|
Post by diogenes on Feb 17, 2014 13:39:20 GMT -5
Ironically, this strong desire Dexter spoke of has resulted in a pattern of preserved lands (some 'for infinity" be it for agriculture, views or whatever0 that a highway by-pass of Gettysburg for through thrucks is not feasible...a tunnel was proposed but PennDOT saas one tube is not possible, that there has to be a separate tube for west bound and one for east bound traffic...cost of construction last quoted by PennDOT (2010) was 3 million per mile plus 1 million annually for maintenance. Traffic patterns are a factor to be considered...
|
|
|
Post by Alex Oreilly on Feb 17, 2014 20:39:32 GMT -5
I'm not trying to defend the practice of using govt. funds to preserve farms; only trying to stick with facts, as best as I know them (which isn't saying a whole lot). So the fact is that a majority of Adams County residents wish to maintain the rural nature of this county. The county has had a AgLand Preservation Program for well over 20 years. I think most of their funding comes through PA Department of Agriculture leveraged with County money. More recently a referendum was placed on the ballot concerning upto 10 million dollars to continue and expand this philosophy of purchasing easements on farmland, important forestlands and other open space, but, I am pretty sure that this money, although not disallowed, hasn't been used to offset the funding AgLand preservation uses. I think that the only moneys from that bond went to the Gladfelter property?? There is a well established non-profit organization called the Land Conservancy of Adams County that has the ability to seek out grants and other funding sources to do a very similar thing. I know that the AgLand Preservation Program administered by that County Office of Planning and Development has very strict and well enforced rules on the process they use to preserve a farm, while the LCAC has more flexibility in how they do it. They certainly make use of many funding sources for their efforts and receive moneys and support from the county. Now, I'm not as sure on the Green Space Commission mentioned by Moose. They are using, I believe special funding from the State Department of Environmental Protection for their source of revenue leveraged against other sources (including the approved bond money). I can't speak on their process of picking sites or how they go through the process of buying easements. Clean and Green is even less understood by me. Except to say that the intent of this program is to give some tax relief to "larger" land owners which typically means farmers. It has restrictions in regards to having to pay back a portion of the tax savings if/when the site is developed, but, it places no restrictions on doing so. Whereas the other programs purchase easements (most all are forever) that severely restrict what and how the property can be "developed". Obviously Moose has posed several questions to the county concerning the way that they administer this program, but, he understands that way more than I do. So, now that I've cleared absolutely NOTHING up with my feeble explanation, I will end by saying that there exists in this county a large number of residents who wish to maintain that rural nature of the county and several options exist for LCAC and the County to develop preservation areas within the county and the County has historically received much support from the residents for doing so. Except for certain parts of Gettysburg that have already been zoned commercial, Adams Countians want business there.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Blonde on Feb 18, 2014 11:03:30 GMT -5
Alex, that's a ridiculous blanket statement.
And to add......Why can't there be both? Why can't we find a balance between green space and commercial development? There's absolutely no reason that a person has to be on one side of this argument or the other. I want open and green space and I want some commercial development as well. The idea that you believe in one or the other is asinine, there are too many people on both sides of this issue that only see black and white without seeing the gray.
|
|
|
Post by paulkellett on Feb 18, 2014 21:04:37 GMT -5
Let me take a stab at it. Clean and Green: NOT a county program, administered (very questionably) by the county, The state decided that larger land owners should not have to sell their land to pay their taxes. Farmers often have a several million dollar asset ( land and machinery) and are lucky to make $50,000. /year. So the state came up with market value/ use value. If a farmer farms his land >10 acres, the value as farm land is to be taxed. These values are calculated by the state. If he develops the farm he is supposed to pay 7 years "rollback Taxes". or the savings he enjoyed for the last seven years.
There is also Clean and green Ag reserve/ Forest reserve. The difference is that the 1st acre is taxed at market rates, the remainder is taxed at use rates. The idea is that houses are not there, so do not tax as if a subdivision is in place. (for reasons of full disclosure, my 17 acre homestead is in this category). In both ag and the reserve categories, the house and outbuildings receive no preferential treatment. I pay full value on my house and the first acre and then less on the remaining acres. ( In my defense, one : it is the law, why be a martyr?, two: if you look at the C&G value I pay taxes on, it is what I think is the true market value of my place). Moose is absolutely right.
