Meeting with New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine
by Mayor Bettina Bieri
|
As many of you know, I met with the Governor on 8/15/08 along with about 17 other mayors. The topic of discussion was the Highlands Regional Master Plan from a municipality's perspective (environmental issues were not to be addressed). About 14 mayors spoke in total. My comments were an ad lib version of a letter I wrote to the Governor and submitted to him immediately following my presentation. Below is that letter, which I handed to Governor Corzine, Eileen Swan (executive director of the Highlands Council), Commissioner Doria of the DCA, Adam Zellner (director of policy, office of the governor), and Bill Dressel (executive director of the New Jersey League of Municipalities). Several members of the DEP were also present at the meeting. In my opinion, the meeting was a success for several reasons. First, after hearing my argument regarding the need for latitude for municipalities and expansion of public purpose facilities, Eileen Swan agreed that the Highlands Council and DEP need to address the matter. She is also willing to work with West Milford Township on the Random Woods project, which I used as an example of the need for leeway. Commissioner Doria of the DCA, which regulates COAH, suggested I meet with him to address West Milford's concerns regarding COAH requirements and the contradictions in those regulations versus the Highlands and DEP regulations. Finally, I addressed the need for an economic plan for revenue regeneration for Highlands Communities and verbally presented most of the arguments and facts listed in my letter regarding the need for a reasonable water user fee. The message was clearly heard by all present, since the Mayor of West Milford was the only speaker to receive applause from the audience. I will continue to work towards achieving a water user fee to reduce the financial burdens placed upon the Highlands communities, especially West Milford. - Mayor Bettina Bieri
August 15, 2008
Dear Governor Corzine, Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you today and discuss concerns relevant to West Milford and the Highlands Regional Master Plan. Please be aware that the residents of West Milford have overall been very supportive of this legislation. We would, however, appreciate your consideration of the following. While there are other concerns, the three concerns listed below are of greatest importance to our community. Item #1 is a factual statement to help familiarize you with our township; items #2-4 are our primary concerns. 1. FACT: WEST MILFORD IS ONE OF FIVE MUNICIPALITIES LOCATED ENTIRELY WITHIN THE RESTRICTIVE PRESERVATION AREA. The Highlands Region consists of 859,358 acres in northwestern New Jersey. Of the 88 municipalities which comprise the Highlands Region in New Jersey only five, including West Milford, are located entirely within the restrictive Preservation Area. As indicated in the information provided below, West Milford is many times larger than the other four municipalities located exclusively within the Preservation Area. Municipalities Located Entirely Within the Preservation Area Passaic County
Hunterdon County
West Milford also happens to be the largest municipality in area of all 88 municipalities located within the entire Highlands Region. As noted above, West Milford covers 51,901 acres (81 square miles). 2. CONCERN: MUNICIPAL PROJECTS AND PUBLIC PURPOSES. The restrictive standards for 100% Preservation municipalities interfere with legitimate municipal functions, such as providing a new community facility or library or firehouse, making these projects virtually impossible to build. There is clearly a need to allow municipalities, particularly the five 100% Preservation municipalities, latitude for expansion of public services and structures. For example, the township of West Milford is currently proposing a potential new library or municipal complex. The project, as proposed, would disturb approximately 3 acres on a 98-acre tract. Although 95 acres would remain preserved, no Highlands exemption would be granted for this project. Public purposes must be furthered, even in the Preservation Area. A simple amendment would address this concern. 3. CONCERN: AFFORDABLE HOUSING OBLIGATIONS AS PROJECTED BY COAH. Given the extremely limited ability for new development to occur within the Preservation Area, the latest growth projections issued by COAH are unachievable for these municipalities. For example, West Milford would currently have an affordable housing obligation of 98 new units, despite the fact that development is virtually halted due to the HRMP. It is critical that an agreement be reached between COAH and the DEP (as the agency representing the Highlands Council). This agreement needs to address the unachievable COAH obligations of the Preservation Areas and determine a methodology to relieve these municipalities, specifically the five 100% Preservation municipalities, of their COAH obligation. There should be better coordination between the Highlands Council / Highlands Regional Master Plan and COAH on both the methodology of projecting future growth and the affordable housing policies impacting the Highlands municipalities. A simple condition requiring such an agreement would address this concern. 4. CONCERN: ECONOMIC PLAN FOR REVENUE REGENERATION. Municipalities such as West Milford, located 100% within the Preservation Area, are faced with diminishing ratables as a result of the HRMP. The extremely limited opportunity for new development, coupled with increasing tax appeals, places an unfair burden on these five 100% Preservation municipalities. The HRMP recognizes these municipalities as the stewards of the water that supplies over ½ of New Jersey's population, over 5.4 million New Jersey residents. We have been legislated to protect this invaluable treasure, yet the HRMP does not address an economic plan for revenue regeneration. Just as the users of our roadways pay tolls to maintain and rebuild those roads, the users of our water should pay a fee to preserve and protect those bodies of water. This fee would be nominal on a per household basis, yet could provide significant and much needed relief directly to the Preservation municipalities. Paying to protect a necessary product is not the same as paying a tax. We all pay for our water in some fashion. In this case, the users need to pay for the job we have been given, ie - to protect and preserve their water. What would those 5.4 million residents do if they turned on their faucets and did not get a single drop of water? What if they could not take a shower or bathe their babies? What if they could not launder their clothes, flush their toilets, or even drink a glass of tap water? According to the Highlands Council, the Highlands Region supplies 379 million gallons of water per day. As an example, at 1 cent per 100 gallons, that would provide annual funding to the Highlands Preservation areas in the amount of approximately $14 million dollars while costing each user household only about $13 per year. This is a small price to pay for such a valuable commodity - indeed, it's equivalent to the cost of only a few bottles of bottled water. A simple amendment including a water user fee for direct tax relief to the Preservation areas would address this concern. Thank you for your consideration of the above and for taking the time to meet with me.
Sincerely,
Bettina Bieri
|