MTC Minutes 03-24-09 Print E-mail

 

Montville Township Committee Regular Meeting

Tuesday, March 24, 2009, 6:30 p.m.

Montville Township Municipal Building, 195 Changebridge Road, Montville, New Jersey

 

6:30 p.m. – Statement of Open Public Meetings Act Compliance read by Chairwoman Deborah Nielson:  “As required by the Open Public Meetings Act, adequate Notice of this meeting has been provided which Notice specified the time and place of the meeting to the extent known at that time. The Notice was posted on the bulletin board at the Municipal Building, mailed to The Daily Record, The Star Ledger, and The Citizen as well as other newspapers and it was placed on file in the Township Clerk’s office. This meeting has been properly noticed to the public in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act.”

 

Present:          Committeeman Art Daughtry (arrival 6:40 p.m.)

Committeeman James Sandham, Jr.

                        Committeewoman Jean Bader

                        Committeeman Tim Braden (arrival 6:34 p.m.)

                        Chairwoman Deborah Nielson

 

Also present:   Frank Bastone, Township Administrator

Frances Vanderhoof, Director of Finance

Anthony Barile, Township Engineer

Thomas Mazzaccaro, DPW/Water & Sewer Director

Robert Oostdyk, Township Attorney

Gertrude Atkinson, Township Clerk

 

RESOLUTION NO. 2009-CES-032409 PROVIDING FOR A MEETING NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE NEW JERSEY OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT, N.J.S.A. 10:4-12:  Property Acquisition – Starkey; Tipcor; Contract Negotiations – Mt. Lakes Interlocal Services Agreement Nursing; White Collar Contract; PSE&G; Personnel; and Litigation – Library/Vidris

 

Motion:  Sandham.  Second:  Bader.  All in favor except Daughtry and Braden - absent.  Resolution adopted.

 

At 6:30 p.m. – Closed Session.  At 8:11 p.m. – Public Session.

 

Chairwoman Nielson read the Statement of Open Public Meetings Act Compliance again for the record.

 

Prayer and Pledge of Allegiance led by Committeeman Daughtry.

 

PROCLAMATION HONORING JAGDISH “JACK” DANG:  The Mayor and Township Committee presented the following proclamation to Dr. Jack Dang.

 

WHEREAS, Dr. Jagdish “Jack” Dang was born in India in 1941, and as a young boy suffered from polio; and

 

WHEREAS, He graduated from medical school in 1966 and came alone to America; and

 

WHEREAS, Dr. Dang is a board certified psychiatrist who has practiced medicine for forty years working as a clinician, administrator, faculty member of a medical school, chairman of the department of psychiatry in an urban hospital, and director of psychiatry at several major nursing homes; and

 

WHEREAS, Dr. Dang is a life fellow of the American Psychiatric Association; and

 

WHEREAS, He has been a resident of Montville Township for over thirty years and is    married to Poonam, has two children, Victor and Nita, and five grandchildren; and

 

WHEREAS, Dr. Dang was named Citizen of the Year in 1991 by the Montville Township Chamber of Commerce, and he served as a volunteer for many years on the Township’s 4th of July Committee; and

 

WHEREAS, When his daughter suggested he write something for his grandchildren to              remember their roots, he began writing a time capsule-like journal, which then culminated into the published book, “Ruminations:  Memoirs of a Psychiatrist from India;”

 

NOW, THEREFORE, The Township Committee of the Township of Montville, County of      Morris, New Jersey, does hereby honor Jagdish “Jack” Dang for his            perseverance and many achievements, and on the occasion of his published book, “Ruminations:  Memoirs of a Psychiatrist from India.”

 

Dr. Dang is also a long-time member of the Kiwanis Club of Montville.

 

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

 

NO. 1 – SOIL MOVEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION – BLOCK 13, LOT 22 – 21 ROCKLEDGE ROAD:

 

Mayor Nielson announced this is a continuation of the February 24, 2009, public hearing. 

 

Steven Schepis, Esq., Attorney for the applicant, stated they have answered the questions presented.  Also, they have more information this evening to answer the questions.

 

Joseph Mianecki, Project Engineer, and Marc G. Walker, Design Engineer that prepared the plan for the Board of Adjustment’s approval, present.

 

Schepis reviewed exhibit A6 regarding previous soil movement approvals of over 2,200 cubic yards of fill.  The exhibit shows four soil movement permits that were approved by the Township Committee:  Horan, single-family dwelling, 12,519 c.y. soil, 12 Tara Lane, single-family dwelling, 4,900 c.y. soil, Peter Nagle Builders, subdivision, 57,139 c.y. soil, Bruce Senatore, single-family dwelling, 4,866 c.y. soil.  We are proposing 2,200 c.y. here.

 

Nielson asked how large the properties were.  Listing cubic yards may not tell the whole story.

 

Schepis stated he submitted an Open Public Records request to the Clerk asking if any soil movement permits were denied.  Exhibit A-7 – memo from Township Clerk:  from 1999 to present, the Township did not deny a soil movement permit.  Please take that into consideration.

 

Mianecki stated based on the minutes of the February 24, 2009, public hearing from the Township Clerk, I put together a list of answers to 28 questions – nine pages dated March 20, 2009.

 

Nielson asked if anyone on the Township Committee had any specific questions.  Township Committee – none.

 

Nielson stated she did ask about the lineal feet of walls.  You indicated approximately 400 feet, when it is actually 570 feet.

 

I asked about the number of truckloads to truck the materials in to construct the walls.  The answer is 18 truckloads.

 

Mianecki stated he further clarified also the number of truck trips, as there was a discrepancy between his number and Mr. Walker’s number.  That is item #16 on page 5.  The number is somewhere between 150 and 286 depending on the delivery vehicle size.   

 

Committeeman Sandham stated in your calculation of the movement of the topsoil, you used a depth of three inches yet the ordinance calls for topsoil down to four inches.  Mianecki stated the ordinance calls for four inches to be re-stabilized in an area.  On the side slope on that hill I don’t think there is three inches there.  I was conservative and used the 3 inch number just to give the Committee an idea of how much topsoil could possibly be on that site that we are going to be disturbing.

 

Sandham stated the ordinance also requires the soil be retained on site, and you can’t do that now?  Mianecki stated there is nowhere physically to stockpile the soil on site.   Whatever can be stripped off and preserved will be trucked off site.  When they are ready to stabilize in between the walls and around the house, it will be trucked back in to create the lawn and landscape areas.

 

Sandham asked if any of the other soil movement permits were not going to retain the topsoil on the property.  Mianecki stated he did not believe any of the topsoil in the Tara Lane permit remained on site.  It was buried.  That lot was also very steep.  They had to import topsoil after the fact.

 

Anthony Barile, Township Engineer, stated that particular job, the topsoil did remain on site.  They had to bring in additional topsoil to finish the project.  That is a specific requirement of the ordinance – that the topsoil remains on site.  That needs to be worked out by the applicant or should this application be approved, the condition should be included to grant them permission to remove the topsoil from the site and then return it.   

 

Mianecki stated if the Board wants the topsoil to remain on site, it can remain on site.  It will just get mixed in with the fill and essentially buried.  Barile stated he would recommend if it does get buried onsite, that it gets buried in a nonstructural area.  Schepis stated they can agree to that.

 

Sandham asked if they are retaining the soil in its prior state if they are mixing it and burying it.  Barile stated that is the intent, but sometimes the topsoil is sparse or of very poor quality.  It is difficult to achieve the intent of the ordinance when they have those types of soil conditions.

