The Township Committee 3/10/2008 meeting minutes have been adopted.

[Guest]

The Township Committee March 10, 2008 meeting minutes have been adopted.

"
Mayor Stout reported on March 24, 2008 the Township Committee will hold a public hearing on the 2008 Municipal Budget which was introduced on February 25, 2008 and since that time, the Governor has introduced a State Budget for 2008 which will negatively affect Cranbury Township’s aid from the State in the amount of $137,969. The reduction in State aid includes the following: $86,937.00 loss for Consolidated Municipal Property Tax Relief Aid (CMTRA) which had already been sliced from $115,892 that the Township had received in 2007. For CMTRA the Governor proposed a sliding scale of cuts for municipalities with populations under 10,000. Communities with a population of less than 5,000, such as Cranbury Township, would get nothing.

Mayor Stout stated there was no reason why the number 5,000 in population had been used. It appears that during the general trend of cost cutting, the basis for the CMTRA cuts relates to an expressed desire for more shared services. An additional $12,653 of loss was for Municipal Efficiency Performance Program Aid which we had received in 2007, a $25,000 loss in Homeland Security Grant which also had been received in 2007, and $13,158 loss for Municipal Property Tax Assistance and a $221 reduction in Garden State Trust monies.

Mayor Stout stated the $166,703 in loss is somewhat offset by an increase of $ 29,955 in Energy Tax Receipts Distribution. Mayor Stout stated what is most important, (while it’s never good to lose funding), is that this time the proposed $137,969 in lost revenue in State aid only represents less than 1% of the Township’s proposed 2008 Budget and will not alter the Township’s proposed 2008 Budget at all. Moreover, the lost revenue represents less than the $185,000 that the Township raised by one cent in its property tax. Mayor Stout stated it is not a large sum, however, it is still meaningful to the Township and is unfortunate. The Township’s proposed tax rate of three cents should not change at all (going from .35 per $100 of assessed value to .38 per $100 of assessed value).

Mayor Stout stated as he receives more information from the State, he will be informing the Township’s residents.

Mayor Stout reported the Sustainability/Alternative Energy Work Group had met on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 to review the Draft Energy Audit Report and had endorsed the Township making an application for a $100,000 grant for energy-saving projects and scheduled Metro Energy to give a presentation at its April 2, 2008 meeting.
...
Mr. Stannard reported that on Saturday evening, he and the Township Administrator had attended the Annual Dinner for the Township’s Volunteer Fire Department. The Fire Company had given its annual awards for members who had attended the most calls; a lot of young people were honored as well as Mr. Jack Ziegler who had attended quite a number of calls.

Mr. Stannard also reported that he, Mr. Berkowsky, Cranbury Housing Associates, and Ms. Cunningham, Clerk, had attended the ribbon cutting for the new affordable housing complex on Old Cranbury Road. Mr. Stannard reported that twenty very handsome units were built. The builder was present along with the architect and a number of people. The closing for the first unit will be within a week. Mr. Stannard thanked Mr. Berkowsky for doing a good job and stated not only has the Township made sure to put the affordable homes within its boundaries to make sure the new residents feel welcome, but also had built the new units to be very attractive.

Mr. Panconi reported that on March 2, 2008 he had held his monthly meeting with the Fire Company. They had nine (9) calls during the month of February; six (6) of the calls were between 6:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m., three (3) between 6:00 p.m. – 6:00 a.m. There had been five (5) calls during the day, 7:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m. of which our public works employees had responded to two (2) and one of those calls was on President’s Day, a municipal holiday. Of the nine (9) calls, four (4) were of the automatic type and it was undeterminable if any of the four (4) were false alarms.
...

Ms. Cunningham, Clerk, announced under the Work Session item a. “Discussion of Draft of Township’s Objections To New Council On Affordable Housing Rules” was being deleted and after the Closed Session the Township Committee may take action.
...

