Mt. Olive Township Council Minutes
October 12 , 2004

The Regular Public Meeting of the Mount Olive Township Council was called to Order at 7:35 pm by Council President Rattner with the Pledge of Allegiance.

MOMENT OF REFLECTION for our men and women that are protecting our rights all around the world.


According to the Open Public Meetings Act, adequate notice of this meeting has been given to the Mount Olive Chronicle. Notice has been posted at 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. Buell, Mrs. Labow, Mr. Guenther, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Greenbaum,
Mr. Rattner, Mr. Mund
Absent: None

ALSO PRESENT: Mayor De La Roche; Sherry Jenkins, CFO; Ed Katona, Acting Business Administrator;
John Dorsey, Township Attorney; Lisa Lashway, Township Clerk.

Appointment of Township Council Member to Replace Robert Elms

President Rattner: The first item we have on the agenda tonight is the replacement of Councilman Elms, who resigned effective October 1st. We’ve received, on a timely basis, the name of three people from the Democratic County Committee, which is the procedure, because Mr. Elms was a Democrat. I can say that we got three very qualified people and that the town would be well served with any of the three. With that, I will take a motion for nomination for our next Councilman.

Mr. Buell: Yes, I agree with you, we have three very very excellent candidates from the Democratic party. I found it hard to choose, but having to make a decision, I would like to nominate Lee Mund for that position.

Ms. Labow: I would like to second that motion.

President Rattner: Is there any discussion?

Ms. Labow: I would also like to say that the decision was very hard to make, because we have really great candidates and it’s wonderful that we had, not only three, but actually six nominees, which is a wonderful thing and hopefully that anyone who did not make it this time, will run again in the future. Thank you.

President Rattner: Anybody else? Roll Call.

ROLL CALL Passed Unanimously

President Rattner: Come on up, you’re going to get sworn in right away, Mr. Mund. The Clerk is going to get her Bible to swear you in immediately, because this way we’ll have a full contingent, no ties.

Mr. Mund: No ties?

President Rattner: Well remember, in our form of government, a tie – it goes down, so we need a majority.

Mr. Mund: I, Lee Mund, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and to the governments established in the United States and in this State, under the authority of the people and I will faithfully, impartially, and justly perform all the duties of the office of Township Councilman, according to the best of my ability, so help me God. Clapping….

President Rattner: Mr. Mund, this is going to be the one time where you get to make a statement, or say what you would like, to the public, with no rebuttal, no responses, this is all yours, your one time.

Mr. Mund: I would like to thank the Council for the faith they show in me. I would also like to thank the Democratic Committee for nominating me. We’ve had three excellent candidates, there were six excellent candidates running for this and I hope to serve the Council and the Township and the people of Mount Olive as well as I had in the past as a School Board member. Thank you.

Township Consulting Engineer Eugene Buczynski:

• Turkey Brook Park Phase II Improvements possible ways to scale back project in order to not incur the additional $60,000
• Performance Bond Reduction for Woodland Estates/Rand Homes @ Rockaway
• Performance Bond Release Site Clearing Only for Woodfield 3A & 3 B

President Rattner: Okay, next we have on the agenda are some reports from the Township Engineer, Mr. Buczynski.

Gene Buczynski: Good evening. I guess the first one on the list is Turkey Brook Park. I was asked to come here today to talk about what ways, if we could, to scale back that project. Looking at the bids of that project, at this point, as far as the cost of the different items, if the Council wanted to go that route, my recommendations would be: Number one, the curb around the Boulevard as a bid price would be roughly $20,250 and then the parking lot within the Boulevard, if we didn’t….the new lot….the 52 car lot, if we took out the granite curbing, that’s another $20,000 and I try to see where else, we need another $20,000. If you wanted to, would be the parking lot between the football field and the baseball field, the one that’s the smaller parking lot, that’s roughly based on the paving and about another $20,000. That would take $60,000 out. I think we could do that, if we talk to the contractor and see if he’s willing to do it, I mean, I would like to have everything in, but if you wanted to take $60,000 out, I’d say those items you probably could, by themselves.

President Rattner: Does any Council member have any questions or comments?

Ms. Labow: I’m in favor of taking out the curbing around the center loop and in the 52 parking…..

Mr. Buczynski: It would just be the curbing for the parking lot.

Ms. Labow: The curbing, but I would like to keep the parking in between the football and the baseball field because that also will service the trails and it’s quite a long way, so if there is any way we could keep that in there, I would prefer to keep that.

Mr. Greenbaum: I think that, you know, there have been different options which have been discussed and I think that the option which is the most viable, is to remove the curbing as has been discussed, in both areas, which would eliminate $40,000. In addition thereto there, thanks in great part to Council woman Labow, there is $20,000 in the tree banking, which can be used related to the berm, so I think all we really need to do to accomplish the goal that we need to accomplish, which is to finish this portion of Turkey Brook without bonding additional dollars, is to use that $20,000, to eliminate the $40,000 in curbing, and to move forward with the remainder of the project, including the parking.

Ms. Labow: The tree bank only has $14,000 in it, I just wanted to make that clear.

Mr. Greenbaum: Okay, I was under the understanding that there was $20,000…..

Ms. Labow: I believe there’s other money coming in, but right now there’s only $14,000, okay.

President Rattner: Anybody else have any comments? I just want to say one thing, I had a conversation with Mr. Heymann today, from Turkey Brook Development Committee, and explained to him what the situation is. The situation is that we have a certain amount in the current bond, and we didn’t want to exceed that. We didn’t want to go for new money, because we really don’t have much new money; however, in the last week….last meeting we discussed about improvements to the center, you know, the center loop, which included some basketball courts, we had some ideas about shading – a pavilion or something, and we were talking of spending in the vicinity of about $250,000. What my recommendation to Mr. Heymann was, is that since we haven’t firmed up exactly what we’re going to do there, these couple of things that we’re not going to do right now, we put into one project. We prioritize, we say what we want to get done, we know that the $250,000 was an estimate, you know, on what’s going to be done as we sharpen our pencil and we look at what’s being done, and we were not looking again to take that from new money. What we wanted to take that from, was from money that was already raised for existing….the existing Open Space tax, which was very specific in that it was for the development, it was for purchase, acquisition and development of recreation, and I think we were pretty much in agreement last week about making those improvements. This is where, again, we can watch the budget, because President Rattner(cont’d): we know that it’s going to be a tough year, without bonding additional money. Does anybody else have any comments on that?

Mr. Dorsey: One question. It seems to me that, at the last meeting or two meetings ago, that you adopted the resolution awarding the full contract……

Mr. Buczynski: We did.

Mr. Dorsey: Do we have a provision in the contract where we can withdraw certain quantities?

Mr. Buczynski: Yes we do, John, I was going to mention that to the Council, I spoke to the contractor yesterday. He actually can start the job tomorrow, so I told him to wait until I find out what we’re doing tonight. I can talk to him. My question is, he sent us…I sent the contracts right out to him, right after the meeting….

Mr. Dorsey: I looked at the contract and it’s for……

Mr. Buczynski: I think he’s willing to do that, I mean, right now he signed to….

Mr. Dorsey: But we reserve the right to withdraw certain….

Mr. Buczynski: We reserve the right, but he did sign the contracts already with the $416,000.

Mr. Dorsey: Alright.

President Rattner: Mr. Heymann, we had that conversation earlier today, did I represent it fairly, what we talked about?

Mr. Heymann: Yes, do you want me to go up there, so…..

President Rattner: Yes. I just want to make sure that we’re in agreement, well….in agreement with what was said, not necessarily in agreement with the action we’re taking.

Mr. Heymann: Yes, what you stated tonight was what you stated on the phone today, but I just want to be real brief, I don’t want to take away from Gene’s time, but the Turkey Brook Committee met again today, we’ve had a couple of other meetings and we have no problem with regard to the suggestion made by Councilman Greenbaum of removing the curbing on the loop, removing the curbing inside the Tot-Lot and taking whatever funds are available in the tree bank and using that so that you do not have to go forward and then we can address the remainder of our items with Gene to proceed for another bid on the internal area and come back with you sometime maybe late this year or early next year with that. So, we don’t have any problem. We think it’s a good idea not to have to bond, we don’t want any taxes or any bonding money. Actually, we were surprised, we were here a couple weeks ago and saw that on as a bonding because that was not something that the Committee had ever recommended to bond. We were in favor of using the Open Space money….we understand the Open Space Committee’s comments and concerns and so this is, I think, a fair resolution between all groups to make this go and fly, if Gene can do that with the contractor and get this done.

President Rattner: Thank you Mr. Heymann.

Mr. Buell: That still leaves us $5,500 short. Can we take that money out of Open Space, or find $5,500 from some other place to finish this project off?

Mr. Greenbaum: How much do we have left in the Capital Fund?

President Rattner: A hundred and some-odd thousand dollars, but we can really still have the emergency people coming in, that type of thing. You know, I think the first thing that has to happen is Gene has to work it out and see exactly what the subtractions….

Mr. Buczynski: Well also, Steve, is too, during construction, some of these items, if the items come out less quantity, it might not be over in the five thousand, it could be five thousand or less, you never know.

President Rattner: I say just go with it and if we have to….we’ve always been able to come up with a couple of dollars or find a place to complete something. We know there can be change orders, it goes both ways and you don’t know until you actually put the shovel in the ground….I want to get moving.

Mr. Buczynski: I believe there’s some additional monies coming in shortly from the tree banking also.

Ms. Labow: That’s what I was going to ask, if Sherry, do you know…does anybody know….anticipate when that…the additional tree banking funds….

Ms. Jenkins: I think Catherine said like 30 to 60 days, so it’s in the short term.

Ms. Labow: So that will be within the timeframe of the project, so….

Mr. Guenther: My only question now is this, this late in the year, and we’re dealing essentially with the middle of October, and I don’t know what work he’s going to start first, whether he’s going to start work on the parking lots or what. With the berm, as far as the vegetation taking this fall…..

Mr. Buczynski: He’s going to get that in within the next three weeks.

Mr. Guenther: Can…I mean, is that….I don’t want to see a bunch of dead trees there, you know, and if it has to be delayed to the spring, might that not be better, because he’s got to create the berms, too.

Mr. Buczynski: Well, I think Council wanted it done now, if you want it to wait to the spring, I could talk….personally, yes, I would have no problems waiting until the spring.

Mr. Guenther: No, no, no, what I want is a professional opinion, Gene, as to what is the wise thing to do. I don’t care what Council wants…yes, I want it done, I wanted it done yesterday, but it hasn’t been done yesterday. Now, and I think the residents, if they were here, would agree that you want the trees in, you want them to take. Why put them in this fall if they’re going to die and we have to replace them?

Mr. Buczynski: Well, he won’t put…, the contractor is not going to put trees in if he thinks they’re going to die, because he’s going to have a warranty on them. He might ask…you know, we always can do it, thinking you get the berm in, you get the berm stabilized, if it’s too late in the year, he can come back in the spring and do the trees. You know, we can get that work done now, but we can get the trees put in.

Mr. Guenther: Alright, okay, that’s all I wanted to know.

Mr. Greenbaum: Just one other concern that I have with starting the work now as opposed to at some later point, right now the park is in full operation in terms of its use and I know that the soccer club…I was reminded last night and told to bring this point up to you by Jim Farley that the soccer club runs their Halloween tournament the 30th of October, and to the extent that the contractor is…..

Mr. Buczynski: That’s a weekend, I think, isn’t it?

Mr. Greenbaum: It is a weekend, and just something to be considered in terms of scheduling…..

Mr. Buczynski: We did talk about that at one of the Turkey Brook Committee meetings, I don’t think it was Mr. Farley, but I can’t remember who was there, and we were going to let them know once we get the contractor schedule to make sure that we don’t interfere with them.

Mr. Greenbaum: If there’s going to be interruption, that needs to be considered in terms of ….

Mr. Buczynski: Yes, I’m aware of it.

Mr. Greenbaum: Alright.

Ms. Labow: If I don’t….I’m not a landscaper, but if I understand correctly, this is the time of the year for the growth season for the trees that you propose to plant, but I know we’re coming very close to that time and also it’s early spring, I believe, is the growth season for those, so either if we get them in just before the winter, or we get them in in early spring, we’re still going to hit the main growth time for the trees you propose. Is that correct?

Mr. Buczynki: Right.

Ms. Labow: Now the warranty, how long does the warranty last?

Mr. Buczynski: Usually they have a year warranty.

Ms. Labow: A year warranty, okay, so we’re safe on that, and what size trees are they putting in…20 or 10….20 feet?

Mr. Buczynski: Oh, they’re not 20 feet….I think they’re 8 to 10 feet…some of them, yes.

Ms. Labow: That’s it.

Mayor De La Roche: Yes, I would just recommend….we have a Planning Board Meeting on Thursday that possibly Dr. Keller could be consulted at that time as to his recommendations….you know, that might be beneficial.

Mr. Buczynski: I could do that.

President Rattner: Thank you, Mayor.

Mr. Dorsey: Whether Gene’s going to go back and negotiate, you’ll give me a list of what we’re going to take out and I’ll do a new resolution, right?

Mr. Buczynski: Are we going to negotiate the contract cost, or….

Mr. Dorsey: No, aren’t you going to negotiate quantities to be taken out?

Mr. Buczynski: Well, yes, won’t that just be a change order, what’s it called….contract be awarded at $416,000.

Mr. Dorsey: Look, if you want to do it by a change order, this Council requires a resolution to approve any change orders, so if you give us the change order, then we’ll do the resolution.

Mr. Buczynski: You got it…we’ll take care of it.

President Rattner: Thank you. Anything else on Turkey Brook?

Mr. Greenbaum: I just….are we going to get a presentation from Mr. Heymann with respect to other issues that we had address?

Mr. Heymann: Yes, if I can, I just want to address one thing on Turkey Brook with you. We did meet, we met with MOPP, Mount Olive Park Partners, because the issue came up with regard to a pavilion. They have a meeting for tomorrow and we’ll have a response as to whether or not they are going to donate their funds towards the pavilion, and once we know that, then we can proceed with regard to our phase of having Gene proceed on the…putting some bid specs together for the tennis, basketball and sand volleyball. If they don’t have it, what’s Harry’s last name? Harry Brown came from MOPP, they’re having a little internal turmoil so nobody knows what they’re going to do, so we didn’t tell them….I told them to give me the money, but I don’t know if they’re really going to do that. So, I’m not sure they’re going to do that, but we have to wait and see if they’re going to do that. So, we’ll be back to you with regard to that and that’s what we talked about, as well as these changes that you’ve endorsed today, that’s what we discussed tonight.

Mr. Greenbaum: What’s your timeframe in terms of getting back to us on finishing off the inner loop?

Mr. Heymann: We’re going to meet again on November 9th, so we hope to be able to proceed and then come back to you. I would say we’ll be back here late November, early December, I hope, with some plans and bid specs and at least some cost ideas.

