Panel Addresses Community About Upcoming Open Space Referendum

In June, Council unanimously approved a resolution that authorizes a non-binding referendum question on the November ballot that proposes amending the “Open Space ordinance to allow the funds to be used for acquisition of open space and improvements to recreation facilities.”

On Wednesday night, a few dozen community members attended a public forum to learn more about the upcoming Open Space referendum.

The forum had a panel made up of Borough Attorney Carl Woodward, Councilman Alan Lesnewich and former Recreation Master Plan Chair Arlene Regan, who answered questions from the community. The forum moderators were Paul Jeffrey, the former Chairman of the Open Space Committee and Kevin Carroll, former Recreation Chairman.

The question before voters on the Nov. 8 general ballot is: “Shall the Borough Council of the Borough of New Providence amend the Open Space Ordinance (§70-1) to allow the existing fund and future funds to be used for acquisition of open space and improvements to passive and active recreation facilities?”

The explanatory statement that will also appear on the ballot is as follows: "The non-binding public question herein proposes expansion of the permitted use of the funds collected in accordance with the Open Space Ordinance (§70-1). In addition to acquisition of open space, improvement to and maintenance of both passive and active recreation facilities, which may include athletic fields, parks, playgrounds, and other similar or related improvements, would be a permitted use of said funds."

“This is not a written comment, but a lot of these questions are quite complicated so if there is repetition in the questions, hopefully if the first time you heard the question and you didn’t get a sufficient answer, when you hear it worded the way someone else submitted it, maybe that will trigger a better answer for you," Jeffrey said. "So that’s the reason some of the questions may be asked more than once.”

Below are the questions posed by community members via the borough's website and at the forum, and the answers from each panelist.

Question: Will all of the funds currently held in the borough’s Open Space Fund be eligible to be used toward improving recreational facilities?

Councilman Alan Lesnewich: "I think the key term there is eligibility and the short answer to that question would be yes, all of the funds would be eligible. However, the borough council recognizes there are many different factors of issue here, things to be considered, not just recreational facilities but also the improvement and purchase of open space. The borough council represents both sides and all interests of the community so it is highly unlikely that the funds would be spent solely on either recreational facilities or the purchase of open space."

Q: How much currently exists within the borough’s open space account?

AL: "About 650,000 as of today."

Q: Are there any minimum amounts that must be set aside within the borough’s open space funds specifically for the purpose of acquisition of open space?

AL: "The way the borough citizens are taxed right now is ¼ of one penny on each tax dollar and that’s how the money is put together. No, [there is not a minimum amount that must remain in the account]."

Q: Are the results of this referendum binding and if not, what would be the remaining process to actually revise the purpose by which the funds could be spent?

Carl Woodward: "The referendum is non-binding. Initiative in referendum, which is a slightly different type of process, is very limited in the borough form of government, which is what we have. But here, the referendum is not binding. The governing body, of course, is allowed to put questions on as a non-binding referendum on the ballot so that it can judge the sentiment of the municipality. In this particular case and with this important issue, notwithstanding that the borough council could adopt an ordinance on its own and allow a modification of the existing ordinance regarding the acquisition of open space and add the improvement portion, the fact is that because [public approval] is sought, at least it has that going into making the final decision."

"What the next process is, assuming the referendum passes or not as the case may be — it’s up to the governing body — the governing body would introduce the ordinance, which would make the modification to the Open Space Ordinance that exists, and go through public hearing process so the public would have further opportunity to be heard on the issue and at then second reading, could adopt that ordinance, which is the proposal or at least is the way it would presumably be done here."

Q: What control or voice then would New Providence residents actually have in deciding where, when and how those funds would be spent? It sounds like it’s through the process you just described.

