This month, one of the most important discussions underway is how Moorestown will approach revenue-sharing from PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) agreements with our school district.
Without PILOTs, the township would have been responsible for providing significantly more funding to satisfy our affordable- housing legal obligation, and that additional cost would have fallen on local taxpayers.
Below, I’d like to elaborate on what PILOTS are, why they’re necessary, the township’s plan for developing a revenue-sharing agreement and what residents can expect going forward.
First, a Payment in Lieu of Taxes is an agreement between a developer and the township that allows the developer to make an annual payment instead of traditional property taxes. In New Jersey, PILOTs are governed by state guidelines and are most often required to make affordable housing developments eligible for federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) — a major funding source for building these developments.
Here in Moorestown, affordable-housing developers received nearly $35 million in LIHTC for developments across our community. Without those credits, the township would have been responsible for providing the financial support necessary to allow affordable housing to be built under the township’s settlement agreement with Fair Share Housing. That cost would have fallen on local taxpayers. By law, 5% of all PILOT revenue goes to Burlington County and 95% stays with the township.
From the beginning, township council has been clear that we support providing the school district with a share of PILOT revenues, despite the fact that most municipalities do not provide schools with a portion of those same revenues. I have said this publicly on multiple occasions, and I want to reaffirm that commitment in this column. The question before us is not whether we will share, but how best to structure an agreement that is fair, responsible and sustainable for our entire community.
In July 2025, representatives from the leadership of the township and the school district met to begin discussions on PILOT revenue sharing. After that meeting, we requested that township staff review PILOT agreements from local municipalities, so we could better understand how different towns have structured revenue-sharing arrangements. We also carefully reviewed the examples provided by the school district while awaiting the outcome of the Sept. 16 referendum, which has since passed.
On Aug. 8, the township council received a revenue-sharing proposal from Board of Education President Mark Villanueva. Later, on Aug. 25, the township council held a public discussion about the school district’s proposal during our regular open meeting. At the most recent school board meeting, the board president expressed frustration about our discussion of his revenue-sharing proposal in a public meeting. It’s important for residents to know that under state law, including the Open Public Meetings Act, any elected board, including council, must have discussions like this in public meetings if a majority of members are participating in the discussion.
I believe first, that it is important to hear the input of my fellow council members, and second, that residents deserve transparency in how council is weighing these options. Decisions on how to spend public funds should be made by all of the elected members of the governing body, not unilaterally by the mayor.
In its proposal, the school district requested 90% of PILOT revenue generated in 2025, citing a figure of $31,016.45 identified in township financial documents. That figure comes from two sources that are not PILOTs: Approximately $18,000 is a voluntary payment from the Moorestown Visiting Nurse Association under a 2010 settlement agreement, and about $13,000 is rent from Moorestown Ecumenical Neighborhood Development Inc. (“MEND”) for its use of the township-owned Teaberry Run property.
While these funds have historically been classified in the township’s annual audit as PILOT revenue, that classification was inaccurate and predates our current staff. Township staff identified this error after our July meeting with the school district, and going forward, our chief financial officer will ensure these revenues are more accurately categorized.
Where we stand today is that the township has entered into PILOT agreements for four new affordable- housing developments. We will not receive revenue from these PILOTs until the developments are complete and occupied.
Moorestown’s PILOTs are the result of affordable housing settlement agreements, not discretionary tools to drive commercial development. PILOTs were utilized to limit the township’s exposure to builder’s remedy lawsuits and to avoid large tax increases driven by the necessity to bond for money to support development of housing if LIHTCs were not available because the township hadn’t used PILOTs.
These housing developments come with long-term expenses for the township, including debt service and municipal services (trash, snow plowing, lighting, police and fire costs) that will fall on the township and its taxpayers.
We are pleased that the Sept. 16 referendum has passed, giving the school district significant new resources to address its capital needs. With that clarity, council is committed to moving forward on a PILOT revenue-sharing agreement that reflects the realities of both the township’s obligations and the school district’s priorities.
Our objective is to have the township staff present to the council a quantification of the costs associated with debt service and municipal services for these developments. Additionally, we aim to have a draft proposal for a revenue-sharing grant agreement with the school district prepared by the end of 2025.
My council colleagues and I are committed to a cooperative and constructive partnership with the school district. We will continue this dialogue with the shared goal of serving the best interests of Moorestown’s students, families and taxpayers today and for generations to come.
