Sei sulla pagina 1di 11

MINUTES

NEW JERSEY COUNTY PLANNERS ASSOCIATION


HOMINY HILL GOLF COURSE
COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
SEPTEMBER 15, 2006

Welcome/Introductions: The meeting was presided over by Bob Brewer, who welcomed
everyone and thanked them for coming. Bob then led self-introductions and facilitated the
meeting. Meeting attendees were:

Bob Lindaw Atlantic Linda Brennen Monmouth


John Peterson Atlantic Bonnie Goldschlag Monmouth
Shawn Smith Atlantic Jessica Kubida Monmouth
Donna Orbach Bergen Chris Marion Morris
Peter Kortright Bergen Kevin Sitlick Morris
Dave Hojsak Burlington Ray Zabihach Morris
Bob Kull Burlington Bob Bzik Somerset
Ed Fox Camden Laurette Kratina Somerset
Robert Brewer Cumberland Eric Snyder Sussex
Matt Pisarski Cumberland Kamal Saleh Union
Chuck Romick Gloucester Dave Dech Warren
Sue Dziamara Hunterdon Chris Carew Governor’s Office of
Doug Greenfield Hudson/Jersey City Economic Dev.
Marisa Wieczorek Mercer Kenneth Reynolds NJ Builders Assoc.
Mirah Becker Middlesex James Cordingley NJ COAH
George Ververides Middlesex Chris Sturm NJ Future

Approval of Minutes: A motion to approve the minutes of the May 19, 2006 and July 16, 2006
meetings was introduced by Ray Zabihach and seconded by Matthew Pisarski.

Treasurer’s Report: Copies of the Treasurer’s Report for the period of May 1 2006 through
August 31, 3006 were distributed by Eric Snyder and reviewed. A motion to approve was
introduced by Donna Orbach and seconded by Chris Marion.

Communications and Correspondence: Bob Brewer summarized the results of the August 30th
Special NJCPA Meeting in Trenton with Eileen Swan, Executive Director, NJ Office Of Smart
Growth (OSG). Twenty of the State’s 21 Counties were represented. NJ Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) proposed changes to the 2004 Preliminary State Plan Policy
Map were the focus of the meeting. The validity of the process of changing the Preliminary Plan
in August 2006 was questioned by many. The new Preliminary Plan (August 2006) is officially
what will be used during the remainder of the Cross Acceptance Process. Bob noted that the
process has been co-opted by DEP. Individually, the counties have many different positions on,
and approaches for dealing with DEP’s changes and the process. There is a significant variation
among counties in terms of the amount of acreage affected, as well as the issues associated with
the changes DEP is proposing. County representatives in attendance at today’s meeting were

1
requested to summarize how the DEP changes are affecting them and their positions regarding
the changes, as follows:

• Somerset County has eight of its 21 municipalities affected by the new DEP changes.
Almost all are consistent with changes already proposed by these municipalities and included
in the county’s Cross Acceptance Report. Maps were prepared that compared the new
changes with the previous changes, specific to each municipality, and meetings are being
held with each municipality to arrive at a position that is mutually agreeable to both the
county and municipality. Summaries of the outcome of these meetings are being prepared
and provided to OSG.
• Morris County prepared maps showing the parcels affected by DEP’s new changes. The
new map is difficult to review since the changes proposed in the county’s Cross Acceptance
Report were not included on the new Preliminary Plan. Some municipalities are hiring
consultants to prepare documentation supporting their position on DEP’s new changes.
Some of DEP’s changes are inconsistent with the Governor’s new Economic Development
Strategy.
• Gloucester County found that DEP is proposing to change certain Brownfields sites to PA5,
which inaccurately reflects reality. A duplication of the previous effort involving the review
of the 400 new DEP changes affecting the county is required. Whereas, over 100 changes
were already proposed during “Comparison Phase 1”. Gloucester is now going through
“Comparison Phase 2”. The legitimacy of the process is questioned.
• Ocean County referenced the NJ Planner’s newsletter article that also questioned the
legitimacy of the process and revised Preliminary Plan. Seventeen of the county’s 33 non-
pinelands municipalities are affected. The changes involve 140 sq. mi., which is 3 times the
size of Hudson County. The current process deviates substantially from the Cross
Acceptance Manual. OSG should stick to its own rules.
• Cumberland County has a blanket disagreement with all the new map changes. The county
received an e-mail from OSG staff requiring that the county provide its position on each of
the changes by September 12th, which was simply not enough time to review them and assess
their impacts. (Somerset’s Bob Bzik commented that this foregoes the intent of the Staff-to-
Staff Meetings. Morris’ Chris Marion pointed out Eileen Swan’s comment at the last SPC
meeting that counties could have all the time they needed).
• Bergen County was initially told there were not any DEP map changes. They recently
received their Negotiation Worksheets in preparation for a new Staff-to-Staff meeting. It was
the understanding of the county that all the changes proposed during Cross Acceptance
would be reconsidered (the first meeting they had a while back was a disaster). However,
instead of addressing all 40 of the originally proposed changes, OSG only intended to
address 7. This is contrary to county’s agreement with OSG wherein they were to scrap the
outcome of the first meeting. When this issue was raised with OSG, they said the county
should tell them which changes they missed. In addition, the county was given an
unreasonable deadline within which to respond.
• Warren County is not affected by any new DEP changes, perhaps because it is in the
Highlands. However, Dave Deck noted that he supports the other counties’ positions.
• Burlington County prepared a series of maps comparing DEP’s proposed changes to aerials
and environmental features including habitat. These maps were sent to the municipalities
along with a copy of DEP’s “Delta Map” which is also on OSG’s website. Some of the

