This is back as a first reading ordinance, there might be some changes but basically it is not a good deal for JC. For those who did not see, here is the video of Michael Yun explaining why this deal is wrong:
http://youtu.be/ZDV_rM0qPlw?list=UUPZCDR4rCUMJtCl7__MaEag

dtjcview -- All good questions. Please ask them at the Council meeting when the lease is back on the agenda....or send a letter to all our council members with a copy of to the Jersey Journal.

I'm surprised Fulop with his Finance background, backs this. The developer profit isn't quite $45m - $16m = $29m - that misses the cost of financing - the interest the developer could earn on their $16m investment over 25 years.

But it's still a very high profit - $5-10 million for near zero risk. A 4-5% fixed rate loan, on $16m over 25 years costs costs $35-$40m to repay - see total payments & total interest below.

Why doesn't the City bond $16m itself and repay over 25 years for much less? Or repay the developer by other means, like granting other building permits that generate revenue?

My bet is that there is some other financial shenanigans going on - that doesn't simply involve a developer payback. Like keeping the deal off the books when it comes to reporting level of City debt.

Quote:

This is a terrible deal for JC. Fulop knows this. Floating Rates are what put Orange County, CA into bankruptcy back in 1994. It never hurts to look at history on these sort of "deals."

JC should not be in the interest rate hedging game. They will get fleeced on pricing by any bank and it is definitely not a core competence of anyone working at City Hall.

Fulop should be embarassed by this proposal and kudos to Brigid for mulling thru the documents and putting it in plain English...

This is why banks and Investment Firms love working with cities and municipalities, it is so easy to scalp them on deals. Guess who is the Patsy at the table?

if you have interest in city taxes and spending, please read thru the write up - there are some great diagrams and charts -
http://civicparent.org/2014/09/city-h ... rns-about-the-fine-print/

City Hall Annex: Concerns About the Fine Print
By Brigid D'Souza | September 8, 2014

Jersey City currently rents office space at several locations other than City Hall for a total of about $2.7 million per year. City Hall Annex MapTo cut costs and give residents a single location (other than City Hall) to access services, the City wants to create a City Hall Annex (?the Annex?). A key question has become: how much money should the City pay for the new space?

Under Mayor Fulop?s proposal ? codified in Ordinance 14.099 ? the City would enter into a 25-year lease with a developer for a cumulative cost of $45 million. In year 26, the City could purchase the building for $1.

Mr. Fulop?s proposal received initial approval from the City Council on August 18th. It now requires one more vote ? scheduled for September 10th ? to be finalized.

City Hall Annex Timeline v2At the August 18th Caucus meeting, City officials cited the merits of Mr. Fulop?s proposal, including:

The proposal lowers rent from the current rate of $2.7 million/year to between $1.28 and $2.4 million/year.
The proposal spreads the cost of a long-term asset (a new building) over a long-term timeline, thus freeing up funds for other expenses.

But a closer reading of the fine print reveals potential flaws with Mr. Fulop?s plan:

The lease agreement bonds the City to 25-years of rent with no escape clause.
The lease agreement requires the City to pay adjustable interest for a majority of the lease term.
The lease agreement provides an approximate 64% profit margin for the private developer.

Let?s take a closer look at the three fine print items.

Fine Print Item #1: This is a ?Bond? Lease (aka ?Hell or High Water? Lease)

With a bond lease, all risk is transferred from the landlord to the renter. There is no escape clause; ?come hell or high water,? the renter must pay for the entire lease term, even if the building is partially or fully destroyed. This type of lease is similar to the interest paying obligation on bonded debt, thus its name, ?bond lease.?

Bond lease info graphic v2As a concept, a bond lease is not ?bad? or ?good?; it is simply a financial instrument that serves a specific purpose for landlord and tenant in a specific context. However, a bond lease passes risk from owner to renter, regardless of unforeseen circumstances that may harm the renter. This risk is important for taxpayers to understand.

Fine Print Item #2: The City Must Pay Variable Interest Rates

The bond lease contains annual payments that increase over time. For instance, the City will pay $1.28 million rent in year 1, $1.67 million rent in year 10, and $2.42 million rent in year 25. This gradual increase presumably accounts for inflation. Yet despite these increasing payments over time, the lease binds the City to adjustable interest rates above 4.6%.

