The council and the public are promised a brief presentation from the administration on the proposed South Avenue redevelopment, but what the developer probably wants to hear is whether the governing body will approve a "payment in lieu of taxes" plan for the project.
As previously reported, the council did not have a consensus to move the PILOT ordinance to the regular meeting for a vote, despite having approved numerous steps advancing the South Avenue Gateway proposal for 212 residential units with many amenities. A majority had to agree to put the ordinance on, but only Cory Storch and Rebecca Williams said yes. Tracey Brown abstained, Diane Toliver, Gloria Taylor and Council President Bridget Rivers said no and Vera Greaves was absent.
The 30-year PILOT would bring in a percentage of revenue based on a complex formula. The city already has nine entities with PILOTs. As former Comptroller A. Matthew Boxer points out in his 2010 study of municipal tax abatements, care must be taken when establishing PILOTs and they must be monitored over the years for compliance and changed circumstances.
At last week's meeting, Deputy City Administrator for Economic Development Carlos Sanchez said city officials had already gone "back and forth" over terms of the PILOT and had also hired a financial consultant to go over the numbers.
A Planning Board hearing on the developer's request for approvals began on Aug. 6 and is scheduled to be completed on Aug. 20. As Storch said on Aug. 10, "We're at the finishing line here."
The outcome may depend on whether the administration can convince a council majority to approve the PILOT. If council reservations are not adequately addressed at tonight's meeting (Monday, Aug. 17, 8 p.m. in Municipal Court), there may not be the five votes now required to put the matter back on the agenda and then the votes to pass it. It would be interesting to hear each one of the council members give the reason for how they vote, for the benefit of constituents watching in the courtroom and on television.
--Bernice
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
PILOT agreements are popular in Abbott school districts because when the district is at full state funding levels, every dollar raised through local taxes replaces a dollar of state aid. This is the rationale given to me by Richard Reading, the financial consultant who worked on the Clark Commons redevelopment which now houses the new Whole Foods right off the Garden State Parkway. That project was done without a PILOT, but the situation in Clark is unlike what we have here in Plainfield. It's also a reason why some suburban or rural legislators bemoan these deals, which shift the burden of school funding away from the urban localities that create them.
ReplyDeleteWithout Council approval the properties will generate a bit more than $3 million in tax revenue over 30-years. With Council approval the take will more than triple, to over $10 million. This seems to me to be a good deal for the city. In my lay reading of the agreement, it looks like a very standard one that conforms to state guidelines.
Where the Council should weigh in is in the realm of the redevelopment agreement itself. The developer has already agreed to a $10,000 annual contribution to upkeep and events at Plainwood Square Park. Council should make certain that during construction a large but reasonable percentage of work will go to Plainfield residents and local subcontractors. And, let's not forget the schools. Regular taxes aren't really possible, but a one-time, or continuing, contribution to fund equipment purchases or a special program would show a lot of good faith.
The City Council needs to show some good faith as well. It's already taken a number of official actions to move the project forward, from asking the Planning Board to do a study and find the area in need of redevelopment, to adopting a plan, and on to hiring a redevelopment counsel to represent the city. They ought to explain why, at this late stage, they are now holding back and making common ground with some of the most regressive, anti-urban, forces in the state.
In separate development news, a builder has purchased the vacant building and lot at 2nd Street and Garfield Avenue. I thought at first it was just the empty lot that runs down Garfield , but he has told me he bought the building as well. The 2nd Street commercial corridor (the subject of a 2012 Rutgers study) is also in need of redevelopment, so the Administration should cease the plan for auctioning off city-owned property at 2nd and Netherwood, and include it once a comprehensive redevelopment plan is adopted. This would be best for the neighborhood, as well as local business owners and community groups who have periodically spoken up about this area. A little collaboration and forethought will never hurt, and we should avoid haphazard actions and piecemeal approaches.
Any member of a "voting" body who abstains or votes against the question owes an explanation of their position to the concerned public. The absence of any reasoning strongly suggests that their motive was purely personal or political and without merit.
ReplyDeleteThis Council is only in the dark about this development plan because they choose to be. I agree with Doc and others that they need to explain their vote or abstention on this matter. Maybe they need to have a blog to answer their constituents questions, instead of a static, one way newsletter.
ReplyDeleteThe reasoning always seems to be: If the administration is for it, we're against it. How many of the governing body will be in attendance tonight?
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteWhere do I sign up for a tax break ??
If you have $50 million dollars, or even a fraction of that, to invest in Plainfield to help generate jobs, improve quality of life for all, add to the overall tax base and help move the City forward, then perhaps you should present your full-on prospectus to the Council for consideration; otherwise, get out of the way and let others keep moving forward.
DeleteMove over GB, change-is-a-comin' your way!
With that amount of $ PLEASE buy my place and let me get O-U-T
DeleteWait .... they have $50 million and they want us to pay their taxes ??? Looks like we need Bernie Sanders after all. Green, Mapp and Clinton are in the pocket of big business.
DeleteWasn't the information in their packets?
ReplyDelete21 Pages! devoted to the PILOT
Delete