| Author |
Message |
    
Washashore
Citizen
Username: Washashore
Post Number: 86
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 10:57 am: | 
|
vermontgolfer: I have reprinted your 10/16 4 pm post here, followed by my responses:
VG: "it seems that the only time you ever post on this board is when you have something negative to say."
Wash: On the contrary, I believe I post here when I have some suggestion to the problem at hand. e.g. - elect new BOT's, understand what's really going on in the Village, and who benefits, so that an educated and informed citizenry can act wisely.
VG: "It would also seem that you don't seem to understand, that this PILOT, at least seems to have benefitted the citizens of SO."
Wash: On the contrary, it has the real potential to negatively affect SO residents, and their schools, because the minute that the amount of your municipal tax reduction from the increased municipal tax payment resulting from the PILOT is LESS than the amount your school tax portion increases, is the minute YOU (and the rest of us) begin to subsidize a large-scale luxury housing developer, who pays NO school taxes for 30 years.
Plus, with the already-known percentages that your municipal taxes are going to increase in '04 and '05, it suggests that perhaps NONE of the increased municipal payment from the PILOT is going to reduce your taxes. Rather, it appears to be going to 4% across-the-board staff salary increases, and to the hiring of additional Village employees.
VG: "As I've stated several times, I'm not sure if I truly support PILOT's but at least this one seems to have done some good. If you truly are that unhappy and dissatisfied maybe a run for the BOT is in order, rather than just continuing to complain."
Wash: I respectfully disagree that all I do is "continue to complain." I offered, and continue to offer, valid suggestions as to how to deal with/resolve issues on which I speak. For example, I have suggested that: for Beifus and the Supermarket sites, if a tax abatement is granted, it should be for no more than 2- to 4 years' duration while the projects are getting up to speed. A 30-year tax abatement for a project in South Orange makes no sense from the resident point of view.
VG: "Sorry to be so blunt, but what we need are ways to make things better, not just to complain."
Wash: Ways to make things better, from this and other posts of mine:
1) elect honest intelligent BOT who seek no private gain from redevelopment
2) Never allow the governing body to PILOT a luxury residential project where the schools, and the residents, subsidize a large-scale developer who would have built in SO any way (Tony Marchetta, Developer of Gaslight Commons, has made the statement that LCOR would still have built in SO even if there had been no PILOT.)
3) when it is deemed in the Village's interest to grant a PILOT to assist a positive project for the Village, the term of the abatement should be no greater than 4 years.
4) When the Village is in the market to condemn and buy land, it should make sure that it does environmental due diligence on said land BEFORE one penny of purchase price is spent so that proper funds can be placed in escrow for the clean-up if necessary.
5) If a long-time Village employee, also on conract for billable hours in the vicinity of $250-$300/hour, consistency gives bad advise to the Village (condemn and buy Shop Rite WITHOUT first doing due diligence, and only after Village acquisition, learning how severely contaminated not only the land but also the building is), should be fired, and a new, COMPETENT Village employee hired.
6) If the Business Administrator wears too many hats that he is unable to be effective in any of them, I have suggested that additional QUALIFIED staff be hired.
7) there is an inherent Conflict of Interest in having the Business Administrator also be the CFO also be the Treasuer. Clearly, there needs to be at least ONE more staff hired to fill one of these conflicting posts.
8) The B.A. who is paid by SO taxes should not be the Acting Exec Director of an alleged 50lc3 orgnaization - SOPAC - that is funded BY THE VILLAGE but which can hold its meetings and Minutes confidential, not for public viewing. S.O. taxes fund his full salary, we have funded the debt on the bonds that have been floated to build it, yet the BOT continues the fiction that this is a PRIVATE not-for-profit entity whose business is not legally required to be made public to the very people who fund it.
VG, you figure out the recommendation that would address this perplexing issue.
9) When the Village statistics clearly indicate that it is deficient in open space acreage based on state statutes and the investigation of a Village-appointed committee, the Village should look to increase that acreage, not sell it (after PAYING over $1.2 million to this developer) and creatively figure out how to use it to add open space uses to the Village.
