October 21, 2002

An Agenda meeting of the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge was held on October 21, 2002 in the Municipal Complex. The meeting was called to order by President Butler who asked all present to participate in a salute to the flag which was followed by a short prayer.

Deputy Clerk Stella Ward announced that this meeting is being held in conformance with the open public meetings act, notice has been given to the newspaper and notice of the meeting has been posted in public places. Next meeting of the Council will be October 28, 2002 at 8:00 p.m.

Roll call at 8:00 p.m. by Deputy Clerk Ward showed the following members present: Councilmen Baker, Greene, Hoff, Maher, Redmond, Councilwoman Panos, President Butler. Councilman Calogera arrived at 8:05 p.m. Councilman Testino arrived at 8:10 p.m.

GUEST PRESENTATION - 10/28/02

Reverend Moses Williams - (Rutgers University) Kids -2- Kids

President Butler: The first thing I have on the agenda and you should have a copy of this . I have a guest coming by the name of Reverend Moses Williams from Rutgers. It's a State and individual township thing which they asked me to get involved in. It's going to be a book exchange. There was a press conference last Thursday in New Brunswick. They have a 13 ft. trailer and what they're asking the public to do and I need to find out some storage information, they're asking the public to contribute books. Books, pencils, notebooks, computers to fill this trailer between now and Christmas in New Brunswick.

Mayor I have a question for you and the business administrator. I have a feeling we're going to get tremendous support from the public. The question is where could we store books.

We have to find a way to box them up and get them to New Brunswick.

Mayor Cannon: We'll have to think about it.

President Butler: I have a call in to the director of the library to see if she can assist us in reference to drop offs and storage. These are going to be used books.

HEARINGS

H-1 Release/Reduction Performance Guarantee - Mobil On The Run (Postponed)

H-2 Release/Reduction Performance Guarantee - Lowe's Development (Postponement Requested - New date Monday, December 2, 2002)

ORDINANCES FOR SECOND READING

ORD. #48-02 Prohibiting stopping and standing on part of Matawan Road. (Need County approval before second reading)

No Discussion.

ORD. #49-02 Establishing traffic regulations for roadways of the Yardley Manor Development.

Move-up.

ORD. #50-02 Amending revised general ordinances Chapter 12 Fire Prevention relating to required safety inspections.

Councilman Redmond: This for the Fire District. The monies go to the fire district, it doesn't come into the general fund. Are we going to be in another situation with this like we were the last time with the smoke detectors where we had to reduce our fees because we didn't feel it was fair to charge the residents. Is this another one of these?

Alayne Shepler: This is the exact same one because at that point in time we were doing the fire inspections on the smoke detectors. Fire Prevention Bureau came forth and said we're the local enforcing agency and it's our responsibility and it's our revenue. You established a fee for them because you must establish the fee, the $35.00. We in turn reduced our inspection fees because we were no longer covering the smoke detector fee.

Councilman Redmond: So this is the same thing.

Alayne Shepler: In this case, I believe if they go back, the fee hasn't changed. The $35.00 remains the same but if they are called back because you are not home--let me read what it says here. If you give them ten days notice it's $35.00, if it's less then ten days but more than four it's $50.00 and inspections conducted on less than four business days notice is $100.00.

Councilman Redmond: I have a problem with this and I'm going to be voting no on it. These are getting out of hand, these fees. It used to be $5.00. They come in and push the button on the smoke detector and for that now they want $100.00.

Councilman Calogera: Is this local, our guys?

Alayne Shepler: This is the Fire Prevention Bureau; these are not your employees.

Councilman Calogera: The hundred dollars will be for who Larry?

Councilman Redmond: It goes to the Fire District.

Councilman Calogera: Who are they levying the hundred on, everybody or just commercial businesses?

Alayne Shepler: This would be for everybody.

Councilman Redmond: Even apartment dwellers? You sell your house or you're buying a house, if you don't give them four days notice like on a closing. Let's say the guy goes in and pushes a button and it doesn't work and he has to come back a second time, you'd have to pay another fee. If you remember, a couple of years ago when I first came on Council they pushed this and as a result, because we didn't want to whack our people, we reduced our fees, our building inspection fees, so that they wouldn't be exorbitant and now here we are back again raising them again. I can't support this.

Councilman Calogera: Are we still doing C of O's on every sale of a house when the house is sold? What are our guys doing when they go in for the C of O?

Alayne Shepler: They do the other inspections, then you must call for a separate and distinct inspection from the Fire Inspection Bureau.

Councilman Calogera: So basically the electrical inspector or the code enforcement guy when they go in for the C of O, they can't push a button and say we're approved. Is that illegal for them to do that?

Alayne Shepler: We used to and it was deemed by the legal department to be legal because of the way the fire code reads it is the responsibility of the local enforcing agency. This town had always done it and the local enforcing agency never wanted to do it and they suddenly decided quite frankly that there was a revenue to be had here and they came in and insisted that that portion of the code be enforced. I know at that time Art Peters were here, he since retired and I believe you have had several other members of the code enforcement department appear before you and recommend highly against the passage of the original ordinance but I think it was ruled to be legal.

Councilman Calogera: I think what we need to do here is amend the original ordinance and allow our guys to do it upon inspection for a C of O.

Alayne Shepler: I don't know that you can. I think that at that point in time it was ruled that it was the State Uniform Fire Code that said that the local enforcing agency is the enforcer of the smoke detection ordinance and the local enforcing agency, by law, is the Fire Prevention Bureau in the Township of Old Bridge.

Councilman Calogera: What's the fee now?

Alayne Shepler: Thirty five dollars.

Councilman Calogera: Personally, I'm against moving it up but I'd like to see what the rest of the Council has to say.

Councilman Greene: I remember that not long ago it was $35.00 and now are they saying that they're increasing it to $50.00? So, it had been $35.00 flat fee and now could go to $50.00 or $100.00 depending upon the time limit of the inspection.

Alayne Shepler: If you look at the paperwork attached to it you'll see that there's a letter from Fire District 3. It states, "it becomes necessary to institute a sliding fee structure for the multiple dwelling inspections and the smoke detection inspections to try to refrain realtors and apartment complex personnel from not giving us adequate time for scheduling. If they cooperate then the fee stays the same, if they fail to give us enough time then we must be able to charge for the inconvenience it creates in this office. Both Fire Marshal Gerity and myself are faced with this situation quite often".

President Butler: Alayne, Mayor can we do this? Can we have them assemble a note and have them come in and do a little presentation for us Monday night?

Alayne Shepler: I'm sure they'd be happy to.

President Butler: Let's do that so whoever has questions can ask them directly and we don't have to guess at the answers.

Alayne Shepler: I'm sure they'd be happy to come in and tell you why they need this money.

President Butler: We'll move it up.

Councilman Hoff: Can we impose a limit such as the fee for the inspection cannot exceed no more than X number of dollars? I want to impose a limit on the amount to be charged per unit per inspection so that they can't just add these little pieces on it. The limit can be say $50.00 or $75.00 and they can be no more than that. Make a limit.

Alayne Shepler: Right now they're $35.00 and unless you pass this ordinance they will not increase, they will remain at $35.00.

Councilman Hoff: Yes, but it could be more each time that they forget something.

Alayne Shepler: No if you don't pass this ordinance the fee will stay at $35.00 and that's the end of the story.

Councilman Baker: How did this ordinance get before us?

Jim Condon: I put it on the agenda at the request of Richard Breslow the attorney for the Fire District.

Councilman Baker: I object to moving it up.

President Butler: Bill, what do you think?

Mr. Ruggierio: I think that certainly it doesn't seem to have enough support but I would maybe suggest as a matter of courtesy that you ask the Fire Commissioners or their representatives to come here and make a pitch to you as to why they think it's justified.

Councilman Maher: I think we're starting a fire by asking them to make a pitch to us. I'm in favor of not even moving it up tonight.

MOTION

by Councilman Maher to TABLE Ordinance #50-02 seconded by Councilman Greene and so TABLED on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmen Baker, Calogera, Greene, Hoff, Maher, Redmond, Testino, Councilwoman Panos, President Butler.

NAYS: None.

ORD. #51-02 Vacate a portion of Steamboat Landing Road a/k/a Dock Road.

Councilman Maher: I just want to make absolutely sure Bill, I don't know if I have the proper terminology but can we put a deed restriction on properties here that they have to adhere to all the existing town variances and roadway setbacks. In other words, nothing is grandfathered. What I'm specifically referring to is the restaurant on Route 34 is absolutely on the highway. I know it's not adhering to existing township setbacks but I just don't want to get into a situation where that restaurant is built out and we have a 30,000 square foot building right on route 34. I know there's an existing setback requirement right now.