 

Committeewoman Bader asked if the removal of this topsoil would require an additional soil movement permit.  Barile stated in his opinion that would not require another permit.  It is part of this testimony and would be part of this permit.

 

Mianecki spoke about item #13 – top of Vista Road.  There would be a flagman there.  There would not be any soil movement during times of heavy rain, fog, snow, ice or when school children are being bused. 

 

Nielson asked under item #9 – is that the maximum depth of fill – 17½ feet.  Mianecki stated yes, that would be the maximum.  Nielson asked what portion of this project is resting on existing grade.  Mianecki stated the foundation of the dwelling and the lower retaining wall.  Nielson stated the remainder of the project will be entirely in fill.  Mianecki stated yes.  The driveway naturally will be on existing grade.  Nielson asked the height differential where it sits against the home – the foundation.  Mianecki stated that elevation would be 520.5.  Nielson asked the grade at the bottom of the wall.  Mianecki stated 496 (Nielson and Mianecki were referring to displayed drawing cross-sections).  Nielson asked if they have a cross-section that cuts through to the McNally home.  Mianecki stated he did not do one on that side.  He did one on the other side.  It is pretty much the same.  Five feet between the property line and the face of the wall.  Nielson stated you are looking at 24 feet of gradient change.  Mianecki stated yes, that sounds right.

 

Schepis stated a question was asked as to the CSC Construction project on 12 Tara Lane.  What was the nature of that construction?  Mianecki answered it was a single-family home, very steep lot, not quite as steep as this lot.  ½ acre lot, 4,000 cubic yards of fill.  It required substantial amounts of fill to bring the basement floor up to grade.  It had three tiered walls below the basement.  It puts into perspective that there are other applications within town that required large amounts of fill.

 

Nielson stated I don’t think you can compare apples to apples here.  I don’t know if that was a Board of Adjustment application.  That was a subdivision.  Each neighborhood is unique.  This is a single lot in a developed neighborhood.  Schepis stated this was also a single lot, not part of the subdivision.  Mianeicki stated that road system also had narrow and winding spots.  Nielson stated there were complaints about that soil movement.  Schepis stated he did not ever hear there were complaints about the truck traffic.

 

Marc Walker, Dykstra Walker Design Group, licensed professional engineer, sworn.  Walker displayed the original plan submitted – exhibit A-8.  Exhibit of proposed structure.  This was the plan that ultimately got approved.  27,000 s.f. zone, steep lot, 18,539 s.f.  Complied with the ordinance requirements.  No change in grade more than a foot within five feet from the property line.  Driveway meets the Township driveway standard.  Building height meets the requirement.  Looked at the height from the side yard requirement also.  We complied with that as well.  Complied with the requirement of no increase in the rate of runoff.  Impervious and building coverage also complied with.  Grade at the property line is the way it is today.  Driveway – complied with the 2% within 20 feet of the roadway.  The driveway was looked at by the traffic safety officer and approved.  We also met with Mr. Barile at the site and reviewed a lot of the issues with him as well.  Rooftop grade of the house is only going to be two feet above the road itself. 

 

Nielson asked the elevations relative to the road and to the McNally house.  Walker stated the garage floor elevation is 542, which is approximately 4 feet above the roof peak elevation for the McNally house.  The McNally garage floor is 525.  The two structures are approximately 37 feet apart.  Looking at the McNally’s view from their property onto our property, right now the grade is essentially flat.  We built the grade up along the property line.  Looking across their lot, the grade goes up one foot within five feet of the property line, then goes up six feet, then goes back ten feet, and then it goes up six feet again.  The grade difference from the property line to the edge of the house is ten feet, and that is a sloping grade.  Nielson asked how many feet off their property line.  Walker stated about 23 feet.  It would be about a 2 to 1 slope if it was just graded off without a retaining wall.

 

Nielson stated the garage is at one elevation and then the home drops down.  There are many steps down from that garage.  What is the first floor elevation?  Walker stated 541.  The first floor is actually the middle floor – the living space.  The elevations are 541, 531, 521.  Nielson stated there appears to be a significant differential in the height of the proposed home and the existing structure next door.  Walker stated we have a 12-foot grade differential along our frontage.  Nielson asked if he felt most of the homes follow the topography.  Walker stated essentially yes.  Most of the homes were built prior to the driveway ordinance.

 

Nielson asked if he felt most of the houses step with the grades.  Walker stated he would say yes.  We are located at the high point of Rockledge Road.

 

Nielson stated in general the homes have been built into the land and been made to be compatible with the existing grade.  We are looking at the character of the neighborhood. 

 

Walker stated it is impossible to do that in this situation because of the unique topography this property has.

 

Sandham asked what would be seen from the McNally house if you look straight across.  Walker described the landscape plan.  The retaining walls will be landscaped.  Schepis stated the Board of Adjustment required buffering and a landscaping plan.  They found the landscaping plan sufficient to address the concerns.  He also referred to the resolution of approval.  Schepis stated if we need more time, we will come back.

 

Mayor Nielson opened the public hearing up for public comment.

 

Bill Trautmann, 14 Rockledge Road, Montville, stated at the Board of Adjustment the night the resolution was passed, the person that made the motion said he was sorry for the McNally’s. 

 

Nielson stated they are talking about soil movement tonight.  I ask that your comments be confined to soil movement.

 

Walter Mickowski, 23 Rockledge Road, Montville, referred to an exhibit by Mr. Garrett, licensed architect.  He is not here this evening.  It was part of the record of Board of Adjustment. 

 

Robert Oostdyk, Township Attorney, stated they cannot take his testimony if he is not here.  They can take your testimony.  Schepis stated he objects to this.  The Board of Adjustment rejected many exhibits.  Nielson stated we are going to accept this anecdotally now.  If it goes beyond tonight and it needs to be accepted as expert information, we are going to need some backup.

 

Mickowski stated the applicant did not provide accurate drawings of the elevations.  The numbers were never presented.  McNally’s elevation is 515.  Applicant’s is 541.  26 feet is what Mr. McNally is to see.  The issue of the applicant is how the building is positioned.  The applicant is stating he is only two feet higher than the road, but that is the highest point of the road. 

 

Nielson asked if Mr. McNally would give the applicant’s professional the right to go on his property so they can get accurate measurements.  Mickowski stated the town should have the elevation.  Barile stated the Township only has records if building permits are applied for.  We don’t have elevations on every house in town.

 

Mickowski stated if this application would have the same design as the neighbors, they wouldn’t require soil movement or very little.

 

Frank McNally, 19 Rockledge Road, Montville, stated Tony Garrett is guilty of using the applicant’s information.  Schepis stated he disagreed with that.  The applicant has filed for a house in prior situations that we all find acceptable.  It seems to me that you can build the garage at a higher elevation, similar to what we have, with steps down to the house, and build a house that is acceptable to the neighborhood and is much less of a safety risk than running 300 trucks through a residential neighborhood.

   

Bob Mareiniss, 22 Lake Shore Drive, Montville, stated the applicant is saying in respect to the harmonious nature or lack thereof and to the character of the neighborhood that their proof is that the Board of Adjustment has essentially approved their application.  Yet, the Board of Adjustment did not have the jurisdiction to consider this massive amount of soil and left it to the Township Committee to decide on that.  The Township Committee is trying to determine if this is a reasonable amount of soil.  I believe that the applicant believes this is a rubber stamp that should occur.  He referred to Dennis Hudasko’s, zoning and planning consultant, testimony at the Board of Adjustment.  Schepis objected unless Mr. Hudasko is here in person to give testimony.

 

Oostdyk stated the Board cannot use your testimony as expert testimony unless the expert is here.  You can certainly give your personal opinion.

 

Mareiniss stated he agrees with the expert.  This is a massive earthworks and building façade that is in substantial detriment to the public good.  It is a gross inconsistency with area character.  The proposed earthworks are a development activity which require an amendment of the original major subdivision approval.  The driveway slope standard is misrepresented.  The proposal would be in stark contrast to the other buildings nestled into the natural terrain.

 

Mareiniss stated the current truck route is different that what was listed in the original application.  Barile stated the applicant amended their application to revise their hauling route.  Lt. Peterson did issue a report to the Township Committee.

 

Mareiniss stated he is concerned with emissions.  Also, how will the additional materials be stockpiled?  How many trees are going to be felled in order to accommodate the construction equipment?

 

Nielson stated he has to comply with the municipal tree removal ordinance.   

 

Mareiniss stated he questions the examples that were given for proof that this has been done before.  This is the smallest, steepest lot in the Rockledge area.

 

George Kerrigan, 37 Glenwood Drive, Montville, stated soil – is there any remote possibility that taxpayers’ money can be used to satisfy a judgment for injuries or damages resulting from the decision made by the Township – if the Township was sued. 

 

Oostdyk stated yes, any time the Township gets sued, there is cost to the Township.

 

Sue Trautmann, 14 Rockledge Road, Montville, stated she is worried about 150 trucks dumping dirt along the way, and how is she going to be able to get back and forth to her home.  It is going to be a terrible mess.

 

Nielson stated they are going to go to 10 p.m.  At that time, they are going to take an assessment as to where they are.

 

Nick Gaffney, 29 Lenape Drive, Montville, stated he would like to hear something from the applicant.  Why is the estimated amount of trucks different from the Board of Adjustment hearing and this hearing?  What is to say between now and if the application is granted, that it doesn’t go to 500 trucks?  How many trucks per hour, per day, period of time?  Why, if there was approval years ago for a home that did not generate any opposition from the community, many, many years later he is here with this type of application.  The community does not want it.  The community is asking you not to let this continue.

 

Diana, 6 Virginia Road, Montville, stated it is dangerous walking.  Vehicles are above the speed limit.  Also, commercial vehicles dump stuff.  I am against it.  You are going against the community and the people you represent.  Please don’t approve all these dump trucks.

 

Mary McNally, 19 Rockledge Road, Montville, stated she is a high school student.  She has to walk down Vista Road to get the bus, because her bus won’t even go up that hill.

 

Jeff Weinflash, 51 Stoney Brook Road, Montville, stated some of the questions still remain unanswered.  There is more soil to be moved either onsite or offsite than what seems to have been indicated here.  Mr. Mianecki estimated three inches of topsoil on the site.  I’m not sure what that was based on.  Given the scrutiny of this application, it would seem that soil samples should have been done to see exactly how much topsoil.  Something with the truckloads still does not compute.  I asked a question that was completely unanswered regarding sequence of construction – additional potential soil excavation for the footings of the walls.  That will entail excessive amount of excavation.  It will require a 23-foot wide trench.  I think that would interfere with the wall that was just built.  I did ask that the site contractor should be here to answer a question like that.  It sounds to me that there is going to be very large excavation and no place to put the material.  Getting large trucks onto this property.  It looks to me that they would have to build a landing pad that would require more material.  I think they are going to have to have an extra flagman at the site.  If they are going to build this foundation out of concrete, they are going to require a pump truck, etc.  Where is all that landing going to take place?

 

Dan Richards, 33 Rockledge Road, Montville, stated I had furniture delivered to my house, and they would not come up the road – they could not get around the corner.  You cannot turn a truck around without several flagmen.  The size of the trucks needs to be addressed.  Concerned with the safety of the children.  I don’t think anyone who has the right to build on their property should have that taken away, but within reason.

 

Mareinss stated the environmental assessment – as one of the residents, I would ask that the town send this to the Environmental Commission.  Also, I am confused on the data on the trucks and the frequency of the trucks.  It came out that the trucks would not move during school hours.  With all of that soil, how could the amount of trucks per day fit that window – stacking?  What about the summer?  Will truck movement be restricted?  A lot of people have been asking what the construction sequence is going to be like.  I am asking for a lot more detail on construction methods and the sequence.

 

Joann McMillian, 4 Virginia Road, Montville, stated the trucks are going to do damage to the roads – potholes, etc.  There are safety issues.  It will also be a cost to the town.  A lot of people like to walk.

 

Bob Kincaid, 37 MacLeay Road, Montville, asked if there is a traffic plan.  Nielson stated there will be a traffic plan.

 

Lt. David Peterson, Traffic Safety Officer, stated he and Mr. Barile drove the route.  Because of the bridge weight limits – 15,000 tons, the route had to be changed.  Route 202 up Taylortown Road to MacLaey Road to Virginia to Vista to Rockledge.  Unload and go down Lake Shore to Vista to Valhalla Road. 

 

Barile stated the applicant originally proposed going up Valhalla to Vista.  The County has rated the bridges on Valhalla, etc. to 15,000 tons.  These are not posted.  The County has not done the required analysis to post them.  I advised the applicant of this and recommended that they needed to address this issue.  They amended their application to use the Taylortown route.  I am not pleased with the route at all.  I don’t know what the alternative is to use a legal route.  The County has left us in a very difficult situation.

 

Committeeman Daughtry stated a single-axle dump is roughly 8 yards, tandem 12 yards, tri-axle 16 yards.  Mianecki stated a tandem can go up to 16 yards and a tri-axle up to 20.  If you mandate small trucks going up there, you can use the route, I think, that Mr. Barile would propose you use.  But then it would be 286 truckloads.  I don’t think a tri-axle would ever make that turn at Vista/Rockledge.  I think you are only looking at a single-axle or a tandem and you are running between 160 and 260 truckloads.

 

Peterson stated I know people are concerned about the speeding.  I did a speed survey on Virginia Road – 24 hours a day.  The average speed is 24 MPH.  As far as the roads being damaged, the applicant should put up a bond to the Township.  The applicant should probably hire an off-duty officer to escort these trucks to make sure they travel at the posted speed limit safely to and from the location.

 

Nielson asked about the summertime hours.  Barile stated when school is in session, it is 9 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. and when school is not in session 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.  Nielson stated we have this residential neighborhood with a lot of pedestrian traffic.  Have you examined this application with respect to the neighborhood character?

 

Peterson stated any other work we do in the township, the hours are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.  Nielson stated that is general conditions.  It could be restricted further if neighborhood conditions warrant it.  Barile stated Lt. Peterson and I looked at the area, and we felt that these hours were appropriate.  Peterson stated unless you are against it – then we can change it. 

 

Daughtry asked Mr. Barile if it was in his professional opinion to mandate small trucks so the original route can be used.  Barile stated he believes that original suggested route is the preferable route.  If we could have trucks certified to be within the legal limit of the bridges, then I would recommend that situation.

 

Sandham stated that is a good answer.  Virginia Road is narrow at some points, has ditches, and there are large rocks on the side of the road in some areas.  The first, preferred route, had very few residences on it.  Safety is the biggest concern first.  Peterson stated he would rather have smaller trucks. 

