It'd be great. Yeah. Thank you, Alexis. >> No problem. >> Could I just apologize in advance? This is Judy. My name is Judy Christian. I'm I'm not very Zoom proficient, but I wanted you to know who I was. >> Yeah. Hi, Judy. How are you? >> Hi, Renee. Hi. Okay.
>> Hi, Judy. I know who you are. >> Okay. Very good. >> Glad you're here. >> I'm not trying to hide my identity. I just >> No, we we appreciate it. You're you're you're most welcome. Hi, Judy. >> Thank you. >> Of course. Uh so, in accordance with
section five of the Open Public Meetings Act, be advised that a notice of this meeting was made by posting on the bulletin board in town hall and forwarding to the officially designated newspapers that this meeting would take place on Zoom at 4 p.m. on Friday,
February 20th, 2026. Meeting details and the draft agenda were also posted in our on our township website. Um, okay. Uh, we public comment. Uh, Judy, do you have comments you'd like to
make or is anybody else here? Looks like, uh, >> Jeff is here. Jeff Feld is here. >> Yeah, Jeff Feld is here and Juan Calcedo. Um, yeah. Would any of you guys like to make a a comment? >> Um, at this time, I don't want to make a
comment, so I'm just here to monitor and watch what's happening. >> Okay. >> Yes. Uh, I'm here to listen right now. Thank you. >> You're most welcome. Uh, Juan. Okay. All right. We'll assume uh nothing
yet there. Um, so >> he's muted. >> Yeah, I noticed. I know. >> Yeah. Um, but I figure if he wants to say something, he he's welcome to. Okay. He gave a thumbs up, so we're we're all good. Um so the first thing we'd like to
talk about is the resolution um uh that Alexis had sent around. Um I guess Alexis is it appropriate I should read that? >> Do you can you guys see it? I'm sharing it right now. >> Yeah, I can see it.
>> We can see it. You're not you're not required to read the entire resolution. That would >> that would be boring. >> Be inefficient. Um >> yes, let's not do it. All right. Great. So, uh, yeah, why don't we, um, Alexis, maybe for
those for those who are joining, maybe we can just kind of at a certain point scroll down so that they can see the whole thing before we, uh, start to talk about it. >> Uh, sure. Yeah, I also sent a copy of this um in PDF earlier today. Um, the
>> version that added two of Jude's um, editions. So, I'll scroll down from here. >> Thank you. >> And then scroll down again. So, um I I know that you guys are going
to pass this resolution. Um I think as I've indicated, it's likely going to fall on deaf ears. I'm hoping that um in addition to this perhaps and it doesn't have to be today obviously
um knowing that it'll likely be a synthetic that moves forward if you guys could weigh in on which of the synthetic options would be more preferable or I guess less less bad from an
environmental perspective. Um, you know, I I liken it to a situation, the analogy I'll use is like, yes, we wish everyone could drive electric cars, but you know, if that's not feasible, hybrid's the next best uh option, right? So, um you
know, I think what I think this this resolution makes it clear your your objections to the synthetic and that's fine, but um thinking ahead, I really would like to know if one of the synthetic options,
the hybrid option or the no fill option or whatever is better because then I can help advocate for uh that that option as opposed to the traditional turf. like what we already have. >> Yeah,
Mayor Sakamandi, certainly appreciate your your thoughts there. Um, I just want to point out though, we haven't actually discussed this resolution yet. >> Um, and I'd like to Yeah, we haven't we It's been distributed, but this is the first meeting to actually discuss it. Um
and uh so why don't we let's let's deal with the resolution at hand and then absolutely we we will take up what what you were suggesting if if we get to that point. Um Venita I saw that you've got a hand up. >> Yeah I raised hand to ask certain questions of Mayor Skamandi in response
to uh his comments just now but I guess we'll hold that for later. But uh if you're talking about the resolution I did have one comment on that as well but you know I I can wait. >> Yeah that sounds great. What? Yeah, if you have a comment on the resolution itself, I think that's great and happy to talk about the other issues that
Frank raises. Um, but I'd like to give the commission a chance to discuss this resolution first and and come to a a decision on it. So, so Venita, you've got a comment on this one right now. Yeah, I think you know Jude made an excellent uh suggestion to add the
property you know the the exact location of uh these proposed fields but I just think that that paragraph is misplaced >> u in in the current draft because I think the way the draft is reading it is more generic talking about you know the
general state of affairs and green acres and what the state is doing and we only reference the mil you know Milbour specific proposal towards the last paragraph. So I suggest the paragraph that Jude has proposed goes right before
>> now therefore be it resolved. >> Okay. >> So the reason I put it over there is >> Oops. That's not what I wanted. >> Okay. >> Okay. Sorry about that. >> No problem. >> I closed the window. Just give me just
one second. Sure. >> All right. >> Just while we're waiting, I think it's Van Winkle Brook, not Van Winkles Brook. >> Thank you. >> Yep. >> I actually copied from uh
um the feasibility study. uh >> that sec uh I think it's actually if we want to be accurate it's winklbrook yeah yes you're right you're right um because the it starts with all the green acres
so I didn't feel it fits there but then it start talking about the public health experts that kind of things so that's why I put it right below uh the public health
uh cross. So, so it's added actually two crosses. Um one is the uh close to the front zone and then the second one is the PAS
>> and I just put them in in this position and we can move them. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> But I'm just giving you the real >> guys. I'm sorry, but this this person's still on the Zoom. >> They are. >> Who is it? Who are they? >> I don't know who it is.
