Residents and council debate redevelopment PILOT terms, parking fees and boardwalk projects

Public comments at the March 26 Pompton Lakes Borough Council meeting focused on redevelopment, parking fees for employees and the distribution of development materials that residents find unsightly.

Kathy Shoreway of Pine Street thanked Councilwoman Paula Dore for voting against a recent apartment development and raised concerns that business owners and employees are being charged for parking, reporting a claim she saw on social media that a business owner faced about $6,000 per year in parking fees for employees. Mayor and borough staff responded with rate details: short-term parking is $1.60 for two hours, and employee parking passes are $50 per employee per month; staff said the borough already offers reduced rates for employees and will fine-tune options for short-stay businesses such as gyms.

Shoreway also asked about an update on plywood coverings at a development and proposed a mural painted by high school students; Borough Administrator Michael Coley said he passed the concern to the redevelopment director and would follow up.

Another commenter, identifying himself in the record as representing 147 Summit Avenue, criticized the presentation and valuation used by the borough’s redevelopment consultants in a prior council meeting, saying the project’s net present value and term comparisons were misleading. He contended the presentation compared a 20-year PILOT to a 30-year arrangement in a way that overstated benefits and said the borough’s consultants made calculation errors. Council leaders responded that the borough hires experts for recommendations, that pilot agreements typically result in collecting a larger long-term share of taxes over time (albeit at reduced rates during pilot terms), and that neighboring towns have adopted similar PILOT approaches. Council President Paul Burke said the council had sought additional information in advance of the earlier presentation and that some supporting materials were provided to the council late in the packet review timeline.

A public speaker with planning/financing expertise asked several technical questions about the pilot presentation, including whether assessments would be frozen under the PILOT, how land cost was treated in pro forma calculations (sunk cost vs. current valuation), and who audits PILOT receipts and developer gross rents. Borough staff identified Phoenix Advisors as the firm the borough uses to administer pilot billing and collection and said Phoenix handles the pilot billing function.

Council members acknowledged concerns about transparency and timing of materials and said they would work to provide clearer, earlier information for future presentations. Several council members defended the use of PILOTs as a tool neighboring municipalities also use to encourage development, while recognizing that the distribution of tax revenue between town and school affects how the benefits are felt by taxpayers.

Separately, council and staff discussed a proposed Lakeside Middle School street closure for a grade-award ceremony (approved on consent) and several recreation and open-space items, including a request to fund half the replacement cost for a rotted dock at Lakeside Avenue; council members asked staff to explore funding sources and reported formal quotes were being obtained.

No new decisions were made on changing the borough’s pilot policy; council members directed staff to provide additional financial detail and to follow up with Phoenix Advisors and redevelopment staff on the audit and billing procedures.