To the Editor:
I am writing in response to statements by James Higgins reported in MercerMe’s Oct. 12 article and quoted in his campaign’s Aug. 21 letter to the editor. A central theme of Mr. Higgins’ candidacy has been the allegation that important decisions by Hopewell Borough Council were made without transparency, sufficient review or meaningful community input. His campaign has repeatedly made claims that I believe are contradicted by the public record.
Consider the proposed sale of the borough’s water system. Referring to the Aug. 5, 2024, protest petition, the Higgins campaign quoted him as saying, “The Council wanted to decide this without community input, we didn’t let that happen.”
But on April 18, 2024, more than three months before the petition was submitted, the borough mailed postcards to every water customer inviting them to a May 13 town hall meeting and public hearing. At that meeting, the borough’s water supply planning team reviewed the proposed sale process under the Water Infrastructure Protection Act (WIPA), the system’s condition and the utility’s financial status. The public was invited to ask questions and comment before the council adopted an emergent conditions resolution required to pursue a possible sale.
That was only the beginning. In July 2024, Mayor Ryan Kennedy announced that water system updates and questions would become a standing item at council meetings. The borough subsequently held three additional public information sessions, each lasting several hours, and posted presentations and meeting recordings online.
During an October 2025 presentation hosted by the Hopewell Public Water Alliance, Peggy Gallos, executive director of the Association of Environmental Authorities, called Hopewell Borough “the poster child” for how the WIPA process should be followed.
The Higgins campaign also points to his participation in circulating the 2024 protest petition. What it does not mention is that the petition’s ballot question and interpretive statement referred to the proposed sale of the borough’s wastewater system as well as its water system.
That was incorrect. Hopewell Borough was proposing to sell only its water system; it has never proposed to sell its wastewater collection system. This distinction matters because the two systems serve different purposes and their ownership carries different implications for the borough. Among other policy considerations, selling the borough’s wastewater collection system could potentially affect future development adjacent to the borough in Hopewell Township.
Mr. Higgins signed an affidavit certifying that he circulated the petition and collected signatures. Given his emphasis on accurate information and public participation, I believe he should explain how incorrect statements came to be included in a petition he helped circulate.
Similar claims about inadequate public participation have been made concerning Hopewell 57.
The Borough Council held public hearings on the redevelopment plan in July and November 2024, along with a September 2024 special meeting to discuss alternative development concepts. The Planning Board subsequently held five lengthy public hearing sessions on the site plan application between February and May 2026. The final two were moved to the Hopewell Elementary School to accommodate the public.
Residents had opportunities to speak at each of these meetings. Yet Mr. Higgins continues to argue that the public lacked a meaningful opportunity to provide input. I disagree with that characterization.
The Hopewell 57 payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) agreement provides another example.
In response to a MercerMe question, Mr. Higgins said residents deserve independent financial analysis, expert input, a public town hall and meaningful community participation before another PILOT is considered.
I agree. But what Mr. Higgins left out was that much of what he describes occurred before the council approved the Hopewell 57 PILOT agreement.
At the Dec. 4, 2025, public hearing, borough financial adviser Bryan Morris of Phoenix Advisors presented an analysis of the proposed PILOT, including projected municipal and school costs and the financial implications of the agreement. (A video recording of the public hearing can be accessed through the borough website.) Mr. Higgins attended and, during public comment, said, “I think the presentation is the best one I’ve seen since I’ve been participating in these meetings.”
Mr. Higgins has also said to MercerMe “It has been estimated that conventional taxation could have generated approximately $44 million over 30 years, compared with roughly $11.6 million projected under the Council-approved PILOT, a difference of more than $30 million”. This comparison implies that the borough chose to forgo more than $30 million in tax revenue.
But that comparison, for which Mr. Higgins cited no source, overlooks a central point made by the borough’s financial adviser during the public hearing: Without the tax abatement, the project would not be financially feasible and would not proceed. Morris told Higgins that without the PILOT, the redevelopment “would not exist,” meaning the conventional tax revenue from that proposed development would be zero.
Whether one agrees with the PILOT agreement or not, a fair discussion of its financial implications should acknowledge that analysis rather than simply comparing two potential revenue figures.
The proposed improvements to the borough’s Department of Public Works facility have generated similar criticism.
The Higgins campaign has called for greater clarity about long-term costs, priorities and public benefits. Yet the borough has posted project plans, estimated costs, financing information and a timeline dating to 2021 on its website. Three bond ordinances were adopted to finance the project, all following public hearings.
The borough also hosted public tours of the DPW facility in December 2025 and February 2026 so residents could see existing conditions and ask questions. Given Mr. Higgins’ calls for clarity about the public benefits of the DPW project, I was surprised to learn that he didn’t attend either of those tours.
The conditions at the DPW facility deserve attention. DPW employees maintain our borough streets, buildings, stormwater and sewer systems, parks and other public assets. Yet the facility lacks a vehicle repair bay and lift, adequate employee accommodations and a salt storage building that complies with state stormwater requirements. Employees sometimes must perform vehicle maintenance outside, even in poor weather.
We ask much of our DPW staff; I believe it is incumbent on the borough to provide them with the facilities and resources they need to do their job. These are legitimate public needs, and residents deserve an informed discussion about how best to address them. In my opinion, the Borough Council has met that burden.
I recognize that some residents may disagree with the council’s decisions on the water system, redevelopment, PILOT agreements, or DPW improvements. Public disagreement is healthy, and elected officials should be questioned and held accountable. But disagreement over the outcome of a decision should not be confused with an absence of public process. The borough held meetings, where information was presented and residents had opportunities to participate. Those facts deserve recognition even by people who opposed the decisions.
Good government requires elected officials who work together in good faith, establish the facts, listen to different viewpoints, and consider the advice of qualified experts and staff. Our community deserves a political discussion grounded in accurate information rather than misleading characterizations of the public record.
David Mackie
Hopewell Borough