Mr. Greenbaum: Can we get you back in here on the first meeting in December for…irrespective of where you are, just to update us so it doesn’t fall through the cracks?

Mr. Heymann: Absolutely, absolutely. Thank you everybody.

President Rattner: Thank you, Mr. Heymann. Okay next item we have is:

• Performance Bond Reduction for Woodland Estates/Rand Homes @ Rockaway

Mr. Buczynski: Now that was a reduction of bond to…I think they’ve performed about 85% of the improvements and we reduced that to 30%, which we can per the municipal land use laws. It’s for all the improvements that have been installed to date. It’s just a normal bond reduction, I’m not sure what concerns you might have, but I’ll try and address them for you.

President Rattner: Anybody have any comments or questions? Ms. Labow.

Ms. Labow: Gene, do you feel that the situation with the flooding on Woodland Avenue, after that last big rainstorm, was that….

Mr. Buczynski: I think the last rainstorm was fine. The one time we had a problem, the next major storm we were fine. He still has some more lot drainage to do that’s covered under the bond. I don’t see a problem with that. I think by the statute…by the municipal land use law, I think he’s entitled to the release of the bonds, they’ve been approved, they’ve been installed and approved.

Ms. Labow: The problem prior to the last storm, the rain before…..

Mr. Buczynski: That’s been resolved.

Ms. Labow: It was…it was just a situation they had that….

Mr. Buczynski: That was a situation with sedimentation basin they had that breached….and that’s where all the silt came down onto Woodland Avenue and that has been taken care of and they’re on watch on a more regular basis, too, on weekends, if it rains.

President Rattner: Gene, I have a related question on Woodland Estates. We got a complaint in the last day or so from the developer and it has to do with not knowing that all of a sudden they put a requirement…he has to go for his CP-1 or something to that effect, and he wants to know how that got through the process from all the different departments and the check-off lists, that he’s this far down the line and now they say that he needs it. Is that true?

Mr. Buczynski: The developer is a professional engineer, himself. It’s their responsibility to get our required permits prior to resolution. It’s not the township’s responsibility.

President Rattner: Oh, it didn’t state exactly which ones…remember, I’m only getting, you know, I only got one side, so…

Mr. Buczynski: Well, I’m the one who told him he needed the permit, it was in the developers agreement that he needed the permit. He knows…he interpreted the regulations…the stipulation of regulations that if it’s 8,000 gallons or less…less than 8,000 gallons, you do not need a permit, which there is a requirement over….you only need a permit less than 18,000 gallons, but the other requirement is, unless you’re tying in two more buildings, if you’re tying in two more buildings, you do need a permit.

President Rattner: So you’re saying it’s 8,000 or two connections?

Mr. Buczynski: Two or more connections over 8,000 gallons.

President Rattner: And you’re saying that he should….

Mr. Buczynski: For instance, if you have a commercial building at 6,500 gallons and it’s one building, you do not need a permit, but if you have eight homes, that’s eight buildings, even though the overall flow of eight times roughly say 200 gallons, that’s only 2,400 gallons being generated, which he thought was less than 8,000 gallons so he didn’t need a permit, but that’s not true.

President Rattner: John, you….the developers agreement, that came from you? How is that usually stated in there?

Mr. Dorsey: Well, what is stated in there is what came through the Planning Board resolution.

Mr. Buczynski: Right, that he needed a permit.

Mr. Dorsey: And then there was the developers agreement mirrors…the Planning Board’s resolution and that was….

Mr. Buczynski: Because part of the items in my report for the resolution, he felt he did not need one.

Mr. Dorsey: But your report said he did need one, and you reported to the Planning Board.

Mr. Buczynski: Yes it did and the resolution did.

President Rattner: Okay.

Mr. Greenbaum: It specifically identified this particular permit, or it simply said all permits….

Mr. Buczynski: I would say….the resolution might say all, but my report….I usually have a section in the report that identifies the permits.

Mr. Greenbaum: Right, I mean, the bottom line is that he knew or should have known that this was a required permit, he misinterpreted the law.

Mr. Buczynski: It’s a requirement, I mean, there’s nothing he can really do about it, he needs a permit.

President Rattner: How long has that requirement, about the two units, been there….more than two years?

Mr. Buczynski: Maybe, maybe not, maybe two years….they change… you know, they change all the regs on and off constantly, before it used to be a lot less, it used to be 2,000 gallons, then it was 4,000 gallons, then it was 8,000 gallons, but then you have the stipulation of two or more buildings.

President Rattner: Okay, then the question comes up, what is the process that we need to get it approved? In other words, I know it comes here, it usually goes to you, it goes to the Public Works Department….

Mr. Buczynski: One thing you’re going to need to do, and it’s pretty straight forward on this application, and I’m not sure if you can take action tonight for the Mayor, but the Mayor is going to have to sign the CP-1 form, so it’s going to need a resolution….I think you….you don’t have a blanket resolution for the Mayor to sign, I think you do it on an application by application basis.

President Rattner: That’s right, but isn’t there a review process that….because it’s….it’s still CP-1 that we’re talking about?

Mr. Buczynski: It’s a CP-1, but if you process with the State…..

President Rattner: Well, don’t we review it before it goes there, because we’re the co-permitee, that’s what it stands for.

Mr. Buczynski: It’s basically been reviewed. I reviewed it, as far as the subdivision plans, the profilers to the sewers, the details…

President Rattner: Well, I don’t think we’d be comfortable doing that tonight, but we could get that on for the next meeting.

Mr. Buczynski: Yes, just so it can be expedited and, you know, give the Mayor the right to sign the application, because I’m sure Mr. Aasmaa is going to bring the application to Administration next week.

Mrs. Lashway: He came in today and it’s been sent to Administration.

Mr. Buczynski: Okay, just so we can get it on the next agenda, I think.

President Rattner: Okay and it’s already been sent to the Administration, so…

Mr. Buczynski: Because once it gets to the Mayor, you know, the Mayor is going to call me up and we’re going to need a resolution, so we might as well get it on the agenda.

President Rattner: Okay, so we’ll have that on the workshop for next week and if everything is fine, we’ll put it on for the next meeting. That okay Mayor? Oh, the Clerk is showing me the developers agreement does state that that was a required….it was put in there and specifically identified, and it’s just that he objected to it.

Mr. Buczynski: Right.

President Rattner: So I guess I only get part of the story. Thank you.

• Performance Bond Release Site Clearing Only for Woodfield 3A & 3 B

Mr. Buczynski: Next, Woodfield. I know about Woodfield, it’s the site clearing, I know we had a lot of problems, but just so you know, the site clearing was a bond he submitted in February and then he submitted another bond for each of those sections for all the improvements. Just to give you the magnitude, I was recommending release in the soil removal bonds, which for one section is $124,000, the other section was $94,000, so that’s $200,000 of bonds which included $20,000 worth of cash to be released. Right now, for the improvements, he has posted a total of $1.8 million in bonds and we still have $184,000 of cash for that section, so I think you’re confidence, if you were concerned that releasing bonds and you weren’t going to be covered if there was soil removal problems, you’re still covered.

President Rattner: Anybody want to comment on that?

Mr. Greenbaum: He has a very unique way of removing soil from the site, that’s all.

President Rattner: Well, you know, the way I look at it is that if he has this and he knows what needs to be done. We’ve had four major, what I’ll call, mud slides. I’m sure after the first one, the Administration went out and basically read them the riot act that they can’t keep putting that stuff onto our roads.

Mr. Buczynski: Right.

President Rattner: He let it happen a second time, he let it happen a third time, and after the third time, when we were complaining about it, it happened a fourth time. How else do we get his attention unless we hold up his money, and, you know, a certain amount…we may say what has to be done and stabilized, he’s still, to his means and methods. I mean, we don’t go each step of the way, and I guess what this Council has a problem with is that we’re not convinced that he’s done everything that’s necessary that if we have another major rain, not an extraordinary rain, but a major rain of maybe two to three inches, which is not unusual and not extraordinary, how do we know that everything has been done so the mountain doesn’t come down again. You know, part of this is just to get his attention.

Mr. Buczynski: But you have $180,000 of cash, if you have a problem. You have $1.8…..what’s the purpose of holding those two bonds if he’s done the work and the work has been completed for the site clearing? I mean, by statute….if that work has been done….I’d be concerned, for the town’s interest, if I had no other bonds, but I have bonds that cover the soil removal, the soil erosion measures, as covered, under the $2 million worth of bonds we have.

President Rattner: Mr. Buczynski, are you willing to put your word on the fact that if it rains 2 or 3 inches, which could be a normal rain, that the mountain’s not going to come down onto the road again?

Mr. Buczynski: That the mountain’s not going to come down?

President Rattner: Well, it’s the same thing, a mud slide, the mud and rocks.

Mr. Buczynski: Yes, I’ll tell you the mountain’s not going to come down.

President Rattner: The way it has in the past. We’re just trying to get his attention, I don’t know if this Council is convinced they did everything that they need to do, because we haven’t seen it before.

Mr. Buczynski: They’ve done….I mean, they’ve done quite a bit, they brought in 400 hay bails, they’ve got silt fencing all along Route 46. Of course, it hasn’t rained in the last two weeks.

President Rattner: Well, they got a gift.

Mr. Greenbaum: You know what, I think that’s not really the issue, Steve. I understand Gene’s position and believe that there is sufficient funds there left and that they are entitled to the reduction, based upon the facts that Gene has brought forth and I believe that the appropriate remedy is to attach the bonds to the extent….the remaining bonds to the extent that we have to do work to rectify the situation and for the Administration to immediately issue a stop work order to the extent that there is a further problem on the site. It’s not to withhold the bond monies in light of the facts, and I’m concerned that, ultimately, if we don’t release the bond monies, based upon the recommendations of Gene, that we may open ourselves up to a lawsuit which I would like to avoid at this point in time.

President Rattner: That’s good, but I look at the safety. It’s nice that if somebody drives up, and the way some of the rocks have come down, and gets injured because their car hits something, we’ll say well we’ll pay you, but they’re still injured.

Mr. Buczynski: But that’s…..that’s good, Steve, but even if we hold that money, if there is going to be a problem, there is still going to be a problem.

President Rattner: I know, but hopefully we have some leverage on it, because we know….Mr. Greenbaum said that the Mayor or the Administration would put a stop work order, but it’s happened four times and I haven’t seen a stop work order and it was allowed to happen again. So, obviously, we’ve got to get somehow tougher, because this guy doesn’t learn from his past mistakes.

Mr. Guenther: I think, if you drive up there, you also find that there’s been a lot of progress made in his clearance, I believe, you see a semblance of a detention basin there now, it should hold some of the water. So, you know, a couple of weeks have gone by since the last heavy rain and I think, you know, that’s what, in essence, he was saying, I mean, there was a work in progress and that these things were taking place. I tend to support that, you know, if there’s enough bonding left to cover any eventuality, I agree with Rob.

Ms. Labow: Gene, I didn’t actually get out of my vehicle to check it out, but where the silt screen fencing is now, if I remember correctly, he mentioned he was going to put bails of hay behind that also….

Mr. Buczynski: There’s bails on the site behind it…there’s rows of hay on the site….hay bails…up above, up above.

Ms. Labow: On the….along the road, along the curbing, did he put hay bails…

Mr. Buczynski: There’s hay bails along the curb also, yes.

Ms. Labow: Behind there also. You can’t really see it from the road, but they are there.

Mr. Buczynski: They’re there. They’re there.

Ms. Labow: I’d have to agree with….I agree with Steve to an extent, but also I don’t think that holding this money when it was work that was already completed, is really the most productive thing to do, but I would have some reassurance that if we do have flooding on the road again and a mud slide, that a stop work order goes out immediately. Can we say that? Can we do that?

Mr. Buczynski: We can do that, but don’t forget, we also have to make sure everything is safe before we stop them from working, because to just have them stop work and you have a hazardous condition out there doesn’t make a lot of sense either, you know.

Mr. Buell: Gene, in your opinion, has he done everything he can do at this point in time?

Mr. Buczynski: For the last two weeks he has, even before, I mean, he…..took precautions each time. What happened, like anything else, it moved…the damage moved to another location. I mean, water finds its own way and it’s very easy for water to make problems. You cover an inlet and water goes over it and goes in a different direction it wasn’t supposed to and it causes a problem. That was a mess, but the mess was one
Mr. Buczynski(cont’d): location caused the mess where it breached and came onto the road…where all that material came down in one spot, I mean, it could have….when you really think about it, it could have been avoided if that spot didn’t cave in and it did. I’m not here by any means to defend the developer, but that’s just the way it is.

President Rattner: Any other comments? Then I guess, from the comments I heard, it will be on for the next meeting to release the bonds. Anything else from Mr. Buczynski while he’s here?

Mr. Buczynski: I’m not sure if there are any resolutions I need to be here for, if not, I’m going to go watch the ball game, Rob.

Mr. Greenbaum: There’s about ten of them, Gene.

Mr. Buczynski: You can stay here all night, Rob.


President Rattner: Okay, now we come to the first Public Portion of the meeting. We will have another time at the end to speak about anything that you desire. We will also have comments for any public hearing, ordinances, and for the resolutions that are on. Would anybody like to speak to the Council on anything that’s not on the agenda at this point?

Nelson Russell, Budd Lake: I’ve got some questions on the bill list. On page 9, right toward the top, we’ve got a wireless bill for $802.64. Does somebody have the wrong plan, or…how do you talk $800 on a cell phone?

Mr. Buell: I believe, Nelson, it’s multiple phones.

Mr. Russell: It has one phone number listed there.

Ms. Jenkins: Well, we can’t fit them all on the space that we’re given for the system.

Mr. Russell: Okay. On page 11 we’ve got $447 for interpreters, Spanish and Polish. Where are we using…..

Mr. Guenther: It’s required by the Court.

Mr. Russell: And that doesn’t come out of the Court budget, it comes out of our budget?

Ms. Jenkins: It is the Court budget.

Mr. Russell: Oh, it is Court, I’m sorry. On page 14, Budd Lake Fire….the Budd Lake Fire Life Insurance is twice as much as the Flanders Fire Life Insurance. Why is that?

Ms. Jenkins: We do it based on the number of members.

Mr. Russell: And there are that many different members in the Budd Lake…okay. On page 16, First Vehicle Services, we’ve got $45,000 expenditure. We’re spending $8,626.28…I guess that’s per vehicle?

Ms. Jenkins: No, we got probably I want to say three to five months worth of bills from First Vehicle that we literally got within a week timeframe from them, to process. So, this covers a number of different time periods, okay.

Mr. Russell: All the same amount, though.

Ms. Jenkins: Well, we have a contract with them and it gets broken out among our current budget and our Sanitation utility.

Mr. Russell: Okay, how does that differ from two pages, further on, where we’ve got, on page 18, we’ve got $538.91 charges.

Ms. Jenkins: The first one that you’re looking at, is the Sanitation budget, that’s the $8,000, okay, and the other one that you’re looking at, I’m sorry…what page?