2
changes at the edge of county borders do not make sense since conditions are the same on the
other side but treated differently on the Preliminary Plan Map. Again, the legitimacy of the
process was questioned.
• Atlantic County is preparing municipal-specific maps illustrating DEP’s changes. They
were having trouble disaggregating the data layers. There are no descriptions in the
attribution table for some of DEP’s changes. Several changes are problematic. Some are
within Sewer Service Areas where lines are in the ground, etc. A coherent definition for the
datasets used in the new Preliminary Plan is needed.
• Essex County has no new DEP Map changes. For the record, support of the other counties’
positions was stated.

Bob Brewer noted that OSG should have provided mapping assistance to the counties. Bob Bzik
said it is clear that the State Administration’s goal is to get both the State Plan and the Highlands
Plan “up and running” even if they are flawed, then use the Plan Endorsement and Conformance
processes to fix them. Counties must have a very strong presence in the Endorsement and
Conformance processes so that municipalities are not run over by state agencies. Bonnie
Goldschlag said this is a lot like the “Big Map” again, since the process no longer reflects
balanced land use interests. Many of the changes cannot be justified because they are
inconsistent with the Governor’s directives.

Others noted that it is important that counties make sure OSG explains the new changes – and
that DEP be kept away from the negotiation table. OSG is listening to whoever talked to them
first – which happened to be DEP. Counties are not being treated by OSG as partners. Instead
they are being treated like enemies.

Bob Brewer said that it appears OSG is now fighting for credibility with the other state agencies.
Laurette Kratina noted that it is up to the counties to bring balance back to the negotiation
process by making sure OSG justifies the new changes in light of the Governor’s Economic
Development Strategy and other applicable state, regional and local plans.

Others noted that DEP does everything on a regulatory basis. They do not understand the intent
of State Plan. They see it as a “super zoning map”. We are being forced into the regulatory
route.

Bob Kull noted that as planners, we are trained to bring all stakeholders to the table. Current
OSG staff doesn’t have the power, experience or know-how to pull it off. Counties must broker
the process because we have the experience and know-how. We need to exercise our role as
planners to fix the problem.

New Business/Program

Bob Brewer requested the agenda be modified by holding off on committee reports until after
today’s speakers present. He introduced Chris Sturm, who is leading a special NJ Future task
force that is providing feedback to DEP on the development of amendments to the Water Quality
Management Plan (WQMP) and Wastewater Planning that is now underway. She started by
providing a little history about the WQMP Rules in NJ. The rules were adopted in 1989. There

3
were 2 efforts to update the rules, both of which failed. When the rules expired, NJ Future
realized that planners were really not focusing enough on them. There is a critical nexus
between wastewater planning and land use planning. Currently, Wastewater Management Plans
(WMPs) have significant credibility issues because WQMPs are outdated. The State Plan cannot
be implemented without consistent WQMPs and WMPs. This raises an important question –
should Endorsement require valid WMPs?