 

Bader stated soil movement Ordinance No. 2005-50, Chapter 12.24 – I don’t feel there has been sufficient testimony in regard to:  Chapter 12.24.040, Section C, #’s 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7.  Chapter 12.24.050.  Chapter 12.24.060, Section A.  Chapter 12.24.070 - I think that is more in-house.  I don’t believe site inspections should be from time to time.  I think they should be bi-weekly or weekly.  Chapter 12.24.120, Sections A, D, and E.  I don’t feel satisfied that those items were addressed.  Nielson stated the burden of proof is on the applicant.

 

Committeeman Braden stated he also has questions on parts of the ordinance that Mrs. Bader mentioned.  Mr. Schepis indicates that Mr. Walker was not given the opportunity to respond to those questions.  I would like to know where we are going with this.  If we are to carry this, and apparently we are, will we be entertaining Mr. Walker again to get into these items?

 

Sandham stated he still has some questions in regard to the ordinance itself.  Most of them were recited by Mrs. Bader.  We have not heard testimony yet as to the impact to the land values of the adjoining properties, which is certainly included in the ordinance.

 

Nielson stated our prevue is limited.  It is limited to the soil movement application as prescribed in our ordinances.  The Board of Adjustment deliberated long and hard over a 2½-year period, and we have numerous documents here that we are reviewing.  We will render our decision independent of their decision, based on our current ordinances.  Ordinance section 12.24.020 – the burden of the proof is on the applicant.  That no soil shall be moved in excess of an amount necessary to reasonably development a property for a use.  I think that is the crux of the matter.  What is a reasonable amount of soil to have a reasonable development?  That is what we are wrestling with.  We understand it is a steep slope.  We are wrestling with that particular statute and charge as well as all of the other items that are listed in our ordinance.  Again, the burden of proof is on the applicant.  You have heard from the community tonight.  They have many concerns about the character of the community as it relates to soil movement.  I don’t think this Board is satisfied with all of the answers thus far, or lack of answers.  I think we will carry this hearing to one more meeting.  I would like to conclude it for all parties at the next public hearing.  I don’t think we are in a position to vote at this time.  Township Committee agreed they would like to continue the public hearing.

 

We are going to close the public hearing tonight, and so at the next meeting we will hear from the experts that would have testimony bearing on this application.  Then we will render a decision.

 

We did ask at the last hearing for the applicant to have all supplemental materials in ten days prior to our hearing tonight.  I know there were some issues as to the minutes, but you took your own minutes, and those documents were not on file ten days prior.

 

Schepis asked which minutes are those.  Nielson stated you took your own minutes and questions from the audience.  The tape of the meeting is available to you, and we did ask specifically that all materials be on file ten days prior for the public’s review, and that did not happen.

 

Schepis stated he apologizes, but he thought they were going to get a list of questions from the Township.  Nielson stated the burden of proof is on the applicant, and the tape is available starting tomorrow.

 

Schepis asked if there will be a list of questions further than this.  Nielson stated you can cull from them tonight, make a list of them, and submit them to our Engineer.  Again, we did not get through some of your testimony – I think you have the flavor of the community, and the questions from the Township Committee.

 

Schepis stated Mr. McNally raised some concerns about the effects of this house on his property.  We are looking for permission to do a survey of Mr. McNally’s property to determine the elevations so that we can address Mr. Sandham’s question.  Maybe we can get permission to survey McNally’s property?  Is that something the Committee would like to see?

 

Nielson answered it is something the Committee would like to see.  Schepis stated he will follow up with Mr. McNally directly and ask for permission.

 

Close public portion and carry public hearing to April 28, 2009, at 8 p.m.  Motion:  Daughtry.  Second:  Sandham.  All in favor.  Motion approved.

 

NO. 2 – ORDINANCE NO. 2009-10 AMENDING CHAPTER 3.02 OF THE REVISED GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MONTVILLE:  Recreation assessment fee.

 

Chairwoman Nielson opened the public hearing.  Hearing no comments, Chairwoman Nielson closed the public hearing.  Motion:  Bader.  Second:  Sandham.  All in favor.  Motion approved.

 

Motion to adopt ordinance:  Sandham.  Second:  Bader.  Roll call vote – Daughtry, yes; Sandham, yes; Bader, yes; Braden, yes; Nielson, yes.  Ordinance adopted.

 

REPORTS:

 

NO. 1 – ADMINISTRATOR:  Frank Bastone, Township Administrator, reported on the Route 202 speed limit reduction request.  They received a letter dated 3/5/09 from the County that based on ten days of data taken by the Police Department, the reduction is not warranted on this section of the roadway.  I spoke to the gentlemen who had initiated the petition today and told him that I would contact him after it was discussed this evening.

 

NO. 2 – ATTORNEY:  No report.

 

NO. 3 – FINANCE:  Frances Vanderhoof, Director of Finance, reported they received the money from the State on the Robbins Tract.  They charged us $23,000 – State charges. Vanderhoof stated there is nothing in writing about interest.  Township Committee decided they need to take this up.

 

NO. 4 – ENGINEER:  No report.

 

NO. 5 – COMMITTEE REPORTS: 

 

Committeewoman Bader invited everyone to the Holocaust Remembrance Day at the Pine Brook Jewish Center on April 20.

 

DISCUSSION ITEMS:

 

NO. 1 – BUDGET:  Bastone reported on the budget information the Township Committee received in their packets.  Township State aid was reduced by $112,548.00.

 

Bastone stated he put together the operating cuts and the staff reductions from last meeting.  We have to come up with an additional $144,932 in order to get to the 3½% levy increase.

 

He is now submitting with this agenda package three additional documents that have to do with cuts that will bring us to the 3½% levy - $13,500 police department operating expenses, $5,000 July 4th, and the potential for not providing free food at Montville Day. 

 

Staff reductions – six personnel – effective date of 7/1/09.  This would realize a reduction in the budget of $123,566.00.

 

Nielson stated this is a tough job.  In addition to the loss of State aid, we have had a number of tax appeals come in.  Since 2006, tax appeals were $1.31 million that were paid out.  Loss of ratables due to tax appeals in 2008 - $5.8 million on the commercial side and $1.3 million on the residential side.

 

These decisions are not based on performance.  They are based on the Administrator’s recommendations and his input from Department Heads, and what is deemed necessary and critical to town operations.

 

Braden stated he would be in favor of laying off personnel as opposed to cutting back hours for numerous employees.  I believe that would be better service to the public.  Combine duties of certain employees.  I will continue to advocate for that over the next few weeks.

 

Sandham asked if he had particular positions in mind.  Braden stated he has some ideas.  I would like to talk to Mr. Bastone about them.

 

Nielson stated she believes there are time constraints – 45 days.  Bastone stated for the positions from last meeting, he submitted to the DOP in preparation for a June 1 effective date.  If decisions are made this evening, it would be effective July 1.  Bastone went over the procedure for layoff notices.

 

Nielson stated they did discuss other towns being in similar situations and asked Mr. Bastone to explore job-sharing options and shared services.

 

Bastone stated for the two police officers, we have the option of proceeding with those layoffs and applying for the COPS grants.

 

Sandham stated you have a police operating expense reduction of $13,500.  Staffing reductions $124,970.  Would rather see expense reductions than staff reductions.  We carried from last meeting Montville Day $25,000 and police overtime July 4th $25,000 – still to be reviewed.  Considering all of the reductions, we have a total pool of $188,000.  We need to come to $145,000.  That means roughly $43,000 can remain intact.

 

Braden stated he thought they discussed at last meeting that it was to late to cut July 4th expenses.  Bastone stated he did speak to the 4th of July Committee, and they expect additional revenue of $5,000.  They have commitments for the fireworks, parade, circus, etc.  The Police Chief was in attendance at the 4th of July Committee.

