Mt. Olive Township Council Minutes
June 14 , 2005

The Regular Public Meeting of the Mount Olive Township Council was called to Order at 7:30 pm by Council President Greenbaum with the Pledge of Allegiance.

MOMENT OF REFLECTION

OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT ANNOUNCEMENT

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. Mund, Mr. Guenther, Mr. Rattner,
Mr. Greenbaum
Absent: Mr. Perkins

President Greenbaum: Let the record reflect that Mr. Perkins is excused for health reasons.

ALSO PRESENT: Mayor De La Roche; Bob Casey, Interim Business Administrator; Gary Higgins,
Township Auditor; Fred Semrau, Township Attorney; Lisa Lashway, Township Clerk

1. Resolution RE: Budget Self Examination.

President Greenbaum: At this point, we have a resolution with regard to the Budget Self Examination. Mr. Buell, can you please move that?

Mr. Buell: I move the 2005 Municipal Budget.

President Greenbaum: No, move the Budget Self Examination.

Mr. Buell: I move the Budget Self Examination.

Mr. Rattner: Second.

President Greenbaum: Okay, it’s been moved and seconded, Mr. Higgins.

Gary Higgins: Yes, if I could just give you a quick idea of what you’re looking at here. Every two out of three years, a community has the option, if it meets certain eligibility requirements, to basically self exam their budget. That includes a review by your CFO and myself, as a registered municipal accountant, and basically you’re not under the scrutiny of the Division of Local Government on a total review of the budget, and this resolution basically states that you’ve met the criteria to self exam your budget and that all the particulars regarding the budget have met the appropriate budget statutes and from here you can go forth and pass that and then adopt the budget based upon the self examination versus the Division of Local Government’s exam.

President Greenbaum: Thank you. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to be heard on this particular resolution? Seeing none, I’ll close it to the public. Is there anyone from Council who wishes to be heard on this particular resolution? Seeing none, Roll Call.

ROLL CALL Passed Unanimously, except Mr. Rattner voted No

2. Resolution RE: Waiver of Reading in Full of the 2005 Budget.

President Greenbaum: The next resolution is Waiver of Reading in Full of the 2005 Budget. Can you please move that, Ms. Labow?

Ms. Labow: I move resolution for the Waiver of Reading in Full of the Budget for 2005.

Mr. Mund: Second.

President Greenbaum: It’s been moved and seconded. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to be heard on this resolution? Seeing none, I’ll close it to the public. Is there any Council comment? Roll Call.

ROLL CALL Passed Unanimously, except Mr. Rattner voted No

Public Hearing on 2005 Municipal Budget

President Greenbaum: At this point, I would open it up to the public with regard to the Public Hearing on the 2005 Municipal Budget. Is there anyone who wishes to be heard? Seeing none, I will close it to the public. Is there anyone who has Council comments with respect to the 2005 Municipal Budget? Mr. Buell.

Mr. Buell: Question….I was just reading my notes and it appears that the part time position in the Clerk’s office has been inadvertently cut from this budget, cost of about $10,000. I just read my e-mail with a list of all of the cuts made in the budget, $437,000. That was not one of the cuts that was made, so I’m assuming there’s been a mistake in that particular line of the budget….the salary line of the budget for the Clerk’s office.

President Greenbaum: Is there anyone else who has comment on that issue? Mr. Casey.

Mr. Casey: I don’t believe it was cut. I think….I looked through my notes and in going through the…..I wish Sherry was here….going through Sherry’s changes, there was no change there. I think what happened, is when the….one of the employees in that office received a sizable increase in 2005, and I believe the number is over in the salary adjustment account, and I think that’s why it shows it as being……the budget in 2005 is the same budget as 2004 with all increases thrown over to the salary adjustment account, and I don’t remember that one being reduced. I wish Sherry was here, she will be here a little later, because I don’t believe the Council ever took any action to reduce that line. That’s my recollection, the money is over in the salary adjustment account.

Mr. Rattner: Well, obviously you can see, it’s very plain on here, we never took the dollars out and dollars were never on any of our lists. We did acknowledge that we had the issue that when the Deputy Clerk was given her position, I guess last March…a year ago March, she didn’t get….she missed an increment and we said that we would make sure, and I think that’s what Mr. Casey is talking about in the salary adjustment account, because we realized we were short if we were going to give her that and get her up to the level that she was supposed to have been at when she got that promotion.

Mr. Casey: Let’s just say that there are funds in the salary adjustment account which would allow that budget to go through as it currently exists. Okay, the intention was not to reduce it.

President Greenbaum: Okay, the intention of Council is to keep that position funded and that is how we’re moving forward, Mr. Casey.

Mr. Casey: That’s my understanding.

Mr. Rattner: And I think the other thing is that we have to look in there is that the amount that has been budgeted is actually about 4% more than was actually spent last year anyway.

President Greenbaum: Okay, any other questions? Mr. Mund.

Mr. Mund: Yes, with this resolution, we’re eliminating the beach fees and the recreation income?

President Greenbaum: That’s for discussion this evening, but that….

Mr. Mund: That’s part of this.

President Greenbaum: Yes, it was changed in the budget documents based upon a straw indication related to the additional funds which we received by way of the long-term debt refinancing and everyone seemed to be in agreement that it was what they wanted to….that they were in agreement that those fees should be reduced or eliminated to the extent that if Council, this evening, decides that that’s not the case, then the budget documents would have to be changed, if that were to happen. Anything else? Ms. Labow.

Ms. Labow: So, why are we discussing it later if we’re eliminating it now, right?

Mr. Mund: That was my question.

President Greenbaum: We’re not, we’re discussing….we’re actually, by passing the budget, we’re eliminating those fees. We’re going to change the ordinance accordingly, once we adopt the budget.

Mr. Casey: The first action before you, would be to amend the ordinance, excuse me, to amend the budget to remove those fees, that’s the budget resolution that you have in front of you, okay? That would remove those fees, and then once you’ve amended the budget, then you would go for adoption. If you decide not to remove those fees, then you can adopt the ordinance as it’s currently constituted. So, the first action that is before you is item number three which is a resolution to amend the budget, which eliminates those two fees, and reduces that account by an offsetting amount. So, it’s a zero impact on tax rate, so that’s what you’re doing.

President Greenbaum: Right, and then we…late in the meeting, would have to amend the ordinance with respect to the fees themselves.

Mr. Casey: Right.

Ms. Labow: Okay.

President Greenbaum: And that’s what’s going to happen this evening, those are the three steps. Any other questions on the budget? Mr. Rattner.

Mr. Rattner: Well, it’s not a question, a statement….you know, when we introduced the budget, I said I was still unhappy with it, however, I was going to let it go forward. I said what would make me happy is if we got the tax rate down to what I thought we were agreeing to. Tonight, I will be voting against, because I haven’t changed my mind, the municipal budget. I will be voting for the sanitation district budget.

President Greenbaum: The budget takes five votes to pass, five affirmative votes.

Mr. Rattner: Does it? No, that’s capital.

President Greenbaum: Oh, it’s on the capital…..then maybe I’ll vote against it, too, then we won’t have enough votes.

Mrs. Lashway: No, five votes to adopt the budget.

Mr. Higgins: The majority of the full membership, I think.

President Greenbaum: Okay, any other questions or comments?

Mr. Guenther: Yes, clarify for me….the budget that we’re considering tonight includes those fees, correct?

President Greenbaum: No, the first thing we’re going to do is to amend the budget, as it was introduced, to eliminate those fees and have an offsetting reduction in the long-term debt repayment…..

Mr. Guenther: Okay.

President Greenbaum: That we’re able to do that because of our….

Mr. Guenther: I understand, okay. I understand….I just wasn’t sure of the procedure.

3. Resolution RE: Resolution to Amend 2005 Municipal Budget.

President Greenbaum: Any other questions or comments? The next item for discussion then is the resolution to amend the 2005 Budget, Mr. Mund.

Mr. Mund: Motion to approve resolution regarding the resolution to amend the 2005 Municipal Budget.

Ms. Labow: Second.

President Greenbaum: It’s been moved and seconded, is there anyone from the public who wishes to be heard on the amendment? Seeing none, I close it to the public. Any Council comments, further to this issue? Seeing none, Roll Call.

ROLL CALL All voted Yes, except Mr. Guenther and Mr. Mund voted No

Mr. Mund: Four to two.

Mr. Casey: Yes, what does it take to amend the budget? This does not change the tax rate.

Mr. Higgins: The question becomes if it’s a majority of the governing body, or the majority of those present, that’s the question.

Mrs. Lashway: It’s two thirds of the membership.

President Greenbaum: No, that’s to pass the budget. This is simply an amendment to the introduction. It has to be a majority. It’s not passing the budget, which has to be a super majority.

Mr. Higgins: Well, neither needs a super majority, I think the question is whether it’s a majority of the full governing body, or majority of the governing body present.

President Greenbaum: I believe, in past…..

Mr. Higgins: It’s 48:4-5.

Mr. Rattner: Can we get a ruling?

President Greenbaum: No, everyone is not here, Mr. Perkins isn’t here, we have six, but this was an amendment anyway to the introduction. It only takes a majority to introduce so, therefore, it should only take a majority to amend what’s been introduced.

Mr. Higgins: I would agree, but a majority….

President Greenbaum: To pass the budget is the question.

Mr. Higgins: To pass is still a majority. I’m just questioning…..the question is a majority of present or the full governing body?

Mr. Rattner: It’s going to be the same either way, because to get the majority, if you don’t, you’re going to have a tie. The majority is four votes no matter which way you look at it. It doesn’t really matter. Gary, if we can introduce a budget by a simple majority, wouldn’t it be consistent if we amended it, before final passage, we could do it by simple majority?

Mr. Higgins: Yes.

President Greenbaum: That’s what we just did. It’s the passage of the budget which requires five votes…. five out of seven to pass the budget, not to amend it.

Mr. Higgins: It says a majority….adopted by a majority of the full membership.

Mr. Rattner: It’s four votes either way. That’s a regular majority, the same majority.

Mr. Higgins: A majority of the full membership is five votes.

Mr. Rattner: The amendment was accepted.

Mr. Higgins: Yes, the amendment was accepted.

Mr. Semrau: No budget or amendment shall be adopted unless a director shall previously……..and shall be adopted by a majority of the full membership.

Mr. Rattner: It’s not a super majority.

Mr. Semrau: Amendment and adoption.

President Greenbaum: Okay, so we only need four votes then. You’re in agreement with that, Mr. Semrau?

Mr. Semrau: I’m not sure, Mr. Greenbaum.

Mr. Mund: Fred, did you say you’re not sure?

