TOWNSHIP OF WASHINGTON, WARREN COUNTY

                                                                                   Regular Minutes
                                                                                 October 16, 2007

The regular meeting of the Township Committee was held this date at the Municipal/Police Building located on Little Philadelphia Road.  The meeting was called to order at 7:45 p.m. by Mayor John Horensky.

SUNSHINE LAW COMPLIANCE - The Mayor noted that this meeting was being held in compliance with the Open Public Meetings Law of 1975 in as much as a notice had been published in the Star Gazette and transmitted to the Express Times,  posted at the Municipal Building and a copy is in the Clerk’s Office

ROLL CALL: Elbassiouny, present; Kovacs, present; Mueller, present; Horensky, present. Dempski was absent.

SALUTE TO FLAG

APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Kovacs made a motion to approve the Regular Minutes of September 18, 2007, Mueller seconded. All were in favor.

Kovacs made a motion to approve the Executive Minutes of September 18, 2007, Elbassiouny seconded. All were in favor.

ORDINANCES
Elbassiouny made a motion to open Ordinance  07-21- Bond Ordinance to Appropriate an Additional  Sum of $495,000 for Various Building Improvements in, by and for the Township of Washington, in the County of Warren, New Jersey, to Make a Down Payment, to Authorize the Issuance of Bonds to Finance Such Additional Appropriation and to Provide for the Issuance of Bond Anticipation Notes in Anticipation of the Issuance of Such Bonds, for a public hearing, Kovacs seconded.
ROLL CALL: Elbassiouny, yes; Kovacs, yes; Mueller, yes; Horensky, yes.

The Mayor asked anyone that wanted to speak on the ordinance to come to the microphone for recording purposes.

Richard J. Strunk,, 116 Brass Castle Road said,  We are now seeing another bond up for a vote in the amount of $495,000.00.  I continue to urge that no additional funds be allotted until we have actual prices from contractors. I applied for information on estimates on how this amount was arrived at through the “Open Public Meeting Act.” I did receive a hand-written note: “Nothing to give.”  No more money should be allocated without actual cost and the monies should be expressly committed to just those itemized projects.

I fear that any additional money will find its way to pay for other things that we presently have no money to pay for. For example, we have an engineering bill for about $4,300.00 for footing engineering, which we presently have no money to pay. This work was done in February, 2007,  by the new engineer. The bill, for some reason, was not submitted until two days after the bids were received for the new administration building. Normally, these bills are submitted monthly and assigned to their respective projects, as was done prior to January 1, 2007. But now, for this work, if that would have been submitted in a timely fashion, there would not have been enough money available to award the bid for $2,286,162.00 (million) for the renovation.  There is presently only $3,656.01 supposedly available in bond money when the bid was reviewed. That amount is arrived at by my comments of June 19, 2007, which are in your minutes.

Through the Open Public Meeting Act, I have received additional bills of $14,457.50 for the engineering work for surveying the site. Why are we surveying the site? There is no money and we are working on the inside of the building, not the outside of the building. That outside  work was done under the direction of  Studer-McEldowney for about $5,000.00 in 2006.

The law requires for the Chief Financial Officer to supply “A Certification of Funds”, that money is available to sign the contract for the renovation.  When you only have money available of about $3,656.01 and the municipality knows this, as they supplied me with the documents for me to come up with the figures, how can you certify funds when you have outstanding bills of about $4,430.00 and $14,457.60 respectfully?  Isn’t that knowing that money is not available for a project, yet proceeding with it? I believe New Jersey has a law about not doing just that sort of thing.

At the last bond hearing, the Mayor gave a lengthy reply to many of my statements and called them “half-truths.” I believe a good exchange of views is healthy as long as the points taken are factual.

For instance, at the August 21, 2007 meeting,  Horensky stated twice, and I quote from the minutes, they are not building a Taj Mahal. The building does not have granite counter tops in it. It does not have marble floors in the bathroom or on the floors in the foyer. This does not have wood floors, nor does it have the paneling. There is no paneling in the building at all. Ladies and gentlemen, we are not building a Taj Mahal.”

If Horensky were to read his own documents that I received through the Open Public Meeting Act; it shows alternatives from the bidder, Coopersmith Brothers, of $275,500.00. In the alternative bid of Coppersmith’s it shows and I quote:

Alternate: the bidder agrees to furnish and install cherry veneered structural wood panels (plywood) in the interior of the Council chamber as shown on the drawing, $50,000.00.”      That alternate gross amount was shown in the estimate obtained for the 1 million dollar bond estimate from the Township bond meeting.  I believe “there is probably cherry paneling in the Taj Mahal.”

