Council gets building update, and passes bond ordinance

By Mandy Coriston

Emotions ran high in a joint meeting that was anything but unified, as the Township Council and the Municipal Building Subcommittee met with the Nader Group, LLC on Tuesday, Aug 13, to hear the results of detailed site analysis and see preliminary designs for the potential new municipal complex. The meeting was immediately followed by the regular council meeting, which included a final public hearing and council vote on a bond ordinance to authorize nearly $300,000 worth of spending on the next phase of the design. July meetings set the table for disagreements

At its last regular meeting held Tuesday, Jul 16, the council made the fairly unprecedented move to extend the public hearing on the bond ordinance to the Aug 13 session, giving residents another opportunity to have their voices heard on the subject. Additionally, the municipal building subcommittee gathered on Jul 30 to hold a review session ahead of the joint meeting and Nader’s report, marking the first time the group had met under the leadership of co-chairs John Morytko and Cris Franco, and without the presence of any council members or town employees.

After working for a while to define their new autonomy, the subcommittee’s meeting centered heavily on budget, with the majority of the members feeling that the project cannot be continued without a set cost for the Nader Group to work with. While the subcommittee did not come up with a solid budget number at that time, they made a decision to closely study similar projects around the state to try to craft a budget that they would feel comfortable presenting to the council.

Discussion was also held regarding the bond ordinance, with mixed opinions. Many of the subcommittee members felt that the ordinance was being rushed through with no defined plan to spend the money, while others felt the bond was necessary to advancing the design plans. Per its last report on Jun 13, the Nader Group split all the design phases into small steps, each to be completed only with township approval. The presentation slated for the Aug 13 meeting was to conclude Phase IA of testing and design, and passage of the bond ordinance would be necessary for advancement into the next stages.

Potential new plan causes a stir

With every available subcommittee member assembled along the with the full council, the Aug 13 meeting began with a twist when it was announced that David Romano, owner of Byram Plaza and ShopRite and one of the town’s biggest taxpayers, would be recusing himself from the subcommittee after serving since its inception in April of last year. Romano’s recusal is due to a commercial vacancy at the shopping center, which the council has decided it would like to explore as an option for administrative offices. This came as a surprise to the subcommittee, which for more than a year has been charged with finding and researching all feasible possibilities for relocating, renovating, or building a new municipal building.

It’s been proposed that Councilman David Gray and Township Manager Joe Sabatini will meet with Romano and/or his representatives to discuss the vacancy and see if the space could be utilized for the town’s purposes, and if so, at what cost. These discussions will be held posthaste and if possible, reported on at the next scheduled council meeting on Sep 3.

Fulfilling the meeting’s original purpose

Once the room settled down from that announcement, attention had to be turned to the Nader Group, who brought concept drawings and floor plans, as well as the report on the site analysis performed on the current municipal complex earlier this summer. Wassim Nader, owner and principle, outlined plans for a 4,440 sq. ft. Police Department, to be built to essential building code, and a combined new construction and renovated municipal building that would encompass 7,520 sq. ft. of first floor office and meeting space. Nader explained that the concrete testing from the site analysis would dictate that the building would require a truss roof, which allows for the design to include an attic providing approximately 5,000 sq. ft. of storage space.

Drawings show a functional tan and black, faced with brick, clapboard, and shingles.

“The walls we examined were all hollow concrete block with rebar only at the base, which means a new roof would have to be non-loadbearing,” Nader said, “But the foundation of the existing building is solid. That means less money to demolish and less money to build a new roof.”

Nader also said that due to the proximity to Lubber’s Run, neither building was designed with any subterranean basements or storage.

“The possibility of flooding or moisture damage is too great,” Nader said, “That would cause additional worry and expenses down the road. It’s more prudent to build an attic than a basement.”

Dan Grover of the Nader Group also explained that the regulations surrounding construction near Lubber’s Run and the environmentally sensitive areas along its shores would be relatively easy to follow, given that the new buildings would be erected on land that is already disturbed and covered in impervious surfaces.

“We’ll have to design a system for rainwater management,” Grover said, “but the new complex will actually have fewer impervious surfaces, so that works out well with the EPA’s guidelines.”

The full site plan would not make any extreme changes to the access roads at the municipal complex, but the design group will consider adjusting the angle on the inbound traverse to reduce the possibility of speeding near the animal shelter and DPW buildings. Heated discussion While the Nader Group’s presentation had been the primary reason for calling the joint meeting, the conversation became contentious once the presentation was completed.

