Mt. Olive Township Council Minutes
December 10, 2002

The Regular Meeting of the Mount Olive Township Council was called to order at 7:30 pm by Council President Scapicchio with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

MOMENT OF REFLECTION

President Scapicchio: If everyone would just join us. At these Public Meetings, we now do a moment of reflection of the men and women fighting terrorism and defending the freedom that we all enjoy.

OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT ANNOUNCEMENT

According to the Open Public Meetings Act, adequate Notice of this Meeting has been given to the Mt. Olive Chronicle and the Morristown Daily Record. Notice has been posted at in the Municipal Building, 204 Flanders-Drakestown Road, Mt. Olive, New Jersey, and notices were sent to those requesting the same.

ROLL CALL: Present: Mr. Rattner, Mr. Greenbaum, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Miller, Mr. Spino, President Scapicchio, Mr. Guenther (8:35 pm)
Absent: None
Also Present: Mrs. Spencer, Business Administrator; Mrs. Jenkins, CFO; Mayor Licitra; Nicole Whittle, Deputy Clerk

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - None

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

Mrs. Spencer: We don't really have anything new to bring up other than I do believe there is an alternate
resolution that is to be substituted for one that was originally scheduled - the interim tax collector.

President Scapicchio: Yes, we will get that on Non-Consent. Mr. Rattner has some questions.

TURKEY BROOK PARK STATUS REPORT

Mrs. Spencer: For the most part, Turkey Brook, the work has been completed for the Winter months. There are some contractors that are there on an hour to hour basis finishing up some small close up activities, but as I reported two weeks ago, the status remains. They did get the goal posts poured for the football field and they are leveling the remaining two baseball fields so that everything is ready for the Spring start up.

President Scapicchio: So the balance of the work is put on hold until the Winter months are over.

Mrs. Spencer: Although it may not appear so, the work is actually 96 percent completed on that contract.

LEGAL MATTERS

Mr. Dorsey: I'll just take one minute if I may, Mr. President. In connection with the Toll Brothers water situation
that we discussed two weeks ago, Toll Brothers, referred to by Sonny Wolski over the years, Mother Toll,
capitulated upon the receipt of my letter last week. I have to thank Charlene particularly because I always think of
the water tank there as a production of $300,000 towards Turkey Brook. She reminded me correctly that that
water tank will be located on Township property so we'll already own the most pivotal aspect. The water system
will be built. It will be developed by Toll Brothers and when it is complete, it will then be deeded to the
Township for $1.00 and those will become our customers and that system is connected to what is also known as
Morris Chase and that system is also to be connected to the Goldmine system. I think you should know that in
October, Barry Krauser, our appraiser, Jack Marchione and I begin the process of culling for new assessments for
the tax rolls. We now calculate that there will be $78 million in new assessments on the Township's tax rolls as of
January 1. I estimate that of that $78 million, $35 million comes from the Trade Zone South and that leaves, to
the best that I can estimate, somewhere between $25 and $30 million more to come on completion of that work.
Last week, I gave a little explanation of what was occurring in connection with Firetower. I advised you how Sills
Cummis on behalf of Firetower filed a motion to settle and supplement the record by including what they allege
to be clandestine meetings and pieces of correspondence and actions by Councilman Spino in an effort to get the
Planning Board to deny their application for subdivision in order to diminish the value for acquisition purposes.
When that motion first came in, I wasn't even going to respond to it because who would ever believe that Earl
Spino would involve himself in clandestine meetings and I thought the better part of valor was to file a brief in
opposition. Then they went ahead and filed their major brief which included all of these salacious allegations so
we then filed a motion to strike their brief on the basis that they had included in it materials that the Appellate Division had not said that they could yet include. The cu de te' came this week. Rich Bonte called me at 6:55 since he apparently is in constant communication with the team leader and he advised me that the team leader for the Appellate Division, that number one, the Appellate Division had denied the right of Firetower to supplement Mr. Dorsey (cont'd): their brief and number two, they granted our motion which was like a two page letter, they granted our motion to strike their brief. Now they have to write their brief over again and file it by December
20th.

Mr. Greenbaum: What is the likelihood of winning a motion for costs associated with having to file those? I think that it should be filed. Honestly, I think it is time to give back to the manner in which they are litigating with us.

Mr. Dorsey: We'll give that one thought.

Mr. Greenbaum: Secondly, what impact, if any, can you attribute to that decision on the over all substantive
issue or if any?

Mr. Dorsey: That is a very interesting question. I kind of take it as a battle in a major war with perhaps not major
consequences but the junior attorney in my office who participated in these briefs, immediately said, that means it
is all over for Firetower because from his perspective, and we have to take it with a grain of salt because he gets
very excited about this, because from his perspective this attempt to supplement the record with these various
pieces of material, which is like 100 pages of what they thought was very vicious material represented their last
shot at trying to overcome the decision that we received in the Law Division. For those who are very optimistic
about those things, he thinks that is a precursor of what will occur in this case, namely, that they've done all
they could and there isn't much left for them to do.

Mr. Greenbaum: Is it the same Appellate panel that will hear the substantive issue that decides the motion?

Mr. Dorsey: No, my understanding is that the panel that will hear the principle appeal has not yet been selected.
It's been just a series of judges that are assigned on rotation to hear motions. So the motions were heard probably
not by judges who will ultimately, hear, but we don't know. It could be the same judges but it's not like in the
law division where the assignment judge at the outset for all rediscovery. That's not the situation.

Mr. Greenbaum: John, to be quite honest, I think it would behoove us to file a very brief motion for costs
associated because their conduct in the manner in which they proceeded was in violation of the court rules,
clearly, as recognized by the Court and I think we should be entitled to the cost of opposing that conduct.

Mr. Dorsey: I know there is one young attorney that will be excited about that suggestion and will probably be in
the office this weekend trying to fulfill that assignment.

Mr. Greenbaum: Tell him I said hello.

Mr. Dorsey: Okay, I will. The other thing is, now as retribution, the attorney for Firetower calls and in
connection with Firetower II as we refer to it, which is the case in which they have challenged the adoption of our
ordinance which requires a qualifying map in connection with all residential subdivision applications that are
done including cluster, they see it open. They now want to take the deposition of McGroarty, who is our expert,
which is no problem, but now they want to take Councilman Spino's deposition. They are sure that at that
deposition, he will give it all up. Unfortunately, I started to argue with the attorney, Sills Cummis, on the phone
yesterday and I can see that that was a waste of my time but it really is a waste of time and of course, when Earl's
deposition is taken, I know that he will be well prepared to answer all of the questions. That's it.

President Scapicchio: Thank you, Mr. Dorsey, good report.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS:

December 3, 2002 CS Present: Mr. Guenther, President Scapicchio, Mr. Rattner, Mr. Greenbaum, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Spino, Mrs. Miller
Absent: None

December 3, 2002 Present: Mr. Guenther (7:35), Mr. Greenbaum, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rattner, Mr.
Scapicchio, Mrs. Miller, Mr. Spino
Absent: None

Mr. Rattner moved for Approval of the Minutes and Mrs. Miller seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously (Mr. Guenther not present)

CORRESPONDENCE

Resolutions, Ordinances, Correspondence from other Municipalities
1. Notice received November 22, 2002, from Byram Township regarding a Joint Meeting of the Planning
Board on the Smart Growth Plan.

2. Legal Notice received December 2, 2002, from the Roxbury Board of Adjustment Re: Sprint Spectrum.

3. Resolution received December 2, 2002, from Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders regarding
National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day.

4. Ordinance received December 5, 2002, from the Township of Chester regarding Land Use.

DOT / DEP / LOI's

5. Letter received November 19, 2002, from the State of New Jersey, Department of Transportation Re:
Project Start up.

6. Letter received November 26, 2002, from the State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental
Protection Regarding Letter of Interpretation - Line Verification Extension for Applicant - New Jersey
Foreign Trade Zone c/o Rock-Morris Inc. Block 105, Lot 1 (NJ Foreign Trade Zone-Vacant Land)

7. Letter received November 27, 2002, from American Environmental Services, Inc. regarding completed
copy of the application that was submitted to the DEP for Block 2801, Lot 22 and Block 2801, Lot 2
(Block 144, Lots 11&14, 111 Lozier Road and 9 Firetower Road / 217, 219, 204, 215, Waterloo Valley
Road)

8. Letter received December 6, 2002, from Nor/South Associates regarding application for extension of
Existing Permit for William Montag D/B/A North / South Associates for property located at 99 Route
206 Roxbury Block 9201, Lot 2.

League of Municipalities

9. Legislative Bulletin received November 22, 2002, from the New Jersey State League of Municipalities
Regarding Bills that were enacted as Public Laws of 2002.

10. Membership Alert received November 26, 2002, from New Jersey State League of Municipalities
Regarding Non-Conforming Uses, A-2699, Clean Communities, COAH Interim Certifications,
Watershed Offset Aid, and the Constitutional Convention.

11. E-mail received November 26, 2002, from New Jersey State League of Municipalities regarding Non
-Conforming Uses, Clean Communities, COAH Interim Certifications, Watershed Offset Aid,
Constitutional Convention.

UTILITIES

12. Letter/Notice received November 27, 2002, from Jersey Central Power and Light Re: 2002 Remediation
Adjustment Clause Filing, 2002 Consumer Education Program Filing, 2002 Rates Filing, 2002 Deferred
Balance Filing.

Correspondence from Organizations / Committees / Boards

13. Letter received November 19, 2002, from Delaware River Basin Commission regarding Notice of
Commission Meeting and Public Hearing.

14. Letter received December 2, 2002, from the State of New Jersey, Division of the Ratepayer Advocate
Regarding I/M/O the Application of Oakwood Village Sewerage Associates, LLC, for Approval of (A)
Service Area, (B) Issuance of Equity Interests, and © Initial Tariff / BPU Docket No. WE00120986.

MSA /MUA

15. Letter received December 2, 2002, from Lee T. Purcell Associates regarding Amendment to the MSA
Wastewater Management Plan to address the needs of the Morris Companies Development, Block 400,
Lots 1 And 2; Block 402, Lot 2; and Block 500, Lot 2

President Scapicchio: We have 15 pieces of Correspondence, any comments or questions?

Mr. Rattner: On Number 15, you will notice a letter from the Engineer for the MSA. They've been going around
and around with the Morris Companies now for about a year, year and a half. After they got everything they
needed, they went through their application for the change in the service area based on the amount of gallonage
they wanted. If they went over 6,000 gallons, I believe it is, they needed to get everything revised, the maps
revised and everything else and they decided that now is not the time to do that so they pulled that back. They are
still going ahead with what they can get under the existing rules which is about 6,000 gallons, but obviously it
means they are going to down size their project over there.

PUBLIC HEARING ON OPEN SPACE DEDICATION - Gen III Builders

Larry Kron, Esq.: I'm appearing on behalf of the applicant, Gen III. This is a presentation before the Council
regarding open space. We are proposing to dedicate to the Township approximately 50 acres of open space in
conjunction with our cluster development that has been approved by the Planning Board. We have Mike Nolan,
who is our engineer, here today and he can make a brief presentation describing the property that we are
proposing to dedicate to the Township.

Mr. Dorsey: Larry, very quickly, what zone is your property in?

Mr. Kron: RR-A zone.

Mr. Dorsey: Oh, it's in the five acre. RR-AA or RR-A?

Mr. Kron: RR-A.

Mr. Dorsey: You all understand that under our ordinances, although the Planning Board approves the
subdivision, the Township Council gets to pass on whether or not to accept open space. If the Township doesn't accept the open space, that does not prohibit the developer, the applicant, from going forward with a cluster plan. It simply means that the open space will be put into some kind of homeowners association

Mr. Kron: That is correct or it could go to a different organization that may request it.

Mr. Nolan: Some of you maybe be familiar with the project. It lies between Mt. Olive Road to the northeast and Kern Drive to the south and Cassidy Road to the north. The entire site is approximately 96 acres. We are proposing, it's been approved, that we can build 11 new lots off the extension of Kern Drive and 21 new lots on a new road network coming off of Mt. Olive Road. We would be creating just over 51 acres of open space that separates the two sections, the section off Kern Drive and the section to the north of Mt. Olive Road.

Mr. Dorsey: Real fast, how many lots, what is the total acreage of the tract?

Mr. Nolan: The total acreage is just over 96 acres.

Mr. Dorsey: And how many lots are you going to get?

Mr. Nolan: Thirty-two.

Mr. Dorsey: And they will be at what size?

Mr. Nolan: They average about 1.3, 1.4 acres.

Mr. Dorsey: So, 60,000 square feet.

Mr. Nolan: As small as one acre and as large as two acres. There is property presently owned by Mount Olive Township, I believe intended for open space, directly across the street to the east of Mount Olive Road and there is property to the west that also adjoins us that it part of the Mount Olive Open Space Plan. There is
approximately eight acres of wetlands within the open space acreage. It is mostly heavily wooded with two small tributaries or streams cutting through it.

Mr. Dorsey: Did you say that it adjoins other open space that the Township owns?

Mr. Nolan: Right about where your hand is, there is property that is shown on the Master Plan to be included as part of the overall Mount Olive Open Space Plan. I don't know what the status of that is and to the east, directly across the street on Mount Olive Road, that property is presently owned by Mount Olive.

Mr. Dorsey: I think we actually had a discussion of this application some time ago and this is the opportunity if the Council has questions or any one from the public wants to be heard on this. Otherwise, the normal course has
Mr. Dorsey (cont'd): been for the Township to accept open space.

President Scapicchio: I've got several questions. The total acreage is 96. You are looking to dedicate 51 acres of that for open space to the Township. What is it? Is it five acre zoning? It's three acre zoning. Rob, are they clustering this to get, in other words is this a cluster proposal as allowed by our ordinance?

Mr. Greenbaum: In fact, the Planning Board was generally very favorable to the dedication of the open space in that it was both from Jeff Keller's perspective and I don't remember whether or not there was a position taken by the Open Space Committee but it is centrally located in the middle of the tract. It connects the two other areas. It doesn't fragment the open space and it really was a good use of the tract for clustering. There was no negative out of the Planning Board with regard to the open space dedication.

Mr. Dorsey: Well, then I guess we can say that it is a favorable recommendation.

Mr. Greenbaum: I didn't participate.

President Scapicchio: Another question for the engineer.

Mr. Greenbaum: I didn't participate in the Gen III discussion. I had missed the meeting and didn't review the tapes but I did sit in and listen to it.

President Scapicchio: How many acres of that 51 proposed open space could be developed under the present zone without us allowing you to cluster that?

Mr. Nolan: If we developed the project conventionally we would still have 32 lots. We did present a conventional qualifying map showing 32 three acre lots.

Mr. Dorsey: Which would have involved the entire 96 acres.

Mr. Nolan: It would have consumed the entire tract and it would have lots with wetlands on them and so forth.

President Scapicchio: Council, any questions? Charlene?

Mrs. Miller: I believe that the Council did get a recommendation from the Open Space Committee some time ago and their recommendation was that we accept it.

Mr. Spino: If I'm not mistaken, the property across Mount Olive Road is part of Wyndham Pointe. What land we got from Wyndham Pointe, is that not correct?

Mr. Nolan: A portion of it, more to the east there's a very large tract that came from Wyndham Pointe but there are two lots that also adjoin that that were also previously acquired by the Township through tax foreclosure.

Mr. Spino: So this in reality will go from eventually just about Wolfe Road through Turkey Brook, actually crossing a couple of streets to Route 46. It's all connected. The only question I have is the detention basins.

Mr. Nolan: There are two small detention basins on the property. They are about .6 acres and .5 acres totally 1.1 acre.

President Scapicchio: The maintenance of those came up at the last meeting. Has that ever been resolved?

Mr. Nolan: Like I just said, Dr. Keller set forth the planting schedule for the detention basins and the maintenance schedule for them. The maintenance schedule is for the first two years after construction. It's pretty frequent. After the first two years, after all the plants are established, he recommends one mowing per year. In addition to the one mowing per year, there will be periodic inspections to make sure that the outlet structures aren't clogged - very minimal maintenance. We are providing access drives to each of the detention basins off of the public road.

President Scapicchio: Who is responsible for the maintenance?

Mr. Nolan: I think under the Residential Improvement Standards Act the Township is required to do the maintenance but it will be minimal as we indicated. We'll be responsible for the first two years and after that, it's going to be one or two…

President Scapicchio: Mayor, I know it is an issue you had raised.

Mayor Licitra: We have not been accepting detention basins and the Planning Board, for the last three years since I have been Mayor, it is just too much maintenance. The word minimal is not in the vocabulary in certain aspects when it comes to things like this. As far as I'm concerned, we are going to stand true on the Planning Board as far as accepting these things. It's just going to cause us to have to hire new people to be responsible for these to make sure the maintenance is done or to go chasing people. We would rather it be a homeowners association and/or some other kind of arrangement but the Township does not want to take over any detention basins.

President Scapicchio: Are these two detention basins in the open space that you are looking to dedicate?

Mr. Nolan: Yes.

President Scapicchio: They are?

Mr. Kron: Yes. If you read a copy of the Residential Improvements Standards Act, it says if there are grates, basins or other features of the stormwater system in a residential development, or a public drainage system, then the municipality, the appropriate public entity is responsible for maintenance and upkeep. I believe under the law, it is the responsibility of the municipality but we'll take care of the first two years and we'll have our guarantees in place and after that you're probably talking about one or two cuttings a year.

Mr. Greenbaum: Dave, what Larry is discussing is the issue that is, my understanding of the law as well, although I didn't do any independent research. My understanding was that a couple of years ago the law was changed to require the Township to maintain detention basins for the reasons that Mr. Kron has so indicated.

Mr. Dorsey: It's going to be an issue for the Planning Board and next week I'll get a chance to look at those residential improvements…

Mr. Rattner: Rob and I have had the conversation a couple of times. I don't know if it was enacted in to law but when we were discussing Flanders Crossing with the off-site, I found that the law, it sounded like what you just read, had already passed all the Committees and was already up for a final vote and that was the deciding factor when we decided to take over the responsibility of the off-site basin because what we took over was the retention basin behind the Senior Citizen Building.

Mr. Kron: This law was enacted in 1987.

Mr. Rattner: That's around the time. The issue comes up because I believe the letter from the Open Space Committee stated that we should take the open space and leave the detention basins but then we would have Township property surrounding a .4 and a .6, or something like that, acre retention basin which from a practical standpoint doesn't make sense. I think under the law, research it at the time of Flanders Crossing, we would have to take it over any way.

Mr. Nolan: Dr. Keller helped us design the detention basins.

Mr. Rattner: I think what the issue is, you can design it as best as you want but it still is the cost and the costs are mounting especially when you look at all the different retention basins we have and that is why the
Administration has been looking at having a homeowners association or other organizations to maintain them because they've just been multiplying like crazy with the different standards.

President Scapicchio: John, that is something you can confirm rather easily I assume, that the law is in fact that the Township, regardless of whether it is on homeowners association property or dedicated space that the Township has the responsibility.

Mr. Dorsey: Did you offer a Statute number or is it the Administrative Code?

Mr. Kron: It's under Community Affairs Section 5:21-7.5. I can give you a copy of this if you want.

Mrs. Miller: I thought at the workshop when they were giving their little presentation that we had asked them to maybe held create a trail system there because I know that there are some trails. I know I've walked from the School Bus Garage all the way to Turkey Brook and beyond and this connects very nicely. There are trails in there that just cross Mount Olive Road and will end up in Turkey Brook through Wyndham Pointe and you really didn't seem to answer that. Is that a consideration because it is important for us to maintain trails. We've got trails that go through Country Oaks and all the way up through the Foreign Trade Zone. We're trying to make a trail system for our residents within our community.

Mr. Nolan: There are a number of trails on the property. A lot of them that are there have been established over Mr. Nolan (cont'd): he years from ATV or motorcycle riding. They tend to be on the northern end of the property nearest the apartments. It's where most of the residential lots will be. I've highlighted a map that shows some trails outside of those areas within the open space.

President Scapicchio: Charlene was asking whether or not the developer was going to put those trails in. Charlene, was that the question?.

Mrs. Miller: Why not, that's being a good neighbor. Country Oaks was very obliging in creating trails. They even paved some of them. It's quite a nice meandering of trails through there.

Mr. Kron: Are you asking for the developer to actually cut the trails through there?

Mr. Spino: I think it would be best for everyone if the developer and the Open Space Committee sat down and designed at least one trail that they would suggest placement of and in fact do that.

Mrs. Miller: In fact, I thought we asked them to meet with the Open Space Committee. We met last night and they weren't there.

Mr. Spino: I think that would be what the Open Space Committee would think would be a great idea.

Mr. Kron: My client has no problem with that.

Mr. Spino: My other questions were, at the beginning, Mr. Kron, you mentioned that it would be a homeowners association, give it to the Town or give it to some other like the Land Conservancy, or whatever? How would they take care of the detention basins, in your opinion, or would the Township still be responsible for them? If the land was not owned…

Mr. Kron: I believe the Township still would because the regulation reads that if it is a public drainage, which it is, those would be public roads, and drainage would be coming in, I believe the Township would be responsible.

Mr. Dorsey: I don't know. It says, if part or all of the residential stormwater management is privately owned, that is if it is left in other than Mount Olive's hands, the privately owned portion of the system must be privately maintained. That is the second sentence of what you gave to me. It seems to me, let me say this, let's assume that the Township does not accept the open space and the detention basins are in the areas of open space, then it clearly becomes, as I read this, the obligation of whatever private entity takes the open space to maintain the catch basins.

Mr. Nolan: Well it's part of the public drainage system that drains the road.

Mr. Dorsey: It does say that if part or all of the residential stormwater system is privately owned, then the privately owned portion of the system must be privately maintained, and I assume that when it says privately owned, it's as if those detention basins are on privately owned property, which is what the situation would be, if indeed the Township did not take the open space and let's say the Sierra Club took it. I think this issue also has to be discussed at the Planning Board because that is normally where these little trade offs are made in these situations.

Mr. Spino: And the other question I had and I think we should get an opinion on what you've just said to make sure that that is the case, is and I mentioned this the last time. I don't know, I don't believe it is. We do have an ordinance in place that requires the developer to put money into a fund for the maintenance of the detention basins. If that is not being done, it should be done. If it hasn't been done before, this is our starting point and it should be done on this job.

Mr. Nolan: There is an ordinance in place for that.

Mr. Spino: And those calculations can be made. That is exactly the reason this was put in so that the Township is not using future tax dollars for those, money has already been allotted that we can draw off of to pay for that. That's the Nick Geiger….

President Scapicchio: I think maybe we should send this back to the Planning Board to have these issues resolved there.

Mr. Spino: I, for one, am in favor of taking the open space if the developer does Number One, the trail; Number Two, the Planning Board makes sure that that Ordinance is followed.

Mr. Nolan: That would be part of the approval and resolution.

Mr. Spino: I understand that but I want to make sure it's done because not every T gets crossed all the time. Then I would definitely be in favor of taking over the land.

Mr. Nolan: The developer is not trying to get out of that obligation.

Mr. Spino: I understand. I'm not saying that he is.

Mr. Kron: We agree with the suggestion of Mrs. Kelly (Miller) that we'd pay for the one trail. We have no problem with that and whatever is the law with regard to our obligations, we have no problem with that. We would have no problem with the Council passing a Resolution accepting it and leaving that issue in terms of acceptance up to the Planning Board if that is what you want.

Mr. Greenbaum: Is that a Planning Board issue or would that be part of the developer's agreement, John, or both?

Mr. Dorsey: He's using some pronouns here, it's hard to keep track. When he says it, I assume he means that he is going to comply with that portion of the ordinance that essentially means that they have to fund the maintenance of those. That will become a condition of their subdivision approval and under the circumstances would become a condition of the resolution that I would draft for the Township Council to essentially say that they will accept the open space. I'm going to put two conditions in, that condition and a condition that at least one trail to be selected by the Open Space Committee be developed.

Mr. Greenbaum: Refresh my recollection as to the status of the resolution on the approval. Has that been approved by Planning Board?

Mr. Kron: It is scheduled to be approved, I believe, at the meeting of the Planning Board.

Mr. Dorsey: That resolution will be subject to the Township Council's resolution accepting the land.

Mr. Kron: It will be a condition of that resolution.

Mr. Rattner: If I heard it right, I believe that the developer has just met the conditions that we wanted. He will pay for whatever he has to set up the fund, they are going to give Charlene the Charlene trail and I think the Open Space Committee and everyone agreed that the property is worthwhile taking over so as long as we resolve the issue of the risk over the immediate term of maintenance and we are getting a trail that has certain value to it, I think the developer knows that is what it will take and if that comes in our developer's agreement, I don't have a problem with that.

Mr. Dorsey: So that there is no objection, I will draw a resolution for next week.

Mr. Kron: One other thing for the record, the trail cannot create any environmental issues. It would have to be put in there that it can't go through wetlands or any other areas. We don't want to cause any other problems.

Mr. Dorsey: Well the Open Space Committee would never create environmental issues. That's an oxymoron, Larry.

Mrs. Miller: By the way, the Open Space Committee meets the second Monday of each month so you can contact Kathy Murphy and she can contact Laura and you can establish which meeting you are going to come to.

President Scapicchio: Okay, Charlene? This is a public hearing so anyone from the public wish to address the Council or this developer on this open space issue only?

Richard Bonte, Budd Lake: I have a couple of questions for the developer. Of the 51 acres that is going to be donated to the Town, you said that approximately 1.1 acres are detention basins. How many acres are wetlands and how many acres are steep slopes?

Mr. Nolan: Approximately 8 acres are wetlands and there are no steep slopes.

Mr. Bonte: Is any of the land encumbered by anything else, easements?

Mr. Nolan: There is an overhead power utility easement, the old wood timber style pole lines.

Mr. Bonte: Do you know approximately how much acreage that is?

Mr. Nolan: Approximately four acres. Half of which is improved, the other half is still wooded.

Mr. Bonte: And in the remaining area that is to be developed for the homes, are you seeking any wetlands or transition zone waivers from the State or Planning Board?

Mr. Nolan: We've received all wetlands permits and buffer transition averaging permits.

Mr. Dorsey: They are way ahead of Firetower.

Mr. Bonte: This is what I'm trying to find out. Other developers obviously do this the right way. No other questions.

President Scapicchio: Anyone else from the public? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing.

Mr. Dorsey: I'll have the resolution for next week.

President Scapicchio: December 17th. Thank you. We have several ordinances for public hearing this evening.

ORDINANCES FOR PUBLIC HEARING

President Scapicchio opened the hearing to the public on:

Ord. #43-2002 An Ordinance of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Establishing Salaries of Certain Non-Union Personnel for the Year 2002.

President Scapicchio closed the public hearing.

Mr. Greenbaum moved adoption and final passage of Ord. #43-2002 and Mrs. Miller seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously

President Scapicchio declared Ord. #43-2002 as passed on second reading and directed the Clerk to forward a
copy of same to the Mayor and to publish the notice of adoption as required by law.

President Scapicchio opened the hearing to the public on:

Ord. #44-2002 Bond Ordinance Amending Section 3(a) of Bond Ordinance Numbered #11-2001 of the Township of Mount Olive, in the County of Morris, New Jersey Finally Adopted May 8, 2001 in Order to Amend the Description of the Project. (Police Dept. Capital).

President Scapicchio closed the public hearing.

Mr. Perkins moved adoption and final passage of Ord. #44-2002 and Mrs. Miller seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously

President Scapicchio declared Ord. #44-2002 as passed on second reading and directed the Clerk to forward a
copy of same to the Mayor and to publish the notice of adoption as required by law.

President Scapicchio opened the hearing to the public on:

Ord. #45-2002 Bond Ordinance Amending Section 3 of Bond Ordinance Numbered #21-2001 of the Township of Mount Olive, in the County of Morris, New Jersey Finally Adopted July 24, 2001 in Order to Amend the Description of the Project. (Chipper)

Bob Elms, Budd Lake: I noticed that you are excessing and putting up for sale a chipper and then we are buying
another chipper. Do we know what it would cost to repair the existing chipper? Have we gotten any kind of
estimates on that?

Mr. Spino: I don't know if we got an estimate or not but I believe it was not worth repairing.

Mrs. Miller: The reason we are selling it is because somebody might want it for parts.

Mr. Spino: I don't have that information in front of me but we did received information like that from the head of
the department.

Mr. Rattner: We had a discussion on all of the items that we have for public sale. We talked about the vehicles
too and all of them are really only good for parts. There is no representation that anything is road worthy to be
used for the purpose for which it was designed. People, contractors who have old equipment they might want it
for parts but we were told that none of it is serviceable to be used as it was.

Mr. Greenbaum: With regard to the chipper, we've been renting a chipper because the chipper we are selling is
not repairable.

Mr. Elms: Not repairable or did we get any kind of an estimate?

Mr. Greenbaum: That was my understanding. I don't know the answer. My understanding was that it was not
repairable.

President Scapicchio closed the public hearing.

Mrs. Miller moved adoption and final passage of Ord. #45-2002 and Mr. Greenbaum seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously

President Scapicchio declared Ord. #45-2002 as passed on second reading and directed the Clerk to forward a
copy of same to the Mayor and to publish the notice of adoption as required by law.

President Scapicchio opened the hearing to the public on:

Ord. #46-2002 Bond Ordinance Amending Section 3(a) of Bond Ordinance Numbered #22-1999 of the Township of Mount Olive, in the County of Morris, New Jersey Finally Adopted August 24, 1999 in Order to Amend the Description of the Project. (Backhoe & Mason Dump Truck)

President Scapicchio closed the public hearing.

Mr. Spino moved adoption and final passage of Ord. #46-2002 and Mr. Perkins seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously

President Scapicchio declared Ord. #46-2002 as passed on second reading and directed the Clerk to forward a
copy of same to the Mayor and to publish the notice of adoption as required by law.

President Scapicchio opened the hearing to the public on:

Ord. #47-2002 Bond Ordinance Amending Section 1 of Bond Ordinance Numbered #8-2001 of the Township of Mount Olive, in the County of Morris, New Jersey Finally Adopted march 27, 2001 in Order to Amend the Description of the Project. (Mason Dump Truck)

President Scapicchio closed the public hearing.

Mr. Rattner moved adoption and final passage of Ord. #47-2002 and Mr. Perkins seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously

President Scapicchio declared Ord. #47-2002 as passed on second reading and directed the Clerk to forward a
copy of same to the Mayor and to publish the notice of adoption as required by law.

President Scapicchio opened the hearing to the public on:

Ord. #48-2002 Bond Ordinance Providing for the Remediation and Removal of Underground Storage Tanks at the Budd Lake Fire Department in and by the Township of Mount Olive, in the County of Morris, New Jersey, Appropriating $93,432 Therefore and Authorizing the Issuance of $88,760 Bonds or Notes of the Township to Finance Part of the Cost Thereof.

Colleen Labow, Budd Lake: For these tank removals, did you have to get special permits from the State and so on and so forth for the removal of them?

Mr. Dorsey: Yes, there had to be filed a remediation plan with NJDEP and the remediation plan was prepared by Mr. Dorsey (cont'd): Joe Norton of Norcom and it has been approved by the NJDEP and this is the funding to permit the remediation to be completed.

Mrs. Labow: So when you have private builders who remove tanks from properties do they follow these guidelines as well.

Mr. Dorsey: If they remove this kind of tank, they surely do. This involved somewhat of a spill too.

Mrs. Labow: Isn't the State, DEP, any tank removal has to have determined what's in the tank before it's removed and the proper procedures to be followed?

Mr. Dorsey: I don't know, I think the nature of the tank is important. The answer to that question, the NJDEP has jurisdiction over certain tanks.

Mrs. Labow: More directly on Jennies Lane when the builder removed the tanks from the properties. Wasn't he required to follow those guidelines?

Mr. Dorsey: I don't recall. I'd have to defer to the Administrator on that.

Mrs. Spencer: I believe that the builder was required to apply for a permit and to determine what was in the tanks and remove them according to the law.

Mrs. Labow: And did he?

Mrs. Spencer: The latest ones that were removed, yes. There was a permit. Our Building Inspector, Code Official, was there on site and supervised the entire operation.

Mrs. Labow: And the previous ones? Was it ever found out where they ended up or what was in them?

Mrs. Spencer: It was determined by NJDEP that there was no cause for any further action and the case was closed. They did come and do a site inspection.

Mrs. Labow: Didn't they send it back to the Town and ask you guys to determine what it was. Wasn't that in the letter from the DEP?

President Scapicchio: Colleen, where are you going with this? And I say that because the property owners in question stated at public meetings that they had proof via videotape that these were oil tanks that were illegally removed. When the Council asked for that tape on several occasions, we have never received it. So for one to make the allegation that there were illegal oil tanks removed from the site, represent to the Council that they had videotape of that action and when requested could not produce that evidence, I think what you are doing here tonight is unfair.

Mrs. Labow: No, what I'm asking is…

Mr. Spino: Mr. Chairman, I would also like….

President Scapicchio: What you are doing here tonight is unfair. It is unfair to the Administration, it's unfair to the Council and it's unfair to the public. We've been through this.

Mr. Spino: It is also unfair to this ordinance because the ordinance is up for discussion for the oil tanks at the Budd Lake Fire House. If Mrs. Labow wants to discuss this, she does it at a public session, not at this point in time.

President Scapicchio: Thank you Mr. Spino.

Mrs. Labow: You are right. Thank you.

President Scapicchio closed the public hearing.

Mr. Greenbaum moved adoption and final passage of Ord. #48-2002 and Mrs. Miller seconded the motion.

Mr. Rattner: I just want to say that I believe this funding through the State is at zero interest because it is part of the State's program to clean up all of the different oil tanks and I also believe that it is actually being paid for by the Fire Department. It's just that we are able to get the funding because the Fire Department owns their own building even though they ask for our contributions. So it's zero interest that we were able to get for them through Mr. Rattner (cont'd): the State program.

Mr. Greenbaum: Irrespective of what Council has advised and a point of order, if there is evidence that tanks were illegally removed, I'm sure that we are all interested in that information so we can take appropriate action.

President Scapicchio: Absolutely.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously

President Scapicchio declared Ord. #48-2002 as passed on second reading and directed the Clerk to forward a
copy of same to the Mayor and to publish the notice of adoption as required by law.

President Scapicchio: The Clerk has informed me that we should either continue or table this until the January, I guess we were waiting for a response from the Planning Board and we haven't gotten that yet because their meeting was cancelled because of the snow storm. Do we want to continue this, Mr. Dorsey, or do we want to table this and reintroduce?

Mr. Dorsey: It gets to be a technical argument whether you can carry it over. The best course of action would be to table this ordinance and then reintroduce it next year.

Ord. #49-2002 An Ordinance of the Township of Mount Olive to Amend and Supplement Chapter 400 Entitled "Land Use" to Clarify the Setback Requirements for Accessory Buildings and Structures When Attached to Principal Buildings and Structures.

Mr. Greenbaum moved to Table Ord. #49-2002 and Mr. Perkins seconded the motion.

Mr. Spino: Do we have to reintroduce it? Does it have to be readvertised?

Mr. Dorsey: Yes, it's the right thing to do.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously

President Scapicchio opened the hearing to the public on:

Ord. #50-2002 An Ordinance of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing the Acquisition of Lot 26, Block 2200 by the Township of Mount Olive.(Country Club Estates Drainage Property)

President Scapicchio closed the public hearing.

Mrs. Miller moved for adoption and final passage of Ord. #50-2002 and Mr. Perkins seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously

President Scapicchio declared Ord. #50-2002 as passed on second reading and directed the Clerk to forward a
copy of same to the Mayor and to publish the notice of adoption as required by law.

Mr. Rattner: We finally did it. It only took us about 15 years and probably about 20 different Council members.

Mayor Licitra: The people up there are going to be very very happy about this.

President Scapicchio: The Mayor requested that I go through the Consent Agenda 1-3 and 5-7. Then we are going to go right back to Linwood.

CONSENT RESOLUTIONS

1. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing a Person-to-Person Transfer of Alcoholic Beverage License No. 1427-33-007-003 from Flanders Bar & Liquors, Inc. Trading as Kiernan's Pub to Mount Olive Bar and Grill, LLC.

2. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing a Person-to-Person Transfer of Alcoholic Beverage License No. 1427-33-005-007 from Barrone/Tozzo Restaurant, LLC to Burger-N-Brew, Inc.

3. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing a Person-to-Person Transfer of Alcoholic Beverage License No. 1427-33-008-003 from Flanders Valley Farms, Inc. to Flanders Valley Caterers, Inc.

5. Resolution of the Township of Mount Olive Providing for the Cancellation of the $5,292.72 Balance in the Reserve for the Bergen HIF Assessment.

6. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Requesting Aproval from the Director of the Division of Local Government Services for Insertion of a Specific Item of Revenue into the 2002 Municipal Budget. (20,208.46 for Drunk Driving Enforcement Fund) - grant

7. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing the Sale of Certain Vehicles and Equipment no Longer Needed for Public Use by the Township.

Mr. Rattner moved for adoption of Consent Agenda Resolutions 1-3 and 5-7 and Mr. Greenbaum seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously

ORDINANCE FOR PUBLIC HEARING (CONT'D)

President Scapicchio opened the hearing to the public on

Ord. #51-2002 An Ordinance of the Township of Mount Olive Establishing Linwood as a One-Way Street.
Bob Elms, Budd Lake: At the last meeting, I presented a couple of proposals to avoid making that a one way street. Has there been any feedback from the Police Department or School Board?

President Scapicchio: Cindy do we have a response from the Police Department?

Mrs. Spencer: Well we have members of the Police Department here tonight that are prepared to speak to that.

Chief Ed Katona: We reviewed the plans that Mr. Elms has submitted. They are excellent, they work well, my only comment on them that there should be a second egress on to Linwood Road in case of an emergency. However, we are talking about enforcing the Board of Education to do an improvement on their own property, I know I don't have that authority and I don't believe that this Board does. I think that should be brought up to the School Board.

President Scapicchio: For the Public that is interested Mr. Elms came up with what I call a traffic flow. There are 10 copies here, you are welcome to take it, take a look at it.

Chief Katona: Why we are talking about parking, there are more serious parking concerns at perhaps the Mt. Olive High School. If the School Board should take a look at the parking issues, the priority should be placed at the High School and secondarily at this school.

Mr. Geiger: Thank you for having this public hearing. Nothing changes does it Earl? We are still talking about distension basins, it has to be about 13 years, but anyway it looks like it is working out. My main concern was not having any one way street on Knollwood Road. If you look at the pictures that I am sending down, I will read it out as I go along. Some of these things may have already been addressed, I don't know what the real genesis was of this and how it all evolved other than a fender bender. I have been here since 1969 and except for one house on Linwood Road everybody else has moved in since the school was there. Usually it's a nice little country road. So if you look at picture A when you get it, it was taken November 17 and it shows the street cut out with the yellow curve that means no parking, with painted white angle lines encouraging illegal parking. So you have a striping that's contrary to each other. Angle parking is also illegal by ordinance, unless it is authorized by ordinance and to my knowledge there has never been any authorization and I think it was not the Town that did that painting, I think it was the school at one time that did that.

President Scapicchio: Cindy can you check on that for us?

Mrs. Spencer: I could tell you that we did check and the School Board did it without a permit.

Mr. Geiger: I just think the Town would do that because I think they follow the MUTCD which is the federal guidelines and has been adopted by the State of New Jersey. The next picture was taken at 11:30 am on November 18, 2002 and that is looking east to the end of Linwood where it intersects with Knollwood Road. Note that the school is open with no cars parked in the cut out on the right. Three cars are parked on the street and school parking lot is not filled. On Monday, the same day at 1:45 pm you see two cars parked in the cut out and two in the street, the parking lot still has empty spaces. Pictures D - G show some empty spaces, at this time there were 19 empty spaces in the parking lot. Monday at 2:46 pm, you have five cars now parking in the cut out and one was backed in. Two cars were parked up the street. Then you move to 3:04, you have a total of three Mr. Geiger (cont'd): cars parked on the wrong side of the street and two of them are showing in the picture and the cut out is now full, they are all parked illegal. On Monday, at 3:08 pm the cut out is full, a total of several vehicles now parked on the wrong side of the street, you can't see them all because some of them are on the other side of me. Also the right side now has many cars, the parking lot of the school was not filled. Same day 3:16 pm only four cars left on the street except for less than 20 minutes a day this is pretty much what this street looks like. Picture L is Jameson, it shows the basketball court on the Street. There are two on Jameson and there is one on Linwood and they are illegal. I have noticed as you drive through out that sub-division down there, there are more and more of these portable basketball courts going up and you have an ordinance that makes that illegal. You are not allowed to put a basketball court on the street and right by the school. Why don't they just go to the school?

President Scapicchio: Nick, is it your understanding that it is those illegal parking spaces on Linwood that are creating the problem there.

Mr. Geiger: Yes. They just go in there and they back out; in the traffic. One car backs in there and he pulls into traffic. I think one of your big problems is eliminating that, it is an illegal thing anyway.

President Scapicchio: Chief, would that help the situation if we had the School Board eliminate those illegal parking spaces?

Chief Katona: I think it would help part of the traffic flow through there.

Mr. Spino: But the School Board wouldn't eliminate them, we through the Chief, the Chief would be eliminating them.

Chief Katona: They need to have it removed. Whether it is I, or whether it is a Building Code Official, I don't know but we could certainly work those details out.

President Scapicchio: Would that be a recommendation from the Police Department if the Council chose not to create a one way either part time or full time on Linwood, would that help solve the problem?
That certainly would yes. That would be our recommendation.

Mr. Geiger: The Chief is absolutely right, these cars are on angle parking which is illegal by State Law unless done by Ordinance, I know you haven't got an ordinance that authorizes that angled parking. These cars back up and with bad weather they haven't got much visibility and they could hit the cars across the street. I am going to read my other little thing here and that may explain some of it. Okay, all the families living on Linwood but one have lived there after the school was built in lieu of the existing situation. Should Linwood become a one way street the students on bikes will no longer be able to go down Knowllwood Road and west on Linwood to the School as they will be in violation of New Jersey Title 39, going the wrong way on a way street, which could be a hazard to them. Additionally children on bikes will be forced to use Clover Hill Road with more exposure to traffic than they would using Knollwood Road with little traffic and a safer way to school. There are only six homes on Linwood, there are seven homes on Knollwood that are also affected by the one way proposal and in a lessor way there are 12 homes on Jameson that will be affected. Jameson will also have an increase in traffic. As all vehicles going south on Knollwood will not have a chance to use Linwood, but most go down Jameson. The area is not a commercial or industrial area, it has single family residents where they mostly walk through school, except for about 15 -20 minutes a day starting at about 2:55 to 3:15 pm 183 days a year, there is a lot of unregulated traffic and parents picking up children. The mailman will now have to change his route. That does not sound like it is going to be difficult but it is because he comes down Linwood and goes all the way down Knollwood, and then does all the streets all the way up and comes back and finishes up going back down Linwood. So after 30 something years he is going to have to change the way he does business. It's not a big thing, though he'll probably have to walk it that's all. There have not been any injury accidents that I could recall in thirty years and there may have been some fender benders. How many? I don't know. Linwood Road has developed legal hazards and behaviors that may lead to or contribute to fender benders and they are; a curb cut on Linwood Road with a yellow curb that by both Federal and State standards prohibits parking. If there are white painted lines on the roadway that encourage angle parking, this creates a conflict in messages and is contrary to the yellow curb messages. The angle parking lines are illegal unless authorized by owners for that location. I am sure it was never authorized and may expose the Township to a liability problem. Vehicles are parked facing the wrong direction in violation of New Jersey Title 39. Basketball backboards are set at curbside in violation of the Mt. Olive Ordinance. There is one on Linwood, two on Jameson, one of which is in the street. I am surprised a snow plow did not take it down. There are 18-20 empty parking spaces in the school parking lot that are available at 2:55 and are not being completely utilized by parents picking up children. When children are picked up at 3:00 pm there seems to be some confusion by children looking for their parents, especially in bad whether. They dart out, looking for their family cars and paying little attention to traffic. This lasts about 10-12 minutes and one way would not eliminate this condition. In conclusion, it is my understanding that the main complaint had to do with a fender bender, if so a one way would not address this problem. It is my opinion that the illegal angle parking be eliminated. This would prevent vehicles backing into traffic with a poor sight distance and also backing into vehicles parked across the street. This should resolve most of the problem. Additionally enforce the no parking facing traffic law, and the street basketball backboard poles not only on Linwood, but throughout the Mr. Geiger (cont'd): Township. The community should be informed before any enforcement commences. The Board of Education should also be advised and their assistance requested to inform the appearance of any changes in the angle parking or any other traffic safety programs that are implemented. I think that the school should be part of this. The children going to that school are only there for three years. It is kindergarten through second grade. The kids change every three years, you have a whole bunch of different kids. But they need some education and they really should have something like safe way to schools and some other programs. Our Police are very good at this type of training. I work with the Mount Olive Police Department over the years as well as other local State Police and the Police are very capable when they do a good job if we involve them a little bit more and let them do their job, they could probably do a very good job. Actually they have been very tolerant of the situations down there and the people have become intolerant in what they do with these actions, the parents don't care. I think the main safety factor is just the kids running out in the traffic looking for their parents and not paying attention to the cars that are in the area. That's the conclusion of my suggestions.

Mr. Greenbaum: Nick, I wanted to thank you for the pictures because it certainly has clarified in my mind as to what I think the appropriate solution to this problem is in light of all of these different opinions that we have heard throughout the four or five different hearings that we have had. It appears to me from looking at the photograph J provided by nick that all of the cars parked facing the same direction which would be going into the development towards Knollwood and way from Cloverhill. I think that the appropriate solution may satisfy everybody and also eliminate the concern which raised this issue is to eliminate the angled curb cuts as we have already discussed and also to have no parking or stopping on the northerly side of Linwood. Parking on one side, eliminate the curb cuts, keep it both directions and you will eliminate the problem that resulted and you won't inconvenience the residents of that area.

Mr. Spino: I don't think you will eliminate the problem. I think if you take away the angled parking yes, that will do it. But people that are going to pick their kids up are going to park their car there.

Mr. Greenbaum: It's going to be eliminated through enforcement.

Mr. Spino: My own opinion, I don't think that will do it, at least for that side of the street.

Mr. Greenbaum: If it doesn't do it, we can always come back to the issue at least that way we are not going to inconvenience any of the residents of that particular area and least it's a solution which is worth a try and I am sure Ed that you would have no problem enforcing a no parking or no stopping on that side. We are only talking about the side where the residents live. That would allow them access out of their driveways unobstructed access out of their driveways and their wouldn't be cars parked along that road. You would still have two way traffic on the road, but you would have a larger area of travel on the roadway.

Mr. Geiger: The only concern I would have there would be in prohibiting the use of that parking space for the residents. If for those who live there, so I have two cars, my sons.

Mr. Greenbaum: You would still be able to park on the other side of the street, there are only certain times of the day when parking is not available to the residents and that is during those peak school hours, otherwise you have the entire school parking lot which is available and you will have the southerly side of the street adjacent to the school which would be allowed by it. I really don't care whether or not the residents are able to park their car on Saturday when the school is not being used, but I think that we have already come to the conclusion that we need consistency rather than different time periods.

Chief Katona: I agree.

Mr. Greenbaum: I don't think that it is really that great an inconvenience and I think it is the best solution of all that has been presented, although Mr. Elms solution I think is workable; procedurally it is workable, I don't know and I don't believe that we would ever get the school district to take action because we have been totally unsuccessful to date to get them to take any action and I think that this proposal seems to be the best solution currently which we could all see if it works and if it doesn't, readdress the issue that way no one is inconvenienced in terms of being able to travel.

Mayor Licitra: I just wanted to make sure that everybody is aware, Mr. Geiger was formerly the Deputy Director for the Highway Safety Authority and the Department of Highway Safety. I use him because the price is right. What's your price again Nicky?

Mr. Geiger: Zero.

Mayor Licitra: I use him every once in a while so Nicky is right on the money a lot of the time. The credentials are there even though he is retired.

President Scapicchio: Thanks Mayor. Ray?

Mr. Geiger: I have one other caveat Rob, perhaps the sign should say on the northern side, "no parking during Mr. Geiger (cont'd): school hours".

Mr. Greenbaum: I would leave it as "no parking, no standing" on that side of the street. Again when you start getting into school hours it gets into a definition question; are we talking snow days? are we talking about in service days?

Mr. Geiger: When school is in session. It is a thought.

Mr. Greenbaum: I am not adverse to that that, but when you start adding in variables, it becomes more problematic as we have seen through the various meetings that's why when we originally looked at it, it was only going to be during school hours, and then there were questions that were raised. I don't really see it as an inconvenience to those 6 houses on Linwood Drive.

Mr. Geiger: The only other thing is that we should get the school involved as far as; if you are going to do anything with that street, is to give these little flyers to the kids to take home to their parents to make sure they know what is going on, otherwise the Police become bad guys. I think the Police in Mt. Olive are very good. They don't bother you unless you have an attitude. If you have an attitude, they have attitudes too. Thank you very much

Mr. Perkins: Nick, on looking at the photos, and I know you and I had spoken previous to this evening, on the J photo which is the one we are talking about now, if we didn't put up those famous "no parking signs", that I am not a big proponent upon, and just look to enforce people to not park the wrong way on that side of the street; would that not alleviate the problem?

Mr. Geiger: I think so.

Mr. Perkins: Right now I am counting possibly four vehicles parked on the wrong side of Linwood. So they are all facing the wrong way.

Mr. Geiger: Yes.

Mr. Perkins: So if they were facing the right way, you probably would not have that problem, or if they all parked on the right hand side.

Mr. Geiger: When school is not in session, they are on the right hand side.

Mr. Perkins: But if a "no parking" sign is put up, no body is going to park there.

Mr. Greenbaum: The only problem I foresee with allowing cars to park on the side of the street where there residences are, even if they are parked in the right direction, you are still going to have obstructed views coming out of the driveways. That is why I think that solution does not work. I would suggest that the other solution is a better solution and it is not really that big an inconvenience to the residents and I am sure they would rather have whatever little inconveniences posed by that than having it as a one way street. If anyone is out there and I am wrong, let me know.

Mr. Geiger: Thank you very much.

Mr. Rattner: You know we keep going around and around. When we first started this at the beginning of the year I thought that we had an agreement, at least the majority of the residents around agreed to the partial one way or something a couple hours a day. But putting up signs that limited for school days, we already have that law and we keep expanding the zone around the High School. We already have 7 am to 5 pm. If we just do it exactly the same way, this way we have less variability, it's consistent, this way one the kids get older or the parents go to the other schools, it's the same time and it seems to be working alright where we are putting up the no parking signs on school days, this ways it won't cause any problems on weekends, it won't cause problems at night when people have company and that type of thing, so maybe it is not that unreasonable putting the same time and it is consistent with what we have been doing in the other parts of Town.

Mr. Guenther: It has been some time since I have seen the supposed liaison from the Board of Education at this meeting. I am really puzzled; here we are debating this issue for how many times have we debated it and we can't even get the official liaison from the Board of Education to be present and I just can't understand it. I thought Mr. Elms proposal last week was a good one, obviously it need some cooperation of the School Board. I think somebody has got to pass the information on to the School Board and get them to participate in these discussions. They cause the effect on the community, and they are not part n parcel. They either refuse to be, or we are not including them. I find that it is incomprehensible to me.

President Scapicchio: Anyone else from the Public?

Jim Buell, Linwood Avenue: We are here to discuss one way eastbound all the time on Linwood Ave. This is a Mr. Buell (cont'd): picture of what it looks like. Eastbound on Linwood, the consequences and I have counted the cars, these are approximate figures will be 500 - 600 cars a day down Linwood Ave. around Knowllwood and at the busy times of the day about half the cars would go up Jameson and the other half of the cars will go up Graden or Edgewood. I think that is a dangerous situation on days when school is not in session you are talking a 100 -120 cars a day and I am going to be one of them. I will probably on days when school is not in session go by at least twice a day, that's an inconvenience; I don't think it's necessary. I have been suggesting for over a year that there is an alternative solution to this whole thing and it is not limiting the parking on the street. We can't even control the parking of the parents up here in this mountainous driveway. If any of you all have ever been there during school dismissal or pick up time and looked at that drive way, the most dangerous thing of all is right here. I think I have said this about four weeks ago. That thing is jam packed on both sides of that thing even though there is a fire zone on both sides and I guess that means there is no parking no stopping. That is a danger. That is what Linwood Ave. looks like on the pick up between 3:00 - 3:15 pm everyday of the week. Yes if we could eliminate the parking on one side of the street that would answer the question. I live on Linwood Ave. and you could eliminate the parking on my side of the street, I'll be very happy. Then you have at least 20 ft. of macadam to use to get the cars out of the sub-division. The other problem, is I have already said as the consequences of making this east bound is that there is no way that you can make it a limited period of time because eastbound begins at the intersection of Knollwood and Jameson. However there is a very simple alternative that I have been suggesting for over a year. That is, it would be very simple to say that we would have one way on Linwood Ave. from 8:30 in the morning until 9:30 in the morning and from 2:30 in the afternoon, until 3:30 in the afternoon and at other certain designated times because the other major problem on Linwood Avenue. Is the back to school nights and the other special events and we haven't talked about the Halloween Parade and the various other kinds of things that happen at that school when you do get Linwood Avenue jammed on both sides of the street and you do have the entire parking lot jammed. I loved the proposal Number 2. That will answer the problem, it will provide the amount of parking that the school needs and that is the major issues, there is not enough parking in the school to accommodate the number of children to get picked up and dropped off. This has been an increasingly more aggravated problem over the years. It used to be that Linwood Ave. North School had Kindergarten, first, second and third year students. Now, we have the two schools merged the way the school has and I agree with you that the school should be involved in this process because what's happened since they have merged these two schools, all of the pick up and all of the drop off of almost all of the students is now occurring the area which used to be Mountain View North and in this driveway area and down Linwood Avenue. The entire south part of the school, the big driveway is now reserved strictly for school buses. So there is a problem on Linwood Ave. But again, the alternative is as I have suggested, 8:30 to 9:30 am, 2:30 to 3:30 in the afternoon and at other designated times. What are those times? Well there is one simple common denominator. We have a school crossing guard everyday from 8:30 to 9:30 am and from 2:30 to 3:30 pm. That school crossing guard could take a sawhorse which says one way at 8:30 in the morning when she comes on duty, that says one way and place it right here and place it right in the middle of that intersection. At 9:30 when she goes off, she retrieves the sawhorse and places it back into the school or does something else. 2:30 pm when she comes on, she puts the sawhorse back out in the middle of the road and at 3:30 in the afternoon she picks the sawhorse up and takes it back. We now have a one way street. We now have a one way street, but only westbound. You worry about the residents on Linwood, we have no desire to go eastbound on Linwood at that particular point in time and so now you have a one way street. The problem is solved.

Mr. Spino: Why don't you think that the people once they realize that will go around and go down Jameson and come back west on Linwood anyway?

Mr. Buell: Some of them will.

Mr. Spino: I think that part of the problem is that more and more of the people are picking up their kids than they did before. But I would think that once they learn that they could go down a block and go around, they are going to do that. Maybe you will not have 500 cars but you might have 400.

Mr. Buell: The 8:30 to 9:30 and 2:30 to 3:30, there are 140 cars who arrive here and need to pick up or drop off kids. 70 of them come through this driveway, if this is one way westbound they will now go out this way. So they will only traverse about a tenth of a mile to get out on to Cloverhill. The other 70 cars who picked up their kids back here in this parking lot will in effect go down through Cloverhill of down through one of these other parallel streets and will arrive at this parking lot. So we have about 70 cars that will go through the rest of the street. We already have about 280 cars going up Jameson right now because the school has already told the students and the parents that Linwood is a one-way street. Now why are the people on Jameson experiencing this major increase of people going down Jameson? That's because the school at the beginning of the year has told the students that this is a one way street and will be a one way street and therefore the parents are already acting as if this is a one way street. Some of them get very irate with you when you are going the other way when you are trying to go eastbound. Part of the problem my friends from Jameson already have is a result of the School already telling the students that this is an eastbound road. If you look at the second page of the handout that I have provided for you, I have given you estimates of the number of cars and these are not accurate. Some of them I have counted. I have made a fairly accurate count of the school that come in between 8:30 and 9:30 am and 2:30 and 3:30 pm. I have made an estimate of the people who pick up and drop off at kindergarten time and the day care center and all the rest of this. If you adopt the alternative of a one way for the two hour period of time, only 140 cars during the whole day will come down these parallel streets causing the problems for the other Mr. Buell (cont'd): people on the other side. The balance of people will get on to Linwood and be off of Linwood very safely infact Linwood Avenue is probably the safest place unless the School Board is going to spring for a couple of hundred thousand dollars, that would probably be involved in proposal two which I like but I don't think they are going to do it. Unless they do that, the safest place for these cars is on Linwood Ave. I have lived there for 30 years and I have watched this problem grow progressively over the years. Now the other problem as I explained to you four weeks ago, is at the evening sessions when they have the back to school night, when we do have cars on both sides of the street, both on Linwood and on Jameson and we probably got 200 cars involved in that parking and going up and down those streets. If you passed an ordinance that said other designated times and I don't care who designated it, possibly the principle, the principle could say, we are having a back to school night, we're having a Halloween Parade, it started at 12:00 and lasted until 3:30 pm. I know in the Spring there is going to be field days and they are going to be packed, kids and parents are going to be packed into this area and we could have an ordinance states at other designated times; one of the things I tried to find out is would that be legal and how would you do it, who would designate this. But lets say you walk pass an ordinance they gave the principle to write to call a designated day, and she knows this long before it happens, what you would need is now four saw horses at night with blinkers probably. You would put one out here in this intersection here and you would put one here and here and one here at this driveway. All of the one way, this way and now you have resolved the evening problem because you would have blinking sawhorses say whoever would put them out. That is the awnser to the problem. I know the Police Department does not like the idea of going westbound because they feel that there is congestion created up here at this intersection. The intersection congestion quite frankly would only be created if you went westbound if you allowed people to turn left on to Cloverhill from Linwood. Simple solution, on the back of the one way sign, we would be to place up here at the top of Linwood Avenue, "no left hand turn from 8:30 - 9:30 am and 2:30 to 3:30 pm when school is in session". Very simple solution. The only people that will be surprised by one way when you didn't anticipate the school being one way, are the people who live here on Linwood Ave. None of us go eastbound for anything. When we leave our houses, leave our homes to go anyway, we are going to go westbound. So there is no problem. That's the solution. Thank you.

President Scapicchio: Thank you.

Richard Bonte, Budd Lake: As you know, I have stated before I don't like these time of day one way streets. I am still opposed to them. I like what Mr. Geiger had to say. I think he has really gotten very close to the answer here, and that is, if there is an illegal parking zone on the school side of the street, I don't know that we even have to go to the Board of Education and asked them to do something; we need to enforce the rules and regulations that exist. Is that type of parking is illegal, shut it down. On the other side of the street, I'd like to offer a slight modification to what Mr. Geiger proposed. Rather than put up "no parking sign" number one, enforce the present laws on people parking on the wrong side of the street facing the wrong direction. Secondly, you might be able to eliminate this problem in it's entirety on that side of the street. Instead of putting up "no parking signs", which preclude the residents from parking there, put up "no standing/stopping" signs as well as "no discharging" or picking up of passengers. There is a distinct difference between parking, stopping and standing. The residents could park there. I don't see an issue with parking and creating a driveway visibility problem because usually it is the occupant of that house who is parked there in front of his own house. I don't think you are going to find many instances of very many people parking their car to go pick up students. But if you prohibit stopping and standing or the discharge of picking up passengers on that side of the street, you may be able to solve most of this problem as Mr. Geiger has proposed without taking any other steps. Thank you.

Mr. Greenbaum: I just had several comments to the comments that were made. First, your proposal which you kept calling it the simplest solution, I think it is probably the most complicated solution personally. I appreciate the effort as Mr. Elms, I appreciate your effort, I thought it was constructive. I agree with some of your points. Rich, I agree with you in terms of removing those spots, I think we all agree and that is going to happen, I don't think we need School Board permission, I think everyone is in agreement that those curved line spots have to be eliminated and it is going to get done regardless of what solution is ultimately adopted. I just don't see the inconvenience to those few residents who live on Linwood drive if you eliminate parking over there. I don't see the inconvenience. Those times when the cars are parked are not going to be within school hours. They will be able to park on the other side of the street. The inconvenience is going to be instead of going to park on the curb, I don't even know that we allow overnight parking on the streets. Certainly during certain months we don't. In any event and I have already said this, that it seems to me that this is the first solution which should be tried. It does not inconvenience the residents on Jameson; it does not inconvenience the residents on Linwood. From the Photographs which Nick brought, there were only three or four cars that were parked on the other side of Jameson, which we would now be eliminating parking. I agree that if you do it only during school hours as Mr. Rattner said, you still have the problem of the other nights, the other events and that is why that I think it is appropriate in this situation to eliminate the safety concern is to just eliminate parking or standing on that side of the street and I think that solution would work without sending cars into the neighborhood without causing a traffic problem in at the intersection of Linwood and Cloverhill.

Mr. Spino: Chief, is there a difference between parking stopping and standing?

Chief Katona: Yes there is.

Mr. Spino: How do you know? Does the person have to be in the car and it is stopping?

Chief Katona: A person is parked if they park the car, exit the vehicle, lock it up and walk away. All other times if the vehicle is there and you'll see it in shopping centers, you stop perhaps in a fire zone, you're waiting for your wife to pick up your laundry or whatever. That is stopping and standing.

Mr. Spino: My next question is and this is the part I don't think I would agree with Rich is that if I was going to pick up my child and I stop the car take it out, take the keys and go get him. Then I am parked.

Chief Katona: Part of the problem is that they are not doing that.

Mr. Spino: I understand that but once they realize; if Mr. Bonte says put up a no stopping or standing. If they pull their car over, park the car, take the keys out and go across the street to get their child then they are parked, right?

Chief Katona: They are not going to do that.

Mr. Spino: Well, I think once they start getting tickets for stopping there, I think they are going to say we'll gee, if I go across the street, I will park. I would think if it would work it would be fine, but I don't think it is going to work. People are too resilient. When they want to do something, they are going to find a way to do it.

Joyce Brown: Hi, I am Joyce Brown, I live on the corner of Knowllwood and Linwood which most of you know. I am directly affected. First I would like to thank you Nick, and Jim Buell for the work they have done, because they have really been great neighbors and have everybody's interest at heart. The Sprague's who are not here I don't think, started the whole thing, because they have been hit. Rob, I think your idea was good except I don't think the idea of having a no parking zone on the resident side is a great idea because there are a lot of people with more than two cars that would be immediately affected by that. It might be workable. I think the big thing is the illegal parking slots that were originally bus slots when the place was built. I think if you do that, it would alleviate the problem right away. I don't know if you have to go any further. I think Bob Elms thing is great to, if you have to go that far. I would like to know who the School Board Liaison is from your group.

President Scapicchio: From our group it was Steve Rattner. Daniel Amianda is the School Board Liaison to the Council.

Mrs. Brown: You don't have one to them, he has one to you.

Mr. Rattner: We go both ways.

Mrs. Brown: Does he ever come to your meetings? Or do you ever see him?

President Scapicchio: Daniel is here occasionally, yes.

Mrs. Brown: Or you might maybe work through him.

President Scapicchio: We are going to have to.

Mr. Spino: I would think that would be one of the things we should be doing if we have not done it already is to contact the Board of Education, either meet with him or send someone to the Board Meeting with two proposals. First that they eliminate the angle parking, if they don't we will, and the second is what Mr. Elms proposed as a minimum and a maximum to alleviate the problem.

Mr. Guenther: My suggestion picking up on Earl's idea, I don't think we have to go to their meeting. I think it is very simple. Put together a letter, we could get a consensus here of what we want to put in the letter, I think along the line of what Earl said sounds fine. We send it to the School Board president, the School Superintendent and say look, lets set up a meeting to discuss this and work this out. It should be taken out of the realm of either the Council Meetings or the Board of Education meetings because it is something that we should discuss and try to come up with a solution and then present it to these perspective boards or whatever approvals they need but I think it should be done that way, with a letter saying look, lets set up a meeting, study this, and within a week lets set up a meeting and work out a solution.


President Scapicchio: I think we have someone at the podium that probably knows more than any one of us here, and that is the crossing guard.

Lisa Jopp, Crossing Guard: I am Lisa Jopp and I am in Flanders. I am involved in two different ways. I live on Jameson, but I also am a crossing guard. First of all there are three crossing guards. To put those horses out would be; something like that would not work, it is actually better if there are posted signs. The communication between the parents, with the Principle, and all, also communication would not work because some of the one Ms. Jopp (cont'd): way directions that we have on Linwood was given by Mrs. Dinges, and under I believe Officer Scott Vanness from the Police Department at the time, and that all came within about because I think from a letter that I had sent to Sergeant Gallop, in concern and stressing the safety of the children and the traffic flow. I think a good start is eliminating those parking spaces, but I also do have to agree with a non-parking whether it be North or South on Linwood. The cars parked all the way to the end of the street, some of then even parked over the crosswalk. Now there is no crossing guard there. I am in front of the school crossing the children that cross Clover Hill. The children have to cross Linwood by themselves. When you have two cars parked at the end of that street, you only leave a small view. Now the kids have to come behind a car, approach into the street before they cross. I watched my son almost get hit by a car and I will not let him cross by himself. He is a very small guy. So I know it is a big safety issue, but when you eliminate one side of the road in parking you are giving more visibility to the cars. A one way does help, but during the school hours is appropriate enough. The hour in the morning and the hour after. Let me also just tell you, just so you know where we are coming from. The school is pre-school through fifth grade. There are 640 children in the school. I think there are about five classes which have about 50 students, so you are looking at quite a few walkers within the development.

President Scapicchio: Thank you. Anyone else from the public?

Dave Jones, Route 46: I don't know if you guys like this, but this is the best proposal I have seen and it solves all the problems, the proposal that Bob Elms gave. It's fantastic, he went out of his way, he does not even live over there. You should thank him for it because he spent time and money drafting this stuff up.

Mr. Spino: Let me interrupt you Dave, we have already done that. We have already done that as a group. We presented it and we spoke about it with Mr. Elms at a previous meeting, so don't yell.

President Scapicchio: The problem with that plan, Dave, is it takes School Board action and School Board funds. There is no action that the action can take.

Mr. Jones: So why don't you guys all show up at a School Board meeting, they'll be very intimidated by you guys.

President Scapicchio: Lets keep this meeting in order, it is about Linwood, it is about how we could resolve the hazardous situation over there.

Mr. Jones: I am just saying I think this is the most realistic situation.

Mr. Spino: If somebody from the Council meet with the School Board and offered them the two proposals, one, the simplest, the one that we could do without their approval is to eliminate the angled parking. The other is to show them and support Mr. Elm's position number two because that is the most expensive. Now we are talking about, again someone mentioned $100,000. I don't know how much it would cost; $10,000, or $150,000. I have know idea. But remember, when the School Board Budget goes down, it comes to us to vote on. People want us to cut the budget not add to it.

Mr. Jones: Is it possible to get a petition going or something like that to force this to go on one of the ballots?

Mr. Greenbaum: I don't think so.

Mr. King: You could put a petition together and bring it to the School Board, if you are a citizen you can do that, you could go to their meeting and express your opinions to them.

Mr. Jones: I did last night and they did not seem to listen to be totally honest with you.

Mr. King: You can't force them to do that.

President Scapicchio: Anyone else from the Public?

Mr. Geiger: In reference to that cut out, that little thing, those stripes, you don't have to talk to the School Board, just tell them you are going to do it and do it. They have no say over the streets. None. I am sure they are the ones that did it in the first place. It is illegal and it is wrong. That belongs to the Township and you are responsible for that street. Not the Board of Education, so just tell them what you are going to do and just do it.

Mayor Licitra: Nick, I think what our basic problem is, is Frank Colello is not alive to tell us what to do over there.

Mr. Geiger: He's still talking to me so I'll pass it on.

President Scapicchio: Thanks Nick, anyone else from the public?

Mr. Elms: Why do we have 140 cars coming to pick up kids at the school when we are providing bus service?
Mayor Licitra: They are mostly walkers. I think Apollo Way and the apartments are the only…

Mr. Elms: And you have 140 cars to pick them up.

Mayor Licitra: I don't know about the cars.

Mr. Elms: That's what his figures show, that there is 140 cars morning and afternoon.

Mr. Greenbaum: Do you know where Mountainview School is located? Flanders Crossing is bust. We are exactly a little bit over one mile from Flanders Crossing so everybody who is closer than Flanders Crossing which is the entirety of Cloverhill just about. It's most of Cloverhill.

President Scapicchio: Anyone else from the Public? Okay, this is a Public Hearing and the Ordinance is on the table for a vote, my guess is the Ordinance is going to be defeated. We are going to have to come up with a revised plan, and Council, based on what I have heard tonight and the discussion, I would recommend that we defeat the Ordinance as it is presently written. We enforce and inform the School Board that those parking spots are illegal and need to be eliminated and that we create a no parking on one side of Linwood and I would defer to the Police Departments recommendation in terms of what side that should be.

Mr. Rattner: I was going to say when we first started this with Mrs. Sprague, she mentioned that one of the biggest problems was these diagonal, in fact I think that is where she got hit. She said almost every day she is getting hit. That is really what started. That was the big thing. Also, with Mr. Elms, besides having limited access to Linwood was mainly eliminating that and we do appreciate the work you did because it was a good idea. The Police Department I know had gone through and did everything. Interviewing the different people, trying to get their different ideas. We have so many conflicting views and which one works, lets go for the real simple one, I think you just described it. If the spots are not legal, eliminate it, we should be able to do that by the end of the year. The kids come back from Christmas that should give enough time. If there is something that is really illegal, we should be able to do something to shut that down and I would pose that we get the no parking whichever way as soon as possible, and if there is any real concerns. If there were different problems we could tweek it, this way it just does not get lost and if it is good we just look at it again over the summer and we make it permanent. I think that would probably be the most practical. It is simple, it is something we can get done right away. It seems like it may solve 60 % to 70 % of the existing problem of the safety, we have accomplished a lot. More than we have done all this year talking about it.

President Scapicchio: Thanks Steve. At this point I am going to close the Public Hearing.

Mr. Spino moved for the approval and final passage of Ordinance #51- 2002. Mr. Guenther seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Defeated Unanimously.

President Scapicchio: Peter do we do "no parking" by ordinance or resolution?

Mr. King: Ordinance.

President Scapicchio: Chief, do you have a recommendation in terms of what side we should create the no parking on?

Chief Katona: After listening to the comments, and speaking with Lieutenant Beecher we would make a recommendation that the no parking is on the Northern Side, so there would be parking on the school side of Linwood Road. Hearing Mrs. Jopp, by doing that we would also eliminate the kids darting across the road.

President Scapicchio: Chief, do you think we should eliminate that all the time or should it by only during the school year.

Chief Katona: Let's do it all the time. Let's keep it simple, if it becomes to inconvenient for the public, the public can come back to council and give their proof that this is inconvenient and you can reconcider it at that time.

Mayor Licitra: Absolutely. I may. Lisa, could you keep in touch with the Chief and let them know how it is going so we would tell the Council?

Mrs. Jopp: Absolutely.

President Scapicchio: Okay so Peter you will have an Ordinance drafted for us.

Mr. King: Yes.

Mr. Greenbaum: Can I comment on something? After hearing Steve's comment and hearing Ed's comment. I am not sure that you need to do it all the time but you need to do it Monday through Friday between whatever hours are appropriate. 7:00am to 5:00pm whatever the hours are so that you can allow them to then park on the weekends and at night where it is not really going to be an issue. It is going to be all year long, it is not going to be when school is in session, when school is not is session. It is going to be Monday through Friday whatever our other Ordinance sign says. I think that is probably the best solution. I am sure Ed doesn't really have a problem with that either.

Mr. Perkins: I support Bob's Recommendation on that, I think we should go along with exactly the way we set it up even though I am not a big proponent about the signs, again it kind of brings back, you know the sign says do this, don't do that, do it now, you can't do it here, you can't do it there, only this time, not this time, not Saturdays, not on Sundays. Let's make it as easy for the residents and for everybody else, let's do it exactly the same way we did up at the High School. Lets give them the same time frame that benefits the citizens as well as the children the most.

President Scapicchio: Council, is that our pleasure?

Mr. Rattner: That's what I recommended a half hour ago. I think we are all coming up with the same idea now.

President Scapicchio: Mr. Perkins recommendation is to just amend an ordinance that we already have in place that has created no parking at a specific time.

Mr. Greenbaum: It is not only no parking, it's no parking stopping or standing. It is to eliminate anything on that side of the street.

President Scapicchio: Mayor are you going to now take the responsibility of informing the School Board that the it has been brought to our attention that they have created illegal parking and they need to…

Mayor Licitra: I am going to try and meet them tomorrow.

President Scapicchio: Okay, we have no other ordinances for Public Hearing; we have no Ordinances for First Reading, which brings us back to the Non-Consent Resolution Agenda.

RESOLUTIONS NON CONSENT

4. Resolution of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing the Hiring of an Interim Tax Collector.

Mrs. Miller moved for adoption of Resolution No. 4; Mr. Guenther Seconded that Motion.

President Scapicchio: Council you will notice that you have two Resolutions in front of us. One is authorizing hiring an Interim Tax Collector and there is another one that you should all have in front of you that is an alternate resolution which is a resolution authorizing the appointment of Sherry Jenkins as the Tax Collector with an annual stipend of $6,000 and the Mayor and Sherry have come up with a reorganization plan that would take effect if we adopt this resolution. Cindy, Sherry, Mayor, who wants to take over?

Mrs. Jenkins: As a result of my Tax Collector leaving, I looked at the operation of my department and saw a couple of different opportunities. First, to save money for the Township, and second to actually promote somebody and provide a promotional opportunity to somebody within my department and also as a result of the reorganization there would be an opening in my department that we could potentially offer to the particular individual, the only one at this time, at least full time, correct me if I am wrong Cindy, that has actually been laid off, so there are actually three benefits to the proposal that I am making. As you all know I am certified as a Tax Collector and I have actually been a Tax Collector and a CFO at the same time before. My proposal, and I have sent out a memo, I don't know if you have had an opportunity to read it at this point. I would like to promote my Assistant Treasurer to, she can't be promoted to the actual tax collector until she becomes certified and takes the necessary classes but I would like to promote her basically to an assistant collector's seat. She would work under me, I would train her, she would take the necessary classes, I would train her, etc. Then I am going to make some other, I don't know that I need to go into them, I will at this point if you want. I basically am going to reorganize some of the other personnel in my office which leaves the vacancy in my accounts payable position; again I would potentially offer it to the person that is being laid off at this time.

Mr. Rattner: Obviously this is something that we got at the last minute. My package still had the other resolution which is what is on the table right now which just basically says let's hire a temp in there until we understand what is going on. I have a problem in overall that we're tending to keep replacing people with a lot less experience. When we hired the tax collector that we have now; the last time we were told why we needed the experience. Why we were going out and paying a certain amount of money to get that experience. Now we are saying that you really don't need experience, you could take a test, get certified and you have all the experience Mr. Rattner (cont'd): you need. We no we have had in different positions which we won't bring up now which we have discussed; well there is a learning curve to having not done the job before, we have had this in a number of different positions that we have replaced in the last couple of years. It is not just one; it is a number of them. We have constantly said people have to come up to speed. I have a feeling that we are constantly filling our management supervisor positions with people without experience. I am not talking about people who come up through the ranks and have actually done the job and so at this point I cannot support it. Looking over for 15 minutes saying we are going to save all of this money and we are going to make all these changes. I am not ready to make that change.

Mr. Scapicchio: Sherry, correct me if I am wrong, but we don't really have any say in the organization of that structure within her department and the employees under…

Mrs. Jenkins: I certainly have the ability to move people and put them where I feel they need to be.

Mr. Scapicchio: The way I understand this resolution here, Steve, is that rather than go outside and hire an interim Tax Collector at a rate of $30.00 - $50.00 an hour, we are basically giving that responsibility to Sherry for an annual stipend of $6,000.

Mr. Rattner: Until you get somebody, I don't have a problem with that part.

President Scapicchio: It was not a surprise to Bernie and I, I had a conversation with the Mayor and Sherry last week. In fact, when I first saw the Resolution proposing to hire an outside individual at this rate, I started think that it would make more sense to have Sherry take on that responsibility and give her a little bit of an annual stipend and when I actually called her office, she called me back and the Mayor happen to be there and they had the same proposal as mine and we talked about that. I thought it was a good idea. Sherry said at that time that she felt that she could train another employee in that department. Sherry and the Mayor also said that they were going to give that employee a certain amount of time to be able to pass that test. I forget what the time was.

Mrs. Jenkins: Within one year of her finishing the classes.

Mayor Licitra: Or else she revert back to her original salary until she passes the test.

Mr. Rattner: I thought she wasn't going to get salary increase, just her normal.

Mrs. Jenkins: Not in the beginning, she would get $2,500 as she passed each class, and there are three of them. That is in my write up. Let me just explain real quick the reason why this has just come to you. I only got notice that this person was resigning last Tuesday and the plan was something that I came up with; it was only a couple days later. Cindy and I formalized it with Paul and basically, Dave, we spoke to you about it on Friday. So it has only been a week at this point that I have actually found out that the person has resigned.

Mr. Rattner: I am not going to support it and I am just going to give you one example of where we were told the same story and we are still sitting and waiting. That was when we decided for whatever reason when the person left from the Sewer Department with the licenses. Six months, where going to have the people, they are going to get the licenses and what is it, three years? We are still waiting and we are told we have more. I could go through other ones. I mean if there are certain professionals…

President Scapicchio: Steve, what have we lost if this employee does not pass that test?

Mr. Rattner: This person just passing a test doesn't mean he/she could do a job. Passing a test means that there is a point in time that means that you could study a book and take a test. There is the interacting with the people, it's doing the job. Most people work up. Very few people all of the sudden would just get to be a supervisor or a department head in a certain area without any experience in that area at all. We were told the last time why we had to go with someone with experience, we are very lucky, this is why we are paying more because we needed the experience. Now we're saying that the experience really doesn't mean much. So either we got a story the last time with the last Tax Collector.

Mrs. Jenkins: Could I just say something? The bottom line is the person that I am looking to promote will not be appointed Tax Collector at this point; you would have to appoint me as Tax Collector which means that; I think you know my work well enough to know that the job is going to get done. I believe I have the ability to train her the way that she needs to be trained to do the job.

President Scapicchio: That brings me to the point that I was going to make, Steve. We really are the ones that ultimately make the decision on whether or not this employee is appointed Tax Collector, if you are not satisfied at the end of what I would call the training period and a report from Sherry then…

Mr. Rattner: I understand that. Appointing Sherry as Tax Collector, we have to do that right now because we have to have a certified Tax Collector. That is a separate issue That we need. If we got somebody from the outside we would still need somebody as Tax Collector. That is required by Statute, there are certain requirements that you have to have. But, we have been without a Planner for six months or a little bit more and I don't believe that anything is really hurting. How long is it going to take to get there and are we looking for the right person. We have a lot of new people, we have given people some chances, and we have been told this person needs a little bit more time, hasn't had the experience, just got their license, I mean we have had that in different areas without getting into it. I just think that we are weakening our management structure. I came here. I had 15 minutes to look at it; I haven't seen any good reason. We have a constant trail because we have an older work force with more experience. You are replacing people with 30 years experience in a job with somebody who is going to take the test and all of a sudden pass. I am not saying this is that one, but we have that in almost every one of our areas. We see where it has caused us different problems in different areas. We don't have the background, skill. If you are saying that most jobs in Government don't need any experience in that field, that you can take a test and get to it, then it is saying what Government is expecting.

Mr. Guenther: First of all I think the analogy with the Sewer Department is off base. I think what I object to in the case of the Sewer Department; here is an individual who has been doing some of the functions and the thought was that he could move up to that. But we have hired a consultant and we are paying him extra fees because he has the licenses that we need. That is what I object to because there are extra expenses involved. In this case, that is not the cases. Granted, it is a person that has not worked as a Tax Collector but it is little risk on our part. There is one point here that I need clarification on. You mentioned in your reorganization memo that there will be promotional increases of $2,500 as each of the three tax collection steps are met, which means $7,500 increase. What happens if she does not pass the test?

Mrs. Jenkins: The Mayor and Cindy and I spoke about that; she would go back to the salary she is at now.

Mr. Guenther: That $7,500 will be retracted?

Mayor Licitra: Yes.

Mr. Rattner: Mr. Guenther, I understand what you are saying. However, specifically with the sewer we were told that we would have somebody ready to move up and who could do the job in a certain length of time. That was the reason why we did not replace the person with somebody who had the licenses at that time but who also had experience. You bring somebody on full time, and they also bring some background. If you bring in an experienced Tax Collector, they have had hopefully years of experience of tax collection. There is a certain value to experience, what we are talking about now is that the value is in the training and the experience doesn't count.

Mr. President: Let's deal with this issue lets not worry about what happened in the past.

Mr. Rattner: Why was it put on the table?

Mayor Licitra: I didn't put it on the table; we are just putting this on the table.

Mr. Rattner: No, when we asked the whole thing came on the table. If it was just the first part, I said I did not have a problem with that.

Mayor Licitra: I don't want to deal with the Sewer Department; I want to deal with this right now.

Mr. Spino: I think what Mr. Rattner means, is that there are two parts to this Ordinance. First, to make Mrs. Jenkins temporary Tax Collector. The second is workings with the other department to make sure this other person received the training from her and passes the tests. Maybe that is what we should do, do it in two steps. First, vote to make Mrs. Jenkins a temporary Tax Collector and then a second vote on the other part. Make it two resolutions.

Mr. Guenther: Do we even have to vote on the second part. Isn't the way she organizes her department up to her.

President Scapicchio: We have a resolution that is on the table now to allow Sherry to hire an interim Tax Collector as a consultant for $30.00-$50.00 hour. That is what is on the table. I would like to have a vote on that, and I would like to see the Council defeat that. Does anyone from the public have any comments with regards to this resolution?

Richard Bonte, Budd Lake: If I had to look at what's wrong with what the Mayor and Mrs. Jenkins have proposed. I really can't find anything wrong with it. I really think that this is within the best interest of the Township. To try and move our people ahead to positions of greater managerial responsibility. That is the way Mr. Bonte (cont'd): every good organization should work. First of all it gives you more depth in your organization and it gives people the incentive to work their way up through the organization. I think we should encourage this type of management advancement in our Township and I think that this is probably the least costly way of doing it. When I look at going outside for the equivalent of $60,000 - $100,000 a year for a Tax Collector, what are we complaining about here? I realize that Mrs. Jenkins will be doing more work than her present job description allows for therefore the stipend is reasonable. To then train somebody that we have good faith in, in this person to move them up into this position and only compensate them should they pass the necessary tests is basically a guarantee to the Township that we are going to either get this person qualified, they are going to pass the test, or if it doesn't work, what does it cost us? Certainly less than going outside for an unknown quantity and this person will be getting trained on the job by somebody who knows the system; so I don't really understand what the big debate is here. I think we need to look at enhancing our present employee's management opportunities and growth within the Township and this is a sound way of doing it.

Bob Elms, Budd Lake: One of the basic principles of being a manager is to train your replacement otherwise you could never move up. I think that is what Sherry is trying to do, and I think that she should be allowed to do it.

President Scapicchio: Anyone else from the Public? Seeing none, we have a resolution on the table.

ROLL CALL: Defeated Unanimously

President Scapicchio: We now have another resolution on Non-Consent which I'll move and I'll read. I made one change to the last sentence that I think should satisfy everybody here.

RESOLUTION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT OLIVE AUTHORIZING THE APPOINTMENT OF SHERRY M. JENKINS AS TAX COLLECTOR

WHEREAS, the current Tax Collector for the Township of Mount Olive has given notice of her resignation effective 12/13/02; and

WHEREAS, as a result, the Township is in need of a Tax Collector effective 12/13/02; and

WHEREAS Sherry M. Jenkins, CFO, for the Township of Mount Olive has the necessary license and experience for appointment to the position,

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Township of Mount Olive that Sherry M. Jenkins is hereby appointed the Tax Collector for the Township of Mount Olive effective 12/13/02 at an annual stipend of $6,000.00 until such time as a Permanent Tax Collector is appointed by the Township Council.

President Scapicchio moved for approval of the Resolution of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing the Appointment of Sherry M. Jenkins as Tax Collector; Mr. Rattner seconded the motion.

President Scapicchio: Public Discussion on this resolution? Seeing none, Council discussion on this resolution?

Ms. Spencer: I would just like to clarify that this is an opportunity for the individual who will be taking the three classes; it will take approximately a year and a half to complete the three classes. During which time she will actively be working under the supervision of Mrs. Jenkins and be learning the Managerial role and all of the nuances of Tax Collector. So not only will she have this opportunity to do the studying, but she will be working day to day in this area of responsibility.

Mr. Rattner: The way of the wording is all I wanted at this point because there were two separate issues, because until we do it, to put in there, to say until somebody can pass the test I thought was unreasonable because we really haven't discussed it. The other thing I just noticed is that you just said it is going to be approximately a year and a half. Three minutes ago we were told it was going to be done within a year.

Mrs. Spencer: Excuse me, you were told that the individual upon completion of the course work, would be given one year to pass the test. You are only allowed to take the test twice in a year. So in a full twelve month period, three times that test could be taken. I know that does not make sense but you finish the last course, you take the test, and within a one year period you can take it two more times.

Mr. Rattner: What I think the acting Tax Collector just said is that she expected for her to finish and have it within about a year.

Ms. Jenkins: She could actually take three classes within one year and sit for the exam.

Mr. Rattner: Whatever it takes you have to do it. I am just saying that this is what happens when you rush. You hear different things and I was listening to what they were saying but this resolution and I seconded it because we need it and we have to have a Tax Collector and we know Ms. Jenkins can handle the job, she was the Acting Business Administrator for a while, so I have no problem at all.

Mr. Perkins: I endorse Ms. Jenkins taking over as our Collector, I think it is admirable that she has offered to do that, especially for the savings. I think the stipend is reasonable. I am not questioning personnel by name, I am just looking right now at the department's organizational chart. As I do know we have a Deputy Collector, is the Deputy Collector not close to already having taking those classes.

Ms. Jenkins: The Deputy Collector has taking three of them, but she doesn't want to sit for the exam. She never sat for it. Our current Deputy Tax Collector has taken the three tax collection classes and never sat for the exam, has no desire to sit for the exam.

Mr. Greenbaum: She doesn't want the job.

Ms. Jenkins: Yes, exactly.

Mr. Rattner: If you look at the proposed organization, there are some very what I conceder major changes because they are going to reassign the Deputy Tax Collector and those are the things I wanted to understand what was happening. I thought we had a Deputy for a reason.

Mr. Greenbaum: The organizational changes are not currently part of the resolution. The resolution is simply to now appoint Sherry as acting Tax Collector and I would again call the question.

Ms. Jenkins: If I could just add, I have been here for two and a half years and I know my personnel pretty well, I know what their strengths and weaknesses are and I feel like this reorganization will serve the department well. On the onset, you may look at it and have some questions.

Mr. Rattner: It might be, it is just that it was so quick and there was not time to discuss it.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously.

8. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Recommending a Significant Revision in the Homestead Rebate Program.

Mr. Greenbaum: I have a question for Peter before I move this resolution. Can I abstain on a motion that I move.

Mr. King: No you shouldn't.

Mr. Greenbaum: I decline to move that resolution.

Mr. Perkins moved for adoption of the Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Recommending a Significant Revision in the Homestead Rebate Program. Mr. Guenther seconded the motion.

President Scapicchio: Public Discussion on this resolution?

Richard Bonte, Budd Lake: I don't know why anybody would want to abstain on addressing this issue, but since the Council decided they do want to address this issue I am in disagreement as to what you would want to do. I don't think there should be significant revisions in the homestead rebate program. I think it should be abolished. There is no reason why Government should collect tax money from us, make us then fill out a form to claim it, have us call on the telephone in July to claim it again, and then wait to receive that money back minus all the associated costs of running this program and the postage and the 800 line and whatever other administrative costs. We need to move to not have this money collected from us in the first place and that is what I think this resolution should say.

President Scapicchio: That is basically what I wanted Mr. Dorsey to say. I think he came close to that Rich.

Mr. Guenther: But he says it, the title doesn't say that. If you read it, it does say that. The title should be changed.

Mr. Bonte: I have read it and I got the impression that it needs to be revised, and resolved.
Mr. Guenther: The portion of the request or the application for a rebate is eliminated and a homestead rebate is eliminated and a homestead rebate that would be do to a homeowner is made available to home simply by way of an automatic refund.

Mr. Bonte: Right, what I am saying is why collect the money in the first place. Even to administer a refund, uses resources that you have collected. I am saying just get rid of it because when you have a credit, right now they are talking about lowering the income eligibility once again on the homestead rebate. That is what will happen with these credits.

President Scapicchio: Rich, that is a point well taken. Peter, can we modify the last paragraph in this resolution. Now therefore be it resolved that Mount Olive Township recommends the complete elimination of the Homestead Rebate Program.

Mr. King: Yes.

Mr. Bonte: But don't collect it from us.

President Scapicchio: Well, that would be eliminating it. That's the point; Mr. Rattner told me several weeks ago that it was $60,000,000.00 just in postage.

Mr. Guenther: That is not what you are saying though. What to eliminate it and pass the savings on by lower taxes?

Mr. Spino: Then you are changing the whole Resolution, and I think we shouldn't do that. I think we should just not do this resolution at all. I think we should do resolution number nine.

President Scapicchio: Wait a second Earl, we are on resolution number eight.

Mr. Spino: I understand that. It is not the Councils turn to talk yet, so I understand that.

President Scapicchio: That's what's on the table. Anyone else in the Public on resolution number eight. Seeing none, Council discussion?

Mr. Spino: I think we should eliminate this resolution, simply for the fact that I agree 100% with Mr. Bonte, I don't always do, but sometimes we do. This whole thing is nothing but a political battle to you because they are taking the money from you, they are paying $60,000,000.00 to $70,000,000.00 million dollars to give it back to you and you are getting less than you gave. So what does it do? What we really need is to reorganize the way we do taxes, property tax in general. I don't think that saying we are going to eliminate the homestead rebate will be enough. The fact is they are taking too much. That is not addressed.

President Scapicchio: Earl, the point made in posing this resolution is this, you hear the Governor talk about a deficit, you hear talk about the Governor holding the line on contributions to School Districts, holding the line on Municipal Aid. Here is a way that they can find an immediate savings of about $60,000,000.00 just in postage. Forget about the process of processing the rebate checks, the questionnaires and the claim forms. That is the purpose of this resolution and I am going to keep it on the floor and we are going to call a vote on it.

Mr. Rattner: I agree with Mr. Scapicchio because the two are actually separate. Who knows what is actually going to happen. The whole idea is to give the people back the reduction, because if it went back to the Towns, they figure most Towns would find a way in their budget to spend it. Look how most budgets have gone up. What this would do is right now on the State income tax, this is the Supersaver thing with the extra postage, there is if you make under $100,000 there is a separate homestead rebate or something else for the seniors, that comes right off your income tax. There is no extra postage, there is nothing else. It is a real savings that comes back to the individual. If they took the same thing with the same qualifying, and you put it back it just means you either paid less in income tax, or you got back the bigger refund. There was no extra postage. It was all put in one. You don't get the mailing saying look what I did for you, call me back if you want the money.

Mr. Greenbaum: I am bothered by the fact that you have trouble with me abstaining on something which I don't really understand and if you want me to vote on something that I don't really understand the impact of what I am voting on, that seems to be a little irresponsible on my part. I'm a person who never gets a homestead rebate, I am not sure how this is going to effect me, I am not sure how this is going to effect someone who does get the homestead rebate, or lower income homeowners, I am just not sure, so I decided that I was not going to take a position one way or the another. I don't really have stance on it, I just don't understand it. One thing I do think is if you eliminate the Homestead, it is not going to come back and lower taxes ultimately, it is going to be spent by the government as opposed to be given back to the people which is generally they way things happen. It would be nice to think that it would never be taken in the first instance but that is generally not what I had seen Mr. Greenbaum (cont'd): happen over the time that I have been anadult which has only been a couple of years. But I don't have position one way or another. I don't understand the impact of the resolution and I am not going to vote on it for that reason and if you think that is irresponsible on my part than so be it.

Mr. Guenther: I understand Mr. Spino's concern, but don't mix apples with oranges. If you are talking about resolution number nine, you are talking about a basic reform on property taxes. We are addressing income taxes here, two completely separate items.

Mr. Spino: What is the primary reason for that?

Mr. Guenther: What do you mean?

Mr. Spino: What is the primary reason that this tax was first given? It was not first given for income tax; this is given for property tax relations.

Mr. Rattner: It was when Brendan Byrne got his income tax through and he wanted to say to do something, then you got two checks, remember before the Primary Election, before the General Election, you got a form, it said look what I did for you so sign it and send it back so then you also got another check, then when they eliminated to make it to one they had the one form before the June Election and you got the check before the General Election. It was all a political thing, but it was still money. It was income tax.

Mr. Spino: I understand that it was income tax.

Mr. Guenther: Let me finish the point. You have a point, I guess the original reason was as a basis of refunding the sum of your property taxes, but the other point that Mr. Scapicchio made; this is an immediate shot in the arm to the Budget and the fact that you are eliminating expenses, that you can eliminate a creative bureaucracy to send this checks back. Let people as far as I am concerned, people should still get it. But let them take it as a deduction off of their income tax statement and it eliminates all of the paper work and all the bureaucracy. That way the Government does not get to spend the money.

President Scapicchio: I am going to make a motion that we amend this resolution and Peter has made several changes. I am going to ask him to read that amended resolution into the record.

Mr. King:

WHEREAS, over twenty-six years ago in the final year of the first term of Brendan Byrne, as Governor of the State of New Jersey, a State Income Tax was in active as well as the so called Homestead Rebate Program; and

WHEREAS, at the time of its adoption, all persons would agree that the Homestead Rebate Program was enacted as a political mechanism by the Byrne administration in attempt to minimize the "political damage" done to Governor Byrne as he sought reelection to a second term, by providing that all homeowners entitled to a Homestead Rebate Check would receive same just prior to the November general election of 1977; and

WHEREAS, the Homestead Rebate Program besides its political aspects did indeed have the attribute of spending a certain portion of taxes paid by New Jersey homeowners particularly senior citizens;

However, over the years it has become clear, that the operation of the Homestead Rebate as it was enacted over twenty-five years ago involves and includes a significant bureaucratic cost in terms of collecting the taxes initially; computing the rebate, which is done upon applications which must be made in order for a homeowner to receive the Homestead Rebate and indeed the cost of issuing the appropriate checks to those entitled to same and the mailing of those checks on an annual basis; and

WHEREAS, it would appear clear that a significant amount of money could be saved, keeping in mind, of course, the money to be saved is taxpayers money, if indeed the current Homestead Rebate Program which includes the mailing of information each year, the preparation of the request or application for the rebate, etc., etc., is el unmated and the Homestead Rebate that would be due to a homeowner is made available to that homeowner simply by way of an automatic refund or a specific credit on ones New Jersey State Income Tax Return; and

WHEREAS, it is believed that the elimination of what was clearly a political contrivance when first
established would eliminate significant costs freeing up additional monies that could be refunded simply on the basis of a property owner filing a tax return or by providing those taxpayers who own homes and would under the current standards be entitled to a Homestead Rebate, would now be entitled to a specific credit against their New Jersey Income Taxes.
WHEREAS, the Mount Olive Township Council believes that the Elimination of the Homestead Rebate Program is needed, necessary and in the best interest of the residents of New Jersey.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive that it does specifically recommend the Elimination of the Homestead Rebate Program in order to permit significant savings and elimination of unneeded bureaucracy in connection with this program.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this Resolution shall be forwarded to all legislators representing any portion of Morris County.

9. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Recommending the Calling of a Constitutional Convention RE: Real Property Taxes.

President Scapicchio: Public Comment on this Resolution? Rich

Mr. Greenbaum: Before you begin Rich, I know your position and I agree with you and I have to use the facilities, I hope you are not insulted; I am going to excuse myself during this portion.

Richard Bonte, Budd Lake: I thought this went away. Sometimes we disagree Mr. Spino, although I do not disagree with what you want to accomplish. I believe that property taxes are the wrong way to finance the schools. I say that recognizing that I would probably pay more tax if it was not based on property tax but I still do not feel it is ethical or a fair way to fund the schools. Now having said that, the reason I am opposed to this resolution is the calling of a Constitutional Convention is in my opinion a grave decision. It opens the door for a lot of things we may not want to happen. The problem here that has occurred over the last 25 years in New Jersey, ever since the Jersey City School Board Case is the fact that the Legislature and the Governor have allowed the Courts to dictate how our money is spent. The Constitutional Convention is not going to change that. The only thing that will change that is if the Legislature takes back control of how taxes are raised, dispersed in this State, not the Courts. My recommendation is that if we are going to encourage the State to do something, we need to encourage our elected officials to do the job that they were elected for. That is to pass the necessary legislative measures to collect taxes in equitable manner in this State to fund the School System. Calling a Constitutional Convention could open the door to a lot of things we don't want to happen and that is why I am opposed to this. If there was a real dyer Constitutional Crises in the State of New Jersey, I could understand calling a Constitutional Convention. All I see here is a problem with one branch of Government not doing their job for the last 25 years. We need to encourage them to do that, straighten this mess out. Thank you.

President Scapicchio: Thank you Mr. Bonte. Anyone else from the Public?

Mr. Spino: I believe the polling of the Constitutional Convention to adjust property taxes is a very very specific convention. It is a very political issue. I believe and I have felt this for over 20 years; it will never change because the politicians and we are politicians as much as we say we try not to be, and we really do try not to be. We are not going to address this issue because assemblymen have to be up every two years, and you are going to remember the fact that they changed that. A Constitutional Convention takes it out of their hands and puts it into the hands of people that will be elected to this position and or appointed to this Constitutional Convention to make that decision. That is the only way I believe that it is ever going to be done. If we are really talking about this and the premise of all this debate and the debates all over the State and in the State House is taxes and primarily property taxes. It is never going to change in my opinion until we do something like this where it is very specific, it deals with property tax and how the schools are funded and a better and more equitable way to do it. I agree, some people will pay more. But people who are on fixed income, retired or whose income does not change maybe will pay less. I believe that is the way it will happen. The idea of using the property taxes is a false model. Because we need more money, we just say your house is worth more. That is not right.

Mr. Guenther: I have heard this argument before, you never know what you get when you open up a Constitutional Convention. Quite frankly I don't understand what the fear is. Nobody has ever pointed out to me, what are you fearing here, what Pandora's Box are you opening. I agree with Earl, I think if you make it specific enough, that it is specifically for the subject, I think it has got to be taken out of the realm of politics.

President Scapicchio: One more thing and it is a very specific thing and it can be limited and I believe that is the way it can be done.

Mr. Greenbaum: The bottom line is unless you reduce spending, you have to get the money from someplace. Whether it is the reduction of property taxes is going to change the other way the taxes are raised; it just does not seem to be the solution to the problem.

Mr. Rattner: To continue on with what Rob said. The real big issue, until that is resolved; we can't have any meaningful change in our school funding, and that is home rule. No matter what a Constitutional Convention Mr. Rattner (cont'd): comes up with, the State pays 80% which comes up with a base level. Then they give each Town the same exact amount and then each town is going to decide what they want to spend and if their property taxes go down, and they say we could raise it, taxes are lower than they were five or six years ago. The base problem is that we are the only State in the Country that does schools on a town by town basis. 48 other states do it on a County Basis, one does it on a State basis. That would eliminate 38 Superintendents in Morris County alone, and their staffs. You also don't have one Town Building, a school and another one closing one down. You can't have it because no matter how you are going to have the funding, if the local people who are deciding on the spending don't have to worry where all the money is coming from, they say well we have this big chunk here, what is going to happen with the other part unless they are going to say you can't spend more than $10,000 per student, were spending more already than the State average and I don't think we want to stop that . That is really what the big problem is, the legislature has to decide what to do and we have to decide how we are going to fund the schools. Is it going to be Town by Town where everybody sets their own taxes or do it on a State or County basis. You can't have State funding if it is going to be local spending because if they think somebody else is paying for it, that's where you have a problem. That is why I don't think it is going to accomplish anything.

Mr. Spino: Did I understand you Steve, saying that to eliminate expenses that one town is closing a school and another town is building a school. The town that is building a school, wouldn't have to build it because they could use the school that is being closed? Is that what you said? That would be a lot harder than ever doing this.

Mr. Rattner: That is what I am saying, why this will not work. Every other State does their school except for one that does it on a County basis. You have 39 superintendents, if you go to any other State for a County our size they will have one Superintendent, they will have the director of curriculum, instead of us buying 200 books. That is where the issue is, whatever the State comes up with, they come up with new corporate tax, they add on to the income tax, so you can lower your other taxes. They are going to give each town the same amount of money or something like that The town is still going to decide with the local School Board how much you are going to spend. Unless there is something that says that you are taking that out. I don't see that really happening. It has to be the spending side. The whole issue about why it is so expensive is how much money we spend. Once we set the budget, we have to raise taxes, the same way we do in the Town.

President Scapicchio: Anyone else?

ROLL CALL: Defeated. Mr. Rattner, Mr. Greenbaum, Mrs. Miller, President Scapicchio voted no.
Mr. Perkins, Mr. Spino, Mr. Guenther, voted yes.

Mrs. Miller: Council President, I will have to excuse myself, it is getting very late and I am getting very tired. I have no reports for Council reports.

President Scapicchio: Okay, goodnight Charlene.

MOTIONS

1. Bill List.

Mr. Perkins moved for the approval of the eight page Bill List as submitted, Mr. Rattner seconded the motion.

2. Approval of an Application to Amend Bingo License #1006 and Bingo Application #1052 for K of C #6100 Fr. Joseph A. Cassidy Council and Raffle Application #1053 for Knights of Columbus, Blessed Mother Seton Council 5410.

Mr. Greenbaum moved for approval for Approval of an Application to Amend Bingo License #1006 and Bingo Application #1052 for K of C #6100 Fr. Joseph A. Cassidy Council and Raffle Application #1053 for Knights of Columbus, Blessed Mother Seton Council 5410 and Approval of a Peddler's Permit for Samuel Tungrian for Mobil Food Vending. Mr. Guenther seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously.

COUNCIL REPORTS

Library Board Liaison Report -none

Recreation Report

Mr. Guenther: I was not at the meeting but I got a report from Jill Daggon, there are just a couple things. I want to let everybody know that the Recreation Department has adopted a policy where the different sports
Mr. Guenther: associations will get competitive proposals on expenditures they make since they are taking town funds. So that policy is being implemented with all the sports associations. For Turkey Brook Fund Raising, apparently a presentation was made by Kathy Murphy, regarding fund raising efforts. I'm sorry it's the company that the Soccer Club hired that is going to cut various company contributions to put up trash cans, benches and things of that nature. They wanted input from the recreation committee as to size, or style and so forth. So there's some conversation going back and forth. There will be those objects that will be put in the park that will be provided by private company donations and they are working on that.

Board of Health Report

Mr. Perkins: No Report Dave, no meeting this month either.

Planning Board Report

Mr. Greenbaum: No report, snowed out.

Open Space Committee Report - none

Legislative Committee Report

Mr. Guenther: None at this time.

Pride Committee Report

Mr. Perkins: The only thing to report on Dave is that there is a new bill board banner, "Winter in Mount Olive" which will be going up and then the Pride Committee Chairman is already looking at putting up a new bill board in September, "Welcome to Mount Olive, home of the Champion Marauders" which hopefully will complement the banners I believe the Mayor is working on right now.

Status of Committee RE: Lake/Environment Issues

Mr. Perkins: Nothing on my end.

Mrs. Spencer: Internally, we have another meeting scheduled to work out another preliminary plan and then early in January we will be meeting with the full committee again.

Public Portion

President Scapicchio: That brings us to the last Public Portion, anyone from the public?

Dave Jones, Budd Lake: I just want to congratulate the Pride Committee on the last billboard as it had no political Statement whatsoever. I was hoping the next one won't have any political statement.

Mr. Perkins: Dave, personally I want to say thank you, but I would take offense since I don't believe that any of those have ever has any political statements on them.

Mr. Jones: Thank you.

President Scapicchio: Anyone else from the public?

Rich Bonte, Budd Lake: There are two items I want to discuss with you. First of all, I don't know if you are aware of Senate 2106 and Assembly 2699 which has to do with expansions of operations at non-conforming use site within the Township. Is everybody aware of that?

Mr. Spino: It was my idea to bring it up. I did not do it this time because I was working on one resolution, but that is the other one that I would like the Council to support.

Mr. Bonte: The reason I bring this up and I don't know what my position is on it, but I wanted to alert the Administration and the Council to it because there is going to be a hearing on Thursday in the Senate Hearing room at 10:00 am. The Assembly meets at 1:00 pm. This is going to go up for vote probably Thursday afternoon. So it may be the last opportunity, if we have any comments or object to this, and what this bill basically covers is that if you have a structure or operation that is in a non-conforming use area, within the Township, they do not have to come back to the Township to increase the intensity of usage of that operation.. One of the things that I am thinking of is the quarry, but there may be other places in Town also, where if the intensity within the structure changes. That could have far reaching effects on the Township.

President Scapicchio: What committee is that coming out of?

Mr. Bonte: It is coming out of the Economic Development Agriculture and Tourism Committee. There will be a Senate Hearing at 10:00 am, room one, 1st floor State House Annex and that is this Thursday. I have for the Council a copy of the legislation.

Mr. Spino: The League of Municipalities has been opposed to the way it is. They tried to work with the State Legislators.

Mr. Bonte: The second item, and I have asked you this before, I think it is something that we should really schedule possibly for a workshop. I think it is very important considering some of the applications that are going to be coming up at the Planning Board this year. That is the issue of modifying our Ordinances which require the design of the detentions basins. The State Statutes allow a municipality to utilize local certified rainfall data where available for the design of those retention and detention basins as opposed to the data that the developers are presently using which comes from Trenton, NJ. I have discussed this issue with you before, we had many debates at the Planning Board, but the fact of the matter comes down to the 100 year storm design that were requiring these distension and retention basins to be billed to or based upon the hundred year storm data for Trenton, NJ which is about 7 inches in the 24 hour rainfall period. It is generally recognized in the mountainous areas of New Jersey, that the 24 hour, 100 year storm is in the neighborhood of about 14 inches and that was verified two years ago in Sparta, NJ. If you all recall there are still many bridges and roads that are still closed even to this date as result of that. So what I am asking the Council is to consider this; we obviously need to use every tool that we have legally to control development and to require developers, if they get approval for development, to make sure that those developments not only comply with the laws, but comply with the local existing conditions especially when the laws allow you to do this. You wouldn't be taking on a landmark ordinance here. You would really be enforcing what you are allowed to do by the State and making it part of the Township Code that more pertinent rainfall data for this part of the State is used for the design of those facilities, so I would ask you to consider.

President Scapicchio: Rich, do you have a draft ordinance?

Mr. Bonte: I don't but I could.

President Scapicchio: Why don't you give the Clerk a draft ordinance of what you would like it to read?

Mayor Licitra: I think the two of you are going to go over to the Master Plan Committee Meeting tomorrow night. We have already addressed this and the Planner was aware of it. So I think what you should do is deal with it on the Master Plan. So bring it up over there, I think it has already been dealt with as far as discussion and Chuck is aware of it, so see what the status is. You may not have to go the ordinance route; it may be in the Master Plan.

President Scapicchio: Does something like that need to be memorialized via an ordinance?

Mr. King: I have not looked at the Master Plan, but usually it is in the Land Use Ordinance.

Mr. Spino: I kept a little bit on the League of Municipalities opposition to it. Bernie has that, it is here.

President Scapicchio: What would you like the resolution to say? We could have Peter draft something right now.

Mr. Greenbaum: I think the resolution should be opposing Senate No. 2106 for the reason set forth in the League of Municipalities opposition.

Mr. King: And supporting their opposition.

Mr. Greenbaum: Well, I don't think that you would say supporting their opposition, I think you are opposing the bill for the reason set forth in the League of Municipalities opposition.

President Scapicchio: Rob is that a motion?

Mr. Greenbaum: That is a motion.

President Scapicchio: Do I have a second?

Mr. Guenther seconded the motion.

President Scapicchio: Any public comment on this? We will also instruct the Clerk to make sure that the Senate and Assembly all receive copies of this resolution.

Mr. Spino: I think that we should send it to all Senate and Assembly in New Jersey, not just Morris County.

Mayor Licitra: I do know the League of Municipalities is very strongly against this. They have discussed this. It has been in the literature coming out, letters have been sent. Nobody knows where it came from, however we know where it came from, but nobody knows why it came from there. I don't think too many people are lining up against it, because while it effects towns like ourselves, it effects even more the developed towns in certain areas that they may as well just tell their Planning Boards and their Board of Adjustments to just go home. I don't think that is what the Land Use Law was all about so the League is very much in opposition to this and I think they have done their homework and let's hope that their Legislators take heed from that.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously.

President Scapicchio: Anyone else from the public like to address the Council? Seeing none.

COUNCIL COMMENTS

Mr. Rattner: I want to take a couple minutes because when we do something right and it finally gets some good press in the paper, I want to be able to highlight it. In today's Daily Record, it is the second time this week that they mentioned Mount Olive for something we have done very good. It's titled "Rutgers and Kean Failed the Field Test." Maybe it is one of those minor mysteries of life or maybe it is incompetence, whatever the reason New Jersey Officials seem to have problems with football fields. The field at Giants Stadium is a well publicized disaster. It goes on to say about all the high school games at Rutgers and Kean had to be cancelled. "why do we think that the officials at Rutgers and Keane really didn't try to hard to clean fields"? After all, officials in Mount Olive had their fields cleared and ready for play by Friday night. In fact, when the paper on Saturday told about the great win that Mount Olive had, on the front page they spent the time to explain how the field was prepared, they had said that it was a cooperative effort between the School Board and the Township Municipal Government, they called out Jim Lynch's name a couple times and they are saying how they got it ready. I think when we do something right, we know what to do, and we accomplish it. It should be recognized, especially when usually the papers only like printing what you do wrong. The field was in great shape, and the football team even exceeded that. Thank you.

Mr. Greenbaum: I think it goes beyond the football team exceeding it. I think the Town exceeded all expectations. It really was a great supportive effort. The team obviously deserves all the credit, but the Town really really came out for the Team and it was extremely impressive and I think that we all got on the bandwagon very early, before a State Championship was a thought. By the third or fourth game of the season when it appeared that the Team was doing things that they had never done before, there were those that were supporting the team even earlier than that. It really was a great experience. I don't think any more needs to be said by me with regards to the Mount Olive Football Team. There was one instance unrelated to football that I felt the need to comment on and that was Mr. Elm's proposal with regard to this resolution for Linwood issue. I felt that Mr. Elm's proposal was a very constructive, helpful effort that I wish more of the time we got that kind of effort to solve problems from individuals and really great effort on your part and even though I thought that it was not workable for reasons that we cannot force the School Board to do it, it was a novel approach to solving a problem that really had no way of solving it without appeasing everybody. I thought it was a very positive approach to solving a problem.

Mr. Perkins: Two things. One, is anybody that has seen the work that the Kiwanis has been doing on the Santa House up by George's Liquors up on Route 46; every Saturday and Sunday from 10:00 am to 4:00 pm Santa Claus is there for pictures. Also, it was interesting; we attended the Football Banquet on Sunday and the amount of pride that was brought up about how the youngsters had brought together the pride in the Township. It kind of gave me a nice feeling back in there because I know that is something that the Mayor had started; Community Pride a long time ago and it was nice to see that all get into fruition, how the entire Township pulled together for that. Kudos to the Mayor for starting the Pride Committee four years ago.

Mr. Guenther: First of all, congratulations to the Football Team, but I want to put a little bit of a different spin on it and I think that Dave, Paul, Steve, Earl, and Nick who are here can relate to this. When I first started getting politically involved more as a citizen activist back in 1987, we were considered the doormat of the County. I'll tell you, we have come a long way. I think you have to look at what you saw in the stands, the people, the way they were cheering. My brother in law was at the game, and he has been to a lot of playoff games, he is from Dover, but he happened to come with someone from Jefferson. He sat on the Jefferson side, and he could not find me. He said to me afterwards, this is the biggest playoff crowd I have ever seen, the most enthusiastic crowd. The spirit that was created, and I think not only do you congratulate the players, but I think you have to take your Mr. Guenther (cont'd): hats off and I guess at the banquet this was probably said, when they had the kickoff for the Junior Marauders program, we were there, Paul and I were throwing out balls and kidding around and so forth and you see the dedication of the parents and the volunteers that come out to teach these kids, I think you have to throw a lot of kudos their way because we have a very strong junior program, that's going to come up with a lot of additional players at football and I think soccer will bear fruit in the future. But I think it is those kinds of volunteers and those are the people that are the spirit of the Community and that is culminated in what happened with the football program and the State Championship and I think it is something we can really be proud of. You saw it in the newspaper articles, the Ledger mentioned, they had a picture saying well, the snow didn't seem to be a problem for Mount Olive and we are the only game played on Friday night and we rented the field out on Sunday to Pope John. We came away with a lot of laurels this weekend and I think that in the County wide, we gained a lot of respect.

Mayor Licitra: It is just funny that the next day we hosted a robotics contest in Town and we had a ton of people there. Mount Olive outdid itself. The day after, as Bob just reminded me again, we have an Eagle Scout presentation for Terry Byrnes, and I have been doing Eagle Scouts for 30 years, I have been going to most of them. I have never seen a bigger crowd. It was unbelievable. I think what Ray said is true, this team has probably done a lot more, you now just reinforced what we have been trying to do for the last three years and the people see it. And that is why we get more and more people coming out, and showing their pride in Mount Olive. And you do need pride. We are going to be doing something for the team and like everybody else is, and just keep the inferior going if we could because we are on a high now and it's the Football Team that has put us there right now, so well keep it going. Thank you Dave.

President Scapicchio: Thank you Mayor. I would just like to state that Jim Lynch and the Municipal Employees did a superb job working with the Board of Education employees. Some of that credit needs to really go to the Mayor because I know that the message that he gave Jimmy Lynch was do whatever it takes, help them out any way you can, make sure the field is clean. On Friday night when I walked that field with the Mayor and Jim, I couldn't believe it. In fact it was funny because at one point during the game, Jefferson had the ball and it was like forth and inches and the quarterback took the snap, went to go back and slipped on what looked like a little piece of ice. The crowd around us just sort of chuckled and we said that's one for Jimmy, he left a piece of ice there. I think that since he has come on Board, I have actually seen an individual that shows a level of interest and enthusiasm that I really have not seen in a long time. Mayor, he was a good find and I was want to congratulate Jim, the crew and everybody involved in making sure that field was playable for those kids.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made for adjournment. All in Favor, none opposed. The Meeting was Adjourned at 10:38 pm.


