Mt. Olive Township Council Minutes
July 9, 2002

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The Regular Meeting of the Mount Olive Township Council was called to order at 7:45 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. Guenther (8:30 pm), Mr. Greenbaum, Mrs. Miller, President Scapicchio
Absent: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Spino

Also in attendance: Mayor Licitra; Cynthia Spencer, Business Administrator; John Dorsey, Township Attorney; Sherry Jenkins, CFO; Nicole Whittle, Deputy Township Clerk.

President Scapicchio: Let the record show that Mr. Guenther is at an MUA meeting and will be here shortly and Mr. Perkins is on vacation and Mr. Spino is not feeling well.

PUBLIC HEARING - MORRIS COUNTY OPEN SPACE APPLICATION - CHURCH OF THE LIGHT

President Scapicchio: Kathy do you want to give us a briefing and then we will open it to the Public for any comments?

Kathy Murphy: Just so the people know, we have had some questions; people are confusing the Church of the Mystic Light with the Church of Light. The Church of light is a piece of property on Tinc Road past the school and off to your left, there is 75 acres there. It is owned by a Church in Newark and they currently have a retreat bible center there. They own 75 acres and they have been considering selling or placing a conservation easement on a portion of that property and for that purpose we are interested in and have been trying to negotiate and work a deal where we can purchase a portion of this property for Open Space and trail development. In July, the Town has to file an application to the Morris County Open Space Trust and we will be required to have a Public Hearing. So at this point I would like to add into the resolution some sort of language that says "In fee simple for conservation easement" just because the Church of Light has been considering either one of those possibilities and we don't want to limit it to one or the other. So with that if any of the public has any comments about Open Space in general or questions about the property specifically I would be willing to offer any information.

President Scapicchio: Seeing none, any Council comments of this application?

Mrs. Miller: I don't have any questions about that but I am a little concerned about something I read in the paper about County Vo Tec property that we have here in Mount Olive that they are looking to sell.

Mrs. Murphy: We were considering making an application for the County VO Tec property which is also a possibly of being sold. That is located on Drakestown Road next to the Presbyterian Church. We were going to file an application on that and move that although I had made several phone calls to different Freeholders; Frank Druetzler and Margaret Nordstrom. I have spoken to Walter Krich who is the Director of Planning and development for Morris County. They all suggested that we don't need to file that application, that we should probably be able to work some sort of deal or transfer of property out. We were concerned that if the County was trying to preserve Open Space in general and that piece of property is on our Open Space Plan and it is also very suitable for recreation as we have identified that we would want to make sure that it was preserved as Open Space and not sold for development. So there was some discussion as to whether they were actually going to sell it. That is what we have read in the paper. Both Mr. Druetzler and Margaret Nordstrom have felt that we really did not need to make an application, Walter Krich as well though that we should try to work something out so that it can either be transferred to the County Park Commission or that we would work with them to make sure that it got preserved because we don't want to use County Open Space dollars to buy a piece of property that the County all ready owns.

Mrs. Miller: I just thought it was funny that we had to read about it in the paper and no body at Open Space seemed to be aware of it. You would think that since it was in Mount Olive they would have called us.

Mrs. Murphy: We had called the County Vo Tec a couple of years ago and at that time they did not have any plans for it. But then we read this and we brought up the idea of an application just to make sure that we could meet any deadlines, but at this point it looks like we won't do that right now. So it will just be the one application and it will be for the Church of Light.

Mr. Rattner: I know that caught the attention of quite a few people. I know it caught the attention of the Mayor and the Administration. According to the people I know, no body really knows how that information got in there. A subject came up about Vo-Tec and about some property and I don't think there was any real intention, it may have been somebody's comment on the side at this point so we don't think it is really anything to concern ourselves with other than just to watch it.

Mrs. Murphy: We will stay in touch on the Vo Tec separately and then we will continue with this application. Any questions from the Public at all?

President Scapicchio: Thanks Kathy.

Mrs. Murphy: Thank you.

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

President Scapicchio: Stated that we have two public portions during the meeting. Anyone from the Public? Seeing no one, we will move to Administrative Matters. Mayor, you have a proclamation?

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS:

Mayor Licitra: I have a two page Proclamation and then a Proclamation that I have to read now because it is happening on July 23rd and I just got it. The second one is only a couple of paragraphs and if I don't read it the Senior Citizens will beat me up.

Proclamations: Celebrate American Character Week

WHEREAS, September 11, 2002, will be the first anniversary of unprecedented terrorist attacks resulting in a momentous loss of life and property; and

WHEREAS, the terrorists hoped to bring Americans to their knees, instead they brought Americans to their feet. The terrorists hoped to demoralize and intimidate Americans and undermine their way of life. Instead, Americans became more resolute in their commitment to cherished democratic and humanitarian principles that form the moral foundation of this nation; and

WHEREAS, this anniversary of tragedy is also an anniversary of triumph, a triumph of character-courage over cowardice, kindness over cruelty, service over selfishness, responsibility over indifference, love over hate, hope over fear, and freedom over repression; and

WHEREAS, we should demonstrate our respect for the victims of this terrible day by commemorating the lives lost and damaged, but we should also honor and celebrate the countless acts of courage, compassion, loyalty, responsibility and other qualities that represent the best in human nature and the American character; and

WHEREAS, we should remember September 11th not only as a day of great misfortune, but as a reminder of the great fortune we possess in the character of our people and in living in a country where character counts; and

WHEREAS, it should be a day of reflection and education involving activities that strengthen appreciation of and dedication to the core ethical values that constitute the pillars of the American Character, such as trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring and good citizenship; and

WHEREAS, it should also be a day of action devoted to community service, an element of good citizenship and an expression of good character. Community service improves neighborhoods, eases suffering and reduces injustice while enhancing the lives and strengthening the characters of those who render it; and



WHEREAS, community service is also a matter of national policy expressed in President George W. Bush's call for all Americans to give at least 4,000 hours of service and in "The Spirit of America Act" seeking to assure that the lives lost on September 11th are commemorated by acts of volunteer service; and

NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed that I, Paul R. Licitra, Mayor of Mount Olive Township do hereby proclaim, the period commencing September 6, 2002 and ending September 14, 2002 as "American Character Week" and calls upon schools, youth organizations, community groups and government agencies to use this period to:

" Discuss and study the lives of Americans of extraordinary character.
" Recognize local individuals who have in the past year demonstrated the highest qualities of the American character.
" Teach young people about and encourage them to consider careers in public service.
" Provide service-learning opportunities to young people, including at least one hour of service during this period, as a first step in a commitment to a life of regular community service.

Mayor Licitra: I know Mount Olive Township, itself, is having an anniversary on, I think it is September 7th
or one of those times but it will be announced in the Township and we will have an anniversary service to
pick up the pieces and go forward rather than to try and rehash what has happened in the past. So we will have
another service. We had a service when it first happened, so Mount Olive will provide another service
outside. Hopefully, we can have the same 700-800 people that we had for the first service.

Proclamation: Senior Citizen's Day

WHEREAS, Mount Olive Township respects and values it's Senior Citizens; and

WHEREAS, Mount Olive Township wishes to observe the 27th anniversary of this
special day; and

WHEREAS, Mount Olive Township wishes to provide a day of festivities,
entertainment, lunch and prizes; and

WHEREAS, Mount Olive Township is able to provide transportation for the
convenience of all its citizens.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED, that I, Paul R. Licitra, Mayor of
Mount Olive Township, do hereby proclaim July 23, 2002, as Senior Citizen's Day in Mount Olive Township.

Mayor Licitra: Thank you Mr. President.

Announcements: Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders allocated $20,382.00 to MOMAC

Mayor Licitra: The $20,382.00 to MOMAC was received.

President Scapicchio: We received a check from the Morris County Freeholders that allocated $20,382.00 to MOMAC.

Mayor Licitra: I want to say something. I don't think people realize that this committee, I know Charlene was close to it at one time; but I don't think the people in this Town realize the work of this committee. It is outstanding what they do. They are very dedicated. Ruth Ann Fulton who is probably going to win a State award that I put her in for is just tireless. She has a passion for this and it is one of the committees, along with other committees that we have formed, I think if you haven't gone to a MOMAC meeting, you should go to one just to see what they do.

Mrs. Miller: I would just like to clarify that MOMAC stands for Mount Olive Municipal Alliance Committee. It used to formerly be known as the Drug and Alcohol Abuse Committee. Just so that people know what committee it is. They do a lot for the youth of our community.

Mayor Licitra: I sounded like a doctor just then, throwing out MOMAC. Thank you, Mr. President.

TURKEY BROOK STATUS REPORT

Mrs. Spencer: There really isn't a lot of status to report other than the project is moving along. Whereas, the contractor may be four weeks behind in schedule because of the weather delays and issues that needed to be resolved from engineers and designers. Everything is back on track. They believe they will make their August 15th seeding deadlines and the project is moving along nicely. There are no problems, no new issues to report.

Mr. Rattner: I have a question. Going over all of the paperwork, one of the things we are going to be voting on tonight are the wells for the irrigation. Since this was a change, did we do the standard draw down tests with the proper flow to insure that the people who live in that immediate area who are on wells, around Sunset and that area, don't have any adverse effects because we know that there is only a certain amount of water in the ground and since you originally weren't going to be getting water out of this location, have we done that draw down test that a private purveyor or private well digger would have to do. I remember the complaints we had from Country Oaks when they did a test that certain wells dropped a certain amount within 24 hours. I just want to make sure we did that so it isn't something that we just forgot, just to insure so that we can measure in case some one complains, yes, it caused it, no, it didn't cause it.

Mr. Buczynski: You can't do a draw down test until you drill the well. They are going to be drilling the well probably in about two or three weeks. Then they do the draw down test on the effect on adjacent wells. We can't do that until we drill the well.

Mr. Rattner: Then what could happen is, we can dig the well and not be able to use it. That could possibly happen if there…

Mr. Buczynski: It's a different aquifer, Steve.

Mr. Rattner: I'm just saying that it could happen. Just say yes, Gene.

LEGAL MATTERS

Mr. Dorsey: If any one is here for the public hearing on Ordinance #28-2002, which is the amendment to the C-1 zone, the public hearing will not be held tonight because we have to await receipt of the recommendation from the Planning Board. Statutorily, that is a requirement. The public hearing will not be held tonight, it will simply be a motion to continue it till July 13th.

Mr. Greenbaum: John, if I may interject here, the next Planning Board meeting is July 25th so you'll have to carry it to the August 6th meeting.

Mr. Dorsey: The other think I wish to advise you is that two weeks ago we denied the renewal for the Limerick's license. They immediately applied for a stay. It is pretty customary with the ABC. The ABC did not stay the denial of the renewal. It has called for a conference on Thursday. In the interim, their attorney has been in touch with me. He now wishes to enter into a stipulation. The license will not be used until such time as he is issued a CO for the change in use to a Japanese Restaurant. I assume the Japanese Restaurant does not include the adult entertainment that has been difficult at Limerick's. It seems to be that that is a reasonable resolution of the matter as it stands at this point in time so they don't have to spend any more legal fees on it and therefore, I intend to settle the matter tomorrow on that basis. The license, in other words, cannot be used. It is going to go through a period of months now while he converts the building into the restaurant rather than the adult entertainment but during that period of time, he gets to hold his license. The license cannot to be used and it will be part of a stipulation entered into with the ABC. So unless somebody has a strong objection to this, I think it is probably the correct thing to do.

Mr. Greenbaum: I don't have a strong objection, John, I have a minor objection only to the extent that you have somebody who has a liquor license who has abused the privilege in the past. I understand that the nature of the business is going to change and certainly the resolution is the right resolution but the individual who holds the license hasn't…

Mr. Dorsey: I absolutely agree but I'm afraid if we go down and we have a hearing in Trenton, they are likely to give him the usual stay, which means the license remains active. I think it is in our best interest that the license not be active. Okay?

APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS: None

CORRESPONDENCE

Resolutions, Ordinances, Correspondence from other Municipalities

1. Resolution received June 17, 2002, from the Township of Chatham regarding withdrawing or reducing

funds From the Emergency Medical Technician Fund Except as it relates to covering the Costs of EMT Training.