Land preservation: a county program that uses county funds to purchase easements, generally 1/3 county 2/3 state federal. The idea is to purchase permanent no development easements on farm land using a county match to get 2/3 state and federal money. A one time payment and not more than ( currently or in the past ) $2,800./acre. This does not change their tax assessment nor does it change clean and green numbers. It it has never been used for small acreage holdings.
Land Conservancy of Adams County: similar to ag land preservation, but generally uses donated easements, sometimes works in tandem with ag land preservation but can help when a parcel is not all ag. Example: Boyer's nursery, had a large fruit holdings but also ground that was not used in ag, Land conservancy raised the money to survey and draft a legal document preserving the balance of the land. The land conservancy is not a county agency, it is a 501C3 and only receives office space from the county, nothing else. The state and federal funds can only be used to preserve farmed land and sometimes other parcels or mixed parcels may be reasonable to preserve. Again, regardless, the LCAC or Ag land, does not change the assessment, I agree with Mr. Blonde, that a balance not only can be struck, but needs to be struck. ( makes me hated by all) We need to be smart about where development occurs, and where preservation occurs. MY example: some preservationists think that the land between Giant Foods and Staples should be preserved because a Civil war hospital was there. Me? I say bring on the dozers.
|
|
|
Post by Venter on Feb 19, 2014 11:22:32 GMT -5
Oh yeah Paul, that made it SO MUCH MORE Understandable. I'm going to open up a Calculus Textbook for a bit of lighter reading
|
|
|
Post by Venter on Feb 20, 2014 10:34:17 GMT -5
Just a Reminder to everyone:The Meeting is 7:00pm Monday, February 24, at The Links at Gettysburg.
Hopefully we don't get into a "TIFF" over this
|
|
|
Post by dcaddy on Feb 24, 2014 14:19:48 GMT -5
REMINDER TONIGHT THE MEETING: To all my FB Friends and Family! All Residents and Business owners, IMPORTANT! A 2000 home development for 55+ to be built over 10 years in Adams County Straban Twp. Hunterstown exit off 15 N. This development means over 2500 jobs, millions in revenue and tax relief. Your support is needed. Come meet developer Robert H Karen of Symphony Development Group. See his plans, hear the details. This development is slated to start by this summers end. We need your support! Rick and Bonnie Klein owner/builder of The Links, are hosting this event. Lite food and drinks provided. If You are PRO GROWTH please come. Don't let this opportunity pass us by! Feb 24th 7 pm at the "The Links at Gettysburg" clubhouse, 601 mason Dixon Road, Gettysburg Pa
|
|
|
Post by redlock on Feb 24, 2014 22:16:57 GMT -5
So, who went? How many years are these "2500 Jobs" projected to last?
|
|
Dexter
Supreme Poster
Posts: 261
|
Post by Dexter on Feb 25, 2014 7:41:02 GMT -5
I didn't go, didn't need to. This is the greatest thing to happen to Adams County since sliced bread. This is the most awesome development with the most awesome business plan ever. There will be 250 homes sold each year and this thing will go like gang-busters! Oh, and by the way, it will need TIF to succeed!
|
|
|
Post by lifesaver on Feb 25, 2014 9:53:51 GMT -5
Redlock, I attended the meeting and was really glad that I went. Too much information to condense here. There will be more meetings, and the developers have realized that there needs to be additional venues to get the information out to the public. There were numerous questions posed at the meeting. Very thoughtful and legitimate questions. TIF financing was the basis for most of them, a few about job creation. No question went unanswered. It was apparent that they were prepared to answer all questions. And yes, jobs will be created with this project, in addition to the construction jobs created by the project itself (Promised by the developer to go to local companies).
Suffice it to say, after some reservations (mostly due to the TIF financing) about the project, I am now fully onboard in support.
Dexter, I will counter to you that you don't have to be supportive of TIF financing but can still find yourself supportive of the project.
