The Township Council meets Monday, Oct. 12, at 7:30 p.m. A public hearing on a road-repaving bond comes first. A two-hour parking limit that the Council tabled in September is back, now for Oliver Court only.

Township Council meeting: Monday, Oct. 12, 2026, 7:30 p.m., Municipal Courtroom, East Brunswick Municipal Building, 1 Jean Walling Civic Center. The meeting is open to the public. The full agenda and its 50 pages of supporting documents are posted on the township’s website, EastBrunswick.org.

Road work accounts for the two largest decisions on the East Brunswick Township Council agenda for Monday night. The Council will hold a public hearing and a final vote on borrowing about $1 million to repave roads. Separately, it will be asked to add $532,815 to the paving contract it awarded in April.

The agenda also brings back a parking rule that the Council set aside last month after residents objected. The new version covers one street instead of four.

Nothing on Monday’s agenda involves redevelopment, a PILOT agreement or the school district.

A $1.1 million bond for road repaving (Ordinance 26-26)

A bond ordinance is how a town gives itself permission to borrow money for a project. This one would set aside $1,100,000 for “road repaving of various roads.” Of that, $55,000 is a down payment from money saved in earlier budgets. The other $1,045,000 would be borrowed and repaid over time from the township budget.

This is the final step. The Council introduced the ordinance 5-0 on Sept. 28. On Monday, residents will get a chance to comment on it, and then the Council will vote. Borrowing requires yes votes from at least four of the five Council members.

The documents do not say which roads would be repaved. The ordinance refers to “a list on file in the Office of the Engineer,” and that list is not included.

One detail still needs cleaning up. The ordinance’s title says it authorizes “$1,045,700.00 in bonds or notes.” The text of the ordinance and the meeting agenda both say $1,045,000, a difference of $700.

A $532,815 increase to the 2026 paving contract (Resolution 26-305)

This is a separate decision from the bond.

In April, the Council hired Black Rock Enterprises LLC of Old Bridge, the lower of two bidders, for this year’s paving program, which covers 22 local streets. The price was $3,027,911.45. The Council is now being asked to approve a change order, which is an addition to a contract that has already been awarded. It would raise the total to $3,560,726.45, an increase of about 17.6%.

State rules generally limit such additions to 20% of the original contract. The resolution notes that this one falls under that limit.

The resolution gives five reasons for the added cost:

• higher asphalt and fuel prices, which it attributes to “extreme market fluctuation”;
• more sidewalk at the Municipal Complex;
• water main work and paving on Milltown Road;
• a water improvement at Independence Drive and Pilgrim Run, two streets on this year’s paving list;
• paving over a water main repair on Riva Avenue.

The documents do not show how much of the $532,815 goes to each one. The resolution says the money will come from the township’s water capital fund, which pays for water system projects, and not from the new bond. Part of the original contract was paid from that fund as well.

Additions to the yearly paving contract are not unusual. In 2024, the Council approved two of them, raising that year’s contract with Black Rock from $2,773,996.46 to $3,328,725.86. That was also just under the 20% limit.

The $532,815 contract increase is on the consent agenda, meaning it is grouped with other items for approval in a single vote. Unless a Council member requests a separate discussion, the increase could be approved without individual debate.

The two-hour parking limit returns, for Oliver Court only (Ordinance 26-24)

In August, the Council proposed a two-hour parking limit on Burnham Place, High Point Road, Madeline Avenue and Oliver Court. It would have applied from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays. People who live on those streets would have been exempt.

At a public hearing on Sept. 14, residents asked how visiting family and friends were supposed to park, and several suggested guest passes. The Council voted 5-0 to table the ordinance, which means setting it aside without a final vote. Council President Dana Zimbicki said it would go back to the Police Department for another look.

The version on Monday’s agenda names only Oliver Court. The hours are the same. The limit would apply to both sides of the street for its entire length, and to “corner properties directly abutting Oliver Court.” Residents would still be exempt on the street where they live.

The new version does not include guest passes or any other provision for visitors. The documents do not explain why the other three streets were dropped or what the police review found.

Monday’s vote is only the first step, called an introduction. Residents will be able to comment at a public hearing on Oct. 26, when the Council is scheduled to take its final vote.

