The Regular Public Meeting of the Mount Olive Township Council was called to Order at 8:46 pm by Council President Greenbaum with the Pledge of Allegiance.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE & MOMENT OF REFLECTION for all those who have and continue to protect our freedoms and our way of life.

OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT ANNOUNCEMENT
According to the Open Public Meetings Act, adequate notice of this meeting has been given to the Mount Olive Chronicle. Notice has been posted at the Municipal Building, 204 Flanders-Drakestown Road, Mount Olive Township, New Jersey and notices were sent to those requesting the same.

ROLL CALL Present: Mr. Buell, Mr. Rattner, Mrs. Labow, Mr. Tepper,
Mr. Tobey, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Greenbaum

Absent: None

Also Present: David Scapicchio, Mayor; William Sohl, Business Administrator;
John Dorsey, Township Attorney; Lisa Lashway, Township Clerk; Sherry Jenkins, CFO
Questions on Bill List?

APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS

July 10, 2007 CS
Present: Mr. Buell, Mrs. Labow, Mr. Greenbaum, Mr. Rattner, Mr. Tepper, Mr. Perkins
Absent: Mr. Tobey

June 12, 2007 PM
Present: All
Absent: None

President Greenbaum: Let the record reflect that Mr. Buell and Mr. Rattner are both here and will be returning to the dais shortly. Questions on the Bill List we’ve already dispensed with. We’re up to approval of Minutes of previous meetings. Mr. Tepper?

Mr. Tepper: Yes Mr. President. I move for approval of the Minutes for July 10th, closed session and June 12th, 2007.

Mr. Perkins: Second.

President Greenbaum: Moved and seconded. Are there any comments, deletions or corrections? Seeing none, Roll Call.

Passed Unanimously with the exception of Mr. Tobey who abstained from July 10th Closed Session

CORRESPONDENCE

LETTERS FROM RESIDENTS / ORGANIZATIONS

1. Letter received July 16, 2007, from Charles L. Smith III, Area Director of Government and Community Affairs for Comcast of Northwest New Jersey, LLC regarding the line-up of Channel 236.

2. Letter received July 18, 2007, from Charles L. Smith III, Area Director of Government and Community Affairs for Comcast of Northwest New Jersey, LLC regarding the line-up of Channel 236.

3. Letter received July 20, 2007, from Stefred Realty Co. regarding SEC Route 46 & International Drive, Mount Olive.

4. Letter received July 20, 2007, from the Bicycle Touring Club of North Jersey regarding the Bicycle Touring Club of North Jersey in Ramapo Valley Sunday, August 26, 2007 between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m.

RESOLUTIONS / ORDINANCES / CORRESPONDENCE OTHER TOWNS


5. Resolution sample received July 12, 2007, from the sample resolution forwarded to Woodbridge by the PARIS – grant program.

6. Resolution received July 13, 2007, from the Musconetcong Sewerage Authority regarding the Endorsement of the New Jersey Treatments Works Approval (TWA-1) Permit Application for a Sanitary Sewer Extension for Mount Olive Center Associates, LLC to Serve the Proposed Mount Olive Mews Town House Development.

7. Resolution received July 16, 2007, from the Township of Montville regarding the amendment of Abbott-Burke funding.

8. Letter received July 16, 2007, from the Hackettstown Planning Board regarding the cancellation of the Master Plan Reexamination Report Hearing scheduled for July 24, 2007.

9. Letter received July 19, 2007, from the Township of Hanover regarding a resolution opposing the sale of State assets.

10. Resolution received July 19, 2007, from the Borough of Wharton regarding R-95-07 Resolution in Support of State Legislation to Amend Abbott-Burke Funding.

11. Letter received July 19, 2007, from the Township of Bridgewater urging the State of New Jersey to take financial responsibility for the cost of a State-wide gypsy moth control program.

12. Resolution received July 19, 2007, Authorizing the Issuance of Not Exceeding $2,100,000 Subordinate Bonds (Projects I, I-A and II-A – Series 2007) of the Musconetcong Sewerage Authority and Providing for their Sale to the New Jersey Environmental Infrastructure Trust and the State of New Jersey and Authorizing the Execution and Delivery of Certain Agreements in Connection therewith.

13. Resolution received July 20, 2007, supporting legislation requiring beer kegs to be registered prior to sale.

14. Resolution received July 20, 2007, supporting S-2507 Reporting of Lyme Disease and Supplementing Title 26 of the State Statuettes.

MUA / MSA

15. Report received July 13, 2007, from the Musconetcong Sewerage Authority regarding expenditures.

16. Report received July 16, 2007, from the Musconetcong Sewerage Authority regarding the Mapping Revision Application Form for the MSA Wastewater Management Plan.

DOT / DEP / LOI / HIGHLANDS

17. Letter received July 16, 2007, from the Department of Environmental Protection regarding Elizabeth Estates, Block: 7000, Lot: 63.00, (Rezamir), Landscape Remediation Plan.

MISCELLANEOUS

18. E-mail received July 11, 2007, from the National League of Cities regarding the 15th Annual Leadership Summit.

19. Legislative Bulletin received July 19, 2007, from the New Jersey State League of Municipalities.

LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVES

20. Email received July 13, 2007, from Congressman Frelinghuysen regarding the Interim Iraq Report, Frelinghuysen, New Jersey Delegation Pressed for Additional Homeland Security Funding, Frelinghuysen Vouchers Preserved and Funded, the House passed H.R. 556, the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007, and Frelinghuysen Welcomes Strong Economic News.

21. Email received July 20, 2007, from Congressman Frelinghuysen regarding More Homeland Security Funds for New Jersey’s High Threat, High Density Areas, Energy and Water Bill Passes House, and Frelinghuysen to Welcome Deputy Secretary of Interior to the New Jersey Highlands and Great Swamp Wildlife Refuge.

DCA

22. Letter received July 16, 2007, from the Department of Community Affairs Office of Smart Growth regarding a Public Hearing for Morris County’s Cross – Acceptance Report.

TORT/LAWSUITS

23. Complaint and Jury Demand received July 20, 2007, in the matter of Marilyn Ryan vs. the Township of Mount Olive.

President Greenbaum: We’re up to Correspondence. There are 20 pieces of Correspondence on the Agenda this evening. Does anyone wish to discuss any particular piece of Correspondence? Seeing none, we will move on to Ordinances.

ORDINANCES FOR PUBLIC HEARING

President Greenbaum: We have a bunch of Ordinances for Public Hearing this evening. The first ordinance is entitled:

Ord. #30-2007 An Ordinance of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing a Stop Sign at the Exit at Turkey Brook Park on to Flanders Road.

President Greenbaum: At this point I’ll open it up to the public to anyone who wishes to speak on this particular ordinance. Mr. Weiss, if you would be so kind as to state your name and address.

Howie Weiss, 4 Hogan Court, Flanders: Just a quick technicality on this. The road that you are talking about has a name. It’s been named by the Planning Board and perhaps I can speak to you as a member of the Planning Board and as a member of the Street Naming Committee. It’s been a good six weeks, Russ, would you say?

Mr. Tepper: I believe so.

Mr. Weiss: The road, the inner loop, or the one that we’re referring to has a name now and it’s called
Seward Place. So I would like the Resolution to reflect that the road, rather than just calling it “the road,” has a
name.

President Greenbaum: It’s an ordinance, and I assume that we can make that, it’s not substantive.

Mr. Dorsey: I guess you want to say the intersection formed by the exit driveway is now going to be Seward
Drive?

Mrs. Labow: Seward Place.

Mr. Tepper: That’s Seward and Flanders.

President Greenbaum: Seward Drive is the road itself.

Mr. Dorsey: The intersection formed by the exit driveway…

President Greenbaum: Formed by Seward Place…

Mr. Dorsey: …and Flanders Road.

President Greenbaum: Right.

Mr. Dorsey: So is the exit driveway Seward Place?

President Greenbaum: Yes.

Mr. Dorsey: What I said before.

President Greenbaum: Okay.

Mr. Dorsey: Alright, somebody make a motion to amend it.

Mrs. Labow: So moved.

President Greenbaum: Well we don’t need to amend it. It’s simply a typographical error.

Mr. Dorsey: We’re amending it to correct the typographical error.

Mr. Tepper: That’s fine.

President Greenbaum: I’m 0 for 2.

Mrs. Labow: So moved.

Mr. Perkins: Second.

President Greenbaum: I didn’t think you needed to amend a typographical error.

Mr. Dorsey: Lisa, do you know what they said? Do you know where to put in Seward Place?

Mrs. Lashway: Yes.

President Greenbaum: All in favor of the amendment?

AYE

President Greenbaum: Now we’re talking about the amended Ordinance. Mr. Weiss did you have any other comments on Ordinance #30-… Mr. Mania, do you have anything to add to Mr. Weiss’ comments?

Mr. Mania: No I don’t.

President Greenbaum: I’m sorry. If you’re going to speak, you’re going to have to come up to the podium. Does anyone else from the public have anything? Seeing none, I close it to the public. Mr. Buell, do you want to move Ordinance #30-2007.

Mr. Buell: I move Ordinance #30-2007 for final passage.

Mrs. Labow: Second.

President Greenbaum: Moved and seconded. Any Council comment? Roll Call please.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously

President Greenbaum: Ordinance #30-2007 has passed on second reading and I hereby direct the Clerk to forward a copy of same to the Mayor and publish the notice of adoption as required by law. Next Ordinance for Public hearing is entitled:

Ord. #31-2007 An Ordinance to Amend and Supplement Chapter 234-8 “Rates” of the Code of the Township of Mount Olive (Towing).

President Greenbaum: Does anyone from the public wish to be heard on this particular Ordinance?

Mr. Dorsey: Everybody knows that these are towing rates, these are not tax rates.

President Greenbaum: Seeing none, I close it to the public. I ask Mr. Tobey to please move Ordinance #31-2007 for approval.

Mr. Tobey: I move Ordinance #31-2007.

Mrs. Labow: Second

President Greenbaum: Moved and seconded. Any Council discussion? Mr. Rattner?

Mr. Rattner: At the last meeting I made some comments that I thought some of the rates were excessive and there are a lot of new rates which multiplied the costs for towing a vehicle. I was told that all we were doing was taking the existing ordinance and increasing some of the rates. Well, we changed the whole rate structure and I think part of our responsibility is to make sure that the public is well protected. Storage is up almost 300%. Our basic towing rate now which we had before, we paid the towing rate plus mileage to the tower’s lot. Mr. Rattner (cont’d): So it’s variable. We added waiting time, so that when the police call them they pay just like a taxi in New York when you’re stuck in traffic, there are fees. The fees, besides being raised for storage, cover only twelve hour increments. So like on an automobile it went from $25 – $30, but it’s only for the first twelve hours not the first day. So some of the storage rates, if you have an accident in the morning and don’t pick up your car until the next day, it’s $60. I think that some of these rates are excessive. The trucks I’m not going to comment about because I realize there’s a lot of extra work and specialized equipment. Even though a tractor trailer or a big truck goes from $100 a day for storage, which can actually go up to about $350. So I think some of the rates are extremely high. I think it was misrepresented as just an adjustment of some of the rates. There are a lot of new rates and new charges and I think some of the costs are expensive. I think if somebody is stuck on the side of the road, especially our residents in town, they should have a set rate, whether it be $60, $90, or $100. They know that’s what they are going to be charged, and have what I consider reasonable storage fees, not excessive storage fees.

President Greenbaum: Any other comments? Roll Call please.

ROLL CALL: President Greenbaum, Mr. Tepper, Mr. Tobey, Mr. Perkins voted yes.
Mr. Buell, Mrs. Labow, and Mr. Rattner voted no.

President Greenbaum: Ordinance #31-2007 has passed on second reading and I hereby direct the Clerk to forward a copy of same to the Mayor and publish the notice of adoption as required by law. Next ordinance for public hearing is entitled:

Ord. #32-2007 Bond Ordinance Providing for the Construction of a Dog Park in and by the Township of Mount Olive, in the County of Morris, New Jersey, Appropriating $35,000 Therefore and Authorizing the Issuance of $17,500 Bonds or Notes of the Township to Finance Part of the Cost Thereof.

President Greenbaum: Does anyone from the public wish to be heard on this particular ordinance? Yes,
Mr. Novaky? Please come up and state your name and address for the record please.

Todd Novaky, 32nd Street, Budd Lake: I have a question. Mr. Rattner, last meeting you had asked whether there was an accounting of what portion of this was going to be borne by the town, and what portion was going to be borne by donations and fundraising. Did you ever get reconciliation on that?

Mr. Rattner: I didn’t get any information, no.

Mr. Novaky: Okay, I think as a taxpayer I’d like to see what that is. So I would ask you guys to put off voting in favor of this until we have a full accounting of what the organization is going to fundraise and what they’re going to ask the town to pay for. That’s the least we can ask for.

President Greenbaum: Thank you. Anyone else from the public wish to be heard? Seeing none, I close it to the public. I’d ask Mrs. Labow to please move this.

Mrs. Labow: I actually have a question before I move this because I’m not so sure I’m even going to vote for it at this point.