Mr. Horensky, your statement wasn’t a “half-truth,” it was no truth. I did my  research on my remarks. Either you didn’t read your own spec. sheet, or someone is continuing to pull the wool over the taxpayers’ eyes.

An old saying goes, “if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.” It is more apparent to me than ever,  that since  Horensky’s last remarks, we have a poorly designed duck. The Township taxpayer desires better.

Dempski came into the meeting at 7:45 p.m.

Charles Shields, 311 Rt 31 North, just wanted to add to what Strunk said.  He looked at the drawings that were in the building two months ago and from what he could see in the specs, there was nothing on woodwork.  He said two months ago there was a summary of the job and no alternates were mentioned.  So, if they were in there and they were not mentioned, then in the $495,000, part of it was parking lot.  A reliable source to me told me the parking was in the project from the beginning, not now and add more money. So, if they were to believe now for the $495,000, how do they believe the alternates were not in the job and there is no cherry paneling,  you have  to come clean with us.

Ron Greenwald, 6 Roaring Rock Road, said as he understood on the building, it was purchased furnished and asked if this was correct. If so, what happened to the furniture? The Mayor said the furniture was in storage. Greenwald asked if bids had been put out for furniture and how much was being allocated for it.  The Mayor said $50,000.  Greenwald asked if this included the telephone system and it did not.   Greenwald asked if they were going to use telephone system that was there and he was told yes. 

Al Ivany, 1010 Butlers Park Road, said he wanted to voice his continued opposition to spending any more money on the rehabilitation of this building.  He felt the costs should be made to fit the building as it is.  They should use the existing money to redo this building and not spend any more money on it. He would encourage the Committee to shoot down this bond and not spend any more money on the building - enough has been bonded for and enough is available to do this properly.  He wanted to voice his continued opposition on spending any more money on this building.

John Lombard, Asbury Anderson Road, said he came to the meeting to express his opposition to the bond. It sounds like  a code of ethics issue, that a month ago it was a $1 million dollars and now it is $500,000 and there is no check list as to what they are asking for this money and the consequence to the taxpayer at this juncture, based on the population would probably be around $400 per tax payer, if not more.  He wanted to voice his displeasure and asked them to reject this proposal.  He felt if they wanted to pursue this , then it should be put on a referendum.

The Mayor asked if any one else from the public wished to be heard, there was none. Elbassiouny made a motion to close the public hearing, Kovacs seconded.
ROLL CALL: Elbassiouny, yes; Kovacs, yes; Dempski, yes; Mueller, yes; Horensky, yes.

The Mayor said before the Committee moved to take action on this he just wanted to respond to some of the questions and concerns mentioned.  Initially, Strunk had indicated that and correctly so, that paneling was bid in the alternate.  It was expressly stated by the Committee when they went forward with this project that they were building and bidding the project based upon the base bid, there were no alternates included.  So therefore, in the project, there is no alternate that is being considered for paneling at all in the building.

Secondly, there was an issue raised with regard to bills.  Again, Strunk was correct, you cannot pay for bills that you do not have money for.  They have not paid any of the bills.  They have been submitted to the Committee and are under review right now.  They are in discussion with the consultants on these bills, so therefore there has been no impropriety  at all with regard to spending money that had been suggested. There has been no money that has been spent with engineering services that were brought into question this evening. They are all being considered right now and they will be paid when they are determined to be accurate and appropriate.
 
Also, there was a comment made about bills and their timely submission.  Strunk indicated that there may have been some fleecing of individuals.  Bills are submitted by the submitting agency when they submit them.   When Strunk was on the Committee, he reviewed bills that had been submitted by prior engineers that were six to twelve months old.  So it is not uncommon or an engineer for anyone else to submit a bill that is beyond the 30 days.   Therefore, there was no impropriety with regard to submitting bills, the Township does not control when vendors submit their bills to the Township.

There was another comment made with regard to parking and it being told under a reliable source that the parking was part of original specs, it was not.  There had been discussion regarding parking, they had cleaned the site and put stone down for temporary parking and moving of equipment during the work on the building. There was no design work submitted on the original bid, at any time, for a paved parking area that was accepted, so figures had not been included in any project until now on the parking lot.

