A Combined Meeting of the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge was held on May 19, 2003 in the Municipal Complex. The meeting was called to order at 7:07 p.m. by President Butler.

Deputy Clerk, Stella Ward, announced that pursuant to Section 5 of the Open Public Meetings Act, this meeting has been advertised in the Home News and Tribune and that the next public meeting would be held on Monday, June 9, 2003 at 7:30 p.m.

Roll call by Deputy Clerk Ward showed the following members present: Councilmen Calogera, Greene, Maher, Councilwoman Panos, President Butler. Councilmen Testino, Redmond, Baker and Hoff arrived late.

Bid Opening - Sale of New Distribution Liquor License - Bid No. 03-05.

Deputy Clerk Ward: The official closing of the acceptance of the bid packets was Friday, March 21, 2003 at 1:00 p.m. We have received only one bid packet; therefore, there will be no auction after the bid is officially open. Please note that the bid is contingent upon FBI and State clearance which has not yet been received by the Clerk’s office. The open bid is also subject to the township attorney’s approval of all the documents enclosed.

This bid was submitted by Mr. Madhusadhan Pulijaal.

Councilman Maher: Is it proper to have a discussion before we open this? Since there is only one bid, do we have to accept it?

Attorney Berlen: No, the bid may be rejected. I am not familiar with the bid specifications. There are certain allowances under the public contracts law which would allow it to be rejected.

Councilman Maher: How did we advertise this?

Deputy Clerk Ward: Twelve packets were picked up, but only one was brought back. We have had numerous calls on the auction.

Councilman Maher: Did we advertise in trade journals or just place a simple blurb in a newsletter?

Deputy Clerk Ward: It was advertised in the official newspaper of the township. Anyone who called was told about it.

Councilman Maher: Our existing businessmen and women are opposed to awarding another liquor license. This councilman has heard from our existing businessmen and woman in town with respect to awarding another liquor license even though it is a package good store. I am concerned that we have only gotten one respondent with respect to the bid.

The town of North Brunswick recently sent out bids for their liquor licenses. They got a mailing list of the establishments who have liquor licenses in Middlesex County and sent them letters. That license sold for $300,000. I am concerned that we only advertised. Maybe we followed the rule for our ordinance. We only advertised a simple blurb in the newspapers. Maybe we could have done a better job in soliciting bids with respect to notifying people in the liquor industry that we were accepting bids for a class “C” license. It might have cost $200 to $300 to mail to people who own liquor licenses in Middlesex County. Apparently, this drove up the cost of a simple liquor license. We just put this into the Home News?

Deputy Clerk Ward: I believe that is where it went.

Councilman Maher: I am concerned that we only got one response.

Councilman Calogera: Was the minimum bid $200,000?

Deputy Clerk Ward: Yes.

Councilman Calogera: That could be one of the reasons. I don’t know if this was a market issue. Could be that $200,000 is on the high side. As many other councilmen thought, this was a reasonable figure. Maybe we need to go into exposure. I would take it that any bid would have had to come in at least $200,000 for us to entertain it. The question is whether we have the right to take this bid and issue a license on it.

Attorney Berlen: Not if it does not meet your minimum bid requirements.

Councilman Calogera: If it does meet the minimum bid, we have that right to do that?

Attorney Berlen: Yes, you do.

Councilman Calogera: Maybe more exposure is a good one. If we do decide not to take this bid, I would suggest going that route, but we need to consider it after we open it up.

Councilman Greene: What was the amount bid?

Deputy Clerk Ward: I did not open it up yet.

Councilman Greene: I thought the bid had to be submitted by a date in March.

Deputy Clerk Ward: The packets had to be given by March 21, and the actual bid date is tonight.

Councilman Greene: What is the council’s role?

Attorney Berlen: It is my understanding that this is just a bid opening.

Councilman Greene: Does the council have to take action?

Attorney Berlen: Not this evening. This is the formal bid opening as advertised.

Councilman Maher: We could reject this based on only receiving one bid even though it might have met the minimum bid requirements.

Attorney Berlen: If it meets or exceeds the minimum bid requirement, you will have to consult with the statute. There are certain basis upon which you can reject bids. If it is appropriately received and meets what was in the bid requirements and passes the background check and all the other requirements which most ABC licenses have . . . .

President Butler: You heard what Carol said about meeting the minimum bid requirements.

Attorney Berlen: I have not seen the bid specifications.

President Butler: Stella just told me that this cannot be tabled.

Deputy Clerk Ward: This was advertised as a bid to be opened this evening at 7:00 p.m.

Councilman Maher: It has been brought to my attention that we only have one bid that we are opening here this evening. Are we taking action on this bid tonight? I am concerned that we only have one response.

Attorney Ruggierio: The Township Council as the entity that awards liquor licenses has the option of requiring this bidding process, or it could award a liquor license under the old system where there was allegations of favoritism. This system was employed by us with a minimum bid amount of $200,000 so that this bidder would have to bid a minimum of $200,000 in order to qualify under the bidding criteria. If you are concerned that there was not sufficient competition, I would not think it appropriate to consider that factor given the fact that it was advertised and made available to everyone as a basis to reject. You have liberal criteria for rejecting bids, but I think you would have to exercise that discretion to reject all bids based on some level of something that could be justified as being non-arbitrary.

You might have decided that the basis upon which you advertise this might be tightened, and you may want to specify location criteria. I am given to understand that there is not a background check complete on this applicant in terms of the fingerprints and the other elements that are required by the police. You will not be able to award this tonight, but I think that you could open the bid and know what the bid amount is.

Councilman Maher: I was concerned that there was only one respondent. I was concerned that we could have done a better job in advertising with respect to exposure. I did find out how one Middlesex County town very similar in size to us they sent letters out to all liquor establishments in Middlesex County saying that on a specific date they were accepting bids for liquor licenses. All we did was to put a little notice in the Home News saying that we are accepting bids on a specific date.

Would it be appropriate that the council take a position that we limited our exposure with respect to awarding this bid based on the fact that we could have done a better job in advertising?

Attorney Ruggierio: The point you raise is legitimate, and if the council consensus is to go back to the drawing board to see if you can get a wider advertisement, I think it would be appropriate to not open this bid and return it to the bidder with the indication that he/she/it should do so at a future sale.

Councilwoman Panos: This criteria was set up months ago, and twelve people picked up packets. One found it within his reach to meet our expectations and specifications. If a person put forth his bid, he deserves the right to have it opened. I think that there was enough advertisement if twelve people picked up the packets.

President Butler: With reference to this individual bidder who did everything necessary to get to the point where he did bid, would we be liable regarding the process he has gone through because we did not have more bidders?

Attorney Ruggierio: We were very careful in our criteria to reserve the right to reject all bids. That language has been constrained by court decisions to say that you just can’t just arbitrarily change the criteria. I don’t think that a reasonable person could disagree with Mr. Maher’s concern that there is only one bidder. With due respect to Lucille, she is right that there were others who knew about the bid. If you only have one bidder, there is always concern that there is not sufficient competition. If you decide as a council that you are not satisfied with one bid and that you are going to send it back unopened and start the process over, that protects you against some allegation that you have acted improperly to make your decision after you have seen the person’s bid.

President Butler: If that is the consensus of the council, we need a resolution to that effect.

Attorney Ruggierio: I believe that you can make a motion with a second to reject all bids.

RESOLUTION NO. 270

REJECTING ALL BIDS RECEIVED FOR CONTRACT NO. 03-05 PLENARY RETAIL DISTRIBUTION LICENSE FOR TOWNSHIP OF OLD BRIDGE

BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, New Jersey that:

WHEREAS, the Township of Old Bridge advertised and received bids for Contract No. 03-05 for the sale of a Plenary Retail Distribution License by public sale to the highest qualified bidder; and

WHEREAS, bids were received and were scheduled to be opened on Monday, May 19, 2003; and

WHEREAS, the Township Council wishes to reject the one unopened bid received; and

WHEREAS, the Township Council would like to reinstate the bidding process for this license and in addition directs the Township Clerk to also notify all distribution and consumption license holders in Monmouth and Middlesex Counties of the sale of this Plenary Retail Distribution License.