>> How do you know they're still on? >> It's my It's my name. It's my name. >> Oh, your name is >> Uh, no. I see Alexis has your name and you have your name. >> Oh, no. No. Alexis has Alex McDonald, I
>> Yeah, there was a second Alex McConnell earlier, but I don't see that person on here anymore. Alex, do you? Oh, I still see them. >> Oh, wait. No, I do, actually. Uh, yeah, I I do. There there is there is a second one, Alexis. Um, which has its camera
off for apparently obvious reasons. So, Alexis, can you please remove the other Alex McConnell, the one with camera off and they'll I mean, they'll they will possibly pop back on, so we'll just have to all pay attention. And uh thank you Alex for
>> Okay. And thank you Alexis for removing them. >> No problem. >> Um >> so I Yeah, Jude. So I think I I I agree with what you're proposing, but all I'm saying is that the if we read it in how
the proposed draft flows >> yes, I agree the >> you know the green acres, public health and uh you know the the the point you're trying to make with flooding all I'm saying is that it sounds very abrupt that the properties border. We never
mentioned which property or what we are talking about here earlier, right? We only talk about it in the in the paragraph where we say the Milbourne Environmental Commission finds that these statewide concerns are directly relevant to the proposed installation of artificial turf fields. So this is the
first time we talk about this proposal. So that's why I was suggesting that we move that properties border the proposed installation location is at this property. Right? So if you move it right after that then it makes more sense to
somebody who's not familiar with what's going on here. >> Yeah, I I actually I agree with Venita there. The reason is like like the second to last graph right now talks about the Milbourne EC finds that these statewide concerns are directly relevant to the proposed installation at the
local high school. So then if it then talks more specifically about that area, I think that that flow would be more appropriate. I agree, >> Bill. It's Renee and I apologize. I cannot find my raise hand button. >> Oh, okay. That's fine. You don't
>> I'm sorry. But I I also agree and Matt um should probably weigh in as well because be what we're doing is describing what this is about. And yeah, it does fit in. It does fit in better up there.
>> I'll give a thumbs up as well. >> Okay, great. Are there other other issues that anybody wants to raise? I just for the purposes of time, we've we've essentially allocated a half hour to this part of the discussion and then
a half hour to Jude's presentation on flood mitigation. Um, but we don't have to use the full half hour on this if if there if there are no Oh, I'm sorry. I'm seeing Venita, by the way, is your hand still up or is that just happened to be up? >> Yeah, actually I do have one more comment on this. or question actually
for the whole group and I I apologize probably should have run this through Matt before but u I was just wondering and I thought about drafting something but um I I didn't think that I had all the information here but we did want to make a comment with respect to open
space trust fund use for artificial as well of course we are making a comment here that we are you know categorically not in favor of it at all right wherever the funds may come from however I was wondering saying if we should add a paragraph with respect to open space
trust fund specifically and say and as it pertains to use of any open space trust fund based on EC's you know all the public meetings we held and other things what we heard from the community this would be I guess against
the sentiment of the people who worked hard to get open space trustman set up on our town so I just I'm not a wordssmith I don't know how to best say it but just curious if people think that that would help us also communicate our
thoughts to Open Space Trust Fund. >> Hey, this is Matt. Uh I can't I can only do mute and unmute in the car, so I apologize everybody, but um I I'm fine with that. In fact, I know that um I
think both John McKeon and um Assemblywoman Collazos Gil are sponsoring legislation that prevents the use of open space trust fund funding for artificial turf. >> Um I could be wrong about both of them,
but I'm pretty certain uh that Vice Chair Gil is doing that and that seems to be from other states as well. So, I would be very supportive of restricting the use of public dollars for something that costs too much and is an
environmental disaster. >> Is there is that in the Senate or the Assembly that bill? >> It's in both. Yeah. I I actually reached out to Senator McCain to ask him about all this
and he wrote back and just said, "Let's connect." So, I don't I don't have a firm thing from him, but Matt, what your your information sounds good and and certainly relevant uh and important. So, yeah. Um maybe we can we can
Venita and Matt, could could the two of you like work on a paragraph and send it later? Like we can we can we can vote on this one as it is and maybe we can vote separately as to whether or not to add another paragraph to it. Can we do it that way?
