| Author | Message | ||
     Ginny Brown Citizen Username: Ginny_brown Post Number: 23 Registered: 1-2005 |
I skimmed the article in the local paper today that the board of trustees rejected the developers plan that included the grocery store. There were no facts in the article. What I took from the article was the trustees saying they made the right decision. Here are the facts that I know 1) we need a grocery store 2) the lot has been a vacant eye sore for years. Vacant lots don't typically earn revenue for the town like businesses do. Is the likely daily loss of revenue being considered when reviewing the proposal? 3) I had a recent interaction with Mr. Steglitz and I found him to be very guarded and unfriendly. It makes me wonder about his ability to be a good negotiator. It is not clear to me that the trustees really are working in the best interest of South Orange at this point. However, I may be wrong b/c there was little factual information in the paper regarding the details of the "no" vote. I'd love to hear from people who are "in the loop" on this issue. Details and facts are welcome. | ||
| marion cobretti Citizen Username: Marion_cobretti Post Number: 51 Registered: 1-2005 |
coming soon, a new coming soon sign. the old one suggests there's something coming soon. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 1869 Registered: 5-2001  |
Ginny, From information that was shared with me recently: a developer's agreement between New Market (Steven Stollar's group) and the Redevelopment committee (Bill Calabrese, John Gross and Ed Matthews) has been rejected by the BOT (Board of Trustees) because these three asked the village for the following: - A 30 year tax abatement, i.e., NO TAXES, for the developer as well as - A 30 year tax abatement for each and every condominium owner No taxes on the most prime piece of real estate in South Orange! Perhaps Mark can validate if this is accurate, or not. P.S. Your perception of Mr. Steglitz is very accurate. | ||
| dgm Citizen Username: Dgm Post Number: 219 Registered: 5-2001 |
If MHD is right, the trustees did the right thing. 30 years! It costs money to provide these new residents services and the schools are going to become more and more strapped as time goes on. | ||
| doublea Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 876 Registered: 3-2003 |
My impression from reading the article is that the trustees did the right thing. I would have never guessed that the developer was asking for a complete tax abatement though. How did we ever get in this position where a developer would think we're so hard up they could propose a complete tax abatement (if this was in fact the case). Almost two years ago, John Gross made a presentation on PILOTs to SO residents. Some of the residents who are posters on this board , who might have previously had some doubts about PILOTs came away from that meeting satisfied that at least in the Gaslight Commons PILOT, the Village came out no worse than if full taxes had been paid.(I wasn't able to attend that meeting, but have a lot of respect for those who did attend). I would guess that those residents understand PILOTs probably as well as the BOT members and Village Administrator and Counsel. Certainly any type of arrangement that would have given New Market any better deal than that given to Gaslight Commons should have been turned down. | ||
| dgm Citizen Username: Dgm Post Number: 220 Registered: 5-2001 |
AA- The see a sucker in the Village. They see pressure from the voters for some results as a reason to twist the Village's arm. I still contend that if the Village exempts properties from school taxation, the schools will eventually suffer and with them, the property values. | ||
| doublea Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 877 Registered: 3-2003 |
dgm - I agree. New Market was verbally told years ago it would get a PILOT ( as was Beifus). One concern has been that when you start giving PILOTs, every developer asks for one. Now we're talking about redeveloping Valley St. Is that whole street going to be piloted? But in the meantime, we're back to New Market. Let's see what happens. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 1687 Registered: 4-2002 |
I thought the headline was pretty misleading and the article itself did nothing to coordinate the quotes or the statements. Basically, the developer made an intitial offer which most of the BOT found unacceptable. We made a counter offer and hopefully we will be able to find a middle ground. As DGM points out (and as evident from Ginny's post above) there is a certain pressure to just get a deal done rather than have an empty lot. As I have said many times, it makes more sense to work out a deal with a developer that is fair for the long haul, not just for the sake of getting a project done. MHD: They would still have to pay taxes as would the condo owners. The question is how much and how long before it phases out. aa: They were not asking for a complete abatement. If I was the developer I would ask for the world too and wait to see what the other side offers. Negotiations lead to a compromise (except in the NHL). DGM: The school's budget does not change because of a PILOT (abatement) nor does the amount of money they receive. In fact if a PILOT is done correctly the residents come out ahead because the village gets receives 95% of the revenue (5% goes to the county) instead of 25% (normally 18 - 19% goes to the county and 56% goes to the schools). When it comes time to do a PILOT I will post a complete explanation and ask the village administrator to do a spreadsheet again so everyone can see the bottom line. | ||
