These are tough times. The Maplewood Township Committee has been doing its utmost to keep the 2009 property tax increase to an absolute minimum, knowing full well that many families are stretched to their financial limits. It has been necessary to lay off staff and trim programs. In this atmosphere, some residents are revisiting the decision to build the new Police and Court facility on Springfield Avenue. If it had not been built, they ask, could some of the present cuts have been avoided? That question is more difficult than it might seem; for example, if the cost of the police building had not been incurred, would those millions have been used for other important but expensive capital projects, such as rebuilding the archaic drainage system that handles water pouring off the South Mountain Reservation, or repaving our roads and restoring curbs?

We will never know the answer to this question for sure, but one thing we can do is set the record straight as to certain basic facts. There is much misinformation out and about. Because most of decisions relating to this facility were made from 2003 through 2007, while I was Mayor, I do have a good sense of the history.

Many wild numbers have been bandied about. At a recent Township Committee meeting, one gentleman from the audience claimed that the building cost $45,000,000! But, at the end of the day, the actual construction cost to Maplewood taxpayers was about $15,000,000. While the contractor was paid some $16,258,000, the taxpayers benefited from a $1,000,000 State grant (due primarily to the efforts of Senator Richard Codey) and $250,000 from a special police grant.

Of course, there were additional expenses for land acquisition on Springfield Avenue, communication equipment, professional fees, furnishings, etc. At the time the Township Committee voted to go ahead with this project, there was good reason to believe that the land cost would be more than offset by the sale of the old police facility on Dunnell Road. In spite of the present recession, there is still good reason to expect at least an offset. Assuming this occurs, the net cost of the entire project to the taxpayers will be approximately $17,570,000. This is being paid off over 15 years, at 4% interest, for an annual debt service of approximately $1,500,000.

No. Many will recall that, following the design phase of this work in April 2005, the construction cost estimates were about $12,000,000. And this was for a building intended to last for more than 100 years. But the market intervened in an unfavorable way. New construction was booming, and this resulted in an incredible escalation of the prices for raw materials. These escalations were not fully apparent until construction bids were received in May of 2006, at which time considerable expenses had already been incurred. The lowest bid was by Seacoast (the ultimate general contractor) at $15,789,000, approximately 33 1/3% higher than the estimate provided a year before. This reflected huge increases in the prices for steel, aluminum, and paving asphalt. The price of PVC pipe rose 31% in 8 months, and copper went up 45% in a 5 week period. Oil prices soared, leading contractors to build substantial cushions into their bids to protect against further increases. The Township Committee was advised by experts not to re-bid the work, lest the lowest bid turn out to be even higher than on the first round.

What did the "green" features cost?

Some taxpayers think that it was unwise to spend money on environmental features during hard economic times. But few know the real financial facts. The "green" features of the building cost about $600,000. These include the solar power, the elements which make major use of natural light, and the special carbon dioxide sensors which only turn on the lights needed to illuminate a room for the number of people actually occupying that room. Because of these features, the annual energy costs of the building are approximately $60,000 less than they would be if the features had not been installed (depending on the price of electricity). These savings exceed the $50,200 annual debt service on the cost of these features. Thus, as with so many environmental measures that towns can adopt, we end up saving money at the same time we help save the planet - a true win/win. And, after the 15 years of our debt service are completed, the annual savings are pure financial profit.

Of course, no part of this analysis factors in the intangibles, such as the effect of "green" features on the health and productivity of occupants who work in natural light and breath air free of toxins. It does not count Maplewood's role as a beacon to municipalities around the State and elsewhere - how much does our example motivate others? How much less global warming, for example, occurs as a result? New Jersey will lose many, many billions of dollars because of economic dislocations and the spread of disease if global warming continues unabated. Can Maplewood be a force for saving some of those billions?

Many in this town are proud of the fact that the new building is the first public building in New Jersey to be LEED certified green (silver rating) by the US Building Council. This achievement is one of the reasons Maplewood has received a number of environmental awards, and was rated the "greenest" town in New Jersey in the March edition of Inside Jersey. When Maplewood was named "One of the Ten Best Places to Live" by Money Magazine about 10 years ago, the effect on our residential property values was very positive. Our "green" reputation has a similar financial effect.

During this period, the public was well-informed as to the merits of the issue. I do not remember any serious opposition to the concept of a new facility. Many people took sides on the question of where the new facility should be located, but the condition of the old building was accepted as a reality.

In addition, the old building lies in a flood plain. Police officers needed small boats to enter and leave the building during Hurricane Floyd. It simply made no sense to spend so much money on a structure that would always be imperiled by the elements. And any significant modification to the building would have required permission from the Department of the Environment.

It also makes financial sense to sell the Dunnell property in order to buy property on Springfield Avenue. By reason of its location near the railroad station, the Dunnell property is the more valuable of the two. The property on Springfield Avenue was occupied by unproductive businesses at the time the town purchased it.

Finally, putting the new building on Springfield Avenue has ancillary benefits for the revitalization of that commercial district. The recession has muted this effect, but it will be apparent in due course. And the new building has meeting facilities for the public, which have been substantially lacking in the neighborhoods around Springfield Avenue.