>> Sure. >> At another meeting. Yeah, >> we need another meeting for that. >> Would we have to have another meeting for it? >> Well, it has to happen so that the public can be, you know, >> weigh in. >> Yeah, I can I can try and draft
something right now. The meeting I can probably do it in a couple minutes. >> That'd be delightful, Alexis. Yeah, if you don't mind. Thank you. And meanwhile, uh that'd be great. Thank you. Calpac. >> Hey, Bill. Uh just had a question. Uh this is a strong resolution for natural
gas fields and against synthetic but we aren't talking about hybrid uh any particular reason why not because some of these concerns may apply to hybrid fields or materials as well. >> Yeah, that's a great question and it's
certainly relevant to what what Frank what Mayor Sakamandi had had mentioned at the beginning of the meeting. Um, I guess I personally have not seen enough research on hybrid at this point and I
think I think we I think I think that the concerns would be very similar. Um, but I I would be certainly open to hearing from other commissioners about that. Um, Matt, is that something you have heard anything any talk about at in
Trenton? >> Uh, on the hybrid? No. I've I've I've heard about it personally, but um I just know that the the current legislation is focused on
depriving the use of public dollars for essentially the you know old-fashioned astroturf uh artificial substance plastic field. Um but I haven't heard about you know the different types of fill or other things in terms of the
hybrid. No. Okay. >> So through this resolution then we are indirectly making a pitch that we are okay with hybrid turf and there is no objection from this committee to move towards that. Just wanted to
make sure that's the intent. >> I I don't read it that way but um that's an interesting I suppose somebody could argue that. Um Jude is your hand up for something related to what Kalpac's talking about? Yes, I just
>> Calpac, is it all right if I if I call in Jude to respond to what you're asking? >> Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, sure. >> Okay. Go ahead, Jude. >> I just think, you know, maybe not in the resolution. I don't know how those things are formatted. I was just thinking something more positive support adding
um field time or something. So, you know, like Westfield been doing something, you know, um the side of the grass is greener. this side of the hill is greener and use that to propose something. So it doesn't sounds like uh
you know just a bunch of uh environmental less than nies doesn't want to do anything. >> Quick question. Have you guys so so you I understand so you'll put this forward. Are you providing
any evidence or any alternative that would suggest that there's a viable option for a natural grass field that's going to be able to be utilized from 3:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. every every
weekday and then even longer on weekends and have that be is there is there a way to maintain it so that you can have the grass survive with that much use >> bill my hand is is raised it's Renee
hand um we honestly to to answer that question the environmental commission hasn't been given ample opportunity to do due diligence I I you have the last information
session was the same night as our monthly meeting and we have not been included in any meetings with any decision makers. No one's asked our advice along the way and you know you're you're leaning heavily uh dare I say
have already made up your mind about the artificial turf. the environmental commission should be given ample time to do due diligence and then and then in my opinion we can weigh in intelligently.
And my other comment was if we do add to the resolution the hybrid um this this is not the wording that it would be in but something like given all of the above.
It is you know um the environment given the the all of the reasons above public monies should not be used for just something like that. That's not how it would be. Matt. Matt.
>> Yeah, I I think that's right, Renee. I mean, I I kind of Mayor Secondi, I again, I appreciate your concern. I I I would just point out we still have not voted on this resolution and uh I think that we're sort of in a one step at a time situation here. Um, I think that it
is extremely I've spoken to people about this and my understanding from all the people that I've spoken to is that it would actually be significantly less expensive to use open space trust fund money to make a much more workable grass
field than it would be to install a turf field. That that over over 10 years it would be a lot less expensive. And that as far as we know, as far as we've been told, nobody has considered applying open space trust fund money towards a significant improvement of the actual
grass on those fields such that they would uh drain much better than they currently do. Um and then would therefore be more playable and more durable. Um it as far as we have been told, that analysis has not been done. Um but my understanding is it certainly
could and should be. So that's that's >> Yeah. So just so you're aware of the timeline, >> uh on the 3, the TC is going to vote uh as to whether or not to move forward with the funding for this project.
