How, then, would the renovation be financed and how much money is Mr. Kaufman committing to the project? How has it worked (or not worked) in his other projects? What is his track record?
I don't have all the answers, but it would seem that in addition to the environmental cleanup, borne by the city, the Historical tax credits, the guaranteed (by the Federal government) loan, the Empire Zone credits which will not only cover some of his labor expenses but also give him breaks on sales tax and utilities as well as freeze the real property taxes to that of the empty shell it is now for seven years after title passes and avoid full real property taxes on these luxury apartments until about twenty years out, he is also seeking a Restore New York grant of $2.5 million dollars, money which could be spent by the city to tear down many, many, many dilapidated structures. I don't see a whole lot of risk there for Mr. Kaufman's LLC . But you're getting me ahead of my story.
A simpler answer might be that all his projects thus far have been successful. If this one isn't he'll take quite a hit because, besides all the governmental subsidies, he's borrowing several million dollars in private funds to do the project. But the city will be fine because none of that will change the fact that the building has been renovated and put back on the tax rolls. Someone will own it, people will live in it, and the city will have expanded its tax base significantly.
Well, no, one of the problems is that the project does not increase the city's tax base at ALL for the first seven years after he takes title, and then fairly insignificantly for quite a few years after that. You also overstate his previous "success", but we'll get to that.
I'd have to disagree, or maybe it's just a matter of semantics. I'd say we expand the tax base the very first day because it goes back on the active tax rolls. Right now we get nothing- the first day he takes it we start to get something.
While the project does enjoy EDZ benefits the first 7 years it pays 25%, 50%, 75% respectively over the next three years. After three years it goes on the rolls at 100%. I don't know that I would call that "fairly insignificant for quite a few years" but I'm not an attorney.
I don't know how the 180 sewer fees, water fees and sanitation fees are handled under the EDZ because they're technically fees, not taxes. But in the long run that doesn't matter all that much. If the project goes through they'll eventually all be rolling in, most likely for the rest of our lives.
If all the city received was the 180 sets of fees the project would be well worth it. Beyond that think about the assessed value of 180 upscale condos. Fiscally it'll be like Amsterdam absorbed a small village of nice upper middle class homes- but with very little additional cost to the city. Perhaps I'm naive but that sound like a good thing to me.
Well, first you have to realize that the current assessment, which will be the tax base for the first seven years, is very, very low. The city has been careful to not over-assess non-paying abandoned structures for a very sound reason: we guarantee the school taxes on the building, the single largest item in our very large tax load.
You are also assuming that the large amounts of non-developer money going into this project would not be used for other, perhaps more productive purposes. You also assume that there are no other profitable uses for the site. Personally, I think it is far more attractive to developers down and cleared than up and burdensome. The proof of that is the twenty years that have gone by with NO ONE expressing more than a passing interest in the building.
What we have is a political trophy, and the cost of the trophy, I fear, far exceeds the value being produced. I have no objection to yuppies moving into a nice project in Amsterdam at this or any other location. I have many objections to this truly awful building remaining and more than a few problems with the way this is being put together.
The argument you make is reasonable, and one of the few that could in any way justify this as a matter of municipal policy. I just don't think it's enough to overcome the negatives and the questionable practices of the parties involved.
Refining a point: If it is true, as Mayor Thane seemed to say at the public meeting, that the rehab costs are being in part financed by a $2.5 million Restore New York Grant, that is money that could have been used to clear decaying properties on the South Side and in neighborhoods all over the city, money that will ultimately need to be found elsewhere, as those eyesores are and will remain a city obligation. So that $2.5 million is essentially coming out of the other city taxpayers. That's an awful lot to be recouped from the ultimate taxes and fees on the Chalmers project.
You now, one of your callers, I think it's "Chet", keeps bringing up this point and you have as well on numerous occasions. The process of Demolition. You have spoken of the last administration's process and fight to have this building knocked down. Mr. Chet keeps questioning how this administration can effectively wipe out the process you completed previously.
Care to briefly, legally explain the following?
