.

Tentative Shared Service Agreement Under Review For Field Of Dreams

Project is to be fully funded by Borough; BOE requests opportunity to make revisions to the design; Borough not to make modifications without BOE approval.

According to a tentative shared services agreement for the 'Field of Dreams' currently under review by the Mayor and Council and the Board of Education (BOE), the funding for the joint project would come entirely out of the municipal budget in exchange for the Borough's use of the field. However, school programs will have priority over its use.

The annual cost to homeowners for this field is estimated to be between $62 and $70 per year for 10 years on an average house valued at $410,000.

The Mayor and Council had previously discussed that if the Borough receives a grant for 75 percent of the cost they will have to fund approximately $600,000, plus the fees to the grant writer. In order for the Borough to apply for grants, there first has to be a memorandum of understanding between the Borough and the BOE, as well as a lease agreement between the two.

Should the Borough consent to this agreement, in addition to funding the entirety of the project, it will also be responsible for obtaining all of the permits and approvals, soliciting bids and supervising the construction.

Under the agreement, the Borough will also be responsible for contracting an engineer to design the project, with the BOE reserving the right to make revisions while stipulating that the Borough cannot modify the design without the consent of the BOE.

Any lawsuits or action arising from the construction of the project shall be litigated by the Borough without any financial contribution by the BOE. Additionally, all cost overruns will be the burden of the borough.

Voters will have their say on the field — which could cost up to $3 million to build at David E. Owens Middle School -- when they cast their vote on the referendum on November 6.

The referendum is a non-binding referendum meaning that even if it passes, the Mayor and Council still has the authority to decide whether or not to move forward on it.

The Mayor and Council agreed that the language of the referendum should reflect that only an amount up to $3 million would be authorized for the proposed project — any projects that exceed the cost of $3 million would be put off.

TommyIce October 14, 2012 at 06:19 PM
Peter can you enumerate the problems with the current firehouse and equipment? There haven't been too many articles on this issue. Are the problems with them leading to injuries or potential dire consequences for our firemen? Is the equipment unusable in fighting fires? Of course my concern is costs for these items. I would never advocate giving our volunteers (our neighbors and friends and family) inferior equipment and supplies nor deny them what is necessary, but at the same time I do question the need for them. Are these items mandated by the state or federal government or are they recommendations?
Peter October 14, 2012 at 09:37 PM
Excellent question the Nfpa national fire prevention association has stated that our ladder truck tower 31 at co 2 is outdated we could get in serious trouble for not having this new truck with fines. Also the fact that our jackets and pants that we wear to fire are outdated as well
TommyIce October 14, 2012 at 10:38 PM
This NFPA, is it a governmental regulating agency or is it a professional association that issues "guidelines" for fire equipment? My concern is that if it is an association for the fire professionals, does it support manufacturers of said fire equipment? Who levies these fines? The state, the feds or this association (that I'm assuming the boro is a member of)? If your protective clothing is outdated and underperforming, by all means they should be replaced. And quickly. If the State of New Jersey is saying this is the minimum standard and we are not even meeting that, that is one thing. But if a professional association, who receives dues and contributions from manufacturers, strongly suggests that a fire truck is out of date, I'm suspicious.
THOMAS SCHRECK October 15, 2012 at 12:57 AM
I would say let's stay on this specific subject. The article is titled " tentative shared service agreement under review for field of dreams". Let's stay on the subject. People are all over the place. I recall not long ago that an open space referendum was put on the ballot. If I recall correctly, it stated that you would be charged 1/2 a cent/$100 of your home value. It passed. Do the math and how much have you paid over the years and for what locally? This was separate from all the other bond issues that were brought forward, by the way, with no vote.
Barbara October 16, 2012 at 12:39 AM
Voting no

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »