Moment of Silence.

President Baker requested a moment of silence for the Armed Forces serving abroad and at home.

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, September 20, 2004 at 8:00 p.m.

Roll call by Deputy Clerk Ward showed the following answering present: Councilmen Butler Calogera, Gillespie, Greene, Testino, Volkert, Councilwoman Panos, President Baker. Councilman Maher arrived late.

RESOLUTION NO. 506

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:

August 16, 2004 Executive

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

AYES: Councilmen Butler, Gillespie, Greene, Testino, Volkert, President Baker.

NAYS: Councilwoman Panos.

ABSTAIN: Councilman Calogera.

ABSENT: Councilman Maher.

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

Councilwoman Panos: When were these minutes available to us?

Deputy Clerk Ward: The minutes were given to you a while back. I don't have the exact date.

RESOLUTION NO. 507

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 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 September 13, 2004 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 September 13, 2004 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 $172,156.60. (Accounts Payable)

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

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

NAYS: None.

ABSENT: Councilman Maher.

RESOLUTION NO. 508

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 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 September 13, 2004 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 September 13, 2004 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 $16,568,446.92. (Accounts Payable).

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

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

NAYS: None.

ABSENT: Councilman Maher.

RESOLUTION NO. 509

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 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 September 13, 2004 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 September 13, 2004 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 $811,331.72 (Payroll)

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

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

NAYS: None.

ABSENT: Councilman Maher.

RESOLUTION NO. 510

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 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 September 13, 2004 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 September 13, 2004 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 $37,064.41 (Overtime)

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

AYES: Councilmen Butler, Gillespie, Greene, Testino, Volkert, President Baker.

NAYS: Councilman Calogera, Councilwoman Panos.

ABSENT: Councilman Maher.

RESOLUTION NO. 511

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 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 September 13, 2004 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 September 13, 2004 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 $707,184.31 (Payroll)

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

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

NAYS: None.

ABSENT: Councilman Maher.

RESOLUTION NO. 512

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 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 September 13, 2004 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 September 13, 2004 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 $29,797.54 (Overtime)

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

AYES: Councilmen Butler, Gillespie, Greene, Testino, Volkert, Councilwoman Panos, President Baker.

NAYS: Councilman Calogera.

ABSENT: Councilman Maher.

Presentation - Certificates of Appreciation

Mayor Phillips: There are three outstanding groups which serve the people of the Township of Old Bridge. They are Township with a Heart, Adopt an Angel, and the Food Bank/Angels in the Attic. Councilman Volkert brought to my attention that it is never out of tune to say "thank you" to people who do so much.

In recognition of your admiration of the people of the Township of Old Bridge you are commended for the many hours of service and dedication which you provide through your outreach service and for your understanding of the needs of the people. Not often enough to individuals who devote so much time to others receive the recognition they deserve. On behalf of the residents of the Township of Old Bridge and township officials, please accept our "thank you" for aiding the community.

Councilman Calogera: Many of these people residents of my ward, and I want to personally thank them.

Mrs. Minucci: I want to thank all our volunteers who spend a lot of time during the holidays giving back to this community.

Hearing.

2. Highview Estates, Inc. - release/reduction performance guarantee.

Mr. Vincenti: Sections I, II and III of Highview Estates have already gone through a partial reduction. There are a number of outstanding items, and we have issued a recommendation to not release the bond. I have had a meeting with the developer and his attorney last week. We have decided to continue the hearing on this matter until October 25, 2004 at 8:00 p.m. In the interim there are probably some residents who were concerned about this matter. I will meet with you in the back of the room along with a member of the Clerk's staff who will take detailed information from all of you who are concerned. There is a concurrence from the developer to defer action until September 27.

Mr. Pape: On behalf of the developer, we concur with the recommendations of your engineer.

President Baker: …there will be no further notice.

1. Jake Brown Plaza - release/reduction performance guarantee.

Mr. Vincenti: Jack Brown Plaza is located on Rt. 516 opposite Jake Brown Road which is a multi-use development (11,900 square foot retail facility and two single family homes). We are currently holding a performance bond in excess of $352,000. We have completed our inspections. There was a small matter with respect to buffer landscaping which has been slightly deficient. We met with the developer on Friday and are recommending a release of the performance guarantee with two conditions. The first is the posting of the maintenance bond which is 15% of the performance guarantee. The 50% requirement is $52,872.60. The second is the planting of the required landscaping within the next two weeks which will be done prior to the memorialization of the release of the bond.

Mr. Heilbrunn: Mr. Vincenti's recommendation is acceptable to my client.

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

President Baker: Our attorney advises me to question the council as to whether they have any concerns about this. Seeing no concerns, I will put this on the next agenda.

Mr. Heilbrunn: There will be no motion to approve the release?

Attorney Convery: The council has no questions; there is a recommendation. We will do it all at one time. We will memorialize it at the next public meeting on
September 27, our regular meeting.

President Baker: There are residents here from Cheesequake Commons. Please direct them to the back of the room to register their complaints.

Mr. Vincenti: That has not been rescheduled.

President Baker: Cheesquake Commons will not be heard this evening, and the hearing has not been rescheduled.

Councilman Greene: Will the residents be notified as to the date of the hearing?

President Baker: Yes.

Preliminary public comments.

Mrs. Cannon: Crossroads is a developer's plan, not an Old Bridge [plan]. You went to the developers and experts and decided that it was better to put 750 units of age restricted housing rather than to utilize the site for which it was intended, i.e., prime economic development which would provide jobs and services to the community. At no time did you request public input into this process. Old Bridge is the only community that owns hundreds acres of prime land adjacent to a major highway in central New Jersey which is considered a very "hot spot". Even though only half of this is developable, it is still a considerable amount of land purchased with taxpayer money. To give this to a developer to build houses is criminal. When more effort is put into finding economic developers, we won't have any land left. You cannot place office space in the middle of a residential community. You are telling the developer from the beginning that they are getting at least 750 units; that they are going to build some neighborhood commercial; and that they are possibly getting a tax abatement. There is no incentive for office space to be completed. It is not realistic to believe that a hotel/conference center will be built next to an age restricted development. We are using housing as an incentive, and we are getting nothing beneficial to Old Bridge.

Mrs. Blumig: Answers to questions I asked about the redevelopment agency did not appear on the township website. I read that the money from the sale of the property was going to be used for the payments for Cedar Ridge open space. The only question that appeared on the website related to the relationship between this development and Cedar Ridge. I did not ask that question. I want to know why my question was not answered.

President Baker: I will ask the administration to get back to you.

Mrs. Blumig: Will that be before the vote is taken tonight?

President Baker: No.

Mrs. Blumig: Why is that?

President Baker: Most of the questions have been answered. If you do not have the answer to your question, I cannot predict whether or not you will have it before the vote.

Mrs. Blumig: I would like the answer to that question before you vote because I believe that if this involves public input, I am entitled to an answer. I don't think that you can vote until you have answered questions that you said you were going to answer on August 16. What is the answer?

President Baker: I think that you have given your comments, and if you are done, I am going to ask for the next speaker.

Mrs. Blumig: This is the second time you are not going to answer my questions.

Mr. Jacobs: You asked if the money was going to pay for Cedar Ridge. There is no relation between Cedar Ridge and this project.

Mrs. Blumig: What I read must not be true that the money is not going to pay for Cedar Ridge open space.

Mayor Phillips: What you are alluding to is that somewhere in time it was written that the sale of this property would help pay for land that was purchased prior to this. The answer to the question is yes, this could help pay for it, but that land is bought and paid for It has no implication on that other than to say that at some future point in time the tax revenue from this property could offset the tax increases that would be necessary to pay for that property. Cedar Ridge II is bought and paid for right now.

Councilman Greene: What about the debt service?

Mayor Phillips: The Cedar Ridge money, the money that paid for Cedar Ridge was put on deposit, has been accepted. Cedar Ridge is bought and paid for.

Councilman Greene: I have questions.

Councilman Butler: I don't want to hear from the council until the public is done, and then you can speak for as long as you like as long as you bring something new to the table.

Councilman Greene: I would like to comment on this.

