ready. >> Y'all call the meeting house council to order. Opening statement. This meeting is being held in accordance with public law 1975 chapter 231 open public meetings act. Adequate notice has been provided in the
manner prescribed by law. This agenda is complete to the extent known and formal action will be taken. I'll begin with a roll call. Councilman Nadell is absent at the moment. Councilwoman O'Donnell is also absent at the moment. Councilman Reubel >> here. >> Deputy Mayor Fischer
>> here. Mayor Leia >> here. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Bennett. Uh they recently go into executive sess session resolution R25-322. >> That is correct. >> Personnel attorney client.
>> Motion to enter. >> Second. >> I'll make a motion. >> Second. >> Sorry. >> All in favor? >> I I Thank you. Yes.
Roll call. >> Councilman Nadell. >> Councilman O'Donnell >> here. >> Councilman Rubel >> here. >> Deputy Mayor Fischer >> here. Mayor Leio >> here. >> Thank you. >> At this time, I'd like to invite up the
Boy Scouts of America. They're going to present the flags and do the pledge of allegiance. Troop 300. >> Color guard. Attention. Color guard. Forward. March. >> Please rise.
Color Guard Post. Color Guard. Scout. Salute. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands. One nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Color guard. Scout sign. Scout O. On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to guide my country to obey law to help other people at all
times to keep myself physically strongly morally. >> Scout law. A scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, brave, clean. >> Call guard ready to color guard
dismissed. join us, please. >> We'd like to take a moment to acknowledge our township clerk who's retiring, unfortunately, leaving us. This is her last meeting. Gonna ask Diane to come down.
Don't make me cry. Proclamation of the governing body of the township of how honoring Diane Fino. Whereas the township of Howell has been informed of the retirement of Diane Fino, municipal clerk on December 31st, 2025. And whereas we take this opportunity to recognize Diane for her
25 years of dedicated service in municipal government and particularly here as a municipal clerk at our township since July 11th, 2022. And whereas during her tenure with How Township, Clerk Fino accomplished many challenging tasks, most notably the documentation and destruction of
hundreds of boxes of old and unneeded documents. And whereas clerk Fino has served the governing body of Howell Township with dedication, professionalism, and a sense of humor. And whereas Diane Fino is most deserving of an enjoyable retirement and public
recognition for her service to municipal government and particularly to Howell Township. Now, therefore, the governing body of the township of Howell does hereby congratulate Diane and wish her a healthy and happy retirement. Diane's famous for her plants. So, we
got you another plant. >> And we we'd especially like to thank you for being there for us this summer. Um, you really we couldn't have done it without you. Hi, thank you. Uh 25 years of municipal
government, uh three almost three and a half years here at Howell. It's been great. Um it's just time for me to go. Thank you. How uh council's been great and it's it's been a pleasure. Thank you so much. Thank you. All right.
All right. And now we have a presentation tonight on the proposed Howell Pilot, the How 360 LLC presented by the Howell Township Professionals. Good evening everyone. My name is Daniel Banker and I work with NW Financial Group as the township's financial
consultants. Um tonight we're going to be going through a presentation about the proposed project uh Howell 360. So we will be going through our financial analysis uh our feasibility study, how
we came to the pilot terms that are being presented tonight and the fiscal impact. If we can go to the next slide please. So this is the project site. It's located on lots 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26
uh on block 137. And it's approximately 20 acres. Next slide, please. So the project project consists of 360 units of which 30% or 108 will be affordable. They will be split across 12
residential buildings containing 30 residential units each. The market rate component will be split between one and two-bedroom units. The affordable component will be split between one, two, and threebedroom units. There will be 718 uh surface parking spaces and a
roughly 4,400 square foot clubhouse which includes a pool and a playground. Next slide, please. So, this is the projected unit mix and the projected rents. Um, you'll see the onebedrooms are projected to be $2,600 per month. The two bedrooms are
projected to be $3,400 a month. Uh, we've taken a look at the current availabilities in the surrounding area, most notably Verdana Howell. That is a project that's approximately a mile and a half down the road. Um, significantly older. It was built in 2013, contains
220 units. Right now, there's approximately nine listings online, uh, all of which are twobedrooms, and they're going for approximately 2850 to 2950. So, uh, the developer is assuming a
significant increase in the projected rents on the two-bedroom units. We also looked at a number of other properties in the surrounding area, Neptune, Tom's River, uh, Manchester, and Aberdine. Uh so we feel confident that these rent assumptions are reasonable in the
market. Uh and before I go further, I want to explain the process. So when a pilot application is submitted to NW, uh that pilot application includes the developers estimated project cost, uh unit mix, square footages, rents,
operating expenses, lease up timing, interest rates, cap rates, all the developers assumptions. We take that information and we compare it to the other data that we have. Uh we do this across the state uh for about a hundred
other municipalities. So we have a bunch of redevelopment projects that we review to compare the assumptions uh and if there are adjustments that need to be made, we will make those adjustments. So we don't take the developer numbers as is.
Uh when it comes to the affordable unit mix that is based on a blended percentage of AMI. AMI standing for area median income. There will be a blend of very low income units which is 30% of AMI. Uh low income units at 50% of AMI
and moderate income units at 60% of AMI. So what you're looking at there are the average rents for the one, two, and threebedroom affordable units. But some units will be less than that. Some units will be more. Next slide, please.
So, here you have the estimated project cost. Uh, it's estimated to cost about $119 million of which 35% would come from developer equity, uh, about $42 million. The other 77 million or so will
become come from, uh, construction loan, uh, from a lender or, uh, another bank. You'll see the project cost breakdown. There's a number of line items here. You have the purchase price of the land, uh, which comes out to about 20,000 per
unit, which is, uh, on a per market rate unit, that's basically 29,000 per unit. Uh, that in a in a municipality where rents are about $3 per square foot, that is a reasonable number uh, compared to what land sales are going for in the
surrounding area. You have residential hard cost. the developer was assuming a a hard cost per square foot number of $150 per square foot. Uh that is a very aggressive assumption when it comes to uh residential construction like this.
Typically we're reviewing proformas that show a per square foot number of $180 to $200 per square foot. Uh so that's just something to keep in mind in terms of the developer is assuming a very aggressive uh project cost assumption on the hard costs.
Then you have the other line items that are um consistent with other proformas. Next slide, please. So this is the annual operating expenses to operate and maintain the building. They're assuming that that will come out to about $2.1 million.
And when it comes to operating expenses, we look at this on a both a per square foot and per unit basis. So that number represents about 5,800 per unit. We receive financial audits from over a hundred residential buildings in the
state and those audits provide both the revenue side of the equation and the expense side of the equation. So we can see the 2024 audits of similarly sized buildings and typical operating expenses range from 6,000 to 8,000 per unit. So
again, this is a very aggressive assumption by the developer u that he will be able to maintain and operate the building at 5,800 per unit. Next slide, please. So now we get into the proposed pilot
terms. So uh the pilot as proposed is a 30-year pilot that starts at 11% of gross revenue for the first five years. It then increases every five years thereafter to 11 and a half, 12%,
12 and a half and then for the final 10 years 13%. In addition, the pilot calculation as per the statute requires a mandatory phase in of conventional taxes otherwise known as otherwise applicable taxes. So
in any given year, the pilot calculation is the greater of a percentage of gross revenue or a percentage of conventional taxes. So even though this property would be exempt from taxation, the assessor would still be required to put a land and improvement assessment on the
books such that in any given year, you'd be able to tell what conventional taxes would be on the property. So based on that calculation, the pilot would be based on the greater of those two calculations. In addition to the pilot or also known
as the annual service charge, uh there is a 2% administrative fee that's on top of the annual service charge and that is to cover any additional cost related and the pilot billing process.
Next slide please. So this slide goes into the feasibility analysis. So before we consider a pilot of any kind, we first look at the economics under a conventional tax scenario. Does the project work? Is it financially feasible if it was required
to pay full taxes? So the first step of that process is to speak to the assessor to get an idea of how the property would be assessed uh once completed. So based on the assessor's input, you'll see I know there's a lot of numbers there, but you'll see the property tax
line item on the far left of 1.85 million. So that's what the assessor believes uh the property would pay in full taxes. There's several different metrics that we use to determine if a project is feasible.
One is the net project value, which is looking at the project value. What is the project worth once the building is leased up? versus what does it cost to build? Under this scenario, it's almost a break even. The net project value is just about a
million dollars below uh the the value is $1 million below the cost to build. So, that's the first metric that suggests a subsidy of some kind is necessary. You then have a number of metrics. Internal rate of return, uh
that takes into account the amount of equity that the developer is putting in. Again, I mentioned on the earlier slide, roughly 35% of this is going to come from developer equity or $42 million. So, IRRa takes into account the amount of equity, assumes a sale at the end of
year 10, and takes the uh accounts for the average rate of return during that span. Typical market returns are somewhere between 10 and 15% for IRRa under conventional taxes is just over five. Yield on cost is another metric
that's taking into account the NOI of the project and dividing by the total project cost. Again, a typical market return is somewhere between six and 7%. Here you have just under five and a half%. And lastly, you have the debt service coverage ratio.
This is a metric that lenders use to determine the loan size and to ensure that the developer will be able to pay back the loan uh that they take out. Lenders right now are looking for a minimum coverage ratio of 1.2. Meaning
that the annual cash flow of the project needs to be 120% of the annual debt service. That's to ensure that if expenses go up higher or rents go up lower or go down lower, you have the ability to still pay off that loan. So
based on all of those metrics, our conclusion that is that this project is unlikely to move forward under conventional taxes. So, if we go to the right table, the only difference in the line item is from property taxes to
pilot plus admin fee. You'll notice that the property taxes go from 1.85 million to a pilot of just under 1.2 million. In turn, that increases the project value to a positive number. It increases the IR and the yield on cost. However, those
returns are still below the typical returns that a developer is looking for and that are considered reasonable in the market. Um, but it does allow the project to be feasible and it does get them to a debt service coverage ratio of 1.2.
Next slide, please. So right now uh the so there's five lots uh but they've been combined into three separate lots that total 20 acres and currently the developer is paying land taxes land taxes only. The land taxes total about $135,000.
Um and that's split between the school, the township and the county. Next slide please. I know this is probably too small for most uh people to see, but what this is a breakdown by year and over the 30-year
term of the pilot projections. So, because the pilot is based on a percentage of gross revenue, there will be a lease up period where the building is, you know, the building isn't fully leased up on day one. So we are assuming a lease up period where during year 1
you're about 50% or 40% occupied and starting in year two we're assuming 95% occupancy. So if we use year two as the base case the gross pilot is roughly $1.16 million. 5% of that amount goes to
the county. 95% of it goes to the municipality. And then in addition, I mentioned the 2% admin fee. That 2% admin fee is roughly $23,000 and 100% of that goes to the township. So the township share of the gross pilot
is estimated to be $1.1 million. Now, as a comparison, and this is for illustrative purposes only. This is a hypothetical scenario because I as I mentioned earlier uh is unlikely that this project could proceed
under conventional taxes but to give you a comparison of the breakdown under conventional taxes in that same year too it would be about 1.85 million of which the township share would be about $360,000.
Uh, another important thing to note about this pilot is this is a very aggressive pilot. Um, I've probably worked on 50 redevelopment projects this year and starting at 11% increasing to
13% of gross revenue and including a very aggressive phase in of conventional taxes where you have five years of each 20 40 60 80. Um, this is a very aggressive pilot and beneficial pilot um, as compared to many other pilots
I've seen. Um, and one thing that stands out to me is you'll notice on the far right, uh, that's a comparison. That's the percentage that the pilot makes up of conventional taxes. So, in year two, it's estimated that the pilot represents
62% of conventional taxes. Most pilots start out at 40% or maybe even sometimes less. So this pilot is starting out at a very high percentage of conventional taxes and increases significantly as the
percentage of gross revenue increases and as the phase in of conventional taxes comes into play. So over the 30-year term uh the gross pilot is estimated to be about $52 million of which the township shares about 50 million compared to conventional taxes.
Again, a hypothetical scenario, uh, conventional taxes would be about $74 million, of which the township share would be, uh, $14 million. Next slide, please. So, this is a comparison of what the
site is currently generating and what it would generate if undeveloped. As I mentioned, the property is currently paying about $135,000 in land taxes, of which the township share is about 27,000. We're assuming a 2% tax rate increase
throughout the 30-year term. So, undeveloped as is, the property would generate about $5.5 million, of which the township share would be about 1.1 million. Again, under the pilot, it's about $52 million, of which the township share would be about $50 million.
Next slide, please. Uh the last slide gets into the net benefit of the project. So part of the analysis goes into we've identified the revenue projections from the pilot and now we need to determine what is the
likely number of new residents and school children that will be generated from the project. Um, when it comes to the residents, there is a the division of local government services created what's called the PAF model, which takes
certain line items from the municipal budget uh that they feel are impacted by the fluctuation in the population. So, they take those line items and apply a percentage that is impacted by the population change and divide that number
by the total number of residents to get a per resident cost. So in this case, u those line items are things like general government, land use administration, public safety, p public works. Um so that number comes out to about $150 per resident. When you apply that to the
multipliers, so the multipliers come from a study that was done by Ruckers. Uh this study is called who lives in New Jersey housing. Um, it was originally done in late 2000s, I think 2007, and was updated again in 2018 to account for
new construction buildings that have less large bedroom types, more efficiently sized units. and they reviewed hundreds of thousands of units across the state, rental, condo, small, large, um, rental, for sale, and they
determined and pulled actual resident and school children data from those buildings to create multipliers that could be applied to proposed redevelopment projects in order to estimate the number of new residents and school children. So based on those
multipliers, which are also broken out between market rate and affordable, it's projected that this project would um generate about $754 new residents. So when you apply that 754 to the roughly
$150 per resident cost, you end up with a new resident cost of about $110,000. So you'll see that in year 2 uh 109571 when it comes to the public school children uh that Rucker study also has
multipliers for public school children uh both broken out for market rate and affordable. When you use those multipliers it's estimated that there will be 63 public school children. That's K through 12. um 10 of which would be coming from the market rate
units and 53 of which would be coming from the affordable units. We then apply um as I'm sure most people are aware the board of education budget has a uh cost per student comparison that is used in every uh school budget. Uh the total
budgetary comparative per pupil in the 2526 proposed budget was $20,549 and that's including classroom instruction, support services, admin costs, operations and maintenance of plant uh etc. So for purposes of our
analysis, we include the total classroom instruction of $12,461 and the total support services of $3,558. assuming that the other line items are essentially fixed cost and don't go up or down based on the fluctuation in
enrollment. So you end up with a net uh cost of 16,000 per student. We then apply the percentage from the budget that comes from local sources. So some of the budget comes from uh you know tax revenue, some of the budget comes from
the state uh federal you know minimal money from uh the federal government and other sources. So 71 a.5% of the budget comes from local sources. So we apply the 71.5% to the $16,000 number to get a
net cost of about 11,450. When you apply that number to the projected 63 public school children, you get new school costs of approximately 722,000. So, the sum of the resident and school costs comes out to 830,000
as compared to the township share of the pilot of about 1.1 million, leaving a net benefit of $290,000 roughly per year. Uh, and that number increases again as the pilot percentage increases, as the phase in of
conventional taxes increase, and as rents increase. Um, with all that said, happy to answer any questions. How's it going? >> What we're going to do here, folks, is the council is going to ask questions first and then we're we'll then we'll
have the public one by one come up. >> Mayor, actually, if I could just interrupt that. Um, certainly the council can ask questions there, but I would suggest um we would move ordinance 2548 up. So, um, we have the benefit of Mr.
Banker microphone. >> Mayor, I would suggest uh council can ask questions certainly of Mr. Banker right now. Uh but we move ordinance 2548 up which is scheduled for public hearing so the the the group here can have the
benefit of asking questions and having answered by Mr. Banker or the professionals. >> Okay. Ordinance 25-48, ordinance of the township council of the township of Howell to approve a tax exemption for a 30-year period and
authorizing the execution of a financial agreement between the township and Howell 360 Urban Renewal LLC for the property located at 1400 US Highway 9 identified on the township tax map as
block 137, lots 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26. Good. >> Mayor, we just need to open up for public hearing. >> Yeah. >> Open to public. >> Motion. >> I'll make a motion to open that ordinance to public. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Thank you.
>> I >> Thank you. >> Who Who wants to go first? You >> public. >> Dan Dan, you can take one of these seats right here if you want to because you have a mic. >> Oh, okay. So >> right on the table
>> anyone like to come up? >> I think we're going to start up here. >> Got it. >> Uh hey Dan, thanks for coming out. >> Uh so let's start with this timeline. We were sent an email yesterday that was forwarded to us. I think it was came from you with the timeline going back to
2023. >> Correct. just wanted some clarification on some of the contents of this uh was wasn't able to open the so I have a stack I haven't gone through so it might be contained in there but if you know off hand uh you could just
answer that that would help uh so July 14th of 25 NW sends updated summary of findings to the township uh July of this year who were you communicating with at the township
Um, at that point I believe it was Joseph Clark, >> not in July of this year. >> Okay. Um, I'm not sure I'm not sure who from the township I was I was speaking to. >> All right. August 19th of 25, you sent
the pilot offer to developer based on the township's direction. Do you know who gave that direction? Um, specifically, I think it was a combination of uh township manager Gross, um,
uh, Andrew Byer, and I think Megan Bennett was involved at that point. Yes. >> All right. 95 of 25 NW sends expected timeline provided by township to developer. Do you know who was providing that from the
township at the time? I believe it was the same group of people. >> All right. Uh does anyone want to jump in and let us know? It was in the process of finalizing to be introduced 916 plan for
the with the adoption for 107 for the redevelopment plan and 1021 was supposed to be the intro for the pilot. Any reason why that was delayed? I would you would you ask that question again please?
