Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
IRA approves lease changes to let property owner apply for PILOT that could reduce nonprofit theater’s tax bill
Summary
The Ithaca Redevelopment Agency agreed to minor lease amendments that enable the property owner to apply to the county IDA for a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOT) that, if approved, would pass a reduced tax obligation to nonprofit theater Cinepolis for the pilot’s duration.
The Ithaca Redevelopment Agency on Jan. 14 approved amendments to existing leases so the property owner can apply for a payment‑in‑lieu‑of‑taxes (PILOT) through the Tompkins County Industrial Development Agency and, if that PILOT is granted, pass the tax benefit down to Cinepolis.
The change reverses how property taxes flow under the current lease chain: rather than Cinepolis (currently responsible under a triple‑net lease) paying full property taxes directly, the owner would be the PILOT applicant and the reduced tax obligation would be structured to benefit Cinepolis during the PILOT term.
Why it matters: Cinepolis said property taxes have been an unpredictable expense since it opened and that the PILOT would provide long‑term financial stability for the nonprofit theater. Agency staff characterized the lease edits as minor technical changes needed to allow the property owner to be the PILOT applicant and to ensure the tax relief would apply to the theater if the County IDA approves the application.
Nelson (IRA staff) explained the mechanics: the property owner must be the PILOT applicant, and the proposed amendment would let taxes “flow back to Asteri, which would then abate them,” with an indemnification clause so the agency would not remain responsible if the PILOT arrangement fails. Kate (Cinepolis representative) said the theater has paid property taxes since opening in 2009 and that a successful PILOT would “no longer face the cost of property taxes.”
The presenters and board members discussed the scope and duration of PILOTs in the building. Agency staff noted earlier PILOTs already cover other parts of the property; the amendment would not remove all tax responsibility for the rest of the building. Kate described the applicant’s request as seeking a nominal payment in lieu of taxes (the cover letter described a $1‑per‑year payment as part of the pilot structure) and said the PILOT, if granted, could run for the life of the financing arrangement (discussed in the meeting as roughly two to three decades).
Board members asked clarifying questions about who currently pays taxes, the length of the PILOT term, and how the change would affect the city’s share of taxes on other portions of the property. Agency staff said the amendment is effective only if the IDA approves the PILOT and that, if a PILOT is not approved, the leases revert to the prior tax‑flow structure.
The motion to approve the lease amendments and allow the agency’s portion of the agreement to proceed passed with the board’s voice vote. The transcript does not record a formal roll‑call tally or the names of all voters.
The agency did not take any action on the IDA’s application itself; the amendment only enables the property owner to file for a PILOT with the county IDA. If the IDA approves a PILOT, the terms and duration would be governed by that separate IDA agreement.
