Mount Olive Township Council Minutes
April 10, 2001
President Rattner: I’d like to call the Mount Olive
Township Council Meeting for April 10, 2001 to order and
invite everybody to join us in the Pledge Allegiance to the
According to the Open Public Meetings Act, adequate Notice
of this meeting has been given to the Mount Olive Chronicle
and the Daily Record. Notice has been posted in the Municipal
Building, 204 Flanders-Drakestown Road, Mount Olive Township,
New Jersey and notices were sent to those requesting the
ROLL CALL: Present: Mr. Heymann, Mr. Guenther, Mr. Sohl,
President Rattner, Mr. Spino
Absent: Mrs. Kelly
Mr. Rattner: Mrs. Kelly asked to be excused and she was.
I see that Mr. Sohl has just arrived and since we have not
heard from Mr. Spino, we will expect him momentarily. Also
in attendance tonight is the Mayor, Mayor Licitra, our Business
Administrator, Mr. Kaplan; our CFO, Ms. Jenkins; our Township
Attorney, Mr. Dorsey; and Township Clerk, Mrs. Lashway. First
item we have on the agenda are Administrative matters and
the Mayor has some Appointments.
· Appointment to Economic Development Committee (Ed
· Appointments to Information Services Committee
(Nelsen Russell & Nick Amato)
Mayor Licitra: Yes, I’d like an appointment to the
Economic Development Committee of Ed Caparucci. This will
fill out a two-year term and appointments to the newly formed
Information Services Committee and, as you know, we’re
going out for--we have a few Resumes, I think, 250 Resumes
that came in for our Information Systems Supervisor that
they’re going to weed through tomorrow. But we put
a Committee together with Nelsen Russell and Nick Amato to
work along with this new Appointee, new hire when we get--when
we do the new hire to work along with him. So I did put together
an Information Services Committee and both these people are,
Nelsen I’ve known for 30 years and, is a consultant
and a retired consultant and does an excellent job and Nick
is also a consultant in this field. We’re looking for
one other person after we get the hire on. I have a Proclamation--National
Day of Prayer if I may go into that, Mr. President. Could
I go into that, Mr. Heymann, please?
Mr. Heymann: Sure, I’d like to move this meeting much
Mayor Licitra: Thank you.
PROCLAMATION – NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER
WHEREAS, Civic prayers and national days of prayer have
a long and venerable history in our constitutional republic,
dating back to the First Continental Congress in 1775; and
WHEREAS, The Declaration of Independence, our first statement
as Americans of national purpose and identity, made “the
Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” the foundation
of our United States of America and asserted that people
have inalienable rights that are God-given; and
WHEREAS, The Supreme Court has affirmed the right of state
legislatures to open their sessions with prayer and the Supreme
Court and the U.S. Congress themselves begin each day with
WHEREAS, In 1988, legislation setting aside the first Thursday
in May in each year as a National Day of Prayer was passed
unanimously by both Houses of Congress and signed by President
Ronald Reagan; and
WHEREAS, The National Day of Prayer is an opportunity for
Americans of all faiths to join in united prayer to acknowledge
our dependence on God, to give thanks for blessings received,
to request healing for wounds endured, and to ask God to
guide our leaders and bring wholeness to the United States
and her citizens; and
WHEREAS, It is fitting and proper to give thanks to God
by observing a day of prayer in Mount Olive Township when
all may acknowledge our blessings and express gratitude for
them, while recognizing the need for strengthening religious
and moral values in our State and nation;
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed that I, Paul R. Licitra,
Mayor of Mount Olive Township do hereby proclaim May 3, 2001,
to be designated as “A Day of Prayer in Mount Olive
Township” and encourage the citizens of Mount Olive
to observe the day in ways appropriate to its importance
Thank you, Mr. President.
President Rattner: Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Dorsey, any legal
Mr. Dorsey: None tonight.
PUBLIC HEARING ON 2001 MUNICIPAL AND SANITATION BUDGET AMENDMENTS
President Rattner: Okayay, we come to the Public Hearing
on the Amendments that we made to the Municipal and Sanitation
Budgets. Now, remember, this is just for the Amendments since
we already had the Public Hearing on the Budget itself. Does
anybody from the Public wish to address the Council on the
Amendments to the 2001 Municipal or Sanitation Budget? Seeing
none, I’ll close the Public Hearing on the Amendments
to the Municipal and Sanitation Budgets.
1. Resolution to Amend 2001 Budget – R. Heymann
Mr. Heymann moved for adoption of the resolution and Mr.
Guenther seconded the Motion.
President Rattner: Any discussion? Roll call.
ROLL CALL: Passed by the Majority, Exception: Mr. Spino
2. Resolution to Adopt the 2001 Budget.
Mr. Guenther moved for adoption of the Resolution and Mr.
Heymann seconded the Motion.
President Rattner: Any discussion?
Mr. Guenther: Just to clarify and put on Public Record that
as far as what we’re doing with the Police Department,
we’re still going to have a separate session on that
to review what their needs are, is that correct?
Mayor Licitra: Yes. What we did last week is, we added a
little bit into salaries so that we if decide to go ahead
later in the year as a Town to hire additional officers through
the Cops Care we have the money that’s not covered
by the Grant. Additionally, in the Operating Expense, there
was money for a review that the Administration has requested
to do an assessment of the Police Department so that was
the second part of the change, and it is my understanding
nothing is going to be done until we get the assessment completed.
Mr. Guenther: So, this does not commit us to spend the money,
Mr. Heymann: The money is in the Budget for it.
President Rattner: Well, it’s in the Budget, but the
Mayor has to spend, you know, the money. But he has the ability,
we have the ability, we have to put it in the Budget. We
can’t force anything in the Budget.
Mr. Guenther: Okay.
President Rattner: Any other discussion? Roll call.
ROLL CALL: Passed by the Majority, Exception: Mr. Spino
Mr. Rattner: Well, Mayor, what I can say--I know talking
to some of my peers probably the biggest topic of conversation
is the Big Item Pick-up and I told anyone who asked me, well,
the Mayor promised it, the Mayor put it in a budget, as soon
as we pass it, he can schedule it. Okay, the next Item is
the approval of Minutes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS:
March 13, 2001 Present: Mr. Heymann, Mr. Sohl, Mrs. Kelly,
Mr. Spino, Mr. Scapicchio, Mr. Rattner
Absent: Mr. Guenther
Mr. Sohl moved for approval of the Minutes and Mr. Heymann
seconded the motion.
President Rattner: Any discussion or corrections? Roll call.
ROLL CALL: Passed by the majority, Exception: Mr. Guenther
Letters from Residents
1. Letter received April 2, 2001 from the Lucky Garden Chinese
Restaurant RE: Sewer Usage Fees.
Resolutions, Ordinances, Correspondence from Other Municipalities
2. Resolution received March 30, 2001 from Parsippany-Troy
Hills RE: Resolution of the Township Council of the Township
of Parsippan7-Troy Hills in Support A-1929 and S-849.
3. Ordinance received April 6, 2001 from the Township of
Roxbury Amending their Land Use Ordinance.
Resolutions, Ordinances, Correspondence from State and/or
4. Equalization Table received March 26, 2001 from the Morris
County Tax Board.
5. Public Hearing Notice received April 4, 2001 from NJ
Transit, RE: Programs developed pursuant to the Senior Citizen
and Disabled Resident Transportation Assistance Act (SCDRTAP).
6. Notice received April 5, 2001 from Morris County park
Commission RE: Straight Talk on Deer Management - For Municipal
Officials. April 25, 2001.
League of Municipalities
7. Letter received March 26, 2001 from Morris County League
of Municipalities RE: Mobility Recommendations for the I-80
Corridor, April 18, 2001.
8. Letter received March 27, 2001 from New Jersey State
League of Municipalities RE: League Seminar, Following Parliamentary
Procedure in Council Meetings. May 10, 2001.
9. Letter received March 30, 2001 from New Jersey State
League of Municipalities RE: State Plan Summit, May 22, 2001.
10. Legislative Viewpoint received April 2, 2001 from New
Jersey State League of Municipalities RE: PFRS Rate Relief
Bill Signed; Business Personal Property Tax Aid Needed; Per
Capita Aid Hike Moves.
11. Letter received April 2, 2001 from the New Jersey State
League of Municipalities RE: Important Housing Changes For
Annual League Conference.
Correspondence from Legislative Representatives
12. Letter received March 26, 2001 from E. Scott Garrett
RE: Council Resolution with regard to Senate Bill 2003.
13. Letter received March 26, 2001 from Donald T. DeFrancesco,
Acting Governor RE: Council Resolution.
14. Letter received March 27, 2001 from Assemblyman Richard
H. Bagger RE: Township Resolution in support of Assembly
Bill2/ Assembly Bill 3123/Senate Bill 1961.
15. Letter received March 29, 2001 from Assemblyman Michael
Carroll RE: S-1800
DOT/DEP/Permits – Loa’s
16. Letter received April 6, 2001 from the New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection regarding a permit application
for N.J. American Water Co.
17. Letter received April 6, 2001 from the New Jersey Department
of Transportation regarding completion of work on Route 206,
Sections 2E and 18D.
Correspondence from Organizations/Committees/Boards
18. Minutes of the March 7, 2001, Meeting of the Musconetcong
Sewerage Authority received April 6, 2001.
Land Use/Development Matters
19. Letter received April 5, 2001 from State of New Jersey,
Department of Environmental Protection RE: Permit issued
to Hackettstown MUA, for the construction and operation of
a sanitary sewer extension to serve Woodfield at Mt. Olive,
20. March Newsletter received March 26, 2001 from COAH.
Correspondence from Cable Networks/Utilities
21. Letter received March 26, 2001 from the MSA RE: Additional
capacity available for Municipality to acquire.
22. Letter received April 2, 2001 from CABLEVISION RE: New
23. Letter received April 3, 2001 from the MSA, RE: Allocations
for participating municipalities in the MSA Plant.
24. Comcast Fax received April 6, 2001 regarding upcoming
President Rattner stated we had 24 Items of Correspondence
and asked if Council had any comments on same.
Mr. Guenther: This letter from Lucky Garden part of the,
I have it here, but is it on the list?
President Rattner: It’s #1.
Mrs. Lashway: It’s Correspondence #1.
Mr. Guenther: No. 1, how about that? Was that discussed
at the workshop?
President Rattner: Yes.
Mr. Sohl: Yes, we did, that’s what I thought.
President Rattner: And basically --
Mr. Spino: No, we didn’t. We didn’t really discuss
Mr. Sohl: Yes we did, we talked about the EDU’s.
President Rattner: And that it was an Administrative –
Mr. Spino: Not in relationship to what he’s saying
about Lucky Garden, in particular.
President Rattner: We discussed how—
Mr. Spino: We discussed the overall idea.
President Rattner: How it was going to be handled.
Mr. Spino: Yes, yes, absolutely. But we did not discuss
Lucky Garden, per se.
Mr. Sohl: Well, I think what we did, when we suggested that
all of the calculations were done by standard--
Mr. Spino: No, no, I’m saying on this particular—by
name, we didn’t discuss Lucky Garden.
President Rattner: No, we didn’t discuss anybody.
Mr. Spino: But we did discuss the theory and process for
everybody and we weren’t going to change it, Yes.
President Rattner: Okay. Any other discussion?
ORDINANCES FOR PUBLIC HEARING - None
ORDINANCES FOR FIRST READING
Ord. #9-2001 Bond Ordinance Amending Bond Ordinance Numbered
9-98 of the Township of Mount Olive, In the County of Morris,
New Jersey Finally Adopted May 26, 1998, in its Entirety.
(Reappropriation of 1998 Capital for purchase of Fire & First
Mr. Spino moved that Ord. #9-2001 be introduced by title
and passed on First Reading and that it be scheduled for
Adoption after a Public Hearing on May 8, 2001 at 7:30 p.m.
Mr. Sohl seconded the Motion.
ROLL CALL: Passed unanimously
Ord.#10-2001 An Ordinance of the Township of Mount Olive
to Revise and Modify the Professional Business (PB) Zone
District to Incorporate One Additional Parcel and to Amend
Certain Permitted Uses and Site Design Standards
Mr. Scapicchio moved that Ord. #10-2001 be introduced by
title and passed on First Reading and that it be scheduled
for Adoption after a Public Hearing on May 8, 2001 at 7:30
p.m. Mr. Spino seconded the Motion.
