The September 22, 2008 Township Committee agenda has been posted.

[Guest]

AGENDA

TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE MEETING
SEPTEMBER 22, 2008

7:30 P.M.

1. Pledge of Allegiance

2. Open Public Meetings Act Notice

3. Roll Call

4. Special Township Committee Meeting Minutes of September 11, 2008

Closed Session Minutes of September 11, 2008

Regular Township Committee Meeting Minutes of September 8, 2008

5. Reports and Communications

--Mayor

--Members of Committee

--Subcommittees

6. Agenda Additions/Changes

7. Resolutions

Consent Agenda

a). Resolution # R 09-08-167 - Payment of Bills.

b). Resolution # R 09-08-168 – Resolution providing for the insertion of a Special Item of Revenue in the Municipal Budget of the Township of Cranbury pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:4-87 (Chapter 159, P.L. 1948).

c.) Resolution # R 09-08-169 – Resolution authorizing the release of extra duty escrow.

d). Resolution # R 09-08-170 – Resolution authorizing the release of a Performance guarantee for Kerzner (Block 2.01, Lot 3.01).

e). Resolution # R 09-08-171 – Resolution authorizing the release of a Performance Guarantee for Gentle healing Wellness (Public).

f). Resolution # R 09-08-172 – Resolution authorizing an increase of 3.5% annually by the Monroe Township Municipal Utilities Authority (provide all regular and emergency maintenance for the Township of Cranbury’s Sewer System).

8. Reports from Township Staff and Professionals

9. Reports from Township Boards and Commissions

10. Work Session

a). Discussion of Volunteer Service Project Application

The Township Committee will review and discuss a Volunteer Service Project application submitted by William Rogers.

11. Public Comment

12. Resolution

a). Resolution # R 09-08-173 – approving a Closed Session portion of the meeting.

The Township Committee will now go into Closed Session regarding:

“N.J.S.A. 10:4-12b (8) (Personnel): Discussion and evaluation of potential promotion of current public officer/employee”.

13. Mayor’s Notes

14. Adjourn

***Persons with disabilities requiring assistance, please contact Town Hall 24 hours in advance (609) 395-0900, ext. 234.

http://www.cranburytownship.org/TC_agenda_092208.html

[Guest]

Anything special about today's meeting?

[Guest]

I would think an update on the Master Plan would be presented especially since there were planning meetings held last week.

[Jersey Dad]

The drama du jour at the TC meeting was the CHA board members chastising the TC for excluding Mark Berkowsky from a couple recent closed session meetings.

A few points on the subject...
1. Irregardless of Mr. Berkowsky's personal integrity, isn't there a potential conflict of interest in having the CHA president involved in every COAH sub-committee meeting. After all, CHA will likely be the recipient of a no bid contract to build Cranbury's affordable housing worth tens of millions of dollars.

2. Even assuming there is no possible conflict of interest, shouldn't our affordable housing consultants demonstrate a greater understanding of the sensitivity of the issues than is evident by choosing a public meeting to air grievances and try to bait the committee members into publicly sharing information from closed session meetings?

3. Isn't trust a two-way street? How can CHA demand the trust of the TC if CHA doesn't trust the TC to have even 1 meeting without the CHA President at the table?

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate CHA's contributions in the past and CHA clearly has an important role in the future (that's why I joined). However, I am concerned by the behavior exhibited by CHA's officers tonight. The president of any organization that is poised to receive a multi-million dollar no-bid contract from Cranbury should not feel entitled to an appointment as a consultant on how to spend the money.

[Guest]

I don't understand why closed session is needed to discuss COAH related issues? By law, the TC has to publish closed session minutes. Let's see when we can see the minutes of those closed sessions.

[James]

1) CHA is a non-profit organization established in 1963 to help the less fortunate. It is officially recognized in Cranbury for this purporse. It was and always has been an important and recognized entity. It has and always will be a non-profit entity made of volunteers.

They manage the process of financial needs, planning, finding developers, and management of the projects. They are not a developer so there is no issue with no bid contracts. If not for CHA volunteers doing this voluntarily, we most certainly would have an outside firm doing this management and charging the taxpayers for the service. When we're already overloaded with fees because of this TC, I see no reason to add one more on top.

2) I do not see a potential conflict of interest in any respect considering CHA. They will be asked to build the units the TC deems necessary and therefore should be included in all phases of the project. Unlike our paid consultants CHA has been doing this work in Cranbury for 45 years and knows the the COAH and Mt. Laurel history with respect to our town.

