Letters of Support, Testimony, & Position Statements
letter-Senate-ICIP-08-06-04
Published on Jun 5, 2008 by
June 5, 2008
The Honorable Joseph L. Bruno
Majority Leader
New York State Senate
Legislative Office Building, Room 909
Albany, NY 12247
Re: S6366 (Padavan) AN ACT to amend the real property tax law, in relation to tax abatement for industrial and commercial work on properties in a city of one million or more persons
Dear Senator Bruno:
On behalf of the New York Building Congress, I am writing in support of
Consolidated Edison, Inc.’s Memorandum in Opposition to A6366, dated May 29, 2008.
Specifically, Con Edison opposes the provisions in S6366 that would exclude utility property and equipment from eligibility for real property tax abatements under a program designed to replace the current Industrial and Commercial Incentive Program (ICIP), which is due to sunset on June 30, 2008. For more than 22 years, utility companies have been eligible to receive property tax exemptions under the ICIP, and the Building Congress shares Con Edison’s concerns about the economic consequences of the bill’s proposed exclusion.
As a coalition of businesses, labor, associations and governmental organizations representing the common interests of New York City’s design, construction and real estate industry, the Building Congress understands the value of tax incentive programs like the ICIP in bringing projects that stimulate economic activity to fruition. These programs become increasingly important in an uncertain economy. In New York City, where construction costs have been escalating at a rate of approximately one percent per month and infrastructure investment is needed to meet the energy demands of a growing population, the impact of excluding utility companies from the ICIP could be serious.
Loss of the availability of the ICIP property tax exemption, Con Edison explains, would be a direct tax increase on the company and its customers. The increased property tax burden will cause energy costs to rise even higher, making New York a less attractive place to live and do business. Increased costs could also detrimentally affect Con Edison’s ability to invest in existing and new infrastructure. Never has that investment been needed more.
As detailed in the Building Congress report, Electricity Outlook, New York City will need between 6,000 to 7,000 megawatts of new electricity resources over the next 20 years to satisfy the demands of the comprehensive residential and commercial development proposed or underway Citywide, and to support continued economic growth and a population that is expected to increase by approximately one million more people. New York City will not be able to assure its competitive position without new electric generation capacity, transmission and distribution resources. A robust and reliable energy infrastructure is essential for the future economic well being of the City.
While the Building Congress supports continuation of the ICIP, we also support the continued eligibility of utility companies for tax exemptions under the program and urge you, working with your colleagues in the Senate, to preserve it.
Sincerely,
Richard T. Anderson
President
cc:
The Honorable Frank Padavan, New York State Senate
The Honorable Serphin Maltese, New York State Senate
The Honorable Andrew Lanza, New York State Senate
June 5, 2008
The Honorable Joseph L. Bruno
Majority Leader
New York State Senate
Legislative Office Building, Room 909
Albany, NY 12247
Re: S6366 (Padavan) AN ACT to amend the real property tax law, in relation to tax abatement for industrial and commercial work on properties in a city of one million or more persons
Dear Senator Bruno:
On behalf of the New York Building Congress, I am writing in support of
Consolidated Edison, Inc.’s Memorandum in Opposition to A6366, dated May 29, 2008.
Specifically, Con Edison opposes the provisions in S6366 that would exclude utility property and equipment from eligibility for real property tax abatements under a program designed to replace the current Industrial and Commercial Incentive Program (ICIP), which is due to sunset on June 30, 2008. For more than 22 years, utility companies have been eligible to receive property tax exemptions under the ICIP, and the Building Congress shares Con Edison’s concerns about the economic consequences of the bill’s proposed exclusion.
As a coalition of businesses, labor, associations and governmental organizations representing the common interests of New York City’s design, construction and real estate industry, the Building Congress understands the value of tax incentive programs like the ICIP in bringing projects that stimulate economic activity to fruition. These programs become increasingly important in an uncertain economy. In New York City, where construction costs have been escalating at a rate of approximately one percent per month and infrastructure investment is needed to meet the energy demands of a growing population, the impact of excluding utility companies from the ICIP could be serious.