2. Resolution received June 17, 2002, from the Borough of Pompton Lakes regarding Polling Hours.

3. Resolution received June 20, 2002, from the Township of Roxbury regarding adoption of Legislation Permitting Municipalities to Increase Penalties for Overcrowding Housing Violations to $10,000.

4. Resolution received June 21, 2002, from the Borough of Florham Park regarding changing the Polling Hours back to 7:00am -8:00pm.

5. Ordinance received June 24, 2002, from Washington Township regarding Land Use.

6. Ordinance received June 26, 2002, from Washington Township regarding Land Use.

7. Ordinance received June 27, 2002, from the Township of Chester Regarding Land Use.

8. Two Resolutions received June 27, 2002, from the Borough of Madison regarding Decreasing Polling Hours and Resolution in Support of Assembly Bill No. A-2245 (designating segments of certain highways as recreation or government facilities zones with 25MPH speed limits.

9. Ordinance received June 27, 2002, from the Township of Chester regarding Land Use.

10. Resolution received July 1, 2002, from the Township of Roxbury regarding changing of Polling Hours.

11. Resolution received July 1, 2002, from the Township of Long Hill regarding Urging the Governor to withdraw or reduce funds from the Emergency Medical Technician Fund.

League of Municipalities

12. Letter received June 18, 2002, from the New Jersey State League of Municipalities regarding Project Labor Agreements.

13. Letter received June 18, 2002, from the New Jersey State League of Municipalities regarding opposition on Assembly Bill A-1173, which concerns workers compensation for Firefighters with cancer.

14. Press Advisory received June 18, 2002, from the New Jersey State League of Municipalities regarding League Seminar on New Jersey's Redevelopment Law.

15. Legislative Viewpoint received July 1, 2002, from the New Jersey State League of Municipalities regarding Municipal Aggregation.

16. Letter received July 1, 2002, from the New Jersey State league of Municipalities regarding the 87th Annual League Conference.

17. Legislative Viewpoint received July 1, 2002, from the New Jersey State League of Municipalities regarding Timed-Growth Ordinances and Impact Fees.

18. E-mail received July 2, 2002, from the New Jersey State League of Municipalities regarding Property Tax Relief Convention, Project Labor Agreements, Clean Communities and Refunding Bonds.

DOT/DEP/Permit's/LOI's

19. Letter received June 17, 2002, from the State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection regarding Treatment Works Approval Application - Withdrawal for the MSA.

20. Letter received June 21, 2002, from the State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection regarding One Year Extension of time - Treatment Works Approval / DPC Cirrus, Inc.

21. Letter received June 24, 2002, from the State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection regarding Saint Elizabeth Parish Block 5800, Lot 41 / Proposed Amendment to the Mount Olive Township Wastewater Management Plan.

Correspondence from Legislative Representatives

22. Letter received June 18, 2002, from the Department of Community Affairs Regarding the State Development and Redevelopment Plan.

23. Letter received June 19, 2002, from Governor McGreevey regarding "September 11th 2001 Anti-Terrorism Act".

24. E-mail received June 21, 2002, from Congressman Frelinghuysen regarding reaching out to small businesses, Celebrating Centennial of Essex Fells, Port Dredging Projects, and Town Meeting at Fellowship Village.

25. E-mail received June 27, 2002, from Congressman Frelinghuysen regarding Homeland Security, 9/11, Securing Funding for Picitinny Arsenal, Open Space/Historical Preservation, Federal Court Ruling, Saving the Oldest Tree on Capital Hill and the President's Fitness Initiative.

Correspondence from Organizations / Committees / Boards

26. Letter received June 17, 2002, from the Mount Olive Area Chamber of Commerce regarding Meeting on June 18, 2002.

27. Local Finance Notice received June 20, 2002, from the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs regarding Public Laws Update, State of Emergency and 9/11 Issues, Personnel and Finance.

28. Letter received June 20, 2002, from the Department of Health and Human Services regarding Substance Abuse.

29. Letter received June 26, 2002, from Flanders United Methodist Church regarding an Open Air Concert.

Notices

30. Letter received July 2, 2002, from Killam Associates regarding company name change (to Hatch Mott McDonald)

Utilities / Cable

31. Letter received July 1, 2002, from Alan Goldstein regarding allocation of Sewer capacity for several parcels of land Block 1400, Lots 21 and 26 / 8 lots (Budd Lake Heights Road)

ABC

32. Letter received June 27, 2002, from the State of New Jersey, Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control regarding Required Supplemental Information Concerning Request for Special Ruling to Permit Renewal of Inactive License. N.J.S.A. 33:1-12.39 License Number: 1427-33-002-005 Held By: Brinker New Jersey, Inc. DKT. No. :06-02-2735.

33. Letter received June 27, 2002, from the State of New Jersey, Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control regarding Request for Special Ruling to Permit Renewal of Inactive License Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 33:1-12.39 2002-2003 License Term License No. 1427-33-005-007 Docket No. 06-02-2736 Held By Baronne-Tozzo Restaurant, LLC.

34. Letter received July 1, 2002, from the State of New Jersey, Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control regarding Request for Special Ruling to Permit Renewal of Inactive License Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 33:1-12.39 2002-2003 License Term License No. 1427-33-002-005 DKT. NO. 06-02-2735 Held by Brinker New Jersey, Inc.

MUA / MSA

35. Letter received July 2, 2002, from the Musconetcong Sewerage Authority regarding List of Allocations for the Participating Municipalities in the 3.803 MGD Water Pollution Control Plant.

COAH

36. Newsletter received June 26, 2002, from Council on Affordable Housing regarding Two Municipalities receiving COAH Certification, Extending Second Round Certifications to Four Municipalities and Re-adoption of NJAC 5:91.

President Scapicchio stated that we have 36 pieces of Correspondence.

ORDINANCES FOR PUBLIC HEARING

Ord. #28-2002 An Ordinance of the Township of Mount Olive to Amend the Permitted Principle Uses as Provided for In § 400-101, A (1) Entitled "Nonresidential Districts" Within Article VII Entitled "Zoning District Use and Bulk Regulations" Contained in Chapter 400 Entitled "Land Use" (Laundromats)

Mr. Greenbaum moved to continue the public hearing to the August 6, 2002, Public Meeting and Mrs.
Miller seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously

President Scapicchio: opened the Public Hearing Ord. #29-2002.

Ord. #29-2002 An Ordinance of the Township of Mount Olive Decreasing Water and Sewer Rates

Robert Elms, Budd Lake: The sewer systems of both Flanders and Budd Lake come under the sewer utility.
Is that correct? Is there some reason why the rates are not the same?

Mr. Dorsey: Yes, that has been a matter of discussion some time ago because they are two different systems,
they have two different sets of expenses that essentially dictate what their rates have to be.

Mr. Elms: But they are not two different utilities?

Mr. Dorsey: They are all part of the Township's sewer system but they are quite different and distinct
systems, built at different times, incurring different expenses and they have different operating expenses.
Therefore, for each of them to fulfill, I think what Mr. Rattner would say, is their obligation to be self
sufficient or independently funded, they have different rates.

Mr. Elms: But they are not separate utilities?

President Scapicchio: It is one utility dealt with separately in terms of finances. Sherry, is that correct?

Mrs. Jenkins: It is one utility.

Mr. Elms: Are the finances co-mingled?

Mrs. Jenkins: We establish one revenue account for everyone. We don't segregate revenue for this particular
system or that particular system.

Mr. Dorsey: This ordinance becomes effective July 1. Nine days ago we started delivering at the lesser rates.

President Scapicchio: closed the Public Hearing on Ord. #29-2002.

Mr. Rattner moved final adoption and final passage of Ord. #29-2002. Mrs. Miller seconded the motion

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously

President Scapicchio declared Ord. #29-2002 as Passed on Second Reading.

ORDINANCES FOR FIRST READING

President Scapicchio stated that the next item on the Agenda is an Ordinance for First Reading:

Ord. #30-2002 An Ordinance of the Township of Mount Olive Amending and Supplementing Section 4-83 of the Mount Olive Code Pursuant to the Open Public Records Act, P.L. 2001, Chapter 404.

Mrs. Miller moved that Ord. #30-2002 be introduced by title and passed on First Reading and that a
meeting be held on August 6, 2002, at 7:30 p.m. at the Municipal Building, 204 Flanders-Drakestown Road,
Mt. Olive, NJ, for a public hearing, consideration of second reading and passage of said Ordinance, and
that the Clerk be directed to publish, post and make available said Ordinance in accordance with the
requirements of law and Mr. Rattner seconded that motion.

Mr. Rattner: In concept and in most cases, the ordinance is good because we have to conform with the
legislation that took effect a couple of days ago on the Open Public Records Act of New Jersey. I read through
it and it was interesting and it is probably going to be an adjustment period for us and as a practical matter I
can see that we are going to have some bumps in the road. If you notice, the legislature exempted themselves
because they said it's not workable and today, the Governor exempted, because of a national emergency, he
signed an Executive Order today exempting his office. The one thing that I saw in there is not the information
that we have to allow out, I agree with that, but on some of the information, it basically says, under the law,
we have to drop. When you want something, we have to drop whatever is being done, for the most part, you
do have a little bit of leeway; get the information while that person waits. I can just see that there is going to
have to be some tweaks. It may be great if you have a big department but if you don't how are you going to be
able to provide everything on demand. We talk about some people aren't as busy as others. We don't just have
people waiting around for somebody to come in and that is going to be difficult. The only exception based on
that handbook that we got over the weekend is that the only exceptions are Towns under 5,000 population,
immediate can mean up to six hours. It really is going to be difficult and I can see that it is going to take us
awhile. I just ask that anyone from the public, at least be considerate then they come in. We're going to try.
I'm sure all of the employees are going to try but it is going to be difficult when you have jobs and different
things going on during the day to try and meet all of the requirements. I'm sure there are going to be some
other letters from the Attorney General and other areas of the State making sure that this can be workable. I
wouldn't know how to implement it, it's going to be that difficult.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously

President Scapicchio stated that the next item on the Agenda is an Ordinance for First Reading:

Ord. #31-2002 Bond Ordinance Providing for Various Capital Improvements of the Township of Mount Olive, in the County of Morris, New Jersey, Appropriating the Aggregate Amount OF $2,040,070 Therefor and Authorizing the Issuance of $1,719,565 Bonds or Notes of the Township to Finance Part of the Cost Thereof.

Mr. Greenbaum moved that Ord. #31-2002 be introduced by title and passed on First Reading and that a
meeting be held on August 6, 2002, at 7:30 p.m. at the Municipal Building, 204 Flanders-Drakestown Road,
Mt. Olive, NJ, for a public hearing, consideration of second reading and passage of said Ordinance, and
that the Clerk be directed to publish, post and make available said Ordinance in accordance with the
requirements of law and Mrs. Miller seconded that motion.

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

President Scapicchio stated that the next item on the Agenda is an Ordinance for First Reading:

Ord. #32-2002 Bond Ordinance Providing for Various Sewer Utility Improvements in and by the Township of Mount Olive, in the County of Morris, New Jersey, Appropriating $109,150 Therefor and Authorizing the Issuance of $103,692 Bonds or Notes of the Township to Finance Part of the Cost Thereof.

Mr. Rattner moved that Ord. #32-2002 be introduced by title and passed on First Reading and that a
meeting be held on August 6, 2002, at 7:30 p.m. at the Municipal Building, 204 Flanders-Drakestown Road,
Mt. Olive, NJ, for a public hearing, consideration of second reading and passage of said Ordinance, and
that the Clerk be directed to publish, post and make available said Ordinance in accordance with the
requirements of law and Mrs. Miller seconded that motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously

President Scapicchio stated that the next item on the Agenda is an Ordinance for First Reading:


Ord. #33-2002 Bond Ordinance Providing for Various Water Utility Improvements in and by the Township of Mount Olive, in the County of Morris, New Jersey, Appropriating $389,150 Therefor and Authorizing the Issuance of $369,692 Bonds or Notes of the Township to Finance Part of the Cost Thereof.

