The debate over the Red Bank Senior Center continued Feb. 10 as the council discussed whether or not to approve a resolution to allow the redevelopment agency to continue its work assessing municipal facilities. Patrick Olivero
By Allison Perrine
RED BANK – It was a tense night Feb. 10 on the borough council as elected officials took aim at one another while debating the next steps regarding the future of the Red Bank Senior Center.
Much of the discussion centered around Resolution 21-57 on the agenda that night, brought forth by councilwoman Kate Triggiano in search of a “healthy” approach to move forward within the redevelopment agency, a group currently tasked with finding viable solutions to issues with multiple borough facilities in town – the senior center included.
“After the Borough moved its operations to the present Borough Hall, and sold multiple properties to fund other projects, and suffered a casualty loss at its Senior Center, the Borough has been left with a Borough Hall that is too small, a DPU facility operating in trailers, and a Senior Center in disrepair – and even fewer municipal assets with which to work,” the resolution states.
The senior center is currently unoccupied and has been for two years after a pipe burst at the facility in 2019. Located on Shrewsbury Avenue overlooking the Navesink River, residents in town have been up in arms defending the property and demanding the council not sell it or repurpose it. Their demands are clear: Secure the funds to repair the senior center in its current location immediately.
But a solution is not so clear.
Resolution 21-57 outlines a history of how the redevelopment agency was established and why, explains its values and urges it to emphasize public use and waterfront property while making decisions regarding borough facilities. This goes for all municipal facilities and does not single out the senior center; they’re not “mutually exclusive,” councilman Hazim Yassin explained. But that’s what councilman Michael Ballard particularly took issue with.
“I don’t understand why we’re hiding behind a redevelopment agency when it’s a very clear ask from the taxpayer to do a simple thing, to fix it. But we’re hiding behind a redevelopment agency and this resolution and all of this other – we’re twisting ourselves in pretzels when we can just agree to fix it,” said Ballard. “My suggestion is to pull the senior center out of this (resolution). Make it very clear. Just do what the residents ask…and move on. I think that’s the simplest solution.”
Ballard insisted the redevelopment agency is not considering a repair of the center but instead a sale or transfer, based on language used in the resolution. Frustrated, councilman Erik Yngstrom shouted, “Yes they are!”
“This resolution is not just about the senior center. This is about making a recommendation for all the borough properties to the council and we wanted to stress what is important in our philosophy and that includes waterfront property,” said Yngstrom. “Riverfront property is probably the most important aspect of any borough property that we want and we want them to take that into consideration to guide their decision making. We’re not saying anything about not repairing or repairing it.”
Before a vote on the resolution, Ballard proposed an ultimately unsuccessful amendment to remove the senior center from the existing document and instead incorporate the language from a drafted resolution created by residents demanding the center be repaired. He also argued that if the senior center were removed from the resolution it would give the redevelopment agency one less project to worry about.
“We all have our own feelings but part of creating a healthy process and healthy government is having respect for all people at the table and also having respect for the fact that we unanimously as a council put the senior center into the redevelopment agency’s ecosystem,” said Triggiano.
“I didn’t agree to that,” Ballard interjected.
“OK, so I’m not finished,” said Triggiano. “There was a full year’s time where this was under the RDA’s umbrella and nobody said a peep. And everybody was aware that that’s what was happening. And suddenly everybody was not down with it.
“I’m just in defense of a healthy process,” Triggiano added. “I don’t want every project to go in front of them (the redevelopment agency) and then for whoever’s elected to turn around and go, ‘Actually we know better than you, and we’re just going to skip over you and we’re not going to wait for your advice.’ ”
Ultimately, the vote came in at 4-2, with Triggiano, Yassin and council members Kathy Horgan and Erik Yngstrom in favor of it and Ballard and councilman Ed Zipprich against it.
While Mayor Pasquale “Pat” Menna did not get a vote on the matter, as he only has the power to vote when there is a tie, he said the resolution was well-drafted, clear and “says all the right things,” he said. His stance remains that the center is not for sale.
“I was involved in the senior center when it was built. Very proud of it. I remember what it was before,” said Menna. “I think if we have the capability to provide a degree of certainty to our seniors that want to go back there, in my opinion, we should bond for it to be restored. Once we do that and it’s the end of discussion…the redevelopment agency continues its work with respect to the other facilities and comes up with a plan for our other facilities.”
Menna gave praise to the redevelopment agency that has been “brought into this debate” and continues to build the “future roadmap” to achieve a better borough. “They’re looking organically at a lot of issues. They’ve been doing a stellar job in terms of municipal building, public works facilities and our parks,” he said, though there’s more work to be done.
Resident Tiffany Harris was one of many who spoke during the public comment portion of the meeting in defense of the senior center. Harris, who organized a “Save Our Seniors” rally Jan. 9, said she had a few reservations about the resolution largely due to the language of it regarding the “recommended sale or transfer of public property.”
“It has been way too long for us to keep discussing this issue. It’s been two years,” she said, adding that she feels residents are being pushed aside. “We’re telling you what the seniors want. We’re telling you what the tax payers, young and old, want in this town and it’s like you guys are ignoring us.” Beginning to get emotional, she added that the subject is upsetting and while she knows the mayor and council care about the seniors in town, their “actions are not speaking loud enough.”
On the other hand, resident Frank Corrado spoke in support of the resolution. He had a concern about a “growing chorus” which he thinks is a “vast minority” of residents creating a frenzy around the subject. While he strongly supports having a senior center in town, he said the topic is “turning into a distraction.”
“We implemented a redevelopment agency years ago and that came from an unbiased third party who made recommendations to our town on ways to improve it. This redevelopment agency is in place to take a sober look at the facts and to make a decision forward. And it’s not their decision; they’re here to make a recommendation to the council and the council can do whatever they want,” he said.
Addressing the 200-plus residents who signed the petition, Corrado added that about 12,000 people live in Red Bank and said the resolution reaffirms “the logical, sensible approach” to move forward. And with a global pandemic raging on, he questioned, “What’s the rush?”
The article originally appeared in the February 18 – 24, 2021 print edition of The Two River Times.
