SENECA COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING MINUTES

Transcription

1 Regular Meeting Thursday, February 2, :00 Noon Abigail s Restaurant Waterloo, New York SENECA COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING MINUTES Attendance: Board Members Present: Board Members Absent: Staff Attending: Others Attending: Call to Order: Steven Brusso, Vice Chair; Thomas Kime; Cindy Garlick Lorenzetti; Erica Paolicelli; Steve Wadhams and Valerie Bassett Thomas Macinski, Chair and Robert Kernan Robert Aronson, Executive Director; Patricia Jones, Deputy Director; Kelly Kline, Office Manager John Sheppard, Seneca County Manager; Rob Halpin, The Halpin Law Firm; Josh Durso, Fingerlakes1; Frank Armeno, Fisher Associates; Robert Hayssen; Dave Shaw, FL Times; Vice Chairman Brusso called the meeting to order at 12:05 p.m. A quorum of the Agency s members was present. Approval of IDA Meeting Minutes of January 5, 2017: The minutes of the Agency s meeting of January 5, 2017 had been sent to Board members prior to the meeting. A motion was made by Mr. Kime to approve the January 5, 2017 meeting minutes. Seconded by Ms. Bassett. Motion carried Review of Un-Audited IDA Financial Statements thru December 2016: The December 2016 financial statements had been mailed to board members prior to the meeting. Mr. Aronson summarized the financial statements for the board. He noted the transfer of the 318 sewer line to the Sewer Districts in Tyre and Seneca Falls is still pending. When this transaction occurs it will have a negative impact on the IDA balance sheet and income statement of approximately $1 Million dollars. Mr. Aronson noted that these financials are unaudited and approval is not needed as the annual audit of the IDA will begin next week. Committee Appointments for 2017: Governance Thomas Macinski Thomas Kime Valerie Bassett Steve Brusso Audit / Finance Robert Kernan Thomas Kime Thomas Macinski Erica Paolicelli

2 Approval of IDA Resolution No / Xylem Inc. and Affiliates / Initial Resolution: A copy of the resolution was provided to board members prior to the meeting. Xylem is a water technology and services business, and is a spinoff business of ITT Corporation. They are requesting to continue assistance with their investment in software that supports 156 jobs at the Seneca Falls Facility. Mr. Aronson advised board members that the resolution is for a sales tax exemption valued at $128,000 investment in software, systems and facility improvements. This inducement resolution appoints Xylem as an IDA agent for sales tax purposes; authorizes a public hearing to be scheduled; and provides financial assistance up to $100,000. Mr. Aronson then read the resolution as follows: RESOLUTION OF THE SENECA COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (THE "AGENCY") (i) ACCEPTING THE APPLICATION OF XYLEM, INC. (THE "COMPANY") WITH RESPECT TO A CERTAIN PROJECT, (ii) AUTHORIZING A PUBLIC HEARING WITH RESPECT TO THE PROJECT, (iii) DESCRIBING THE FORMS OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE BEING CONTEMPLATED WITH RESPECT TO THE PROJECT, (iv) AUTHORIZING THE NEGOTIATION OF AN AGENT AGREEMENT, PROVIDED THAT THE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY UNDER THE AGENT AGREEMENT NOT EXCEED $100,000 UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE AGENCY HAS HELD A HEARING AND ADOPTED A SUBSEQUENT RESOLUTION, AND (vi) DECLARING THE AGENCY TO BE THE LEAD AGENCY FOR PURPOSES OF REVIEW OF THE PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT. A motion was made by Mr. Wadhams approving IDA Resolution No and authorizing staff to move forward with a public hearing. Seconded by Ms. Bassett. Members; Brusso, Lorenzetti, Paolicelli, Bassett, Kime and Wadhams voted yea. Mr. Macinski and Mr. Kernan were absent. Motion carried. Approval of IDA Resolution No / Waterloo Restoration / Final Resolution: A copy of the resolution was provided to board members prior to the meeting. Mr. Aronson noted that the initial resolution was approved on January 5, 2017 and a Public Hearing was held on January 26, A copy of the public hearing minutes are included and made a part of this proposed resolution. Four people provided comments at the hearing. Two of which were in favor of the project and two were against the project. Comments of concern included supporting apartment development, the credibility of the developer, the time it is taking to enact plans by the developer and the timing of the development in view of del Lago Resort & Casino development. Comments of support included an understanding that development take a long time. The resolution includes a negative declaration for SEQRA, meaning the project will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. The resolution authorizes the financial assistance to the project in the form of a sales tax exemption, mortgage tax exemption, and a tax agreement for 15 years. The tax agreement consists of 100% exemption for additional assessments for 5 years, a 75% exemption for years 6-10 and a 50% exemption for years The benefits above are subject to and conditioned upon the Company obtaining all funding necessary to complete the Project, as identified in the Application, and delivering proof of said funding to the Agency. Mr. Aronson read the resolution as follows: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SENECA COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (THE AGENCY ) TO (i) UNDERTAKE A CERTAIN PROJECT FOR THE BENEFIT OF WATERLOO RESTORATION & REDEVELOPMENT, LLC (THE COMPANY ), (ii) NEGOTIATE, EXECUTE AND DELIVER A LEASE AGREEMENT, LEASEBACK AGREEMENT, AGENCY AGREEMENT, PAYMENT IN LIEU AGREEMENT AND RELATED DOCUMENTS, (iii) PROVIDE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO THE COMPANY IN THE FORM OF (a) A SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTION FOR PURCHASES AND RENTALS RELATED TO THE UNDERTAKING OF THE PROJECT, (b) A PARTIAL REAL PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT UNDER A PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAX AGREEMENT, AND (c) A MORTGAGE RECORDING TAX EXEMPTION FOR FINANCING RELATED TO THE PROJECT; AND(iv) EXECUTE A MORTGAGE AND RELATED DOCUMENTS A motion was made by Ms. Bassett approving IDA Resolution No Seconded by Mr. Wadhams. Members; Brusso, Lorenzetti, Paolicelli, Bassett, Kime and Wadhams voted yea. Mr. Macinski and Mr. Kernan were absent. Motion carried. 2 P a g e 2 / 2 / I D A M t g. M i n.

