Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Pilots topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident challenges 30‑year tax pilots; mayor and council defend program
Summary
At a Woodbridge Township Council meeting, resident Scott Gorich presented financial analyses arguing 15‑year pilots (or no pilot) would still yield developer profits and reduce long‑term taxpayer risk; Mayor McCormick and administration defended 30‑year pilots as necessary to secure development and to fund schools and infrastructure.
Scott Gorich, introduced from the public microphone, urged the council to reconsider long-term tax pilot agreements on four development projects and asked the council to pull two items (g and h) from tonight’s consent vote to allow further study.
Gorich said his net‑present‑value and internal‑rate‑of‑return calculations show the developments remain profitable under a 15‑year pilot and even with no pilot. “The bottom line point is that using a number of discount rates… the result was a positive number, which means a pilot is not necessary for this development to be economically viable,” he said. Gorich asked the council to share the administration’s proprietary assumptions so he could model a 15‑ or 20‑year scenario and offered to sign a nondisclosure agreement to obtain them.
Mayor McCormick responded that applicants applied only for 30‑year pilots and that township staff evaluate developers’ pro forma figures and then recast them using the administration’s estimates. The mayor said Gorich’s analysis omits several items the township accounts for, including a crossover safeguard that returns projects to regular taxation when regular taxes exceed the pilot, a 2% administrative fee spelled out in applications, a 1.5% annual capital reserve for long‑term maintenance, interest on debt, and other startup losses. “When you put the whole package together, pilots are clearly beneficial to developers,” the mayor said, adding that pilots have enabled the township to invest in schools, roads and other projects.
Council members reiterated that the administration’s review is rigorous and that the applicants sought 30‑year terms. One council member noted an abstention on one item and another briefly thanked staff for pilot‑funded improvements to emergency services.
Outcome: After public comment and discussion, the council closed the public hearing and approved the consent package including letters f, g, h and i by voice vote, with previously noted abstentions. The council also moved letter j to first reading and scheduled a public hearing for August 20, 2024, at 6:00 p.m.
Why it matters: The length of tax pilot agreements determines when new developments convert to the regular ratable base; differing projections about short‑ and long‑term tax flows affect municipal revenues, school funding formulas and the distribution of tax burden among existing taxpayers. Gorich’s request for access to administrative assumptions underscores tensions between public scrutiny and the administration’s treatment of developer financials as deliberative or proprietary.
Next steps: The ordinances on the consent calendar were adopted and sent to the mayor for approval; proponents or opponents may request future council reconsideration or pursue additional public review prior to final closing on projects.
