58°
GREENBURGH, N.Y. — Both the number of building permits and building revenue have increased considerably in the past decade, according to the Greenburgh Building Department.
The revenue from building permits, both commercial and residential, has fluctuated over the years, but in 2010, Greenburgh issued 1,000 more building permits than it did in 1998. With the number of permits up, revenue has tripled from $701,150 in 2005 to $2,105,390 in 2010, according to the Building Department.
Building Inspector John Lucido said the past two years have been steady, with up to 3,000 permits issued in 2012, and Greenburgh's diversity of building needs can be thanked for the market's survival.
"It's a very large town and very diverse," Lucido said. "We have a lot of different types of building going on — industrial, warehousing districts, recreation, multifamily and single-family residences, and that's a good thing. Other small villages don't have the diversity and activity, so they can't do as well."
The Building Department's success could be riding from the town's bond credit rating, which was issued high marks in April by Standard & Poor's and Moody's Investors Service. Moody's gave Greenburgh its highest rating, AAA, which allows the town to borrow money at lower interest rates.
And despite what a New York Times article says about developers building smaller houses in Westchester, Deputy Building Inspector Anthony Zacarolli said builders are still putting up big homes in Greenburgh, and those homes are still selling.
"The last two years were our busiest years," Zacarolli said, adding that many residents have also renovated their existing homes.
For architect Jeffrey Jordan, who owns a private business in Elmsford, the building revenue is coming primarily from renovations instead of new construction.
"I have a meeting this weekend about doing a new house, which is rare," Jordan said. "Houses have been slower than they were three years ago."
Comments (9)
I can’t say anything now for you provide it all. You have commented this clearly with all information needed. Anyway, how much will it cost to build pedestrian bridge near orange county?
many of these comments are accurate,... and i wonder if there is any investigative reporting done by the editor and article authors in regard to the information posted in these comments.
One significant measure not mentioned in this article is the level of enforcement which has led to the increase in building permit revenue. The GB Building Department has been successfull in issuing more violations and resulting in the property owner pulilng building permits that they otherwise would have never got. For a quick correlation i would display the graphic of building permits along side the violations issued during the respective time frame. It may be interesting.
The Building Department has been successful in issuing more violations and this probably has resulted in more permits being issued and thus more permit revenue. And they have been more successful because they added to their staff which is why the Department's Budget increased (mentioned but not explained).
And when stores go out of business because of the economy and rising taxes etc, this too increases permit revenue when new stores take their place at the wheel of fortune.
All of these can happen in any year and do but none explain the upward revenue trend.
I maintain that the level of construction is constant, however, and that the revenue boost is mainly the result of the increase in price of a permit. Americans are not buying more gasoline; they are just paying more at the pump.
Which means that the point of the story is that there is no point. It is just another failed attempt by Feiner to make residents feel that all is well in a recovering Greenburgh when the opposite is the reality. If anyone doubts this, wait until you see the 2013 Town Budget upon its required issuance in less than a month.
Don't be happy, you would be right to worry. I'm not gloating, just being real.
Higher sales tax and mortgage tax revenue is not going to save the day this year. The Fund Balances are tapped out; there is no $1.2 million coming from WESTHelp;none of Feiner's controversial leases are executed and even if so, no revenue will come from them for at least two years; the Water Department still owes $4 million and the Town is literally running on fumes. Were it not for high NYS unemployment Greenburgh employees would be up in arms as they face still another year without a pay increase -- like everyone they still have mortgages to pay and cars to lease and cell phones to feed: all this while Feiner frets over bike lanes on the TZ bridge or feeding BBQ to Veterans from all over the County while the very real possibility exists that for once the pandered to groups may have to forget about those programs and photo-ops that Feiner serves up arrives with a vengeance. My my and it was just five years ago that the Town was paying good money for a sculpture curator to service the Hartsdale Train Station Plaza. My applause also goes out to the Lanza Foundation which will soon be running the town but even the Lanza generosity is not going to fund the bill coming our way when the uninsured Fortress Bible bill arrives at Town Hall.
If there are any unconnected publics of 2-3 individuals, now is the time to call the Town Supervisor; he will fall all over himself looking to exploit your needs into a media headline rather than deal with his nearing ministerial nosedive. And who knows, there may be new litigation lurking around the corner. Stay tuned; it's later than you think.
What they neglect to mention is that the Town has come up with creative new measures to mandate building permits. For decades there was no requirement to obtain building permits to renovate kitchens and baths where electric and plumbing was not being changed. They now require that any renovation require a building permit, even in apartment buildings, condos and co-ops. This was clearly a means to nickel and dime the public.
Part Three
Another thing to consider about the bond rating, which is being put to no use other than Feiner basking in its rays, is that were interest rates to rise, say at the end of the 15 year GameOn lease, just 1.5% from current levels (short of nuclear attack), interest rates are unlikely to decline further from what is available in 2011-2012 (when it holds the coveted AAA level).
