T.F. recycling procedures may change
DPW head asks for $900K in capital investments
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
TINTON FALLS — The borough may consolidate the recycling collection because of a lack of manpower in the public works department.
Public Works Director John Bucciero gave a presentation at the Oct. 20 Borough Council meeting, urging the Borough Council to adopt a single-stream policy for recycling pickup.
"I am proposing tonight that the borough start with single-stream recycling," he said. "What I mean by that is currently we pick up recycling in the large blue containers.
"They consist of metal cans, aluminum cans, glass bottles and plastic bottles," he added. "What I am proposing is that all recycling, your newspaper, mixed off ice-type paper and cardboard all go in the same container."
According to Bucciero, the single streaming would offset a lack of manpower currently hampering the department.
"This will save us on manpower," he said. "Currently we are very short on manpower due to attrition."
In a memo to the council Bucciero said he expects the borough to save between $7,000 and $27,600 from vehicle savings and between $1,500 and $7,500 on waste savings as a result of the new program.
He also said he expects a reduction in worker injuries under the single-stream program.
Bucciero said that there is work that should be done within the department that is being neglected because of the shortage of manpower.
"We are using temporary laborers," he said. "There are a lot of responsibilities that we are supposed to do that we are neglecting because of the shortage of manpower.
According to Bucciero, recycling collection now requires a driver and two other workers.
"This will allow us to use the people that are on the trucks now to do those responsibilities," he added. "Once we do go to single stream, I anticipate we can perform all the other duties with the current staff now."
Bucciero said that in addition to the savings on manpower, the new method of recycling would result in a decrease in garbage collected in the borough.
"I think it will prove better for the borough all around," he said. "Statistics have shown that the towns that have gone to single stream have increased their recycling and decreased their tonnage as far as trash goes.
"I guess the biggest reason for that is that it makes it much easier for the residents to recycle," he said.
One of the issues discussed at the meeting was that with single-stream residents may have too much recycling for their container to hold.
Bucciero said that residents could get a second container, just as they can for garbage.
All council members seemed to think the plan is worth moving forward.
"It sounds like a fabulous plan," Councilman Andrew Mayer said. "I think we are going to have increased participation in our recycling program because it's going to make it easier for the folks to recycle."
"Mr. Bucciero put together a good report on this, made a lot of common-sense points that I think our public needs to see to understand what single-stream is." Councilman Gary Baldwin said.
Mayer also noted that the plan is a way to save on manpower.
The mayor and council agreed that it would be a good idea to start a campaign to educate residents on what single-stream recycling is.
"We would do an educational campaign too," Mayor Michael Skudera said. "Get it out in the newsletter. That's the main thing we are trying to accomplish, to increase recycling and reduce cost."
"We should probably put this out on the website," Mayer added.
Bucciero also told the council that the department needs a capital investment of more than $900,000 over the next two years.
He said the funding would allow replacement of equipment such as a 17-yearold four-wheel drive vehicle that has been in use for more than 100,000 miles. Bucciero said the vehicle needs major repairs. He also said the current robotic camera system was purchased in 1996 and is "worn out."
Among his suggestions was that the borough invest $924,408 for a list of improvements including: two new refuse collection trucks at $225,000 each; a four-wheel drive truck at $20,000-$29,000; about 1,100 trash containers; an asphalt hot box at $27,000; an asphalt planer at $20,000; and a robotic camera for sanitary and storm sewers at a cost of $50,000.
Bucciero said the funding has nothing to do with the single-stream recycling proposal.
"The capital is not really involved with the single stream," he said. "We need those same vehicles regardless of whether we do single-stream or not."
Bucciero also said the department is looking into sharing some services with other towns.
"We were entertaining the idea if there was another town that wanted to go in with us on both the camera and the planer," Bucciero said.
Skudera said there has been interest from other towns in sharing the cost of some of the equipment.
"I've talked to a couple of other towns that wanted to go in on this and it is possible," he added. "All these things are nice but we are not going to use them every single day."
Bucciero also said the department is looking into purchasing a hybrid truck, and Mayer said that could have the added benefit of being eligible for grant funds..
"I think it is good that you are looking at a hybrid," Mayer said. "There is a greenhouse gas reduction program that might have grant money available to purchase things like hybrid vehicles. Maybe there's a way to put some grant money into this."
Bucciero said that if the council were to approve the capital investments, it would need to do so soon.
"If we want to move forward with the capital improvement program, it would probably need to be at the next meeting," he said. "You're going to have an ordinance and it wouldn't be able to carry over into the next year."
Borough Clerk Karen Mount-Taylor confirmed last week that a bond ordinance for the full amount requested is expected to be on the agenda for the next meeting (Nov. 3) for introduction.
Council President Duane Morrill said that the investments are needed.
"These are things we absolutely need, so I want to take a look at the best way of getting them," he said.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Long Branch takes steps to 'go green'
Long Branch takes steps to 'go green'
City applies for DEP grants to reduce carbon footprints
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
LONG BRANCH — Energy-saving traffic signals, pocket parks and a proposal for a trolley are among the "green" initiatives the city is pursuing to promote sustainability.
"Going Green" was the topic for the monthly meeting of the Long Branch Concordance on Oct. 20, where Long Branch Zoning Officer Michelle Bernich and Purchasing Agent Carol Mellaci discussed the city's ongoing commitment to adopt environmentally friendly alternatives.
Bernich presented a brief history of what Long Branch has done in recent years to go green at the meeting, which was held at the Brookdale Learning Annex on lower Broadway.
"It started off a couple of years ago when the mayor [Adam Schneider] created the Energy Review Committee," she said. "We talk about what the city can do to make it a better environment."
One of the things the committee has accomplished is implementing a green page on the Long Branch website.
"One of the first things we did was create a green page," Bernich said. "We have tips to let you know what's going on."
Bernich said the committee has been actively involved in recent years in the statewide "Change a Light, Change the World" campaign.
"For the last three years, we've actually been at the top," she said. "We have been doing public events. Everybody can make a commitment and do it in their home."
Bernich said that Long Branch has made a significant effort to switch to LED lights around the city.
"Some of the other things we have done in the city is change to LED traffic lights," she said. "We have already changed the greens and the reds. Every time the yellows are out, those get LEDs."
Bernich said the city has also switched over some of the holiday lighting to conserve energy.
"We've also changed 3,000 Christmas tree lights," she said. "We will be doing that as time and money permit to other holiday lights," she added.
Bernich said the city will adopt a new master plan in the coming months, and one of the things implemented in the new master plan will be more green initiatives.
"One of the key incentives is to have green initiatives for planners, builders and homeowners," she said. "That update is scheduled in the next four to five months.
"We are looking at doing pocket parks and adding green buildings in the design process," she added.
Bernich said the city has recently applied for four grants from the state Department of Environment Protection.
"We submitted four applications to the DEP in their greenhouse gas reduction program," she said.
Two of the applications are to reduce carbon footprints in the city. The third application will go to a proposed trolley car, and the fourth will be for community outreach.
"We are looking to do the trolley from the train to the beach to the business areas," she said. "We are hoping it's free so people don't have to drive.
