Town Council Notifications - Regular Meeting

Doesn't matter. You just have to watch the fourth quarter. Uh that is that is true. Like this. That is crazy. That is true. Oh, I think I think we're good. All right, everybody. Um thank you all for being here. Uh, adequate notice of this meeting as required by the open public meetings act was provided through the posting, mailing and filing of the annual notice of regularly scheduled meetings of the town council on December 17, 2024. The notice was on that date posted on the bulletin board of the municipal building provided to the Westfield leader in the star ledger and filed with the clerk of the town of Westfield, Miss Lashi. May I have a roll call? Mayor Rindle here. Council member Sav here. Dardia here. McGallen here. Kefir here. Saunders here. Armentoto here. Contract here. Healey here. Please rise for the indication. Give my counsel the contract and remain standing for the salute to the flag. We seek blessings on the tasks before us. Bless our efforts with clear insight, our deliberations with wisdom, our work with clarity and accuracy in our decisions with impartiality. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. No comments from you. Should we go right to our proclamations? All right. We have two proclamations this evening. Um first is uh for um the Westfield Foundation honoring their 50th anniversary. I'm going to ask I see is it Dave Glenn are you coming up here too? Excellent. So um is there anybody else? Oh and Bob. Terrific.

So, thank you so much for being here. We're thrilled to do this. Whereas, the Westfield Foundation established in 1975 is a nonprofit community foundation dedicated to supporting organizations that foster positive change and elevate the quality quality of life in Westfield and the surrounding communities. And whereas through purposeful investments in education, the arts, community development, and health and social services, the foundation has demonstrated a steadfast commitment to addressing critical community challenges, advancing equity, and cultivating strong collaborative partnerships to create lasting impact. And whereas the foundation has faithfully served the town of Westfield with a deep sense of purpose, responding to evolving community needs, sustaining local agencies and institutions, and enriching the lives of citizens of all ages. And whereas over the past 50 years, the Westfield Foundation has awarded millions of dollars in grants and scholarships to individuals and organizations whose work benefits the greater community, including but not limited to Children's Specialized Hospital, Mindowask Park Playground, the Westfield Memorial Library, the Westfield YMCA, the Westfield Board of Ed, and the Miller Corey House. And whereas in addition to its grant making, the foundation serves as a trusted steward of managed Scott funds and scholarship funds, helping donors achieve their philanthropic goals while ensuring long-term community benefit. And whereas the foundation is covered by a dedicated board of 15 trustees, all active community members who provide leadership, steward the foundation's endowment, and serve as catalyst in identifying and addressing local opportunities and challenges. And whereas the mayor town council of the town of Westfield wish to recognize and commend the Westfield Foundation for its extraordinary legacy of service and express our sincere appreciation for its

continued contributions to the betterment of our community. Now therefore, be it resolved that I, Mayor Shelley Brindle, on behalf of the town council and the residents of the town of Westfield, extend our heartfelt congratulations and gratitude to the Westfield Foundation on the occasion of its 50th anniversary and wish the organization continued success in the years ahead. Congratulations. [Applause] Well, thank you, mayor. We really appreciate um this honor and um you know, we we're very grateful for all the people in Westfield that have, you know, given to the foundation over 50 years. Um um and we're really looking forward to the next 50 years. Thank you. Congratulations. We'll do a quick check. [Applause] Thank you. Okay, I see. Come on, rescue squad, come on up. Cali, we got to stop meeting like this. Callie is everywhere. Um, and the rescue squad is everywhere. So, thank you. Um, it's emergency medical services week. Whereas emergency medical services is a vital public service and whereas the members of emergency medical

services teams are ready to provide life-saving care to those in need 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. And whereas access to quality emergency care dramatically improves the survival and recovery rate of those who experience sudden illness or injury. And whereas emergency medical services fills health care gaps by providing important out of hospital care including preventive medicine, follow-up care and access to tele medicine. And whereas the emergency medical services system consists of first responders, emergency medical technicians, paramedics, emergency medical dispatchers, firefighters, police officers, educators, administrators, prehosp nurses, emergency nurses, and physicians, trained members of the public, and other out of hospital medical care providers. And whereas the members of emergency medical services teams, whether career or volunteering, engage in thousands of hours of specialized training and continuing education to enhance their life-saving skills. And whereas it is appropriate to recognize the value and the accomplishments of emergency medical services service providers by designating the emergency medical services week. Now therefore, I, Mayor Shelley Brindle, on behalf of the town council, do hereby proclaim the week of May 18th, 2025 as emergency medical services week in the town of Westfield and encourage the community to recognize the EMS profession and the essential service it provides. Thank you very much, thank you, everybody. We are also, just like the Westfield Foundation, very grateful for everyone that contributes to our mission. We've been serving the town of Westfield now for 74 years, and we're really thankful to have the support of the mayor and the town council. So, thank you. We have a few high school kids here, so maybe you want to make a little call out. We do. We We start accepting volunteers as young as 16. We have a very

prestigious program. We only have 11 spots available. Um, so please apply if you're interested and you don't have to be in high school. You can be a career change like myself, a retiree. Um, we're Westfield residents. So come serve, work with us. And Callie was my son's high school math teacher. So exactly. We'll do a quick picture. Thank you. And you all are also welcome to leave. They don't have to stay. I almost feel like I need to give people permission. Um, okay. So, uh, we have a very busy agenda here this evening. So, um, so bear with me while I go through some fairly lengthy opening remarks just to kind of set the stage for tonight. Um, I first want to talk about and mention the amazing Memorial Day parade yesterday. It was a picture perfect day for annual Memorial Day service honoring our country's fall country's fallen service members. I want to thank all the participants. I don't think I've ever seen a crowd on the streets like we saw yesterday. I'm sure the weather had something to do with it. Um it was really incredible and I just want to make sure to recognize um the volunteers who really made it all happen and that was Joe Mak, Reverend Allison Phillip, Alan Beeth from the American Legion and

Jim McDonald for the time and effort that made the day so meaningful. And of course to our police and fire departments, our EMS crews and everything else that really made it as safe and our DPW who brought out all the equipment um and made the monuments look so great. So thank you. It was a really special, beautiful day in town yesterday. Um, I do want to remind everybody about an important uh election that's coming up on June 10th. Um, it's the primary and uh Westfield, I should say New Jersey hasn't had a very competitive primary for decades and that is not the case this year. So, I would encourage all those uh anybody to to register to vote in the primary. You can vote by mail, in person early voting, um and of course on primary election day. Um the New Jersey division elections website will uh check you can check your voter registration status. And June 3rd is the application deadline for mail and ballot. Um you can go and get that at the Elizabeth and the West County Clerk offices. Um, and I also you although you do have to be registered with a party, a Democrat or a Republican to vote in the primary, if you are an an affiliated voter, you can actually go to the polls on June 10th and make a party declaration and vote and then you can always switch it back if you wish. So, if you're unaffiliated, you can also participate in the primary as well. So, um, New Jersey Votes has a great website as does, uh, anything on our website under elections. Um so in terms of tonight's legislative items, so let me just go through uh a couple highlights. Um from public safety, transportation, and parking, we have three resolutions that authorize essential purchases for our police and fire departments, including self-contained breathing apparatus and PPE turnout gear for the fire department and new ballistic helmets for the police department, all of which are funded by our capital and operating budgets. From the public works committee, we have four resolutions. Three of which authorize awards of

contract to make important purchases for the DPW. That includes two trailers, two four-wheel drive trucks, and a pickup truck for daily operations. This is all the fun stuff that happens after we adopt our budget. And now we get actually buy all this really amazing new equipment for our departments. Um, from the code review and town property committee, we have a resolution addressing a proposed transfer of development rights for the project known as the Sophia, which is at Clark and Ferris, from James Ward, the current owner of the project to Vango Development, who has extensive experience in projects of similar size and scope in New Jersey. uh Jim Gilde, Don Samut and I had a productive meeting with the Vango CEO recently and I actually have also personally received some personal and positive endorsements about Vango from officials and other communities where they have completed projects and I have to say universally they are well very highly regarded. Any sale or transfer of this project must be approved by the town council which is the reason for this resolution tonight and it cannot be unreasonably denied, conditioned or delayed. And as part of the transfer, a modification to the project schedule is recommended, reducing the time frame for which the developer must obtain all government approvals from 12 months to 9 months. There will be no material or a changes or amendments to the project since planning board approvals have already been obtained and the project is governed by an already approved redevelopment agreement. On the finance policy committee, our finance chair, Linda, has a very busy evening this evening. Um we have a vote on our annual resolution confirming compliance with local finance board rules regarding recommendations of our annual audit. 2024 was another very successful audit report. It seems to be the expectation. Now Jim sets a very high bar and there are no formal recommendations that were made. Um, again between Jim, our town administrator, our CFO Scott Olsen, the finance office staff, and all the

department heads and staff really do an incredible job of managing the respective department budgets effectively and efficiently, which is why we get these like gold stars on our audit reports. Uh, we also have three resolutions authorizing grants to new tenants of affordable units under our affordably affordability assistance program. All are for new or low moderate income tenants at the Parkside, which is the new development on Springfield Avenue. And they are 100% funded through our affordable housing trust fund, which is paid by developers fees. They've already been reviewed and approved by our thirdparty professional firm, Community Grants, Planning and Housing. On the revenue front, this is always fun when we get to actually approve insertion of special revenue items. The first is our annual clean communities award which totals um close to $75,000 for 25 to offset costs for our conservation center operations and provides a stipen to our recycling coordinator. The second is the $30,000 community block development grant which is $10,000 for the annual senior transportation program and 20,000 to offset the cost for the memorial park bathroom upgrade. So in addition told you it's a busy night. We have five ordinances on second reading. A special bond ordinance authorizing the purchase of a new fuel system at the DPW which serves our entire municipal fleet as well fleet as well as that of the board of education rescue squad and our shared service with the burrow of Vanwood. We also have a special capital ordinance authorizing $525,000 in the capital improvement fund to be used for the acquisition of parking system equipment, demolition of townowned buildings at 200 South and 1037 central avenues, an engineering and design plan for Quimby Streetscape improvements, an existing condition assessment study of the sanitary sewer system and various improvements to public buildings. This is a fully funded ordinance, meaning that no debt service is generated from this authorization.

