Late announcement for public input
Immediately after the flag salute at the October 24, meeting, Mayor Sammy Moore broke from the agenda to announce that it’s time to bring everybody up to speed about the municipal building, and said that the committee will hold a town hall-style meeting.
He said the committee will answer everybody’s questions; the committee will consider all options; and residents will have a chance for input. The committee made similar pledges before, but never fulfilled.
The idea that now is the time to bring people up to speed and get their input is wrong-minded, if not delusional. The time to start bringing people up to speed began in October 2021, when Tabernacle’s architect reported that the existing town hall had substantial structural problems and suggested various options to address them.
From that point on, the committee should have engaged the public, its own experts, the Land Development Board (LDB) and other stakeholders to make the best decision possible for Tabernacle. Along the way, the committee should have publicly evaluated the four options that its architect suggested.
Had the committee engaged earlier, everybody would already have information about the needs, the costs, the benefits and the limitations surrounding this important civic project. Perhaps, other options might have also emerged.
The commitment to the Carranza Road property
Instead, this committee committed Tabernacle to buying a 19-acre flag lot on Carranza Road for $500,000. They’ve already spent an additional $100,000 investigating it. The property closing is December 30, 2022. This option seems like a certainty.
The official process to buy the Carranza Road property started soon after the architect’s report, in February 2022. Though according to our prior township administrator, Casey English, the township had been looking at this property for years.
The township committee was secretive about the Carranza Road property. It held most discussions in closed session and never addressed the essential question of why they wanted to buy the property. The committee didn’t publicly discuss what it wanted to build there. Nor did they answer public questions about the property and future town hall.
It remains to be seen at this point if the committee’s decision to hold a “town meeting” is anything more than a stunt to justify its decision to buy the flag lot on Carranza Road.
I’m skeptical that the committee will consider all options. The committee hasn’t yet shown interest in examining any options other than buying the Carranza Road property.
Sequoia School Option
Clearly, the best option for a municipal building was to purchase from the Tabernacle Board of Education (TBOE), the 14,000 square foot Sequoia School with its additional 5.8 unbuilt acres in 2018. The Lenape Regional High School District extensively renovated the building in 2001. Lenape’s renovations included the connection to the TBOE’s septic system at the Olson Middle School and the removal of all asbestos.
Sequoia was easily convertible to municipal and community uses. It
would have addressed all of the township’s town hall needs; it has a huge meeting room and lots of potential office space. It would have addressed the immediate needs for record storage, a community center and the construction and tax assessor offices.
The Sequoia property would allow the removal of the Annex, which might free up enough land for public works to improve its space permanently.
Even better, the Sequoia School was a prominent building in the center of Tabernacle. Converting it to a municipal building would preserve and reinforce Tabernacle’s town center.
When Lenape terminated its lease, TBOE offered the property to Tabernacle Township. The listing price was $850,000. Committeeman Stephen Lee spearheaded the acquisition of Sequoia, which had both widespread and diverse support.
But then-Mayor Barton and Committee members Kim Brown and Sammy Moore voted against the acquisition of Sequoia. Mr. Barton explained that because taxpayers had already paid for the property through their TBOE taxes, the Board of Ed should give Tabernacle the property for free.
This explanation was impractical for two reasons. First, it was unlikely that the Board would give away an $850,000 asset. And they didn’t. Second, if TBOE gave away this asset, taxpayers would likely have to make up for the loss of these anticipated revenues.
Ms. Brown and Mr. 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.
Soon after Tabernacle rejected TBOE’s offer, the property was put up for sale and purchased by a non-profit organization.
The architect’s four options
Tabernacle’s architect offered four other options for town hall. I broke them out as follows:
Option 1: Repair existing town hall.
Option 2: Construct a one or two story addition on the north of the existing Town Hall.
Option 3A: Demolish the Annex and Public Works; build a new town hall on the existing site:
Option 3B Construct a new town hall at another site.
No investigation of needs, wants or costs
The architect emphasized that all options “….require further investigation.”
And, as Rick Franzen commented at the October 24 meeting, this municipal building project will affect Tabernacle for 50 to 75 years.
This committee hasn’t asked questions or gathered information about any of the options. None of their ‘deliberations’ had the depth required for a $5 million to $10 million project, which will define Tabernacle’s civic character for future generations.
The committee didn’t bother to do a feasibility study as Construction Officer Tom Boyd recommended February 14, 2022.
The committee hasn’t discussed the logic of keeping a municipal building in the center of Tabernacle. That was another observation that their architect made back in October of 2021.
The public also repeatedly suggested to the committee that it was important to maintain the town center. But the committee never responded.
The committee hasn’t discussed how a municipal complex would be consistent with Tabernacle’s existing master plan. It also hasn’t considered integrating its decision about a municipal complex into the new master plan that the LDB is currently developing.
The committee’s failure to engage with the LDB is surprising because two members of the committee also sit on the LDB. The law requires this ‘shared seating’ so there’s communication between the two municipal bodies that shape Tabernacle’s future.
