Skip to content

10th Ave Contract And PILOT Schedule

 

29 Comments

  1. Local wrote:

    It’s pretty clear that the town and school is getting way more taxes then previous. I can’t imagine why anyone would be upset at this PILOT program

    Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 7:40 am | Permalink
  2. admin wrote:

    Where is the school getting money from this?

    Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 7:46 am | Permalink
  3. Tom Dilberger wrote:

    People are slowly waking up to the fact that the school[s] are a giant ongoing swindle.

    Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 8:15 am | Permalink
  4. Aileen wrote:

    This payment structure deal was struck by Doherty, correct?

    Thank you Dave for responding to “Local”. Might want to change that handle to “Benny” 😉

    Oh how I wish I was a benny and didn’t know how things worked! It’s a fun and beautiful town, especially with the summer activity. But we have to get a handle on these runaway PILOTs. What we have now could be the tip of the iceberg. Look on a map at the entire redevelopment zone. The potential for many more PILOT condo buildings is huge. I’m not against more activity (as long as we don’t add development to our ocean ave.) While development creates more traffic and the need for extra resources, the least it could do is generate revenue for our aging school building.

    Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 8:29 am | Permalink
  5. Aileen wrote:

    Woodbridge Mayor uses Common Sense

    https://re-nj.com/mccormac-sharing-the-benefits-of-redevelopment-with-school-district-is-common-sense/

    Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 8:50 am | Permalink
  6. OLD MAN wrote:

    The damn schools(various towns) with those snot nosed brats should be merged into one big snot hole school. At least that is what Tom would say. I think he is correct

    Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 9:51 am | Permalink
  7. Anonymous wrote:

    Aileen, why don’t you go live in Woodbridge where their 2017 tax rate was 10.007??? Your kidding right. Sure, why doesn’t the town just raise taxes another 21.7% next year and then we can afford to give our school system 25% of the pilot revenue. Or perhaps our politicians could slash the budgets to protect us from increasingly higher taxes. Nah, that makes too much Common Sense. Vote these people out, again, till we get this right.

    Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 3:11 pm | Permalink
  8. Summer Timer wrote:

    #4…. Why should “Local” change their handle to BENNY…. “Local” is most likely a misinformed Belmar resident that keeps voting for poor performing candidates… LOL…

    Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 3:31 pm | Permalink
  9. local wrote:

    Actually, if you look at the tax paid by this development it is significantly larger than the tax revenue yield of the previous structure. This increased tax revenue does go to the school(SO the school is getting more than preconstruction). Please do not comment, if you are not smart enough to understand a PILOT program. Read up and get back to me kids.

    Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 6:02 pm | Permalink
  10. Tom Dilberger wrote:

    I can see these jerks sitting around thinking up a good line to tell the gullible taxpayers about the “schools” – the room is quiet and all of a sudden one of them yells out, Pilot Program. They all beam with excitement and say in unison – [ Yeah, Pilot Program – That’s the ticket]. Here’s how to look at anything to do with these crummy schools. Everything the powers that be have to say about the schools is a lie. If you keep that in front of your mind, you’ll be Okay.

    Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 8:13 pm | Permalink
  11. Katrina Clapsis wrote:

    Local,since you seem to have the answers ( while you insult those who may not understand pilots, or who have a different understanding then you)please explain how/ where this pilots rate schedule shows school funding.
    As far as I know this contract was negotiated under Matt Dorehtys administration and none of his pilots had monies designated specifically to the school.
    Please correct me if I am wrong. I throughly wish to be enlightened.

    Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 11:09 pm | Permalink
  12. Aileen wrote:

    #7 We are not Woodbridge, but Woodbridge has illustrated that the town CAN share PILOT revenue with schools. Certainly I don’t want to raise taxes, which is precisely why I want PILOT money that’s given to the municipality to be shared with the school. If they don’t, fewer residents will carry the school tax burden which of course is unfair. Next time a developer presents a plan, the mayor and council should consider sharing with us and that will guide how they negotiate the deal with the developer.

    #9 The revenue paid may very well be more than the tax revenue from the previous occupants on 10th Ave. We’d have to see the difference on paper. But one thing I know is true: it’s revenue, but not actually taxes. PILOT stand for payment in lieu of taxes. It’s a discount for developers in order to lure them to build in our town. Legally, the PILOT does not have to be shared with schools (like taxes are). I asked Matt Doherty to negotiate a deal where the municipality shares, but alas, he did not. If you want to prove me wrong, call the Belmar Board of Ed and Mayor Walsifer for confirmation.

    Friday, June 14, 2019 at 10:52 am | Permalink
  13. What?!? wrote:

    Hey local, learn what pilot programs are. Payment In Lieu Of Taxes. None of the Pilot money in belmar went to (or will go to) the school. The revenue over the previous structure’s tax is irrelevant because the new building IS NOT PAYING TAXES. Doherty loved it because he could keep playing his favorite record about keeping municipal taxes flat. All those new condo units bringing the possibility of children in the school and not one penny goes to the school. It’s a joke.
    Doherty didn’t give one crap about this town. Only himself.

    Friday, June 14, 2019 at 3:06 pm | Permalink
  14. What?!? wrote:

    Just so you’re clear Mr Local. The Payment, (the P in the pilot acronym) goes to the town. However, the town uses that money for its municipal budget. None of it goes to the school. And we’re talking about, what? 96 new units across town?
    So maybe you should learn about the pilot program before YOU comment.
    Belmar could have negotiated for some of that money to go to the school but MD didn’t want that. He’s a snake oil salesman and you are a snake oil consumer.

    Friday, June 14, 2019 at 3:27 pm | Permalink
  15. OLD MAN wrote:

    #13 Correct!!!

    Friday, June 14, 2019 at 3:40 pm | Permalink
  16. eugene creamer wrote:

    Please check the dates on the Agreement & Schedule (2019)… then … go to the M&C meeting and ask questions.

    Friday, June 14, 2019 at 5:37 pm | Permalink
  17. Local Yokel wrote:

    #9 We’re all waiting patiently for either an apology or at least a ‘wow! I can’t believe I didn’t realize what a pilot program means after acting so arrogant’.
    Either one will do as soon as you’re ready.
    Oh, and when you see Doherty or McGovern or Nicolay (kids in the school) or Brennan (works for the school) you can ask them to their faces why they thought that allocating none of the pilot money for the school was a good idea. I think you’ll find that they know as little about the program as you.

    Friday, June 14, 2019 at 6:09 pm | Permalink
  18. local wrote:

    Gene gets it! Do the research, I will not spoon feed it to you, sorry. When you finally dig into it, just reply-MyBad, and no apologies will be necessary.

    Friday, June 14, 2019 at 6:35 pm | Permalink
  19. What?!? wrote:

    Ok. I read it. Spoon feed please.
    It’s an LTTE agreement (long term tax exempt) The LT part is 35 years and the TE part means it’s tax exempt. Says that it’s an approved tax exempt project (with annual service charge) all over the 57 pages.
    Also, Matt himself at a meeting stated that yes, the town gets revenue but the school gets nada. I think his reasoning was that there may not be any kids living there. Priceless.
    So if you want a ‘my bad’ (which I’ll happily give) please just give me the page number where it says the school gets its share. Thanks

    Friday, June 14, 2019 at 8:56 pm | Permalink
  20. Katrina Clapsis wrote:

    Eugene. In reading above document it references ordinance 2017-09 entered into and voted on and approved March 21, 2017 by mayor and council.
    Doesn’t that mean that the contract was made and agreed to at that time?
    Doesn’t the borough have to abide by the terms those contracts?
    Or am I missing something?

    Friday, June 14, 2019 at 9:14 pm | Permalink
  21. watchman wrote:

    I cannot find Doherty’s signature anywhere. An agreement should have two signatures, and I only see DePeppe’s. Walsifer signed it on page 28 without a date, and the date on the front page is incomplete, March, 19.

    Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 7:20 am | Permalink
  22. 10th ave freeze out wrote:

    The 5th and 10th ave deals are traditional PILOT deals. They were negotiated by the Doherty admin and they didn’t carve out money for the school. Unless Mark scrapped the original deal w Depepe, and in reading the above I see no evidence of that, the school will get nothing at worst or less than they got with the previous race revenue at best.

    Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 9:22 am | Permalink
  23. legion wrote:

    Must be one of those incomplete agreements found by the new administration and hopefully rectified now. What else is lurking in the shadows?

    Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 9:23 am | Permalink
  24. What?!! wrote:

    Local, please point out where it says the schools will do better under this pilot. Everything I’ve read including the pilot for dummies and the above document and the things that the previous admin said indicate that none or a very small percent goes to the school. I know you didn’t want to spoon feed it to us but please do. I want to know who to thank for scrapping the original deal wDoherty.

    Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 9:32 am | Permalink
  25. Aileen wrote:

    On another note, there were 2 properties purchased to build these apartments – the eastern property had buildings that had to be razed and was about one third of the total property now, and the other property was a municipal parking lot – about TWO thirds the size of the total property. The buyer spent $2,400,000 on both properties. Want to guess the cost of the Belmar municipal parking lot?

    Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 11:06 am | Permalink
  26. vickie renner wrote:

    I heard it was something stupid around 150 thousand?

    Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 12:46 pm | Permalink
  27. Lol wrote:

    $150k and and an envelope of …. for the town parking lot?

    Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 12:50 pm | Permalink
  28. Monte Doherty wrote:

    Let’s make a deal folks. You support me in my campaigns and I’ll (fill in the blank).
    The man is a sick twisted narcissist that should be in an orange jumpsuit picking up the trash that the bennies toss as they leave town.
    Local, what are your thoughts? Good deal? Because if so, I have a bridge for sale.

    Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 1:00 pm | Permalink
  29. Aileen wrote:

    file:///C:/Users/Aileen/Downloads/RealistReport_709_10th_Ave.pdf

    $100,000.

    Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 3:44 pm | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.