And then we have an ordinance on second reading authorizing seven amended and restated financial agreements for one Westfield place. Each of which memorializes the terms of the annual service charge or pilot that the applicable project will pay in le of convent conventional taxes on the private uh uh street works development improvements. We have an ordinance on second reading authorizing a special assessment agreements for one Westville Place and a special bond ordinance on second reading cancelling $12 million of the previously approved redevelopment area bonds bonds authorization to finance the construction of the public improvements for onefield place reducing the total bond authorization from 57 to $45 million. At our last meeting, just to recap for everybody where we are on this project, we voted to adopt the amended redevelopment agreement or RDA in short and the long-term exemption application for one Westfield Place. Those were voted and adopted already. And we also voted unanimously to advance on second reading the related financial ordinances that are on tonight's agenda. As with all ordinances on second reading per state law, which tonight include three related to one Westfield Place and two unrelated to the project, the public has had the opportunity to review the information presented at our last meeting, which for the One Westfield Place ordinances, included our professionals delivering detailed presentations and the materials being posted to our website. Tonight, we will hold public hearings before the final ad adoption votes take place later in the evening. This is a standard municipal process which is legislated by the state and is followed by all of New Jerseys 564 municipalities. As a reminder, these updated one must feel place financials reflect the updated redevelopment plan and redevelopment agreement terms and details and provide the town with even greater protections than the original

agreements did. They reflect the reduced size and scope of the amended RDP which was adopted last October and a reduction in debt authorization from 57 to 45 million. Tonight's votes represent a significant and much anticipated milestone for one Westfield Place and we are very excited to finally get this project underway. It's also a good time to reiterate why we embarked on this project in the first place and why the inclusion of the small portion of the North and South Avenue municipal parking lots is critical to achieving our overall objectives of this transformative project. First and foremost, this project's primary objective as set forth in the town's master plan was always to grow and diversify our local economy to ensure that our downtown could survive the boom and bust economic cycles that have led to high vacancy rates in the past while delivering unprecedented new sources of commercial tax revenue to stabilize and reduce taxes over time for our overburdened taxpayers. Additionally, One Westfield Place delivers public benefits that will mitigate longstanding traffic, parking, and congestion challenges, provide engaging spaces for community gathering, art, and events, revitalize the South Avenue downtown corridor, and improve the overall downtown streetscape. The project has always been viewed in totality and by combining a small 2.3 acre portion of our town lots with the privatelyowned 7 acre Lord and Taylor property, the whole becomes far greater than the sum of the parts. This public private partnership is what is enabling us to leverage the combined properties to deliver over $40 million in public improvements which the town and most municipalities could not otherwise fund on its own. These public

benefits in addition to the fulfillment of our long-term smart growth goals continue to drive our holistic approach to this project. So tonight, just in terms of process, each ordinance on second reading will have a separate public hearing during which time members of the public may comment or ask questions to the governing body specific to that ordinance, which we will be prepared to answer before moving to final votes. Our redevelopment council, uh, bond council, Matt Jessup, he will be providing more context on each ordinance and will also respond to questions that were posed at the last meeting as promised. So Matt is joined by Steve Melennick, our redevelopment council, and Bob Pal, our financial analyst. All of whom have worked on this one Westfield place from the beginning to advocate for the town's best interest, which of course is and always been our top priority. So just to reiterate how this is going to work. So um I'm going to ask Matt to come up in just a minute and then we are going we'll give a little preview on the ordinance and then the public hearing portion of it is specific to that ordinance. And these are all financial agreements. So the commentary on these hearings and this is legislated um has to be specific to what it is we'll be voting on. If you have other comments unrelated to the financial agreements that are voting, you can bring them up in the public comment portion later in the meeting. But things related to the the scope and size or specific height or any of those issues are not is not what's being voted on tonight. but you can certainly bring those up later in the public comment session if you like. So, um, so with that, I'm going to ask Matt to come up and give a little preview of the ordinances and preemptively address some of the comments that were raised or questions that were raised in the meeting that we had two weeks ago. With that, Matt, thank you. Uh, sure. Good evening, mayor, council

members. Matt Jessup, McMan Scotland and Bowman, your redevelopment bond council. Uh I'm also going to tag in Steve Meenic at one point to answer a few of the um questions that we received at the last meeting that are you know more um related to the redevelopment agreement. Uh but to start going back to sort of I think mayor what you started with the ordinances the legislation that's on for tonight um mayor as you mentioned the redevelopment agreement amendments those were already voted on that's already done so we're really here to finish the finance component of this project. So you have a couple things on your agenda. One is uh public hearing and final adoption of the ordinance that approves the seven uh financial agreements. Financial agreements are the documents that memorialize the terms of the pilots, the payment in lie of taxes. at the last meeting and back in October, November, we went through what those revenues look like uh as projected both on a gross basis and then of course net of debt service on um bonds issued to fund public improvements. Um one of the key changes we highlighted last time was that these financial agreements include the concept of a minimum annual service charge. So that basically no matter how well or poorly the projects are performing, the minimum pilot payment that the developer will have to make is equal to debt service on our bonds. And as a reminder, any failure to pay a pilot is similar to any one of us failing to pay our real estate taxes. It converts to a municipal lean. it attaches to the land and it goes through the same legal and ultimately monetary process um to produce revenue available in the event of um of a failed payment or a payment of a lesser amount. Um, as I've probably said here before because I say it a lot in other places. Um, in projects like this, you have a

construction lender who appreci lenders who recognize that a failed pilot payment becomes a tax lean which automatically trumps the mortgage on their loan. And so what we see time and time again is that construction lenders are not willing to lose their security, right? the construction lender's only security on the project is the project itself, the land and the improvements on the project itself. And so they're not going to let a municipal lean for $500,000 or whatever that number is trump their mortgage and as a result the um the finance institution ends up typically making that uh payment. Nonetheless, we've got the minimum annual service charge there. The other ordinance you have on for tonight approves the seven special assessment agreements. And again taking half step back, the financial agreements and the pilot govern revenue when the project is built going forward for the next 30 plus years. The special assessment agreements are documents that we hope to never use, but they are in place from today until construction is complete and the pilots kick in. That is the security in the event that essentially the project starts, we issue bonds and the project then gets delayed for one or more reasons. And then the revenues are not there to pay debt service on our bonds, which again is not an option. We can't charge a pilot because a pilot can only be charged on improvements. In this circumstance, the improvements aren't done yet. But you are allowed to charge a a special assessment on property that is not improved or partially approved, etc. So similar to the pilot, we have a special assessment agreement, seven of them that say if bonds are issued and we are short revenues, you will pay the amount necessary to pay debt service on our bonds. And if you don't, we will attach a lean on your property and we

will move to monetize, you know, foreclose, etc. And again, I would suggest that, you know, you're halfway into the ground. The only way the lender is going to get repaid at that point is if the project gets complete, right? lenders don't get repaid on projects that never get done. So again, um we would expect to see that lender step up. Um nonetheless, we have that secure lean. We're not relying on it by any stretch, but practically speaking, it's what we tend to see. Uh so we'll have that lean on that property um in the event that after we issue our bonds, pilot revenues do not come online. The third document that you have on your agenda, not an ordinance, but a resolution that ties to the third ordinance, which of course is the bond ordinance that cancels $12 million of um debt that is not needed. Uh important that we wanted to downsize the amount of bonds we can issue to rightsize it to our new project revenues based on this revised scope of project. We didn't want to be able to issue too many bonds relative to the amount of revenue that we are now anticipating under this revised version of the project as it got approved in late 2024. So with that bond ordinance cancels $12 million of debt. This is not unlike what you do with your general capital bond ordinances for repaving roads or parks or playgrounds. You estimate a cost, you execute, and then you end up cancelling the difference. Now admittedly those differences are usually a lot smaller than $12 million, right? The projects are probably a lot smaller than they are in this case. But the idea of basically not having too much excess debt authorization in your net debt number um you know in front of the rating agency etc is an important fiscal management tool. You do it with your general capital projects. We want to do it with this project as well. There's also a resolution that cancels $12 million of bonds. And I confess that's probably pretty

confusing, but I'll so let me take you all through it. Um, when you issue bonds, bonds are authorized by the ordinance, but then there is always an accompanying resolution that sets details of those bonds that are not included in a bond ordinance. So, when you last did a bond sale for general improvement bonds, you had I don't know the issue, but you had probably multiple bond ordinances that funded various projects. You also adopted a resolution, a bond resolution that provided all the details of that sale that are not included in the bond ordinance. What is the form of the bond? Who's authorized to execute the bond? When, where, how, and why do you sell the bonds? You pledge your tax exempt, you know, status to the bonds. You authorize your bond council to undertake actions. There are certain SEC requirements you have to comply with. So you covenant to do that in a bond resolution as opposed to in the ordinance. So again, not unlike your general improvement bond sales in 2023 when you adopted the original bond ordinance, you also adopted a bond resolution. It felt weird to have a bond ordinance authorize lesser debt or cancel debt and leave a bond resolution hanging out there that still had the higher amount of debt authorized. And while as you all may know what can be done by resolution can certainly be done by ordinance. So could we have done all of that in the ordinance as well? Probably. But we had done it by resolution. We figured better to keep everything from 2023 to 2025 mirrored. Right? Anything that was approved by ordinance is being approved by ordinance or and or canceled by ordinance. And anything that was approved or canceled by resolution is now being approved or canceled by resolution. So it may seem like a repetitive document. It's not. Um it's an accompanying or complimentary

document, right? Certainly the authorization of debt in your statuto net debt limit that's driven by the bond ordinance. That's really important. But the details of the sale of the bonds, we wanted that same size amount to match the new amount that we're leaving um out under the bond ordinance. So, with all of that said, um, mayor, you had asked us, the professional team, to address some of the questions that were raised at the last meeting and raised since then. Um, so I'll sort of go through them. I think they might be a little bit in order if my notes were right, but um, obviously if we missed anything, we trust that you know, you'll um, check us on that. So I think the first question was asked was whether we are factoring in existing revenues off the Lord and Taylor properties when we were showing revenues to the town of about $164 plus million and then net of debt service about $109 million to the town for municipal budget use. Of course what comes along with that net number are the value of the public improvements, right? So you're really getting that $165 million of value. Um but is that 109 165 um greater than we are getting now? Right. So I do think it's important to take a half step back and recognize that today those Lord and Taylor properties are paying the town about $110,000 a year in taxes. If you raise taxes 2% a year, which as you all know, subject to your statuto exceptions is sort of your baseline uh increase over the course. What's that? No, no, no. And I'm I'm thrilled, trust me. But uh but as a baseline number, typically when we look at these things, because of the 2% cap, we do look at that uh as an overall number. Um if we take that $110,000 a year, 2% a year over 32 years, we end up at about 4.8 8

million. So call it $5 million. So to the question of is the amount we're showing on the slides greater than we are getting now um it is that was the total amount of revenue. So if we were showing 165 and we take out the roughly 5 million that we get today if we did nothing that net number is 160. Same thing we showed net of the debt service 109 million. we take off the roughly $5 million, you know, that we would get today growing for that same 32-year period and you get about $104 million. Um, we were asked whether those revenue numbers we were showing were present valued into today's dollars. Um, that's a great question. We do get that often. The answer is no. Municipalities don't really work in present value, right? I know it's a little contrary to sort of real estate finance, but municipal finance doesn't really operate in um present value. You have five-year capital budget requirements. You have five year you're probably doing fiveyear look forwards on your budgets in total. You're not then taking those five-year budgets and present valuing them today to try and match them up with revenues, right? You're taking a budget of 10 million and saying next year it's going to be 12 million and where am I going to find the revenues expenses to address that? and then you're doing the same thing the next year. So since municipalities function in sort of true dollars as opposed to present value dollars, it's sort of important for us to present that revenue to you the same way so that three years from now you're looking at revenues of X to support expenses of Y, which again are in those dollars, not in today's dollars. you can look at a comparable amount of revenue that we anticipate and obviously once it becomes real appropriate it in that year's budget like you would any other um set of revenues uh going forward. Um it was noted by somebody that the budget has a line item of $20 million for land value. Um the question basically was

