Developer asks Greenburgh to change PILOT terms for Fairview Manhattan Apartments

Mark Solje, representing Marathon Development Group, asked the Greenburgh town board on April 1 to amend the PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) agreement for Fairview Manhattan Apartments, arguing the 50‑year‑old building has struggled financially since the COVID‑19 pandemic and needs a different tax‑assessment formula to cover repairs and operations.

Solje said the complex — about 192 units — is carrying large unpaid rent balances. "We have roughly 140 of 192 apartments who have some arrears," Solje said, and he described a peak unpaid‑rent figure he cited as about $1,000,000 (amount cited by the developer; figure appears approximated in the transcript). He told the board tenant damage and higher repair costs have driven turnover expenses up, sometimes from roughly $2,000–$3,000 per unit to many thousands more for heavy repairs.

Under the property’s existing PILOT terms and financing, Solje said tax relief is tied to a 1.25 debt‑service‑coverage test embedded in the financing. He said the property’s coverage ratio was near 0.98 last year, forcing the developer to subsidize operations. "So instead of cash flows to the developer, I'm paying the property to stay afloat," he said.

Solje proposed switching the pilot calculation to a shelter‑rent model used elsewhere in Westchester County: rental income minus utilities, multiplied by a payment rate. He cited a typical municipal payment rate of 3%–5% and estimated that a 3% shelter‑rent payment would net roughly $80,000 a year for the taxing entities while leaving the property better positioned to pay for capital needs and repairs.

Council members pressed Solje for more detail about the arrears and management practices. Board members asked whether towing and other enforcement tactics had increased tenant animosity; Solje acknowledged one towing policy by a third‑party vendor created "bad blood" and said the firm has worked with county partners and targeted assistance programs (including ERAP) to help tenants catch up.

Board members also pressed for a clear, public plan for how any extra revenue would be used. Several members asked Solje to provide a capital‑needs list and to commit to specific repairs — heat and hot‑water upgrades, sewer work and balcony and masonry fixes were mentioned — so the board could explain to residents how a change in the PILOT would translate into improvements for tenants.

Fiscal impact on local taxing bodies came up repeatedly. The town’s assessor (on the record during the meeting) said current taxes on the project are roughly $260,000–$270,000 a year, and that about 60% of that amount typically flows to the school district (approximately $150,000). Council members warned that reducing the property’s assessed contribution would shift costs to other taxpayers and the school district, and they asked that the developer and the board consult the school district before any agreement is finalized.

Several members supported a collaborative approach: meeting with a tenants association, appointing a town‑board liaison to improve communication, and pursuing targeted tenant outreach and assistance. One council member said the board should avoid creating unrealistic expectations about the town’s authority over private leases but expressed willingness to work with management, tenants and county partners to stabilize the property.

Next steps: Solje said he could provide the board with a proposed amendment and supporting figures; the board agreed to consider the request with a practical timeline so any change could be processed in time for the June 1, 2025 assessment cycle (town members discussed an internal target of responding by about May 1). The developer also briefed the board on a separate proposal — a 64‑unit senior housing project at the former West Health site (Mayfair Apartments) that he said is advancing through county review.

The meeting closed business and a board member moved to enter executive session to discuss personnel matters and pending litigation; the motion was seconded and board members responded "Aye."