There was also some questions on why bond numbers were changing. Two meetings ago they had come up with a number that was determined to be high and they went back, reinvestigated the numbers, did some work with the Department of Public Works and have identified some parts of the project that they were originally going to bid and shaved those costs, now they can be done with Department of Public Works Crew.  It will be worked in their time frame and part of their work, as opposed to going out to bid.   This is one of the reasons they sharpened their pencils, they had been asked to do that and they did.

The Mayor said, if you have checked the minutes that were approved at the last meeting,  it was mentioned that Kovacs and Dempski both came back to the Committee with numbers.  They provided the Committee with information, based upon their research in the areas that they were assigned to do.  That led to the basis of the dollar amount you see before you this evening for the bond ordinance. There was thought process in there, they went back sharpened their pencils, went back identified areas that they could perform the work, as opposed to having it go out to contractors and that is a result of seeing a lower bond number here today than what was originally anticipated.

The Mayor said the public hearing was closed and the Committee was now able to move forward with the second reading of Bond Ordinance 07-21.  Elbassiouny made a motion to approve Ordinance 07-21, after public hearing and second reading, Kovacs seconded.  The Mayor asked for any discussion from the Committee. Dempski asked to read a statement into the record.

Washington Township issued $1,500,000 in debt to purchase the B&B building with two adjoining lots.  I believe this was a very wise purchase as it would allow for consolidation of municipal functions, e.g. administration and police, provide property for future community use and a means to facilitate better community interaction with a proper meeting room.

The original estimate provided by ASA, the new architect,  on November 1, 2006 was for $2,045,000, which included a 10% contingency ($190,000). The architectural fees were an additional $120,000 (November 8, 2006).

To date Washington Township has funded and issued debt totaling $3,950,000.  The funds for renovations total $2,450,000.

On January 5, 2007, ASA delivered a new set of plans with an estimate of $2,608,181. These new plans were not developed with input from the entire governing body. No special meetings were held to collect input and to work together to move the project forward.   The plans were again reworked on February 12, 2007 to a new estimate of $1,922,268.  A new roof was then added to make the next estimate $2,148,234 (May 29, 2007).

Being elected to a governing body means making decisions in the best interests of the Township and the community we serve.  These include tough decisions that will not please everyone.  On August 21, 2007 bond ordinance 2007-17 was introduced, for $1,000,000 in additional funds.  This was not passed at the September 16, 2007 meeting.  We have had no special meetings to review an action plan.  Estimates were provided for work that should be included in the original quotation, but no reasons were provided as to why. To this day I have not seen any documentation regarding the seismic regulations. ASA pointed out the deficiencies in the previous architect.  ASA estimates also missed critical areas. In reviewing both sets of plans, Gagne versus, ASA, the scope of the renovations was dramatically increased which caused finishing areas to be under funded.  We even had to spend over $37,000 as the lowest bidder was not properly qualified. If we are now requesting $500,000, what was the $1,000,000 for, what was the thought process behind that?

It has been said we need to work together to move forward. I view this as talk with no intent on any real action.  I have not been privy to the discussions of the redesign of the building.  As such, I have not been given the opportunity to review and offer suggestions. I cannot support this bond ordinance. The finishing costs should have been in the original estimate rather than a last minute add on. The bid awarded was almost $138,000 more than ASA’s estimate.  ASA has proposed an additional $161,500 in fees that would have come from the $500,000 bond. Why would we pay such an amount based on their performance so far?
 
The Township needs to liquidate one of the building lots and its current municipal building in order to negate a portion of the debt and obtain funds required to complete the renovation.

The Mayor said when they talked about the contingency, as Dempski mentioned, there was a 10% contingency based on the building, which was in excess of $100,000.  They have only $45,000 in contingency, they cut contingency costs, with the idea they will reign the costs in as much as they could.  There was a lot of discussion as to the design of the building. There were opportunities for individuals to look at the plans and people had the opportunity to comment. The project itself, although you hear large numbers being put out to you tonight, with regard to the cost of the building, he like Dempski thought it was a wise move to purchase the building.  They not only have a building that is maybe three times the size of what they currently have in two other buildings and have the opportunity to have two additional approved building lots that could be sold at a later date.    Dempski had indicated they should be sold now, but the real estate market is not in a good enough shape right now for the Township to get the money needed. It has always been contemplated that the current administration building and lot on the corner of Route 57 and Brass Castle Road would be sold and the proceeds from that would be used to offset the costs of the construction of the new building.  This has been in the works ever since this started. This is a worth while project and needed in the Township and will be needed for the next several decades. 

