AGENDA TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE MEETING September 8, 2008

[Guest]

AGENDA

TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE MEETING
September 8, 2008

7:30 P.M.



1. Pledge of Allegiance



2. Open Public Meetings Act Notice



3. Roll Call



4. Regular Committee Minutes of August 11, 2008

Closed Session Minutes of August 11, 2008



5. Reports and Communications

--Mayor’ Notes

--Members of Committee

--Subcommittees



Agenda Additions/Changes


Ordinances
Second Reading



CRANBURY TOWNSHIP ORDINANCE 08-08-18 – AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF CRANBURY, MIDDLESEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, AMENDING THE CODE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF CRANBURY, CHAPTER 5, POLICE DEPARTMENT, ESTABLISHING A “COMMUNITY EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM”, AND PROVIDING FOR INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR ITS MEMBERS.



CRANBURY TOWNSHIP ORDINANCE 08-08-19 – AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF CRANBURY, COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, LIMITING THE USE OF THE REMAINDER OF THE WEST PROPERTY (BLOCK 23, LOT 70.02) TO ACTIVE AND PASSIVE RECREATION AND CONSERVATION PURPOSES ONLY.



Resolutions
Consent Agenda



a). Resolution # R 09-08-157 - Payment of Bills

b). Resolution # R 09-08-158 – Resolution authorizing the release of Cranbury Camp Out funds.

c). Resolution # R 09-08-159 – Resolution authorizing the release of a Performance guarantee for Gentle Healing Wellness (Private).

d). Resolution # R 09-08-160 – Resolution authorizing the release of a Performance Guarantee for Four Seasons at Historic Cranbury – Monument Installation.





Resolutions
Consent Agenda (Continued)



e). Resolution # R 09-08-161 – Resolution authorizing the reduction of a Performance Guarantee for Kerzner Associates, Inc. (Blk. 2.01, Lot 3.01).

f). Resolution # R 09-08-162 – Resolution authorizing the Mayor and Clerk to execute an agreement with Plainsboro Township for Shared Services for provision of social services.



9. Reports



a). Police Report, Chief Edward L. Kahler, III,



b). Reports from Township Staff and Professionals



c). Reports from Township Boards and Commissions

Report from Marilynn Mullin, Director, Cranbury Public Library

on proposal from Cranbury School and the Library’s response to same.



10. Work Session

a. Discussion of Endorsement by the Township Committee of Application to Middlesex County by Kin & Shao Ling Lum for an Easement Purchase for 119 John White Road (49.271 acres), Block 22, Lot 10.

The Township Committee will discuss its endorsement for an application made by Kin & Shao Ling Lum to Middlesex County Agriculture Development Board for an Easement Purchase for the above-named property and providing the Township’s financial support for the local share of the costs of the easement purchase.



11. Public Comment



12. Adjourn





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

[wcody]

I understand that there is a new issue where the Cranbury school wants to limit the hours that town library can be used during the school day due to security concerns. This is the issue being brought up at Monday's meeting. The use of the library at the school was done with a handshake agreement 40 years ago. It makes sense that some formal agreement is put in place to allow us to maintain use of the library and address any potential security issues. That may involve the library pay some rent to the school which could reduce our school taxes. I think the appropriate parties to meet to try to resolve these issues. Both the school and library and important institutions in Cranbury. They are both ultimately paid for by the same taxpayer and we should expect cooperation to bring a resolution to benefit all parties and the town.

[caution]

The other issue is the West property. This is not in our interests as a town. If the school were to ever expand it needs the west property to do so. If it does not have that abilitity then we as a town are in major trouble.

If the arguement is COAH then we restrict the property for school use.

Making this preserved land is irresponsible and is largely led by those individuals who also supported the ball park.

I believe in preserving land, but this property was never fully intended for that purpose.

I don't want immediate school expansion either. However, as a town we cannot back track on the school agreement.

In terms of the library. I wonder if they brought this on themselves. They highlighted such a security risk, that the school had no choice but to act. Those supporting the stand alone library have in essence caused us to have reduced hours as a result of instilling fear where non-existed.

[Guest]

The School wants to limit the public library's hours to comply with:

NJQSAC Regulations

The Commissioner of Education has adopted rules at N.J.A.C. 6A:30, Evaluation of the Performance of School Districts to implement a monitoring and evaluation system for public school districts and county vocational school districts. These rules became effective on February 22, 2007 and are in compliance with the provisions of P.L. 2005, c. 235 and P.L. 2007, c. 16, §39a, which amended N.J.S.A. 18A:7A.

The following are the final rules, which include the District Performance Review (DPR) for each component of school district effectiveness. The DPRs are attached as Appendix A in the regulations.

