Mt. Olive Township Council Minutes
September 30, 2003

The Regular Meeting of the Mount Olive Township Council was called to order at 10:50 pm by Council President Guenther with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

MOMENT OF REFLECTION in recognition of the men and women fighting terrorism and those who have lost their lives defending the freedom 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 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. Scapicchio Mr. Spino, Mr. Greenbaum, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Miller
Mr. Guenther, Mr. Rattner
Absent: None

ALSO PRESENT: Mayor Licitra; Cynthia Spencer, Business Administrator; Lisa Lashway, Township Clerk; Peter King, Township Attorney.

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

Mrs. Spencer: I would just like to announce that the berm has been installed behind the senior center between the roadway for the DPW and trees have been planted there. So next time you are out back you will get to see it. The Eagle Scout has picked up the plans for the installation of the horseshoe pit and the parks, Buildings and Grounds Department will be putting in the shuffle board court so that will complete the original building plans for the senior center. So that should be done before Winter.

OLD BUSINESS

Turkey Brook Report

Mrs. Spencer: Consolidated Building Corporation, last Friday, September 26, 2003 was the official date for CBC to have completed their construction of the two restroom/tower buildings. As of that date, the owner, Tom Loredo and Joe DeMaria, our contract administrator/architect, met to do the walk through to review all activity required on the punch-list. Essentially, all items not connected to electric power, have been completed to Joe’s satisfaction. However, due to the recent storms and emergency power outages, JCP&L has been forced to reschedule the non-critical projects, and TBSP was rescheduled for October 13, 2003. While we have attempted to have this moved up in their priorities, to date we have been unsuccessful. As a result, the power has not yet been turned on for the buildings. What this means is in the baseball tower and the soccer restroom: the AC units cannot be started up and demonstrated to the owner. The water, sanitary and electric service being run to the concession pads have not been finalized, as electric power is needed. The fire alarm panels cannot be tested and demonstrated, and the electric panels to power up the building have not been energized. Once power is provided, all of the above will occur within two working days, and final paint touch up, winterization of plumbing, winter close-up of louvers will be demonstrated. In addition, without power to the electric panels, none of the final inspections for the issuance of the CO’s can occur. Final site clean-up must be done once all work is completed. At that juncture, all final municipal inspections for plumbing, electrical fire protection and general construction will be held, resulting in issuance of CO’s. Close out paperwork and CO’s will be submitted and reviewed by Joe, before any request to release 2% retainage is made of Council. Kyle Conti Construction: no additional work has been performed on the fields since the last meeting. However, Gene Buczynski met with three members of Council and reviewed the fields last Tuesday evening. As a result of that meeting, I was asked to solicit quotations from 3 private surveyors for the purpose of providing an independent, professional 25’ grid survey of the football field, confined by taking the topos within the fence to fence perimeter. Quotes have been received. Civil Engineering came in $1,250 with a four day turn around time; Chester, Ploussas & Lisowsky came in $980.00 with a three day turnaround time; and Ed Secco for $2,680 with a ten day turnaround for the survey and report back to the Council. At this juncture, I request that Council provide direction for award and it would be the administration’s recommendation that we go with the low bidder as they have a very solid long standing reputation so that we would go with the Chester, Ploussas & Lisowsky and that you approve expenditure of those funds from the Turkey Brook appropriation.

Mr. Scapicchio: Are the elevations from the engineers going to be certified?

Mrs. Spencer: Yes. I have asked that that be part of it and they will be taken against the actual regrading plan that had been issued by Stewart.

Mr. Scapicchio: Why can’t we just take an as built, why do we have to give them the plan that it was built off of?

Mrs. Spencer: Well, they need to look at the grading requirements.

Mr. Scapicchio: Not if what we are asking for is an as built. They don’t need to know what the design was, what the specifications were. They just need to give us what those elevations and the difference in what those elevation grades are now.

Mrs. Spencer: I understand what you are saying, but that is not what I understood we were asking for. I was instructed to ask for a 25 foot grid system.

Mr. Scapicchio: That’s what we want, a 25 foot grid pattern.

Mrs. Spencer: But the originals were built using a 50 foot…

Mr. Scapicchio: We ourselves could do the comparison between the as builts that Kyle Conte gives us and what this new engineer gives us. We can do those comparisons ourselves. When Rob and I walked that with Gene, our feelings was, and correct me if I am wrong Rob, that we wanted an independent engineer to shoot those elevations that had no idea of what those elevations were supposed to be.

Mrs. Spencer: I have not given out those prior plans, but that was not my understanding. When I spoke with Gene Buczynski, I was under the impression that I needed to give them.

President Guenther: That’s exactly what we are trying to avoid.

Mr. Scapicchio: Besides the 25 grid pattern Cindy, just so that I understand it, we are going to get the corners?

Mrs. Spencer: Let me show you what it is that I actually provided to the three.

Mr. Scapicchio: Well that’s fine, as long as I guess every 25 feet they are going to take three shots. The end of the other side line.

Mrs. Spencer: Okay.

Mr. Greenbaum: It’s within the fenced area, so it will get the corners totally within the fenced area.

Mrs. Spencer: Totally.

Mr. Scapicchio: We want to know what the elevations are. Then we can compare them against both the as builts and against the regrading plans that Stewart did.

Mrs. Spencer: Okay.

Mr. Greenbaum: If they don’t conform to the regrading plans, then we know we have a problem that Conti created.

Mrs. Spencer: Okay. I understand but I do need Councils’ authorization to spend against the Turkey Brook for this purpose.

Mr. Scapicchio: Can we do that tonight Bernie?

Mrs. Spencer: It’s only $980.00 if you’ll agree to go with that person; you just need to authorize me verbally to do it.

President Guenther: I think we should go ahead with it as quickly as possible. What is being done about the goal posts?

Mrs. Spencer: Conti met with the manufacturer, there is a relatively simple way to correct the problem. Gene spoke with Conti and at the request of the football association, has asked him to wait until after their November 8th game to remedy it because in case they bring equipment onto the field, they don’t want them to dig up the sod. But he has a solution. I do have one more item. In terms of the maintenance barn, Mr. Lynch went back to six vendors and requested revised roofing quotes for the performance of the roofing work only, now that all roofing materials have been donated. He received only two quotations, as other vendors declined to participate. The quotes came in at $7,800 from Bill Meininger and $2,250.00 from RBM Roofing and General Contracting. After checking references for both bidders, it is Mr. Lynch’s recommendation that RBM is the more established bidder, with positive references. Therefore, he is ready to move ahead with the award of contract, using the established timeframe of one day and the sum of $2,250.00 plus any replacement of damaged wood or unsuitable flashing at the prices quoted within their proposal. Sufficient funds exist within the Turkey Brook account, as Council had previously approved the amount of $20,000.00 to be used by Parks, Buildings & Grounds for the renovation of the barn.

President Guenther: Council comments? Seeing none. Mayor, refresh my memory, what did we decide to do after Joe DeMaria’s presentation on the old municipal building. You said you needed some time to get your recommendation together. Was that what we decided?

Mayor Licitra: I think what happened is that people took Joe Demaria’s presentation as what we are going to be doing. What I read, you know I say to myself, this was just a start. We were going to discuss it, but it became locked in concrete someplace along the way which is not surprising to me and so close to an election. But again, the recommendation will be based on what I feel we are going to do.

President Guenther: So when can we expect something?

Mayor Licitra: We said six weeks two weeks ago.

President Guenther: Okay, so figure the end of October. The October 28th meeting.

Mayor Licitra: I’ll try for that yes.

President Guenther: Okay. We had pending to the Outlook Avenue site; we had scheduled this public action and we had the objecting party. I was trying to get three Council members. Steve and Rob had visited, they were familiar with the site and I am trying to arrange when three others of us can go; Maybe Earl, Ray and myself. Dave is probably not available until later in the day, but the three of five people have visited the site so we can make an intelligent decision on what we should do. Ray and Earl, can we be available some morning? How about Thursday morning?

Mr. Spino: That works.

President Guenther: What time works for you Earl?

Mr. Spino: 8:30, 9:00.

President Guenther: Okay. We’ll try for 9:00, and I’ll check with you on Thursday.

NEW BUSINESS - NONE

Questions on Bill List?

Mr. Rattner: I have one question which I routed through the Clerk earlier today.

President Guenther: Did you get an answer?

Mr. Rattner: Not yet, but I probably will.

President Guenther: Before we get to a vote or what?

Mrs. Lashway: Now would be the appropriate time, the question had to do with the Banish bill on Page 2.

Mrs. Spencer: I looked into that bill. The first part of the question was who is it that approves those vouchers? The answer to that is the Planning Board. Although it had been approved by Sandy Geiger, when I asked for a copy of the contract for hours, because that particular bill had four different rates of pay for various Mrs. Spencer (cont’d): work that was being done. I found a discrepancy of $3.00 per hour from their published rate schedule that we accepted at the beginning of the year. We made a phone call to them, and they will be resubmitting the bill. It should be removed from tonight’s bill list.

Mr. Rattner: Going over the whole basket I spent about 20 minutes. What it was is, I could not figure out from the bill how it was certified because they had all the different hourly rates and yet they didn't say who was doing what.

Mrs. Spencer: Because in their proposal it specifies by rate who that person and what level they are and what kind of work they do.

Mrs. Rattner: But most of the bills we get from the other professionals would say what work and who was working on it so we understood and it could be questioned that way and I don’t know how we could certify it, because if we didn’t really know what piece was working on what part.

Mrs. Spencer: They had a description of the different type of work, and when you go back to the accepted proposal and the rates, it has a list of the people and the level whether they are a senior level or transportation planner or whatever it is and that is their rate. The description on the bill talked about a product that was developed and how many hours went into that product and that is how they billed it. What you are saying is you would like them to provide the Planning Board with greater detail; the Planning Board is certifying.

Mr. Rattner: Obviously the Planning Board certified it with the wrong number, it wasn’t caught in our treasury department, I just reviewed it real quickly. If you’ll straighten it out; but on the bills and most of our professionals, they’ll actually put the work in there and who worked on it. This way at least you can make some sense of the bill, other than having seven pages with different hourly rates with no names or anything next to it. That to me did not make any sense. That is why I was questioning it. Maybe if I get the bill of at least of who the people are, then I will just do it.

LEGAL MATTERS - NONE

APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS:

Sept. 16, 2003 CS Present: President Guenther, Mr. Scapicchio, Mr. Rattner, Mr. Greenbaum, Mr. Perkins.
Absent: Mr. Spino, Mrs. Miller

June 17, 2003 Present: Mr. Scapicchio Mr. Spino, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Greenbaum, Mrs. Miller
Mr. Guenther, Mr. Rattner
Absent: President Guenther

Mr. Scapicchio made a motion to approve the minutes as listed above. Mr. Rattner seconded the motion.
ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously with the exception of Mrs. Miller and Spino who abstained on September 16, 2003, and President Guenther abstained on June 17, 2003.

CORRESPONDENCE

Letters from Residents

1. Letter received September 25, 2003 from Mount Olive Resident Jan F. Malinowski regarding the September 11, 2003 Mount Olive Chronicle article entitled, “Council Looks at a New Building in Budd Lake. “

Tort Claims

2. Tort Claim received September 17, 2003 from LaBarbiera Jones and Martinez, Attorneys at Law regarding the Estate of Destiny Delcid, et al.

3. Tort Claim received September 25, 2003 from LaBarbiera Jones and Martinez, Attorneys at Law regarding the Estate of Destiny Delcid, et al.

4. Letter received September 25, 2003 from the United States Bankruptcy Court regarding a notice of Hearing to Consider Approval of Debtors Motion for Order – Enron Corp.

Mechanics Lein Claim

5. Mechanics Lein Claim Received September 15, 2003 from the office representing FTF Construction Company, Inc. regarding the Blackstone Group, LLC and the Mount Olive Public Library Project.

Resolutions, Ordinances, Correspondence from other Municipalities

6. Land Use Ordinance Passed on First Reading received on September 15, 2003 from the Township of Chester, regarding Temporary Signs.

7. Resolution received September 17, 2003 from the Borough of Netcong Strongly Opposing the States Actions Concerning the “Property Tax Reimbursement Program.”

8. Ordinance received September 17, 2003 from the Borough of Netcong to Amend and Supplement Chapter 194 Land Development Procedures, Article VIII Zoning of the Code of the Borough of Netcong.

9. Resolution received September 18, 2003 from the Township of Hanover Supporting the Reinstatement of the Property Tax Reimbursement Program and Assembly, No. 3627.

10. Resolution received September 19, 2003 from the Township of Montville Urging the State to Reduce New Jersey’s over-Reliance on the Property Tax.

