Thank you. >> Okay. Good evening and welcome to tonight's meeting of the Sparta Township Planning Board. Thank you to those joining us here and online. For the record, this meeting is being held on December 3rd, 2025 at 700 p.m. in the Sparta Township
Municipal Building located at 65 Main Street, Sparta, New Jersey. And the live stream can be viewed on YouTube at www.youtube.com/spartatwp. Please note that adequate public notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act. No new business is to be conducted after
9:30 p.m. and the meeting will end promptly at 10:00. Let us begin with a salute to our flag. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. Dory, would you please call the role? >> Yes. Janette Burke. Ernie Reich >> here. >> Brian Zimmerman >> here. >> Ron Day >> here. >> Chairwoman Celeste Luciano >> here. >> Vice Chairman Robert Otto >> here.
>> Councilman Mark Scott >> yes. >> Get Bogler >> here. >> Christine Dunbar. Joan Ferman >> here. >> Okay. So before we begin tonight's proceedings, I'd like to apologize to those who either haven't seen or were unaware of the significant changes to
our agenda. The presentation of the results for the master plan stakeholder meetings has been moved to our December 17th meeting and our thoughts and prayers are with our planner Lindsay Knight through this difficult time. One other significant agenda item to note is that the extension of time for
PB number 2393, Larry and Tina Allen, 483 Glenn Road, shows that it'll be carried to a meeting to be held on January 7th, 2026. I'd like to note that meeting may not be held as it's contingent upon the reorganization meeting to be scheduled by the town
council. Should that meeting not take place, PB 2393 will be carried to the first meeting of 2026. And >> chair, may I ask why it is being carried since they just asked for an extension of time? >> Because there's going to be an
additional conversation that's going to be happening under other board business that required for our professionals to not be present. >> So, it's because we don't have an attorney here tonight. >> Not just an attorney, but the engineer and the applicant availability. >> Okay. Thank you.
H and resolution 2025-24 PB25737 Sparta Holdings 11 and 13 Aaron Wei is also carried to December 17th. That said, we now move into the approval of minutes beginning with February 15th, 2023. Eligible to vote are Janette
Burke, Ronda Day, Ernie Ragstead, Celeste, Luciano. Uh any discussion on these minutes? Before we go into that, why is our attorney not here? We can discuss that under other board business. Well,
>> so currently we're here like as a board and we don't have an attorney. I understand Lindsay may have had an issue, but why are other professionals not here? >> Because I discussed the item that we're going to speak of under other board business with our attorney and he chose
not to be present. He chose not to. >> Under his own advisement, he said that he would prefer to not. >> Okay. >> So, that having been said, February 15th, 2023. Any discussion regarding
these minutes? >> I have questions about minutes in general. Um, I know Ron put a lot a lot a lot a lot a lot of work into this. um you know probably took quite a bit of time in making some of the corrections. I know I
found some mistakes and issues in it. Um and I don't understand why we are getting halfbaked minutes and it's a lot of work on our end uh to be doing these corrections. Um may I ask who is doing
the minutes? >> The minutes are being done by Emily in my office and I do not feel that they are halfbaked at all. She did a very good job and put a lot of time into them. Um Ron did make quite a few recommendations for changes.
A lot of them were quite simplistic as far as adding members that are present, adding members that are absent and adding the professionals that were present in addition to some other information, but they really were not half fake. They were overseen by myself as well and I went through them all. So,
if you do have any suggestions or recommendations for changes, I mean, we can certain >> I do have some, but if you know, if you're signing them, I would assume that you're reviewing them. >> Of course, I am. >> Um, and there are significant um corrections to them. And I' I'd like to ask, as if you are our board secretary,
why are you not doing the minutes? That isn't that the role of a board secretary? >> I'm not going to get into this with you this evening, Joe. >> All right. Then the next thing would be we have paid for other people to be doing these minutes. Is that coming from a planning board budget or is that
coming from a planning and zoning board budget? >> Talk to the township manager as far as payment of employees. That's not my my position. >> Okay. Okay. Can we please get back to any comments or questions regarding February
15, 2023 minutes? Hearing none. Are we ready for a vote? Motion and second, please. >> A motion to accept the minutes of February 15, 2023. >> I'll second it.
>> Roll call, please. >> Ronda Day, >> yes. >> Rexad, >> yes. >> And >> yes. >> Moving on to meeting minutes of June, I'm sorry, May 15, 2024. Elable eligible to vote. Ernie Ragstad, Christine Dunar,
Ron Day, Joan Ferman, Janette Burke, Celeste Luciano, and Brian Zimmerman. Any questions or comments regarding these minutes? >> So, I've I've got some comments and I appreciate um doing what you did. Um I'm not sure all all the all the comments were addressed. Um some may have been
inverted. So, let me just give you what I have here. Uh on page one, um let me just start, you know, when I when I look at minutes, a couple things I look for is number one, what was the motion? who made it, um, who seconded it and what was the vote. And I think you saw a lot
in my notes. So, when I go down on page one to the one, two, three, fourth paragraph from the bottom, it says, "Draft an agreement and execute set agreement allowing and requiring the applicant." What doesn't say that's what the motion was. So, I think it's important to make that clarification. So, I'd almost take that in the next
sentence and just say a motion was made by Joe Ferman uh to allow Mr. Brady to draft an agreement. Keep the same words there. And that was then seconded by Mike Sylvester. So, it's real clear that's the motion we're voting on. And that was not one door that I gave. I apologize on that one. >> Well, that's okay. We can make that
change. >> And then on page two, the second uh line, a motion was made to approve uh the December 6 minutes was seconded, but it doesn't say who made the motion and who seconded. So, I went back to the tape and so the motion to approve was
made by Ernie Reichat and was seconded by Christine Dumbar. So if we can add that and then go down one, two, three lines which says motion was made to approve the December 20 minutes was seconded again doesn't say by who. So motion was made by Michael Sylvester seconded by
Bill Emight. Bill Enright and it was Dean Blummedi was as a board member Dean Blumemedi had two minor adjustments and then under correspondence there's really nothing there. So I think just for clarification that we didn't leave something out just say you know there were none
and then at the very bottom of that page where it talks about the applicant's professional stated they are willing to deal with the reasonable conditions of approval. I thought it was important that was a statement that was made by their attorney Mr. Chicowski. So I think that needs to rather than just the applicant Mr. Chakowski, the applicant's
attorney, um restate reiterated that the applicant's professional stated they're willing to deal with reasonable conditions of approval. So people know where that came from. And then I'm going to jump to page four. And this again goes back to to naming.