Mr. Russell: 18, water capital.

Ms. Jenkins: Because a portion of our contract also gets charged to the water budget as well, and the sewer budget as well.

Mr. Russell: Okay, thank you.

President Rattner: Anybody else like to address the Council at this time? Seeing none, I’ll close the Public Portion.

Questions on Bill List?

President Rattner: Now we come to Questions on the Bill List.

Mr. Guenther: I see a lot of charges here for Royal Communications, I’m sure it’s legitimate but I just wanted to know what….is there a contract there, or what is Royal Communications?

Ms. Jenkins: Royal Communications does have a contract, yes.

Mr. Guenther: What do they do?

Mr. Katona: Royal Communications is a radio contractor, they will….they perform the monthly maintenance on our Police vehicles, road department vehicles, DPW vehicles. They’re currently….they’re also currently involved in a capital project installing our Police emergency radio network, the new radios in our Police vehicles, and they’re also doing some updating on the Fire band radio. From time to time, they’ll also be called in to do some general type work. In the individual departments, there are links, speakers, and microphones to reach out to the radios in the field and sometimes they need to be maintained or replaced.

Mr. Guenther: Is there….in the contract we have, again it’s a fixed monthly charge and then some of these other expenses are over and above for the special projects they’re doing. Is that correct?

Mr. Katona: For the….yes.

Mr. Guenther: Alright. Next, on page number ten, I see the street lighting, I’m a little bit confused, I didn’t have a chance to go back in the bills. There’s….is this, again, a back accumulation of bills here, because I see district 1 street lighting, I see three different charges there for $5,000, $400, $746.96, $970…..does this cover several months or is it different districts? It does say district 1 in each case, but….

Ms. Jenkins: I’ll look at them, Bernie, for you before we get to the Bill List part.

Mr. Guenther: Okay. Next, on page 12, what is the Davis Center Pure Tone Audiometry?

Mr. Katona: The Davis Center is a business in town which conducts hearing tests. Each year, as required by ordinance, each Police Officer must receive a physical. Part of that physical is a hearing test.

Mr. Guenther: Okay, so this is a once yearly charge?

Mr. Katona: Once a year charge.

Mr. Guenther: Okay. Next, page 13, HMUA Fire Hydrant Rental. Over what period of time is that rental for? Is that a yearly rental, quarterly, monthly?

Ms. Jenkins: I’ll check. We usually pay them quarterly, but I think this might be an annual one based on the amount, but I’ll look at the bill.

Mr. Guenther: Okay. I think that pretty well…no I had one more. Page 16, the Morris County MUA, the August Shade Tree…what is that $1,200 for, is that just for…..

Ms. Jenkins: Yard waste.

Mr. Guenther: So the charge is for….okay, the yard waste that’s taken there?

Ms. Jenkins: Yes.

Mr. Guenther: I believe that’s it, thank you.

President Rattner: Anybody else have any other questions? I have a question on the Mount Olive Library reimbursement of expenses. Now looking at that, construction services, it looks like it’s six month’s worth of expenses…asking for reimbursement for. The construction services…is any of that Mr. Ayers?

Ms. Jenkins: I believe the construction services is Mr. Ayers.

President Rattner: Did we agree to pay an unlimited amount to Mr. Ayers? You know, I’m not sure, because at the beginning, I thought that the Library….I wasn’t sure exactly what our agreement was, I don’t remember off hand, that they were…that was the contribution that they were making from the capital fund was the construction manager and then when they decided to extend the contract, I don’t know…I don’t think we ever agreed to pay for that. I think the Library Board did that on their own, didn’t they?

Ms. Labow: Yes, that was my understanding, it was from the Library Board, not from us.

President Rattner: Well, what about the original contract with Mr. Ayers?

Ms. Labow: The original contract was supposed to be theirs as well.

Mr. Greenbaum: I don’t think that’s correct. I think that the pre-construction was the Library’s donation towards Mr. Ayers, and that we had agreed to undertake the construction phase, which was obviously a lot larger because it was a more lengthy….

President Rattner: Well, wasn’t that a fixed amount?

Ms. Labow: That was a fixed amount, but then….

Mr. Greenbaum: It was a fixed amount, I believe, that the Library, on their own, decided to retain Mr. Ayers beyond the contract period.

Ms. Labow: First I retained them for a two month period, which he gave them a $1,000 break. It was going to be $16,000, he gave it to them for $15,000, I think it was….and then per diem.

President Rattner: But that’s not the point, are we reimbursing him……is any of that reimbursement in here?

Ms. Labow: They now have him on a per diem. They have him on a per diem now, but…

President Rattner: Yes, but if we’re not committed, if they said they wanted it, I don’t think we ever approved that, I just want to make sure that we’re paying for it, because I also noticed on the voucher, they put in a lot of telephone bills, which why would we be paying for separate telephone bills?

Ms. Jenkins: Those were pulled off, Steve, I pulled those off.

President Rattner: Why would they even think….why were they on there to begin with? They thought we were going to pay them?

Ms. Jenkins: Because I believe the construction trailer has a phone over there, and so there was some discussion about getting reimbursement for that, because it’s, you know, related to, obviously, the construction of the building, but I did pull them off the bill, so that’s not part of this, okay.

President Rattner: But then…but the other part is whether, you know, I’d like to go back, I mean, we’ll process it, we know where the Library is, so we could always get the money back, but after the last week, you know, if it wasn’t there, when they gave us the representation, when it was something that had to be paid, and President Rattner(cont’d): then when they gave me a copy of the contract, I found out that there wasn’t any emergency. So, I just look at everything with a fine-tooth comb.

Ms. Jenkins: I will tell you that the construction services, it looks like they cover March, June, July…that time frame.

President Rattner: Just so we could get a report, you know, in the next week or so, on exactly….Mr. Greenbaum may be right that, you know, we did agree to pay it, but if we did, I know it was a fixed dollar amount. So, I would like to see how much we’ve actually reimbursed them for Mr. Ayers and the rest should come out, if they decide to retain, for their use, then…unless they come back to us, they should pay for it.

Ms. Jenkins: So you’re thinking the understanding is is that we’re not supposed to be reimbursing him for it?

President Rattner: I don’t know if we ever agreed to actually reimburse him, maybe it’s part of the cost of the construction, but I know that when the contract was finally signed with him, we reviewed the contract and it was a set amount. I remember Mr. Scapicchio, at the time, was very concerned saying if the guy has the incentive to stretch out the project, I don’t think that’s happened intentionally, but it has stretched out, which if you’re going to pay somebody per month instead of per job and the job goes six months longer, it’s a heck of a lot longer, and that’s where we are now.

Ms. Labow: Steve, I thought that Scott Ayers’ contract ended in June and then the Library Board kept him on for July and August. I don’t remember, at any time, this Council represented that we were going to reimburse for that. That was a decision wholly made from them.

President Rattner: Well, there’s two different parts. There’s one that Mr. Greenbaum remembers one way, that may have been up to that June date, and then after, and this may just be up to that, because a lot of these things seem to be older.

Ms. Labow: Well, I think Sherry said July was in there too, right Sherry?

Ms. Jenkins: Yes, I did see a July bill.

President Rattner: Well….

Ms. Labow: So, that’s what I’m saying, the July one would not be, June would.

President Rattner: Well, let her get a report back, you know, report back. I don’t want to hold up, if most of the charges are legit, again, we could always make an adjustment, because they do get a large contribution from the township.

Ms. Jenkins: The bulk of it is really that, though, I mean, that’s really the bulk of the reimbursement. They’re seeking for reimbursement of Scott Ayers construction oversight.

President Rattner: But you’ve already approved…but you’ve already gone over it, which means that you think it’s a justified reversible expense, otherwise you wouldn’t have approved it and it wouldn’t be on our bill list, right?

Ms. Jenkins: Repeat what you said, I’m sorry.

President Rattner: I said you already reviewed the documentation….

Ms. Jenkins: We’ve looked at it.

President Rattner: And you’ve looked at it and approved it saying it was a reimbursable expense to the Library. That’s why we have it on our Bill List.

Ms. Jenkins: No, I signed it saying we have enough money to pay it.

President Rattner: Well, who reviews whether it’s a legitimate expense for the town?

Ms. Jenkins: Well, normally the purchasing agent, which is the Administration Department. I mean, when I sign, I sign that there is sufficient funds.

President Rattner: You don’t sign, making sure that the invoices are proper, that the things have been received, and that type of stuff, that’s the Administration?

Ms. Jenkins: The person who signs off under the receipt of goods signatures, is the person who certifies that the work has been delivered, or the services have been provided, that the invoices have been checked and whatnot.

Mr. Dorsey: You know, that raises a different question, because Rita Hilbert is the certifying officer. She certifies that the work has been done, and I assume that it’s a certification that Ayers was there, but the whole issue here is a different one and that’s whether you’re going to pay anything for Ayers services beyond the date that he claimed his contract expired. That’s not in Sherry’s bailiwick.

Mr. Greenbaum: I don’t think that’s a fair comment, Steve.

President Rattner: Wait, wait, wait, wait….I don’t know who, but somebody in the Administration, if we get bills to approve, we have that they’re certified correct with a couple different signatures. If nobody from the Administration…I’m not saying who, but I had a question whether it’s a legitimate expense, and nobody can say well, I don’t know, I only certified that this matched, that matched…who, in the Administration, is responsible for evaluating whether an expense is appropriate? That’s really what the question is.

Mr. Katona: I think the answer is the Business Administrator who should review that. I didn’t have the time or wasn’t up to speed on this particular contract, so if you’d like, we can pull this off and I’ll take it back tomorrow and find out where the contract is and whether it’s an appropriate bill or not.

President Rattner: You know being a….well, I think pulling it off until you’re satisfied, I think we will approve it and ask you that you hold it until you verify that they’re appropriate expenses, this way we don’t have to wait another two weeks if they are appropriate.

Mr. Dorsey: Excuse me, Council President, aren’t you really begging the issue here? I mean, the Business Administrator, Chief Katona, can certify that Scott Ayers rendered services during a certain period of time, but that isn’t necessarily the same as saying that the Council agrees to reimburse the Library for services rendered after he exhausted the money that was in the contract you originally approved.

President Rattner: Yes, well, I don’t know if that’s really in here, I mean, that’s one thing they have to check. All I’m saying is that if we’re going to vote, I mean, right now this town spends $20 million a year based on our budgets and what I’m hearing is that we’re having trouble saying who is really watching the treasury. Yes, this matches, you know, the invoice matches this, but is it an appropriate expense? If, you know, some vendor sends in an invoice, somebody signs yes I received it, but did somebody order it, is it an approved budget item, that’s all I’m looking for. I’m sure somebody down the lines does it somewhere, normally.

Ms. Jenkins: Well, I mean, I think I explained what our process is, at least how it’s been since I’ve been here, under different Administrators….

President Rattner: Yes, and that’s why I’m just saying that I’m willing to give some time, because I understand that, you know, having the Police Chief being the Acting Business Administrator, is very difficult, especially with…just look at what happened over this weekend, I’m sure his mind wasn’t on signing a bill, it was taking care of his department and handling all the different issues, and I don’t want to zing anybody for that, because it’s very hard when you’re filling in, that’s why I had that….

Mr. Greenbaum: I think what we’re talking about here are two separate issues, one general, one specific, and your concern is more of the general issue, which is that there needs to be somebody beyond certifying that the funds are available, to say that yes, in fact, this is a bill that should be paid, and I’m happy with the Chief’s explanation that it’s a Business Administrator function because, sitting here thinking about it, I, too, believe it’s a Business Administrator function and I don’t fault the Chief at all for this being on the Bill List. In fact, this specific bill kind of fits into a gray area in terms of payment, because it’s just not the simple yes we received the product and we’re going to now pay for it, or no we didn’t receive the product and it shouldn’t be on the Bill List. This is a situation where the monies were expended properly, it’s a question of who, ultimately, is responsible for the bill and yes, I agree with you that perhaps it slipped through the cracks and I could see how it happened with this particular item. I think the appropriate response from the Administration, and it’s easy to say this, being Monday morning quarterback, is here’s a bill which has been presented, I believe it is outside of Mr. Greenbaum(cont’d): what Council agreed to pay, but nonetheless it is the Administration’s position to pay or not to pay this bill based upon the fact that it was generated and incurred in a particular fashion, and that’s the way that it should have been presented to Council, rather than it being just on the Bill List as something which should be paid in the normal course.

Mr. Guenther: Well, let me give you an example of something else. This is a very important question, because what I’m seeing here is there’s a disconnect between funds being available and this is the legitimate charge. Let me give you an example of the company I brought up, Royal Communications. Where there is a contract, and there are also some additional things they’re performing for which they charge extra, who in the Administration is responsible for reconciling those bills and making sure that, number one the contractual amount is correct versus the contract, and number two that the additional amounts conform to the number of hours and what was agreed to as to the service that they are providing.

Mr. Katona: The contract services and the contract amounts are reviewed by the Administration and the department heads, they all should know. I know for my department, I know when I see the bills, what they’re there for. For any repair of equipment that’s not covered under a contract service, the department head is responsible to insure that the funds are within his or her budget to expend at that time. So the department head signing off on the purchase order, and not only that but inputting into the Edmond System and approving it electronically, indicates that it’s a legitimate charge and expense and he needs to be on top of where that budget is, how much money is allocated for that expense or, if it exceeds what’s allocated for the expense, what other items are not going to be purchased that year.

Mr. Dorsey: Now, going back to the Library, under what department does that fall? What department head would sign off on that?

Mr. Katona: The department head….

Ms. Jenkins: The Library.

Mr. Katona: The Library would sign off on that. On this bill, we haven’t discussed it and it’s coming to mind, from sitting in the audience at some of the other earlier meetings, that the construction contract for the construction supervision was to end around June or July.

Mr. Dorsey: The end of June, I believe.

Mr. Katona: Okay. There was an extension, I’m not too clear on how that is…..

Mr. Dorsey: Yes, there was a two month extension, I believe.

Mr. Katona: This particular bill, for the items that pertain for the construction services, construction services are listed from March through June 16th is the last date for the construction service billing, that’s when they were….

President Rattner: That’s not what the CFO just said.

Ms. Jenkins: No, because he picked up…he’s looking at the voucher and I just said to him these are the dates when the Library paid it, not the date that they correlate to the terms of the bill.

Mayor De La Roche: Well, the history of it is the fact that the Library is faced with the fact that it’s a multi-million dollar project and there wouldn’t be anyone to oversee it, since Mr. Ayers….the overseer’s contract had ended, so they were looking to have him continue at a certain rate that was agreed upon, as in keeping with the contract that he had prior to this and that they would seek….they would end up seeking reimbursement from Blackstone, who delayed the project, so that eventually the reimbursement would come from the contractor who delayed the job and….rather than have a multi-million dollar project held up for the price of about $5,000, the Library Board voted that it was best to continue the contract.