Mr. Greenbaum moved that Ord. #33-2002 be introduced by title and passed on First Reading and that a
meeting be held on August 6, 2002, at 7:30 p.m. at the Municipal Building, 204 Flanders-Drakestown Road,
Mt. Olive, NJ, for a public hearing, consideration of second reading and passage of said Ordinance, and
that the Clerk be directed to publish, post and make available said Ordinance in accordance with the
requirements of law and Mr. Rattner seconded that motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously

CONSENT RESOLUTIONS AGENDA:

Resolutions on the Consent Agenda List are considered to be routine and non-controversial by the Township Council and will be approved by one motion (one vote). There will be no separate discussion or debate on each of these resolutions except for the possibility of brief clarifying statements that may be offered. If one or more Council member requests, any individual resolution on the Consent Agenda may be removed from the Consent Agenda List and acted on separately.

CONSENT RESOLUTIONS

1. Resolution of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing the Cancellation of Ordinance #28-2001, Purchase of Charters Farm for $450,000.00.

2. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Requesting Approval from the Director of the Division of Local Government Services for Insertion of a Specific Item of Revenue into the 2002 Municipal Budget ($37,566.96 for Drunk Driving Enforcement Fund).

3. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Requesting Approval from the Director of the Division of Local Government Services for Insertion of a Specific Item of Revenue into the 2002 Municipal Budget ($2,852.67 for Alcohol, Education and Rehabilitation Fund).

4. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Accepting a Corrective Action Plan as Prepared by the Chief Financial Officer for the 2001 Municipal Audit.

5. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing the Acceptance of the 2001 Audit.

6. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Urging the New Jersey State Legislature to Support A-594 and S-556, to Allow the Assessment of Impact Fees.

7. Resolution Authorizing the Refund of Taxes Due to State Board Judgements.

8. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Awarding a Contract to Accord Electric for the Year 2002-2003 for Electric Services for Mount Olive Township.

9. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing the Issuance of Estimated Tax Bills for the Third Quarter 2002 payment.

10. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing an Application to the Morris County Open Space and Farmland Trust for the Acquisition of a Conservation & Trail Easement on Church of Light, Block 5300, Lot 58.

11. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing the Issuance of a Contract to Dan Ballentine Well Drilling, Inc. in the Amount of $12,900.00.


12. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing Change Order No. 2 to the Contract Issue to Kyle Conti Construction, LLC, for Turkey Brook.


13. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing a Developer's Agreement with Toll Brothers, Inc. RE: Morris Chase Based Upon Final Major Subdivision and Final Site Plan Approval (Phase 1).

14. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing a Developer's Agreement Between the Township and ESA New Jersey, Inc.

Mrs. Miller moved for approval of the Consent Resolution Agenda and Mr. Greenbaum seconded the motion.

PUBLIC PORTION ON CONSENT RESOLUTIONS - None

Mr. Rattner: I have a question on No. 8. We discussed that at the last meeting, it has to do with the awarding of the contract for electrical services and we discussed looking at the rates, whether those were real rates that would be enough to pay their employees because it just looked too low. During the discussion, I think we kept going back, the prevailing wage seemed to be low. I have a question. I thought we were going to get some information on that which I haven't seen. In thinking about it over the last two weeks, does that agreement for this type of work get covered under prevailing wage, which I haven't heard anything either way for and secondly, did we do any more research to make sure that those rates are enough to pay the electrician and whatever benefits and everything that goes along with it? I thought I was going to get something on that.

Mrs. Spencer: I have not received the actual notification from the State that we requested certifying that this is in accordance with the prevailing rates. We did make the phone call and it was part of our bid specifications that the contractor meet the prevailing wage rates and that is why I did not respond because I hadn't gotten the written confirmation from the State yet.

Mr. Rattner: Mr. Dorsey, the question that I thought about over the weeks, I don't think it's enough to pay for prevailing wage and I don't necessarily agree with it but I just want to make sure that the agreement is okay but on this type of contract, do we have to pay prevailing wages?

Mr. Dorsey: We are not paying. It's the electrician contractor who is required to reach the prevailing rate. It is my understanding that the prevailing wage act applies to all contracts which involve tax payer's money, in this case, municipal money. Therefore, it is his obligation to see that the rates that he pays his employees comply with the prevailing wage and if one decides to get nasty about that, we have had contractors on jobs in Mount Olive who then get investigated by the Department of Labor to determine whether or not their payrolls show that they have met the prevailing wage and if it hasn't, they then require the difference between what was paid and the prevailing wage to be paid and they fine them.

Mr. Rattner: I guess you answered the question because I wasn't sure, I started thinking about it. I thought prevailing wage covered any work covered by State contracts or anything funded either wholly or partially, which means any grants or anything else.

President Scapicchio: Steve, did you want to hold this because you had questions that haven't been answered to your satisfaction.

Mr. Rattner: No, we need the electrician. The Administration did check the references and we know who some of the references are, I think one was the Park Commission, some of the others….

Mrs. Spencer: The Morris County Park Commission, the City of Newark, we checked all five of the references and they came out clean.

Mr. Rattner: I just don't think at that rate they can pay prevailing wage. If it really can and we can save this much money, then I'm for it.

Mrs. Miller: I have some reservations about No. 13, once again. I asked it to be held last time.

Mr. Dorsey: Yes, you did and you asked whether or not this developer's agreement included a provision relative to remediation of wetlands and as quickly as you raised that question two weeks ago, I took it up with Mr. Buczynski and he advised me that the subdivision that involves the remediation of wetlands is not Morris Chase but Morris Hunt. Mr. Buczynski is here tonight and hearing what I say and I take it that there has been no change in your advice to me?

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously


President Scapicchio: We have three resolutions on Non-Consent

RESOLUTIONS NON CONSENT

15. Resolution of the Mount Olive Township Council Retaining Hanington Engineering Consultants. (for $4150.00 to modify existing HVAC system.

Mr. Rattner moved for approval of the Resolution and Mrs. Miller seconded the motion

President Scapicchio: Cindy, can you explain to us what this is all about?

Mrs. Spencer: This was the engineering portion of the remediation efforts that we need to go through in this building as a result of there not being a vapor seal in the ceiling and the HVAC system is not working adequately. This is a contract that is part and parcel of the ordinance that we passed to reuse those monies to get this work done.

President Scapicchio: Can Hanington move forward with this work without the architect?

Mrs. Spencer: Based on Council's request, we've asked Hanington to reach out to other architects and get us quotes. So they are doing that. The answer is yes, they can continue on their piece while they are also looking for a new architect.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously

16. Resolution of the Township of Mount Olive RE: Morris Companies.

Mr. Greenbaum moved for approval of the Resolution and Mrs. Miller seconded the motion.

Mr. Greenbaum: John, this relates to the EDU's?

Mr. Dorsey: Fixing the amount and the various things that have to be done so they can be used.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously

17. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Establishing a Change Fund for the Clerk's Office for the Year 2002.

Mrs. Miller moved for approval of the Resolution and Mr. Greenbaum seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously

MOTIONS

1. Bill List.

Mr. Greenbaum moved for approval of the Bill List as submitted and Mr. Rattner seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously

2. Raffle Application #1039 and #1040 for Order of Eastern Star #107 Starlight Chapter.

Mr. Rattner moved for approval of the Raffle Applications and Mrs. Miller seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously.

COUNCIL REPORTS

Library Board Liaison Report

Mrs. Miller: The Library Board meets tomorrow.

President Scapicchio: I read an article about the Library Building, the new Library, in the Daily Record today. They were talking about further reducing the basement space underneath the Library and I thought that the Council, when we first moved forward with this project, thought that that space, unfinished basement space, was important and that was one of the areas that we did not want to see them cut back on.

Mrs. Miller: I'll translate that because I feel the same. I do not want to have a building without basement space because I feel that is very important. I think there are other ways to cut.

President Scapicchio: And I still think, Charlene, they need to seriously look at reducing the square footage of that Library down to the 19,000 square feet, which in my mind, still exceeds the requirement that the State puts forward based on a ten year population and I think that we can do that and not jeopardize the $900,000 plus that the State has already committed to that project. So if you could bring that back to them.

Mrs. Miller: For every square foot that we try to eliminate, it's like $1.50 per square foot that we're going to lose in the grant. We have to be very careful about that. We'll have to give money back on the grant. That's the way I understand it.

Mr. Rattner: Trying to figure it out, I'm not sure if that is true if they go down below what the State minimum is but I think the point that I try getting across to them was, come back with a plan that looks like you can go forward that is within budget and tell us how you are going to do it. We are not going to sit here and redesign the building for them. The one thing that we have to look at is that we haven't even gone out to bid. We have no idea. The architect can come up with any estimate that he wants but until you actually go out to bid, you're really not sure where it is going. What I tried to explain to them, and I talked to them further is that when you go out to bed one of two things can happen. It can come in under and you're home free. You can come in over, and then you are going to have to start making some decisions. If you don't have options that you can start taking out, you are then going to have to go back to the drawing board and rebid again. I think we have to let them, they have a project/construction manager and that should be his job, deciding where he can make certain cuts, how he can get it within the budget and then they can move ahead. I don't think we should spend a lot of time telling them exactly where to go. They have to come up with a plan.

Mrs. Miller: How do you feel about the basement?

Mr. Rattner: I'm not sure if we are going to get a lot of savings. Labor is not going to change. It's going to be a couple rows of blocks and a couple of ceiling tiles. I think they have to come up with a plan with options because when they go out to bid, just like we've done with our projects, add or subtract depending on how it comes in because there's not going to be a big bushel of extra money.

Planning Board Report

Mr. Greenbaum: We haven't had a meeting since June 20th. The Planning Board, for various reasons, has gone to meeting once a month during the months of July and August and everything got pushed back. The next meeting is July 25th and then there is one meeting I believe, I don't know the exact date, but it's later in August. The one question I had is with regard to the ordinance that has to be reviewed and approved, is that something which is going to be gotten to whom, Gene, who is now putting together…

Mr. Dorsey: McGroarty drew the ordinance.

Mr. Greenbaum: Chuck is no longer putting together the Agenda. Gene, are you putting together the Agenda?

Mr. Buczynski: Chris Hansler will put it on the Agenda.

Mrs. Spencer: Actually, Chuck will be present at your Planning Board meetings. He will also be here in the building every Friday starting this Friday.

Open Space Committee Report

Mrs. Miller: We discussed the status of several of the active projects. Of course, everyone knows of Charter's Farm, we've closed on that and we have closed on the Adam Smith property and the Devlin property is moving forward. There seems to be a hold on the Silver Springs acquisition and we are discussing the possibility of going to condemnation on Smith Farm Tract? I was supposed to ask you about that.

Mr. Dorsey: The answer to that is, we almost initiated those proceedings over a year ago, then there came a contest. The property owner attacked the zoning of that property which was place in the five acre zone. That suit has been placed on hold until the Supreme Court decides whatever it is going to decide in connection with Mr. Dorsey (cont'd): the Mount Olive Complex because the zoning of the Smith Farm Tract and the zoning of Mount Olive Complex is identical and assuming that the Supreme Court does not reverse the Appellate Division's brilliant work in connection with Mount Olive Complex, the property owner doesn't have much of a care against the RRAA zone on Smith Farm but everything is on hold.

Mrs. Miller: We can't proceed any further on that?

Mr. Dorsey: No.

Mrs. Miller: I guess the biggest fear is that we are going to lose some of the grants that have been earmarked for that.

Mr. Dorsey: I don't think that is likely in that case but that is where we are. We can't push any more than we have.

Mrs. Miller: And we are moving forward with the Church of Light and a couple of others that were discussed and I believe we had a letter in our packet today when I came in about the Baptist Church next door. They are offering us the property across the street for open space or for a conservation easement and also Vasa Park had responded to letters that the Open Space Committee sent out to prospective property owners.

Mayor Licitra: Was it the Open Space Committee on the recommendation of Morris Conservatory. It was a very good idea, by the way.

