Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council advances 51 Union redevelopment agreement on first reading amid calls for more public input
Summary
The Rutherford Mayor and Council approved first reading of a financial agreement with 51 Union A Urban Renewal LLC (property at block 76, lot 32) after debate about public outreach; one council member abstained pending a public presentation and the borough administrator said full documents will be posted online tomorrow.
The Rutherford Mayor and Council on Aug. 25 advanced, on first reading, an ordinance approving execution of a financial agreement with 51 Union A Urban Renewal LLC for property identified as block 76, lot 32, commonly known as 51 Union.
Council President McGowan moved the ordinance and a second was recorded; during the roll call the measure passed with Council President McGowan, Council Dev Cohen, Councilman Kley, Councilman Erico and Councilman Guzman voting yes and Councilwoman Quatron recording an abstention because she said she is conflicted about the process and wants the developer to present publicly before the council votes on the financial agreements.
Quatron said she supports redevelopment of what she described as a run‑down area but objected to advancing pilot‑style agreements without a public presentation and more notice. Several other council members responded that borough professionals had participated in negotiations and that a public presentation would be scheduled for the next meeting so residents can review detailed terms before second reading.
Borough Administrator Bob told the meeting that the redevelopment documents and the financial agreement terms will be posted on the borough website under the redevelopment section and transmitted to subscribed residents tomorrow.
Residents at public comment raised fiscal concerns about pilot programs and potential impacts on the Board of Education. David Labruno and Frank Wilson warned that exemptions or long tax‑abatement pilots can reduce tax receipts to the school district; Labruno cited board figures discussed in public meetings about per‑pupil costs and urged transparency in financial assumptions. When an attendee cited a figure of 21 units for the project, Councilman Guzman corrected that the proposal under discussion includes 18 units, of which three are designated as affordable housing.
What happens next: the ordinance passed on first reading and will be advertised according to law; the council indicated a developer presentation and a second reading are expected at a subsequent meeting before any final vote.
