hightstown is a wanna be town ( your not cranbury)
the tax the hell out of you provide you with nothing, pay the employes too much money dont forget full paid bene"s.. the place is corrupt

This is an excellent piece of journalism, both informative and accurate. As for the comment by St Paul, who wants to be in Cranbury, it is unaffordable for the 47 percent as well as the rest of us. I have spent 48 years making sure Hightstown was and is not corrupt. The corruption is the Commenter Paul's ignorant, intolerant, and uniformed writings that are baseless and could only be put forth by a nut case like many of the Romney supporters. What is the purpose of his comments if he lives in Hightstown. Pooping in one's nest must be Paul's purpose. He would be better to come to Council meetings and express his distorted views so we can publicly refute this hero of the stupid. As for payment to employees being too much, and benefits too great, such envy betrays a person of low esteem and inferior life style. Paul should wait until February first to see if he has a shadow.

If the improvements to the Lucas property are factored into the lease terms, having such improvements might make it easier to re-lease or sell the property later, which benefits the Borough indirectly. Putting the insurance funds to use in that fashion would seem more attractive than renting trailers (note the 'e') from an outside vendor.

Regarding renting trailers, it states in the article that there will be a cost to lease the trailers, a cost to hook up sewer and water to them, a cost to repave the parking lot if placed behind the Ely house, and I'm assuming a cost to hook up electric and internet services as well.

Our Borough engineer states later in the article that, "currently housing the borough police is the Lucas Electric site on Mercer Street, which could offer the borough further housing with existing offices that require little modification...Roberts said it is possible that the building could be moved into without any renovations."

So the plan is to house Borough employees in trailers for 3 years, at a large cost to the taxpayers, while a brand new municipal building is being built in an area prone to flooding – but our government WILL NOT consider moving our employees into a building where our police already are, that requires little or no modification (cost) in an area that has never seen flooding?

I understand the issue has become politicized, but no shovel has been put in the ground yet. It is not too late to make the proper fiscal and forward-thinking decision needed here. Please do what is right for Hightstown and its taxpaying citizens.

In the first or second para, it is stated that the borough's insurance company is covering all costs of housing employees for up to 3 years, so trailers and/or lease at no cost to taxpayers. Sounds a bit risky to continue leasing a foreclosed property that I'm sure the bank is anxious to unload. What if the bank does manage to find a buyer in the next year or so? Then employees would have to move again. If your home flooded and your insurer offered to cover the cost of temporary shelter as well as flood mitigation of your property/landscape to greatly reduce the chance of re-flooding and a rebuilding of the home to further mitigate flooding, would you instead dip into your bank account and buy another property, one that poses known risks? To me, it's not political, it's the common good vs. ego/ownership.

There is a rather large deductible I'm assuming that we will have to pay before seeing any insurance $, and I can only image the cost of flood insurance rebuilding in an area that is prone to flooding. And if you think that the insurance company will cover all costs, I've got some land in a flood zone I'd like to sell you. These costs will be carried by the taxpayers.

And I'll also assume that the insurance company would be willing to negotiate modifications and renovations (and a possible purchase) of the Lucas property if the Council would be open to the idea. However since they decreed that the building must stay where it is, they have essentially cut off all possibility of negotiation. Lexington might also be willing to negotiate a move of the Public Works facility, which is in the heart of the flood zone, to reduce the chance they will have to pay up again to replace equipment and damage at that facility. Police, government, and public works all in one place, in an area that will not to flood. That would be for the long-term common good.

The borough engineer doesn't exactly give a clean bill of health to Lucas. In the article she says she "does not believe there is any direct danger" and that the building couldn't be occupied if there was "an immediate hazard to occupying those buildings."

If I were going to spend 8 hours a day, five days a week there I'd want more assurance than that.

The chemicals are in the ground water and would only affect the occupants of the Lucas building if a well was drilled. This is as per the DEP website report. And, the chemicals are in the Pennsauken aquifer. Hightstown does not draw water from this aquifer. We draw somewhat from the Englishtown Aquifer, but largely from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer.