"The fourth one is for community outreach," she added. "We find that people don't really know what the city is doing or what they should do."
Also speaking at the LBC meeting was Meg Gardner, Clean Ocean Action Citizens' Action and Activities coordinator.
Gardner spoke about the Beach Sweeps program, which takes place twice a year.
"We do them twice a year, once in the spring and once in the fall. We have over 60 sites along the Jersey Shore," she said.
Gardner said the point of the beach sweeps is not just to clean the beaches but also to collect data on pollution sources.
"We collect data every time we do it and compile an annual report every year that lets us look at the trash trends," she said. "That helps us see what is changing over the years and helps us present that information to elected officials and governing bodies so we can enact legislation."
Gardner said a problem with the data is that it is nearly impossible to single out the source of the pollution problem.
"One of the problems is that it is pointless pollution. We can't identify one source of the pollution, it comes from all of us," she said. "Preventing that is coming with more awareness."
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
City applies for DEP grants to reduce carbon footprints
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
LONG BRANCH — Energy-saving traffic signals, pocket parks and a proposal for a trolley are among the "green" initiatives the city is pursuing to promote sustainability.
"Going Green" was the topic for the monthly meeting of the Long Branch Concordance on Oct. 20, where Long Branch Zoning Officer Michelle Bernich and Purchasing Agent Carol Mellaci discussed the city's ongoing commitment to adopt environmentally friendly alternatives.
Bernich presented a brief history of what Long Branch has done in recent years to go green at the meeting, which was held at the Brookdale Learning Annex on lower Broadway.
"It started off a couple of years ago when the mayor [Adam Schneider] created the Energy Review Committee," she said. "We talk about what the city can do to make it a better environment."
One of the things the committee has accomplished is implementing a green page on the Long Branch website.
"One of the first things we did was create a green page," Bernich said. "We have tips to let you know what's going on."
Bernich said the committee has been actively involved in recent years in the statewide "Change a Light, Change the World" campaign.
"For the last three years, we've actually been at the top," she said. "We have been doing public events. Everybody can make a commitment and do it in their home."
Bernich said that Long Branch has made a significant effort to switch to LED lights around the city.
"Some of the other things we have done in the city is change to LED traffic lights," she said. "We have already changed the greens and the reds. Every time the yellows are out, those get LEDs."
Bernich said the city has also switched over some of the holiday lighting to conserve energy.
"We've also changed 3,000 Christmas tree lights," she said. "We will be doing that as time and money permit to other holiday lights," she added.
Bernich said the city will adopt a new master plan in the coming months, and one of the things implemented in the new master plan will be more green initiatives.
"One of the key incentives is to have green initiatives for planners, builders and homeowners," she said. "That update is scheduled in the next four to five months.
"We are looking at doing pocket parks and adding green buildings in the design process," she added.
Bernich said the city has recently applied for four grants from the state Department of Environment Protection.
"We submitted four applications to the DEP in their greenhouse gas reduction program," she said.
Two of the applications are to reduce carbon footprints in the city. The third application will go to a proposed trolley car, and the fourth will be for community outreach.
"We are looking to do the trolley from the train to the beach to the business areas," she said. "We are hoping it's free so people don't have to drive.
"The fourth one is for community outreach," she added. "We find that people don't really know what the city is doing or what they should do."
Also speaking at the LBC meeting was Meg Gardner, Clean Ocean Action Citizens' Action and Activities coordinator.
Gardner spoke about the Beach Sweeps program, which takes place twice a year.
"We do them twice a year, once in the spring and once in the fall. We have over 60 sites along the Jersey Shore," she said.
Gardner said the point of the beach sweeps is not just to clean the beaches but also to collect data on pollution sources.
"We collect data every time we do it and compile an annual report every year that lets us look at the trash trends," she said. "That helps us see what is changing over the years and helps us present that information to elected officials and governing bodies so we can enact legislation."
Gardner said a problem with the data is that it is nearly impossible to single out the source of the pollution problem.
"One of the problems is that it is pointless pollution. We can't identify one source of the pollution, it comes from all of us," she said. "Preventing that is coming with more awareness."
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
District aims for all students to have health insurance
District aims for all students to have health insurance
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
While the national health care debate is raging, the Long Branch School District is taking steps to ensure that all students have health insurance coverage.
With efforts already under way, the district received a $25,000 grant in June for personnel to help with the effort to arrange health care benefits for uninsured students.
Kathleen Celli, head nurse for the school district, said in an interview last week that the goal is to make sure that all Long Branch students have a medical "home."
"We started last year without the grant because we felt that our children needed a medical home whether they had insurance or not," she said. "We had on-site registration, there was communication with the families, and actually it was pretty successful even on our own doing it.
"We applied in April [for the grant] and then got told in June," she added.
The grant money is being used for a bilingual facilitator, which Celli said is working very well.
"We are very happy, very fortunate," Celli said. "The facilitator has really been doing an excellent job with follow-ups and checking with the schools."
Celli said one problem that the district is facing is that a large number of the uninsured do not have Social Security numbers, which makes them ineligible to receive health insurance.
"There are 717 children out of the 5,200 that do not have health insurance," she said. "However, we have 450 of those students that do not have Social Security numbers.
"What we did is, we pulled those names out and there are about 325 students left that we are assisting or going to be assisting with getting New Jersey FamilyCare," she added.
New Jersey FamilyCare is a federal- and state-funded health insurance program created to help the state's uninsured children and certain low-income parents and guardians have affordable health coverage.
Celli said the district was even able to find a solution for the students without Social Security numbers.
"So we have shared their names with the local Monmouth Family Health Center, because they can service those students," Celli said. "We want the children, regardless of their status, to have some place to go in addition to what we do for them."
The district is responsible for sending monthly reports for the duration of the program to the Division of Medical Assistance, which Celli said was done earlier this month.
"Right now the first set of names went to the Division of Medical Assistance," Celli said. "Now they are going to review their names in their databank.
"The other students, we need them to have a medical home," she added. "Every month we have to give a report to the state."
Long Branch School District Superintendent Joseph Ferraina said in an email that the facilitator works 30 hours a week.
Some of the other duties the facilitator handles are: parent conferences, organizing workshop meetings, attending plays, recitals and sporting events, open houses for immunizations, administrating vaccinations at various schools, and visiting local houses of worship.
Ferraina said the program has been a success in the early stages.
"We interviewed every student in the school district to get the status of their health insurance," he said. "Information on the families has already been forwarded to Trenton for their review. We now have a starting place and baseline."
The grant program will end in June 2010.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
While the national health care debate is raging, the Long Branch School District is taking steps to ensure that all students have health insurance coverage.
With efforts already under way, the district received a $25,000 grant in June for personnel to help with the effort to arrange health care benefits for uninsured students.
Kathleen Celli, head nurse for the school district, said in an interview last week that the goal is to make sure that all Long Branch students have a medical "home."
"We started last year without the grant because we felt that our children needed a medical home whether they had insurance or not," she said. "We had on-site registration, there was communication with the families, and actually it was pretty successful even on our own doing it.
"We applied in April [for the grant] and then got told in June," she added.