I actually am more concerned that we have all these paid consultants on my tax dollars and we've started to exclude CHA. Doesn't make sense to not only exclude people with history and experience, but also excluding people who cost us no money and who live in our town so they will be impacted by whatever a paid consultant from somewhere else recommends.

3) As I also pointed out in my letter to the editor last week, there are members of the TC who do not listen to residents. So I do believe Mark was right in that regard for raising the issue. Airing comments on one on one does not always lead to dialogue.

4) We have work sessions on the agenda where committees are open to reporting. While CHA was not on the work session, I strongly support their raising their concerns in the open at a TC meeting. Taking away this right devalues CHA and the residents own voice in government.

5) All meetings regardless of being closed are subject to having meeting notes available. The problem again as I highlighted in my letter is that the TC is using too many closed door sessions so the one's that truly need to be closed door are lost in the mix of meetings where the TC simply wants to exclude public comment.

6) The TC held two meetings without CHA present not one. The bigger concern is that our paid consultants present. The exclusion of a volunteer resident who runs the key program for low income housing is to me a very big concern. Now, there were legal issues mentioned about it violating attorney client privelege. Which may be valid, I would though like to see the TC work to find a solution. If the TC wants to have an internal meeting and exclude all consultants then that is a separate issue.

7) Lastly, just to reiterate. The CHA is not receiving money or a profit from this work. There is no payment to CHA individuals. They are not a Cranbury version of Toll.

[Guest]

Here is the sunshine law. The only way the TC could have been baited into saying something would have been if they were acting improperly in closed session. The sunshine law requires the TC to keep minutes and disclose votes and minutes from closed sessions. So the meeting is public record.

The Law requires the public body to keep reasonably comprehensible minutes of all its meetings, showing the time and place, the members present, the subjects considered, the actions taken, the votes of each member and any other information required by law to be recorded by minutes. These minutes are to be made promptly available to the public.

In addition, the Law requires that a statement be entered into the minutes at the outset of each meeting indicating (1) that adequate notice has been provided (specifying the time, date, and manner in which the notice was provided), or (2) that adequate notice was not provided and an explanation for the failure of public body to provide adequate notice.

[Jersey Dad]

My understanding is CHA has served two primary functions under Mark's leadership- planning and developing. As developers of affordable housing, CHA is clearly superb and possibly the best in the state.

However, this does not make their planning strategies beyond reproach. As a planning consultant, Mark is extremely well qualified (and reasonably priced, too). That said, I'm glad the COAH sub-committee is supplementing Mark's opinions with fresh ideas from other affordable housing planners for the revised 3rd round plan. Before you take exception to my comment, consider the following...

1. Mark has been a proponent of Cranbury's COAH appeasement strategy. This strategy is to build more units than we're required to build, before we're required to build them, in the hopes of getting in COAH's good graces.

2. Mark adamantly supports building 100 percent rental units and maximizing very-low income units in CHA developments adjacent to market-rate family neighborhoods.

3. Mark is a proponent of shoe-horning more affordable housing into the village area.

I appreciate what Mark does for Cranbury, but isn't it time to explore some new ideas, too?

[James]

Actually CHA has been proactive in terms of building and progressing, but they have not exceed any COAH limits imposed. They have also been working with the TC and planning board to use RCA's which is why our town was able to incorporate housing in the village area.

I do understand your concern. I just think that CHA should play a role equal to our paid consultants.

To be honest paid consultants look at two things. 1) They take a conservative view as they want their recommendations implemented so they're not likely to recommend a course of action that may be beneficial if it has a low chance of success. 2) Consultants basically act on their interpratation of what the client is saying their concerns are or how the client views a project. This way they keep the client happy and don't oppose their thoughts unless the client is so far off that it's unrealistic.

CHA being unpaid and also having the history is likely to be more honest and upfront. So CHA must be included in all phases of the meetings. I am not saying their recommendations have to be taken, but they must be included especially where land and land utilization occur.

[Dan Mulligan]

Jersey Dad while I do not always agree with your statements both here on this board or at the Township Committee meetings, I do usually at least understand why you are saying what you do.

Regarding the points you have made about CHA and Mr. Berkowsky I vehemently disagree with you and have to say that you are way off base here.

