Old Bridge Township, New Jersey - May 2, 2005 Minutes

OLD BRIDGE TOWNSHIP COUNCIL

AGENDA MEETING

May 2, 2005

An Agenda Meeting of the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge was held on May 2, 2005 in the Municipal Complex. The meeting was called to order by President Baker who asked all present to participate in a salute to the flag which was followed by a short prayer.

WHEREAS, the Township of Old Bridge requires the services of a professional planning firm for the purpose of providing consultant services to the Township of Old Bridge to reconcile the COAH Staff Report to maintain second round substantive certification; and

WHEREAS, Mark Remsa, P.P., CLA, AICP, ASLA, a licensed New Jersey firm, is recognized as capable and available to undertake such work.

WHEREAS, the Local Public Contracts Law (N.J.S.A. 40A:11.1, et seq.) requires that a Resolution authorizing the award of contracts for “Professional Services” without competitive bids must be publicly advertised; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, State of New Jersey, as follows:

1. Mark A. Remsa, PP, CLA, AICP, ASLA, with principal offices located at 10 Dewberry Court, Mount Laurel, New Jersey 08054 be and hereby is awarded a contract to reconcile the COAH Staff Report to maintain second round substantive certification in an amount not to exceed $5,000.00.

2. The award of the contract is contingent upon the issuance of a Certification of Availability of Funds #1327 certifying the existence of a sufficient appropriation to fund the said contract.

3. The Mayor and Township Clerk are hereby authorized to sign the contract documents necessary to effectuate the award of this contract. The Township Attorney shall review any and all contractual documents prepared in furtherance of this award

A. Formal execution of a contract approved by the Director of Law which is signed by the Mayor and Township Clerk.

C. Compliance by the vendor with signing the mandatory affirmative action language required by law.

D. Compliance by the Vendor with filing of Affirmative Action Form AA302 or AA201, or otherwise complying with affirmative action employee information reporting.

No contract shall be considered awarded unless, and until, the above requirements are executed.

Moved by Councilman Butler, seconded by Councilman Volkert and so ordered on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmen Butler, Calogera, Gillespie, Greene, Maher, Volkert, Councilwoman Panos, President Baker

NAYS: None

AI-2 Award of Professional Service Contract to Mark Remsa for preparation of the Housing Element and Fair Share Plan to satisfy third round obligation in the amount of “Not To Exceed” $17,750.00. (CERT. #1328) (AFFIRM. ACT.)

President Baker opened the public portion. Seeing no hands President Baker closed the public portion.

RESOLUTION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF OLD BRIDGE AUTHORIZING CONTRACT TO MARK REMSA, P.P., CLA, AICP, ASLA FOR PREPARATION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT AND FAIR SHARE PLAN TO SATISFY THIRD ROUND OBLIGATION SUBSTANTIVE CERTIFICATION

WHEREAS, the Township of Old Bridge requires the services of a professional planning firm for the purpose of providing consultant services to the Township of Old Bridge for preparation of the Housing Element and Fair Share Plan to satisfy third round obligation substantive certification; and

WHEREAS, Mark Remsa, P.P.,CLA, AICP, ASLA, a licensed New Jersey firm, is recognized as capable and available to undertake such work.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, State of New Jersey, as follows:

1. Mark Remsa, PP, CLA, AICP, ASLA, with principal offices located at 10 Dewberry Court, Mount Laurel, New Jersey 08054 be and hereby is awarded a contract to prepare the Housing Element and Fair Share Plan to satisfy third round obligation substantive certification in an amount not to exceed $17,750.00.

2. The award of the contract is contingent upon the issuance of a Certification of availability of Funds #1328 certifying the existence of a sufficient appropriation to fund the said contract.

3. The Mayor and Township Clerk are hereby authorized to sign the contract Documents necessary to effectuate the award of this contract. The Township Attorney shall review any and all contractual documents prepared in furtherance of this award.

A. Formal execution of a contract approved by the Director of Law which is signed by the Mayor and Township Clerk.

C. Compliance by the vendor with signing the mandatory affirmative action language required by law.

D. Compliance by the Vendor with filing of Affirmative Action Form AA302 or AA201, or otherwise complying with affirmative action employee information reporting.

No contract shall be considered awarded unless, and until, the above requirements are executed.

Moved by Councilman Butler, seconded by Councilman Volkert, and so ordered on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmen Butler, Calogera, Gillespie, Greene, Maher, Volkert, Councilwoman Panos, President Baker

AI-3 Resolution authorizing the sale of a Plenary Distribution Liquor License.

President Baker opened the public portion. Seeing no hands, President Baker closed the public portion.

GRANTING PERMISSION FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF SEALED BIDS FOR ONE PLENARY RETAIL DISTRIBUTION LICENSE (MINIMUM BID $280,000)

WHEREAS, N.J.S.A. 33:1-12.14 provides that no new Plenary Retail Distribution License shall be issued in a municipality unless and until the number of such licenses existing in the municipality is few than one (1) for each 7,500 of its population as shown on the last preceding Federal Census; and

WHEREAS, the Federal Census figure for the 2000 Census has been certified by the New Jersey Secretary of State Department; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to such certified figures, the population of the Township of Old Bridge is 60,456 persons; and

WHEREAS, as a result of the foregoing, there exists in the Township of Old Bridge the authority to issue three (3) new Plenary Retail Distribution Licenses for the sale of alcoholic beverages; and

WHEREAS, the Township Council has sold at previous sales two (2) of the new Plenary Retail Distribution Licenses for the sale of alcoholic beverages; and

WHEREAS, the Township Council has determined to sell, at public sale, the remaining one (1) new Plenary Retail Distribution License; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 33:1-19.3, it is the desire of the Township of Old Bridge, Middlesex County, to accept sealed bids for said new license as required by law subject to the terms and conditions herein specified.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, State of New Jersey, as follows:

1. The Township of Old Bridge hereby determines that it will sell at public sale one (1) new Plenary Retail Distribution License by public sale to the highest qualified bidder and invites bids therefore;

2. The Township Clerk shall publish a notice of the proposed issuance of the alcoholic beverage license. The notice shall provide the following:

a. The Township, by Resolution, has determined to consider the issuance of one (1) new Plenary Retail Distribution License by public sale to the highest qualified bidder and invites bids therefore;

b. The Notice shall be published in the Home News Tribune not less than two (2) times, which publications shall not be less than one (1) week apart. The second or last notice shall be published at least thirty (30) days before the date established to open all bids from qualified bidders. The minimum time period that must be allowed for bidders to apply for licenses is twenty-five (25) days after the second publication.