CW: "That is correct. There are two prongs to it. The first is the adoption of the ordinance that says we’re going to modify the way in which these funds are going to be spent or maybe spent, to include improvements as well as the acquisition of open space. But then ultimately, if there is a decision being made to spend a specific amount of money, in the case of acquiring real estate, there has to be a separate ordinance that allows for the acquisition of real estate so the public has input in that process. In the case of doing improvements, there may or may not have to be an ordinance. If there’s an ordinance, again, the public would have the opportunity to participate. If there were improvements to be constructed, or added to a particular facility, there would be public involvement through A, participation in meetings. A contract, for example, being awarded would be awarded by a resolution. But I would expect that given the governing body’s sentiment in terms of process and involving the public that the public would be very much involved in looking at the improvements, any improvements that were going to be proposed for any existing open space."

Q: What organization, entity or committee would determine how open space funds could be spent on specific projects?

AL: "The borough council has created a committee of the council that is comprised of three councilmen — Councilman Cucco, Councilman Vyzas, myself — and also part of the team right now is Borough Administrator Doug Marvin and Borough Engineer Andy Hipolit. We recognize that the borough has many needs and many facilities needing improvement, recreational facilities, and we have been working with the Recreation Master Plan and also the Open Space Document that was created in 2006, going through it and going through some of the documentation that has been put together with respect to the potential for recreational improvements at locations around the area. We’ve probably met four or five times right now. It’s ultimately going to be the governing body that makes the decision based upon a recommendation of the sub-committee. But as Mr. Woodward just explained, the public will have an opportunity to have input during public meetings associated with the entire process."

Q: Can you explain how Union County Open Space fund differs from New Providence Municipal Open Space fund?

Arlene Regan: "Sure. The Union County Open Space fund is dedicated to acquisition of open space as well as recreation properties on county-owned properties. The fund is also used for annual grants to municipalities for the Kids Recreation Trust Fund Grant. Currently, the borough’s Open Space fund is only used for acquisition of property in New Providence."

Q: How much do residents currently contribute to Municipal Open Space fund each year and what is the contribution for the average homeowner?

AL: "Currently, there is approximately $650,000 in the fund. It’s collected annually by way of a ¼ of a penny tax that comes out of your tax dollar and that money then gets set aside. So it comes out to be about $7 per year per the average household in New Providence, which is assessed, I believe, at $270,000.”

Q: Since it’s inception, how much open land has the borough actually acquired using the Open Space fund that currently exists?

AR: In 2009, the borough purchased the undeveloped lot next to Veteran’s Park on South Street and that purchase price was $300,000. The borough received reimbursement from a Green Acres fund in the amount of $212,000. So the cost to the borough’s Open Space fund was approximately $90,000. That property is a great example of a need for acquiring a piece of property and then improving it. If you’ve seen the lot, it’s currently heavily forested, a lot of wooded debris, and it would greatly benefit from tree work and clearing to improve the space, maybe as an adjunct of Veteran’s Park or for potential walking areas and benches, etc. We need the money to improve it."

Q: Are there also any current plans to acquire any other open space in New Providence?

AL: "Right now, there are no plans to purchase any existing property. Most of the eligible properties that the borough would be interested in purchasing in the future are laid out in the Open Space and Recreation Master Plan that was developed in 2006. And unless something falls within the scope of that document, and there are none that are up for sale right now, the borough is not actively looking to purchase."

Q: I recall the open space tax was reduced from one penny to ¼ of a penny on one hundred dollars of assessed evaluation. What event triggered this change?

CW: "Well, basically in 2008, you may recall we began the difficult economic times in this country and it was an extraordinarily difficult budget season for the borough council and in light of the issues that were raised, the amount of the open space tax was lowered to provide some relief to the tax payers themselves and that was in keeping with the idea that at that point in time, the Open Space fund had sufficient assets to continue it’s operation successfully."

Q: Although all of the borough property taxpayers contribute to the Open Space fund, is consideration being given for improvements that benefit all borough citizens? For example, including senior citizens, or is it your sense that it will be very much focused on sports?

AR: "Well, decisions about where the money is going to go really rests with the borough council. But the use of the funds is really going to be [for the community], either for passive or active recreation, walking trails, fitness trails, playgrounds.”