11. Minutes received September 24, 2003 from the Morris County Planning Board regarding the meeting held on June 19, 2003.

League of Municipalities

12. Letter received from the New Jersey State League of Municipalities Regarding the Annual Business Meeting on November 21, 2003

Legislative Representatives

13. E-Newsletter received September 12, 2003 from Congressman Frelinghuysen.

14. Invite received September 15, 2003 from Assemblyman Guy Gregg for the “Toys for Tots” Cocktail Party on December 3, 2003.

15. Email received September 24, 2003 from Governor McGreevy’s office announcing an approval of Fema Funding for Blackouts

DOT/DEP/Permit’s/LOI’s

16. Letter received September 22, 2003 from the Heritage Consulting Service Regarding Several Items for a Wetland Line Delineation Letter of Interpretation for Block 5300 Lot 16, 226 Route 206.

17. Letter received September 18, 2003 from Spillane Engineering Associates, LLC regarding New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Application for Flanders Valley Business Park.

18. Letter received form The Department of Environmental Protection regarding an applicant interested in getting a Letter of Interpretation-Line Verification for Lot 16 Bock 5401, 265 Route 206

Correspondence from Organizations / Committees / Boards

19. Fax received September 12, 2003 from the National Association of Cities Regarding an Economic Development Program.

20. Letter Received September 26, 2003 from the Lake Musconetcong Planning Board in need of a backhoe that may be sold or auctioned.

Cable/Utilities

21. Fax received September 12, 2003 from Comcast regarding September Programming Updates.

22. Letter received September 15, 2003 from the New Jersey-American Water Company regarding Tap Water Testing.

President Guenther: Any questions on correspondence? I saw this mechanics lien.

Mrs. Miller: Are you going to be responding to that?

President Guenther: We have had several letters about that.

Mrs. Miller: I just didn’t see a response on this one.

Mr. Greenbaum: Bernie if you are not going to respond, I am going to respond to it. I am not sure from the tone of the letter whether or not, she misconstrued my position with regard to that. I will certainly say that it was a proposal, it was the first proposal and certainly it is not a set in stone topic.

Mrs. Lashway: That mechanics lien is a real one, that is not a notice, like the previous ones.

President Guenther: We had a note from John Dorsey about that, not to pay any bills until this is satisfied. Anything else? Seeing none.

ORDINANCES FOR PUBLIC HEARING

President Guenther opened the public hearing on:

Ord.#35-2003 An Ordinance of the Township of Mount Olive Changing the Name of a Section of Madison Avenue to Elias Drive.

Bob Elms, Smithtown Road: When I saw this up for first reading, I went and looked at the maps and things and I think an effort was made not to connect all the other streets which is why we have a development with nine or ten cul-de-sacs and three detention ponds that are going to empty into the same brook that Turkey Brook empties in to. Before you change the name of a street to conform to this I understand that there is a hearing for a, I don’t know what number continuance it is on developing this property, but I think the Council needs to seriously look at just exactly what is going on there.

President Guenther: In what sense Mr. Elms? What is going on in what sense?

Mr. Greenbaum: There is a request with regard to phase II of the project for an extension of preliminary approval. It has nothing to do with phase I of the project which already had preliminary and final approval. So what Mr. Elms is referring to is that request of Toll Brothers, through the property owner to get a further ten year extension. We had discussed this. This is something we have brought up three or four times.

President Guenther: But I didn’t know it was ten years. I thought it was like three years.

Mr. Spino: I thought it was one year.

President Guenther: You granted them one year but they…

Mr. Greenbaum: They originally came back to Planning Board, they wanted an open ended extension is what they wanted because they did not know how long it was going to take, and they didn’t want to come back on a yearly basis.

Mayor Licitra: I thought it was seven years Rob.

Mr. Greenbaum: It may have been seven years, I may be wrong, but it was an extended period of time that they wanted an extension for and I think there was discussion from two fractions of people on Planning Board. One, who wanted to hear more from Toll Brothers before they made a decision regardless of what that decision might be, to deny it, to grant one year. I think that those were the two options that were available and one fashion of people who didn’t need to hear anything more from Toll Brothers, but were prepared to vote,
Mr. Greenbaum (cont’d): whether to grant or deny. In the abundance of caution it was decided by the majority that they would want to hear what Toll Brothers had to say before they ultimately made a decision on the merits. I assume that this particular name change of Madison Avenue relates to the first portion of the development which already has final approval otherwise it wouldn’t have been before us. So I don’t think it is relevant, what Mr. Elms is saying. At this point I will save my comments on the name change.

Mr. Elms: I believe the Council needs to look at this. We are looking at another school, just from this development.

President Guenther: There is nothing the Council can do about that Mr. Elms. You know that, you have been around here long enough. It is Planning Board and they have to go by the rules that are established according to whatever land development ordinances we have. This development has been on the Board for 15-16 years, lawsuits go back to 1987.

Mr. Rattner: Because they built culverts in 1989 to avoid some of the changes going into the Clean Water Act of that year.

Mr. Scapicchio: Point of order, we are talking about an ordinance for the changing of the name of a street.
Mr. Elms: I would like to ask Mr. Greenbaum a question. Am I wrong that granting extensions of time is discretionary?

Mr. Greenbaum: That is not necessarily true.

Mr. Scapicchio: Point of order, what does that have to do with the ordinance that is in front of us? We can discuss that but not at this time.

President Guenther: You are right; it has absolutely nothing to do with this.

Mr. Scapicchio: We could talk about Mr. Elms’ issue, but not now.

President Guenther: You can bring it up in the public portion later.

Mary Rexford, Madison Avenue: When I read this, it looked like something that was not about to be changed even though I agree that it would have made sense to have a connecting Madison Avenue I realize that is not about to happen. There is a tremendous about of stuff that has to be done. I’m not even sure what the impact is on my deed and other legal papers. But this is a lot of time and a lot of money involved in changing all of this stuff for the five families that are involved. For some people it is stationary, for some it’s signage. There is lots of stuff going on here. It’s different from when you physically move. For instance, if I go for a credit report, on the credit application they ask years of residence and I say eighteen years. They check and they go; now that is an untrue statement, she now lives at 5 Elias, and she used to live at 5 Madison Avenue. She has not been at that residence for 18 years.

