But to get that “free” help, what would we need to sacrifice in lower quality of life, more traffic, pollution, crowded schools, higher municipal and school costs?
And is it really “free” if in return we must grant the developer a PILOT tax exemption, causing higher property taxes for the rest of us?
Shall we plunge ahead on blind faith or shall we first do our due diligence?
Would a pretty trail along the Passaic River really make up for all that sacrifice?
This Monday night, January 8, the Borough will swear in our new Mayor, civic-minded second term Council member Carolyn Dempsey, and three new Council members, all hand-picked by the local Democrat party leaders with no opposition.
What can we expect of them? Plenty of ceremonies, concerts, and celebrations to be sure.
But behind the scenes, our new Mayor & Council will soon face serious challenges, and will need to make big decisions that will affect all of us for many years to come. Here are some important ones:
1. Post Office Plaza
This month marks the deadline for the Mayor & Council to either:
secure enough grant money to construct a 15-unit, 100% affordable apartment house at Post Office Plaza; or else
borrow whatever it takes to build that project – potentially $6 million or more – while continuing to seek grants, as agreed in 2022.
We should all thank former Mayor Thaddeus Kobylarz, then-Council members Len Resto and Frank Truilo, and Council member Irene Treloar for achieving that agreement. It’s a far better outcome than the 100+ rental unit, 85% luxury alternative the other Council members were pushing then, and a far, far better outcome than the 230-rental unit monstrosity the Harris administration was ready to go with in 2019. But now it’s time to get to work.
By the end of March, the Borough must break ground on the 15-unit project, and it must have a Certificate of Occupancy by March 2025, after which the Borough will serve both as the provider of municipal services and as landlord for the next 30 years.
The big, tax-exempt Ivy housing project on River Road should soon begin to help earn its keep by making payments-in-lieu-of-taxes, also known as PILOT payments. The Council will need every penny to pay for necessities, including new fire trucks, and luxuries like the Stanley Center.
At the same time, the Council will continue to face intense pressure to donate some funds to the joint public School District, based on the mistaken belief that PILOTs cheat the schools.
If the Council succumbs to that pressure, Borough taxpayers will bear more than our fair share of School District expenses, and the Council will need to borrow more money to fulfill its own responsibilities.
The Council would best serve its constituents by flatly denying those demands and reminding the School Board that the School District can and should make any appeal for more funding directly to the taxpayers, by putting on the ballot either a referendum or a second question as it did last November.
For the Council to make a deal directly with the School District, no matter the dollar amount or purpose, would be to cut the taxpayer out of the process. That would be unnecessary, inappropriate, and irresponsible unless taxpayers unequivocally consent to delegate that decision to the Council.
3. More development at River Road
As the Third Round of Affordable Housing obligations winds down, and the July 2025 start date for the Fourth Round nears, the Borough can expect a spate of applications to build multi-family apartment projects, no doubt including one at the Bradley lots on Main Street, the subject of a 2020 lawsuit against the Borough.
The Borough cannot allow all of that construction without sacrificing the small town charm that makes Chatham attractive. And yet, to refuse any of those proposals will be to take a chance on another expensive and risky tussle in court.
It seems the new administration is inclined to solve that problem by sacrificing the rest of River Road to a sea of 862 additional residences.
The rationale is that the Borough cannot prevent construction of more than 800 additional apartments there, so the Mayor & Council might as well try to negotiate for some control and a few public benefits by adopting another redevelopment plan.
That is a mirage. Sure, eager developers will promise to throw in a “free” jogging path along the Passaic River and maybe some extra help meeting our affordable housing quota. But in exchange they will expect the Council to grant them permission to build even bigger housing projects, and to waive all property taxes, which will reduce our tax base.
All other things being equal, deals like that will mean higher property taxes for the rest of us. In effect, Borough taxpayers will bear the cost of that “free” jogging path and a little affordable housing, and will face increasing municipal expenses with potentially inadequate funds.*
Before embarking on another big project, our new Mayor & Council should do their due diligence. At the very least, they should unleash their best experts to help them explore the many other ways the Borough could meet its affordable housing quota, including subsidizing the conversion of existing apartments from market rate to affordable.
Yes, that would cost us, but so does the “free” help the big developers offer. And the time to explore it is now, before it’s too late to pursue it, as happened in the Third Round, when the Council deferred too much to hired experts and wound up with only a few poor options for the redevelopment of Post Office Plaza in 2022.
