[0:11] Hello everyone. Uh, welcome to the Township of Chadam committee meeting the

[0:16] workshop agenda for today, March 10th. Uh, the meeting is being called to order

[0:20] at 7:31. Mr. Lacanti, has adequate notice been given, please?

[0:24] » Yes. Adequate notice of this meeting of the township committee was given as

[0:27] required by the open public meetings act as follows. Notice was given to the Chad

[0:30] Courier in the Mars County Deli Record on January 7th, 2026. Notice was posted

[0:36] on the bulletin board in the main hallway of the municipal building on

[0:38] January 7th, 2026. And notice was filed with the township clerk on January 7th,

[0:43] 2026. >> Thank you, Mr. Landi. Can we have a roll

[0:46] call, please? >> Mr. Al Perowitz.

[0:49] » Mr. Troy, >> here.

[0:51] » Mrs. Ewald, >> here. Deputy Mayor McHugh

[0:54] » here and mayoritz. >> Yes, here

[0:58] » and second call. Mr. Alaritz >> here.

[1:02] We have the whole committee. >> Okay.

[1:05] Now I would like to open uh the first hearing of citizens. Mr. Lante, will you

[1:09] please provide guidance? >> Members of the public are now welcome to

[1:14] come to the microphone to address the township committee. This is an

[1:17] opportunity for any member of the public to be heard about issues which are not

[1:21] topics scheduled for public hearings tonight. Those present may step up to

[1:25] the microphone to be heard. If you're watching via Zoom, you may speak during

[1:29] any of the public comment sessions by following the Zoom instructions to raise

[1:33] your hand. Whether in person or online, when you're recognized to speak, please

[1:37] mind the following procedures. Please say your name, spell your last name, and

[1:42] give the name of your street. You are not required to give your street number.

[1:46] All public comments will be limited to 3 minutes. Rather than use any of your

[1:51] time answering questions, the township committee will wait until you finish

[1:55] speaking before responding. There are two public comment sessions on

[1:59] tonight's agenda. Each member of the public will be limited to one comment of

[2:03] up to three minutes during each public comment period. Written comments

[2:08] submitted to the township clerk before 3 p.m. today will be read during the

[2:11] public comment sessions. Written comments are subject to the same

[2:15] guidelines as oral comments. Duplicative written comments uh may be summarized

[2:19] rather than read in full according to the guidelines issued by the New Jersey

[2:24] Division of Local Government Services. Um these rules will also apply to the

[2:28] public hearing on the uh the ordinances this evening. And if anyone's here about

[2:32] the ordinances, we will have separate public hearings uh for those matters.

[2:37] And uh we did not have any written comments for this evening.

[2:39] » Okay. Uh are there any hands raised online?

[2:43] Uh, no hands raised online. >> Any member of the audience would like to

[2:48] come forward to ask any questions?

[2:52] » Any question?

[2:56] Let's see. >> Questions or comments? Anything?

[3:00] » And this is for anything other than the ordinances.

[3:03] » Okay. >> The ordinances are the affordable

[3:07] housing matters.

[3:13] Then we can close the first hearing of citizens

[3:17] and we can move on to the public hearing for the adoption of the ordinances

[3:22] number 2026-05 the affordable housing ordinance.

[3:27] Ordinance 2026-06 adding the H AH1 zone and ordinance

[3:32] 2026-07 affordable housing overlay district.

[3:37] We open it to to comment now. >> Yes. Uh we do not have any hands raised

[3:42] online. >> Okay.

[3:43] » So if anyone is here to speak about ordinance 202605

[3:48] um so the zoning ordinances come next. This is the one that um is we'll let

[3:55] Jessica describe what it's about. But um if you're here about either of the

[3:59] zoning ordinances, those are the next two.

[4:02] Now, for the benefit of the residents, you want to just do all three of them

[4:05] public hearing together? >> Uh, we should have separate ones, one

[4:08] for each. >> Okay.

[4:12] » Okay. So, are we going to let Jessica make comments first and then

[4:15] » Well, that's that's up to to you. >> Yes. Let's have Jessica make comments

[4:19] first. >> Yeah.

[4:20] » And give an overview. >> Good evening, everybody. The first

[4:23] ordinance on for tonight is uh what's referred to as the affordable housing

[4:28] ordinance which set forth the rules and regulations for the administration of

[4:35] Cadam's affordable housing program and how the units that will be produced um

[4:40] and the units that are currently available will be administered. This

[4:45] includes income distribution limits, um, bedroom distributions,

[4:52] um, as well as how they're going to be marketed to residents and re and those

[4:58] who live in the affordable housing region. It also includes what's called a

[5:03] um, development fee ordinance, which is actually very similar. Actually, it is

[5:09] the same ordinance that we had adopted previously. it was just um brought up to

[5:14] date with the new UAC regulations.

[5:21] » So just to make clear, this is what we already have on the books but updated

[5:24] based on the new the new round. >> Yeah, it is pretty much exactly what we

[5:29] had. Um this is for the most part the or the model ordinance that most

[5:34] municipalities will be adopting. I did make some specific changes that I felt

[5:39] were important for the township and it was signed off by um

[5:45] by the um fair share housing even though it didn't need to be. They uh they did

[5:49] sign off on it so we shouldn't have any issues. Um everything has been um you

[5:55] know reviewed by everyone it needs to be reviewed by. So,

[6:06] » okay. Any other discussion >> or we can open to the public if there

[6:10] are any comments on ordinance 2026-05 the affordable housing ordinance

[6:20] » that or can type in the chat. Um, I'm reading through this stuff. Uh, can

[6:26] you tell me how many units you guys are meaning to build or whatever? I know

[6:32] there's a Southern Boulevard. >> I can't hear you. Can we

[6:35] » Oh, you can't hear me at all. Uh, >> speak into the mic.

[6:38] » Okay. Sorry. Head for me. Sorry about that. Uh, I'm trying to find

[6:44] out how many uh affordable housing housing units you guys are committing to

[6:48] build through this settlement. So we did not settle with fair share

[6:53] housing. So there is no settlement. This is the affordable housing ordinance

[6:58] which does administer the affordable housing units which will be created. Our

[7:03] realistic development potential was four units. So the township has committed to

[7:09] building four units over the next 10-year period

[7:12] » at Southern Boulevard. >> That will be in the I I'm not I don't

[7:18] know it is Southern Boulevard, but I may Yes, that

[7:21] » okay. >> I know it is block I know the blocks and

[7:24] lots. Um later there are two ordinances on regarding overlay zones and those are

[7:32] zones um which will help to meet our unmet need. Our unmet need is

[7:39] what we're not committing to build but we're zoning to build. So it doesn't

[7:43] have to be built. We're not planning to build it but we are providing the

[7:47] potential for it to be built. >> Thank you.

[7:54] I will also say the uh realistic development potential was four units,

[7:58] but we are building a um triplex and we will receive one bonus credit. So

[8:03] technically it's three units plus one bonus credit

[8:10] » when you say four units. >> Oh, sorry. Jim Blo B I E L L O Popler

[8:17] Lane. When you say units, how many actual

[8:22] apartments or whatever they are being built in those four units?

[8:25] » Three. >> Three.

[8:27] » There will be three units. Three apartments with varying bedrooms, but

[8:32] only three. >> Okay. How many How many units are we

[8:36] required by state law to build? >> Three.

[8:40] » I'm sorry. I'm sorry. We're required to build four. We're building three and we

[8:45] get one bonus credit. Um, if I can just uh cut in for procedure, let the

[8:50] resident ask all your questions and then we'll respond at the end.

[8:54] » Okay. Thank you. >> Okay.

[8:55] » Sorry. >> So, the unit on where Charlie Browns

[8:58] used to be, >> is that one unit or is that 80 or 60

[9:03] units? >> 62 units.

[9:05] » 62 units. >> Sorry, I'm not supposed to wait for all

[9:07] these questions. >> That's all right. That's all right.

[9:09] » Question. >> So, you're saying all Chadam's going to

[9:12] do is build four more units. >> Three. three more units.

[9:17] » So, this is the fourth round of affordable housing. We have been found

[9:22] compliant and done everything we needed to do for our third round housing

[9:26] with the building of the um group homes.

[9:32] » That's the last remaining units that need to be built for our third round

[9:35] compliance. The three units that we're discussing this evening are for our

[9:39] fourth round compliance. >> How big a building is that going to be

[9:43] for three units?

[9:47] It's a triplex, so they'll It's going to be similar to a townhouse with three.

[9:54] » Okay. Okay. >> All right. Thank you.

[10:10] Okay, just as a reminder before you start, um, ask all your questions and

[10:15] once you're done, then we'll respond. Once we start responding,

[10:20] that's you're done with questions. So, >> it's an unusual request. So, that's

[10:25] another question based on response. I >> Yeah, that's that's part of board

[10:28] procedures. Okay. Go ahead. Okay. Well, let me see if I could ask this question

[10:33] so I don't have to try to get another question in. My name is Don Banano and

[10:37] Three Magnolia Place. So, in the deliberations of this council,

[10:44] uh, what went into the decision to change the business districts, and

[10:49] that's what I understand you're doing. You're now including low moderate income

[10:53] housing. What went into the decision of concentrating that in the areas you've

[10:58] chosen? and was there consideration for any of

[11:02] the residents around there? And the last question I'll ask you, um, and I'm going

[11:08] to ask it different this way. Uh, how many members of the board live within an

[11:13] eighth of a mile of where this new business district is going to be? Any

[11:18] hands? Quarter of a mile. You're not going to answer 3/4 of a mile. Two

[11:24] miles. Two miles.

[11:27] Two miles. So effectively these the the members here are concentrating these low

[11:35] moderate income housing units at least the plan and I understand you're not

[11:38] going to do anything now but you're concentrating in an area where none of

[11:42] you move within a mile mile and a half of it whereas there are many residents

[11:48] who may be within 500 to a,000 ft of all of these areas that are being

[11:55] identified. So, was there any consideration to say, gee, maybe we

[11:59] ought to spread this out to with this very, very large township that we live

[12:03] in. Now, I'm going to make this comment. I was here four years ago, and maybe it

[12:07] was a little less, maybe a little more when uh you guys weren't here, but the

[12:13] port had decided to put in some low and moderate income housing right around

[12:18] here. You couldn't get a seat in the room. You couldn't get a seat outside.

[12:22] You couldn't get a street on the seat out in a parking lot. It was packed and

[12:27] there was a good reason for it because people were being affected by it. This

[12:31] decision not that many people are being affected by it but there is a

[12:35] development that is going to be affected by it and no consideration has been

[12:39] given to those people who pay a lot of taxes and get very very little in

[12:44] return. Our choice I understand that nobody's forcing us to live there. But

[12:49] it seems to be an odd concentration of where these affordable housing units are

[12:54] going to be placed. This is a very large township. Uh there are a lot of things

[12:59] that are going on adjacent to this township that are going to require these

[13:03] shopping centers to stay as shopping centers. There is a big development in

[13:07] Gerald going in by Madison. Not your responsibility, but those people are

[13:11] going to want to shop somewhere. We start putting affordable housing within

[13:15] those shopping areas, it's going to take away shopping opportunities. Um, so I'd

[13:20] like to understand the thought process is why we're jamming it all into one

[13:24] area. Why not spread it out throughout the township? Thank you.

[13:35] » Do you want to make some clarification first?

[13:37] » Yeah, definitely some legal clarification. Yeah, I I

[13:42] » answer the person who >> Yes.

[13:46] » Yes.

[13:50] » But you if you want to come back up if you have a follow-up question, you're

[13:53] more than welcome to come back to the mic if you if you want to.

[13:57] » Should I? >> No, we're going to answer his question.

[14:00] We're going to have our >> Do you want me You want to

[14:04] » provide cl I can provide wanted to provide some clarification just to make

[14:06] sure residents understand. Um so the third round affordable housing

[14:13] which was the last round that we completed we built 62 units which is the

[14:17] Charlie Brown site and 24 units went in at the Arbor Green site. Those are 100%

[14:22] affordable units. We are obligated under this fourth round to build three which

[14:28] gives us four credits affordable housing units. the overlay zone. In our third

[14:34] round, we did an overlay zone over the property that's next to the Chattam

[14:38] Club. The overlay zone provides the option for a developer to come in and to

[14:43] do uh residential housing, but it's mixed in terms of being affordable and

[14:49] market rate. So, we already have an overlay zone on a property that was

[14:53] that's been in place during the third round. But whether or not a developer

[14:57] comes in, it's it's up to, you know, the market dynamics, it's up to the

[15:02] development, that was never opted, but it would in that property, it's 36 units

[15:07] and it would be mixed use and it's 5:1 ratio market rate housing to affordable

[15:12] housing. the de the overlay zone. The reason that it was put over that area is

[15:17] we have to provide a realistic development potential for those units.

[15:21] We still have an obligation to build, but we don't have space to build. So,

[15:26] you have to provide you have to meet that. It's basically an unmet need. You

[15:30] have to provide some way to to accommodate for that unmet need. And it

[15:35] is the same way as that property, Fairmount Commons, that's over by the

[15:39] Chattam Club in that it allows for market and affordable. So, I think it's

[15:43] a 20% set aside affordable and the way it was structured is so that it's two

[15:49] stories. I don't even think it allows for three stories of residential

[15:52] development similar to what you already have at the Charlie Brown site and other

[15:56] structures in the area. And again, market dynamics, the people who own

[16:02] those properties, that may not happen, but it was our obligation to provide a

[16:06] realistic development potential for for that ability to put in the multi-unit

[16:11] housing. So, I hope that I just wanted to clear the I still respect everybody's

[16:16] input and I just want to make sure we understood what the dynamics are. And

[16:19] now now I'll turn it over to whatever whoever else wanted to provide input.

[16:25] » I think also based on the landscape of Chhattam Township and swamp and wetlands

[16:32] and those kind of things, we are very limited in our options of where we are

[16:35] able to identify these areas. So, we were very thoughtful about all of this

[16:40] and um it's a legal obligation. Chattam Township has been one of the only

[16:46] townships and municipalities that has successfully,

[16:50] you know, implemented our our affordable housing. There are some some

[16:54] municipalities that haven't done anything yet. And um Fair Share Housing

[16:59] brought uh lawsuits against every municipality, over 400 municipalities in

[17:03] New Jersey. China Township was one of maybe two that were successful in

[17:06] winning >> if if unless you know if your fellow

[17:10] » I'd like to ask >> unless Jessica you had anything else you

[17:15] wanted to add. >> I I do. So um we if we understand the

[17:19] overlay zones they retain the zoning that is already there. The overlay

[17:24] zoning gives an option. It doesn't mean that that option has to be taken, but it

[17:30] provides the the zoning required by the Mount Laurel doctrine.

[17:34] » I understand. >> Now, we were legally required under this

[17:40] new the new amended housing act to identify portions of Chadam which were

[17:46] this is a term that is in the fair housing act likely to redevelop. So, we

[17:53] couldn't just pick anywhere. We had to go through and look at the areas that

[17:59] were likely to redevelop. The statute identified some types that you know some

[18:03] types of um properties u nurseries uh like plant nurseries um and not baby

[18:11] nurseries but um that for example that's one of them. Um any vacant land that

[18:17] that could be developed that that would obviously be another one. Um, fair share

[18:21] was very much pushing Chadam to have higher densities in our areas where they

[18:28] currently our overlay zones are 10 dwelling units per acre. What that means

[18:32] is for every acre of land, 10 units are available. Two of those units would be

[18:39] affordable housing units. eight of those if the zoning is if you take if someone

[18:45] takes advantage of the zoning um the overlay zoning, eight of those would be

[18:49] market rate units. Two of them would be affordable units. And when you go

[18:53] through the entirety of the um overlay zones, it equals what our

[19:01] unmet need is. >> I understand

[19:05] » what you just said. >> Okay. However, it seems to me when you

[19:09] thought about where are we now going to put these these areas, you concentrated

[19:15] extremely extreme concentration in one area. Now, Chattam Township is a from

[19:22] from acreage, square miles or whatever you want to call it is very very large.

[19:26] And I know there's some big properties, there's some big houses, there are a lot

[19:29] of things, but it's strange that you concentrated in an area. There are two

[19:33] shopping malls that are critical to this to not only our area in Chattam

[19:39] Township, they're critical to Madison. I know we don't give a damn about Madison.

[19:43] We don't ever did. Um Mars, Madison's going to build on Geralda. Uh where are

[19:48] those people going to be shopping? What you've done is taken the in my opinion,

[19:52] you've taken the easy way out. you said, 'You know what? We're not going to get

[19:56] Look how many people have shown up here tonight. Almost none. Because you know

[20:00] what? Because they're not affected. When we had the when we had the um

[20:04] recommendation to put low and moderate income housing on this property here,

[20:09] and I just talked about it before, you couldn't get a parking spot. You

[20:12] couldn't squeeze yourself in here. So, it's a matter of, you know what, I think

[20:16] you made a decision on who's who are we going to annoy? Who are we going to get

[20:20] mad at us? We don't give a damn. those people in that development behind there,

[20:24] we don't give a damn about them. We pay 2 and a half% of the taxes. We get

[20:28] nothing. We That's our choice. That's not a complaint. It's our choice. But I

[20:32] think you've taken an easy way out. Said, you know what? Let's make it a a

[20:37] business to change the business zone to a business affordable housing zone and

[20:42] it's given you an easy way out. You didn't do enough work on this. There's

[20:46] got to be other areas you could have identified instead of concentrating it.

[20:49] And that's why I asked the question, how many of you on the board live within an

[20:53] eighth of a mile, a quarter of a mile, a half a mile? You could be three miles

[20:56] away and still be in this township. I don't know. I'm not asking where you

[21:00] live, but that's the issue. And I don't think you've given enough thought to

[21:04] what you do to other people who are big contributors to the tax base in this

[21:08] town without really saying, you know what, maybe we should have diversified

[21:12] this a little bit more. So that's my complaint.

[21:16] And I know you've already voted on this, so it's probably a dead issue for us, me

[21:21] living in this where I do, but you're you're concentrating this zone in one

[21:26] area of this enormous township. And I know what you said. We got swamps, we

[21:30] got a lot of things. There are other areas, and I would love to see the other

[21:34] areas you looked at and turned down. Thank you.

[21:38] » So, I would say the other side of that is not only I've lived here for 25

[21:43] years. I grew up in Madison, actually. So, I I've lived there for 35 years.

[21:47] » So, um there's also consideration for our new residents and the people that

[21:53] will move into town if there is affordable housing.

[21:57] People that qualify for affordable housing, and there's a reason they

[22:01] qualify for affordable housing, >> they may or may not have an automobile.

[22:05] They may or may not have transportation. We're required at Charlie Browns to

[22:09] provide transportation to the train station as part of affordable housing

[22:12] because they may not have transportation. So I think as a human

[22:16] being to put them out on Myersville Road is yeah I didn't think that was the best

[22:21] » prior board prior board decided here was a pretty good place. So boards have

[22:26] different opinions. So you that's this board's decision and I'm sure it's an

[22:30] easy one for you guys to make and say you know what people have affordable

[22:33] housing they don't have two or three cars put them where they're shopping.

[22:37] Well guess what if you if you put affordable housing in there where are

[22:40] they going to shop? They're not going to shop there if you take the if you take

[22:43] away the the shopping malls, the not malls, but the shopping areas are two to

[22:47] two that the abut Chunk Pike Road. So, it just seems to me you guys made a

[22:52] pretty easy decision. Let's make this decision. We're not going to have a lot

[22:56] of people screaming about it. It may never happen, but you know what? You're

[23:00] being very unfair to the people who bought those properties. Very, very

[23:04] unfair. We should go back and rethink what you decided to do.

[23:10] Mayor, if I may just make a couple comments. Um,

[23:12] » first first if I may just clarify um if I'm if I'm hearing uh the gentleman uh

[23:18] correctly this has been structured in such a way

[23:22] that we have what's called an overlay zoning. So the underlying pre-existing

[23:26] zoning still exists and is applicable. So I think the notion and and the extent

[23:31] that um something does materialize there per this plan uh would be um not to uh

[23:38] eliminate the commercial component that is to say the retail shopping there. It

[23:42] would uh desiraably be a mixeduse um structure where you've got residential

[23:47] with the existing some semblance of the existing retail uh along with parking.

