Goya opens new headquarters built with help of New Jersey tax break

Quote:


And I think it was something like 9 net new jobs. Big tax breaks, no contributions to the school system, and 9 jobs.

I don't object to Jersey City trying to encourage jobs and development. But, this was not the great deal that it was advertised to be. The city has got to do a better job in cutting these deals.

One would hope that Goya would 'volunteer' to fund some school projects and be a good neighbor. We shall see.

But, this is a pretty good job by Hudson Reporter on shedding light on this situation.

NJ Attorney General: Goya tax deal okay
State backs Jersey City?s abatement to famous food brand

by E. Assata Wright
Reporter staff writer - Apr 21, 2013

The office of state Attorney General Jeffrey S. Chiesa has upheld Jersey City?s 20-year tax-abatement agreement with Goya Foods Inc. The attorney general?s office made its decision after considering a request by the Town of Secaucus to review the controversial deal that was approved in 2011.

In March, Secaucus asked the attorney general?s office and the state Department of Community Affairs (DCA) to determine whether Jersey City?s tax deal with Goya unfairly allowed the city to keep a $1.1 million payment from a Meadowlands regional tax sharing pool paid into by municipalities in the region, whose largest contributor is Secaucus.

Now that the attorney general has ruled in Jersey City?s favor, Secaucus has retained a law firm to advise the town about its options. While these options are still under review, Secaucus has not ruled out the possibility of challenging the Goya tax deal in court.

?We got the response from the state Attorney General?s Office that we expected to get, which is that [tax abatements] are legal under state law,? said Secaucus Mayor Michael Gonnelli. ?So, we?ve now hired the law firm of Robinson and Cole from Connecticut. They are looking into the matter and will issue a report next month. When we get that report, we?ll see what our options are.?

AG?s Office: No violation of law

According to a memo filed by Secaucus? town attorney with the DCA, the 20-year tax abatement offered to Goya has allowed Jersey City to keep more than $1.1 million annually from a regional tax sharing pool, a pool to which Secaucus contributes more than $2.8 million annually.

Secaucus officials believe that had Goya Foods been forced to pay conventional taxes, Jersey City would have had to forfeit most of this $1.1 million payment and the Secaucus $2.8 million contribution to the tax sharing pool would have been reduced.

In a memo to the DCA dated March 12, Secaucus Town Attorney Anthony D?Elia wrote that, ?Jersey City made a conscious decision to grant a 20-year tax exemption to Goya based upon the understanding that, to do otherwise, would jeopardize a significant portion of the payments due to Jersey City under the?[Inter-Municipal Tax Sharing Plan]. In doing so, Jersey City, in essence, required the district?s paying municipalities to underwrite Jersey City?s generous tax exemption provided to Goya. Jersey City?recognized that it could utilize the payments received from the [Inter-Municipal Tax Sharing Plan] to provide the tax exemption.?

Regional tax-sharing among 14 New Jersey Meadowlands towns was established in the 1970s to compensate the municipalities that were barred by the state from developing environmentally sensitive parts of the area. District towns like Secaucus that were allowed to develop were required to contribute to a fund to compensate municipalities that were prohibited from development and thus deprived of potential tax ratables.

Today, there are seven municipalities, including Secaucus, that contribute to the regional tax-sharing pool, and six municipalities, including Jersey City, that receive money from the pool. There is one town that neither pays into the tax-sharing pool nor receives money from it: Teterboro. Secaucus is the biggest contributor. Kearny is the largest recipient.

?The [tax-sharing] law does not appear to have been violated by [Jersey City?s ordinance approving the Goya PILOT],? attorney Maurice Griffin, who works in the attorney general?s office, wrote to D?Elia on April 1. ?The use of PILOTS in the context of long-term tax exemption in urban renewal projects has long been established.?

Controversial from Day One

The tax abatement package Jersey City gave to Goya Foods has been controversial since it was approved in November 2011.

Developers often enter into a tax abatement agreement, or payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT), to pay a separate fee to the city instead of paying fluctuating property taxes. This keeps their tax rate stable over a number of years. The amount they pay is sometimes equal to regular taxes, and can be based on a percentage of their profits. The money goes directly into the city budget but does not support local schools, although developers pay a nominal fee for county taxes.

