Hackensack council rescinds three long‑term tax exemption agreements after heated public comments

The Hackensack City Council on Aug. 11 adopted three ordinances rescinding recent financial agreements that had granted long‑term tax exemptions (commonly called PILOTs) to redevelopers, voting unanimously on each measure.

The move overturns ordinances authorizing financial agreements for projects described in the record as RHR Hackensack Urban Renewal LLC (Ordinance 19‑2025 / rescinded by Ordinance 38‑2025), S61 Urban Renewal Company LLC (rescinded by Ordinance 39‑2025) and Sapphire Urban Renewal LLC (rescinded by Ordinance 40‑2025). Council members Deputy Mayor Toomey, Council members Clark Collins, Carroll and Diaz and Mayor Kasim Gaines all voted “aye” on the roll calls recorded by the clerk.

Why it matters: the agreements at issue were authorized under New Jersey’s long‑term tax exemption statute (N.J.S.A. 40A:20‑1 et seq.) and were intended to shift some redevelopment tax revenue into payments in lieu of taxes. Supporters said the agreements enable large downtown projects and produce revenue that would not exist otherwise; opponents — including many Hackensack residents — said the deals reduced revenue available for schools, infrastructure and public safety and constrained the city’s ability to require community benefits.

Developers and their counsel urged the council not to rescind the agreements. Christopher Minks, general counsel for Russo Development, said the project tied to the rescinded ordinance would generate significantly more revenue for the city than the parcel does now and described the rescission as “ill‑conceived” and illegal. He said, “This project, under the pilot, would generate at least $1,400,000 in revenue to the city of Hackensack” compared with $144,000 today, and warned of liability and losses if the city acts before full information is shared.

Attorneys representing other redevelopers made similar points. Carl Rizzo, counsel for Essex 1 Urban Renewal Company LLC, said his client had spent and committed more than $2.6 million in reliance on city agreements and that rescinding the financial agreement would be “a direct violation of law” and would prompt litigation. Leo Hurley, counsel to Sapphire Urban Renewal LLC, said the property currently produces about $40,000 a year in taxes and would produce roughly $488,000 annually under the PILOT structure his client negotiated.

Residents and local officials urged the council to act. Public commenters cited rising rents, strains on school capacity, stormwater and traffic impacts and a perceived lack of community benefits from recent developments. Pat Henry, a Hackensack resident, said the PILOT payments “don’t even cover the cost of schools and infrastructure” and urged the council to cancel the pilot plans. Celeste King, an administrator with Hackensack Public Schools, told the council that enrollment pressures and flooding incidents are increasing and said the city may need to pause new PILOTs while impacts are studied.

Council members and the mayor said they were responding to voter concerns and to a perception that several of the financial agreements were completed in the waning days of the prior administration, leaving questions about public process. Mayor Gaines said no redevelopment approvals or site plan approvals have been rescinded; the council’s action targeted only the financial agreements.

Several developer representatives said they would pursue legal remedies; council members and staff acknowledged the risk of litigation but said the council has a duty to review long‑term agreements that materially affect municipal finances.

What’s next: the ordinances take effect as provided by law. Developers stated on the record that they may file suit; the council directed staff to continue communications and review related city obligations such as affordable‑housing settlement commitments.