[23:53] So that's a hope and desire and again this is a a you know a uh a straw man

[23:59] plan that may or may not happen over the next 10 years. That's sort of the

[24:02] horizon. Uh a couple things I understand and I certainly respect your your your

[24:06] opinion. Um there's a lot of work that happens uh at at the subcommittee

[24:11] committee level that is to say the affordable housing subcommittee. So

[24:14] there's been uh extensive hours uh consulting with professionals uh looking

[24:20] at maps so on so forth and looking at uh the the drafting of the the affordable

[24:25] housing language. So one of the first things we did was certainly not accept

[24:29] the preliminary figures that were provided to us. We took uh a proactive

[24:34] and aggressive step to challenge those numbers, reduce it and we effectively

[24:38] did. We were sued twice by the New Jersey Builders Association and then a

[24:42] second time by Fair Share. We effectively reduced the the commitment

[24:46] by I think about 10%. Um most municipalities just excuse me just

[24:52] accepted the numbers. Um there were probably a number of them that uh

[24:56] challenged it and we are now I think it's I guess one of two that

[24:59] successfully defended uh the plan that we put forth. So it's been accepted by

[25:03] the state. So all that is good news. Um what I can also share with you is that

[25:09] one of the things that's become abundant abundantly clear to me and I think other

[25:12] members of the committee is that um we cherish our green space, our open space.

[25:17] Um we love our parks, we love our trails, we love the aesthetics uh of of

[25:23] the township. Uh so one of the factors that we took into it was not to set

[25:28] aside and make vulnerable unpar undeveloped parcels of land that have

[25:33] environmental sensitivity that have trees mature trees on it. An attractive

[25:38] comp component and this is one of multiple components that we looked into

[25:41] is that uh the the sites that we selected are already developed. They're

[25:45] already impervious coverage. There's asphalt covering that land there. It

[25:49] wouldn't affect any environmentally s sensitive areas. we would not be cutting

[25:53] down trees. We would not be reducing our open space. So, that was a factor that

[25:58] went into it. Another factor, and I think Mayor Roland had um alluded to it,

[26:01] was we already have existing transportation there.

[26:05] » That that tends to be a variable that comes into the mix. It's not a pre

[26:08] prerequisite in every application, but we have another bonus element, which is

[26:13] that the transportation already exists there. So we can piggyback that without

[26:17] any potential accretive cost in the event we have affordable housing plans

[26:22] that come to fruition in other locations. It it's sort of ideal because

[26:26] it's a short pops given away to Madison train station. Um Chadam is a little

[26:31] further down the road, but again there's pre-existing transportation logistics

[26:35] already in place uh in that general vicinity. So those are two other

[26:39] components that certainly went into penalty of variables that we looked at

[26:44] uh in order to make what we believe to be um uh a reasonable plan. Uh a third

[26:50] I'll share is pre-existing utilities. So for example um the things that carved

[26:55] out get carved out or are lands that don't have any sewer system. For

[26:58] example, uh this already had uh existing sewer system connections. So that uh

[27:05] that lends itself to be a plausible plan. and in our in our ability to put

[27:09] forth a plausible plan. Um those were that was another consideration that we

[27:13] took into account in order to make as far as finalizing it to these select

[27:18] lots. So I hope that explains a little bit about our thinking. Um

[27:24] I think at the end of the day the hope and desire is uh the some level of

[27:30] retail dynamics will certainly be there in the event again a plan comes before

[27:34] the planning board. Uh it would ideally be a mixeduse uh uh development. Um and

[27:41] it would also benefit the residents there would benefit from uh existing uh

[27:46] logistics uh and the development also be more reasonable in terms of ultimate

[27:50] cost and any potential burden to the township because existing uh utilities

[27:54] already are in place over there. So I think that um probably hopefully sheds a

[27:59] little bit more light on uh some of the parameters that we're looking at as we

[28:03] were looking considering a multitude of different sites.

[28:08] » Another thing I just like to add is that this also goes in front of the planning

[28:12] board. So it was not just only our committee. There's a series of checks

[28:15] and balances. So it goes in front of the planning board as well. And it wouldn't

[28:19] be here if it wasn't passed through the planning board as well.

[28:23] And to those points, any development plan for that area would have to go back

[28:27] to the planning board. So just so everybody's aware, any plan if the

[28:30] developer comes in and wants to do something over the ShopRite site or over

[28:34] the Ace Hardware site, they would have to go to planning board with those

[28:37] sites. >> And speaking of the planning board, the

[28:40] planning board did consider all three of these ordinances to be consistent with

[28:43] the master plan

[28:48] » or by the same.

[28:52] Hello. >> Hi. My name is Tommy Anelme an SL Mi. Uh

[28:57] live on Shunvike and directly adjacent to one of the properties in question.

[29:02] So, a couple questions. I understand what's going on with the overall picture

[29:06] here. Um my questions are multiple a couple questions. Um one is the overlay

[29:16] onto the existing zoning. Um, if the business owners are not willing

[29:22] to do anything and you don't get these affordable housing numbers up, what is

[29:29] plan B? Or is there is there a plan B? Um, cuz I've seen them go imminent

[29:35] domain and try to take over places. I'm hoping it would never go that route

[29:39] being that we live in Chattam Township and not, you know, somewhere else for

[29:44] lack of a better term. Um, my other question is being adjacent to my

[29:49] property and and and having gone through hoops to get variances because of the

[29:56] 2acre minimum or whatever it is in Green Village, I had to go 9 months trying to

[30:00] get variances and permits just to put a single family house on a 1acre lot. And

[30:04] so the idea of having 37 units right next to my house that could be three

[30:09] stories tall and that's what it says, not two and a half, but three in that

[30:13] area. Um, I I have some cons questions and concerns because it it just it

[30:19] doesn't fit with where we're at right now and it doesn't fit the neighborhood.

[30:23] And you know, Green Village, as they said, is a little different than

[30:26] downtown Township. We I'm know I'm on the border. Madison's across the street,

[30:30] but you know, we rely on these shopping centers. And and the last part of that

[30:34] question or part or last part of what I had to say was I have spoke to a couple

[30:39] of the property owners that didn't even know this was happening.

[30:43] Um, I know that's public notice, but I got a certified letter in the mail while

[30:48] I was on vacation last week and I really found out about it yesterday. So, I

[30:53] mean, I was talking with a couple of the business owners there and they had no

[30:57] idea that this was even happening. So, that concerns me because I just what

[31:01] concerns me is where is the next level of this? If the business owners decide

[31:05] they don't sell, where where are you going to put these units? And again, I'm

[31:08] concerned about having a three-story unit next to my house. Plain and simple.

[31:14] I can answer off the bat two of those very easily. Pursuant to the municipal

[31:19] land use law, we we were required and I personally oversaw the notice of every

[31:26] person within 200 ft of the affected areas. So that was and it was also

[31:34] noticed um in all of the normal public notice ways. the letter was above and

[31:41] beyond everybody who was affected by this matter. So that's why you did get

[31:46] and it was sent via certified and regular mail. So that's the first um

[31:51] that's the first answer. The second answer is I I want to make sure you

[31:56] understand the difference between a the property that is going to be built the

[32:02] threestory triplex and an overlay zone. So when the Fair Housing Act was amended

[32:09] and everything was codified and put into law, everybody understands that there

[32:15] are places such as Chattam that have challenges and not a lot of vacant land.

[32:22] Two specific challenges we had in Chadam was not only the vacant land, but the

[32:26] source service area. There's large portions of Chadam which are not in the

[32:30] sore service area and those areas cannot be used for affordable housing because

[32:34] there's no sore service there. What these overlay zones are encompassing are

[32:43] an option. We are not required to build the units that are in the over that are

[32:50] contemplated in the overlay zoning. All we have to do is provide a realistic

[32:56] opportunity for affordable housing in those areas. This doesn't mean we are

[33:04] being forced to build anything in those areas. What it means is that that is an

[33:10] option to someone who owns it, an option to somebody who may want to purchase it.

[33:16] That doesn't mean it's getting built. It doesn't mean that if it doesn't get

[33:19] built there, we have to build it somewhere else. The only project we are

[33:23] required to build is that three-unit triplex that we discussed right at the

[33:27] beginning of the meeting. Everything else is is called unmet need. Because of

[33:32] our RDP, our realistic development potential and the vacant land adjustment

[33:37] that we received by law, we are only required th to build those three units.

[33:43] The rest we had to provide zoning for which we did through the overlay zoning.

[33:49] So, I just want to make sure you understand the difference between an

[33:52] overlay zone and realistic development and and what we actually have to build.

[33:56] We have to build our RDP unmet need. We just have to zone for. It doesn't mean

[34:01] it's getting built. It doesn't mean that we have developers lined up. It means

[34:06] that we as a township have provided the realistic opportunity by zoning for

[34:13] those units. No man, you know, I understand that. I

[34:18] understand that completely. But my question is at what point does this next

[34:22] stage of the affordable housing kick in where you have to meet another number

[34:28] » there? There isn't. >> So this this level four that you're

[34:32] doing this preliminary then why are we bothering doing it if we don't need to

[34:34] do it? >> Because we are doing what we need to do.

[34:37] We are >> we required by law to do it. But it also

[34:40] says we're required by law in the next stage at some point to add more

[34:43] affordable housing. So that's my point. Some point this is going to have to be

[34:48] pushed to become more affordable housing. I I'm okay with that. But I

[34:53] just want to know like what that time frame is. You're saying that then we're

[34:57] doing this overlay and it's just they're not going to do anything then.

[35:00] » If I may. >> I'm just I'm curious.

[35:03] » Just to clarify. So the state of New Jersey there's been a series of

[35:06] lawsuits. >> Yeah. over history, decades in New

[35:09] Jersey, starting with what's known as the Mount Mount Laurel decision origates

[35:12] in Mount Laurel. And that's what's really set the stage for this affordable

[35:17] housing in New Jersey in what's known as rounds.

[35:19] » Understood. >> Each round is composes of a number of

[35:23] years. This round is a 10-year period. Right.

[35:26] » Right. We finish the third round. Each round depending on how the state

[35:30] legislature and governor decide they want to handle that round. Um we'll come

[35:35] up with a set of rules and parameters and a new process for it.

[35:39] » Right now we are in the fourth round. We've done what we need to do for the

[35:43] prior rounds. >> No one knows what the next round

[35:46] entails. >> So then

[35:47] » there could be another governor. There could be another legislature. There

[35:51] could be so many different things that could change in New Jersey and in the

[35:55] country that we don't know what's going to happen in the four fifth round or

[35:59] there may not even be a fifth round, but likely there will be. All that we're

[36:03] required to deal with right now is the fourth round and the requirements under

[36:07] the fourth round and and those requirements of the fourth round are as

[36:12] our attorney explained has been discussed realistic development

[36:15] potential an RDP which is just a mechanism to allow through zoning

[36:20] opportunities ways that developers property owners buyers sellers can

[36:25] potentially do things because the current zoning does not allow for it.

[36:28] The argument has been in New Jersey that towns don't allow for zoning because of

[36:33] twoacre requirements, oneacre requirements, all these different things

[36:36] says you can't build affordable housing in New Jersey because the restrictions

[36:41] are such that they preclude it and don't want it. So in this round it says you

[36:46] have to provide for an RDP and that's what towns are doing through these

[36:50] overlay zones or other mechanisms. That's all we have to do in that regard.

[36:54] Then there's the regard of actually units that you do have to develop those

[36:59] obligations and that's what we are obligated to do. So the two aren't

[37:03] really related. It's not that we're going to then be forced to do the things

[37:07] that are in the RDP in this round. They were totally different. You're looking

[37:11] at your vacant land analysis. You're looking at what as uh you know

[37:15] committeeman Choy had explained what circumstances may lend themselves to

[37:18] actual development. Uh so they're they're two different things just so

[37:22] we're not confusing those. The overlay zone that we're dealing with tonight is

[37:26] just to ensure that the zoning does not preclude affordable housing. And so the

[37:31] zoning that we're creating that allows affordable housing is being done so in a

[37:35] way that the density >> understood.

[37:37] » Right. Can allow for a developer to meet based on the size of the land, based on

[37:42] all these different factors, the height, the the size of the land, all these

[37:45] different options to allow for a developer to build

[37:49] » what's known as realistic. And what goes into realistic? the market conditions,

[37:53] the utilities, um you know, from good planning, right? Good sound planning. We

[37:58] we retained the services of a professional planner, not just the

[38:02] township committee here, but also the planning board. and they have to review

[38:05] that according to the master plan to see are the locations and the plan that

[38:10] you're putting forward together uh sound planning planning that makes sense in

[38:15] the state of New Jersey and makes sense because what ends up happening is we get

[38:19] sued and we did get sued all these other towns because entities actually are

[38:24] saying you're not doing enough. What you're saying is not good enough. It's

[38:29] not realistic enough and we want you to do more. And that's what we fought and

[38:34] we said, you know what, we have a solid foundation. We did our due diligence.

[38:37] This has been going on since 2024. We've been actually doing a lot of work

[38:41] through planners, through meetings, public meetings just like this, planning

[38:45] board meetings, public hearings, uh, and and and presentations for the committee

[38:49] to show why and how we got to this point and to then be able to defend it. And we

[38:54] were able to defend it successfully. So the where we are at today is probably

[38:59] not ideal. Nobody likes it, but it's just the reality of where we are in New

[39:03] Jersey and the obligations that this governing body and the residents and the

[39:06] communities have to face and they have to deal with it and they have to forally

[39:10] accept it. And so that's what the plan is today. This overlay zone, okay, is

[39:15] not a mandate to build. It's just a mandate to allow developers now or over

[39:22] the next 10 years. And as uh committee meld said in the third round we had

[39:27] created another overlay zone and in that period nobody's built over there. Either

[39:31] the economics weren't suitable, they didn't have a desire, they were happy

[39:36] with the way it was. Um and that's exactly what could happen with this. But

[39:41] this governing body is proposing under this ordinance to create that plan for

[39:47] the next 10 years. >> And I understand it. I understand it

[39:49] completely. And and I'm a general contractor by trade. I do heavy highway

[39:53] bridges and um have done development types of places. So I understand the

[39:58] infrastructure very well. I understand why you picked the place. My concern was

[40:02] not so much of you know how it was picked or why it was picked. My concern

[40:06] again is like what is the next step in stage four

[40:08] » but that's why you keep saying you understand that's why I've explained

[40:10] there is this is the next stage this >> so this I'm just I just wanted to

[40:14] clarify that nothing there's not going to be a push in five years. if I if I

[40:18] can. Nobody. There's no action item for us to go to the ShopRite development and

[40:23] say, >> "Look, I get I get my food every day

[40:26] shop right. I get my haircut at these. I get the stuff." Like, nobody is putting

[40:31] them out of business. If the property owner of that development decides to

[40:37] call it quits and Shopright goes out of business and Dunkin Donuts full of shop,

[40:41] » I understand. >> Then, and they want to put a development

[40:44] there, they're >> they have the opportunity to do that. I

[40:46] get that. to former mayor uh my choice point uh we hope that it's a mixeduse

[40:52] development because we all unit >> of course we don't and okay that was a

[40:56] clarification that I was looking for because again I'm a planner and so I

[41:01] wanted to nip this in the bud so I knew what was going on and again it it does

[41:05] directly affect my house because I'm literally sharing a border with these

[41:08] five commercial properties on the corner of Green Village Road in Shike so having

[41:12] a three-story building staring in my backyard is not something I'm happy

[41:16] about. So, I'm just that's that's >> it may not be a three story building.

[41:20] » It may not be and and I could fight in zoning at that point if it ever goes to

[41:23] that point. So, I that's why I just want to make sure that we weren't going

[41:26] further than I thought we were. So, thank you for your time.

[41:30] » Thank you. >> And just for perspective, the the

[41:33] allotment is for 10 units per acre. The Arbor Green property is 24 units an acre

[41:38] and the Charlie Brown site is 20 units an acre. So just so you have perspective

[41:43] in terms of what it would potentially look like relative to what's there

[41:46] » the property next to me 37 acres that's why I came up very

[41:52] » just a quick question if somebody offers Oh Jim Viello Popular

[41:58] Lane if someone offers the shopping center where ACE is now $20 million a

[42:07] developer and they accept it. Does that mean they already have approval to put

[42:12] up a three-story building? >> No, they would still have to go through

[42:16] all the municipal land use approvals that are required by law. They don't get

[42:20] a >> but but the but once it's done, they

[42:25] have the ability to go through the process, the normal process, and then if

[42:29] it's accepted, they can build whatever they want or whatever they

[42:33] » they cannot build. No, they cannot build whatever they want. They have to follow

[42:37] the zoning that I >> understand that. But the zoning now is

[42:40] basically saying you can put up buildings that are a couple stories high

[42:44] for affordable housing, right? >> Well, it's not and no, it's not for

[42:48] affordable housing. Somebody could come in and put a and and put affordable

[42:52] housing there, but it's mixed use with um and inclusionary, which means it

[42:58] would be both market rate and affordable.

[43:01] » So, they could do what's across the street from the train station in

[43:04] Madison. They could have some buildings underneath that are, you know,

[43:09] » stores >> and put three or four stories of

[43:12] apartments on top. >> They cannot put three or four stories of

[43:15] apartments on top. It can only be 36 ft high. So if there are commercial on the

[43:19] bottom, they're constrained

[43:22] » two stories on top. >> Yeah, they'd be constrained by and

[43:26] they're also constrained by the amount of the density. So they would have to

[43:31] look and see how big the lot is. You still no matter no matter what it is,

[43:35] you still cannot go above 10 units per acre.

[43:40] » Okay. Thank you.

[43:49] » Come on.

[43:59] My name is Paul Wayne. WHN 689 Shunpike Road. I live just a little past the 200

[44:06] foot boundary. I have a few comments. Um

[44:13] I guess uh that might be summed up with the fact that uh I think Hickory Tree

[44:18] has already done its duty as far as affordable housing has gone.

[44:23] We've put up with an enormous development across the street.

[44:28] I think we've done our duty. Anyway, why does the new uh the new zone include

[44:36] a wellestablished bank building and a church?

[44:40] I doubt that the bank will give up its land, and the church may not be subject

[44:44] to eminent domain. There's really isn't enough land here

[44:49] for a serious housing development, much less a mixeduse development that will

[44:55] require parking. in addition to what the residents need.

[45:00] It seems to smack of spot zoning.

[45:05] Uh I'm also puzzled that the ordinance includes a front yard setback of 30 ft

[45:12] but no uh no sideyard setback. There is a setback mentioned in the other

[45:17] ordinance but it's only five feet. So any house or building that's going to

[45:25] be put in there is going to be shoehorned into the the site.

[45:30] There are the obvious considerations. U there are other sites. I don't know you

[45:35] you've probably investigated all of them but u the golf course might give up some

[45:41] of its land. There is a space between the Chattam Club and Juniper

[45:47] which has two houses on it which is quite large. I don't know whether there

[45:52] are wetlands on it or not. Um, you should also consider the loss of the

[45:57] professional offices. Um,

[46:01] a lot of people in the town use those offices. There are medical people, there

[46:06] are psychiatrists, educational specialists,

[46:10] uh, my optometrist is there. Uh, and there's a dentist.

[46:16] Uh, I don't know where they'll go. Um, and then of course there's the problem

[46:21] of traffic. Uh, it's not really desirable to

[46:25] concentrate more traffic in that area. I have trouble getting out of my driveway

[46:30] in the morning or getting into my driveway in the evening or getting out

[46:34] of my driveway in the evening. I often have to drive

[46:38] right when I want to go left and make a U-turn someplace else.

[46:44] In a word, I don't think this is a desirable

[46:49] uh option or a serious realistic option. There really isn't enough space there

[46:56] for for anything really. That's all.

[47:02] » I just want to clarify a few things for you. There is the sideyard setback. If

[47:07] you read under D, all standards and requirements in the underlying B1 and

[47:11] PI2 zones shall be met unless they are superseded. So there are sideyard

[47:16] setbacks that will be retained from the zoning that is the underlying zoning

[47:21] already. So it won't be shoehorned into anything. They still have to um follow

[47:27] the sideyard setbacks that are in the underlying zoning. The only thing that

[47:30] foot 10. So the sideyard setback would be a little shorter than me.

[47:37] Um >> that's a ridiculous setback.

