B9 Lefante Owner LLC v. City of Bayonne and B9 Lefante Owner Urban Renew LLC v. City of Bayonne

TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY
495 Martin Luther King Blvd., Fourth Floor
MARY SIOBHAN BRENNAN 	Newark, New Jersey 07102
JUDGE 	609 815-2922, Ext. 54560
Fax: 609 815-3079
October 1, 2026
Peter J. Zipp., Esq.
Joseph G. Buro, Esq.
ZIPP & TANNENBAUM, LLC
280 Raritan Centr Parkway
Edison, New Jersey 08837
Edna J. Jordan, Esq.
Chasan Lamparello Mallon & Cappuzzo
300 Lighting Way
Suite 200
Secaucus, New Jersey 07094
Re: 	B9 Lefante Owner LLC v. City of Bayonne
Docket Nos.: 004506-2022; 003934-2023
and
B9 Lefante Owner Urban Renew LLC v. City of Bayonne
Docket No.: 004707-2024
Dear Counselors:
This constitutes the court’s opinion with respect to plaintiffs’ motion to
enforce settlement. At issue is a financial agreement appertaining to a long-term
exemption agreement between plaintiffs and the defendant City of Bayonne (“City”)
in which settlements for pending tax appeals in the Tax Court were negotiated and
approved by the governing body.

2
The City’s tax counsel opposes the motion on four bases. First, it argues
that settlements negotiated without the assessor’s knowledge and participation
are not binding in the absence of the assessor’s approval and therefore not
enforceable. Second, the failure to provide the financial agreement to the tax
assessor is a statutory violation that precludes enforcement of section of the
financial agreement setting forth settlement figures for the pending tax appeals.
Third, the Tax Court lacks jurisdiction to resolve challenges to long-term tax
exemption financial agreements. And finally, the dispute is statutorily required
to be resolved through mandatory arbitration not Tax Court review.
Plaintiffs take the position that R. 8:9-5 does not require the assessor’s
consent to settlement but rather “such proof as the Court may require.” 	Plaintiffs
also assert that the Tax Court has jurisdiction to enforce the settlement pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 2B:13-2 and 3, and that arbitration is not mandatory. Finally, plaintiffs
request equitable relief based on the failure of the City to abide by the square corners
doctrine.
For the reasons explained more fully below, the court denies Plaintiff’s
motion finding that while the Tax Court has jurisdiction over the pending tax
appeals, it does not have jurisdiction to interpret the validity or the enforceability of
the provisions of the financial agreement. Furthermore, the existence of a negotiated

3
term in the financial agreement standing alone is not proof of value such that the
court will enforce settlements not agreed to by the tax assessor.
I. Findings of Fact and Procedural History
The court makes the following findings of fact based upon the court record
and the submissions of the parties.
Plaintiffs are the owners of industrial property located at 69-73 Lefante Way
and identified on the City’s tax map as Block 412, Lot 3 (“Subject Property”). In
February 2022, plaintiffs’ counsel began discussions with a consultant retained by
the City for the purpose of analyzing and negotiating a financial agreement for the
redevelopment of the site. By Resolution 22-06-15-049, adopted on June 15, 2022, the
City’s governing body designated the Subject Property as a non-condemnation area in
need of redevelopment pursuant to the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law,
N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-1 et seq. (the “Local Redevelopment and Housing Law”).
Thereafter, by Ordinance O-23-02, dated January 18, 2023, the City’s governing body
adopted a redevelopment plan for the Subject Property pursuant to N.J.S.A.
40A:12A-7 of the Redevelopment Law (the “Redevelopment Plan”).1
1The Redevelopment Plan superseded the City’s conventional land use
regulations 	and 	set 	forth, 	among 	other 	things, 	the 	redevelopment 	activities
authorized at the site and the development standards for a prospective redeveloper.
Two weeks after adoption of the plan, on or about February 2, 2023, the Plaintiffs
applied to the City’s Planning Board seeking approval to construct an industrial
building approximately 117,336 square feet in area, with associated parking and
infrastructure improvements, on the site. The Planning Board granted Plaintiffs’