So under resolutions, um the second one, motion to approve the resolution was made by unknown board member and was seconded by unknown board member. So, I'd like to have that to say the resolution was made by Ernie Rickstat and was seconded by Celeste Luciano and I got that from watching the
video. Then I want to go down one, two, three more again. Motion to approve the resolution was made by unknown board member and was seconded by unknown board member. I I just going forward if we see that I'd like to I mean the tape the videos here if we can put names in there
I think that's important. So, I think what happened was the wrong set got put into this packet because I was here last night and I stayed until probably about I emailed you when I got Yeah, this is what this is why I got off the all these changes. I think the wrong one got put in your packet. >> You do you have a >> one that went out to you in the email
was the accurate one. >> That's that's why I thought I wrong in the email in this packet here. All those were changed. >> They were all changed. >> All right. So, I'd like to have the chance to just to look at that. So, can we put this one aside for now and I'll look at that if we take a break before we go. >> Yeah. again that those are all the ones
that were sent out in the email. >> All right. So, if we could favor May uh was that May 15th, that'd be appreciated. >> Okay. >> Thank you for all your work in doing this. >> Moving forward to June 19th, 2024.
Eligible to vote. Ernie Ragstead, Chris Dunar, Ron Day, Joan Ferman, Janette Burke, Celeste Luciano, Brian Zimmerman. >> Questions, comments? Uh couple comments in terms of those that were present under the others which are professionals. Uh Dave Brady, our
conflict attorney was here and so was Katherine Samar, our planner. So I think that should be added to the list. And then going down to the second from the bottom, um bless Holdings attorney was uh was Shukowski, not Chassis.
>> Yeah. Again, I think you got the wrong set and what was sent in an email yesterday was all corrected because I see here that Mr. Burton's name is spelled incorrectly. There's there's a number engineer Robert McCannernney that was all changed. So, this is again the wrong set that was in the packet for this evening on the day.
>> I've got only a few here. So, if if people agree to that, I think we have to set this one aside. We can just vote based on these changes if people are okay with it and that way we can just keep moving. Um, page four and this may have been changed too. Uh, Miss Herman made a motion to approve and an unknown
board member seconded the motion. Uh, the un um, so I want to be clear on on the motion here. So, the motion was was um, subject was Mrs. Ferman made a motion uh, subject to the conditions cited by Mr. Collins. It wasn't to
approve the application submitted. It was conditional. So, um, and that was Christine Dunar that seconded. I think that's it for this this set. >> So if there are unknown members, somebody should be going back and checking that rather than just giving us minutes. That's like unknown members.
>> I was here until 6:30 and I changed all of that. >> Then then maybe it waits till because we spend a lot of time at least Ron does. I know a lot of other of us do spending a lot of time going over this and then doing it a second time and a third time. So, >> so then maybe it would be best that we
just wait until the meeting so that all the changes get done at the meeting and on the record so that there aren't five. >> But there were too many too many changes. I think they need to be reviewed by you to make sure that there are no unknowns and >> that we do it correctly. >> We understand the process. Thank you.
>> So people are okay with those changes. I make a motion to approve subject to those changes. >> We have a second. >> I'll second it. >> Roll call, please. You have to give me a minute because I just got my paperwork discombobulated. >> Uh Ernie Ragstead, >> yes.
>> Ronda Day, >> yes. >> Joan Ferman, >> yes. >> Luciano, >> yes. >> And Brian Zimmerman, >> yes. >> Okay, moving forward to August 21st, 2024. Correct. >> We do not have a meeting on August 21st.
We should check. I I I would I'm >> It was August 20th. Double check with Sure. >> Yes. >> Well, you while you guys are checking that, uh Tori, I got a question. the headphones in front of us. Um, do you know I'm hearing
>> that's the courts? I don't I don't I don't know anything about it. >> August the judge I don't >> you were August. >> You're like hearing a delay is Wednesday. >> Okay. Thank you. >> It was the 21st. >> Yeah. August 21st, 2024 was a Wednesday. >> The judge were gonna make it.
>> I'm sorry. I thought I apologize. I was thinking it was August 20th, 2025. So, August 21st, 2024. Okay. >> Yes. August 21st, 2024 meeting minutes. Any questions or comments now that we've corrected? Well, now that we understand
that it was the 21st. >> Again, I apologize. I got I got a few. >> Not a problem. >> Um, so going to page three. Um, again, the motion to approve was a motion to approve an application subject to the condition cited by Mr. Brady. I think that's important to put in the minutes.
