| Author | Message | ||
     bets Citizen Username: Bets Post Number: 326 Registered: 6-2001  |
Hey! That was my idea!  Mark, you really thought my idea about PILOTs for all homeowners a good one? Where can residents apply? BTW, I would gladly attend an open meeting between the trustees, administration, and concerned citizens. | ||
| Eric DeVaris Citizen Username: Eric_devaris Post Number: 17 Registered: 2-2003 |
Reminder. Those interested in attending that meeting 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. | ||
| Edwin R. Matthews Citizen Username: Edwinrmatthews Post Number: 32 Registered: 3-2003 |
John Gross and I are discussing putting together an information session on Abatements and Pilot agreeements. Most likely it will be done in conjunction with a forthcoming request for a tax abatement and Pilot Agreement, assuming there is such a request. Assuming we do the program we will facilitate the program ourselves and it will be open to the general public. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 161 Registered: 3-2003 |
Mr. Matthews: In the "South Orange Revelopment Update" included in the May Gaslight, it says that the tax impact of The Candlewyck (Beifus) is $250,000 and $350,000 for the two New Market Square properties. The footnote says these amounts are for municipal purposes and any additional revenue if any would go for school and county taxes. This must mean that these numbers were done on a PILOT basis. Is that correct? | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 162 Registered: 3-2003 |
Incidentally, I do understand that if done on a non-pilot basis, the numbers shown for municipal purposes would be reduced. | ||
| J. Crohn Citizen Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 133 Registered: 3-2003 |
SHEESH! I have been unable to post since Tuesday, due to a whim of the Machine. Dave Ross has now fixed my access. 1. I will make myself available during a weekday evening other than Friday, preferably 7:30 or later, to attend a meeting to learn more about PILOTs with all and sundry. Could also possibly do a weekend. 2. I prefer Slivovitz to Ouzo. If we must confine ourselves to Greek liquor, I vote for Metaxa. 3. Mr. Matthews: "I am not sure what J. Crohn means by cost benefit analysis. What I mean by CBA is what I thought the town was required to produce in advance of granting a PILOT to any developer. Surely there is a written cost-benefit analysis that could be shown to skeptics of PILOTs, which shows the Village's projections and rationale for granting one to the Gaslight Commons. (I would have thought a CBA had to be filed with the county?) In this case, one assumes there was a PILOT v. no-Pilot analysis, and also a PILOTED development v. no-development analysis, complete with long-term projections. In the case of LCOR the benefit was an additional $420,000 in revenue to South Orange in the first year. This reduces the amount that all of the other taxpayers have to pay by that amount. (If my math is correct that is approximately $50.00 per year for each $100,000 of assessed value for each homeowner.)" Yes; however, this does not address the fact that the schools would have benefited if we'd all paid (if your math is correct) $50 more per $100K assessed value to South Orange, because LCOR would have paid more than half its taxes to the school district. And so our school-portion taxes this year would have risen less than they have. With the PILOT, haven't we simply paid for the school + municipal services we get out of one pocket rather than the other? And isn't the net effect to increase budget pressure on the school district rather than on the town? I say this because, given the PILOT, the town has more money to spend and therefore less incentive to raise taxes above whatever percentage it raised them last year. But the school district, lacking such investment, has no choice but to cut services or else request a raise in taxes to pay for its budget increases. So a pertinent question might be, is it fair or wise to shift the greater burden of responsibility for increasing taxes onto the schools? Because that, it seems to me, is what PILOTs, for all their benefits, must do. (I hope I'm not being hopelessly unclear.) Let me put it another way: faced with the prospect of raising taxes, the Village has a variety of means by which it can attempt to avoid an increase that earns elected officials the wrath of the electorate. It can consolidate services, cut services, or seek development that will result in a net increase of funds to the Village. But the school district has no real fundraising mechanism at its disposal—it is, as things stand, dependant on the towns for increases in revenue apart from property taxes (and dependant on town approval even for that, at least where separate proposals are concerned). If the towns opt to fund themselves but not the school district, then the district has just two options: cut services or raise taxes--and be seen to be the villain of the tax-increase story. We don’t do this with other services. We don’t isolate the police department or Public Works financially, preferring to pay for the schools and other services out of our PILOTs. Isn’t it odd that our system puts the schools outside the revenue picture where PILOTs are concerned? | ||
| Edwin R. Matthews Citizen Username: Edwinrmatthews Post Number: 33 Registered: 3-2003 |
Doublea: I have not seen the May Gaslight so I am not familiar with the numbers. I don't know who is responsible for them or what they are based on. I am thus unable to interpret them. On another topic. Any comparisons between South Orange and Morristown are mixing Apples and Oranges or maybe mixing apples and squash. Morristown's tax rate is only 60% of South Orange's tax rate. (Morristown's rate is 3.02 per hundred whereas South Oranges's rate is 5.01) Putting aside equalization issues in practical terms a property assessed at $25,000,000 would pay approximately $1,252,000.00 in taxes in South Orange whereas in Morristown the taxes would be approximately $755,000.00. It is much easier to get an appropriate return on investment in morristown without a tax abatement. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 163 Registered: 3-2003 |
