The council’s closed session to discuss a settlement agreement related to a redevelopment area on Williamstown Road attracted attention. Denise Coin, a resident, critiqued resolution 258-303, focusing on a taxpayer-funded study for block 18302 lot 5, questioning its necessity. Coin argued that the lot was recently acquired by a developer and was not blighted. She also raised concerns about the financial impact of a potential Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) agreement, which could strain taxpayers, particularly in terms of funding education for children from the development. Coin urged the council to reconsider their decisions and advocated for removing certain resolutions from the consent agenda to allow for further examination. The council deferred her concerns to legal counsel, emphasizing that binding decisions were not being made at the meeting and that matters would proceed to the planning board for additional public hearings.

Further into the meeting, the council introduced ordinance 0-25-20, amending the Blackwood West redevelopment plan, and ordinance 0-25-21, concerning modifications to the New Vision redevelopment area plan, which included provisions for townhomes. Both ordinances were set for public hearings at their second readings.

Residents also expressed dissatisfaction with the council’s engagement with public volunteers and the functioning of municipal services. A resident highlighted ongoing issues with the township’s audio-visual systems, proposing the involvement of an IT specialist to address technical failures. They questioned if the current budget accounted for necessary equipment upgrades. The resident also raised personal concerns about property taxes, noting a 204% increase since 2004, attributing this rise to the current mayor’s tenure. They questioned how constituents on fixed incomes could manage such increases, implying that many would not endorse the current administration if aware of these hikes.

Amid these discussions, Denise Coin reiterated her objections to the appointment of Mr. Castro, asserting that the process lacked transparency and proper notice. She pointed to the absence of public notice for the meeting regarding his appointment and the lack of a formal resolution, contrasting it with the thoroughly documented appointment of another individual earlier in the year. Coin requested the council to either rectify the record with an official appointment resolution or clarify the legal basis for Castro’s nomination.

Other residents brought up community-centric issues, such as the status of the GT Perks program and the opening date for the Blackbox Theater. There was confusion surrounding the program’s availability, with conflicting reports from the township. Residents sought updates on participating businesses and the program’s timeline. Meanwhile, clarification was requested regarding whether the theater’s opening would be public or invite-only, and details about rental fees and amenities were also in question.

Council members acknowledged these concerns, with varied responses. One member affirmed recent upgrades to the audio-visual system, including new microphones, but did not see the necessity for an IT specialist during meetings. They defended Mr. Castro’s appointment, asserting proper nomination and swearing-in, and suggested that concerned residents pursue further action if unsatisfied with council processes.

One member clarified the tax breakdown, noting that only a portion is managed by the municipality, with the remainder allocated to county and school taxes. They expressed empathy for constituents on fixed incomes, citing their own financial constraints.