| Author | Message | ||
     woodstock Citizen Username: Woodstock Post Number: 149 Registered: 9-2002 |
Mr. Matthews, I assume it was my tongue in cheek question that prompted your response about not understanding PILOTS again. I thought I understood. It was a poor attempt at humor. My apologies if it confused the issue. But, and perhaps I'm beating a dead horse, if the county (or school district) budget is fixed, and my taxes (per dollar of assessed value) are based on the total county budget divided by the total county assessed value (minus any payments made to offset this budget), then having a higher assessed value for the county would, in effect, lower my taxes, would it not? or in mathematical terms,
For any value of N > 0, my [county and school district] taxes would be lower without the PILOT, would they not? If not, then I'm back to the drawing board as to understanding how a PILOT works. Or is the idea that the "reduction" in municipal taxes would offset any increase in other taxes? | ||
| Eric DeVaris Citizen Username: Eric_devaris Post Number: 15 Registered: 2-2003 |
Well, here we have it. We have seven MOL posters, the most vocal and, apparently, very knowledgeable on the PILOT issue, who are willing to attend an “exchange of information” meeting with Messrs. Matthews and Gross, and invited Trustees. Moreover, Mr. Matthews indicates above that he would welcome such meeting. So, let’s have it. If the Open Public Meetings Act does not prohibit Trustees’ attendance, as Mr. Matthews suspects, than the more Trustees attending, the better. I propose, for everybody’s consideration, the following procedures for the meeting: 1) The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss the pros and cons of PILOTs and tax abatements, and to understand their details and their impact on the Village’s economy. 2) The agenda will be: “PILOTs and tax abatements; exchange of information.” 3) Invited will be: a) the seven MOL posters who have already volunteered to participate: Doublea, Washashore, J.Crohn, Woodstock, Jimmurphy, Bets. b) other MOL posters who have been participants in this thread’s discussion. c) all Village Trustees and President; Messrs. Matthews and Gross. 4) The meeting will convene in the large conference room, in Village Hall, and Mr. Matthews will chair it. 5) Mr. Matthews will arrange for a Village employee to record the minutes. The minutes of the meeting, after all participants approve them, will be made public by posting them here in this thread. Mr. Rosner, (I hope you had a good vacation, welcome back), as the most active Trustee participant in this board, would you please promote this meeting among your colleagues, and encourage them to attend? I suggest that those invited, please post in this thread, before the end of this week, your availability in the next month (dates, times), so that we can pick a date convenient to most, and reserve the conference room. Please do so by this Sunday night June 1st. These are my basic suggestions. If anyone differs on an important issue let’s hear him/her. Eric DeVaris | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 411 Registered: 4-2002 |
Eric: Thanks for pushing the meeting. If we do such a meeting, I think the Baird Center might be the best location. Also, I would suggest we invite any and all who want to come to the meeting. Since there might be more than three trustees, we would have to advertise it in the local paper. I will see if I can get a committment from Ed Matthews and then pick a date. | ||
| patjoyce Citizen Username: Patjoyce Post Number: 7 Registered: 7-2001 |
I think it will be a great benefit to the community at large when this discussion/exchange of ideas takes place. I congratulate you all on advancing the dialogue and look forward to the meeting. | ||
| peteglider Citizen Username: Peteglider Post Number: 119 Registered: 8-2002 |
A key to the success of this meeting will be markers and flipcharts! ;-) Anything that can be done to be concrete will make this more understandable! Pete | ||
| woodstock Citizen Username: Woodstock Post Number: 152 Registered: 9-2002 |
Powerpoint! We need Powerpoint! And Visio too! Sorry, just finishing up a presentation at work. In all seriousness, I'm truly looking forward to this, not only to learn more about PILOTs, but to put some faces to names as well. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 149 Registered: 3-2003 |
I'll bring rugelah | ||
| Eric DeVaris Citizen Username: Eric_devaris Post Number: 16 Registered: 2-2003 |
I'll bring ouzo  | ||
| peteglider Citizen Username: Peteglider Post Number: 120 Registered: 8-2002 |
Mr DeVaris -- ouzo -- if nothing else comes of the meeting, then it will be worth it! seriously, though, I have but some of these numbers int an excel spreadsheet - will share if its helpful -- Pete | ||
| Washashore Citizen Username: Washashore Post Number: 19 Registered: 4-2003 |
doublea and Mark Rosner - you seem to both be talking about the same thing in your May 28th posts (doublea at 11:30 AM, Mark at 12:13 PM)but with different conclusions: doublea says that Morristown has NOT granted any Pilots, and as a result, has ended up with smaller projects. Mark says we want smaller projects, and that's why we might have to grant a Pilot. It is unlikely that both statements are true. South Orange has an advantage over Morristown in that South Orange is less than 30 minutes by train from Midtown Manhattan, while Morristown is over an hour. Yet, Morristown has determined that it does not need to grant PILOTS in order to attract development. In fact, because it has not used PILOTS, it has attracted smaller, more appropriately-sized developments, and ones with more aesthetic appeal, than those that have mushroomed in South Orange with a PILOT in place(let's not forget the aesthetically challenged new residential construction on Church Street). Let's make sure that "financial confidentiality" - Mr. Matthews' buzz words for