TOWNSHIP COUNCIL PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
- March 16, 2010
The Public Meeting of the Mount Olive Township Council was called
to Order at 9:06 pm by President Tobey: We will begin with the
Open Publics Meeting Announcement as the Pledge of Allegiance and
moment of reflection was earlier.
OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT ANNOUNCEMENT
According to the Open Public Meetings Act, adequate notice of this
meeting has been given to the Daily Record. Notice has been posted
at the Municipal Building, 204 Flanders-Drakestown Road, Mount
Olive Township, New Jersey and notices were sent to those requesting
Present: Mrs. Labow, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Mania, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Roman,
Mr. Greenbaum and Mr. Tobey
Also Present: David Scapicchio, Mayor; Sherry Maniscalco, CFO;
Bill Sohl, Business Administrator; Mr. DiYanni, Esq., Township
Attorney; Lisa Lashway, Township Clerk
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS – None
Township Clerk’s Certification of Initiative Petition – Ordinance
President Tobey: We have no approval of any minutes. We have already
discussed the certification.
LETTERS FROM RESIDENTS/ORGANIZATIONS
1. Letter received March 8, 2010, from Jacobs Engineering regarding
Waterloo Road Bridge public meeting. PDF Correspondence
RESOLUTIONS / ORDINANCES / CORRESPONDENCE OTHER TOWNS
2. Correspondence received March 12, 2010, from the Township of
Rockaway, regarding Resolution #R10-50, opposing the Adoption of
P.L. 2008, C.118, and it’s Application Statewide. PDF Correspondence
DOT / DEP / LOI / HIGHLANDS
3. Letter received March 1, 2010, from the State of New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection regarding Final Solid Waste
Facility Permit for Morris County MUA Mt Olive TS/MRF. PDF Correspondence
4. Letter received March 3, 2010, from the State of New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection regarding Morris County
YMCA Dam. PDF Correspondence
5. Letter received March 5, 2010, from NJ Transit regarding United
We Ride 5310 Grant Program. PDF Correspondence
6. Letter received March 8, 2010, from NJ Transit regarding proposed
fare changes. PDF Correspondence
7. Letter received March 11, 2010, from NJ Transit Corporation
regarding Fiscal Year 2010 Request for Federal Financial Assistance.
8. Letter received March 12, 2010, from the State of New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection regarding Emergency Highlands
Preservation Area Approval for Turkey Brook Park Well 2. PDF Correspondence
LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALITIES
9. Email received March 1, 2010, from the New Jersey State League
of Municipalities regarding Three Issues. PDF Correspondence
10. Email received March 2, 2010, from the New Jersey State League
of Municipalities regarding Several Issues. PDF Correspondence
11. Email received March 3, 2010, from the New Jersey State League
of Municipalities regarding 2010 Census Website Logo. PDF Correspondence
12. Email received March 3, 2010, from the New Jersey State League
of Municipalities regarding Federal Action on Transport Funding & Unemployment
Benefits. PDF Correspondence
13. Email received March 5, 2010, from the New Jersey State League
of Municipalities regarding Urgent A-427 on Time of Decision. PDF
14. Email received March 6, 2010, from the New Jersey State League
of Municipalities regarding Social Media for Public Officials.
15. Email received March 8, 2010, from the New Jersey State League
of Municipalities regarding Urgent Time of Decision Posted for
Senate Vote. PDF Correspondence
16. Email received March 11, 2010, from the New Jersey State League
of Municipalities regarding SCS for S-1, Abolishes COAH & Time
of Decision. PDF Correspondence
LETTER FROM LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVES
17. Email received March 5, 2010, from Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen
regarding e-Newsletter. PDF Correspondence
18. Correspondence received from Columbia Gas Transmission LLC
regarding Planning Board Application and Marveland Estates. PDF
19. Correspondence received March 3, 2010, from County of Morris,
Board of Taxation, regarding Final Equalization Table. PDF Correspondence
20. Correspondence received March 8, 2010, from the Morris County
Mosquito Extermination Commission, regarding the New Jersey Pesticide
Control Regulations. PDF Correspondence
21. Letter received March 3, 2010, from the Musconetcong Sewerage
Authority regarding the Budget and breakdown of municipal charges
for 2010. PDF Correspondence
22. Minutes received March 4, 2010, from the Musconetcong Sewerage
Authority regarding February 3, 2010 Reorganization Meeting. PDF
President Tobey: We have 22 pieces of correspondence. Does anyone
on Council wish to discuss any? Seeing none, we are up to Ordinances,
there are none this evening.
ORDINANCES FOR PUBLIC HEARING - None
ORDINANCES FOR FIRST READING - None
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
CONSENT RESOLUTIONS – C. Labow
1. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount
Olive Amending the 2010 Temporary Budget for All Funds. PDF Resolution
2. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount
Olive Authorizing the Cancellation of Several General Capital Ordinance
Balances. PDF Resolution
3. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount
Olive Authorizing the Omission from Tax Sale of Certain Properties.
4. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount
Olive Authorizing the Use of Competitive Contracting for Emergency
Medical and Transportation Services. PDF Resolution
5. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount
Olive Authorizing the Issuance of an Alcoholic Beverage Club License
for the Musconetcong Lodge #42 F & AM #1427-31-031-001. PDF
6. A Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount
Olive, County of Morris, State of New Jersey Authorizing a Two
Year Extension of Time to KMN Development, Inc. Within Which to
Complete Improvements. PDF Resolution
7. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount
Olive Authorizing the Execution of a Developer’s Agreement
Between the Township of Mount Olive and New York SMSA, LP d/b/a
Verizon Wireless. PDF Resolution
8. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount
Olive Establishing a Special Public Meeting for March 24, 2010
and Canceling the Regularly Scheduled Workshop and Public Meeting
of March 30, 2010. PDF Resolution
President Tobey: We are up to consent Resolutions. There are eight
resolutions listed. Does anyone on Council wish to move any to
Mrs. Labow: Yes, I would like to remove the one for the RFP.
Mr. Roman: That’s number nine, isn’t it?
Mrs. Labow: No, number nine is the one about, saying the petitions
Mr. Roman: Oh, sorry.
President Tobey: Okay, number four. Are there any others? Seeing
none, Mrs. Labow would you please move one through three and five
Mrs. Labow: Yes, thank you, Mr. President. I would like to move
consent Resolution one, two and three and five through eight.
President Tobey: Thank you, I’ll second that.
PUBLIC PORTION ON CONSENT RESOLUTIONS
President Tobey: Does anyone from the public wish to be heard
on one through three and five through eight? Seeing none, any council
COUNCIL COMMENTS ON CONSENT RESOLUTIONS - none
ROLL CALL – Passed Unanimously
President Tobey: We have non consent Resolution number four. Mrs.
Labow, can you please move that?
Mrs. Labow: Yes, number four, moved.
4. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount
Olive Authorizing the Use of Competitive Contracting for Emergency
Medical and Transportation Services.
President Tobey: Thank you, I’ll second that. If there is
anyone from the Public who wishes to be heard on number four? Seeing
none, Mrs. Labow?
PUBLIC PORTION ON INDIVIDUAL RESOLUTIONS - none
COUNCIL COMMENTS ON INDIVIDUAL RESOLUTIONS
Mrs. Labow: I just feel that with this RFP, considering the fact
that there were some errors in this RFP and we are voting for this
to go out; I think it needs some more work. The Safety Committee
was under the impression that it was coming back to them for a
meeting in person, not just an email communication. I would like
to ask that we remove this and put it on the Agenda for next week
so the Committee has an opportunity to meet and actually review.
There are some errors in here. So if we are voting on this Resolution
to go out in its current form, I think that’s a mistake because
there are some errors that should be considered.
President Tobey: Mr. Dorsey, could you please comment on that.
Can we still move it, with some corrections to be made?
Mr. Dorsey: Yes.
President Tobey: Thank you, anyone else on Council? Mr. Greenbaum.
Mr. Greenbaum: It’s my chance to speak.
Mrs. Labow: Oh, it’s time to go.
Mr. Greenbaum: I actually have a lot to say. I have an idea. I
have to say, right off the bat, I am in favor of moving forward
with the RFP and I’m in favor of tabling the Ordinance with
respect to putting the matter on the ballot. Doug, do you remember
back at that first Safety Committee Meeting, I sat on the side
of the room. We had a discussion. You were very passionate in your
position with respect to what we should be doing with this Ordinance.
After you spoke, I stood up and I said my peace at that point in
time which basically was, when sitting up here we have to make
hard decisions. We make decisions with respect to many different
aspects of what happens to tax dollars and the pressures that are
put upon us by the State. Moving forward they are going to be significant
and tremendous. I said at that point in time, the daytime coverage
system has really worked very well. I understand the issues that
perhaps, as Colleen has drilled into my head, that it works really
well because the volunteers are behind the paid services. I said
at that meeting I was not prepared to eliminate a budget if I thought
that safety was going to be compromised. From my prospective, because
the daytime services work so well, how can I not look at this issue?
If in fact the services that were being provided by the paid services
were equal to or better than what we had with the volunteer services,
how could I not look at that issue? We’ve looked at that
issue. There have been a lot of comments, mostly on the side of
the EMS because the passion in this argument is on the EMS side.
It’s really not on the other side. You’re not going
to get a large turnout of people who are going to say, “Yes,
you know what? I would rather pay for a similar EMS service if
that’s what we’re getting and not lose courtesy busing
or recreation or close Turkey Brook or close the Library.” At
this point, down the road foresee ably the Township could be losing
a large number of employees including Police Officers. So when
we look at the issues, we have to look at them, not just in the
narrowest sense but in a broader sense as to what are we being
forced to do? Now, I’ve heard a lot of the arguments. I don’t
like the Ordinance that was proposed. I would not have voted for
it even if Mr. Dorsey had not given the opinion. The bottom line
is, I don’t like the wording, I don’t like the fact
that it goes out to four years. I would not have voted for it any
way. It’s not that I’m taking it away from the voters.
