Residents Press Township Committee on CFO Pay Increase, Affordable Housing Notice, and Deed Restriction Extensions

Nicholas Mistretta

MONTGOMERY — Public comment at the Township Committee’s December 4 meeting centered on three themes: appreciation for increased emergency services funding, questions about a sizable salary adjustment tied to a shared-services arrangement, and continued resident concerns over the township’s process for extending affordable housing deed restrictions.

Resident thanks committee for added EMS support
Chris Newman of Skillman opened public comment by thanking the committee for increasing funding for emergency medical services. Newman said she had previously appeared before the committee asking for additional EMS support and expressed appreciation that the township responded.

CFO salary adjustment questioned
Newman also pointed to a resolution on the agenda approving salaries for nonunion employees, raising concerns about a $35,000 figure listed for additional duties and responsibilities for CFO Michael Pitts.

She said the amount seemed significant and estimated it represented about an 18% bump in salary, asking the committee to explain the duties justifying that increase during a period of fiscal restraint.

Township Attorney Wendy Rubinstein-Quiroga responded that the increase is tied to a shared service agreement. The township is expected to receive revenue from another municipality as part of the arrangement and that the contract provides for a larger payment to the township than the amount being added to the CFO’s compensation. The adjustment reflects new workload while also bringing a net financial benefit to the township.

Affordable housing homeowners seek clarity on timing and process
The most detailed public exchange came from Lailiana (last name not given) a resident of McKinley Court, who said she supported the township’s broader goal of extending affordability controls but felt that homeowners received notification too late and too close to the meeting at which the matter was discussed.

Lailiana said the housing element referencing the extensions was known in June, but homeowners received letters dated November 7, postmarked November 10, for a November 13 meeting. She said the accelerated timeline left residents with questions about the long-term meaning of ownership, the process for signing, and what would happen if a homeowner did not sign.

She also asked for clarity about references to “mediation,” questioning whether it related to homeowners’ issues or the township’s broader state affordable housing process.

Township Attorney Wendy Rubinstein-Quiroga responded that the mediation referenced is separate from the homeowner outreach. It is part of the state’s new court-run administrative affordable housing program, which replaced the Council on Affordable Housing.

She acknowledged that the intention to extend ownership controls was included in the June housing plan but said personal notification was not explicitly required by law. The attorney said the legal standards appear to rely primarily on public notice through newspaper publication, without clear direction on timing relative to adoption. In an effort to be transparent, the township chose to go beyond the minimum by providing direct notice and hosting information sessions.

She also emphasized that, under the affordable housing agreements signed at purchase, the Township Committee has the authority to extend deed restrictions, and that the extension applies regardless of whether homeowners accept the financial incentive offered by the township.

The committee also provided a brief status update on the extension process. Officials said the township has 54 affordable condominium units across two developments involved in this phase, and that 44 have already scheduled or completed inspections to confirm that major systems are functioning. The process requires proof of residency, an inspection by the building department, and a signed acknowledgment of the updated affordable housing agreement.

Township officials described two information sessions already held — one via Zoom and one in person — with the administrative agent present, along with staff and counsel. They indicated the township is continuing to offer one-on-one help to homeowners who need assistance locating deeds and original affordable housing paperwork.

Committee members also supported the suggestion that the administrative agent from CGP&H (Community, Grants, Planning and Housing), Erin (Stankiewicz), appear at a future meeting to provide a public-facing update and answer general questions in an open forum.

Ramon Azcuidiaz raised concerns about whether the township’s authority to extend deed restrictions is as unilateral as described. The speaker cited precedent from Piscataway v. Society Hill and said the deed wording, in their view, does not clearly support a unilateral extension. Asking the committee to address that interpretation more directly.

Photo Credit: Nicholas Mistretta/headlinenewsmontgomery.com