Mr. Perkins: The Street that I am on; it was renamed during a prior administration from Valley Road to Fern Avenue and there is still much confusion regarding UPS, and Federal Express and agencies that have old maps that still call it Valley Road. My deed did not change on the block and lot description, but on the tax map it now has Fern Avenue, then in parentheses, formally Valley Road. So whatever you would be putting down as an address for an application for a credit card or whatever, you would have, formerly Madison Avenue, and they’ll be able to check. They are going to look at your social security number anyway.

President Guenther: The Clerk just told me that she could provide you with a certified copy of the ordinance. To support all of Drakestown Road, which is a very long road. We changed all the numbers substantially, but for emergency purposes and for postal delivery purposes, it made everybody’s life simpler. There were a few people that complained, obviously it was a bit of an inconvenience, but for the overall good it was a lot better. I am not saying that is the case here. The reason for not running this straight through on Madison was as Mrs. Israel said, to avoid traffic coming through the existing development. There were several factors. As I remember, it is a loop road that comes around and curves around and feeds into your part of Madison Ave. It goes around the existing development. I think Mrs. Miller is right. There was also a wetlands issue. I don’t know all the details; you may want to check with the Planning Department to see what was approved.

Mrs. Rexford: I would only challenge that if they don’t want to run it through the existing, that’s not going through that end of Madison Avenue. The traffic from this development is now going out something that used to have houses and was a dead end. So it is running through an existing community.

President Guenther: Okay, thank you.

Mrs. Rexford: You’re welcome.

Mayor Licitra: Earl, correct me if I am wrong, but I thought on the final approval, which we had very little to say about, I thought we rearranged some streets so that there wouldn’t be any construction traffic going down certain streets and that is one of the reasons why we painstakingly took different routes; unless I am getting this confused with something else.

Mr. Spino: I don’t remember that. I do remember that they had reasons, and one of them was the wetlands, not to make Madison Avenue go completely through.

President Guenther: I don’t think that has anything to do with this.

Mrs. Rexford: I don’t think wetlands has anything to do with it because they are building houses inbetween.

Mr. Spino: You were probably correct in saying that they did that so they could have more lots.

Mrs. Rexford: I’m sure.

Jane Israel, Madison Avenue: Maybe it is a little premature to rename Elias Avenue at this particular moment because this is the second phase. This is over by Mount Olive Road. This is Morris Chase, which is the second one that has not been started at all yet, the Elias Road that we are talking about, what if in that hearing it is changed; discretionary, denied, whatever, they could build it, but maybe they won’t build it and then maybe someday Madison Avenue should go through. Or is it because approved the way it is, it will happen at sometime, it is just a matter of time. I guess I am just thinking that we are changing the name before the development hasn’t been started or anything.

President Guenther: Anyone else from the public? Seeing none.

Mr. Rattner moved for adoption and final passage of Ordinance #35-2003. Mr. Scapicchio seconded the motion.

President Guenther: Council Discussion?

Mr. Scapicchio: I am not in favor of the name change and I am going to vote no.

Mr. Rattner: We constantly do it; however the issue does come up. The timing may be wrong. I would recommend that we just table this until we find out what is going to happen with the development with the extension. We are really not sure. We have had this issue before up on Forest Road where we thought something was going in, we go through everything, start putting up limitations on traffic and then we have to ask the State to repeal it because that did not come about. So I think at this point because there is a lot of expense, there is a lot of confusion, we have heard the same story before and I could understand what it is. You still get mail misdirected for years. What’s going to happen with another part of Madison Avenue is that somebody on the other side of Madison Avenue is going to get her mail, and that is going to happen for a while. I don’t think we should vote no at this time, I would just say table it for maybe a month, lets just see what happens and go from there.

Mr. Greenbaum: I’ll second the motion to table.

Mrs. Miller: I would agree with Steve and be willing to table it based on the fact that we don’t even know whether this particular road is within phase I or phase II. I think we need to find that out and I would not be in favor of voting for it simply because maybe that part of the development won’t be finished.

Mr. Spino: I would suggest the same thing, the only thing is, I want to be honest and say that this could only be a temporary stoppage of this. If their development goes through, it does not make much sense to me to have Madison Avenue stop, and then a new road begin on the same street. I know it happens in some areas of town, like Flanders – Netcong Road and Main Street for example but at least you have a highway dividing the two different names of the streets. It might only be temporary, I hope it works out. I would say table it.

Mr. Perkins: I’ll go along with the majority.

President Guenther: Okay, just as a matter of terminology, we should not use the word table as I have been advised by the Clerk. That means we’re killing it. We should continue it, and the suggestion is to continue it for two months, and revisit it at that time. The point is well taken; I think Jane brought up a very good point. What I was going to suggest originally is just to put a contingent upon them really starting to build, in other words, not three months after it has been passed. Lets see if they are going to build it in the first place before we change the name. So I am fully in favor of continuing it.

Mr. Scapicchio: What is the date that we are going to continue the meeting until Bernie?

President Guenther: Two months.

Mrs. Lashway: December 9th , December 23rd.

President Guenther: December 9, 2003 is my suggestion.

Mrs. Lashway: The Ordinance will be continued until December 9, 2003.

Mr. King: Okay mam? And on December 9, 2003 there will be final action taken.

President Guenther: Okay.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously.

President Guenther opened the Public Hearing on:

Ord. #36-2003 Bond Ordinance Providing for the Reconstruction of Ironia Road in and by the Township of Mount Olive, in the County of Morris, New Jersey, Appropriating $109,180 Therefore and authorizing the Issuance of $22,021 Bonds or Notes of the Township to Finance Park of the Cost Thereof.

President Guenther closed the Public Hearing on Ordinance #36-2003.

Mr. Greenbaum moved for adoption and final passage of Ordinance #36-2003. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously.

President Guenther declared Ordinance #36-2003 as passed on second reading and hereby directed the Clerk to forward a copy of same to the Mayor and publish a notice of adoption as required by law.

President Guenther opened the Public Hearing on:

Ord.#37-2003 An Ordinance of the Township of Mount Olive RE: Sewer Allocation Charge (Annual Sewer Operation Fee).

Bob Elms, Smithtown Road: I noticed a discrepancy in the cost of sewer allocation charges between the Budd Lake sewer system and the Flanders sewer system. I reviewed some of the budget items and found that there was a $1.6 million surplus in the sewer utility fund where all of these sewer allocation charges are lumped. I asked for am accounting of where this $1.6 million surplus came from. Whether it came from Budd Lake or Flanders or how it was generated and I was told in writing that they were not required to keep track of how many people are paying into the Budd Lake system or keep track of the costs of the Budd Lake System versus. the Flanders system. If that is the case.

