good all right we are live good evening in compliance with the open public meetings Act of New Jersey adequate notice of this meeting was provided on December 21st 2023 by sending written notice and electronic notice to the courrier news and the breeze posting on the website and the bulletin board in the municipal building and following with the Township Clerk if we could have roll call please here Council C here Council here Council here counc here I will uh ask councilman pedroo to stand and lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance sir pledge allegiance to flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all all right we will start now with Township Council reports I'll start with councilman pedroso got to be on your toes you don't know what order he's going to go in I don't have much to report the only thing I want to say is uh I want to wish our our Jewish friends and Community here in brid town had a very happy okay councilman kersch thank you um since I was absent at the last meeting I have a couple of holdovers from earlier in the month uh April 5th I had the um pleasure to uh attend Patriots opening day uh at the invitation of the ownership group uh April 13th uh um Bridgewater baseball softball opening day uh I'm sure it was already mentioned how fine a job our council president did with the opening pitch we we said I need a little Improvement well I didn't hit nobody got hurt yes uh um no close calls no no no no close calls um uh items of note uh planning board met on April 16th looking at a um an interesting case to subdivision over on over in Bradley Gardens um uh essentially two lots that over time or not overtime but two lots that are now considered one and there's a desire to subdivide and build on what I'll call the second lot uh and then as I typically report on the zoning board that that uh um body met on April 9th heard the third hearing uh of CH The Chimney Rock Storage they that'll be heard for the fourth time on June 11th uh and and um uh just this uh about a week and a half ago April 23rd the zoning board met for a single family dwelling uh Edition in Bradley Gardens that was approved and that is my report okay thank you councilman cordella report is going to be brief um I wanted to uh congratulate certainly Bridgewater baseball for their opening day and also the Bradley Gardens Little Loop uh for their opening day they're always exciting um I openly admit that I arrived at the Bradley Gardens Little Loop a little late I had my time confused but I did get there and I did spend some time congratulating PE um coaches and so forth wishing them a very good and prosperous year that it thank you councilman nalis thank you sir attended the monthly Municipal Alliance meeting uh Bridgewater Township Deputy Administrator Wells wieger provided an update on the Bridgewater reach program an initiative to fight the OPI C crisis Renata denlinger and Jerry KC from the safe communities Coalition also join a meeting to present their prom kit program at the next council meeting I plan to request that the council appoint April McGrath Lutz high school student assistant counselor as a member of the alliance she's already been attending the meetings for several months uh best wishes to our Jewish friends who celebrated Passover Passover is documented in the book of Exodus chapters 12 through 14 in the Christian Bible work has already begun with engineering firms knocking on doors for those homes on streets involved in the 2024 road construction program uh they hand that the letter they hand out is self-explanatory but if folks have questions they can contact Anthony Gallow who is the assistant Township engineer uh and his telephone number of 908 725 6300 extension 5514 is embedded in the letter i attended the Somerville High School National Honor Society induction ceremony with my granddaughter Grace noralis was one of 54 students recognized the motto of the society is no bless oblig a French term signifying obligation to behave honorably generously and with responsibility to others Senator Douglas steinhart was the guest speaker and gave a rousing speech uh several weeks ago I reported about the apartment fire in Fern at the time of the fire a lithium battery was in the building but it was unclear if the battery was the cause of the fire according to our Fire Marshall it has been officially determined that the lithium battery started the fire I want to caution our our residents that an underwriter approved lithium battery should only be used with the correct underwriter's laboratory approved charger please please please do not rely on cheap readily available knockoff charges through three uh available or obained through flea markets or on eBay that's my report thank you thank you all right I do have a couple things um I did attend the Bradley Gardens baseball uh softball Opening Day festivities on April 20th and joined mayor mench with a ceremonial first pitches uh since no one here on the Das was there that day I don't have to talk about the pitch I threw um want to also uh remind the public that uh May 11th and May 18th are the Bulky Trash days for the township um held over in the fern section of Bridgewater uh it's open to all Township residents there are certain restrictions so if you do have Bulky Trash items you'd like to get rid of I would suggest you check the township website ahead of time to make sure your items are and vehicle are both compliant and then lastly as I announced at our last meeting just a reminder uh that our May 16th meeting so our next meeting has been rescheduled due uh due to a quorum issue to May 23rd so following today's meeting our next council meeting will be May 23rd at 7:30 p.m. and that is my report anything from the administration yes sir just a few things one is a reminder May 22nd in this room there will be the master plan Workshop that is uh been had to be rescheduled begins at 700 p.m. and the general public is certainly invited to attend um I think it was was the last council meeting we had a presentation from psng and there was extensive conversation and questions posed to the psng officials um I had committed to have a meeting with representative to uh continue the discussion and due to scheduling issues uh we were not able to meet yet but we're scheduled to meet next Tuesday so I will uh report to the council about that uh once it takes place um I think the other items that I would have are likely to be addressed on the agenda so I'll wait that's it thank you thank you um I'll turn it back over to you would you like to start the um or should I refer to councilman noralis for our sore presentation well uh today uh Michael uh Tom and I met with uh the consultant um for the this is for the inverted siphon at Duke Island Park from our side of the river uh to the Hillsboro side it's a very very complex process highly technical in nature uh it I believe it's all on target for um a lot of D work a lot of there are a lot of permits that are required before it can move forward I don't anticipate there will be any movement before the end of the year uh and the best we can do is after the permits are all obtained and approvals from d and whoever else needs to uh that the package would be sent out for for bids um by the way we this is at absolutely no cost to Bridgewater Township this is the penalty for polluting of the river over some finite period of time uh it it's part of a dam removal process behind um Duke Island Park if you ever used the walkway there there's a there's a dam uh and that will be removed but it cannot be removed until after the 54 in pipe uh is uh is removed and two replacement pipes sunk six or seven feet under the river so it's quite a project yep I I want to thank councilman regalis for being here today and Mr janova who was there and has been instrumental in this uh entire uh process and with the rep resentative from Mr corini's office was able to negotiate as councilman oralis said a um cost that would have been borne by the township to be uh covered by the um company that is responsible for this Improvement and uh we have the benefit of a CDM Smith and engineering firm and a resident of Bridgewater Township who's taking the lead on this and so uh very like councilman said very complicated but very very important um I do want to just touch on one other item regarding the sewer utility uh the the administration would like to uh ask the council to consider uh an amendment a couple of amendments to the Sewer utility uh fee schedule uh a couple of years ago the council considered uh a request to increase the sewer fee and uh you did so after some discussion some adjustment uh of the actual number that was approved that was in 2022 uh 2023 the srva the regional sewage Authority approved a 25% fee increase which is their charge for treating sewage and we U because of the increase that had been approved the township sewer utility was able to absorb that uh last year uh the srva did not approve any fee increase in 2024 but uh certainly could consider doing so next year the the sewer utility uh Financial condition has improved considerably as you all know from the numerous presentations that Mr nor Mr goova has made over the last year or two uh there have been significant uh amendments to the Ser to a series of ordinances that uh regulate the sewer utility and improvements that have been made certainly to the gilbright pump station we are in