ROLL CALL: Passed unanimously
Ord.#11-2001 Bond Ordinance Providing for Various Capital
Improvements of the Township of Mount Olive, in the County
of Morris, New Jersey, Appropriating the Aggregate Amount
of $4,817,908 Therefore and Authorizing the Issuance of $4,402,769
Bonds or Notes of the Township to Finance Part of the Cost
Thereof. (2001 Capital)
Mr. Heymann moved that Ord. #11-2001 be introduced by title
and passed on First Reading and that it be scheduled for
Adoption after a Public Hearing on May 8, 2001 at 7:30 p.m.
Mr. Scapicchio seconded the Motion.
ROLL CALL: Passed unanimously
Ord.#12-2001 An Ordinance of the Township of Mount Olive
to Revise and Amend Section 400-75, Tree Removal, of Chapter
400, Land use in its Entirety to be Replace with New Section
400-75 to be Entitled: Tree Removal, Replanting and Forestry
Mr. Guenther moved that Ord. #12-2001 be introduced by title
and passed on First Reading and that it be scheduled for
Adoption after a Public Hearing on May 8, 2001 at 7:30 p.m.
Mr. Heymann seconded the Motion.
ROLL CALL: Passed unanimously
CONSENT RESOLUTIONS AGENDA:
Resolutions on the Consent Agenda List are considered to
be routine and non-controversial by the Township Council
and will be approved by one motion (one vote). There will
be no separate discussion or debate on each of these resolutions
except for the possibility of brief clarifying statements
that may be offered. If one or more Council member requests,
any individual resolution on the Consent Agenda may be removed
from the Consent Agenda List and acted on separately.
3. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of
Mount Olive RE: Excess EDU’s. (EDU policy)
4. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of
Mount Olive Authorizing the Sale of Certain Lands Known and
Designated as Block 3003, Lot 1 Which are No Longer Needed
for Public use by the Township (Sandhu – Bd. Adj. Application/Garden
5. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of
Mount Olive Authorizing a Contract Between the Township and
Geo Concepts, Ltd. (temporary computer consultant services)
6. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of
Mount Olive Endorsing Assembly Bill A-1953, License Plates
for “Amateur Radio.”
7. Resolution to Amend the Adopted Foreclosed Property Ledger.
Mr. Sohl moved for approval of the Consent Resolutions and
Mr. Guenther seconded the motion.
ROLL CALL: Passed unanimously
PUBLIC PORTION ON CONSENT RESOLUTIONS
President Rattner: Is there anybody from the public like
to address anything that’s on the Consent Resolutions.
That’s Resolutions 3 through 7. You’ve got to
come up to the microphone.
Mr. Greg Munkirs (Lube Plus): I sent a letter this afternoon
to the Committee. I apologize for it being late, but I just
finished my meeting with Mr. Casey yesterday. I noticed it
was too late to get on the resolution, but,
the point of the letter was that I don’t think the
Township-- the Council has gone far enough with this resolution.
The resolution here only addresses EDU’s. It doesn’t
address the Assessment itself. I maintain that there are
problems with the Assessment and that was in the body of
my letter and I’d like to know if there’s going
to be an additional resolution or any thought to another
Mr. Dorsey: Well, let me just say this. Your letter does
not address the substance of the Resolution, which is before
the Council now. The Resolution that’s before the Council
now essentially deals with vacant property and wherein people
requested more EDU’s than it ultimately turns out that
they need or want. Now, your property, as I understand it,
is the lubrication facility, so it has a building on it --
Mr. Munkirs: Correct.
Mr. Dorsey: Your problem is a different problem and your
complaint essentially is not that you don’t have an
EDU. Your claim is that, I assume your claim is that, your
facility has been allocated more EDU’s than it should
have been allocated. Correct?
Mr. Munkirs: Quite possibly but there is also the matter
of the Assessment and I don’t know whether the Assessment
and EDU’s are tied together or not, but certainly my
biggest complaint is that I think I am being over-assessed.
Mr. Dorsey: Well, your complaint--if you’ll accept
this for purposes of where we are right now has nothing to
do with this Resolution.
Mr. Munkirs: Yes it does because there is an EDU portion
and an Assessment portion.
Mr. Dorsey: But you do not have vacant property. The Resolution
that is on now is very specific. It deals with vacant property.
You have a developed piece of property and I assume that
your complaint is like others that the Township has received
in that based upon the standards promulgated by the Department
of Environmental Protection, you have been assigned a certain
number of EDU’s based upon the square footage and the
nature of your operation. So, your problem has nothing to
do with Resolution No. 3. Now, the number of EDU’s
assigned do indeed dictate what the Assessment will be and
the Hearings on the Assessment took place about two years
ago and those assessments have all been fixed. So your problem
has nothing to do with #3, and frankly, I think there is
very little area of discussion at this point because your
problem deals with things that have been memorialized some
Mr. Munkirs: So, am I take that to mean that the Township
is--will not entertain a reevaluation of my situation?
Mr. Dorsey: The Township Council really cannot entertain---further
discussion, generally speaking. There is one thing I will
find out from you--I don’t know that I agree that,
with the expression in your letter that Mr. Casey absolutely
refused to discuss it, but I will attempt to find out the
basis upon which EDU’s were assigned to you because
you have an existing developed building and I will try and
find out--see if I can determine what the original analysis
was and I’ll advise you what the basis was. If it’s
totally inaccurate, then we may address it. But basically,
the EDU’s were assigned to existing buildings based
upon regulations issued by DEP and those we cannot change.
Mr. Munkirs: I understand what you’re saying. Again,
I’ll say that EDU’s are only part of the problem
and Mr. Casey just bluntly refused to give me another evaluation
either about Assessment or EDU’s.
Mr. Dorsey: You see, there’s not going to be any reevaluation
of an Assessment. The Assessment is dictated by the number
of EDU’s that are assigned to you. I mean, there’s
no individualization of Assessments. You get assigned a certain
number of EDU’s and that dictates the Assessment. And
the Assessments were established three years ago now? The
dollar amounts--at least two years ago now, were established--the
dollar amounts for assessment purposes were established two
years ago after a series of any number of Public Hearings
and long 0debate at the Council and, I’m just going
to tell you as a practical matter, the Township cannot now
go around modifying those assessments.
Mr. Guenther: But, but, let me explain something to you.
You’re confusing EDU’s with assessments.
Mr. Munkirs: They’re together.
Mr. Guenther: No, they’re not.
Mr. Sohl: They directly are.
Mr. Guenther: Well, but we’ve heard other cases where
people protested the number of EDU’s that they’ve
been assigned and I think, I believe that’s what this
gentleman is questioning.
Mr. Sohl: On vacant property.
Mr. Guenther: No, it’s also been on built-on property.
We have St. Jude’s Church,that came to us.
Mr. Dorsey: Bernie, Bernie, I will look into the manner
in which he was allocated that.
Mr. Guenther: I’m just trying to explain --
Mr. Dorsey: But the assessments follow the EDU’s.
Mr. Guenther: Well, I know, for each area, there was an
assessment assigned per EDU, so if you were assigned three
EDU’s, let’s assume the assessment’s $10,000
per EDU, you pay $30,000. If you feel that that’s too
much, and you only want to be assigned two EDU’s that’s
a whole different question. But, as the attorney said, we
cannot change the amount of the assessment because that’s
what’s been determined through the State DEP. The total
cost of the project had to be divided up between all the
users of the sewer system that was required by--
President Rattner: Let’s stop the conversation. Mr.
Dorsey said he’ll lookay into to make sure their methodology
because obviously if there was an egregious error and there
was the wrong EDU assessed, that’s a separate issue.
But, everybody in the area, I paid for my EDU exactly what
you paid for your EDU. It was an existing building. Everybody
had exactly the same. So it is. It’s depending on how
many EDU’s you got, you know, you got charged with.
No, I had one. Commercials are based on the building because
we have no other way of knowing. But anyway, the Attorney
said he’ll lookay into it and within two weeks we’ll
get back to you.
Mr. Dorsey: Within two weeks.
Mr. Munkirs: May I be permitted to give, Mr. Dorsey some
documentation that proves that, as far as assessment wise
an EDU is not always an EDU. I have documentation to that
effect, if I can –
Mr. Dorsey: You can send me anything you want.
President Rattner: You can either send it directly to Mr.
Dorsey or you can give it, you know, provide it to the Clerk
and the Clerk will make sure he gets it.
Mr. Munkirs: Thank you very much.
President Rattner: Thank you. Anybody else wish to address
the Council on said resolutions 3 through 7. Seeing none,
we’ll, ask for a vote.
ROLL CALL: Passed by the majority, Exception: Mr. Scapicchio
voted NO on #5
RESOLUTIONS – NON CONSENT
8. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of
Mount Olive Appointing the Initial Members to the Mount Olive
Township Local Ethics Board.
President Rattner: Okay, now we come to, the non-consent
resolution, so we’ll be bringing each one of these
Mr. Sohl moved for adoption of the Resolution and Mr. Heymann
seconded the motion.
President Rattner: Any discussion? Roll call.
Mr. Sohl: Before we open to the public, I want to explain
where we are and how we got here and what we’re doing.
Based on the vote that went on the public referendum last
November, this Council was then charted to proceed forward
relevant to the State enabling legislation based on correspondence
and documentation we obtained through the State. We have
gone through the initial phase of the process to begin the
selection of an Ethics Board. As of this point in time, the
ethics situation or ethics regulations that every one of
us sitting here operated under, are those of the State. What
we will be doing by empowering an Ethics board is having
them begin a process which up opens a ninety-day window that
once they are appointed they can review the State regulations,
State ethics requirements and then either accept them as
is which requires no action on their part or they can add
to them, the cannot detract from them. Last week, and going
back in January, we solicited through various public media,
requests for individuals to submit resumes if they were interested
in potentially sitting on this Board. We, in fact, received
some 20 odd resumes. We went through a process initially
of not lookaying at names. We had the Clerk’s Office
basically blind them out and, everybody tookay a lookay.
We through a sort of a blind selection process. We applied
names so we knew then who they were and then at the final
call, so to speak, last week when we discussed these in workshop,
we indicated, in fact, one of the first things we made statement
relative to was that we were not going to select anybody
that was a candidate for public office, and, in fact, Rob
Greenbaum, was, in fact, one of those people who initially
was highly regarded by a number of
Mr. Sohl (cont’d):people, but based on that process,
we, in fact, eliminated him from the selection process. Through
the process that tookay place then that night through discussion,
we essentially wound up with three or four names that were
clearly in everybody’s, more or less, in everybody’s
choice and ultimately, we narrowed things down to where we
actually had seven names of which there was a tie for six
and seven. Through some other discussion here, we finally
narrowed those two down to a final choice. We then gave those
selections of the final six to the Town Clerk, or actually
the Deputy Clerk, Mary, who was here last week. We then adjourned
later, or it might have been right after that and subsequent
to that, we learned that there was a, one of the people we
had chosen as the sixth was, in fact, likely, although already
filed, a candidate for public office. We had a brief discussion
and I will, as I mentioned to the, it was asked by the press
whether that discussion was a violation of the Public Meeting
Act. It was probably a technical violation, although clearly
the members of the public that were still here heard everything
that was going on. The bottom line is we did not finalize
that selection process. That is what we are doing tonight.
Last week was simply a workshop. As a result of learning
of these, one individual of the six that was a, a potential
candidate for public office, the names before us tonight
then do not include that individual, and, in fact, that individual
was replaced then by the, what, the individual that would
have been set at end of process. So, that is where we are,
that’s how we got here and I guess that’s it.
Mr. Dorsey: Bill, Bill, just to make it clear, you did not
finalize any appointments last week.
Mr. Sohl: Right.
Mr. Dorsey: The finalization of any appointment of the seven
that are on this list occurs with the adoption of this resolution.
Mr. Sohl: Thank you, Mr. Dorsey.
President Rattner: Thank you, Mr. Sohl. Anybody else from
Mr. Sohl: You need to open it up to the public.
President Rattner: Yes, I’m going to.
President Rattner: OKAY, now we’ll open it up to public.
Anybody like to address the Council on this ordinance, on
this resolution? Yes?
Ms. Colleen Labow, (Third St., Budd Lake): Good evening,
gentlemen and Mrs. Lashway. I would like to first start off
by announcing the fact that I am the candidate who was eliminated
from the process for the, um, Ethics Board. My name is Colleen
Labow and I understand that until that this was adopted as
a resolution, that it’s not officially into law. However,
what tookay place during the workshop really led me to believe
more firmly than ever that this town definitely needs an
ethics committee. What tookay place during the meeting and
after the meeting was highly unethical. I tookay notes. I
came into Council Chambers yesterday, I listened to the tape,
I purchased a copy of the tape. I do have everything on the
tape as to what tookay place during the workshop session.