The Mayor said the additional costs that had been mentioned this evening, most of them, were borne by the fact that code was not considered in the original estimate and design and did not have all the code requirements built into it as it is now. It cost money to bring the building up to code. 

Elbassiouny said the Township has owned this property for 3 years, the whole time that Strunk was on the Township Committee.  There was absolutely nothing done to the building during the entire time. He agreed with Dempski about selling the lots. He also stated previously that in order to get top dollar for the lots, they have to finish the current building first. There has been numerous mistakes with the building from day one and there is no reason to point fingers. He promised, when he got elected, to help make a difference and help move the project forward.  There are contractors working on the building.    The biggest problem is, the whole township, plus the Committee were mislead on the initial estimates.  Strunk said if it looks like a duck, smells like a duck and sounds like a duck, it must be a duck.   Ladies and Gentlemen, for the last three years the building has been a duck, so it is time to stop quacking and have some action. This project needs to be finished, enough is enough.
ROLL CALL: Elbassiouny, yes; Kovacs, yes; Dempski, no; Mueller, no; Horensky, yes.
The Mayor said they did not have required number of votes, so the bond did not pass. So, basically there is a building that they cannot move into.
 
RESOLUTIONS
The Mayor advised that any item for discussion should be removed prior to approval.  Otherwise, one motion will cover all items on Consent a  Agenda. Lavery asked that Resolution 07-105 on the curfew be pulled. Kovacs made a motion to approve Resolutions 07-102 through 07-104 and 07-106 through and including 07-108, Dempski seconded.
ROLL CALL: Kovacs, yes; Dempski, yes; Elbassiouny, yes; Mueller, yes; Horensky, yes.
07-102 Refund Resolution/Committeeman Donations/Strunk
07-103 Refund Resolution/Pavilion Rental by Karen War
07-104 Refund Resolution/Emergency Repairs made by RJR Eng. Co., Inc.
07-106 Cancellation of Unexpended Escrow Balance for OWL Contracting/Police Outside Escrow Account
07-107 Refund Resolution, Block 38, Lot 21
07-108 Refund Resolution, Various Properties

REPORTS FROM STAFF & PROFESSIONALS
There were no reports.

PUBLIC QUESTIONS & CONCERNS
Charles Shields - 311 Rt 31 North said that two months ago David Williams of DC Williams was at the meeting and asked Elbassiouny about the building permits and costs involved with them. He stated that Washington was $49/$1000, Phillipsburg was $40/$1000, Lopatcong was $43/$1000, Hope, White Township, Liberty, Knowlton and Blairstown a flat rate of $75 and Mansfield was $26/$1000. Elbassiouny was to check into the rates. Elbassiouny said he had spoken with the Code and Construction Officials who made some suggestions, which will not be done until the end of the year.  So, starting in 2008 there will be some adjustments on the rates.

R.J. Strunk, 116 Brass Castle Road,  said recently, in the Express-Times Newspaper, it has been reported that the Township Committee may be in violation of the “Open Public Meeting Act.” But the paper did not mention was  some areas that have not been disclosed.
 
On February 3, 2007, during an executive session, a loud and heated discussion could be heard outside of the meeting room. As Horensky,  Kovacs and  Elbassiouny tried to persuade Mueller to go along with them to vote for a 2.6 million dollar bond for the new municipal building. (4 votes, or a super majority are needed to pass a bond ordinance).  Dempski had left the meeting at 12:10 p.m. for a prior appointment. This can be verified by the fact that coming out of the executive session, Kovacs made a motion to introduce a new bond. Apparently,  Mueller would not be the 4th vote for such a waste of money. The bond was defeated later.

The Township minutes reflect and I quote, “the Mayor said there was discussion in executive session on contract negotiations, contract with regards to the new administration/police building and personnel issues.” Are they the type of discussions that are being held in executive sessions?  Why should not the public be listening and be informed as to why Horensky,  Kovacs and  Elbassiouny are trying to convince another member to vote for a bond?

On April 9, 2007,  Horensky allowed a public meeting to take place without allowing time on the agenda to be set aside for the public to make comments. Why would you not want the public to speak?