The grant money is being used for a bilingual facilitator, which Celli said is working very well.
"We are very happy, very fortunate," Celli said. "The facilitator has really been doing an excellent job with follow-ups and checking with the schools."
Celli said one problem that the district is facing is that a large number of the uninsured do not have Social Security numbers, which makes them ineligible to receive health insurance.
"There are 717 children out of the 5,200 that do not have health insurance," she said. "However, we have 450 of those students that do not have Social Security numbers.
"What we did is, we pulled those names out and there are about 325 students left that we are assisting or going to be assisting with getting New Jersey FamilyCare," she added.
New Jersey FamilyCare is a federal- and state-funded health insurance program created to help the state's uninsured children and certain low-income parents and guardians have affordable health coverage.
Celli said the district was even able to find a solution for the students without Social Security numbers.
"So we have shared their names with the local Monmouth Family Health Center, because they can service those students," Celli said. "We want the children, regardless of their status, to have some place to go in addition to what we do for them."
The district is responsible for sending monthly reports for the duration of the program to the Division of Medical Assistance, which Celli said was done earlier this month.
"Right now the first set of names went to the Division of Medical Assistance," Celli said. "Now they are going to review their names in their databank.
"The other students, we need them to have a medical home," she added. "Every month we have to give a report to the state."
Long Branch School District Superintendent Joseph Ferraina said in an email that the facilitator works 30 hours a week.
Some of the other duties the facilitator handles are: parent conferences, organizing workshop meetings, attending plays, recitals and sporting events, open houses for immunizations, administrating vaccinations at various schools, and visiting local houses of worship.
Ferraina said the program has been a success in the early stages.
"We interviewed every student in the school district to get the status of their health insurance," he said. "Information on the families has already been forwarded to Trenton for their review. We now have a starting place and baseline."
The grant program will end in June 2010.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Hearings on asphalt plant continue in T.F.
Hearings on asphalt plant continue in T.F.
Stavola manager testifies plant site is too small
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
TINTON FALLS — The latest in a series of hearings on an application seeking approval for an asphalt plant to be constructed on Shafto Road was held by the Tinton Falls Zoning Board of Adjustment on Oct. 15.
Stavola Realty Co., Tinton Falls, is opposing the plant that is being proposed by FLM Associates.
Stavola Realty is represented by John Giunco, Middletown, who brought Stavola Asphalt Division Manager Fred Wallenquest to provide expert testimony.
The site of the proposed plant is located in the MFG Zone where permitted uses include offices, research facilities, hospitals, veterinary hospitals without outdoor kennels, libraries and parks.
John Tatulli, of Tucci & Tatulli, West Long Branch, represents FLM Associates, which is seeking a use variance and site plan approval for the proposed warm-mix asphalt plant.
Asphalt plants are permitted in another zone in the borough, but zoning ordinances require that they be located on a site of at least 10 acres. The site of the plant proposed on Shafto Road is 4.7 acres.
Wallenquest testified that his main concern with the proposed plant is the relatively small size of the site.
"My concern would be if I had to operate that facility, there is a whole lot going on there on a very small piece of land," he said. Wallenquest was concerned that the stockpiles at the plant would cause problems.
"My concern is the size of the stockpiles," he said, "the ability to bring in material and let the material dry out before you put it in the plant."
Wallenquest said that larger stockpiles mean you don't have to replenish them as frequently, which results in less truck traffic.
"Most asphalt plants store fairly large stockpiles," he said, "so you don't have peaks of traffic.
"You could have a busy day, so you don't have to replenish it the same day," he added.
Wallenquest said that Stavola's stockpiles generally contain a few thousand tons of material. He was unaware how the proposed plant would manage the stockpiles.
"I would have to see how high they stockpile it, how high those walls are," he said. Wallenquest was asked by board Chairman Ron Palmieri what the perfect size for an asphalt plant would be.
"What would be your perfect size asphalt plant area?" Palmieri asked.
"Of course bigger would be better," Wallenquest said. "It allows you the flexibility of moving the materials in the winter with cheaper prices.
"Fifty acres would be great, but as a minimum I would say somewhere between 10 and 15 [acres] would be sufficient," he added.
Plans also call for the plant to use warm asphalt, and Wallenquest said studies on the benefits of this type of mix are inconclusive at this point.
"We don't even know yet the value of that product because it's in a study," he said. "It has yet to be evaluated."
Wallenquest said a study is being done at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, but the results are not in yet.
Wallenquest also criticized the plant because he said it would have to do the recycling of material off-site.
"You lose the benefit of the recycled [material] by not recycling it on-site," he said. "I would compare it to buying locally grown fruit from the West Coast.
"You save on the fuel to move it," he added. "It is more environmentally sound to do the recycling on-site."
Toward the end of the hearing, Tatulli was able to cross-examine Wallenquest. During the cross-examination, Wallenquest admitted he was unaware of a Stavola asphalt plant in Millville and another of the company's plants in North Bergen that both have smaller sites than the proposed FLM site.Also opposing the development is Edgewood Properties LLC, represented by Ron Gasiorowski, Fox Chase Condominiums, represented by Michael S. Karpoff, and Borough Properties LLC, represented by Robert Inglima.
Hearings will continue at the Nov. 5 Zoning Board meeting at Borough Hall.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Stavola manager testifies plant site is too small
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
TINTON FALLS — The latest in a series of hearings on an application seeking approval for an asphalt plant to be constructed on Shafto Road was held by the Tinton Falls Zoning Board of Adjustment on Oct. 15.
Stavola Realty Co., Tinton Falls, is opposing the plant that is being proposed by FLM Associates.
Stavola Realty is represented by John Giunco, Middletown, who brought Stavola Asphalt Division Manager Fred Wallenquest to provide expert testimony.
The site of the proposed plant is located in the MFG Zone where permitted uses include offices, research facilities, hospitals, veterinary hospitals without outdoor kennels, libraries and parks.
John Tatulli, of Tucci & Tatulli, West Long Branch, represents FLM Associates, which is seeking a use variance and site plan approval for the proposed warm-mix asphalt plant.
Asphalt plants are permitted in another zone in the borough, but zoning ordinances require that they be located on a site of at least 10 acres. The site of the plant proposed on Shafto Road is 4.7 acres.
Wallenquest testified that his main concern with the proposed plant is the relatively small size of the site.
"My concern would be if I had to operate that facility, there is a whole lot going on there on a very small piece of land," he said. Wallenquest was concerned that the stockpiles at the plant would cause problems.
"My concern is the size of the stockpiles," he said, "the ability to bring in material and let the material dry out before you put it in the plant."
Wallenquest said that larger stockpiles mean you don't have to replenish them as frequently, which results in less truck traffic.
"Most asphalt plants store fairly large stockpiles," he said, "so you don't have peaks of traffic.
"You could have a busy day, so you don't have to replenish it the same day," he added.
Wallenquest said that Stavola's stockpiles generally contain a few thousand tons of material. He was unaware how the proposed plant would manage the stockpiles.
"I would have to see how high they stockpile it, how high those walls are," he said. Wallenquest was asked by board Chairman Ron Palmieri what the perfect size for an asphalt plant would be.