4
Prior to the adoption of the June 15, 2022 resolution and the January 18, 2023
ordinance, on March 24, 2022, plaintiff, B9 Lefante Owner LLC ("B9"), filed a
timely direct appeal of the 2022 real property tax assessment on the Subject Property.
The assessment for the 2022 tax year is $4,845,000 in land value and $6,425,900 in
improvement value for a total assessment of $11,270,900. The complaint alleged
that the assessment exceeded 	the Subject Property’s true market 	value, and
discrimination based on the application of the City’s Chapter 123 ratio.
On September 7, 2022, B9 revised its name to B9 Lefante Owner Urban
Renewal LLC ("B9 URE") pursuant to a certificate of domestication filed with the
Department of Treasury. Thus, B9 and B9 URE (“Plaintiffs”) are the same legal
entity. Subsequently, B9 filed the 2023 tax appeal on March 23, 2023, and B9 URE
filed the 2024 tax appeal on March 27, 2024. The assessment for the 2023 tax year
is $4,845,000 in land value and $3,212,900 in improvement value for a total
assessment of $8,057,900. The assessment for the 2024 tax year is $4,845,000 in
land value and $0 in improvement value for a total assessment of $4,845,000.
application by way of Resolution 23-004, adopted on May 9, 2023. On or about
September 28, 2023, the Plaintiffs and the City entered into a redevelopment
agreement designating B9 URE as redeveloper of the site and allowing it to go
forward with the project as contemplated by approval of the Planning Board.
Construction commenced shortly thereafter.

5
After the filing of the 2022, 2023, and 2024 tax appeals, on May 31, 2024, B9
URE and the City’s governing body2 entered into the financial agreement approved
by ordinance 0-23-50. Pursuant to Section 2.01 of the financial agreement, the City
granted approval for a real property tax exemption for improvements on the Subject
Property during the term of the agreement. 	Sections 4.01 through 4.05 of the
financial agreement provided for the payment by B9 URE to the City of an annual
service charge, an administrative fee, and a redevelopment fee.
These motions are related to Section 4.08 of the financial agreement, titled
Tax Appeals. Therein, the Plaintiffs and the City’s governing body agreed to resolve
the 2022, 2023, and 2024 tax appeals pending before the Tax Court. Accordingly,
the 2022, 2023, and first five months of 2024 predated the long-term exemption
agreement, and the remaining 7 months of 2024 were after the implementation of
the long-term exemption agreement.
Section 4.08 reads as follows:
The parties hereby stipulate and agree that (i) the 2022
total real property tax assessment for the Project Site shall
be $3,000,000, (ii) the 2023 total real property 	tax
assessment for the Project Site shall be $3,000,000, and
(iii) the 2024 total real property tax assessment for the
Project Site shall be $3,000,000. 	The Parties further
stipulate and agree that either Party shall have the right
to file a tax appeal for the 2024 tax year to obtain a
judgment 	to implement, enforce and/or confirm the
2 The Mayor of Bayonne, James Davis, signed the financial agreement.

6
$3,000,000 assessment agreed upon herein. Each of the
Parties shall cause their respective attorneys of record in
the Tax Appeals to file a conforming stipulation of
settlement with the Tax Court for issuance of judgments,
to carry out the intention of this Section to reduce the
assessments for the 2022, 2023 and 2024 tax years.
The parties dispute the extent of the City’s tax assessor(s) knowledge of the
negotiations. The former and current tax assessors have submitted certifications
asserting that they were unaware of the long-term exemption negotiations related to
the pending tax appeals and that they were excluded from participation. They deny
that they were consulted or involved in the negotiated terms of the financial
agreement and its resolution of the 2022, 2023, and 2024 tax appeals. The current
tax assessor’s lack of knowledge of the long-term exemption is evidenced by an
added 	assessment 	placed 	on 	the 	Subject 	Property, 	which 	was 	subsequently
removed.3
3 On October 1, 2024, B9 URE received notice of a 3-month pro-rated 2024
added assessment for the Subject Property contrary to the terms of the May 31, 2024
financial agreement which exempts improvements. On November 21, 2024, B9 URE
filed a petition with the Hudson County Board of Taxation contesting the added
assessment. To correct the issue, the plaintiffs, represented by attorney Joseph
Buro, and the City represented by assessor Jessica H. Connors and Assistant City
Attorney David Rosciszewski executed a stipulation of settlement on December
9, 2024, reducing the added assessment to $0. The "basis for stipulation" states that
"[t]he PILOT agreement does not allow for the assessment of improvements during
construction.” The stipulation of settlement was submitted to the Board which
entered judgment on December 27, 2024, removing the added assessment.