3 Approval of IDA Resolution No / NYS Dept. of Transportation / Authorization of Easements: A copy of the proposed resolution was provided to the board prior to the meeting. Mr. Aronson advised the board that in 2011 the Department of Transportation started the reconstruction of NYS Routes 5&20 in the Town of Seneca Falls. At that time the IDA entered into easement agreements on four properties held by the IDA known as Rodman Drive, Lamb Road, Routes 5&20 and Cayuga Street. The State is offering to pay the sum of $6,150 and are requiring a resolution from the board authorizing the Executive Director to execute documents on behalf of the IDA. Mr. Aronson then read the resolution. RESOLUTION OF THE SENECA COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (THE "AGENCY") RATIFYING AN AGREEMENT FOR ADVANCE PAYMENT AND AUTHORIZING ROBERT J. ARONSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE CLOSING PAPERS ON BEHALF OF SENECA COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY A motion was made by Mr. Wadhams approving IDA Resolution No Seconded by Mr. Brusso. Members; Brusso, Lorenzetti, Paolicelli, Bassett, Kime and Wadhams voted yea. Mr. Macinski and Mr. Kernan were absent. Motion carried Other Business: Mr. Brusso advised the board that the marketing workgroup, consisting of Mr. Brusso, Mr. Macinski, Mrs. Paolicelli and Mr. Aronson, met last week to discuss marketing efforts for Mrs. Paolicelli noted the focus of the meeting was on exploring how can we get out our message out in real time, increasing the IDA s Search Engine Optimization and updating the Website. It was agreed that a Request for Proposals from Public Relations firms needs to be issued soliciting plans for social media support services. SEQRA Review of Depot Sale: Parts I and 2 of the Full Environmental Assessment Form (including Section F Additional Information and maps) had been provided to Board members prior to the meeting for their review. Ms. Jones led the discussion on the review 18 questions of Part 2 as follows: Question 1: Impact of Land: Board members answered NO that the proposed action may involve construction on, or physical alteration of, the land surface of the proposed site. Question 2: Impact on Geological Features: Board members answered NO that the proposed action may result in the modification or destruction of, or inhibit access to, any unique or unusual land forms on the site (e.g., cliffs, dunes, minerals, fossils, caves). Question 3: Impact on Surface Water: Board members answered NO that the proposed action may affect one or more wetlands or other surface water bodies (e.g., streams, rivers, ponds or lakes). Question 4: Impact on Groundwater: Board members answered NO that the proposed action may result in new or additional use of ground water, or may have the potential to introduce contaminants to ground water or an aquifer. Question 5: Impact on Flooding: Board members answered NO that the proposed action may result in development on lands subject to flooding. Question 6: Impact on Air: Board members answered NO that the proposed action may include a state regulated air emission source. Question 7: Impact on Plants and Animals: Board members answered NO that the proposed action may result in a loss of flora or fauna. Question 8: Impact on Agricultural Resources: Board members answered NO that the proposed action may impact agricultural resources. Question 9: Impact on Aesthetic Resources: Board members answered NO that the land use of the proposed action is obviously different from, or is in sharp contrast to, current land patterns between the proposed project and a scenic or aesthetic resource. Question 10: Impact on Historic and Archeological Resources: Board members answered YES that the proposed action may occur in or adjacent to a historic or archaeological resource. In further discussion of this question, Board members answered NO, OR SMALL IMPACT MAY OCCUR for: a. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous to, any buildings, archaeological site or district which is listed on or has been nominated by the NYS Board of Historic Preservation for inclusion on the State or National Register of Historic Places. 3 P a g e 2 / 2 / I D A M t g. M i n.