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

a. The Township Clerk is authorized to return the unopened bid packet to the applicant with the indication that the Township Council intends to reinstate the process and seek a wider number of competitors.

b. The Township Clerk is hereby directed to also send out a copy of any new bid notices to all establishments that hold a liquor license in Middlesex and Monmouth counties.

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

AYES: Councilmen Maher, Redmond, Testino, President Butler.

NAYS: Councilmen Calogera, Greene, Councilwoman Panos.

ABSENT: Councilmen Baker, Hoff.

Prior to the roll call vote the following discussion took place .

Councilman Maher: I suggest that we follow what North Brunswick did, i.e., send letters out to all establishments that hold liquor licenses in Middlesex and Monmouth County. I have listened to Councilwoman Panos, but I believe that we owe this to our taxpayers.

Councilwoman Panos: This person will be a taxpayer.

Councilman Maher: I don’t see the rush.

Councilwoman Panos: Everyone knew the criteria for months.

President Butler: This does not need to be debated.

Ordinance for Second Reading.

TOWNSHIP OF OLD BRIDGE TABLED
ORDINANCE NO. 24-03

ORDINANCE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF OLD BRIDGE PROHIBITING GRAFFITI ON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROPERTY

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

SECTION 1: STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.

Whereas, the Township of Old Bridge, New Jersey, hereby finds and declares that graffiti is detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community; and

Whereas, there is a perception in the community that the laws protecting public and private property can be disregarded with impunity; and

Whereas, this perception fosters a sense of disrespect of the law that results in an increase of crime, is detrimental to the property values of the community, degrades the community and leads to urban blight and is inconsistent with the Township of Old Bridge’s property maintenance goals and aesthetic standards.

A. Graffiti results in visual pollution and is hereby deemed a public nuisance.

B. It is the purpose of this ordinance to provide a mechanism in which individuals may be prosecuted for defacing public and private property.

SECTION 2: DEFINITIONS.

As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated: TOWNSHIP -- The Township of Old Bridge, New Jersey.

DEFACE -- To cover, mark, write on, paint, color or otherwise mar, disfigure or draw whatsoever on any private or public property of any nature, without the express consent of the owner.

GRAFFITI -- Any form of inscription, word, figure, marking or design that is marked, etched, scratched, drawn down or painted on any building, structure, fixture or other improvement, whether permanent or temporary, including, by way of example only and without limitation, fencing surrounding construction sites, whether public or private, without the consent of the owner of the property, or the owner's authorized agent, which is visible from the private right-of-way.

INDELIBLE MARKER -- Any felt tip marker, China marker or similar device that is not water soluble and which has a flat or angled writing surface 1/2 inch or greater.
KNOWINGLY -- Includes knowledge or information which a parent should reasonably be expected to have pertaining to the marking of graffiti. It is intended to include and require neglectful or careless parents to maintain a reasonable community standard of parental respectability through an objective test. There shall be no defense of a parent who is indifferent to the activities or conducts of a minor in their custody, when they have knowledge of individual's actions that are not in compliance of this ordinance.

MINOR or JUVENILE -- Used interchangeably and shall mean any person under the age of 17, any person less than 17 years of age or any person who has not celebrated his or her 17th birthday.

OWNER -- The owner of record of the property as set forth in the records of the Tax Assessor for the Township of Old Bridge.

PARENT -- Any person to whom legal custody of a juvenile has been given by court order or is acting in the place of the parent or is responsible for the care and welfare of the juvenile and shall include:
A. Natural or adoptive parents. B. Legal guardians. C. A person who stands in loco parentis. D. A person to whom legal custody has been given by court order.

PUBLIC PLACE -- Any place to which the public has access, including but not limited to a public street, road, thoroughfare, sidewalk, bridge, alley, plaza, park, recreation or shopping area, public transportation facility, vehicle use for public transportation, parking lot or any other parking, public building, structure or any municipal parking signs, etc., or area.

SECTION 3: PROHIBITED ACTS.

The following acts are prohibited:

A. No person shall willfully or maliciously damage, deface or vandalize any public or private property by painting, writing, drawing or otherwise inscribing in any fashion graffiti thereon without the express permission or consent of the owner. However, this prohibition shall not apply to easily removable (which are water soluble) chalk markings on public sidewalks or streets, written or drawn in connection with traditional children's games, or in any lawful business or public purpose or activity.

B. It shall be unlawful to aid anyone in defacing public or private property.

C. No person shall possess a spray container or indelible marker in any public place or on any public facility or private property with the intent to use the same to deface said public building, property or private property, absent express permission to the contrary.

SECTION 4: PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY.

It should be unlawful for a parent as defined in Section 2 of this ordinance having legal custody over a minor to knowingly permit or by inefficient or lack of control to allow such minor in their control to place graffiti on any private or public property as defined in Section 2 of this ordinance.

SECTION 5: ENFORCEMENT.

A. Any minor under the age of 17 years found by a police officer to be in violation of this chapter shall be brought to the nearest police station, where the minor shall be released to his or her parent or guardian. The parent, as defined in Section 2, shall be immediately notified and required to report to police headquarters to procure the juvenile.

B. When a parent immediately called has come to take charge of the juvenile and the appropriate information has been recorded, the juvenile shall be released to the custody of such parent. If a parent cannot be located or fails to take charge of the juvenile, then the juvenile shall be released to the juvenile authorities except to the extent that, in accordance with police regulations promulgated by the Chief of Police, approved in advance for juvenile authorities, the juvenile may temporarily be entrusted to an adult, relative, neighbor or other person who will, on behalf of the parent, assume responsibility for caring for the juvenile pending availability of the parent or guardian.

C. In the case of a first violation by the juvenile, the juvenile and parent shall receive, both in person and by certified mail, a written warning notice from the officer in charge of the police station indicating the circumstances under which the minor was found to be in violation of this chapter.

D. If the minor has been convicted of violating this ordinance on a prior occasion within six months of the date of the present violation, there shall be a presumption that, whenever a minor has been convicted for a violation of this ordinance, the parent or guardian having care of the minor knew or should have known of the minor's violation of this section.

SECTION 6: VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES

A. Adults who are not parents of offenders as defined in Section 2 of this ordinance. Any adult who violates any of the provisions of this ordinance shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by one or more of the following penalties:

(1) A fine of not less than $500 and not exceeding $1,000. (2) Imprisonment not to exceed 90 days. (3) A period of community service not to exceed 90 days.

B. Juveniles and/or parent violators as defined in Section 4 of this ordinance.

(1) After the receipt of a warning notice pursuant to Section 5 (c) of a first violation by a juvenile, when a second graffiti violation is adjudged against the same minor, the parents of the minor shall be subject to prosecution under this section. Violators of this chapter shall be required to perform community service of a period no to exceed 90 days and may be subject to a fine of not less than $500 but no more than $1,000. Additionally, any parent having the care or custody of a minor found to be in violation of this section, if it is adjudged that both the juvenile and the juvenile's parents violated this Graffiti Ordinance, they shall be required to perform community service together.

(2) If a minor has been found to violate this ordinance twice within a six-month period, the minor shall receive a summons and complaint from the police officer who apprehended the minor for the violation of this ordinance.

(3) If a juvenile is found to be in violation of this chapter on three occasions within six months, then the juvenile as well as the parent having the care and custody of the minor shall receive a summons and complaint for the violation of this ordinance.

(4) Any juvenile who violates any of the provisions of this Graffiti Chapter as contained in Section 3 more than four times shall be reported by the Chief of Police to the juvenile authorities as a juvenile in need of supervision, and the Chief of Police, Township Attorney or their designee may proceed to file such charges with the Superior Court of New Jersey Family Part as he or she may deem appropriate.

