Mount Olive Township Council Minutes
April 10, 2001

President Rattner: I’d like to call the Mount Olive Township Council Meeting for April 10, 2001 to order and invite everybody to join us in the Pledge Allegiance to the Flag.

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

ROLL CALL: Present: Mr. Heymann, Mr. Guenther, Mr. Sohl, Mr. Scapicchio,
President Rattner, Mr. Spino

Absent: Mrs. Kelly

Mr. Rattner: Mrs. Kelly asked to be excused and she was. I see that Mr. Sohl has just arrived and since we have not heard from Mr. Spino, we will expect him momentarily. Also in attendance tonight is the Mayor, Mayor Licitra, our Business Administrator, Mr. Kaplan; our CFO, Ms. Jenkins; our Township Attorney, Mr. Dorsey; and Township Clerk, Mrs. Lashway. First item we have on the agenda are Administrative matters and the Mayor has some Appointments.


· Appointment to Economic Development Committee (Ed Caparucci)

· Appointments to Information Services Committee (Nelsen Russell & Nick Amato)

Mayor Licitra: Yes, I’d like an appointment to the Economic Development Committee of Ed Caparucci. This will fill out a two-year term and appointments to the newly formed Information Services Committee and, as you know, we’re going out for--we have a few Resumes, I think, 250 Resumes that came in for our Information Systems Supervisor that they’re going to weed through tomorrow. But we put a Committee together with Nelsen Russell and Nick Amato to work along with this new Appointee, new hire when we get--when we do the new hire to work along with him. So I did put together an Information Services Committee and both these people are, Nelsen I’ve known for 30 years and, is a consultant and a retired consultant and does an excellent job and Nick is also a consultant in this field. We’re looking for one other person after we get the hire on. I have a Proclamation--National Day of Prayer if I may go into that, Mr. President. Could I go into that, Mr. Heymann, please?

Mr. Heymann: Sure, I’d like to move this meeting much quicker.

Mayor Licitra: Thank you.


WHEREAS, Civic prayers and national days of prayer have a long and venerable history in our constitutional republic, dating back to the First Continental Congress in 1775; and

WHEREAS, The Declaration of Independence, our first statement as Americans of national purpose and identity, made “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” the foundation of our United States of America and asserted that people have inalienable rights that are God-given; and

WHEREAS, The Supreme Court has affirmed the right of state legislatures to open their sessions with prayer and the Supreme Court and the U.S. Congress themselves begin each day with prayer; and

WHEREAS, In 1988, legislation setting aside the first Thursday in May in each year as a National Day of Prayer was passed unanimously by both Houses of Congress and signed by President Ronald Reagan; and

WHEREAS, The National Day of Prayer is an opportunity for Americans of all faiths to join in united prayer to acknowledge our dependence on God, to give thanks for blessings received, to request healing for wounds endured, and to ask God to guide our leaders and bring wholeness to the United States and her citizens; and

WHEREAS, It is fitting and proper to give thanks to God by observing a day of prayer in Mount Olive Township when all may acknowledge our blessings and express gratitude for them, while recognizing the need for strengthening religious and moral values in our State and nation;

NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed that I, Paul R. Licitra, Mayor of Mount Olive Township do hereby proclaim May 3, 2001, to be designated as “A Day of Prayer in Mount Olive Township” and encourage the citizens of Mount Olive to observe the day in ways appropriate to its importance and significance.

Thank you, Mr. President.

President Rattner: Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Dorsey, any legal reports?


Mr. Dorsey: None tonight.


President Rattner: Okayay, we come to the Public Hearing on the Amendments that we made to the Municipal and Sanitation Budgets. Now, remember, this is just for the Amendments since we already had the Public Hearing on the Budget itself. Does anybody from the Public wish to address the Council on the Amendments to the 2001 Municipal or Sanitation Budget? Seeing none, I’ll close the Public Hearing on the Amendments to the Municipal and Sanitation Budgets.

1. Resolution to Amend 2001 Budget – R. Heymann

Mr. Heymann moved for adoption of the resolution and Mr. Guenther seconded the Motion.

President Rattner: Any discussion? Roll call.

ROLL CALL: Passed by the Majority, Exception: Mr. Spino voted NO

2. Resolution to Adopt the 2001 Budget.

Mr. Guenther moved for adoption of the Resolution and Mr. Heymann seconded the Motion.

President Rattner: Any discussion?

Mr. Guenther: Just to clarify and put on Public Record that as far as what we’re doing with the Police Department, we’re still going to have a separate session on that to review what their needs are, is that correct?

Mayor Licitra: Yes. What we did last week is, we added a little bit into salaries so that we if decide to go ahead later in the year as a Town to hire additional officers through the Cops Care we have the money that’s not covered by the Grant. Additionally, in the Operating Expense, there was money for a review that the Administration has requested to do an assessment of the Police Department so that was the second part of the change, and it is my understanding nothing is going to be done until we get the assessment completed.

Mr. Guenther: So, this does not commit us to spend the money, correct?

Mr. Heymann: The money is in the Budget for it.

President Rattner: Well, it’s in the Budget, but the Mayor has to spend, you know, the money. But he has the ability, we have the ability, we have to put it in the Budget. We can’t force anything in the Budget.

Mr. Guenther: Okay.

President Rattner: Any other discussion? Roll call.

ROLL CALL: Passed by the Majority, Exception: Mr. Spino voted NO

Mr. Rattner: Well, Mayor, what I can say--I know talking to some of my peers probably the biggest topic of conversation is the Big Item Pick-up and I told anyone who asked me, well, the Mayor promised it, the Mayor put it in a budget, as soon as we pass it, he can schedule it. Okay, the next Item is the approval of Minutes.


March 13, 2001 Present: Mr. Heymann, Mr. Sohl, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. Spino, Mr. Scapicchio, Mr. Rattner

Absent: Mr. Guenther

Mr. Sohl moved for approval of the Minutes and Mr. Heymann seconded the motion.

President Rattner: Any discussion or corrections? Roll call.

ROLL CALL: Passed by the majority, Exception: Mr. Guenther ABSTAINED


Letters from Residents

1. Letter received April 2, 2001 from the Lucky Garden Chinese Restaurant RE: Sewer Usage Fees.

Resolutions, Ordinances, Correspondence from Other Municipalities

2. Resolution received March 30, 2001 from Parsippany-Troy Hills RE: Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Parsippan7-Troy Hills in Support A-1929 and S-849.

3. Ordinance received April 6, 2001 from the Township of Roxbury Amending their Land Use Ordinance.

Resolutions, Ordinances, Correspondence from State and/or County Agencies

4. Equalization Table received March 26, 2001 from the Morris County Tax Board.

5. Public Hearing Notice received April 4, 2001 from NJ Transit, RE: Programs developed pursuant to the Senior Citizen and Disabled Resident Transportation Assistance Act (SCDRTAP).

6. Notice received April 5, 2001 from Morris County park Commission RE: Straight Talk on Deer Management - For Municipal Officials. April 25, 2001.

League of Municipalities

7. Letter received March 26, 2001 from Morris County League of Municipalities RE: Mobility Recommendations for the I-80 Corridor, April 18, 2001.

8. Letter received March 27, 2001 from New Jersey State League of Municipalities RE: League Seminar, Following Parliamentary Procedure in Council Meetings. May 10, 2001.

9. Letter received March 30, 2001 from New Jersey State League of Municipalities RE: State Plan Summit, May 22, 2001.

10. Legislative Viewpoint received April 2, 2001 from New Jersey State League of Municipalities RE: PFRS Rate Relief Bill Signed; Business Personal Property Tax Aid Needed; Per Capita Aid Hike Moves.

11. Letter received April 2, 2001 from the New Jersey State League of Municipalities RE: Important Housing Changes For Annual League Conference.

Correspondence from Legislative Representatives

12. Letter received March 26, 2001 from E. Scott Garrett RE: Council Resolution with regard to Senate Bill 2003.

13. Letter received March 26, 2001 from Donald T. DeFrancesco, Acting Governor RE: Council Resolution.

14. Letter received March 27, 2001 from Assemblyman Richard H. Bagger RE: Township Resolution in support of Assembly Bill2/ Assembly Bill 3123/Senate Bill 1961.

15. Letter received March 29, 2001 from Assemblyman Michael Carroll RE: S-1800

DOT/DEP/Permits – Loa’s

16. Letter received April 6, 2001 from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection regarding a permit application for N.J. American Water Co.

17. Letter received April 6, 2001 from the New Jersey Department of Transportation regarding completion of work on Route 206, Sections 2E and 18D.

Correspondence from Organizations/Committees/Boards

18. Minutes of the March 7, 2001, Meeting of the Musconetcong Sewerage Authority received April 6, 2001.

Land Use/Development Matters

19. Letter received April 5, 2001 from State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection RE: Permit issued to Hackettstown MUA, for the construction and operation of a sanitary sewer extension to serve Woodfield at Mt. Olive, Section IIC.


20. March Newsletter received March 26, 2001 from COAH.

Correspondence from Cable Networks/Utilities

21. Letter received March 26, 2001 from the MSA RE: Additional capacity available for Municipality to acquire.

22. Letter received April 2, 2001 from CABLEVISION RE: New primary contact

23. Letter received April 3, 2001 from the MSA, RE: Allocations for participating municipalities in the MSA Plant.

24. Comcast Fax received April 6, 2001 regarding upcoming events

President Rattner stated we had 24 Items of Correspondence and asked if Council had any comments on same.

Mr. Guenther: This letter from Lucky Garden part of the, I have it here, but is it on the list?

President Rattner: It’s #1.

Mrs. Lashway: It’s Correspondence #1.

Mr. Guenther: No. 1, how about that? Was that discussed at the workshop?

President Rattner: Yes.

Mr. Sohl: Yes, we did, that’s what I thought.

President Rattner: And basically --

Mr. Spino: No, we didn’t. We didn’t really discuss it

Mr. Sohl: Yes we did, we talked about the EDU’s.

President Rattner: And that it was an Administrative –

Mr. Spino: Not in relationship to what he’s saying about Lucky Garden, in particular.

President Rattner: We discussed how—

Mr. Spino: We discussed the overall idea.

President Rattner: How it was going to be handled.

Mr. Spino: Yes, yes, absolutely. But we did not discuss Lucky Garden, per se.

Mr. Sohl: Well, I think what we did, when we suggested that all of the calculations were done by standard--

Mr. Spino: No, no, I’m saying on this particular—by name, we didn’t discuss Lucky Garden.

President Rattner: No, we didn’t discuss anybody.

Mr. Spino: But we did discuss the theory and process for everybody and we weren’t going to change it, Yes.

President Rattner: Okay. Any other discussion?



Ord. #9-2001 Bond Ordinance Amending Bond Ordinance Numbered 9-98 of the Township of Mount Olive, In the County of Morris, New Jersey Finally Adopted May 26, 1998, in its Entirety. (Reappropriation of 1998 Capital for purchase of Fire & First Aid Materials)

Mr. Spino moved that Ord. #9-2001 be introduced by title and passed on First Reading and that it be scheduled for Adoption after a Public Hearing on May 8, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Sohl seconded the Motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed unanimously

Ord.#10-2001 An Ordinance of the Township of Mount Olive to Revise and Modify the Professional Business (PB) Zone District to Incorporate One Additional Parcel and to Amend Certain Permitted Uses and Site Design Standards

Mr. Scapicchio moved that Ord. #10-2001 be introduced by title and passed on First Reading and that it be scheduled for Adoption after a Public Hearing on May 8, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Spino seconded the Motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed unanimously

Ord.#11-2001 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 $4,817,908 Therefore and Authorizing the Issuance of $4,402,769 Bonds or Notes of the Township to Finance Part of the Cost Thereof. (2001 Capital)

Mr. Heymann moved that Ord. #11-2001 be introduced by title and passed on First Reading and that it be scheduled for Adoption after a Public Hearing on May 8, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Scapicchio seconded the Motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed unanimously

Ord.#12-2001 An Ordinance of the Township of Mount Olive to Revise and Amend Section 400-75, Tree Removal, of Chapter 400, Land use in its Entirety to be Replace with New Section 400-75 to be Entitled: Tree Removal, Replanting and Forestry Management Plans.