Rent schedule w callouts vfinal2

Variable interest rates are an inherent financial risk that companies deal with in the ordinary course of business. Companies generally hedge this risk. Yet Ordinance 14.099 provides no explanation about how the City will hedge the risk of rising interest rates.

Fine Print Item #3: Developer Profit Margin May be as High as 64%

Every developer must earn profit, otherwise he would have no incentive to do business. But as taxpayers, we should understand the profit we are funding.

Ordinance 14.099 is effectively a 78-page lease contract between Jersey City and a private corporation named Jersey City Municipal, LLC (?JCM LLC?). The contract was not put out to bid; the land is owned by the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency (JCRA) and there is no legal requirement to solicit multiple bids. JCM LLC was formed in April 2014 and is owned by Brandywine, a Pennsylvania-based developer that currently manages ?the Hub,? a commercial property complex where the new Annex will be located. According to NJ.com, the Hub has been a ?financial hole? for Jersey City and Brandywine; further, Jersey City owed Brandywine $262,000 in back commissions as of June 2014.

Cost Breakdown-CH AnnexFIXEDv2Under this lease plan, total revenues to JCM LLC are $45 million. The cost to build the new Annex can be estimated at approximately $16 million (based on a $215 per square foot cost estimate for new commercial construction from RSMeans, a research company that compiles construction cost estimates). Thus JCM LLC?s profit would be approximately $29 million, or 64% margin. This 64% profit margin does not directly account for inflation.

According to research firm IBIS World, average profit margin for U.S., nonresidential commercial construction ranged from 4.84% in 2006 to 0.78% in 2010.

Some Civic Questions

The Mayor?s lease proposal contains fine print that demands answers from taxpayers. When average taxpayers speak up, the City Council listens. Here are some questions you should ask the Mayor and your Council members:

Why was this project not put out to bid? While the JCRA is not required to solicit bids, wouldn?t a bid process be more transparent?
Should the City enter into a 25-year bondable lease? Is this type of lease typical for municipalities?
Is the City exploring other alternatives, such as Mr. Yun?s plan to build the annex, or using an existing City building that may be vacant (e.g. the old Golden Door Charter School, aka the PS 37 Annex, located at 9th and Marin)?
Does Jersey City have a plan to hedge its risk associated with rising interest rates from years 6 through 25 of the lease?
What is the maximum potential cost if interest rates do rise above 4.6%?
What is the typical profit margin for new commercial construction in northern NJ/tri-state?
If the City Council approves this lease, will 64% profit margin be expected from other developers who want to do business with the City?
The developer will pay zero property taxes on the Annex (since the Annex is a public building and thus exempt from property taxes). Has the City Council factored this cost reduction into its analysis?
If Jersey City currently owes the developer unpaid commissions, could this unusually high profit margin be interpreted as a quid pro quo attempt to make the developer whole on prior losses?

Quote:
My mistake. Ms. Paige is a moron.

I wrote that Joan Terrell Paige was the aide to the late Councilwoman Melissa Holloway. Holloway passed away around 2005. Actually, she was an effective councilperson. This letter is from Joan Terrell Paige.

Quote:
Clearly, Ms. Holloway is a moron. How do stores "return" if there is no one to shop there? Obviously she's not following the logic of placing people that have jobs in the area which may need stores for lunch.

Joan Terrell Paige, former aide to the late Councilwoman Melissa Holloway, Ward F wrote this:

On September 10, 2014, the Jersey City Council will vote on building a new city hall annex in Ward F on MLK Drive. It will face the HUB. I am requesting you email members of the city council and encourage them to vote NO to a new city hall annex. Ask them instead to vote YES to bring back the stores that were evicted from the HUB by the previous administration. Be aware ... the current mayor and two council members on this council sat on the previous administration while the systematic destruction occured in the HUB. This blight on our community was created by elected officials and staff of the JCRA and Brandywine (the Pennsylvania realty firm that operates the HUB). Why should Brandywine build a new city hall after the mismanagement of the HUB?