I think the voters do have a say when they elect their elected
officials. I know it’s not direct. I know that potentially
I am taking on a large group of people because I sit here and I
look at the issues in a broader sense. This is what I think should
happen here. I think the RFP should go out. I think the funding
for the squads should go another 30 days until the end of April.
I would like to see two proposals from both squads. One, in terms
of continuing with the weekend and nighttime service and what type
of budgetary savings could be made moving forward with that type
of proposal. Two, I would like to see a proposal from the EMS Squads
if we were to go to a paid service 24/7. What role would you guys
have and what kind of funding would be needed? So we have all three
proposals on the table going forward into April. I don’t
want to extend this out for a year looking at the issues. To be
quite honest, this all was studied. It was studied. We have data
from the Police Department. You may disagree with the way the Police
Department ultimately came together with their numbers, but I’m
sure the Police Department would disagree with how you wanted to
interpret the numbers. I know, you shake your head but believe
me, that is the way that I feel about it. You can stand up and
you can disagree with me all you want to disagree with me. The
bottom line is that, this is the way that you feel about it, the
way you do and recognize the fact that I live in this town and
when my child gets hurt, they’re going to need to call for
an ambulance. Just like everybody else sitting up here is going
to be left with whatever decision we make and it is a tough decision.
Mr. Greenbaum (con’td): Now, a couple things, real quick.
Anybody who suggest that the Mayor had an ulterior motive or a
vendetta, I have a problem with that because that’s simply
not the case. I am going to leave it there. I applaud the Mayor’s
efforts. Whether or not this goes through, doesn’t go through,
the Mayor is simply doing his job. Looking at everything in the
broadest sense, my suggestion is, if you guys think you can do
the job as well as a paid service, then let me see your numbers.
Let me see what it’s going to cost to run that service. It’s
got to be a savings to the Township because your services have
been decreased by a certain percentage. Let me see where you come
in. So I have all 3 proposals on the table. I ask the Mayor to
extend the funding for another 30 days, so we can get all that
information together and have an informed decision on all three
aspects of what’s on the table.
Doug Fenichel: I have no idea on what the rules of order are,
but since your singling me out, can I answer you?
President Tobey: Excuse me, Doug. You know what; we are going
to have a public portion again later on. So if we could just continue
with our Agenda. Protocol please. Does anybody else on Council
have any comments regarding number four?
Mrs. Labow: I just want to clarify, Mr. Dorsey said that it’s
okay to move forward with the RFP Resolution, even though there
are some errors in the RFP.
Mr. Dorsey: I view RFP’s as a work in progress. The recipient
of it submits something that then puts you in a position to negotiate
with that applicant. It’s not the same as taking bids for
a construction project. That’s why it’s an RFP.
Mrs. Labow: I just want to clarify that. As I understand it, this
RFP that is going out, is going to be going under a professional
services concept. So it’s not going to go out to bid again.
So my concern is, if this goes out without being very specific
and something comes back, and we find out the Safety Committee
would have liked to have simply added in, that wasn’t added
Mr. Sohl: It has to come to Council for approval.
Mrs. Labow: Yes, it would have to come to Council for approval.
What if any potential people want to make a proposal but there’s
missing information? Then we have to go back out again?
President Tobey: Mrs. Labow, I believe Mr. Dorsey addressed that
but at that time we’ll also get his feedback as the RFP’s
come in and his guidance.
Mrs. Labow: I understand what he said, that it’s a work
in progress. I’m saying, since there are some errors, before
it goes out, perhaps it should be….
Mr. Sohl: They are minor errors, which we have already identified,
Mrs. Labow: Alright, so we’re going to bypass the Safety
Committee meeting and go out with it the way it is. Thank you.
President Tobey: Mr. Perkins?
Mr. Perkins: Thank you, Mr. President. With reference in regard
to the RFP again, and the RFP in my humble opinion does nothing
more than permit us to find out what these firms, Atlantic, St.
Clare’s, Hackettstown, whoever, is willing to offer the Township
of Mount Olive. If it’s not binding on the Township, I would
hope that when any extra review as Mrs. Labow had said, that there
may be omissions or errors, that they be brought to the attention
of the Administration so they can be rectified before the RFP goes
out. That being said, Ken, I can answer you just like Mr. Greenbaum.
The Ordinance petition, the way it was put together I would not
have voted for. I can’t vote in favor of tying the taxpayers
of Mount Olive into a specified period of four to five years. Again,
the brevity of what our Governor today has let us know, there will
be a lot less people more than likely in this building servicing
our Municipality in the upcoming year. I can almost guarantee you
that. There is no doubt in my mind. Compromise and working together
from the onset, your Squad Captains can verify because I have spoken
with them. That has been my goal. At the initial Public Safety
Committee meeting of which Councilman Greenbaum had also attended,
where he addressed Mr. Fenichel, one of my recommendations, just
to throw it out there, we’re all trying to step under the
box here, was to recommend that the paid ambulance service work
five days a week, twenty four hours a day and that our volunteers
covered the weekends and to take the response time issue out because
there’s a response issue. The only way to take the actual
response out, and I think one would agree; as well as all of our
volunteers, is to have people physically sitting in those squad
rooms ready to jump into those transport vehicles exactly the same
way that Atlantic is Mr. Perkins: doing. They don’t have
first responder vehicles, they don’t have the expertise.
They are a transport service and every hospital pretty much throughout
the United States more and more is providing them. Surprise, because
they have been losing money hand over fist from people that do
not have insurance or have not been paying bills. As they watch
Budd Lake and Flanders transporting people into their hospitals,
somebody upstairs said, “I can make money on this.” A
volunteer can’t charge because that would change their status.
It would be nice if the State Legislature would change something
and let our volunteers charge for it. If we could charge for it,
I bet your bottom dollar we’re out there three to four minutes
faster than the EMT is from Atlantic every single time. There is
no doubt in my mind. As I look at spending $40,000-$50,000 for
a special election for an Ordinance that tied in a five year period
of yours, mine and future tax payers and in five years I won’t
be sitting up here. Someone else will be. I don’t think I
can do that. I can’t commit to something more than this particular
year. I think the process that’s been put into place, and
I applaud the doggedness of our volunteers and our residents for
bringing 2,000 signatures to our Clerk to say, Mayor, you got to
look at this. You got to look at it. We want our voices heard.
You have the ears of seven Council members here and the Mayor.
It has not fallen on deaf ears, but we are all trying to find some
middle ground. We may lose volunteers. As I’ve said to both
of the Squad Captains, Ken, you know what? If we’re only
there on the weekends Ray, some of them, their wives or husbands
are not going to be happy with them going. I say it might be a
moot point because if they lose all their funding, then they won’t
have to worry about going there at all. Now please don’t
take sarcasm into that but it’s a reality. The issue started
as a budgetary issue. It was in the papers as a budgetary issue.
We all read the papers. It then changed to a public safety issue
which I do not subscribe to that belief. I do not for one minute
believe that the residents’ safety has ever been compromised
because of our volunteers from the hours of 5:00 pm in the afternoon
until 5:00 am the next morning and during the weekends. I believe
the volunteers in this Town, both Flanders and Budd Lake exist
for one sole purpose, that is, to provide excellent, top quality,
emergency medical service to the residents and visitors in this
Township. I also understand that we have an obligation, a mutual
understanding with our neighboring communities to provide that
same level of professional BLS. We will do here as a Council as
Mr. Greenbaum has stated, we need to look at an overall picture
especially in this tight budgetary time, where do we come into
a compromise where I can still have my fantastic volunteer group
serving this community? Maybe not in the exact same capacity but
where can we all find that common ground? Does that mean that the
quarter of a million dollars or the $10.00 dollar a year savings
is now only $5.00 dollars? Okay, we’ve had a savings then,
haven’t we? If the initial was $10.00, could we cut it in
half? Could we save $5.00? Does that still keep my squads active?
Does that still provide the same or equal level of BLS to the residents
of Mount Olive Township? So, I am voting in favor of going together
with the RFP. Let’s see where those prices come out. Let’s
see what the Mayor has now received from Frank Carlo. Let’s
look at some of these other options that are out there before we
make that final determination. Let’s not spend $40,000.00
or so on a special election to have people vote on something that
would tie them into five years worth of funding and they may not
realize that. Thank you Mr. President.
President Tobey: Thank you, Mr. Perkins. Is there any other Council
comments? Mrs. Labow?
Mrs. Labow: I just want to say, Mr. Perkins is talking about the
petition. I know we’re really on the RFP section here. We’re
not at the petition section yet. I think what Council’s misunderstanding
perhaps is that the petition, it talks about a contract, an Ordinance.
It does say five years because it’s the maximum that can
be allowed. However, also part of the initiative law says that
Council can pass something that is substantive. What I’m
seeing here is… you guys are all saying you’re going
to vote no. You don’t want to do anything but when we had
the TNR Ordinance that was about budget. That was about saving
money in the budget. What we did was we came up with something
that was substantive so it didn’t go to a vote. So I don’t
understand why this Council and Administration is just willing
to throw this thing right out the window and say were not even
going to look at it because we don’t like it. Without looking
at some other options on how we can make it better. I’ve
heard some proposals from the squads that are extremely interesting.
I’ve heard some information where they can actually become
self funding and no one has actually taken the time to listen to
that and that’s what I’m really concerned with as far
as the RFP goes. See what comes back but as far as this other part;
I don’t think we should be tossing some Resolution saying… I
think that it’s actually unnecessary at this point.
President Tobey: Okay, thank you. Lisa, Roll Call please.
ROLL CALL – Passed with the exception of Mrs. Labow who
President Tobey: We have non consent Resolution number nine.
Mr. Mania, would you please move that?
Mr. Mania: I move for Non Consent Resolution number nine.
9. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount
Olive Tabling Ordinance No. 8-2010 and Directing the Township Clerk
Not to Forward Same to the County Clerk for a Referendum. * added
Mr. Perkins. Second.
President Tobey: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Does
anyone from the public wish to be heard?