what does that represent? that is effectively the amount of um value of the land for the street works for the uh Lord and Teller properties that that the developer can use towards its construction financing. Right? So I know in this case street works came about buying the property not sort of in the traditional sense but through acquisitions, mergers etc. But you still need at the end of the day a construction lender, equity partners, etc. need to understand what and give you credit for the value of that land as part of your contribution into the project. $20 million is the amount that StreetWorks is showing in its budget as the value of the land. Incidentally, those same properties, I believe, are assessed at about $23 million. So, and your assessed value is typically lower than your market value. So, we're actually sort of valuing it um less, which actually is to the benefit of the um of the town. There was also a question about the $4.7 million redeveloper public improvement contribution and what does that represent? That is essentially a contract payment that the redevelopers required to make to us prior to pulling their first building permit for any portion of the project, which of course will be on the west zone. uh they have to pay us the full $4.7 uh million that does get dedicated by the town to be used towards the $42 million in in public improvements. Um but that is a straight contribution payment being made um by the town. Um there were some questions speaking of public improvements about the budget and um price changes on the budget from 2023 to 2025. Again, I thought this was a great point, right? We all see the world changing tariffs, taxes, postcoid costs, etc. Um, certainly fair to say, hey, are

we modifying the budget sort of as we go? Um, and admittedly, it it can be a little confusing because the 2023 budget was a much higher number, right? We were paying for and getting more public improvements when we had a second office building to produce revenues to offset that. Um, if you actually basically look line by line, you'll see that of the public improvements that remain, that $42 million of public improvements that remain, those numbers are different, right? They are changing. I think they're up about $2 million as a start, right? Because they are getting repriced um in real time all the way up through, you know, early um 2025. But in addition to that, we do also have uh $6.5 million in contingency and escalation. The escalation, the concept obviously is we know improvements are not getting done today, right? They're not going to get done till maybe next year and some of them may be the year after that. So an understanding that prices no matter what happens in the world will go up naturally. So there is about $6.5 million in contingency on that $42 million budget. But I think it's worth breaking that down a little more, right? Because the construction costs are only about 31 million of that $42 million. And this the two parking decks are 23 million of that 31 million. Right? So 75% of that cost are the decks. And the decks have not seen the type of changes in construction costs that you might think of with steel or with tariff based materials etc. So, we have talked to your independent um construction monitor for the decks. They have confirmed that the pricing is still correct and is still in line. And that is again about 75% of the hard costs. Right? The argument is soft costs are not subject to nearly the type of wild swings and escalations. People's fairs may go up a little, but they're not

going to go up, you know, 15 20% year-over-year. as much as I'm sure the engineers and the architects would all love for that to be to be the case. Um, and lastly on that item, remember that these improvements by contract are being done pursuant to a guaranteed maximum price contract, right? So that has to get um basically let out, responded to by the trades, prices seen, a price locked. So we know as we go if something does come in over budget, and certainly something will, right? That's the way the world works. we'll know about it and we'll obviously have time to adjust down the road um on other p public improvements if we don't have corresponding projects that come in less than they otherwise were projected to. Um let's see what else. Um we did talk a little bit last time about um the development partner. I think we spent a decent amount of time on that and um I do think and Steve can talk about this a little bit but tonight's a great example. Mayor, you mentioned another project where you have a different develop development partner coming in. I think as I said last time um Street Works has been a great partner. They have planned and helped the town um on the I think the mission or was maybe the goals or the terms you used um on a comprehensive um sort of integrated project across these multiple zones. But we do understand that there will be others that will come in and execute on most of this. Um, that's important for sure. The redevelopment agreement goes through great lengths to provide you all with the not only protections but the discretion to ultimately approve those um those transfer partners. Um there was a comment about the south office uh the south parking deck coming before the south office being ready to go and I just want to tie back because that may have been sort of the 2023 plan. So,

just recall that the south parking deck is part of now the phase one public improvement bonds which are tied to the west zone. So, there really isn't any tie between the south um zone parking deck and the south zone office. Um essentially, Steve again can fact check me, but with the way all the conditions precede and have to happen, the south deck is constructed before the south zone ultimately can get underway. And that south deck in great part takes care of lost parking as a result of the plazas, the squares, the greens being um being improved for uh for public benefit. Um lastly, uh on the public improvements, I did just want to point out that um you know, the numbers look like about $12 million of public improvements have been cut. The reality is it's closer to 10. Again, those numbers are off because you're a removing public improvements, but you're also changing the budget numbers on other public improvements in real time throughout the last two years. That $10 million is essentially four categories of streetscape improvements that were um cut as a result of that second office building not going. So, the way our documents work, you do not have an obligation to fund those improvements via the public improvement bonds. However, um if revenues are higher than we're showing, if debt service is lower than we're showing, and or if you simply say, notwithstanding the idea that we wanted, you know, 20% of the revenues to debt service and 80% to ourselves, we want to change that a little bit. You can certainly voluntarily choose to use pilot revenue either in real time or securitized in a

bond issue to put some or all of those public improvements back in. Um, but it was it was the cut was limited to basically those four categories of all streetscape improvements throughout the various uh districts. And with that, I'll turn it to Steve. Thank you. Thank you, Matt, mayor, members of the council. Good evening, Steve Melenna, Kamro, Smith and Davis. I am the town's redevelopment council. Uh there were several questions that were asked at the last meeting that while they don't directly relate to the finances of the project, um we you know, we wanted to as the town's professionals and in light of the mayor's request answer those questions for the public. Um the first question from Miss Sherwood was where will we be losing affordable housing units if the total number of residential units drops? And that is a reference to the redevelopment agreement provision that provides that if the re the residential units drop thereby the percentage of residential units that have to be affordable then drops. This was a negotiated term because we allowed for the developer to reduce in scope the number of residential units by up to 10%. Why? Because at the time of the redevelopment agreement there were no fully fleshed out construction plans, site plans and going to the planning board was going to be some time. So to allow them to decrease the scope not increase the scope uh was allowable. However, we didn't want them to go below 10% because we needed to preserve our security and the pilot revenues coming from that. So to ensure that we had proper protections that there was going to be a sufficient number of units that are deed restricted for those that that need it in town. If we were to lose any of the lower moderate income housing units, we were going to replace it with what what we call workforce housing units, which is a phrase in other jurisdictions we call attainable housing units, but it's something that a lot of municipalities would love to have because that addresses the what we call the missing middle. You know, not low and moderate income people, but your nurses and your teachers and people who don't necessarily qualify, but may have

trouble finding affordable housing in in the municipality. And why it's difficult for a lot of municipalities to find the room to put that into projects is because it's already maxing out the affordability of projects by imposing those low and moderate income units. So adding workforce on top of that becomes difficult. So we saw this as a good opportunity if that comes to fruition to get workforce housing units for for that missing middle on these projects. Um but with respect to the comment how will this affect our fourth uh round plan that as the last meeting you guys uh voted to approve um it wouldn't we were obviously in close consultation with Mr. Samut your your town's planner um who also could consulted with your town's affordable housing attorney Mr. Drill to confirm that even in those events your your plan is not going to be affected. Uh the next question also with respect to affordable housing. The question was the state now mandates 20% affordable housing but this plan only has 15. Um that's actually not accurate. The state doesn't mandate 20%. It's a uh every town has their own compliance plan and and you guys know better because you just did it a couple weeks ago led by your committee from Councilman Haley. Um and it's a plan that gets put forward gets vest uh vetted by fair share housing center and then ultimately goes through the court process to get a substantive certification. It doesn't necessarily require 20%, but we are seeing I will I will grant uh most municipalities having to go to 20% because their number is is at such a level that it requires that that threshold. Um so that's the affordable housing questions. There was a question regarding project oversight and compliance. Who is monitoring the redevelopment agreement requirements, timelines, financial commitments, scheduled milestones, construction cost estimates, design guidelines, criteria, construction oversight and coordination, sequencing, noise levels, all of that. Uh, and the answer is us. That's that's the professional team that you've brought in. So, you obviously have your redevelopment council, you have bond counsel, you have a financial adviser, you have Mr. Sammon who is already on your town's team. Um, and you have a

host of other professionals, Mr. Federico who handles the traffic, Mr. Zulo who handles uh parking concerns, and you have that whole team. But on top of that, as you heard from Matt, the town brought in its owner's representate representative on all the public improvement oversightes. they're serving as your eyes and ears to ensure that everything on the public improvement side is properly followed uh and vetted. So, we have a big team to do all of that. Um I'll add to Matt's comments regarding um uh the project budget. While the project budget did come down and most of that was in your streetscape improvements and you know Quimby Street um and the Snickleway and things like that, the budget did not stay exactly the same. So, I I know that that has been commented. The budget was adjusted. There are adjustments. If you look at the exhibit to the original redevelopment agreement from 2023 and the exhibit that is attached to the new first amendment, those line items are all different because they reflect what we now know because several contracts for soft costs have been entered. Uh design professionals have been engaged and those costs were built directly back in into that budget. Uh and also if you notice how the redevelopment agreement refers to that budget as an exhibit, the defined term is initial project budget. It's defined that way because it is a fluctuating document. This is a long-term project and that budget is going to change and the PIA and the redevelopment agreement both require those budgets to be updated at periodic times. Specifically required to be updated before uh the bond issuances are to occur, but also on requests from the town to update those after we get new estimates uh coming in from design professionals. Uh let's see. I believe that was all the questions that I had to answer. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Are we allowed to ask? Um, I'm trying to figure out should we save them till after the ordinance or do Go ahead. We'll just do it now. Okay. Um, thank you. Uh, there was one question I I think that I didn't get answered, which

was how many net parking spots did we have before and how many parking spots are there after the project? And then one other clarifying I just want to clarify what my initial question was on the Lord and Taylor tax. It wasn't what is Lorden what is the difference between Lorden Taylor getting taxed now versus the development that's going to happen. It is inevitably if Lorden Taylor did get developed, right? What would be the difference of a developed Lord and Taylor lot versus this net project? Not zero sum, nothing happens on the lot and then this happens. I want to know if that actually gets developed and the train station doesn't, what is that net difference? Does that make sense? Correct. I think I think so. Okay. So, uh, a couple things. Steve's going to look at those parking numbers. So, we have them for you. Um, I think I was trying to answer the question that maybe Mr. Saunders had asked as uh as opposed to the question Councilman that you had asked. I think he was maybe the first one up if I recall correctly. So, that was the question I I had actually was trying to answer was uh was resident or Mr. Saunders um question. So it so can you just one more time your question nothing to do with this project let's assume this project doesn't happen option A and Lorden Taylor gets redeveloped separately nothing to do with this project they're going to get taxed at some amount I want to know the difference between that and the 109 that this project would actually bring in oh so basically the revenues that the west zone produces versus the revenues that the whole project produces you're asking if the south zone never gets it never gets developed What are the revenues of the project? I think right may may I help a little bit? So I I think what he's asking is imagine that the redevelopment project never happened and the and the and the landlord owned Lord and Taylor like they do now, but they develop it like people were saying, "Oh, it could