NJ Future approached DEP regarding the need for a better process after the WQMP rule
amendment that was withdrawn in November 2005. At this point, NJ Future created a small
working group to come up with some recommendations for DEP. The group met with Larry
Baier, the head of Watershed Management at DEP, and Eileen Swan, with the hope that it can
influence the direction DEP is heading with the amendments. Chris reminded everyone to attend
the Clean Water Council Hearing on October 10th. The hearing is focusing on the new WQMP
amendments, and has printed a series of questions for which the DEP is seeking input on the
back of the hearing flyer (copies were distributed). She noted that everyone needs to be aware of
this very important rulemaking. OSG has reached out to DEP staff to talk about them. The State
Planning Commission (SPC) must be more involved. Chris then provided a walk-through of NJ
Future’s chart (copies distributed) that compares the current WQMP and WMP process with the
proposed new process that is supported by NJ Future, and that shows potential linkages between
the WQMP and WMP processes and State Planning. The current process is inefficient because
of the hundreds of WMP entities involved, the lack of standards, and site-specific emphasis so
that infrastructure planning and investment decisions are not taking place at an appropriate
geographic scale, and are happening in a vacuum. NJ Future recommends that regional rather
than local entities serve as WQMP and WMP entities, and that better standardization of
requirements by DEP take place. Certain data development and analyses should be performed
uniformly statewide by DEP, with the results then made available the WQMP and WMP entities
for integration into their planning process. Municipal roles should focus on implementation.
The greatest area where NJ Future is looking for feedback from counties is regard to the
relationship between WMPs and Endorsement. Clearly, WMPs should be consistent with
Endorsed Plans. However, given the complexity and overlapping elements of WMPs and
Endorsed Plans, how should the two be linked?

Bob Bzik indicated there are a few key things to keep in mind when identifying ways WMPs and
Endorsement can be linked. Both Endorsement and WMPs require similar analyses, including
Environmental Analyses, Build-out and capacity analyses. WMP jurisdictions could be made
consistent with Plan Endorsement jurisdictions (Counties). The analyses that support both the
WMP and Endorsed Plans can both guide where sewer pipes go, as well as where development
should be targeted. Bob mentioned the Highlands Council’s position paper on Wastewater
Planning, noting that a 20% set-aside of remaining system capacity is recommended for
implementing TDR and smart growth. Eric Snyder pointed out that the Highlands wants to be
the WMP entity for the entire Highlands Region. However, the Council only has legal authority
to do this in the Preservation Area. State Government designates WQMP entities according the
Act and rules. The Highlands can not assume control of WQMP and WMP responsibilities
within the framework of the current WQMP rules. WMPs are the strongest planning tool
available to jurisdictions today, having great power over land use. Chris Sturm asked everyone
to also take a look at the NJ Future policy paper on tax reform.

4
Eric Snyder noted that most of DEP’s time is currently consumed reviewing site-specific WMP
amendments and permit applications. They will struggle with the work load associated with
WMP Updates submitted by today’s many WMP jurisdictions. Furthermore, municipalities
generally do not have the resources to perform the extensive analyses and other work needed as
part of WMPs. Ray Zabihach agreed that a better allocation of responsibilities among DEP,
WQMP and WMP entities is needed. DEP should come up with standards and perform
environmental analyses similar to what was supposed to be accomplished through the watershed
planning process before it was waylaid by former DEP Commissioner Campbell. The process
must be based on sound science and backed up by State Plan policy so that legal protection for
WMP entities can be provided.

Twenty-five to 40 regional WMPs instead of 190+ local WMP entities would be more
manageable from DEP’s perspective, provide a more appropriate geographic framework, and
improve accountability by making it feasible to assess cumulative impacts across watersheds.
The prioritization of remaining wastewater system capacity and capacity enhancements must be
based on the State Plan. A mechanism is needed so that DEP approval of a regional WMP is not
held up by one or two uncooperative municipalities.