>> I don't know if the BOE has done that already uh or not. Uh but I know that they will be doing that. Um so there's not a lot of time. if if there's a viable alternative that you want to suggest, um I think that should be done
sooner rather than later. Um but but again, I think that at this point in the process, this is more so an exercise and you just going on the record to say that, you know, you're opposed to this, but ultimately I I think it's going to
happen. Um as far as the timing, this has been something that they've been working on for over a year now. Uh unfortunately they just didn't bring it to the public perhaps as early as they they should have. I know I didn't get any of the details on this until the
first public information session which was last year. Um you know so that's that's what I have to say with regards to the the timeline. Um >> um may I say something here Bill? >> Yes Venita. >> So Mr. Commandi, thanks for that context
and again you know we all feel the same way that the first we heard of it is in the January meeting and then someone referred to a December meeting and uh as far as any public commentary or involvement or participation there is a survey with 50 or 60 people who a majority of them supported it but I'm
sure you're aware of a letter by at least around 60 people from this community who have raised a lot of questions around it. So I ask you as a resident as well as an EC member, how does a project of this size and impact u
sort of for a decade going forward gets passed without enough public comment sessions or public information sessions. I think my understanding was we can't get anything done in this town without I mean know experience with the gas leaf blowers. We went above and beyond trying
to educate the community about whether it's pros or cons and nothing of that sort has happened here. If the TC has made up their mind that artificial turf is is the way to go then I guess the burden of proof is on them. I would say at this point the BOE needs to come back
and say what analysis have they done. How have they analyzed that this is the only way to go and only thing I've seen is a feasibility study which was again narrowly scoped to really say can we convert the natural grass field to artificial turf. They did not look at how can we maintain natural grass turf
better. They did not look at hybrid options at that point. I did look at the video and some u resources you provided on hybrid and yeah on the face of it definitely it's a lesser of two evils. you know, it's somewhere in between and your environmental harm is perhaps, you
know, not not as bad as artificial turf, but it is not natural turf. So, to Rene's point, to analyze that in the best interest of this community and to investor public dollars, this is a huge project, right? I just don't understand why we are rushing it. So, what is what
is the rationale behind that? >> Yeah. So the rationale I was given for the timeline is they want to get started on this uh over the summer so that it can be ready um and so that they don't end up they want
to minimize the uh amount of time that the field can't be used as it is right now. I think the fall sports are not going to be able to utilize uh this this field because it'll still be under construction. Um some of the hybrid options actually install within seven
days supposedly. I don't know that that must be if the area is already prepped. But um you know I think the other reason is this has been something that you know the BOE and and and the rec department have been concerned about for years in
terms of the lack of a playing field and they finally have you know um the majority on the BOE that's willing to move forward with this and you know majority on the TC that's willing to move forward with this. And so, you know, I think that's that's why they want to get it done sooner rather than
later because every year that goes by that something's not done is another year that, you know, we're deficient on on our fields. >> And again, that's the rationale that I've been uh given for the timeline of all of this. >> Okay. >> Truly appreciate the concern on the
playable hours and fe. But again, I think the whole point we're trying to make is that the process certainly hasn't been the protocols haven't been followed here. you know, they haven't involved us. Uh they haven't involved the community enough and there are a whole bunch of questions out there. >> Yeah, I I mayor Sakamandi, I have to
completely agree with Venita. I mean, we have all seen Maplewood was torn up over this issue. It it was it was a huge issue in Maplewood and and they ultimately pushed it back and a lot of towns have done the same thing. So has Westfield. So it feels like people
instead of learning from that and saying maybe we should have a real discussion with our public, it feels like this is being pushed through without the public even knowing that it exists. And and I think that is why it is our place as a as an environmental commission to pass a
resolution making it very clear that we disapprove. And I think that's really important. Jude, I I'll I'll take your question. I do I do want to say we should probably vote on this uh some point soon, but go ahead, Jude. Yeah. Uh, you know, I think the number of play hours didn't change from year to
year. So, it feels like a, uh, because of the, um, send bill, um, that Matt put out there for this session. And then if the bill passes in this session, then the the the municipality and the school board cannot fund this. So, feels to me
is like this is trying to rush through the bill before the bill. >> Yeah. Well, that honestly now that we're aware of the bills, um that is certainly going to be a factor. Uh you know, we're going to want to get a project done if
if you know, if the engineering says, you know, we go with a synthetic option, we're going to want to get that done, you know, in time so that or at least underway so that we can utilize the funding that, you know, they had planned on utilizing. Well, then so that that
would be an argument, you know, against drawing out the timeline. The other >> to the contrary to the contrary, Mayor Sakamandi, that would be an argument for us to push as hard as we can so that the the law of the state could actually be implemented as intended. >> No, I'm not saying I'm not saying you shouldn't you shouldn't push get that.
