| Author | Message | ||
     J. Crohn Citizen Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 176 Registered: 3-2003 |
I ditto Dgm's post of 6/9, 9:24 am, as well as Woodstock's "I think [Mr. Matthews] was more concerned that it would turn into a debate, rather than discussion. I would agree with him that that is not the best use of everyone's time." However, I think it's important that the proposed discussion take place, and that we see some real figures. Also, I think it would be wise for us to expect that not only Mr. Matthews and/or the trustees should provide detailed information, but that those of us who think we know of alternatives to PILOTs, or have suggestions for ameliorating their effect on the schools, should also have done some research into our own proposals. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 173 Registered: 3-2003 |
At the Trustees' meeting last night, Mr. Matthews said that the Trustees should have the Beifus developer's agreement within 2-3 weeks. There was considerable discussion about the process to be followed in getting the developer's agreement to the trustees. For those who are interested and did not see the trustees' meeting last night, it will probably be replayed next Monday. I'm sure that some of the trustees and village officials viewing this sight will disagree, but my impression was that there is complete confusion about the process involved in finalizing a developer's agreement and how and by whom it's negotiated. I would urge any of you who did not see the meeting to try to see it next Monday. If any of you saw the meeting I would be interested in your reaction. To his credit, Allan Rosen was trying to protect the taxpayers of South Orange and was constantly being told to be quiet by the other members (except Patrick Joyce). To try to summarize, Ed Matthews said that Beifus would prepare the first draft and he and John Gross would review it and make the changes it thought necessary. It sounded like after the draft had been agreed to by Beifus and Matthews/Gross, it would be presented to the trustees for approval. Anyone can realize that by this stage, it is probably too late to ask for changes, even if the trustees wanted them. After a suggestion by Pat Joyce, Matthews said if any trustees thought there were things that should be included in the developer's agreement, they should pass those on to Matthews/Gross. Once again, to their credit, Allan Rosen and Patrick Joyce should be commended for trying to insert some safeguards in the process. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 433 Registered: 4-2002 |
doublea: I don't remember telling Allan to be quiet, but I was trying to remind him that we wanted the developer's agreement well in advance of whatever meeting it would be discussed at so we would have to time to read it and offer comments. I agreed that Mr. Joyce's suggestion was good and was trying to move the discussion forward. However, it would be better if we were shown the developer's agreement before Mr. Gross and Mr. Matthews go back to him to negotiate the agreement. I think the confusion has to do with the timing and when we can expect the initial agreement to be presented. I think we all know the actual negotiations are handled by the village attorney and the administrator. No matter what, the BOT has to approve it which is why they should have our input sooner rather than later. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 175 Registered: 3-2003 |
Mark: I agree that the best way to handle it is to give the first draft to the trustees for comments before going back to Beifus. The discussion last night was good in that it probably brought out the fact that this was not the procedure that was going to be followed. Allan Rosen's comment was that he did not want to be handed a proposed agreement that day and be told it had to be approved that night. I don't think he was stretching things. | ||
| Washashore Citizen Username: Washashore Post Number: 25 Registered: 4-2003 |
Excuse me, everybody, but here we are on MOL discussing WHEN to hold a public informational meeting so we can all be intelligent about PILOTS and deals with developers, yet if it weren't for doublea attending the BOT meeting on Monday, we would not know that Mathews/Gross are within two or three weeks of such new negotiations with Beifus! Are Messrs. Matthews and Rosner writing in MOL in good faith or not??? How could it possibly be that we are this close to another possible PILOT, and NO DATE is in sight from Matthews/Gross about a public informational on PILOTS? If any of you out there agree with me (petegflider, JCrohn, doublea, DeVaris, woodstock, dgm....) PLEASE voice your concern and desire that the public PILOT informational be held with the residents of S.O. BEFORE Beifus is put before the Trustees, and that there be another public meeting AFTER the Beifus details are known so that there are no surprises when we get our next tax bills and - lo and behold - our school and county taxes have risen disproprtionately from the respective school and county budget proportions because our elected "fathers" have once again seen fit to grant unnecessary tax abatements to the big guys, while us little guys shoulder the burden. And please don't let's get hung up on what can and cannot be presented publicly because of confidentiality.If the BOT is sincere in wanting to help residents understand why BOT actions are good for us, it behooves them to present information to us in a way that we can grasp, and, at the end of the day, fully understand the impacts for us developmentally, economically, and tax-wise. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 176 Registered: 3-2003 |