President Greenbaum: You can move it and not vote for it.

Mrs. Labow: I move Ordinance #32-2007 for final passage.

Mr. Perkins: Second.

President Greenbaum: Moved and seconded. Colleen?

Mrs. Labow: The question I had was, wasn’t there some issues that had to be answered for Green Acres on this, Bill?

Mr. Sohl: There is no issue with Green Acres. We are holding a public hearing on August 7th. It’s a matter of process.

Mrs. Labow: So why are we doing this before we have that?

Mr. Sohl: Because there’s no reason not to.

Mrs. Labow: I’d like to make a motion that we continue this.

President Greenbaum: Motion to continue the public hearing? Is there a second.

Mr. Rattner: Second.

President Greenbaum: It’s been moved and seconded that we continue the public hearing. Is there any discussion on the motion to continue the public hearing?

Mr. Buell: Yes just a question. Why doesn’t it make any difference?

President Greenbaum: It’s a foregone conclusion. You hold a hearing and you satisfied the requirement of Green Acres. It’s not like there are any issues that need to be addressed.

Mr. Sohl: Green Acres is not opposed to it. It’s a requirement of the Green Acres process.

President Greenbaum: It’s simply procedural and it’s doesn’t preclude us from moving forward with this.

Mrs. Labow: Do we have to bid out for any of this?

President Greenbaum: The fencing has to be bid out, or it was bid out?

Mr. Sohl: No. It’s under the bid threshold.

President Greenbaum: It’s under the bid threshold.

Mrs. Labow: So we haven’t seen any costs, or anything else involved in this?

President Greenbaum: That’s true Colleen, except to the extent that we were prepared to move forward with this with the cost known to be under $35,000. That’s what they’re bringing it in at, similar to other projects that we have undertaken. You know, it’s not going to exceed $35,000. In fact my understanding is that the fencing actually came in a lot lower than had originally been expected. The fencing came in somewhere in the $8,000 range, is that correct?

Mr. Sohl: I don’t know if it’s that low but…

President Greenbaum: I thought it was that low.

Mrs. Labow: That’s what I was told.

Mr. Sohl: …it was definitely a better number than we expected.

President Greenbaum: I mean it’s at Council’s… There is a motion on the table to extend the public portion this evening. If there’s no further comment we’ll take a vote on that motion. Roll Call please.

Mrs. Lashway: Mr. Tepper?

Mr. Tepper: This is on a motion to table this at this time?

President Greenbaum: If you vote yes, you’re voting to continue the public portion. If you vote no you’re going back to the original Ordinance which is on the table.

Mr. Tepper: Yes.

Mrs. Lashway: Mr. Buell?

Mr. Buell: No.

Mrs. Lashway: Mr. Tobey?

Mr. Tobey: No is to continue?

President Greenbaum: Yes is to continue. No is to move back to the Ordinance which is on the table.

Mayor Scapicchio: Yes means the project does not move forward.

President Greenbaum: Correct.

Mr. Tobey: Excuse me, no.

Mrs. Labow: Yes.

Mr. Perkins: No.

Mr. Rattner: Yes.

Mr. Greenbaum: No. We’ll move on

ROLL CALL Mr. Tepper, Mrs. Labow, and Mr. Rattner voted yes.
Mr. Buell, Mr. Tobey, Mr. Perkins, and Mr. Greenbaum voted no.

President Greenbaum: So we’ll move on with the Ordinance. Is there any further discussion from Council on the Ordinance itself? Mr. Tepper?

Mr. Tepper: I’d like to understand why we talked about other organizations raising funding for an activity, and here we have one that has potential, different businesses and people who would utilize it to raise monies, and we haven’t done so.

President Greenbaum: Because this is a project which is being undertaken by the municipality itself, rather than an organization, the municipality is not moving forward with putting up lights on our facilities in town. It’s something that the organization wants to do to further their benefit that they receive through the Township. I can tell you one thing, that if it was the Township that was moving forward I would vehemently vote against putting up the lights on the field, but because it is being done by way of donations from A&P and by way of fundraising by the Park and that to me is the distinction between the two.

Mr. Tepper: Baseball actually is contributing a great deal to the dog park, since if I remember correctly on the map, baseball was identified as having an expanded field where the dog park is going.

President Greenbaum: Baseball isn’t contributing anything towards the park. The park belongs to the taxpayers of Mount Olive…

Mr. Tepper: Not disagreeing.

President Greenbaum: …and whether or not it was identified on the original map as a baseball field is irrelevant because the Township will determine exactly where and what the Town’s parks will be used for.

Mr. Tepper: Well I have not seen the specific numbers of cost. I can’t support something that I don’t know what it’s going to cost and where the monies are coming from at this point.

President Greenbaum: Mr. Rattner?

Mr. Rattner: I asked the same thing last meeting, and I think Mr. President, I remember you saying that in a perfect world you would have the information to vote on it, and to me this is only a small project. We know we’ve had a lot of small projects and they’ve gotten big. A good example is Flanders Park. That was going to be $100,000 and we’re moving ahead, and Flanders Park ended up costing about $750,000 in the first stage. When they come back and want more money we’re not even going to know where or what went wrong. All we know is give us some money and we’ll see until we run out and come back. We know that there are different issues. I don’t know what the site plan is. I would vote on something if I know what it is, but this is just left too open ended.

President Greenbaum: Okay, any other comments?

Mrs. Labow: I have a question.

President Greenbaum: Yes.

Mrs. Labow: Also one of the other things for the dog park to go into this location was for soil conservation… we needed to do some remedial work…

Mr. Sohl: There’s no soil conservation requirement. We’re not moving soil.

Mrs. Labow: No, that’s not what I’m asking. I thought that soil conservation wanted us to start to work on those rough graded fields, and that this was part of the thing to satisfy that.

Mr. Sohl: There’s no relation that I’m aware of.

Mrs. Labow: None at all? Okay, then I was given misinformation.

President Greenbaum: Any other comments? Mr. Buell?

Mr. Buell: Yes, we’re all saying this is a very expensive thing, and the basic cost of this is the fence and it has already been bought for what? $11,000 or $12,000 or something and that’s it.

Mr. Tepper: How has it already been bought before it’s been approved?

Mayor Scapicchio: It hasn’t.

Mr. Tepper: I know I just asked a question.

Mayor Scapicchio: You said, “How has it been bought?” Making the assumption that it has been.

Mr. Tepper: Jim made the statement.

President Greenbaum: Mr. Mayor, I haven’t recognized you.

Mayor Scapicchio: I’m sorry.

President Greenbaum: Jim, I’m the only one that can speak out of time. Mayor did you have something that you wanted to add?

Mr. Rattner: Rank has its privileges.

Mayor Scapicchio: You know, just that this is no surprise. This was in my 2007 budget that you folks adopted. The total cost was to not exceed $35,000 and $17,500 of that is coming out of the Open Space. The $17,500 is being bonded and will be repaid in part through donations that Willie Cirone and others are now pursuing. I can tell you that over the past two weeks Willie has had 20 SLAP workers up there that have cleared that site. Colleen was up there on a Saturday or Sunday for two hours, praised the project, praised what Willie Cirone was doing, and for the questions to come out now to me are a bit surprising. None of this has been a surprise to anybody.

President Greenbaum: Dave, bottom line is that any member sitting up here has the right to question it.

Mayor Scapicchio: No doubt.

President Greenbaum: I don’t disagree with you at all, that the cost of the project is estimated to be $35,000 and the Township has for years been prepared to move forward with this project. The $35,000 to the extent that we’re going to get donations which are going to decrease the cost, whether it be $5, $1,000 or $10,000 that comes off the $35,000 number, great. To the extent that I don’t know how much the fence is going to cost, you know what? I go into a lot of projects whether it be the DPW building, not knowing exactly what it’s going to cost. We have estimates that it’s going to cost $35,000 or less to build this park. Is there a potential for cost overrun? There’s always a potential for cost overrun. Is the Council likely to approve expenditures over the cost of overrun if one should happen? I think not on this particular project. This is not the kind of project where we are committed to funding something which is going to cost more than what we had already undertaken to the extent that it comes back and we need another $20,000 to finish this project or $10,000. You know what? At that point, Willie, go out and raise the money that you need because there is not going to be any additional funds coming from Council. We set a limit, and hopefully it will cost less than the limit. I don’t know how much each chink in the fence is going to cost but I know that it’s going to cost $35,000 or less for the Township, and I’m prepared to move forward with it. It’s been in the hopper for a long time. It was in the budget, it’s something that we approved, and we should move on unless there is any further comment then I’d like to move on to a vote. Did you have something Mr. Tobey?

Mr. Tobey: No.

President Greenbaum: Mr. Sohl?

Mr. Sohl: Yes, I just wanted to add the value of approving this tonight is that the Mayor can sign it. We have a Mr. Sohl (cont’d): twenty day wait anyway before an ordinance takes effect, and that would then take the ordinance beyond the official date of the Public Hearing.

President Greenbaum: Sherry?

Mrs. Jenkins: I just want to make one point because you did tell us at the last Meeting that you want to cap the expenses at $25,000 and that anything over and above that would have to come back to Council. I did advise Willie that next morning that in fact was the case. So right now we are at $25,000 and anything over that would have to come over here.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously with the exception of Mr. Rattner who voted no.

President Greenbaum: Ordinance #32-2007 has passed on second reading and I hereby direct the Clerk to forward a copy of same to the Mayor and publish the notice of adoption as required by law. Next ordinance for public hearing is entitled:

Ord. #34-2007 An Ordinance of the Township of Mount Olive Amending Ordinance #10-2006 Which Established Fees or Rates for Off-Duty Police Officers.

President Greenbaum: Does anyone from the public wish to be heard on this? No we just did 33 didn’t we? Oh, we did skip 33, I’ll get back to 33 afterwards I’m sorry. Seeing no one from the public I will close it to the public and ask Mr. Rattner to move ordinance #34-2007

Mr. Rattner: Thank you Mr. President, I move for adoption and final passage of Ordinance #34-2007.

Mr. Perkins: Second.

President Greenbaum: Moved and seconded. Any Council discussion? Roll Call please.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously

President Greenbaum: Ordinance #34-2007 has passed on second reading and I hereby direct the Clerk to forward a copy of same to the Mayor and publish the notice of adoption as required by law. By inadvertence I skipped Ordinance #33-2007 entitled:

Ord. #33-2007 Bond Ordinance Providing for the Acquisition of Various Equipment of the Township of Mount Olive, in the County of Morris, New Jersey, Appropriating the Aggregate Amount of $822,000 Therefore and Authorizing the Issuance of $780,900 Bonds or Notes of the Township to Finance Part of the Cost Thereof.

President Greenbaum: Does anyone from the public wish to be heard on Ord. #33-2007? Seeing none I’ll close it to the public and ask Mr. Perkins to please move Ord. #33-2007.

Mr. Perkins: Yes, Mr. President, I move for adoption and final passage of Ordinance #33-2007.

Mr. Rattner: Second.

President Greenbaum: Moved and seconded. Any Council discussion? Roll Call.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously

President Greenbaum: Ordinance #33-2007 has passed on second reading and I hereby direct the Clerk to forward a copy of same to the Mayor and publish the notice of adoption as required by law. The next Ordinance for Public Hearing is entitled:

Ord. #35-2007 Ordinance Appropriating $105,000 from the General Capital Fund which represents $50,000 from the Open Space Trust Fund and $55,000 from the Baseball Association for the Purchase of Lights at Russ Nagle Field in and by the Township of Mount Olive in the County of Morris New Jersey.

President Greenbaum: Before I open this to the public, it should be noted that Council has already approved allowing the lights to be put into Flanders Park. That was done at a prior meeting by way of resolution. This simply is a capital ordinance with respect to funding. It doesn’t deal with the bid specifications although I’m sure there are a lot of people here who could talk about the bid specifications, and certainly raise very relevant points with respect to the bid specifications. This is simply a funding mechanism with respect to being able to President Greenbaum (cont’d): go out to bid for the purchase of lights which ultimately will be subject to the bid specification. The monies are coming from “A,” a donation from A&P which was set aside for lights at Russ Nagle field in the amount of $50,000 and “B,” funds raised by the Jack Kroft Baseball Association in the amount of $55,000 which have now been turned over to the Township to give an accumulated amount of $105,000 for the purchase of appropriate lighting pursuant to the Planning Board resolution which was adopted many years ago. At this point, Anne, if you want to come up. Okay, just once again state your name and address.

Ann Wisnewski, Watson Way, Flanders: I’ve been coming here for seven years. It doesn’t get any easier but here I am again. Over the course of the past seven years, I’ve sat through countless meetings where decision makers like yourselves have assured the residents near Flanders Park that if any project moved forward they would do everything in their power to minimize the affect on the residents nearby. We were promised the latest light shielding technology would be used to minimize glare and offsite spill. This was made official in the Planning Board decision 2K-02 and the Town Council Resolution from April 25th, 2006 which stated that the “lights would be installed with the latest light technology in field lighting at the time the lights are installed.” Councilman Tepper assured everyone at the May 17th Workshop Meeting that these lights had a 25 year warranty. We were promised that controls would be in place to ensure that the hours of operation would be enforced to minimize the impact on nearby residents. In order to maintain those controls, advanced offsite timer controls need to be implemented. These controls will also help the town manage the installation as they can be used to remotely control the lights and turn them off if they are left on by mistake, or malfunction, and to monitor usage for charging user fees. These controls come with a 25 year warranty.