During an executive session on May 29, 2007, a decision  was made not to go forward with a new roof on the police building. The roof contract was approved at the May 15, 2007 meeting  for about $6,500.00. I quote from the minutes: “8. Roof Replacement-Municipal/Police Building and Field House Roof -  Elbassiouny made a motion to approve the roof replacement at Municipal/Police Building and Field House pending availability of funds. Dempski seconded. The Mayor said this would be taken out of the recent bond for the Brown & Brown Building and other improvements.
Roll Call: Elbassiouny, yes ; Dempski, yes; Kovacs, yes ; Mueller, yes;  Horensky, yes

This decision not to go forward with the roof was made behind closed doors at the May 29, 2007 executive session. No mention of this decision was made coming out of executive session at that May 29th meeting. It was not until the following month, June 19, 2007 when I questioned Kovacs and I quote from the minutes: “At this time, is the Committee going forward to repair the roof on the Police Building and stop the leak damage on the million dollar investment on the existing building? Kovacs said, “on the roof, the $6,500.00 was never awarded. Strunk asked if it was going to be (awarded) and if not, what is the reason, why? Kovacs said, “so the Committee will not award, so they have enough money to issue the contract” (for the new administration building). Strunk said that he “is disappointed in the fact that the Township has an existing building that has a leak, which should be fixed, instead of spending money that obviously the Township does not have enough money  to finish another project.” If no mention of the withdrawal of the work was made during the public  session on the open part of the May 29, 2007 meeting, the only time that discussion could have been made was during an  executive session of that meeting.  Information such as this should be on the public record.  If you were not at the meeting and attended it, you would recall the executive session lasted for an hour and one minutes and the regular meeting lasted 31 minutes. The Executive Session was twice as long as the meeting.

We should go back to taping the executive sessions as we had for about the last 15 years, as the past two councils had recommended.   We have not gotten into any trouble in  doing so. It was those taped meetings that helped past committee members, whom I was one of, verify criminal activity involving our past Chief Financial Officer. Without those tapes, proceeding with her removal would have been much more difficult.
    
Since January 1, 2007, we have witnessed Horensky nominate and endorse, an engineering firm for the position of Township Engineer that presently has over $26,484.00 of unpaid engineering bills.  They were warned about this budget over-run by Elbassiouny at the June 19, 2007 meeting. Where is the financial over-site? Where is the committee liaison? Recently, we learned in the Express-Times, that a member of this engineering firm sits on a committee with  Horensky and  Elbassiouny.

I have been involved in the planning of Washington Township  for over 30 years. I have lived here all of my life and I intend to stay here. I love Washington Township. I have been to every meeting in 2007, special meetings and budget meetings, with the exception of July 17, 2007 and September 18, 2007, when I was out of town. During this time, I have not witnessed such a disappointing display of leadership and conduct by the Mayor and some of the committee members as I have in the last 10 months.

At the last public bond hearing, Horensky stated, “trust us, we know what we are doing.”  Mr.  Mayor, they were the right words, just mixed up, “we know what you are doing; many of us just don’t trust what you are doing to Washington Township.”
 
Kathy Enz, 18 Spring Lane, asked if the survey is  in the engineering bill somewhere.  Last month she had attended a meeting and asked the Committee to use some of her tax money to find the public right of way at her driveway.  She was told the survey had been done, even though months ago she was told they would not do it. She has been at the Clerks Office every week since the meeting to see if de Boer has delivered the survey.  She wanted to know if de Boer had it. 

Lavery told Enz that she is presently in litigation with this matter and there is nothing the Township can do that can trump whatever the judge is going to do with her case. Enz said she wanted to know, is there a survey?  

Enz said that Strunk brought up about the  proposed litigation by a gentlemen. This gentlemen contacted her out of the blue, she knows nothing about it, except that somehow they are following Townships for transparencies of government.  She said she is beginning to think this is very necessary, because there are a number of reasons, just in her simple case, where obviously there has been discussion among people who call the shots. 

Enz said the Washington Fire Department and Oxford Fire Department had been to her property and cannot get in the driveway. They were going to write a letter to the Township, because it is in the public right of way.  Then all of a sudden, they refused to write the letters, because obviously somebody told them not to write the letters and get involved with the  litigation.

Lavery said they have gone through this every meeting since he has been here and with all due respect, the fact of the matter is, she is in the middle of litigation and there is nothing the Township can do.  Enz said she just wanted to know if they did the survey.  The courts will have to make a determination if the stone is on your neighbors property, not her property.    Lavery said the problem is that she is in the midst of litigation now.  If that is a true safety issue, her attorney should be able to get an Order to Show Cause and go in front of the judge with it and within 48 hours get the stone removed, if it is that big a health, hazard or safety problem.