_______________________
BERNHARD D. GUENTHER
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 February 25, 2003.

________________________
LISA M. LASHWAY
Township Clerk

nw


The Regular Meeting of the Mount Olive Township Council was called to order at 7:30 pm by Council President Scapicchio with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

MOMENT OF REFLECTION

President Scapicchio: If everyone would just join us. At these Public Meetings, we now do a moment of reflection of the men and women fighting terrorism and defending the freedom that we all enjoy.

OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT ANNOUNCEMENT

According to the Open Public Meetings Act, adequate Notice of this Meeting has been given to the Mt. Olive Chronicle and the Morristown Daily Record. Notice has been posted at in the Municipal Building, 204 Flanders-Drakestown Road, Mt. Olive, New Jersey, and notices were sent to those requesting the same.

ROLL CALL: Present: Mr. Rattner, Mr. Greenbaum, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Miller, Mr. Spino, President Scapicchio, Mr. Guenther (8:35 pm)
Absent: None
Also Present: Mrs. Spencer, Business Administrator; Mrs. Jenkins, CFO; Mayor Licitra; Nicole Whittle, Deputy Clerk

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - None

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

Mrs. Spencer: We don't really have anything new to bring up other than I do believe there is an alternate
resolution that is to be substituted for one that was originally scheduled - the interim tax collector.

President Scapicchio: Yes, we will get that on Non-Consent. Mr. Rattner has some questions.

TURKEY BROOK PARK STATUS REPORT

Mrs. Spencer: For the most part, Turkey Brook, the work has been completed for the Winter months. There are some contractors that are there on an hour to hour basis finishing up some small close up activities, but as I reported two weeks ago, the status remains. They did get the goal posts poured for the football field and they are leveling the remaining two baseball fields so that everything is ready for the Spring start up.

President Scapicchio: So the balance of the work is put on hold until the Winter months are over.

Mrs. Spencer: Although it may not appear so, the work is actually 96 percent completed on that contract.

LEGAL MATTERS

Mr. Dorsey: I'll just take one minute if I may, Mr. President. In connection with the Toll Brothers water situation
that we discussed two weeks ago, Toll Brothers, referred to by Sonny Wolski over the years, Mother Toll,
capitulated upon the receipt of my letter last week. I have to thank Charlene particularly because I always think of
the water tank there as a production of $300,000 towards Turkey Brook. She reminded me correctly that that
water tank will be located on Township property so we'll already own the most pivotal aspect. The water system
will be built. It will be developed by Toll Brothers and when it is complete, it will then be deeded to the
Township for $1.00 and those will become our customers and that system is connected to what is also known as
Morris Chase and that system is also to be connected to the Goldmine system. I think you should know that in
October, Barry Krauser, our appraiser, Jack Marchione and I begin the process of culling for new assessments for
the tax rolls. We now calculate that there will be $78 million in new assessments on the Township's tax rolls as of
January 1. I estimate that of that $78 million, $35 million comes from the Trade Zone South and that leaves, to
the best that I can estimate, somewhere between $25 and $30 million more to come on completion of that work.
Last week, I gave a little explanation of what was occurring in connection with Firetower. I advised you how Sills
Cummis on behalf of Firetower filed a motion to settle and supplement the record by including what they allege
to be clandestine meetings and pieces of correspondence and actions by Councilman Spino in an effort to get the
Planning Board to deny their application for subdivision in order to diminish the value for acquisition purposes.
When that motion first came in, I wasn't even going to respond to it because who would ever believe that Earl
Spino would involve himself in clandestine meetings and I thought the better part of valor was to file a brief in
opposition. Then they went ahead and filed their major brief which included all of these salacious allegations so
we then filed a motion to strike their brief on the basis that they had included in it materials that the Appellate Division had not said that they could yet include. The cu de te' came this week. Rich Bonte called me at 6:55 since he apparently is in constant communication with the team leader and he advised me that the team leader for the Appellate Division, that number one, the Appellate Division had denied the right of Firetower to supplement Mr. Dorsey (cont'd): their brief and number two, they granted our motion which was like a two page letter, they granted our motion to strike their brief. Now they have to write their brief over again and file it by December
20th.

Mr. Greenbaum: What is the likelihood of winning a motion for costs associated with having to file those? I think that it should be filed. Honestly, I think it is time to give back to the manner in which they are litigating with us.

Mr. Dorsey: We'll give that one thought.

Mr. Greenbaum: Secondly, what impact, if any, can you attribute to that decision on the over all substantive
issue or if any?

Mr. Dorsey: That is a very interesting question. I kind of take it as a battle in a major war with perhaps not major
consequences but the junior attorney in my office who participated in these briefs, immediately said, that means it
is all over for Firetower because from his perspective, and we have to take it with a grain of salt because he gets
very excited about this, because from his perspective this attempt to supplement the record with these various
pieces of material, which is like 100 pages of what they thought was very vicious material represented their last
shot at trying to overcome the decision that we received in the Law Division. For those who are very optimistic
about those things, he thinks that is a precursor of what will occur in this case, namely, that they've done all
they could and there isn't much left for them to do.

Mr. Greenbaum: Is it the same Appellate panel that will hear the substantive issue that decides the motion?

Mr. Dorsey: No, my understanding is that the panel that will hear the principle appeal has not yet been selected.
It's been just a series of judges that are assigned on rotation to hear motions. So the motions were heard probably
not by judges who will ultimately, hear, but we don't know. It could be the same judges but it's not like in the
law division where the assignment judge at the outset for all rediscovery. That's not the situation.

Mr. Greenbaum: John, to be quite honest, I think it would behoove us to file a very brief motion for costs
associated because their conduct in the manner in which they proceeded was in violation of the court rules,
clearly, as recognized by the Court and I think we should be entitled to the cost of opposing that conduct.

Mr. Dorsey: I know there is one young attorney that will be excited about that suggestion and will probably be in
the office this weekend trying to fulfill that assignment.

Mr. Greenbaum: Tell him I said hello.

Mr. Dorsey: Okay, I will. The other thing is, now as retribution, the attorney for Firetower calls and in
connection with Firetower II as we refer to it, which is the case in which they have challenged the adoption of our
ordinance which requires a qualifying map in connection with all residential subdivision applications that are
done including cluster, they see it open. They now want to take the deposition of McGroarty, who is our expert,
which is no problem, but now they want to take Councilman Spino's deposition. They are sure that at that
deposition, he will give it all up. Unfortunately, I started to argue with the attorney, Sills Cummis, on the phone
yesterday and I can see that that was a waste of my time but it really is a waste of time and of course, when Earl's
deposition is taken, I know that he will be well prepared to answer all of the questions. That's it.

President Scapicchio: Thank you, Mr. Dorsey, good report.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS:

December 3, 2002 CS Present: Mr. Guenther, President Scapicchio, Mr. Rattner, Mr. Greenbaum, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Spino, Mrs. Miller
Absent: None

December 3, 2002 Present: Mr. Guenther (7:35), Mr. Greenbaum, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rattner, Mr.
Scapicchio, Mrs. Miller, Mr. Spino
Absent: None

Mr. Rattner moved for Approval of the Minutes and Mrs. Miller seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously (Mr. Guenther not present)

CORRESPONDENCE

Resolutions, Ordinances, Correspondence from other Municipalities
1. Notice received November 22, 2002, from Byram Township regarding a Joint Meeting of the Planning
Board on the Smart Growth Plan.

2. Legal Notice received December 2, 2002, from the Roxbury Board of Adjustment Re: Sprint Spectrum.

3. Resolution received December 2, 2002, from Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders regarding
National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day.

4. Ordinance received December 5, 2002, from the Township of Chester regarding Land Use.

DOT / DEP / LOI's

5. Letter received November 19, 2002, from the State of New Jersey, Department of Transportation Re:
Project Start up.

6. Letter received November 26, 2002, from the State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental
Protection Regarding Letter of Interpretation - Line Verification Extension for Applicant - New Jersey
Foreign Trade Zone c/o Rock-Morris Inc. Block 105, Lot 1 (NJ Foreign Trade Zone-Vacant Land)

7. Letter received November 27, 2002, from American Environmental Services, Inc. regarding completed
copy of the application that was submitted to the DEP for Block 2801, Lot 22 and Block 2801, Lot 2
(Block 144, Lots 11&14, 111 Lozier Road and 9 Firetower Road / 217, 219, 204, 215, Waterloo Valley
Road)

8. Letter received December 6, 2002, from Nor/South Associates regarding application for extension of
Existing Permit for William Montag D/B/A North / South Associates for property located at 99 Route
206 Roxbury Block 9201, Lot 2.

League of Municipalities

9. Legislative Bulletin received November 22, 2002, from the New Jersey State League of Municipalities
Regarding Bills that were enacted as Public Laws of 2002.

10. Membership Alert received November 26, 2002, from New Jersey State League of Municipalities
Regarding Non-Conforming Uses, A-2699, Clean Communities, COAH Interim Certifications,
Watershed Offset Aid, and the Constitutional Convention.

11. E-mail received November 26, 2002, from New Jersey State League of Municipalities regarding Non
-Conforming Uses, Clean Communities, COAH Interim Certifications, Watershed Offset Aid,
Constitutional Convention.

UTILITIES

12. Letter/Notice received November 27, 2002, from Jersey Central Power and Light Re: 2002 Remediation
Adjustment Clause Filing, 2002 Consumer Education Program Filing, 2002 Rates Filing, 2002 Deferred
Balance Filing.

Correspondence from Organizations / Committees / Boards

13. Letter received November 19, 2002, from Delaware River Basin Commission regarding Notice of
Commission Meeting and Public Hearing.

14. Letter received December 2, 2002, from the State of New Jersey, Division of the Ratepayer Advocate
Regarding I/M/O the Application of Oakwood Village Sewerage Associates, LLC, for Approval of (A)
Service Area, (B) Issuance of Equity Interests, and © Initial Tariff / BPU Docket No. WE00120986.

MSA /MUA

15. Letter received December 2, 2002, from Lee T. Purcell Associates regarding Amendment to the MSA
Wastewater Management Plan to address the needs of the Morris Companies Development, Block 400,
Lots 1 And 2; Block 402, Lot 2; and Block 500, Lot 2

President Scapicchio: We have 15 pieces of Correspondence, any comments or questions?

Mr. Rattner: On Number 15, you will notice a letter from the Engineer for the MSA. They've been going around
and around with the Morris Companies now for about a year, year and a half. After they got everything they
needed, they went through their application for the change in the service area based on the amount of gallonage
they wanted. If they went over 6,000 gallons, I believe it is, they needed to get everything revised, the maps
revised and everything else and they decided that now is not the time to do that so they pulled that back. They are
still going ahead with what they can get under the existing rules which is about 6,000 gallons, but obviously it
means they are going to down size their project over there.

PUBLIC HEARING ON OPEN SPACE DEDICATION - Gen III Builders

Larry Kron, Esq.: I'm appearing on behalf of the applicant, Gen III. This is a presentation before the Council
regarding open space. We are proposing to dedicate to the Township approximately 50 acres of open space in
conjunction with our cluster development that has been approved by the Planning Board. We have Mike Nolan,
who is our engineer, here today and he can make a brief presentation describing the property that we are
proposing to dedicate to the Township.

Mr. Dorsey: Larry, very quickly, what zone is your property in?

Mr. Kron: RR-A zone.

Mr. Dorsey: Oh, it's in the five acre. RR-AA or RR-A?

Mr. Kron: RR-A.

Mr. Dorsey: You all understand that under our ordinances, although the Planning Board approves the
subdivision, the Township Council gets to pass on whether or not to accept open space. If the Township doesn't accept the open space, that does not prohibit the developer, the applicant, from going forward with a cluster plan. It simply means that the open space will be put into some kind of homeowners association

Mr. Kron: That is correct or it could go to a different organization that may request it.

Mr. Nolan: Some of you maybe be familiar with the project. It lies between Mt. Olive Road to the northeast and Kern Drive to the south and Cassidy Road to the north. The entire site is approximately 96 acres. We are proposing, it's been approved, that we can build 11 new lots off the extension of Kern Drive and 21 new lots on a new road network coming off of Mt. Olive Road. We would be creating just over 51 acres of open space that separates the two sections, the section off Kern Drive and the section to the north of Mt. Olive Road.

Mr. Dorsey: Real fast, how many lots, what is the total acreage of the tract?

Mr. Nolan: The total acreage is just over 96 acres.

Mr. Dorsey: And how many lots are you going to get?

Mr. Nolan: Thirty-two.

Mr. Dorsey: And they will be at what size?

Mr. Nolan: They average about 1.3, 1.4 acres.

Mr. Dorsey: So, 60,000 square feet.

Mr. Nolan: As small as one acre and as large as two acres. There is property presently owned by Mount Olive Township, I believe intended for open space, directly across the street to the east of Mount Olive Road and there is property to the west that also adjoins us that it part of the Mount Olive Open Space Plan. There is
approximately eight acres of wetlands within the open space acreage. It is mostly heavily wooded with two small tributaries or streams cutting through it.

Mr. Dorsey: Did you say that it adjoins other open space that the Township owns?

Mr. Nolan: Right about where your hand is, there is property that is shown on the Master Plan to be included as part of the overall Mount Olive Open Space Plan. I don't know what the status of that is and to the east, directly across the street on Mount Olive Road, that property is presently owned by Mount Olive.

Mr. Dorsey: I think we actually had a discussion of this application some time ago and this is the opportunity if the Council has questions or any one from the public wants to be heard on this. Otherwise, the normal course has
Mr. Dorsey (cont'd): been for the Township to accept open space.

President Scapicchio: I've got several questions. The total acreage is 96. You are looking to dedicate 51 acres of that for open space to the Township. What is it? Is it five acre zoning? It's three acre zoning. Rob, are they clustering this to get, in other words is this a cluster proposal as allowed by our ordinance?

Mr. Greenbaum: In fact, the Planning Board was generally very favorable to the dedication of the open space in that it was both from Jeff Keller's perspective and I don't remember whether or not there was a position taken by the Open Space Committee but it is centrally located in the middle of the tract. It connects the two other areas. It doesn't fragment the open space and it really was a good use of the tract for clustering. There was no negative out of the Planning Board with regard to the open space dedication.

Mr. Dorsey: Well, then I guess we can say that it is a favorable recommendation.

Mr. Greenbaum: I didn't participate.

President Scapicchio: Another question for the engineer.

Mr. Greenbaum: I didn't participate in the Gen III discussion. I had missed the meeting and didn't review the tapes but I did sit in and listen to it.

President Scapicchio: How many acres of that 51 proposed open space could be developed under the present zone without us allowing you to cluster that?

Mr. Nolan: If we developed the project conventionally we would still have 32 lots. We did present a conventional qualifying map showing 32 three acre lots.

Mr. Dorsey: Which would have involved the entire 96 acres.

Mr. Nolan: It would have consumed the entire tract and it would have lots with wetlands on them and so forth.

President Scapicchio: Council, any questions? Charlene?

Mrs. Miller: I believe that the Council did get a recommendation from the Open Space Committee some time ago and their recommendation was that we accept it.

Mr. Spino: If I'm not mistaken, the property across Mount Olive Road is part of Wyndham Pointe. What land we got from Wyndham Pointe, is that not correct?

Mr. Nolan: A portion of it, more to the east there's a very large tract that came from Wyndham Pointe but there are two lots that also adjoin that that were also previously acquired by the Township through tax foreclosure.

Mr. Spino: So this in reality will go from eventually just about Wolfe Road through Turkey Brook, actually crossing a couple of streets to Route 46. It's all connected. The only question I have is the detention basins.

Mr. Nolan: There are two small detention basins on the property. They are about .6 acres and .5 acres totally 1.1 acre.

President Scapicchio: The maintenance of those came up at the last meeting. Has that ever been resolved?

Mr. Nolan: Like I just said, Dr. Keller set forth the planting schedule for the detention basins and the maintenance schedule for them. The maintenance schedule is for the first two years after construction. It's pretty frequent. After the first two years, after all the plants are established, he recommends one mowing per year. In addition to the one mowing per year, there will be periodic inspections to make sure that the outlet structures aren't clogged - very minimal maintenance. We are providing access drives to each of the detention basins off of the public road.

President Scapicchio: Who is responsible for the maintenance?

Mr. Nolan: I think under the Residential Improvement Standards Act the Township is required to do the maintenance but it will be minimal as we indicated. We'll be responsible for the first two years and after that, it's going to be one or two…

President Scapicchio: Mayor, I know it is an issue you had raised.

Mayor Licitra: We have not been accepting detention basins and the Planning Board, for the last three years since I have been Mayor, it is just too much maintenance. The word minimal is not in the vocabulary in certain aspects when it comes to things like this. As far as I'm concerned, we are going to stand true on the Planning Board as far as accepting these things. It's just going to cause us to have to hire new people to be responsible for these to make sure the maintenance is done or to go chasing people. We would rather it be a homeowners association and/or some other kind of arrangement but the Township does not want to take over any detention basins.

President Scapicchio: Are these two detention basins in the open space that you are looking to dedicate?

Mr. Nolan: Yes.

President Scapicchio: They are?

Mr. Kron: Yes. If you read a copy of the Residential Improvements Standards Act, it says if there are grates, basins or other features of the stormwater system in a residential development, or a public drainage system, then the municipality, the appropriate public entity is responsible for maintenance and upkeep. I believe under the law, it is the responsibility of the municipality but we'll take care of the first two years and we'll have our guarantees in place and after that you're probably talking about one or two cuttings a year.

Mr. Greenbaum: Dave, what Larry is discussing is the issue that is, my understanding of the law as well, although I didn't do any independent research. My understanding was that a couple of years ago the law was changed to require the Township to maintain detention basins for the reasons that Mr. Kron has so indicated.

Mr. Dorsey: It's going to be an issue for the Planning Board and next week I'll get a chance to look at those residential improvements…

Mr. Rattner: Rob and I have had the conversation a couple of times. I don't know if it was enacted in to law but when we were discussing Flanders Crossing with the off-site, I found that the law, it sounded like what you just read, had already passed all the Committees and was already up for a final vote and that was the deciding factor when we decided to take over the responsibility of the off-site basin because what we took over was the retention basin behind the Senior Citizen Building.

Mr. Kron: This law was enacted in 1987.

Mr. Rattner: That's around the time. The issue comes up because I believe the letter from the Open Space Committee stated that we should take the open space and leave the detention basins but then we would have Township property surrounding a .4 and a .6, or something like that, acre retention basin which from a practical standpoint doesn't make sense. I think under the law, research it at the time of Flanders Crossing, we would have to take it over any way.

Mr. Nolan: Dr. Keller helped us design the detention basins.

Mr. Rattner: I think what the issue is, you can design it as best as you want but it still is the cost and the costs are mounting especially when you look at all the different retention basins we have and that is why the
Administration has been looking at having a homeowners association or other organizations to maintain them because they've just been multiplying like crazy with the different standards.

President Scapicchio: John, that is something you can confirm rather easily I assume, that the law is in fact that the Township, regardless of whether it is on homeowners association property or dedicated space that the Township has the responsibility.

Mr. Dorsey: Did you offer a Statute number or is it the Administrative Code?

Mr. Kron: It's under Community Affairs Section 5:21-7.5. I can give you a copy of this if you want.

Mrs. Miller: I thought at the workshop when they were giving their little presentation that we had asked them to maybe held create a trail system there because I know that there are some trails. I know I've walked from the School Bus Garage all the way to Turkey Brook and beyond and this connects very nicely. There are trails in there that just cross Mount Olive Road and will end up in Turkey Brook through Wyndham Pointe and you really didn't seem to answer that. Is that a consideration because it is important for us to maintain trails. We've got trails that go through Country Oaks and all the way up through the Foreign Trade Zone. We're trying to make a trail system for our residents within our community.

Mr. Nolan: There are a number of trails on the property. A lot of them that are there have been established over Mr. Nolan (cont'd): he years from ATV or motorcycle riding. They tend to be on the northern end of the property nearest the apartments. It's where most of the residential lots will be. I've highlighted a map that shows some trails outside of those areas within the open space.

President Scapicchio: Charlene was asking whether or not the developer was going to put those trails in. Charlene, was that the question?.

Mrs. Miller: Why not, that's being a good neighbor. Country Oaks was very obliging in creating trails. They even paved some of them. It's quite a nice meandering of trails through there.

Mr. Kron: Are you asking for the developer to actually cut the trails through there?

Mr. Spino: I think it would be best for everyone if the developer and the Open Space Committee sat down and designed at least one trail that they would suggest placement of and in fact do that.

Mrs. Miller: In fact, I thought we asked them to meet with the Open Space Committee. We met last night and they weren't there.

Mr. Spino: I think that would be what the Open Space Committee would think would be a great idea.

Mr. Kron: My client has no problem with that.

Mr. Spino: My other questions were, at the beginning, Mr. Kron, you mentioned that it would be a homeowners association, give it to the Town or give it to some other like the Land Conservancy, or whatever? How would they take care of the detention basins, in your opinion, or would the Township still be responsible for them? If the land was not owned…

Mr. Kron: I believe the Township still would because the regulation reads that if it is a public drainage, which it is, those would be public roads, and drainage would be coming in, I believe the Township would be responsible.

Mr. Dorsey: I don't know. It says, if part or all of the residential stormwater management is privately owned, that is if it is left in other than Mount Olive's hands, the privately owned portion of the system must be privately maintained. That is the second sentence of what you gave to me. It seems to me, let me say this, let's assume that the Township does not accept the open space and the detention basins are in the areas of open space, then it clearly becomes, as I read this, the obligation of whatever private entity takes the open space to maintain the catch basins.

Mr. Nolan: Well it's part of the public drainage system that drains the road.

Mr. Dorsey: It does say that if part or all of the residential stormwater system is privately owned, then the privately owned portion of the system must be privately maintained, and I assume that when it says privately owned, it's as if those detention basins are on privately owned property, which is what the situation would be, if indeed the Township did not take the open space and let's say the Sierra Club took it. I think this issue also has to be discussed at the Planning Board because that is normally where these little trade offs are made in these situations.

Mr. Spino: And the other question I had and I think we should get an opinion on what you've just said to make sure that that is the case, is and I mentioned this the last time. I don't know, I don't believe it is. We do have an ordinance in place that requires the developer to put money into a fund for the maintenance of the detention basins. If that is not being done, it should be done. If it hasn't been done before, this is our starting point and it should be done on this job.

Mr. Nolan: There is an ordinance in place for that.

Mr. Spino: And those calculations can be made. That is exactly the reason this was put in so that the Township is not using future tax dollars for those, money has already been allotted that we can draw off of to pay for that. That's the Nick Geiger….

President Scapicchio: I think maybe we should send this back to the Planning Board to have these issues resolved there.

Mr. Spino: I, for one, am in favor of taking the open space if the developer does Number One, the trail; Number Two, the Planning Board makes sure that that Ordinance is followed.

Mr. Nolan: That would be part of the approval and resolution.

Mr. Spino: I understand that but I want to make sure it's done because not every T gets crossed all the time. Then I would definitely be in favor of taking over the land.

Mr. Nolan: The developer is not trying to get out of that obligation.

Mr. Spino: I understand. I'm not saying that he is.

Mr. Kron: We agree with the suggestion of Mrs. Kelly (Miller) that we'd pay for the one trail. We have no problem with that and whatever is the law with regard to our obligations, we have no problem with that. We would have no problem with the Council passing a Resolution accepting it and leaving that issue in terms of acceptance up to the Planning Board if that is what you want.

Mr. Greenbaum: Is that a Planning Board issue or would that be part of the developer's agreement, John, or both?

Mr. Dorsey: He's using some pronouns here, it's hard to keep track. When he says it, I assume he means that he is going to comply with that portion of the ordinance that essentially means that they have to fund the maintenance of those. That will become a condition of their subdivision approval and under the circumstances would become a condition of the resolution that I would draft for the Township Council to essentially say that they will accept the open space. I'm going to put two conditions in, that condition and a condition that at least one trail to be selected by the Open Space Committee be developed.

Mr. Greenbaum: Refresh my recollection as to the status of the resolution on the approval. Has that been approved by Planning Board?

Mr. Kron: It is scheduled to be approved, I believe, at the meeting of the Planning Board.

Mr. Dorsey: That resolution will be subject to the Township Council's resolution accepting the land.

Mr. Kron: It will be a condition of that resolution.

Mr. Rattner: If I heard it right, I believe that the developer has just met the conditions that we wanted. He will pay for whatever he has to set up the fund, they are going to give Charlene the Charlene trail and I think the Open Space Committee and everyone agreed that the property is worthwhile taking over so as long as we resolve the issue of the risk over the immediate term of maintenance and we are getting a trail that has certain value to it, I think the developer knows that is what it will take and if that comes in our developer's agreement, I don't have a problem with that.

Mr. Dorsey: So that there is no objection, I will draw a resolution for next week.

Mr. Kron: One other thing for the record, the trail cannot create any environmental issues. It would have to be put in there that it can't go through wetlands or any other areas. We don't want to cause any other problems.

Mr. Dorsey: Well the Open Space Committee would never create environmental issues. That's an oxymoron, Larry.

Mrs. Miller: By the way, the Open Space Committee meets the second Monday of each month so you can contact Kathy Murphy and she can contact Laura and you can establish which meeting you are going to come to.

President Scapicchio: Okay, Charlene? This is a public hearing so anyone from the public wish to address the Council or this developer on this open space issue only?

Richard Bonte, Budd Lake: I have a couple of questions for the developer. Of the 51 acres that is going to be donated to the Town, you said that approximately 1.1 acres are detention basins. How many acres are wetlands and how many acres are steep slopes?

Mr. Nolan: Approximately 8 acres are wetlands and there are no steep slopes.

Mr. Bonte: Is any of the land encumbered by anything else, easements?

Mr. Nolan: There is an overhead power utility easement, the old wood timber style pole lines.

Mr. Bonte: Do you know approximately how much acreage that is?

Mr. Nolan: Approximately four acres. Half of which is improved, the other half is still wooded.

Mr. Bonte: And in the remaining area that is to be developed for the homes, are you seeking any wetlands or transition zone waivers from the State or Planning Board?

Mr. Nolan: We've received all wetlands permits and buffer transition averaging permits.

Mr. Dorsey: They are way ahead of Firetower.

Mr. Bonte: This is what I'm trying to find out. Other developers obviously do this the right way. No other questions.

President Scapicchio: Anyone else from the public? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing.

Mr. Dorsey: I'll have the resolution for next week.

President Scapicchio: December 17th. Thank you. We have several ordinances for public hearing this evening.

ORDINANCES FOR PUBLIC HEARING

President Scapicchio opened the hearing to the public on:

Ord. #43-2002 An Ordinance of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Establishing Salaries of Certain Non-Union Personnel for the Year 2002.

President Scapicchio closed the public hearing.

Mr. Greenbaum moved adoption and final passage of Ord. #43-2002 and Mrs. Miller seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously

President Scapicchio declared Ord. #43-2002 as passed on second reading and directed the Clerk to forward a
copy of same to the Mayor and to publish the notice of adoption as required by law.

President Scapicchio opened the hearing to the public on:

Ord. #44-2002 Bond Ordinance Amending Section 3(a) of Bond Ordinance Numbered #11-2001 of the Township of Mount Olive, in the County of Morris, New Jersey Finally Adopted May 8, 2001 in Order to Amend the Description of the Project. (Police Dept. Capital).

President Scapicchio closed the public hearing.

Mr. Perkins moved adoption and final passage of Ord. #44-2002 and Mrs. Miller seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously

President Scapicchio declared Ord. #44-2002 as passed on second reading and directed the Clerk to forward a
copy of same to the Mayor and to publish the notice of adoption as required by law.

President Scapicchio opened the hearing to the public on:

Ord. #45-2002 Bond Ordinance Amending Section 3 of Bond Ordinance Numbered #21-2001 of the Township of Mount Olive, in the County of Morris, New Jersey Finally Adopted July 24, 2001 in Order to Amend the Description of the Project. (Chipper)

Bob Elms, Budd Lake: I noticed that you are excessing and putting up for sale a chipper and then we are buying
another chipper. Do we know what it would cost to repair the existing chipper? Have we gotten any kind of
estimates on that?

Mr. Spino: I don't know if we got an estimate or not but I believe it was not worth repairing.

Mrs. Miller: The reason we are selling it is because somebody might want it for parts.

Mr. Spino: I don't have that information in front of me but we did received information like that from the head of
the department.

Mr. Rattner: We had a discussion on all of the items that we have for public sale. We talked about the vehicles
too and all of them are really only good for parts. There is no representation that anything is road worthy to be
used for the purpose for which it was designed. People, contractors who have old equipment they might want it
for parts but we were told that none of it is serviceable to be used as it was.

Mr. Greenbaum: With regard to the chipper, we've been renting a chipper because the chipper we are selling is
not repairable.

Mr. Elms: Not repairable or did we get any kind of an estimate?

Mr. Greenbaum: That was my understanding. I don't know the answer. My understanding was that it was not
repairable.

President Scapicchio closed the public hearing.

Mrs. Miller moved adoption and final passage of Ord. #45-2002 and Mr. Greenbaum seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously

President Scapicchio declared Ord. #45-2002 as passed on second reading and directed the Clerk to forward a
copy of same to the Mayor and to publish the notice of adoption as required by law.