If the Mayor & Council do choose to pursue another redevelopment project, they must take care not to repeat the mistakes of the past, such as overestimating the PILOT revenues and letting BNE slide on the promised solar panels at the Ivy.
Perhaps most important are for the Mayor & Council to: 1) refrain from placing blind faith in experts; 2) maintain control on matters of policy, instead of ceding those decisions to experts; and 3) stand firm in negotiations, refusing to waive any rights or negotiated terms without strong justification and ample compensation.
4. Surviving Round Four
In the Fourth Round of Affordable Housing that begins in July 2025, the Borough will need to:
negotiate with Fair Share Housing Center as to an additional affordable housing quota for the period 2025-2035;
persuade a Superior Court judge to approve a fair settlement; and
satisfy the judge that the Borough is living up to its promises so the judge will extend through 2035 the Borough’s immunity from builders’ remedy lawsuits and exclusionary zoning challenges.
Unless the Mayor & Council can satisfy the Superior Court on that score by September 29, 2026, the Borough will lose its immunity, leaving it vulnerable to more lawsuits and severe punishments, including the loss of what little control we still have over zoning and planning, as has happened in towns like Millburn and Englewood.
That said, it’s absolutely critical for the Mayor & Council to stand firm, refusing to waive any rights or compromise its negotiating position in any way without strong justification.
5. Revising the Master Plan
By 2026 Chatham must reexamine its Master Plan, the all-important document that will determine our local zoning and development policy through 2036.
That’s serious business. Even an innocent error in the Master Plan could spell disaster for Chatham.
So though it’s the Planning Board that will do the heavy lifting, the Mayor & Council should make it their business to understand the nuances and implications, be vigilant, and raise their concerns in time to make a difference in the outcome for Chatham.
* What’s the difference between property taxes and PILOT payments?
On Tuesday night, 9/19 the Historic Preservation Commission** voted to advise the Zoning Board not to approve a proposal to convert the Main Street Exxon station into a combination gas station and convenience store. https://chathamchoice.org/2023/07/how-convenient/
Of course, even if the applicant can satisfy the Design Guidelines for the Historic District, it will still need to meet the other legal requirements for the variances necessary to complete the proposed project.
Stay tuned.
The Chatham Press, 4 Sep 1936
** The author has elected not to vote or otherwise participate in this matter in her capacity as an alternate commissioner.
Yes. Your Chatham school taxes will go up 4.5% next year.
State law allows our School Board to PERMANENTLY raise our school taxes by 2% each year.
This year, they’re also going to PERMANENTLY raise taxes an extra 2.5% ($1.75 million) unless residents vote that down at the polls in November.
Not only will that mean a 4.5% increase next year, it will also mean that our school taxes will increase faster in the future, and there will be no way to reverse the effect. Even the automatic 2% annual school tax increase will be based on a bigger number every year going forward.
Why would the School Board do that?
They say they need an extra $1.75 million next year. That includes $900,000 (a 1.3% increase) to provide health benefits for full-time teachers’ aides, and another $850,000 (a 1.23% increase) to put security vestibules in all the schools.
Before we vote on such a significant tax increase, we need and deserve some facts and answers.
For instance, what other options did the School Board consider? Why couldn’t they fit those expenses into the regular $86.3 million school budget?
Most important, why not simply raise just enough to pay for the security doors? Why a PERMANENT tax increase?
A permanent increase may make sense for recurring expenses, like health benefits, but not for the one-time cost of security doors. They say there will be other security expenses. But what are they?
At the very least, the School Board should spell out exactly what it intends to do with the extra $850,000 in each of the next ten years after the security doors are in place.
It’s your money. They’re your schools. Your children.
Get the facts.
Go to the School Board meeting on Monday September 18, 2023 at 7:30 pm in the High School auditorium.
Would you like to see a convenience store/gas station in Chatham’s Main Street Historic District?
Should our Zoning Board waive the normal rules to allow that?* **
Come to the public Zoning Board hearing.
NEW NEW Date!
December 20, 7:30 pm, at Chatham Borough Hall, 54 Fairmount Avenue, upper level.
What’s this all about?
The new owner of the Exxon station on Main Street hopes to add a convenience store that’s inconsistent with our Borough Zoning laws.. To go ahead, he must convince the Zoning Board that adding that store would be good for Chatham.***
The applicant operates a similar gas/convenience store that’s open 24/7 just over the border in Summit. 18 County Rd 649 – Google Maps
The main difference is that the Shell/7-Eleven on River Road has a brick facade, instead of the vinyl siding the applicant plans for the TigerMart on Chatham’s Main Street.
By keeping long hours – often all night – convenience stores average 1,400 transactions per day, and most patrons (65%) consume their purchases on the spot. “Litter can be a significant challenge,” notes the trade association that advocates for the industry. @
Come to the public hearing, postponed yet again to November 15, 7:30 pm, at Chatham Borough Hall, 54 Fairmount Avenue, upper level.
That is your chance to get the facts, ask questions, make comments, and show you care about your town.
If you cannot be there in person, you can Zoom or call in. You’ll find the directions by clicking on the Zoning Board Meeting to be posted on the Borough calendar:
** Exactly what is the applicant proposing to build? To see the complete application, visit the Clerk’s office at Borough Hall, 54 Main Street or click on “Agenda Packet” for the Zoning Board at this link: https://chathamborough.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=1
Or download the basic application (no exhibits or supporting documents):
The Council is under pressure to burden Borough taxpayers with more than their fair share of school taxes, jeopardizing its ability to provide urgent necessities like new fire trucks.
Delighted to see some fresh faces at the May 8 Borough Council meeting. Kudos to the four newcomers who stepped up to the microphone that night to talk about the biggest issue facing the Borough, namely:
Shall we use our Borough PILOT revenue from the new River Road development to reduce our property taxes and pay for urgent necessities like fire trucks? Or shall we spend that money on luxuries and gifts?
Before that night, every Borough resident who spoke out asked the Council to use our PILOT money for property tax relief and urgent necessities like fire trucks.
We heard a different point of view at that May 8th Council meeting, where three Borough residents – and a lady from Chatham Township – asked the Borough Council to spend some of our Borough PILOT money on gifts to our joint School District.
That’s understandable: Education is a worthy cause. If the schools need more money, then they should have it. And vigorous discussion can help foster informed decision-making.
Yet judging from the comments made at that Council meeting, we are nowhere near ready to make an informed decision about our Borough PILOT money. Some of the speakers seemed downright confused.
For instance, most of the speakers didn’t seem to realize that the PILOT money is OUR money – a Borough asset. If we give it away, we’ll have to raise our Borough property taxes to pay for necessities like fire trucks.
Also, most of the May 8 presentations to the Council rested on the mistaken assumption that the School District is is short on funds and has nowhere else to turn for help.
That simply isn’t the case.
In fact, the School District has far greater resources than does Chatham Borough – including a $86.3 million annual budget and the option to raise additional funds from Borough and Township taxpayers alike, using ballot questions like the two we’ll vote on this November.
As such, simply gifting scarce Borough funds to the School District makes no more sense than giving them to the local Post Office, New Jersey Transit, the Morristown hospital.
Important as those institutions are, they aren’t municipal functions, and neither is the School District. The Council has no business diverting scarce Borough resources to any non-municipal purpose without voter approval.
What’s more, the Borough Council has no right to meddle in School District affairs. It should stay in its own lane, and defer to the proper authority on local education: the School Board.
If the School District needs more money, the Township and Borough should share the expense – the same way they share every other cost of operating the schools- following the normal process the School Board has been using for years:
Residents pitch their ideas to the School Board. If the Board deems an expenditure worthwhile, it either fits it into its regular guaranteed annual budget, or else floats a ballot question, giving Borough and Township residents alike the chance to decide if the idea justifies raising our taxes. That’s the normal procedure. The Borough Council plays no role in that..
If the Council is determined to overstep its traditional role and consider diverting our Borough PILOT funds for a gift in excess of the Borough’s fair share of school expenses, it certainly should not do so without the consent of residents.
The Council should put the question on the ballot and let Borough voters decide.
At the very least, the Council should provide a timely forum for vigorous, robust public debate before even considering earmarking our Borough PILOT money for any particular purpose.
The Borough Council and voters alike should beware of making such an important choice based on false assumptions. For instance:
PILOT PAYMENTS: MYTH versus REALITY
MYTH: Only a selfish cheapskate – who values money more than the education of our children – would oppose gifting our Borough PILOT money to the School District.
MYTH: The School District deserves a portion of our Borough’s River Road PILOT money, because the District would have received nearly two thirds of the property taxes from River Road if it paid property taxes.
REALITY: Not so. It’s a question of accountability. For the Council to gift money to the School District is to do an end run around voters, diminishing the community’s voice in our schools – and potentially subjecting them to partisan political control.
