Debate Erupts Between Westfield Councilman + Mayor Over Redevelopment

WESTFIELD, NJ — At Tuesday night's Westfield Town Council meeting, a contentious argument broke out between Mayor Shelley Brindle and Councilman Mark LoGrippo when discussing the proposed Lord & Taylor redevelopment project — also known as One Westfield Place.

Following the public comment period of the meeting, Brindle said she wanted to address concerns about the redevelopment that she had heard from residents and specifically from LoGrippo who had posted a letter on his Facebook page, as well as on The Westfield Leader, criticizing the town's plan to sign a PILOT agreement for the project.

During the 2020 pandemic, LoGrippo voted against to an ordinance that designated the Lord & Taylor site and the town's municipal parking lots as "in need of redevelopment."

Brindle said LoGrippo's recent letter was "full of inaccuracies."

Members of Streetworks Development — the real estate development arm of Hudson's Bay Company — presented their development plan to "revitalize" the old Lord & Taylor site and two train station parking lots at a council meeting on Sept. 20.

The 731,000 square-foot complex, dubbed "One Westfield Place," is proposed as a mixed-used development with increased walkability, pedestrian access to open spaces, tree-lined sidewalks, "picturesque" main streets and buildings designed to complement the "unique charm of the town."

Residents have expressed mixed feelings about the large development that would include 154 residential apartments for older residents, 69 apartments for young professionals, some affordable housing units, office space, retail and more.

Read more: Lord & Taylor Development Gets Mixed Response From Westfield Residents

The developers have proposed using a PILOT program, which stands for "Payments In Lieu of Taxes" to fund the project. Streetworks said this would generate more than $200 million in revenue for the town over the course of 30 years.

Streetworks argues that this would help stabilize taxes, fund public improvements and support other municipal projects in the future.

In his letter, however, LoGrippo said the PILOT program would "create havoc with school budgets" because he believes it would eliminate the tax base properties that contribute revenue available to fund local schools.

"Unlike regular property taxes that you and I pay, the agreed payment from the developer is used almost exclusively to fund the municipal budget, with 5% typically paid to the county; the Town is under no obligation to share a penny with local schools," LoGrippo stated in his letter.

"As a result, residents need to make up the school funding difference through higher residential property taxes. It is imperative that the Board of Education be included in any PILOT discussions to ensure that our schools are property funded," he continued.

When Brindle asked LoGrippo to explain his letter at Tuesday's meeting, he said, "I find it funny that now you want to speak to me, but every time I try to speak over here, you shut me down."

“Well, that’s why I’m offering you the opportunity tonight,” Brindle replied.

The state of New Jersey defines a PILOT program as a mutual benefit to both developers and municipalities to entice development in areas in need of either redevelopment or rehabilitation.

According to the state, developers benefit from a PILOT by receiving a property tax exemption during the life of the agreement on the overall improvements to the property (the land value is still subject to property taxes).

At the same time, the municipalities also benefit as these payments received go directly to the municipality and do not have to be shared with other local taxes, such as school taxes, local, etc., although 5 percent of the payments received go directly to the county budgets, according to the state.

But LoGrippo argued that the town is entitled to keep 95 percent of any profit generated by the project and that the schools did not receive any benefits when a PILOT agreement was previously made for a development entity behind Westfield Crossing in 2021.

However, Brindle said that is not correct.

"The school districts always get paid first," Brindle said. "So this notion that a PILOT is shortchanging the schools is false."

“It’s important to remember that the schools will always be fully funded, PILOT or no PILOT. By law, the Board of Education is guaranteed full funding of its budget regardless of what the municipality collects," she said.

Brindle explained that while the developer has to pay conventional taxes on the value of the land, the town will still generate money with the new improvements that are proposed for the North and South Avenue train parking lot.

She added that 20 percent of the PILOT would be set aside to help with tax relief, if the project is approved.

Brindle further argued that the project would not have a major impact on the school population, since 154 units will be set aside for people aged 55 and over. She said it would only add about 10 to 12 school-aged children to the district.

LoGrippo also asked about the town's bidding process for the development.

"If you’re going to go out and sell the town’s biggest asset, why wouldn’t you see if someone else would give us more for it?” he said.

Brindle said by law, there is no requirement to go through a public bidding process.

“Negotiating with a single redeveloper allows the town to insist that the redevelopment project puts forth consistently implemented public improvements and amenities for the entire community, something that you would not get with individual developers,” Brindle said.

Brindle also added that rumors that the project will reduce the amount of commuter parking at the train station is false and that the town is committed to keeping "one to one" commuter parking.

You can learn more about the proposed redevelopment on the town's website and view the full council meeting on Facebook Live.

Have a news tip? Email remy.samuels@patch.com.