Montclair residents, during public comment at Tuesday’s council meeting, clamored for the removal of Fire Chief John Herrmann. Many specifically asked acting town manager Brian Scantlebury to get rid of the Montclair fire chief, who received a recent majority vote of no confidence from the firefighters union. But Scantlebury, who started the meeting as acting town manager, would, by the end of the night, be returned to his role as deputy town manager.
In a divisive split vote, Montclair town council first passed a resolution to hire Government Strategy Group (GSG). Then, a surprise resolution, circulated minutes before midnight, was also passed, appointing former Montclair town manager and GSG’s executive managing director Joseph Hartnett immediately to the position of interim town manager.
The vote for GSG was already a last-minute agenda item. Four council members voted to hire GSG — Mayor Sean Spiller, Second Ward Councilor Robin Schlager, Third Ward Councilor Lori Price Abrams and Councilor at Large Peter Yacobellis. Opposing the hire were Fourth Ward Councilor David Cummings, Councilor at Large Bob Russo and Deputy Mayor Bill Hurlock.
Before the vote, Cummings voiced concern about projects that are being done in town and how someone would come in and have to be brought up to speed.
“The other question I have is, we’re engaging a group which has former chief David Sabagh, who, as many people complained about our current fire chief, was also the subject of an overwhelming vote of no confidence. And [Sabagh] also was someone the town was forced to settle a discrimination lawsuit against, so I don’t see how they’re going to come in here and be fair. To me, this seems to be more personal than professional. I think Mr. Scantlebury has proven to do his job very well. If anybody up here can tell me why they feel we need to do this, I’d like to hear that.”
“We’re a complex town of 40,000 people,” said Price Abrams. “I think we need additional support in the space in terms of the management of the town.”
“What you’re doing is bringing in another layer of bureaucracy, and you’re bringing in another cost, money that could go to the schools, money that we can use for teachers,” said Russo. “We’re going to be hiring a firm that’s going to be charging us from what I understand $10,000 a month to put somebody over our existing acting manager.”
“If we want to do a manager search, that’s one thing, we can do a manager search,” said Cummings. “I’m all for a search. What I can’t really understand is why we want to spend $15,000 on something we don’t need? I still haven’t heard what’s not being done, what’s not working.”
“I don’t think we can answer that question in public. I’m not going to say what’s being done, what’s not being done,” said Schlager. “We’ve been through a trauma with the previous manager. It was awful. We don’t have a job description for the manager. Mr. Scantlebury, who is also a friend of mine, would stay in his deputy manager position. I think we owe it to ourselves to take a look to see what’s out there.”
Schlager added: “I don’t want to talk about speculation and rumors. But I hear rumors, you know, whether they’re true or not, so I think we deserve a search.”
“I was a little surprised to see this come up again,” said Hurlock. “I’ve got a lot of projects going on right now in the First Ward with Mr. Scantlebury. I cannot afford to lose time with a new group coming in to get up to speed, when we only have about 10 months left in our terms.”
After the vote went through to award the contract to GSG, Spiller said he had a new, related resolution from the clerk and would move that first. He asked Yacobellis to read it.
“Mayor, I offer a resolution for the appointment of Joseph Hartnett to the position of interim township manager,” said Yacobellis.
“Wait a minute, hold on,” said Cummings.
“This is outrageous,” said Russo.
Spiller asked Yacobellis if he wanted to speak to the resolution.
Yacobellis said “No comment.”
“No comment,” Cummings asked incredulously. “Wait a minute. It was your words Peter, ‘Mr. Hartnett told me he has three people in line to be the interim manager,’ and now all of a sudden, he is the person who is being placed in the interim manager role? Mr. Hartnett told me he had individuals he would bring in as interim manager. So that means he lied to me. This is ridiculous. Brian, this disrespect, I apologize to you. Because this is utter disrespect.”
“It’s really, really incredible that at 11:30 at night, we, all of a sudden have this right here, prepared to basically put you back in your place,” said Cummings of what was being done to Scantlebury.
