Reminder: Planning Board Meeting Tonight at 5:30

The meeting will be held tonight, Wednesday, February 28, 2007 at 5:30 in the City Council Chambers.


Planning Board Agenda is available at the posting of Feb. 10th 2007. See Blog Archive on the left of this page.

SFC Presentation, Wednesday, Feb. 28, 6:30 - 8:30 p.m.Yonkers Riverfront Library Auditorium, One Larkin Plaza, Yonkers

DEVELOPER PRESENTATION -- Hear what SFC has to say about the future of business in downtown Yonkers

Developer Struever Fidelco Cappelli (SFC) is hosting another in a series of community meetings about the proposed redevelopment of downtown Yonkers. This time the meeting is focused on the Yonkers Downtown/Waterfront Business Improvement District and will include information about:

Economic benefits for local businesses
Use of tax increment financing for public improvements
The future of doing business in downtown Yonkers

What: SFC Presentation
When: Wednesday, Feb. 28, 6:30 - 8:30 p.m.
Where: Yonkers Riverfront Library Auditorium, One Larkin Plaza, Yonkers

We applaud SFC for holding these meetings and opening them to the public. But we also believe that we must constantly remind the developers that the citizens of Yonkers are paying attention. People in other cities have in some cases stayed on the sidelines and watched mega-development projects destroy the special character of a community in the name of "economic benefits for local business."

We can't let that happen here.

I hope you can make the meeting, and I hope you can bring some friends. The developers need to see that lots of Yonkers residents care about the future of their downtown.

Sincerely,

Ned Sullivan
President
Scenic Hudson

Imminent Eminent Domain?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/24/nyregion/24atlantic.html?ei=5070&en=d13bcc76b1ad7253&ex=1172984400&emc=eta1&pagewanted=print

Public Hearings on Local Laws March 1st 4:00pm Mayors Reception Room

Going Green For Good Reasons

http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070223/NEWS01/702230341/1025/news09

From the Folks at Patterson Crossing: Familiar Sounding Themes

http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070219/OPINION/702190310/1076/OPINION03

Please take the time to respond to the points Mr. Camarda has raised in this sad attempt to justify the Patterson Crossing atrocity. Below is a link to the Journal News website where you can submit a Letter To The Editor:

http://www.nyjnews.com/contact/letters.php3?address=letters

Remember that there is a 250-word limit for Letters To The Editor. Exceeding the word limit will result in portions of your text being selectively removed by the editor.

Thank you,

StopPattersonCrossing.com
Putnam County Residents Deserve BETTER!

Charter Revision Commission Wednesday Feb 21st at 7:00pm in the Mayors Reception Room

Click on Image to enlarge

Point Street Development Discussion Thursday Feb 22nd

Thursday, 22 Feb. at 7 pm Amackassin Gardens Cooperative, 295 North Broadway between Glenwood and Pine Street. Robert MacFarlane Group discussing the Point Street development along the Hudson river.

HELP BRING AFFORDABLE TECHNICAL HIGHER EDUCATION TO YONKERS

HELP BRING AFFORDABLE TECHNICAL HIGHER EDUCATION TO YONKERS


Would you like to help inspire Yonkers students to complete high school
by persuading the State University of New York to open an accessible,
affordable technical and engineering college in downtown Yonkers?

Join the Committee for SUNY-Yonkers

The Yonkers City Council has just passed a unanimous resolution
supporting the idea. The Chancellor of SUNY has agreed to consider it.
But to make it happen, we will need to mobilize representatives of
Yonkers’ business, labor, education, religious and grass-roots communities
to lobby SUNY, its Trustees, the NYS Regents, Governor and Legislature.

Would you like to help?

Next meeting of the Committee for SUNY-Yonkers:
7 p.m., Monday, March 12, 2007
Cross County Shopping Center Office of Westchester Community College
6 Xavier Drive, 5th fl
Yonkers

For more information: contact Julie Weiner
at jweiner123@verizon.net

Boyce Thompson Institute.

To read click on image

Empire State Development Corporation, Tricks or Treats?

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0707,robbins,75788,2.html

CDA Board Meeting is scheduled for Thursday, Feb 15th

A CDA Board Meeting is scheduled for Thursday, Feb 15th, 2007 at 4:00pm in the Mayors Reception Room.
The Draft Agenda includes the following Draft Resolutions:

1. RESOLUTION OF THE YONKERS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING EASEMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF BUILDING LOCATED AT 38 MAIN STREET AND DESIGNATED AS SECTION 1, BLOCK 501, LOT 18 ON THE TAX MAP OF CITY OF YONKERS, SUBJECT TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL

2. RESOLUTION OF THE YONKERS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING EASEMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF BUILDING LOCATED AT 36 MAIN STREET AND DESIGNATED AS SECTION 1, BLOCK 501, LOT 19 ON THE TAX MAP OF CITY OF YONKERS, SUBJECT TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL

3. RESOLUTION OF THE YONKERS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING LAND DISPOSITION AGREEMENT WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF WESTCHESTER, INC., FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF PURSER PLACE WITHIN THE RIVERDALE AVENUE URBAN RENEWAL AREA

We will also introduce Mr. Lou Kirven, the new Commissioner for the Department of Planning and Development.

Cupid's Arrow: Tomorrow's Planning Board Meeting Cancelled

Unfortunately, due to the potential inclement weather we are expecting, the Planning Board has decided to cancel the meeting for tomorrow night. The meeting has been rescheduled for Wednesday, February 28, 2007 at 5:30 in the City Council Chambers.

Yonkers Beware: How much has the City Spent?

http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070212/OPINION/702120313/1015/OPINION01

Boyce Thompson For Sale Again: See Agenda Below

Photograph Copyright Martin McGloin ©2007. All rights reserved

Real Estate Committee Meeting. Tuesday, February 13, 2007 at 6:00 P.M.

Please be advised that a Real Estate Committee Meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday, February 13, 2007 at 6:00 P.M. in the City Council Conference Room, City Hall, Fourth Floor, Room 406. The following items will be on the agenda:

1. Donna Giambrone Ingram appointment to Landmarks Board

2. Conveyance of 193 Ashburton Avenue to provide relocation housing for Mulford Gardens Hope VI Project;

3. Special Use Permit for Petsmart located at 2458 Central Park Avenue

4. Approval of Boyce Thompson Purchase Agreement and Restrictive Covenant

5. Any additional items that may properly come before this committee.

Please make every effort to attend.


Thank you.

Dennis M. Robertson Chairman, Real Estate Committee

Chuck Lesnick Co-Chairman, Real Estate Committee

Planning Board Agenda for Wednesday FEBRUARY 14, 2007 AT 5:30 P.M

AGENDA: FOR A REGULAR MEETING OF THE YONKERS PLANNING BOARD TO BE HELD ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2007 AT 5:30 P.M. IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, 4TH FLOOR, YONKERS, NY.

PLEASE NOTE: ANY MATTER REQUIRING A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE
HEARD AFTER 7 P.M. ITEMS MAY BE TAKEN OUT OF ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE PUBLIC COMMENT.

MINUTES:
1. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING BOARD
MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 13, 2006.

2. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING BOARD
MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 10, 2007.
OLD BUSINESS:

SITE PLAN 3. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A PARKING LOT
REVIEW AT BLOCK: 5039 LOT: 16 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 829 MIDLAND AVENUE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE

JOHN SPENCER, JR., REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL

OFFICIAL 4. REFERRAL FROM THE YONKERS CITY COUNCIL
MAP ACTION REGARDING A REQUEST TO REMOVE THE REMAINDER OF A PAPER STREET KNOWN AS STONE AVENUE
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED
LEAD AGENCY: CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL

ZONING 5. REFERRAL FROM THE YONKERS CITY COUNCIL
AMENDMENT FOR A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO HOUSING LOCATION FOR REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS
A. SEQRA: TYPE I ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL

SITE PLAN 6. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A PROPOSED
REVIEW HANDICAPPED RAMP AND ACCESS STAIRS AT BLOCK: 2359 LOT: 24 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 10-16 LOCKWOOD AVENUE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE

THOMAS HAYNES, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL

SUBDIVISION 7. PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW FOR A PROPOSED
APPLICATION THREE LOT SUBDIVISION AT BLOCK: 6351
PUBLIC HEARING LOTS: 28 & 29 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 25
(CONTINUED) THURTON PLACE PURSUANT TO THE CITY OF
YONKERS SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS

MICHAEL MCGARVEY, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED)
B. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL

SITE PLAN 8. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A PROPOSED
REVIEW SELF STORAGE FACILITY BLOCK: 5425 LOT: 124 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 300 FULLERTON AVENUE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE

MICHAEL CALVI, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL

SITE PLAN 9. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A PROPOSED
REVIEW 4 CAR GARAGE AT BLOCK: 2079 LOT: 51 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 38-40 VINEYARD AVENUE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE

NUNZIO PIETROSANTI, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL

SUBDIVISION 10. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO PLANNING BOARD
AMENDMENT CONDITIONS TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISION AT BLOCK: 4859 LOT: 1 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 70 MORROW AVENUE PURSUANT TO THE CITY OF YONKERS SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS

DAN HOLLIS, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL

SITE PLAN 11. SITE PLAN REVIEW AND PROPOSED CHANGE TO
REVIEW SWEP COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR A PROPOSED CHANGE TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED HOTEL SITE PLAN AT BLOCK: 3455 LOT: 80 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 7 EXECUTIVE BOULEVARD PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE

AL DELBELLO, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
B. COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
C. DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL

SITE PLAN 12. SITE PLAN REVIEW AND PROPOSED CHANGE TO
REVIEW SWEP COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR A PROPOSED COMMERCIAL LAUNDRY (CINTAS) FACILITY AT BLOCK: 3455 LOT: 1 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 325 CORPORATE BOULEVARD PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE

AL DELBELLO, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
B. COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
NEW BUSINESS:

OFFICIAL 13. REFERRAL FROM THE YONKERS CITY COUNCIL
MAP ACTION REGARDING A REQUEST TO DISCONTINUE A PAPER STREET KNOWN AS FREMONT STREET
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED
LEAD AGENCY: CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL

ZONING 14. REFERRAL FROM THE YONKERS CITY COUNCIL
AMENDMENT FOR A PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE FROM A “T” ZONE TO AN “IP” ZONE AT BLOCK: 3360 LOT: 100 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 101 TRUMAN AVENUE
A. SEQRA: TYPE I ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL

OFFICIAL 15. REFERRAL FROM THE YONKERS CITY COUNCIL
MAP ACTION REGARDING A REQUEST TO DISCONTINUE A PAPER STREET KNOWN AS COURTSIDE TERRACE
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED
LEAD AGENCY: CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL

SPECIAL USE 16. SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW
PERMIT/ SITE FOR PROPOSED PHILANTHROPIC USE WITH
PLAN REVIEW/ SOCIAL SERVICE AT BLOCK: 124 LOTS: 42-46 ON
PUBLIC HEARING THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 485 AKA 487 SOUTH
BROADWAY PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX AND
ARTICLE VII OF THE YONKERS ZONING
ORDINANCE.

JEFFREY BUSS, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. PUBLIC HEARING
B. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW

SITE PLAN 17. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A PROPOSED
REVIEW ADDITION TO AN ELECTRICAL SERVICE ROOM AT BLOCK: 2172 LOTS: 17-28 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 1 FATHER FINIAN SULLIVAN DRIVE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE

STUART MARKOWITZ, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL

SITE PLAN 18. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR HILLVIEW RESERVOIR
REVIEW AT BLOCK: 8002 LOT: 1 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 100 CENTRAL PARK AVENUE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE

RICHARD ZUNINO AND SANDRA JACKSON, REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW

SITE PLAN 19. AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE
AMENDMENT PLAN OF THE HOPE VI SITE B PROJECT AT BLOCK:
2079 LOT: 29 ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 193 ASHBURTON AVENUE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE YONKERS ZONING ORDINANCE

ALFRED DELBELLO, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPOSAL
A. SEQRA: UNLISTED ACTION
LEAD AGENCY: PLANNING BOARD
DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL


OTHER 20. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR A PREVIOUSLY
BUSINESS APPROVED SITE PLAN AT 34 HIGHLAND AVENUE

21. REVIEW OF CROSS COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER
STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS

22. SCHEDULE WORK SESSIONS AS NECESSARY

Public Hearing on amended lease agreement 10:30 Feb 12th

To enlarge click on image



















From Journal News Legal Notices Feb 5th 2007

HAND IT OVER: Freedom of Information Law dispute.

http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070209/NEWS02/702090381/1018/NEWS02

SFC Responses to Questions Regarding the TIF Projections

SFC Responses to Questions Regarding the TIF Projections
February 5th, 2007

Memo: Questions for SFC Regarding the TIF Projections

From: Councilmember Dennis Robertson, Real Estate Committee Chairman and, Council President Chuck Lesnick, Real Estate Committee Co-Chair

To: Struever Fidelco Cappelli LLC


The following questions are regarding the proposed TIF survey area and the Phase 1 TIF Bond Projections submitted by MuniCap, Inc.