Q: Will the improvement to and maintenance of both passive and active recreation facilities be limited to the purchase of land, and improvement and upgrading of our open space and parks, or will it also include construction of new buildings, the installation of artificial turf, the expansion of parking lots, the installation of field lights or things other than what would be considered natural open space?

AL: "I believe you’ll find the answer to that right in the explanatory statement of the referendum, which reads as follows: 'Improvement to and maintenance of both passive and active recreation facilities, which may include athletic fields, parks, playgrounds, and other similar or related improvements.' So based upon the language of the explanatory statement, yes, this could be interpreted to include buildings, turf or parking lots."

Q: Is there an at-large committee who will have jurisdiction regarding the spending of the Open Space fund money or is there a specific department that exercises control of the money?

CW: "By statute, the borough council is responsible for the spending of all funds within the municipality. This is no at-large committee, there is no sub-committee, there is no other group. All spending decisions are made by the borough council and that includes all open space expenditures."

Q: Could open space funds be used to leverage larger capital bond projects, i.e. used as a means to borrow more money?

AL: "Absolutely. I think that one of the benefits of having the fund is to allow the borough to go out and responsibly do projects, bond the projects and then have the constant flow of funds to repay the debt."

Q: Why was the current open space tax adopted for acquisition only? What is the reason for expanding the usage of open space tax to include improvements and maintenance in addition to acquisition?

CW: "Well, we don’t know exactly why the original ordinance was adopted and provides for the acquisition of open space only. However, there is a current fund that exists; the fund is continually being augmented by annual taxes and at current, there is about $650,000 available for use. Some improvements could be made using those funds. One is direct expenditures, taken right out of money already available. As a result, no other tax dollars would have to be raised for that purpose. And two, it can be used to leverage the money that we have. In the case of borrowing, for example, you float a bond issue and the bond issue you can use to pay down the bond issue for the acquisition of those improvements."

"I just want to add as an aside. I’m also the township attorney in Chatham Township and Chatham Township has, for years, had a very active open space acquisition program and it had the same issue before; it was originally just for acquisition. However, it became apparent that it would be a good idea to use those funds as well to help improve the properties that were acquired. And so some years ago, something similar to this was done in Chatham Township and that program, based on my experience, has worked out quite successfully."

Q: If the Open Space referendum passes, what are you going to do with the monies? I think there have probably been rumors out there that the sub-committee exists and people are asking questions about how it’s going to be used. What is the decision process on whether it’s used for acquisition, as the original ordinance says, or for improvements or for maintenance?

AL: "I think I touched on this a little bit before, but the committee that’s been set up has been studying the Recreation Master Plan, which actually looked at every recreational facility in New Providence, checked out the fields back in 2007, and at that point in time, apart from Lieder Field, every field in the town is rated as sub-standard. As most of you know, there has been work in town to date to improve the field. CR Bard was improved by the Soccer Club with private funds. Lieder Field was turfed and lighted with mostly private funds, with the assistance of some grants and some monies from the Board of Education and the Rec League. West Field was paid for with funds. It was not turfed, the grass was redone and that was done with Board of Education funds, and the Baseball Complex was redone and re-graded and grass was planted, and that was done with Board of Education monies. But that leaves us still with a total of about 9 sub-standard fields as of 2007, with essentially nothing having been done since then. So what the committee has been doing is we’ve been looking back at the Recreation Master Plan, looking at the suggestions of the Recreation Master Plan had made, and then we’ve been looking at the Open Space document. We’ve been looking at what’s been done in the community to date and we’re trying to prioritize and pick locations that will help us achieve goals of the Recreation Master Plan, which are essentially to alleviate the damage being done to the fields through extraordinarily heavy usage based upon the increase in recreational facilities in our town. So we’re working very hard at that right now and we’re hoping that when we come up with some plans to recommend to the borough council, the borough council will then have some public meetings and as a result of those public meetings, those decisions will then be made in front of all of the community as well as the sub-committee."

Q: Speaking of the sub-committee, how would you say the work is progressing?

