Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge action to preserve Sayreville firehouse and press council on hiring transparency
Summary
Multiple residents asked the council to protect and restore the adjacent historic firehouse after a referendum, raised safety concerns about loose bricks, and criticized recent hiring and promotion practices that they say were not publicly posted.
During the public-comment portion of the meeting residents urged the borough to take concrete steps on a contested historic firehouse and raised questions about personnel processes.
Frank, speaking for the local historical society, listed five priorities: address loose bricks on the neighboring firehouse as an emergency repair; pursue local historic designation and a certificate of eligibility; increase transparency with regular progress reports; clarify whether funds received for the Journey Mills site are available for related preservation work; and consider establishing or using an open-space/historic-preservation trust fund (he cited a figure of about $9,000,000 in that fund). Frank also offered volunteer assistance and said the society would catalog artifacts for the borough.
Resident Ken (who identified himself as 'Ken Olszewski, Seerville') told the council he had changed his mind and now supports the nonbinding referendum to restore the firehouse, saying the referendum passed by more than 10,000 votes by roughly a 2-to-1 margin and urging the council not to let the matter "go into La La Land." He criticized the mayor’s prior opposition and urged the council to honor the public’s vote.
Mary Novak raised concerns about promotions and hiring practices, saying positions and promotions should be posted internally and advertised and that recent promotions looked improper because the promoted employee had been hired less than a year ago. She requested the council follow established posting and interview procedures and raised the borough’s residency-preference ordinance as relevant to hiring decisions.
The mayor responded later in the meeting, explaining the council’s choice to use a nonbinding referendum instead of imposing the paperwork burden of signature collection, described the referendum as a financial question, defended past hires who were from outside the borough as not unusual in prior administrations, and said the borough would assemble funds for the firehouse because that was what the public asked for in the referendum.
The public comments will inform council discussion at upcoming meetings and the Dec. 9 hearings where related items may reappear on the agenda.
