HIGHTSTOWN: Council rescinds funding to rebuild Borough Hall

Petitioners want issue put to public vote

By Amy Batista, Special Writer
   The Borough Council rescinded its motion to appropriate $3.4 million for the construction of a new municipal building despite protest from residents.
    The council voted 4-2 to rescind an ordinance, which appropriated the money, including $475,000 in bonds and notes, during the meeting Monday night. Council President Larry Quattrone and Councilwoman Susan Bluth voted against the measure.
    The council introduced the original ordinance March 18 in a 5-1 vote and passed it in a 5-1 vote April 1. Councilwoman Bluth voted against the measure both times.
    “I think it’s time for us to move forward here,” Mayor Steven Kirson said.
    Bonding for funds for the municipal complex became a “controversial item,” according to Mayor Kirson.
    The town has been divided about what to do for a municipal building after Borough Hall flooded during Hurricane Irene. Some residents want to rebuild Borough Hall at its current location, and others want to relocate municipal offices. Residents discussed putting municipal offices at what is known as the Lucas property. The mayor said Monday night that is no longer an option.
    “As I think everyone knows, I have been a proponent for such a long period of time for us to look at the Lucas Property, but that is now off the market,” Mayor Kirson said. “We are negotiating with an insurance company to move forward. We don’t know of any other alternatives, myself, at this juncture so I think it’s time. We can’t go much further. We are not concentrating on business that has to be done.”
    Resident Eugene Sarafin, a former Hightstown councilman who organized a petition against the ordinance that appropriated funding for Borough Hall, said, “We could’ve done all kinds of things, but we’ve had 18 months of a pissing contest.”
    For the petition to block the original ordinance, it needed the signatures of 15 percent of the 2011 voting population, according to Borough Clerk Debra Sopronyi. That equates to approximately 160 people. There were 355 signatures on the petition.
    Mayor Kirson said he now supports rebuilding Borough Hall at its current location.
    “So I do support now the idea of rebuilding there; getting up to code. Raze it up,” Mayor Kirson said, adding he doesn’t “know where else the complex can go.”
    According to Mayor Kirson, the council no longer can wait.
    “The insurance company, we have a contract with them to reimburse for the loss,” Mayor Kirson said. “They are not interested in the politics of the borough. It’s been two years, and they want to know what to do. If we continue to waver here, we are going to run ourselves afoul here with the insurance company.”
    Lexington Insurance has estimated the borough would receive $1.9 million to rebuild or refurbish the Borough Hall. Developing temporary facilities for employees is part of the borough’s claim.
    During the public comment session and public hearing on the ordinance to rescind the appropriation of funding, several residents urged the council to listen to them before taking a final vote on the measure.
    Resident Walter Sikorski, a member of the petition committee, urged the council to put the issue to a public vote.
    “I believe Councilwoman (Lynne) Woods said at the last meeting that many of the signers had changed their minds or misunderstood the petition’s contents,” Mr. Sikorski said. “To that statement, I can only respond by allowing the referendum to appear on the ballot for those people who were confused to get their opportunity to correct their errors by voting on the referendum in that old cherished method of letting the voters make the decision in the privacy of an election booth.”
    He added, “Wow, what a novel approach to Hightstown to allow voters, the taxpayers, to express their opinions in a free and open process. Oh well, so much for transparency and openness in government.”
    Mr. Sikorski also questioned the need for a Borough Hall.
    “Do we really need a Borough Hall,” Mr. Sikorski asked. “We have been provided with an opportunity by Mother Nature, and our government is functioning without a Borough Hall or a temporary one, and one wonders, should we invest millions and millions of dollars in these buildings and go against the concept of the development of the mill project.”
    Resident Richard Pratt, a Planning Board member and member of the petition committee, said rebuilding Borough Hall in its current location “is a block to further develop the mill.”
    “The mill holds a significant number of options for bringing people to this town,” Mr. Pratt said. “Building Borough Hall back in its place, where it would block the view of it of from the town, would be something to consider.”
    Resident Jeff Peters addressed the council for the first time in the nine years he has lived in town after feeling “compelled to be involved” regarding the Borough Hall location.
    “I am a signer of the petition that called for a referendum against the bond ordinance,” Mr. Peters said, adding he helped to gather signatures for the petition. “It’s my opinion — as well as the opinion of many of the other people who I know were involved in the petition — that those who signed it did so specifically because they did not want to rebuild Borough Hall in its current location.”