Once again, I urge everyone who is interested to watch the replay next Monday. Incidentally, I watched it on cable and the audio was very good. There were some other things discussed, e.g. SOPAC, which were equally interesting. I think what disturbs me the most is that my suspicions of a snow job were confirmed. I know that trustees Rosner, Rosen and Joyce view this board and I would be interested in their comments. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 434 Registered: 4-2002 |
Washashore: There will be public discussion regarding a PILOT before anything is voted on. If (when?) it comes up regarding Beifus any person who wants to discuss it should come to the meeting to ask any questions regarding a PILOT or any issue regarding Beifus. There have been no surprises on your tax bill due to the Gaslight PILOT and if anything the total bill will be lower next year than it would have been with out the project. It is your opinion that the PILOT agreement was not needed to get a developer to build there, but I respectfully disagree and feel strongly that we would have had an abandoned auto dealer in that location. The bottom line is that the village is getting over $500,000 instead of $80,000. So the question is "Are we better off with a developed piece of property vs. having another Beifus site and getting six times the revenue we were getting?" The Beifus site presents different questions. For instance, will the developer build there if he does not get a PILOT agreement? Probably yes, since in this case the developer is the property owner and I can't imagine he wants an empty lot there. So he needs to make a case as to why we should agree to a PILOT agreement. DoubleA: I am glad the audio is better and hope that the problem is solved. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 178 Registered: 3-2003 |
Mark: As you know, last night Janine Bauer(is that correct) of the Environmental Commssion and Planning Board presented her reasoning as to why the Environmental Commission should be more involved at the technical level at the initial stages. She is an extremely competent individual as I'm sure the trustees know and her suggestions were in fact accepted by the trustees (with details to be worked out). Just for my clarification, she said something about if the Environmental Commission had been involved at an earlier stage in the Shoprite property, it might have been able to make some suggestions. Can you elaborate? | ||
| patjoyce Citizen Username: Patjoyce Post Number: 12 Registered: 7-2001 |
doublea, I'm not sure what you mean by a "snow job". Regarding the PILOT discussion, I believe Alan brought it up and Mark continued to press the point that the BOT will not consider a vote on a Developer's Agreement unless we have had sufficient time to digest the information which is presented in the document. One of the problems is that there has been no proposal to date from these developers. They could, if they wanted, build as approved by the planing board. I don't believe there is a requirement that the town enter into an agreement with a potential developer (on the south side of SO avenue the developer is proceeding without a Developer's Agreement). My point last night was, we should take this time to create a wish list of items which we would like see contained in any agreement which the town enters into. As part of that list we should consider the total economic impact of any abatement/PILOT which is considered. Which brings us full circle to this thread. While the developer's numbers can remain confidential there should be no reason why the public cannot be made aware of the various tax implications of the several options which are available. In the meantime, the suggested "tax class" using the Gaslight Commons, or any hypothetical set of numbers, as a guide would be useful to the public (and some Trustees who have always hated math!) Patrick | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 437 Registered: 4-2002 |
About six months ago, John Thonet came to the Planning and Zoning meeting to discuss lifting the restrictions that were put on the environmental commission when it was created as an advisory board in 1999. I told him his reasoning was sound and I would favor the changes, but I wanted him to present it to the full board and to be available to answer questions. Since then he moved away and hence Janine's presentation last night. I am not 100% sure about her comment about the Shop-Rite site. The timing of when any study was done probably would not have affected the sale of the property but might have had an impact on the planning board hearing. I will ask her for more specifics or to find out if she was speaking in general terms. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 179 Registered: 3-2003 |
Patjoyce: I agree with everything you said last night as well as Mark's comments re Beifus today. . Once again, I want to thank you and Allan Rosen and Mark for clarifying the situation and making your suggestions. | ||
| Eric DeVaris Citizen Username: Eric_devaris Post Number: 24 Registered: 2-2003 |
