- By Noel Desch
- Opinions
Print 
First, the Lansing Central School Campus is included in the initial service area, as it should be, since it would be a major beneficiary of the public sewer system. The school facilities are served by 5 on site systems some of which are nearing the end of their useful life. These systems also occupy considerable real estate that the school district will need for building expansion in the near future. These on site systems are costly to operate properly and to replace even if land can be found to site them. The first year benefit assessment to the School District for public sewers would be $150,858 based on water consumption. This cost would be borne by taxpayers across the entire school district tax base not just by those properties within the initial sewer service area. The first year annual cost (if in 2006) would be less than $0.14/1000 of assessed valuation.
Second, is a misperception that current residential property owners would be subsidizing commercial and vacant land developers. Such is not the case. The Sewer Committee committed an exceptional amount of time making sure that there is a balance in the benefit charge formulae across all types of land uses. The draft engineering report bears this out. In the initial collection system 74% of the properties to be served are residential (440 out of 594) while 20% are vacant or commercial (119 out of 594). In the proposed payment formula only 43.5% of the debt load is residential (562 out of 1,291) whereas 19.1% of the EDU’s (247 out of 1291) are for vacant or commercial properties, in our judgment, a proper balance. Furthermore, contrary to Mr. Schabowski’s perception, developers will in fact have to pay for all infrastructure costs within their development just as would be the case for residential properties.
Third, is the misperception that property owners outside the initial service area will be paying a $148 “tax” with no benefit or any idea as to when they will get sewer service. As a benefit assessment, each property owner is buying a reservation of capacity in the trunk sewer that is sized to serve their area. Without that trunk sewer there is little hope of getting public sewer to several critical areas in the long term. However, Mr. Schabowski is quite right in stating that there currently is no specific plan for serving additional areas. While the extension plans could hardly be classified as “spotty or/ patchwork” the Sewer Committee is committed to prepare a 10 year plan for serving the additional areas. Thanks for your encouragement!
Finally, there are reasonable concerns about how public sewers will influence growth in specific neighborhoods and throughout the Town of Lansing. Even without public sewers Lansing is the fastest growing town in Tompkins County. Such will continue to be the case in the future with or without sewers because of the proximity of Lansing to the job markets. The current town zoning law allows development of higher density along Triphammer Road so it does make some sense to have a trunk sewer that would serve that area and therefore permit a corridor of growth to occur and allow Bean Hill (in “critical” need of sewer service) to be served initially. However, such a trunk sewer alignment would not permit service to the other areas in “critical” need such as the Lansing School campus, lake properties at Ladoga Park, Cargill, Gossett Center and the Rogues Harbor Inn area. In the end the overall system cost would be much higher.
Public sewers will allow development to be clustered with not necessarily higher density in every case. This is being studied by the Town Planning Board with assistance from the Tompkins County Planning Department. If done properly public sewers will offset the kind of sprawl that is occurring rapidly in Lansing because of the lack of public sewers. Property owners in the proposed sewer district are encouraged to participate in the deliberations of the planning board so that we come up with the best plan possible for the future of our town.
----
v3i6