HILLSBOROUGH: Open space tax diversion to go to voters Nov. 5

Township Committee authorizes ballot question

By Gene Robbins, Managing Editor
   Township voters will decide on the Nov. 5 ballot whether to allow up to 20 percent of future township open space tax money to go to build hiking trails, walking and hiking paths and even ballfields.
      After hearing about a dozen people raise questions over the idea, the Township Committee voted, 4-0, Tuesday night to ask residents if they wanted to “modify and expand” the uses of the open space tax for “development and/or improvement” of park and recreation facilities.
   ’People in the audience called the idea shortsighted, contrary to the public’s 1995 approval of open space tax concept and being rushed into a vote.
   Some raised the possibility that money could go for turf athletic fields for township groups. That possibility was never specifically denied by the committee.
   Township Committee members insisted the money would go to capital projects for both passive (trails, hiking, biking) and active (organized sports) activities.
   Exactly how the money would be spent would be determined after a successful referendum. Mayor Frank DelCore said he didn’t think it was “prudent” to use funds for a costly study of recreation desires and needs unless the referendum was approved.
   Several speakers called the referendum question unclear. Committeeman Carl Suraci said it mirrored, “word for word,” Somerset County’s similar ballot question of eight years ago.
   The township open space tax brings in about $1.55 million per year, meaning that $300,000 or more could be diverted for capital projects. Maintenance operations and salaries would not come out of the tax diversion, said Mayor Frank DelCore.
   The township had to decide on the referendum Tuesday night to meet the deadline to inform the county clerk by Aug. 16. The committee had already canceled its Aug. 13 meeting, the date of the special primary election for the U.S. Senate.
   A typical Hillsborough homeowner, with an assessment of $370,000, pays slightly more than $100 in property taxes into the township’s fund to buy land for open space and future recreation.
   In December 1998, the Township Committee passed an open space property tax of four cents for each $100 of assessed value. Voters had approved the concept in a 1995 non-binding referendum.
   In May 2011 the township decreased the tax to 2.8 cents per $100 of assessment.
   On Tuesday night, resident Susan Gulliford told the committee she thought the measure was “a long-term altering change” written in overly general language and on which people had too little information.
   She referred to April and May meetings of the Open Space Advisory Committee in which Committeeman Carl Suraci talked about “building up a fund.” She suggested it was for turf fields, which she called a luxury that benefits a few people. Mr. Suraci said the minutes to which Ms. Gulliford referred had “gross inaccuracies and omissions.”
   She said the needs assessment should be done before the referendum, and wondered how much it would cost and how it would be funded.
   ”If you have a specific recreation project in mind for a specific site, be up front about it,” she said. The development of open space should be a slow, careful process, she said. “There are no do-overs,” she said.
   Committeewoman Gloria McCauley denied the proposal was being rushed to judgment. Noting that long-term athletic facilities will be built at the former GSA depot in the southern part of the township, “the last thing on my mind is a turf field, just for me,” she said.
   Mayor DelCore said the fact the idea was discussed at open space meetings in April and May showed the idea wasn’t being fast-tracked.
      If passed by the voters, the measure would take effect starting in 2014. Money in the open space account would be untouched, so only future tax payments could be touched for the maximum 20 percent in a year, said Committeeman Doug Tomson.
   He said the fund had $18 million at the moment, but four projects encumber about $8.75 million, he said. That was enough to cover projected open space purchases, he said. Mayor DelCore said if the township “had the opportunity to purchase something that makes sense, we would do it.”
   The township says that 30 percent of the township’s 35,000 acres is preserved from development in open space. Of that, about 4,500 acres are on the Sourland Mountain. About 2,875 are preserved farmland acres. Another 1,900 acres have been preserved as open space by the township. Another 2,200 acres of the Duke Farms estate isn’t included in the total.
   Bill Coulter of Millstone River Road told the committee, “Building ballfields is for a very narrow segment of the population.” He repeated his frequent call to use open space dollars to blue flood-prone properties, like his acre and one-half, he said.
   Two women representing different Sourland Mountain conservancy groups expressed opposition to the idea. Caroline Katmann of the Sourland Conservancy said the diversion was dangerous, and contrary to voters’ intent. She said the need for acquisition of land is still strong.
   Sarah Roberts of the Sourland Alliance said most other towns use user fees to pay for recreation improvements. She asked if forests and grasslands would be turned over to playing fields, bleachers and even artificial turf.
   Former Township Committeeman Robert Wagner defended the township work in the Sourlands. He said, “Let’s let the people of Hillsborough decide either yes or no, and we go from there.”
   Resident Christoph Ohngemach asked about the possibility of splitting the question into two and asking for 10 percent of money to go for passive activities, and 10 percent for active purposes.
   His wife, Heidi Cyr, said, “Open space to me is passive, and parks and recreation should be kept separate.”
   Resident Keith Richmond said he thought the proposed question was too vaguely worded.
   Jennifer Coffey, policy director of the Stony Brook- Millstone Watershed Association, said there should be some definition of stewardship and urged the committee not to rush and unclearly define their intent that future governing bodies could misinterpret.