5) In addition to any other penalty imposed by the court, any person convicted of a violation of this chapter may, at the discretion of the Judge of the Municipal Court, be required to pay to the owner of the damaged property monetary restitution in the amount of the pecuniary damage caused by the act of graffiti or, as part of such person's community service, to remove the graffiti from the property.

SECTION 7: REMOVAL OF GRAFFITI.

A. Requirement to remove graffiti. The occupant, lessee, agent and/or landlord of any commercial premises which has any form of graffiti on any building or structure shall be required to either restore the defaced surface by removing the graffiti or repaint the defaced surface within 10 business days after notice to the occupant, lessee, agent and/or landlord by the Chief of Police (or his designee) to remove the same. Any person who shall violate any provision of this article shall be subject to a penalty of ten dollars per day ($10.00/day). Such penalty shall be imposed for each day after the initial 10 business days that such violation thereafter continues. The penalties may be imposed against the owner or lessee, agent and/or landlord wherein such violation occurs or both.

B. Remedy. If said graffiti is not corrected within 30 business days after written notice is issued, then the Township of Old Bridge shall have the right to issue a summons and to enter the premises to remove the graffiti and/or repaint the premises, and the cost of the removal of the graffiti and/or repainting shall be at the sole cost and expense of the occupant, lessee, agent and/or landlord of said building or structure. Pursuant to the provisions of NJSA 40:48-2.12f, or any successor statute, the actual cost of the removal of the graffiti and/or repainting, plus the cost of inspection of said graffiti and/or repainting and other costs incidental to such removal, shall be certified by the Business Administrator to the Township Council and therefor shall be entered as a lien upon the real property upon which the graffiti was found to be placed and shall be added to and become a part of the taxes to be assessed against and levied on the real property, and the same shall be collected and reinforced in the same manner as taxes.

SECTION 8: PAYMENT OF REWARD.

A reward of $250 shall be paid to any person who provides information or assistance leading to the apprehension and conviction of any person violating this ordinance. This reward shall be payable after conviction out of a fund established for this purpose, but no reward shall be paid to any public employee whose duty it is to investigate or enforce this ordinance. This Chief of Police is hereby authorized to grant such reward with the consent of the Municipal Council, and said reward shall only be given upon notification by the Municipal Court that the matter has been adjudicated.

SECTION 9: INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES

All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances inconsistent with or in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repeated to the extent of such inconsistency.

SECTION 10: PARTIAL INVALIDITY

If any section, paragraph, clause or provision of this Ordinance shall be adjudged invalid, such adjudication shall apply only to the section, paragraph, clause or provision so adjudged and the remainder shall be deemed valid and effective.

SECTION 11: EFFECTIVE DATE

A. Except as set forth at subparagraphs B and C hereof, this Ordinance shall take effect on the earlier of the following dates: (1) on the date the Mayor affixes his/her signature thereto and returns same to the Municipal Council by delivering it to the Municipal Clerk pursuant to NJSA 40A:69A-41 or (2) on the tenth day following presentment to the Mayor of the Ordinance pursuant to NJSA 40:69A-41 applicable when the Mayor has failed to return the Ordinance; whichever occurs first.

B. If the Mayor vetoes the Ordinance (in the manner set forth at NJSA 40:69A-41), this Ordinance shall become effective upon the Township Council’s vote to override the Mayor’s veto.

C. Notwithstanding any other provision hereof, this Ordinance shall not take effect less than twenty (20) days after its final passage by the Council and approval by the Mayor, where such approval is required, unless the Council shall have also adopted a resolution declaring an emergency and at least two-thirds (2/3) of all the members of the Council vote in favor of such resolution.

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

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

NAYS: Councilman Baker.

Prior to the roll call vote on the motion to approve, the following took place.

President Butler opened a public portion. Seeing no hands President Butler closed the public portion

Moved by Councilman Calogera, seconded by Councilman Greene

Councilman Redmond: Does this apply to just commercial buildings? What about overpasses? In concept this sounds like a good idea, but how do you enforce it? I can understand shopping centers, but what about highway overpasses? How is this enforced against the State of New Jersey who owns an overpass? We tell a shopping center owner that he has to clean up the graffiti, but the State of New Jersey is going to tell you to . . .

Mr. Vincenti: I understand that this is to be enforced through the police department. I didn’t understand this to be an enforcement action to be undertaken by our zoning officers, but I might be wrong. I did not ask for this.

Attorney Ruggierio: Councilman Calogera asked for this, and I think that John is correct that this is something that would be enforced in any way that any other police ordinance would be enforced in the town. Cooperatively, if the zoning officer noticed something, he would be able to refer it to the police. The zoning officer would have the power to charge under this ordinance, but it is probably contemplated that the police would be the chief enforcement.

Councilman Redmond: Suppose there is graffiti on the overpass? Do we fine the State $10.00 per day?

Mr. Vincenti: I suppose you would send the ticket to the State DOT.

Councilman Redmond: I am afraid that the State of New Jersey is not going to remove their graffiti, and we are going to force a property owner who is paying taxes. . . We are in a position to say if the State is not going to do it, why should I do it?

President Butler: John, please check this out and get back to us.

Councilman Calogera: The intent of this ordinance was due to the concern of the residents who are upset about graffiti. We have petitions signed by numerous residents. This is an effort to address that. If the State of New Jersey has graffiti on its property, send them a ticket. If they own the property, let them clean it. Just because we may have a problem with the State, doesn’t mean that we should forget about the ordinance and not have it on the books to take care of the problem that we have with the commercial areas. Maybe we can address that either directly or indirectly with the State. I don’t have a problem with sending them a notice and a fine either.

Under Section 5(c) my concern is this is a clause that exempts the first offender from anything - taking care of any restitution to the property owner and they get away with a warning, and then the property owner is still stuck picking up the tab or staying with the graffiti, and I think we need to address that by deleting that subsection (c).

Attorney Ruggierio: What “(c)” speaks to is two things. The first is that a juvenile who engages in mischief, if caught, can be charged as a juvenile with malicious mischief and could be prosecuted on the first offense. To hold a parent liable, you have to have some basis for the parent to be on notice that the juvenile is committing these type of acts. That is what “(c)” is trying to get to.

Councilman Calogera: The juvenile is getting a written warning. If he got caught doing this, he has been writing on numerous buildings. This takes a lot out of it with having a warning only. If we go into “(d)” which is right under it, we have “ if the minor has been convicted of violating this ordinance on a prior occasion within six months . . .” He could have done it six months prior, gotten a warning, and then because he is over the six-month period, he can get another warning.

Attorney Ruggierio: I think that you are confusing the parental liability under this ordinance with the juvenile’s liability. The juvenile who engages in malicious mischief is not getting away with a warning, but could be charged immediately with malicious mischief and could be prosecuted and there could be restitution requirements by the court. This is to specify when a parent could be responsible for an errant child.

Councilman Calogera: I am still unclear about “(c)”, but we had talked about a twenty-day period. In this ordinance we have ten business days. If we felt “business days” was a little ambiguous because businesses are open at different times and on different days of the week. I need to do a clarification under Section 7 and let’s change the “ten business days” (I don’t know if we have to wait for twenty days), but let’s do fifteen calendar days. We have “payment of reward” which states that “the chief of police is hereby authorized to grant such reward with consent of municipal council. The said reward shall only be given upon notification by the municipal court that the matter has been adjudicated.” Perhaps we should have something upon recommendation of the chief to have the municipal council the one who does that.

Councilman Greene: We have had several incidents in town during the winter. One property owner did have a lot of graffiti put on his building. I did not deal with the property owner directly, but with the administration and code enforcement. I was disappointed because the graffiti remained on that building for quite some time being a quality of life concern for residents. When we tried to push the landlord to do something about this, he gave us several excuses. He said that the juveniles had been caught, and he wanted to go through the court system and get his money. If not court, he wanted his money directly from the parents of the juveniles to clean up the graffiti. I felt that the landlord, whether he was getting his money or not, owed it to the township to clean up the graffiti on his building within a certain time period. I felt that he let this go on too long, and did not appreciate his excuses. I did not contemplate talking about state bridges, but I was interested in having something with “teeth” to get these landlords to resolve this within a reasonable amount of time so as to not present an eyesore to the residents of the township.