What I'm saying is the other side. >> Yes. >> Uh the the township and the BOE that want to move this forward, >> I would imagine that would be further incentive for them to >> Yes. uh want to want to >> what a bad look that would be though. Venita, go ahead. Sorry.
>> Yeah. Well, I just because Mayor Saki did leave early that day in that meeting and when we were speaking to Mr. Bigman from B and I'll let you know where you know his whole sentiment or presentation to us was no decisions have been made. Engineering said engineering still has
to evaluate what are the options. So he seemed to come to us with that thought process that no no no no there have no decisions been made and this is the process this is the stage of the process where we will be analyzing different options. So he certainly was communicating something very different from you.
>> No no no uh they are they are going to analyze different options during the engineering phase. Uh I and but what I'm saying is this is something that the TC wants to move forward with funding and something the BOE wants to move forward
with funding. Now once that's done, it'll go into the engineering phase and that's when they will look at the different options. I have a strong feeling that it'll be some sort of synthetic option just based on everything that we've seen and heard to
date. Maybe that's not the case, but uh it very well may be the case. >> Okay, De Deborah, and I'd like I'd actually like to vote on this because I know that Jude has has needs some time for his presentation. Um, so Deborah, can you speak and then we'll uh we'll
move. >> Just quick question. If this bill goes through in the Senate, so if the Senate passes this, what would that mean for renewal of the turf in
seven years or whenever that happens, does that mean that we would not be able um to renew the turf once it wears out? Um, I guess that might be a question that would be for Matt, but I'm not even
sure Matt would know the answer to that right now. But Matt, do you do you know? >> Hey, hey, Bill. Um, it's a great question. Um, any legislation wouldn't pass before June, June 30th. That's number one.
Number two, I I I think we would all be in a better position to provide um an informed opinion if we were if the EC was receiving a cost analysis, a costbenefit analysis and a life cycle
analysis and also if there was a list of vendors that have approached the TC or the BOE and if they would be able to provide that information to the EC because as it is Now being steered towards a hybrid option
sounds nice, but um that's only because the alternative is a bad option to begin with and the costbenefit analysis of everything that I've seen just indicates that grass is the way to go. So, I I'm
in favor of voting for this resolution with whatever changes the rest of the EC wants to make, but I I don't think this issue should be rushed, and I think the full costbenefit analysis and life cycle analysis should be presented to the EC and to the public before the TC makes
any decision that might be pennywise and pound foolish. And I say this as a former uh wreck coach for both my kids for probably 8 to 10 years in both soccer, softball, and baseball in town. >> Um quick comment.
>> Hold on. I just wanted to finish my thought. >> It's really It's urgent because Frank has been kicked out of the meeting by accident, Alexis. Um >> and he sent an email saying he can't get back in. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. Um I just wanted to finish my thought which was that if it is it becomes um barred to use the funds or to be able to have turf fields at high schools in when the turf field runs its
course and needs to be replaced. Does that mean that they have to rip it out and go back to a natural field because it's no longer legal to have a turf field at a >> Great point. >> Great question. Um guys, I think that
especially because of what Jude has to do, I'd like to bring this to a vote. Um and I realize we can't all see each other. Um, Alexis, I'm wondering if we can go one by one if I for audio from
the commissioners. Would that be the way to do this? Do you think to take a vote? >> Um, do you want Frank back in for this or >> Oh, yeah. Yeah, definitely. >> Okay. So, also before you guys vote, I did add this paragraph, which I believe was what Venita was referring to. So, I found a Senate bill that's barring the
use of or proposed Senate bill that would bar the use of Greenacre funds. And so, um, I added this paragraph. >> Oh, yeah. Venita, does that work for you? Are you able to see it? >> That that that looks appropriate to me on on quick reading.
