U.F. uncertain where $1.2M to build park will come from

BY JANE MEGGITT Correspondent

UPPER FREEHOLD — The township must be mindful when spending open space tax money, because voters approved the taxation for specific reasons.

Voters approved three different referendums that affect the township’s open space tax. The first created a 1-cent open space and farmland preservation tax in 1999. The second increased the tax to 4 cents in 2000 and the third increased the tax to 6 cents in 2008. Municipal officials discussed the tax at the May 19 Township Committee meeting, after stating at a prior meeting that some of the $1.2 million needed to develop Reed Park on Route 526 could come from the township’s Open Space Trust Fund.

Deputy Mayor Bob Faber asked Liz Kwasnik, chair of the township’s Open Space Committee and Farmland Preservation Committee, to review the Nov. 4, 2008, referendum. Kwasnik said that it appears the 2-cent tax can only be used for farmland preservation purposes and related debt payments.

Township Administrator Dianne Kelly said her research indicates that the 3-cent tax approved in 2000 could be used for open space acquisition and farmland preservation. The 1990 referendum was for farmland preservation, she said.

Township Attorney Granville Michael Magee explained the ratio. He said that while all 6 cents of the tax could be put toward farmland preservation purposes, only 4 cents could be put toward open space purposes.

Kelly said, “It’s important that when doing the Open Space Trust Fund budget that we keep an eye on that ratio, consistent with the wishes of residents.”

While she initially indicated that the township could use open space tax money to develop Reed Park, it’s possible that the township has maxed out the open space portion of the tax, Kelly said. She said a lot of the 6-cent tax is used to pay down debt on previous acquisitions.

Magee noted that the township uses its 6-cent tax as leverage to receive preservation funding from other agencies, and that the town would “maybe have 100 acres preserved” if it only had its tax to rely on.

Committeeman Steve Alexander asked why the township would buy land for recreational purposes and not develop it.

“Are we against the development of Reed Park?” he asked. “Is that the concern I’m hearing?”

Proposals for developing the 31-acre Reed Park, which has various environmental constraints, include building restrooms and a concession stand.

“I’m sure environmentalists don’t want kids going to the bathroom in the wetlands,” Alexander said.

Committeeman Stan Moslowski Jr. said that if the town buys land for recreation, it has to spend money to develop the land.

Kwasnik said she is not opposed to recreation. Resident Nancy Frenick echoed her sentiment, and said she is not opposed to recreational fields for kids. However, Frenick had concerns about the cost of developing the park.

“We’ve gone above and beyond for the kids in this township,” Frenick said. “We’ve built a beautiful new school.”

Frenick questioned why the township would spend $1.2 million in tough economic times when it already has Byron Johnson Park on Ellisdale Road. Alexander said the governing body has made responsible decisions regarding Reed Park, which is why the project has taken over four years to move forward.

Faber said residents contacted him when they thought the township was going to use the farmland preservation funding they approved in 2008 for recreation. He said people would be satisfied to know that the 2-cent tax they approved in 2008 would only be used for farmland preservation.