| Author | Message | |||
     vermontgolfer Citizen Username: Vermontgolfer Post Number: 112 Registered: 12-2002 |
OK, I scanned the document and sent it to Excel, however it lost lot's of it's formatting, so frankly this may confuse you more than it helps, but here goes.
| |||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 433 Registered: 5-2001 |
Pretty Cool, VG. It would be nice if the Village would post the Entire Budget online as an Excel file. | |||
| vermontgolfer Citizen Username: Vermontgolfer Post Number: 113 Registered: 12-2002 |
Would be a lot easier for everyone to read, that's for sure. Message to Dave. Is there a better way for me to scan and then try to attach? What if I just try to attach the scanned document, assuming I can find it on the hard drive, and post that? | |||
| vermontgolfer Citizen Username: Vermontgolfer Post Number: 114 Registered: 12-2002 |
Here goes another attempt. I first copied it into Word and tried to attach, however the file was to large to go. I'm now going to try to attach the actual scanned document, however if you don't have the correct software I'm not sure if you will be able to open the file.
| |||
| vermontgolfer Citizen Username: Vermontgolfer Post Number: 115 Registered: 12-2002 |
OK, here's my final effort. I was able to convert the scan to a *.tif file and get it to be small enough, I think, to upload. I think just about anyone should be able to read a *.tif file. Failing that, need some help from someone how to make it small enough to upload. Here goes.
| |||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 692 Registered: 4-2002 |
dgm: Why would you suggest that the schools are of no concern to me because my daughter graduated already? I have never said that. As woodstock points out and as I have said before, the school budget does not change because of what the village does or doesn't do because of a PILOT or any kind of abatement. The residents elect 9 BOE members (well the few that actually vote) and they are responsible for the schools. I am sure the last thing the BOE wants is interference from the BOT or TC. But since you raise the question, what are you doing to help improve the schools besides implying that all their problems are because they do not get enough money from S. Orange? Vermontgolfer: Thanks for posting the spreadsheet. | |||
| dgm Citizen Username: Dgm Post Number: 153 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mark, You probably are concerned about the school system, and I expect to be active in helping my school as I am now. I was actually thinking of other BOT members. | |||
| woodstock Citizen Username: Woodstock Post Number: 416 Registered: 9-2002  |
VG, I cleaned up the spreadsheet and put formulae where they belong (I hope). Here y'all go...
Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him | |||
| vermontgolfer Citizen Username: Vermontgolfer Post Number: 117 Registered: 12-2002 |
wwodstock, damn,(can I say damn?) you're good.  Thanks, now everyone should be able to understand it. | |||
| woodstock Citizen Username: Woodstock Post Number: 418 Registered: 9-2002 |
vg, just remember to vote for Woodstock as "President for Life" after the upcoming, soon to be announced, Recall Generalissimo Franco! campaign. Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him | |||
| vermontgolfer Citizen Username: Vermontgolfer Post Number: 118 Registered: 12-2002 |
Consider it done! | |||
| Dan Shelffo Citizen Username: Openspacer Post Number: 66 Registered: 6-2001 |
Woodstock, Thank you for the spreadsheet. I watched some of the presentation on TV but I missed a lot of details. I am curious as to how the $15,400,700 figure for what I think represents the GC building assessment was arrived at. On the tax rolls the building's assessment is listed at $25,000,000. According to Tony Marchetta, the LCOR Developer of Gaslight Commons, the project cost $34,500,000 to construct. I thought that the ratio of 72% between the assessment and building costs was the same as the assessment to value ratio of the Village at that time. Was the $25,000,000 used as the market value to get to the $15,400,700? I have heard that the construction costs or what someone was willing to buy or sell for is a good determination of value. Mark mentioned a statute that determines assessed value on PILOTS. Is that the reason for using the 15 million figure? | |||
| J. Crohn Citizen Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 551 Registered: 3-2003 |
Dan Shelffo, I think what Mark may have been referring to was the statute that regulates how a payment in lieu of taxes will be determined (a summary of which is excerpted below from this site: http://www.newjerseylaw.com/pubs/abatement.htm). The Village went with the 'total project costs' model (whence the $25,000,000) as opposed to the 'annual gross revenue' model. (I have found no information on which costs are included in TPC for purposes of PILOT determination.) "Was the $25,000,000 used as the market value to get to the $15,400,700?" Seems like it, since the $15 million figure is close to 62.94% (percent of true value) if the true value of the development w/o PILOT is $25 million. _____________________________________________ The payments which the recipient of a tax abatement (known as an "urban renewal entity") is required to make as an Annual Service Charge are determined as follows. First, as in the case of the Fox Lance Act,14 the "minimum annual service charge" to be paid to the municipality must be "the amount of the