VG, these are all positive suggestions, made repeatedly by me in my MOL posts, and belie your sentiment that all I do is complain. You may not agree with my suggestions, but they are certainly positive suggestions, and go way beyond merely complaining. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 700
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 11:34 am: |
|
Wash: Who on the BOT is seeking personal gain from the redevelopment? If you are going to make that kind of accusation, then do me a favor and state exactly who, how, etc. If you are saying it is all six of us, then state that.
Also, please state which trustees you think might be dishonest. I resent the implications and as the only trustee to regularly post here, I assume that you knew I would be the one reading and responding. It is unfair to lump all six together just as I would not lump every person who posts on MOL in one category.
LCOR had stated without the PILOT that the building would have needed to have been larger and then they MIGHT have still considered building in S. Orange. To take one statement by one person that is said after the fact is simply wrong.
You are completely wrong about a PILOT and by the way, a short-term PILOT would be worse since the assessed value would then count in the formulas (school and county)not to mention I am not even sure if it is legal to do one with a for-profit corporation.
On point # 8, actually the attorney for SOPAC is the one who stated that it does not have to be held to the same standards for open meetings, etc as goverment. The BOT requested that they hold open meetings and they do. The BOT insisted on the SOPAC board releasing minutes, etc and they have done so.
I agree that they need their own director. They have been waiting till the project is a definite go.
The village did not own the quarry. The only way to get land is to pay for it. The recreation open space plan calls for better use of our existing open space plan.
Every town that borders the reservation has part of that property count in their open space acreage EXCEPT for S. Orange. Take away those acres in Maplewood, W. Orange, and Milburn, and they would all be considered deficient in their open space. The fact remains that the reservation is county property and is available to S. Orange residents and that needs to be remembered.
The 4% raises to employees is by contract.
It is true that you do other things besides complain. You make false statements and accusations. You throw in a couple of facts and think that makes your suggestions good ones.
How about you meeting with me and we can discuss each suggestion and have a real dialogue? And then you can tell me to my face if you think I am seeking to gain something other than what I was elected to do. |
Washashore
Citizen
Username: Washashore
Post Number: 87
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 2:08 pm: |
|
Mr. Rosner: Your comment that you are the chief BOT poster on MOL and that therefore I must have been alluding to you is a fair comment, and unintentional on my part. I apologize.
Let's see, which BOT member has a municipal bond business and although he himself perhaps has not directly benefited from all the bonding SO has done (gone from 12M to 35 M in 10 or so years, yet, aside from Sloan St, SO Ave street improvements, acquiring the very contaminated Shop Rite site without first having done due environmental diligence, having purchased Midas muffler for over $100,000 more than it was sold for a month or so before SO bought it again)what do we have to show for it except large tax bills? It is logical to assume that whomever did do the bonding perhaps repaid the favor and provided that BOT member with other comparable bonding business.
As far as dishonesty goes, I think it dishonest to put a plywood fence around the SOPAC site the day before the election, when the construction is far from being ready to start. All the paraphanalia in there is stuff from the NJT construction project now going on at the station, plus the parking of vehicles from Cait and Abbey's etc.
I think it dishonest to demolish a building that was an eye sore in town for several years the day before the May election to give false hope to residents that there too progress was soon to be made.
I think it is dishonest for a Business Administrator to have intimite relations with his boss.
I think it is dishonest for the boss of a Business Administrator to have intimate relations, and to vote on budgets etc recommended by that BA.
I think it is dishonest to tell the people of SO that a Performing Arts Center is viable in town because a feasibility report was done in 1998 that said so, yet that feasibility report made NOT ONE mention of what the impact of the NJPAC, a world class concert and performing hall located 25 minutes away, would have on SOPAC.
I find it impossible to meet with you to discuss this stuff face-to-face and reveal my identity because of what might befall me, as has befallen many of the businesses in town, for speaking out against Village policies, as some of them have done.
I find it dishonest to tell people that the 4% across-the-board staff raises were because of a "contract" when clearly there is never any performance reviews, nor contracts for civil service employees. And the BA's "contract renewal" was approved by a vote with only TWO in favor out of 6 trustees. (One BOT voted NO, two abstained, and I think Scary Mary recused herself, or should have if she didn't).