Mr. Rosner, you say "There will be public discussion regarding a PILOT before anything is voted on"; I assume that you are talking about a Beifus PILOT. I hope that you share the views a) that an educated public would be a better conversant in a public discussion regarding a Beifus PILOT than an uninformed public; and b) that this public would be better equipped to understand a Beifus PILOT, if we were privy to the knowledge that has already been acquired through the Gaslight Commons PILOT, knowledge that is not confidential any longer. If you share these views then I hope you would agree that a public meeting is necessary whereby the governing body shares the numbers’ reality of the Gaslight Commons with its citizens, and that such meeting should happen before the governing body engages in any discussions with the developers. I don’t want to put you on the spot, Mark. I am now addressing the other two Trustees as well, who have presence on this board, Messrs. Patrick Joyce and Alan Rosen. As you know, gentlemen, many in this thread have asked Mr. Matthews to organise an informative public meeting before the end of June. Would you three Trustees ensure that such meeting takes place before the end of June, and certainly before any discussion regarding the Beifus PILOT? And would you three gentlemen avail yourselves to attend such public meeting, not as presenters, since Mr. Matthews wants Mr. Gross and himself to be the presenters, but as audience? This way you would hear exactly the same information that the public will hear on the issue, you will hear the public’s concerns in the Q&A period, and you will get a better feel of the pulse of your constituency. I am looking forward to our timely public meeting. Eric | ||
| vermontgolfer Citizen Username: Vermontgolfer Post Number: 41 Registered: 12-2002 |
I second Eric's comments, better informed makes for better understanding. | ||
| mary032 Citizen Username: Mary032 Post Number: 7 Registered: 8-2001 |
Strange! Brian O'Leary was a frequent participant on this thread before last month's elections. And after the elections.... What happened to you Brian? Were the election results such a trauma for you? Yet you contributed alot to the question of PILOTS. Right or wrong. I hope you can come back. Mary | ||
| Washashore Citizen Username: Washashore Post Number: 26 Registered: 4-2003 |
Did anyone see in the paper this week that Morristown sold the Vail Mansion (formerly used as the Morristown Town Hall)to a developer for half the assessed value? The deal struck gives the developer the right to construct 52 apartments where a lesser number was zoned, and in exchange, the developer is required to restore the historic Mansion to its original glory, and the town gets a re-furbished mansion for public use. Perhaps the paragrpah above will help generate ideas for the "wish list of items we would like to see contained in any agreement with developers" that Patrick Joyce recommends we develop. | ||
| patjoyce Citizen Username: Patjoyce Post Number: 13 Registered: 7-2001 |
Eric - I will call John tomorrow and request that we get this forum together, but that is not a guarantee it will happen. I am looking forward to the discussion because I feel like you all who have pushed this thead for so long have a much better handle on the analysis than I do. vermontgolfer said it best, "better informed makes}} for better understanding." | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 438 Registered: 4-2002 |
I will second Patrick Joyce for asking Ed and John to formally pick a date, although I think it is not going to happen before the end of June. We all have busy schedules and I am not sure that it would be so terrible to have the meeting in July. There are a lot of meetings scheduled this month already and I think both Patrick and Ed are involved with little league which also takes up several evenings this month. | ||
| Brian O'Leary Citizen Username: Brianoleary Post Number: 1424 Registered: 3-2002 |
Mary032, thanks for your kind words. I'm not traumatized ... really  It's good to see a continuing discussion of issues related to some of the campaign themes. My limited posts on MOL are partly a function of having to make up some time in my business, which wavered a bit during the campaign, and also a measure of respect for the decision made by a majority of voters last month to support the incumbents. I've logged a lot of MOL miles in the past 15 months, and sometimes it helps both me and the discussion to step aside for a little while. | ||
| David Lackey Citizen Username: Davidlackey Post Number: 27 Registered: 4-2003 |
Mark, The reason people want to have this meeting sooner is fear of the impending negotiations between Mr. Gross and both New Market and the Beifus developer. It is clear that residents want to understand the issues before deals are cut. This is a reasonable concern. These are the two largest commercial developments in town. It is quoted often that our taxes, and school taxes in particular, are high because we have so few commercial tax-rateables. Is it wrong for people to ask that this be addressed before the train leaves the station (so to speak)? | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 439 Registered: 4-2002 |
David: I understand the concern. It is fair to expect a meeting to take place before any agreements are voted on or finalized. I am not expecting to see any agreement this month on either project, but certainly at some point next month for Beifus. I will ask Ed and John to set a date for the meeting. |