>> Uh the ex the proposed timeline was supposed to be 10:21 for intro of the pilot which would have given us another month of negotiating time and explanation to us. Any reason why that was delayed? >> I can't answer why it was delayed. I know that uh uh I received the the um
formal agreement about two weeks prior to when it was sent to the council. So I why we didn't get it before then I don't know the answer. >> All right. So while we're on timeline there was also something from August of 23. Uh Mr. Bear we discussed the
potential pilot and exec in the context of considering the property is an area in need of redevelopment etc. Uh Mr. Fair uh to your knowledge was there any formal resolution votes by the council saying that we wanted to move forward with negotiating the pilot as it was
proposed to us in this form >> not formal action there was direction to go ahead uh and which occurred through the manager at the time >> which was >> I assume Mr. Clark. >> Thank you.
>> Yeah. I don't know the time I don't know the timeline exactly but of his time period. Yeah. But yeah, I think back then it was him. >> Thank you. >> All right. So, here's the issue that we have. Okay. Mr. You know, Dan,
listen. I want to just start off by thanking Mr. Gross and thanking Megan and Caitlyn for bringing this here for the public to hear, okay? Because This got dropped on us three weeks ago
at a pre-aggenda meeting and we were supposed to make a decision then, you know, over the weekend on it whether this is going to be good or not for the town and, you know, all the explanations on what this all means and what it doesn't mean, if these numbers are accurate, if they're not accurate, how many kids are going to be here, how many
kids are not going to be here. Okay? So, a lot went on, but our problem as a council, because we've discussed this multiple times, is the lack of transparency. Okay, this got discussed over the summer. It got discussed in 24 and it was never
addressed. Then it comes back this summer. We're all here. No one says anything to the council. You guys make an agreement on August 20th with Mr. Gross and Andy Bear, whoever you guys make the agreement with. You could remember, you can't remember, whatever.
Okay. And then we we ask simple questions. Well, who spoke about it? who made the agreement. Was there a better agreement that we could have come to benefit the town instead of the agreement that we see here? Okay. So,
Mr. Gross, like I called you today and I asked you honestly, when did you find out about the pilot? And you said to me late August, John, and what did I say to you? Why did it take three months, almost three months for it to come to the council? Like, is there like the
lack of transparency in this building? Okay, which unfortunately went on with Mr. Gross and not that that it maybe was done on purpose or not on purpose, but that's the lack of transparency in this place is what's been going on for years and that's why the residents are frustrated.
>> So, who answers to the public? We answer to the public. So, now we come to this backdating emails. Who's on the email? who's not on the email, who was involved, who wasn't involved, and we still can't get exact answers. So, that's why we're here right
now. So, I I'll end with that. Ian's got more questions. >> Uh, all right. So before we even start talking about the pilot numbers as far as different options based in your financial expertise
um could other options have been used to make this project more financially feasible for the developer without a pilot? >> Um yeah one would be timing. Um I think it was discussed that you
know what would have happened if the developer had done the project four or five years ago when you know the economics would have been much much different uh project costs increased significantly during COVID um so precoid
although rents weren't as high as they are now costs were significantly lower expenses were significantly lower I can't say whether or not the project would have been feasible under conventional taxes back then because I and do that analysis, but it's more likely that it would been more feasible
than under current economics. >> So, so just so the public understands, the planning board and and the zoning and the zoning board officials and everybody gave this developer high density for the project, which is pretty
much unheard of. We don't really do that often. Okay. And we also gave the developer the tree fund exemption which would have been millions of dollars clearing 20 acres of land right or whatever whatever the exact number is.
Okay. So in 2018 they make the agreement with the town the planning the planning board our attorneys everybody makes the agreement in 2023. It comes in front of the planning board which I was on at the at the time and we voted for the project. It was great right? You know
they want to bring this to the town. There's affordable attached to it. We got to we got to, you know, secure those numbers because of the mandate from the state. All right. Not a popular thing, but it is what it is, right? Okay. They play with the numbers with the affordable. Oh, we got 106, but we'll give you double credits. Okay. That
makes it fancy. Now it's up to 30% instead of the 20%. Okay. So, our issue is, you know, if they came and they were ready to go, okay? And now a couple years pass, now they're not ready to go. Well, guess what? If I want to buy a
house, and I'm not ready to go, I don't buy the house, you want to come to our town and build a project, then get your financing and come to the town and build a project. >> Okay. But now on the back end, okay, with our former manager and deputy
manager, okay, this whole thing was put into a redevelopment uh category making it viable for the pilot. >> Mhm. >> Which was not discussed with the council 100%. So you understand, Dan, our
frustrations. >> Oh, absolutely. >> Okay. We sat down with you this past week, >> all right, for three meetings or two two meetings in like three minutes because I was done with you guys. All right. On the third one. All right. And there's been hundreds of phone calls. There's been hundreds of emails going back and forth. Okay. You know, I'm sure there's
everyone's up in arms. It's going to go through. It's not going to go through. You know, do we have outside entities calling people on this day as, you know, we need this to go through. We don't need this to go through. Okay. It is what it is. We're just not happy about the whole thing and how it went down
>> up to this point. Right. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Understood. What's next to you? >> If we were to use some of the money from the affordable housing trust fund to offset some development costs for utilities or something else that's necessary in the development, would that ease the burden on the developer to
potentially help make this financially feasible? >> Um, it would definitely ease the burden. I don't know if it would feasible, but that would be an option to reduce costs and, you know, potentially get a better pilot, for example.
If we were to reduce the set aside to say 25 or 20% and make up that difference elsewhere with maybe a small project instead of this worst case scenario of a thousand units going up and we reduce their set aside would that affect their cost to make this financially feasible.
>> Reducing the set aside would increase their revenues and increase feasibility. Yes. >> And a combination of any of those would obviously help ease the >> burden. It would help the economics. >> All right. city. So, Mr. Bear. >> Yes, sir.
>> You are currently our zoning board attorney. Correct. >> Yes. >> You are currently our affordable housing attorney. Correct. >> Yes. >> So, everything that Mr. Nadell just said? >> Yes. >> All right. We're just elected officials. We're not lawyers like you and in the field for whatever amount of years.
Okay. Do you work for the residents of How Township? >> Yes, sir. >> Do you work for the builders? >> No, sir. Not with my clients. How come you didn't negotiate a better deal then? >> Well, OKAY. >> SO, MR. MAYOR, so just a brief history
of on this project. In 2018, the township had a third round affordable housing obligation of 895 units. What that that imposed upon us by the state of New Jersey? What did the township
with the assistance of the planner myself we negotiated and the coun the mayor and council at the time we negotiated a 30% set aside on all of on the third round affordable housing
projects that is not and Mr. banker will agree with me not typical under COA regulations the standard set aside on a rental project is 15% and on a for sale project is 20%.
So what we did and what this council your predecessor council did was insist upon a higher set aside to limit the impact of overall units. That was the policy goal. So in this case with Zback
with it was called ZBAC back then that was the developer back then there were 360 total units as Mr. Banker pointed out 252 market 108 affordable units.
though if in addition because of bonus credits that were available under the third round affordable h housing methodology, the township obtained family bonus credits uh for this project that were family
rental bonus uh credits. So for this project, the township got 210 affordable housing credits towards its overall obligation of 895 units. The township thought and the professionals
thought at the time, still do that that set aside was uh extremely beneficial to the township because it reduced the the number of overall units. So we that represented approximately 24% of the
township's affordable housing obligation from this one site. So I would respectfully suggest that this was a good deal, not a bad deal. The court required at the time a developer agreement uh from the town between the developer
and the township which we obtained and the developer agreed to a 30% set aside in the in the written agreement with the township. The developer also agreed there's something called tax credits that these that uh affordable housing
projects can apply for through the New Jersey Housing Mortgage Finance Agency. And there was uh affordable uh there were the agreement provided the developer would not apply for 9% tax credits but would only apply if at all
for 4% tax credits which are less competitive and to get. So that was a potential financing mechanism this developer could have sought back in 200 uh 18 or 2019
the uh 2018 the uh there was at the time there was and Mr. banker could address. It did address the financials, but the uh the at the time a pilot application request was not
contemplated. It just wasn't this that was the deal we made with the developer with with the with the passing of time in 200 I think in 23 which is the uh timeline Mr. Rene Dell referred to there was an there they came to the township
and requested a pilot then because of increased costs because of for the reasons Mr. uh Banker points out financially. So this this the issue became as a matter of law that the township had no
legal basis to even consider or award a pilot unless the property was within a redevelopment area. The council offer Miss Beam to prepare a redevelopment study which included this property and
others along the Route 9 corridor. The planning board declared the area or recommended the council declare those properties an area need a redevelopment. The council concurred. So till and that's a length that was a
lengthy process. So till that happened there was there was there were no discussions substantive discussions in two and then in within the last years Mr. Banker points out the developer came back to the township um I'm a land use
lawyer I'm not a financial expert so I didn't negotiate those terms Mr. banker with the assistance of his company as he points out what they do negotiated the terms of what he has described as an aggressive pilot for the township.
>> But so but here's the here's the issue >> before it gets redeveloped. >> Yeah. >> They can't apply for the pilot. >> Okay. They couldn't >> declare it. >> They couldn't declare it in need. They couldn't do Okay. So, so the whole pilot thing was dead to these guys until
you guys and everyone else agreed, oh, let's get this redeveloped. Let's put this into the into this plan. And then on the back end, they come out. Do you understand that our concerns are we have other affordable housing projects that are already approved? Now, what what what what say these guys say, you know
what, we're going to hang out for two years, three years, not build it, >> and then we're going to go to the township and say we're going to ask for a pilot, >> right? Is that going to be Is that going to be Is that going to be fair that that, you know, we have to sit here, the taxpayers are already eating what we're eating every year, you know, in and out, in and
out, and let's enrich the builder a little bit more for the sake of the affordable side of it. >> Okay. >> So, Mr. Mayor, could you just um Yep. that 9% with the 4%. Could you just elaborate a little bit on that? >> Sure. So the township has this was
another pop popular project. I'm being a little facicious. This in the third round there was a project called Howell Family Apartments in the third round affordable housing plan that was 72 units for which we got 144 credits.
Okay. Again, double bonus. So that but those were all affordable units. the developer, that developer applied for 9% tax credits through the New Jersey Housing Mortgage Finance Agency and succeeded in getting them. They also
had because of Hurricane Sandy going back, there was Sandy funding that were available to affordable housing developers in Mammoth and Ocean County. So, that developer through the state of New Jersey. So between 9% tax credits
and and uh and the uh Sandy funding that developer uh there was one requirement of the township in that case a pilot and the council at the time because of the affordable housing credits that were
available through the project awarded a pilot which is far less favorable by the way than this one. that pilot I think was it 8% of adjusted AGR adjusted gross rent so I believe but in that case the reason that
that was recommended was that it was and those pilots usually for 100% projects in other communities are somewhere between two and 6% depending on the project so again how got a more favorable result for an unfavorable
thing to even consider But that is financing available. The reason that and that was an example of 9% tax credit financing. The reason that uh this was that fund that the court the court
master at the time and fair share housing center who the township was negotiating with um didn't want this project available for 9% tax credits is because they're extremely competitive and they wanted
them available for 100% projects only, not inclusionary projects like this one. inclusionary meaning market rate and affordable. >> So that was off the table anyway for this. >> Yeah, it was. Well, the developer could have applied for 4% um tax credits. I'm
not aware. They chose not to. >> That they chose not to. I don't know. Again, that was their decision. >> That was part of an is that in the developers agreement or that was just an option. >> The developers agreement speaks to that they had the ability to apply for 4% not 9%.
>> And they didn't apply for any? >> Not that I'm aware of. They I don't know if Mr. Banker knows but not there wasn't >> when the new owners took over this they also acquire the developers agreements that was agreed upon previously. Is that correct? >> Well I'm sorry >> because that was um that was through Zback when they for you know didn't
apply for that 4%. >> Yeah. >> So the current Howell 360 owners they acquire that developers agreement and are held to those same standards. >> Correct. >> They bought the project sub. >> So they bought that knowing that >> Yeah. >> that they 4% could have been left on the table by the developer not applying for
it originally. Correct. >> All right. >> Andy, you're familiar with the Howell the Howell family apartments? >> You've ever been over there? >> Me? Is that to me, mayor? I'm sorry. >> Have I ever been there? No. >> Have you ever driven through there? >> I've seen the I've seen the project.
>> Yeah. So, 72 full 100% affordable. >> Yep. >> So, what whatever amount of kids are coming out of there all these years, it's a 30-year deal, right? The rest of the taxpayers in hell are on the hook, right? I drove through there this morning. I just wanted to make sure I saw what I saw every time I I go by
there. >> 100% affordable. >> Brand new Escalades, brand new Audi's in the parking lot, Corvettes, all sorts of stuff, >> you know. I'm just I'm just saying like you know this affordable stuff is just you know >> so I I I as a matter of policy I don't
disagree with you but I would say to you that everyone living in that complex is qualified as a low or moderate income household. They have to provide all and not to the township but to an administrative agent who does nothing
but review those applications to ensure they meet the state requirements. >> Sure. Sure. >> Okay. Well, your assumption is people aren't doing their job, but I could tell you if we found out on behalf of the township that there were unqualified
households living in that development that we would take uh legal action against the developer for allowing it. Number one. Number two is that the again state law you could qualify you could be
a 22y old working making 40 grand a year as a 40 50,000 a year as a you know in a working in whatever job that person works in qualify for a low moderate income unit and you could live there the
you could become a millionaire after you qualify and live there the rest of your life if that's what you as that person chose to do and for yeah for a for correct for a fourale unit for a fourale affordable unit so because so again
state law that the towns are stuck with but so there could be people but in the rental projects as Megan's pointing out they have to qualify yeartoyear so they like if they have a one-year lease they have to resubmit to the to the landlord
their financials and how they could afford the cards you're speaking of I can't speak to but all I could tell you is is that they have to to qualify to in a rental project they have to re-qualify >> that is why you have that 2% administrative fee to conduct that that
that qualification process on a yearly basis which is is a rental >> yeah that the state runs >> no that would the administrative fee goes to us >> no the fee goes us but the state is responsible for the checks and balances on all this kind of stuff.
>> Yeah. I mean, they've issued like they've issued regulations upon regulations which just makes it more >> cumbersome and difficult for towns to administer. >> They but like for instance in the last year the New Jersey Housing Mortgage Finance Agency has issued two sets of
regulations what they call U-Hack and they've changed. So it's it's a difficult for municipalities to administer but the at the end of the day and I want to go back to one point which
I didn't make on the 30% set aside at the end of the day if this project fails for whatever reason if the developer chooses not to go ahead um if the pilot's not issued if and they don't go
ahead or if they don't go ahead otherwise what will happen is is Howell Township needs to make up for those affordable housing credits that came from this project. And the concern here
is is that in 2018, as I said before, the regulations provided for this two for one family bonus credit. So, we got and and then Jen Beam worked on the crediting chart. Actually, it was before her. She she didn't do it at the time,
but we got 210 credits for this project towards our obligation. If this project fails, the concern for the township is is where are we getting 210 affordable housing credits? And under COA's more
under the state's more recent law for the fourth round, that that family bonus credit is no longer available. So to get that's why we said we've indicated that to get 210 credits if that's where we
end up we would need to with a 15 or 20% set aside which is the standard you would end up with uh anywhere from a,000 to,400 units to get to 210 credits. So that's not in again it's ultimately a
policy decision of the township but I don't we've what we've been always as your professionals trying to avoid here is you point out high density and and we've been trying to get projects to you to consider which are while in the
scheme of the world high density it could be a a whole lot worse. So that's that's been and the previous council going back recognized that and said, "Hey, we we're re you know, there's only one
other town in Mammoth County that I know of that I also like provide legal services to that back then were able to get a 30% set aside. So that is of value to the township and certainly something that, you know, the council should
consider as a factor here for sure. Well, but like you just said, if it doesn't get built, 30% of nothing is zero. So, we keep hearing the 30% set aside. If it doesn't get built, then it's not 30% of anything.