President Baker: You are out of order; you are through. Please give me the next speaker.

Councilman Greene: Why am I out of order?

President Baker: You are through. I have twenty-five people who want to speak.

Councilman Greene: Please put up a flag as to when I can and cannot speak. I would like to reserve an answer to that question.

President Baker: I don't make the rules of the meeting. We are governed by ordinances.

Councilman Greene: I absolutely object to what you are saying, and I would like to share my comments to questions that were raised.

President Baker: You may feel that way, but you are not going to do it when I am watching this meeting.

Councilman Greene: You make me feel like I am in grammar school.

President Baker: You are stopping Mr. James Blumig from speaking. Please stop.

Mr. Blumig: Where are we on the agenda?

President Baker: This is agenda item No. 5 which is public comments, and you are limited to one subject.

Mr. Blumig: Does that mean that we are not allowed to speak about the redevelopment agency?

President Baker: I hate "not allowed", but you will have an opportunity to speak about the redevelopment agency when that is brought up at that public portion.

Mr. Blumig: Something that is created for the people should be voted on by the people. There are problems all over the country from autonomous agencies. Lucille Panos, my heart goes out to you every time I watch a meeting.

Councilwoman Panos: My heart goes out to the people of Old Bridge.

Mrs. Greenberg: I would like to speak about morals and conscience. The last officials who ran for election were readers at every mass at Holy Redeemer Church. People believed what you polluted our town with - signs that said "preserve open space/stop the development". I am surprised that there haven't been any open space meetings since this administration has taken over. I am also surprised that the money used for open space is now directed towards the general fund. This property does not need to be developed. Putting houses there, in your own words, will not be tax relief. This is not a project for tax relief; it is tax burden.

I was on the EDC for a brief period. When Schoor DePalma was hired for $50,000 to do this proposal, I made comments at that meeting, and I was very surprised that my comments were not recorded in the minutes. They were inserted two months later. My comment was that I did not think that the EDC should be involved with housing. [the goal should be] to bring commercial property. What commercial property has been brought into town? There are members of the EDC who are bankers, who could possibly benefit from granting mortgages. There are attorneys on the EDC who could benefit from closings. There has been no appraisal of this property, and this area should be earmarked as commercial. When we attended meetings on Crystal Lake in Aberdeen Mr. Baker was going to lie down in front of the bulldozers in that town. Will he lie down in front of the bulldozers in Old Bridge? We don't even know the need for the age restricted homes. This is not a legitimate plan. It is a legitimate scam. You should slow down and not take a vote. Do what is right for the residents of Old Bridge.

Mrs. Riahacek (2 Ridge Road): Expressed her disapproval of the Crossroads project through a political satire which she explained was gleaned from the minutes of the November 2002 of the meeting of the EDC and from the developer regarding best use of the O&Y property. She referenced opensecrets.org for more information.

James Galante: We have heard from Mr. Gillespie that "we did not make the sale". I disagree with Mr. Gillespie. You, Mr. Testino, Mr. Maher and Mr. Phillips did make the sale in November 2003. You ran your race based on over development. You specified this piece of property as being not right for senior housing and should be left for open space. Over and over again from the campaign we heard that building houses does not offer true tax relief, but some things change. What has changed? The residents of this town have told you that $200 tax relief is not going to change their lives, but the traffic and other problems will affect their lives. What has changed? We have removed the pay to play laws so that profit can be made from this. Can members of the EDC potentially make a profit from this? Are there any lawyers who could make money from mortgages? Could this be happening in our town? It is outrageous. You promised the residents of this town that you would not be doing this, but yet you are. You should be ashamed of yourselves that you are doing this.

Mr. Quackenbush: New Jersey is the laughing stock of the entire nation. The root problem is our distrust of politicians, our elected officials. The questions asked at the last meeting were not adequately answered on the internet. They are vague. I am a licensed architect and a resident. You are affecting homes along Marlboro and East Greystone Roads. I suggest that you table this. Councilman Greene has spoken candidly about this project. I will volunteer my services to try to work out the residents concerns. I suggest that the MUA connection fees for sewers be picked up for the residents of East Greystone Road.

Mr. Seewald: I am 50% for and 50% against the project. I ask that you table this until you get more information from an independent evaluator. This happens to have been a vote along political lines. You could not have picked a worse time to introduce this measure. Residents are cynical because of recent events. Bill O'Reilly states that New Jersey is the most corrupt state. You are going to get your votes, but at least give the public more input. Let there be the appearance that this has been discussed. Whoever developed the website did a good job.

Mr. Rao: Remarks inaudible to the stenographer.

Mr. Smoljan: Expressed his concerns about the increase in the amount of traffic due to the Crossroads project and the speed at which this project was being formulated.

Mrs. Currie: The area to be developed is a three acre mandated zone. O&Y had 2600 acres, and they were building 3600 units. You are putting more houses on a parcel of land than O&Y was going to do. Is this project going to protect wetlands? Birch Hill is building 300 units. They have access to Marlboro Road and Rt. 9 South which would add even more cars. Based on the formula for taxes, a $350,000 home will require approximately $8,000 in taxes, and you are asking seniors to pay that. The taxes for the homes in Birch Hill will be $12,091. Texas Road has been closed from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. Are the sewers available to the new residents? You don't protect the out parcels.

Mrs. Coffman: Asked to address the council about honesty, integrity and a code of ethics of councilmen.

Attorney Convery: Does this have to do with a personal matter? The code of the Township of Old Bridge states that this public portion is to discuss matters with the council over which they have control. If you are going to discuss something personal involving civil matters which you are involved in or even an ethics matter for which you would like to sign a complaint, that is not a matter over which this council has jurisdiction. No one is permitted to come before the council to make personal remarks against another person. My understanding is that you may have issues regarding a personal/matrimonial matter, and you have every right to make public statements about that, but this is not the proper forum under our code. Our council has no jurisdiction over whatever you may be asking. I respectfully request that you seek your guidance somewhere else.

Mrs. Coffman: There needs to be a code of ethics for a councilman. He is a public servant.

Attorney Convery: If a councilman in his actions as a councilman or any public official does something wrong, you have a right to make a complaint if it has to do with his office. If you are referring to someone's outside business or personal life, that is different, and I would advise you that if you are referring to a business or personal matter, it does not belong before this council; it has no jurisdiction over this matter.

Mrs. Gordon: The residents don't have too much faith in you. Barbara Cannon introduced an executive order with respect to pay to play. Mayor Phillips eliminated that order. Most towns in Middlesex County are adopting pay to play. We all know that Crossroads is a done deal. To show the residents that you are listening to them is to adopt a pay to play ordinance making it a level playing field for all developers - not those who come to fund raisers. People believe that those who give the most, get the most.

Mr. Walszak: Expressed is displeasure with the Crossroads project.

Mr. Lewicki: The community impact statement came long after the public hearings of the planning board, and only seven days prior to the public hearing of the ordinance. Now you are closing the public portion on the ordinance. Adoption of the redevelopment plan and agency bring into play other statutes, i.e., the Local Redevelopment Housing Law, the Five-Year Exemption Abatement Law and the Long Term Tax Exemption Law. I wonder who is aware of the provisions of those laws. I don't have a complete understanding of these statutes, but I see enough to lead me to believe that this can become a potential devil's playground. The redevelopment plan states that the acreage is 500 acres which is based on 1.75units per acre gross density. Are any wetlands designated in the redevelopment zone? The fiscal report serves no purpose since it does not have to meet any standards or be in conformance with the evaluation. Standards for single family detached homes are 1300 square feet, but there are no standards for the single family attached or the senior multi-family residences. It goes to the heart of the community impact statement of the redevelopment because it translates directly into the valuations which are being placed on the end units.

Mrs. Miller: I yield my time to Mr. Lewicki.

Attorney Convery: Mr. Lewicki has been here many times and has been given the same opportunity as anyone else. This is a situation wherein anyone can yield their time. If you want to speak for three minutes, you have a right to do so. If we change the rules for Mr. Lewicki, we have to change the rules for everyone. Each citizen gets three minutes.

Mrs. Miller: I have the right to yield my time.

