A Combined Meeting of the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge was held on July 14, 2003 in the Municipal Complex. The meeting was called to order at 7:38 p.m. by President Butler.

Moment of Silence.

President Butler requested a moment of silence in remembrance of Lawrence Redmond, Sr. who passed away and the armed forces who serve in Iraq.

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, August 11, 2003 at 6:30 p.m. in the municipal complex.

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

RESOLUTION NO. 383

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

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

the following minutes are hereby approved:

May 12, 2003 - Regular Meeting

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

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

NAYS: None.

ABSENT: Councilmen Hoff, Redmond.

RESOLUTION NO. 384

BILL LIST

BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, State of 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 July 14, 2003 as 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 July 14, 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 $14,005,639.85

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

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

NAYS: None.

ABSENT: Councilmen Hoff, Redmond.

RESOLUTION NO. 385

BILL LIST

BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, State of 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 July 14, 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 July 14, 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 $678,143.16.

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

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

NAYS: None.

ABSENT: Councilmen Hoff, Redmond.

RESOLUTION NO. 386

BILL LIST DENIED

BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, State of 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 July 14, 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 July 14, 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 $37,250.16. (Overtime).

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

AYES: Councilman Baker, President Butler.

NAYS: Councilmen Calogera, Greene, Maher, Testino, Councilwoman Panos.

ABSENT: Councilmen Hoff, Redmond.

Council Comments.

Councilman Baker: I ask the Chair to remind the council that the vote calls for a “yes” or “no” with no comments.

Councilman Calogera: I was elected by my constituents to be here to speak their minds, and that is what I intend to do. At times I reflect in my vote certain words to describe what is going on, and that is for the benefit of my constituents, and I will not cease.

Councilman Baker: I have a question for Mr. Ruggierio because I have been told on numerous occasions that the vote is “yes” or “no”. If we can all make comments, we should do it or we all should decide to say “yes” or “no”.

Attorney Ruggierio: During a roll call vote under any rules of Parliamentary procedure, the vote is “yes” or “no”; it is not a commentary.

President Butler: You can make any comments after the vote.

Councilman Calogera: I made no comments during my vote.

Report of the Clerk

MONTHLY REPORT OF COLLECTIONS OF ROSE-MARIE SARACINO, CLERK

The following represents the collections I have made during the month of June 2003:

DOGS:
2693-2797 830.00
2695 replacement .50

Cats
251-278 196.00

LICENSE:
Vending
Candy - $5.00 each
73 Lakeridge Pool Club 5.00

Limousine
#367 Prestige Car Service 50.00
Ice Cream
Mario’s Ices 25.00
Joe Joe Ice Cream 25.00
Hot Dog
Nina’s Texas Weiners 50.00
Aveta Dogs 50.00

Solicitors
AT&T 4 permits 100.00
305.00

LIQUOR LICENSE

RENEWALS
Liquor License - Renewals
1209-31-045-001 St. Lawrence Holy Name Society 150.00
1209-31-043-001 Old Bridge Columbian Club 150.00
1209-31-044-001 Lion’s Club of Old Bridge 150.00
1209-33-004-002 Sideline Lounge 1,891.92
1209-33-008-002 Vitale’s Bar & Grill 1,891.92
1209-33-018-007 Daniel Markow 1,891.92
1209-33-034-006 Country Thyme Rest. 1,891.92
8,017.68

Maps
1 Ward and 2 Street Maps 15.00

BINGO/RAFFLE
RA62-03 Old Bridge High School 30.00 30.00

PARKING PERMITS
1933-1979 900.00
Replacements - 1945, 1948, 1956, 1959, 1963, 1969, 1970, 1973

SEARCH
17-2003 10.00

MISCELLANEOUS:
Late Fee - DOGS 335.00
Late Fee – CATS 45.00
Photocopies - Copies 87.25
Reimb for Polling Places 450.00
917.25
Total: $11,221.43

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

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

NAYS: None.

ABSENT: Councilmen Hoff, Redmond.

Report of the Attorney

Attorney Ruggierio commented that he had nothing to report except that the Hallock trial had commenced.

Councilman Greene: I have a special request of the attorney. Based on revelations in the Star Ledger on July 7 and in the Home News Tribune on July 8 there appears to be linkage between controversial billboard deals in Middlesex County and local politicians in Old Bridge. Just how much linkage is yet to be determined. The matter is so serious that a Federal grand jury is conducting a criminal investigation into the activities of individuals who were involved in the billboard deals.

I was particularly dismayed to learn that the billboard located in Old Bridge was approved by the township’s Zoning Board of Adjustment. As an elected official I have an obligation to protect the township from individuals who use their political influence to secure township approvals. I have an obligation to determine if there was any political influence behind the zoning board’s decision to approve the billboard.

For these reasons I request that you aggressively investigate the zoning board’s approval. In particular, I would recommend that you pursue the following: obtain all minutes of the zoning board that relate to the billboard approval; obtain all correspondence to the zoning board relating to the billboard approval; determine if any zoning board member was lobbied by a politically connected individual in order to obtain the billboard approval.

We must stay ahead of the curve on this matter, and I would be more than glad to assist you in any way that I can. I would like my colleagues on the Township Council to support my position on this and to formally and actively encourage the attorney to look into this matter.

Councilwoman Panos: Mr. Ruggierio, please copy the council when you obtain the minutes. I support an investigation into any possible political wrongdoings.

Preliminary public comments

Ms. Irene Clavering: Addressed the council to express her dismay over the proposed 2.9% rent increase.

Mr. Dwayne Fields: Echoed Ms. Clavering’s sentiments with respect to the proposed rent increase.

Ms. Anita Clavering: Addressed the council with respect to the Quality Home Care Act (A3778, S266).

Mrs. Alvarez (12 Victorian Drive): Addressed the council with respect to a retaining wall which was built near her home on township property that is desperately in need of repair. Estimated cost of repair is $15,000, and homeowner would have to comply with the wishes of the township with respect to the future of the retaining wall.

Attorney Ruggierio: The Alaverez’ have been living with this for a long time, and they want to improve their property. The problem is that the existing wall adjacent to their property encroaches on township property into a conservation easement. We would like to support her; however, for us to say that they can encroach into a conservation easement is a dangerous precedent and something we may not legally be capable of doing.

I suggested that we enter into an agreement which states that the township will allow the encroachment and improve the wall, but if it ever comes about that the township needs to have the wall removed, the Alvarez’ will have to remove it. I cannot think of way around this, but that Mrs. Alvarez was free to speak to the township council.

Mrs. Alvarez: Explained that the erosion is so great that several feet of dirt has eroded from under her deck.