President Greenbaum: Is it that you have a problem with the bid specifications as they were sent out?

Mrs. Wisnewski: I’m getting there, but yes.

President Greenbaum: I don’t mean to shortcut you but I know there are a number of other people, I think there are a number of different Council people up here who have a real problem with the bid specs that were sent out. I don’t believe that those are appropriate…

Mrs. Wisnewski: I won’t be much longer.

President Greenbaum: Okay, go ahead.

Mrs. Wisnewski: I promise. Despite all of this, the Town issued a bid specification for lighting materials for the Russ Nagle Field that doesn’t take into account any of these promises. There’s no mention of current technology. It does not specify that the equipment has to be new. There’s no mention of shielding. No requirements for offsite timer controls, and a 10 year instead of 25 year warranty. In fact, it even neglects to specify the height of the poles. The town put the bid out last Thursday before the Ordinance providing the funds were even approved, and frankly the specification looks like it was simply dictated from the quote the baseball organization received from Musco. It’s less than one page long, contains very little detail, and I don’t see how any company besides Musco could bid on this specification. So, I would like to know who wrote the bid specification, and if the Town Engineer was involved in writing this bid specification.

President Greenbaum: Bill?

Mr. Sohl: Our office did exactly what, and I forgot your name…

President Greenbaum: Anne Wisnewski.

Mr. Sohl: As Anne indicated, we worked from the Musco quote.

President Greenbaum: Well, I think the bid specifications have to be redrawn to indicate the Planning Board requirements in terms of shielding. I think it has to be re-bid because I don’t believe that the bid, I think that there are a number of people sitting up here who don’t believe that the bid specification was appropriate.

Mr. Sohl: Administration doesn’t have a problem if that’s the desire of Council.

President Greenbaum: That’s not what we’re doing here tonight.

Mrs. Wisnewski: I understand that. Let me get to the part that relates to the ordinance.

President Greenbaum: I understand your issue as well. Go ahead.

Mrs. Wisnewski: So if we’re going to redo it, and if we’re going to include the 25 year warranty which was Mrs. Wisnewski (cont’d): stated was going to happen with these lights, and which gave us a lot of the controls and the protection we were promised, I’m fearful that the ordinance itself doesn’t have enough funding in it to cover that. I don’t know what the cost is…

President Greenbaum: Then we can’t award a bid that we don’t have funds for, so it’s a non-issue. If the bids come back higher than the amount of money which has been set aside, all of the bids get rejected.

Mrs. Wisnewski: Okay, so when a bid is redone, I would ask that the 25 year warranty be added to that, and possibly, you’re not going to redo your ordinance. The ordinance does not say, “Not to exceed $105,000.”

President Greenbaum: There is, when it goes out to bid there’s a certification of funds available. The funds that are available are $105,000. If the bids come back over $105,000 they are automatically rejected. So the bids are going to be redrawn and sent out and ultimately if the purchase price of the equipment as specified by the Planning Board, in terms of what needs to be purchased, comes in over $105,000 then the bids, the ordinance really has no effect. The bids get thrown out and we go back to the drawing board.

Mrs. Wisnewski: But if you don’t put the 25 year warranty into the specification it can come in under the $105,000.

President Greenbaum: It’s a separate issue. The Planning Board indicated that the lights should have a 25 year warranty. The bid specification as it’s going to go out is going to have a provision that there’s a 25 year warranty.

Mrs. Wisnewski: Okay, so you’re telling me the bid specification will specify 25 year warranty?

President Greenbaum: I’m telling you that the bid specification will parrot language required by the Planning Board. If it said 25 year warranty, it’s going to say 25 year warranty. If it talks about timer switches, it’s going to say timer switches.

Mrs. Wisnewski: So the governing document is the Planning Board 2K-02 document?

President Greenbaum: Correct.

Mrs. Wisnewski: And that’s it, nothing that’s happened after that?

President Greenbaum: That is the governing document.

Mrs. Wisnewski: So, Mr. Tepper’s assurance that it had a 25 year warranty is not relevant?

President Greenbaum: That what has a 25 year warranty?

Mrs. Wisnewski: The lights. That what they were going out to purchase had a 25 year warranty.

President Greenbaum: Then Musco or whoever bids on this shouldn’t have a problem conforming with the bids if that’s the case, and I don’t know whether they do or they don’t. I assume that they do.

Mrs. Wisnewski: Well the quote received from the Baseball Organization, from Musco, included only a ten year warranty.

Mr. Tepper: How can that be when the quote has not been received yet? The quote is not due until Monday.

Mrs. Wisnewski: The Mayor’s office received a quote and I’m not talking about a bid, I’m talking about the quote that you base the whole….

Mr. Tepper: There’s been no quote.

President Greenbaum: Anne, it’s irrelevant. The bid is going to be redrawn to include all of the language which was in the Planning Board document including the 25 year warranty. Mr. Tepper?

Mr. Tepper: There is no specific language that will satisfy Anne in the Planning Board document. What should have been included was a separate section, and what I expect that you’ll see when the bid is received are lights that meet the criteria that she is discussing that have the reflection, that have the warranty, etc. There was an additional addendum of specifications and I can’t say why or why not it wasn’t included. What I expect that baseball is looking for, and what they expect to see from the companies that they have spoken to, all included the low light dispersion, the overhead and the warranty. I would recommend we wait to see what we receive on Mr. Tepper (cont’d): Monday before we categorically state we would reject it, because I believe that it would exceed the Planning Board requirement.

President Greenbaum: Mr. Dorsey, the bids cannot be, the bids have to be accepted by the Council ultimately?

Mr. Dorsey: You have to authorize the acceptance of the bid and the issuance of the contract.

President Greenbaum: If we decide to re-bid the project because we don’t believe that the bids met, although they may have met the bid, but not the Planning Board document, do we have the right to reject the bids at that point in time?

Mr. Dorsey: Yes.

President Greenbaum: The answer to your question is that the bid has to be approved by the Council. So we can leave the bid as is and see what comes back, and see if it meets the Planning Board approval. If it doesn’t we would reject the bid and re-bid it pursuant to the language in the Planning Board document.

Mrs. Wisnewski: Can anyone tell me whether or not a 25 year warranty reflects what is in the Planning Board documents.

Mayor Scapicchio: I’m reading that, excuse me…

President Greenbaum: Yes.

Mayor Scapicchio: Rob, I’m reading that now and I don’t see that here, and actually I’m a bit confused because…

President Greenbaum: If it’s not in there then it’s…

Mr. Sohl: It’s not in the Planning Board document.

Mr. Tepper: It was not, and Baseball… This was part of the argument that Baseball had originally made that the Planning Board document, that had lights been put in ten years ago, you would have lights that no way meet the environmental requirements that we would get today on our product today. So by actually delaying it, although we’ve increased the cost significantly, you will have lights that will have less dispersion beyond the baseball field than what you would have had originally and they will exceed what the Planning Board required significantly.

Mrs. Wisnewski: So Mr. Tepper, when you said that it included a 25 year warranty, what’s changed?

Mr. Tepper: That was the request that the Baseball made to the individual companies that they requested quotes from. They wanted a quote with a 25 year warranty.

Mrs. Wisnewski: The quote I have a copy of from the Mayor’s office only has a ten year warranty on it.

President Greenbaum: That’s not a quote, that’s a bid proposal.

Mr. Tepper: I cannot address that. I can tell you that Baseball originally asked all of the companies that they spoke with to bid with a 25 year warranty, and I anticipate that what you’ll see what we receive will reflect that.

Mrs. Wisnewski: Then why do the specs say ten year warranty? They did not ask for a 25 year warranty.

Mr. Tepper: I don’t know.

President Greenbaum: The requisite document which the bids have to comply with is the Planning Board Resolution. If it talks about a 25 year warranty…

Mr. Sohl: It doesn’t.

President Greenbaum: If it doesn’t talk about a 25 year warranty, then it doesn’t need to be part of the bid. To the extent that Baseball wants a 10 or 25 year warranty, the Planning Board Resolution is the governing document here.

Mr. Tepper: They want more, it’s good.

Mrs. Wisnewski: So the fact that without the 25 year warranty and the timer controls, everything will have to be done manually with a key doesn’t matter to anyone?

President Greenbaum: It’s not that it doesn’t matter. It’s that the document in terms of the bid specs that went out to bid is pursuant to the Planning Board Resolution which was adopted at the time.

Mrs. Wisnewski: But it was adopted seven years ago and now we know more about how this is going to be implemented.

President Greenbaum: That is the document that went through the Planning Board and that is the document which binds this Council.

Mrs. Wisnewski: So because we’re unwilling to talk beyond purchase to installation and rules and regulations of usage, we’re not going to talk about getting something that would benefit the Town because we’re unwilling to talk about the whole project now. We’re only going to talk about a purchase.

President Greenbaum: I’ll let anyone up here answer that question that feels…

Mr. Tepper: I’m sorry, what? Anne I apologize I was reading something.

Mrs. Wisnewski: Yes that’s fine. I hope I can say it again. Because we’re saying here we’re only talking about the purchase and not the installation and not the whole implementation of this project, we’re not talking about what controls need to be in place. Therefore, we’re not talking about what we need to purchase upfront to put those controls in place. All we’re referring to is a document from seven years ago which doesn’t happen to mention a warranty. The other thing is the cost of not having this 25 year warranty upfront will be that we will have to maintain the lights on the Township’s dime. There are projections of how much that will cost that Greg Beck has done. I’m saying to you I think paying upfront for the 25 year warranty will save you money over going out on our own to get these lights maintained when they’re out of alignment because it’s a wind tunnel down there. There’s a problem with the basketball lights that get misaligned and we have to call the Town and then we’re told, “Oh geez, I don’t know when I can get a bucket truck out there to look at it.” If you buy the 25 year warranty right now, we call Musco, they come out and they fix it. It’s in place, it’s paid for, and we don’t have to worry about bucket trucks being able to come and money in the budget to send them there. I think if you look at the cost of not doing it versus the cost of putting it in now, you’re going to find that the Town is going to be protected. The light levels on the field are going to be maintained so that the kids are safe, you know, you’re fifty foot candle whatever. If it’s not working the monitors will tell them and they will come out and fix it. We won’t have to come to you and say, “Please can you fix the lights they’re shining in my house,” or “Please can you fix the lights, the kids can’t see the ball when they’re playing.” So by shortcutting this and just talking about purchase and not the whole project to implementation, we’re being shortsighted on what we should purchase to make it a good project. That’s what I’m trying to say. Just going by the letter of the thing from seven years ago that didn’t even anticipate how this would be implemented, I’m having a hard time with that.

Mr. Tepper: I think as Mr. Greenbaum pointed out, going just by what the Planning Board approved you would end up with something that certainly isn’t what you want.

Mrs. Wisnewski: Well you couldn’t even buy Musco level eight now unless you went to a, if there’s a graveyard for lights that’s where you would find them.

Mr. Tepper: Right. So by default we’re going to end up I believe, with the better product. I believe you will see the longer term warranty. I believe you will see lights that reflect a lot less than what was originally approved in terms of general lighting. I agree with you that planning ahead makes more sense for maintenance and for service. I don’t think Baseball wants to be paying for service or be requesting people to come down any more than you do. I believe that the warranty that we will receive will reflect what Baseball had originally asked the companies to quote at, and that’s the extended period.

Mrs. Wisnewski: But they asked them that through the bid process, or outside the bid process?

Mr. Tepper: Before the bid process began Baseball, and before it was deemed necessary for the Township to bid this, Baseball went out for bids and Baseball defined their specs for what they were looking for. The lighting quotes that they got were from lighting engineers. The design of this is one that’s done not by, you know, people on Baseball but a lighting company.

Mrs. Wisnewski: So do you have a quote right now with a 25 year warranty.

Mr. Tepper: I do not have a quote at all. What I have…

Mrs. Wisnewski: But you just said that based on what went out for quotes.

Mr. Tepper: What I have is that they have spoken to it, it went to the Town and we put it out for a legal bid. The Administration put it out for bid. I think we should sit and say they asked for estimates of what it would cost, they told them what they wanted in it. That is what we should see bid, I’m hoping we see bid for next Tuesday.

Mrs. Wisnewski: So do you have an estimate of what the 25 year warranty costs?

Mr. Tepper: As a stand alone no I do not. I have an estimate from the Association as to what the total project will cost and that’s why we based the funding on the amount that we did.

Mrs. Wisnewski: Well just to make one more comment, I did some research on the internet as to other towns that have gone out to bid for lights and consistently I see, “25 year warranty” and wording like, “if you can’t satisfy the warranty, don’t bother bidding.” That’s the most important part of this bid. That makes me think it’s important and that makes me think we have to consider beyond what was said in 2000, what’s important. The fact that you can’t tell me why you changed from 25 to 10…

Mr. Tepper: I didn’t say I did. You keep saying ten. I don’t know where the ten came from.