Also on the consent agenda

The Council will be asked to accept a $60,000 state traffic-safety grant for the Police Department. It covers Oct. 1, 2026, through Sept. 30, 2027, and pays for extra enforcement and education on distracted driving, speeding, drunken driving, pedestrian safety and school zone and school bus safety. Last year’s grant was $56,628.

Other items would:

• buy a boom lift, a type of aerial work platform, from Drobach Equipment of Union for up to $75,649;
• reappoint Courtney Fraind as municipal court administrator for another one-year term, through Oct. 9, 2027;
• allow Festive Planet Inc. to hold a Dream Asia Festival at the Middlesex County Fairgrounds from April 9 to 11, 2027;
• bill two property owners a total of $537 for lawn mowing the township paid for, by placing liens on the properties;
• refund $94,803.05 to three investors who had bought tax liens on properties whose owners have since paid what they owed.

The bill list

The Council will also be asked to approve a bill list totaling $2,019,187.14, covering payments and other financial obligations listed by the township.

The largest single item is $432,725 to Classic Turf Company, the first payment on new pickleball courts at Community Park. In June, the Council awarded Classic Turf a contract of up to $552,500 to build them.

Other large items include $143,547.08 to Black Rock, $122,400.97 to the Middlesex County Utilities Authority for August waste and recycling fees and $97,456 to Winner Ford for two police vehicles.

How to take part

Residents can attend in person and speak at two points in the meeting.

The first is the public hearing on the paving bond, which comes early in the meeting and is limited to that subject.

The second is the general public comment period. On the agenda, it comes after the officials’ reports and before the Council votes on the consent agenda. That means residents can comment on the paving contract increase, or any other subject, before that vote takes place. The Council asks speakers to keep comments to five minutes. Under its rules, the Council president may choose whether to respond.

The meeting will also include three proclamations and a resolution honoring Joseph Schimmenti, who retired Oct. 1 after 34 years with the Department of Public Works.

Eyes On EB will report what happens Monday.

For the second meeting in a row, East Brunswick residents brought school funding, taxes and development to the Township Council. On Sept. 28 the debate turned political.

For much of the past year, East Brunswick’s school debates have played out at the Board of Education, over its budget, its tax increase, redistricting and the future of the high school. This month, residents have been carrying those concerns across town to the Township Council.

The Sept. 14 Council meeting drew one of the largest public-comment turnouts in Eyes on EB’s records of Council meetings going back to 2022: 17 speakers in general public comment, plus six more at a public hearing. On Sept. 28, seven residents spoke during about 25 minutes of public comment, and school funding, property taxes and payments in lieu of taxes, or PILOTs, again dominated.

The Council doesn’t set the school budget. But it does approve the redevelopment agreements, PILOTs and municipal budget that residents increasingly see as tied to what happens in the schools. It’s good to see more of them paying attention to both bodies.

‘Why is my tax bill higher?’

Three of the speakers are the Republican candidates for Township Council.

Girish Vazirani,  said he was speaking as a candidate and also “as a parent, long-time East Brunswick resident, and a taxpayer.” After questions about the ice arena’s finances, he turned to taxes. Homeowners get a single bill, he said, and “that school tax bill has gone up by 6%, while the township municipal levy is only 1%.” Budget records bear that out: the school tax levy rose 6.16% for 2026-27, and the Township’s municipal levy rose 0.99%.

Vazirani asked why the Township couldn’t “coordinate better with the school board,” and pointed to Clark Township, which he said adopted an ordinance in 2024 giving its schools a defined share of PILOT revenue.

Mina Abdo, the third candidate on the slate, spoke about Route 18 traffic and asked residents to elect “Judge Le Blon, Girish Vazirani, and I.”

Vincent Le Blon, a retired Superior Court judge and former Council president, built his remarks around the Sept. 24 Board of Education meeting. He said the board’s attorney had explained that the school district gets no share of PILOT service charges: “The township receives 95%, the county gets 5%.” The Council, he said, “had the power to prevent a tax increase by working with the Board of Education,” and had not lobbied “our state Democratic legislators” to change the school funding formula.

He then addressed Council President Dana Zimbicki directly: “I think I saw you hiding in the back of the Board of Education meeting. I don’t know how you explained to your union members that they had to suffer through threats of layoffs.”