President Butler: Mr. Ruggierio will you please respond to that.

Mr. Ruggierio: I think we're in a complicated area to start with because what we're really talking about is vacating a right that we have to an easement, a roadway easement. We have structured the ordinance so that there will have to be some type of restrictions given to us by the property owners before we actually go ahead and effectuate these items. We can try to fashion anything the Council wants but I think it's really appropriate to the Zoning or Planning board as the case may be in the review of a development application. Someone such as that restaurant couldn't come in and just expand the restaurant without getting a site plan approval. In connection with a site plan approval of course any existing non-conformity with setbacks and so forth would have to be dealt with. I think to try to get too specific would be cumbersome to say the least and might be too specific.

Councilman Maher: I just want to deed this property. I'm in favor of deeding the property as long as the deed states that they can never, never, never request a variance of the Township right of ways for buildings on highway frontage. John, what is it 20, 30, 40, 50 feet setback for a building on a highway?

John Vincenti: It depends on the zone.

Councilman Maher: Depending on the zone. Whatever that setback is. I want to prevent aesthetically that we don't see a restaurant going up right on route 34 right on the highway. I wouldn't mind the restaurant on route 34 but they would adhere to Township setbacks. I don't want to pass the ball to the Zoning or Planning board. I want to put that type of restriction in the deed.

President Butler: Is that doable Mr. Ruggierio?

Mr. Ruggierio: I guess it's doable but it's really very complex and I think you're going to end up having at least the one homeowner or the one property owner--I just think it's complex. I don't want to beat a dead horse.

Councilman Greene: We talked about it at the last meeting. I just wanted to make sure we're all on board as far as the deed restrictions for all the property owners involved which I believe was that they couldn't subdivide the property. I forget the legal terminology.

Councilman Calogera: They couldn't build another building.

Councilman Redmond: They could only build accessories to the existing structure.

Councilman Greene: We're all on board with that, okay.

Councilman Calogera: I think John or Bill you might give me some advice with this one too. I think that the problem there is that they already own parcels and being that it's grandfathered with the setback that exists you're going to wind up having the same problem in the future where you can only deed restrict that portion. There's a hardship because it's an existing non-conforming building already. I really think that it becomes not even a planning board issue but a zoning board issue.

Mr. Ruggierio: This is very complex for this reason. Of course, as Mr. Maher said, if the restaurant does not comply with the setbacks that are in the zoning ordinance it's a pre-existing non-conforming use as to the portion of the building that is already built. What we would be doing as I understand Mr. Maher's suggestion, is we would be saying to the property owner that they would have to deed restrict and that's different than zoning but deed restrict the portion of the property that they would pick up because of this vacation and that deed restriction would say that at least with respect to this portion of the property that that couldn't violate any setbacks or yard requirements as a matter of deed restriction as opposed to zoning. You know the zoning board and planning boards are the boards of the Township which consider the particular nature of a site, whether or not it would be reasonable to do one thing or another and for the Council to micromanage it in the form of a deed restriction I just think is bad policy and as I say is going to be some complex drafting on our part to try to effectuate what I think is your intent.

Councilman Maher: I would like to see you add that language there. I don't want to leave any loopholes with respect to this Bill. Whatever we have to do. I would have no problem with them expanding that restaurant 50,000 ft. on route 34 but aesthetically I don't want to see that square box going up right on route 34. Whatever the setback is that we restrict, what we're doing here next Monday night, we're putting a restriction in there that it's okay to expand that restaurant but they must follow, and there is no exception, they must follow the existing whatever roadway setbacks are for highway frontage and I don't want to give them any loophole with respect to doing it.

President Butler: Bill, you'll work on that for next Monday?

Mr. Ruggierio: If it's the Council's desire that I add that, as I said, I think it's a bad idea but obviously Mr. Maher feels strongly about it and if the Council directs me to do it I'll certainly do it.

Councilman Maher: I'm asking you to do it and the Council can vote it in or out on Monday night.

Mr. Ruggierio: I'll draw the language for the amendment.

Councilman Redmond: I just want to point out that the fact that it's a preexisting non-conforming use. All that means is that even if you meet the setbacks you still have to go before the zoning board because it's a previously existing, non-conforming use. So that means that just by the nature of what it is any additions are going to wind up in front of the zoning board whether they meet the setbacks or don't meet the setbacks, whether it's a hundred feet behind the building, it would still require a variance. I think we're just adding more problems, nothing's grandfathered. It just means that it's a zoning issue.

Councilman Hoff: I think in terms of too far, too late. I say this because you're into an area now with all kinds of zones and all kinds of rules from the get-go. (inaudible)

Ord. #52-02 Amending Before & After School fee schedule and Summer Recess Program.

Move Up.

Ord. #53-02 Establishing a film and television committee.

Councilman Redmond: It's a small committee to work out some of the bugs that we've had in the past. It would be like a clearing house for these people who want to come in and film. If somebody in town has a property that they want to market to a film company they could contact this committee and they would be in contact with the New Jersey Film Commission.

DISCUSSION ORDINANCE

DO-1 Amend Ordinance #43-02 requiring persons convicted of selling cigarettes to minors to display a sign publishing the conviction.

Councilman Calogera: One of the reasons that this is brought up again is because in listening to some of the merchants pleas and reasonableness we felt that the ordinance being a good one might be a little bit on the harsh side. What I would bring up for discussion is possibly making the second offense in 24 months instead of the first. One of the arguments is that people cannot control all of their employees. I was in 7-11 the other day, and their crew did go for a training session specifically on the sale of cigarettes to minors. I was glad to see that that corporation deals with it in a responsible way but it's still very hard to deal with it when you have so many different employees. So, I think the second offense in 24 months and I don't think that if somebody buys cigarettes with false ID it should be counted because I don't think they should be responsible for enforcing whether or not ID is legitimate or not, counterfeit or not.

I think that the sign at six months is also a little stressful. That should probably be three months.

I would really like to get Council's input and feeling on this and see where we're going to go or if anybody has any other suggestions.

Councilman Hoff: I think we should try to be a little more understanding and fair to these people who are trying to make a living without trying to hurt your children and my children. I suggest you make it three times in two years.

Councilman Calogera: Councilman Hoff, I can understand your point. I think the problem comes up with three times, which actually has no bite in it. I think that somebody who sells cigarettes on a regular basis is going to get caught up in the second time and they should as soon possible. I think that we're making room for establishments to make a mistake but still be responsible for what they're doing. I might entertain an 18 month period instead of a two year period so that it's a shorter period of time and it's gets them onto a fresh slate earlier. I think three times kind of defeats the purpose of what we're trying to accomplish.

Councilwoman Panos: I would like to include the child that buys the cigarettes. All of a sudden everything's okay. Why aren't they put to a class or something?

Councilman Maher: We have an ordinance prohibiting the use of tobacco products by anyone under 18.

Councilwoman Panos: We have an ordinance that says not to sell to children under 18 so now we're taking them one step higher and we're going to punish them somehow for selling the cigarettes while the kid who buys them is alleviated of the responsibility. They're not supposed to go out and buy them. I would like to see something here that not only holds the vendor to task but the kid who buys them is wrong. We also have an ordinance that says it's illegal to sell cigarettes so why are we amending that ordinance?

Councilman Maher: Maybe we need to take a look at the ordinance. We do have an ordinance that's 24 - 36 months old prohibiting the use of tobacco products by anyone under the age of 18. That's monitored by the County Health Dept. where the first offense the child gets a warning and the parent is notified. The believe the second offense they have to go see a movie. The third offense there's a fine which the parent or child has to pay. There are no summonses issued but there are all preventative type things. Can we get any statistics or results as to how successful that ordinance is in terms of number of violations, warnings issued.

Alayne Shepler: If you look at the monthly report that you get every month from the Middlesex County Board of Health, you'll find that there is a section in it that deals with that. It comes into the monthly report. If you want I can have somebody do a compilation.

Councilman Maher: Can someone do that? I , in fact, know as a parent that I don't think we're doing a very good job of enforcing that ordinance. When you go to a school event or a high school football game you see students smoking right there at the game. I remember when that ordinance first came out that Mr. Testino and I pushed for, they were making announcements before every high school sports activity whether it was a sports activity or an academic activity. The use of tobacco products by minors, children under the age of 18 years old was prohibited. I haven't seen that in the last two years. So maybe we need to take a look at that whole ordinance again. Can you get that information for us Alayne?