c. All prospective bidders for the license shall apply by submitting to the Clerk of the Township of Old Bridge, in full and complete form, the eleven (11) page application form; a separately sealed envelope with the applicant's bid and bid deposit fee; and a separate Certification of Proof of Compliance by the applicant that it meets any and all special conditions or requirements contained in the Notice and knows of no reason why he or she would be disqualified from having an interest in a Retail License in New Jersey; and are required to be fingerprinted and photographed by the Old Bridge Police Department.

d. The Notice will advise that all bids will be sealed and that the minimum bid for the new license shall be $280,000.00 along with any terms and conditions related to the bid process, such as deposits, returns, forfeitures, etc.

e. The Notice shall state the Township reserves the right to reject all bids if the highest bid is not accepted. A sale may be postponed or canceled at any time prior to opening of the bids;

f. The Notice shall specify the time, place and last date that applications and bids will be accepted. Also indicated therein will be the requirement that the Clerk of the Governing Body shall publicly announce those applicants who presumptively meet the qualifications for bidding as fixed by laws, rules and regulations and the enabling Resolution and Notice. This public announcement must occur not less than five (5) days prior to the date of opening the sealed bids;

g. The time, place and date that the sealed bids will be opened must also be specified in the Notice, which must be no sooner than five (5) days after the public announcement of all presumptively qualified bidders. No bids will be opened from or on behalf of any bidder who does not qualify or has not submitted proof of qualification (full and complete eleven (11) page ABC application form and Certification of Proof of Compliance);

h. At the designated time, place and date, the sealed bids will be opened and all bid amounts and the highest bid amount will be declared. If the issuing authority determines to reject all bids they shall do so by formal Resolution. If they determine to accept the highest qualified bid, that also shall be done by Resolution under the conditions that the ultimate issuance of the license will be subject to payment of the balance of the bid price; payment of the State $200.00 application fee and Annual Municipal Retail Distribution License Fee and satisfactory outcome of further municipal background checks to investigate the source of funds used to purchase the license and the receipt of favorable State and/or Federal criminal background checks; and the compliance with the publication, hearing and Resolution requirement under N.J.A.C. 33:2-1. et seq.

3. The minimum bid price for the Plenary Retail Distribution License shall be $280,000.00

4. Thursday, June 30, 2005 at 12:00 Noon at the Office of the Township Clerk, One Old Bridge Plaza, Old Bridge, New Jersey is hereby fixed as the last date and time that applications and bids will be accepted.

5. Thursday, September 30, 2005 at 12:00 Noon at the Office of the Township Clerk, One Old Bridge Plaza, Old Bridge, New Jersey is hereby fixed as the date, time and location for a public announcement of all presumptively qualified bidders;

6. Thursday, October 6, 2005 at 11:00 a.m. at the Municipal Building, One Old Bridge Plaza, Old Bridge, New Jersey is hereby fixed as the date, time and location when sealed bids will be opened and all bid amounts and the highest bid amount will be declared. A Resolution accepting the highest bid or rejecting all bids as the case may be, shall be adopted at a subsequent Township of Old Bridge Council meeting;

7. $20,000 bid deposit shall accompany the sealed bid. The deposit shall be by certified check. The deposit shall be refundable to the bidder if no subsequent bid is authorized or the bid submitted is not accepted as the highest qualified bid.

8. All bidders must comply with the regulations of the New Jersey Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control and Ordinances of the Township of Old Bridge concerning where the license will be sited. Bidders are advised that Old Bridge Township ordinances contain limitations on locating a liquor store in certain districts. Township ordinances also prohibit liquor establishments in the proximity of schools and places of religious worship. (See Ordinance 6-3.5(d), Limitations on Transfers and Issuance of New Licenses.

No new licenses or transfers of existing licenses shall hereafter be issued or transferred to premises within seven hundred fifty (750) feet of a private or public school, church, synagogue or place of worship. (Added 2-2-81 by Ord. N. 3-81)

9. The Township reserves the right to reject any and all bids where the highest bid is not accepted.

10. In addition to the foregoing advertisement in compliance with regulations, the Township Clerk shall cause the following advertisement to be posted in the business opportunity section of (1) the Home News Tribune; (2) the Star Ledger for a five (5) day period which shall include one Sunday; (3) the monthly magazine of New Jersey Beverage Journal and New York Beverage Media.

Old Bridge Township will offer a Liquor License for sale to the highest bidder on Thursday, October 6, 2005. This license is for the establishment of a new store to sell alcoholic beverages in original containers (package store) and not for consumption at the licensed premises (other than wine tasting). Interested persons should contact Rose-Marie Saracino, Township Clerk of the Township of Old Bridge for details at:

11. In order to be considered qualified, a bidder must be 18 years of age or older and not have been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude.

12. Within two (2) business days following the acceptance of the high bid, the successful bidder shall post the difference between the $20,000 deposit and 10% (ten percent) of the amount accepted as the highest bid. The balance of the amount of the bid shall be paid no more than thirty (30) days following acceptance.

13. Successful bidders are entitled to acquire, own and put in use a liquor distribution store. The successful bidder must present an application to the Township Council to site the license before putting same in use.

A. In the event the license to be sited on an existing structure, the successful bidder shall put the liquor license into active use within six (6) months following acceptance of the bid. In the event the successful bidder proposes to construct or substantially renovate a building to house the liquor distribution operation, the following deadlines shall apply:

1. The bidder shall submit a complete application for Planning Board or Board of Adjustment approval (if required) within six (6) months following acceptance of the bid.

2. Any required building permits shall be obtained within one (1) year following acceptance of the bid.

3. Construction of any new building or renovation shall be completed within eighteen (18) months following acceptance.

1. The successful bidder fails to post the additional deposit after his or her bid is accepted.

2. The successful bidder fails to substantially comply with the requirement to submit planning or zoning applications, apply for building permits or fails to construct and complete any required building.

No forfeiture shall occur unless the successful bidder is given a notice and opportunity to be heard before the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge. The Township Council may relax forfeiture provisions upon good cause shown.

Moved by Councilman Butler, seconded by Councilman Volkert, and so ordered on the following roll call vote:

Councilman Greene: Just because the population has increased and we're entitled to give out another license, I think that in all due respect I think that we should take a survey and find out if, in fact, it's the right thing to do for those business owners who are out there. I just think this is all about getting one shot revenue to throw into the budget and for that reason I'm not going to support it.

Councilwoman Panos: My objection, of course, started off with there's no need to have an action item this evening unless there are time restrictions involved. There are no time restrictions involved in this license because there's no emergency or demand for it. I second Mr. Greene's concerns. So I would ask that the Council don't rush into this.

AI-4 Resolution authorizing permission for the Mayor and Clerk to execute the 2005 Cooperation Agreements for The Home Consortium

President Baker opened the public portion. Seeing no hands President Baker closed the public portion.

