The ordinance that would have let Manville take about 4 acres of the former Rustic Mall by condemnation failed 2-4, and the $1,025,000 bond ordinance to pay for it failed introduction for a second time.

The Manville Borough Council on Monday rejected an ordinance that would have allowed the borough to take roughly one-third of the former Rustic Mall property through eminent domain, after council members raised questions about the project's total cost, its effect on taxpayers and how much the borough could ultimately have to pay for the land.

Ordinance 2026-1345, which authorized the borough to acquire 4.0738 acres at 33 East Camplain Road through negotiation or condemnation, failed 2-4 on final adoption. Republican Council President Joseph Lukac III and Republican Councilwoman Dayna Camacho voted yes. Democrats Christopher Basista, Stefanie Sanchez and Patricia Zamorski voted no, along with Republican Councilwoman Jade Puia.

Earlier in the meeting, the companion bond ordinance, Ordinance 2026-1349, which would have appropriated $1,025,000 for the acquisition, largely funded through bonds, failed introduction on a 3-3 party-line vote. Borough Attorney Scott Salmon said the mayor could not break the tie on the bond ordinance. The same ordinance failed 3-2 on September 28th when Puia was absent.

Finance Chair Asks for Tax Impact

Before the bond vote, Lukac asked that the ordinance be tabled until the next meeting, saying some questions from council members had not been answered to their satisfaction. Mayor Richard Onderko argued against tabling it, noting that introduction would not spend any money.

"This is not expending these funds. It's just an introduction of the ordinance," Onderko said.

Councilwoman Zamorski, who chairs the council's finance committee, asked whether the borough could hold a special presentation for residents before moving forward.

"This way, we could maybe tell the taxpayer what type of increase this would be to their taxes," Zamorski said. "My concern is with the taxpayers."

Onderko responded that land acquisition could be bonded over 40 years and that he believed the effect on the tax levy would be minimal. He did not provide an estimated annual debt payment or tax impact, but offered to hold a presentation at the next meeting if the ordinance were introduced that night.

Councilman Basista said nothing he had learned since the September 28th meeting changed his position. Citing the state Department of Environmental Protection's estimate, he put the project's total cost above $9 million, well beyond the $5 million Resilient Communities Program grant the borough was awarded by the state Department of Community Affairs. He also pointed to the 8% increase in the municipal levy taxpayers saw this year.

"I think it's a big risk to the residents of this borough," Basista said. While he supports relocating emergency services elsewhere in town, he does not believe eminent domain or the Rustic Mall site is the right fit.

The borough has not publicly released a site plan, facility design or total project budget for the proposed facilities.

Lukac ultimately voted to introduce the bond ordinance despite the questions he had raised.

After the vote, Onderko said the result put the $5 million grant in jeopardy. He did not identify a grant deadline, requirement or other condition that would cause the borough to lose the funding because of Monday's vote. The borough has already spent more than $60,000 on the project, he added.

Onderko also claimed that defeating the bond ordinance at introduction denied residents an opportunity to comment at a future public hearing. Residents nonetheless spoke about the acquisition later that same night, during the public hearing on Ordinance 2026-1345.

Attorney: Owners Would Fight Over Price

During the public hearing, Borough Attorney Scott Salmon explained that the $1,025,000 figure reflects the borough's appraisal, which it would be required to post with the court when filing a condemnation action. The borough would typically be able to take ownership as soon as the action is filed and the money is posted.

Asked by a resident why the borough was not simply negotiating a price, Salmon said the owners have told the borough they will not challenge its right to take the property.

"The part they would fight us on is the value," he said. The owners believe the land is worth more than the appraisal of just over $1 million.

According to Salmon, the owners are unhappy with the plan because they want to sell the entire property rather than a portion of it, and negotiations over the full site are ongoing.

Under that process, the final price for the land would be set through litigation, and the borough's total cost would not be known until the case is resolved.

What's Next

Asked by a resident during public comment where else the borough's emergency management and public works facilities could go, Onderko said he did not know of other options.

It was not clear Monday what the borough's next steps would be or whether the $5 million grant could be applied to another location.