PUBLIC PORTION ON INDIVIDUAL RESOLUTIONS
Doug Fenichel: Since you did single me out, although I had vowed
I wasn’t going to open my mouth tonight, I was conned. First
of all, I remember the discussion we had that night. You related
it quite accurately and it made me think a lot after that meeting
about what we were doing and what we were proposing. You were right,
just being the same wasn’t good enough. I want to give you
my frame of reference to all of this. First of all, my frame of
reference when I look at this whole issue is 30 years in EMS, the
last 20 as a career paramedic. Now, Phyllis accused you folks of
not knowing what we do. I don’t want to be seen in that light
so let me also tell you that I’ve spent two years as a Legislative
Aide in the Missouri House of Representatives. I spent 12 years
as a reporter covering endless night meetings like this one which
is why I don’t do that anymore. Currently in my job, I work
on a regular basis with local and State Legislatures and executives
on dealing with issues that have to do with my trade. So I know
what you are up against especially after this afternoon’s
speech, I don’t envy you at all. I also want you to know,
I know I have even angered some of my colleagues because of this
stand. My name is not on that petition. That is not an oversight
on my part. Volunteer EMS is a tough topic. The work is dangerous
and intense. The training is long. It changes constantly in the
form of quality control. Clinical and operational oversight is
an absolute must. Sometimes it’s the biggest difference between
volunteer and career services. Whatever happens in other Towns
isn’t happening here. I’m kind of a skeptic on the
work groups that these folks have been doing by trying to respond
to the questions that have been raised. We all recognize that when
you start filtering all this noise that has been going back and
forth, there are some legitimate questions being asked as this
Town grows. The two squads are grappling with those questions.
In response to your challenge, I think Frank has given you one
of the two proposals. As I walked by here I said can we do that?
He said “I think so.” I said to Frank can he do that?
He said “I think so.” So we don’t know what the
RFP would bring back to you, so it’s hard to come up with
what a hybrid plan is but I think the idea of moving forward and
looking at this thing more carefully, and looking at… I am
going to say “we” because I’m proud of what “we” have
done. What we have pulled together to serve this Town. I think
it rises above what the paid services can do. I think it delivers
more and I think that when you see what we have put together, if
you think there has to be more, let us know. Let us see if we can
rise to it and I’d like to see us take that extra month and
have some individual negotiations. Let’s see if we can’t
put this all to rest without any more talk of special elections
and nasty things on anonymous blogs. That’s my response to
Scott Faluotico: Timberline Road, Budd Lake, Flanders Firefighter.
I have a question on the RFP. You guys just voted to go forward
with it right? The RFP is “request for proposal” right?
Mr. Dorsey: Yes.
Scott Faluotico: Not a request for information or an RFI.
Mrs. Labow: Right.
Scott Faluotico: Now, is this a back hoe? Best and final offer?
Are you going out, when you come back in, you’ll get these
proposals that will supposedly go after this scope of work? Are
you going to prepare the proposals with the selected criteria?
Are you going to compare them against each other?
Mr. Dorsey: All those would be the usual things to do upon receipt
Scott Faluotico: All this should be spelled out before you go
out for a request for proposal.
Mr. Dorsey: It’s inherent in the process. It’s inherent,
people respond and then you compare.
Scott Faluotico: Does this Council or this body react at a different
level of contract mechanism? I do multimillion dollar contracts.
I do five year, one year option contracts and we have to spell
out what we are going out for and what the proposer is expected
of us to do when we receive his proposal.
Mr. Dorsey: This is closer to a negotiation than it is to a receipt
Scott Faluotico: Is that because there is no money involved?
Mr. Dorsey: I’m not going to say there is no money involved.
Look, I don’t want to argue with you. The RFP process is
closer to a negotiation than it is to the receipt of a bid. Obviously,
when these people respond to what has been put out, there is going
to be a comparison to what the Township may have expected they
would have said. There will be a comparison with what the various
responders say. There will be a comparison of how and what they
propose may or may not fit into one of these hybrid situations.
It is done often within the municipality, public entity sector.
Mr. Greenbaum: It was done with the day time service as well.
Mrs. Labow: No, that was different. It did not go this way.
Mr. Greenbaum: It’s not binding.
Mr. Dorsey: Jesus.
Mrs. Labow: With the day time service, they went out to bid.
Mr. Dorsey: It was not a bid.
Mrs. Labow: This is going under professional contract services.
Mr. Dorsey: It was not a bid.
Mrs. Labow: Yes, the day time one was.
Jim Scharf: Carlton Road, Flanders: I just have to say, it seems
now we finally settled on, this is not a matter of public safety
from at least some points of view but just a budgetary matter.
It seems like we seem to be approaching a theory of government
which is, we take something from the volunteers which was a pile
of money that was given to them every year to keep them going.
That pile of money came to maybe $20.00 to $25.00 a year per taxpayer.