» N.J.A.C. 6A: 30, Evaluation of the Performance of School Districts

» Appendix A: District Performance Review (DPR)

[Guest]

I just did a google search and the contents of the law you highlighted make no mention of library hours. Can you help me and highlight what the law states about library hours for the school being different than the public or prohibiting public access?

It does state that there are core curriculum requirements. I don't see the coorealtion between library for public hours and school hours.

[wcody]

I also checked the law and the DPR. I reviewed in detail particularly the DPR regarding Operations, Facilities and Safety. I did not see anything that would necessitate limiting public hours in the library.

I may have missed the reference. Can someone one point out where the issue of limiting library hours is referred to in the regulations law or DPR.

For those interested, the link for the site is : http://www.nj.gov/education/genfo/qsac/

Also, If these rules went into effect February 2007, I wonder why is it a concern now but not during the prior school year.

[Guest]

My speculation: this new change may be a stepping stone to a new standalone library. Let's see how it plays out.

[library]

Here is what I see.

1) The school clearly wants to get rid of the public library being in house. Why? I am not so sure, other than they want the space.

2) The Library and certain interests on the TC wanted a stand alone library and the PNC building. Thus, a partnership is born for a common cause.

3) On first vote it was denied. Two TC members realize the expense is too great and the need not appropriate at this time.

4) Not willing to take no for an answer another approach is taken bu the pro-PNC group. A petition with 50 signatures is presented. Again, the TC does not have the votes to acquire the property.

5) Now the pro-stand alone crowd is stuck. How can they get this through? Denied twice, certain factions in both the school and library consorted to determine the best way forward for a stand alone library. That is to get the public in an uproar. How do we do this they think to themselves. How do we get them to spend money when purses are tight?

6) They decided to restrict hours. It makes the public upset because they have less hours available. It's a natural fit because the school at the sametime can say they have a safety concern. How can parents or residents be upset at school safety? And the library is innocent, it's plausible deniability.

7) Guessing the public will want the hours and say hey, the hours are more important than a few hundred dollars, a sudden change occurs in public sentiment. Now, those same residents who were opposed say hey, I am concerned and demand a library because we need the hours and access. Though most people in town are working during those hours anyway and won't need access.

I find it too suspect that after 40 years of successful partnering that this is suddenly an issue for both the library and school. It seems it is another route and that these factions and special interests are like spoiled children. They won't take no for an answer and like a child who asks mom and is told no then runs to Dad, so is our library and pro-spending crowd trying to manipulate the residents.

[Guest]

I agree. This is no coincidence. And they have never demonstrated a single actual security issue, only a limp theory that has simpler solutions. This is definitely another end-run attempt to get support for the PNC/New Library drive by a minority of the community with the support of the Stout Three.

[Guest 2]

Perhaps the concern for the library vis a vis security has more to do that the school's administration has changed in the last year. New superintendant, new vice principal = new concerns.

[Guest]

Only the vice principal is new. The Principal is the same as last year. He could have changed policy last year if it was a concern. Though possible, I find it doubtful.

[Jersey Dad]

[James]

Here is my take based on the Press and meetings I have attended.

The initial issue was raised by Pari in response to a few voices she heard in town who wanted to preserve the land entirely. The COAH aspect I now hear mentioned is their way of selling it to the town I suspect, since preservation alone is not going to cut it. COAH just needs to be mentioned and it seems people jump without doing any risk/reward analysis.

COAH was not mentioned at the original discussion as a reason for preservation, it was simply to make the land 100% preserved as I recall. Just like the ball field responding to a few voices, Pari and David are making decisions based not on the interests of the town, but what their friends and family want done and Mr. Stannard is going party line.

The three Democrats want this and are trying to sell it as being proactive on COAH. Preserving land prevents it's use as COAH. However, that is a very short sighted and reactionary view that can lead to further damaging our town and tax structure. The easier solution is deed restricting the land for school use only.

Pari initially had no intent of meeting with the school board as I was present at the meeting when that issue was raised. Someone raised the point that she should meet with the School Board and only then agreed to do it.

After meeting with the school board she and the TC heard a strongly opposed stance as reported in the Press. Ignoring the school board whose job it is to manage the school and has done much better doing their job than the current TC, the TC is proceeding anyway.

The TC has ignored the school board's concern. It is dangerously close to putting our school in a position of not being able to accomodate students over the coming years.

If the COAH legislation does stay as is and Cranbury has to add students, we will no longer have the ability to do so. By preserving the land we eliminate options for expansion and we handcuff ourselves down the line. We then have to look at building new or additional schools or consolidation in a doomsday scenario. So we've severly increased our property taxes between COAH obligations and school obligations.

This does not even consider that the land was condemned for both preservation and school use. We are changing the contractual intent of the condemnation process.