Ms. Marcelli, Township Engineer, reported that on February 18th, she had submitted to the Township Administrator, a Change Order Request for the Babe Ruth Baseball Field. The contract for the field had been awarded back in December or January. There had been a pre-con meeting at which a question had arisen from the contractor if the Township would consider sod on the field rather than seed. The contractor had indicated the sod would provide a quicker turn-around period for play time on the field as well as cutting down on dust. They indicated to the contractor he could certainly propose the idea, however, it was not guaranteed and would be a
decision by the Township Committee only. Ms. Marcelli referenced a letter she had sent to the Township Committee showing a map and indicating the additional costs for sod: the first item would be to sod the infield through the foul line in at a cost of $ 17,077.50 and if the Township wanted to consider sod for the entire area, including up to the area of disturbance, the cost would be an additional $25,726.25. Both of these are minimal increases above the overall
Reports from Township staff and professionals (Continued)

Contract base bid. The total bid award amount was $297,000. Putting sod just in the foul line would be a 5.75% increase. Sod covering the entire disturbed area would be an 8.66% increase. Ms. Marcelli added, just for reference, the second low bid came in at $324,437. Ms. Marcelli reported the contractor had been moving forward on the project. Mr. Stannard asked if there were sufficient funds in the grant monies the Township had received from the County to do the sod. Ms. Smeltzer, Township Administrator, responded that she believed it would be covered. Mr. Panconi stated long term the Township would be much better off with seed because once sod is cut the roots do not go down as far as seed and in addition, seed, once established, will give a much better root base. Mr. Panconi stated during a drought sod will burn out quicker than seed. Ms. Smeltzer, Township Administrator, asked the nature of the soil (if it is rocky). Ms. Marcelli indicated the soil is somewhat rocky and stated the contract does involve bringing in some top soil and grading it. Mr. Stannard indicated his preference would be to go with the seed. Mayor Stout stated at this time, with money constraints, he would prefer the seed. Mr. Panconi stated he too would prefer seed.

Ms. Marcelli also reported in the Fall the Township Committee had authorized her Office to proceed with the inspection of the Brainerd Lake Dam. Ms. Marcelli explained it is a requirement of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and in November she had attended, with members of her staff and Jerry Thorne, Public Works Director, an inspection of the Dam. She stated the inspection report had been submitted this week. Ms. Marcelli reported the State now requires a compliance form and dates by which to comply. One of the items the Township had been “dodging” for the past fifteen years is the requirement to not have any growth on the top of the Dam. All of the trees along the top of the Dam must be removed and the Township must comply by October 31, 2008. Ms. Marcelli reminded the Township Committee the Dam is under co-ownership with the County and a number of years ago she had sat down with the Assistant County Engineer and asked for some type of spirit of cooperation in working together if any major repairs had to be made to the Dam. The County had responded they did not own the Dam and if they had their way the spillway would come out and the Dam would dry up. In addition, whenever any type of communication comes out of the D.E.P. the County has claimed to not be responsible for the Dam. Ms. Marcelli stated it is her belief they are responsible. They had put both the road and the Dam at its present location. Several years ago the Township had expressed it would take the lead in any hydraulic reports, which were very expensive to prepare as well as Ms. Marcelli’s annual inspections of the Dam. However, no agreement had been made with the County that the Township would shoulder the costs for any major repairs of the Dam. Ms. Marcelli indicated she had spoken recently with both Ms. Waterbury and Ms. Smeltzer, as to how to handle the compliance form as the County does have some responsibility. The Township will go ahead and sign the compliance form and send it off to Mr. John Reiser, County Engineer, with a blank compliance form and ask him to sign it as co-owner of the Dam. Ms. Marcelli indicated there are a few minor repairs which are due on October 31, 2008 and there may be some major repairs that will require permitting for replacing some of the concrete. Mr. Stannard asked if there is an appeal permitted for the removal of all of the trees. Ms. Marcelli indicated there is not. Mr. Wittman stated people need to realize the Dam runs along the east and west side and not just where the spillway is. Ms. Marcelli stressed another “sit down” needs to happen with the County.
...