>> Well, so, uh, Mr. Nadell, what I was referring to is it's not it's not going to be of zero. It's going to be a 210 affordable housing unit gap in your in your overall >> I understand that. But pushing to make this happen at the 30% set aside with a
pilot and if there's no pilot where it doesn't get built. So why hasn't this been tried to negotiate down on their set aside? And again just running the numbers a 25% set aside we need to make up 30 units elsewhere >> which I think the community would be
happy with. or a 20% set aside 66 units we got to find somewhere. It's not the 210 times >> five with the 20% to a thousand units. There were there were other mechanisms that were never looked at. >> SO I so I'm not look I'm not arguing this either way. My job as the lawyer here is
to present you with facts. So when you say why not? So because what happened factually here is that the developer with by the way we got court approval. We got a third round judgment of repose and compliance in 2019
that protected the township from builder's remedy litigation as a result of this project and the couple others that were in our plan. What that meant is that a developer couldn't sue us and or you the count the
township and say, "Hey, you haven't met your affordable housing obligation. I have a 50 acre property in North Howell, even though it's zoned AR6. I'm gonna I'm gonna present to you a project that I could that where I can
produce 200 affordable housing units for you and a thousand total units and you would not have control of your zoning to say we don't like that project because it's not in an area we want affordable housing because you wouldn't have
control of your zoning if you lose if you don't have immunity from builder's remedy. So that was the other thing that the township's been looking >> No speaking please. >> That's that's other the other thing we were looking to avoid here because and I
will remind everyone that in February of this year and it's literally this process the affordable housing process which seems which obviously never ends because it's a constitutional obligation is exhausting like professionally to
deal with for you and for us. But the township um this year had an additional 304 unit obligation which start which was assigned to Howell by the state of New Jersey which it was originally 338
units and you'll recall that through the efforts of our planner and myself we we we were able to reduce that to 304 units which the which uh was accepted by the court.
And in June of this year, you approved a fourth round affordable housing plan which addressed those three units which we are which addressed those 304 uh unit obligation and that required three
additional sites to get to that 304 unit obligation. So there's a lot of development pressure here really with this project that's before you now and the fourth round is not um
is unfortunately not the best just because we have we're trying to get court approval of our fourth round plan while at the same time you're facing this open third round issue with this site. So I think that's
the big picture. So the concern is is that if this project fails, yes, you may be able to negotiate for other sites. I don't say that's not true. But the risk is is that the we have three object the
other facts are we have three objectors to our fourth round affordable housing plan that were not selected. They were part of the presentation to the governing body and the public back in January, February. they weren't selected
and they are objecting to our fourth round plan through the court and saying your plan is deficient you should include my site and because you the council didn't select those sites we have defended Miss Beam and myself our
fourth round plan and and making arguments as to why it is sufficient so but the risk is is that one one of these one of these other developers is going to go to the court and say, "Hey, they have a hole in their plan. You should uh
recommend that the township lose immunity from builder's remedy." So, that's sort of the big picture in the context of this application. So it's while it's um I totally agree on the
financial well I agree that it's um financially distasteful to you but there are other costs and risks involved on de on with development pressure that you need to consider. That would be my only advice to you.
Since you're bringing up finances, I just got one more item I want to discuss with uh Dan. So over the 30 uh could you go to slide 10, please? Whoever >> so the conventional tax model that you
used that uh was that a 2% increase year-over-year? >> Yes. Um so over the last three years I took an average for the K to8 schools and the regional schools combined they make up 67 68% of our
uh taxes in town average for the last three years for the K to8 was about 4.4% increase regional was 5.62% 62% increase. How would those sizable increases that showing a pattern
with S2 funding cuts where it's crushing towns like ours where the taxpayers then have to foot the bill as the state sends our tax dollars elsewhere? How will that affect that conventional tax model to show how much we're truly
missing out on if those other budgets keep increasing more than a 2%. >> Right? So the assumption in the slide that you're looking at is the 2% if the percentage increase from year to year was higher than that. Uh obviously the the delta between the pilot revenue and
the conventional tax number would be larger. What I would say to that is it would make it even less likely that the project could move forward under conventional taxes because we're already saying at 2% it's unlikely if the annual tax rate increase was three or 4%.
>> Right. But right now averaging roughly over 30 years, it's it's an average of $700,000 that they're not paying that they would otherwise towards conventional taxes to our general tax base. >> Correct. >> So that would only increase how much they're not paying if those school uh
school budgets keep increasing the way they are due to funding cuts and everything else. >> Yes, that is correct. >> That would only go one way. All right. Thank you. >> That's it for me for Mr. Nadell. Yes. >> If I could just address that. we as a township have an obligation to provide a
reasonable opportunity for this project to move forward. So these are the numbers that we're utilizing but you're what what you're saying would even make it worse. So so the pilot and what the developer has agreed to is when we say aggressive is aggressive towards the
betterment of the Howell Township. It that they are they are not asking for more. What you're arguing is that almost the developer should be asking for more and the pilot should be more advantageous to the developer. That's what the delta that Mr. Banker is talking about.
>> I >> we are obligated to make we are obligated to make this project financially feasible. >> That is that is an obligation. >> Not not from the audience please. Not not yet. >> This is con this is New Jersey law. This
is not this is state law. This is not township of Howell. This is state law. >> But planning board approval, zoning board approval, not paying into the tree fund. You know, that's us not making it feasible for them. And I did not this is this is this is a project that we don't
want to subsidize on I just want it to be clear to everyone >> without clapping without grandstanding that we are not talking here whether or not this project this project has been in our plan since third round. We are not
>> I'm sorry >> 2018 >> 2018. So this project has been filling a filling and and and put a hole of a requirement that came from the state that we have to have so many affordable units and this project has been
satisfying it. If this project is not does not move forward and we cannot provide it make making it financially fe feasible we are looking at a difference of building. How much are the units that we have right now? >> 200
>> 210 units versus potentially 1500 units where we cannot control the zoning. That is the risk. That is what your professionals are telling you. We can't we can't whatever you vote up there is your vote, but we have to explain the risk. We're looking between 210 to
potentially 1500 units where we can't control where they're going to be. >> 50. Megan, >> I'm sorry. >> It's 1,50. >> No, it could be could go could go up to 1,500, 1,400 >> depending on how the credits are. >> Most of us up here have have no problem
with 1,50 units paying full taxes versus 360 with this deal >> without without any control of zoning. >> Well, you really think it's not going to get done anyway? >> If if it right now, we are with the the developer is agreeing that this project
would be feasible with this pilot. Again, I am not saying how you vote. You can vote anywhere. But I have to make sure you understand the risk you having 210 units versus a,50 units even if take the lowest amount without us controlling
where it's going to be developed. That is your risk. >> Could we go back to the drawing board and find another way to make it financially feasible? Is that possible? >> No. >> Why? Because right at this point, we're looking at a December 31st, 2025 deadline.
>> Not for the third round. That's for the fourth round. >> Everyone in the audience, please, you will get I we've moved this so you could get an opportunity to speak. >> If there are ongoing financial negotiations between us and a developer that won't have an impact. >> Yeah, we're we're at this point. We're
almost at executive level discussion. Ian, I you know, we can go back in the executive if you want to after this hearing, but we're getting to the point where we're we're discussing negotiations with a developer in public. >> That's what this whole project's about. >> So, I just
>> what is before what is before the council is this particular pilot. >> So, just so everybody understands when you speak about risk, there's also quite a bit of risk associated with this project as well. Um, so Dan, under
>> under the gross pilot column there, how much of that money is the township guaranteed? >> Uh, in terms of guarantee, because it's based on actual revenue received, the minimum annual service charge is the minimum that the developer would be
obligated to pay. And that's based on what was paid in taxes in the last full year the property was subject to taxation, >> which is how much? about $2950,000. >> 135,000 is what they're paying right now. So, it would be roughly about that. >> So, there's no safety net in this
contract associated with if you don't get full occupancy, if you're getting rents negotiated down to stop those numbers from plummeting and essentially passing on raised taxes to the taxpayer. >> More to us, more to the >> I would I would agree that the rents are
not definite. Uh but what I would say is it's an unlikely scenario that you would have significant vacancy. It would be more likely that the developer would drop rents and the rents would come in lower which would result in lower annual
gross revenue and lower pilot revenue. So that is >> the risk profile of a a multi-million multi-billion dollar developer versus the average taxpayer is much different. Right? So, I mean, you might be willing to take that risk, but we necessarily
don't, which hearkens back to what John said. Why weren't we involved with this three or four months ago? So, we could have talked through those points and we could have negotiated in a basement line and I had actually sent several emails about doing that just over the last couple weeks because we have such a
constrained timeline to try and salvage this and make it a little more amendable to the taxpayer and at least have a minimum of the school costs maybe for the the second or third year as a minimum. So, even if the bottom dropped out, we'd have some type of protection.
Is that still possible? Can we >> I don't know given the timing it's it's something that could be negotiated. It's just I don't know about the timing. >> So I mean when you talk about risk on the one side that's we could end up
getting $130,000 instead of 1.2 million or 2.58 however unlikely. I understand that but the risk is a lot different. >> Yeah. Agreed. One thing I'll say is you know obviously the developer uh would be
putting in a significant amount of money and there is risk associated to the development on that side as well right >> so there are minimum returns developers are willing to you know do deals for um and in this case the pilot terms you know the reason why the economics are
difficult on this project the main reason is 30% affordable right that's causing the majority of the issues and the difficult ulties in the numbers. If it was a 100% market rate project, we wouldn't be having this discussion. >> Well, when they signed the agreement, it
was 100% market in 18. When they got approved in 23, it was 100% market. >> Was 30% >> 30? Oh, no. I'm talking the 30. When they first came and got signed, they had no problem with their financing. They had no problem with anything. And now on the back end, they have the problem and they want the pilot to help them build
it. >> That's the issue. Right. >> Right. I don't know what happened uh before I got involved, but the economics would be very different if it was a 100% market rate project versus what's >> of course. So, so can you can you define what's financially feasible because you
know I I work in the construction engineering realm as well and you know we work for government clients exclusively and there's a lot of times a lot of instances where projects come along there isn't a lot of funding and we're you know foundation clients we
work with them quite often and we work with those clients we understand that it's a shared burden and that going into that contract we might just be breaking we might just be keeping the lights on. So, what is financially feasible? Is it breaking even? Is it is it a percent
profit? You know, what does that $11 million represent? Because like Councilman Nadell said, there were several other uh avenues such as the affordable trust fund. I think there was what, $5.5 million left over after the 30% set aside. And then we had 633 time
25,000 units that need to be rehabilitated. If those were put towards that negative 900 uh 000 conventional tax model and then say you were to do a fiveyear tax abatement on top of that. It still would have gotten you close to the 11 million and we could have got we could have
still worked under a conventional tax model as opposed to a pilot and that that wasn't explored either. um those other scenarios were not explored. And to your first question related to what is feasible um there is
not a set definition of what is feasible when it comes to residential developments of this kind. What we do and I don't know if you can go back to slide eight, I'd appreciate it. So slide eight goes into the the various metrics that we look at to determine
feasibility. Um in the conventional tax scenario, you have a net project value of negative about a million dollars. The IRRa and yield on cost are other metrics that we use to determine rates of return. Um the debt service coverage
ratio is telling you what is a bank likely to lend you and how much money are you going to have to put in equity. So the less a bank is willing to lend, the more you're putting in equity. And one of the metrics for return is amount
of equity versus cash flow. What are you left with? Right? When a developer is, you know, this is a hundred plus million dollar project. The developer is looking at is it worth putting in $45 million in
equity to make a 5% yield, 6% yield, 7% yield. There's other investment opportunities that that developer could make with significantly less risk. So there isn't a defined term of, you know, 6% is absolutely feasible or five and a
half or five is absolutely not feasible. But given the market and the you know the the projects that we look at and what projects are getting approved, what are developer developers accepting the the minimums that we see in the market
are 6% yield on cost returns. I see several projects getting approved at six and a half or higher. Um I typically do not see projects getting built below 6% yield. So, um,
experience and that's the the typical market trend of what developers are looking for and what is considered feasible in the market. >> Okay. So, I had a couple other things I wanted to bring up here from some of my emails. Some were answered, some were unanswered. Um, and just want to rehash
for for the public. Um so you had mentioned I think Andy or Megan the uh affordable housing midpoint review report in 2020 uh where we got the judgment of compliance and propose um that we were deemed by the court to have realistic opportunity for the creation
of affordable housing in the township. So this realistic opportunity included how 360 which was AVAC at the time you went through some of this. Um this was uh well before any discussion of a pilot. So if there was realistic
opportunity at that time, how have we not fulfilled our obligation from a funding feasibility perspective? >> It's really a damn question. >> Like what what define a realistic opportunity? How does that define their bottom line to go along with it?
>> So I deal with the zoning side of it, Mr. Rubel. Sure. Right. So the Mount Laurel doctrine which comes from the Supreme Court says municipalities have to provide a realistic opportunity for the provision of affordable housing. The
way we do it from a land use side is through zoning. So when this project in was proposed in and and approved by the township council in 2018, the 30% set aside
um with and was approved by the court. We got a judgment of repose protecting us from builder's remedy. The court approved it. We had a full-blown hearing before the court. Uh the project was discussed. All the projects, not just this one, were
discussed. They were reviewed by the court special master and we were recommended to get approval. The I'm not a math guy. But the thing that changed from 2018 and 19 to 2023
is as I think Mr. banker points out the math guy that there's there is the cost sky covid cost skyrocketed uh right that's all the I mean that and that's what changed so well while well
the reason it became our problem unfortunately is again the reason this pro is that till the develop right the project we did a deal with zback we don't they were allowed to assign the project or sell as long as the successor agreed to the
terms of the developers agreement. So we were protected that happened. I don't know when I wasn't involved, right? Obviously that was a private transaction between two developers. So then in 23
that developer comes and says hey you know the financials the metrics have changed and I this this project doesn't work. So then what the township was faced with at that time was is do we continue and consider the pilot
arrangement or do we let the or do we let the project go? So the township not the professionals the township decided at the time that that was yeah let's go ahead and see where we land right that's was the direction so that's the problem.
So the issue becomes if the developer ultimately says I can't do it without the pilot. As I said, we're faced with the hole the hole in our plan that from a land use perspective that's my concern for the township.
Sec. >> Yeah, just looking through some of these emails. Um typically when does someone have to request a pilot? After planning board approval and all that so they know how much it's going to cost.
I Dan, is that more I'm not I don't >> uh the You're asking about the pilot application versus the planning board approval. >> Yeah. >> Um I don't know if there's a requirement either way. Typically, uh I believe I
see pilot applications after planning board approval >> normally. Right. >> Yeah, typically. >> Okay. Planning board approval was 2023. So, this email that just that I'm going through was from March of 22 with the the attorney reaching out with
the township looking for a pilot way before they even applied or got their approvals to the planning board. So, were they trying to do this the whole time like and making up numbers? It just was >> it's what it is.
So why even go through the planning board and go through get get your approvals if you couldn't financially do this without a pilot that you were looking for it in 2022. >> I don't I I think that's a developer question. That's not a township question honestly. Right. >> Well again just they're asking for
something. They have their own people doing their their financial studies. Do they need the pilot or not? Because if they're already asking for it before they even gotten the approvals. Well, Ian, they would have done those they would have had the finan I mean internally they would have had their own financials at the time, right? >> So why continue getting all your
approvals if you can't afford to do it? >> Because they had to wait they had to wait for it to get into the redevelopment zone >> and we couldn't do pilots there in that location in 2022. So if it's not financially feasible, why get your approvals >> again? >> And maybe there should be an issue with us going after this developer if we're
going to be in hot water with this fourth round nonsense. >> AND I MEAN, IAN, those are all good arguments. Like, I mean, those are not a lot of those are developer questions. All we could do is present to you what what was present. I know Andy, but I'm
just, you know, trying to >> go through three years worth of emails because I couldn't open the file and just with all the correspondence related to this and more I'm digging, the more I'm seeing how far back this goes prior to these approvals getting done and why would this process keep moving forward
unless there were agree and again council was not aware of any of this. That is the biggest issue. We never made a policy decision go negotiate this pilot or give us the backstory on this. >> Again, you got >> Mr. Nadell, I I I it is not true that the council was not
aware of this pilot. It it is not true. This pilot has been in existence and been talked about since 2023. This pilot was this NW >> You mean 2022 when >> the NW was engaged in 2023 to negotiate
this pilot. This council had to have been aware of the pilot. The pilot that we were presented with back then was >> well you just said that it wasn't you weren't aware of a pilot that that's not true >> materially different than what is being presented right now when it was spoken
about in informal se >> I can tell you I can tell you from a finance perspective because I am also a bond counsel that this pilot is one of the most aggressive pilots I have ever seen you are you are starting at 60% not 40% you have a 30% set aside you have
you have this pilot is is as lean as I could look at from a developer perspective in terms of a request and I would yield to Mr. Banker if he feels the same way. >> I definitely agree.