Councilwoman Panos: This is once again something that has no time emergency things attached to it. This is due by June. There's no reason to rush things through at an
Agenda Meeting. At a public meeting when it's on TV is when most of our actions should be done so it's open to the public via TV. So I will be voting no for this.

Councilman Calogera: I'd like to ask a question as to what the Home Consortium does.

President Baker: We're going to have to get back to you because Rose-Marie is not here.

President Baker: Yes, it's defined in your packet but we can have the attorney respond to it if you like.

Attorney Convery: There are federal funds that are available and they're eligible to urban counties under Title 2 of the National Affordable Housing Act. The county and
cooperating units meaning local government cooperating to undertake housing assistance activities for the home program. So it appears to be a HUD related assistance program
called the home program. I think Rose-Marie put it on for this reason. All the paperwork has to be in executed by the participating municipalities in the county by June 15, 2005. That means signed agreements to HUD. The county requested that resolution be adopted, the Mayor and Clerk sign by May 25, 2005. So I believe that's why Rose-Marie put this on.

Councilman Calogera: My question really is still what does it do? Does anybody have a clue?

Attorney Convery: I'm not personally familiar with the Home Program but it appears to be assistance to people regarding houses.

Councilman Greene: I seem to get a sense that this certainly is a good program and there's a need. Can we get some kind of an overview or explanation at our next meeting so that we're just a little familiar with it? I'm going to support it.

Attorney Convery: Late this afternoon we got a copy of this cooperation agreement from the representative from the county. So it's now available. It came in late this afternoon. I think it was around 4 o'clock. So it can be provided to you, I would imagine tomorrow.

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND TOWNSHIP CLERK TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH MIDDLESEX COUNTY FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONSORTIUM TO CONDUCT THE HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

RESOLUTION #171

WHEREAS, the Township of Old Bridge wishes to enter into an agreement with Middlesex County for the establishment of a Consortium to conduct the Home Investment
Partnership Program; and

WHEREAS, this act establishes certain criteria which must be met in order for the Township of Old Bridge to join the Urban County Community Development Block Grant municipalities in participating in the Home Investment Partnership Program; and

WHEREAS, it has been determined that the Township of Old Bridge has met the eligibility criteria; and

WHEREAS, The Interlocal Services Act (N.J.S.A. 40:8A-1 et seq.) provides a mechanism through which the County and a municipality may enter into agreements for the provision of joint services.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, State of New Jersey as follows:

1. The Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute the Agreement with Middlesex County for the establishment of a Consortium to conduct the Home Investment Partnership Program.

2. The Township Attorney shall review any and all documents prepared in furtherance of the agreement with Middlesex County.

Moved by Councilman Butler, seconded by Councilman Volkert, and so ordered on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmen Butler, Calogera, Gillespie, Greene, Maher, Volkert, President Baker

President Baker: I agree with Councilwoman Panos's concerns about action items at Agenda Meetings. We have talked about this. I'd like the administration to look into and be more aggressive to avoid such items. I'm as flexible as the next person but I'd like to not have action items on an Agenda Meeting if at all possible. I'll try to do a better job at keeping them off as well but I'm told that these four were necessary. I want to thank the Council for their patience and their cooperation in passing them.

C-1 Block Party – Cindy Street (Hastings Road & Calvin Ct.) Sunday, July 31, 2005 10 A.M. - 10:00 P.M.

C-2 Block Party – Heather Drive – Saturday, July 23, 2005 10:00 A.M. – 10:00 P.M. (Rain date – Sunday, July 24, 2005)

C-3 Block Party – Exeter Street – Saturday, August 6, 2005 Noon – 10:00 P.M. (Rain date – Saturday, August 13, 2005)

C-4 Permission for St. Ambrose Church to hold its Annual Carnival on June 21 through June 25, 2005

C-5 Permission for St. Ambrose Church to have GPU Banners hung on Pole #'s JC 1685 and BT 3786 – Route 516 & Cottrell Road for the annual carnival. (Banner displays approx. from 6/5/05 – 7/1/05)

C-6 Waiver of permit fees from Code Enforcement in the amount of $ for St. Ambrose Carnival.

C-8 Resolution authorizing the assignment of claim against Southern American Insurance Company in Liquidation.

C-9 Resolution authorizing contract with Andre's Plumbing and Heating in the Amount of $1,730.00 at the Laurence Harbor Senior Center Nunc Pro tunc (CERT. #1333) (AFFIRM. ACT.)

C-10 Resolution authorizing execution of amendment to the agreement between Old Bridge Township and Middlesex County in regards to the operation of the Commuter shuttle bus program to increase the amount to Old Bridge in 2005 From $45,000.00 to $47,205.00.

C-11 Interlocal Service Agreement between Old Bridge Township and Middlesex County Improvement Authority for the provision of Yard Waste Recycling and Marketing Services.

C-12 Resolution for acceptance of Middlesex County Grant No. SHTP-2405, Appropriation Code 12-602 funding source SHTP – Contract period 1/1/05 – 12/31/05. Middlesex County Office on Aging Contract ceiling amount of $8,025.00 of which $7,000.00 is federal funds, $1,000.00 Township funds in its SFY 05 Budget and $25.00 anticipated project income.

C-13 Resolution for acceptance of Middlesex County Grant No. OAA02410 – Information & Assistance Physical Health, Appropriation Code 12-610 Funding Source OAA, Contract period 1/1/05 – 12/31/05 Middlesex County Office on Aging contract ceiling amount $11,885.00 of which $7,000.00 are federal funds, $4,874.00 Township funds from SFY 05 Budget and $10.00 anticipated income.

C-15 Resolution approving payment of $21,332.97 $21,332.97 to Jet-Vac, Inc. for parts needed to repair the Jet Vac. (CERT. #1323) (AFFIRM. ACT.)

Councilwoman Panos: It's $21,000.00 for Jet-Vac carts. How much does a new machine cost?

Mayor Phillips: Councilwoman, for further clarification, the reason this is on here as such is because normally speaking the bidding limitations would have required this to go out to bid. This was a repair that was done in-house. As the machine was taken apart, parts were ordered, new parts were found to be defective so the repairs just kept on going. It wasn't that this was sent out to Jet Vac, this is repairs that were done in-house. But inadvertently, exceeded bidding limits. So because of that we have come up with a new procedure that should some department inadvertently or whatever, exceed their requirements of bidding, that we will bring it before the Council for their attention. In this particular case, it is understandable but it is beyond the scope of the purchase order that went out for more than $16,500.00. It should have gone out to bid for proposals or a whole different procedure. This was just done because we did the work in-house.

Councilwoman Panos: I can understand that. I just thought that that was a lot regardless and maybe we would be better off getting a new machine. But not at over $200,000.00.