Attorney Convery: We have commended you for what you have done in the past, but you don't have the right to yield your time. If you want to speak, we want to hear you. You don't make the rule to say who speaks before the council. That comes under the administrative code and our ordinances.

Mr. Crosson: The theme tonight seems to be integrity, and we seem to be losing it. You were elected to uphold the constitutions of the United States and the Township of Old Bridge. Mr. Baker once said that everyone has the right to speak. Your responsibility is to listen, and I don't believe you are doing that. When "Team Old Bridge" was elected, you all said that you would stop over development. You put signs up and down Rt. 516 next to a development sign. You threatened to have me removed if I were out of order. You should all be removed for being out of order and for lying to the people who have voted for you. You are supposed to be doing what is right for the township, not what is right for the developers and Amboy Bank from whom you may or may not be getting money for election. You outspent the Republican party by ten to one, and only won by 800 votes. You owe those people their money back.

Mrs. Seiler: I commend the council on the turnaround on meeting minutes. This took four weeks. The requirements of the law state that they have to be available in two weeks. The law states that you cannot take another vote until those minutes are available to the public. At the April 12 council meeting the testimony states that 2/3 to 3 / 4 of the land would be residential and ¼ office. I have done the calculations, and according to the density, that is much too many houses. There were flex areas shown on the charts (page 28), but on page 6 this is not mentioned. It appears that flex land has become PRC. I am concerned that you are going to sell wetlands to developers, and they will use that land in their calculations to maximize the number of units they build. They are going to "donate" back to the town because they have no need for this. The density is figured on density, open space, retail space and dwellings. I urge you to table this issue. There should be more public debate.

Mr. Cerra: In 1997 the Township Council was presented with an ordinance involving 2500 acres of land which the county was going to buy. The Township Council was convinced by the administration to buy 800 acres, which they bonded to buy. They are paying back that bond over forty years. This is a loan which the taxpayers have. We were promised that with the 800 acres economic development would take place. I thought that I would see the ratables come to town. Nothing was done in eight years. When that ordinance was passed, no one spoke up in opposition. They were getting something back - tax relief. The only person who voted against it was Councilman Maher because he did not believe that the current administration would ever see it through. "We paid over $1 million in taxpayer money to acquire this property with the purpose to try to raise additional revenues to enhance our tax rate." That was a quote by former Mayor Barbara Cannon.

Mr. Wondolski: Expressed his concern with the anticipation of increased noise and traffic.

Mr. Susacke: Brought future developments to the attention to the council in relation to Crossroads and expressed his dissatisfaction with the proposed hotel/conference center and suggested that the entire project be tabled.

Mrs. Hoffman: According to the May 27 Old Bridge Redevelopment Plan it is the intention to provide the township with a comprehensive economic development strategy by focusing on commercial and residential development, i.e., generate tax relief. There is no tax relief for the township. The input of the decisions of the EDC is enormous. To not address this more carefully would be a grave mistake. This project should be tabled. At the September 8, 2004 Environmental Commission meeting, the Crossroads proposal was discussed. The commission unanimously stated that the 500 acre tract would be more beneficial for Old Bridge if the acreage were left as open space.

Mr. D'Antona: Expressed his dissatisfaction with the Crossroads project due to excessive noise from traffic and construction vehicles and the destruction of a natural landscape. His opinion is that this project has not been considered carefully.

Mr. Will: Expressed his desire to see the Crossroads project as well as all future development ceased.

Ordinance for Second Reading.

President Baker: The public portion was held on August 16, and we have heard public comments this evening. We are now up to council comments. According to the agenda what we are doing right now is discussing with the council, after much public input, Ordinance 20-04 Adopting a Redevelopment for Old Bridge Crossroads. Ordinance 20-04 creating a redevelopment agency will be open to the public once we are through.

TOWNSHIP OF OLD BRIDGE
ORDINANCE NO. 20-04

AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF OLD BRIDGE ADOPTING A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE OLD BRIDGE CROSSROADS TRACT

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

WHEREAS, the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge ("Township Council") pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-4, determined by Resolution dated October 23, 2000 to cause a preliminary investigation to be made and requested for the Planning Board of the Township of Old Bridge ("Planning Board") to hold a public hearing as to whether the Old Bridge COI Tract (formerly known as Olympia and York) (hereinafter the "Old Bridge COI Tract") is a redevelopment area; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board, after considering the report of the Township Planner dated December 5, 2000, and finding evidence of the criteria set forth in N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5, recommended based on the procedures set forth in N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-6 by Resolution dated December 12, 2000 that the Old Bridge COI Tract comprising of Block 20000, Lots 67.11 and 79; Block 20002, Lots 8.11, 10.11, 14, 15 and 16; Block 21001, Lot 4.11; and Block 21000, Lots 6.11 and 13.12, as shown and designated on the tax maps of the Township of Old Bridge is a redevelopment area; and

WHEREAS, the Township Council upon the recommendation of the Planning Board determined by Resolution dated August 13, 2001 that the Old Bridge COI Tract is an area in need of redevelopment because it evidenced criteria set forth in N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5; and

WHEREAS, the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-7 provides for the redevelopment of areas in need of redevelopment to be undertaken in accordance with a redevelopment plan; and

WHEREAS, the Township Council pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-4(a)(3) is empowered to adopt a redevelopment plan to regulate development within an area determined to be in need of redevelopment; and

WHEREAS, the Township Council by Resolution dated April 12, 2002, directed the Old Bridge Township Economic Development Corporation to develop for the Township Council's consideration a proposed redevelopment plan for the Old Bridge COI Tract; and

WHEREAS, the Old Bridge Economic Development Corporation held a public meeting on November 12, 2002 seeking input to consider what the private real estate development professional considers the highest and best use for the Old Bridge COI Tract; and

WHEREAS, the Old Bridge Economic Development Corporation recommended that an expansion of the Old Bridge COI Tract would be advantageous for redevelopment purposes if the Old Bridge COI Tract included Block 21000, Lots 3.11 and 6.12; and Block 21005, Lot 2, as shown and designated on the tax maps of the Township of Old Bridge; and

WHEREAS, the Township Council upon the recommendation of the Old Bridge Economic Development Corporation to expand the Old Bridge COI Tract, determined by Resolution dated February 24, 2003 that Block 21000, Lots 3.11 and 6.12; and Block 21005, Lot 2, as shown and designated on the tax maps of the Township of Old Bridge would be advantageous to include in the Old Bridge COI Tract for redevelopment purposes; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board after considering the report of the Township Planner dated April 1, 2003 holding a public hearing and finding evidence of the criteria set forth in N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5, recommended by resolution dated April 2, 2003 that Block 21000, Lots 3.11 and 6.12; and Block 21005, Lot 2 as shown and designated on the tax maps of the Township of Old Bridge is an area of redevelopment; and

WHEREAS, the Township Council upon the recommendation of the Planning Board determined by Resolution dated April 28, 2003 that Block 21000, Lots 3.11 and 6.12 and Block 21005, Lot 2, as shown and designated on the tax maps of the Township of Old Bridge is an area in need of redevelopment because it evidenced criteria set forth in N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5; and

WHEREAS, the Old Bridge COI Tract was expanded to include Block 21000, Lots 3.11 and 6.12 and Block 21005, Lot 2 because it would be advantageous for redevelopment purposes and said areas were declared in need of redevelopment by the Township Council by Resolution dated April 28, 2003, and the Old Bridge COI Tract, together with Block 21000, Lots 3.11 and 6.12 and Block 21005, Lot 2 are jointly referred to as the "Old Bridge Crossroads" tract (the "Area"); and

WHEREAS, the Old Bridge Economic Development Corporation caused a redevelopment plan to be developed by David G. Roberts, AICP/PP, CLA of the firm of Schoor DePalma, Inc. dated April 6, 2004 (the "Redevelopment Plan") for the Area for consideration by the Township Council; and

WHEREAS, the Township Council by resolution dated April 12, 2004 preliminarily reviewed the Redevelopment Plan on file in the office of the Township Clerk and referred it to the Planning Board for its review; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed the Redevelopment Plan at its meetings on May 4, 2004 and May 18, 2004 and June 1, 2004 and made recommendations as set forth in the memo of Sebastian Rizzo dated May 18, 2004 which is on file in the office of the Township Clerk; and

WHEREAS, the Old Bridge Planning Board memorialized its recommendations in a resolution dated June 1, 2004 on file in the office of the Township Clerk; and

WHEREAS, the Township Council has reviewed and accepted the recommendations of the Planning Board of the Redevelopment Plan.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Township Council for the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, State of New Jersey, that the Redevelopment Plan along with the memo of Sebastian Rizzo as on file with the Township Clerk is hereby adopted as the redevelopment plan for the Old Bridge Crossroads Tract in the Township of Old Bridge.