~ What you & previous administration had to do to get approval and funding for demolition? {Any requirements on the cities part to keep funding, any timetable to knock down building, any misgivings by the state?}
~ Since the demolition was approved by the state, is Mr. Chet right in questioning how this administration completely bypassed it? {Does the state not have an interest if you do or don't follow through with approval - I am assuming you listed the deficiency of said building in defense of knock~down? Is said money for demolition available indefinitely? Will it cover 100% of cost to do so?}
~ Does the ground have to be tested for contaminants in either case? The article in today's paper is confusing, it seems people are contradicting each other. This is truly unbelievable. This "baby" could have been long gone by now - and who exactly is paying for these repeat and now extended services?
I'm no economic major, but this State, which is in it's own financial crisis, is not going to keep throwing money our way, when they eventually see that we do not know how to spend/use it wisely. If you get a grant, you should be thankful and use it how it was intended. When all the grant money disappears and we are left standing with nothing, all those in charge will have only themselves to blame. Where's the logic?
Though my part in this project was relatively minor, I was in on a good many discussions about it. Our principal consultant was Dan Schearer of ENSR, environmental engineers. As I've written previously, there was a good deal of back and forth over the years as to whether all or part of the buildings could be saved. Dan was strongly of the opinion that the buildings must come down, and our application for environmental remediation was based on this. Indeed, our application for funding centered on the premise that the buildings MUST be torn down to properly conduct soil testing for contaminants, and so we convinced the state.
Once the funding was approved, the next step called for the preparation of specs and advertising for bids for the demolition. Dan assured us that everything would be in place for the demolition to take place in October of 2007. We had been previously burned by ENSR on the Mohasco demolition which underwent numerous pointless delays because of foot-dragging by the consultants. Mohasco only took off, actually, when Dan arrived on the scene replacing the folks at ENSR responsible for the delays.
For reasons that escape me now (probably more foot-dragging), ENSR was not able to get the bids let in time for the October deadline and winter, but we were assured that come April of 2008 the buildings would come down. We then left office.
The new administration took over and, as noted, came up with a new plan. Dan Scheer all of a sudden leaves ENSR and goes to Saratoga Associates where he is now advocating that the buildings can be saved, just as strongly as he advocated that they must be torn down.
In order to save the buildings, the specs for the environmental cleanup had to be rewritten, and Dan is now advocating that instead of tearing down the buildings, why it is possible to conduct the study by simply drilling through the basement floors.
Part of the Option Contract now calls for the city to do whatever it can (i.e, change our position again) to use the money set aside for the demolition to assist in the development project.
If there is an honest moment in this process, I have yet to see it.
Who is paying for all this? Saratoga Associates have been tapping these grant monies for all they're worth, money which we don't actually have from the state but which we previously bonded for, with the approval of the administration, and if there's anything left to do the real work I'll be really surprised.
If this Dan fellow's name is on the original documentation as to reasons why it needed to be knocked down{from one company} - and his name is NOW on any paperwork as to the feasibility of keeping it{from another company} - how can the state not recognize that? Maybe, it is a fact that needs to be pointed out at the state level. Along with the abuse of said grants we are getting.
What does that mean that we don't have the money but we 'bonded' for it? Is this the debt we are paying off{appx. .33 of ever $1.00} with our local taxes? How does SA get paid if we don't have this money yet? Is the city counting on getting reimbursed from the state?
As to the debt, yes, a substantial portion of your real property tax increases this year will be due to repayment of the the bond we took out for demolition of those buildings.
I am pleased to know that my lack of 'degree-able' education is well balanced with an overabundance of common sense that does indeed let me play lawyer with this absolute joke that is posted above. Of course we must trust that Mayor Thane has presented the real contract that was indeed signed by Mr. Kaufman - and rather this is it or not really doesn't matter because there are several provisions in said contract that he did not successfully complete. Since the contract clearly states the city can cancel agreement at various monthly intervals, it is dumbfounding that anyone is even still talking about this, him, Chalmers, or any of it. It should have been canceled months ago.