Is that about right? So every taxpayer that might get sick is effectively
buying a $20.00 insurance policy. Now you’re taking that
and turning it into a reverse lottery. If you’re healthy,
everything’s fine. The minute you get sick, you’re
going to end up with at least a $190.00 bill or more. And you could
have bought a $20.00 insurance policy to not have to have that
problem. If you are a not very well off person, or don’t
have the insurance, you lose big or win big in this negative lottery
because you might end up with a $1,000.00 bill that you can’t
pay. Is this the theory of government we have here? Everyone is
subscribing to the theory of government, where the government shouldn’t
do anything. Everything should be privatized.
Mr. Greenbaum: That is exactly what the State is forcing us to
do. We are prioritizing at this point. We are limited in terms
of what we can increase. Let’s assume that the cost that
we fund the EMS squads is de minimis in the scheme of things in
terms of the taxes we collect, whether it’s $10.00, $20.00
or $30.00 per month. We have to look at, is there an alternative
service that’s out there that can be provided that would
free up dollars to be able to keep six police officers on the force?
Is there an alternative to keeping the six police officers on the
force? Is there an alternative to funding the fire departments
through the volunteer process? That’s what it’s come
down to from my prospective. Here we have a situation, I know many
would disagree with this statement, but the paid service basically
provides the same service as the volunteers do. Now, one can argue
that the volunteers because they volunteer have some interest in
the community, provide some kind of tangible benefit beyond what
we would get out of EMS. It is an unfortunate thing. I think it’s
terrible but this is what’s being forced upon us. We are
going to a user based system because people have gotten sick and
tired of what they’re paying in taxes. And the bottom line
is exactly what you said. It’s going to cost you more to
go that route because now when you get sick, you’re going
to have to pay, and you’re not going to have to pay the $25.00
a year but you’re going to have to pay the $200.00 or the
$400.00 or whatever it’s going to cost you. I agree with
you but we are at a point now where we are forced to go the route
of saying, we understand that garbage collection is going to cost
you a $1,000.00 a year, but we can’t provide it anymore because
the State is not letting us. The State is telling us that we can
only have a 2.5 % increase on our CAP. We are already at the breaking
point with sanitation. We’re at the breaking point. It’s
going to cost you more than if we could just raise the taxes by
$10.00 a household on sanitation. It’s ridiculous, it’s
ridiculous, but that’s what’s being shoved at us.
Mr. Scharf: I could except that a little more if we had started
looking at the entire budgetary process. Sanitation as you say
hasn’t even really been looked at. That’s ten times
the amount were talking about savings here. Now perhaps someone
should get creative and try and see if we just went around to the
voters of the Township, they would happily subscribe to $25.00
out and keep the ambulances going on their own. Maybe that’s
something that should be considered rather than putting people
into this negative lottery. Thank you.
COUNCIL COMMENTS ON INDIVIDUAL RESOLUTIONS
President Tobey: Thank you, any other Council comments, Mr. Perkins?
Mr. Perkins: Thank you, Mr. President. I couldn’t go away
before since we are on the last Resolution. Colleen I just wanted
to address the TNR only because I was Chairman of the Board of
Health when it came up. What I remember, that during the evening
of the presentation on the vote for the Ordinance for the trap,
neuter and release program in Mount Olive Township, the majority
of the Council voted “no” and shot that Ordinance down.
Subsequently, a committee was formed. The Mayor, myself and the
Health Officer along with a portion of people from the TNR group
hammered through that Ordinance, made changes to that Ordinance
which in some instances was substantial, at least to the TNR group.
Not necessarily to the Health or for the Township. We came up with
an Ordinance to where the committee agreed to it and withdrew the
petition. So as we’re looking Ken, I believe that the Mayor
has told me that he’s tried to meet with some of the petitioners?
I would hope that it is still an ongoing thing and that somewhere
along the line as I recommended, we come up with some grounds where
we find the funding from to continue this as Mr. Greenbaum said,
I don’t know. I can tell you this, that if you go back and
work on that with the Mayor, it may not be a hybrid, call it something
different, I don’t know, some agreement to where the squads
can coexist along with the paid ambulance service. That may be
something more palatable to come. I cannot again in good conscience,
vote in favor for having a Special Election for something that
would tie the hands of the taxpayers for a five year period. I
just cannot do that. Thank you Mr. President.
President Tobey: Thank you, Mr. Roman then Mrs. Labow.
Mr. Roman: With respect to the Ordinance that the petitioners
had formulated. I too would not have voted for the Ordinance the
way it was presented. To answer a question that was proposed earlier;
to me it’s both safety and monetary with safety being the
overriding issue. So like Mr. Greenbaum said, I am charged with
the task at looking at every issue in its entirety. I make a promise
not only to you in the audience but to the taxpayers and those
who voted for me or did not that whatever decision I make it is
not going to be made sleight of hand. It will be with the consideration
of all taxpayers. I promise you it will be with safety as an overriding
Mrs. Labow: First of all I just want to say that one of my biggest
concerns about going with paid 24/7 is the fact that the fee that
would be charged for transport was, we heard from the gentleman
from Atlantic, that there isn’t any charity care for transportation
cost. So that is an out of pocket. The other concern is, I did
some analysis the other night trying to figure out how much does
it really cost for a transportation call. I came up with about
maybe $212.00. I also called other towns where they have paid service.