the midst of the final design of a rebuild of the Middlebrook Pump Station which uh is a significant piece of the uh conveyance of our sewage to the srva uh it is an Antiquated facility and one as I said this Council approved a uh contract with penon Associates and engineering firm to uh design uh a basically a rebuild of that uh of that facility so that is in its final stages of design at some point the request will come to this body to fund the replacement of those that pump station probably estimates are three to three5 million so what we're pres presenting here conceptually is a request to uh increase the sewer fee uh to an effective increase for the balance of 2024 of uh about 25% it would raise the fee in 2024 from the current $472 to $483 80 so 472 to 48380 uh we are then proposing for 2025 an additional increase that would be an effect Ive 5% increase next year which would bring it to $495 even so again right now it's $472 proposal is for the second half of the Year raise it to 48380 and for the um for the uh 2025 $495 U the ordinance that we're proposing also for 2026 would propose a 1.5% increase beginning in 2026 January of 2026 and that would be a uh again in the ordinance being drafted would be a 1.5% increase annually beginning in 2026 and one other provision that we're proposing is that there would be a basically a a clause that would be a pass through that if the regional sewage Authority institutes a fee increase that that would automatically be passed passed on um and the number what that could be again we have no control over that as a municipal government but is something that that we would be responsible for paying um we we we've uh drafted an ordinance I reviewed it again today Mr fiser from Mr uh gini's office has prepared it I actually uh found found a typographical error that he had to make late in the day today and be happy to obviously share this with the council but we would appreciate your consideration and if you have any questions that would like to discuss it now or in the ensuing days or weeks available I I have a few questions and in full disclosure um Mr papis and I have discussed this separately um so as I understand it there is a desire to um set the rate for uh 24 set the rate for 25 except that it may be influenced by an srva increase and then essentially set the rates for 26 and and Beyond with also the possibility of an Sr VSA um um conceptually you know I'm in favor of that um one thing I'm concerned about though is that the the the out years there may be some some questions concerns issues uh I would want to make sure that if we can do this in one shot that would be preferred if somehow we cannot do this all in one shot I think it's important to have no additional delay in setting the 24 rate so that um the rate payers can know what it is and so that we can start uh a schedule for a collection and we can obviously be be bringing in Revenue so if we can pull all that off I certainly support that but if we have any questions or concerns about what the 25 and the 26 and all that stuff looks like I I would like us to consider pairing back to take more rapid action on the 24 portion if I can just uh add one more thing I I failed to the percentages that I've mentioned the increases would also apply to connection fees uh those are U fees that again counil previously in a in a separate ordinance I guess it was also in 2022 had approved an increase and again the proposal is to capture the other fees such as connection fees uh with those corresponding increases those years that I've mentioned and then and then the other the other yes thank you the other thing the other thing I want to make sure that we're we're clear on with our intent is looking at the calendar our next meeting is May 23rd the meeting after that is in first week of June um so so then this requires an this is an ordinance so it's a it's a it's a introduction and then a hearing two weeks later correct yes so then the earliest that I don't have a calendar in front of me but I think the earliest that we could could could do this would be Jan would be excuse me June June 6 6 um now is there authority to start sending bills at that moment or is there a waiting period before we can start to send Bill bills we let me just say I'm sorry one thing I I did not outline that the proposal is again when the council approved the increase a couple of years ago uh there was the sensitivity the governing body showed by allowing people to divide their payments 50% 50% so what we're proposing here is that the if B people would choose for 2024 to break their payment up into two the first payment would be due August 1st and the second one October 1st for 2024 thereafter we would go to March 1st and September 1st okay just a a follow question about that um what I'll call the main tax bill is due on August 1st is it problematic to have two bills due the same day from a staff perspective no they can deal with it okay so that's the that's the concept we're proposing you got to pay them all okay no and the reason I asked I know there has been a previous practice to not collect on the same date um but again as long as that does not create an operational challenge um you know they go to the same lock box we we use a lock boox so it's not okay Bank puts on as many people as they need the envelopes I I just I just want to make sure that you know we're not we're not creating an unintended Downstream consequence I would I would offer one thing 48 380 very unusual number I would probably round that to 485 and be done with it I realize it's Frac it's just that when people are dealing with with pennies uh it's kind of awkward and I think they probably prefer to write that point I'd go to 484 because when you do partial payments you're paying pennies but could you just clarify the way I understood it and then the way councilman kers asked about it the 2025 rate of 49 95 would that rate be set or are we saying it could be 495 or higher based upon what the sewage Authority does yeah it could be higher if the sewage Authority does uh increase the treatment charges we don't know what those what that is now the srvs say typically will approve their budget early part of the Year probably by February understood and uh you know obviously the council could always amend this and change it if uh you would choose to I guess my only concern from because again I want to make sure that this logistically works you know I I don't want I don't want to create incremental challenges um I I would be concerned that if there is an svsa rate change that we're notified of in like February it's when they approve their budget but yet we're going to require payments That Could That Could set us into a situation where we we you know we may we may have a essentially uh a delay um March 1st wouldn't work then if they're doing an increase right understand maybe we want to consider um a different first payment du just so that you know because because the last thing that we want to do learning from the experience with the school referendum the last thing that we want to do is send out supplemental or corrected tax bills so I think there's obviously some Logistics we will get a copy of the ordinance I think that's some stuff that we can abs absolutely sure discuss um I we'll share with you the one thing um I'm comfortable with 2024 I'm comfortable with 2025 um the notion that we're just going to increase from 2026 onward by 1.5% I struggle with um I feel like when we pick a number like 1.5% we're we might not mean it but we're presenting something that basically says we're raising the fee because we could I think if we were setting some type of auto price adjustment based upon Consumer Price Index or cost of living adjustment um be a little more comfortable with it than just picking the 1.5% some year you know just if if we look at salaries alone we typically Township employee will get two to 3% salary increase on an annual basis if we're increasing our sewer by 1.5% we're not even covering salary um so um I struggle with the 1.5 don't know if I would support that but um I share that for what it's worth sure thank you and again if it's the case that we have consensus for the 24 and the 25 situation but not 26 and Beyond I I I would urge us to still take action on the 2425 part so that you know again we you know we don't have this continued uncertainty agreed I'm utility rate is thing is we might have to break this down into two separate pieces and as yes the preference would be if we could bite it off and take care of it in one shot great if we cannot let's pivot to to the 2425 solution first councilman pedroo any comments questions I do have a question thank you um WS up a topic Mr papz I not that I not that I support this but I'd like to know more about it I know that a lot of communities in New Jersey have uh Gone private they basically have taken their sewer and they've um um I guess sold it off to private entities in New Jersey American water or some other company um have we has been any exploration At All by the administration into something like that yes we we actually began this uh probably a year and a half ago um and uh we actually going to be coming back to the council for uh likely a an award of contract to an engineering firm to assess the physical conditions of the system um and U probably within the next two months we'll be back for that uh but we're we're kind of in a uh the