As one might guess, I am rather fustrated by some of the TC members not looking out for the interests of our residents and our children.

I dread to think that if these individual members of the TC got everything they wanted we'd dealing with a cell phone tower on Main St and a major PNC liability just in the last couple of years. This on top of the multi-million dollar ball field, the revaluation and our out of line property tax increases.

The intent of the TC is to manage the town and town interests. This means ensuring families can live here and our seniors can stay in their homes without fear of being priced out. It is not to build the town beyond it's economic means or cater to small groups of individuals without concern for the down the road ramifications. It is not to award no bid contracts to make friends, nor is it to try and gain favor in Trenton. It is not to play politics and dole out favors with board positions.

In a town like Cranbury, there is one interest that is beyond party and that is a 300 year old town with a history of being apolitical. A town that has a history until the last 5-10 years of being fiscally responsible and ensuring that spending was in line.

Board appointments are now made by whether you are a Republican or Democrat, it should not, it must not, be that way rather it must be who is qualified. Party affiliation shouldn't even be allowed to be in consideration.

A TC like a parent must learn to say No even if it means the person they are saying no throws a fit. It is for the overall good that the TC must say no at times. It may mean that the member may not be re-elected because they don't court the small interests or say no more often then people are used to hearing, but I'd rather have someone fiscally responsible for 3 years then someone looking to gain favor for multiple terms.

[Guest]

A 19month old regulation and the school president only now wants to address it, must not have been so important to him in his first year as administrator to address security of the children then. What other regulations has the Cranbury school selectively adopted? Looks like this one is optional also and doesnt even affect the public library. But it does concern me about the back door politics behind the library and the 3 Democrats on the TC rewarding a select few special interest groups.

If the Stout/Pari/Standard all want to reduce the hours of the public library, so that the public outcry will help them raise Our Cranbury taxes and build a unnecessary library facility, why dont we really reduce the Public Library hours to ZERO. The school library would be for the sole use of the kids. I want us to consider dissolving the public library for a year? Jamesburg voted to eliminate its library altogether, I only want to do it for a year and there are some very good reasons to do this now.
http://ebs.gmnews.com/news/2008/0724/front_page/002.html


Closing the Pub Library will surely solve the schools security problem, and also address the huge surplus that the Public library is currently sitting on. Our Cranbury taxes are sitting in some bank account now and its not even helping our current Children at all. The voters should be yelling about that policy instead of the time reductions.

And since none of the 3 TC Democrats are working on the Public library using that huge surplus as RENT to help improve the school, lets just return that library surplus back to us taxpayers, we all will give it back to the school budget directly ourselves. How many years have we taxpayers been doubletaxes both for the school library and also the public library, and they just sit on that surplus without giving back to the school and the students - that's shameful. The Cranbury Public Library is getting a free ride for years. The Public library should be paying rent.

I vote for using the library surplus wisely and enhancing the current Library for the benefit of our children. I would be willing to dissolve the current public library for a YEAR inorder to achieve this outcome and cleanup the administration in the process.

Its time to clear up these special interests that dont have Cranbury's overall interest in mind, we are spending sooo much wasted resource with the TC 3 doing back door shenanigans we need to dissolve the Public Library for one year and return the library surplus back to the Cranbury School or the Taxpayers.

Vote to close the Public Library for a year people! I know there are easier ways to solve this problem, but it looks like the TC 3 dont want to do it, so the Voters need to get involved and make this happen our way.

[Guest]

Fact: Cranbury School must comply with NJQSAC Regulations. This includes security precautions that exist elsewhere in the school.
Fact: The Township Committee is just learning about the need to limit public library hours now. There is no conspiracy.
Fact: The Public Library accounts for 1% of our taxes. School accounts for 55%, Town 24% and County 19%
Fact: To abolish or close the public library, there would have to be a public referendum.
Fact: The 2006 Zogby Poll says that the vast majority of the residents find that the library is important to the community and it serves all members of community, young and old.

[library]

Please cite specifically where the law says that the current security of locking the door into the school does not meet the regulations. You can't because the law does not say public library access is prohibited to joint libraries during school hours.

Any statement to the contrary is simply trying to make the law fit the situation. This is similar to the arguement of using data on how a library attracts people into a town. The only problem is that the study assumed there was no library in place at the time and that the library is a new addition to the town.

I have no doubt the TC is just learning. I believe it is certain TC members, certain library members and certain school officals with their own agendas who put this together. Then they bring it before the TC. Just as they did the petition, just as they did originally with their first petition. Why is it coming to light now. This is simply another attempt to push through an agenda.

I am NOT for closing the library. I am for keeping it the same as it is today and getting this issue to go away.