Despite having passed legislation related to South Avenue development for a year and now having a 28-page proposed "payment in lieu of taxes" plan in the meeting packet, a council majority Monday claimed to be left out of the loop and refused to put the tax matter on the Aug. 17 agenda.
The 30-year PILOT plan would give the city a fixed amount of taxes on a $50 million, 212-unit development that would be the city's largest investment yet. It was unveiled as a concept at a July 2014 meeting of business and community leaders and in August 2014 the council approved an "in need of redevelopment" study for the proposed site. A public hearing on the study was held in September 2014.
In February, the Planning Board recommended a redevelopment plan to the council, which passed it on two readings in March and April. The Planning Board is now at the point of considering site plan approval for the development. The developer also agreed to establish a $25,000 escrow account to pay for expenses associated with negotiating the redevelopment agreement.
Councilwoman Gloria Taylor spoke at length Monday about how she felt the council was "left out of the loop."
"It's not right," she said. "I'm not voting for it. It should not be put on the agenda."
Council President Bridget Rivers said she received a phone call Monday regarding a presentation to be made that night, but she said, "This is not how we do business." As other council members complained about the perceived lack of information, Rivers called a recess so the discussion could continue off-camera. When the council returned and was polled, Rivers, Gloria Taylor, and Diane Toliver said "no" to putting the tax break on the Aug. 17 agenda. Rebecca Williams and Cory Storch said "yes" and Tracey Brown abstained. Vera Greaves was absent.
Rivers chided the administration regarding the PILOT, saying "It's extremely important for you to include the council members."
Economic Development Director Carlos Sanchez reviewed the sequence of events, starting with the July 2014 to which all council members were invited. He said eleven properties were being assembled to form the development site and that he did email all council members with a "simplified overview" of the plan. In addition, he said he offered to meet with any council member.
Sanchez said the city is "going back and forth" with the developer over terms of the agreement and the city even had a financial consultant look at the figures. He described the proposed PILOT plan as representing $7 million more than what the city could expect in revenues without the $50 million investment.
Councilman Cory Storch, the council liaison to the Planning Board, said, "Every critical step of this process had to come before the council."
Now, he said, "We're at the finishing line here."
Balking now could mean not only loss of $7 million, but could also be a blow to the city's reputation, he said.
Toliver challenged him, saying no one told the council about the tax abatement.
"Were you aware of that?" she asked.
"Of course," Storch said.
"So why are we all so shocked up here and nobody knows anything about it, except for you and my colleague to the right?" she asked referring to Williams.
Storch said it was mentioned from the beginning, but Toliver said it should have been brought to the council's attention again, adding if she knew about it, she wouldn't be "sitting up here looking stupid."
As the dissension increased, Rivers called for a recess and the governing body left the courtroom. Upon their return at 9:15 p.m., the consensus as noted above was not to move the PILOT plan to the Aug. 17 agenda for a vote. But Brown said there would be a presentation by the developer and it was not "off the table."
City Clerk Abubakar Jalloh reminded the council that five votes will be necessary to add the PILOT ordinance back to the agenda on Aug. 17, but Rivers said, "We're not adding anything to the agenda."
--Bernice
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm not privy to any of the information provided to the City Council members, nor am I ever involved in conversation with any member of the City as a whole..... yet, I knew about it... stunning.. .the incredible lack of personal responsibility some of the members of this city council display publicly can only be regarded as a slap to the face of every citizen of this community.. Seriously sad that I know more about what's going on than Rivers, Toliver and Taylor who are paid to know what's going on and provided more information than the rest of us.
ReplyDeleteENOUGH WITH TAX BREAKS THATS WHY THE CITY IS IN THE STATE THAT IT IS.
ReplyDeleteTwice I asked questions about what assurances there were in the PILOT agreement about the developer's $10,000 annual contribution to upkeep and events at Plainwood Square, and set-asides for city residents seeking construction work on the project. Twice I got no answers or any follow-through from either the Council or Administration. After pigeon-holing Carlos Sanchez after the meeting, I did get the answers (they are in the redevelopment agreement, not the PILOT). Though the council showed no curiosity or concern about the unanswered questions or the guarantees, it was the existence of a very standard PILOT that raised its hackles.
ReplyDeleteHow many times have we heard members of this council invoke the "never got the memo" ploy? Though the Administration has a distinctive communication deficit, it is impossible to imagine the Council, after a variety of its own official actions spanning a year, would have no idea that tax abatements would be part of the mix in any major development. At some point its members need to do their homework, preferably before its meetings, and not act as victims or know-nothings who require spoon-fed information from either the administration or residents.