Mr. Guenther moved that Ord. #12-2001 be introduced by title and passed on First Reading and that it be scheduled for Adoption after a Public Hearing on May 8, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Heymann seconded the Motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed unanimously


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.

3. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive RE: Excess EDU’s. (EDU policy)

4. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing the Sale of Certain Lands Known and Designated as Block 3003, Lot 1 Which are No Longer Needed for Public use by the Township (Sandhu – Bd. Adj. Application/Garden Place).

5. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing a Contract Between the Township and Geo Concepts, Ltd. (temporary computer consultant services)

6. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Endorsing Assembly Bill A-1953, License Plates for “Amateur Radio.”

7. Resolution to Amend the Adopted Foreclosed Property Ledger.

Mr. Sohl moved for approval of the Consent Resolutions and Mr. Guenther seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed unanimously


President Rattner: Is there anybody from the public like to address anything that’s on the Consent Resolutions. That’s Resolutions 3 through 7. You’ve got to come up to the microphone.

Mr. Greg Munkirs (Lube Plus): I sent a letter this afternoon to the Committee. I apologize for it being late, but I just finished my meeting with Mr. Casey yesterday. I noticed it was too late to get on the resolution, but,

the point of the letter was that I don’t think the Township-- the Council has gone far enough with this resolution. The resolution here only addresses EDU’s. It doesn’t address the Assessment itself. I maintain that there are problems with the Assessment and that was in the body of my letter and I’d like to know if there’s going to be an additional resolution or any thought to another resolution.

Mr. Dorsey: Well, let me just say this. Your letter does not address the substance of the Resolution, which is before the Council now. The Resolution that’s before the Council now essentially deals with vacant property and wherein people requested more EDU’s than it ultimately turns out that they need or want. Now, your property, as I understand it, is the lubrication facility, so it has a building on it --

Mr. Munkirs: Correct.

Mr. Dorsey: Your problem is a different problem and your complaint essentially is not that you don’t have an EDU. Your claim is that, I assume your claim is that, your facility has been allocated more EDU’s than it should have been allocated. Correct?

Mr. Munkirs: Quite possibly but there is also the matter of the Assessment and I don’t know whether the Assessment and EDU’s are tied together or not, but certainly my biggest complaint is that I think I am being over-assessed.

Mr. Dorsey: Well, your complaint--if you’ll accept this for purposes of where we are right now has nothing to do with this Resolution.

Mr. Munkirs: Yes it does because there is an EDU portion and an Assessment portion.

Mr. Dorsey: But you do not have vacant property. The Resolution that is on now is very specific. It deals with vacant property. You have a developed piece of property and I assume that your complaint is like others that the Township has received in that based upon the standards promulgated by the Department of Environmental Protection, you have been assigned a certain number of EDU’s based upon the square footage and the nature of your operation. So, your problem has nothing to do with Resolution No. 3. Now, the number of EDU’s assigned do indeed dictate what the Assessment will be and the Hearings on the Assessment took place about two years ago and those assessments have all been fixed. So your problem has nothing to do with #3, and frankly, I think there is very little area of discussion at this point because your problem deals with things that have been memorialized some time ago.

Mr. Munkirs: So, am I take that to mean that the Township is--will not entertain a reevaluation of my situation?

Mr. Dorsey: The Township Council really cannot entertain---further discussion, generally speaking. There is one thing I will find out from you--I don’t know that I agree that, with the expression in your letter that Mr. Casey absolutely refused to discuss it, but I will attempt to find out the basis upon which EDU’s were assigned to you because you have an existing developed building and I will try and find out--see if I can determine what the original analysis was and I’ll advise you what the basis was. If it’s totally inaccurate, then we may address it. But basically, the EDU’s were assigned to existing buildings based upon regulations issued by DEP and those we cannot change.

Mr. Munkirs: I understand what you’re saying. Again, I’ll say that EDU’s are only part of the problem and Mr. Casey just bluntly refused to give me another evaluation either about Assessment or EDU’s.

Mr. Dorsey: You see, there’s not going to be any reevaluation of an Assessment. The Assessment is dictated by the number of EDU’s that are assigned to you. I mean, there’s no individualization of Assessments. You get assigned a certain number of EDU’s and that dictates the Assessment. And the Assessments were established three years ago now? The dollar amounts--at least two years ago now, were established--the dollar amounts for assessment purposes were established two years ago after a series of any number of Public Hearings and long 0debate at the Council and, I’m just going to tell you as a practical matter, the Township cannot now go around modifying those assessments.

Mr. Guenther: But, but, let me explain something to you. You’re confusing EDU’s with assessments.

Mr. Munkirs: They’re together.

Mr. Guenther: No, they’re not.

Mr. Sohl: They directly are.

Mr. Guenther: Well, but we’ve heard other cases where people protested the number of EDU’s that they’ve been assigned and I think, I believe that’s what this gentleman is questioning.

Mr. Sohl: On vacant property.

Mr. Guenther: No, it’s also been on built-on property. We have St. Jude’s Church,that came to us.

Mr. Dorsey: Bernie, Bernie, I will look into the manner in which he was allocated that.

Mr. Guenther: I’m just trying to explain --

Mr. Dorsey: But the assessments follow the EDU’s.

Mr. Guenther: Well, I know, for each area, there was an assessment assigned per EDU, so if you were assigned three EDU’s, let’s assume the assessment’s $10,000 per EDU, you pay $30,000. If you feel that that’s too much, and you only want to be assigned two EDU’s that’s a whole different question. But, as the attorney said, we cannot change the amount of the assessment because that’s what’s been determined through the State DEP. The total cost of the project had to be divided up between all the users of the sewer system that was required by--

President Rattner: Let’s stop the conversation. Mr. Dorsey said he’ll lookay into to make sure their methodology because obviously if there was an egregious error and there was the wrong EDU assessed, that’s a separate issue. But, everybody in the area, I paid for my EDU exactly what you paid for your EDU. It was an existing building. Everybody had exactly the same. So it is. It’s depending on how many EDU’s you got, you know, you got charged with. No, I had one. Commercials are based on the building because we have no other way of knowing. But anyway, the Attorney said he’ll lookay into it and within two weeks we’ll get back to you.

Mr. Dorsey: Within two weeks.

Mr. Munkirs: May I be permitted to give, Mr. Dorsey some documentation that proves that, as far as assessment wise an EDU is not always an EDU. I have documentation to that effect, if I can –

Mr. Dorsey: You can send me anything you want.

President Rattner: You can either send it directly to Mr. Dorsey or you can give it, you know, provide it to the Clerk and the Clerk will make sure he gets it.

Mr. Munkirs: Thank you very much.

President Rattner: Thank you. Anybody else wish to address the Council on said resolutions 3 through 7. Seeing none, we’ll, ask for a vote.

ROLL CALL: Passed by the majority, Exception: Mr. Scapicchio voted NO on #5


8. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Appointing the Initial Members to the Mount Olive Township Local Ethics Board.

President Rattner: Okay, now we come to, the non-consent resolution, so we’ll be bringing each one of these up individually.

Mr. Sohl moved for adoption of the Resolution and Mr. Heymann seconded the motion.

President Rattner: Any discussion? Roll call.

Mr. Sohl: Before we open to the public, I want to explain where we are and how we got here and what we’re doing. Based on the vote that went on the public referendum last November, this Council was then charted to proceed forward relevant to the State enabling legislation based on correspondence and documentation we obtained through the State. We have gone through the initial phase of the process to begin the selection of an Ethics Board. As of this point in time, the ethics situation or ethics regulations that every one of us sitting here operated under, are those of the State. What we will be doing by empowering an Ethics board is having them begin a process which up opens a ninety-day window that once they are appointed they can review the State regulations, State ethics requirements and then either accept them as is which requires no action on their part or they can add to them, the cannot detract from them. Last week, and going back in January, we solicited through various public media, requests for individuals to submit resumes if they were interested in potentially sitting on this Board. We, in fact, received some 20 odd resumes. We went through a process initially of not lookaying at names. We had the Clerk’s Office basically blind them out and, everybody tookay a lookay. We through a sort of a blind selection process. We applied names so we knew then who they were and then at the final call, so to speak, last week when we discussed these in workshop, we indicated, in fact, one of the first things we made statement relative to was that we were not going to select anybody that was a candidate for public office, and, in fact, Rob Greenbaum, was, in fact, one of those people who initially was highly regarded by a number of

Mr. Sohl (cont’d):people, but based on that process, we, in fact, eliminated him from the selection process. Through the process that tookay place then that night through discussion, we essentially wound up with three or four names that were clearly in everybody’s, more or less, in everybody’s choice and ultimately, we narrowed things down to where we actually had seven names of which there was a tie for six and seven. Through some other discussion here, we finally narrowed those two down to a final choice. We then gave those selections of the final six to the Town Clerk, or actually the Deputy Clerk, Mary, who was here last week. We then adjourned later, or it might have been right after that and subsequent to that, we learned that there was a, one of the people we had chosen as the sixth was, in fact, likely, although already filed, a candidate for public office. We had a brief discussion and I will, as I mentioned to the, it was asked by the press whether that discussion was a violation of the Public Meeting Act. It was probably a technical violation, although clearly the members of the public that were still here heard everything that was going on. The bottom line is we did not finalize that selection process. That is what we are doing tonight. Last week was simply a workshop. As a result of learning of these, one individual of the six that was a, a potential candidate for public office, the names before us tonight then do not include that individual, and, in fact, that individual was replaced then by the, what, the individual that would have been set at end of process. So, that is where we are, that’s how we got here and I guess that’s it.

Mr. Dorsey: Bill, Bill, just to make it clear, you did not finalize any appointments last week.

Mr. Sohl: Right.

Mr. Dorsey: The finalization of any appointment of the seven that are on this list occurs with the adoption of this resolution.

Mr. Sohl: Thank you, Mr. Dorsey.

President Rattner: Thank you, Mr. Sohl. Anybody else from the Council?

Mr. Sohl: You need to open it up to the public.

President Rattner: Yes, I’m going to.

President Rattner: OKAY, now we’ll open it up to public. Anybody like to address the Council on this ordinance, on this resolution? Yes?

Ms. Colleen Labow, (Third St., Budd Lake): Good evening, gentlemen and Mrs. Lashway. I would like to first start off by announcing the fact that I am the candidate who was eliminated from the process for the, um, Ethics Board. My name is Colleen Labow and I understand that until that this was adopted as a resolution, that it’s not officially into law. However, what tookay place during the workshop really led me to believe more firmly than ever that this town definitely needs an ethics committee. What tookay place during the meeting and after the meeting was highly unethical. I tookay notes. I came into Council Chambers yesterday, I listened to the tape, I purchased a copy of the tape. I do have everything on the tape as to what tookay place during the workshop session. However, what’s not on tape, what tookay place after the session is only my word against all of yours, well, four people in particular. OKAY, first off --

Mr. Sohl: Let me, let me ask you a question before you, was my characterization of what tookay place inaccurate?

Ms. Labow: Yes, it was a little bit inaccurate, but not so much that maybe some facts you weren’t aware of.

Mr. Sohl: Such as?

Ms. Labow: Well, first of all, I’d like to say that when you tookay your vote, as the seventh possible vote, I received five out of seven votes for the Ethics Board. Okayay? Out of these five people, I know for sure that two people who voted me knew I was planning on running for Council because I told them personally. Also, a week before I had decided to run for council or consider it, I talked to Mrs. Lashway, I called her at her office, and I said, you know, Lisa, I have a little bit of dilemma because I have my application in for the Ethics Committee, although I had just recently considered running for a council position on the Democratic ticket and I’m not really sure how it works because I’m totally naïve in this process, can you help me out? And she said, oh, well there’s no problem because you’re not an elected official, and therefore, until you are, you can still be available to serve on the other --

Mr. Sohl: Then, Mrs. Lashway told you accurately her understanding of the law.

Ms. Labow: That was her understanding. I specifically called to ask for that.

Mr. Sohl: That, the law is not the only governing factor. We, as individuals --

President Rattner: OKAY, Mr. Sohl, let her finish and then we just have the comment so she get her train of thought and keep it together.