I have never knowingly made false statements or accusations on MOL, or anywhere else. Usually, where there is smoke, there is fire. I have shared here what I know and believe to be true, and have suggested repeatedly that what I know may be only the tip of the iceberg, and that further investigation and inquiry may be required.
I have also stated here many times that it is knowledge and participation based on that knowledge that will change things in the Village, and that everyone should DARE TO KNOW, FOR THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE US FREE. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 701
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 3:37 pm: |
|
Washashore: First off, I cannot comment about any employee (legal) so I won't respond to any of those.
The BOT had been begging Beifus for years to do something. He moves at his own pace (slow) and he alone chose to demolish the building the week of the election. You should ask him about the timing and why he has done nothing for the past ten years. You might think the election results would have been different on May 13th had that building come down a week ago, but I don't think it made one bit of difference.
There was work on a building that had to be done (one of the sickley buildings ) and some pre-construction work had to be done. It was the construction manager's decision to put up a fence. I was never asked one way or another about the fence and I don't think any of the BOT members were asked (and I was on SOPAC at the time).
As far as I know, each employee is given a performance review. Clearly you think that is not true. I do not see the reviews so I cannot say if what you say is true or not. However, I don't think the contract says the 4% raises are subject to a review. It is a negotiated contract. You might not like and I certainly would like to see changes, it simply does not work that way.
I do not know of any business in town that has had to suffer because they have spoken against village policy. There have been plenty of people who have not been shy about speaking their minds and I have met with many. I think they will tell you that I have not done anything or said anything to compromise their identity when they did not want it known nor have I ever said anything in public about them. I think I have proven to be honest. You might disagree with my position or feeling on an issue but I am sure that you would agree that we probably see the same on some issues. You are the one making statments about change, and if you are serious, you should want to meet to help in a more constructive way. |
vermontgolfer
Citizen
Username: Vermontgolfer
Post Number: 125
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 3:43 pm: |
|
Washashore,
I'll give you replies a go and then I'm going to let it go. Your certainly welcome to have the last word.
1. Suggesting that the town elect new BOT members is an option they have every two years. You may not choose to like those that were voted it, but like it or not, a majority of SO residents did.
2. My understanding of the PILOT and I may be wrong, is that once the PILOT expires and the GC goes on the 'books', then yes, you are correct, our municipal taxes will be negatively impacted, however our school and county taxes should reap a benefit, so the overall should be close to a wash.
As for some of the other issues you raised, regarding PILOT terms etc. I think Mark has offered a better reply than I could.
I'm not sure we're far off on the BA, though it may be one of the few things we agree on , and I agree the BOT needs to take a hard look at this situation.
One final note, one which I hope you accept with the sincerity it is meant. Please be careful making such claims that some members of the BOT are receiving some form of 'kickback, my words not yours. This is dangerous and could open you up for liable if someone wanted to pursue it.
I'm finished, the last word is yours for the taking. |
mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 447
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 3:47 pm: |
|
Mark,
Who can comment on employees? Don't they ultimatey report to the BOT? Some of the issues Wash raises about potential conflicts with the "BA" are serious. Who is accountable? |
Guesswho
Citizen
Username: Guesswho
Post Number: 39
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 3:50 pm: |
|
VG. It's easy for Washashore to throw out accusations and make libelous statements when he is anonymous.
Believe me, I know. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 702
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, October 18, 2003 - 5:52 pm: |
|
The BOT can discuss employees in closed session as long as certain rules are followed.
I would assume that you can comment on a person's performance as much as you want, but I would hope comments were done based on fact and without being vicious. Some village employees do a good job and all anyone seems to post on here are the negatives.
Sometimes, the results don't reflect the effort and it is fine to say just that without getting nasty. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 3635
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 12:17 pm: |
|
Thanks for the spreadsheet. In the end it looks like the pilot for Gas Light Commons is saving the average SO taxpayer less than $100 in its first year, which is about eight tenths of one percent on their tax bill. While it allows the Village to play “good guy” and hold Village taxes steady it puts the BOE in the roll of “bad guy”, in that it ups the percentage they must increase school taxes.