spot where we know that there are going to be some significant improvements that will have to be made the pump station that I mentioned and it could very well be that because of the condition of it that the time frame within which the administration and the council could determine whether the sale is is appropriate uh something might occur where we would have to take more quick action to address that pump station U as I've talked to our in fact today just Mr pandas and I had a call with Anthony inverso our financial adviser who had done a preliminary uh financial analysis back a year and a half ago he's going to try to update that because he uh prepared that short time after you approved the last uh fee increase and the financial position of the utility has improved um certainly if the council considers a a change to the fee structure now that would also be an important part of his review and would make it frankly more attractive for any potential buyer it's a you know more lucrative uh facility or or utility and that certainly enhances the uh the potential sale purchase sale price so yes we are we will be back to you within the next probably month or two to uh discuss as I said engaging a u an engineering firm I think it was President Reagan that said that the private sector can does a lot better than the government and uh again Ian I'm not saying that I I support it or don't support it but I'd like to know the facts of um what that would tell how how that what's the bottom line to the resident uh would a private company um be more efficient at managing the sour system and therefore save our residents um money right and and still provide a good service so uh those are things that I I think should should be looked into I'm glad you're doing that and so I look forward to hearing more about it very good thank you thank you independent of that however the storm water sources would remain our responsibility yes yes the kind of equipment that we use for the sanitary s we'd still need to some degree for so I will distribute uh maybe a couple of versions of this based upon the conversation here uh tonight for your review and and U just provide guidance to us sir only other thing I want I wanted to add was I I concur with council president ring that the the number that the sewer rate is increased should reflect the actual need of the sewer not just an AR you know an arbitrary number that's picked out of the hat so I do agree with that concept good councilman cell you didn't get a chance any questions comments just listening to uh Mr Pap's comments and knowing the problems that we've had in past years with sewage rate uh I would look forward to making a decision on on a ordinance change that's gets us going in the right direction and sets the table for us so that we're not looking at this every other year or so U I think the part uh that's related to the U increases by the sewage Authority uh could be the uh the issue here that uh we may we don't know what the numbers are going to be however uh when the time does come that uh there is an increase we're obligated to pay that increase anyway so yep I would I would look for language that supports you know addressing those increases without having to redo the ordinance and so forth when when they declare a fee increase is it effective at the next month or is it is it there is future time when it starts um I think it's effective when approved I also I also believe increases have to be approved by the Public Utilities Commission before they can be presented to municipalities so I think there is a a check and balance in there before it hits us but I you know over the years as we have debated our fees supported it through the budget and all that um I think this is a step in the right direction to get it under control and you know to get the bill paid the way it should be paid just in the interest of giving some guidance to the administration um just kind of a straw poll do we think this is one ordinance change or do we think the 2024 2025 pricing is one ordinance change and future is a separate ordinance revision my opinion I think it's one yeah one yeah I'd like to see 24 out of the way before we you know incorporate okay I look forward to reading the documentation you know I've stated I'm willing to do the two together if we can but if we you know we need to we need to you know pull the parachute and we we we need to get 2024 Done Right I'd like to attempt to solve the whole problem councilman pedroo individually or separately I'm sorry individually or collectively I'm open to both if they have the proper solution I depends upon you know Devil's in the details depends on what uh what the numbers are and how it's and how that how the the 25 numbers calculated I don't know if that helps Shanny I'm trying to give you a little specific gu guidance so okay anything else on the store utility if not I will take a motion to open to the public excuse me uh yes did we do approval of minutes I'm sorry there are no minutes to approve they're being carried to the next meeting very well thank you my apologies I should have announced that so moved on open to the public second all in favor I opposed all right we are open to the public members of the public wishing to address the Council on any matter will be allowed two minutes to speak unless there are unusual circumstances unless we can convince Roman to come forward I move that we closed public input I'll second those in favor I I opposed all right we are closed to the public we have no public hearing final action ordinances um we have an introduction of an ordinance 11a an ordinance amending the code of the township of Bridgewater chapter 40 substances hazards to add sections relevant to reimbursement of costs to the township and violations and penalties um I know that we had a presentation on this I know there's been some comments um just to clarify these are not not this is not a new ordinance this is an existing ordinance where the township does have the ability and has collected fees from individuals responsible for hazardous material incidents it's mainly focusing on putting in a provision for non-payment as well as uh giving the opportunity to the township to recoup some of their costs through the process by adding an administrative fee um as I understand it this is to put some teeth in the ordinance so that people who should be obligated to pay their bills and do not yes we can do something about it so I guess we looking for an or uh I'm sorry a motion to introduce I have a question okay um at the last meeting when we had a presentation I had raised the issue that um the ordinance should apply only to I guess should apply to to the non-typical accident involving um personal car and then I thought Mr Carini circulated or provided a draft of a version that had that basically provided additional language it was a one sentence that said that it would only apply if the spillage was over 25 gallons uh which I supported but I don't I don't see that in this version of the ordinance so I apologize I thought from your emails you felt the 25 was there was I know there was 25 uh Sergeant Edwards came back there's couple things relative to that um the state D requires notification for anything over five gallons uh so five gallons is kind of a a threshold that triggers that uh and then the other piece to that is if we put a provision in the ordinance that limits it to fuel spills over any set number of gallons it hinders our ability for uh collection on any electric vehicle fires which can be a hazardous material incident without having any fuel spills that's only a good point but I'm sure that could have been added in and wed appropriately so that that would have been covered I am I am concerned that the the ordinance uh will basically a couple things number one uh it expands government and it adds the bureaucracy of government but now we have to uh go around and send bills to all these people and then try to collect the bills it's uh it's going to increase obviously it's going to have administrative cost it's going to have collection costs that's number one number two the average resident you know the average Bridgewater resident who gets into a fender bender here in Bridgewater and has some gas Spilled Out of the car you know small amount uh shouldn't be charged and I think we all agree with that concept right that the that the small accident shouldn't uh the resident shouldn't be charged and they but and I know that um in the in the email exchanges that I had um that that intent was expressed that that the ordinance is not really you know we're not the the underlying intent is not to charge uh you know single car accident with small fuel spill um and that's great and that's really what I'm trying to place into words into into the ordinance because good policymaking and and and and uh good governance involves putting and writing what the actual intent and the actual way the an ordinance should be uh executed and enforced and so it should have it should clearly State when it applies and when it does not apply and if the intent is not to um charge a uh a small car accident that has you know some minimum fuel spillage then the ordinance should have some limitations should state that and I'm concerned that it doesn't um and um I I certainly would not want you know Bridgewater residents to get a bill in the mail um for for some fuel cleanup uh because they