As the March 7 public hearing on the ordinances associated with the township’s settlement agreement with InterCap draws near, two residents have urged the council to study the financial impacts of redevelopment before moving forward.
At the council’s February 7 meeting, residents John Church and Mike Baxter asked the council to perform an independent financial analysis of the impact of redevelopment, particularly the residential and retail enclave that will be built by InterCap under the proposed agreement.
The Township Council introduced two ordinances last month that would codify the township’s settlement agreement with InterCap Holdings for the development of a transit village in the 350-acre Princeton Junction train station area.
InterCap, led by CEO Steve Goldin, a township resident, had sued West Windsor over the redevelopment designation of the 350-acre area around the Princeton Junction train station, which included InterCap’s 25 acres off Washington Road.
The settlement calls for a total of 800 housing units — to be phased in — on InterCap’s property, along with retail development and infrastructure and amenity contributions. The most notable is a promenade that would provide a public area for residents.
Of the 800 residential units, 40 — or 5 percent — will be moderate income units based on state requirements. Most of the units would be two bedrooms, while as many as 10 percent could be one-bedroom, and as many as 10 percent could be three-bedroom.
Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg, who is presiding over the case, has indicated the “fairness hearing” required as part of the process will take place in the third week of March.
If Feinberg grants approval, a development application as outlined by the settlement would go to the West Windsor Planning Board for approval. If the board approves the application, InterCap will dismiss its lawsuit against the township.
However, Church and Baxter urged further financial study before moving forward with the settlement. Baxter said he had over 20 years of experience in finance, although he declined to provide information on his occupational background to the News. He earned a bachelor’s in business from the University of Minnesota and a master’s from the University of Pennsylvania. He claimed his own estimate calculated that redevelopment would increase taxes by between $2,000 and $4,000 per household per year. He called for an independent tax impact assessment.
“We don’t have a chance for a do-over on this,” Baxter said. “This is an extremely risky decision.”
He said that there was only one person in West Windsor (alluding to Goldin) who would benefit from the settlement. “The rest of us get higher property taxes” and impacts to the school population.
In response to the residents’ comments, Councilman Charles Morgan criticized the administration for what he says is its history of failing to disclose required financial statements, especially when it comes to redevelopment. “It is state law that a redevelopment entity must produce financial statements,” he said, referring to West Windsor, implying that he has not seen them.
He also referred to a resolution the council passed in June to approve the administration’s request to be considered for Transit Village designation under the state Department of Transportation, which Morgan also voted against because he felt the administration provided insufficient information. The administration wanted to be designated because of the possibility it made the township eligible for grants.
At the time, however, Morgan questioned the designation’s impact on the ongoing InterCap litigation and questioned what the designation of a “transit village” could mean in terms of development near the train station.
Morgan said the lack of specific information about the urgency for approval and benefits to the township was another example of how his requests to the administration for more information on a variety of subjects continued to be ignored. He repeated these claims at the February 7 meeting.
“That resolution in June was a decision to settle because we did not spend time to deliberate,” Morgan added. When it comes to requesting reports from the administration, Morgan told Baxter and Church that “you’re wasting your time.”
Councilwoman Linda Geevers, however, disputed the residents’ claim that property taxes would increase by the amounts Baxter suggested. She referred to a financial analysis that was completed in 2009 by an appointed redevelopment financial subcommittee.
During the finance subcommittee’s meetings, the township brought in former school board member Stan Katz, who was renowned for his statistical analyses of the number of school children brought in by each new development, as well as a statistician from Rutgers University, both of whom testified that there would be no severe impact to the schools.
Those experts estimated that .28 children would be generated per household. Using that number for 800 housing units, the InterCap redevelopment area would only generate up to 224 possible students. “That is not going to require the building of a new school,” said Geevers.
In addition, the redevelopment would be phased in, and the number of children coming in over time will integrate with a projected decline in the school population.
Hsueh emphasized that for every step through redevelopment, the township has always considered the impacts. And with regard to Morgan’s claims that the administration has not provided financial information regarding redevelopment, he said that every year, the chief financial officer generates a computer print out regarding how the township spends its redevelopment money.
“They (the council) receive that on an annual basis in terms of how much money has been appropriated toward redevelopment,” said Hsueh. “It’s always been given to the council.”