However, what’s not on tape, what tookay place after
the session is only my word against all of yours, well, four
people in particular. OKAY, first off --
Mr. Sohl: Let me, let me ask you a question before you,
was my characterization of what tookay place inaccurate?
Ms. Labow: Yes, it was a little bit inaccurate, but not
so much that maybe some facts you weren’t aware of.
Mr. Sohl: Such as?
Ms. Labow: Well, first of all, I’d like to say that
when you tookay your vote, as the seventh possible vote,
I received five out of seven votes for the Ethics Board.
Okayay? Out of these five people, I know for sure that two
people who voted me knew I was planning on running for Council
because I told them personally. Also, a week before I had
decided to run for council or consider it, I talked to Mrs.
Lashway, I called her at her office, and I said, you know,
Lisa, I have a little bit of dilemma because I have my application
in for the Ethics Committee, although I had just recently
considered running for a council position on the Democratic
ticket and I’m not really sure how it works because
I’m totally naïve in this process, can you help
me out? And she said, oh, well there’s no problem because
you’re not an elected official, and therefore, until
you are, you can still be available to serve on the other
Mr. Sohl: Then, Mrs. Lashway told you accurately her understanding
of the law.
Ms. Labow: That was her understanding. I specifically called
to ask for that.
Mr. Sohl: That, the law is not the only governing factor.
We, as individuals --
President Rattner: OKAY, Mr. Sohl, let her finish and then
we just have the comment so she get her train of thought
and keep it together.
Mr. Sohl: I just want to make sure we have clarity on what’s
going on, that’s all.
Ms. Labow: I’m not worried about my, train of thought,
that’s why I have it written down.
President Rattner: See? So, but this way it’s good,
if you get everything add and then we can answer it.
Ms. Labow: OKAY, we’ll get it all out. Anyway, so
during the meeting, the process went on and you chose to
vote. Mr. Spino, was not, obviously was not very happy with
the process. I had to agree in one respect, I felt probably
they should have been kept, anonymous, because that would
have been a fair assessment, but that’s OKAY, because
you know, you choose how you want to apply it, but I did
check with Mrs. Lashway and I did check to make sure I was
doing what was proper, that I felt was proper and I went – I
came to the, and before I even came to the meeting last week,
I called and I spoke to Mary and I said is it a problem for
me to be there knowing that they’re going to discuss
the ethics committee since I have my application in, should
I still be there and she said absolutely, anybody can be
here, so that’s why I’m here. After the meeting
was adjourned, completely adjourned, and I’m telling
you right now, I know two people for sure knew and those
two people didn’t vote for me. They had no problem
with me being voted on at that time. I do believe other members
knew, because I had heard that my name had been discussed
in the presence of some of you before, so I think more than
two of you knew who I was and that I was planning on running.
After the meeting, I went up to, to meet, um, Mary, because
I had not met her before and to say hello to Mr. Rattner.
At that point, Mr. Greenbaum approached Mr. Scapicchio and
inquired as to why he had not been chosen. Mr. Scapicchio
informed him that he was not chosen because they discussed
it before. They felt it was a direct violation of, you know,
it was a conflict of interest because he’s running
on their ticket. During the session that evening, it had
also been mentioned that Mr. Greenbaum would not be a candidate
because a couple of them felt the way, there was just too
close of a relationship, which was a very ethical decision,
in my opinion. Then, Mr. Scapicchio, or Mr. Greenbaum asked
Mr. Scapicchio, well how do you know that there isn’t
somebody who you voted onto the committee who is running
for Town Council, and he said, well, gee, I don’t know,
I have no idea and he said well, don’t you think we
should find out and at that point, he posed the question,
which since I was standing right there, you know, I responded
that yes, in fact, I was. He turned to me and he said, well,
we can’t let you be on the ethics board because you’re
a potential candidate and I said, one has nothing to do with
the other, I checked ahead of time and blah, blah, blah,
and I was, told that it was okay to continue. And as we discussed
with Mr. Scapicchio, he told me, he said, well you know,
you can always decide not to run for Council and then we
can let you have your ethics committee position. At that
point, I said to him well, why should I do that? I plan on
winning a council seat and he said well, then it wouldn’t
be fair to the Council because you would then be wasting
their time by playing and making policy and then they’d
have to replace you, and I said, well, you know, people get
replaced all the time, you know, just choose an alternate.
One really, I don’t see where one has anything to do
with the other. So, Mr. Sohl, you cut in on the conversation
at that point. Mr. Spino was involved in it. Mr. Rattner
was involved in it. Discussions ensued and you decided that
I was not an acceptable candidate after all and that you
would replace me with Mr. Kamin and as I understand, I’ve
come to understand this week, that’s Mr. Kamin’s
actually an elected official, an appointed official, on the
government level. So, I don’t understand how one person
who can be an actual appointed, you know, political official
be eligible to be on the ethics committee and somebody who
has not even filed a petition, how can they not be available?
Mr. Sohl: Is that a question?
Ms. Labow: Yes.
Mr. Sohl: Mr. Kamin is not an official in this Township.
Ms. Labow: But he has political ties.
Mr. Sohl: He is an appointed civil service employee.
President Rattner: Well, I, I don’t even know if he’s
a civil service.
Mr. Sohl: But, he’s an appointed employee.
Ms. Labow: Okay, so, I’m not politically affiliated
at all --
Mr. Sohl: Let me, let me answer this very clearly and succinctly.
We have an election coming up. It was clearly my, and I’ll
speak for myself although I think it appears I hopefully
share my thoughts with, and I think Mr. Sohl (cont’d):
Mr. Scapicchio and I, since we’ve talked about this
a number of times believe this, is that what we did not want
to have occur is to have a newly formed ethics panel that
has one or more individuals who are actively involved in
a campaign. It just doesn’t make for a good situation.
That’s clearly a choice we have every right to make
and that’s what, that’s what we will attempt
to do tonight. And, in fact, if you lookay specifically at
the resolution, at my request, there’s, there is verbiage
in there that should anyone of the other six individuals
come out of the woodwork at the last minute and file an application
to become a candidate, let’s say by Thursday’s
Ms. Labow: No, well --
Mr. Sohl: These appointments don’t place until this
Friday, and they only take place if and only if the individual
so mentioned are not candidates for public office.
Ms. Labow: So, what happens if, um, during the primary,
somebody has seven people come in and, and break them in,
as a candidate after the fact, after the 13th?
Mr. Sohl: By June, by June --
Mr. Dorsey: I think that the answer to that is the Council,
if they’re then on the ethics committee, the Council
would immediately ask them to resign.
Ms. Labow: That’s exactly correct, I agree with you.
Mr. Dorsey: You know, but, you know, there’s one thing
you’re overlooking here, and perhaps it’s difficult
to appreciate that although this is an all Republican Council
at the moment, what they’re applying to you, the rule,
the policy they’re applying to you, they have applied
that indiscriminately because they would have selected Mr.
Greenbaum, but they told Mr. Greenbaum, no, we will not select
you because we don’t want one holding political office
on this ethics committee. So, whatever the rule is, you cannot
say that it’s been, not been indiscriminately or neutrally
Ms. Labow: I’d have to say, in all due respect, that
it seems as though you’ve changed and made policy as
you went along to suit the needs at any given point.
Mr. Dorsey: Well, let’s understand something. The
policy is not made until the resolution is adopted. They
have, the Council has workshops and they can disagree up
and down about policy betwixt and between themselves, but
it is not effective and meaningful until they adopt the resolution
that sets forth the policy. We had a Resolution No. 3 tonight
over how we’re going to deal with EDU’s. There
were at least three different views as to how we would deal
with excess EDU’s. The policy doesn’t become
effective until the resolution was adopted. That resolves
Ms. Labow: All right, how do you explain when the voting
took place when several council members knew that I was planning
on running for council, they still voted me on and this --
Mr. Dorsey: Well, well first place, I don’t want to
be technical with you, but there’s no voting that occurs
as the term voting is used at work session. There is straw,
straw tallies and of course, what you’re really saying
is, you can’t deny that the policy that Mr. Sohl is
really the mentor in this entire ethics ordinance, that the
policy that they seek to adopt is not being uniformly adopted.
You, you would have a great case if, indeed, they said to
Mr. Greenbaum, Okay, you, you can be on the ethics board
even though you’re going to run because you’re
a Republican, but you, Colleen, cannot be. That’s not
what’s happened here. They have adopted a policy, anybody
can disagree with the policy, but the policy is being indiscriminately
or neutrally imposed.
Ms. Labow: Okay, my main problem is not that I’m not
being appointed to the ethics committee, because that’s
all good, I respect whatever you decide in the end. My biggest
problem is the fact that the decision was made after the
workshop had been adjourned, and if I understand correctly
that before any decisions are made as such, it has to be
in an announced public forum.
Mr. Dorsey: That, that decision is not made until the resolution
is adopted tonight. I mean, I do not know although there’s
a resolution prepared with six or seven names?
Mr. Sohl: Six.
Mr. Dorsey: Six names on it, but before we’re through
tonight, one or more of those names may not come off the
list, because nobody is appointed until the resolution is
Mr. Guenther: May I make a point? I’d just like – just
a question. Do you think, do you think it would be fair to
Mr. Greenbaum if you were, if you were appointed?
Ms. Labow: Well, truthfully, Mr. Greenbaum was appointed
to the environmental –
Mr. Guenther: That has nothing to do with this, nothing
to do with this.
Ms. Labow: No, no, no, well --
Mr. Guenther: He could serve on five different commissions,
so could you. We’re qualified or he’s qualified
to serve on one or the other. We’ll consider him. We
ask for volunteers all the time. I serve on three different
commissions in this town, I think almost, a lot of people
out there serve on various commissions, so one has nothing
to do with the other.
Ms. Labow: Well, directly the point of what you said, Mr.
Greenbaum has already filed the petition and at the time
that this workshop took place, he was officially planning
on running, as of today, so I have not filed my petition
and I have not officially decided to run.
Mr. Guenther: But, you, tonight, told us you were going
Ms. Labow: Yes.
Mr. Guenther: So, you must be running.
Ms. Labow: Well, I am going to run, but the problem that
I have is that the way you handled the whole thing, I felt,
was very unethical. That’s my point and that’s
the point I’m trying to make.
Mr. Guenther: I wasn’t here, so --
Ms. Labow: No, I know, I don’t mean you personally.
Mr. Heymann: Making generalities--
Ms. Labow: I’m speaking in generalities and quite
obviously, I’m very disappointed in the behavior of
a few of the Council members.
President Rattner: Mr. Scapicchio, you wanted to say something?
Mr. Scapicchio: Colleen, I mean, I think you have to admit
that this board did not make any decision that was unusual
relative to this ethics board and, it was after the meeting
was adjourned that you had come up to speak to Mr. Rattner.
Mr. Greenbaum said he believes that we had, in a straw call,
selected a candidate, and I said I don’t think we did,
and you had raised your hand that I’m the candidate.
So, it was, it was a discussion that we personally had, or
you personally had with several council members where we
tried to explain to you the methodology that we used in the
selection process and I think it was even stated prior to
the Council discussion of what the intentions were, and you
were in the audience. Mr., Mr. Greenbaum was probably the
top vote getter in the blind selection process. Once we knew
the names of those candidates and realized that he was a
potential candidate, his name came off of that list. And
at the beginning of the meeting, maybe you didn’t hear
it, but if you heard that comment that was made by me, and
I was the third person to speak at that workshop that he
wasn’t selected because he was a candidate, you know,
either you missed it or you ignored --
Ms. Labow: No, I listened to the tapes again. Yesterday,
I listened to the whole entire session--
Mr. Scapicchio: Well, I mean, at that point, you could’ve
said, well, I mean, you know --
Ms. Labow: What you said during that meeting and your exact
words were you had decided that it was not, you did not want
to consider him for the position because he was running on
your ticket and you felt that it was a conflict --
Mr. Scapicchio: Well, he’s not running on my ticket,
he’s running for a council slot and I think --
Ms. Labow: Well, on the Republican for the council, you
felt that it was a conflict of interest and that was what
you had said. That’s also what Mr. Rattner said and
a couple of other people said. It had nothing to do with
he was running for council. What you said was he was running
on the Republican ticket.
Mr. Sohl: I can assure that the meeting had everything to
do with the fact that he was running for council.
Ms. Labow: That’s not what you said though. If you
guys had said that, at that point, I would have said, sorry,
but I need to, to, withdraw and I checked on the strawing
before I, before I even considered running for council.
Mr. Scapicchio: Well, we obviously disagree and that’s
not the only way it’ll --
Mr. Guenther: Well, Colleen if you go back to the history
of how this ethics committee came about, I think it centered
around questions regarding some dealings that elected officials
might have. That’s why we’re so sensitive to
Ms. Labow: I know, but why point --
Mr. Guenther: That’s the only thing I can say.