President Butler: We have to take advice from the attorney to protect the township. We don’t want to start a precedent.

Councilman Greene: I would be happy to work this out.

Mr. Clayton: Requested a meeting with the township council to discuss taxi cab companies.

Attorney Ruggierio: I will do whatever council directs with meeting anyone or providing assistance. I believe that there have been legislative changes requiring council action.

Mr. Clayton: I want to know how the governing body wants me to approach all the issues in the ordinance.

Councilman Testino: Suggested that President Butler and Mr. Clayton speak together briefly to determine what needed to be discussed.

Council Comments

Councilwoman Panos: This weekend there was an MTV production in Ward VI, and I thank everyone involved – the police, fire, first aid and the residents of West Avenue who were gracious hosts. I thank Mr. Badcock for the air conditioning and swings at Vets Park.

Councilman Testino: Protests the placement of Councilwoman Panos’ comments as out of place with the agenda and suggests going to “council comments”.

Councilman Baker: If we are not going by the agenda, what are we doing?

Councilman Calogera: With respect to the C-25 and C-26 (adopting an athletic code of ethics and conduct governing sports teams), this is something that is ready to come to this council. I did not ask for this to be removed; it is ready to move forward. The members of the rec. board who have worked so hard want this expedited. I want to leave this on for this evening. The accompanying ordinance is on for first reading. Both codes are fluid documents which can be changed if we have a problem in the future. To hold this up is unwarranted.

Councilman Testino: Are we taking this out of order? If so, I have a few items that I would like to talk about.

President Butler: No, we will follow the agenda.

Councilman Calogera: I would like to know if things that I put on are being removed from the agenda.

President Butler: When we get to that portion, we will discuss it. We are not discussing it now.

Discussion

2. Rent Control

Councilman Maher: I would like to move up D2 – Rent Control.

President Butler: I will allow that. The mayor appoints the Fair Housing Committee every year, and they review the rentals and make a recommendation as to what they believe the rentals should be. They looked at the CPI (Consumer Price Index), and they came to the conclusion that the rent increase should be 2.9%. The last time we used the CPI was about 15 years ago when the rents were 18%, and I don’t want to go back to that.

MOTION

to deny the 2.9% rent increase made by President Butler, seconded by Councilman Calogera . NO VOTE TAKEN

Councilman Testino: What is the amount that you are approving? On your motion you would be approving what last year’s increase was.

President Butler: If we do nothing, it stays the way it is.

Councilman Testino: How much is that?

President Butler: 2%

Councilman Testino: Is your motion to approve a 2% increase?

President Butler: My motion is to vote down a 2.9%. Once we vote the 2.9% it will remain at 2%.

Attorney Ruggierio: I know the council does vote on this every one or two years, and it comes as a result of the recommendation of the rent control board.

Councilman Testino: In that case I will vote for a no increase.

President Butler: The motion is to deny the recommendation of the Fair Housing Committee, which is 2.9% - which means that it will stay at what it has been for the past 5 years (2%).

Councilman Greene: I would also support no rent increase.

Motion

supporting a no increase (0%) made by Councilman Testino, seconded by Councilman Greene. NO VOTE TAKEN

Councilwoman Panos: Mr. Testino is moving that it is not 2%, it is 0%?

Councilman Testino: We will hold the line.

President Butler: No increase is what that would mean.

Councilwoman Panos: No increase so it goes back to the 2%. Is that your motion, Mr. Testino?

Councilman Testino: My motion is no percent increase.

Attorney Ruggierio There are some things that you need to consider before you vote. The landlords are entitled to a fair return on their investment, and if you deprive them of it, I am sure that your decision will be overturned. We have a lot of severe implications that occur on tax assessments for apartment complexes when rents are held down artificially as against inflation. The rest of the taxpayers end up losing the benefit of the valuation when the rents are repressed. From a legal prospective. I would think that the 2% increase is a lot better then the zero.

Councilman Calogera: What would happen if they go to court? Could the rate be higher than the 2%?

Attorney Ruggierio: This would be a question of due process. They would probably contend that we were not permitting them a return on investment, and court could make an appropriate offer, and we would also pay the price in the tax court. If you owned an apartment complex, it would be worth less. That is common sense.

President Butler opened a public portion

Stephen Brunell: I am a resident of Parkview Apartments and a member of the Rent Stabilization Board as well as the Fair Rent Committee. The recommendation was not specifically 2.9%. This recommendation was made in March that whatever the CPI was (as determined by the Federal government) on June 1 as published in the Wall Street Journal is what the figure would be and it does vary. At times it was .4%, and as high as 3.1% within the last year. These numbers were studied by us, and the reason we decided to make a recommendation to go to the CPI was because the current system is broken. For the past four years we have come with recommendations, which have not been discussed or acted upon. Therefore, we felt that something less political as in going to something as determined by the Federal government which takes into account the differences in the wages and costs affecting fuel which would be the most fair and unbiased thing. We had also discussed the idea that we would not be opposed to the council putting a cap on it; however, remaining under the CPI for a short term at the current 2.9%. This is a not a number that the Fair Rent Committee came up with. It is a number that was published in the Wall Street Journal and was given to the township by the Federal government.

President Butler: Was there a vote taken on this by your committee?

Mr. Brunell: The vote taken was that whatever the figure was on June 1 was what our recommendation was going to be. It is my understanding that in order for the rent stabilization ordinance to be changed, this must occur prior to July 31. Therefore, with no meeting on July 28, this is the only chance to hear this. It is your decision. We felt that going to a CPI versus trying to defend any rate would be difficult trying to obtain a consensus among landlords, tenants and homeowners to come up with an easily justified number.

We have thrown around many different numbers; the tenants complain the number is too high; the landlords, too low. Taking this out of our hands was the best decision and that is the reason for our recommendation. I feel that many of the audience here tonight were misled to believe that we were pushing for a higher rent increase. That was not our intention, but rather to go with the costs associated with the rent. Had it been 1.7%, I question if anyone would have attended.

Glenwood Apartment Resident: There are many seniors who have not had maintenance performed at their apartments, i.e. loose railings, cracked curbs, etc. Many tenants have been intimidated and security has declined. Cars are speeding through the complex.

Mr. Pagnotta: Expressed his concern about the rent rate increase.

Ms. Clavering: Echoed the concern about the rent rate increase.

Mr. Sucarato (49 Carmel Court): Currently the CPI takes into account the war in Iraq which has raised the cost of fuel. The fuel prices are coming down, and there is now a fear of deflation. I believe that 2.9% is a little high if we are looking forward to the rent increase for the next twelve months. The current projection for the CPI is approximately 2%.