President Guenther: The cost of what, the cost of operating it or the cost of construction?

Mr. Elms: The cost of operating, this has nothing to do with construction.

President Guenther: But you were talking about sewer allocations; the assessment.

Mr. Elms: That is what it says here, the Sewer Allocation charge commencing with the service rendered, that is what it says in your ordinance. For Budd Lake, we are paying $164.00 a quarter and for Flanders it is $109.00 a quarter which means the Budd Lake sewer users are paying 150% of what they are paying in Flanders. There is no cost breakdown as to why that difference is. There may have been years back, but they are not keeping tract of the funds that are going into the Sewer Utility so that they can show and justify a difference in rates.

President Guenther: Okay, let me turn this over to Mr. Rattner who has a long history of dealing with the sewer project and to answer your question.

Mr. Rattner: When the Budget comes up where we don’t have a separate utility, we do have separate expenses. In Budd Lake, probably the biggest single expense that we have on the operating side, is the $1.8 million that we pay the MSA for accepting the flow. In Flanders we have additional expenses that we have for actually running a plant that we don’t have in Budd Lake, but that is a lot less than what the MSA is charging. The people are allocated based on the number of accounts that we have in each area so that it is fairly evenly split. When we look at the costs, we have a separate utility, but we look at that when we set up the rates, because we want to make sure that the rates are properly attributed to either the new system up here or the old system in Flanders. The surplus comes back and forth. We have some surplus, I am not sure exactly, but in Flanders, we sold additional allocation to property owners down there. When we expanded the plant to Clover Hill due to an administrative consent order about 10 years ago, we picked up 160,000 gallons. It cost us “x” amount of dollars and we sold the allocation, we made about double that. So the surplus comes from both areas. We don’t operate them as separate departments on an ongoing basis. When we do the budget and we discuss the rates, that’s when we get the analysis, which is based on allocation because most of the department is shared. We look at the individual expenses and allocate the common expenses.

President Guenther: Excuse me, why wouldn’t we separate the two.

Mr. Rattner: Let’s say we have seven or eight men allocated to the Sewer Department, other than the people working the plant they are not allocated to fixing up a pipeline clog or doing television, what is going on up here. We don’t allocate it between Flanders and up here. So there are a lot of common charges. The uncommon charges are the payroll and the actual operation of the plant and the chemicals that are used in Flanders. In Mount Olive, we have just the maintenance of the four pumping stations, which use a lot of electricity, other than that the maintenance is fairly low, but we have a very high charge on the MSA.

Mr. Spino: That is what the difference is.

Mr. Rattner: There are real differences. That was something we had to wrestle with when we set up the Budd Lake Utility trying to be fair to everybody. The Flanders system was an older system that basically had already paid for itself. Budd Lake was a brand new system, that we had just spent $30 million that just benefited the people in Budd Lake. So we looked at the different expenses, it costs us less to run the system in Flanders, then it does up here. The state of the art and going down the MSA is more expensive. I think our ordinance says that we get the analysis by November 1st. So we have enough time to look at the rates for the next year. Last year I believe we got it in August. The first time we ever got it on time and we got it early.

Mr. Elms: Steve, I hate to stop you here, but to use an analogy I asked you for the time of day and you are building me a clock. What I am asking for is there should be an accounting of how many users we have in Budd Lake, what the income is and what is spent on the Budd Lake system.

Mr. Rattner: A lot if it is on allocation.

President Guenther: Please, let’s keep it to this particular ordinance.

Mr. Elms: You just said that you sold more allocations in Flanders, yet there is nothing here for a per quarter figure.

President Guenther: Bob, it has nothing to do with this particular ordinance.

Mr. Elms: It certainly does. You are setting the sewer rates for the next year for Budd Lake and for Flanders and you also show a per quarter charge for vacant land in Budd Lake and nothing for Flanders. What is going on here? Why can’t we get an accounting of what we have spent and where that $1.6 million dollars came from because now we are looking at spending it on the Flanders plant?


Mr. Rattner: The first thing is, we are not changing any rates, this is because we have a problem with a change of use in a business property. A business property that had a simple store, got converted to a laundromat and…

Mr. Elms: Steve that has nothing to do with what the individual homeowner pays of $164.00.

Mr. Rattner: These rates were set, and we agreed after the analysis was done last August, we got the accounting then. This we did not change a single rate.

Mr. Elms: I see that, I asked for the accounting because somebody is paying an excess amount of income to the sewer utility otherwise there wouldn’t be a surplus.

President Guenther: This is not the purpose of the ordinance. The purpose of the ordinance is to clarify the situation we had with a particular person who we’re charging the usage charge in accordance to EDU’s. This seeks to clarify that.

Mr. Elms: I understand what the problem is with the business, okay? I understand that the Township is in court over this whole business thing.

President Guenther: It is not in court anymore, okay?

Mr. Rattner: We lost the case.

President Guenther: We lost the case as far as the cost of the EDU’s is concerned; the usage charge was not addressed. So we had to clarify the ordinance to state that the usage charge goes along with the number of EDU’s that he uses.

Mr. Elms: These numbers have been in the ordinance for years.

President Guenther: They are not being changed, that is what Steve said.

Mr. Rattner: Only a year ago.

President Guenther: We change them every year.

Mr. Elms: But is there any reason why we can’t get some kind of an accounting of what it costs to run the two different systems. You can have a single utility, but you can have dual accountability.

Mr. Rattner: August of 2002 we did get that. We will be getting another one this fall prior to we go into the budget because what we want to see is by November 1st, as the Ordinance states that we could look at it so if we adjust the rates, we have time to adjust it for the first quarter billing.

Mr. Elms: Steve, this should be a running accounting, it should be available almost on a daily basis. There is no reason why it can’t be. How do you run a business like this? This is a business. We are paying X number of dollars for maintenance on the system. The Budd Lake system should be a lot less maintenance. We are paying a maintenance fee on the Flanders system, which should be higher, and we are operating a plant there as opposed to shipping it to somewhere and having it be handled by them.

Mr. Rattner: We had that. That was done last August and it will be done prior to this November.

Mr. Elms: It can’t be done on a regular basis?

Mr. Rattner: We have the department totals, but…

Mr. Elms: C’mon Steve, you are an accountant; you are telling me that it can’t be done that way?

Mr. Rattner: On encumbrance accounting; that is not the way government works. We use encumbrance accounting, not the same thing as accrual accounting. Government accounting is a different field completely, good, bad or indifferent. You are running to the budget.

President Guenther: Any further comments from the public? Seeing none. I’ll close the public hearing.


Mr. Rattner moved for adoption and final passage of Ordinance # 37-2003. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion.

President Guenther: Council discussion? Seeing none.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously.

President Guenther declared Ordinance #37-2003 as passed on second reading and hereby directed the Clerk to forward a copy of same to the Mayor and publish a notice of adoption as required by law.

ORDINANCES FOR FIRST READING (Second Reading – October 14, 2003)

Ord.#38-2003 An Ordinance to Amend and Supplement an Ordinance Entitled “An Ordinance of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing Certain Stop Intersections” (Ordinance No. 52-2002).

Mrs. Miller moved that Ord.#38-2003 be introduced by title and passed on first reading and that a meeting be held on October 14, 2003 at 7:30 pm at the Municipal Building, 204 Flanders-Drakestown Road Mount Olive, New Jersey for a public hearing and 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 the law. Mr. Spino seconded the motion.

President Guenther: Council discussion? Seeing none.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously.

Ord.#39-2003 An Ordinance of the Township of Mount Olive Establishing a Safety Zone Around the Intersection of Flanders Drakestown Road and Corey Road and the Undeveloped Areas of Flanders Netcong Road.

Mr. Spino moved that Ord.#39-2003 be introduced by title and passed on first reading and that a meeting be held on October 28, 2003 at 7:30 pm at the Municipal Building, 204 Flanders-Drakestown Road Mount Olive, New Jersey for a public hearing and 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 the law. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously.

*Ord.#40-2003 An Ordinance of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Establishing Salaries of the Department Heads, Supervisory and Certain Non-Union Personnel and for Employees of the Township Clerk’s Office for the Year 2003 (Ord. #22-2003)

Mr. Scapicchio moved that Ord.#40-2003 be introduced by title and passed on first reading and that a meeting be held on October 14, 2003 at 7:30 pm at the Municipal Building, 204 Flanders-Drakestown Road Mount Olive, New Jersey for a public hearing and 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 the law. Mr. Rattner seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously.

CONSENT RESOLUTIONS AGENDA:

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

CONSENT RESOLUTIONS

1. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing a Professional Services Agreement with Schoor DePalma in Connection with the Re-Construction of Ironia Road.

2. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing the Business Administrator to Execute the Consent Form for the Treatment Works Approval for Morris Chase.

3. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing a Professional Services Agreement with Habitat Design (Dr. Jeff Keller) to Revise and Update the Natural Resources Inventory of Mount Olive.

4. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing the Use of Various Purchasing Contract.

5. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing the Extension of the Cleaning Services Contract with Andrews & Company for the Mount Olive Municipal Building and Senior Center.

6. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing the Execution of a Supplement to the Developer’s Agreement Between the Township of Mount Olive and Gen III Builders, Inc. for Fox Chase Section I.

7. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Amending the Schedule of Township Council Meetings for the Remainder of 2003.

President Scapicchio: Anyone wish to remove any consent resolution items?

Mr. Scapicchio: Number 2 to non-consent. Anyone else? Seeing none.

MOTION TO APPROVE CONSENT RESOLUTIONS AGENDA

Mr. Rattner moved resolutions 1 & 3 through 7. Mr. Greenbaum seconded the motion.

PUBLIC PORTION ON CONSENT RESOLUTIONS

President Guenther: Any public comment on resolutions 3 through 7? Seeing none, I’ll close the public portion. Council discussion?

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously.

RESOLUTIONS NON CONSENT

2. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing the Business Administrator to Execute the Consent Form for the Treatment Works Approval for Morris Chase.

Mr. Scapicchio: I have been told that a consent order has already been signed that it was in fact signed sometime in August. But more important in my mind and I did have a conversation with Mr. Perkins today, I am not sure it would change from several weeks ago when this was originally discussed and the representation and the recommendation from both Ray and Mr. Dorsey was that until the developer agreed to turn over both the water and sewer facilities upon completion of that project that we should not entertain this. To the best of my knowledge, we haven’t come to an agreement in terms of them handing this over. They are still questioning whether or not; I guess they need to or they want to get paid for it.

President Guenther: Just to follow procedure, I screwed up here. Somebody has to move this first. Steve, would you just move this real quick?

Mr. Rattner moved Resolution 2, Mr. Perkins seconded the motion.

Mr. Perkins: Mr. Scapicchio is correct. There is nothing at this particular juncture in writing; there is no signed developer’s agreement for phase I of Morris Chase. The resolution as written would permit Toll Brothers to submit to the NJDEP, their TWA permit application for the wastewater collection system. The ordinance has been drafted by Mr. Dorsey’s office which states that it would be turned over without cost or expense to the Township of Mount Olive, free of any liens. Mr. Scapicchio is correct, the TWA permit was signed in August of this year and subsequently a copy sent off to the developer I believe on the 22nd of this month. They are in receipt of those. August 22nd, we had sent them an executed treatment works approval

Mr. Perkins (cont’d): process, the only thing that the DEP still would require would be the resolution, that was the one item that was missing.

Mr. Scapicchio: Ray, what comes first?

Mr. Perkins: Normally you would have the resolution first?

Mr. Scapicchio: The resolution is what authorizes somebody to enter into that agreement.

Mr. Perkins: Correct, what we have now is that has already been done. The wastewater collection system…

Mr. Rattner: Wait a minute. Wait, wait, wait, wait. How can something be done if it takes an action on behalf of us? It says here, we’ll pass a resolution for the authorization of signs. There is no legal document then at this point. How could it be a legal document if we did not act on it?

Mr. Perkins: Exactly.

Mr. Rattner: What do you mean, exactly?

Mr. King: Legally that document would have to be voided because it did not have authorization from the governing body.

Mr. Rattner: We have been discussing this for a couple of months.

Mr. King: So what would happen is, if you do pass this resolution, then it would have to be executed against…

Mr. Rattner: It goes with this one.

President Guenther: In other words, that agreement is now void.

Mr. Rattner: It’s illegal.

President Guenther: Okay, right, they have to submit it again.

Mr. Rattner: Who signed it?