Councilman Testino: I was wondering what the City of New York has on their books for something like this. I think this is a good first start. My only comment is that $10 per day is not going to get the landlord off the dime. That is only $300 per month. If he is dilatory after a certain period, i.e., thirty to forty-five days, the fine should be increased to $100 per day; then you will see more action and you won’t get the type of response that Richard has described. As to the reward, I don’t know that we have funding for that. Where does the $250 come from - confiscated funds? Mr. Shah should let us know where we can fund that from. With respect to restitution, I don’t know what the municipal court can order. This could be thousands of dollars. At least Kevin has enough energy to get this up and running to specifically target graffiti.

Mayor Cannon: I have concerns about the reward. We don’t have the wherewithal in our present situation to put in a hefty amount of money in a reward fund. We would have to budget for this. This cannot be allocated from the fines.

Councilman Calogera: This ordinance, although it is a good document to start with, needs amendments. Section 5(c) needs to be deleted. Section 5(d) changes six months to one year for a second offense. In Section 7 the ten business days should be raised to fifteen calendar days. With regard to the amount of money, I tend to agree with my fellow councilmen that the $10 per day might be slight. I propose $20 per day. I move to delete Section 8 relating to the reward. That covers all the changes I want to put forth.

Councilman Hoff: One of the landlords violating this act is the Township of Old Bridge. Who is going to enforce us to clean up township properties?

Attorney Ruggierio: I assume that when Mr. Redmond said “fine the State” and when you say “fine the township” that there has to be an understanding that any governmental entity is not subject to the reach of our criminal prosecution powers. We cannot prosecute the State nor can we prosecute ourselves, but we can try to be good citizens.

Councilman Hoff: I believe that more research needs to be done on that.

Councilman Testino: I think that we should table this.

Councilman Calogera: I am willing to table this as long as we incorporate the amendments and bring this back up at the next meeting. Those changes would be the elimination of Section 5(c); Section 5(d) we would change the six-month period to one year; Section 7 removal would take place within fifteen calendar days; the fine will be changed from $10 per day to $20 per day; delete Section 8 which is the reward payment.

Attorney Ruggierio: There was a suggestion by Mr. Testino of a fine of $100 per day after thirty days. Is that something that council wants to do?

Councilman Testino: I am going to move for that amendment.

Councilman Calogera: We just raised this from $10 per day to $20 per day.

Councilman Testino: I think that during the first thirty days the landowner may have some difficulties. I am not concerned about the first thirty days, but agree that there should be a nominal fine. I think when it becomes a situation as Rich Greene described, there has to be a hammer. I think that at $100 per day, landlords will start moving.

Councilman Maher: I support Mr. Testino’s suggestion.

Ordinance for Second Reading. Carry to 6/9/03

TOWNSHIP OF OLD BRIDGE
ORDINANCE No. 25-03

AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF OLD BRIDGE AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF OLD BRIDGE
SECTION 10-2 CIRCULATION SYSTEM - SUBPARAGRAPH 4 PROFILE (d) SHOULDERS, CURBS & GUTTERS

RESOLUTION NO. 271
BILL LIST

BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, New Jersey that:

WHEREAS, the Business Administrator has the responsibility of approving all bills and vouchers subject to preaudit and control; and

WHEREAS, the Director of Finance is responsible for the preaudit, the disbursement of all monies and the control over all expenditures to ensure that the budget appropriations are not exceeded; and

WHEREAS, the Finance Committee of the Township Council has satisfied themselves in respect to the bill listing of May 19, 2003 that there exists a detailed bill or voucher supporting each payment and there is indication that goods or services have been received or rendered.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge that the bill listing of May 19, 2003 as approved by the Business Administrator after preaudit and control by the Director of Finance and after review by the Finance Committee be spread on the minutes in the amount of $12,424,486.79.

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

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

NAYS: None.

Guest - Assemblyman Sam Thompson.

Councilman Baker: Where is this on the agenda?

President Butler: I just put it on.

Councilman Baker: Point of order - how can we do that? I asked the attorney.

President Butler: I have the power to do that.

Attorney Ruggierio: The chairman can do what he wants. If the council or any single council person objects, you can make a motion that the chairman decision be overruled, and if that carries with the majority vote, the chairman’s decision would no longer be the prevailing decision.

Councilman Hoff: I agree with the chairman and welcome Mr. Thompson.

Councilman Baker: I want to follow the rules.

Motion

to extend a courtesy to entertain a statement by Assembly Thompson made by Councilman Calogera, seconded by Councilwoman Panos and so ordered on the following roll call vote:

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

NAYS: Councilman Baker .

Prior to the roll call vote the following discussion took place.

Councilman Baker: Do we put a motion on the table before people have an opportunity to speak? I don’t remember having the opportunity.

Assemblyman Thompson: I am pleased to advise you that I have been informed that the DCA has approved a $4 million grant to Old Bridge and the Old Bridge Housing Authority to be utilized towards the one hundred units of senior housing to be constructed on the property on Rt. 18 near Ferry Road. In addition, I have also been advised that the Housing Finance Mortgage Authority will be voting on Thursday on a $7 million first mortgage to be utilized for this same development to be funded by the multi-family housing program. They will also vote on a $2 million second mortgage for the same purposes from the affordable housing subsidy program. There is also an application in for a $3 million tax credit that will be considered. Last Thursday the Assembly passed a measure sponsored by Senator Kyrillos and by Assemblyman Azzolina and I which contains another $1 million in green acres funding for the Cedar Ridge property and $1 million for the county for the Old Bridge waterfront park development.

Preliminary public comments.

Mr. Curry (Pleasant Valley Road) Inquired why the flag displayed at the municipal center was being flown at half-mast and why there was not a light on the flag.

Mayor Cannon responded and promised a report to Mr. Curry.

Council Comments.

Councilman Hoff: I asked Mr. Ruggierio to report on the status of the acquisition of land in the Cliffwood Beach area for the right of way along the shoreline from Whale Creek back to Laurence Harbor.

Attorney Ruggierio: Mr. Vincenti has the updated mapping from T&M Associates that will enable us to consult with the appraiser and resolve the concerns we had about the potential excessive cost of the acquisition. I will make sure that I schedule that meeting this week. Several weeks ago Mr. Vincenti told me that we had the mapping; I need to schedule a meeting.

Guest.

1. Representatives from the Old Bridge Police Department.

President Butler: Please give us an overview on overtime.

Capt. Cerra: Overtime this year is exactly where it was last year. The number that you received at the last meeting from finance included a payout of $132,000 on a comp time deal that was cut in June 2002. The number that you got was $992,000. There was pay after that, and the total overtime was $1,068,614 (subtract $132,000 as a payout for comp time that was accumulated over the last twenty years equals $936,614). The total amount spent last year (pay out and comp time) was $1,028,992. The number is not increased from last year; it is the same. I have repeatedly told you that without additional police officers, the overtime will not decrease. Every and any effort that we implemented to cut or eliminate overtime in certain areas was done by the administration currently in place. We currently have 101 police officers; in two weeks, we will be a 100. You will not be able to keep overtime down because we should have 120 police officers. That number is based on the “stats” of the “norm” throughout the United States which indicate that for every 1,000 in population, you should have two police officers. Old Bridge has 60,456 residents. We have three officers that you agreed to put into the schools over and above the number of police officers that you are to have in your township. We have them there. Take 100 cops, subtract 3, we are down to 97 police officers to cover a town that should have 120. The work of 120 officers is getting done, and you are paying overtime to do that.

This year overtime would have been a little less, but certain positions were eliminated by the budget. The work of seven now has to be done by five thereby creating overtime. The position of dispatch has never been filled. The budget calls for fifteen. For the last five years, there has not been fifteen. I wrote to the Mayor asking her if she were hiring for the three that just left. She said “no”. Based on this, the injured on duty stat is going up. Guys are working more hours and are getting hurt. This affects overtime.

