Unfortunately, neither Prism nor the township’s redevelopment professionals will be at the March 19 council meeting. The township’s deputy attorney sent a March 17 e-mail to the council, with a copy to the mayor, saying that I was the only one on the council to submit questions on redevelopment and that no one from the public had submitted questions. (For some reason, your e-mails to the mayor on March 8, copy to the council, don’t appear to qualify as questions from the public -- although it certainly looks to me that you ask the mayor six rather detailed questions about the project.)

Therefore, the deputy attorney wrote, the mayor is not “inclined” to invite the redevelopment professionals to the council meeting to answer questions or make a presentation.

If that’s not acceptable to you, then I’d recommend you come and express your views in person at the council meeting.

This is extremely disappointing. What will it take to get the redevelopment professionals to attend a public meeting and address public questions about the project and the redeveloper's finances?

Unfortunately, I already have another appointment tonight, and unable to attend the Council meeting. Maybe there was an oversight why my questions for Prism were not entertained. Please bring this up at the Council meeting so that this subject becomes an official part of the minutes of meeting, and hope to get my questions answered (if deemed deserving to be answered) either at the next Council meeting or via email.

Is it the sole purview of the Mayor's office to invite the redevelopment professionals to address questions publicly? At least 3 members of the Council (Ms McCartney, Mr. Krakoviak, and Mr. Guarino), as the "Redevelopment Entity", expressed interest in bringing the attorneys, the financial advisor, and/or Prism principals in to answer questions raised by residents. How can the Administration overrule the Redevelopment Entity's expressed interest in inviting the redevelopment professionals to answer questions raised publicly?

It is my understanding that every time Redevelopment professionals and Prism personnel are brought in to attend a Council meeting, it costs Prism money, and may not be cost effective to answer the questions of only one councilperson. But I would expect that as a Councilman, they should still answer your questions, via email or some other less expensive means than a personal appearance. I await the response from the Administration on this matter at tonight's meeting.

Re. having us over the barrel: I hope Joe (or anyone) will correct me if I'm wrong, but it's been my understanding that among the leverage Prism has against us (to counter the threat of us declaring them in default) is the threat of appealing their property taxes. We've been told that they file the paperwork for an appeal every year, but never go through with it. If we take away their exclusive rights and the promise of a PILOT agreement, the value of their properties goes way down and thus they are likely to win a tax appeal. How significant a hit the township would take as a result, I don't know. This is an issue I've never heard aired at a council meeting.

Ryan:

The fact that, for the last six years (since being named the designated redeveloper) Prism has paid annual taxes on its proeprties in the redevelopment zone that exceed those paid by the former owners (without accessing any municipal services, byt the way) has certainly worked to the Township's benefit.

That, to protect its interests, Prism has filed the preliminary paperwork required to prosecute tax appeals on its properties, without ever having scheduled a hearing to complete the process, has alos been to the Township's benefit.

Should the Township declare Prism in default, remove its designation as the chosen developer and the PILT porgram that goes with it it, yes, they would then be in a state of limbo and the value of the properties clearly compromised.

Would they then have grounds to proceed with and win a tax appeal?

Yes, I believe they would.

Good question.

Speaking of Organon and the general vicinity why weren't the developers mandated to construct a SIDEWALK on Marion Drive?? People walk there and Mt Pleasant Avenue and it's extremely dangerous. Sidewalks create community. We need them. Badly.

Paul P:

First, purpose built for use as offices for General Motors Acceptance Corporation in the early 70's, 347 Mt. Pleasant Avenue was always a parcel separate and apart from the Organon tract and remained as such when Organon acquired it. The always vacant parcel to its rear (never connected to Organon's main campus due to slope considerations) was approved for parking to make current day, stand alone use of the office building viable. Land locked, it had little to no value for any other purpose.

Second, the tax reduction conveyed (to Organon in 2006, and referenced in Judge Stein's report) was based on the property being vacated and are of the type rountinely conveyed to businesses no longer operating and producing income. That reduction did not survive the sale to the new owners and is not in effect now.

Again, the investment group of which Mr. Trenk is a member, acquired the 347 Mt. Pleasant property, renovated it, occupied it and returned it to full tax paying status before any other piece of the Organon tract.

That investment group does not now, nor has it ever, enjoyed any special consideration or benefits as a result of Mr. Trenk's involvement and pay's the 3.5% of the property's assessed value in local taxes, just like virutally every other property owner in town.

Continued from above:

Lastly, in addiition to this histrotical perspective, also totally missing from Judge Stein's report is the fact that (though he was the Municipal Attorney) Mr. Trenk played absolutely no role in the Zoning Board's decision concerning sub-division of the parcel that became the rear parking lot for 347 Mt. Pleasant Avenue. It was, however, a reasonable request made by Organon in order for it to market the property given that neith it, nor GMAC before it, had the kind of visitor traffic a building of its size would typically see; it housed employees only and few if any visitors.

At the end of the day, as well, the future owners of the building was truly an unknown when the subdivision (for the parking lot) was approved; anyone willing could have submitted a bid to purchase it and Mr. Trenk's group was the largest of the three entities that chose to do so.

Paul P:

I do not know what alternate universe you inhabit that totally ignores both recent Township history and fundamental mathmatics, to allow you to reach the totally unfounded conclusions that you do.

Quite clearly, it has somehow escaped your notice that the entire Township received a parcel by parcel inspection and property re-evaluation in 2011; bringing them to essentially what were market rates.

At that point in time, the tax rate itself was established at .035% of the assessed value of the property.

347 Mt. Pleasant Avenue was assessed at a value of $6.3 Million at that time and its annual property taxes at 219,271.50, or .035% of that value...as they were for every other property in the Township.

At worst, the investment group paid $200,000 (at the peak of the real estate market) more than the property was valued at in 2011.

Ergo, the "huge tax break" you continue to proclaim is nowhere in evidence.

Paul P:

So what?

Mr. Trenk (whose law practice has been headquartered in West Orange for years) was interested in the property and submitted an early offer that was not accepted.

This doesn't prove your premise that 347 Mt. Pleasant Avenue enjoyed any tax reduction that Mr. Trenk benefited from.

Paul P:

Again, so what?

Mr. Scola was "concerned" that Mr. Trenk offered to buy the property for less than its assessed value?

Given it was vacant, and Organon was intrested in selling the property and getting out from under the expense of carrying a non-performing parcel, Mr. Trenk made an offer that wasn't entertained.

He tried to get a bargain that simply wasn't to be but, that's what any smart shopper tries to do...whether the purchase involves real estate, a new car or much of anything else.

And yet again, you haven't proved your initial premise: that the investment group of which Mr. Trenk is a partner has received any tax reduction on the property.

They haven't...period.