Some questions if I may? What happens in future years? Does the PILOT payment remain static or is it reduced in future years, which I understand is common in these deals? What happens as the BOE budget increases?
It looks like this was set up in such a manner as to be basically revenue neutral for the average SO taxpayer in the first year (a 26 cent savings per day isn’t that important to most). If the parameters changed (school and county budgets) I am reasonably certain this can end up costing SO residents money, even if the PILOT payment increases.
|
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 705
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 1:08 pm: |
|
Gaslight Commons will have an increase each year (same as the municipal portion for the village).
Don't forget that the assesed value of the property is not count for purposes of the school and county portion.
Also, you have to compare to what the village was getting before the Gaslight Commons because there was no interest in the property and would have remained an auto dealership. My opinion is the village no matter how you look at it is better off with the development that without.
|
patjoyce
Citizen
Username: Patjoyce
Post Number: 42
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 11:26 pm: |
|
A portion of the continued Special Meeting on 11-17-03 will address a resolution regarding the Village position vis-a-vis the proposed sale of GC. You who have weighed in so heavily regarding this PILOT Project should come Monday as the BOT discusses this important topic.
Patrick |
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 354
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 8:29 am: |
|
patjoyce: You say "a resolution regarding the Village position." On its face, this seems to be different than a resolution approving the transfer. Is this correct?
Is the appropriate time for the public to discuss during the remonstances or after the resolution has been introduced for discussion? |
mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 536
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 9:24 am: |
|
Will there even be an opportunity for PUBLIC discussion, or will Matthews repeat his usual mantra that "this cannot be discussed in public"? |
Allan J Rosen
Citizen
Username: Allanrosen
Post Number: 26
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 3:03 pm: |
|
The resolutions on for Monday night will in factrelate to the transfer of the property. Remonstrances come before Resolutions; so there should be opportunity for discussion before action is taken. |
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 355
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 4:11 pm: |
|
Thanks Allan. Bill can't pronounce it; I can't spell it.
Since we don't know what the resolution says, it is a little difficult to speak before-hand. That is unless we know before-hand whether approval of the transfer will or will not call for a higher payment. |
Allan J Rosen
Citizen
Username: Allanrosen
Post Number: 28
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 5:14 pm: |
|
There will be no new agreement under the proposed resolutions. Payments will escalate as provided for under the current agreement, a very favorable situation for the South Orange taxpayers. |
mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 537
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 5:42 pm: |
|
Allan/Mark,
Can one of you ensure the updated agenda is posted online prior to the meeting, so everyone can see everything that is scheduled to be discussed?
Thanks. |
Washashore
Citizen
Username: Washashore
Post Number: 102
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 8:40 pm: |
|
Mr. Rosen: On Nov. 16 at 5:14 PM you stated:
"There will be no new agreement under the proposed resolutions. Payments will escalate as provided for under the current agreement, a very favorable situation for the South Orange taxpayers."
My quesgtions are:
1) "There will be no new agreement under the proposed resolutions." Does that mean that the new owner gets the same tax abatement that the first owner got, of paying only $500,000 (escalating)for municipal taxes, and nothing for schools or county for 30 years? This, while the first owner makes millions in profit from the sale?
2)"..a very favorable situation for the South Orange tax payers." How could this statement be true, if, for the next 30 years, this development pays NO schools taxes, while the rest of us pay the difference in taxes that GC is not paying? The minute that the increase in municipal taxes received from GC because of the PILOT is LESS THAN the increase in schools taxes the rest of us have to pay, is the minute we start subsidizing the multi-million dollar corporation that first built it, then sold it for millions in profit. Then, we subsidize the new owner who continues to benefit from paying LESS taxes proportionately than the rest of us.
3) There is disagreement in this town as to whether you are right, or those who claim what I have above are right
Until you, or the BOT, refute my statement with facts and figures calculated over the thirty-year period of the PILOT, it is disingenuous of you, or any other BOT, to claim that it is "a very favorable situation for the South Orange tax payers."
