Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Transportation Referendum topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Pitman Council approves non-binding referendum question on Glassboro–Camden Line, 3–2

Borough of Pitman Council · July 28, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Borough of Pitman Council narrowly approved Resolution No. 138 authorizing the clerk to request a non-binding referendum on the Glassboro–Camden Line under N.J.S.A. 19:3-7-1. The vote was 3–2 after split roll-call votes from council members.

The Borough of Pitman Council on July 28 adopted Resolution No. 138 to authorize the municipal clerk to request a non-binding referendum question regarding the Glassboro–Camden Line pursuant to N.J.S.A. 19:3-7-1. The motion, moved by Council President James and seconded by Councilwoman Musto, passed on a 3–2 roll call.

Council President James and Councilwoman Guarni voted No; Councilman Fitzpatrick, Councilwoman Musto and Councilman Uyehara voted Yes, producing the 3–2 majority needed to carry the measure. The resolution as read at the meeting was titled: "Resolution No. 138, 2025 – Authorizing the Municipal Clerk to Request a Non-Binding Referendum Question on the Topic of the Glassboro-Camden Line Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 19:3-7-1." The transcript records those roll-call positions exactly.

The resolution authorizes only that the clerk seek placement of a non-binding referendum question; it does not enact or change any municipal policy or commit the Borough to a particular project. The transcript does not include background detail on the Glassboro–Camden Line proposal itself, and the council did not provide further explanatory text at the meeting. Next steps recorded in the minutes are limited to the clerk being authorized to request the referendum question; timing or ballot placement were not specified in the record.

Council members did not attach additional conditions to the clerk's request during the recorded discussion. The vote followed the council's standard roll-call procedure recorded in the minutes.