7
Plaintiffs have offered a different version. On June 29, 2022 Plaintiffs’ counsel
sent the City’s consultant a draft application form and financial agreement. This draft proposed
a land assessment of $3,000,000, with the land taxes to be credited against the annual
service charge for the following year. It did not include a provision settling any tax
appeals, nor is there any indication that it included any documentation supporting a $3,000,000
valuation. The intent was that the assessor would reduce the 2023 and 2024 assessments
for the Subject Property to $3,000,000 consistent with the proposed fiscal plan. This
only partially occurred, as the 2023 and 2024 assessments were in fact reduced. The
underlying assessment for the Subject Property was reduced from $11,270,900 in
2022, to $8,057,900 in 2023, and then reduced again to $4,845,000 in 2024.
In March 2023, Plaintiffs submitted to the City’s consultant a revised fiscal
plan. Plaintiffs contend that this revised proposal was forwarded to the City’s assessor.
In support of this, Plaintiffs offer a March 18, 2023, email from the City’s consultant to
Plaintiffs’ counsel stating that “[t]he assessor has requested additional information.”
The assessor sought the following:
1. Size of building and ceiling heights;
2. Breakdown of type of space within building;
3. If warehouse: Cold storage? If so, breakdown between
refrigerated v. freezer space; If mixed use: Commercial?
If so, breakdown between office, retail, etc.;
4. Cost to construct;

8
5. If industrial: Number of bay doors, loading docks, etc.;
6. Utilities – water, electric, type of heat;
7. Was a sprinkler system installed? If so, please supply cost;
8. Attach copy of lease(s);
9. Attach copy of plans;
10. Attach copy of the broker's offering memorandum, the
contract of sale and closing statement, if applicable;
11. Copy of Financial Agreement (PILOT), if applicable;
12. Copy of any market study, feasibility study or marketing report;
13. All brokerage agreements;
14. All management agreements;
15. Itemized revenue projections;
16. Itemized operating expenses; and
17. Terms of financing (construction and permanent).
Plaintiffs assert that the email demonstrates that the assessor was aware of the
negotiations, involved in the negotiations, and had – within her file – the documents
previously submitted to the City, including the draft fiscal plan.
Plaintiffs 	provided 	the 	requested 	information. 	Negotiations 	continued
between April and July 2023. During a June 5, 2023 TEAMS conference call,
attended by Plaintiffs’ counsel, the City’s consultant, the City’s corporation counsel, and a
representative of the Plaintiffs, a modification of the proposal was discussed which

9
included a provision that the pending 2022 and 2023 tax appeals, and any appeal to
be filed with respect to the 2024 tax year, would be resolved by stipulating a total
assessment of $3,000,000. The City’s representatives indicated that the proposed
revisions were acceptable to them and that they would reach out to Plaintiffs’ counsel
once they had the “go ahead” from other representatives of the City. The “go ahead” –
allowing the Plaintiffs to submit the application with the proposed revisions -
occurred by way of a phone call between the City’s consultant and Plaintiffs’ counsel
on July 11, 2023.
Plaintiffs filed the full application on July 26, 2023, which included the fiscal
plan and the proposed financial agreement. Section 4.08 of the proposed financial
agreement provided that:
The parties hereby stipulate and
agree that (i) the 2022 total real
property tax 	assessment 	for 	the
Project Site shall be $3,000,000,
(ii) the 2023 total real property tax
assessment for the Project Site shall
be $3,000,000, and (iii) the 2024
total real property tax assessment
for 	the 	Project 	Site 	shall 	be
$3,000,000. 	The Parties 	further
stipulate and agree that either Party
shall have the right to file a tax
appeal for the 2024 tax year to
obtain a judgment to implement,
enforce 	and/or 	confirm 	the
$3,000,000 	assessment 	agreed
upon herein. 	Each of the Parties