>> Well, and Mr. Nadell, I think again this I believe the terms of the pilot changed because a legal determination was made. >> What was presented to us by our former manager was illegal based on Miss uh Miss Bennett's opinion or
>> Yeah. Right. >> There was a legal determination made that the paying like per kid was not in in terms in terms of financial arrangement. >> That was all that was presented to us two years ago. >> So that that so so that so we're all on
the same page that pilot our office made a legal deter for just so we all know that type of pilot is there's no pilot in in New Jersey that that that I've seen nor has Mr. banker scene where we are basing a specific amount on a specific
child per bget. So we weren't going to go down that route. We're not going to make new law here. We're not going to go down that route. We were go. So we aggressively negotiated. Mr. Bankers NW aggressively negotiated for the township. NW does only only works for
municipalities. Does not chooses because of positional conflict does not work with with developers. his job and NW's job was to get the best most aggressive pilot for the township. Upon my review, upon Mr. Bear's review, and upon NW's
review, we are saying that this is the most financially feasible aggressive pilot that I have I have really come to see. So I I understand where your frustration is in terms of you feel as if this is coming quick, you
know, at you and you have to make decisions quickly. But that again is coming from the state. That again is these these these these deadlines which are atrocious which I I have been dealing with in many many municipalities
that no one likes to deal with. It always comes down to where you're going to mitigate your risk. As long as you are understanding and I am on the record here telling you that the risk is the difference between a little over 200 units being de developed
versus a thous 30 300 360 being developed versus a,50 where we don't have any any control over where they're going to be developed. You make your decision. I have put it on the record what the risk is. So Megan, >> the deadlines were only made worse because we just found out about it
before Thanksgiving and not in August. >> Again, again, Mr. You, you know, obviously just came on the council. This council has been aware of a pilot since 2023, >> but the terms were agreed on in August and we didn't have the terms until our >> the terms were provided for to Mr. Gross
in in August of 2025. >> So, can can I talk a little bit about the redevelopment plan real quick? >> Hold on, Mike. Let me just go back to what Megan was referring to. >> Sure. >> Three weeks ago, Megan, when this whole thing looked like it was going to get blown up and World War II was going to
start, right? I got a phone call from Andy Bear's associate, uh, Jen Beam, >> saying, >> Andy Andy Bear's associate is they are totally separate. >> Okay. So, I got a phone call from Jen saying, "John, listen, the pilot this,
the pilot that, you know, we need you all you guys to understand everything." thing and I said, "Well, you know, it just got dropped on us, so we want to understand everything." So, if this whole thing about the money with the kids wasn't feasible from day one, cuz I I immediately called Dean after after
she called me, this is only 3 weeks ago, she says to me, "John, it's no big deal about them not paying into the schools because they're going to pay 10,000 per kid." So, that was a full-blown lie that she told me on the phone because on the table, >> Mayor, I can't I can't speak to to what what conversation you and Miss had. Why
was I told that number? And then that that number came back up multiple times. >> Well, I would say to you generally, mayor, that like the planner was not involved in the negotiations >> in negotiations. So, she wasn't aware of Megan's legal determination that that it
wasn't legal and to be fair, >> right? And by the by the way, mayor, also, we're not saying any council you you you as as a sitting council right now, you're you're multiple councils after you. You can make a determination of how much money you want to give to the board of eds on every given year. I
just can't con I can't have a council be obligated by prior councils >> of course. >> So, so going back to the redevelopment plan and in a sense feeling misled. Uh,
prior to the September 16th meeting, we had the ability to review the redevelopment plan and I provided several comments to the township professionals. Uh, one of those comments was, can we remove the pilot provision
for rental projects because in the redevelopment plan, it allows for the formation of pilots for rental units, mixed use, so on and so forth. So, I was just saying, can we remove the rental the rental unit part of it, the residential rental unit part of it? And
the response I got was no because how 360 affordable housing is there. So, is there a a statute or law that says we can't do that or was that just a preference to keep it in there such that this project would have >> the pilot allowed in the redevelopment
plan? We have a we have a development agreement with this developer to provide this project. >> That would have been a perfect opportunity to bring us into the loop about it. >> If this project doesn't if you don't want this project to move forward, it's the developer has established and NW has
confirmed without a pilot it cannot move forward. That is it. And if you if we if this development gets taken off the table and and and we pull it out, the risk is the delta between 300 and eight
units >> 60 units and 1,400 where we potentially will not be able to control please where we potentially could not be able to control the zoning. That is the risk. Again, I'm on record with the risk. You
make the decision. >> Understood. So, further going into the redevelopment plan, there's some inconsistencies inconsistencies in here that I cited in an email last week that have not been addressed, and I feel in some capacity negate the ability to vote
on this at this point. Um, and I want to get your your thoughts on it. Um, because it wasn't responded to. So, um, there's two areas, area A and B in the redevelopment plan, north and south of Casino Drive. I know you folks in the audience don't have this in front of
you. Um the area below Casino Drive in a figure in the report was designated as area A and everything north of Casino Drive was designated as area B. So how 360 falls within area A per that that figure. So, as you go through the
report, um, it goes on to define the different blocks and lots and properties within area A and area B, and it they're not consistent. So, area B pull units and talks about affordable housing
and then area A doesn't it it doesn't have those units for health 360 in there. And the pilot aotment is within area A within the line language, not area B. So lead read lead reading this development plan redevelopment plan to the letter of the law it doesn't even
have a backing for a pilot based upon the way it's written because of this inconsistency. Um when you have ambiguity like that in a contract or a redevelopment plan it works against the author. And I I just simply asked to have that discrepancy
rectified before this meeting. This was a week ago. It's probably something that could have been done in an hour or two. Um, >> well, I'm not sure what you mean, Mike, because I'm not sure like so the >> the definition of ar I got you. So, you
had a township planner who who again who writes the plan, presents it to the planning board. Planning board approves it, makes a recommendation to the council and the council approves it. >> That was that was done as a planning exercise, not a legal exercise. I don't
I mean I can't we don't have her here. We don't have the planner here to answer that question. I'm trying to find the redevelopment plan as I'm talking to you, but that's not I I I'm not sure how to answer. And by the way, when you say directify it, if there was a that you
looking online, I'm not I don't >> read it. >> Sure. But my point is my point is it can only get what are you doing? It could only get rectified through formal action of the governing body through the planning board and the governing body where Mike says could have been
rectified in a week. It's not physically possible. Right? If there's a discrepancy in the plan, then it has to then the council has to refer the matter from the council to the planning board. The planning board's got to look at it. The planning board's got to make a
recommendation on the modification and it comes back to council. So, I'm just saying procedurally it couldn't have been fixed in a week. >> Okay, >> that's all. >> But the redevelopment plan does say within there that it replaces any of the zoning land regulations within our ordinances. So, it essentially has the
same teeth as an ordinance. So, >> it does a redevelopment >> essentially a piece of legislation. >> It is. >> So, that discrepancy, >> does that not need to be fixed before this can be voted upon? Well, this I well I could tell you um no I
>> I mean I again back to my my experiences as as an engineer and I've seen eight figure construction claims lost over less >> than this in a document. >> I'm just saying >> so I could just say the redevelopment plan that's been approved is is by the
council is is presumed valid just like your zoning, right? It's presumed valid and lawful. So, um, you're by >> I asked to amend it a week ago. So, that >> again, Mike, but we we can't just the
count town just can't handwrite a change and say thank you, right? They actually have to go through a formal process and public hearings to do that. >> We cannot have the public out loud. Please, you will have an opportunity
So I might So it >> there couldn't have been special meetings. >> Is it a special meeting for the planning board and us and to cram it in a week or two? >> Well, I think what Mike is trying to say is and you're saying that >> planning board approved it, council approved it. It's
>> But that doesn't permit a pilot based on the way it's written and approved. C council, I mean I can as a town as your township attorney, I can say we're not here to defend this this this redevelopment plan that was was approved many years ago. Okay. >> Yeah. Not that long ago. >> Not this year.
>> This year. >> Okay. >> But we are right now dealing with a pilot or not a pilot. We are getting off off track here. >> Can we can we vote on the pilot if it doesn't allow it based on >> adopt? The answer is yes. and we'd be subject if somebody wants to file a
lawsuit and say that the pilot's invalid because of the argument you're making on the redevelopment plan, we could def that would be that would be subject to court review. Okay. But yes, you can vote on it.
>> I think that's pretty much it here. I would suggest at this time you if if there's no other questions that we do open to this to the public. >> You have anything s? >> I do. I just have one thing and I want to thank all the professionals for their explanations on on all on all sides.
I think the public realizes how frustrated we are because we were not fully aware of the entire project. However, I think our frustration is misdirected because it's it's the state of New Jersey. I sat here two years ago and talked about how the state is
changing the language. We can't say koa. We can't say single family houses anymore, right? They're changing the language and now we are supposed to call it highdensity housing. And for those of you that voted Democrat, you're just going to get more of this SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS. SO
>> OUR FOR it's the truth. These policies, these mandates come FROM TRENTON. >> EXCUSE ME. YOU'LL HAVE YOUR TURN. EVERYONE WILL HAVE THEIR TURN TO SPEAK. WE WILL NOT BE DOING THAT. >> YOU'LL HAVE YOUR TURN. >> You will have your turn to speak. Please
let the council women speak. >> You will have your turn. My point is these mandates come to we don't want this. We don't want to build these projects. We have to we have to comply where the state penalizes us even
further. So again, I repeat, these policies are coming from Trenton, not from Howell Township. Then we're stuck with this ugly, difficult job to discern uh what's best for for us. So I I really think our frustration, and
again, I apologize because we're we're all tired. We're we're upset. We've been mulling this since Thanksgiving, basically. Um and it it it's not something we want, right? we have to do what's we have to comply. I guess we I I hate saying it um
because of these state mandates and these are Trenton policies. These are Democrat policies that are con they're going to continue to come and and the new governor might even double down. Um so I really think we need to consider all the pros and cons. Um and and again
I I want to thank you guys for all the explanations and I'm sure the public has wonderful questions as well um that hopefully you guys will be able to answer. >> Uh the only thing that I can say that's uh important
um hopefully to the council and hopefully means something to the residents. The pilot program has been talked about since 2022. I've heard it over and over every year. >> Also became part of the revitalization
uh possibility which was spoken to and about and with this council as seated. >> So um it is frustrating and um bottom line is we are exactly where we are. So, we have to make a decision based on the
information regardless of uh what month an email came in and did we know this or um court really doesn't care. Uh we have a deadline and we have a law to that we have to adhere to. Um it's
important to understand that not every vote is made because that's what's in uh maybe my heart or anybody else's heart. We have to vote according to the greater good, according to the law. And as Councilwoman Fiser, I'm sorry, I can
hardly hear myself speak. Um, it's important, >> please, enough. Let her finish. >> It's important that you understand that we make decisions based on the law and the truth as it's given to us. And who's to blame for something that happened three years ago?
>> Has nothing to do with anything now. We have to deal with the information at hand, the information we're looking at, hoping to get our questions answered to the best of our ability to make that decision. And we have a responsibility to the 53 residents of this town to make
the the best decision. Mr. Mayor, I take control of this. >> Hey, Mr. Moreno. Mr. Moreno, Mr. Debala, please. >> Is there a police officer here? >> Mr. Mr. Moreno, Mr. Debala, please. Please >> take it outside and shut the door behind you. >> Please, the two, please. Mr. DeBell,
thank you, sir. Mr. Morolino, please hear. >> I appreciate I listen. >> Please, please. >> So, anyway, any of the comments I made, if it reached anyone's ears, you now have the truth as I know it. And if you didn't hear it, I don't know what to
tell you. But you can ask the guy sitting next to you next time to maybe lower his voice or take the conversation outside and not be rude. Thank you. We're going to open up to the public. Who wants to go first? >> Make a mo. Do I got to make a motion or >> I'll make a motion to open the public? >> Oh, we opened already. There you go. >> We're open. Make it again.
>> There you go. >> Tina Smileik, Charles Street, Howell, New Jersey. I have the developers agreement in front of me and under the developers obligations under the section section B construction and phasing of the affordable units where we are discussing the state and the federal
subsidies and also the 9%. The last line in that says, "ZBAC agrees it shall nonetheless be obligated to construct the affordable units in accordance with the fees and schedule established even if government funding sources are not forthcoming."
So if we don't if we don't fund them, they can't say no, they're in default of the contract. And if you go to the back where it says if either party is in default of the contract, violation of default in the event that any party shall fail to perform
any undertaking required to perform by the pursuant to the terms of this agreement unless the party or other parties for who benefits the obligation was intended wave the obligation in writing such failure to perform shall constitute the event of a default under
the agreement upon any so such event the default the non-defaulting party which would be how because we've done everything that we were obligated to do in this agreement already we were not obligated for a pilot it is nowhere's in here. If you look back to Walters's group, Walters group in their agreement
specifically states it has a pilot specifically in that agreement that the superior court judge approved. This does not the superior court approved this without a pilot. The developer
agreed in this whether he got financial backing or not that he is obligated to build this. So why are we not fighting this? They are in default of this contract, not us. We We provided them everything in this contract that we said
we would. We have not fallen on anything. You bent over backwards for them for every little thing. And I just think that this is a contract. You're the lawyers. Why aren't we going with the contract? I WANT TO
>> WHAT statute states that we have to have this done by December 31st, 2025. >> So the the referend I'm sorry mayor if you want me to when >> no am I talk or I don't know >> finish your questions and then they're going to answer they'll answer. >> Okay. So what statute the exact statute
legal statute requires us to have this done by December 31st. Also, when we were doing this, I remember in 2018 because then Mayor Burgerer made sure that we had two meetings, two public meetings, one on each side of the town that invited all
the public for transparency so we could see every every project there was out there. It was in the newspaper. We had tons of projects to s to choose from. This developer came to us and said, "We will give you 30% if you take us over these other developers." It's all it's all recorded. You can go
back and you can look at it. The developer is why we agreed to it is because they offered the 30%. That is all televised both sides of towns. It was said twice. Developer agreed to this. This wasn't us asking them. This was them coming to us saying
we want to build. What do we have to do? And us saying 30%. That's how we build. Go back and look at it. Um the all these charts up here are very deceiving and if you work for us I don't see why they're more beneficial for
residents than and show the actual numbers. We're leaving out school funding in here. We're leaving out fire funding. We're leaving out so much funding and this is so much it's more like this is it's basically what is in what they put in their
application. We did none of our own figures on here. 2% we're making up. You know what? There's nothing in here that actually it's it's in favor of the bel bottom line. The pilot doesn't make the project possible. It makes the project more profitable profitable for the
developer. It does nothing for the residents in this town. How is Howell once if this is approved, how is Howell going to to uh offset the permanent loss to our schools, county, fire, and open space if it's not on the
backs of every resident in this. And I want to end with your decisions that you're making tonight are because of past councils and they put you in this position. But the decision you make tonight is what you're going to hand off to the next generation that's going to fill those seats and put
you in the same position. If you didn't like it done to you, think about this next generation. Look at these Boy Scouts. Some of these Boy Scouts might be sitting in your seat and you're going to burden them with this. And you know, I know it doesn't sound great. I know it. We don't even have the planner here.
We don't have the developer here. And we're supposed to ask questions to who? Half the questions we're asking, they can't even answer. So statues need to be lawyers need to stand up. They need to put the statute. You need to know how what law says that
they will have bolder remedy if we do not pass a pilot. >> Thank you. >> Because there's no court. Thank you. >> Please answer her question. >> Sure. So the law that Miss Bennett was referring to is the amended fair housing
act and that was the fourth round law. So the deadline that's referenced is is that the the township had till June 30th to come up with an affordable housing plan. We're going through a court slashprogram mediation process and the
medi and the program it's called the program judge has to make a recommendation to the Mount Laurel judge in Mammoth County by December 31st as to whether or not the township's fourth round affordable housing plan should be
approved. That's the deadline. And the point that Miss Bennett is making is that if this project is dead that the the we had to provide proofs as to the status of our and the
law required the amended fair housing act. the third round the status of all of our third round sites and what we rep represented was that it was approve I think we represented planning board
approval I think is the status and uh so the issue becomes if this project is becomes not feasible as described then we will have this hole in our plan that will get pre that will get presented to
the spoke to the program uh judge before the end of December. So, we were try we're trying to avoid that for the reasons described and it's not a okay the just so we're clear the the builder's rem the loss of immunity from
builder's remedy doesn't happen in a snap. That's why I'm doing that. The program judge will make a recommendation to the Mount Laurel judge. So within the next 30 to 60 days the Mount Laurel judge has will act on that recommendation. So within that time
which is in in land use world like instant like within the next short period of time there will be a decision about whether we'll lose immunity from builders remedy. So Tina, that's the concern that at least that we're concerned about everything you said. And
I think we I made made the point when I made my part when the mayor was asking me questions that what your recitation of the contract is is absolutely correct. And what I said and what Megan said and what we're saying is is that
that the the world has changed since then. And can we end up in litigation with the developer about and trying to enforce this contract against an LLC? Yeah, sure. We can do that. I don't think what where that will end up. I don't know.