Mrs. Miller: We did get two responses and we are very pleased. We will probably be approaching the Council on those two items.

Mr. Rattner: I have a question on Smith Farm. I know what Charlene was referring to that the County with their grants wants to spend within a certain length of time and usually after the first extension, they'll only give it out if you are in condemnation because it shows that you are serious. With Smith Farm, didn't we up our offer to look at the zoning to back to what it originally was so that wouldn't even gain anything? So what I'm wondering is, what would we lose if we went to condemnation because it is going to be the court eventually, if they don't come to agreement coming up with a value because I think when we came up with a price based on what our experts that we retained, didn't we go back down. We didn't use necessarily that five acre zoning. We came up with a number of what is buildable and what we thought was fair to try to avoid litigation.

Mr. Dorsey: Your memory serves you well. We initially made an offer based upon the RRAA zone. We then made an offer, of course using our appraisers estimate of the number of lots which would come out of that tract under the prior zoning and of course, using his estimate as to the value per lot. The property owner would not even consider it and that is when the property owner then filed the attack on the zoning of that tract of land. That case, as I've explained, has been put on hold. I could file a condemnation action but it's simply going to be placed on hold until the issue of the zoning of the tract is resolved.

Mrs. Miller: Is there any dates in the future, before the end of the year?

Mr. Dorsey: There is no date. We are at the mercy of the seven Supremes that are on the Supreme Court.

Mr. Rattner: What do we risk if we did go to condemnation?

Mr. Dorsey: We lose nothing but I'm absolutely certain that the Court will do nothing more than simply put it on hold until the zoning issue is resolved. If you tell me to go ahead and file the condemnation, I go ahead and file it.

Mr. Rattner: Is there any risk while this whole thing is going on, that developer can sell it to somebody else?

Mr. Dorsey: He's not going to be able to sell it to somebody else because nobody is going to buy with the risk that is out there.

Mr. Rattner: The way house are going up and the prices of decent land, even a five acre lot because Toll Brothers seems to be able to go and buy whatever they want whenever they want.

Mr. Dorsey: Steve, if you want me to file for condemnation, I'll do it.

PUBLIC PORTION


Dave Jones, Budd Lake: I was just wondering if you can explain Ordinance #28-2002 in plain English.

Mr. Dorsey: It eliminates Laundromats as a permitted use in the C-1 zone which is the strip malls along Route 46.

Mr. Jones: I have a question for Sherry. What is the change, percentage wise in the municipal taxes for the year 2002 as opposed to 2001?

Mrs. Jenkins: Municipal taxes, we're looking at about 3.5 tax points. I don't know what the percentage is off hand. I can get that for you.

Mr. Jones: Steve, could you?

Mr. Rattner: I believe our tax rate last year was $.54. It's somewhere like six or seven percent.

Mr. Jones: Because I got a letter from the Mayor saying that there was going to be no increase in municipal taxes.

Mayor Licitra: Did you read that letter carefully?

Mr. Jones: Yes, I did. Could you explain it?

Mayor Licitra: Could you get the letter?

Mr. Jones: I don't have it with me.

Mayor Licitra: Could I see it for a second please? However, this increase was offset by a reduction in water and sewer rates of 7.5% as well as reduction of sanitary district tax.

Mr. Jones: Could you explain that?

Mayor Licitra: Steve, do you want to try it or do you want Sherry to do it?

Mrs. Jenkins: What the Mayor has indicated in his letter is that while the municipal taxes will be going up, there's going to be an offset in the water and sewer rates for those people who have water and sewer and there's also been a decrease in the Sanitation District tax.

Mr. Jones: So, basically does that mean a zero tax rate increase?

Mrs. Jenkins: An overall out of pocket expenses. There should be no increase in overall out of pocket expenses for those people who are on the water and sewer systems.

Mr. Jones: The water and sewer systems. Thank you.

Robert Elms, Budd Lake: How does one reduce the basement size of a building and still support the second floor? Or the first floor?

President Scapicchio: You can build it on a slab or crawl space, Bob, you don't need to build a whole basement under a structure. You can half or any portion thereof.

Mr. Rattner: It's what you are standing on.

Mr. Elms: I realize that. If you've already got a basement in half the building, you can very well reduce the basement size and still have the same upper floor unless you are planning on doing an awful lot of compaction up against the walls and have them fall down like they did over…

President Scapicchio: I don't understand the question.

Mr. Elms: Well, you can't just reduce the size of the basement without doing something else.

President Scapicchio: Sure you can. You build less of a concrete foundation.

Mr. Elms: But this is built on the slope of a hill which gives... As far as Mr. McGroarty working for the Township, are we actively pursuing a replacement?

Mrs. Spencer: Yes, we are. We've actually advertised it twice and there has been one session of interviews conducted and the screening committee is in the process of setting up a second roundup of interviews for a new group of candidates. This is an interim measure to make sure that the work doesn't stop.

Mr. Elms: Smith Farm, I noticed over the weekend that they are doing some serious logging up on either that farm or right behind it. Are we, we don't have any control over that piece of property? Is that the idea that they can just go in and log it and then when we get it, it's already logged out?

Mrs. Miller: When you called me on that, I told you that the Planning Department did have permits for that. It was reviewed. People do logging for various reasons. The most common reason is for farmland assessment. We had some tree harvesting done at Turkey Brook Park while we were negotiating a price and going through the purchase of it and we couldn't stop it then. We really have very little control over that.

Mr. Elms: Yes, but while you are negotiating the price of a piece of property and the owner starts taking things away from that property or starts taking value away from property, obviously that should effect the negotiations.

Mr. Dorsey: Well it would effect the negotiations as to price but I think what Charlene is saying is that it is private property. It is not owned by the municipality and apparently the owner has taken out the appropriate permits that permit him to log. He has the right to log and if that diminishes the value of the property, if it ever purchases the property, will not pay for the logs that have been taken off but it can't stop it.

Mrs. Miller: In my experience, with clear cutting, tree harvesting and controlled burning, forested lands, tree harvesting is the better way to go. It actually opens up the forest and allows other tree species to grow and I've seen how Turkey Brook has been improved because of that so I don't have any problems with that.

Mr. Rattner: Two things. I happened to talk to the adjoining farmer last night and he said that they were selective cutting. The other thing that comes about, Smith Farm has farmland assessment. Under State law they have to generate a certain amount of income per year per acre otherwise they loose their farmland assessment. Also, in the State of New Jersey, there are numerous laws on the right to farm. It doesn't allow them to clear cut but allows them, harvesting trees is product so as long as it is done properly and we don't own the property yet.

Mrs. Miller: I believe tree harvesting is only done every ten years.

Colleen Labow, Budd Lake: Just with the tax letter, I'm just confused because it just seems like it's not giving the straight scoop. If there is an increase, there is an increase. If you aren't on sewers or water, you are paying an increase. It's a little bit deceiving.

President Scapicchio: Colleen, you are not addressing that letter to the Council? The Council did not put out that letter.

Mrs. Labow: I know, the Mayor left. I don't understand, either there is an increase or there isn't an increase. I want to hear if there is a reduction in some service costs. Either the Town is having an increase or it isn't having an increase.

President Scapicchio: I don't have water and sewer and I'll tell you that my taxes are going up.

Mrs. Labow: Exactly, so I would have to say that it's extremely deceitful to the general public to put out a letter stating that there is going to be no tax increase because … okay the Mayor is back. I'm waiting for you to take your seat. My comment, my question is that I feel that the letter you put out to the general public that there will be no tax increase is rather deceitful because not everyone in town conforms the areas where there will be a decrease so either there is an increase in taxes or there is not an increase in taxes. Somebody like Mr. Scapicchio, who doesn't have sewer or water, he's going to have a tax increase. You can't represent to the public that there is not going to be a tax increase when in fact there is.

Mayor Licitra: My letter was specific as far as the increase. More specific I couldn't have been unless you wanted three pages of it. My letter was specific. I would think that if I sat here and I reduced taxes for the population and there was one person that would come up and say that you did something wrong, it would be you.

Mrs. Labow: Why do you say that, Mr. Licitra?

Mayor Licitra: I would think that you would find fault in anything I did…

Mrs. Labow: Are you personally attacking me?

Mayor Licitra: …or anything this Administration did. Even when you are reducing taxes you are not happy about it. This Council and this Mayor have worked very hard to get it where it is right now and I think we did an outstanding job to offset it, to reduce the water and sewer rates to get it down and I'm not going to defend it. I still feel that we reduced the overall pay. We came in flat again like we did the year before. Do you have a problem with that? I could stand here forever and try and explain to you. You just have a problem with the fact, one for the Administration and none for you.

Mrs. Labow: How do you come up with that assessment? My question is, in the letter you state that there will be no tax increase, no municipal tax increase when in fact there is a municipal tax increase. How can you represent that there will be none?

Mayor Licitra: I just explained to you.

Mrs. Labow: No you didn't explain. You personally attacked me saying that I wouldn't be happy with what you do. Answer the question, Mayor Licitra.

Mayor Licitra: I told you, there is no tax increase.

Mrs. Labow: There is no tax increase? This town in not having a tax increase across the board? There is not a tax increase? No municipal tax increase? Mr. Scapicchio just said that he is having a tax increase. Does he not live in this town?

President Scapicchio: I told Colleen that I'm not on water and sewer so my taxes are going up.

Mrs. Labow: He's a resident in this Town and you represented that there's no municipal tax increase and the President of the Council is having a tax increase, therefore, you cannot send out a letter stating that there will be no municipal tax increase when, in fact, there is.

Mayor Licitra: There is no municipal tax increase. Specific

President Scapicchio: Colleen, he's giving you the answer. You may not like it but he's giving you the answer.

Mrs. Labow: I don't understand the answer because some people are getting increases and some aren't but I do feel that the Council did an excellent job on the budget. I know you work with what you can.

Mayor Licitra: You don't think the Administration and my people did an excellent job?

Mrs. Labow: Absolutely they did. I think everybody…

Mayor Licitra: You just said the Council. You didn't say the Administration.

Mrs. Labow: Well the Council was reviewing the budget. I'm encompassing everyone here. You are so defensive.

Mayor Licitra: I'm very defensive especially when we worked that hard to try and stabilize taxes. I think you do an excellent job considering what happens throughout the Town and taxes go up in other areas of the Town and this municipal government has provided services, extra services, added services, things that people have needed for the last 30 years and we stabilized the municipal tax rate. Now, you come up and tell me, no, you are taking that little area of it that says that not everybody is going to be flat on their taxes. Colleen, I can't satisfy that question to you. I'm just telling you, we've not increased municipal taxes this year.

Mr. Greenbaum: Colleen, can I understand your position? Is it your position that you are not unhappy with where the budget is in terms of what we did, you are just not happy with the letter?

Mrs. Labow: I just want to know from the letter if there is an increase or not. Zone

Mr. Greenbaum: I just want to understand your position. You are not criticizing the budget, you are criticizing the letter?

Mrs. Labow: Yes, I just want to know in the letter, is it a true statement that there is not going to be a municipal tax increase. That's the question.

Mayor Licitra: Like Dave said, you may not like the answer.

Mrs. Labow: So if that is the answer then there is no tax increase for everyone in the Town. That's the answer right?

Mayor Licitra: Colleen, how many times do you want me to say the same thing?

Mrs. Labow: I'm just making sure.

Mayor Licitra: Okay, how many times do you want me to say the same thing? You are like my kids. If they ask me enough times, maybe I'll change my mind, No, I'm not going to change my mind.

Mrs. Labow: So the official word is there is no municipal tax increase. Dave, you don't have to pay extra taxes. Thank you.

Mr. Rattner: This is going to be embarrassing when his house goes up for tax sale.

Scott Leyshon, Tinc Rd.: My house could come up for a tax sale especially if I wrote the same checks out as I did last year as per the Mayor. Most of my questions have been asked. I think we all know that there is a tax increase despite what the Mayor says. Does anybody know what portion or what percentage of the people are on the water systems and the sewer systems and what portion aren't of our population?

President Scapicchio: Steve, you've been around the longest, do you have any idea what that is?