Alayne Shepler: That will only tell you what was in there. I can also ask the Chief if he has any statistics on what they've issued.

Councilman Greene: I didn't like the ordinance to begin with. I thought it was punitive to a store owner who I think feels sometimes that if you make a mistake once you should pay a price and they do pay a price. There's a $250.00 fine. I believe that's reasonable. If the Council would like to increase that, I certainly would like to entertain it but I thought that putting a sign after the first violation really went a little too far. Now it seems that when we sit down and try to rethink it, it's like we're trying to take that sign and fit it in someplace. I think the sign should be forgotten about. I don't agree with the sign. I feel that there are penalties. Two hundred and fifty dollars for the first; five hundred for the second violation and after the second violation the Middlesex County has the ability to prevent that store owner from selling cigarettes. I think that's a pretty significant fine because it takes away his ability to earn revenue on the sale of cigarettes. I think that our focus, instead of being focused on signs, should be on education. Educate the person who sold the cigarettes and educate the underage teenager who bought the cigarettes. Make sure that they go to a program to understand what is really wrong with smoking cigarettes. Teach the seller who sold it and teach the student. Don't be punitive and say you did it, we're putting a sign on your window for a certain amount of time. I think that's wrong. Our focus should be on education and not signs.

Councilman Calogera: I agree with Mr. Greene with the education of the kids but going back to the store owner. It is not government's responsibility nor is it this Council's responsibility to educate store owners' employees who work for them who are of age to sell

cigarettes and they should be of age to know it's wrong. So as far as educating them I neither think that that's our position nor do I think it should be. As far as with the kids I do agree, we do have some things on the books, maybe we can readdress that. The other items in there, the amount of time, the 24 months I think, with a second offense within 24 months, we may even want to consider raising it from $500.00 to $1000.00 on second offense. I would like to get Council's input to find out what their wishes are with regard to second offense within 24 months, second offense within 18 months. Also with regard to the sign posting, I think that I would like to know as a consumer what stores are selling cigarettes to kids so I have a choice not to do business with them. That was the purpose of the sign I believe in the beginning. I would like to get Council's input on that also.

Councilman Hoff: Get rid of the sign.

President Butler: Kevin, what did you say about the sign in reference to a specific time period?

Councilman Calogera: Six months after the second offense was supposed to be the intent of the ordinance, I think that three months is more reasonable and would serve the purpose and make it lighter for the concerns of the business owners and then we can decide if we want to do second offense in 18 months or second offense in 24 months.

Councilman Maher: I like a lot of Kevin's ideas but I'd like to just suggest that perhaps, Kevin, would you want to chair a committee with some Council members? I would like to serve on the committee and just take a look at this, this whole ordinance, and report back to the Council within 30 days. I'd like to serve, Rich is pretty vocal about it.

President Butler: Is that agreeable Kevin to you?

Councilman Calogera: I'd like for this committee to come back and make the recommendations and get this back on the Agenda within 30 days and act upon it.

President Butler: So the committee chair would be Kevin and members of that committee would be Richard Greene and Dennis Maher.

Councilman Calogera: I'm agreeable to that. I understand that if Council members have concerns I think we should address them together.

President Butler: Okay, good.

DO-2 Amend closing time of premises with Consumption or Club Licenses to 2 am except New Year's Day

Councilman Calogera: I'm treading a little slower on this. I don't want to make mistakes that might have been made with the cigarette ordinance. I really would like some more time. I'm waiting for information from the police department. I've spoken to a couple of tavern owners. I need to talk to a couple more. I really would like to get into this much more in-depth before we bring it up as an ordinance to be moved. I would like to, at this point, table it.

MOTION

by Councilman Calogera to TABLE, seconded by President Butler and so TABLED on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmen Baker, Calogera, Greene, Hoff, Maher, Redmond, Testino, Councilwoman Panos, President Butler

NAYS: None

DO-3 Amending the revised General Code - Chapter 11, Administrative Code, amending section 2-3.8, Meetings of the Council & Section 2-3.9, Order of Business; Agenda

Councilman Baker: We're looking for some input from Council. Currently we have four meetings a month except in months when there are five weeks. We're looking at the responsibility of having the public speak at the Agenda Meeting. I would like to hear from my colleagues what their mind might be to just have two meetings a month and have the public speak at those meetings. The long and short of it is let's have two combined meetings a month and that's it.

Mayor Cannon: As being part of the administration I have a real problem with it. I think that the TV meetings for the most part are very unproductive in terms of being able to really thoroughly discuss an issue, get input from the staff. It's a meeting that's geared obviously much more toward the public than trying to get business done and I think not to have agenda meetings is just going to be very unproductive. You're going to put things through just like some of these other things that went through without a lot of thought and discussion because you're not going to have the opportunity to really hash things out which you can do at a meeting that's not on TV. I think you need the four meetings.

Councilman Redmond: I like Bill's idea about starting the meetings earlier. I don't know if we could do it with two meetings a month but I know we could certainly do with taking care of a lot of the talking that needs to be done at the agenda session. Everybody seems to save that for the TV meeting. So if we have the regular meeting for the purpose of voting and not for the purpose of making speeches we might get more accomplished.

Council Calogera: Larry with regard to that we did have a committee that was asked to look into addressing the problem of having the public speak at each meeting now. So, Mrs. Panos, Mr. Greene and myself came up with a rough draft, I'm going to try to get it out. Hopefully I have everything Rich and Lucille had concerns about and myself. We tried to take into consideration some of the other Council members' concerns that they brought up in the past.

The first thing is I think that the proposal to have three minute limits for a maximum of thirty minutes prior to the agenda meeting and only on agenda items. The reason we're there for an agenda night is to deal with the agenda items and people should be limited only to the agenda items. We can start the meeting at 7:30 and between 7:30 and 8:00 have a thirty minute max. If we finish that at ten to eight you can still recess until eight o'clock and sharp, at eight o'clock pick up the regular meeting. Also have the same or similar situation at the beginning of a regular meeting except you would have to do, once again a 30 minute max, have people speak only in the beginning, eliminate the period at the end which does not seem to be fruitful or productive from what we have seen and not limiting it to any item. So, people can speak on anything at the beginning of a regular meeting. That would be for a maximum 30 minute period from 7:30 to 8:00 also.

Councilman Testino: Rich Greene is retired for a couple of weeks now and all of a sudden he is not a commuter. When I had suggested earlier times for the meeting I got my head chopped off because I was told the commuters had a hard time getting home to get to the meetings. I have no problem with starting them earlier but I don't want to be criticized for not making the meeting available to those of us who have to step outside of Old Bridge.

Councilman Calogera: That's why we put 7:30 instead of 7:00, Ed.

Councilman Testino: What difference does that make. If you go to New York you get off the bus at 6:00 or 6:30.

Councilman Calogera: We felt that extra half hour would be the difference between some residents actually not making it or making it, seven o'clock we felt would eliminate people.

Councilman Testino: I understand that Kevin and I know that you don't commute on regular hours but I'm talking about the guy or woman that goes into the city and bang they're not home until 6:30 or 7:00 every night or later. If they just get off the bus they're never going to come to the meeting if it starts at seven.

Councilwoman Panos: Bill, did you think about that when you were doing the seven to ten meeting?

Councilman Baker: I spoke to a few people prior to today. I did think about the people in New York. We're going to be here until ten o'clock at night. It's just an idea. If Council would rather start at eight and do things the way we've always done just because of the fact that that's how we do them, whatever your pleasure is. If you looked at the paperwork that you were given, DO-3, it also says that I recommend that we change how we do business here and we should have the Council comments right after the salute to the flag. Whether you want to start them at seven or eight at least the Council has an opportunity to update the people in the town before it's eleven o'clock and no one is listening anyway. So that's also on the agenda for this evening. In addition to starting at seven we should have a salute to the flag and then Council comments and then the rest of the meeting should start so that the people can listen to us on prime time before they put the football game on. Then they can find out about Prest Mill Road and then can find out about Legacy Grand and all those things that are going on in town. We could educate people about the cigarettes, about the liquor, about everything. This way people would be informed.

Councilman Testino: I'm all for getting out of here earlier folks and I'm all for starting the meeting earlier. I just remembered that criticism when I sat as Council President and suggested that we start a half hour earlier and that's what I got. I listened to the proposal about the agenda session, I listened to the Mayor and I'll tell you right now the agenda session is becoming a farce about what it's broken out to be. If you start having public at the beginning, public at the end, we're not going to get anything done.