I’m finding that the transportation fee at this current time,
we got quite a bargain, is a minimum of $600.00. I know at Mount
Arlington the residents are charged $630.00. Other Towns are charged
$650.00. So when the RFP comes back, if it does come back were
going to be looking at something like the $600.00 to $650.00, maybe
$700.00. Now it concerns me, even at the $450.00 range. We keep
talking about shifting the cost. So we have a situation here where
I’ve heard some people say if you don’t get transported
you don’t pay anything. Well, you may not pay anything but
the person who got transported is actually paying for your call.
So what happens is it’s user based but what ends up happening
is, if we want to keep our Municipal taxes low, all of these things
are about the 2.5% tax levy that’s going to a vote in November.
We don’t know what’s going to happen to that. So we
turn around and you have a lower and lower municipal tax base but
it becomes too expensive to live in our Town. That’s what
my concern is. In the State of New Jersey, not just here. There
are other states that have had this problem. The other thing that
I have to say, and I respectfully disagree with Mr. Dorsey’s
interpretation of this. There is also case law that speaks to the
opposite that he has come up with here.
Mr. Dorsey: What case law is that?
Mrs. Labow: I don’t know the one specifically but I know
you have spoken with the other attorney so you’ve had conversations.
Mr. Dorsey: Excuse me, we had a conversation and his case law
isn’t on point at all.
Mrs. Labow: I don’t think your case law is on point. But
I don’t want to…
Mr. Dorsey: My case law is because I can read from my case that
says, budgetary questions are immune from referendum. Don’t
think this opinion was not given a great deal of thought and research.
Mrs. Labow: My question is, can Council turn around and direct
the Clerk not to send this to the County Clerk?
Mr. Dorsey: Absolutely.
Mrs. Labow: The next question is, so what happens if the petition
committee and the petitioners of the public decide that they want
to have the Judge rule on this?
Mr. Dorsey: Well, that’s very simple. They can go in and
ask for a declaratory judgment which would involve a series of
questions. Is it a proper question, not withstanding what I’ve
said? Is it one that should be placed on the ballot? Yes, there
is a process by which that can be done.
Mrs. Labow: And there is a cost involved for that as well. So
now, next Wednesday on the 24th, are we having a special meeting
now? Is Council going to vote tonight?
Mr. Dorsey: I think not. I think the Special Meeting is cancelled
because the Resolution essentially does away with it.
Mrs. Labow: So, all of the sudden at 3:45pm this afternoon I get
an e-mail that has this Resolution on here. There are not as many
people from the public who probably would have liked to have been
here, to hear the discussion. Next week everyone is planning on
coming to discuss this issue. I just think that’s wrong.
Are you guys just trying to slide this in? The Agenda was already
published last week.
Mr. Dorsey: The alternative to that would be to get everybody
here or at the High School Auditorium and then you tell them that
you are all here for naught because the legal opinion that was
given 3 weeks ago is indeed that this is not a proper question.
So I think in a lot of ways it is better to dispose of the issue
tonight. That’s not a legal opinion. That’s a practical
Mrs. Labow: However John, as I understand it when the committee,
before they even went out with this thing, they had a legal opinion
as well so…
Mr. Dorsey: Excuse me, Excuse me, nobody on that committee ever
contacted me as the Township Attorney for an opinion.
Mrs. Labow: They engaged the services of an Attorney.
Mr. Dorsey: They may very well but I have no control over that.
I have no knowledge of that, although I assume it is true. I just
said to you, they did not contact me and of course the opinion
was given three weeks ago. I’m sure you got a copy of it
because I’m told it was given to the petitioner’s attorney.
Mrs. Labow: Yes I did get a copy of it and yes I shared it with
a couple of people to find out what they thought of it, not the
petitioner’s attorney though.
President Tobey: Mrs. Labow, your point is certainly well taken
and you’re going to have your vote momentarily. Are there
any other Council comments? Seeing none, Roll Call, please.
ROLL CALL – Passed with the exception of Mrs. Labow who
MOTIONS – CONSENT
President Tobey: Moving onto Motions, we have two listed. Mr.
Mania, would you please move those?
Mr. Mania: Yes, Mr. President. I move the approval Raffle Applications
# 2353 & #2354 and Raffle Application #2355.
President Tobey: Please move the Bill List also.
Mr. Mania: And the Bill List also.
1. Approval of Raffle Applications #2353 & #2354 for PTA Mt.
Olive and Raffle Application #2355 for the Mt. Olive Child Care & Learning
2. Bill List. PDF Bill List
Mr. Perkins: Second.
President Tobey: Thank you. It’s been moved and seconded.
Does anyone from the public have any questions on the Bill List?
Seeing none, anyone from Council? Roll Call please.
ROLL CALL – Passed unanimously.
President Tobey: Moving on to Administrative reports. Mayor or
Mr. Sohl, anything?
Mayor Scapicchio: None.
Mr. Sohl: None.
OLD BUSINESS - none
Mr. Roman: Maybe I should have left it for Council comments but
some of you might have read in the Chronicle, there was a story
on Mr. Scooter Jolly that ended up having a situation. I would
like to take the opportunity to applaud PNC Bank for rectifying
President Tobey: Thank you. We are up to Council Reports. Does
anyone from Council have any reports to offer?
