Montclair council tables vote on Lackawanna Plaza PILOT after hours of public comment

The Montclair Township Council on March 17 deferred a decision on a proposed long-term tax agreement for the Lackawanna Plaza redevelopment after more than two hours of public comment and extended questioning of the project’s financial consultant.

Hundreds of residents turned out for the continued public hearing on ordinance 02603, which would authorize a financial agreement between the Township and Lackawanna Montclair Urban Renewal LLC. Supporters urged the council to approve the redevelopment for its potential to bring capital to the town and build housing; opponents pressed the council to reject or substantially renegotiate a proposed 10% PILOT, arguing the break would shift a long-term tax burden onto homeowners and schools.

Diane Anglin, who identified herself as a resident at 158 Orange Road, told the council she supports the project but demanded the governing body make a decision after repeated delays: “We elected you all to make decisions... Let’s get this done,” she said, urging council members to stop postponing a vote.

At a detailed question-and-answer session, financial consultant Mike Hanley defended the structure of the proposed financial agreement and the assumptions behind the pro forma. “The township’s role in this project makes them a partner in the revenue stream,” Hanley said, explaining that the agreement would require annual audits and that the township would receive a negotiated share of the project’s generated revenue rather than an ownership stake.

Residents and civic speakers pressed specific concerns to the council: whether the PILOT would be necessary given strong Montclair real-estate values; whether the developer’s proposed affordable and workforce set-asides and the supermarket component would truly serve the broader community; the possibility that developers could refinance or sell the completed property while retaining outsized benefits; and what, if any, protections the redevelopment agreement would include to ensure timely completion and enforce community commitments.

Robin Moore, a resident who reviewed the draft agreement’s provisions, urged the council to revisit terms she said would limit residents’ ability to share in the project’s upside, calling attention to definitions of “institutional equity financing” and expense rules that could reduce the likelihood of excess net profit being available for community participation.

Council members also solicited legal counsel on statutory limits. Township counsel told the council the enabling statute allows up to a 2% fee on an annual service charge upon a transfer but does not provide a mechanism for the township to share in the gain on a sale of the property.

After discussion, Councilor Toller moved to table the vote and continue consideration at the council’s March 24 meeting so staff could provide additional information and the public could submit follow-up questions. The motion carried (Yes: Birmingham, DeMatteo, Harrison, Toller, Mayor Baskerville; No: Williams; Abstain: Deputy Mayor Anderson).

What’s next: The council requested the consultant’s March 13 memo and underlying pro forma be posted to the Township website; staff said the report would be uploaded by the next day. Council members indicated they want additional detail about projected student impacts on the school district, the timing of projected PILOT revenue, and contract provisions to protect the township if the project is delayed or sold.

The public hearing formally remains open for the Lackawanna Plaza financial agreement; the council will revisit the item at its March 24 meeting.