Mayor Phillips: This was an item that Mr. Donatelli did put in for as a new item but was taken out of at the Capital Review Meeting.

C-41 Resolution awarding Contract #2005-02 Curb Replacement to Z Brothers Concrete Contractors, Inc. in the amount of $848,140.20. (CERT. #1337) (AFFIRM. ACT.)

C-42 Resolution awarding Contract #2005-03 Road Resurfacing to Defino Contracting Company in the amount of $653,600.00. (CERT. #1336) (AFFIRM. ACT.)

Councilwoman Panos: C-41 and C-42, why are we going with the second lowest bidder that's a question I think on the curbing replacement. It's costing us about $75,000
more and the repaving $25,000.

Mayor Phillips: Councilwoman, sometimes I say facetiously, boy am I glad you asked that question. But this is a time I'm glad you asked that question. This is something we at the administration have struggled with that we wanted to bring before the Council for your input. It appears that in trying to follow the law, and I will have that explained to you by the Counselor, we have to, as the way we understand the law, award the bid to the one who is the least cost but who fulfilled every specification of the bid. Now, the Counselor is prepared to give you his input on it. Mike Jacobs is prepared to give you his input on it. Believe me, we did not do this lightly by awarding this to the second lowest bidder, it's only because of some very real constraints that we have trying to follow the laws of purchasing. At some point in time Mike, I know you wanted to speak on this. I know Jerry wanted to speak on this.

Attorney Convery: The State Law N.J.S.40A11-23.2 talks in terms of mandatory requirements for bids. Item F is a copy of the contractors and sub-contractors' list in pursuant to subsection- D, business registration as required by the law. So this is a business registration certificate. It turns out in both cases the lowest bidder which would save us money and we would like to award the bid to failed to put the business registration certificate in with the bid and it was an absolute requirement. Now, when I first heard this, I must admit, I said, well, we could cure that let's just get their business registration certificate. Well, Natasha, when she was here, called the State, Joe Valente, who is the source for purchasing issues at the State level said you can't cure it. So I went back and I looked at the State law and it specifically says the failure to submit any one of the mandatory items shall be deemed a fatal defect which shall render the bid proposal unresponsive and that cannot be cured by the governing body. So, under State Law even if you wanted to save the $75,000 or $76,000 which I would like to do, the governing body cannot overrule a State Statute. I've heard that there is some discussion about changing this Statute but that's not what's in place today. So very reluctantly, my legal advice to you is you must reject those lowest bids which did not have the business registration certificate in the packet. I frankly anticipate that there is going to be litigation on this. I would love to see the town save the $75,000 or $76,000 on the one contract and on the other I think there is another $30,000. But that's it in a nutshell.

Councilwoman Panos: I understand some of this but the other part is do they actually have this form on file.

Attorney Convery: That's another good point and I agree with that too. It turns out that I think within the building they each had the certificate on file. It this were a simple purchase order matter, we would be able to award a contract to them because it's a purchase order but because it's a bid packet and because the document has to be in a sealed bid packet, it cannot be waived and it cannot be cured. I hope the State changes that law but that's the way it is today.

Councilwoman Panos: We're probably going to wind up in litigation, I heard that also. This applicant, the low bidder, can actually sue. There's actually an injunction on this. Is that a possibility?

Attorney Convery: I can't totally predict what any litigant will ask for but I do think that there is going to be litigation and that if we award it to the second lowest bidder, the lowest bidder who didn't meet the bid requirements will sue. If we were to award it to the first lowest bidder trying to waive it, the second would sue. So I think we're going to wind up in court and it's going to be up to a judge to look at the State law and make a decision.

Councilwoman Panos: So as you interpret it , the man down at the State, we're best off passing this and just taking the odds that…

Attorney Convery: He basically said we can't waive it, we can't cure it, we cannot award the bid to the lowest bidder.

Mayor Phillips: Councilwoman, this puts us in a very difficult position. It would be against the law as our Counselor understands it, as I understand it, to award this contract to the lowest bidder because they did not fulfill the terms of the bid. It would be a great pleasure for me to go to court on this and have a judge say it's okay that that document wasn't in the packet and award it to the lowest bidder. I assure I would not appeal but in context to this, Councilwoman and in context of the complete investigation that we are subjected to, to do anything but to the letter of the law I would suggest it would invite us to even more exposure. You might want to say, the cheaper of the options would be to violate the law but doing so I can assure you the number two person, in this case Z would be quick to go to court and say well it wasn't fair because they didn't meet the requirements of the bid. There is a third alternative and the third alternative is to throw all the bids out, except what would be your reason. If the second bid were above our estimates then we could throw it out and say it's above our estimates. But there is no justifiable reason that we can find to throw the second lowest bidder out other than the fact that we think there could be someone else who could come in with a better price if we bid it again but that would be no guarantee. So, that was the reason why I started this conversation with I'm glad you asked this question because we at the administration level, our people that analyzed it, we decided that the best way to do this would be to award it to the most responsible lowest bidder. If there is someone who has bid this job who feels that they have been unjustly treated, this is not a bid that we will be awarding tomorrow. It gives everyone plenty of time to go to New Brunswick and file their objections. This is a relatively new law as it is written to be registered as a business. It could be said that the people who did this simply overlooked it although I suggest that we are not the first town to fall into this new obligation. The interesting question that has been raised by us, it says you have to have it on file or it has to be part of the packet, some of these people have bid before and included this item in their packet. Is some of it on file, yes but our decision or our recommendation tonight is based on our collective interrogation of the State system, of the laws and of the bid. We're suggesting as a place to start because I don't want to curtail the paving program any longer is to award it to the lowest most responsible bidder and if that happens and someone objects to it, then the judge in New Brunswick can overrule your decision.

C-26 Resolution awarding contract to Bert T. Lundberg, Esq. for legal representation of the Rent Stabilization Board in the amount of $6,750.00 (CERT. #1326) (AFFIRM. ACT.)

C-40 Professional Service Contract for James Cooney, Esq., to represent the Ethics Board in the amount of “Not to Exceed” $6,000.00 (CERT. #1331) (AFFIRM. ACT.)

Councilman Greene: This is for the Township Attorney, C-26 and C-40. Maybe you can give me a quick indication what those lawsuits are.

Attorney Convery: C-26, actually that's not specifically a lawsuit. What it is the Rent Stabilization Board has it's own attorney and it is Bert Lundberg and I know he's had the job for a few years. Here's what I think happened. The Board never really contacted my office or the Clerk's office to say we need a contract awarded to Bert Lundberg for legal representation so this is simply awarding him a contract for legal representation for the Rent Stabilization Board for 2005. The same with Mr. Cooney. Mr. Cooney is actively working on behalf of the Township and he has previously regarding the Ethics Board and he's an independent Council. He is not controlled by me or anybody in the administration or the Township Council and his existing contract from 2001 is the same contract I would be putting before you on the 9th which would give him a contract not to exceed $6000.00 if he gets an exceptional amount of work he'd have to come back and bill for it.