Mrs. Wisnewski: Ten is what you wrote if you pull out the bid specification.

Mr. Tepper: I didn’t write that.

Mrs. Wisnewski: Baseball wrote it, okay. A ten year warranty to include coverage for parts and two years labor. It does not say 25, if you’re telling me Baseball wants 25 why doesn’t this say 25?

Mr. Tepper: Miss, who provided that?

President Greenbaum: Wait, Russ, don’t badger. You know what…

Mr. Tepper: I’m just trying to understand where the ten came from. I don’t know.

President Greenbaum: The ten came from the quote that Baseball sent out. That Jack Kroft sent out.

Mrs. Wisnewski: This is the bid, it says right there, ten. Why would they go out for ten?

President Greenbaum: It’s two years on labor.

Mr. Tepper: Right.

President Greenbaum: Ten years on parts. It’s like your car, if you’re going to have them come out after two years there’s going to be a cost.

Mr. Tepper: Right.

Mr. Sohl: The bid doesn’t require…

Mr. Tepper: The bid doesn’t require even ten years. I’m saying, you know, we want to obviously have something more.

President Greenbaum: That’s exactly Anne’s point that they should have said 25 years because it’s important, it’s an important issue. Look, don’t argue with me Russ I’m only telling you what Anne’s position is.

Mr. Tepper: I know, but I’m raising the point that I feel the same way about Toll Brothers and that was approved under a certain Planning Ordinance at that point in time. Those were the rules that were approved and we can’t change those either. I’m saying that you need to be consistent. You can’t change things midstream and say well this one is judged this way and this is judged the different way.

President Greenbaum: You know what, I disagree with you wholeheartedly Russ…

Mr. Tepper: You’re entitled to.

President Greenbaum: …although I’m not prepared to sit here and redo everything that was done in the past, but the point being made that technology has changed.

Mr. Tepper: Yes, I don’t disagree with you Rob.

President Greenbaum: Part of the delay, the lights should have been in five years ago.

Mr. Tepper: Agreed.

President Greenbaum: So what was appropriate then would be what’s up now.

Mr. Tepper: Right.

President Greenbaum: And I’m not… Buddy I’ll get to you. We don’t need to respond, you know. I totally agree with what Anne is saying in terms of her concept, although as a decision maker sitting up here I am not prepared to adopt her position. I understand what she’s saying. You can argue all you want.

Mr. Tepper: I’m not disagreeing with her Rob.

President Greenbaum: Other people have said 25 years is an appropriate timeframe in terms of warranty. I assume as a car it’s the power train. It’s not the cost of fixing…

Mr. Tepper: It’s not the light bulbs.

President Greenbaum: Yes.

Mr. Tepper: It’s not the lights proper itself or whatever.

President Greenbaum: Right.

Mr. Tepper: I don’t disagree with you and I don’t disagree with Anne. I’d like to see what response that we get. It does not reflect the bid spec which was approved by Planning because Planning, at that time, didn’t have warranties.

President Greenbaum: You know what, it’s not really the substance of what the ordinance is, but it goes as Anne has pointed out, it goes directly to whether or not it is appropriate to purchase, to set aside money for lights that might not be the most appropriate. Mr. Tobey?

Mr. Tobey: Rob, I understand that the ordinance is about the funding, but just so I fully understand the other aspect of it, if the bid is going out contrary to what the Planning Resolution states, where does that leave us?

Mr. Tepper: Better off.

President Greenbaum: It depends on what comes back. If the bid that comes back is better than what went out Planning wise, then we have a bid which is acceptable from the Planning document perspective, but not the point that Anne is making which is, you know what, whatever happened in the past is not appropriate anymore because times have changed. So we need to go back to the drawing board, and re-look at this thing from the beginning which is where I have a problem with your position. I’m not prepared to do that and I don’t think Council is prepared to do that either.

Mrs. Wisnewski: I don’t know that I’m asking you to look at it from the beginning. What I’m saying is I hear that it’s going to be a 25 year warranty. Mr. Tepper is saying that it’s going to come in with a 25 year warranty. The bid spec says 10 year warranty. What company would bid 25 that costs more when you asked for 10?

Mr. Sohl: That’s an option that they can always do.

Mrs. Wisnewski: But you didn’t ask for it.

President Greenbaum: I’m sorry?

Mr. Sohl: The fact that it only specified 10 in the bid does not inhibit a response from a vendor, on the basis of 25…

President Greenbaum: That’s not the point Bill. We’re not talking about the warranty now anyway. Mayor did you have something?

Mayor Scapicchio: You know there is one other option open to Council, and that is to send out an addendum to that request for proposals, extend the bid date by the number of days that the Township Attorney suggests, and add language that satisfies the concerns of this governing body. That’s what I would suggest that you do.

President Greenbaum: I have no problem with that if it’s acceptable to Council. The Administration sends out the bid proposal, Dave.

Mayor Scapicchio: I understand.

President Greenbaum: I mean Council, Russ, do you see the distinction between the 10 and 25 year warranty?

Mr. Tepper: Obviously there’s a distinction. I believe that what you’re going to see on Monday will reflect the additional addendum that was provided and not included in the package.

Mayor Scapicchio: Is that when it’s due in on Monday?

Mr. Sohl: Due on Monday.

Mr. Tepper: Tuesday, Monday it’s due in on the 31st.

Mr. Sohl: Bid opening is Tuesday at 10:00, a week from today.

Mr. Tepper: So I believe that this Board should look at what we receive and then if it’s not acceptable to what we’re looking for, not exceeding the Planning Board document, not meeting much of the criteria that Anne has recommended we have the option at that point to reject it.

Mrs. Labow: What’s Buddy have to say?

President Greenbaum: What’s that?

Mrs. Labow: Buddy’s waiting to tell us, he might have the key to the solution here.

Mrs. Wisnewski: I reserve the right to come back.

Mr. Tepper: You don’t have to reserve it Anne.

Buddy Shakespeare, Pershing Ave., Budd Lake: All of Anne’s concerns are legitimate, and if you look at the way contracts run, until the bid goes in, there’s no final contract until the bid goes in. Revisions get done constantly. This is a January revision, I believe, is that the date you have on there? That’s been revised and all of your concerns about the luminous lights, the way they glare, the guarantees, the poles, everything in there has been upgraded by the vendor. We’ve had contact with them to ensure that the product that comes in here will exceed anything that has been approved prior, and we want the best technology possible.

President Greenbaum: I appreciate that. I think the suggestion that Mr. Tepper has is let’s see what comes in. I suggest that a meeting be arranged between you and Anne to talk about her concerns once the bid comes in, in terms of before the bid is awarded because we’re going to have another discussion in terms of what comes back from the bid if not appropriate. Anne is going to come back here and say it didn’t include X, Y, and Z. At that point you can respond to the bid before Council decides whether or not it’s going to accept the bid or not. Therefore, we can move forward with the process, Anne can take a look at what comes in, she can identify in terms of the bid where it lacks and we can talk about it when the bid comes back in.

Mr. Shakespeare: Well my concern is that we keep pushing back what’s going on.

President Greenbaum: I’m not talking about pushing back anything. I’m talking about let’s see what comes in and it would have to then be formally adopted, irrespective of dates at the Council Meeting following the Administration’s provision…

Mr. Tepper: The following Tuesday.

President Greenbaum: …the Administration’s decision to award a bid to the successful bidder and at that point the bid should be specific enough to be able to answer Anne’s questions. If it says 10 year warranty Anne can come back up and say, “It doesn’t say 25, it says 10.” If it doesn’t include X, Y, and Z we can look at the issues at that point in time. I’m not looking to change the dates.

Mr. Shakespeare: Not to be disrespectful to Anne, but why does she have the ability to review what’s coming back when it’s all going to be there.

President Greenbaum: She always, any taxpayer has the right to review any bid that comes back in and to comment and to make their argument before Council to try to convince Council that the bid is not in the best interest of the township. So we’re not offering anything different to anybody else that isn’t already available as we sit here today.

Mr. Shakespeare: Well I’m confident that whatever comes in is going to exceed everybody’s expectations.

President Greenbaum: Buddy, based on those representations I don’t see the problem, and Anne I don’t see the problem with moving forward with the bids as they currently stand. Let’s look at what comes back and you can make the arguments at that point in time that the bids do not meet the needs of the Township, either by way of that Planning Board decision. I’m not telling you Council is going to agree with you and at least we’ll have that argument at that point in time. If it comes back with a 25 year warranty, the fact that the bid specs didn’t say 25 year warranty is irrelevant. You agree?

President Greenbaum: Okay, come back up. Thank you Buddy.

Mrs. Wisnewski: Well I’m happy you’re going to include me in the process which has kind of been my problem with the whole thing. It’s not only my input that you need, I think you need to include someone from the Recreation Department because the concerns that I have are more from a neighborhood perspective. The concerns that they have are from a management perspective. You want to make sure that you cover what they’re concerned about in terms of being able to manage the on and off of the lights and tracking of usage and things like that as well as what I’m concerned about. I would ask that you include them.

President Greenbaum: To me that is a separate issue completely from what is before us today, which is to go out and purchase the lights. If the lights are purchased without an automatic timer, then there’s going to have to be a policy ultimately put in place when the lights are installed to make sure that the lights are turned off at 10:00 as per the Planning Board’s policy, as per their Resolution.

Mrs. Wisnewski: But not looking forward to what the Recreation Committee has recommended in terms of usage fees, things like that, you’re not going to be able to track who is using this field if all you have is a key. That’s what you’re getting with a ten year warranty is a key.

President Greenbaum: I understand what you’re saying. I don’t think that if the Administration, first of all, the Recreation Committee is an advisory Committee to the Administration. If the Administration is moving forward with a recommendation as to a particular bid proposal, then the Administration has already taken into consideration whatever they feel is necessary in terms of giving us a recommendation on the bid proposal. We simply adopt or do not adopt…

Mrs. Wisnewski: I’m sorry, can you say that again I didn’t understand.

President Greenbaum: The decision to award a bid, to recommend the award of a bid is done by the Administration. The Mayor is like the President in terms of administering the Township. The bids come in and the Administration decides which bid is appropriate to recommend to the Township Council based upon a number of different factors. One being that it meets the Administration’s desired goals in terms of whatever it’s trying to achieve. Two that it’s appropriate under the law to award the bid for a number of different reasons that it’s a low bidder, and that it meets the criteria of the bid itself. Ultimately if the Administration feels that they need to go back to the Recreation Advisory Committee which is a Board of the Administration for further discussion, that’s within their province to do so.

Mrs. Wisnewski: But what would be the harm of including a representative of that in this discussion?

President Greenbaum: I see no harm, and Mayor? Mayor?

Mayor Scapicchio: Yes?

President Greenbaum: Before you award, before you come to us with a recommendation on the award of a bid to purchase these lights, I suggest that you contact the Recreation Advisory Committee. Have someone from the Recreation Advisory Committee here if they so choose to discuss the issues related to the lights.

Mayor Scapicchio: Will do.

Mrs. Wisnewski: Okay thank you.

Mayor Scapicchio: Anne, here are some of the specifications that we will use to critique…

Mrs. Wisnewski: So you already had this, you should have used…

Mayor Scapicchio: It was just given to me.

Mrs. Wisnewski: No, you had it.

Mayor Scapicchio: Anne, if I had it I would have given it to you.

Mr. Tepper: Anne, they did not have it until 10:00 this morning.

Mr. Sohl: If I would have had that, it would have been a piece of cake.

Mrs. Labow: You should have asked for it.

Mrs. Wisnewski: Something similar that starts with Section 16526 Sports Lighting provided by Musco was in your folder.

President Greenbaum: Bob, please state your name and address.

Bob Elms, Budd Lake: I have some problems with the math that’s going on here. This ordinance is to appropriate $105,000 from the Open Space Trust Fund.

President Greenbaum: No, that’s incorrect.

Mr. Elms: Well then the ordinance is incorrect to start with, right?

President Greenbaum: No.

Mr. Elms: Well that’s the way it reads there on your Agenda. So the Open Space Trust fund isn’t involved in this at all?

Mr. Tepper: It is.

Mrs. Labow: It is and it isn’t.

Mr. Tepper: It’s involved for a piece of the pie?

President Greenbaum: It’s $50,000 if you read the body of the resolution, have you done that?

Mr. Elms: No, I’m reading what’s in your…

President Greenbaum: It’s $50,000 from the Open Space.

Mrs. Jenkins: The title of the ordinance doesn’t agree to the way that it’s written. That’s the problem. It’s written properly and on the Agenda, the title is just, it’s reflected differently.

President Greenbaum: Right. It’s Ordinance Appropriating $105,000 from the General Capital Fund which represents $50,000 from the Open Space Trust Fund and $55,000 from the Baseball Association for the Purchase of Lights at Russ Nagle Field in and by the Township of Mount Olive in the County of Morris New Jersey. That’s what the Ordinance is entitled.

Mr. Elms: Okay, what happened to the $50,000 from A&P?