President Scapicchio opened the hearing to the public on:

Ord. #46-2002 Bond Ordinance Amending Section 3(a) of Bond Ordinance Numbered #22-1999 of the Township of Mount Olive, in the County of Morris, New Jersey Finally Adopted August 24, 1999 in Order to Amend the Description of the Project. (Backhoe & Mason Dump Truck)

President Scapicchio closed the public hearing.

Mr. Spino moved adoption and final passage of Ord. #46-2002 and Mr. Perkins seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously

President Scapicchio declared Ord. #46-2002 as passed on second reading and directed the Clerk to forward a
copy of same to the Mayor and to publish the notice of adoption as required by law.

President Scapicchio opened the hearing to the public on:

Ord. #47-2002 Bond Ordinance Amending Section 1 of Bond Ordinance Numbered #8-2001 of the Township of Mount Olive, in the County of Morris, New Jersey Finally Adopted march 27, 2001 in Order to Amend the Description of the Project. (Mason Dump Truck)

President Scapicchio closed the public hearing.

Mr. Rattner moved adoption and final passage of Ord. #47-2002 and Mr. Perkins seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously

President Scapicchio declared Ord. #47-2002 as passed on second reading and directed the Clerk to forward a
copy of same to the Mayor and to publish the notice of adoption as required by law.

President Scapicchio opened the hearing to the public on:

Ord. #48-2002 Bond Ordinance Providing for the Remediation and Removal of Underground Storage Tanks at the Budd Lake Fire Department in and by the Township of Mount Olive, in the County of Morris, New Jersey, Appropriating $93,432 Therefore and Authorizing the Issuance of $88,760 Bonds or Notes of the Township to Finance Part of the Cost Thereof.

Colleen Labow, Budd Lake: For these tank removals, did you have to get special permits from the State and so on and so forth for the removal of them?

Mr. Dorsey: Yes, there had to be filed a remediation plan with NJDEP and the remediation plan was prepared by Mr. Dorsey (cont'd): Joe Norton of Norcom and it has been approved by the NJDEP and this is the funding to permit the remediation to be completed.

Mrs. Labow: So when you have private builders who remove tanks from properties do they follow these guidelines as well.

Mr. Dorsey: If they remove this kind of tank, they surely do. This involved somewhat of a spill too.

Mrs. Labow: Isn't the State, DEP, any tank removal has to have determined what's in the tank before it's removed and the proper procedures to be followed?

Mr. Dorsey: I don't know, I think the nature of the tank is important. The answer to that question, the NJDEP has jurisdiction over certain tanks.

Mrs. Labow: More directly on Jennies Lane when the builder removed the tanks from the properties. Wasn't he required to follow those guidelines?

Mr. Dorsey: I don't recall. I'd have to defer to the Administrator on that.

Mrs. Spencer: I believe that the builder was required to apply for a permit and to determine what was in the tanks and remove them according to the law.

Mrs. Labow: And did he?

Mrs. Spencer: The latest ones that were removed, yes. There was a permit. Our Building Inspector, Code Official, was there on site and supervised the entire operation.

Mrs. Labow: And the previous ones? Was it ever found out where they ended up or what was in them?

Mrs. Spencer: It was determined by NJDEP that there was no cause for any further action and the case was closed. They did come and do a site inspection.

Mrs. Labow: Didn't they send it back to the Town and ask you guys to determine what it was. Wasn't that in the letter from the DEP?

President Scapicchio: Colleen, where are you going with this? And I say that because the property owners in question stated at public meetings that they had proof via videotape that these were oil tanks that were illegally removed. When the Council asked for that tape on several occasions, we have never received it. So for one to make the allegation that there were illegal oil tanks removed from the site, represent to the Council that they had videotape of that action and when requested could not produce that evidence, I think what you are doing here tonight is unfair.

Mrs. Labow: No, what I'm asking is…

Mr. Spino: Mr. Chairman, I would also like….

President Scapicchio: What you are doing here tonight is unfair. It is unfair to the Administration, it's unfair to the Council and it's unfair to the public. We've been through this.

Mr. Spino: It is also unfair to this ordinance because the ordinance is up for discussion for the oil tanks at the Budd Lake Fire House. If Mrs. Labow wants to discuss this, she does it at a public session, not at this point in time.

President Scapicchio: Thank you Mr. Spino.

Mrs. Labow: You are right. Thank you.

President Scapicchio closed the public hearing.

Mr. Greenbaum moved adoption and final passage of Ord. #48-2002 and Mrs. Miller seconded the motion.

Mr. Rattner: I just want to say that I believe this funding through the State is at zero interest because it is part of the State's program to clean up all of the different oil tanks and I also believe that it is actually being paid for by the Fire Department. It's just that we are able to get the funding because the Fire Department owns their own building even though they ask for our contributions. So it's zero interest that we were able to get for them through Mr. Rattner (cont'd): the State program.

Mr. Greenbaum: Irrespective of what Council has advised and a point of order, if there is evidence that tanks were illegally removed, I'm sure that we are all interested in that information so we can take appropriate action.

President Scapicchio: Absolutely.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously

President Scapicchio declared Ord. #48-2002 as passed on second reading and directed the Clerk to forward a
copy of same to the Mayor and to publish the notice of adoption as required by law.

President Scapicchio: The Clerk has informed me that we should either continue or table this until the January, I guess we were waiting for a response from the Planning Board and we haven't gotten that yet because their meeting was cancelled because of the snow storm. Do we want to continue this, Mr. Dorsey, or do we want to table this and reintroduce?

Mr. Dorsey: It gets to be a technical argument whether you can carry it over. The best course of action would be to table this ordinance and then reintroduce it next year.

Ord. #49-2002 An Ordinance of the Township of Mount Olive to Amend and Supplement Chapter 400 Entitled "Land Use" to Clarify the Setback Requirements for Accessory Buildings and Structures When Attached to Principal Buildings and Structures.

Mr. Greenbaum moved to Table Ord. #49-2002 and Mr. Perkins seconded the motion.

Mr. Spino: Do we have to reintroduce it? Does it have to be readvertised?

Mr. Dorsey: Yes, it's the right thing to do.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously

President Scapicchio opened the hearing to the public on:

Ord. #50-2002 An Ordinance of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing the Acquisition of Lot 26, Block 2200 by the Township of Mount Olive.(Country Club Estates Drainage Property)

President Scapicchio closed the public hearing.

Mrs. Miller moved for adoption and final passage of Ord. #50-2002 and Mr. Perkins seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously

President Scapicchio declared Ord. #50-2002 as passed on second reading and directed the Clerk to forward a
copy of same to the Mayor and to publish the notice of adoption as required by law.

Mr. Rattner: We finally did it. It only took us about 15 years and probably about 20 different Council members.

Mayor Licitra: The people up there are going to be very very happy about this.

President Scapicchio: The Mayor requested that I go through the Consent Agenda 1-3 and 5-7. Then we are going to go right back to Linwood.

CONSENT RESOLUTIONS

1. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing a Person-to-Person Transfer of Alcoholic Beverage License No. 1427-33-007-003 from Flanders Bar & Liquors, Inc. Trading as Kiernan's Pub to Mount Olive Bar and Grill, LLC.

2. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing a Person-to-Person Transfer of Alcoholic Beverage License No. 1427-33-005-007 from Barrone/Tozzo Restaurant, LLC to Burger-N-Brew, Inc.

3. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing a Person-to-Person Transfer of Alcoholic Beverage License No. 1427-33-008-003 from Flanders Valley Farms, Inc. to Flanders Valley Caterers, Inc.

5. Resolution of the Township of Mount Olive Providing for the Cancellation of the $5,292.72 Balance in the Reserve for the Bergen HIF Assessment.

6. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Requesting Aproval from the Director of the Division of Local Government Services for Insertion of a Specific Item of Revenue into the 2002 Municipal Budget. (20,208.46 for Drunk Driving Enforcement Fund) - grant

7. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing the Sale of Certain Vehicles and Equipment no Longer Needed for Public Use by the Township.

Mr. Rattner moved for adoption of Consent Agenda Resolutions 1-3 and 5-7 and Mr. Greenbaum seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously

ORDINANCE FOR PUBLIC HEARING (CONT'D)

President Scapicchio opened the hearing to the public on

Ord. #51-2002 An Ordinance of the Township of Mount Olive Establishing Linwood as a One-Way Street.
Bob Elms, Budd Lake: At the last meeting, I presented a couple of proposals to avoid making that a one way street. Has there been any feedback from the Police Department or School Board?

President Scapicchio: Cindy do we have a response from the Police Department?

Mrs. Spencer: Well we have members of the Police Department here tonight that are prepared to speak to that.

Chief Ed Katona: We reviewed the plans that Mr. Elms has submitted. They are excellent, they work well, my only comment on them that there should be a second egress on to Linwood Road in case of an emergency. However, we are talking about enforcing the Board of Education to do an improvement on their own property, I know I don't have that authority and I don't believe that this Board does. I think that should be brought up to the School Board.

President Scapicchio: For the Public that is interested Mr. Elms came up with what I call a traffic flow. There are 10 copies here, you are welcome to take it, take a look at it.

Chief Katona: Why we are talking about parking, there are more serious parking concerns at perhaps the Mt. Olive High School. If the School Board should take a look at the parking issues, the priority should be placed at the High School and secondarily at this school.

Mr. Geiger: Thank you for having this public hearing. Nothing changes does it Earl? We are still talking about distension basins, it has to be about 13 years, but anyway it looks like it is working out. My main concern was not having any one way street on Knollwood Road. If you look at the pictures that I am sending down, I will read it out as I go along. Some of these things may have already been addressed, I don't know what the real genesis was of this and how it all evolved other than a fender bender. I have been here since 1969 and except for one house on Linwood Road everybody else has moved in since the school was there. Usually it's a nice little country road. So if you look at picture A when you get it, it was taken November 17 and it shows the street cut out with the yellow curve that means no parking, with painted white angle lines encouraging illegal parking. So you have a striping that's contrary to each other. Angle parking is also illegal by ordinance, unless it is authorized by ordinance and to my knowledge there has never been any authorization and I think it was not the Town that did that painting, I think it was the school at one time that did that.

President Scapicchio: Cindy can you check on that for us?

Mrs. Spencer: I could tell you that we did check and the School Board did it without a permit.

Mr. Geiger: I just think the Town would do that because I think they follow the MUTCD which is the federal guidelines and has been adopted by the State of New Jersey. The next picture was taken at 11:30 am on November 18, 2002 and that is looking east to the end of Linwood where it intersects with Knollwood Road. Note that the school is open with no cars parked in the cut out on the right. Three cars are parked on the street and school parking lot is not filled. On Monday, the same day at 1:45 pm you see two cars parked in the cut out and two in the street, the parking lot still has empty spaces. Pictures D - G show some empty spaces, at this time there were 19 empty spaces in the parking lot. Monday at 2:46 pm, you have five cars now parking in the cut out and one was backed in. Two cars were parked up the street. Then you move to 3:04, you have a total of three Mr. Geiger (cont'd): cars parked on the wrong side of the street and two of them are showing in the picture and the cut out is now full, they are all parked illegal. On Monday, at 3:08 pm the cut out is full, a total of several vehicles now parked on the wrong side of the street, you can't see them all because some of them are on the other side of me. Also the right side now has many cars, the parking lot of the school was not filled. Same day 3:16 pm only four cars left on the street except for less than 20 minutes a day this is pretty much what this street looks like. Picture L is Jameson, it shows the basketball court on the Street. There are two on Jameson and there is one on Linwood and they are illegal. I have noticed as you drive through out that sub-division down there, there are more and more of these portable basketball courts going up and you have an ordinance that makes that illegal. You are not allowed to put a basketball court on the street and right by the school. Why don't they just go to the school?

President Scapicchio: Nick, is it your understanding that it is those illegal parking spaces on Linwood that are creating the problem there.

Mr. Geiger: Yes. They just go in there and they back out; in the traffic. One car backs in there and he pulls into traffic. I think one of your big problems is eliminating that, it is an illegal thing anyway.

President Scapicchio: Chief, would that help the situation if we had the School Board eliminate those illegal parking spaces?

Chief Katona: I think it would help part of the traffic flow through there.

Mr. Spino: But the School Board wouldn't eliminate them, we through the Chief, the Chief would be eliminating them.

Chief Katona: They need to have it removed. Whether it is I, or whether it is a Building Code Official, I don't know but we could certainly work those details out.

President Scapicchio: Would that be a recommendation from the Police Department if the Council chose not to create a one way either part time or full time on Linwood, would that help solve the problem?
That certainly would yes. That would be our recommendation.

Mr. Geiger: The Chief is absolutely right, these cars are on angle parking which is illegal by State Law unless done by Ordinance, I know you haven't got an ordinance that authorizes that angled parking. These cars back up and with bad weather they haven't got much visibility and they could hit the cars across the street. I am going to read my other little thing here and that may explain some of it. Okay, all the families living on Linwood but one have lived there after the school was built in lieu of the existing situation. Should Linwood become a one way street the students on bikes will no longer be able to go down Knowllwood Road and west on Linwood to the School as they will be in violation of New Jersey Title 39, going the wrong way on a way street, which could be a hazard to them. Additionally children on bikes will be forced to use Clover Hill Road with more exposure to traffic than they would using Knollwood Road with little traffic and a safer way to school. There are only six homes on Linwood, there are seven homes on Knollwood that are also affected by the one way proposal and in a lessor way there are 12 homes on Jameson that will be affected. Jameson will also have an increase in traffic. As all vehicles going south on Knollwood will not have a chance to use Linwood, but most go down Jameson. The area is not a commercial or industrial area, it has single family residents where they mostly walk through school, except for about 15 -20 minutes a day starting at about 2:55 to 3:15 pm 183 days a year, there is a lot of unregulated traffic and parents picking up children. The mailman will now have to change his route. That does not sound like it is going to be difficult but it is because he comes down Linwood and goes all the way down Knollwood, and then does all the streets all the way up and comes back and finishes up going back down Linwood. So after 30 something years he is going to have to change the way he does business. It's not a big thing, though he'll probably have to walk it that's all. There have not been any injury accidents that I could recall in thirty years and there may have been some fender benders. How many? I don't know. Linwood Road has developed legal hazards and behaviors that may lead to or contribute to fender benders and they are; a curb cut on Linwood Road with a yellow curb that by both Federal and State standards prohibits parking. If there are white painted lines on the roadway that encourage angle parking, this creates a conflict in messages and is contrary to the yellow curb messages. The angle parking lines are illegal unless authorized by owners for that location. I am sure it was never authorized and may expose the Township to a liability problem. Vehicles are parked facing the wrong direction in violation of New Jersey Title 39. Basketball backboards are set at curbside in violation of the Mt. Olive Ordinance. There is one on Linwood, two on Jameson, one of which is in the street. I am surprised a snow plow did not take it down. There are 18-20 empty parking spaces in the school parking lot that are available at 2:55 and are not being completely utilized by parents picking up children. When children are picked up at 3:00 pm there seems to be some confusion by children looking for their parents, especially in bad whether. They dart out, looking for their family cars and paying little attention to traffic. This lasts about 10-12 minutes and one way would not eliminate this condition. In conclusion, it is my understanding that the main complaint had to do with a fender bender, if so a one way would not address this problem. It is my opinion that the illegal angle parking be eliminated. This would prevent vehicles backing into traffic with a poor sight distance and also backing into vehicles parked across the street. This should resolve most of the problem. Additionally enforce the no parking facing traffic law, and the street basketball backboard poles not only on Linwood, but throughout the Mr. Geiger (cont'd): Township. The community should be informed before any enforcement commences. The Board of Education should also be advised and their assistance requested to inform the appearance of any changes in the angle parking or any other traffic safety programs that are implemented. I think that the school should be part of this. The children going to that school are only there for three years. It is kindergarten through second grade. The kids change every three years, you have a whole bunch of different kids. But they need some education and they really should have something like safe way to schools and some other programs. Our Police are very good at this type of training. I work with the Mount Olive Police Department over the years as well as other local State Police and the Police are very capable when they do a good job if we involve them a little bit more and let them do their job, they could probably do a very good job. Actually they have been very tolerant of the situations down there and the people have become intolerant in what they do with these actions, the parents don't care. I think the main safety factor is just the kids running out in the traffic looking for their parents and not paying attention to the cars that are in the area. That's the conclusion of my suggestions.

Mr. Greenbaum: Nick, I wanted to thank you for the pictures because it certainly has clarified in my mind as to what I think the appropriate solution to this problem is in light of all of these different opinions that we have heard throughout the four or five different hearings that we have had. It appears to me from looking at the photograph J provided by nick that all of the cars parked facing the same direction which would be going into the development towards Knollwood and way from Cloverhill. I think that the appropriate solution may satisfy everybody and also eliminate the concern which raised this issue is to eliminate the angled curb cuts as we have already discussed and also to have no parking or stopping on the northerly side of Linwood. Parking on one side, eliminate the curb cuts, keep it both directions and you will eliminate the problem that resulted and you won't inconvenience the residents of that area.

Mr. Spino: I don't think you will eliminate the problem. I think if you take away the angled parking yes, that will do it. But people that are going to pick their kids up are going to park their car there.

Mr. Greenbaum: It's going to be eliminated through enforcement.

Mr. Spino: My own opinion, I don't think that will do it, at least for that side of the street.

Mr. Greenbaum: If it doesn't do it, we can always come back to the issue at least that way we are not going to inconvenience any of the residents of that particular area and least it's a solution which is worth a try and I am sure Ed that you would have no problem enforcing a no parking or no stopping on that side. We are only talking about the side where the residents live. That would allow them access out of their driveways unobstructed access out of their driveways and their wouldn't be cars parked along that road. You would still have two way traffic on the road, but you would have a larger area of travel on the roadway.

Mr. Geiger: The only concern I would have there would be in prohibiting the use of that parking space for the residents. If for those who live there, so I have two cars, my sons.

Mr. Greenbaum: You would still be able to park on the other side of the street, there are only certain times of the day when parking is not available to the residents and that is during those peak school hours, otherwise you have the entire school parking lot which is available and you will have the southerly side of the street adjacent to the school which would be allowed by it. I really don't care whether or not the residents are able to park their car on Saturday when the school is not being used, but I think that we have already come to the conclusion that we need consistency rather than different time periods.

Chief Katona: I agree.

Mr. Greenbaum: I don't think that it is really that great an inconvenience and I think it is the best solution of all that has been presented, although Mr. Elms solution I think is workable; procedurally it is workable, I don't know and I don't believe that we would ever get the school district to take action because we have been totally unsuccessful to date to get them to take any action and I think that this proposal seems to be the best solution currently which we could all see if it works and if it doesn't, readdress the issue that way no one is inconvenienced in terms of being able to travel.

Mayor Licitra: I just wanted to make sure that everybody is aware, Mr. Geiger was formerly the Deputy Director for the Highway Safety Authority and the Department of Highway Safety. I use him because the price is right. What's your price again Nicky?

Mr. Geiger: Zero.

Mayor Licitra: I use him every once in a while so Nicky is right on the money a lot of the time. The credentials are there even though he is retired.

President Scapicchio: Thanks Mayor. Ray?

Mr. Geiger: I have one other caveat Rob, perhaps the sign should say on the northern side, "no parking during Mr. Geiger (cont'd): school hours".

Mr. Greenbaum: I would leave it as "no parking, no standing" on that side of the street. Again when you start getting into school hours it gets into a definition question; are we talking snow days? are we talking about in service days?

Mr. Geiger: When school is in session. It is a thought.

Mr. Greenbaum: I am not adverse to that that, but when you start adding in variables, it becomes more problematic as we have seen through the various meetings that's why when we originally looked at it, it was only going to be during school hours, and then there were questions that were raised. I don't really see it as an inconvenience to those 6 houses on Linwood Drive.

Mr. Geiger: The only other thing is that we should get the school involved as far as; if you are going to do anything with that street, is to give these little flyers to the kids to take home to their parents to make sure they know what is going on, otherwise the Police become bad guys. I think the Police in Mt. Olive are very good. They don't bother you unless you have an attitude. If you have an attitude, they have attitudes too. Thank you very much

Mr. Perkins: Nick, on looking at the photos, and I know you and I had spoken previous to this evening, on the J photo which is the one we are talking about now, if we didn't put up those famous "no parking signs", that I am not a big proponent upon, and just look to enforce people to not park the wrong way on that side of the street; would that not alleviate the problem?

Mr. Geiger: I think so.

Mr. Perkins: Right now I am counting possibly four vehicles parked on the wrong side of Linwood. So they are all facing the wrong way.

Mr. Geiger: Yes.

Mr. Perkins: So if they were facing the right way, you probably would not have that problem, or if they all parked on the right hand side.

Mr. Geiger: When school is not in session, they are on the right hand side.

Mr. Perkins: But if a "no parking" sign is put up, no body is going to park there.

Mr. Greenbaum: The only problem I foresee with allowing cars to park on the side of the street where there residences are, even if they are parked in the right direction, you are still going to have obstructed views coming out of the driveways. That is why I think that solution does not work. I would suggest that the other solution is a better solution and it is not really that big an inconvenience to the residents and I am sure they would rather have whatever little inconveniences posed by that than having it as a one way street. If anyone is out there and I am wrong, let me know.

Mr. Geiger: Thank you very much.

Mr. Rattner: You know we keep going around and around. When we first started this at the beginning of the year I thought that we had an agreement, at least the majority of the residents around agreed to the partial one way or something a couple hours a day. But putting up signs that limited for school days, we already have that law and we keep expanding the zone around the High School. We already have 7 am to 5 pm. If we just do it exactly the same way, this way we have less variability, it's consistent, this way one the kids get older or the parents go to the other schools, it's the same time and it seems to be working alright where we are putting up the no parking signs on school days, this ways it won't cause any problems on weekends, it won't cause problems at night when people have company and that type of thing, so maybe it is not that unreasonable putting the same time and it is consistent with what we have been doing in the other parts of Town.

Mr. Guenther: It has been some time since I have seen the supposed liaison from the Board of Education at this meeting. I am really puzzled; here we are debating this issue for how many times have we debated it and we can't even get the official liaison from the Board of Education to be present and I just can't understand it. I thought Mr. Elms proposal last week was a good one, obviously it need some cooperation of the School Board. I think somebody has got to pass the information on to the School Board and get them to participate in these discussions. They cause the effect on the community, and they are not part n parcel. They either refuse to be, or we are not including them. I find that it is incomprehensible to me.

President Scapicchio: Anyone else from the Public?

Jim Buell, Linwood Avenue: We are here to discuss one way eastbound all the time on Linwood Ave. This is a Mr. Buell (cont'd): picture of what it looks like. Eastbound on Linwood, the consequences and I have counted the cars, these are approximate figures will be 500 - 600 cars a day down Linwood Ave. around Knowllwood and at the busy times of the day about half the cars would go up Jameson and the other half of the cars will go up Graden or Edgewood. I think that is a dangerous situation on days when school is not in session you are talking a 100 -120 cars a day and I am going to be one of them. I will probably on days when school is not in session go by at least twice a day, that's an inconvenience; I don't think it's necessary. I have been suggesting for over a year that there is an alternative solution to this whole thing and it is not limiting the parking on the street. We can't even control the parking of the parents up here in this mountainous driveway. If any of you all have ever been there during school dismissal or pick up time and looked at that drive way, the most dangerous thing of all is right here. I think I have said this about four weeks ago. That thing is jam packed on both sides of that thing even though there is a fire zone on both sides and I guess that means there is no parking no stopping. That is a danger. That is what Linwood Ave. looks like on the pick up between 3:00 - 3:15 pm everyday of the week. Yes if we could eliminate the parking on one side of the street that would answer the question. I live on Linwood Ave. and you could eliminate the parking on my side of the street, I'll be very happy. Then you have at least 20 ft. of macadam to use to get the cars out of the sub-division. The other problem, is I have already said as the consequences of making this east bound is that there is no way that you can make it a limited period of time because eastbound begins at the intersection of Knollwood and Jameson. However there is a very simple alternative that I have been suggesting for over a year. That is, it would be very simple to say that we would have one way on Linwood Ave. from 8:30 in the morning until 9:30 in the morning and from 2:30 in the afternoon, until 3:30 in the afternoon and at other certain designated times because the other major problem on Linwood Avenue. Is the back to school nights and the other special events and we haven't talked about the Halloween Parade and the various other kinds of things that happen at that school when you do get Linwood Avenue jammed on both sides of the street and you do have the entire parking lot jammed. I loved the proposal Number 2. That will answer the problem, it will provide the amount of parking that the school needs and that is the major issues, there is not enough parking in the school to accommodate the number of children to get picked up and dropped off. This has been an increasingly more aggravated problem over the years. It used to be that Linwood Ave. North School had Kindergarten, first, second and third year students. Now, we have the two schools merged the way the school has and I agree with you that the school should be involved in this process because what's happened since they have merged these two schools, all of the pick up and all of the drop off of almost all of the students is now occurring the area which used to be Mountain View North and in this driveway area and down Linwood Avenue. The entire south part of the school, the big driveway is now reserved strictly for school buses. So there is a problem on Linwood Ave. But again, the alternative is as I have suggested, 8:30 to 9:30 am, 2:30 to 3:30 in the afternoon and at other designated times. What are those times? Well there is one simple common denominator. We have a school crossing guard everyday from 8:30 to 9:30 am and from 2:30 to 3:30 pm. That school crossing guard could take a sawhorse which says one way at 8:30 in the morning when she comes on duty, that says one way and place it right here and place it right in the middle of that intersection. At 9:30 when she goes off, she retrieves the sawhorse and places it back into the school or does something else. 2:30 pm when she comes on, she puts the sawhorse back out in the middle of the road and at 3:30 in the afternoon she picks the sawhorse up and takes it back. We now have a one way street. We now have a one way street, but only westbound. You worry about the residents on Linwood, we have no desire to go eastbound on Linwood at that particular point in time and so now you have a one way street. The problem is solved.

Mr. Spino: Why don't you think that the people once they realize that will go around and go down Jameson and come back west on Linwood anyway?

Mr. Buell: Some of them will.

Mr. Spino: I think that part of the problem is that more and more of the people are picking up their kids than they did before. But I would think that once they learn that they could go down a block and go around, they are going to do that. Maybe you will not have 500 cars but you might have 400.

Mr. Buell: The 8:30 to 9:30 and 2:30 to 3:30, there are 140 cars who arrive here and need to pick up or drop off kids. 70 of them come through this driveway, if this is one way westbound they will now go out this way. So they will only traverse about a tenth of a mile to get out on to Cloverhill. The other 70 cars who picked up their kids back here in this parking lot will in effect go down through Cloverhill of down through one of these other parallel streets and will arrive at this parking lot. So we have about 70 cars that will go through the rest of the street. We already have about 280 cars going up Jameson right now because the school has already told the students and the parents that Linwood is a one-way street. Now why are the people on Jameson experiencing this major increase of people going down Jameson? That's because the school at the beginning of the year has told the students that this is a one way street and will be a one way street and therefore the parents are already acting as if this is a one way street. Some of them get very irate with you when you are going the other way when you are trying to go eastbound. Part of the problem my friends from Jameson already have is a result of the School already telling the students that this is an eastbound road. If you look at the second page of the handout that I have provided for you, I have given you estimates of the number of cars and these are not accurate. Some of them I have counted. I have made a fairly accurate count of the school that come in between 8:30 and 9:30 am and 2:30 and 3:30 pm. I have made an estimate of the people who pick up and drop off at kindergarten time and the day care center and all the rest of this. If you adopt the alternative of a one way for the two hour period of time, only 140 cars during the whole day will come down these parallel streets causing the problems for the other Mr. Buell (cont'd): people on the other side. The balance of people will get on to Linwood and be off of Linwood very safely infact Linwood Avenue is probably the safest place unless the School Board is going to spring for a couple of hundred thousand dollars, that would probably be involved in proposal two which I like but I don't think they are going to do it. Unless they do that, the safest place for these cars is on Linwood Ave. I have lived there for 30 years and I have watched this problem grow progressively over the years. Now the other problem as I explained to you four weeks ago, is at the evening sessions when they have the back to school night, when we do have cars on both sides of the street, both on Linwood and on Jameson and we probably got 200 cars involved in that parking and going up and down those streets. If you passed an ordinance that said other designated times and I don't care who designated it, possibly the principle, the principle could say, we are having a back to school night, we're having a Halloween Parade, it started at 12:00 and lasted until 3:30 pm. I know in the Spring there is going to be field days and they are going to be packed, kids and parents are going to be packed into this area and we could have an ordinance states at other designated times; one of the things I tried to find out is would that be legal and how would you do it, who would designate this. But lets say you walk pass an ordinance they gave the principle to write to call a designated day, and she knows this long before it happens, what you would need is now four saw horses at night with blinkers probably. You would put one out here in this intersection here and you would put one here and here and one here at this driveway. All of the one way, this way and now you have resolved the evening problem because you would have blinking sawhorses say whoever would put them out. That is the awnser to the problem. I know the Police Department does not like the idea of going westbound because they feel that there is congestion created up here at this intersection. The intersection congestion quite frankly would only be created if you went westbound if you allowed people to turn left on to Cloverhill from Linwood. Simple solution, on the back of the one way sign, we would be to place up here at the top of Linwood Avenue, "no left hand turn from 8:30 - 9:30 am and 2:30 to 3:30 pm when school is in session". Very simple solution. The only people that will be surprised by one way when you didn't anticipate the school being one way, are the people who live here on Linwood Ave. None of us go eastbound for anything. When we leave our houses, leave our homes to go anyway, we are going to go westbound. So there is no problem. That's the solution. Thank you.

