Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Center topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montague committee debates binding November referendum to fund sprinkler system and kitchen at Community Center
Summary
Committee members weighed putting a question on the November ballot to fund a sprinkler system and a functioning kitchen at the Montague Community Center; Ms. Holstein urged a binding referendum to use $815,000 she says remains in the budget, while others pressed for clearer cost estimates and alternatives such as a playground.
Montague Township Committee members on April 8 debated whether to place a November ballot question to fund a sprinkler system and a functioning kitchen at the Montague Community Center, with a split over whether the question should be binding and how much to seek from voters.
Ms. Holstein, a committee member, urged the Committee to place a binding referendum on the ballot, saying $815,000 “is still in the budget” and should be considered for use on the Community Center. She argued a kitchen and sprinkler system would help realize the building’s original purpose as an emergency shelter and community hub and said the majority of residents she has spoken with support creating a fully functioning community center.
Other members said they want clearer, updated cost estimates before committing. Mayor Zitone noted prior engineering work by Strunk‑Albert that estimated sprinkler work around $500,000 in 2022–2023 but said no final decision on specifications has been made. Committee member Mr. LeDonne said that alternatives — including a playground, pavilion, or additional ballfield improvements — could also deliver public benefit and should be weighed against the cost of installing a sprinkler system and kitchen.
Attorney Rossmeissl explained the practical difference between a binding and non‑binding referendum: a non‑binding question gauges public opinion but does not compel the Committee to act, while a binding referendum, if approved, would commit the Township to the course set by the ballot language. He advised that ballot language must specify a dollar amount because the Township will need to go out to bid for the work if voters approve.
Residents who addressed the Committee during public comment voiced a range of views. Tasha DeGeorge, representing the Recreation Committee’s experience, said the committee has managed programming without a kitchen but expressed concern that delaying sprinkler work could push costs above $1 million. Ed Zalenski urged daytime programming and questioned whether a commercial kitchen is practical given maintenance needs. Shay Martin — a parent — said she preferred funding a playground and walking path that would serve local children. Benji Stoltzfus, representing Lake Haven Campground, described permitting progress for his facility and said the $815,000 sprinkler figure is difficult to justify based on his commercial‑kitchen experience.
Ms. Holstein sought confirmation that the Committee was not necessarily requesting a commercial kitchen. “I am not requesting a commercial kitchen, but rather a functioning kitchen equipped with a stove, sink, and refrigerator,” she said. Mayor Zitone and Mr. Innella agreed that engineers and fire officials would determine equipment and code requirements.
The Committee discussed timing: Clerk Klinger said a resolution authorizing a ballot question must meet an 81‑day deadline before the election, putting a finalization window in late July or early August. Members requested clearer cost estimates and available proposals before placing any question on the ballot.
Next steps: Committee members asked staff to assemble up‑to‑date cost estimates and related documentation for further discussion and for any proposed ballot language to be drafted in time to meet the statutory deadline.
