Typeset from the PDF of the official document (read by OCR) — headings, motions and recorded votes are detected automatically, so spacing may differ from the original. The official copy governs.
1- PHONE: 315.435.3770 FAX: 315.435.3669 ONGOVED.COM Regular Meeting Agenda January 19, 2023 8:30 AM Call to Order the Governance Meeting of the Agency 8:35 AM Call to Order the Organizational Meeting of the Agency 8:40 AM Call to Order the Regular Meeting of the Agency
1. Syracuse Haulers Waste Removal, Inc. (3101-22-05A) Second Meeting Syracuse Haulers Waste Removal, Inc. is proposing new construction of an approximately 24,624 square foot transfer station in the Town of Dewitt. The
applicant is requesting exemptions from certain sales and use taxes, real property taxes, real estate transfer taxes and mortgage recording taxes.
Agency Action Requested:
a. A resolution of the Board to authorize adoption of SEQRA determination. b. A resolution of the Board authorizing the financial assistance the Agency will provide. Agency benefits requested include exemptions from certain real property taxes, real estate transfer taxes, sales and use taxes and mortgage recording taxes. Representative: Sarah Stephens, Consultant, SS Funding Sources
Empire Polymer Solutions, LLC and Empire Polymer Holdings LLC are requesting an increase to their sales and use exemption amount from $570,817.00 to $662,817 and an extension of the end date of their sales and use tax exemption.
Agency Action Requested:
a. A resolution of the Board authorizing an extension to and an increase of the Sales and Use Tax Exemption for Empire Polymer Solutions, LLC and Empire Polymer Holdings LLC.
Representative: Frank Murphy, President and Owner, Empire Polymer Solutions Page1
Onondaga County Industrial Development Agency $6,600,000 original principal amount Multi- Modal Revenue Bonds (Syracuse Label Co., Inc. Project) Series 2105 (Reissued) Agency Action Requested:
a. A resolution of the Board (1) approving certain Bond modifications and (2) selecting Hancock Estabrook, LLC as bond counsel for the Bond modifications.
Representative: Robert Petrovich, Executive Director, OCIDA
RPNY Solar 5, LLC has withdrawn its applications for financial assistance. Agency Action Requested:
a. A resolution of the Board acknowledging the withdrawal of the application submitted by RPNY Solar 5, LLC and revoking any and all financial assistance granted to RPNY Solar 5, LLC in connection with the project associated with the project number listed above.
Representative: Robert Petrovich, Executive Director, OCIDA
Agency Action Requested:
a. A resolution of the Board authorizing a contract with Eric Mower and Associates in an amount not to exceed $7500 for public relations/marketing services in connection with the development of White Pine Commerce Park.
Representative: Robert Petrovich, Executive Director, OCIDA 2 Page2
Agency staff is requesting authorization to issue a Request for Proposals for professional engineering services, which includes but is not limited to advice and assistance to the Agency regarding site development, engineering needs of prospective companies seeking to locate in Onondaga County, environmental engineering relating to site investigation and remediation, SEQRA, traffic studies, site selection, permitting, and representing the Agency in related project development matters, and related and similar services. Agency Action Requested:
a. A resolution of the Board to authorize the issuance of a RFP for engineering services. Representative: Robert Petrovich, Executive Director, OCIDA Adjourn 3 Page3
Onondaga County Industrial Development Agency Regular Meeting Minutes December 20, 2022 A regular meeting of the Onondaga County Industrial Development Agency was held on Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 335 Montgomery Street, Syracuse, New York in the large conference room on the first floor.
Patrick Hogan called the meeting to order at 8:03 am with the following:
PRESENT:
Patrick Hogan Janice Herzog Susan Stanczyk Steve Morgan Fanny Villarreal
ABSENT:
Victor Ianno Kevin Ryan
ALSO PRESENT:
Robert M. Petrovich, Executive Director Nate Stevens, Treasurer Nancy Lowery, Secretary Karen Doster, Recording Secretary Alexis Rodriguez, Assistant Treasurer Len Rauch, Economic Development Jeff Davis, Barclay Damon Law Firm Matthew Pelligra, Office of Economic Development Vince Raymond, VIP Structures Parminder Banga, Cryomech Rich Dausman, Cryomech Stephen Bowman, Peregrine Sarah Stevens, SS Funding Sources Andy Breuer, District East Ryan Benz, District East Kevin Pole, District East Catherine Johnson, COR Inner Harbor Mary Kuhn, County Legislature Christopher Bianchi, Syracuse School District APPROVAL OF REGULAR MEETING MINUTES – NOVEMBER 8, 2022 & NOVEMBER
Upon a motion by Janice Herzog, seconded by Susan Stanczyk, the OCIDA Board approved the regular meeting minutes of November 8, 2022 and special meeting minutes of November 29, 2022. Motion was carried.
Page4 TREASURER’S REPORT Alexis Rodriguez gave a brief review of the Treasurer’s Report for the month of November 2022.
Upon a motion by Janice Herzog, seconded by Susan Stanczyk, the OCIDA Board approved the Treasurer’s Report for the month of November 2022. Motion was carried.
Alexis Rodriguez gave a brief review of the Payment of Bills Schedule #476.
Upon a motion by Fanny Villarreal, seconded by Susan Stanczyk, the OCIDA Board approved the Payment of Bills Schedule #476 for $2,585,445.68 and a pass thru payment for $2,910.00. Motion was carried.
The Conflict of Interest was circulated and there were no conflicts reported.
Vince Raymond stated Cryomech is a very high tech manufacturing company that sells their product around the world. He stated there are good paying jobs with a lot of engineering and technical skills. He stated they built a new facility a couple years ago and they are experiencing continued growth as they continue to expand in their current market that use their Cryomech cooling equipment, but also has Quantum computing that has become a large part of their business. He stated they need more manufacturing volume so they are purchasing additional property and expand their building 30,000 sq. ft. for manufacturing end and about 4,500 sq. ft. for office.
2 Page5 Susan Stanczyk asked if a public hearing was held. Nancy Lowery stated the public hearing was held and there were no comment.
Jeff Davis stated with regard to the SEQR resolution it notes the project is a modification to the 2019 project with a Type I action. He stated it was reviewed by the Town and the Planning Board was lead agency. He stated the Agency is accepting, adopting and reaffirming the negative declaration issued by the Planning Board.
Upon a motion by Janice Herzog, seconded by Susan Stanczyk, the OCIDA Board approved a resolution authorizing the adoption of SEQRA determination for the Cryomech, Inc. Project. Motion was carried.
Upon a motion by Janice Herzog, seconded by Fanny Villarreal, the OCIDA Board approved a resolution authorizing the financial assistance the Agency will provide to include exemptions from certain real property taxes, real estate transfer taxes, sales and use taxes and mortgage recording taxes for the Cryomech, Inc. Project. Motion was carried.
Robert Petrovich stated it is his recommendation to table Item #2 on the agenda at this time. He stated it needs additional conversation with the applicant that staff wants to do offline and prepare it for subsequent meeting approval.
Upon a motion by Susan Stanczyk, seconded by Janice Herzog, the OCIDA Board approved a
motion to table the Tocco Villaggio III, LLC project. Motion was carried.
Patrick Hogan stated he would like to acknowledge Legislator Kuhn is in attendance and the Board always welcomes members of the County Legislature.
Stephen Bowman stated Peregrine is a $19 million 36,000 sq. ft memory care facility and unfortunately costs keep going up because of inflation. He stated without the Agency support 3 Page6 they would not be able to build this building which would be a great asset to the community. He stated it will create 200 construction jobs and 100 permanent jobs. He stated the competition is 100% full so without this new additional resource people would not have access to this kind of care. He stated their program is unique because unlike most memory care facilities they have a specific ambition about how an individual can maintain the connection to themselves through long term memory. He stated it is a unique program, a special program and a needed program. He stated they have built two identical buildings in the past at a cost about $5 million less than today’s cost so without the Agency assistance they would not be able to move forward. He thanked the Board for their consideration.
Robert Petrovich stated after review of this property it was determined to be a retail activity but the County Executive signed off on the retail exemption so there is no issues with the type of use going forward.