Were interest rates to edge up just 1.5% in 15-17 (rent commences after Certificate of Occupancy) years and the Town were to borrow $25 million to construct a new Police/Court campus on the Frank's Nursery site, on this amount the higher interest would cost taxpayers $375,000 MORE in interest each year of the probable 25 year Bond. Or, MORE inteeret per year than GameOn will, in each and every year of its 15 year lease with the Town. AND, the GameOn rent to the Town includes District taxes and County taxes etc.
Not troubled enough yet? Perhaps having a 15 year lease no tethered to fixed annual increased or even CPI increases which is the norm, Feiner has allowed GameOn to get away with 1% increases on ONLY the rent portion (not the total payment which includes the taxes). But what about the most troubling situation in this whole mess.
Despite the phony baloney story (see the Daily Voice article) the Town is pedaling about higher building fee revenue, ask yourselves this question:
Given the generally low construction level which began with the collapse of the mortgage markets (residential and commercial) and the large number of new projects abandoned or foreclosed, building materials and the building trades have not bounced back yet. While I cannot predict with certainty the level of activity 15-17 years from now (when the GameOn lease would terminate), allow me to go out on a limb and suggest that somewhere along the way inflation will revisit.
In other words, it will likely cost more to build the Police/Court campus in the future.
About 8 years ago, the taxpayers voted in a Referendum to expand the Library.
The Town sold $19.9 million of bonds for that purpose. I think that my $25 million estimate for a new Police Station/Court campus is low but I've made my point.
Plus I assume that the existing location and improvements have some value to the Town in a sale.
So add the probability of higher interest rates and the higher, inflated cost together and then ask whether the GameOn lease makes sense when there is already a documented need for a new and expanded facility backdated five years already.
And to replace the Town pool as well. Plus a few sundries like new sewer and water pipes which are 50+ years old. Plenty of things the Town needs to do beyond satisfy taxers that all's well because the garbage gets picked up and the snow gets plowed.
Then think that if there is a god, it is unlikely that even were Feiner to win all his re-election campaigns in the 15-17 interim years before the GameOn lease expires, it is unlikely that Feiner will still be serving as Town Supervisor after 15-17 years. He is no spring chicken anymore and even less so in 2024!
Which, after all, is his game(on) plan. He won't be in office to face the music.
Hal Samis
Part Two;
What the Bond (credit) rating really means.
Every year the Town sells a minuscule amount of debt to finance capital projects or refinance existing debt. On rare occasion, the Town will float a large bond issue to pay for large scale "extraordinary" capital projects -- like the purchase of Taxter Ridge parkland, the purchase of the Town Hall building or the expansion of the Library. However, generally it hovers around $4-5 million to purchase new Police cars, new Police toys, road and sidewalk repair, Town Pool REPAIR...generally the items that are appear to keep the Town afloat.
But appearances can be misleading.
Even though there are many items that the Town puts off and puts off because Feiner, already faced with presenting higher taxes, is afraid to justify their realization despite the need for them. A larger Police/Court structure is desperately needed for years as is the REPLACEMENT of the major operating systems of the Town Pool.
These held-off items could be bonded and this done without substantially increasing annual taxes if taxpayers weren't already paying for items that Feiner is hiding from the public: items like the $4 million loss at the Water Department the repayment of which could be used to cover increased debt service.
But how does the AAA bond rating benefit taxpayers? Presumably, the highest rating translates into the lowest interest rate. But whatever the interest rate and from what results following the underlying rating, this is only relevant if there is interest to be charged: interest paid upon debt incurred from sale of bonds.
By only selling a small amount of debt, such as the Town does, this means that the difference between the highest rating and the lowest rating (institutional buyers allowed to purchase bonds rated as low as Baa without being sued were default to occur) the cost difference is less than $20,000 in annual debt service.
Not a big hit to the Town's budget.
And with the credit markets such as they are for the last few years, interest rates are at 30 year lows, meaning the Town (with its AAA rating) could borrow long term for capital projects at rates as low well below 3%.
If it were to borrow.
But Feiner doesn't want to do this and for good reason.
1) If the Town were to borrow sizable money, the rating agencies must take another but harder look at Greenburgh's credit worthiness and perhaps the bond rating would be lowered for the new debt. One of the reasons the rating is AAA is that the Town rarely goes to the credit markets for big ticket items.
2) Feiner is joined at the hip with the proposed sports bubble at the Town's former Frank's Nursery parcel. Either by private, personal relationship or by his never having to say he is sorry mantra, this site which could house the Police/Court campus is faced with being tied up in a 15 lease (for little rent) when at lease expiration, the economy (the land's value) and interest rates are unknown today. Higher interest rates (construction borrowing) could wipe out the 15 year net rent income benefit ENTIRELY were the Town to develop the site.
3) The rating is the result of, not from increased permit fees as the article implies, the rating agencies' determination that the affluent taxpayers of Greenburgh can afford to incur whatever taxes are needed to pay the interest and pay back the money borrowed in a timely manner over the life of the bond. Thus with census data and real estate prices being what they are, the raters are confident that for the bonds already issued: investors who purchased these bonds did so with the highest level of assurance that these bonds will be repaid.