Lavery asked de Boer if he every went out and surveyed the property or verify the location of the stone. de Boer said that Bob Miller, previous Township Engineer, was contacted and there has been no response. On the rock, regardless of whether it is in the township right of way or not, it is on the neighbors property.  He said it is not for him to determine if it is in the right of way. Lavery said the surveys that he saw showed the stone is not within the townships right of way. Enz said it was not originally, but it has been hit many times and it is now.

Enz said this obviously shows there is a lot of discussion that is not being held in public. Lavery told her there has never been any discussion regarding this matter outside the public meeting.  The only time it has been discussed is when she comes to the meetings and she has been told the same thing each meeting.

Charles Shields, 311 Route 31 North, said the Township Committee came here tonight to borrow another $500,000.  Two months ago it was $1 million and was voted down and he applauded Dempski and Mueller for doing this.  This is not to say the money is not needed or a portion of it.  You made them all feel guilty, because you said there is a new building, but they cannot move into it.  He felt the proper bids, for what they wanted done, had not been collected and they do not know about it.  If you come back with constructive prices, maybe there will be a willing to talk.  

John Lombard, Asbury Anderson Road, said he objected to what the Mayor said when he spoke. The fact of the matter is it was $1 million and then went down to $500,000, there was no documentation shared with the public.  He said there should be more transparency with the Township Residents, who not only vote for them, but pay the bills.

Lombard said he wanted to make sure that on November 14th, after the election, that the public know  there is a Land Use Board Meeting that is going to talk about the possible revision to the Land Use Charter or Development Plan for the Township. He urged everyone to go on line and read it and they will find objections to this development plan, just as he objects.  Again, there is no transparency. 

Al Ivany, 1010 Butlers Park Road, wanted to applaud the Committee for not passing this bond and he wanted to go on record as saying that he also resents the intimation that it is the public that is holding up this process with this Municipal Building.  This is a process that has been going on for years. If the public had been asked, or in fact embraced, to be part of this process from the beginning, this building may very well be built now.  They are here because they have concerns about the future of their community, it is not the public holding up this process, it is a lack of transparency on the part of this committee.  He said that until the point when the public is part of this process, the way they are supposed to be, he doesn’t think this project should move forward. He resented the intimation that it is the public’s fault that this building is being held up, it is not their fault, it is the Committee’s fault.  (Ended at 8:30 p.m.)
 
The Mayor said that nobody has said the public stopped this project, it has not. This project started back in 2005.  He didn’t know how many of the public attended a Township Committee meeting in 2005 when they started talked about this building.  Where was the public then?   That is his question. The public started to come out when letters were being circulated to people to come out and fight the building.  Why didn’t they come out before that?  They have always invited the public to come to the meetings.  He makes it a point, no matter where he goes, to invite everybody to attend every committee meeting.   He tells them, if you don’t come to the meetings and tell us what your thoughts and concerns are, we sitting up as Township Committee are guessing what you need and want. The only time they will find out if they guessed right or wrong is when there is an election. 

What we are seeing tonight are people that are opposed to what is going on and they have a legitimate right to be opposed to it. My question is, why would they wait until the 11th hour, why did they wait until the election season to come out to do this? These are the reasons that he sees what is happening here tonight. Nobody ever said the public is stalling this building.  You see how difficult it is  for five members of a governing body to come up with a design and plan for a building. Can you imagine if 6000 residents came and sat down and tried to come to a decision? There has to be some responsibility and it was entrusted to  the Township Committee to come and do its job - to put together a building.   Its pretty ironic, when he looks back, when they first started this process and they went with a bond ordinance, it was $2.6 million dollars for the building. If you take a look at all the numbers that have been jockeyed around and played with over the years and add them up, close to $2.6 million dollars.  What happened, when the building was first started and they designed it and were on track. For whatever reason, the Committee decided to pull back funding. They wound up putting it back again, again and again.  They should have, back in the early part of this year, was to pass the $2.6 million dollar bond ordinance, which would have covered all the costs being played with now.

There was no intent by anybody on the Committee to deceive anybody in the public.  They have a responsibility to run the government and to build buildings and maintain the structures.   It costs money. What is going to happen when the roads start to deteriorate,  will the same people be objecting when they go out for a bond ordinance for millions of dollars to improve the roads, to bring them up to speed so they will not fall apart.   These are important issues that deal with the Township and how it will function over the years. Someone has to make the hard decisions and it is the Township Committee’s responsibility to make those decisions. To run government costs money. To do the improvements and provide the services that everybody in the Township wants and deserves costs money.  You have entrusted the ability to do that to this Committee and he believed they take the charges very seriously. 