“I feel like quitting as a council member,” said Russo. “After 23 years, to have a manager come back from 20 years ago? I served as mayor when this man was manager. He had certain skills, but he also had an abrasiveness about him. It says $1 a week. What’s that? A gimmick to make it look like it’s not costing us anything? You’re gonna pay $50,000 to the firm. It’s like a fraud upon the town of Montclair. It’s a totally political decision.”
“He’s not the intended interim,” said Price Abrams. “Joe Hartnett will take on a very interim role. And that’s why there’s not really a salary associated with it. It’s a formality. Then there will be a process by which we will have the opportunity to confirm a recommendation or another person can be put forward.”
Cummings asked Yacobellis to confirm that he had said Hartnett had three individuals lined up to be interim manager, but again Yacobellis would not comment.
“I’ve got three texts already,” said Cummings, looking down at his phone. “This is not me speaking.”
Cummings then proceeded to read texts from his phone:
“This is called racism. You all are wrong.”
“If he were not a black man, would they be doing this?”
“Why don’t you all just tell Brian ‘Negro go home?'”
Cummings looked up from his phone.
“So that’s what has happened tonight. So you all need to know what the community is about to bring here based on this decision.”
Alisha Dawkins, Montclair’s human resources director, indicated she wanted to speak to the council as a whole before they took the vote. Acting town attorney Paul Burr said it would be best to have that conversation in executive session. Spiller asked the council if they wanted to talk to Dawkins before moving on the resolution. Russo adamantly said yes.
Spiller then acknowledged Hurlock who wanted to speak.
“I’ve seen some off the wall, ridiculous stuff since my third term, but this has got to take the cake. I mean 11:30 at night. This is printed. It’s ready to go. No one ever said a word to me about it. I’m disgusted with the way we operate as a group,” Hurlock said.
“Bill, we don’t operate as a group,” said Cummings. “We operate as individuals and fiefdoms who want to pass stuff.”
The council voted to move into executive session to meet with Dawkins. Residents Lani Somer Padilla, Christina Thomas and June Raegner, among a handful of residents still at the meeting, spoke into the microphone, protesting the decision to move to closed session and asking that their protest be part of the official record of the meeting.
When the council emerged from executive session, they resumed discussion of the resolution to appoint Hartnett specifically as interim town manager.
“So he starts tomorrow for $1 a week, 24 hours a week maximum,” Russo said. “I’m told he’s only going to work for a week and then we’re going to have new people he’s going to bring in that we should interview. Why does this have to be done tonight when we have still some issues and questions?”
Cummings sought more clarification.
“He [Hartnett] is going to be here and allegedly will be providing someone for the council to interview for the interim position within the next week. So someone’s going to be interviewing? Who is going to be interviewing this potential candidate?”
Price Abrams, responding to Cummings, said any and all of the councilors who wanted to meet the interim candidate would have the opportunity, in small meetings if they don’t hold a special meeting.
“I’ve listened to all the discussion and certainly understand the concerns some have raised. There are things that can be discussed in executive session, personnel or otherwise, performance or otherwise, that we certainly can’t discuss in public. So you can only always hear one side of the conversation in public,” said Spiller. “Having someone who has experience in the township is a positive. When we talk about having more hands on deck, both a manager and a deputy manager, as opposed to just one position without the other one being filled, is only a benefit.”
The clerk then called the roll and the vote broke down the same as it did for GSG. Spiller, Yacobellis, Price Abrams and Schlager voted yes, while Cummings, Russo and Hurlock voted no.
Yacobellis sent the following comment Wednesday: “As a Council, one of our most vital powers is appointing and overseeing the manager who is essentially the CEO of the Township. In securing Mr. Hartnett and his firm, we not only bring back in a very experienced Montclair Manager. We also gain access to a talented team, including the former head of the State Division of Local Government Services; and many more as we navigate multiple, complex issues for our ever-growing and changing town.”
How could anyone really Manage here — to work with this Council crew of disfunction misfits and discombobulation decision-makers?….
Whether Brian has done well or not, within that climate, is difficult to say from the outside. Nonetheless, the ship clearly leaks from the top down here. And also post-facto, from vestiges of former Manager Tim Stafford — whom this Council decided to keep around so long.