But neither of you should take my word for it. Come to one of the meetings, or look for additional venues coming at some point where you can hear all the information and make an informed decision.
|
|
|
Post by zapman on Feb 25, 2014 10:37:22 GMT -5
LAST NIGHT DISCOVERY GETTYSBURG MEETING: The developer and his team including Rick Klein were very prepared to answer every single question and concerns. TIF was the big topic. After hearing many concerns and the answers, everyone there was satisfied in a positive way regarding this coming development. I am mow on board as I was not 100% before. I wish more folk would attend next meeting. I understand is already in the works in aout 30 days. If you missed this one, you should definetely go to next one! Exciting and a welcomed plan for growth. The 3 taxing bodies have nothing to lose, and everything to gain along with every resident and usiness owner in Adams!
|
|
|
Post by Venter on Feb 25, 2014 12:26:44 GMT -5
I'll have to respond later. So much info to absorb, that I haven't had time to process and type. I will say that the meeting was very informational.
I believe this can work! More later...
|
|
|
Post by Alex Oreilly on Feb 25, 2014 16:05:54 GMT -5
I went as well and one of the main things that was cleared up was that the Developers are NOT receiving a Government/Municipal Bond this is Private Investors investing in this Proposal. So the risk is on the Developer and the Private Bond Holders and not any taxpayers or taxing body.
|
|
davew
Poster Child
Posts: 308
|
Post by davew on Feb 25, 2014 16:53:58 GMT -5
So, the bond is set up and used for infrastructure. Private investors take the risk that the bond isn't paid back.
Who is actually paying the bond payments - does that come from future tax money? If it does, it's not exactly a private transaction, it's just privatized risk, and the rate will be set accordingly.
If it's completely private, i'm not sure how it's a TIF.
When I say completely private, I mean that the development is made and the county receives fully assessed revenue off of the properties like it would any other properties, and there is no diversion of revenue at any future date.
|
|
|
Post by paulkellett on Feb 25, 2014 21:58:24 GMT -5
It is a sold bond, "guaranteed" by the developer, not the taxpayer, but again, what happens if the sales fall short of the mark for several years? The developer says that he has a reserve fund for 2-3 years payments, but if you have to sell 250 homes a year for 8 years and you do not sell half of them, well the math says that 2-3 years of reserves are gone, and the bond is in default. Do they come back and say, hey, can we run this out over a few more years? Do the improvements that were built with TIF financing get auctioned off at a sheriff's sale? Second, what they are talking about building with the tax money is improvements to their own development, so again I will state that I think that it is unfair for me to say hey, I will put an addition on my house, use the increase in property taxes I will owe to pay for it and when it is paid for, then you will get the full tax value of my addition. They would not agree to that, and the developer is just asking for this on a much larger scale. Unfair to other developments, builders, and a bad precedent.
|
|
|
Post by redlock on Feb 25, 2014 22:24:47 GMT -5
Redlock, I attended the meeting and was really glad that I went. Too much information to condense here. There will be more meetings, and the developers have realized that there needs to be additional venues to get the information out to the public. There were numerous questions posed at the meeting. Very thoughtful and legitimate questions. TIF financing was the basis for most of them, a few about job creation. No question went unanswered. It was apparent that they were prepared to answer all questions. And yes, jobs will be created with this project, in addition to the construction jobs created by the project itself (Promised by the developer to go to local companies). Suffice it to say, after some reservations (mostly due to the TIF financing) about the project, I am now fully onboard in support. Dexter, I will counter to you that you don't have to be supportive of TIF financing but can still find yourself supportive of the project. But neither of you should take my word for it. Come to one of the meetings, or look for additional venues coming at some point where you can hear all the information and make an informed decision. Ok, back to my question. Was it stated how long these jobs are expected to last? I am unable to attend these meetings, ever. I work 15-17 hours a day. Even if I had time off from one of the jobs, I have too much other stuff to do and can never catch up.