Ms. Labow: You’re all, you’re all missing my
point maybe I’m not stating it clearly since you’re
missing it. My point is the way the process took place after
the meeting was adjourned.
Mr. Guenther: But, it goes back to the point you made before
that nothing is really decided until the resolution goes
President Rattner: One of the things we did--and we’re
very conscious with this and I made sure you heard me a couple
of times in the last month or so--ask the attorney when someone
even suggested can we even do something in closed session,
let’s do everything out here and we tried doing that,
because we got a question coming up. Maybe it was a mistake,
but it was because the response to somebody from the audience
coming up--in fact, it was another candidate questioning
it and it was answering questions. But we tried our best
to keep it open, and we, tried moving ahead. Yes, I’m
one of the people who knew because you told me a week before.
And I heard that you’re a very ethical person, somebody
who really works hard and everything else. However when other,
members of the council--and I realized that I’d be
the minority, you know, on that and they’d maybe realize,
you know, we did treat somebody else not exactly the same
way, and we discussed those type of things not in a group,
but just we consider things as we go. We’ve discussed
a lot of things, a tree ordinance that Mr. Spino had that
we passed finally one tonight. He brought one up and after
I went home and read it, I said I can’t support it.
If you were here at that meeting around in January, he was
kind of miffed, because he thought --
Mr. Spino: I was mad!
President Rattner: He thought it was going to go through,
but I said you know, after we discussed it, and yes, we said,
we were going to put it on the agenda, yes, we were going
to vote on it, I said I read it, I don’t understand
it, and I don’t know how it’s going to work and
I can’t support it. And it did go down, so those type
of things--you know, gets very hard and, yea, if we spoke
out of turn after the meeting, I will apologize, because
as Council President, I’m responsible for maintaining
the Order of the meeting that was after the meeting, But
when a resident or anybody comes up and starts discussing
with us, I am not going to tell a resident--no matter who
it is out there, that I can’t discuss what you want
Ms. Labow: But you guys went a further step. You did more
than discuss what the resident was discussing. Not only did
you go further, the four of you continued your discussion
after the public had left. I called you later on that night,
and I said, so, Steve, what was the end result of your little
pow wow, and you said, “Oh, you’re out of there.”
President Rattner: Yes, I said --
Ms. Labow: You said, “Oh, you’re out of there.”
Mr. Sohl: Steve, If I may. Tthat would have happened anyway--and
let me tell you how this is. We might have, and I learned
that--I would have had the Clerk then poll the council, not
at the meeting--this goes on all the time, so that we would
be prepared tonight, we would ultimately change--
President Rattner: Okay, Mr. Sohl, let her—because,
you know, it’s getting late, she’s been up there
longer, just go --
Ms. Labow: Well, I know there are other people who need
to speak, so I’ll sit down for now and then I’ll
reserve the right to come back up if I feel so compelled
to do so again. Is that fair enough?
Mr. Sohl: Yes.
Ms. Labow: Thank you.
President Rattner: Mr. Greenbaum?
Mr. Greenbaum, Crenshaw Drive: I just want to set the Record
straight as to what I perceived as what happened last Tuesday.
It was a closed meeting, there was no discussion from the
Public. There was some discussion among Council Members with
regard to my not being considered because I was running for
office-- whether it was because I had already announced or
because I was on the slate--I wasn’t privy to that
discussion which probably occurred prior to my arriving at
the meeting. Nonetheless, at the end of the meeting, I went
up and I spoke to Mr. Scapicchio and I said if my understanding
is correct, that I wasn’t going to be considered because
I’m running for office, I wondered why, one of the
individuals who was being considered was running for office,
and immediately I was met with, “No we didn’t
consider anyone who was running for office.” And that’s
a discussion that Mr. Spino actually joined in after the
meeting, and I said I think you’re wrong, and then
for some reason, a couple of minutes later, we found out
that actually Colleen was going to run and that’s where
the discussion went. Now, to use the term unethical, I think
is inappropriate here. And to raise the issue of a meeting
occurring outside of the Public Notices Act is, I think,
a little misleading because nothing was said outside of Colleen’s
presence and this really only affects her. She was present.
She heard all the conversation that occurred, at least while
I was here, so there was no intent to harm her in any way
or to deceive the Public and that’s my perception of
what occurred last Tuesday.
President Rattner: Thank you. Mr. Bonte?
Mr. Bonte, Budd Lake: As you know, being one of the initiators
of this whole thing, it’s a dilemma.
Mr. Sohl: I have you to blame for that.
Mr. Bonte: However, since we are a nation of law--correct,
Mr. Dorsey: Some days.
Mr. Bonte: I have a problem here. I realize that this Body
here has charged with the authority to pick whom they see
fit for this Committee, and you’re within your rights
to choose whomever you want, providing that they meet the
provisions of the law. The law states that--and I will read
it to you, “40A:9-22.19. Each municipality of the state
may by Ordinance establish a Municipal Ethics Board, consisting
of six members who are residents of the municipality, at
least two of whom shall be public members. The members of
the ethics board shall be appointed by the Governing Body
and shall be chosen by virtue of their known and consistent
reputation for integrity and the knowledge of local government
affairs. No more than three members of the Ethics Board shall
be of the same political party.” Therein becomes my
problem. I would hope that once the Ethics Board is created
that part of what it will promulgate as a ethics policy for
this Town would be that no member of the Governing Body or
the Administration or any government employee or any contractor
doing business with the Town be allowed to be a member of
this Board. However, because of what happened late last summer,
the fact that our Ethics Ordinance that we had established
was basically declared illegal by the State, we are operating
under the State Ethics Law which says that you cannot deny
a person from being on this Board because they are a government
employee, government official --
Mr. Sohl: No, it doesn’t state that, come on. (INAUDIBLE)
Mr. Bonte: Mr. Sohl, it does not state in this document
anywhere--it states--and it clearly recognizes that some
of you can be on this Board because it states at least two
of whom shall be public. The other four could be working
for the Town, could be on this Body. So, the problem I have
is that we are excluding an individual or individuals specifically
because they are running for office. They’re not even
members of a governing body or members of the Township. I
recognize that you can pick whom you want–
Mr. Sohl: For almost whatever reason we want as long we
don’t violate discrimination laws –
Mr. Bonte: I will allow you to interrupt me--
President Rattner: Let him finish.
Mr. Bonte: Yes, you are correct. However, what you are doing
this evening is discriminatory. I would strongly suggest
that starting with the “and” before the third “whereas,” and
that’s, the whereas that says “each individual
appointment takes effect…” I would strongly suggest
that starting with the “and,” before that “whereas,” and
that entire paragraph you delete. Now, I do not think that--I
think you have overstepped your authority by putting in a
statement to specifically exclude individual or individuals
because they’re running for Office. I think that’s
a violation of state statute, so I would recommend that you
delete that because I think we’re putting in the Town
in the position of being discriminatory. The only other question
I would have, and I guess this would be to Mr. Dorsey, would
be, do you know--I can’t find anything in the Ethics
Laws, but do you
Mr. Bonte (cont’d): know of any reason why Mr. Kamin
as a political appointee in the State of New Jersey working
for the State, would have any conflict being on this Board?
Mr. Dorsey: No.
Mr. Bonte: Okay, the Hatch Act is not covered?
Mr. Dorsey: The Hatch Act deals with Federal Employees,
so it’s not --
Mr. Bonte: But doesn’t it also extend to certain State
Mr. Dorsey: No, Hatch Act is purely federal, as I understand
Mr. Bonte: In any event, I would suggest that you consider
my request on that paragraph.
Mr. Dorsey: Well, you know, just, “WHEREAS each individual
appointment takes effect on…”, you know, you
also have that in the ”resolve” section too,
the very last paragraph of the Resolution. It doesn’t
make any difference if you take it out of the preamble.
Mr. Bonte: Well, yes, I agree with you, Mr. Dorsey. where
ever it makes that reference.
Mr. Dorsey: Unfortunately, if you take that out, it runs
in the face what Mr. Sohl has stated has been his belief
as to what the general policy shall be.
Mr. Bonte: I understand that that’s Mr. Sohl’s
belief and maybe some of the other council members’ beliefs,
but you can have your own beliefs, but you can’t violate
State Law. State Law does not give you that option until
such time as we created an Ethics Code that--and I would
hope would restrict this, and then that was approved by the
State. Right now, I think we’re getting ourselves into
some hot water here by taking on an authority the State hasn’t
Mr. Sohl: I disagree with you.
President Rattner: I just want to say something. On that,
I personally would rather leave it in, because rather than
us making a decision in the back of our head or saying this
is what we’re doing, we’re putting the thoughts
and exactly what the thought process down in paper where
everybody can see it, and if they don’t like it, then
challenge it, and I think it’s better there than have
it unwritten and dothe same thing. With this, whether it’s
right or wrong, I think we’re down on paper exactly
what for the purpose --
Mr. Bonte: Why do want to do something that has the potential
for being illegal? You can pick who you want.
President Rattner: Does it have the potential for being
Mr. Dorsey: I don’t think so.
Mr. Sohl: Rich, you’re entitled to your opinion. I
totally disagree with you.
Mr. Bonte: Well, then what you’re basically saying
is disagreeing with the State Statute.
Mr. Sohl: No, I’m not disagreeing. But that’s
your reading of the Statute.
Mr. Bonte: You don’t have the authority --
Mr. Guenther: But we have the authority to make any, do
it on any basis that we want. You, yourself admitted that.
Mr. Bonte: This document states that you can only have a
stricter Ethics Ordinance and Code in Town if that is what
your Ethics Committee passes and is approved by the State.
Mr. Dorsey: Yes, but the fallacy in which he has just said
is, we’re not dealing with the Ethics Code now. We’re
dealing with the Appointment of individuals to the Ethics
Board and as a matter of fact, you don’t have to give
any reason at all as to why you have selected some people
or not considered some people, and as Mr. Rattner says, the
statement is just being very honest, because the Committee
or the Council as far as I can determine, has made the decision
that anyone running for political office should not be appointed
to the Board. He didn’t have to put that in. He could’ve
left that all out and arrived at the same six nominees, but
Mr. Dorsey (cont’d): there is a thought that you should
be totally open, and open as to your reasoning, and therefore,
it’s in the Resolution.
Mr. Bonte: And if this were to go to the State, I’m
sure that they would find that what you have done is in violation
of State Law.
Mr. Guenther: How do you know that? You don’t know
Mr. Sohl: We have to agree to disagree then, that’s
Mr. Guenther: We don’t know if that, whether that
is a fact.
Mr. Bonte: How do I know Bernie? Because the State doesn’t
say in their thing that you can exclude a person. You can
only exclude no more than four members of either, Township
Employees or the Governing Body. That’s all it addresses.
Mr. Sohl: So we discriminated against the other 18 people.
President Rattner: Okay--no, no more comments from here.
Mr. Bob Elms, Budd Lake: This phrase “if and only
if the individual appointed has not filed as a candidate
for Public Office in Mount Olive Township” is something
that I understand or I gather that the Council has put this
in the Resolution as something that they wanted. Is that
Mr. Sohl: I want it. I wrote it.
Mr. Elms: Okay. And the second part I gather at the end
of it “BE IT FURTHER RESOLED” where the same
Mr. Sohl: Yes, I think it wound up in there, too.
Mr. Elms: That either you put it in or Mr. Dorsey put it
Mr. Sohl: I think it’s just how it ended up in the
Mr. Elms: Okay, it is my understanding that if Ms. Labow
was on the Ethics Board and she was then elected to Council,
she would have to make a decision as to whether or not to
take her Council seat or to stay on the Ethics Board. That
would be a decision that she would have to make. Now, as
to what you wrote here, I suggest you remove Mr. Kamin, because
Mr. Kamin was a Township Councilman and did on several occasions,
I believe, in the past, become--filed a petition to be a
candidate, and in fact, was elected to the Council, Mount
Olive Township’s Council. So if you’re going
to do it the way you said you’re going to do it, you
need to take him off also.
Mr. Spino: That’s ridiculous. Forget that, forget
President Rattner: Mr. Candura?
Mr. Candura, Crease Road: Good evening, Steve, I’d
like to ask you one question. Who put these six names on
this piece of paper? Not physically. Who gave the Clerk the
names to put on the piece of paper?
President Rattner: I did.
Mr. Candura: You did? Are these the same names that were
discussed at the workshop?
President Rattner: Yes.
Mr. Candura: Mr. Kamin was not listed as an alternate in
President Rattner: You said you were on the list? We had
seven, we had a lot of names on the list at the workshop.