[47:42] » Hey, but they they would that is the setback that is the current setback that

[47:46] is in the zoning right now. So whatever the setback is currently

[47:52] remains the same for the sideyard. >> This is a crowded area.

[47:56] » Okay. U the second the second thing you you discussed was eminent domain. The

[48:01] township is not under eminent domain is undertaken by a municipality and the

[48:06] township has stated that we are not the only

[48:10] project we are required to build is the three units

[48:14] not anything here. If we were we there is no mention of eminent domain because

[48:20] the township is not building anything in this area. The township is not required

[48:25] to build anything in this area. All the township has to do is zone for the

[48:30] opportunity for affordable housing in that area. So, it's the second or third

[48:35] time I've heard eminent domain mentioned. And I just want to make sure

[48:38] everybody understands the township is is not going to be the one who builds

[48:42] anything in this area. They're not looking to build anything in this area.

[48:46] Therefore, eminent domain is something that is not on the table anywhere. That

[48:50] would be if the township was going to build something, if they were the ones

[48:54] that if it was a municipally sponsored project, which this zone is not. Um I I

[49:01] also heard you mention that we were going to lose all of those professional

[49:06] offices that were there. Again, just because it is zoned for this meaning

[49:11] this for it does not mean that those offices will leave. It is not a foregone

[49:16] conclusion that any of these businesses will be displaced if somebody was to buy

[49:23] these projects or the these parcels. My understanding is they're all in use

[49:28] currently and in order which means they're more than likely making revenue.

[49:33] Um in order for somebody to go in and buy these

[49:37] projects, it would have to be financially feasible. And there are a

[49:41] lot of things that would go into penciling out a project. But you have to

[49:44] remember when a when a developer buys when a developer is required to put in

[49:50] affordable housing, they take a haircut. They are they know going in that two of

[49:56] those units for every eight market units they have to build, two of those

[50:01] affordable units, they're not going to make money. In fact, they're going to

[50:04] probably lose money on those affordable units. So that is something that

[50:08] developers when they are going to build in any area they take that into

[50:12] consideration. So there are financial considerations that have to be taken

[50:16] into account. Would they make more money with it being a shopright or would it

[50:21] make more money as you know there are many considerations. So I I don't think

[50:25] um it is a foregone conclusion that business and medical offices are going

[50:29] to close or that shopping centers are going to close. It is an again it is an

[50:34] option that is now um being proposed for those areas.

[50:40] » Well, it is true that if the bank and the church do not cooperate or do not

[50:48] are not interested in selling their land,

[50:51] there's only one owner who is. Is that spot zoning? Again, we're not

[50:58] we're not requesting that anybody goes out of business or stops, but churches

[51:02] might >> I'm not requesting that either.

[51:04] » Banks might close and and on top of that, if they decide to leave and sell

[51:11] their property and they want to develop, these are all multiple steps here. then

[51:16] there are certain obligations, but there's no action item for any of us to

[51:20] see any of those businesses in any or churches or sports clubs or anything

[51:25] else close. Uh these are things that we all use as residents of Chattam Township

[51:31] and we like we'd like we we wish them ongoing success.

[51:37] » Thank you.

[51:53] Good evening. My name is Gary Young. I live on Popular Lane and um I'm not

[51:59] going to say the same things that everybody else has said. I'm sure you've

[52:01] heard enough to feel very satisfied as to how you feel about this. However, um

[52:07] I would just say to you, there are a couple points I think that Mr. Banano

[52:11] raised that are are very valid. One of them being and the other people here um

[52:16] one of them is I think there's an overconentration

[52:19] of this type of use uh pursuant to this act that burdens us in that one corner

[52:26] of the town which is very unfair and discriminatory

[52:31] and because we don't have equal opportunity here under the law. It's not

[52:34] equal application. It's it's burdening us much more than anybody else. And I

[52:40] appreciate that. It's a pre-existing condition. You didn't have these laws to

[52:44] contend with in 1789 when they were first developing channel. But you know

[52:49] the you have to live with what exists today. Okay? And

[52:54] living where we do having those commercial properties adjacent to us is

[53:00] a quality of life benefit. Okay? So I I don't we feel threatened by

[53:06] the potential loss of that use and it makes our lives better. I can walk to

[53:11] those stores, okay, which is a nice thing to be able to do, especially if

[53:15] you go in that shop, right parking lot and see how dangerous it is. You don't

[53:19] want to drive around in that parking lot. So, um, I I object to this on the

[53:24] basis that I think it was an easy way and I I believe there may not be an easy

[53:29] way out, but I think it was about the easy easiest way for you that you could

[53:32] conjure up, which is still I appreciate that, but nevertheless, it's unfair to

[53:37] us. And we have valuable properties. We pay taxes. We pay a lot of tax. And I

[53:42] think this would take away and potentially prejudice the value of our

[53:47] properties. So, I would ask that you keep that in mind in your consideration

[53:52] because there's a consequence to that. So, hopefully that won't be realized.

[53:56] The other thing I would just say to you is by passing this ordinance, you put a

[54:00] crack in the door. It in the absence of this ordinance, someone would have to

[54:05] make an application. I don't know if it would require a change of zone, but it

[54:08] would be something more burdensome by virtue of having this statute in place.

[54:12] If a developer comes along and says to the owner of that property, um, we're

[54:17] going to give you $20 million because we want to build all this affordable

[54:20] housing. We'll make out like bandits. I'm concerned about that. Um, because I

[54:25] think there is a possibility of that. So, I would just ask that you reconsider

[54:30] this because I consider at least some of the impacts that it has on us. Thank

[54:35] you.

[54:48] All right. Any more comments? >> Mayor, if I just uh if I can add just a

[54:54] point of clarification for the members of the public as part of, you know, the

[54:58] the information I was offering before, right? There is a consequence to not

[55:02] doing this or to doing something else. And I think it's important to understand

[55:06] what the consequence is of not doing this. Um I can really speak to it,

[55:11] Jessica. If we do not do this, right, we are at risk of what's known as builder's

[55:17] remedy lawsuits, right? We lose our immunity

[55:20] » from this from developers uh being able to sue us and essentially say I want to

[55:25] build affordable housing anywhere I want at pretty much whatever density I want.

[55:29] Is that correct? >> Yeah. So what would happen is if we do

[55:33] not pass these ordinances this evening, the

[55:37] we lose our immunity. Uh developer can come in and say great, I want to I'm

[55:44] going to build say they want to buy two single family lots next to each other.

[55:49] Um they would then be able to put whatever they want with whatever

[55:53] setbacks they want. Um build as many units as they want in order to um meet

[55:59] our affordable housing. and it'd be under the guise of saying, "Well, I'm

[56:02] going to build a 100 units. Um, I'm going to build a 100 unit project in

[56:06] this two family lot." And it happened in other municipalities. And you would have

[56:11] a 100 units in a two family lot and you would get your 20 units of affordable

[56:15] housing, but you'd also get 80 units of market rate units. So, you remember for

[56:21] every two affordable units, you have eight market rate.

[56:26] » So, I think it's important to keep that in mind. this governing body did not

[56:29] take the easy way out. This governing body looked at also, you know, I I I

[56:34] hear some concerns and there are legitimate concerns that there's fear

[56:37] that this may take away the shopping plazas or somebody's going to come in

[56:41] here and think this is really lucrative, but the reality of it is it is not

[56:45] lucrative to build affordable housing. Affordable housing projects that are all

[56:50] affordable housing tend to require pilots such as tax abatements. They

[56:55] require subsidies. They require grants. They require a really uh you know

[57:00] lowincome housing credits. Uh a lot of effort to build. So it is not a

[57:05] lucrative thing to just come in there and say we want to build affordable

[57:08] housing. In fact, what does make sense for a lot of developers and why this is

[57:13] considered and why the court agreed and the special masters and the planners

[57:17] agreed that this is a realistic good realistic opportunity is because you

[57:21] look around the state wherever there are mixed uh developments where there's

[57:25] inclusionary zoning there does tend to be a commercial element associated with

[57:29] that because that is also where the money is. So the fear that you're going

[57:32] to lose your professional offices, that you're going to lose your businesses,

[57:35] that you're going to lose some of the shopping districts is actually uh the

[57:39] exact opposite. Those are the things. So when when banks are looking to close,

[57:44] when office buildings are looking to close, when grocery stores or cafes are

[57:48] looking to close and the owner of that property says, "Well, this is no longer

[57:52] sustainable for me." This is a lifeline to ensure that those kinds of businesses

[57:58] stay in your community. That's what makes them survive in a lot of places in

[58:01] New Jersey and why this is a not the easy way but again the wellthoughtout

[58:06] realistic opportunity because otherwise you end up with uh two, three, four

[58:11] multif family homes scattered throughout the town in areas that probably will not

[58:16] fit in with those characters of the neighborhood and where potentially we

[58:20] lose our builder rem our immunity from builders uh uh our builder's immunity

[58:25] I'm sorry and open the door to builder lawsuits where then you can have

[58:28] development of greater magnitude uh all throughout

[58:32] the town. I

[58:34] » also just want to mention the financial aspect. So, another fun topic tonight is

[58:40] our budget. And I'm a chief financial officer. So, this is what I live and

[58:45] breathe and do seven days a week. It's not easy to build the budget. And when

[58:51] you think about putting affordable housing in an area like on the cliff of

[58:56] Snake Hill where we'd have to put in sewers and transportation that like the

[59:01] costs were were inordinate. And to um former mayor Choy's point, this is an

[59:08] existing overlay. We're not required to do anything. But I think something that

[59:11] we also always consider, something that's always at the top of my mind is

[59:14] the financial aspect. You talk about your taxes. I don't want to raise your

[59:17] taxes either. and you're paying enough taxes. But it's a reality that when

[59:22] these are imposed, this is a law that we have to comply. We have paid. We have

[59:28] the most fantastic planners and lawyers that have honestly really saved us

[59:34] because every municipality was sued. Every single one in New Jersey, over

[59:38] 400, and we were successful. >> The last time you'll see me my face

[59:41] again up here. I I promise you. Very eloquent description. Dominic Manano

[59:47] very magnolia place very eloquent description of what you

[59:52] had needed to do and what you were trying to do to save the township from

[59:55] being sued for things and so forth. The issue is the concentration the

[1:00:00] concentration of these these areas you've identified as a new business zone

[1:00:08] businesses plus affordable housing. It's not the fact we appreciate the fact that

[1:00:12] we need to have affordable housing, but you've concentrated it and I I would

[1:00:17] really like to know what other areas you might have looked at. Now, you probably

[1:00:21] are not required to share that with citizens.

[1:00:24] » Every and there's no other place in Chadam Township. No other place. You

[1:00:28] talked about transportation. That's an interesting point. More people, more

[1:00:32] transportation. That whole area coming through Shunpike, I'm sure you guys do.

[1:00:36] If you live in the township, you go shopping at Chai. It's it's very

[1:00:39] concentrated. The roads are not are not Shanpike is a narrow road and all of the

[1:00:45] concentration, more people, more transportation. You need to go back and

[1:00:49] think about where else can you do this? Because here's the issue. Once this is

[1:00:54] passed and somebody decides to sell shop or the or ace hardware development

[1:00:59] there, they begin they decide they're going to sell because somebody's going

[1:01:02] to put a lot of money in front of them. And I appreciate the idea that nobody

[1:01:05] makes a lot of money on affordable housing. And I have one other issue. Is

[1:01:09] there anything here that is there anything in this ordinance that

[1:01:13] prohibits the township of Chadam from either donating borrowing money to help

[1:01:20] pay for the affordable housing? If a developer comes in and says, you know

[1:01:24] what, we could do this. We need another $5 million. Is there anything in this

[1:01:29] ordinance that would prohibit Chattam Township from providing the money,

[1:01:34] providing a loan, or borrowing itself to be able to fund that?

[1:01:40] » Turn back. >> This is a zoning ordinance. This is not

[1:01:44] that isn't something that would be in a zoning ordinance.

[1:01:47] » No, it wouldn't be in a zoning ordinance. I'm not suggesting it is, but

[1:01:51] is is the current the current board, current council.

[1:01:54] » I would go so far as to say that you really can't do that. Uh yeah, but

[1:01:58] there's no real again obligated to develop in this overlay

[1:02:03] zone. >> A developer could come here and ask, but

[1:02:07] there's no obligation to do that. >> There isn't an obligation

[1:02:11] » by the same way that this let's say this governing body were to pass any law.

[1:02:15] There's no nothing set in stone, right? And if the state down the road in the

[1:02:19] fifth round says, "Hey, you have to do this or a different set of individuals

[1:02:24] are sitting up here in 10 years," they can easily undo that. So there's and as

[1:02:29] I said, I think I would go so far, not legally, but you really can't do that

[1:02:33] because you're kind of negating a hypothetical

[1:02:37] that really doesn't even exist. >> Okay. Okay. Understood. All right. Said

[1:02:42] my piece. Thank you. >> I I just want to say one more thing. Um

[1:02:47] I work with multiple municipalities. I have worked with multiple munic multiple

[1:02:52] municipalities. Chattam is one of two that successfully challenged the

[1:02:59] obligation. Two municipalities that successfully challenged their

[1:03:03] obligation, had it downwardly adjusted and then refused because fair share was

[1:03:09] not being um realistic. We refused to settle with fair share. I only know two

[1:03:16] places in the entire state of New Jersey that did not settle with fair share. We

[1:03:22] have a very compliant plan. We have a defendable plan. The court has approved

[1:03:27] our plan already. And uh your council, your committee has gone above and beyond

[1:03:35] has stood up for the residents with not only this plan and the obligations. And

[1:03:41] there have I I I cannot there's not much I can say

[1:03:47] other than that to let you know that your council defended everything that

[1:03:50] they could and they went up above and beyond. You know, where everybody else

[1:03:55] was settling um everybody else was, you know, maybe oh, it's only a few more

[1:03:59] units. The committee refused to do that. They believed in their numbers. They

[1:04:05] believed in the professionals and they believed in the law. and you should be

[1:04:09] grateful that they stood up to fair share and the builders association.

[1:04:14] » Jim Biello Paper, um the precedent you were talking about,

[1:04:19] is it my understanding that we paid $6 million for the Charlie Brown property,

[1:04:24] gave it to a developer, and then gave him a two

[1:04:28] $2 million 20-year loan interest free because that came right out of our

[1:04:32] taxpayer dollars pockets. So if that happened then there is a precedence for

[1:04:39] it. >> Those are some roundabout numbers. You

[1:04:40] are correct. But that is different from the overlay zone that was to meet the

[1:04:45] actual development obligation that the town had in the third round which was

[1:04:49] those number of units that uh former mayor and current committeewoman Ewald

[1:04:54] just spoke about. The the obligation for this round is just those four those four

[1:04:59] units that we're building the three four and we're getting that extra credit for.

[1:05:03] That's all our obligation is to develop under this round. So since we own that

[1:05:07] land and we're going to be working with the developer to develop that, that's

[1:05:11] all our obligation is for here. >> Well, I think what Mr. Banana might have

[1:05:15] been asking is that in the future, would we ever do the same thing?

[1:05:19] » You this governing body, future governing, we don't know what could

[1:05:23] happen in a situation where there is an obligation to develop

[1:05:28] » with this with respect to that overlay zone. There is no obligation for us to

[1:05:33] develop to do something like the Charlie Brown or something like these three

[1:05:37] units. That's the current obligation for for what we're dealing with now and over

[1:05:42] the next 10 years. In the fifth round, should that come when that comes in 10

[1:05:47] nine years or so, right? That's a whole different set of numbers that we'll have

[1:05:52] to work with. They may say you have one unit you have to build. They could say

[1:05:55] you have 20 units. We don't know yet, right? And at that point, we'll have to

[1:06:00] deal with the reality of, okay, what land could we do? What, you know, the

[1:06:03] town had to buy that land in order to then turn it over. We don't have much

[1:06:08] land to develop. We don't have land that we own that we could develop, uh, much

[1:06:12] else other than what we're looking at for these three units.

[1:06:15] » Okay. Thank you, U, mayor. um >> and and we looked at those dreams

[1:06:19] because that did make sense from a financial perspective rather than having

[1:06:22] to also go out and then buy some land from a property owner at really

[1:06:27] ridiculous expense. This made the most sense to to

[1:06:31] be in the best interest of the taxpayers at the lowest cost we felt.

[1:06:35] » Thank you, >> Mayor. We do have a hand raised online

[1:06:37] that hasn't spoken yet. Can we uh let them speak?

[1:06:40] » Absolutely. Yes. Thank you. >> Okay. phone number beginning with area

[1:06:45] code 973. You are clear to speak if you unmute.

[1:06:52] Name and street, please. >> Uh Tom Evans, Birchville Drive.

[1:07:00] » Am I in line to speak here? >> Yes, it's your turn.

[1:07:04] » I I'd like to ask you you referred to a triplex tonight. Uh everything I've

[1:07:11] heard prior to this, you've talked about one-story group homes and it wasn't

[1:07:16] clear at all how many units are in those threestory triplexes. You just gave away

[1:07:24] two lots of land over on River Road. How many triplexes are going into each lot?

[1:07:32] How many bedrooms are in each building >> is my first question.

[1:07:39] So, just to clarify, um I think there's just a little confusion. What we're

[1:07:43] looking at on the property that would be adjacent to the police department, uh is

[1:07:48] one building, three units. Each of those units would have to, and

[1:07:54] correct me, Jessica, if I'm mistaken, it's one one-bedroom, one twobedroom,

[1:07:58] and one threebedroom. Correct. >> I believe that's the um distribution.

[1:08:02] Yes. And so it would just be like a town home or, you know, one one building, one

[1:08:08] structure that would include uh those three units.

[1:08:14] » I'm I'm sorry. I thought I'm confusing it with the River Road.

[1:08:18] » What is going in on River Road? >> River Road round three. Yeah, that's

[1:08:21] that's separate. I apologize. Um is that >> River Road is three group homes with

[1:08:26] four bedrooms each. >> Okay. How many stories?

[1:08:32] » One story. >> Each one's one. Did somebody ask how

[1:08:35] many stories? >> How many stories? Each one's one story

[1:08:37] for the group calls. >> Oh, very good. Thank you very much. One

[1:08:41] last question. I I'm amazed that regarding the Hickory Tree Overlay zone,

[1:08:47] no one is speaking about the fact that within five years, and you keep

[1:08:53] diminishing this as a 10-year window, if nobody comes forward, within 10 years to

[1:08:59] destroy the area there within five years,

[1:09:04] they can come back and completely redefine the density. Isn't that the

[1:09:08] fact? That's what I've heard from the Chattam Burough discussions as well as

[1:09:13] Kendra's presentations here in the township. It's a five-year look back.

[1:09:20] So, you keep talking about 10 years. If they don't come forward to develop it,

[1:09:24] you're free and clear. But within five years, they can re redefine to increase

[1:09:30] the density to attract the development within a 5-year window. Would you please

[1:09:38] clarify if I'm correct or wrong on that? >> Yeah, there is a midpoint review in five

[1:09:45] years to make sure that we have done everything we're supposed to do, which

[1:09:49] includes building that three-unit triplex, make sure that um we've deed

[1:09:54] restricted it appropriately. That's part of that. Um, they'll also look, and you

[1:09:58] are correct, they'll also look to see if something has been built here um at this

[1:10:03] location and if the overlay zone has been adopted. Um, but the standard is

[1:10:10] the realistic development potential. It is that we have provided for the zoning

[1:10:16] and that it keeps with the character of the area. So, one of the things that we

[1:10:23] took offense to when we refused to settle with Fair Shares, they wanted to

[1:10:28] make the density in this area 25 dwelling units per acre. Where we have

[1:10:34] it at 10, they wanted 25. They kept trying to um get us to go higher and

[1:10:41] higher. And we were able to successfully defend to the special adjudicator, the

[1:10:46] program judge, and the superior court that 10 units per acre is what's

[1:10:51] appropriate for this area. And we have a court order which says so,

[1:10:58] » right? I just I just think you should refer to that five-year time frame

[1:11:02] rather than the 10-year because you're being disingenuous and and deluding the

[1:11:07] residents of the town. Thank you.

