Communities still divided over contamination issue
Some say referendum was tainted due to lack of disclosure
BY JANE MEGGITT
Staff Writer

Although the Upper Freehold Regional Board of Education had scheduled Allentown Mayor Stuart Fierstein on its Aug. 16 agenda to give a presentation, he never showed up.

Instead, Fierstein sent a letter to the board addressing issues surrounding the new middle school construction on Ellisdale Road. Board of Education President Joseph Stampe read the letter into the record that night.

At a public hearing on June 28, Fierstein said Allentown would not endorse the Upper Freehold Regional School District's construction of a new middle school at the Ellisdale Road site because of the district's plan to cap contaminated soil there. The state Office of Smart Growth (OSG) will not consider the construction plan as Smart Growth unless Allentown endorses it.

Fierstein had asked the board to consider constructing the new school at a Breza Road site that the Upper Freehold Township Planning Board is currently considering as a place for proposed warehouse development by New York City's Rockefeller Group.

Because the Ellisdale Road site was found to have levels of arsenic and dieldrin contamination above those allowed by the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Fierstein has also spoken out about the possible liability to taxpayers due to the contamination and the possible cancer risk.

On July 14, Stampe sent a letter to Fierstein with several fundamental questions regarding possibly moving the school construction. In the letter, Stampe asked for the block and lot number of the Breza Road site that Fierstein had proposed. He also asked whether Phase I soil testing had been done at that location, and if Allentown's Borough Council would consider paying for additional testing. In addition, Stampe asked if the Rockefeller Group had claim on the land.

In the letter, Stampe further asked how Allentown would assure that the current sewer treatment facility would meet the deadline for the new middle school's opening in 2008.

The letter also asked whether the OSG and the DEP supported the change of site. Stampe asked if the OSG had funding to assist the school board and if the DEP would fast-track the application.

In his response letter, Fierstein stated that Allentown is "twice removed from a jurisdictional position vis--vis a change in site location."

"Although we are part of the regional school district, it is the Board of Education that has jurisdiction of any changes to be made," Fierstein said. "Further, the properties are both located outside of our border, in Upper Freehold Township."

Fierstein wrote that the board's questions should not be put to Allentown, but should instead be addressed first by the board's professionals and second by the township's professionals.

Fierstein wrote, "It is worthy to note that all of the properties initially considered as school sites were located outside our borders.

"Despite this hurdle," his letter continued, "we responded to the board's requests for information regarding the only areas over which we had jurisdiction, namely engineering answers covering water and sewer capabilities."

In the letter, Fierstein said he had no knowledge of the criteria used and the resulting evaluation of each site, saying it had never been disclosed to Allentown or Upper Freehold.

Fierstein also noted in the letter that the composition of the board has changed "dramatically" since the initial site reviews were done. He wrote that it behooves the board to take time to determine an alternative course of action, as the intended schedule for the school cannot be met.

Whereas the school was originally planned to open in September 2007, school officials have now pushed the open date back to September 2008.

Fierstein wrote that Allentown residents supported the December 2004 school referendum.

"It is only after the contamination issue surfaced that Allentown borough officials have taken this unpopular stance," he wrote. "However, the public has derided us for a perceived disingenuous position, i.e., moving the school site will stop the warehouses."

Fierstein wrote that "it is imperative" that the board understand that Allentown would have taken its position regardless of the current Breza Road application.

"It is unfortunate that the public has decided to tie these two occurrences together," Fierstein said.

Fierstein alleged that the referendum vote was "tainted" by a lack of disclosure and that the remediation process is "fraught by future uncertainties as to its effectiveness, and the associated liabilities are not being addressed."

Board member Jeanette Bressi, who was board president at the time of the school site search, said that Fierstein's letter contained "egregious" inaccuracies. She asked for corrections to be read into the public record.

Bressi said that the state's Smart Growth office provided the board with established criteria for considering a school site, and that this information was presented to the public at meetings.

Bressi said the board selected the Ellisdale Road site because it met the criteria. She also said the board had a question-and-answer section about the property on its Web site.

Bressi said the land search took five months. She said Allentown officials told the board that any extension of the borough's sewage system to include the new school would cost the board $3 million.

Referring to Fierstein's assertion that the board only considered sites in Upper Freehold, Bressi said, "Are there 40 acres in the borough we didn't know about where we could put a school?"

She said she wanted the public to know there had been full disclosure regarding the land search.

Allentown resident Dan Wolden said he thinks there should be another referendum, only this time it should be one to recall Fierstein.

"He is putting a roadblock in the way of Ellisdale Road," Wolden said.

Another Allentown resident, Micah Rasmussen, said that he had filed a legal request for the information available regarding soil testing done before the referendum. He said he received two soil studies, one done on the Ellisdale Road site and another on a Walnford Road site.

Rasmussen said he was told that it was the board's prerogative to evaluate other properties it looked at during the school site search.

Stampe said it was reasonable that the board decided not to test all 10 sites it considered.

Bressi said the law requires that site selection discussions take place during closed sessions. She said that among the properties considered were some that were zoned commercial, but board ruled those out because they cost six figures per acre.

Bressi said that then-Superintendent of Schools Robert Connelly visited various farmers, none of whom was a willing seller. Other tracts, by the nature of the soil, could not sustain a wastewater treatment plant, she said, because it would interfere with local aquifers.

Bressi added that the DEP was not surprised there were pesticides on the Ellisdale Road tract, as most of Upper Freehold is or was once an agrarian community.

Rasmussen asked the board to abandon its "clinging" to the referendum at this point. He said there is no question that the outcome would have been different had the public known about the contamination issue.

According to Rasmussen, the referendum could be overturned. There is no question that there are good grounds to overturn it, he said, adding that he was not threatening the board.