4 b. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous to, an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) archaeological site inventory. c. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous to, an archaeological site not included on the NY SHPO inventory. Question 11: Impact on Open Space and Recreation: Impact on Open Space and Recreation: Board members answered NO that the proposed action may result in a loss of recreational opportunities or a reduction of an open space resource as designated in any adopted municipal open space plan. Question 12: Impact on Critical Environmental Areas: Board members answered NO that the proposed action may be located within or adjacent to a critical environmental area (CEA). Question 13: Impact on Transportation: Board members answered NO that the proposed action may result in a change to existing transportation systems. Question 14: Impact on Energy: Board members answered NO that the proposed action may cause an increase in the use of any form of energy. Question 15: Impact on Noise, Odor and Light: Board members answered NO that the proposed action may result in an increase in noise, odor, or outdoor lighting. Question 16: Impact on Human Health: Board members answered YES that the proposed action may have an impact on human health from exposure to new or existing sources of contaminants. In further discussion of this question, Board members answered as follows: a. The proposed action is located within 1500 feet of a school, hospital, licensed day care center, group home, nursing home or retirement community: MODERATE TO LARGE IMPACT MAY OCCUR. b. The site of the proposed action is currently undergoing remediation: MODERATE TO LARGE IMPACT MAY OCCUR. c. There is a completed emergency spill remediation, or a completed environmental site remediation on, or adjacent to, the site of the proposed action: MODERATE TO LARGE IMPACT MAY OCCUR. d. The site of the action is subject to an institutional control limiting the use of the property (e.g., easement or deed restriction): MODERATE TO LARGE IMPACT MAY OCCUR. e. The proposed action may affect institutional control measures that were put in place to ensure that the site remains protective of the environment and human health: NO, OR SMALL IMPACT MAY OCCUR. f. The proposed action has adequate control measures in place to ensure that future generation, treatment and/or disposal of hazardous wastes will be protective of the environment and human health: NO, OR SMALL IMPACT MAY OCCUR. g. The proposed action involves construction or modification of a solid waste management facility. NO, OR SMALL IMPACT MAY OCCUR. h. The proposed action may result in the unearthing of solid or hazardous waste: NO, OR SMALL IMPACT MAY OCCUR. i. The proposed action may result in an increase in the rate of disposal, or processing, of solid waste: NO, OR SMALL IMPACT MAY OCCUR. j. The proposed action may result in excavation or other disturbance within 2000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. NO, OR SMALL IMPACT MAY OCCUR. k. The proposed action may result in the migration of explosive gases from a landfill site to adjacent off site structures. NO, OR SMALL IMPACT MAY OCCUR. l. The proposed action may result in the release of contaminated leachate from the project site: NO, OR SMALL IMPACT MAY OCCUR. Question 17: Consistency with Community Plans: Board members answered NO that the proposed action is not consistent with adopted land use plans. Question 18: Consistency with Community Character: Board members answered NO that the proposed project is inconsistent with the existing community character. Ms. Jones advised the Board that the next step is to complete Part 3 of the Full Environmental Assessment Form which is the Evaluation of the Magnitude and Importance of Project Impacts and Determination of Significance. This effort will be drafted by Staff and forwarded to Board members prior to the March IDA meeting for their review, evaluation and determination. 4 P a g e 2 / 2 / I D A M t g. M i n.

5 Executive Session: None A motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Kime. Seconded by Mr. Wadhams. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 12:56 p.m. The next regular scheduled meeting will be held on March 30, 2017 at 12:00 Noon at Abigail s Restaurant Respectfully submitted, Stephen Wadhams Secretary pc: Margaret Li, Clerk to the Board of Supervisors 5 P a g e 2 / 2 / I D A M t g. M i n.