REALITY: Not so. Given the 2% cap, the School District wouldn’t be entitled to any additional property tax revenue if River Road were a taxpaying development.
MYTH: Even if the School District isn’t legally entitled to a portion of the PILOT money, the Council should gift the District PILOT money in light of the additional schoolchildren at River Road.
REALITY: Nonsense. Absent voter approval, the School District’s portion of property taxes remains exactly the same whether enrollment plummets or soars. Why should the possibility of additional school children at River Road change that rule?
MYTH: If the Borough doesn’t promise to share our PILOT money with the School District, the quality of education will suffer.
REALITY: Nonsense. The School Board president has admitted it’s impossible to predict how much – or even if – the River Road project might increase school expenses. If it does increase expenses significantly, the District will budget for it – or else float a ballot question to raise more money, just like every other district in the state.
MYTH: If the Borough Council doesn’t share our PILOT money with the School District, it will unfairly burden Township residents with the cost of educating additional Borough school children at River Road.
REALITY: Preposterous. Borough residents are required to help bear the cost of educating additional children from new Township developments like the Enclave. How is it unfair for Township residents to help bear the cost of educating additional children from a new Borough development like River Road?
When you pay property taxes to Chatham Borough or Township, approximately two thirds of your tax dollars go to pay 90% of the cost of running the Chatham schools – around $86 million per year.
That’s a big deal, because how the School Board chooses to spend your tax dollars pretty much determines the quality of education your children get – and the resale value of your house.
How will the School Board opt to spend your money next year? How much will they raise your property taxes?
Find out this Monday, April 24, 7:30 pm, when our School Board votes on the 2023/2024 budget.
Ever wonder who is responsible for making sure our school tax dollars are well spent?
Certainly not our Chatham Borough and Township officials. Yes, they collect the property taxes, but they have no control over the amount of money that goes to the schools – or how it’s spent.
Almost equally powerless are Chatham Borough and Township residents. Sure we pay the property taxes, but we have virtually no control over how the School Board spends our money.
Why? Because we lost control of our schools in 2015, when our School Board decided to stop letting us residents vote on the annual budget.
Since 2015, Chatham parents and residents have had a voice in the operation of our schools only on the rare occasions when the School Board was looking to exceed last year’s budget by more than 2%. That’s rare because the 2% cap excludes certain frequent increases in health and pension costs.
Result? The Chatham School Board is seldom held accountable to anyone.
Consider the $86.3 million budget (linked below) that our School Board expects to adopt at its April 24 meeting. That budget fills 103 pages but it isn’t terribly illuminating. (What, for instance, are the “other purchased services” that are up 100% over last year? p. 13, Line 78100)
Even if there were something dreadful buried in those pages, Chatham residents couldn’t stop it, because the increase over last year’s budget falls under the 2% cap.
And that cap is elastic. For instance, this year’s proposed budget includes a cap bank, which will allow the School Board to exceed the 2% cap by $1 million next year – without triggering a vote on the budget. (p. 31)
Most troubling is the way the proposed budget treats capital spending. It shows a “decrease in capital improvements” next year (p. 13), when in reality the School Board plans to raise our property taxes so it can spend an extra $850,000 on security doors. (p. 32)
The proposal to build security doors falls outside the 2% cap because the School Board has decided to let Chatham residents vote on it next November, along with a proposal to spend an extra $975,000 on full-time teacher’s aides {paraprofessionals.) (p. 33)
Both of those so-called “second questions” seem like worthy causes. If the School Board cannot cover them in the regular budget, then taking them to the voters in November is the right thing to do. But the way the School Board has done it is wrong.
Trouble is, the School Board has positioned both proposals as permanent increases in our property taxes, and in the base budget used to calculate the 2% annual increases going forward, which will yield even higher property taxes.
That may be fine for paying full-time paraprofessionals, because that’s a recurring expense. It is not fine when it comes to installing the security doors, a one-time expense that cannot justify a permanent increase in the school budget.
What would the School Board do with that money in subsequent years? The second question about the security doors doesn’t say.
Why would we allow the School Board to raise our taxes permanently by $850,000 (plus 2% annually forever) without explanation?
The solution is for the School Board to edit the second question to make the purpose explicit, fit the security doors into its regular budget, or else simply reframe that proposal as a one-time expenditure.
If the Board refuses to make that simple correction, we’ll face a tough choice in November: either vote down the security doors or accept a permanent increase in our property taxes for no clear purpose.
