HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CC-2001-12-12
1
COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Special Meeting 7:30 p.m. December 12, 2001
PRESENT:
Mayor Cohen
Alderpersons (6) Pryor, Sams, Blumenthal, Spielholz,
Farrell, Mack
OTHERS PRESENT:
City Clerk – Conley Holcomb
City Attorney - Schwab
Deputy Controller – Thayer
Director of Planning and Development – VanCort
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor Cohen led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the
American flag.
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
Public Hearing to Consider the Creation of a Benefit Assessment
District in the Southwest Area of the City
Resolution to Open Public Hearing:
By Alderperson Pryor: Seconded by Alderperson Sams
RESOLVED, That the public hearing to consider the creation of a
Benefit Assessment District in the Southwest Area of the City be
declared opened.
Carried Unanimously
The following people addressed Common Council regarding the
proposed Benefit Assessment District:
Jean McPheeters, Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce
Dick Flaville
Dorothy Sturtevant
Mike Wells
Gary Jaynes
Tim McGuire
Bill Zikakis
Jay Waring
David Nutter
Fay Gougakis
The following letters were received and made part of the record:
1) Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., letter dated 12/11/01, addressed
to Alan J. Cohen, Mayor with copies to Robert B. Wegman,
Gary Woloszyn, Carol Duquette and Russ Porter
Dear Mr. Cohen:
This letter is written in response to the recent report received
at our offices regarding the proposed Benefit Assessment District
(BAD) for the Southwest Area of Ithaca, dated November 30, 2001
and supplemented at the public information meetings held on
December 6, 2001. Although Wegmans Food Markets strongly
advocates a safe and efficient transportation infrastructure in
and around the areas in which we operate, we feel that the
proposal for the establishment of this district and the mechanism
December 12, 2001
22
to fund the proposed transportation improvements have some
inherent defects. Our comments are as follows:
1. The determination of the need for the traffic improvements
and the scope and timing of the proposed improvements are
not very clear. The intended improvements along Elmira Road
are poorly defined. The construction of a Taughanock
Boulevard Extension may relocate some of the north/south
traffic from Meadow Street and Elmira Road. This could be
considered both a help and a hindrance to Wegmans.
Relocation of traffic would eliminate the bypass opportunity
for some of our potential customers, while at the same time
provide increased opportunities for whatever development may
occur in the vacant property within the Southwest Area. An
underlying assumption of the report is that the properties
within the BAD will “especially benefit” from the proposed
improvements. We do not feel that Wegmans will be
“especially benefited” by these improvements.
2. The State of New York has conducted two major highway
improvement projects within or immediately adjacent to the
Southwest Area. Within the past few years, construction
included road widening along Meadow Street and the split of
the Meadow Street corridor north of the Southwest Area into
separate one way northbound and one way southbound. One
could assume that the State Department of Transportation
looked at the overall operation of the area and included
future growth to determine what improvements were necessary
for these projects at the same time looking at future
growth. One could question the need for additional
transportation improvements to an area that has seen many
recent street improvements.
3. In fact, it appears that the primary purpose of the BAD is
to create sufficient infrastructure to allow for the future
development of the Southwest Area property that was recently
rezoned by the City. The report states, on numerous
occasions, that the improvements are necessary to
accommodate additional trips “generated by future
development within the study area.” At the time of that
rezoning, we went on record with our concerns about the
impact that such an intense development would have upon
traffic conditions in Ithaca. We were assured that the
ultimate developer of that property would be required to
mitigate any adverse traffic impacts so as not to degrade
traffic in the area. The BAD seems designed to relieve the
developer of the Southwest Area property from most of the
burden of infrastructure improvements, shifting the cost of
those improvements to the general public and existing
commercial property owners.
4. Wegmans Food Markets has operated at this location for
almost 14 years. During the initial construction and the
most recent redevelopment of the property, Wegmans Food
Markets has invested close to $500,000 in traffic
improvements. These improvements included the installation
of a traffic signal, widening along Meadow Street, radius
improvements and traffic signal interconnections. If, as it
appears, the proposed improvements are necessary to mitigate
the impacts of future development in the Southwest Area, it
would appear only fair that the developer of that property
be required to finance mitigation measures as we were
required to do when we developed our property.
December 12, 2001
33
5. As proposed, we do not think that the costs of
infrastructure improvements described in the BAD is “fairly
apportioned among both the general public and the
development projects benefiting from those expenditures.” It
appears that the developer of the Southwest Area will be the
primary beneficiary of these improvements. The benefit to
the developer of this site is vastly greater on a dollars
and cents basis than the benefit to existing commercial
property owners or the community at large. In spite of this
disproportionate benefit, the new developers are asked to
pay no greater a share on a per square foot basis than other
commercial property owners. In effect, Wegmans is being
required to pay twice; once to mitigate the impact of
increased traffic created by our development and a second
time to help mitigate the increase in traffic by proposed
future development. This seems unfair. If the developers
of the Southwest Area property are not required to pay for
all of these infrastructure improvements (as we think they
should), then at the very least they should pay a larger
share of the cost, commensurate with the larger benefit they
receive. If existing commercial property owners are to be
asked to contribute at all to these improvements, a “credit”
should be applied in favor of those owners who financed
infrastructure improvements as part of their development
projects.