Mr. Spino: Mr. President, I would suggest that we remove it. At this point I would be in favor of approving this only when I see the ordinance and I don’t see why we can’t do the ordinance and the resolution for the same time when we get it. We have done that for many other things, the resolution and the ordinance for the same night. It might not be for this type of a project, but we have done it, but I would just like to wait.

President Guenther: So, what are you suggesting?

Mr. Spino: That we remove it.

President Guenther: Okay.

Mr. Scapicchio: Bernie, I think what happens is once we approve this resolution, we have sort of taken the pressure off of them to come to the table and discuss, in a real way, an agreement. They want to get this down to the DEP. So this really gives us the leverage that I think we need to be able to get what we need to get in terms of the fairness for the public because they can’t move forward without this.

Mr. Perkins: I am in agreement to some degree. I know that kind of rhymes a little bit. I would ask the Council’s indulgence to look back at the resolution that was signed on July 9, 2002 which again was to Morris Chase based upon their final major sub-division and final site plan approval. Now, it is good because in most of our resolutions, we don’t get very specific because we rely on our appointed officials on the Planning Board to give us the guidance. The problem is right now, and it doesn’t necessarily have to be a problem but it will be because I have been informed along with Mr. Buczynski, that they are ready to go into legal proceedings against us. Their contention gentleman and ladies is that they were led to believe that this plant would always be owned and operated as a private entity under a franchise. Right up until after July 9th, 2002, is actually now in

Mr. Perkins (cont’d): 2003 where we started looking at the water system, as well as the sewer system. They feel that the ball game has now changed on them.

Mr. Rattner: I don’t want to hear any, that’s what they thought. Do we have any documentation that says that? Because all I ever remember discussing is at what point we had to make our decision. A certain percent of the houses, or a certain years out, but never that they were going to keep it.

Mr. Perkins: Well, that is not what is in the Planning Board stuff Steve. Now,we don’t have a signed developer’s agreement with them.

Mr. Rattner: The Planning Board can’t make a decision on whether they keep the sewer plant or not.

Mr. Perkins: Our local ordinances have never addressed waste water collection systems as you are well aware. They just haven’t and it has been standard operation procedure of the Township to have the developer look at doing that. They are willing at this point to after “x” amount of years to donate that which is about a $4 million asset free of charge to the Township, along with the $6 million asset of the water tank, wells and treatment, they give us about $10 million dollars. However, in order to be able to do that, their time frame for when they are going to turn that over may go from a five year to a seven year period to recoop some of the costs, that they did not think they were going to have to absorb.

Mr. Rattner: They are recouping the cost in the price of the house.

Mr. Perkins: Well, we can always argue that and they could argue not that they didn’t. All I am in favor of is trying to get the asset here. I am just giving you guys some general history background on things that we have already done now.

Mr. Rattner: How is this any different than any other developer’s agreement with the exception of Country Oaks where we made a mistake? We discussed and we said we didn’t want it for whatever reason. I guess because of new technology or something like that.

Mr. Perkins: Well that was Eddie Clarico’s design at that point.

Mr. Rattner: Even Earl thought it was a good idea at the time.

Mr. Perkins: I know, I was at the meeting. I am in favor of pulling this thing but I think we need to get a workshop together where could discuss this.

Mr. Rattner: I don’t understand what is going on and if we didn’t have legal action because of what their thoughts were, especially if they have a legal document saying that we have already done something that we didn’t really do.

President Guenther: Okay, are we in favor of tabling this?

Mrs. Lashway: There is a motion on the floor. Any comments from the public? Seeing none.

ROLL CALL: Defeated Unanimously.

MOTIONS

1. Bill List.

Mr. Greenbaum moved for approval of the bill list as submitted with the exception of the one bill that was questioned by Mr. Rattner and pulled at the recommendation of the Business Administrator. Mr. Rattner seconded the motion.

Mr. Perkins: I have a comment. On page two, you’ll see under Applied Wastewater Management Systems commonly referred to as Country Oaks, that you are paying for a public fire hydrant fee. We had under the original developer’s agreement and this will go back to Councilman Greenbaum who I take a lot of legal authority, I listen to what he says. The developer’s agreement if I remember it correctly, the township had insisted that the fire hydrant fee would not be collected, it would be waived and you could use the fire hydrants any time you felt like it.
Mr. Perkins (cont’d): Those wonderful folks down at the State Board of Public Utilities turned around and said no, no. They were granted municipal consent in 1997 from the Township of Mount Olive Consent grants to petitioners specific franchise territory, etc. When we go back it says by letter date, the Division of the Rate Payer Advocate objected to section 10 of the municipal consent ordinance attached to the petition. The Township and any or all fire companies will be free of charge. The Rate Payer Advocate argued that the removal of Section10 from the municipal consent ordinance in this matter would be consistent with prior court rulings. What they did was they turned around and said, guess what guys you are paying the fire hydrant charges because it is in their approved tariff and that is why you see that on the bill list; now that they are Petitioning the Board of Public Utilities for a rate increase.

Mr. Rattner: Now you’ll see why we are concerned about letting somebody else go in and dig a well on our behalf even though there are no strings attached. This one we even put the strings in.

President Guenther: Okay.

Mr. Rattner: Can I ask the attorney something? If the BPU’s said that our agreement is no good and not in the public interest, can we nullify or do we put those words in and if any section is found not to be okay, the rest still survives.

Mr. King: No. It’s the states water.

Mr. Greenbaum: It doesn’t change the agreement.

Mr. Perkins: The only question I have had and I forgot who all I have spoken to, but I know that in areas where we are paying fire hydrant fees where it is a public fire hydrant that the Department of Public Works, during a heavy snowstorm, should drive though, every fire hydrant that we have to dig out, we should bill them for. We should pass an ordinance that says that we are including that in a rate to be passed on to the invest your own utility for not doing your due diligence and making sure that, that fire hydrant that we pay is standby by for BPU’s is not sufficiently an operating condition during a snowstorm.

Mr. Rattner: Can we charge like $1200.00, $3,600.00.

Mr. Perkins: I don’t think it is an unfair request to go back to the Board of Public Utilities and say…

Mr. Rattner: We’ll we heard the union and see we just pick our highest paid people and those are the ones who dig it out.

President Guenther: Okay, guys. Let’s vote on the bill list as amended

ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously.