Board of Education records list Zimbicki as president of the East Brunswick Education Association, the union representing district teachers.

‘I’m not running’

Before the meeting, Eyes on EB received information that Democrats were expected to attend to counter the Republican candidates. We could not establish whether anything that happened at the meeting was connected to that information. We have no evidence that anyone sent any speaker, coordinated with anyone, or spoke on behalf of any party or candidate. What follows is what happened.

The next speaker was Dave Lonski of Kentisbury Circle. “I’m not running,” he began. “I think the other three were all candidates.”

He then took on the candidates’ arguments one by one. Over the past six or seven years, he said, “the state funding for schools has nearly doubled from $20 million to $40 million.” He said the suggestion that local legislators “aren’t doing their job” in increasing school aid is “just completely inaccurate.” On enrollment: “About 8,100 students every single year for the last 15 years. Hasn’t changed.” On spending, he said the school budget “has increased from $164 million to nearly $210 million, nearly $45 million of additional spending.”

But those numbers don’t answer two questions residents have been raising. Stable enrollment does not mean the students sitting in classrooms today have the same needs or cost the same to educate as students did years ago. And it does not answer the PILOT question: if new development brings additional students into the district, should some of the revenue it generates follow those students to the schools?

The schools are not entirely excluded from tax revenue connected to a PILOT property. The district continues to receive its share of conventional property taxes on the land assessment. But the PILOT payment on the development itself is distributed differently, with the Township receiving the overwhelming majority and the county receiving the remainder. The school district does not receive a direct share of that PILOT payment.

The question, then, is whether some of that revenue should go directly to the district when development adds students and costs, and whether it should be a defined, recurring amount the schools can count on when building a budget rather than depending on individual projects or assistance from the Township.

“It’s not because of these nuances that the Republican candidates keep coming up with,” Lonski said. “It’s the cost of education that’s increasing.”

But the PILOT question did not begin with the Republican council candidates or this election. Their campaign has picked up on concerns residents were already raising about school funding and development. Whether new development should provide a predictable revenue source for the schools has become a broader community question, not simply a campaign talking point. Anyone who has followed these discussions in East Brunswick has heard the issue raised long before these candidates brought it to the Council microphone.

‘That gentleman might not be running’

Allegra Seidler, a regular attendee at Board of Education meetings who has closely followed the district’s budget and school issues, spoke next and addressed Lonski directly.

“That gentleman might not be running, but he does sit on the board of the Middlesex County Democratic Organization,” she said. “So that might be useful information for some people to have.”

Seidler was correct. The Middlesex County Democratic Organization currently lists Lonski as its General Counsel and a member of its Executive Board.

Township records show Lonski has held a local Democratic leadership role. Council minutes from January 2025 identify him as “East Brunswick Democratic Committee Chairman,” and minutes from January 2022 list him as “Democratic Chairperson.” He has also done legal work for the Township. He was named from the dais in January as assistant township attorney, and his firm, Shamy, Shipers & Lonski, holds 2026 Township appointments as tax appeal attorney and, jointly, municipal prosecutor.

Seidler then raised something that raw enrollment totals don’t capture: the needs of the students who make up that enrollment.

“The budget has increased because special ed is now 20%, which has increased needs and costs,” she said. “Healthcare costs went up 22%, and the board of ed spoke about this.” The Board’s March budget presentation lists health premiums increasing 22%, a $7.9 million increase.
“Enrollment is not just numbers in front of you,” Seidler said. “It’s who’s in front of you.”

Her point was that a relatively stable enrollment does not necessarily mean the cost of educating that enrollment has remained stable. She told the Council it has the power to write school payments into PILOT agreements, and that if it won’t, residents deserve a clear answer.

“We all want to know,” she said. “What do you really think?”

Watch Here

The Council responds

After public comment closed, Zimbicki said the Township received about $1.6 million in additional PILOT money in 2025 and 2026. She said some went to school projects with the Board of Education, including parking-lot paving and planned stadium bathrooms, and the rest to three more police officers and expanded services.

A Council member said school enrollment is “down 300 students” from six years ago and called school budget growth “of over $48 million” in six years “crazy,” while the Township has held its own increases to “less than a 1% tax increase year over year.”