But the real problem internally is not Brian — regardless. Let’s start with the Township Attorney who doesn’t know municipal law and still has to dial for dollars every day calling outside law firms to answer any question needed. Of course, he’s run up massive outside legal bills. Next, our Township Clerk, Tim Stafford’s former Secretary, appointed without proper certification to start. She, along with Burr delay and prevent many OPRA’s from being responded to — especially when they could reveal embarrassing information about some favored councilors. Who want to keep them both around. And let’s not forget about her ‘no Council meeting minutes for over a year’. Unlawful and which the clueless Council did nothing about. Except to still think about permanently appointing her today.
But the worst is yet to come and you heard it hear first I suspect. This is just now being passed around. The new town employee handbook. Which former Manager Stafford spent thousands of dollars of legal billing on and took years to do, continuing to pay off Genova Burns, and never seemed to get finished.
Now, it’s done and a new provision just to the table reportedly no longer lets town employees bank their sick days and other time giveaways allocated. These now have to be used up within that period, or within some shorter window.
Which is not unreasonable and becoming more standard today, except that when you roll this out retroactively, long time employees run for the hills not to lose it. Instead, it should have just been made for new employees going forward, or employees with less than x years…the newbies.
I haven’t seen this document yet. This is just second hand info but it does help explain some of the internal craziness now. What does it mean? The word is today that a number of very key town department heads are ready to say “so long” immediately, so they can still capitalize on this benefit…and collect their money after they say goodbye.
So watch….let’s see who actually does go here within the month. I am told it’s some of the most senior Montclair department heads ready…which will leave the township in a total lurch.
Again….Brian Scantlebury is not the problem. It’s those at the top, unable to set a clear course to help steer the ship straight. And my long time friend Joe Hartnett really can not fix that, if brought back. Same way he could not really fix the Fried bike team 3 in 2004-08, with their discombobulation — which almost bankrupted the town.
It’s plain from the Council’s public discussion that the fab four Councilors who voted for the GSG resolution have glued themselves together, closed their minds, already picked a permanent Manager and are simply playing the boiling frog game with the public. How else could they talk about a process only taking weeks? There aren’t enough shortcuts in the deck for that unless this is a done deal. Will the results be bad? Who knows? Joe Hartnett has worked with bad Councils before. Maybe not as stupid, mean-spirited and self-interested as some of the present crew. There’s no dispute, however, that the process has been opaque, deliberately secretive, and carefully manipulated. It would have been better for the public and the Township if the Council majority simply laid out what they intended to do, explained their reasons, and did it openly. The fact that they didn’t do so suggests that bad intentions predominate, and the public good is subordinate. Furthermore, when lying and deceit become habitual, it’s hard to kick the habit.
Someone asked whether the HR Director could legally attend the closed session. Like everything else that happened last night, the Executive Session resolution was confusing and purposely vague. The Council is legally able to invite “outsiders” into a closed session if needed to provide confidential information regarding a matter which the Council is deliberating and which falls within the exceptions that permit the public to be excluded. The HR Director works for the Manager, not the Council, so the Council could not directly bring her in without the Manager’s (Brian S.) formal approval. The nonpublic discussion would need to be narrowly limited to the designated exception. Just because a contract or litigation is involved may not be good enough. A discussion whether or not to engage GSG, for example, would not be an appropriate closed session subject. A discussion whether to hire Mr. Hartnett as interim manager might be. It seems that with this Council, executive session is the default when discussing anything uncomfortable, the Open Public Meetings Act be damned.
Liz,
Great photo of Mr Scantlebury to cover the story.
You know guys, I’m particularly sensitive, but this really made me want to vomit. Why did they chose this bizarre, unsavory way of demoting Brian Scantlebury?? My parents know Joe Hartnett and they always spoke well of him. They are beyond shocked that he is a part of this. Four people on this Council have hit a new low. I can’t wait to see them go.