Of note is that the existing site where Borough Hall is now was an Esso station long ago. The chemicals at the Lucas building are by products of gas and oil, and exist at many of Hightstown's current and past gas stations and service stations. If re-building over an old Esso station is okay, then moving into Lucas should be as well.

Can someone please explain to me how this is possible?
"one 10’ by 12’ trailor that would hold four offices, bathrooms, a small coffee area, and a large common area; another 10’ by 12’ trailor, which would house six offices and similar areas;"

6 offices, plus a bathroom and coffee area in a 120 sq. ft trailer, really?

Why was an OPRA request necessary? The link Rachel Gillett gave is to the borough web site.

Very interesting discussion. The truth is that a new municipal complex on 7 acres could be built at the Lucas site for at least a million dollars less (including purchase price) than demolishing the present Borough Hall and building anew in a one-acre flood zone. There are studies that back up this fact but remain unreleased. The present property could then be sold. The offices at the Lucas site I am sure could be occupied on a garanteed rental basis immediately if needed.They are in excellent condition. We already are renting 40% of the building for the Police. A lot of money has already been spent to outfit their headquarters. Jeffrey Bond

@jeffreybond
A secret, unreleased report containing the Truth that relocating to Lucas will actually cost a million $$ less than rebuilding on the already-owned borough lot? How do you know this?
Fishy at best.

It's fishy because if these studies "remain unreleased" how would Mr. Bond/Hawkeye know about them? Are documents being secretly assembled and leaked to select members of the public?

I think I saw the studies too. First Elvis had them on the grassy knoll and then they were being guarded by an alien unicorn at Area 51.

On Dec 3 we will depend on six council members to intelligently decide the future location of temporary municipal offices and the future location of a new borough hall if needed. Now that is wishful thinking if to decide intelligently is the process since expert opinion or public opinion has no input to three or more of this august body we elected. Preconceived notions and emotions have overwhelmed the rational thinking process that would lead to an optimal decision that solves both immediate and future requirements for municipal office space. If the decision is not a careful evaluation of the options and a consensus vote of council as to a solution acceptable to council, to expert input and input from interested citizens we will have never ending decension between council members and the public. To me and no doubt many others the decision is obvious and a no brainer after reviewing all the options. But it takes something to make that decision that does not seem to be a available to some council members who refuse to accept the obvious. I have no faith in this Borough Council making any decision except the worst of the options.

Am I the only one who read in the last one or two articles about borough hall that insurance will cover the full cost of a new building only if it is rebuilt on the current site, so even if moving to another place like Lucas was the exact same price, it would cost more money because of that.

The solutions is obvious and a no brainer for all of us except members of council who would rather seek the worst of the best solutions.

Blue Jersey - don't be fooled by what you hear council say. I heard from someone that isn't a council member who was at a meeting with the insurance company that they (the insurance company) would pay a maximum of $3.7 million, and that if another site were selected, negotiations could be discussed, but that no more than $3.7 million would be paid out. Council / clara may lead you to believe that an alternate site will not be covered at all by insurance, but the truth is that council hasn't approached the insurance company with a real proposal as they are doggedly only considering one site.

Like Blue Jersey, I am only going by what I read in the Patch, WHH and Trenton Times and have read the same thing. If you have insider information from a source "that isn't a council member who was at a meeting with the insurance company" then that information ought to be made publicly available. That is, if it isn't violating the Sunshine Laws. How did you obtain the information? OPRA request? The only person who could have provided it would be the borough administrator, Mike Theokas, so maybe the Patch should interview him for additional insurance coverage possibilities that he thinks could be negotiated. Maybe Mike Theokas should run for council, he has a lot of ideas about how the borough should be operated. Oh wait, he was on council but quit, like you, right?

Yes, that is the (multi)million dollar question that we need answered in writing from the insurance company: Will you cover the cost of demolition of the existing municipal building, temporary housing for our employees, and reconstruction/retrofitting of a new building outside of the current flood-prone area location if the price does not exceed $3.7 million?