10
shall 	cause 	their 	respective
attorneys 	of 	record 	in 	the 	Tax
Appeals 	to 	file 	a 	conforming
stipulation of settlement with the
Tax 	Court 	for 	issuance 	of
judgments, 	to 	carry 	out 	the
intention of this Section to reduce
the assessments for the 2022, 2023
and 2024 tax years.
The ordinance approving the application was given first reading at the October
11, 2023 meeting of the governing body. A week later, the City’s governing body
adopted Ordinance No. O-23-50 providing that the project “is hereby approved for
the grant of a tax exemption under the LTTE Law by virtue of, pursuant to and in
conformity with the provisions of the LTTE Law” and further provided that “[t]he
Mayor is hereby authorized to execute the Financial Agreement with the Entity in
substantially the form attached hereto and subject to any further review, analysis or
modifications that counsel may deem appropriate.”4
Before adopting the ordinance, the governing body conducted a public hearing
and read the ordinance for a second time and then opened it to the public for any
objection or comment. Neither the public nor any official present offered any objection
or comment at that time. Upon information and belief, the tax assessor was present.
The financial agreement was signed by the parties on May 15, 2024. 	The
effective date was designated as May 31, 2024.
4 LTTE refers to the New Jersey Long Term Tax Exemption Law

11
On January 28, 2025, Plaintiffs’ counsel forwarded to the City’s tax counsel
a stipulation of settlement for tax years 2022, 2023, and 2024. Plaintiffs sought to
have the Tax Court enter judgment in the pending tax appeals consistent with the
terms Section 4.08 of the financial agreement. Paragraph 2 of the stipulation of
settlement states:
The undersigned have made such examination of
the value and proper assessment of the property(ies)
and 	have 	obtained 	such 	appraisals, 	analysis 	and
information 	with 	respect 	to 	the 	valuation 	and
assessment of the property(ies) as they deem necessary
and appropriate for the purpose of enabling them to
enter into the stipulation. The assessor of the taxing
district has been consulted by the attorney for the taxing
district 	with 	respect 	to 	this 	settlement 	and 	has
concurred.5
P laintiffs, not having received a fully executed copy of the stipulation of
settlement filed this motion on April 8, 2026 requesting that the Tax Court enter
judgment enforcing the settlement as negotiated in the financial agreement.
5 R. 8:9-5(a) provides that a “[j]udgment in a local property tax matter may be
entered upon stipulation of the parties supported by such proof as the Court may
require.” Comment 4 	adds that “The current Tax Court practice, approved by the
Court’s Presiding Judge permits entry of a stipulation of settlement without affidavit
provided, however, that the attorneys represent to the court that they have made such
examination of the value and proper assessment of the property(ies) and have
obtained such appraisals, analysis and information with respect to the valuation
and assessment of the property(ies) as they deem necessary and appropriate for
the purpose of enabling them to enter into the stipulation. The assessor of the
taxing district has been consulted by the attorney for the taxing district with
respect to this settlement and has concurred .”

12
II. Legal Analysis
A. Role and Authority of the Tax Assessor.
In New Jersey, a municipal tax assessor is a unique hybrid official subject to
the control of both the municipality and the State. Although generally appointed
locally by a municipality's governing body or chief executive, the tax assessor
operates as an agent of the State Legislature, with powers and duties specifically
prescribed by statute. The assessor's primary authority and obligation is to determine
the full and fair value of all real property within their taxing district for property tax
purposes, 	performing 	these 	quasi-judicial 	duties 	free 	from 	local 	municipal
interference or pressure.6
6 In Carlson v. City of Hackensack, 410 N.J. Super 491, the Appellate Division
discussed at length the role and authority of a municipal tax assessor.
Unlike most municipal employees, "a municipal tax
assessor is a hybrid because he or she is subject to the
control 	of 	both 	the 	municipality 	and 	the
State." Casamasino v. City of Jersey City, 158 N.J. 333,
344, 730 A.2d 287 (1999). "Although a tax assessor is
generally appointed by a municipality, N.J.S.A. 40A:9-
146, and his or her jurisdiction is local, the powers and
duties of that office are specifically prescribed by the
Legislature." Ibid. The basic obligation of a tax assessor
"is to 'determine the full and fair value of each parcel of
real property situate in the taxing district at such price as,
in his [or her] judgment, it would sell for at a fair and bona
fide 	sale 	by 	private 	contract.'" Ibid. (quoting N.J.S.A.
54:4-23).