>> I I'll just read it aloud if anybody can't see it. It it's about the green acres funds, whereas New Jersey Senate bill uh would bar the use of green acres funds for artificial turf fields due to environmental and health concerns. and the in the Milbourne Environmental
Commission aligns with the principles of this bill and does not support the use of Milbour's open space trust fund for artificial turf installations. Okay. So, Alexis, can we can we take like an audio vote of commissioners uh
whether to approve or not approve this resolution? Actually, I guess we need a motion. Does anybody want to make a motion to approve this resolution? I make a motion. >> Thank you, Renee. >> Is that Jude with a second or somebody else with a second?
>> Sorry, I couldn't I couldn't tell who. Okay, so there's a motion. >> And Bill, it's called a roll call vote. You ask Yeah. >> Thank you, Renee. >> Sorry. I'm just trying to figure out if I can let Frank back in. >> Well, I'm I'm here. Can you guys hear me? >> Oh, thank you.
>> Yeah, we can hear you. >> Yeah, Frank's back. It It won't let me start video, but that's fine. I can hear. >> Yeah, most of us can't start video because I think Alexis had turned off video for most of us. So, that's >> Yes. And probably leave it leave it leave it off. Yeah. >> Yeah, you can you can leave it off. It's fine. We can just do an audio roll call.
Okay, Alexis. >> Um, yeah, that sounds great. Let me find my minutes. Um, >> sure. >> Right. Okay. Here we go. Okay. Yes. Okay. So, um,
all right. Um, uh, Bill Brazelle, >> I vote yes. >> Okay. Um, Renee Paparian, >> yes. >> Um, uh, Deborah Nevice, >> yes.
>> Alex McConnell, >> I am going to vote no because I would like um to see us explore this a bit further. I also have some concerns about some of the legislation that was mentioned here, particularly S 2936.
I'm not a fan of um banning this for all municipalities in the state. Um I think that needs to be determined by each each municipality. Um and yeah, that's my vote. >> Okay. Thank you, Alex.
>> Okay. Uh Matthew Growler, >> um a big yes. Thank you. Okay. Kalpac Kle, >> I vote yes. >> All right. And Jude Hang. >> Yes. >> Great. And uh have I missed anyone? I
think that's everyone. Okay. >> Venita, did you ask Venita? >> I'm sorry, Venita. I missed Venita. Did I Did I kick Venita out by accident? >> Oh, she might be out. >> I don't see her. >> If she rejoins via a web browser instead
of the Zoom app, she'll be able to get back in because the block is tied to the Zoom login if you're using the physical app. >> Okay. All right. Um Okay. >> I'm I'm going to call Venita. Okay.
>> Okay. Yeah. >> And and Frank, you said have her call have her join via web browser. >> So when when Yeah. But when you click on the link, it'll open a browser and it'll say, "Do you want to open in the Zoom app or or join via browser?" I I hit join via browser and I didn't have to sign in and it let me in.
>> Okay, great. Thank you. >> In the meantime, when you call her, if you put her on speakerphone >> Yeah, that would work too. >> Yeah, >> good point. >> Hey, Venita, are we back on? We we are um but you
don't have to come back on for the I mean you're welcome to join. Frank said it's actually easier to join if you click on the link and you enter via browser rather than via an app on your on your laptop or phone. Um but in the meanwhile everybody has voted um on the resolution whether or not to approve it.
Um would you like to vote one way or another on it? >> Voting in favor? Yes. >> Okay, great. Thank you, Alexis. That that will count, right? Yeah, >> I put you on speaker Venita so Alexis was able to hear
>> and I'll join. >> Great. Thanks. Thanks so much. No worries. Sorry. All right. So, Alexis, that's that's everybody, right? Everyone has voted. >> Alex Alexis, you're muted. >> Yes, that's that's everyone, I think.
>> Okay. >> Also, Bill, I'm sorry to interrupt you. I'm going to have to drop off. Um I have to tend to something, but >> I'll see you around. >> Totally get it. Thank you, Alex. And totally hear what you're saying about the timing. I think we're in a hurry because of the some of the elements that
Frank has mentioned. So, um we're certainly happy to revisit this later, but thank you for thank you for joining us. >> No problem. All right. Thanks, guys. >> Okay. Take care. >> Um Jude, can we move to your presentation? And if if possible, I I know we wanted to give you a half hour
and uh is it possible to >> Yeah, I'll speed it up as much as I can. >> Thanks so much. >> Okay. Um I can share your presentation. >> Thank you. All right. Yeah, that's the the second
one is good. So I just uh the reason I want to do this uh as part of this emergency meeting is the next flood mitigation uh uh discussion is uh when two Wednesday from now so but it's still
a week before our meeting our monthly meeting. So, just want to make sure everyone uh hear about this uh and uh kind of get chine before I present it to the front mitigation uh advisory committee.
