of tax parcel 128-2-4; thence
proceeding along the southeasterly boundary line of tax parcels
128-2-4 and 128-2-1.1 to a point of intersection with tax parcel
128-2-1.2; thence crossing tax parcels 128-2-1.2 and 128-2-7.2 in
a southwesterly direction, following the southeasterly boundary
of the SW-2 Zone, to a point in the southwesterly boundary line
of tax parcel 128-2-7.2, which point is approximately 150 feet
southeasterly of the eastern boundary line of Elmira Road; thence
proceeding in an easterly direction along the boundary line of
tax parcel 128-2-7.2 to the western boundary line of Spencer
Road; thence proceeding south along the western boundary line of
Spencer Road to the boundary line separating the City of Ithaca
and the Town of Ithaca; thence proceeding along said boundary
line between the City of Ithaca and the Town of Ithaca as it
curves to the right, following the southern boundary line of tax
parcels 130-2-1.2, 131-1-2, 131-1-1 and 131-1-4 to a point of
intersection in the southern boundary line of tax parcel 131-1-4
with the southern boundary line of tax parcel 127-1-1; thence
proceeding along the boundary line separating tax parcels 131-1-4
and 127-1-1 in a northerly direction a distance of 444.78 feet to
a point of intersection of tax parcels 131-1-4, 131-1-1, 127-1-1
and 127-1-2; thence crossing tax parcel 127-1-2 in an easterly
direction along the flood plain boundary line as shown on the
Official Zoning Map of the City of New York referenced above,
which boundary line is also the southern boundary of the former
November 28, 2001
7
FW-1 (now P-1) Zone as shown on said Official Zoning Map, and
continuing along said P-1 boundary line, crossing the flood
control levee (tax parcel 13-1-1.1) to a point of intersection
with the western boundary line of the flood control levee, and
tax parcel 130-1-1.2; thence proceeding in a northerly direction
along the eastern boundary of the flood control levee to the
boundary line between the City of Ithaca on the east and the Town
of Ithaca on the west; thence proceeding in a northerly direction
along said boundary line between the City and the Town to a point
in the southern boundary line of tax parcel 100-2-3; thence
proceeding in an easterly direction along the southern boundary
line of tax parcels 100-2-3 and 96-2-5.11 to a point of
intersection of tax parcels 96-2-5.11, 100-3-1 and 119-1-2;
thence proceeding in a northerly direction along the western
boundary line of tax parcel 100-3-1 a distance of approximately
65 feet; thence proceeding in an easterly direction along the
boundary line separating tax parcels 96-2-5.11 and 100-3-1 for a
distance of approximately 280 feet; thence proceeding in a
northeasterly direction along the western boundary line of tax
parcel 100-3-1 and the eastern boundary line of tax parcel 96-2-
5.11 a distance of approximately 530 feet to a point of
intersection of tax parcels 96-2-5.11, 100-1 and 101-1-1.1;
thence proceeding in a northerly direction along the boundary
line separating tax parcels 96-2-5.11 and 101-1-1.1 and
continuing in a north/northeasterly direction along the boundary
line separating tax parcels 96-2-5.11 and 78-3-6 to Cecil A.
