West Windsor Council pored over the Township’s proposed new budget at its April 15 meeting, weighed several reductions and narrowly approved one (an $8,500 cut in administrative operating expenses), and finally approved the entire $37.3 million budget by a 4-1 vote.
It was an evening of split decisions. Council member Bryan Maher was supported by Linda Geevers and Kristina Samonte to approve the $8,500 cut, 3-2. But later Maher was critical of both Geevers and Samonte, as well as George Borek and Kamal Khanna, for not being open to additional cuts.
All of which makes the outcome of the proposal to save the Grover Farmstead from the wrecking ball — expected to be discussed by Council at its meeting on Monday, April 29, at 7:30 p.m. — somewhat hard to predict. Will Council take the “lean and mean” approach and proceed with the demolition of the 19th-century wood frame house, using money already budgeted for that purpose?
Or will it follow the recommendation of the Grover Farm committee and use the demolition money to stabilize the house and then issue a bond to finance the renovation of the farmhouse and hope that the costs are covered by future rental of the house to a person who would also serve as a caretaker of the preserved open space that the Grover Farm has now become?
Even though four of five Council members agreed on the final vote on the budget, the April 15 meeting was still the subject of some heated discussion.
In a later interview, Maher said, “I am very frustrated by my fellow council members’ actions during the budget discussion. I came in with 12 or so items where we could trim the budget. I certainly didn’t expect to win on all of them, but we had all agreed that we wanted to lower the budget somewhat, and I thought we would at least have a discussion on them. But there was almost no discussion at all; merely silence from three of the four council members. They showed no interest in my point of view.
“If we had had a healthy debate on the items, and I had still lost, then, OK, you listened to my point of view, I listened to yours, and we still disagreed, then that is fair. But three of the council members — Borek, Khanna, and Samonte — refused to discuss anything. And I am not happy with Geevers either — she says one thing and then does something different.”
“My problem with the budget is that revenues are underestimated, and expenses are overestimated. We have a reserve of $7 million. That’s money that could be used to lower people’s taxes. I am not saying we should drastically reduce the reserve, although even if we did, as the town of Westfield did, the worst that would happen is that our credit rating would slip from AAA to AA+. But even if we kept it at $4 or $5 million, we could return some to the taxpayers and still likely keep our AAA bond rating. All that money is just sitting in a bank account, earning very little interest. Why not return it to residents?”
“One of the biggest expenses that frustrated me is the fire hydrant expense. Thanks to resident John Church, the administration did agree to lower the expenditure for fire hydrant maintenance by $100,000, and that’s great. But they could have lowered that by an additional $50,000 and still have had more than enough money to cover the cost. My other big concern is on the revenue side — UCC fees. They budgeted $775,000, with the argument that it could go down. But every year since at least 2008 it has been over $1 million, so why not budget for that amount?”
“The only real changes that were made were in the capital budget. I suggested that they defer the upgrade of the playground equipment in Chamberlain Park, which doesn’t need to be done now, and instead move forward the upgrade of Conover Field, and specifically the bathrooms there, since that field is used by so many people. They agreed to at least make these changes, which I am happy about.”
Borek also spoke after the meeting. “We passed the budget with a reduction of $8,500 by a vote of 4 to 1. Some people question why we keep money on reserves. It is sound fiscal policy. We need to have reserves in case of an emergency or unexpected expense, such as Hurricane Sandy. It is very important that we keep our bond rating at AAA. That’s why we are doing better than some other towns economically. The ratings companies look at all of the factors — fiscal constraint, data about operations, taxes, the number of houses in foreclosure, our reserve money, our willingness to plan for the future. They look at whether our budget is stable from year to year. They look at a snapshot of today and estimate how our stability will be in 5 to 10 years. It is because of our sound budget practices that we maintain this rating.”
Resident Jim Muller commented that “it is important for me as a taxpayer to have a predictable tax rate, which we have in this township, that we are financially willing to deal with unforeseen difficulties, and that we enter into cost-sharing measures with the county, the state, and the utilities. Compare us with Princeton, which has similar demographic numbers, but has twice the operating budget. I am pleased with job we are doing.”
Another resident, Gregory Strawn, stated that “overall I am very pleased with the budget. The administration acted very responsibly and kept us to a tax decrease. But the public safety budget is $10 million, which is a third of the total budget, and it is far more than we need. I would cut this area and we would see our taxes go way down.”
Strawn also expressed concern about Grover Farm, referring to it as a “boondoggle.” He asked “why are we seeking bonding in the amount of $400,000, then using taxpayer money to renovate a supposedly ‘historical’ building to lease out for 20 years, just to break even? This is ridiculous.”
Beyond the Budget. Other items on the April 15 agenda generated some debate. Resident John Church asked about a specific resolution pertaining to additional costs for an engineering plan to removepoles adjacent to the new West Windsor resident parking lot at the train station, slated to open this summer. “Regarding the request from ACT Engineers for more money, why do we need to play them additional funds — we deserve some explanation.”
