The meeting opened with the floor given to public comments, where Susan Harper, a resident, expressed her objections regarding discrepancies between the online agenda and the printed version available at the meeting. Harper emphasized that the online agenda lacked specificity, potentially misleading the public about the topics of discussion. She pointed out the absence of linked documents related to agreements and grants, especially those concerning environmental issues and flood hazards. Highlighting the recent decision to cut down shade trees, she cited the extreme heat and the importance of these trees for children and residents who use the area for recreation. Harper stated, “It is exceptionally hot… New Jersey is heating faster than any state in the country because the waters are rising,” and invited board members to experience the situation firsthand.

The board member further explained that documents discussed in meetings are not public until approved, as sharing unapproved documents might lead to confusion due to potential changes. The ongoing project, which had been approved by the town, required procedural steps to meet Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) requirements, including the conservation restriction deed to ensure public access along the river and compliance with DEP mandates.

The specifics of the project were further elaborated, including the amended shared services agreement, which would now last for 15 years with a possible 10-year renewal, differing from the previously approved 25 years. The discussion also included deed notices concerning flooding risks, warning the public about safety near the river, and the implementation of a basic stormwater management system. The board member emphasized that the intention was to ensure compliance with DEP regulations to commence construction.

A board member acknowledged the numerous inquiries from parents regarding the project, emphasizing the community’s desire for parks and recreational spaces. There was a recognition of the challenges posed by the limited size of the town and the need to enhance existing facilities. The sentiment was shared that while there has been some community resistance, many residents were eager for improvements to the park and recreational offerings. The collaborative efforts of the board and the town were highlighted as a positive development, with comments on how unusual it is for these entities to work closely together. The board member expressed a commitment to protecting the trees during the project, although it was noted that some trees might pose future dangers.

As the meeting progressed, the board moved to approve necessary motions, including the approval of certain agenda items. The board was prompted to ensure all procedural requirements were met for the continuation of the project.

Further into the meeting, a participant raised concerns about the visibility of the amendments to the shared services agreement, suggesting that the public should be able to see the changes made to the agreement, particularly regarding the park. The participant expressed frustration over repeated claims that the park was “dying,” countering that it was, in fact, thriving with community activities. They highlighted various events, such as community days and disability events, and mentioned people regularly using the park for activities like practicing track, playing soccer, and enjoying time under the trees. The participant took offense at the characterization of the park as “disgusting,” asserting their belief in the beauty of the environment.

Another speaker addressed the issue of tree removal, stating that an arborist had been consulted who recommended removing not only the initially identified trees but additional ones deemed in disrepair. They emphasized that while they did not wish to remove trees, the recommendation of the expert must be taken seriously. “I don’t believe anybody on this board is an expert and or capable enough to make such a determination,” they said. They further elaborated that the state of some trees posed a potential danger to individuals in the future, which could lead to liability for any harm caused by those trees.

Disagreement arose regarding the necessity of removing certain trees. In response, another participant clarified that the decision to remove trees was based on expert recommendations, which included concerns about tree health and safety. They reiterated the importance of listening to experts, stating, “we have to do always is listen to what the experts say.”

The conversation shifted as another board member sought to clarify the purpose of the shared services agreement, which was to ensure ongoing maintenance and use of the property. The board member expressed appreciation for the community’s involvement, noting, “I think it’s great when citizens do come and voice their concerns.” They encouraged residents to engage in discussions without fear, positioning themselves as approachable officials.

Further debate ensued regarding the condition of the park and the removal of trees. One participant expressed their personal opinion that the park was “disgusting” compared to other towns, asserting their right as a taxpayer to voice their concerns. This sentiment was met with acknowledgment from board members who recognized the right to express differing opinions on improvements for the town. They discussed the need to balance the removal of trees with the desire for park enhancements, addressing issues like uneven pavement caused by tree roots, which hindered community use of the park.

The discussion included mentions of past incidents, such as children getting injured in the park due to its condition, leading to a consensus that improvements were necessary. One member highlighted the intention to join the park together, making it more user-friendly for the community. They noted the efforts being made to mitigate issues without ignoring expert recommendations and acknowledged the challenges faced in executing park improvements.