C-14 Resolution awarding contract to Trenton EZ Quick for 2005/2006 Food Concession Contract for the Ice Arena and Geick Park.

Councilman Calogera: It was my understanding when we gave this out the first time it was because of time constraints and that it wasn't put out to bid. We're just awarding this again to the same person without going out to bid or what's the situation with it?

Mr. Shah: We went out for bid twice. We didn't get any bid and then we were able to negotiate with Trenton EZ Quick for the contract and this is I believe the second year of that contract. We'll have to go out for bid again. There's a number of years you can award the contract under the same agreement that was originally bid for. But we did go out for bid. We went out for bid twice and once the law allows us to negotiate after the second bid there were no bidders.

Mr. Shah: The original bidders had a three year term. So this is the last year of that three year term of the contract. I'm sorry, two years and this the second year of that contract.

Attorney Convery: After three years it will go out to bid. He has basically a three year contract that is renewed each year. When the recreation department and he looked at what hours would be reasonable, we renegotiated it so to speak.

Councilman Calogera: We also added on Geick Park that was not on the original bid.

Councilman Calogera: So we have another year of contract. It's going to be a three year or two year?

Mr. Shah: We have one more year before renewal and then we'll have to go out for bid.

C-37 Resolution awarding Bid#2005-15 for Janitorial Services to F.S. Partners, LLC in the amount of “Not to Exceed” $59,019.46 for building cleaning services and an amount of “Not to Exceed” $10,872.00 for other cleaning services up to four (4) times a year. (CERT. #1330) (AFFIRM. ACT.)

Councilman Calogera: On the Janitorial Bid, do we presently do this now? We've had our own in-house on doing this. What's the scope of this? Is it a different type of a
maintenance that seems to be periodical?

Administrator Jacobs: This contract will ensure that all parts of the building will receive Janitorial services. It's the office on aging, rec center, this building and the health building. It's to increase the level of services that we have now.

Councilman Calogera: It's not something that we've had. This is supplementing what we're doing now. Can you give me a better explanation evidently you must feel it's
necessary.

Mayor Phillips: And we're not happy with it. What we're feeling here is that we're going to try this out and that if it works you'll probably see a necessary level of attrition be represented in the maintenance people. I do not anticipate any lay-offs. I have promised the union representative that I have spoken with that this will not result in lay-offs. But I do feel that if this works, that through attrition we will not be filling positions to do this job. We are simply not happy with the level of performance.

Councilman Calogera: Mayor, thank you, I appreciate the candidness. I support his rules. It's straight forward and I think it's something we need to do at times.

Mayor Phillips: There is one other thing I hesitate to add, one of the reasons why we're not happy with the level of performance is and this is the other side of the argument and each argument has two sides is that over the years there has been a reduction of force in the road department and because of that reduction of force, if they had the opportunity to put people in charge of building maintenance or out plowing snow or raking leaves or cutting grass they've put them out filling potholes, etc. so this has been the part that if we get around to it we do it. It has been minimally staffed. Because of that minimal staff, I think the condition of our facility show it.

Councilman Calogera: Have you tossed the idea of running our own full staff of maintenance versus doing it on the outside. You feel it's better to do it on the outside.

Mayor Phillips: Obviously you can't be serious. The cost of benefits alone to put an employee on the payroll is close to $25,000.00.

Councilman Calogera: The only thing I'm going to bring up and it's a concern I have because the school does it is there seems to be some inherent problems with outside contractors with regard to some of the work force that they use and I don't know if we need to ask…

Mayor Phillips: If it allays your fears any, we've spoken to the Chief about this. We know the sensitive areas of our building and those areas will still be conducted by people who have been screened by us.

Councilman Calogera: The employees of any such company would be American citizens or persons that are here legally with background checks. I'm sorry to do that but I see some inherent problems that we have.

Administrator Jacobs: It's in the bid. They have to have background checks done by our Police Dept. to our satisfaction and they are bonded.

Councilman Calogera: I'm sure, Chief, any sensitive areas, those people areas are going to be treated differently or possibly, take whatever steps you need.

Councilwoman Panos: Just from being at last week's zoning board meeting is this a union cleaning service?

Councilman Volkert: This is in reference to C-37 also. Under the other cleaning services up to four times a year, what is that?

Councilman Volkert: The reason I'm asking is the Laurence Harbor Senior Center, they don't seem to get any maintenance done down there.

Councilman Volkert: They went down there once. It should be at least every three, or four months.

President Baker: Is anyone here concerning the Performance Guarantee for the Lutheran Church. No one is here.

President Baker opened the public portion. Seeing no hands, President Baker closed the public portion.

by Councilman Gillespie to deny Release/Reduction Performance Guarantee of Lutheran Church of the Good Shepherd, seconded by Councilman Maher and so ordered on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmen Butler, Greene, Maher, Gillespie, Councilwoman Panos, President Baker

President Baker: We are going to deny this based on the recommendation of the engineer.

President Baker: It's very clear that the engineer that did the inspection does not want it passed.

Attorney Convery: Mr. Baker, I'll prepare a resolution denying the meeting on the 9th.

C-24 Authorizing the purchase of Verizon Wireless Telephone Service for a maximum Amount of $48,000.00. (CERT. #1334) (AFFIRM. ACT.)

Administrator Jacobs: It's to replace all the current Township cell phones that we have. Two issues, one is the cost and the other is public safety. After Mr. Shah is done we'll let the Chief say a few words too as to why we're selecting Verizon.

Mr. Shah: There are approximately 78 phones. The major number is in the Police Department. I don't have the exact count. All the department heads, the Administrator. There are a number of employees that do emergency response. For example in Code Enforcement, Public Works, they also have cell phones that are authorized by the department heads and approved by the Administrator.

Councilman Maher: So this $48,000.00 is for the yearly service. Is this maintenance?

Councilman Maher: With respect to this, our annual usage will not exceed $48,000.00.

Mr. Shah: The $48,000.00 is maximum. We hope to be a lot less than that but we're authorizing under the State Contract for $48,000.00. If we exceed this amount we have to come back for your approval.

Mr. Shah: If we have a usage higher than the minutes allocated under the contract that we would have more than $48,000.00 cost, it's possible but you're authorizing us $48,000.00 so if we have to pay more than $48,000.00 we will come back to you for approval for additional authorization. I have estimated the $48,000.00 to be max. I have been keeping a very level of control on the usage of the phone service.