Mayor Moore used to be the committee’s liaison to the LDB. Mayor Moore then withdrew a few months ago from the position. He asked Committeeman Hartman to take over his position. Mr. Hartman said he “was honored” to be asked to take over that job. Committeeman Sunbury also sits on the LDB. None of these people reported back to the committee about the new masterplan. Nor, apparently, did they engage the LDB regarding the committee’s plans for a new municipal building.
Even the committee’s efforts to acquire the flag lot on Carranza Road
lacked meaningful discussion of whether and how it would be good for Tabernacle.
The architect’s report said that even if the committee built a new municipal complex, old town hall would still need repair. The committee never investigated this. At the October 24, 2022 meeting, Joseph Barton asked if the committee determined the costs for these repairs. The committee didn’t respond.
Maybe this committee wants to tear down old town hall. They haven’t discussed that either.
There was even a moment at the April 2022 public meeting where a committee member said that building an addition onto town hall wasn’t an option. Yet the township’s architect specifically reported that an addition is an option. Again, the committee didn’t investigate this.
Another un-investigated option
Another option, one that the committee discussed in 2021, when it considered a proposal to put solar panels on the township landfill, was to reserve part of that property for a public works facility. This committee hasn’t investigated or discussed this option either.
A year of public questions without public answers
I doubt that the committee will answer all public questions, “100%” as Mayor Moore said, because this committee has almost always ignored citizen questions about this project. Throughout 2022, my husband and I repeatedly asked questions about the new municipal facility, the old town hall, the old town hall property and the use of the new property. Committee members didn’t respond except to occasionally snicker anonymously in the background of their audio-only connection. More about that in the next POST.
At the October 24, meeting, Mark LeMire said he had a lot of questions about what’s going on with town hall. He expressed concern that the township maintain the town center. He also stated that the committee should make any decisions about town hall in the context of the new master plan. Again, the committee didn’t respond.
Private discussions with little progress
Rather than discussing the municipal building publicly, this committee holds its discussions in executive session, away from the public. The November 21, meeting agenda shows that they will again meet in executive session to discuss “Financial considerations for construction/replacement of town hall.”
This committee eliminated public discussions of town hall by mis-characterizing them as “financial considerations,” “contracts,” “acquisition of real property” or similar vague topics so it can discuss town hall in executive session.
It’s implausible that this committee has reached the stage where it can legitimately discuss “financial considerations for construction/replacement of town hall” in executive session. The committee hasn’t yet investigated options or costs. It hasn’t discussed town hall, or Tabernacle’s needs or wants. It hasn’t commissioned any cost or feasibility studies. Nor has it taken any input from any stakeholders.
Because the committee has no information, it has nothing to discuss in executive session except general policy, which doesn’t belong in executive session. The agenda item to discuss “financial considerations for construction/replacement of town hall,” whatever that means, appears to be a generalized policy discussion about options. This discussion should have been an ongoing topic over the past year on the regular agenda for the public to hear and give input on.
The committee highlighted its lack of cost and feasibility studies, again, at the October 24, meeting, when Joseph Barton asked if the committee had a study about the condition of existing town hall and what it would take to repair it. The committee didn’t respond.
An ill-conceived and illegal meeting
The reason there are so many questions about what’s going on is that this committee has generated almost no information. Committee members barely asked questions on their own; they won’t answer residents’ questions; the building subcommittee hasn’t made any preliminary reports. Given the secrecy of this committee, it’s hard to imagine that the subcommittee will produce any written report or, if they do, post it on the Township’s website before committee discussion.
Given this committee’s closed mindedness to investigate any option other than the purchase of the flag lot on Carranza Road, it’s hard to see how the proposed town hall meeting will be a genuine opportunity for citizens to have real input into the decision about our new municipal building.
This lack of information prevents everyone from rationally considering options or offering input so that the committee makes good decisions.
Mayor Moore’s format for the “town hall” style meeting also is designed to ensure that little information is generated and citizen input is minimized. Their plan is to prevent live questions and live comment. Instead, people have to submit their questions and comments in advance.
Administrator-Clerk Mary Alice Brown said this is necessary to prevent hundreds of people from standing up and asking questions; and, it’s to maintain control. I’ve been to a lot of public meetings in Tabernacle. Many people, even hundreds attended these meetings. I’ve never seen the problem that Administrator-Clerk Mary Alice Brown is concerned about. I think she’s saying what the committee wants her to say.
The requirement that people submit questions in advance allows the committee to prepare answers in advance. That’s efficient from the township’s perspective because it lets them avoid hard questions and spin a consistent narrative. But it neuters public input.
People can’t follow-up on things. They can’t get clarification if the committee’s answer is vague or misunderstood. This prevents people from developing a full understanding of this costly and important public project. It’s especially problematic here because there’s so little information available. How can people submit questions in advance about options that haven’t been explored or discussed in public?
Not surprisingly the township committee’s plan to exclude live public comment is also illegal. The Open Public Meetings Act requires public comment at every public meeting. This committee reduced public comment from a total of 6 minutes to 2 minutes per person. Mr. Hartman said people don’t say anything important in their last minutes of comment anyway. The committee can’t legally prevent public comment at a public meeting. They should all know this by now.
And for this, the Tabernacle committee pays Administrator-Clerk Mary Alice Brown $132,000 and gives themselves a raise from $5,000 to $7,500.
