| Author | Message | ||
     mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 274 Registered: 5-2001 |
Even though I still strongly feel that redevelopment has taken way too long, based on the results yesterday, we all need to now reset our expectations. Based on postings here by Mark, the new baseline for expectations is: Arts Center - opening Summer 2005 Beifus - opening Summer 2005 Market - opening Fall 2005 Mark - I know we have JUST completed an election, however we always need to be looking ahead. Are you willing to agree that if these projects are not WELL UNDERWAY with construction by the next election in 2005 and that if these projects are not FULLY OPERATIONAL by the following election in 2007, that would be considered unacceptable and grounds for the selection of new leadership during those elections? I think it is very important that we set and meet goals that are established. Speaking of goals...are you also willing to look into the idea proposed by Brian that Village employees should be expected to meet performance goals and be given annual performance reviews? Based on other posts here and on your campaign website, seems many people have encountered rude behavior by some Baird Center employees, as well as some Village Hall employees. | ||
| NancyJanow Citizen Username: Librarylady Post Number: 834 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mayhew..how is the behavior of the Library employees regarded?  NCJ aka LL | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 275 Registered: 5-2001 |
Nancy, I use the library fairly regularly & have always had a positive experience. I think a performance review is an important part of everyone's job to prevent people from becoming stagnant & to receive constructive feedback on improving performance. In my experience, it can only be beneficial to employees and "customers" alike. | ||
| peteglider Citizen Username: Peteglider Post Number: 107 Registered: 8-2002 |
MHD - WHile SOPAC is much more under control of the village, the others are major construction projects from private developers. As such -- if you or I can't even get a contractor to complete a kitchen renovation per schedule -- the reality is with any major project its the construction company and union officials that are in control. The role of our officials (and I'd say this regardless of who was elected) is to guide and lead -- they are not the construciton or project managers. That said -- at least for SOPAC -- I would hope that there are performance incentives (or penalites) built in against the contruction schedule. Lastly - I am very curious about village employees -- do they not receive annual reviews tied to salarly increases or promotions? I realize that for civil service things could be different. Mark -- can you (in general terms) give us a sense of HR policy for the village? Pete | ||
| Edwin R. Matthews Citizen Username: Edwinrmatthews Post Number: 8 Registered: 3-2003 |
Nobody feels the frustration about the pace of redevelopment more than those of us who have been working on it for the past ten years. It always seems that every time we (the Village) takes two steps forward we take one step backwards. (Sometimes we even slid backwards without getting a step forward. If the truth be known the two biggest delays in the downtown redevelopment are attributable to the law suit challenging the actions of the planning board and the board of trustees in designating the area in need of redevelopment and the Redevelopment Plan that was adopted. The second reason for the delay was the fact that the quarry application tied up the planninmg board for twenty two meetings. The fact is that since John Gross has taken over the active day to day leadership of the revevelopment it has moved forward. We have not always been able to have the developers to move at the pace we wanted them to but the direction has been foreward. It is difficult to put pressure on a developer to get its planning board application in when you can't tell the developer when it can realistically expect to be reached. Very few people who have criticized things (particularly over the last several months) have had a grasp of the actual facts. Very often things are said and then repeated as if they are true even though there are no basis for them. Let me give two concrete examples. It has been said repeatedly that the Village condemned the Shop Rite site driving the operators out and that after the condemnation the Village found unanticipated environmental contamination on the site. The truth is the operator closed on its own. The Village then determined in order to insure a grocery market/store in the downtown area it needed to control either the Beifus or Shop Rite site. The people who controlled the shop rite site which had multiple ownership were talking about bringing in a Bravo market as they did in orange on Scotland Road when they closed their store down or possible an Xtra Market as they did on Irvington Avenue at the Newark Maplewood Border or a low end Five and Dime store or possible another chain type drug store (Not CVS or Rite Aide). The Village determined to control the Shop Rite site because the owner of the Beifus site wanted to develop its property. The Village commenced condemnation proceedings and during the statutory negoiation period reached an agreement with the various owners to acquire their interests. It was anticipated that their might be some contamination and indeed the issue was discussed with potential developers. In the end the possible underground contamination was minor. The problem at the site is that asbestos was used when the buildings were constructed. This became an issue because the developer is going to gut the buildings which requires removal of the asbestos. Grant money has been sought to do the studies at the site as well as the abatement. The presence of asbestos at the site even if focused on at the time of the acquisition would not have affected the price of the property. Unfortunately it does impact on the developer's costs in developing the site. A second issue that people have discussed at great length is the tax abatement given to LCOR. The simple reason for the tax abatement was that without it the project would not have been built. That is the simple truth. The Board of Trustees was told that and decided it wanted the project and granted the tax abatement. None of the people who have discussed