had an accident in Bridgewater and so you could say well maybe maybe the insurance company will pay for it maybe it will maybe it won't um if the insurance company does pay for it we're not really end of the day the taxpayer is not saving any money it's just it's just uh cost uh Dev deviating an expense from from the town to the insurance company but the residents have car insurance so at the end of the day they're going to pay for it no matter what because the car insurance is going to go up so in all practicality I just think that the ordinance should not the the bridge order resident should not get a bill in the mail because they had a uh you know car a car accident um and there was some you know some small fuel spillage now having said that if Hazmat is called and uh and the fuel spillage is significant I think 25 gallons was a reasonable number that Mr Carini proposed then I think it's it's fair certainly at that point that uh someone should pay for it I don't dispute that so um yeah so if I if I met phip there are a lot of car accidents that involve fuel spills and they can be gas they can be oil and and basically every fire company carries kitty kitty litter a as do the the tow trucks and most of the stuff gets swept up put in a can and goes off and and I don't think we're talking for for anything less a couple of gallons with some kitty litter we're not talking about going through the process uh and really when it comes down to it in an emergency response uh you don't differentiate between a Bridgewater resident and somebody from boundbrook if there's an accident and the fire department is called uh they do their job and and I I think this the whole intent here was to put teeth in this uh it has uh indicated that the the parameters have to meet uh the guideline the FEMA guidelines uh and U you know this is not to be a cookbook where you know if it's one quart of this we're going to do this and five quarts of that so think important to point out this respond to him really really quick just let me just respond to Howard uh just two short things number one uh you're correct the the ordinance should not differentiate between a Bridgewater resident and a non-bridge waterer resident but I'm elected to represent the Bridgewater resident so I I advocate on their behalf and I take that very seriously but I encourage you the audience should not differentiate uh when with regards with regards to what you said at the very beginning about how you know small spills the fire department carries kitty litter and they they sweep it and they clean it and that's that's great and I I understand that happens but what I'm saying is that the ordinance in its in its words should State should should basically have that principle in the ordinance itself it you say that until until the amount reaches a certain level and we could we could obviously debate what that level is then the resident shouldn't get charged right because it's cleaned up so the but the ordinance should state that I mean good policy provides is detailed and provides clear a clear line as to when it when something is enforcable or not just just to clarify clarify a couple things for any of the public watching this I if this ordinance that is being proposed to be introduced were not to pass the current ordinance on the books today allow the township to recoup costs this is not a new pass on cost this is putting more teeth into it uh there was a comment made about a small car accident well the reality is if tow truck service comes out no emergency services responds that tow truck service has to clean up any fuel spills guess what they're billing the residence insurance company for cleaning up fuel off the road for dumping Speedy dry and sweeping it up uh once you get into setting five gallons versus 25 um fuel antifreeze oil brake fluid whatever windshield washer flu all these fluids on the ground there's no way to measure how much has come out of a vehicle uh there was recently a car accident in Bridgewater it was a single car accident one individual involved um unfortunately where he crashed his car I happened to be there as a first responder all the fluids from that vehicle ran down the road into a storm drain that required extensive cleanup notification to D single car accident versus now can't be just cleaned up by a tow truck driver with Speedy dry because it has gone into a storm drain which has other consequences um someone has to pay for that clean up versus the gentleman who has a car accident in a flat area um tow truck company comes out drops Speedy dry cleans it up so you can have an incident where it's five gallons and there's no no costs incurred and you can have an incident where there's five gallons and there's considerable cleanup cost based upon where the accident happens um so just my comment and I I concur with you I mean we all we all agree like if if the ACT if the spillage is significant enough that it requires a certain amount of cleanup I don't think there's much dispute that someone should pay for it but the ordinance right now is silent as to all these issues there is no there is no line at which the the the resident can get or or the a or the accident person can get hit with a bill there is nothing in the ordinance that that provides that line well I'm saying that the ordinance should have that line we can certainly discuss what that line should be but the ordinance is not adequate because it does not provide enough information for someone to know a reasonable mind to know what is that amount at which point am I going to get hit with a fine or or or a charge so I'm comfortable with moving to introduce this recognizing that there another three weeks could go by and people can offer their comments back through Council no I I just have it I support Howard's motion but I also want to say is responding to incidents over the years I've yet to know somebody who could look at an incident and say how many gallons of whatever have spilled you know you have a spill on the on the road it has to be contained it has to be cleaned up and the uh there's an allowance for to get reimbursement for those activities and I think we should support it I I was that a second yes okay additional discussion I guess I have a question for Mr corini um if there is consensus among uh the council to uh add additional language uh you know identifying essentially what is a small spill versus what is a larger spill would that be considered um you know relatively di Minimus that and could be handled as an as as an amendment or we'd have to start the process all over again start over again if it's a keystroke air if it's punctuation okay so something of that nature would essentially require us if we want to move in that direction to to then not take action on this draft and then reintroduce a draft that may include those items or or to take action on the what whether I agree with councilman Pedro's comments or not his comments really are not about the changes to this ordinance his comments are about the existing no I understand that I mean I understand what what there's two two approaches one one is to revise this proposed ordinance the other is to act on this ordinance and then propose a subsequent no no no I no I I I understand what's at stake here and that you know what what is what is on the table from councilman pedroso is is is a secondary scope I understand that um I was not at at the meeting last week I you know it sounds to me like maybe there was an anticipation or an expectation that that secondary scope would be in here is that correct um well it wasn't guaranteed but Mr Garin was going to look at it and provide he did provide a Mr corini did look at it he Prov some proposed language changes um our in-house individual who handles these requests and has been handling them and the back of this document have a summary of what has been done over the years certainly not a large sum of money but um there was some concerns because a small fuel spill can still have extensive cleanup it it's not small versus large it's small expense versus large it's correct it it's a lot of it has to do with where the spill happens you know if you overfill your lawn mower you knock over 10 gallon gas can in your backyard it's on your grass you got to clean it up um you know four gallons a or five gallons of gas that goes into a storm drain sets off in the state's World a whole different set of response and notifications the language that was uh proposed to be added was one sentence uh uh in the discharge paragraph basically that paragraph would we conclude with the term discharge shall not include any spill related to related of 25 gallons or less of gasoline from a non-commercial vehicle so that was the only that was the additional sentence that was added I would have I certainly would have supported uh the ordinance with that sentence uh I think the ordinance right now as introduced uh does not uh properly provide that line and uh and I won't support it without some additional uh some additional language that would U State what we all agree with is that at some point at some point the charge should be passed on to the to the uh people on the accident but at some point below that it should not so we all agree on that and whether it's 25 or some other number I'm willing to discuss that number whether the term gasoline should be changed to gasoline and other liquids like that's I'm open to that whether it should include electrical Vehicles I'm all open to all sorts of things but I think I think there has to be some uh some explanation in in in this ordinance as to when it start when it kicks in when is someone going to get beyond the hook for that expense I guess where I'm concerned I I apologize for again not being at the last meeting and hearing the the the portion of the conversation but um I I don't know that the number of gallons is the key well I I think it's the complexity of The Spill and I don't know I I I guess I would I would ask is there a way for us to Define complexity of a of a spill in in in in you know in a in a rational way I think that's the challenge and I go one step further um few years back there was a resident in Bridgewater um and again I happen to remember this incident because I responded to it who attempted he attempted to clear a clogged drain in his house and the individual happened to mix several different um chemicals in an attempt to clear the drain and it actually caused um this a reaction in our source system on a Saturday night we had to bring out folks open manhole covers go into adjoining homes because of the odors that were going into they created a whole incident that was not a fuel spill but again this individual created costs for the township by attempting to clear drain in his house and entered products in that caused reaction in our source system a true measure of of an episode is how long Emergency Services have to be on scene and what they have to expend to rectify the situation and everyone is different it's very difficult to quantify what should be charged and what we it would probably be 20 pages long that would be the cookbook we not going to have a cookbook yeah no we can't and the the issue here is to recoup the cost of response to a to a spill you know a department you can have a leaky uh tank on a tractor trailer fire department would respond and plug it how many gallons of fuel leaked out we don't know we know we had a spill we had a response we acted to seal it I think the simpler we keep this the better off we are because I I have the opinion that there's no way that we can go in the field and determine what what this is how this would be affected by saying oh he had oh no that wasn't 18 gallons it was only 13 gallons and and what's the mechanism when the resident disputes the number of gallons are we going to hear appeals yeah was it premium or regular we have a motion in a second Mr uh chairman to move this to act on any other comments if not I will I mean just you know since we're going to have to make a decision here um you know I guess again this comes down to do you want to do a a one onestep approach possibly later or a two-step approach again seems to be the second time that we've had this same question during this meeting uh you know it feels to me like you know there's a lot of questions about defining a spill and how serious was it and everything else um I would I would like to see us revisit that question because I think it is it is serious and and and germine uh but you know in the in the in the meantime I think fixing a known uh deficiency in an ordinance is is is an action I'm comfortable taking tonight okay I would call a question well unless anybody has any other comments I will ask uh madam clerk to uh roll call yes yes yes no yes and if we could have a uh set public hearing May okay May 23rd 7 p.m. thank you all right moving on to resolutions 12a a resolution Pro providing emergency temporary Appropriations for current fund $1,431 24 which brings the 2024 year-to-date temporary Appropriations to19 m721 1454 the uh list is very detailed as you can see to the penny um we we um frankly had had hoped to be able to propose an ordinance to be introduced tonight and since we were not able to expect that for in advance of the next meeting for the council's review Mr pandos has requested this 12a oh I have questions hang on we have a motion do we have a second I'll second it we have a motion and a second any comments councilman pedroso uh Mr papet I'm going to ask you a very similar question that I asked you at the last one so hopefully this time we have a better sense that it's coming um I know you're looking to get an additional one 1 million plus dollars is there any way that we can move this from a different uh budgetary line item and shift it from perhaps where we have an excess money and shift it to where it's needed so that we don't have to there won't be a need to ask for this at all no sir no no because there's no money or correct these these these line items are uh have been expended and need this to continue to operate I we getting a budget soon yes sir yeah I would say we'll have something to the council within the week a week within the week within a week that was the update I received today that we could expect to see the first draft sometime in the next week would it be possible for us to get the budget before voting on this uh well this is on yourent agenda tonight we're asking for Council consideration of this tonight I I understand but uh TimeWise would it be possible for us to get the budget first before voting on on this particular request I'm afraid I'm afraid not um my you know my I guess my overall concern is that um um as a resol resolution itself States um the 19.7 million uh temporary appropriation budget that will now be by virtue of this increase um is 55.5% of the 2023 budget which if you extrapolate number uh put us at a rate of uh going 11% over the 2023 budget and so from from my perspective um is that without having a budget a 2024 budget I don't know how serious to take that number so the example is for example if I got a budget as you're saying within seven days and that budget has it the the Minimus increase over 23 overall then this 55.5% number here is not really that important right but if I get a budget next week and it has a 20 I'm going to exaggerate 20% increase over 2023 budget uh then I should have been something I should have been you know I should have taken that 55.5% number more seriously so um I really I I really need that have a a sense of the budget to make to make a reasonable um make a reasonable decision on 12a since I and since I don't have it I'm not going to pass judgment on it either way but I'm I'm going to vote no because I don't have that information understand I the only way I best way I can respond is um is I think Mr pandos had said early when one of the um the temporary budget or maybe the First Amendment to that there were several U expenditures that had to be made early in the year like a a pension payment that was not proportionate to the period of time and that uh increased the overall number and that was a three or4 million uh payment and so that's the best way that I can try to put this in context for you I I understand your concern and and as I said we had hoped to be able to have budget in advance of tonight that you could consider it for introduction it is a very challenging budget we are uh getting uh some revised numbers about uh some Revenue e external Revenue sources that are adjusting uh the budget that the administration will present to the council and so we are we are trying to ensure that what we present to you is precise and accurate and one that we all can depend upon the accuracy of the the the revenue and projections and so uh we really the mayor wanted this presented sooner than this and uh it is frankly our top priority on a daily basis to try to get something to you very very quickly I understand that I appreciate that and and I'm very confident that we're going to get a very thorough and detailed and accurate budget from you as as we always do um it's just that um uh you know I would extrapolated 11% increase over 23 and without having putting without the context of having that in the overall 24 budget not knowing what that all fits into place it's just uh I just don't think have enough information that's all I understand thank you any other comments I think we had a motion did we not we did we have a motion in a second if there's no other comments I'll take a roll call yeah yes yes yes no yes all right um going to take 12b and 12C together so 12b is Award of contract to split them sorry I would like to split them if possible you'd like to split them okay I have different concerns and with on both on them so I like to split them okay 12b is Award of contract to Keystone Sports construction of 1100 snow Lane Suite 104 Phoenixville Pennsylvania for the replacement of Synthetic Turf at at the field known as Turf 3 or the 1,000 turfield located at 600 Garson Road Bridgewater New Jersey under the Educational Services Commission of the New Jersey ESC NJ Cooperative pricing system escnj 22- or 23 -37 for $432 3512 50% of which shall be reimbursed by the Bridgewater R Regional School District balance to be funded from the open space trust fund account um we did have a presentation on this at our last meeting um this is something that um this governing body approved the township to enter a contract in 2011 for us to share these costs with the school district District on a 50/50% split um I know honoring councilman pedrosa's comments um regarding splitting these I will just add that I know there was some discussion about the timing of these um the the best timing for us actually is the summertime in fact the vendor I guess said if we split these and did them at