The rating only refers to bonds already issued. In fact, it is not the Town which has the AAA rating; it is the bonds issued by the Town which are rated. The rating is a report card on the residents' ability to absorb higher property taxes if needed.
4) The rating agencies are paid by the Town to perform the rating. Since the amount of bonds sold by the Town is generally small, one might question to what extent the raging agencies do their due diligence for "trivial" amounts vs. bond issues in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Most of the information they work from is provided by their employer, the Town. What they know of the Town is what Feiner wants them to know and the staff of the rating agencies is under great pressure to discharge such small deals speedily. Deal sizes like what the Town brings them: few questions are asked and much of the information is cut and pasted from older bond filings. Whereas the rating agencies may be aware of the adverse Fortress Bible ruling(s) and their eventual negative financial impact (the Town's insurance won't cover the payout), I doubt that the agencies have the interest to read the inner decision and learn that the Town Supervisor lied and destroyed evidence -- not that that waves red flags or refers to the financial information Feiner provides the rating agencies. Not that the high turnover of Town Comptroller's should wave any red flags either. And not that the rating agencies, themselves, are under scrutiny as to how they analyze data which results in a bond rating. (See those municipalities which have filed for bankruptcy and/or defaulted on bond debt)
But isn't there some ignored bond quality question for a town where ratables have shown a steady 30 year decline yet the bond rating remains intact? If high rated bond issues of hundreds of millions of dollars can go into default, how much attention is given to a debt issue for $4 million for Greenburgh?
All of these considerations come to down to one inescapable conclusion; Feiner knows that by keeping a low debt profile, he won't upset the apple cart. In practice, the AAA rating has little to no value if it isn't taken advantage of. By not incurring bond sales to address much needed infrastructure replacement, the rating is never tested and thus becomes only a "re-election" bumper sticker.
Ratings are meant to be used; otherwise they have no value.
Any of these points I have raised are worthy of individual Daily Voice examination. There are lots of important stories in a naked Greenburgh.
Instead we get Town press releases.
Hal Samis
How could an article be written on this topic without considering the increased cost to purchase building permits? How could an article be written which appears on October 1 2012 and still be anchored by a year ending 2010? With 9 months into 2012, convince me that 2011 numbers don't exist.
And then readers are treated to a SIX year comparison, rather than a more common FIVE year comparison. Why? Because by including 2005, the numbers "appear" to more dramatic and more comforting to hard-pressed taxpayers. Note that the Town is entering into "Budget Season" (draft version for 2013 must be released no later than by October 31) so expect to see more Town hype about how good things are in Greenburgh.
Mr. Lucido appears helpful -- he is willing to pass along the number of permits issued so far in 2012.
So what happened in 2011?
Curious too is that with revenue up for building permits (more likely the result of higher charges to obtain a permit, there is absolutely no correlation between construction with plumbing/electric permits unless this too reflects increased charges for these fees.
In any case, the number of parcels (which can accommodate large scale development) continues to decline (it is by now probably hovering around 20) for all of Greenburgh. As Greenburgh benefits from new construction permit fees, less development will eventually translate into less revenue. This is not the Building Department's fault but no two particles of matter can occupy the same space.
And note that the large land parcel inventory includes the privately owned golf courses. Without golf, Building Department fees could be even higher.
On the other hand, every existing building ages so eventually some renovation/rehabilitation becomes necessary; even if only to accommodate new technology.
So if these considerations were taken up, what would revenue at the Building Department really look like. We, the readers, don't know from this article but suspect that this is but another public relations effort to assure taxpayers that all is well financially in their town.
One should also know that in 2005, the Building Department budget was $780,000; in 2010 it was $897,000.
And even the appearance of higher Building Department revenue does not address the loss to the Town of the $1,200,000 in annual rent from the WESTHelp lease which was allowed to expire (under the cloud of Feiner's indiscretions) without renewal exactly one year ago. This means that the Town has already lost $1,200,000 while the developed property (108 housing units) is allowed to remain vacant and deteriorate. Perhaps so that eventually new permit fees can result in another new article.
While we await the outcome of this situation, let's keep in mind that the Town continues to rack up revenue hits, perhaps at the rate of $100,000 per month (the monthly portion of the $1,200,000 annual rent) with no end in sight.
But none of this addresses the Town's credit rating which continues to be wrongly trumpeted and this misnomer then repeated by the media.
The explanation follows in part two.
Hal Samis
Several reasons for this: 1) Feiner never met a developer who couldn't be given the variances, zoning changes and gifts in return for fire trucks, rescue trucks, barbecue supplies and sports bubble memberships; 2) Feiner has eliminated Greenburgh flooding and it’s okay to build and pave again; 3) County representation in Greenburgh is non-existant until Williams wants to be re-elected - thank god for Shimsky; 4) there is no prejudice in Greenburgh to any developer - unless they are the Fortress Bible Church; 5) the rubber-stamping Town Board will bow to any project Feiner tells the to be in favor of if they want to be re-elected (ie Brown). Greenburgh is corrupt and that's why building permits and fees are up.