President Greenbaum: Well, we’re beyond the amendment, we’re now going to adopt the budget, so we need to have an answer.

Mr. Rattner: We’ve passed budgets four to three before.

Mr. Higgins: The amendment had four votes?

President Greenbaum: We had four votes, four to two.

Mr. Higgins: And the amendment does not require a public hearing, since you did not increase or decrease any line item by more than 10%, or add a new revenue in excess of 1%, or adjust the tax levy by more than 5%. So, from this point, you could proceed to page 41 and 42 of the budget document, which represents the adopting resolution, and proceed to take a roll call.

President Greenbaum: We’re going to take a five minute recess. (7:45 pm)

President Greenbaum: The meeting was called back to order at 7:48 pm. Four votes, a majority of the full membership of the Council. At this point, I would ask Mr. Guenther to move the resolution to adopt the amended 2005 Municipal Budget.

4. Resolution RE: Adoption of Amended 2005 Municipal Budget.

Mr. Guenther: I hereby move for approval of the Resolution for the Amended 2005 Municipal Budget.

Ms. Labow: Second.

President Greenbaum: It’s been moved and seconded. Is there any Council discussion? Seeing none, Roll Call.

ROLL CALL All voted Yes, except Mr. Mund and Mr. Rattner voted No

Public Hearing on 2005 Solid Waste Collection District Budget

5. Resolution RE: Adoption of 2005 Solid Waste Collection District Budget.

President Greenbaum: At this point, I’ll open the meeting up to the public on the 2005 Sold Waste Collection District Budget. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to be heard on this? Seeing none, I’ll close it to the public. Is there any Council discussion? Mr. Rattner, can you please move Resolution Re: Adoption of 2005 Solid Waste Collection District Budget?

Mr. Rattner: Thank you Mr. President. I move for adoption of the 2005 Solid Waste Collection District Budget.

Mr. Mund: Second.

President Greenbaum: It’s been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Roll Call.

ROLL CALL Passed Unanimously, except Mr. Greenbaum voted No

Mt. Olive Child Care & Learning Center – Old Library

President Greenbaum: The next item for discussion, Mount Olive Child Care & Learning Center.

Mr. Rattner: Mr. President, I will leave the dais for the discussion on this since I am a trustee for the last ten years for the Mount Olive Child Care & Learning Center.

President Greenbaum: Let the record reflect that Mr. Rattner is stepping down and leaving the room with respect to this particular issue. Mr. Casey.

Mr. Casey: Yes. The last meeting we had a discussion, we had distributed a memo, we had three policy issues. The first was the size of the building, which the Mount Olive Day Care Center said they’d do the existing building. What I would like to give you is a spread sheet showing you the impact for the debt service on this and the alternates that would go for the repayment on that and I will explain the numbers to you. They have now indicated that the total cost would be $1,150,000 for debt service. If you look at $1,150,000, Lisa was good enough to find for me the bond ordinance for the original building. The bond ordinance for that building had a life of thirty years, which means that the amendment….any renovations can only have a bond of fifteen years. So the bond that you would have to renovate that building would have a maximum bond life fifteen years. So, what I’ve done is I took that number, I took the debts…the 5% down payment off, which would mean that we’ll be issuing in $1,092,000 worth of debt, okay. If you look at that number over fifteen years on a straight line, it comes to $98,260 per year. If you look at that number at 4.5%, it comes in at $101,000. So, the issue is that what’s the township would be paying on that debt for that fifteen years for the numbers that they have looked at. Now, the issue that we’ve never resolved with the governing body is the pay-back period for that debt. The total cost, if you look at the total cost to the town at 4% is $1,473,000, and at 4.5% is $1,525,000, that’s principle and debt. Obviously, one alternate would be if they could afford to pay back the debt as it accrued, that’s…the number would either be the $98,000 or the $101,000, it may be possible, by the way, if you were just dealing with that number, to have a…start off a lower number and come in at a higher number slightly. There are ways to weigh that slightly, I just used a straight line just to give you an idea. They are…the original discussion that they had is they were looking for a 25 year payment. So, I took the $1,143,000, which would be the total cost, over 25 years would be $58,000. Now, the issue is, at the end of 25 years, obviously the township would be harmless, but for the first fifteen years, you’d be….I’m going to use the word subsidize for the lack of a better term, the taxpayers would be carrying $40,000 worth of that debt service for each year for the first fifteen years and then they would catch up on that amount for years 16 through 25. So, by the end of 25, you would be zero balanced. So, if you go to change the lease term and the payback lease term, other than the fifteen years that would be allowed by law, then you start having a situation….is during that first fifteen years, the taxpayers would, in fact, be supplementing, making a contribution, whatever you want, for the operation and then they would recover that money in years sixteen through whatever other years you go for. So, that’s the issue that we never resolved two weeks ago, or three weeks ago, when we last discussed this, is the term of the lease. We originally looked at a term that may have been eighteen years or twenty years, because that may have been what we thought the bond issue would have been until Lisa was good enough to find for us the original bond issue and that clarified….and the fact that they’re not expanding the building….you know, now we know it’s a fifteen year bond. So, we know what the bonding term is, the question the governing body has to resolve is okay, what is the payout period for those lease payments and this just gives you three alternates. It shows you what it would have been at 20 years, or at 25 years and it gives you an idea of the variation that may be in there given those cost structures, and that’s really the main policy issue that you’re looking at at this point in time. Obviously, the simplest one would be, you know, match the debt service, everything is on fifteen years, it’s a clean wash, the taxpayers are held harmless from that standpoint. That, obviously, is an issue that, you know, would be the cleanest. So, the issue to the governing body is how far you go beyond that.

President Greenbaum: Colleen.

Ms. Labow: How much are the maintenance costs for the building right now that we’re paying every month for a vacant building?

Mr. Casey: Right now, our cost in that building is the electric, which ran a little bit higher than I wanted in January and February. We’re probably looking at an average of about $500 a month or so, for electric and that on the average in a year keeping, you know, just keeping it above 40 and under 80 or whatever the case is in there.

Ms. Labow: So, that’s about $500 a month.

Mr. Casey: $500 to $600 a month I think is what you’re going to have.

Ms. Labow: And what about the exterior maintenance?

Mr. Casey: Even under our current proposal, we have talked to them about we would be doing the grass cutting, etc. at this site, because we have the big equipment. So, we…you know, we cut that whole area over there, so we can easily enough cut that without any significant change, and we’ll plow them out, too, because we …basically, we plow this out, we’ll plow that out. So, from that standpoint, we weren’t, you know, we were just saying that as an add-on to our current operation, wouldn’t be that difficult to swing by and do that.

Ms. Labow: So, basically, the monthly payments you’re talking about $8,477.25 for a fifteen year, and if they go on a twenty year lease, it’s….what does $73,000 come out to? Just trying to figure out the difference per month, what we’re really talking about…in costs that we’re going to have for the building regardless.

Mr. Casey: Well, if you divide 12 into that, you come out at about $6,100 or so…

Ms. Labow: What I’m saying is there’s a cost already to the taxpayers for that building, so it’s not like we’re going to be covering….covering a cost of all that Mount Olive Child Care & Learning Center….we’re going to have that cost regardless, whether they’re there or not.

Mr. Buell: Yes, question….the $1,150,000…..

Mr. Casey: Correct.

Mr. Buell: I have this…the second sheet that I received on June 10th says $880,000.

Mr. Casey: There was a supplemental sheet that came out from….it showed construction costs, it showed miscellaneous site work at $40,000, $50,000 for parking lot improvements, $25,000 for outside fixtures, ADA safety fencing, etc., $90,000 engineering and $45,000 for soft cost contingencies, etc.. That’s an item that came through from Gail as to what they thought would be a safe number. Now, you know, hopefully it will come in less than $1,150,000 and hopefully they may be able to get some grants, but we have to, from a financial planning standpoint, assume the worst case scenario. So, they basically came up with a budget of $1,150,000.

Mr. Buell: Okay, second question. How many of these….how much of the $1,150,000 are improvements we would have to make? For instance, the HVAC, the…..

Mr. Casey: Well, the issue is what you’re going to re-use the building for. I mean, you know, if in fact we were going to re-use the building, if you remember the architect here….you said well the HVAC currently works, but if you’re going to look at a building that’s got a twenty year lease or so, you would…you know, you would improve it and it goes in your twenty year cost, so a lot of what he was doing relative to the building improvements, were in fact looking….you know, at a twenty year life. So, you know, the issue would be for a short-term basis, nominal, but at some point in time, yes, you’re going to have to replace the roof at some point in time, yes, you’re going to have to replace the HVAC, etc. The only issue is when you reach that point.

Mr. Buell: So, some point in time you are going to have to replace…

Mr. Casey: At some point in time….

Mr. Buell: You’re probably going to have to replace….

Mr. Casey: In that fifteen years, according to the testimony you had from the architect last time…yes, at some point in time, that equipment has extended its useful life, so you’re going to be into a replacement mode. That’s not necessarily saying it’s now, but at some…you know, over that timeframe, you’re going to be doing that.

President Greenbaum: Any other questions? Bob, it was always my prospective, even though I have made it quite clear that I support Mount Olive Child Care and the use of that building, it was always my point that it would be a wash to the township, and that’s why I…..and that is why I decided that Mount Olive Child Care was a good choice for that building to the extent that the township would have to cover costs, even in year one, to be made up in year 16 through 24, I don’t believe is acceptable, from my perspective and I would be in favor of a proposal which, from day one, does not effect the township in any fashion. We are, in essence, bending over backwards for this organization, which does great work, none of us in any way don’t support the work that the Mount Olive Child Care does, but…you know, we’re doing a lot for this organization. They’re helping us out with the building, but I believe that, you know, to the extent that there’s a benefit in year 16 through 24, they should get the benefit of…if it goes out that far, they should get the benefit of a reduction, but they should carry all carrying costs from day one. Anyone else? Colleen.

Ms. Labow: Can we hear from the Mount Olive Child Care & Learning Center if they could afford to pay this amount per month?

President Greenbaum: Absolutely. Barbara, Gail…

Barbara Melveger, Mount Olive Child Care & Learning Center: To address that, one of the reasons we had asked that it be spaced out over a 20 or 25 year period, preferably 25, is that we would not be able to afford it, if it had to be done in a 15 year period. We could afford the 20 or the 25 year payout, but not the 15. Did you want to add anything Gail?

Gail Reuther: No, I mean, I agree with you, I think the 20 would probably be acceptable considering, you know, what we’re paying now as rental and given the additional children that would be served, I would think that the 20 is the best we would do. The 15 would be very difficult, very difficult.

Mrs. Melveger: Impossible, I would say.

Mr. Casey: If I might, one of the alternates that, you know, once you make a policy decision, if you want to say 15, it may be possible to structure that debt so that it basically is not even. Obviously, you can start off on a lower rate, you know, but you’re going to have higher payments in, you know, whatever that is. So, it would be possible within that 15 year frame to come up with a different debt payment schedule to allow you to phase into that, but….you know, obviously, you’re going to end up paying the same amount, the only question is how you want to chew it, all at once, or in small pieces towards the end.

Mrs. Melveger: We understand that.

Mr. Casey: I mean, that’s an option available to the governing body. If they feel….if you feel that you can support, Gail…you were saying, you know the $70,000 range, as a starting basis in there, you could start at that level, but it’s going to have to be at the half way point, you may be able to, you know, make up the difference. So, we can have…we can work on a schedule like that and get back to you and see if it fits in with your cash flow basis, if that is agreeable to the governing body.

President Greenbaum: Well, I would like to hear from the rest of the governing body on their position. Mr. Mund.

Mr. Mund: Well, I think a 15 year payout schedule, so that the township doesn’t have any expenses, is critical. I also seem to remember that, at one point, the township went out, when the Child Care wanted land, and offered to public the choice…of the township of giving them land and the township voted down that issue. So, I’m very concerned that what we’re doing, even if it is, is a good thing for the Child Care, which is a very good program, but I’m not sure if we were to spend additional money from the township, it would be in the township’s best interest. So, I think the 15 year payout is…

Mrs. Melveger: Can I just remind everybody about the amount of money that we bring into the township that goes directly to the citizens of Mount Olive Township? You need to keep that in mind. When you do think about the Mount Olive Child Care Center and, you know, helping, as you say, and we certainly appreciate all the help, but we bring in quite a bit of money that goes as direct service to the citizens of Mount Olive Township to the tune of….how many thousands of dollars? $300,000 currently, and it will be more in the near future. It will be considerably more, we just can’t announce it yet.

Mr. Guenther: Barbara, explain what you mean by that…the money that’s brought into the township….I don’t understand your point.

Mrs. Melveger: All of the dollars that we bring in, go toward providing the service….

Mr. Guenther: What do you mean, excuse me, that you….

Mrs. Melveger: And helping our clients to afford the service, it goes to direct subsidies to them so that they can afford the child care.

Mr. Guenther: What are you saying…what do you mean by bringing in? Is this money that’s donated to you?

Mrs. Melveger: This is United Way money, State money, Federal money….

Mr. Guenther: Oh, I see…okay.

Mrs. Melveger: Family Friendly grant money, all sorts of….Dodge Foundation money, all of the grant money, the parent program….all the money that we bring in, goes directly to the citizens of Mount Olive Township.

Mr. Guenther: Okay, alright, I understand.

Ms. Labow: I believe that the State has a mandated program where the Board of Ed of the townships have to provide a before-care and after-care program, is that correct?

Mrs. Melveger: I’m sorry.

Ms. Labow: The State has mandated a program where the school system has to have before and after-care for the children, a lock-key program, latch-key – is that what it’s called? For instance, if you’re….

Mrs. Melveger: I’m not aware of that.

Ms. Labow: It’s not State mandated?

Mrs. Melveger: I’m not sure that it is.

Mrs. Reuther: I’m not sure of that, no…

Ms. Labow: That’s why….obviously, because you guys would know if that was true or not, but the before and the after-care program, if you weren’t providing that for the schools, the school system…would they have to provide that?

Mrs. Melveger: I don’t think it’s mandated, but they certainly would give it very strong consideration.

Ms. Labow: And how many families does your….

Mrs. Melveger: We serve….well, in the before and after-school program, currently it’s 250 children.

Ms. Labow: 250 children, so…

Mrs. Melveger: That’s currently. That will be expanding, however, greatly.

Ms. Labow: That’s going to what? It’s going to expand?

Mrs. Melveger: Yes.

Ms. Labow: Because of all the new enrollments we’re having?

Mrs. Melveger: Yes.

Ms. Labow: So, if we didn’t offer that program and there’s all these people that have no place to bring their children before and after, and if the school were to provide to put that in, then that cost would be spread out throughout all the taxpayers, instead of the people who are using it.

Mrs. Melveger: That’s correct.

Mr. Mund: They wouldn’t be required to put it in.

Ms. Labow: It might not be required to, but you have all these people who have before and after-care needs for their children. I know there’s a lot of…..

President Greenbaum: Mr. Guenther, your position?

Mr. Guenther: I essentially agree with you, Mr. President, that….you know, I thought it was going to be, you know, a zero impact on the taxpayers. I know they do wonderful work and they provide a very necessary service for people that can’t afford it somewhere else, but it’s just….that was always my impression, so I think I have to go along with you.

President Greenbaum: I just always thought that that was the selling point.

Mr. Guenther: Yes.

President Greenbaum: Was that it was….and, ultimately, it would be a wash at the end of year 25, but the taxpayers of Mount Olive, for years 1 through 16, or 1 through 15, I guess 1 through 15 would be carrying a portion of the carrying costs and so that is an expense to the township, because….I guess, just the….having to carry it is an expense in and of itself. Mr. Buell.

Mr. Buell: Yes, I agree with what you’re saying, but we’re also going to have a building, they’re going to put in new plumbing and HVAC. They’re going to change out the electrical, which is a significant portion of this $1.1 million, which we would have to do at some point in time during this period of time, and I think that should be deducted from what we’re looking at here in terms of paying this thing off, or making it as a pay-as-you go kind of a situation. So, I just quickly looked at it, it looks at about $430,000 or $440,000 of this $1.1 million is going for things for improvements to that building, so I would think that if we deducted that off of that payment…or off of this process and then built it over a 15 year period…..

President Greenbaum: You know what, it’s a good point you’re making, but it goes against everything that we had discussed for the reason for Mount Olive Child Care taking that building. Mr. Casey, am I correct in assuming that, to the extent that we went to a 25 year or 20 year lease payment and the township was carrying costs, that it would actually increase our budget next year?

Mr. Casey: Yes, because you would be paying out $98,000 and receiving in $73,058…whatever the number is. So, you would have a direct impact of $40,000 on your budget.

Mayor De La Roche: For 16 years.

President Greenbaum: For 16 years.

Mr. Casey: Yes, I mean, the only alternate route, as I said, would be to change the pay-out schedule, but still keep it over a 15 year period, so they could, hopefully, correspond better with their cash flow. Now, we can work a schedule out and see if they think they can match that.

Mrs. Melveger: Might I point out one other thing that may help in this? You’re talking about the difference of about $25,000 / $27,000 a year, am I correct?

Mr. Casey: If you could stay at the $73,000? Between the $73,000 and the $98,000?

Mrs. Melveger: Yes.

Mr. Casey: Yes, $25,000.

Mrs. Melveger: Yes, okay. You were donating to the township, on an…..to the Mount Olive Child Care Center, on an annual basis, about $27,000 to $30,000, which you will no longer be doing. Might that not be considered?

President Greenbaum: Barbara, again, you know how I feel about Mount Olive Child Care taking that building, that was one of the considerations that was a selling point in terms of going down this road, that it was a win-win-win, that we were going to….

Mrs. Melveger: I think it still is.

President Greenbaum: Bring back money in. I understand that. That we were going to bring back money, it was always my thought that whatever debt service that we provided to Mount Olive Child Care would not carry any carrying costs to the township. In essence, we are now increasing our budget from this year by $25,000 for next year, for 15 years and we don’t see any money back for….until years 16 through 25. I’m just a little troubled by that. I want you guys to have that building, I fought very hard to get you guys into that building, but I have a hard time selling it…..

Mrs. Melveger: Well, the $27,000 a year that would have been donated to us will no longer be donated to us on an annual basis for all that time. So, that might make up that difference.

President Greenbaum: I don’t see it that way.

Mrs. Melveger: I’m sorry you don’t.

President Greenbaum: Anyone else? Colleen.

Ms. Labow: So you’re saying if they don’t get the building, we’re still going to give them….we’ll give them $27,000?

President Greenbaum: I’m not saying that at all.

Ms. Labow: So we’ll…and they’re not going to get any money.

President Greenbaum: We’re giving them the building.

Ms. Labow: But we’re….

President Greenbaum: We’re leasing them the building.

Ms. Labow: But we’re saying that maybe we’re not going to…..I still am in favor…

President Greenbaum: No, we’re leasing them the building….we always had discussed finding out what the rate was going to be where the township was not going to incur costs associated with this lease. That’s what we had…that’s, at least in my mind, that’s what we had discussed, and we had also discussed that as a quid-pro-quo for giving them the building, obviously we didn’t go out and seek other groups who might have paid a higher rent for the building, we said we’re going to cut your payment, but we’re going to move that building in your direction because of the great work that you do, we’re going to….and because you are helping the township out, I mean, Mr. Buell’s points are valid that, in fact, we can’t afford not to have this building occupied by some entity…

Ms. Labow: And not us.

President Greenbaum: But in my mind, the entity which is going to take this building has to be able to carry the costs of the building, whether it’s through private funding, or whether or not it’s through us funding on behalf of Mount Olive Child Care. In my mind, it was always that the carrying costs would be covered on a yearly basis, and that’s how the rent would be derived. Mr. Guenther.

Mr. Guenther: The question I had is the ordinance says that it’s for the expansion…for the renovation and expansion, yet the e-mail that was sent on May 25th said that you would no longer need to expand the facility, that you could live within the present…existing building.

Mr. Casey: I think they’re…..

Mr. Guenther: Am I reading something wrong here?

Mr. Casey: Yes, I think the draft ordinance John did without having the final numbers and that was just for discussion purposes. So, it’s an early draft.

Mr. Guenther: So, it does not involve the expansion of the building?

Mr. Casey: There’s no expansion of the building under their current proposal.

Mr. Guenther: Okay.

Mr. Casey: I mean, getting back, I mean, just looking at what Gary and I were talking about, I mean, if in fact, you know, approximately, if you had five years at 70, five years at 90, five years at 110, or something like that,

Mrs. Melveger: That’s typical…

Mr. Casey: You come close to being…you know, we can work something out, if you can live with those numbers, I can….we can have….we can restructure this on a phase in basis….

Mrs. Melveger: Alright, we may have to do that.

Mr. Casey: If that’s something you can all look at.

Mrs. Melveger: I think that’s what we need.

Mr. Casey: Once Council sets the policy, if Council’s policy is 15 years, let us look at what we can do within the bond laws for a phase in, then give you more exact numbers, and then you can determine whether in fact you can fit the parameters.