The Township Committee discussed the selection process for someone to head the Police Department. Ms. Smeltzer indicated there were two options; having a Public
Safety Director or a Chief of Police. She recommended hiring a Police Chief. Ms. Smeltzer added having a Public Safety Director is useful when you have a lot of younger officers who do not have the experience to take over as a Police Chief and the upper echelons of the Department. She added, a need may arise for a Public Safety Director when there are managerial problems with the Department, i.e. start getting complaints from the Prosecutor’s Office, etc. Ms. Smeltzer stated in her opinion it is not the case in the Township’s Police Department. She recommended going through a process with the selection of a Police Chief. Mr. Stannard indicated he had attended a luncheon a year ago with the current Chief, given by the New Jersey Association of Police Chiefs. One of the topics had been Police Chief or Public Safety Director. At the time, only 26 municipalities (out of over 500) had hired a Public Safety Director rather than a Chief. Mr. Stannard agreed with Ms. Smeltzer, indicating a Public Safety Director should be reserved for those municipalities who do not have officers with a lot of experience. Mr. Panconi stated his comments do not reflect the current Administration, however, currently three (3) towns in Middlesex County alone are going with Public Safety Directors; Helmetta, East Brunswick and Edison. Mr. Panconi stated he believed, since the Township’s Department is smaller, it would be able to look into hiring a Public Safety Director. The Public Safety Director serves at the pleasure of the Township Committee and it is a yearly contract. Mr. Panconi added, he is not in favor of tenured positions and the position of Chief is a tenured position. There would be less cost to hire a Public Safety Director. Mr. Panconi added the Township has had both good and bad experiences with tenured positions and added, with a bad tenured employee it can be a problem. Ms. Stave asked the role of a Public Safety Director. Mayor Stout responded the Public Safety Director manages the Department but does not have the authority of a law enforcement officer. Mr. Wittman stated, having worked with the past police chiefs, he is in favor of hiring a police chief and if the Township were to hire a Public Safety Director, it would actually cost the Township additional money because it would have to hire an additional person with law enforcement authority. Mr. Wittman raised his concern with a Public Safety Director politics could come into play. Mayor Stout stated he had read Helmetta actually ended up spending more money. Mayor Stout indicated he is not in favor of hiring a Public Safety Director. Ms. Smeltzer stated if the Township were to have a Public Safety Director that person would not have the power to direct the police in matters of public safety and it would be necessary to have an additional person to do so. Mr. Panconi asked if the salary of the new Police Chief would be $110,000 per year. Mayor Stout indicated the Township Committee and the Police Department have a good working relationship and he is in favor of having a Police Chief as opposed to having a Public Safety Director. A motion was made by Stannard, seconded by Mr. Wittman that the Cranbury Township Committee appoints the Administrator to create a set of criteria, questions and a process for selecting a new Police Chief and not go outside of the Township to look for a Public Safety Director:

Ayes:
(Stannard
(Stave
(Stout
(Wittman

Nays: (Panconi

Ms. Smeltzer indicated she had spoken with Ms. O’Connell, Esquire, the Township’s Personnel Attorney to discuss what would be a good process. Ms. Smeltzer stated she would recommend those who would be allowed to indicate their interest in the position (the Sergeants and above). Ms. Smeltzer stated that would involve a total of five (5) people. The Township will advertise the position and give the candidates so many
days to express their interest. In New Jersey there is a requirement that the promotions for the Chief’s position be someone promoted from within. If no one is interested then the Township could hire an interim Public Safety Director. The candidates would have to write a position paper on something that could be discussed and then have an oral test by three former police chiefs. The Township Committee would then interview the eligible candidates. Ms. Smeltzer also recommended she and the Chief Financial Officer also interview the candidates, explaining it is important for those in the Police Department to interact with the Administration on a day-to-day basis. Each stage of the process would be given a weight; so much for the oral exam, interview with the Administrator and C.F.O., etc. and the candidate with the highest score would then get the position. Ms. Smeltzer indicated she would like to have the process completed by the end of April. Ms. Smeltzer added if the selection process should run longer, the Township Committee could then appoint an Acting Chief (usually a senior officer who presently fills in for the present Chief when he is out).
...
"

http://www.cranburytownship.org/TC_minutes03-10-08.pdf