different times of the year we'd looking be looking at roughly a 133% price increase on the second job so um 12b so as are are did you get a motion and can we discuss yet no I'm looking for a motion I'll make the motion got a motion do we have a second I'll second we have a motion we have a second comments yeah so as far as discussion goes um I I absolutely support as much cost savings as possible it would appear as if the the clearest Pathway to get there is to group them together and take the 133% during the meeting that I was at I asked the open-ended question um if we have uh schedule flexibility to do the fields at different times so essentially order both um but potentially do the second one um at at possibly a more convenient time for the vendor um what might that look like was there any information gathered on that point yes it's in our packet it would be 133% I'm sorry I yeah that's okay it would be 13% higher uh due to mobilization project management no no no no I no I understand my question is is there any savings by installing at a non- peak time no it would be 13% higher because of mobilization of them coming here equipment setting up uh which essentially means there's no discount at all and they're not accounting for installing at a non- peak time what what I essentially asked was If instead is there an advantage to doing one in August and one in November because maybe we could do one of them in November is that information in the back cuz I didn't read it that way reading this it would be 133% higher to do them separately but it would be 133% higher to do with them separately anyway so it sounds to me like the vendor is not is not looking to offer any discount by doing one of the fields at a non- peak time which is okay I simply asked that that be considered yeah no it would actually cost more to do it at an off peak time okay well that that's doesn't sound like it's sensible but if that as long as the question was asked that that was my request and don't forget we're dealing with the the safety of our of our children here by all intents this field is in terrible terrible shape to to that comment I am recently had the opportunity to visit that field during an EMS call and uh it's been a while since I've been on that field but uh it was on it a couple weeks actually right after our last council meeting and this field definitely needs attention while passed its last inspection there's no guarantee it will pass the next one it was it was marginal and once it fails the inspection it has to be shut down correct you can't use it and and if we wait too long and it fails and we don't have something lined up for replacement it could be a lengthy outage yes you have a comment you have that look wait wait wait there's talk about in the maybe I didn't go deep enough in the backup I'm very familiar with the May 2 memo is there a f is there information in here that talks specifically about my question yes under cost savings on the memo it would be page three um about a third of the way down okay my question has still not been answered I I asked about whether when we do the second field at a non- peak time but I guess I guess I'm that's not in here because this is the same memo that I saw two days ago I guess I'm but July and August are the non Peak no no no I mean non Peak from the standpoint of the vendor no excuse me under cost savings it states there will be a cost saving doing the project simultaneously correct I think that's pretty straightforward we're saving $12,000 by having them both done and and the question that I asked in my meeting was if I vol arily give back that savings but say I'll take this field in August I'm willing to take this field in November if that's an option and again this is the same memo that I had when I asked the question but as it says here councilman kers it's going to cost more because they have to move all their equipment mobilize all their I understand that it's going to cost them more but is there a savings by giving them a job at a time when they don't have others that's the question I asked and it doesn't seem like it's been answered okay no I think I think part of the uh uh what you have to also consider is when the field is needed yeah and if it's if it's not I don't I don't deny that but I guess I'm just frustrated because I I asked a question a couple of days ago and I'm giv back the same memo with the same information without consideration for what I asked for right M Mr kers I understand your question Mike I do but I think when we look at the two paragraphs cost savings and scheduling I think between those two sections you get your answer no I don't have the answer because because what excuse me the mobilization piece is right there for $120,000 the scheduling piece to 6 to 8 weeks in July and August is the only period when the fields are not in use for a length of time suitable for replacement what I suggested was and again I'm not in the business of installing Turf so I don't know the answer to this for all we know if you're willing to do a job in November versus doing it in August maybe they'd offer a 30% discount I don't know that and and I asked that question unfortunately it seems like we still don't know the answer to that so I guess I'm left to to say all right I'll take I'll take the the I'll take them both in August I I don't know definitively the response to that specific question now I understand it I think though councilman there's a practical chall that that High School field can only be done before the start of school I'm not qu what I'm really kind of doing here is I'm going ahead to the conversation of letter C well we're not on C well I know but they're related to each other that's why I'm going ahead with the conversation on C and again I I asked the question because I'm trying to be an outside the box thinker you know for all I know oh you're willing to wait till November we'll knock 30% off I don't know or maybe they'll say we can't knock anything off or maybe they'll say great well you know we can't give you the 133% here but we'll give you the 133% there I'm just asking for outside the box thinking and you know you know if if the answer is look the easiest way to do this is buy them both install them both then we have the use of both of them in the fall we don't have a we don't have open question about the the the the condition of the field I can accept that I simply asked to think think outside the box we are in very difficult budget situation I'd just like to like to consider alternate possibilities here and and you know perhaps that was an opportunity that was lost let's focus our comments specifically on 12b since we're taking these separately is there any other comments related to 12b otherwise we have a motion in a second I will have uh more detailed comments as to 12C but I will I will support 12b uh in large part because is being done in conjunction with the Board of Education and my comments that I will have for the other one I don't I don't believe who justify um okay hampering the the cooperation between the township and the Board of Education fair enough any other comments otherwise we'll take role councilman kersch yes councilman cordilla yes councilman oralis yes councilman proso yes council president ring yes all right moving on to 12C which is an award of contract to Keystone Sports construction of 1100 Shell Shell Lane Suite 104 Phoenixville Pennsylvania for the replacement of the Synthetic Turf at the field known as the municipal complex Turf located at 100 Comm Way Bridgewater New Jersey under the Educational Services Commission of New Jersey escj Cooperative pricing system escnj 22- 23-37 for $41,600 78 cents to be funded from the open space trust fund account now I know we're going to have some comments I will start with councilman pedroso okay P of allegiance to do Council reports first and I get the honor of I'm starting at that end because I know councilman kers has it so I fig comments as well I figured I'd work my way across the Das thank you uh first of all I I do concur councilman kers his um his inquiry was uh is just Justified and it's also prudent to find out when is the best time to install the tur field number one I think what he's saying is that it's out of the main window when the field is being used and number two it could save us money I mean just as an example if you get a swim swimming pool installed in your house if you do it in the spring it costs a lot more than in the fall so I would I would tend to think that it's supply and demand as well for Turf installation anyway that's not my main point um thank you uh Mr papis for the meeting that we had uh where you took the time with your staff to present to us um information about these fields I certainly appreciated that uh as well during that meeting I had asked for uh information about the costs of operating a a artificial turf field versus a grass field uh I know I got some of the information uh today um what I'm still missing really is I don't have any idea of what it would cost to go back to a grass field I don't have the the expenses here itemized how much it would cost to remove the tur the artificial turf and plan whatever the procedure is plan crft whatever um so that would have I certainly would have needed that to make to make a more more guess prudent decision here today um I guess what I'm left with here is I still have a lot I still have a lot of