I've seen it mentioned in articles that they will not, but I do not think that I've seen anything official from Lexington. If someone know different, please let me know.

Unfortunately, because our Council has declared in writing, against the advice of professionals and experts, that their intention is to build on the current flood-prone site, it is a moot point and essentially closes off any further negotiation on a site that is not flood-prone.

I used to live in Hightstown and I like to catch up on things every once in a while by reading the Patch. It's been a few months so all the comments on this article led me to go back and read the last few articles about borough hall as I mentioned in my previous post.

Hightstown never changes. It always seems like there's something that gets people riled up. When I lived there it was illegal immigrants. From talking to friends and reading the patch over the last few years it been immigrants again, consolidation with East Windsor, taxis, fluoride and now this. And seems like there's always some sort of backroom deal or hidden information and no matter who is elected, they're either idiots, incompetent, controlled by someone or all three. And its a given that they never, ever listen to residents. Never. Ever. I remember my father complaining about that as far back as I can remember in the 80s. I don't remember him going to meetings, but knowing my dad, I'm sure he had no problem using some choice language with council members when he saw them at the diner or around town. It's no wonder they never listened to him.

I would like to see a new Resolution by Council that appoints an independent "Redevelopment Authority". The current Resolution does not allow
for a solution on Borough Hall & Borough Services that takes into consideration all
the objectives that should be key to a decision. It does not allow us to negotiate the idea of the Lucas site with the insurance company. Why wouldn't the insurance company be willing to discuss a shorter (less expensive)l solution that would effect the length of claim? The terms of the insurance settlement are key...why aren't they negotiable? The most recent Council Vote (3 of 6 members abstaining) rejecting the Planning Board's recommendation "not to rebuild in Flood zone" gives me hope that
some are reconsidering their position. Ryan is right, council is not listening! I agree with Lee ...not building in a Flood Zone is a strong argument. And thank you to Rick for his infomation and rebuttal. Better facts and figures on the Lucas option are needed. With all options on the table, a more fair and valid comparison based on Safety, Short and Long Term Finances, Planning & Development, Environmental concerns and Property Values could be developed and presented.

Everybody keeps saying that the council ignored professionals and experts, but none of the articles I've read mentions anything about that. Where is this information coming from?

Minutes from August 23rd special meeting, Borough Engineer Carmela Roberts regarding the area in which Borough Hall sits: "...The Borough Engineer noted that we will always be at risk for flooding at this location and that Council should also consider the cost for ADA compliance and site work."

Comment from Sept. Council Meeting as noted by Patch: "Roberts, was charged by the council two weeks ago with surveying Borough Hall and determining if it fell within the 100-year floodplain area.

…Roberts said her survey determined Borough Hall is in fact within a flood zone."

Yes, I realize the new Borough Hall would be situated not exactly where the old one was, but it is pretty much in the same area, which is flood prone. It would sit on Main Street, which would essentially block access to the Mill site. Below are some comments from Tamara Lee, Borough Planner regarding that decision.

Minutes from August 23rd special meeting, Town Planner Tamara Lee regarding the connection between Borough Hall property and renovating the Mill: "The Planner advised that the plans for the Rug Mill have always depended somewhat heavily on the frontage on Main Street and for a long time there has been concern that the tax base here is not really balanced, with too much burden on residential; and the way to relieve that burden is to have more commercial. One suggestion that has been in the Master Plan has been to incorporate this property into development and extend the downtown business district up this way, up Main Street; and that would be valuable commercial property that would help to balance the tax burden...If you expand downtown, you’re going to have less of a burden on residential."

"…That has always been seen as somewhat important because if you can get the
kind of revenues you would get for retail then a developer is going to be more attracted to renovating the rest of the site."

"So if the objective is still to balance the tax base, then using the piece of property for some sort of retail is going to be more beneficial, and using the Main Street portion of that property is also going to help the re-development of the rug mill."