President Rattner: Mayor, I understand that the Library Board did that and I don’t disagree with that; however, if they’re going after the contractor for reimbursement, now they’re coming after us. Now are we saying it’s going to be the town’s responsibility, if we pay them, to go after….I would think that they would take it out, they have a certain amount of funds that they would do that and then start truing up, if they think they’re going to get it from the contractor.

Mayor De La Roche: Well, they do have their own legal counsel, I assume is going to be going after the money to get it back.

President Rattner: But after we pay it. They’re asking us to reimburse them for what they’re reimbursing…. saying getting after the contractor, it’s really convoluted and I think it’s going to get lost. I’m really not sure, I can’t tell from the dates. As I said, I just want to go back and make sure that we can….we should pay it. I don’t think this Council agreed to pay Mr. Ayers after June 30th, in fact, when we negotiated the contract, it’s on the public record, Mr. Ayers said he will work until the job is done, because that was a real big problem we had about the lump sum and it was finally agreed it was just a progress payment he was going to get. If the Library said we’ll pay further and get it back from the contractor, why would it come to us and then we approve it and then pay it, and then we have to go back to the contractor, it should be the Library. If they made the agreement….it had nothing to do with us, we didn’t authorize the money, that’s what I’m coming to point to.

Mr. Guenther: Well, Steve, I think there’s an issue here of who goes after Blackstone, I believe it’s the Library Board and their attorney that are going after Blackstone, but it doesn’t fall on us.

President Rattner: Well, it’s falling on us because we’re reimbursing them….that the….the money they say they’re going to get back from Blackstone, they’re coming to us and asking us for it and we’re paying for it, based on what the CFO told us. They came to us for reimbursement, when it should be they should be going to Blackstone.

Mr. Guenther: Well, I think there’s also an issue here of do you want the construction supervisor to do his job properly and to continue doing the job, and he needs to be reimbursed for his time. I think that, you know, if you don’t do that, it’s a matter of a legal action. If the Library Board goes after Blackstone to get that money reimbursed, why should the contractor….why should this guy Ayers be penalized for this?

Mr. Greenbaum: Bernie, I think you’re missing the point. The Library Board decided to spend money that they didn’t have authority to spend. They had the money, they’re entitled to spend the money, I don’t have a problem with the Library Board, as the Mayor said, retaining Scott Ayers on a multi-million dollar project, if they felt that they needed to do so. The problem is that they didn’t come to Council to get approval to spend the money and seek reimbursement, they spent the money. It’s just like any other department in this government who would go out and spend money that they don’t have and then come back to us after they’ve already spent the money, and say we’d like to get reimbursed, and the justification for the expenditure is a good justification, but you know what, we needed it and we decided that we were going to spend it, and that’s where the problem lies….one of the problems lie. They went out without coming to us first and saying we need to fund this and we need you to approve it, and ultimately, I think, what choice would we have had for the reasons that the Mayor discussed. Were we going to sit here and not approve it, ultimately, we were going to most likely approve it…I think I would have approved it and it just seems to make sense to me that we need the construction manager to finish on, but it would have been nice if the Library had done what they should have done. I mean, what are we going to see next, the Police Department spending…..sorry I had to pick on the Police Department, but….

Mr. Katona: Go ahead, I’m used to it.

Mr. Greenbaum: I’m just using it as an example, it’s just not the appropriate protocol and it leaves us in a position where we can’t control the amount of expenditures.

President Rattner: Okay, what’s the pleasure, what do we do with the bill? Ms. Labow, do you have something new to add?

Ms. Labow: I just want to add one new thing, in that, after they did take Mr. Ayers on for another two months, I had specifically asked the question, well what happens if the project’s not done? They said they would take him on a per diem basis, which they have…contracted him on a per diem basis, I think it’s $350 a day. Now, if we’re going to check into this two months thing, if they want us to pay for it, what about the $350….how many days is that going to be? If this project reaches November/December, I think we need to check into that as well. If we’re checking into it, check all of it.

Ms. Jenkins: I just….I wanted to triple check the bills and make sure, and there was another bill in here that said July, I just want to be clear, this covers March, April, May and June…March, April, May and June, okay.

President Rattner: So then this one, that’s what I said….

Ms. Jenkins: March, April, May and June.

President Rattner: I was willing to go as long as there was nothing there…..

Ms. Jenkins: Yes.

President Rattner: Because I felt it was a possibility that could happen….

Ms. Jenkins: Yes, I wanted to go back and just make sure, it’s March, April, May and June.

President Rattner: I’ll go back to what I said ten minutes ago, so it wasn’t that I was just adding….that I will vote to approve it, as long as we get a commitment that you will review it, and as long as it’s appropriate for what’s been approved by the Council, then you can release a check. If not, you’ll void it and we’ll do it again in two weeks. I don’t want to hold it up, if it is correct. Is that acceptable to everybody?

Ms. Labow: Fair.

Mr. Guenther: Fair.

President Rattner: Okay, any other questions?

Mr. Greenbaum: I just have one question. Why are we reimbursing the Library as opposed to it having been put through in the normal course and paid? Paid by the Council in the first place?

Ms. Jenkins: I can answer that.

Mr. Greenbaum: Okay, it’s not a stupid question, is it?

Ms. Jenkins: When the project was initially set up, we had talked about this, whether we should pay for it directly versus reimbursement, and Rita felt that she could get the bills paid quicker if she paid for them directly.

Mr. Greenbaum: Fine.

Ms. Jenkins: Okay.

Mr. Greenbaum: Thank you.

Ms. Jenkins: Sure.

Mr. Greenbaum: Well, that was a good 15 minutes of wasted discussion.

Mr. Dorsey: It was about 20.

President Rattner: But I made the….it wasn’t me this time….I made the recommendation right at the onset. Any other questions on the Bill List? So the Bill List is going to go, there’s no other questions, other than the utility bill that there was a question on from Mr. Guenther, which you’ll have by the end of the meeting.


August 17, 2004 All Present except Mr. Elms

August 24, 2004 All Present except Mr. Elms

October 5, 2004 CS Present: President Rattner, Mr. Guenther, Mr. Buell, Mrs. Labow
Absent: Mr. Greenbaum, Mr. Perkins (recused)

President Rattner: Okay, moving right along, we have approval of Minutes from two Public Meetings and the Executive Session on October 5th, Mr. Buell, would you move them?

Mr. Buell: I move the Minutes of August 17th, August 24th and October 5th.

Mr. Guenther: Second.

President Rattner: Okay, I just ask that Mr. Greenbaum and Mr. Perkins….noticed that you were not participants in the October 5th Executive Session. Any comments? Roll Call.

ROLL CALL Passed Unanimously, except Mr. Mund abstained
And Mr. Greenbaum & Mr. Perkins abstained from October 5th



1. Letter received September 24, 2004, from Musconetcong Valley Community Association regarding the after school child care issue in Mount Olive and how the MVCA may help.

2. Letter received September 27, 2004, from Adventist Health Care/Hackettstown Community Hospital regarding the Mount Olive Child Care and Learning Center using the Mount Olive Library facility.

3. Letter received October 4, 2004, from Pauletter Munley, Budd Lake regarding Mount Olive Child Care
and Learning Center using the Mount Olive Library facility.


4. Resolution received September 30, 2004, from Borough of Netcong requesting Governor McGreevey to Implement a State Sponsored Financial Aid Program for Military Reservists and National Guard Members Deployed in the Global War on Terror.

5. Resolution received September 27, 2004, from the Township of Wall requesting Governor McGreevey to Implement a State Sponsored Financial Aid Program for Military Reservists and National Guard Members Deployed in the Global War on Terror (GWOT).


6. Letter received September 28, 2004, from EcolSciences, Inc. regarding Application for a Letter of Interpretation: Line Verification, Block 104, Lots 2 & 4 and Block 107, Lot 3, Township of Mount Olive, Morris County, New Jersey (650, 700 International Drive)

7. Notice received September 29, 2004, from New Jersey Transit Corporation, Fiscal Year 2005 Request for Federal Financial Assistance Under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.

8. Letter received on October 4, 2004, from State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection regarding Frank Stroessenreuther, Enforcement Action ID# PEA040001 – 1427-04-0008.1, Block: 1000, Lot: 7, 174 Crease Road, Budd Lake.(174 Crease Road)

9. Letter received October 4, 2004, from the State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection regarding Compliance Evaluation and Assistance Inspection, Clove Hill Sewage Treatment Plant, NJPDES No. NJ0021954, PI# 46655, Mount Olive Township/Morris County.


10. Letter received September 28, 2004, from New Jersey State League of Municipalities regarding 2004 Conference Resolutions.

11. Letter received September 28, 2004, from New Jersey State League of Municipalities regarding ADA Compliance.

12. Letter received September 28, 2004, from New Jersey State League of Municipalities regarding Shuttle

Bus Accessibility Form to be used in connection with the Conference in Atlantic City.

13. Letter received September 30, 2004, from New Jersey State League of Municipalities regarding EPA Brownfield Grants.

14. Letter received October 4, 2204, from New Jersey State League of Municipalities regarding Annual Business Meeting Friday, November 19, 2004 at the Sheraton Convention Center Hotel.


15. Letter received September 30, 2004, from Christopher Donnelly, Gov News, regarding a Media Advisory, Monday, October 4th – Property Tax Task Force to Hold First Public Hearing in Bergen County.

16. Notice received from the New Jersey State Historic Preservation Office, Borough of Collingswood, announcing a Commission Assistance and Mentoring Program for Thursday, October 14, 2004.


17. Fax received September 29, 2004, from Comcast regarding Spanish language and Digital Tutorial Channels.

18. Letter received October 4, 2004, from Comcast regarding Digital Tutorial Channels 900, 906 and 912 will no longer be available effective November 2, 2004.


19. Newsletter received September 30, 2004 from Taxpayer Advocate, A State Legislative Update from the NJ Assembly Republican Office, entitled: McHose Urges McGreevey to Halt Sale of ‘Junk Bonds’ to Balance the State Budget.


20. Notice received October 4, 2004 from Musconetcong Sewerage Authority regarding allocations for the participating municipalities in the 3.803 MGD Water Pollution Control Plant.

President Rattner: Next we have on the agenda is correspondence, we have twenty items of correspondence. Would anybody like to comment on any of the items of correspondence? Seeing none, we’ll move right along.


President Rattner: Now we come to Ordinances for Public Hearing. I open the hearing to the public on Ordinance #26-2004, entitled:

Ord. #26-2004 An Ordinance of the Township of Mount Olive Establishing Salaries of the Department Heads, Supervisory and Certain Non-Union Personnel and for the Employees of the Township Clerk’s Office for the Year 2004. (Continue to 10/26/04 Due to Publication Timing)

President Rattner: This is still on the agenda, we are going to continue it to the 26th, but since it has been advertised, I will open it up to the public if anybody would like to address it at this time. On the 26th, we’ll have another public comment period. Anybody like to address the Ordinance at this time? Seeing none, I’ll close the public comment period and ask that we get a motion to continue.

Mr. Guenther: So moved.

Ms. Labow: Second.

President Rattner: Any discussion?

Mr. Buell: The Business Administrator…$99,037.50 salary as approved, as of the hire date 3/04/04. Was that the salary he was at?

President Rattner: Yes.

Mr. Buell: Okay.

ROLL CALL Passed Unanimously, except Mr. Mund abstained.

President Rattner: Okay now we’ll have Ordinances for first reading. These Ordinances, the public comment period will be at the meeting of November 9th, 2004.

ORDINANCES FOR FIRST READING – (2nd Reading November 9, 2004)

President Rattner: The next item on the agenda for first reading is Ordinance #13-2004, entitled:

Ord. #13-2004 An Ordinance of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing a Revision to the Code of the Township of Mount Olive, Part IV Land Use Procedures, Chapter 400, Land Use: Article IV Site Plan and Subdivision Review and Plat Details Section 400-32, Subdivision Review. (Sewer and Sewer Systems)

Mr. Perkins: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that Ordinance #13-2004 be introduced by title, and passed on first reading, and that a meeting be held on November 9th, 2004 at 7:30 pm at the Municipal Building, 204 Flanders-Drakestown Road, Mount Olive, New Jersey for a public hearing, consideration of second reading and passage of said Ordinance, and that the Clerk be directed to publish, post and make available said Ordinance in accordance with the requirements of law.

Mr. Guenther: Second.

President Rattner: Any discussion? Mr. Perkins.

Mr. Perkins: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank our attorney, Mr. Dorsey’s office, Peter King, for working the law with Mr. Buczynski, our township engineer, as well as the Planning Board, on getting this finalized. I think this goes a long way into now having a development rule. At one time, require a sewage system to be put in, where the township retains all the assets for no cost, and thereby runs it in accordance with the utilities, which were set up appropriately by previous Administration. Thank you.

President Rattner: Thank you, Mr. Perkins. Any other comment? Roll Call.

ROLL CALL Passed Unanimously

President Rattner: Okay, next item on the agenda for first reading is Ordinance #33-2004, entitled:

Ord. #33-2004 An Ordinance Amending Sections 400-29, Site Plan Review and 400-32, Subdivision Review, of the Land Use Chapter of the Code of the Township of Mount Olive, New Jersey. (3 year Preliminary Approval Expiration)

Mr. Guenther: I move that Ordinance #33-2004 be introduced by title, and passed on first reading, and that a meeting be held on November 9th, 2004 at 7:30 pm at the Municipal Building, 204 Flanders-Drakestown Road, Mount Olive, New Jersey for a public hearing, consideration of second reading and passage of said Ordinance, and that the Clerk be directed to publish, post and make available said Ordinance in accordance with the requirements of law.

Mr. Perkins: Second.

President Rattner: Okay, any discussion? Roll Call.

ROLL CALL Passed Unanimously

President Rattner: As I told everybody else, Mr. Mund, it takes about six months before you really feel comfortable and everybody goes through it. We’ll make fun of you, but everybody goes through it. Next item on the agenda for first reading is Ordinance #34-2004, entitled:

Ord. #34-2004 An Ordinance to Amend and Supplement Various Articles of Chapter 400 Entitled “Land Use” to Clarify Definitions, Revise Administrative Procedures, and to Modify Certain Development Requirements.

Mr. Greenbaum: I move that Ordinance #34-2004 be introduced by title, and passed on first reading, and that a meeting be held on November 9th, 2004 at 7:30 pm at the Municipal Building, 204 Flanders-Drakestown Road, Mount Olive, New Jersey for a public hearing, consideration of second reading and passage of said Ordinance, and that the Clerk be directed to publish, post and make available said Ordinance in accordance with the requirements of law.

Mr. Perkins: Second.

President Rattner: Any discussion?

Mr. Guenther: Rob, just a quick synopsis, thirty seconds or less, as to why and wherefore on this one.

Mr. Greenbaum: You know, it simply was a modification of certain definitions that were either incorrect, or needed to be updated.

Mr. Guenther: Thanks.