questions I still don't have all the information I need let me tell you what why I'm thinking and why I'm a little bit I guess sort of in the middle um the turfield is there so common sense tells us that we should keep the turfield it's there I think people like the turfield um for example my daughter plays on the turfield she has Sacro practice there my all my kids have been there many times and I think it's it's a it's a a great use for the community uh however uh I don't know I I don't have enough information to balance that versus going back to a grass field and so you could you want will think well why would you want to go back to a grass field well a couple things there are a couple issues things to consider number one turf fields um have chemicals So when you say the safety of our children councilman or Galas it's correct turfield there was a study done by the National Institute of Medicine by uh y University that showed that tur Fields have 306 different chemical agents and 197 of which have carcinogenic characteristics uh tur fields are not very environmental they're they're not recyclable they're likely manufactured in a foreign country um and the and the athletes who use tur fields are more prone to have injuries there have been quite a few studies about that some of some of them are publicized obviously we all know about the NFL but the national Center of health research found that there are three times as many PCL tears on tur fields and grass and ankle fractures are six times as high on tur Fields versus grass and concussions are more serious on tur Fields than grass so again talking about the safety of the children all issues uh to consider and then there's the the expense Factor if I look at the numbers provided by the administration um it says that 30 it it would cost it would cost an estimated $30,000 to maintain a natural grass field versus 10 $1,000 to maintain the turf field so there a 20 $220,000 difference if I multiply that by 10 years I get $200,000 uh but I think we're spending about half a million to replace the turf field so quick math shows that a grass field is probably a lot a lot cheaper overall uh because we won't have to replace it every 10 years um so I'm still left I guess with with questions questions are um what are the what's the overall expense versus one versus the other I'm quite aware of the other variable which is the the playability aspect I I um I do think the turf fields have we can probably have more days that are playable versus grass because like iess said rains and grass soaks and tur Turf doesn't soak the same way so I I I I am conscious of that variable um but um there are kind you know Turf is not um necessarily a great gift either because of all the things that I mentioned before um and um and they actually wind up being a lot more expensive to the Bridgewater resident and so I just need to h i I like to know more of these numbers i' like to know how much really it would cost uh to go back to grass um and um I don't have that I don't have that that data so I since I don't have enough information I'm going to abstain on this vote thank you um I know you have some comments we I'll I'll make them brief but before we do I just in the interest just try to help you a little bit and I think it's important to keep in mind that this contract is not a competitive bid this is being done through a co-op so the prices for for the material are set in advance uh and if you look at the actual proposal in the package it also States it's a prevailing wage job meaning they're paying prevailing wage set by the state so when you look at the fact that on a co-op they've priced all the material before we've even gotten a quote from them they've submitted pricing in advance to the quoop and they're paying on prevailing wage there's not a lot of room for them to say hey yeah we'll do this in November and discount it and I I think that's where you get into the discussion of hey if we do these jobs separately it's actually more labor cost because we're going to have to mobilize all of our equipment the person overseeing the project has to this company is based in Pennsylvania although they're part of the New Jersey Co-op you're going to pay for them to come here the same guy can come and inspect both fields or or oversee the management of the construction of both fields at the same time whereas it would be twice as many trips if you did this job separately I don't know if that helps you any but you're welcome to comment for look I I you know I stated it before um you know I I I think that as a community as a Township we pride ourselves on outside the box thinking we have a lot of it we need a lot of it I suggested an alternate approach I'm a bit disappointed that it you know we don't have the information um I can only presume then that the answer is that that you know the alternate approach would not yield better cost uh uh a better cost proposal um I am satisfied that that um maintaining basically going Turf to to new Turf uh is is our best approach um as far as the playability on Turf I think in this climate it is exceptionally difficult um to have um a high usage on grass um you can't get out there until you know at least a few weeks or or more later um the key on a grass field is not necessarily did it rain today it could be did it rain yesterday whereas uh on Turf that's not an issue so I I am satisfied that we that we can and we should proceed uh we got approximately 12 to 13 years out of a 10-year field um so I I'm also satisfied that we got our money's worth just a few other you know comments for the record and hopefully consideration um one is that um I hope that we will do everything that we reasonably can uh through testing through maintenance through everything else uh to make sure that we get our 10 or more years out of this field possibly there is an opportunity to work cooperatively and collaboratively with the school district because they maintain um the field that we just um uh we just voted on uh and we pay half that cost uh perhaps and they also have at least two other turf fields I'm aware of Bridgewater baseball softball has some Turf that they maintain so perhaps some level of collaboration and cooperation uh on a on a solution for how we're going to maintain these fields um uh to the extent that there's outside work involved perhaps there could be cost savings there uh the other thing that I raised in the meeting um which again I don't think it would keep us from going through with this contract but hopefully um you know could be resolved in the details uh exactly which markings will be placed on this field was something that I raised um uh and there was a comment made well we were going to do football markings and I certainly don't have a problem with football markings um but the concern that I have is that at this point football is not as principle of a use uh as it was potentially 10 years ago or 12 years ago and I asked the question is there a way again is there a package that has what might be called lighter football markings so yes you can play football on the field but potentially there's less markings uh so that they're not as um uh um intrusive to some of the other uses so I don't know if that if we have an answer to that or if in the detail in the ordering process that can be pursued I don't have an answer for that uh we have noted that and we'll get back to you but understand your suggestion okay because again if we're going to spend this money I want to make sure that we're getting the best use for what our current need is and if our current need is partially football but more significantly other things I'd want to make sure that the markings on on the field in the usability reflect our current need that's my comment Gall any comments no sir councilman cordel not at this time okay do we have a motion I'll make a motion have a motion do we have a second I'll second it okay unless there's any further comments roll call please Council mid curse yes councilman cordilla yes councilman nalis yes councilman ptoo stain council president ring yes all right 12d authorizing an award of contract to appraisal Systems Inc to perform professional appraisal inspections and related services in connection with the township reassessment program in an amount not to exceed $ 73,0 for the period of May 3rd 2024 to December 31st 2024 funded from the tax assessment Professional Services account something we've done every year and required to appropriately any comments otherwise I'll take a motion make a motion know it's been a very successful relationship going back a long time so I'll I'll I heard a motion over here from councilman kersch I'll second it we have a second any further comments otherwise we'll take roll call please councilman kers yes councilman cordilla yes councilman oralis yes councilman proso yes council president rink yes all right I'm going to take 12E and F together if unless there's some concerns um authorizing 12E is authorizing an additional $2,392 to K&J Tree Service LLC 16 Stony Brook Road Branchburg New Jersey to provide the thirdparty snow plowing for Township or Bridge Water for a total contract amount not to exceed $175,300 for the 2023 2024 snow season to be funded from the public works snow removal contractual service account uh and then 12 f is authorizing an additional $946 30 to the Somerset County Road and Bridge division for road salt for a total