Rescue Squad Update

Thanks for the update Dan. You are a much better and credible spokesperson and I'm glad you're taking the time to provide information and answer questions here.

If the shortfall is indeed in the $100k range, then we can really chalk that up to funds being wasted prior to the Rescue Squad getting control. If it's more than that, then in addition it's a poorly negotiated deal with lack of due diligence (which then-trustee @michaelgoldberg called out).

If I were SO Rescue, I would be pretty pissed off that 10% or more was squandered by sheer incompetence, and then have to find a way to make up the difference.

Was the Rescue Squad ever involved with the negotiations with Rose? Were they consulted on the $1,000,000 figure? If they were not party to that agreement, then it really is taxpayer money, the rights to which were turned over to the Rescue Squad. I don't understand how it could be considered otherwise. Unless there was some other agreement in place that covered the Rescue Squad in the event of eviction from their quarters which were on village land.

evandepol said:

Thanks for the update Dan. You are a much better and credible spokesperson and I'm glad you're taking the time to provide information and answer questions here.

If the shortfall is indeed in the $100k range, then we can really chalk that up to funds being wasted prior to the Rescue Squad getting control.

Thank you. I do want to further clarify something about the money that was already spent before the BOT voted to turn the project over to us. As I mentioned in my original post here,

SORescue said:

Of the $1.1 million that Jonathan Rose is contributing, approximately $70,000 has already been spent on surveys, soil samples, geotechnical work, engineering reports, legal fees, architects fees, etc. so the actual amount we are actually getting is $1.03 million.

We are retaining the same engineering firm, which has already completed about 80% of its contract-- so most of that money will not have to be re-spent.

Most of what was already spent would have to be spent by us anyway once we took over. Roughly $50,000 of it was spent on needed work that now does not have to be re-done (the surveys, soil samples, geotechnical work, engineering reports, etc). The remaining amount (architects fees, cost estimators and legal fees) is somewhere around $20,000. Of course that is still money that we would love to have available to us, but it is very different from $100,000 being wasted. Just want to make sure that the correct facts are noted.

Dan

Thank you for further clarifying Dan.
I really appreciate it.

SORescue said:

Most of what was already spent would have to be spent by us anyway once we took over. Roughly $50,000 of it was spent on needed work that now does not have to be re-done (the surveys, soil samples, geotechnical work, engineering reports, etc). The remaining amount (architects fees, cost estimators and legal fees) is somewhere around $20,000. Of course that is still money that we would love to have available to us, but it is very different from $100,000 being wasted. Just want to make sure that the correct facts are noted.

Dan

In fairness, you should also include the 9 month lease for temporary space for $3500/month ($31,500) which the Village now needs to spend as a result of the delays to get to this point. (As you recall, the discussion of a "shelter" was introduced into the discussion last July)

Could be more if all is not ready by the end of the lease.

Michael, did the rescue squad have adequate time to relocate or is this relocation money spent due to bad planning on the towns part? Weren't you part of the board when this project started? Was an adequate time frame for rebuilding, relocating considered?

JJ, I belive the money given to the rescue squad was to compensate them for the building that they payed for. Kinda like if the town used eminent domain to take your property. You have to be compensated, right? So in order for the town go through with a deal that brings a complex that pays taxes in addition to receiving revenue for the sale of the land it had to be done. By doing so the town made money and will have another taxable building for years to come. Spend money to make more money. So, please, give it a rest.

The timeline presented last Spring anticipated that the new Rescue Squad would be completed in June 2014
http://www.slideshare.net/alextorpey/512956-1

Space time?

Michael, thanks. I just figured with the sale pending, it seems like two months to relocate the rescue squad wasn't feasible. Was it supposed to be started earlier? Or was this an oversite?
JJ, if you say so! In fact I'll give you some

!! Are we all good now?

Ace just to clarify one thing you said. The new complex is not paying taxes, and actually was given one of the lowest PILOTS allowed by law.

Ok, I'll give you that. But to clarify your clarification, it's still paying something, is it not? While i'm definitely not for pilots, but it's more revenue then it's generated before. I'm trying to look at the upside in a situation I had no control over.

ace11 - The reasons for the delay are twofold. First, at a BOT meeting in late June or early July, 2013, Torpey insisted that the location of the new building on Second St. had been discussed and agreed on.
Trustees Collum and Rosner questioned when this took place and that is when Torpey lost his cool and insisted that other locations had been looked at and the only viable location was Second St. He said that it was settled and any further discussion would delay the commencement of the Third/Valley development.

Sheena and Mark insisted that the matter be referred back to the Development Committee.

The Development Committee at its July 17 meeting agreed that the location should be Sloan St. (btw- this was the meeting where Torpey told a resident and member of the Development Committee to f... off.)

Now comes reason No. 2. At the July 21, 2013 BOT meeting, the BOT voted in favor of the Sloan St. location. It was at this meeting that Torpey said that the new building would have a public meeting room/shelter. The BOT said whoa - when was a shelter agreed on?

It was agreed that Torpey would get together with the architect and come up with plans and costs for two alternatives - one with a second floor/shelter and one without. These would then be presented to the BOT which would decide which plan to go with.

Nothing happened until Oct. 2013 when a Resolution with a choice of the two options was placed on the agenda. This resolution was tabled, with Torpey saying that the costs were way over the $1.1 million for either plan, without the BOT even seeing the plans and costs. This was Oct. 2103, three months after the July 21 where it was agreed that the architect would do the plans and cost estimates for the two alternatives.