Mr. Melveger: Okay.

Mr. Higgins: The only other thing is, can we increase the down payment to lower the amount we’re going to debt, you know, the debt service?

Mrs. Melveger: What would the down payment be?

Mr. Casey: The down payment right now is 5% of $1,150,000.

Mr. Higgins: $57,500.

Mr. Casey: Yes, thank you. I couldn’t find my note.

Mr. Higgins: I mean, if you could bring up the front end, and then lower the 15 year pay-down, that would help, too…plus the interest cost would be eliminated also.

Mrs. Melveger: We could probably do that. We’ll take a look.

Mr. Casey: Okay, so the policy decision of the governing body is say the 15?

President Greenbaum: It seems to be the majority.

Mr. Casey: We’ll get together within the next three or four days, Gary and I will talk and we’ll come up with some alternate bond schedules.

Mrs. Melveger: Okay, alright.

Mr. Higgins: I mean, if you could just give us an idea of what you could think the down payment could be….

Mrs. Melveger: We’ll take a look at that and we’ll get back to you in a day or two.

Mr. Higgins: Right, once you get that back, then we’ll re-stratify the 15 and try to tie it into the….

Mrs. Melveger: That I think we can do also, so that may help us.

Mr. Casey: Okay, and any grants you get too, would help on top. Alright, let us restructure that and we’ll bring it back to you next week. Mr. Council President, we’ll have a revision back to you next week on a 15 year basis.

President Greenbaum: I’m sorry, Barbara.

Mrs. Melveger: Thank you.

President Greenbaum: Thank you.

Ms. Labow: Rob,

President Greenbaum: Yes, Colleen.

Ms. Labow: I just want to say that I’m still 100% in favor of the Mount Olive Child Care & Learning Center taking that building, because otherwise it’s going to sit there vacant, and it’s going to rot like the old Municipal building. So, unless somebody….other entity can come forward and have a better proposal in the time that it’s going to take to finalize this, I would go with them 100%, because in the end, I think it’s in the best interest of the township to have that building occupied.

Mr. Guenther: As a counter point, Colleen, you have to remember what the Council President said…he said, you know, we always favored the Mount Olive Child Care & Learning Center. There was never a serious move or it was never publicized in any way that it was available to any other groups. We really don’t know what other demand there might be for the building.

Ms. Labow: And then when I asked the Administration to please give us a list, I was told no.

President Greenbaum: Well, that’s not, you know, that was a separate point. I don’t want to mix apples and oranges here. The bottom line is that we all want to see Mount Olive Child Care getting this building, we all appreciate and understand the great work that they do, but they need to be able to carry the cost of what they plan to do with that building. That’s the bottom line, and ultimately, from my perspective, that’s the only thing that, from my own conscience, in terms of representing the residents of Mount Olive, that’s what I need to hear. So, we’ll put that back on.

Handicapped Parking @ Library

President Greenbaum: The next item for discussion is Handicapped Parking at the Library. We had sent a letter to the Library requesting the entire Board….thank you Mr. Higgins, you’re excused.

Mr. Higgins: Thank you. There’s no excuse for me.

President Greenbaum: Let me just thank you for the fine work that you’ve done on behalf of the township throughout the course of this budget process and I appreciate your attention to the details of our discussions. Thank you.

Mr. Higgins: Thank you.

Everyone said thanks to Gary.

Mr. Mund: Now you can take your tie off and go in an un-air-conditioned car.

President Greenbaum: And Gary, one more thing, I just wanted to thank you for your diligence in terms of following the long-term debt refinancing issue, which has saved the town a considerable amount of money this year and I do appreciate that.

Mr. Higgins: Thank you.

President Greenbaum: Next item for discussion, as indicated before, was the Handicapped Parking Issue at the Library. I had written a letter, on behalf of Council, requesting the Library Board appear this evening to answer questions with respect to a number of different issues. I got a letter back indicating that the invitation would be extended, but that most Library Board members probably would not be able to attend and that we were invited to the Library Board Meeting to the extent that we wanted to address the entire Board. I see that Jane is here. Did you want to speak or did you just….

Jane Israel: Oh, I thought I was…

President Greenbaum: Rita is here as well.

Ms. Labow: And Dave is here.

Mrs. Israel: Well, Jerry Sheard actually is the President and he was going to speak, but he’s been delayed at the Firehouse. We have Mr. Dave Jones who is a member and, of course, Mayor De La Roche is a member. Rita is a member, she’s not a voting member. I’d be happy to address any questions you might have at this time, if that’s what you would like.

President Greenbaum: I would like to hear from Mr. Buczynski first. I had several questions with respect to the handicapped parking, which is currently being proposed.

Mrs. Israel: Okay.

President Greenbaum: Gene, there have been discussions, at the Council level, with respect to whether or not the current handicapped parking meets code. Do you have an answer to that question? Railings have been President Greenbaum (cont’d): discussed and slopes, and it’s very hard…..

Mr. Buczynski: Yes, I guess so. I just want to refer back to a letter I wrote, I guess back on January 5th, where I said…for a temporary CO at the time, I basically said it was in general compliance, except we asked them to basically put some signage up, and also prior to issuance of CO, to revise the locations of the handicapped ramps in the parking lot, which I found out today that they have….that has been done. I have not…I did not review them, but they’re done in accordance to the locations we had before. Now, the original…..back in January, there was a letter submitted by their engineer and basically said they were in general compliance per ADA. I think there was one small section, at the time, which was close by the handicapped ramps I believe, but it was just over 5%, it was like 13 feet. I think they did…they provided…..information I think on every ten feet along the parking lot. I think they said about 13 feet was just off a little bit, it exceed 5%, which I thought they could take care of when they built the new locations of the ramps. I can’t tell you if that meets it now or not, I know Bob Casey and I spoke this afternoon, and supposedly he’s got a certification from their engineer that everything complies to the ADA requirements.

Mr. Casey: There was a site inspection this morning involving Tom Canarella….I believe his name is, who is the site engineer who did the original survey. He has provided a certification to the construction department that, in fact, it complies with ADA and for that reason, they’ve been issued their CO. So, from a technical standpoint, from what we can ascertain, they meet the minimum requirements of the ADA at this point in time.

President Greenbaum: Does anyone have any questions for Gene? Colleen.

Ms. Labow: Did our…..well, actually, in general, did our Building Inspector go over there and inspect it?

Mr. Casey: Yes.

Ms. Labow: The new ramps that they put in, where they did the cut outs, I don’t think that anyone in a self propelled wheelchair can get out of their vehicle, get up that grade, turn the corner, go another five feet, turn the corner again and get up to the Library. I do not believe that is ADA compliant and I think that there’s some… short of saying it flat out, monkey business going on here, because I don’t think that anybody could get up there in a wheelchair and I’d like to challenge any one of you guys to get a wheelchair and try and get up there yourself.

President Greenbaum: Anyone else?

Ms. Labow: Gene didn’t have a chance to look at it?

Mr. Buczynski: Well, all I can say regarding that….I’d have to get grades from their engineer regarding actual ramp and going around the first curve….before I could tell you it meets it. I based it on….my opinion on what Bob’s got a certified letter from the engineer saying it meets it, so I’m assuming…at this point, that he checked the grades and they do comply.

Ms. Labow: Can we get our own certification on that, because I don’t believe it meets it….you know, just eyeball it and to look at it, I don’t believe it meets it at all, or I can just call….or I’ll call the State and have them come in and measure it, and at that point, we’ll be fined for giving them a CO.

President Greenbaum: Well, I guess you can request, from the Administration, that they provide you with a certification from the township engineer that it, in fact, meets grade.

Ms. Labow: I want it measured out, and I want to be there when it’s measured out, too.

Mr. Buczynski: Whatever the Administration requests me to do, I’ll be glad to do it.

Ms. Labow: Mr. Casey.

Mr. Casey: You know, I think it’s time that you recognize the fact that the governing body opts, as a whole…if, in fact, the governing body wishes to make a motion requesting that, in fact, the township spend money to have Mr. Buczynski go out there and have that surveyed, put it on the floor, vote it, follow Robert’s Rules, and make a policy decision. We have a certification from an engineer that says it meets grade. If you want Gene to do it, then it takes an action of the governing body.

Mr. Buczynski: The only alternative….you have the transit instruments in-house….your in-house engineering aid can definitely take grades, and you could, even if you wanted to, you could provide me the information and I could verify it, but he could take the grades to determine the slopes himself. I believe he can.

President Greenbaum: Mr. Casey has just given us carte blanche to start spending money, so I would ask for a motion from the floor to have…..made by Mr. Buell to have Mr. Buczynski go and measure it. So, if we’re going to start taking action on our own, that’s fine, is there a second?

Mr. Buell: Well, let me…can I say something before you do that?

President Greenbaum: Yes.

Mr. Buell: I think a lot of this depends on what the Library Board is going to do about the other alternatives I’ve heard about, in terms of the handicapped parking closer to that front door, which I think is a far better solution. I don’t think we need to have money spent, if they intend to, at some point in time in the very very near future, build the handicapped parking either on the sides, or in the center by the flag pole. I think that resolves not only the technical issue, but I think it resolves the PR issue and also the access that I think the township handicapped people who use that Library need. I think, you know….

President Greenbaum: So, you want to hear from Jane?

Mr. Buell: I would love to hear from Jane.

President Greenbaum: As to what the Library intends to do?

Mr. Buell: What they’ll do.

Mr. Buczynski: Just one other thought, if I could, Council President.

President Greenbaum: Yes sir.

Mr. Buczynski: The other alternative would be, if they didn’t submit it to the town yet, is to have them submit the as-built of what was just done recently and have them submit it to me and I can review that and make sure the slopes conform.

President Greenbaum: It works for me, but let’s find out from Jane as to what the Library is planning to do.

