The board’s decision to postpone the approval of bills for College Engineering was driven by a member’s insistence on reviewing the actual invoices before voting. This sentiment was shared among attendees, leading to a broader discussion about the processes governing board approvals. It was pointed out that while the engineers and planners work for the board, the checks are processed elsewhere, prompting a call for better procedural oversight. The board agreed to revisit the matter in future meetings after establishing more robust procedures for reviewing such financial documents.

In parallel, the meeting also addressed a redevelopment project within Pompton Lakes, focusing on various zoning variances and the implications of Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) agreements. Members debated the financial impact of PILOT agreements, emphasizing their potential to generate substantial revenue for the town over 20- or 30-year terms.

Participants examined the differences between 20-year and 30-year PILOT agreements, with some advocating for longer terms due to their alignment with typical project financing periods and their potential to yield higher revenues. It was noted that a 30-year PILOT could generate approximately $2.5 million, compared to lesser amounts with shorter agreements. The conversation highlighted the strategic importance of PILOTs in incentivizing redevelopment in economically challenged areas, although concerns were raised about their long-term impact on the town’s tax base and community resources.

The board’s deliberations also touched on the broader implications of PILOT agreements for local taxation. Currently, the borough retains about 25% of property tax revenue, with the remainder allocated to the county and school systems. Under the proposed PILOT structure, the borough would receive 95% of taxes from redevelopment projects, prompting discussions about the potential impact on local schools. While the school system would still receive its base funding, the additional revenue from PILOTs could benefit the borough, provided that these developments do not lead to a substantial increase in school-age children.

Beyond financial considerations, the meeting addressed concerns over parking requirements for the redevelopment project, particularly the expectation of additional parking spaces from a county project that has not yet been constructed. The timing of these projects was deemed critical, as unresolved parking issues could delay further progress.

The meeting also revisited the topic of downtown redevelopment plans, particularly concerning a property previously an old gas station on Avenue. The council had approved zoning variances and a pilot approval for this site, signaling its imminent return to the planning board for a formal site plan review. Public comments during a recent council meeting had focused on issues related to studio apartments and parking availability, with the applicant proposing to secure additional parking from the county to accommodate a greater number of rental units.

As the board assessed the complexities of redevelopment projects, discussions also ventured into the legal and environmental aspects of local development. Concerns about a nearby landfill’s increasing size and legality were raised, highlighting frustrations over perceived inconsistencies in regulatory enforcement. Members noted the importance of ensuring any fill used in construction projects is certified clean to prevent contamination.

Although no new applications or conceptual plans were discussed during the meeting, members shared updates on local projects, including the renovation plans for a fieldhouse at Hershe Park. Despite some setbacks, such as rejected plans and ongoing revisions, new playground equipment was ordered and expected within six weeks.