We have implemented a number of things to cut overtime back because the overtime could be twice the amount it is now. I was away last week and was told that stones have been thrown at us about the overtime. I have been telling you for years that you need more police officers, or the overtime will never diminish. We handle 45,000 calls per year and have to be ready twenty four hours a day.

The past administration decided to put the detective bureau on a 5/2; crime does not stop on Friday night and pick up on Monday morning. Any major crime that happens from Friday at 11:00 p.m. and Monday at 8:00 a.m. is overtime. We didn’t do that; the administration prior to the current one did that and put it in the contract which negotiates the job “specs” and how overtime is given out. We cannot violate the contract. If we do, the union will sue you in PERC, and you will receive everything in “retro” except that you won’t get the work done. We have to conform to the contract. Suggestions have been made to change things through negotiation which is not easy. I have to work with a contract, not around it. We have implemented every possible thing there is. If someone has ideas of what we are not doing properly, instead of yelling about it, tell us what you think it is, and we will fix it.

We have talked about a work-up. I have had a package with your name on it sitting in my office for four months. This is the court case from 1978 on working up and how it will be done. I have conformed to that court case from Day One since I have been upstairs. I cannot replace a lieutenant with a sergeant. That court case is a settlement on the record made between the town and the union that this is the way this will be done. Before the judge ruled, they agreed to settle. We have things that bind us to operate a certain way, i.e., the contracts, unions, the FLSA, and any court case or PERC decision that came down over the last twenty years.

Councilman Greene: It would be fair to say that the two of us have discussed police issues, including overtime, many times. We have always been open, and I agree with you that a good portion of the reasons for overtime is contractual. Years ago through collective bargaining agreements, the police officers put themselves in a position where overtime is earned. I thought that we could save money by looking at the deployment at the waterfront park. You thought that I was being critical of the police department. I explained to you that this was just my position.

The time that I spend on the residents of Old Bridge from my home or from the road or from these chambers is important. I agree that police presence at the waterfront park is a positive thing. The people who walk the boardwalk think it is wonderful to see the police or specials. It is a wonderful thing when someone is rescued or assisted while boating. It is a great thing that no matter where the police presence is in Old Bridge and everywhere I go the residents want it. They want to see the police officers stopping the speeder on the roads. They want the police officers to respond to an emergency. I agree 100% when we talked about it; it is a great thing that’s down there. My question is, and I want to put this in prospective as to how we got to the staffing. . . There is a one sentence clause in the agreement that says that the county wants the Old Bridge police to provide security at the waterfront park. Based upon that request the police department, the chief put together a plan. In the plan it called for eight police officers and it called for a boat. I say they are all great things. If you look at it, it is a financial cost that I think that perhaps the residents of Old Bridge should not bear. Those police officers (the agreement calls for ten and you are staffing them with eight). . . What happens is there are less police officers who can be assigned somewhere else, or they could have an effect on the overtime. This is a cost that we have to look at.

I think that this is positive, but I feel that it is a financial strain on the residents of Old Bridge especially because they want police officers elsewhere or because you may say you want twelve or sixteen more police officers. I want to put forth a resolution asking the county since the taxpayers of Old Bridge sent $16 million a year to the county, that the police department, the administration and the county sit down and we look at this and ask the county to provide more in the way of financial resources if we want to continue with that type of staffing level that is there. I look at this as a financial issue and I think it is a cost to the taxpayers. If the county wants this type of deployment and security that is provided twenty-four hours a day even during the winter that the county should provide us with the funding to do it, and I would like that put on the agenda for the next meeting in my name. That is a resolution asking the county to provide additional funding to support the police in the waterfront park.

Capt. Cerra: That is fine, but to blame this police administration for an overtime problem which now you have indicated that you feel that if this beach patrol was not necessary, perhaps that would help the overtime. I did not create this; I didn’t do this. A contract was signed by the mayor of this town and the council approved it by resolution. They said here is what we agree to do. In that agreement it says that the plan that the chief submitted to patrol the beach would be implemented. That plan per that agreement is implemented, and we know it works because the beach is safe, and we have stats if you need them on the rescues and things that needed to be done. I know that I say that I am not going to do this plan and if someone loses their life or is injured down there, they are going to sue you, and you are going to charge me as acting chief for not fulfilling the contract that she signed as the mayor of Old Bridge. I am not going to put myself in that kind of jeopardy. I didn’t do this; I have to live by this because you did this, and the mayor did this, and the county did this. I am doing what I am obliged to do to protect myself and this town from lawsuits that may occur.

Councilman Greene: The lease says you can renegotiate, I believe.

Councilman Greene: There is a report that was done by the Department of Treasury and they make suggestions. It says “The Department should refrain from agreeing to provide a large number of full-time officers initially for the beachfront patrol.” The also suggest that perhaps the specials can be used more instead of a police officer, and they do say “that it is recommended that the department discontinue the marine patrol and return the equipment to the owner.” “This is an area in which a coast guard or NJSP response clearly is appropriate. If every local police department established its own marine response unit, the cost of duplicative service would be staggering.”

Capt. Cerra: I don’t know what report you refer to.

Councilman Greene: This report is dated December 2000 as done by the NJ Department of the Treasury, Local Government Budget Review.

Capt. Cerra: The question is why didn’t the mayor renegotiate the contract which is her obligation under state law to do with the county? Why am I being blamed for this? By state law (the Faulkner Act) the mayor is the only one who can negotiate contracts which in turn is approved by you (the council). Why am I being blamed for overtime based on a contract that was agreed to by everyone and not renegotiated by the mayor since 2000?

Councilman Greene: I am not singling out anyone for blame. I said there is overtime, and we should address it. If you feel that it is the mayor’s authority or position, if the mayor is the one to step forward in order to open renegotiations, so be it. I am not blaming you on the overtime. I am trying to identify a situation where I feel that if we want to provide that level of service, perhaps we should go to the county for funding, and if it takes the initiative on the part of the administration, let’s do it.

Capt. Cerra: I don’t disagree with you; I don’t have the authority to do that.

Councilman Calogera: This deployment plan was put together by whom?

Capt. Cerra: Chief Palumbo.

Councilman Calogera: He, by himself, wrote the plan up?

Capt. Cerra: He spoke with his staff and he proposed a plan which he and his staff concurred would adequately take care of the beach and do what it is supposed to do - make sure nothing happens down there and lives are saved.

Councilman Calogera: In your opinion it is not excessive manpower?

Capt. Cerra: The plan that is in place works; there is no excessive manpower.

Councilman Calogera: Going to the detective squad being 5/2 - is that a steady 5/2 with Saturdays and Sundays off? Is that contractual, or is the 5/2 contractual?

Capt. Cerra: Everything you said is contractual. The contract states 5/2 with weekends and holidays off.

Councilman Calogera: You cannot rotate 5/2 people working Monday through Friday, and someone working Tuesday?

Capt. Cerra: It even indicates two shifts and not three.

Councilman Calogera: That is contractual also?

Capt. Cerra: Correct.

Councilman Calogera: The OIC working up is contractual. I understand that. The lawsuit that you brought up at that time was a lawsuit from FOP or PBA?

Capt Cerra: At that time the PBA represented everyone. The actual claim was working down, not up. If you read that, you will see what came out of it.

Councilman Calogera: At what point did you start negotiating for them?

Capt. Cerra: I started to negotiate for the PBA in 1980, and I started to negotiate for the FOP in 1987. This court case is from 1978.

Mayor Cannon: I did not negotiate this contract. It was negotiated by the chief of police and may or may not have had the input of his staff. The information was brought to the council which voted in the majority to implement it. I merely signed it - not negotiate it. I had no input, but did express concern about the numbers. I have told the chief that I would accompany him (or he me), and we should go to the Board of Freeholders and renegotiate it with other numbers because I found that we cannot support this in terms of our staff. From what Councilman Hoff had read several months ago, the chief has quite a bit of discretion on how he assigns the manpower especially after September. To have two people stationed down there in the dead of winter is not good use of manpower. This winter no one was strolling the beach. Only the chief can assign, and he has discretion within the terms of that contract. When Capt. Cerra as acting chief asked me if I was going to fill the vacancy, I did not say “no”, but that at this time I did not yet have a handle on the budget (this happened over a month ago) and was not going to make a commitment and there will be a new chief as of August 1 who should have a say as to the ultimate staffing of the police department.