Nancy Lowery stated a public hearing was held and there was no one present but there is a letter of support from the Town of Manlius Supervisor who not only supports the project but also the PILOT.
Patrick Hogan stated this is a great much needed facility.
Jeff Davis stated with regard to the SEQR resolution this project was reviewed at the local town level by the Planning Board. He stated it is an unlisted action and counsel reviewed the environmental review done by the Town as lead agency and we are affirming, accepting and adopting the negative declaration that was issued by the lead agency.
Upon a motion by Janice Herzog, seconded by Steve Morgan, the OCIDA Board approved a resolution authorizing the adoption of SEQRA determination for the Peregrine Holdings LLC Project. Motion was carried.
Upon a motion by Susan Stanczyk, seconded by Steve Morgan, the OCIDA Board approved a resolution authorizing the financial assistance the Agency will provide to include exemptions from certain real property taxes, real estate transfer taxes, sales and use taxes and mortgage recording taxes for the Peregrine Holdings LLC Project. Motion was carried.
4 Page7
OCIDA PUBLIC RELATIONS MARKETING SERVICES.
Robert Petrovich stated like our relationships with engineering firms and law firms in the community, we have a stable of firms we draw upon as needs arise or as conflicts present themselves for services related to needs. He stated staff has determined, because of the Micron project in particular but other projects that come before us, that we have to have public relations expertise from time to time. He stated an RFP was issued and solicited proposals from a number of firms in the area. He stated 4 proposals came back, 3 were in compliance. He stated similar to engineers and lawyers he is suggesting the Board approve staff’s ability to have a stable of 3 firms they can call upon as needs and opportunities arise for these types of services. Steve Morgan asked if this will be an hourly basis. Robert Petrovich stated it will be task based with a scope and fee and we will figure out what to do from there.
Patrick Hogan asked if the firm will be fit to the project. Robert Petrovich stated depending on what the need is staff will go to firm A and ask if they can help us based on their expertise and if they can’t then staff will pivot and go to firm B or C. He stated everything will be scope and fee based and we will either accept the fee, negotiate the fee or seek another fee. Jeff Davis stated also if there is a conflict.
Janice Herzog asked if there will be a budget set for the total amount or ad hoc. Robert Petrovich stated at the moment it is going to be ad hoc but a budget will be established down the road. He stated the Board will approve the budgets. He stated fee quotes will come before the Board for authorization on the scope and the expenditure.
Patrick Hogan stated he would like to commend the Economic Development staff for coming up with this because there is a lot of misinformation out there. He stated it will be good to get our story out and the stories of the companies we deal with.
Susan Stanczyk asked if they are all local firms. Robert Petrovich stated yes.
Upon a motion by Fanny Villarreal, seconded by Janice Herzog, the OCIDA Board approved a resolution authorizing the Executive Director to enter into retainer agreements with the following 5 Page8 companies for public relations/marketing services on an as-needed basis: 1) Eric Mower and Associates, 2) ABC Creative Group, 3) Epoch Advertising Agency. Motion was carried.
Tino Amodei thanked the Board for allowing them to come in and explain their passion and mission as well as what they are requesting from the Board. He stated Armoured One is a security glass manufacturer and does active shooter training. He stated most of their focus is on K-12 schools. He stated the last couple years they have expanded their efforts past New York which means they are now shipping products to 23 states across the nation. He stated because of that they are expanding their capabilities and increasing their footprint in their building to include another lamination line to continue making the security glass but that has also forced them to expand their shipping and receiving. He stated the extension got delayed with contractors and materials for the last year and they are looking to get that extended so they can continue support their products in several of the other states as well as increase their labor force at Armoured One.
Upon a motion by Susan Stanczyk, seconded by Steve Morgan, the OCIDA Board approved a resolution authorizing an extension to the Sales and Use Tax Exemption for Armoured One, LLC and North Midler Properties, LLC. Motion was carried.
Catherine Johnson stated COR Inner Harbor is seeking a one year sales tax exemption for the Iron Pier building at the Inner Harbor. She stated the building has 112 market rate apartments which are fully leased. She stated they have about 36,000 sq. ft. of commercial space on the first floor they have been diligently leasing and building out their space. She stated they have 3 current tenants including Meier’s Creek that opened in January of this year. She stated they have about 10,000 of the 36,000 sq. ft. built out. She stated currently they are under construction for 2 tenants, Delmonico Insurance and Café Blue, and they will be opening in April. She stated with those being complete they will have about 19,000 square feet left to build out for their tenants and they are seeking sales tax exemption to continue for that build out for the remaining space. She stated they are not anywhere near their sales tax exemption cap which was authorized 6 Page9 originally so there is plenty of room on that. She stated they are seeking this extension to try and fill up the space and get additional tenants to complete the first floor commercial space. Susan Stanczyk asked where is COR in relation to the cap. Catherine Johnson stated the cap was $2.43 million and they are currently at $1 million.
Patrick Hogan stated COR has done great work at Inner Harbor. He stated the dream of the inner harbor is something we are all invested in and he thinks it’s going to come to fruition very soon. Upon a motion by Janice Herzog, seconded by Fanny Villarreal, the OCIDA Board approved a resolution authorizing the extension of the sales and use tax exemption for COR Van Rensselaer Street Company II, LLC and COR Van Rensselaer Street Company III, Inc. (COR Inner Harbor Company, LLC Sub Project 1). Motion was carried.
Andy Breuer stated they are encouraged by the reception and enthusiasm for this project they are seeing across the county and certainly across the Town of DeWitt. He stated OCIDA has established lead agency role and they are well under way with the SEQR application. He stated they need to formalize a meeting with some of the Board members. He stated revisions to the SEQR application will be submitted to the Board on January 13. He stated they have established a good back and forth with EDR and OCIDA’s consultant team which is JMT. He stated they have met extensively with the Town and in the process now of working through district zoning to make sure the density, building heights and setbacks all fall into an allowable zoning for the Town of DeWitt. He stated the Town has been very cooperative thus far and they have had a host of community meetings and for the most part feedback has been very positive. He stated unfortunately since April of 2021 they have done everything they can to consolidate two parcels that are not part of what the County can currently convey to OHB. He stated relating to Benderson and Macy’s they have attempted to negotiate with them since July 2021. He stated this past summer they finally made some inroads and they became more cooperative. He stated there is a reciprocal easement agreement with both properties that limits their ability to do anything absent their agreement to OHB’s master vision. He stated as it relates to Benderson, the holdup really is the parking. He stated Benderson feels they have the right to all of the 7 Page10 surface parking fields in and around their end of Macy’s. He stated in order to achieve the master vision OHB wants them to conform to their parking plan. He stated the parking allows them to achieve the multi-family housing density they think is necessary for the project and certainly seems to increasingly be a requirement with everyone’s optimism about Micron and otherwise. He stated absent eminent domain they are not confident it can be resolved positively and swiftly with Benderson. He stated they are continuing to have those discussions but they do need to ask for the eminent domain action to insist they come to the table. He stated relative to Sears unfortunately it has been more negative. He stated they have attempted to negotiate since April 2021 and made 3 offers. He stated they have not given a substantive counter. He stated in July 2021 they began a tax certiorari petition to request the assessment be reduced by the town because they think the assessment does not reflect the current market value. He stated their latest offer to them is 4 times what they believe it to be worth and it is over 2 times what they can find in any highest market comparable throughout the region. He stated despite that they have no subsequent counter or response. He stated they feel absent this action they cannot consolidate the property to achieve its master vision. He stated they do not take the request lightly and it is not lost in them that OCIDA does not take this action lightly particularly that it relates to Micron. He stated this is a delicate property and they truly appreciate the Agency’s consideration. He stated if it was not for 2 years of trying, they would hope not be in this position but they have done everything they can and they need the Agency’s help.
