The December 19, Town Hall Presentation

Having seen the committee’s near silence on the new and old town hall project for the past 15 months, the December 19 “Public Information Meeting” made it doubly clear that our elected officials are either incapable of or uninterested in involving the public in what will probably be the largest public expense in Tabernacle’s history. 

Since receiving their architect’s report on old town hall 15 months ago this committee has not answered any public questions, not addressed public comment and not had public discussions to explain what they’re doing about new and old town hall.

The public information meeting was another example of our committee members playing hide-n-seek with information. Though the township filled in some details, the meeting certainly wasn’t a consideration of all options, the answering of all questions “100%,” or the acceptance of citizen input that Mayor Moore said it would be.  

Committee Doesn’t Respond

Only four committee members attended. Deputy Mayor Kim Brown was absent. Mayor Moore made opening and closing remarks and told the public “I hear you.” He may hear us but he’s certainly not listening.

Committee members Bob Sunbury, Mark Hartman and William Sprague had nothing to say. They were absolutely silent. The mayor and committee’s unwillingness and inability to speak to the public about the largest and most expensive civic project in Tabernacle history shows extraordinarily weak leadership. 

Because the mayor and committee are unable to speak for themselves they are again appointing their lawyer, William Burns, to speak for them. He will again be Tabernacle’s Public Information Officer (PIO). PIO is a euphemism for “mouthpiece.” Communicating with the public is a basic job requirement for a committee members. Our committee members can’t communicate with the public. They don’t deserve the $2,500 raise they gave themselves.

Like the committee, the committee’s building professionals (architect, structural engineer and civil engineer) also attended the meeting and also said nothing. Typically, townships invite these professionals to provide facts, explain options, offer expert opinions and answer questions. Our committee invited its professionals to sit silently at a table on a stage. Occasionally they nodded. Did the township pay these professionals a fee for this lack of participation?

Pre-submitted Questions

Because this committee’s style has been so ultra non-communicative about this project, I thought it unlikely that they would actually consider all options, answer all questions “100%” and accept citizen input. But I was willing to go along with their plan and hope for the best. My husband and I presubmitted our questions just as the committee asked. 

Even after 15 months of silence, I thought the committee might take this opportunity to bring everyone fully up to speed and bring them into the process. They didn’t.

The committee had the opportunity to answer public questions after the presentation and public comments ended. Time remained before the 8:30PM deadline, when the meeting was scheduled to end. Instead, the committee ended the meeting early. Anyone who showed up on the late side but before 8:30pm was denied the chance to speak. 

What We Learned and What We Don’t Know

Old Town Hall

Construction Officer Tom Boyd gave a power point presentation that explained the dire condition of the old municipal building. Years of road runoff caused extreme deterioration of the foundation under existing town hall. Unexplained was how decades went by without anyone noticing or taking action. 

Mr. Boyd also addressed the pending purchase of the flag lot at 144 Carranza Road. In essence, his presentation was simply an explanation of what the committee has already decided to do. It didn’t address all of the issues and didn’t answer all of the questions. 

A Few Basic Unanswered Questions

Frontage

For example, we still don’t know how much frontage the flag lot at 144 Carranza Road will have. The smaller the frontage, the less visible the building will be and more difficult access will be. The frontage to this property seems ridiculously narrow, maybe even narrower than the zoning code allows. The township committee has never discussed the frontage issue.

Approvals

We also don’t know if the committee received all of the approvals for 144 Carranza Road or whether the acquisition of the property is still on schedule. We know that the township’s application to subdivide this property is no longer on the January 5, 2023, Land Development Board meeting agenda.

We also don’t know what options the committee considered or why they were so quick to choose the flag lot. The township long considered using the existing landfill for a public works site. Mr. Boyd said that it wasn’t feasible to use the existing landfill because of possible soil contamination. 

Soil Contamination

Soil contamination wasn’t an issue before and former Administrator Doug Cramer said that public works could move to this site. According to Administrator-Clerk Mary Alice Brown, this committee hasn’t done any soil studies at the landfill. If the committee was serious about considering this option, it would’ve conducted a soil study to determine what, if anything, is there. Instead, the committee rejected this option for no apparent reason.

Other Available Properties

Yet another unexplained issue raised in public comment, was that other properties existed on Carranza Road that were available and large enough for a municipal complex. Mr. Boyd didn’t mention this option in his presentation. Because the committee didn’t respond to any public comments at the town hall meeting, we know nothing about this option.  It doesn’t seem that the committee considered this option either.

Peppered throughout Mr. Boyd’s presentation were supportive comments by Township Administrator-Clerk Mary Alice Brown. She was a cheerleader for all of the committee’s decisions. But her comments also left out a lot of information.

Mary Alice Brown said that the committee “just made” final determinations about town hall. Final determinations!? What were they? Who made them? When did they make them? Why didn’t the committee make them publicly?

A New Plan At The Last Minute

Administrator-Clerk Mary Alice Brown also commented on a new plan that the township presented for the existing municipal building. She said she just received the plan on the day of the meeting. Who ordered this plan? Why didn’t the committee publicly discuss it? Who determined that residents want an amphitheater in place of old town hall? 

