Page 27 of 32

are as far as recreational needs. He asked these people who have comments tonight to appear before the Recreation Commission and give their input to them. They will make the recommendation to the Township Committee, whether we should have a pool, not have a pool, and how it should be funded. People are making an issue when no issue really exists. Back in 1998 the prior administration paid about $6,000 for a feasibility study for a recreation facility. Their architect said the planning and design of the facility must be precise and calculated. Potential users should be sought out and encouraged to contribute to the design process. That is exactly what they have asked the Recreation Commission to do, to take input from potential users and come up with a design process. He went on to comment on the validity of the petition. He was told that someone signed that believing that it was in favor of a swimming pool. In closing, he asked why they are making this political issue about the swimming pool, at this point does that serve any ones purpose?

JILL MANION, 480 LEESVILLE ROAD: She began by asking if the approval of the water line would effect the Committees decision on approving the Town Center overlay? She asked why the capacity for the water line is for over 6,000 units? She went on to ask who appointed the current members to the MUA and how long their terms were? She then asked if the people on the MUA who approved this are from this Administration or the prior Administrations? She later asked if the Committee intends to comply with the State Plan and work actively with the State Planning office to bring our township plan in line with what the State is looking for? She clarified that she was speaking more about funding for open space. Committeeman Grisanti explained that the approval by the MUA is part of the original 1,640 approvals it was designed on the condition that they get approval to run city water out to that project. It has nothing to do with the Town Center project. The water line is good because we also would like to develop some commercial ratables. They always make the developer not only put in water for 1,640 but they want the additional benefit to have enough space if commercial developers look at that location along West Commodore. He later explained that the Township Committee appoints the members to the MUA for a 5 year term. The members are from both Administrations. Committeeman Broderick added that the developer is putting this in at his own expense and we may reap the benefits later on. It is not going to influence us one way or another in giving him an overlay. Deputy Mayor Giblin stated again that he will not support an overlay zone that contains 5,900 homes on the Town Center project. He later added that at the last meeting Mr. Reilly questioned the hiring of an individual, Andrew Strauss, for open space acquisition. Mr. Strauss will work closely with the State, Federal, Local and County officials to gain funding to preserve open space. He said I for one would work with whomever is necessary to slow down residential growth here in Jackson. Committeeman Reilly added that Ms. Manion already knows his stance on the Town Center. He later explained that he questioned Mr. Strauss being hired because he wasn't told what he did. Attorney Starkey explained that the State Plan is a legal document that has designated Jackson Township a growth area. His understanding is that Governor McGreevy is going to change that. He told Ms. Manion to be careful what she is asking for. Jackson Township has been sued by the NJ Shore Builders Association because they are trying to force this Committee to comply with the State Plan.

JOHN SUTTLES, 43 MEADOWOOD ROAD: He stated that he was at the last meeting and spoke about a problem he had with the MUA regarding a bill. He told the Committee that he did as they said and attended the January 16th MUA meeting. He explained that at the meeting the water main was approved for the Town Center for specifically 1,600 homes. Secondly his problem with the bill, he was told it had to do with a manpower shortage. He was receiving his bills almost 30 days late. He wasn’t aware he was late on bills that he never received because he wasn’t expecting any until he received a past due notice. He spoke about a hypothetical situation, if someone goes away for two weeks they could come home to a lien put on their house because of the billing process of the MUA. He told the Committee that they should look into the MUA billing process. He explained the seriousness of the situation receiving a bill and then 19 days later receiving a final demand notice that could result in the loss of his property.