>> Has there ever been a court case that actually sided with a developer to push a council to not give the council discretion on a pilot? >> So quite so quite often agreements. So you can't agree as you pointed out in
the Walters project that's the 72 unit Howell family apartment project there was a there in that agreement there's a reference to a pilot but a municipality can't agree in a contract to give a pilot right because that's has to be
adopted as they're consider as you're considering tonight by ordinance. All you could say is is we'll recommend you we'll consider the pilot in good faith and it's got to get approved in accordance with law. >> It's not in here. >> No, it's it's not. I'm talking about the Walters project. You asked me a
question. Is there like >> They weren't even asking for it. They didn't even ask for a pilot. >> I I that was in my presentation when I started. I agree it wasn't. What was in there was is the ability to apply for 4% tax credits. That was as you referenced
and that's what's referenced in that agreement. So I don't agree with what occurred in 2018. The issue becomes we're seven years later and here we are. So that I mean that I mean as a matter of fact that's all true, right? I I don't know
what else that's No, it's all true. They're defaulting. We're not defaulting. We've we've in this contract you can put a check mark next to every obligation that is under the township obligation. Under the developer obligation, you can't make all check marks because they are not financially
stable. So then the issue becomes when the project fails because a developer isn't going to invest how much is that money? 150 million or whatever the project costs $150 million and not make money, right? They're not going to do it. So the project >> Are you telling me they're not making
money with no school taxes and everything else? >> Um well I again I don't do math. That's his job. But the I I would say to you that the answer is is that the developer is not going to make that investment of
that of this magnitude without fina with at this point in time without the pilot. That's what the financial professional is saying. Okay. So if that doesn't happen, what are the what are the land use affordable housing results which is
our which is which is in my realm, right? That's my concern for house >> land use. We are we are in full compliance with land use. We're just they're not in full compliance with their part of financing this. We shouldn't have to finance them. >> So then the litigation is going to be about if this fails,
>> right? Okay, fine. We'll sue the developer. We Right. They'll sue us. We'll sue them. And then the litigation is going to be about what? And then they're going to say what they're going to say. They could say, again, I I don't like doing a lot of this in public, but like right but but right, but the the
arguments that we could face is like, well, great. You know what? The township would make it financially feasible at in 2025. We're going to walk away. We have that hole. >> We're not walking away. They are walking away. >> Okay. But we're going to but the
township >> and once they walk away it's our obligation to go to the superior court and say this this he they defaulted on this and then the superior court what they do normally is they say we're going to extend your rounds to for 90 to 180 days. No
>> well that will be a fight right there's quick case law on that. >> There's Okay. So then you'll we you'll be with me hopefully and we'll make those arguments and then we'll the answer is that's a litigation that's a litigation risk.
>> Ma'am ma'am you you're you're we've given you a lot of time and there are a lot of people that want to speak but what you're you're basically telling the lawyers the law. >> Okay. So we understand the law. We understand the law. But you haven't explained why they're not responsible
for not fulfilling their obligation. They the what you are asking us to do is to go into litigation with a developer and by the way this I agree with Mr. Bear this type of conversation is not something we would typically have in
public. This is an executive privilege when we're talking about litigation. So what and and be very mindful of the fact that these this this room right now is being watched by the developer and other developers who are potentially looking
at us losing builder's remedy immunity. So we have to be very careful on what >> your professional statement that if we vote no on this pilot John >> we will lose builder's remedy. >> It is a risk >> immunity >> at the discretion of the council though
pilot is for full discretion of the council. >> I I I am I am I am only advising the council. The council can vote how they want to vote, but I need to make sure that the risk of of >> there's a risk no matter which way they go.
>> Development is potential and we won't be able to control the zoning. There is a risk of that. >> Okay. As long as you put that on the record, I'm happy. Thank you. uh Lawrence White 15 runway. I want to thank the council for having this very
open and frank presentation and discussion. This is a very important matter for our township and I appreciate your transparency if not the transparency that you are burdened with or lack thereof I should say. Okay. I
also want to remind the public that three of the five sitting council members were in office in 2023. And I also want to say that the council was not well
supported by the township professionals. is is very obvious that there's been a lack of communication, lack of transparency, and short timelines that place them in a very difficult situation.
Now, let's talk about this project. uh 360 acquired it from Zback in 2021 2021 and with all the approvals um and if they made a bad deal
that's on them. Okay, this town is completely run by Republicans, conservative Republicans. And what we're talking about if we approve this pilot project is nothing short of corporate welfare for 360.
Okay, >> that is the truth of it. And I for one hope that the council would vote against this uh project. And finally, I just as the son and brother of Lutheran clergy,
uh I just want to say that all of this uh talk uh all around the room from everyone tonight about how we want to avoid having more affordable housing
obligation in our township when everybody's screaming bloody murder about these rapacious landlords are turning single family homes into boarding houses because people don't have a place to live that they're forced they're victimized into living in these
conditions and it's deteriorating our quality of life is deteriorating our land values our property values in this township and I think that we should be good Christians and we should say yeah we'll take whatever
affordable housing that you folks are mandating from the state and will willingly provide it to so that people of lower income can have the kind of life that we have here in How Township. Thank you.
>> I'm short. Felicia Simmons from the beautiful town of Asbury Park. Um I am here probably um I'm one of the founders of Asbury Park Affordable Housing Coalition and I'm probably speaking in a space that you don't expect it. I'm not a fan of pilot programs. Um the way
pilot programs are set in Mammoth County um specifically it will kill your town. It will slowly gut you. There's three things that you don't that people don't speak about that will slowly gut your town is the pilot program 30-year tax
abatements is the S2 program right which I did hear someone mention right and it's the ADP program assessment every year right because what's happening to Mammoth County is Netflix so all this property is going up and if you don't understand when I say speak about coming
from a city called Asbury Park where they're building million-dollar studios that are sold before they are built. You have to understand that when they when they talk about pilots where they don't pay school tax, right? That's on one side. They don't pay school tax. But
what goes in in your assessment is that it causes your property value to go up. Just the value of your land goes up. The value of your town. So when that S2 comes in, which um how gets $22 million of state funding, it says, "Hey, you have all this value in your your town.
You don't need that much money, right? So they're going to take away. Hence the S2 doesn't work for anybody. It pushes you to state bankruptcy, city bankruptcy, right? And then the ADP program assessment every year ties your
value, your property value um yearly and it ties it to market rate. So if something called a hot block, right? Say if a house sells on your block for $600,000 and everybody else's is property valued at 300,000, your
property value goes up. Your assessment goes up the next year, too. And then your assessment goes up the next year, too. And then you get into, like you read in the news, places like Neptune who had 30% increases. Right? I know people whose property value went from 10
to 20 in a matter of a year and a half. Right? That is what you're looking into now. And then to talk about this is coming from the state. Most power is municipal, right? There's checks and balances before it even gets to the state. And to be honest, there's nobody
even watching in the state, right? There's there's nobody there, RIGHT? District 11, right, with these same issues and they said, "Hey, the next administration, we don't know what's happening. is this is dead um lame duck,
right? And when you talk about builder's remedy, that's that's that's ways off. If you sit and you actually meet with fair share housing and say, "Hey, we had these these people coming in that made these promises, right, that forced us in this hand and then they did not keep up." You sit down with Adam Gordon,
right, the head of fair share, and have a real conversation because it's not partisan, right? It is it's literally about the people who live in your town and that's your responsibility not to a developer right NOT TO THE BILLION DOLLAR BECAUSE WHEN THEY guaranteed 30%
I guarantee that they had state funding ready ready and waiting for that big a percentage state funding ready and waiting for that development. What happened is the reason why they sold it off is they probably didn't get it right.
probably didn't get the funding that they thought they were going to, so they sold it off to a LLC, which is just a shadow. No one knows who owns this LLC. It's just a tied address, right? So, you my best bet is why are you looking to make a deal or keep a deal with someone
you don't know who they are. They have no responsibility to you. And what we'll do in the next 30 years is everybody in this room will be gone, including the children, right? They will be gone because it's a step. And if you don't realize that the steps are coming, you didn't mandate any rental caps, right?
With care talked about decreasing um the affordable. No, no, you should pay attention to the affordable. That's not your thing. Um people who buy these condos or town houses or whatever, they buy them out. They think they're paying taxes because there's no cap on how much
the developer can charge the people actually living there, right? So they think they're paying fees that are are taxed. They're not, right? And there's no there's no dictate on how you can actually spend a pilot. You can you can mandate just because it hasn't been done before doesn't mean you can't say you
have to pay your portion of the school tax, right? Because that's the biggest burden for any property tax. About 56% of your property tax go to the school if you have kids or not. So when you're when you're giving these tax abatements,
you are killing your town for 30 years. It's not five, not 10 for 30 years. That's three generations. And you have to be mindful of all of these different things. What I'm sitting here listening to in the back is a bunch of propaganda, right? Y'all are asking all the right
questions, right? But in the end is you have an obligation. You're professionals. You direct them. They don't direct you. >> Thank you, Felicia. Good evening. I I'm >> Good evening. I'm Deborah Edy. Um I've lived here since 2004.
>> Um the overdevelopment of Howell to me is dangerous to our community. We don't need the extra traffic. We don't need the extra headache. Uh it overburdens our town. And from what I've seen since I've been to here since 2004, our town is becoming overburdened. It has to
stop. And to for us to shoulder the expense of these people, this LLC that we don't know who the hell they are, it's ridiculous. They're leaving generational wealth to their kids. This is something that we are trying to do. We are hardworking people. We work every
day. We pay our property taxes. We do what we need to do to live here. and for them to come in and get a free ride. No, I don't agree with it. On the Felicia talked about it, the S2 it gets cut. This year we had 22.1
million increase last year. Next year it's going to be a decrease of $663,000 and it's going to get lower. We got to protect our children. That's why we are here for the next generation. We have to protect the next generation. We're not going to let them come in here and rob
our kids of what they are entitled to. I am retired now. All my five children are grown with their own families. And it's not fair that we are going to be priced out of our homes due to this redevelopment. It's not fair at all. I moved here for a better life, for a
better life from where I moved from. And I'm seeing it dissipate right in front of my eyes. And I don't like what I'm seeing. And I say vote no. Thank you. >> Good evening, Mayor and Council. Pleasure to be here this evening. Uh,
I'm a How resident moved here in 1985. >> Name for the record, >> Steve Morino. Peach Stone Road. 40 years. So, in 40 years, if I had had this pilot program when I bought my house, I would have saved almost $370,000 in taxes.
What a sweetheart deal. Last week, I decided to cash in my RMDs cuz I turned that age this year. So, I had to take an RMD forced by the government and so I paid off my mortgage. Okay? But I could have saved a lot of money over the years, okay? If I
had had a pilot program like this. Let's talk about pilot programs. We have one here for our tax assessment. Very unique the way it's done. Okay. Not many people have the tax assessment done the way we have it done here. And former council voted for it. Okay. There was a mayor in
this room that voted for it. We don't need the these kinds of programs here. Okay. Let them pay their fair share. If the project can self- sustain itself, okay, if it's going to float by itself, all well and good. I'm all for affordable housing. Everyone deserves
somewhere nice to live. Okay? And I've always said over the years, we build affordable housing in Howell for millionaires, okay? Cuz it isn't cheap to move into affordable housing here in Howell. Okay? But I'm all for it. But do it the right way, okay? Don't bend over
to these developers. They got plenty of cash. If the project can't stand on its own, let them walk. Like Tina said, we're not obligated. I don't care what these people over here say. We're not obligated to do this. Okay,
I urge you I urge you to vote no. This deadline is so phony it's ridiculous. Okay, and a gun is being put to your head and it shouldn't be. This stuff that comes at the last minute. I've seen it time and time again in how I'm here 40 years. I've seen developers buy
property, get approval, sell the property to the next guy, sell it to the next guy and the next guy. And it's happened over and over and over again. And the taxpayers are the one who suffer for this. Okay? I'm tired of paying more than my fair share. I would have loved
the pilot program on my taxes when I moved here. I'm paying over $10,000 a year in taxes here. Okay? Let them pay their fair share. If the project can't go forward by itself, vote no. Thank you. Have a great Christmas.
Joe Developed 41 Lions Court and yes, I'm the person that was referred to that had been the mayor and I was very proud of the opportunity I had to serve. When I walked in, I saw the Boy Scouts and it reminded me trustfully, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind,
obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent. And I wish for a moment that the behavior demonstrated by some of the people in the audience would reflect that kind of decorum that is warranted in this room. And and it and
it goes on right now. Mayor and as the chair, I would ask that perhaps you'd allow people who are speaking to be heard without being rudely interrupted. And I will tell you this, it is the reason why the political climate in this country is out of control. When people can't come to a
meeting, get up and speak. >> I'm just going to I'm going to wait. >> Is that okay? >> Please let him speak. Please. It is unfortunate that the climate that we can't come to a meeting and have fair debate and be heard without heckling
people or shouting down a council woman who's entitled to her opinion. We can all disagree with one another, but we can do so respectfully so that when you have a group of boy scouts and they sit and watch how the grown-ups behave and and still going on right now
that we can do this better. we can be better and have an open candid exchange. Miss Smilec made great comments. Whether you agree with her or not, she's entitled to get up. She's entitled to be heard and she's entitled to be respected. And so I certainly hope once
this latest crisis is behind us, that you can restore some sense of decorum to these meetings so people can't shout obscenities, OUTRIGHT CURSES from the audience. And there's plenty of good people here. The two young ladies that spoke, the woman
from Asbury is wonderful. And why can't that be how all of the comments get treated? Simply because someone has an opposing view doesn't entitle someone else to shout down their First Amendment rights. And yes, I'm on my soap box because I did serve for six
years and four years as mayor. And when certain people got up and had nothing but terrible things to say or I disagreed with them, I showed them respect on this particular issue. It seems to me you've been dealt a real tough hand. And having listened to the presentation and
the facts, quite frankly, it appears to me that the allegations are clear that the former manager didn't do his job. And that's unfortunate. I'm not suggesting there's anything nefarious. I doubt that was the case. Perhaps incompetence,
perhaps laziness, and now you're all stuck with having to deal with a tough hand. The math as far as I can see it can be argued either way, right? This is the this is the gun rights issue. People are for it or against it. There are people who philosophically believe in
pilots and there are people who don't. But I do think it's fair to say that we need to be careful about these accusations that the professionals are on the take and they don't know what they're doing. that that's unfortunate because many of these people have served the town and they're giving you their
opinion and they have to sit here and take it and they get paid for that. But it seems to me that nothing here was done nefariously, underhandedly, or in a way to deceive the taxpayers or hurt the town. What you all have to come up with is philosophically what you think the
right thing to do is. Notwithstanding the emotion, that's your job. You get dealt with two tough decisions. Here's the concern that I have. The concern that I have is that if this doesn't go through, if that's your decision if you
if you don't vote it down, and I agree that all of these rules are insane, and I also agree with Councilwoman Fischer, this all comes from Trenton. The people who set the rules make these outrageous burdens on us. They are truly
outrageous. Build more homes. A thousand more homes in Howell Township. Think about that for a minute. There are 19,000 rooftops in this town right now. Imagine if we have to build 1,000 more. Let me give you what the
numbers suggest off of something that was given to me here tonight, which I think is factually accurate. If there were a thousand more homes built with two school children per home, probably realistic, some might be less, some might be more. at the current cost per
pupil of $15,000. In 30 years, we're talking 30 years, you know what that is in 30 years? $900 million in more taxes. So, let's think about this a minute. And I'm sorry you're in this spot, but you
all wanted it. You ran for it and you got elected. The decision you have to come up with is not an easy one. But if you are if you are truly compelled to have to think this thing through. >> Thank you, Joe. Your time has ended. >> No, Joe, you could have a Listen, he
could go a little further. >> Come on. Other people went nine and 10 minutes. Mayor, I have to tell you >> between the >> folks folks, everyone spoke. Tina spoke for over the five. Okay, just let let the man finish. >> All right, let's just be fair.