    According to Mr. Peters and others at the meeting, the petition against the bond ordinance was “not about the money.”
    “It’s all about the location,” Mr. Peters said.
    Mr. Peters asked, “Why not have a referendum? What are you afraid of, your community going to the ballot box and voting?”
    Mr. Peters said those in favor of rebuilding Borough Hall at its current location could campaign for doing so and those who are not could campaign against doing so prior to a referendum.
    “We will find out what the community wants,” Mr. Peters said.
    Mr. Peters suggested a “third way” to deal with rebuilding Borough Hall.
    “The third way is we potentially merge and consolidate with our surrounding municipalities to merge governments,” Mr. Peters said. “It’s a very long, hard process, but it’s something a lot of us in the community think inevitably will happen, and it’s a great weight bearing down on us.”
    Mr. Sarafin said, “Whether you rescind the ordinance or not, it’s basically a political maneuver to take it off the table when election comes. I strongly recommend that you let this thing be voted on.”
    He noted the Federal Emergency Management Association has placed Hightstown in a 500-year flood plain.
    Resident Scott Caster agreed with some of the points Mayor Kirson made and tried to persuade the public to put aside past feelings and “move forward.”
    “Mr. Mayor brought his position forward before,” Mr. Caster said. “I would like to see this town align behind him and the position of some others, regardless of what we’ve discussed before or regardless of where those feelings have gone before. It’s time after almost two years that we put some of the issues that we have personally had with each other and the way this discussion has gone behind us and move forward.”
    Mr. Caster asked council members to consider the possibility of having to sell Borough Hall when it is designed.
    “Could you consider designing this building in such a way that if we ever merged with East Windsor Township and had to give up the municipal building, then it could be sold for either commercial or retail or office space or whatever?” Mr. Caster asked, adding the council should not design Borough Hall “solely as a municipal building.”
    Mr. Caster also asked what recommendations were made by the bond counsel, Edward J. McManimon, who attended the executive session prior to the meeting.
    “Their attorney, who handles bond matters, is advising them with regards to action they can and cannot take,” Borough Attorney Frederick Raffetto said.
    Mr. Caster asked, “You can’t divulge his recommendation?”
    According to Mr. Raffetto, the conversation was an attorney-client communication.
    Resident Denny Hansen, a member of the petition committee and Democratic candidate for council, said, “Everyone who stood up has not been listened to for 14 months since we started standing up. So the people are really pissed. They are, and they want to vote on this, and you’re going to rescind it.”
    Councilwoman Woods disagreed with members of the public who said signing the petition was “not about the money.”
    “A bond ordinance is about money,” Councilwoman Woods said. “Money. That’s what a bond ordinance is. It is not about location.”
    She said the council already passed a separate resolution establishing the location of Borough Hall.
    Mr. Raffetto said, “The issue (raised in the petition) was the bond ordinance for the incurring of indebtedness.”
    Councilwoman Woods said, “Even if it went to referendum, it would be about spending this money, not the location of Borough Hall.”
    Councilwoman Gail Doran said rebuilding Borough Hall in its current location is the “most cost-effective option.”
    “This is the one that the insurance company will fund, and we are entitled to it from our insurance policy,” Councilwoman Doran said.
    She said the public has an opportunity every November to vote for council members who run on platforms they support.
    “As a resident, you make that choice when you elect them so they can serve,” Councilwoman Doran said. “We have a job to do. We were elected to do a job. Let us do our job.”
    Councilwoman Bluth acknowledged 355 voters signed a petition “wanting a referendum” and said, “The voters of Hightstown need to be allowed to vote. This needs to go on a ballot.”
    Councilman Rob Thibault pondered how the council plans to move forward.
    “I’m not quite sure, but I can tell you that we can’t do the exact same thing,” Councilman Thibault said. “We can’t rescind this ordinance and put a new ordinance on it and reintroduce it.”
    Councilwoman Selena Bibens said the council should “build with what we have.”
    “We went out and spent a lot of time for people to say we’ve done nothing, and then when we decide to do something, we are stonewalled,” Councilwoman Bibens said. “It’s a catch-22.”
    Council President Quattrone also believed in voting on the issue based on the opinions of residents who elected him.
    “I’m gonna vote no to this ordinance because the people who put me in office are telling me vote no,” he said. “It doesn’t matter what I want.”
    The next Borough Council meeting is set for 7:30 p.m. Aug. 5 at the Hightstown First Aid Building, 168 Bank St.