Mr. Sohl: I just want to make sure we have clarity on what’s going on, that’s all.

Ms. Labow: I’m not worried about my, train of thought, that’s why I have it written down.

President Rattner: See? So, but this way it’s good, if you get everything add and then we can answer it.

Ms. Labow: OKAY, we’ll get it all out. Anyway, so during the meeting, the process went on and you chose to vote. Mr. Spino, was not, obviously was not very happy with the process. I had to agree in one respect, I felt probably they should have been kept, anonymous, because that would have been a fair assessment, but that’s OKAY, because you know, you choose how you want to apply it, but I did check with Mrs. Lashway and I did check to make sure I was doing what was proper, that I felt was proper and I went – I came to the, and before I even came to the meeting last week, I called and I spoke to Mary and I said is it a problem for me to be there knowing that they’re going to discuss the ethics committee since I have my application in, should I still be there and she said absolutely, anybody can be here, so that’s why I’m here. After the meeting was adjourned, completely adjourned, and I’m telling you right now, I know two people for sure knew and those two people didn’t vote for me. They had no problem with me being voted on at that time. I do believe other members knew, because I had heard that my name had been discussed in the presence of some of you before, so I think more than two of you knew who I was and that I was planning on running. After the meeting, I went up to, to meet, um, Mary, because I had not met her before and to say hello to Mr. Rattner. At that point, Mr. Greenbaum approached Mr. Scapicchio and inquired as to why he had not been chosen. Mr. Scapicchio informed him that he was not chosen because they discussed it before. They felt it was a direct violation of, you know, it was a conflict of interest because he’s running on their ticket. During the session that evening, it had also been mentioned that Mr. Greenbaum would not be a candidate because a couple of them felt the way, there was just too close of a relationship, which was a very ethical decision, in my opinion. Then, Mr. Scapicchio, or Mr. Greenbaum asked Mr. Scapicchio, well how do you know that there isn’t somebody who you voted onto the committee who is running for Town Council, and he said, well, gee, I don’t know, I have no idea and he said well, don’t you think we should find out and at that point, he posed the question, which since I was standing right there, you know, I responded that yes, in fact, I was. He turned to me and he said, well, we can’t let you be on the ethics board because you’re a potential candidate and I said, one has nothing to do with the other, I checked ahead of time and blah, blah, blah, and I was, told that it was okay to continue. And as we discussed with Mr. Scapicchio, he told me, he said, well you know, you can always decide not to run for Council and then we can let you have your ethics committee position. At that point, I said to him well, why should I do that? I plan on winning a council seat and he said well, then it wouldn’t be fair to the Council because you would then be wasting their time by playing and making policy and then they’d have to replace you, and I said, well, you know, people get replaced all the time, you know, just choose an alternate. One really, I don’t see where one has anything to do with the other. So, Mr. Sohl, you cut in on the conversation at that point. Mr. Spino was involved in it. Mr. Rattner was involved in it. Discussions ensued and you decided that I was not an acceptable candidate after all and that you would replace me with Mr. Kamin and as I understand, I’ve come to understand this week, that’s Mr. Kamin’s actually an elected official, an appointed official, on the government level. So, I don’t understand how one person who can be an actual appointed, you know, political official be eligible to be on the ethics committee and somebody who has not even filed a petition, how can they not be available?

Mr. Sohl: Is that a question?

Ms. Labow: Yes.

Mr. Sohl: Mr. Kamin is not an official in this Township.

Ms. Labow: But he has political ties.

Mr. Sohl: He is an appointed civil service employee.

President Rattner: Well, I, I don’t even know if he’s a civil service.

Mr. Sohl: But, he’s an appointed employee.

Ms. Labow: Okay, so, I’m not politically affiliated at all --

Mr. Sohl: Let me, let me answer this very clearly and succinctly. We have an election coming up. It was clearly my, and I’ll speak for myself although I think it appears I hopefully share my thoughts with, and I think Mr. Sohl (cont’d): Mr. Scapicchio and I, since we’ve talked about this a number of times believe this, is that what we did not want to have occur is to have a newly formed ethics panel that has one or more individuals who are actively involved in a campaign. It just doesn’t make for a good situation. That’s clearly a choice we have every right to make and that’s what, that’s what we will attempt to do tonight. And, in fact, if you lookay specifically at the resolution, at my request, there’s, there is verbiage in there that should anyone of the other six individuals come out of the woodwork at the last minute and file an application to become a candidate, let’s say by Thursday’s deadline --

Ms. Labow: No, well --

Mr. Sohl: These appointments don’t place until this Friday, and they only take place if and only if the individual so mentioned are not candidates for public office.

Ms. Labow: So, what happens if, um, during the primary, somebody has seven people come in and, and break them in, as a candidate after the fact, after the 13th?

Mr. Sohl: By June, by June --

Mr. Dorsey: I think that the answer to that is the Council, if they’re then on the ethics committee, the Council would immediately ask them to resign.

Ms. Labow: That’s exactly correct, I agree with you.

Mr. Dorsey: You know, but, you know, there’s one thing you’re overlooking here, and perhaps it’s difficult to appreciate that although this is an all Republican Council at the moment, what they’re applying to you, the rule, the policy they’re applying to you, they have applied that indiscriminately because they would have selected Mr. Greenbaum, but they told Mr. Greenbaum, no, we will not select you because we don’t want one holding political office on this ethics committee. So, whatever the rule is, you cannot say that it’s been, not been indiscriminately or neutrally applied.

Ms. Labow: I’d have to say, in all due respect, that it seems as though you’ve changed and made policy as you went along to suit the needs at any given point.

Mr. Dorsey: Well, let’s understand something. The policy is not made until the resolution is adopted. They have, the Council has workshops and they can disagree up and down about policy betwixt and between themselves, but it is not effective and meaningful until they adopt the resolution that sets forth the policy. We had a Resolution No. 3 tonight over how we’re going to deal with EDU’s. There were at least three different views as to how we would deal with excess EDU’s. The policy doesn’t become effective until the resolution was adopted. That resolves the differences.

Ms. Labow: All right, how do you explain when the voting took place when several council members knew that I was planning on running for council, they still voted me on and this --

Mr. Dorsey: Well, well first place, I don’t want to be technical with you, but there’s no voting that occurs as the term voting is used at work session. There is straw, straw tallies and of course, what you’re really saying is, you can’t deny that the policy that Mr. Sohl is really the mentor in this entire ethics ordinance, that the policy that they seek to adopt is not being uniformly adopted. You, you would have a great case if, indeed, they said to Mr. Greenbaum, Okay, you, you can be on the ethics board even though you’re going to run because you’re a Republican, but you, Colleen, cannot be. That’s not what’s happened here. They have adopted a policy, anybody can disagree with the policy, but the policy is being indiscriminately or neutrally imposed.

Ms. Labow: Okay, my main problem is not that I’m not being appointed to the ethics committee, because that’s all good, I respect whatever you decide in the end. My biggest problem is the fact that the decision was made after the workshop had been adjourned, and if I understand correctly that before any decisions are made as such, it has to be in an announced public forum.

Mr. Dorsey: That, that decision is not made until the resolution is adopted tonight. I mean, I do not know although there’s a resolution prepared with six or seven names?

Mr. Sohl: Six.

Mr. Dorsey: Six names on it, but before we’re through tonight, one or more of those names may not come off the list, because nobody is appointed until the resolution is adopted.

Mr. Guenther: May I make a point? I’d just like – just a question. Do you think, do you think it would be fair to Mr. Greenbaum if you were, if you were appointed?

Ms. Labow: Well, truthfully, Mr. Greenbaum was appointed to the environmental –

Mr. Guenther: That has nothing to do with this, nothing to do with this.

Ms. Labow: No, no, no, well --

Mr. Guenther: He could serve on five different commissions, so could you. We’re qualified or he’s qualified to serve on one or the other. We’ll consider him. We ask for volunteers all the time. I serve on three different commissions in this town, I think almost, a lot of people out there serve on various commissions, so one has nothing to do with the other.

Ms. Labow: Well, directly the point of what you said, Mr. Greenbaum has already filed the petition and at the time that this workshop took place, he was officially planning on running, as of today, so I have not filed my petition and I have not officially decided to run.

Mr. Guenther: But, you, tonight, told us you were going to win.

Ms. Labow: Yes.

Mr. Guenther: So, you must be running.

Ms. Labow: Well, I am going to run, but the problem that I have is that the way you handled the whole thing, I felt, was very unethical. That’s my point and that’s the point I’m trying to make.

Mr. Guenther: I wasn’t here, so --

Ms. Labow: No, I know, I don’t mean you personally.

Mr. Heymann: Making generalities--

Ms. Labow: I’m speaking in generalities and quite obviously, I’m very disappointed in the behavior of a few of the Council members.

President Rattner: Mr. Scapicchio, you wanted to say something?

Mr. Scapicchio: Colleen, I mean, I think you have to admit that this board did not make any decision that was unusual relative to this ethics board and, it was after the meeting was adjourned that you had come up to speak to Mr. Rattner. Mr. Greenbaum said he believes that we had, in a straw call, selected a candidate, and I said I don’t think we did, and you had raised your hand that I’m the candidate. So, it was, it was a discussion that we personally had, or you personally had with several council members where we tried to explain to you the methodology that we used in the selection process and I think it was even stated prior to the Council discussion of what the intentions were, and you were in the audience. Mr., Mr. Greenbaum was probably the top vote getter in the blind selection process. Once we knew the names of those candidates and realized that he was a potential candidate, his name came off of that list. And at the beginning of the meeting, maybe you didn’t hear it, but if you heard that comment that was made by me, and I was the third person to speak at that workshop that he wasn’t selected because he was a candidate, you know, either you missed it or you ignored --

Ms. Labow: No, I listened to the tapes again. Yesterday, I listened to the whole entire session--

Mr. Scapicchio: Well, I mean, at that point, you could’ve said, well, I mean, you know --

Ms. Labow: What you said during that meeting and your exact words were you had decided that it was not, you did not want to consider him for the position because he was running on your ticket and you felt that it was a conflict --

Mr. Scapicchio: Well, he’s not running on my ticket, he’s running for a council slot and I think --

Ms. Labow: Well, on the Republican for the council, you felt that it was a conflict of interest and that was what you had said. That’s also what Mr. Rattner said and a couple of other people said. It had nothing to do with he was running for council. What you said was he was running on the Republican ticket.

Mr. Sohl: I can assure that the meeting had everything to do with the fact that he was running for council.

Ms. Labow: That’s not what you said though. If you guys had said that, at that point, I would have said, sorry, but I need to, to, withdraw and I checked on the strawing before I, before I even considered running for council.

Mr. Scapicchio: Well, we obviously disagree and that’s not the only way it’ll --

Mr. Guenther: Well, Colleen if you go back to the history of how this ethics committee came about, I think it centered around questions regarding some dealings that elected officials might have. That’s why we’re so sensitive to it.

Ms. Labow: I know, but why point --

Mr. Guenther: That’s the only thing I can say.

Ms. Labow: You’re all, you’re all missing my point maybe I’m not stating it clearly since you’re missing it. My point is the way the process took place after the meeting was adjourned.

Mr. Guenther: But, it goes back to the point you made before that nothing is really decided until the resolution goes into effect.

President Rattner: One of the things we did--and we’re very conscious with this and I made sure you heard me a couple of times in the last month or so--ask the attorney when someone even suggested can we even do something in closed session, let’s do everything out here and we tried doing that, because we got a question coming up. Maybe it was a mistake, but it was because the response to somebody from the audience coming up--in fact, it was another candidate questioning it and it was answering questions. But we tried our best to keep it open, and we, tried moving ahead. Yes, I’m one of the people who knew because you told me a week before. And I heard that you’re a very ethical person, somebody who really works hard and everything else. However when other, members of the council--and I realized that I’d be the minority, you know, on that and they’d maybe realize, you know, we did treat somebody else not exactly the same way, and we discussed those type of things not in a group, but just we consider things as we go. We’ve discussed a lot of things, a tree ordinance that Mr. Spino had that we passed finally one tonight. He brought one up and after I went home and read it, I said I can’t support it. If you were here at that meeting around in January, he was kind of miffed, because he thought --

Mr. Spino: I was mad!