Jeff Davis stated if the Board recalls the County owns and is in the process to sell 3 parcels. He stated one is 53.48 acres, one is 10.3w acres and one is 6.6. He stated those are in control of the project, if you will, and there are 3 parcels that are not. He stated one is 1.67 acres (former Macy’s parcel), 1.85 acres (former Sears parcel) and .69 acres (former Sears Auto Center). He stated that is what the focus of the resolution is before the Board. He stated the resolution does not say the Agency is taking these lands by eminent domain. He stated the resolution is authorizing the procedural steps that must be done before it can be considered to utilize eminent domain. He stated the procedural steps are noticed and a public hearing is held. He stated we are proceeding under the New York Eminent Domain Procedure Law so the resolution the Board would consider is an authorization of the Agency and legal counsel, to take all necessary appropriate steps to proceed with the possibility of coming back before the Board for an ultimate determination. He stated the determination cannot be made until appropriate steps are done. He stated the resolution does not bind the Board of taking an action. He stated it sets the table to do that, to send out a notice and for a specific public hearing to be held, not like the ones we 8 Page11 typically do for the Agency but a specific public hearing under the New York State Eminent Domain Procedure Law.
Stave Morgan asked how recent has OHB been in contact with Benderson. Andy Breuer stated in the last week. He stated they have the draft language for the co-operating agreement. He stated they are trying to get it broad enough to work in all circumstances. He stated it has been more positive but they can’t have this drag on for another year.
Steve Morgan asked what our legal responsibility is. Jeff Davis stated the resolution before the Board right now there is really no legal responsibility. He stated the Board is authorizing to proceed with retaining any professionals, consultants and contractors necessary to provide materials required under the EDPL in connection with a public hearing and possible acquisition of the land. He stated it is to get a better understanding of what this could cost or determine cost in an eminent domain procedure. He stated also to facilitate, making surveys and doing anything that needs to be done on the property. He stated the 2nd part of the question is the Agency will go through the notice process, the public hearing process, take all the comments and come back to the Board for a SEQR determination. He stated there would be a determination of findings that this Board would have to consider and at that point is when the Board would decide whether to proceed with an action of eminent domain. He stated that is a legal proceeding that would have to be undertaken in the courts and papers to be filed etc.
Patrick Hogan asked if the cost would be born by the IDA. Jeff Davis stated the IDA is ultimately the Agency that is taking the action and ultimately would have to pay for the land. He stated there would be an escrow agreement in place with the applicant to cover those Agency costs which is consistent with how the practice is done. He stated all of the costs of the Agency to do everything on SEQR as well as eminent domain will be reimbursed by the applicant as part of that escrow agreement. He stated if the later vote is a determination by the Board to proceed with a takings proceeding then that would kick in further costs and those costs would be born and required to be reimbursed to the Agency by the applicant.
Steve Morgan asked what the approximate timeline is for all of this. Jeff Davis stated if the Agency got to that point assuming that the other parties opposed the eminent domain then that can likely turn into a 9-12 month process. He stated an eminent domain taking is a two part process. He stated the first part is the determination by a court that the transfer of title will 9 Page12 happen. He stated the second part is a determination by the court for the valuation. He stated those are separate. He stated the first part can go fairly quickly but the second part can take years and that is the actual cost and the valuation as to what should be reimbursed back to the property owners.
Susan Stanczyk asked if after getting through the first process stalls the second. Jeff Davis stated no. He stated the eminent domain process to create Destiny was done, the rights were taken and Destiny was built. He stated the valuation process is still proceeding.
Patrick Hogan asked if the two large buildings are in pretty good shape, are there code violations or back taxes. Andy Breuer stated he can’t speak for tax bills but both are in arrears. He stated everyone is kind of in purgatory because the County is not necessarily providing the common area maintenance and the tenants aren’t paying. He stated generally they believe the fit and finish of the buildings to be ample. He stated they both need to be improved for any use they would see. He stated the Sears building cannot remain in its exact state for the master plan because they think it is imperative to create a ring road internally which would be a road parallel to Erie Boulevard. He stated that would require them to truncate the east to west dimension of the Sears building. He stated it would be due for significant improvements.
Patrick Hogan asked about the parking space. Andy Breuer stated both of the parcels have direct proximity to the existing garage which has useful life to it.
Patrick Hogan asked who maintains the parking garage. Andy Breuer stated the garage would be conveyed as part of what the County now has. Jeff Davis stated it is on the County parcel so he assumes the County maintains it.
Robert Petrovich asked if Macy’s and Sears are structurally sound. Andy Breuer stated he believes so.
Janice Herzog asked if either of owners showed any interest in developing or are they just holding on. She stated it is not necessarily them wanting to develop but maybe for getting the highest valuation. Andy Breuer stated Benderson has shown more active interest in trying to develop. He stated both owners are actively marketing these sites. He stated there is a for sale sign outside of Sears right now. He stated the existing condition of the mall is not very attractive 10 Page13 to would be tenants. He stated OHB believes it is only attractive in the context of the master vision they have.
Janice Herzog stated it will certainly bring a lot of benefit to the community.
Robert Petrovich stated one of the things that has to be complete before any eminent domain action advances is SEQR. He stated the process has started and there is a working group established with Susan Stanczyk, Janice Herzog and Patrick Hogan. He stated the next meeting is scheduled to be held on January 17 from 2:00 pm to 4:00 pm. He stated there will be one more perhaps two in February to get through some of the SEQR issues.
Steve Morgan asked if the SEQR application has been submitted. Jeff Davis stated an application has been submitted and the first round comments from JMT has been provided to the
applicant. He stated the applicant is preparing a response to the first round comments and then that would proceed into the first workshop session. He stated the workshop session will include the Town and other involved agencies.
Andy Breuer stated there are no show stopper comments from any of the agencies including DOT and County WEP. He stated they are not drastically departing from the capacities and the uses that existed there when the mall was there back in its hay day.
Patrick Hogan stated OHB has put a lot of efforts and money into this. He stated he would like to see the County give the parking garage to the project because it costs a lot of money to maintain them. Andy Breuer stated it will be a tremendous asset to get the parking lot. Jeff Davis stated again the resolution before the Board to consider is authorizing the executive director, staff and legal counsel to perform the procedural requirements under EDPLR Article 2 and EDPLR Article 4 which includes the retention of professionals, consultants, contractors, sending out the required notices, holding a public hearing etc. He stated the time and date is to be determined but it is starting the process to take those steps.
Patrick Hogan asked Andy Breuer to give the owners a call after the meeting because this is a serious matter for the Agency to contemplate. He stated obviously the standing has to be broken. Andy Breuer stated the dialogue will not stop with the parties as long as they are willing. 11 Page14 Upon a motion by Janice Herzog, seconded by Fanny Villarreal, the OCIDA Board approved a resolution authorizing and directing Agency staff and counsel to take various actions pursuant to the Eminent Domain Procedure Law for the potential acquisition of lands and easement rights in support of the proposed District East development. Motion was carried.
Jeff Davis stated the resolution before the Board is authorizing a step related to White Pine. He stated the Board is aware the Agency has acquired a lot of land and one of the processes looked at and studied in the generic supplemental EIS was the need to do a zone change. He stated we need to take the lands that are currently not zoned industrial and request a zone change from the Town of Clay to industrial. He stated it was studied under the Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement and Findings Statement and talked about the fact that the property would be rezoned. He stated it was already studied from the Agency’s standpoint and nothing further needs to be done from a SEQR compliance standpoint from this Agency. He stated the resolution is authorizing the Agency to proceed with that request to the Town of Clay. He stated there will be some minor expenses with regard to that such as mapping and attendance at meetings. He stated it is a process the Town of Clay will have to go through and it will go through their Planning Board for review and recommendation. He stated the public hearing goes to the Board for ultimate determination to do the zone change. He stated the resolution is authorizing the Agency to take that step.
Upon a motion by Susan Stanczyk, seconded by Janice Herzog, the OCIDA Board approved a resolution authorizing the Executive Director to proceed with a zone change with respect to certain parcels of land located at the White Pine Commerce Park and complete all mapping, site plan and legal work necessary to submit and process the zone change request. Motion was
carried.
Upon a motion by Susan Stanczyk, seconded by Janice Herzog, the OCIDA Board adjourned the meeting at 8:51 am. Motion was carried.
12 Page15 _________________________________ Nancy Lowery, Secretary 13 Page16
PHONE: 315.435.3770 • FAX: 315.435.3669 December 31, 2022
Revenue / Expense / Income Current Period Current YTD Amount Change to Budget Operating Revenue 8,719 2,412,138 1,444,000 968,138 Operating Expense 73,288 698,712 800,000 (101,288) Program Expense 107,358 1,222,066 644,000 578,066 Net Ordinary Income (171,927) 491,360 - 491,360 Current Assets Current YTD Prior YTD Total Cash 4,050,336 2,973,587 Less Pass Through Received - 32,765 Available Cash 4,050,336 2,940,822 Receivables (less pass through rec.) 151,491 315,335 Grant Reimbursements - - Total 4,201,827 3,256,157 Receivables 0-120 days 150,491 > 120 days 1,000 Total 151,491 Page17 Onondaga County Industrial Development Agency Profit and Loss December 2022
Income
2116.1 Agency Fees 1,250.00 2116.2 Application Fees 1,000.00 Total 2116 Fees 2,250.00
2660 FTZ 5,500.00 Total 2655 Other Operating Revenue 5,500.00 Total 500 Operating Revenue 7,750.00
2401 Interest Income 968.73 Total 501 Non-Operating Revenue 968.73
528.003 OHB Redev LLC Funds Pass Thru 42,938.00 529 PILOT Income 32,470.46 Total 534 Pilot & Pass Thru Revenue 75,408.46 Total Income $84,127.19 GROSS PROFIT $84,127.19 Expenses
6406.50 Consulting Services 2,500.00 Total 6406 Other Professional Services 2,500.00 6407 Administrative Expense 73,288.09 6408 Meeting Expenses 252.52 6409 Conference Attendence 375.96 6410 Office Expense 783.19 6411 Memberships / Sponsorships 2,000.00 6415 FTZ 1,250.00 Total 6400 Operating Expense 80,449.76
6510.2 Site Analysis 26,663.75 6510.3 Legal 55,847.58 6510.5 Insurance 1,200.00 6510.7 WPCP Marketing 16,484.57 Total 6510 White Pine Commerce Park 100,195.90 Total 6500 Agency Program Expenses 100,195.90 Page18 Accrual Basis Monday, January 9, 2023 01:19 PM GMT-05:00 1/2 Onondaga County Industrial Development Agency Profit and Loss December 2022
6606 OHB Redev LLC Funds Pass Thru 42,938.00 Total 6600 Non-Operating Expenses 42,938.00 Total Expenses $223,583.66 NET OPERATING INCOME $ -139,456.47 NET INCOME $ -139,456.47 Page19 Accrual Basis Monday, January 9, 2023 01:19 PM GMT-05:00 2/2 Onondaga County Industrial Development Agency Balance Sheet As of December 31, 2022
Current Assets Bank Accounts 200 Cash 0.00 200.1 Cash - M & T Checking 3,167,892.06 200.2 Cash - M & T Money Maker Savings 891,351.94 200.4 Destiny USA Restricted Cash -8,957.82 210 Petty Cash 50.00 Total 200 Cash 4,050,336.18 Total Bank Accounts $4,050,336.18 Accounts Receivable 380 Accounts Rec.
380.6 A/R Fees, Lease & PILOT 183,961.46 Total 380 Accounts Rec. 183,961.46 Total Accounts Receivable $183,961.46 Other Current Assets
393.2 Nat Grid WPCP -2,636.00 Total 393 Grant Reimbursements -2,636.00 Total Other Current Assets $ -2,636.00 Total Current Assets $4,231,661.64 Fixed Assets
101 White Pines Commerce Park 25,143,125.50
101.101 CHA GEIS 1 267,452.05 101.102 CHA GEIS 2 219,439.36 101.104 GEIS Reg Plan Board Overview 19,797.74 Total 101.1 WPCP GEIS 506,689.15 101.2 WPCP Legal 69,774.25 101.3 Engineering Services 52,675.00 101.301 Temporary Access 4,055.44 101.4 Environmental/Demo Services 10,318.98 Total 101.3 Engineering Services 67,049.42
101.501 Land Purchases 1,160,063.57 101.502 Closing Costs 3,168.14 Total 101.5 Land Acquisition Costs 1,163,231.71 Page20 Accrual Basis Monday, January 9, 2023 01:22 PM GMT-05:00 1/3 Onondaga County Industrial Development Agency Balance Sheet As of December 31, 2022
Total 101 White Pines Commerce Park 26,949,870.03 106 North Salina Properties 0.00 106.1 435 North Salina 17,083.55 106.3 435 North Salina Building 634,421.53 Total 106 North Salina Properties 651,505.08 107 800 Hiawatha 604,840.42 Total 100 Land 28,206,215.53
104.1 Office Furniture 1,429.00 104.2 Equipment 4,589.00 Total 104 Machinery & Equipment 6,018.00 211 A/D Office Furniture -3,493.00 213 A/D Buildings -97,603.00 250 Investment in Real Property 6,180,006.00 Total Fixed Assets $34,291,143.53 Other Assets 240 Blue Sky Redevelopment 1,641.76 Total Other Assets $1,641.76 TOTAL ASSETS $38,524,446.93
Liabilities Current Liabilities Other Current Liabilities 600 Accounts Payable 0.00 600.1 Due to Related Party - OED 698,711.79 600.102 Due to BD WPCP 42,216.66 600.204 OHB Redev LLC Funds 357,062.00 600.205 Exp Pay Prev Period 13,521.03 600.206 Mileage Reimbursement 92.34 600.208 BlueRock Energy Agreement Deposit 25,000.00 600.209 Syracuse Rail Overpayment 500.00 600.3 Onondaga County Loan 25,400,184.22 600.31 Accrued Interest - OC Note Payable 2,129.00 Total 600.3 Onondaga County Loan 25,402,313.22 Total 600 Accounts Payable 26,539,417.04
602 Pass Thru Payable -525,000.00 603 PILOT Pass Thru 527,596.45 604 Other Pass Thrus -0.30 Page21 Accrual Basis Monday, January 9, 2023 01:22 PM GMT-05:00 2/3 Onondaga County Industrial Development Agency Balance Sheet As of December 31, 2022
Total 601 PILOT and Pass Thru Payable 2,596.15
631.12 Dewitt -14.88 631.145 Onondaga -3.03 Total 631.1 Towns -17.91
631.325 Jamesville-Dewitt -97.40 631.356 Syracuse 0.01 Total 631.3 Schools -97.39 631.4 Onondaga County -970.99 631.5 City of Syracuse -1,510.13 Total 631 Due to Other Governments -2,596.42 Total Other Current Liabilities $26,539,416.77 Total Current Liabilities $26,539,416.77 Total Liabilities $26,539,416.77 Equity 3900 Equity Unreserved 8,742,531.91 3901 Equity-Investment Fixed Assets 2,345,838.63 463 Reserve For Contracts 335,789.84 465 Equity - Unreserved 37,039.16 Net Income 523,830.62 Total Equity $11,985,030.16 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY $38,524,446.93 Page22 Accrual Basis Monday, January 9, 2023 01:22 PM GMT-05:00 3/3
PAYMENT OF BILLS - SCHEDULE #477 January 19, 2023
1. CRYSTAL ROCK* $ 43.52 Water, Inv#22196031 2. UNITED STATES LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY** $ 1,200.00 Policy #XL1634729 3. SYRACUSE DESIGN GROUP, LLC*** $ 360.00 Website Hosting Service 2023, Inv#6063 3. NYS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL*** $ 1,500.00 NY Loves Nanotech Sponsor, Inv#14139 5. NATIONWIDE*** $ 2,009.99 CLI Premium 8th Installment, Acct#7J2551 6. FEDEX*** $ 8.41 Inv#7-973-83900 7. BARCLAY DAMON LLP**** $ 688,002.87 Land Purchase 8. COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE $ 1,390.49 Roth Steel and 435 N. Salina 2023 Real Estate Taxes 9. BRIAN R. HALL RECEIVER OF TAXES $ 79,117.28 WPCP 2023 Real Property Taxes 10. NICOLE WALSH RECEIVER OF TAXES $ 2,328.29 WPCP 2023 Real Property Taxes 11. ONONDAGA CIVIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION $ 8,933.57 4th Quarter 2022 Rent 12. ONONDAGA CIVIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION $ 765.52 4th Quarter 2022 Internet & Copier 13. SYRACUSE DESIGN GROUP, LLC $ 250.00 WPCP Website Services, Inv#'s 6072, 5906 14. SEMI $ 975.00 Affiliate Membership 2023-2024, Inv#10-022633 TOTAL $ 786,884.94 *Ratification of Check dated December 2, 2022 **Ratification of Check dated December 21, 2022 ***Ratification of Checks dated January 5, 2023 ****Ratification of Check dated January 17, 2023 Onondaga County Industrial Development Agency Project Summary DRAFT 1/12/2023 1. Project Syracuse Haulers Waste Removal, Inc. 2. Project Number 3101-22-05A 3. Location DeWitt 4. School District East Syracuse Minoa School District