 

Bastone stated they can cut Montville Day to $10,000 by not providing free food.

 

Sandham stated maybe they can talk to the Police Chief about reducing the overtime for 4th of July.  Bastone stated Chief Cook was at the 4th of July meeting.  The problem is to reduce the overtime, you need to compress the day.  We are looking at that for next year.

 

Sandham stated if they can cut expenses instead of cutting staff, he would prefer that.  Maybe they need to go back to people and ask them to sharpen their pencils to see if there are more expenses they can cut rather than staff.

 

Nielson stated she agrees with Deputy Mayor Sandham; however, Mr. Bastone gave these recommendations to us.  I am not sure all of the Department Heads are fully in agreement with this.   We did give our Administrator a directive to come in at 3½%.

 

Bastone stated he has to submit to DOP by April 15.  Things can change from the time it is submitted.  April 15 is also the date the four personnel covered from the last meeting have to be noticed.

 

Nielson stated the Administrator has direction to look at job sharing with other towns and additional operation cuts.  We need to schedule a budget meeting.  Bastone stated what he needs tonight is to have a decision so he can send a plan to the DOP.

 

Braden stated at the last meeting, they asked Mr. Bastone to speak to the unions.  Bastone stated he has talked to all of the unions.

 

Sandham stated this is just a filing of the plan, but not the actual termination.  Bastone stated this is a plan to be submitted to the DOP.  This is effective July 1.  The layoff notices would have to be May 15. 

 

Sandham stated they can rescind any of these positions up to the point of actual termination.  Bastone stated that is correct.

 

Motion to accept Mr. Bastone’s recommendations:  Daughtry.  Second:  Sandham.  Roll call vote – Daughtry, yes; Sandham, yes; Bader, yes; Braden, yes; Nielson, yes.  Motion approved.

 

Nielson requested Mr. Bastone get back to them on the status of reaching out to neighboring towns, etc.

 

Daughtry asked if they want to have a subcommittee to look at the other towns.  Nielson stated they all have given Mr. Bastone their input.  Township Committee agreed they can send Mr. Bastone their ideas.

 

NO. 7 – EVERY DROP COUNTS PROGRAM:  Susan Marinello, present.  Bastone stated this is the sixth revision to the Every Drop Counts Program.  Mrs. Marinello was asked to get the proposal down to $25,000.  Bastone stated he apologizes, but with all of the budget cuts, they may be looking at deferring Every Drop Counts for 2009.

 

Nielson stated Mrs. Marinello did put a lot of work into this.  I think Mr. Bastone summarized that we are making difficult decisions.  Daughtry stated they are making tough decisions.  It is a great program, but I can’t say in good conscience that we can afford it this year.

 

Braden concurred with Mr. Daughtry.  Bader stated they are going to have to cut it because she can’t justify it. 

 

Nielson apologized to Mrs. Marinello.  We knew it was going to be a difficult year in February when you were here last.  I will go along with majority.  It is a wonderful program.  All kids should see the aquifer.  She is not in favor of cutting it personally, but she will go along with the majority.  It is a suspension for one year.  We need to assess it in the Fall of this year.  They need to appeal to the Board of Education again.

 

Marinello thanked the Township Committee for eight great years.  If you are looking to look at this again, is there any value at this moment to sitting down with the Board of Education and talking about how it is lost or is tonight the decision and you will look at it again in August?  Unofficially, some teachers, board members, and administrators say they would not like to see this lost.

 

Bastone asked Mrs. Marinello do you think they would want to contribute financially?  Marinello answered she does not know. 

 

Daughtry stated this has never happened before.  If there ever was a chance that the BOE would step to the table, it would be now.  I don’t see any problem with approaching the BOE.  Bastone stated he will be happy to go to the Board of Education with Mrs. Marinello.

 

NO. 8 – HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW COMMISSION UPDATE:  Kathy Fisher, Chairperson, HPRC, presented the CLG annual report.  Also, submitted the January and February minutes.  She invited everyone to attend the events at the Doremus House on April 26.

 

PUBLIC PORTION FOR ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA:

 

Jennifer Kane, 22 Peach Tree Drive, Montville, spoke about the power lines.  She is very concerned about them being so close to Lazar Middle School.  She wants to make sure the town is against it, and we are taking some sort of stance.

 

Nielson stated they are going to be drafting a resolution to intervene and join in with the concerned towns.  There is a meeting tomorrow night that she will be attending.  There was funding requested.  We are going to draft the resolution absent funds.  They will be doing that resolution tonight.

 

Liz Sutulo, President, Morris County No. 6, Wharton, NJ, stated she has been in contact with Mr. Bastone along with the attorney regarding the budget and the layoffs.  As you know, we are in negotiations for the white collar contract.  Most of these layoffs involve the white collar people.  We want to be given the opportunity to sit with the negotiating committee to try to come up with different ideas to lessen the layoffs or not even have the layoffs.  We are trying to come up with a resolution, after speaking to the committee, about the negotiation of the potential layoffs.

 

Bastone stated in furtherance of that, you know how to get a hold of me if you need any numbers, as far as working things out.

 

Township Committee agreed – they appreciate the cooperation.

 

Paula Joy, 6 Glenridge Road, Hewitt (employee), stated she would like the Township Committee to consider a one-day event, the money going into that, for somebody’s salary, and paying their mortgage, car insurance, and food bill.  What you are taking away from them for a one-day event.  Even if you have a small loss for a bulk of keeping someone’s salary.  You really need to think about this.

 

Hearing no further comments, Chairwoman Nielson closed the public portion.  Motion:  Daughtry.   Second:  Sandham.  All in favor.  Motion approved.

 

DISCUSSION ITEMS:

 

NO. 2 – UTILITY BUDGET:  Township Committee to get any questions to Mr. Bastone.

 

NO. 3 – CAPITAL BUDGET:  Township Committee to get any questions to Mr. Bastone.

 

NO. 4 – PENSION DEFERRAL:  Bastone stated he just wants to confirm that they are not in favor of the pension deferral.  Township Committee agreed – not in favor.

NO. 5 – PINE BROOK ROAD IMPROVEMENTS – AREA 18:  Barile stated last Fall the Township Committee received a petition from 32 residents from the lower section of Pine Brook Road requesting that road improvements be included in the Area 18 sewer project.

 

Barile stated the road was evaluated, and we came up with one recommendation.  For clarification, Barile described the last two Pine Brook Road improvement projects and their funding.  As for this current section, he can justify the installation of curbing along one portion of it.  Showed sketch. 

 

Bastone stated they are suggesting a meeting of the residents a week from tonight to advise them of the recommendation.  If the Township Committee approves the recommendation, they could move forward with a change order on the Area 18 project.  Belgium block curbing. 

 

Daughtry said in these economic times, we should let the residents know that is the recommendation, and this what we are spending.  If they agree, we go forward.  If they don’t, we don’t do it.

 

Authorization for Mr. Barile to notify the residents and to approve up to a $65,000 change order.  Motion:  Sandham.  Second:  Bader.  Roll call vote – Daughtry, yes; Sandham, yes; Bader, yes; Braden, yes; Nielson, yes.  Motion approved.

 

NO. 6 – VEHICLE USAGE POLICY:  Bastone reported on his recommended amendment to the vehicle usage policy.  He will be making a recommendation that logs be maintained, and he will be giving the Township Committee his recommendation as to the threshold of frequency.  Need to adopt by resolution next meeting.