President Rattner: He thought it was going to go through, but I said you know, after we discussed it, and yes, we said, we were going to put it on the agenda, yes, we were going to vote on it, I said I read it, I don’t understand it, and I don’t know how it’s going to work and I can’t support it. And it did go down, so those type of things--you know, gets very hard and, yea, if we spoke out of turn after the meeting, I will apologize, because as Council President, I’m responsible for maintaining the Order of the meeting that was after the meeting, But when a resident or anybody comes up and starts discussing with us, I am not going to tell a resident--no matter who it is out there, that I can’t discuss what you want to discuss.

Ms. Labow: But you guys went a further step. You did more than discuss what the resident was discussing. Not only did you go further, the four of you continued your discussion after the public had left. I called you later on that night, and I said, so, Steve, what was the end result of your little pow wow, and you said, “Oh, you’re out of there.”

President Rattner: Yes, I said --

Ms. Labow: You said, “Oh, you’re out of there.”

Mr. Sohl: Steve, If I may. Tthat would have happened anyway--and let me tell you how this is. We might have, and I learned that--I would have had the Clerk then poll the council, not at the meeting--this goes on all the time, so that we would be prepared tonight, we would ultimately change--

President Rattner: Okay, Mr. Sohl, let her—because, you know, it’s getting late, she’s been up there longer, just go --

Ms. Labow: Well, I know there are other people who need to speak, so I’ll sit down for now and then I’ll reserve the right to come back up if I feel so compelled to do so again. Is that fair enough?

Mr. Sohl: Yes.

Ms. Labow: Thank you.

President Rattner: Mr. Greenbaum?

Mr. Greenbaum, Crenshaw Drive: I just want to set the Record straight as to what I perceived as what happened last Tuesday. It was a closed meeting, there was no discussion from the Public. There was some discussion among Council Members with regard to my not being considered because I was running for office-- whether it was because I had already announced or because I was on the slate--I wasn’t privy to that discussion which probably occurred prior to my arriving at the meeting. Nonetheless, at the end of the meeting, I went up and I spoke to Mr. Scapicchio and I said if my understanding is correct, that I wasn’t going to be considered because I’m running for office, I wondered why, one of the individuals who was being considered was running for office, and immediately I was met with, “No we didn’t consider anyone who was running for office.” And that’s a discussion that Mr. Spino actually joined in after the meeting, and I said I think you’re wrong, and then for some reason, a couple of minutes later, we found out that actually Colleen was going to run and that’s where the discussion went. Now, to use the term unethical, I think is inappropriate here. And to raise the issue of a meeting occurring outside of the Public Notices Act is, I think, a little misleading because nothing was said outside of Colleen’s presence and this really only affects her. She was present. She heard all the conversation that occurred, at least while I was here, so there was no intent to harm her in any way or to deceive the Public and that’s my perception of what occurred last Tuesday.

President Rattner: Thank you. Mr. Bonte?

Mr. Bonte, Budd Lake: As you know, being one of the initiators of this whole thing, it’s a dilemma.

Mr. Sohl: I have you to blame for that.

Mr. Bonte: However, since we are a nation of law--correct, Mr. Dorsey?

Mr. Dorsey: Some days.

Mr. Bonte: I have a problem here. I realize that this Body here has charged with the authority to pick whom they see fit for this Committee, and you’re within your rights to choose whomever you want, providing that they meet the provisions of the law. The law states that--and I will read it to you, “40A:9-22.19. Each municipality of the state may by Ordinance establish a Municipal Ethics Board, consisting of six members who are residents of the municipality, at least two of whom shall be public members. The members of the ethics board shall be appointed by the Governing Body and shall be chosen by virtue of their known and consistent reputation for integrity and the knowledge of local government affairs. No more than three members of the Ethics Board shall be of the same political party.” Therein becomes my problem. I would hope that once the Ethics Board is created that part of what it will promulgate as a ethics policy for this Town would be that no member of the Governing Body or the Administration or any government employee or any contractor doing business with the Town be allowed to be a member of this Board. However, because of what happened late last summer, the fact that our Ethics Ordinance that we had established was basically declared illegal by the State, we are operating under the State Ethics Law which says that you cannot deny a person from being on this Board because they are a government employee, government official --

Mr. Sohl: No, it doesn’t state that, come on. (INAUDIBLE)

Mr. Bonte: Mr. Sohl, it does not state in this document anywhere--it states--and it clearly recognizes that some of you can be on this Board because it states at least two of whom shall be public. The other four could be working for the Town, could be on this Body. So, the problem I have is that we are excluding an individual or individuals specifically because they are running for office. They’re not even members of a governing body or members of the Township. I recognize that you can pick whom you want–

Mr. Sohl: For almost whatever reason we want as long we don’t violate discrimination laws –

Mr. Bonte: I will allow you to interrupt me--

President Rattner: Let him finish.

Mr. Bonte: Yes, you are correct. However, what you are doing this evening is discriminatory. I would strongly suggest that starting with the “and” before the third “whereas,” and that’s, the whereas that says “each individual appointment takes effect…” I would strongly suggest that starting with the “and,” before that “whereas,” and that entire paragraph you delete. Now, I do not think that--I think you have overstepped your authority by putting in a statement to specifically exclude individual or individuals because they’re running for Office. I think that’s a violation of state statute, so I would recommend that you delete that because I think we’re putting in the Town in the position of being discriminatory. The only other question I would have, and I guess this would be to Mr. Dorsey, would be, do you know--I can’t find anything in the Ethics Laws, but do you

Mr. Bonte (cont’d): know of any reason why Mr. Kamin as a political appointee in the State of New Jersey working for the State, would have any conflict being on this Board?

Mr. Dorsey: No.

Mr. Bonte: Okay, the Hatch Act is not covered?

Mr. Dorsey: The Hatch Act deals with Federal Employees, so it’s not --

Mr. Bonte: But doesn’t it also extend to certain State Employees?

Mr. Dorsey: No, Hatch Act is purely federal, as I understand it.

Mr. Bonte: In any event, I would suggest that you consider my request on that paragraph.

Mr. Dorsey: Well, you know, just, “WHEREAS each individual appointment takes effect on…”, you know, you also have that in the ”resolve” section too, the very last paragraph of the Resolution. It doesn’t make any difference if you take it out of the preamble.

Mr. Bonte: Well, yes, I agree with you, Mr. Dorsey. where ever it makes that reference.

Mr. Dorsey: Unfortunately, if you take that out, it runs in the face what Mr. Sohl has stated has been his belief as to what the general policy shall be.

Mr. Bonte: I understand that that’s Mr. Sohl’s belief and maybe some of the other council members’ beliefs, but you can have your own beliefs, but you can’t violate State Law. State Law does not give you that option until such time as we created an Ethics Code that--and I would hope would restrict this, and then that was approved by the State. Right now, I think we’re getting ourselves into some hot water here by taking on an authority the State hasn’t given us.

Mr. Sohl: I disagree with you.

President Rattner: I just want to say something. On that, I personally would rather leave it in, because rather than us making a decision in the back of our head or saying this is what we’re doing, we’re putting the thoughts and exactly what the thought process down in paper where everybody can see it, and if they don’t like it, then challenge it, and I think it’s better there than have it unwritten and dothe same thing. With this, whether it’s right or wrong, I think we’re down on paper exactly what for the purpose --

Mr. Bonte: Why do want to do something that has the potential for being illegal? You can pick who you want.

President Rattner: Does it have the potential for being illegal?

Mr. Dorsey: I don’t think so.

Mr. Sohl: Rich, you’re entitled to your opinion. I totally disagree with you.

Mr. Bonte: Well, then what you’re basically saying is disagreeing with the State Statute.

Mr. Sohl: No, I’m not disagreeing. But that’s your reading of the Statute.

Mr. Bonte: You don’t have the authority --

Mr. Guenther: But we have the authority to make any, do it on any basis that we want. You, yourself admitted that.

Mr. Bonte: This document states that you can only have a stricter Ethics Ordinance and Code in Town if that is what your Ethics Committee passes and is approved by the State.

Mr. Dorsey: Yes, but the fallacy in which he has just said is, we’re not dealing with the Ethics Code now. We’re dealing with the Appointment of individuals to the Ethics Board and as a matter of fact, you don’t have to give any reason at all as to why you have selected some people or not considered some people, and as Mr. Rattner says, the statement is just being very honest, because the Committee or the Council as far as I can determine, has made the decision that anyone running for political office should not be appointed to the Board. He didn’t have to put that in. He could’ve left that all out and arrived at the same six nominees, but apparently

Mr. Dorsey (cont’d): there is a thought that you should be totally open, and open as to your reasoning, and therefore, it’s in the Resolution.

Mr. Bonte: And if this were to go to the State, I’m sure that they would find that what you have done is in violation of State Law.

Mr. Guenther: How do you know that? You don’t know that.

Mr. Sohl: We have to agree to disagree then, that’s all.

Mr. Guenther: We don’t know if that, whether that is a fact.

Mr. Bonte: How do I know Bernie? Because the State doesn’t say in their thing that you can exclude a person. You can only exclude no more than four members of either, Township Employees or the Governing Body. That’s all it addresses.

Mr. Sohl: So we discriminated against the other 18 people.

President Rattner: Okay--no, no more comments from here. Mr. Elms?

Mr. Bob Elms, Budd Lake: This phrase “if and only if the individual appointed has not filed as a candidate for Public Office in Mount Olive Township” is something that I understand or I gather that the Council has put this in the Resolution as something that they wanted. Is that right?

Mr. Sohl: I want it. I wrote it.

Mr. Elms: Okay. And the second part I gather at the end of it “BE IT FURTHER RESOLED” where the same thing is--

Mr. Sohl: Yes, I think it wound up in there, too.

Mr. Elms: That either you put it in or Mr. Dorsey put it in.

Mr. Sohl: I think it’s just how it ended up in the Resolution.

Mr. Elms: Okay, it is my understanding that if Ms. Labow was on the Ethics Board and she was then elected to Council, she would have to make a decision as to whether or not to take her Council seat or to stay on the Ethics Board. That would be a decision that she would have to make. Now, as to what you wrote here, I suggest you remove Mr. Kamin, because Mr. Kamin was a Township Councilman and did on several occasions, I believe, in the past, become--filed a petition to be a candidate, and in fact, was elected to the Council, Mount Olive Township’s Council. So if you’re going to do it the way you said you’re going to do it, you need to take him off also.

Mr. Spino: That’s ridiculous. Forget that, forget my comment.

President Rattner: Mr. Candura?

Mr. Candura, Crease Road: Good evening, Steve, I’d like to ask you one question. Who put these six names on this piece of paper? Not physically. Who gave the Clerk the names to put on the piece of paper?

President Rattner: I did.

Mr. Candura: You did? Are these the same names that were discussed at the workshop?

President Rattner: Yes.

Mr. Candura: Mr. Kamin was not listed as an alternate in the workshop.

President Rattner: You said you were on the list? We had seven, we had a lot of names on the list at the workshop. We took a a straw poll--

Mr. Candura: So, somewhere between the adjournment of the workshop, and these names being put on the paper, there was discussion about Colleen Labow.

President Rattner: Yes.

Mr. Candura: Okay. Rob (Greenbaum) said that he thinks “unethical” is a stretch. You called it a mistake. Bill said it was a technical error. Mr. Dorsey, is this a violation of the Sunshine Law?

Mr. Dorsey: I don’t think it’s a violation of the Sunshine Law because nothing is effectuated until the vote, until this evening. The Council decides to take a name that’s off that Resolution--

Mr. Candura: How did one name change from the workshop?

Mr. Sohl: I told you how it changed. How many times do I have to explain?

Mr. Guenther: It’s been explained. She listened to the tape. She knows.

Mr. Candura: It shouldn’t have been done--unless there was an announced meeting, an executive session--

Mr. Guenther: I mean, you just heard what Mr. Dorsey said.

Mr. Candura: Bernie, I heard what you said. I don’t agree with it.