5. Tax Parcel(s) 033.-04-10.1, 033.-04-10.3, 033.-04-13.1 Village 0 7.Total Project Cost $ 4,767,275.00 8. Total Jobs 88 Land $ - 8A. Job Retention 78 Site Work $ 479,464 8B: Job Creation 10 Building $ 2,856,444 (Next 5 Years) Furniture & Fixtures $ - Equipment $ 1,136,367 Equipment Subject to NYS Production Exemption $ 285,000 Engineering/Architecture Fees $ 10,000 Financial Charges $ - Legal Fees $ - Other $ - OCIDA Incentive Analysis Syracuse Haulers Waste Removal, Inc. Project Description Fiscal Impact ($) Estimated Abatement $340,134 Sales Tax Abatement $205,167 Mortgage Recording Tax Abatement $10,804 Real Property Tax Relief $124,163 Estimated Investment $90,076,259 PILOT Payments $368,276 Syracuse Haulers, Inc is proposing to expand it's existing facility with a roughly 24,624 SF Project Wages (10 years) $63,115,627 transfer station. The project calls for an investment of over $5.5 million and include the Construction Wages $4,715,750 remediation of soil on the adjacent lot, site work, construction of transfer station and purchase of equipment. Employee Benefits (10 years) $18,540,698 Project Capital Investment $3,335,908 Agency Fees $60,591 Benefit:Cost Ratio 264.83 :1 Copyright Onondaga County Industry Development Agency, All Rights Reserved Page24 Syracuse Haulers Waste Removal, Inc. 1/12/2023 A) PILOTS Estimate Table Worksheet DRAFT for 10 years OCIDA estimate of current market value $ 695,000.00 Projected investment $ 2,856,444.00 OCIDA estimate of increase in value $ 622,430.01 OCIDA estimated value after project is completed $ 1,317,430.01 Taxes that would have been collected if the project did not occur $ 259,782.04 Scheduled PILOT payments $ 368,275.82 East Syracuse Full Tax Onondaga PILOT YEAR Exemption % DeWitt Minoa School Total PILOT Payment w/o Net Exemption County District PILOT 1 100% $ 3,660.19 $ 3,622.55 $ 16,442.25 $ 23,724.99 $ 44,972.68 $ 21,247.69 2 90% $ 4,067.75 $ 4,025.92 $ 18,273.08 $ 26,366.76 $ 45,872.14 $ 19,505.38 3 80% $ 4,490.15 $ 4,443.97 $ 20,170.58 $ 29,104.70 $ 46,789.58 $ 17,684.88 4 70% $ 4,927.82 $ 4,877.14 $ 22,136.66 $ 31,941.62 $ 47,725.37 $ 15,783.76 5 60% $ 5,381.20 $ 5,325.86 $ 24,173.32 $ 34,880.37 $ 48,679.88 $ 13,799.51 6 50% $ 5,850.74 $ 5,790.57 $ 26,282.58 $ 37,923.89 $ 49,653.48 $ 11,729.59 7 40% $ 6,336.91 $ 6,271.74 $ 28,466.55 $ 41,075.21 $ 50,646.55 $ 9,571.34 8 30% $ 6,840.19 $ 6,769.84 $ 30,727.37 $ 44,337.40 $ 51,659.48 $ 7,322.08 9 20% $ 7,361.06 $ 7,285.36 $ 33,067.23 $ 47,713.66 $ 52,692.67 $ 4,979.01 10 10% $ 7,900.04 $ 7,818.79 $ 35,488.40 $ 51,207.23 $ 53,746.52 $ 2,539.30 TOTAL $ 56,816.05 $ 56,231.74 $ 255,228.03 $ 368,275.82 $ 492,438.35 $ 124,162.53 Year 0 1 2 3 DRAFT Project Tax Billing and Payment Schedule Jobs 1. The anticipated PILOT Filing is Q 1 2023 Current/Actuals 78 2. Applicant will NOT receive a 2023-24 School Tax Bill in September 2023 Creation Goals 10 0 3. Applicant will receive a 2023 Town and County Tax Bill in January 2023 Total Employment Goals 88 6 2 2 5. Applicant will not receive a 2024 Town and County Tax Bill
Copyright Onondaga County Industry Development Agency, All Rights Reserved Page25 Page26 Page27 Page28 Page29 Page30 Page31 Page32 Page33 Page34 Page35 Page36 Page37 Page38 Page39 Page40 Page41 Page42 Page43 Page44 Page45 Page46 Page47 Page48 Page49 Page50 Page51 Project Description Syracuse Haulers Waste Removal, Inc. (“Syracuse Haulers”) and Hauler’s Facility LLC (“Hauler’s Facility”) (collectively, "Applicants”) are requesting assistance from OCIDA in the form of a PILOT, sales and use exceptions as well as a mortgage recording exemption. Due to the increase in material costs as well as supply chain issues, this expansion is significantly higher in cost than it would have been prior to the COVID pandemic; therefore, Applicants are seeking the assistance from OCIDA to ensure this project can be carried out. If OCIDA is unable to assist with incentives for this project the Applicants would likely significantly decrease the size of the expansion resulting in less job creation. OCIDA’s assistance will enable Applicants to , expand Syracuse Hauler’s footprint, acquire new equipment and increase its workforce.
Applicants intend to expand the existing 112,670 SF facility with a roughly 24,624 SF transfer station. Syracuse Haulers operates on three tax parcels owned by Hauler’s Facility (tax parcel ids: 033.-04-10.1, 033.-04-13.1 and 033.-04-10.3) with a combined acreage of approximately 14.03 acres. The three parcels will be merged to carry out the project based upon comments of the Town of Dewitt Planning Board.
The project calls for an investment of almost $5 million in site work, construction of the transfer station and purchase of equipment. Equipment includes a baler, which is used for the final finished product generated in processing waste materials and will be located at the project site as part of ongoing operations.
Once completed the project will include the creation of 10 new full-time jobs over the next 3 years to add to its existing workforce of 78 FTE’s.
Syracuse Haulers has outgrown its existing facility and must expand in order to continue growing its business and serving its customers. The COVID pandemic brought on a number of challenges to our nation; including a labor shortage, which Syracuse Haulers, like many in its industry are still recovering from. Therefore, it is essential that Syracuse haulers, expand its footprint and purchase new equipment to increase the amount of material that can be processed. Without this expansion and purchase of equipment, Syracuse Haulers will be unable to maintain the volume of processed materials or expand its customer base, ensuring the viability of its company and workforce.
Syracuse Haulers hauls and recycles both single and dual stream waste as well as construction and household waste. Syracuse Haulers processes waste and recycles material, bailing the final product. Syracuse Haulers utilizes cutting edge technology to ensure that it maximizes recycling capabilities for the waste it collects. Syracuse Haulers provides LEED services for green construction projects that need to divert from a waste facility. To date they have completed over 25 LEED certified projects with a diversion rate of 84%. This is all done at its existing facility located on Thompson Road.