 

Approve recommended policy and prepare resolution.  Motion:  Bader.  Second:  Braden.  Roll call vote – Daughtry, yes; Sandham, yes; Bader, yes; Braden, yes; Nielson, yes.  Motion approved.

 

ORDINANCE INTRODUCTIONS:

 

NO. 1 – ORDINANCE NO. 2009-11 AMENDING CHAPTER 10 OF THE REVISED GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MONTVILLE AND PROVIDING FOR A YIELD SIGN AT THE INTERSECTION WITH MARGUERITE LANE:

 

Ordinance is offered for adoption on first reading with second reading and public hearing scheduled for April 14, 2009, at 8 p.m.  Motion:  Sandham.  Second:  Bader.  Roll call vote – Daughtry, yes; Sandham, yes; Bader, yes; Braden, yes; Nielson, yes.  Motion approved.

 

NO. 2 – ORDINANCE NO. 2009-12 AMENDING CHAPTER 3.02 ENTITLED “FEES” OF THE REVISED GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MONTVILLE AND ESTABLISHING MEMORIAL TREE PLANTING FEES:

 

Ordinance is offered for adoption on first reading with second reading and public hearing scheduled for April 14, 2009, at 8 p.m.  Motion:  Sandham.  Second:  Bader.  Roll call vote – Daughtry, yes; Sandham, yes; Bader, yes; Braden, yes; Nielson, yes.  Motion approved.

 

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2009-CA7:  Motion:  Sandham.  Second:  Bader.  Roll call vote – Daughtry, yes; Sandham, yes; Bader, yes; Braden, yes; Nielson, yes.  Resolution adopted.

 

CONSENT AGENDA RESOLUTION ITEM A – RESOLUTION ADOPTING A POLICY FOR MEMORIAL TREE PLANTINGS:

 

WHEREAS, the Township Committee has determined that it is appropriate to permit memorial tree plantings at certain municipal locations; and

           

WHEREAS, it is necessary to set certain parameters for the planting of memorial trees.

           

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Committee of the Township of Montville, in the County of Morris and State of New Jersey, that the following policy shall govern the planting of memorial trees on Township property:

 

1. The type and location of the tree shall be approved of by the Director of Public Works.

 

2. The tree and the plaque shall be installed by the Department of Public Works for uniformity and to assure that it does not create a trip hazard or interfere with lawn maintenance.

 

3. The plaque shall be secured in a concrete base or a stone and set into the ground 12 inches deep to prevent easy removal and vandalism.

 

4. The plaque shall be no larger than 8 inches by 12 inches made of cast bronze with provision for securing into concrete.

 

5. The Township Administrator shall approve all other types of installations on an individual basis.

6. The Township Administrator shall approve any memorial message on the plaque.

 

CONSENT AGENDA ITEM B – RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR SUPPLEMENTAL 2009 MUNICIPAL ALLIANCE PROGRAM GRANT FUNDS TO THE COUNTY OF MORRIS:

 

WHEREAS, supplemental funds are available for 2009 Municipal Alliance activities through the County of Morris and

 

            WHEREAS, the supplemental funding of $2,500 requires a 50% cash match of $1,250 from the Township of Montville,

 

            Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Township Committee of the Township of Montville, in the County of Morris and State of New Jersey, as follows:

                 

1.      The Township Committee of the Township of Montville supports the 2009 Supplemental Application for $2,500 to be utilized as follows: $1,250 for REACH (Responsible Educated Adolescents Can Help, $1,250 for Moving Ahead Program.

2.      The Township Committee of the Township of Montville herein commits to the provision of a $1,250 cash match from the 2009 operating budget for the supplemental funding to be allocated in the same manner as described above for the $2,500 supplemental grant funds.

 

CONSENT AGENDA ITEM C – RESOLUTION SUPPORTING PARTICIPATION IN THE SUSTAINABLE JERSEY MUNICIPAL CERTIFICATION PROGRAM:

 

WHEREAS, a sustainable community seeks to optimize quality of life for its residents by ensuring that its environmental, economic and social objectives are balanced and mutually supportive; and

 

WHEREAS, the Township of Montville strives to save tax dollars, assure clean land, air and water, improve working and living environments as steps to building a sustainable community that will thrive well into the new century; and

 

WHEREAS, the Township of Montville hereby acknowledges that the residents of The Township of Montville desire a stable, sustainable future for themselves and future generations; and

 

WHEREAS, the Township of Montville wishes to support a model of government which benefits our residents now and far into the future by exploring and adopting sustainable, economically-sound, local government practices; and

 

WHEREAS, by endorsing a sustainable path the Township of Montville is pledging to educate itself and community members further about sustainable activities and to develop initiatives supporting sustainable local government practices; and

 

WHEREAS, as elected representatives of the Township of Montville, we have a significant responsibility to provide leadership which will seek community-based sustainable solutions to strengthen our community:

 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that to focus attention and effort within the Township of Montville on matters of sustainability, the Township Committee wishes to pursue local initiatives and actions that will lead to Sustainable Jersey Municipal Certification.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Township Committee of The Township of Montville that we do hereby authorize Adam Brewer, Management Specialist to serve as The Township of Montville agent for the Sustainable Jersey Municipal Certification process and authorize him to complete the Municipal Registration on behalf The Township of Montville.

 

CONSENT AGENDA ITEM D – RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES:  Township Attorney.

 

WHEREAS, there exists a need for Professional Services and it has been determined to award a contract as a professional service without obtaining competitive bids or quotations pursuant to the provisions of NJSA 19:44A-20.5; and

 

            WHEREAS, the anticipated term of the contract is not to exceed one year and a proposal has been submitted; and

 

            WHEREAS, the professional has completed and submitted a Business Entity Disclosure Certification which certifies that they have not made any reportable contributions to a political or candidate committee in the Township of Montville for the previous one year, and that the contract will prohibit them from making any reportable contributions through the term of the contract; and

 

            WHEREAS, the Chief Financial Officer has certified that the funds are available for this contract.

 

            NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Township Committee of the Township of Montville in the County of Morris and State of New Jersey as follows:

 

            1.            The Township of Montville hereby awards and authorizes the execution of a Professional Service Contract as follows:

 

            Johnson, Murphy, Hubner, McKeon, Wubbenhorst, Bucco and Appelt – Martin F. Murphy,

Township Attorney – nine months

 

            2.            This Contract is awarded without competitive bidding as Professional Services in accordance with N.J.S.A. 40A:11-5(10)(a) of the Local Contracts Law because said Services are performed by a person(s) authorized by law to practice a recognized profession.  The contract is available for inspection in the office of the Municipal Clerk.

 

            3.            The Business Entity Certification and the Determination of Value be placed on file with this Resolution.

 

            4.            A Notice of this Resolution shall be printed once in the Official Newspaper of the Township of Montville.

 

CONSENT AGENDA ITEM E – RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES:  Labor Counsel.

 

WHEREAS, there exists a need for Professional Services and it has been determined to award a contract as a professional service without obtaining competitive bids or quotations pursuant to the provisions of NJSA 19:44A-20.5; and

 

            WHEREAS, the anticipated term of the contract is not to exceed one year and a proposal has been submitted; and

 

            WHEREAS, the professional has completed and submitted a Business Entity Disclosure Certification which certifies that they have not made any reportable contributions to a political or candidate committee in the Township of Montville for the previous one year, and that the contract will prohibit them from making any reportable contributions through the term of the contract; and

 

            WHEREAS, the Chief Financial Officer has certified that the funds are available for this contract.