Mr. Rattner: Actually, I think the CFO probably has the best idea based on how many bills she sends out. Do you have a rough idea of how many water and sewer bills go out?

Mrs. Jenkins: I don't want to speak to that. I have an idea but I really don't…

Mr. Rattner: I don't have any actual numbers. In Budd Lake sewer, you are probably talking about 2,200-2,300 bills, in Flanders, all of Cloverhill, 800 some odd units. I'd say it is probably close to 3,500-4,000.

Mr. Leyshon: Any how many homes do we have in our Town?

Mrs. Jenkins: We have 7,400 tax accounts.

Mr. Rattner: Not all of them are homes, we have apartments. Water is probably over 50% of the town.

Mr. Leyshon: So we are probably looking at about 50% of the Town is getting a tax increase.

President Scapicchio: We can have the Administration get you those percentages.

Mr. Leyshon: A roundabout number is fine, 50%. Another question, what are we looking as far as the school increase? I know the people voted it down. They don't want a school increase but I know that something has to go through.

Mayor Licitra: I think it was 23 points, what does 23 points work out to, Sherry?

Mrs. Jenkins: I think with the $1.1 million that was cut, we are looking at 10 or 11 tax points is where we were.

Mr. Rattner: And you figure for the average house, we are talking $18 a tax point.

Mr. Leyshon: So we are probably talking about a $200 bill from last year. So we are going to see a big increase this year. That's what I suspected especially when I got a letter that said, no increase. Thank you.

Mr. Jones: So, here we go again. If the municipal taxes went up about 6%?

President Scapicchio: In round numbers, Dave, about 6%.


Mr. Jones: And the sewer went down approximately?

Mr. Rattner: Exactly 7.5%.

Mr. Jones: Exactly 7.5% and the sanitation?

Mr. Rattner: 10%.

Mr. Jones: It went down 10% or went up 10%?

Mr. Rattner: Down.

Mr. Jones: I was just curious. Thank you.

Tom Calandra, Netcong & Woodland Ave.: I'm not too sure of the ordinance so that's why I'm asking this question. Ordinance #28-2002, the changing of the C-1 and C-2. I've heard talk also. I'm a little concerned because, what you call George's point there between Netcong Road and Route 46, that's a pretty busy spot. I would say, I've only been here since last November, the traffic there is atrocious. The truck traffic, the traffic itself. People going back and forth to work and doing their daily business. I see young children walking down Netcong, Woodland Avenue, Route 46. I don't know if this ordinance #28-2002 is going to impact that particular area where I live in. It won't in any way, shape or form. There will be no truck parking there.

Mr. Dorsey: No, it has nothing to do with trucks.

Mr. Calandra: I apologize. That is why I asked the question. That's a very impacted area already.

Mr. Greenbaum: It doesn't change the zoning, it just prohibits Laundromats. It doesn't change any of the existing zoning.

Mr. Calandra: I did see a sign about truck parking on that piece of property. The back of George's point.

Mr. Greenbaum: Truck parking is now allowed, and I'm not saying it is, if it is now allowed in that zone, this particular ordinance doesn't change anything that is allowed in that zone will be continue to be allowed in that zone except for Laundromats.

Mr. Calandra: That brings me to my next question. There were two toxic tank trucks parked there at one time since I've been here. The people in that area are all pretty sure, just like I am, there's a well there. I don't know if toxic trucks should be allowed to park that close to a residential area. In fact, one of the trucks was broke down and they brought a repair truck in to repair that tanker truck. The truck was allowed to stay there over night. I don't appreciate, personally and I'm pretty sure my neighbors, if we were to talk about it, in that area, don't appreciate it either. That's not a spot especially for toxic material to be setting there over night for any period of time, even during the day.

President Scapicchio: I would suggest, sir, if you see something that you don't believe to be appropriate, if it is during the normal business hours, you call the Mayor's office. If it is in the evening hours, you call the Police Department.

Mr. Calandra: Can I ask the question of the Township, do you know if that is allowed in that area? I don't know, I'm new in Town.

President Scapicchio: We'd have to have the Planning Department research that for us. Cindy, can you get that information?

Mrs. Miller: Are you talking about George's Deli?

Mr. Calandra: His back property there.

Mrs. Miller: I noticed that they have a sign up that they are renting that space for truck parking. I'm not sure if that is allowed.

President Scapicchio: Cynthia, can you look into that for us please?

Mr. Guenther: I've lived her for 24 years. In all of the 24 years, I've always seen some type of tractor trailer
Mr. Guenther(cont'd): truck parked back there. I'm not saying every day but there was a Great Northern tractor trailer, and off and on there have been trucks parked there. Now, toxic is something else and that is something we'll have to research but there have always been trucks as far back as I can remember.

Mrs. Miller: I think they just park there and go in to the Deli.

Mr. Guenther: No, I don't think so. There was a truck company in Netcong, I think it was called Great Northern, and they were parking a couple of their trucks there because they are there consistently over night.

Mr. Rattner: Yes, but they have a depot on Love Lane.

Mr. Guenther: Yes, that has changed. In recent times they've disappeared but over the years they were there for lengthy times.

Mr. Calandra: But how about the traffic, I don't know if it has increased in this area but is that wise? Even if it was allowed 20 years ago, is that still…

Mr. Guenther: What are you suggesting, sir?

Mr. Calandra: Well, it's not a big piece of property. I would like to see that brought down to a very minimum amount.

President Scapicchio: We are going to look into that and see whether or not that area allows that kind of parking that you are talking about.

Mr. Guenther: Are you concerned about the parking? You mentioned traffic.

Mr. Calandra: What I'm concerned with was the toxic truck parked there broke down over night with the engines running for three or four hours and they are diesel engines. You can smell diesel oil in the whole neighborhood all night till the next morning.

Mr. Rattner: One thing, if it was a truck that was broken down, if you break down some place, you are going to expect it's a temporary one time situation but since you only came here in November, we can tell you what is happening along that strip. The Mayor first came in to office about two and a half years ago. One of the first things he did was set up what we call, the Master Plan Revision Committee, to look at problem areas because things constant change, traffic picks up, so what may have been appropriate years ago may not be appropriate today and that constantly changes. The first area that we looked at was your area, that part of westbound Route 46 from George's almost down, just short of the Lake. We're looking at it because we understand what's going on after probably extended months of looking through and trying to come up with something. We rezoned all the property on that westbound side so it's not such an intensive use. We were not just looking at traffic, we were looking at the effect that it has on the residential zone. That was put in effect last fall and I believe we still have some law suits from some of the property owners but we are looking at that, so just so you know, that area, that was a number one priority and that was the first place that we rezoned after the Mayor set up the committee.

Mr. Calandra: It's a number one priority to me any way because it appears to be one of the busiest spots except for the new International intersection, that spot right there seems to be one of the busiest spots on all of Route 46. I wish the Mayor and Council would really put some thought in to some safety. We would like to live just like everybody else.

Mr. Rattner: What I'm saying is, we've been doing that and there is only a certain amount. You can't just outlaw everything and you have to have a good reason and we've done that.

Mr. Calandra: Like I said, I'm new in Town.

Mr. Rattner: We'll get that ordinance, how we changed it so you won't have maybe a McDonald's sitting there on a lot within 50 feet. Those are the things that we have accomplished.

President Scapicchio: Sir, we'll look in to that. Why don't you leave your name, address and phone number with the Clerk and once the Administration gets back to us with the situation over there, we'll then pass it on to you.

Mr. Calandra: Thank you.


Ned McDonald, Budd Lake: The main through the Trade Zone South, is that controlled by the Township?

President Scapicchio: Are those roads turned over to us yet, Gene?

Mr. Buczynski: No.

President Scapicchio: When will they be turned over?

Mr. Buczynski: Probably not for several more months because there are items that have to be addressed.

President Scapicchio: It is not yet but it will eventually be turned over.

Mr. McDonald: My concern in the painting of the lines and the signage. It looks like it was painted with water colors. At night it is dangerous. There is no way to tell where the center line of the road is, where the lanes are and the intersection at Route 46, we could see, once you get on to Route 46, you probably paint it, actually a bit later, it has much more traffic. The paint is bright and shiny as it should be. I just wondered if the Town was going to address the problem of that inferior lane painting before it is turned over to the Township.

President Scapicchio: I can tell you that the Council has not been happy with the signage situation over there. We have questioned it. We just got a report back from Mr. Buczynski. Gene, can you address that?

Mr. Buczynski: I can address both issues. On the striping, the areas on Route 46, that is different because that is in the State's jurisdiction, not part of the development project. They put temporary striping at the same time they did International Drive South but they also repainted it in March. As far as International Drive South, there was temporary latex paint put on in December prior to the opening so they could get striping on because we would not let the shopping center open until we had some type of striping. As far as the permanent striping, right now we are in the process of trying to get that started with Traffic Lines, Inc. I would say that in the next couple of weeks it will have its permanent striping as required. Requiring the signage, as Council President said, we had contacted AIG Baker about ten days ago and they just wrote us a letter. Now they have three directory signs on order, in fabrication and they should be installed by August 23rd. Right now, the Planning Board resolution, we went through a sign program manual, however, it never stated as far as all of the signs being in. It was really up to the jurisdiction of the shopping center itself. We expressed our concerns as far as people being very confused on that roadway and they are addressing it with these revised signs. It should be in place by August 23rd. Someone had a comment about lighting between Route 46 and 206.

President Scapicchio: I think lighting on at least a portion of that road, Gene.

Mr. Buczynski: As you have the out parcels completed, Brinker and the restaurants, you'll have more off street lighting on there. As far as lighting on the road, there is no proposed lighting on that street. Lighting was not part of the approval from Planning Board.

President Scapicchio: Gene, I guess that brings me to the question that I have of both you and Mr. Dorsey. Now we see the as built and we realize that the road is somewhat deficient of some lighting, can we now require them to put something there or have we lost it?

Mr. Dorsey: The immediate answer is, having it not been made part of the requirements by the Planning Board originally, it would be most difficult, it would be extracurricular to know require them to put in those lights. If they should ever come in for a revised site plan, we might get another shot at it or if it is really a serious problem, the Township might take the position of not issuing more CO's until some arrangement is made for lighting at particularly bad portions.

Mr. Buczynski: I think you will see a marked improvement too once you get the permanent striping on that road, it will be thermoplastic striping so there will be reflective striping there so it might assist as far as seeing where you are going because right now it is dangerous at night, I think, that's why we pursued it to try and get the striping on it as soon as possible.

Mr. Rattner: There has been another problem, it had been actually in the paper and I've talked to the Flanders Fire Department, on some of the different islands they have at the entrance to the parking lots, they have mulch and it appears that there has been a lot of fires in the mulch, whether it is people throwing out cigarettes or something like that. One week they actually had three calls, nothing major, just smoldering fire but they still have to be called out. Obviously, the Planning Board agreed to their landscaping plan or something like that but when we have an issue that there is a safety issue, can we do something? I don't know

Mr. Rattner (cont'd): if it has already come back to you or any body in the Planning Department because I know the Flanders Fire Department talks about it quite a bit. Can we do something? It's just not working. It's similar to if the lights or the lines don't work, it's the same with the as builts, having mulch along the driveway, having people sitting there and there are a certain amount of people who are going to smoke and throw their cigarettes out the window and it goes right into the mulch. I think I'd have to know exactly where it is, Steve, to try and pursue it with AIG Baker. I would check with our Fire Marshall. He's a member of that Fire Department so he probably knows where it is.

Mr. Buczynski: I could do that.

Mr. McDonald: One more thing in relation to the roads into the Trade Zone. West bound 46 has got very poor signage describing how you have to get into those left lanes to make the left turn into the Trade Zone South. Has anyone thought about talking to the DOT to see if they could re-evaluate the way the signage is there to direct traffic?

Mr. Guenther: Just as an example, I saw a lady, again, trying to take a left hand turn out of the middle lane. It happens all the time. She's holding up traffic. This is at rush hour and she refused to move. She was just waiting there.

Mr. McDonald: I routinely see it. I'm sure everyone's seen it. Maybe the DOT…

Mr. Guenther: Weren't we going to contact the DOT, Gene?