It wasn't a blanket approval. Um, and it was uh let me see it was the motion was made by Michael Sylvester. So, if we can make that >> Ron, can you just tell me where you are on which page? >> Yeah, I'm sorry. So, page three, the third line. >> Okay.
>> Chairman Rande states there is a motion and it should say by Michael Sylvester. >> Yeah. Again, you got the wrong I I apologize. I don't know how this happened, but this was all changed and it was in the email that I sent everybody last night with all the corrections. >> We understand. So, let's just get the
changes that that are on record. Let's just get those changes on record. >> Well, there's going to be a lot moving forward then because Ron had quite a bit. >> Well, let me pull up the email. Maybe maybe maybe that's a better way to do it. >> Yeah. >> That way I can take a quick look.
>> But I make a suggestion to so we don't slow things down. Uh chairwoman, there's a couple that um I've got to stayain 6425 and 9325. Do you want to do those? You want to take everything in turn and if you do those while I abstain, I can look at
some of these. >> No. No. Or >> we can just go through things. >> No. I mean, the idea is to go through them. So, that's Yeah, I have no issues with that. >> I was actually not present this meeting. >> What's that? >> Was not present at this meeting >> on August 21st. >> 21st.
>> August 21st. Um the roll call during the roll call there was an issue where Justin um Canala's vote because he was an altered was um was taken out. We had to do the vote a couple times but the final vote did not
include him as somebody's vote count. So the vote was 621 six you know six in favor of >> so so he should be removed and then just under the application uh the one thing that was missing here was the the name of the attorney that was representing u
JP JPV ventures which was Daniel uh Burkund of Asins. So you might want to just mention that you know he was the attorney of record. And then going down to the bottom the uh a motion was made by Ernie Riget to
approve uh an unknown applica unknown board member. You probably got this already. Um but again this was to was to approve the application subject to the conditions cited by Mr. Brady and Celeste. I think you seconded that one.
I believe I did. >> That's all I have. I don't know if anyone else has any other questions, comments. >> I'll make a motion to approve subject to those comments. >> Have a second. >> I'll second.
>> Roll call, please. Ernie Ragstead, >> yes. >> Ron Day, >> yes. >> Joan Ferman, >> yes. >> Lesum, >> yes. >> Okay, moving forward to December 4th, 2024. Eligible to vote. Ernie Ragstead, Chris Dunar, Ron Day, Joan Ferman, Janette Burke, Celeste, Luciano, Brian
Zimmerman. Questions, comments? I have a change there uh for for the MSPS update. Um, if you would indicate that it was Bill Enright that was speaking. >> I'm sorry, which page are you on? Uh, I wrote these notes. I didn't write the page. >> Oh, okay.
>> But it's the minor site plan subcommittee update >> and it was Bill Enright who was speaking. >> Uh, so MSPS update is actually on page four for anybody who wants to follow. Right. It says, "Thanks, Miss Ferman,
Miss Dumb, Raisha. We approved three applications from what we uh from when we met last but that was um but there's no indication of who was saying that. So that was Bill and Wright. Anything else for these minutes? >> I have no comments. >> Anyone else?
Okay. I have a motion in a second, please. I'll make a motion to approve. >> I'll second. >> Yes. >> Ronda, >> yes. >> Furman, >> yes. >> Celesteiano, >> yes. >> And Brian Zimmerman, >> yes.
>> Okay, moving forward to what was that? That was December 4th. >> June 4th >> and June 4th, 2025. Give me one second. I think I may have gotten my paperwork.
Okay, so June 4th, 2025, eligible to vote. Ernie Ragstead, Councilman Mark Scott, Celeste Luciano, Brian Zimmerman, Christine Dunar, Rob Otto, Joan Ferman. questions, comments. None. May I have a motion and a second,
please? I'll make a motion to approve. >> I'll second. >> Bernie Rystead, >> yes. >> Councilman Mark Scott, >> yes. >> Bless Luciano, >> yes. >> Brian Zimmerman, >> yes. >> Robert Otto, >> yes.
>> And Joan Ferman, >> yes. >> Moving forward to minutes of August 20th, 2025. Questions, comments. >> Oh, sorry. Eligible to vote. Janette Burke, Ernie Ragstead, Brian Zimmerman, Ron Day, Joan Ferman, Councilman Mark
Scott, Bureet Bogler, uh Rob Otto, and Celeste Luciano. I have comments. We had a 25 minute discussion. 25 minutes and it is not reflected here. And if we
are going to put forth minutes, um they should reflect what was done in the meeting. And it just says that um on page one, Brian Zimmerman made a motion to vacate the current chair, blah blah blah, and Janette Bert seconded it.
