Cranbury Forum | Bulletin | Info Sharing
[Click here to bookmark this page: http://cranbury.info]
▪
Cranbury School
▪
Cranbury Township
▪
Cranbury Library
▪
Cranbury.org
▪
Cranburyhistory.org
(Press Ctrl and = keys to increase font size)
Search
Register (optional)
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
[http://cranbury.info]
->
News | Events
Post a reply
Username
Subject
Message body
Emoticons
Font colour:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
White
Black
Font size:
Tiny
Small
Normal
Large
Huge
Close Tags
[quote="Guest"]Last night, the mayor reported... The decisions to preserve the land, convert it to recreational space and build a ballfield were made over several years, supported by members of both parties, on the recommendations of the recreation committee and the school, with a series of open meetings for community input. The ballfield construction has cost the Township $25,000, so far. There will be additional construction costs to complete the project- dugouts, scoreboard, watering system, etc. The Township will look for grant money to cover the costs of completion. Problems with the contractor have delayed completion of the grass field. The current contractor, or bond company, is responsible for ensuring completion of the contract. The costs of preserving the land and converting it to recreational space were roughly $500,000 higher than expected ($1.2 MM total) due to unanticipated environmental remediation costs. These costs would have been incurred with or without the ballfield. No one at the meeting refuted the Mayor's report. The public asked the TC for improved oversight of the project, ongoing communication and to keep a lid on future costs.[/quote]
Options
HTML is
ON
BBCode
is
ON
Smilies are
ON
Disable HTML in this post
Disable BBCode in this post
Disable Smilies in this post
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Jump to:
Select a forum
Topics
----------------
News | Events
School | Parenting
Blogs by Cranbury Residents
Shopping | Good Deals | Price Talk
Home Sweet Home
House For Sale
Home Sales Pricing Records
Financial | Stocks | Mutual Funds
Cool Bytes & Bits
Garage Sale | ForSale Ads | Things to Trade
Tech Related (PC, Internet, HDTV, etc.)
Interesing and Fun Stuff to Share
What's Your Favorite?
Interests | Hobbies
Cranbury History
Radom Thoughts | Sports | Kitchen Sink
Amazon Deals
Local Business Info
----------------
Local Business Ads (FREE)
Support
----------------
Daily Sponsored Message & Amazon Ads
About Us | Your Privacy | Suggestion | Sponsored
Test Area (Practice your posting skills here)
Topic review
Author
Message
Guest
Posted: Wed, Jul 29 2009, 7:38 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: The July 27, 2009 Township Committee meeting agenda
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
...
I've heard that some people like to buy historic barns to re-build on their proerties and renovate for new purposes. Etc. I would wonder if it would make more sense to see if anyone wants to buy this barn and we could make some oney off it rather than spending money.
I maybe interested in the 1770 barn, I use to have a barn on my property but it burnt down 60yrs ago so I have the room and can keep it in Cranbury. What did it look like, anyone have a picture of it??
Please get in touch with CHPS at
amith731@comcast.net
Cranbury
Posted: Wed, Jul 29 2009, 4:57 am EDT
Post subject: Re: The July 27, 2009 Township Committee meeting agenda
Leave it to the rejects that are running the town, to screw up a simple baseball field. Monroe's new field on Applegarth looks great!
Guest
Posted: Tue, Jul 28 2009, 6:48 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: The July 27, 2009 Township Committee meeting agenda
I agree that it is necessary to pursue grants - considering the amount of taxes that Cranbury pays and does NOT get returned (ie for school funding), we should be applying for any type of grant for our projects.
Guest
Posted: Tue, Jul 28 2009, 11:12 am EDT
Post subject: Re: The July 27, 2009 Township Committee meeting agenda
You and Win are 100% correct when you say it is our money. Unfortunately, our freeholders feel it's their money and way of giving back to the towns that support them. What would be great is if the county freeholders, state officals and federal government said, we're reducing taxes and getting rid of grants all around.
Since that does not happen it's an issue of having to put in or have our dollars go elsewhere in the county. Now, I don't support willy nilly projects for the sake of doing them like the ballfield and I do believe if you are doing something from grant money it should be covered or don't bother with the project to start with and that includes potential over runs. So for the ballfield if there is not enough grant money halt the project. Truthfully, that project never should have started because planning would have shown potential over runs in excess of the grant. I would look at projects like Liberty Way or the Dam which are required projects and look for grants. I would look at grants for the ballfield only because some members of TC are geared to completing the project regardless of cost impact and we can't afford for more town money to go onto this project.
