All right. Let's call this meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. We're going to start with the salute to the flag. I pledge allegiance to the 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. Please join me in a moment of silent reflection. Thank you. Sunshine Law Notice. In accordance with provisions of the Open Public Meetings Act, public meetings may be held in person or by means of communication equipment. This includes streaming services and other online meeting
platforms. This meeting is being held in person and through the Zoom meeting platform. It is broadcast from Borough Hall, 748 River Road, Fair Haven, New Jersey. >> [clears throat] >> Public participation for this regular Council meeting on June 22nd, 2026 is available by calling the phone number or
through web conference Zoom. Members of the public will be on mute until it's time for questions or comments, which will be announced. At that time, the public has the opportunity to question or comment by phone or through Zoom by the raise hand button and will be called on at the appropriate time. Notice of this meeting was included in a schedule
of meetings which was adopted by resolution number 2026-13 and sent to the Asbury Park Press and the Two River Times on January 12th, 2026, posted on the Borough website and posted on the board of the municipal building and has remained continuously posted as required in the statute. With
adequate notice having been given, the Borough Clerk is directed to include this statement in the minutes of this meeting. Allison, may I please have a roll call? >> Council members, Cole? Here. Dima [clears throat] Celli? Burton? >> Here. >> Ha? >> Here. >> Olecky? >> Here.
>> Paulson? >> Here. >> Thank you. Rolling right into our workshop session for the night, which is the AI mind data center ordinance. Um but I don't know if you've all had an opportunity to review it. Uh there's a
copy sitting here for those of us that are live tonight on the desk. Um I don't know if there's something you >> Christine is on the line with the draft. >> Yeah, I've seen it. Can you hear us? >> Hi. Good evening. I'm here.
>> How are you doing? >> Good. How are you? >> Great. Um do you want to just give like a brief maybe 1 to 2 minute uh summary of what you did here and then if there's questions from the council people that that help inform their
positions, uh we can go from there. Go ahead, sir. >> So, um the the ordinance is drafted to prohibit any type of data center that um would be otherwise permitted in certain circumstances as well as computer
centers. I mimicked the draft ordinance based on let me just figure out the names of the towns. Um >> What was Red Bank? >> So, Red Bank was allowing some of the
data centers to be permitted in the ordinance that was presented also had to do with a lot of cannabis. So, it was helpful to see basically how they set it up, but it wasn't going to meet the needs of Fair Haven exactly because they were permitting potential data centers
in certain circumstances, whereas I think that the the um the wishes of the mayor and council is that no data centers be permitted. So, it was really based off of Summit. Summit has um presented a
uh ordinance that's very similar prohibiting data centers as well as Millville. And basically what it is it prohibits just that, data centers from um being proposed or being created in the
borough. >> I have a couple questions, Mayor. >> Sure. >> Christina, is there anything that um do we have the authority to regulate the connectivity of data centers through Fair Haven either underground, overhead,
or does that all fall under the jurisdiction of the PPU? >> Um you have the ability to regulate those things to an extent, of course, yes. >> I'd like to explore that only because, you know, while we may not be the future
home of a data center in our own imaginations right now, um [clears throat] with the utilities we'll need to run power to supply those centers wherever they are, and passing through Fair Haven um
should be done carefully or not at all. And I don't really know what the limits of our regulatory authority are, but it would be helpful to understand that. >> Okay, so within the within the proposed ordinance, there is under data centers, it does have a wattage
um power description, so within the definition of data centers, it says about three quarters of the way down, a use that meets the criteria stated here and it generates a total peak power load in excess of 20 MWs or has a measurable
and distinct impact on water utility consumption compared to the aggregate land uses of should be considered an AI data center. So, you have the ability to tweak that definition as well. Um this is just the standard definition that I've seen a lot of municipalities
adopt or at least propose. Um but to my understanding, it doesn't have to be strictly that. It can be manipulated to meet the needs of the of the municipality. >> I would need some guidance on how long this is potentially it, but I'd be needing specialized
engineering guidance. I'm not sure. Is that the professional you would assume we should consult? >> Yeah, I mean, if you're asking me specifics about what category about data centers and the wattages and and things of that nature, I'm not an expert
in that field, so I wouldn't have those answers to you. I could always get them, of course, but right off the top of my head, I don't have, you know, specific knowledge about those types of um things. >> Is this definition or that segment of this definition, um,
was that lifted out of the Summit research [clears throat] that you did? >> It was lifted out of >> I think that's a good model for us. The model? >> Yes. Some uh Summit. >> That's all my questions for right now.
>> Anyone else? Anybody else? Any other questions? >> No. >> Uh Brian? >> Yeah, so um is there a way to to regulate um you know, usage, maybe this is what
Councilwoman Cole was getting at, but regulate not not AI data center, but any entity that is going to use more than X amount of power, X amount of water? Uh um is there a way to do it that way? Or
or did Red Bank, Summit, Millville do it that way? I I'm possibly didn't hear it. >> So, you can. Um, it would just be whether or not the specific power or water that you're referring to would be categorized as the AI center. So, it may
fall outside the purview of regulating data centers, but it would still be permissible for the governing body to regulate those things. >> Yeah, I guess the the approach I would prefer is two-pronged. So, I would I would advocate for something that you know, a a certain one prong would be
a certain percentage over over existing, right? So, let's say power usage went up 30% from, you know, same time last year, you know, that might be too much of an increase too fast. Uh and the second prong would be
um related to our capacity. And I guess that would be electric utility and water utility. Um but if our there's a concept of the utilization rate for both power grids and water and like in sewer when they get to 80%, then you got to start building more capacity.
Um so, you can handle storm water and so on. Um that I I would I would prefer to um do it that way. Um you know, I'm not going to die on the hill. Um but that that's how I would how I would prefer to do it.
>> I think Oh, sorry. >> No, you're not. Please, go ahead. Let's go. >> um I think my So, my thinking is in line with um Councilwoman Olson's, but I would like some professional guidance exactly how to articulate that.