President Scapicchio: Mayor, don't we have a traffic officer in the Police Department that is in charge of that sort of thing that can take a look at it and make a recommendation.

Mayor Licitra: The recommendation is simple. It's a matter of getting the DOT to move on it. We've gone back to the DOT already. Gene, I would suggest that we go back as we did on Country Oaks.

Mr. Buczynski: I can contact the State.

Mayor Licitra: Get him down here again and let's let him try and get in to the shopping center.

Mr. Buczynski: I'll speak to Bill Galop to see what they discussed with the State and we can pursue that, Mayor.

Mayor Licitra: If it was up to us, we'd change it but it's not up to us, it's up to the DOT because it is their call.

Ann Rogers, Johnson Ave., Budd Lake: I've called your office, Mayor, a couple of times but you've been very busy and I've talked to Gene a few times.

Mayor Licitra: Somebody has gotten back to you on every occasion?

Ms. Rogers: Oh yes, immediately, and I appreciate that, I really do. We're having a huge problem on Johnson Ave. with the construction that is being put up with the new development just above our houses. We've been inconvenienced, my water pipes have been broken a few times by back hoes, our driveways have been torn up. The contractor's for the road, the technical term escapes me, they start the job by digging something up and then a week or two or three later, they may come back and finish a shoddy job. Now I just found out that all of the road that they have already paved has to be dug back up because they did the wrong thing with the pipes and the sewage and stuff. Every day, coming home, it's like my father would say "London during the war." It's like it's been bombed. I get very irate. My taxes, for the little house that I have, I pay a hefty amount just like everyone else and I'm just wondering where my rights are and as opposed to somebody who is supposed to be living above us sooner or later, nobody else is being inconvenienced except for the people who have been there forever.

Mayor Licitra: I think you talked to Mr. Buczynski a few times today. He's already advised you at this point. Gene unless you can capsulize it real quick.

Mr. Buczynski: Regarding the redoing of the whole road. That is completely incorrect. A small section of piping opposite your frontage but on the side of the road by Rubino's property, there are probably two lengths of pipe that have to go in. As far as the curbing, I know the curbing was put in today and you couldn't get into your driveway tonight, but I mentioned yesterday that we are trying to get that cleaned up so that is why I
Mr. Buczynski (cont'd): came down this morning for the curbing so that we could clean up your frontage at least tomorrow. There has been an inconvenience but we are trying to deal with it, Mayor.

Mayor Licitra: How about the issues this lady had as far as the construction?

Mr. Buczynski: As far as the driveway goes, the driveway has access now. It was part of the, we are constructing a completely new roadway on an existing road with homes very close to one another. Unfortunately, there is an inconvenience. We've had some problems with the contractor.

Mayor Licitra: Do you feel like the problems are going to cease with the end of construction?

Mr. Buczynski: They should a road surface on there within one to two weeks so then Ms. Rogers end of Johnson Avenue will be finished.

Mayor Licitra: I can't disagree with what he is saying until something happens.

Ms. Rogers: And to his defense, he has acted every time I've called and your engineer out there, Danny, is always there and he stays late because every time the contractor's screw up, he has to call somebody back in to fix the problem. I just wanted to let you people know, that might have some kind of power or clout here, that the builders are not doing what they are supposed to do and now, in fact, that curb in not finished, there are stones, there is a trench, there is another trench on the other side and there are piles of dirt.

Mr. Buczynski: That will be back filled tomorrow.

Ms. Rogers: Danny made sure that they plowed out the road so at least we can drive through the road but as I pointed out to him before, it is a safety issue because, if like that 81 year old woman across the street comes out and has to go across the street or walk some place and has to go over a curb and falls and breaks her hip again, that would not be good. I wouldn't want to fall either.

Mr. Buczynski: I understand.

Ms. Rogers: I just wanted to voice my opinion and I wanted to let people know, in office, what is going on and maybe something can be done.

Mayor Licitra: Gene, you said two weeks?

Mr. Buczynski: Two weeks is probably an outside, it should be less than two weeks. It's going to take about two days to do the drainage and repair a couple of lengths of pipe and then the next thing to do is rip up the road and put new pavement in.

Mayor Licitra: Would you do me a favor? Two weeks from now when you feel it is finished, would you have someone go and bang on that lady's door and make sure that she signs off on the job? Thank you.

Dave Jones, Route 46, Budd Lake: I just wanted to know, what is the status of the BASF tax appeal and when are we going to get hit with that and if we are going to have to pay out? What happens with that?

President Scapicchio: I believe we are still in negotiations, Mayor?

Mayor Licitra: Yes, we are.

Mr. Jones: Is it possible that we would have to pay out this year, or next year, or what?

Mr. Dorsey: We are in litigation.

Mr. Jones: Okay, if you can't say it, it's fine. I guess the same thing is going to happen with Lucent?

Mr. Dorsey: You raise a question. There is no question that the Trade Zone has been a terrific tax base but from time to time you have companies that simply go out for one reason or another and they are no small tax payers. They are large tax payers and we have had that experience in the last ten years. The worst period we had in that connection began in 1990 with the last recession, which there are any number of property owners with tenants who abandoned their buildings and it is the cycle that exists. Fortunately, for Mount Olive, there continues to be built new commercial and industrial properties almost daily to offset some of that but it is a problem. It's a problem that you can't escape when you have that kind of tax base.


Mr. Jones: Just out of curiosity, as far as the tax appeal, how many years has BASF…

Mr. Dorsey: The BASF appeal involves but a single year. It involves the year 2002. They never appealed their taxes, I think it was 1995 when their assessment was first put on. They have not appealed the assessment that was placed on them as a result of the revaluation which I think was 1998. This is the first year that they have filed a tax appeal.

Mr. Jones: Thank you.

President Scapicchio: Any one else? No, we'll close the Public Portion. We have an Executive Session relative to FOP negotiations and the 2002 Non Union salary proposal. I know Rob is only going to take a moment or two with FOP. Mayor, how long do you think you need with the Salary proposal because we need to call Don Lockerbie?

Mayor Licitra: You have the information in front of you. It should take, hopefully, five minutes, ten minutes.

President Scapicchio: And then we are going to have Olympus billing in Open Session? It's a question, so I can know how to inform the public. It would be my preference to allow Don Lockerbie to speak in open session.

Mr. Dorsey: Don Lockerbie has requested this meeting. You determine how you are going to handle the meeting.

President Scapicchio: Okay, so we are going to go into Executive Session with FOP negotiations and we've got the non-union salary proposals as proposed by the Mayor for discussion. We will come out of Executive Session, we will have a public discussion with Don Lockerbie, who is the principle with Olympus in reference to some additional billings that they have presented for Turkey Brook. With that, can I have a motion to go into Executive Session?

Motion made by Mr. Guenther and seconded by Mrs. Miller. All in favor, none opposed the Executive Session commenced at 9:12 p.m.

The meeting opened at 10:14 p.m.

President Scapicchio: Mr. Lockerbie from Olympus, you requested this meeting before the Council. The microphone is yours.

Don Lockerbie, Olympus: Thank you. Members of the Council, it has been a while since I had a chance to be before you. Before I go any further I would like to introduce Vince DeFreitas who has been the project manager from our Olympus team through the project from day one and through the construction process. Also our top civil engineer from Stewart Engineering, Roy Lorenzen. Both are New Jersey natives and we have been working hard on the project. The issues ahead of us tonight have led us to need to be here because we want to be able to both report the positives and we needed to discuss some issues that we can hopefully come to some agreement on. We have developed a document for the record and for you to have a chance to peruse with us through tonight. I understand that it is a lot of paper and I would certainly understand anybody's reluctance to make any kind of decisions based on getting this book right now. Our intention today is just to report some positive things. Number one, we had a very excellent project meeting today on the site. I am sure you have been out there many times to see it yourselves, it is also kind of nice to see the aerial photos that have been taken, we can actually see what has taken place and the park is taking shape. I realize that over the years we have stood before you with lots of talk and fanfare about what this park can be and we are excited that it has taken shape in that format, that you have stayed the course with the quality and the excellence that this park represents. It is an expensive undertaking for the town. We know that there are constantly things that keep creeping up that can make it both more expensive but we have also gotten news from the work that we have done over the last few weeks and I think that you will soon be hearing of some significant credits that can be coming back to the town. I think that it may be too early to fully state how much but I would gather nearly a quarter of a million dollars of credits could worth coming back to the town from some of the design changes that have been made. We are very pleased as the initial conceivers of what the park could be of what's happening out there. I think that what the agenda for the evening is certainly as I see it on your documents today is that it is an issue about Olympus billing. For us it is not so much an issue about Olympus billings, it is an issue about the teamwork that Olympus has put together with your town, the various Business Administrators that we have had the privilege of working with and with the contractor on site now and with Schoor Depalma. We have felt like we have had an excellent relationship since the Town has put them involved in the project as well. So I want to state things very categorically and in a very positive light. This park is becoming the park that we represented in our master plan, is becoming the park that will be Mr. Lockerbie (cont'd): built with quality materials with excellence. It will not be a mediocre park that we see across the country time and time again. While we realize that there are some issues to discuss tonight and we have also read newspaper accounts and we have heard some of the quotes that have been said about the park, I would like to make it very clear that Champaign or not, these fields, this park, this exciting jewel for the town is actually occurring. As someone who has been involved in over 400 sports projects around the world, I can tell you that I can see quality, and I know it when I see it. You guys are beginning to get that quality as the earth is being moved and the materials are being brought on to site. So I want to state with a positive attitude tonight that we are very very pleased with what we are seeing. We know there is a lot of work to be done. There are decisions to be made and tonight we have an issue that needs to be discussed so that we can continue working well with your people, with the Town, and with the contractor on site to continue building this park with quality and with excellence in mind, so that the end result is when we cut the ribbons and we open up the park it is going to be something that this Town will be very proud of. It will also be something that you can be proud of for years to come as opposed to other projects that I think you are all aware of and that we have seen nationally where people build and designers walk away and several years later it is not in the condition that people hoped it would be. Our feeling is that we have got something to be proud of and we can see it happening now. With those kind of comments made, I have to say that the project has not been the easiest for a lot of reasons and that is not to say it is not the kind of challenge we could not tackle, but we have dealt with a lot of change. We showed up here a few years ago and we met with people and we wanted people to be thinking out of the box, we wanted free thinking we wanted people to begin to talk about what they knew and what they had seen in other places and what might make this park special and different. We have tried to be a very very good steward and keeper of the concept throughout the entire process. I think that is very important. The fact of the matter is there are some of you here that have been involved with the project for many many more years than we have been. But there is also new faces for us and the fact is that we have been involved to a degree where quite frankly with all do respect we are on our third Business Administrator, we have had to keep records and have had to tell our story time and time again and we have had to work with various groups to make sure that you are getting what it is that you want. I have read accounts that we have come up with some pie in the sky situation; we fooled the soccer club, twisted peoples arms to be involved. I also have read all sorts of things in the local paper about my own personal lack of experience and that people don't know who we are. At the end of your document that you see here you will see letters here from the Sidney Olympic Committee. You will see letters from the Chapel Hill Parks and Recreation Department who are actually quoted in the article as having no knowledge of who we are and you may find those accusations are absolutely false. I would like to say that the reason you guys hired us or at least my interpretation of why you retained Olympus in the first place was because you were looking for people who have done this before, knew what they were doing and could get it done right and well for you. That we have diligently met with people from Bob Casey as our first contact through to Cindy right now and we have done essentially what we have been told to do. We have had several meetings in North Carolina. Actually those were some of the best meetings I have ever been involved in any project I have ever done. The reason was, we could have Eric and Bob come down to North Carolina and put them in a room with 20 professionals. Civil, structural architects, every kind of engineer we needed to sit in those rooms and actually get real concrete direction, as opposed to the normal project of coming to Mt. Olive or any place, having time and then going back and trying to interpret what was decided here to all those professionals. So those meetings, while their was a cost to it, were really sensational meetings for us, and they really helped the project move, but we also have to help you know that every time there was one of those meetings, we would come down with absolutely new direction. You may recall that the very first renderings of the pavilion for example were renderings that were nothing really more than a roof and some pillars to hold it up. There were no walls; it was just a floor and a roof. It was a shelter. The idea that kids could play in inclement weather was the original idea. That is now a 9,000 square foot building that costs $1.3 million, not part of the project right now. But we were told to design it. We were told to design it at a cost of $54,000 to our group. A fee that has never been paid and we are here tonight to discuss that. There are other examples of things where those meetings directed us to do work. Time tables directed us to do things that the Town was going to do didn't do, so we did them at the request of the Town and the Business Administrator at the time. So the Olympus billing issue is not a big issue for us because what is a big issue for us is making this park the best it can be and right and full of excellence so that it takes the Mayor's original dream and the whole story of our helping the Soccer Club not go to the original site and meet with the Mayor to discuss incorporating soccer into this beautiful peace of property. That's what starts back in 1999 and in 2000. And in 2002 we are here to continue making that vision real. What we are coming to do to ask is that as the project continues to grow as we find rock as we find other things that are hidden and some of the unknowns and as we have been directed in the past to do certain things like design elements that might be used in phase II etc. we're here simply to ask that you look at the contract that we signed and the proposals that we made, compare them to the invoices that we have created and review it to the extent that you realize that we are here to continue in a good working relationship but we are at a point where we have had to pay our engineers and our architects who have done this work and we are not going to try too bore you to much with all the details. We think we have given you a very thorough document, but I am going to ask Vince DeFreitas to join me and take you through five or six issues that will help you understand better why we feel and what the issues are that we are asking for the
additional services.