President Rattner: Roll Call.

ROLL CALL Passed Unanimously

President Rattner: Next item on the agenda for first reading is Ordinance #35-2004, entitled:

Ord. #35-2004 Bond Ordinance Amending Bond Ordinance Numbered 11-2001, as Amended by Bond Ordinance Numbered 44-2002 of the Township of Mount Olive, in the County of Morris, New Jersey Finally Adopted May 8, 2001 and December 10, 2002, Respectively, in Order to Amend the Description of the Project. (copiers & map machine)

Mr. Buell: I move that Ordinance #35-2004 be introduced by title, and passed on first reading, and that a meeting be held on November 9th, 2004 at 7:30 pm at the Municipal Building, 204 Flanders-Drakestown Road, Mount Olive, New Jersey for a public hearing, consideration of second reading and passage of said Ordinance, and that the Clerk be directed to publish, post and make available said Ordinance in accordance with the requirements of law.

Mr. Guenther: Second.

President Rattner: Any discussion? Roll Call.

ROLL CALL Passed Unanimously

President Rattner: The next item on the agenda for first reading is Ordinance #36-2004, entitled:

Ord. #36-2004 Bond Ordinance Amending Bond Ordinance Numbered 24-2003 of the Township of Mount Olive, in the County of Morris, New Jersey Finally Adopted May 27, 2003 in Order to Amend the Description of the Project. (copiers & map machine)

Ms. Labow: I move that Ordinance #36-2004 be introduced by title, and passed on first reading, and that a meeting be held on November 9th, 2004 at 7:30 pm at the Municipal Building, 204 Flanders-Drakestown Road, Mount Olive, New Jersey for a public hearing, consideration of second reading and passage of said Ordinance, and that the Clerk be directed to publish, post and make available said Ordinance in accordance with the requirements of law.

Mr. Guenther: Second.

President Rattner: Any discussion?

Ms. Labow: I have discussion….I want to know what the difference….both of these say copiers and maps for the #35-2004 and the #36-2004, what’s the…..

President Rattner: They want…we went over what they wanted to buy last week. What they did is they went through all the different ordinances and they found two different ordinances. One was modified with money left over, in other words, you may have gone out to buy something, it was estimated $40,000 and you spent $36,000. So they found all the different money, so this is amending that, so they’ll be able to use it for this purpose.

Ms. Labow: Because it says copiers and map machine on both of these and I thought we were only going to do one map machine, so which is….which is for the map machine and which one is for the copier?

Mr. Katona: The…if I can, Mr. President….The amount in total is what’s added up, it’s not any one individual, you know, two machines from this ordinance and three from the other. It’s the total bill that we have.

Ms. Labow: It’s the encompassing of it all, okay. That’s what I wanted to know. Thank you. I’m done.

President Rattner: Any other discussion? Roll Call.

ROLL CALL Passed Unanimously

President Rattner: And the last item on the agenda for first reading is Ordinance #37-2004, entitled:

Ord. #37-2004 An Ordinance of the Township of Mount Olive Amending Section C of Section 4-106 Entitled “Meetings” of the Administrative Code of the Township of Mount Olive.

Mr. Guenther: I move that Ordinance #37-2004 be introduced by title, and passed on first reading, and that a meeting be held on November 9th, 2004 at 7:30 pm at the Municipal Building, 204 Flanders-Drakestown Road, Mount Olive, New Jersey for a public hearing, consideration of second reading and passage of said Ordinance, and that the Clerk be directed to publish, post and make available said Ordinance in accordance with the requirements of law.

Ms. Labow: Second.

President Rattner: Any discussion? This is to make sure our code actually has the address of this building properly. Roll Call.

ROLL CALL Passed Unanimously

Mr. Greenbaum: Steve, if I may, before we go on to the next session. I just wanted to more fully answer Bernie’s question, with regard to #34-2004, because I don’t believe that my answer was completely accurate with respect to that particular Ordinance. There are some substantive provisions included in the proposed Ordinance. Two of the major ones relate to a clarification of the tree banking and tree removal policy, which Ms. Labow has championed, and it’s certainly tightened up that particular aspect, and one other important aspect relates to the cluster development option and it more fully defines what can and cannot be in the Open Space, which is to be dedicated to the town, how much of it can be encumbered, and also, I think it ups the percentage of Open Space to be donated to the town. So, those are the major items…..

Ms. Labow: I have one question to ask you about the cluster. Does that also prohibit builders from coming in with a cluster plan immediately, they have to come in with the original qualifying plan first and then go to cluster, if it doesn’t work?

Mr. Greenbaum: Well, that particular Ordinance wasn’t amended to reflect that. Sometime….either last year or the year before, the township passed an ordinance which requires anyone who wants to build a cluster to first come in with a conventional build out conforming map, which does not evidence any variances or which doesn’t evidence any variances to get a density number. So X number of acres will yield X number of lots…buildable lots without going to the cluster, so that is already the law. This particular Ordinance doesn’t effect that.

Ms. Labow: Okay, thank you.

President Rattner: Any other questions?


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.


1. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive RE: AIG Baker Litigation.

2. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Establishing a Special Meeting for October 18, 2004.

3. Resolution to Amend the Capital Budget – Acquisition of Silver Spring Manor.

4. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing the Execution of a Developer’s Agreement Minor Subdivision and Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval with Associated Waiver Between the Township and Michael Panetta and George Panetta in Connection with Block 8300, Lot 11.

5. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing the Execution of a Developer’s Agreement Minor Subdivision and Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval with Associated Waiver Between the Township and Michael Panetta and George Panetta in Connection with Block 8300, Lot 11.01.

6. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing the Release of Performance Guarantees Submitted by the Vizzoni Group.

7. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing the Release of Performance Guarantees for Gen III Builders, Inc./Kern Drive Water main Extension.

8. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Awarding a Contract to Precision Excavating and Andy-Matt, Inc. for Snowplowing Services for 2004-2005.

9. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing the Budd Lake Fire Department to Sell the 1986 Mack Engine #56.

President Rattner: Okay, moving right along, we go to our Consent Agenda. We have nine items on the Consent Agenda. Would anybody like any item taken off, so it can be discussed separately?

Mr. Guenther: Number one.

President Rattner: Is that all, Mr. Guenther?

Mr. Guenther: Yes.

Mr. Perkins: Should four and five….are they the same? They seem to read the same.

Mrs. Lashway: No they’re two different lots, one’s 11 and one’s 11.01.

Mr. Perkins: Okay, thank you.

President Rattner: Okay, so we’re only taking one off and we will pass on that separately. So, Mr. Perkins, would you move Consent Resolutions 2 through 9?

Mr. Perkins: Yes, I move for approval of Consent Resolutions numbers 2 through 9.

Ms. Labow: Second.


President Rattner: Okay, is there anybody from the public that would like to address resolutions number 2 through 9? Seeing none, I’ll close the public comment.


President Rattner: Any Council comments on 2 through 9? Roll Call.

ROLL CALL Passed Unanimously, except Mr. Mund abstained


President Rattner: Mr. Buell, would you move Resolution number 1?

1. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive RE: AIG Baker Litigation.

Mr. Buell: I move Resolution number 1.

Mr. Perkins: Second.

President Rattner: Anybody from the public like to address the Council on Resolution number 1 - Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive RE: AIG Baker Litigation? Seeing none, I’ll close the Public Comment Portion. Council Comments, Mr. Guenther.


Mr. Guenther: I would just like an explanation of the township attorney as to, you know, the significance of this, I mean, where do we stand with AIG Baker as far as this is concerned, does this finally settle this with them, or is there still outstanding issues with them?

Mr. Dorsey: No, this resolution accepts a $75,000 check, which was the amount in the settlement that we required them to pay to us. It essentially is to cover any miscellaneous incomplete improvements up there. It’s a number which Gene thought was extremely well taken from them, and we are in agreement as to the escrows to be returned. We will not be returning any of the escrow monies at this time, however, because they have got to have a court order alleviating the Vollers Municipal Mechanics Liens Notices that has been placed on their monies here, but it’s just a resolution that essentially accepts the $75,000, which I think I already forwarded to the CFO.

Mr. Guenther: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Greenbaum: I just had one question for Mr. Dorsey related to AIG Baker in the Trade Center. I saw, in my correspondence, there was a report from an engineer with respect to the walls, there were ten walls, in fact, I know that the retaining walls at all time, in perpetuity, will remain the responsibility of AIG Baker, and not the township, but I am nonetheless concerned that, with respect to the health and safety of the residents of Mount Olive, in that the report, it seemed to me, indicated that there was a clear engineering failure with respect to the walls themselves. Is that something which the township needs to get involved with? Does it relate to this litigation?

Mr. Dorsey: Well, the township….my office has been on top of that litigation. That is really litigation between AIG Baker and Vollers. Vollers was the contractor, and they are trying to beat each other to death. Each of them have various experts that have issued various reports. Our position always is that under the developers agreements, the maintenance of the walls will forever be the obligation of AIG Baker, and AIG Baker is seeking to collect damages from Vollers for a dozen things in connection with their work. So, you know, it’s really the exchange of dueling litigants in terms of engineering reports, but our position has always been good, because those walls are outside of the right of ways which we have accepted, and their obligation is to maintain and in perpetuity.

Mr. Greenbaum: I can appreciate that and, from what I gather you’re saying, is that the expert…the report which I reviewed, was a report which was prepared pursuant to litigation.


Mr. Dorsey: Right, and we…and maybe I should answer it this way: We, of course, when we get those, submit them to Gene for his review, and when there are site inspections as there were last Friday morning, I think, at 8:00, involving the various litigants, professional engineers, we have somebody from Gene’s office there to review. I mean, if we ever get to the point where we find that a wall is failing, well then we simply will shut that part of the road down, but that doesn’t seem to be where we are at the moment.

Mr. Greenbaum: Okay.

Ms. Labow: John, and possibly, I think, maybe the Administration, I’m not sure what the status is at this point in time, I brought this up before in the parking lot over by Michaels, in the AIG parking lot…AIG Baker parking lot…where we had the sewer…the manhole cover where the roadway had sunk in, it was determined that the sewer system did not run where the sink-in was, it runs the other way, but then once they fixed the one section, they actually excavated the entire thing, filled it in and then it began to sink and then it sunk on the other side. Now, that section is still corded off, so my concern is we already know we have the problem with walls, now why is this huge section of this parking lot, they have…there’s about 10 / 12 spaces that are now blocked off, they don’t let anybody down there. How many times is this going to sink in and what is the problem and should we take any kind of action towards making sure?

Mr. Dorsey: Well, it’s too bad Gene was released to go home. We really have to take that up with Gene because, I mean, they acknowledge it’s their responsibility and they’re forced to confine their parking, so that it doesn’t have any effect on the public who might park there until the situation is corrected, but I have to check it with Gene for you.

Ms. Labow: But this has been months now, we’re going on six months.

Mr. Dorsey: Okay.

Ms. Labow: We’re going on six months that this problem… just keeps…every time you think they fixed it, it gets worse, so.

Mr. Dorsey: What’s the name of the store?

Ms. Labow: It’s right in front of Michaels.

Mr. Dorsey: Okay, I get it.

Mr. Greenbaum: I say we get Gene back here right now.

Ms. Labow: Yes, let’s call him on his cell phone. I’d just like really a status report and see if there’s something we should do about it, because it’s pretty extensive. I don’t know if anybody’s been up there.

President Rattner: Well, if we think it’s a safety thing, because it’s obviously private property, it’s no different than if you had a problem on your property, other than for the safety of the public, maybe we should be bringing the developer or the property manager in to explain what is happening, because it should be their responsibility, what they’re doing to correct it, and how….why they don’t think it won’t happen again, or will they correct it this time, it won’t continue. Have they done the proper soil bores, that type of thing?

Ms. Labow: Well, the first time I came about it, was I almost ended up in the hole, because it was…..

President Rattner: Well, next time, look where you’re driving.

Ms. Labow: I know, I have to look where I’m driving, for crying out loud, but why I’m concerned is that Gene had….did tell me that they believe there’s an underwater spring of some sort, that is running through there, which is making the ground cave there, and that could effect the walls on the other side.

President Rattner: But that’s why you have to…..

Mr. Dorsey: That’s all private property.

Ms. Labow: That’s all private property, I know.

Mr. Dorsey: But you know what you could do, you could ask Gene to bring you up to date in terms of outstanding issues up there and then we could proceed like that because Catherine Natafalusy wrote to me about three weeks ago, and there are certain stores in which the Police are concerned that the striping has not been adequately replaced. We decided upon the course of action, they would be given two weeks, maybe it was three weeks, to redo the striping to the Police Department’s satisfaction, they didn’t do it. We would then cord off the road, so that’s how we’re going to do it.

President Rattner: Thank you. Any other comments on it? Roll Call.

ROLL CALL Passed Unanimously, except Mr. Mund abstained

President Rattner: Okay, resolution number 10, Mr. Greenbaum.

10. Resolution to Amend the Capital Budget – Turkey Brook Phase II Improvements.

Mr. Greenbaum: I move for approval of resolution number 10.

Mr. Guenther: Second.

President Rattner: Okay, this is the $60,000 that we said that we weren’t going to do.

Ms. Labow: No, didn’t we say we were going to amend it…we were going to get a change order, right?

President Rattner: No, this is to amend it, so we can spend….this is to borrow an extra $60,000. So, we’re going to defeat it. Anybody from the public….it was moved and seconded….anybody from the public like to address it? We are going to defeat it, this is what we were talking about before, about extra money for Turkey Brook. Seeing no public comment, I’ll close the public comment portion. Any other comments? Roll Call.

ROLL CALL Unanimously Defeated

President Rattner: Thank you. Mr. Mund, the first thing you did was try to reduce expenses, congratulations. Resolution number 11, Mr. Buell.

11. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing the Mayor and the Council President to Sign/Execute a Cross Acceptance Questionnaire for the Township of Mount Olive as Requested by the Morris County Planning Board. (pending approval of the Planning Board at the October 14, 2004 Meeting)

Mr. Buell: I move resolution number 11.

Mr. Guenther: Second.


President Rattner: Anybody from the public like to address the Council on this?

Richard Bonte, Budd Lake: Regarding resolution number 11, I don’t know if you’ve looked at the numbers on page 2, but I have a number of questions.

Ms. Labow: On page two or page three?

Mr. Bonte: Page 2, it’s labeled page 2 at the bottom, I guess it’s part 1 of the municipal master plan, it’s the third page in the document, but it’s labeled 2. Does everybody have that page in front of them? Under part 1, paragraph 1a, it says number of existing housing units in units 9,850. Is that the number of housing units that are presently in the township as of the time this form was being completed?

President Rattner: I think we’re at a disadvantage here, because we had a workshop last week where Mr. McGroarty was here and answered our specific questions, but I do believe so.

Mr. Bonte: Well, if you’re going to be approving this document this evening, then I think you should be able to answer the questions, and if you can’t answer the questions, I don’t think you should approve the document.