AL: "It’s progressing very quickly. I think we were put together back in July, we’ve met five or six times, and we have worked hard. Andy Hipolit, who is the Borough Engineer, has worked very hard, putting together information we’ve asked for in terms of potential cost with options as to how to do certain things so we’ve been working very, very quickly, and what we’ve been doing is not reinventing the wheel."

Q: Will there be guidelines on how the monies are divided between acquisitions, improvements and maintenance? Will there be a minimum balance for opportunistic acquisitions?

CW: "The ordinance that would be adopted and certainly the proposals on the referendum does not indicate or set aside any particular percentage or amount for either acquisitions or for improvements that would be proposed. This is, again, an area where the borough council elected by the people are mindful of the interests of the people of the community, would take into account what is the best and most judicious way of spending these funds. How would they be spent has of course been alluded to by the process just set forth by Mr. Lesnewich and I think that would be the best way to leave it. Obviously any acquisitions, as I’ve described earlier, or major projects are going to receive substantial public vetting and public input. But at this point, the ordinance that would grow out of an approved referendum would not have such limits."

Q: Did the borough try to expand the usage of the open space tax back in 2008? Why did that fail and if it failed then, why should it pass now?

CW: "Well, first of all, we can speculate as to why that referendum went down and did not pass. But I think you may recall that in 2008, there were significant discussions about the future of Oakwood Park and no funding source for the renovation of Oakwood Park was identified. However, the borough has numerous other recreational facilities besides Oakwood Park and so I think it’s fair to say that the governing body is concerned with not only acquisition but improvement of the municipal open space facilities, not only Oakwood Park, but all other parks because they are spread around the town and everyone uses the different areas at different levels. So I think it’s fair to say that the question before the populace on the referendum is why should it pass? It should pass because at least according to the analysis, the funds most economically can be used for both improvements and for acquisition by tapping into this fund without raising taxes."

AL: "Could I add something to that also? Thank you. One of the things Mr. Woodward just mentioned is the focus on Oakwood Park and I think one of the things to understand is Oakwood Park is not a priority at this point in time. And one of the things we already did as a sub-committee was to work with the Recreation Department and put together a grant application for Union County and the first focus right there is to fix up the baseball facilities in town because we thought that was much needed in terms of the community. The fields get used a lot and I don’t think they have been fixed the way they should have been in probably 20 or 30 years. So we’re hoping with some county grants, we can get right on it and start fixing the baseball fields, which would also include safety fencing on most of them."

Q: What’s the difference between using an open space tax and using municipal bonds to pay for recreational improvements? Haven’t you been funding recreational improvements by the Municipal Capital Budget? Why change the process now?

CW: "Well, the difference between funding improvement from the open space tax and using municipal bonds is that you have two difference revenue sources. With a municipal bond, you borrow the money and then you have to pay the interest and the principal back over time. With an open space tax, you can use the funds directly from the tax that has been paid in over the years and use those to pay for the improvements without having to raise taxes. The reason I say that is when you adopt a bond, ultimately you have to raise taxes to pay the bond off. As I alluded earlier, you may also use a combination of these things. You could bond for a particular large improvement and then you use the acquisition on an annual basis from the open space tax to pay down that bond without actually having to go into and use an appropriation out of the Municipal Budget. Therefore, it's hoped that this gives you more flexibility in terms of spending money and may indeed hopefully save the municipality considerable funds overtime without increasing taxes."

Q: In the interpretive statement, it says that if the referendum is passed, the Open Space funds could then be used for maintenance. Isn’t maintenance an operating expense? For example, grass cutting, lawn mower repair, sprinkler replacement, fertilizer, etc., or are we actually talking about something else? Can you provide some clarity on this?

AR: "When borough council was discussing this, there was a lot of deliberation on this particular topic about routine maintenance and it was determined that routine maintenance would not really be considered part of the funds, but they left the term 'maintenance' in to deal with more substantial issues, like a repair that has a life expectancy of more than 5 years. For example, like long-term maintenance of walking trails or something like that would be a long-term, over 5-year maintenance use."