The erection of a new city hall annex will provide two offices for the Mayor and other staff and no real benefit to Ward F residents. The HUB offered local shopping capability for our senior community and others. We seniors have no organized voice and we deserve to be treated better. The homes and businesses of long term Black residents were destroyed to make room for the HUB. The HUB can bring rental dollars in to the coffers of the city administration if it is managed properly.

We lost a dress shop, a shoe store, a dollar store (a different one was returned); a laundry mat and several minority owned entrepreneurs were operating businesses there; as well as a community garden operated by the Friends of the Lifers (a program operated for returning prisoners to their homes in Jersey City). A bank operated by Bank of America left and promises to replace it has never materialized.
I say STOP creating blight in our community. Bring back our stores. A NO vote on the building of a new city hall annex will indicate a renewed effort for local residents to have a major say in what happens in our community.

Hudson County View: Michael Yun speaks again
http://hudsoncountyview.com/councilma ... sponds-lavarro-criticism/

remember this bad deal -

http://www.nj.com/hudson/voices/index ... building_vote_proves.html

Editorial: Building vote proves council is inept
By The Jersey Journal

How much more evidence is needed to show that the people of Jersey City are being ill-served by those members of the City Council whose strings are being pulled by a City Hall administration that cares little for the taxpayer or well-being of its citizens. This is either an intellectually deficient or a sinister bunch in power.

The latest exhibit for the court of public opinion came last week, when the council approved bonding that would allow the city Parking Authority to buy the building that the agency has been renting at 392-394 Central Ave.

The purchase price was a highly questionable, $4.2 million in a down real estate market. Actions of these of elected officials in providing the agency with a go-ahead to buy this building is tantamount to malfeasance.

These self-appointed masters of investment and property acquisition refused to pay the $500 or so for a new appraisal of the building. Instead, they were content to rely on a year 2000 appraisal when the real estate market was booming. Their ineptitude was so blatant that it is easy to suggest their actions may have been planned.

Among those who approved the funding was Councilwoman Nidia Lopez, who has some trouble filing New Jersey tax returns. Another was Councilman Mariano Vega, who has so badly botched his campaign filings with state ELEC that it is difficult to accurately determine who donated to his war chest in May's municipal race. These are people who should not be making decisions with taxpayers' money.

The ordinance was introduced with a 5-4 vote but bond ordinances need six votes for approval on the second reading. Conveniently, it was Vega -- who once frighteningly chaired the city Tax Enhancement Committee -- changed his vote to yes. The councilman, who faces federal corruption charges and refuses to step down claiming he did nothing wrong, said he was convinced by supporters that this was a good deal for the city. He made this explanation with a straight face.

Downtown Councilman Steve Fulop, Ward F Councilwoman Viola Richardson and Councilwoman at large Willie Flood did the right thing by voting against the bond ordinance. Fulop argued for the new appraisal and noted that one of the property owners contributed to the Team (Mayor Jerramiah) Healy slate in this year's election.

Perhaps a review of past real estate deals approved by this City Council is a necessity. This city government cannot be trusted.

Hudson County View: Council President Lavarro speaks against Councilman Yun's proposal on building instead of renting.http://hudsoncountyview.com/council-p ... nnex-blasts-yun-proposal/

Councilman Michael Yun's plan for a city hall annex.

http://youtu.be/ZDV_rM0qPlw

Jersey City Council member proposes alternative plan to City Hall annex

The Jersey Journal By Terrence T. McDonald


Jersey City's plan to build a $20 million City Hall annex on Martin Luther King
Drive will be the focus of a meeting tomorrow evening hosted by one of the plan's opponents.

Michael Yun, who represents the Jersey City Heights on the City Council, is inviting residents to a meeting at 346 Central Ave., beginning at 7 p.m., to discuss the city's plan, which involves leasing the space from a developer at a cost of $45 million over 25 years.

Yun wants the city itself to construct the three-story facility instead of farming out the job to a developer. Yun says his plan would save the city $30 million by using bonds and some of the city's surplus, but city officials say his plan would result in a tax increase.

