| Author | Message | ||
     bets Citizen Username: Bets Post Number: 312 Registered: 6-2001  |
Mr. Matthews, Commendable as it is offering to schedule individual meetings with concerned residents, wouldn't it be easier to hold an informational session open to all residents? Public documents, contracts, financials, meeting minutes, etc. would be available for review and questions from the citizenry. Wouldn't that be a much better use of your valuable time? | ||
| Edwin R. Matthews Citizen Username: Edwinrmatthews Post Number: 16 Registered: 3-2003 |
What David is saying is partially correct but I would add the following. The School Board arrives at a figure it feels it needs to provide for a thorough and efficient education. This is essentially the expense side of the budget and is a specific constant figure. The revenue side is a combination of grants, state aid and monies received from Maplewood and South Orange. Abatements and long term Pilot agreements affect how the revenue side is made up. They specifically affect the allocation between South Orange and Maplewood of the shares they pay. Maplewood pays approxiamtely 57% and South Orange pays approximately 43%. If new ratables are added to South Orange they would increase South Oranges share and reduce Maplewood's share. Within the South Orange share there would also be an adjustment which would change how much each property owner would pay. The total amount of money given to the School Board never changes. Having now read your response to David I think my answer responds to the question you are asking but must admit that I am not sure. If not follow up and perhaps call me. | ||
| Edwin R. Matthews Citizen Username: Edwinrmatthews Post Number: 17 Registered: 3-2003 |
Bets: John Gross and I have actually talked about that. We were prepared at the time the LCOR abatement and agreement were granted to answer any and all questions. Unfortunately there were very few questions. Perhaps if another developer asks for an abatement that might present an opportunity for such a discussion. If not perhaps we can just schedule such a session. What needs to be kept in mind that the process does include some information submitted to the Village in confidence which information would not be made public. But concepts and the specific agreement can be discussed. | ||
| dgm Citizen Username: Dgm Post Number: 109 Registered: 5-2001 |
My question is simple, does the abatement granted to the Gaslight Commons property exempt from school tax payments. I have heard the commentary in your 11:32 am post before and it doesn't answer the above question. | ||
| jimmurphy Citizen Username: Jimmurphy Post Number: 121 Registered: 5-2001 |
Just for my own understanding - is this a good way to put it?: If Gaslight Commons were NOT PILOTed, the assessed value of South Orange (SO) would go up and thus the percentage share for SO would go up. The new development would pay it's own taxes to the schools so no other homeowner would pay more (assuming that the new development brings with it a number of students commensurate with it's tax payment) Given that Gaslight Commons HAS been PILOTed, the assessed value of South Orange (SO) has not gone up and thus the percentage share for SO has not gone up. To the extent that there are ANY students from the project attending the schools, there is a marginal increase in the amount requested by the BOE, so therefore both SO and MPLWD pay the same share of a larger pie (T&E Budget). The existing taxpayers pick up this marginal increase. In the case of SO, the increase is likely more than offset by the DECREASE in our municipal taxes as a result of the PILOT. In the case of MPLWD, they're SOL (***t out of luck) and must subsidize South Orange - a seemingly unfair proposition. Of course is we take into account that South Orange sends more in the way of taxes than it does in the way of students (proportionately), as a South Orange resident I can sleep at night with a clear conscience ;) Is that close? Jim | ||
| Brian O'Leary Citizen Username: Brianoleary Post Number: 1423 Registered: 3-2002 |
No, it's not close. | ||
| jimmurphy Citizen Username: Jimmurphy Post Number: 124 Registered: 5-2001 |
OK ----- What was wrong? Pray tell. Jim | ||
| Edwin R. Matthews Citizen Username: Edwinrmatthews Post Number: 21 Registered: 3-2003 |
Actually Jimmurphy is very close. I would tweak the last sentence of the first paragraph a bit. I would love to know what Brian thinks is wrong and have him factually state what is wrong with the explanation. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 110 Registered: 3-2003 |