Mr. Dunlop: In a disabled veterans magazine it has been established 2% to be the increase the veterans will receive in their pensions at the end of the year. Last year the rate was 1.6%.

Mr. Brunell: The opinion I expressed earlier represents the committee’s (Fair Rent) opinion. I wish to explain how that decision came about. Personally, I don’t believe that it is in the renters’ best interest to have the rent any higher than it was. In the past nine months, my family income has decreased by about 52%. However, I stand with what the committee has decided, but I do not want to see the 2.9% increase.

President Butler closed the public portion.

Councilman Calogera: Did the 2.9% cover the whole CPI and not just segmented for housing or fuel?

Mr. Brunell: It was segmented for housing in New York City-North Jersey. They do not give one for central New Jersey. They divide the state as to north and south.

Councilman Calogera: With the CPI figures that we have, I am showing decreases in October and November in housing and shelter of one-tenth, two-tenths. If we go into October 2002, housing costs and shelter costs were down respectively one-half percent and .8%. I know that fuel is a part of this, but some of these $1,000 a month rent is not fuel. Twenty percent of that might be, and the increases in fuel should only be reflected on that part of the bills which are. CPI was geared to the overall basket, and may not be reflective just of the housing and rent bill.

Mr. Brunell: I and the committee understand what you are saying. This is a reaction to the previous year. When we come before the council we are asked a series of questions as to how we derive this number. The numbers in previous years were arbitrary and capricious. We picked numbers on which we can all agree. Most of the time I voted against the numbers because I was not in agreement. The feeling is that if we come to the council with a high number, they will knock it down, and we will find a happy medium. Many landlords were frustrated because this was not happening. The 2.9% is not the recommendation of the Fair Rent Committee, but they would rather that we should go to a standard because it is impossible to justify a figure.

President Butler: The Fair Rent Committee has recommended 2.9%. If I understand correctly from the attorney if we vote down a 2.9%, the increase stays the same as it was. Am I correct, Mr. Attorney?

Attorney Ruggierio: Yes.

Councilwoman Panos: I think you have a motion from Mr. Testino for a zero percent.

President Butler: Who said “no increase”? Do you want to rethink that in reference to what the attorney just told us?

Councilman Greene: I want the motion that Mr. Butler just explained.

President Butler: I explained this because of what the attorney said. He is our legal advisor.

Motion

to deny a 2.9% rent increase made by President Butler, seconded by Councilman Greene and so ordered on the following roll call vote:

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

NAYS: None.

ABSENT: Councilmen Hoff, Redmond.

Hearing - Liquor License - NH Wines & Spirits, Inc. t/a Breakfast Club.

President Butler: I have removed this from tonight’s agenda; we will hear this on August 11.

Hearing

1. Mobil on the Run - release/reduction of performance guarantee

Councilman Baker: I have a letter from the applicant. “Please reschedule the hearing scheduled for 7/14/03 to 8/11/03 which is the next planned meeting. There is an issue of a dead three, and we need time to resolve this issue. We also request a waiver to resend the notices. Sorry for the inconvenience.” This letter is signed “3M Holding Corporation.

President Butler: Does the council have a copy of that memorandum?

Councilman Calogera: Who was that letter given to?

President Butler: We received it tonight.

Councilman Baker: I request the Clerk to put it on the agenda for 8/11/03.

Councilman Testino: Can we take a five minute recess?

Councilman Calogera: I would like them to renotice.

President Butler: We are taking a five minute break.

Combined meeting recesses at 8:30 p.m.
Combined meeting resumes at 8:40 p.m.

Roll call by Deputy Clerk Ward showed the following as present: Councilmen Baker, Greene, Maher, Testino. Councilmen Calogera and Councilwoman Panos were absent from the podium. Councilmen Hoff and Redmond were absent.

Report

1. Cablevision Settlement

Attorney Ruggierio: We have a good settlement, and I ask your authority to enter a formal stipulation. I have a resolution that I gave out today, and unfortunately, there were negotiations a few hours ago on the bottom line language of this resolution. The conditions of the settlement are that Cablevision will provide three pieces of expensive equipment to the township television statement – the remote camera, the recorder and the lighting grid. They will spend up to $30,000 in that regard.

The next element of the settlement is that Biondi (aka Genoa) will be connected to the cable system. The next condition is that in the Hawkins Road area there will be a line extension. I know that the council is familiar with these issues. Cablevision will also provide a fibre optic return line upstream transmission from Lombardi Field located at Old Bridge High School (west campus), and they will accomplish that within the timeframe indicated in the resolution.

As another condition of the settlement, they will also give us one fibre optic return line for upstream transmission from the public library, the civic center and the senior citizen center. The next is that Cablevision will pay the township $3605 for reimbursement for what we have expended to bring cable internet to the Camp Robin building. They are also going to pay $4500 to the township in connection with the relocation of the township television station. That will be cash dollars.

We were concerned that our educational cable channel and our municipal cable channel were shared with other programming services. It is not really objectionable these days. It is shared with local access and some other not too popular programming. Cablevision has indicated that they will not change that sharing arrangement. We will not be receiving citizens at the municipal building telling us that they are not getting valuable programming. They commit to do that unless they are ordered to do it by some other agency, and that should not happen.

During the time period that they will maintain signal quality ( which is important pursuant to the information given to us by our television professionals who indicated that as our educational and municipal channels are moved higher up on the channel scale that the reception was bad. This was put in the agreement to make sure that this does not happen in the future. We have a special provision which deals with the fact that we always want to maintain our educational and municipal access channel, and the reason that we had so much trouble with Cablevision was that we felt that this level playing field language had the potential of taking that way. We inserted this language in the agreement. “The municipal access and the municipal educational access channel is of extreme importance to the Township of Old Bridge and are material elements of the franchise. Cablevision agrees that nothing in this proposed stipulations or the negotiations relating thereto will be construed to permit the company to move or terminate either access channel from the system without the express written consent of the Township of Old Bridge.

In exchange for the conditions about which we spoke, I have not quite finished describing the favorable elements of the settlement. There is an agreement that the franchise will be extended for eight years as opposed to five years that was previously approved, as opposed to the fifteen that Cablevision wanted, as opposed to the ten that was discussed before the judge. My recommendation is eight years.

The municipal building, the administration wing, the police department, the TV studio are going to receive standard installation if they don’t already have it of cable television reception service. We have eliminated the ice arena from that list, and schools are covered in the upper part of the paragraph. We have eliminated the duplication of the schools.