Councilman Maher: Is that based on historical data, last year's historical data?

Councilwoman Panos: What is somebody goes over their minutes, individually. Is it a whole contract for $48,000.00?

M. Jacobs: The minutes are pooled; it doesn't matter about the individual phone. We do monitor individual employee usage.

Councilman Calogera: Do we self insure for maintenance, and loss of these? Is there anything included in after that? How does that work?

Mr. Shah: One of the reasons we have gone to the State contract is there are conditions in the State contract although they're not current but the next book that the State is putting out, a lot of these insurance policies are included in the contract. The first one or two phone loss they would replace it at no cost. We could have lowered the cost and gone out of the State contract but we recommended against going out of State contract to lower the cost because there is other protection.

Councilman Calogera: You still lost me because I don't think you gave me an answer.

Vice-president Gillespie: What he's saying is that because we're part of the State contract that we get additional protections because we're in a pooled buying. Maybe the price is a little higher but that we have some sort of the protections that you suggested because we're going under the State contracting method and the State contract as a requirement of the bid required that we include all these things.

Councilman Calogera: I understood him to say that in the next contract they're going to include that and I wasn't sure that type of insurance was included now.

Mr. Shah: The town services in terms of the warranty is included in that. The only thing not included in the current contract that's in the next proposal that I've seen is
if an employee loses the phone. Right now we require an employee to sign off that if he loses it they are responsible for paying for that.

Mayor Phillips: It's my understanding and someone jump in and correct me if I'm wrong, Verizon is not the cheapest. We could have stayed with Team Mobile or other places that are cheaper but consistently and I guess being Mayor I've never felt the responsibility the way I've felt before but Police Dept. has always been objectionable to what they had now. The only phone that consistently works for them in all areas of the town is this one. But normally speaking and with all due respect to the Chief, I hear a lot of complaints about a lot of things and that doesn't ring true to me. The ones that rang true to me were the preschool and after school program. No matter what system we had except for this one. This is the only phone system that we could come up with which was consistently tested by both parties that could get contact almost all the time. Old Bridge being Old Bridge you're still going to find some times when you can't get it. This is not a commercial for Verizon but it just happens to be true. Verizon is the only one that consistently produces the ability to communicate when you need it. I think the Chief will vouch for that and I know that Mike will vouch for that for the preschool and after school programs.

Councilman Calogera: I just switched to Verizon a week ago, I've been through three or four other carriers and I find that to be true.

C-31 Chapter 159 in the amount of $518,000.00 for the Ticetown Soccer Field Lighting Grant

Vice-president Gillespie: Anymore questions on the Consent Agenda or Verizon? There's one issue I wanted to raise, actually more of a congratulation about the C-31, the Chapter 159 Grant for Ticetown Soccer Field Lighting Grant, I know in speaking to some of the parents of the children who do play there, they're very excited about it and I think it's a good example of how all of us working together can try to get some things done for the benefit of the community. Unless there's anyone else who has any other issues to raise we have a public portion and an executive session for two issues.

C-16 Resolution authorizing payment of $855.66 to Werner Dodge for various auto Parts. (CERT. #1324) (AFFIRM. ACT.)

C-17 Resolution to cancel taxes for a 100% Disabled Veteran Block 26026 Lot 23- Eugene Ryan, 218 Austin Avenue in the amount of $5,162.93

C-18 Professional Services Contract to CME Associates for the Pension Road Irrigation Project in the amount of $8,200.00 for the preparation of bid documents and coordination of bid services for this project.(CERT. #1335) (AFFIRM. ACT.)

C-19 Resolution of approval for Thomas Norman, Esq., to appointment of Special Counsel in representation of the Old Bridge Planning Board vs. Brunetti.

C-20 Request to increase the original purchase order currently set up for Thomas Norman, Esq., representing the Old Bridge Planning Board vs. Brunetti in the amount of “Not To Exceed” $20,000.00 without additional authorization from the Township Council. (CERT. #1307) (AFFIRM. ACT.)

C-21 Resolution to award professional services contract to Kelter & Gilligo consulting Engineers to study the HVAC Systems at the Municipal Complex in the amount of $20,000.00 (CERT. #1329) (AFFIRM. ACT.)

C-22 Resolution to cancel revenue in the amount of $80.00 and appropriation balance in the amount of $91.00 for a total of $171.00 for the Safe Housing Grant.

C-23 Return of unexpended Grant Funds from the Hick's Auto Body Site Investigation to the N.J. Economic Development Authority Hazardous Discharge Site Remediation Fund. (The Grant was issued with the understanding that all proceeds were to be used for the purpose of the site investigation. Grant amount was $70,949.00 – Site Investigation Project Cost was $67,575.00 – Balance of $3,377.00 to be refunded to the NJEDA

C-25 Award of Contract #2005-13 for Improvements to Madison Park Field House to Champion Contracting Corporation in the amount of $42,172.00 (CERT. #1332) (AFFIRM. ACT.)

C-27 Resolution to cancel Capital Ordinance Balances in the amount of $588,230.93

C-28 Resolution to authorize Budget Transfers in the amount of $932,778.00 to be made between the Current SFY 2005 Budget and $22,000.00 between the Arena Utility Account and $3,000.00 between the Parking Utility Account permitted during the last two months of the fiscal year

C-29 Resolution constituting an agreement with State Contract Vendors: Software House International: Moore Wallace of North American; All State International and Abco Printing

C-30 Resolution requesting permission for a Dedication by Rider for donations regarding Horsemanship Camp.

C-34 Resolution authorizing subordination of CDBG Mortgage for Alanna Lucado-Spence

C-35 Resolution authorizing lease of Cedar Ridge II Property for farming and Conservation purposes

C-36 Resolution concerning Domestic Partner Health Benefits provided by a Non-SHBP Employee

C-38 Adoption of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) CDBG 2005 Annual Action Plan for the Township of Old Bridge

C-39 Adoption of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) CDBG 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan for the Township of Old Bridge

Councilman Testino: We're waiting for the Chief and Engineering Dept. Mr. Pinder has a meeting. I think they're going to schedule a meeting and then they'll be able to report intelligently on it. We'll probably do it at a publicly televised meeting so that Mr. Mancini can get the benefit of that discussion. Is that right? Did you have the meeting or is it scheduled?

Pinder Sumal: I was trying to get them to come to our office. I spoke to the Mayor and maybe we can meet them at lunchtime and all the Council people are welcome to attend that meeting.

Mayor Phillips: What Pinder related to you is also Route 35. I don't know if any of you have driven down that area. DOT had a public hearing last year, they were going to put in a turning lane and a turning radius. The trees have been chopped down and there are houses being built. Somebody didn't get a memo somewhere.