Assume the total value of property in the two towns is $1billion, before the PILOT. S.O. has $440million and Maplewood has $660million. The total school budget is $80 million. S.O's share of the school budget is 440 million over 1 billion or 44% or $35.2 million. Assume a development is built with an assessed value of $25 million. If it is a non-PILOT, this increases the total value of properties in the two towns by $25 million and adds $25 million to S.O's base. S.O's share is $1.025 billion over $465 million or 45.36% or $80 million (assuming no additional students) times 45.36% or $36.288million. Thus, S.O's share of the school budget increases by $1.088 million. The amount of the school tax paid by the new development is 25 million over 465 million or 5.37%. Thus the new development pays 5.37% of S.O's share of $36.288million or $1.948 million. In the above example, by not making the development a PILOT, although S.O's share of the school budget increases by $1.088 million, the new development pays $1.948 million or a net plus of $860,000. Under the PILOT agreement, the amount of municipal taxes paid by the PILOT is higher than would have been paid had it not been a PILOT. The same example as used above for school taxes should also be used for county taxes. If the increased amount of municipal taxes paid by the PILOT is greater than the amount of school and county taxes that would have been paid had the project not bee a PILOT, then financially the taxpayers of S.O. are better off; if not,they are worse off. This does not take into account the fact that without a PILOT, a development this size might not have been built. Nor does it take into account other factors such as revaluation which are mentioned in my post under the "PILOT Agreement" thread. In the final analysis, it seems that a PILOT is good from a financial standpoint if it is a "win - win" situation. The developer pays less taxes than it would have have otherwise, and the taxpayers of South Orange also pay less in total taxes. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 111 Registered: 3-2003 |
Whoops. In the example above, Maplewood's share should be $560 million, not $660 million. This doesn't change the numbers as far as S.O. is concerned. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 112 Registered: 3-2003 |
In the above example, assume the development would have paid $342,000 in municipal taxes had it not been a PILOT. As a PILOT, it pays $500,000 in municipal taxes. The increased municipal taxes of $157,500 are subtracted from the $860,000 benefit in school taxes to S.O. taxpayers had the development not been a PILOT. Thus, in this example, there really is a net loss of $702,500 to S.O. taxpayers by making the development a PILOT. | ||
| bets Citizen Username: Bets Post Number: 315 Registered: 6-2001 |
Who assumes the burden of increased county taxes? | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 113 Registered: 3-2003 |
County taxes are 18% of the total tax bill for S.O. taxpayers. I don't even have a good guess as to what the total county taxes are or S.O's share, but the calculation would be the same as for school taxes. If anything, it looks as if S.O. taxpayers would be better off if it were a non-PILOT. Because the county tax is only 18%, and the total tax and total property values are so large, the addition of the value of the development probably wouldn't make much of a difference. To answer your question directly, the total amount of S.O's share of county taxes is increased because the tax value of the property is added to S.O's tax base, but the development would pick up at least its share. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 114 Registered: 3-2003 |
My answer to Bets about county taxes was written while I was watching "Raymond" and I had to ask my wife what Robert's mother said during the wedding ceremony. Hope the answer made sense. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 115 Registered: 3-2003 |
Whoops again. In the main example, it should be "S.O's share is $465 million over $1.025 billion or 45.36%..." and not "$1.025 billion over $465 million." Still doesn't change anything. The 45.36% was correct. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 116 Registered: 3-2003 |
The calculation of the development's share of county taxes is as foolows: 1. Before development Assessed value of S.O. property/assessed value of all property in county x county budget = S.O. share of county budget 2. After development Assessed value of S.O. property including deveopment/ assessed value of all property in county including new development x county tax 3. Subtract 1 from 2. This gives the increased amount of county taxes that S.O. must pay. 4. Assessed value of development/assessed value of S.O. property including development x S.O's new share of county budget = development's share of county taxes. 5. Compare 4 with 3 to see impact on other S.O. taxpayers. . | ||
| peteglider Citizen Username: Peteglider Post Number: 113 Registered: 8-2002 |
Hey DoubleA -- thought I was following you...now lost the thread! any chance you have this in a spreadsheet you could email? Or is it all on the back of an envelope? If it is in a spreadsheet -- pm me, and I'll send you my email. thx Pete | ||
| peteglider Citizen Username: Peteglider Post Number: 114 Registered: 8-2002 |
Hey DoubleA -- thought I was following you...now lost the thread! any chance you have this in a spreadsheet you could email? Or is it all on the back of an envelope? If it is in a spreadsheet -- pm me, and I'll send you my email. thx Pete | ||
| woodstock Citizen Username: Woodstock Post Number: 138 Registered: 9-2002 |
If you'd like to post a spreadsheet for the rest of us curious, but financially-challenged folks, email it and I can post it on a web site and provide a link... | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 4694 Registered: 5-2001  |
Check the formatting instructions for this board (link at bottom); you can copy/paste right from Excel and post here. |