“Mr. Scantlebury, who is also a friend of mine (…) – Robin Schlager
Yikes. I’d rather die alone than have “friends” like Schlager…
Impressed with Hurlock (for once) that he didn’t join this unholy cabal.
I am DISGUSTED with the 4 who did this sleazy deed. And I’m gravely disappointed with Joe Hartnett that he went with that. I always thought he was a serviceable manager and a respectable man. I still think the former, but not the latter.
If they wanted to get rid of Scantlebury, no problem. It’s a political job – people come and go. But they could have – and should have – done it in a civilized, respectful way. There was absolutely no reason to catch him off guard and publicly humiliate him.
There’s no excuse for gratuitous cruelty; it’s a sin of sins.
Every time I think that this Council cannot get more embarrassing or more repugnant, it manages to“lower the bar”. The public humiliation of Mr. Scantlebury was the most despicable display that I have seen in a public forum.
The past-midnight vote was done without even the courtesy of a heads-up to Mr. Scantlebury or the three Couincilors — Cummings, Hurlock, and Russo — who would no doubt challenge this brazen coup d’etat. Abrams, Schlager, Spiller, and Yacobellis clearly planned and executed an organizational lynching of Mr. Scantlebury. Yacobellis magically pulls out a typed resolution demoting Mr. Scantlebury and appointing Hartnett.
The Foul Four hate Mr. Scantlebury, so he was not asked privately and professionally to step down but was intentionally and unnecessarily embarrassed in front of the world. None of them even had the decency to thank him for his service as Acting Manager.
Mr. Scantlebury is a multi-generational resident, former elected official, and long-time Township employee. He deserved respect; he earned grace; he merited decorum. I thank Councilors Cummings, Hurlock, and Russo for fighting the good fight. However, it was clear that the Foul Four cabal was intent on carrying out the premeditated ignominy of another Negro. Mr. Herron knows this tactic all too well.
Tim Stafford, a white male, screwed our Town to no end and he was given a fully paid 6-month vacation. Mr. Scantlebury, a black male, did more in 6 months than Stafford did in 7 years, and he was unceremoniously shown the door. The disparate treatment is stark, and its basis is racism pure and simple.
My prayer, in fact my plea, is for every black resident (and every non-black resident of good will) of Montclair to deluge Town Hall with calls and emails blasting the Foul Four and their operative Hartnett for this despicable act. Further, I hope the same folks will join me at the next Council to give them a piece of my mind and demand that they resign NOW. After all, they like that kind of notice.
Martin & Ira,
As the informed insiders you are, I am disappointed with the focus of your analysis. It does neither of your voices justice and maybe even a disservice to your audience. You both ignored the forest for the trees; many trees in plain sight.
People should go back to the library audit and the Finance Committee actions which jammed up the other Councilors. Hurlock withdraws, as is his nature. Fire contract, law suits, Stafford, etc.etc. The important aspect to these issues is the relationship management failures and the changing dynamics. Then a little bit of this and that of the real Yacobellis. And then the Mayor & Yacobellis have this new morning moment and have each other’s back. There is some glue, Ira. Cummings does his lone wolf thing and no one had his back. Scantlebury’s removal wan’t a racal thing. It had its roots in the 4th Ward/Old Guard thing and running that on a project in the 3rd Ward. Labeling this as racial was an ignorant response bye the community and Cummings was 100% wrong to advance it. He was blindsided and in the heat of the moment, so not an issue anymore. And I can guarantee that because I also know the Montclair NAACP.
This is straight-up, back-room, hardball (real politik?). This Fab 4 didn’t think of this. We can all speculate who was the brains behind the curtain. But, we should admit this unprecedented level of political gamesmanship is proof the majority has come together and get significant things done. Regardless of what the merits of what they did.
I continue to process the implications of this new majority over the next 10 months. To paraphrase Michael Corleone, “just when I want to renew my Netflix, this Council pulls me back in”.
Whoa!! Nice shake up!!! About time the the elected officials stood up and said what needed to be said and what REALLY needed to be done. Hats off to the 4 council people that are looking out for the Township. While Scantlebury is an amazingly good man and has the best interest at heart in Montclair, Harnett has the skills, experience and fortitude to clean up and put Montclair back on track. What better way to see the mess that needs to be cleaned up than to be sitting in the actual chair where the view is clear.