 

            NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Township Committee of the Township of Montville in the County of Morris and State of New Jersey as follows:

 

            1.            The Township of Montville hereby awards and authorizes the execution of a Professional Service Contract as follows:

 

            Knapp, Trimboli & Prusinowski, LLC – Fredric M. Knapp, Esq.

Labor Counsel – 4/1/09 – 12/31/09

 

            2.            This Contract is awarded without competitive bidding as Professional Services in accordance with N.J.S.A. 40A:11-5(10)(a) of the Local Contracts Law because said Services are performed by a person(s) authorized by law to practice a recognized profession.  The contract is available for inspection in the office of the Municipal Clerk.

 

            3.            The Business Entity Certification and the Determination of Value be placed on file with this Resolution.

           

4.            A Notice of this Resolution shall be printed once in the Official Newspaper of the Township of Montville.

 

CONSENT AGENDA ITEM F – RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE TOWNSHIP OF MONTVILLE – ROUTE 159WB OVER ROUTE 46EB PROJECT – USE OF MUNICIPAL POLICE AS TRAFFIC DIRECTORS:

 

WHEREAS, the State of New Jersey intends to construct Route 159WB bridge replacement over Route 46EB within the Township of Montville in Morris County; and

 

WHEREAS, the project proposed by the State of New Jersey Department of Transportation may require the use of municipal police for work zone safety operations supplementing the traffic control plan established under the contract for construction of the project; and

 

WHEREAS, the State of New Jersey Department of Transportation has requested that the Township of Montville enter into a Police Agreement and Statement of Costs for traffic directors.  The costs incurred by the Township of Montville Police in connection with the project shall be paid directly to the Township of Montville by the State of New Jersey Department of Transportation pursuant to an agreement attached hereto.

           

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Committee of the Township of Montville, in the County of Morris and State of New Jersey, that the appropriate municipal officials, Deborah Nielson, Mayor, and Richard Cook, Chief of Police, are hereby authorized to execute an agreement between the State of New Jersey Department of Transportation and the Township of Montville to provide for the direct payment to the Township of Montville of costs incurred on the Route 159WB bridge replacement over Route 46EB project for municipal police services in the form attached hereto.

 

CONSENT AGENDA ITEM G – APPROVAL OF 2009 LIMOUSINE OWNER’S AND DRIVER’S LICENSE TO EDWARD ZELDIN.

 

RESOLUTIONS:

 

NO. 1 – RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE RENEWAL OF A JUNKYARD LICENSE TO V & V RECYCLING, INC. – BLOCK 56, LOT 12.01:

 

WHEREAS, V & V Recycling, Inc., the owner of property known as Block 56, Lot 12.01, as shown on the Tax Map of the Township of Montville and also known as 144 Main Road, has applied for the renewal of its junkyard license for 2009; and

 

            WHEREAS, the application of V & V Recycling, Inc. has been reviewed by the Land Use, Health, Police, and Fire Departments; and

           

WHEREAS, the license renewal has been recommended; and

           

WHEREAS, the Township Committee finds that the requirements of the Township of Montville Junkyard Ordinance have been complied with.

           

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Committee of the Township of Montville, in the County of Morris and State of New Jersey, that V & V Recycling, Inc. shall be issued a junkyard license for Block 56, Lot 12.01, also known as 144 Main Road, for the year 2009.

Motion:  Sandham.  Second:  Bader.  All in favor.  Resolution adopted.

 

NO. 2 – RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF CLOTHING BIN PERMITS – 86 RIVER ROAD:

 

WHEREAS, Chapter 5.18 of the Revised General Ordinances of the Township of Montville requires that an individual or organization wishing to place a clothing bin within the Township of Montville obtain a clothing bin permit; and

           

WHEREAS, Chapter 5.18 provides for the Governing Body to authorize the issuance of a clothing bin permit upon finding that the standards and requirements of the Ordinance have been complied with; and

           

WHEREAS, Textile Recovery Services, Inc./Read Foundation, Inc. have filed an application for the placement of five bins on municipal property located at 86 River Road; and

           

WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed by the appropriate Township departments and has been found to meet the requirements contained in the Ordinance; and

           

WHEREAS, Read Foundation, Inc. is a not-for-profit organization and the Township Committee finds that it is appropriate to permit the locations of the bins on municipal property.

           

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Committee of the Township of Montville, in the County of Morris and State of New Jersey, that the application for a clothing bin permit for the year 2009 is hereby granted and the Township Clerk is hereby authorized to issue permits for five clothing bins as set forth in the application of Textile Recovery Services, Inc./Read Foundation, Inc.

 

Motion:  Sandham.  Second:  Bader.  Discussion:  Bader asked if there is any construction there, where will the bins be located?  Bastone stated we can hold this in abeyance, and we can take a look at it.

 

Motion to table:  Sandham.  Second:  Bader.  All in favor.  Resolution tabled.

 

NO. 3 – RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE SALT STORAGE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION PROJECT:

 

WHEREAS, the Township of Montville published specifications seeking bids for the Salt Storage Building Construction Project; and

           

WHEREAS, four bids were received; and

 

WHEREAS, the lowest two bids must be rejected for failure to provide required business registration certifications for the bidder and/or any subcontractor; and

           

WHEREAS, the Township Engineer has recommended that the contract be awarded to Bulk Storage, Inc., the lowest responsible bidder, in the amount of $466,860.00.

           

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Committee of the Township of Montville, in the County of Morris and State of New Jersey, that the Township Committee of the Township of Montville hereby awards the contract for the Salt Storage Building Construction Project to the lowest responsible bidder, Bulk Storage, Inc., in an amount of $466,860.00.

 

Motion:  Daughtry.  Second:  Bader.  Discussion:  Braden stated he thinks there could be substantial savings for the Township.  There were discrepancies in the bids.

 

Sandham stated he does not think he can support this to spend this kind of money in this economic environment. 

 

Braden asked what the impact of holding off for a year would be.  Barile stated the impact would be is they would have to continue operating with the salt dome as it is with the delivery schedule that we have been using and the quantity we can store.  Our portion of the proposed barn would offer us storage of approximately 20% more than we have now.  The main objective was to clear the 86 River Road site of the old structure.  The building we specked out is the building we have been discussing for two years.  It is a replica of the one that is at the County garage right now.  The bid that came is in right within the estimate that was done two years ago.  The funding is in place.

 

Daughtry asked does the County need or want to go forward now?  Barile stated he approached the County about holding off for a year.  They are not pleased about it, but if it has to wait a year, they can live with that.  They raised the issue that we don’t know what the financial climate will be next year.  There could be lower prices or there could be higher prices.  They have a strong recommendation for the award of this bid.  The company that is the lowest responsible bidder built two previous buildings for the County.  They are very pleased with their work.

 

Daughtry stated a Freeholder told them they did cut their budget, but not the budget for the salt barn. 

 

Braden asked how the operations would go at the facility.  Would we both have loaders there?

 

Barile stated the discussions were very preliminary as far as the logistics of the use.  The County’s loader is there.  There would be no sense in having our loader there also.  Whoever needs salt would use that loader.  There would be records kept as to how much the County uses and how much the Township uses.

 

Daughtry stated he needs to remind everyone of the severe ice storm a few years ago – a quick freeze.  A lot of things were discussed.  There were a lot of incentives to co-locating behind the Public Safety Building at the County garage.

 

Vanderhoof stated that money has not been borrowed.  It is has been appropriated, but has not been borrowed.

 

Nielson asked if the current salt barn is in danger of falling down in the next 365 days.  Barile answered not that he is aware of.