be a Walmart. It could be a whatever, right? Let's say they do that. Your average commercial building, assume it's akin to a Lord and Taylor, right? Like something they already had. If they developed it along those lines, they're not paying the property tax you said that gets reassessed for the value of that property and they pay traditional property taxes at the value of the improved lot. And so then that's one. So compare that now to the full redevelop. I think that would be more apples to apples what looking for. So developed as a like a you said the Lord and Taylor. So say they make a new Lord and Taylor. Is there just an actual storefront? Yeah. Just make a new store versus the Okay. Yeah. That number I certainly don't have because that's an entirely different project than you know what anybody would be. But I will say that there's been no decrease in the taxes that were receiving from the Lord and Taylor property um since the store was closed. Um they could have um gone back and asked for a reduction in the taxes because they're not receiving any revenue from that property right now. But basically what we're receiving now is a good proxy for someone moving into that into that um or onto that site and opening up a new retail operation there if that's the question. Yeah. Good evening. Yeah. I'm Bob Powell, Nassau Capital Adviserss. Um, and I wanted to just jump in to simplify an answer to the councilman's question, uh, which I think I'll simplify it. As a general proposition, the financial agreement that is before you tonight, depending upon which year in the future we look at the financial agreements revenues, is requiring the property

owner like the Lord Taylor property owner to pay between 75 and 80% of full taxes. Hold that ratio in mind. So that's that's basically if it's a little more complicated than that. If you just eliminated the redment plan and you said we're just going to let them develop the Lord and Taylor building and put up some apartments and there'd be no pilot. I think that's the general gist of your question. What would the difference be correct in tax burden? And it would take us a while to grind those numbers specifically, but as an order of magnitude that I'm highly confident is basically correct. To give you some sense of that, the pilot is about 75 to 80% of full taxes. Okay. So, Mr. Pal, can I just because I'm along Todd's Councilman Saunders's lines here, I'm looking at your report from uh the revised 56 along those lines and you I guess it's the combined pilot and property tax analysis. So you had uh in your statement you said it was not attainable. I'm not sure why it wouldn't be attainable, but you had said that property taxes to the town 16.6% were 38 million and their net revenues to the town with the pilot are 164 million. Well, actually it's very easy to manipulate numbers. If you look at that 164, you take 16% because you still have to pay the schools. And I know it's always said. Well, I think the gentleman's question was total property taxes versus total pilot payments. That's what I'm that's what I'm estimating. Not just the percentage of total property taxes that goes to the municipality or goes to the schools or the county, but the total property tax rate. Just stepping back a minute, the difference between the two for the property owner is roughly 75 to 80% depending upon which year in the financial agreement we're talking about. Right.

Let me put it a different way. I've negotiated uh a hundred different pilot agreements in suburban New Jersey for the last several years. This is one of the agreements that has the narrowest spread between pilot payments and full taxes. But if it has the narrowest spread, then the pilot also has risk to it. So then if it's a narrow spread, wouldn't we just take the taxes? I'm missing something. Well, I'm not sure what you mean about risk. Um, I think Matt has talked about how the pilot is adequately secured. Well, there's some amount of risk compared to property taxes. If it's a very narrow spread, that makes me more concerned. I was hoping you were going to say there's like a giant spread between the two. I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say the risk. What's the risk you're concerned about with I mean, there's any risk in in a pilot that we're doing with a brand new property owner who's coming in and going to redevelop most of the town. There's there's financial risk. There's single party risk. I mean, I can go down. There's more risk than just Lord and Taylor being developed. Well, if if if the if the redevelopment that we're talking about here is not subject to a pilot and I were to project what the property taxes would be for that, which I've done in an analysis, and then to take your concern, which is that that full tax agreement is on a project that doesn't work. It doesn't. Forget pilot. Suppose a developer builds the improvements, pays full taxes, and it doesn't work. He's going to file a tax appeal. Taxes are not guaranteed at a certain level. Just like pilots, they are ultimately based on revenues. If revenues drop substantially for any commercial property, you file an appeal and you often win. and taxes go way down depending on how far your revenues went down. I think Matt is back there to

address the risk because I think maybe maybe clarify a little bit when I think you had did you get your question answered? It kind of went to me. Well, I just don't want to leave that hanging because you you gave the impression that there was risk and I just want Matt to clarify that so no one thinks that's correct. Yeah. I mean I'd say two things, right? on I think Bob said half of what I was going to say on the risk side which is for us any commercial properties you know success or failure comes to us in terms of either higher or lower taxes or in this case higher lower pilot right I do agree with Bob that that's no different in terms of risk in as a general matter all the project risks those are all on the developer right they're not on us so to your point if I'm a developer that can build a project at conventional taxes I have the same risks I have construction risk I have financing risk I have performance risk risk. I have all those things that I have no matter how the project is ultimately being taxed. So the risks are the same to the developer 100%. But the risk to us are I mean that they don't perform and then we go in and exercise all of our remedies that would happen even if the developer was no matter how the developer was paying their tax bill. Sorry. And can I go back to one other question? I think you said something of when revenues decrease for a business, it's highly likely that they can get a tax appeal and reduce their taxes. I I don't I've never So if I go to a business So is it clear we go to business? It happens all happens all the time. It happens all the time. That happens all the time. So if businesses downtown are do not doing well, they can go for a tax repeal 100%. The landlord Well, to be clear, the landlord, right? I mean, if the business owns their own building. Yes. But take what's the South Avenue, the old law firm building that's been vacant forever, right? When that was fully when that was fully occupied, it produced revenues. It was assessed accordingly. It was taxed accordingly. when there's no revenues. I I hope all business owners are hearing that if they had a bad year last year, they can come get an appeal. We have tax property owner. Yeah, we have tax appeals all the

time. And to council and Hap Good's point, it's actually remarkable that Street Works and Sachs Global has not actually filed a tax appeal because usually it is tied to revenue that they deliver. So, um, ask Tom Jardy and he deals with tax appeals all the time. So, you know, why don't we do this? I'm sorry. Well, um Councilman Armento, why don't you ask us then? Let's get to the ordinance if you don't mind and then maybe some of this will come out through that. I just want to park there's a parking question too. Um the difference in parking. So the public parking that was in the 2023 and the 2025 are identical. The 2023 and the 2025 both provide uh for 762 public parking spaces across the project. The private parking actually reduced. 2023 was 1144 and it's now 1,090 and that's because we lost an office building. Correct. Right. Correct. I'm sorry. Which one is commuter in is that that's the public the 700 the 762 public parking spaces. Councilman Arment you had a comment and then we'll go to the ordinance. It was along the lines of Councilman Sanders in terms of uh Mr. Powell's combined pilot and property tax analysis. Just looking at that, one of your comments in your letter was that it's not attainable. And I would wonder why it's not attainable, but you provide data that shows that there's property taxes to the town based on 16.6% of 38 million. The the net revenue to the town of the pilot is 164. So that difference is 123. But that's that's very disingenuous that math there because somehow we have to fund the schools. We've said that all along when I was sitting in the audience. People have said that. So, I know Mayor Brindle said the schools always get funded, but where did those funds come from? Well, it's going to come to the town council and then we're going to give it to the to the schools. So, that the the net pilot that we keep saying we're going to get, some of it's going to the schools regardless. Otherwise, your school taxes are going to go up 60% of your tax bill

is school taxes. So, who's paying for that? So, I think saying, "Oh, we get $3 million a year, 30 years." That's all nice, but some of it's going to the schools. So if you actually look at that 38 million that you calculated, which is 16%. That's well over the 164. So I think that the data is very misleading. It sounds like a great deal. It's to to be fair, it's actually not misleading. I think there's a misunderstanding of how things are, but to that I just I just don't want you discrediting our professionals. It's not misleading and it's not disingenuous. It's I think there's maybe a misunderstanding of how it is. So let's let's be reasonable and fair. I think Councilman Hackood wanted to me comment on something. Um I just wanted to make sure that there wasn't a misunderstanding about how school taxes are paid. Um we just had a approval of the school budget in April. Um that got approved. Um it was a and those um amounts that the school needs to operate get funded first. Um, so I just don't want people to get confused about a pie chart that I have shown in presentations and Jim Kodation in presentations many many times about where your tax dollars go. Um, so we can take um, you know, and break that up into a pie chart, but that doesn't mean that when we sign a pilot agreement and the municipality is getting more revenue in that that is reducing the amount of money going to the schools. the schools always get paid. So don't the the pie chart is the end result. It's not the driving determination. It happens to be 16% in Westfield. In some towns it's 24%. It's not something that we I understand that but you're saying the pie chart. So six we we sorry I maybe I don't understand. No say 16%

of our our t taxes go to the town. A large percent go to the school. The pilot funds are all coming to us to the town, not to the school. So yes, the school can raise money by having another referendum, but we should be giving some of that pilot money to the schools. Okay. How many times have I said publicly that's exactly what we intend to do? I have and so and and how many times have I asked you to talk directly to Rob Bonacio and the superintendent to see how they feel about this project and they support it. And I have also said publicly that what we anticipate doing next month, we are waiting for their referendum to sit down. They're going to lay out their debt service over the 30 years and revenues. We're gonna lay out our debt service and revenues and come up with a plan to make sure that we can uh that it's all out of the same tax dollars, right? And I do think the legitimate concern, which I'm not sure of what you're articulating, but the concern is everybody agrees that the schools get paid. Everybody agrees there's no diminishment of schools. What people worry about is okay well there's going to be a shortage and it's going to come up somewhere and that's going to fall on us right that's the concern well I'm not saying that exactly I'm saying that that 109 million that we take some of that's going to the schools well it I I this is my point and so yes if we decide it right or some future council decides it if they need that and but bear with me okay and I also think it's important to note how much revenue is coming from our municipal parking lots today Tax- wise, how what are the ratables on our municipal lot? What are our municipal? Probably zero because it's it's zero, right? Right. So, how much of the schools getting from our current municipal lives? Zero. Okay. How many apartments are going on our

municipal lots? It's going to be retail. Not very many. Right. So, they get no revenue today. There's no kids coming from those lots, right? And there's pilot money coming. So you could argue, all right, is that reasonable to think that we give money to the schools for for unraables that currently nobody collects and doesn't deliver any school kids. But that's a conversation that we're going to have with the schools. And listen, we all are trying to manage our overall tax rate. Well, I pay the same taxes everybody else does, right? So I think it is reasonable to assume that what we will do is talk to them lay out a debt schedule and figure out a way that ultimately can mitigate the tax burden on residents irrespective of where it's going and said but that is no reason to say let's don't do a pilot because then we're all diminished and nobody nobody I know of wants to give 25 24% of our taxes to the county. I can promise you that. So I think a better path forward is to a place where we're paying getting 80% of the taxes. We're collecting more of it and we have a bigger pie to share and contribute to the schools. That's the solution assuming they make their pilot payments. There's still the assumptions council. Let's keep in mind that it's the pie is getting a lot bigger. It's a lot more money coming in plus all the other benefits that the project entails which we talked about at the last meeting which I think is lost in this conversation. Right. So yes, street works could do whatever their zoning allows them to do and and even if it generates obviously more money, it's still not as much as the pilot and it's not going to deliver $42 million of public improvements that has virtually no risk associated to it. So guys, I know that there's a belief that God, if we just let them do the Lord and Taylor property, that would be the best path forward. Completely disagree with that,