Mr Berkowsky has DONATED untold amounts of his personal free time to Cranbury to help the town plan its Affordable Housing obligations in a reasonable manner which fits into the character of Cranbury.

Any plans Mr. Berkowsky and CHA have worked on were plans and suggestions which were then approved by the planning board in Cranbury.

JD If you would like to discuss this more then e-mail me at danmulligan@yahoo.com

[Frugality in Cranbury]

[Guest]

I actually agree with JD 99% of the time. However, the facts as outlined were not actually correct, whether presented as such or not. For example, the no bid comment is irrelevant if there is no cost associated. CHA volunteers and Mr. Berkowsky in particular spend a major amount of time each year with no compensation. I found that comment to be almost borderline offensive.

There was no baiting on closed door sessions since those are open.

The PB and TC work with CHA and give them direction. If CHA built more housing than required and I am 99% sure they did not, then it was at the request and approval of the TC and PB. So you have to hold them accountable then as well.

I see no reason why the COAH homes as it stood in the past should not have been incorporated as they were. This is a positive not a negative. It should be this way still to avoid having a projects development. Whether that is feasible is another issue. This is more an opinion than an fact based arguement.

JD's follow up post was actually more important and in line with what I have come to expect and respect. Though I still disagree. The first post is where I was surprised and actually wondered if it was JD making the post.

In either case, we can't afford to alienate people who have the experience and desire that Mark has shown. We need him in the meetings. We also need to voice our concerns and CHA has always listened. I have no issue with other consultants, but only if we still have CHA present for discussion.

[Frugality in Cranbury]

[Guest]

Yes, I saw those numbers. However, we also have to factor in that the bonus credits are predicated on units and use, not actual builds. Here is where I am coming from in terms of the dwellings being built.

CHA produced 56 units in Cranbury between Bergen, Danser, Bennet and So. Main St.

Those 56 units triggered 39 bonus units (.69 bonus per unit). We have a surplus of 9 units at the end.

Of these units, could we have built less units and received enough bonus credits to still met the obligation before us? The bonuses sit on top of the units produced so they are reliant on the build and without them we have a reduced number of bonuses.

I am not sure and this is why I said 99% sure in my prior post that we could have met the obligation by producing fewer units considering many are multiple dwelling units. So reducing one build could affect 3 units plus the applicable bonus credits assigned. 3 units x .69 equals 5 units of housing. So using this very rough calculation at worst we built 2 buildings over the maximum and at best we met the requirements.

Now the question that remains using the actual formulas could they have produced less units and met the obligation. Or could they have not met the obligation and avoided adverse implications. So the facts remain to be seen on whether they over built.

[Jersey Dad]

Fellow Posters,
Please note the following clarifications...

Regarding Mr. Berkowsky & CHA
It is not my intention to question the value or integrity of CHA, or Mark Berkowsky. I hope I made that clear in my previous comments. If not, I hope it is clear now.

Regarding Mr. Berkowsky & COAH3 planning
I believe our elected township officials have a responsibility to explore and consider new ideas for the revised 3rd round plan. This process may involve meetings in which it is prudent to exclude Mr. Berkowsky for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with the value or integrity of CHA, or Mr. Berkowsky. The decisions to exclude Mr. Berkowsky from the two meetings in question were made by the bi-partisan COAH sub-committee on the advice of legal counsel.

Regarding my comments on Mr. Berkowsky's positions
To Dan's point, I may be attributing too much influence to Mr. Berkowsky for decisions made in the past. However, my characterization of Mr. Berkowsky's positions on COAH3 planning are based on recent conversations I have had directly with Mr. Berkowsky. If I have mis-characterized his positions, I will apologize and welcome his corrections.

Regarding my motivation
Under the current circumstances, I believe our COAH3 plan should strive to achieve the minimum level of compliance, include locations outside the village and include a mix of ownership and rental units. I hope our COAH3 planners are using consultants who are willing to give ample consideration to these opportunities.

I hope this clears up my positions. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or feedback.
Dave

[Cranbury Conservative]

JD, The root of my concern is that you are making Affordable Housing in Cranbury a divisive issue with your statements and that did not help the Affordable Housing discussion in our town one bit.

Yes new ideas are good, it’s just how the original and follow up message was delivered that made me reply.

Also in the spirit of full disclosure you have to add to your motivation that you are concerned with Affordable Housing being built next to your home.