That's That's legally, but the the electrical and water usage piece. So, I guess I sort of asked you who you think can provide us do some homework or at least maybe um educate the
the DTDW engineering DTDW committee and then bring that to us. >> Yeah, and so so for some for so for the technical um the technical [clears throat] specifications you're looking for to get answers for you're probably going to require some kind of outside professional. Um I mean, have anybody on staff that
could really speak to, um, you know, electrical usage or water usage as far as it would relate to the ordinance. I mean, we could, you know, reach out to one of our firms and see if that is, but obviously that would have to be something that the governing body would approve that expense for prior. >> Well, just to shed some light, um, Red
Bank used their planner >> Mhm. >> their um, bureau planner in order to create this ordinance. So, they did a study in to determine, you know, what limits that they could put in there. Obviously, they allow for uh, dispensaries,
cannabis dispensaries in their area municipality as opposed to us. >> That's totally different. >> Yeah, but they did a study and yeah, there is a high electrical usage with dispensaries and a high water usage as well based on their
>> I'd like to give a couple of a couple of, um, sort of scenarios, just sort of think it through. So, let's say I'm going to be absurd here, but let's say an aluminum aluminum smelter takes a ton of electricity, right? So, if we pass an ordinance that says a data center data center is not allowed, but another type
of industry that uses more electricity, um, would presumably be okay. Um, or let's say somebody invented a new gizmo that allows a data center to use very low amounts of power or low amounts of water. Like the technology advances,
I suppose we could unwind the ordinance, but um, it would make sense to me to go direct at the problems we're trying to alleviate, which is water and electricity. That's my understanding, water and electricity. So, I'd rather just go with those, um,
rather than name a specific. >> So, someone could really amend this by adding limits to or percentage limits to power and electricity and water. >> Of course, you can. I mean, but then it's, you know, >> You determine
>> You're trying to determine things that are going to happen maybe 30, 40 years down the road. We've already started taking thousand, you know, thousands [laughter] of years to you know, to build AI data centers. This is where they're at right now. Obviously, we could You know, I mean, that's where your
planner comes about, right? Like they have to, you know, plan for the future. Um, you know, it's part of our master plan. I don't know where you're putting your data center in in this municipality, but however, you know, there was a concern because there could be a small facility. We do have, you
know, certain areas that could be right for sale. Um, and where they could put a data center or and that was really what the concern was from the bureau and as far as our marching orders. So, somebody >> And just to add and just to add one thing, too, when just what um Andrew
mentioned about the master plan. Um, so our neighboring town, Red Bank, um is at the same process that we are at the same stage of their master plan as well. Um, so they utilize the planners that we're involved with um with that project. So, obviously, that is that is a route we'd have to go. We'd have to probably amend
our contract with um our planners are doing and our firm is doing our master plan. Um, again, which would require extensive work to do this, but it would, you know, that is one route. >> In our current scope, one of the elements of the master plan is utilities. So, this certainly falls
within that question that has to do with switching utilities. So, I don't think it does expand the scope. I think this just becomes a topic of conversation that needs to get So, >> We can start to I mean, we can start to explore >> think about, yeah, that this topic well,
you know, it's not going to happen tomorrow, but we know we need to do something. >> What are you saying, though? >> What I'm saying is at least we have um the guidance and the technical professional support that we need in the master plan process with our um planner. And of course, the planning
board is engaged in that and utilities are an element within that scope of work. We this falls within that. We can take it up as part of the master plan uh update to use this as a template for some of the work that's done. Bring it
to the process and see if we >> The only The only question I have there is the master plan is not specifically ordinance. >> Correct. >> It It is a suggestion to build our ordinances off of that. All right. So, >> What are the goals? And then, yes, we do
the land use regulation of the regulation regular work after. >> So, the master plan is a guiding document to which our ordinances should be, you know, drafted to support. That's That should be the baseline. That should be, you know, the guiding force we draft ordinances for. However,
it's not a legislative document. So, where any type of ordinance, such as this, would have to be outside of that master plan. That has to be codified into our ordinances. Would that be correct? >> And, yes. >> Yeah, which would happen after the adoption of the master plan, assuming
obvious state that everyone agrees to. This is something we all want to have in Fair Haven. >> The master plan is going to contemplate a lot of ordinances and amendments. >> I I really don't think that they're going to be building the current AI data center models in Fair Haven, because we're 1 square mile. But, I do think we
need to protect ourselves from those big power lines running through Fair Haven. And any of the water usage being pulled to support perhaps an apartment or eating town, which are our neighbors. So, I think we really should focus on protecting the
electricity aspect and the water usage. I don't think they I I do also agree that we shouldn't have an AI data center in the 1 square mile town. But, I think the bigger >> So, can can we do that? Like Like, you know, if we put something on the books,
for instance, JCP&L can say, "Well, this is what's necessary, and we're >> So, we just pull it the approximate amount of electricity that an AI data center >> I I just say I don't I don't see how we're going to regulate a utility from pulling
>> I think we're going too deep. >> Yeah, you know, pulling from the after say >> Don't build the data center in Fairhaven. >> Power, water. >> It's like here's a way. >> And I mean like >> What happened in the old days? >> There's power >> I agree. I'm not I'm just not sure there
was an agreement built up. It almost sounds like the utilities didn't >> Well, yeah. >> Wait, I think it's I'm not I can't speak from an educated standpoint of what I know but that's kind of what I got up. That's what the officials basically said was
what do you want us to do? >> It's the utility. >> No, I only That's why we're having this conversation to protect us. >> I think we want to protect ourselves and one of you know >> I think it's a phased approach, yeah. It has to be a phased approach. >> The main issue with data centers is the
is the usage um was creating this you know, this heat wave to go through the town. All right, to go through the municipalities. Um you know, I think it was like upwards of 6° raising the temperature 6°