President Scapicchio: Thank you.

Richard Bonte, Budd Lake: As you know, I have stated before I don't like these time of day one way streets. I am still opposed to them. I like what Mr. Geiger had to say. I think he has really gotten very close to the answer here, and that is, if there is an illegal parking zone on the school side of the street, I don't know that we even have to go to the Board of Education and asked them to do something; we need to enforce the rules and regulations that exist. Is that type of parking is illegal, shut it down. On the other side of the street, I'd like to offer a slight modification to what Mr. Geiger proposed. Rather than put up "no parking sign" number one, enforce the present laws on people parking on the wrong side of the street facing the wrong direction. Secondly, you might be able to eliminate this problem in it's entirety on that side of the street. Instead of putting up "no parking signs", which preclude the residents from parking there, put up "no standing/stopping" signs as well as "no discharging" or picking up of passengers. There is a distinct difference between parking, stopping and standing. The residents could park there. I don't see an issue with parking and creating a driveway visibility problem because usually it is the occupant of that house who is parked there in front of his own house. I don't think you are going to find many instances of very many people parking their car to go pick up students. But if you prohibit stopping and standing or the discharge of picking up passengers on that side of the street, you may be able to solve most of this problem as Mr. Geiger has proposed without taking any other steps. Thank you.

Mr. Greenbaum: I just had several comments to the comments that were made. First, your proposal which you kept calling it the simplest solution, I think it is probably the most complicated solution personally. I appreciate the effort as Mr. Elms, I appreciate your effort, I thought it was constructive. I agree with some of your points. Rich, I agree with you in terms of removing those spots, I think we all agree and that is going to happen, I don't think we need School Board permission, I think everyone is in agreement that those curved line spots have to be eliminated and it is going to get done regardless of what solution is ultimately adopted. I just don't see the inconvenience to those few residents who live on Linwood drive if you eliminate parking over there. I don't see the inconvenience. Those times when the cars are parked are not going to be within school hours. They will be able to park on the other side of the street. The inconvenience is going to be instead of going to park on the curb, I don't even know that we allow overnight parking on the streets. Certainly during certain months we don't. In any event and I have already said this, that it seems to me that this is the first solution which should be tried. It does not inconvenience the residents on Jameson; it does not inconvenience the residents on Linwood. From the Photographs which Nick brought, there were only three or four cars that were parked on the other side of Jameson, which we would now be eliminating parking. I agree that if you do it only during school hours as Mr. Rattner said, you still have the problem of the other nights, the other events and that is why that I think it is appropriate in this situation to eliminate the safety concern is to just eliminate parking or standing on that side of the street and I think that solution would work without sending cars into the neighborhood without causing a traffic problem in at the intersection of Linwood and Cloverhill.

Mr. Spino: Chief, is there a difference between parking stopping and standing?

Chief Katona: Yes there is.

Mr. Spino: How do you know? Does the person have to be in the car and it is stopping?

Chief Katona: A person is parked if they park the car, exit the vehicle, lock it up and walk away. All other times if the vehicle is there and you'll see it in shopping centers, you stop perhaps in a fire zone, you're waiting for your wife to pick up your laundry or whatever. That is stopping and standing.

Mr. Spino: My next question is and this is the part I don't think I would agree with Rich is that if I was going to pick up my child and I stop the car take it out, take the keys and go get him. Then I am parked.

Chief Katona: Part of the problem is that they are not doing that.

Mr. Spino: I understand that but once they realize; if Mr. Bonte says put up a no stopping or standing. If they pull their car over, park the car, take the keys out and go across the street to get their child then they are parked, right?

Chief Katona: They are not going to do that.

Mr. Spino: Well, I think once they start getting tickets for stopping there, I think they are going to say we'll gee, if I go across the street, I will park. I would think if it would work it would be fine, but I don't think it is going to work. People are too resilient. When they want to do something, they are going to find a way to do it.

Joyce Brown: Hi, I am Joyce Brown, I live on the corner of Knowllwood and Linwood which most of you know. I am directly affected. First I would like to thank you Nick, and Jim Buell for the work they have done, because they have really been great neighbors and have everybody's interest at heart. The Sprague's who are not here I don't think, started the whole thing, because they have been hit. Rob, I think your idea was good except I don't think the idea of having a no parking zone on the resident side is a great idea because there are a lot of people with more than two cars that would be immediately affected by that. It might be workable. I think the big thing is the illegal parking slots that were originally bus slots when the place was built. I think if you do that, it would alleviate the problem right away. I don't know if you have to go any further. I think Bob Elms thing is great to, if you have to go that far. I would like to know who the School Board Liaison is from your group.

President Scapicchio: From our group it was Steve Rattner. Daniel Amianda is the School Board Liaison to the Council.

Mrs. Brown: You don't have one to them, he has one to you.

Mr. Rattner: We go both ways.

Mrs. Brown: Does he ever come to your meetings? Or do you ever see him?

President Scapicchio: Daniel is here occasionally, yes.

Mrs. Brown: Or you might maybe work through him.

President Scapicchio: We are going to have to.

Mr. Spino: I would think that would be one of the things we should be doing if we have not done it already is to contact the Board of Education, either meet with him or send someone to the Board Meeting with two proposals. First that they eliminate the angle parking, if they don't we will, and the second is what Mr. Elms proposed as a minimum and a maximum to alleviate the problem.

Mr. Guenther: My suggestion picking up on Earl's idea, I don't think we have to go to their meeting. I think it is very simple. Put together a letter, we could get a consensus here of what we want to put in the letter, I think along the line of what Earl said sounds fine. We send it to the School Board president, the School Superintendent and say look, lets set up a meeting to discuss this and work this out. It should be taken out of the realm of either the Council Meetings or the Board of Education meetings because it is something that we should discuss and try to come up with a solution and then present it to these perspective boards or whatever approvals they need but I think it should be done that way, with a letter saying look, lets set up a meeting, study this, and within a week lets set up a meeting and work out a solution.


President Scapicchio: I think we have someone at the podium that probably knows more than any one of us here, and that is the crossing guard.

Lisa Jopp, Crossing Guard: I am Lisa Jopp and I am in Flanders. I am involved in two different ways. I live on Jameson, but I also am a crossing guard. First of all there are three crossing guards. To put those horses out would be; something like that would not work, it is actually better if there are posted signs. The communication between the parents, with the Principle, and all, also communication would not work because some of the one Ms. Jopp (cont'd): way directions that we have on Linwood was given by Mrs. Dinges, and under I believe Officer Scott Vanness from the Police Department at the time, and that all came within about because I think from a letter that I had sent to Sergeant Gallop, in concern and stressing the safety of the children and the traffic flow. I think a good start is eliminating those parking spaces, but I also do have to agree with a non-parking whether it be North or South on Linwood. The cars parked all the way to the end of the street, some of then even parked over the crosswalk. Now there is no crossing guard there. I am in front of the school crossing the children that cross Clover Hill. The children have to cross Linwood by themselves. When you have two cars parked at the end of that street, you only leave a small view. Now the kids have to come behind a car, approach into the street before they cross. I watched my son almost get hit by a car and I will not let him cross by himself. He is a very small guy. So I know it is a big safety issue, but when you eliminate one side of the road in parking you are giving more visibility to the cars. A one way does help, but during the school hours is appropriate enough. The hour in the morning and the hour after. Let me also just tell you, just so you know where we are coming from. The school is pre-school through fifth grade. There are 640 children in the school. I think there are about five classes which have about 50 students, so you are looking at quite a few walkers within the development.

President Scapicchio: Thank you. Anyone else from the public?

Dave Jones, Route 46: I don't know if you guys like this, but this is the best proposal I have seen and it solves all the problems, the proposal that Bob Elms gave. It's fantastic, he went out of his way, he does not even live over there. You should thank him for it because he spent time and money drafting this stuff up.

Mr. Spino: Let me interrupt you Dave, we have already done that. We have already done that as a group. We presented it and we spoke about it with Mr. Elms at a previous meeting, so don't yell.

President Scapicchio: The problem with that plan, Dave, is it takes School Board action and School Board funds. There is no action that the action can take.

Mr. Jones: So why don't you guys all show up at a School Board meeting, they'll be very intimidated by you guys.

President Scapicchio: Lets keep this meeting in order, it is about Linwood, it is about how we could resolve the hazardous situation over there.

Mr. Jones: I am just saying I think this is the most realistic situation.

Mr. Spino: If somebody from the Council meet with the School Board and offered them the two proposals, one, the simplest, the one that we could do without their approval is to eliminate the angled parking. The other is to show them and support Mr. Elm's position number two because that is the most expensive. Now we are talking about, again someone mentioned $100,000. I don't know how much it would cost; $10,000, or $150,000. I have know idea. But remember, when the School Board Budget goes down, it comes to us to vote on. People want us to cut the budget not add to it.

Mr. Jones: Is it possible to get a petition going or something like that to force this to go on one of the ballots?

Mr. Greenbaum: I don't think so.

Mr. King: You could put a petition together and bring it to the School Board, if you are a citizen you can do that, you could go to their meeting and express your opinions to them.

Mr. Jones: I did last night and they did not seem to listen to be totally honest with you.

Mr. King: You can't force them to do that.

President Scapicchio: Anyone else from the Public?

Mr. Geiger: In reference to that cut out, that little thing, those stripes, you don't have to talk to the School Board, just tell them you are going to do it and do it. They have no say over the streets. None. I am sure they are the ones that did it in the first place. It is illegal and it is wrong. That belongs to the Township and you are responsible for that street. Not the Board of Education, so just tell them what you are going to do and just do it.

Mayor Licitra: Nick, I think what our basic problem is, is Frank Colello is not alive to tell us what to do over there.

Mr. Geiger: He's still talking to me so I'll pass it on.

President Scapicchio: Thanks Nick, anyone else from the public?

Mr. Elms: Why do we have 140 cars coming to pick up kids at the school when we are providing bus service?
Mayor Licitra: They are mostly walkers. I think Apollo Way and the apartments are the only…

Mr. Elms: And you have 140 cars to pick them up.

Mayor Licitra: I don't know about the cars.

Mr. Elms: That's what his figures show, that there is 140 cars morning and afternoon.

Mr. Greenbaum: Do you know where Mountainview School is located? Flanders Crossing is bust. We are exactly a little bit over one mile from Flanders Crossing so everybody who is closer than Flanders Crossing which is the entirety of Cloverhill just about. It's most of Cloverhill.

President Scapicchio: Anyone else from the Public? Okay, this is a Public Hearing and the Ordinance is on the table for a vote, my guess is the Ordinance is going to be defeated. We are going to have to come up with a revised plan, and Council, based on what I have heard tonight and the discussion, I would recommend that we defeat the Ordinance as it is presently written. We enforce and inform the School Board that those parking spots are illegal and need to be eliminated and that we create a no parking on one side of Linwood and I would defer to the Police Departments recommendation in terms of what side that should be.

Mr. Rattner: I was going to say when we first started this with Mrs. Sprague, she mentioned that one of the biggest problems was these diagonal, in fact I think that is where she got hit. She said almost every day she is getting hit. That is really what started. That was the big thing. Also, with Mr. Elms, besides having limited access to Linwood was mainly eliminating that and we do appreciate the work you did because it was a good idea. The Police Department I know had gone through and did everything. Interviewing the different people, trying to get their different ideas. We have so many conflicting views and which one works, lets go for the real simple one, I think you just described it. If the spots are not legal, eliminate it, we should be able to do that by the end of the year. The kids come back from Christmas that should give enough time. If there is something that is really illegal, we should be able to do something to shut that down and I would pose that we get the no parking whichever way as soon as possible, and if there is any real concerns. If there were different problems we could tweek it, this way it just does not get lost and if it is good we just look at it again over the summer and we make it permanent. I think that would probably be the most practical. It is simple, it is something we can get done right away. It seems like it may solve 60 % to 70 % of the existing problem of the safety, we have accomplished a lot. More than we have done all this year talking about it.

President Scapicchio: Thanks Steve. At this point I am going to close the Public Hearing.

Mr. Spino moved for the approval and final passage of Ordinance #51- 2002. Mr. Guenther seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Defeated Unanimously.

President Scapicchio: Peter do we do "no parking" by ordinance or resolution?

Mr. King: Ordinance.

President Scapicchio: Chief, do you have a recommendation in terms of what side we should create the no parking on?

Chief Katona: After listening to the comments, and speaking with Lieutenant Beecher we would make a recommendation that the no parking is on the Northern Side, so there would be parking on the school side of Linwood Road. Hearing Mrs. Jopp, by doing that we would also eliminate the kids darting across the road.

President Scapicchio: Chief, do you think we should eliminate that all the time or should it by only during the school year.

Chief Katona: Let's do it all the time. Let's keep it simple, if it becomes to inconvenient for the public, the public can come back to council and give their proof that this is inconvenient and you can reconcider it at that time.

Mayor Licitra: Absolutely. I may. Lisa, could you keep in touch with the Chief and let them know how it is going so we would tell the Council?

Mrs. Jopp: Absolutely.

President Scapicchio: Okay so Peter you will have an Ordinance drafted for us.

Mr. King: Yes.

Mr. Greenbaum: Can I comment on something? After hearing Steve's comment and hearing Ed's comment. I am not sure that you need to do it all the time but you need to do it Monday through Friday between whatever hours are appropriate. 7:00am to 5:00pm whatever the hours are so that you can allow them to then park on the weekends and at night where it is not really going to be an issue. It is going to be all year long, it is not going to be when school is in session, when school is not is session. It is going to be Monday through Friday whatever our other Ordinance sign says. I think that is probably the best solution. I am sure Ed doesn't really have a problem with that either.

Mr. Perkins: I support Bob's Recommendation on that, I think we should go along with exactly the way we set it up even though I am not a big proponent about the signs, again it kind of brings back, you know the sign says do this, don't do that, do it now, you can't do it here, you can't do it there, only this time, not this time, not Saturdays, not on Sundays. Let's make it as easy for the residents and for everybody else, let's do it exactly the same way we did up at the High School. Lets give them the same time frame that benefits the citizens as well as the children the most.

President Scapicchio: Council, is that our pleasure?

Mr. Rattner: That's what I recommended a half hour ago. I think we are all coming up with the same idea now.

President Scapicchio: Mr. Perkins recommendation is to just amend an ordinance that we already have in place that has created no parking at a specific time.

Mr. Greenbaum: It is not only no parking, it's no parking stopping or standing. It is to eliminate anything on that side of the street.

President Scapicchio: Mayor are you going to now take the responsibility of informing the School Board that the it has been brought to our attention that they have created illegal parking and they need to…

Mayor Licitra: I am going to try and meet them tomorrow.

President Scapicchio: Okay, we have no other ordinances for Public Hearing; we have no Ordinances for First Reading, which brings us back to the Non-Consent Resolution Agenda.

RESOLUTIONS NON CONSENT

4. Resolution of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing the Hiring of an Interim Tax Collector.

Mrs. Miller moved for adoption of Resolution No. 4; Mr. Guenther Seconded that Motion.

President Scapicchio: Council you will notice that you have two Resolutions in front of us. One is authorizing hiring an Interim Tax Collector and there is another one that you should all have in front of you that is an alternate resolution which is a resolution authorizing the appointment of Sherry Jenkins as the Tax Collector with an annual stipend of $6,000 and the Mayor and Sherry have come up with a reorganization plan that would take effect if we adopt this resolution. Cindy, Sherry, Mayor, who wants to take over?

Mrs. Jenkins: As a result of my Tax Collector leaving, I looked at the operation of my department and saw a couple of different opportunities. First, to save money for the Township, and second to actually promote somebody and provide a promotional opportunity to somebody within my department and also as a result of the reorganization there would be an opening in my department that we could potentially offer to the particular individual, the only one at this time, at least full time, correct me if I am wrong Cindy, that has actually been laid off, so there are actually three benefits to the proposal that I am making. As you all know I am certified as a Tax Collector and I have actually been a Tax Collector and a CFO at the same time before. My proposal, and I have sent out a memo, I don't know if you have had an opportunity to read it at this point. I would like to promote my Assistant Treasurer to, she can't be promoted to the actual tax collector until she becomes certified and takes the necessary classes but I would like to promote her basically to an assistant collector's seat. She would work under me, I would train her, she would take the necessary classes, I would train her, etc. Then I am going to make some other, I don't know that I need to go into them, I will at this point if you want. I basically am going to reorganize some of the other personnel in my office which leaves the vacancy in my accounts payable position; again I would potentially offer it to the person that is being laid off at this time.

Mr. Rattner: Obviously this is something that we got at the last minute. My package still had the other resolution which is what is on the table right now which just basically says let's hire a temp in there until we understand what is going on. I have a problem in overall that we're tending to keep replacing people with a lot less experience. When we hired the tax collector that we have now; the last time we were told why we needed the experience. Why we were going out and paying a certain amount of money to get that experience. Now we are saying that you really don't need experience, you could take a test, get certified and you have all the experience Mr. Rattner (cont'd): you need. We no we have had in different positions which we won't bring up now which we have discussed; well there is a learning curve to having not done the job before, we have had this in a number of different positions that we have replaced in the last couple of years. It is not just one; it is a number of them. We have constantly said people have to come up to speed. I have a feeling that we are constantly filling our management supervisor positions with people without experience. I am not talking about people who come up through the ranks and have actually done the job and so at this point I cannot support it. Looking over for 15 minutes saying we are going to save all of this money and we are going to make all these changes. I am not ready to make that change.

Mr. Scapicchio: Sherry, correct me if I am wrong, but we don't really have any say in the organization of that structure within her department and the employees under…

Mrs. Jenkins: I certainly have the ability to move people and put them where I feel they need to be.

Mr. Scapicchio: The way I understand this resolution here, Steve, is that rather than go outside and hire an interim Tax Collector at a rate of $30.00 - $50.00 an hour, we are basically giving that responsibility to Sherry for an annual stipend of $6,000.

Mr. Rattner: Until you get somebody, I don't have a problem with that part.

President Scapicchio: It was not a surprise to Bernie and I, I had a conversation with the Mayor and Sherry last week. In fact, when I first saw the Resolution proposing to hire an outside individual at this rate, I started think that it would make more sense to have Sherry take on that responsibility and give her a little bit of an annual stipend and when I actually called her office, she called me back and the Mayor happen to be there and they had the same proposal as mine and we talked about that. I thought it was a good idea. Sherry said at that time that she felt that she could train another employee in that department. Sherry and the Mayor also said that they were going to give that employee a certain amount of time to be able to pass that test. I forget what the time was.

Mrs. Jenkins: Within one year of her finishing the classes.

Mayor Licitra: Or else she revert back to her original salary until she passes the test.

Mr. Rattner: I thought she wasn't going to get salary increase, just her normal.

Mrs. Jenkins: Not in the beginning, she would get $2,500 as she passed each class, and there are three of them. That is in my write up. Let me just explain real quick the reason why this has just come to you. I only got notice that this person was resigning last Tuesday and the plan was something that I came up with; it was only a couple days later. Cindy and I formalized it with Paul and basically, Dave, we spoke to you about it on Friday. So it has only been a week at this point that I have actually found out that the person has resigned.

Mr. Rattner: I am not going to support it and I am just going to give you one example of where we were told the same story and we are still sitting and waiting. That was when we decided for whatever reason when the person left from the Sewer Department with the licenses. Six months, where going to have the people, they are going to get the licenses and what is it, three years? We are still waiting and we are told we have more. I could go through other ones. I mean if there are certain professionals…

President Scapicchio: Steve, what have we lost if this employee does not pass that test?

Mr. Rattner: This person just passing a test doesn't mean he/she could do a job. Passing a test means that there is a point in time that means that you could study a book and take a test. There is the interacting with the people, it's doing the job. Most people work up. Very few people all of the sudden would just get to be a supervisor or a department head in a certain area without any experience in that area at all. We were told the last time why we had to go with someone with experience, we are very lucky, this is why we are paying more because we needed the experience. Now we're saying that the experience really doesn't mean much. So either we got a story the last time with the last Tax Collector.

Mrs. Jenkins: Could I just say something? The bottom line is the person that I am looking to promote will not be appointed Tax Collector at this point; you would have to appoint me as Tax Collector which means that; I think you know my work well enough to know that the job is going to get done. I believe I have the ability to train her the way that she needs to be trained to do the job.

President Scapicchio: That brings me to the point that I was going to make, Steve. We really are the ones that ultimately make the decision on whether or not this employee is appointed Tax Collector, if you are not satisfied at the end of what I would call the training period and a report from Sherry then…

Mr. Rattner: I understand that. Appointing Sherry as Tax Collector, we have to do that right now because we have to have a certified Tax Collector. That is a separate issue That we need. If we got somebody from the outside we would still need somebody as Tax Collector. That is required by Statute, there are certain requirements that you have to have. But, we have been without a Planner for six months or a little bit more and I don't believe that anything is really hurting. How long is it going to take to get there and are we looking for the right person. We have a lot of new people, we have given people some chances, and we have been told this person needs a little bit more time, hasn't had the experience, just got their license, I mean we have had that in different areas without getting into it. I just think that we are weakening our management structure. I came here. I had 15 minutes to look at it; I haven't seen any good reason. We have a constant trail because we have an older work force with more experience. You are replacing people with 30 years experience in a job with somebody who is going to take the test and all of a sudden pass. I am not saying this is that one, but we have that in almost every one of our areas. We see where it has caused us different problems in different areas. We don't have the background, skill. If you are saying that most jobs in Government don't need any experience in that field, that you can take a test and get to it, then it is saying what Government is expecting.

Mr. Guenther: First of all I think the analogy with the Sewer Department is off base. I think what I object to in the case of the Sewer Department; here is an individual who has been doing some of the functions and the thought was that he could move up to that. But we have hired a consultant and we are paying him extra fees because he has the licenses that we need. That is what I object to because there are extra expenses involved. In this case, that is not the cases. Granted, it is a person that has not worked as a Tax Collector but it is little risk on our part. There is one point here that I need clarification on. You mentioned in your reorganization memo that there will be promotional increases of $2,500 as each of the three tax collection steps are met, which means $7,500 increase. What happens if she does not pass the test?

Mrs. Jenkins: The Mayor and Cindy and I spoke about that; she would go back to the salary she is at now.

Mr. Guenther: That $7,500 will be retracted?

Mayor Licitra: Yes.

Mr. Rattner: Mr. Guenther, I understand what you are saying. However, specifically with the sewer we were told that we would have somebody ready to move up and who could do the job in a certain length of time. That was the reason why we did not replace the person with somebody who had the licenses at that time but who also had experience. You bring somebody on full time, and they also bring some background. If you bring in an experienced Tax Collector, they have had hopefully years of experience of tax collection. There is a certain value to experience, what we are talking about now is that the value is in the training and the experience doesn't count.

Mr. President: Let's deal with this issue lets not worry about what happened in the past.

Mr. Rattner: Why was it put on the table?

Mayor Licitra: I didn't put it on the table; we are just putting this on the table.

Mr. Rattner: No, when we asked the whole thing came on the table. If it was just the first part, I said I did not have a problem with that.

Mayor Licitra: I don't want to deal with the Sewer Department; I want to deal with this right now.

Mr. Spino: I think what Mr. Rattner means, is that there are two parts to this Ordinance. First, to make Mrs. Jenkins temporary Tax Collector. The second is workings with the other department to make sure this other person received the training from her and passes the tests. Maybe that is what we should do, do it in two steps. First, vote to make Mrs. Jenkins a temporary Tax Collector and then a second vote on the other part. Make it two resolutions.

Mr. Guenther: Do we even have to vote on the second part. Isn't the way she organizes her department up to her.

President Scapicchio: We have a resolution that is on the table now to allow Sherry to hire an interim Tax Collector as a consultant for $30.00-$50.00 hour. That is what is on the table. I would like to have a vote on that, and I would like to see the Council defeat that. Does anyone from the public have any comments with regards to this resolution?

Richard Bonte, Budd Lake: If I had to look at what's wrong with what the Mayor and Mrs. Jenkins have proposed. I really can't find anything wrong with it. I really think that this is within the best interest of the Township. To try and move our people ahead to positions of greater managerial responsibility. That is the way Mr. Bonte (cont'd): every good organization should work. First of all it gives you more depth in your organization and it gives people the incentive to work their way up through the organization. I think we should encourage this type of management advancement in our Township and I think that this is probably the least costly way of doing it. When I look at going outside for the equivalent of $60,000 - $100,000 a year for a Tax Collector, what are we complaining about here? I realize that Mrs. Jenkins will be doing more work than her present job description allows for therefore the stipend is reasonable. To then train somebody that we have good faith in, in this person to move them up into this position and only compensate them should they pass the necessary tests is basically a guarantee to the Township that we are going to either get this person qualified, they are going to pass the test, or if it doesn't work, what does it cost us? Certainly less than going outside for an unknown quantity and this person will be getting trained on the job by somebody who knows the system; so I don't really understand what the big debate is here. I think we need to look at enhancing our present employee's management opportunities and growth within the Township and this is a sound way of doing it.

Bob Elms, Budd Lake: One of the basic principles of being a manager is to train your replacement otherwise you could never move up. I think that is what Sherry is trying to do, and I think that she should be allowed to do it.

President Scapicchio: Anyone else from the Public? Seeing none, we have a resolution on the table.

ROLL CALL: Defeated Unanimously

President Scapicchio: We now have another resolution on Non-Consent which I'll move and I'll read. I made one change to the last sentence that I think should satisfy everybody here.

RESOLUTION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT OLIVE AUTHORIZING THE APPOINTMENT OF SHERRY M. JENKINS AS TAX COLLECTOR

WHEREAS, the current Tax Collector for the Township of Mount Olive has given notice of her resignation effective 12/13/02; and

WHEREAS, as a result, the Township is in need of a Tax Collector effective 12/13/02; and

WHEREAS Sherry M. Jenkins, CFO, for the Township of Mount Olive has the necessary license and experience for appointment to the position,

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Township of Mount Olive that Sherry M. Jenkins is hereby appointed the Tax Collector for the Township of Mount Olive effective 12/13/02 at an annual stipend of $6,000.00 until such time as a Permanent Tax Collector is appointed by the Township Council.

President Scapicchio moved for approval of the Resolution of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing the Appointment of Sherry M. Jenkins as Tax Collector; Mr. Rattner seconded the motion.

President Scapicchio: Public Discussion on this resolution? Seeing none, Council discussion on this resolution?

Ms. Spencer: I would just like to clarify that this is an opportunity for the individual who will be taking the three classes; it will take approximately a year and a half to complete the three classes. During which time she will actively be working under the supervision of Mrs. Jenkins and be learning the Managerial role and all of the nuances of Tax Collector. So not only will she have this opportunity to do the studying, but she will be working day to day in this area of responsibility.

Mr. Rattner: The way of the wording is all I wanted at this point because there were two separate issues, because until we do it, to put in there, to say until somebody can pass the test I thought was unreasonable because we really haven't discussed it. The other thing I just noticed is that you just said it is going to be approximately a year and a half. Three minutes ago we were told it was going to be done within a year.

Mrs. Spencer: Excuse me, you were told that the individual upon completion of the course work, would be given one year to pass the test. You are only allowed to take the test twice in a year. So in a full twelve month period, three times that test could be taken. I know that does not make sense but you finish the last course, you take the test, and within a one year period you can take it two more times.

Mr. Rattner: What I think the acting Tax Collector just said is that she expected for her to finish and have it within about a year.

Ms. Jenkins: She could actually take three classes within one year and sit for the exam.

Mr. Rattner: Whatever it takes you have to do it. I am just saying that this is what happens when you rush. You hear different things and I was listening to what they were saying but this resolution and I seconded it because we need it and we have to have a Tax Collector and we know Ms. Jenkins can handle the job, she was the Acting Business Administrator for a while, so I have no problem at all.

Mr. Perkins: I endorse Ms. Jenkins taking over as our Collector, I think it is admirable that she has offered to do that, especially for the savings. I think the stipend is reasonable. I am not questioning personnel by name, I am just looking right now at the department's organizational chart. As I do know we have a Deputy Collector, is the Deputy Collector not close to already having taking those classes.

Ms. Jenkins: The Deputy Collector has taking three of them, but she doesn't want to sit for the exam. She never sat for it. Our current Deputy Tax Collector has taken the three tax collection classes and never sat for the exam, has no desire to sit for the exam.