And while you are preparing the facts and figures to prove your point, you also need to show that the increased municipal taxes received from GC are going to REDUCE the residents' share of muni taxes.
It is quite possible, for example, that instead of going to reduce our muni taxes, the Payment in Lieu of Taxes is being used:
a) to pay for a new $50,000/year Rec. Dept. Assistant;
b) for salary increasses for Village staff, none of whom get a yearly performance review, yet all of whom get automatic 4% raises;
c) to pay for more billable hours to the incompetent Village Attorney who advises the Village to condemn and buy land without first having done due environmental diligence (and then finds an environmental catastrophe with a $1.5 million price tag for clean-up.)
Mr. Rosen, prove that there really is "a very favorable situation for the South Orange Taxpayers" by doing the calculations noted above,or stop touting that it is so.
|
peteglider
Citizen
Username: Peteglider
Post Number: 348
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 9:58 pm: |
|
wash -- the spreadsheet has been posted here before - the pilot is revenue positive for SOV. Can you show otherwise? -- pete |
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 356
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 8:50 am: |
|
I think that the most startling thing shown by the spreadsheet is that the tax benefit of the Gaslight Commons is $95 for the average S.O. homeowner.
Using the figures used in the Redevelopment Update section of the May Gaslight, which were a municipal tax impact of $350,000 for Market Square and $250,000 for Beifus,there is probably another $100 tax benefit if these projects are piloted. This does not address whether pilots are good or bad, but only shows that these projects are not a financial bonanza. They may be good for other reasons, such as making the downtown more vibrant, and this in itself may be a reason for building them. And there is also the argument that without a pilot, there would have been another abandoned car dealership on Third Street. But I think there is a misconception that they are going to be a financial windfall.
What this does show is that there has to be as much attention paid to the expense part of the budget as the revenue part.
I do have a question about the third column of the spread sheet which shows the benfit of a pilot over a non-pilot is $22 for the average house. The third column uses an assessment of $15 million for Gaslight. As Dan Shelffo points out above, this appears to be based on the same number used for pilot purposes, $25 million, and then applying the current assessment percentage of 62.94%. If in fact this what was done, I don't think it's correct. If the project were not piloted, the assessment would be based on the rental value, which could be more that or less than $15 mllion.
|
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 3862
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 9:02 am: |
|
I posted this before, but I think it is worth repeating. The spreadsheet numbers are based on current expenditures for all three entities (village, schools and county) that make up the tax bill. The school district, in the person of Mr. Latz, is predicting annual increases in school expenditures in the 7% to 8% range, which are probably well above increases in Village and Essex County expenditures. It will not take very long for these types of expenditures to wipe out the very small savings the average SO homeowner sees from the PILOT and actually increase taxes beyond where they would be without the PILOT.
Mark, is this scenario covered in the PILOT agreement with Gaslight and in the proposed new PILOTs?
|
mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 540
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 9:05 am: |
|
I have heard Mark state several times that if the property was not PILOTed, it would not exist at all & we would still have an abandoned car dealership.
Given that premise, now that we DO have this development, what justification is there to continue the PILOT since the property is being sold? |
Allan J Rosen
Citizen
Username: Allanrosen
Post Number: 29
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 9:51 am: |
|
Wash et al: Come tonight or watch tonight and we should be able to answer all or most of your questions. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 778
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 10:13 am: |
|
bobk: In the long run, there might not be any savings to residents. It is hard to factor in every scenario, but the question is what would have happened if there was no developer willing to build at that site. Of course, if the school budget continues to increase at 7 - 8% a year, a PILOT will be the least of our problems.
MHD: Legally, they have the right to continue the PILOT. |
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 358
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 10:38 am: |
|
Allan and Mark: I was wondering whether the reason for continuing the existing agreement without modification was for legal or business reasons, and you've answered that it was legal.