[1:11:14] To clarify though, it is a 10-year round. The fourth round is by

[1:11:17] legislation under the afford the the fair housing act a 10-year

[1:11:23] uh and then with all I say all the previous rounds there's reviews there's

[1:11:28] checkpoints the court wants to whether it's the court at one point it was ka at

[1:11:32] one point it was the courts through fair share they always want to make sure that

[1:11:36] you're submitting reports you're updating your spending plan you're

[1:11:39] showing that you're doing what you need to do so um yeah I think that's that

[1:11:44] said about that >> and one thing that we gained by not

[1:11:47] settling with fair share is in every other municipality that did shuttle

[1:11:51] settle with fair share, they have to answer to fair share. We do not.

[1:12:00] » Two, we are one of two municipalities out of over 400

[1:12:04] » that I know of. Yeah. >> That we know of

[1:12:07] » that didn't settle and did not enter into immediate agreement incent.

[1:12:10] » I just want by by you know not settling too. I mean the the the demand that was

[1:12:15] on the table by fair share was a far more burdensome and ownorous um proposal

[1:12:23] than even what the law required and uh everything from uh the the numbers to

[1:12:30] the mechanisms to the reporting um all of which would have resulted in greater

[1:12:36] density more burdens to the residents and greater expense to the taxpayers.

[1:12:41] So, um, the fact that we were, uh, we were able to prevail and have the

[1:12:47] agreement of the the program judge and the special master the the for the

[1:12:51] state, uh, I think speaks a lot about of our plan and what we've put forward.

[1:12:57] » We did not take it lightly. We did not just rely on our lawyers and our

[1:13:01] planners to tell us what to do. We educated ourselves. We had a lot of

[1:13:06] conversations. I'm grateful to have the experience of people that went through

[1:13:10] the third round to be able to do this with the fourth round which was a little

[1:13:13] bit different. So I I I don't want I I just I don't know. I guess I take it

[1:13:19] personally that people think that we just snapped our fingers and and made an

[1:13:22] easy decision. It was not an easy decision. It takes a lot of time and

[1:13:26] effort and money quite honestly to do the right thing. This was the right

[1:13:31] thing to do. We fought for it and we I wouldn't just go to court and fight to

[1:13:36] fight. We had to make sure that we were buttoned up and tight. We were all felt

[1:13:41] very confident that we were buttoned up tight. We had the right plan that was

[1:13:44] right for Chattam and we won. So I'm I'm proud of that.

[1:13:50] If I just may uh say something um for the benefit of of the public, I think I

[1:13:56] think the overarching concept for for us um as it pertains to affordable housing

[1:14:00] was for the township um to be able to manage process uh along our desires and

[1:14:07] requirements as best we could again under the umbrella of the state law. Uh

[1:14:14] metaphorically we wanted to drive the bus. Um the third round was much more

[1:14:19] complicated. Um there were uh there were decisions plans that were done under

[1:14:24] duress. Um it was our hope and desire that for fourth round we drive the bus.

[1:14:29] We dictate within the confines of the law. Um we don't have all the answers

[1:14:34] because this is a 5-year checkpoint 10 year horizon. Things certainly may

[1:14:38] change at some point at some point or multiple points along that time horizon.

[1:14:43] But but I think what this plan allows us to do is meet the present need of

[1:14:49] effectively net three units. We'll be in a good shape there. I see foreseeably um

[1:14:53] over the next several years with that being completed, we'll we'll finish the

[1:14:56] group homes which will comply will fully satisfy our third round. Uh and I think

[1:15:00] we can present to um the jurisdictional bodies uh a township that is complying.

[1:15:05] we're making best efforts to to manifest uh the the the ultimately the spirit of

[1:15:12] of the affordable housing um uh laws. Um what is that to say that uh if if

[1:15:20] nothing happens in this overlay then we failed? I I don't think so. And if

[1:15:25] something has happened there, have we failed or succeeded? Not necessarily the

[1:15:29] right. I don't think that's a fair way to look at I think at the end of the

[1:15:32] day, we looked at what we had within our control and we wanted to drive the bus.

[1:15:37] We wanted to maintain options as opposed to being forced to do something under

[1:15:42] the perils of builder's remedy or having no options and no andor close to no time

[1:15:48] and having to make bad decisions. So right now this is a plan that complies.

[1:15:54] We have our commitment today is three. The plan complies. Uh we have time, we

[1:16:00] have flexibility. We are driving the parameters on density. It is a modest

[1:16:05] and achievable number of 10 units per acre. Most larger size developments are

[1:16:12] 20 plus units per acre. It is a massive density um that I think would not be in

[1:16:17] keeping with the characteristics of the township. So we are driving and managing

[1:16:21] uh you know controlling the variables. Um we're in a good place. We're in the

[1:16:26] driver's seat. We don't have all the answers. Uh but we comply. We have a

[1:16:29] plan. We're not going to get pushed up against um

[1:16:33] a a short fuse or a time clock that's going to run out on us. We I think

[1:16:38] we're, you know, I think we're in a very good spot here. Uh we have a three-unit

[1:16:43] commitment. Um and we've got a plan that that satisfies

[1:16:49] that that was just approved by court and and we're we're we're in a great place

[1:16:53] is is how I look at it. Um, I can respect concerns about concentration and

[1:16:58] and congestion um uh about possible changes of character of that particular

[1:17:05] area. It it's an it's an overlay zone um and

[1:17:10] it complies with the plan and we've fulfilled our obligation today. Um

[1:17:16] and u I I think for the residents who I think when when you look at these

[1:17:21] ordinance it's a tendency to catastrophize and and imagine a 600 unit

[1:17:26] building there that that um you know forbodingly overlooks the sidewalks and

[1:17:31] shadows off the entire Sh Pike Road. Um that's certainly not the case. Um we've

[1:17:36] put together something that complies. Uh whether or not it comes to fruition,

[1:17:40] that's not within our perview. um it complies and our current demand, our

[1:17:45] current requirement is three units. We are in a fantastic position as we look

[1:17:50] across the state. Uh I think you about 560 569 municipalities.

[1:17:55] We're in an excellent position. Um and I and I want you to kind of walk away

[1:18:01] with with a little bit appreciation of where this township is with regard to

[1:18:04] fourth round housing, affordable housing. Um, we've driven the bus, we've

[1:18:08] controlled the parameters, uh, we've successfully, uh, litigated and won. Um,

[1:18:14] and I think business as usual, the

[1:18:17] businesses over there will continue. Uh, the property owners, um, have uh, you

[1:18:22] know, added benefit whether or not uh, uh, but the property rights are still

[1:18:26] intact. You can still be patrons of the businesses there. Uh, it will be

[1:18:30] business as usual. But, you know, uh I appreciate all the

[1:18:35] questions and comments. I do understand your concerns. Um at the end of the day,

[1:18:42] certainly putting uh the worst thing would be for this community to say,

[1:18:46] "Well, gee, we're going to punt this. We're going to put our heads in the

[1:18:48] sand. We're not doing anything." That I think is the uh Defcon one scenario

[1:18:54] where now the state now the state believes we are acting bad faith. We are

[1:19:00] in a very favorable position. we're we're looked favorably upon because we

[1:19:03] we actively took this on. We intelligently

[1:19:07] uh debated it. We we uh we put forth revised numbers um and they agreed with

[1:19:14] us. So I think they they see the township as acting in good faith as it

[1:19:18] pertains to this overarching endeavor here that every town must comply with.

[1:19:23] Um I think it would be a big mistake uh to say well gee do nothing just ignore

[1:19:29] it you know and decide you know hope you know for a hail Mary that something

[1:19:33] changes down the road we don't believe it will in any material way as far as uh

[1:19:38] the general obligation the details of it certainly will change but um uh you know

[1:19:44] I think we're in a good position um to be able to negotiate whatever changes

[1:19:48] whatever unknowns may come down the pike um and And uh I I personally am uh you

[1:19:56] know proud you know committee woman Ewald was on that subcommittee. I we did

[1:20:00] you know we did um there were a lot of lessons learned from prior experiences

[1:20:05] collective experiences on affordable housing matter in the township and we we

[1:20:09] said you know enough is enough. We're going to be smart about it. We're going

[1:20:12] to be aggressive and and we're going to challenge and we're going to uh put

[1:20:16] something that um uh makes sense for the township. it it's not something that's

[1:20:22] perfect, but it's it's reasonable. It's it's acceptable. Um, and I think we're

[1:20:28] by and large happy with the outcome. >> We move on to the next person waiting to

[1:20:34] speak. >> Yes. Thank you.

[1:20:41] » Jessica. >> Yeah. Hi, it's Jessica Romeo and on Pine

[1:20:44] Street. I just want to say, you know, you guys have put in the the elected

[1:20:48] officials, the township committee, and the professionals have obviously put in

[1:20:51] tons of work and thought, and I think you should be applauded for your

[1:20:55] efforts. Um, I think we should all be grateful for the work you put in, the

[1:20:59] care, and the thought you put towards this. So, thank you. That's all.

[1:21:07] » Thank you, Jessica. >> Any other questions?

[1:21:11] » Yes. >> Okay.

[1:21:15] Yeah. Hi, Jen McN on um Noi Avenue. Uh just to speak uh how Jessica, thank you

[1:21:20] to everyone for the hard work. I have been listening to the comments. I've

[1:21:23] been following this and I think if you've closely followed the past history

[1:21:26] of the affordable housing obligations in the township, um we've been backed into

[1:21:31] some difficult corners in the past. And I think that people here, like Jessica

[1:21:34] said, have put some really serious thought and consideration um from the

[1:21:37] township elected officials, from the township uh management, uh our lawyers,

[1:21:41] and everyone else, some incredibly thoughtful um work into this. So, we do

[1:21:46] have what Mike said, we are driving the bus. In the past, we were not driving

[1:21:48] the bus, and we had been backed into some other situations. And this is

[1:21:52] smart, and uh we're the obligation is for three, which it probably could have

[1:21:56] been if you look at other towns, a whole heck of a lot more. Um, and I appreciate

[1:21:59] everyone's time and thank you so much for for all your hard work.

[1:22:04] » Thank you.

[1:22:08] » Anyone else? Mr. >> That's all at the moment.

[1:22:12] » Okay. Any other comments? Yeah, >> one just

[1:22:19] um again, Tommy, I saw me show my growth. Um, just out of curiosity, and

[1:22:23] this is just a legitimate question. I'm not being facitious at all. If I were to

[1:22:28] sell my pro, want to sell my property on Shan Pike Road, which is an acre, would

[1:22:32] I be able to get my property resed to build 10 units on it? That's my That's a

[1:22:37] legitimate question. >> No, that would be spot zoning.

[1:22:43] » That would be so a So, but >> singling out one specific property

[1:22:48] without merit, without foundation. So, for example, there's things under, you

[1:22:53] know, state law like redevelopment law, correct? You know, there's properties in

[1:22:58] need of rehabilitation, properties in need of redevelopment. There's a lot of

[1:23:01] criteria that has to be met, >> even if it's a touching onto a property

[1:23:04] that already has that zoning.

[1:23:08] » What do you I'm sorry. >> So, my border would be a property that

[1:23:11] has the zoning once it goes into place. So,

[1:23:14] » So, you're saying you want to be included in

[1:23:15] » I'm just saying could I be included in it down the road if I chose to be

[1:23:19] » in the overlay zone? Yeah, you could. Jessica,

[1:23:22] » I'm just curious. >> You could apply.

[1:23:25] » Um, no, not automatically. You could apply for a variance through

[1:23:30] » I just wanted to know if the option was there when I sold down the are you are

[1:23:34] you in the business? >> You could apply for a variance.

[1:23:37] » No, I'm in residential that touch. >> Well, that's why I just want to clarify,

[1:23:40] right? Because this is an overlay zone for that business. One thing once that

[1:23:44] overlay zone is created if I'm touching that

[1:23:48] » overlay zone applies to the what I'm trying to explain it just one second the

[1:23:52] overlay zone applies to this business district correct

[1:23:56] » you are not in the business zone you are have you have residential zoning

[1:24:00] » correct I was asking the question if I could do that though

[1:24:03] » that would have that's that's a residential zone

[1:24:07] » like I mean he can he'd have to he'd have to go through the motions to

[1:24:11] successfully improve the case in order to becluded in that is what

[1:24:15] » but you're you're part of the residential zone. We're trying to

[1:24:18] overlay zone to the business zone, not the residential zone.

[1:24:22] » I understand that. But my question is 5 years from now if the building starts

[1:24:26] happening or if something happens and I want to decide, hey, maybe I don't want

[1:24:30] to live next to this area or maybe I'm just tired of the congestion. Can I take

[1:24:34] my property and apply for this reszoning because I can get a lot more selling my

[1:24:40] one acre 10 units on it. >> I'm just saying I didn't know

[1:24:46] » anybody can apply for zoning anywhere doesn't mean you you have to show the

[1:24:51] positive and negative criteria in order to get that. Now I want to be very clear

[1:24:57] something that Mr. Shahadi said earlier. If we were to not pass these ordinances

[1:25:02] this evening and lose our immunity, anybody could do what you just said.

[1:25:06] Anybody in any area of the township could sell their single family 1acre lot

[1:25:12] and jam as many units as possible into their 1acre lot by passing these

[1:25:17] ordinances and by having a compliant plan. We stop that process. we, you

[1:25:24] know, currently if you if that is, you know, the road you want to go on and you

[1:25:27] want to apply for a variance um for the bulk standards of your of your property,

[1:25:32] you're welcome to do that. And in that case, the zoning or the planning board,

[1:25:36] depending on what your um what you're seeking, what variance is would

[1:25:40] adjudicate the merits of your application. But if we are not if we do

[1:25:45] not do what we're statutoily required to do this evening,

[1:25:49] we don't get to make those decisions. the court and a special judge comes in

[1:25:53] and makes those decisions for us. We lose our zoning power.

[1:26:00] » Thank you, Jessica. Are there any other questions? Mr.

[1:26:03] Lanti? >> No hands raised.

[1:26:06] » Okay. Anyone else questions, comments?

[1:26:14] » Rick Carlin, Shunpike Road. Wife and I have lived here for 34 years.

[1:26:19] Um, very quick questions. One, it sounds

[1:26:24] like, because I haven't done a ton of homework, I have too much other

[1:26:28] homework, that the township is subject to these requirements

[1:26:34] separately from Chattam Burough. Correct. Okay.

[1:26:39] And um the only other thing I was going to say is you can tell by the questions

[1:26:46] I'm I'm in basically 100% agreement with what's being said.

[1:26:51] But so two years from now I decide to sell my home.

[1:26:56] It's zone single family residential. I don't think I'm going to attract

[1:27:03] anywhere near the market value that I would get prior to this happening.

[1:27:08] especially if there's any perceived uh idea by the market that it's indeed

[1:27:16] going to be developed, you know, and it's almost like what Tom said, we need

[1:27:21] flexibility. Um it it could turn all the way around. You you lose the shopping

[1:27:26] center, one of them or whatever. And I've noticed from the beginning,

[1:27:33] affordable housing is always located near a commercial area. As you mentioned

[1:27:37] before, some of these people don't have cars, whatever. That's where they're

[1:27:42] putting them, not just here, all over. Right. Well,

[1:27:47] if we're we're only like four lots uh those those of us that are being

[1:27:53] affected by this uh right nearby. There's others in different directions,

[1:27:57] but we're we're we're all neighbors. and you know to have the ability uh to do

[1:28:04] other than just single family cuz somebody will come and yeah I'll buy

[1:28:08] your property for half the price you know I mean that's that's what I could

[1:28:13] hear so I worked a long time to uh and bought in

[1:28:19] Chattam for that reason so that you know it would be a lot more valuable than

[1:28:26] what might happen that's it thank

[1:28:34] any other questions, comments.

[1:28:39] » Okay. So, do I close the public hearing? Is there a motion to close the public

[1:28:44] hearing related to the final adoption of ordinances?

[1:28:47] » You control. >> I can do that. I'm closing it.

[1:28:51] » Okay. So, then we're going to do each one of these individually. Motion to

[1:28:55] adopt these. >> Yes. Uh, and then we'll have to open the

[1:28:58] public hearing for the next ordinance. >> I'll make a motion to adopt 2026-05.

[1:29:04] » I'll second.

[1:29:08] » Mr. Alperitz, >> yes.

[1:29:13] » Mr. Short, >> yes.

[1:29:14] » Mrs. Ew, >> yes.

[1:29:16] » Deputy Mayor McHugh, >> yes.

[1:29:18] » And Mayor Roland, >> yes.

[1:29:19] » Motion passes. >> Okay. Now, I'd like to open up the

[1:29:23] public hearing for ordinance 2026-06 adding the AH1 zone.

[1:29:33] » There was some overlap, but >> there was overlap.

[1:29:35] » There was a little overlap. Is there any are there any questions online?

[1:29:39] » No. >> No questions. Okay. I will close the

[1:29:41] public hearing related to ordinance 2026-06.

[1:29:44] Uh, is there a motion to adopt? I'll I'll move to adopt ordinance 2026

[1:29:51] adding the over uh affordable housing one zone.

[1:29:55] » I'll second. >> Mr. Auroritz,

[1:29:59] » yes. >> Mr. Troy,

[1:30:00] » yes. >> Mrs. U.

[1:30:02] » Yes. >> Deputy Mayor McHugh.

[1:30:04] » Yes. >> And Mayor Roland.

[1:30:05] » Yes. >> Motion passes. You

[1:30:08] » I'd like to open the public hearing for ordinance 2026-07

[1:30:12] adding affordable housing overlay district.

[1:30:16] Yeah, there's some overlap. Any questions online, Mr. Manti? Oh,

[1:30:21] » I just like to thank him for letting us speak.

[1:30:23] » Oh, absolutely. >> We uh we appreciate it. We do. It gets

[1:30:26] boring when nobody's here and we appreciate having a conversation.

[1:30:33] » Have a good evening. >> Thank you. Okay, we'll close the uh the

[1:30:36] hearing for ordinance 2026-07. Is there a motion to adopt? So move.

[1:30:43] I'll >> second.

[1:30:46] Mr. Al Farrowitz, >> yes.

[1:30:47] » Mr. Troy, >> yes.

[1:30:49] » Mrs. Ewolf, >> yes.

[1:30:50] » Deputy Mayor McHug, >> yes.

[1:30:52] » And Mayor Roland, >> yes.

[1:30:54] » Motion passes. >> Okay. You uh we will not move on to the

[1:30:59] resolutions. I don't know if you want uh one through

[1:31:04] five, correct me if I'm wrong, are basically updating the regulations

[1:31:08] related to affordable housing. Um just with the with the latest standards.

[1:31:13] Those are That's correct. >> Yes.

[1:31:16] » Okay. >> If I may, mayor, just number one, uh

[1:31:20] 2026-075, that's actually related to the uh grant

[1:31:24] application for Mammoth County Home for the group homes.

[1:31:28] » So there that's um uh the developer Lucha wanted to apply for some

[1:31:34] additional funding through the county home program and that is a resolution

[1:31:38] that's required by the governing body in order to make that application. Uh two,

[1:31:43] three, four, and five are implementing resolutions as you mentioned, mayor, as

[1:31:47] part of the fourth round. >> Got it. That's right. Thank you very

[1:31:50] much. >> And number six is the library print.

[1:31:53] » Yes. >> Okay. Is there a motion

[1:32:00] to approve? Do we do each one individually? Could we do a little

[1:32:04] » by consent? >> Okay, we can do a consent. Is there a

[1:32:07] motion to approve resolutions 2026-075767787980?

[1:32:14] » So move. >> I'll second.

[1:32:19] » Mr. Al Perowitz, >> yes.

[1:32:21] » Mr. Troy, >> yes.

[1:32:23] » Mrs. Eel, >> yes.

[1:32:25] » Deputy Mayor Leu, >> yes.

[1:32:26] » And Mayor Roland, >> yes.

[1:32:28] » Motion passes. >> Thank you.

[1:32:30] » Now we can move on to the reports. And do we want to hear from Rich first?

[1:32:35] Rich.

[1:32:39] Rich, >> you read my mind. I was gonna So, we've

[1:32:42] got uh Rich, come on up to uh to one of these chairs. So, Rich Young, our the PW

[1:32:47] superintendent. Um he's here also. I believe we're joined I hope we're joined

[1:32:52] by uh Zoom also with John Rushki as he dial

[1:32:55] » John. There he is. >> Yes. So, both uh the engineer and the

[1:33:00] superintendent are here. uh under public works um we don't have any legislation

[1:33:06] but we do have under discussion action uh separate from this report discussion

[1:33:10] on the compost facility and that's why uh John is here because he's also been

[1:33:14] assisting uh Rich and myself with the D regulations uh associated with permits

[1:33:21] for such facilities. So, um, Rich has provided two memos and a spreadsheet.

