Dorm being planned for Valley Street?
Just to repeat, this is a private facility, not owned or operated by Seton Hall, and will pay taxes.
However that may be, Seton Hall is a direct beneficiary of such developments because they have no room on campus for residences apparently. In order to accept students, they need a place to house them. Separate issue: Is their contribution in lieu of taxes publicly known?
PILOT payments are public knowledge. Question most frequently asked/considered is whether this payment accurately reflects the cost of services provided to the property by the municipality.
ctrzaska said:
SHUs contributions are noted within the SO budget.
SHU Pilots are not specifically noted in the SO budget - none of the Pilots are. The SO budget only shows the total amount of all Pilots.
SHU does not make any Pilots for the main campus. SHU does make in lieu of payments for any of the properties that it owns off the main campus - the amount of the Pilot is approximately what the municipal tax would have been with normal taxes.
cramer said:
ctrzaska said:SHU Pilots are not specifically noted in the SO budget - none of the Pilots are. The SO budget only shows the total amount of all Pilots.
SHUs contributions are noted within the SO budget.
SHU does not make any Pilots for the main campus. SHU does make in lieu of payments for any of the properties that it owns off the main campus - the amount of the Pilot is approximately what the municipal tax would have been with normal taxes.
Wouldn't this information be listed in the worksheets even if it doesn't appear in the published budget document and as such available under FOIL?
Joan - I tried for many years to have the Pilots listed individually in the budget, the same as Maplewood does. A few years ago Howard Levison gave me a list of the Pilots and I posted it on MOL. The Pilots are probably listed on the worksheets but I have never seen the worksheets.
cramer said:
ctrzaska said:SHU Pilots are not specifically noted in the SO budget - none of the Pilots are. The SO budget only shows the total amount of all Pilots.
SHUs contributions are noted within the SO budget.
SHU does not make any Pilots for the main campus. SHU does make in lieu of payments for any of the properties that it owns off the main campus - the amount of the Pilot is approximately what the municipal tax would have been with normal taxes.
I assumed they had the same level of transparency as Maplewood. My bad. I do know the PILOTs are in the Audits, though in arrears a year given the timing. Not sure if I’ve seen what SHU pays delineated there however... only thing I recall is the $1million redevelopment loan SO gave them.
ctrzaska said:
cramer said:I assumed they had the same level of transparency as Maplewood. My bad. I do know the PILOTs are in the Audits, though in arrears a year given the timing. Not sure if I’ve seen what SHU pays delineated there however... only thing I recall is the $1million redevelopment loan SO gave them.
ctrzaska said:SHU Pilots are not specifically noted in the SO budget - none of the Pilots are. The SO budget only shows the total amount of all Pilots.
SHUs contributions are noted within the SO budget.
SHU does not make any Pilots for the main campus. SHU does make in lieu of payments for any of the properties that it owns off the main campus - the amount of the Pilot is approximately what the municipal tax would have been with normal taxes.
I think you mean the $1 million so-called loan that SHU gave to SOPAC for construction, which was really SHU's right to use SOPAC for a rental of $50,000/yr/ for 20 years.
eta - My recollection is that about 4-5 years ago SHU paid around $350,000 as Pilots for the properties which it owns off the main campus. This would have increased since then in line with the increase in municipal taxes.
All,
Thanks for the feedback here. Nothing is being "planned" yet. A review is being done in a very transparent way by our Development Committee (with press in attendance who report) and regular BOT updates from me. I think it is worth noting that the process we complete in South Orange is not required under Municipal Land Use Laws or Local Redevelopment and Housing Laws. We have this process in place so subject matter experts, our staff, members of the governing body and most importantly, the community can be involved in projects before they are submitted for BOT approval or a submission to the Planning Board for variances or site plan review.
I recognize in advance that we're certainly not all going to agree on any project. While all voices need to be heard, we ultimately need to come to some level of compromise or a project simply doesn't move forward and we begin the cycle again. I'll also say emphatically that there is no perfect project, each on has its own merits, financial pro formas, benefits to the community, costs to the community, etc.
I can't speak for the entire governing body on where they stand and quite frankly, I'm still undecided on this particular topic because I haven't yet received a review of the construction budget which I'll be receiving shortly.
Here's a couple considerations, in my mind, that I think are helpful to evaluating this proposal. Some are obviously editorial in nature.
1) More and more students are "choosing" to live off campus, this was confirmed by a survey we conducted with Seton Hall roughly a year and a half ago. What prompted us reviewing this information was more single family homes being converted into student housing. While most students living off campus (much like myself when I was in graduate school) are not a nuisance to their surrounding neighbors, de facto boarding/rooming houses (which are illegal) are certainly a challenge. We have a supply/demand issue which I believe has a correlation to this problem. If we had student housing available in business districts, would the need be as great for students to seek trying to find roommates to rent in single family zones? There is not a housing shortage on the SHU campus, there's preference dynamic that as students enter their junior/senior years and/or graduate school, they're looking at more independent living.