Page52 Syracuse Haulers Profile Syracuse Haulers Waste Removal, Inc. (SHWR) has 30 years of experience servicing villages and towns with residencies from 2,000 to 15,000 under multiple trash and recycling municipal contracts. SHWR has proven its ability under contracts in the Town of Manlius (8,000 homes/7800 tons trash & recycling), Town of Cicero (10,000 homes/12,500 tons trash & recycling), Town of Geddes (4,200 homes/3,500 tons trash), Town of Clay (15,000 homes/11,700 tons trash), Village of North Syracuse (2,350 homes/2,800 tons trash & recycling), Village of Manlius and the Village of Homer (1275 homes/1330 tons trash & recycling). Collection experience includes trash and recycling both curbside and automated. Recycling both dual stream and single stream. SHWR additionally services residential homes in Town of Marcellus, Town of Van Buren, Cazenovia, Madison and others. SHWR has commercial service agreements with Syracuse University 12 years, New York State Fair 6 years, Wegmans Mkts 6yrs, multiple large apartment complexes, 4 school districts and over 2,000 commercial customers and growing. We provide services for trash, recycling, food waste collection and disposal.
SHWR operates in Onondaga, Madison, Oneida-Herkimer, Cortland, Thompkins, Cayuga and Jefferson counties.
DEC Permitted Transfer Station Facility Onsite since 2006. Our DEC permitted transfer station allows us to collect and transfer various recycle items and C& D (construction and demolition material), such as clean wood, metal, and sheetrock. We also provide LEED services for green construction projects that need to divert from a waste facility. We have completed over 25 LEED certified projects with a diversion rate of 84%.
Page53 Page54 Page55 Page56 Page57 Page58 Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1 - Project Information Instructions for Completing Part 1 – Project Information. The applicant or project sponsor is responsible for the completion of Part 1. Responses become part of the application for approval or funding, are subject to public review, and may be subject to further verification. Complete Part 1 based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to any item, please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information.
Complete all items in Part 1. You may also provide any additional information which you believe will be needed by or useful to the lead agency; attach additional pages as necessary to supplement any item.
Part 1 – Project and Sponsor Information Name of Action or Project:
Syracuse Haulers Transfer Station Expansion Project Location (describe, and attach a location map):
6223 Thompson Rd., Syracuse, NY 13206 Brief Description of Proposed Action:
Name of Applicant or Sponsor: Telephone: 315-4226-6771 Syracuse Haulers Waste Removal, Inc E-Mail: www.syracusehaulers.com Address:
6223 Thompson Rd., Suite 1000 City/PO: State: Zip Code: Syracuse NY 13206 1. Does the proposed action only involve the legislative adoption of a plan, local law, ordinance, NO YES administrative rule, or regulation?
If Yes, attach a narrative description of the intent of the proposed action and the environmental resources that ✔ may be affected in the municipality and proceed to Part 2. If no, continue to question 2. 2. Does the proposed action require a permit, approval or funding from any other government Agency? NO YES If Yes, list agency(s) name and permit or approval:
✔ 3. a. Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? __________ acres b. Total acreage to be physically disturbed? __________ acres c. Total acreage (project site and any contiguous properties) owned or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? __________ acres 4. Check all land uses that occur on, are adjoining or near the proposed action: □✔ Urban Rural (non-agriculture) ✔ Industrial ✔ Commercial ✔ Residential (suburban) □ Forest Agriculture Aquatic Other(Specify): Parkland Page59 5. Is the proposed action, NO YES N/A a. A permitted use under the zoning regulations?
✔ b. Consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan? ✔
6. Is the proposed action consistent with the predominant character of the existing built or natural landscape? ✔ 7. Is the site of the proposed action located in, or does it adjoin, a state listed Critical Environmental Area? NO YES If Yes, identify: ________________________________________________________________________________ ✔
8. a. Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels? ✔ b. Are public transportation services available at or near the site of the proposed action? ✔ c. Are any pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or near the site of the proposed action?
✔ 9. Does the proposed action meet or exceed the state energy code requirements? NO YES If the proposed action will exceed requirements, describe design features and technologies: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ✔ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 10. Will the proposed action connect to an existing public/private water supply? NO YES If No, describe method for providing potable water: _________________________________________ ✔ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 11. Will the proposed action connect to existing wastewater utilities? NO YES If No, describe method for providing wastewater treatment: ______________________________________ ✔ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 12. a. Does the project site contain, or is it substantially contiguous to, a building, archaeological site, or district NO YES which is listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places, or that has been determined by the Commissioner of the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the ✔ State Register of Historic Places?
✔ b. Is the project site, or any portion of it, located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) archaeological site inventory? 13. a. Does any portion of the site of the proposed action, or lands adjoining the proposed action, contain NO YES wetlands or other waterbodies regulated by a federal, state or local agency?
✔ b. Would the proposed action physically alter, or encroach into, any existing wetland or waterbody? ✔ If Yes, identify the wetland or waterbody and extent of alterations in square feet or acres: _____________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Page60 14. Identify the typical habitat types that occur on, or are likely to be found on the project site. Check all that apply: □Shoreline □ Forest Agricultural/grasslands Early mid-successional Wetland □ Urban ✔ Suburban ✔ 15. Does the site of the proposed action contain any species of animal, or associated habitats, listed by the State or NO YES Federal government as threatened or endangered?
✔ 16. Is the project site located in the 100-year flood plan? NO YES ✔
17. Will the proposed action create storm water discharge, either from point or non-point sources? If Yes, ✔ a. Will storm water discharges flow to adjacent properties? ✔ b. Will storm water discharges be directed to established conveyance systems (runoff and storm drains)? ✔ If Yes, briefly describe:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Existing drainage system on site _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 18. Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that would result in the impoundment of water NO YES or other liquids (e.g., retention pond, waste lagoon, dam)?
If Yes, explain the purpose and size of the impoundment:______________________________________________ ✔ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ _19. Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the location of an active or closed solid waste NO YES management facility?
If Yes, describe: _______________________________________________________________________________ Existing transfer station, existing metal recovery facility ✔ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 20.Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the subject of remediation (ongoing or NO YES completed) for hazardous waste?
If Yes, describe: _______________________________________________________________________________ ✔ _____________________________________________________________________________________________
I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF
Applicant/sponsor/name: ____________________________________________________ __________________________ Date: _____________________ Signature: _____________________________________________________Title:__________________________________ PRINT FORM Page 3 of 3 Page61
SUBM Date Project Name CHKD BY: SPR fee # Check# Natne/Date Narne/Date ENG fee:_Rcpt. # Check# Name/Date Narne/Date INFORMATION:
I. Name of Applicant (Principal Conta Scott Reed f illg. Proiect N,tanager l. sReed@syracuseHaulers.com Plf One:_
CitylSTlZi Syracuse, NY 13206 3. Propcrty Owner's 5ur"' Rocco Grosso Phone: 4. Property OWner'S AddreSS: 6223 Thompson Road CitylSTlZip Syracuse, NY 13206 5. Tax Map No. 033.04-1 3.1 Bldg. size-ZoningDist.: IND Total Lot Area' 6 0s 6. Licensed Des Robert J. Seigart il; RSeigart@Schopler.com l. Attorney (if applicable N/A 8. Is property in floodplain or floodway? Yes- No: x Or is property in Federal or State Wetland? Yes:-No' x 9. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE PROJECT: Include intended use(s) and facilities and proposed site modifications:
In general, all information is required. Check yes/no to indicate information included with application. Insert "NA" if item is not applicable. (Please refer to the Town of DeWitt Site Plan Review Design Guidelines on our website.) I Yes x No_ CURRENT, COMPLETE SURVEY showing all site/legal modifications to the property signed by a NYS licensed surveyor.
) Yes X No ARCHITECTURAL PLANS of the structure to be added or rnodified. 3. Yes x No_ SITE PLANS attd associated details of property and its modification & CD. 4. Yes No x Transportation permits and/or applications. (include copies) 5. Yes x No_ Copies of application, licenses, and/or permits from other governrnental agencies which have jurisdiction or funding interest. Specify agency(s NYS DEC Permit altached.