And, regrettably, Administrator-Clerk Brown continues to get meeting notices wrong. The Open Public Meetings Act requires that public agencies advertise Special Meetings, like this public information meeting, at least 48 hours in advance. Clerk Brown’s notice advertised the meeting 24 hours in advance. 

The township planned the December 19, 2022 meeting at least a month before. The township placed a notice on the township website three weeks before the meeting. There was plenty of time to provide the 48-hour advertisement as required. It is unacceptable that a licensed clerk can’t get this basic function right, especially because we pay her $132,000 annually. The committee thinks this is okay.

At public comment, resident Mark LeMire said he had no idea the committee had done the work that they did. What an understatement! No one had any idea what the committee has been doing on this project because the committee hasn’t said anything for 15 months, That’s the problem.

The Silent Building Subcommittee

Typically, Tabernacle subcommittees operate in secret and without accountability. Typically, just like the Building Subcommittee, Tabernacle subcommittees consist of two committee members who don’t publicly report back to the committee until all of their work is done. Then the committee adopts their suggestions without a written report, without much discussion and without a meaningful opportunity for public comment.  

This building subcommittee is functioning the same way as all of the previous Tabernacle subcommittees. Mayor Sammy Moore and Committeeman Robert Sunbury have not had any pubic meetings, issued any public reports or answered any questions. Yet it seems that they are actively driving this project forward. It‘s the Sammy and Bob building.

I say that because the committee never publicly discussed the plans for the amphitheater at old town hall and decisions like the final decision that Clerk Brown referred to. They’ve never been on the committee’s official agenda. There’s nothing like this in their official minutes either. Nor has the committee approved any expenditures for any work beyond the acquisition of the flag lot.

Historically Bad Building Decisions

The committee’s history of making decisions in the back room, especially about pubic buildings, has turned out so badly that they should try a different and transparent approach. After all, taxpayers will be the primary users of the town hall building and taxpayers will be paying for it.     

The Old Tabernacle Rescue Squad Building, Hawkin Road

On example of a bad and secret decision is the township’s acquisition of the old TRS building was. For years the committee said Tabernacle needed a community center. Around 2011, the township accepted the TRS’s old building on Hawkins Road to be the community center. The committee didn’t do any studies or have any public discussion or document its deal with the TRS before acquisition.

Instead, the township accepted the TRS’s worn-out, asbestos-contaminated building. Eventually, committee members had to acknowledge that this building was a money pit and “an albatross” with unnecessarily high maintenance costs. The Tabernacle’s architect recently reported that it would take $1.3 million to renovate it. Tabernacle already spent money on two appraisals to try and sell it. But still haven’t sold it.  

In short, the committee quietly let TRS off-load its bad building to taxpayers, while letting taxpayers build the $4 million Emergency Services Building for the TRS. 

Sequoia School

Tabernacle’s failure to buy the Sequoia School is another historically bad building decision. It will always be associated with the new municipal complex.

Clearly, Sequoia was the best option for a municipal building. It has 14,000 square foot 5.8 additional unbuilt acres. This is more space and more acreage than the committee says it needs for a new municipal building. The Lenape Regional High School District extensively renovated the building in 2001. Lenape connected Sequoia to the TBOE’s septic system at the Olson Middle School and removed all of the asbestos.  Sequoia School is prominently located in the center of Tabernacle. Converting it to a municipal building would preserve and reinforce Tabernacle’s town center.

The Tabernacle Board of Education (TBOE), offered the property to Tabernacle Township for $850,000. Committeeman Stephen Lee spearheaded the acquisition effort, which had both widespread and diverse support. Committeeman Yates suggested a referendum.

But then-Mayor Barton and Committee members Kim Brown and Sammy Moore voted against the acquisition of Sequoia. Soon afterwards, the school board put the the property up for sale and the Friends of Cyrus, a non-profit organization, purchased it. 

Committeewoman Kim Brown and Committeeman Sammy Moore never explained their opposition to the acquisition of the Sequoia school. It should have been obvious to them that it would cost significantly more to purchase a property and build a new building, as is now happening.

One of the questions we pre-submitted for the public information meeting, was why Mayor Moore and Deputy Mayor Brown voted against the purchase of Sequoia. The committee didn’t answer the question at the meeting, and neither Mayor Moore nor Deputy Mayor Brown has ever explained their vote to the tax payers.

Public Comment At The Meeting

At public comment, resident Jason Litowitz said that Tabernacle raised the use of eminent domain (aka condemnation) to acquire the Sequoia school. The mathematics behind his comment are obvious. The Friends of Cyrus recently bought Sequoia for $850,000. The current value of the property is surely far less than the $6 million to $10 million that Tabernacle will spend on its new project at 144 Carranza Road.  

It would be shameless for Tabernacle to condemn a property that it should have bought, but didn’t. 

Also at public comment, former Mayor Joe Barton suggested that the former mayors join together in a subcommittee to help guide this project. 

I haven’t seen where the titles of “mayor” and “former mayor” confer special insight. Certainly former Mayor Barton’s inability to see the value of purchasing the Sequoia School, when he had the opportunity, shows his lack of insight and competence to make decisions about a new town hall. 

We need more transparency, not another subcommittee.