right? Because this project by doing it holistically brings a lot of incremental and a lot of incremental meaningful benefit to this town that would not happen otherwise, financial, public improvements, and otherwise. So you guys, I I feel like it's just it listen, we have a completely different approach and belief on this, and that's fine. Everybody's entitled to their opinion, but this project brings a lot of extra benefit that we would not otherwise be able to afford. We talked earlier tonight, unfortunately, about a traffic accident, you know, in front of the North Avenue train station lot. That intersection is not getting improved, but this pilot, this agreement provides the funding to approve it, right? Because we all know nobody wants higher taxes. you know, our capital budget, which we just approved some supplemental funding tonight, or we haven't yet, but hopefully we will. Um, I'm assuming we will, right? It's three to four million dollars a year roughly, right guys? We're talking about $42 million of improvements over the next fiveish years. So, I'm going to ask that we kind of, if you don't mind, let's So, let's just move on. I'm sure the public has some comments as well. Um, hey, mayor. Mayor, I'm sorry. I have a question for Matt. It it won't impact my vote, so if you want to table it, that's cool, but at some point, I do want to ask Matt a question. Well, we uh you know what? Why don't you go ahead and ask Matt and then you then we'll go on to the hearing and go. You want me to ask question? Okay. Sorry, man. You're you're you're on a roll, so you might as well just keep it going. Um for I wanted to uh last time we met, you did say something that stuck in my mind and I want to explore it with you a little bit more. Sure. We had talked about Sax Global and whatever kind of financial situation they may be in and you said the situation Sax Global just doesn't matter. you said their finances just don't matter. And I I think I knew what you're getting at with that. And I think what you mean to say along the lines of what you talked about today is look, we have lean on the property and event in the event that the pilot never kick gets kicked off. It's project financed. This this specific project entity is

financed. So it really doesn't matter what SAX global the parents doing. Can you explore that a bit more with me though? how it really doesn't matter because I was trying to think about that after our discussion and I thought all right what happens nobody wants this but if sax global had to go reorganization or bankruptcy or what have you what would happen to the project entity itself could something happened that would impact the project and the town and I just being that you said it very directly and confidently that Sax Global's financial situation doesn't matter I assume you could just give confidence on that sure yeah yeah happy to so first and I think this happened um at our finance committee meeting, right? When we talked to to Sachs. So, first Sax real estate is separate from Sax Retail. Yep. Right. And so, a lot of the news, a lot of the colorful news is focused on Sachs Retail, right? Council Dagala asked a lot of great questions of Sachs of the of our developers last time, I think, to see how they answered more than what they answered, right? Contrite, honest, open, etc. So these two entities are right they're separate divisions under SAX um global. I sort of said that for I think a couple reasons. One, yes, as projects individually get financed, they're going to get capitalized based on the project being built, the value of the land and the equity generated. And as soon as that project gets launched, it is isolated and it's on its own. Right? Two. So for any project that happens to what happens at Sax Global and how they may overreach to Sax re real estate doesn't impact that right. Um, two, I think of it from the perspective of even if I am managing a business that is struggling, I am going to find the highest value I can out of whatever assets I have. And the highest value for these properties are

as they are zoned today, right? They're not I'm sorry. Yeah. As they are zoned today under the redevelopment plan, right? To be able to produce the type of housing and office and mixed use that are there. So to turn around and say we need to just have a fire sale. First of all, it would go to another developer who would turn around and build this be obligated under the redevelopment agreement to build the same project and be subject to all of your transfer rights. But I also view it as you're going to chase in that circumstance the highest value which is completion of this project either by selling it to another developer which would be great because then in the in the sense that Ben SAX global truly doesn't matter. We don't we have no contractual relationship no matter how you draw the chart up to them. Um you know or they end up doing it and again as soon as each project launches it goes off on its own. So I think for all of those reasons from my perspective, you know, it's what happens from here until getting these things signed and getting governmental approvals, right? Getting through planning board because at that point projects are going to launch or they're going to get transferred and even if Sachs comes down and somehow tries to grab it, the the value there is through this highest and best use. Got it. Okay. And while you're here, sorry I I wasn't going kind of related. I'm I'm bootstrapping here, but bear with it. You also said something today. You said that the south parking deck gets built before the south zones commercial, right? And I understand that. But it dawned on me when you said that. I thought because the south commercial the part the commercial part of the south zone, in order for that to get kicked off, I believe Steve you pointed this out, they got to get the anchor tenant first, right? So you got to get the anchor tenant before you kick off the commercial building. If the parking deck is built and they didn't get the commercial tenant, I assume we don't sell them the current parking lot. Could there be a weird scenario where we have

a parking garage built on the south zone and keep the parking lot? Like let's say they never get the the commercial tenant, right? We got the south we got the southside parking deck built. They say, "Hey, we can't get the tenant. We say, "Oh, don't you guys, right? We're not selling you our lot anymore because that's part and that you need you didn't meet that condition procedure." Correct. Now we got a lot of parking. All right. Like I'm just Could that happen? Is that That could absolutely happen. And now you have in that situation a garage there that replaces some of the parking that you're going to lose doing the North Green or the South Plaza and all all of that. Um but you also didn't sell them that land and now that land is still within your control to do whatever you want with it. Sell it to a different developer. We would we would no longer have that project as we talked about the last time. you would have the rights if they weren't able to hit their conditions precedent by that deadline to terminate them from the project and you would be able to we would then evaluate what to do then right so we terminate them now how do I get my money for the the the lovely that deck I just built is that now that comes into the the lean yeah that deck is completely even though it's it's on the same south side right financially it is completely independent of the of the private component on the south it is tied instead to the west ah so it doesn't get constructed until it meets it conditions precedent on the construction on the west side because it's the pilot from the west that is funding the south. That's right. So that'll be my source of revenue to pay for that. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. The south the south private is only funding the north garage which we don't start until you mentioned that. Okay. David, we wanted to make sure that the southside got the benefit of like the plaza and the green and all that kind of stuff which is why in the south correct and so that's why we in the amendment we accelerated the southside in order to be able to bring benefits to that irrespective of what happened with the office and isn't the sale of the southside tied to 75% occupancy or lease of 75% of the space correct it was originally 50% and now it's 75% lease

Okay, last comment and then we're going to move on. I I would like to make one last comment because um I'm glad Steve that you mentioned all the conditions precedent um because those were very very carefully negotiated points to make sure that we never end up in Councilman Kefir's um scenario where um you know we're having to take over properties or take advantage of the special assessment because everything is sequenced and we're there's a lot of protections in place at every step to to make sure that we're not um proceeding with the project until a lot of tests are met on this on the part of the developer. All right. So with that, Miss Lashy, are there any advertised hearings? Mr. Mayor, we have five advertise hearings starting with general ordinance 202510, an ordinance of the town of Westfield, County of Union, State of New Jersey, authorizing the execution of amended and restated financial agreements with each of SWD Westfield 1, Urban Renewal LLC, SWD Westfield 2, Urban Renewal LLC, SWD Westfield 3, Urban Renewal LLC, SWD Westfield 4, Urban Renewal LLC, SW WD Westfield 5, Urban Renewal LLC, SWD Westfield 6, Urban Renewal LLC, SWD Westfield 7, Urban Renewal LLC, Pursuant to the Long-Term Tax Exemption Law and Redevelopment Area Bond Financing Law. Anyone wishing to be heard on General or RS 202510, please come to the microphone, state your name and address for the record. Carla Bonacci, 603 Lawrence Avenue. And I guess you'll tell me if I'm um at the wrong ordinance because there's so many.

And nobody take it personally if I say like this isn't it. Go to the next one. It's just kind of the Oh, sure. I got it. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So, my um comments and questions are relative to the public infrastructure scope and costs. Um so it appears to me that the costs for public improvements are out outdated and understated. Um I am wondering where is the proform of Machi I'm sorry comments. Yeah, all comments and questions are directed the council and then we will call on. So sorry. So um you know there is no design criteria or basis of design identified in the documents original or amended that clarify material costs and the associated labor costs across the board. So my question then is how are those costs derived? Because we just see a lump sum total project cost number for 14 to 17 items. So where is the proforma that breaks it down for each of the 17 items between the soft costs and the hard costs that are mentioned in the footnote of exhibit N. So and I'm really interested in who prepared the cost estimate because even at a conceptual level if that's what you think this deal is there should be square foot assumptions. I don't see them. Also, I was able to get more proform data out of Bob Powell's report regarding soft and hard costs. And when I looked at certain site work costs for the west development, I think that you're short. I extrapolated to the public improvements for your north and south green. And I believe that you're short. There's also an updated exit. I'm asking if there's an updated exhibit A because I only see the original yet in your amended documents you refer to exhibit A and that quite frankly there are different some items you deleted scope

others are still in. Um the other point I have a lot of points to make. Your numbers are not really different from the original agreement. I did a comparison from 2023 to today. your numbers are essentially the same. And then that leads me to want to know how you're actually going to manage uh these PI this budget over time because it's very easy to spend all of the first money on soft costs and when you get to construction you're short. And so this is a five-year project. Um, you've already spent $896,000 plus another $174,000 on your consultants. It's like a million bucks of your 42. So, how are you getting to the end? I don't see a clear path. I don't see a cash flow. I believe your numbers are short. 6 million contingency I believe is short. Uh, I also don't see anything on phasing and logistics. uh what you've done when you look at your schedule uh there's no place for anybody to park at a certain point in terms of commuters in this development. Who has looked at phasing? Who has looked at logistics? How are you moving regular traffic? That's not related to the pilot. That's not related to the pilot. There's a cost to public. No, no. When you build a project with capital monies and you are having work that's in sequence and phased there is a cost to that where is that cost in the proforma if I go and take it out I don't see it I don't even see it identified also with logistics because if you're going to pay the cops to manage the traffic where are you paying for that if you want to use pedestrian um people instead of the police you need to pay for that you need to negotiate that with the police. I don't see any of

that. So, I think we're short. I have a minute left. I'll come up again. Um, and it wasn't clear to me about this parking management software and that where that comes in. I'm also wondering since you cut 12 million of scope. How did you decide what would get cut? I also don't see any reference to Quimby and you did cut that scope and there was like a million nine associated with it and yet it is not listed in your exhibit N yet you you listed other projects that are not required that could occur if there's extra money. So why don't you just leave the 12 million in the bond so that if that happens you can add this scope back in. Um, what else do I run out of time? I'll come back. A few more questions on controls. Thanks. Oh, I thought Tom. Um, I Yeah, I don't know who if you guys want to if that's Matt or Steve or Sure. Uh, so number uh let's see in no particular order because I was writing down notes fast. The budget doesn't show that we've spent the $896,000. That just reflects the contract. The actual cost that we know to date. The last line item shows the actual cost spent to date on the design work is $174,000. All of the line items in that initial budget, which is just a one sheet document that's attached to the exhibit are a snapshot of a lot more work that went into it. As I mentioned before, there's a parking professional. There's a traffic professional. We have financial professionals. We have Epic um which is our owner's representative. uh specialist in construction that has reviewed all of these items and the costs that are shown there are a reflection of what uh the estimate is to complete the public improvements as shown in the design work uh on exhibit E to the redevelopment agreement which is the the the plan for the public

improvements. We have a review committee and an administrative process through the PIA that is tasked with as we go through this making the decisions. Do we want it to be this material? Do we want it to that be that material? Do we want it to be higher? Do we want it to be lower? All of those decisions will come during the design phase which is a while from now and yes those decisions are going to impact the costs. That's why this is an initial project budget. Um so I I disagree with um Espinaci that the costs are understated with respect to Quimby. It is not shown in the budget because as I mentioned before it is not in the project anymore and it is not being funded by the first bond issuance. There was a comment made that there's other things listed in the bond issuance that are not required. That's no longer the case. In the 2023 redevelopment agreement, there were three components that were identified as not being required, meaning that if we had the funds available, we would do it. That included Quimby, the snickleway, and the underpass on the train station. All of those have been removed as not even being identified as not required. They're not even on the budget anymore. They're they're within your purview to do outside of this project. Uh when if the funds are available, so everything that is listed on the initial project budget and in the bond issuance are required and will be done through the bond issuances. Thank you. Any further comments on 202510? Seeing no one, may you may close the hearing. This hearing is closed. Next is general ordinance 202511, an ordinance of the town of Westfield in the county of Union, state of New Jersey, providing for the special assessment of the cost of certain public improvements within the Lord and Taylor train station redevelopment area and authorizing the execution of amended and restated special assessment agreements with each of the SWD Westfield One Urban Renewal LLC, SWD Westfield 2, Urban Renewal LLC, SWD Westfield 3 Urban

Renewal LLC, SWD Westfield 4, Urban Renewal LLC, SWD Westfield 5, Urban Renewal LLC, SWD Westfield 6, Urban Renewal LLC, and SWD Westfield 7, Urban Renewal LLC, and further authorizing certain other actions in connection therewith. Anyone wishing to be heard on general or 202511, please come to the microphone to state your name and address for the record. Seeing no one, mayor, you may close the hearing. This hearing is closed. Next is special ordinance 20252, a bond ordinance cancelling $12 million of an appropriation and bond anticipation note authorization originally made to provide for aid to the Lord and Taylor train station redevelopment project located in the Lorden Taylor train station redevelopment area in and by the town of Westfield in County of Union, New Jersey. Any motions to be heard on special or 20252? Please come to the microphone. State your name and address for the record. Carla Ponacci 603 Lawrence app. This is on the bond right the reduction. Yes. Okay. The reduction. So [Music] um again you're reducing scope and it hasn't been explained how one came to that decision to reduce certain scope. There is still that mention of the 10 million and the other projects that are in exhibit N that say not required but they could be done. So where how do you intend to get additional funding if in fact you choose to do that? Also how do you intend to get additional funding if you have cost overruns although your budget is

continue is going to continue to change over time. um how are you how are you going to get that money and then what type of oversight is provided and I'm also uh wondering if your oversight uh owner's rep or anyone did a Monte Carlo risk assessment to determine the probability of success relative to cost and schedule. It's something that's typically done on large projects. This is a $330 million project over five years. Did anybody do that? So that you can understand the window of risk. I'm also um and regarding the 12 million and then your epic management who's your owner's rep, have they actually gone through this agreement? Um do they have the proforma? I think all of you council memb should have the proforma of the public sector costs and improvements that you're planning to agree to tonight. Um, and I'm then also wondering on the flow of funds since there is substantial upfront costs. Um, and the 896 is saying that money was spent on schematic design and it's included in the 42 million. So you you spent it. That's how I'm reading exhibit N. No, it's just there for for just what what purpose? Okay. Um, and so what are the triggers to release the funds in a manner that'll reserve adequate amounts for construction? I am very concerned money will go to soft costs. You're saying you have materials. I'd like to know in all of these meetings, have you written down? There should be a straight easy scope of work basis of design document that records everything you're asking for. Are you getting granite

sidewalks or concrete sidewalks? You getting Belgian curves or concrete curves? You getting ballers that meet security ratings or ballers that are decorative? What are we designing for the money that you put in the public improvements? you are entitled to know what you're being asked, what you're buying, and what you're going to pay for. Um, and that's it. I just think it's u light on risk analysis and light on the mitigations all for the public projects because you're you're assuming you're going to get revenue to pay for all this stuff you want to do. Thanks, Matt. I think you would address the $12 million reduction and up initially, but maybe you want to repeat that for the benefit of the public and Steve. Yeah, sure. Happy to comment on a couple things there and then I think Steve may want to chime in as well. Um, so in terms of the reduced scope, I certainly don't want to speak on behalf of obviously the council, but we basically started with the things that are required by the project or resulting from the project, certain traffic intersections that will need and we want to be improved. We then looked at the things that were critically important from a public safety and public enjoyment perspective, the northtown green and aligning, you know, Elm and all of the things that happened there. obviously the decks in sequence to make sure we have sufficient um parking along the way. And that basically just sort of resulted in a priority list and things like the um the train underground tunnel. There was once contemplated a a covered walkway from the north what will be the north deck over to the train station. Right? You park there. Now you walk uncovered, but there was a concept of a covered walkway that is still here as a potential if there are revenues and if you so choose. But some of those things Quimby you chose to do on your

own ahead of when a lot of these will get done so that we the public can benefit from them faster. So the priority list just sort of evolved out of looking at what was missionritical to the project, mission critical to residents, mission critical to us, and things like the streetscape improvements, the underpass upgrades. Um those things were what ended up in that what we call sort of residual public improvements that may happen or um or may not happen. Um, in terms of additional funding, um, I think it's important to note that while we're reducing the bond authorization by $12 million, right, because we're comfortable with that, if you take the $45 million that is will still be authorized together with the $4.7 million redeveloper contribution and together with the uh, one half of the sale proceeds of the north south zone, which go towards public improvements, right, about 5.55 million. the other 5.55 million goes to the budget for whatever use or uses you all decide um at that time you really have about $55 million of total cash to undertake these improvements. So look if 42 with the contingencies and the decks being good numbers if it turns into 45 you know there is enough authorization and cash contributions to be able to afford those improvements. Now, all of that said, it's important to go back and remember this bond sufficiency test that we have, which basically says we cannot issue bonds unless the first year of pilots stabilized is at least 80% of the bond debt service. So, we can't, even though we in theory could generate $55 million of bonds, if the pilots aren't there, to Miss Manac's point, that we've projected and they're not there yet, we can't

actually issue all of those bonds. There is a safeguard to make sure that we can't let debt service get ahead of pilot revenues. So there um I would submit that 55 million is a pretty good rounding number on $42 million worth of public improvements, especially when the decks are 75% of that, 70% if you add soft costs. Um and that's a solid number standing here today for sure. Um, and yet we can't get ahead of ourselves because of the pilot sufficiency test. The $896,000 that's listed there is a reflection of the contracts that we've already negotiated with respect to the soft cost and the design professionals. It's listed separately because we actually know what those costs are. They're not estimates. The next line item on that, the 174,000 is what has actually been spent towards the public improvements. That's the difference there with respect to why Quimby is not listed on exhibit N. The reason for that is that project's underway. We we have already talked about it and I know at the last conference session uh Mr. Gilda gave an update on on the bidding for that. That project's underway and certainly is not going to be part of this project and that's not that's why it's not listed there uh in exhibit N. I think that covers all the Oh, and one about some of the other comments with respect to we don't know if there's Belgian block, we don't know. A lot of those comments that were made are great questions. If we were asking um you to consider a vote on the GMP contract, on the construction contract eventually when it's being developed, yes, those details you need at that time. This is not that that time. We are going to get all those details ironed out and fleshed out and presented to this council to the penny of what that GMP is going to be before you vote on that. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry. That is so wrong. I'm sorry. I'm

sorry, Miss Bonacci. Miss Miss Bonacci, I'm sorry. Yes. Any further comments on special orders 20252? Seeing none, may you may close. This hearing is closed. Next is special ordinance 202503 bond ordinance to authorize the replacement of the vehicle fuel system at the department of public works yard in for the town of Westfield in the county of the union state of New Jersey to appropriate the sum of $990,000 to pay the cost thereof to make a down payment to authorize the issuance of bonds to finance such appropriation and to provide for the issuance of bond anticipation note in anticipation of the issuance of such bonds. A motion to be heard on special ordinance 202503. Please come to the microphone, state your name and address for the record. Seeing no one, mayor, you may close the hearing. This hearing is closed. Next is special ordinance 202504 capital ordinance of the town of Westfield and the county of the state of New Jersey authorizing the making of various public improvements and acquisitions in buy and for the town appropriating therefore the sum of 520,000 and providing that such sum so shall be raised from the capital improvement fund of the town. Any motion to be heard on special ordinance 20254, please come to the microphone to state your name and address for the record. Seeing no one, mayor, you may close the hearing. This hearing is closed. Councilman Hapgood, please move for the adoption of these ordinances. Thank you, mayor. I'd like to move for the adoption of general ordinance number 2025-10, ordinance of the town of Westfield and the county of Union, state of New Jersey. authorizing the execution of amended and restated financial agreements with each of SWD Westfield 1

Urban Renewal LLC, SWD Westfield 2, Urban Renewal LLC, SWD Westfield 3 Urban Renewal LLC, SWD Westfield 4, Urban Renewal LLC, SWD Westfield 5, Urban Renewal LLC, SWD Westfield 6, Urban Renewal LLC, and SWD Westfield 7 Urban Renewal LLC. C pursuant to the long-term tax exemption law and the redevelopment area bond financing law. May I have a second? So my councilman contract any discussion? Yeah, I'd like to say something. Um, so I know I voted yes uh two weeks ago for this ordinance. Once the RDA was passed, I felt that time was reasonable to at first reading to to uh vote yes for the uh financial ordinances. However, just discussing with residents and uh looking at all the information why was I elected. I cannot give my approval to this. I know it's going to pass. So, my vote really doesn't have meaning, but I cannot approve I will not I'm not going to vote yes to this because I don't think we should be entering into agreement. I have a lot of concerns about Sachs Global Street Works. even though everybody says financially they're okay every day there's something else comes out that's concerning. So for those reasons I'm not going to vote yes for this but I will vote yes for the next two especially for the bond reduction. I think that is prudent to for the town to have take a less smaller bond out. Um plus it also leaves future town councils with less that they have to maneuver with and if they need future money they can always raise another bond. But um my next this this I will not vote be voting yes but the next two I will. Anybody else?