We took a a straw poll--
Mr. Candura: So, somewhere between the adjournment of the
workshop, and these names being put on the paper, there was
discussion about Colleen Labow.
President Rattner: Yes.
Mr. Candura: Okay. Rob (Greenbaum) said that he thinks “unethical” is
a stretch. You called it a mistake. Bill said it was a technical
error. Mr. Dorsey, is this a violation of the Sunshine Law?
Mr. Dorsey: I don’t think it’s a violation of
the Sunshine Law because nothing is effectuated until the
vote, until this evening. The Council decides to take a name
that’s off that Resolution--
Mr. Candura: How did one name change from the workshop?
Mr. Sohl: I told you how it changed. How many times do I
have to explain?
Mr. Guenther: It’s been explained. She listened to
the tape. She knows.
Mr. Candura: It shouldn’t have been done--unless there
was an announced meeting, an executive session--
Mr. Guenther: I mean, you just heard what Mr. Dorsey said.
Mr. Candura: Bernie, I heard what you said. I don’t
agree with it.
President Rattner: Bernie, we can repeat-- I mean if people
are saying the same thing, we can keep arguing. Let them
state their opinions.
Mr. Candura: I just, I just don’t agree with it. I
think you guys really made a little bit of a mistake on this
President Rattner: Thank you, Mr. Candura. Anybody else?
Is it going to be quick?
Ms. Labow: Yes.
President Rattner: New information?
Ms. Labow: No, it’s a new question. I just would like
to know, I understand--on this paper here that has all this
legal stuff, why was not this, why this was not supplied
to the applicants when they were filing their applications
for the Ethics Committee, for the Ethics Board?
Mr. Dorsey: What are you referring to? What is it?
Mr. Sohl: The resolution.
President Rattner: The resolution.
Ms. Labow: Why were these guidelines--
Mr. Dorsey: Because the resolution wasn’t drawn at
that point in time.
Ms. Labow: Okay, now on here, it says it was revised by
you, Mr. Dorsey, on the tenth of April.
Mrs. Lashway: I prepared the Resolution on Friday. I faxed
it to Mr. Sohl and Mr. Dorsey for their review. Mr. Sohl
gave me input and Mr. Dorsey gave me further input that I
revised today because my fax machine was broken, and it was
basically to reiterate Mr. Sohl’s paragraph in the
final “NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED”
Ms. Labow: OKAY, so, before this, before you drew this on
Friday, there was nothing?
Mr. Dorsey: There was no resolution.
Mrs. Lashway: I came up with this on my own and that’s
why I faxed it to them for their input.
President Rattner: Thank you, Ms. Lashway.
Ms. Labow: So, when people were asked in the Township to
apply for the Ethics Board, there were essentially no guidelines
to actually follow at that time. Right, Mr. Rattner?
President Rattner: Yes. Mr. Sohl, you ran--that was your
Subcommittee .Explain what you told people--I think it was
basically just an ad in the newspaper, right?
Mr. Sohl: That’s all. We were looking for volunteers.
Did we at that time--let me make this very clear--did we
at that time indicate to anyone in the public that if you
became a candidate for public office, we would not consider
you? No, that statement was never made at that time. We didn’t
even think about.
Ms. Labow: Right.
Mr. Sohl: I mean, I could come up with 27 varieties of why
we didn’t pick somebody or don’t pick somebody.
The reality was when we came down to the final decision process--which
was last Tuesday, Mr. Greenbaum was actually the catalyst
for that element or that criteria--
Ms. Labow: For that thought process, right.
Mr. Sohl: And we made a very conscious deliberate decision.
And that’s where it has all flowed from.
Ms. Labow: Right, but all these decisions were made after
the other--your workshop meeting had been adjourned.
Mr. Sohl: No, Mr. Greenbaum was taken off--and I will, you
know, I mean--let me clear something up for the members of
the public. Mr. Scapicchio and I talk on the phone about
any number of subjects. That’s not a violation of Sunshine
Ms. Labow: That’s correct if there’s only two
Mr. Sohl: I mean, so these things go back and forth and,
and I call up Mr. Rattner, he talks to me. So if we only
conducted discussions per se, or read commentary, you know,
nothing would ever get done. We’d be here forever.
But the reality is, the thrust of what took place last Tuesday
is in that Resolution tonight. Had we not heard about you
that night, had I found out any time since last Tuesday,
I would have been the first to change that Resolution and
ask that we do that.
Ms. Labow: So, basically, you ran an ad in the paper, requesting
people from the community to apply for this Ethics Board
if they so desired and felt they would be a good candidate
for the process, whatever, and then after different people
were eliminated or chosen or whatever, then you adopted--
Mr. Sohl: No, after--
Ms. Labow: --the resolution to suit your final decision?
Mr. Sohl: No, you’re reading or listening to words
that I didn’t speak.
Ms. Labow: Well--
Mr. Sohl: What I said was --
Ms. Labow: --speak them clearly then.
Mr. Sohl: --when we had the list of names, once we knew
who they were, Mr. Greenbaum was one of the 20-odd there
and we made a conscious decision. I know, I personally did
not to select a candidate for Public Office, a candidate
at that point in time, notwithstanding comments to any candidate
at any time in the process--
Ms. Labow: Well, I don’t want to rehash this over
and over. I feel that the statements that needed to be said
have been said, but I would like to finalize my comments
by saying that I would like to go on Public Record as stating
that as a citizen in this Town that I love very much that
I feel that our Town Council has, in the process of choosing
an Ethics Board for our Town, has chosen to do it in a very
Mr. Sohl: You’re entitled to your opinion.
Ms. Labow: Thank you very much.
President Rattner: Anybody else from the Public like to
address the Council on this Resolution? Seeing none, I’ll
close public discussion. We already moved—
Mr. Sohl: It’s moved and seconded already.
President Rattner: Any further discussion from the Council?
Mr. Guenther: I would just like to throw out--it’s
possible Mr. Bonte has a point. I don’t think we need
to have that clause in there.
Mr. Spino: I do.
Mr. Sohl: I do.
Mr. Guenther: We can make a decision based on any point
we want. It doesn’t have to be in the resolution.
President Rattner: Any other discussion?
Mr. Scapicchio: Just—I’d like to leave with
the comment that we all began with when Bill first started
this process and that was that we, at all times, tried to
keep an arm’s length distance from the people that
we selected and that’s why this Council took my recommendation
to start off with a blind selection process, so that it could
not become political. And I think what people in the audience
are now trying to draw from our actions is really unfair
because everybody here worked to try and keep politics at
an arm’s length distance from the process to keep it
out of the realm of criticism.
President Rattner: Thank you, Mr. Scapicchio,
Mr. Dorsey: I guess we failed.
Mr. Scapicchio: We failed.
Mr. Spino: I’m not going to say anything. I told there
was going to be like this, no one would listen.
President Rattner: Roll call.
ROLL CALL: Passed by the majority: Mr. Sohl, Mr. Spino,
Mr. Scapicchio, Mr. Rattner Voted YES
Mr. Heymann, Mr. Guenther Voted NO
President Rattner: Okay, next item on the agenda, hopefully
won’t be as controversial, Resolution No. 9. Mr. Spino?
9. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of
Mount Olive RE: DeBiasse Donation, Lot 4, Block 2305 (canceling
taxes on property donation to Twp.)
Mr. Spino moved foe approval of the Resolution and Mr. Scapicchio
seconded the motion.
ROLL CALL: Passed unanimously
10. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of
Mount Olive Retaining the Services of Francis
J. Banisch, III, PP (Interverse Enterprise Litigation)
Mr. Scapicchio moved foe approval of the Resolution and
Mr. Heymann seconded the motion.
ROLL CALL: Passed unanimously
11. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of
Mount Olive Authorizing the Business Administrator to Execute
Section A-1 of the Statement of Consent of the New Jersey
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) Discharge
to Surface Water (DSW) Renewal Permit Application for the
Musconetcong Sewerage Authority’s Water Pollution Control
Plant. (MSA Permit Renewal)
Mr. Heymann moved foe approval of the Resolution and Mr.
Sohl seconded the motion.
ROLL CALL: Passed unanimously
12. A Resolution to Authorize a Contract for the Removal
of Contaminated Soils at Turkey Brookay Park. (not received)
Mr. Guenther moved foe approval of the Resolution and Mr.
Heymann seconded the motion.
ROLL CALL: Passed unanimously
Mr. Bob Thomas, Budd Lake: I’d just like some clarification
because I had asked this question two different times previously
in regards to trying to report on the Turkeybrook Park development
for the newspaper. At one point, we had explained in details
from Schoor DePalma through Gene Buczynki that there were
sections of soil at the park whose remediation could be done
by paving over, etc. And then at a further point, Bob Casey,
as Chair of the Works--or whatever he is in terms of his
oversight on the park, he said there were no longer any soil
problems at the park. So, my question now is what is this
in reference to? Where did the soil come from that now has
to be dealt with and what, what are we talking about basically?
President Rattner: , Mr. Kaplan, do you want to answer that,
it’s a very, simple answer. Do you want me to answer
Mr. Kaplan: I only know that there was soil stored there
and this is what’s going to be removed.
President Rattner: No, the soil has always been there. What
happened--after we got the Master Plan that Olympvs put together,
the Green Acres wanted some modifications, DEP wanted some
modifications, the drainage--there was some downsizing, there
was some moving of roads. The Master Plan and the soils that
were going to be capped by some of the parking lots and the
roads under the new plan, now they’re not going to
be capped, because they asked us to make some modifications.
This is due to the modifications. The question I was going
to ask when I came to Council Comments is have our plans
been finalized so that we’re going to out to bid--to
clean these up so we don’t have to do it again.
Mr. Heymann: Well, the memo there says within a couple of
weeks. We have a memo in our mail that said we submitted
it within a couple of weeks, we should have the go ahead.
President Rattner: But we’re passing a Resolution--I
just want to make sure we’re passing a Resolution ,
telling somebody to start work to remediate something, and
as long as they don’t come back. You know the State
could come with whatever they want--there’s another
line they want moved. Or do we feel comfortable that we got,
verbal signoff and we’re just waiting for the piece
Mr. Spino: These are areas that we’re there, not--
President Rattner: Yes.
Mr. Thomas: No, I understand they are areas that were there,
bu, in other words--
Mr. Spino: --and we’re just-- they move things around
so the areas that we are going to be capped by the parking
lot, or we’re not going to be capping--.
Mr. Thomas: That I can understand but, there’s no
delineation of what we’re talking about here and it
was considered at one time enough of a problem that it delayed
development of the park for what? At least a year or so until
you got some basic answers. So the question becomes how much--what
are we looking at? How can you give--resolve to award a contract
for removal of soils if there’s no specifications of
what you’re talking about.
Mr. Dorsey: Well, you know, you’re absolutely right
and, Sandy, do we have specifications for the contract? Have
they been prepared? We don’t know.
Mr. Kaplan: I believe so, but I can call Mr. Casey tomorrow
and find out.
Mr. Dorsey: You may want to hold the Resolution until you
actually see the specs in the matter.
Mr. Guenther: There is a memo here from Bob Casey that explains
the reason for it.
Mr. Dorsey: Well, apparently, they’ve already bid,
so they must be specs--because it says on Monday, the ninth,
which was yesterday, they were opening Bids to remove five
remaining hot spots.
Mr. Scapicchio: But the point is we need to find out whether
or not the DEP has approved or modified plans.
Mr. Spino: I thought we discussed it when he was here.
Mr. Scapicchio: Well, that’s what we’re asking
President Rattner: We were told we’re not going get
it for another couple of weeks--no, this is the stuff that
just happened in the last, this happened in the last month
where they didn’t like where some of the fields were
going, they wanted a little less disruption--the building
was downsized. There were a couple of different things--I
mean, it’s explainable. Is there any problem if we
delay this—I know they wanted to get moving with it
because we have a very tight schedule here, but I think it’s
important to make sure that we do have the permit from the
DEP before we actually go out to bid.
Mr. Dorsey: Bids can be held for 60 days.
Mr. Kaplan: I don’t think anything’s going to
happen until Mr. Casey returns from vacation, which is at
least a week away.
Mr. Dorsey: And the bids can be held for 60 days, so you
don’t have a problem there.
President Rattner: Okay, Mr. Elms?
Mr. Elms: The last I heard-- the remediation amounted to
diluting the contaminants by mixing the soil that was coming
out of Budd Lake from cleaning up the beach.
Mr. Spino: No, That was only for some of it. The major--what
they call hot spots, as Steve said, that’s exactly
correct, they were going to be covered over with blacktop
for parking lot or for a street. That’s not going to
happen now because the parking lot has been redesigned and
those hot spots are not going to be covered, so we have to
dig them out.