Mr. Greenbaum: She doesn't want the job.

Ms. Jenkins: Yes, exactly.

Mr. Rattner: If you look at the proposed organization, there are some very what I conceder major changes because they are going to reassign the Deputy Tax Collector and those are the things I wanted to understand what was happening. I thought we had a Deputy for a reason.

Mr. Greenbaum: The organizational changes are not currently part of the resolution. The resolution is simply to now appoint Sherry as acting Tax Collector and I would again call the question.

Ms. Jenkins: If I could just add, I have been here for two and a half years and I know my personnel pretty well, I know what their strengths and weaknesses are and I feel like this reorganization will serve the department well. On the onset, you may look at it and have some questions.

Mr. Rattner: It might be, it is just that it was so quick and there was not time to discuss it.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously.

8. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Recommending a Significant Revision in the Homestead Rebate Program.

Mr. Greenbaum: I have a question for Peter before I move this resolution. Can I abstain on a motion that I move.

Mr. King: No you shouldn't.

Mr. Greenbaum: I decline to move that resolution.

Mr. Perkins moved for adoption of the Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Recommending a Significant Revision in the Homestead Rebate Program. Mr. Guenther seconded the motion.

President Scapicchio: Public Discussion on this resolution?

Richard Bonte, Budd Lake: I don't know why anybody would want to abstain on addressing this issue, but since the Council decided they do want to address this issue I am in disagreement as to what you would want to do. I don't think there should be significant revisions in the homestead rebate program. I think it should be abolished. There is no reason why Government should collect tax money from us, make us then fill out a form to claim it, have us call on the telephone in July to claim it again, and then wait to receive that money back minus all the associated costs of running this program and the postage and the 800 line and whatever other administrative costs. We need to move to not have this money collected from us in the first place and that is what I think this resolution should say.

President Scapicchio: That is basically what I wanted Mr. Dorsey to say. I think he came close to that Rich.

Mr. Guenther: But he says it, the title doesn't say that. If you read it, it does say that. The title should be changed.

Mr. Bonte: I have read it and I got the impression that it needs to be revised, and resolved.
Mr. Guenther: The portion of the request or the application for a rebate is eliminated and a homestead rebate is eliminated and a homestead rebate that would be do to a homeowner is made available to home simply by way of an automatic refund.

Mr. Bonte: Right, what I am saying is why collect the money in the first place. Even to administer a refund, uses resources that you have collected. I am saying just get rid of it because when you have a credit, right now they are talking about lowering the income eligibility once again on the homestead rebate. That is what will happen with these credits.

President Scapicchio: Rich, that is a point well taken. Peter, can we modify the last paragraph in this resolution. Now therefore be it resolved that Mount Olive Township recommends the complete elimination of the Homestead Rebate Program.

Mr. King: Yes.

Mr. Bonte: But don't collect it from us.

President Scapicchio: Well, that would be eliminating it. That's the point; Mr. Rattner told me several weeks ago that it was $60,000,000.00 just in postage.

Mr. Guenther: That is not what you are saying though. What to eliminate it and pass the savings on by lower taxes?

Mr. Spino: Then you are changing the whole Resolution, and I think we shouldn't do that. I think we should just not do this resolution at all. I think we should do resolution number nine.

President Scapicchio: Wait a second Earl, we are on resolution number eight.

Mr. Spino: I understand that. It is not the Councils turn to talk yet, so I understand that.

President Scapicchio: That's what's on the table. Anyone else in the Public on resolution number eight. Seeing none, Council discussion?

Mr. Spino: I think we should eliminate this resolution, simply for the fact that I agree 100% with Mr. Bonte, I don't always do, but sometimes we do. This whole thing is nothing but a political battle to you because they are taking the money from you, they are paying $60,000,000.00 to $70,000,000.00 million dollars to give it back to you and you are getting less than you gave. So what does it do? What we really need is to reorganize the way we do taxes, property tax in general. I don't think that saying we are going to eliminate the homestead rebate will be enough. The fact is they are taking too much. That is not addressed.

President Scapicchio: Earl, the point made in posing this resolution is this, you hear the Governor talk about a deficit, you hear talk about the Governor holding the line on contributions to School Districts, holding the line on Municipal Aid. Here is a way that they can find an immediate savings of about $60,000,000.00 just in postage. Forget about the process of processing the rebate checks, the questionnaires and the claim forms. That is the purpose of this resolution and I am going to keep it on the floor and we are going to call a vote on it.

Mr. Rattner: I agree with Mr. Scapicchio because the two are actually separate. Who knows what is actually going to happen. The whole idea is to give the people back the reduction, because if it went back to the Towns, they figure most Towns would find a way in their budget to spend it. Look how most budgets have gone up. What this would do is right now on the State income tax, this is the Supersaver thing with the extra postage, there is if you make under $100,000 there is a separate homestead rebate or something else for the seniors, that comes right off your income tax. There is no extra postage, there is nothing else. It is a real savings that comes back to the individual. If they took the same thing with the same qualifying, and you put it back it just means you either paid less in income tax, or you got back the bigger refund. There was no extra postage. It was all put in one. You don't get the mailing saying look what I did for you, call me back if you want the money.

Mr. Greenbaum: I am bothered by the fact that you have trouble with me abstaining on something which I don't really understand and if you want me to vote on something that I don't really understand the impact of what I am voting on, that seems to be a little irresponsible on my part. I'm a person who never gets a homestead rebate, I am not sure how this is going to effect me, I am not sure how this is going to effect someone who does get the homestead rebate, or lower income homeowners, I am just not sure, so I decided that I was not going to take a position one way or the another. I don't really have stance on it, I just don't understand it. One thing I do think is if you eliminate the Homestead, it is not going to come back and lower taxes ultimately, it is going to be spent by the government as opposed to be given back to the people which is generally they way things happen. It would be nice to think that it would never be taken in the first instance but that is generally not what I had seen Mr. Greenbaum (cont'd): happen over the time that I have been anadult which has only been a couple of years. But I don't have position one way or another. I don't understand the impact of the resolution and I am not going to vote on it for that reason and if you think that is irresponsible on my part than so be it.

Mr. Guenther: I understand Mr. Spino's concern, but don't mix apples with oranges. If you are talking about resolution number nine, you are talking about a basic reform on property taxes. We are addressing income taxes here, two completely separate items.

Mr. Spino: What is the primary reason for that?

Mr. Guenther: What do you mean?

Mr. Spino: What is the primary reason that this tax was first given? It was not first given for income tax; this is given for property tax relations.

Mr. Rattner: It was when Brendan Byrne got his income tax through and he wanted to say to do something, then you got two checks, remember before the Primary Election, before the General Election, you got a form, it said look what I did for you so sign it and send it back so then you also got another check, then when they eliminated to make it to one they had the one form before the June Election and you got the check before the General Election. It was all a political thing, but it was still money. It was income tax.

Mr. Spino: I understand that it was income tax.

Mr. Guenther: Let me finish the point. You have a point, I guess the original reason was as a basis of refunding the sum of your property taxes, but the other point that Mr. Scapicchio made; this is an immediate shot in the arm to the Budget and the fact that you are eliminating expenses, that you can eliminate a creative bureaucracy to send this checks back. Let people as far as I am concerned, people should still get it. But let them take it as a deduction off of their income tax statement and it eliminates all of the paper work and all the bureaucracy. That way the Government does not get to spend the money.

President Scapicchio: I am going to make a motion that we amend this resolution and Peter has made several changes. I am going to ask him to read that amended resolution into the record.

Mr. King:

WHEREAS, over twenty-six years ago in the final year of the first term of Brendan Byrne, as Governor of the State of New Jersey, a State Income Tax was in active as well as the so called Homestead Rebate Program; and

WHEREAS, at the time of its adoption, all persons would agree that the Homestead Rebate Program was enacted as a political mechanism by the Byrne administration in attempt to minimize the "political damage" done to Governor Byrne as he sought reelection to a second term, by providing that all homeowners entitled to a Homestead Rebate Check would receive same just prior to the November general election of 1977; and

WHEREAS, the Homestead Rebate Program besides its political aspects did indeed have the attribute of spending a certain portion of taxes paid by New Jersey homeowners particularly senior citizens;

However, over the years it has become clear, that the operation of the Homestead Rebate as it was enacted over twenty-five years ago involves and includes a significant bureaucratic cost in terms of collecting the taxes initially; computing the rebate, which is done upon applications which must be made in order for a homeowner to receive the Homestead Rebate and indeed the cost of issuing the appropriate checks to those entitled to same and the mailing of those checks on an annual basis; and

WHEREAS, it would appear clear that a significant amount of money could be saved, keeping in mind, of course, the money to be saved is taxpayers money, if indeed the current Homestead Rebate Program which includes the mailing of information each year, the preparation of the request or application for the rebate, etc., etc., is el unmated and the Homestead Rebate that would be due to a homeowner is made available to that homeowner simply by way of an automatic refund or a specific credit on ones New Jersey State Income Tax Return; and

WHEREAS, it is believed that the elimination of what was clearly a political contrivance when first
established would eliminate significant costs freeing up additional monies that could be refunded simply on the basis of a property owner filing a tax return or by providing those taxpayers who own homes and would under the current standards be entitled to a Homestead Rebate, would now be entitled to a specific credit against their New Jersey Income Taxes.
WHEREAS, the Mount Olive Township Council believes that the Elimination of the Homestead Rebate Program is needed, necessary and in the best interest of the residents of New Jersey.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive that it does specifically recommend the Elimination of the Homestead Rebate Program in order to permit significant savings and elimination of unneeded bureaucracy in connection with this program.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this Resolution shall be forwarded to all legislators representing any portion of Morris County.

9. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Recommending the Calling of a Constitutional Convention RE: Real Property Taxes.

President Scapicchio: Public Comment on this Resolution? Rich

Mr. Greenbaum: Before you begin Rich, I know your position and I agree with you and I have to use the facilities, I hope you are not insulted; I am going to excuse myself during this portion.

Richard Bonte, Budd Lake: I thought this went away. Sometimes we disagree Mr. Spino, although I do not disagree with what you want to accomplish. I believe that property taxes are the wrong way to finance the schools. I say that recognizing that I would probably pay more tax if it was not based on property tax but I still do not feel it is ethical or a fair way to fund the schools. Now having said that, the reason I am opposed to this resolution is the calling of a Constitutional Convention is in my opinion a grave decision. It opens the door for a lot of things we may not want to happen. The problem here that has occurred over the last 25 years in New Jersey, ever since the Jersey City School Board Case is the fact that the Legislature and the Governor have allowed the Courts to dictate how our money is spent. The Constitutional Convention is not going to change that. The only thing that will change that is if the Legislature takes back control of how taxes are raised, dispersed in this State, not the Courts. My recommendation is that if we are going to encourage the State to do something, we need to encourage our elected officials to do the job that they were elected for. That is to pass the necessary legislative measures to collect taxes in equitable manner in this State to fund the School System. Calling a Constitutional Convention could open the door to a lot of things we don't want to happen and that is why I am opposed to this. If there was a real dyer Constitutional Crises in the State of New Jersey, I could understand calling a Constitutional Convention. All I see here is a problem with one branch of Government not doing their job for the last 25 years. We need to encourage them to do that, straighten this mess out. Thank you.

President Scapicchio: Thank you Mr. Bonte. Anyone else from the Public?

Mr. Spino: I believe the polling of the Constitutional Convention to adjust property taxes is a very very specific convention. It is a very political issue. I believe and I have felt this for over 20 years; it will never change because the politicians and we are politicians as much as we say we try not to be, and we really do try not to be. We are not going to address this issue because assemblymen have to be up every two years, and you are going to remember the fact that they changed that. A Constitutional Convention takes it out of their hands and puts it into the hands of people that will be elected to this position and or appointed to this Constitutional Convention to make that decision. That is the only way I believe that it is ever going to be done. If we are really talking about this and the premise of all this debate and the debates all over the State and in the State House is taxes and primarily property taxes. It is never going to change in my opinion until we do something like this where it is very specific, it deals with property tax and how the schools are funded and a better and more equitable way to do it. I agree, some people will pay more. But people who are on fixed income, retired or whose income does not change maybe will pay less. I believe that is the way it will happen. The idea of using the property taxes is a false model. Because we need more money, we just say your house is worth more. That is not right.

Mr. Guenther: I have heard this argument before, you never know what you get when you open up a Constitutional Convention. Quite frankly I don't understand what the fear is. Nobody has ever pointed out to me, what are you fearing here, what Pandora's Box are you opening. I agree with Earl, I think if you make it specific enough, that it is specifically for the subject, I think it has got to be taken out of the realm of politics.

President Scapicchio: One more thing and it is a very specific thing and it can be limited and I believe that is the way it can be done.

Mr. Greenbaum: The bottom line is unless you reduce spending, you have to get the money from someplace. Whether it is the reduction of property taxes is going to change the other way the taxes are raised; it just does not seem to be the solution to the problem.

Mr. Rattner: To continue on with what Rob said. The real big issue, until that is resolved; we can't have any meaningful change in our school funding, and that is home rule. No matter what a Constitutional Convention Mr. Rattner (cont'd): comes up with, the State pays 80% which comes up with a base level. Then they give each Town the same exact amount and then each town is going to decide what they want to spend and if their property taxes go down, and they say we could raise it, taxes are lower than they were five or six years ago. The base problem is that we are the only State in the Country that does schools on a town by town basis. 48 other states do it on a County Basis, one does it on a State basis. That would eliminate 38 Superintendents in Morris County alone, and their staffs. You also don't have one Town Building, a school and another one closing one down. You can't have it because no matter how you are going to have the funding, if the local people who are deciding on the spending don't have to worry where all the money is coming from, they say well we have this big chunk here, what is going to happen with the other part unless they are going to say you can't spend more than $10,000 per student, were spending more already than the State average and I don't think we want to stop that . That is really what the big problem is, the legislature has to decide what to do and we have to decide how we are going to fund the schools. Is it going to be Town by Town where everybody sets their own taxes or do it on a State or County basis. You can't have State funding if it is going to be local spending because if they think somebody else is paying for it, that's where you have a problem. That is why I don't think it is going to accomplish anything.

Mr. Spino: Did I understand you Steve, saying that to eliminate expenses that one town is closing a school and another town is building a school. The town that is building a school, wouldn't have to build it because they could use the school that is being closed? Is that what you said? That would be a lot harder than ever doing this.

Mr. Rattner: That is what I am saying, why this will not work. Every other State does their school except for one that does it on a County basis. You have 39 superintendents, if you go to any other State for a County our size they will have one Superintendent, they will have the director of curriculum, instead of us buying 200 books. That is where the issue is, whatever the State comes up with, they come up with new corporate tax, they add on to the income tax, so you can lower your other taxes. They are going to give each town the same amount of money or something like that The town is still going to decide with the local School Board how much you are going to spend. Unless there is something that says that you are taking that out. I don't see that really happening. It has to be the spending side. The whole issue about why it is so expensive is how much money we spend. Once we set the budget, we have to raise taxes, the same way we do in the Town.

President Scapicchio: Anyone else?

ROLL CALL: Defeated. Mr. Rattner, Mr. Greenbaum, Mrs. Miller, President Scapicchio voted no.
Mr. Perkins, Mr. Spino, Mr. Guenther, voted yes.

Mrs. Miller: Council President, I will have to excuse myself, it is getting very late and I am getting very tired. I have no reports for Council reports.

President Scapicchio: Okay, goodnight Charlene.

MOTIONS

1. Bill List.

Mr. Perkins moved for the approval of the eight page Bill List as submitted, Mr. Rattner seconded the motion.

2. Approval of an Application to Amend Bingo License #1006 and Bingo Application #1052 for K of C #6100 Fr. Joseph A. Cassidy Council and Raffle Application #1053 for Knights of Columbus, Blessed Mother Seton Council 5410.

Mr. Greenbaum moved for approval for Approval of an Application to Amend Bingo License #1006 and Bingo Application #1052 for K of C #6100 Fr. Joseph A. Cassidy Council and Raffle Application #1053 for Knights of Columbus, Blessed Mother Seton Council 5410 and Approval of a Peddler's Permit for Samuel Tungrian for Mobil Food Vending. Mr. Guenther seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously.

COUNCIL REPORTS

Library Board Liaison Report -none

Recreation Report

Mr. Guenther: I was not at the meeting but I got a report from Jill Daggon, there are just a couple things. I want to let everybody know that the Recreation Department has adopted a policy where the different sports
Mr. Guenther: associations will get competitive proposals on expenditures they make since they are taking town funds. So that policy is being implemented with all the sports associations. For Turkey Brook Fund Raising, apparently a presentation was made by Kathy Murphy, regarding fund raising efforts. I'm sorry it's the company that the Soccer Club hired that is going to cut various company contributions to put up trash cans, benches and things of that nature. They wanted input from the recreation committee as to size, or style and so forth. So there's some conversation going back and forth. There will be those objects that will be put in the park that will be provided by private company donations and they are working on that.

Board of Health Report

Mr. Perkins: No Report Dave, no meeting this month either.

Planning Board Report

Mr. Greenbaum: No report, snowed out.

Open Space Committee Report - none

Legislative Committee Report

Mr. Guenther: None at this time.

Pride Committee Report

Mr. Perkins: The only thing to report on Dave is that there is a new bill board banner, "Winter in Mount Olive" which will be going up and then the Pride Committee Chairman is already looking at putting up a new bill board in September, "Welcome to Mount Olive, home of the Champion Marauders" which hopefully will complement the banners I believe the Mayor is working on right now.

Status of Committee RE: Lake/Environment Issues

Mr. Perkins: Nothing on my end.

Mrs. Spencer: Internally, we have another meeting scheduled to work out another preliminary plan and then early in January we will be meeting with the full committee again.

Public Portion

President Scapicchio: That brings us to the last Public Portion, anyone from the public?

Dave Jones, Budd Lake: I just want to congratulate the Pride Committee on the last billboard as it had no political Statement whatsoever. I was hoping the next one won't have any political statement.

Mr. Perkins: Dave, personally I want to say thank you, but I would take offense since I don't believe that any of those have ever has any political statements on them.

Mr. Jones: Thank you.

President Scapicchio: Anyone else from the public?

Rich Bonte, Budd Lake: There are two items I want to discuss with you. First of all, I don't know if you are aware of Senate 2106 and Assembly 2699 which has to do with expansions of operations at non-conforming use site within the Township. Is everybody aware of that?

Mr. Spino: It was my idea to bring it up. I did not do it this time because I was working on one resolution, but that is the other one that I would like the Council to support.

Mr. Bonte: The reason I bring this up and I don't know what my position is on it, but I wanted to alert the Administration and the Council to it because there is going to be a hearing on Thursday in the Senate Hearing room at 10:00 am. The Assembly meets at 1:00 pm. This is going to go up for vote probably Thursday afternoon. So it may be the last opportunity, if we have any comments or object to this, and what this bill basically covers is that if you have a structure or operation that is in a non-conforming use area, within the Township, they do not have to come back to the Township to increase the intensity of usage of that operation.. One of the things that I am thinking of is the quarry, but there may be other places in Town also, where if the intensity within the structure changes. That could have far reaching effects on the Township.

President Scapicchio: What committee is that coming out of?

Mr. Bonte: It is coming out of the Economic Development Agriculture and Tourism Committee. There will be a Senate Hearing at 10:00 am, room one, 1st floor State House Annex and that is this Thursday. I have for the Council a copy of the legislation.

Mr. Spino: The League of Municipalities has been opposed to the way it is. They tried to work with the State Legislators.

Mr. Bonte: The second item, and I have asked you this before, I think it is something that we should really schedule possibly for a workshop. I think it is very important considering some of the applications that are going to be coming up at the Planning Board this year. That is the issue of modifying our Ordinances which require the design of the detentions basins. The State Statutes allow a municipality to utilize local certified rainfall data where available for the design of those retention and detention basins as opposed to the data that the developers are presently using which comes from Trenton, NJ. I have discussed this issue with you before, we had many debates at the Planning Board, but the fact of the matter comes down to the 100 year storm design that were requiring these distension and retention basins to be billed to or based upon the hundred year storm data for Trenton, NJ which is about 7 inches in the 24 hour rainfall period. It is generally recognized in the mountainous areas of New Jersey, that the 24 hour, 100 year storm is in the neighborhood of about 14 inches and that was verified two years ago in Sparta, NJ. If you all recall there are still many bridges and roads that are still closed even to this date as result of that. So what I am asking the Council is to consider this; we obviously need to use every tool that we have legally to control development and to require developers, if they get approval for development, to make sure that those developments not only comply with the laws, but comply with the local existing conditions especially when the laws allow you to do this. You wouldn't be taking on a landmark ordinance here. You would really be enforcing what you are allowed to do by the State and making it part of the Township Code that more pertinent rainfall data for this part of the State is used for the design of those facilities, so I would ask you to consider.

President Scapicchio: Rich, do you have a draft ordinance?

Mr. Bonte: I don't but I could.

President Scapicchio: Why don't you give the Clerk a draft ordinance of what you would like it to read?

Mayor Licitra: I think the two of you are going to go over to the Master Plan Committee Meeting tomorrow night. We have already addressed this and the Planner was aware of it. So I think what you should do is deal with it on the Master Plan. So bring it up over there, I think it has already been dealt with as far as discussion and Chuck is aware of it, so see what the status is. You may not have to go the ordinance route; it may be in the Master Plan.

President Scapicchio: Does something like that need to be memorialized via an ordinance?

Mr. King: I have not looked at the Master Plan, but usually it is in the Land Use Ordinance.

Mr. Spino: I kept a little bit on the League of Municipalities opposition to it. Bernie has that, it is here.

President Scapicchio: What would you like the resolution to say? We could have Peter draft something right now.

Mr. Greenbaum: I think the resolution should be opposing Senate No. 2106 for the reason set forth in the League of Municipalities opposition.

Mr. King: And supporting their opposition.

Mr. Greenbaum: Well, I don't think that you would say supporting their opposition, I think you are opposing the bill for the reason set forth in the League of Municipalities opposition.

President Scapicchio: Rob is that a motion?

Mr. Greenbaum: That is a motion.

President Scapicchio: Do I have a second?

Mr. Guenther seconded the motion.

President Scapicchio: Any public comment on this? We will also instruct the Clerk to make sure that the Senate and Assembly all receive copies of this resolution.

Mr. Spino: I think that we should send it to all Senate and Assembly in New Jersey, not just Morris County.

Mayor Licitra: I do know the League of Municipalities is very strongly against this. They have discussed this. It has been in the literature coming out, letters have been sent. Nobody knows where it came from, however we know where it came from, but nobody knows why it came from there. I don't think too many people are lining up against it, because while it effects towns like ourselves, it effects even more the developed towns in certain areas that they may as well just tell their Planning Boards and their Board of Adjustments to just go home. I don't think that is what the Land Use Law was all about so the League is very much in opposition to this and I think they have done their homework and let's hope that their Legislators take heed from that.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously.

President Scapicchio: Anyone else from the public like to address the Council? Seeing none.

COUNCIL COMMENTS

Mr. Rattner: I want to take a couple minutes because when we do something right and it finally gets some good press in the paper, I want to be able to highlight it. In today's Daily Record, it is the second time this week that they mentioned Mount Olive for something we have done very good. It's titled "Rutgers and Kean Failed the Field Test." Maybe it is one of those minor mysteries of life or maybe it is incompetence, whatever the reason New Jersey Officials seem to have problems with football fields. The field at Giants Stadium is a well publicized disaster. It goes on to say about all the high school games at Rutgers and Kean had to be cancelled. "why do we think that the officials at Rutgers and Keane really didn't try to hard to clean fields"? After all, officials in Mount Olive had their fields cleared and ready for play by Friday night. In fact, when the paper on Saturday told about the great win that Mount Olive had, on the front page they spent the time to explain how the field was prepared, they had said that it was a cooperative effort between the School Board and the Township Municipal Government, they called out Jim Lynch's name a couple times and they are saying how they got it ready. I think when we do something right, we know what to do, and we accomplish it. It should be recognized, especially when usually the papers only like printing what you do wrong. The field was in great shape, and the football team even exceeded that. Thank you.

Mr. Greenbaum: I think it goes beyond the football team exceeding it. I think the Town exceeded all expectations. It really was a great supportive effort. The team obviously deserves all the credit, but the Town really really came out for the Team and it was extremely impressive and I think that we all got on the bandwagon very early, before a State Championship was a thought. By the third or fourth game of the season when it appeared that the Team was doing things that they had never done before, there were those that were supporting the team even earlier than that. It really was a great experience. I don't think any more needs to be said by me with regards to the Mount Olive Football Team. There was one instance unrelated to football that I felt the need to comment on and that was Mr. Elm's proposal with regard to this resolution for Linwood issue. I felt that Mr. Elm's proposal was a very constructive, helpful effort that I wish more of the time we got that kind of effort to solve problems from individuals and really great effort on your part and even though I thought that it was not workable for reasons that we cannot force the School Board to do it, it was a novel approach to solving a problem that really had no way of solving it without appeasing everybody. I thought it was a very positive approach to solving a problem.

Mr. Perkins: Two things. One, is anybody that has seen the work that the Kiwanis has been doing on the Santa House up by George's Liquors up on Route 46; every Saturday and Sunday from 10:00 am to 4:00 pm Santa Claus is there for pictures. Also, it was interesting; we attended the Football Banquet on Sunday and the amount of pride that was brought up about how the youngsters had brought together the pride in the Township. It kind of gave me a nice feeling back in there because I know that is something that the Mayor had started; Community Pride a long time ago and it was nice to see that all get into fruition, how the entire Township pulled together for that. Kudos to the Mayor for starting the Pride Committee four years ago.

Mr. Guenther: First of all, congratulations to the Football Team, but I want to put a little bit of a different spin on it and I think that Dave, Paul, Steve, Earl, and Nick who are here can relate to this. When I first started getting politically involved more as a citizen activist back in 1987, we were considered the doormat of the County. I'll tell you, we have come a long way. I think you have to look at what you saw in the stands, the people, the way they were cheering. My brother in law was at the game, and he has been to a lot of playoff games, he is from Dover, but he happened to come with someone from Jefferson. He sat on the Jefferson side, and he could not find me. He said to me afterwards, this is the biggest playoff crowd I have ever seen, the most enthusiastic crowd. The spirit that was created, and I think not only do you congratulate the players, but I think you have to take your Mr. Guenther (cont'd): hats off and I guess at the banquet this was probably said, when they had the kickoff for the Junior Marauders program, we were there, Paul and I were throwing out balls and kidding around and so forth and you see the dedication of the parents and the volunteers that come out to teach these kids, I think you have to throw a lot of kudos their way because we have a very strong junior program, that's going to come up with a lot of additional players at football and I think soccer will bear fruit in the future. But I think it is those kinds of volunteers and those are the people that are the spirit of the Community and that is culminated in what happened with the football program and the State Championship and I think it is something we can really be proud of. You saw it in the newspaper articles, the Ledger mentioned, they had a picture saying well, the snow didn't seem to be a problem for Mount Olive and we are the only game played on Friday night and we rented the field out on Sunday to Pope John. We came away with a lot of laurels this weekend and I think that in the County wide, we gained a lot of respect.

Mayor Licitra: It is just funny that the next day we hosted a robotics contest in Town and we had a ton of people there. Mount Olive outdid itself. The day after, as Bob just reminded me again, we have an Eagle Scout presentation for Terry Byrnes, and I have been doing Eagle Scouts for 30 years, I have been going to most of them. I have never seen a bigger crowd. It was unbelievable. I think what Ray said is true, this team has probably done a lot more, you now just reinforced what we have been trying to do for the last three years and the people see it. And that is why we get more and more people coming out, and showing their pride in Mount Olive. And you do need pride. We are going to be doing something for the team and like everybody else is, and just keep the inferior going if we could because we are on a high now and it's the Football Team that has put us there right now, so well keep it going. Thank you Dave.

President Scapicchio: Thank you Mayor. I would just like to state that Jim Lynch and the Municipal Employees did a superb job working with the Board of Education employees. Some of that credit needs to really go to the Mayor because I know that the message that he gave Jimmy Lynch was do whatever it takes, help them out any way you can, make sure the field is clean. On Friday night when I walked that field with the Mayor and Jim, I couldn't believe it. In fact it was funny because at one point during the game, Jefferson had the ball and it was like forth and inches and the quarterback took the snap, went to go back and slipped on what looked like a little piece of ice. The crowd around us just sort of chuckled and we said that's one for Jimmy, he left a piece of ice there. I think that since he has come on Board, I have actually seen an individual that shows a level of interest and enthusiasm that I really have not seen in a long time. Mayor, he was a good find and I was want to congratulate Jim, the crew and everybody involved in making sure that field was playable for those kids.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made for adjournment. All in Favor, none opposed. The Meeting was Adjourned at 10:38 pm.


_______________________
BERNHARD D. GUENTHER
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 February 25, 2003.

________________________
LISA M. LASHWAY
Township Clerk

nw



 

 

2012 Mount Olive Township. All rights reserved.