Op-Ed: "Bloomfield Taxpayers Deserve Ratables from Development"

I have lived in Bloomfield 52 years, my entire life.  With every fiber in my being I want redevelopment to be successful.  Redevelopment is critical to the revitalization of Bloomfield. 

 It is through redevelopment that desperately needed ratables should be realized to help offset the ever increasing tax burden that every property owner in Bloomfield faces today.  And that includes landlords, whose share of the tax burden is passed along in the rents.

The tonight. The redevelopment project is a complex transaction.

Through the Open Public Records Act known as OPRA, numerous Bloomfield taxpayers have come together and received the following:

1. Land Swap Agreement
2. The Redevelopment Agreement
3. The Finance Agreement
4. The Garage Construction Agreement
5. The 2009 and 2010 Town of Bloomfield annual reports
6. The 2009, 2010 and 2011 Parking Authority Reports
7. The Parking Authority Bonds issues from 2004 through present

I have read each document in its entirety and the main thing I discovered is that not one single penny will help the taxpayers of Bloomfield.

So an additional OPRA request was made requesting an impact study to see how property values would increase. The response was that there wasn’t any impact study available.

One of the redevelopment agreements that was OPRAed was the Finance Agreement between the Township of Bloomfield and the redevelopment company BRCU. In this agreement, the benefit the taxpayers should be receiving is spelled out and it is called the Annual Service Charge.   

Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) payment is another term that has been thrown to describe the financial benefit the taxpayers would receive from the developer.

But there is a clause in the Financial Agreement that takes the Annual Service Charge (PILOT Payment) and hands the entire thing over to the Parking Authority.  Bloomfield’s Taxpayers do not see a dime of the payment.

Over the course of 27 years that is $15,375,000. That is $15,375,000 that should be used to offset Bloomfield’s tax burden, but it is not. The taxpayers of Bloomfield are handing the Parking Authority $15,375,000.  For what? 

Answer: To pay interest on the $12,480,000 bond that the Parking Authority took out to build the parking garage for a developer.

I did not invent this number; it came from the calculation called “Bloomfield PA Block 228 Analysis” that was submitted by McManiman & Scotland (Bloomfield Parking Authority attorneys)  to the State of NJ to show the state that the $12,480,000 loan could be repaid.  I received this document from the State of New Jersey. 

The reason that the PILOT payment, which should have gone to the taxpayers of Bloomfield, was given to the Bloomfield Parking Authority is because the Parking Authority was not making enough money to pay its bills and support the debt of building a garage.

But the $12,480,000 was supposed to build the $9,000,000 garage. That is what we were told in October 2010 when Mr. Bauman (Parking Authority’s attorney) pleaded before the council to give its approval for redevelopment so it could receive a low interest Federally Backed Loan.  

But the $12,480,000 was used to pay back a previous bond of $7,000,000, which left approximately $5,480,000 in the cash register.  Of which $ 1,811,478.11 had to be set into a special account to pay interest on the $12,480,00 loan until Annual Service Charge (PILOT Payment) kicks in, in 2014.

So where is the return on investment for the taxpayer?  We assume the risk and everyone -- including the lawyers, engineers, consultants and developers -- get rich, while making the taxpayers of Bloomfield poorer.

The other night Mr. Bauman said in front of the Town Council $3,000,000 was needed for the construction of the garage from the Township of Bloomfield and he uses the words “default” to scare us.  What scares me is that, in the analysis submitted to the State of New Jersey, the amount needed is $5,480,000.

$3,000,000 now, $3,000,000 later -- when is the begging going to stop?

If the council votes to give any more money to this ill-conceived project, our taxes will go up again.  I ask, no, I beg the council not to raise my taxes and those of the other taxpayers of Bloomfield.

What the taxpayers of Bloomfield desperately need is a redevelopment solution that will bring in ratables and provide tax relief to all the Taxpayers of Bloomfield.

I reiterate. I am not against development. I want a vibrant and successful Bloomfield.

Russell Mollica

Bloomfield Resident and Taxpayer