closed door, do it without input from or knowledge by South Orange residents - does not keep us in the dark about the status of negotiations on the Beifus and Supermarket sites. And let the BOT never, ever again say that it has nothing to do with the constantly rising school taxes, while it is so clever at keeping the municipal taxes low, for we now know that our school taxes DID rise directly as a result of the BOT granting Gaslight Commons a PILOT, without BOE or BSE knowledge or advice. If we have learned nothing else (Mr. Matthews seems to be the only one who has not yet learned this, or at least not yet agreed to acknowledge this knowledge), we have at least learned that we are each paying MORE school and county taxes because Gaslight Commons is paying less, and the reduction in municipal taxes we receive because of Gaslight Commons' "in lieu payments" is not sufficient to offset the increase in school and county portions of our tax bills because Gaslight Commons pays nothing, and will continue to pay nothing on them - for the next 30 years. Mr. Matthews, Mr. Gross (and Mr. Hartwyck, wherever you are) and the Trustees need to understand that the residents of South Orange will not be complacent this time around when PILOTS are signed, under the guise that the negotiations are "confidential." Confidential does not recuse the BOT or Mr. Matthews from being accountable. We need to stay vigilant to make sure the BOT and administration are accountable to the residents for any future development deals they make. And that NO PILOTS are granted UNLESS and UNTIL a majority of the residents of South Orange agree with the elected officials and administrative staff that a PILOT is the way to go. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 152 Registered: 3-2003 |
Washashore: Your analysis of my reference to Morristown is correct. Basically, Morristown made a decision to not grant PILOTs, and has not had the need to grant one. The developments are being carried out without the need to grant pilots, and if you've been in Morristown recently, the developments being built are pretty impressive. The reference to the larger project which was denied PILOT status was an analogy to Gaslight, i.e. Morristown had a choice to go with a larger PILOTed project which would have brought in more tax dollars, or a smaller non-piloted project which was more suitable, and decided to go with the smaller project. But the facts are that Morristown is doing very well without pilots. We should also be able to do. | ||
| peteglider Citizen Username: Peteglider Post Number: 121 Registered: 8-2002 |
so far there has been no evidence that our taxes are *more* b/c of the pilot -- rather, while they might have gone down without a pilot, they have in essence not changed for county and school. (although one could argue that our school taxes would increase to pay for the schooling of children from a piloted property). and if a piloted property is paying a higher municipal tax than it would in nonpilot status -- then the rest of us would be paying less in taxes to the town. for me this is all a bit hypothetical -- I would like to see a case with hard numbers -- that we can vary as the assumptions become closer to reality. lastly -- let's keep in mind the very tangible benefit of a revitalized downtown. the question is the ROI -- e.g, is it worth it to me that there is a piloted property -- perhaps my taxes are not lower from a new ratable -- but the town is a better place to live, businesses flourish, SOV is more desirable, and thus supporting the value of my home (all a best case scenario -of course). Pete | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 153 Registered: 3-2003 |
Pete: I certainly share your thoughts about a revitalized downtown. The question it seems is could or would Beifus or New Market be built without a pilot. We're back to if it's a pilot or nothing, then nobody is going to argue that it should be nothing. I think this has to be the heart of the discussion that takes place. In addition, it seems to me that there has been an underlying belief on the part of the trustees that even if the project could be built as a non-pilot, financially it is better to pilot it. I just don't know the answer until we see real numbers.From a strictly personal viewpoint, I would be delighted if it's shown that S.O. taxpayers are better off. | ||
| woodstock Citizen Username: Woodstock Post Number: 155 Registered: 9-2002 |
As much as I would like to be involved in the way our town governs iteself, I think this is a bit unrealistic. Firstly, I think most South Orange residents could care less about PILOTs and other methods of enticing development. they just want lower taxes and a nice place to go at night and on the weekends. This would be like requiring a majority of voters to agree with a tax cut, or a majority agreeing with just about any decision the federal or state government makes. We elect representatives to represent us, not to simply do our bidding. Just as it is unrealistic to expect a majority of citizens to understand the full impact of tax cuts (heck, even economists can't agree), I think it's unrealistic to expect a majority of residents to understand (or want to understand) the details of a PILOT program. That said, I still believe we should get together and discuss this. I'm torn between an open forum and a "closed" one. It would be nice to have a session where all residents could attend and learn about this stuff. On the other hand, I can imagine it getting quite out of hand and tough to stay focused. Especially if people get the (correct or incorrect) notion that their taxes are negatively impacted by these programs. | ||
| Washashore Citizen Username: Washashore Post Number: 20 Registered: 4-2003 |