Mrs. Israel: The Library Board, at their April meeting, authorized the current architect to go ahead with design and cost estimates on option 3 and I think that maybe you received some of that paperwork, or at least descriptions, of the three options that were given to us by Mike Hicks and the Library Board has not changed that order and, in fact, there were some erroneous statements in the newspaper, or maybe I should say the erroneous statements were due to the architect’s words. You know, I maybe shouldn’t blame the newspaper, but option 3, which is the….when we voted to go with, shows two spots on either sides, two spots on both sides I should say, of the grassy area on the sides of the loop road. The loop road is really something that is a fire lane, it’s an emergency lane, we cannot go into that lane as far as putting any kind of handicapped spots there, but certainly we can do something more than the spots that we have presently. We now have the four spots that Mr. Buczynski and Mr. Canarana….you said it right before..Canarella…had talked about in January and they are installed and, you know, approved, so we have our CO, but that doesn’t mean that it’s the end of it, because we have been, you know, getting a lot of criticism for our handicapped access at the Library, criticism that, warranted or not, is something that we don’t want. You know, we’re a public….and we would like to be able to, you know, avoid any public confrontations on that. So, as far as the Library Board is concerned, we are going ahead with at least two, maybe four, additional handicapped spots. Now, for that…just for your information, for that particular building, for the number of spots we have, we’re only required to have three spots, and right now we have four, and what I’m thinking of is to have six in the end, because I would like to put at least two on the grassy area on the side, although, you know, we are…..which would be under the bid threshold, although we haven’t gotten the final written cost estimate yet.

President Greenbaum: Anyone else from Council? Mr. Buell.

Mr. Buell: When would that….when would you propose that those be built, or do you have any idea…those two additional spots?

Mrs. Israel: Well, I would think it would be done this year, because we’re waiting for the information… anytime, and we’re….now that we have our CO, and the building is going to be turned over to us by Blackstone, because, you know, all along, all during this….the past six months, it’s really been Blackstone’s because they were still working on it. So, once we have the ownership, then we can go ahead and do something that we want to do and….as far as the handicapped is concerned, and we’ve….the Board has already voted on the four additional spots, two on each side…on the grassy area….I don’t know why this doesn’t…..any change to that would take another Board vote, you know, so we’d have to go back, but….

Mr. Buell: But you intend to do those two or four spots at some time in the near future?

Mrs. Israel: Yes, ASAP and, of course, we do have money, you know, left in the bond to do that, if it falls, you know, within the bonding….within the rules of the bond. I don’t know why it wouldn’t, but I don’t know, you know, you never know what somebody’s going to come up with and say well, you didn’t have six spots in the original, you know, thing, so maybe that would be a technicality, I don’t know.

President Greenbaum: Mr. Rattner.

Mr. Rattner: Yes, I don’t understand the conversation about within the bidding threshold and that type of thing, because you always have field changes and if there’s a….if something doesn’t work and you find, you know, you find that all the time, as long as you don’t increase the contract for that line item over a certain percentage, you’re allowed to do that, as long as the contract hasn’t been closed out, there’s money within the bond. I don’t think that’s really an issue. I don’t know why it would cost a heck of a lot of money but, you know, almost everything we do…I’m not saying you, anything we do ends up costing. So, I don’t understand why we’re even concerned about it, you do a change order. This is something, if it’s going to be for access, something that is necessary for safety, you don’t have to go and do a separate bid on it.

Mrs. Israel: Our dealings with Blackstone and the Surety Company and the architect are in the hands of the construction attorney at this time.

Mr. Rattner: Oh, that explains a lot.

Mrs. Israel: So, it really….we’re trying to get finished, you know, we’re trying to get finished with Blackstone.

Mr. Rattner: Okay, I just didn’t understand all the other conversations. Okay, thank you.

President Greenbaum: Okay, anyone else? Colleen.

Ms. Labow: Jane, first of all, I just want to clarify it was option #1 that the Board voted on, not 3. Three was the one that the architect thought was going to be….

Mrs. Israel: I’m sorry if I said the wrong thing.

Mr. Labow: Yes, that’s okay, just….anybody who has that paperwork, I don’t want them to misunderstand that.

Mrs. Israel: Sorry.

Ms. Labow: The other thing I wanted to know, I was concerned about the article that was written in the Daily Record where the architect was contacted and said that they were told by the Librarian, Rita Hilbert, not to even begin the design work until after they got the CO. Do you have that letter?

Mrs. Israel: Well, there was no letter and there was no statement of that kind made to the architect, and that is a mistake and I called him on it the next day.

Ms. Labow: How did they know to even begin work…or even consider work on option 1? It was a phone call, or a fax?

Mrs. Israel: Oh no, no. That was an e-mail.

Ms. Labow: An e-mail?

Mrs. Israel: Yes. I didn’t you see you here, Jerry, did you want to take over? No, okay, because he’s the President.

President Greenbaum: And he’s probably happier having you standing up there.

Ms. Labow: The one thing that I want to say is that even if there are two more spots, or four more spots, depending on…that are going to go closer to the building, it still doesn’t eliminate the issue of the cut-outs that they just did that are very very steep. I really don’t see how a handicapped person could maneuver that section without the railing and the area where it goes beyond the 5%, my understanding is it’s 13 feet, and there’s supposed to be a railing, there’s not a railing. I don’t know why the CO was issued if a railing wasn’t put up and I….if anybody wants to go over there and look at that section that they cut out and just try to even walk from the parking….get out of your vehicle and try to walk from the parking lot, up that ramp, make that turn, make the other turn and try to get to the building. I honestly cannot see how that could possibly be ADA compliant, so I’d like to see proof.

President Greenbaum: Well, they have an engineer certification, so….

Ms. Labow: That doesn’t…

President Greenbaum: They have an engineer certification. Until we have something different, that’s going to suffice, because it was enough to….the engineer puts his license on the line that it’s ADA compliant.

Ms. Labow: And what does our Building Code Official do?

President Greenbaum: Our Building Code Official probably relies upon the certification from the engineer as per State guidelines.

Mr. Rattner: If it looks reasonable, you take the license, because that’s what’s actually dictating what’s going on. If we didn’t do that, we would never have anything, or we’d have to redo everything.

President Greenbaum: See, to me, it’s not the number of spots which is the critical issue here, and as I heard Jane talking about, you know, adding two more spots, which I think is great, but if none of them are accessible to the people who need them, then what is the sense of doing it? I don’t really have a true picture of what is going on over at the Library physically. I mean, I don’t….I can’t tell you where the spots are, the cut-outs are, I don’t know, but the sense that I’m getting from, you know, the residents who are most concerned about this is that the fixes have not resolved the problems and the hesitancy, and while I heard you talking about it being a fire lane in front of the building, it’s only a fire lane because the plans were changed in the beginning to reflect, I guess, the vision of the Board…the Library Board as to what the Library should look like. To me, the critical issue here is getting those spots as close to the building, and as accessible to the building as is possible, irrespective of how that is going to effect the visual aspects of coming into the Library. The question I have for you, Mr. Casey, and perhaps Mr. Semrau, is once Blackstone is done at the site, that building is township property, correct?

Mr. Casey: Correct.

President Greenbaum: To the extent that the Council wanted to fix the problem at the point that Blackstone is now done, Council could then take whatever action we wanted to take to fix the problem. Until…while Blackstone is still there, the Library Board is in control of any fixes and remediation at the Library. Is that accurate?

Mr. Casey: That’s my understanding and that’s the reason why we were urging the Library Board to get their CO, to get out from under that, so that in fact you now have options to control the building. Now that the CO’s been issued, you can now, for instance, you can put only two…you know, you don’t have to worry about…you meet the technical requirements. If you want to supplement those with a couple more, fine, you can do whatever you want, at this point in time, because we’ve issued the CO, you’ve met the requirements, now you can come in and the town could do it, anybody could do it at that point.

Mrs. Israel: Well, could I say something?

President Greenbaum: Sure.

Mrs. Israel: It is true that the title of the real estate stays in the name of the township, but according to you….NJSA 40-54-25, the use and control of the real estate shall be in the Board of Trustees of the free Library, as long as it shall be used for free public Library purposes. Now, I am sure the Library would not have any objection to you putting in the handicapped spots, if that is what, you know, should be done to the building, but there is, you know, a limit and I just wanted to let you know that that is how the law reads as far as the control and use of the building.

President Greenbaum: Thank you. I was not aware of that statute and that’s the reason that I had asked the question. Is there anyone else who wishes to be heard…who wants to speak on this issue from Council? I’m sorry, Jane, did you have something else?

Mrs. Israel: Any other Library thing, I mean, I didn’t know it was going to be limited to handicapped when I came.

President Greenbaum: I believe that there were several other issues besides the handicapped parking. I don’t recall….maintenance issue.

Mr. Mund: Maintenance, maintenance schedules, what provisions are…..

Mrs. Israel: Actually, now that the building is being finished, we will now be getting the warrantees and the directions of how to use things, that we haven’t had so far. So, we expect to have to purchase certain maintenance plans, with certain things, you know, once the warrantees run out, but we don’t really know exactly, you know, what that’s going to entail. There are certain systems that need to be taken care of regularly, of course, and we’ll make sure that they’re taken care of, just as we did in the other building. At the end, we had a problem with the heating and air-conditioning, and we said we’re moving out, we even had discussions with the Administration, I know, maybe the Council, about not replacing certain heating and air-conditioning units that had gone, you know, bad, but that’s about the only thing that fell down on at the end, because we were going to be moving, and the town….as far as we know, I mean, we didn’t know what the township would end up doing with the building. There was even a spark about the Board of Education getting….perhaps buying it and tearing it down. So, I don’t know, that’s why we didn’t keep up with the heating and air-conditioning.

President Greenbaum: Lee, is that what your concern was in terms of what had happened to the old building or is it just simply on a going forward basis?

Mr. Mund: Well, basically, now it’s going forward to establish your maintenance programs, identify them, program the replacements, do the filter systems, whatever has to be done, and document that you have this program, so that you know what has to be done every year, so that you don’t let the buildings deteriorate in any way.

President Greenbaum: Is that something that the Library Board is intending on doing?

Mrs. Israel: Yes, we have a Buildings and Grounds Committee, and also we have a full-time janitor now, who has….takes care of the, you know, filters and things like that, and documents what he does and, as I say, once we get the entire information, we’ll be able to really put it in order and make sure that everything is done according to the instructions on the different systems.

Ms. Labow: How….I have a question for Mr. Casey, how is maintenance tracking being done like with this building? How do we do that here?

Mr. Casey: We have…almost all of the HVAC systems in this building are under long-term contracts. We have a company which comes in on a routine schedule and, you know, whatever the manufacturer requires, to change the filters, etc., but it’s all done by contract.

Ms. Labow: So, and ultimately, the Library building, it’s township property, and I’m wondering if….whoever keeps track of all those records now for us here, I don’t know…which department handles the…

Mr. Mund: The Buildings and Grounds.

Ms. Labow: The Buildings and Grounds, which….could they….should the Library be giving them the report so we could keep a…just a regular……not that they’re going to do anything, just that we’d have a record of it over here?

Mr. Casey: I mean, one of the issues that, you know, the town should really look at long term, is to basically combine the maintenance contracts in both buildings, you know, so the same company is coming in and doing them both, I mean there’s no point….we have a company that does this…this building, does the Senior Center, so there should be a way of reaching out and combining everything together so that we have, you know, one master contract out there.

