BY MICHAEL OLOHAN
OF NORTHERN VALLEY PRESS
TENAFLY, N.J. –– After debating whether the council should allocate funds for each phase of a Pfister’s Pond restoration project – and if $661,000 was too much to spend on a pond – the borough council approved an ordinance Oct. 24 to earmark the full amount of $661,000 from local Open Space funds for the long-discussed restoration of the 3.5-acre pond at Tenafly Nature Center.
The 3-2 vote to appropriate $661,000 from the municipal Open Space Fund came after a circular discussion on why the council needs to approve such a large amount at one time and why it cannot approve individual steps, or phases, of a potential $661,000 project.
[slideshow_deploy id=’899′]
Voting to appropriate funding were Councilmen Mark Zinna, Daniel Park, and Paul Stefanowicz. Councilwoman Shama Haider and Councilman Maxim Basch were opposed.
Pfister’s Pond at Tenafly Nature Center is an approximately 3.5-acre man-made pond built in the early 1900s. It attracts a variety of waterfowl during spring and fall migrations and is a centerpiece of the Nature Center’s active and passive environmental education programs.
The pond suffers from accumulating sediment, aquatic plant growth, and low-oxygen levels and is slowly turning into a wetland.
When Mayor Peter Rustin asked for input to address a letter from A.R. Homer that took issue with the expenditure, two council members expressed reservations about their original votes Oct. 10 to introduce a $661,000 appropriation for Pfister’s Pond.
Haider said the “writer makes a good case” and that she was “having serious worries about it. My fear is that if the money is there earmarked, it will get spent,” she said.
Rustin said he and councilman Maxim Basch agreed originally that the council should vote to approve the first step of the pond’s restoration, such as $50,000 for a control structure and dike.
Haider agreed, noting that appropriating $50,000 for dike funding alone would be a good start.
However, both Borough Administrator Jewel Thompson-Chin and Susan Corrado, borough chief financial officer, said that the council must appropriate all the funding for the project up front.
“You don’t have a viable project if each step of the plan has to be subjected to a separate ordinance and public hearing,” said Thompson-Chin.
Corrado informed members that if an ordinance is approved, the amount is put into capital expenditures, and if not used, put back into the Open Space fund.
“But then here’s the thing: Are we really willing to spend $661,000 on this pond?” asked Haider. “That’s really starting to bother me.”
“This is what we decided to do,” said Zinna. He said members voted Oct. 10 to allocate up to $661,000 for the pond restoration when they introduced an ordinance.
He said if members are not willing to allocate the entire $661,000, it’s like only funding the foundation of a new DPW building being constructed “and then we’ll see what happens six months from now,” he said.
“If you’re not willing to do the whole project, then every penny you’ve wasted prior to completion, every money amount you’ve spent, has been wasted,” Zinna said.
“Why don’t we make a policy decision we will not spend this kind of money on the pond,” said Haider. “Why would we spend $661,000 on a man-made pond? I cannot justify that to myself,” she said. “I just cannot bring myself to accept spending $661,000 on a pond.”
Rustin suggested to allocate funding for a dike first, and decide on future items later. “If this is something to improve the pond but not dredge it then maybe we consider doing it,” he said.
Haider seemed overwhelmed by the amount of funds allocated for restoration.
“It’s a huge amount of money…just approve the money for the first step,” she said.
Councilman Park said the approval process has a “secondary safety step” where council members approve “every step of the way” in disbursing the $661,000 fund allocation.
“This is the third year we’ve done this, circling back to the same question,” he noted.
Haider appeared to accept “if [the pond] goes back to nature” by continuing to accumulate sediment and turn into a wetland.
Rustin said the letter writer would be advised their comments were “taken under consideration” by the council. Zinna later requested that “a general discussion topic” related to Tenafly Nature Center be placed on the council’s agenda for its next meeting Nov. 20.
On Sept. 26, a two-year, five-step plan to improve and preserve the pond costing “up to” $661,000 was drafted by Borough Engineer Andy Hipolit and Nature Center Director Peter Punzi and provided to council.
It included: $50,000 for fixing a control structure and dike rehabilitation; $500,000 for minor dredging of inorganic sediment and installation of a sediment control structure; $50,000 for hydroraking of weeds and aquatic plants from non-dredged areas; $5,000 for installation of an aeration system; and $6,000 for application of muck digestion pellets.
[slideshow_deploy id=’899′]
According to an analysis of Pfister’s Pond published in 2011, it was most likely built as an irrigation pond for a farm, but now comprises a central feature of the center.