doublea: Thanks for clarifying about Morristown. I agree with both your clarification and your first post. My concern is that Mark Rosner used the same logic as Morristown of wanting a smaller better project but drew the opposite conclusion - that such a project might require a PILOT, whereas in Morristown no PILOT created the desired result. Woodstock: I agree that we elect people to take care of business. I also agree that most people get involved only when their taxes are at issue. That is exactly my point. UNLESS and UNTIL South Orange voters UNDERSTAND the impact of granting PILOTS to Beifus and the Supermarket sites on their taxes, NO PILOTS should be granted. | ||
| dgm Citizen Username: Dgm Post Number: 112 Registered: 5-2001 |
peteglider, Your post is well written. We have not experienced a significant (if any at all) increase in our taxes due to the PILOT and the trouble with understanding PILOT's/abatements is not their direct effect on your tax bill, but their indirect effect. Let's hope that the Village's use of PILOT's works for the average taxpayer either by strengthening the tax base or improving Village life -- time will tell... | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 412 Registered: 4-2002 |
Washashore: Morristown has a lot of commercial space with some major tenants so it is hard to compare the two towns. A small project for them is a large one for us. They have put up several apartment buildings in the downtown and recently Century 21 Dept. stores took over the old Bambergers space. They have a parking deck and a muncipal garage along with a major hotel complex. More importantely it is situated near Rtes, 287 and 24 as well as Columbia Turnpike all making it much more desirable for commercial developments. We could easily have had a 40,000 sq. foot supermarket and parking complex without giving a PILOT to a major chain, but the BOT felt that would have been much too large for the village. Financially that made sense for the Supermarket chain, but not for the village no matter how much in revenue it would have added. In order to make a smaller supermarket work we are letting them build a small apartment building to offset the costs. If we want less apartments then the project might not be financially viable under our tax structure, hence the reason for a PILOT. I think most of the village residents understand that reasoning. I would not understand the logic of giving a PILOT to entice a developer to build a larger project in S. Orange. This is NOT Morristown. I disagree with a lot of your other comments and specifically about the bottom line to the residents regarding the Gaslight Commons PILOT. The village now gets more money than it did before the PILOT was given to Gaslight Commons, therefore the municipal portion is lower than it would have been otherwise. The school budget did not change because of the project therefore there was no change in the amount each resident paid to the school portion. The county portion is spread over many towns and this project does not count for the total formula therefore there was little or no change in the county tax bill due to this project. If the argument is had they paid money to the schools and the county then those portions would have been lower, but the village would have received half of what is getting resulting in an increase in the municipal portion. Since we share a school system with Maplewood, they are in effect subsidizing this agreement, not the residents of the village. Plain and simple, this PILOT worked to the advantage of the residents and since I am a taxpayer too, I would not have wanted to vote for this deal unless that was true. | ||
| Jim Murphy Citizen Username: Jimmurphy Post Number: 132 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mark, I think this is what most are focused on: The school budget did not change because of the project therefore there was no change in the amount each resident paid to the school portion. The county portion is spread over many towns and this project does not count for the total formula therefore there was little or no change in the county tax bill due to this project. We (at least I) understand that the school and county shares did not go up. I think that what many are thinking (gee wasn't that an elegant turn of phrase) is that but for the PILOT, Gaslight Commons would be paying more and that the rest of the taxpayers would be paying less (or at least the increase would be mitigated) as a result. What I think is being missed is that but for the PILOT, Gaslight Commons would have increased the percentage share that South Orange pays to the county and schools as a result of the increased overall assessment of the village. Gaslight Commons would have just paid its share and there wouldn't be any reduction or mitigation to the other taxpayers in South Orange as many expect. And the village would get less money. How's that sound? Do I finally have it? Ed Matthews? Really trying to get it, Jim | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 156 Registered: 3-2003 |
Jim: You're just too reasonable and bright. Cancel the ouzo. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 415 Registered: 4-2002 |
Jim, the only thing you left out is that without the PILOT it would be an abandoned car dealership, unless we had changed the zoning back to a commercial one. For those who do not remember, Shop-Rite wanted to build a 30,000 sq. foot supermarket there many years ago (early 90's?). The residents faught hard to prevent the project and most insisted that the zoning be changed to residential. The only way a residential project worked was to build an even larger complex or to use a PILOT agreement. Despite the comments of some, there were/are not a lot of developers knocking at the door to build apartment projects. When you take the total tax bill with the PILOT vs. the total bill without the PILOT you will find that it will be lower with the PILOT that was given to the Gaslight Commons. There has been no impact on the schools since there are no children going to the school living there although that might change in the future. |