One high- speed cable modem and monthly internet access will be provided to a designated building within the Township of Old Bridge that we may indicate. We may hook up three additional computers to that access. At one of our discussions, Councilwoman Panos indicated that she thought that maybe the office should be two to five miles away from the township borders at the most if we were requiring this to occur. There is a provision in the cable law that the cable office be within the boundaries of the municipality or reasonably proximate to the municipality. We propose to put that language in the cable provision. There is a notice provision where they cannot move this office (presently at Ernston Road) without sixty days’ notice to us. We could then make an application to the Board of Public Utilities to resist the moving of the office.

Free of charge is one high-speed cable modem and monthly internet access to all state or locally accredited public and private primary and secondary schools and all municipal public libraries. The next provision is that the Township of Old Bridge agrees to this level playing field language which I can either read or characterize. If another multi-channel video programmer comes in and offers services to the Township of Old Bridge, and Cablevision discerns that it is suffering a significant competitive disadvantage, it may request the Township of Old Bridge to do away with some or all of the non-competitive provisions in the franchise. The township does not have to agree to this; I have put language in this saying that the township may resist this. If we cannot come to an agreement about these issues, Cablevision may go the Board of Public Utilities to request that they modify the franchise. We not only have a right to deny this application, but we have the right to appear before the Board of Public Utilities and oppose any such application.

The 2% of actual gross revenues will remain as is. There are other boilerplate provisions, but I would like to ask council for authority to turn this settlement into a stipulation that would be filed with the Office of Administrative Law. I know that this has gone on a very long time, and this will be revisited by the municipality three years from the termination of the franchise. We are looking at a period of four to five years before we have to start this all over again. This was a good deal and negotiated vigorously, and I thank Mr. Azzarello who helped greatly with the lobbyists for this company. We were at loggerheads last week. I told them that the term of the franchise could not go to ten; the council would not accept it.

RESOLUTION NO. 387

CABLEVISION

RESOLUTION APPROVING SETTLEMENT OF CONTESTED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW PROCEEDING WITH CABLEVISION OF RARITAN VALLEY

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 is party to certain administrative proceedings in connection with the case In Re: CSC TKR, Inc., d/b/a Cablevision of Raritan Valley; and

WHEREAS, the Township Attorney has negotiated a proposed settlement which has been presented to the Township Council in Executive Session; and

WHEREAS, the Township Council believes it is in the best interest of the Township of Old Bridge to agree to a settlement of the contested administrative proceedings; and

WHEREAS, this Resolution is adopted in order to authorize the said settlement.

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

1. The Township Attorney is hereby authorized to enter a Consent Order and/or any other closing documents necessary to settle the case known as In Re: CSC TKR, Inc., d/b/a Cablevision of Raritan Valley in accordance with the terms of this Resolution.

2. As a condition of the settlement proposed, CSC TKR, Inc. d/b/a Cablevision of Raritan Valley (hereinafter referred to as Cablevision) will pay the Township of Old Bridge $4,500.00 as reimbursement for the reasonable expenses incurred in connection with the relocation of the Municipal Access Channel and Municipal Educational Access Channel. Cablevision will make this payment within forty-five (45) days of the date that the Board of Public Utilities issues a Certificate of Approval granting the company’s franchise.

3. As a condition of the settlement proposed, Cablevision will provide the Township of Old Bridge with the following equipment for its television station:

(a) Remote Camera - Panasonic AG 456 union camcorder;
(b) SVHS recorder/player deck - Panasonic AG7350; and
(c) 12' x 12' lighting grid with installation

To the extent that the above-described model or makes are no longer available, Cablevision will provide a reasonable equivalent thereof as may be mutually agreed upon by the parties. The specified equipment will be provided within ninety (90) days from the date that the Board of Public Utilities issues a Certificate of Approval granting the company's franchise. Cablevision will be responsible for all costs associated with the purchase and installation of such equipment up to a maximum of $30,000.00. Any costs above $30,000.00 will be borne by the Township of Old Bridge.

4. As a condition of the settlement proposed, Cablevision will connect the Biondi area (a/k/a Genoa) to the cable system currently serving the majority of Old Bridge Township customers so that subscribers residing in the Biondi area will receive the same programming options including the same Municipal and Education Access Channels as the other areas located within the Township. Cablevision has produced a map showing the Biondi area to be connected and this map shall be attached to any Stipulation of Settlement reached between the parties. Cablevision will complete all work necessary to accomplish this connection within ninety (90) days from the date that the Board of Public Utilities issues a Certificate of Approval granting the company’s franchise.

5. As a condition of the settlement proposed, Cablevision will, to the extent that it has not already been done, extend its cable system to offer service to potential customers along the area of Hawkins Road identified on the map produced by Cablevision which shall be attached as an exhibit to any settlement. Cablevision will extend its plant to serve customers in this area without application of a line extension charge. Tariff rates for standard and non-standard installation will apply. Cablevision will complete all work necessary to accomplish this line extension within ninety (90) days from the date that the Board of Public Utilities issues a Certificate of Approval granting the company’s franchise.

6. As a condition of the settlement proposed, Cablevision will, to the extent that it has not already been done, install and maintain throughout the term of the franchise, one (1) fiber-optic return line for upstream transmission from Lombardi Field located at Old Bridge Township High School, West Campus. Cablevision will complete all work necessary to accomplish this installation within ninety (90) days from the date that the Board of Public Utilities issues a Certificate of Approval granting the company’s franchise.

7. As a condition of the settlement proposed, Cablevision will install and maintain throughout the term of the franchise one (1) fiber-optic return line for upstream transmission from each of the following locations:

(1) the Municipal Public Library;
(2) the Municipal Civic Center; and
(3) the Municipal Senior Citizens Center

All of these offices and buildings are located at the Municipal Complex, Old Bridge Plaza, Old Bridge, New Jersey. Cablevision will complete all work necessary to accomplish this installation within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date that the Board of Public Utilities issues a Certificate of Approval granting the company’s franchise.

8. As a condition of the settlement proposed, Cablevision will reimburse the Township $3,605.00 for the cost that the municipality incurred to install cable television service at Camp R.O.B.I.N., located at 41 Route 516, Old Bridge, New Jersey. Cablevision will make payment within forty-five (45) days from the date that the Board of Public Utilities issues a Certificate of Approval granting the company’s franchise.

9. As a condition of the settlement proposed, Cablevision will provide the Township with thirty (30) days advance notice prior to any change in the Municipal or Education Access Channel locations provided that the channel relocation is within the company’s control.

10. As a condition of the settlement proposed, Cablevision agrees and obligates itself to the following:

The Municipal Access Channel and the Municipal Educational Access Channel will not be shared with any programming services other than the programming services being shared on May 15, 2003 with these access channels as provided in the Cablevision’s channel line-up attached hereto as Exhibit A.