13
The statutory independence of a municipal tax assessor must, however, be
distinguished from the authority of a municipal governing body to conduct and
resolve litigation on behalf of the taxing district. Although the assessor is responsible
for determining the full and fair value of property, municipalities retain the authority
to make determinations concerning litigation they are parties to.
In Clinton Twp Citizens Comm., Inc. v. Clinton Twp, 185 N.J. Super. 343,
352–58 (Law Div. 1982), the court recognized that the assessor has a statutorily
protected, independent role in determining property assessments and that the
governing body's authority over litigation does not permit it to disregard the integrity
In fulfilling that duty, a tax assessor is charged by
this State's constitution to assure that, unless otherwise
exempted, all real property is "assessed according to the
same standard of value." N.J. Const. art. VIII, § 1, P 1
(1)(a). By statute, the assessor is further charged to fulfill
that duty by valuing all real property in the municipality
"without 	favor 	or 	partiality." N.J.S.A. 	54:4-36. 	"In
determining property values, assessors, like judges, should
perform their duties without fear or favor. Their quasi-
judicial duties should be exercised free of pressure and
harassment." Arace v. Irvington, 75 N.J. Super. 258, 269,
183 	A.2d 	104 	(Law 	Div. 	1962). Accordingly, 	the
Legislature established a statutory framework to keep
assessors free from local interference. Ream v. Kuhlman,
112 N.J. Super. 175, 189-91, 270 A.2d 712 (App. Div.
1970), certif. denied, 59 N.J. 267, 281 A.2d 529 (1971).
[Carlson v. City of Hackensack, 410 N.J. Super 491, 498-
499 (2009)]

14
of 	the 	assessment 	process. 	Although 	the 	governing 	body 	ordinarily 	controls
municipal 	litigation, 	the 	court 	exercised 	its 	equitable 	powers 	to 	enjoin 	the
withdrawal of pending tax appeals without the assessor's consent. The court further
directed that, if the governing body could not obtain the assessor's consent, it must
seek approval from the Tax Court judge assigned to the individual matters.
Thus, Clinton 	Township recognizes 	both 	the 	governing 	body's 	authority 	over
litigation and the court's power to protect the integrity of the tax assessment process.
The court also recognizes the expertise of an assessor and that assessors have
been qualified as an expert witness and have testified as to valuation at trial in the
Tax Court. As was written by Judge Bianco “There is no dispute why assessors are
granted such deference in valuation cases, given the amount of specialized and first-
hand knowledge that goes into the valuation process.” Fields v. Trs. of Princeton
Univ., 28 N.J. Tax 574, 582 (Tax 2015).
Likewise, the court is mindful of the extensive history of application of the
presumption of correctness attached to the original assessment. 	In 1933, the New
Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals affirmed that the presumption is in favor of the
correctness of the estimation made by the assessor, a sworn officer, and before a tax
can be disturbed on the ground alleged, the burden is put upon the objector to show
by his proofs a clear error in such estimation. Cent. R.R. Co. v. State Tax Dep't, 112
N.J.L. 5 (1933) citing Estell v. Hawkins, 50 N.J.L. 122 (1887). The court described

15
the presumption as being rooted in the “assumption that these local officers [i.e.,
property tax assessors] will act from a sense of duty” in reasonably assessing
property and therefore presumed their assessments to be accurate. Id. at 8, citing
Michigan Central R.R. Co. v. Powers, 201 U.S. 245, 295 (1906).
Years later, the court repeated this theme, stating that “[i]n the absence of a
contrary showing, it is to be assumed that the provisions of the statute were
followed” in the issuance of a proposed assessment. Soon after, the court repeated
that “[t]he good faith of taxing officials and the validity of their actions are
presumed.” N.J. Bell Tele. Co. v. Newark, 118 N.J.L. 490, 495 (1937); Bell Tele.
Co. v. Camden, 122 N.J.L. 270, 275 (1939).
In 1985, the New Jersey Supreme Court continued to reflect this justification
for the presumption stating:
It is clear that the presumption is not simply an
evidentiary presumption serving only as a mechanism to
allocate the burden of proof. It is, rather, a construct that
expresses the view that in tax matters it is to be presumed
that governmental authority has been exercised correctly
and in accordance with law.
[Pantasote Co. v. City of Passaic, 100 N.J. 408, 413
(1985)]
This presumption that government representatives will correctly and legally exercise
their authority is balanced by their related obligation to “turn square corners”—in
other words, to act fairly—when dealing with the public.