1. The TIF District as drawn is significantly larger than the SFC proposed development area to include almost all of downtown Yonkers, yet SFC’s bond projections exclude revenue from this area entirely. What is the projected future tax revenue from that other area and why is it being included in the TIF District? If this extra tax revenue is included in the projections, what % of the TIF revenue do the Developers need to cover the debt service?

1.1 Draft TIF boundaries have been drawn in such a way so as to mirror the phase I redevelopment proposed by SFC. We have not included revenues outside the new development to date since there is less certainty in these revenues and we want to make sure the bonds work with revenues in from our phase I projects only. The revenues provided to the city are conservative in that they do not include these extra tax revenues.

2. The TIF Projections assume an increase of 4% in property taxes every year for 30 years in Yonkers and in Westchester. What if Yonkers (or Westchester) does not raise property taxes at that rate?

2.1 We have used a rate that is less than the Yonkers historical rate in tax increases. The projected taxes are conservative based on historical experience. We can be confident that the costs of government will go up in future years. If this increase is less than four percent per year, it is hard to imagine it will be much less. In any case, the bonds do not require an increase of four percent per year for there to be sufficient tax revenues to repay the bonds. Future excess revenues to the city and county will be less if real property taxes rates are increased by less than four percent per year; however, this will be an indication that the costs of governments services are going up by less as well.


3. What if unexpected infrastructure or traffic mitigation expenses arise, who will pay and how for the amount over the projected $160 million?

3.1 As stated in section 1.7 of the MDDA, “It is currently contemplated that the cost of the Infrastructure required for the Proposed Projects, will be funded with: (i) Public Funding in the form of federal, state, and other grants and/or subsidies, without direct cost (other than in connection with TIF programs) to the Municipal Entities or the respective Project Entities.

4. Why don’t the SFC TIF projections include the Property Tax Revenue from the Baseball Stadium?

4.1 The baseball stadium financing and ownership structure has conceptually envisioned a non-for-profit entity holding title, therefore to be conservative in our projections, we have excluded any real estate increment from the ball park.

5. The SFC TIF projections assume a 5% vacancy rate for the residential, retail, and commercial space. They also estimate that apartments will average $2,422 in monthly rent. Are those vacancy rates reasonable?

5.1 A 5% vacancy rate for residential, retail, and commercial development is a typical assumption utilized for financial models beginning in the 1st stabilized year. (To be verified by the City’s consultants)

6. Is $22,500 for the construction of each parking space a reasonable estimate? How did SFC come up with that number?

6.1 As you are aware, Cappelli and or its affiliates have developed and built more structured parking facilities in Westchester County than any other developer. Our most recent structured parking development, City Center garage in White Plains, followed this assumption.

7. The SFC numbers projects a surplus of about $80 million over the amount needed for the debt service. What happens to this surplus money and must it be spent on the TIF district?

7.1 All surplus revenues will go directly to the appropriate taxing jurisdictions. Pursuant to Section 970-p(a)(iii) of the Municipal Redevelopment Law, whenever the tax increment collected by the City exceeds the amount necessary to service the debt, the excess amount of taxes “shall be paid into the funds of the respective municipalities as taxes on all other real property are paid.” There is no restriction on the use of the excess taxes, which can be used for the same purposes and in the same manner as any other real property taxes collected by the City.

8. Under what circumstances will an existing property owner’s property taxes increase if the TIF district is established?

8.1 An existing property owner’s taxes will increase only for the same reasons and under the same circumstances that taxes would increase if the property was not in a Municipal Redevelopment Project area (a “TIF district”), i.e., if the property owner improves the property and increases its assessed value. The establishment of a TIF district does not affect the assessed values of existing properties in the district.

9. Does the TIF district increase the threat that eminent domain will be used against properties that do not make improvements that would bring their properties up to the “new and improved” standards set by the new development?