Mr. Elms: Part of the justification was for cleaning the
bog out of Budd Lake was to dilute the soil that was in Turkeybrook--
Mr. Guenther: No --
Mr. Elms: They said that’s where it was going.
Mr. Guenther: That wasn’t the justification—
Mr. Spino: Mr. Elms, get your facts straight. That was not
the justification for doing the dredging of Budd Lake--
Mr. Elms: That was where the soil is supposed to go.
Mr. Spino: Because it was cheaper to put the soil up there
and if we could use it, we would—as long as it wasn’t
President Rattner: All right--
Mr. Spino: You came up here and you state things on your
throne and you’re wrong, you’re wrong.
Mr. Elms: Where is the soil, where does the soil go that
came out of Budd Lake?
Mr. Spino: It went to Turkeybrook. But that was never part
of why, why we were cleaning out the Lake—
Mr. Elms: No, but that soil was supposed to be used to dilute
the contaminants in Turkeybrook, wasn’t it?
President Rattner: Okay, we’re going to wait until
Mr. Casey gets back and put it on the next agenda, so we
can answer the questions for our satisfaction. Anybody have
a problem with that? Mr. Guenther, will you withdraw your
Mr. Guenther: Okay, I move to withdraw the Resolution to
authorize a contract to remove the contaminated soils.
Mr. Heymann: Second.
President Rattner: All in favor?
ALL IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED
1. Bill List.
Mr. Sohl: I move for approval of the bill list as identified
on the list generated April 6, 2001.
Mr. Guenther: Second.
ROLL CALL: Passed unanimously
2. Appointment of Chip Woltz to the Open Space Committee.
Mr. Spino moved for the approval of the appointment and Mr.
Sohl seconded the Motion.
ROLL CALL: Passed unanimously
Library Board Liaison Report
Mr. Sohl: I believe there was a subcommittee meeting between
the Library Trustees and the Subcommittee of the Council
earlier tonight--and I’m not on that Committee, so
I don’t know what transpired there. There is a Library
Board meeting tomorrow. Unfortunately, I’ve got a conflict.
I won’t be able to attend that. But, that’s the
latest as I understand it.
President Rattner: Yes, and, so it could be noted--in the
Capital Budget that we finally passed today is the, Capital
amount to get moving with the Library, so that was passed
Mr. Heymann: Just two short things. Number 1, I spoke to
Schulte tonight and hopefully the Flanders Crossing field
will be ready for the season. I don’t think it really
will, maybe it’ll be pushed back a week. And I was
approached by the vice president of baseball for the little
kids--you know, up through sixth grade, still inquiring,
and they’re going to be pushing, they told me this
summer, for the Flanders Crossing Field to be lit. So, I’m
just letting you have a little notice that they want that
field to be lit for the Babe Ruth program, and I’m
sure they’re going to be coming on down here, so, so
President Rattner: Got big lights on the basketball courts.
Mr. Heymann: Yes, that was --
President Rattner: Looks a little out of place.
Mr. Heymann: Well, then we should finish it off with the
President Rattner: Mayor, you wanted to say something --
Mayor Licitra: Yea, Eric is meeting Thursday with some people
from Flanders Crossing and some people that expressed an
interest to extend the Tot Lot down there with tables and
the money we got from the developers to extend that, playground
a little bit, so Eric is meeting with them on Thursday, so
we should see more action as soon as the large equipment
leaves there. But it’s something that’s coming
along that people are, people are using that Tot Lot very
much, and we are need to provide more facilities and, and
places for them to sit and, and places for them to be with
President Rattner: Mayor, or I guess, Sandy, remember about
three or four months ago, maybe a little bit longer, there
was discussion about doing another curb cut across from Flanders
Crossing where their sidewalk terminates, I haven’t
seen that done, so just remind Mr. Casey that this still
has to be put in.
Mr. Kaplan: It’s scheduled to be done. We were waiting
for the good weather to come.
President Rattner: Oh, okay. I figured I’d bring it
up before I let a resident ask--you know, bring it up.
Board of Health Report
Mr. Scapicchio: No report. The Board of Health, won’t
meet until next month.
President Rattner: Where’d Mr. Spino go? He got his
big chance to talk.
Mr. Scapicchio: He had to make a phone call.
President Rattner: Okay, we’ll come back to the Planning
Board Report. Ms. Kelly isn’t here for the Open Space
Committee Report. Anything to report on the Legislative Committee
Report, Mr. Guenther?
Legislative Committee Report
Mr. Guenther: No, there’s nothing on the legislative,
but I do want to bring up something else for discussion.
It, really, I guess, involves indirectly the Open Space Committee.
About a month or so ago, I was a member of, a Committee that
met with the County, Representative of the County MUA, which
I’m also on the Board, regarding Camp Pulaski. This
was at the instigation of the Open Space Committee with the
idea that the 300-some-odd acres that are owned by the County
MUA up there be--I won’t say “preserved” but
somehow be assured that they’re not going to be developed.
Unofficially, I’d always told the Open Space Committee
and the Town, the sentiment of the MUA Board was very definitely
that once lands are in public domain, they are not going
to be returned to private hands. On the other hand, we know,
some of us who have been involved with the County over the
years, policies change, it can change at the Freeholder level
and you never know. So, the proposal, we sat down with the
Executive Director of the MUA, and he came up with an idea
that would really be a win-win situation both for the MUA
and the Town. Technically, the MUA holds title to the property.
The MUA would sell the property to the Park Commission. This
helps the MUA and the MUA reduces its debt to the County
that it owes. The only caveat for the Town would be that
the Town would obviously lose the taxes that it now collects
from the MUA on that. I believe--if memory serves me correctly,
Jack came up with a figure, I think, it was around $40,000.00
they are now collecting. The only stipulation the MUA would
make is that once the land gets in the hands of the Park
Commission, that they still will maintain an easement where
they can drill for water. As some of you might now, originally,
Camp Pulaski was acquired for the possibility of creating
a reservoir. That was never viable, the property’s
not big enough, that’s just not in the cards. But,
there might be water under the ground, there might be ground
water that could be tapped. We’ve been told geologically
that’s very unlikely, but the County MUA would want
to maintain that easement. This is the same kind of arrangement
that was made in the Washington Valley and Morris Township
and Mendham Township where over, 500 acres were turned over
to the Park Commission and these easements were maintained.
So, the reason for me bringing this up was--I told some of
the Council members unofficially a few of weeks ago, I just
wanted, some direction as to how we should proceed, the Open
Space Committee, as I said, is the one that was initiative
this, this didn’t come, didn’t originate from
the County. But, obviously, there’s a loss of taxes
so that has to be considered. But I believe we can then having
walking trails, there would be a connection with the Patriot’s
Path. It would connect with Stephens State Park. It would
just put on a nice--a long trail pattern for paths and recreation.
So the Township would be able to use it, as would anybody
else. It would be Morris County parkland. So I just wanted
to throw it out and poll the Council. It doesn’t have
to be decided tonight, but I just wanted you to have the
facts and to consider to get back to the MUA. Now, on the
County side, they’re approaching the Freeholders. The
Freeholder Board is very Open Space-oriented at this time,
so there’s not really any problem seeing that the County
would go for this. But I don’t have official word on
that right now, being approached by this Freeholder liaison
to the MUA, Jack Schrier and he was going to check the Freeholder
Board as I’m checking with the Council. If you wish
to discuss it, fine, if not, we’ll discuss it the next
President Rattner: In the concept you presented to me, I
think there could be some benefits. But to take formal action,
I think it probably, especially with the implications of
the taxes on saying the pluses and minuses--.
Mr. Sohl: I think we should discuss it as soon as possible.
Mr. Heymann: Put it on a workshop.
Mr. Sohl: Yeah.
President Rattner: Yes--but the way you explained it sounds
like a good deal.
Mr. Guenther: I’d like to ask Mr. Dorsey, do we need--would
we need a resolution on this?
Mr. Sohl: Sure—
Mr. Heymann: Yeah.
Mr. Sohl: A resolution of intent of some type
President Rattner: Well, just that we, we agree with the
Mr. Dorsey: I suppose it would be good to have a resolution,
so you know what direction you’re going in.
Mr. Guenther: Okay.
Mr. Dorsey: If, indeed, he Council as a whole agrees with
Mr. Guenther: You know, I, I told the Mayor, and despite
the loss of taxes, he didn’t seem to have a problem
with it, but I won’t speak for him.
Mayor Licitra: Bernie, I think it’s an excellent idea.
It’s something that we--I applaud you for researching,
and I think what we have to do is, we’re waiting for
them to react, so maybe a resolution will make the Freeholders
act a little quicker and I think it’s something that
we never know what’s going to be built. I agree with
you 100% on it, Bernie, we’re completely in favor of
it, and anything--if you pass a resolution, we’ll pass
it on to the Freeholders and get moving.
President Rattner: We’ll put it on. You heard the
Mayor, and the way Mr. Guenther explained it, it sounds pretty
good, especially when it’s becomes more park land.
Mr. Guenther: Well, it’s, let me just clarify. They’re
really waiting for us. Not that there’s any great rush,
but the County, as soon as they know from us, they’ll
move on it, because then they have to do it on their end
to do their paperwork which takes a while.
Mr. Sohl: I would just like to suggest that--if that we
have a general concurrence here that we--Bernie reflect that
and that we will discuss it at a workshop, so that they know
that (a) we’re discussing it and (b) they can look
for a more formal response in the near future.
President Rattner: I don’t have a problem with that.
Mr. Guenther: All right.
President Rattner: And we’ll put it on for the next
workshop so we can move quickly with it and give it to them
too. Anybody have a problem with that?
Mr. Guenther: No.
President Rattner: Mr. Heymann?
Mr. Heymann: No.
President Rattner: Mr.. Spino?
Mr. Spino: No.
President Rattner: Mr. Scapicchio?
Mr. Scapicchio: No.
President Rattner: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Guenther. Mr. Spino,
anything to report from the Planning Board? I know they’re
not very active.
Planning Board Report
Mr. Spino: Well, this week was a short meeting, shorter
than normal--the Mayor wasn’t there, so --
Mayor Licitra: I picked the one time we get home before
Mr. Spino: We had a couple of minor things—minor lot
line adjustments, a minor subdivision, but we did have one
on Sand Shore Road, a Light Industrial, or warehouse going
in there that got approved. That was it.
President Rattner: Thank you, Mr. Spino. Master Plan Report,
anything, Mr. Scapicchio?
Master Plan Report
Mr. Scapicchio: Master Plan hasn’t met. Mayor? When--
Mayor Licitra: Yes--Chuck has hired a consultant. We are
going to meet very soon. As I said, we had two new members
join and Chuck is going to be calling a meeting as soon as
the Consultant gets his plans in order. So, it should be
within the next couple of weeks.
President Rattner: Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Scapicchio.
Pride Committee Report, Mr. Guenther? I should also note
that our Chairman of the Pride Committee is out in the audience,
so if you need any help.
Pride Committee Report
Mr. Guenther: If he wants. There was a memo that was sent
regarding some, what we call “hot spots” that
are aesthetically “unpleasing” shall we say.
It was sent to Chuck McGroarty. In fact, he’s issued
a memo and gotten together with the Zoning Officer, who met
with members of the Pride Committee, so these issues will
Mayor Licitra: And if I may-- from there, half of those
things have been taken care of already and the other ones
are, half of them are on building maintenance and half of
them will be taken up by the Planning Department.
President Rattner: Thank you, Mr. Guenther.
President Rattner: Now we’ll come to the final public
portion of the meeting, which any member of the public can
speak on any item they’d like to address the Council
on. Mr. Elms?
Mr. Elms: This is just an Administrative question on Ordinance
10. The last paragraph on the first page says, “See
attached map entitled ‘Zoning Map Revisions’” and
there isn’t any map attached. Can we get copies of
Mr. Dorsey: Yes, you can, I’ll give you a copy right
now. Anybody else want a copy? I have an extra one.
Mr. Elms: Thank you.
President Rattner: Any, anybody else from the public? Yes,
Mr. Carnathan: I’m by Ashley’s Turkey Farm in
that area. With all the development going on, I’m just
wondering what is the future, two bad words for you, sewage
and water for that area of town? I believe it stopped in
1973 down by Main Street. For those developments, everybody
else is getting city water and sewage and we’ve been
there an awful long time and not getting anything. In fact,
the one home in the back, I think it’s West Grover--had
a tie-in to Roxbury then. Well, currently, there’s
a person trying to build. He can’t hit water at all
down on, I believe, it’s Gervic Street down near the
end towards the creek there, so my suggestion is what is
in the future for city water and sewage for that particular
area. Also, on the other side of Town, the other side of
the road, in back of “I Love Subs”, in that area,
they’re also having problems with their wells.