The mayor: ‘Transparency works both ways’

Mayor Brad Cohen then spoke for about 15 minutes.

He opened with the Brunswick Square redevelopment plan adopted that night, which he said the Township had to pass under a court-driven affordable housing timetable or risk a “builder’s remedy.” He has held more town halls “than any other mayor that I could think of,” he said, where “I get a handful of people that show up.” It’s election time, he said, “so I’m sure there’s a reason why everybody’s coming out here and rallying to a cause. I get that.”

“To say that we don’t really care about the schools would be … factually incorrect,” he said.

He said special education students make up “about 20% of the school population right now,” and that for three years he has asked the Board for a “profit and loss on special needs.” “I asked for that in August of 2023, and I’m still waiting for that data from the schools. So transparency works both ways.” When he served on the Board, from 2010 to 2016, he said, the figure “was a single digit … somewhere around 6%.” Federal education data for those years show East Brunswick between about 13% and 15.5%; the state’s most recent figure is about 18%.

Rising health costs, he said, “will be a massive burden on this community.”

On PILOTs, Cohen said the Township has “just started,” with “a handful of pilots” in developments that aren’t yet fully occupied, “a cookie jar that doesn’t really have a whole lot of cookies in it yet.” Once development measurably affects enrollment, he said, “a conversation about how we can help shoulder that burden is not unreasonable.” For now, he said, enrollment “has not changed in 15 years,” and “there’s no proof that any of the development that’s been done has had any impact on the school.”

“We’re not remotely close to full capacity,” he said, “but I’ve spent 10 years hearing the board scare the bedoodles out of people, thinking that … we were busting at the seams and we were going to need to build $500 million new schools.”

Yes. I think that is an important qualification to Cohen’s “not remotely close to full capacity” statement, but I would frame it around distribution and school-level capacity, rather than saying he ignored equity as a conclusion.

The district itself has said it tracks enrollment effects on individual classroom capacity, including room square footage, Board policy, state facility standards and federal special-education class-size standards. That supports the basic point that a districtwide enrollment total does not tell you whether particular schools or classrooms are crowded. East Brunswick Public Schools

Right after Cohen’s quote, I’d add:

But districtwide capacity does not tell the whole story. A district can have available space overall while individual schools and classrooms face very different pressures, particularly when hundreds of new housing units are concentrated in one area. Redistricting can move students between schools, but it does not eliminate the cost of educating them or the services they require. This also becomes an equity issue. 

That also matters to the PILOT debate. If a development adds students, those costs do not disappear because districtwide enrollment remains relatively stable. Existing homeowners are not relieved of their school-tax obligation simply because districtwide enrollment is flat or because their own household adds no children to the schools. The question is why new development should be treated differently, and whether some of the revenue it generates should help support the school system serving its residents.

Four days earlier, the district’s business administrator, Joseph Crotchfelt, had described capacity using the state’s square-footage standard. By that measure, he said, the high school is “over capacity by 463” students and Churchill Junior High “by about 650.” He added: “Fire code, we’re fine.”

Cohen closed by calling much of what had been said “misinformation,” voiced “in the middle of a campaign season where everybody wants to try to get an edge.” The way forward, he said, is a town where the Council, residents and school board “are all on the same page.”

But in suggesting these concerns are a product of campaign season, Cohen was presenting an inaccurate picture from the dais. East Brunswick has debated development, school capacity, and the relationship between PILOT revenue and the schools for years. The campaign has brought more attention to those concerns, but it did not create them. These are longstanding community issues, and anyone who has regularly followed the Board of Education and Township Council has heard versions of them well before this election. 

What comes next

Whether PILOT agreements should set aside money for the schools, and who pays as costs rise, remain open questions. Because each calendar-year tax bill covers two school budget years, the school portion of 2026 bills should rise by about 4.9%, with the rest of this year’s increase arriving in 2027.

If the last two meetings are any indication, both the Council and the Board of Education are now hearing many of the same questions.

The East Brunswick Township Council will hold a public hearing on Ordinance 26-25 tonight. The same agenda has two emergency repair contracts, a $1.1 million road-paving bond and a new police superior officers contract.