Q: If the referendum is passed, is there a plan to actually revise and update the Open Space and Recreation Plan, which I think I heard was written in 2006, to reflect the new ordinance, assuming it’s passed, and have borough priorities, which I think we heard about this evening?

CW: "At the moment, I don’t think there have been any discussions, but the question makes a very good point and I think it would be well worth taking a look at the Open Space and Recreation Plan to see whether any changes or updates need to be made. It may turn out that through evaluation, no changes need to be made or it may be that some further tweaking is required."

Q: Will there be a citizens' advisory committee to assist council in purchasing property? If so, will council and this citizens' advisory committee be able to report their findings to the municipality?

CW: "Well, the governing body has the authority to have citizens' advisory committee and indeed, this municipality, just like most other municipalities throughout the state, have such advisory groups. Open Space Committee, Recreation Committee, and so on. In the end, however, the governing body is the one that ultimately makes the decisions, but may well ask the citizen advisory bodies, and I might add in addition, existing bodies that are legally created such as the Planning Board, could also be asked to weigh in on such issues. So yes, they could and the question is would proposals be presented to the public? Of course they would, especially for improvements to already acquired property. Property, however, that has not yet been acquired is a much more sensitive matter so I think you wouldn’t see a report by say the Open Space Advisory Committee coming back to the governing body and saying, 'here are all the properties we think you should acquire' and the next thing you know you see it on the borough web site. Obviously confidentiality with such types of situations is required because it involves dealing with, in many cases, property owners who may be interested in selling, may not be interested in selling, and there are negotiations as to price and value that are also required. So most of this as far as improvements are concerned would clearly be made public and reported. Acquisition issues have to be handled a little differently."

Q: Elaborate on Chatham Township’s similarity. How are the funds from open space used? What percentage went to acquire open space, what percentage went to improve fields and parks?

CW: "First of all, the original ordinance did not allow for the use of Open Space funds except for acquisition and after acquiring a substantial amount of property, it became evident that it was a good idea to add the use for improvements and there is no allocation of amounts; it is what is felt is necessary. Chatham Township's tax I think has been as high as 2 cents per hundred. I think right now it’s at one cent. It’s acquired a lot of property; some of it is basically undevelopable. It's adjacent to the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge and things like that, but the intention was to prevent it from being developed for any purpose. However, in other situations, there have such things as bike paths put through. Most recently we acquired 17 acres in Chatham Township just on the other side of the river and there is the intention to A, demolition the existing buildings on it and B, to put in some improvements — hiking trails, bike paths, that sort of thing, so that people have better access in that particular area. But it's just felt that this is the best way to do it and to leave it open ended in that sense because the governing body does not know from day-to-day or time-to-time necessarily how things are going to go. Certain opportunities come up very quickly."

"A situation occurred there a year ago where as an adjunct to Shunpike Field, which is the major athletic field that the municipality owns, there was a rather dilapidated house, there was a need for more parking; the property was acquired, the house was demolished and now there’s a parking lot. Now that’s not to say that that’s what’s done everywhere, but it was done to facilitate the use of an existing facility. And the Municipal Open Space fund was used to acquire that property. I think the question also asked about how you use it. The fund can be used in a variety of ways. It can be used to A, to purchase things outright, whether it's property or improvements ,and it can be used to leverage the acquisition, or whether by using it to fund bond expenditure payments or to use it as a matching source of funds through a grant program.  There is state open space funds, there are county open space funds that can be used and usually which have a matching component. So you may, for example, apply for a county grant and get 60 percent of it from the county, but you have to come up with the remaining 40 percent. You have this and the ability to do that. That’s leverage."

Q: How much can we actually leverage when using bond improvements based on how much is being collected each year?

CW: "I'll respond again. I can speak about a Chatham Township experience. There was a property on the far side of town, which was about 40 acres being acquired. That was an $8 million acquisition, very, very large, but the intent was to preserve this portion of the municipality because it was adjacent to [a county park], it was adjacent to municipal park land as well and the way the whole deal was put together, you had state Green Acres provide a substantial contribution, the county provided a substantial contribution, County Park Commission, the Great Swamp Watershed Association, which had a separate grant from the DEP, provided money, and the township provided money. And so the township’s contributions was, I think, maybe no more than 10 or 15 percent of the total cost. That’s leverage. That’s how you can do it."