Ms. Labow: Continuity.

Mr. Casey: And I think that’s something else that can be done once you own the building and we have an idea of what’s needed, because there’s no reason why we can’t combine those uses together.

President Greenbaum: The Library Board would have to agree with that, though, under the particular statute. The Library Board is responsible for all expenditures and operation at the site of the Library according to the statute that Jane read to us. So, to the extent that, and it makes sense, that the services can be combined, it’s almost like the Library Board is like the Board of Education in terms of the property and the way that the property is run. The only difference is that the voters of Mount Olive get to choose the school budget and we decide what the Library budget’s going to be. Mr. Rattner.

Mr. Rattner: No, I think it’s a little bit different, because the building is owned by the municipality and so I think that the municipality can require certain levels of maintenance and upkeep since they’re in our building. Yes, they’re running it, but we have, you know, and we should probably have an agreement that they have to maintain it, and I don’t have any doubt they’re not going to, but it’s really our building, and if they’re using our building, you know, running it under their own Board, that we can have certain requirements of what they have to do.

President Greenbaum: I didn’t hear that in the statute, to be quite honest with you Steve. The statute seemed pretty clear….maybe Mr. Semrau can enlighten us.

Mr. Semrau: Yes, I’ve been looking at the statute, it seems a little more….it’s not as clear as it sounds, because the statute talks about land that’s purchased essentially by the Board of Trustees and then put in the name of the municipality. So, it says the title of any real estate so purchased shall be taken in the name of the municipality and the use and control shall be in the Board of Trustees. So, to me…I can’t say that I definitely agree with the statement that it is in the control of the Library Board of Trustees at this point in time. I really have to go back and look at the actual acquisition of the land and see where this comes from. I mean, it sounds to me a lot more of what Mr. Casey and Mr. Rattner had to say, but I would be glad to go back and take a look.

Ms. Labow: Well, who owns the land?

Mr. Semrau: Because it’s the….from what I understand, the township initially had the land.

Mr. Rattner: The town purchased it as a major purchase.

Mrs. Israel: Yes and they dedicated it to….for Library use, eight acres, at a public meeting.

Mr. Casey: I don’t think there’s going to be any real difference between the township and the Library doing the maintenance facilities, if it works to everybody’s advantage.

Mrs. Israel: Yes, I mean, there’s no argument.

President Greenbaum: I understand that. We’re just talking theoretically here, in terms of something which may or may not happen, and if there is a dispute between the Library and the Council, for instance, with regard to the location of handicapped parking, we’d need to have an answer to that question as to who has the final say-so in terms of where the handicapped parking should be located.

Mr. Rattner: That’s different from maintenance and upkeep.

President Greenbaum: I’m not sure that it is.

Mr. Rattner: I would think it is.

President Greenbaum: I’m not sure…it might be. Do you think so?

Mr. Rattner: Okay you win.

Mrs. Israel: Should we stop work on our plan?

President Greenbaum: No. Right now, the building is still under contract with Blackstone.

Mrs. Israel: Yes, we have a CO, but there still is a punch list of items.

President Greenbaum: The building has not been turned over at this point in time.

Mrs. Israel: That’s right, right? The building has not yet been turned over, but we hope to have that done in the next two weeks, but I don’t know. You know how legal things are.

President Greenbaum: Yes. Alright, thank you very much. Is there anyone else who has any questions?

Mrs. Israel: We have some little….Library addition information that we made up to have available at the Library, and I’d like for each of you to have one of those, because it tells a lot about the Board, the makeup of the Board and how, you know, what the laws are and Rita has those, if she can pass them out.

President Greenbaum: Thank you. Before you leave, Judy, did you have anything you wanted to say on this issue, because you’ve been very outspoken, or do you want to just wait and see how everything resolves?

Mrs. Hirky: I’ll wait.

President Greenbaum: Okay, thank you. I didn’t not want to give you an opportunity.

Questions on Bill List?

President Greenbaum: Thank you. Okay, moving on with the agenda….I guess, at this point, are there any questions on the Bill List? Mr. Casey, are you going to be fielding those tonight?

Mr. Casey: Sherry was good enough to leave the Bills over here, so if there are questions, I will thumb through them and see if I can find out whatever you want to know.

President Greenbaum: Does anyone have any questions? Mr. Rattner

Mr. Rattner: Mr. Casey, mine isn’t a big one, so you just take this and respond later in the week, and that just happens to be the Daily Record. When I looked at the backup, I couldn’t figure out why it came to $1,152 for advertising, the extensions and everything didn’t work, so something must be missing. You don’t have to answer that tonight.

Mr. Casey: Okay, thank you.

Ms. Labow: I have one question, Rob.

President Greenbaum: Yes, Colleen.

Ms. Labow: Not too much on the Bill List, but actually just to back up to the Library for a second. I had sent Sherry an e-mail, but she’s not here, I don’t know if she talked to Bob or not, the bond….we had discussed the bond money, they only want to give us $400,000, and they’re saying they want to keep 20% in case they have to return it to the State and some of the e-mails that have gone back and forth with Mr. Casey and Sherry….you know what I’m talking about…and it was determined that if money has to go back to the State, that we would send it back, that the Library was to turn over the entire grant money. Was there a resolution to that?

Mr. Casey: No, there has not been a resolution. I think that Sherry and I are of the opinion that the grant payment which was received, which was some $500,000, should have come to the town with the understanding that there was anticipated in the bond ordinance and obviously whatever was not expended and had to be returned to the State, we would return. The issue is that the Library has put it in their restricted account versus putting it in our restricted account, we feel it should be in ours. We’ll probably ask for a written opinion from our auditor and then forward it to their auditor, and see if we can get it resolved on that basis.

Ms. Labow: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Buell: Yes, just….and also not something you have to respond to right away, Bob, but check #04-2742, the Suburban Engineering. They indicated that on 4/11 they sent us an estimate letter on the DPW garage, could we have a copy of that?

Mr. Casey: That’s the one I think I gave out.

Mr. Buell: Is that the one you gave out?

Mr. Casey: That’s the one I gave you, that was the revised estimate at that….where they increased the amount based upon their….that’s where the building went from $1,050,000 to $1,150,000….that was their letter on April 11th.

Mr. Buell: Okay, so if we have it, fine.

President Greenbaum: Any other questions? Mr. Guenther.

Mr. Guenther: I noticed that the Board of Adjustment attorney had several back invoices that were paid, one was from December of last year, and then a couple other months I think more recent, I don’t have the page right in front of me now. I assume that the December….are there accrual....I mean, are there accruals made at the end of the year to cover that? Does that go into 2004 expenses, or how is that handled since it’s being paid this year?

Mr. Casey: I thought most of those came out of the escrow accounts, if so, it’s money in the escrow. If you have that number, I can check, but I thought….

Mr. Guenther: I don’t believe it was escrow, let me double check, maybe I missed it.

Mr. Casey: And he’s also dealing with some litigation, which will come out of the litigation budget, so it depends upon which one we’re looking at. I don’t see him under the escrow, so maybe it’s under general legal.

Mr. Guenther: It was his monthly retainer, $675, that I remember seeing. Let me see….it should be easy to spot here.

Mr. Casey: But if it was for work done last December, we would have pulled it out of the reserve for last year, if there were funds left in the reserve account. So, I don’t think it was for work done at that point in time.

Mr. Guenther: Oh, okay, so it would have been reserve, I mean, it doesn’t impact this year’s….

Mr. Casey: No, assuming there was money left in last year’s budget, so we would have taken it out of the reserve account.

Ms. Labow: It’s on page 14, Bernie.

Mr. Casey: 14?

Ms. Labow: Yes.

Mr. Casey: You’re looking at the retainer…the December fee, which was $675. If you look at that one carefully, that’s pulled out of the 74….excuse me, the 90…the 2004 budget….I was only 30 years off. That was pulled out of the 2004 budget.

Mr. Guenther: Okay. I also saw a reimbursement here for a mailbox at $229….is that kind of a normal amount?

Mr. Casey: No. I’m about to bring up, before the governing body, my “Thou shalt not replace mailbox” ordinances. This was a bronze mailbox that we took out and it cost us $270 some odd bucks for replacing that one and we had one other earlier this year that ran $300 that was also a brass or something like that. I seriously have put in place in three other jurisdictions, ordinances that said that mailboxes are on the right of way, under the basis….at the risk of the property owner and that if we damage them, we’ll replace them with a standard, you know, wood post and mailbox routine. That’s what Roxbury has, that’s what three other locations that I’ve been in, because of this issue. Some people are creating rather expensive mailboxes out front which, if you hit Mr. Casey (cont’d) them with a truck or you roll a heavy piece of snow into them, break just like any other one, but that was one of them, I saw that one too, cast.

Ms. Labow: Was it…is it to get the standard or a monetary compensation for it?

Mr. Casey: Right now what we do is we basically replace it with kind, unless the guy is totally off the deep end, but I really think you may want to establish some standards as to what we would allow in the right of way and what we would allow for replacement costs.

President Greenbaum: Can we keep it to the Bill List right now, to the Questions on the Bill List rather than policy decisions on an ordinance which we may….?

Ms. Labow: Okay.

President Greenbaum: Are there any other questions on the Bill List?

APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS

May 24, 2005 Present: Mr. Buell, Mrs. Labow, Mr. Mund, Mr. Guenther (7:31), Mr. Rattner,
Mr. Perkins, Mr. Greenbaum
Absent: None

President Greenbaum: Next item for discussion are letters from….I’m sorry, Approval of Minutes of Previous Meetings, May 24, 2005. Mr. Buell, can you please move those Minutes?

Mr. Buell: I move for the approval of the Minutes of the meeting of May 24th, 2005.

Mr. Mund: Second.

President Greenbaum: It’s been moved and seconded. Any discussion, deletions comments? Seeing none, Roll Call.

ROLL CALL Passed Unanimously

CORRESPONDENCE

LETTERS FROM RESIDENTS/ORGANIZATIONS

1. Letter received May 23, 2005, from VAG Corporation regarding the lifting of the “Special Condition” on the liquor license.