11. As a condition of the settlement proposed, Cablevision agrees and obligates itself to the following:

Throughout the term of the franchise and during any subsequent proceedings to renew or temporary extension of the franchise during renewal proceedings or challenges thereto, the company will maintain a reasonably equivalent level of technical signal quality and reliability on the Municipal Educational Access Channel and Municipal Access Channel as it provides for any other analog channel signal transmitted over its cable system.

12. As a condition of the settlement proposed, Cablevision acknowledges, accepts and agrees to the following:

The Municipal Access Channel and the Municipal Educational Access Channel is of extreme importance to the Township of Old Bridge and is a material element of the franchise. Cablevision agrees that nothing in the proposed Stipulation or the negotiations relating thereto will be construed to permit the company to remove or terminate either access channel from the system without the express written consent of the Township of Old Bridge.

13. As a condition of the settlement proposed, the Township grants Cablevision an eight (8) year franchise measured from the date that the Board of Public Utilities issues a new Certificate of Approval. The grant to Cablevision is a non-exclusive right to place, in, upon, along, across, above, over and under its highways, streets, alleys, sidewalks, public ways, and public places in the municipality polls, wires, cables and fixtures necessary for the maintenance and operation in the Township of a cable television system, and for the provision of any communication service over the said system as may be authorized by Federal or State of New Jersey regulatory agencies. Operation and construction of the cable system is conditioned upon prior approval of the Board of Public Utilities.

14. As a condition of the settlement proposed, Cablevision will provide, free of charge, within one hundred twenty (120) days from receipt of a written request, one (1) standard installation and basic monthly cable television reception service to all state or locally accredited public and private primary and secondary schools and all municipal public libraries, as well as those municipal buildings set forth below:

The Township Municipal Building, which includes the Administration wing, Police Department wing and the TV Studio; the Police substation in Laurence Harbor; the Old Bridge Library and Laurence Harbor branch; Old Bridge Senior Center and Laurence Harbor Senior Center; the Recreation Department, including satellite buildings (Camp R.O.B.I.N. Recreation Center) Marlboro Road Community Center, Laurence Harbor Recreation Center and the Route 9 Youth Center; First Aid Squads; Fire District offices and fire buildings.

Any non-standard installations, excluding Camp R.O.B.I.N., which is addressed separately in paragraph 8 of this Resolution, shall be subject to Cablevision's tariff rates for non-standard installations.

15. As a condition of the settlement proposed, Cablevision will provide, free of charge, within one hundred twenty (120) days from receipt of a written request from the Township, one (1) high-speed cable modem and monthly Internet access service, including a standard installation, to one (1) designated building within the Township. Cablevision will permit the Township, at its own cost, to network up to three (3) additional personal computer terminals in the designated building (four (4) computers in total) to the cable modem provided by Cablevision.

16. As a condition of the settlement proposed, Cablevision shall maintain a local office or agent in accordance with the following standards.

The local office will be fully capable, staffed and equipped to investigate and resolve all complaints regarding the quality of service, equipment malfunctions and similar matters. The said office or agent shall be located in or within reasonable proximity of the Township. In accordance with N.J.A.C. 14:18-5.1, before the local office can be moved from its current location, Cablevision must give the Township written notice. At such time, the Township may protest the proposed relocation by filing an objection with the Board of Public Utilities.

17. As a condition of the settlement proposed, Cablevision will provide, free of charge, within one hundred twenty (120) days from receipt of a written request, one (1) high-speed cable modem and monthly Internet access service, including a standard installation, to all state or locally accredited public and private primary and secondary schools and all municipal public libraries.

18. As a condition of the settlement proposed, the Township of Old Bridge agrees that Cablevision has the legal, technical and financial qualifications to operate a cable system within the Township; that Cablevision has complied in all ways with the material terms of its existing franchise; that Cablevision’s proposal for renewal (as modified by this settlement) is adequate and feasible; and that the company has demonstrated that it is entitled to renew under applicable Federal and State law.

19. As a condition of the settlement proposed, the Township agrees that in the event that another multi-channel video program provider’s service within the Township creates a significant competitive disadvantage to Cablevision, the company shall have the right to request from the Township lawful amendments to its franchise that relieve it of burdens which create the unfair competitive situation. Should Cablevision seek such amendments to its franchise, the parties agree to negotiate in good faith appropriate changes to the franchise in order to relieve the company of such competitive disadvantages. The Township shall have the absolute discretion to reject the amendments sought by Cablevision. If the parties can reach an agreement on such terms, the Township agrees to support Cablevision’s petition to the Board of Public Utilities for modification of the consent in accordance with N.J.S.A. 48:5A-47 and N.J.A.C. 14:17-6.7. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement on appropriate amendments to the franchise, the Township acknowledges that the company shall have the right to petition the Board of Public Utilities directly for such amendments in accordance with N.J.S.A. 48:5A-47 and N.J.A.C. 14:17-6.7, provided, however, the Township shall be under no obligation to support Cablevision’s request for such relief from the Board of Public Utilities. The Township shall have every right to oppose Cablevision’s request for relief from the Board of Public Utilities. Cablevision represents and acknowledges that as of the date of its acceptance of the stipulation, competition within the Township has not yet risen to the level of creating a significant competitive disadvantage sufficient to enable the company to seek relief.

20. As a condition of the settlement proposed, Cablevision agrees that it will pay to the Township, as an annual franchise fee, a sum equal to (2%) percent of the actual gross revenues received from all recurring charges in the nature of subscription fees paid by subscribers for its cable television services in the Township.

21. As a condition of the settlement proposed, the Township hereby designates the Office of Cable Television as the complaint officer. All complaints will be processed in accordance with applicable law and regulation.

22. As a condition of the settlement proposed, Cablevision and the Township of Old Bridge agree that all other aspects of the franchise shall be governed in accordance with applicable law and regulation.

EXHIBIT A

Comment 1:

This channel is a shared channel. The shared channels are (1) the municipal public education and government channel with (2) The local origination channel operated by CSC-TKR, Inc. The choice of which programming is broadcast and when is under the complete and exclusive control of the Township of Old Bridge.

Comment 2:

This channel is exclusively dedicated as a Public/Educational/Governmental channel. The Board of Education of the Township of Old Bridge exclusively controls the programming content.

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

AYES: Councilmen Calogera, Greene, Councilwoman Panos, President Butler

NAYS: Councilmen Maher, Testino

ABSTAIN: Councilman Baker

ABSENT: Councilmen Hoff, Redmond

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

Councilman Calogera: What happened to the money that was owed us from Cablevision in the transfer from company to company?