Um so I'll go as fast as I I can. So Milbour had >> Yeah. And Jude, you don't have to read the slides. We've just read this one. So you you can take us to where where you need to be. >> Okay. So the uh if we can go to
uh yeah go to the next one. So um as you can see this is the FEMA front map that uh um you know most of the flood is downtown and uh if you go to the next one uh so this is from army engineering
uh corpse of engineer. So the uh they are showing this in our uh area 50% of the flood damage is in Melbourne and then there's the other 50%. So, um, if you go to the next one
quickly, um, and if you've been here long enough, you know there was a proposal, um, back almost 10 years ago, have this huge reservoir, uh, river, then we have to move the road and all these that didn't
pass, right? Most of people rejected. Yep. The next one. That's great. So um this one um it's has been on the high priority uh since last year and I think uh and Jim
McCannon um he's in their notes I I saw he said that he went to the the EC meeting presented this so that's before my time um and um just want to talk a little bit more about this uh as You can
really see at the top they said the the the risk is reduced from uh 20% to 10 15. Just want to clarify what does this mean? This just means uh it won't be
affected by um uh fiveyear flood but it reduced down to six seven years flood. That's what that really means. But how much it really floods or downtown whatever it didn't really mention and I have done share with Bill about my hours
days of study that the the reservoir the amount of water over there at the reservoir and upstream and above uh really only contributes about a third of the water to Melbourne and 2/3 uh from
um below the the reservoir. So the downstream below the reservoir contributes quite a bit of water to Melbourne because there's a six seven miles distance between the reservoir and
one/3 is uh there and the other side I want to say is the capacity of the reservoir is very limited. It can hold about two to three inches of rain. So if we're talking about 24 uh hours of uh
storm that 2 three inches can anywhere between you know couple of hours to like either type of a storm that's every one to two hours. So if you can go to the next slide uh this one is the cross cut. So from uh
if you quickly go back uh to the other one. Yeah. So from the north south if we have a crosssection cut that's what the next slide looks like and they mentioned over there as it can reduce the uh water
about three and 1/2 ft to 2 and 1/2 ft you can see at the corner that's from the engineering firm did the study uh M McDonald's and uh um the DP so so Melbourne filed this to the DP asked for
moving forward on this and DP rejected this as they stick with their rule of 1 foot a day the draw down and uh the orange reservoir bypass basically trying to punch two holes uh under the dam. So
the dam is on the left side of this drawing uh then uh will increase the the flow. So trying to their their proposal is try to drain the reservoir then uh have this capacity to store the water.
So the the issue I see uh as um one is the capacity is limited then two um this is a 300 years uh dam. So uh if we go to the next slide that u uh yeah USAC is
pointed out uh this is 100 years dam. So you punch a hole through that that ruins the integrity of the dam. So that is all can be all kinds of issues. Um then also as I mentioned you know it can only hold about two three inches of rain. So
they're saying that you know it it's really based on the it has to depend on the future forecast water uh weather model like when are you going to do this if there's a 24 uh hours of uh storm um then there are other options which we
will go through and most of them uh as they are studying as the whole river system for railway they don't see anything uh can really be applicable to the whole uh system, but they do
recommend uh something that's specific for Melbourne as what I said the Melbourne uh we hope um you know there's a 50% of the damage usually happens in Melbourne. So uh if we can skip the the other two just go to the one with uh the
next one. Yeah. So here as part of the USACE drawing as uh from Essex uh street going uh towards north and going towards south they are identifying uh the bridge is too low if uh then uh
on the other side is the east branch uh that's um we'll come back to to that in a minute. So uh if we can go to the next slide. So they're uh showing here if you can uh
if we can raise the the bridge by a foot then they're saying the the water can go down about two to eight feet. So that's a lot better than you see the other the reservoir it's only going down about two
to three feet. So that's much better solution than the other one. And also the the channel modification as I mentioned it to you guys before uh the river band over there cause a lot of uh flood situation. So if we can go to the
next slide as you can see the flood starts from at the beginning of the band. So that's creates this this choke point. Um then also the the water, you know, becomes a
a two-dimensional uh go to the next one. That's the 100red-year flood. As you can see, the the water flow becomes a two-dimensional flood. Um then to prevent that, we probably should, you know, try to increase. Yeah.