9.1 No. The establishment of a TIF district does not increase the threat that any property would be condemned. The exercise of eminent domain is always solely within the discretion of the City Council. SFC has informed the City Council that it will not request that the City Council exercise eminent domain unless an owner of property within the SFC phase I project area is recalcitrant or where public improvements will be required.

10. Are there ways to structure the TIF to help address the issues that affect other property owners in the TIF district? How, if at all, have TIF plans in other cities addressed these issues?

10.1 The Redevelopment Plan adopted by the City would be a plan for the entire Municipal Redevelopment Project area, and not just for the SFC phase I project. The tax increment collected from the Municipal Redevelopment Project area can be utilized to issue tax increment bonds the proceeds of which can be used for any public improvements or services “integral to” the final Redevelopment Plan approved by the City Council, which will be improvements and services which benefit existing property owners as well as SFC (See Section 970-o(h)(iv) of the Municipal Redevelopment Law.)

11. Does creation of a TIF district require that the property within the district be designated as “blighted”? Within the proposed TIF district what, if any, portions are presently legally designated as “blighted”? What are the legal ramifications for property owners in a district that is designated as blighted? Does the blight designation increase their risk of eminent domain being used to take their property?

11.1 The term “blighted area” is defined in Section 970-c(a) of the Municipal Redevelopment Law as follows:

“Blighted area means an area within a municipality in which one or more of the following conditions exist: (i) a predominance of buildings and structures which are deteriorated or unfit or unsafe for use and occupancy; or (ii) a predominance of economically unproductive lands, buildings or structures, the redevelopment of which is needed to prevent further deterioration which would jeopardize the economic well being of the people” (emphasis added).

A Municipal Redevelopment Project area must be an area which meets these criteria. However, the project area may also include properties “which are not detrimental or inimical to the public health, safety or welfare, but whose inclusion is found necessary by the municipality for the effective redevelopment of the area of which they are a part” (Section 970-c(g) of the Municipal Redevelopment Law).

Almost all of the properties within the proposed Municipal Redevelopment Project area are already within the Getty Square Urban Renewal Plan area and the Riverview Urban Renewal Plan area, and have therefore already been determined by the City to be in a blighted area within the meaning of the State Urban Renewal Law. The criteria for designation as blighted under that law and under the Municipal Redevelopment Law are essentially the same, so placing those properties within a Municipal Redevelopment Project area is consistent with prior determinations by the City, and does not have any materially different ramifications to the owners of those properties.

The City already has the power to condemn under the Getty Square Urban Renewal Plan and Riverview Urban Renewal Plan. The few properties that are not currently in those areas but are proposed to be within the Municipal Redevelopment Project area would be subject to condemnation for a proper public purpose. However, the establishment of a TIF district does not increase the threat that any property would be condemned. The exercise of eminent domain is always solely within the discretion of the City Council. SFC has informed the City Council that it will not request that the City Council exercise eminent domain unless an owner of property within the SFC project area or on which new public improvements and/or infrastructure will be constructed is recalcitrant.

12. Does the power to “acquire property” using TIF revenues refer only to the acquisition of property through eminent domain?

12.1. No. Upon the adoption of the Redevelopment plan, the City may “purchase, lease, obtain option upon, acquire by gift, grant, bequest, devise or otherwise, any real or personal property, any interest in property, and any improvements on it, or acquire real property by eminent domain” (Section 970-i(a) of the Municipal Redevelopment Law).

13. Who will control and/or administrate the proposed TIF plan? What are their powers? What local government agency in Yonkers would be assigned the administrative powers that come with the creation of a TIF such as: 1) acquire property; 2) relocate displaced individuals; 3) demolish or move buildings; 3) prepare a site for redevelopment?

13.1 Approval of the Redevelopment Plan and any amendments to the Plan is solely within the jurisdiction of the City Council. Under the Municipal Redevelopment Law, the powers to acquire property, demolish buildings, prepare sites for redevelopment, and sell property are all granted to the “municipality.” Presumably, those powers would be exercised by the City in the same manner they are exercised in all other circumstances, subject, however, to the provisions of the approved Redevelopment Plan.

The Redevelopment Plan approved by the City Council must provide a plan for relocation of persons displaced from housing in the project area. Pursuant to Section 970-j of the Municipal Redevelopment Law, the City Council prepares the relocation plan, but may presumably delegate administration of the relocation plan to any City agency or department it deems appropriate.