Mr. Shah: There was a reason for no increase during 1999 because the FCC or the BPU had lowered the rates.

Councilman Calogera: Was that percentage contractually guaranteed to us?

Mr. Shah: They gave us 2% of the revenue.

Councilman Calogera: It was on a percentile basis; not a flat rate basis?

Councilman Maher: Why was wiring the ice arena dropped?

Attorney Ruggierio: With respect to all the listed buildings, in our negotiations it was one of the items left over. The township was to provide a list of buildings. I did not have the details of the discussions we had had in the past. I asked my secretary to come up with every possible building that could be listed. We could always cut the number down. Cablevision resist things like golf courses and ice arenas which are quasi-profitable. I thought that since we had covered so much in this list, I conceded on that.

Councilman Maher: The ice arena is on the list, correct?

Attorney Ruggierio: We were going to provide a list of buildings, and this was something that had to be negotiated, and I felt we could concede on that one building. I made the list very comprehensive. When they made their argument, I did not disagree with them.

Councilman Maher: Can we add the community YMCA to this list?

Attorney Ruggierio: Unless that building is going to be owned by the township, we cannot add it. I just asked Alayne if the Marlboro Road community center was a municipal building. The first aid buildings may be questionable, but they did not quibble about that.

Councilman Maher: I don’t see anything relating to new technology. This contract will be eight years old. I am not up on cable technology, but they have digital cable television. Old Bridge is not wired for digital, and I don’t want to lag behind. Can we put language to the effect that they should wiring or moving us from the antiquated analog cable to the high speed digital cable?

Attorney Ruggierio: We have had a lot of discussions, and they are on the threshold of bringing this to Old Bridge. We could put it in as a strong request as opposed to disrupting the negotiations. If at any point council feels that we are being disadvantaged and that they are not bringing technology to us, we can make independent applications to BPU to force them to do these things. I will include language of request. I cannot renegotiate this.

Councilman Maher: I feel strongly that we should be providing state of the art technology to our residents. What about recourse – if they don’t live up to the twenty-two conditions. Does that fall back to the umbrella contract?

Attorney Ruggierio: We don’t franchise the cable system; BPU does. Our role is to pass a municipal consent ordinance which we have been holding up for a long time. The recourse is that if they don’t perform up to standards, or they could perform better, and we want to make a point of it, we should bring an application to the BPU which is responsive to municipalities The level playing field language should not bother us because it is unlikely that if the town opposed some modification, the BPU would go along with it. At the end of the franchise period, they may be more amenable to it, but during the franchise we would be more protected.

Councilman Maher: I would like to see stronger language with respect to recourse. This company has a history of broken promises. Genoa and parts of Englishtown Road should have been wired. I am not willing to give a “Aye” vote on this unless I see strong language with respect to recourse and state of the art technology.

Attorney Ruggierio: Our recourse has to be an application to BPU because that is the franchising authority. We can control that from a local level. If we keep on top of this with a log of complaints, and we see a pattern, we can make an application to BPU who will be tough on the cable company.

Councilman Maher: Genoa should have been wired, and it is not, and we are putting it into this contract.

Attorney Ruggierio: This is a settlement of the last contract. One part of me is bothered by the fact that Cablevision in the past when they could have easily turned on Genoa (they have already done most of the work to get it wired). We were going to try to use this in the contested case before Administrative Law. How can we withhold these things for negotiations? We have reached a settlement that I think is a compromise that has many things in our favor, and I recommend its passage. I will include language that talks about the importance of technology. Recourse is controlled by the BPU regulations.

Councilman Maher: Item No. 20 – annual franchise fee at 2% of the gross revenues was in the last contract. Did we try to increase that?

Attorney Ruggierio: The statute requires mandatory 1.5%. Cablevision, following its lead from TKR in the earliest contracts, is paying 2% which was approved by the BPU. To great a greater franchise fee we would have to demonstrate that we were entitled to it because of some extraordinary need, and then BPU would potentially approve a greater franchise fee. I doubt that there is another municipality that gets greater franchise fees than 2% of this basic cable deal.

Councilman Maher: Do we know that as a fact?

Attorney Ruggierio: We have had mediations with Celeste from the Office of Cable Television, and she has said that we cannot get any more revenue. I have seen it in the regulations. I never checked to see if there is a municipality that gets more revenue on some basis.

Councilman Maher: I want to see if we can reach out to other communities to see if they are getting anything higher than the 2% gross revenues.

President Butler opened a public portion

Mr. Seewald: I have followed Cablevision, and I urge you to give not an inch. Strong language with Cablevision means nothing. Strong language without recourse is a blank card. I have made over one hundred requests to sit down with Cablevision. I am not asking for anything. We have specific suggestions on how to improve Cablevision and have written to them many times. I have yet to receive a phone call from them. Cablevision has been asked to come here; they didn’t. The BPU does not represent you. They are political appointees by the governor and under the influence of the lobbyists. They don’t represent the interest of taxpayers or municipalities.

If you look at the history of Cablevision, you will find out that when Congress passed it, it was supposed to provide competition and lower rates. It didn’t. They are in clear violation of the anti-trust laws. No one has challenged them because they get their way. You pay for the Knicks and the Rangers and the Dolans’ fiascos. You have the best lawyer I have ever seen in Mr. Ruggierio, but on this I disagree. I know that if you don’t pass this, the BPU will do whatever it wants. Let them, and let the public know that the political appointees are responsible for overriding the municipality decision.

Someone has to take a stand; I am sure that there are towns that get more revenue. Cablevision will do exactly what they want. They have abused the congressional mandate of lowering the price and providing high tech for the public. Every time you see the Knicks and the Rangers and you hear about Cablevision losing money because of Madison Square Garden, you are all paying for it. Their words mean nothing. Please vote “no”.

Mr. Pagnotta: Expressed his frustrations with Cablevision.

President Butler closed the public portion.

Council discussion continues.

Councilman Calogera: I have concerns about Cablevision keeping its word. If we go with this agreement, can we tack in on each category some monetary remuneration they would have to give us in the event they do not comply with the times of fixing these items?

Attorney Ruggierio: I don’t think we can from a practical or legal basis. I respect Mr. Seewald who has always given honest, passionate remarks about what he believes in. If you turn this away, maybe you will have a victory in the sense that you can feel good that all of those . . . that ultimately the administrative law judge . . . I am not satisfied that we should take a victory in this case. My job as your lawyer is to try to figure out how to get to the finish line in the best shape we can. I feel that this is it, and I know that it takes a fair amount of courage on your part in an election year to vote for a Cablevision renewal. Allowing this to go to the full vote in terms of legal proceedings, we are not going to come out as good. Do you really want to go through an emotional exercise when they vote on something and the residents end up with not as much?