President Rattner: Bernie, we can repeat-- I mean if people are saying the same thing, we can keep arguing. Let them state their opinions.

Mr. Candura: I just, I just don’t agree with it. I think you guys really made a little bit of a mistake on this one.

President Rattner: Thank you, Mr. Candura. Anybody else? Is it going to be quick?

Ms. Labow: Yes.

President Rattner: New information?

Ms. Labow: No, it’s a new question. I just would like to know, I understand--on this paper here that has all this legal stuff, why was not this, why this was not supplied to the applicants when they were filing their applications for the Ethics Committee, for the Ethics Board?

Mr. Dorsey: What are you referring to? What is it?

Mr. Sohl: The resolution.

President Rattner: The resolution.

Ms. Labow: Why were these guidelines--

Mr. Dorsey: Because the resolution wasn’t drawn at that point in time.

Ms. Labow: Okay, now on here, it says it was revised by you, Mr. Dorsey, on the tenth of April.

Mrs. Lashway: I prepared the Resolution on Friday. I faxed it to Mr. Sohl and Mr. Dorsey for their review. Mr. Sohl gave me input and Mr. Dorsey gave me further input that I revised today because my fax machine was broken, and it was basically to reiterate Mr. Sohl’s paragraph in the final “NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED”

Ms. Labow: OKAY, so, before this, before you drew this on Friday, there was nothing?

Mr. Dorsey: There was no resolution.

Mrs. Lashway: I came up with this on my own and that’s why I faxed it to them for their input.

President Rattner: Thank you, Ms. Lashway.

Ms. Labow: So, when people were asked in the Township to apply for the Ethics Board, there were essentially no guidelines to actually follow at that time. Right, Mr. Rattner?

President Rattner: Yes. Mr. Sohl, you ran--that was your Subcommittee .Explain what you told people--I think it was basically just an ad in the newspaper, right?

Mr. Sohl: That’s all. We were looking for volunteers. Did we at that time--let me make this very clear--did we at that time indicate to anyone in the public that if you became a candidate for public office, we would not consider you? No, that statement was never made at that time. We didn’t even think about.

Ms. Labow: Right.

Mr. Sohl: I mean, I could come up with 27 varieties of why we didn’t pick somebody or don’t pick somebody. The reality was when we came down to the final decision process--which was last Tuesday, Mr. Greenbaum was actually the catalyst for that element or that criteria--

Ms. Labow: For that thought process, right.

Mr. Sohl: And we made a very conscious deliberate decision. And that’s where it has all flowed from.

Ms. Labow: Right, but all these decisions were made after the other--your workshop meeting had been adjourned.

Mr. Sohl: No, Mr. Greenbaum was taken off--and I will, you know, I mean--let me clear something up for the members of the public. Mr. Scapicchio and I talk on the phone about any number of subjects. That’s not a violation of Sunshine Law.

Ms. Labow: That’s correct if there’s only two of you.

Mr. Sohl: I mean, so these things go back and forth and, and I call up Mr. Rattner, he talks to me. So if we only conducted discussions per se, or read commentary, you know, nothing would ever get done. We’d be here forever. But the reality is, the thrust of what took place last Tuesday is in that Resolution tonight. Had we not heard about you that night, had I found out any time since last Tuesday, I would have been the first to change that Resolution and ask that we do that.

Ms. Labow: So, basically, you ran an ad in the paper, requesting people from the community to apply for this Ethics Board if they so desired and felt they would be a good candidate for the process, whatever, and then after different people were eliminated or chosen or whatever, then you adopted--

Mr. Sohl: No, after--

Ms. Labow: --the resolution to suit your final decision?

Mr. Sohl: No, you’re reading or listening to words that I didn’t speak.

Ms. Labow: Well--

Mr. Sohl: What I said was --

Ms. Labow: --speak them clearly then.

Mr. Sohl: --when we had the list of names, once we knew who they were, Mr. Greenbaum was one of the 20-odd there and we made a conscious decision. I know, I personally did not to select a candidate for Public Office, a candidate at that point in time, notwithstanding comments to any candidate at any time in the process--

Ms. Labow: Well, I don’t want to rehash this over and over. I feel that the statements that needed to be said have been said, but I would like to finalize my comments by saying that I would like to go on Public Record as stating that as a citizen in this Town that I love very much that I feel that our Town Council has, in the process of choosing an Ethics Board for our Town, has chosen to do it in a very unethical manner.

Mr. Sohl: You’re entitled to your opinion.

Ms. Labow: Thank you very much.

President Rattner: Anybody else from the Public like to address the Council on this Resolution? Seeing none, I’ll close public discussion. We already moved—

Mr. Sohl: It’s moved and seconded already.

President Rattner: Any further discussion from the Council? Roll call.

Mr. Guenther: I would just like to throw out--it’s possible Mr. Bonte has a point. I don’t think we need to have that clause in there.

Mr. Spino: I do.

Mr. Sohl: I do.

Mr. Guenther: We can make a decision based on any point we want. It doesn’t have to be in the resolution.

President Rattner: Any other discussion?

Mr. Scapicchio: Just—I’d like to leave with the comment that we all began with when Bill first started this process and that was that we, at all times, tried to keep an arm’s length distance from the people that we selected and that’s why this Council took my recommendation to start off with a blind selection process, so that it could not become political. And I think what people in the audience are now trying to draw from our actions is really unfair because everybody here worked to try and keep politics at an arm’s length distance from the process to keep it out of the realm of criticism.

President Rattner: Thank you, Mr. Scapicchio,

Mr. Dorsey: I guess we failed.

Mr. Scapicchio: We failed.

Mr. Spino: I’m not going to say anything. I told there was going to be like this, no one would listen.

President Rattner: Roll call.

ROLL CALL: Passed by the majority: Mr. Sohl, Mr. Spino, Mr. Scapicchio, Mr. Rattner Voted YES

Mr. Heymann, Mr. Guenther Voted NO

President Rattner: Okay, next item on the agenda, hopefully won’t be as controversial, Resolution No. 9. Mr. Spino?

9. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive RE: DeBiasse Donation, Lot 4, Block 2305 (canceling taxes on property donation to Twp.)

Mr. Spino moved foe approval of the Resolution and Mr. Scapicchio seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed unanimously

10. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Retaining the Services of Francis

J. Banisch, III, PP (Interverse Enterprise Litigation)

Mr. Scapicchio moved foe approval of the Resolution and Mr. Heymann seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed unanimously

11. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing the Business Administrator to Execute Section A-1 of the Statement of Consent of the New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) Discharge to Surface Water (DSW) Renewal Permit Application for the Musconetcong Sewerage Authority’s Water Pollution Control Plant. (MSA Permit Renewal)

Mr. Heymann moved foe approval of the Resolution and Mr. Sohl seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed unanimously

12. A Resolution to Authorize a Contract for the Removal of Contaminated Soils at Turkey Brookay Park. (not received)

Mr. Guenther moved foe approval of the Resolution and Mr. Heymann seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed unanimously

Mr. Bob Thomas, Budd Lake: I’d just like some clarification because I had asked this question two different times previously in regards to trying to report on the Turkeybrook Park development for the newspaper. At one point, we had explained in details from Schoor DePalma through Gene Buczynki that there were sections of soil at the park whose remediation could be done by paving over, etc. And then at a further point, Bob Casey, as Chair of the Works--or whatever he is in terms of his oversight on the park, he said there were no longer any soil problems at the park. So, my question now is what is this in reference to? Where did the soil come from that now has to be dealt with and what, what are we talking about basically?

President Rattner: , Mr. Kaplan, do you want to answer that, it’s a very, simple answer. Do you want me to answer it?

Mr. Kaplan: I only know that there was soil stored there and this is what’s going to be removed.

President Rattner: No, the soil has always been there. What happened--after we got the Master Plan that Olympvs put together, the Green Acres wanted some modifications, DEP wanted some modifications, the drainage--there was some downsizing, there was some moving of roads. The Master Plan and the soils that were going to be capped by some of the parking lots and the roads under the new plan, now they’re not going to be capped, because they asked us to make some modifications. This is due to the modifications. The question I was going to ask when I came to Council Comments is have our plans been finalized so that we’re going to out to bid--to clean these up so we don’t have to do it again.

Mr. Heymann: Well, the memo there says within a couple of weeks. We have a memo in our mail that said we submitted it within a couple of weeks, we should have the go ahead.

President Rattner: But we’re passing a Resolution--I just want to make sure we’re passing a Resolution , telling somebody to start work to remediate something, and as long as they don’t come back. You know the State could come with whatever they want--there’s another line they want moved. Or do we feel comfortable that we got, verbal signoff and we’re just waiting for the piece of paper.

Mr. Spino: These are areas that we’re there, not--

President Rattner: Yes.

Mr. Thomas: No, I understand they are areas that were there, bu, in other words--

Mr. Spino: --and we’re just-- they move things around so the areas that we are going to be capped by the parking lot, or we’re not going to be capping--.

Mr. Thomas: That I can understand but, there’s no delineation of what we’re talking about here and it was considered at one time enough of a problem that it delayed development of the park for what? At least a year or so until you got some basic answers. So the question becomes how much--what are we looking at? How can you give--resolve to award a contract for removal of soils if there’s no specifications of what you’re talking about.

Mr. Dorsey: Well, you know, you’re absolutely right and, Sandy, do we have specifications for the contract? Have they been prepared? We don’t know.

Mr. Kaplan: I believe so, but I can call Mr. Casey tomorrow and find out.

Mr. Dorsey: You may want to hold the Resolution until you actually see the specs in the matter.

Mr. Guenther: There is a memo here from Bob Casey that explains the reason for it.

Mr. Dorsey: Well, apparently, they’ve already bid, so they must be specs--because it says on Monday, the ninth, which was yesterday, they were opening Bids to remove five remaining hot spots.

Mr. Scapicchio: But the point is we need to find out whether or not the DEP has approved or modified plans.

Mr. Spino: I thought we discussed it when he was here.

Mr. Scapicchio: Well, that’s what we’re asking for.

President Rattner: We were told we’re not going get it for another couple of weeks--no, this is the stuff that just happened in the last, this happened in the last month where they didn’t like where some of the fields were going, they wanted a little less disruption--the building was downsized. There were a couple of different things--I mean, it’s explainable. Is there any problem if we delay this—I know they wanted to get moving with it because we have a very tight schedule here, but I think it’s important to make sure that we do have the permit from the DEP before we actually go out to bid.

Mr. Dorsey: Bids can be held for 60 days.

Mr. Kaplan: I don’t think anything’s going to happen until Mr. Casey returns from vacation, which is at least a week away.

Mr. Dorsey: And the bids can be held for 60 days, so you don’t have a problem there.

President Rattner: Okay, Mr. Elms?

Mr. Elms: The last I heard-- the remediation amounted to diluting the contaminants by mixing the soil that was coming out of Budd Lake from cleaning up the beach.

Mr. Spino: No, That was only for some of it. The major--what they call hot spots, as Steve said, that’s exactly correct, they were going to be covered over with blacktop for parking lot or for a street. That’s not going to happen now because the parking lot has been redesigned and those hot spots are not going to be covered, so we have to dig them out.

Mr. Elms: Part of the justification was for cleaning the bog out of Budd Lake was to dilute the soil that was in Turkeybrook--

Mr. Guenther: No --

Mr. Elms: They said that’s where it was going.

Mr. Guenther: That wasn’t the justification—

Mr. Spino: Mr. Elms, get your facts straight. That was not the justification for doing the dredging of Budd Lake--

Mr. Elms: That was where the soil is supposed to go.

Mr. Spino: Because it was cheaper to put the soil up there and if we could use it, we would—as long as it wasn’t contaminated.

President Rattner: All right--

Mr. Spino: You came up here and you state things on your throne and you’re wrong, you’re wrong.

Mr. Elms: Where is the soil, where does the soil go that came out of Budd Lake?

Mr. Spino: It went to Turkeybrook. But that was never part of why, why we were cleaning out the Lake—

Mr. Elms: No, but that soil was supposed to be used to dilute the contaminants in Turkeybrook, wasn’t it?