Councilman Calogera: No, it's only public in the beginning, it's limited to three minutes per agenda item.

Councilman Testino: If you want to keep a business meeting, if that's what it's supposed to be, you let the public speak at the end, let's do the business, get it done. If you're going to have a half hour of public comment at the beginning, what's going to happen is the topics are going to get diverted. The topics are going to go elsewhere.

Alayne Shepler: There are two major points here. These were amendments to the Open Public Meetings Act. The Council does not have a choice as to whether they will allow a public portion during an agenda meeting. They do have a choice as to how long a person can speak and how long that public portion may be. However, the public comment can be on any governmental issue that a member of the public feels may be of concern to the residents of the municipality. With this phrase, the comments are not limited to items on the agenda for that meeting or even items under the per view of the governing body. So in other words if somebody wished to come in here and talk about a Board of Education matter, they could under the new amendments to the Open Public Meetings Act. However most communities that I've spoken to and I do meet regularly with fellow business administrators, most towns now have placed them at the end of their public meetings on the agenda meetings, some towns have limited them to 15 minutes and 3 minutes per person but those things are doable. The other issue I wanted to address is item #13 on Mr. Baker's proposed ordinance which says, "public comments on any subject matter--however it says during the public portion any resident of Old Bridge or any person owning or operating a business within Old Bridge may address the Council". That is quite frankly against the Open Public Meetings Act and could not be enforced.

Councilman Testino: I have to chime in with if these business meetings are not going to happen in an orderly and productive manner and if the zoo is going to be a free for all four nights a month instead of two nights a month, I suggest we cut it down in some fashion or form that would make it more productive to everybody's schedule and/or the public. Because what's going on now, we can certainly sit here and say we accomplished a lot tonight but Mr. Redmond's exactly right, come Monday night we're going to rehash it all over again. I haven't heard one report tonight that I couldn't take in Monday night and the administration would be hard pressed to point out to me, except maybe for an executive session that might occur tonight, what we got that we couldn't take in Monday night and have a full and fruitful discussion. Maybe it shouldn't be two meetings a month. Maybe there's a need for an extra meeting now and then but we certainly have to look at the schedule and decide how efficient this process is becoming.

Councilman Baker: Just a suggestion that we put a pilot program out there and tread in this dangerous water of, God forbid , having only two meetings and not being able to run the town. That we have two meetings in November and then we come back again in December and say boy, that was terrible, we'll have to go back to four. I'm suggesting a pilot program for a month. I'm sure it will fail. Put up with me. We'll do a miserable job and then you're back to four. If for some reason it is successful in the two meetings in November, then we can move forward.

Councilman Testino: I'm already suggesting that we cut down to two in December.

Councilman Redmond: We should try it for two months.

Councilwoman Panos: I think tonight was a very fruitful discussion here. We get these things and we have a good week to read about some things. Even tonight we are considering ordinances for second reading. I don't consider it a zoo meeting here every week. I consider it an opportunity to help govern the town. To have input from the people we represent. We all knew what we got into when we signed up for this. Maybe not as deep as we thought we were going to get into it, but we knew the schedules, and we knew our purpose was to be here for people and to learn as much as we can. Not to rush it through, two meetings a month, let's get out of here by ten o'clock. All of a sudden it's become this rush, rush thing. I'm having a hard time with that.

Councilman Calogera: I too one day would like to have a life, so I understand where you're coming from. I just appreciate having the agenda session so that I would have time to reflect on ordinances in the meantime until the following week at the regular session. If we're going to put things on the agenda and have to go to first, second reading, take action that same night, I think it limits us to what research we can do in the meantime. I do think the meetings could be run maybe a little bit shorter, start at 7:30. The combined meetings we already do in July, I think we do some in December. I think for my purposes I like having the agenda meetings.

Councilman Testino: I'm with you Kevin, I'm saying let's keep it to an agenda meeting and not change it into something else.

Alayne Shepler: You have the ability to do that.

Mayor Cannon: I just wanted to say also just in terms that if you wanted to put an ordinance down and the agenda comes out on Friday there's no way you're going to have an ordinance by Monday. Even the resolutions can't be done over the weekend. Everything would have to be delayed two weeks.

Councilman Testino: You can keep the same time limits in effect, it would have to be in a week before the regular meeting.

Alayne Shepler: Having had the experience of working in other communities I can tell you that doing away with workshop meetings, quite frankly, is a very bad idea. Our only opportunity to communicate with this governing body is to sit here at these agenda meetings and they can be very productive or they can be very onerous. The only way you keep them from being onerous and even with this new public session, is you arrange the order of your meeting and I believe as one of the Council people said, we try to keep out the extraneous comments. It's very difficult and people are truly seeking information. The only way I can give you information or my department heads can is if you ask us the question and we try to respond. But, some of these items cannot be discussed off the cuff. Just this discussion now in terms of the order of business for a Council Meeting is generating a large amount of research. I happen to have the law with me so I was able to respond very quickly and tell you that although Mr. Calogera's suggestion is a great one it cannot be done, and although Mr. Baker would like to limit it to Old Bridge that can't be done either. If I had to go back to my office though and I didn't have it with me it would have taken me another two weeks to come back to you and say, well guess what gentlemen, this is what you can do and what you can't do and you've already spun your wheels doing something else. I have worked in communities where they started a meeting at six o'clock, they have a combined workshop and a regular meeting and quite frankly it makes the meetings last until two o'clock in the morning because the Council still has no clue because if you go around the table somebody will say, gee, I didn't hear that. What was that? I missed that ordinance, I missed that resolution and it becomes twice as long. If you conduct an orderly business and you contain the audience and the ordinances to legitimate questions and you kind of steer your outside public to the items that are directly concerned with what you're dealing with then I think it would probably be more productive but combining workshops and regular meetings are very, very counterproductive. Especially in this form of government where we have nine governing body members and I have a staff that has to respond to your needs. You come to a performance bond hearing, unless Mr. Vincenti and his staff have enough time to respond to your questions that appear, it becomes difficult.

Councilman Testino: Are you suggesting that there are too many Council people?

Alayne Shepler: No, but I have worked in a community where there were only five. I'm just saying that the amount of people does make it more difficult.

Councilman Baker: I disagree strongly with the administration. This is a Council meeting and I have been to other towns as well and sometimes the administration doesn't even go to the Council meetings. So I appreciate your input and your feedback and your opinion but I disagree and would ask the Council to approve the pilot not only for November and December and let's see the sky fall down.

Councilman Greene: I think we're setting up the framework for our meetings so I think we all should comment on our positions. My position would be, I'm all for cutting down on the meetings but I really do feel that the agenda meeting can be very fruitful as long as we set the tone, as Mr. Testino said, we don't rehash everything again at the regular meeting. I'm all for combined meetings during the summer because it is a relief. I just don't see them working all the time. It would be great if we could. Just look at tonight when we had suggestions to add to an ordinance, would it be feasible to do that in a combined meeting? I don't think so. There's a certain good thing about having an agenda meeting and one of them is right now what I'm doing, I'm discussing my position on the meetings. I do feel that at Agenda Meetings I think it's better to have the public portion after the meeting so that people if they want to comment on anything of their own, yes but if they sat here and listened to the meeting they could comment on something that was discussed which I feel would be very appropriate and you'd miss that if you put the public portion at the beginning. That's my position on that. As far as the time, yes it is easier for me now but I'm open for whatever anybody wants and again it was a good recommendation because there are certainly a lot of people who may not work in Manhattan but work certain distances and it probably would be appropriate for us to have the meeting at 7:30. I think we have a good structure and now all of a sudden we're trying to fit this in and fit that in, public portion. I think we should just use common sense and if you want to try combined meetings for the next couple of months then do it. I have no problem with that but I just feel that as a regular basis it would be difficult. I think we all should put our own feelings in on this because it going to affect us for the next couple of years.

Councilman Maher: I can support Mr. Baker in this initiative in terms of a two month or three month trial period. If we can prove that our meetings are more effective or more efficient by combining a meeting, whether we start the meeting at seven or seven-thirty, I think those details need to be worked out. I'd be in favor of trialing it for a two or three month period, establishing a different starting time and combining the meetings. I applaud Mr. Baker for showing initiative and trying to make these meetings run a little more efficient and a little more effective. I don't have a problem with it.