|
|
|
Post by lifesaver on Feb 25, 2014 23:35:49 GMT -5
Redlock, I attended the meeting and was really glad that I went. Too much information to condense here. There will be more meetings, and the developers have realized that there needs to be additional venues to get the information out to the public. There were numerous questions posed at the meeting. Very thoughtful and legitimate questions. TIF financing was the basis for most of them, a few about job creation. No question went unanswered. It was apparent that they were prepared to answer all questions. And yes, jobs will be created with this project, in addition to the construction jobs created by the project itself (Promised by the developer to go to local companies). Suffice it to say, after some reservations (mostly due to the TIF financing) about the project, I am now fully onboard in support. Dexter, I will counter to you that you don't have to be supportive of TIF financing but can still find yourself supportive of the project. But neither of you should take my word for it. Come to one of the meetings, or look for additional venues coming at some point where you can hear all the information and make an informed decision. Ok, back to my question. Was it stated how long these jobs are expected to last? I am unable to attend these meetings, ever. I work 15-17 hours a day. Even if I had time off from one of the jobs, I have too much other stuff to do and can never catch up. There are projected numbers, but simply put....the construction jobs for the community itself will last over a period of 20 years. Other jobs will be created by a trickle down effect of those that move into the Discovery Community, whether it is jobs within the community, stores, gas, service stations, grocery stores, restaurants etc. as well as the possibility that some of the community members may start their own businesses. It will attract new stores and restaurants which will also bring jobs. They're not just pulling numbers out of their butts, they provided facts and figures from other similar communities throughout the country to back their claims.
|
|
|
Post by lifesaver on Feb 25, 2014 23:50:28 GMT -5
It is a sold bond, "guaranteed" by the developer, not the taxpayer, but again, what happens if the sales fall short of the mark for several years? The developer says that he has a reserve fund for 2-3 years payments, but if you have to sell 250 homes a year for 8 years and you do not sell half of them, well the math says that 2-3 years of reserves are gone, and the bond is in default. Do they come back and say, hey, can we run this out over a few more years? Do the improvements that were built with TIF financing get auctioned off at a sheriff's sale? Second, what they are talking about building with the tax money is improvements to their own development, so again I will state that I think that it is unfair for me to say hey, I will put an addition on my house, use the increase in property taxes I will owe to pay for it and when it is paid for, then you will get the full tax value of my addition. They would not agree to that, and the developer is just asking for this on a much larger scale. Unfair to other developments, builders, and a bad precedent. Joe Schmoe couldn't ask for TIF financing to put an addition on his house. And I doubt Joe the Builder could either to build his development. But a building project that has been proven as an economic generator all over the country could, as long as they jump through all the hoops the government requires to be eligible for TIF financing. And they have. This isn't some pie in the sky dream, the developer has over 40 years experience with this type of community and a proven track record of success. What if the project moves along exactly how they say it will? And I will say the same to you as I said to Dexter. You don't have to support TIF to be supportive of the Discovery Project.
|
|
davew
Poster Child
Posts: 308
|
Post by davew on Feb 26, 2014 8:42:34 GMT -5
It is a sold bond, "guaranteed" by the developer, not the taxpayer, but again, what happens if the sales fall short of the mark for several years? The developer says that he has a reserve fund for 2-3 years payments, but if you have to sell 250 homes a year for 8 years and you do not sell half of them, well the math says that 2-3 years of reserves are gone, and the bond is in default. Do they come back and say, hey, can we run this out over a few more years? Do the improvements that were built with TIF financing get auctioned off at a sheriff's sale? Second, what they are talking about building with the tax money is improvements to their own development, so again I will state that I think that it is unfair for me to say hey, I will put an addition on my house, use the increase in property taxes I will owe to pay for it and when it is paid for, then you will get the full tax value of my addition. They would not agree to that, and the developer is just asking for this on a much larger scale. Unfair to other developments, builders, and a bad precedent. Yeah, the guarantee doesn't amount to much to me. To say that there is no risk to the public isn't the case. The risk is that siphoning off 2/3rds of the county taxes from those properties to repay the bond leaves the county short of money needed to provide services related to those citizens. It sounds like they've done a very good job telling part of the story so it sounds like the developer is on the hook for everything and everyone else will somehow make money on the whole deal. But the issue not being dealt with is 60 million of prospective county revenue that would be used for county services is diverted to repay a bond that isn't uniformly distributed to county residents. It's for the benefit of a development. What's the chance the residents of the home put more of a drain than what's left of their county taxes (after bond repayment). In terms of the private bond guarantee, that sounds nice, but guarantees are priced into the bond, and as you say, what is described as a privatized backing is often a partially privatized backing that has a social safetey net when things don't work out. However, the interest on the bond is priced for the guarantee being taken on by someone else (as in, it cost more to pay it back because the guarantor demands compensation for the assumed risk). I still think the development sounds fine, but the TIF stinks. If I had to vote for it (lucky for the folks who don't like due diligence, I don't), I'd vote down the TIF and approve the development if that's possible. Too much of the county revenue is diverted to the bond.
