COUNCIL 5/10/10 PART 1

As usual, insomniac Bernice has posted a succulent ,but concise, report of Monday's marathon Council meeting. And once again I will attempt to post my interpretive report on the meeting.

As I have noted at 8PM there was no quorum and a sparse audience in the Court room. Once again the outside door was still locked at 7:55 PM. At the roll call Council President McWilliams,Councilors Mapp,Reid, and Burney were present. Councilwoman Rivers arrived about 30 minutes later, and Councilwoman Carter who had informed the President that she would be delayed took her seat about 9PM.

The meeting began with a public and sincere apology to the Council President from Councilor Reid for his meeting ending outburst the previous week. Councilor Reid is one of the most valuable members who asks perceptive questions on many of the items before the Council. Despite his one negative factor, being a dedicated "Old Democrat" his voting on issues is 99% of the time his honest opinion and not party line. He has been a most valuable Councilor and I am glad that he is unopposed for the Party line.

The early business was addressed rapidly. There were no public comments on the seven Ordinances that passed unanimously on Second Reading.

As usual there were at least three citizens that took advantage of the opportunity to comment on the resolutions and Ordinances up for first reading on the agenda. Unfortunately there were also two Ordinances not on the printed Agenda but were i the "book" for review. These two dealing with the use of the city's recreational baseball fields became subject for heated debate when presented, and will be noted in a subsequent posting.

Bernice Paglia called attention to the Ordinance MC2010-16 relating to freestanding signs which apparently does not change the context of the present and unenforced Ordinance. However the material is present in chart form and is easier to understand the complex regulations. I was perplexed to hear Counsel Williamson remark during the Council's discussion on this Ordinance that those existing signs which do not comply with he new ordinance although in violation of the present Ordinance would be grandfathered in. The question of who would enforce, or inspect the signs was unanswered since there is no one filling that slot.

Jim Pivnichy objected to Resolution 180- awarding the Engineering firm of Remington & Vernick $88725.00 for professional services for the reconstruction (repavement)of 1/3rd mile of Watchung Ave from 7th Street to Kensignton Ave (the best section of Watchung) when a resolution last month approved for somewheres between $500K &$600K (the exact number fails me at this time) He expressed his dismay over the apparent excessive amount for a contract awarded to the "city engineer" firm without competitive bidding.

Pivinchy also spoke in support of another citizen's objections to R169-10 dealing with a new time management system from Automatic Data Process, Inc.

This other individual also objected to R177-10 which releases the performance bond and accepts the maintenance bond for the water company's 2008 cleaning and lining program.His objection was that the water company's closure of the cuts made in the streets did not restore the streets to prime level, and would increase degeneration of the roadways.

To be continued shortly!