The 1/26/2009 Township Committee meeting agenda has been posted.

[Guest]

The January 26, 2009 Township Committee meeting agenda has been posted.

http://www.cranburytownship.org/TC_Agenda_012609.pdf

[Guest]

[Guest]

I actually agree - rather than delaying payments into the pension funds that will only increase what is due to a later date; We should be seriously thinking about pushing back our land preservation plans until 2010.

COAH is being delayed, so preservation can be delayed too. We need to be not only cutting the budget; but should be delaying projects that are not immediately needed.

Since the state will probably not have any money to give Cranbury in 2009; The TC should also be talking to the school board to help them find unique ways to stretch their current budget (rather than increasing it).

Just a Heads-up.
I'd have to tell you right now; If the school board asks for more money again (received an extra 1 million for each of the last 2 years running); I'd have to say - "No Way - Go Back and figure it out".

[Guest]

Guest,
Can you clarify what you mean by "COAH is being delayed? I hadn't heard that and my understanding is Cranbury's plan calls for building more COAH housing later this year.

[Guest]

There are bills pending approval, in fact a large number of them. However, nothing has been passed or approved that would lessen or delay Cranbury's obligation.

[Guest]

Just a follow up to my post immediately above. As any development triggers a COAH obligation or potential obligation, I believe preserving farmland is an appropriate discussion. If we can preserve it then no building can occur. Now, in this particular instance, I am not sure if the property or easment is really developable land. However, I would have no issue exploring the cost of preserving large tracts of land, deed restricting it agriculture use and then selling or leasing it back out.

Naturally, I am all for rateables, but not under the present COAH regulations.

[Guest]

[Jay T.]

We should not be breaking ground on any development until we have a clear understanding on what the obligation will be simply from the fact we don't want to over build or under build.

However, land preservation as means to reduce future COAH obligations should be on the table and open for discussion. If a property that is large enough to trigger an obligation comes up then we should evaluate the costs of acquiring the property and then deed restricting it or leasing it for agricultural purposes.

That said, we cannot realistically acquire properties or spend money at every turn. We must evaluate them on a case by case basis and as Win stated when he was running we should look to a referendum if there is a large tax payer expense being evaluated.