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

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

AYES: Councilmen Butler, Gillespie, Maher, Testino, Volkert, President Baker.

NAYS: Councilmen Calogera, Greene, Councilwoman Panos.

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

Councilman Greene: You asked me after the last meeting why I applauded. I suppose you didn't feel it was appropriate. As an elected official I work hard, and I would like the ability more often during these council meetings to speak. Your decisions are very arbitrary, and I do not accept your "out of line" decision.

I appreciate the question and answer period as provided by the council chair and the administration, but there is no answer anyone can give me that would change my mind toward this project. We are being told that this project is good for the residents of Old Bridge because it will provide tax relief. This is bait and switch. This is not tax relief. No resident is going to see his taxes decrease as a result of this project or as a result of the mandate which will occur if this project is approved - the mandate in which the administration is going to go forward and change this town and structure it so that we bring in senior citizen developments. I have an effect on the township's tax rate which has not changed over a period of ten years. What has changed? It is the cost of education and the way it is funded.

Education is funded through taxes that residents pay through their real estate taxes. This also affects tenants because through their rent they pay real estate taxes. This is a crisis in New Jersey. If you accept the fact that we have a problem with how education is paid for, can you believe that by bringing senior citizens in and building houses will solve the problem? I don't think so. The problem rests in Trenton with the governor and the legislators to find additional revenues to pay for education. We are not going to solve our problems by building houses and attracting senior citizens. Are we saying that we are putting the future of our budgets on the backs of our seniors? I hope not.

We are being told that this is going to be a quick fix. That is why we have housing as a proposal. It is the easiest way to develop property which should not be developed. I included myself in the discussions with the EDC, and from my prospective there was no process in which commercial development was promoted. It was let's get this done the simplest way. Let's turn this over to a developer and cash it. It is a sham. One of the financial reviews indicated that we would save $200 in taxes. I asked the residents of Old Bridge if $200 worth paying to preserve 500 rural acres in the Township of Old Bridge. There was an individual who was for the development the last time we met who made a very good point. He said that nothing was going to happen on that property if it goes forward for five years. What do you think your taxes are going to be in five years? How much did your taxes go up this last bill - $300, $400, $500? What is this development going to do for your taxes? Nothing. One year $400 tax increase if we get that if they are right on that $200, what are we going to see? Nothing. It is bait and switch. Here is the tax relief. It's good for, but it is not good for you. It is going to take a rural area of Old Bridge and change it forever. It is going to change the Township of Old Bridge forever. We have people telling us, and they are right, we are going to look like Edison and Woodbridge because this project stinks, and this goes beyond this project. You are giving a mandate to the administration to move forward with a philosophy that says that I can provide you with tax relief by bringing in senior citizens, by building senior homes. It is a sham.

I point out for the record that I appreciate the question and answer period, but I was given the opportunity by a memo that was put in my box in town hall and asked to give the questions in on the following days. I did not do it. I was fortunate enough to get the memo to know that I had twenty-four hours. As I have said, there is no answer that you can give me which would change my mind about this proposal. The question was asked about the payment of Cedar Ridge. Mrs. Blumig was told that it is paid for. It is not paid for. I support it. I overwhelmingly support it. It is just like buying a house. You go to the closing, walk out; it's done, but you pay for it monthly. There is debt service associated with the Cedar Ridge purchase, and we are going to be paying for it over a long period time. I support it, but I had a right before to weigh in on that question. That is the proper answer. It is not paid for. It is paid off through debt service over a number of years. I am against this. It doesn't matter whether I am a Republican or whatever. I am against it because it is not right for the people of Old Bridge.

President Baker: I thank the audience and the council members for being courteous and letting Mr. Greene get his point across. I hope we continue in this fashion.

Mr. Volkert: If this was utopia, we would have a perfect political system, a perfect society, everyone would agree on everything, and we would not have any problems. This is Old Bridge, and like every other community in New Jersey we have concerns about how to grow and still have an affordable place to live. It would be great if we could make all vacant land open space. That is unrealistic. Some people would like Old Bridge to stay the way it was when they moved here. Close the gates and let no one else in. That also is not a realistic option. I have been a councilman for ten months. During that time and years before that, the major concerns of the residents of Old Bridge was tax relief. I served on the Board of Education. Many years out of the past thirty years the budget was turned down all but maybe five times. Was it turned down because people are against education? No, it was turned down because of the tax increases that we face. Out of the five times that it did pass, I think three of them were no tax increase years.

When the township acquired this property, the former administration said that this was a win/win situation with commercial and an adult community. Suddenly, that same administration is saying that we don't want elderly people to move into Old Bridge. I find that unrealistic. This plan may not be the one we all agree with, but is it the one that will bring tax relief to the residents of Old Bridge. The impact study shows the combination of commercial and an adult community will generate more tax dollars and less traffic. The administration and the EDC are suggesting this plan in order to get tax relief for the residents of Old Bridge. It is time for the residents of Old Bridge to get a return on their $1.8 million investment that the prior administration promised that they would get. As councilman in the first ward, I am privileged to serve in an adult community of 728 homes. In the past I have heard that we are going to need more police protection for these elderly people; we are going to need more medical service for these elderly people. Cheesequake Village is the most law abiding community in this entire town. If Crossroads is anything like Cheesequake Village, it will be a plus for our town.

Councilman Calogera: Only 5% of police calls are crime related; the rest are service calls. We are not speaking about seniors who commit crime. Ninety-five percent of calls are service related. We are lucky to only have paid $1.6 million to own 500 acres. We do not have to build on property we own, but we have to live with the headaches that the developers have given us over the years because they had owned property, and they had a right to build on it legally by law. We don't have to put one house on it. We own it. As far as tax relief, I don't believe you. We have $4,269,510 that is going to the Board of Education. Does anyone here think that you are going to get money back from the Board of Education? We know that is not going to happen. They will spend that money every year, and they can come back to the till and tack on another 3% or 4% which they call the cap. Out of this $5 million, you are not seeing any of that $4,269,510. Out of the balance of the money, it is stated that we are going to be receiving $520,000 to $580,000. There are questions for which I did not like the answers. "Police presence will be increased proportionately to the population". This comes out to 1/600 people. In a development with 750 homes, it is reasonable to say that there will be 1400 to 1500 people in those homes. The average cost of $90,000 per police officer would be about $220,000. There is not cost for fire and first aid because " it will have to be increased according to the demand within the township". When 750 - 800 homes are built, we are creating demand ourselves which is going to increase need for more services. Tonight we are voting for two vans to handle our seniors for which the cost will be $200,000. How much will it cost to expand our senior services? How much will the cost be to expand our paid first aid response? The amount of money that we are going to see keeps dwindling.

I asked about a tax abatement, and the answer was that we don't have to give one. Yes, we can give one and if it is mutually beneficial . . . When someone says "mutually beneficial" to me that means that we are going to give them a tax abatement, tax break, pilot, whatever you want to call it. That is not figured into the $500,000 plus either. The biggest thing that will dwindle is our investment in open space. We own 500 acres. Where can we get 500 acres for $1.6 million that we never have to build on?

The 750 - 810 [units] proposes to be on 430 acres which would be for the park and the balance would be commercial. Is that strictly our 500 acres? Is the other 70 [acres] commercial?

Mr. Vincenti: If you look at the zoning map in the planning department, the planned retirement community is entirely on the township owned land.