| doublea Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 878 Registered: 3-2003 |
Mark - As I said, I think the trustees did the right thing. I was heartened by the fact that the trustees feel it's more important to do the deal right than bow to any pressure to just get in done. | ||
| dgm Citizen Username: Dgm Post Number: 221 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mark, So the village comes out ahead, fine. I get more from the schools right now than from the Village on a daily basis. My interest is in the Village and the schools coming out ahead. Further, if a business or landowner is tax exempt, the tax rate for the remaining taxable properties is raised to fund the school} budget. Now that school budgets are (probably temporarily)capped, this may be moot. Nevertheless, if the schools falter, I'll have to move. | ||
| Bobkat Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 7559 Registered: 5-2001 |
The theroy is that the reduction in Village taxes because of the pilot more than offset the revenue lost by the school district because the property is exempt from school taxes. This isn't an easy calculation to make, especially with the pilot running for twenty years or so. Also, the idea of piloting condominiums leads to inequities in taxation. Say a piloted condo and a non-piloted condo are both assessed for $400,000. If the pilot reduces the tax by 50%, the non-piloted property has to make up the difference in school taxes, as well as paying more overall taxes even before the school tax hit is factored in. Isn't piloting condos a new concept here? I thought that previously even the SOBOT was against that? | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 1688 Registered: 4-2002 |
AA: Thanks... appreciated, DGM: An abatement does not mean tax exempt. For example, with the gaslight commons, the village gets over $500,000 / year because of the PILOT. Without going over all the numbers, etc, basically each homeowner paid less in total because of the PILOT. However, no question we need to make sure the schools are properly funded and how to make sure the schools do not falter. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 1870 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mark, Just to clarify...are you saying the information I posted above is incorrect in that there was never a proposal for NO TAXES? However, it sounds as if the proposal was for a 30 YEAR tax "reduction" for BOTH the Supermarket AND the condo owners? Is that accurate? | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 1689 Registered: 4-2002 |
I can only sat there was never a proposal for no taxes. I would prefer not to discuss any other details at this time. | ||
| dgm Citizen Username: Dgm Post Number: 223 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mark: Is Gaslight Commons subject to taxation by the school district? If not, it is tax exempt from school taxes and the school district for the life of the PILOT. I doubt that in the long run I will pay less total taxes because of that PILOT and property development. The Village's good fortune may not even slow the speed with which my overall taxes increase each year. | ||
| dgm Citizen Username: Dgm Post Number: 224 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mark: Is Gaslight Commons subject to taxation by the school district? If not, it is tax exempt from school taxes and the school district for the life of the PILOT. I doubt that in the long run I will pay less total taxes because of that PILOT and property development. The Village's good fortune may not even slow the speed with which my overall taxes increase each year. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 1690 Registered: 4-2002 |
dgm: At one point, I will try and do a full PILOT explanation again. However, the bottomline is that you pay less taxes for the life of the agreement than you would without one. | ||
| dgm Citizen Username: Dgm Post Number: 225 Registered: 5-2001 |
Less village taxes Mark... We pay property taxes to three entities. Village, County, and Schools. The schools are currently more or less capped by SB1701 but the County... no holds barred. It is a bigger picture than the Village alone. What the County and schools do not get from tax exempt properties, they get from you and I. It is only a good deal for the developer. If the quid pro quo for the Gaslight PILOT was aesthetics, we did not get our money's worth anyway. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 1691 Registered: 4-2002 |
DGM: I was referring to the full tax bill of a resident, not just the municipal portion. The deal can be good for the village and the developer. | ||
| woodstock Citizen Username: Woodstock Post Number: 893 Registered: 9-2002  |
dgm, you might be able to find the original discussion in the archive. The point is that the amount that the school portion of your taxes goes up is more than offset by the reduction in Village taxes by the PILOT. if it is done right, that is. In the presentation that Mr. Gross provided, I believe a $100 increase in school taxes was offset by a $110 reduction in vilage taxes, but my memory is a bit like swiss cheese these days. I also have an old spreadsheet that I developed when this was first being discussed so that I could understand the impact of the PILOT at Gaslight Commons. You can download it here. It's not 100% accurate, but it should give you an idea of how this actually works. |