>> Go ahead. And Joe's not a big fan of mine. So for me saying that, he really appreciates that. And I respect that. >> Please, please finish it. >> Yeah. It's unfortunate that there's selectivity with respect to who gets to talk more based on what they want to hear. But you may not like what I have
to hear or what I have to say, but I'm going to say it. I just would ask that you make absolutely sure that there is a backup plan because I'm going to tell you now, if you think you got some people here tonight, wait till the meeting comes where you have to build a
thousand more homes, you'll need two more town halls because when people find out that there is the potential exposure for 1,000 more homes to have to be built, you're going to need more than five minute rule because that's what
you're up against. I'm not suggesting that it's easy. I'm not suggesting which way you should vote. You have to do what you think is right. But I do think that part of the issue, mayor, that I would hope that the council will will come up
with is is a decorum policy so that people who come here out of their own free time and want to be heard, we're talking about how long you lived here. I've lived here for almost 30 years and I'm entitled to be heard just like everyone else and not be shouted over or not be shouted down. And it's
unfortunate that this is the climate that exists in this room for certain people who are here all the time who think they have all the answers and they're typically wrong in my view. So, I'm going to continue to come back and I'm going to continue to express my views because it is my first amendment
right and I would hope, as I said before, that you have a backup plan because thousand homes would dramatically and permanently change the face of this community forever. So, I
wish you all the best of luck. You're all good people with integrity. I'm sure you will do what you think is best for this community and I thank you for your service. >> Ira Thor Maline Court Farmale happy holidays council. Uh before I speak I'd like to have the uh opportunity to pass
this out uh Councilman Nadal. >> I'll take it. each of you. >> Thank you. >> I just want to make sure that as I'm speaking, you have that to reference. So, good evening. It is the season of
giving, but in How Township, it's not a season, it's a way of life. Who here and I'll turn to the audience. Who here is feeling generous this holiday season and would like to give a corporate handout by show of hands. Who in this room mayor
>> would council >> just the council? Yeah, please. >> I'll look at you, Mr. Look at me directly. Just >> I'm going to be crystal clear. I'm in no part blaming the council. Most of you are new. Most of you are still in your
first term. All of you are taxpayers like the rest of us. But tonight, I'm asking you to vote no on this pilot. And I'm going to give you some reasons why. First, as was already uh noted by some of our residents, this project was already approved. This developer already
got what they needed. There is no more coming back to dad asking for more money. If the project doesn't make them rich enough, that is not the problem of the bleeding taxpayers in this town. Many of you know that I'm a three-term member of the board of education. I've
served as the finance chair for the last three years. The board has been very, very fiscally prudent as a group for years, even in the face of mounting an unpredictable costs. The S2 state cuts have been referenced multiple times. We've had doubledigit increases in
insurance, surging energy costs. We can't control any of that. Even with that, we've budgeted well as a group for many, many years. I'm not speaking tonight as a board member. Tonight I'm speaking as Ira Thor, father of three, two kids in college, mounting bills,
rising costs like everybody else in this room, both up here at the desk and behind me that I'm allow not allowed to look at. Apparently, if that's not enough, I'm going to give you some uh evidence that I just handed
out. I don't believe what I saw in the presentation and knowing that and I'm just not very trusting in general. I do my own research. I did however use the exact same uh formulas and the same white study that was referenced at the
2018 Rucker study on school age children in roundt developments. I cross referenced it with actual student populations from already existing communities here in how cornerstone Verdana Oakill and Countryside to name others. So what I'm giving you right now
this is not me just you know spewing out numbers. This is not speculation. This is data based on real numbers from real how developments. And if anybody in the audience or any of our professionals would like a copy, I printed plenty. I have one for everybody and your mom.
>> Here's what this pilot actually means. I don't know where these numbers came from. 60s something students. I'm being conservative with this. This development will add 107 students to our schools. minimum of 72 to allocate eight and 35
to the Freehold regional. That's 107 real children who need teachers, classrooms, buses, technology, special education services, and resources. But wait, there's more. Under this pilot, our schools, as you know, receive
exactly 0 in tax revenue from this development. Not a penny, not in year 1, not in year 30, nothing. Meanwhile, there's 107 students. And that's again a conservative figure because I'm a conservative. I'm trying to not, you
know, exaggerate with numbers. We're going to go with a low ball number of 107. That will cost our districts, both the KD8 and the regional, tens of million dollars over the next 30 years to educate our students. And we're being asked to shoulder that burden without any corresponding tax revenue. Now,
everyone who has been paying attention knows that these numbers are going to be higher. You you've seen the increase in cost. So, the 3% worst case scenario that I'm projecting there, it's going to be more than 3%. Let's be real here. We know what's going on. So, let me break down what are
schools and only are schools because there's again I don't have the data here to give you the fire and the county and the open space. So, this is costing way more than just what the schools, but that's 67ish% of our budget. Under normal taxation, the kind that every
homeowner, hardworking behind me, and business in this town, businesses pay in this town, our schools would receive 1.6 million in the first year alone from this development under normal taxation. But by year five, 1.8 million. By year
10, 2.1 million. By year, 33.8 million annually. That's what would go to the schools. >> I already The time has ended. Thank you. >> Go for Go ahead. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Over the 30-year life of this pilot, our schools will lose $77
million. Let me break that down a little further. K8 54 million. Freel Regional will lose 23 million. Again, these are conservative estimates with a 3% annual rate. They don't account for potential reductions in state aid, unexpected
insurance premiums, which you got smashed with this year, or energy cost spikes, which we all know what happened there. The actual impact will be substantially higher. And this is where it will get particularly devastating. Our schools are already in many cases on
life support. The S2 funding formula enacted that was in 2018. How township and the regional have both been targeted by the state. I agree with Deputy Mayor Fiser. The state is the root of a lot of problems, but we have been hit really
hard here in how the K to8 schools have lost approximately 50 million in cumulative state aid over seven years. The Freeholder Regional District where our students go for grades 9 through 12 have lost a hundred million over the same period. That's combined 150 million
in state funding costs. This has forced the districts to eliminate staff, increase last uh class sizes to levels we've never seen before, the like infrastructure repairs, and shift that tax burden onto the folks behind me, the local property owners who work so damn
hard every day to put food on the table for their families. So, we're going to be voluntarily asked to give up another 77 million over 30 years. Think about the absurdity of this. We're going to add 107 students who need to be educated, transported, and supported. But we're going to give this developer a
pass on paying for any of it. And that cost is going to be spread to the other taxpayers here in Hal. Every homeowner in this room pays more than their fair share and should not be asked to subsidize a developer profit margin and that's what this pilot does. Nobody here
is disputing the need for affordable housing. We I think as a whole support this project. The developer has their approval. They have their affordable housing credits. They can build. What we do not support is giving away $77
billion over the next 30 years that our schools desperately need while adding 107 students to the classroom that are already overcrowded and underfunded because the state took away $150 million from our districts. Council members, I'm asking you to vote no on this pilot.
Stand with the taxpayers, stand with our schools, stand with our children, and think about what the long-term ramifications of this will be. If anybody wants to talk to me afterwards about where I came up with this, happy to have that conversation. Happy holidays. Thank you for listening.
John Cabarakis 3 and Drive. Good evening, Mayor, council members. This 360 pilot concession has been a big point of contention over the last few weeks. And while the thought of giving a tax break to a developer on a hund00 million project can be disturbing, the
independent study done by NW Financial on the 360 clearly shows that the economics of this development with the pilot included will benefit how in more ways than one. This project has a 30% affordable
housing requirement which is much higher than the more common requirement of 20%. This helped to satisfy our town's last round of COA obligations, which we are now in good standing with. If this developer decided to withdraw the 360
project, then how would be on the hook for as many as 1,400 units, and I don't think that anyone in Howell wants that. Additionally, these units could end up in less ideal locations with infrastructure that lacks the support
for a large-scale project. The 360 project is on route 9 which has ample infrastructure for this project. Despite our views of the Mount Laurel doctrine and the council on affordable housing, it is the law and we must abide by it.
We have seen towns throughout New Jersey fail to meet their obligations under COA and they have paid dearly through the loss of zoning control, substantial fines and builders remedy litigation. The study done by NW reports that the
town would have received approximately $14 million in taxes without this payment in lie of taxes. However, with the pilot, the town will receive $50 million over the next 30 years. That in itself clearly shows that this makes sense for Howell. It appears that some
members of this body may not have been aware of the details of this pilot until very recently. This may have resulted in a limited amount of time for you to research the viability of this tax break. That is unfortunate. However, when you examine the facts and the
economics, the correct conclusion becomes evident fairly quickly. It is unfortunate that we are up against an end of the year deadline to approve this pilot. It is unfortunate that this developer has backed our town into a corner. Perhaps the developer could have
been given a deadline to commence construction. That's water under the bridge now, but it should be a learning experience for the future. I know that many residents are unhappy with the terms of this agreement, but not approving it would set our town back considerably.
Thank you. >> Diane McNard and Development, 17 Dear Hollow Drive. >> Thank you. And this is my first town ball meeting. And I >> Can you pull that microphone to us? >> And I lived in Howell for 46 years. I
moved from Brooklyn, New York. I moved to the country. My husband was born in Brooklyn. He grew up in Jackson. We met in college. And when he introduced me to the Jackson Howell area, I didn't know
where Howell was. I never heard of Howell. Howell is a beautiful community. It is, I think, uh, what was it named? One of the green areas of the state. Um,
I moved here for the trees, for the clean air. Like I said, I moved from Brooklyn. I was the only house on the block that had a tree. So trees are very
special to me. Whenever a tree is cut down, I plant two trees in my yard. I love the environment. I love the woodedness. I love the deers that run in
my backyard. I love the squirrels. I don't like the raccoons that are in my attic. Uh and the squirrels. And now I got feel nice. So I have to take care of that. But I love nature. I want to know where I live in Howell.
There's in the Glenn Arden when it was built, it was one of the last developments that had the trees stay and it was called clustered zoning. It's a very wooded community.
If you haven't driven by through Glenn Art and Development, when it's springtime, when it's the summer, look at the flowers, look at the trees. >> Ma'am, we are we are in public hearing for an ordinance with regard to the pilot alone.
>> Okay. So, I'm getting to it. >> Okay. Okay. So, now I want to know is there cluster zoning? like is there zoning in areas where all this K pilot program which I never heard of before in my life. Uh is there cluster zoning
where building cannot be built, trees cannot be cut down? Uh taxes, why are certain people exempt from taxes, but certain people if we don't pay it, we're fined for our taxes? I don't understand
it. and we can't maybe pay it because it's exorbitant. I don't understand that. Um also, uh oh, traffic plan. Is there a traffic? Again, we are talking only about pilot. >> Okay. Well, this has to be considered
when you talk about it because it does involve building and your um your roads and the traffic and uh people who don't pay attention to traffic laws, traffic
lights, uh talking on their cell phone while they're driving. I see it numerous times. Kale is driving. I hate to >> ma'am I I again I'm sorry. We are talking only about the pilot. There's going to be public comment again. >> That's what we're talking about.
>> I'm glad that's what we're talking about because you mentioned, ma'am, there will be public there will be a time com. >> Okay. So, I'm You mentioned what was that that we have an obligation to build this housing and we're going to
lose we're going to lose money. Well, you know what I think? I think the citizens of this town would be more than happy to lose that money and pay for the veterans that deserve this housing.
Homeless veterans, homeless encampments that are in Howell. People are living in tents in zero degrees. That's more important, a co-pilot for other people. When you have homeless
people AND YOU HAVE VETERANS THAT FOUGHT for this country, there's veterans in this room. I know there are because I saw the respect that I had seen when they when the flag was presented by the Boy Scouts and I was a Girl Scout
leader. So, think about that. Think about our responsib which I believe homelessness is more important than affordable housing. That could be anywhere.
Affordable housing, not in this town. It you need to address the people in this town, not outside is coming to this town. I've donated I'm a member of St. Veronica's. I donated food
to the homeless people. I cooked for the homeless people. >> Thank you, Diane. Your time to send it. >> You can speak again when we on on the back end if you still be if you still be here. Okay. >> What's that? I'm sorry. >> You could speak again when when we
>> on the back end. >> Like I said, this is my first experience in 46 years. >> You did great. Thank you. Hey, mayor. I'm sorry. Just one legal point that was raised by this last resident. >> Yes. >> Yeah. So, if the just because the
resident made the point that if somebody didn't pay their taxes, then there's ramifications to that. That would be true with respect to the pilot payment as well. The township has the same rights as as if they were uh as if it was regular taxation. Even if the
payments aren't made. >> Sure. >> So, I just wanted to There's not special treatment in that regard like anyone else. >> Correct. Yep. Thanks, Mayor. >> Yes, Miss >> This is my first one, too. This is my
first town meeting, too. >> Put that the mic in front of you. >> Your name for the record? >> Susan Regina. Um, 83 Evesboro uh Lane, Country Meadows. Um, I actually just came from work. Uh, I'm really hangry.
But, uh, so I the reason why I came today was I was I was talking to my husband this morning. I didn't even know about this yet. And I I found out at work and I was just like like absolutely upset and I was talking about it all day and I was like, you
know, I'm going to come here and I am going to just ask questions and I wanted to know what um how the money for if this does go through, how the money would be distributed because I know that
if it was um through uh conventional tax distributions like the schools would get a lot more than uh than if it was through the pilot. >> Keep asking your question. >> You want to answer or you want to her finish all the question that money be going?
>> 95% of the pilot payment goes to the township. Okay. >> 5% to the county and then the township can choose on an annual basis through its budgeting process to share the pilot with the school as the governing body deems fit.
>> Yeah. Okay. Okay. So, but that but you guys have the the um the power for that though. You can say yes, no. You know, >> you guys have the power for that. Okay. >> And then um the other question I uh wanted to say was I again I was talking to my husband this morning and we were
discussing our taxes. My taxes are 13,000 and we just got bumped up 14%. How much more uh taxes a year and probably growing are we going to have to pay for this pilot?
Like how much how many uh how how much percentage every year or in 30 years? Because I wasn't planning on leaving Howell Township. I love my town. I love my community. I have the best neighbors and I love my schools. like and
I mean we're going to get taxed out. Am I going to get taxed out? And I love this community and I'm going to have to leave and that sucks. And that sucks. It
really does because I I'm just, you know, I'm like heartbroken about it and I was thinking about it all day and I'm like I'm my this gives me my husband another reason to say let's run out of dodge
and this uh this community is amazing. It really really is amazing. I you know I have I work in the community. I uh I you know the neighboring towns, you know, I've become friendly with business owners and uh my patients all live in
the community and they're upset about it. I actually they didn't know about it. They didn't know about this meeting. I saw it on my Facebook. I had one patient go, "Oh my god." He's like, "I got to tell my wife about this." I don't know if he came in today, but he was he was like, "This is ridiculous.
We didn't we had no clue." And I'm just I'm I'm disappointed. I'm disappointed. I you know, you guys are elected. That's all I'm saying. You guys are elected and it's you know, it just is
sad. I hope that you choose no because they should be able to pay their own way. Thank you. >> I pay I pay every single, you know, every every single year I pay Who's next? >> Hi.
>> Very happy to see you. >> I'm not giving you more than five minutes. >> That That's fine. I don't >> Name and address. Five minutes. I'm actually >> Name and address. >> Richard Krug. >> Thank you. >> Sammy Drive. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> I have actually a question to ask you guys. I'm going to pose it to you,
Megan. Uh, I was an official in Long Branch, New Jersey during the eminent domain issue that took place over there. And everybody knows how that shook out that the town lost their uh, their case. But, uh, one of the interesting things
that happened was Pier Village was constructed and I was trying to recollect I believe the tax abatement period was 10 years on that project. >> Yeah. I I I don't know if you would know. I it it was either 10 or 20, but I'm thinking I was there 13 years,
>> so I knew about it and it was sold. >> So that's the question I have. They sold the the whole project off before the tax abatement deadline was met. So how does that work out? What's what's the legal
ramification of that? Was there like a lean on it that they would impose to make sure that they got the money or was that absorbed by the new buyer? Were they obligated to pay that? Cuz is it possible for the guy to default on his uh taxes
>> on this thing if he sells it before? >> It's a question. I I don't know the answer. I would That's why I'm asking. I'm not a lawyer. You're the lawyer, right? >> No, I'm a financial consultant. >> Oh, financial Okay. >> Well, can you repeat the question? The question is what happened with the Pier
Village development which was >> I don't think there's any affordable housing units in Pier Village. >> Uh I'm just googling it. I don't doesn't look like it. >> 20% of what was there >> because it goes by the old rule you know under COA which I keep I'm sick of
hearing that word because it doesn't exist anymore. There is no COA. >> It was disbanded by our uh Governor Christie. Okay. who was disgusted with the response to the mandates that were given to all the townships. Okay. So now it's up to the local judges to decide.
Uh but they they did not ever pay. It was Kushner who was the developer there and he did not pay that. But I don't know if it was ever paid. And is that a possibility? Is there a loophole in here that they could sell this thing and not
be uh obligated to uh to pay >> tax when you when you say not obligated to pay pay what like so if the developer sells the project it gets this >> if well the if the
>> they owe the town the I believe it was 10 years 10 years worth of >> that the the hypothetically yeah >> if the pilot was approved, the obligation to make the payments would be is it's first of all, it's recorded in
the in the county clerk. So, it it runs with the land. >> So, it's it's there of interest and everyone knows one and two is it would apply to any successor and if they don't pay, as the mayor pointed out, the township leans the property
>> for unpaid taxes. >> Unpaid taxes or it's the obligation of the new owner. Yeah, correct. >> To pay it, right? Correct. Somebody's >> All right. It might be something uh worthwhile looking into just to see how that shook out over there. Do you need the names of someone I can get?
>> Well, I know Long Branch in under the affordable housing regulations is an urban aid uh district, which means they have no affordable housing obligation. >> This, right? So that's what that means under >> they were buying the obligations from uh
>> well no they were getting they were getting money from they were getting RCA payments from from other suburban communities which is illegal now >> correct >> guy in rumson with a $5 million home or a $10 million or my friend Bon Joy uh
you know they they bought the obligation because they don't want that that affordable housing in in Rumson >> or Navasync. Yeah, they have like uh there's like public housing in Long Branch. There's a Long Branch Housing Authority. >> So, I'm very familiar with >> Right. So, again, I don't think Pier
Village has deed restricted affordable housing units. >> I I believe that there was 20% that was slated for that. >> Okay. Doesn't come up at least when you Google, >> but that's not the issue that I have here anyhow. It's just >> can they skirt around their obligation to pay the taxes? >> No. >> Okay.
