Veteran urges Old Tappan to revisit ordinance after 100% disability determination; council to review

Brett Pugliese, chairman of the Borough of Old Tappan Veterans Advisory Committee, told the mayor and council he had been declared 100% service‑connected disabled and urged the borough to change its local ordinance so affected veterans can receive retroactive municipal property‑tax relief.

Pugliese said he was notified of the 100% determination in October 2025 but only received paperwork from the Department of Veterans Services in March 2026. “All 100% totally and permanently disabled veterans through service‑connected disabilities have a total property tax exemption retroactive to the effective date of the determination,” Pugliese said, adding that current state legislation (Assembly bill A‑941) would require the state to reimburse municipalities for those refunds if it becomes law.

Council members acknowledged the hardship Pugliese described but cautioned that the borough’s ordinance now limits retroactivity to the remainder of the year in which an application is filed. “Our ordinance in Old Tappan says the exemption is prorated for the remainder of the year in which the application is made; no further retroactive refund is granted regardless of the disability date,” one council member read from the code. Council finance representatives and members warned that any retroactive municipal refunds would come entirely from the borough’s budget because the borough does not currently receive reimbursement from county or school taxing authorities.

Officials discussed potential next steps. The presiding officer proposed a closed‑session discussion to review the claimant’s case and to have councilmembers and the veterans committee meet to consider whether to revise the ordinance when state law changes. Council President Benagi said he would wait to see how Assembly bill A‑941 progresses before recommending ordinance changes. Another councilor noted the borough’s 2026 budget has already been adopted and contains no appropriation for retroactive refunds.

Pugliese said he was seeking relief only for the current year and not retroactivity to prior years; council members responded that the issue raises broader fiscal and precedent considerations that merit review. The council agreed to schedule a limited closed‑session review and to have staff and counsel report back at the next meeting.

Next steps: council directed staff to research the local ordinance’s wording and the current status of A‑941, consult the borough attorney, and place the matter on a follow‑up agenda for review. If council seeks to change the ordinance, members said the borough would also need to consider budgeting for potential reimbursements.