Councilwoman Panos: The overtime was $1 million for this year.

Capt. Cerra: You want to know the ETO time for the last . . . The total is $1,068,614.

Councilwoman Panos: What percentage of that goes to detectives, sergeants, patrolmen, lieutenants and captains?

Capt. Cerra: I can get that for you. The captain percentage is probably less than one.

Councilwoman Panos: If you don’t have all, I will take none, but would like that [report] in writing. The county park seems to be a big money spender on our part. We have a county park (Phillips Preserve) coming in South Old Bridge. Who will patrol that?

Capt. Cerra: I did not negotiate the contract for that. Are you speaking of the park land that is just there?

Councilwoman Panos: I was under the impression that county rangers were taking care of that. Please look into how much county rangers would cost in the waterfront park.

Capt. Cerra: Are you talking about the county park police?

Councilwoman Panos: I am not sure. You are more police orientated.

Capt. Cerra: They are gone. The county park police are defunct.

Councilwoman Panos: Are there rangers or any county policing personnel?

Capt. Cerra: . . . the sheriff’s office.

Mayor Cannon: I understood that there were people at Phillips Preserve, but I don’t believe that we can provide protection in that area.

Councilwoman Panos: I want to know who is policing the preserve in South Old Bridge, and if that is a county park, can we look at the same arrangements for the county park in Laurence Harbor. Mr. Ruggierio you suggested that there be an investigation on how this police department is run as a guide for the next chief. We don’t want to make the same mistakes; we want to see things improve.

Capt. Cerra: I don’t think that we made any mistakes.

Councilwoman Panos: I would like an investigation as to how the time is allocated in the police department and how we can improve that and spend less money. I make a resolution that we have an investigation on that. One thing that I resent is that time after time we hear that the overtime exists because we don’t have enough police staff. I have never gotten a reply as to how the twelve were determined. We have a list of who they are, but I don’t know how they were determined. I repeatedly asked who administered and recorded the test. That is part of the overtime problem because “we don’t hire the twelve officers”. I would never agree to those twelve officers knowing that half of them are political appointees or very political people. They are probably the next three or four people who have to be hired. I may go for hiring three or four officers if they were not so politically connected. I am tired of that being thrown in the taxpayers’ face - “we need twelve officers”. I say get the criteria of how these twelve officers on the list were chosen; make the list public so that everyone in this town who is put in fear or made to feel threatened that we need these officers - let them see exactly who these officers will be because maybe we need three. This is set up so that the first three or four are the political pay back, maybe five is okay, and six is a payback. This is my opinion. I would like [a list] of the next twelve appointees. If it is going to be thrown back in our face that we did not hire twelve officers, let’s get their names out in public. I would like the percentage of overtime broken down because out of that $1,068,614, how much of a percentage went to detectives, sergeants, lieutenants and captains. I want a report of whoever is policing or will be policing or has been policing the county park in South Old Bridge and why we cannot do the same in Laurence Harbor.

Capt. Cerra: On the numerous times you asked for the criteria, I have written to you and told you to read the ordinance; that is the criteria structured by ordinance which this council creates. You are telling me anyone who knows anybody or is related to someone political is going to be discriminated against because in your opinion because of who they are, they are going to be discriminated against. If you took the time to look at the entire test, you would have seen that this isn’t the beginning of the list. This is the middle and end of the list. There were people hired off this list over the last two and one-half years. You are saying that anyone who has a political affiliation at all cannot take the test because if they are affiliated with someone, they are not going to be hired because of what their name is.

Councilwoman Panos: I did not say that.

Capt. Cerra: We passed an ordinance in this town which was overwhelmingly supported to give priority to the residents of Old Bridge. You had a test that was announced and given on TV and the newspaper. There was a total of 138 from Old Bridge took the test. Some people are going to have names that are affiliated with some people. You cannot stop it; you cannot say that I am not going to hire them because they are politically affiliated. You are violating the law. You are discriminating against them because of what their last name is. You cannot do that. That is like saying that if you belong to a certain church group, I don’t want to hire you. You cannot utilize reverse discrimination. Fair is fair and the standards of the test are set by ordinance by you, not me. This council sets those standards. You are a part of that. If you read that ordinance, and you don’t agree with what is there, change it. I don’t make the rules; I enforce them. You make the rules. You have said that you support three or four, but because of who they are, you are not. That is ridiculous. You are telling everyone’s son and daughter here that if you want to be cop, don’t take the test in Old Bridge, go somewhere else. You are wrong, and that is my opinion.

Councilwoman Panos: I don’t appreciate the lack of police officers as being part of the reason why we have so much overtime. It goes back to having an investigation on how the time is distributed and used in the police department. Maybe I should not call this an investigation but a guide for the next chief.

Capt. Cerra: I welcome anything you want to do.

Councilwoman Panos: I would like a list with integrity.

Councilman Hoff: I see Capt. Cerra blaming the mayor and vice versa. I hear everyone blaming the county because of our overtime bills. We have a problem with overtime and if we have a problem interpreting the contract, let’s review it. I don’t think that we need send a resolution to the county. We are not in competition with the county. Let’s arrange for a quiet meeting and speak to their parks department who run more parks than we will ever run. They have people who are experienced. If it is not county police, not rangers, not specials, but what is the minimum we need to have police down there? Maybe they will rethink it. I don’t see a need for this blame.

I am sure Mr. Crabiel would be willing to sit down with his people and our people to say what will make this work. It is our obligation under contract that we would do the policing. I have heard complaints about police on the beachfront all winter. Maybe that is not the way it should be. Maybe when they talked about eight or ten officers, they meant only in the summer and maybe they meant over a span of seven times twenty four. We don’t need too many people down there in the middle of winter. Their presence there is always somewhat necessary. We can find out if we have to police Phillips Preserve. I didn’t think that required policing.

Let’s ask the clerk to set up a meeting with the county people. I think that you should invite Mr. Greene, who has good input. Anyone who is interested should be there to find out what is going on.

Vice President Redmond: Capt. Cerra thank you very much.

Councilman Greene: I do have one more thing.

Vice President Redmond: Everyone has had a chance. That is not going to happen.

Councilman Testino: I am waiting.

Councilman Greene: I want to accept Mr. Hoff’s suggestion. I am more than willing to move my resolution.

Councilman Testino: Overtime is being portrayed differently. Mr. Shah told me that the overtime constituted an unforeseen circumstance and should be declared such for the appropriation that we passed last week. The police administration says to the contrary. That is why I asked for accountability. It is anticipated that overtime is going to be used in the budget to try to constitute savings which even the mayor has admitted in the past. If you are not going to pay benefits for officers if you decide on a certain level of overtime. There is going to be a certain level of overtime no matter what we do because of rotations and the unavailability to predict all the time out and work outs from injuries.

I thought that we were having a discussion about where we get to the floor and can we cram it down a little bit. We have had a finger pointing session which is par for the course for the “silly season” unlike what I would like to see. This is election season and let’s drag out the police issue and let’s have an investigation, etc. instead of trying to resolve the problem. I will not support spending one dollar for an investigation when we have an incoming change in the administration. You can get all your answers by writing a memo if you don’t think you are getting them now. I didn’t hear one thing that could not be answered tonight or is not going to be answered by way of follow up. If you have any other questions, ask them, but we are not paying for an investigations suing the police department or police administration as has been done in the past prior to my coming on the council, and I won’t stand for it now.

As far as more police in Laurence Harbor, I don’t know if that is a bad thing. From the people that I am talking to in Laurence Harbor and Ward 1, they like it. Things have been better there.