Despite all their talk about jobs for residents and development that creates opportunities and improves prospects for the city, we've got a governing body that shows little real interest in any of this. The same night it decided to toss a monkey wrench into the South Avenue project, it showed indifference to plans to auction blighted city-owned property that will effectively squelch any coordinated and comprehensive redevelopment of the East 2nd Street commercial zone between Leland and Johnston Avenues. It would add immeasurable value to the neighborhood and the city itself, but now everyone has thrown up their hands and opted for fate and happenstance, the same formula that led to the closure of Muhlenberg Hospital seven long years ago.
Nothing prevents our two branches of municipal government from committing blunders or some other embarrassing faux-pas, but doesn't it seem like the various players go out of their way to sink to the lowest common denominators of inertia and inscrutable action? You bet it does!
To their limited credit, the Council did not move forward the Administration's latest attempt at adding a new position to oversee a theoretical motor pool, the ungracefully termed 'Manager Motors'. I'm certain its majorities' concern is that the job would go to some Administration-connected mechanic or something. It's not a bad idea in a broad sense, and should save the city a substantial amount of money, but it's never been explained how a motor pool would work, who would it answer to, how vehicles would be requisitioned, or how it would be budgeted. This is where the Administration's communication deficit comes into play, and it's fair to say that you don't create a position to head a process until that process is spelled out in detail. The South Avenue project has plenty of detail, but even if the motor pool details are eventually spelled out and understood (which may be a stretch considering who would likely be doing the spelling), the City Council will probably insist it never got the message.
I would be curious to know the terms of the "payment in lieu of taxes". Is this public information that someone can share with all?
ReplyDeleteNo more tax breaks please council member's. No more PILOTS
ReplyDeleteThe city is in the state that it is because of people like those sitting on the Council who do not understand business, do not pay attention and do not follow directions. In the real world, they would not have a job.
ReplyDeleteTax breaks are common when you have this level of development. The degree of the concession and/or alternative compromise is also standard so that it yields a win/win situation. If they don't do it in Plainfield, they will do it somewhere else.
Sure no more PILOTS. Let's keep letting every single community surrounding us continue to develop while we stare at crumbling buildings and vacant lots. Have you seen the nice gem going up in Clark?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nj.com/union/index.ssf/2015/06/clark_commons_stores_begin_to_open_grand_opening_s.html
Let's keep picking our noses while everyone passes us by. Pathetic indeed.....
Well if this project was retail stores of the same caliber of the ones just built in Clark, a PILOT would be advisable. However, we are talking about apartments and I don’t see how they would help to put money into the city.
DeleteAGAIN I SAY NO MORE PILOTS.
ReplyDeleteIf you are interested in generating tax revenue, perhaps you should petition Council members past and present who choose not to pay taxes, are excused from paying taxes or simply don't know what a tax is. That's why this city is the way that it is!
DeleteAll those other booming towns throughout NJ are the real idiots. Those crazies offer PILOT programs and a variety of other incentives that generate businesses, create jobs, attract new homebuyers and renters, resulting in revitalized and thriving communities. Who would want all that when we have the reall smarties here in Plainfield, now those are the true geniuses: operating a consistently failing school system that has been in the bottom 10 of 500+ NJ communities for decades; and, hey, let's not forget our awesome crime index that's consistent in staying well above the state average, and thank God we have one of the lowest per capita incomes in the state (we wouldn't want to come off as being show-offs by letting everyone else know how little we can manage to make). Plainfield's quality of life successes are too many to name, why would we want to change anything?
Please people, no more PILOT programs. Your representatives on the Council have spoken and they know exactly what they're doing.
Pathetic!
I cant get over the level of stupidity in this town and on the council. The I didnt get the memo bs is old at this point. If you dont know, you better start learing or you dont belong on the council. PILOTs are what spark development. Jersey City has been using them for years and they have BILLIONS in real estate development going on. Look around Plainfield. Boarded up and foreclosed. Its all over the city. Affecting everyone's property values no matter what ward you are in. People are not buying like they should be. They are RENTING. The millennials are renting. They dont want to be tied down with a mortgage. They dont want the maintenance. They want a carefree lifestyle. Plainfield NEEDS more apartments like this. New, luxury, well appointed and well positioned apartments. People are not buying like they did 10 years ago. Not in this area. When they rent for a while and learn to like the area, then they will buy.Stop yer bitchn and be thank full someone is interested in having anything to do with Plainfield. They could easily go somewhere else and build.
ReplyDeleteAnd the crowd goes wild! Perfectly said!
DeleteCan you send this to the council? I think even they would be able to understand this.