2. E-mail received May 25, 2005, from William Lockwood regarding $5.00 field fee.

3. E-mail received May 25, 2005, from Colleen Newman regarding the $5.00 Facilitation Fee.

4. E-mail received May 25, 2005, from Gregg and Diane Griff regarding $5.00 field fee.

5. E-mail received May 25, 2005, from Sean Ryder, River Road regarding $5.00 field fee.

6. E-mail received May 25, 2005, from Stephen Liska regarding $5.00 field fee.

7. E-mail received May 25, 2005, from Sheri DiBernard, Stedwick Drive regarding $5.00 field fee.

8. E-mail received May 26, 2005, from Lisa Farley, regarding $5.00 facility fee.

9. E-mail received May 26, 2005, from Dean Murphy regarding $5.00 filed fee.

10. E-mail received May 27, 2005, from Bob Shannon regarding $5.00 field fee.

11. Fax received May 27, 2005, from New Jersey Highlands Council regarding the next meeting of the Highland Council.

12. E-mail received May 31, 2005, from Greg Brand, Cathy Lane regarding $5.00 field fee.

13. Public Notice received May 31, 2005, from New Jersey Highlands Council regarding Public input on the Department of Environmental Protection’s Highlands Rules on June 1, 2005.

14. E-mail received June 2, 2005, from Christine Priest, Budd Lake regarding $5.00 field fee.

15. Letter received June 3, 2005, from Mount Olive Public Library regarding Council and Library meeting to discuss various issues.

16. Letter received June 10, 2005, from Reza Hashemi regarding 97 Sandshore Road and marina lot.

RESOLUTIONS, ORDINANCES, CORRESPONDENCE FROM OTHER TOWNS

17. Resolution received May 23, 2005, from Township of Hanover regarding Board of Chosen Freeholders to Release and Return Surplus Funds to All Morris County Municipalities.

18. Notice of Hearing received May 23, 2005, from Washington Township Board of Adjustment regarding Application of Joseph Goncalves.

19. Letter received May 26, 2005, from William Agnellino, Mayor of East Hanover regarding Columbus Day Parade.

20. Resolution received May 31, 2005, from Township of Montville regarding Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders return Surplus Funds to local Municipalities.

21. Ordinance received June 3, 2005, from Allamuchy Township regarding Land Use.

22. Notice of Hearing received June 3, 2005, from Borough of Stanhope regarding Land Use Ordinance.

23. Notice of Public Hearing received June 10, 2005, from the Department of Law and Public Safety regarding Legalized Games of Chance Control Commission.

DOT / DEP / LOI

24. Letter received May 23, 2005, from State of New Jersey, Department of Transportation regarding Title 39 with various Traffic Regulations at the ITC Crossing Complex (Phase I).

25. Letter received May 23, 2005, from Environmental Technology Inc. regarding Request for Letter of Interpretation Applicant: Bilinkas Companies Block 4100, Lot 33 (179-185 Route 46 East).

26. Letter received May 25, 2005, from State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection regarding 110 Mount Olive Road, Incident number 05-05-13-0953-07.

27. Letter received May 25, 2005, from State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection regarding Deficiency Letter for Two Separate Highlands Resource Area Determinations Block 402; Lot 5 and Lot 2. Applicant Givaudan Fragrances (204 & 310 Waterloo Valley Road).

28. Letter received May 26, 2005, from State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection regarding Leon I. Gruber / Gruber at Mount Olive Lot 24, Block 7702 (333 Route 46) regarding Agency Determination: Highlands Act – Not Exempt, Upper Raritan Water Quality Management Plan – Inconsistent.

29. Letter received May 26, 2005, from Glasson Environmental Services regarding property at Flanders Road, Block 7600, Lot 3 Applicant: Mr. Anthony Guidi regarding application for general permit authorization.

30. Letter received May 27, 2005, from State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection regarding Marfon Business Park, Block 8300, Lot 6 (248 Sandshore Road) Agency Determination: Highlands Act – Exempt Water Quality Management Plan – Consistent.

31. Letter received May 31, 2005, from State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection regarding Treatment Works Approval, Lakeview Estates.

32. Letter received May 31, 2005, from the State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection regarding Treatment Works Approval Oak Hill I Section II, Mount Olive Township.

33. Letter received May 31, 2005, from State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection regarding Treatment Works Approval, Woodfield at Mount Olive, Section II-B.

34. Letter received May 31, 2005, from State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection regarding Treatment Works Approval, Oak Hill I / Section III at Mount Olive.

35. Letter received May 31, 2005, from State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection regarding Treatment Works Approval, Woodfield at Mount Olive, Section IIC, Mount Olive Twp.

36. Letter received May 31, 2005, from State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection regarding Treatment Works Approval, Woodfield at Mount Olive, Sections IIA, IIC, IIIA.

37. Letter received May 31, 2005, from State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection regarding Treatment Works Approval, Paragon Village, Mount Olive Township.

38. Letter received May 31, 2005, from State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection regarding Treatment Works Approval, Oak Hill II at Mount Olive.

39. Letter received June 2, 2005, from State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection regarding Shell Service Station (285 Route 206, Flanders) Underground Storage Tank Piping Closure Report received March 8, 2005, and Remedial Investigation Report received March 8, 2005.

40. Letter received June 3, 2005, from State of New Jersey, Department of Transportation regarding Transportation Enhancement Program.

41. Letter received June 6, 2005, from State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection regarding Hackettstown MUA Application number 5145.

42. Letter received June 7, 2005, from State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection regarding Treatment Works Facility, Woodfield at Mount Olive, Section III-B.

43. Letter received June 7, 2005, from State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection regarding Treatment Works Approval, Woodfield at Mount Olive, Section III-C.

44. Letter received June 7, 2005, from State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection regarding Modification of a Recycling Center General Approval for Class B/C Recycling Center, Morris County Recycling Center Block 400,401 Lot 4 (Waterlooo Road).

45. Letter received June 8, 2005, from State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection regarding Letter of Record of Meeting Regarding Application for Highlands Preservation Area Approval Applicant: Tariq Mahmood Block 5300, Lot 16 (226 Route 206).

46. Letter received June 8, 2005, from State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection regarding Treatment Works Approval Permit No. 04-0106, Woodfield at Mount Olive, Section III-A.

47. Letter received June 9, 2005, from State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection regarding Treatment Works Approval, Rachel Manor Estates, Mount Olive Township.

48. Letter received June 9, 2005, from J. Edward Palmer regarding Gruendyke Mill Dam Removal and Riparian Corridor Restoration in the Watershed of, and within the Musconetcong River – Town of Hackettstown.

49. Letter received June 10, 2005, from State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection regarding Letter of Interpretation – Line Verification, Applicant: The Rockefeller Group Block 104, Lots 2 & 4 and Block 107 Lot 3.

LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALITIES

50. Letter received May 25, 2005, from New Jersey State League of Municipalities regarding League Seminar Summit / “The Status of Verizon System – Wide Video Telecommunications Franchise.”

51. Letter received May 27, 2005, from Morris County League of Municipalities regarding Buffet at the Meadow Wood Manor / Program: Morris County Diversity Traveling Team.

52. Mayors Fax Advisory received May 31, 2005, from New Jersey State League of Municipalities regarding June 16th Rally for Constitutional Convention.

53. Letter received June 3, 2005, from New Jersey State League of Municipalities regarding the League’s 90th Annual Conference / Hotel Reservation Information.

MUA / MSA

54. Letter received May 23, 2005, from Hackettstown MUA regarding HMUA Water / Sewer.

55. Minutes received June 3, 2005, from Musconetcong Sewerage Authority regarding May 11, 2005 meeting.

56. Letter received June 6, 2005, from Musconetcong Sewerage Authority regarding the MSA Audit.

UTILTIES

57. Letter received May 23, 2005, from Comcast regarding local cable television franchising benefits.

58. Fax received June 3, 2005, from Cabelvision regarding statewide franchising legislation.

59. Letter received June 6, 2005, from New Jersey Natural Gas regarding Transition Commercial and Industrial Customers from Periodic BGSS Pricing.

MISCELLANEOUS

60. Letter received May 25, 2005, from State of New Jersey, Department of Community Affairs regarding the latest edition of the Residential Site Improvement Standards.

61. Notice received May 31, 2005, from PMK Group regarding New Jersey Stormwater Pollution Prevention Planning Train the Trainer Workshop.

62. Letter received June 10, 2005, from the Office of the Morris County Clerk regarding Edward J. Dennerlein filing an Independent Petition for Township Council for the General Election – 2005.

LETTERS FROM LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVES

63. Letter received May 20, 2005, from Assemblyman Alex DeCroce regarding Property Tax reform.

64. Letter received June 1, 2005, from Senator Lautenberg regarding long term funding of the nation’s highways and infrastructure.

65. Letter received June 1, 2005, from Senator Lautenberg regarding support for Picatinny Arsenal.

66. E-mail received June 9, 2005, from Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen regarding E-Newsletter Update.

President Greenbaum: Letters, correspondence from residents/organizations. There are 66 pieces of correspondence on the amended agenda. Does anyone have any comment on any one particular piece? Mr. Rattner.

Mr. Rattner: I’m going to have one, it’s just a whole group to the DOT/DEP. We got about, I guess, fifteen to eighteen of them just telling different developers or different people who had approvals that their approvals have been basically cancelled. Now I don’t think, before everybody gets excited, that that’s what they’re saying…they’re saying they haven’t heard anything, because I would imagine, if they got all their approvals prior to the dates, they’re probably still active, right, Mr. Semrau?

Mr. Semrau: Until October of this year.

Mr. Rattner: See, all of these things….each letter was pretty much the same. We have it that you had an approval to get, you know, to do this, we gave you approval in 2001, we haven’t heard from you, it hasn’t been…unless you can prove it’s been completed, you can’t do anymore, but that would go in conflict to both the Highlands and some of the wastewater rules that if you had the approvals before certain dates, you’re still okay and you’re protected for a certain length of time, right? So, it’s just to shake them up?

Mr. Semrau: Yes, I would agree with that.

Mr. Rattner: Yes, because I got excited….you know, you look at that and say what the heck are they doing? Can you imagine the economic loss for half built projects, but it wouldn’t be beyond the DOT…the DEP.

President Greenbaum: Any other comments on correspondence? Ms. Labow.

Ms. Labow: Were the….all the letters that we got for the $5.00 fees, now we’re not going to have that?

President Greenbaum: We got about ten.

Ms. Labow: Yes and we got e-mails and stuff like that, I guess it’s all included.

President Greenbaum: I think that’s all we got were e-mails.

Ms. Labow: They’re all in there, and…

Mr. Rattner: And we’ll probably get now, thank you notes back.

President Greenbaum: It would be nice if the Soccer Club would send out an appropriate e-mail that the $5.00 fee has been rescinded.

Someone from the audience: Inaudible.

President Greenbaum: Okay. Any other comments on any other correspondence?

