I attended the Brookhaven Industrial Development Agency's (IDA) public hearing today concerning Rail Realty LLC, the developer of The Hills at Port Jefferson.
The issue before the IDA was significant: Rail Realty is requesting up to seven additional years of property-tax abatement on the existing 74-unit apartment complex at 23–25 Texaco Avenue. The property is located within the Village of Port Jefferson.
What caught my attention was not just the request itself.
It was the absence of any Village of Port Jefferson representation.
The Village was specifically notified
The Village's own website posted the public-hearing notice on September 14, 2026.
Rail Realty LLC Public Hearing 9/21/26
But there is an even more important document attached to that notice.
On September 9, 2026, Brookhaven IDA CEO Lisa M.G. Mulligan sent a certified letter directly to Mayor Lauren Sheprow.
The letter states that the IDA would conduct the public hearing concerning Rail Realty on September 21 and says:
"You are welcome to provide comments to present your views with respect to the project to the Agency in writing or electronically."
The letter also explains that the notice was being provided to the Mayor as the chief executive of an affected tax jurisdiction in which the project is located.
In other words, the Village was not unaware of this hearing. The Mayor was specifically notified and invited to provide the Village's views.
I attended today's hearing.
Mayor Sheprow did not attend, and I did not hear or see any comments submitted by her on behalf of the Village.
That raises a question I believe Village residents are entitled to ask:
What is the Village's position on seven more years of tax abatement for The Hills?
I am not suggesting that the Mayor was required to attend the hearing, nor am I suggesting that her absence means she supports or opposes the PILOT extension.
But given the Village's financial situation, I think the public deserves to know what the Village's position is and why.
This isn't a new project
The IDA's September 2026 notice describes The Hills as an existing 74-unit market-rate residential apartment complex. Rail Realty is not proposing to build the 74 units as part of this request. The company is seeking an extension of the existing tax abatement for up to seven additional years.
That distinction matters.
This isn't simply a question of whether the Village should encourage a new development that might otherwise never be built.
The Hills already exists.
The question is whether the public should continue providing a significant property-tax benefit to an existing apartment complex.
What is the financial impact?
The IDA's newly posted September 11, 2026 Cost-Benefit Analysis provides some numbers.
The analysis estimates the property-tax exemption associated with the proposed PILOT at:
$807,141
or $765,283 on a discounted-value basis.
The IDA analysis also says Rail Realty plans to make approximately $600,000 of investment into the facility and surrounding area.
The analysis says the project will set aside 20% of the residential units for residents whose income is at or below 80% of Area Median Income.
The IDA's analysis ultimately calculates a 2:1 overall benefit-to-cost ratio when the various state and local benefits are included.
That is the IDA's analysis.
But there is another question:
What does the Village of Port Jefferson get out of this?
The IDA analysis combines state and local benefits. It does not simply tell a Port Jefferson resident:
"Here is what Port Jefferson Village gives up, and here is exactly what Port Jefferson Village receives in return."
That is the information I would like to see.
If the Village is going through a period in which every source of revenue matters, shouldn't the Village be asking:
What would the Village receive if the PILOT ended?
How much Village property-tax revenue is being deferred or reduced by the extension?
What specific benefit does the Village receive in exchange?
How much of the proposed $600,000 investment actually benefits Village residents or Village infrastructure?
Is the affordable-housing component sufficient to justify another seven years of tax assistance?
And most importantly, why does extending the PILOT serve the Village's financial interests?
The Village has a voice in this discussion
The IDA's letter to Mayor Sheprow makes clear that the Village is an affected taxing jurisdiction.
The IDA invited the Mayor to provide the Village's views.
That doesn't mean the Mayor has to oppose the PILOT.
It doesn't mean she has to support it either.
But residents should reasonably expect the Village to evaluate the proposal from the Village's perspective and explain its position.
Especially when the Village is dealing with its own financial challenges.
I'm not saying the answer is "no"
There may be legitimate reasons for continuing the PILOT.
The IDA says the project is located in a town center and an area it considers to have an inadequate supply of affordable housing. Its analysis also credits the project with economic activity, employment and other benefits.
Those are arguments that should be considered.
But they should be considered against the cost of continuing the tax exemption.
And that is where I think Port Jefferson residents deserve more information from their own Village government.
So, to sum-up lets recap.
I attended the hearing today expecting that this might be an opportunity to hear how the Village views a request for seven additional years of tax abatement on an existing 74-unit apartment complex located within the Village.
The Mayor had received the invitation.
The Village had posted the hearing notice.
And the hearing was held at Port Jefferson Village Hall.
But the Mayor did not appear, and I did not hear a Village comment submitted at the hearing.
So I think it is fair to ask:
Does the Village of Port Jefferson support the seven-year PILOT extension for The Hills at Port Jefferson?
If so, why?
And how does the Village believe the extension benefits Port Jefferson taxpayers at a time when the Village's finances are under pressure?
Those aren't questions about personalities or politics.
They're questions about tax revenue, public benefits and fiscal responsibility.
And I believe Village residents deserve answers.
No comments:
Post a Comment