6. The lion’s share of the proposed infrastructure cost is for
the construction of the Taughannock Boulevard Extension.
The primary beneficiary of this extension would be the
developer of the Southwest Area property. As we mentioned
above, we question whether there is any benefit to Wegmans
as a result of this extension. Based on the facts indicated
in the report, however, there is no guarantee that the
Taughannock Boulevard Extension will not be built prior to
the construction of any additional development square
footage. Assuming a full build-out of the Southwest Area
parcel, Wegmans’ share of the assessment necessary to
finance all proposed infrastructure improvements amounts to
approximately $32,000 per year of $.27 per square foot.
This is a considerable increase to our tax burden, as
mentioned before, we do not feel that we receive a
corresponding benefit to justify such an expenditure. The
burden becomes even greater if all of the infrastructure
improvements are completed and the proposed Southwest Area
parcel is not developed. Taking the entire cost of the
infrastructure improvements and spreading it only over
existing square footage would result in an increased tax
burden to Wegmans of almost $59,000 per year of $.48 per
square foot. At the very least, a substantial portion of
the improvements should be postponed until such time as the
developers of the Southwest Area parcel can participate in
the assessment.
7. Even at full build out, the proposed assessment to Wegmans
will amount to an annual increase in our tax burden of
almost ten percent. The taxes at our Ithaca store are
already, on a per square foot basis, one of the highest in
our sixty-two store chain. High taxes are a strong
disincentive to future business growth in Ithaca. Special
assessments without any corresponding benefit will serve
only to further suppress commercial growth in the City of
December 12, 2001
44
Ithaca, thus assuring that existing property owners will
suffer from an ever-increasing tax burden.
8. Other observations regarding this proposal are as follows:
A. Were any other potential funding sources evaluated or
explored?
B. What will happen if the potential developments
(Benderson, Widewaters, etc.), do not materialize, or
if there is additional development (inside and outside
the Southwest Area) that was not anticipated?
C. Is any part of this proposal part of a long-range
plan of the Ithaca – Tompkins County Transportation
Council?
D. Why weren’t right-of-way costs taken into account in
the initial estimates?
Wegmans Food Markets does not disagree with the intent of
improving transit systems as long as there is justifiable need
that can be equitability funded. This proposal for the
establishment of a Benefit Assessment District for the Southwest
Area does not address any real overwhelming need, no does it
fairly allocate the financial burden of the proposed
improvements. For these reasons, Wegmans Food Markets objects to
the establishment of the Benefit Assessment District for the
Southwest Area.
Please consider this letter our formal written comments to the
proposal. We request that these comments be read into the record
at the public hearing to be held on this issue on December 12,
2001.
Very truly yours,
Ralph A. Uttaro
1) Letter from K-Mart Corporation, dated 12/12/01
Ms. Joann Cornish
City of Ithaca
Department of Planning and Development
108 E. Green Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
Re: Beneficial Assessment District
Taughannock Boulevard Extension Construction
Dear Ms. Cornish:
The Kmart on Rt. 13 in Ithaca pays real estate taxes to the City
of Ithaca. Alpine 83, the fee owner of the property upon which
we are located, has empowered Kmart to speak on behalf of both
Alpine and ourselves through this letter. Neither Alpine 83 nor
Kmart in our corporate offices recall being notified of the
meeting this evening nor have we any solid information about the
manner people/beneficiaries get assessed for the above referenced
roadwork.
Kmart Corporation reviews plans for roadwork in the engineering
and real estate departments of our corporate offices. The City
of Ithaca is intimately familiar with this process as we’ve just
been assessed 73% of the cost for a traffic signal upgrade
outside this same store. We were, frankly, surprised that these
December 12, 2001
55
anticipated Beneficial Assessment payments for roadwork had not
been mentioned in concert with the traffic light. While I’ve
seen no plans, I’m told that the parties who benefit from the
lion’s portion of this roadwork will be those who wish to
circumvent Rt. 13 in order to take Taughannock toward anticipated
new development. It is therefore with great interest that we
encourage your department to tale any considerations of the
Beneficial Assessment District until it is made certain that all
affected parties have plans and information about how all this is
supposed to work. In addition, Kmart also would require specific
detail as to how you calculate just under a half a million
dollars in benefit to our store. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Jeffrey M. Poole
Real Estate Department
Kmart Corporation
Resolution to Close Public Hearing:
By Alderperson Farrell: Seconded by Alderperson Pryor
RESOLVED, That the public hearing to consider the creation of a
Benefit Assessment District in the Southwest Area of the City be
declared closed.
Carried Unanimously
ADJOURNMENT:
On a motion the meeting adjourned at 8:00 P.M.
_______ _________________________
Julie Conley Holcomb, CMC Alan J. Cohen,
City Clerk Mayor