total taxes levied against all real property in the area covered by the project in the last full tax year in which the area was subject to taxation." Second, in addition to meeting the requirement that the Annual Service Charge be equal to or greater than the minimum, the payment must be high enough to satisfy the phase-in requirements of the statute, over five stages of the term of the tax abatement. The lengths of the stages, and the term of the tax abatement, are to be agreed upon by the urban renewal entity and the municipality, within the limits set forth in the statute.16 During the initial stage, which can be anywhere from 6 to 15 years, the Annual Service Charge is based only on the Annual Service Charge formula described below. However, the statute provides that "[f]or the remainder of the period of the exemption, if any, the annual service charge shall be determined as follows:" the greater of either (1) the formula described below or (2) in Stage 2 (minimum one year, maximum six years), 20% of normal taxes; Stage 3 (minimum one year, maximum six years), 40% of normal taxes; Stage 4 (minimum one year, maximum six years), 60% of normal taxes; and Stage 5 (minimum one year), 80% of normal taxes. Third, the formula for establishing the amount of the Annual Service Charge authorizes the parties to set the percentage that will be applied to the Annual Gross Revenue ("AGR") or Total Project Costs ("TPC") to establish the Annual Service Charge. The only limitations on the parties are as follows: In the case of Annual Gross Revenue, the percentage must be: o Not more than 15% of AGR in the case of low and moderate income housing; o Not less than 10% of AGR in the case of office projects; o Not less than 15% of AGR in the case of all other projects; Or: In a case where the municipality opts to use Total Project Cost as the basis for the Annual Service Charge, the percentage must be: o Not more than 2% of TPC in the case of low and moderate income housing; o 2% of TPC in the case of all other projects. | |||
| Dan Shelffo Citizen Username: Openspacer Post Number: 67 Registered: 6-2001 |
J, Thanks for the clarification but I have another question. If the Village went with the 'total project costs' model why did they use the 25 million as opposed to the 35 million that Lcor says it cost? I guess maybe there are 10 million in costs that are incurred but not included? | |||
| J. Crohn Citizen Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 552 Registered: 3-2003 |
"If the Village went with the 'total project costs' model why did they use the 25 million as opposed to the 35 million that Lcor says it cost?" I don't know; presumably, some costs are permitted to be included in TPC and some aren't, but as I said, I haven't got any info on what governs this. Mark? Others? | |||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 697 Registered: 4-2002 |
Jen is basically correct. Not all costs can be used in the TPC for PILOT calculations. We have to use the actual construction costs. I am not sure we will ever know the exact total costs of the project. LCOR had employees that spent time coordinating the project, etc. Do you count part of their salary's? Marketing costs? I know they say the total cost of the project was over $30,000,000. | |||
| Washashore Citizen Username: Washashore Post Number: 84 Registered: 4-2003 |
Lest we lose the forest for the trees (of which we have recently lost too many), let's remember that an upscale community, 25 minutes from midtown Mnahttan via a one-seat train ride, should NEVER need a PILOT tax abatement for market rate rental housing. It was a miscarriage of the intent of the PILOT program when S.O. first employed it, and it will be an even bigger miscarriage if any more than a 2- or 3- year tax abatement of any sort goes to Beifus and/or the Shop Rite site. | |||
| vermontgolfer Citizen Username: Vermontgolfer Post Number: 123 Registered: 12-2002 |
washashore, it seems that the only time you ever post on this board is when you have something negative to say. It would also seem that you don't seem to understand, that this PILOT, at least seems to have benefitted the citizens of SO. 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. Sorry to be so blunt, but what we need are ways to makes things better, not just to complain. Vent over! | |||
| Guesswho Citizen Username: Guesswho Post Number: 35 Registered: 9-2003 |
What I don'tget is why washashore just doesn't move somewhere where things are more to his/her liking or attempt to change things to be more to his/her liking. Kvetching day after day online is not a very productive use of time, (plus it's so boringto read)zzzzzzzz | |||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 318 Registered: 3-2003 |
Thanks vg and woodstock for the spreadsheets. I wasn't able to be at that meeting and this information helps. At last night's BOT meeting, the subject of the possible sale came up. There was a lot of discussion about what could or not be discussed in open session, and I have to respect the fact that the Village President and BOT said enough in open session to let the public know that they were considering the possibility of getting additional PILOT funds in connection with the transfer of ownership. As a matter of fact, the Village President specifically wanted the public to know this. Any other details had to be discussed in closed session and as I said, I think we have to repect the confidentiality of any negotiations. |
SO PILOT
SO PILIOT, IMPROVED, I HOPE