| Author | Message | ||
     doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 157 Registered: 3-2003 |
Mark: I think it's pretty much a given that in a few years, there will be children who either live at Gaslight or use it as an address. During the hearings on the New Market development, an ex-BOE member, Robin Baker,said that unless the units were age restricted, there would definitely be school-age children in the units. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 416 Registered: 4-2002 |
I don't doubt it, but I think that is clear the number of children will be less than what was predicted by some. Since all the two bedroom apartments are rented there will probably not be any school children till those turn over. When we originally stated that we would be surprised if there were going to be more than 20 school yet did the agreement allowing for the fact there could be more. The reality is that our projections were on the conservative side and those who insisted that there were going to be over 100 school age children were wrong. Based on the demographics of the building it is very unlikely that there will ever be more than a few school age children living in the building. The New Market development is different because that is condominiums and that could attract young families making a first purchase. By the way, although Robin Baker is probably correct, the BOE has not been too accurate with predictions future student populations and they also predicted that we could expect a larger number of new students from the gaslight commons than we were prediciting. The importance of having a major developer who has a reputation for maintaining their properties also gives us hope to believe that the demographics of the building will not change substantially. | ||
| Jim Murphy Citizen Username: Jimmurphy Post Number: 133 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mark, Thanks for the clarification, but man, I think it would be great if there was a nice big Shoprite there (of course I don't live next door to the site - I'm sure my opinion might be a bit different  ). doublea, Yeah, as condos rather than apartments it seems much more likely that New Market will end up with school-age children. With regard to your other post - far be it from me to stem the flow of ouzo. When's the meeting? - Opaaa! | ||
| Washashore Citizen Username: Washashore Post Number: 21 Registered: 4-2003 |
Mr. Rosner: I am under the impression, from one of doublea's posts when he laid out the math, that he showed that SO taxpayers benefit from a PILOT only IF the decline in municipal taxes paid per resident because of the PILOT's increased municipal taxes is equal to or more than the per resident increase from school taxes because the PILOT pays none. Doublea, am I correct or incorrect in summarizing your post? | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 418 Registered: 4-2002 |
That is correct, but make sure you allow for all factors. For instance, the property does not count in the formula for calculating the split between S. Orange and Maplewood. More importantly, it is important to remember that we would have had another Beifus site had we not done a PILOT agreement. The village is getting $420,000 more now than it was getting when it was a car dealership. One needs to look at the whole picture and not try to pick and choose the portion that makes a PILOLT look better or worse than it really is. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 158 Registered: 3-2003 |
Washashore: Yes. That was the purpose of the pro-forma calculations. It seems that the determining factors are (1) assessed value if not a PILOT, (2)additional amount of total S.O. allocated share of school taxes resulting from inclusion in S.O. base, and (3)ratio of non-piloted assessed value (or equalized tax value per Mr. Matthews) to total assessed value (or equalized tax value)of S.O. property. I think this reasoning is correct, and there are several posters who are more mathmatically inclined than me. And this reasoning only applies to the pilot v. non-pilot case. I know you realize this, but this is for others who say it's not correct because it's pilot vs. nothing. | ||
| woodstock Citizen Username: Woodstock Post Number: 158 Registered: 9-2002 |
Mark, I agree that there much more to a PILOT than the raw numbers. But I feel like the numbers are something where there is a distinct lack of understanding. Much of that misunderstanding might be my own. But it's easier to weigh the entirety of the project when all the details are known and understood. If the additional cost to the average taxpayer goes up $100, but we have a revitalized downtown, or it improves the overall quality of life (directly or indirectly), it still might be a worthwhile project. I still feel, however, that we're not quite there (in terms of detailed understanding) with the financial component. The "quality of the town" issues, while tough to quantify, are much easier to grasp, I think. I think what needs to be determined when the finances are fully understood (because they are the one part that can be best quantified), is whether the difference in total taxes (if any) is worth the added "quality of the town". I know that there are many cases where any negative financial impact is definitely worth it. I hope the trustees have all this information when making decisions. I think what everyone is getting at is that we'd like to try to understand it as well. | ||