Councilman Calogera: On page 37 at 4.2 "Selection of a redeveloper agreement must be with the Township of Old Bridge". Does that mean this council or the redevelopment agency?

Ann Babineau (Wilentz Goldman as special counsel to the EDC): Should you choose to set up a redevelopment agency that is incurred under the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law, you would select a redeveloper and enter into a contract with the redeveloper.

Councilman Calogera: In the book of answers it was stated that it would the Township of Old Bridge (see page 37, 4.2). Some of the answers that we received were not correct. There was a statement that this [Crossroads] does not bring any children. For argument sake, out of 750 homes, if twenty were from township residents who moved into this age restricted home, they sold their three bedroom homes. Twenty homes could pick up twenty kids. The average cost of educating a child is $11,000.

The book stated that there would be less traffic from this project. Both projects are going to have traffic. Traffic from commercial at the Crossroads is a different kind of traffic than what proposed homes is. Traffic from Crossroads would be going to work. If you are coming down Rt. 9 north, you are not coming through Old Bridge. You will be going over Rt. 18 and traveling on that road. Going home is out of town - not through town. The type of traffic with residential is to the cleaners, etc. and generates more trips which are going through Rt. 516, Ferry Road, etc. which will infringe on us a lot more. We will feel that kind of traffic more than with commercial.

I don't believe that making the statement that it is irrelevant to have an appraisal. I cannot believe that we are going to be so irresponsible to not have an appraisal on our property so at least we know what developers offers us is fair and reasonable. Is there a minimum bid that we are requesting for the sale of the property, and what is that number? Can anyone answer that?

Councilman Gillespie: Point of order.

President Baker: Let's see if someone from administration has that answer at his fingertips. If not, we will have it recorded and get back to the councilman as soon as possible.

Councilman Calogera: The answer should already exist.

President Baker: Please repeat the question. I believe that you are referring to a minimum bid and no appraisal.

Councilman Calogera: There is no appraisal which I think is ridiculous, and I would like to know if there is a range for a minimum bid that we are setting on the value of this property for developers.

President Baker: Does the council person from the EDC answer that?

Ms. Babineau: I can answer the question. With regard to the answer to the question that I previously answered I understood your question to be "who would be selecting the redeveloper if a redevelopment agency was adopted?" I answered it by saying that if you choose to set up a redevelopment agency, they are statutorily empowered to select a redeveloper, and I stand by that answer. A redevelopment plan is established so that this council can make the determination about who is the entity that will be the redevelopment entity under the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law. Therefore, you are the entity that is responsible for that decision. Therefore, the plan is set up in a way that makes it clear that it is the township that makes the decision about who will select the redeveloper.

You have asked if an appraisal required. The appraisal is not required under Section 8 of the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law. The selection of the redeveloper and the price to be paid for the land is a "reasonable decision to be made by the redevelopment entity and a minimum bid (there is a case that discusses the possibility of negotiating acquisition in the context of a redeveloper). As opposed to a bid where the property is put up to bid to the highest bidder, a redeveloper agreement . . .negotiation where the redeveloper is called upon to make certain commitments. In the context of the commitments that the developer is called upon to make, sometimes the price is higher or lower depending on the entire transaction and the redeveloper agreement's other terms. There is no minimum bid. In fact, redevelopment bidding is discouraged.

Councilman Calogera: The statement that it is the township is wrong. Once we designate a redevelopment agency, are they the ones who have the authority to select the redeveloper and make the deal of how it is going to happen?

Ms. Babineau: If you make the decision to provide for the redevelopment entity for this project to be the redevelopment agency, if you as a council make that decision, then the redevelopment agency will be the agency responsible to administer the project including the selection of the developer and entering into a redeveloper agreement.

Councilman Calogera: We have heard all too long from council members and the EDC that the public will have many opportunities have hearings, etc., and that ultimately it comes back to council. Is that correct?

Ms. Babineau: I understand that to be two questions. Will there be public meetings in conjunction with the selection of a redeveloper and the terms of redevelopment? Yes, the redevelopment agency is a public body that is subject to the Open Public Meetings Act, and their meetings will also be open to the public. The determination about whether to give the job of implementation to the redevelopment agency is also a decision that needs to be made by the this governing body in the context of the Open Public Meetings Act, where, obviously, I think tonight you are going to have a public hearing on that question.

Councilman Calogera: If we delegate that authority and create a redevelopment agency, then that redevelopment agency will have the authority, and we will vacate our responsibility over that property with regard to picking, selecting and setting policy with regard to how much would be involved and included in a negotiated deal.

Ms. Babineau: Section 4 of the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law makes it clear that the municipal governing body is the body that makes the decision about what entity will be responsible for implementation of a redevelopment plan. If you elected to make that decision to keep that here along with rest of your obligations as a governing body, you could do that. If you choose to set up a special body to be responsible for redevelopment, you can also do that.

Councilman Calogera: The redevelopment plan makes notice of the word "employees" of a redevelopment agency. I know that you are one of the leading experts in redevelopment, and I respect that. Can you give me an example of what redevelopment agencies you are involved in or have been involved in and what their staffing levels are and what the salaries are? According to this we are looking at one person running a redevelopment corporation, and I don't believe that.

Ms. Babineau: I am here on behalf of the EDC, and I feel obliged to . . .

Councilman Calogera: You are here on behalf of the people of Old Bridge. We are paying you.

Ms. Babineau: I feel obliged at this point to just make certain that from the prospective of the (inaudible) that I am supposed to continue to answer these questions. I have worked on many redevelopment projects in a variety of municipalities, and when it comes to a project that is being administered by a redevelopment agency, the staff of a redevelopment agency varies much depending on the nature of the project that is given to the redevelopment agency to administer. I work where there is full staff of a considerable number of professionals that have many redevelopment project under their responsibility. I have worked in other municipalities were there is no staff at all, and there may be a small project, and the business administrator wears two hats and his salary is divided between the two functions.

Councilman Calogera: I imagine that this would be considered a large project.

Ms. Babineau: I cannot make that determination. It depends on what the redevelopment agency board would be. Volunteers would determine what their staff would look like.

Councilman Calogera: From your expertise do you anticipate having any staff?

Ms. Babineau: That goes beyond my area of responsibility.

Councilman Calogera: As far as for the interim?

Ms. Babineau: As far as the amount of information I have. We are talking about the redevelopment plan that is fairly detailed, and that provides a lot of the guidance. From this prospective on what would be involved is for whoever you decide to be the redevelopment entity to enter into a redeveloper agreement. Unlike a lot of projects that I have been involved in where there is property acquisition which is very time consuming, this agency or this governing body would not have the responsibility to take into consideration the time and effort that is required for property acquisition, the location, etc. Whether this agency would need for this particular project a half person, a person, two people, I am not in a position to say other than to tell you that their role would be relatively narrow by comparison to other projects that I have been involved in.

Councilman Calogera: The Legends property has been designated as part of the redevelopment zone. It is a privately owned parcel. In essence, by creating a redevelopment area, I believe that we would spot zone that property. If in the future Mr. Matzel cannot build or attract a conference center/hotel, my concerns are that he is going to be able to create a hardship and get a variance for 450 units, or being that we are the ones that deemed the property unusable,if he cannot draw a suitor for that conference center, that we would be responsible for purchasing it or damages due to the change in the zoning.

Ms. Babineau: I have not participated with regard to the EDC's activities with respect to the Matzel property. I have indicated to them that I cannot participate with regard to that property. I can answer the question generically in that it is private property in a redevelopment area and they can choose to review the governing body or whatever redevelopment entity you select. If you choose to include it in a redevelopment project like any other property in a redevelopment project,it would have to be acquired at fair market value paid to the owner in order to include any private property in a redevelopment project.

Councilman Calogera: If we take private property into a redevelopment area and adopt that, we then have to buy that property at market rate?

Ms. Babineau: The only way that property can ever be acquired for a redevelopment project from a private owner is at fair market value.

Councilman Calogera: How are we including Legends into this? Are we buying it? Someone please give me an honest answer.

President Baker: We will give you the answer as we know it.