President Rattner: Okay, we’re going to wait until Mr. Casey gets back and put it on the next agenda, so we can answer the questions for our satisfaction. Anybody have a problem with that? Mr. Guenther, will you withdraw your Resolution?

Mr. Guenther: Okay, I move to withdraw the Resolution to authorize a contract to remove the contaminated soils.

Mr. Heymann: Second.

President Rattner: All in favor?



1. Bill List.

Mr. Sohl: I move for approval of the bill list as identified on the list generated April 6, 2001.

Mr. Guenther: Second.

ROLL CALL: Passed unanimously

2. Appointment of Chip Woltz to the Open Space Committee.

Mr. Spino moved for the approval of the appointment and Mr. Sohl seconded the Motion.

ROLL CALL: Passed unanimously


Library Board Liaison Report

Mr. Sohl: I believe there was a subcommittee meeting between the Library Trustees and the Subcommittee of the Council earlier tonight--and I’m not on that Committee, so I don’t know what transpired there. There is a Library Board meeting tomorrow. Unfortunately, I’ve got a conflict. I won’t be able to attend that. But, that’s the latest as I understand it.

President Rattner: Yes, and, so it could be noted--in the Capital Budget that we finally passed today is the, Capital amount to get moving with the Library, so that was passed tonight.

Recreation Report

Mr. Heymann: Just two short things. Number 1, I spoke to Schulte tonight and hopefully the Flanders Crossing field will be ready for the season. I don’t think it really will, maybe it’ll be pushed back a week. And I was approached by the vice president of baseball for the little kids--you know, up through sixth grade, still inquiring, and they’re going to be pushing, they told me this summer, for the Flanders Crossing Field to be lit. So, I’m just letting you have a little notice that they want that field to be lit for the Babe Ruth program, and I’m sure they’re going to be coming on down here, so, so head’s up.

President Rattner: Got big lights on the basketball courts.

Mr. Heymann: Yes, that was --

President Rattner: Looks a little out of place.

Mr. Heymann: Well, then we should finish it off with the other lights.

President Rattner: Mayor, you wanted to say something --

Mayor Licitra: Yea, Eric is meeting Thursday with some people from Flanders Crossing and some people that expressed an interest to extend the Tot Lot down there with tables and the money we got from the developers to extend that, playground a little bit, so Eric is meeting with them on Thursday, so we should see more action as soon as the large equipment leaves there. But it’s something that’s coming along that people are, people are using that Tot Lot very much, and we are need to provide more facilities and, and places for them to sit and, and places for them to be with their children.

President Rattner: Mayor, or I guess, Sandy, remember about three or four months ago, maybe a little bit longer, there was discussion about doing another curb cut across from Flanders Crossing where their sidewalk terminates, I haven’t seen that done, so just remind Mr. Casey that this still has to be put in.

Mr. Kaplan: It’s scheduled to be done. We were waiting for the good weather to come.

President Rattner: Oh, okay. I figured I’d bring it up before I let a resident ask--you know, bring it up.

Board of Health Report

Mr. Scapicchio: No report. The Board of Health, won’t meet until next month.

President Rattner: Where’d Mr. Spino go? He got his big chance to talk.

Mr. Scapicchio: He had to make a phone call.

President Rattner: Okay, we’ll come back to the Planning Board Report. Ms. Kelly isn’t here for the Open Space Committee Report. Anything to report on the Legislative Committee Report, Mr. Guenther?

Legislative Committee Report

Mr. Guenther: No, there’s nothing on the legislative, but I do want to bring up something else for discussion. It, really, I guess, involves indirectly the Open Space Committee. About a month or so ago, I was a member of, a Committee that met with the County, Representative of the County MUA, which I’m also on the Board, regarding Camp Pulaski. This was at the instigation of the Open Space Committee with the idea that the 300-some-odd acres that are owned by the County MUA up there be--I won’t say “preserved” but somehow be assured that they’re not going to be developed. Unofficially, I’d always told the Open Space Committee and the Town, the sentiment of the MUA Board was very definitely that once lands are in public domain, they are not going to be returned to private hands. On the other hand, we know, some of us who have been involved with the County over the years, policies change, it can change at the Freeholder level and you never know. So, the proposal, we sat down with the Executive Director of the MUA, and he came up with an idea that would really be a win-win situation both for the MUA and the Town. Technically, the MUA holds title to the property. The MUA would sell the property to the Park Commission. This helps the MUA and the MUA reduces its debt to the County that it owes. The only caveat for the Town would be that the Town would obviously lose the taxes that it now collects from the MUA on that. I believe--if memory serves me correctly, Jack came up with a figure, I think, it was around $40,000.00 they are now collecting. The only stipulation the MUA would make is that once the land gets in the hands of the Park Commission, that they still will maintain an easement where they can drill for water. As some of you might now, originally, Camp Pulaski was acquired for the possibility of creating a reservoir. That was never viable, the property’s not big enough, that’s just not in the cards. But, there might be water under the ground, there might be ground water that could be tapped. We’ve been told geologically that’s very unlikely, but the County MUA would want to maintain that easement. This is the same kind of arrangement that was made in the Washington Valley and Morris Township and Mendham Township where over, 500 acres were turned over to the Park Commission and these easements were maintained. So, the reason for me bringing this up was--I told some of the Council members unofficially a few of weeks ago, I just wanted, some direction as to how we should proceed, the Open Space Committee, as I said, is the one that was initiative this, this didn’t come, didn’t originate from the County. But, obviously, there’s a loss of taxes so that has to be considered. But I believe we can then having walking trails, there would be a connection with the Patriot’s Path. It would connect with Stephens State Park. It would just put on a nice--a long trail pattern for paths and recreation. So the Township would be able to use it, as would anybody else. It would be Morris County parkland. So I just wanted to throw it out and poll the Council. It doesn’t have to be decided tonight, but I just wanted you to have the facts and to consider to get back to the MUA. Now, on the County side, they’re approaching the Freeholders. The Freeholder Board is very Open Space-oriented at this time, so there’s not really any problem seeing that the County would go for this. But I don’t have official word on that right now, being approached by this Freeholder liaison to the MUA, Jack Schrier and he was going to check the Freeholder Board as I’m checking with the Council. If you wish to discuss it, fine, if not, we’ll discuss it the next time.

President Rattner: In the concept you presented to me, I think there could be some benefits. But to take formal action, I think it probably, especially with the implications of the taxes on saying the pluses and minuses--.

Mr. Sohl: I think we should discuss it as soon as possible.

Mr. Heymann: Put it on a workshop.

Mr. Sohl: Yeah.

President Rattner: Yes--but the way you explained it sounds like a good deal.

Mr. Guenther: I’d like to ask Mr. Dorsey, do we need--would we need a resolution on this?

Mr. Sohl: Sure—

Mr. Heymann: Yeah.

Mr. Sohl: A resolution of intent of some type

President Rattner: Well, just that we, we agree with the concept.

Mr. Dorsey: I suppose it would be good to have a resolution, so you know what direction you’re going in.

Mr. Guenther: Okay.

Mr. Dorsey: If, indeed, he Council as a whole agrees with that intention.

Mr. Guenther: You know, I, I told the Mayor, and despite the loss of taxes, he didn’t seem to have a problem with it, but I won’t speak for him.

Mayor Licitra: Bernie, I think it’s an excellent idea. It’s something that we--I applaud you for researching, and I think what we have to do is, we’re waiting for them to react, so maybe a resolution will make the Freeholders act a little quicker and I think it’s something that we never know what’s going to be built. I agree with you 100% on it, Bernie, we’re completely in favor of it, and anything--if you pass a resolution, we’ll pass it on to the Freeholders and get moving.

President Rattner: We’ll put it on. You heard the Mayor, and the way Mr. Guenther explained it, it sounds pretty good, especially when it’s becomes more park land.

Mr. Guenther: Well, it’s, let me just clarify. They’re really waiting for us. Not that there’s any great rush, but the County, as soon as they know from us, they’ll move on it, because then they have to do it on their end to do their paperwork which takes a while.

Mr. Sohl: I would just like to suggest that--if that we have a general concurrence here that we--Bernie reflect that and that we will discuss it at a workshop, so that they know that (a) we’re discussing it and (b) they can look for a more formal response in the near future.

President Rattner: I don’t have a problem with that.

Mr. Guenther: All right.

President Rattner: And we’ll put it on for the next workshop so we can move quickly with it and give it to them too. Anybody have a problem with that?

Mr. Guenther: No.

President Rattner: Mr. Heymann?

Mr. Heymann: No.

President Rattner: Mr.. Spino?

Mr. Spino: No.

President Rattner: Mr. Scapicchio?

Mr. Scapicchio: No.

President Rattner: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Guenther. Mr. Spino, anything to report from the Planning Board? I know they’re not very active.

Planning Board Report

Mr. Spino: Well, this week was a short meeting, shorter than normal--the Mayor wasn’t there, so --

Mayor Licitra: I picked the one time we get home before 11:30.

Mr. Spino: We had a couple of minor things—minor lot line adjustments, a minor subdivision, but we did have one on Sand Shore Road, a Light Industrial, or warehouse going in there that got approved. That was it.

President Rattner: Thank you, Mr. Spino. Master Plan Report, anything, Mr. Scapicchio?

Master Plan Report

Mr. Scapicchio: Master Plan hasn’t met. Mayor? When--

Mayor Licitra: Yes--Chuck has hired a consultant. We are going to meet very soon. As I said, we had two new members join and Chuck is going to be calling a meeting as soon as the Consultant gets his plans in order. So, it should be within the next couple of weeks.

President Rattner: Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Scapicchio. Pride Committee Report, Mr. Guenther? I should also note that our Chairman of the Pride Committee is out in the audience, so if you need any help.

Pride Committee Report

Mr. Guenther: If he wants. There was a memo that was sent regarding some, what we call “hot spots” that are aesthetically “unpleasing” shall we say. It was sent to Chuck McGroarty. In fact, he’s issued a memo and gotten together with the Zoning Officer, who met with members of the Pride Committee, so these issues will be addressed.

Mayor Licitra: And if I may-- from there, half of those things have been taken care of already and the other ones are, half of them are on building maintenance and half of them will be taken up by the Planning Department.

President Rattner: Thank you, Mr. Guenther.


President Rattner: Now we’ll come to the final public portion of the meeting, which any member of the public can speak on any item they’d like to address the Council on. Mr. Elms?

Mr. Elms: This is just an Administrative question on Ordinance 10. The last paragraph on the first page says, “See attached map entitled ‘Zoning Map Revisions’” and there isn’t any map attached. Can we get copies of those?

Mr. Dorsey: Yes, you can, I’ll give you a copy right now. Anybody else want a copy? I have an extra one.

Mr. Elms: Thank you.

President Rattner: Any, anybody else from the public? Yes, sir?

Mr. Carnathan: I’m by Ashley’s Turkey Farm in that area. With all the development going on, I’m just wondering what is the future, two bad words for you, sewage and water for that area of town? I believe it stopped in 1973 down by Main Street. For those developments, everybody else is getting city water and sewage and we’ve been there an awful long time and not getting anything. In fact, the one home in the back, I think it’s West Grover--had a tie-in to Roxbury then. Well, currently, there’s a person trying to build. He can’t hit water at all down on, I believe, it’s Gervic Street down near the end towards the creek there, so my suggestion is what is in the future for city water and sewage for that particular area. Also, on the other side of Town, the other side of the road, in back of “I Love Subs”, in that area, they’re also having problems with their wells.

Mr. Guenther: Where is that, I’m sorry sir?

Mr. Spino: Behind “I Love Subs”

Mr. Carnathan: Emmens Road, back in there.

Mr. Sohl: North side --

Mr. Carnathan: So, that’s, I know they’re two bad words because you have a lot of big problems up in Budd Lake. We’ve been down here for almost 25 years in the Town and all I see--in some cases, service is being taken away rather than being developed--from two days a week for garbage to one day; not picking up the leaves--you have to bundle them up and everything else. There’s just two little things. But I see services going down, rather than getting better. So, I would like to hear comments on that or whatever else. I’m looking to the future.