Q: How much open space is available for acquisition in the borough? (I will point that as you just heard, it doesn’t have to be existing open space. It can be any property which might want to be purchased) and is any of that space that might be available a tax ratable?

CW: "I’ll answer the second part of that first. Typically, the property that’s being acquired is a ratable and there’s always a question of, 'are you taking a ratable off the books? So that means less revenue, more of a burden on everyone else and that’s a value judgment that the governing body has to make with public input because an ordinance has to be adopted as to whether or not it’s a wise investment. Sometimes open space acquisitions are controversial and a decision’s got to be made on it."

"As for the first part of the question, New Providence is pretty well built up so I don’t think you’re going to find a lot of open space. Certainly, you don’t have the Great Swamp and I think a lot of the open space is already open space. You go along the Passaic River and you see it’s county park land, it’s municipal park land, it’s power company right-of-way. That’s basically open space. But you could for example consider the improvement or the acquisition of the lot adjacent to Veteran's Park. I don’t think anything was demolished on that but the fact is that could have been developed. There’s not a lot of that in New Providence, but you may have other opportunities and I’ve given you some examples. I don’t have specifics other than that."

Q: Given the high demand for fields by the New Providence Recreation Department, the Recreation Department needs it’s own turf field. How, when and where will this happen?

AR: "Right now, I don’t think there’s an area in town that we can put a turf field in, other than the ones we already mentioned, which would be a shared use with the Board of Education. The high school has already been done and West Field, ... and Oakwood Park was really the other option for a turf field. Most of the other fields are not big enough or suitable for neighborhood considerations — no parking, no bathroom — so right now, I don’t think we’re thinking of a field specific to borough recreation programs because we’re not running soccer right now, we’re not running lacrosse, although we may want to in the future, maybe field hockey in the future somewhere down the road, but we’re running more baseball, softball and basketball, so our field usage is more baseball/softball field usage specifically with the Recreation Department."

Q: Mr. Lesnewich, expand on your comment, “Oakwood Park is not a priority.”

AL: "That’s a very good point. What I meant was we are, as I've stated a number of times, we’ve gone back and looked at the Recreation Master Plan that was developed and adopted in January of 2007. That was the work of many volunteers over many years to try and come up with a plan that will allow the borough to improve its fields and also maintain its fields, and there's a progression you need to follow there. The need we have right now according to the Recreation Master Plan is three turf fields with lighting or five turf fields, and the reason for that is in order to improve and then maintain the existing natural grass fields, just like our lawns, we need to be able to rest them. So when you put down fertilizer, you need to rest it. When you put down grass seed, you need to have an opportunity for the fields to rest. So the need for turf is to allow usage to stop basically on a field for two growing seasons hopefully and that’s what happened at Bard Field if anyone watched that happened. Bard went in and it wasn’t used for almost a full year. The grass came back and it was great. No different than if you don’t take care of your lawn at home so just taking a very practical look at things and reviewing the Recreation Master Plan and options available in terms of recreational facilities in town. As important as Oakwood Park is as a recreational facility in the community, it’s important to consider many other factors other than just the fact that it's an existing park right now. So Oakwood Park, although important, is not a priority because there are many other options we’re been looking at that seem to fit the bill, established by way of the Recreation Master Plan to get us, as a community, where we have to be more quickly by using options outside of Oakwood Park."

Q: There’s a rumor that the property with the old greenhouses along the railroad tracks back behind Division Avenue is available for very little money. Is borough council considering this as a possible acquisition?

AL: "Right now, actually, there are some discussions about that property. There have been discussions with the DEP and there’s something called the Brownfields fund because that property needs some environmental remediation. What the borough is trying to do is come up with an agreement with the DEP that would allow that property to be remediated and put into a situation where that property could be used without excessive cost to the borough. So that’s what’s happening. It is actually something that is being considered right now and it would be a great asset in terms of open land. But until some of these little wrinkles are worked out, it doesn’t makes sense. It’s not prudent just to move forward."

