While the cat’s away….

Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

While you were relaxing on LBI, our walkable little Borough was changing into to a less attractive place, with motor bikes on crowded sidewalks and higher property taxes for all.

“Higher taxes?” you may wonder. “How could the Council raise our taxes in the middle of the summer? Did they do that to pay for the new fire trucks we so desperately need?”

Nope. The. Council used a taxpayer asset to make an outright gift, depriving Borough taxpayers of an automatic tax break, and the chance to choose to use those funds for some urgent municipal need, like new fire trucks.

It was not consensual. How did that happen? Here’s how:

Given certain caps on local taxes and spending, the Borough Council’s annual budget is only about $17 million. All other things being equal, a new, taxable development automatically triggers a little more revenue to the Borough, along with lower property taxes for all of us, unless residents vote to spend more instead.

But the Council can take away our right to that tax break, and free up far more spending money for itself, far above the normal limits, simply by designating the new development exempt from property taxes, and allowing the developer to pay smaller, negotiated amounts known as PILOTs.

PILOT payments aren’t subject to the normal spending limits, and the Borough Council isn’t required to share the PILOT money with residents in the form of lower taxes. The Council doesn’t even need to ask voters before spending the PILOT money.

WIth a PILOT, the Council can simply plunge ahead and spend 95% of the revenue however the Council members please. They can spend it on urgent necessities like fire trucks. They can spend it on luxurious pet projects like the Stanley church. They can even spend all the PILOT money on outright gifts, and still go right on increasing the Borough budget and raising our taxes every year.

That’s exactly what the Council did at its August 12 meeting. The Council voted to give part of the Ivy PILOT payments to the Joint School District of the Chathams, a separate entity with its own $90 million budget and its own sources of funds, to cover expenses that would otherwise be shared with Chatham Township. That’s a gift.

That gift would be acceptable if the Borough Council had made it with the informed consent of Borough residents, for instance if residents had voted for it. But in this case, the Council approved the gift on the spot, the same night the public learned about it.

Why would the Council make such a gift when the Borough is in desperate need of at least two fire trucks, according to the experts the Council paid $18 thousand to evaluate the situation? Ask the Council members.

Won’t that gift help curb our school taxes? Not one bit. The School District is still legally entitled to the same annual increase in its share of our property taxes, which taxpayers had already voted to increase permanently in 2023. https://www.tapinto.net/towns/chatham/articles/vote-no-on-public-question-1-which-will-permanently-raise-property-taxes-for-an-expenditure-already-in-the-school-district-budget

In fact, the effect of that gift is to raise the school tax burden on the Borough, because it’s on top of the Borough’s fair share of the cost of running the schools as determined by a longstanding formula.

https://chathamchoice.org/2023/06/why-should-chatham-borough-pay-more-than-its-fair-share/

Isn’t the Township also kicking in more money to the School District? No.

Most of the members of the Township Committee are too smart to throw away assets as the Borough Council has, done, if only for fear of getting voted out of office. Instead of giving more than its fair share to the School District, the Township Committee is buying TWO new fire trucks right away, to save money.

https://www.tapinto.net/towns/chatham/sections/government/articles/chatham-township-committee-votes-to-bond-4-8-million-to-buy-fire-trucks-police-cars-study-for-expanded-police-headquarters

Why didn’t the Council ask us first? Good questions for the Borough Council.

https://chathamchoice.org/2023/06/why-should-chatham-borough-pay-more-than-its-fair-share/

Will Borough voters ever wise up and rein in Council abuse of our PILOT funds? You tell me.

See for yourself at 2:55 here: https://chathamborough.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=263

The big lie: Myths about future development at River Road

Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , ,

You’ve heard what the politicians always like to say:

To get any control over what gets built at River Road, we need a redevelopment plan, they insist.

Unless we have a redevelopment plan, the developers can build whatever they want, they wail, evoking the specter of towering , tacky, monstrosities.

But is that true? No.

Absent a redevelopment plan, any new, private development is subject to many federal, state, and local requirements, including plenty of Borough building, affordable housing, and zoning regulations that apply all over town, and some that apply to the Gateway Overlay Districts of River Road in particular.

For a new, private project at River Road, those requirements include the following detailed rules that set strict standards for almost every aspect of a development:

Affordable Housing §69-4A: https://ecode360.com/27401603#31809708

Land Development §165: https://ecode360.com/29899377#29899377

Gateway Overlay District 1 §165-35: https://ecode360.com/6793137?highlight=sidewall&searchId=5252782375618825#29899351

Prohibited: §165-5: https://ecode360.com/6792677#6792677

Health §274-§308: https://ecode360.com/11763943#11763943

Fire Code §136 https://ecode360.com/6792430#6792430

Keep that in mind next time someone tries to tell you that – unless we adopt a redevelopment plan – the developer “can build whatever he wants” or that adopting another plan is “the only way to control what happens at River Road.”

No explanation at all

Uncategorized, , , , , , , ,

At their August 12 meeting, the Mayor & Council invited a Borough tax lawyer to address a mystery:

Why had the lawyer called off a property tax proposal, claiming in writing that “the Borough Council has decided not to proceed with the request this year,” when, in fact, the Council would not even vote on the matter for another week?

https://chathamborough.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=256 starting around 2:06:00, and reported at https://www.tapinto.net/towns/chatham/categories/news/articles/chatham-residents-question-whether-borough-council-vote-on-rolling-reassessment-was-a-sham-vote-after-letter-revealed

The lawyer must have had some reason for saying that. Instead of revealing the reason, he seemed determined to fall on his sword, claiming full responsibility for the debacle. “It is my fault,” he insisted. “I just should have said that the Governing Body has not yet given me that authorization.”

So, why didn’t the tax lawyer say that? Why did he tell the Tax Board otherwise? The Mayor & Council never asked that key question, and the lawyer never volunteered an explanation.

https://chathamborough.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=256 reported at https://www.tapinto.net/towns/chatham/articles/chatham-borough-tax-lawyer-offers-mea-culpa-for-canceling-hearing-that-preceded-sham-vote-on-rolling-reassessment-plan;

When will the Mayor & Borough Council get to the bottom of this situation and reveal what prompted the lawyer to notify the Tax Board that the Council had decided something, when in fact it had not?

When will the Mayor & Council tell us what they’re doing to make sure nothing of the sort ever happens again?

Check out this transcript of the CBC meeting on 8 12 24Download
Tax Board agendaDownload

How did this happen? Find out on August 12th!

Uncategorized, , , , , , ,

“It was not a sham vote,” insisted Chatham Mayor Carolyn Dempsey at the July 8th Council meeting.

That was the Mayor’s reaction to proof that the Council had voted on a property tax proposal one week after a Borough lawyer notified the Tax Board that the Council had decided not to pursue that proposal. https://chathamchoice.org/2024/07/who-did-this/

Curious how that happened? Want to support your Mayor & Council? Just like to be in-the-know?

Come to the next Council meeting, which is set for Monday August 12, 7:30 pm, at Borough Hall, 54 Fairmount Avenue. Use the side door and take the elevator to the upper level.

Can’t be there that night? Attend on Zoom. https://www.chathamborough.org/resident/calendar/mayor-council-meeting-13-1723505400

Who did this?

Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , , ,

FOR THE UPDATE, SEE THE END OF THIS POST BELOW

Who officially called off the rolling reassessment at least one week before the Council voted on it at the 6/24 meeting?

Who told the Borough tax lawyer to call off the rollin reassessment at least a week before the Council voted on it?

https://www.tapinto.net/towns/chatham/categories/news/articles/chatham-residents-question-whether-borough-council-vote-on-rolling-reassessment-was-a-sham-vote-after-letter-revealed

“It was not a sham vote,” insisted the Mayor, saying she wasn’t aware of the discrepancy until two weeks later, when Bob Weber showed proof at the 7/8 Council meeting.

Now the Mayor needs to find out who made that call behind her back and let us residents know.

UPDATE: Does the employee’s explanation make any sense at all?

https://www.tapinto.net/towns/chatham/sections/government/articles/chatham-borough-administrator-email-explains-behind-the-scenes-maneuvering-associated-with-rolling-reassessment-decision?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR0qo8pJRehxHwQXntFkChEfi1a9ZtAK6bwifZcLPf8G1UX35830oJO8x2g_aem_dPs2URZRlpI54We43GFXsQ

Visioning?

Uncategorized, , , , , , ,

What’s up with the so-called “visioning workshop” the Mayor & Council have set for next Thursday, June 27, from 7 to 9 pm, at Borough Hall, 54 Fairmount Avenue?

They’re testing public support for a plan to build 500 more rental apartments on River Road, near the 245-unit Ivy project at the corner of River and Watchung.

To achieve that, they would offer developers a 30-year property tax break, prompting them to build even if the market is weak, and forcing us taxpayers to assume the risk that the rents won’t keep up with rising municipal costs.

The alternative is for the Borough Council to wait and see if the River Road property owners choose to build more apartments without a tax break.

Under current zoning, they could conceivably build 700 new flats there tomorrow.

But, left to their own devices, property owners may not build any more apartments on River Road anytime soon. Not unless, until, and to the extent they (and their lenders) think they can get rents high enough to pay regular property taxes and still make a nice profit.

That may not happen for many years – if ever – given current interest rates,.the 245-unit Ivy project sitting half empty next door and big apartment buildings springing up all over the state.

Under the circumstances, should the Borough Council panic and plunge ahead with a scheme to burden River Road with a second massive apartment project that may or may not produce enough revenue to cover Borough costs?

Or might it be wiser to wait and see how many more apartments the market can support at River Road?

(Either way, any new apartments will be at least 15% -20% affordable, and – contrary to what overdevelopment advocates would have you believe – the developer certainly won’t give the Borough a riverside park – or anything else – for “free.”)

Before making any plans for River Road, the Council needs to identify all the options, evaluate and compare the risks and benefits in light of market conditions and the effects on the Borough – both financial and in quality of life.

Deadlines

Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

There are many different ways to meet state mandated affordable housing obligations, but unless the Mayor & Council get a jump on the deadlines, their options will be severely limited.

That’s why the Mayor has scheduled a public workshop for June 27: to let the public have its say before unveiling her plans.

Are the Mayor & Council taking the steps necessary to get a good result for the Borough?

Ask them!

  1. Are you are investigating lower-density, environmentally superior options, like converting existing market rate apartments to affordable ones?
  2. If not, why not? What are you waiting for?
  3. Are you unaware that waiting means forfeiting options?
  4. Are you unaware that if you procrastinate too long, we’ll be forced to accept more huge projects like the Ivy – or even bigger.
  5. If you’re resigned to accepting more big projects, what are you doing to make sure we get a better deal this time?

Here are the deadlines facing the Mayor & Council (additions and corrections welcome):

03/31/24 – Deadline for the developer BNE to file the Periodic Report on Total Project Costs, due within 90 days of Substantial Completion under the terms of the December 2023 financial (PILOT) agreement for the Ivy at River Road

05/01/24 – Deadline for the Borough to bill the developer of the Ivy apartment project on River Road for the second quarterly payment of the annual property tax substitute known as a Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT), which was unpaid as of 06/10/2024

06/18/24 – Deadline for the Borough to report non-residential fees collected for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund

06/30/24 – Deadline for the Borough to submit to the Morris County Superior Court and Fair Share Housing Center a quarterly report on the progress of the 15-unit, 100% affordable project to be built on Bowers Lane in Post Office Plaza

08/01/24 – Deadline for the Borough to bill the developer of the Ivy apartment project on River Road for the third quarterly payment of the annual property tax substitute known as a Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT), which has gone unpaid as of 06/10/2024

09/16/24 – Deadline for the Borough to report residential fees collected for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund

09/30/24 – Deadline for the Borough to submit to the Superior Court and Fair Share Housing Center a quarterly report on the progress of the 15-unit, 100% affordable project to be built on Bowers Lane in Post Office Plaza

10/20/24 – Deadline for the state to announce the Borough’s affordable housing quota for Fourth Round 2025-2035

11/01/24 – Deadline for the Borough to bill the developer of the Ivy apartment project on River Road for the quarterly payment of the annual property tax substitute known as a Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT), which had gone unpaid as of 06/10/2024

12/31/24 – Deadline for the Borough to submit to the Superior Court and Fair Share Housing Center a quarterly report on the progress of the 15-unit, 100% affordable project to be built on Bowers Lane in Post Office Plaza

01/31/25 – Deadline for the Borough to adopt a resolution accepting an affordable housing quota for Fourth Round 2025-2035

02/28/25 – Deadline for “interested parties” to challenge the Borough’s Fourth Round 2025-2035 affordable housing quota in a new dispute resolution program

03/31/25 – Deadline for the IVY developer BNE to submit the Auditor’s Report to the Borough and DCA

03/31/25 – Deadline for the Borough to begin construction of the 15-unit, 100% affordable apartment project on Bowers Lane in Post Office Plaza.

03/31/25 – Deadline for the Borough to submit to the Superior Court and Fair Share Housing Center a quarterly report on the progress of the 15-unit, 100% affordable project to be built on Bowers Lane in Post Office Plaza

06/30/25 – Deadline for the Borough to file its Housing Element & Fair Share Plan, including a new showing that it’s consistent with state policy on development and redevelopment

08/31/25 – Deadline for challenges to the Borough’s Housing Element

12/31/25 – Deadline for the Borough to settle challenges to its Housing Element or explain why it won’t make the changes requested

03/15/26 – Deadline for the Borough to adopt any and all the ordinances, rezoning, and redevelopment areas required by the Housing Element

03/31/26 – Deadline for the Borough to get a Certificate of Occupancy on the 15-unit, 100% affordable project on Bowers Lane in Post Office Plaza

09/26/26 – Expiration of the Borough Third Round immunity from builders’ remedy lawsuits and exclusionary zoning challenges

Sources:

https://www.newsbreak.com/share/3489430077474-new-round-of-affordable-housing-regulation-requirements-to-kick-off?_f=app_share&s=i1&pd=0EKN9Y6I&lang=en_US&send_time=1718234102&trans_data=%7B%22platform%22%3A0%2C%22cv%22%3A%2224.23.1.1%22%2C%22languages%22%3A%22en%22%7D&sep=new_web_share_0531-v2

NJ League of Municipalities: https://www.njlm.org/civicalerts.aspx?aid=2924

Amended-Final-Judgment-of-Compliance-and-ReposeDownload
3-15.-24-order-granting-extensionDownload
Exhibit_B-1_-_Amended_and_Restated_Financial_Agreement_with_Chatham_River_Road_Urban_Renewal_8761193.1_Download

Higher property taxes?

Uncategorized, , , ,

Did your property taxes increase last year?

Did you know that the Borough Council is considering revaluing your property EVERY YEAR from now on?

That’s the plan, announced at the last Borough Council meeting.

Why would they do that?

Is there any advantage for residents?

How much will it cost?

Don’t guess. Get the facts.

7:30 pm, this Monday, June 10, 2024

Borough Hall, 54 Fairmount Avenue. (Use the side door. Take the elevator to the Upper Loevel)

Strange Bedfellows

Uncategorized, , , , ,

Is there anything all of NJ can agree on? Yes!

From Newark and Hackensack to Cherry Hill and Cape May, we all cherish our freedom.

That’s why residents of all stripes are asking Governor Murphy to veto a bill that would undermine our freedom by gutting our right to public records.

Please join us. Contact Governor Murphy. Call (609) 292 6000. Text (732) 605 5455. Or go to www.nj.gov/governor/ to send an email.

Urge the Governor to veto bill S-2930/A-4045, which would gut the Open Records law.

Btw, this is NOT a partisan issue. The opposition spans the political spectrum, from:

NJ Working Families Party, Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, and Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop); to

the founder of the Fair Share Housing Center, the NJ Public Defender’s Office, League of Women Voters, and the NJ Press Association); to

NJ State Assemblyman Brian Bergen (R-Dist. 26, Denville area); “a conservative bomb-thrower” per The New Jersey Globe.)

What has drawn together all these strange bedfellows?

“…I fear that if documents are harder to get [via the OPRA process], we will get less transparency and that will lead to more corruption, fraud, waste, and abuse. If your [Assembly / Senate] goal was to save money, be careful. A less transparent government is very likely a more expensive one, I fear….”

Kevin Walsh, founder of Fair Share Housing Project and now Acting State Comptroller of the State of New Jersey [State watchdog] during NJ State Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee Hearing on Mon 3/11/2024

“…this bill [S-2930] is dangerous…giving you [lawmakers] the benefit of the doubt, some of you are just terribly misinformed or intentionally misled…”; ” …and frankly this bill really does look like a list of all the cases that they [defendant municipalities] lost …”

C.J. Griffin, Esq. during NJ State Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee Hearing on Mon 3/11/2024.

“…The Synopsis of the Bill [S-2930] innocuously provides that the Bill “makes various changes to process for access to government records; appropriates $8 million.” In reality, the Bill eviscerates New Jersey’s Open Public Records Act, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et seq. (“OPRA”) – a statute that was carefully and painstakingly crafted over a period of fourteen years…

New Jersey Press Association statement dated 3/7/2024

Free at Last!

Main Street, Uncategorized, , , , , , , ,

Kudos to every Borough resident who cared enough to share his or her thoughts with the Zoning Board – or at least show up for Chatham Borough – about a bid to waive 19 zoning laws to add a convenience store to the gas station at the chaotic intersection of Main Street and Hillside Avenue.

You are the heart and soul of this small town.

On May 30, our Borough Zoning Board granted that application, unwittingly nudging the Borough one step further toward becoming a gritty little city.