This continued for several BOT meetings, with Torpey refusing to let anyone else get involved, until Feb. 25 when the BOT voted to transfer the project to the Rescue Squad.

I'm confused as, it was originally supposed to be part of the new development. It seems as if the rescue squad fell through the cracks on the heals of a big developer. I can't blame Torpey, this was in the works way before him. I do appreciate the info. Did the rescue squad at least have more notice then the people that had parking passes? I think there an important part of the community, I may be biased as I've needed there assistance.

ace11 said:

I'm confused as, it was originally supposed to be part of the new development. It seems as if the rescue squad fell through the cracks on the heals of a big developer. I can't blame Torpey, this was in the works way before him. I do appreciate the info. Did the rescue squad at least have more notice then the people that had parking passes? I think there an important part of the community, I may be biased as I've needed there assistance.

This all took place under Torpey. The RFP and selection of Jonathan Rose were under Torpey.

eta - When the Redevelopment Attorney was presenting the deal to the BOT for approval, one of the reasons he gave for giving the developer the PILOT in the lowest amount provided for under NJ Statute was that the developer was contributing $1.1 million towards the cost of the new Rescue Squad building.

Ok, I stand corrected. But even if the deal was made in torphy s term the ground work was layed out beforehand. I'm not blaming anyone, just stating that it seems that the rescue squad got the short end of the stick.

Side note autocorect stinks. I just read my other comments,!

scottgreenstone said:

Ace just to clarify one thing you said. The new complex is not paying taxes, and actually was given one of the lowest PILOTS allowed by law.

Actually, not "one of", but the lowest PILOT allowed by law.

ace11 said:

But even if the deal was made in torphy s term the ground work was layed out beforehand. I'm not blaming anyone, just stating that it seems that the rescue squad got the short end of the stick.

The redevelopment of this site was envisioned 20 years ago, when it was included in the Village's CBD Redevelopment Plan, and was further solidified with the purchase of the Gulf station and former car dealership on Valley Street. The 2009 Downtown Vision Plan went further with specific recommendations that became the basis for the winning developer's proposal and Board-ratified plan.

VP Torpey's apparent contribution to this history was to give away the Village's largest redevelopment site, that sits atop the second busiest stop on the M&E rail line, for a painfully small PILOT (I.e., massive tax abatement), to accept a $1.1M payment for the SORS building replacement with zero due diligence re: its actual replacement cost, and to delay its construction by a year by secretly trying to control its new location and grandiose design. BTW, did I mention the net loss of parking spaces after accounting for all of spaces the development site could accommodate, plus the lot being converted to the new SORS site?

scottgreenstone said:

The new complex is not paying taxes

Oops... Double whammy! A public property is sold to a private investor with no future tax revenue? That must be the first of its kind... I am going to join the "knows all crowd" and don't let my illusionary happy world around me to be shadowed by some pesky facts.

Ruhia, its not the first of its kind. They are paying what is called a PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes). Essentially they are paying the lowest allowed by law, $0 of which goes to the school district, yet no guarantees that there wont be tenants with kids that tap into the school system.

If they were going to give them this sweet deal, they should have restricted ownership to 55+. Of course, their units would have had to been designed for that age group, which they probably aren't. But TOrpey just wanted to get "it" done, no matter the "it."

Whoa! There are certainly some things that can be criticized about the deal, but restricting ownership of 250 apartments to 55+ is not one of them.

While it may be a bit late to make this request... please try and keep the political back and forth and debates on the other threads related to this topic. This thread was meant to provide updates on the project's progress, which get a bit hard for people to find when they get buried.

Thanks,

Dan

Dan - You're right. Apologies. I started with the best of intentions. It was my use of the phrase "The Village has given the Rescue Squad the $1 million" which you corrected that probably started the thread down this road.

cramer said:

I don't think that it's necessary at all to discuss who did what to whom. There was a long debate about what the Village could do with the money, but it serves no purpose to get into it again. The Village has given the Rescue Squad the $1 million to use for the construction of the new building, and it's theirs.

I'm confident that the Rescue Squad is determined to keep the costs as low as possible. Yes, there is the possiblilty that the $1 million plus donations will not be enough to pay for the construction of the building. But I'm sure that the Rescue Squad is determined to avoid this.

Cramer-
Why do you say? What would be so terrible? At least there would be no impact on the schools.

@sorescue Are you going to do one of those "sponsor a brick" type fundraisers?

Yes, we will be offering sponsorship of engraved bricks. Once we know how many bricks we'll have available to sell (when the design is more complete), we will be creating a website to enable them to be purchased.

jayjayp said:

Cramer-
Why do you say? What would be so terrible? At least there would be no impact on the schools.

jj - My point is that I don't think there would be anywhere near 250 units rented by 55+. That's a lot of apartments. To restrict 250 apartments in one development, that is after all, in a location that is highly desirable, is not going to work.

jj - There may well be a need for a 55+ development, but not one of the scale of Third/Valley. If you feel strongly about it, I suggest that a new thread be started.

SORescue said:

Yes, we will be offering sponsorship of engraved bricks. Once we know how many bricks we'll have available to sell (when the design is more complete), we will be creating a website to enable them to be purchased.

Dan - I did notice that your website is under construction. I assumed that it was being redesigned for this purpose. Good luck!

Cramer-
The demographic is moving towards that age group. Livingston has had no problem in renting out the development on Columbia Tpke which is in a lousy location and I think far more than 250 units.

Now, back to the RS update....