The N.J. legislation governing PILOTs provides that entity which has the pilot must provide in its articles that approval of the municipality must be obtained for a transfer of ownership of more than 10%. Based on what you've said above, there must be something to the effect that such approval must not be unreasonably withheld or something along those lines. I'll be there or tune in. |
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 359
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 11:21 am: |
|
Mark: Your response to bobk does highlight the problem. As the spreadsheet shows, and plugging in assumed Shoprite and Beifus numbers, there is basically no tax benefit from the three downtown projects.
Latz indeed has said the school budget will increase at 7-8% a year. This has been a subject of discussion in the Education thread.
Setting aside any quality of life or non-financial issues regarding the Quarry, I've done some back of the envelope calculations which indicate the tax benefit is approximately $350-400 for the average S.O. residence. And this calculation, for ease of simplicity, assumes no additional school children or added services.
I know you've said that you intend to talk about property tax reform in your weblog, but we have to assume that it's not going to happen, and if it does, it's going to take a very long time to take effect.
The bottom line is if we can get more money out of projects, we should or at least try. We also have to really take a good hard look at our expenses, both on the municipal side as well as the education side. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 780
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 11:46 am: |
|
doublea: I don't know if I agree with the statment about no tax benefit. Clearly if the village gets more going forward than if there is no project than it is a plus. Also, if the downtown looks better, then one can assume that it will help bring better stores which would be nice.
As for property tax reform, I will discuss some of the issues on the weblog. I don't think it will happen until we have a Governor who has the support of the voting public. If I was McGreevey, I would assign a bi-partisan task force made up of former Governors who no longer have to worry about re-election. They all know what needs to be done, but nobody wants to try to fix the problem while in office because of what happened to Florio. |
Dan Shelffo
Citizen
Username: Openspacer
Post Number: 74
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 2:45 pm: |
|
I have a problem with one of the main assumptions that the entire spreadsheet is based on. That assumption is the valuation placed on the project. I think they got to the figure that was used by using the construction costs supplied by the builder, about 25 million, and then applying the assessed to value ratio of the entire Village, coming up with the 15 million that was used.
In a PILOT situation such as this, the line items that go into determining the construction costs are stipulated by statute and are to be reviewed by the municipality granting the PILOT. However, it is in the best interest of the developer, for determination of the amount of the in lieu payments, to keep this figure as low as possible.
If you go to the LCOR website (www.lcor.com) you can see the Gaslight Commons proudly displayed on their site. The construction cost of the project is listed at 35 million dollars, 40% more than the PILOT agreement figure.
Now, as they are about to sell the project, the issue of profits and more importantly “excessive” profits becomes important. If the developer makes too much on the sale they have to pay more to South Orange. Look for the development cost, on a project that has been completed for some time, to miraculously change and rise above 25 million, above 35 million and get as close to the selling price as they possibly make it so that the profit on a sale price of 43 million is not termed “excessive”.
It seems to me that the value figure used depends on the point one is trying to make.
For my point I take the 35 million and assume that it would have resulted in an assessment of 25 million generating a tax cost to the developer of 1.25 million a year. Under the PILOT, by only paying 500,000 per year they benefit by 750,000 per year. I know that a lot of the benefits to the town cannot easily be measured by dollars and cents but I wonder if the town is getting 750,000 worth of benefit. I also wonder if the town will get $22,500,000.00 worth of benefit over the thirty years of the agreement.
I am aware of the argument that without the PILOT it would not have been built. But, surely something would have been built there. Indeed if the neighborhood had not fought it and the Trustees (back in 1991) re-zoned it we would have a place to shop in the Village instead of a coming soon sign.
I am also worried about the precedent set. Because the Gaslight got a PILOT deal and our Village Administration has said how good they are I would bet that the Shop-Rite site and the Beifus site are about to get PILOT deals too.
Heck, I would like to get a PILOT on my house as well. Maybe we all should. This would effectively allow us to succeed from Essex County, stick Maplewood with the entire school bill and give our Village government a lot more money to spend.
|
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 360
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 3:18 pm: |
|
Allan, Mark and Patrick: Reading your posts, it seems that the BOT is being asked to pass a resolution this evening carrying-over the existing PILOT agreement with the transfer of ownership. It also seems that the explantion of why this is being done will be given at that time.