And there's like nothing about the 25 minutes of discussion. And there were some very important things that were said that I know I personally put on the record and they are not on the record. I would like to table this um until such time as these minutes can be corrected
to put the proper information in here that was on the record. >> I make a motion to table the second. >> I I'm happy to do that. Is is there something specific that that you >> Oh, there's a lot of stuff. There's a lot there's so much missing in 25 minutes. There was absolutely no
discussion and no um response as to what this was all about. >> Okay. So, we're just gonna note this too. >> Or is it indicated on here? What? >> Oh, it's not indicated. That's the problem. >> Bottom of the first >> the bottom of page one >> that that second to last paragraph
before moving on, Mr. Brian Zimmerman made a motion to vacate current chair. So the Joan is is um is referring to to the discussion that happened surrounding >> that um that motion. >> Yeah,
>> there's a lot of information that was presented that is not recorded. >> Minutes are minutes. They're not the full record, but I I think >> 25 minutes is the significant >> should be in here as far as like the >> the highlights of it. Correct. That's what the idea of the minutes is is doesn't have to go into the minutia of
it, but it it it should there probably should be about 10 lines at least 10 lines in there reflecting >> a summary of it. I agree. Correct. >> So table it till we >> okay discuss >> get them in there >> to be added and that would be my same
comments for September 3rd. It just says we had an argument and I don't think that's the right way to reflect what has had occurred. >> Okay. So, we're going to >> September 3rd old August 30, sorry, August 20. >> Right. So, let's uh for the record,
let's just uh there was a motion in a second to to table these minutes. So, let's just go through the roll call for the record, please. >> Ernie Reich, >> yes. >> Brian Zimmerman, >> yes. Ron Day. Yes. >> Joan Ferman. Yes. Council Mark Scott. >> Yes. >> Bogler. Yes.
>> Rob Otto. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, September 3rd, 2025. >> It's the same comment that I have that there was quite a bit of discussion and it just says that we argued and I don't think that's a fair representation of what happened. >> Okay.
>> So, I'd like that to be a little more detailed. >> So, I would make a motion to table that. >> Okay. Okay. So that's first. >> I'll second it. >> Thank you. >> So >> Ernie Rinstead, >> yes. >> Brian Zimmerman, >> yes. >> Joan Ferman,
>> yes. >> Councilman Mark Scott, >> yes. >> Get Bogler, >> yes. >> Rob Otto, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Mhm. Okay. Moving on
to September 17th, 2025. Eligible to vote. Ryan Simmerman, Janette Burke, Ernie Ragstead, Robert Otto, Celeste Luciano, Burggit Bogler, Bronde, Mark, excuse me, Councilman Mark Scott, and Joan Ferman. I have some corrections there as well. It says
Sparta Holdings was carried to October 1st, 2025, but that was not Sparta Holdings. The board did hear the Sparta Holdings applications on that date. So, I'm not exactly sure what was carried. I didn't think it was up to me to go back and to listen to another YouTube to try
to figure that out. But, you know, when you have two in a row, one saying it's carried and one saying you heard it, it's pretty obvious. >> Does anybody remember what was was carried? It might have been Mediterranean restaurant. >> Mediterranean restaurant >> and the smoke works. It just I that the
heading just needs to be changed to the >> and the and not only the heading but the um number. >> Where is this? >> Page one. >> What page? >> Page one at the bottom. >> Are we talking about Sparta Smoke Shop and Mediterranean cuisine? >> Where it says carried from
>> you got the updated. >> I think that they're looking at older myth minutes because on mine it's correct. any I know you sent some stuff out this afternoon >> saying that that a lot of what you have right here in front of you is not what I sent out to everybody last night whatever reason
>> that's a problem though and we we we said this at a previous meeting and previous >> went out in an email last night for you we can't look at minutes two three times >> we we understand what the situation is >> done we got them done >> we understand what the situation is
before it was less than we understand what the situation is we get it we get it. So, please, instead of continuing the argument, >> Yeah. >> Let's get the >> I need to defend myself. >> There's no need to defend yourself in this session, right? We can we can do
that at a at a different time. >> We just need to get it right. >> Correct. Right now, we just need to get it on the record. >> A judge or a court or a jury, it's got to be right. >> And once it's on the record, then we can decide whether or not we're going to move forward with it, table it, or what. We've gotten through.
>> What would we like to do with this one? Are we going to table it? I that's that's up to the board to decide currently. So, one of the other issues I have is when we make these changes, we never see the
corrections later on. So, we say, "All right, we're going to vote on this based on these changes, but we never see the changes that were made. >> I gave you all the changes." >> No, I'm talking about anything in the past. And today, you know, it's like so confusing to look at something and say,
"Well, now look at Ron's changes and look at this and then which ones, you know, you do it a day before, then you're doing it the next day and the next day. >> Just don't give me changes before. We'll do it at the meeting and it gets on the record and then you'll have to carry it." >> But we would ask that you would review these before it comes to us.
>> I review them. I review all >> Okay, enough. We understand the issues. We understand what we're dealing with. Right now, we're either going to table it, we're not going to table it, or we're going to discuss it. >> Can I suggest that we table this one
because I I had some comments and they may have been addressed >> I know some stuff and I apologize Dory. You sent some stuff out this afternoon that I didn't get a chance to to read through and they may have been in there. >> So, I'd like to be able to look at this one, but I would like to table this. So, I make a motion to table this. I'll
>> second. Brian Zimmerman, >> yes. >> Bernie Ret, >> yes. >> Robert Otto, >> yes. >> Ooaniano, >> yes. >> Bogler, >> yes. >> Ronda Day, >> yes. >> Mark Scott, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Moving forward to mean minutes of
meeting for October 1st, 2025. I have some corrections there. eligible to vote. Janette Burke, Ernie Ragstead, Ron Day, Celeste Luciano, Rob Otto, Beer Bogler, Christine Dunar, and Joan Ferman. Miss Ferman, you were saying? >> Yes. Um, it states that Mark Scott was
absent, yet the minutes indicate that he voted for the July 16th minutes. So, if he wasn't here, he couldn't have voted on them. >> Okay. I'm sorry. You were saying that's approval of minutes on page one under July 16th. Is that where where you're >> make find July 16th?
>> Okay. I know. I just want to make sure that I'm on the same spot where you are. Okay. Um I have um not July 16th. What was the date? >> September October 1st. >> October 1st. I'm sorry.