Also please see Patch article here: Hightstown Borough Council Passes Resolution Rebutting Planning Board’s Recommendations
(http://eastwindsor.patch.com/articles/hightstown-borough-council-passes-resolution-rebutting-planning-board-s-recommendations)

"The planning board is cited in the resolution as objecting to council’s plan to rebuild on the existing Borough Hall site primarily due to its location within the 100-year and 500-year flood limit.

Additionally, the planning board indicated to council other factors, including the borough’s Master Plan and Redevelopment Plan as it pertains to the Rug Mill property, as well as the Master Plan goal to restore the historic character of the central downtown business district. According to the planning board, if the Borough Hall were restored to its present 1960s-era, modernist appearance, it would not be consistent with this goal."

There have also been support of a move out of the flood prone area by the Greater Hightstown East Windsor Improvement Project (GHEWIP) and Downtown Hightstown, Inc.,two groups with active volunteers who have done a lot for the community and downtown area in particular.

That last article is the reason I asked because it says the resolution said:
"The Borough engineer, Borough planner as well as architects consulted by the Council have all said that there are a variety of mitigation steps that can be taken to further ensure protection from and full accessibility in the event of another flood on the scale of that caused by Hurricane Irene;"

From that it seems like the council listened when she said the area was flood prone and asked what could be done about it.

It seems like alot of this is he said-she said stuff. One person quotes the planner and another article links to the master plan that says something different. Or the thing with emergency services should absolutely not be in a flood zone, except that the firehouse is ok where it is. Or yes, the Lucas property is polluted with chemicals, but they're not really dangerous. And the mill thing looks to be pure opinion. And one says that moving borough hall will help with taxes because it will help the mill get developed but another article quotes a report that says the mill will need a tax abatement.

With all the different information going back and forth, I think Jersey Blue is right that people would be complaining no matter what the borough did.

Of course there are steps that can be taken to mitigate any problem - shes an engineer, and gets paid to figure that out. She's doing what the Council tells her to do, that's her job. If she was charged with figuring out a way to build a 10' seawall around the entire lake, she could probably figure that out as well. Doesn't mean its the right thing to do though.

If you have chance to remove your governmental and emergency services from a flood prone area, do it. Whether it be a move to Lucas or anywhere else, that has to be the main focus. There are other factors involved, sure, but the safety issue is paramount.

Like Jersey Blues, Patched, B Bennett, I am not convinced that rebuilding on the present location -- given what I have read here and in two other news sources -- is bad for residents. In an ideal world, one where cost is not an issue, relocating to someplace entirely risk-free, flood-free, etc. would be great. In case you haven't noticed, we don't live in an ideal world and have to make the best of what we do have. I am growing more skeptical of the tactics used by those wishing to relocate too because the reasons keep shifting -- we should purchase Lucas (other properties were considered but taken off the table) because borough hall on main street is the reason the Mill hasn't been redeveloped; it's a safety issue; it will help develop the Rt 33 corridor; it will add bustling retail to the downtown; the experts all say Lucas is the best way to go (but what about the flood map experts? why question their competence but not "our" experts?); ad infinitum. Can we just get it done already? Maybe it's not a golden opportunity but rather another one of life's challenges to get past an adverse event and carry on.

I vote for using eminent domain and seizing the Baptist Church as Borough Hall offices. The combination of a government operation along with a religious chamber would add a new dimension to this discussion on what and where Borough Hall should be. The property is tax exempt. The sacristy is ideal for council meetings plus it has a pulpit for meeting attendees to present their opinions during the public forum as well as Council members to preach from. The choir could be a Greek chorus of citizens who write comments in Patch. We could charge admission for the show and create a television series that would have higher ratings than Dancing with the Stars except the shows would be bi monthly. The first episode would be what God should the town citizens worship with divided council on the choice. Mayor Steve will have to break the tie.

Clara - you just named 6 solid reasons why Borough Hall should be moved. And if you just want to "get it done", rebuilding an entirely new building on the existing site will take about another 3-4 years. I'd get used to this being a topic of discussion.