Mr. Spino: The immediate comment that I have is as that, as far as I know, there are no plans to extend sewer line or water line from the sewage --

Mr. Carnathan: Well, I would like the Council to take that into consideration for the future.

Mr. Spino: Oh, so would I because, I know exactly how you feel. I don’t live in that area, but I know.

Mr. Carnathan: Well, again, you got all these development going on, Flanders Crossing—and they’re pumping water galore out of the golf course down into Morristown and we’re getting nothing. We’re getting nothing. And the new State Law is they have to pass inspection for septic tank and wells when we sell our homes, if we have to sell our homes. Right now, I would like to see in the future something done about this for those particular—there are 20 homes on my side--I don’t know how many are on the Emmans Road. We’re talking maybe 30, 40 homes to hook up. Even if we could hook up to Roxbury-- I don’t know how that’s done, but I know one home had to hook up to Roxbury, because it was so bad--the water, they had to hook up to Roxbury. So, I would like the Council to take it into consideration for the future, and whatever can be done, I’d like to see what can happen at this time.

President Rattner: Mr. Scapicchio?

Mr. Scapicchio: Yes, I’d just, like to suggest that we have Schoor DePalma looking at the outer area of the Budd Lake system to see what we can do with the extra EDU’s and we’re also looking at the water system. Maybe we can encompass the scope of his work to this little area to see what the potential of either extending the water from Flanders Valley wells or tying in with Roxbury, which, you know, there is a connection down there.

President Rattner: Mr. Guenther?

Mr. Guenther: Well, Dave, remember a couple of months ago, it was brought up--it was brought up again the issue of the interconnect with the Flanders Valley field.

Mr. Scapicchio: I think Lisa passed that contract onto the Administration and hopefully, within the next couple of weeks --

Mr. Guenther: Administration?

Mr. Scapicchio: I’m sorry.

Mayor Licitra: We had a meeting today with New Jersey American to talk about the interconnect with Chester to see if there is any more that we can do over there, because the only, Roxbury won’t allow us, we’ve already tried on Tony Iturbe’s property which is down on Beaver Lane and Roxbury wouldn’t allow us to come in. The only other option that we’ve explored--and I explored it when I was on the Council with Mr. Purcell was to come down from the high school into Ramar Street down the hill and into Old Flanders and around there. But that project is something that’s going to be very, very costly because each time you’re coming down the hill, you have to stop, you have to level, you have to put stabilizers in. So it’s a very hard process. So that’s why we’re looking at the Chester Interconnect right now to see if we could, and how much water would be available at that point. We’re talking water only now, we’re not talking sewer.

President Rattner: Mayor, just a quick- -I plan on having one of the workshops talking about our water and sewer utility, maintenance, future plans, possibility and that will be scheduled a little bit later in the year--and we’ll keep a list of different people who have asked. I’ve heard about problems with people on Main Street in Flanders, people in parts of Budd Lake that were like more, and we have to look at it in total and look at our priorities, but we’re definitely --

Mr. Carnathan: Well, the priorities--these people have been in this community an awful long time, but all this new development going on. Why should they get priority over people who have been here?

Mr. Guenther: Well, just like --

Mr. Carnathan: Wait, hold on, wait a minute. Let me finish this. I’ve been here 25 years and I love the town, I love the community and everything. I just feel some of the services have been inadequate. All I want you to think about and where we’re going with this, with all the new developments coming in, why can’t we, who have been here, get sewage and water? That’s all I’m going to ask.

President Rattner: Okay, just so you know, the developer under these--

Mr. Spino: Mr. Chairman, I had my hand up.

Mr. Carnathan: Well, I’m speaking for a number of people. I’m not just speaking for myself.

President Rattner: He’s talked twice, I can’t speak at all?

Mr. Spino: You have to wait until the end, you’re the President.

President Rattner: You, you think I’m going to say the same thing you’re going to say?

Mr. Guenther: He has seniority.

President Rattner: Go ahead, Mr. Spino. I know I’m the boss, but he thinks he is the Dean.

Mr. Spino: Two things. I’ve been in town a little longer than 31 years. I don’t have water and sewer. I wish I did and I don’t think we’ll, we’ll ever get them--

Mr. Carnathan: Why not?

Mr. Spino: Because--I don’t know, it’s just that in a spot that is not going to be served.

Mr. Carnathan: Well, I think that’s wrong to say that.

Mr. Guenther: There’s a cost involved.

Mr. Carnathan: The cost involved? I understand cost--

Mr. Spino: Can I finish? Wait a minute, wait a minute, can I finish? I let you finish, let me get, can I finish?

Mr. Carnathan: Sure.

Mr. Spino: The other point is that most--you are saying the new developments. We don’t do that for the new developments. The new developments put their own--if they have sewers, they put their own in. We don’t do it for them.

Mr. Carnathan: Where do they hook up to?

Mr. Spino: They build their own systems.

Mr. Carnathan: Yeah?

Mr. Heymann: Their own plant.

Mr. Spino: Except for Flanders Crossings, they paid. We didn’t pay for that. The developer paid to put that line in and extend it.

President Rattner: And to expand the plant.

Mr. Spino: And to expand the plant. We have developments going in that are putting in, that are going in on septics.

Mr. Carnathan: Where does the Township come into play on that? Don’t you have any control over?

Mr. Guenther: What do you mean?

Mr. Spino: No, the Planning Board does, not the Town Council.

Mr. Carnathan: Well, the Planning Board, aren’t you part of the Planning Board?

Mr. Spino: No. Only me. I’m the only member--and the Mayor, sorry.

Mr. Carnathan: You are part of the Planning Board though?

Mr. Spino: Yes, I’m a member of the Planning Board.

Mr. Carnathan: Right.

Mr. Spino: But I don’t make them put septic systems in or--

Mr. Carnathan: Who decides on septic and sewage--

Mr. Spino: The Developer.

Mr. Carnathan: The Town doesn’t decide on septic or sewer?

Mr. Spino: No, the Township can’t make them put in sewer--unless it’s on a small lot. If they put them on quarter-acre lots, then they have to put a system in. If they put them on acre lots or bigger, they don’t have to put a municipal system--a sewer system in. They’re putting in 80 houses on Flanders-Netcong Road, on septic systems.

Mr. Carnathon: On seotic systems—

President Rattner: Mr. Guenther?

Mr. Spino: On septics and wells. Septics and wells. So, it’s not something that we do.

Mr. Guenther: One of the things we have, there’s, there’s a little bit of, I won’t to say a “conflict” but there are two things to consider here. There are two sides of the coin. One of the things when we wrote the Master Plan was to create some larger zoning. The idea of larger zoning is, that in a larger zoning you do not have--you cannot justify sewer and water systems and that’s to cut down on the density. As Earl was saying, the only areas that get sewer and water are the ones with higher density. It’s not in the Town’s--it’s generally been decided as a matter of policy in this Town, when the Master Plan was passed, that it’s not in our interest to encourage development--meaning we want larger zoning so that there’s not more developing, meaning you’re not going to have sewer and water in those places. Earl lives in an area of Flanders-Netcong Road that’s zoned one acre. One-acre zoning does not, will not ever probably ever have sewer and water unless--unless they run into a really bad problem where all the septic systems back up, the water gets contaminated or something like that. Only in a case like that will it happen.

Mr. Spino: Then the developer would do that.

Mr. Guenther: Well, no, if you have a problem on Flanders-Netcong Road --

Mr. Spino: Oh, yes. Yes, absolutely.

Mr. Guenther: --Let’s see all your systems go bad, there’s something wrong, whatever--I mean, then you can get some State aid to help put that in, but it has to be a very serious problem and that’s happened in certain areas around the county.

Mr. Carnathan: Okay.

President Rattner: Thank you. Anybody else? Mr. Bonte?

Mr. Bonte, Budd Lake: First of all, Bernie, I hope on your list of “hot spots” is the Clover Hill sewer plant. First thing one sees when entering this town from the south. It’s deplorable, there are piles of dirt, junk, pipes, etc. I asked four or five years ago, can’t we put up some trees in--near the highway, to at least shield the view. I don’t really care what goes on back there, but it shouldn’t be the first thing people see after they see a sign that says “Entering Township of Mt. Olive.” So, add that to your list if it’s not on it, Bernie. Secondly. I have a suggestion. This would be, I guess, to the Mayor and to the Council on the Cleanup Week. Now that we have decided we’re going to do this, I’ve been giving it some thought and my suggestion would be that instead of having a designated time period--a week or two where people put out everything and we have a mad scramble to try and make the streets look acceptable again and possible overtime costs--would it be possible to, when the July Tax Bills goes out, send everybody a sticker and announce a period starting, let’s say the end of July until November where that sticker will entitle you one time to put out everything you want to throw away. What it would accomplish is, it would spread out and I think make it easier for our sanitation people to do this large clean up and possibly reduce our overtime costs. I realize the tonnage is going to be the same, but it might help with the schedule. Because the odds are people will do this over a variety of different weeks. So, it’s something I’d like you to look at and consider. The Environmental Commission--I’ve talked about this a number of times

Mr. Bonte (cont’d): in the past regarding the State requirement of a member of the Environmental Commission be on the Planning Board. Not the reverse, not that a Planning Board member be appointed to the Environmental Commission. The intent of the law is clear. I’ve talked to people at the state and in the law it even states that the term of office of that person who is on both those Committees shall be the starting and ending date of his Environmental Commission Appointment, not the Appointment to the Planning Board. That presently is not the case. But of more concern is the fact that that particular member, Mr. McGoldrick, occasionally goes to Environmental Commission meetings and has, I know, on the issue of the Crown Tower development, missed six meetings. The last three in a row. What we have, basically, is an individual who is not fulfilling the intent of the Law and that is that a voting member on the Planning Board comes from the Environmental Commission with their viewpoint and background on the Planning Board and I’d like to see this corrected. Mr. McGoldrick was reappointed in January. I don’t believe that that date coincides with his Environmental Commission appointment dates. I think we need to clarify that problem in the law. I think we need to have someone on the Planning Board who represents the Environmental Commission as the state statute clearly requires. And finally, first of all, Mr. Scapicchio, I would like to be excluded from your statement regarding how the Ethics Committee was arrived at and that I believe you stated something to the effect that people were unhappy with who was picked. I’d like to be excluded from that because I am not, did not complain earlier about who was picked and am not now. I brought up an issue which I thought was important. I thought it was extremely important that this Township not on the Record, in writing, put ourselves in the position where we could find ourselves the subject of a lawsuit. You had the ability to appoint who you wanted to this committee. I recognize that. But to state a reason for denying appointment to this Committee, that the State Law does not give you the authority to do is, in my opinion, arrogant. I believe you have overstepped your bounds regarding the State Law and I don’t think this was a wise move to do. Thank you.

President Rattner: Thank you, Mr. Bonte. Anybody? Mr. Perkins?

Mr. Perkins, Budd Lake: Good evening. Speaking on behalf of the Mount Olive Pride Committee, I just wanted to add a little bit to what Councilman Guenther was talking about. Quickie for the hot spots, that list was being addressed, much to my surprise and delight. I do know that Clover Hill Treatment Plan is one of my eyesore areas, so I know we’re working on that. Mr. Sohl had contacted me a while back on the possibility of getting some donated trees and I did come up with a small landscape plan. I’m just waiting to get--take that over to Bill’s house and actually go over it. So, I agree with Mr. Bonte on this one, that it does need to be addressed. It is one of the first things you see. And we’ll get that billboard donated, we try to take care of the welcome signs, and that is something that really, just sticks out and is bad. One thing I’d like to address the Council as well as the rest of the audience here is if you didn’t get a chance to read the newspaper article that between the Historical Society and the Pride Committee and also Mr. Sohl’s Subcommittee, we are looking for donations of Americans flags. We did send out a purchase order to Apollo Flag. We do have 20 American flags to be strewn along the telephone poles, hung along the telephone poles would be a better verbiage, along Budd Lake and down in Flanders as well. We have purchased some banners, last year, some of them fitting the motif for the old section down in Flanders as well as the one in Budd Lake. So, anybody who does want to make a donation, please feel free to make that donation to the Chief Financial Officer and just make your donation for Memorial Day flags. Thank you very much.