>> October 1st minutes, but you had mentioned the July 16th. >> I'm sorry. October. It's all very confusing. October 1st, it states members absent, Brian Zimmerman, Councilman Mark Scott. When you go further to approval of minutes for July
16th and you do the roll call, it says Mark Scott. Yes, but he was not present. >> Correct. That's that's where I was. >> So that's what needs to be corrected. >> We're on the same page. >> It doesn't have them in the approval of June 7th. Just the >> No, just in the other one. Yeah,
>> correct. Just on that one. >> So, if you'd make that correction, then I wouldn't have an issue and I would um vote to approve these minutes unless anybody else has comments. >> I have a comment. >> Y >> um but this might have been I might have read an email version where it was
changed Dory. So, uh, this might be different. Page six, uh, when Beer get brought up about, um, how she was left outside the locked, uh, town hall, um, and she didn't receive
the notice that minor site plan subcommittee meeting was cancelled, which was sent out via email. So, I did see a version of this story and I don't know maybe I think I saw a version that had a line that said an email went out 4:31
and so I just want it recorded in the the minutes that I communicate with members. Sometimes uh it's according to the schedules of you know I'm organizing a bunch of people to meet. So sometimes it may be
uh later in the afternoon that I'd like. Um but even even today we canled um but there was a line in there about you know that that I had put out an email um that that was responded to by the office um
431 saying we've canceled because we don't have a quorum. So, just want that reflected. But again, I think I saw a version of this where it was. So, that might have been like an email
version that the hell more information than this page six. Anyway, >> so if we change the wording a little bit and I don't want to speak for Burget, she can try chime in, but express frustration that she did not see the email cancellation.
>> That's f I mean, yeah. approve this. >> That's fine. It's just I I think there was a line and it was specific to this 431. I mean, Raisha had responded to it uh in the office, so everyone should have been in receipt of it, but I understand Bureet
uh was new to minor site plan and uh thought that maybe I would call everyone which just isn't. >> If if can I make a a suggestion here too? So, >> this is for for this set of minutes. The one area that that got my attention is, you know, if the the paragraph above,
I'm on page six. Paragraph above the key points, it got some bolded areas. I don't know if that was done intentionally or not, but I don't think we want to call make this the the most important thing of these minutes. So, just just a regular font. But what I'd recommend for the for the for the discussion is use the first bullet and
the last bullet and all that stuff in between is I don't believe belongs in in the minutes. >> Where do you have bullets? I don't see how it's >> key points. This is about minor site plan Ron. So >> the prior topic where I was kind of just like come on come on
>> where do you we don't have bullets >> right here. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Above >> page six near the top. >> Yeah. So I don't have the new the new Okay. >> Yeah. So I would just say let's let's summarize this. That's just too much data for this discussion. >> Yeah. >> You know just you >> know Barrett had she had frustration.
She expressed it and and it ended with you know they're going to discuss it and resolve it at the next subcommittee meeting. It's on the record and the resolution's on the record, but let's not put all the he said, she said. >> But but no, no, no. But Ron, are you talking about the key points above that where I was that was a totally different topic. It was minor site plan, but it
was just kind of >> that big long >> general obser Come on. It was a general observation about kind of lessons learned, you know, minor site plan since getting on there. I just want to make sure you know that. >> Right here, Ron. >> Okay. >> And like down here, can you two separate
points? I don't mind being uh less verbose. Uh I'm just I just want to make sure we're they're two different topics. Gurg was not responding to my points as she was just responding to the fact that
she wasn't aware that there was a I Dory. Can we just take out the entire paragraph that says Burget Bogler expressed frustration that she wasn't informed about the cancellation of a minor site plan subcommittee meeting? it was agre and just take that sentence out
and just say um leave the conversation centered on a mis on a miscommunication and it was agreed that this matter should be discussed and resolved at the next m meeting to prove it. Okay. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> I also have some other edits. Okay. Um on page
four towards the bottom um uh I need to be added into the roll call. So Joan Ferman made a motion to approve the smoke shop and then if you go down um it says roll call. >> Yeah,
>> but my yes vote is not in there. >> Good catch. >> Also on the next page, page five, uh the same issue under the capital improvement plan. Um my name needs to be added to the roll call as a yes vote.
And then the same also for TQP. My name needs to be added to the roll call as a yes vote. >> And you did second that one, correct? The um capital improvement plan. >> I did. >> Okay. And then what was the third one?
>> Uh the Woodport Road, the TQP one. >> Okay. >> My my roll my vote under roll call. And >> that was a yes. >> Yes. >> Thank you. So then the changes would be for the July 16th minutes that Mark Scott
was absent so he did not vote on that. And then it would be >> then moving to page on page four did vote for the smoke shop. >> On page five, she voted for the capital
improvement plan with a yes. Um for TQP services, it was also with a yes. and that we are eliminating that last that paragraph in the middle of page six that it centered on miscommunication and okay
>> and then >> and adding the sentence that a meeting cancellation email had been sent out by Robot. >> Thanks. >> Was there a motion? >> Not yet. Is everyone okay with these changes? Is there anything else that we need to add or amend?
Okay. So, now we're looking for a motion in a second for approval. I'll make the motion and I'll second. >> Bernie Rice, >> yes. >> Ronda, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Bagler, >> yes. >> And Joan,
>> yes. >> All right. And moving on to November 5th, 2025. eligible to vote. Janette Burke, Ernie Ragstead, Brian Zimmerman, Ron Day, Celeste Luciano, Mark Scott, Beerit
Bogler, and Christine Dunvar >> questions, comments. I have none. >> Any motion in a second to approve? I'll make the motion. >> I'll second it.