C-33 Resolution to award professional services contract to CME Associates for Engineering of Field Lighting at the Ticetown Road Soccer Complex in the amount of $33,800.00. (CERT. #1338) (AFFIRM. ACT.)

Councilman Calogera: I know they're going to be doing lighting and I know lighting is not a totally easy thing but almost $34,000.00 just to lay out a lighting plan. Is that what it is? Do we have a rough idea about how many lights we're talking about? I just want to get an idea how come we're spending almost $34,000.00 to CME to lay out a lighting plan. It seems a little extensive.

Mayor Phillips: The grant for this was prepared by Tom Badcock in conjunction with leaders of the girls' soccer league and the boys' soccer league. The entire amount of
the grant which this money will be paid from was $518,000.00. Council President Baker was at the last Freeholders' Meeting and was presented with the check for the people of Old Bridge. The actual cash in hand will be here before next Monday. I guess that's the reason why both of these are on the agenda at the same time. One is to accept the money and the other is the authorization to spend it. As you know you had prepared or allowed for in this Capital Budget a plan to irrigate the fields so this will allow for the irrigation which Joe has already planned out to be done and was planned to be done between the spring and fall season. So that if everything goes right, when the soccer leagues begin to play again in late August or early September the fields will be irrigated and the lights will be on. That's the reason why we're trying to move this along as quickly as we can. There's one down season, you only get a chance to be seven years old once, you might as well let the children have the opportunity.

Councilman Calogera: So CME is being cooperative in helping us with our aspects.

Mayor Phillips: CME was instrumental in helping us prepare for the grant. As Joe could tell you if he had more time, the lighting is the easy part. Anyone knows if you want the best lighting you go to Musko, they'll do it for you and they'll lay it out. It's the engineering of what is the materials you're going to need, where will you run the wires, how deep will they be, what is the soil content and what has to be the proper protective covering for that. The wiring, the irrigation and the lighting, there's a lot of technical things that go into it that. CME has the expertise and my biggest question to Joe and Tom Badcock, when they prepare the grant is make sure the grant is sufficient to cover not only the cost of the lighting but also the cost of the electricians bringing in the service. We could very much be delayed because JCP&L just went through a very extensive strike. They have to bring the service into us. We anticipated that we would be able to get this grant. We weren't sure of it. We were able to get it. Now our dream here is to get it up and running before the fall soccer season.

President Baker: Kevin, thank you for the question. The number figure does jump out at you but the explanation makes me feel better.

Councilwoman Panos: I am just assuming that all this grant was done by the grant writer. You just said Tom Badcock…

Mayor Phillips: The grant writer that was here is wonderful, don't get me wrong, but when it comes to any particular project whether it's going to be a grant for the police dept. or whether it's going to be a grant for the rec department, whether it's going to be a grant for any other departments you have, they always work in consultation with the department head to make they're writing the grant for any materials that the department head wants.

President Baker: Our grant writer presently is ill for some time. We wish her well.

D-2 Remediation of Coffman Tree Service Property cost to township departments and Volunteer organizations due to recent fire. Overview by State and County Agencies involved in monitoring operations of facility

Councilman Greene: Mr. Baker, if you wouldn't mind, there are questions which I would like answered that have to do with the county and possibly the state so I thought perhaps that I could discuss that with the business administrator or someone in the administration so that maybe we can talk about this at our next meeting. I don't want to talk about it and be left with a lot of questions.

President Baker: Why don't you fire away question one and maybe we can take care of it.

Councilman Greene: Well, first of all the reason I put this on the agenda was not necessarily for what happened just recently but because I've gotten a number of inquiries from the residents in the area and I know I have spoken to Councilwoman Panos and the questions really center around what's going on at that location. I do want to say that I want to congratulate specifically the police officers, all the volunteer fire fighters, and EMS and any other volunteer township personnel who were there recently for that fire. My questions center around this, there have been problems at that location. There have been fines. I'm not sure whether the fines are particular to the county or whether they're also state fines. That's one of my questions. I'd like to know what fines were levied on that facility since it became a recycling plant several years ago. I'd like to know not only what fines and penalties but where they stand. Do they vanish when the property changes hands or do they currently exist? I read it in the newspaper and that's how I got the information. I spoke to some township personnel and I'm not pointing the finger, I'm just saying that before the fire occurred I did talk to certain township personnel about what was going on at that facility and they really directed me to the county and state. So I took this opportunity to raise it formally so that I can get the answers and the rest of the Council as well as the public. But, anyway the newspaper indicated that there is a company there that is remediating the property. I'm interested in finding out what his obligation is, why is he there, did he buy the property, does he own the property or is he just cleaning it up. I'd like to know, maybe not specifically for this particular fire incident but certainly for the long term. There was a cost in terms of personnel being out there, whether it was the police officers on overtime possibly, wear and tear on equipment that the volunteer agencies have used as well as the use of water. Do we say that's okay or do we say well let's sit down and perhaps we should charge the property owner for that expense? We did that on route 9 when there was a tractor trailer overturned. We applied for reimbursement. I'm not looking at this to be greedy but clearly, for instance with the water and the MUA, if somebody pays for that whether it's the landowner or the users. In other words we're paying for that water that was used down there and I know it was going on for two days. Originally in the papers they said it could have gone on for a week and if it did it certainly would have been a big expense. So I'm looking for a policy or determination by the administration as to what their position is as far as recouping any type of expense they may identify as a result of that fire. I clearly want to know that the residents in that area are protected. That apparently was an accident due to mechanic equipment that was being used there. But clearly what I understand in the newspapers, having a fire is not something out of the ordinary. The fact that these things can go on all the time because of the amount of storage that's being stored there. The amount of wood. This is a lot. I want to know what's going on there from a public safety view to make sure that we're protected if something happens again. That financially we're protected. I want to know what liabilities, if any, currently exist on that property or to any current or previous property owners.

President Baker: I captured a couple of questions there. Michael do you want to take a stab at some this evening?

Councilman Greene: Mr. Jacobs do you feel that they should be answered. That's really what I brought it up. I asked questions in town and it was like duh, I don't know. Certainly it's a serious enough situation that possibly exists there that we should know.

Mayor Phillips: We all share Councilman Greene's concerns. I have spoken today with Mr. Donatelli. He‘s certainly concerned about it from the utility's point of view. I was down at the fire. I spent a small fraction of the time that many of the men spent down there. I can tell you what I know and I can tell you what I don't know. I do believe unless something has changed it was believed that there is new ownership and new management there. The name escapes me right now but I can get the name for you.