"What would be your perfect size asphalt plant area?" Palmieri asked.
"Of course bigger would be better," Wallenquest said. "It allows you the flexibility of moving the materials in the winter with cheaper prices.
"Fifty acres would be great, but as a minimum I would say somewhere between 10 and 15 [acres] would be sufficient," he added.
Plans also call for the plant to use warm asphalt, and Wallenquest said studies on the benefits of this type of mix are inconclusive at this point.
"We don't even know yet the value of that product because it's in a study," he said. "It has yet to be evaluated."
Wallenquest said a study is being done at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, but the results are not in yet.
Wallenquest also criticized the plant because he said it would have to do the recycling of material off-site.
"You lose the benefit of the recycled [material] by not recycling it on-site," he said. "I would compare it to buying locally grown fruit from the West Coast.
"You save on the fuel to move it," he added. "It is more environmentally sound to do the recycling on-site."
Toward the end of the hearing, Tatulli was able to cross-examine Wallenquest. During the cross-examination, Wallenquest admitted he was unaware of a Stavola asphalt plant in Millville and another of the company's plants in North Bergen that both have smaller sites than the proposed FLM site.Also opposing the development is Edgewood Properties LLC, represented by Ron Gasiorowski, Fox Chase Condominiums, represented by Michael S. Karpoff, and Borough Properties LLC, represented by Robert Inglima.
Hearings will continue at the Nov. 5 Zoning Board meeting at Borough Hall.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Lawson will decide if blight challenge can proceed
Lawson will decide if blight challenge can proceed
Fuschia Triangle suit hinges on expanding time for legal redress
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
LONG BRANCH — After hearing oral arguments on Oct. 14, a state Superior Court judge will decide whether a challenge to the city's blight designation of a lower Broadway property can be brought 13 years after the fact.
Judge Lawrence M. Lawson will rule on a motion for an enlargement of time filed on behalf of Long Branch property owners by attorney William Potter, of Potter & Dickson, Princeton, who is seeking an enlargement of time in order to argue merits of the blight designation, which dates back to 1996.
Potter, who represents plaintiffs Kevin and Adele Fister, principals in Fuschia Triangle Corp. and Coach Corp., is claiming that the original notice of the blight designation received by the plaintiffs was unconstitutional.
"We are here looking at whether the notice was sufficient to the property owner," he said during the Oct. 14 oral arguments in front of Lawson. "Here we are looking for your honor to grant us the ability to move forward and challenge the constitutionality of the designation."
Long Branch City Attorney James Aaron is opposing Potter. Potter's law partner Pete Dickson also appeared at court.
The property in question is located in the Broadway-Gateway redevelopment zone and is composed of commercial properties made up of five contiguous lots bounded by North and South Broadway, Long Branch Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. The city designated the site blighted and "an area in need of redevelopment" in 1996.
The time frame for challenging the city's blight designation was 45 days, and Potter is seeking to expand that window, arguing that his clients were made aware of the designation but remained uninformed about just what the ramifications were.
"Yes, they knew of the redevelopment designation, but, no, they did not know of the significance of it," Potter said. "Yes, they welcomed it because they were under the misimpression that it was beneficial, and the misimpression was conveyed over and over again by city officials.
"They could not have known what was in store for them," he added.
Potter cited the precedent-setting case, which he successfully argued, Harrison Redevelopment v. DeRose (2008), as a case that is similar in ways.
Potter said the property owners in that case, whose properties were taken by eminent domain, were in a different situation because they received compensation.
"My clients have taken very difficult steps to get here," he said. "They are actually in far worse situation than the property owners in Harrison versus DeRose.
"That property was actually taken by eminent domain, and money was deposited into escrow," he added. "They still had the money available to them."
Potter went on to say that the property in Long Branch has not been taken and this has been a hardship on the property owners.
"They have been tied up for 13 years," he said. "They have been unable to sell their property; they've come very close.
"Each time it's fallen through because this cloud of blight designation hangs over their property," he added. "They are in an even worse situation.
"In Harrison versus DeRose, it was a taking with compensation," he continued. "Here we have a de facto taking without compensation."
However, he argued, the fact that the lower Broadway property is intact makes it easier because nothing physically needs to be reversed.
"It's actually much easier [to base it on] the merits than it was in Harrison versus DeRose," Potter said. "We aren't talking about digging up something that's been done."
In his July 26 motion for enlargement, Potter cited criteria the courts have used to grant enlargements, including substantial and novel constitutional questions and an important public, rather than a private, interest that requires adjudication or clarification as exceptions the courts have used for granting enlargement.
"All the courts have found that if the plaintiff meets one of the categories, then we go to the merits," Potter said. "You don't have to meet all of them.
"When a plaintiff meets at least one category, courts have not looked at whether or not they could have challenged then," he added.
"Here we are challenging the constitutionality," he continued. "Your Honor, in the interest of justice, the enlargement is necessary."
Aaron argued that the exceptions should not always be used.
"The exceptions are just that—exceptions. They are to be used sparingly," he said.
Lawson asked Potter multiple questions during the arguments, including, "When does it end?" regarding the length of the 13-year delay and the possibility that future cases could be sought from further back than 1996.
Aaron contended that the longer the wait, the less of a case for an enlargement.
"The longer a party waits to mount its challenge, the less it has a case for an enlargement," he said.
Aaron argued that through some of the property owners' actions, the plaintiffs were well aware of what the redevelopment designation was well before the 13 years have passed by.
"Courts also consider the length of the delay and the reason for the delay," he said. "It is also appropriate to look at the previous actions or inactions of the plaintiff.
"You have to look at what the parties did or didn't do to make the decision whether or not to enlarge time," he added. "Counsel argues 'My client didn't understand what was going to happen to my property.' "
Aaron stated that the plaintiffs came to the city in 1999, and if they were unhappy with the ruling they should have challenged then.
"Between 1998 and 1999 they actually came to a recommendation to devise a plan that the city would accept," Aaron said. "Suddenly that plan is changed, the city would not accept.
"Why not challenge the plan in 2000/2001?" he asked. "Why not challenge then if you're being harmed by the municipality? Silence is the answer."
Aaron cited the history between the plaintiffs and the city in which they met with city officials to discuss planning for a period around the year 2000 and then were not heard from after that, he said.
Aaron also said that the city was willing to work with the property owners.
"The city has never once said your property is at risk and if you don't do it our way your property is going to be taken," he said. "Never once. The city has been saying we want you to develop it, we want to help you develop it."
Aaron reiterated his point that the plaintiffs should have challenged years ago if they were being harmed.
"There is no basis for this court to reopen what the city did 13 years ago," he said. "To come to the court with the pretense of 'We didn't know what was happening' simply doesn't jibe with the facts.
"If you didn't know, then when did you know?" he added. "It may not be the 13-year delay, it may be the seven-year delay.
"Thirteen years later, after an extensive relationship with the city — good, bad or indifferent — they want to challenge this," he continued.
Lawson agreed that the property owner could have challenged before now.
"What you're asking me to do is expand," he said. "They could have challenged then [2000]."