But I do like Gene's idea. He can be the proverbial Angel of Death looming over the Council chamber ready to smite the wicked. The origins of the name Sarafin does mean "angel" in some language, I believe.

Other than that

Another good candidate for eminent domain is The Peddie School -- plenty of space for all the borough departments and we could even move the library and fire department there, freeing up more commercial space downtown. We could even have our own senior center, teen center, daycare center and so much more. It's already tax-exempt so we won't be losing tax revenue and we could sell some of the houses or make them a perk for the mayor and council members. If we did that, I bet East Windsor would come begging to consolidate with us! It's a win win for everyone. Nothing there but the trust-fund brats of the one-percent so its also a fight for social justice.

Wonderful idea if we are willing to eliminate the $20 million Peddie Budget that employs numerous Hightstown residents and service suppliers as well as the students who spend a half million dollars a year on local services such as food. My idea was sane and humorous as compared to this pathetic, tragic, destructive proposal made by a hero of the stupid. Worst yet the writer has no idea of the number of students on scholarship, over half, or the contribution a prestigious private school makes to,our community. Hightstown is known over the world as the home of the Peddie School.
With the proposal fulfillment we would then be known as the home of the incredibly stupid

Seems like I found it in Hightstown as exemplified by the shrill buffoonish thugish blowhards like you. Fortunately I can cure my ignorance through education. You, on the other hand, will forever be a self-important bully condemned by your own inadequacies to an eternal pursuit of victims you know won't or can't fight back. Pathetic. Truly pathetic.

Ryan - you hit the nail on the head when you said: "Yes, that is the (multi)million dollar question that we need answered in writing from the insurance company: Will you cover the cost of demolition of the existing municipal building, temporary housing for our employees, and reconstruction/retrofitting of a new building outside of the current flood-prone area location if the price does not exceed $3.7 million? "

This is the only important question that needs to be answered. If the insurance company will only pay to rebuild Borough Hall in its original location then there is no choice, no matter where we would "rather" be- ie. end of discussion. However, if the insurance company is willing to provide the Borough of Hightstown with money to rebuild a new Borough Hall or rehab a building away from the current location and out of the flood zone then shouldn't we seriously consider that option? It doesn't have to be at Lucas, although in my personal opinion it makes sense given the fact that over 100K has already been invested in locating our police force there. If the insurance company is willing to negotiate a "buyout", the real and only pertinent question to me would be why do we even want to build a new Borough Hall at all?

In my personal opinion, a Borough as small as ours has no business building a $3M plus building when we should be looking towards shared services and or consolidation! I still believe this is the only way we are going to get our taxes under control and ultimately raise our property values. With $3M in the bank I'm thinking that Hightstown becomes quite attractive for other Municipalities to do business with.

Unlike Occupy HIghtstown,, my name goes with what I write. The pathos is the inability of the victim of my response to do nothing but complain that their ignorance is being held up to ridicule and I am wrong for doing so since they can't defend themselves as victims of my vitriol since they have to hide who they are. So they attack me instead of my ideas to elevate their intellectual deficiencies in all matters.

Good points, Dimitri Musing and made without insulting those who would disagree.
Why not consider using a fraction of the insurance company coverage to buy, rather than lease, trailers or better, pre-fab units to house borough employees while raising the level of the property. Then do everything possible to consolidate with EW and eventually sell the newly mitigated property? I gain nothing from the borough remaining a separate entity but could see my property taxes lowered, home value increased, sewer/water rates lowered, and municipal services expanded by a consolidation with EW. I'm not a capital A architect, like Lee Stults, just another objective professional who recognizes there is increasingly less value for my local tax dollars. This discussion has gone on for about 6 months too long and the frantic, hysterical, angry rants and cloak and dagger "secret studies" and insider information and back room politicking make us all look like ignorant yokels. I finally looked at rob thibault's blog on this, published here weeks ago and providing links to source documents--facts, not opinions and guess what? Just 4 comments.