ORDINANCE PROPOSAL ORDINANCE PROPOSAL 53 and 96 Front Yarcl Setback 50 120 275 Parking Spaces F'f FT I-ot Coverage 80 40.8 % Side Yard Setback total
FT Building Coverage 50 /o
% Rear Yald Setback
Maxinrurn Height of Builcling 120 FT 36-4" 7. I am familiar with Town of DeWitt zoning and planning requirements and all NYS & Federal regulations for land disturbance and developmerrt. To the best of my knowledge this application and accornpanying docurnents are an accurate and complete description of irrtended changes subject property. I understalld that the Principal Contact will be the person corrtacted by the Town and the Town will rely on thi to wl licant and his/her agents and will coordinate all submissions to the Town Planning & Zoningofftce.
722 a o Si gnature of Owner (REQUIRED)/Date NOTE: SUPERSEDES ALL PRIOR APPLICATION FORMS Thank Youo Department of Planning & Zoning Staff Page62 Rev.5.l7.l7 PAGE 3 Short Environmentul Assessment Form Pslt I - Project Information Instructions for Completing Part I - Project Information. The applicant or project sponsor is responsible lbr the completion of Part l. Responses become part of the application for approval or funding, are subject to public review, and may be subject to further verification. Complete Part I based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to any item, please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current inforrnation.
Complete all items in Part l. You may also provide any additional informatiorr which you believe will be needed by or useful to the lead agency; attach additional pages as necessary to supplernent any itern.
Part 1 - Project and Sponsor Information Name of Action or Project:
Syracuse Haulers Transfer Station Expansion Project Location (describe, and attach a location rnap)
Brief Description of Proposed Action See attached Architectural Narrative Name of Applicant or Sponsor:
Teleplrone: p1S) 426-677 1 Scott Reed - Project Manager E-Mai1: SReed@SyracuseHaulers.com Address:
City/PO: State Zip Code Syracuse NY 1 3206 L Does the proposed action only involve the legislative adoption of a plan, local law, ordinance, NO YES administrative rule, or regulation?
If Yes, attach a narrative description of the intent of the proposed action and the environmental resources that may be affected in the municipality and proceed to Part 2. If no, continue to question 2. { 2. Does the proposed action require a permit, approval or funding from any other government Agency? NO YES If Yes, list agency(s) name and permit or approval:
{ 3. a. Total acreage ofthe site ofthe proposed action? 6.6acres b. Total acreage to be physically disturbed? 7.98 acres c. Total acreage (project site and any contiguous properties) owned or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? 14.03 aslsg 4. Check all land uses that occur on, are adjoining or near the proposed action:
5. El Urban n Rural (non-agricr.rlture) EI Industrial fl Cornrnercial E Residential (suburban) n Forest f] Agriculture I Aquatic E orher(Specify):
l-l Parkland Page I of3 Page63 5. Is the proposed action, NO YES N/A a. A perrnitted nsc nrrder the zonirrg rcgulations'7 r' b. Consistent with the adopted cornprehensive plan'? r'
6. Is the ptoposed action consistent with the predorninant character of the existing built or natnral landscape? { 1. Is the site of the proposed action located in, or does it adjoin, a state listed Critical Envirorrnrental Area? NO YES If Yes, identify r'
8. a. Will the proposed action resnlt in a snbstantial irrcrease in traffic above present levels? r' b. Are public tlansportation services available at or near the site of the proposed action? { c. Are any pedestrian accornmodatiorrs or bicycle routes available on or neal the site of thc proposed aotion'/ { 9. Docs thc proposed action nreet ol cxceed thc state energy code requirements? NO YES If the proposed action will exceed rcquircrnents, describe design features and technologies { 10. Will the proposed action connect to an cxisting public/private water supply? NO YES If No, describe rnethod for providiug potable water:
{ I l. Will the proposed action connect to existing wastcwater utilities'/ NO YES If No, describe rnethod for providing wastcwater treatlxent { 12. a.Doestheprojectsitecontain,orisitsubstantiallycontiguousto,abuilding,archaeological site,ordistrict NO YES which is listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places, or that has been determined by the Cornmissioncr of the NYS Officc of Parks. Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on thc r' State Register of Historic Places?
b. Is the project site, or any portion ofit, located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for { alchaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Otfice (SHPO) archaeological site inventory? 13. a. Does any portion of the site of the proposed action, or lands adjoinirrg the proposed action, contain NO YES wetlands or other waterbodies regulated by a fcderal, state or local agency?
{ b. Would the proposed action physically alter, or eucroach into, any existing wetland or waterbody? r' If Yes, idcntify the wetland or waterbody and extcnt of alterations in square feet or acres Pagc 2 of'-i Page64 14. Identifu the typical habitat types that occut on, or are likely to be found on the project sitc. Check all that apply Elshorcline I Forest ! Agricultural/glasslancls I garfy mid-successional flWetland El Urban E Suburban 15. Doesthesiteoftlreproposedactioncontainanyspeciesofanimal,orassociatedhabitats, listedbythestateor NO YES Federal government as threatened or endangered?
{ I 6. Is the project site located in the I 00-year flood plan? NO YES r' 17. Will the proposed action create stonn water discharge, either frorn point or non-poirrt sources? NO YES If Yes, { a. Will storm water discharges flow to adjacent properties? { b. Will storur water dischargcs be directed to established conveyance systems (mnoff and storm drains)'/ { If Yes, briefly describe:
Existing drainage system on site.
I 8. Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that would result in the irnpoundment of water NO YES or other Iiquids (e.g., r'etention pond, waste lagoon, dam)?
IfYes, explain the pnrpose and size ofthe inrpoundnrent:
{ 19. Hasthesiteoftheproposedactionoranadjoiningproperlybeenthelocationofanactiveorclosedsolidwaste NO YES management facility?
If Yes, describe { 20.Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the subject of rernediation (ongoing or NO YES completed) for hazardous waste?
If Yes, describe c7341 38, C734032, & C734064 { I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE AND ACCUITATE TO THE BEST OF
Applicant/sp ZL Signature: 1111". Projrct Manager PRINT FORM Page 3 of3 Page65 EAF Mapper Summary Report Friday, June 17,2022 9:04 AM : Disclaimef The EAF Mapper is a screening tool inlended to assist project sponsors and reviewing agencies in preparing an environmental 6.0 assessment form (EAF). Not all questions asked in the EAF are (latl0n answered by lhe EAF Mapper. Additional information on any EAF "df,J::o+ro: question can be obtained by consulting the EAF Workbooks. Although \(t 9. the EAF Mapper provides the most up-to-date digital data available to DEC, you may also need to contact local or other data sources in order to obtain data not provided by the Mapper. Digital data is not a 033.-03-09.1 033.-04-10.1 substitute for agency determinations. 033 0. -0+t 033" Nwsn -0+15
4.0 033.-0+17 -t 033--06-t 3,0
8.2 2.
lrtermag lf{CRE Erri Japarl METI, contri unrty GIS U Part 1 I Question 7 [Critical Environmental Areal Parl l I Question 12a [National or State Register of Historic Places or State Eligible Sitesl Part 1 / Question 12b [Archeological Sites] No Part 1 / Question 13a [Wetlands or Other No Regu lated Waterbodiesl Parl l I Question 15 [Threatened or :No Endangered Animall Part '1 / Question 16 [100 Year Flood Plain] rNo Parl 1 / Question 20 [Remediation Site] Yes Page66 Short Environmental Assessment Form - EAF Mapper Summary Report Architectural Narrative Syracuse Haulers is proposing the construction of a24,425 t SF pre-engineered metal building. The building at the roof peak will be 36 feet 4 inches above the finished floor.
o The purpose of the new building is to sort materials to increase recycling and decrease materials entering landfills.
r The primary sources of incoming material will be construction related. The facility will be able to track and report quantities of recycled materials for LEED Projects.
o There will be (8) eight new employees to operate this sorting process on completion of this Project.