Township Council meeting: Monday, Sept. 28, 2026, 7:30 p.m., Municipal Courtroom, East Brunswick Municipal Building, 1 Jean Walling Civic Center. The full agenda and packet are posted on the township’s website.

The Brunswick Square redevelopment plan comes back to the East Brunswick Township Council tonight for a public hearing and final vote. That is the second and final step for Ordinance 26-25, which the Council introduced 5–0 on Sept. 14.

If adopted, the plan becomes the zoning for four lots at the mall property on Route 18, about 47.7 acres. It would replace the township’s regular zoning rules there. The plan covers the central mall building and the small retail building at 1177 Route 18 (Phase I), and the former Macy’s and the Olive Garden parcel (Phase II).

We covered the basics in our August report on the Sept. 30 deadline, our preview of the Sept. 14 meeting and what residents said that night. Tonight’s packet adds something new: the plan attached to the ordinance is not word-for-word the plan that was in the Sept. 14 packet.

What changed in the plan

The plan in the Sept. 14 packet was stamped “DRAFT” and dated August 2026. The plan in tonight’s packet is dated September 2026 and is not marked draft. Eyes On EB compared the two documents line by line. Much of the rewording is formatting and cleanup, but several changes affect what could be built and who pays for it.

The traffic signal. Both versions require a new traffic signal at Rues Lane and Hillsdale Road. The Sept. 14 version said “the Phase II Redeveloper” would be responsible “for all costs associated with the design and installation of the traffic signal.” Tonight’s version assigns the job to “the Redeveloper(s) of Phase I and/or Phase II” and makes them responsible “for costs associated with” the signal. The word “all” is gone. A new sentence says “the specific responsibilities of the Redeveloper(s) and the Township shall be finalized as part of a Redeveloper Agreement.” The plan does not say the township will pay any part of the cost. It leaves that question to a later agreement.

Route 18 setback. The minimum distance between a commercial building and Route 18 drops from 35 feet to 25 feet. The 250-foot setback for the residential building is unchanged.

A required public plaza. The Sept. 14 version showed a “new public plaza / open space” on its concept map but had no specific requirement. Tonight’s version requires a publicly accessible plaza of at least 10,000 square feet in Phase II, generally between the two new retail buildings, with seating, shade and space for community use.

Signs. The Sept. 14 version set hard limits: no more than three freestanding signs along Route 18 and two along Rues Lane, and pylon signs up to 35 feet tall. Tonight’s version replaces those counts with a sign-location map. It says “some variation in location and/or number of signs may be permitted” through a common signage plan and a redeveloper agreement. The tallest pylon sign allowed drops to 30 feet. Review of signs for the residential building moves from the Planning Board to the Redevelopment Agency.

Fast food. The Sept. 14 version listed “fast-food restaurants” among permitted uses and banned only “freestanding” fast-food restaurants with drive-throughs. Tonight’s version drops fast food from the permitted list and bans all “fast-food restaurants with drive-through facilities.”

Lighting. Dark Sky-compliant LED lighting was “encouraged” in the Sept. 14 version. Tonight’s version says it “shall be provided.”

Smaller changes. Tonight’s version adds that a second NJ Transit bus stop “should be considered,” with the redeveloper’s and the township’s roles set in the redeveloper agreement. It also raises the minimum size of a new pad-site building from 4,000 to 4,500 square feet.

How the changes are being handled

The ordinance in tonight’s packet is still headed “INTRO: SEPTEMBER 14, 2026.” At the Sept. 14 meeting, Mayor Brad Cohen said “a lot of this was done with updates and changes up until this morning.” So the text the Council introduced that night may not have matched the packet posted in advance. Which version the Council is voting on, and how the changes are being treated, is a fair question for tonight. Eyes On EB is not drawing a legal conclusion about it.

The Planning Board, which must review the plan for consistency with the township’s master plan, listed a presentation and a resolution on the plan on its Sept. 23 agenda. The Board’s report is not in tonight’s packet, and its minutes from that meeting are not yet posted.

Township Attorney Anthony Iacocca said on Sept. 14 that a court order in the township’s affordable housing case requires the plan to be adopted by Sept. 30. Eyes On EB has not yet seen that order.