Potter argued that what has happened during the 13-year period isn't relevant.
"What did or did not happen between 1996 and 2008 has no bearing on anything," he said. "We don't need to go there. I realize the city wants to go there."
Potter also claimed that the city's response to the brief filed on behalf of the Fisters is irrelevant to the request for enlargement.
"What does the city argue in the rebuttal?" Potter asked. "They tried to shift the focus. They tried to simply say 'Mr. Fister, it is all your fault.'
"They want to have a trial on something Mr. Fister did or did not say in 2000-2001," he added. "That is totally irrelevant. It really doesn't make any sense. We'd have to depose witnesses from 1996. We don't need to go there."
As the arguments closed, Lawson said he would reread all the briefs and arguments and rule on the enlargement. No timetable was given.
In the lawsuit filed against the city on April 8, Potter argues that the Fisters have exhaustively pursued alternative courses of action and failed to gain the city's approval of any plans to develop the Fuschia Triangle, one of the city's six redevelopment zones.
The lawsuit claims that in July 2008, a Notice of Tort Claim was filed in an effort to obtain just compensation for the "de facto" taking of the Fuschia Triangle property.
The lawsuit seeks to overturn the blight designation of the Fuschia Triangle and asks the court for compensatory and punitive damages for the "inverse condemnation 'taking' of the Fuschia Triangle that has resulted from the city's ongoing pattern and practice of 'freezing' the Fuschia Triangle in place for some ill-defined future use or redevelopment purpose that may never transpire."
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Fuschia Triangle suit hinges on expanding time for legal redress
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
LONG BRANCH — After hearing oral arguments on Oct. 14, a state Superior Court judge will decide whether a challenge to the city's blight designation of a lower Broadway property can be brought 13 years after the fact.
Judge Lawrence M. Lawson will rule on a motion for an enlargement of time filed on behalf of Long Branch property owners by attorney William Potter, of Potter & Dickson, Princeton, who is seeking an enlargement of time in order to argue merits of the blight designation, which dates back to 1996.
Potter, who represents plaintiffs Kevin and Adele Fister, principals in Fuschia Triangle Corp. and Coach Corp., is claiming that the original notice of the blight designation received by the plaintiffs was unconstitutional.
"We are here looking at whether the notice was sufficient to the property owner," he said during the Oct. 14 oral arguments in front of Lawson. "Here we are looking for your honor to grant us the ability to move forward and challenge the constitutionality of the designation."
Long Branch City Attorney James Aaron is opposing Potter. Potter's law partner Pete Dickson also appeared at court.
The property in question is located in the Broadway-Gateway redevelopment zone and is composed of commercial properties made up of five contiguous lots bounded by North and South Broadway, Long Branch Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. The city designated the site blighted and "an area in need of redevelopment" in 1996.
The time frame for challenging the city's blight designation was 45 days, and Potter is seeking to expand that window, arguing that his clients were made aware of the designation but remained uninformed about just what the ramifications were.
"Yes, they knew of the redevelopment designation, but, no, they did not know of the significance of it," Potter said. "Yes, they welcomed it because they were under the misimpression that it was beneficial, and the misimpression was conveyed over and over again by city officials.
"They could not have known what was in store for them," he added.
Potter cited the precedent-setting case, which he successfully argued, Harrison Redevelopment v. DeRose (2008), as a case that is similar in ways.
Potter said the property owners in that case, whose properties were taken by eminent domain, were in a different situation because they received compensation.
"My clients have taken very difficult steps to get here," he said. "They are actually in far worse situation than the property owners in Harrison versus DeRose.
"That property was actually taken by eminent domain, and money was deposited into escrow," he added. "They still had the money available to them."
Potter went on to say that the property in Long Branch has not been taken and this has been a hardship on the property owners.
"They have been tied up for 13 years," he said. "They have been unable to sell their property; they've come very close.
"Each time it's fallen through because this cloud of blight designation hangs over their property," he added. "They are in an even worse situation.
"In Harrison versus DeRose, it was a taking with compensation," he continued. "Here we have a de facto taking without compensation."
However, he argued, the fact that the lower Broadway property is intact makes it easier because nothing physically needs to be reversed.
"It's actually much easier [to base it on] the merits than it was in Harrison versus DeRose," Potter said. "We aren't talking about digging up something that's been done."
In his July 26 motion for enlargement, Potter cited criteria the courts have used to grant enlargements, including substantial and novel constitutional questions and an important public, rather than a private, interest that requires adjudication or clarification as exceptions the courts have used for granting enlargement.
"All the courts have found that if the plaintiff meets one of the categories, then we go to the merits," Potter said. "You don't have to meet all of them.
"When a plaintiff meets at least one category, courts have not looked at whether or not they could have challenged then," he added.
"Here we are challenging the constitutionality," he continued. "Your Honor, in the interest of justice, the enlargement is necessary."
Aaron argued that the exceptions should not always be used.
"The exceptions are just that—exceptions. They are to be used sparingly," he said.
Lawson asked Potter multiple questions during the arguments, including, "When does it end?" regarding the length of the 13-year delay and the possibility that future cases could be sought from further back than 1996.
Aaron contended that the longer the wait, the less of a case for an enlargement.
"The longer a party waits to mount its challenge, the less it has a case for an enlargement," he said.
Aaron argued that through some of the property owners' actions, the plaintiffs were well aware of what the redevelopment designation was well before the 13 years have passed by.
"Courts also consider the length of the delay and the reason for the delay," he said. "It is also appropriate to look at the previous actions or inactions of the plaintiff.
"You have to look at what the parties did or didn't do to make the decision whether or not to enlarge time," he added. "Counsel argues 'My client didn't understand what was going to happen to my property.' "
Aaron stated that the plaintiffs came to the city in 1999, and if they were unhappy with the ruling they should have challenged then.
"Between 1998 and 1999 they actually came to a recommendation to devise a plan that the city would accept," Aaron said. "Suddenly that plan is changed, the city would not accept.
"Why not challenge the plan in 2000/2001?" he asked. "Why not challenge then if you're being harmed by the municipality? Silence is the answer."
Aaron cited the history between the plaintiffs and the city in which they met with city officials to discuss planning for a period around the year 2000 and then were not heard from after that, he said.
Aaron also said that the city was willing to work with the property owners.
"The city has never once said your property is at risk and if you don't do it our way your property is going to be taken," he said. "Never once. The city has been saying we want you to develop it, we want to help you develop it."
Aaron reiterated his point that the plaintiffs should have challenged years ago if they were being harmed.
"There is no basis for this court to reopen what the city did 13 years ago," he said. "To come to the court with the pretense of 'We didn't know what was happening' simply doesn't jibe with the facts.
"If you didn't know, then when did you know?" he added. "It may not be the 13-year delay, it may be the seven-year delay.
"Thirteen years later, after an extensive relationship with the city — good, bad or indifferent — they want to challenge this," he continued.
Lawson agreed that the property owner could have challenged before now.
"What you're asking me to do is expand," he said. "They could have challenged then [2000]."
Potter argued that what has happened during the 13-year period isn't relevant.