Q: If the referendum is approved and council agrees, how could taxpayers in New Providence be assured that there would be no additional increase in the open space tax rate, which is now ¼ of a penny?

CW: "That’s a political matter. There is no restriction. The open space tax was originally one cent per hundred dollars of assessed evaluation. It was reduced to ¼ of a cent. If it was felt appropriate, it could be raised back up and made some other number or it could be eliminated entirely and just use the money in the fund itself so there is no guarantee. It would be up to the governing body. When the original open space tax was adopted, it was as a result of a referendum, non-binding, to seek the public input. I don’t believe there was a non-binding referendum to reduce the tax; I think that was just done by the governing body and the governing body has the right under the law to increase it if it wishes. If it wanted to get a non-binding referendum on that issue, it could do that, too."

Q: The idea of not using any funds for routine maintenance was touched upon. What can council do before the vote to make it very clear that the funds collected for open space acquisition would not ultimately be used to just cut grass?

AL: "I think that is a great question and my response is, and I think Arlene touched on this before, the point of the improvements and maintenance in the interpretive statement was to make it clear that anything that was going to be done in terms of improvements and maintenance of fields based upon using open space tax monies would be for things that have a five-year life so that would not be things such as fertilizer, routine maintenance, lawn mowing and things like that. I think that’s already built into the system."

Q: If the borough cannot maintain it’s current recreational inventory, why doesn’t it scale back and dedicated funds appropriately?

AL: "I think the problem there is the borough, right now, is faced with a situation where we have not just more children, but more children and more adults using the fields during more seasons. If you go back just a few short years before Title IX existed, and women weren’t allowed to play in organized sports, it was a very different situation in town. The fields didn’t get used the same way they are getting used today. We had less than half the usage. As the usage increased, which was a great thing — being the father of three young ladies — I think the adoption of Title IX worked wonders for not only our community, but for the United States. But as a result, we have more people playing more sports. We also have lacrosse that’s come in. We don’t have field hockey yet, but field hockey is probably around the corner. So the last thing we can afford to do is reduce in the inventory of useful recreational fields and that’s the whole purpose of what we’re trying to do — come up with a way to increase the use of the existing fields because they are overused and we’re basically right now, at times because we can't rest the fields, throwing money into mud sometimes. If you look at what happened this summer alone, the incredible rain fall that we had in August and then we had Hurricane Irene, followed up by more rain — I think it’s been the rainiest two months we’ve had maybe even in the history of the United States — but if we in town did not have Lieder Field, one turf field, none of the high school teams would have been able to practice or play their games. Not only would they not be able to practice or play their games, they would be destroying West Field and Miller Field, as well as being able to bring the youth programs onto Lieder Field and also for the band to be able to practice on Lieder Field. So scaling back is not the answer. It’s getting to the point where we can best use the fields we have and not allow them to continue to deteriorate before our eyes."

AR: "That’s a question that came up while we were doing the Recreation Master Plan and we really decided that sports are a good thing for our kids. There are a lot of other activities that are great as well, but it wasn’t our objective to say, 'oh well you shouldn’t be playing this or playing that because we can't accommodate you.' It was more like, 'okay, people want to play these sports. How can we best accommodate them in the most reasonable way?' And that’s what we were looking at. We weren’t looking at cutting or discouraging people from playing sports."

Q: New Providence has approximately 15 percent open space. The national average if 5 percent. How much open space is enough?

AR: I’m not sure about those percentages in New Providence. In general, it doesn’t appear we have a lot of open space here or it’s not really usable open space. The other thing we were talking about previously is that an open space doesn’t have to be an empty lot; it can be something with a decrepit building or a business even that maybe isn’t functioning anymore and we’re going to take down the building and that can become open space or be repurposed. So I’m not exactly sure of the percentages here. But versus Chatham, for example, we just don’t have that kind of open space, but we want to make the best of what we do have, especially properties that might be a Board of Education facility or a borough facility already, such as the [property next to] Veteran’s Park that was perfect to add onto the park that we already had so I’m not sure of the percentage that we have in town right now, but it’s not [a large amount of space]."

