Sparks flew at the Town Council Conference Session when the much debated traffic light at Central Avenue near Clover Street.

The pedestrian activated light was constructed to help students cross between Jefferson School and the neighborhood on the other side of Central Avenue. The light was constructed away from the corner in accordance with a report that stated, “children are less able to make such judgments, being less attentive to their surroundings. A child’s difficulty at determining a safe time to cross the street is compounded at a corner.” The report went on to state that the section carried between 1,920 and 2,000 vehicles per hour during peak periods.

The light was placed on the front lawn of Central Avenue resident Adina Enclescu, who has been fighting the placement with her neighbor, Maria Carluccio, since September.

The light has caused a lot of chatter within the community, with residents taking issue with both the light’s placement and its ability to create a safer environment for students. The topic was breeched during the open discussion, and was brought up by Francis Terrace resident Peter Laskaris. Laskaris questioned the Council on what type of feedback the light had been receiving.

Mayor Andy Skibitsky adamantly defended the light, stating that the input and response from citizens in the area has been largely positive.

“It’s working well,” he said. “I understand why someone wouldn’t want it to be in their front yard, but we also have to look at the greater good for the community.”

Laskaris also questioned whether a full, regular traffic light would be a better alternative. Town Administrator Jim Gildea clarified that the initial study conducted in 2002 to determine if the area required a light indicated that the section did not meet the state requirements to warrant a traffic light.

“The county recommended the pedestrian-activated light,” Gildea said. “It’s meant to control traffic for pedestrians, not meant to control traffic for traffic purposes. It’s a different situation.”

The battle to move the light off of Enclescu's lawn has become more heated in recent weeks, with Carluccio challenging Skibitsky calling her rude at one meeting and Skibitsky saying that the town had answered all of Carluccio's questions.

The most heated exchanges were between Skibitsky and Councilman David Haas. Haas questioned whether the light was being adequately analyzed to determine its success, and if the location was the most ideal.

“What I go by is what they say here, regardless of whether there’s a light there. It’s safer where it is,” Skibitsky said. “You want to move it to a place that’s less safe? We’re not going to pursue that unless our analysis shows it doesn’t work, and so far I haven’t seen it.”

“No one has suggested it’s not much safer,” Haas said. “I would like to get some questions answered. [Union County officials] made a recommendation based on what Jim said. I want to know if that is the safest location for that crosswalk, and I have been trying to get answers on your advice.”

Haas, along with Councilwoman Vicki Kimmins have asked Skibitsky to invite traffic consultant Gordon Meth to a Council meeting to answer resident questions. Skibitsky has said he will not invite Meth, saying the town cannot afford to pay Meth to attend a meeting. Earlier this month, resident Greg Kasko, who is aligned with Enclescu and Carluccio offered to pay for Meth to attend a meeting. Skibitsky did not answer Kasko's offer.

Haas has also submitted a list of questions to the county's traffic safety consultants and is waiting to hear back.

In reply to Haas, the mayor suggested he look over the county’s report.

“Read the report. If you read it, you don’t like what it says,” he said.

Haas countered that it might be in the town’s best interest to reexamine the findings of the county’s report.

“Believe it or not, sometimes people read things and they get different interpretations out of them,” he snapped. “Sometimes language can be interpreted in different ways.”

In addition to the verbal spats over the light, the council also went over the proposed municipal budget. Gildea outlined the budget in great detail, which should be available online within the week and will be presented to the public at the next Council meeting.

For the second consecutive year, the total salaries and wages for the town decreased by roughly eight and a half percent. Furthermore, this decrease occurred without layoffs. The Council eliminated 10 fulltime positions through retirements and attrition. Also, for the fourth straight year, operating expenses were reduced while still preserving town services, such as leaf collection. Though revenues declined due to property tax appeals, the proposed budget falls within the state mandated two percent cap.

“Reaching this point hasn’t been easy,” Gildea said. “But the difficult decisions we made last year and in prior years have made a big difference this year.”

Skibitsky echoed Gildea’s sentiments, and praised the Council members and employees who contributed to fine tuning the budget.

The budget will be presented via Powerpoint presentation at the Council’s meeting next week. The budget will be available on the town website within the week, and the Powerpoint will be available following the presentation Tuesday. Citizens interested in contacting the Council and finance committee members with questions may email budget@westfieldnj.gov.