2) I have made clear on several occasions that I do not wish to see Seton Hall acquire property in our town primarily due to the tax situation. Our largest land owner is tax exempt. That certainly doesn't mean there's not wonderful benefits associated with hosting a university - it just makes it more financially challenging when land is exempt. For what it's worth, the Village will be undertaking a review of all exempt properties and have met with a specialized tax attorney to understand changes in case law that may or may not impact many exempt properties. Seton Hall, through their own Master Plan, never contemplated purchasing property off campus when they have room to build dorms on their own campus without the cost of property acquisition.
3) Many concerns raised are often about school aged children and traffic. In this particular instance, there will be no school aged children (which also is not a significant number in market rate apartments being built) and the parking agreement I broached with the University is that they would issue on campus permits and the parking ratio for this development would lower. The shuttle service for the University is a block away - Ora Manor.
4) On a more subjective note, I personally would love to see more integration of the University with the community at-large. Perhaps while not spoken about enough, many students work/intern/volunteer in town, support our merchants, and love being residents of our community. I see this as a very positive thing and worked on these efforts when I was the Student Body President there introducing the SHU-Fly (the shuttle service) and Pirates Gold (a way for local merchants to accept money through a student's expense account). There's an incredible opportunity for we, as a community, to better integrate the largest institution and all they have to offer into our Village.
5) The site right now would likely meet the criteria of "blight" in a statutory sense. Especially given the environmental contamination of the site having been auto oriented for so many years. So the next question would be the appropriate use also understanding there are private property rights. If the site isn't developed as student housing, it would unquestionably revert to a mixed use development.
6) The concerns about student housing are absolutely understood. Many of us and people in general would raise "noise, parties, drinking, lewd behavior" and every other negative characteristic to this proposal. This, too, was a part of the discussion as a Management Group would be hired to oversee the property. While that may not alleviate all concerns, they would be held to the same standard as everyone else. That will come down to enforcement as is with any property.
7) On the issue of traffic, congestion and growth - our population is less than it was in 1970. What has changed is the growth and economic development of surrounding communities (along with changes in household size and who could forget our busy train station?). Our 3 major business corridors serve as County Roads connecting very large populations with destinations that "pass through" our community. We're not Maplewood Avenue and we will never be. Our built environment is different. The better comparison is Springfield Avenue. So perhaps the better question is, given the growth occurring around us in the region, do we want to absorb all the downside or also participate in the upside both financially and from a revitalization standpoint. We will never be able to provide our business community with dedicated surface parking for their individual needs which is why we follow a shared parking model. What we can provide is additional foot traffic and walkability. Those are assets for any business and are a critical component in attracting any new business to our community. Are we giving them parking or are we giving them foot traffic?
8) On the financial side, as I often explain to people, our community unfortunately relies on over 90% of taxes collected being levied on single family homes. This is not a sustainable model. A new project with the opportunity to generate over $1M in new revenue helps us maintain staying below the 2% tax levy cap and invest in our much needed capital improvements. The amount of deferred maintenance that has mounted over the past many many years is unbelievable. We can't bond our way out of this using our existing tax base without 1) lobbying the State to reverse the cap or 2) sacrificing major services both with the municipality and the schools. None are good answers. So I hope to continue new (non-tax) revenue, continue appropriate redevelopment grounded in smart growth principles which also helps us build affordable housing and help us meet our fair share housing obligations, find efficiencies in our operations to the extent we can (we have several shared service agreements and are pursuing a consolidated fire department with Maplewood TBD), and pursue grants (we haven't dropped off here and added more services such as SOMA Two Towns for All Ages).
9) Through our town-wide rehab (which I know many opposed) we're able to better control projects through a redevelopment plan and a redeveloper's agreement. This tool was used for Orange Lawn Tennis Club, the repurposing of 298 Walton Avenue, and 4th and Valley. Some of the mistakes of the past won't be repeated, I believe, with our team and professionals we have in place to control all aspects of projects and ensure internal controls.
Hopefully this helps advance the conversation. I hope that minimally, regardless of whether my points above resonate with you or not, we can respect each other's opinions and understand that sometimes we need to agree to disagree. I can be reached at scollum@southorange.org or if you shoot me a PM, I'd be more than happy to discuss more over the phone or in person or you're always welcome to join our advisory committee meetings or speak before the Board of Trustees (both posted on our public calendar).
And hopefully I never get accused of withholding information (wink).
Sheena
Edited for spelling and grammar.
In response to Sheena’s well presented points, I would say that residents east of ridgewood road are often affected by development in ways that do not affect others. There is not an opposition to development as much as there is concern about this fact: South Orange is a smallish town and unfortunately some business corridors slated for development are in very close proximity to the single family tax payers addressed in point #8. I would also say that it is unlikely that students will not want to access their own vehicles in a more convenient way than taking a jitney to campus. Just an opinion.
Sheena said:
7) On the issue of traffic, congestion and growth - our population is less than it was in 1970. What has changed is the growth and economic development of surrounding communities (along with changes in household size and who could forget our busy train station?).