President Greenbaum: That money was originally taken from the fund which it was put into, and put into the general surplus fund last year or the year before with the understanding from Council that if the lights went forward it would come out of the Open Space Trust Fund. That money was languishing in a fund not being used and was put into general surplus as I recall.

Mr. Elms: So this was just a finagling of funds from here to there and whatever and now we’re calling it Open Space instead of A&P?

President Greenbaum: I don’t know if I would use the same words that you would use, but…

Mr. Elms: Well, we’ll call it creative financing.

President Greenbaum: Right, it was from the sale of land. Anyone else? Yes sir, Mr. Beck? Please come up and state your name and address.

Greg Beck, Crenshaw Drive: Thank you for listening to everybody and absorbing all of this information because I know it’s a lot of reading material. God bless you. I’ll try to streamline my comments based on the revised scope here. A couple of things catch my attention. Number one, the resolution from April of 2006 states that, “If the Baseball Association raises the balance of the funds necessary to light a baseball field.” How can you light a baseball field without installing the lights? So why is this ordinance only purchasing the lights? Who’s going to install them? Why isn’t Musco or whoever we buy these lights from who is going to give a warranty going to install them as well? Who is going to pay for that installation? And if it’s done by volunteers, are they qualified? What happens if a light pole falls over on a person or a property? Who is liable for that? The Township? It’s on Township property, right? So these are things as a board certified safety professional I think about from a lighting perspective and making sure that they’re done right. The warranty that’s under discussion probably stems from Musco, but it’s a trademark warranty. It’s the Musco Constant 25, and that allows the replacement the group re-lamping and all the rest, and forecasting based on hours of use, we could avoid $56,000 of maintenance costs over 25 years, $2200 a year. Now I read my tax bill, and I’m very pleased to see that we want to lower taxes. That’s great. So why aren’t we considering buying some type of a warranty that eliminates future costs? Have we looked at the operation costs? Who’s paying for that? Purchasing lights is one thing, but I look at the estimates, it’s public knowledge going on to the First Energy Corp. website, showing what the commercial rates are for summer versus winter and forecasting your hours of use per day, per month, etc. Anybody have a guess of what it’s going to cost to run those lights a year? $10,000. We’re worried about the money we’re going to save by recycling but why aren’t we worried about this kind of money? Who’s paying for all of that kind of stuff? We can’t even get a pedestrian crosswalk sign at Flanders Crossing in Flanders Park when it gets run over by someone. We can’t even find the money or put up a new one because we can’t be bothered, yet we’re willing to go ahead and spend $12,000 a year to have these lights for a reason that’s convenient for the parents so they can see their kids play, or start the games later, or that kind of stuff. Those are just a few things. Thanks for your time.

President Greenbaum: Thank you very much. Yes ma’am, Mrs. Weintraub. You have to state your name and address please.

Karen Weintraub, Watson Way: I spoke to Mr. Sohl earlier today and you indicated that there were two checks received. I’m wondering who the payees were on the two checks.

President Greenbaum: I can answer that question. The checks were by way of donations. One of them was a $40,000 check I assume from Jack Kroft. Is that correct?

Mr. Sohl: Correct.

President Greenbaum: And Mr. Dorsey generously put up $15,000 of his own money to help Baseball out, and raise the funds.

Mrs. Weintraub: So that’s a donation not a loan?

President Greenbaum: Mr. Dorsey?

Mr. Dorsey: Yes.

Mrs. Weintraub: Yes what? It’s a donation or it’s a loan?

President Greenbaum: It’s a donation. Is it a donation or what?

Mr. Dorsey: Yes.

Mrs. Weintraub: A donation?

Mr. Rattner: Say donation.

Mrs. Weintraub: Is it a donation sir?

Mr. Dorsey: Yes, a donation.

Mrs. Weintraub: So it’s not a loan sir?

Mr. Dorsey: The check’s written to the Township.

Mrs. Weintraub: Okay, I’m curious of the $40,000 you said that it came from Baseball. Have we certified that any of those funds are from a loan?

President Greenbaum: That I don’t know. It’s not really relevant to my…

Mr. Dorsey: It has no relevancy to the Township.

President Greenbaum: Anyhow, Mr. Tepper?

Mr. Tepper: I’d be willing to address it. I have a copy of their bank statement dated 7/23 at 10:30 in the morning. They had $76,187 in the account of which that $40,000 check was drawn against. They received $15,000 and presuming we add $50,000 that’s $141,000 plus dollars that Jack Kroft has towards paying for the lights and the installation.

Mrs. Weintraub: The only reason I asked the question is I had listened to some Minutes from another meeting, and I thought there was a situation where the Town might be open to a lawsuit if a loan is defaulted on. If the Town has entered into an agreement with an organization that’s affiliated with the Town, that if that affiliated entity should default on a loan, that it could go back to the Town where they would have to pay off the loan.

President Greenbaum: That was a possibility. I think it related to really different circumstances where we were aware of the fact that they were financing. In fact, Baseball has come to us with a $40,000 check. The Town wasn’t involved in the obtaining of any of their funds, and I think the potential of a lawsuit is the diminuous under these circumstances that the Township would be involved with.

Mrs. Weintraub: Okay, so for the record, if any loan is defaulted upon…

President Greenbaum: Wait.

Mrs. Weintraub: Go ahead.

Mr. Rattner: I was just going to say that about three or four months ago, Jack Kroft came to the Council, and you heard it right in the Minutes, and they asked us would we be open to it and basically we said, “No.” They had to come with funds that they had generated from their fundraising, so they went back. That’s why I think they had that big TV set raffle, and a couple of other things. They did propose that, and the Council as a whole said that was unacceptable because we realized once it gets there and something happens we’d be on the hook and that was unacceptable to this Council. So you did hear those Minutes.

Mrs. Weintraub: Alright, going forward. The taxpayers will not pay anything for these lights, for the purchase of these lights beyond the $50,000 that is being given to the Organization.

Mr. Rattner: The only way the Town accepts any asset is if it’s free and clear, whether it be property or whether it be equipment. We don’t accept anything with any agreements, loans or anything else.

Mrs. Weintraub: Okay, and I’m sorry Mr. Tepper. I wasn’t clear. Right now the Baseball Organization has the money to install the lights?

Mr. Tepper: Yes they do.

Mrs. Weintraub: Do you know what the installation amount is going to be for the lights?

Mr. Tepper: I have an estimate. I will leave it to Baseball to provide the specific quote. I believe we will be able to provide that. It’s being done by Lamp Post if I remember it correctly, so I don’t know the specific cost. I know the quote that they were basing it on was less than the monies that are available right now. Back to Mr. Rattner’s comment that the purchase of the lights would not be agreed to unless they had the funds to do the installation, and to Mr. Beck’s comment that it would be installed by a licensed contractor and meet all New Jersey construction standards and meet codes so that there would be no issue or minimized issue of liability.

Mrs. Weintraub: So are you planning, or is the Baseball Organization planning now or in the future to take out a loan or get any kind of financing for the installation?

Mr. Tepper: My belief is no. I will certainly defer to two members of Baseball to make any comment if I’m incorrect. I was informed that the answer is no, that it will be funded and paid for. There will be no financing, and no borrowings whatsoever for the lights and / or the installation.

Mrs. Weintraub: Okay, because that was something that Mr. Greenbaum had said to Mr. Novaky at the May 15th Workshop that there would be no financing. I just wanted to be sure.

Mr. Tepper: Mr. Greenbaum made it perfectly clear to me as well that they would not go forward if they were borrowing money.

President Greenbaum: But I’m only one vote out of seven.

Mr. Tepper: You’re an influential vote.

Mr. Rattner: You convinced us.

Mrs. Weintraub: Mr. Rattner, you had sent an e-mail to my husband in response to his letter from the weekend.

Mr. Rattner: Yes.

Mrs. Weintraub: I just had one question. Once we purchase the lights, who owns the lights before they’re actually installed?

President Greenbaum: The Township owns the lights.

Mr. Tepper: The Township.

Mrs. Weintraub: Okay, because that’s not clear in your e-mail. You say here, “When the installation is completed and inspected the assets would be turned over to the Township.” So I just wanted to make sure that we have them in the first place.

President Greenbaum: No that’s incorrect. That’s why the funds had to actually be committed to the Township and why it has to be bid out because we’re technically contributing to the project by the use of that $50,000 that the asset belongs to the Township, once dollar one is expended of Township dollars.

Mr. Rattner: I probably just used a poor choice of words.

President Greenbaum: Which happens often when you use so many words to start with.

Mrs. Weintraub: I just wanted to clarify. That’s okay, we all do that.

Mr. Rattner: The way we accept it for use, it has to pass all the things it has to pay for and we take it and it becomes an asset in our books. Right now it’s a working process. It’s like an inventory just no different than catch basins we may have in the Public Works garage. It’s the material. We have to pass all of the inspections before we take it over, and it has to be in what we consider proper shape.

Mrs. Weintraub: Okay another question I had was, has any promise of signage been made to anyone in order to pay for any aspect of these lights or for any other purpose?

Mr. Dorsey: Not by the Township of Mount Olive.

Mrs. Weintraub: Has the promise of signage been made to anyone by the Baseball Organization?

Mr. Dorsey: That’s something you’d have to take up with the Baseball Organization.

Mrs. Weintraub: Would I be able to get that answer tonight?

Mr. Dorsey: You could ask Mr. Shakespeare but the fact of the matter is if he has made any such promises it is clear from the earlier discussions by the Township Council that they are not going to approve signs going up on this field. So there will not be signs on this field.

Mrs. Weintraub: Okay, I just wanted to make sure for the record that if anybody has given any money towards advertising signs they should probably get a refund. Okay, and then I was curious Mr. Tepper, have you personally donated any money towards the lights?

Mr. Tepper: Other than the fact that I purchased several raffle tickets to attempt to win a 42 inch plasma TV, no I have not.

Mrs. Weintraub: Okay.

Mr. Tepper: But I did purchase $100 worth of raffle tickets if you’d like total disclosure.

President Greenbaum: I can tell you that I’m against the installation of the lights. I have never voted in favor of the lights and I bought $20 worth of raffle tickets because I support Jack Kroft Baseball. So I imagine that a lot of people up here have purchased the raffle tickets.

Mrs. Weintraub: And nobody up here won the television?

President Greenbaum: No and I’m kind of pissed off about it.

Mr. Tepper: We thought we had a real lid on that.

President Greenbaum: Maybe Mr. Dorsey won the TV.

Mrs. Weintraub: Thank you for your time.

President Greenbaum: Let me just say something about the donation that Mr. Dorsey made to the Township. Whether you’re in favor of the project or not in favor of the project, Mr. Dorsey has stepped up time and time again with respect to the needs of what people have come to him for in terms of making Mt. Olive a better place. He should be applauded for his efforts.

Mr. Tepper: Absolutely.

President Greenbaum: Whether or not you’re in favor of this particular project.

Mr. Tepper: Just in general.

Greg Beck, Crenshaw Drive: Thank you, Mr. Tepper, for clarifying the installation. A question, have we looked into how any warranty with the lights would be void because they’re not installed by the manufacturer? We’re re-utilizing Lamp Posts to save money?

Mr. Tepper: No sir. I don’t believe the manufacturer does installation. You’d have to be a licensed electrician in the state and / or area that you sold them to, and Musco sells nationally.

Mr. Beck: Okay.

Mr. Tepper: I don’t believe they’re licensed in every state or every area. So I believe you’re obligated to hire someone who is licensed in the area where you are installing them to have them correctly installed by state code.

Mr. Beck: Have you checked to see if Musco has an approved installation contractor list? And again, checking to see if any warranty…

Mr. Tepper: That’s a very valid point.

Mr. Beck: …would be voided because if something goes wrong they say, “We didn’t install them and you didn’t use our approved contractor.” So we might be buying a warranty that doesn’t do us any good.

Mr. Tepper: Not knowing the specifics I would have to believe that any licensed contractor that installed them to specifications would mean that the warranty would be valid. It would be the obligation of both the Administration, Baseball and Recreation as well as ourselves to ensure that we selected such an individual to install them.

President Greenbaum: Mr. Sohl, it’s Council’s position that we should get something in writing from the manufacturer that they are ultimately purchased from, that the warranty is not voided by use of the contractor that was ultimately determined to be the party that is putting in the lights, therefore protecting the Township in
President Greenbaum (cont’d): terms of the warranty and the assets that we have obtained. Is that fair enough?

Mrs. Labow: I just want to say that I did ask that question specifically of a couple of Jack Kroft members. They told me that they had asked that same question and they were assured that that would not be an issue for Musco.

President Greenbaum: I’m sure that Baseball has every interest in making sure that the warranty that is ultimately purchased is usable and not voided by the fact that it’s… We will get a letter in writing by the manufacturer. Okay, any other, I don’t see any other hands. We’ll let Anne go, this is like four.

Mrs. Wisnewski: I just have a question. If they do have all of the money to do the purchase and installation why did we split this project up into two pieces?

President Greenbaum: This is a bid to purchase.

Mrs. Wisnewski: Why aren’t we doing this budget according to the Resolution of 2006?