DeleteWhat people don't seem to understand about PILOT's is the community gains more taxes through this agreement than it would get from a regular pricing structure where the fees are divided between the town (hovering around 50-55%), the rest to the county and the school district. With a PILOT the bulk of the payment goes to the town. Recently Union County decided they wanted a piece too. Nothing goes to the school district. The value of the lots at the proposed full build out will be vastly more than the current value. Hence the PILOT payment will be far more than what is being collected now from older residential and commercial buildings.
ReplyDelete"Payment in lieu of taxes"...or PILOT is a means by which redevelopment takes place in areas which otherwise would not attract standard market redevelopment. As mentioned above, the structure of a PILOT typically excludes the school district from the tax equation which means the City and County will collect equal or greater net revenue on the property. The incentive to the developer is that they pay a reduced tax rate by eliminating part or all of the school district portion.
ReplyDeleteThe additional advantage of redevelopment is increased property valuation. Taxes are based on land value and improvements. If the land stays the same...which it will...the increased value of this new complex over the existing structures will generate more revenue over time compared with keeping things the same. Additionally, the people living in these new units will spend money in the community, become more involved with the progress of the community and eventually perhaps buy homes in the city...all of which will add to the progress of town.
In the short-term, this project will generate 300 construction jobs and eventually create 7 permanent jobs. These jobs...short-term and long-term...will bring people into Plainfield who will spend money at the restaurants, convenience stores and other businesses.
Sometimes PILOT programs can be abused...in this case...I think that this project will bring new/increased revenue to the city...new residents to the city...and some great steps towards progress in the City of Plainfield.
Does this mean you're considering moving to Plainfield Mr. Vastine since we are making "great steps towards progress" as we bring in new people to spend money in our convenience stores?
DeleteI currently work in Plainfield and my house is on the market. I lived in Plainfield previously and would most likely return to Plainfield.
DeleteYou all don't get it. When Jerry Green says get amnesia, the four loyalists get amnesia. He may let them vote for it at the last minute as per usual.
ReplyDeleteIt's a sad state to be be holding to someone who hates the mayor enough to let the city sink.
No one ever rescues the rats when the ship goes down. Only the ones in first class.
DeletePlainfield needs men like Cory Storch and Dan Damon as Mayor
ReplyDeleteSince when does PUPPETS have brains? The commenters are giving the Jerry Green Puppets much to much credit. Puppet President Rivers, the Reverend Puppet, the Puppet Beautician and the Former Mayor's Wife Puppet haven't a brain therefore they have no memory or sense of intelligence. Tsk Tsk Tsk . . .
ReplyDeleteNow, now ... let's be kind. This type of comment is not nice and may be deleted.
DeleteI love it - the Puppet Beautician!!!!
ReplyDeleteIn reading this I think it comes down to the fact that the council is lazy. They want the information spoon fed to them, and don't want to do any research on their own.
ReplyDeleteIn the blog this was stated "He (Carols Sanchez) said eleven properties were being assembled to form the development site and that he did email all council members with a "simplified overview" of the plan. In addition, he said he offered to meet with any council member."
Is this statement correct? Did any council member answer this question and dispute it?
As I read it nowhere in the post does it state how much the annual PILOT payment is and how that contrasts with what estimated taxes might be. You can be sure that the developers know those numbers to the dollar. It's how they make money. The simple math is if they pay less, we pay more. The question is: how much, exactly?
ReplyDeleteI would like to see the spread between full taxes and PILOT expressed as a cost per average household. That's how much we're investing this project with the hope that it will generate more tax revenues somewhere down the line. You know what I mean: trickle down tax benefits.
And how come the Board of Ed isn't going crazy? If there are 200+ apartments there will be dozens of kids added to the system with zero additional local revenues. Is that really a good deal? Or is the hope that the state will pick up the additional tab? News flash: the state is essentially bankrupt. Sooner or later the "Abbott" formula will have to change and the locals will pay a much greater portion of the school budget. But the developers, who have a fixed PILOT, will be pocketing the spread that they negotiated. Kudos to them.
All this bullying by some commenters to move this forward with the PILOT, again I ask, what are the details of the PILOT?
DeleteJust read this. How does this topic get on the agenda in the first place if no one knows what it is about? Isn't there back up in the packets the council received? If not, how does something that no one knows anything about get on the agenda?
DeleteReverend Brown is the Queen of abstentions. My take is that since she is an educated women, and a woman of conscience, she knows she should vote in opposition on many issues to the positions of Taylor, Rivers and Greaves. But, she doesn't want to alienate herself from the party, or populist sentiment. Reverend Brown was not elected to the Council to be mute. She was sent to form an opinion and vote as her constituents and conscience dictate. If she is unable to do this she should resign.
ReplyDeleteBrown has yet to show that she can make the hard decisions. Not only on the council but in PMUA,
ReplyDelete