Yes. >> Brian Zimmerman. >> Yes. >> Brian Day. >> Yes. >> Celesteiano. >> Yes. >> Mark Scott. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. So for the record, we've held and carried the minutes for
May 15, 2024, August 20th, 2025, September 3rd, 2025, and September 17, 2025. They'll be revisited hopefully at our next meeting.
So, we're going to move on to other board business. And at this stage, the item that needs to be addressed is the announcement for the fair and open process that was made at our first
meeting in November um regarding our planner and our attorney. Now, I need to preface something with by stating what fair and open is and what and how these processes work. An RFP is a request for proposal
and this is for for the public's um consumption and understanding. The request for proposal can be provided to the board in three ways. One is the nonfair and open way and that is when a
uh board goes to specific professionals asks them for their criteria for their pricing and their public service agreement um without any notice. They're going to people very specifically to to get this information. If they get more
than one um then they compare those and and uh make their decisions. But usually this happens when um when professionals are being renewed from year to year. It it facilitates that process. The fair and open process is a process that is
transparent. It's noticed. The information that's required or being received is the same information that you would receive in the non-fair and open process, which is again the the qualifications, pricing, um, uh, public,
excuse me, professional service agreement. And but the difference is the transparency because it's noticed, it's advertised, it's put um, usually in uh, various publications. It's also published on the um New Jersey League of
Municipalities and on the municipality website. The third method of um acquiring an RFP is a um is a closed contract or a um
I think it's conservative contract. The QPA had given me specific terminology. I apologize. But this particular type of contract is where there are certain specifications that you're looking for. This is a rigorous process because
you're citing specific specifications. When the documentation comes in, you're not just qualifying it in terms of the the you know normal course of whether or not price is there and and agreements there and um you know their general
qualifications match. You're also going through a second round of um of review where you're making sure that the criteria that they've provided meets the specifications that you've put out there um for for the the jobber project.
That's the process that we went through in 2023 um where we were looking for qualified people to help us move through uh master plan project help us move through um uh
certain litigations so on and so forth. Right? So the 2023 process was very different than the process that we were looking to move through now which was very simply based on the announcement that I made fair and open which allows anyone who is
interested in in the position to provide us with their qualifications their resume and uh their their service agreement and their pricing. So that having been said, this in no way
at any point is a detriment or a mark against our current professionals. Our current professionals have provided us a level of service. This is not relative or gerine to the
services they have provided. The thought process for the fair and open was based on the unfortunate circumstances that occurred in January.
Um that brought us from January through March where we were notified that a professional our professional attorney who was supposed to join us who at the time was Steve Werner um was not going to be our attorney. Then we had to move
to Rich Aller because um you know he was the only one who was available to take us. Then we unfortunately had to to kind of scramble to to get additional information which put us in a position where we had to hire um Ken Porro
without having been capable of of vetting through the process. And if we had a repository of individuals that we could have looked at, could have opined on, could have agreed to, then maybe all of that scrambling wouldn't have
happened. And not saying that Ken wouldn't have been uh wouldn't have been hired regardless. Likely he would have qualified and has done well for us over the course of the year. But in order to remedy these situations, we need to be
capable of having a repository of individuals to be capable of going back to. Um the unfortunate circumstances we had a similar situation with our planner when our planner was was offered a a temporary termed contract and she
declined. We were again put in a position where we we needed to kind of scramble. Luckily, we were fortunate enough to have already been doing business with Neglia and Lindsay came to us um through that through that process. So, that having been said and all of
that history being given, um I'd like to have the discussion now in in open session regarding the fair and open process and people's opinions regarding fair and open process. I'd also like to point out that I did send out an email
to all members of the board. Um, and I did get a good number back uh, regarding responses. Most people seem to be uh, fine with with a fair and open. But for the purposes of this discussion, what I'd like to do in order to keep it fair
and orderly is to kind of go down the line, let each individual say what they want to say, have their opinion um put out there, and then if there are any questions that you'd like to ask the person who's speaking, give the board the opportunity to ask questions. Once
those questions are answered, we'll move to the next person. Does that sound fair and reasonable? Okay, great. So, um, let's, uh, not to put you on the spot, Brian, but let's start at your end of the day. >> Yeah, I thought we could even do like pros and cons here.
>> Yeah, absolutely. But again, I I would like to state that one of the reasons why professionals are not here is because this conversation, unfortunately for them, was was deemed um uncomfortable as opposed to Lindsay who who had a a personal issue. Um and and
this gives us the freedom to have this conversation with each other without uh their discomfort. And if we have an issue regarding current professionals, it's okay to say that you have an issue, but please keep the specifics to yourself. They are not here to question
or to defend themselves. So I I'd like to kind of keep that. >> That's fair. But before we begin, I just like a point of order. Um the open public meetings act if something is not on the agenda it may be discussed but not voted on. Correct. >> So we're very open to discussing but
there is no vote today. >> This was this was based on discussion. This was not because there was um there was an issue regarding whether or not this should be discussed um at length. And unfortunately at that last meeting we were already running late. We didn't
have the opportunity for discussion. So I'd like to give us the opportunity now. So Brian, if you wouldn't mind. >> Well, so when it comes to um I'm going to start with Kent. Um let's say hypothetically we were to to move away from >> Can you bring your microphone down, please?
