The residential Bayside project has applied to the Ulster County Industrial Development Agency [IDA] for an 18 year Payment In Lieu Of Taxes [PILOT] agreement. The $31 million mixed use project is proposed for a 25 acre parcel just off of Route 9W, north of the hamlet of Marlboro and next to the Marlboro Middle School. The developer is seeking to build 104 residential units on 13 of the 25 acres. The 2 bedroom 1,000 sq/ft units will rent for $1,500/mo and the three bedroom 1,200 sq/ft units for $1,800/mo, promising that 11 of them will be set aside as affordable. Representatives of Bayside recently made heir pitch for a PILOT agreement before the IDA, telling them that they expect their project will create an “economic spark” to the area.

In a sharply worded letter to Rose Woodworth, CEO of the IDA, NYS Sen. James Skoufis [D-NY39] voiced his strong opposition to granting Bayside a PILOT agreement.

“That the applicant can propose an 18-year PILOT with a straight face is incredulous. They do not deserve an 18-year PILOT or a 10-year PILOT or a 1-year PILOT. They should pay their damn taxes like virtually every other residential development in the Mid-Hudson Valley. If not, I encourage your board to show them the door and leave them to take this scam to another county,” he wrote.

Skoufis pointed out that nearly all residential developments in Ulster County are able to succeed without property tax abatements.

“Why should Marlboro Bayside be treated any differently? What special benefit does this project bring to Ulster County that virtually every other residential development doesn’t bring sans a PILOT? The answers to these questions are: it shouldn’t and none,” Skoufis wrote.

Skoufis calls Bayside’s application to the IDA “disingenuous, at best.”

“It extols the before and after tax benefits – taxes currently paid on the undeveloped land vs. the proposed PILOT. What it fails to mention is the fact that the large majority of these units, based on number of bedrooms, will likely have children attending the Marlboro Central School District, significantly increasing local costs district-wide. This, as well as the costs associated with municipal services, are conveniently omitted from the IDA application.

In a subsequent interview, Skoufis said his role in this matter is as an advocate, “as someone who had the platform, someone who the IDA board knows full well has done a great deal of work when it comes to IDA practices and IDA reforms.”

Skoufis discussed his perspective more than a year ago with the IDA on what he considers warranted and unwarranted projects.

“They know full well when I do weigh in on a project, there’s meaning behind it,” he said. “The ones that I do weigh in on are the ones that I feel are egregious and are really, really out of line. I try to have as much deference as I can to the very important responsibilities that these IDA boards have but there are IDA applications that come through the door that are such large red flags that I have to, on behalf of the taxpayers that I represent, weigh in.”

Skoufis said he has faith that the IDA, “is going to see through this charade that is the Bayside application.” He said this is now on his radar and stressed to the IDA just how out of line this application is. He said he can even find some aspects of troublesome projects that offer some benefits to the town or county but, “in this case this application has nothing going for it when it comes to whether it deserves a PILOT.” He pointed out that this project creates only 3 permanent jobs.

“It is so minuscule that the applicant does not even register for a single point in the IDA’s Uniform Tax Exemption Policy [UTEP],” he said.

Skoufis said the mission of an IDA is to bring commercial rateables to local communities; help projects take root in communities that otherwise would be unable to move forward without some sort of incentive.

Skoufis said he is against all residential projects receiving any kind of economic incentive.

“When we are talking about just a residential project you should be disqualified from getting a PILOT,” he said. “For some strange reason this one [Bayside] needs a PILOT to make the numbers work. It’s outrageous what they are proposing.”

IDA CEO Woodworth responded to Sen. Skoufis, letting him know, “that we do always appreciate and value his opinion.” She said the Senator did not hesitate to let the IDA know his feelings about the Bayside project.

Woodworth said the IDA is “nowhere near” rendering a decision on Bayside’s application and when they recently appeared before the board they did not have a resolution ready to send them to a public hearing.

“If anything it would be months out,” she said of any public hearing/approval, estimating that the whole process may take up to 4 to 5 months, “if it gets that far. I don’t know if we will be so inclined to send it to a public hearing or not.” She said any project that is over $1 million with $100,000 or more of public incentive has to go to a public hearing.

Woodworth said Bayside’s request translates to approximately $5.5 million in incentives over the 18 year life span of the PILOT. She said the board asked the applicants to revise their request as the board is not comfortable with the 18 year length or the number of affordable units they were offering to set aside.

“They were sent back to come up with something better and maybe that would be something we would consider,” she said.

Woodworth said her IDA board is, “not really sure how we feel about housing [projects] at the moment.” During their annual training session they will be discussing housing and green energy projects, “because obviously they don’t fit the same mold as regular manufacturer would. I know the board feels they all need to be educated more on housing and what we would be looking for in a housing project and whether or not we want to do it.”

Woodworth said the Bayside application is the first one that has been submitted to them that is solely a residential project.

Marlborough Planning Board Chairman Chris Brand said an IDA PILOT was beyond the scope of his board’s review but recalled that the public wants them to pay their fair share in taxes.