the tax abatement have ever read the documents or have even a basic understanding of how it works. It is very complicated and can't be summarized here. A few common misundeerstandings about the tax abatement (and the Payment in lieu of taxes that Lcor makes). The 25 millin dollars the payment is based on has nothing to do with what the assessed value of the property would be ($25,000,000 is the construction cost) Thus if there was no abatement it is not clear that the tax would be the $1,2000,00 everybody has discussed. Second the payment is not a thirty year $500,000.00 payment. The amount goes up every year by a formula which also has future payments tied to a percentage of what the taxes would be if there was no abatement. The numbers were worked out so that Village taxpayers never pay more taxes than they would have had the project not received a tax abatement. The most important decision facing the Village at the present time is what to do with the Village Administrator. His contract has one year to run. If the Village President and the Board of Trustees are satisfied with the job he has done then they need to extend his contract so that they can be assured of his leadership overseeing the day to day operations of the Village. The rest of us need to work together to see if we can move the Village forward. Despite the rhetoric of the past campaign their are many opportunities to get involved. (Not everyone gets to start out on the Art Center Board nor does one good idea, even if put on the table for the first time qualify one to sit on the Art Center Board.) Anyone who wants to be involved (with the Art Center or any other activity can contact John Gross indicating your interest and I am sure he will follow up. (email Jgross@southorange.org) Incidentally there are employee evaluations done and the Village has been moving over the past year to a more formal and more regular system of evaluations. Any bad (or good experiences) with Village employees should be brought to the attention of the appropriate department head or Mr. Gross for appropriate follow up. It is not enough to simply say people have had bad experiences at Baird Community Center or at Village Hall provide the specifics for follow up. | ||
| dgm Citizen Username: Dgm Post Number: 104 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mr. Matthews: Thank for providing historical background from your perspective. I do contest one of your assertions: None of the people who have discussed the tax abatement have ever read the documents or have even a basic understanding of how it works... I think that your statement may be true of people with no background in governmental finance and many people on MOL appear to confuse the PILOT with an abatement. However, there are people in SO who do understand government, work extensively with it, understand its funding mechanisms, and do understand the layers of taxation, PILOT's and abatements. The abatement granted to Gaslight Commons appears to favor the Village over the school district even though their interests (i.e tax receipts) are largely the same. Abatements and/or PILOT's are common in cities desperate for development and revenue, particularly in Texas and California, where there are local sales taxes that increase due to development and offset the abatement. This is not the case in SO as we have no way to tax except property taxes. Abatements are not that complicated in concept, and I assert that if properly explained, the intelligent people of South Orange can understand the concepts. -DGM | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 98 Registered: 3-2003 |
Ditto | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 401 Registered: 4-2002 |
Mayhewdrive: Every thing that happens in the village is up for discussion during any trustee election. I certainly hope that all the projects are underway, but there are always things that can come up that either cause a delay or stop a project altogether. For instance, there are many who felt that quarry would have been developed by now, especially those who were involved in the lawsuit back in the early 90's. A bad economy sidetracked that original plan and from the point of view of many that was a good thing. I think the delays in the Arts Center have turned the project into something that is much better than the original concept. I think that the delays with the supermarket have led to a smaller and better version than what was originally presented. dgm: I think that although many people understand the basics of a PILOT, there are many more who do not fully understand how it works, why they are used and all the variables that need to be considered. Either way, the village needs to do a better job of getting the message out on the specifics of a PILOT and how they work. | ||
| patjoyce Citizen Username: Patjoyce Post Number: 4 Registered: 7-2001 |
After I called to congratulate Mark on his victory I told him how impressed I was with the information he shared on MOL and I vowed to try to chime in. I agree with Mark that the information regarding the specifics of any PILOT or tax abatement should be presented to the public and if necessary vigorously debated. In the end the BOT will be responsible for the specifics of any agreement but I believe we should solicit public comment before we make that decision. I disagree with Ed regarding the delay in the projects downtown. The developer of the Shop Rite site missed several submission deadlines which constantly delayed their presentation to the Planning Board. Both the presentation by TCR (regarding the Quarry) and the Market developers were given special meetings when requested. I am surprised Ed, that you would bring up the contract status of any employee in this public forum. I cannot imagine that John Gross would want a public dialogue regarding the status of his employment and I don't think we should be discussing that here. Patrick Joyce | ||
| nwyave Citizen Username: Mesh Post Number: 60 Registered: 1-2003 |
I so agree with patjoyce's comments re. John Gross' employment. I was really surprised and started to put a post last night re this and then dropped it. Seems that this is the last place that an employees status should be discussed. Doesn't seem fair to any of the parties involved and seems like there is an internal lobbying campaign that certainly shouldn't be discussed in a public forum. | ||