I have never heard, not once, from anyone involved, that there was even a possibility of him not having to pay $50,000 when said date came due. Is this paragraph perhaps newly added? It would explain why alderman do not have copy of the actual signed contract. Are we, as Amsterdam citizens, entitled to see the original contract that was signed and notarized last May?
To the people of this city, please don't join or further support this Circus substituting for city government. At this point, every one needs to be voted out. We can trust no one , they do not speak for the majority of us. And we alone - yet collectively - need to make our displeasure known this November. In the meantime, don't stop questioning them and the absolute fiasco that this contract represents. The Mayor cannot expect failure for this, as she has not one other thing to stand on. Please imagine this Chalmers going through, and five years from now, absolutely nothing happening. The Mayor will be long gone, perhaps even not a city resident anymore. Who do you think will be laughing then?
I'm pretty certain that the contract above is, in its terms, the one that was signed. The final draft would have included the exact titles of the Kaufman and Schwartz Family Trusts and a metes and bounds description of the property.
Now remember also, that the manner of remediation is wholly dependent on whether Kaufman takes the property. If he doesn't, it's through demolition. If he does, then it has to be done another way. So, by the interpretation the CC is now giving this contract, the city will be forced to do it the other way, and then there will be no money left for demolition, and then Kaufman can decide whether he wants it or not.
In regards to the "Remediation" - I read the original plan, as submitted by Daniel M. Shearer and Denise M. Servo called "Urban Rebirth In An Old Mill City - The Amsterdam, New York Brownfields Story" ... how on earth this Dan Shearer is now FOR redevelopment of the Chalmers and conveniently working for Saratoga Associates is just mind boggling!!
Some Key Points below, but I encourage all readers to copy and paste the link at the end to view the comprehensive layout and full text of the presentation they put together{Known as the Master Plan For Amsterdam}. It makes NO SENSE at all that Mr. Shearer is now FOR Chalmers, unless of course, he is on the kick~back list as well. This just gets more and more disgusting. By the way, did we{tax~payers of Amsterdam} previously pay for this layout/leaflet they put together?
* • Via Ponte—Field activities began in 2006. The Via Ponte Project will provide the Southside of Amsterdam with a shops and stores that are not currently accessible via foot in this part of the City. Via Ponte will be connected to the north side of the City via a pedestrian bridge scheduled for construction in 2009.This bridge will connect to walking trails on either side of the Mohawk River. Located on the Chalmers Brownfields Property, this project will require the demolition and remediation of a 3-acre property prior to redevelopment.
*• The City of Amsterdam will have invested nearly $1.5 Million in funding and resources to complete the environmental remediation of Mohasco Mills and complete the site characterization at Chalmers • NYSDEC will have provided more than $4 Million for these projects that are in New York’s Environmental Restoration Program. An additional $1 Million is anticipated in 2008 for remedial activities at Chalmers, where 90% of the project costs will be assumed by NYSDEC • The New York State Office of General Services will fund nearly $1.5 Million of the project costs associated with demolition of buildings on the Chalmers Site. This funding was procured by Amsterdam’s grant writer, with assistance from ENSR and Saratoga Associates Though the project costs associated with remediating the Chalmers and Mohasco sites totals nearly$7 Million through 2007, the City’s portion is only about 20% of the total cost. Without Brownfields funding mechanisms in New York State, these projects may not have occurred and the liability associated with decaying former factories would continue to be assumed the City
Please, please, please go read this for yourselves!!! It is 100 percent clear as day, that we did indeed have a "Master Plan" and we were on our way of getting somewhere, until Thitlerane came into the picture and started her totalitarian run of this city! Also keep in mind that somehow, someway, this Dan Shearer - who wrote and developed what you will read - is now working for SA and now supports this Chalmers project, effectively negating all he wrote!!! Why???!!!
The link, which I believe you will have to copy & paste into your browser:
Please view it. If we as a city, are not seeing a clear picture of how badly we are being taken advantage of/used/misled by the Mayor and all the rest - then maybe we are the ones who belong in the circus.
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