|
|
|
Post by lifesaver on Feb 26, 2014 9:41:18 GMT -5
It is a sold bond, "guaranteed" by the developer, not the taxpayer, but again, what happens if the sales fall short of the mark for several years? The developer says that he has a reserve fund for 2-3 years payments, but if you have to sell 250 homes a year for 8 years and you do not sell half of them, well the math says that 2-3 years of reserves are gone, and the bond is in default. Do they come back and say, hey, can we run this out over a few more years? Do the improvements that were built with TIF financing get auctioned off at a sheriff's sale? Second, what they are talking about building with the tax money is improvements to their own development, so again I will state that I think that it is unfair for me to say hey, I will put an addition on my house, use the increase in property taxes I will owe to pay for it and when it is paid for, then you will get the full tax value of my addition. They would not agree to that, and the developer is just asking for this on a much larger scale. Unfair to other developments, builders, and a bad precedent. Yeah, the guarantee doesn't amount to much to me. To say that there is no risk to the public isn't the case. The risk is that siphoning off 2/3rds of the county taxes from those properties to repay the bond leaves the county short of money needed to provide services related to those citizens. It sounds like they've done a very good job telling part of the story so it sounds like the developer is on the hook for everything and everyone else will somehow make money on the whole deal. But the issue not being dealt with is 60 million of prospective county revenue that would be used for county services is diverted to repay a bond that isn't uniformly distributed to county residents. It's for the benefit of a development. What's the chance the residents of the home put more of a drain than what's left of their county taxes (after bond repayment). In terms of the private bond guarantee, that sounds nice, but guarantees are priced into the bond, and as you say, what is described as a privatized backing is often a partially privatized backing that has a social safetey net when things don't work out. However, the interest on the bond is priced for the guarantee being taken on by someone else (as in, it cost more to pay it back because the guarantor demands compensation for the assumed risk). I still think the development sounds fine, but the TIF stinks. If I had to vote for it (lucky for the folks who don't like due diligence, I don't), I'd vote down the TIF and approve the development if that's possible. Too much of the county revenue is diverted to the bond. TIF is the biggest sticking point impeding acceptance of this project, and at first I felt the same way you do. I've been to both meetings concerning the project. I've heard why the TIF financing is necessary, and I'm satisfied with the discussions and explanations concerning repayment of the TIF monies for the project. Looking at the big picture I think this project has the potential to have a positive economic impact on Adams County. To be honest, I don't think you can look just at TIFs and make an informed decision about this project.
|
|
davew
Poster Child
Posts: 308
|
Post by davew on Feb 26, 2014 10:13:09 GMT -5
I'm not looking at urban renewal tifs and making that statement, I'm looking at the fact that a large % of county monies are going to be diverted for a very long time, and before I'd give it the green light, I'd want assurance that the amount of county revenue that's left will fund services and maintenance that will used by the development (whether it's wear and tear on roads, maintenance of utilities, whatever the county could be on the hook for).
I'd imagine the private bond issuer (and this is just a guess) will be setting up the bond, and then selling it on the secondary market (as in, they are the underwriter). I could be wrong, they could set it up and market it directly or hold it and receive payments. I don't know, but the notion that it's just going to be created and risks taken and there isn't a cost to that isn't true.
I think there's some due diligence to be done about future costs. Viewing this from a distance, I guess anyone who wants to do due diligence is always going to be up against "yes" people who feel they may possibly get a piece of the action either directly (in the development) or indirectly (generating revenue from prospective residents), and the school district, too, if the SD looks like they're going to get tax $$ without getting new students.
The fairness issue that paul brings up is also problematic. Do you just start allowing a TIF bond issue for every developer who wants to build more than X# of houses, or do you just pick the developer of this project as the winner and everyone else as the loser? If the project is as great as it's hailed to be, why can't it be done without diverting future tax revenue?