Ms. Labow: The answer is yes.

Mr. Bonte: So, again, I would like to ask, is this the number of housing units in the township at the present time?

Mr. Buell: He represented it as the number of housing units.

President Rattner: That’s what was represented, I didn’t go on….

Mr. Bonte: Is it reasonable, then, to assume that over the next twenty years, there will only be two to ten houses built in this township per year, to the existing 9,850? This document states 9,850 plus somewhere between 40 to 200 homes by the year 2025, or a total of 10,050…from 9,890 to 10,050 which comes down to 2 to 10 per year. I mean, I would love to believe that, but I don’t.

Mr. Dorsey: But don’t you have to read the hypothesis for that, which he puts in here, we are estimating future units in the range of 40 to 200. Forty units are based on the assumption the township will acquire additional open space and the existing agricultural land will go into farmland preservation.

Mr. Bonte: I understand that, Mr. Dorsey, but I would venture to say that we would probably exceed these numbers in the next year, needless to say the next twenty years.

Mr. Guenther: Where, Rich?

Mr. Bonte: Where?

Mr. Guenther: Where?

Mr. Bonte: Are you going to tell me, right now, that in the year 2005, we are only going to add two new residential dwelling units to this township?

Mr. Guenther: Well, who said two? If you divide it, it’s eight per year.

Mr. Bonte: No it’s not.

Mr. Guenther: Yes it is, 160 units…

Mr. Bonte: It’s 20 years….

Mr. Guenther: 160 units, divided by 20, that’s 8 per year.

Mr. Bonte: Looking at paragraph 1a…

Mr. Guenther: That’s the one I’m looking at, I’m subtracting….

Mr. Bonte: It says 40 to 200 new units by the year…

Mr. Guenther: I subtracted 9,890 from 10,050, that’s 160 units.

Mr. Bonte: That’s not the way the paragraph reads. The paragraph reads: The number of future housing units, by 2025, 40 to 200 equals….

Mr. Guenther: Yes, but they’re giving a finite figure at the end.

Mr. Bonte: Equals 9,890 to 10,050 and I presume that they did this because they weren’t sure of the exact number. That translates….

Mr. Guenther: Oh, I see, I see what you mean, okay.

Mr. Bonte: …to somewhere between 2 to 10 housing units per year for the next 20 years. I don’t believe that. I would love to believe that, but I don’t believe that.

Mr. Guenther: I understand.

Mr. Greenbaum: Rich, I find myself at an extreme….I wasn’t here last week, but I know that in speaking, I’ve seen the presentation on this before and I would be more comfortable tabling this resolution and having Chuck here to answer questions of the public that you’re going to ask, because I know there were certain assumptions, which were built in, and perhaps certain justifications for leaving a number as is. In other words, the 40 to 200, and I know that assumes that the zoning is going to go from 1 to 3 to 10 and it’s going to assume the Highlands, or it’s not going to assume the Highlands, and the bottom line is that your initial premise is correct, that I can’t answer any of the questions which you’re going to ask on the numbers which are in here, I have to rely upon Chuck in terms of giving you that explanation, and because I can’t rely upon my own knowledge, I believe that the best issue, absent some emergent need to get this through tonight, is to just defeat it and bring it back up when Chuck can be here.

Ms. Labow: I could be wrong, somebody will have to correct me on this, but when Chuck was speaking last week, I thought the question came up the 9,850 units, did that mean how many houses were in existence plus how many have approvals to be built, and I thought that total encompassed that. That’s what I believe he had said last week. It doesn’t necessarily mean how many houses are directly built, but how many are currently standing and how many have approvals to be built.

Mr. Bonte: Well, even if that’s true, I find it hard to believe these numbers. Now, I have some other questions, do I ask them or is the consensus of the Board to table this…

President Rattner: We have two weeks, otherwise we miss cross-acceptance and then we don’t get any State benefits, because unless we approve it, and we allow the County to be our lead agent so we wouldn’t have to go for all the expense ourselves. They sent us a questionnaire, they only asked us the questionnaire and they’re doing, I think, something like 34, they’re representing 34 of the 39 municipalities in Morris County.

Ms. Labow: Yes, that’s what I understood to be the deadline.

Mr. Greenbaum: So, when does this have to be approved by?

Mrs. Lashway: This is going to be discussed at the Planning Board Meeting on October 14th, this Thursday, so you might want to….Mr. McGroarty will be at that meeting, because it does have to be on for final approval for October 26th, if we don’t take action tonight. So, the Planning Board will be reviewing it this Thursday.

Mr. Bonte: So, the Planning Board has not acted on this yet, but we’re going to act on it?

President Rattner: They have to act independently.

Mr. Bonte: Why would we do that without the Planning Board having acted on this? Okay, then I’m going to ask the rest of my questions, because I guess the consensus is that the Council is going to move this along because, once again, we will do something wrong to meet a deadline as opposed to….

President Rattner: No, Mr. Bonte, you know that’s unfair that there’s a lot of things that we don’t understand, the experts say….we filled it out, we did the analysis, not that we have to understand everything that’s in there, that’s why we brought the professional planner in.

Mr. Bonte: No, but we can use some common sense, when we review these documents.

Mr. Greenbaum: You know what, your number, although at first glance seems to be ridiculous – that we’re only going to have 400 houses built over twenty years, but…Steve, what was the number of houses that were built….housing starts during the decade of the 1990’s, it was….

President Rattner: 860 CO’s were issued from 1990 to 2000.

Mr. Greenbaum: During a ten year period, there were 800 houses, that’s assuming that the zoning has changed to larger lots, since that time, the Highlands Preservation has come in, we’ve purchased open space on the large Mr. Greenbaum(cont’d): lots. So, although the number, at first glance, seems to be a ridiculous number, based upon experience, it may not be so ridiculous, but I can’t answer the question, and since I’m hearing that we have until October 26th, that we can pass this, I think the best thing to do, Rich, is to raise your question, because we can’t answer the questions, is to raise your questions on Thursday before the Planning Board when Chuck is there.

Mr. Bonte: And do you know, for a fact, that the public will be allowed to ask questions at the Planning Board meeting?

Mr. Greenbaum: Well, Mr. Mania is sitting right here and I assume that Mr. Mania would have no problem in opening up the….

Mr. Bonte: Well, the Planning Board has very different rules than the Council.

Mr. Greenbaum: Mr. Mania is sitting right here.

Mr. Mania: Mr. Bonte, I don’t think I’ve ever disallowed you to ask a question at a Planning Board meeting.

Mr. Bonte: That’s correct, if it is open for the public to ask.

President Rattner: We can’t pick the conversation up, so….

Mr. Bonte: But, quickly, on 1b…..

President Rattner: Wait a minute, if you’re going to wait for the expert, why don’t you wait until the Planning Board….and ask them. We’re not passing this tonight, so…

Mr. Bonte: Okay, then you’ve answered my question, thank you.

President Rattner: Okay, thank you. If it doesn’t hurt anything to hold it off, and people can get additional information at the Planning Board meeting. Mr. Greenbaum is going to be there, the Mayor is going to be there, Mr. Mania is going to be there. So, anyway, move to table it instead of just killing it, because we don’t want to send the wrong signals.

Mr. Dorsey: Well, why doesn’t the mover just remove his….

Mr. Buell: Mr. Mund has just brought something to our attention, we do not have a meeting scheduled for the 26th.

Mrs. Lashway: Yes we do.

Mr. Buell: Not on the…..

Mrs. Lashway: Well, there might be an error on the calendar, but we certainly have a meeting on the 26th. There were two calendars that were given out this month, due to a staffing problem, and the one that….the first one that was prepared, it is listed, it was adopted at our reorganization meeting, so this just is missing it, there is definitely a meeting on October 26th.

President Rattner: Mr. Mund, don’t miss your second meeting.

Mr. Greenbaum: That would actually be his third.

President Rattner: Well, we’re talking public meetings.

Mr. Dorsey: Mr. Buell can withdraw this resolution.

Mr. Buell: I withdraw the resolution number 11.

Ms. Labow: Mr. Rattner, I just want to make one comment about this in regards to what Mr. Bonte said. When we were at the meeting and we went over and we asked Chuck….Mr. McGroarty a lot of questions about it, and I had full faith and understanding that what he proposed to us, that this was correct and that it was
Ms. Labow(cont’d): something that we all agreed that we would approve for tonight and we do have our professionals that we rely on. If Mr. Dorsey gave us a legal opinion on something, I wouldn’t sit here and…I don’t think anybody would expect each one of us to understand every bit of legalities, this was as Chuck McGroarty admitted himself, was a very dry…long drawn out thing, to try and understand, and if we don’t rely on our professionals, then why are we paying them? So….that’s what we have them for. That’s it.

President Rattner: Okay, resolution number 12, Ms. Labow.

12. Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive, Amending the Developer’s Agreement with DPC Cirrus, Inc., Relative to the Date of Completion of Improvements.

Ms. Labow: I move for passage of resolution number 12.

Mr. Guenther: Second.

President Rattner: Would anybody from the public like to address the Council on resolution number 12? Seeing none, I’ll close the public comment portion. Any discussion? Roll Call.

ROLL CALL Passed Unanimously, except Mr. Mund abstained.


President Rattner: Next we have Motions, we have you down for all of them Mr. Perkins.

Mr. Perkins: Thank you, Mr. President.

President Rattner: Do the Raffle and the Peddler’s Permit together and we’ll do the Bill List separately.

1. Approval of Raffle Application #2054 for Father Joseph A. Cassidy Council 6100 Knights of Columbus.
2. Approval of the Renewal of a Peddler’s Permit for Phil DeAngelo for Mobile Food Vending.

Mr. Perkins: I make a motion to approve Raffle Application #2054; also the approval of the Renewal of a Peddler’s Permit for Phil DeAngelo.

Mr. Guenther: Second.

President Rattner: Any discussion? Roll Call.

ROLL CALL Passed Unanimously

President Rattner: Okay, Bill List. Mr. Buell, do you want to move the Bill List?

3. Approval of the Bill List.

Mr. Buell: I move the Bill List.

Ms. Labow: Second.

President Rattner: Mr. Guenther, you still had one question outstanding, right?

Mr. Guenther: Yes, there was….

Ms. Jenkins: Yes, there were two. The HMUA bill is a yearly bill, it’s not a quarterly bill.

President Rattner: The…which one? I’m sorry.

Ms. Jenkins: The HMUA bill is…that was a yearly charge.

Mr. Guenther: And the street lighting?

Ms. Jenkins: The JCP&L is the same time period for most of them, Bernie, but different accounts…okay, they’re different accounts.

Mr. Guenther: What do you mean different accounts, different areas?

Ms. Jenkins: We have different account numbers assigned to them, so my understanding is, and I know Tim keeps a listing of what all the account numbers correlate to in terms of location, that they’re different locations.

Mr. Guenther: So, they’re different locations?

Ms. Jenkins: Yes.

President Rattner: Different meters, probably.

Ms. Jenkins: Yes.

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

Mr. Perkins: Yes, just one quick comment, and I’m just a little…well, a little more than slightly disappointed that we spent approximately 20 minutes discussing the reimbursement for construction over something that was covered during the previous contract and the contract period had not expired, and I wish we would have known that before we went on with 20 minutes worth of dissertation about what we thought should or shouldn’t happen, who should be responsible, what we needed to know is what period it covered. We would have known it was up to June and that was within the original contract period. Thank you very much.

President Rattner: Thank you. Any other comments? Roll Call.

ROLL CALL Passed Unanimously, except Mr. Mund abstained and Mr. Greenbaum voted No


President Rattner: Old Business, Mr. Greenbaum, you have this listed under your name.

State of Negotiations with Mt. Olive Child Care & Learning Center for the “Old” Library

Mr. Greenbaum: Thank you. As you know, I was not present at the last Council Meeting, but I understand there was some discussions with respect to the Mount Olive Child Care and the negotiations. As you may recall, there was a resolution passed by Council directing the Administration to move forward with negotiations with Mount Olive Child Care. I understand, from discussions I’ve had with other Council members, that the status update, which was given last week, indicated that the Administration is looking for alternate options in terms of space. While I find that to be a worthwhile exercise, it simply does not follow the mandate of the resolution which Council adopted. There are many issues that concern me with respect to Mount Olive Child Care and the old Library building, even in the event that the Administration were successful in terms of finding alternate space for Mount Olive Child Care, it still leaves unresolved issues, such as who is going to pay to maintain that building? Who is going to pay to heat that building? Who is going to pay to operate that building? Those are part and parcel of the reason that I suggested that the resolution be adopted, and I find it disconcerting that the Administration is not following the resolution of Council. Ultimately, a deal may not be able to be struck with Mount Olive Child Care, that may be the case, but I still….the exercise needs to be undertaken. That’s where I have some problem with the approach that the Administration has taken here, and that’s not consistent with the resolution. So, again, I ask that the Administration begin negotiations with respect to that building and Mount Olive Child Care, and let’s see where it goes. Do you have any comment, Ed?

Mr. Katona: Well, I think it’s an appropriate place to start, you’re talking about negotiations, not rolling over and giving the building to the Child Care Center. Part of the negotiations must be an understanding of what the requirements of the Child Care Center are and what the value of that property and that building are. In the negotiations, they will take shape. There was one meeting, I think it was a good meeting, I think we have a good start of where we’re going, but to….not to review what properties are available and the critical nature of the need to move into a building, will effect where we go with that. I think it’s prudent to find out what is available, where it’s available and for how much that they’re available. That’s what I think and that’s what we move forward on. It is not to say that the negotiations will not continue and that’s the end of things. There’s nothing that was undertaken that is contrary to what the resolution states and what the Administration began.

Mr. Guenther: Fine. Obviously, I’m not asking you to reveal anything that’s, you know, will compromise your position in the negotiation, but I think we would like an update possibly at least every two weeks on how they are progressing. My question now would be, when is your next meeting scheduled….next negotiating session with the Child Care and Learning Center?

Mr. Katona: I don’t know. Mr. Kaplan, who attended and led that meeting, is not here. I will certainly pull it together and schedule another meeting for that. So, it will happen, it’s not….I hope you’re not getting the impression that there is a foot dragging on the part of the Administration. It is something that we do need to move forward with. I concur with that, but we do not have a full time Administrator and it is a problem. As time that I had, I committed that I would schedule it, it was scheduled and we did conduct it, and we looked at the issues that I felt were germane to the negotiations, and when we do get a full time Administrator, I’m sure he or she will take it over and run it properly, according to how Council wants it. We will report on an every two to three week basis what the progress is, and I’m sure that the next meeting or two, we will be very close to having a decision or agreement for you.

