Beach Road Dune Voted Down

VILLAS – New debate on old issues dominated Lower Township’s Council meeting June 16. A council resolution that rescinds a previous resolution to fund the proposed Shore/Beach Roads dune project produced some voices not heard at the special meeting May 30. The Recreation Advisory Board’s (RAB) quest to obtain grant money to fund sidewalk improvements and crosswalks along the beach in North Cape May came to a screeching halt that day when 300 residents noisily opposed any thought of improving beach access in the area.
The June 16 council meeting featured several residents who complained that council had been in favor of the plan up until the May 30 meeting, and that there are legitimate public safety concerns about beach access problems along the 1.5-mile section of the Delaware Bay.
One speaker complained of a “mob mentality” at the earlier meeting that overpowered any views that favored the plan. Two members of the RAB also spoke about the need to improve the area. Steve Morey, a member of RAB, specifically noted that there are Americans with Disabilities Act issues that must be attended to as well.
Councilman Thomas Conrad announced that he wanted to abstain from the vote to rescind the project grant application because he felt that killing this part of the township’s Beach Access Plan will effectively kill the entire plan. Councilman James Neville quickly refuted that stating, “This vote does not kill the entire plan.” Conrad continued to argue that he could not vote one way or another on the issue and wanted to abstain.
Councilman Erik Simonsen stated he still supported the plan as originally proposed. Deputy Mayor Norris Clark also stated he supported the plan but offered that the township did such a poor job giving residents enough time to debate and discuss the plan prior to a vote that residents now oppose any plan to change the beach access.
Mayor Michael Beck also indicated his early support, citing that the police chief supported the idea, but that council conducted an open meeting on May 30 and no one in support of the plan attended. Based on the overwhelming opposition at that time, he feels the project cannot go forward. The vote on the resolution to rescind the grant application fell along party lines. Beck, Neville and Clark voted yes; Simonsen and Conrad voted no. Conrad indicated that he changed his mind about abstaining and therefore voted no.
Resolution to Move Police Department
Debate between councilmen heated up quickly when another resolution was introduced based on the request of Simonsen. That resolution would authorize a non-binding referendum on the issue of moving the police department out of its current airport location, to the municipal complex.
Beck immediately questioned Simonsen about why a referendum was needed. Simonsen explained that he had been meeting with Freeholder Director Gerald Thornton about some alternative uses for part of the police building that might enable the police to remain. He indicated that he met with the director of Freeholders who suggested they might want to use the building for their Emergency Management office, and possibly a county 911 dispatch system. Beck was displeased that Simonsen was meeting with county freeholders without telling anyone else on council. The mayor charged Simonsen with being “an obstructionist” who throws sticks into the bicycle wheels at the 11th hour.
Beck went on to say he really resents freeholders becoming involved in this manner. He also resented them using “a republican crony” on council, referring to Simonsen.
More criticism of the referendum followed as Clark and Beck both felt that they all, as elected officials, needed to make a decision on the move and that trying to get a non-binding referendum was not going to accomplish anything. Conrad countered that Beck was “afraid of a vote,” while Beck retorted that “there will be a referendum in November … it’s called an election.” This vote also fell along political lines, with Beck, Clark and Neville voting no while Simonsen and Conrad voted in favor of the resolution.
MUA Dissolution
The MUA dissolution issue arose based on a financial report given by Phoenix Advisors LLC regarding a resolution that would approve the calculation of savings of $1 million if the MUA were absorbed into township government. A representative of that firm provided an overview of the MUA budget line items that he identified as opportunities for savings. He stressed that his findings cannot be 100 percent exact, but that he was very conservative in estimating those savings. Most savings centered on administrative labor costs that totaled $389,000. Other savings included $110,000 for an existing administrative services contract, $71,673 for a billing contract, $292,000 saved by eliminating redundant administrative positions that already exist at the Township Department of Public Works. There are other items that also contribute to his opinion that the savings of about $1 million are real.
Beck took some time to be clear on the issue of rumors about the MUA dissolution. He stated that the MUA would not be privatized. He emphatically added that it would not be sold either. As to the jobs issue, he explained that he does not lay people off and that the blue collar workers will be absorbed into the township Public Works Department, and that every effort will be made to find jobs for all MUA workers where possible.
To contact Jim McCarty, email jmccarty@cmcherald.com.