um from basically the surface and and the atmosphere in these municipalities and that was what they were concerned about. Um and I guess the water usage is is tremendous as well. Um but you're right. What are we building here in
But that's why a blanket ban on and a data center and then if we need to make amendments if need you know, if Elon Musk, you know, invents something else, then that's something that we can approach at any time. >> We may want to look at um you know
Um I would probably be open to some sort of I know it's not law but some sort of um proclamation on the record saying we're against them. Um don't put them in in town. So at least the ban the blade for the towns and then also maybe you
know a lot of birds around. Maybe there's some indigenous bird population that those tall lines compromises. >> I'm actually comfortable going ahead and doing the phase approach as Austin said and we can even adopt this basic language
that says, you know, what what this draft says is fine as like a first layer. Um But I don't think it's the end of that. That's probably accurate. >> I think so. >> Yeah. >> And it doesn't prevent any foreign from
taking this up and then in terms of master plan language, we can ensure it addresses this. >> Is is there stuff you want them to amend before we would move to an introduction? Something like this cuz that would be the next step. >> Um I guess [clears throat] I do want to understand this a little bit more, but um I can probably
I can probably do that on my own. So if this meant to stop there's a little bit of time. I mean spit it out. >> I'm good. You're good Brian? You're good? >> Yes. >> Yep. >> Thank you. Moving on we're on public
comment on agenda items. Voting this is only for agenda items. Please observe a 3-minute time limit. Please state your name and address for the record. Anyone have have a comment for >> Yep. Sure. >> Bonnie Procopia, 157 I'm just curious that it feels so
strange that having little Fairhaven is talking about this. Is there not a something on the blue state something on the mama county saying this is the way you should be addressing it? Like I feel like it's >> I think I saw something from the governor um from an interest standpoint that she is,
but I don't think there's anything on the books. Yeah. >> I mean that's ridiculous. I mean what you just said is terrifying. That I mean not only just with climate change or is our temperature up. Now we have this artificial exacerbator. May I just was listening to
Europe is like their trains are shutting down because of the heat. I'm good the heat right now. Like not even the summer. Like I think it's it's really scary that there's not something bigger at work here. And I mean, yeah, it's about power lines, but water and
>> And Bonnie, I can even share a little bit even today, um, you know, there was a mass email went out amongst all the borough administrators and saying looking for draft ordinances. So this is not something that's just local to Monmouth County. This is something throughout the state. A lot of towns are looking to adopt ordinances to prevent
these data centers. And there is a there isn't any direction to state at this point. Maybe there there will be a month from now or two months from now, but there isn't. So a lot of these towns are taking, you know, the pre-emptive move to um, to put the bans on the data centers. So they'll >> Everybody says no data Every single town does this. Then what do you tell us to
say? Say so what? I mean, yeah. I wonder if you use chat GPT to do this or is the data center going to shut you down or finding out the way that the data that >> will give you wrong information. >> [laughter] >> Exactly. >> Thank you, Bonnie. Anyone else? Public comment?
>> Yeah, sure. >> Uh, I'm curious about resolution >> up, please. >> Um, Susan O'Brien, 875 River Road. Um, I'm curious about resolution 153 and 154. What do I have to do to um, get a full
tax exemption? >> Is it for the military? >> Is that what it is? >> They they they told me. >> Yes, it is. >> Those are for um, veterans who are 100% disabled. >> Oh, okay. >> whole application process. It involves the uh, federal government, the tax
assessor. So it's really only available for 100% disabled That's >> Okay. Oh, too bad. >> [clears throat and laughter] >> Give me Sue it. Anyone else? Public hearing agenda in total? Alison? >> I have two hands. The first is Paul
Ferguson. >> Hi Paul, how are you? >> 90 calories. >> Hi, this is Carolyn Ferguson, 7 Clono Court. I'm good, how are you? Um, on the uh discussion about the data centers,
uh like from a land use perspective, can that be addressed as like a permitted use or an unpermitted use? I mean, really, we already say that we have a list of permitted uses and we state that anything not in
the list is already unpermitted. Um, but we could strengthen the language. I mean, it's >> does does cuz >> Yeah, I mean, yeah. >> That's essentially what this um ordinance does. It It narrows the
permitted uses and expands the prohibited uses to incorporate data centers. >> Okay, great. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Carolyn. One more channels? >> Yes, we have We have Chris Hempstead.
>> This is definitely a Raven and the Peach question, I just know it. >> Wait, but no, I'm not on the beach. >> [laughter] >> No, wait. Um, I had a question about the uh renewal >> Just state your name. Just state your name and address for the record. >> Uh Chris Hempstead, 53 Willow Street,
Fair Haven. Um, the uh Raven and the Peach liquor license. Um, I I'm just scratching my head. It's been out It's been closed for quite some time and New Jersey has a 2-year use it or
lose it clause and I'm just curious if there was any consideration to the town reallocating that liquor license to another interested party. >> Chris, we've looked into this. Obviously, this has been a
a point of concern for a lot of people. Um they have satisfied uh all of the requirements uh for them to continue the use of their or to continue their retaining of that liquor license.
Um the liquor license contemplates law contemplates that the liquor license be or the establishment be open for business. I believe it's for 1 day a year uh in order to satisfy the obligations
to have a liquor license in the municipality. Um as you might recall, they operate, I believe, four times a year and that is for father-daughter and mother-son dances on
two separate weekends. >> And there's nothing the town has no ability to do anything without recourse, I guess. >> There's There's other recourses that though we've looked we've looked at them. You know, if they're behind on the tax payments, the
municipality, for instance. Um It's Thank you. It's a good question though, Chris, and we appreciate it. >> Yeah. Yeah, no, it's it Yeah, I mean, I just I saw it on the agenda. I'm like, wait a minute. How is that even possible? But um I figured it was something about the three or four dances
that they have to meet the to meet some obligation. I couldn't find any anything on the >> They do. >> Tavern, >> The Tavern uses the liquor license every day. >> Yeah. >> Which one? Navoo does? >> Navoo the Tavern.
>> Oh, I thought the tea room was closed. I Oh. >> The tea room was closed and now it's back open. >> Okay, got it. Okay, all right, well, thank you. Thank you, guys. Very helpful. >> Thank you. Uh, is that it, Allison? >> That is all. >> Thank you. Uh, next up is uh, old
business. Uh, we have our Ferry Haven entrance and meeting signs. >> Right, so >> I'm sorry. >> Oh, sorry. Uh, we motion to approve the minutes from the June 8th, 2026 regular meeting. >> I motion. >> Second, Zacharias. >> Allison, may I please have a roll call?