What has also changed: Since 1970, the number of cars per capita in the United States has roughly doubled, while South Orange’s population has barely fallen. So chances are still good that the number of cars owned by residents is significantly higher than it used to be.
I think the question was whether development adds to the existing traffic issue, and specifically whether a dorm will exasperate on street parking.
annielou said:
I think the question was whether development adds to the existing traffic issue, and specifically whether a dorm will exasperate on street parking.
Yes, and in No. 7, Sheena provided context for the existing traffic issue. My comment was an attempt to add some more.
DaveSchmidt said:
Sheena said:What has also changed: Since 1970, the number of cars per capita in the United States has roughly doubled, while South Orange’s population has barely fallen. So chances are still good that the number of cars owned by residents is significantly higher than it used to be.
7) On the issue of traffic, congestion and growth - our population is less than it was in 1970. What has changed is the growth and economic development of surrounding communities (along with changes in household size and who could forget our busy train station?).
One has to consider where we will likely be 20 years from now with regard to auto ownership, use, and parking requirements.
Steve said:
One has to consider where we will likely be 20 years from now with regard to auto ownership, use, and parking requirements.
Of course. Ml1 has raised this point as well, regarding Maplewood parking complaints. Twenty years, though, can be a good chunk of a modern apartment building’s life span, not to mention a long time for neighborhood residents.
Americans are obsessed with cars and guns. Will always be too many of both.
DaveSchmidt said:
Sheena said:What has also changed: Since 1970, the number of cars per capita in the United States has roughly doubled, while South Orange’s population has barely fallen. So chances are still good that the number of cars owned by residents is significantly higher than it used to be.
7) On the issue of traffic, congestion and growth - our population is less than it was in 1970. What has changed is the growth and economic development of surrounding communities (along with changes in household size and who could forget our busy train station?).
So has the traffic been studied or not? This answer seems to suggest it has not.
if the developer sells the building to Seton Hall in the future, does the property become tax-exempt? What’s the status of this project?
the project has not moved forward because the developer has not provided the information the town requires yet, I believe mostly about financial returns, etc, that would let the town set tax valuations and so forth. I'm not sure that it will happen.
Any property Seton Halls buys is tax exempt. Same for the churches and temples.
The state needs to end the property tax exemption. It is not feasible. At the least they should be required to pay the municipal portion.
I agree about ending tax exempt status, but the idea of this building, if built, being sold to Seton Hall doesn't make sense. If they need more housing, which has been debated but I think that they do, why use their money to buy a building which is partially relieving their problem already, instead of building their own dorm to furthur alleviate the problem?
I do not think the concern is immediate if built, it is what might happen in 10 or 15 years.
mikescott said:
Any property Seton Halls buys is tax exempt. Same for the churches and temples.
The state needs to end the property tax exemption. It is not feasible. At the least they should be required to pay the municipal portion.
Seton Hall makes PILOT payments equal to the municipal tax (possibly more) to SO for all of the properties it buys off the main campus. It doesn't pay any PILOT for the main campus.
(I'm not defending SHU - I think it should pay a PILOT for the main campus since it uses the SO police and fire services.)
The PILOTs for off campus properties are actually quite large in total (I don't have the exact amount.)
Seton Hall just built a huge structure on their own property, not sure what it is, but if their student housing is an issue, why did they not build a dorm?
ctrzaska said:
SHUs contributions are noted within the SO budget.
They're not shown as separate line items on the SO budget. There is only one lump sump for all of the PILOTS - $3 million in 2017 (that includes all of the developments, Jespy House, SHU.) I know that Maplewood shows each PILOT as a line item. SO used to do it many years ago. I've tried in the past to get the PILOTs listed. Howard Levison gave me the list about 3 years ago and I posted it on MOL.
annielou said:
Seton Hall just built a huge structure on their own property, not sure what it is, but if their student housing is an issue, why did they not build a dorm?
If someone else is willing to build a dorm, SHU is down with that. This way, it has funds it can use for other purposes. SHU has to borrow for whatever it builds - the rating agencies look at how much SHU has in total debt.
SHU is not required to have a PILOT. I am suggesting that the state take away the exemption for municipal taxes for all property. Who knows what SHU will do if they hit a rough patch but would not surprise me if they reduced what they now pay to the village.
For Sale
Rentals
-
Huge Brand New construction Apartment in 2 family home with 4 bedrooms 3 bathrooms
4 Bd | 3Full Ba
$4,500
Mike though Seton Hall does not pay taxes in the usual manner. they do pay a negotiated sum-in
lieu of taxes. Many years ago I did the Pest Contol for the whole campus..........including the prep which was then located on the campus and the seminary located on Centrer St. Seton Hall owned
over 20 homes for the use of the priests. They were charged an in lieu fee by South Orange
When I left the company Father Kelley from the prep gave me a school tie. For years the only tie I owned
Tenants receive minimal Homestead Rebates.........my neighbor across the hall received $.37
I let the State of New Jersey keep mine