If Mr. Greene and Mrs. Panos are saying that having more police in Laurence Harbor is a bad thing, I disagree because additional police patrols insure safety. If we are having a budget crisis, the appropriate way to decrease it is to renegotiate the contract. I look forward to doing everything we can to decrease the overtime. Asking questions is not a bad thing. Let’s get answers and plan; planning will save us money.

Councilman Greene: I think this is politically motivated; it is unfair, and I am highly insulted that you can actually cut off my recommendations because I believe it was my . . . .I would be more than glad to remove my resolution to ask the county for additional funds if Mr. Hoff can put together a process where we can get together to sit down with the county to negotiate this in a fair and reasonable manner. I would appreciate it, Mr. Redmond, if you would give me the courtesy to speak and to let me weigh in.

Mayor Cannon: I want to say that it is all fine and good to renegotiate the contract, but with the contract even as onerous as it may be right now, the chief of police and the police administration have discretion on how they assign manpower at that beach. You can renegotiate down to say that there are three men, and if the chief decides he wants to put twenty men down there, he has that prerogative.

Councilman Testino: Don’t appoint a chief in August; appoint a police director. You will have more control.

Mayor Cannon: You changed the ordinance in 1998.

Capt. Cerra: You have had an overtime problem before the beach was here. Look at the numbers. You are recognizing it this year because the township changed their comp time policy. Police officers and civilian employees can no longer accumulate comp time. You are not seeing that number that you never saw every other year. Look at the numbers over the past ten years. Your problem was there because you are understaffed. You are recognizing it now.

Mayor Cannon: I am following the ordinance that was implemented by this council.

Capt. Cronin: I am charge of the beachfront project and special operations. I have all my statistics, but I don’t think that is what we need to hear tonight. This is not the forum where we should be bringing up the do’s and don’t’s of our police department and scheduling and manpower. I don’t think this should be going out to the public. We should sit down with the council and the police department and go over what we need and how can we make things better rather than arguing among ourselves. My suggestion is to make an arrangement to iron out our problems.

Vice President Redmond: Perhaps the clerk could arrange for a workshop or an executive session to talk about what needs to be done with respect to manpower. I think this should not be done on a council night. Deployments could be confidential; you cannot have that in public. It would have to be in executive session. Please find out the availability of the captains that assign the different . . .

Councilwoman Panos: I ask that when we have this that we have an outside agency person to do a study of the police department.

Councilman Testino: The last study we did costs us $50,000. We didn’t implement the Buracker recommendations. What makes you think that we are going to implement them now?

Councilwoman Panos: I was not here last time. We can just follow through on them. Maybe this council doesn’t follow through as they should.

Councilman Testino: I ask the Clerk to deliver the Buracker report to Councilwoman Panos.

Councilman Hoff: Do I have the direction to set up a meeting with the Board of Freeholder?.

Vice President Redmond: Absolutely.

Mayor Cannon: I thought it was only the mayor who negotiated contracts.

Vice President Redmond: We expect you to be involved. Do you want to set up the meeting with the Board of Freeholders?

Mayor Cannon: I would be glad to.

Discussion Ordinance.

1. Amend Before and After School Summer Recess Daycare Program School.

Vice President Redmond: We just changed the fees on the Before and After. How come we didn’t do this then?

Mr. Badcock: There were some things omitted.

Ordinance for First Reading.

TOWNSHIP OF OLD BRIDGE
ORDINANCE NO. 26-03

AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF OLD BRIDGE AMENDING FEES FOR BEFORE & AFTER SCHOOL AND SUMMER RECESS DAYCARE PROGRAMS

BE IT ORDAINED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, New Jersey as follows:

SECTION 1: FEES

Section 2. Fees is hereby amended as follows:

2. Registration Fee

A registration fee shall be charged equal to one (1) month’s payment based on the program chosen (i.e.: before school five (5) days a week, registration fee $65.00). If written notice is provided at least thirty (30 ) days prior to, the registration fee will be returned within thirty (30) days. If the child remains in the full program, the registration fee will be accepted as the June payment.

Section 2. Fees is hereby amended by adding the following:

4. A late tuition payment fee of $10.00 per family if payment is received after the fifteenth (15th) of the month (effective 9/1/03).

SECTION 2: INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES

All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances inconsistent with or in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repeated to the extent of such inconsistency.

SECTION 3: PARTIAL INVALIDITY

If any section, paragraph, clause or provision of this Ordinance shall be adjudged invalid, such adjudication shall apply only to the section, paragraph, clause r provision so adjudged and the remainder shall be deemed valid and effective.

SECTION 4: EFFECTIVE DATE

1. Except as set forth at subparagraphs B and C hereof, this Ordinance shall take effect on the earlier of the following dates: (1) on the date the Mayor affixes his/her signature thereto and returns same to the Municipal Council by delivering it to the Municipal Clerk pursuant to NJSA 40A:69A-41 or (2) on the tenth day following presentment to the Mayor of the Ordinance pursuant to NJSA 40:69A-41 applicable when the Mayor has failed to return the Ordinance; whichever occurs first.

2. If the Mayor vetoes the Ordinance (in the manner set forth as NJSA 40:69A-41), this Ordinance shall become effective upon the Township Council’s vote to override the Mayor’s veto.

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

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

NAYS: None.

ABSENT PODIUM: Councilman Testino.

Discussion Ordinance.

2. Authorizing sale of fire tower property to the Old Bridge VFW.

President Butler: We are removing this because there are too many blanks in the ordinance.

Attorney Ruggierio: The only blanks in this ordinance was the number of the VFW Post which is 9460. The only other blank is the amount of consideration that would be paid with respect to the sale. If council has a different idea, please let me know, but $10.00 is nominal consideration.

Ordinance for First Reading.

TOWNSHIP OF OLD BRIDGE
ORDINANCE NO. 27-03

ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF LAND FROM TOWNSHIP OF OLD BRIDGE TO VFW POST NO. 9468

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

Section 1. Purpose

This ordinance is adopted for the purpose of authorizing the conveyance of certain lands to wit: an area of 1.76 square feet/acres of land owned by the Township of Old Bridge to VFW Post No. 9468. The lands authorized to be conveyed herein are known and described as Block 17007, Lot 4. The conveyance of the property shall be by Quitclaim Deed in a form approved by the township attorney.

Section 2. Authority to Convey Property.

1. The Township Council authorizes the conveyance of 1.76 acres of land located in the Township of Old Bridge to VFW Post No. 9468 and known as Block 17007, Lot 4.

2. The Township Council hereby finds that the said property is no longer needed for municipal purposes, and pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:12-21(b) it is being conveyed for the nominal consideration of $10.00 and by agreement with VFW Post No. 9468 to render service or provide facilities for veterans of every way and the general public of the Township of Old Bridge.

3. The land conveyed shall only be used for the purposes of VFW Post No. 9468 and shall not be used for commercial, business, trade, development or manufacture. If the land at any time be no loner used for purposes for which it was conveyed, it shall revert back to the Township of Old Bridge. VFW Post No. 9468 is expressly prohibited from selling the property for purposes of development by private individuals/developers.

4. An access road to the property is encroached by JCP&L land. This access road has been used openly, continuously, notoriously and hostilely for more than 21 years. The Township of Old Bridge will make every effort to quiet title to the access road prior to conveyance but makes no guarantee/warranty of Title re: same. The township’s right to pursue this quiet title action is reserved even after closing on said property.

5. Should the VFW Post No. 9468 cease to operate for the purposes for which it was formed, said property shall revert to the Township of Old Bridge.

6. The reverter and restrictions set forth herein above in paragraphs B, C. and E shall be expressly set forth in the deed.

Section 3. Inconsistent Ordinances.

All ordinances or parts of ordinances inconsistent with or in conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency.

Section 4. Partial Invalidity.

If any section, paragraph, clause or provision of this ordinance shall be adjudged invalid, such adjudication shall apply only to the section, paragraph, clause or provision so adjudged and the remainder shall be deemed valid and effective.