| Edwin R. Matthews Citizen Username: Edwinrmatthews Post Number: 9 Registered: 3-2003 |
I stand by my original statement that the people who have been discussing it whether in the campaign or on MOL have read the agreement. I also stick by my assertion that they do not know how it abatements in general and the one South Orange in particular work. In his/her post DGM says " The abatement granted to Gaslight Commons appears to favor the Village over the school district even though their interests (ie tax receipts) are largely the same." This is simply not true and is the type of a lack of understanding I am talking about. The amount of money given ot the school district (Its tax receipts) is completely unaffected by any tax abatements whether short term or long term given out by either South Orange or Maplewood. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 101 Registered: 3-2003 |
I also was surprised that the matter of John Gross' employment was brought up. If there is any kind of internal difference of opinion, I certainly was not aware of it. I think that any discussion which helps explain PILOTs is good and no doubt the discussions on this board have at least raised people's desire to understand them. I still am not sure how this was raised to the level of a personnel matter, and then further opened up to public discussion. Having said that, for what it's worth, in the few conversations I have had with Mr. Gross, he has been extremely responsive to my concerns and quite reasonable. But we're really not supposed to discuss this, I guess. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 102 Registered: 3-2003 |
Mr. Matthews: Our posts crossed. I really wanted to let this matter cool off a little, but you keep making these statements that "people on MOL..don't know how abatements work." I do understand how abatements or PILOTs work; I can also understand numbers. For you to keep on making these statements is just plain wrong. Nothing is going to be accomplished other than just heightening tensions which don't have to be heightened. If in the future the financials are shown to justify the use of PILOTs, then I think we would all be happy. Once again, I don't think your manner is helping things. | ||
| Edwin R. Matthews Citizen Username: Edwinrmatthews Post Number: 13 Registered: 3-2003 |
My statement has been that the people discussing abatements and the LCOR Pilot agreement in the campaign and on MOL have not read the agreement and don't know how they work is a factual statement. It is based on the fact that every posting on MOL with respect to abatements and the Pilot agreement had misstatements and inaccuracies in it. I don't know whether you know how they work. I do know if you have posted on maplewood on line on the subject that your post or posts demonstrates you do not know how they work. I assume you are not deliberately posting inaccurate information If you want to retrieve the various posts I will be more than happy to sit down with you and explain to you the problem with each post. I have written privately to a number of posters and told them I would be glad to meet privately with them to discuss abatements and Pilots in general and the one between LCOR and South Orange. I extend the same offer to you. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 104 Registered: 3-2003 |
Thank you for your offer; you had already extended an invitation to meet with you and Mr. Gross. I think the best way to deal with it is to have a public discussion at such time as either the Beifus or New Market developer's agreements are discussed by the Board of Trustees. I would hope that special effort is made to publicize when those discussions are going to take place. As I said in a previous post, I'm sure that we would all be happy to be satisified that any future PILOT benefits South Orange taxpayers, probably no one more than me since my taxes are up in that upper stratosphere. | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 276 Registered: 5-2001 |
Edwin, Who is YOUR department head, so we may report your condescending attitude towards residents here, during meetings and elsewhere? | ||
| dgm Citizen Username: Dgm Post Number: 105 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mr. Matthews, Why is the below true? "The amount of money given ot the school district (Its tax receipts) is completely unaffected by any tax abatements whether short term or long term given out by either South Orange or Maplewood." Please elaborate so that we may understand the mechanism. Thank you, DGM | ||
| David Lackey Citizen Username: Davidlackey Post Number: 23 Registered: 4-2003 |
Not to answer for Mr. Matthews, but what I think he meant to say was that the PILOT makes the property invisible when the town's total assessed value is calculated, and because of this, South Orange's "school tax bill" does not get any more expensive than it would have been had the project never been built. "The amount of money given to the school district" mentioned above would indeed be more if the project were assessed and taxed accordingly. I think some of the confusion arises from the question of whether our school taxes are in any way impacted by the property's estimated market value (vs assessed value). Does any part of the formula used to fund our schools and determine our taxes factor in market value? (Brian?) | ||
| dgm Citizen Username: Dgm Post Number: 108 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mr. Lackey, You needn't answer for Mr. Matthews. I am speaking only of the abatement. The PILOT is the PILOT, and as it is so new, there is no way to figure out if it will be sufficient in the long run. I think Mr. Matthew's point about the abatement is that Gaslight Common's is tax exempt from the School District's tax rate. But then again, after his answer, I am not sure. | ||
| Brian O'Leary Citizen Username: Brianoleary Post Number: 1420 Registered: 3-2002 |
I'm going to Boston this afternoon to see my youngest brother (he is 30; go figure) married. When I come back, I promise to ... read MOL. Maybe (just maybe) I'll post  In the meantime, given that the negotiations are complete, the minutes of meetings at which the LCOR PILOT financials were discussed should all be available for public review. Perhaps an intrepid MOLer (nwyave? dgm? doublea?) can ask for copies of those minutes, which probably included the math that Ed alludes to and I don't agree with. |