I asked that question at the last council meeting, it is redevelopment property, therefore there will be no property taxes paid. We also pay the maintenance.

are we paying double of what this building would cost to build?

the location is fine. even if Journal Square is better suited, it is a policy decision to attempt to invigorate the HUB area. there is ample bus service and the light rail is adjacent.

the lease agreement provides for only a partial build out and the time frame for occupancy may be greater.

it is not clear as to why there will be no property taxes paid to Jersey City, and the net impact.

some of the news articles (including today's JC Reporter) peg the cost of the building at $15m including contingency, which make the cost of the lease outrageous. the savings in rent from consolidating offices and moving to this location may be completely absorbed. let's get a better idea of the projected cost for this building, if the city were to building it for itself.

I understand the city wants to minimize its immediate bite out of the budget, but we have to start thinking medium and long term and not keep kicking the can down the road.

Its a great idea to move offices to this area. After all, we cant expect private investors to build and operate useful stuff in this area if the city itself has no confidence in the area.

I am in total support of this plan, and hope that the ridiculously unfriendly trailer roundup on Summit Ave. will quickly close down and transition to the Jackson Av location.

The city could save that expense if it took over some space at that white elephant that is called County Plaza. You also have plenty of parking.

The city would pay the maintenance and operating expenses anyway.

$22MM to $24MM today is worth more than $45MM over that many years at a very modest rate of return. The city would probably pay more to build it itself and float bonds for it.

$45m in payments over time
no taxes
city pays own maintenance
redundant offices

why cannot the city just build it ourselves?

has this deal been put out to bid with other developers?

why can't cost projections be more specific?

does not pass the smell test

$22MM today is worth that much over time. That's the magic of time value of money. It's not an inordinate amount of growth. I would be shamed if I couldn't double the money in my 401k over the course of 25 years.

I went to the caucus meeting, the developer said it would cost $22 to $24 million. But we will pay $45 million in rent, no property taxes and we will pay the maintenance.

Jersey City would pay $45M in rent over 25 years for proposed City Hall annex

By Terrence T. McDonald | The Jersey Journal
on August 21, 2014 at 3:39 PM

Jersey City would pay a total of $45 million in rent over 25 years for a proposed City Hall annex on Martin Luther King Drive under the terms of a lease that won initial approval from the City Council last night.

The city, which would lease the 60,000-square-foot facility from developer Brandywine, would then have the option to buy the annex for $1. Brandywine would pay for construction, which the city estimates would cost between $14 million and $20 million, while the city would take care of maintenance.

Mayor Steve Fulop has said the proposed three-story annex, which would be located on a currently vacant lot outside the Hub shopping center, is the city's attempt to invest in the heart of the inner city, an area that has struggled economically.

The annex would also allow the city to cut back on rent payments. It pays about $3 million annually to rent space for some of the departments who would move to the annex.

Read more from the Jersey Journal

Quote:

I want a 1,000 square foot office. You realize that's like 25x40, right? You could play hockey in there.

Why must the public be saddled with $45 million? It comes out of our tax dollars. I am for changing the Hub, but you don't do that by placing all affordable housing in one area, Fulop is right on that point. Secondly, there are many in the area who are not in favor of this. Taxpayers are on the hook for County Plaza and well as the new proposed county courthouse. We are also paying the bills for the new police station in the West District. This is the reason, 2,300 people this year are in lien. It is the bonding debt that has increased. Our gross debt is nearly $900 million. Didn't Fulop promise transparency? So it is OK for Fulop to give a sweetheart deal but let's only pounce on Healy when he was mayor.

Quote:

And the potential for drawing investors and businesses to an area in desparate need of any type of revitalization is not worth the risk? Is it a chance? Yep. But someone needs to take it and I'm glad that someone is willing to take it, win, lose or draw.

EVERYTHING that occurs in Jersey City just bothers you. Since you are the only expert on everything but can't get elected, why don't you move to some little town where your wisdom will overwhelm the local yokels and you will get all the positive reinforcement you so desparately seek.

By the way, I ventured downtown during rush hour last night to check out the pedestrian plaza. It was kind of nice strolling up the street, I hope it catches on. There were a couple of picnic tables set up and a piano player in the middle of the street. It wasn't crowded and those there seemed to enjoy it. AND YOU WILL NEVER GUESS WHAT! I walked all the way down to the end, around Jersey Ave., and there were no traffic jams, no screaming or cursing.

have you ever been to a city, especially in nj, where the developer doesn't get a sweetheart deal