Section 5. Effective Date.

A. Except as set forth at subparagraphs B and C hereof, this Ordinance shall take effect on the earlier of the following dates: (1) on the date the Mayor affixes his/her signature thereto and returns same to the Township Council by delivering it to the Municipal Clerk pursuant to NJSA 40A:69A-41 or (2) on the tenth day following presentment to the Mayor of the Ordinance pursuant to NJSA 40A:69A-41 applicable when the Mayor has failed to return the Ordinance, whichever occurs first.

B. If the Mayor vetoes the Ordinance (in the manner set forth at NJSA 40A:69A-41), this Ordinance shall become effective upon the Township Council’s vote to override the Mayor’s veto.

C. Notwithstanding any other provision hereof, this Ordinance shall not take effect less than twenty (20) days after its final passage by the Council and approval by the Mayor, where such approval is required, unless the Council shall have also adopted a resolution declaring an emergency and at least two-thirds (2/3) of all the members of the Council vote in favor of such resolution.

Moved by Councilman Greene, seconded by Councilwoman Panos and so ordered on the following roll call vote:

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

NAYS: Councilman Baker.

Consent Agenda.

President Butler opened a public portion. Seeing no hands President Butler closed the public portion.

RESOLUTION NO. 272

GRANTING PERMISSION FOR A BLOCK PARTY CALVIN COURT ON JUNE 28, 2003

BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, New Jersey that:

WHEREAS, the residents of Calvin Court have requested permission to close Calvin Court at the intersections of Cindy Street, Hastings Road and Creighton Circle for the purpose of a block party to be held on June 28, 2003.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, New Jersey that permission is hereby granted to hold said block party contingent upon the following conditions.

It is a requirement of this approval that you must submit a sign-off sheet of approval from all residents affected in this closing. This list must be delivered to the Clerk’s office before Council approval.

It is a requirement of this approval that Calvin Court be completely closed to vehicular traffic from the intersections of Cindy Street, Hastings Road and Creighton Circle . This closing must apply also to the residents’ vehicles as well as other vehicles. You will be responsible for making provision to have the roadway blocked, making sure that there is access for residents to enter and depart as they desire. It is also a requirement of this approval that a 12 foot clearance be maintained on each side of the fire hydrant and that amusement games are prohibited from being set up on the side of the street having the fire hydrant (food tables may be set up on the side of the street having a hydrant).

The party must end and the streets reopened to traffic and completely cleared of people, paraphernalia and debris by 10:00 p.m.

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

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

NAYS: None.

RESOLUTION NO. 273

AUTHORIZING WAIVER OF FEES FOR A LIST OF VETERAN EXEMPT PROPERTY OWNERS

BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, New Jersey that:

WHEREAS, the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post No. 9468 has requested a list of names and addresses of all property owners who claim the veteran’s tax exemption status in Old Bridge; and

WHEREAS, the Veterans of Foreign Wars has requested that the fees in the amount of $446.75 for said list be waived.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, State of New Jersey, that the Veterans of Foreign Wars request for a waiver of the fees in the amount of $446.75 is hereby granted.

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

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

NAYS: None.

RESOLUTION NO. 274

AUTHORIZING CANCELLATION OF MORTGAGE FOR LYNN PROTNICKI, BLOCK 26022, LOT 77-80

BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, New Jersey that:

WHEREAS, a Community Block Development Grant (CDBG) Mortgage was entered into by Lynn J. Prontnicki with the Township of Old Bridge for premises known as 149 Englishtown Road, Old Bridge, NJ 08857 (Block 26022, Lots 77-80); and

WHEREAS, the amount of the CDBG Mortgage was for the amount of $9,643.20; and

WHEREAS, Lynn J. Prontnicki has paid the outstanding amount of the mortgage and is requesting cancellation of said mortgage.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, State of New Jersey that the CDBG Mortgage in the amount of $9,643.20 is hereby canceled. The Township Council authorizes the Mayor and Township Clerk to execute the discharge documents.

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

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

NAYS: None.

RESOLUTION NO. 275

AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF OFFICE FURNITURE FROM ALLIED OFFICE PRODUCTS UNDER STATE CONTRACT

BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, New Jersey that:

WHEREAS, the Township of Old Bridge wishes to purchase office furniture for the engineering department under state contract; and

WHEREAS, the Township of Old Bridge wishes to purchase office furniture for the engineering department for the price of $39,704.87; and

WHEREAS, the Township of Old Bridge wishes to award the state contract for office furniture to the Allied Office Products, located at 10 Delawanna Avenue, Clifton, NJ 07014.

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. Allied Office Product is hereby awarded a contract in the amount of $39,704.87 for office furniture.

2 The award of the contract is contingent upon the issuance of a Certification of Availability of Funds No. 1140 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.

This resolution is conditioned upon the following:

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

B. Issuance of a Certificate of Availability of Funds as aforesaid.

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

D. Compliance by the vendor with filing of the 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 Hoff, seconded by Councilman Calogera and so ordered on the following roll call vote:

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

NAYS: None.

RESOLUTION NO. 276

AUTHORIZING ST. AMBROSE TO CONDUCT A FIREWORKS DISPLAY ON FRIDAY, JUNE 20, 2003 (RAIN DATE - JUNE 21, 2003)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, New Jersey that:

WHEREAS, St. Ambrose is holding their annual carnival in June, 2003; and

WHEREAS, a request has been made by St. Ambrose to hold a fireworks display on Friday, June 20, 2003 (rain date June 21, 2003).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, State of New Jersey, that permission for the fireworks display is hereby approved subject to a certificate of insurance, all fire safety conditions being met, and the proper permits are obtained from the fire official.

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

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

NAYS: None.

ABSTAIN: Councilmen Greene, Redmond, Testino.

Prior to the roll call vote the following discussion took place.

Councilman Calogera: They had $500,000 [insurance] aggregate for the fireworks. Is that what we require from everyone?

Attorney Ruggierio: The limits on the policy are: each occurrence is $1 million; there is an aggregate of $2 million (all claims cannot be in excess of $2 million from any one incident). There is an excess policy of $4 million.

RESOLUTION NO. 277

BINGO/RAFFLE

BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, New Jersey that:

WHEREAS, the following organizations have made application to hold, operate and conduct a Bingo/Raffle; said applications being in accordance with the statutes relating thereto:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge that the Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to issue to the applicants, the following licenses:

RA57-03 St. Ambrose Combined Societies
RA58-03 Old Bridge Soccer
RA59-03 Most Holy Redeemer
RA60-03 Mc Divitt PTA
RA61-03 Mc Divitt PTA

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

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

NAYS: None.

ABSTAIN: Councilmen Greene, Redmond, Testino.

RESOLUTION NO. 278

AUTHORIZING THE ENROLLMENT OF THE GARY AND LAURA LOVALLO FARM IN THE STATE FARMLAND PRESERVATION PROGRAM

BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, New Jersey that:

WHEREAS, the matter of the enrollment of the Gary and Laura Lovallo Farm in the New Jersey Farmland Preservation Program has been referred to the Old Bridge Planning Board for recommendation and Master Plan consistency review pursuant to enrollment requirements of the Middlesex County Agricultural Development Board; and

WHEREAS, the planning board finds that the Lovallo Farm is a 12.25 acre tract and has been actively farmed for many years on Block 10252, Lot 24 as shown on the Tax Map of the Township of Old Bridge; and

WHEREAS, the township planner recommended that the planning board support and recommend the enrollment of the Lovallo Farm in the New Jersey Farmland Preservation Program and indicated that the subject farm has the highest rating for farmland preservation as determined by the Middlesex County Agricultural Development Board entitling it to immediate listing for farmland preservation funding by the State of New Jersey; and

WHEREAS, the Old Bridge Township open space committee has recommended and endorsed the enrollment of the Lovallo Farm in the New Jersey Farmland Preservation Program.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, State of New Jersey that it hereby endorses the enrollment of the Gary and Laura Lovallo Farm in the New Jersey Farmland Preservation Program.

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

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

N