Hopewell officials OK budget, decline stream grant for park

Budget, which totals $2,279,203.12, will require a tax-rate increase of 6 cents per $100 of assessed value, or 55 cents per $100 of assessed value.

By Lauren Graham Delehey
   On Monday, Hopewell Borough Council adopted the 2005 budget introduced at last month’s meeting, with one amendment, which increased the public library appropriation by $7,296 to meet state requirements for a municipality of Hopewell’s size.
   The money for the budget increase was realized from surplus funds, said Borough Chief Financial Officer Judy McGrory. So, while the extra money does increase the overall budget total, it does not change the tax-rate increase announced with the unveiling of the budget last month.
   The 2005 budget, which totals $2,279,203.12, will require a tax-rate increase of 6 cents per $100 of assessed value, or 55 cents per $100 of assessed value — 6 cents more than the 2004 tax rate of 49 cents.
   The owner of a borough property assessed at $197,719, the borough average, will pay $1,087.45 for municipal purposes this year. Last year, the same property owner paid $968. 82.
   COUNCIL also declined a federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grant for a "Comprehensive Stream Restoration Project" in Hopewell Park.
   Peggy Savage of the Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Association (Stony Brook) presented several alternative plans for use of the EPA grant at council’s March meeting. Council considered two measures designed to correct stream erosion: resurfacing the dam near the arched bridge at the upstream end of the park; and renovating the flat bridge located approximately 1,000 feet downstream from the dam. But concerns about how to comply with governmental regulations while still maintaining the character and use of the flat bridge ultimately prompted council to "step away" from the grant.
   In March, Ms. Savage said that if the flat bridge were raised, New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEEP) would require a study to establish that renovations would take the bridge out of the 100-year flood plain. Unable to meet that requirement with a flat bridge, Stony Brook presented three alternative plans for construction of an arched bridge. But the arched bridge plans, Ms. Savage acknowledged, would not meet all federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines.
   Although the law would not explicitly require that a new bridge meet ADA standards, council members were concerned about non-compliance. And so, in March, Ms. Savage and Borough Engineer Dennis O’Neal agreed to "go back to the drawing board." But at this month’s meeting it was clear that they had not come up with a plan that could satisfy DEP regulations and comply with ADA guidelines without imposing what council perceived as drastic changes to the character and use of the bridge.
   "I believe what Stony Brook is offering is very important," said Councilman Sky Morehouse, "but this bridge is a real concern." The changes that would be required to take the bridge out of the flood plain, Mr. Morehouse said, "would change how the community uses the bridge." And so, he concluded, "it is with very strong regret that I suggest that we step away from this grant."
   Councilmen David Knights and Mark Samse both voiced agreement, and council declined the EPA grant. Mr. Samse thanked Stony Brook for all the work it has put into the stream restoration project proposal.
   COUNCIL also revisited a proposal for construction of a full- or half-basketball court on the grounds of the railroad station. This proposal, spearheaded by borough resident Lou Young, has been discussed at several council meetings over the past few months.
   At this stage, council is considering three options: (1) refurbish the existing court in place; (2) construct a new half-court at a revised angle, parallel to the tracks; or (3) build a new full-court parallel to the tracks. Mr. Samse reported that cost estimates range from approximately $8,000 for a new half-court to about $12,900 for a new full-court. He suggested seeking an estimate for refurbishing the existing court, as well. Because the station is in a designated "neighborhood revitalization zone," the borough may be able to fund much of the project through a grant from Mercer County.
   Councilman Robert Lewis said he had spoken with a number of people in the railroad station area about the potential project, and noted, "most are receptive to it initially, until they consider how much more asphalt" the project would entail.
   Councilman Morehouse commented, "I am of the opinion that with a full court, the site would be overwhelmed with asphalt."
   Councilman Samse pointed out that a basketball bouncing at 8 p.m. "might not sit well with the neighbors."
   On the other hand, resident Joseph Zito noted that the asphalt would be a good place for children to ride tricycles and bicycles. And while he expressed concerns about the "footprint" of a full court, Mr. Samse said he would generally support renovating the existing court or putting in a half court.
   Council agreed to seek feedback from the Planning Board.
   IN OTHER BUSINESS, council passed two new ordinances: Ordinance No. 649, which revises rates for water use; and Ordinance No. 650, which allows a 3.5 percent increase in budget appropriations for the year 2005 and establishes a "cap bank," so that any part of that increase not used this year may be retained for use in one of the next two years.
   A proposed bond ordinance was introduced on first reading. Ordinance No. 651 would provide a $200,000 supplemental appropriation for capital improvements to the water system infrastructure, and would authorize the issuance of $190,000 in borough bonds or notes to finance the appropriation.
   Engineer O’Neal reported that the borough opened bids for the water interconnection project on April 25. Ten entities picked up bid packages, and of those 10, only two submitted bids. He had estimated the interconnection project at $253,000. But the bidding far exceeded that number, with a high offer of $414,700 and a low of $372,000. In response, Mr. O’Neal recommended and council agreed to reject the bids and rebid the project. With the next bids, the borough will offer a nonmandatory prebid conference, so that any contractor who wishes to bid on the job can clear up questions before submitting a bid.