16
B. Settlements in the Tax Court
In City of Atlantic City v. California Ave. Ventures, LLC, 23 N.J. Tax 62, 66
(App. Div. 2006) the Appellate Division confirmed that "settlements in the Tax
Court are distinguishable from settlements in other courts." City of Atlantic City v.
California Ave. Ventures 21 NJ Tax 511, 519 (Tax 2004). Rule 8:9-5 provides that
a judgment in a property tax dispute may be entered upon the parties' stipulation, but
subject to the Tax Court's scrutiny and approval. The Tax Court only enters
judgment based on a settlement if it is satisfied that the proofs offered support the
entry of a judgment. See Rosenberg v. So. Orange Twp., 8 N.J. Tax 1, 6 (Tax), aff'd
o.b., 8 N.J. Tax 7 (App.Div.1983). For that reason, such judgments are treated as
adjudications on the merits. City of Atl. City, 21 N.J. Tax at 519.
With respect to tax appeals, the municipal tax assessor plays a “crucial role” in
local property tax assessment and administration, therefore, the court “requires the
direct involvement of the assessor.” Clinton Twp. Citizens Comm. v. Clinton Twp.,
185 N.J. Super. 343, 355 (Law. Div. 1982). “The agreement of the assessor to any
such settlement helps to assure the court that the settlement was arrived at on the
merits and that the resulting assessment will be at the fair assessable value of the
subject property consistent with assessing practices generally applicable in the
taxing district as required by law.” Id. at 356 (citing South Plainfield v. Kentile
Floors, Inc., 4 N.J. Tax 1 (Tax 1981), aff’d, 92 N.J. 483 (1983)). See also Rosenberg

17
v. South Orange Twp., 8 N.J. Tax 1, 5-6 (Tax 1983) aff'd, 8 N.J. Tax 7 (App. Div.
1983).
The requirement for assessor involvement in tax settlements, however, should
not be construed as an absolute requirement that the assessor's consent is a
prerequisite to the entry of every consent judgment. In Rosenberg, the court declined
to approve a proposed settlement because the municipality had entered into it
without adequate knowledge of the property's fair market value.
The Appellate Division affirmed, emphasizing that Rule 8:9-5 is permissive
rather than mandatory and that the assessor's opinion does not bind the court either
to approve or to reject a settlement. Thus, the assessor's concurrence is an important
safeguard in the settlement process, but the ultimate responsibility for determining
whether a proposed settlement is adequately supported rests with the Tax Court. The
absence of the assessor's concurrence is therefore relevant to the court's assessment
of the sufficiency of the proofs, rather than an independent basis for treating every
settlement as legally void.
The discretion afforded to the court under Rule 8:9-5 is particularly significant
because a consent judgment in a local property tax matter is treated as a judgment
on the merits and may have consequences beyond the tax year immediately before
the court. In South Plainfield Borough v. Kentile Floors, Inc., 92 N.J. 483, 487–90
(1983), the Supreme Court recognized that a consent judgment may support

18
application of the Freeze Act, notwithstanding the absence of a trial on valuation.
The Court also recognized that Rule 8:9-5 entrusts the Tax Court with discretion to
determine what proof is necessary before entering judgment. Read together, South
Plainfield and Rosenberg establish that a settlement is not disqualified merely
because it was reached by agreement, but neither is the court required to approve an
agreed 	figure 	without 	adequate 	supporting 	information. 	The 	court 	must
independently 	determine 	whether 	the 	record 	justifies 	entry 	of 	the 	proposed
judgment, considering the nature of the settlement and the evidence presented.
Applying these principles, the court finds that the governing body's approval of
Section 4.08 of the financial agreement, standing alone, does not establish that the
agreed-upon $3,000,000 assessments represent the fair assessable value of the
Subject Property for the 2022, 2023, and 2024 tax years. Although plaintiffs contend
that 	the 	assessor 	was 	involved 	in 	the 	negotiations, 	the 	March 	18, 	2023
correspondence, which reflects a request for additional property information, does
not, by itself, establish that the assessor reviewed or concurred in the subsequent
agreement to fix the assessments at $3,000,000. Similarly, the assessor's alleged
presence at the public hearing on the ordinance approving the financial agreement
does not necessarily demonstrate knowledge of, or concurrence in, the proposed
resolution of the pending tax appeals. The distinction is material because awareness