An appropriate linkage between regional WMPs and Plan Endorsement is needed. If counties
are preparing regional WMPs, they should also be pursuing Plan Endorsement since many of the
analyses overlap, and to assure a regional balance between land use and availability of sewer
capacity are achieved. An iterative process is needed in order to make this work. Regional
WMPs are needed to make sure municipalities that control sewage facilities are investing in
accordance with the State Plan and the Governor’s regional economic growth priorities as well as
regional environmental protection goals. Ray Zabihach believes a change in County Enabling
Legislation is needed that gives specific regional WMP authority to counties, especially since a
sharing of power between the State, counties and municipalities would be necessary. WMPs
prepared on a watershed basis would make sense because it would enable us to see what the
cumulative impacts are, thereby increasing environmental accountability.

All of NJ Future’s ideas require tremendous structural changes within DEP and at the county and
local levels.

Another idea that was suggested involves modeling the WMP process after the State’s
Stormwater Management Rules and program, where local WMPs would have to be vetted at the
county level so that regional coordination issues can be addressed.

In addition to the State Plan, the Statewide Water Supply Plan should provide a statewide
framework for WQMP and WMPs. These plans must work together in a coherent way.

Sanitary sewer availability drives the intensity of growth, and is key to center-based
development. DEP’s policy on package plants must be examined. Need clear guidelines and
standards for determining the capacity of the receiving stream, so that plants can be sized. Need
to differentiate between new package plants that enable sprawl development versus those that

5
enable smart growth. The establishment of zoning density thresholds for Sewer Service Areas
(SSAs) should be considered.

Eric Snyder recommended that the connection between overall WQMPs, regional WMPs, the
State Plan, county and municipal master plans be spelled out in the new WQMP rules – as well
as new amendments to the Plan Endorsement Rules. Regional planning oversight is needed to
target infrastructure and assure smart growth. Ray Zabihach concurred, and said DEP has been
overly focused on individual sites. They need to pay more attention to the big picture.

Chris Sturm asked if counties would support a formal connection between Regional
Endorsement and WMPs. Bob Bzik feels that the question of resources must be addressed. DEP
should be required to provide the necessary data, standards and perform certain analyses. Kamal
Saleh noted that implementation must focus on the municipal level through the adoption of a
utility element as part of master plans, various ordinances, and through coordinated permit
strategies. Municipal requirements must be straightforward, easy to address and cost effective.

The Highlands is coming up with WQMP and WMP standards. This approach is needed
statewide. John Peterson stressed the need for greater scientific backing for DEP’s requirements.
There is no scientific basis for many of DEP’s regulations. Eric Snyder noted that science
should not be manipulated to support policy. Eric and Ray spoke of the concept of ecological
renewal. Bob Kull agreed that it is important not to confuse the outcome with the input. Land
use plans must be done first, and then WMPs should be put in place that implement them. The
idea that an entity should have a WMP in order to get Endorsement is backward. The WMP
should be a PIA requirement.

Bonnie Goldschlag emphasized the need for predictability for in both the WMP and
Endorsement processes. Both processes must be “bottom up”.
Bob Bzik noted that DEP is not going to back away from the WMP/Zoning link. Build-out
capacity analysis will be used to force cut-backs in zoning by DEP. WMP entities will be forced
to delete zoning that does not conform to capacity-based SSAs. Bonnie noted that it will be very
difficult to get towns to cooperate by pulling back zoning. Ed Fox said that there will be less
impact in fully developed urban areas where basically everything has sewers. Current Plan
Endorsement benefits for urban areas are limited. The Governor’s Office has asked DEP to
identify real benefits.

Chris Sturm noted that the environmentalists are concern that the State Plan map would weaken
regulations if environmentally sensitive areas are not shown as PA5. Others feel that critical
environmental features are regulated no matter how the State Plan is delineated. Eric responded
by noting that in the past, DEP never had to justify anything, their rational/decisions were not
transparent, and most had no scientific basis. Now that the link between the State Plan and
environmental regulations is being made, DEP is being forced to be more accountable. Bob Kull
noted that consideration is being given to treating wetlands in PA 1 & 2 differently from
wetlands in PA5. We need the same public health & safety standard no matter what the planning
area.

6
Bob Bzik noted that the distinction between WQMPs and WMPs is blurred. Middlesex County
does both. Mirah Becker said that the County has established a Water Resources Association
that holds bi-monthly hearings on proposed amendments. The Association communicates its
position to DEP, but their impression is that DEP does its own thing anyway. However, DEP
needs counties as their link to the real world.

In wrapping up this discussion, Chris invited other counties interested in participating in NJ


Future’s Taskforce discussions on this topic to contact her.

Bob Bzik asked if anyone was familiar with the “Older Suburb Alliance” and their recent work.
Ed Fox said this group was put together by the “Fund for an Open Society” as a lobbying block
to share resources. He said 8 municipalities participated in the meeting, of which 4 were from
Essex County. He said it was not well attended. The next meeting will be held on Nov. 16th at
the League Convention. An invitation will be mailed to more of the State’s inner ring suburbs
this time.

Bob Brewer thanked Chris Sturm for her presentation, and introduced the next speaker –
Christopher Carew from the Governor’s Office of Economic Growth. Chris’ presentation
focused on the Governor’s Economic Growth Strategy.

Chris Carew began by emphasizing that the Economic Development Strategy (EDS) is an
evolving document, and that the Office of Economic Growth (OEG) is sincerely interested in an
inclusionary process for refining and implementing the plan. He invited all county planners to
submit comments, and suggested that a coordinated set of written comments on behalf of County
Planners be submitted through the NJCPA and facilitated by Bob Brewer.

Chris started by saying that the Governor inherited a very problematic budget and economic
situation. Previous administrations dealt with financial problems using quick-fix, short-term
solutions, which saddled us with the public pension and other problems that we must now deal
with. The Governor wants his policies to have a more positive, lasting affect by implementing
tax reforms and strengthening the economy.

Economic growth is not as strong as it should be, although the State has a lot of assets, including
a highly educated workforce, prime location midway between NYC and Philadelphia and good
transportation system. We need to leverage these assets to maximize growth potential. The
OEG was directed to come up with a strategy to grow the economy. This is a difficult task
because of the complexities and interdependencies. OEG spent a lot of time reaching out to
other state agencies and jurisdictions, but more input is needed. The EDS is a starting point. It is
not perfect. OED will integrate feedback, particularly in shaping how it relates to the State Plan.
The EDS has 6 priority areas: “Get Act Together”, Develop Workforce, Support Sustainable
Growth, Urban Fund, Support Women & Minority Businesses, and Competition on Global Scale.
Although these things are not rocket science, they are things the state has not done before. For
example, the ideas of better coordinating state agencies; and aggressively seeking businesses are
happening in other states. One of the strategies is to establish a web-based business application
that allows businesses to register on-line in one place to get access to all state agency programs.
Access to a system for tracking permits will be available through this website, which will hold

7
state agencies accountable. The system will be made public once it is fully operational. Chris
noted that he has had nothing but cooperation from all of the “top-dogs” in the state agencies.
An interagency team, Advisory Council on Economics” (ACE), has been established within the
OEG that comprises leaders from each state agency. Their charge is to work together to identify
and implement benefits to be accrued to jurisdictions with Endorsed Plans. The Governor
attended the first ACE meeting mandating that the state agencies do their jobs.

The OEG also established an Economic Growth Council comprised of state business leaders.

Another strategy included in the EDS is the identification of “Growth Ready” Areas. One of the
areas we are focusing on is the Route One Corridor. They prepared a build-out analysis that
showed 13 jobs for every 1 residential unit would occur, pointing to the significant need for
middle income housing development opportunities within the corridor. Through this initiative,
the OEG will work with communities to identify available development sites. They will assess
the sites and then match businesses to each site. The type of business will depend on regional
context, market demand, local needs and the existing industry base in the area.

The State’s brownfields policies are also being revised. Currently, 6 different agencies and
programs are involved. A new framework will be reinvented, and ideas for doing this are
welcomed.

The EDS includes the creation of a NJ Urban Fund comprised of $185 Million which will be
made available through micro lenders to help leverage private investments in urban areas. This
is not a grant program. They will make sure the money is being leveraged properly. If our cities
can become more self-sufficient, they will no longer be a drain on the State.

Chris also described the new “Edison Fund” which will be used to promote small, woman and
minority owned businesses. This is the fastest growing business sector in the state. The OEG
wants to provide them with the technical and financial support they need to grow successfully.

OEG also wants to make New Jersey more competitive on a global scale. The Governor’s trip to
China was very successful. A number of potential business opportunities there have been
identified. Next, the Governor will be going to India and Europe to market NJ globally.

Chris thanked the NJCPA for the opportunity to speak and encouraged that comments be
submitted in writing.

Chris Marion asked what kind of incentives will be available to suburban jurisdictions. “Will
businesses be encouraged to relocate from suburban to urban areas within the state”? Chris
Carew replied by saying only if it gets jobs closer to labor force. State incentives are not as
important to where businesses locate as quality of life and quality of the labor force. Chris
Carew said that once cities are back on their feet, we can work on other things. Taxes in cites are
so high due to lack of ratables, that expansion of our urban economies will help the entire state.
Chris Marion pointed out that there are some brownfield redevelopment sites and existing
commercial areas within areas the DEP wants changed to PA5. DEP and other state agencies
need to cooperate with the State Economic Development Plan.

8
Bob Bzik complemented the EDS, saying it is a great document. He said there are two areas
where counties should focus their input: 1) the identification of geographic economic opportunity
areas and investment corridors consistent with county and state smart growth priorities and 2)
redevelopment and Transit Oriented Development Areas. A score card approach for evaluating
and prioritizing these areas is needed.

Doug Greenfield from Jersey City noted the plan contains some really good ideas, and asked
what municipalities can do at the local level to implement the EDS programs and policies. Chris
Carew responded by requesting that municipalities provide feedback to OEG so they can make
sure that they are on the right track. Jersey City can take advantage of the Urban Fund and the
Ready for Growth initiative.

Kamal Saleh commented about the need for housing for middle-income families. Not everyone
is sold on the idea that you need housing in order to support economic growth. Chris Carew said
they are hoping that Route 1 will serve as a pilot for demonstrating this principle. The OEG
knows it needs to work with municipalities closely on this. OSG will be encouraging mixed use,
neo-traditional housing types.

Matthew Pisarski pointed out the need to expand transit access in order to grow the South Jersey
Economy. Chris Carew noted that the Transportation Trust Fund will be used to leverage
economic growth. Millville was pointed out as an example.

Jim Cordingley pointed out significant overcrowding of schools within the Route 1 Corridor.
Municipalities do not want to take on the expense of providing new schools. Chris Carew
responded by saying housing must be consolidated and be more affordable, and recognized that
the State must address the property tax issue to make this work. The OEG is working in
conjunction with NJDOT on Route 1. They will be meeting individually with elected officials.
A letter announcing this initiative will be sent next week to county, regional and local leaders.
Kamal Saleh asked if the future sustainability of the Transportation Trust Fund is being
addressed. Donna Orbach noted that there is a potential to end up simply shifting problems from
one area to another. EDS goals may negate one another. Chris Carew said that the property tax
issue was specifically not addressed as part of the EDS because it needed much greater attention.
Everyone is holding their breath to see what comes out of the Governor’s property tax reform
initiatives. Smart growth hinges on tax reform. The problem with the property tax situation has
been its politically-based decisions. Decisions based on political "will" can have financially
disastrous consequences. It will take a huge political lift to make the fundamental changes
necessary to reform the property tax system. A de-politicized process must be implemented if
we are to find real solutions. A constitutional convention will ultimately allow this issue to go
before the voters. NJ’s residents must decide their own fate.

Bob Bzik suggested a pilot program be initiated to test regional revenue sharing. This is a
modified approach to tax reform that could set the stage for statewide reform.

State agencies are required to develop plans for implementing the EDS. When they are done,
they will be made available to the public, as well as the indicators and measures.

9
The need to promote tourism in NJ, beyond just the Jersey Shore was raised. The new casinos at
NJ bridge crossings are pulling tourism dollars out of the state. Chris Carew noted that the EDS
calls for new partnerships with regional chambers of commerce to promote different tourism
venues.

Chris Sturm asked if the State’s capital budget is being made consistent with the State Plan.
Chris Carew was unable to answer this question.

Lunch: Bob Brewer requested a break for lunch before addressing the Committee Reports.

Committee Reports

Environment: Ray Zabihach said the Clean Water Council was happy that the WQMP Rules will
be the focus of its October 10th Hearing. He encouraged everyone to submit comments to the
DEP at the CWC hearing or in writing.

The 2006 NPS Annual Report is now available on DEP’s Website. DEP will be adding a new
digital GIS Waste Water Map to its on-line I-map application. This map is intended to provide a
uniform GIS mapping protocol and to provide an opportunity for public review so that technical
corrections can be identified and submitted to NJDEP.

Bob Kull mentioned the upcoming “Water New Years Eve” program to be held at the Stockton
Inn. Lisa Jackson is expected to attend. This is an opportunity to hear what she has to say.

The NJAFM Conference held in Somerset focused on the proposed new Flood Hazard
Management Area Rules. Flood mitigation planning has been replaced by a multi-hazard
management planning approach. Hazard plans are often done by first responders, who do not
typically have the necessary land use planning insight to do this properly.

Smart Growth: Bonnie noted that although we have been assured by Eileen Swan that the State
Planning Process will be open and transparent, we have been made aware that work on the
Impact Assessment is underway. We have not been provided with any information about the
method that will be used; the datasets that will support this work; or at what geographic level
data and analyses will be presented. We would like to know which version of the State Plan is
being use for “Trend”, and we would like to know which will be used for “Plan”. This is an
expensive, technical analysis that is very important for evaluating the Updated State Plan, and it
is very important that it is performed correctly. In the past, counties could not review the data or
method for accuracy because the data and results were not disaggregated to the county level.
The resulting analysis had limited value. This time, it could be a much more valuable outcome.
A suggestion was made that the State Plan Impact Assessment information be placed on the OSG
website for ease of access. Bob Brewer thanked Bonnie for bringing this issue to everyone’s
attention and agreed that we should get a letter out to Eileen Swan concerning this request, and to
ask Eileen to come to the next NJCPA meeting to address this issue. If done properly, the results
could help frame the property tax debate.

10
Bonnie also noted that a decision has been made by the OSG to reformat the State Plan to be
comprised of topical “elements” similar to a local master plan.

Housing: Laurette Kratina described the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs’
(DCA’s) new Municipal Land Acquisition Program, and provided copies of the one-page flyer
that was posted on the DCA’s website. She also provided information about DCA’s August 10,
2006 Housing Policy and Status Report, also available on DCA’s website. She noted that the
report included a series of comprehensive policies linked to trends and issues documented in the
report. It appears appropriate for the housing policies in this study to be used to refine the
housing policies in the updated State Development and Redevelopment Plan. One of the most
significant policy issues identified was the loss of affordable units due to expiration of deed
restrictions. This was identified as a new DCA policy focus area. The report recommended the
establishment of new State programs that address the issue of expiring institutional controls and
the abandonment or conversion of non-deed restricted affordable housing.

Kamal Saleh provided an update on other state and federal housing programs. He noted that the
New Jersey Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency (NJHMFA) announced $28.9 million
funding is being made available to support the creation of 739 new affordable rental units in the
state. These funds are expected to leverage $120 million in private investment capital. He also
noted that the HUD Section 8 tenant-based assistance program for ’07 is funded at $15.9 billion
($502 Million over the FY’06 level). The Section 8 project-based assistance program is funded at
$5.7 billion, about $638 million above the FY’06 level. He reported on the status of the HOPE
VI (Revitalization of Distressed Public Housing) bill which would extend the program through
FY’07 with $100,000 million in funding, and a bill recommending $4.2 billion to fund the
Community Development Fund (CDF) and $4.1 billion to fund the Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) Program. An update on a number of federal housing bills housing bills
was provided, including HR 5039 – “Saving Rural Housing”, HR 5121 – “Expanding American
Homeownership Act of 2006”, and HR 5117 – “Clarification of how Section 8 housing relates to
disabled individuals”. Kamal noted that due to the hard work of the Housing and Community
Development Network of NJ, an increase in the State Rental Assistance Program to $37.5
million was added to this year’s budget, making the state’s rental assistance program one of the
largest in the nation. In addition, Governor’s Corzine’s new budget also includes $4 million in
new funding for homeless shelters, $1.5 million for women’s shelters and $500,000 for rape care
centers, $2 million for capital improvements to transitional housing facilities service veterans, $3
million for emergency food and $1 million for food storage systems at distribution centers to
feed an additional 500,000 people.

Bob Brewer thanked everyone for the reports and presentations, and for coming. He
recommended the meeting be adjourned, and encouraged everyone to attend the next meeting
scheduled for November 17th at Hominy Hill Golf Course.

Respectfully submitted,

Laurette Kratina

11

Potrebbero piacerti anche