"What did or did not happen between 1996 and 2008 has no bearing on anything," he said. "We don't need to go there. I realize the city wants to go there."
Potter also claimed that the city's response to the brief filed on behalf of the Fisters is irrelevant to the request for enlargement.
"What does the city argue in the rebuttal?" Potter asked. "They tried to shift the focus. They tried to simply say 'Mr. Fister, it is all your fault.'
"They want to have a trial on something Mr. Fister did or did not say in 2000-2001," he added. "That is totally irrelevant. It really doesn't make any sense. We'd have to depose witnesses from 1996. We don't need to go there."
As the arguments closed, Lawson said he would reread all the briefs and arguments and rule on the enlargement. No timetable was given.
In the lawsuit filed against the city on April 8, Potter argues that the Fisters have exhaustively pursued alternative courses of action and failed to gain the city's approval of any plans to develop the Fuschia Triangle, one of the city's six redevelopment zones.
The lawsuit claims that in July 2008, a Notice of Tort Claim was filed in an effort to obtain just compensation for the "de facto" taking of the Fuschia Triangle property.
The lawsuit seeks to overturn the blight designation of the Fuschia Triangle and asks the court for compensatory and punitive damages for the "inverse condemnation 'taking' of the Fuschia Triangle that has resulted from the city's ongoing pattern and practice of 'freezing' the Fuschia Triangle in place for some ill-defined future use or redevelopment purpose that may never transpire."
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Mayor defends finance director's contract
Mayor defends finance director's contract
Citizens group criticizes payout for unused vacation, sick days
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
LONG BRANCH — Mayor Adam Schneider last week came to the defense of city Finance Director Ronald Mehlhorn Sr., who is under fire for contract provisions that allow him to cash out unused sick and vacation days.
"Ron is well paid; he is also one of the best at what he does in the state of New Jersey," Schneider said. "He is in a position where you have tens of millions of dollars coming in every year and going out every year.
"The decisions that he makes, that we rely on him to make, are critical to the taxpayers."
Mehlhorn's contract came under heat at the Oct. 13 City Council meeting. The contract allows the finance director to cash out an unlimited number of accrued sick and vacation days.
Schneider was absent for the meeting but responded in an interview last week and credited Mehlhorn for rarely taking any time off in his more than 25 years of service.
"He rarely takes a day off; it's only in the last couple of years that he did," the mayor said. "If I wanted to call him on Sunday, I'd call him at the office and the likelihood is he'd be there."
Schneider said much of Mehlhorn's contract was carried over from a previous administration in the '80s.
Tensions spilled over last week at the council meeting when a citizens group questioned contracts that allow some highlevel city officials to cash out accrued sick and vacation days.
This comes as the Long Branch Citizens for Good Government discovered through Open Public Records Act [OPRA} requests that Mehlhorn was able to cash out an additional $242,832 in 2006 and 2007 by banking sick and vacation days he has accrued during his more than 25 years of employment.
During the public discussion portion of the Oct. 13 meeting, members of the public repeatedly criticized the mayor and city administration for this practice.
"We in Long Branch need to adopt a use-or-lose policy on vacations," LBCGG spokesman Tom Sheedy said.
"These people supposedly represent the public and the public interest," LBCGG organizer Diana Multare said. "These figures were not easily accessible. They need to come up with an agreement that represents the public interest," she added.
Schneider, however, does not see real savings in the use-them-or-lose them way of doing business.
"The idea that you have to use them or lose, there is a slight savings in there, but it's not a huge number," he said. "So people either have to use their vacation days, which they will, or they'll cash them in every year."
Schneider admitted that the number of days cashed in sounds like a lot, but it also has another meaning.
"There are advantages for both sides when we say we'll pay you for your sick and vacation days," he said. "It sounds like a huge number, it is a big number, but it means he's worked those days."
Schneider was also critical of the timing of revelations about Mehlhorn's contract.
"How much he makes is public record," he said. "When people come up and say, 'Look what we've discovered,' that's false, that's a misrepresentation."
Multare went on to criticize Schneider and question the way contracts are negotiated.
"I don't blame any city employee for trying to get the best deal that they possibly can," she said. "The big question is why wasn't the public represented at the table.
"As we all know, Mayor Schneider controls every dollar spent and every contract negotiated," she said. "And the City Council has to pass on these contracts and budgets."
After Multare spoke, local CPA Lynn Petrovich, who is financial adviser to the LBCGG, spoke about her analysis of the contracts.
She said that the contracts for city employees with 25 years of service or more provide that unused sick and vacation days are compensated at 50 percent of the employee's daily pay rate, not to exceed $25,000. Mehlhorn's contract was different.
"The contract for Mr. Mehlhorn states that all unused sick days should be paid at 100 percent value," she said. "He can accrue an unlimited number of vacation days at 100 percent."
Resident Bill McLaughlin also criticized the city for what he said is the waste of taxpayers' money.
"This is no way to spend taxpayers' money that you are elected to serve," McLaughlin said. McLaughlin refused to blame Mehlhorn for the contract, focusing the blame on Schneider, who was absent from the meeting.
"If he asked for it and you [council members] gave it to him, more power to him," McLaughlin said. "Why did you give it to him?
"I've known Mr. Mehlhorn 20 years. Since you [Mehlhorn] got up there, you got yourself in bad company," he added.
Addressing the council, McLaughlin said, "You gave him that contract to run as your point man."
Both McLaughlin and Multare said that a change in administration is needed.
"If you continue on this track, I think the people of this town should throw you out of office, or run you out of office, or just vote you out of office," McLaughlin said.
"Is it indifference?" Multare asked. "Is it arrogance? As far as I'm concerned, it's time to go. There are other people out there, new blood to take the reins."
At the end of the meeting Mehlhorn responded to the criticism, defending the provisions of his contract.
"I didn't say I never took vacation," he said. "It's long hours and long days. It's a lot of money and I'm not hiding behind that."
Another point the city was criticized for was having more than $10.4 million in liability for sick and vacation time due employees, which is not audited, according to Petrovich.
"What is very interesting is the $10.4 million does not show up for the city's audited financial statements for accrued sick and vacation benefits," Multare said.
Mehlhorn defended the liability, saying that while it is a large number, it won't ever be paid out in full.
"It's a contingency liability fund," he said. "It doesn't appear in any of the city's books.
"It's contingent upon the city having to close its doors and having to pay every penny that it owed its employees," he added. "That'll never happen. If it did, that would be the least of your problems."
Councilman Brian Unger said the problem is on the part of the administration, not the employees.
"I've always enjoyed working with Ron," Unger said at the meeting. "However, I take exception to some of the practices we have here at City Hall.
"We should limit the compensated accrual of vacation and sick days," he said. "It's ridiculous; $200,000 and $300,000 payouts are absolutely outrageous and we can't afford them."
Unger said in an interview last week that he is not opposed giving special contracts to top officials, but he would like to limit the vacation payouts.
"It's deficient as a matter of fiscal policy," he said. "Most management employees are covered by the union contract we have."
Unger said that Mehlhorn, Business Administrator Howard H. Woolley Jr. and Director of Public Safety William Richards are the three city employees with special contracts.