The heated topic of discussion was, once again, a matter of budget for the project. Subcommittee member Scott Yappen, who has been vocal in wanting to know absolute numbers, questioned the Nader Group about what specifically had been done to reduce costs, given that the estimate of $5.4 million had remained unchanged. Nader explained that they’d gone through the space requirements and lowered the total functional square footage since their initial design, and had raised the cost adjustment margin from five percent to ten percent. All of the firm’s designs have been based on a size requirement program authored in 2016, as well as recent detailed meetings with current township department heads, employees, and officials. This didn’t appear to be a satisfactory answer.

“We just need the all-in cost,” Yappen pressed, “That’s what the people want to know.”

The Nader Group’s Grover spoke again, saying they knew and understood that keeping cost down was an objective before they began, but that they can work during the next design phase to drive the numbers down.

“We can go room by room and space by space,” Grover said, “and talk about the pros and cons. It’s an ongoing discussion and it becomes your choice where to upgrade.”

Voices were raised as several people, both subcommittee and council members, talked over each other trying to get their opinion heard. Bringing the meeting back to order, Mayor Alex Rubenstein said that he didn’t think that the construction estimates ($325/sq. ft. for the police station, $275/sq. ft. for the new construction, and $200/sq. ft. for renovation of the existing mortar building) were out of line with current market standards, and challenged the subcommittee members to come up with prices they felt were more appropriate. While no one could immediately come up with a substantive reply, subcommittee member Carlos Luaces summed up the impasse saying they don’t feel they can move forward without giving the Nader Group a firm budget for the project.

“We have to find a number to give them,” he insisted. Subcommittee co-chair Cris Franco offered a more diplomatic turn of phrase to quell the arguments. “I just think that having an annual price per household would be more comforting to residents,” she said, in regard to setting a budget number.

No immediate solution

No decisions on the design of the new building were made at the conclusion of the joint meeting, which had stretched an hour and a half past its originally slated one-hour time frame. However, the council did deem that all meetings regarding the project will be joint meetings going forward, further angering some subcommittee members, who feel that the council is taking away the autonomy and authority it had so recently been given. Closing the meeting, Rubenstein said the council will take the subcommittee’s budget recommendations under advisement, while Gray and Sabatini examine the vacancy at the shopping center. Discussion will resume at the next council meeting. Back to the ordinanceWith the joint meeting concluded, the council needed to move forward with the regular agenda, which included the final public hearing on the bond ordinance to authorize nearly $300,000 for the next design phase of the municipal building project.

Reminding people that the money, even if approved, couldn’t be spent without a council resolution, Rubenstein opened council discussion. Councilman Harvey Roseff, an opponent of the ordinance since its first reading on Jul 2, said he still doesn’t think the money is necessary until the council sets a budget on the building project. He holds to the premise that no one would do a construction project at their home without first setting a spending limit, so to do so with a municipal project seems equally backward. He also reminded people that it is possible to fight the ordinance with a Faulkner petition. Because Byram operates under the Faulkner Act style of government, residents can petition against a bond ordinance during the twenty-day waiting period between the ordinance passing and the enactment of the bond. Roseff himself led the way on the Faulkner petitions which overturned a $7.4 million bond in 2017 and a $10.4 million bond in 2016, both of which were also for the funding of a new municipal building.

“I’m disappointed that we haven’t been able to set a detailed budget,” Roseff said, “We should know by now the level of quality we want (in construction materials and fixtures), and we shouldn’t have to spend $300,000 to find that out.”

Most public comments against the passage of the bond. Subcommittee member Luaces stayed for the council portion of the meeting, and implored the council to hold off.

“All I am asking is ‘what’s the rush?’ I’m asking you all to please just wait on approving this money," Luaces said. "Just wait.”

With the closing word before voting, Rubenstein said that the point of breaking the process down into small chunks was to avoid hitting the public with another large bond, like those that had been petitioned against in the past.

“This money will get us 90 percent of the way through the design phase,” he said.The council then voted four to one to pass the ordinance, with Roseff being the sole "nay."

It remains to be seen if any residents will begin a Faulkner petition against the bond in the coming days.

What comes next? The next council meeting should be a telling one for the future of the project. With Gray and Sabatini attempting to vet the vacant property in the Byram Plaza and the distinct potential of a Faulkner petition being brought against the newly-passed bond ordinance, all residents are encouraged to attend. The meeting will be held at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, Sep 3 at the municipal building.

All information on the municipal building project, the subcommittee’s meeting minutes and recommendations, and the Nader Group’s reports to date can be found on the town’s website at www.byramtwp.org; on the main News & Noteworthy page, click New Municipal Building Project Information 2016-2019 and Municipal Building Subcommittee Meeting Minutes/Agendas 2018-2019.

To the read the bond ordinance in its entirety, visit www.byramtwp.org/useruploads/councilonly/tc_8-13-19_packet.pdf, scroll to pages 56-59.