Malone Drive; thence crossing Cecil A. Malone Drive and
proceeding in a northeasterly direction along the boundary line
of tax parcel 78-3-6 on the east and tax parcel 78-3-3 on the
west and crossing a drainage channel; thence proceeding in a
northeasterly direction along the westerly boundary line of tax
parcel 78-2-3 to the western boundary of six mile creek; thence
proceeding in a southeasterly direction along the western
boundary of six mile creek to its intersection with South Meadow
Street; thence crossing South Meadow Street and continuing in a
southeasterly direction along the southwesterly boundary of South
Titus Avenue to a point of intersection with the easterly
boundary line of tax parcel 94-1-22, the northerly boundary line
of tax parcel 94-1-6.2 and the southwesterly boundary of South
Titus Street; thence proceeding in a westerly direction along the
northerly boundary of tax parcel 94-1-6.2 approximately 95 feet
to the northwestern most corner of tax parcel 94-1-6.2; thence
proceeding in a southerly direction along the western boundary
line of tax parcel 94-1-6.2 to its intersection with the
northerly boundary line of tax parcel 94-1-7; thence proceeding
in a westerly direction along the northerly boundary line of tax
parcel 94-1-7 approximately 67 feet to the northwestern most
corner of tax parcel 94-1-7; thence proceeding in a southerly
direction along the western boundary line of tax parcels 94-1-7
and 94-1-8 to the northerly boundary line of tax parcel 94-1-13;
thence proceeding in a westerly direction
along the northerly boundary line of tax parcels 94-1-13, 94-1-14
and 94-1-15 to a point in the northwestern most corner of tax
parcel 94-1-15; thence proceeding in a southerly direction along
the western boundary line of tax parcel 94-1-15 to the northerly
boundary of South Street; thence crossing South Street to a point
of intersection with the northeast corner of tax parcel 103-1-
1.1; thence proceeding in a southerly direction along the eastern
boundary line of tax parcel 103-1-1.1 approximately 35 feet to a
point of intersection with tax parcel 103-1-1.2; thence
continuing in a southerly direction through tax parcel 103-1-1.2
to a point of intersection with tax parcel 103-1-1.1
approximately 35 feet north of Wood Street; thence proceeding
November 28, 2001
8
along the easterly boundary line of tax parcel 103-1-1.1
approximately 35 feet to the northern boundary of Wood Street;
thence crossing Wood Street in a southwesterly direction to a
point of intersection of the southern boundary of Wood Street,
the easterly boundary of South Meadow Street/Route 13 and the
northwestern most corner of tax parcel 103-3-12; thence
proceeding in a southerly direction along the easterly boundary
of South Meadow Street/Route13 and the westerly boundary line of
tax parcel 103-3-12 to its intersection with the northerly
boundary of tax parcel 104-1-1; thence proceeding along the
northerly boundary line of tax parcel 104-1-1 to its intersection
with the northerly boundary line of tax parcel 104-1-2; thence
proceeding in a southerly direction along the western boundary
line of tax parcel 104-1-2 to its intersection with the northerly
boundary line of tax parcel 117-2-1.2; thence proceeding in an
easterly direction along the southerly boundary line of tax
parcel 104-1-2 to its intersection with the western boundary line
of Elmira Road; thence proceeding in a northeasterly direction
along Elmira road, crossing South Plain Street, continuing along
Elmira Road in a northeasterly direction and crossing Elmira Road
to the point or place of beginning.
Traffic Share Determination
The following information documents the basis for the portion of
costs of such local vehicular traffic improvements proposed to be
assessed upon the properties benefited in the Southwest Area of
the City, and the portion of the cost to be borne by the City at
large. Section 10(1)(c)(3) of the Municipal Home Rule Law of the
State, authorizes the City of Ithaca to adopt and amend local
laws providing for the authorization, making, confirmation and
correction of benefit assessments for local improvements. The
City of Ithaca has determined that there is a need for local
vehicular traffic improvements in the Southwest Area.
Completion of the final GEIS for the Plan found and identified
existing and anticipated traffic deficiencies that, without the
construction of vehicular traffic improvements, would
significantly hinder efficient vehicular access to, within, and
from the Southwest Area, as a consequence of anticipated
increases in vehicular trips and traffic generated by anticipated
development in the Southwest Area. The GEIS identified proposed
vehicular traffic improvements to address such anticipated
vehicular traffic problems in the Southwest Area.
Common Council is considering that it is fiscally appropriate,
economically fair, equitable, and in the best interest of the
residents of the City, and the owners of the properties within
the Southwest Area, for such owners and the City at large to
share in the cost of such local vehicular traffic improvements.
The City is considering and analyzing an equitable method for
apportionment of costs for properties in the Southwest Area and
for City residents at large.
The basis for apportionment of costs associated with such local
vehicular traffic improvements is outlined below.
Cost Apportionment Methodology
The following methodology apportions costs for local vehicular
traffic improvements for the Southwest Area based on the
percentage of total future p.m. peak hour traffic attributable to
existing and anticipated development within the BAD (as
November 28, 2001
9
delineated on Figure 2), and to future non-local pass-through
traffic traversing the BAD. Given the functional characteristics
of the highway system and the land use alternatives for
undeveloped areas in the study area, it was determined that the
P.M. (4:30PM to 5:30 PM) and Saturday peak hours are the most
critical in terms of street volumes and intersection capacities.
Review of previous impact reports revealed that traffic flow
characteristics during these periods are very similar. Given the
greater availability of background data, the P.M. peak was chosen
for the detailed impact analysis. (SWALUP GEIS §2.7.2
Transportation Impacts and Mitigation, pages 2-34 and 2-35.) The
is proposing to use the following methodology to differentiate
between which traffic is generated by and attributable to
businesses, and which is attributable to through traffic, will
result in a fair and equitable distribution of cost.
1. Existing p.m. peak hour trips generated by existing
businesses within the study area have been determined using
the current edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual and
local trips rates derived for existing businesses. Trip
generation rates are calculated by land use category, and
size of development by unit of measure, i.e. square foot
gross floor area. (See Appendix C)
2. Anticipated p.m. peak hour trips generated by future
development within the study area are determined using the
trip rates stipulated in the current edition of the ITE Trip
Generation Manual. Trip generation rates are calculated by
land use category, and size of development by unit of
measure.
3. Adjustments are made to the trip rates for specific land use
types to account for:
Pass-by trips, as defined in the ITE Trip Generation
Manual, current edition, and
Internal multi-use trips between land uses and expected
levels of transit usage, consistent with the adjustments
as specified in the Southwest Area GEIS.
1. Existing non-local pass-through trips traversing the study
area are determined by a current (2001) screen line analysis
that identifies p.m. peak hour trips (inbound and outbound
trips) using the Southwest Study Area, less the adjusted
trips generated by the existing businesses within the study
area. Future non-local pass-through trips traversing the
study area are then determined by applying a future
background traffic growth rate of 1.2% per year consistent
with the Southwest Area GEIS. (See DGEIS, Appendix Volume 2
of 2, Appendix F: Transportation Report, page 7, B.
Background Conditions.)
Cost Apportionment Results
The apportionment of costs associated with the local vehicular
traffic improvements identified in the Southwest Area GEIS,
resulting from the total future p.m. peak hour trip allocation
yields 64.7% private share (existing and future developments),
and 35.3% public share (non-local pass-through trips). Supporting
documentation is provided in the Business Trip Table Summary
dated 9/14/01, Southwest Area FGEIS, (Appendix C) and the 2001
Screenline Analysis Worksheet – Table 1.
November 28, 2001
10
Table 1
CITY OF ITHACA BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT SCREENLINE ANALYSIS
(Available in the City of Ithaca Clerk’s Office)
Benefit Assessment Formula
In the interest of developing a fair and equitable formula for
the distribution of costs within the benefit area, the City
examined numerous allocation methods. Formulas were modeled and
considered using various criteria such as front footage, square
footage of commercial buildings, assessed valuation, square
footage of parcels, parking spaces, and trip generation. A
variety of combinations of these criteria were also modeled.
Parcel frontage along the proposed traffic improvements was
eliminated as a possible variable in the benefit assessment
formula, due to the fact that except for access road driveways,
very few of the commercial properties abut the proposed road
improvements directly. The majority of commercial properties
within the benefited area are located at least 800–1,200 feet
from the proposed improvements. (See Figure 3) However, it is
clear that even though they do not directly front on the proposed
road improvements, these properties will have direct access to
and be benefited by such improvements.
