UPPER FREEHOLD: Grant sought for park project; use of open space tax questioned

By Joanne Degnan, Staff Writer
   UPPER FREEHOLD — The Township Committee last week authorized employees to work on a grant application to defray the cost of developing Reed Recreation Park, but refrained from appropriating any municipal money at this point for design work or permits.
   Meanwhile, questions were raised during the May 19 Township Committee meeting about whether it was appropriate to use the township’s open space and farmland preservation trust fund to construct the bathrooms that are part of the $1.17 million development project for Reed Recreation Park. Two of the four residents who spoke on the issue, Liz Kwasnik and Kathy Ricci, are members of the township’s Open Space and Farmland Preservation Committee.
   Township Committeeman Stephen Alexander said it made no sense to buy open space for recreational purposes and then not develop those properties so that the public can utilize them. The township purchased the Reed property in 2004.
   ”It’s not really ‘developing’ — we’re putting in parking lots and a bathroom so the kids don’t go to the bathroom in the wetlands,” Mr. Alexander said. “I’m sure the environmentalists don’t want that to happen either.”
   Upper Freehold residents pay a total 6 cents per $100 in assessed value in open space and farmland preservation taxes under a series of referendums approved by voters over the past 11 years. The first 1990 referendum established a 1-cent tax, a 2000 referendum added 3 cents more to the tax rate, and a 2008 referendum authorized an additional 2 cents.
   Ms. Kwasnik, chairwoman of the Open Space and Farmland Preservation Committee, said the language of the 2008 referendum restricts the use of that 2-cent portion of the tax to farmland preservation projects only. Money raised or leveraged using revenue from the 2008 tax cannot be used to develop recreational facilities, such as the planned bathrooms at Reed Recreation Park.
   Dianne Kelly, the township CFO, agreed with Ms. Kwasnik’s interpretation of the spending restrictions in the 2008 referendum. However, Ms. Kelly said the 3-cent tax voters authorized in the previous 2000 referendum could be used for either recreation development or farmland preservation. Ms. Kelly said she is still researching the language of the 1990 referendum authorizing the original 1-cent tax, and while it probably could be used for both purposes, she was not certain.
   The discussion prompted Mr. Alexander to ask, “Are we opposed to the development of our rec fields or are we truly concerned about how the money is being used?”
   ”I perceive that you’re thinking I’m against development (of recreation fields) and that’s not what I’m saying at all,” Ms. Kwasnik said.
   Ms. Kwasnik said that Township Committeeman Bob Faber had asked the Open Space and Farmland Preservation Committee to review whether there were restrictions on how the open space tax could be spent.
   Mr. Faber said he wanted clarification on the issue because of the phone calls he received from residents who read about the Reed Park development plan in the newspaper after it was discussed at the May 5 meeting.
   ”People will probably be satisfied hearing that that 2 cents definitely will stay for preservation,” Mr. Faber said.
   Ms. Kelly said she was seeking to resolve the financial issue from an accounting standpoint.
   ”At the last meeting the mayor asked me where the funding would come from to support the debt service, and I had initially indicated it could come from the open space tax, and maybe that’s still true,” Ms. Kelly said.
   ”But we may be at the point where we’re maxed out on funding recreation projects from the open space tax,” she said. “We would still go to a bond ordinance, but it may have to be funded through our current fund budget instead.”
   The $1.17 million Reed Recreation Park development proposal was described as a “no frills” proposal when it was discussed at the May 5 meeting. The plan calls for two paved parking areas, a bathroom/storage building with a possible dry goods concession stand, and a perimeter handicapped-accessible walking path that connects the various athletic fields on the 30-acre site.
   Youth lacrosse teams now use the unimproved fields along the Route 526 Bypass, but the lack of parking and bathrooms, and poor drainage on the site has created safety concerns, said John Masserini, president of the Allentown Upper Freehold Athletic Association’s Dragons Lacrosse League, which has 120 players.
   The various components of the development plan could be prioritized and phased in over time depending on the availability of grant money to help defray the cost. Township officials said May 5 that they would seek a $250,000 federal Community Development Block Grant and a Monmouth County Municipal Open Space Grant. Only the county grant requires local matching funds. The resolution approved by the Township Committee at the May 19 meeting authorizes the township CFO and engineer to pursue the county grant.
   Ellisdale Road resident Nancy Frenick said she thought it was wrong for the Township Committee to spend any money on developing a park in the current economic climate.
   ”I’m not opposed to having fields for these kids; we’ve gone above and beyond for the kids of this township by building them a beautiful new school,” Ms. Frenick said, referring to Stone Bridge Middle School, which opened in September.
   ”We have had our services cut in this township because of economic reasons and to develop another park … you really have to be more responsible in how our tax money is used,” she said.
   ”We are very responsible, that is why it’s taken us three to four years just to come out with this and move this project forward,” Mr. Alexander responded.
   Township Committeeman Stanley Moslowski Jr. agreed.
   ”If you’re asking people to come to a recreation field … we have to give them a facility to go to the bathroom,” Mr. Moslowski said.