>> It's a bind. It's no the answer. >> Okay. Very good. Well, if they do, there would they'd be in default, but yeah, >> people break the law every day, right? >> Thank you, Rick. >> All right, guys. Thank you. >> Yes, sir. >> Here we go. >> Good evening, mayor, council members,
professionals, and others. My name is Brian Shemesh from the law firm Geardano Howlerin and Ceisla, 125 Half Mile Road, Sweet 300 Redbank, New Jersey. I represent how 360 Urban Renewal LLC and I just wanted to address a few of the questions that were really aimed at the
developer that have come up tonight. Uh first and foremost, I understand that folks uh feel that they've been left out of the process perhaps or that this has not been transparent. That certainly is nobody's intention uh throughout this process. I've corresponded directly with Mr. Howard and Mr. Clark over several
years. It sounds like you've seen that correspondence very recently, unfortunately. Uh but nonetheless, uh while I understand that you guys have deadlines due to your fourth round obligation, the developer remains open to having open, transparent, and further conversations with you if that's how
you'd like to proceed by tableabling this this evening. Uh I understand that uh people are skeptical of Mr. Banker's numbers. Uh I've had the pleasure of working with him, opposite him, for many years on many projects. Uh and he scrutinizes our information. our numbers
change. Our numbers adapt to his because he tells me, "You're getting too good of a deal." And that's what's happened here. And if you look at Mr. Banker's numbers, you'll see that the costs associated with this project are defrayed by the pilot that includes the school. He had estimated 66 uh students
would be added. We see in a different uh handout that came out tonight, someone else estimates 107. Uh I would be inclined to follow the ruper study like every every other municipality and planner in the state but of course we defer to the council on that. Uh and then just a few other
points uh we spoke about the 4% tax credit. We were not the owner at that time. We acquired the property in 2021 and accordingly uh were not eligible to apply for those. Um Mr. Mr. Nadell, you had asked the question why we did not uh why we
started this process before the planning board as opposed to after. In my f first and foremost, the law requires that you apply for a pilot at any time before the shovel hits the ground. So, you can do it before the planning board after. In my experience, it's very common to move
both your engineering and design efforts as well as your financing efforts on a parallel path so that way you could get to construction faster. As we've heard tonight, not getting to construction fast enough uh has resulted in significant increases in project cost.
No one here can deny that the world is quite different than it was in 2018. Uh that applies certainly to construction materials, but also to the grocery store. It's just an unfortunate reality of America today. And so because things have changed, these conversations
started after our acquisition of the property. Um, a question was asked why we why we would pursue approvals if we were not interested uh if we were not prepared to proceed without the pilot. You see in the spreadsheets, this is a roughly 120
$130 million project. The approvals are a drop in the bucket, right? If you waited to make sure that every dollar was lined up before you moved forward, projects would never get off the ground. At some point, you have to take risk. And that's what our client did by proceeding with the planning board
understanding that if they could not finance the project, they you know will have lost that money. That would be a sunk cost and again our risk not your problem. But that's just an explanation for the sequencing if you will. Uh
someone had brought up the developers agreement and a potential default by the developer. We of course dispute that the phasing schedule and construction schedule that's referenced therein also includes which was not mentioned a reference to a New Jersey administrative code provision which talks about the
sequencing of construction. Uh what that provision is intends to say is that you cannot build all of your market rate housing upfront and put the affordable later. That code provision provides that you must do both your market and affordable housing at the same time as
there's no market rate housing at this point. Of course, there's no affordable housing. So, I would submit to the council, there's been no default by the developer in that respect. Um, and then finally, I would just address uh very it's been submitted. And while I have no
interest in attacking uh the credibility of the individual that prepared this, just like people have uh skepticism of Mr. Banker's numbers, I would just point out one factual point that we heard from Mr. Banker. He spoke directly with the town's tax assessor
uh with the town's tax assessor to determine what this would be what this project would generate in conventional tax revenue annually. We see that in year two that was roughly a $1.85 million number. Uh and if the school gets 66% of the 1.85 million, that's how
your conventional tax dollar is allocated. Uh the figures here are just plainly inflated because one uh the the figure of $1,600,020 $620,000 represents 87% of what conventional
taxes would be. So while people have issues with the numbers we've submitted, Mr. Banker's numbers, I would just caution the council that this information you've seen tonight has also not been vetted uh all the way. Uh with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions if folks have them for me. If
not, we appreciate the opportunity to be here this evening and thank you very much. >> Good evening, Mark Prey, Tucas Court. Um, since this is a public hearing on an ordinance and not general public comment, I would just ask that everyone
here be given more than 5 minutes because it's my understanding that uh when there's a a public hearing on ordinance, there is no time limit in accordance with our township meeting protocols. Um, I follow this particular project since 2018. I believe it's important the
public understands the the timeline. It's been discussed tonight. Uh November 2018, the town signs a developers agreement with Kenneth Zbeck as part of the town's third round affordable housing plan. This agreement allowed for highdensity development of 360 units with 252 market rate and 108 affordable
units. Section 2B of that developers agreement states ZBAC shall be freely permitted to apply for and secure available state and federal subsidies and/or tax credits to defay the cost of construction of the affordable units provided that ZBACK not shall not apply
for 9% low-inccome tax credits. And then it further states, ZBACK agrees that it shall nonetheless be obligated to construct the affordable units in accordance with the phasing scheduled established by New Jersey Administrative Code 5.93-5.6D
even if government funding sources are not forthcoming as Tina had previously said. And then section 8 stated Zbeck was permitted to sell the right to develop this property and the agreement was binding on successors which we know happened. This agreement conspicuously
omits language for a municipal subsidy, tax credit or pilot. So clearly if they contemplated that there would be no subsidies for state or federal government and they left out municipal, they knew that they did not want a pilot
associated with this project. November 2019, town adopts ordinance 1953 reszoning these properties for moderate and long-term housing in accordance with the developers agreement. The town is fulfilling their obligation towards this project. January 2020, the court
approves the town's final third round judgment of compliance and repose that Mr. Bayer spoke of. The court gave the blessing to this to our entire third round project that included this. June 2020 town's third round midpoint
review for this property states quote the zoning in place for affordable housing to be developed on this site and it remains as a realistic opportunity for the construction of affordable housing. It's my understanding the town's sole obligation is to create realistic opportunity for affordable
housing. August 2021, Kenneth Zbeck sells the property to Howell 360 LLC for $7.3 million. Howell 360 assumes the obligations of the developers agreement.
August 2023, Howell 360 LLC files application of planning board for preliminary and final site plan approval and is granted same in December of 2023. This approval did not contemplate or include a pilot. This approval is valid for a total of 5 years under the
municipal land use law and how 360 has the right to seek seek extensions. Therefore, there remains a realistic opportunity for the construction of affordable housing on this property until at least December 2008. Mr. Bayer, is that correct? >> I didn't hear the question. >> It wasn't a question that under the
municipal land use law, they when they get an approval from the planning board, they're it's valid for 5 years. So, from December 2023 through December of 2028 >> at least. >> At least. Okay. Thank you. Assuming it's
out of use variance, it would be before the planning board. >> Okay. So, they have a valid approval that's in effect for at least another three years approximately from now. >> That's a question. >> That's a that seems like an argument. >> That that was a question.
>> So 5 minus 2 is what, Mark? That's three, right? Okay. >> Three years from now, >> you're making an argument. You don't need me to validate your point. Go ahead. In 2024, town designates this property as part of an area in need of redevelopment, but there is no mention
this property owner needs to seek a pilot. In 2025, town approves a redevelopment plan, but again, there is no mention this property owner intends to seek a pilot. And here we are. It appears that the comments from our elected
officials that have been elicited tonight, as well as comments from Mr. banker and for Mr. Sheamesh that you guys were kept in the dark about this pilot for quite some time. Uh it's unfortunate. That's not the way it should be supposed to be. You guys are
the policy makers in this town. A policy regarding a 30-year pilot in a tax abatement is something that should have been brought to you from the very beginning and you guys should have been involved in this discussion from the very beginning as to whether or not it had your blessings or how you wanted to negotiate it going forward and what
offers are made to this developer and everything. and I would be very frustrated if I was in your seat as well. It is frankly concerning and excusable that you guys were not included in those discussions with township administration. And now what happened on November 25th
is that it was this ordinance was originally on the agenda. it was removed from the agenda and then after like a few days ago they decided to go back and put it back on the November 25th agenda and include the financial agreement in the application that to my understanding
you guys weren't even provided at the November 25th meeting. You didn't even see the financial agreement or the application and then you were asked to introduce and vote on it at that time. >> Thank you Mark. >> Thank you Diane and I wish you the best in retirement.
>> Thank you. appreciate that. >> And um so my my my question is and I'll I'll ask you the question is has the town met their obligations to the developers agreement? It seems as though they have. What is the legal basis for the town losing their affordable housing credits if the property uh if the
developer chooses not to develop? I have a question about Turpac. Okay. There's questions that we're going to be lose our immunity to builder's remedy. No one's mentioned anything about Turpac. Turp's 450 units on the other side of Route 9. There's 50 uh credits there and nobody has said that if we're going to
lose their credits from Turac. They haven't built. They got site plan approval. They haven't built. They're not seeking a pilot. So, if we're going to lose credits for ZBAC, why aren't we going to lose credits for TA uh for Turpac? Can someone please answer that for me? I have another question for Mr. Banker.
You were talking about your projections about how they were very aggressive. Some of the numbers were very aggressive. When you mean when you say aggressive, do you mean that they're potentially unrealistic? they may not be realized. Like what do you mean by aggressive by that? I'll step away and I'd like you to answer that question.
>> Oh, sure. >> Yeah. >> Um, so when it comes to the aggressive rent structure, uh, it's unclear if the rents will actually be achieved at that level based on what the comps are showing. So the developer is being aggressive not to his benefit in terms
of financial need. If he was to use lower rent assumptions, it would show more of a need. So by using more aggressive higher rent assumption it shows less of a need but still it's unreason it's it's unlikely to believe that this project would move forward
under conventional taxes. On the other side when it comes to the project cost assumptions being aggressive what I'm saying by that is low they're assuming that they can build this for much lower than other developers and other projects we've seen specifically the hard costs.
So, and then also on the aggressive side on the operating expenses, they're assuming that they can operate this building at $5,800 per unit. The market suggests that the the typical opex per unit is 6 to8,000 per unit. So, these
are all assumptions that are hurting them in terms of showing a need, right? if if they used higher costs and lower rents and higher expenses that would be more in line with the market it would show that even under the pilot the returns would be even lower. So that's what I mean by aggressive.
>> So are there projections also in their numbers that would suggest that if they don't hit those benchmarks that the pilot amount that the town would have received would be less than what is projected. >> So the cost and the operating expenses
would have no impact on the pilot revenue. the rent absolutely would. So if the rents come in lower, the rents the the pilot revenue that's projected would come in lower. >> Okay. So if there were a real estate bubble and a downturn the economy and we did not realize the 26 and 3,400 that
was in there for whatever reason that could impact what the the town receives in a pilot. >> It absolutely could. And in that situation, if there was a bubble like that, in addition to the pilot revenue dropping, the assessment would theoretically drop, resulting in lower
conventional taxes as well. >> Okay. So, you're a numbers guy. In 2021, when they bought the property, interest rates were very low at that time. Okay. Interest rates went up. Interest rates are in the process of coming down. Could you project what an interest rate level would be if the Feds lowered interest
rates that we get to a number where it becomes a lot more financially feasible for them over the next three years? >> It's such a hypothetical. Um but I can numbers guy. Come on stay with me. >> Uh yeah I I I would say that right now based on current rates and they are
coming down a bit from where they were you know a year ago. um right now even given that you know assuming a six and a quarter% interest rate >> these are the numbers so if the interest rate continued to go down in the next several years the project might be
feasible at that time >> if it got down to let's say hypothetically two and a half we got back down to two and a half with the Fed what how would that change your analysis >> if you assume that everything else remained the same
>> rents remain the same cost of material material labor expenses, you'd be looking at very different economics than you are right now. >> Okay. So, would it be prudent for this council to wait three years while they still have a valid approval and a realistic opportunity to build and wait
to see what rates do? >> I don't know if I can answer the the question that would it be prudent. I think given the timing of the affordable housing requirement, I think that's what's really the time constraint here. It's possible that in three years the economics could change and the project
could be feasible at that time. Absolutely. >> Okay. All right. Mark, thank you. You good? >> YEAH. Right guys, Dan Ley, 51 Tyogga Drive. Um, appreciate the time. Uh, first of all,
I'm a commercial real estate broker. Uh, also a previous regional property manager with the major real estate investment group and then Eagle Scout since the scouts came in before. Um, first of all, I feel ter terrible
for you guys, um, and all of us because of this gross negligence in my opinion that has been done and we're in this situation. Uh, specifically from what I was to hear tonight, it sounds like the township
professionals did a lot of that negligence because we're at the 11th hour. It sounds like instead of back in August and for a sales guy, you know, we gave the
developer now the leverage to, you know, we have three weeks or two weeks to kind of call the shots and put us in this position. Um, I appreciate Ian, Mike, and John's cander in regards to uh your
transparency. Um, I know whatever direction that needs to be taken, good, bad, or indifferent, I think, you know, I'm glad that I'm looking at the at you guys specifically in regards to
making that decision. Um, couple couple quick things. Um, you know, we're in Howell. It's not Newark. It's not New Brunswick. You know, when I heard that there was a pilot program going on in Howell, you know, to my
knowledge, there's only been two pilot programs, period, that had been going on uh in Howell. You know, again, we're not Newark, New Brunswick. It's not a redevelopment area that it's needed. You know, developers would be lucky to develop in Howell. Um,
you know, one of the things that I just wanted to mention also is if the pilot program does need to go through, I would, you know, hope uh coming from the the husband of a teacher that the same proportions,
you know, um the same proportions that would apply to the traditional taxes, you know, i.e. school would go toward those same buckets. close to it, get them reallocated,
you know, you know, using co-star. Um, I was able to actually pull up the developer. There was a a um couple people tonight that thought that the developer was a mystery. It's public record. I can find it easily on
CoStar. Anybody can um or some people can find it. You know, one of the things that was brought up is, you know, and I'm not going to say names or addresses, but it was uh a Lakewood address. Um, the reason why I bring that up is
because when I brought up that address, I was like, "Oh, it must be a major developer. You know, I work with Toll Brothers and KRE's, you know, as a a fitness center designer as well." and you know what kind of reputation does
this developer have to represent this project this gigantic project in Howell and it came up with a residential address. Now, we could take that with a grain of salt because it's an LLC just like a PO box, but I just wanted to
mention that um you know, in my opinion, you know, it, you know, as uh doing my real estate investment, you know, area, it looks like there was a lot of poor underwriting, poor timing. There was a lot of developers that I've
worked with that have sunken during the 2020 2021 area that hasn't, you know, hasn't come to fruition. And it kind of seems to me that the developer wants the Howell resident to shoulder the poor
underwriting or even the uh surprised underwriting of the property, you know, which I don't think that should be Howell's burden. I understand the predicament that we're in. Uh but given that there was no timeline, I would I would certainly say
this is not something that we should be a part of. Quickly, there's a 30% rule in regards to rent. And according to the market rents, uh for the one-bedroom, you would need uh approximately $104,000
of annual income for the household. And for the two-bedroom, you would need 136,000 annual. Who's affording that stuff? So, I don't know, you know, what target market that they're trying to look at, but numbers are numbers and
there's only so much that people can afford. >> Thank you, Dan. Um, I just want to end with this is, you know, one of the one of my favorite quotes is, you know, know when to hold them, know when to fold them, and know when to go all in. And this is
definitely one that I think that should be folded, but I trust you guys. And um, and thank you for your time. Anyone else? I'm seeing none. >> So, I'm going to Motion to close public
comment, please. >> Motion to close public comment. >> And then >> second. Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I moving forward. Uh uh >> Mr. Uh, mayor, if you if you'd like, you
could uh put a resolution uh to go into executive based on contractual negotiations. >> Yes. Can we please go into executive to discuss this? And we need a a break, too. Does everyone agree? >> I'll put a motion on to go into
executive session for contractual discussion. >> I need a second. >> Second. >> Councilman, >> we just Listen, it's been three It's been three hours. Yeah. >> No, I've had to go to the bathroom since 7 like 30. So, >> just
>> Councilwoman O'Donnell. >> Yes. >> Councilman Reubel. >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor Fischer. >> Yes. >> Mayor Leio. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Executive session. >> Mayor, please. Motion reconvene. >> Second. >> Second.
>> All in favor? I >> what we just you want me to say or >> Well, yeah, sure, mayor. Um yeah, at the uh at the at the request of the council as well as the con to address the concerns of the public the
recommendation at this point is to table the ordinance and if it's and since this is your last meeting of the year I think right is that true yes since this is your last I'm not the this is the last meeting of the year uh that means that
the ordinance will die if it's tabled and we are uh we would ne uh con attempt to continue to negotiate with the developer uh in good faith uh all aspects of the
financial ar proposed financial arrangement between the township and the developer concerning this project um into at least through the first quarter of next year. All right. Can I have a motion to table, PLEASE?