Loss of the availability of the ICIP property tax exemption, Con Edison explains, would be a direct tax increase on the company and its customers. The increased property tax burden will cause energy costs to rise even higher, making New York a less attractive place to live and do business. Increased costs could also detrimentally affect Con Edison’s ability to invest in existing and new infrastructure. Never has that investment been needed more.
As detailed in the Building Congress report, Electricity Outlook, New York City will need between 6,000 to 7,000 megawatts of new electricity resources over the next 20 years to satisfy the demands of the comprehensive residential and commercial development proposed or underway Citywide, and to support continued economic growth and a population that is expected to increase by approximately one million more people. New York City will not be able to assure its competitive position without new electric generation capacity, transmission and distribution resources. A robust and reliable energy infrastructure is essential for the future economic well being of the City.
While the Building Congress supports continuation of the ICIP, we also support the continued eligibility of utility companies for tax exemptions under the program and urge you, working with your colleagues in the Senate, to preserve it.
Sincerely,
Richard T. Anderson
President
cc:
The Honorable Frank Padavan, New York State Senate
The Honorable Serphin Maltese, New York State Senate
The Honorable Andrew Lanza, New York State Senate
June 5, 2008
The Honorable Joseph L. Bruno
Majority Leader
New York State Senate
Legislative Office Building, Room 909
Albany, NY 12247
Re: S6366 (Padavan) AN ACT to amend the real property tax law, in relation to tax abatement for industrial and commercial work on properties in a city of one million or more persons
Dear Senator Bruno:
On behalf of the New York Building Congress, I am writing in support of
Consolidated Edison, Inc.’s Memorandum in Opposition to A6366, dated May 29, 2008.
Specifically, Con Edison opposes the provisions in S6366 that would exclude utility property and equipment from eligibility for real property tax abatements under a program designed to replace the current Industrial and Commercial Incentive Program (ICIP), which is due to sunset on June 30, 2008. For more than 22 years, utility companies have been eligible to receive property tax exemptions under the ICIP, and the Building Congress shares Con Edison’s concerns about the economic consequences of the bill’s proposed exclusion.
As a coalition of businesses, labor, associations and governmental organizations representing the common interests of New York City’s design, construction and real estate industry, the Building Congress understands the value of tax incentive programs like the ICIP in bringing projects that stimulate economic activity to fruition. These programs become increasingly important in an uncertain economy. In New York City, where construction costs have been escalating at a rate of approximately one percent per month and infrastructure investment is needed to meet the energy demands of a growing population, the impact of excluding utility companies from the ICIP could be serious.
Loss of the availability of the ICIP property tax exemption, Con Edison explains, would be a direct tax increase on the company and its customers. The increased property tax burden will cause energy costs to rise even higher, making New York a less attractive place to live and do business. Increased costs could also detrimentally affect Con Edison’s ability to invest in existing and new infrastructure. Never has that investment been needed more.
As detailed in the Building Congress report, Electricity Outlook, New York City will need between 6,000 to 7,000 megawatts of new electricity resources over the next 20 years to satisfy the demands of the comprehensive residential and commercial development proposed or underway Citywide, and to support continued economic growth and a population that is expected to increase by approximately one million more people. New York City will not be able to assure its competitive position without new electric generation capacity, transmission and distribution resources. A robust and reliable energy infrastructure is essential for the future economic well being of the City.
While the Building Congress supports continuation of the ICIP, we also support the continued eligibility of utility companies for tax exemptions under the program and urge you, working with your colleagues in the Senate, to preserve it.
Sincerely,
Richard T. Anderson
President
cc:
The Honorable Frank Padavan, New York State Senate
The Honorable Serphin Maltese, New York State Senate
The Honorable Andrew Lanza, New York State Senate