Councilman Calogera: If Cablevision has the intention of meeting the stipulations, why would they have any objection to a monetary stipulation about non-performance?

Attorney Ruggierio: Let’s make this deal – if they don’t comply with time limits, we will bring revocation proceedings. Their obligation is set in stone by the BPU once this is approved.

Councilman Calogera: Is it possible in lieu of their going into default by not meeting the deadlines for them to agree to an outside arbitrator; we would not have to go to BPU, and this would be contractual?

Attorney Ruggierio: I don’t know if they would agree to that which would require me to go back and renegotiate. There is a good mechanism in place by the BPU. Notwithstanding what was said, the BPU tends to favor municipalities when there is a legitimate case. They have good remediation. If we had them taking 130 days for something they were supposed to do in 120 days, I am sure they would have one thousand excuses. But if they knew that we were on their case every time they missed a deadline, we would get top attention. Putting monetary penalties would not get past the BPU. I am positive that we would be into another six months with Cablevision to get those kinds of provisions, and I don’t think it is possible.

Councilman Calogera: They don’t want to honor this; they don’t want to back this up?

Attorney Ruggierio: They have an obligation once this becomes part of the franchise to honor it. They are right there with Genoa; they could flip a switch. I remind the council that we did get a number of things unilaterally done by Cablevision because of the ordinance that you passed when you approved the franchise, but made it really clear that you were not happy with the service. You have had good success, and they are not going to violate a term installed in the franchise.

Councilman Testino: The real issue is money, and it seems as though we are getting a pittance. I know that Bill worked hard on this, but I don’t know if we did this well in past years, but I am inclined to adopt Monte’s vision of this and send a message to them. I personally cannot agree to the eight years. If they wanted to go on a ten-year track when we started this, I can agree to that because that way they would be right under the gun again. As far as the technology (is concerned), Dennis is right on the money. They are selling it to Marlboro first because they have more buyers. They have done a marketing study, and they know that people are going to buy it. They are holding Old Bridge back because they think they are discriminating against us. They could have brought it here already. As far as Genoa (is concerned), shame on them. They have the technology to turn the switch.

Councilman Greene: It is a difficult decision, and it is easy for me to say “no”. This has been a long process. This council has met and discussed this and looked at the proposals and has asked the attorney to revisit some things with Cablevision, and I think this is politically motivated in a sense. We are all of a sudden raising questions. The last time we met, I agreed with everyone. We took them to task for not wiring Genoa and other issues. I cannot just sit here and not say anything. I do have to point out that we did get a lot of concessions for better or worse, i.e., they wanted a fifteen year contract; we brought them down to eight. I thought a lot was accomplished. Do I think Cablevision is a good company? No, I think they have a lot of problems.

This has become a political statement on the part of some council members who may be running for election because if they wanted to object, they should have done so when we discussed this at other meetings. I would not defend in any way what Cablevision has done, but this has been going on for several years. Mr. Ruggierio has worked hard coming up with a fair and reasonable package. The best thing to do is to move forward and hold them accountable if in three months they have not wired Genoa. We tell them that we fought you; this is what we wanted; this was a package over two years. To make a political statement is unfair to the work that has been done by the administration and others who have come up with the most fair and reasonable solution. Saying “no” means that this goes out of our hands into the hands of political appointees who will sit in Trenton and say that we did not agree to a contract; this is what we are going to give you which will not include the perks that you and Cablevision have worked out. The decision is difficult, but I cannot sit here and make my colleagues make this a political football because of an election.

Councilwoman Panos: If there cannot be a monetary repercussion, how about in writing that this will go for revocation? Do something that says you fooled us once, shame on you; you fooled us twice, shame on us. Can’t we get some sort of backup that if they don’t live up to this whether it be monetary or . . .

Attorney Ruggierio: Mr. Maher suggested that there be language in here about the technology as to how we were going to monitor and enforce the deadlines. This is a tough decision, but you don’t want to wind up with a worse outcome because we have decided to make a statement.

Councilwoman Panos: Cablevision has earned the right for everyone to hate them, but what do we have if they don’t do this?

Attorney Ruggierio: They are going to be obligated by the grant of the franchise to do these things within 120 days (or 90 days). If they don’t, we can take immediate action. You are right that this should be monitored; you are right if you are critical of the past wherein there has not been the type of monitoring there could have been. There is no question, but I don’t want to see the town end up in a worse situation.

Councilwoman Panos: If we do this, do we retain the right to revoke their franchise?

Attorney Ruggierio: We always have the right to bring an action at BPU to revoke the franchise. BPU is the franchising authority; we are only an agreeing party from the municipal prospective. If they don’t abide by the franchise, that is almost dead for not complying with the franchise.

Councilwoman Panos: We would have a stronger case if we agree to this and in 120 days if they didn’t live up to this, we would take them instead of letting them take us.

Attorney Ruggierio: If you let this go on the way it is, you can take out 80% of the good things in this franchise because I don’t think an administrative law judge is going to order those things. We may also win on the point I raised before.

Councilwoman Panos: If we do this tonight, can we have a report in 120 days with something drawn up?

Attorney Ruggierio: I will give you a report every 30 days. They have to get this codified at the BPU before the deadlines kick in.

Councilman Testino: What is the deadline with the settlement?

Attorney Ruggierio: We have a hearing date set for the end of July. We are really at the end of the rope in terms of any potential opportunity to renegotiate. This is really crunch time. If we don’t settle, we are going on to present our case to the administrative law judge who is going to render a decision. We will then have something imposed upon us.

Councilman Testino: Perhaps they can turn Genoa on before the end of July. I have been against this and have told Bill that I was not for this term. I don’t know where everyone else was when I said that. I have been against Cablevision. Roman Sohor was here when I started fighting against Cablevision.

President Butler: We receive calls from those who have problems watching this program. Can we have something in the contract that forces them to take a look at this?

Attorney Ruggierio: We have an obligation as the municipality which is usually conducted by the Mayor’s office (but council could participate) to keep a committee in force that keeps complaints; that monitors signal quality and other issues;and makes sure that we have a good record so that if we were to take more aggressive action in the future, we have a record that supports it.

We have a cable committee. The Mayor’s secretary is an excellent record keeper and has a whole file on Cablevision misconduct. From what I have heard from Diane Amabile the responsiveness of Cablevision has been a few steps above TKR whose problems were substantial.

President Butler: My understanding has been that we do not have a big file of complaints against Cablevision from the public. All Cablevision complaints should be sent to the Mayor’s office to be put in a folder so that we can build a case against Cablevision.