Vince DeFreitas, Olympus: Some of this information you may have already seen in the past. There is a lot here in these books for you to look at but I have highlighted some specific things that I think are important to point out and for each of you to take a look at. All the pages in the book are numbered in the right hand corner and if you'll start on the first page 1-1, and 1-2 is the most recent letter that I drafted with Cynthia's help and which requested all of the additional services to date. Some of those go as far back as October of last year. On that second page the total amounts of those items are there. I then went back and added the highlighted items to the same letter which then referenced certain areas that are found word for word in the contract. I think it is important to point some of these items out. There are five areas we view as additional work. Some of these were agreed to verbally, some of these were agreed to in principle, some were in writing which I had sent to Sandy, who at the time was the Business Administrator, but he had never signed the document to approve the fees. If you look on page 1-4 which references the contract the highlighted items under additional services are professional renderings, detailed cost estimating and changes to the design phase after completion approval of that phase. So those are three items which you'll find on page 1-2 in the chart which go over some of the items. Those are additional services that are listed word for word in the contract as additional and we have billed for those as such.

Mr. Lockerbie: Why don't you point which ones on page 1-2 they are?

Mr. DeFreitas: On page 1-2, if you look at the bottom of the chart, change in the scope of pavilion design as Don had touched on. The original design of that pavilion was essentially just a shell, an open aired pavilion structure and what had grown and evolved to was obviously a much bigger building than that and that design work was completed and that is a significant change in a scope of work after a phase has been completed. I think professional renderings, if you look in the second half of section 2, you will see the professional renderings that we submitted to the Town and those are also additional services. The site lighting and power requirements, again that is outlined on page 1-6 of our contract which talks about site lighting as the location and poles and fixtures which we did but it says with power requirements provided by a local utility company, the actual location of transformers and power requirements was done by our electrical contractor in order to keep the project on schedule and that was also included in our fee on page 1-2.

Mr. Lockerbie: Understand that GPU was to get us that information; the Town informed us that we would get it in time to put it in our plans and our drawings and make it ready for bid. They were not able to do that, so at the last minute our electrical engineer had to do that work.

Mr. DeFreitas: The other item I think that we should also point out is detailed cost eliminating as an additional service. There was much debate over this as to how the bid forms should be outlined as a lump sum contract vs. a multi prime contract and that the town had insisted that we provide detailed cost estimating which we did and protest for a lot of reasons which aren't relevant anymore but the fact is that detailed cost estimating is listed on page 1-4 as an additional service and we have billed for those services also. That more or less outlines all of the numbers that add up to the $156 on page 1-2 and I have got other supporting documents from previous meetings which show the change and the evolution of the pavilion, how it grew in size. The scenario of the budgets from November of 2000 how the project originally started at $5.8 million.

Mr. Lockerbie: I just whispered to Vince that we don't want to take all evening with you. Hopefully you will look at this document. The fact of the matter is it might be helpful for the Town Council to be reminded of how the budget kept changing or at least from the direction that we were given that their budget might grow from several reasons and in the end did not necessarily grow and bids were finalized.

Mr. DeFreitas: If you'll go to page 4-1. It starts the original budget which was done in November of 2000. 4-2 shows a total of $5.8 million and that is essentially how we came up with a bond number. This number we had come up with prior to any real hard information on the site no topography maps no surveys, just a basic outline of what we thought the project would cost.

Mr. Lockerbie: Again that was to help you get your bond started so that while we worked toward working towards that number we would finally design the cost as opposed to designing something and then finding that we were many times greater than that cost.

Mr. DeFreitas: The second budget issue starts on page 4-3 and essentially we broke it into two columns being the budget estimate, the original one from November and the plan estimate on the second page. If you flip through to page 4-5 you'll see the highlighted numbers there of the change in the pavilion from 4,000 square foot open air pavilion to 3,200 heated square feet, 5,800 feet open, the auxiliary area is the stage area which is now at an estimated cost of $1.3 million so you can see that through Bob Casey's at the time direction that pavilion grew quite a bit in size. If you flip to the back of the second 1-B budget which is page
Mr. DeFreitas (cont'd): 4-7, the budget estimate again, that $5.8 million which we were bonded at, however the plan estimate showed as much as $9.4 million. We then had a deduct column on the left hand side to consider and a lot of these things were taken out of the bids but at that time we still had a projection at around $7.8 million, from that we wrote a letter to the Mayor.

Mr. Lockerbie: What we are trying to say here is that we knew we had a budget of $5.8 million. When we took everything that the Town asked us to put into phase one, we reported that we felt we had a $9 million dollar project and of course know one was happy to here that. So we were told what could we do immediately? We show of in left hand column that we could get it down to an $8 million dollar number and we were told to design those changes and get us back down at least towards that $7.8 million and let's see how the bids go. That is what we were instructed.

Mr. DeFreitas: So of course as you know the first round of bids came in higher than what was budgeted so we then had to go through the revisions to get and back and value engineer it to get it down to an acceptable number. We were successful of that in February and we were off and running from there. On page 4-8 is the letter that I had written to the Mayor which address those budget concerns at the time, some of which were additional items that were requested by the Township totaling $1.7 million and then also other items that we had either underestimated or did not have enough information at the time to give a correct estimate on and those increases totaled about $730,000. I believe at that time in June when this letter was written that we knew that we were in a situation where we were not likely to come into budget in October.

Mr. Lockerbie: Again, we were reporting this to the Town, we were still being directed to make design changes to get to the budget but we were also being told that there might be additional funding or that we might want to see how the bids come in and then we'll value engineer with the contract. Again, you can look at the date of that letter dated July 17, 2002 Vince just showed you, that we were projecting that what the Town had asked us to do was going to cost almost $2.4 million dollars more than the bond, but we were continuing to get direction of what the Town wanted. We put together the original master plan and showed you that, hey, if everything were in we thought we were looking at a $13 million dollar park. You may remember that night. We also showed you that we thought we could get it to $9, and we thought we could get it down to $6. Of course the $6 is where we started, $5.8. However, as we kind of adopted that number people still wanted very much a certain level of quality and certain level of additional amenity to the project, and we were doing that as we were directed. So these are some of the issues that our fees have added up to essentially $156,000 of additional work over the last year and a half that we have invoiced for, patiently continued to write documents, requests and asking for some consideration. It is not very helpful when the people that you are working with are all of the sudden no longer in office and you have to start all over again. Dealing with documents and trying to prove, and that is where we have been. We have been good stewards on the project, trying to continue to move things forward because that is what our contract is really about. Getting this project finished. For us, it is never a lot of fun to have bills that are outstanding. I am sure everybody could understand that. So we wanted to have that chance tonight. I am sorry that I am before you under a title called Olympus billing. I look forward to being here more in the opportunity to talk to you about how the park is continuing to get finished and to be the beautiful park that we all visualized it to be. We are happy to answer a lot of questions. There are other things we would like to add and I just don't know if it is a thing we should continue with, again there are issues, I hate to use a newspaper article as kind of an agenda item, but there are issues. I guess I have read from statements in the paper from the Town Council things like NJ engineers and lack of experience. I would be happy to address any and all of that. As I said there are some letters that might refute some of the article added there in the back of the packet.

President Scapicchio: Well the microphone is yours, and I think that you should take this opportunity to explain to us anything that you think is relevant and anything that you think is important for us to take under advisement for us to review you billings and this document that you submitted to us this evening. So if there is anything else that you think is important, I would suggest that you bring it to the table now.

Mr. Lockerbie: One of the issues that I would like to address would be this atmosphere that seems to permeate a lack of confidence in Olympus. Maybe some of you were misquoted. Certainly the people that were quoted from Sidney and from Chapel Hill will show you in the back of their letters that either they were misquoted, misinterpreted and just wrong. So maybe that is the case with some of you as well. But it does seem that the article was an attempt to state a lack of confidence and may actually state thing like "we are not going to pay." One of you has been quoted in the article. So I don't put a lot of stock in newspaper articles, and I certainly don't put a lot of stock in newspaper articles that can't get the facts correct. I love the fact that it says the Olympus Company was formed in 1976. I was a freshman at the University of North Carolina in 1976; I was hardly in a position to start a company. The company started in 1991 after other companies I started in the 1980's. But let me state this. I was not here tonight to try to create a battle or try to convince you to become confident in us, but I did want you to know is that the curve balls that have been thrown at us by the project are something that we've just continued to swing at and try to hit home runs and do the best that Mr. Lockerbie (cont'd): we can. Let's just start with things like, "they promised us a NJ Engineer." First of all our engineering company is licensed in NJ. The Stewart Engineering firm has registration. Secondly, we came to Mr. Casey with several ideas about adding a local firm. We first suggested a local firm that might have some passion to the project. We actually recognized the excellence of Mr. Peter Jaran and his civil engineering capabilities and working for Parsons, one of the largest engineering companies in the world. We thought there might be some passion that might make that interesting. But we were told that would provide a conflict of interest, so we were told that would not work. Then we said, okay, recommend someone to us. Mr. Casey flat out told us, I will think about it and get back to you. Now I find it very interesting that a firm that we are thrilled to be teamed up with and Schoor Depalma, they have done remarkably great work, work that they should be proud of and that we are proud of has been retained by the town as well at additional costs because they can provide excellent construction management and have super engineering capability and obviously a local history here which is superb. In the end, we were told; don't worry about a local Engineering firm. We have Schoor Depalma, we will take care of it from here. You are paying I don't even know necessarily the fee for Schoor Depalma

President Scapicchio: And Don you are representing that those are words that came from Mr. Casey's mouth?

Mr. Lockerbie: Absolutely. Let me put it this way. If the Town is in a position to pay for more construction management who happens to have major civil engineering capability, that to me is prime example of the fact that it was seen in itself as an additional service and they have done a remarkable job, but we were flat out told that the Parson's idea would not fly and in subsequent conversations we were told, you know what? We have Schoor Depalma on board now they will provide construction management with an engineering twist and they have done it very well.

President Scapicchio: That may have been later on in the project, and I think I can speak for the Council members, when you made your presentations to this body, you certainly represented that you were going to hire an engineering firm from NJ who had NJ experience and background with the local area. That is not something that we think you have done. I don't think it would be appropriate for you to now try and put that burden on Bob Casey, and suggest that you asked him for references and he either failed to give them to you or you said don't worry about it.