contract amount not to exceed $14,990 for the 2023 2024 snow season to be funded from the public work snow removal material account this is just increasing our contracts based upon the amount of snowfall and actual costs I'll move 12f got a motion do we have a second I'll second it I'll let you guys whoever whoever Juliana heard first any comments if not roll call Council M curse yes Council M cardilla yes councilman orales yes councilman proso yes council president ring yes all right 12g is authorizing the execution of an agreement for uniform construction code inspections pursuant to njac 5 colon 23-44 in an amount not to exceed 200 I'm sorry $2,500 in the 2024 current fund for a term commencing January 1st 2024 and terminating on December 31st 2028 my understanding is this is a contract that if we had a challenge due to a injury illness someone within our construction department and need it to get inspections done in a timely manner would allow us to tap into um that and reciprocal us to provide similar services to those towns I I'm you want a motion and then a very quick comment what the proper procedure motion a discussion motion first I'll make the motion got a motion do we have a second second we have a motion in a second we will have the discussion I I don't know if you you you stated this but it's also in case someone who's potentially conflicted um has has a need so for as an example a couple years ago I had a new hot water heater installed had had to go to war the warrant inspector to do it I've had Somerville at my house several times that's the only comment any other comments if not roll call councilman kers yes councilman cordilla yes councilman oralis yes councilman proso yes council president re yes all right 12h is authorizing execution of a developers agreement between the township of Bridgewater and Bridgewater accessory Associates LP regarding planning board approvals for Block 234 lot 5 which is on the corner of Route 22 in Chimney Rock Road this was an application um I actually heard sitting on the planning board um we put the applicant through some challenging questions um they actually revised this proposal and actually came back with something this was an application that was submitted prior to our ordinance on warehouses um so it was heard um this you know just at a high level this uh application is going to involve the demolition of a couple buildings that are in pretty bad shape one of which I believe the roof has collapsed on um and clean up and as part of this we also property owner owns a large chunk of uh property along the one side of Chimney IR road we also required them to clean up some of their other property that perhaps was not as compliant with zoning as uh we would like north and south of 22 sorry north or south of 22 it is south of 22 if you were facing Somerville Lumber um or the old Somerville Lumber it's buildings that start to the left and go down Chimney Rock Road it's a real hodge podge is a granite one or something you know the granite building's empty because I believe that's the one the roof collapsed on oh okay and then it was electrical supply okay yep but the electrical supply is moving because they evicted the export company that had all the total demandant cars parked on the property because a certain member of the planning board had very much concerns over that not affecting UPS though right no but actually the gentleman owns all the property all the way down to and including the UPS lot and it's banked parking did it acquire variances they did yes um the issue they have there is the the existing structures don't quote me but um less than 10 ft set back on the buildings that are there um they felt they could maintain those variances uh they were told very loud and clear by the planning board once you tore the tear the building down you no longer have a variance because there's nothing there um and the Fire official require ired enough clearance around the building to be able to drive a ladder truck but they still needed some setback variances uh and then believe there was a second variance for um it's an interesting piece it is not considered a corner lot even though it sits on the corner because the railroad company that has the rail line is actually the corner lot so they wanted a variance for a second sign as if they wear a corner lot but I mean they're surrounded by a commercial yes Warehouse yeah it's all in the industrial park industrial so it will it look similar will uh actually they tried to go up scale and make it look a little more similar to Whole Foods on the other side of 22 nice so um they came in with a proposal and they were put through the ringer uh and they came back and said we heard you loud and clear and changed their whole application so this is just the developers agreement finalizing that um and I apologize we should have had a motion first um move 12 I 12h H sorry 12h okay A second we have motion second any further comments if not roll call Council MERS yes Council murilla yes councilman oralis yes councilman proso yes council president RI yes 12i authorizing release of the performance guarantee in the amount of $178,500 ation bond in the amount of $621 18833 acceptance of the site improvements acceptance of the maintenance guarantee in the amount to $2,315 195 for geraldi Builders block 107 Lots one two and 4 new uh now block 107 lot 1.01 1.02 and 1.03 on Franklin Street now did we clarify the the street here I think that's the new street that they Gard created this is on this is on the western part of town uh off of Old York Road yeah this this this proposal was was heard when I was on the planning board the previous time I was on the planning board it's a like five homes or whatever it is no there was just conflicting versions at one point there was an Old York Road address that popped up on something so okay as long as that is indeed sorry motion for 12i I'll make the motion second second all right now we'll further our conversation further comments roll call councilman kers yes councilman cordilla yes councilman oralis yes councilman proso yes council president R yes 12j resolution to cancel Capital approa balances for completed projects in an amount of 1,749 6811 there's the money you need for the other one hang on in in making sure we follow Mr corini's Guidance Do we have a motion I'll make a motion have a motion do we have a second a second all right discussion to uh councilman ped Roo's point this by uh cancelling this the council will allow this mil 74,000 to be used as revenue for this year's budget now we've been working on cancelling stuff going back seven or eight years and each year in fact the a the Auditors at one point tried us on on this several years ago are we close to the end yeah we are uh the council approved the last time I think you've done this was back in 2020 when Natasha was still here and uh haven't done it since then and uh Mr pandos Mr Burr uh Sarah our our purchasing agent uh scoured over these over the last several weeks and we're very confident that these uh U should be approved by Council and um um you know we we believe that uh this um is appropriate these these projects have been completed uh there's no reason to leave these Bond ordinances there with these balances and the revenue would be helpful this year what is the 12j oh we did never mind you did yes what exactly is Road management ordinance um I I saw that and I saw that this afternoon and I I think this is just the bond ordinance that particular year that was approved for road work and uh why they characterized it as Road management ordinance I don't know but there's money there yes yeah and we want it does that answer your question I don't think so by based upon the look on your face yes well so we didn't spend $550,000 last year year on roads that we could have spent if that's indeed true correct correct but the you know the the the amount for the um alternates were in excess of it turns out this amount so as you recall we had the base bid and alternates for the various sections and depending upon the pricing the administration would recommend the council would approve either both or just one and um so each of these years represents the compendium of a series of road projects that were not used correct okay so it's not one road project it's a collective yeah for the for that that Year's Bond ordinance that was adopted so so in reality Road management is the best term but well that's my question because Road not we don't have we never put money into Road management I'll have to ask why they use that terminology I uh I had been just in meeting with them reviewing numbers you know I was focused on the numbers I never until this afternoon frankly when I looked at this particular and I saw that and I didn't question it but I think the numbers are what is most relevant but I'll I'll ask that question as to why you chose that term I don't know we have a motion we have a second any further comments if not we'll take roll call councilman kers yes councilman Cilla yes councilman oralis yes councilman prosel yes council president rig yes we have reached the point of the evening of councilman noralis is favorite motion motion to adjourn we have a motion do we have a second second all those in favor I I opposed all right have a good evening and as a reminder our next meeting is May 2 3rd three weeks from tonight three weeks right how was the sign up for