o The annual amount of material being recycled and diverted from the landfill is as follows: o 2021 10,800 tons actual , o 2022 13,400 tons projected o 2023 14,750 tons estimated 10% annual growth o 2024 16,250 tons estimated 10% annualgrowth The existing site is 5.05-acres with an existing 1,L2,670 t SF transfer station. The proposal will include a subdivision to include two adjacent parcels to bring the total land area up to 14.03 acres. Existing traffic is not expected to change except for new employees. All values below are daily or weekly averages as noted:
lncoming Recvcling Trucks:
Commercial Recycling 9 per day a Roll-off Recycling L1- per day lncoming Trucks with C & D:
a Roll-off Trucks 4 per day a Special Pick-up Trucks 1 per day Out-Going Transfer Trucks:
a Scheduled Tractor Trailers 6 to 8 per week a On-call Tractor Trailers 3 to 4 per week a Single Stream 100 CY Trailer 3 per week a C & D 100 CY Trailer 1 per week MSW Coll n Trucks:
a Trucks that Leave & Return once per day 14 per day Other Vehicles a Employee Vehicles: 96 Employees Twice per dayL92 a Visitor & Delivery Vehicles 10 per day a Service Vehicles 5 per day Parkins For:
a 96 Passenger Vehicles a 46 Trash/Recycling Trucks Page67 s42165 a 7 Tractors a 12 Roll-off Trucks Hours of Operation:
a Monday - Friday 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM Satu rday 7:00 AM to 12:00 AM a Sunday Closed Page68 s42165 Page69 Page70 Page71 Page72 Page73 Page74
Direct Phone No.: (315) 565-4548 Direct Fax No.: (315) 565-4648 rpoyer@hancocklaw.com January 10, 2023 Via E-Mail ONLY Onondaga County Industrial Development Agency
Syracuse, New York 13202 Attn.: Robert M. Petrovich, Executive Director Syracuse Label Co., Inc.
North Syracuse, New York 13212 Attn.: Daniel Rosenbaum, Chief Financial Officer Re: Consent to Dual Representation Dear Bob and Dan:
The purpose of this letter is to request that both Onondaga County Industrial Development Agency (“OCIDA”) and Syracuse Label Co., Inc. (the “Company”) consent to our representation of OCIDA, as bond counsel, and as counsel to the Company in connection with certain modifications to OCIDA’s Six Million Six Hundred Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($6,600,000.00) Tax-Exempt Multi-Modal Revenue Bonds (Syracuse Label Co., Inc. Project), Series 2015 (Reissued) (the “Bonds”). OCIDA original issued its bonds on December 16, 2015 to finance the construction and equipping of an approximately 55,000 sq. ft. facility to the Company’s existing corporate headquarters and manufacturing facility located at 200 Stewart Drive in Hancock Airpark in the Town of Cicero (the “Project”), and related financing costs. The original bonds were reissued by the Bonds on November 16, 2016. The Bonds, as reissued, were originally purchased, and are currently held, by M&T Bank (the “Bank”).
The Bank has notified the Company that the Bonds must be amended to change the interest rate provisions. The Bonds currently bear interest at a variable rate based on the United States Dollar London Bank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) index. Commencing June 30, 2023, LIBOR will no longer be available as a valid interest rate index, so the Bonds and related financing documents must be amended to implement a new interest rate index known as the Secured Overnight Financing Rate, or “SOFR”. In addition, the Company has requested that the Bank: (i) release the Company and its personal property collateral from the general security agreement partially securing the Bonds; and (ii) consider extending the option date for the repurchase of the Bonds.
{H4982863.1} Page75 OCIDA / Syracuse Label Co., Inc. January 10, 2023 Page |2 Hancock Estabrook, LLP (“Hancock”) has served as legal counsel to the Company for many years. Hancock has also served as bond counsel and conflicts counsel to OCIDA from time to time. Hancock served as OCIDA’s bond counsel, and as Company counsel, in connection with the original issuance of the Bonds in 2015 and the reissuance of the Bonds in 2016.
As counsel to the Company in connection with proposed Bond modifications, our services will include, among other things, preparation of board of directors’ resolutions authorizing the modifications, review of transaction terms proposed by the Bank, and related documents, advising the Company regarding legal and tax questions, performing due diligence reviews and other work necessary to support any legal opinion, as the Company’s counsel, that the Bank may require.
Our legal services as bond counsel in connection with the proposed Bond modifications will include preparing the OCIDA resolutions, legal notices (if required) and other proceedings necessary to properly authorize the Bond modifications, preparing the documents required to implement the Bond modifications agreed upon by the Company and the Bank, reviewing specific details regarding the Bond modifications to confirm that interest on the Bonds, remaining tax-exempt under applicable law, and rendering our legal opinion regarding the Bond modifications and their impact on the tax-exempt status of interest on the Bonds. In accordance with our obligations under the New York Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys, we advise you of the following:
In our capacity as bond counsel to OCIDA, we will not be involved in negotiating the terms of the Bond modifications or in other aspects of the financing where the interests of the Company and OCIDA are expected to be in conflict or adverse to each other. Moreover, the standard indemnification provisions in the Bond documents, running from the Company to OCIDA, lessen any potentially differing interests among the parties. Therefore, we believe that our firm can adequately represent the interests of both the Company and OCIDA, and that such representation will not adversely affect our independent judgment on behalf of the Company or OCIDA.
If at any time in the future it appears to us that the interests of the Company and OCIDA are, or could become, adverse, we will advise the Company and OCIDA accordingly. In that instance, we may have to withdraw from the representation of both the Company and OCIDA in the Bond modification transaction. Examples of situations where the interests of the Company and OCIDA may become adverse include: (i) disputes regarding the scope of the Company’s duty to defend and indemnify OCIDA with respect to claims that may arise as a result of OCIDA’s issuance or modification of the Bonds; and (ii) issues regarding the payment and collection of OCIDA fees and expenses relating to the Bonds. In our experience, the likelihood of these or any other conflicting situations arising is remote.
We further advise you that any information gained by us from the Company or OCIDA, in our capacity as counsel, may have to be shared with the other party in the event that {H4982863.1} Page76 OCIDA / Syracuse Label Co., Inc. January 10, 2023 Page |3 information is material to the other client as it relates to this transaction. Again, in our experience, that likelihood is remote. Should either the Company or OCIDA prohibit us from making such disclosures, we may have to withdraw as counsel for both parties.
If our dual representation is acceptable to you, please indicate your consent in the space provided below, and return a signed original to my attention. You should consider seeking independent counsel prior to signing.
If you require any additional information or would like to discuss this matter further, please call.
Very truly yours,
Robert D. Poyer RDP/jsm Agreed to this ___ day of January, 2023
By: _____________________________________
Robert M. Petrovich, Executive Director Agreed to this ___ day of January, 2023 SYRACUSE LABEL CO., INC.
By: _____________________________________
Daniel Rosenbaum, Chief Financial Officer {H4982863.1} Page77 Onondaga County Industrial Development Agency Project Summary Draft 10/1/2021 1. Project RPNY Solar 5, LLC 2. Project Number 0 3. Location Manlius 4. School District East Syracuse-Minoa School District
5. Tax Parcel(s) 055.-01-10.1 0 7.Total Project Cost $ 2,418,575 8. Total Jobs 0 Land $ 145,475 8A. Job Retention 0 Site Work $ 85,000 8B: Job Creation 0 Building $ - (Next 5 Years) Furniture & Fixtures $ - Equipment $ 1,515,543 Equipment Subject to NYS Production $ 147,130 Exemption Engineering/Architecture Fees $ 61,533 Financial Charges $ 50,000 Legal Fees $ 15,000 Other- Solar Installation Labor $ 398,895 Cost Benefit Analysis RPNY Solar 5, LLC Project Description Fiscal Impact ($) Abatement Cost $ 224,192 Sales Tax $ 55,340 Mortgage Tax $ 12,200 Property Tax Relief (PILOT) $ 156,652 New Investment $ 2,979,452 PILOT Payments $ 94,345 Project Wages (10 years) $ - Construction Wages $ 435,300 RPNY Solar 5, LLC is proposing a 1.6 MW Solar energy system farm located on 6.95 acres in the Town of Manlius. Employee Benefits (10 years) $ - Project Capital Investment $ 2,418,575 New Sales Tax Generated $ - Agency Fees $ 31,232 Agency Legal Fees $ 6,046 Benefit:Cost Ratio 13 :1 Page78