Mr. Matthews: The following response is said in all seriousness and sincereity: isn't that exactly the problem. South Orange is one of the most "tax traumatized" municipalities in New Jersey. For many years the taxpayers of South Orange have been told that one of the reasons for this is the lack of commercial ratables. In addition, we are told that South Orange is all built out, and there is no more room to build. The school budget accounts for about 55% of the total tax bill. It is always blamed for our high taxes. Now we have built or to be built three very large developments, which represent possibly some of the last possible sources of tax revenues, to relieve the tax burden of South Orange taxpayers. I understand the reason for PILOTs if they are the only way to attract development. At this stage I am not talking about Gaslight. That is a done deal. Time will tell if it was the right decision. I am concerned at this point about Beifus and New Market Square. I have to assume that the numbers in the Gaslight were given by the Village. They have to be PILOT numbers. In other words, it was already decided they would be piloted. So there will be no additional revenues to relieve the school tax burden of the South Orange taxpayers. If this is the case, and the reasoning is that it is the only way to get these developments built,tell us and we'll have to go from there. J.Crohn in her post above has described how by piloting, it takes a lot of the pressure off the municipal government to watch its budget. Adding $1,150,000 to the municipal coffers (Gaslight, Beifus and New Market)allows a lot of room. But it does nothing to help the school tax burden. Thus, the school budget becomes more and more of an excuse for our high taxes. I know a lot of this will try to be explained at a meeting, if one takes place. As I said at the beginning, I am very sincere in my questioning. I want to see redevelopment, but if we can negotiate a more favorable deal, let's try. Thanks. | ||
| peteglider Citizen Username: Peteglider Post Number: 126 Registered: 8-2002 |
Can you actually get Slivowitz anymore? Since the war -- have not seen it (although some ok replacements!) I do have a question-- yes, I would very much like to get at the numbers behind the Gaslight agreement. However -- what's more concerning right now -- who knows or can say whether or not other projects in development are likely to ask for or get PILOT status? And -- what are other towns doing? For instance, could we lose development to Montclair if they chose to offer PIlot and we did not (AN EXAMPLE ONLY -- NO RUMORS, PLEASE!). At the moment I am fully in agreement with homeowner PILOTS -- sure could use some kitchen renovations ;-). Pete | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 164 Registered: 3-2003 |
I think the Thomas Edison Buildng in West Orange is being converted into condominiums. I don't know it there is any PILOT. I know this from hearing a resident of South Orange mention it at a Trustees' meeting several month's ago. This same person was interested in knowing who to get in touch with about the Beifus building to be built because he knew someone who was interested in taking the entire first floor (commercial). Maybe Mark or Mr. Matthews knows something about this. | ||
| J. Crohn Citizen Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 134 Registered: 3-2003 |
"Can you actually get Slivowitz anymore? Since the war -- have not seen it (although some ok replacements!)" (Hmm...which war?) Actually, I had some at a bat mitzvah in Pennsylvania last weekend. Not that I even glanced at the label or the shape of the bottle. | ||
| Edwin R. Matthews Citizen Username: Edwinrmatthews Post Number: 34 Registered: 3-2003 |
If Beifus and the New market development have been given abatements and entered into PILOT agreements I am totally unaware of that. Neither of the projects has submitted proformas in support of a tax abatement. HOMEOWNERS IN SOUTH ORANGE CAN GET TAX ABATEMENTS FOR THE FIRST $15,000.00 OF HOME REPAIRS FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD. | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 4713 Registered: 5-2001  |
Edwin, is that repairs or improvements? For example, would taxes be effected if an old roof were to be replaced (ie., repaired), when all it did was bring the house back to its pre-existing condition? | ||
| J. Crohn Citizen Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 135 Registered: 3-2003 |
Wow, I'd sure like a followup on Dave's roof query. | ||
| Edwin R. Matthews Citizen Username: Edwinrmatthews Post Number: 35 Registered: 3-2003 |
Improvement is the word used in our ordinance but is defined as "a modernization, rehabilitation, renovation, alteration or repair which produces a physical change in the existing building or structure that improves ther safety, sanitation, decency or attractiveness of the building or structure as a place for human habitation or work and which does not change its permitted use." I don't know whether it applies to roof repairs. Check with the tax assessor. I am not sure a roof repair results in an added assessment. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 165 Registered: 3-2003 |
There is a 5 year Tax Abatement credit up to $25,000 of the increased assessment value resulting from an improvement. The procedure for obtaining the abatement has now been improved so that homeowner is advised of the availabilty of the abatement when the building permit is issued. Previously there really wasn't anyway for a homeowner to know except through word of mouth. This happened to me and I suggested that this procedure be adopted and it was. The application form must be filed within 30 days of completion. Normally, this would be after the final inspection. I don't think it would apply to a new roof, unless a new roof reults in an increased assessment. As Ed says, check with the tax assessor. The difference is between improvement and maintenance or repair,and there are some pretty objective guidelines. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 424 Registered: 4-2002 |
Doublea: From what I heard about the proposed project in West Orange, there is a long way to go. My guess is that they will have to do something because of the cost of acquiring the property and finding new homes for the commercial tenants. I will let John McKeon know we can accomodate some of those tenants. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 166 Registered: 3-2003 |
Thanks Mark. Do you know if in fact the first floor commercial space of The Candlewyck has been reserved. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 167 Registered: 3-2003 |
And Mark, actually West Orange is doing very well on the tax front. I think this is the first time in five years that it might havd to raise municipal taxes. Of course, West Orange does have a lot more buildable property. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 425 Registered: 4-2002 |
I had only heard that 2,700 sq. ft. of the commercial space had been reserved, but that there was substanital interest in the other space. West Orange has done well the past few years and they do have a lot more buildable property for commercial and residential space. |