Councilman Calogera: Going back to the recommendations that we were asked to make, the other thing I wanted to bring out was on a combined meeting we would have to have public midway between the end of the agenda and before the regular meeting and that would have to be a 30 minute max. Those are suggestions. Start at 7:30 regular or agenda meetings; go 7:30 to 8:00 with the public portion and not have public portion on the end. I know Rich would like public portion on the end. The argument I have with that is I think if people know something in on the agenda they can add their input at the beginning of the meeting so we could take it into consideration while we're talking about that. They also have the opportunity to come back at the beginning of the regular meeting and saying whatever they like to about that item that was on the agenda. After they've had time to think about it they may want to add something at the next meeting with it.

Councilman Hoff: Mr. Baker, it's a good idea and we have just listened to 3 Councilmen talk for 45 minutes about why they would like to cut the meeting by 30 minutes.

Councilman Testino: If you look at the schedule I have charted it out. July and August we're going to the reduced schedule. If we do a November and December that would give us September and October with a full schedule. January and February with a full schedule. I'm suggesting maybe March and April take a break and come back from May to July which would give you your trial program. It would also give us the agenda meetings to take on the road and continue that program. So there are very good uses for those other months. Those breaks that I just built in there would come at peak non political time when we're all out with our families, when you need the summer break and maybe we can get a nice rounded schedule so maybe we can get some of the best things from both the relief and the agenda sessions. That's only a thought I throw out there. A lot of time you might have to call a special meeting at the end of December anyway so if you haven't adopted the budget by then you're going to be looking at that because most Council presidents want to have that adopted by the end of the year. So, if we have two hard scheduled events you know you're going to have that special scheduling so Mr. Shah can get on track for the rest of the six months in the year and spend what money is left. That would be my suggestion.

Councilman Calogera: Could you go over that for us again?

Councilman Testino: Right now we have July and August and I would even suggest one meeting in August but that's up to you all. In July we have two meetings. Then you have September and October regular four meetings a month schedule. Right now we're down to November being a two meeting because of Thanksgiving and the League of Municipalities. So I suggest that we try in December to cut it down to two but you're probably looking at a special meeting when the budget is ready to be adopted. That's what usually happens because we'll get one reading in and then the second reading has to come somewhere along the line assuming that that's the Council's President endeavor to adopt it by the end of the year which I would hope that would be his position. Then you would have January, February and we would be back in full swing again usually what happens is most of your legislation comes in September and October then January, February and you see a lull again .I'm suggesting that around Spring break, I'm trying to mimic school year here if you get the idea, is that we take back to the two meeting a month schedule to try to reflect that around what the kids' holidays are or what the rest of the public is doing. Then we come back in May and June and we have four meetings and then we're back to our July. With that kind of schedule we can still get the meetings moving around town now and then and still get a little bit of everything. If it proves that the agenda sessions are not working because of the public input or we just haven't designed an efficient and useful mechanism for getting whatever business we need to get done at the agenda sessions, I have no problem with cutting it back. I agree with Dennis that everybody resists change but sometimes change can be a good thing. I'll asked the clerk to put that reduced schedule up after I talk to the President about what we need in December.

President Butler: As Mr. Testino, we do have two combined meetings scheduled for November because of League and because of Thanksgiving.

Councilman Calogera: Let's do December the same for Bill and we'll try it for two months.

President Butler: We could do that. I think it's better that the public speaks at the end of the meeting because we have gone through the Township's business. The public sitting out there is listening to what we say and they can better respond to what we say at the end rather than the beginning because they really don't know what's coming down the pike. You know, I come to some of these Council meetings and I actually don't believe that we had an agenda session the week before. Because people are asking the same questions that they asked at the agenda meeting. This never made any sense at all. TV probably adds an hour and a half to two hours to our meeting. Maybe one night I'll put someone in the audience to time and see how much these Council people speak. Just to see how much time they're taking. I don't talk that much. My job is to run the meeting. My job is to direct the orchestra and that's what I try to do to the best of my ability. We will put something together, okay. We're already good for November. We just have to look at December and then we'll take a look at the beginning of the year and see where we go from there.

Councilman Calogera: We still haven't gotten a resolution on what we want to do with the suggestions that you guys asked for with regards to these meetings, public speaking, etc.

President Butler: Can I ask the Council people to put in writing what you feel we should do and we will take a look at it between the Clerk's office and myself. When we get the information we'll get it to you and we'll take a consensus of opinion and we'll come back with the consensus.

DO-4 Lambertson Tract Acquisition Bond Ordinance balance of $481,758.90 is required to purchase Lambertson Tract as per contract agreement with the Estate of Mrs. Marion Smith.

Mr. Shah: The amount that is listed here, I think we're going to make it $525,000.00 to $550,000.00 after our review. We would never do bond ordinance with a ninety cents,that's for sure but I just want to alert you that the amount is going to be somewhere between $525,000.00 and $550,000.00.

President Butler: What's the exact amount that you would like to see there Mr. Shah?

Mr. Shah: When the ordinance is introduced next week my amount will be there.

President Butler: You'll have the exact figure for us, okay.

DO-5 Ordinance acceptance of land - Woodhaven Village

Jim Condon: As part of the Woodhaven Village site plan application they're dedicating about 215-220 acres of open space to the Township. We've already accepted 15 acres for a school site that they were required to dedicate to the Township; used a similar ordinance. The purpose of this ordinance is simply to accept that land so that we can give permission to Woodhaven Village to file a deed and go through the necessary procedures to file the deed and get the land accepted for the Township use.

Councilman Redmond: When they did this application I'm quite sure there was wetlands delineation. Can we see the maps of that 200 acres. Do we know how much is uplands?

Tom Badcock: We've seen the map and it is a considerable amount of upland acreage. It's a lot greater than the wetlands acreage but I don't have an exact acreage figure. We can get that.

Councilman Redmond: It's not necessary for me to vote on the ordinance. I'm just curious to see what we're...

Mayor Cannon: Woodhaven is developing the park.

Councilman Redmond: So they're going to be putting playground equipment, that sort of thing.

Mayor Cannon: Ball fields and that sort of thing.

Councilwoman Panos: Exactly where is this?

Mayor Cannon: I think it's in the back adjacent to Raceway Park.

Councilman Testino: I'm glad that we're getting this land even though it's somewhat position next to the Raceway. I would like to make sure that it's clean before we accept it. I don't want to inherit any environmental problems. If they're going to develop it for us I would like input on how it's developed at least to see the sketches before we approve them to go ahead and develop it.

Jim Condon: This ordinance is to formally accept the land but we will not actually file a deed until we have reviewed everything.

Councilman Testino: We still have to get to phase I right?

Jim Condon: That may have already occurred. I have to check into it. I thought there was some increase into this earlier on in the process.

Councilman Testino: I know on the school property we made sure it was clean and everybody certified it was what we wanted. I would like to see that same kind of process continued even if it has some wetlands, that's fine with me. It's going to be a park and hopefully that will work into the beauty of it.

President Butler: We're going to move this up for first reading on Monday.

CONSENT AGENDA

PERMISSION FOR GATEWAY SHOPPING CENTER TO HOLD A HALLOWEEN CELEBRATION

RESOLUTION #526-02

WHEREAS, Gateway has requested permission for a Halloween Celebration on October 26, 2002; and

WHEREAS, the approvals of the Fire and Police have been received; and

WHEREAS, a certificate of liability insurance naming the Township of Old Bridge as an additional certificate holder is required to be submitted to the Township Clerk; and

WHEREAS, the approval for the above named event is pending submission of the insurance certificate to the Township Clerk.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, State of New Jersey that permission is hereby granted for the Halloween Celebration at the Gateway Shopping Center on October 26, 2002 pending the submission of the liability insurance certificate to the Township Clerk.

Moved by Councilman Redmond, seconded by Councilman Testino and so ordered on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmen Baker, Greene, Hoff, Maher, Redmond, Testino, Councilwoman Panos, President Butler.

NAYS: None.

ABSENT PODIUM: Councilman Calogera.

PERMISSION FOR THE LAURENCE HARBOR DEMOCRATIC CLUB HALLOWEEN PARADE

RESOLUTION #527-02

WHEREAS, the Laurence Harbor has requested permission for their annual Halloween Parade to be held October 27, 2002 at 2:00 pm; and

WHEREAS, the requested was submitted this evening and approvals from the fire department and police have not yet been received; and

WHEREAS, the Township of Old Bridge has granted permission for the above named event pending approval from the fire and police departments.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, State of New Jersey that permission is hereby granting for the Laurence Harbor Democratic Club's Halloween Parade on October 27, 2002 at 2:00 pm pending the approvals of the fire and police departments.

