Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Works topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council sends Fair Haven Fields concession-stand paving plan back to DPW for refinement after trip-hazard concerns

Fair Haven Borough Council · April 14, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

DPW presented co-op-based paving options to fix trip hazards and drainage issues around the concession stand and tennis-court approaches at Fair Haven Fields. Councilors questioned quantities and costs, requested alternative (pervious) options, and directed DPW to return with refined plans after a site visit.

The borough's Department of Public Works presented revised scope and cost estimates for paving high-traffic walkways around the concession stand, tennis courts and baseball fields at Fair Haven Fields on April 13, citing ongoing trip hazards and drainage concerns.

Nick (DPW/engineering) told the council that a previous 2018 scope had been reduced and that co-op pricing from a Monmouth-Ocean educational-services cooperative produced the current cost estimate. He described problem areas where oak-tree roots had heaved pavement near the concession stand and where stone-dust walkways leading to tennis courts were creating safety and maintenance problems. Co-op pricing and prevailing-wage considerations produced a quoted tonnage and budget; councilors noted a discrepancy between the borough's quick calculations and the contractor's tonnage estimate and asked DPW to reconcile the numbers.

Several council members urged high-quality design instead of strictly lowest-cost repairs, noting $30,000 would be a significant expenditure for the borough. Others asked whether permeable or other more costly—but longer-lasting—materials had been evaluated; DPW replied that porous systems would require engineering and a separate design/bid process outside the routine co-op maintenance scope, but agreed to provide cost comparisons and to evaluate temporary fixes for imminent hazards.

Given safety concerns and remaining budget and design questions, the council voted to send the paving scope back to the DPW committee for a site visit and more precise recommendations before authorizing work. No contract award or appropriation was made at the meeting.