The original intent of such deals was to draw developers to blighted areas.

The controversial tax abatement deal offered to Goya was approved by a divided Jersey City Council shortly after the state Economic Development Authority had given Goya a separate $81.9 million tax deal under the Urban Transit Hub Tax Credit program.

Goya ? which is currently headquartered in Secaucus, with another facility on Long Island ? is building a new 615,000-square-foot headquarters at 350 County Rd. in Jersey City. The new facility will include 577,000 square feet of warehouse space and 38,000 square feet of office space.

The 20-year tax abatement Jersey City approved for Goya will require the company to pay $806,400 annually for the first six years the company is in Jersey City. In years seven through 12 the company will pay $892,950 each year. In years 13 through 20, Goya will pay $979,500 each year.

Under the company?s agreement with Jersey City, Goya will pay an annual service charge that will be passed along to Hudson County for county taxes and will have to pay an annual administrative fee. Both of these fees will increase incrementally over the duration of the 20-year agreement with the city. Goya?s annual county tax fee will start out at $40,320, and the annual administrative fee will start out at $16,128.

Goya will not contribute tax support to the local school system.

When the company broke ground on its new facility last September, Secaucus Mayor Michael Gonnelli hailed it as a win-win for Jersey City, Secaucus, and the Meadowlands region.

At the time, Gonnelli assumed the new facility would impact the Inter-Municipal Tax Sharing Plan and decrease the amount of money Secaucus taxpayers have to contribute to it. Because that has not happened, thanks to the approved abatement, Gonnelli and Secaucus asked the state attorney general to investigate.

A portion of Jersey City?s ordinance granting the abatement to Goya Foods reads: ?By the city?s analysis, the benefits of the [development] project outweigh the costs to Jersey City insofar as the project adds no additional burdens on schools and because the city will retain most of the payment due it from the [New Jersey Meadowlands Commission] under the Inter-Municipal Tax Sharing Plan.?

Secaucus officials said they only learned of this tax abatement this year and asked the DCA and attorney general?s office to investigate the fairness of the approved PILOT.

?Our hope is that the report that we get from Robinson and Cole will have enough meat in it that we can justify withholding our Meadowlands payment or maybe take this thing to court,? Gonnelli said.

Read more: Hudson Reporter - NJ Attorney General Goya tax deal okay State backs Jersey City?s abatement to famous food brand

http://www.hudsonreporter.com/view/fu ... ial_coverage_right_column

The size of most municipalities, the exception Jersey City and Newark, is less than 50,000 residents. And I am speaking in urban areas. Rural areas, which are many may have 2,000 residents or less. That means the state is giving state dollars to municipalities that is duplicated 566 times instead of 21 times, the number of counties. At one point, before there was a Jersey City, you had Hudson County, Van Vorst, Paulus Hook, Harimus, Greenville, these areas merged into Jersey City. Even Bayonne considered joining Jersey City but decided to become an independent city.

Quote:

Abatements would make much more sense if they gave a portion to the county that was rationally related to the tax revenue that the county loses through an abatement. In other words, give the county the same kind of predictable revenue stream the developer pays and the city gets.

While the Goya deal is a terrible example of public policy accomplishing nothing other than driving government revenue down (to the disadvantage of other taxpayers), it is hard to stomach Secaucus' complaints. They kick and scream about tax-sharing through the Meadowlands Commission, yet they are the biggest beneficiary of the state's Meadowlands policy. Secaucus has a great tax base, which it has developed because other municipalities protected wetlands.

If there was MORE revenue sharing rather than less, towns would be less tempted to poach ratables from one another in a race to the bottom.

Quote:

That's nonsense. NJ has one of the weakest county government systems in the nation. This is a constitutional matter and can't be changed by wishing it so.

Name a strong county government in NJ. Tell us what powers these strong county governments have that municipalities don't. The reason most mayors don't get paid much is that most municipalities are so small, and all elective offices are part-time, bordering on volunteer. It's not because the county is performing municipal functions.