"I'm not opposed to giving them a special contract, but it shouldn't be a violation of the public trust," he said. "I don't get a lot of [complaints] on the base pay from people. I think where people really take issue is these huge bonus payments from sick days."
Unger said the problem goes all the way up to the state level.
"The standards that the State of New Jersey uses are not as stringent as GAAP [Generally Accepted Accounting Principles]," he said. "GAAP is considered the gold standard.
"Schools and other government agencies use GAAP," he added. "Municipalities can't use GAAP."
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Citizens group criticizes payout for unused vacation, sick days
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
LONG BRANCH — Mayor Adam Schneider last week came to the defense of city Finance Director Ronald Mehlhorn Sr., who is under fire for contract provisions that allow him to cash out unused sick and vacation days.
"Ron is well paid; he is also one of the best at what he does in the state of New Jersey," Schneider said. "He is in a position where you have tens of millions of dollars coming in every year and going out every year.
"The decisions that he makes, that we rely on him to make, are critical to the taxpayers."
Mehlhorn's contract came under heat at the Oct. 13 City Council meeting. The contract allows the finance director to cash out an unlimited number of accrued sick and vacation days.
Schneider was absent for the meeting but responded in an interview last week and credited Mehlhorn for rarely taking any time off in his more than 25 years of service.
"He rarely takes a day off; it's only in the last couple of years that he did," the mayor said. "If I wanted to call him on Sunday, I'd call him at the office and the likelihood is he'd be there."
Schneider said much of Mehlhorn's contract was carried over from a previous administration in the '80s.
Tensions spilled over last week at the council meeting when a citizens group questioned contracts that allow some highlevel city officials to cash out accrued sick and vacation days.
This comes as the Long Branch Citizens for Good Government discovered through Open Public Records Act [OPRA} requests that Mehlhorn was able to cash out an additional $242,832 in 2006 and 2007 by banking sick and vacation days he has accrued during his more than 25 years of employment.
During the public discussion portion of the Oct. 13 meeting, members of the public repeatedly criticized the mayor and city administration for this practice.
"We in Long Branch need to adopt a use-or-lose policy on vacations," LBCGG spokesman Tom Sheedy said.
"These people supposedly represent the public and the public interest," LBCGG organizer Diana Multare said. "These figures were not easily accessible. They need to come up with an agreement that represents the public interest," she added.
Schneider, however, does not see real savings in the use-them-or-lose them way of doing business.
"The idea that you have to use them or lose, there is a slight savings in there, but it's not a huge number," he said. "So people either have to use their vacation days, which they will, or they'll cash them in every year."
Schneider admitted that the number of days cashed in sounds like a lot, but it also has another meaning.
"There are advantages for both sides when we say we'll pay you for your sick and vacation days," he said. "It sounds like a huge number, it is a big number, but it means he's worked those days."
Schneider was also critical of the timing of revelations about Mehlhorn's contract.
"How much he makes is public record," he said. "When people come up and say, 'Look what we've discovered,' that's false, that's a misrepresentation."
Multare went on to criticize Schneider and question the way contracts are negotiated.
"I don't blame any city employee for trying to get the best deal that they possibly can," she said. "The big question is why wasn't the public represented at the table.
"As we all know, Mayor Schneider controls every dollar spent and every contract negotiated," she said. "And the City Council has to pass on these contracts and budgets."
After Multare spoke, local CPA Lynn Petrovich, who is financial adviser to the LBCGG, spoke about her analysis of the contracts.
She said that the contracts for city employees with 25 years of service or more provide that unused sick and vacation days are compensated at 50 percent of the employee's daily pay rate, not to exceed $25,000. Mehlhorn's contract was different.
"The contract for Mr. Mehlhorn states that all unused sick days should be paid at 100 percent value," she said. "He can accrue an unlimited number of vacation days at 100 percent."
Resident Bill McLaughlin also criticized the city for what he said is the waste of taxpayers' money.
"This is no way to spend taxpayers' money that you are elected to serve," McLaughlin said. McLaughlin refused to blame Mehlhorn for the contract, focusing the blame on Schneider, who was absent from the meeting.
"If he asked for it and you [council members] gave it to him, more power to him," McLaughlin said. "Why did you give it to him?
"I've known Mr. Mehlhorn 20 years. Since you [Mehlhorn] got up there, you got yourself in bad company," he added.
Addressing the council, McLaughlin said, "You gave him that contract to run as your point man."
Both McLaughlin and Multare said that a change in administration is needed.
"If you continue on this track, I think the people of this town should throw you out of office, or run you out of office, or just vote you out of office," McLaughlin said.
"Is it indifference?" Multare asked. "Is it arrogance? As far as I'm concerned, it's time to go. There are other people out there, new blood to take the reins."
At the end of the meeting Mehlhorn responded to the criticism, defending the provisions of his contract.
"I didn't say I never took vacation," he said. "It's long hours and long days. It's a lot of money and I'm not hiding behind that."
Another point the city was criticized for was having more than $10.4 million in liability for sick and vacation time due employees, which is not audited, according to Petrovich.
"What is very interesting is the $10.4 million does not show up for the city's audited financial statements for accrued sick and vacation benefits," Multare said.
Mehlhorn defended the liability, saying that while it is a large number, it won't ever be paid out in full.
"It's a contingency liability fund," he said. "It doesn't appear in any of the city's books.
"It's contingent upon the city having to close its doors and having to pay every penny that it owed its employees," he added. "That'll never happen. If it did, that would be the least of your problems."
Councilman Brian Unger said the problem is on the part of the administration, not the employees.
"I've always enjoyed working with Ron," Unger said at the meeting. "However, I take exception to some of the practices we have here at City Hall.
"We should limit the compensated accrual of vacation and sick days," he said. "It's ridiculous; $200,000 and $300,000 payouts are absolutely outrageous and we can't afford them."
Unger said in an interview last week that he is not opposed giving special contracts to top officials, but he would like to limit the vacation payouts.
"It's deficient as a matter of fiscal policy," he said. "Most management employees are covered by the union contract we have."
Unger said that Mehlhorn, Business Administrator Howard H. Woolley Jr. and Director of Public Safety William Richards are the three city employees with special contracts.
"I'm not opposed to giving them a special contract, but it shouldn't be a violation of the public trust," he said. "I don't get a lot of [complaints] on the base pay from people. I think where people really take issue is these huge bonus payments from sick days."
Unger said the problem goes all the way up to the state level.
"The standards that the State of New Jersey uses are not as stringent as GAAP [Generally Accepted Accounting Principles]," he said. "GAAP is considered the gold standard.
"Schools and other government agencies use GAAP," he added. "Municipalities can't use GAAP."
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
T.F. council tired of staying up late
T.F. council tired of staying up late
Changes aim to make meetings more efficient
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
TINTON FALLS — Citing rushed sessions and late nights, the Borough Council has decided to restructure its meetings.
The council agreed at the Oct. 6 workshop meeting that the current format, which regularly runs past 10 p.m., is not working.
Currently, the council meets on the first and third Tuesdays of each month. The public session starts at 7:30 p.m. and is followed by a workshop meeting and an executive session if necessary.