However, until someone rises up and says no more grants at the county, state or Federal level we do need to explore them to lower our town tax rate whenever possible. Or towns like Plainsboro and New Brunswick will benefit from our tax payments leaving us with high county and town taxes.
Guest
Posted: Tue, Jul 28 2009, 10:36 am EDT
Post subject: Re: The July 27, 2009 Township Committee meeting agenda
Thank you Win! I agree with pointing out that money coming from any government source originates from the taxpayers - too many people think it is "free".
wcody
Posted: Tue, Jul 28 2009, 9:43 am EDT
Post subject: Re: The July 27, 2009 Township Committee meeting agenda
Guest wrote:
supported by members of both parties,
The ballfield construction has cost the Township $25,000, so far.
I think Mayor Stave did a good job covering what happened from the initiation of the project until 2007. It was good to get an understanding of the ball field history.
There are still potentially additional expenses and the cost is still unknown. I think there is a range of expenses for additional items. The items are dugouts, bleachers, sign, water hook up (well water or public water). There will be ongoing cost to maintain the field as well including water (if public), lawn maintenance, insurance, etc.
I want to clarify some points made in a previous post.
There was support from both members of both parties but Mayor Stave did point out that there was opposition as well along the way. The majority opinion was to proceed with the ball field.
The cost of the ball field so far (not including legal expenses) has been $500,783. The township paid $25,783 and $475,000 came from the county budget which is funded out of our property taxes. From our current property taxes, 56.8% goes to the school, 24.6% goes to the town budget and 18.6% goes to the county. The tax payers paid the entire $500,783. $475,000 came out of our county taxes, $25,783 came out of our town taxes. It is a pet peeve of mine to think that money coming from the county, state or federal government is free, it always comes from one of our taxes.
The total cost of the Wright South property was $1.126 Million including remediation. Depending on intended use, remediation costs may have been less. This expense is not all for the ball field though since there are other potential uses for the remaining land.
Win
Jay T.
Posted: Tue, Jul 28 2009, 8:56 am EDT
Post subject: Re: The July 27, 2009 Township Committee meeting agenda
A few items to add on to the post above.
Dan Mulligan and I specifically asked that they not spend additional municipal money and that they look for grants. When I pressed them on the issue of town money being used the response by Tom Panconi was we agreed to do build regulation field and we will do a regulation field including all of the items such as dugouts, bleachers, scoreboard, etc... When I said no matter the cost, they agreed (minus Win) that they would proceed and re-stated they would look at grants. I further asked that they not rush to do the work since 128,000 of expense raises our rate by 1 cent and again that they not spend money from our town taxes or take on debt.
Overall there was a good history provided, but the history did not cover the present time and missed some points. There were a few numbers absent. For example, there are legal fees being paid in order to seek remuneration. No disclosure of engineering fees incurred in the soil remediation, etc...My understanding is that legal fees incurred cannot be paid by the insurer so that is an expense for us. Also, according to the township office the grant already received was to cover dugouts, signage, bleachers, etc...So I am not sure if a new grant would be available to cover the cost over runs.
I also voiced my concern that the engineer and others involved had not been looking at the soil conditions to ensure they met spec and were appropriate for use.
Further, Pari spoke about the PNC bank and that the bank is not inclined to donate the building. So from a TC perspective, there is no more they can do since they were charged with only a dialogue to see if PNC would donate the building.
Guest
Posted: Tue, Jul 28 2009, 7:50 am EDT
Post subject: Re: The July 27, 2009 Township Committee meeting agenda
Last night, the mayor reported...
The decisions to preserve the land, convert it to recreational space and build a ballfield were made over several years, supported by members of both parties, on the recommendations of the recreation committee and the school, with a series of open meetings for community input.
The ballfield construction has cost the Township $25,000, so far.
There will be additional construction costs to complete the project- dugouts, scoreboard, watering system, etc. The Township will look for grant money to cover the costs of completion.
Problems with the contractor have delayed completion of the grass field. The current contractor, or bond company, is responsible for ensuring completion of the contract.
The costs of preserving the land and converting it to recreational space were roughly $500,000 higher than expected ($1.2 MM total) due to unanticipated environmental remediation costs. These costs would have been incurred with or without the ballfield.
No one at the meeting refuted the Mayor's report. The public asked the TC for improved oversight of the project, ongoing communication and to keep a lid on future costs.