Mr Harnett, congratulations!! Mr Russo, I think you have sour grapes over being blindsided. Cheer up…we may just get a small piece back of what Montclair once was.
It’s the secrecy that is so disturbing. Yacobellis drops this and then immediately says “no comment”? What kind of transparency is that? Left Russo, Cummmings and Hurlock looking like deer in headlights. This continues to be a circus with lead clown running for mayor.
Frank… my piece above was written for the other story before passage of the Hartnett appointment. Reviewing the actual actions and facts after the meeting…it appears the Council violated public process here and open meetings act requirements..
This hire was not on the agenda going into the Council meeting. It was not noticed correctly going into executive session either, it seems. Not sure it will hold up legally. That’s my post-meeting take-away.
The wider pov, about this Council crew and more specifically, on Peter Yacobellis, the swing vote here and seemingly driving the train while pretending beforehand to go in another direction: “told you so”…
Too bad this Council likely didn’t clear dumping the interim manager with Garden State JIF and their attorneys in the Rao litigation. And if they had given a heads-up to Hurlock, he might have had provided some insights. And maybe the attorney in the firefighters lawsuit found this interesting.
@ Darnell (7/19, 8:53pm)
Your comment should have been an op-ed. Well said, brother. I will be there with you at the next council meeting – with a pitchfork and a torch. This is a travesty. The Foul Four must go.
I think the whole thing is despicable and cowardly. I agree with whoever up top said if they thought this was for the good of the town, this should have been discussed with all council members and Mr. Scantlebury in detail. Then it should have been discussed in public. Either they are cowards or they have something to hide. It’s a bad business. Yacobellis is out crowing today on good government (of course, he wants people to think when you think good government you think Yacobellis). So no, this was not a good move. It was not a good shake up. It was a move by four immature cowards.
Perplexing! Could it be that Scantlebury didn’t move on the tainted promotions and Spiller badly wants these promotions? Hartnett retired from Montclair with good track record. It obviously helped him land many lucrative contracts post-retirement. Does Hartnett really want to taint his reputation and risk future business prospects for his firm?
Wilhelm,
I agree with your hypothesis 100%. Spiller is said to be running in 2024 and he is vying for fire unions’ support. Scantlebury resisted (rightly so) granting promotions resulting from the rigged exam. So the Spiller/Yacobellis tandem did a swift hatchet job on Scantlebury and brought in Hartnett to do the ugly deed that Scantlebury couldn’t bring himself to do.
And you are right again about risk to Hartnett’s reputation. But he is a big boy.
I have questions:
1. Perhaps it’s just me but aren’t Hartnett, Abrams, and Schlager just shills for Spiller and Yacobellis?
2. How long will it take Hartnett to muscle through the tainted MFD as he was clearly hired to do?
3. Is Herrmann now “safe” with his buddy Hartnett back in the saddle?
4. What the hell happened to this Town in three years?
While it is entirely reasonable to speculate that the Council’s lightning removal of Brian Scantlebury resulted from his refusal to bend over for them in the matter of the fire department promotions, there may be other, more substantial motives for the interim manager charade that is playing out. Think about the sources of contributions and funds for the 2024 election, the trade offs involved, and the big project that is laying on the table. Yes, the real prize may be the Lackawanna project — getting it done the redeveloper’s way, with the right interim manager holding the wheel, the politicians holding the remote, and the fawning Council members holding the net open to catch the goodies. Just a thought to keep in mind as the boxes get checked off.
Ira,
Way to induce depression in folks. You ain’t wrong though – I have no doubt this was about the fire promotions resulting from the rigged exam. This is simply scandalous. Sounds like Hartnett may be the new and improved Tim Stafford who will protect the Fire Chief and let his kid get promoted. Mr. Hartnett: Any interest in putting in place an anti-nepotism policy? Or is this not a top priority for you?