Councilman Gillespie: Anne, please answer this question. If that is part of the redeveloper's agreement, is it necessarily the township's burden to buy that property?

Ms. Babineau: I am answering this question generically. The question is whether when private parties' property is involved in redevelopment projects whether it is normal for the redevelopment entity to be responsible to pay the compensation of fair market value to the private party. My answer, based upon my experience, is that this is not normal. What is normal is that property acquisition, assuming that it is an economic use which this would be, is paid for in conjunction with the redeveloper agreement by the present redeveloper. The costs are included as part of the cost of the project.

Councilman Calogera: Someone would have to buy that property from him in order for it to be part of this plan.

Ms. Babineau: If this is an economic project, then the redevelopment entity will look to have a private redeveloper include in the cost of that private property acquisition in with the rest of his costs in doing the project.

Councilman Calogera: I could ask questions all day long. I have another one about bonding. The true matter is that redevelopment agencies. . . or would you rather keep this on Crossroads, or is it all one issue?

President Baker: It is not one issue. The issue before us now is [Ordinance] 20-04 which is the redevelopment plan. You need latitude because as you have stated, you don't get an opportunity to speak. We certainly want to give you as much opportunity as possible to cross over into the redeployment agency but let you know that you will have an opportunity once we vote on this plan tonight, to discuss [Ordinance] 29-04.

Councilman Calogera: I will restrict it to Crossroads. I know everyone says that there will take six votes to do this, and I hope that this is not true. I don't think that this is in the best interests of the town. If you guys want to put this through and you are going to ram this down our throats, I would like to see amendments as a safeguard. I would like to see that no tax abatements, tax incentive are pilot granted to any of the properties where residential dwellings are built. Tax abatements should only be given to the commercial development part of it and should correlate to a given number of jobs created in this town and filled by Old Bridge residents. You want to give them a tax break, let them give us jobs. Any redevelopment agency shall not have bonding power. If the township agrees to let a redevelopment agency bond on Crossroads, and for some reason they default, the township once they agree to let them do it becomes a party who is responsible for paying off those bonds later on. Performance bond should be held on all commercial property until it is built in full and said amount should equal the cost of the commercial building. I am sick of having houses built, guys saying they are going to give us commercial, and it never happens. I cannot stress how much I think this project is a joke. My constituents have told me not to come here and vote. My constituents are both Democrat and Republican, and they have told me they do not want this. I am here to do what they want.

Councilwoman Panos: My heart is with the people of this town. My first question is to the attorney. It is legal to vote on this tonight since the minutes were not made available to the public?

Attorney Convery: Yes.

Councilwoman Panos: The answers given on the website were not complete, were inaccurate, evasive and misleading. I asked that I be included on any committees or groupings that were formulating these answers. I was never notified. It appears that the answers were tailor made. If you were going to be that specific, you should have watched the tape. You negated questions of quality of life on Marlboro Road, etc.

Someone here tonight said they were a past member of the EDC and said that the minutes were inaccurate. The last time minutes were posted up until April or May. Agendas are never listed. Something this big should have been on TV. At the very least letters were sent inviting the public to our last meeting. The public should have been notified that this is an on-going process. There is a select group of people here, and I don't want to make this person, who are making all the decisions. There is a councilman who happens to be on the planning board and the EDC; he works for the state. We have a former mayor currently being paid $80,000. Will the business people exclude themselves from anything? A representative from Amboy Bank is on the EDC. Will he exclude his bank from granting mortgages? This would make this look more ethical.

Mayor Phillips: You are alluding to an individual who has served as a member of the EDC as a volunteer. He was asked to serve by my administration, the prior administration and the EDC. He is a wonderful man who gave of his time and wants nothing to do with going on if you create a redevelopment agency. Your allusion that someone is doing something now for a benefit later is simply unkind and unfair.

Councilwoman Panos: I am asking that anyone who is on these boards who has the ability to make money from approving and pushing this project to exclude themselves. That goes for banks who have our lists of recommended attorneys. On that list is attorneys who are on the EDC and the council. I ask them to exclude themselves.

Councilman Gillespie: If she wants to continue to disparage people's reputations, we will let her finish.

Councilwoman Panos: I agree with the person who suggested tabling this so that we can get an independent evaluator. That would alleviate all the disparaging remarks. If there is someone who is independent, these questions will be put to rest. I have lived in this town for twenty years, and any time a project of this size came in like widening Rt. 516, you would be able to go to the rec. center to view maps, etc. How is the public supposed to see that little thing that was handed out. A resident wanted maps to take home to study. That cost him almost $30. I think it should have been open to the scrutiny of the public, and it was not. I find it disheartening that this is more density than O&Y. Is that true?

Councilman Gillespie: John, what is the density calculation on the property?

Mr. Vincenti: The answer to your question is no. The woman took out the wetlands and did a division and came up with density. She did not do the same reduction of the wetlands when she came up with the O&Y property. In addition to that I believe that with O&Y the total number of units was 10,000. The statement that the density that is being proposed here is greater than what was proposed by O&Y is not true.

Councilwoman Panos: What was the density of O&Y without the wetlands?

Councilman Gillespie: John, are you aware of what the density of the O&Y project was?

Mr. Vincenti: Succinctly, no.

Councilwoman Panos: Why did Mr. Vincenti make such a statement if he was not even aware? If this typical of all the reports he has given us?

Councilman Gillespie: I am going to rephrase this is a less polemical way. John are you a licensed engineer in the State of New Jersey?

Councilwoman Panos: That was not my questions. Mr. Vincenti just answered the question based on . . . I don't know what he based the question on because he has no knowledge of what the O&Y property is. Mr. Gillespie, please ask Mr. Vincenti how could he . . . .he just answered that he had no knowledge. Is that a habit of his to throw out things about which he has no knowledge?

Councilman Greene: John, can you respond to Councilwoman Panos' question?

Mr. Vincenti: What my understanding was is that the original density of the O&Y property which was approximately 2500 acres was 10,000 units. It was pared down over time. That was gross units per gross acreage. What the woman did was to take out the wetlands and made assumptions for that and then did a density calculation. You cannot do that by Municipal Land Use Law and by the document. When you talk density, it is based on the total overall tract acreage.

Councilman Gillespie: {Addressing a member of the audience} He (Mr. Vincenti) is not calling you a liar. He is simply disagreeing with your methodology.

Councilwoman Panos: Someone made a comment that the buffers were changed. That was ambiguous, and I want to know have the buffers changed?

Councilman Gillespie: There was a reference made as to what the buffer zone areas would be with respect to the wetlands.

John Maczuga (professional planner with Schoor DePalma): I am not aware of a change in the DEP regulations with respect to buffers and wetlands. If anything, the buffers have increased the wetlands with the passage of the recent storm water regulations which have upped the buffers to stream corridors and to C1 streams to 300 feet from 150. The new storm water regulations would apply to this new development.

Councilman Gillespie: Would you characterize those new storm water regulations as more or less restrictive on development?

Mr. Maczuga: Clearly, [they are] more restrictive.

Councilwoman Panos: Mr. Lewicki alluded to three types of tax laws, and he did not have an opportunity to finish [his statement]. Does anyone know what laws he was referring to?

Councilman Gillespie: I believe that Mr. Lewicki referenced the new Redevelopment and Housing Law and the Tax Abatement Law. Ms. Babineau has been advising the EDC every step of the way.

Mr. Lewicki: The third one is the Long Term Tax Exemption Law.

Councilwoman Panos: Is an explanation included in the redevelopment plan?

Councilman Gillespie: No, but however, the question . . .

Councilwoman Panos: You answered my question. No, there are laws out there that are not included. In the back of everyone's mind, and now it is out in the forefront, this is pay to play at its best. This is happening here, and it is not right. To build on open space like this is wrong. This is a sham and a scam. We are not a poor little town that has to redevelop light parcels to help our economic base. There is no need to rush into this. We have half the people here we did last time. You did not sell and did not answer the questions fully. These people are unhappy. You came in on one thing, and you are going out on it. If this is voted on tonight, can there be a binding referendum on this?

Councilman Gillespie: I am going to defer to Jerry to answer that.