Okay. Please call the role. Council members yes. Dardia. Yes. Dagala. Yes. Keeper. Yes. Saunders. Yes. Armentoto. No. Contract. Yes. Healey. Yes. Mayor Bendle. Yes. This motion is carried. I'd like to move for the adoption of general ordinance number 2025-10, ordinance of the town of Westfield and the county of Union. Um, sorry, um, I've lost my place. Let me let me start over. Next, I'd like to move for the adoption of general ordinance number 2025-11, ordinance of the town of Westfield in the county of Union, state of New Jersey, providing for the special assessment of the cost of certain public improvements within the Lord and Taylor train station development area and authorizing the execution of amended and restated special assessment agreements with each of the SWD Westfield 1 Urban Renewal LLC, SWD Westfield 2 urban renewal LLC, SWD Westfield 3, Urban Renewal LLC, SWD, Westfield 4, Urban Renewal LLC, SWD, Westfield 5, Urban Renewal LLC, SWD Westfield 6, Urban Renewal LLC, and SWD Westfield 7, Urban Renewal LLC, and further authorizing certain other actions in connection therewith. May I have a second? Second by council and contract. Any discussion? Please call the role. Council member Taku. Yes, Dardian. Yes, Tom. Yes, Kefir. Yes, Saunders. Yes, yes, Contra. Yes, yes, yes. This motion is carried. I would also like to move for the adoption of special ordinance number 2025-02 bond ordinance cancelling $12 million of an appropriation and bond and

bond anticipation note authorization originally made to provide for aid to the Lord and Taylor train station development project located in the Lord and Taylor train station development area in and by the town of Westfield in the county of Union, New Jersey. May I have a second? Second by Councilman Damagala. Any discussion? Please call the role. Council members, yes. Dardia, yes. Yes. Keeper, yes. Sanders, yes. Armentoto, yes. Contra, yes. Yes. Neighbor, yes. Next, I'd like to move for the adoption of special ordinance number 2025-03, bond ordinance to authorize the replacement of the vehicle fuel system at the Department of Public Works yard in, by, and for the town of Westfield in the county of Union, New Jersey, to appropriate the sum of $990,000 to pay the cost thereof to make a down payment to authorize the issuance of bonds to finance such appropriation, and to provide for the issuance of bond anticipation notes in anticipation of the ISS Issuance of such bonds. May I have a second? Second. By council and contract. Any discussion? Please call the role. Council member SA. Yes. Dardia. Yes. Yes. Keeper. Yes. Saunders. Yes. Yes. Contra. Yes. Yes. Yes. This motion is carried. Next, I'd like to move for the adoption of special ordinance number 2025-04, capital ordinance of the town of Westfield and the county of Union, New Jersey, authorizing the making of various public improvements uh and acquisitions in by and for the town, appropriating therefore the sum of $520,000, and providing that such sum so appropriated shall be raised from the capital improvement fund of the town. May I have a second? Second. Second by Councilman Dardia. Any discussion?

Please call the role. Council members, yes. Gardia, yes. Tomala, yes. Kefir, yes. Saunders, yes. Yes. Contract, yes. Yes. Mayor, yes. This motion is carried. May I have a motion to approve the minutes from the town council conference and regular meetings of May 13, 2025. So moved. Moved by Councilman Dardia. Second. Second. Second by council Damagala. Any discussion? All in favor? Yes. Oppose. This motion is carried. Now it's time for open discussion by citizens. Anyone may come up to the microphone and speak to the council on any subject on which we have jurisdiction. Please state your name and address for the record and please limit your comment to 5 minutes. Jeff Kersinbound, 533 Birch Avenue. I prepared a statement. I realize this is probably a bit moot now that the vote has passed thankfully, but um in the last two council meetings I've attended that discuss one Westfield Place, I heard two different statements that really stuck with me after leaving. Back in November, someone asked the question, "What are we getting from this redevelopment plan?" Then two weeks ago, someone stood up and asked, "What has happened to the town in the last four years?" I frankly struggle to understand how so many people still can't see the obvious benefits of a once in a generation downtown redevelopment project. A project that will infuse tens of millions of dollars into much neededed public improvements as well as targeted private and commercial investment. So first, what has happened to the town in the last four years? Well, when my family moved to Westfield in September of 2021, we didn't know anything about the one Westfield Place proposal, and we weren't sure if we wanted our business to be located here. Despite all the connections and fond memories that drew me back to town after growing up here, we were reluctant to start our new bakery in Westfield because when we first arrived, many of the storefronts in downtown were

empty. If you were looking for commercial property at that time and you saw vacant storefronts or a sleepy downtown, the question was always whether this existed before COVID or because of it. In Westfield, that answer wasn't clear. In addition, the feedback we received from commercial brokers was that Westfield needed a few years to get back on its feet and other surrounding towns like Milbour, Summit, or Cranford would be better bets to grow our business. And we believe them. That's when Dawn Mackey, a former councilwoman and consumate champion for Westfield, convinced us that this was the perfect time to come here and that we could help lead a wave of new businesses to invigorate our downtown. Fast forward to today, our bakery is approaching its third anniversary, and we couldn't be happier with our decision to open in Westfield, or more humbled by the overwhelming support we've received from the community. However, even with the town's recent growth, and despite this administration's unwavering dedication to prioritizing the success of our small businesses, long-term prosperity is not guaranteed for anyone. With all the new businesses that have opened in the last few years, not everyone will survive. Despite the tremendous support of our residents, there just isn't a big enough daytime population to sustain every local eery and retail establishment in downtown. By contrast, there are a number of neighboring competitor towns better suited to carry their businesses, and Westfield needs to be proactive in driving traffic if it wants to keep up, let alone thrive. For perspective, I grew up in Fanwood and worked in Westfield during high school at a family-owned business called Robert Treat Delicatessan. The fabled history of Robert Treat and the experience I had there gave me a lasting appreciation of our downtown, as well as unforgettable memories working for a small family business. After high school, I left home, but eventually made it back to Westfield with my wife and two young children.

Now I'm a resident, parent, and owner of a small family business. And as a result, I'm deeply invested in the future of Westfield. As part of that investment, I volunteered to be on the board of directors of our downtown Westfield Corp. And then I was elected as chairman in the beginning of 2024. One of the first things I read in the DWC members handbook is that a town's business district is also a community center, a place that evokes strong emotions and helps define our identity. Further, a vibrant commercial district employs hundreds, if not thousands of people, is the historic core of the community and can be a major tourist attraction. But this success doesn't come without significant public and private funding. And it's also not accomplished passively. Rather, there needs to be specific and proactive effort to find, develop, and nurture the type of investment that would make a meaningful impact in a downtown like ours and in such a relatively short period. This is where new development and public improvements like one Westfield Place comes in. So finally, the other question, what are we getting from this redevelopment plan? In short, we're getting a plan that puts the future success of our town first. One that addresses critical deficiencies in our town's infrastructure and planning in a thoughtful, meaningful, and long-term way. We are getting a plan that tries to replenish the lacking and lost office worker population in order to support and strengthen our downtown's economic health and vibrancy. Perhaps most importantly, we are receiving millions of dollars in private investment that our town's leaders have had a major part in directing to our most needed areas. From my time as time as DWC chairman, I've gained valuable insight into what is critical to our downtown success. And one Westfield Place is the most significant step we could take to furthering that shared goal of being a preferred destination where people want to live, work, and visit. A place where our community connects and drives business to the district. In the end, we have the chance

to be part of a generational project that will positively change the direction of our town for decades, hopefully allowing our children to live happily and raise their families with the same fondness and nostalgia that we have from growing up here. Thank you. Thank you so much. Bob Magnamera 603 Lawrence Avenue. Uh I wanted to address two items. The first uh Mr. Jessup has now said twice that the south garage will be complete prior to the south office being uh constructed. Uh that's actually incorrect according to the schedule. I just took a look at the schedule that was in the redevelopment agreement and just read them off with the start of the south garage construction. We lose 43 commuter spaces there. Three months later starts starts the southside office building. So in essence, for nine months, we lose the entire southside parking lot because the construction of the parking garage and the office building are going concurrently for those nine months. After that, the north side parking garage starts again with site remediation. So at that point for that last two and a half months, we lose all of our commuter parking. All 624 spaces are lost because all three are under construction at that point. Just so it's clear. The other thing I wanted to mention, Mr. Miniac talked about the parking count. Again, that number 762 is incorrect. 35 of those spaces are for

the residents in the north building. 14 of the spaces that are assigned there un at the plaza are not shown in the renderings. The renderings only show 11. A loss of 14 spaces there. And he's also counting the part the the uh spots that are in front of the south uh office building. So in essence the difference in terms of actual parking is 697 spaces. So we started existing wise we have 801 now we have 697. So in essence with the project we've lost a total of 104 spaces. I just want everybody to understand those are the numbers that we got from uh THA the parking consultant. Thank you. Matt Lipsky, 227 Prospect Street. Before I start, I I was a little bit late. Did you guys talk about the Prospect Ferris redevelopment amendment? Um, we have we talked about it. I mentioned it in my opening remarks, but we haven't uh we haven't voted on that yet. Okay. Because my comments relate to that. Um so uh from what I understand and and there wasn't a lot of information uh the developer is asking to uh transition ownership of that devel transition that development plan over to a new developer. Is that correct? Um, so I want to remind this council of one the tremendous public opposition that there was to this project and that one of the major reasons for that was the the sort of massive size and scope for that location. Um, the current developer, who is a longtime Westfield resident, made a lot of very ambitious

promises in exchange for the ability to do this very large project, including two levels of underground parking, including moving and then bringing back the historic home. Um, all of which were extremely expensive. And for that developer with that commitment and who we put through that much of a ringer to then not be able to successfully complete the project raises further doubts that anyone would be able to do that in this funding environment at the the level that this town is expecting and asking for. Um, so I would encourage you if there's an opportunity in the process of uh reviewing this proposal to to take it as a chance to consider renegotiating and rescoping the project to a more reasonable and achievable size. Um, if this developer couldn't do it successfully, it is unlikely, I think, that another developer would be able to do so. Thank you. Hi, Liz Mahal. 1029 Hardy Street. Um, I just I feel like there's a little bit of confusion um going on with some of the conversations I've heard. My understanding is that when you do a redevelopment project that is essentially an ordinance which makes the project itself legally binding document. My understanding is that one Westfield Place already has a legally binding ordinance and that what you're voting on today is to make it smaller. My understanding that that also follows with all redevelopment projects that they are signed documents and thus

ordinances. So if a property does get sold, that new purchaser would be bound to the ordinance and the redevelopment project. Um it is also my understanding that if the current ordinance that you voted on today does not pass, that one Westfield place then reverts to the original plan. Um, that would be my understanding because they already have a plan in place. Um, so I just wanted to clarify that because I feel like there's a little misunderstanding that um, this is something new or if any redevelopment project gets sold that they the new purchasers don't have to abide by the contract that was signed as part of a redevelopment agreement. And I just wanted to um kind of clarify that because my understanding is redevelopment agreement is a legally binding document. So thank you. Sorry about that. Uh Jim Boy, property owner at 122 Ferris Place. Um good evening mayor and council. Um the reason I'm here tonight, I want to make uh also make comments regarding the proposed assignment of the Prospect Ferris redevelopment project to entity Vango Westfield LLC. Um, as you consider this request, um, there are several critical questions that need thorough

examination. Um, it's my understanding this LLC was only recently formed and therefore it's important to understand who Van Go LLC is, their prior experience with similar projects, and whether the current developer will retain any stake in the project. Furthermore, it would be beneficial to know the financial backing of ANGO, the number of projects they're currently managing, and if any independent assessments have been conducted regarding their projects uh on projects of this scale. Um the residents of Lower Prospect and Ferris deserve clear answers to these questions, especially from our first ward council persons. We recall that the initial proposal for this project emphasized the property owner's commitment to Westfield and the preservation of the her the historic home and the establishment of a cultural center. Therefore, it is essential to understand Van Go's commitment to our town and specifically to maintaining the historically designated home which continues to fall into disrepair. Over for over a decade, the residents of Lower Prospect in Ferris have witnessed the the decline of two once cherished homes into significant examples of neighborhood blight. This situation has been caused by the property owner's neglect for sure, but also with what appears to be the tacid approval of the town. This inaction has been a disservice to the residents who diligently pay their taxes, abide by local ordinances, and maintain their properties. The deteriorated state of these homes is evident to anyone passing through Prospect Street or even the Trader Joe's

