O'port planners hear revised fort reuse plan
Officials see need for expansion of mass transportation
BY JENNA O'DONNELL Staff Writer

OCEANPORT- Borough officials asked redevelopment planners to revisit their numbers during the third and final municipal presentation of the evolving plan for Fort Monmouth's reuse.

Representatives of the Fort Monmouth Economic Revitalization PlanningAuthority (FMERPA) and their planners from EDAW Inc. presented a revised plan to Planning Board members, borough officials and residents onApril 30.

Oceanport stands to incorporate 419 acres of the 1,126-acre FortMonmouth parcel into the borough after the fort's projected closure in 2011.

During the public comment period following the presentation, Councilman Jay Briscione addressed questions to EDAW planners concerning projected revenue and tax rates.

"In order to get these numbers, our rate is going to have to double," Briscione said. "To create the services that are necessary… everybody else's taxes are going to go up proportionately."

Todd Poole, director of economic planning for EDAW, said that the ratable valuewould offset a tax increase, but Briscione remained unconvinced.

"To me, the numbers don't work," Briscione said. "And if the numbers are wrong … then that is a big part of this, which is revenue."

Briscione additionally posed the questions ofwhetherEDAWhad factored 10-year tax abatements offered as incentives throughout the state into their numbers and how they expected to reuse the fort's existing buildingswhen Lucent Technologieswas unable to re-use Bell Labs, which currently sits vacant in Holmdel.

Poole replied that such incentives had not been currently factored and that the fort buildings were more open to adaptive reuse than the Holmdel site.

"This plan is not just about financial incentives," Poole said. "The plan is as much about creating a place that would create the attraction."

Poole cited Silicon Valley and similar sites as places where companies were attracted, not solely by financial incentives but by the quality of their workforces and educational consortiums. That sense of "campus" is what the planners hope to emulate in their reuse vision.

Planning Board members expressed mixed reactions to the proposed reuse plan afterWednesday's presentation.

Board member David Gruskos asked if the plan was open to dramatic change moving forward.

"For example, therewas inquiry fromthe Horsemen [New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen's Association] about opening a yearlong training facility, which would encompass a tremendous amount of land," Gruskos said. "Is that something that they can still try to incorporate into this plan?"

Mahon responded that the training facility was outside of FMERPA's responsibility.

"That plan was given directly to the Office of theGovernor, and there is some activity with the governor's office and the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority," Mahon said.

Mahon went on to say that if there is life in the proposal, it will carry on in a parallel path to the authority's reuse plan until potentially being considered into the plan at some point in the future.

"So, it is alive and well, but outside this process,"Mahon said.

Board member Gary Wolfe was heartened by the presentation of the plan.

"When I was first informed that an outside agency was going to be setting up the plan for this fort reuse, I hadmany fears and trepidations," saidWolfe. "But after hearing your presentation and seeing the outline and the way you presented it, I feel very comfortable and very confident that this plan can move forward taking Oceanport's concerns into the future."

Borough officials additionally expressed concerns about the viability of the proposed plan.

Briscione asked planners if they thought that a transportation hub would become a necessary part of development.

Plans to include a train station had been removed from Oceanport's reuse plan prior to its submission to FMEPRA last March after drawing strong opposition from residents.

"I would say that if you are going to get the jobs that you hope to get, the way to get them is going to be through mass transit, given the cost of gas and the infrastructure limitation," Briscione said. "You're not going to be able to do it on the road."

Frank Cosentino, executive director of FMERPA, responded by saying that the authority was considering the idea.

"My only comment is that there is a fiscal reality that has to be considered and we're certainly not going to start slapping train stations on there without a fiscal reality attached to that projection," Cosentino said. "I do think public transportation has to exist in the future of this region and this county to a much greater extent than it does now."

Briscione said that the government would have to consider the financial reality of mass transit in a 1,200-acre redevelopment project of 4 million square feet and over 5,000 jobs.

"And they are," Cosentino said. "Remember that this is a living document and a learning document."

Councilman Ted Ibex was concerned about the revenue and the marketability of the project in the currently slumping economy and urged planners to take another look at their numbers.

"If there is a tax rate increase, I haven't heard by how much," Ibex said. "I hope the economy isn't going in the direction that it seems to be going in, but if it is, are there any estimates as towhatmight happen if the situation really worsens?"

Poole replied that by the time the property transfers, after its proposed 2011 closure, it will likely be an entirely different market environment.

Other concerns discussed includedCouncil on Affordable Housing (COAH) obligations, implementation of the proposed plan, and the possibility that a jitney service would fail as it did in Red Bank.

An implementation authority, possibly a conversion of FMERPA,would have to be established, planners said.

As far as the jitney service, "Gas wasn't $4 per gallon then," Cosentino said.

Borough resident Frank Barricelli, ofHiawatha Avenue, said it would be "totally ridiculous" to penalize the municipalities withmore obligation because of replacement jobs.

"When you are trying to repopulate an area with the jobs, the last thing you should be doing is saddling them with new obligations," Barricelli said.

The bottom line, Cosentino replied, was that FMERPAwould continue to work with mayors so that there will be no surprises when COAH presents its revised thirdround rules in June.

At a Borough Council meeting the following day, Briscione said that he was not satisfiedwith the answers fromthemeeting with the authority and their planners.

"I am very concerned with the financial projections," Briscione said. He asked that Mayor Michael Mahon take these concerns to FMERPA.

Mahon agreed to bring the concerns before the authority, but said that they may have already been addressed.

"The data has already been upgraded, but it's in draft form," Mahon said. "I think some of your questions have already been answered."

Mahon added that he did not think that the answers fromplannersweremeant to be evasive.

"The information is incomplete," Mahon said. "They couldn't satisfy the questionwith certainty that it was accurate."

Briscione said that the numbers could be correct, but he was still concerned that the likelihood of tax abatement incentives and their impact on the community had not been factored.

Mahon pointed out that the process involved constant change, citing other examples of redevelopment that had gone through five iterations before development.

Briscione said that he expected the plan to change.

"As long as it comes back to the Planning Board and as long as we see it again, that's OK," Briscione said.

Mahon expressed the view that once the planning processwas through, the threemunicipalities of Oceanport, Eatontown and Tinton Falls should be in themajority of any board that is to continue.