Attorney Convery: That question has not been presented to me previously. I will research it and report back to you as quickly as I can. The council has every right to take action on a second reading of an ordinance that has been published. This matter was tabled one month ago. The council has the right to take action. I will look into subsequent action. I am not able to report on that this evening.

Councilwoman Panos: Since this development will be in a redevelopment zone, it will not be able to be put on a referendum so that it becomes a binding referendum. If this passes tonight, I am going to start a petition to get this on the ballot as soon as possible. Meet me outside; we are starting a petition. If that comes to be tonight, I want to know since this is in a redevelopment zone . . . How many days do you have to get petitions filed?

Attorney Convery: Once the council takes action on an ordinance, it takes twenty days after publication. You have at least twenty plus days before this ordinance goes into effect to take whatever action you decide.

Councilwoman Panos: Is there an additional ten or fifteen days after the ordinance goes into effect?

Attorney Convery: It is twenty days after publication. You can ask the staff how quickly they get this into the paper.

Councilwoman Panos: The people are not happy. It did not sell tonight.

Motion

to table made by Councilwoman Panos, seconded by Councilman Calogera and so denied on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmen Calogera, Greene, Councilwoman Panos.

NAYS: Councilmen Butler, Gillespie, Maher, Testino, Volkert. President Baker.

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

Councilwoman Panos: After the meeting we will start a petition on this.

Councilman Butler: I think this whole process started in 1997 or 1998. I was on the council, and this was discussed very heavily in reference to the people on the council at the time. If they had not been looking to develop this property, we would not have voted the way we did in 1997. This was given to EDC two years ago. Every meeting has to be advertised. I was council president at the time. The council did decide to give this to the EDC to determine how this could be developed and how we save taxes down the road. That was the whole concept from 1997. I was committed to it then, and I am committed to it tonight. Nothing happens overnight. It takes government forever to do anything. Ten years ago I had a situation where ten people were killed. It took fifteen months to install a traffic light. This is not going to happen overnight. When did you get the charge to do this?

Councilman Gillespie: April 2002.

Councilman Butler: This is September 2004. There is the process whether you agree or disagree. Everything is advertised, and you have a chance to go and listen. I went to the EDC meetings because I wanted to know what was going on so that I could intelligently tell them what is going on. There is a request for proposal process. Once this goes through, you send proposals out, and who knows how long it will take to get proposals back. When this was done in 1997 it was done with the concept of marketing. Business people know about marketing. You do things at a certain time to see if you can catch that market. The EDC spoke to a lot of experts with respect to market timing which is very important. If we waited for two years, we would have missed the market. We have a shot now. If you don't send the ship out, you are not getting anything back. You elect us to take a look at all the information, financial, impact statements, etc. to do the best we can do for the taxpayers. This is what we are trying to do. I don't care what the perceptions are with respect to if you think about that we are rushing this through. The charge was given in April 2002. There have been two dozen meetings on this process over the past two years. I have been at most of them. I think to sit here for another ten years to do nothing makes no sense. We have to take a shot; you elected us. We think we have a good program, and I am voting for it.

Councilman Maher: I would like to address the negative perception that has been painted with respect to several members of the EDC. It is totally out of line; totally out of character. Many of the members of the EDC are volunteers - successful business owners, banks, auto dealers who give up their time. To say that this is a done deal and that there is inside information and to say that business owners are going to be profiting from this is absolutely false. It turns my stomach when I hear comments with respect to that. I feel a need to personally defend members of the EDC. Many are giving up time from their busy work schedules to be here tonight.

When I worked at AT&T we had a saying that "you pay on results, not effort". That simply means that we have held this property, and I voted against this acquisition when we originally bought this land because I didn't think that we were going to be doing anything with it. This land has sat dormant for any years. I am tired of playing defense. I want to play offense. I have been a resident of this town for over forty years. My family moved out of New York City in the 1950's. When we first moved to Old Bridge it was only the Madison Park section of town; there was only the first section of Sayrewoods South; Central Park was being built; after that the Arbors were being built. I am for forward thinking; I am for this plan. I am going to vote in the affirmative for this plan. I think it is time to move on with respect to the Crossroads project, and I will vote for this plan tonight.

Councilman Testino: I want to thank the people for their time and comments and coming out over the last couple of months. I view my position as always one of learning, and I have tried to do as much of that as I can as I sit on the dais. When you are debating value, it is always a difficult question. The value of this land is different for each one of us, and I have great respect for that. The debate is seven years too late. When we bought the land, we were investing. That was brought to us by the administration. At the time we bought the land, this could have been gone into the open space coffers and gone into green acres land under the county coffers. That was debated by my senior councilmen at the time, Tom English, Peter Mannino, and Mayor Barbara Cannon. It has never been a decision for me whether this property was going to go on and be put in as a ratable. The question was when and how. That was four score and two years since we have acquired it. Seven years laying dormant, and God knows how many years laying dormant s the O&Y property. That is why this is well suited as a redevelopment site and it lying vacant and not bringing any tax revenue has not done the taxpayers any good in my opinion.

There has been little or no interest by commercial developers coming in an taking on this project because of the magnitude of the problems with the specific land involved and the utilities and needs of the property. I have to thank the professionals for putting together what appears to be a solid, well thought out and diverse plan which is meeting the charge of the EDC to bring in ratables - the highest and best use of the land with the least impact on the community. Any time you talk change or development, there are going to be those who are adverse. There are those who would rather do nothing. I was amazed sitting here last month to see that it was evenly divided when you took a tally on the comments.

Councilman Calogera: Not even close.

President Baker: I know that this is an emotionally difficult time for you, but I don't remember anyone speaking while you were speaking for almost one half hour.

Councilman Calogera: I was factual; that was not.

Councilman Testino: Some people would say that Old Bridge is not a destination, Kevin, but I would say it is a destination. I call it home, and I respect it as such, and I value it as such. I generally enjoy your comments, even though I may disagree. I enjoy other's comments with whom I may disagree, but at the same time I endeavor to listen to them all with an open mind and with fruitful discussion. Whether you have the same desires is for you to decide. As far as I am concerned, the Crossroads plan before us was developed by experts much beyond my skill level. They developed a plan which is feasible and can work given the conditions of the land and the market that we face. From what I see the land is dominated by wetlands. Tax relief was always the charge of this land. There are two forms of tax relief that I envision this land bringing. One is in the form of sale revenues. How does that bring tax relief? That can be applied, and we have applied revenues that come in as bulk, as rebates. Although we are not allowed to issue rebate checks, we do depress the tax rate with it, and I see that as a viable plan for tax relief for township residents.

Recent history has shown that we have done this. We have applied over $1 million from the Sterling Estates settlement to depress the tax rate to keep a stabilized tax base, and I find that as an important issue as I make my travels through the town and as I discuss this very plan with constituents. There has also been quite a bit of debate about what it is going to look like\ and what the infrastructure is going to be. For the professionals who are in the process, they know that that piece of the puzzle must come yet. That piece of the puzzle is something on which there is going to be a great deal more debate. It would be the mission of the authority to connect as many users as they can, and I heard a good idea here tonight about trying to charge the redevelopment agreement with picking up some of those . . . .fees which I would like to take that on to see if that is a possible issue. As far as whether or not the actual impact is any greater or lesser with homes vs. commercial, I don't do traffic counts, but the people who do that kind of work are those who were chosen to do the planning. Dave Roberts and Schoor DePalma are assuredly one of the best engineering groups in the state that I have seen for this type of work. I have to believe when they present testimony, and they did in April, that the impact this plan will bring is the least impact of any plan that they can envision developing. Whether you believe them or not . . . .We are all skeptics, and if you don't want change, you are not going to believe anyone. At the end of the day I have to rely on professionals when I am making informed decisions. These are well respected professionals, and I hope that whether you agree with them or not, you don't chastise the professionals for doing their job as charged. If you don't like their opinions, go out and get other opinions and let's debate it. These are the only opinions of professionals that I see before the board at this time. The least impact plan is well developed and well thought out in my opinion.