>> Councilor Morris Cole? >> Yes. >> Burton? >> Yes. >> Hatch? >> Yes. >> McLaughlin? >> Yes. >> Paulson? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Back to the signs. >> Okay, so back to the signs. I do want to apologize, our sign um, maker um, was out of the we had town
today, so he was unable to get me another sample. However, I did print went out and sent everybody electronic version. Incorporated all the feedback from the last meeting and including the proper blue color. And for Tracy, I actually looked it up and it is Pantone
2175UP is the blue. So, we'll have that on the record. So, 50 years from now, if we do signs over, we'll know exactly what Pantone shade it is. Uh, but we did change the um, the outline of the lettering, um, cleaned up a few things, got the right color blue to match the original
sign, which I have here. And I think they did a really nice job matching the blue. The audience, if anybody's interested hearing it, you can certainly come on up. >> I'm sure. >> Um, yeah, you got up there perfect. Um, so, that was it. Um, again, we need five
of them here in town, uh, $1,200 a piece installed. It would be uh, 6,000 total. Uh, replace all the signs we have, which are probably going on about 18 years now. Um, we've been using capital funds for it, so. >> That's >> Good for me.
>> You going to be able to flip them? >> Yes, so um one thing I'll just explain this real quick. Obviously they're double-sided and they are both you have an entering then you have the leading again and just to if you didn't notice the blue color
totally faded there. 217 clock you up. Um the leaving I did not again get a chance to get a sample of it done but uh there was a suggestion leaving the boat should face the other way. I think that's actually a nice touch. Um so I am going
to flip both reverse it for leaving so it's pointing in one direction when you're coming in and it'll be pointing in the other direction when you so I think that's a nice touch and that's it for now. >> Flag's flag's bigger? Yes, with the flag? >> Yeah. Yep, flag done and and you can read Albertina on it as well.
Yeah and the outline is identical to what the original sign was. >> So what do you need? Do you need a motion? >> Yes. >> So move a motion to approve the signs as >> I'll make a motion that we approve the signs as as submitted. >> By Christian Ward.
>> Second. >> Allison, may I please have a roll call? >> Council members call. >> Yes. Griffin. >> Yes. >> Hatch. >> Yes. >> Swain. >> Yes. >> Olson. >> Yes. >> And just to clarify we'll be using page you don't have the funds for that as originally discussed. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> For new business consider agenda resolutions 2026-138 through 155. Um do I have a a Does anyone want to separate any of them at all? Does anyone have any comments on any of them before we vote? Then I would want you to approve as presented.
>> So moved. >> Second. >> Allison, may I please have a roll call? >> Council members call. >> Yes. >> Griffin. >> Yes. >> Hatch. >> Yes. >> Swain. >> Yes. >> Olson. >> Yes. >> All right, thank you. Department reports May 2026 to the municipal court to the
police department. Motion to accept that is submitted. >> Motion to accept. >> Second. >> Uh all in favor. >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Next up is good of the borough. Um I'm going to start out good of the borough tonight.
Um I probably have the longest statement you're ever going to hear me make in in the borough council. So, I just want to preface this by that I want to get it all on the record, that's why it's so long. Um I hope you bear with me. I hope I
burn it. And I appreciate all your time. I want to take a few minutes tonight to talk directly about the parking restrictions we put in place for Red Bank Regional's graduation. Because there's been a lot said about it this week on Facebook,
in the press, in campaign text messages, and by RBR Board of Ed President Noble and RBR Superintendent Moore. Very little of it reflects the full context or facts, and certainly not the
reality of the challenge. Let me start here. The decision to prohibit street parking on RBR graduation day was a difficult but necessary move to answer a growing call for safety by the residents who we all serve.
The election year narrative being sold to you and the RBR community is that it was a snap decision made in a vacuum by a dictator as retribution. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In reality,
this was a decision shaped by years documented problems, discussed publicly, made with input from multiple individuals, committees, and staff, and communicated 6 weeks before the event. As a matter of fact, every council
member here signed a letter dated May 27th addressed to the superintendent and RBR Board of Ed, which laid out the safety issues and asked for help and collaboration. We have emails from residents dating back as far as 2022 asking for help on
school days and graduation day, and council members advocating for the same. To be very clear, we are working with many stakeholders here and in town to solve problems, and politics have no place in that conversation. Residents have come to our council
meetings on nine separate dates since November 2025 alone. Collectively, over those 7 months, we have heard first-hand accounts of traffic violations such as street racing and excessive speeding, key turns, and other dangerous driving behaviors.
Parking violations, including blocked driveways and parking in front of fire hydrants, which have resulted in tickets and towed cars. Parents idling for extended periods in parking spots in the middle of streets, blocked leaf piles, blocked garbage and recycling pickups, and residents
struggling to accommodate deliveries, landscapers, and snow removal. Moreover, we have received countless safety and pedestrian concerns, including students crossing Ridge Road, a heavily traveled county road, back and forth at various spots at the two
busiest times of the day, often in large groups. Multiple near misses that residents describe as extraor- extraordinarily dangerous. Residents describing fear for their family safety and children feeling uncomfortable in their own homes. Additionally, there have been reports of
property damage and vandalism, such as a student who actually driving over residents' trash cans, spray painting and getting damaged. The conduct and harassment concerns are equally concerning. They include marijuana use in parked cars during the school day with drug paraphernalia being found.
Excuse my language, but students having sexual relations in the car with used condoms being found. Students ringing residents' doorbells to ask whether they had called police. Police being called repeatedly by affected residents with crowds gathering on residential streets throughout the day.
The parking violations have spiked this year in Cambridge, Oxford, and Rutgers with the increase in traffic. With the in 2024, 14, 2025, 17, and in just the first 6 months of 2026, we have 24 violations. This governing body and the ones before
it took a patient and balanced approach to these concerns from the beginning. Residents proposed a variety of solutions. They asked for a permit system. Our staff advised that we did not have the resources to administer one. And that it would likely create requests
for similar programs elsewhere in town. We were asked to place a barrier on the street similar to Third Street. We did not believe that was reasonable for this area, and it would simply push the problem onto neighboring streets. We were also asked to prohibit parking during drop-off and pick-up windows. We
were concerned that doing so would interfere with our own residents' ability to park on their streets. Our goal, perhaps not shared by everyone, but certainly by the majority of the governing bodies I have served with, was never to ban student parking. It was to reduce its impact on our
residents. And that brings me to the central issue. Throughout this process, the superintendent repeatedly advised Fairleigh Dickinson to restrict parking on its own streets. We eventually did exactly that. First, during the week of May 4th, and later on
graduation day. But parking restrictions were never our preferred solution. They were the solution we were left with. The more fundamental question is why those restrictions became necessary at all when substantial parking capacity
remained available on the RBR campus. If more students were parking on school property, fewer would be parking on residential streets. Fewer would be crossing Ridge Road, and many of the concerns residents have raised for years would be significantly reduced.
