[ back ]
Mill Pond dam will be repaired
(by Kathryn A. Burger - October 01, 2008)
A group of about 30 people who live near the Mill Pond attended the Sept. 23 council meeting hoping for some news about the fate of the Mill Pond dam. They knew borough officials were to have met with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) the previous Wednesday and wanted to hear what – if any – information would be shared by the council about the meeting. They weren’t disappointed. On the contrary, they were surprised, or more accurately, shocked when they learned that the borough had decided to fix the dam – not remove it.
There was no formal announcement. The meeting opened in the usual way, and it wasn’t until a resident asked the council about the outcome of the meeting, that Mayor Donald Ruschman addressed the topic. In a short statement, he said that as a result of the meeting with DEP, and further discussion among the council members, it was decided to repair the dam, as originally planned, and that “nothing” was going to happen to the Mill Pond.
For a few seconds, the audience sat in what could only be described as stunned silence. Then, they applauded and left, Ruschman having called a short recess. In the hallway outside the council chambers, there was excited chatter and some attendees were still in disbelief. One said, “So that’s it? They’re fixing the dam?” Betty Papirio, who has lived near the pond for decades, had no doubts. “It was inconceivable that the town of
Park Ridge would remove all that natural beauty.” Her son, John, hadn’t been as certain that the borough would abandon its pursuit of alternatives to fixing the dam. “It’s a feeling of relief that I will be able to enjoy the pond for years to come, and my daughter will, too.”
Margaret Fortmann, who has lived near the pond since 1953 said, “I’m just thrilled. I love that pond – its serenity and beauty. We would all miss it if were gone.”
In a telephone interview, Gene Vinci, the borough administrator, said the meeting with the DEP was with members of the Dam Safety Division. Mayor Donald Ruschman, Council Member Joeen Ciannella, and Vinci represented the borough. Vinci said the DEP was not opposed to removing the dam, but there were implications of downstream flooding if it was removed. Vinci said next step would have been to meet with the Land Use Department of the DEP if the borough wanted to pursue any changes to the pond, that would necessarily be the result of the dam’s removal; the environmental impact of that would have to be considered. Vinci said at that point, the borough decided to fix the dam, as ordered by the DEP in 2002, and abandon any further research into finding alternative plans that included the removal of the dam. He estimated the dam repair would cost about $1.2 million and thought the project would go out to bid and be awarded this fall; work could begin in the spring. (In 2007, a contract was awarded and work started, but stopped shortly thereafter because of a dispute with the contractor.)
Vinci said the dredging of the pond, which hasn’t been done in about 20 years, is a separate project and the borough is not required to do it. The cost to dredge the pond is estimated at $1.3 million and although the borough would like to, he said there are no immediate plans to do so.
Asked during a telephone interview about how the decision was made, Ruschman said the content of the DEP meeting was discussed with the council in closed session held immediately before to the public meeting on Sept. 23. Asked why the discussion was held in closed session, Ruschman said that John D’Anton, borough attorney, was asked about holding the discussion in closed session. Ruschman thought he recalled that it was because they still had a contractual agreement with Berger Associates, the firm that had arranged the meeting with the DEP.
Ruschman said, “To tell you the truth, that decision was not made lightly. We had to consider everyone in town. But the pond has a long history; there’s good reason for it being there. It’s a great place to live around. To people other than those who live around it, it has significance. It’s a town jewel.”
Recalling the closed session, Ruschman said, “We had a discussion and all of a sudden, I said let’s take vote. Nobody had voiced an opinion one way or the other. Then there was some discussion about how we could take care of this that evening. We voted on it and decided to do the dam.”
Asked about the dredging of the pond, Ruschman concurred with Vinci that it is a separate project but indicated the borough will dredge the pond. The only question is when. “We have to see if it should be done before or after the dam is repaired or simultaneously. An engineer would have to advise us on that,” and the recommendation verified with the DEP. He said the borough would, “do it the way it is recommended” and the inquiry into the timing of the dredging would be, “happening soon.” He added, “What has to be done, has to be done the right way.”
He emphasized, though, that, “satisfying the DEP directive to fix the dam,” was the first priority.
Kathryn A. Burger's e-mail address is burger@northjersey.com.
[ back ]
