Loading...
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