President Rattner: Thank you very much, Mr., Mr. Perkins. Anybody else like to speak? Yes, ma’am.

Mrs. Gallagher, Budd Lake: I just had a few things that I was hoping you could clarify. Mr. Guenther, you said that you are trying to discourage over-development? Did I --

Mr. Guenther: I said I was trying to encourage less development.

Ms. Gallagher: Less development. Is, is that what the Council believes they have done at this point? Because if what we have done is less development, I shudder to think what would happen --

Mr. Guenther: Well, well, let me tell you something. I’ve worked in real estate for many years and I’ll tell you that most of the projects that are being built, and I’ve said this many times. The large projects being built were approved before any of us before any of us were on this Council, except maybe Mr. Spino.

Mr. Spino: Thank you, Bernie.

Mr. Guenther: They were approved back in the late--in the late 80’s. The real estate market went in the tank in the late 80’s, early 90’s. There was an extension law passed by the State Legislature. Now, the wisdom of somebody, and no one’s willing to take any credit or blame for this, on the Planning Boards, extended one project that Toll Brothers is going to build--410 units and additional--I forget, three or four or five years.

Mr. Spino: Ten years.

Mr. Guenther: Ten. Had no business doing that. That was done a long time ago. So, as far as this Council– the problem is the policies you put in now, you don’t see the effect of those until four or five years from now. The Master Plan, when was it passed? The Master Plan revision, two years ago?

Mr. Dorsey: It was in 1998, the Township Council approved the RR-AA Zone, which is referred to as the five-acre zone and the RR-A, which is the three-acre zone. Of course, as you point out, that re-zoning does not affect any land that had previously received approval.

Mrs. Gallagher: Okay, and I came in on the tail end of the Ethics Committee thing and I was curious, just, did you not approve a different slate at a previous meeting which was Public Record the Minutes?

Mr. Dorsey: Let’s set the Record straight. We did not approve any slate until this evening. There was no slate previously approved.

Mrs. Gallagher: I was misled. You did not vote on different people? There are people appointed to this Ethics Committee that did not receive a majority of the vote?

Mr. Sohl: No official vote was ever taken. There was not an official vote until tonight.

President Rattner: Prior to tonight.

Mr. Sohl: Prior to tonight.

Ms. Gallagher: So, you did not actually each of you --

Mr. Sohl: It was a straw vote.

Mrs. Gallagher: It was a what?

Mr. Sohl: Straw poll.

President Rattner: Last Tuesday is what we call a “work session.” That’s where we dealt--we discuss, nothing is finalized until we come to the public meetings. That’s why it, the meetings are described either “Workshop Meeting” or “Public Meeting.” Action can only be handled at a public meeting.

Mr. Spino: We can’t be law, at a workshop meeting --

Mrs. Gallagher: I understand that, but I guess--I guess what happened from last week to this week is, you all changed your mind.

Mr. Spino: No, no, no, we didn’t all change our minds.

Mr. Sohl: And we’re all entitled to do that, by the way.

President Rattner: Anyway, let her continue.

Mrs. Gallagher: Okay, but anyway. But some of you did, in fact, change your minds.

Mr. Spino: Not really.

Mrs. Gallagher: I was led to believe that--

Mr. Sohl: One name changed from--

Mr. Spino: I think the facts as some people know them, change, not that they, they wanted someone or didn’t want someone. The facts changed and the knowledge that they had of the person changed. That’s what changed.

Ms. Gallagher: Oh, okay, thank you.

President Rattner: Anybody else from the Public?

President Rattner: Make it short, you’ve already been up once.

Mr. Greenbaum: No, no, it’s on a different subject.

Mr. Heymann: I hope you’re successful in your legislature so I can filibuster here.

Mr. Sohl: I’ll come with you.

Mr. Greenbaum: I just wanted to address some of the issues which Mr. Bonte has raised relating to a member of the Environmental Commission being also a member of the Planning Board. Mr. Bonte was kind enough to supply me with the regulations which discuss appointments to both and just a brief reading of both regulations leads me to believe that there was nothing improper about Mr. McGoldrick’s appointment from Planning Board to Environmental Commission. If that’s the way it was done, according to the regulations. So I don’t have a problem with Mr. McGoldrick being Environmental Commissioner from the Planning Board. And I believe Mr. Bonte is wrong in his interpretation of the Law. Regardless of that, I believe Mr. Bonte is correct with regard to the intent of the regulations, and the intent is that there shall be someone who can represent the environmental interests of the Town on the Planning Board, and I don’t know Joe McGoldrick personally. I can tell you as a member of the Environmental Commission, over the past few months, I have not seen Mr. McGoldrick. Now, I understand he may be semi-retired in Florida and, and plans to come back. And I believe that the Administration has, has in some ways gone beyond what the intent of the regulations represent in hiring Dr. Keller to sit on Planning Board to discuss the environmental issues, so I think that the environmental issues are being discussed and that there is counsel on the environmental issues at the Planning Board meetings, and I think that was what the intent was. The one thing which is missing at Planning Board is someone on Planning Board, who can stand up and say, this is what was discussed at Environmental Commission. This is what those seven people who have been appointed to Environmental Commission are concerned about. Dr. Keller can’t address those issues, and that’s where I think that there is a problem with the appointment.

President Rattner: Thank you very much. Mr. Guenther?

Mr. Guenther: I just want to make a point about Dr. Keller. I know for a fact that some environmentally sensitive towns in our area, Mendham Township and Washington Township, to be exact, have a environmental consultant sitting at every Planning Board meeting every time. And the meetings I have attended, I have not heard any input from Environmental Commission. Now, that’s not to say, you’re not right in most of what you say, but as far as not having an expert, I think we are at a stage of--being one of the largest townships in the County, that we do need expert help. That doesn’t mean that the Environmental Commission can’t have good input, but I don’t think that step was wrong on the Administration’s part.

President Rattner: Anybody else? All right, we’ll close the Public Session.


Mr. Heymann: My only comment is that the last couple of weeks, I’ve been driving down Route 46 past Budd Lake and I think they did a nice job with the dredging and the spreading out of sand, and then, of course, I hit the unbelievable eyesore of the disgusting building that still remains up there. I know some of us think that Katherine Hepburn is still a great actress up here. She was once upon a time a great actress and therefore, the Casino and the historical relevance of that dump, I think gives us a stigma which places us far back into the bowels of old Mount Olive history. And I’d like to see us move somewhere towards making a decision whether we’re going to refurbish for whatever historical input that building could possible have, I don’t know, or tear it down and improve that beach and put a dock up like someone else has recommended and maybe make a nice bathroom facility there--a little snack bar and improve that. Because the only thing I can think of happening there this summer is some huge rat running from outside the building and running across that beautiful lake, and about that beautiful beach. So, we need to do something with that building. Now, if it’s not before I leave, so be it. But, I have been saying for 12 years, it was an eyesore when we had our people employed in it and it’s just as big an eyesore now that we’ve closed it up and improved the beach. So if somebody can point out three things that are historical there--and I don’t mean tonight, but at some workshop session, I still wouldn’t listen to it. But I mean, I’d at least welcome that. So can we move that building off and make that a nice place, because it is a disgusting eyesight as you drive down Route 46. And if you admit--if you say that it is not, then you have the vision of Ray Charles. And I’ll finish with that.

President Rattner: You don’t have any thoughts for tonight?

Mr. Heymann: That’s it.

Mr. Sohl: No comment.

Mr. Hyemann: Well, tonight was the last night I happened to drive by it and I saw they finally smoothed the sand out and I saw the building and I got the chills, and so I thought I’d relay that on.

President Rattner: Mr. Guenther?

Mr. Guenther: Talking about eyesores on Route 46--and I want to address this to the Administration, what’s happening with the Blue Bird, or shouldn’t I ask?

Mayor Licitra: I don’t think--that’s in Litigation right now, we can’t talk about it.

Mr. Dorsey: I’ll tell you what’s happening at the Blue Bird? What’s happening at the Blue Bird is that the owners went back, applied for a Permit to reroof the building. Then they applied simultaneously for a Permit to replace doors and windows and Sonny Wolski with 27 years of experience went down there and determined that they were not limiting themselves to what would be called “renovations to maintain the property” but doing an overall renovation of the building. And he told them to stop, and they told him to get off the property. And Sonny Wolski came into my office and yesterday, we went into Court and got an injunction, to prevent them from proceeding until all the issues dealing with their Permits are straightened out. It is Sonny Wolski’s feeling that they are going to attempt something devious and disingenuous. Hence, we got the injunction and that’s where we are.

Mayor Licitra: I want you to know Sonny was in here Saturday morning to make his case. That’s how much he--

Mr. Dorsey: We were already in court. We listen to Sonny.

President Rattner: Mr. Sohl?

Mr. Sohl: Two points. One is, the element of growth in Town--and as much as we’d like to stop it wholesale at times, there was, in fact, a letter that was obviously written out of a certain degree of frustration in the recent Mount Olive Chronicle, calling for residents to demand a moratorium on building. As all of us sitting here have come to learn through the facts relative to the law, we just don’t have that power and as much as perhaps everyone of us might vote tomorrow for the moratorium on that, it wouldn’t last six minutes, much less a day or a week. So, while I share that individual’s frustrations relative to some of the things going on and as Bernie pointed out earlier, the fact is, a property owner has a right to develop property within the bounds of that property’s zoning and we’ve taken steps and gone through mechanizations of Master Plans and, in fact, going to court, even as we speak, on one or more of those types of changes, where we’ve attempted to mitigate or to minimize the amount of property or the amount of development that might go on a particular tract of land. So, I share the frustration, but unfortunately, the power is very limited. The second point, I just want to make a quick comment. Obviously, in the last several decades, the word “discrimination” has taken on a tainted element. But, in reality, the law forbids discriminations in certain categorizations, sex of the individual, the color, race, creed, religion, age in some cases, but not all. What we did relative to our selection process in the Ethics Panel can certainly be characterized as discrimination. We could have discriminated--had the person been an employee and we decided as a Body up here we didn’t want any employees on the Committee. We could have discriminated on the basis of education and said we didn’t want anybody with less than a two-year or four-year Degree. And we could’ve as in fact, we did discriminate relative to the political aspirations of the one or more of the individuals that were potentially being looked at. So while discrimination is apparently a dirty word these days. It is not beyond the scope of legal consideration when you apply any factor in the selection process, and to worry that we can’t write it down or speak it in public, is a gross distortion of what discrimination laws are really all about. Thank you.

President Rattner: Mr. Spino?

Mr. Spino: I have nothing, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

President Rattner: Mr. Scapicchio?

Mr. Scapicchio: I have nothing.

President Rattner: I just have one request for the Administration. We were promised the list of the roads that are going to be paved. You know, we normally had that with the Capital Budget. We know it wasn’t done and Mr. Casey brought it up and said we would get it shortly, so--and we should discuss it because we want to get it, on with as quick as possible on that.

Mayor Licitra: I will have Ray’s list tomorrow--I think it’s completed.

President Rattner: Or we could put it on for the next, next workshop. We don’t take official action on it. Thank you very much. Anything else?

Mr. Spino: I move to be adjourned.

Mr. Sohl: Second.

Mr. Heymann: Third.

President Rattner: All in favor?

All in Favor, None Opposed. The Meeting was adjourned.


Steven W. Rattner

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 June 19, 2001.



Mount Olive Township Clerk






Mailing Address:
Mount Olive Township
Post Office Box 450
Budd Lake, NJ 07828

Physical Address:
Mount Olive Township
204 Flanders-Drakestown Road
Budd Lake, N.J. 07828

Main (973) 691-0900, Fax (973) 347-0860

Business Hours:
8:30 am - 4:30 pm (Monday thru Friday)


Mount Olive Township has joined Twitter in an effort to keep you updated with a constant stream of current information. Twitter allows us to break news faster than any other source, organize instant events and improve communication between Mount Olive and the public.

Follow us on Twitter by clicking here
Or view our tweets here


  The Mount Olive Comments Form is geared towards benefiting you, the public. If you would like us to contact you back, please enter your contact details in our comments form or simply email us.


2012 Mount Olive Township. All rights reserved.