ORDINANCES FOR PUBLIC HEARING

President Greenbaum: Seeing none, we’ll move on. Ordinances for Public Hearing. The first Ordinance for Public Hearing is Ordinance #18-2005, entitled:

Ord. #18-2005 Bond Ordinance Amending Section 3(e) of 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.

President Greenbaum: Is there anyone from the public who wishes to be heard on this particular ordinance? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and ask Ms. Labow to please move Ordinance #18-2005 for approval.

Ms. Labow: I move for adoption and final passage of Ordinance #18-2005.

Mr. Guenther: It’s been moved and seconded. Council discussion? Seeing none, Roll Call.

ROLL CALL Passed Unanimously

President Greenbaum: Ordinance #18-2005 is passed on second reading and I hereby direct the Clerk to forward a copy of same to the Mayor and publish the notice of adoption as required by law. The next Ordinance for public hearing is Ordinance #19-2005, entitled:

Ord. #19-2005 Township of Mount Olive Morris County, New Jersey Calendar Year 2005 Ordinance to Exceed the Municipal Budget Cost of Living Allowance and to Establish a CAP Bank (N.J.S.A. 40A-4-45.14).

President Greenbaum: Is there anyone from the public who wishes to be heard on this particular ordinance? Seeing none, I’ll close it to the public and ask Mr. Mund to please move it.

Mr. Mund: I move for adoption and final passage of Ordinance #19-2005.

Ms. Labow: Second.

President Greenbaum: Moved and seconded. Any Council discussion? Seeing none, Roll Call.

ROLL CALL Passed Unanimously

President Greenbaum: Ordinance #19-2005 is passed on second reading and I hereby direct the Clerk to forward a copy of same to the Mayor and publish the notice of adoption as required by law.

ORDINANCES FOR FIRST READING – (2nd reading July 12, 2005)

President Greenbaum: The next items for discussion are Ordinances for First Reading, second reading to be July 12, 2005. The first Ordinance #20-2005, entitled:

Ord. #20-2005 An Ordinance Making the Provisions of Subtitle One of Title 39 With Various Traffic Regulations Applicable to ITC Crossing (Phase I) and Regulating the Use of Said Roadways, Streets, Driveways and Parking Lots by Motor Vehicles.

President Greenbaum: Mr. Guenther, can you please Ordinance #20-2005 for first reading.

Mr. Guenther: I move that Ordinance #20-2005 be introduced by title and passed on first reading, and that a meeting be held on July 12th, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. 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. Mund: Second.

President Greenbaum: Discussion? Ms. Labow.

Ms. Labow: I don’t know if….Mr. Casey, at that one section there by the…passed the McDonalds and then the mattress place where they have like six or seven stops signs, is that going to remain like that? Did they…

Mr. Casey: We’ll ask the Chief to come up and answer that. He’s sitting there nodding his head and we want to wake him up.

Ms. Labow: Because we had discussed this at the Planning Board a couple of weeks ago, and…..

Chief Katona: This ordinance will make those stop signs and all the signs that are in place as they are, with the plan that was submitted to the Planning Board, enforceable.

Ms. Labow: That, I understand, but….

Chief Katona: So, the ordinance doesn’t change the location or the design of the traffic flow of anything that’s in place, that’s done by the engineers before the Planning Board.

President Greenbaum: The answer to your question, Colleen, then is, if I understand it, if there needs to be a change, it’s not done by the Police Department through an action of Title 39.

Ms. Labow: No, that I understand, but we had this discussion at a Planning Board meeting, not this past….but it was two weeks before that, and AIG Baker was there for Pet Smart for their approvals for that, and the subject was brought up and Scott Van Ness had mentioned that there was some kind of problem with the State review, because there were so many stop signs at that section there, and I think Gene Buczynski was there at the time and he was going to meet with AIG Baker, and they were going to discuss having a change in that area.

Mr. Buczynski: If I could add just one thing, about a week later, Scott Van Ness and myself met with AIG Baker at that intersection….actually, in that ordinance this called for a removal of four stop signs at that intersection, and at the meeting, at that point, Mr. Van Ness felt, at this point, if he could eliminate the four stop signs, that’s all he cared for at this time, it would be fine.

Ms. Labow: Okay. So, there will be four less in the….

Mr. Buczynski: Four less stop signs, correct.

President Greenbaum: Does anyone else have any comments or discussions?

Ms. Labow: Thank you.

Mr. Rattner: I just want to comment just on that. That’s a lousy design of an intersection. The only way you’re going to correct that, look around at other shopping centers, is eliminate some of the access into that concentrated point. The only time you could probably get the developer to do that is when they come in for approval of something else. If you look at a lot of different parking lots, even Roxbury, which I always said was a bad, you know, a bad design, a learning lesson for bad design, won’t allow that many, they’ll close off….let’s say if you came from McDonalds, you wouldn’t be able to drive that way directly through, because you only have….you have what, about fifteen feet and you’re turning, you know, turning around. It’s just too many cars coming from too many different directions, but that’s really from the Planning Board, and that’s the only time you really get them to change it. You want to put more traffic in that area, correct a situation you already have, so we can accept the extra cars.

Ms. Labow: That’s why it had come up and there was….I just didn’t know if there was any kind of….we’ll see.

Mr. Rattner: Yes, but that’s a Planning Board issue.

President Greenbaum: It’s a terrible…it’s a terrible intersection right there.

Ms. Labow: We’ll have to see if taking four stop signs out is going to make it any different, I don’t know that it’s going to change….

Mr. Rattner: No….eliminate it and then you just have demolition derby.

Mr. Mund: It might make it worse….

President Greenbaum: Alright…let’s not get bogged down, I believe that, from the Council, that we agree with the Planning Board that that issue needs to be taken a look at to the extent that someone comes in for further approvals at the ITC South, it should be raised and the developer should be made to fix the problems with the traffic flow there, similar to the way that we did with the Mall at 206 at Flanders, when they wanted to build that new building, we made them redesign the entire parking lot.

Ms. Labow: Well, according to what Gene said, I guess right now their temporary solution is to take down four stop signs, so we’ll see if the flow improves.

President Greenbaum: I understand that.

Ms. Labow: Is that right, Gene?

Mr. Buczynski: What it is when you come up from, I guess, Wendy’s and you go up to where Pet Smart is going to be and where Babies R Us….that’s considered by the DOT in their ordinance, a through street. So, those four stop signs right there are being eliminated.

Ms. Labow: Okay.

President Greenbaum: I don’t think it’s going to fix the problem personally, because I’ve almost been hit there six times and it has nothing to do with the stop signs.

Mr. Rattner: Yes.

President Greenbaum: Okay, any other discussion on Ordinance #20-2005? Seeing none, Roll Call.

ROLL CALL Passed Unanimously

President Greenbaum: Next item for discussion is Ordinance #21-2005, entitled:

Ord. #21-2005 An Ordinance of the Township of Mount Olive Repealing Certain Fees to be Charged by the Recreation Department for Programs for the Year 2005.

President Greenbaum: This relates to the budget amendments that we just made and I would ask Mr. Rattner to please move this ordinance.

Mr. Rattner: Thank you very much, Mr. President. I move that Ordinance #21-2005 be introduced by title and passed on first reading, and that a meeting be held on July 12th, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. 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 Greenbaum: It’s been moved and seconded, any Council discussion? Mr. Mund.

Mr. Mund: Yes, it says the Ordinance shall take effect the 14th, yet we don’t have the first reading…..

President Greenbaum: It’s retroactive.

Mrs. Lashway: There is a resolution on that is related to this.

Mr. Mund: I saw that one too.

President Greenbaum: Any other comments?

Mr. Buell: What are we going to do with the money that’s already been collected?

President Greenbaum: Go into the general revenue at this point. How much money has been collected?

Mr. Casey: I don’t know, I’ll find out. I know they’ve been collecting for the beach fees. Let me find out how difficult it would be to return it, because I’m not quite sure it’s just fair to say that those of us….those who came in and paid their fees….

President Greenbaum: If it can be returned, it should be returned.

Mrs. Lashway: I spoke with Jill and I think she has a mechanism to do it and she intends to do it.

Mr. Casey: Yes, our intent would be to return it, as a matter of equity.

President Greenbaum: I agree, if it can be returned. I just thought that there would be no way to return $1.00 beach fee that was given to….

Mr. Casey: Well, no the beach fees we collected thus far have been for the season passes….

President Greenbaum: Okay, yes….

Mr. Casey: So, it hasn’t been the $1.00 on the beach. The dollar on the beach, they lost.

President Greenbaum: Yes.

Mr. Rattner: The beach hasn’t opened yet.

Mr. Casey: That’s…yes….so, we’re safe. The beach is opening, I think, this next weekend. So, it’s the people who took out the season passes, so…

President Greenbaum: And we haven’t done….we haven’t collected any of the $5.00 fees?

Mr. Buell: I’m under the understanding that they have collected some of the fees.

President Greenbaum: Well, the sports organization should be able to return those funds to the individuals who registered, correct?

Mr. Casey: I’m not sure that we’ve collected any. I’d have to find out from Jill what we’ve done.

President Greenbaum: Okay.

Mr. Mund: Jim…did we collect any, Jim?

Mr. Buell: Yes, we have, there’s no question that we’ve collected some for the Football.

President Greenbaum: What, the township has?

Mr. Casey: No.

President Greenbaum: Or the sports organizations?

Mr. Mund: The sports organizations have.

President Greenbaum: Well, hopefully the sports organizations will give it back since they made such a….such a valid and strong argument for not collecting it in the first instance.

Someone in the audience: As soon as we get the okay from Jill, we’ll send it out to them.

President Greenbaum: Good, okay. Oh, anyone else with questions on this particular ordinance?

Mr. Buell: Are you going to ask the audience?

President Greenbaum: No, this is first reading. Roll Call.

ROLL CALL Passed Unanimously, except Mr. Mund & Mr. Guenther voted No

Ord. #22-2005 An Ordinance of the Township of Mount Olive Authorizing a Lease Agreement Between the Township of Mount Olive and the Mount Olive Child Care and Learning Center, Inc.

President Greenbaum: Okay, Ordinance #22-2005 is being pulled in light of the discussions we had earlier, it’s being premature at this point in time.

Ms. Labow: Wait, is it premature or do they need this to move forward with something that they….what was it they needed some kind of okay to go forward with…..did we get that?

President Greenbaum: No, this ordinance, as written, talks about the specifics of the….

Ms. Labow: Okay, I think we did the resolution…they just needed some kind of a nod for the other things that they needed and we did that already, right? Okay.

President Greenbaum: Yes, I believe you&rs