I have asked this procedural question before and Allan Rosen has said the public could comment at the remonstrances. But since remonstrances come before the resolution is discussed, we can't know whether or not we agree with the reasoning. Can you please allow for public comment, if any, after the reasoning behind the Village's position has been stated?
Depending upon what the reasoning is, there could be impications for the Beifus site. I'm sure you are aware that in many other localities, once a developer obtains planning board approval, that approval is quite valuable. Beifus already owns the land. Mention was made by one trustee some time ago that maybe the Village should condemn the property if Beifus doesn't move. Now, with the BOT having changed the buffer requirement for the property and the Planning Board having approved a five story building, in the event of a condemnation Beifus could argue that his property is worth more than it would have been otherwise. And this would be true even though a developer's agreement is required. And depending upon what the reasoning behind tonight's resolution is, if in fact Beifus does get a PILOT, a transfer to a
third party might be easily accomplished even though approval of the Village is required. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 782
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 3:34 pm: |
|
Dan, The neighborhood fought having a supermarket OR any commercial development at that location. The desire was to have it zoned as residential.
I think going back to 1998/99 when this was being negotiated developers were looking to build a substantially larger building instead of the 200 units. Of course, had we waited a couple of more years before acting, would the village received a better offer.
As for the difference in cost of the project, the 25 millions only takes into count what the statue allows. The 35 million includes other fees including architects, legal, balance of the property acquisition, interest and some other costs (I just can't remember all of them).
Also, your multiplying the $750,000 times 30 years is not really a fair calculation. The differential between what they "should" have been paying and what they pay under the PILOT shrinks over time. Since the statue determines the assessed value based on the $25,000,000 the $750,000 difference is what you think (or would like to use) instead of using a lower amount.
|
Washashore
Citizen
Username: Washashore
Post Number: 103
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 9:53 am: |
|
Mr. Rosen: From your Nov. 17, 9:51 AM post:
"Wash et al: Come tonight or watch tonight and we should be able to answer all or most of your questions."
By the time I went to bed last night (around 10:30 PM), this PILOT discussion had not yet occurred.
Could you now, here, please summarize last night's discussion, and provide the answers to "all or most" of my questions?
Thanks. |
Washashore
Citizen
Username: Washashore
Post Number: 105
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 5:31 am: |
|
Mr. Rosen: From your Nov. 17, 9:51 AM post:
"Wash et al: Come tonight or watch tonight and we should be able to answer all or most of your questions."
By the time I went to bed last night (around 10:30 PM), this PILOT discussion had not yet occurred.
Could you now, here, please summarize last Monday's BOT discussion, and provide the answers to "all or most" of my questions?
Thanks.
|
Allan J Rosen
Citizen
Username: Allanrosen
Post Number: 31
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 12:50 pm: |
|
Wash: On Monday the BoT did in fact pass the resolutions allowing Gaslight Commons to transfer their ownership to the J P Morgan subsidiary along with the unchanged Pilot agreement, so that the new obligation is the same as the old one. The profit, according to their figures,approximated 4 million dollars which works out to about 2 1/2 % per year.
The reason the Pilot is beneficial to South Orange, as we have said before, is 1) that in fact we have a much larger ratable than previously existed ($515,000. local payment this year) and 2) the school tax obligation attributable to this property is spread out over both South Orange and Maplewood as the property value is not counted for school tax purposes, and 3)the local tax contribution is much larger than the lack of school tax participation. After the first year the residents would always have paid the percentage increase in the school tax, however obscene it may seem (another topic).
We can debate about the town's budget items. For example, I voted against the hiring of the new recreation assistant. But whatever the majority of the Board believes belongs in the budget, obviously having $300,000. more local revenue available will ameliorate the local tax bill. |
Brett
Citizen
Username: Bmalibashksa
Post Number: 557
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 9, 2004 - 3:44 pm: |
|
Gaslight Commons has been sold. I got a certified letter saying that I should now pay my rent to Gaslight Commons Management LLC instead of Gaslight commons something or other. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page