LEGAL MATTERS – none
Board of Health Report – none
Planning Board Report – none
Mr. Greenbaum: Planning Board had their first hearing on Marveland
Farms. It was a lengthy hearing. I don’t think they got very
far into the application. Oh, I’m sorry, it’s yours.
Mr. Mania: I thought you transported my voice into yours.
Mr. Greenbaum: I forgot.
Mr. Mania: We met on Marveland Farms. We had testimony from the
Engineer and the Architect for the applicant. I’m very disturbed
that when this application first appeared before the Planning Board
in 2005, the applicant said that he would rectify the problems
on the Rosewood Ditch. When he came before the Planning Board this
time, he told us that DEP would not allow him to do that. I have
asked the Chair of the Planning Board to ask the applicant; I would
like to see a letter from the DEP stating that. We have another
meeting. Our next meeting is scheduled for April 12, 2010. I foresee
that we will probably have four or five meetings. There’s
a lot to be done with that application.
President Tobey: Thank you, Mr. Mania.
Mr. Dorsey: This point of asking them to get a letter from the
DEP, you guys better be certain what the DEP is told to rule on
or it will not come out in the way it should. The applicants will
tell them whatever it is they want to tell them to avoid the cost.
Mr. Mania: I think Mr. Weiss has done that Mr. Dorsey. Thank you
for your input.
Recreation Liaison Report
Mr. Roman: The Recreation Advisory Committee started hammering
out, discussing a proposal by which we will be requiring the sports
organization program to include in there by-laws that if a coach
or assistant or volunteer is barred from their organization that
they would submit that name to other organizations, then barring
them from participating in any other Mount Olive Recreation programs.
That proposal has been given to the sports organizations. They
are going to give the committee advice and feedback on that. Then
we will be moving forward.
Open Space Committee Report – none
Legislative Committee Report – none
Pride Committee Report – none
Board of Education Liaison Report – none
Lake/Environment Issues Committee – none
Safety Committee Liaison – none
Economic Development Committee Report – none
Library Board Liaison – none
Senior Citizen Liaison – none
Community Development Revenue Sharing – none
President Tobey: Any other Council Reports? Seeing none, we are
up to the second public portion. Does anyone from the public wish
to be heard? Are there any closing, Council comments?
Mrs. Labow: I want to say that I have never been so disappointed
in a group of people in my life; at least certainly not in my life
on Council. I think you guys have shoved this thing down everybody’s
throats. You have slapped the public in the face. To turn around
and have this Resolution basically dissing the public, sent out
at 3:45pm this afternoon is disgusting. I do believe that it’s
a shame that this Council has chosen not to listen to the role
of the public. Not even just the voters, because there are a lot
of people who signed the petition that were not voters.
President Tobey: Mrs. Labow, I can tell you that I take offense
to that statement.
Mrs. Labow: You can take all the offense you want.
President Tobey: The one thing that I can say, that I’ve
done, I have acted impartially which was an oath that I took with
you the day you were sworn in.
Mrs. Labow: And I have also acted impartially.
President Tobey: And I question your ability to act impartially
Mrs. Labow: You know Phil, I have acted impartially. I have done
a tremendous amount of research, tremendous. A heck of a lot more
than you’ve done.
President Tobey: Any other Council comments, please?
Mr. Roman: I, too, Colleen, take offense to being criticized in
such a manner. I don’t think it would have changed the vote
on the Resolution if that was e-mailed say, yesterday at 1:00pm,
or last week. I think the vote would have still been the same.
Mrs. Labow: That might have been but at least people from the
public would have known what’s going on.
Mr. Roman: I think we’ve heard from the public tonight.
My opinion as to voting on the Resolution was based on the Ordinance
that was put forth by the petitioners. I did not need a Resolution
to tell me that I was not going to adopt that Ordinance.
Mrs. Labow: That vote could have taken place next week Alex at
that Special Meeting. So why do this tonight, ahead of time?
Mr. Roman: One, because it actually speeds up the process of one
getting, in my opinion, the proposals from the Budd Lake and Flanders
and all the other proposals…
Mrs. Labow: That had nothing to do with it, because they were
Mr. Roman: I for one think, and it was stated earlier, that there
had been significant improvements that happened at the squads.
So that only tells me that there was a problem. If significant
improvements were made, that means there were problems. At the
end of the day, if at least that has happened by the process that
has been started, at least we can say, hey, not only maybe we’d
save money but at the same time we also improved response time
and safety of the residents.
President Tobey: At this time we are going to move into executive
session for the purpose of contract negotiations. When we come
out we will adjourn with no further business. Mr. Perkins, will
you please move us into executive session?
Mr. Perkins: So moved.
Mr. Roman: So moved.
President Tobey: Second, All in favor?
Motion was made and seconded, all in favor and none opposed, the
meeting was adjourned at 10:01pm.
Phil Tobey, 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 April 27, 2010.
Lisa Lashway, Township Clerk