Ken Hitchner, a former Borough Council member and a member of the GPU committee, this week said he is less enthusiastic about the GPU purchase than he was a year ago.
By: Scott Morgan
HIGHTSTOWN A former Borough Council member has questioned the council’s plans for the GPU property on Mercer Street.
Ken Hitchner, who served on the council last year and is currently a member of the council’s GPU Committee, said he is "less enthralled" about the idea of moving the municipal complex to the GPU site than he was a year ago.
During the public comment portion of the council’s Sept. 4 meeting, Mr. Hitchner expressed a series of concerns ranging from the borough’s intentions to the overall bill taxpayers will have to foot for the site.
He cited a 1997 report by The O’Connor Group, a Hightstown architectural firm, which provided drawings and recommendations as to how the borough could renovate and restructure the existing municipal complex, including the police department. In deference to the O’Connor report, Mr. Hitchner asked why the borough wants to build out when the municipality has no room to do so.
He also expressed concern that the new feasibility study by Vincentsen Associates of Westfield does not have a written clause regarding the renovation of the existing municipal site. Council President Mike Vanderbeck said there was a verbal contract between the borough and Vincentsen Associates to study the feasibility of renovation versus that of a move.
When asked later in the week, Councilman Bob Patten said the O’Connor study is no longer valid. He said the study is outdated since state standards for renovating the Police Department have changed considerably. Also, he said the O’Connor study was "not as defined as a real architectural analysis." He said he considers the study more of an informal report, which does not address the current concerns for the Police Department.
Though no one has yet said the municipal complex will move, Mr. Hitchner said the borough’s actions give him pause, especially since the council has already initiated friendly condemnation proceedings against the GPU site.
"When you do a condemnation, at least to my understanding, you usually have some intention," he said.
Also, Mr. Hitchner chided the council, saying the next time it looks into buying a $1 million property, it should have the money to commission a feasibility study from the beginning.
Mr. Patten responded to Mr. Hitchner’s comments by saying "friendly condemnation" does not mean a sale has taken place. He said "friendly condemnation" is a common business practice allowing the buyer and seller to agree on a price for a property. It does not mean the borough has bought the GPU property, but only that it has "covered the bases and left the doors open" for proceedings, should the borough decide to purchase the site, he said.
"I want to make that perfectly clear," Mr. Patten said.
The council’s vote on the GPU issue had been set for its Oct. 1 meeting, the night the results of the Vincentsen Associates study are expected to be in. But in an effort spearheaded by Mr. Patten to allow the public a full hearing on the issue, the council is expected to reveal the results of the study Oct. 1, then gauge their actions from public response. The council is expected to present its second reading of the ordinance at its Oct. 15 meeting.
Despite his concerns, Mr. Hitchner said he will not formally come out for or against the GPU site purchase until the results of the Vincentsen Associates’ feasibility study are in.