>> Let's say we were we were >> to move away from Ken. Um I do have a concern about how that might look for, you know, the elephant in the room. We're not really allowed to talk about. >> Do you know what I'm talking about? >> Yes. >> Um
>> for litigation purposes. Yeah, you know, what are the optics on that? How does, you know, what does that look like if we're flip-flopping? Um, so that's one one thing that, um, you know, I've thought about that in depth. I would love to hear people's opinions on
it too about >> Oh, we can't we can't go into >> No, not too much on that, but just, you know, if you think the kind of the way my I'm thinking about how that might appear on the outside. >> Can we talk about that in executive
session? >> We can't hold executive session. We don't have an attorney. >> We Oh, okay. So, we'll keep >> So, so that's just one part. We can continue. Let me >> Right. Let's let let Brian get the rest of his opinion out and then if we have questions we'll we'll ask. >> Yeah. Because you know part of me is a
little bit on the fence about this. Um and then the other part with Lindsay is again this is another you know hypothetical situation. Um she's handling master plan right now and I know she has a contract there but let's say we decide to move away from her
here. Could she get up and say well I'm not doing a master plan anymore. Well, there's any contract that we have has a 30-day termination clause either direction. >> Yeah. >> So, um the conversation that that was originally had with Lindsay when this conversation was had that then I and it
was brought to bear that there would be no bearing on the contract for the master plan that that would be solid regardless of what she chose to do. And um now understand that when this conversation was had with those professionals, they were invited, you know, obviously because we we want we we
welcome that. That's that's the the idea was that when the concern was put out there about how things went down in January um that we be capable of if you know the choice being Ken and and uh and
Lindsay that everyone be capable of being comfortable with that choice as opposed to saying well there's a 30-day termination clause if we don't like them. But that that didn't really didn't really put us in that position. did not say, "Hey, you know what? >> She didn't give me any indication that
she would." >> Yeah. >> So, but that's I'm just leaving that as potentially something that could happen. And then, you know, what does that effect on master plan as well if you know she already put so much work and effort into it. So, those are basically
my two >> I I understand because we had a similar situation when when Katherine got replaced. So, it's it's um >> you know, I I hear what you're saying. Um, and then just how it is, you know, I mean, I understand other municipalities flip uh, actually more so than we did
because I don't think anyone >> Brian, it's not really >> Sorry. >> Thank you. >> Uh, from what I know, most people in the state of New Jersey have never had a 40-year tenure. Um, and Sparta is unique in in that historically. So, those are just some of my thoughts.
>> Okay. So now with regard to the fair and open process and and if we were to to to do this um are is the fair and open process as opposed to the other types of processes is that palatable to you?
>> I would prefer it but you know what is I guess I don't fully understand what the fair and open entails because you still have to onboard people as well. Well, the the the fair. >> Sorry. Go ahead.
>> You can I mean, basically all you're doing is saying, >> you know, >> we want to see who else out there wants to >> Yeah. >> Uh to to represent the Sparta Township Planning Board. We'll get a bunch of resumes in. we may say, you know what,
we're we're good with who we have or oh, you know what, this I think this person more aligns with our >> with us and and and and then we'd um if we wanted to go that direction, we'd we'd make that decision. But, >> you know, again, the last time we went
through this process before, >> uh we ended up we got we got a number of people in um and we stayed with our professionals, you know. So, I mean it it um >> my only concern is maybe burning ourselves somehow and I don't want to go
down that road. So, >> I >> I just want to be assured that that's not something that could potentially happen. >> How many people applied so far? >> I don't know. >> Well, it had to be taken down because the notice was defective. >> Could we uh just
>> go through the process? >> We're gonna we're gonna go down. >> Ernie, I'm I'm good. >> All right. Um, >> so does anybody have any questions of Brian based on his his opinions and thoughts? >> Where are the discussions had? Here at the deis or in executive session,
>> discussions for reviewing all of the applicants. >> Okay. So that's questions that's a question for Brian in his opinion. >> Oh, I don't think >> I would think they would be in executive session. >> Yeah. >> Right. But so you're not clear about where the discussion is had and I Okay.
So we need to I think understand more clearly at least. >> Yeah. I think this right now is just a sounding board. >> Right. Correct. >> What is the actual process? People come in with with a packet by a deadline in
response to an RFP and then what happens? >> Okay. So two you're right. So, so basically >> once the RFP packet comes in, right, during the period that um that it's
open, right, if we're doing fair and open as opposed to nonfair and open, that period of time or if you're doing the competitive contract, the packets come in and they go to the QPA, right, the qualified purchasing agent, >> she holds them. That is Christy Rahee.