President Greenbaum: It has to be bid out because Township dollars are being utilized to purchase the lights. Township dollars are not being utilized with respect to the installation of the lights themselves, therefore it does not need to be bid out by the Baseball Association. That’s why it was split between the two.

Mrs. Wisnewski: But if you’re saying that we’re not going with Lamp Post and doing it outside of the ordinance in order to save money, then why are we doing it separately?

President Greenbaum: I don’t understand your question. I apologize.

Mrs. Wisnewski: Greg asked if we were going with Lamp Post and with a separate installation quote outside of this ordinance to save money, and Mr. Tepper said no that’s not why we’re doing it. So I don’t understand why…

Mr. Tepper: Mr. Greenbaum raised the valid point that the Township is assisting Baseball in purchasing of the lights by raising the funds. The Township is not contributing any dollars towards the installation of the lights, therefore they’re two separate contracts. However, Mr. Greenbaum has made it clear that the contract for installation must be acceptable to the vendor that it will not void the warranty of the lights by its installation. So you have two separate legal contracts, one of which the Town is contributing to and one of which the Town is not. That’s why they’re being bid separately.

President Greenbaum: And the work will be inspected by the Township…

Mr. Sohl: Absolutely.

President Greenbaum: In the same construction method that any other construction would be inspected, so that there will be an assurance that the lights are being properly installed pursuant to code.

Mrs. Wisnewski: And we have inspectors that are knowledgeable in 70 foot light pole installation.

President Greenbaum: I assume that we have such inspectors, or that the Township would have to go out and get an inspector who is, in fact, able to sign off on the installation. I would assume that we put in cell towers that probably have similar types of installation issues. Mr. Sohl?

Mr. Sohl: Yes, I mean we have a well-qualified set of inspectors. If by chance there is some aspect whether it’s unique to the height of the poles or otherwise that requires a specialty, we would go out and get that specialty.

President Greenbaum: Right, as is the case any time that there is a needed inspection.

Mrs. Wisnewski: Would there be any benefit to having Musco themselves bless the installation, inspect it and make sure you did everything right?

President Greenbaum: I’m not sure that Musco even does installations. I don’t know whether they do or they don’t or whether or not they simply sell the equipment. I don’t think it’s unusual for someone to purchase the equipment and for it to be installed separately. I don’t think that really raises any real issues.

Mrs. Wisnewski: Okay and do we have a timetable for installation? I know you don’t want to talk about that now, but is this is something that’s going to happen immediately? Or is this going to take a year to get enough money to install it, or what’s happening with that?

President Greenbaum: Well, the bids are going to have to be opened and reviewed and ultimately whatever is put forward, either adopt it or reject it. After the bid has been accepted by the Town Council, I assume that the Township is able to go out and actually purchase the equipment. Thereafter I would assume that the Baseball Association would have to follow the appropriate building requirements in terms of the construction office, in terms of taking the permit out to actually install… Is that true because it’s on Township property, they still need to get…? You’re probably talking about, I don’t know how long it would take to actually obtain the equipment but you’re probably talking a relatively short timeframe for installation. I know that Baseball is looking to get these in as soon as possible. Perhaps either Todd or Buddy can tell us what their plan is in terms of installation. I know it’s as soon as possible.

Mrs. Wisnewski: Okay thank you.

President Greenbaum: Pete did you have something? You’ve got to come up and state your name and address.

Pete Coulter, Crenshaw Drive, Flanders: I was struck by the piecemeal application of how this process works, and I’m not an expert in municipal government so I apologize for that. I was appreciative that everybody had some discussion about signage today because it’s the first time that I’ve heard you apply any zoning principles to your discussions and that’s good. I know that the zoning law doesn’t apply to what the Township does on its own property, but the principles are there because it makes sense about how you retain the character of a town, you know. You chose this site. I’ve always been against the lighting of Russ Nagle Field because I think you shoehorned a baseball field right up against a road. I’ve asked you if we’re approaching this thing piecemeal, Mr. Mayor, as we go forward here consider that, I’ll ask a question. Consider how many foul balls bounce on Flanders Bartley Road in a week? Anybody know? Once you light these fields, these balls are going to be bouncing into Flanders Bartley Road at night, and kids are going to run out and get them. If this is the way you’re going to go, consider a risk mitigation plan on how we’re going to make sure that doesn’t happen as often. I don’t want to see a kid get hurt running out in the street at night. I think that we’re adding risk to the Township by bringing night games here in a place where it’s the only ball field in town you could foul one off into the street. We should try to look if there is another way to prevent that from causing a problem to our children in the future.

President Greenbaum: Thank you. Tom? Again, you have to state your name and address.

Tom Maiello, Watson Way, Flanders: I have a question on the bid process. I’m kind of confused how you could put a bid out for something that you don’t really want, because that’s what you’re doing. If a bid comes back under the 100,000 but it doesn’t meet what’s in the ordinance but it meets what’s in the bid, how can you turn that down?

Mr. Dorsey: That question doesn’t make sense.

President Greenbaum: No he’s saying if the bid comes back and it meets the specs of the bid, how can you lawfully turn it down? You can reject all bids correct?

Mr. Dorsey: You can always reject all bids, I mean you have to have some basis upon which…

Mr. Maiello: I know, I don’t know how local government works but I know that the federal government thought that…

President Greenbaum: We have a legal opinion from Mr. Dorsey that under the circumstances of the bid coming back as not meeting the Planning Board Resolution because the bids weren’t properly drawn that we could ultimately reject all of the bids and re-bid it.

Mr. Maiello: Okay, can bidders come back to you and ask why they did not get the job?

Mr. Dorsey: If the bids are rejected they are usually rejected because the bid is more than has been appropriated for the purpose, or they’re rejected because they don’t meet the specs. In this instance the Council President has said over and over again that the bid would be required to meet the terms of the Planning Board Resolution. That will be the basis, and I suspect…

Mr. Maiello: Right but that’s not fair to the bidders.

President Greenbaum: Except that the Planning Board Resolution doesn’t talk about a 25 year warranty.

Mr. Dorsey: Whatever you want in the specs is what you can judge it on.

President Greenbaum: Can you reject a bid because you can argue that the specs were…

Mr. Dorsey: If you bid them and you come back and they do not have in them what you wanted in the specs, that were omitted from the specs, then you would reject them and re-bid them with revised specs.

President Greenbaum: That’s the answer to the question.

Mr. Maiello: But why would you want to put yourself through that trouble? Why don’t you just put a proper bid out in the first place?

Mr. Dorsey: If that statement is true, your statement infers within it that the specs put out do not include everything that they should then there’s nothing that we can do about that now because they’re going to be received on Tuesday. If they don’t have everything in them that they should, then they’ll be rejected and new specs will have to be drawn.

Mr. Maiello: Okay, thank you.

President Greenbaum: Anyone else from the public? Yes sir, you in the back with the nice tan. Must be from walking around the neighborhood, slowly. Name and address please.

Brian Schaechter, Crenshaw Drive: It just seems like this ordinance is kind of not complete. I don’t know why the Township would put out a bid spec for just lights, and not lights and installation. It just seems a bit far fetched that the whole package isn’t there, and you might want to rewrite the ordinance to include…

Mr. Dorsey: Well, you know, and the answer to that is I did not draw this ordinance, but I think the answer to it is, I assume the Director of Finance did. The answer why they did not include the installation is because the Township is not paying for the installation. That’s the reason why installation was not specifically included in Section 1 that sets forth the purpose.

President Greenbaum: Do you understand that Brian?

Mr. Schaechter: Yes, Baseball is paying to install the Township lights.

President Greenbaum: Yes, that is a correct statement. We are required when we spend a dollar of Township, we can’t donate funds to an outside organization. That’s why the funds were received by Baseball and why we are bidding out. Believe me, I went through this with Sherry and Gary and it went back and forth as to how this needs to be accomplished. We had discussions at prior Council meetings as to why do we have to go this route? It seems so formal. Why can’t we just give them the money and let them go out and buy the lights? The answer to the question is that the government, the State of New Jersey doesn’t allow us to do it that way. The government requires us to take our funds and their funds and for us to go out and buy the lights. Once we buy the lights and we’re not contributing anything more to the project we don’t need to go out to bid. It then becomes Baseball’s obligation to go out and hire a contractor that is acceptable to the Township, or to install the lights in a manner which is acceptable to the Township, either through an electrician who’s got the requisite permits to install the lights, and ultimately has to meet and satisfy the building code requirements that relate to the building of the lights. So the answer to the question is that it was done in a piecemeal fashion because we could do it that way.

Mr. Schaechter: Right, but why couldn’t we ask Baseball to make that donation to the town similar to the way Mr. Dorsey made his donation in cutting them a check? Then everything goes out in one bid package.

President Greenbaum: It’s because it’s not cost effective to do it in that fashion.

Mr. Schaechter: It doesn’t change the cost of the project.

Mr. Dorsey: No you’re right it doesn’t change the cost. This process has been going on for more than a year and the route that you suggest is not the route that was taken, it’s as simple as that. It doesn’t change anything. The Township is not going to spend anything for the installation. It’s going to be done separately by the Baseball Association.

Mr. Schaechter: In the Resolution 2K-02 it also talks about a landscaping plan that should be provided for a visual barrier for adjacent residential properties. Has that ever been brought up and is that going to be bid out as well?

President Greenbaum: That’s not part of this project. It’s not part of the ordinance which is before us today. If it was part of the Planning Board Resolution, then it’s something which is going to have to be satisfied.

Mr. Schaechter: Is it going to be satisfied before lights get installed and bought?

Mr. Dorsey: Simultaneously.

President Greenbaum: I would assume that it’s going to be satisfied simultaneously through a decision between the Administration and Baseball.

Mr. Schaechter: Okay, next comment is when it comes to the licensing of the electricians. Are these electricians, even though some of them might be volunteers which is what the rumor is and I’m not going to ask you to comment on rumor, but if there is a licensed electrician that volunteers his time… Mr. Dorsey hold on one second before you comment. What kind of insurance requirements will the Township make on that since they will be installing them?

Mr. Dorsey: They will not be volunteers. If they’re volunteers and the company that’s been mentioned is not a volunteer then they anticipate being paid. They are going to have to make an application through the Township’s Construction Code office to get a permit to install them. When they do that they have to show that they have the appropriate license to undertake that type of installation.

Mr. Schaechter: I’m not talking about licensing I’m talking about insurance requirements for the town.

Mayor Scapicchio: In the State of New Jersey, DCA now requires that you have a State license to get a building permit issued. As a requirement of that State license that the State issues, you have to have a certain level of insurance coverage.

Mr. Schaechter: Okay, so again no one’s talked about install and who is going to do it if that bid hasn’t come out yet. Obviously it won’t be coming out since it’ll be handled by Baseball.

Mr. Tepper: But it will be reviewed as Mr. Greenbaum pointed out. It’s going to have to meet the appropriate State criteria in order to be awarded.

Mr. Schaechter: Thank you.

President Greenbaum: Thank you. Anyone else from the public? Mr. Mania, anything this evening? Just kidding. I close it to the public. Any further Council comment? Well actually we need to move the ordinance. Mr. Tepper do you want to move Ordinance #35-2007?

Mr. Tepper: I move ordinance #35-2007 for approval.

Mr. Perkins: Second.

President Greenbaum: Moved and seconded. Any Council comment?

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously with the exception Mr. Greenbaum voted no.

President Greenbaum: Ordinance #35-2007 has passed on second reading and I hereby direct the Clerk to forward a copy of same to the Mayor and publish the notice of adoption as required by law. Make sure that the Mayor gets to see it too so that he can sign it.

Mayor Scapicchio: Excuse me?

President Greenbaum: Nothing it says just to send it to the Mayor for his signature. Okay, we’re up to Ordinances for First Reading with second reading being August 7th, 2007. The first is entitled:

ORDINANCES FOR FIRST READING – 2nd reading August 7, 2007

Ord. #36-2007 An Ordinance of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing a Revision to the Code of the Township of Mount Olive, Chapter 102 Entitled “Document, Fees for Copies of” Article II Entitled “Open Public Records Fees” Section 102-3B Entitled “Designation of Custodian and Deputy Custodians of Municipal Records” to Create a New Subsection (6) Entitled “Construction Code Official.”

President Greenbaum: Mr. Buell do you want to move that please?

Mr. Buell: Yes, thank you. I move that Ordinance #36-2007 be introduced by title and passed on first reading and the meeting be held on August 7th, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. at the Municipal Building, 204 Flanders-Drakestown Road, Mount Olive, NJ for a public hearing consideration of said reading and passage of said ordinance that the Clerk be directed to publish, post and make available such ordinance in accordance with the requirements of law.

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.

CONSENT RESOLUTIONS

1. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Granting an Extension of Time for the Completion and Installation of All Improvements in Connection with a Developer’s Agreement Between Rezamir Estates and the Township of Mount Olive.

2. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing a Reduction in the Performance Guarantees Submitted by Kaplan Companies for Woodfield at Mount Olive Section IIIA

3. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing a Reduction in the Performance Guarantees Submitted by Kaplan Companies for Woodfield at Mount Olive Section IIIB.

4. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive the Execution of a Developer’s Agreement Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval with Associated Waivers between the Township and Jet Mountain, LLC (Formerly Michael Panetta and George Panetta) in Connection with Block 8300, Lot 11.

5. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing the Execution of a Developer’s Agreement Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval with Associated Waivers Between the Township and Jet Mountain, LLC (formerly Michael Panetta and George Panetta) in Connection with Block 8300, lot 11.01.

6. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing a Developer’s Agreement for Toys R Us for the Development of Facilities on Lot 1, Block 6601.

7. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing the Renewal of an Alcoholic Beverage License for the 2007-2008 Licensing Period. (Kennedy’s Pub)

8. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Approving GREEN Initiative to Reduce Emissions and Improve the Quality of Life Within the Township.

9. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Opposing Assembly Bill No. 3959.

10. Resolution of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing the Use of Various Purchasing Contracts.

11. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township Mount Olive Requesting Approval from the Director of the Division of Local Government Services for Insertion of a Specific Item of Revenue into the 2007 Municipal Budget ($5,000.00 for the Impaired Driving Crackdown Grant).

12. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township Mount Olive Authorizing Extending the Grace Period for Payment of the August 2007 Quarterly Tax Bills.

13. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township Mount Olive Authorizing a Capital Budget Amendment for the Russ Nagel Field Lighting Purchase.

14. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township Mount Olive Authorizing the Mayor to Execute Professional Services Contracts (McManimon & Scotland and Banc of America).

15. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township Mount Olive Approving a Vendor Service Contract on a “Non-Fair and Open” Basis Pursuant to the “Pay-to-Play” Law (Wm. Stothoff Co., Inc.).

President Greenbaum: Does any Council member wish to have any of the resolutions removed and put on Non-Consent? Mr. Perkins?

Mr. Perkins: Number 8.

President Greenbaum: Number 8, any others.

Mrs. Lashway: Number 8 was revised. You have a revised resolution in front of you.

President Greenbaum: Number 8 will be moved to Non Consent. Mr. Tobey, do you want to move 1-7 and 9-15?

Mr. Tobey: I move Consent Resolutions 1–7 and 9–15.

Mr. Perkins: Second.

President Greenbaum: There’s no 14?

Mr. Rattner: I have a 14.

President Greenbaum: You do?

Mr. Tepper: I do, I have a 14.

President Greenbaum: Oh, here it is it’s out of order…oh no it isn’t.

Mr. Perkins: Second.

COUNCIL COMMENTS ON CONSENT RESOLUTIONS

President Greenbaum: Moved and Seconded. Any Council brief clarifying statements? Mr. Tepper?

Mr. Tepper: On number six as Mr. Dorsey’s pointed out it’s very important that we did get that resolved tonight so that they could initiate construction and not violate the Highlands.

Mrs. Lashway: Same thing with numbers 4 and 5.

President Greenbaum: Any other discussion? Roll Call please. Oh I’m sorry, I’ll open it up to the public. Mr. Elms?

PUBLIC PORTION ON CONSENT RESOLUTIONS

Mr. Elms: Consent Resolution 6, the developer’s agreement for Toys ‘R Us. As a member of the Planning Board, last Thursday night during the Planning Board session Toys ‘R Us had agreed to deactivate a paging system that was disturbing residents.

Mr. Dorsey: A public address system, right?

Mr. Elms: A public address system.

Mr. Dorsey: That requirement is specifically in the developer’s agreement.

Mr. Elms: Okay, it was specifically in the Planning Board’s resolution.

Mr. Dorsey: No. The developer’s agreement says that they must disconnect the PA, the public address system, before they get a building permit.

Mr. Tepper: That’s what Joe went back, that we asked him to go back and he went to Mr. Dorsey and it had to be included in the agreement in order for them to get approval.

Mr. Elms: Okay, but since the complaining resident has my telephone number he has called me twice now about being awakened at night from that PA system, which was supposed to be disconnected on Friday, right?

Mr. Tepper: So the smart answer is they don’t get their building permit until your neighbor is satisfied.

Mr. Rattner: I guess we’re even now for you telling people on Madison Avenue to call me.

Mr. Tepper: It would be fair.

Mr. Dorsey: Bill, you better remember to tell Gary Lindsay that before he issues the CO to make sure the PA is disconnected.

President Greenbaum: Anyone else have any comments on the Consent Resolutions Agenda? Seeing none, Roll Call.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously with the exception Mr. Buell vote no on Consent Resolution Number 1.

RESOLUTIONS NON CONSENT

8. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Approving GREEN Initiative to Reduce Emissions and Improve the Quality of Life Within the Township.

President Greenbaum: Mr. Perkins do you want to move Non Consent Resolution #8 please?

Mr. Perkins: Yes, Mr. President, I move for adoption of Non Consent Resolution #8.

Mrs. Labow: Second.

President Greenbaum: Moved and seconded. Anyone from the public who wishes to be heard? Yes sir, Mr. Russell. Mr. Russell if you would be so kind as to state your name and address.

PUBLIC PORTION ON INDIVIDUAL RESOLUTIONS

Nelson Russell, Budd Lake: I think that this Resolution is in direct conflict with the whole lighting issue that you just voted on for Russ Nagle field. It’s going to increase our carbon footprint not decrease it as this resolution intends.

President Greenbaum: Thank you. Anyone else from the public that wishes to be heard? Mr. Perkins?

COUNCIL COMMENTS ON INDIVIDUAL RESOLUTIONS

Mr. Perkins: Thank you Mr. President. I wanted to just make a comment on this resolution before we pass it, and hopefully everyone will be in agreement. The local magazine, American City and County which I received in my basket today, cities and counties are implementing climate protection initiatives ranging from emissions reductions to energy efficient construction. More than 500 Mayors have signed an agreement to lower emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas in their communities to below 1990 levels by 2012. In conjunction with the Mayor’s office as well as Solid Waste, and Phil Tobey and discussions with Councilwoman Labow, I have drafted up and we worked on this resolution. Nothing in a perfect world will ever change the carbon footprint. To inadvertently say that by changing one of your incandescent light bulbs to one compact fluorescent will save a lot of energy is an understatement. You’ll save 25% of the energy uses of an incandescent bulb, just by one compact fluorescent 15 watt bulb burns the same as 60 lumens. So you can well imagine that’s a quarter. So it’s estimated that if every household in the United States were to change just one bulb in their house, that would reduce the necessity to have to put standby generators and power plants which as you all know burns up diesel fuel and emits a lot of carbon. Bio fuels have come in, there’s some definite research that’s being done by that. There’s another article in here that talks about municipalities actually collecting the grease and oil from a lot of the local restaurants and residents. It has actually cut back on their sewer maintenance costs because, as we all know, if you pour grease down the drain it gets very gelatinous as it mixes up with the water. That has a tendency to clog up sewer lines as well as mess up our pumps and
Mr. Perkins (cont’d): grinders. This resolution was put forth to encourage the residents of Mount Olive Township, as well as the employees to look at alternative energy sources to promote Green and to live in a healthier environment. Thank you Mr. President.

President Greenbaum: Thank you, any other council comment? Roll Call. Oh, Mr. Rattner.

Mr. Rattner: Yes I just think that basically this resolution is not forcing anybody to do anything but it brings up a lot of different points that I think that any individual could save money and increase their quality of life. I know one of the things we just had a warm spell. By replacing fluorescent bulbs and the incandescent bulbs you’re not generating heat. You know, just little things like that also may, besides saving money over the long run. It’s practical from a lot of different areas. As technology changes I like the idea that this is just encouraging residents. It’s not passing a law forcing them.

President Greenbaum: Thank you. Any other comments? Roll Call.

ROLL CALL – Passed Unanimously

MOTIONS

1. Approval of Raffle Application #2201 for St. Jude RC Church and Raffle Application #2202 & #2203 for the Foster Parents Assn. Morris Cty.

President Greenbaum: Mrs. Labow?

Mrs. Labow: I’d like to move Raffle Application #2201, #2202 and #2203 for approval.

Mr. Perkins: Second.

President Greenbaum: Moved and seconded. Roll Call please.

ROLL CALL – Passed Unanimously

2. Bill List

President Greenbaum: Okay we’re up to the Bill List, do you want to move it Mr. Perkins?

Mr. Perkins: Yes, I move for approval of the Bill List pages 1-18.

President Greenbaum: Is there a second?

Mr. Tepper: Second.

President Greenbaum: Any discussion?

Mr. Rattner: I believe Mrs. Jenkins has an answer to my question.

President Greenbaum: Is that true Mrs. Jenkins? What might that answer be?

Mrs. Jenkins: I spoke to Tim and he said that the mail box was damaged as a result of plowing. Initially what they did is repair it and they were hoping that that was going to be sufficient. Unfortunately the homeowner decided that they wanted to replace the mailbox, which is why we are now reimbursing them the $50.

President Greenbaum: Okay, any other questions? Roll Call.

ROLL CALL – Passed Unanimously

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

OLD BUSINESS

Mrs. Labow: Old business, new business, continued business. Over at Turkey Brook Park, Mr. Sohl, for the Carnival that’s going up I received a call just before the meeting tonight from Mrs. Radcliffe, concerned about the trailers being parked behind her house…

Mr. Sohl: They were moved.

Mrs. Labow: No, they didn’t get moved.

Mr. Sohl: I was over there, I saw them moved.

Mrs. Labow: I was over there just before the meeting they were not moved.

Mr. Sohl: So was I.

President Greenbaum: What is the issue?

Mrs. Labow: What I want to know, we were told earlier today that they were going to be moved. Now I told her yes, I understand that they are going to be moved probably by the end of today. They will be moved maybe they just didn’t get a chance to do it yet. Is that correct?

Mr. Sohl: I went up and I saw a number of them, they were moved. I asked Jill when I got back to the building about 7:00 tonight and she indicated that they were moved. There may be one or two that are further down. They’re not near that house. I’ll double check in any case.

Mrs. Labow: I drove over there just before the meeting tonight, because I got a call from her at 7:00. I drove over there about 7:20 so I just wanted to get any updates because she wants a call tomorrow morning.

Mr. Sohl: We will double check in the morning.

Mrs. Labow: Okay, thank you.

President Greenbaum: Thank you any other Old Business? New Business? Mr. Tepper?

NEW BUSINESS

Mr. Tepper: I will be making a motion, I guess, that we waive any building fees, permits, and / or inspection fees for Baseball to be putting up lights on our Township property.

President Greenbaum: Okay, we’ll deal with that at the time that it’s appropriate.

Mr. Tepper: Fair enough.

President Greenbaum: Mr. Rattner?

Mr. Rattner: Yes, we got a letter from the Bicycle Touring Club of New Jersey having a Ramapo Rally. I guess they’re riding 127 miles through a good portion of the State. Anyway, they wanted to notify us that they’re going to be coming through town on Bartley and Four Bridges Road. Eight hundred bicyclists, are we doing anything other than answering, or is there any safety issue?

Mr. Sohl: Scott Van Ness is already aware, and we’ll be responding to that.

Mr. Rattner: But are we doing anything that we’re going to… What are we going to do to make sure it’s safe? I mean we’re not going to stop them. I’m just wondering do we have to take any action to provide whatever we’re going to do…

Mr. Sohl: That’s why Scott is looking at this.

Mr. Rattner: Okay, you said notifying…

Mr. Sohl: We got the same notice and essentially it’s an intersection I think they’re crossing.

Mr. Rattner: Yes.

Mr. Sohl: It’s really not, per se entering Mount Olive.

Mr. Rattner: With that many bikes, do we put cones or something so that they have safe access? And if we do that, if it’s our property you probably have to take action to close part of the road.

President Greenbaum: I don’t think that we’re closing the road.

Mr. Sohl: We’re not going to close the road. Typically the bicyclists of that nature don’t want the road closed.

Mr. Rattner: Okay, I just wanted to make sure that we know ahead of time to make sure that they can safely come through.

Mr. Sohl: Again, already being addressed by Scott.

President Greenbaum: Thank you, any other New Business? Any Legal Matters this evening?

LEGAL MATTERS

Mr. Dorsey: Yes, I am very pleased to advise the Mayor and Council that we have concluded our litigation with Oakwood. You remember originally there was some resistance to my going forward, and I have the check for $47,000 which I will give to the Clerk which completes it. That’s a total of $97,000 I’ve turned in this year.

Mr. Perkins: But you are still $3,000 short of $100,000

Mr. Dorsey: Right I’m working on that. I’ve got some prospects.

President Greenbaum: It depends whether or not you include the $15,000 which you donated to Baseball which would have been $112,000.

Mr. Dorsey: No I didn’t include that, that’s handled differently on my tax return. I do want to say that Tim Quinn went through a day of depositions in the Dattolo matter, he did very well. Mr. Rattner is getting to the point that he enjoys these depositions too much. He now has a refrain that he pipes up about every half hour in the deposition. He says, “We tell the Attorney what to do. He doesn’t direct us what to do.” He was asked a question about whether or not he knew whether or not the property in question was profitable and he went into a 15 minute digression as to Chapter 91 information from property owners and how it’s reviewed, and how assessments are calculated. I mean it went on and on and on it wasn’t really responsive to the question but he enjoyed himself immensely.