Mr. Guenther: Where is that, I’m sorry sir?
Mr. Spino: Behind “I Love Subs”
Mr. Carnathan: Emmens Road, back in there.
Mr. Sohl: North side --
Mr. Carnathan: So, that’s, I know they’re two
bad words because you have a lot of big problems up in Budd
Lake. We’ve been down here for almost 25 years in the
Town and all I see--in some cases, service is being taken
away rather than being developed--from two days a week for
garbage to one day; not picking up the leaves--you have to
bundle them up and everything else. There’s just two
little things. But I see services going down, rather than
getting better. So, I would like to hear comments on that
or whatever else. I’m looking to the future.
Mr. Spino: The immediate comment that I have is as that,
as far as I know, there are no plans to extend sewer line
or water line from the sewage --
Mr. Carnathan: Well, I would like the Council to take that
into consideration for the future.
Mr. Spino: Oh, so would I because, I know exactly how you
feel. I don’t live in that area, but I know.
Mr. Carnathan: Well, again, you got all these development
going on, Flanders Crossing—and they’re pumping
water galore out of the golf course down into Morristown
and we’re getting nothing. We’re getting nothing.
And the new State Law is they have to pass inspection for
septic tank and wells when we sell our homes, if we have
to sell our homes. Right now, I would like to see in the
future something done about this for those particular—there
are 20 homes on my side--I don’t know how many are
on the Emmans Road. We’re talking maybe 30, 40 homes
to hook up. Even if we could hook up to Roxbury-- I don’t
know how that’s done, but I know one home had to hook
up to Roxbury, because it was so bad--the water, they had
to hook up to Roxbury. So, I would like the Council to take
it into consideration for the future, and whatever can be
done, I’d like to see what can happen at this time.
President Rattner: Mr. Scapicchio?
Mr. Scapicchio: Yes, I’d just, like to suggest that
we have Schoor DePalma looking at the outer area of the Budd
Lake system to see what we can do with the extra EDU’s
and we’re also looking at the water system. Maybe we
can encompass the scope of his work to this little area to
see what the potential of either extending the water from
Flanders Valley wells or tying in with Roxbury, which, you
know, there is a connection down there.
President Rattner: Mr. Guenther?
Mr. Guenther: Well, Dave, remember a couple of months ago,
it was brought up--it was brought up again the issue of the
interconnect with the Flanders Valley field.
Mr. Scapicchio: I think Lisa passed that contract onto the
Administration and hopefully, within the next couple of weeks
Mr. Guenther: Administration?
Mr. Scapicchio: I’m sorry.
Mayor Licitra: We had a meeting today with New Jersey American
to talk about the interconnect with Chester to see if there
is any more that we can do over there, because the only,
Roxbury won’t allow us, we’ve already tried on
Tony Iturbe’s property which is down on Beaver Lane
and Roxbury wouldn’t allow us to come in. The only
other option that we’ve explored--and I explored it
when I was on the Council with Mr. Purcell was to come down
from the high school into Ramar Street down the hill and
into Old Flanders and around there. But that project is something
that’s going to be very, very costly because each time
you’re coming down the hill, you have to stop, you
have to level, you have to put stabilizers in. So it’s
a very hard process. So that’s why we’re looking
at the Chester Interconnect right now to see if we could,
and how much water would be available at that point. We’re
talking water only now, we’re not talking sewer.
President Rattner: Mayor, just a quick- -I plan on having
one of the workshops talking about our water and sewer utility,
maintenance, future plans, possibility and that will be scheduled
a little bit later in the year--and we’ll keep a list
of different people who have asked. I’ve heard about
problems with people on Main Street in Flanders, people in
parts of Budd Lake that were like more, and we have to look
at it in total and look at our priorities, but we’re
Mr. Carnathan: Well, the priorities--these people have been
in this community an awful long time, but all this new development
going on. Why should they get priority over people who have
Mr. Guenther: Well, just like --
Mr. Carnathan: Wait, hold on, wait a minute. Let me finish
this. I’ve been here 25 years and I love the town,
I love the community and everything. I just feel some of
the services have been inadequate. All I want you to think
about and where we’re going with this, with all the
new developments coming in, why can’t we, who have
been here, get sewage and water? That’s all I’m
going to ask.
President Rattner: Okay, just so you know, the developer
Mr. Spino: Mr. Chairman, I had my hand up.
Mr. Carnathan: Well, I’m speaking for a number of
people. I’m not just speaking for myself.
President Rattner: He’s talked twice, I can’t
speak at all?
Mr. Spino: You have to wait until the end, you’re
President Rattner: You, you think I’m going to say
the same thing you’re going to say?
Mr. Guenther: He has seniority.
President Rattner: Go ahead, Mr. Spino. I know I’m
the boss, but he thinks he is the Dean.
Mr. Spino: Two things. I’ve been in town a little
longer than 31 years. I don’t have water and sewer.
I wish I did and I don’t think we’ll, we’ll
ever get them--
Mr. Carnathan: Why not?
Mr. Spino: Because--I don’t know, it’s just
that in a spot that is not going to be served.
Mr. Carnathan: Well, I think that’s wrong to say that.
Mr. Guenther: There’s a cost involved.
Mr. Carnathan: The cost involved? I understand cost--
Mr. Spino: Can I finish? Wait a minute, wait a minute, can
I finish? I let you finish, let me get, can I finish?
Mr. Carnathan: Sure.
Mr. Spino: The other point is that most--you are saying
the new developments. We don’t do that for the new
developments. The new developments put their own--if they
have sewers, they put their own in. We don’t do it
Mr. Carnathan: Where do they hook up to?
Mr. Spino: They build their own systems.
Mr. Carnathan: Yeah?
Mr. Heymann: Their own plant.
Mr. Spino: Except for Flanders Crossings, they paid. We
didn’t pay for that. The developer paid to put that
line in and extend it.
President Rattner: And to expand the plant.
Mr. Spino: And to expand the plant. We have developments
going in that are putting in, that are going in on septics.
Mr. Carnathan: Where does the Township come into play on
that? Don’t you have any control over?
Mr. Guenther: What do you mean?
Mr. Spino: No, the Planning Board does, not the Town Council.
Mr. Carnathan: Well, the Planning Board, aren’t you
part of the Planning Board?
Mr. Spino: No. Only me. I’m the only member--and the
Mr. Carnathan: You are part of the Planning Board though?
Mr. Spino: Yes, I’m a member of the Planning Board.
Mr. Carnathan: Right.
Mr. Spino: But I don’t make them put septic systems
Mr. Carnathan: Who decides on septic and sewage--
Mr. Spino: The Developer.
Mr. Carnathan: The Town doesn’t decide on septic or
Mr. Spino: No, the Township can’t make them put in
sewer--unless it’s on a small lot. If they put them
on quarter-acre lots, then they have to put a system in.
If they put them on acre lots or bigger, they don’t
have to put a municipal system--a sewer system in. They’re
putting in 80 houses on Flanders-Netcong Road, on septic
Mr. Carnathon: On seotic systems—
President Rattner: Mr. Guenther?
Mr. Spino: On septics and wells. Septics and wells. So,
it’s not something that we do.
Mr. Guenther: One of the things we have, there’s,
there’s a little bit of, I won’t to say a “conflict” but
there are two things to consider here. There are two sides
of the coin. One of the things when we wrote the Master Plan
was to create some larger zoning. The idea of larger zoning
is, that in a larger zoning you do not have--you cannot justify
sewer and water systems and that’s to cut down on the
density. As Earl was saying, the only areas that get sewer
and water are the ones with higher density. It’s not
in the Town’s--it’s generally been decided as
a matter of policy in this Town, when the Master Plan was
passed, that it’s not in our interest to encourage
development--meaning we want larger zoning so that there’s
not more developing, meaning you’re not going to have
sewer and water in those places. Earl lives in an area of
Flanders-Netcong Road that’s zoned one acre. One-acre
zoning does not, will not ever probably ever have sewer and
water unless--unless they run into a really bad problem where
all the septic systems back up, the water gets contaminated
or something like that. Only in a case like that will it
Mr. Spino: Then the developer would do that.
Mr. Guenther: Well, no, if you have a problem on Flanders-Netcong
Mr. Spino: Oh, yes. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Guenther: --Let’s see all your systems go bad,
there’s something wrong, whatever--I mean, then you
can get some State aid to help put that in, but it has to
be a very serious problem and that’s happened in certain
areas around the county.
Mr. Carnathan: Okay.
President Rattner: Thank you. Anybody else? Mr. Bonte?
Mr. Bonte, Budd Lake: First of all, Bernie, I hope on your
list of “hot spots” is the Clover Hill sewer
plant. First thing one sees when entering this town from
the south. It’s deplorable, there are piles of dirt,
junk, pipes, etc. I asked four or five years ago, can’t
we put up some trees in--near the highway, to at least shield
the view. I don’t really care what goes on back there,
but it shouldn’t be the first thing people see after
they see a sign that says “Entering Township of Mt.
Olive.” So, add that to your list if it’s not
on it, Bernie. Secondly. I have a suggestion. This would
be, I guess, to the Mayor and to the Council on the Cleanup
Week. Now that we have decided we’re going to do this,
I’ve been giving it some thought and my suggestion
would be that instead of having a designated time period--a
week or two where people put out everything and we have a
mad scramble to try and make the streets look acceptable
again and possible overtime costs--would it be possible to,
when the July Tax Bills goes out, send everybody a sticker
and announce a period starting, let’s say the end of
July until November where that sticker will entitle you one
time to put out everything you want to throw away. What it
would accomplish is, it would spread out and I think make
it easier for our sanitation people to do this large clean
up and possibly reduce our overtime costs. I realize the
tonnage is going to be the same, but it might help with the
schedule. Because the odds are people will do this over a
variety of different weeks. So, it’s something I’d
like you to look at and consider. The Environmental Commission--I’ve
talked about this a number of times
Mr. Bonte (cont’d): in the past regarding the State
requirement of a member of the Environmental Commission be
on the Planning Board. Not the reverse, not that a Planning
Board member be appointed to the Environmental Commission.
The intent of the law is clear. I’ve talked to people
at the state and in the law it even states that the term
of office of that person who is on both those Committees
shall be the starting and ending date of his Environmental
Commission Appointment, not the Appointment to the Planning
Board. That presently is not the case. But of more concern
is the fact that that particular member, Mr. McGoldrick,
occasionally goes to Environmental Commission meetings and
has, I know, on the issue of the Crown Tower development,
missed six meetings. The last three in a row. What we have,
basically, is an individual who is not fulfilling the intent
of the Law and that is that a voting member on the Planning
Board comes from the Environmental Commission with their
viewpoint and background on the Planning Board and I’d
like to see this corrected. Mr. McGoldrick was reappointed
in January. I don’t believe that that date coincides
with his Environmental Commission appointment dates. I think
we need to clarify that problem in the law. I think we need
to have someone on the Planning Board who represents the
Environmental Commission as the state statute clearly requires.
And finally, first of all, Mr. Scapicchio, I would like to
be excluded from your statement regarding how the Ethics
Committee was arrived at and that I believe you stated something
to the effect that people were unhappy with who was picked.
I’d like to be excluded from that because I am not,
did not complain earlier about who was picked and am not
now. I brought up an issue which I thought was important.
I thought it was extremely important that this Township not
on the Record, in writing, put ourselves in the position
where we could find ourselves the subject of a lawsuit. You
had the ability to appoint who you wanted to this committee.
I recognize that. But to state a reason for denying appointment
to this Committee, that the State Law does not give you the
authority to do is, in my opinion, arrogant. I believe you
have overstepped your bounds regarding the State Law and
I don’t think this was a wise move to do. Thank you.
President Rattner: Thank you, Mr. Bonte. Anybody? Mr. Perkins?
Mr. Perkins, Budd Lake: Good evening. Speaking on behalf
of the Mount Olive Pride Committee, I just wanted to add
a little bit to what Councilman Guenther was talking about.