You might want a different system, but the curse of home rule for 566 municipalities in one of the nation's smallest state has proven highly resistant to change.

One of two things will need to happen to enable change. One would be really visionary leadership springing up who can see and sell the advantages of cooperation rather than competition. I do not recommend holding your breath for that one, but the alternative is worse. Municipal bankruptcies and severe fiscal crises might, just might force change upon some municipalities. Absent these, I just don't see the enabling conditions for change.

I have always stated we should dissolve municipal government and only have county government. Most municipalities in NJ have strong county government and a $1.00 mayors on the local level.

You have a decent argument when you say the abatements don't pay for the schools, but you go off the road when you throw the county into it. Why give any money to the county? We should either get rid of county government altogether or consolidate six or seven of the towns in the county (East Newark, Guttenberg, Weehawken, Secaucus and Harrison for starters). It's insane that we have to support a county infrastructure that exists to benefit places like Secaucus to begin with.

Anywhere else in the country, Hudson County would be one city. As a city, Hudson County would be the 21st biggest by population (just ahead of Boston) but only 165th in terms of area, with just 62 square miles.

I am delighted that Secaucus is going after this abatement. I remember former mayor Anthony Just, Jr. speaking at the Freeholders meeting during the budget hearing years ago. He complained that Secauscus, population then 12,000 residents paid the second highest taxes to the county. He said it was not fair. Secaucus do not give abatements like JC. After, he spoke, I said why don't you sue JC. He asked me to call his office in Secaucus and the rest they say is history. The original agreement was to give the county an additional 10% in revenue. Meaning a developer who receives an abatement would pay the municipality that fee plus and additional 10% but JC appealed to their friends in the state then and it got knock down to 5%. Many reporters when writing about an abatement writes 95% goes to the city and 5% goes to the county. They have it wrong it is an extra 5% or 105%. It is ironic this payment started in Tom DeGise took over as County Executive because he voted on every abatement as councilman under Schundler and now he reaps the benefit of the extra 5%. He should send me a thank-you note. By the way, it does not apply to old abatements or affordable housing.

I thought cityhall was poor - I guess we'll expect higher land, property and income taxes next year!

What was the number of new jobs created? 9? $1m/job seems a lot.

Quote:

Yeah, New Jersey cities should unite and push those businesses out of the state altogether!

Let them go to Texas!

Yes, that was $8 million wasted. It's a shame when one Jersey municipality will compete against another in such a manner.

Terrence T. McDonald/The Jersey Journal

The tax break that lured Goya to move its headquarters from Secaucus to Jersey City should result in Jersey City losing revenue from a Meadowlands District tax-sharing program, Secaucus officials have told the state.

Jersey City officials? deal with Goya was a ?new low,? says Secaucus Mayor Michael Gonnelli in a statement. Jersey City admits in its ordinance memorializing the tax deal that, without it, it would have lost revenue from the Meadowlands District?s tax-sharing program, Gonnelli notes.

?Jersey City, in essence, required the district's paying municipalities to underwrite Jersey City's generous tax exemption provided to Goya,? writes Secaucus General Counsel Anthony D?Elia in a March 12 letter to the state Department of Community Affairs.

D?Elia asks in the letter that the state should adjust the revenue Jersey City receives from the tax-sharing program to reflect what it would get from Goya absent the tax break.

Gonnelli is an open critic of the tax-sharing program, which was established in 1973 and includes 14 municipalities in Hudson and Bergen counties. The program funnels revenue from municipalities that have developed in portions of the Meadowlands to those that face development restrictions.

In 2013, Secaucus is expected to pay $2.7 million, while Jersey City is expected to receive about $1.1 million. Secaucus pays the most of the 14 Meadowlands District municipalities, while Jersey City receives more than any other besides Kearny.

Jersey City granted the 20-year tax abatement worth about $8 million to Goya in November 2011 to lure the Spanish foods giant about one mile away from its current home in Secaucus.

That deal was on top of a roughly $80 million state tax break Goya received to remain in New Jersey. A state report says the Goya deal will result in nine new jobs.

City spokeswoman Jennifer Morrill said the city granted the Goya tax deal in an ?open and transparent? fashion. Jersey City has always been a ?good neighbor? to Secaucus, but its foremost obligation is to its own taxpayers, Morrill said.

