The meeting’s foremost focus was on Ordinance 2024 D42, which involves a redevelopment project by HP 108 Stockton Urban Renewal LLC. The project, designed to fulfill affordable housing requirements and enhance local infrastructure, has sparked debate due to its reliance on a PILOT agreement. The council’s legal advisor explained the financial specifics, noting that the agreement includes a pilot rate of 12%, expected to generate approximately $48.6 million for the municipality over the next 30 years. This rate exceeds the more typical 10% seen in similar projects.

However, the financial arrangement raised concerns among residents and council members about the potential adverse effects on school funding. A resident, Maggie Deen Brock, voiced apprehension about the lack of communication between the council and the Board of Education regarding the allocation of PILOT payments. She questioned whether any of the funds could be directed towards school capital investments, given the municipality’s responsibility to raise sufficient revenue each year to meet its educational obligations. A council member clarified that the distribution of PILOT revenue does not include the school district, as it is structured to incentivize development by directing 95% of funds to the municipality and 5% to the county.

The debate intensified as the council addressed the broader implications of affordable housing projects, which are constitutionally mandated. The discussion revealed differing perspectives on whether PILOT agreements could alleviate the financial burden on taxpayers by covering the costs associated with new housing units. Some argued that the increase in population from such developments would not proportionally strain the school budget, as existing infrastructure could absorb more students without necessitating additional resources. Others expressed concerns about potential overcrowding and reduced per-student funding.

Public comments reflected this divide. Former council member Joe Butler criticized the timing of the meeting. She highlighted potential negative impacts on traffic and the neighborhood’s historical character. Conversely, other participants supported the project, emphasizing its necessity for meeting affordable housing needs and its potential to enhance community diversity and reduce traffic congestion by encouraging residents to walk rather than drive.

The council also faced scrutiny over the equitable treatment of residents in affordable housing units. Concerns were raised about additional costs for amenities and parking imposed on these residents, prompting discussions on ensuring fairness between affordable and market-rate housing occupants. The council emphasized transparency and accountability, noting that the PILOT agreement includes audit and accounting mechanisms to monitor the developer’s revenues and ensure municipal financial benefit.

Despite the discussions, the council proceeded to a roll call vote on the redevelopment project, which passed unanimously. The meeting then transitioned to other topics, including the acquisition of land in Montgomery for future development, a resolution to authorize design guidelines for historic districts, and a contract with the Arts Council of Princeton.