I would like to thank Mike Jacobs for doing one hell of a job for putting one hundred six answers on the board. It is not an easy thing to do when you are given that charge. You gave a well thought out response, maybe not pleasing to all people, but at least the answers were there. I know this process does not require appraisals, but at some point I would envision the EDC or the redevelopment agency getting a benchmark appraisal at some point, but anyone who is in the appraisal business knows that when you are appraising land, you need to know what the approved use is and what can be done on the land before you can evaluate it and attach a number to it - all of which are professional opinions. That is what we are debating tonight - what value to attach to the land and then the benchmark appraisals can be had for those entities that may be in charge of reaching their redevelopment agreement or negotiating with the redeveloper. I don't think anyone in their right mind would negotiate without knowing what the value is because they would not be able to do an effective job of negotiating. That charge of getting appraisals should be carried forward at some point. To think that it could be done without this vote or without knowing what the council's intended vision for the property is not doable. No appraiser could do such a thing. I think the people of the EDC should be defended in terms of their hard work and legitimate efforts. Those who would chastise them should take a step back and really think about what they are doing before they want to discredit someone's character or reputation because in my view they have done an injustice to those people. If you think you can get people to volunteer in this community and then start scolding them or casting stones at them, you have another thing coming. At the end of the day we should move forward and take action on this plan which is a good and well thought out plan. I think that the professionals should continue to carry the charge forward and take the comments they have heard here and try to build on them to lessen any impacts. The people of Old Bridge should be given the opportunity to redeem the benefits on the investment they were sold in 1997 and that these ratables should be brought to fruition.

Councilman Gillespie: I have patiently and intently tried to take in all that was said during the three hour public hearing we held previously and during the more than an hour public hearing that we have had this evening. I found myself agreeing with quite a few people who came up here. During the course of this process, the people at the planning board and the EDC took time with this project. We took care. We care about the community and tried to consider any ramifications. One of the most unfortunate things that I have heard bolstering the public debate leading up to this vote and during this evening's debate is the fact that some people have taken it upon themselves to disparage the reputations of volunteers who serve on these boards. I have been a councilman in this town for four and one-half years. I have served with a lot of different people from varying political pedigrees on these boards and for quite some time. Whether I disagree with someone, the policies that they advocate or the stands they take, I am not going to insult them by saying that they have a profit motive or that they have been ordered by political bosses to vote a certain way.

I am not going to name names, but some of the people who serve on the planning board and the EDC are the business and civic leadership of this town appointed by Republican and Democrat mayors, appointed by council's both Republican and Democrat, and they have on a bipartisan basis supported this plan. I know that the mayor was rushing in to defend them as well. I echo what Councilmen Maher and Testino have said. It is okay to throw rocks at us and make up limericks and to be the butt of jokes. That comes with the territory when you run for office. When you are a volunteer, and you spend years of your time working on something with no compensation for the betterment of the town because you are a civic minded person, you don't deserve that treatment. Some of the people from the public, some of the people who have written letters owe the volunteer members of the planning board who have supported this project and the EDC board that recommended this project an apology.

I will continue with prepared remarks. There has been a lot of talk about what the public really wants and desire. I went back and had occasion to look at a history book. In 1896 William Jennings Bryant gave a speech about the gold standard and how it was turning working people and farmers, how it was really impacting their lives, making them poor and more destitute. In 1896 he said that we should not allow the working man of this county to carry this cross of gold and to bear this crown of thorns.

Fast forward one hundred years to New Jersey. Working people in our community and all across our state have a different cross of gold to bear. They have a different crown of thorns that they must wear that cause them suffering, and it is the burden placed on them by high property taxes throughout this state. In 2000 New Jersey had the highest property tax burden per capita than any other state in America. New Jersey in the year 2000 had the fourth highest property tax burden as a percentage of personal income that all of the fifty states. It has been getting worse. In 1994 in this state the total property tax levy was $11.2 billion. In the year 2003 it was $17 billion. The total property tax levy has been increasing statewide almost 8% well beyond the rate of inflation. People in Old Bridge really feel that. I would argue that they do. I think that if you look at the pubic polling data that has been assembled over this time that would back up my claim. For example the Star Ledger Eagleton poll in 1994 found that 69% of the people in this state said their property taxes were too high. In the year 2001, 62% of the people in this state said the same. In 2003, 68% of the people in New Jersey believed their property tax burden is too high. Do we think that the results of a poll taken just in Old Bridge would be any different? I would argue no.

I have been to thousands of doors in this town during the course of my campaigns. What is the number one issue that people talk to me about - property tax relief. People have told me time and time again that Old Bridge has a difficult, if not crushing, tax burden. Someone talked about providing $200 of relief or $300 to $400. That is a lot of money to some people. If you are a senior citizen living on a fixed income, any type of relief is relief. If we think that the property tax burden can't get any worse, you are wrong because it can, and it is getting worse all over the state. I understand that we are not the ones who are totally to blame for this. I understand that it is easier to do nothing and that doing something always requires courage and guts. I understand that it is always easier to shift blame and to say the school board spends a lot of money, and it is their fault or that of those guys in Trenton and the State Constitution. Frankly, I was not elected to this position to be a potted plant. I was not elected to this position to do nothing. People in this community have told me overwhelmingly that tax relief is their primary concern and important to them. I have an obligation to do something about this. Does that mean that by virtue of this plan we are going to absolve everyone of their burden? Absolutely not. It also does not mean that by virtue of this plan anyone's breaking their commitment to stopping over development. Using this plan and this process give us more leverage as leaders in this community than any type of traditional zoning would.

I had a call from a couple on Texas Road who wanted to speak to me about the plan. I visited and spoke to them and asked them if they were aware of the eleven hundred homes planned for Texas and Englishtown Roads in Woodhaven Village a prior approval given by the prior mayor and certain members of this council? They were not. I think that when you look at what we propose here, it is ten times more preferable than what Woodhaven Village is going to put at that intersection. We will have more control over the public improvements, roads and sewers. We will have more control over where the development is, and how it will be buffered from the residents. We are going to have more control - times ten more than we ever would under any form of traditional zoning. When the EDC committed to this project, we said we were going to use this process and we are going to use this plan because we have a responsibility to the people of this town to ease their tax burden. I think I would not feel comfortable sitting here saying that I was not going to do anything or sit idly by when working people are suffering because of the tax burden that they have to bear.

I have been in front of the planning board and this council. We have talked to the EDC about it for many months. If you honestly look at this plan, it is designed to do simply that - to try to provide tax relief with a minimum amount of impact on the residents and a minimum amount of public service expenditures. One of the questions that has come up continually is when John Vincenti did his community impact statement , did you net out the expenses for what public safety and other things were going to be included there? The answer was "yes, we were always cognizant of that". Another issue that keeps coming up time and time again is demographically what exactly we are looking at in terms of Old Bridge. If you look at what has gone on in Washington, we have a demographic time bomb ticking. We have an aging population of baby boomers who will be turning 55 and 65 and are eligible for federal benefits. You hear people talk about the looming budget crisis with Medicare and all those other things. You understand that that is a segment demographically of the population that is growing, and that to provide a community for those people to live so that they can stay in Old Bridge. Obviously these are people of means who will be paying their way to support the community and support the schools. I don't think this is inappropriate. I think this is a smart recognition of demographically where not only this township is but where our nation is.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the rest of the members of this council who over time have asked thoughtful questions on this project. As the president of the EDC and serving on the planning board, I have endeavored with the administration and everyone else to try my best to answer them and provide as much information as possible. I think we should move forward tonight to give the people of this town the relief they so desperately need and approve this plan.

President Baker: Councilman Bill Baker from Ward II stands with the woman from WaWa who begged me to vote "yes" for this plan. Councilman Baker stands by Mayor Phillips and his vision for a future of Old Bridge. Councilman Baker from Ward II and the people from the Arbors, Lakeridge and Country Place is voting "yes" to this plan and moving forward for the future of Old Bridge. That is where Councilman Baker stands.

Ordinance for Second Reading

ORDINANCE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF OLD BRIDGE
ORDINANCE No. 29-04

CREATING THE OLD BRIDGE TOWNSHIP REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY