Township of Maplewood Considering Purchase of Parking Lot Behind Arturo's/Village Coffee

OliveBee said:

You know you are just about right.  While I did not use the expression- fiscal irresponsibility, I do question the process and decision making at this level  

A lease is not an easement, An easement can be had without purchase or lease.

alias said:

If my understanding is correct (I am not certain on this point) that the township's tax abatement is approximately the value of the taxes owed on the land portion of the property that has not been improved with buildings and is used as parking via the lease to the township, then I have to agree the property owners are getting the short end of the stick.  

I believe parking in downtown Maplewood has a marketable value beyond that of the assessed taxes for those spaces.

there is an appraised value for the lots.  it really should be an easy calculation for the property owners if they want higher rents.  if they hold out for too much and it makes more fiscal sense for the township to condemn the land and buy it, they won't get any increase at all.

one of the intangible benefits for property owners is that all of their tenants benefit from allowing patrons of the businesses to park.  how valuable would any of those properties be without easy public parking?  And if each property owner held on to their own plots of land and made it private parking for their own tenants, it would likely turn parking in the village into a hassle.  and that wouldn't be good for anyone.

ml1 said:

alias said:

If my understanding is correct (I am not certain on this point) that the township's tax abatement is approximately the value of the taxes owed on the land portion of the property that has not been improved with buildings and is used as parking via the lease to the township, then I have to agree the property owners are getting the short end of the stick.  

I believe parking in downtown Maplewood has a marketable value beyond that of the assessed taxes for those spaces.

there is an appraised value for the lots.  it really should be an easy calculation for the property owners if they want higher rents.  if they hold out for too much and it makes more fiscal sense for the township to condemn the land and buy it, they won't get any increase at all.

one of the intangible benefits for property owners is that all of their tenants benefit from allowing patrons of the businesses to park.  how valuable would any of those properties be without easy public parking?  And if each property owner held on to their own plots of land and made it private parking for their own tenants, it would likely turn parking in the village into a hassle.  and that wouldn't be good for anyone.

Honest question:  how would the town condem land that they are currently leasing.  By leasing the land isn't the town endorsing the fact that the land and it's current use has intrinsic value?

I confess I'm not well versed in the criteria for condemnation, but I have a preconcieved notion that it requires a demonstration that the current use is of no benefit to the community.

There are several criteria for condemnation, though I seem to recall that most (all?) are based upon the fact that the taking will be for the greater benefit, not that the current use is of no benefit.

buddha,

I imagine you are familiar with the meets and bounds of the various lots in question.  

As such, can you tell us in your estimation if there are lots where the unimproved (no building) portion of the land currently used as municipal parking via the township lease agreement would become landlocked and unusable as parking without either the township lease which unifies the parking use of the various lots or a different use easement across adjacent lots to gain access to municipal roads?

To state it more simply, if the township lease evaporated tomorrow and each of the affected landowners designated the parking spaces behind their building as private, would there be landowners who were landlocked and unable to use those spaces without engaging their neighbors in a use easement?

the leases are up for renewal in March  this the current issue  the TC discussed tonite going ahead with a bond  I believe they asked the attorney the write it up.  I suppose that means debt service.  Also means s hearing is required.  So anyone can attend and ask questions or make comments for or against.  Should be interesting  

A bond IS debt.  Any bond requires a bond ordinance (and no different than any ordinance, is subject to public comment and debate), 98% of which is standard investment boilerplate on munis, the remainder of which sets out the specific purpose.  There's not much that's "interesting" to debate, to be honest, at least any different than would be for drawing it up in he first place.

I say interesting but should say we need more info - do the people of Maplewood want more debt?  More taxes?  Will the payments on this debt be equal to or greater than the current parking lot leases? Does this totally cancel out any tax advantage from the new development (which is a minuscule amount) ?  Why do we need this when a narrow easement for sewers is all that was originally required?  And more  

Where is the analysis? 

you obviously are misinformed-- If the land were taken through condemnation the owners would still be compensated at market value. Land cannot be taken for the benefit of a private entity -------

OliveBee said:

I say interesting but should say we need more info - do the people of Maplewood want more debt?  More taxes?  Will the payments on this debt be equal to or greater than the current parking lot leases? Does this totally cancel out any tax advantage from the new development (which is a minuscule amount) ?  Why do we need this when a narrow easement for sewers is all that was originally required?  And more  

Where is the analysis? 

What does TC member Greg Lembrich say about this?

paulsurovell said:

OliveBee said:

I say interesting but should say we need more info - do the people of Maplewood want more debt?  More taxes?  Will the payments on this debt be equal to or greater than the current parking lot leases? Does this totally cancel out any tax advantage from the new development (which is a minuscule amount) ?  Why do we need this when a narrow easement for sewers is all that was originally required?  And more  

Where is the analysis? 

What does TC member Greg Lembrich say about this?

You should ask him.

buddha said:
ctrzaska
you obviously are misinformed-- If the land were taken through condemnation the owners would still be compensated at market value. Land cannot be taken for the benefit of a private entity -------

Um, not really, no.  Nowhere did I state there wouldn't be compensation (after all, what would the bond ordinance be for?), and nowhere did I state that the land will be taken for the benefit of a private entity (as it's not).  May want to check that.  Thanks.

OliveBee said:

paulsurovell said:

OliveBee said:

I say interesting but should say we need more info - do the people of Maplewood want more debt?  More taxes?  Will the payments on this debt be equal to or greater than the current parking lot leases? Does this totally cancel out any tax advantage from the new development (which is a minuscule amount) ?  Why do we need this when a narrow easement for sewers is all that was originally required?  And more  

Where is the analysis? 

What does TC member Greg Lembrich say about this?

You should ask him.

Paul's post only has one question. I see six in yours and TC member Greg Lembrich would be better suited to answer them than anyone on here.

OliveBee said:

I say interesting but should say we need more info - do the people of Maplewood want more debt?  More taxes?  Will the payments on this debt be equal to or greater than the current parking lot leases? Does this totally cancel out any tax advantage from the new development (which is a minuscule amount) ?  Why do we need this when a narrow easement for sewers is all that was originally required?  And more  

Where is the analysis? 

Ok, more info.  I've said above (and elsewhere) that I'd like to see an analysis.  But, if the Twp hasn't completed negotiations, a lot of that info isn't for public consumption.  Whether the "people" want more debt (forget taxes-- the kneejerk crowd will rise to that call like sheep) is up to them to come and listen and decide and speak if they so choose, but hopefully you're not suggesting a misguided call for govt by referendum.  As to the rationale re: the easement, there could be several reasons why the Twp won't pursue that avenue and/or continue the lease, not least of which due to circumstances beyond their control.  Suppose that background can come out, though given the myopic criticisms already levied without that information, I'm not sure it would make a difference to many of those opposed.  I will say I would have expected that to have been disclosed last evening.  No one asked?

Now, I hope no one should be so naive as to think that this scrutiny isn't just because of Vic and the PO, and only because of Vic and the PO.  If folks really gave a whit about bond ordinances in general (so as to make this not all about the PO, if anyone was so naive to believe it), there have been ample expenditures to review, and bills lists out the yinyang every year, nearly all of which get signed off with nary a peep.  That's not new news to anyone with even the slightest knowledge of municipal finance.  

The amount of money to bond the purchase represents a stream of payments.

The rental of the lots represents a stream of payments.

Depends on what the numbers are, but it seems simply a substitution of one stream of payments for another... and at the end of paying off the bond, the town owns the land. If the town doesn't own the land, then the stream of payments for the lease just continues, whereas the bond eventually ends.

It was my understanding there would be no math...

Interest rates are at a historic low.  The  conditions for taking on debt now are very advantageous - ie - very low interest rates.   So the town buys the spaces with money borrowed at a very low rate and in 30 years the payments are done.   Smart thinking. Forward thinking.

gerardryan said:

The amount of money to bond the purchase represents a stream of payments.

The rental of the lots represents a stream of payments.

Depends on what the numbers are, but it seems simply a substitution of one stream of payments for another... and at the end of paying off the bond, the town owns the land. If the town doesn't own the land, then the stream of payments for the lease just continues, whereas the bond eventually ends.

@geraldryan --- a "stream of payments" is a given- you have not given any value to that stream or comparison to the existing stream...not really an answer and not an analysis.  The questions should be answered for the taxpayers.  Of course at the end of payments, the land would be owned.  but the calcs need to be presented...how much per year? (more or less than lease?) for how long....i.e., when is the payoff and what is the cost of the debt to the taxpayers?

@ctraska --if a bond is already on the table , then negotiations must have happened already or are substantially complete.

Olivebee, what in the world makes you think that I was making some kind of an answer to you, or making any kind of an argument? I was offering an opinion on what I think the general merits of any such transaction would be.

Which is why I said "Depends on what the numbers are". Was that not clear?

OliveBee said:

@ctraska --if a bond is already on the table , then negotiations must have happened already or are substantially complete.

To my knowledge, that's not at all necessarily true.

ETA: Were the specifics of the to-be-written bond ordinance discussed?

OliveBee said:

gerardryan said:

The amount of money to bond the purchase represents a stream of payments.

The rental of the lots represents a stream of payments.

Depends on what the numbers are, but it seems simply a substitution of one stream of payments for another... and at the end of paying off the bond, the town owns the land. If the town doesn't own the land, then the stream of payments for the lease just continues, whereas the bond eventually ends.

@geraldryan --- a "stream of payments" is a given- you have not given any value to that stream or comparison to the existing stream...not really an answer and not an analysis.  The questions should be answered for the taxpayers.  Of course at the end of payments, the land would be owned.  but the calcs need to be presented...how much per year? (more or less than lease?) for how long....i.e., when is the payoff and what is the cost of the debt to the taxpayers?


@ctraska --if a bond is already on the table , then negotiations must have happened already or are substantially complete.

Inda, I've got a feeling that you will latch onto this like a dog with a bone. I remember when I first moved here, it seemed like every week there was a letter to the editor by a fellow named Alphonse Domenick.[sp] He was what was then called a gadfly.Sometimes he had good points,other times not as. Quite a character.Always had an opinion on everything. Quite often contrarian.Seemed his heart was in the right place though. Took a bit more effort to compose a letter and mail it though. You remind me of him.

ctrzaska said:

OliveBee said:

@ctraska --if a bond is already on the table , then negotiations must have happened already or are substantially complete.

To my knowledge, that's not at all necessarily true.

ETA: Were the specifics of the to-be-written bond ordinance discussed?

Thanks, perhaps I was assuming incorrectly....Here is a link to the video - look for RD's report at the very very end....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgMKtsm4VIU

This should have been listed in the discussion items on the agenda, not in RD's report- not a report or new business of any kind- truly a discussion item........we now see a typical pattern of "departe" - the last statement is the most important message.  Why is something so important pushed to the end of the meeting when almost no one is listening (seemed like no one was attending in person)? and why is it not on th agenda?  How are folks to know this is progressing?

Does anybody have any news on this issue?

Didn't see your response until now...will check the vid when not on my iPhone, but in advance of that if they're planning on issuing BANs the negotiations likely don't have to be even near completion (and possibly, though I'm not entirely sure, not even begun as yet).

ctrzaska said:

Didn't see your response until now...will check the vid when not on my iPhone, but in advance of that if they're planning on issuing BANs the negotiations likely don't have to be even near completion (and possibly, though I'm not entirely sure, not even begun as yet).

All of the legal documentation can be completed before the final dollar number is arrived at - it's basically a fill-in-the-blank aspect at that point.  If there's something about the final contract which would require a revision, then they can revise, but I don't think that would be likely with a fairly straight-forward acquisition like this.

My point was you don't even need the legal docs on the acquisition to issue.  I think they can be issued at the outset of the process.  I just don't know what they're planning on issuing.