Borough Attorney Brian M. Nelson suggested in a memo to council that the executive session be moved to the beginning of the meeting.
"I have a somewhat legal concern with executive sessions taking place at the end of the meetings rather than the beginning," Nelson said. "That way, if there are items that the council needs to take action on, may be discussed in the executive session, and take action during the public session so it's really fresh in everyone's minds.
"There are certain decisions you're going to make as council that I don't think you want to make late in the evening when people are looking to get out," he added.
Nelson suggested that the executive sessions begin at least one hour before the public session.
Council members were in agreement.
"I like the idea of the executive sessions early because by the time we get into executive session, everyone's exhausted, and you're asking us to decide on things and we've been here for six, seven hours," council President Duane Morrill said.
"I tend to agree with the idea of having the executive session before the meeting," Councilman Andrew Mayer concurred.
The council will regularly meet for executive session at 6:30 p.m. and, depending on the agenda, may meet earlier at times.
"If you know you have something that is super long, then you can schedule it at 6 [p.m.]," Morrill said.
Council members also agreed to change the order of business for their two monthly meetings. The council will restructure the schedule to have the first meeting of the month be a workshop and the second meeting be the meeting at which council conducts business.
"Every municipality I've done work with has a workshop meeting at the beginning of the month, which basically lays out the agenda and gives the council a chance to discuss those items," Nelson said.
Nelson said the council could still do some of the more routine work, such as bill payments and bond releases, during the workshop meetings.
The council would also be required to provide for public comment, but they would not vote on ordinances or hold public hearings on ordinances at the workshop session.
Mayer had some concerns about that format and suggested that they keep the format the same but move up the executive session; however, Councilwoman NancyAnn Fama disagreed.
"Why would we keep the meeting the way it is?" she asked. "We've been getting out at midnight and 1 in the morning," she added. "We can look toward making these meetings more productive."
Mayer continued to question the benefit of changing the meetings.
"That would leave us with just one business meeting a month," Mayer said. "I'm really wondering what the benefit of the workshop would be."
Nelson explained the benefits of the new meeting schedule
"The benefit of it would be the items that are not routine would be discussed at the meeting later in the month," Nelson said. "It is really a workshop where you roll your sleeves up.
"Have the items listed for discussion, not action," he added. "I have found it makes things a lot cleaner and gets a lot of issues out of the way in advance."
Councilman Scott Larkin, who joined the council in July, said he wants to maximize discussion among the council members.
"I think it's good how we argue about things, how we disagree," Larkin said. "We are starting to come together.
"For myself to do my job, I need to be able to have some time to sit down with you guys and roll up our sleeves and let's have our own discussion and arguments," he added. "Sometimes I feel I just don't get that chance."
Nelson suggested that the council limit public comment to five minutes per person. Currently residents are generally given up to 10 minutes each during the public discussion.
"Most places do five, but it's always really at the discretion of the council president," Nelson said.
The council sought advice from Borough Clerk Karen Mount-Taylor, who has 20-plus years of experience in the borough.
"I agree with many of the points that Mr. Nelson has brought forth," she said. "We are always willing to try it one way, and if it doesn't work, we can try it another way."
The council agreed that if the new meeting schedule doesn't work, it could return to the present schedule. A resolution setting the new meeting schedule is expected to be on the agenda at the next council meeting on Oct. 20.
"If it doesn't work, we can always go back," Morrill said.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Changes aim to make meetings more efficient
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
TINTON FALLS — Citing rushed sessions and late nights, the Borough Council has decided to restructure its meetings.
The council agreed at the Oct. 6 workshop meeting that the current format, which regularly runs past 10 p.m., is not working.
Currently, the council meets on the first and third Tuesdays of each month. The public session starts at 7:30 p.m. and is followed by a workshop meeting and an executive session if necessary.
Borough Attorney Brian M. Nelson suggested in a memo to council that the executive session be moved to the beginning of the meeting.
"I have a somewhat legal concern with executive sessions taking place at the end of the meetings rather than the beginning," Nelson said. "That way, if there are items that the council needs to take action on, may be discussed in the executive session, and take action during the public session so it's really fresh in everyone's minds.
"There are certain decisions you're going to make as council that I don't think you want to make late in the evening when people are looking to get out," he added.
Nelson suggested that the executive sessions begin at least one hour before the public session.
Council members were in agreement.
"I like the idea of the executive sessions early because by the time we get into executive session, everyone's exhausted, and you're asking us to decide on things and we've been here for six, seven hours," council President Duane Morrill said.
"I tend to agree with the idea of having the executive session before the meeting," Councilman Andrew Mayer concurred.
The council will regularly meet for executive session at 6:30 p.m. and, depending on the agenda, may meet earlier at times.
"If you know you have something that is super long, then you can schedule it at 6 [p.m.]," Morrill said.
Council members also agreed to change the order of business for their two monthly meetings. The council will restructure the schedule to have the first meeting of the month be a workshop and the second meeting be the meeting at which council conducts business.
"Every municipality I've done work with has a workshop meeting at the beginning of the month, which basically lays out the agenda and gives the council a chance to discuss those items," Nelson said.
Nelson said the council could still do some of the more routine work, such as bill payments and bond releases, during the workshop meetings.
The council would also be required to provide for public comment, but they would not vote on ordinances or hold public hearings on ordinances at the workshop session.
Mayer had some concerns about that format and suggested that they keep the format the same but move up the executive session; however, Councilwoman NancyAnn Fama disagreed.
"Why would we keep the meeting the way it is?" she asked. "We've been getting out at midnight and 1 in the morning," she added. "We can look toward making these meetings more productive."
Mayer continued to question the benefit of changing the meetings.
"That would leave us with just one business meeting a month," Mayer said. "I'm really wondering what the benefit of the workshop would be."
Nelson explained the benefits of the new meeting schedule
"The benefit of it would be the items that are not routine would be discussed at the meeting later in the month," Nelson said. "It is really a workshop where you roll your sleeves up.
"Have the items listed for discussion, not action," he added. "I have found it makes things a lot cleaner and gets a lot of issues out of the way in advance."
Councilman Scott Larkin, who joined the council in July, said he wants to maximize discussion among the council members.
"I think it's good how we argue about things, how we disagree," Larkin said. "We are starting to come together.
"For myself to do my job, I need to be able to have some time to sit down with you guys and roll up our sleeves and let's have our own discussion and arguments," he added. "Sometimes I feel I just don't get that chance."
Nelson suggested that the council limit public comment to five minutes per person. Currently residents are generally given up to 10 minutes each during the public discussion.
"Most places do five, but it's always really at the discretion of the council president," Nelson said.
The council sought advice from Borough Clerk Karen Mount-Taylor, who has 20-plus years of experience in the borough.
"I agree with many of the points that Mr. Nelson has brought forth," she said. "We are always willing to try it one way, and if it doesn't work, we can try it another way."
The council agreed that if the new meeting schedule doesn't work, it could return to the present schedule. A resolution setting the new meeting schedule is expected to be on the agenda at the next council meeting on Oct. 20.
"If it doesn't work, we can always go back," Morrill said.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)