>> Motion to table ordinance 2548. >> Second. >> Second. >> Councilman Nadell. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman O'Donnell. >> Yes. >> Councilman Rubel. >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor Fischer. >> Yes. >> Mayor Allegio. Thank you. The ordinance is tabled.
>> All right. Moving forward, folks. Acceptance of minutes from previous meeting. No. Uh, may I have a motion to accept those minutes? Motion to accept. Second. >> Councilman Nadell. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman O'Donnell. >> Yes. >> Councilman Reubel.
>> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor Fischer. >> Thank you. Mayor Lee. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Moving on to um hearing of citizens for public comment on consent agendas and general matters. Each person shall first give their name and address to the
clerk. The council should be addressed as a collective body and not as individual members. Each person shall have one turn to address the council. Comment shall not exceed a total of 5 minutes. Speakers shall be notified when their time is run. No time extension shall be permitted. >> Would anyone like to speak on anything
else that's on the table? >> Oh, we do. Betty Bletz, Gimble, 97 Victory Road. Good evening. Thank you for your decision this evening. It is the responsible one. I will be brief. Um, due to the complexities of a
municipality, council relies on contracted legal firms and engineering firms for sound advice and guidance in order to adhere to the master plan and do what is right for the community. Far too often and as this evening, council has been left to deal with the aftermath
of those who are entrusted, the outside firms we referred to as the professionals. >> Can you hear me? >> No. you. Okay. >> Okay. I'll have a seat. Can you hear me now? >> Yes.
>> Okay. Um, so there was a um comment made by Mr. Bayer that said the township decided to move forward uh in the past um not the professionals. The professionals are and have been advising council and I believe that may be the
problem. Um, case in point, what we've seen with Victory Road, um, also the residents of Ramtown came out in droves against the reszoning of the Ramtown Flores, uh, property. Uh, the smaller lot sizes meant more houses.
And weeks later, an LLC from New York submits an application for 22 homes, almost doubling what would have been. Now, we have this 30-year pilot plan, which we are grateful that you've TD um for the affordable housing uh in the
area that was recently resolved to allow such a deal with no transparency. My apologies. I just lost my paper. At this time, I think that for January 1st that we need to take a closer look
at the RFPs coming in from the professionals and begin to really look at other professionals uh that may be uh a better better suited for Howell. And that is my recommendation. And also
the um the legal teams that we have as well. Uh think about the mishandling of the farming ordinances. Um and also the um gross mis here. It's time for change. We don't
want more of the same because we can't afford it. Thank you. Anyone else from the public? >> Got to be quick. >> You know what? Just sit at that desk right there. Right there. Right there. Yep. >> I sit down. I might look it up. I'm
tired. >> Yeah. Won't get chat. >> I'm sleepy. I'm I'm really quick. Um I think that what I keep continuously hearing right and what I hear from the audience is that you need like a um strategic plan for y'all because after
you understand is that you make the plan and your professionals figure out how to do it right there's a reason I was just explaining to someone there's a reason why you're elected officials and our constitution is so great is because common people have the responsibility to take care of their towns right but the
the fail safe in that is you hire professionals to figure out the legal proper way to do it, right? Your opinion comes first. You're not afterthought, you're the forethought, right? And having maybe a community plan, right, to go with your 10-year master plan and your reassessments, right? And have a
community plan what you want to see and how you want to develop the space because I'm I'm I'm for mindful development that reflects the community, right? And then you take it to your professionals and they figure out how to do it. And for a long time in a lot of municipalities, it's done the other way
around, right? I'm pretty sure you have Faulner, your former government, right? And inside you probably have a strong city manager, right? Or business administrator, right? And inside there's probably a word in there that says inform you on the things happening in
town, right? Well, inform means just to tell you, right? It just means okay, after I do it, I can tell you about it, right? But you can send it to consult, right? Change that one word and to consult you. That means it has to be done with you, right? And then and then
maybe update your form of government, right? Do a charter study, maybe up form it and give your yourselves a little bit more power and a community a little bit more power. And I would just suggest that because the way that the world is going and most people don't understand how much power the municipality actually
has, right? Has more power. The the the federal only has 14 things it can do. everything else is us, right? So, in that space, you know, just do that and I think the community will buy into your your things. Sometimes it's going to be hard. The community won't understand
everything, right? But that play is the community first and that's just my suggestion and y'all have a great day and congratulations on today. >> Thanks, FELICIA. >> Anyone else? Just very quickly, I wanted to say I wish I'm sorry didn't leave. Oh, I'm
sorry. Judith Blick, 570 Newton Corner Road. Um, I wish you wouldn't have left because >> she did say I believe that she knew about the pilot program about this previously. So, if she knew, why didn't she share it with the rest of you? You know, so there needs to be better
communication if that's the case. Um, and with regard to what Miss Vallet said, I echo her concerns about Ramtown Flores and also the nursery. I wish bigger parcels were made or that perhaps the township would have considered buying it for open space. It is a beautiful area there, still
agricultural, and it's a shame that all those houses are going to be built and congest that road even more. There are many accidents on the corner of Newton's Corner and Easy Street. In fact, my daughter was just in an accident last week on that corner. It is just horrible and building those developments on those
two properties is going to make it even worse. So, we're just making a mess out of Howell and it's just very sad. So, thank you. Thank you for tableabling uh the uh the the this this uh pilot program that we were discussing tonight. I think that was a great decision. Thank
you. Good evening >> table. >> Mark Reese to cascort. >> Uh Diane, sorry if I was abrupt earlier, but I do wish you well in your retirement and thank you for your service to Howell. >> Thanks Mark. you've always been respectful and I appreciate, you know,
you stepping into shoes when things were a little bit were tough and I I recognize that. So, thank you and I wish you the best. >> Thank you. >> Um and and Mr. Gross, I saw that you're on the agenda tonight, too. >> Look forward to your continued work here with the council. As you can as you've
learned over the last few months, there's been a culture over the last few years that I think that we're trying to change so that there's more collaboration. and I'm sure that you're going to try to, you know, help achieve that. So, thank you. Um, I did notice that there was I I thank
you guys for what you did tonight and I hope that going forward that there's more uh that you're more involved in in in the direction of where this is going and uh sharing of ideas of maybe using some of the affordable housing trust fund. uh maybe ch changing some of the
terms of the developers agreement or whatever, but being creative to come up with a solution that is what you guys feel is the best policy decision for for this community. So, I I trust that you guys will continue to do that. Um regarding the resolution of the town exploring acquiring the is it the
Candlewood uh swim club? Um, I don't know what the funding source is for this, but I I know that, you know, given uh the recent history of certain uh unpopular development projects in this town, that the council would be very um
uh what's how do I want to say this? uh selective about how you use your open space funds uh in uh acquiring uh a project like a a swim club like this versus like maybe like a wooded open space parcel. So, I would I would just ask that you guys really look and
explore what what's what's the cost? Uh why are we getting buying the Candlewood Swim Club? Um do is this something we need? What are the going to be the costs associated with owning it? um versus maybe buying an existing parcel of land that was slated for uh uh development uh
that maybe is not the right kind of development in this town. Uh let's really take a good look at how we're going to spend our open space funds and uh that that's all I had to say. Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, I'm going to motion to
close. Motion to close public. >> All in favor? I >> any um from our manager or anyone else want to make response to anyone? >> G given given the evening the time of the evening. I I have no comments.
>> I I'll just make one quick comment uh regarding the resolution regarding the swim club that uh Mr. Paresi brought up. Uh just want to make clear that the resolution that's in front of you tonight is a non-binding letter of intent. So essentially what that does is
just gives uh us authority to start conducting the due diligence. So getting the appraisals, doing a financial analysis um and those kind of steps before you would look to acquire a property and get the funding sources. So
it's the initial stages Sue. >> Yeah. To this or whatever else. >> Yeah. Uh, real quick, I I we just had a snowstorm and I want to acknowledge Brian Greenfield and his whole team at the DPW. I think they did a they did a great job. Uh, I don't know if you guys
saw Brian. He was on Channel 12 News. So, he did great. Um, and again, I I want to thank our professionals that were here tonight. They got a beating. They didn't deserve it. Um, the professionals that aren't here anymore are the ones that hurt us and, uh,
they're not here anymore. So, we're in a fresh start. Um, we're going to welcome Mr. Gross aboard. Hopefully, we didn't scare you tonight. Um, and and again, acknowledged the best clerk ever. >> Um, and that's it. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Uh, as far as the Ramtown Flores property, the the old Ramtown Florest, it's currently going through the planning board right now. Uh, not sure when it's up next. Just keep an eye out for that agenda if you have any concerns about how that's being developed, where the houses are going, and any traffic or safety issues. Um,
attend the planning board meetings. You could ask your questions of all their professionals. uh they did have to move it from the last meeting due to potentially having too many houses and the the layouts with the drainage and and buffers and
whatnot. So, see what changes were made and that's the best way to know what's going on there. Uh want to thank Diane for her service. Uh >> y >> congratulations to your retirement and >> going out with a bank. >> Yeah. then wish everyone a merry
Christmas, happy Hanukkah, happy new year. It's the last meeting of the year, so get it all in now. >> Yeah, I'd like to echo the uh governing body's uh sentiment, Diane. Thank you for everything you've done. >> Thank you. >> Remarkable career and, you know, helping
me transition uh into my role. It's >> my pleasure. >> Very much appreciated and the best of luck in your future endeavors. Uh, and I want to give a quick kudos to Justin Yos for getting the Route 33 and Yellow Brook Road across the line. I know that
uh our friends up at Quest Cole's Farm Renaissance have uh been advocating for this for a while. We've been working on it for quite some time with the NJ DOT and he was able to get it across the line. Um, so thanks to Justin >> Diane, thank you for the past year.
>> You're welcome. >> All right. uh you've been very helpful. You've been honest with me and uh whenever I had questions, you uh you answered them and um it's been an interesting year being here and seeing how things work. I
was warned before I got sworn in that uh you need to watch every move that goes on up here and who you could trust, who you can't trust. And it's uh it's been frustrating and that obviously was echoed tonight with what has gone on
here. So um I'm going to you know take a deep breath after tonight and uh you know 2026 is coming. I want to stay positive with our appointment of Mr. Gross that we're going to have more transparency
and we will you know move forward with that. And if we don't have the transparency, then obviously then there's going to be accountability issues. So, um, merry Christmas to everyone. Happy Hanukkah, Quanza, whatever you you you celebrate. Please spend this, uh,
precious time with your families, those of you who have them. Um, maybe go make some sandwiches and give them to somebody in need or a blanket or, you know, you know, giving back is is is a big part of our community, too. when uh it's a shame that people are
forgotten or or you know on hard times and it's uh it's sad and we take for granted the things that we have so good right and it's um I appreciate everyone coming out tonight and you know the meeting got a little heated and it's uh yeah we hear your concerns and as a
guttering body we're going to do what we need to do. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next on is consent agenda items. Does anyone wish to vote separately on any of the consent? No.
>> So R-25-303 through R-25-319A. Can I have a motion? Motion resolutions R25303 through and including R25 319A. >> A second. >> And for the record, Councilwoman O'Donnell has left the meeting. Roll
call. Councilman Nadell, >> yes. >> Councilman Rubel, >> yes. >> Deputy Mayor Fischer, >> yes. >> Mayor Leio, >> yes. >> Thank you. The consent resolutions pass. Resolution R25-320 cancelling 2025 current fund and grant
fund appropriations and general capital and utility capital improvement authorizations balances. >> Motion to approve R25320. >> Second. >> Councilman Nadell. >> Yes. >> Councilman Rubel. >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor Fischer.
>> Yes. >> Mayor Leio. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Tired. Resolution passes. >> Unfinished business. Public hearing adoption of ordinances uh >> 025-44 an ordinance amending article 10 of the township code entitled zones creating
section 188-84.7 entitled moderate and low-income housing mixeduse overlay zone 17 known as ML7 >> motion to open public >> oh yes open to the public please >> motion >> motion to open to the Public
>> motion open public. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> I. >> For those of you here who are not familiar with this lot and block, Route 9 northbound side, the bicycle shop that has the the dirt bike track
behind it that has been sold. And there has been an interest from a developer to put in some more housing with some possible affordable attached to it. So that's what this uh creation is to uh
uh look into that with the planners and all that. So just to be transparent with you folks, that's that's the law. Okay. No one from the public. >> See motion to close. >> There you go. >> Second. All >> in favor? >> I I wish to adopt ordinance 2544.
>> Second. >> Councilman Nadell. Yes. >> Councilman Bubell. Yes. >> Deputy Mayor Fischer. Yes. Mayor Thank you. The ordinance is adopted. Ordinance 25-45, ordinance authorizing traffic enforcement upon real property
located in the township at block 164, lot 5.01 and at block 144, lot 73.01 in accordance with the request of the property owners. >> Motion to open to the public. Motion open public. Second. All
>> in favor? I. >> Anyone from the public? I'm seeing none. >> Motion to close. >> Second. All >> in favor? I. >> I'll make a motion to adopt ordinance 25-45. >> Second.
>> Councilman Nadell. >> Yes. >> Councilman Rubel. >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor Fischer. >> Yes. >> Mayor Leio. >> Yes. >> Thank you. The ordinance is adopted. Ordinance 0-25-46. An ordinance authorizing the tax collector to cancel any and all taxes
for the tax years 2024 2025 due on block 164.03 lot 43 owned by Aavis Chesade Foundation pursuant to and accordance with NJSA 54-3.6C. >> Motion of the public.
>> Second. >> All in favor? I >> I. >> Anyone from the public? you. >> No, no, just come up. Come up. >> Come up. Come up. >> Just real quick, your name. >> Yeah. Judith Lucas 570 School Road. Why
are they asking for no tax? >> This is This property since the 70s has been a school. It's on 524 and they changed ownership and they uh >> it's basically due to a clerical error. couple years ago they uh >> the paperwork never got filed appropriately and it's it's been off the
tax roles for decades. >> Yes, we looked believe me when we tell you we looked into this very thoroughly to make sure and we were given the information we see and this property for decades has not been on the tax roles. It's a a Jewish school with some housing on it. >> So they're going to continue to be
taxfree even after this year. I mean 20. >> Yeah. Well, they did they >> they updated the paperwork. It was it was >> the grandfather in it's a school just like >> it was a change it was a change of ownership and that's got that >> that's what happened. >> Yeah. They're otherwise entitled to that tax exemption.
>> Yeah. It's just grandfather. We're not trying there's no nefarious thing going on here. There's >> and there's no cost to the township by doing this. >> Okay. >> Thank you for your concern. >> Yes. >> Next >> motion close. Motion motion to close public. Yeah.
>> Motion close public. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. Motion to adopt. >> Second. >> Councilman Nadell. >> Yes. >> Councilman Rubel. >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor Fischer. >> Yes. >> Mayor Leio. >> Yes. >> Thank you. The ordinance is adopted. Ordinance 0-2547,
an ordinance amending and supplementing chapter 5 of the recre I'm sorry, of the township code to establish a new recreational advisory committee within the township of Howell. >> Motion public. Second. >> All in favor? >> I.
>> Anyone from the public? >> You do not have five minutes. Just let you know. >> I No, I don't need five minutes. Uh Larry White 15 runway. Uh at the beginning of the year, the council said that they were going to be creating uh
boards and and advisory commissions to the town to involve the public more and improve the quality of life. This is one of those things and I commend you for it. Thank you. >> Motion to close. >> Motion to close. Public >> second. >> All in favor?
>> I. >> Motion to adopt. Motion to adopt ordinance 25-47. >> Second. >> Councilman Nadell, >> yes. >> Councilman Reubel, >> yes. >> Deputy Mayor Fischer, >> yes. >> Mayor Leio, >> yes.
>> Thank you. The orange is adopted. O-25-49, an ordinance amending chapter 2, article 1, the council of the township Howell Township Code to update agenda preparation deadlines and late add-ons. Motion to open. >> Motion open to public. Second.
>> All in favor? >> I. >> Anyone from the public? >> I'm seeing none. >> Motion closed. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Motion to adopt. >> Motion to adopt. >> Second. >> Councilman Naidell.
>> Yes. >> Councilman Rubel. >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor Fischer. >> Yes. >> Mayor Leio. >> Yes. >> Thank you. The ordinance is adopted. There are no introduction of ordinances at this time. So everyone here we're at at the end of the meeting
2025's last meeting. Our next scheduled meeting will take place. It will be our reorg meeting January 6, 2026 at 5:00 p.m. And that meeting will include uh the professionals that we hire for 26 and
all other official township business. So with that said, seeing no further business, I make a motion to close. >> Uh before uh we make a motion to adjourn, just want to congratulate Mayor Leio for making it through his first year up here.
>> CONGRATULATIONS. >> I appreciate. >> Yeah, I appreciate that. And motion to adjurnn. Second. Second. >> All in favor? >> I thank you everyone. >> Merry Christmas. Happy new year. Thank you guys.