2. Approval of Raffle Application #1097 for the MOHS (Mount Olive High School) Band Boosters Association; Raffle Application #1098 & #1099 for the Newcomers Club of Roxbury Mt. Olive; and Raffle Application #2000 for Noahs Ark Animal Welfare Assn Inc.

Mr. Perkins moved for the above listed raffle applications. Mr. Greenbaum seconded the motion.

COUNCIL REPORTS

Library Board Liaison Report

Mr. Scapicchio: We have a meeting tomorrow night, so there is no report.
Recreation Liaison Report

Recreation Report

Mr. Guenther: There was no meeting this time, there will be next time.

Board of Health Report

Mr. Perkins: Meeting this Thursday night.

Planning Board Report

Mr. Greenbaum: The last meeting was canceled because of the hurricane. The master plan is going to be subject to public hearing October 30th special meeting. When is the discussion on the extension? Is that at that next meeting?

Mayor Licitra: I couldn’t tell you.

Mr. Greenbaum: It may be the next meeting, if anybody is interested I can give them a call.

Board of Adjustment Liaison Report

Mr. Perkins: It was just standard variances Mr. Guenther.

Master Plan Committee Report

Mr. Scapicchio: Nothing to report.

Mr. Greenbaum: It is on for the 30th.

Open Space Committee Report

President Guenther: Charlene is not here.

Legislative Committee Report

Mr. Spino: I had contact through Mr. Kamin; I am trying to arrange a meeting. I have to call him back and find out how it is going.

Pride Committee Liaison Report

Mr. Perkins: I am still waiting on the minutes from the last meeting that they had, we are working now on a presentation to be made by the Mayor and the Pride Committee on the 14th for the donators of the different signs into Mount Olive. The DPW and Building, Parks, and Grounds are working on getting the holiday decorations up in anticipation of the holiday season in both Flanders and Budd Lake.

Board of Education Liaison Report

Mr. Scapicchio: The only thing to report is that they have added a million dollar contingency on to the number that they want to put forth to the March referendum based on the construction managers’ recommendation that in the marketplace out there right now he believes that the prices are rising.

PUBLIC PORTION

President Guenther: Seeing that no one is here from the public, any final Council Comments?

COUNCIL COMMENTS

Mr. Greenbaum: I vote we adjourn.

President Guenther: We have to discuss this employee situation. I know it is late, or do we call a special meeting next week.

Mr. Spino: I don’t think we could do it now without having told the people we were going to do it.

Mr. King: What employee situation?

President Guenther: What they brought up in the public meeting.

Mr. King: I would do that at another meeting.

President Guenther: Can we let it go two weeks?

Mr. King: I think it is something that the Administration is going to talk about any how with your labor attorney and get back.

Mr. Spino: Is it something we do in closed session?

President Guenther: I think it has to be done in closed session.

Mr. King: There was mention that it was possible legal, so under potential litigation, I would think you would want to bring it in.

President Guenther: Here is a suggestion, how about a sub-committee meeting with the Administration in the meantime to discuss it and in the meantime, maybe we could get the letter from the labor attorney.

Mrs. Spencer: I could certainly ask for him to put his advice to me in writing. I could tell you though, that at this point, the last thing that was done was that a letter went to the union saying please follow the grievance procedure that is in the contract.

Mr. Spino: I really don’t think we should be talking about it now since we didn’t tell anybody that we were going to talk about it. We said we were going to talk about it, but we did not give them a date. I don’t think it is fair to talk about it if…

President Guenther: Well, if it is in closed session, what does it matter?

Mr. King: You would have to announce it.

President Guenther: Okay.

Mr. King: From what I understood, I think the Administration is going to take what was said tonight and look into that.

Mr. Rattner: On this, really what is our authority or responsibility right now?

Mr. Spino: Steve, I don’t know if we have any.

Mr. Rattner: I am not sure if there is anything we could really do. This is an administrative issue. After we give the Administration the ability to sign the contract, they administer it. So I think right now in all seriousness it is really in their ball park and I don’t think there is any way, and if we got involved we may at this point muddy the waters. Obviously, if we think that they did something that we don’t like, they are going to have to answer to us and explain to us, but if we got involved now, I think we would make things worse.

Mr. Spino: I wouldn’t disagree with you.

Mr. King: It is in the Administration’s lap. They heard for the first time from the union and they are going to talk I guess with their labor council and respond to us.

President Guenther: Who will volunteer for the sub-committee? I will be on it.

Mayor Licitra: Bernie, if I may say something, Steve is absolutely right. This is the purview of the Administration. As far as I am concerned I don’t even know what the union head was coming up to appeal to you for. There are certain things that have to be done, and the next thing that has to be done is a grievance process.

Mr. Greenbaum: I would just like to get Peters opinion on whether or not we have…

President Guenther: Peter, what should we do?

Mr. King: Today, the union came up here. I don’t know that the Administration knew that he was going to, come up. I am coming at this cold. I think this was the first time that it was brought to the Administration’s attention. They are going to want to look at it. I guess I had talked to your Counsel, you’re going to them, we talked to our Counsel and either follow the grievance procedure, or you know what, we looked at this and you’re right and this is what we are going to do. They are going to go through that. If there comes a point

Mr. King (cont’d): where there is litigation then it would be brought back to your lap and if there is litigation, it would be brought into closed session.

Mr. Scapicchio: Peter, I guess the process is once they file a grievance that is when we become involved?
Mr. King: That’s right. Once they begin that procedure.

Mr. Scapicchio: I agree, I think at this point in time it’s left in the administrations hands but since they came here and made a request to this council, maybe Bernie could send them a note that says, hey, here is what our attorney told us, we can’t get involved in this process until..

President Guenther: Okay, here is a very simple solution Lisa proposed that this portion of the tape that we now have recorded, she’ll let Joanne listen to that and she’ll have it straight from the horse’s mouth. There is no sense in getting involved in further discussion.

Mr. Scapicchio: That’s fine.

President Guenther: Okay.

Motion to adjourn, made and seconded. All in favor, none opposed. The meeting adjourned at 12:05am.

______________________________
BERNHARD D. GUENTHER
Council President


I, LISA M LASHWAY, Township Clerk of the Township of Mount Olive do hereby certify that the foregoing Minutes is a true and correct copy of the Minutes approved at a legally convened meeting of the Mount Olive Township Council duly held on October 28, 2003.

___________________________
LISA M. LASHWAY
Mount Olive Township Clerk


nw





 

 

2012 Mount Olive Township. All rights reserved.