[1:33:27] Um, and Rich, unless you have anything to open up with, we could just start

[1:33:31] with questions. Let's go to questions. >> Okay.

[1:33:35] » So, you've been sitting here for an hour and a half, so I'm going to question you

[1:33:37] now. >> Return the favor just like you drill

[1:33:42] him.

[1:33:45] » Yeah. Make it worth his while. Um, okay. So

[1:33:49] for for the the benefit of the residents, the question is we want to

[1:33:53] get rid of the mulch service. uh you would still we would still take

[1:33:59] in lease for composting from residents, but we would eliminate the land uh

[1:34:05] landscapers ability to buy a permit which would allow them to

[1:34:10] um and I guess my big thing and I'm sure many residents experience this is is

[1:34:15] there any way to recast this to monet to better monetize because I know I had

[1:34:22] asked my because we had a conversation about this not too long ago um because I

[1:34:26] was like I how can I pay my landscaper to dispose of leaves when we have a

[1:34:30] place to dispose of leaves and um when I went to my landscaper and and the answer

[1:34:34] was that they can dispose of the leaves but it have to be coordinated because

[1:34:38] you need to know what's rented. >> That's part of the problem. Okay.

[1:34:42] » Yeah. Yeah. So, uh the landscaper said that you know first of all they're

[1:34:46] collecting leaves all week and we're not we're only open Tuesdays in the morning

[1:34:49] and so it's not doesn't make sense. And then of course if they're collecting an

[1:34:53] entire truck full of these, how do you know that the six yards that are in

[1:34:56] there, the 10 yards are mine. Uh so there was some complexity, but I really

[1:35:00] felt like there was a value because there's a lot of people, a lot of

[1:35:03] residents paying to have their leaves disposed though and you guys have to

[1:35:08] grind up leaves for their residents who dump their leaves anyway. So there's it

[1:35:12] feels like there's an opportunity for revenue generation in there somehow. So

[1:35:16] I'd much rather my money go to the township than there or else there's

[1:35:20] leaves. >> Yeah. With the with the leaf aspect, we

[1:35:23] don't grind the leaves. >> Okay.

[1:35:26] » In the re in the spreadsheet I I proposed was

[1:35:31] we have wind rows of leaves that through our D permit we have to flip once a

[1:35:37] month. Regardless time of year, it's once a month. Once that is done and it

[1:35:43] breaks down, we contract with a local vendor who takes it for free. But it

[1:35:50] takes on the average two to three trucks minimum and a front end loader two to

[1:35:57] three days to do it. So we're providing a service, but it's eating up a lot of

[1:36:02] manpower. That's just for the less for the mulch for the the brush aspect of

[1:36:08] it. Residents are allowed to dump mulch and then we turn into we we work with

[1:36:13] the contractor to tub grind it to make double ground mulch and then we sell it

[1:36:17] back to the residents. >> Well, that's from the residents dumping

[1:36:21] mulch. >> I didn't even know you could do that.

[1:36:24] Okay. >> Not mulch

[1:36:29] to make. >> Yes. Hey Rich, I I think it'd be

[1:36:32] important to note that, you know, some past operations and why where we're here

[1:36:38] because there was a point where we had a lower price and we were getting a lot of

[1:36:43] developers coming in and it was just overwhelming for the DPW to keep up with

[1:36:48] it. And that's kind of why we raised some of the rates to try to discourage

[1:36:51] some of the commercial because if we if we want to try to expand this operation,

[1:36:56] it it's more than just our our existing resources. You know, we scale back it.

[1:37:00] We scaled back these operations once before.

[1:37:04] » And I asked the question as well and I think it was there are only two

[1:37:08] customers, two landscapers that >> currently

[1:37:11] » currently >> there was two last year, two two in 24

[1:37:14] and two in 25. But when these guys come in, they come in half not happy.

[1:37:20] » Under the proposal uh that Rich put forward though where we would contract

[1:37:24] with the MUA to handle the hauling away of the leaves, the grass and the brush.

[1:37:31] Uh we would not be doing any mulch. Obviously, we've not been providing

[1:37:35] mulch. Therefore, we don't need the tub grinder anymore.

[1:37:38] » Okay. >> So, that would be saving correct. So

[1:37:40] that would be uh saving uh about 15,000 uh a year,

[1:37:47] » right? Plus the man power to load that duck

[1:37:50] grinder which takes about a week. So it's one guy and a front end loader for

[1:37:55] a week. >> So we contract how do we pay the MUA? Is

[1:37:58] it by the by the uh cubic MUA would be believe a flat fee uh container?

[1:38:04] Correct. >> Flat fee container. It's $200 for the

[1:38:06] pole just to show the grab it. Then it's um right here.

[1:38:23] It's roughly 485 a 30 yard container which can consist of them pulling it,

[1:38:30] taking it, and then bringing back another one.

[1:38:34] So the new setup would just be uh leaf container, brush container. Is that

[1:38:40] » it's it's the same service to the residents except for the mulch.

[1:38:44] » So no mulch deliverance and then and then no use of your bodies um to do the

[1:38:52] drum grinding. >> Correct. And the cost of the drum

[1:38:55] grinder itself >> which is 3,000 a day.

[1:38:57] » Yes. 3,000 a day. And then it would also be that if you look at the alternate

[1:39:02] option to perhaps get more use or more expansion then you know that that's one

[1:39:08] entrance for neighbors of vehicles and trucks and those kinds of things and

[1:39:14] this would um not necessarily shrink it greatly because you still want to dump

[1:39:19] the mulch or the brush and the leaves. >> Um okay.

[1:39:23] How many residents take advantage of the mulch delivery?

[1:39:29] » It's roughly including myself. >> It's in the spreadsheet had 64 or 2025

[1:39:36] to 64 res. >> Yeah. And what's happening? We're

[1:39:39] realizing that the numbers are going down.

[1:39:41] » Mhm. >> And we're being left with the excess

[1:39:44] that either we have to find home have find a home for basically because

[1:39:48] » John correct me if I'm wrong. the the new uh permit doesn't allow us to leave

[1:39:53] anything on the ground. >> Yeah, we can't have storage. We can't,

[1:39:56] you know, we can't maintain long-term storage. And that that's what we have is

[1:40:00] over the years, we've accumulated quite a bit of material

[1:40:03] because the material really isn't the quality of material is poor. We we put

[1:40:07] it through a tub grinder, but it's it's really not a commercially grade um you

[1:40:11] know, mulch that that a homeowner would typically use. This this is you know

[1:40:16] really is not a you know the quality the material is very poor.

[1:40:20] » We have that material that's sitting there a while that people have not

[1:40:24] necessarily taken advantage of uh coming with their own buckets and taking it or

[1:40:29] whether it be delivered um then indeed um it sits there and with the new

[1:40:35] regulation you can't let it sit there necessarily

[1:40:38] in the same way if you will or or different. Uh, so does it is there a

[1:40:43] cost to does somebody come take it for free because of its quality or would we

[1:40:48] have to pay to get rid of it? >> We have to pay the year in.

[1:40:51] » So you're looking roughly between 15 and $20 a yard.

[1:40:55] » Okay. >> And we were charging $25 a yard.

[1:41:00] » We were charging $25 for three yards most of it.

[1:41:05] » Okay. >> So but this way they can't come and pick

[1:41:07] it up either because we would >> can't store it. We can't store it.

[1:41:11] There's the part of the new requirements are that if we're storing it, um John,

[1:41:16] feel free to jump in and uh if I'm missing something, right? Correct. We

[1:41:20] have to do testing uh as well there. So there's requirements and how we have to

[1:41:24] store it and what we need to do in order to store it. And then we also have to

[1:41:28] make sure that we're doing testing over there. Uh and then the concern is not

[1:41:32] the testing we can handle in house actually through the WPC. Um but it's

[1:41:36] what happens if certain chemicals uh because the reason for the testing is

[1:41:41] it's you know people use pesticides they use there's chemicals there's all these

[1:41:45] different things what happens when it leeches into the groundwater or into

[1:41:49] that area. So then if there's problems levels are elevated we now have to deal

[1:41:55] with those consequences.

[1:41:59] » Okay. I mean the mulch I'm not terribly attached to although it's nice

[1:42:04] mostly because it's and I and you know same thing it's expensive to purchase

[1:42:07] mulch but it is treated and everything else. So, um, but but it is only 60

[1:42:12] people. So, I guess I'm not and if we really wanted to do it, I guess we could

[1:42:16] charge more, but I'm not sure if it is. Um,

[1:42:20] but, um, I guess I'm just wondering if John, are you there? Yeah.

[1:42:23] » Yes. >> Work with a lot of towns. Have you seen,

[1:42:28] you know, leaf collection facility that is able to make financial go? I'm just

[1:42:34] I'm just kind of dumbfounded that there's not a better way that there's

[1:42:38] not a way to monetize this. you know, we're looking at kind of a a really

[1:42:41] crappy budget and revenue that's dropping off and I'm like, I feel like

[1:42:45] there's an opportunity here that we're missing.

[1:42:49] » No, there's there's a lot of um you know, municipalities are not necessarily

[1:42:54] um you know, set up to be, you know, for large bulk processes to make a lot of

[1:42:59] money with wood processing. There's a lot of companies out there already. And

[1:43:02] in fact, what I'm seeing now is a lot of municipalities are getting, you know,

[1:43:07] looking at these regulations now that the D is rolling

[1:43:11] out and all the processes now we have to follow and and and permitting

[1:43:14] limitations. Um you know and and like Z said the the the testing the testing we

[1:43:20] we actually have to pay for a lab. So we are it is going to add additional costs

[1:43:24] associated with you know doing all this testing. We just don't going we're going

[1:43:28] to have to we have labor in house to collect the samples but the analysis is

[1:43:31] still there. So, you know, a lot of a lot of municipalities are looking at

[1:43:34] that testing requirements and the over and the burden of of all these

[1:43:38] regulations that it's almost D is is pushing a lot of the smaller

[1:43:42] municipalities that have these systems, you know, out of business to to look at

[1:43:46] alternatives. >> Yeah,

[1:43:47] » it would be largely an economies of scale. I know like I Union County runs a

[1:43:51] compost facility and a lot of towns whole, right, Rich? I think uh the one

[1:43:56] over in Springfield off Shumpike they've got a lot of towns bring their stuff to

[1:43:59] the county compost facility for a town to do it especially so small it's just

[1:44:04] starts to get too expensive to meet with the little potential for the revenue

[1:44:09] that you have >> okay because I mean we're talking about

[1:44:12] just so we're clear we're talking about like eight well eight weeks of the year

[1:44:15] it's really the fall season and just to give you perspective you said the MUA I

[1:44:20] think you said it's like 4 I can't find it 434 what was it 435 for 30 yard

[1:44:24] container container. >> He's got all the total costs for you. So

[1:44:28] » 485 for a 30 yard container. My contractor charged me 480 bucks to pull

[1:44:33] away 12 yards. >> So I get what you're saying. I just feel

[1:44:36] like there's an opportunity. But I I trust you guys. Your judgment.

[1:44:39] » The thing is we could we we could up the rates. You know, we did talk about,

[1:44:42] okay, if we wanted to get the contractors in, right, we'd have to up

[1:44:45] the rates for them to make that revenue to make it profitable right now.

[1:44:49] » Well, we don't have to have the facility opening up.

[1:44:52] » Correct. I'm saying aside that, right? like so you know look at in order to do

[1:44:56] that um let's say it's with the MUA right let's say we're keeping the MUA

[1:45:01] but then you're you got to how much money do you have to charge two

[1:45:04] contractors two landscapers that are coming they're going to just say it's

[1:45:09] cheaper to go elsewhere and so we're going to go through all that work in

[1:45:13] order for us to you know be able to generate the revenue or break even or to

[1:45:18] make it cheaper uh we're going to have to charge them a lot more and it would

[1:45:23] just be cheaper for them to go elsewhere than it would be to stay with us. And

[1:45:27] then if we lose them because we've put ourselves out of business, then we've

[1:45:32] gone through all that work and now have no customers.

[1:45:37] » I thought there were more much more customers. And I said, "Well, how many

[1:45:39] landscapers are coming?" They said, >> "And al and also again, I can't

[1:45:43] emphasize enough regarding the quality >> dropping off leaves Tuesday morning or

[1:45:48] commercial contractors." But we don't have the heat.

[1:45:51] » Plus, if there's if there's containers there for residents to dump in, these

[1:45:55] contractors are going to have to manually load like back up to the

[1:45:58] dumpster as opposed to Yeah. as opposed to dumping on the ground. So if we went

[1:46:04] with them >> Rich is there is there um and this is a

[1:46:08] completely separate concern or angle at this

[1:46:11] » uh and that is um having the grinder having the mulch facility and creating

[1:46:17] mulch would this um containerized version going forward um would that um

[1:46:24] go to a mulch facility or would it go to a landfill? Do we even know that?

[1:46:30] » A recycling facility. Yeah. >> Recycling facility. Okay. So, so you

[1:46:35] don't lose that >> environmental benefit.

[1:46:39] » No, it goes to the Morris County facility.

[1:46:42] » Terrific. Perfect. If if we do um uh Stacy's much more down to the the

[1:46:49] details um on the looking at it differently. If we if we have additional

[1:46:55] cost, additional liability, which is happening period,

[1:46:58] » right? >> Correct. Um, and if we if we go the

[1:47:02] route of growing it to drive revenue, um, is is that clearly going to be a um

[1:47:11] a cost benefit um rather than just doing what we're looking at and maybe um, in

[1:47:19] other words, if we look at it on a growth base, we're not making money now.

[1:47:23] It's costing your guys a lot of um, time >> where they losing money on it now. Yeah.

[1:47:28] » So, we're losing money, is it? Now, >> um is it would it be simple or very

[1:47:33] difficult particularly under new regulation and other things? Uh how

[1:47:38] difficult would it be to turn it into a profitable or uh I don't know you have

[1:47:44] an exact answer on that, but I think it'd be substantial.

[1:47:47] » Yeah, I guess I just I just I would just emphasize again the quality of the

[1:47:52] material that we're generating. Um you people will call and buy our material

[1:47:57] because it's convenient because they can just call the town. But you can get the

[1:48:01] same quality material by just walking down anyone cutting down a tree. Any of

[1:48:05] the commercial tree companies will give you a whole truckload of their material

[1:48:08] for free. So it's it's that's the quality of material. So if we're going

[1:48:13] to go in the business of selling mulch like like it's you have to process it

[1:48:18] more. You know, it's not just a matter of running it through a tub grow tub

[1:48:21] grinder. you're you're grinding it multiple times, screening it, you know,

[1:48:24] in some cases they're dying it. It's it's not, you know, it's we're we're not

[1:48:29] not talking about just a simple composting. Now, we're getting into a

[1:48:32] manufacturing process to to to generate a a quality mulch that we can we can

[1:48:38] compete with a company that's doing it properly.

[1:48:42] » And just this year, rather last year, we're talking about revenue of about

[1:48:46] 7,000 with expenses of about 42,000. >> Okay. have to maintain

[1:48:51] » is crazy even >> that's when I save $200 plus the guys

[1:48:56] » with this whole new procedure we're trying to keep you know the same service

[1:48:59] to the residents >> because that's our main so minus you

[1:49:03] know instead of dumping on the ground putting in the dumpster.

[1:49:06] » Yes. >> That's really the big

[1:49:09] » the big sell here. Does does that if we go the dumpster route, fewer

[1:49:15] commercial guys obviously, six two trucks anyway and 60 truck loads and

[1:49:21] going out. Uh would the would the traffic uh the residential area there?

[1:49:26] Um would that be greater, lesser or similar because now you just move into

[1:49:31] containers? >> It all depends on you know like spring's

[1:49:35] going to be heavy. >> Sure. Of course.

[1:49:37] » And in the fall. >> Yes. You know, that's prim that those

[1:49:39] are the busy seasons. Yes. But it's busy anyway. Okay.

[1:49:43] » You know, and MUA doesn't doesn't pull containers on the weekends.

[1:49:46] » Okay. >> They're strictly Monday through Friday.

[1:49:48] » Yep. Okay. >> So, the weekend traffic people wouldn't

[1:49:51] even notice. >> Great.

[1:49:53] » Great. Thank you.

[1:49:58] » Any other questions, comments? >> No, I just, you know,

[1:50:06] » I mean, you you make I mean you're make I I read all of the stuff. You made a

[1:50:11] very compelling argument. I've been racking my brain to try to figure out

[1:50:14] how to challenge it, but um I I respect your opinion and the work that you put

[1:50:20] in and uh you know I wouldn't really fight your professional opinion of this.

[1:50:25] So >> unfortunately with this new permit our

[1:50:28] answer kind of died. >> It's the new driven by the new permit.

[1:50:31] » Yeah. >> Just so you know too before Rich comes

[1:50:34] here I challenge him quite a bit. >> So Then I challenge you. Yeah.

[1:50:41] » I I I make sure uh you know the spreadsheet alone was was frustrating

[1:50:47] enough for him. So because I want to make sure that we all have the right

[1:50:50] information and and you have the the dollars, the figures, the quantities

[1:50:56] that you need to know in order to make that decision. And unfortunately it

[1:50:59] seems like, you know, when you're just looking at this short of saying, "Yeah,

[1:51:02] we want to eat that cost. We understand. We want to eat the cost and subsidize

[1:51:06] it." there's really no other alternative that we we could come up with to to

[1:51:11] maintain this and I think the numbers just sort of make the decision for

[1:51:14] themselves. Well, the service is still there because you drop you up deep and

[1:51:18] you branches and such. Service remains >> like obviously like it's a new

[1:51:22] procedure. So, there's going to be bumps and bruises here, you know. We're going

[1:51:26] to figure it out along the way, >> you know, but I think once people get

[1:51:30] used to putting their stuff in dumpsters that shouldn't shouldn't be done because

[1:51:34] » everybody just wants to get rid of their stuff.

[1:51:36] » Okay. And we're not talking we're not talking for this year. It would be for

[1:51:39] next year. That's why we wanted to get this out of the way early, have this

[1:51:42] conversation so that way we can give enough notice to, you know, the the

[1:51:47] folks that use the mulch, but also the landscapers. And who knows, maybe we

[1:51:51] tell the landscapers, they're like, you know what, I'll only give you 20,000 to

[1:51:54] keep this going. >> I don't I don't think they will, but

[1:51:58] we'll get some feedback. >> Then you got to really check what

[1:52:00] they're dumping.

[1:52:04] » Jimmy Hoffman's partner branches in brush.

[1:52:09] Just my last two cents, just to give you perspective, it could you

[1:52:13] » I if I paid the township $20 a cubic yard,

[1:52:17] » it would cost me $24 would be half the price and I would more than contribute

[1:52:21] to an MU like I would contribute half of an MUA container with oneird of the with

[1:52:27] oneird of the leaf collection. So that's that's what I'm getting at in terms of

[1:52:30] the you know the economics of it. But >> I guess how would you like how would I

[1:52:34] get it from my house to theirs? No, you still have the landscaper, but the the

[1:52:38] resident would buy the permit. >> The res. So, I would buy a permit to

[1:52:42] dump 10 yards. Now, unfortunately, Rich is not how to measure when the truck

[1:52:46] comes with 30 yards >> that they're only dumping 10 yards. So,

[1:52:49] it's not it's not a clean process, but I was like, there got to be a way to All

[1:52:53] right. I said my >> I mean, if there we have some if there's

[1:52:58] a way we can figure it out. I said, we'll let the contractors know. We're

[1:53:01] going to let the landscapers know. Hey, heads up and maybe we'll meet with them

[1:53:05] and see if they can I mean >> I'm not opposed to coming up with an

[1:53:09] alternative. Rich Rich is a little more hesitant. Uh I just, you know, would

[1:53:14] love to see if we can make it work. I just don't practically, you know, as you

[1:53:18] said, how do you make sure that the people who are paying are the ones

[1:53:22] bringing it in and >> I think you're going to lose contractors

[1:53:26] automatically just from them having to shovel it off into a dumpster.