| peteglider Citizen Username: Peteglider Post Number: 123 Registered: 8-2002 |
woodstock -- EXACTLY! thanks for that post --Pete | ||
| peteglider Citizen Username: Peteglider Post Number: 124 Registered: 8-2002 |
woodstock -- EXACTLY! thanks for that post --Pete | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 419 Registered: 4-2002 |
Woodstock: I had the numbers and did a calculation back in 1999 when we agreed to the PILOT. I will see if I can find my notes or reconstruct the numbers as close as possible. I know there was some disagreement about the final number but we were all in agreement that the bottom line was a lower total tax bill. But, as I have said, I felt that we had to do the deal to prevent another Beifus site situation and the extra revenue made the deal that much better. | ||
| woodstock Citizen Username: Woodstock Post Number: 159 Registered: 9-2002 |
I'm putting together a spreadsheet that I think is correct algebraically if anyone wants to play with the numbers. I'll post a link to it to download when I have it semi-polished. | ||
| woodstock Citizen Username: Woodstock Post Number: 160 Registered: 9-2002 |
If anyone is interested, I have a spreadsheet that might be useful. I can't guarantee anything, but you can see the formulae and the numbers clearly. Please let me know if I've got any glaring or not so glaring mistakes. http://www.klomstock.com/pilot_taxes.xls | ||
| dgm Citizen Username: Dgm Post Number: 113 Registered: 5-2001 |
Now that we have a quantitative understanding of the PILOT's, how many are out there, what percentage of the tax base would they make up. How many are too many vs. how many are necessary? For example, I have heard rumors that some of the Church Street properties are PILOTed. Is that true? | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 420 Registered: 4-2002 |
None of the church street properties have a PILOT. The Gaslight Commons is the only property with a long term PILOT. Several tax-exempt properties (Seton Hall, Non-profits, etc) have short term PILOT's. They do not have the same kind of impact and in these cases the village receives money from property owners who are not legally required to pay taxes. The rumors were started during the trustee election two years ago for obvious reasons. | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 288 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mark, How about the quarry duplexes? Has there been a discussion about a PILOT for them? We have been told these units will sell for $800,000, which would mean they would be assessed around $600,000. That would give each duplex-owner a tax bill exceeding $30,000 each year. I find it very hard to believe that makes them marketable & I wonder if there is some tax abatement or PILOT on the table to make them more palatable. | ||
| Jim Murphy Citizen Username: Jimmurphy Post Number: 135 Registered: 5-2001 |
Marketablity and palatability of the units to prospective buyers is the developer's problem, not the Village's. PILOTs are used to encourage development. Given the long and protracted fight that all have been through to DIScourage this development - a PILOT seems just unimaginable! Right?!? Jim | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 422 Registered: 4-2002 |
There has been no mention of a PILOT that I know about. I would find it very hard to believe that they would ask for one considering the circumstances. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 159 Registered: 3-2003 |
I think that the area (quarry) has to be designated a redevelopment zone first. Is that correct? But hey, I was looking to see if I could have my house declared an area in need of redevelopment. I need a couple of new garage doors. Since I don't have any school age children, I would request that my property be piloted, and I would even be willing to triple the municipal tax I currently pay. My property would be exempt from school and county tax. What a deal for South Orange. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 423 Registered: 4-2002 |
doublea: Sounds good. If we PILOT all the homes in the village at 80% we could still give the money to the schools and just cut out the county and we would all be saving money. Better than leaving the county except that I think the county has to sign off on long-term PILOT's. I did not think PILOT's were limited to the redevelopment zone, but I will check to make sure. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 160 Registered: 3-2003 |
Actually Mark, we could pilot all of South Orange. Then Maplewood could pick up the entire school tab. Of course, if Maplewood retaliates back by piloting all of Maplewood ... |