Moved by Councilman Redmond, seconded by Councilman Testino and so ordered on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmen Baker, Greene, Hoff, Maher, Redmond, Testino, Councilwoman Panos, President Butler.

NAYS: None.

ABSENT PODIUM: Councilman Calogera.

DISCUSSION RESOLUTION

DR-1 Memorialize release performance guarantee Boyd's Landscaping.

Move Up

DR-2 Confirming the sale of bonds to be issued in connection with N. J. Environmental Infrastructure Trust Financing

Move Up

DR-3 Bake Sale - Cheesequake PTA on Tuesday, November 5, 2002 at the Old Bridge Recreation Center

Move Up

DR-4 Public Speaking at meetings other than Regular Meetings

Mr. Ruggierio: When we brought this to your attention that there had to be public participation at agenda meetings you asked the Clerk to survey other municipalities and in your packet is a whole analysis of that. I think you have to act on this soon.

DR-5 Resolution authorizing Township Attorney to authorize rate for specific projects for paralegals - amount of up to $95.00 per hour.

Mr. Ruggierio: I just want to tell you that this could be a cost savings for the town especially in our labor area where there has to be research done. It could be done more cheaply by paralegals.

Councilman Testino: Ninety-five dollars an hour?

Mr. Ruggierio: I've always had $35.00 an hour in our contracts and I find that in today's world where we have specialized paralegals that may be too low a rate. This really arose from a discussion with Bob Clark, our labor counsel. I wouldn't routinely authorize $95.00 an hour for any paralegal work. This resolution is written in such a way that I can authorize a paralegal to receive $95.00 an hour. At this point I only contemplate that that would occur with respect to our labor...

Councilman Testino: I'll get you some attorneys for $95.00 an hour, how's that?

Councilman Baker: Do you have a staff already that is over burdened, is that the point of this?

Mr. Ruggierio: No, it's not for us. When we have outside counsel we allow for outside counsel to make anywhere between $100.00, $125.00, $135.00, $150.00 an hour depending on the specialty that's involved. We also have a provision in our normal outside contract budget that they can also charge us $35.00 an hour for paralegal work. In today's world where's there's specialized paralegals they get a little bit more money and $95.00 an hour is very consistent with the type of work that Bob Clark described to me. So it's really just a cost saving mechanism. Mr. Testino's reservations are understandable but I wouldn't authorize this in a routine case.

Councilman Testino: I just want to tell you, I'm voting no on it because at $95.00 an hour I think you can find, I mean, I know that you pay more than $35.00 on paralegals but I don't care what their specialty is, you can hire in some lawyers to do it at that rate.

President Butler: So we'll move this up and vote it up or down on Monday.

Councilman Calogera: Why don't we think about maybe on an as need basis bring it to Council and letting them, if it's not something you need often.

President Butler: No, I don't think it happens that often.

Mr. Ruggierio: It doesn't. If you don't want to trust me with the decision to protect the township's money I would say to you at this point to please authorize the labor counsel to use paralegals at $95.00 an hour.

Councilman Testino: I already stated my position, you guys can vote for it.

DR-6 Approval of Leave of Absence due to personal illness for Roseann LaManna (effective November 9, 2002)

Move Up

DR-7 Park equipment purchase - Toro (Goosen) athletic field turf vacuum power unit and hand held extension for the turf maintenance operation in the amount of $11,565.00. (CERT. #) (AFFIRM. ACT.)

Move Up

DR-8 Amending the time of Council Meetings from 8 p.m. to 7 p.m. and ending at 10 p.m.

Councilman Baker: We've already had some dialogue. If you want to have some middle of the road type situation and start them at 7:30 and end at l0:30. As long as the leader of our orchestra gongs them when the three minutes is up I think we'll be out of here by 10:30. So the meetings in November and December, there are going to be two instead of four and they'll start at 7:30 instead of 8:00 and they'll end at l0:30 instead of God knows when.

Councilwoman Panos: We have agreed to the other thing. You asked for written responses from us, right?

Councilman Baker: You're right Lucille, I'll pull it back. You're correct, we'll do it in writing.

DR-9 Resolution requesting NJDOT to change the traffic status of Hartle Lane at Route 9 from a One-Way to a Two-Way traffic flow.

Councilman Greene: Can you give me just a quick overview as to why this is going from one way to two way?

John Vincenti: This is an area where the old municipal building was. It's the area of town where route 34 merges together with route 9. A number of years ago the DOT reconstructed the ramps in this area and restricted traffic flow on this roadway from two-way to one-way. We have a prospective purchaser of the township property. That purchaser has filed an application with the Board of Adjustment for a new office building and in conjunction with that development the developer wants to reconstruct the mouth of that road and allow two way traffic again. They did a detailed traffic analysis. They documented that in their opinion that's safe. I agree with that. I feel it would be in the best interest of the development of that property. I believe that it is something that we as a town want to do because we have a vested interest in that property. The real estate deal is that if it does not get approved then the land sale does not take place. I have referred this also to traffic safety. Technically, we need a resolution from the Council and then we have to petition the DOT to basically change this to two-way and with the support of Council and the other agencies if they feel it is warranted and safe, they will entertain it.

President Butler: So, we need a resolution Monday night in order to send to NJDOT.

Councilman Greene: That was very informative. I appreciate that John. You summarized it very well and now I understand why we're being asked to do that.

Councilman Testino: Will there be a traffic calming device at the mouth of the road so that you can't go left onto route 34 south?

Councilman Calogera: It's at the bottom of the ramp that 34 comes onto 9.

Councilman Maher: Are people going to be able to come out of that road directly onto route 34?

Alayne Shepler: Hartle Lane runs between route 9 and Old Road. It's between the two Getty stations.

John Vincenti: Dennis, that will be a right turn in and a right turn out only.

Councilman Maher: So it will not allow people to come back out onto 34.

John Vincenti: No, not at all.

DR-10 Resolution asking the County to contribute additional funding in the amount of $2,000,000.00 for the acquisition of Woodland Trails.

Councilman Testino: Didn't we do that already? Didn't we pass a resolution for that? Just a couple of months ago we sent it up at the beginning of September.

Alayne Shepler: Asking for $2,000,000.00. Now we're asking for an additional two million.

Councilman Redmond: I remember some months ago I asked for specific information as to the gap in what we had and what we needed and instead I got a workshop on gap accounting. Now if you give me the numbers, I think we already sent a resolution up for an additional two million. I'm sure we voted on it. If we can have it laid out, make a chart, we have this much for open space, and this much from somebody, then we can apply those accounting gap principles.

Councilman Testino: I ask that the clerk provide us with that resolution because I know we passed it.

Councilman Hoff: Inaudible...seventeen million is what I read now.

Alayne Shepler: I would defer to the attorney.

Councilman Hoff: I heard l7 million, Cedar Ridge II and Woodland Trails, right?

Mr. Ruggierio: How about if I report at the meeting. I'm not sure if that's public information yet even though I know it's public.

President Butler: You can check that out then Bill.

Councilman Hoff: I would like to ask that you give me a compilation of those monies you've acquired so far toward that debt.

DISCUSSION

D-1 Disbrow Road (No stopping and standing).

Councilman Maher: What do we need to make this a law? Do we have an ordinance Alayne with respect to that similar to the ordinance where we just moved forward prohibiting stopping and standing on part of Matawan Road?

Alayne Shepler: I haven't checked the actual codification. I can take a look and give you an answer next week.

Councilman Redmond: Is that our road or a county road?

Alayne Shepler: It's our road.

Councilman Redmond: Can't we just put no parking signs?

Alayne Shepler: There are no parking signs. I have asked the police department on several occasions and recently after the last meeting where Mr. Maher discussed it I did send another copy of a letter upstairs requesting that they strictly enforce it. I subsequently had a conversation with the manager. She said she felt they were complying with the law. That they were allowed to park. I specifically told her that was absolutely untrue. That the no parking should be strictly enforced and however they decided to do it whether it be valet parking, an arrangement with the market place across the road was not the township's problem. Quite frankly the safety of our residents required that our police dept. strictly enforced the no parking laws.

Councilman Redmond: Have they done that?

Alayne Shepler: I have not asked for subsequent reports since that conversation with her last week.

Councilman Maher: It's a fact that we have no parking or standing signs there. I don't know whether we have a law that can enforce that, an ordinance.

Alayne Shepler: If you haven't done it by ordinance it is not enforceable.

