Both dogs and fire hydrants took center stage at the December 10 meeting of West Windsor Township Council but — thankfully — the two items were not part of the same discussion.
Dogs, cats, and wild animals — including a snapping turtle — figured prominently in a re-run of last year’s debate over whether the Township should have its own animal control officer (ACO) or enter into a shared services agreement with East Windsor. After public comments by more than a dozen advocates of a fulltime ACO (preferably Bettina Roed, the former ACO), Council voted 3-2 to extend the current agreement with East Windsor for another two years.
Proponents of the ACO argued that the savings analysis conducted by the Township did not include the cost of sending police to respond to calls that the ACO formerly handled. A group called “Citizens for Effective Animal Control” distributed a statement that noted that in the first nine months of the shared services agreement 515 animal-related calls were received by West Windsor police, and 408 required response by an officer.
Based on a median police salary of $93,199 per year, and assuming that each call required 15 minutes of a dispatcher’s time and an hour’s worth of an officer’s time, the cost to the police would be $33,393.33. By adding that to the $18,000 paid to East Windsor under the agreement, the total cost of the new arrangement would be $51,393.33 for a full year. The cost of the fulltime ACO had been $67,000.
Based on that calculation, the ACO proponents argued, the savings were not sufficient to offset for what they perceived to be a drastically reduced quality of service under the new arrangement.
Debbie Hepler of Dean Court noted that 11 of the calls in the last year were “regarding bites, and they were all handled by a police officer, not a trained ACO. This is a very disturbing public health/safety issue. Unfortunately for residents, the stray population is the source of most transmission of rabies to other animals and to humans,” she said.
“Our current animal control situation is neither beneficial for animals nor the residents. No responsible, humane community would allow the current system to continue,” she said.
Emily Epstein of Lake Shore Drive, who is president of Pet Rescue of Mercer County, said that when the township first entered into the agreement with East Windsor “Council said let’s give it a try. Well, it’s a complete disaster.”
Ellen Scanlon of Conover Road said she had called police to report two stray dogs. “The police had to put one dog in a patrol car,” she said. “It was very unprofessional.”
A resident of Plainsboro, which had previously shared the services of West Windsor’s ACO, also spoke in favor of reinstating the position. Tari Pantaleo told the story of the snapping turtle as an illustration of the police officers’ inexperience. “It took six officers to subdue,” she said.
Councilwoman Kristina Samonte asked if the two-year agreement with East Windsor could be amended to last just one year, giving all parties another chance to review the experience. She was told by Police Chief Joe Pica that East Windsor would not accept a deal that only lasted a year.
Pica said that the change in West Windsor’s ACO status began when Plainsboro pulled out of its relationship with West Windsor, and when the township was facing the need to acquire a new truck for the animal control officer. Of the 500-plus calls, Pica said that “we would have gone to them anyhow,” even if there had been a fulltime ACO.
By the chief’s estimation the police responding to the calls were already on duty. Under the new arrangement, he said, “our out-of-pocket costs have not gone up.” Pica added that in the past year the department only received five or six official complaints.
Councilman Bryan Maher admonished the ACO proponents for not keeping a detailed log of animal control problems as he had recommended a year ago. Emily Epstein responded from the audience: “But how would we have gotten the information?”
“I understand your plight,” Maher responded. “I encourage you to get organized. Show me exactly how it’s not working.”
That position notwithstanding, Maher joined George Borek in casting the two dissenting votes.
#b#Fire Hydrants#/b#
A minor budget item on the December 10 agenda, a resolution to transfer $153,000 from an account covering “fire hydrant services” to other administrative accounts, brought to light some forensic accounting being undertaken by resident — and frequent Town Council attendee — John Church of Princeton Place.
The transfer, according to Church, is due to the fact that the township allocates $895,000 for “Fire Hydrant Services,” which includes flushing, painting, and maintaining them, but New Jersey American Water has only charged around $736,000.
That information, Church told Council, led him to attempt to figure out the basis of the water company’s fees. Since the township is billed at an annual rate of $949.92 per hydrant, Church calculates that the water company is charging for about 780 hydrants.
Church obtained a “very incomplete” list of hydrants provided to the township by the water company years ago. But this list only contains 610. “I have repeatedly asked the company to update this list, but they have refused, saying that to reveal this would be revealing details of confidential infrastructure,” Church said.
“It’s the most absurd thing I have heard in my life,” Church told Council. “If the location of fire hydrants is a security issue then what about the location of the train station?”