Mayor De La Roche: Just so there’s a clarification for the public, the impression, I guess, given by the resolution that no one was following up on this, just so…for clarification, you passed a resolution on the Tuesday meeting, on the Thursday prior to that meeting, I sat down with Mrs. Mulveger at a meeting, trying to find out their needs and the amount of money they had available. I went through a whole bunch of negotiations with her, prior to the resolution being passed. So, subsequent to that, is the other meeting that Mr. Katona is talking about. So, when you read in the paper that the Director is saying that no one had contacted her, we were dealing with the Director prior to that, which we felt was appropriate at the time, since she had raised the issue to us. So, now both parties are engaged, both the Manager and the Director.

Mr. Greenbaum: My concern, Ed, was not so much that the meetings had or hadn’t taken place, although I believe that there is an immediacy which is required to the negotiations, based upon the obvious, you know, the obvious deadlines, which Mount Olive Child Care is going to face at mid year. My concern related more to the nature of the discussions, which were not, in my mind, consistent with the resolution, which was adopted, and I believe Mr. Guenther’s suggestion, that we get an update at each public meeting on where the negotiations are going, would be extremely beneficial.

Mayor De La Roche: Just one other clarification, even at the original meeting, prior to passing the resolution, we were discussing with Mrs. Mulveger alternate sites that might be available and she had indicated, at least to me, that she was going to check those sites out, and I haven’t gotten anything back on whether or not those sites were checked.

Mr. Greenbaum: Thank you.

Ms. Labow: I have an old business. I have a question for the Administration. A lot of people have been contacting me….everybody wants to know about the DPW garage and one…the proposed DPW garage, and one of the big questions that keeps coming up is do we have an analysis of the savings….we keep talking about how it would be more prudent to have the DPW garage here on the Municipal Complex versus where it is now, with the employees, so on and so forth, and I’m sure that this is a timely endeavor, but do we have any type of a cost analysis as far as how much money that would actually save us? Do you understand what I’m saying?

Mr. Katona: We’re currently working on that workup, as we speak. As a matter of fact, we met today with Mrs. Murphy and she’s into that analysis.

Ms. Labow: Yes, because there has also been talk of the longevity of a lot of our equipment being housed versus not being housed. I think the public is really looking for an amount, and I would like to try, and I know you’re working very hard on it, but as soon as we can get those figures, so we can be fully armed to go to the public and explain why this is a….why we feel it’s a necessity, so…

Mr. Greenbaum: Ed, I need for you to prepare a response to me, if you would, related to the letter that we got from Joe DeMaria. I know that you’re not prepared to do it tonight, but as you know, Mr. Ruggierio had presented a $1.9 million estimate, in terms of the cost of doing the DPW garage, and I’m not sure how Mr. Ruggierio arrived at that number, and I realize that it was not intended to be a final number, because we don’t have plans, we don’t ultimately know what the building is going to cost, but it was at least my impression that the $1.9 million was to be a conservative estimate and certainly that the building was going to be completed within that number and it’s, in fact, included in the referendum itself, that the, you know, do you approve of the erecting and funding for a $1.9 million DPW garage. Last week I saw….or this week I saw a memo from Joe Mr. Greenbaum(cont’d): DeMaria, who obviously was involved in the initial planning of the building; Joe DeMaria is an architect, who has done different work for the town, and he was fully familiar with the building in Sparta, which is the model by which the Administration has moved forward on this DPW project. My concern is that Mr. DeMaria, in very strong terms, indicated that the building that we are proposing, will cost far in excess of $1.9 million. I don’t know whether or not you’ve seen that memo, but it couldn’t have been written in stronger terms, and he gives his justification for why that is going to cost far in excess, which gives me….I think it has to give all of us….raise great concern, because we are now going to the public with a referendum which may be insufficient, even if approved, to build the building, right from the outside. So, I need for the Administration to review the DeMaria memo and to respond appropriately and I think, in part, the response should include, as best as you can put it together, what efforts were made prior to Mr. Ruggierio coming up with the $1.9 million, how that number was arrived at and why that number is the correct number at this point, rather than the much higher number which Mr. DeMaria has presented, and if you don’t have a copy of that memo, I would suggest that you get it from the Town Clerk.

Mr. Guenther: When did we receive it?

Mr. Greenbaum: It would have been either this week, or last week.

Mrs. Lashway: I don’t know the date.

Mr. Buell: It was Friday. The Budd Lake Fire Company’s breathing apparatus and the Flanders Fire Company’s turn-out gear. These are issues that Mr. Guenther, or the breathing gear, that Mr. Guenther brought forth last week and I think we need to discuss them…..

President Rattner: We scheduled them for next week’s workshop. They’re both coming in so they can explain it and justify it, because they made certain representations during the budget and we just want to go there. We don’t want to cut them short but, at the same time, we want to find out exactly what it is, we’re running out….you know, we only have a limited pot.

Mr. Guenther: I don’t know if this is old or new business, but anyway, since the question came up regarding our calendar, Lisa, you prepare this, right?

Mrs. Lashway: Normally, Michelle does, but she was out with a family disaster.

Mr. Guenther: If I could just request that you…that somebody review this because, and I know there’s, you know, you’ve had some turnover in the office and so forth, but for example the meeting tonight was not the Turkey Brook Concerned Citizens Meeting, it was the Development Committee Meeting, and the one on the 26th, it says Turkey Brook Park Meeting, well what Turkey Brook Park is that? There are three committees, there is the Turkey Brook Park Partners, there is the Development Committee, and there is the Concerned Citizens Meeting, and, you know, if you could just try and check some of this….apparently these were things that were scheduled originally maybe a couple of months ago, and they were changed as we went along.

Mrs. Lashway: Okay.

Mr. Guenther: Thanks.

President Rattner: Anything else on old business?


President Rattner: New business. I don’t know if this is new business, but I think it’s the appropriate time. Anybody who read the newspaper today, noticed that we had a very, very bad situation in town early Monday morning. A bad situation for a long term….long time residents of the township and also for the Policeman who actually responded, and I know I speak for the Council, and if anyone wants to make any comments, they’ll be free to, but we feel both for the family. I know a lot of people know the family and we also know the Police Officer that’s involved. It was a terrible situation. We just want to say to the Police Department and the Patrolman that we do feel for them, we know that they’ve been properly trained, but with that, we know that the Prosecutors office and State oversight will be reviewing it, there’s also some other groups that are looking at it, Police groups, and that, as you told me today, Ed, that you expect to have a report from the Prosecutors office by the end of the week, so at least it’s not hanging there, about the justification, that type of thing…that they acted appropriately, because obviously it’s tough when it’s hanging over their head. This just shows that even in a quiet community, and we’ve had different shootings, we’ve had deaths, we’ve had murders before in town, but President Rattner(cont’d): this is the first time I can remember, that a Police Officer actually had to take this kind of action against a resident. It may be justified, but it’s still a serious situation, and I know I speak for myself, and from talking to other Council members, that tell the Officers involved that we understand how they feel, you know, I know you’re doing the proper things with the evaluations and everything else to make sure that they’re back on….they can go back to service in the proper frame of mind, in the proper condition. It just is really serious, I don’t know what else to say, I don’t know if anybody else wanted to say anything, but it is….unless there’s anything that you want to say, Ed, about how the process is going, because I know that’s on everybody’s mind, about what the Prosecutor does, that type of thing. We’ve only got the information from the newspapers. Is there anything you would like to add to that? Just in general….you’re the Chief, I mean, it’s your department.

Mr. Katona: I would just like to say, you know, personally, I would like to thank the Mayor. The Mayor came and visited with Officer Abrusci yesterday. I would like to thank Mr. Rattner, Mr. Greenbaum, Mr. Guenther and Ms. Labow for sending their best wishes today. I haven’t read half of my e-mail yet this morning so, if I missed somebody, I apologize. I was late and I had a meeting with the Officers. I expressed to them the sentiments that I have received from the Mayor and Council, and they were very appreciative of the interest and support that they have received and, as the Chief of Police, I am, too, gratified by the support that our Mayor and our Council are providing to us. So, thank you all.

President Rattner: Thank you.


President Rattner: Legal Matters.

Mr. Dorsey: I supplied the Mayor and Council with four or five memorandum on outstanding litigation last Friday, and it’s not matters which I will discuss in public, but if you have a chance, you may want to review it, is the current litigation.


President Rattner: Now we come to Council reports.

Library Board Liaison Report

Ms. Labow: We meet tomorrow.

Recreation Liaison Report

Mr. Buell: I attended the meeting Wednesday night and the only thing really of importance was they provided qualified acceptance of the girls volleyball program.

Mr. Guenther: Mr. Council President, maybe since we do have a new member of the Council, maybe we…..

President Rattner: That’s what I was just going to ask Mr. Mund, whether he would like to be the liaison to the Recreation Committee?

Mr. Mund: Fine.

President Rattner: It’s probably something you’ve been involved with in the past, so it might be something…be easy to get back into. Thank you. Do you have a report yet?

Board of Health Report

Mr. Guenther: We had a meeting last Thursday, at which Charlie Uhrmann came and made a…what should I say….a request to have an investigation done of the various complaints she’s had in the past, which I think she’s presenting here in front of the Council. We took the facts and turned them over to the Board Attorney, Peter King, and he will be investigating those. He will be getting together with her to get more details and, in due course, issue a report. Number two, you’ve probably seen in the news, regarding the flue vaccination shortage, this is not….it’s my understanding, from the Health Director, it does not affect Mount Olive. What happened was that apparently this particular…I don’t know how the name of the company Kiron or Chiron, is a British Mr. Guenther(cont’d): firm, they were contracted under the State contract. Because of problems that Mount Olive had before, in going through the State contract, they made their own arrangements by, apparently, from the other company. So, there are enough dosages in Mount Olive to satisfy, based on the projections that were done, based on last year. So, we’re in good shape here. The seniors were taken care of last week, last Tuesday, and I think October 30th is the date for the rest of the residents. There is a $10 charge, but I believe, at least, the Health Director believes there are enough to satisfy demands, based on prior years. That’s pretty much it.

Planning Board Report

Mr. Greenbaum: Next two Thursdays, we have Planning Board.

Board of Adjustment Liaison Report:

Mr. Perkins: The meeting was cancelled, Mr. President.

Open Space Committee Report

President Rattner: Again, I know we have another opening. I know somebody has been covering it and has been going to some of the meetings is Mr. Guenther. Would you like to continue as the formal liaison to the Open Space Committee?

Mr. Guenther: I would be glad to.

Legislative Committee Report

President Rattner: Anybody excited about that one? We need to fill that one. Do we have any volunteers?

Mr. Guenther: Well, let me just make a comment, possibly for Mr. Mund. This is a committee that I was involved with before….last year and the year before. It’s been kind of moribund, it’s…you kind of let it lay there and we haven’t really done very much with it. I personally feel it needs to be revived from the standpoint of contacting our legislators and I’m talking not so much County, but mostly, regarding issues….especially regarding the traffic corridors on 206 and 46, and their continuing concerns about that and I think anybody that takes it, should really activate this committee. It’s not to fault Mr. Elms in any way, but I’m just saying, it’s a tough one to sort of get your arms around because there isn’t a whole lot of precedent. We did have a meeting a couple of years ago with the State, at that time, which included all the legislators and a representative from the Department of Transportation and we did get some things accomplished, but to be honest with you, it kind of dropped the ball after that. I believe that it is a committee that could perform a useful fund.

Ms. Labow: I would just like to say, I mentioned two weeks ago that I wanted to form a committee to review all of our codes, to make sure they were all up to date, and I want to know something like what I’m trying to get together, I do have one volunteer on my committee, at this point; if it was something with the Legislative Committee would work together on something like this, something we could be together on.

President Rattner: I think with Mr. Guenther….this has nothing to do with our legislation, this is….

Ms. Labow: No, I know, but it could be a joint effort, I’m asking Mr. Guenther his opinion on that.

President Rattner: Well, if we’re talking….problems in trying to deal with our State officials, that’s really comple…’s not even related.

Mr. Guenther: That was the idea of that committee..

Ms. Labow: Do you have a committee set up? Is there a member roster for this committee?

Mr. Guenther: I think it was Mr. Elms, I think I volunteered for it and I’ll be a member of it, but I, you know, I just don’t have the time to chair it. I really feel it needs to be active and it needs to be somebody that can dedicate the time to……

President Rattner: Somebody’s just there, and if other people want to go, we see as people schedule, but we need one person to basically cheerlead it and get to meetings. That’s what has happened before, the last time we were very lucky, when we wanted issues, we got a….both our….our Senator, both Assemblymen, DOT representative and we sat down and talked for a couple of hours on the problem.

Ms. Labow: When are the meetings held and who’s there now?

President Rattner: That was Mr. Elms.

Ms. Labow: I know, but aside from Mr. Elms being there, it wasn’t just a committee of one person.

President Rattner: Yes. It was just to make the contact, so we could see…everybody’s got different schedules and the Legislator’s got different schedules, we just want….to set it up. Mr. Mund, would you like to?

Mr. Mund: We can try it.

President Rattner: Our Legislators are very nice people.

Mr. Mund: I know them.

Pride Committee Liaison Report

Ms. Labow: They meet next week.

Board of Education Liaison Report

President Rattner: I missed the last Board of Education meeting.

Mr. Buell: They’re meeting tonight.

President Rattner: Well, they’re meeting tonight, but nobody expects to be there.

Mr. Buell: Actually I reported on it last meeting, so….

President Rattner: Okay, so nothing’s happening.

Lake/Environment Issues Committee

President Rattner: You know that the Lake Committee, which I’m a member of, has been working on a revised dock ordinance. I gave some information…some points that we want to modify, nothing real big, we want to keep it relatively simple. It will be scheduled for last weeks workshop, when they will be in attendance, to see what we can do. Basically, it’s for the safety and the maintenance of the private docks.

Safety Committee Liaison

Mr. Guenther: There was a meeting this last week, I forgot to bring my minutes, but apparently there was such momentous decisions made, that I have a hard time racking my memory for what happened. I don’t…I believe it was fairly routine, I don’t think there was anything of note, but I’ll check my notes the next time and report at the next meeting, if there was something of interest.

Ms. Jenkins: Steve, can I ask you a question real quick about the committee reports?

President Rattner: Sure.

Ms. Jenkins: This may pre-date me, I don’t really know, but I believe that we have a Finance Committee, and I noticed that the majority of the departments are covered, but yet we don’t regularly meet and we don’t give Finance Committee reports under the Council Reports. I just was curious as to why that is.

President Rattner: Well, these are committee reports that Council members are on, I mean, Jim Buell and I, once the budget is done, won’t really have…you know, that’s really the big project for the year, which has taken a lot of time. I don’t have any problem, you know, Jim and I sit down, you know, if we want to schedule a meeting later in the afternoon, come up with an agenda of what we want to talk about. One of the things that we always had envisioned, was coming up with a good concise report of where we are, you know, projection from President Rattner(cont’d): one year to the next, the budget and where we look like going next year, especially when structural changes happen that effect more than one year.

Ms. Jenkins: I mean, I don’t want to create more paperwork, I just found it interesting in going through that… you know, the majority of the departments are covered and, you know, we’re not really addressing the Finance issues.

