By: centraljersey.com
Actions speak louder than words, but inaction yells louder. At least it did at the Princeton Borough Council meeting on Tuesday night where a motion to accept the bond ordinance to fund the borough’s portion of the Community Park pool project failed due to no motion from the council.
"This is my last chance to have a stab at this," said Councilman Andrew Koontz as he motioned for acceptance of the resolution to fund the borough’s $2.1 million portion of the proposed $6 million project. In the silence that ensued, his motion did not gain a second, and therefore failed. "All (the ordinance) would do would put the borough’s funds in place."
Since the council failed to move the resolution, the ordinance will have to be reintroduced in 2011, said Robert Bruschi, borough administrator. Four members of council must approve the ordinance for it to pass.
Mayor Mildred Trotman opened the meeting to the public, which began a firestorm of criticism and anger that left the council defending it’s inaction to members of the public and fellow elected officials from Princeton Township, who were visibly upset.
"This is an emotional issue and I find your actions on council disingenuous," said Mike Finkelstein, of the management committee of the recreation board. "We have acted with extraordinary diligence to vet this process … while trying to fulfill the professional requirements to have a beautiful pool for the next 40 to 50 years.
"There isn’t a unified idea out there and for a person sitting on this committee, that leads me to feel there is nothing more than individual conjecture," he said. "Which led us to our original design accommodating a broad diversity of people that represent our community and coming up with a plan that truly does represent the needs our overall community." he said.
He also pointed out delays endanger the pool further with a possible total failure or loss of season.
"We have tried to be diligent with regard to your wishes and looking at this from an engineering point of view and marrying that with our professional aquatic experience," Mr. Finkelstein continued. "We haven’t heard anything from the group you appointed unilaterally to challenge that … the lack of communication and behavior is reprehensible. It is on your head if this pool fails … the township has unanimously approved this. Cut out the crap and the hidden agenda, this has gone too far."
Mayor Trotman assured the public that the funding measure will be reintroduced in January and action taken.
"I don’t understand what’s going to change in January," said Joanne Rogers of the township. "I have no hope this is miraculously going to change in 2011, the township has done what they need to do and now we can’t move forward because the borough won’t even vote on it. All I’m asking for is a vote, at least if we know you’re voting no, that’s fine. Then we have a record."
Calling the pool "outdated, out of compliance and out of time," Sue Nemeth, a Township Committee member, said the council’s actions were like "kicking the can down the road."
"As far as I’m concerned you have voted tonight, your absence of any action is a vote to me in opposition of public recreation in Princeton," she said. "There is no way if you begin the process again in January that this will get to a state where it can go to bid and be shovel-ready in the fall, so have kicked it a year out and jeopardized the fundraising momentum.
"This is not a frivolous and extravagant project in any way, and to not move forward is a travesty. I’m ashamed … I don’t know how you could sit there and do what you did tonight," she added.
After the public portion closed, council members offered explanations of their actions.
Continuing to question his colleagues’ inaction, Councilman Koontz also pointed out the township’s generosity on design concessions and contract agreements given to the borough.
"The borough has been given multiple opportunities to involve itself in this project if we just get past this bond ordinance," he said. "So what steps the Borough Council has taken tonight is to ignore the extraordinary outreach the township has made; ignore the extraordinary efforts of the recreation board has made to outreach and make this a special process where borough concerns could be addressed."
If spending all the money that was to be allocated to the project was a concern, and the council wanted to look for cost savings, Mr. Koontz said that the governing body is in no way obligated to spend all the money for a project.
He pointed to the cancellation of several bond ordinances totaling $6 million in unspent funds for projects, such as $3 million in unused funds for the library.
"My colleagues need to explain their reasons for holding up a bond ordinance so that the project can’t move forward because they clearly understand that we don’t have to spend all the money in the bond ordinance a they can cancel it out later," he said.
"I don’t know what will change in the New Year. I’m leaving and will be replaced by Jo Bulter, but the same five who didn’t even second my motion will still be here," said Mr. Koontz.
Mayor Trotman insisted the funding measure would be revisited early in the New Year. "Council never just voted it down or did not vote just for the sake of not doing anything," said Mayor Trotman. "I think everyone on council knows we need a new pool, but members of council also heard very loudly from the public that they wish that there was something that could be done to decrease the cost of the pool or maybe make some changes.
"There were questions out there that needed answers and I feel very strongly that sometime soon in January or sometime there after there will be a decision," she added.
The pool, built in 1967, has major design flaws with no transitional area between the baby wading pool and the Olympic pool and no Americans with Disabilities Act accommodations. It also has plumbing and concrete issues. Most council members focused on issues with the design of the project overall when explaining their feelings.
"I am committed to groundbreaking for the pool in September 2011; I have concerns about the designs," said Councilwoman Jenny Crumiller. "The best decisions are decisions that have been challenged … I think we’re going to have a better pool for it."
Council members were willing to take the heat for their actions and not fund a project they were not comfortable with.
"Were going to end up with a project that is better and less expensive. … I’m willing to admit that the Borough Council is the stumbling block," said Councilman David Goldfarb, who spoke about the "extraordinary difficult and painful" process of vetting out the library project. "But long after we’re gone what’s there will remain and add to the quality of life in downtown Princeton. The same thing is going to happen with the pool and we’re going to end up with a project that is better and less expensive than the project for which we have design drawings done."
Sticking points for Councilman Kevin Wilkes were the debate over renovation or replacement of the buildings and what to do with the pool itself.
"I found it insulting to suggest that that beautiful building could not be renovated," said Mr. Wilkes. "I’ve made a pretty good career of fixing up buildings in this community and I could fix that building up," and costs for renovation would be about half that of building a new building, he said.
He said people are still researching options for the pool, such as a new steel liner or new concrete or some combination of the two.
The pool wasn’t the only issue influencing decisions on Tuesday night. The recent economic woes and revaluation that hit many residents hard worry at least one council woman.
"I’m coming at this from the perspective that these are really tough economic times and we are just coming from a revaluation that is forcing people to leave our community," said Councilwoman Barbara Trelstad. "I think there are other ideas that need to be vetted and could reduce costs." She also pointed out that pool use has decreased since 2002, and worries that increased fees could deter more users.