Since I'm viewing from afar, I won't be offended if any of my suppositions are corrected by a difference in fact.
|
|
|
Post by lifesaver on Feb 26, 2014 10:44:06 GMT -5
I'm not looking at urban renewal tifs and making that statement, I'm looking at the fact that a large % of county monies are going to be diverted for a very long time, and before I'd give it the green light, I'd want assurance that the amount of county revenue that's left will fund services and maintenance that will used by the development (whether it's wear and tear on roads, maintenance of utilities, whatever the county could be on the hook for). I'd imagine the private bond issuer (and this is just a guess) will be setting up the bond, and then selling it on the secondary market (as in, they are the underwriter). I could be wrong, they could set it up and market it directly or hold it and receive payments. I don't know, but the notion that it's just going to be created and risks taken and there isn't a cost to that isn't true. I think there's some due diligence to be done about future costs. Viewing this from a distance, I guess anyone who wants to do due diligence is always going to be up against "yes" people who feel they may possibly get a piece of the action either directly (in the development) or indirectly (generating revenue from prospective residents), and the school district, too, if the SD looks like they're going to get tax $$ without getting new students. The fairness issue that paul brings up is also problematic. Do you just start allowing a TIF bond issue for every developer who wants to build more than X# of houses, or do you just pick the developer of this project as the winner and everyone else as the loser? If the project is as great as it's hailed to be, why can't it be done without diverting future tax revenue? Since I'm viewing from afar, I won't be offended if any of my suppositions are corrected by a difference in fact. davew, it would be impossible for me to go into all the detail and information given at that meeting. It wouldn't do the project justice. That's not saying I didn't understand what they were talking about, I did. I knew next to nothing about TIF's (except what the acronym stood for) before this project, and I wasn't too keen on the idea either. They "dumbed it down", so to speak so everyone had an understanding. Not the same as liking TIF's. They get that. The group at the meeting weren't there with the expectation that this was a gold mine just waiting to be had and a savior for all of us in Adams County. Far from it. Lots of hard questions, and they had the answers. One thing that I will say is that this project would not get off the ground today without TIF funding. The developer of the shopping center is also requesting TIF funding, but he is having a more difficult time, not because of the Discovery Project, but because of the business plan itself. That's not to say he won't be successful as well, he just doesn't have all his ducks in a row like Discovery does. If Joe the Builder can jump through all the hoops like Discovery did I suppose they could request TIF funding as well. Knowing what I know now about TIF's I can't see that happening. I don't look to it as an unfair advantage, it's just a reality. If we were in a state that doesn't have TIF funding (38 states have it) we wouldn't be having this conversation about TIF's.
|
|
davew
Poster Child
Posts: 308
|
Post by davew on Feb 26, 2014 10:47:39 GMT -5
If I cut the cost of your development as a large builder by 10% because you have access to future county tax funds at the outset with someone else paying them back, and a smaller developer doesn't because they're not large enough to organize tif funding, etc, then that's an unfair advantage.
Especially when it's funded by money that is otherwise legally someone else's.
the biggest question, though, is whether or not what's left of county taxes will fund the increase in the county's cost to run as a result of the development and its residents.
|
|
|
Post by lifesaver on Feb 26, 2014 13:18:02 GMT -5
If I cut the cost of your development as a large builder by 10% because you have access to future county tax funds at the outset with someone else paying them back, and a smaller developer doesn't because they're not large enough to organize tif funding, etc, then that's an unfair advantage. Especially when it's funded by money that is otherwise legally someone else's. the biggest question, though, is whether or not what's left of county taxes will fund the increase in the county's cost to run as a result of the development and its residents. It has nothing to do with the size of the developer. It has to do with having a plan that meets the standards acceptable to receive TIF funding. The roads, water, and sewer will be maintained by the residents. Water already there, sewer plan approved. My Libertarian leanings would rather not have any government involvement in this project either. Looking at the big picture however I can accept that TIF funding is the only way this will get off the ground. I think you are focusing on a very narrow part of this proposal and there is no way that I can recall all of the information given to support my opinion. It's my understanding that the developers realize they need to come up with something to reach a larger audience. If and when that happens I feel sure it will be able to be accessed here.
|
|
davew
Poster Child
Posts: 308
|
Post by davew on Feb 26, 2014 13:54:02 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm interested in the details for curiosity. The fairness thing, I am not quite so bothered by (government always picks winners and losers, even though they like to claim they level the playing field, they often do more to skew it).
The real question about whether or not other county residents will be picking up the some of the cost of county services and maintenance is a bigger issue to me. If there is any scenario where future county tax dollars are needed to make up for the payment of the tif funds, then I think that's absolutely and clearly (to me) wrong.
|
|