?Secaucus certainly knew about -- and initially applauded -- this highly publicized transaction, and we had no information indicating that Secaucus was unaware of the project's impact on its own tax base,? she said.

Thanks did a little digging with the Rockefeller Group Development Corp clue. They said they own it in some news pieces but I think Goya does.

From online JC tax records?

Goya 75th Acquisition Co, LLC
100 Seaview Ave.
Secaucus, NJ

(btw that?s the current Goya location)

Owns?

350 New County Road (40 acre lot)
360 New County Road
390 New County Road

From the (Monmouth) tax search tool?thanks

Goya purchased 350 New County Road on Dec 28, 2011 for $23,059,000


The announcement about Goya?s move to Jersey City was Oct 27, 2011

Interesting to find out who Goya purchased the 40-acre lot at 350 New County Road from. Maybe a HC/JC hack? Maybe itself, another division? (hmm were they thinking about moving there in the past anyway without the tax break? )The (Monmouth) tax tool doesn?t list the previous owners like on other properties.


I just like digging you never know what turns up in HC/JC.

Still trying to fiqure out how HC/JC did not offer land somewhere in HC/JC to house the new SS office that is now on Westside and Culver. Another ?development? group owns that land and made the deal. Could have collected some sweet rent money for years and years.

Quote:

http://tax1.co.monmouth.nj.us/cgi-bin ... 601001____00002__01HM___M

This property is owned by the Rockefeller Group Development Corp. of Mount Olive, NJ

Does anyone know the street number address of the 40-area lot on County Road? I want to look it up in the tax records to see who owned or owns it and the surrounding properties. I wonder if it is another sweetheart political hack deal.

I will never forget the inside land deals for the big and bankrupt school building projects.

Or the ARC Tunnel project?.

The state had spent around $29 million on property for the tunnel, most of it in North Bergen.

$3.5 million for the (nasty) McDonalds on Tonnelle Avenue in North Bergen.
$7 million for a storage facility (a few stand alone corrugated steel trailers) next to the Mickey D?s.
$15.75 million for a (crappy old) warehouse property across the street.

Quote:

So once again a corporation played NY against NJ for tax benefits. Of course the truth with that is, even if they were not bluffing, no one was losing a job. Maybe their commute got longer. Maybe their commute got shorter. But either way, the region wasn't losing jobs.

Though things have improved in the last few years (i.e. the Legislature passed a more business friendly business depreciation), NJ is still a very business hostile state.

A better goal would be to move to a more advantageous tax and regulation regimen for all businesses; not just the ones with the lobbying muscle. For example: get ride of the onerous alternative minimum business income tax, which can become an 'income' tax on revenue. This hurts low margin businesses.

As for Jersey City: Talk to anyone who has tried to open a business in this city. The delays dealing with multiple agencies, often doing overlapping inspection (i.e. multiple fire-safety from more than one department) can bankrupt the little guy pretty quick. I know a woman who opened a salon that ended up paying rent waiting for weeks for the building inspectors to show.. and then show up again for a re-inspection.

Unless they were bluffing, they were set to move all these jobs to Long Island.

Not really a win for anyone.

1. A mile from its old location, its not "creating new jobs" in Jersey City versus those that are in Secaucus. The 66 jobs coming from New York aren't being created either. They aren't coming from some vacuum. They aren't shifting from some distant location. Same people, same jobs, new location, lots of tax breaks.

2. These aren't transit accessible jobs, which means all these workers are going to clog the roads with cars.

3. If the Jersey Comeback is 9 new jobs, this state is #OOPS#ed.

Quote:

Solyndra comes to mind.

Interesting use of tax dollars. I've seen a lot worse, tho

Quote:

For big business to pay there way instead of John Citizen always having to stick their hands in their pockets - Nothing comes for free and there's always a catch when you give tax credits to businesses.

This is One move I applaud, from city council. Jobs, increased tax roll, with no Illegal kids in our schools. This company;any company has the power to move, ie to Georgia, DE, or another state with less taxes than here. The employees moving here or just eating here is a plus.