Elbassiouny said the architect was present at some township meetings with the architectural drawings and they asked the public for feed back.   People could have come out and had their input heard at that time.

NEW BUSINESS
1.Jim Vergos, Washington Township Fire Chief, advised the Committee that he came before the Committee tonight to discuss Chapter 64 of the Washington Township Code Book, entitled “ Development Regulations.” He had made revisions in red in the copy of the ordinance that he would like to see the Committee act upon.  The changes need to be made to maintain their ISO Rating.  Dempski suggested that instead of in (5) making it NJFA 25 that the words latest version be inserted, Vergos agreed.   Lavery will put this into ordinance form for introduction at the November meeting.  Once introduced, an ordinance must be made available to the public.  The Land Use Board will have to review for comment after first reading. Vergos was to bring up his proposals at the next Land Use Board Meeting for discussion.

Vergos said all surrounding municipalities have an ordinance in place for Knox Boxes.  They would like to see an ordinance put in place making it mandatory to be on all buildings.    He will come back at another meeting with this ordinance in draft form to review.

2. Lien on Block 40, Lot 74 - Dempski made a motion to approve the request by the Warren County Board of Health to cut grass and high weeds on Block 40, Lot 74 in the amount of $468.88 and a  lien be put on the property, Mueller seconded.  Elbassiouny asked about the process for this procedure. This must be approved by the Committee for a lien before it goes to Tax Collector.
ROLL CALL: Dempski, yes; Mueller, yes; Elbassiouny, yes; Kovacs, yes; Horensky, yes.

3. Discussion/Medina Consultants - Elbassiouny had met with Medina Consultants.  They are reviewing all their bills and will be coming back with recommendations to him and Dempski.
 
4. Discussion/Tennis Courts - Daryl Detrick, member of Recreation Commission, was present. He said the tennis courts were resurfaced last year and there has been cracking in the tennis courts.  On the western tennis courts there is about 80' of cracking and on the eastern tennis court there is approximately 30' of cracking.  The previous engineer had stated that there would be these issues, because things had not been done properly. The contractor has since patched those cracks. This is similar to patching that was done a number of years ago, that re-cracked at the same time.   The Recreation Commission feels that they paid for new resurfacing of the courts and they were not done properly and this was something the Committee might want to take up with the Township Attorney and look into the possibility of pursuing this further, rather than just the patching issue. 

de Boer said he felt that the Township Attorney should review the information gathered by the Recreation Commission.  They feel it is going to be an ongoing issue and Lavery should review the contract and write the contractor a letter.   There is a history behind the court and how it got to where it is.  There is issues on how the original specifications were done. The original cracks were to be done one way and the contractor did it another way. However, the previous engineer got a major deduct in the contract and got a warranty for five years. In the first year, as previous engineer had warned the contractor, the cracks have reappeared in the same spots as the old spots.   He repaired them, but it is going to be an ongoing problem.

Detrick reported that the cameras have been put in place near the bathrooms and the pavilion. They thanked the Committee for their support in this and the DPW Department for their work at the fields.

5. Resignation of Carl Bundschuh - The Committee accepted the letter of resignation from Carl Bundschuh from the Land Use Board. The Mayor appointed Jim Vergos to fill the unexpired term of Buncschuh from Alternate 2 to fill this position. He also appointed Chris Cavazzini to fill in the Alternate 2 seat.

6. Request from Clerk for transfer of funds for 2006 Codification - The Clerk had put in $2700 for 2007 Codification and it came to $4500. The Clerk asked for a transfer from her O&E of $1800 to get the 2006 codification, which could be done in November.

7. Discussion/Policy Manual/Health Insurance - Lavery said he had spoke with Joe Valenti at DCA, DLGS and their position is that the Township just passes a resolution on part time hours. The Township can assign anybody a number of hours, but it cannot go below 20 hours.  He also got three opinions from labor attorneys and they got the opinion from carrier who says it is 30 hours.

The Mayor said that paid and elected officials have been given the opportunity to purchase medical benefits at the township rate, utilizing their own funds.  There was some concern by Finance as to the language not being clear with regard of coverage, reimbursements and co-pays. After discussion, it was determined that the carrier should be invited to attend the next meeting and these issues be cleared up. Dempski said he did not think the elected official should get the co-pay and deductible reimbursement.