Councilman Maher: Can we have that ready for Monday night, Alayne. If we don't have it I'd like to move that up as an ordinance.

Councilman Hoff: Inaudible.

D-2 President's Day - (To acknowledge all the presidents of all the organizations in town who volunteer their time).

Councilman Baker: I would like to have the Council select a day after the first of the year for the recreation folks and educational folks and along with Tom Badcock and Janice Phillips and the rec. board have those folks come down and acknowledge the presidents of all the sports leagues and the presidents of all the PTA leagues. I would suggest Mr. Butler select a day somewhere before Super Bowl or maybe right after Super Bowl when it's a little slower so we can acknowledge all these folks. They've done such a wonderful job for Old Bridge.

President Butler: So you're basically looking for recognition for the different people who work in that capacity.

Councilman Baker: Not the different people, the presidents. Jeff's been down in Old Bridge forever. This is from the Council. We'd like to do it in coordination with the administration. When we do things together we'd all like to be recognized.

Councilman Hoff: We're doing all these sports things, right?

Councilman Baker: We're talking two different things here. Typically when you try to do something good you offend some people. I don't want to do this quickly that's why we put it off until January or February. I'd like to get Tom's input, Janice's input, the recreation committee's input, certainly your input. But I would not like to rule out someone who's been a PTA president forever as also receiving our thanks. Thanks takes a minute.

D-3 Capital Projects.

Mr. Shah: You received a package of all the Capital Projects based on the request by Councilman Testino that he wants to proceed with the Capital Projects even prior to adoption of the budget as we used to do it. We compiled a project list as we annually do with the input of all department heads. We have pretty much the same format. We added a section for you if you don't have any notes. You have a department request just like our regular budget, then Mayor's recommendations and then on top of the final amount that the Mayor recommends you need to have the section twenty cost and a total project cost and then there's a breakdown of grant funding. The total amount of all the projects that is proposed is $3,389,675.00. Of that $250,000.00 is funded by the grant and then you have a down payment of $169,675.00. Authorizing bonds and notes of $2,970,00.00. In addition as you see on the agenda the request for the ordinance, the $500,000.00 for the land acquisition of the Lambertson Road property.

I reported to you and sent you a mail backup that now under the new statute that if the project is funded by the grant, the down payment is not required. So the Lambertson acquisition will not require a down payment. The law is being adopted by the Senate and Assembly but the last word I had is that it wasn't signed by the Governor but there shouldn't be any objection for him to sign, so it may now be signed. I guess there are some departments here that can speak about individual department projects. John is here, Rocky is here so they can speak about the project about which you might have a question.

Councilman Testino: What about the Woodland Trails? Do we need additional money for Woodland Trails on this?

Mr. Shah: We will need an ordinance for Woodland Trails, yes.

Councilman Testino: What kind of money do you need for that?

Mr. Shah: As the attorney indicated, until he finalizes the amount I can't tell you that and he is not ready to release the number publicly.

Councilman Baker: Is there anything here for the lobby? The building. I don't see anything here for the lobby.

Mr. Shah: Nothing is included in this plan for the lobby.

Councilman Baker: Do we have any estimates for what it would cost?

Alayne Shepler: There are existing ordinances to do the lobby. Depends on what exactly we plan to do with the lobby, which the Mayor hasn't finalized.

Councilman Baker: Are we going to see that eventually? Will we decide to do the lobby or will you guys decide to do the lobby?

Alayne Shepler: We will have to come to Council before we would issue a contract over $17,500.00, however there is an existing ordinance and I don't have the number in front of me that provided funding for the lobby that was done several years ago. What has stopped the project always has been the cost of the flooring and the difficulty when you have a 24 hour operation. All the materials we looked at were quite expensive and way beyond anybody's budget so we keep going back to the drawing board to try and provide something that will provide safety for the residents, give us a better look out there. We probably will be doing shortly some type of benching for the area that comes down that is mostly used by the people that attend the courts on a regular basis. Perhaps a small seating arrangement in the front.

Councilman Baker: That's going to be this year?

Alayne Shepler: That will be this year.

Councilman Baker: Along with the awards of safety I would like you to reconsider and maybe we can put it in this budget to have the Clerk's window put in.

Alayne Shepler: I believe I told you the last time there's an ordinance in place for that.

Councilman Baker: I would like you to consider doing that, we have the money. I'd like to reach out as an olive branch to get things done here. I'd like a little help to get this window in. I would like you to reconsider it so that we don't have to bring it up at every meeting. We have the money, the clerks want it, there are six of them there. If the clerks want it on the other side, lets give it to them, we're not building cages, we just building security and safety. I'd just like you to reconsider it.

Mayor Cannon: What are you going to do about the Capital ordinance? Do you need more time to review it or do you want it moved up as an ordinance?

Councilman Testino: I'm not ready for it to go up tonight.

Councilman Redmond: I'd like a workshop.

President Butler: I think we need to take a look at it. You want a workshop Mr. Redmond?

Councilman Redmond: I don't want to do this in front of the TV cameras. There's a lot of projects in here.

Mr. Shah: Councilman Redmond, I thought that this was going to be the workshop for discussion tonight. I suggest that you do not hold a separate workshop because we're going back to what you just said. That we're going to have a workshop, discussion is going to take place, not everybody will be present. We'll have a regular meeting, we'll prepare the ordinance at a regular meeting, it's going to go back again on a long discussion and delayed.

Councilman Redmond: I'm not ready to move it up.

Councilman Testino: I thought we were going to have the department heads go over their requests. Let's start going over it, vehicles, municipal complex. What are we doing about this room? I thought you were going to reconfigure this room?

Alayne Shepler: The chairs have been ordered for this room. That's the only thing that's been ordered.

Councilman Testino: The same chairs?

Alayne Shepler: They will not be the same as the ones you are sitting on. There are brand new chairs coming in. They have already been ordered approximately three or four weeks ago. I'm just waiting for a confirmed delivery date from the vendor.

Councilman Redmond: Chairs for up here?

Alayne Shepler: Yes and chairs for down here as well. There are no plans in the works for changing the configuration of the dais.

Councilman Calogera: This dais is terrible, it really is.

Mayor Cannon: I don't think this is the year to start spending a lot of money on upgrading the municipal building unless you guys do a wonder with the budget. We try to keep it within the $3,000,000.00 and most of that is being used for curbing and re-paving. It's a very sparse list as far as the capital projects and I think you really need to limit it. You've got too many obligations.

Mr. Shah: Can I suggest that you go through the list and you can ask questions on all the items that is at least proposed and then you can discuss and once you decide I'll contact the bond counsel I do not want to contact the bond counsel to prepare an ordinance and spend all the money and then have to redo the bond ordinance.

Councilman Testino: Why are we buying another senior bus when I hear tell that the administration is looking to have the County to take over this service?

Mayor Cannon: We've been looking for about the past several years.

Councilman Testino: Can we eliminate those positions from the budget?

Mayor Cannon: We have not gotten an okay yet and we've been working with them for the past several years and so far we haven't gotten too far with it. We're asking them to look at it again.

Councilman Testino: Would they take the buses over that we have now?

Mayor Cannon: I don't know the particulars because we've never gotten that far. They've asked for a number of reports which have been submitted on how our system works. We have probably the most extensive system in the county which should be a plus. They've taken over a number of other towns but not Old Bridge.

Councilman Testino: Could we get an analysis?

Mayor Cannon: I've never seen an analysis done.

Councilman Testino: I mean how much money are we spending on our bus program right now. Maybe we can get that moved along if you started that process again.

Mayor Cannon: We can tell you what it is, I mean we wanted to be sure that we could maintain the same level of service.

Mr. Shah: Can I suggest this before we go forward. The column that I suggested you discuss is the column that says Mayor's recommendations. The department requests are all requests and I don't like to put that information in here but I was forced to put it in here and this is what happens. We go into discussion item that we are not recommending. The senior bus is not something we are recommending. There are two items that we are recommending, public works, $35,000.00 for two diesel pickup trucks and mower truck for $95,000.00.

Councilman Calogera: I have a question with regard to Mayor's recommendation on the engineering department for renovation of furniture, $60,000.00.

Councilman Testino: We're not down there yet.

President Butler: We coming straight down.

Mr. Shah: Does anybody have a question about public works?

Councilman Redmond: I have a question about the pickup trucks. We cut it down to one, is that because we don't need it or we just don't have the money?

Mr. Shah: We're trying to fit it in the budget.

R. Donatelli: We're working on cutting back, the Mayor asked me to cut back.

Mr. Shah: The next, John, do you want to speak about your complex improvements.