They have to come to us, and we have to approve future channel changes, correct?

Attorney Ruggierio: Channel changes are governed by a regulation. They merely have to give us notice of channel changes, but they are committing in the franchise not to move any channels in back of our municipal and educational channels which have caused problems. EWTN and Faith and Values got behind our municipal station, and suddenly we had people who wanted that programming telling us that they could not get it, but the rest of the Raritan system does. They won’t be allowed to do something like that under the agreement we have reached.

President Butler: With respect to monitoring, can we count on the cable committee to monitor what you have in that agreement?

Attorney Ruggierio: I have used the cable committee to help me with these issues. They have not become an enforcement body. We have used the Mayor and her secretary to keep track of complaints that come in which I know are passed along to Cablevision. There should be thought given as to how we can effectively be proactive in dealing with complaints and record keeping.

President Butler: I believe that the complaints should be put in writing, and we should get copies. If we are being treated like second-class citizens now, and we don’t pass this agreement, and we let BPU assign the years, we are going to be third class citizen. We have to have something that we can go back at them with.

Councilman Baker: The government is working to bring competition to the cable industry. I work for a competitor. Does that preclude me from voting on this?

Attorney Ruggierio: If the competitor offers similar services, I would think that you have a conflict.

Councilman Baker: I urge the other council members to vote “yes” on this, but I will abstain on the advice of the attorney.

Councilwoman Panos: Gene (McLaughlin) has been involved. Are you satisfied?

Mr. McLaughlin: I have been through a lot with Bill, and I agree with Monte that Cablevision is not the most trustworthy, but we are at a point where we have achieved as much as we can hope for. It has been more than three years. We don’t want to become subject to BPU.

Presentation – Review of Old Bridge YMCA Marketing Study

Councilman Maher: The Red Bank YMCA commissioned the Old Bridge YMCA marketing study which was recently completed. This was a telephone study wherein three hundred people were contacted via phone (50 per ward). Thirty-nine percent of the respondents indicated that they would be interested in using the YMCA facility. Twenty-five percent said (they were) somewhat interested. That is sixty-four percent, a significantly high number. Twenty-eight percent were primarily in individual memberships; sixty-four percent were interested in a family membership. Individuals were willing to pay $648 to join a YMCA; the price point for a family was $830.

The study indicated that 4400 families would most likely join this YMCA which is the statistical error in this whole projection because of the 95% confidence level, it could be as low 3400 and as high as 5500 families who would join this YMCA. The projected estimate of 4400 families who are likely to join the YMCA should be considered a conservative estimate. It (this number) does not include the percentage of “somewhat likely”. Seven percent of the households were willing to participate in a capital campaign. There would be no problem getting grass roots support for a capital campaign.

The study concluded that within two years the Old Bridge YMCA would achieve close to the same level of membership as the Red Bank YMCA. This study supported our own web-based study that we completed last September. We all knew that a YMCA community center would be a great addition to this community. We are embarking on a capital campaign. There is a task force meeting scheduled for July 23, when we will get status and feedback on the written agreement. There will be a kickoff campaign on September 24.

I want to introduce Rick Robbins, who is employed by the YMCA full time. Rick is from the firm of Gerard, Panos, Lindsay and Partners. Rich has over eighteen years of college and university fund raising experience; seven years with his current employer. He has chaired YMCA campaigns totaling over $75 million. One of his most recent accomplishments was for the Boys and Girls Club of Palo Alto, California by Stanford University. He chaired the campaign for the Oklahoma National Memorial which raised over $29 million.

Mr. Robbins: I am excited to be working with the community YMCA and with the township to help raise the money to bring a YMCA to Old Bridge. I will be here until the middle of December, and we hope to raise $2 million or more between now and the end of the year. We have put together a great leadership with George Sharp as chairman of the campaign. He has a cabinet with whom we will be meeting this week. We hope to raise the largest gifts between now and the public kick off which we have scheduled for September 23 when we will enter into a strong grass roots campaign which has been referred to in the marketing study. We expect to have tremendous local support. Everyone with whom I have come in contact have been excited that the YMCA will be here in Old Bridge.

We anticipate completing the fund raising campaign by the end of this calendar year, and if all goes well, we hope to have the facility open sometime in 2005. This is my twelfth campaign with my present employer and each exceeded the feasibility goal by at least 20%, indicated that we could probably raise between $1.5 million and $2 million. We are working with an initial goal of $2 million depending on what we are able to do with some of the larger gifts between now and the public kick off. We are hoping to enlarge that goal a bit. The $2 million will allow us to build the 57,000 square foot facility – the large, full facility with two swimming pools and everything that you have been looking forward to in Old Bridge.

Ordinance for Second Reading

ORDINANCE NO. 32-03

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. If the minor has been convicted of violating this ordinance on a prior occasion within one year 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 summons 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 15 calendar 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 twenty dollars per day ($20.00/day) after 30 days, the penalty shall increase to one-hundred dollars per day ($100/day) . Such penalty shall be imposed for each day after the initial 15 calendar 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 therefore 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: 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 9: 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 10: 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. Not withstanding 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 Calogera, seconded by President Butler and so ordered on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmen Baker, Calogera, Greene, Maher, Testino, President Butler.

NAYS: None.

ABSENT: Councilmen Hoff, Redmond.

ABSENT PODIUM: Councilwoman Panos.

Prior to the roll call vote President Butler opened this matter to the public. Seeing no hands President Butler closed the public portion.

Ordinance for Second Reading.

ORDINANCE NO. 33-03

AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF OLD BRIDGE AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION
OF REAL ESTATE INTEREST KNOWN AS FORMER NIKE MISSILE BASE BLOCK 7000, LOTS 4.14 AND 4.15

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

SECTION 1: Pursuant to NJSA 40A:12-5 the Township of Old Bridge is hereby authorized to acquire by purchase, gift or condemnation the lands/premises known and described as Block 7000, Lots 4.14 and 4.15. A legal description of said property is on file in the office of the Township Clerk.

SECTION 2: The Mayor, Township Clerk and Director of Law are hereby authorized to take an action and to sign any and all documents necessary to carry out this Ordinance.

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 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 by Councilman Testino, seconded by Councilman Maher and so ordered on the following roll call vote

AYES: Councilmen Baker, Calogera, Greene, Maher, Testino, President Butler.

NAYS: None.

ABSENT: Councilmen Hoff, Redmond.

ABSENT PODIUM: Councilwoman Panos.

Prior to the roll call vote President Butler opened a public portion. Seeing no hands President Butler closed the public portion.