[1:53:29] » Oh yeah, >> that because that's too much time. Yeah,

[1:53:32] » they're going to pay their guys to do that and then your price is going to go

[1:53:35] up. >> I mean, yeah.

[1:53:38] » And actually, you can you can buy m residents can buy material from the MUA

[1:53:42] and they do have different products because they process it different way.

[1:53:45] If you want to buy wood mulch versus unscreened compost um and and so they

[1:53:50] they you can buy it from there's other sources too if you want to buy the

[1:53:53] material back. >> Yeah.

[1:53:56] » Thanks, John.

[1:53:58] purchase from the NUA. >> Yeah, we'll put in our DPW bullets and

[1:54:02] it'll it'll notify because we do put in there right now that you can buy from

[1:54:06] DPW. So, we'll just say, "Hey, here's how you can buy it now."

[1:54:10] » That's great. >> Okay. Anything else? A wrench.

[1:54:19] » I'm looking to you for another question. >> All right. Thank you so much.

[1:54:26] to you and the crew on the snow plowing. >> Just anote I got one resident came and

[1:54:34] they said they knew exactly where where Chadam stops and starts

[1:54:40] » you got to come. I know I'm Chad the roads are clear.

[1:54:43] » Yeah, great crew. You actually did too good of a job. I say

[1:54:48] » as far as we're out a lot faster this time than have been

[1:54:53] » so next time maybe slow it down a little bit.

[1:54:56] » Oh, because you kept everybody safe. I mean, big hill. We got lots of big

[1:55:00] hills, so we appreciate it. >> We had a neighbor at a medical emergency

[1:55:04] at 2 am on Sunday and the roads were clear. You guys got that? My the walk

[1:55:09] and his walk were not clear, but the roads were clear

[1:55:13] » because they accidentally knocked on my door, but it was uh the roads were clear

[1:55:17] and they had no problem parking on the road, so it was really important.

[1:55:22] » All right. Well, thank you guys. >> Great.

[1:55:26] You too. Thanks for hanging in >> I believe you need to hang around,

[1:55:29] right? >> Yep. Yep. I was just going to ask you.

[1:55:31] I'm making sure you still want to cover it tonight.

[1:55:34] » Okay. So, whatever is next on the agenda Yes, thank you. So, uh since we do have

[1:55:40] John here, uh next is under engineering uh briefly uh we will have a resolution

[1:55:47] likely for the next meeting uh if not for April. Uh but that would be to award

[1:55:52] the contract to to uh a contractor lowest bidder to do the work at the

[1:55:56] estate for the ADA improvements. Um I don't think there's any questions on

[1:56:01] that one. >> Ze just quickly what is um your your

[1:56:05] best guess time frame? Um, John, we haven't scheduled a precon yet. So,

[1:56:09] » no, we haven't scheduled a pre-con, but it it will be done during during the day

[1:56:13] and and during the construction, you know, we'll we'll emphasize that it

[1:56:17] needs to be safe. You know, he can't as he's working, you know, you'll still be

[1:56:20] able to walk up the gravel road um and walk in the area. But, you know, it

[1:56:25] should probably I would I would guesstimate it's about two weeks worth

[1:56:28] of work, maybe a little bit longer just to to complete the signage and things to

[1:56:31] come back. But, um, but it's really about two weeks worth of work that he's

[1:56:35] going to do. and and John, best guess on roughly when you when you believe this

[1:56:40] work will start. >> Um, I would think that if we um we award

[1:56:46] the contract at the next meeting, it usually takes about two 3 weeks to get

[1:56:51] contracts in place. So, I would think that he would probably start late April,

[1:56:56] early May would be the soonest.

[1:57:04] Once we have the pre-op meeting though

[1:57:08] soccer season now. >> Yeah.

[1:57:12] So we'd have construction in the middle of lacrosse season.

[1:57:16] » Well, is it going to is you know it's going to be during school hours. So

[1:57:21] they'll be working during the day and they will you know have them any

[1:57:25] equipment that they have they'll pull to the side and so you know they they have

[1:57:29] to make the work site uh you know safe every time they leave the day. every

[1:57:33] time they leave. So, I don't it's it's you know with the the paving the paving

[1:57:38] may be a day at two at the most. So, it's not going to be a very um you know

[1:57:43] long process and it should be during the day and he should be able to keep the

[1:57:47] work site uh relatively safe when uh you know because it's not we don't have any

[1:57:52] major excavations or or you know large trenches he's digging. It's really just

[1:57:58] all paving work. So, it's it's it's relatively neat.

[1:58:03] Yeah.

[1:58:07] » Okay. >> Is it going to affect parking at all?

[1:58:10] Like for people that are coming during those two

[1:58:15] weeks? I mean, the charts will be off on the side and everything, but there isn't

[1:58:19] going to be another place where they're going to go, right?

[1:58:24] » John, did you hear the question? >> Uh, no. No. Um, I get like the safety

[1:58:29] issue and everything, but what about access and parking? Um, are how many

[1:58:34] spaces are going to be lost during that small window of time while the field

[1:58:40] might be used and everything else too? >> I I I I would think that in the

[1:58:44] beginning he's going to have a small bulldozer that he'll do the to get the

[1:58:49] grades and things. So, it's probably one piece of equipment. um we can make sure

[1:58:53] that he doesn't leave any of his dump truck or anything on any of vehicles. He

[1:58:57] doesn't need to park there. And then during the paving, he's going to have

[1:59:00] probably have a paver and a roller. So have those pieces of equipment. But I

[1:59:05] don't envision him taking up more than two or three spots.

[1:59:11] » Okay. There will be a period then though when you can't drive on it.

[1:59:17] You you'll always be able to walk on it, right John? That is to say, you'll be

[1:59:20] » Yeah. even even driving on it. You know, a lot of you know, a lot of small pavers

[1:59:24] will say that um you know, you you should keep off your driveway for a

[1:59:28] week. And and I always laugh about that because you know, asphalt doesn't

[1:59:32] consolidate or or take time like a concrete where it cures over time. You

[1:59:37] know, as soon as you roll that asphalt and it cools, you can walk on it right

[1:59:41] away. So, you it's really hours that it's going to take that uh you know,

[1:59:44] will be open versus, you know, days.

[1:59:51] Yeah, we could talk to him about having his equip parking his equipment up on at

[1:59:56] the on the top of the hill versus the lower area just to keep the lower area

[1:59:59] open. >> Yeah, just in the event that we lose

[2:00:03] access to upper yesterday, you know, um we get communication as early as

[2:00:09] possible. So, whoever if someone's got scheduled events up there. Yeah, we we

[2:00:15] we'll we'll definitely look at the scheduling and and when he submits his

[2:00:18] his schedule, you know, we'll we'll hash out all those things during the

[2:00:21] pre-construction meeting. >> Great. Thanks, John.

[2:00:26] » Okay. >> Um so, the reason John's here is uh for

[2:00:30] the discussion action item was on the agenda uh titled Southern Boulevard open

[2:00:35] space LOI. Uh that is the u property property formerly owned by the Fensky

[2:00:42] family. Um I did email a while ago um her

[2:00:48] request that the the mapping would be made available. Um as soon as that was

[2:00:53] done, you know, I wanted to make sure I reviewed that with John. Um and I said

[2:00:58] that to you and I had asked if there's any questions or reason for discussion.

[2:01:02] Actually, nobody really mentioned that there was, but the reason I brought it

[2:01:06] up is because John then uh followed up with the next step, which was to uh

[2:01:11] submit an application to the D for the actual delineation.

[2:01:15] Um, and before we went ahead with that, um, that was almost just shy of $3,000,

[2:01:21] I was like, you know what, based on the mapping, not much really changed from

[2:01:25] what we thought and there's a lot of limitations already and very little that

[2:01:30] we can do with the property. Um and whatever it is that we probably would

[2:01:36] consider doing uh can probably be done without the permit from the D which

[2:01:42] would uh so just seems that we may not need to go to the next level. But before

[2:01:47] that determination is made and before I decide uh whether I should write the

[2:01:52] requisite to check or not, I want to confer with all of you and give you guys

[2:01:56] an opportunity talk to John and maybe see what possibilities you have in mind

[2:02:01] for this in light of the restrictions um and for John to give us a little bit

[2:02:06] more clarity on what is or is not possible there.

[2:02:10] » Do we have anything? I don't remember receiving anything. Yeah, it was uh

[2:02:14] emailed about a month ago and then uh resent I believe with the agenda packet.

[2:02:20] » Was it resent agenda packet? Okay. >> Yeah. So the the not I believe I resent

[2:02:26] it though. >> Okay.

[2:02:28] » And we can send it out again. Um but basically the hatched area is actually

[2:02:32] the wetlands and the clear areas are the uplands and if um if we impose the 150

[2:02:40] foot buffer onto the wetlands which we suspect because you know because of the

[2:02:45] the proximity of the swamp it's going to be exceptional value and that's about

[2:02:50] 150 foot buffer and and just scaling this is about 100 feet. So when you when

[2:02:54] you add that 100 foot buffer onto this, there's going to be very limited to

[2:02:59] almost no property that that's that's not going to be within wetlands or

[2:03:04] within the wetlands buffer. Um I I and if we go for the LOI, basically the D is

[2:03:10] going to go out and they may move a line here or there, shift it, you know,

[2:03:14] slightly that that's common for them, but it's it's not going to drastically

[2:03:17] change, you know, what what you see here. it it's it very very typically

[2:03:22] very minor changes that they they make and then and then basically the line is

[2:03:26] set for five years. So a lot of developers will get an LOI because you

[2:03:31] know they buy a piece of property they know that the the line is set it's it's

[2:03:34] it's not going to change and so that's very common to get the LOI. But if we

[2:03:39] were going to go for a a a path or um you know some type of a permit that's

[2:03:45] either either a general permit or an individual permit um you don't have to

[2:03:49] get the LI the L the as part of that permit process um they they review the

[2:03:54] the wetlands delineations. Um so so $3,000 it's it's a hefty application fee

[2:04:00] to get the LOI. Um, in comparison, if we were just to look at a path through and

[2:04:06] you can the DP regulations are are are very lenient on recreational paths, you

[2:04:12] know, that they we can put paths throughout this and and uh, you know, we

[2:04:16] should have no problem getting a permit. And in fact, that permit has no cost to

[2:04:20] it. It's probably the only application fee that I'm aware of that that D does

[2:04:24] not charge actually to to permit paths, uh, recreational paths. Um, you know, I

[2:04:30] did show a driveway here and and and a parking area. This this is gonna to get

[2:04:35] um this is actually going to be a difficult permit to get. You would have

[2:04:39] probably have to go for an individual permit, get a whole bunch of waiverss um

[2:04:43] to get that. You know, D may in fact take this area and push the parking lot

[2:04:48] over here and try to limit the amount of area that we have to come in. So we

[2:04:53] really and and if you look at if we want to get a parking lot over here, we still

[2:04:57] have the 100 foot bit and maybe there's a little pocket in here, but you know,

[2:05:00] all this is transition area. So D is not going to want to have a driveway going

[2:05:05] through this entire area to put a parking lot here. That that's we we

[2:05:09] would have a challenge. I don't want to discourage it entirely, but it it would

[2:05:13] be a challenge with the D. So, you know, if we're going to do something like a

[2:05:16] parking lot, we would have a pre-application with them and discuss,

[2:05:19] you know, possibilities because it's likely going to be an individual permit.

[2:05:24] » John, if I heard you correctly, uh something like a path, uh we we don't

[2:05:30] need to get the LOI, correct? >> Correct. Yeah. You don't need an LOI for

[2:05:34] the forational. >> This was something that was up for

[2:05:36] discussion um for public solicitation of public input. Um but now there's

[2:05:43] limitations known and we don't have things back or I don't have things back

[2:05:49] uh from the open space here. So yeah perhaps we can run in front of them and

[2:05:54] see if there's anything other than a path that is uh interesting.

[2:05:58] » Correct. And and and we don't have to jump to submit the LOI if we want to

[2:06:02] just you know vent this a little bit and and we can submit the the LOI in six

[2:06:07] months and or a year. All the work is start is prepped up to to submit it. we

[2:06:11] just, you know, it's just a matter of do we want to go that next step and uh, you

[2:06:15] know, spend the money to get us over the gold just for an LOI and it's it's not

[2:06:19] going to, you know, we're going to be over the goal, but we're going to have

[2:06:21] the same map. You know, we're not going to be able to do anything with that LOI

[2:06:24] other than say yes, the the D has confirmed these limits.

[2:06:28] » Yeah. So, um, mayor, I would request that, uh, I get some input from open

[2:06:34] space and Craig gets some input from Environmental Commission and then we

[2:06:38] either uh go get an LOI or the path, do whatever we want to do that way. Um, if

[2:06:43] you're agreeable to that, are you agreeable to that, sir?

[2:06:45] » Yeah. >> Great. I think the biggest consideration

[2:06:48] is the parking. >> Okay.

[2:06:50] » Because we can do a beautiful space and trails, but if someone doesn't have a

[2:06:52] place to park, >> right, that's part of the discussion.

[2:06:55] » I think that's part of the push back from the environmental commission is

[2:06:58] that they don't want it, but we also want give people access to it. So,

[2:07:03] » I don't know where else you're Yeah. like the Green Village post office where

[2:07:06] it parks there to walk on the lawn. But >> so efforts were started. So let's uh

[2:07:11] let's uh >> do them the the courtesy of having their

[2:07:15] input. >> Absolutely.

[2:07:17] » If we had a connectivity to Nash, where would that be?

[2:07:22] » Um we would we would connect it. Um if I can see my cursor in here, you know,

[2:07:27] Nash is over here. So we we we can uh you know, you do have the parking lot. I

[2:07:32] guess like I could try to go down a different map, but we we can have, you

[2:07:36] know, con connected to the Nashville Nash property.

[2:07:40] » Well, the way that's laid out the uh if if you talk about even the Green Village

[2:07:45] trout, Nash to Green Village, uh that would end down by the old skating rink,

[2:07:51] which >> Yeah. Yeah. It's it's up over, you know,

[2:07:53] this this is a this is a long >> there all the way the sidewalk gets

[2:07:57] » there's another pocket of wet there's additional wetlands to delineate on the

[2:08:00] net. We didn't delineate all of Nashville. They're just in the area

[2:08:03] where we're going to put the um the boardwalk and the and the path. But the

[2:08:07] this is all wetlands out here. Probably extends out. But, you know, it's it's

[2:08:11] over here and we can connect. You know, we we wanted to talk about a connection

[2:08:15] and extension to come around and and and bring a path around into, you know, just

[2:08:20] have it just as another branch coming around so people can walk a circle

[2:08:24] around, you know, that's certainly something we can look at.

[2:08:27] » Yeah, that's that's Thank you. Hey John, I have a question. So

[2:08:33] the the northern section up against southern where the path jogs around.

[2:08:43] » Mhm. >> Can we not utilize that through buffer

[2:08:47] averaging and arguing the value is degraded because of its proximity to the

[2:08:53] street and noise pollution and and light?

[2:08:57] See the thing with with wetlands averaging you have to have property you

[2:09:03] have to have pro a portion of the property that's not within a buffer. So

[2:09:07] there's not there's not a lot of area that we can give with averaging because

[2:09:11] if you have 150 foot buffer the buffer is extending all the way over here. So

[2:09:16] usually with a buffer you you have property that you can you know horse

[2:09:19] trade away and and increase buffers. But we

[2:09:21] » trade away the the western pieces right now. Well, we we this is all wetlands

[2:09:28] all in here. So, you know, we there's no average. You can't average these these

[2:09:32] pockets because the they're totally >> the uh the space all that space to the

[2:09:38] left of the parking lot. >> Oh, in here.

[2:09:42] » Yeah. >> Well, this this is I can just uh just

[2:09:46] throw a scale on this. Let me just This from here to here.

[2:09:51] » What does that mean? >> That's that's a

[2:09:55] That's 180 ft. So, you know, if you have a 150 foot buffer on either side, this

[2:10:01] is all buffer. >> Not even the football field.

[2:10:07] » Yeah. My hope and desire was um to buffer average out that area and just

[2:10:19] blacken it and make it parking, you know, informal parking for Nash, which

[2:10:24] currently is wfully under park. >> Yeah, this will be a challenge because

[2:10:28] Nash the other parking lot is over here. >> Yeah, that's and this this wetlands

[2:10:33] probably continues all the way around here. So it it you have a wetlands

[2:10:36] pocket here and and you know that that supplemental parking would be a

[2:10:40] challenge to get it permitted today

[2:10:45] » and all this would be just packed dirt and and

[2:10:49] » we would have a gravel you know we would have a gravel path coming in. So it's

[2:10:52] it's um you know just just to so it's >> you could see what they've done at the

[2:10:59] great swamp parking lot that they have and

[2:11:01] » like that. Okay. >> Yes.

[2:11:03] So John, you are going to get us an updated map with Nash on there, right?

[2:11:07] » Yes. Yeah, I can do that. Yep. Absolutely.

[2:11:10] » Also, just so we can see I >> I can show an updated map with Nash and

[2:11:14] I can actually um what I can do is just combine the two plans so we know exactly

[2:11:18] where our path is and all the fields and and how we're going. Um so we we can

[2:11:23] combine this so it's something that so we can look at it holistically as a as

[2:11:26] as as one property versus two. >> Yeah. Because I guess I wonder, you

[2:11:31] know, parking is difficult, but if we were able to connect to the 80

[2:11:36] ft that we have to potentially build and put like the basketball court there and

[2:11:39] use that or I don't know. >> Um, not that I want to dismantle stuff.

[2:11:43] I'm just trying to creatively think how we can maximize the overall space.

[2:11:53] Yeah, because we can we can compare the delineation that we did on Nash and and

[2:11:57] just kind of, you know, we can dash these as interpretive of what we would

[2:12:01] would be just based on the topography and uh we won't go out and delineate

[2:12:04] more unless we need to. But, you know, just for planning purposes, we can do

[2:12:08] that. >> Okay, great. Thank you.

[2:12:12] » Yeah. >> And John, because it jos it uh you would

[2:12:15] have obstructed sightelines from the street, right? Well, there's a there

[2:12:20] there's already a um a driveway apron here and there is somewhat of a gravel

[2:12:25] path here already because they the landscaper was coming back here and

[2:12:29] there's a shed here and some debris pile. So, because this is where they

[2:12:32] were dumping some of some wood chips and so there is a a somewhat of a of a it's

[2:12:37] not very defined gravel, but there is a path that's that's in this area already.

[2:12:42] And uh when you come out it the sight distance was was fine.

[2:12:47] » Yeah. I'm just wondering about security because it could be like not you know

[2:12:50] it's obstructed views from the street. Uh you know um

[2:12:54] » yeah we could look at a light we could probably add if there's not a light

[2:12:59] DPW because that may have to be chained at night

[2:13:03] » um >> yeah I I would expect something like

[2:13:07] this we would say that it's you know dust of dawn you know it's closed at

[2:13:11] night discourage people from driving in

[2:13:18] Well, I thought we couldn't use the parking lot.

[2:13:22] » Why are we putting in a path for nowhere?

[2:13:24] » Yeah, that's why I'm confused. >> Wait, I thought that that is

[2:13:28] » Well, now this is just I was just illustrating a possible parking lot. If

[2:13:32] this parking lot is from here, we would we would do some type of a trail in this

[2:13:36] area. >> So, that parking lot would need a permit

[2:13:38] or no, John. >> Oh, yeah. Absolutely.

[2:13:41] And then this this would probably need an individual permit because we're we're

[2:13:45] we're because this is this is all buffer um going in permit.

[2:13:50] » Yeah. This this would need a permit and this would you know it wouldn't be a

[2:13:54] general permit likely be an individual permit and I would suspect you know we

[2:13:57] would have a pre-application with the D but the D tend to um you know show some

[2:14:03] leniency on their when it comes to recreational uses. you know, the fact

[2:14:08] that we're putting this in for, you know, for people for recreational path,

[2:14:12] a passive path, you know, they they they usually are very cooperative in that

[2:14:17] sense. But again, they they may come back and

[2:14:20] they they'll they'll hammer us on, you know, is there other options? Can you

[2:14:24] minimize the disturbance? Can you move the parking lot over here and stick it

[2:14:28] in like in this way so when you drive in and then pull in on this sides? They

[2:14:31] they I would see that they would probably push for that so that we don't

[2:14:35] go far into it.

