The possibility of finding a property tax in a large tract zoned for a religious use. Debating the costs of maintenance for the township aquatic center now that swimming season is over. And arguing not about the need for sidewalks on Cranbury but rather about the manner in which requests for proposals (RFPs) for the work will be prepared.
Those improbable subjects were among the hot topics at the September 30 West Windsor Town Council meeting. The uncovering of a possible new tax ratable, and a solution to a project stalled by financial concerns, received no more than a mention at the meeting, but it might have been the best news of all.
The township has received word from Matt Wilson, the lead contributor to — and a major lender for — the proposed Jewish Community Center on Clarksville Road, that he and his wife have taken over ownership of the stalled project and are financing the completion of the 80,000-square-foot facility.
Wilson, a Pennington resident and venture capitalist, has said that he is exploring all possibilities for the future use of the 60-acre site, not far from the site of the future Howard Hughes development project. One possibility: a health and fitness club that makes use of the building’s full-size basketball court and Olympic-size swimming pool. Such a use would put at least some part of the property back on the tax rolls.
Council debated whether to approve a two-year contract with Aquatic Service Inc., for services and maintenance of the West Windsor Aquatic Complex, to last through Labor Day, 2015, at a cost of $83,628.
Said Councilman Bryan Maher: “I have nothing against Water Works or Aquatic Service. But originally Water Works just wanted to extend the contract. I suggested that we put it out to bid so we did, but we only received one bid, from Aquatic Service, for $1,000 more than if we had just extended the contract. In this case, the weekday rate of pay for a pool supervisor works out to be an annual salary of $275,000, and if you use the weekend rate, it is over $400,000. This is way too much, in my opinion.”
“But this is an endemic problem — we only get one bid for services. How can we know if the price is reasonable, and control taxes, if we don’t have more bids to compare? We give too short a time period for contractors to respond, and we are left with only one bid on contract after contract. This is not just for the pool contract, but for all of our contracts. The administration should call contractors and find out why they are not bidding on our contracts.”
Both attorney Michael Herbert and administrator Marlena Schmid took exception to Maher’s last comment, noting that what he was suggesting could be considered unlawful. “I will not do as you have asked,” said Schmid. “You cannot call contractors and encourage them to bid. That is unethical and violates state statutes, and I will not be involved,” Schmid said.
Maher also suggested re-issuing the bid for a longer time period to see if more contractors respond. However, the administration and other Council members noted that this contract, involving the closing of the pool, is time-sensitive, and to delay the awarding of the contract could cause damage to the pool. In the end, the Council voted 4 to 1 to approve the contract, with Maher the lone dissenter.
Cranbury Sidewalks. Several residents spoke about the Cranbury Road sidewalk project, expressing dismay and disappointment over rumors regarding the status and scope of the project, including when Council would be voting on the project, and whether the request for proposal (RFP) had been finalized without giving the residents an opportunity to view it.
Sylvia Ascarelli commented that “We had hoped to be involved with the RFP or at least to have a public meeting so the administration could explain it. But instead we are told that because the administration is not legally obligated to share the RFP and they aren’t going to share it. Now we see the Council is voting on a provision tonight that only speaks of sidewalks or a shoulder from Route 571 to Sunnydale Road. And that Cranbury Road will become one way. When was this decided?”
Explained Council President George Borek, “There appears to be a lot of misinformation. The RFP came into the engineering department late on Friday and is being disseminated to the Council members this Friday (October 4). None of us have seen it yet and we are certainly not voting on it yet. The Council is united in what we want to see done, but we have made it clear to the administration that we want every option on the table — whether it is sidewalks, bike lanes, or making Cranbury Road a one-way street. We will be given a briefing by the administration and then will discuss the RFP publicly.”
Maher concurred: “We need to see all of the options because this will be a very expensive and very complex project. I am personally against turning Cranbury Road into a one-way street at this point, but I need to review all of the options before I can really make up my mind. We on the Council have not yet seen the RFP, and I am very disappointed that someone in this building apparently leaked information and misinformation to the public.”
“Because this is a political season, there is a lot of information being passed around, and we all need to step back and assess it carefully,” said Council member Kamal Khanna. “All five of us [on the Council] are united, and the administration and the mayor are working with us on this project. We are all working as fast as we can, but we need to follow the process, so please work with us.”
Township attorney Herbert expressed some reservations about the legality of presenting a draft of the RFP to the public and said he would look into finding a legally sound method that would allow residents to review it before it is sent out to bid.
“We have been working with the residents on this,” said Council member Linda Geevers, “and we have been advising them that they would be able to review it. I want the RFP to be shared with the public, even if normally we don’t do that. This is the exception.” The review was expected to be part of a public meeting scheduled for Thursday, October 10.
The Council did unanimously approve the submission of the grant application to the New Jersey Department of Transportation for the Cranbury Road pedestrian improvements project; along with grants for the Alexander Road reconstruction project; the Princeton-Hightstown Road sidewalk extension project; and the Conover Road bikeway project.
In other matters discussed at the September 30 meeting Maher noted that a friend of his has been seeking Zoning Board approval to open a business, and has experienced significant delays because the Zoning Board only meets once a month.
Maher, as Zoning Board liaison, also discussed the issue at the October 3 zoning board meeting (see separate story, page 1). Zoning Board Chair John Roeder stressed that the Zoning Board wanted to be responsive, but noted that the board needed a quorum. He suggested the Council consider the attendance records of various members before reappointing them in the future. (In fact, since then an additional meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday, October 22.)
In other news, the Council also unanimously passed ordinances to prohibit parking along Wheeler Way, prohibit additional building along portions of the town’s watercourses and floodplains; and to approve the continuation of the affordable housing unit status at Avalon Watch.
In addition, Council approved a shared services agreement with the Mercer County Improvement Authority for curbside recycling services for a term of five years, at a cost of $1,116,573; an agreement with Metro Employee Assistance Services (MEAS) through September 30, 2014, at a cost of $3,600; and granting the reservation of sewer capacity for the Institute for Islamic Studies project, located at 2030 Old Trenton Road.
