After heated neighborhood debate, College Park council backs letter for county PILOT for Boulevard project, 6–2

The College Park Mayor and Council voted 6–2 on May 19 to authorize staff to submit a letter of support to Prince George’s County for a Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) application for the Boulevard mixed‑use development at 1991 Baltimore Avenue.

Economic Development Director Michael Williams introduced the county‑level PILOT request and presented materials from the applicant team, which included developer representatives and counsel who described the financing plan, Opportunity Zone equity, and the project’s affordability commitments. The applicant told council that ownership would contribute roughly $30 million in equity and that a county 15‑year PILOT would be necessary to make the pro forma workable.

The project team outlined affordability commitments the council pressed to clarify: the proposal includes 244 total units in the multi‑family building and an allocation of 24 income‑restricted units in the building’s initial offering; developer representatives said six of those 24 units would be set at 60% of area median income (AMI) with the remainder at higher AMI bands.

Residents and council members raised multiple concerns before the vote. Longtime neighborhood residents and civic leaders said retail planned under earlier approvals had been reduced over time through county-level amendments, and they asked for a renewed community engagement process and clearer guarantees about stormwater improvements and dedicated parking for adjacent townhouses. “I don’t support a letter of support at this time,” resident Judith Wong told the council during public comment, urging more resident input before city endorsement.

Developer counsel Arthur Horn clarified timing for the county application, saying June 1 is the scheduling target for the county’s review period but characterizing it as the application window rather than an immutable hard deadline.

Council members framed the vote as a conditional and advisory step. Councilmember Jacob Hernandez, who moved the motion, emphasized he would support a letter if the developer agrees to timely neighborhood engagement and to consider reasonable recommendations that arise from that outreach. Mayor and council members said the letter is not a county approval and typically does not commit city funding; it signals local community input to county decision‑makers.

The motion to authorize the letter passed 6–2 after roll call; council members expressed that additional discussions and formal covenants (to address parking, AMI terms and stormwater improvements) should be worked out before any city financial commitment or any binding development covenant returned for council adoption.

What comes next: Staff will draft the city’s letter reflecting items discussed at the meeting, work with the developer to schedule community engagement with affected residents, and submit the letter for the developer’s PILOT application to Prince George’s County in the county’s review window. The council noted future opportunities to codify affordability and other community commitments in recorded covenants or later jurisdictional approvals.