Quickie for the hot spots, that list was being addressed,
much to my surprise and delight. I do know that Clover Hill
Treatment Plan is one of my eyesore areas, so I know we’re
working on that. Mr. Sohl had contacted me a while back on
the possibility of getting some donated trees and I did come
up with a small landscape plan. I’m just waiting to
get--take that over to Bill’s house and actually go
over it. So, I agree with Mr. Bonte on this one, that it
does need to be addressed. It is one of the first things
you see. And we’ll get that billboard donated, we try
to take care of the welcome signs, and that is something
that really, just sticks out and is bad. One thing I’d
like to address the Council as well as the rest of the audience
here is if you didn’t get a chance to read the newspaper
article that between the Historical Society and the Pride
Committee and also Mr. Sohl’s Subcommittee, we are
looking for donations of Americans flags. We did send out
a purchase order to Apollo Flag. We do have 20 American flags
to be strewn along the telephone poles, hung along the telephone
poles would be a better verbiage, along Budd Lake and down
in Flanders as well. We have purchased some banners, last
year, some of them fitting the motif for the old section
down in Flanders as well as the one in Budd Lake. So, anybody
who does want to make a donation, please feel free to make
that donation to the Chief Financial Officer and just make
your donation for Memorial Day flags. Thank you very much.
President Rattner: Thank you very much, Mr., Mr. Perkins.
Anybody else like to speak? Yes, ma’am.
Mrs. Gallagher, Budd Lake: I just had a few things that
I was hoping you could clarify. Mr. Guenther, you said that
you are trying to discourage over-development? Did I --
Mr. Guenther: I said I was trying to encourage less development.
Ms. Gallagher: Less development. Is, is that what the Council
believes they have done at this point? Because if what we
have done is less development, I shudder to think what would
Mr. Guenther: Well, well, let me tell you something. I’ve
worked in real estate for many years and I’ll tell
you that most of the projects that are being built, and I’ve
said this many times. The large projects being built were
approved before any of us before any of us were on this Council,
except maybe Mr. Spino.
Mr. Spino: Thank you, Bernie.
Mr. Guenther: They were approved back in the late--in the
late 80’s. The real estate market went in the tank
in the late 80’s, early 90’s. There was an extension
law passed by the State Legislature. Now, the wisdom of somebody,
and no one’s willing to take any credit or blame for
this, on the Planning Boards, extended one project that Toll
Brothers is going to build--410 units and additional--I forget,
three or four or five years.
Mr. Spino: Ten years.
Mr. Guenther: Ten. Had no business doing that. That was
done a long time ago. So, as far as this Council– the
problem is the policies you put in now, you don’t see
the effect of those until four or five years from now. The
Master Plan, when was it passed? The Master Plan revision,
two years ago?
Mr. Dorsey: It was in 1998, the Township Council approved
the RR-AA Zone, which is referred to as the five-acre zone
and the RR-A, which is the three-acre zone. Of course, as
you point out, that re-zoning does not affect any land that
had previously received approval.
Mrs. Gallagher: Okay, and I came in on the tail end of the
Ethics Committee thing and I was curious, just, did you not
approve a different slate at a previous meeting which was
Public Record the Minutes?
Mr. Dorsey: Let’s set the Record straight. We did
not approve any slate until this evening. There was no slate
Mrs. Gallagher: I was misled. You did not vote on different
people? There are people appointed to this Ethics Committee
that did not receive a majority of the vote?
Mr. Sohl: No official vote was ever taken. There was not
an official vote until tonight.
President Rattner: Prior to tonight.
Mr. Sohl: Prior to tonight.
Ms. Gallagher: So, you did not actually each of you --
Mr. Sohl: It was a straw vote.
Mrs. Gallagher: It was a what?
Mr. Sohl: Straw poll.
President Rattner: Last Tuesday is what we call a “work
session.” That’s where we dealt--we discuss,
nothing is finalized until we come to the public meetings.
That’s why it, the meetings are described either “Workshop
Meeting” or “Public Meeting.” Action can
only be handled at a public meeting.
Mr. Spino: We can’t be law, at a workshop meeting
Mrs. Gallagher: I understand that, but I guess--I guess
what happened from last week to this week is, you all changed
Mr. Spino: No, no, no, we didn’t all change our minds.
Mr. Sohl: And we’re all entitled to do that, by the
President Rattner: Anyway, let her continue.
Mrs. Gallagher: Okay, but anyway. But some of you did, in
fact, change your minds.
Mr. Spino: Not really.
Mrs. Gallagher: I was led to believe that--
Mr. Sohl: One name changed from--
Mr. Spino: I think the facts as some people know them, change,
not that they, they wanted someone or didn’t want someone.
The facts changed and the knowledge that they had of the
person changed. That’s what changed.
Ms. Gallagher: Oh, okay, thank you.
President Rattner: Anybody else from the Public?
President Rattner: Make it short, you’ve already been
Mr. Greenbaum: No, no, it’s on a different subject.
Mr. Heymann: I hope you’re successful in your legislature
so I can filibuster here.
Mr. Sohl: I’ll come with you.
Mr. Greenbaum: I just wanted to address some of the issues
which Mr. Bonte has raised relating to a member of the Environmental
Commission being also a member of the Planning Board. Mr.
Bonte was kind enough to supply me with the regulations which
discuss appointments to both and just a brief reading of
both regulations leads me to believe that there was nothing
improper about Mr. McGoldrick’s appointment from Planning
Board to Environmental Commission. If that’s the way
it was done, according to the regulations. So I don’t
have a problem with Mr. McGoldrick being Environmental Commissioner
from the Planning Board. And I believe Mr. Bonte is wrong
in his interpretation of the Law. Regardless of that, I believe
Mr. Bonte is correct with regard to the intent of the regulations,
and the intent is that there shall be someone who can represent
the environmental interests of the Town on the Planning Board,
and I don’t know Joe McGoldrick personally. I can tell
you as a member of the Environmental Commission, over the
past few months, I have not seen Mr. McGoldrick. Now, I understand
he may be semi-retired in Florida and, and plans to come
back. And I believe that the Administration has, has in some
ways gone beyond what the intent of the regulations represent
in hiring Dr. Keller to sit on Planning Board to discuss
the environmental issues, so I think that the environmental
issues are being discussed and that there is counsel on the
environmental issues at the Planning Board meetings, and
I think that was what the intent was. The one thing which
is missing at Planning Board is someone on Planning Board,
who can stand up and say, this is what was discussed at Environmental
Commission. This is what those seven people who have been
appointed to Environmental Commission are concerned about.
Dr. Keller can’t address those issues, and that’s
where I think that there is a problem with the appointment.
President Rattner: Thank you very much. Mr. Guenther?
Mr. Guenther: I just want to make a point about Dr. Keller.
I know for a fact that some environmentally sensitive towns
in our area, Mendham Township and Washington Township, to
be exact, have a environmental consultant sitting at every
Planning Board meeting every time. And the meetings I have
attended, I have not heard any input from Environmental Commission.
Now, that’s not to say, you’re not right in most
of what you say, but as far as not having an expert, I think
we are at a stage of--being one of the largest townships
in the County, that we do need expert help. That doesn’t
mean that the Environmental Commission can’t have good
input, but I don’t think that step was wrong on the
President Rattner: Anybody else? All right, we’ll
close the Public Session.
Mr. Heymann: My only comment is that the last couple of
weeks, I’ve been driving down Route 46 past Budd Lake
and I think they did a nice job with the dredging and the
spreading out of sand, and then, of course, I hit the unbelievable
eyesore of the disgusting building that still remains up
there. I know some of us think that Katherine Hepburn is
still a great actress up here. She was once upon a time a
great actress and therefore, the Casino and the historical
relevance of that dump, I think gives us a stigma which places
us far back into the bowels of old Mount Olive history. And
I’d like to see us move somewhere towards making a
decision whether we’re going to refurbish for whatever
historical input that building could possible have, I don’t
know, or tear it down and improve that beach and put a dock
up like someone else has recommended and maybe make a nice
bathroom facility there--a little snack bar and improve that.
Because the only thing I can think of happening there this
summer is some huge rat running from outside the building
and running across that beautiful lake, and about that beautiful
beach. So, we need to do something with that building. Now,
if it’s not before I leave, so be it. But, I have been
saying for 12 years, it was an eyesore when we had our people
employed in it and it’s just as big an eyesore now
that we’ve closed it up and improved the beach. So
if somebody can point out three things that are historical
there--and I don’t mean tonight, but at some workshop
session, I still wouldn’t listen to it. But I mean,
I’d at least welcome that. So can we move that building
off and make that a nice place, because it is a disgusting
eyesight as you drive down Route 46. And if you admit--if
you say that it is not, then you have the vision of Ray Charles.
And I’ll finish with that.
President Rattner: You don’t have any thoughts for
Mr. Heymann: That’s it.
Mr. Sohl: No comment.
Mr. Hyemann: Well, tonight was the last night I happened
to drive by it and I saw they finally smoothed the sand out
and I saw the building and I got the chills, and so I thought
I’d relay that on.
President Rattner: Mr. Guenther?
Mr. Guenther: Talking about eyesores on Route 46--and I
want to address this to the Administration, what’s
happening with the Blue Bird, or shouldn’t I ask?
Mayor Licitra: I don’t think--that’s in Litigation
right now, we can’t talk about it.
Mr. Dorsey: I’ll tell you what’s happening at
the Blue Bird? What’s happening at the Blue Bird is
that the owners went back, applied for a Permit to reroof
the building. Then they applied simultaneously for a Permit
to replace doors and windows and Sonny Wolski with 27 years
of experience went down there and determined that they were
not limiting themselves to what would be called “renovations
to maintain the property” but doing an overall renovation
of the building. And he told them to stop, and they told
him to get off the property. And Sonny Wolski came into my
office and yesterday, we went into Court and got an injunction,
to prevent them from proceeding until all the issues dealing
with their Permits are straightened out. It is Sonny Wolski’s
feeling that they are going to attempt something devious
and disingenuous. Hence, we got the injunction and that’s
where we are.
Mayor Licitra: I want you to know Sonny was in here Saturday
morning to make his case. That’s how much he--
Mr. Dorsey: We were already in court. We listen to Sonny.
President Rattner: Mr. Sohl?
Mr. Sohl: Two points. One is, the element of growth in Town--and
as much as we’d like to stop it wholesale at times,
there was, in fact, a letter that was obviously written out
of a certain degree of frustration in the recent Mount Olive
Chronicle, calling for residents to demand a moratorium on
building. As all of us sitting here have come to learn through
the facts relative to the law, we just don’t have that
power and as much as perhaps everyone of us might vote tomorrow
for the moratorium on that, it wouldn’t last six minutes,
much less a day or a week. So, while I share that individual’s
frustrations relative to some of the things going on and
as Bernie pointed out earlier, the fact is, a property owner
has a right to develop property within the bounds of that
property’s zoning and we’ve taken steps and gone
through mechanizations of Master Plans and, in fact, going
to court, even as we speak, on one or more of those types
of changes, where we’ve attempted to mitigate or to
minimize the amount of property or the amount of development
that might go on a particular tract of land. So, I share
the frustration, but unfortunately, the power is very limited.
The second point, I just want to make a quick comment. Obviously,
in the last several decades, the word “discrimination” has
taken on a tainted element. But, in reality, the law forbids
discriminations in certain categorizations, sex of the individual,
the color, race, creed, religion, age in some cases, but
not all. What we did relative to our selection process in
the Ethics Panel can certainly be characterized as discrimination.
We could have discriminated--had the person been an employee
and we decided as a Body up here we didn’t want any
employees on the Committee. We could have discriminated on
the basis of education and said we didn’t want anybody
with less than a two-year or four-year Degree. And we could’ve
as in fact, we did discriminate relative to the political
aspirations of the one or more of the individuals that were
potentially being looked at. So while discrimination is apparently
a dirty word these days. It is not beyond the scope of legal
consideration when you apply any factor in the selection
process, and to worry that we can’t write it down or
speak it in public, is a gross distortion of what discrimination
laws are really all about. Thank you.
President Rattner: Mr. Spino?
Mr. Spino: I have nothing, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
President Rattner: Mr. Scapicchio?
Mr. Scapicchio: I have nothing.
President Rattner: I just have one request for the Administration.
We were promised the list of the roads that are going to
be paved. You know, we normally had that with the Capital
Budget. We know it wasn’t done and Mr. Casey brought
it up and said we would get it shortly, so--and we should
discuss it because we want to get it, on with as quick as
possible on that.
Mayor Licitra: I will have Ray’s list tomorrow--I
think it’s completed.
President Rattner: Or we could put it on for the next, next
workshop. We don’t take official action on it. Thank
you very much. Anything else?
Mr. Spino: I move to be adjourned.
Mr. Sohl: Second.
Mr. Heymann: Third.
President Rattner: All in favor?
All in Favor, None Opposed. The Meeting was adjourned.
Steven W. Rattner
I, LISA M. LASHWAY, Township Clerk of the Township of Mount
Olive do hereby certify that the foregoing Minutes is a true
and correct copy of the Minutes approved at a legally convened
meeting of the Mount Olive Township Council duly held June
LISA M. LASHWAY
Mount Olive Township Clerk