Clara, my apologies for using a capital A in describing my job title. Chalk it up to both a passion for what I do and this forum which allows enthusiasm to go unchecked. For such a small town, we have a great deal of reasoned ideas. I hope in moving forward that discussions are civilized and all options are fully researched.

Rob Thibault creates his facts based on preconceived criteria for the generation of those facts. There are no discussion to be had with the three council persons, Doran.Woods, and Thibault since they have already made up the facts that support their position of putting office trailers in a flood plain behind the Hysterical Society building on the property owned the Bank and Worthington. The price for the piece of land to house the trailers starts at $1.5 million according to my sources. Luckily we have three council persons and the Mayor with foresight and reasonableness that will end this saga of idiocy with a four to three vote to rent office space away from the flood plain. It was noticeable that the three did not comment using their own names and that most of the comments came from informed, enlightened former Borough Council persons. And the comments in fictitious names were as fictitious as their names and just as uninformed as they are which is the reason not to use their given names.

There are some of us who don't want change or will accept change so let us keep things as they are now and always have been. We need to restore the past so the future will be preserved no matter the consequences. Obviously there are only a few of us that want this preservation of the past but our minority views must be preserved along with oiur wishes and opinions. These are the facts that cannot be refuted, ridiculed or denied. We as a minority have our rights and opinion which must be honored no matter what the consequences the future may bring. It is the past that governs our future and not the future that governs our past. We need some rigid flexibility as well as flexible rigidity in deciding where we go from here.

I hate the hostile tone of national politics and I'm saddened to see it seems to have poisoned the discussion of local issues as well. The stridency in the comments on three of the most recent articles about Hightstown borough hall and in the article itself in the case of a fourth goes beyond the pale.

Why can't there be a simple difference of opinion on this issue? Do people commenting on here really think that labeling opponents as "idiots" "a nut case" "ignorant" a "disaster" or "bully" does anything to bolster their arguments?

It seems like only Mr. Rosenberg and Mr. Thibault, one in these comments and the other in an earlier blog, appear to fully understand how to have a rational discussion supported by references to sources. Mr. Rosenberg cites specific council minutes and news articles to support his view while Mr. Thibault provided links to specific reports and other sources. I applaud both of them for doing so.

Compare their example to others here. There are allegations of filtered facts, created facts, unreleased reports, unnamed sources, ignored experts and so on but nothing to support them. This discussion is taking place on the internet! If you say the advice of experts were ignored, it's easy enough to cite an article or council minutes or another source. If you believe a fact is wrong or misstated, point us to the source supporting that belief.

I see I am running out of characters. Please help bring civility back to public discourse.

Well stated, I agree wholeheartedly!

Marcus Tulius Cicero asks for a simple difference of opinion without comments that are strident is another fictitious commenter hiding under a roman orator's name. Cicero is telling us not to address or refute the comments by those with fictitious names and go along with fictitious facts presented by those who want to put the
Borough facilities back in a flood plain. When Clarabel agrees with something I automatically suspect Clarabel wrote the comment to support Thibault's position.
The claim for civility to public discourse would come if the commenters did not hide behind fictitious names and made up facts the same as the Romney campaign.

After some thought about the Cicero comment appealing for civility and not use terms of endearment for comments obviously by nut cases, idiots, hero of the stupid, etc., one wonders how do you refute falsifications, ignorance, mindlessness, stupidity except by pointing out that there are council members and their supporters who are just the terms used. Those words are factual, specific, and from a valid source for
such determination. In reading the orations Cicero in Latin, the terms used in the comments presented are mild compared to his comments about society. Google Cicero and read his quotes.

Cuiusvis hominis est errare; nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare.

Alas, quod erat demonstrandum

Et tu Marcus Tullius Ciciero.

Memo - I ask all of you here on this blog. Let's get involved, keep involved , talk to your neighbors , make time to attend the Council, Planning Board, Environmental. Parks and Recreation , Historical Society, Downtown Hightstown Meetings. Get off the couch and be heard. Facts speak volumes and the facts submitted on this blog are loud and clear.