Councilman Testino: I just have a question about the vehicles before you go there, are we not supplying the motor pool, is that what that means?

Alayne Shepler: We've eliminated that from the administration's budget.

Mr. Shah: This year you're not approving any purchases for the car pool program or the police vehicle. It's not in the budget.

Councilman Testino: The police vehicle is something else. That's not in the capital projects.

Mr. Shah: Neither are the regular vehicles.

Councilman Testino: These two vehicles do not go into the car pool, the ones that you eliminated.

Alayne Shepler: No

Councilman Redmond: You can't capitalize cars.

Councilman Testino: You can't capitalize police vehicles.

Alayne Shepler: The only thing you're allowed to bond for is four wheel drive vehicles and pick-up trucks. No passenger cars at all.

President Butler: What are we up to, engineering? Let's have Mr. Vincenti come up.

Councilman Calogera: John, I know you have a request for $66,500.00 for remote file storage and engineering office renovations and furniture. I'm up here trying to get this Council chamber done.

John Vincenti: Kevin I invite you to my office. That office has been neglected for years for reasons beyond my knowledge. I'm talking about the staff. If you go across the hall, planning has been done recently. If you go down the hall, building has been done. Virtually every department in this building has been done with the exception of engineering. Its' time has come. It was requested last year, it was requested the year before that and every single budget passed that I have reviewed, the request was there and for God knows what reason, it hasn't been done. If it isn't approved this year, I'll be before you next year, as long as I'm here, asking for it.

Councilman Testino: Just because you appear doesn't mean it's going to get done Mr. Vincenti.

John Vincenti: That's correct.

Councilman Calogera: I don't disagree with you, I understand. I know, I've been in your office and I think the work area does need to be done.

Mr. Shah: Next, the police 911 reverse system. Alayne is trying to get a grant for this although right now it is not listed as a grant, if we do get approved for the grant then we won't need to fund it through the bonds and notes but right now it's something they're recommending through the bonds.

Councilman Testino: I thought we passed an ordinance for that.

Alayne Shepler: You would not do it for me. You would not separate it out. I did present it to you once before.

Councilman Testino: Are they ready for it now?

Alayne Shepler: We have been ready for the reverse 911 program. Sgt. Weiss has done a number of reports on it. Captain Bonfante has been before you. Sgt. Weiss I believe has also given you a presentation.

Councilman Testino: Where are you getting the grants from?

Alayne Shepler: There was a grant for local preparedness, domestic grant, is what it was called and I believe I sent Council a copy when I mailed it out. It was a grant for just that. It's a very limited grant. When I spoke to the Deputy Attorney General of the State who is handling this particular grant, he indicated that there are 566 municipalities and a very limited pot of funding so to speak. So we limited our grant to the $65,000.00 although South Old Bridge Fire Co. at the very last minute even though every other fire company and every other emergency management squad and the police department agreed that this would be our application, South Old Bridge Fire Co. came in with another application for $45,000.00 which I had to submit to the State as well. But I was told by the Deputy Attorney General that it had a number of limitations, I mean there were things you couldn't buy, but also not to ask for big ticket items like fire trucks, and ambulances and those type of items. When I had originally presented the idea to them this reverse 911 is the exact system the State just purchased. He felt that we had a decent shot at this grant but in the event I do not get the grant, I still want this system.

Councilman Testino: When will you hear about the grant?

Alayne Shepler: It's supposed to be the end of October, when we'll know.

Councilman Testino: If not, we'll move this up for the bonding.

Mr. Shah: The next item is the tax collection office, $10,000.00, that's my department. If you talk about security issue and if you talk about cash collections, here's a department that collects $105,000,000.00. The windows we have are wide open. People can grab somebody by the neck. We have a taxpayer who is many times more angry at the window although we do not document those things. This has nothing to do with windows or anything. There are on the tax podium certain furniture that is very poorly designed. People can't see on the other side, the door on the other side is wide open. So this is the replacing the furniture that is on the podium so that it's more visible from the inside office.

Councilman Testino: It should be done but we're not going to do it until the windows are done.

Mr. Shah: That's up to you.

Councilman Testino: I know. I'm going to lobby my fellow Councilmen to get the window done and that's the only way we're going to get to it. Obviously we passed the money years ago and it has not been done.

President Butler: We'll try to work it out and do them both.

Councilman Testino: I'm requesting that you not put the money in until we get the window done. We authorize things, you're not going to do it, when you want something in the expenditures we're going to have to hold it up. That's the only way it's going to get done.

Mayor Cannon: You can blackmail me all you want.

Councilman Testino: I'm not blackmailing you, that's the way the government works.

Councilman Calogera: I think it's not a matter of blackmailing Council or blackmailing the Mayor, I think we just have to get all on the same page and have a little respect for what we think is important to each of us and let's build a mutual dialogue and move forward. That goes on the part of this Council towards the Mayor and on the part of the Mayor towards the Council.

It's got to be a mutual thing. If we feel strongly that there's something we need and the Mayor feels strongly that there's something she needs, we should bend and I think she should bend and hopefully we can come to a mutual agreement on it. I don't think it's a matter of blackmail.

Mr. Shah: Under parks and improvements we have money allocated for golf course development, $650,000.00. I think the committee is discussing several things happening on that and I will let Tom or Councilman Testino speak about it because he is the chairman of the committee.

Councilman Testino: I'm not able to speak about the $650,000.00. I'll hear from Tom about what he thinks that's going to cover.

Tom Badcock: The $650,000.00 is when we get to the point to hire somebody that's going to design the golf course for us. You can't bifurcate a contract and that's what the contract is going to cost us to develop the course.

Councilman Calogera: You're telling me we're going to spend $650,000.00 to hire somebody to do exactly what?

Tom Badcock: To design the golf course. Then you take it to bid. Then you bid the course. That's part of the whole construction package.

Councilman Redmond: That's putting the bid specs together.

Tom Badcock: We're not there yet Larry but when we get to that point that's what it's going to cost to design an 18 hole, almost 7000 yard golf course, on approximately 200 acres. That's what it's going to cost.

Councilman Calogera: While we're on the subject of parks and rec., was there just recently a problem with the bleachers in Geick?

Tom Badcock: Yes, they were stolen three times. The seats, the aluminum, were stolen three times. There were three separate incidents, three separate police reports and we ordered new ones. As a matter of fact we just had a delivery last week. We're going to put them in and we're going to weld them, brace them in so hopefully they'll stay until the whole thing goes at once.

Councilman Maher: What's the status of the security cameras?

Tom Badcock: The security cameras are in and are now working. As a matter of fact we identified some young people playing football in the mud last week, after we closed the fields. We didn't catch them yet because we didn't work with the police yet . So they are working, we haven't had a meeting with a consultant yet once we do that and we have a meeting with the Chief of Police, we'll start enforcing the use of those cameras.

Councilman Calogera: Were the cameras up when the seats were taken?

Tom Badcock: No. It was done late at night anyway and I don't know whether the cameras would have picked it up.

Councilman Redmond: The young people playing in the mud, did they steal the bleachers?

Tom Badcock: No, somebody asked about the cameras, we caught the kids on the cameras which we haven't apprehended yet, that's a separate incident.

Councilman Redmond: They're apprehended for playing football?

Tom Badcock: We apprehend them for playing and tearing up the field when it was closed and it was muddy. It was rainy, it was wet.

Mr. Shah: The YMCA infrastructure development $250,000.00. This is necessary for the development of infrastructure from wherever we select the site, so that's what that money is allocated for.

Councilman Redmond: Why was it cut from $750,000.00?

Tom Badcock: We have an existing ordinance with money in it Larry.

Mr. Shah: I think we have $350,000.00 already allocated for that.

Councilman Testino: From last year?

Councilman Greene: Sayrewood South Little League, I can't do anything on this, I know. I told Mr. Badcock I'd speak to him tomorrow to get an update on this report. I also want to consult with the people from the League so we're on board as far as what can be done down there if in fact we do need additional money. I'm trying to get that done this week.

Councilman Testino: You're going to let us know.

Councilman Greene: Yes, absolutely.

Mr. Shah: The next is the drainage improvements; sump pumps and underdrains, $75,000.00.

John Vincenti: That's our annual project where we have identified a number of areas throughout the town where we have drainage problems in local roads and basically we log them in reports and prioritize them and each year we try and address as many areas as possible within a $100,000.00 budget.

Councilwoman Panos: How many sump pumps does that buy?

<