19
of a redevelopment project is not equivalent to participation in, or approval of, a
particular valuation settlement.
Moreover, the subsequent removal of the 2024 added assessment does not resolve
the evidentiary deficiency concerning the proposed settlements. The December 2024
stipulation 	addressed 	the 	applicability 	of 	the 	long-term 	tax 	exemption 	to
improvements during construction and resulted in the removal of the added
assessment. It did not establish that $3,000,000 was the fair assessable value of the
Subject Property for the earlier assessment dates. Nor does the reduction of the
assessments in 2023 and 2024, without further valuation evidence, independently
establish that the amount stipulated in Section 4.08 was correct. The court must
distinguish between the contractual allocation of financial obligations under the
long-term tax exemption agreement and the statutory determination of assessable
value in the pending tax appeals.
C. Jurisdiction
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction as precisely delineated under
our statutes. The Tax Court is vested with jurisdiction “to review actions or
regulations with respect to a tax matter” involving “(1) [a]ny State agency or official;
(2) [a] county board of taxation; (3) [a] county or municipal official.” N.J.S.A. 2B:13
2(a). Additionally, the Tax Court possesses jurisdiction over “actions cognizable in
the Superior Court which raise issues as to which expertise in matters involving

20
taxation is desirable, and which have been transferred to the Tax Court” under our
court rules. N.J.S.A. 2B:13-2(b). Moreover, the Tax Court is entrusted with
jurisdiction “over any other matters as may be provided by statute.” N.J.S.A. 2B:13-
2(c).
With the enactment of the amendments to the New Jersey Long Term Tax
Exemption Law (“LTTE”)7 in 2003, jurisdiction over any challenges to long-term
tax exemptions were transferred from the Tax Court to the Superior Court. This
change was accomplished by making two changes to the prior statutory language.
First, by limiting the scope of any challenge to an action in lieu of prerogative writs,
which actions, under R. 4:69-1, are cognizable in the Superior Court, Law Division.
As amended, LTTE provides that: the validity of a financial agreement or any
exemption granted pursuant thereto may be challenged only by filing an action in
lieu of prerogative writs within 20 days from the publication of a notice of the
adoption of an ordinance by the governing body granting the exemption. N.J.S.A.
40A:20-12.
The second change decoupled the right of taxpayers and taxing districts to
institute an action challenging the grant of an exemption under the LTTE from other
local property tax appeal matters. A taxpayer’s and taxing district’s right to pursue
a local property tax appeal under N.J.S.A. 54:3-21(a) was expressly limited by the
7 N.J.S.A. 40A:20-1 et seq.

21
Legislature under new subsection (b). As enacted, N.J.S.A. 54:3-21(b) provides that:
[n]o taxpayer or taxing district shall be entitled to appeal either an assessment or an
exemption or both that is based on a financial agreement subject to the provisions of
the ‘Long Term Tax Exemption Law’ under the appeals process set forth in
subsection a. of this section. [N.J.S.A. 54:3-21(b).]
N.J.S.A. 54:3-21(b) is intended to foreclose challenges before the Tax Court
that involve assessments levied on, or exemptions afforded to, improvements that
are subject to a financial agreement and part of a redevelopment project under the
LTTE. The court finds that the Legislature intended those challenges to be filed as
actions in lieu of prerogative writs, thereby vesting exclusive jurisdiction with the
Superior Court, Law Division.
III. Conclusion
For the above stated reasons, the court concludes that the Tax Court possesses
jurisdiction under N.J.S.A. 54:3-21 to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ 2022, 2023, and 2024
tax appeals. In the absence of the assessor’s approval, the court will not enforce the
negotiated assessment reductions contained within the financial agreement as there
is no evidence that they were derived from data supporting the true value of the
Subject Property as of October 1 of the prior years. The only supporting evidence as
to the basis for the assessment is that Plaintiffs proposed the $3,000,000 land
assessment as early as June 29, 2022, and maintained this value throughout

22
negotiations. To do otherwise under the facts presented to the court would be to hold
meaningless the principle of the presumption of correctness.
This presumption that government representatives will correctly and legally
exercise their authority is of course balanced by their related obligation to turn square
corners and to act fairly when dealing with the public. With the current record, and
in the absence of a hearing with testimony from the relevant witnesses, the court
cannot decide that such a breach has occurred here.
The court makes no finding regarding the validity, enforceability, and any
determination of breach of contract and resultant damages related to the provisions
of the financial agreement, as those determinations are statutorily mandated to be
handled by the Superior Court, Law Division.