Q: Is using all of the money previously collected for open space acquisition for park improvements actually legal?

CW: "The answer to that is if that were the case, yes, it would be. Again, to reiterate what I said before, the decisions on spending the money, if the ordinance is adopted after the referendum, then it certainly would be. As the ordinance currently exists, it’s for acquisition only so it couldn’t be used for improvements. The questions that were previously asked about the percentage: 'is there a minimum amount that can be used for one or dedicated to another?' The answer is no. You have a governing body that was elected by the municipality to take into account the interests of all the members of the community and to make the best possible decisions and the raising of expenditures of municipal funds possible. I think that’s in a context of spending that money, whether it’s in the budgeting process, where there are public hearings or where there is a specific ordinance being adopted for an acquisition or an improvement or even a resolution on awarding a contract for an improvement. For all of those, there is an opportunity for the public to comment and to participate and be heard in that regard. I’m sure that improvements that are proposed to a particular facility will be well vetted because word will get out and people are going to want to know. There are going to be advisory committees for the governing body and I think, at the end of the day, everyone will have their opportunity to be heard one way or the other. And so I think that my comment really is rely on the people that you elect to do the best for the town."

Q: Why would you not wait until the diverted funds attach to a specific cost? Why approve a blank check?

AL: "Well, I don’t think there’s any consideration at all in approving a blank check. I think what we’re doing is going about a process in a responsible manner and sometimes you have to move forward and make plans and I think as Carl said before, knowing that we have a certain amount of funds in there and that there is certain funding coming in, when you come up with a plan, you can use those additional funds for leverage for grant money for working with the county and state and you can also use that funding as it comes in to pay off anything we had to bond. So it would not make sense, in light of the situation we have with the fields, that if we have a good plan to not move forward. We don’t have to wait until every penny is in the bank."

Q: What is the timing between a sub-committee recommendation and the council actually acting and voting on that such recommendation?

CW: "Well, there’s no specific timing. A sub-committee may study an issue for a while, it may come back to the governing body with a recommendation, a governing body may spend as much time as is wishes, considering that particular issue. It may have informational sessions with the public, it could do it quickly, it could do it over a period of months or even longer. Once it reaches a point that say an ordinance is required, that’s a specific timetable set up within the law. And what happens with the adoption of ordinance is there is an ordinance that is introduced at what’s called first reading, and at the first reading, there is a vote. There is no public hearing, but then the ordinance is published and then there is a second reading. Usually, in most cases, it’s at the next meeting that is two weeks later. Occasionally there are provisions and, correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the bond ordinance is 30 days. So it would be the next month. Nonetheless, the ordinance could be adopted in that time frame and at the second reading, as I said, there’s a public hearing and the public has the opportunity to comment. Of course, notices are published in the newspaper and we have an outstanding web site here where everything is put on the web site so there are plenty of opportunities for people who are interested to find out all the specifics about that particular ordinance. Now with resolutions, say for the award of a contract, there is no public hearing on a resolution. It is introduced and adopted, if the council so desires, at the meeting it was introduced."

Q: Wouldn’t it just be possible to keep half of the money in the fund for land acquisition and keep the other half to take care of the fields? That would make everyone happy.

AL: "I think that’s actually a rather practical approach to things. I’m not sure how it would work, but clearly I can tell you as a member of the council that what we’re concerned about is what’s in the best interest of the entire community and if it turns out that what’s in the best interest of the entire community is that the open space funds are somehow divided 50/50 and it works, that would be wonderful because there is no intention to create simply recreational or athletic facilities and to ignore passive recreational things like parks, walking trails and things like that. We want to do what’s in the best interest of the most people in the most cost-efficient way and that is the goal of the borough council at this point in time."