This thread is humorous. Why does everyone have to be cynical? Both of these projects are great for Penn Yan in the long term. I think any inter-municipal agreement is great when it leads to this kind of investment.

Question again is this, is it good for the tax payers? That's the bottom line.

Big question is this, who's paying for it? It better not be the tax payers. If they are truly paying for this project within their tax dollars a problem exists.

The developer will pay the village $75,000 a year for 4 years and then $25,000 for each townhouse he builds plus pay for the cleanup, if he backs out then the county must pay for the cleanup and the village then can sell the property to some other developer.

The developer will pay the village $75,000 a year for 4 years and $24,000 for each townhouse he builds which will add up to a total of $1,1000,000. The Mayor told the local paper The Chronicle Express that the developer was putting $1,100,000 into the infrastructure which is not true, that sum is what is being paid for the property, The village is spending these payments on infrastructure to benefit the developer along with 10 years of the village's pilot and occupancy taxes plus a $2,000,000 grant\loan that the village taxpayers will pay back in the form of higher electric, water and sewer rates. The cleanup is minor and could of been completed years ago but the county has delayed it for some unknown reason. The village taxpayers were told by the Mayor and the village board that unless the county decided to share sale taxes with the village the village would not take out the $1,000,000 loan and that the Village, Milo, and the County would be responsible for paying back, that also turned out to be a lie that the Mayor has told the taxpayers of Penn Yan.

Without knowing the total dollar amounts I am not in position to be happy or complain about it. If you are talking long term I believe the Village will benefit down the road from that site being developed. Maybe we will be surprised and it will be in the long term best interest of the Village. I will give you an example of not realizing long term benefits.

Many years ago I was ordained to negotiate with the Village in attempting to annex all of Old Pines Trail property that was on the lake into the Village. At the time us residents thought it was the long term solution to replace our ageing water line. Every time there was a break in it we took up a collection and paid someone to fix it.

We did a petition to the Village board. The cost estimate of a new water line at that time was 225K. That was if it was replaced right then, which it didn't need to be. We told the Village it appeared there was a minimum of 35K in property taxes to be realized by the village per year if they annexed all the OPT lake property into the Village.

They shot us down, a Village trustee, who shall remain nameless told me: "the Village isn't going to be stuck with a 225K bill to put a new water line in". They wanted everything from Armstrong glass to Old Pines Trail annexed or they wouldn't consider it. I told him that Ritchie blvd had a new water line and they would not be interested in being in the Village as they wouldn't want another tax.

I told this trustee to do the math, the 35K was per year and it was only going to go up as property values increased. (can you say seven year payback!) He was too short sighted to see the long term benefit to the Village. I thank God that they were short sighted. A couple of years later Old Pines Trail became part of a new water district that was formed. Our problem was solved at a much cheaper annual cost than if we became part of the Village and started paying Village taxes annually.

Things are not always as they seem to be.

I'm not really sure what the specifics of the project are, outside of what has been posted on here, but from the sounds of it this is being looked at as a long-term investment. The Village and County taxpayers may be "stuck with the bill" on paper, initially, but you've got to look at the taxes generated by these new houses too. Not only will it provide a new housing option ... if these are retirees coming in, or moving from Village homes, it frees up housing down the line for those that need it (there is a shortage). You also need to look at the trickle-down effect. If these houses are going to be connected to the downtown core, you're looking at 30-40 new families/couples who will be spending locally. This also fails to mention the yearly tax income that will surely go up with 30-40 prime real-estate units right on the lake. So yes, while the Village may have to foot the bill initially, the project should be a long-term net positive.

Also, did I read that the State is pitching in funds too? That's $1,000,000 that the Village doesn't have to come up with to improve the infrastructure ... so that incentive may have finally pushed the local munis to act.

When is the last time that one of these long term investments lower the taxes, NEVER don't be foolish.

"J" I went on line and read the Chronicle article, doesn't look like anyone has sold out-yet. The Mayor made it very clear they were just meeting a filing deadline for the no intrest-low intrest loan. He said it doesn't mean they have to actually apply for it if they are approved to go ahead with it.

I do agree with MC that the time is now to get a commitment from Yates County to share sales tax revenue. There is no way the Village residents should be footing over a one million dollar infrastructure improvement so the PY boats site can be developed. Especially if there is going to be lodging, retail or anything that generates revenue for the County that the Village will not benefit from. Residential property expansion does not help the tax base nearly as much as commercial development.

The County and Village should be bending over backwards to get more commerical development going in Yates County.

As it stands now the County will reap all the benefits and the Village residents will be carrying the load!

Read the fine print within the numerous resolutions people.

Why are there numerous resolutions affecting the same project people??

PY is most certainly in concert with Yates County with respect to this project.

Some one tell us why Ivertson is not purchasing the Boat property from the village for his development rather than the Village of Penn Yan purchasing it from the county for $1.00?

It's not rocket science it's political pay off and the Village of Penn Yan tax payers are, in the long run are going to be stuck with the bill throiugh their water, sewer and electric bills.

Think not, read the fine print!!

When the Village presents the resolution to purchase that property for $1.00 (which is still contaminated) they better have a "Public Hearing" which will be subject to a "Permissive Hearing", which is State Law.

how about this MG to your bottom line regarding PY expanding its tax base with minimal cost upfront: Annex all the properties in & around Indian Pines Park into the village that are using the municipal electric & not paying village tax.

"J" I went on line and read the Chronicle article, doesn't look like anyone has sold out-yet. The Mayor made it very clear they were just meeting a filing deadline for the no intrest-low intrest loan. He said it doesn't mean they have to actually apply for it if they are approved to go ahead with it.

I do agree with MC that the time is now to get a commitment from Yates County to share sales tax revenue. There is no way the Village residents should be footing over a one million dollar infrastructure improvement so the PY boats site can be developed. Especially if there is going to be lodging, retail or anything that generates revenue for the County that the Village will not benefit from. Residential property expansion does not help the tax base nearly as much as commercial development.

The County and Village should be bending over backwards to get more commerical development going in Yates County.

As it stands now the County will reap all the benefits and the Village residents will be carrying the load!