Mayor Phillips: Peterson, okay you seem to be a genuine individual. The focal point of the fire was a $100,000.00 piece of equipment that he was not pleased to lose, but I have to tell you that when I was there at 7:00 o'clock that evening and that fire had occurred about 11 o'clock, he already had a new piece of equipment on the scene and was trying to clean it up. My conversations with him and with the Chief down there was that they had been working the last few months that he had been put in charge by the courts, in essence the way it was explained to me. That he's trying to clean it up. That he has other operations going around the state as fast as he could turn those piles of trees into piles of chips and get them off the site, he's willing to do it. He thought that the fire would be a drawback not so much in the sense of grinding the material but the quality of the material would be smoke tainted and kerosene smelling and you might have trouble with that. So those things I think I know Rich. Do I know them to be the letter of the law? I know because I was there and I spoke to him and I spoke to the Chief and I saw the operation that he had. I know from Mr. Donatelli that he's concerned about perhaps if this goes again to recouping part of the cost of the water. These are questions that you have that Mr. Jacobs will try to answer; how much protection we have. Mr. Jacobs brought things to light today saying that when you have a tariff, which we have, which gives us the ability to raise the money for water. It may already be in the tariff that water must be provided for in fire fighting situations. I don't mean to minimize your questions, I'm just saying that the answers that I have right now as I speak to you are anecdotal. It's what I got at the scene. It's what I got from talking to people. I haven't seen the documents. Do I believe that this is a matter that the DEP is deeply involved in, yes I do. I made a call today to Rich Hills, who is the county coordinator in these events, unfortunately he's on a medical leave. I asked when he would return and he said perhaps Wednesday. So what I'd like for you to do, I think Mr. Jacobs has captured your concerns and perhaps during the week you can articulate them and we can put them in the form of questions to the particular areas. Is the county involved in this, yes. That site could never have become part of the county's highway's masterplan without a vote of SWAC and having everything included. Who was supposed to be monitoring it. I think it was a combination of many people who were supposed to be monitoring it. That includes the state, the county, and even the local fire officials. Was there time spent at that fire by volunteers, yes. Was there equipment brought in from many corners of the county, yes. When I got down there the truck from Milltown was on the hydrant. So all those things are legitimate questions. I think Mr. Jacobs will try to formulate the right interrogatories to the right agencies. Perhaps he can clear them with you before he makes them to make sure. Couple of things, if there's a silver lining to any dark cloud, I was amazed at the amount of water that was available to that site. It seems that whether it's the pipe that was put in the ground because of the new water tower that's going to be at that end of town or maybe it's the pipe that was put in to develop the new infrastructure, whatever it was, I guess you'd have to be a fireman to appreciate this, is that there were two solid five inch lines that were putting water on the fire and that's a tremendous amount of water in any area of town. Specifically to an area of town that some times was not known for the pressure or the quality of the water. So I think there have been great strides in that. The attitude of the men who were fighting the fire was different. These piles went up because they hadn't been turned or properly aerated or because of negligence on behalf of the individual who was working there. I think the men's attitude would have been different. I think that the fact that this was legitimately chalked up to something that no one really wanted or no one could readily prevent, this piece of machinery was a crane with a shear which was a $100,000.00 piece of equipment that for some reason the kerosene just went up, 65 gallons had just been loaded onto the machine and it blew causing fire in a number of different areas. Because of the nature of the fire I don't think it was that of negligence to the individual who had been assigned by the courts to clean it up. I don't think the driver of the machine was negligent. He was lucky he escaped with his life. The fire response was good. The attitude was good because they didn't think that this was a fire that could have been prevented because of different things. Perhaps we might find out that a mechanic who repaired the machine made a mistake. To the volunteers who were there this is something that they face everyday. The fire alarm went in, they responded to the scene. Mutual aid from around the county was good. The water supply was prevalent and the fire was put out within two days as opposed to what has become a week. So I don't mean to minimize your request, I think it's legitimate but I think that at this point in time I'm only giving you anecdotal answers and perhaps we'd better have these answers on file with Mr. Jacobs.

Councilman Greene: You've been very informative Mr. Mayor. I think it's a good start and I'm glad to work with Mr. Jacobs to get the other questions answered.

Councilwoman Panos: I echo everything he said. I too was there probably about an hour after you came. By the time I got there there were trucks from North Brunswick and Piscataway also. So I commend all those volunteers. I also got the feeling from these volunteers, they liked this man. They worked with him. He is one person who finally was doing the right thing down there and he's going to get all these labels, and whatever. So I would hope, if one of us had a fire in our house that we don't charge somebody who's trying to do the right thing a lot of money. I know we had to recoup that. I would think that there's a stop order at this location for over a year now, I believe. I'd like to know from the DEP or whatever when that stop order took place, did they have measurements, I don't believe they stopped dumping there. So I want to know if anybody is responsible, like last year if there's a stop order by the DEP no more dumping, fine, how high were those piles when that stop order was, 25 feet?

Councilwoman Panos: I know that but that's one of my questions. If there's some measurement as to how large those piles were when the stop order was and how large were they two weeks ago before the fire. If anyone's to blame I look into the last year. Certainly not this man who came in and had a such a wonderful relationship and has been keeping in touch with all the emergency services whenever he was going to work down there. I hope that he's not the one. He was doing the right thing and this comes down on him but I would certainly like to know what happened at that location in the last year.

Junior Knight Ice Hockey Pee Wee B Team and Squirt White Team –First Place in the Score One for Literacy Tournament at the Princeton Sports Center on March 27, 2005

Human Relations Committee – (Term ends 12/31/05 – To replace Denise Valentino) (Council Appointment)

President Baker opened the public portion. Seeing no hands, President Baker closed the public portion.

the public be excluded from this meeting pursuant to NJSA 10:4-12 and 13 for the discussion of the following matters:

PBA COLLECTIVE BARGAINING LITIGATION:
James Tizzano vs. Township of Old Bridge
Joseph & Jean Borawski vs Township of. Old Bridge

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this meeting shall reconvene in public session in one hour and that the minutes or other record of these discussions shall be available to be disclosed to the public in sixty (60) months unless a sooner date is determined by vote of the governing body at a public session.

Moved by Councilman Gillespie, seconded by Councilman Calogera, and so ordered on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmen Calogera, Gillespie, Greene, Maher, Testino, Volkert, President Baker

Attorney Convery: Mr. Jacobs will address PBA Collective Bargaining. Number two litigation; a brief update from Carol Berlen of the Legal Dept. regarding Tizzano vs. Township of Old Bridge and Borawski vs. Township of Old Bridge. I'll note that I once represented Mr. Borawski and I take absolutely no part in the Borawski matter.

Meeting reconvened at 9:56 p.m. from executive session. There being no further business to transact, the meeting was adjourned.

to adjourn at 9:57 p.m. by Councilman Calogera seconded by President Baker and so ordered on an all aye vote.