Township engineer Francis Guzik explained the resolution. “We need the reengineering of the road layout to reduce the number of utility poles. In the original report, it stated that seven poles needed to be moved; this was an error; it is really nine. We had a meeting with PSEG, and determined that we only needed to remove six.”
“As long as township can show it is in accordance with the master plan then PSEG has to remove them at no cost to township. However, PSEG has moved poles twice for two projects within the same area at no cost to the Township. Now they don’t want to move them again so soon, because they believe we should have advised them of this project as well. Because some of the poles have been upgraded, and are thicker, with 16 lines of wire and additional voltage, the cost to PSEG is much higher. They are encouraging us to work with them to redesign the plan to reduce the number of poles to be removed to four, rather than six. The more poles we ask to relocate, the longer it will take, and the cost will go up. Local PSEG representatives believe this will be more saleable to PSEG corporate. It is a compromise. The potential expense to move three or four poles could be $200,000 to $300,000. The problem is I can’t move forward without an engineering plan, which is why there is an additional cost.”
Maher asked if PSEG had agreed to pay for a portion of the pole removal before council agreed to a redesign plan, and if not, why should the council agree to this. He also asked if the Parking Authority was willing to pay a pro rata share of the pole removal, and whether the parking lot could open if the pole removal was not completed in a timely manner.
Alison Miller, representing the Parking Authority, responded, “If the Township cannot complete its portion of the project, the parking lot will still open this summer. Residents will have to go through the existing lot at Vaughn Drive to get there, which is the way many drivers will go anyway.”
The item was tabled for two weeks, to allow Guzik time to find out how much PSEG and/or the Parking Authority would be willing to pay towards the project.
MCCC Solar Farm. Residents, Theresa Lourenco and Marilyn Mangone Starr, raised ongoing frustrations with the solar farm project at Mercer County Community College. Said Lourenco: “There are no berms, vehicles are experiencing sun glare, and stadium lights now shine into our homes because they took down 130 trees. Work was done near wetlands without a permit — no one knows who did the work. The company and the college won’t meet with us directly. We are told to go to the website, which doesn’t give answers. We have been sent from one site to another. It says that officials met with the community — they have never met with us. They promised to follow up with us, but they never have. There needs to be a formal review by MCCC.”
Added Starr: “We were told by the mayor that we should contact him over any concerns. We are not satisfied by his response. We tried to file a lawsuit, and the judge told us that, while she was sympathetic, we waited too long to bring our concerns and so she couldn’t stop the project. We couldn’t tell the judge that the reason we waited so long was because township attorney Mike Herbert advised us not to file a lawsuit because there was no way to stop the solar farm. We want the issues to be addressed before it is once again too late.”
Council President Borek responded that the administration is working on it. “I was camping in Mercer County Park last weekend with the Boy Scouts, and I was shaking my head. It now looks like a commercial strip instead of green belt. The project is done, but we have to do something to alleviate the problems. You are on our agenda.”
Several members of the public raised additional issues. Alison Miller thanked the township for being responsive to the neighbors and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Alliance on the reformulation of the North Post and Clarksville road intersection. “The revised plan now has a through lane and a left-hand turn lane on all four sides, which will make it much safer. We thank you for addressing this so quickly and efficiently.”
Al Lerner also commended the town for its efficiency during the recent dumpster day. He noted one drawback, however. “We can’t handle hazardous waste at the facility — residents have to wait for county day at Baker’s Basin, which causes a lot of problems. I would suggest looking into taking hazardous waste ourselves. It may be too expensive — we may need a separate receptacle. But it is worth looking into for our residents.”
Maher also raised the question of why the Township is accepting a grant in the amount of $825,000 from the state Green Acres program. “It is not that I object to the money; it is that I object to the strings attached. If we accept Green Acre money for any project, then we are bound by the state’s Green Acre rules for any parcel of Township property, whether it has been purchased solely with Township money or Green Acres money. I think this is ridiculous, and am opposed to this grant on that basis.” The resolution passed 4 to 1, with Maher casting the opposition vote.
Maher raised an issue regarding the payment of health benefits. “Why are we paying health care, vision, and other benefits for former employees who no longer work or live here? These contracts are problematic — this is where your tax dollars are going. The employees’ pay is reasonable, but their benefits are out of control. We are currently negotiating contracts. We need to reduce benefits, especially for former employees.”
Mayor Shing-Fu Hsueh responded, saying, “I completely agree. These contracts were set up in the 1970s. According to state regulations, we cannot deny benefits that they had already earned.”
Responded Maher: “Nor do I want to. I am talking about looking at this for future contracts. I am voting no as a symbolic gesture, to bring awareness of this issue to the public.”
Borek and Geevers also indicated agreement with Maher that these costs need to be looked at closely when reviewing the five contracts up for renewal.
The Council approved the acceptance of a donated vehicle to help with tree limb removal.
Council also agreed to amend the lease with the Police Benevolent Association (PBA) for the use of Township land on North Post Road to reflect that the lease is for the land only, not the trailer, and that the term of the lease will be for 10 years, rather than 20. Public hearing on this lease will be part of the April 29 Council meeting.