Mr. Lockerbie: I am not representing this later. I am telling you that seven visits to North Carolina sitting in our offices gave a great confidence to Mr. Casey. In fact, such was the case that they continued to come to us as opposed to asking us to come and at every meeting asked do we come to you or do you want to come back. He said this is working great. I'll come to you. That is why there are seven visits to North Carolina. It is not something we first proposed, but we found it very effective. As that effectiveness was continuing as Mr. Casey and Mr. Schulte continued to come month after month after month, we found that we were working very well as a team and giving him the documentation that he asked for. That documentation continued to be put in his hand and we would get told what to do next. I am not representing anything more than if a representation is made that we would provide a continued local service, we did in fact attempt to bring on that. We made one recommendation and we were told in the end that the Town would in actuality take care of this and you have at several hundred thousand dollars. I find that a remarkable proof of the fact that's how in
fact the situation transpired.

President Scapicchio: You did in fact represent to us at your presentation prior to the Township hiring you for this project that you would hire an engineering firm from New Jersey.

Mr. Lockerbie: You know what? I also represented that it would be best suited to build a $13million dollar park but we would do our best at $6 million dollars. I am here today to tell you that as meetings transpired, as the scope of the park changed, as buildings and fields got added or deleted as we asked what shall we do and what would be your preference, we were told this team is working fine and we will do it a different way and so we listened to the people and our client.

President Scapicchio: So you did make that representation that you were going to hire a NJ firm, you failed to do that based on something that a Township representative said to you.

Mr. Lockerbie: I don't know that the word failed to, maybe Mr. Dorsey could point it out to me that it requires us in the contract to do an out of NJ engineer. We have a licensed NJ engineer on our team anyway and what happened as other things changed in the process, came about the fact that with Mr. Casey's position, with his frankly acknowledged expertise in the area, he was leading us. When we would ask certain questions about what was needed with respect to NJ, he told us, I will take care of it and he did. He gave us direction, he gave us deadlines and we attempted to meet those deadlines, I know that this might seem to well it is obviously a very interesting issue. What I represented was that I was going to design and build for you as

Mr. Lockerbie (cont'd): great a sports park that we knew there could be for the budget in this region and in this country and that is what we are still intending to do.

President Scapicchio: Okay, thanks Don, move forward.

Mr. Lockerbie: I think it is also important to get back to the budget. There is a lot of talk also in that newspaper article about the fact that we lack experience in NY or NJ. I am a NY native. I have worked in places like Giants Stadium. I find the reference to my lack of experience particularly to a place like Giants Stadium to be absolute bunk. I find it cowardly that there is nobody quoted in the paper from Giants Stadium, and I would like it also to be known to the Town Council that while my name is listed eight or nine times, know one ever called me. The experience level comes back to maybe an understanding of budget. I have asked Vince throughout the project to make sure that when we put numbers together we could quantify those numbers by looking at the national averages. In section 7-1 you will find a remarkably in-depth example of what I asked him to do and what we did all along, and that is to make sure that when we looked at numbers or quoted numbers, we were looking at numbers that reflected northeastern prices because lets just face it, it is the most expensive place in the country. We knew that going in and as NY and NJ boys, expected that. So the fact of the matter is if you look at some of the various scales, you will find that indeed the New York City area is listed as the number one most costly constructed area in the country at 45 percent greater than the national average. We went ahead and took that 45 percent national NY/NJ rating, and made sure that our budgets reflected that. Interesting enough, I think Vince can do this better than I can, when we look at the park and we look at things like this pavilion which we realize is not part of the issue at the moment but it was indeed part of the first bid, and we show you that essentially we expect that building to be bid around $150.00-$160.00 a square foot, the national average is well below that and the NY averages within pennies of that number and your local contractors bid at $370.00 a square foot. $370.00 a square foot is what that building came in. Well doubled the metropolitan NY/NJ number and yet we are being criticized for having lowballed the estimate. To be able to state that we should not be paid for design changes because the bids came in over. We wanted to make that clear. First of all, whatever the climate was at the time in the Mount Olive area, you have contractors that thought that they could do a whole lot better; Even double the price. We did not let that happen. We redesigned things. We have look to make sure it did not happen on the fields and the other things as well, and that is what we are here to show you. As early as a year ago, we were trying to tell the management of the project that we were incorporating everything we were asked to incorporate. We were at as high as $9 million at times and as low as $7 million but we knew when the bid came in we were going to be over. We knew it because we were asked not to take anything else out. My difficulty in being told and reading in the newspaper that we are not paid has a lot to do with the fact that I don't think all the facts were before you. That is why we wanted to make sure that this document was put in place. The final maybe, I'd like to go to the rock situation as well. First of all, in case the Town Council doesn't know, the Town told us, as was the case, that you are the owner, excuse me, Mr. Casey, in our meetings told us that we would, that they would, the Town would take care of test pits for rock on site. The fact is that we did find rock. Rock was found by the Town as early as October 2000. When the rock was found, that entire rendering that you have that shows maybe a little flatter site, had to be totally redeveloped. We had to take the fields that were going west to east. We had to change the fields so that the entire site was put into a stair stepping situation in order to avoid rock, which we have done except in the area of the pond. Notes regarding that in our meetings with Bob are also in your packet there. Bob had discussed the test pits he had done on site and how we were planning to adjust elevations of the fields, again, to avoid the rock situation. 6.1 will give you that report dated October 25, 2000. As early as October 2000, we knew there was rock on site and as early as that date, we were instructed to redesign the fields which we began. When the contractor hit the rock in the pond, the fact of the matter is, we know from the contractor that they did test pits as well and found no rock there. So they began digging and they hit rock and from our understanding, they hit rock and went four days to a week removing rock without making it a matter of record. By the time they had made it a matter of record at the next meeting and made it an, oh, by the way, the rock compiled somewhere in the neighborhood of $600,000 worth of rock removal already done. So I would like to take you to 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4 and when you read those pages, I'll just summarize and tell you, the moment the contractor hit rock, he was to stop the project. He was to have the rock assessed and tested and he was to do nothing further until the design team came up with a solution. The contractor went those extra days before making it a point and those four or five extra days led to a situation where, in the end, it would be less expensive for the Town to continue and remove the rock at what has now cost over a million dollars as you are all too painfully aware. As opposed to our investigating, whether or not, after testing, if the pond could be redesigned or even relocated. So the Town has gone ahead and made a bond or however you are continuing to add to the funding of over a million dollars, essentially because the contractor needed it to continue. When, in fact, the contractor was at fault. They should not have taken one more piece of rock out the moment he knew as per the specifications in front of you. So yet, I stand before you, puzzled that a contractor who has just flat out not read the specification and made an additional million dollars to this project is being awarded that funding and we are having difficulty discussing our effect of all the additional work we did with your instruction and knowledge and yet having
difficulty, seemingly having an understanding of how we can rectify this and move on. So, we just want to point out that while things are complicated and complex, it is a 260 acre development, we are on top of a lot of what is going on, we are proud of what's going on, we've seen a lot that we've gotten on top of as I just started the conversation tonight. We feel that we've already found in the last few weeks, a quarter of million dollars of credits that will be coming back to you. We are doing that because we love this project and we want to make it right. We also don't want you to spend money foolishly and I would argue that the money that would be spent on our fees has been to protect this project and make it right as opposed to being looked at as a careless lack of experience. They don't have NJ engineers so what could they possibly know kind of situation.

Mr. DeFreitas: I think it is important to point out the rock situation also. As you had mentioned, the contractor had also done soil borings in the basin area and No. 1, just by doing soil borings it could not guarantee that you would detect the rock; No. 2, as we started digging and got into it and realized and quantified that there's a million dollars worth of rock to be removed here, and the job had to stop at that time, we could have looked at other options, reconfiguring the basin or moving it or moving it deeper, or other ways of getting around that whereas $600,000 worth of work was already into it at that point.

President Scapicchio: Vince, are there any other investigative tools that could be used to identify rock? And if so, what are they?

Mr. DeFreitas: I think one of the things that could have been done is, we could have done some additional actual borings at the site in lieu of just test pits, we could have done some additional soil borings there.

Mr. Dorsey: Excuse me, can you identify yourself?

Roy Lorenzen, Stewart Engineering: In that case, it is often where you do test bores in certain areas and you can still miss the rock, so it is not 100 percent foolproof.

Mr. Guenther: I have a question, Dave, weren't the specs changed for deeper depth for the retention/detention basin, whatever it wound up being because it was decided to use that to irrigate the fields? Didn't that change the specs and make the pond deeper?

Mr. Lorenzen: No, actually, the design of that pond always looked at having three to four feet of water storage in there for irrigation so that was always in the design from the beginning.

Mr. Guenther: From the beginning.

Mr. Lockerbie: Please note that the two pond system was an attempt to take water from your well on the southern part of the project, deposit it in a medium size pond to then to take it to the fields as well as deposit it in the final. Again, when the first bids came in, they were high, we had to find another system. So we basically were able to make this one pond system work and I realize, going out there, if you stand up there, it looks like some big 10 foot deep pond but from the day it was designed, it was designed to be a three to four foot deep holding tank essentially and it is essentially, gradually made it's way in a very gradual slope and actually tabletop slope down to the water's edge.

President Scapicchio: How deep is it now?

Mr. Lockerbie: Three to four feet. Three feet in the majority of the pond and four feet in one corner.

President Scapicchio: Council? Don, do you have anything else to add?

Mr. Lockerbie: I would just like to again, summarize by saying that the definitive chore, task for our firm, for our group is getting this park done, to do it right and to make you proud. I can't emphasize enough that urgency that we have and that is what we are trying to make happen. It's not fun to wake up, as I'm sure all of you did, and read articles that are negative about it but we are big boys and can take it and I just want to make it very clear that if anybody read the positive things. You had things said about our firm by national experts and international experts in sports facilities "they are the best, they know what they are doing, they are tops in their field." That too was in the newspaper article but the people who were detracting us from outside of the Town, the Sidney Olympic official who I never heard of it, it's quite interesting that anybody, the Sidney Olympics were over two years ago folks, 2000, who's still around. Whoever was found by email said they never heard of us. I have two letters, one from the tenth ranking Olympic official in that you can read at your pleasure and a letter that tells me on March 5, 1998, congratulations, our team won, we are now ready to go in there and work on 19 Olympic stadiums. The final article quotes a young lady in Chapel Hill, my own town, so it is interesting that someone would go to my home town to see if we are known, she has written a letter that is for your cursory review, it essentially says that a reporter called from Mount Olive a month ago and Mr. Lockerbie (cont'd): asked if I ever heard of Olympus and Don Lockerbie. I've only been in the Parks Department for three years and never did and I told them that the architects that we used for our very little, and quite honestly, terrible 60 acre park in Chapel Hill that embarrassed to have in my town, they didn't have anything to do with it. They're right, we didn't have anything to do with it. Now she'll tell you that she's checked our website out, she wants a meeting and she would like very much to talk about future opportunities with us. I just hate to use this forum to come in and have to A) discuss why we think our fees are legitimate and B) have to try and hope that there is still a level of confidence in the Town Council in our building. It is very easy to sit and look at a brown patch of dirt, a lot of dust and a lot of holes in the ground and wonder if these guys really know what they are doing. I hope that by the time we are done that we are all shaking hands and smiling and patting each other on the backs, saying this is a hell of a project, something that was complicated, complex, curve balls thrown at it, it's been done and hopefully it does meet the jewel of the Mayor's vision and thank you for your time and we'll certainly stick around if there are any other questions to be asked. We would like to leave you with the officially, that you review the documents and perhaps get back to us with your judgment as to what you intend or don't intend to do and we'll take it upon our own counsel from there. Thank you very much.

Mr. Dorsey: Mr. Lockerbie spoke for about 40 minutes. Could we have the Clerk, tomorrow, prepare that transcript as quickly as possible. Send one to Mr. Lockerbie. I think we should send one to Mr. Casey along with one of these books.

President Scapicchio: We certainly will. Thanks, Don. There being no further business I'll entertain a motion for Adjournment.

Motion was made for Adjournment. All in Favor none opposed. The Meeting Adjourned at 10:55 pm.


_______________________
DAVID SCAPICCHIO
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 October 8, 2002


________________________
LISA M. LASHWAY
Mount Olive Township Clerk

lml


 

 

2012 Mount Olive Township. All rights reserved.