 

Roll call vote – Daughtry, yes; Sandham, no; Bader, yes; Braden, no; Nielson, yes.  Resolution adopted.

 

NO. 4 – RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE AWARD OF AN EMERGENCY CONTRACT FOR THE REPAIR OF THE INSULATION ATTACHED TO THE UNDERSTRUCTURE OF THE ROUTE 80 BRIDGE:

 

WHEREAS, the New Jersey Department of Transportation has notified the Township of a “Priority 1” condition under the bridge that goes over Route 80 due to the metal insulation covering a 12” water main attached to the understructure of the bridge that is owned by the Township; and

           

WHEREAS, the NJDOT has notified the Township that it must have this condition repaired as soon as possible in the interest of safety and requires the work to begin within thirty (30) days; and

           

WHEREAS, Water and Sewer Director Thomas Mazzaccaro has requested that the Township authorize an emergency award of contract in order to meet the requirements of the New Jersey Department of Transportation; and

           

WHEREAS, the Township has solicited quotations from contracting companies that have worked on major highways and are equipped for traffic control at night; and

           

WHEREAS, N.J.S.A. 40A:11-6 permits the Township to award a contract without bidding in the event of an emergency which requires the immediate performance of the service; and

           

WHEREAS, the Township Committee finds that an emergency condition which may effect the public safety and welfare requires the immediate performance of the repair service; and

           

WHEREAS, the services procured for this emergency will be of limited duration so as only to meet the immediate needs of the emergency.

           

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Committee of the Township of Montville, in the County of Morris and State of New Jersey, that it is necessary to award a contract for the immediate repair of the insulation covering a 12” water main pipe attached to the understructure of the Route 80 bridge as an emergency without competitive bidding; and it is further

           

RESOLVED that the Township purchasing agent is hereby authorized to procure the contract for this service by the taking of quotations rather than competitive bidding.

Motion:  Sandham.  Second:  Bader.  Discussion:  Sandham asked why this is not the responsibility of the State?  Route 80 is theirs.

 

Thomas Mazzaccaro, DPW/Water & Sewer Director, stated he asked that also.  It is our water line under the bridge.  I estimated the job at $100,000 and the first estimate came in at $90,000.  This has to be done in thirty days.  We have to use the State police.  There will be traffic control by the contractor.  This has to be done at night.

 

Daughtry asked if there is any chance that we can ask if we can use Montville Township Police.  Mazzaccaro stated the State Police monitor the highways.  I don’t know that we will need them, because there will be traffic control by the contractor.  We hope to get it done within three days.

 

Roll call vote – Daughtry, yes; Sandham, yes; Bader, yes; Braden, yes; Nielson, yes.  Resolution adopted.

 

NO. 5 – RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF FUNDS:

 

WHEREAS, various 2008 bills have been presented for payment this year, which bills were not covered and/or recorded at the time of transfers between the Budget Appropriations in the last two months of 2008; and

 

            WHEREAS, N. J. S. 40A-4-49 provides that all unexpended balances carried forward after the close of the succeeding year, to meet specific claims, commitments or contracts incurred during the preceding fiscal year, and allow transfers to be made from unexpended balances which are expected to be insufficient during the first three months of the succeeding year.

 

            NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Committee of the Township of Montville that the transfers in the amount of $1,230.00 be made between the 2008 Budget Appropriation Reserves as follows:

 

                                                            FROM                             TO      

                                   
Administrative & Exec. OE                 $1,230.00

 

Engineering, OE

Storm Water Management                                                   $1,200.00

 

Historical Society                                                                                     30.00

 

Motion:  Bader.  Second:  Braden.  Discussion:  Bader asked about the Historical Society transfer of $30.00.  Vanderhoof answered that was 2008 membership dues for which we just got the bill.

 

Roll call vote – Daughtry, yes; Sandham, yes; Bader, yes; Braden, yes; Nielson, yes.  Resolution adopted.

 

NO. 6 – RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE LISTING OF BILLS AND SIGNING OF CHECKS:  Listing of bills approved; and the Mayor and Township Clerk are authorized to sign the checks.  Motion:  Sandham.  Second:  Bader.  Roll call vote – Daughtry, yes; Sandham, yes; Bader, yes; Braden, yes; Nielson, yes.  Resolution adopted.

 

NO. 7 – RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF 2009 COPS HIRING RECOVERY PROGRAM (CHRP) GRANT APPLICATION TO THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES:

 

WHEREAS, 2009 United States Department of Justice funds are available for the purposes of hiring or rehiring career law enforcement officers; and

 

            Whereas, the Montville Township Police Department wishes to preserve jobs in an effort to increase community policing capacity and crime prevention efforts; and

 

            WHEREAS, Montville Township is facing specific and severe financial challenges causing the need for a reduction of force in sworn police officer positions;

 

            Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Township Committee of the Township of Montville, in the County of Morris and State of New Jersey, as follows:

                 

                  The appropriate officials are hereby authorized, encouraged, and supported to submit the 2009 COPS Hiring Recovery Program (CHRP) grant application to the Department of Justice – Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

 

Motion:  Sandham.  Second:  Bader.  All in favor.  Resolution adopted.

 

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWNSHIP TO JOIN IN A COALITION OF MUNICIPALITIES INTERVENING IN THE PETITION OF PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY FOR ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION LINE EXTENSION:

 

WHEREAS, there is a coalition of municipalities being formed to file a motion of intervention in connection with the Petition of Public Service Electric & Gas Company (PSE&G) filed with the Board of Public Utilities; and

           

WHEREAS, the Township Committee finds that it would be appropriate for the Township of Montville to join in the coalition and to be a party to the filing of a joint motion of intervention on or before April 1, 2009; and

           

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Committee of the Township of Montville, in the County of Morris and State of New Jersey, that the Township Manager is hereby authorized to commit the Township of Montville to a coalition of municipalities jointly filing a motion of intervention in the application pending by PSE&G before the Board of Public Utilities.

 

Motion:  Sandham.  Second:  Bader.  Roll call vote – Daughtry, yes; Sandham, yes; Bader, yes; Braden, yes; Nielson, yes.  Resolution adopted.

 

COMMITTEE REPORTS:

 

Committeeman Daughtry asked the status of the FIOS/BPU.  Bastone stated they are going out to survey the sites. 

 

Daughtry reported Board of Education President Jon Alin reached out to him about working together on the tennis courts.  Bastone answered yes, if they work with us on the maintenance of the fields.  Daughtry stated he just wants to put it out there. 

 

Committeeman Sandham asked for the status of the Kanouse Lane soil movement for the next meeting.

 

Sandham thanked the Township Committee.  Tonight was a tough night.  They made some tough decisions.  Hopefully, they can find money in other ways.

 

Committeewoman Bader - reported previously.

 

Committeeman Braden stated he would like to come up with a paperless system in better economic times.

 

Braden reported Montville Baseball/Softball has proposed dedicating the new playground at the municipal fields to Michelle Sullivan.  He suggested sending it to the Recreation Commission, or Maryann Witty recommended that the Township Committee could do it without sending it to Recreation.

 

Authorize MBSA to name the new playground at 86 River Road Michelle’s Playground.  Motion:  Braden.  Second:  Bader.  All in favor.  Motion approved.

 

Chairwoman Nielson – no report.

 

Meeting adjourned at 11:44 p.m.  Motion:  Sandham.  Second:  Bader.  All in favor.  Motion approved.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

                                                           

Gertrude H. Atkinson, Township Clerk

 

Last Updated ( Wednesday, 29 July 2009 )
 
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack