Before we begin our customary pre-meeting public comments, I want to report concerning the most recent troublesome challenge to our town. I am, of course, referring to the Department of Transportation’s project for re-construction of Route 35 in the Borough.

As you may know, the plans call for drainage and travel surface improvements. We have no issue with these elements. Troublesome is the newly disclosed fact that the right-of-way will be, in varying amounts, widened.

The widening will vary, but at some locations, it may be as much as 20' feet.

The Borough has, for some time, a matter of years, known that the State planned to "improve" 35', but it was not until recently that we learned, for the first time, that the improvements would include provisions for widening any portion of the road. Prior information related only to drainage associated with improved travel surface and corresponding reconstruction of the shoulders and curbs.

Our engineer, Tom Guldin, P. E., learned of the proposed widening when he attended a meeting on February 27, 2003. At the meeting , the DOT consultants - Parsons - revealed that the design alternative which they would be recommending to the DOT was Alternative 9C, which includes widening, 500' south of Downer Avenue to 800' north of Herbert Street. Additionally, Parsons stated that the project would be the subject of a public hearing, in July, 2003. (We haven’t received any notice concerning a hearing).

On April 7, 2003, Tom advised Council of these developments and on April 21, 2003, Council adopted a Resolution opposing any roadway widening on Route 35 in Mantoloking. Copies of the Resolution were forwarded to the State and to the owners of property who will be most directly impacted by the widening element of the project.

Subsequently, Tom received a proposed Contract from the DOT which would have the Borough agree to certain necessary components of the project. Our engineer responded on April 25, 2003, by way of inquiry. Why is the DOT sending out proposed contracts when the promised a public hearing had not been held?

Th conduct of the DOT is entirely consistent with our perception that they have already decided on the design alternative, including widening, and this, without any local input in the decision-making process.

Your Mayor and Council are outraged by this gross indifference to local concerns, both public and private. We are committed to do all possible to effectively challenge and eliminate this unwanted and unwarranted imposition and its unacceptably negative potential impact upon the Borough.

We fully recognize that merely to adopt Resolutions, without more, is, in practical effect, to do nothing. The interest and assistance of residents will be an essential component of any successful effort to gain some control over our destiny. Compensation for land taken and for reduction in the value of property is a private and individual issue. However, the potential negative impact of the project is a Borough wide concern. There is, to me, an undeniable unity of interest, public and private, to take every action possible to challenge this inappropriately initiated and unwarranted road widening project.

I find it extremely difficult to find any rational justification for widening Route 35, in Mantoloking. The expenditure of public funds to acquire very expensive real estate for a project which may, at best, only partially address traffic concerns, for 8 or 10 weekends per year, when contrasted with other far more pressing public issues, statewide, is incomprehensible and, in my vew, irresponsible. The State is in a fiscal crisis. Yet, they can find money for this frivolous widening project!

Even more outrageous is the way this has been handled. Despite representations that they haven’t made a decision, that they would hold a public hearing, to get local input, it appears from their conduct, that the decision has already been made! This is simply unacceptable!

The project will impact the entire Borough, as well as the individuals whose private property will be most directly affected. Compensation to owners is only one component of the results that will flow if they can get away with this. I doubt that anyone will be satisfied, except for the DOT. We are a small, geographically narrow community already burdened by the Route 35 corridor. Any change will inexorably and irremediably damage our way of life and our community values. We have no choice but to fight!

I am requesting that Council endorse my appointment of a Committee (Councilmen Jones and Popaca) to assist me in the development and implementation of a coordinated plan to challenge the road widening aspect of this project.

I believe that Council will, at this meeting, adopt a Resolution authorizing the engagement of special counsel to assist us in this effort. Mr. William Sullivan, Esq., has an outstanding record of experience and achievement in dealing with issues of road way alignment and widening. He is very familiar with the area and has successfully represented Bay Head in its objection to the expansion of railroad facilities by N. J . Transit. I can assure you that our efforts will address both legal and political solutions. We want to achieve an intelligent coordination of all efforts, public and private, all to the same goal - no widening of 35 in Mantoloking.

I assure you that we view this as a time critical situation and that we are already actively seeking assistance, both professional and political. It is, of course, far too early to offer predictions, but you can be confident that your governing body shares your concerns and will do all possible to bring this to an acceptable resolution. We need and will welcome your help.

Tom Guldin of Settler and Guldin, our Municipal engineer, will explain the details of the proposed project. Tom,