[2:14:40] But that that would call come out in a pre pre-application meeting to talk

[2:14:43] about, you know, options and approaches. >> Would county consider extending the Nash

[2:14:51] Trail to to this location? And I don't know what I don't know if there'd be a

[2:14:54] bluff at the end or what, but um would they is is that on the tables? Well, we

[2:14:59] we could we could certainly approach Morris County for another grant if we

[2:15:02] want to extend from the existing um boardwalk and do another path in this

[2:15:08] location.

[2:15:14] Yeah, there's definitely when we had when we permitted for this sidewalk on

[2:15:18] Southern Boulevard, this was a, you know, a difficult permit because there

[2:15:22] was um they were there was uh spotted salamander habitat in this area and uh

[2:15:29] actually we had had to hire a special uh environmentalist to go out there at

[2:15:35] night to look for salamanders and it was a big deal just to get this sidewalk in.

[2:15:47] So it sounds like uh cost valuing would suggest

[2:15:53] » trails probably. >> Yeah, trails and but I could see Yeah, I

[2:15:58] could see the D allowing some small parking lot to allow in here. I I would

[2:16:03] think that they wouldn't push back too much. you know, they they they will

[2:16:06] ultimately do that and then deed restrict the rest of the property. So

[2:16:09] that we're that's the tradeoff is that we we're putting the parking lane that

[2:16:13] we're going to deed restrict from further developing from a parking lots

[2:16:16] or any other uses. Um that that restriction would preclude um you

[2:16:22] wouldn't restrict paths and other passive recreation in the wetlands.

[2:16:27] Okay. >> For kicks, how many spots you think you

[2:16:30] can get if it's closer and you can't touch the land that's abuing southern

[2:16:36] because I think you referenced spotted salamanders.

[2:16:38] » Yeah, that right here. This this this wetlands pocket is is um you know that's

[2:16:44] » I for us to start impacting these wetlands that that's going to be then

[2:16:49] we're going to start getting into wetlands mitigation and and um you know

[2:16:53] that that can get costly. Um, you know, we could look at, you know, negotiating

[2:16:58] moving in some wetlands and then, you know, creating this all, you know,

[2:17:01] creating this entire area as wetlands, but then, you know, that those

[2:17:04] mitigations, there's there's ratios that you have to meet and and it's it's it's

[2:17:09] a process to go through that. That's that's a costly process.

[2:17:16] » I appreciate it. Thanks, John. >> Okay.

[2:17:20] » Thank you. >> All right. Good night, everyone.

[2:17:27] Okay. Hi. You want to continue with the reports?

[2:17:30] » Yes, mayor. Um, well, there really are not too much too

[2:17:36] many more things uh besides the budget. I don't know. Do you want to take a

[2:17:41] break for the bud to the restroom break? Does anybody need a bio break or

[2:17:45] » I need I need >> Okay. Yeah, maybe we'll take a five

[2:17:48] minute break or a few minute break for people.

[2:17:50] » Up to you. Just because once we get to that one. Yeah. Okay.

[2:18:04] Ready, Mayor? >> Yes. Ready. Thank you.

[2:18:05] » Okay. Um so this evening uh under administration

[2:18:12] uh no action um proposed under clerk report was received. Any questions

[2:18:18] there? Okay. Construction, building, uh, just the report. We didn't receive any

[2:18:23] questions. Anything to discuss there? >> Okay. Finance. Um, I'll get back to

[2:18:29] financing, police, public works. Uh, we covered those. Anything there?

[2:18:35] » Tax collector. Uh, we will have a resolution on for the next agenda for an

[2:18:39] outside lean redemption. Any questions or concerns about the

[2:18:43] report? Okay. Tax assessor. I will note under his report, he did provide a very

[2:18:48] lengthy update. uh this month on progress related to the reval. Any

[2:18:52] questions or concerns there? >> Uh no, but I have been getting questions

[2:18:56] from residents about whether or not they've started, you know, going door to

[2:19:00] door, which he said or the report said that they have, which we didn't act for

[2:19:04] other meetings. Uh that but they started in, you know, some of the dentist

[2:19:07] sections just to get a lot of coverage with an animal. So, uh it's more so to

[2:19:12] make sure residents are aware that that's begun. It also said, you know, in

[2:19:16] terms of access, it said something like you can see what area they're in now by

[2:19:20] going on the website. >> Yeah, we did put out an update on the

[2:19:23] website about that. >> So, it's on our website. We have an

[2:19:26] update. >> We did put an update uh I believe um you

[2:19:30] just double check. They also have a spreadsheet on their website, asj.com.

[2:19:35] There's a spreadsheet of um what who the inspector will be and what date

[2:19:42] they have currently slotted to arrive at the property.

[2:19:45] » Oh, good. >> So, you can look it up by your home

[2:19:46] address and you can see what their projected day is when they might arrive.

[2:19:50] » Okay. >> We did post something on, I believe, on

[2:19:52] social media with a link as well and update it on on our website, uh the tax

[2:19:57] assessors page with that information to go to and see the uh like where they are

[2:20:03] and all of that information. Okay. Hasn't popped up for me in social media,

[2:20:06] but I I follow Township, but I'll see if I can find it and then try and repost.

[2:20:12] » But no, good. That's what I want to make sure is to this meeting and push it out

[2:20:14] as well. >> I'll I'll double check that. I know we

[2:20:17] did work on that. So,

[2:20:23] » um right. Um then on to finance. There are a number of legislative items for

[2:20:30] the next meeting. It would be to a resolution to introduce the budget

[2:20:34] resolution. We are in the self-exam cycle of uh we are in the self-exam year

[2:20:40] of that cycle. So resolution to do that resolution to uh do some budget

[2:20:45] transfers under the reserve budget and then an ordinance to set the open space

[2:20:50] tax rate u based off of the proposal that would be in the budget presentation

[2:20:55] shortly. Uh so with that um I'll turn your

[2:20:59] attention to the slides uh for the budget presentation. Uh this year the um

[2:21:07] budget committee >> screen there.

[2:21:09] » I'm sorry. >> Um there's a Zoom session running on

[2:21:11] that computer. If you want to share the screen

[2:21:14] » so I didn't realize there was a Zoom session there.

[2:21:21] » Thanks Greg. Uh, I'm can't see where am I.

[2:21:29] Here we go.

[2:21:32] Okay. Good. Perfect. Thanks, Greg.

[2:21:37] Um, so this year the municipal budget finance committee uh was comprised of

[2:21:43] mayor General Olen, deputy mayor Marty McHugh. Uh this is your second year or

[2:21:47] third year on the finance committee. Second, uh myself, our CFO and our

[2:21:52] assistant treasurer uh at Davenport. Um the mayor, she's a finance and

[2:21:57] accounting professional of over two decades. Uh and our deputy mayor

[2:22:01] operates an independent national business development firm that he's also

[2:22:04] owned for over two decades. So, we've got two very very astute and fiscally

[2:22:09] minded uh business professionals. Uh and as I mentioned, this is their second

[2:22:13] year on the finance committee. >> Yeah. No, I'm sorry.

[2:22:17] » You're second. Oh, third for the mayor, second for the deputy mayor. So, a lot

[2:22:21] of experience there working on this and uh we appreciated their their input and

[2:22:26] their challenges uh that they put forward to us to craft this budget.

[2:22:30] Uh the timeline uh for this budget largely mirrors previous years and for

[2:22:36] the governing body, you've heard this now several times, but I I say this as

[2:22:41] though uh members of the public are hearing this for the first time in case

[2:22:43] anybody's dialed in uh or is new to this. This the budget process starts uh

[2:22:48] in the previous year in the fall uh around September October where we are

[2:22:53] having department heads and the finance department administration working on the

[2:22:58] individual department budgets the requests um really reviewing

[2:23:02] expenditures from the for for that year um and starting to look at needs and

[2:23:08] priorities for the following year as well some of the challenges coming ahead

[2:23:11] uh November uh we have department head meetings uh and reviewed their budget

[2:23:16] requests uh and then that information gets fed to

[2:23:21] finance department to uh put together the first draft of the budget as well as

[2:23:25] close the books from the previous year. uh February and March is when we start

[2:23:29] having the finance committee meetings to propose and put forward that first draft

[2:23:32] to them and then uh by this time March uh we've finalized the the draft of the

[2:23:39] budget to be proposed and we're doing quality control things uh that would

[2:23:43] involve our auditor and really looking at financial statements, fund balances,

[2:23:49] reserves, uh you know any expenses, anything that might have come up uh

[2:23:55] since last year that we weren't aware that also require sometimes by the time

[2:23:59] the school or the county finalized their budget or we're getting requests for

[2:24:04] from the library or other entities uh that is stuff that then gets fed in by

[2:24:10] March the latest we we usually have that uh today March 10th we do the initial

[2:24:15] budget presentation uh we look to have budget introduction March 24th uh with

[2:24:22] another presentation same presentation unless anything's changed uh and the

[2:24:26] goal goal is to adopt April 28th, 2026 uh in time to meet the state deadlines

[2:24:31] for the budget adoption uh for municipal for municipalities.

[2:24:37] The municipal finance and budgeting uh really varies quite differently from uh

[2:24:44] the private sector. You know what people might be used to. Uh it's a very heavily

[2:24:49] regulated process. We look for guidance from the state uh through the department

[2:24:54] of community affairs, the local finance board. Uh sometimes that guidance comes

[2:24:58] right in the middle of the process. Uh we wait on the governor to really make

[2:25:03] clear to municipalities what their state aid is going to look like. Uh and that's

[2:25:07] something that comes also uh when they're finished introducing their

[2:25:11] budget. Um at least two dozen meetings and calls uh occur in order to get this

[2:25:18] budget to where it is. It's not a uh overnight thing. It's definitely a long

[2:25:22] drawn out very thorough process in in addition to the finance committee

[2:25:26] includes our auditors as well to make sure that we're doing the right thing.

[2:25:31] Um the budget has to do with really our appropriations and our revenues. Uh you

[2:25:37] know our salaries and wages, other expenses which are everything from

[2:25:41] supplies, materials, fuel, uh any contractual obligations we may have with

[2:25:46] third parties, uh utilities and the debt service. All of these are just a sample

[2:25:51] but of what really make up the biggest part of our appropriations. And then our

[2:25:54] revenues, uh, everything that includes fees and fines, licenses, any interests

[2:25:59] from our bank accounts, the state aid, I mentioned, any grants, what's known as

[2:26:03] MNA, miscellaneous revenue, um, you know, things that we charge copies or

[2:26:09] smaller things. Uh, those make up our revenues. That is our main revenue, our

[2:26:13] main source of revenue outside of taxes. Taxes is really our main source of

[2:26:17] revenue. We don't, we're not a business. We're not selling widgets. We're not uh

[2:26:21] providing uh consulting services. Uh besides mulch, maybe

[2:26:27] we we're not selling a product. Uh the the biggest uh portion of uh our revenue

[2:26:32] is the taxes. So, we try our hardest to increase revenues uh in any other way

[2:26:39] other than taxes to minimize that tax burden. But the difference between the

[2:26:42] appropriations and those revenues is h has to be made up with taxes. That's the

[2:26:48] the levy. Um, and we really try to strike a

[2:26:53] balance between doing the cost of business and those limited opportunities

[2:26:57] for revenue. Uh, we are also not municipality that has hotels that might

[2:27:02] collect hotel occupancy taxes. We're not a town that has a downtown with parking

[2:27:07] revenue. We're not a town uh with um hospitals that might generate more fees

[2:27:13] for birth certificates, for example. Uh so we want to provide top rate

[2:27:17] government service and ensure the public safety so the community still remains

[2:27:22] attractive uh that then leads to the increase in home values that people come

[2:27:26] to appreciate and yields taxpayers the best return on their investment which is

[2:27:31] their property. Uh so we're constantly looking to do more with less uh finding

[2:27:35] savings mitigating those increases and trying to increase ways where we can

[2:27:39] generate revenue. the challenges uh the the goals that we

[2:27:44] have in light of those challenges are to avoid some quick fixes. Uh the

[2:27:47] short-term remedies of just dipping into your surplus uh to to always say, "Oh,

[2:27:52] well, we don't want to raise taxes." Uh raising taxes, well, that's nobody's

[2:27:57] goal. Uh it it ensures that the town is stable and resilient for the future to

[2:28:03] make sure that those fund balances are healthy uh and that we can budget as

[2:28:08] lean as possible but do so responsibly where we're not cutting services that

[2:28:13] don't need to be and we're not jeopardizing or risking safety or

[2:28:16] compromising even on the quality of uh our roads during storms. For example,

[2:28:25] this year we were confronted with a number of very very significant

[2:28:29] challenges. Uh the biggest of those challenges was the rising cost of health

[2:28:34] health care uh headlines uh in New Jersey papers but also around the

[2:28:39] country are all uh saying the same thing. Health care costs are rising and

[2:28:44] they're rising very very drastically. Um, but in New Jersey, especially for

[2:28:49] municipalities who provide health benefits to their employees, as most

[2:28:54] municipalities do, your options are really limited. Uh, you're either in the

[2:28:58] state health benefits plan, for example, or you're out to to private market.

[2:29:02] 2025, the cost of health care for employees uh and retirees was about

[2:29:09] $2,474,000.

[2:29:13] We saw an increase uh of 32% this year. That's an extra $85,000

[2:29:20] to our health care costs. And that's not and just to clarify, our employees are

[2:29:24] also contributing as well to their health benefits. So, uh we follow the

[2:29:29] chapter 75 model. It was an old state law that dictates how much employees

[2:29:34] contribute based on their status, the health coverage status, and also their

[2:29:39] salary. Uh so it's a graduated scale. Uh so our employees do share in this burden

[2:29:44] and they are seeing that same increase. So they're seeing uh their contributions

[2:29:49] going up about the same amount of money. Um but that $85,000 is a very difficult

[2:29:56] uh increase to overcome. What I've tried to do, and I've done that every year

[2:30:02] since I've been here, almost every year since I've been here, is uh request our

[2:30:05] claims experience from our health insurance plan and try to market that to

[2:30:10] other providers to see if we can get better costs. Unfortunately,

[2:30:15] uh no one is willing to quote us at a better cost or at all. um largely

[2:30:21] because one of the reasons you look at your claims experience, how many

[2:30:24] employees you have and uh you know what what are those claims like? Uh the good

[2:30:32] thing about the stay health benefits plan is it pools us with a larger entity

[2:30:36] as opposed to just going off on our own for the few employees that we have. So

[2:30:42] this was a very big uh challenge for us in addition to the payments for the

[2:30:47] county order tax revaluation. Uh we started that process, we awarded that

[2:30:52] contract and we did a what's known as a 5-year special emergency last year.

[2:30:57] Essentially what that does is uh splits up that cost over five years. So the

[2:31:02] cost over each of those five years starting with this year is $130,000.

[2:31:07] uh we kind of borrow we borrow that from ourselves, but we repay ourselves uh

[2:31:14] over time rather than borrowing it from a bank at a higher rate. But that's

[2:31:18] $130,000 expense this year that we did not have last year.

[2:31:22] » You want questions as we go along? You want us to wait till the

[2:31:25] » uh if you don't mind uh waiting till the end, but uh

[2:31:31] » you might want to take a breath, but that's okay. I have to answer the

[2:31:34] question. >> No problem. Uh the other one I just to

[2:31:37] emphasize also that this tax reval was ordered by the county. So we did have a

[2:31:42] little bit of a heads up on this one uh to plan for it but uh you know there's

[2:31:48] little that you can do. It's a cost that you have to pay for at some point. Uh

[2:31:53] this year also weather uh as we know we all know was a big challenge uh worse

[2:31:59] than last year worse than in a few years. uh record setting uh storms that

[2:32:04] we've dealt with in 2026 year to date, $94,000 in costs just for Salt, Brine,

[2:32:12] and our contractor. Uh that is already more than we spent all of last year. And

[2:32:18] that does not include an increased amount that we've budgeted for overtime

[2:32:22] for DPW. Uh we can't time storms. So if they come in over weekends, they come in

[2:32:29] evenings, uh that is a cost that we acrew uh in in the form of overtime. So

[2:32:35] because the what we had originally planned when the department requests

[2:32:38] came in in the fall, uh we were thinking great, you know, we could manage with

[2:32:43] similar levels as to as far as last year for overtime budget. The the good thing

[2:32:48] about getting the storm out of the way so soon was we knew what those costs

[2:32:51] were and could budget for it rather than have an emergency later on in the year

[2:32:55] and and scramble. So, we did increase the budget uh line for overtime by about

[2:33:00] $50,000. Uh because there's also still the potential for storm at the end of

[2:33:04] the year and we have to plan for that. And that overtime is not just winter

[2:33:10] weather too. uh you know from time and time we get hurricanes or other storms

[2:33:14] that could impact the community and we have to be prepared to handle those.

[2:33:20] Um so

[2:33:24] uh a quick snapshot of the budget this year as compared to last year. Uh I put

[2:33:29] two charts uh that really show your appropriations and the revenue. And the

[2:33:33] reason I did that, I'll explain in a moment, but our total appropriations

[2:33:36] this year, uh, 19,741, uh, 153. That's a change of $312,000

[2:33:44] over last year. Uh, not a terrible increase. Uh, but our revenue uh went

[2:33:50] down as well um by about a million dollars. Now, I'll explain that in a

[2:33:56] second. So, our revenue for 2026 was about 6.5 whereas last year was about

[2:34:00] 7.5. So the difference between those two as I

[2:34:04] was talking about before that tells you what the amount to be raised by taxes is

[2:34:08] and all of these figures I'm talking about one obviously this is what's

[2:34:11] proposed and this is just for municipal purposes only within your control. So

[2:34:16] that excludes the library the library tax is set by state law and there are

[2:34:20] county schools and open space uh you know a number of other things I'll show

[2:34:24] in a chart later. So this is just what's in in the control of the township the

[2:34:29] township committee and and over here. So that difference is the what's known as

[2:34:33] the levy, the amount to be raised by taxes. That's an increase of $1.3

[2:34:37] million, approximately $1.3 million. And when you look at I'm sorry, uh our net

[2:34:42] valuation taxable, uh we had a very modest increase in the net valuation

[2:34:47] taxable. That's our ratable base. Uh that is a very low increase, but a very

[2:34:52] low increase historically one of the lowest in the last five years.

[2:34:57] Uh and so that is what we spread the amount to be raised by taxes across that

[2:35:01] net valuation taxable. That's how I I'll show that later. But the numbers uh

[2:35:07] above are I say a little deceiving, but they aren't truly representative of the

[2:35:12] full picture because grants uh have to be booked as both a an appropriation and

[2:35:17] a revenue. So why did the revenue go down by so much?

[2:35:23] That's because we took out the grants. If you take out the grants from the

[2:35:26] revenue line item, you do see that our revenue actually did go up $212,000

[2:35:31] this year, but the appropriations went up $1.5 million

[2:35:37] and largely due to the health care costs. Um 60% of that increase is due to

[2:35:45] the stay benefits plan increases this year, that 800 plus that I told you

[2:35:49] about. Um, and we don't want to dip into our surplus too much. The the amount we

[2:35:55] use from the surplus is also accounted for in the revenue. So, we left the

[2:35:58] surplus at the same usage as in previous years. Uh, but as I mentioned, limited

[2:36:05] opportunities for revenue otherwise. Uh, last year our tax rate went up uh.9%.

[2:36:12] I'm sorry, the net valuation, our ratable base went up.9%. The year before

[2:36:16] that 2.33%. And so that's to illustrate uh the magnitude of that rate of the

[2:36:24] base change. This is the top seven the top seven

[2:36:30] expenses that make up 77% of those appropriations. You'll see those

[2:36:34] emergency response and public safety. That is uh the biggest expense. That's

[2:36:39] everything from the police department, the fire departments, uh hydrants to uh

[2:36:45] uh dispatch. Uh that is the biggest portion of it. Uh that went up uh just

[2:36:51] about 4%. Um not too bad. Insuranceances though, that's where you'll see that big

[2:36:56] increase. And so not only health insurance, but workers compensation and

[2:37:01] general liability insurance. Everything from the liability and and uh employment

[2:37:07] practices liability as well uh for all of our facilities and all the employees.