Lackawanna-driven motivation is plausible; except I don’t know that Hartnett has any experience with development. Attorney Burr is obviously not well-versed in this field given his ‘expertise’ is in real estate closings. Development/redevelopment laws have a degree of complexity, I must say. Good to know you are providing elucidation when needed. This Council and their administration picks need supervision/babysitting – our power is in knowledge.
Well, I’m thinking about what actions will convert to real money for the developer-contributors, lock in the supermarket supporters, and give the tarnished incumbent candidates bragging rights during the runup to the 2024 election. The Lackawanna project meets those objectives. Also, take note that Township officials and consultants are holding a big ticket information session next week on the “new” proposed Redevelopment Plan, just ahead of the anticipated introduction at the next Council meeting. Further, the few public Council comments leading up to the resolution appointing Joe Hartnett as “interim manager,” and Councilors’ subsequent press comments, stated that Mr. Hartnett’s appointment was for a brief time, until one of the three persons he intended to put forward for the interim manager position was installed. Let’s see what kind of experience the chosen one will have, and that may signal the direction the powers that be are going. BTW, I’m not intending anything pejorative about Joe Hartnett, whose history and abilities are well known and admired by many, nor do I have an opinion at this time about the scope and design of the Lackawanna Project. I am concerned about the flawed process, the contempt for and disregard of the public, the owner’s lack of experience, and the arrogant incompetence of the Council members. I would like to see a Lackawanna project move forward, but I’m skeptical that the Township’s best interests will be paramount.
Ira, I have a question that I do not know the answer to. I am confused and maybe I don’t get how this works. What I do understand is that PILOTS are substantial subsidies provided to real estate developers in exchange for the developer building a project the town wants. PILOTS provide the developer with a fixed tax obligations, invariably at a lower amount than a regular assessment, and based on a schedule which makes the property more attractive to lenders and prospective buyers because the payments are fixed. They are a big deal for developers. That is beyond dispute and is separate from the question of whether as a matter of public policy PILOTs should be used in towns with skyrocketing real estate values.
Here is what I don’t understand. Why shouldn’t we know the specifics of the proposed PILOT payment before the project is improved and be able to compare it to what the assessment would have been without the subsidy. Shouldn’t that be a critical part of the approval process so that it can be factored into the decision making? In this case rather than having an independent assessor place a value on the property subject to the owner’s right to appeal there will be a negotiation between the Municipal Council and the developer. In that negotiation the developer will try to transfer to the other taxpayers in Montclair the subsidy for the affordable units and try to avoid accounting adequately for tax increases over the period of the subsidy as well as the length of the subsidy. The town will hire an expert to represent its interest in the negotiation but that is not the same as the assessment process and I don’t get why that shouldn’t be done as part of the approval process, not after the decision is made. Isn’t the amount of the PILOT a critical part of the determination of whether the proposed development is in the town’s interest-part of the cost/benefit analysis? And isn’t the assessor, who is independent and an expert, a better judge of a fair assessment than the Council whose members are neither? Just how big will the subsidy be? And isn’t any negotiating leverage the town would otherwise have eliminated after the project is approved?
I add that I also do not have an opinion about whether the proposed development is in the town’s interest. I have not followed the details or read the reports and I don’t feel qualified to evaluate any feasible alternatives but I am concerned about the size of the subsidy the taxpayers will be asked to provide in exchange for the benefits the development will presumably provide.
What am I missing?
PElberg,
Whatever the process, the only way the residents and taxpayers are protected is if the Township’s team, including Council members and professionals, are competent, strong-willed and committed to putting the public’s interests, and not their personal agendas, first.
That said, during the previous (Jackson) administration, the Council was committed to keeping PILOT payments equal to what the real estate taxes would be, with predictability being the chief benefit to the redeveloper and its lenders. (A big benefit to the Township is that no tax appeals are permitted for PILOTS). This starts with a fairly rule of thumb analysis of the redevelopment plan. The Plan lays out what and how much can be built on the property, and all the other details like open space, height, circulation, public amenities, etc., and is usually the result of a negotiation between the redeveloper and the Township. The Plan itself is entirely separate from a possible PILOT agreement or other financial terms. However, by adding up the number and size of the apartments (assuming rentals), the area of retail space and of commercial space, and the number of parking spaces, and working with the Assessor, we can calculate the likely market value, and hence the putative assessment, and thus determine the taxes at present rates. Once the redevelopment plan is adopted, and a site plan application made to the Planning Board, the additional detail will allow a very accurate determination of what the assessment would be.