If 50 cars were parking on our streets every day, and we could find a way for 30 of them to park in RBR's lot instead, that would not just be acceptable, it would be welcome. There are more than 20 staff parking spots open every day. You drove by, you
would see them. If RBR's parking is managed through a parking system, I'm not sure why there needs to be a separate lot for staff. And if there are available parking spaces on campus, it would seem logical that students park in the lot designed for that purpose.
At first, it appeared the superintendent was willing to work with us. Despite now saying there's nothing he can do, he sent an email to district families in December of 2025 directing them not to park on Cambridge Avenue, and acknowledging that students were crossing a dangerous intersection
without crossing guards. We appreciated that outreach. On April 17th, Dr. Moore and other RBR stakeholders met with Councilman Brian Wilson, Administrator York, and Chief McGovern. A number of ideas were discussed. The superintendent suggested we put
clear restrictions on our streets, and even suggested extending the no parking zone to the to the entire street saying he would be glad to write a letter in support of enhanced regulations. He consistently maintained that this
issue was solely Fairhaven's responsibility. Our position has always been that this is a traffic safety issue, as well as a student behavior issue, and that we needed his help to address it. When he stopped being will willing to collaborate with us, we tried exactly
the type of parking ban that he had recommended in writing on more than five separate occasions. During the week of May 4th, we restricted parking on our streets. As far as I recall, there were no objections from any member of the governing body to that week-long
restriction. The restriction confirmed something we've been saying all along. Parking restrictions can move the problem, but they do not solve it on their own. The most effective solution would have been reducing the number of students parking on residential streets in the
first place. At its core, the disagreement is not really about graduation. It is about whether a problem that has existed for years should continue to be managed on residential streets or addressed at its source.
Fair Haven ultimately exercised its authority over its own streets, just as the superintendent repeatedly suggested we should. But had more of the available parking on campus been utilized, these restrictions likely would never have been necessary in the first place.
After that closure, on May 7th, administrator York reached out to Superintendent Moore. They asked whether graduation would be held at RBR this year or offsite, as many area schools now do, in part because of the kinds of issues we are discussing here tonight.
On that email thread, I shared my view that parking should be restricted for graduation day. RBR quoted part of that email in its latest letter to the community, but left out the second half. I would like to read it in full tonight.
I think we need to extend no parking for all streets on that day. Unfortunately, we have not received any help from RBR and the community is restless. That is where they stopped quoting. But the email continued. The staff parking lot has been
practically empty every day this week. I counted 29 spots open in it today and 41 on Tuesday. The entire lot had 92 spots open on Tuesday and 71 today. This is at the end of the year when the most juniors have their licenses and
fewer total cars are parked on our streets, including residents, than there are open spots in their entire parking lot. This is a simple problem to solve with a willing partner. That was not a threat. It was an olive branch, an invitation to
work together. I was asking RBR to be a willing partner. The board statement removed the portion of the email that showed I was seeking cooperation and kept only the portion that could be portrayed as an ultimatum. I followed up on that same email thread
2 weeks later with an updated count. 21 spots open in the staff lot at 10:00 a.m. on May 21st, just before our DPW meeting. There was no response to either email. The invitation to work together and the discussion about graduation parking were
both ignored. When exploring solutions, we did not limit ourselves to enforcement of parking restrictions. This spring, we asked whether RBR student council might want to help develop a solution. We believe the student-led approach could generate buy-in, teach problem-solving, and help
everyone move forward constructively. Councilman Olson also raised the idea of helping fund a joint parking and traffic study. We were not sure that was an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars, so we began exploring whether outside funding might be available instead. Councilman Olson requested a meeting
with Superintendent Moore to discuss that idea and several others. Initially, the superintendent appeared open to some of the ideas. But fortunately, about a week later, the superintendent communicated that he was no longer interested.
Separately, I've spoken with the mayor of Little Silver on several occasions, and for years he has been a genuine and constructive partner. I raised with him, as one piece of a broader solution, the idea of planting trees along the the Ridge Road buffer Redbank Regional replacing trees the
community loved that were taken down there several years ago by one of my favorite utilities. Those trees were never replaced. I volunteered us to find a way to get trees back in the ground. I mentioned I mentioned this so this
council and this community could see the collaboration we tried. A pizza party for a student council project. Funding a parking study. Replacing trees in neighborhood miss. These are not the actions of a borough looking for a fight.
They're the actions of a borough that kept showing up with small good faith ideas and kept being told no. At our council meeting on May 26th Councilman Olson asked the governing body to join him in sending a memo to the superintendent and the Board of
Education regarding what we viewed as a meaningful student safety concern. It read Students parking on Cambridge Avenue must cross a heavily traveled roadway in order to reach the school campus. The borough is deeply concerned that this arrangement unnecessarily exposes
students to avoidable pedestrian and traffic hazards during morning morning arrival and afternoon dismissal periods. The memo was unanimously supported by every member of the governing body signed the following day and sent to the Board of Education and the
superintendent. They never responded. Many of the questions put to me this week were some version of why did you shut down parking for graduation and nothing else? The answer is we didn't. We have restricted parking nearly five times now including the entire week of May 4th
that I just described. We were trying different approaches both to protect our community and to inform future decisions. Graduation was not a first resort dressed up as retaliation. It was the next step in a process this council has been working through publicly for years.