Guest
Posted: Mon, Jul 27 2009, 9:37 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: The July 27, 2009 Township Committee meeting agenda
Any news on what happened at the meeting?
Guest
Posted: Mon, Jul 27 2009, 8:32 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: The July 27, 2009 Township Committee meeting agenda
Guest wrote:
...
I've heard that some people like to buy historic barns to re-build on their proerties and renovate for new purposes. Etc. I would wonder if it would make more sense to see if anyone wants to buy this barn and we could make some oney off it rather than spending money.
I maybe interested in the 1770 barn, I use to have a barn on my property but it burnt down 60yrs ago so I have the room and can keep it in Cranbury. What did it look like, anyone have a picture of it??
Homer
Posted: Mon, Jul 27 2009, 5:52 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: The July 27, 2009 Township Committee meeting agenda
Maybe we could put the barn in left-center field with a scoreboard on the outside and a library on the inside? We could put bleachers on the roof, like Wrigley!
Guest
Posted: Mon, Jul 27 2009, 3:45 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: The July 27, 2009 Township Committee meeting agenda
I've seen the couple barns they currently have off of Cranbury Neck and was never impressed that they were supposed to be significant or preserved. I've never seen the Township organize any activities or educations sessions around them. At least one of them looks like its just barely holding together. What exactly is the purpose of spending money to preserve and maintain them if they are outside the original contexts of the properties they were part of? And why do it for more than one?
I've heard that some people like to buy historic barns to re-build on their proerties and renovate for new purposes. Etc. I would wonder if it would make more sense to see if anyone wants to buy this barn and we could make some oney off it rather than spending money.
Again, I am all for historic preservation in context, but unless this is on the original site, is being restored to the original site or is being specifically used for some purpose that has meaning and value to the community, I am not for spending money just to put it up in some randrom spot littered with other structures that carries no special significance.
Dan Mulligan
Posted: Mon, Jul 27 2009, 2:11 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: The July 27, 2009 Township Committee meeting agenda
By the way this was me. Sorry for not being logged in at the time.
Guest wrote:
TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE MEETING
April 27, 2009
Reports and Communications
--Mayor
Mayor Stave reported that a meeting will be held next week with members of the Historical Society concerning the Updike Barn, also known as the Parsonage Barn which was acquired by the Township in 2005, to follow up on discussions held during the budget meetings about the ongoing costs of housing the barn in storage. Discussions will be centered on how the Committee and the Historical Society can partner together to get the barn erected and out of storage.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the Cranbury Historical and Prservation society Newsletter:
Barn Project
The circa 1770 barn that was on the Updike property, is cur-rently in storage with the New Jersey Barn Company. CHPS is working with Cranbury Township to get the barn out of storage and have it repaired and rebuilt on township property off Cranbury Neck Road, where two other barns now stand.
http://www.cranburyhistory.org/newsletter/assets/chps0609.pdf
Guest
Posted: Mon, Jul 27 2009, 2:03 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: The July 27, 2009 Township Committee meeting agenda
I believe the purchase price from the Howarth's was 30 or 60K - can't remember. The total price of the barn is not just 40K, it should include:
Purchase price from Howarth's
Disassembly price
Storage price
Reassembly price
Wonder what all those costs are...
Book 'em, Dan-o!
Posted: Mon, Jul 27 2009, 12:47 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: The July 27, 2009 Township Committee meeting agenda
Maybe we can hire some tour guides for the historic site. If they dress up as lords and ladies, we can call it...
Barns & Nobles
Guest
Posted: Mon, Jul 27 2009, 10:08 am EDT
Post subject: Re: The July 27, 2009 Township Committee meeting agenda
TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE MEETING
April 27, 2009
Reports and Communications
--Mayor
Mayor Stave reported that a meeting will be held next week with members of the Historical Society concerning the Updike Barn, also known as the Parsonage Barn which was acquired by the Township in 2005, to follow up on discussions held during the budget meetings about the ongoing costs of housing the barn in storage. Discussions will be centered on how the Committee and the Historical Society can partner together to get the barn erected and out of storage.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the Cranbury Historical and Prservation society Newsletter:
Barn Project
The circa 1770 barn that was on the Updike property, is cur-rently in storage with the New Jersey Barn Company. CHPS is working with Cranbury Township to get the barn out of storage and have it repaired and rebuilt on township property off Cranbury Neck Road, where two other barns now stand.
http://www.cranburyhistory.org/newsletter/assets/chps0609.pdf