Given that the City is using trip generation as a means of
allocating costs amongst benefited commercial properties and the
tax base at large, using assessed value as a component in the
formula created potential problems with equity. Commercially
zoned properties, which are either vacant or under-developed, are
not generating trips or vehicular traffic, making it difficult to
establish a direct benefit to vehicular traffic improvements.
By the same token, the use of overall parcel area posed similar
problems. A large parcel, which may currently be vacant or
under-developed, would have to pay significant benefit assessment
charges, while not generating trips or vehicular traffic.
The number of parking spaces associated with commercial
properties was also examined as a possible factor in the benefit
assessment formula. The potential for manipulation and
decommissioning of parking spaces, beyond the minimum numbers of
spaces required by zoning, was also problematic. For example,
many commercial properties currently, at least temporarily
convert some part of their regular parking lots to other
commercial uses. This type of conversion could be used to reduce
the property owner’s cost share of the benefited improvements.
Additionally, these conversions can fluctuate often leading to
difficulties in administering the benefit assessment district.
After extensive testing and consideration of the alternatives,
the City proposes to use established square footage of commercial
buildings as the variable to be used to calculate the benefit
assessment formula. Using building square footage encourages
properties to be used to their highest and best use. Building
square footage is easily attainable and is a fixed construct. It
is proposed that the benefit assessment roll shall be established
annually, based on the square footage of commercial buildings, as
provided by the Tompkins County Division of Assessment. The
annual July 1 final assessment roll data shall be used to
calculate said assessments. If the Benefit assessment Boundary
runs through a building, the entire square footage of the
November 28, 2001
11
building will be included in the benefit assessment formula. (See
Appendix D)
Financing and Project Phasing
The capital improvements to be undertaken within the Benefit
Assessment District shall be financed through the issuance of
Serial Bonds. The benefits of phasing the construction of the
two improvement projects are being examined. Under a phased
construction program, the total estimated project cost would be
established at $9,280,250, as proposed by Wilbur Smith Associates
in the Final Report, Evaluation of Six Point Traffic Plan,
Prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates in Association with Fisher
Associates, dated October 2001. The widening of Route 13 to five
lanes is estimated to cost $1,767,000 (Phase I) and the
Taughannock Blvd. Extension is estimated to cost $7,513,250
(Phase II), for a total of $9,280,250. (See Appendix E) By
constructing Phase I first, only that portion of the debt service
would be issued, allowing time for full build-out to occur before
Phase II would be undertaken. Once Phase II was completed,
presumably the construction of commercial square footage would be
close to full build-out projects, providing a much larger benefit
assessment base. The cost would be allocated over the expanded
benefit assessment base, as new construction occurs.
Appendix A – Local Law #6-2001, Providing for the Establishment of
a Benefit Assessment District, Appendix B – Southwest Development
Area Zoning Ordinance, Appendix C – Trip Generation Chart for the
Southwest Area, Appendix D – Southwest Traffic System Improvements
Estimated Debt Service and Annual Benefit Assessment District Cost
Share By Property, Appendix E – Evaluation of the Six Point
Traffic Plan Traffic System Improvement Cost Estimates, Figure 1 –
City of Ithaca Proposed Benefit Assessment District for the
Southwest Area, showing GEIS Boundary and Benefit Assessment
District Boundary, Figure 2 – City of Ithaca Proposed Benefit
Assessment District for the Southwest Area, showing Benefit
Assessment District Boundary, and Figure 3 - City of Ithaca
Proposed Benefit Assessment District for the Southwest Area,
showing parcel frontage and distance from the proposed traffic
improvements are available for public inspection in the City of
Ithaca Clerk’s Office.
2.2 Possible Executive Session to Seek the Advice of Legal
Counsel and to Discuss Pending Litigation
This item was withdrawn from the agenda.
ADJOURNMENT:
On a motion the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Julie Conley Holcomb, CMC Alan J. Cohen,
City Clerk Mayor