parking lot. We ask you consider if such conditions would be acceptable in your own neighborhoods and whether allowing such neglect align with the principles of smart development. The mayor has often stated that redevelopment projects provide the town with greater control over developers. Given this, we seek assurance that Vango LLC will indeed commence construction and that area residents will not continue to endure prolonged delays. We also need to understand what measures will prevent Vango from requesting further assignments or significant project alterations in the future, similar to the OWP situation. And most importantly, we need to know when the concerns and rights of residents of lower prospect in Ferris will be prioritized and if this project could potentially extend for another 5 years. I urge the council to not simply approve this request without careful consideration. Please ask these important questions. Share the information you gather with your constituents. And if you're not fully confident in the responses, I encourage you to vote against this resolution in two weeks. Thank you for your time and consideration. Good evening. Danielle Federico from the law firm Kiza Shahinian and Gian Tamasi appearing on behalf of Vango Westfield LLC. I wasn't going to come up tonight. Um, I did want to make my presence known. I have personally known Van Glemis who's the sole owner of Vango Westfield LLC for 11 years. He is a redeveloper and a developer in a number of other towns. I

know two other towns where he's been designated redeveloper and I personally worked with him on two other redevelopment projects in Rutherford that were of similar size and scope. And um honestly, he completed both projects quicker than what he predicted in those towns. And I know he's committed to the town. And anyone that has any questions, I they could reach out to me. I'll give my card out. Um and again, we're not proposing any changes to the project. He's committed to the town and we're we're happy to be in the town. If you have any questions, we're available. Thank you. Anybody else? Okay. Um hearing none, I close this portion of the meeting. Um I thank you Jeff Kersinbomb for um where did Jeff was he still? Thank you very much for speaking. Thank you for your leadership on the DWC and thank you for your commitment and investment in Westfield. um greatly greatly appreciated and you serve as an inspiration for many other small business owners um that hope to come and stay here. Um uh Matt, I don't know if anyone wants to or Steve anyone address the park the sequencing of the parking that Bob mentioned. Sure. I did uh as uh the gentleman I can't remember his name. I apologize uh was speaking I did look at the GAN chart which is what he was referring to and I can see the confusion there. But what is important if you look at the document itself 7.9 section 7.9 makes clear that until the south garage is completed and constructed we will not transfer the land and they are not allowed to start construction until the land is transferred. So it's it's clear that the south garage has to be completed before any construction of the

office on the south. Thank you. Yep. Sorry. The go. Oh, I I don't know about the I didn't I didn't catch all the specifics, but I'm happy to talk afterwards and see, but those are the numbers that we have. Um, and regarding the um Sophia and the Ferris, that actually is a resolution being voted on tonight. I think Mr. Vo mentioned it in two weeks. It's being voted on this evening and um you guys were late and I think we did address um some of these. Um it is it's not being transferred for financial reasons. It's being transferred some for some personal family um concerns that are making it unlikely that they'll be able to carry the project forward for whatever reason. Um I me and Jim and Don Samut met personally with Van the CEO of the company. Um they've been vetted. I've talked to many public officials where they've done and completed work in other towns. um nothing but highest praise for their ability to complete projects on time um and manage and operate them professionally. Um when we met with him, he did say his immediate priority as soon as that transfer happens is to clean up the site. Um get, you know, demolish that house that's been neglected admittedly. Um, and I think the neighbors are going to welcome the transfer of this project. And what is different, I think Mr. Boy mentioned the changes to one Westfield Place, a significant difference. This project has already gone through site plan approval. It's done like there is no that it has been approved through the planning board as is. Um when the transfer with Van for the CEO of Van Wingo is that um they we discussed the the move the the move restoration of the house the historic

home the underground parking there is absolutely no uh intent or desire to change the project and built it as is. Um and that's why you have redevelopment agreements and the planning board already approved it with the materials as such. So uh so you I and as you may have mentioned Jim we mentioned earlier uh as part of this transfer we're accelerating the time frame for them um by the time they get uh government approvals it was 12 months and we've accelerated nine months because it has been sitting there we understand as a you know blight on the neighbors and we hope to rectify that as soon as that transfer is complete in the next few weeks. Mayor, mayor, sorry. Here. Yes. You may want to add and just because it helps to understand the standard, the legal standard for us to for the assignment approval, I would imagine I think you mentioned this unless I'm dreaming. It can't be unreasonably withheld, right, Tom? So, you what I guess I want to say is even if you wanted us to vote no, we can't just vote no just because we want to redo it all or whatever. You have to show that Vango for some reason can't do the project. And for everything I've heard and everything the mayor's talked about and Jim, they are perfectly capable of doing so. And of course, you have their council here that can answer any questions. I just want to point that out just people understand we have a duty here. We don't just get to get emotional. So yeah, we cannot unreasonely deny or withhold this transfer legally. And mayor, I'll I'll just add as one of the representatives for the first ward, there are a number of concerns that it were raised at the time that this project was being voted on. um as it related to the traffic in the neighborhood and the disruptions to people's lives that would happen during the construction and um doing making some improvements to the way traffic flows happen in that neighborhood. All of those things are um still going to

happen and um you know I I think Todd and I agree that um we'll make sure that the project proceeds with as least disruption to people's lives as possible. Um, and I am encouraged to see um, uh, Mr. Van Go's um, attorney here tonight. Um, I I actually, um, am, you know, really heartened by the fact that it's a developer that has so much experience and in a lot of other um, vicinities with a lot of, you know, tight um, development conditions to work with, uh, you know, perhaps they're even better equipped to deal with this than the original developer. So, thank you. So, with that, um, uh, let's move on to bills and claims. Councilman Halfgood. Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to move bills and claims in the amount of $280,741.19. May I have a second? Second. Right. Councelor Dagala. Any discussion? All in favor? Yes. Opposed? This motion is carried. Next on the agenda, reports of standing committees be on finance policy committee. Councilman Hapgood. Thank you again, Mayor. I have eight resolutions, seven of which I'd like to move as a package. The first, a resolution authorizing the CFO to refund recreation department fees. Two, a resolution authorizing an affordability assistance grant pursuant to the town of Westfield's affordability assistance program for a tenant of an affordable housing unit at 1201 Echol Lane, Unit 1201. Third, a resolution authorizing an affordability assistance grant pursuant to the town of Westfield's affordability assistance program for a tenant of an affordable housing unit at 3114 Echolane, unit 3114. Fourth, a resolution authorizing an affordability assistance grant pursuant to the town of Westfield's affordability assistance program for a

tenant of an affordable housing unit at 3214 Echol Lane, unit 3214. Fifth, a resolution to appro approve insertion of special item of revenue from our clean communities grant. Sixth, a resolution to approve insertion of special item of revenue from our community block development grant. And seventh, a res resolution confirming compliance with the local finance board rules regarding recommendation of our annual audit. May I have a second? Second by council member Saunders. Um, any discussion? All in favor? Yes. Opposed? This motion is carried. The eighth res eighth, a resolution cancelling $12 million of the general obligation redevelopment area bonds, the Lorden Taylor train station redevelopment project and authorizing the amendment amended and restated public improvement financing agreement in connection therewith. I have a second. Second. Second by councilman Dagala. Any discussion? Please call the role. Council member Zaku. Yes. Guardian, yes. Yes. Kever, yes. Saunders, yes. Yes. Yes. Keely, yes. Yes. This motion is carried. Next up is public safety transportation parking committee council dardia. Thank you, mayor. I have three resolutions I would like to move as a package. Number one, a resolution authorizing an award of contract for the purchase of self-contained breathing apparatus or SCBAs for the Westfield Fire Department. And just a note, uh these are replacing outdated SCBAs and improving our firefighters safety. Uh number two, resolution authorizing an award of contract for the purchase of personal protective equipment, PPE, turning turn out gear for the Westfield Fire Department. And once again, this is to improve firefighter safety. These are tailor

fitted PPE gears for four firefighters. Uh resolution authorizing an award of contract for the purchase of ballistic helmets for the police department. Uh again, these are to be used for training scenarios and for real life situations if the need should arise. and a reminder uh that we all residents of Westfield are benefiting from the purchase of these uh various pieces of equipment um at a zero that's with a 0% municipal tax increase this year. May I have a second? Second by Councilman Armentoto. All in favor? Yes. Yes. Opposed? This motion is carried. Next. Code review and town property committee. Councilman contract. Uh I have two resolutions to move separately, but probably not as eloquent as Council Dardio. So, thank you for that. Uh the first is a resolution to approve children's amusement device license. I have a second. Second by Council Saunders. Any discussion? All in favor? Yes. Opposed? This motion is I think the children of Westfield will appreciate our yes vote. Uh second, I'd like to move a resolution approving a first amendment to the redevelopment agreement with Ferris Prospect Development LLC and consenting to this assignment and assumption of the redevelopment agreement and first amendment to the redevelopment agreement to Van Go Westfield LLC which we just spoke about. May I have a second? Second. Second by council Dagala. Any discussion? Please call the role. Council member Tavan, yes. Dardia, yes. Yes. Kefir, yes. Saunders. Yes. Armentoto, yes. Contra, yes. Healey, yes. Mayo, yes. This motion is carried. Next is the public works committee, Councilman Healey. Uh, yes. I have four resolutions. Uh, one involving uh a stipen for the

recycling program coordinator and the other three are regarding purchases for the part department of public works vehicles and two trailers. May I have a second? Second. Seconded by Councilman Armentoto. Any discussion? Can I just make a quick comment? Sure. I think Jim mentioned it in the 7 o'clock meeting, but our recycling program pro program coordinator, sorry. Um, is Richie Eubanks and he's come to the council uh but not frequently. Uh, but if you're ever at the conservation center and taking advantage of our recycling programs, our public works or conservation center is considered one of the best in the state. Thank Richie. It's because of Richie plus the green team, but but mostly Richie. He really makes these programs work and tick. And I think we all owe him a debt of gratitude. I don't know how many people take advantage of the of the recycling programs, but they're numerous. Probably the most extensive in the state. And every year we report out on how many tons of stuff is recycled. The environment thanks him, but residents should thank him, too. I'm thanking him. Oh, very nice. Yeah. Go Richie. Go Richie. All in favor? Yes. Yes. Opposed. This motion is carried. And uh before we adjourn, um this was a very significant night tonight for Westfield. And I I is seven years we've been working towards this. And I do really want to acknowledge our professionals who have been nothing but top-notch and professional. even if we don't ultimately agree with the outcome some people we have to agree and acknowledge how the top-notch professionalism that have been brought to this. So, I do really want to thank Matt Jessup and Steve Malen and Bob How um Liz Jeffrey who's back there as our economic development advisor and then of course all the um all the town staff Jim and and Heather and everybody that's been along the way and I do want to

acknowledge the street works folks that are here Doug Adams and DY you representing street works and um congratulations we look forward to a really longl lasting productive partnership with you and the subsequent project with one westfield Thank you for your commitment and staying with us. Um, with that, uh, may I have a motion to adjurnn? Second. Second. All in favor? Yes. Opposed? This motion is carried. This meeting is a jerk.