Go to the next one. Yep. Okay. So um this choke point did not exist before as the map on the left that's from 1909. You can see there was a pound above uh
north of the railroad. Then there were three two or three branches of river going down. Then somehow the uh map on the right that's from 1949 this band was constructed probably tried
to slow down but it's actually causing the flood. Then the pound um north of u the railroad and if you go to the next map that's even earlier we don't know what's the year of the map that's on the left. So there was
a pound north of us and there was a pound south which is in the Taylor Park currently. So um I'm going to discuss this in the next meeting as the heart of the problem is in our downtown and the
solution is in our downtown that we should um take the USAC's suggestion about working in our downtown area as um working on the channels and uh raise the
bridge then working on the solutions as built uh mentioned it to us. I'll skip the next slide and just go to the last one. um as create this solution that's much
closer to our natural uh uh water system as we saw in the historical map instead of having these big band which you know it's feels like a you're driving down the uh uh uh route 24 that turn that but
you know if it's a pickup truck you're fine but you're driving down 18 roller at 65 miles per hour, then you know it's going to spill whatever. So that's really the situation. So, um you know
that uh Melbourne applied for um the Orange Reservoir bypass and was rejected and I think uh Alex just mentioned uh they are in the process of repeal that and I think you know yes this can still
go on whatever for years but the the the heart of the problem is not really there. The solution, the heart of the solution is also not there. It's in downtown Melbourne where the flood is. So, all right.
>> Thank you, Jude. So, essentially, can can you boil down what you're asking from us from the EC? from the ECS if it's okay for me to present this as we are going to uh support the USAC's
uh recommendation as working in our downtown area instead of uh going through the the Orange Reservoir bypass and repeal um the uh NJD uh se D's um um
reject all the towns, you know, not not only just Melbourne try to do the this uh orange reservoir bypass, >> right? Because of the potential damage to the dam, but also because it wouldn't be quite as effective as the work effective suggested, >> right? And also draining that 10 days a
year that kills all the you know wildlife and vegetations or whatever in the area. So okay, >> um you know the the damage can be much more substantial than >> you know. Okay, thank you. Um, are there
questions from commissioners? >> Uh, like to hear everyone's comments before I present it to the, uh, FMC. >> Okay. Um, I see no hands. Um,
I sorry now my Okay. Sorry, my temporarily my Zoom wasn't showing me where where everybody was. Um, okay. So, it sounds like there's no discussion. Um, I do we need to have a motion to to to
approve Jude's presentation of this, Alexis, do you think? >> Um, >> or do we just >> I I don't know. I mean, maybe maybe a motion. Juder, is Juder, are you asking if it's the official position? Yeah, I
don't know what's the the the right procedures, but I just don't want to present as like my personal opinion. And you know, >> let me let me suggest, Jude, just because this is this has been fairly rushed. We haven't had a whole lot of time, but but also I I don't see any
objections at the moment. So, >> why don't we keep it informal? >> Um, and you can present this to the flood mitigation committee and just say, I presented this to the environmental commission. Uh there were no objections. Uh we didn't formally address it, but uh
people understand what it is that I'm talking about here and uh nobody objected to it. Does that would that work for you? >> Yes. >> Okay, great. Then we're at 5:00. Um would anybody like to make a motion to adjourn? Uh just before you do that, we should
make sure that this recording since it was Zoombombed either be edited uh or not put on public facing township website. >> Yeah. Frank, do you know if it goes on automatically? Like I I'm not sure if
they take a step between it being recorded. >> That's true. Um we should send an email to Alex McDonald. This is this happened to a TC meeting before and I think what they did is they edited uh they pulled it they edited it out um because we
definitely don't want >> that. Uh >> no appreciate that. >> I'm very sorry about that. I I will double check all the settings next time and figure out what I need to do. >> Alexis, it's it's not your fault. >> Sure it doesn't happen. >> We'll we'll look into how to prevent it,
but I don't think anybody holds you responsible. >> Yeah. No, it's not not your fault. And it's happened it's happened to the TC, too. It's unfortunate. >> Yeah. Okay. So, I will um I will let Alex McDonald know. Um I had planned to try and pull the recording anyway because I usually post the audio. Um so,
um but I'll also give him a heads up. >> Thanks so much, Alexis. Thank you. And thank you, Frank. That's a great point. Okay. Uh I'll make a motion to adjurnn. Can I have a second? >> A second. >> Okay. Any opposed? All right. Enjoy your weekend everybody.