[2:37:11] That went up uh 833,000. public works expenses. Uh in addition to

[2:37:18] the new uh Teamsters contract coming into effect, the increases for uh salt

[2:37:25] brine contractor and the overtime costs that was uh one of the larger increases

[2:37:31] this year second to insurance. Uh pensions and social security that went

[2:37:37] up not a tremendous amount. Debt payments also went up not a tremendous

[2:37:41] amount. uh capital improvement fund. We did reduce that by about $75,000 this

[2:37:48] year to just try and offset a little bit of the uh damage to all those increases

[2:37:52] this year. Uh but we did keep it at about $500,000 whereas last year was

[2:37:57] $575. Uh capital requests this year all departments were told limit it to

[2:38:03] strictly essential missionritical absolutely can't function without it. uh

[2:38:09] that way we don't uh add to our debt and that way we uh try to minimize the

[2:38:14] impact to the tax rate this year. Uh and then utilities did go up this year about

[2:38:20] $42,000. Uh we do go out to auction just to give

[2:38:24] the residents and and the township committee an idea of what we do to try

[2:38:28] and find savings everywhere or reduce those increases. Uh we go out to auction

[2:38:34] to try and get competitive rates. So rather than just going with the market

[2:38:36] rates through JCPNL, we bundle our utility costs, aggregate those whether

[2:38:41] it's for the buildings, whether it's for the uh street lights or the facilities,

[2:38:45] uh we do go out to auction and try to get the best rate. And it also gives us

[2:38:49] a level of predictability for the next couple of years. So we're not at the

[2:38:53] whim of BPU and JCPNL increases. So the subtotal of those seven items uh

[2:39:00] for this year was $14,991,249.

[2:39:04] So that's an increase of 9.67. The remainder everything else uh which

[2:39:10] is administration, technology, finance, construction, recreation, legal,

[2:39:15] engineering, our boards and commissions, affordable housing, everything else

[2:39:19] besides those things up there is just 4 million or $172,000.

[2:39:25] Uh that is a uh increase of 234 over last year. And down below again, you'll

[2:39:31] see the total appropriations excluding grants. Uh because again, grants have to

[2:39:35] be booked as an appropriation and a revenue. So want to make sure that you

[2:39:40] can look at that without weighing both sides of the equation.

[2:39:45] Uh I was talking about our net valuation taxable. Just a quick snapshot over the

[2:39:49] last uh couple years what our tax base looks like. Uh 2022 went up 23 24 went

[2:39:56] up a large amount. That's largely due to developments that were coming online.

[2:40:00] Enclave was the biggest one. Uh so whenever there's development in town, uh

[2:40:05] larger developments especially, uh that helps our tax base which minimizes the

[2:40:10] individual bur the burden to individual property owners because you're spreading

[2:40:15] more of that levy uh across more. Here's a snapshot of our surplus for the

[2:40:21] last couple of years. So you'll see uh keeping it at 3.5. It's been at 3.5 for

[2:40:28] the last four years. How much we're using from the surplus. Uh the last time

[2:40:32] uh it was at 3 million was in 2022. Uh we will have a fund balance after

[2:40:39] this budget adoption based off of what's proposed estimated at about 1,762,000.

[2:40:46] Not ideal, but not bad. Uh it's still healthier than it's been uh in in some

[2:40:51] of our worst years. Uh it is still very healthy. I don't see it affecting our

[2:40:55] bond rating. Ideally, we'd be at 2.1 uh million, but that would mean that we

[2:41:02] would have to reduce what we use from our fund balance by about $370,000.

[2:41:07] Uh that would mean approximately an extra $90 a year per household to do

[2:41:12] that. Uh that's to make sure that's at least 10% of our total expenditures from

[2:41:17] the prior year, which is generally a best practice, but I do think we'll be

[2:41:21] able to recover in future years. Um, and moving on. So, tax bill review, what

[2:41:30] would it look like? All everything that I've talked about here. So, the amount

[2:41:34] to be raised by taxes, again, proposed for municipal purposes only within your

[2:41:39] control excluding the library. That's 13,28,490.

[2:41:45] Take the net valuation taxable, divide those, that gives you a tax rate of uh

[2:41:50] 376 uh with an average residential

[2:41:53] assessment this year of $878,600.

[2:41:58] That means that the average annual residential tax bill for municipal

[2:42:02] purposes only would be 3 mill I'm sorry, $3,32.

[2:42:07] That's on uh that's $275 a month to pay for a lot of service uh that residents

[2:42:15] are getting. So that $275 a month makes sure that the police are doing their

[2:42:20] job. We've got storm cleanup, snow removal, road maintenance, we're running

[2:42:24] the recycling center and compost facility, a whole slew of things in

[2:42:27] addition to uh contractual services. We've got a number of shared services

[2:42:31] agreements to again keep costs low. Um leverage some uh economies of scale and

[2:42:38] also provide subsidies to the fire departments, all volunteer fire

[2:42:42] departments, our volunteer EMS and to a senior citizen center. Uh all that do a

[2:42:48] great job and provide outstanding service, top rate service to the

[2:42:51] residents. So I think that's a a very fair price to pay for uh all that

[2:42:56] residents get in this town. And when I mentioned within municipal

[2:43:02] control, that is that 17% of the pie. So for every dollar that we collect, so we

[2:43:09] collect the taxes for all of these entities. So uh people do get mad that

[2:43:13] their taxes are whatever they are. Uh they think that you're to blame, that

[2:43:18] we're to blame, but we're really only responsible for 17% of that. Uh the

[2:43:22] library gets 2%, county about 16% and the school about 64% of the tax bill.

[2:43:31] Um now in light of these challenges uh we we wanted to make sure that because

[2:43:38] we also do set the open space tax that we consider uh our outlook our

[2:43:45] commitment to open space parks and recreation all the projects on the

[2:43:48] horizon but also find a way to offer some relief to taxpayers and I just want

[2:43:54] to highlight some things that we've done uh recently and have in the works.

[2:43:59] playgrounds three I'm sorry uh two playgrounds already completed with two

[2:44:04] more at Colony Pool uh coming up for upgrade. We've preserved Fensky property

[2:44:09] as open space. Uh we are rehabbing the Colony Pool walls. Uh that's a cost of

[2:44:15] $600,000 that's in progress and will be coming up uh to completion very soon.

[2:44:21] And as we talked about earlier today uh ADA improvements over at Astra Field.

[2:44:27] So proposing a rate reduction to 1.5% as opposed to the default of 2%. So that

[2:44:33] will uh generally provide a decrease in the levy of about $175,000

[2:44:41] which is some relief to taxpayers uh that that is within your control. And

[2:44:47] then finally outside of the budget but part of the budget process is the sewer

[2:44:52] utility. And uh they say it's out of the budget but part of the process. That's

[2:44:58] because it is a utility. So it's self-liquidating which means that the

[2:45:01] revenue from this sewer utility have to support the operations and it's got its

[2:45:06] own fee structure which is what we call rents. That's what uh covers it. The

[2:45:11] budget this year is 3.36 uh versus last year 3,315,000.

[2:45:18] That's just an increase of uh $45,000. We do a thorough analysis of the costs

[2:45:23] there while m maintaining all the infrastructure improvements that are

[2:45:27] necessary to keep the sewer utility operating. Nobody wants a backup in

[2:45:32] their sewer utility. Uh that is a missionritical operation over there.

[2:45:38] Very very uh sensitive piece of uh piece of the puzzle. Uh all the equipment

[2:45:43] there is is uh tend to 247. We've got six dedicated full-time employees. uh we

[2:45:50] share the administrative staff and so we aortion those costs from the township.

[2:45:54] uh our uh foreman over there who's uh operating the plant has really done a

[2:46:00] great job as they do over there of holding the line on any discretionary

[2:46:04] spending, but they're also subject to those health insurance increases that we

[2:46:07] are on the township side. And we uh have utility debt service there. This year

[2:46:12] it's 535,000 and we are also budgeting for a capital

[2:46:16] improvement fund of 250,000. uh on the horizon. We are expecting that

[2:46:21] we'll need to do a rate study uh especially with the major impact of the

[2:46:26] headworks project that our engineering team is working on um and looking to

[2:46:32] apply for that funding through the state's I bank to keep costs low for

[2:46:36] residents. So that is uh the municipal budget

[2:46:40] proposed for 2026. Any questions?

[2:46:47] Command of evil. I think you I think you have some questions.

[2:46:52] » Um okay. Um

[2:46:59] let's uh so healthcare. Um that's a lot of money. That's a huge

[2:47:06] increase. Um do you either can you either speak to like how many people

[2:47:10] that covers or why our experience is so bad? I mean does it have to do with

[2:47:15] because the percentage of retirees that we cover versus covering employees like

[2:47:20] I'm trying to understand >> um so I do get the claims experience

[2:47:24] reports um it it would be because some of that information is covered under

[2:47:28] HIPPA but it's everything from somebody may have cancer treatments leukemia

[2:47:33] treatments a large thing that I hear that's driving healthcare cost is the

[2:47:37] cost of GLPs a lot of the weight loss drugs a lot more people are using those

[2:47:42] uh which is driving up prescription costs. Uh so that's one aspect of it,

[2:47:47] but it's it could be anything from uh you know major major illnesses or

[2:47:53] retirees um to families, younger younger folks

[2:47:58] with families that have children and uh that c the family plan costs more. So,

[2:48:03] you know, somebody younger starts off here in the township, they're single,

[2:48:08] and then as the longer they are with the township, then uh, you know, may get

[2:48:12] married, have kids. Um, but there's no one answer as to why it is. It's largely

[2:48:16] because the state as a whole has been experiencing, uh, a lot of

[2:48:21] mismanagement. I mean, the headlines right there. There's been mismanagement

[2:48:24] at the state health benefits plan. I think that's the biggest thing. And also

[2:48:29] over the last couple of years, the towns that have had better claims experience

[2:48:34] or have been able to leave have left, which leaves more of the uh towns that

[2:48:40] aren't able to leave left holding the bag and have to make up for those costs.

[2:48:46] » And and that's what I'm getting at. So because I know over the years you've

[2:48:49] been looking at moving us outside of the state plan, anticipating that we were

[2:48:53] going to hit this cliff. >> Yep. because everybody with good

[2:48:57] experience went outside and got better rates and everybody with worse and I'm

[2:49:00] like we we seem like a pretty typical town with a I can't imagine the

[2:49:04] demographic. So I'm trying to figure out how our experience without you know

[2:49:08] anybody's individual you know being so much worse than comparable t like I mean

[2:49:13] the burrow I was talking to a friend they're like oh yeah we jump shipped a

[2:49:16] while ago and I'm like how is our experience that much different from the

[2:49:20] burrow that we can't seem to get >> sometimes just a two or three offs it's

[2:49:25] it it can can skew especially for the size of our township our our workforce I

[2:49:30] don't know the exact size of the burough's workforce but I think ours is

[2:49:33] smaller Um, so that has something to do with it. Um, also, you know, and in my

[2:49:40] experience, I've left the state health benefits plan and other plans and other

[2:49:43] municipalities elsewhere, you sometimes will get a better rate, a teaser rate in

[2:49:48] the beginning and then you start seeing those increases later on. Uh so that

[2:49:54] kind of initial jump people are just being very reactionary and they may you

[2:49:59] know may be good for them in the moment but there's no um there's no guarantee

[2:50:05] that the future years won't see very similar or even worse increases

[2:50:10] » that did happen here about 15 years ago. We went with an outside vendor and then

[2:50:16] I think it was just a year later we went back to the state of health health

[2:50:19] benefits program. Um, do you know how many we're covering

[2:50:23] in total? Because it's not staff. >> I do have We have 51 active and 60

[2:50:27] retirees. Our CFO is watching and she's sending me

[2:50:32] those stats so I don't have to pull up the spreadsheets.

[2:50:34] » Thank you. >> But yeah, 51 active and 60 retirees.

[2:50:38] » Okay. Um

[2:50:44] Okay. So we know there's a lot of like things that we'll use to manage the

[2:50:52] budget. So we might adjust how much surplus we use to contribute to the

[2:50:57] budget. We might adjust the route. There's different things that we use.

[2:50:59] But of course you always have to worry about the implications for the follow.

[2:51:02] » Correct. Um, so the fact that we're not doing any of that, is that because you

[2:51:08] have concerns about our ability to replenish the surplus because surplus

[2:51:12] does account for three and a half million of this $19 million budget, $18

[2:51:18] million, whatever that was. >> Y

[2:51:20] » So, it's a big chunk of the budget. So, we count on being able to replenish

[2:51:23] that. But, but you have concerns. >> I do. And I don't want to speak for our

[2:51:27] CFO. um she can send me a message if she thinks so. But from both of us talking

[2:51:32] about this, yeah, we are concerned. So you'll look here at the trend. Um the

[2:51:38] line that says increase surplus of operations, you'll see has been dropping

[2:51:43] since 2022. So 2022 increased surplus of operations was 4,82,000.

[2:51:51] 23 3.7 24 3.4 25 3.0 know um that you know there's a lot of reasons why uh

[2:52:02] that could be one of those you know everybody talks about lean budgeting

[2:52:05] lean budgeting don't leave any fluff people some some politicians or

[2:52:11] candidates for office will talk about oh you know there's a slush fund nobody's

[2:52:15] putting in a slush fund but you you when you really budget to the dollar and cent

[2:52:20] you're not leaving yourself any wiggle room and anything that you save or don't

[2:52:26] spend and comes back to the surplus. So it's not like you know it's just

[2:52:30] disappearing into thin air. The taxpayers still benefit from it. Um you

[2:52:34] know so that's one thing. Revenues not meeting expectations

[2:52:38] uh is another thing that affects it. Uh and it's not that we have been uh not

[2:52:43] meeting expectations in revenue. It's just that in some areas that rollover is

[2:52:48] less. So I know you're still meeting it but it's not as great as it was maybe in

[2:52:53] the previous year. Uh and then you know there's been past politicians who have

[2:52:58] talked about the rut and playing with the rut. Well the rut affects your

[2:53:01] surplus as well. Uh and then lastly you know um making sure that you know you're

[2:53:08] not always just appealing to oh we need a 0% tax rate 0% increase on the tax

[2:53:14] rate every year. And there were years uh in the past that that had happened. And

[2:53:18] then if you're not bringing in revenue and expenses keep going up, the only way

[2:53:24] you can do it is through the tax levy. And I think uh if we were to try to use

[2:53:29] more of this fund balance, uh not only would be bringing that 1.7 million lower

[2:53:35] than it is, uh it could jeopardize us for the future.

[2:53:41] » Okay. Um I think that's pretty much everything I had.

[2:53:50] I have a question on open space tax. So, so right now the thought process is to u

[2:53:56] take it from two to one and a half. >> And if I heard you correctly, the

[2:54:01] thinking was to uh uh soften the

[2:54:06] um impact on the budget. Um I can appreciate that thinking, but I'm

[2:54:11] wondering if there's more that you considered. For example, like

[2:54:16] if you project out, do you do you forecast a a diminished

[2:54:23] need for funds to do open space activities or um

[2:54:30] uh I don't know. I mean, is there anything beyond

[2:54:33] what you articulated as as basis for reducing it by half a point? So we look

[2:54:39] at what's the plan for this year and what are our plans for coming years and

[2:54:43] we look at our debt service and we look at our reserve over there. We have a

[2:54:47] healthy balance in the open space fund. Um this would not um this would not

[2:54:54] impact operations. Uh for open space we look at large if well let me back up.

[2:55:01] We've got debt service that unfortunately uh a number of years ago

[2:55:06] prior to my arrival I don't know you know what the thinking was but they

[2:55:10] bonded for uh a lot lot of those expenses and they did so in a way that

[2:55:14] now we can't prepay that. So we have this debt service that we have to pay.

[2:55:19] It would be nice if we could prepay all of it but we can't. So there's no sense

[2:55:24] in just collecting more revenue to just sit there, collect interest when the

[2:55:29] homeowners, the property taxpayers could benefit from that relief rather than it

[2:55:33] just sitting in account uh with us not really doing much. Uh if there are

[2:55:38] projects and we've talked about a number of projects, if there are projects,

[2:55:42] there's a planning process involved in those. There's an engineering process.

[2:55:46] there's typically bidding that's going to be involved and going through that

[2:55:50] whole process uh to award a contract then mobilize. So the feeling was for

[2:55:56] any projects within let's say a million dollars uh that are coming up, we have

[2:56:01] enough in our fund balance in our open space fund uh that we could and you

[2:56:06] don't make a payment all up at once, right? Typically you would phase in the

[2:56:09] payment. So you might have a an initial portion, a midway payment or they're

[2:56:14] paying you as invoices acrew. You're not going to have a million dollars coming

[2:56:18] out of that fund all at once. So we have enough to make any payment that would be

[2:56:23] uh necessary for any project that's forecast uh and then be able to account

[2:56:28] for the balance of that in the 2027 budget for the open space tax

[2:56:35] » and it's not permanent. The default is two two cents every year. So it will

[2:56:40] automatically go back next year. And if there was anything very large, we have

[2:56:44] enough to make a down payment on that as well if we wanted to borrow uh issue

[2:56:48] notes to to borrow. Uh we have enough in our open space fund for that. So it

[2:56:54] wouldn't preclude us. There really would not be any harm that I can see in uh

[2:56:59] reducing it to 1.5 this year. Do you have the numbers on hand? So um

[2:57:05] what's the balance now? And roughly my recollection it it recharges like about

[2:57:11] 800,000 a year, right? >> Yeah. So the 2% at a full 2% you're

[2:57:14] bringing in about 700,000. Okay. >> So uh or you just take that 175 multiply

[2:57:20] it by four. That's it. So it's about 700. And I do have the uh

[2:57:25] » do have the open space here. So, um, with with what we're talking about, you

[2:57:32] know, at a, um, 1.5, the available balance at the end of the year would be

[2:57:38] about $494,000.

[2:58:01] How have miscellaneous fees been doing? because I know that I know we can't

[2:58:05] factor that into the revenue, but um I'm just curious because I know um

[2:58:11] construction fees for uh uh surprisingly. Yeah. But we're not

[2:58:17] going to budget for that because that's not traditional year. But we and then

[2:58:20] but then you do get that kind of followup that the ratables will increase

[2:58:25] based on the construction that was done. And and again, we're not going to roll

[2:58:29] the dice and bet that we're going to be able to replenish. want to be

[2:58:32] comfortable if they're able to replenish. But um I'm just curious to

[2:58:35] know has have you seen a decline in that as well or

[2:58:38] » um so uniform construction code fees we left that at uh 425 which is the same as

[2:58:44] what we anticipated last year. So that was um slightly lower than what was

[2:58:50] anticipated in 2024. We did bring in more revenue this year. Um but um you

[2:58:57] know we felt 425 was was a comfortable safe number. Interest obviously interest

[2:59:02] is going down. That's an example right down. So while we did benefit from uh

[2:59:08] renegotiating our agreement with the bank and getting better rates they've

[2:59:12] now gone down. So we are expecting that sort of revenue to go down as well.

[2:59:17] » Okay. But overall, um, the revenue outside of

[2:59:21] the grants, as I mentioned, is up, uh, about 200 and change, $212,000.

[2:59:31] » Okay.

[2:59:38] And again, sort of the the equation is if we were to up that, right, um that's

[2:59:44] less for future years. Uh that potentially for future years or if we

[2:59:50] don't make those numbers, then again uh would have an impact on future years

[2:59:55] too.

[3:00:00] » Okie dokie. This is not this is a very very difficult budget year.

[3:00:11] Any other questions?

[3:00:18] Okay. >> I want to thank you all. I want to thank

[3:00:22] the finance committee. I really want to thank our CFO Debbie King and uh our

[3:00:26] assistant treasur at Davenport. They are fantastic. So, uh, really appreciate all

[3:00:31] the hardware work they're doing on this.

[3:00:36] » Okay, if no further questions, uh, we can go to the second hearing of

[3:00:40] citizens. Same rules apply as previously.

[3:00:44] I'm still anyone online with their hand raised.

[3:00:46] » Just to receive a vote. >> Oh, okay.

[3:00:54] » Okay. Uh then I will close the second hearing of citizens and I will seek a

[3:00:59] motion to adjourn the meeting. So moved.

[3:01:04] » Well second. >> Okay.

[3:01:06] » I >> I

[3:01:10] thank you. >> Thank you everybody. Thank you everyone.

Township Committee - March 10th, 2026

Transcript