These numbers come to play in the next phase of the process. First, a redeveloper is designated by the Council by resolution as the party with whom to negotiate a redevelopment or redeveloper agreement (RA) in which the redeveloper contracts to implement the redevelopment plan. The site plan resolution is typically an exhibit to the RA. Among other things, if a PILOT (technically called a “Financial Agreement”) is contemplated, it will be a contingency in the Redevelopment Agreement, which will spell out the precise terms and actually attach the form of Financial Agreement as an exhibit to the RA. The Long Term Tax Exemption Law, which governs these PILOT agreements, provides only two methods that municipalities can calculate the amount of payments in lieu of taxes. One is a percentage of the project’s annual gross revenue (in this case no less than 10%)or alternatively, a percentage of the total project cost (TPC) (not less than 2%) These percentages can change over time, with maximum term of the PILOT being 30 years. (The TPC method will not be used in a mixed use project; it was used for the MC Hotel) Therefore, in order for the Township to determine acceptable terms, its needs to determine as closely as possible what the current taxes (three years from now) would be, estimate the annual revenues from apartments, stores and offices, and determine what the percentage would be to equal the taxes. Then, the Township must determine whether the typical inflationary increases in gross revenues will keep pace with the taxes, or whether the percentage itself needs to increase over the term of the PILOT. Once the parties agree, the bottom line percentages go into the PILOT contingency section of the RA.
Next, the Council must adopt the Financial Agreement by ordinance. Nothing that went before binds the Council to approve the agreement, and if the Council fails to adopt it, the redeveloper’s remedy is to walk away.
In trying to provide a prompt response, I’ve left out a lot of stuff and given you bare bones, so please indulge any omissions.
FYI, the process I just described was carried out during my tenure by an engaged Finance Committee, the financial advisor, the CFO, the Assessor and the attorney, with the Manager and Deputy Manager engaged but less involved.
Going back to your question, it is useful to have a grasp on these numbers when the scope and size of the project is being determined, and we always did it that way. In negotiating the plan, expense side numbers (eg, school children, municipal services, etc.) were also considered. I hope this helps.
Ira,
Thank you for being our volunteer expert here on Baristanet. Immensely helpful. Never before (that I recall) the public needed education on the subject of local government. I guess we’ve never seen this level of dysfunction.
I have only one comment/question about your last post. You wrote: “I’m not intending anything pejorative about Joe Hartnett, whose history and abilities are well known (…)”. I thought he was an okay manager, although I did not care for his “creative” contract procurement modalities that landed the town in court. There were a few other significant issues but I have no time to get into this right now.
I have to say that I’m alarmed by this bizarre process they deployed in his hiring at the last meeting. You say yourself it was not in compliance with statutory requirements. Well, as a veteran manager, doesn’t Mr. Hartnett know that? Lastly, people here and everywhere else are saying he was hired just to ram through fire promotions. If this is true, this is very wrong and and it does indeed say something ‘pejorative’ about Mr. Hartnett, contrary to your polite language above.
Thanks!
“There were a few other significant issues [with Joe Hartnett] but I have no time to get into this right now.” – Meredith Hoffman
I remember some of those issues. One of them was Clary Anderson Arena. The Town decided at the time that it couldn’t handle it anymore so they gave up operation and signed a contract with a private operator, a company from Woodbridge. I believe back then it was David Herron who made a stink about the fact that some of the key people in that company had very “colorful” and not reassuring past. Interestingly, one of the company operatives was related to Joe Hartnett.
David Herron would know more about it as he was the one who fought that battle. Btw, the operator ran the ice arena into the ground while making handsome profit all these years. There’s a word for people like that. Incredibly, the guy is still there.