What did not change

Both versions of the plan:

• cap housing at 250 units, all in Phase II, with no residential units allowed in Phase I;
• require at least 20% of the units to be affordable;
• limit the residential building to four stories or 55 feet;
• stay in effect for 30 years;
• permit eminent domain, because the area was designated a “condemnation” redevelopment area in 2025, while stating that “no acquisition is anticipated at this time”;
• contain no PILOT or other financial-agreement language. Officials said on Sept. 14 that any financial terms would come later, after a redeveloper is chosen.

The 300-versus-250 question

The township’s revised Housing Element and Fair Share Plan from February 2026 lists Brunswick Square as “Minimum of 300 rental and/or sale units with 20% affordable set-aside.” The plan up for a vote tonight caps the site at 250.

Asked about that on Sept. 14, planner Kate Keller of Phillips Preiss Grygiel Leheny Keller, who prepared the plan, said the site was zoned for a maximum of 250 “because we believe we can meet those other 50 units elsewhere in the township on other sites.” Which sites was not said. The question remains open.

Emergency contract: Nenninger Lane water and sewer mains (Resolution 26-292)

On Sept. 9, according to a certification by Business Administrator Joseph Criscuolo in the packet, a private contractor installing a sewer connection for a new house on Nenninger Lane exposed too long a stretch of the street’s asbestos-cement water main without supporting it. The main collapsed, and the sewer main broke as well. The certification says “the entire street was without water and fire protection.” Township crews “worked through the night to restore water service to the block.” The certification names the contractor as Salinas Supreme Excavating and describes its work as “extremely poor practice.” It says the sewer was too deep for township equipment and “remains compromised.”

Resolution 26-292 approves an emergency contract, without public bidding, with Black Rock Enterprises LLC of Old Bridge, capped at $100,000. The certification puts the estimated cost at $103,294.59.

At the Sept. 14 meeting, Criscuolo told the Council the repair was “not going to be borne by the cost of the township” and that “we plan to bill the contractor and his insurance company.” The resolution and certification in tonight’s packet do not mention billing the contractor or recovering the money.

Emergency contract: police entrance slab (Resolution 26-291)

A second emergency contract with Black Rock, capped at $60,000, covers repairs at the police station entrance in the municipal building. On Sept. 17, rusted steel decking under the concrete slab failed in a section directly under the Police Department’s front vestibule “and the above office.” Criscuolo certified that it “posed an unhealthy and unsafe condition for members of the public.” The packet does not say whether anyone was hurt or whether the entrance is closed.

Both emergency contracts are on the consent agenda. Black Rock also holds the township’s 2026 pavement contract, which the Council awarded in April.

$1.1 million road-paving bond (Ordinance 26-26)

The Council will introduce a bond ordinance for “road repaving of various roads.” It appropriates $1,100,000: a $55,000 down payment and $1,045,000 in bonds or notes. The roads are “set forth on a list on file in the Office of the Engineer”; the list is not in the packet.

The ordinance’s title says “$1,045,700.00 in bonds or notes,” while the body of the ordinance and the agenda both say $1,045,000. The public hearing is scheduled for Oct. 12.

Police superior officers contract (Resolution 26-293)

The Council is also set to approve a new contract with the Superior Officers Association, which covers the police department’s superior officers. It runs from Jan. 1, 2026, through Dec. 31, 2029. The previous contract expired Dec. 31, 2025. The resolution says the agreement covers rates of pay, compensatory time off and health benefits, but the packet does not include any of its terms. It says copies are on file in the Municipal Clerk’s Office.

Other business

The rest of the consent agenda includes:

• permission for the Winter Wonder Lights holiday display at the Middlesex County Fairgrounds, Nov. 20 through Jan. 3;
• two property-tax cancellations for 100% disabled veterans;
• a property-maintenance lien and a tax-lien redemption refund;
• a bill list totaling $3,673,280.16.

Consent items pass together in one vote unless a council member asks to pull one for separate discussion.

Tonight

Ordinance 26-25 is scheduled for its public hearing and final vote tonight. Council President Dana Zimbicki will open the floor to the public on the ordinance before the vote. Residents can also speak during the general public comment period later in the meeting, which is limited to five minutes per speaker. Eyes On EB will report the outcome.