President Rattner: Well, these aren’t departments, these are different other Boards.

Ms. Jenkins: No, I know that, but they’re covering departmental issues, is what I’m saying.

Mr. Greenbaum: Don’t ask for something you may not want, Sherry.

President Rattner: Especially if the committee makes recommendations.

Ms. Jenkins: Well, no, that’s not a bad thing, I mean.

Ms. Labow: Steve, if Sherry is having these meetings with her Finance Committee and if she wants to report, I would like to hear what’s going on, what they have to say, if she….

President Rattner: No, no, no, those are two different things. The Administration, during Administrative Matters, can bring up anything that they want, you know, that’s there. If they have something that they think is worth, other than us just asking questions, that they want to have something, that’s what the Administrative…..

Ms. Jenkins: In other municipalities that I’ve been in, we had a Finance Committee. We regularly met and then we brought issues, in a public form, to the Council, but I’m saying if we have that Committee, you know, maybe that’s something that we want to look at, especially some of the financial issues that we’re dealing with.

President Rattner: Okay.

Ms. Jenkins: And, you know, if there are questions or concerns that are, you know, coming up, then……

President Rattner: Just work it out. Just come up with a good date, you know, and we’ll see about having, you know, late afternoon is the best.

Ms. Jenkins: Okay. Who is actually on the Committee from the Council, Steve?

President Rattner: Mr. Buell and myself, you should know that from the budget.

Ms. Jenkins: I wasn’t sure if it had changed or…..

Mr. Greenbaum: I’d also like to participate in that.

President Rattner: We can add a third person, that’s not a problem.

Mr. Greenbaum: I have lots of questions, actually.

Ms. Jenkins: Okay.

Ms. Labow: Hey, that’s my line….lots of questions.

President Rattner: Anything else?


President Rattner: Okay, moving right along, we come to the final public portion. Anybody from the public? Yes sir.

Nelson Russell, Budd Lake: I’m wondering if we’ve had any response from the State Department of Transportation regarding a request for a study of Route 46?

President Rattner: Mr. Katona, I’ve been noticing, we’ve gotten a couple of memos and I’ve seen the counters President Rattner(cont’d): all over, so obviously, they’re doing something. Do you have anything else to add with that?

Mr. Katona: No.

President Rattner: Those counters are from the DOT, right?

Mr. Katona: Yes, yes they are. They’re doing something, they haven’t informed us of what it is, or responded to us, specifically to our request.

Mr. Russell: They are doing something, though.

President Rattner: Yes, we’ve gotten one or two memos saying that they understand, they heard it, what was….they haven’t said what they’re doing but you can’t miss the counters and they’ve been out there for a long time, they’ve been out there, what, almost two months now.

Mr. Katona: Yes, they have, and we have other issues besides just Route 46 that we have and we periodically update with questions to DOT and they let us know that we moved from the bottom of the pile to second from the bottom of the pile.

Mr. Russell: We’re second tier now, right…okay. What’s the story on Mr. Kaplan?

Mr. Katona: Mr. Kaplan has declined to take the position.

Mr. Russell: Okay, so where do we sit on getting a full time replacement for you, Ed?

Mr. Katona: We have…the Mayor is reviewing several resumes and has scheduled appointments to meet with them, and there is an individual that was to arrive shortly.

Mayor De La Roche: Well, just so, you know, everyone’s away, we’ve been….and thanks to the Chief, and to Sherry and a number of other people, we’ve been working on this almost constantly since last week when we found out from Mr. Kaplan that he had declined. He called me personally one day and then we started working on it right away.

Mr. Russell: What, he had one meeting and it knocked him out?

Mayor De La Roche: Well, I don’t want to comment, but what it was, was Mr. Kaplan, for personal reasons, it had nothing to do with, I don’t think, anyone up here. He is retired, he realized, you know, he had a discussion with his wife, as I understand it, I don’t want to get into his personal business, but he indicated that, since he’s teaching at school three days a week and then he started figuring out his timeframe, and he just thought it would be…he went over the amount of work that’s involved, which is a large amount of work. He said he didn’t think it would be fair to the township for him to take on all those projects and only be able to do it as a part timer, he really thought that you needed someone with more time and so forth.

Mr. Russell: Okay, thank you.

Richard Bonte, Budd Lake: Two items. First item, I just want to comment on the discussion that you had regarding the Library Construction Manager. I understand, you know, that the bills that were discussed this evening actually were in the contract period, but we did have a discussion here late last fall, I believe, or possibly during the winter when the Library Board was in and presented a cost analysis as to where they were, on schedule, and what the construction costs were, and at that evening, if one were to go back and look at the records, I asked a couple of questions. One was why the amount of money that had been paid out was far in excess of the physical progress that was being made, and the other question that I asked was that if the project was not completed by June, what would be the status of the construction manager, because it appeared, from his contract, that it was open ended and I was assured by the Library Board people that this project would be completed by June, there was nothing to worry about, and I asked the question a number of times, and I asked whether or not it was not completed, would he still need to be on board and would he still be paid, and nobody would answer that question that night, and I suspect, just because everybody knew what the answer was, and we….and if, in fact, that is the case in his contract, which it most likely is, it’s certainly not the first time, but I think it needs to be the last time. I’ve spoken on this issue a number of times, I’ve spoke on it when we were involved with the sewer project. We can’t keep issuing contracts that don’t define the work that needs to be Mr. Bonte(cont’d): done and what the cost is going to be. If the construction manager isn’t under the gun to get the project done by a specific time, he shouldn’t be paid or rewarded more money because it takes longer. It’s his job to get that job done by the time he said it would be done, and he’s not entitled to one more nickel if it takes longer, if his job was to bring it in in a specific time. We really need to start awarding some contracts that have some teeth and incentives. If you look at a lot of the projects that the State has undertaken in highway and bridge construction over the last ten years, where they’ve been awarded pretty hefty incentives to get the job done early, and pretty hefty penalties if the jobs lag, and you can see what’s happened in a lot of those cases, those projects have been completed quite a bit ahead of schedule, because of the incentive payments. It would behoove us to start looking at methods of doing that, but we certainly shouldn’t be rewarding contractors, and we do it over and over and over, for performance that doesn’t meet what we expect of them, or what they promise us. Now I suspect you’re going to find that this guy’s going to be entitled to be paid until this project is completed or he is discharged, but I don’t think we should allow this to happen again, and if it’s not possible because of the amount of work that the Business Administrator has, and I don’t mean Chief Katona, I mean the Business Administrator in general, we need to have somebody in this town government who is specifically responsible for contract management to assure not only that the goods were received, etc., etc., that’s the easy part. The more difficult part is to determine whether or not the services that are being billed for were actually part of the contract that was authorized by this Council, and I suspect there are times when we’re not doing that as adequately as we should be, but we’ve got to put some teeth in these contracts. Now I would like to discuss, and I realize that the public portion on this ordinance is in two weeks, but it’s always my belief that if one sees something in an ordinance that’s introduced on a specific evening, it should be brought to the attention of the Council at that time, so that if changes need to be made, they can be made in the time period before the final reading. I want to talk about Ordinance #34-2004. Bernie, you asked the question as to what was the need for this and Mr. Greenbaum answered that it primarily was to clarify definitions, etc. On page 4 of the Ordinance, under section 4, item 2, it speaks of section 400-74 of our Administrative code, sub-section E, and it deletes that section in its entirety and replaces it with a much shorter….basically one paragraph, and there are a number of things in our current section E that I’m not sure are covered by the State Storm Water Management Plan. Specifically, in our code, item 11, which I pushed for almost two years, and that was to get language specific to Mount Olive, regarding the fact that we, quite often, get rainstorms that are in excess of the 100 year design standard, and you are basically deleting that from our Ordinance, and I don’t think we should delete anything out of our Ordinance that gives us additional tools, which we are allowed by State laws to have, to regulate development or require developers to give us information that we may need. There is also other items in this section where, for example, where it’s deemed necessary for the proper evaluation of runoff and control, drainage calculations may be required by the township engineer. We really need to take a look at this whole section E and decide if this is really what we want to do. Do we really want to abolish it, replace it with this one paragraph that does nothing more than reference the State Storm Water Management Plan, because we are allowed, in that plan, to have stricter standards, and that’s why I had worked very hard with the Council to get this section 11, which was added by Ordinance #26-2003 last year, and you are now deleting that from the code. So, I would like to ask that, before you put this up for final reading and passage, that you get some answers on this.

President Rattner: Well, one of the things I think the process is is that after we introduce it, it has to go back to the Planning Board, and I know under a couple of comments you just made, that the Clerk has it down and we’ll put that in with the communication to the Planning Board, that specifically those items, that came up at the public session.

Mr. Greenbaum: I’ll raise it as well.

Mr. Bonte: Thank you.

Mr. Greenbaum: And you’re going to be there also, so….

Mr. Bonte: That’s this Thursday, right? I guess I’ll have to be.

President Rattner: Well, you were coming anyway, we know that. Thank you very much. Anybody else from the public? Seeing none, I’ll close the public portion. One thing I did notice and after we were talking about New and Old Business, we jumped over Administrative Matters, does the Administration have anything they’d like to bring up?


Ms. Jenkins: I just have one thing, actually. I have a resolution going on for the next meeting dealing with setting up a dedicated trust fund for the….

President Rattner: We can discuss that at Workshop.

Ms. Jenkins: Yes, I just want to let everybody know.

President Rattner: Okay.

Mr. Katona: Pertaining to the previous discussion about the Business Administrator, one candidate is….there was to be a meeting earlier for us to be here at 9:30, needs 15 minutes out, I was wondering if the meeting was for the Mayor and Mr. Rattner. Would you like to hold it with the entire Council?

President Rattner: I don’t really see any need to because this is completely….you know, for a temporary appointment, it’s completely under the purview of the Mayor. The one thing I did tell the Mayor and I’ve talked it over with the Council is that, obviously, there will have to be some budget transfers on November 1st and we have every intention of doing that, providing the CFO tells us where the money is coming from, so….

Ms. Jenkins: There’s a few transfers coming.

President Rattner: Yes, so, that will happen as long as, you know, we can find the funding, you know, and we can get it done, but this is something that the Mayor can do with the stroke of his pen, and we’re talking about, at this point, 60 days, and so we don’t need anything from us other than we will provide the funds come November 1st. So, I’ll stay around.

Mr. Katona: Do we need to have a resolution to….

President Rattner: No, because we can’t transfer any money now, it’s too early.

Mr. Dorsey: You don’t need a resolution for this appointment, this is an interim appointment, the Mayor can do it simply by announcing it.

President Rattner: And then the money, obviously, we know we’re going to come short to pay this, and so, we’ll make the budget transfers, we’ll find other accounts that have under budgeted spending, and we’ll do that on the first reading in November. Anything else?


President Rattner: Okay, final Council Comments. Mr. Mund, how did you like your first meeting?

Mr. Mund: It’s been an experience. A lot of reading, I can see that.

President Rattner: Well, okay, Mr. Buell:

Mr. Buell: None.

Ms. Labow: Yes, I just would like to….I would like to make two comments, please, thank you. One is on a personal matter and I would like to make this, because we do have the press here, and any….a lot of people know that in recent years the gastric bypass surgery has been very popular for people who had obesity problems, to lose weight. I found out on….most recently that, prior to May of 2004, in doing this procedure, laparoscopically, there are some surgeons who chose not to close an opening in the mesenteric lining, and by not doing this, it put a lot of patients at great risk. There are people who are dying from this because it’s not caught in time and they have….it becomes gangrene and everything else….I don’t mean to cry, but anyway….so Saturday I was in the hospital emergency surgery and I happened to be on the phone with Frank Wilpert and his wife, Gerry Wilpert, and Gerry and I started talking about it and they, in no uncertain terms, told me that I better get my butt to the hospital or they’re going to come over and get me. So, I called the surgeon and I did go to the hospital and I would probably not have lived past Sunday. Okay, with that said, I would like anybody who knows of anyone who did have gastric bypass surgery, laparoscopically, prior to May of 2004, that if they do have problems in their stomach, please go to your surgeon, please address the issue, it can be very very serious, very deadly. Then, I would also like to thank Mr. Greenbaum for his accolades according….regarding the tree ordinance, but I would like to bounce that credit back to the Planning Board. Yesterday I was very very upset when I spoke with the residents on Sunset Drive and I checked with Mrs. Jenkins to find out if we, in fact, had any money in the tree banking, found out that we had none, and very thankfully, the Planning Board is the Board Ms. Labow(cont’d): that is really solely responsible for making sure that we have those trees banked, and I would like to thank the entire Planning Board for making sure that those trees are now….that situation is adhered to and we…this… right away it’s benefiting us within a year, so thank you very much.

Mr. Guenther: I guess maybe this should have been matter I should have brought up under old business or new business, this is a question for Sherry. There was an analysis that you did on the Open Space Analysis dated October 1. I did some calculations here and there were some numbers thrown around which, you know, don’t jive with the data presented. Supposedly the number…at least that was presented to me, maybe falsely, was that 18% to 20% of the fund had been spent on development. According to what I calculated here, at least what’s been identified, it comes to 11.16%, a big difference. My question also is, there’s an item here under decreased buy, where it says cash disbursements various of $186,643.99. I would like an explanation of that, so what it is…now maybe some part of that was used for development, but I would like to get a better handle on what we’re dealing with, here.

Ms. Jenkins: No problem, I’ll show you how I came up to the numbers, Bernie.

Mr. Guenther: Thank you very much.

Mr. Perkins: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Bonte, again, thank you for bringing up the fact that in that ordinance proposal we had left out that section that you had so adamantly brought to light back when I was sitting on the Planning Board. I thought it was appropriate then, and I don’t know how it didn’t end up in here, but thank you for bringing that to our attention. I won’t be at the Planning Board meeting, but I’m sure Councilman Greenbaum and yourself will make sure that that is addressed. Chief, I did want to commend your force on the handling of that situation on Monday morning. You know, I support the Police Department here heavily, I think you know that, as well as anybody here in town. It’s unfortunate to ever have to take a life and I’m sure that the Officer is handling it as best he can, and I’m sure the families involved are handling it, but please send our best wishes out to the force and to Officer Abrusci for us, thank you.

Mr. Greenbaum: Three comments, two serious, one not. Welcome aboard, Lee…actually three serious comments. Colleen, I’m glad that you’re feeling better. Ed, anything that we can do to help Joe and Craig out, you know, it’s an extremely unfortunate situation for everybody involved, the family, the Police Officers, and on a not serious note, go Yankees!

President Rattner: And I’ll just say, again, welcome, Lee. Gee, you’ve already been a calming force on the Council, look….we went through the whole meeting….I’m even going to stay late with the Mayor, I mean, what more could you want.


The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 pm.


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 on _________________________.


Lisa M. Lashway, Township Clerk






2012 Mount Olive Township. All rights reserved.