President Greenbaum: What a surprise, wasn’t responsive. Only 15 minutes you got through with a bargain.

Mr. Rattner: The last time he tells a story it was only 10 minutes.

Mr. Dorsey: And then they asked him if he had ever been convicted of a crime, and we all went crazy objecting to that.

COUNCIL REPORTS

Recreation Liaison Report

Mr. Tobey: The Carnival is this weekend and hopefully we have good weather. I was glad to see recycling containers placed out where the Carnival will be. That’s all.

President Greenbaum: Thank you Phil.

Board of Health Report

Mrs. Labow: We don’t meet in July.

Planning Board Report

Mr. Tepper: The Planning Board heard Toys ‘R Us, and they made the recommendation to Council which we acted on this evening so that they can initiate their construction before the Highlands Act takes effect and prevents them from doing so.

President Greenbaum: My understanding is that Marveland Farms Master Plan revisions were approved by…

Mr. Tepper: The recommendation to rezone was approved at the prior meeting, not the one that just took place.

President Greenbaum: And I have been contacted by the property, the developer who wished that Council begin the zoning, the work required to put the appropriate zoning in place. I have contacted Chuck McGroarty on behalf of the Council to begin that work.

Mr. Tepper: That was the previous week’s meeting, it was recommended to approve that reclassification.

Board of Adjustment Liaison Report

Mr. Perkins: Standard business except Ternberry was rescheduled again until October 15th.

Open Space Committee Report

Mrs. Labow: I reported last time.

Legislative Committee Report

Mr. Buell: Nothing to report.

Pride Committee Liaison Report

Mr. Perkins: No meeting.

Board of Education Liaison Report

Mr. Buell: I had a short meeting last Monday. The only thing really of note were the new contracts for the Administrative staff including the Superintendent.

President Greenbaum: Yes I read about that in the paper.

Mr. Buell: Yes.

Lake/Environment Issues Committee

Mr. Rattner: Nothing to report.

Safety Committee Liaison

Mr. Perkins: No meeting.

Finance Committee Report

Mr. Rattner: Nothing to report.

President Greenbaum: Okay it’s time to get on that issue with the joint purchasing.

Economic Development Committee Report

Mr. Rattner: We have the month of July off.

Solid Waste Advisory Committee Report

Mrs. Labow: We’re on summer schedule as well, but I do want to just report that a resident had brought to my attention that there were no recycling containers at the beach. Mr. Sohl and his staff immediately saw to it that they were properly installed.

Library Board Liaison

Mr. Tepper: The Library had a meeting to commemorate the fact that they have finally initiated construction on the handicapped parking, of which I believe there was an apology for not extending an invitation to all involved. They will invite everyone when it finally is completed.

President Greenbaum: Okay, I had a chance to take a look at it the other night. It’s moving along. I also had a chance to walk inside the DPW building. I just drove back there and let myself in.

Mr. Tepper: I got the grand tour from Tim.

PUBLIC PORTION

President Greenbaum: At this point I’ll open it up to the public. Anyone who wishes to be heard? Mr. Elms then Mr. Russell.

Bob Elms: I was asked by a friend to review a letter out of Mr. Dorsey’s office about the Budd Lake Sanitary Sewer System. It says that as a result of litigation brought by Dattolo Properties in connection with the Budd Lake Sanitary Sewer System, all EDU assignments made by the Township have to be reviewed. Well, he references a NJAC 7:14A 23.3 a copy of which is attached. I have some problems with this because I believe three years ago we had put this to bed. The EDU was not 217 gallons per day as stated here, but 350 gallons per day. Also, the wastewater flow that they’re using in this letter has nothing to do with individual sewer users, it is a criteria that is put together under a NJ Administrative Code that talks about pollutant discharge elimination system and technical requirements for treatment works approval application, which applies to a treatment works such as the Musconetcong Sewarage Authority, not to the individual users of the sewer system. It says, as in the beginning of this, these criteria are not mandated to be used by sewer authorities as a basis for establishing local sewage user fees and / or connection fees. Mr. Dorsey’s letter goes on to say that they have gone through additional calculations and divided them by 217 gallons per day assigned to a single EDU. Now, if you’re going to use these criteria, then we haven’t done anything to change the criteria for the individual homeowners because in that criteria it talks about a one bedroom unit, a two bedroom unit, a three bedroom or larger unit at different EDU’s, or different gallons per day. So, apparently there have been at least seven letters issued to the businesses along Route 46, and as the letter states that they’re going to back charge them for six years for a mistake that the Township made. Now, some of them are looking at charges to the businesses in the neighborhood of tens of thousands of dollars. Something’s wrong here. Are we trying to chase the businesses out of town? In the beginning of the letter saying that this is caused by the Dattolo properties, are we trying to blacken the Dattolo’s name? Why do we have EDU’s billed at a rate in Budd Lake at $164 per quarter and down in Flanders at $109 a quarter? We have one sewer authority and that sewer authority should be charging the same fees for every user in the municipality.

Mr. Dorsey: Are you finished?

Mr. Elms: What we’re looking for is we’re setting up another lawsuit that’s going to come to the Township, where Mr. Dorsey can continue using his fees, or getting his fees. All the users, the homes and whatnot should be billed at the same rate for EDU’s, whether they’re down in Flanders or here in Budd Lake. The businesses should be billed the same way. Now I realize there’s a litigation going on here, but there’s going to be more litigation over these letters that were issued by Mr. Dorsey. Does the Council have any knowledge of these letters going out like this?

Mr. Dorsey: Yes. The Council has received copies of the letters, and I want to correct almost everything you’ve stated so, it’s not left in error on the record. In the first place, the Township is authorized to conduct each of its sanitary sewer systems in a distinct and different manner. The decision was made years ago to treat Flanders Sanitary Sewer System as an individual system. It uses the number 350 gallons per day for a single EDU. The Budd Lake Sanitary Sewer System was created in 1992 or 1993. It was not I who created the relationship between the system and the EDU’s and the DEP. That was done by the Township’s consulting engineer. The Township’s consulting engineer, and as Mr. Rattner has testified at great length, the Township was required to enter into an agreement with the State of New Jersey NJDEP that it would adopt a non-discriminatory system when effectuating connection fees and service fees. The original permit to install the system and to operate the system issued by NJDEP effectuated the number of 217 gallons per day, equaling one EDU. That number is specifically included in the Township’s Code as to the Budd Lake Sanitary Sewer System. The permit to install and operate the system required the Township to utilize the EDU system, not simply to size the size of the conveyant system into the MSA Plant. It was agreed and made part of the permit issued to the Township that it be used for developing both connection fees and service fees and that was the system that was utilized at the very outset by Lee T. Purcell which he allocated and assigned an EDU count to each and every property. You are right that the NJDEP Administrative Code does break the GPD’s to one bedroom, two bedrooms, three bedrooms, but the NJDEP authorized a blended rate to be used for all single family homes. Every single family home, primarily because in the Budd Lake area they are known to be relatively small homes, was simply put on a blended rate of 217 gallons per day so that every single family home is assigned one EDU, and the number 217 is very close to the number in the NJDEP flow chart as to a two family house. So that was the number, not picked by the Township, it was the number authorized by NJDEP, the blended rate for all residents was approved by NJDEP, the assigning of EDU’s in accordance with the flow projections put forth in the NJAC 7:14-23.3 has been used throughout the system. Somehow there are a number of properties, very specifically commercial properties, that Mr. Dattolo’s engineer had found as designated as having not been properly assigned. There are several of them that we disagree with, but we must acknowledge that there are a number of properties that were not properly assigned for service fees or not calculated correctly. Why it wasn’t done correctly we don’t know. We know for instance, one property was assigned a certain number of EDU’s and they purchased and then they built an additional filling station, and a mini-mart after those EDU’s were purchased. Within the Budd Lake Sanitary Sewer System, the only source of revenue to provide for the operation of the system comes from the money that is collected from those customers, so that if Mr. Dorsey (cont’d): we have a series of customers that are underassigned, then the other people in the system, and I believe that there are roughly 2,000 residents in the system, and perhaps only 100 commercial properties in the system, the residents end up subsidizing the operations of the commercial properties. That simply is not an appropriate situation from an equitable standpoint, and as Mr. Rattner would point out to you it is in violation of the commitments which the Township made to the Wastewater Trust Fund to get the $31 million that it got to build the system. So there is factual incorrectness in what you say, that’s the background of the entire system.

Mr. Elms: But if you’re applying these things to just certain businesses in town, why wouldn’t you apply them to all the businesses?

Mr. Dorsey: No, we intend to have them applied to all of the business properties. There were only seven that popped up as having not been properly assigned, or allocated EDU’s for their service charges. There are a couple that we may argue about but we have to acknowledge there are five or six identified by Mr. Dattolo’s engineer, that appear to be, that appear to simply be undercharged for a long period of time. We have not been able to explain to my satisfaction how that occurred. There are a number of possibilities, but all of those people have to be on the same system or we have the residents in Budd Lake essentially subsidizing the business operations, and that’s not where I think anybody wants to be.

Mr. Elms: Well the residents in Budd Lake are subsidizing the Flanders system.

Mr. Dorsey: They are not, that is not so.

Mr. Elms: Mr. Dorsey, I let you speak now let me speak.

Mr. Dorsey: Let me just finish that thought. The people in Flanders do not subsidize Budd Lake and Budd Lake does not subsidize Flanders because they are two very distinct systems, and there’s a separate accounting done for each system to make sure that they’re self sustaining.

Mr. Elms: How are you allocating a single Sewer Department to both systems, and keeping that separate from a financial standpoint, with all due deference to Sherry.

Mr. Dorsey: It’s done all the time. The Sewer Department operates quite well. The calculations of the EDU’s and what the service fees are made are done quite separate from the people that actually operate the system.

Mr. Elms: What you’re telling me is you used this list of residences, of different establishments and the measurement of their gallons per day. What happens if you find out that these people are measuring, have meters on their systems to provide the amount of water they’re using?

Mr. Dorsey: We do not bill in the Budd Lake Sanitary Sewer system based upon meters.

Mr. Elms: But you’re billing based upon the number of EDU’s, and if they’re not using those EDU’s on a regular basis over a period of time, how can you possibly assign them additional EDU’s?

Mr. Dorsey: Let me say this, the EDU system was imposed on the Township with the Township’s agreement by NJDEP. The Budd Lake Sewer System has very few people on metered water, and therefore in order to put everybody on the same uniform basis, it was determined and approved by NJDEP. I didn’t make it up to use the EDU system.

Mr. Elms: Well, I’d like to bring to your attention that that whole section of Chapter 14A is inoperative at this point. It ran out May 5th, 2007, it was not extended beyond that date. So therefore it is not even in place at this time. Now you’re sending out letters to cause people to be following that set of supposed guidelines? I can’t believe you’re looking at a Laundromat 500 gallons per machine. The machines are not 100% used. You’re talking about a diner with 92 seats, is that 100% used? And you’re charging 50 gallons a day? Come on, John.

Mr. Dorsey: We know that’s what the flow projections show.

Mr. Elms: What flow projection? The one that’s no longer in existence?

Mr. Dorsey: But it was in existence at the time the system was created, and it was adopted into the system.

Mr. Elms: I’m telling you that the Township is looking for a lawsuit over this, believe me, when you start sending people bills for six years of back charges because of mistakes that the town made.

President Greenbaum: Thank you very much. Anyone else from the public? Yes sir, Mr. Russell.

Nelson Russell, Budd Lake: I know it’s getting late and I’ll try to beat this dead horse quickly. We had rain yesterday. We had a muddy plume under the Lake coming out by the Pavilion. I thought we were supposed to have all of the retention basins in place, and grass was supposed to have taken care of that problem. It seems to still exist. What can we do?

President Greenbaum: What are you talking about? At Morris Chase?

Mr. Russell: Yes.

President Greenbaum: Was there a violation of the Morris County Soil?

Mr. Sohl: No.

President Greenbaum So there’s basically nothing we can do.

Mr. Sohl: It’s still within spec.

President Greenbaum: Right everything came back okay?

Mr. Russell: Off Monday’s rain?

Mr. Sohl: What about it?

President Greenbaum: I assume that they’re in compliance. They’re above compliance? They’ve done more than is required.

Mr. Tepper: The requirement isn’t strict enough, but they are in compliance.

Mr. Russell: Okay thank you.

President Greenbaum: It sounds sort of out of our jurisdiction, and we’re not happy about it at all. I would say that we are probably equally unhappy about it. Anyone else from the public? Seeing none, I close it to the public.

COUNCIL COMMENTS

President Greenbaum: Any further comments from anyone sitting up here? I’ll take a motion to adjourn.

Mrs. Labow: So moved.

Mr. Buell: Second.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion was made and seconded, all in favor and none opposed, the meeting was adjourned at 10:43 pm.


_________________________________
Robert J. Greenbaum, Council President

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 on September 11, 2007.

______________________________________
Lisa M. Lashway, Township Clerk


 

2012 Mount Olive Township. All rights reserved.