Parsippany Approves PILOT Projects Despite Public Backlash

PARSIPPANY, NJ — The Parsippany Town Council made the decision to approve three new PILOT projects in the township, a decision that some residents and members of the town school board are not happy with.

Over the last two town council meetings, discussions and disagreements have been sparked after Mayor James Barberio and a council majority spoke in favor of the financial arrangements known as PILOTs—short for Payments In Lieu Of Taxes — for the township.

Before the Nov. 9 town council meeting, where the PILOTs were introduced, several residents had already spoken out on social media against the idea of the town entering into PILOT agreements, even creating a flyer for the public—a move that the mayor said was full of misinformation.

PILOT agreements, also known as municipal tax abatements, are deals that enable a developer to switch their standard tax payments for a property to a fixed, yearly payment to the municipality.

In Parsippany, the council was voting on three specific PILOT programs for redevelopment projects at 2 and 3 Campus Drive and 249 Pomeroy Road.

Four council members, Michael dePierro, Loretta Gragnani, Frank Neglia, and Paul Carifi, support the mayor's stance on the planned PILOT programs. Justin Musella, the sole council member to vote no, has spoken out against the use of PILOTs in the township.

On Tuesday night, the mayor maintained his position, saying that without the use of PILOTs, the continued blight of vacant or demolished office buildings will significantly add to the tax burden for residents.

"If we don't start doing things and working with them, get ready for round four of affordable housing. That's what they're getting ready for. How do I know that? They pretty much told me that, so decisions have to be made; we have to bring revenues in. We're going to generate revenue with these projects," Barberio said.

Barberio also criticized the Parsippany-Troy Hills School District School Board for comments made last week concerning the PILOT projects.

On Nov. 21, Alison Cogan, the president of the Parsippany Board of Education, spoke out, expressing frustration that the school district was not being included in any of the conversations for the PILOTs.

Following the meeting, the school district released a statement, expressing their disapproval of the PILOT program and asking for members of the public to attend the next council meeting to speak out against the projects.

"Reading this article was particularly disturbing because it was not factual. I'm going to start with number one: the title, New Residential Development Without Taxes Means Schools and Home Values Suffer. This title is both irresponsible and incorrect. In every PILOT arrangement, land taxes are still paid and the school board still gets its portion of the land tax. The statement about taxes is wrong and the school board knows it. The statement that home values suffer is made without any basis of support whatsoever and therefore either incorrect or highly irresponsible," Barberio said.

In response, Andy Choffo, a recently elected member of the Parsippany Board of Education said that the potential result of an increase in student enrollment would be the school district increasing their taxes for all township residents to help balance out the costs.

Choffo used the neighboring town of Montville as an example, noting that they have also been experiencing the effects of overdevelopment and PILOT programs, resulting in the local school district holding a referendum election.

"To offset the loss of developer-paid tax revenue under the PILOT, the Montville school district is proposing a $70 million referendum. This is to expand and improve schools due to the influx of children and the decrease in tax dollars by the developer. If the referendum passes, who will pay for the school improvements? Residential taxpayers, not the developer," Choffo said.

During the five-hour-long meeting, some residents asked the council to table this subject and postpone the vote until more information was made available to the public. Ultimately, the council voted on the three separate ordinances, ending in a 4-1 vote.

To view the full meeting, click here.