8. Discussion/Memo/Medina Consultants - Dempski requested this be held in Executive Session, because there are issues that must be addressed.   The Mayor said this also falls under New Business #3.

REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS
Samir Elbassiouny had nothing to report.

Michael A Kovacs had nothing to report.

Barry Mueller said the Historical Commission will be collecting  oral historical facts from several long time  residents this Saturday.

A letter has been received from Washington Borough on Shared Services.   Last month it was moved that he and Elbassiouny meet with the Borough regarding the library issue. They will be  getting together and get some discussion going on shared services.  He spoke with Borough Manager and they will get back to him with suggested dates to meet.

Also, the Township is hosting the Warren Morris Council of Governments October meeting on Monday, October 29th and one other member of the Committee can attend if they want to do so. If interested, they should let him know.

David Dempski had no report.
 
Mayor John Horensky said on the letter received from the Borough, regarding setting up a subcommittee to discuss shared services, it is a very wise idea. Mueller said that it was agreed at last months meeting that he and Elbassiouny would meet with them regarding library.  Then a letter was written about shared services, so the entire thing seems to come together and they will continue to serve on this. Elbassiouny said they will also be meeting with the County on the library issue.

He had attended a Block Watch Meeting in the Valley View Estates.  They were also interested in participating in the Township Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Program.

Chief Mc Donald told the Committee that the Washington Township Police Department is hosting a Canine Training Session. He thanked the fire department for the use of their building to host this program, several businesses in the Township and the Department of Public Works for all their work that was done.  Canine Officers and representatives have come from 35 different police agencies.

Michael A Kovacs said that the Betty and Gary Wysocki, Animal Control Officers, have asked for an increase in the dog license fee.  He would like to see the ordinance ready to be introduced in November and public hearing and second reading in December so the new fee can be effective in January.  The rates have not changed in over 20 years. 

PAYMENT OF BILLS
Mueller made a motion to approve the payment of bills, Dempski seconded.
ROLL CALL: Mueller, yes; Dempski, yes; Elbassiouny, abstain ; Kovacs, abstain; Horensky, yes.

EXECUTIVE SESSION
Dempski made a motion to go into Executive Session at 9:15 p.m., for the purpose of Attorney Client Privilege on curfew resolution, pending litigation/Unity Bank, contractional matter/United Telephone Right of Way Agreement/standard renewal of the easement right-of-way, contractional matter/Medina Bills, potential litigation/John Paff and Contractional Matter/Brown and Brown Administration Building.

Dempski said he wanted to clarify something since the United Telephone right of way was mentioned. He wanted this done in open government. Previously he had worked with Lucent Technology for a long time, but recently switched careers to Verizon Wireless.   They had a  lengthy conflict of interest statement that he  had to fill out.   He stated he was a member of the governing body and was working for their suppliers. They called him in to verify the information.  He told them that Washington Township is basically, as part of the Warren County 911 System, utilizing Verizon Wireless for their air card services. This was awarded prior to his becoming a verizon wireless employee and they advised him that he should no longer be signing any telecom related bills, verizon wireless, verizon communications and any discussions on cell towers, any telecommunications at all, he should step out of the discussion for this matter.

The doors were opened. Mueller made a motion to come out of executive session at 10:25 p.m., Dempski seconded.  All were in favor.

Lavery said the Township Committee emerged from Executive Session at 10:25 p.m. where they discussion attorney/client privilege matters dealing with the viability of the curfew resolution, two pending litigation dealing with Unity Bank, which was the deposit check, contractional matter involving United Telephone Right of Way Renewal Agreement, contractional matter dealing with bills from Medina Consultants, Township Engineer, potential litigation matter dealing with John Paff and a contractional matter dealing with the Brown and Brown Building construction.   No official action was taken. Copies of these minutes will be available at such time as the Committee determines there is no harm to the public interest.

The Mayor asked for authorization for Lavery to do the following three items: (1) send letter to architect indicating that he should not incur any additional costs with regard to building, (2) send a letter in response to John Paff and (3)  arrange for a meeting with Medina Consultants with representatives of the Township Committee and himself. Dempski made a motion to allow Lavery to do the three items mentioned by the Mayor, Mueller seconded. All were in favor.

There being nothing to come before the Committee, Kovacs made a motion to adjourn at 10:27 p.m., Dempski seconded.  All were in favor.

Respectfully submitted,

Mary Ann O’Neil/MMC
Township Clerk