The May 4th parking restrictions and the graduation parking restrictions went through the same process that all serious decisions in this borough go through. They were discussed by our DPW and engineering committee, reviewed with our police committee, and evaluated by
Chief McGovern and Administrator York. Based on those discussions and with Administrator York's approval, I also directed Chief McGovern on June 2nd to reach out to coordinate with his counterpart with the Little Silver Police Department so graduation day would be safe and orderly for everyone
attending, regardless of where they parked. I followed up again on the morning of graduation to confirm that this remained the safest plan for both Fair Haven residents and graduation attendees. So, let's talk about graduation. With the school year ending and a
graduation ceremony expected to bring significantly more vehicles and pedestrians into the same residential streets that have already generated years of complaints and safety concerns, the borough decided to restrict parking on Rutgers Drive, Cambridge Avenue,
Oxford Avenue, Arbor Road, and Princeton Avenue from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Superintendent Moore called that decision an act of retribution. It was no such thing. Unfortunately, after years of asking RBR to use the tools available to it,
whether through permit allocation, enforcement of its own directives, planning for additional parking, or working collaboratively on solutions, the borough was ultimately ultimately left as the only entity able to ensure safety and order. Despite later claiming that they only
learned of the parking restriction through social media, we know that by June 10th, 8 days before graduation, they had already planned for it. We know this because in a Board of Education meeting that evening, a Cambridge Avenue resident raised the issue directly.
According to that resident, Superintendent Morse stated that he was aware of Fair Haven and intended to restrict parking for graduation and that he did not care because alternate parking arrangements had already been secured at the Rumson Jewish Center. June 10th,
we also now know that the RBR board arranged overflow parking at the Church of the Nativity. The board later released a public statement signed by board president Patrick Noble. I would like to read a portion of it directly. At no point in this email or other communications was the graduation
parking ban presented to us as being about the safety of graduation attendees. We never received any official notification that Fair Haven was moving forward with the parking ban and only learned of it through social media posts. Compare that statement to another passage in the very same document when
the board explains that it reached out to the Rumson Jewish Center and the Church of the Nativity preemptively in the event that Fair Haven Borough officials carried out their attempt to disrupt our graduation ceremony. Preemptively, in anticipation of the very action they claim they had no
notice of. Those two statements cannot both be true. And when the board says it never received official notification and never heard safety raised as a concern, I would point to the May 7th email thread where graduation parking restrictions were first discussed along with the May
27th memo signed by this entire governing body and sent directly to the superintendent and the board of education stating that the governing body believes the burn situation presents a meaningful student safety concern. Ultimately, much of the public
discussion is focused on the wrong question. The debate should not be whether Fair Haven had the authority to restrict parking. We clearly do. The more important question is why those restrictions became necessary after years of complaints while available
parking on campus continued to sit unused. The board's position that a first-come, first-served parking system on campus would create a hazardous situation with students competing for limited parking spaces each morning. Cars converging on a limited number of
parking spaces with student drivers behind the wheel certainly does create legitimate safety concerns. But, that raises an obvious question. If that situation is unsafe enough to justify maintaining a permit system on campus, why is it acceptable for the same
competition for parking to occur on neighborhood residential streets every day? And why was it acceptable on graduation day when traffic volumes were significantly higher using the same streets and the same roadway crossings residents have been raising concerns about for years?
The board cannot reasonably argue that this situation presents a safety concern on campus while simultane- simultaneously arguing that a larger version of the same problem occurring just beyond its property line is none of its concern. The board also suggested
our parking counts were faulty. The facts tell a different story. On multiple dates throughout May and June, Pearl officials observed substantial unused parking capacity on campus while students continued to park on residential streets. Multiple people
on multiple days came back with the same conclusion. Not a one-time observation, it was a consistent pattern. The afternoon of May 5th, there were 92 open parking spots. Almost the entire staff lot was empty. On the afternoon of May 9th, there were 71 open spots. 29 of
them in the staff lot alone, while 52 cars were parked on our side streets. On the afternoon of June 10th, there were 171 open spots. 22 of them in the staff lot, while 31 cars were parked on our streets. If the explanation for this is that
seniors have different schedules in May and June, then this solution would be to explore adjusting the permit restrictions for those months. I also want to address the board's statement that borough officials inappropriately approached students and parents while they were legally parked.
Our administrator and members of this council did speak with some students parked on Cambridge Avenue this year. We simply asked why those students were choosing to park there rather than in the school's parking lot. That is not a harass- That is not harassment. As local officials, we were
trying to better understand a traffic and safety issue that our residents have been raising for years by speaking directly with the people involved. If anyone has a specific concern about how those conversations were handled, I welcome them to reach out to me and we
will look into it. Respectfully asking a student a question on a public street does not rise to the level of conduct that residents have documented over the last 5 years. The board's statement points to Rumson as an example of a town that has
implemented parking restrictions around a high school. That example actually reinforces our position. Those restrictions were implemented by a municipality using its authority over its own streets. That is exactly what Fair Haven did. It's worth noting that RFH's parking
lots are full of student and faculty cars daily. They do not have multiple open spaces like RBR. We checked. I want to address two more instances which occurred immediately before and during graduations to help explain why many residents believe this situation
cannot continue indefinitely. On June 9th, students were photographed using shaving cream to write creep and liar on parked cars in the neighborhood along with vulgar drawings that include phallic symbols. I have the pictures if anyone wants to see them. And on graduation day, after the parking
restriction was in place, multiple residents reported students driving through these streets, honking their horns, and making obscene gestures at the people who live there. As this council continues to discuss long-term solutions, including the possibility of permanent restrictions beginning this
September, those incidents cannot be ignored and are prime examples of the daily discomfort. For residents who have spent years raising concerns, they reinforce the feeling that the current arrangement is not working. And for those who continue to describe this decision as retribution, I would ask
them to consider the perspective of the of the residents who have experienced these incidents and explain why they should be expect expected to accept them as the cost of living near a high school. Regarding the logistics of graduation parking, the Rumson Jewish Center is
actually half the distance to the football field than the nearest available parking on Cambridge or Oxford, and the Church of Nativity is roughly the same distance. Both of these lots also sit at an intersection where there's a traffic light and crosswalks. Directing graduation attendees to
designated parking locations was, in our view, the safer plan for an event of this size, and that assessment was shared by the professionals involved in planning and public safety. With 6 weeks of notice, the board had ample time to arrange shuttle service through its contracted transportation
provider and reserve additional on-campus spaces for handicap placards. The night we released our statement on social media, we confirmed with a member of the RBR board that shuttle service would be provided. We can only rely on the information we are given. So, when
two RBR residents later contacted me to say there was no shuttle available, I was disappointed to hear that. I offered to personally pick up their family members and bring them directly to the ceremony. There was certainly a great deal of discussion online this week, much of it
driven by strong opinions and incomplete information. Over the course of several days, I gave my personal phone number to nearly 25 people who wanted to who wanted to discuss this issue directly. Only one person took me up on the offer.
I had a productive conversation with one Red Bank resident who'd been highly critical of this decision. While we still respectfully disagreed at the end, I believe he left with a much better understanding of why the decision was made from the Fair Haven side. And while I considered sharing some comments that
were posted to Facebook that were particularly vicious, I do want to pose one question. Why were so many members of the community more upset about the supposed inconvenience of parking being moved a few feet down the road for 1 and 1/2
hours than they were for the years-long daily inconvenience posed to this entire neighborhood? I also want to thank those who reached out in support. I understand why some people were uncomfortable expressing that support publicly, and I appreciate hearing from you.
This was not a decision that felt good the way it felt at Riverside Park feels good, or approving a scout project feels good. But leadership is not just about the easy decisions. Sometimes it requires making difficult decisions and standing by them.
This was not politics, at least not for me. It was not retribution, it was not ideology, and it was not performance. This was 5 years of doing this job in public, on the record, and ultimately reaching the point where action was
necessary. We were elected to make the best decisions we can with the information available to us on behalf of the residents of Fair Haven. Anyone who knows me knows that the two things I value most in government are safety and precedent.
Knowing what I knew then, and knowing what I know now, my vote would be the same every time. This morning, I met with residents of the Cambridge Avenue area to discuss what has happened the past few weeks and lay lay a road map for the future.
What I saw was multiple generations of residents. Some young, some old, some long-time residents, some just moving to town. Some had different ideas on the best solution. Some were more passionate than others and some more reserved in their approach. But all of them had the same look in
their eyes. They are exhausted. Exhausted from 5-plus years of feeling uncomfortable in their own homes day in and day out. This is so much more than just a parking issue. If something terrible had happened on graduation night,
after years of complaints, after repeated discussions about safety concerns, and after this governing body had been presented with this much information, the community would have expected immediate answers. They would have asked us what we knew, when we knew it, and why we failed to
act. So, while this was not my decision alone, my vote was unequivocally yes. I voted for the safety of every resident, attendee, pedestrian, cyclist, and motorist in that area. And when this issue makes its way to our
agenda again in short order, this body must act decisively to protect our residents. In closing, I do want to congrat- congratulate this year's graduates on their incredible accomplishments. And to Dr. Moore and the Red Bank Regional Board of
Education, my olive branch remains extended. I can be reached at any time, and I encourage you to work with us. We would genuinely like to build a long-term solution together. As Helen Keller said, "Alone we can do
so little, together we can do so much." Thank you for listening. With that being said, if anyone else has a good of the borough comment, please state your name and address for the record and comment. Will be here. >> Hi, I'm Carly Doyle. I live on Harrison
Ave. So, I run down Cambridge every morning to go to Bear Hill and Fields. It's effectively become a high school parking lot. So, obviously there's issues that would normally occur on a high school parking lot, normal teenage behavior, but it's occurring on a residential street. So, I know it was
removed from the agenda today and so I'm just wondering like what the timeline is on the Fair and the Ned to kind of address the not the graduation the park the daily >> We we we expect this to be on a summer agenda um to discuss the next steps on
um putting together some type of ordinance that will restrict parking on that street. Obviously, we'd need the blessing of four council members on the dais to move forward on that. >> Okay. So, is this something like there's a goal to have it in place by the upcoming school year? >> That would be that would be my personal
goal and I would think based on my conversation with other governing body members that I think that a majority of the people up here would share that goal. >> Okay, great. Thank you. >> Yes. Sure. >> Joe Lovett, 245 Cambridge Ave.
Uh I want to thank the mayor for so eloquently summarizing uh one of the summarizing um situation with facts, dates, times, incidents, um and really I think we all feel that
the message has been heard, it's being addressed. You have our sincere thanks um for putting it on the record. Um and I wanted to tell you all the five years to draft your statement. But thank you very much for thanking me. >> Anyone else?
Sure, go. >> All right. All right, Mike Sarno, 39 Lowell St. I'd like to have an hour. I came here because I thought you were going to discuss the agenda item here, Third Street. I mean uh parking issue. The ordinance should be your
>> Let me just be clear. I'm I'm going to let you continue the reason that it was taken off the agenda tonight. It's just that Chief McGovern is not here. All right, he's in charge of traffic and safety in the Borough of Fair Haven. Obviously, we would want him to be part of this conversation. Go ahead. >> Anyway,
totally concur with everything you said. So, uh leadership is about doing the right thing. Not necessarily taking a vote. And uh business administrator, the chief,
yourself, we depend on you to make decisions to keep us safe. And uh it doesn't require a vote. It doesn't require public support, but you're doing it for all the right reasons.
That Cambridge Avenue was a disaster. I have a little safety experience myself. I was a chairman of the safety committee here in town back in the early '90s when uh we had some issues. So, it's it's a tough job.
Um Push comes to shove, you you really don't have to be nice. You just have to do right. And now, if you want to be nice, have a uh a block party. But, uh when it comes to safety, there's
no equivocation. You just got to do the right thing. So, I appreciate it. Thank you. >> And >> [clears throat] >> with um Allison Farnoli at Cambridge Ave, so um I want to thank the mayor, council, everyone else involved um in
making really hard decisions, but in the end putting your residents first. Um you know, living on Cambridge Ave um myself and my 1-year-old have almost been hit on numerous occasions. Um I will not let that children, my young
children, play outside during um the I don't even know what word to use, but the chaos of morning parking, which can last an hour and a half um because they kind of come in at all different times, the students, or at the drop-off or pick-up later in the day um when they're leaving school.
So, these are times during the day that my children are not allowed outside um and not out of an abundance of caution, out of true rational caution, because they have almost gotten hit. I've seen other children almost get hit. Our poor child our students coming home from Norwood trying to cross at that time, there's
blind spots everywhere. I know you're aware of all of this, but I come here to say that um on prior graduation nights, I have not felt safe. This year I felt safe. My family and I felt safe, and that is because of you. Um and I look forward to changes,
improvements moving forward, so we can continue to feel safe in our own neighborhood because of you. >> Thank you, Allison. Anyone else from the borough? >> Hi, um I'm Joe Bonavita, 232 Cambridge. I don't think anybody wants to be here
talking about this, but I do want to say thank you for grounding us in truth and understanding the communication. I think hindsight's 20/20, right? We had had some of this communication, we could have helped support it, too. As a resident of Cambridge, we tried to do
everything by the book, the right way, not going on social media, we didn't post anything. Because we wanted to effectively allow you to do your job. Had we known this, we wouldn't felt that way. So, again, hindsight's 20/20.
We'll support you if you're supporting us, and thank you for that at this point in time. Safety is the number one concern both for our families and the students. I hate to say it, but there isn't an easy button to like choosing one or the other. So, with that said, stress has been
palpable, tension's high. And just with the thought of having a conclusion to this, it feels better. So, if there's anything you need from us as residents, we're happy to help, support, etc. But that communication is key. So, thank
you for that. Very articulate tonight. Appreciate all your commentary, the work that went into doing that. Not easy. We're all here together, so thank you. >> Thank you. >> I I do want to >> See what's what's See if there's a short
follow-up question or anything else getting burned. >> I'll just I I'm Marissa Kay, 229 Newbridge. When I made my post this weekend, my husband asked me to take the number off. Um, but I am very proud to be here
tonight. I'm very thankful. I've had conversations with many of you, some in professional settings, some in more informal setting, and I really, really feel heard and seen, and I think that
truthfully a lot of this difficulty has come to a head, and to be heard and seen is literally, I mean, 75% of the battle. And to know that there's a light at the end of the tunnel for all of us, and there is a lot of us, and we're
representing many others, feels liberating. I mean, this is home. I'm like wearing the sweatshirt from the eighth grade dance. Like we don't want to feel like this. We did not want to feel the way social media painted us this weekend. It was yucky. And no one
none of us asked for that, and we're so, so appreciative. Thank you. >> Well said. See else Is there anyone on the line? >> No one has their hand up. >> Okay. >> I'm there. I I appreciate everything you
said, and my heart goes out to the residents and the college streets. One of my best friends grew up on Cambridge, and it can be it's horrible. And we need to find a solution, and I'm looking forward to finding a solution. I do want the record to show that I
personally was not consulted about closing the street for graduation day. As a mother, I don't know if I would have done that. I don't think I would have. I do want to find a solution. I want to fix this. And maybe put 3-hour ordinance in. We can discuss different options, but
I just want the record to show. >> Anyone else? Brian, you good? >> I'm good. I I would like to say that you um the community has um
um you know, a partial view of what the mayor does. I I get the privilege along with the other governing body members to see behind the scenes. Um and I can tell you that he is fair. He is level-headed. He doesn't take
thing things personally. This isn't about retribution. It's about precedent and safety. Um and a lot of that comes through in the public, maybe sometimes subtly, sometimes direct. Uh but it's there all the time, 24/7.
Um and he's always got the best interest of the town uh at heart. Uh it's not politics, as he said, um or ideology, or performance. Uh and um it's great to see. I look up I look up to Mayor. >> Thank thank you, Mayor.
>> Do you have anything to add? >> Um This is a very emotional issue for everyone. And I have I have been here from the beginning and watched this process unfold since the pandemic when parents
first started dropping their children off at school rather than take the bus. And I would like to thank the mayor for saying so well and outlining the history of events that we've all experienced that gives, I believe, our town a very
fair overview of the process and what preceded the decision to close the schools on graduation night. And I hope that everybody that disagreed with the mayor, with the decision to close the streets,
really pays attention to what he wrote and understand the frustration and what led our town to this decision. Thank you. >> Thank you, ma'am. Good? Good. >> Yeah. >> All right.
Um we are going to be going to executive session tonight. Oh, I'm sorry. You got to have uh the procession. >> Yeah. Um the next time this body convenes will be after the 4th of July. So, I just wanted to share that um
there will be what we've been calling a procession or a mini parade morning of the 4th of July, Independence Day procession. Um we'll be gathering at Memorial Park. Some people are requesting for the occasion in colonial garb. Some um people are decorating
bikes or wagons or strollers. This is all encouraged. Um we will take a short walk down through the historic district to the waterfront, where we will um be greeted by the senior officer of the
color guard um and the scout made liberty pole. For a little history about what a liberty pole is, this liberty pole has been um fashioned in the traditional methods. There's no use of PVC or nails or screws. Um
and it's um from a tree that left and it died in the natural area. It was scouted by DPW and it's sculpted together, identified as appropriate for the Liberty Pole and it's being built actually as, you know, maybe not tonight, but in these days leading up to
July. Um, one or two more details. There'll be a um um, again a a little invocation and story about the Liberty Pole and the where we were as a country in 1775. Um, we will
have a um, the flag, the Thonier flag will be lowered, we'll have a reading of the Declaration of Independence and then the Stars and Stripes will be raised um, and a chorus will pledge allegiance. So, it's a something of a reenactment. It is short and it's sweet
and I um, encourage people to attend. It is um, to mark the occasion of our 250th, which is an important moment. Um and then I won't go about the agenda because we know it's the 4th of July and there are many such traditions, but please join us um, 9:00 a.m. Memorial Park. We'll take a stroll down to the
waterfront together. >> Sounds great. Thank you. Um, we are going to have executive session. Is formal action going to be taken? No. No formal action is going to be taken. Do I have a motion to um, adjourn?
>> Motion to adjourn. Second. >> All in favor? >> Aye. >> Anyone opposed? Thank you. >> Good morning and have a good day. >> All right. Do I have a uh, motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:33 a.m.? >> So moved. Second.
>> All in favor? >> Aye. >> Anyone opposed? Thank you. Goodnight everybody. >> Goodnight everyone. >> Who's real is it going to be? Are we all in? >> I think it's fighting them. >> Mhm.