She hangs on to those packets until the window closes. When that window closes, she goes through those packets, makes sure that they meet the specifications, you know, the the basics, which is for fair and open or the um the, you know,
uh more rigorous specifications, those weighted measurements if it's a competitive contract. If they meet all of those requirements, they get moved forward in the process. They get provided to the board. The board reviews all of the data and looks at their qualifications to become familiar with
them. Um, we actually when we went through competitive contract brought people in for interview so that we could we you know we could talk to them, give them our questions, see whether or not we felt they were qualified and then at usually generally as a rule at
reorganization you the board votes on who they want. But the discussions for contracts happen in executive session >> and that would be by the new board in January. >> Any any vote for um Yeah, that would be
under under normal circumstances that Yes. >> So why are we doing this now? Because last year when I brought it up at this time, I was told two things. Number one, it's very expensive. And number two, you're going to get a brand new board. Let them decide what they want to do. So why are we doing this almost like as a
lame duck session in trying to push this process forward before we know who the new board is and how they're going to >> The idea of doing it now would be so that there was a repository of of applicants that could be looked at and
reviewed at the point that things are available. Now understand that we don't want to be put in a position that we were in in January whereas the professional that was appointed was not there for reorg
and so the professional that was being removed had to not only sit through that meeting but you know have to deal with an uncomfortable experience. So, you'd like the professional? Well, no. I mean, because that's the thing. If you have
the ability to go through this process, then by the time you get to reorg, you have a generally good idea. But you don't know who's going to be appointed by town council to the new board. >> After their reorg, you do, >> right? Which is when. Mark, do you know
when the reorg is? Mark, would you mind bringing your microphone down, please? I think typically it's the first week in January. >> Yeah. >> First Tuesday. >> I don't know what day just >> Yeah. I'm not sure. >> The 6th. And we're supposed to meet the
7th. So really there is no time because we won't even know till the 6th. >> Well, so maybe we need to change our meeting, our first meeting till a little bit later, >> which is typical of what happens. Typically what happens is we don't have it the first Wednesday of of the year. We have it the second Wednesday of the
year to give the council time to make their decisions then to give the board time to make their decisions. >> So maybe that's something we need to notice now that you know that date. >> Likely likely but okay. So, if we have no more questions of Brian, let's
>> Well, I just as we're going around because we're going to hear from everybody and you just asked about Ken and Lindsay. But this board decides on four professionals. They decide on the attorney, the planner, the engineer, and
the secretary. So, my question is, why are we only focusing on two of the professionals? If we're going to do this, and it is fair and transparent, why are we not focusing and opening it up? And I'm willing to vote, you know, for, you know, let's go out to bid fair and transparent, but let's vote on all
four. >> And so, as we're going around, I want to hear about all four, not just >> when when we get to you, please. >> As we're going around, I don't want to be the last one. I want to hear from everybody about all four. >> Okay? And and when we're ready to ask
questions, we can we can certainly we can certainly do that. >> But right now, we're talking about the fair and open process in and of itself. So Ernie, if you wouldn't mind. >> Yeah. >> Well, I have another thing for Brian. >> Okay. Because Brian mentioned, you know,
about the litigation. Now, um Ernie, Brian and I are the only ones who serve on that board. And I just want to say thank you for bringing that up because I do share the same concerns. There's a huge learning curve. We're in the middle of an appeal. That's no secret, right? I'm not bringing up anything that
shouldn't be mentioned. We're in the middle of appeal. Um, our current attorney has spent countless hours trying to get up to speed and we are just about at the decision and now you're talking about bringing somebody else in who's going to also have to get up to speed. So, this is an expense.
It's an expense for the town. It's an expense for the planning board and I just want to echo what Brian said about >> I appreciate all of that, but was that I'm sorry. Was that a question for Brian? >> I mean, that's just one of my concerns is you know, >> he brought it up. >> It's a big big thing. No, I I understand
that and we're all probably going to bring up similar similar things. I just want I mean, does anybody have any specific questions for Brian and his opinion? >> How you doing, Brian? >> Then why would we do this? Why are we doing this? Why are we burning up this time here?
>> Why are we doing this? >> Okay, can we get through the process, please? >> We need to know why. >> Okay. Why not? Why? Why not? Why Why shouldn't we? >> Well, then yes, I agree. We If you want
to do it, let's do it. But let's make it fair for everybody and not just picking out two professionals. >> We're not talking about who. We're talking about what? We're talking about fair and open. What? For every is it fair and open for everybody? >> No, we're not talking about who. We're talking. You're going around and you're
not answering. Hey guys, this isn't an executive session. This is public. >> So, can we move on Ernie if you wouldn't mind? Um, I don't have any problem with the with the fair and open process, you know, and it's uh in government it's
it's it's it truthfully it's the right thing to do um to constantly re-evaluate. Doesn't mean you're going to change. I have my reservations which would change. I think you know longevity um especially in our attorney is
important to me. That's why we had we did have an attorney for 40 years because it was that institutional knowledge is important. Now we've had Ken for a year. I don't I don't have uh I don't have any issues with them. Um the uh um but you know as as far as you
know I I I can tell you this, the professionals aren't going to take any exception to the fact that we're doing it. That that's that's that's how they their business is. They go through this all the time. Um, so that that's that part of it is not an issue. Um, I I
share uh Joan, your concerns, your concerns, you know, as far as um being in the middle of a pretty substantial litigation. Um uh I I would that would be be my concern, you know. I
mean, unless uh Perry Mason comes back from the dead and wants to kiss us the job, you know. I mean, You could also go through this and end up with both of them. >> Well, that's the point is is that and if the choice is made, the choice is made
free and open and fair and and not under duress. That's the idea >> that you know that's all I mean re re-examining re-examining positions is uh is is part of what we're supposed to do. That's it, you know. So, I don't I don't have an
issue with it. Doesn't mean we're going to change anything. Alls we're doing is take is um is is taking a look and make sure we're we're operating in the most efficient manner with the best um assets available to us. So that's it. That's
all I got to say. Questions for me? >> No. >> You're up. You're up. >> Um so I kind of had an observation. And I wasn't at the meeting where this was uh kind of thrown out there. Um and I
was surprised. Come on guys. like you just it just sat there and no one seconded or no discussion and uh I looked at the fair and open process and I was surprised because my understanding
it's it's a shallow understanding um but that prior to soliciting applications we'd have a publicly um assembled set of uh
required skills and uh what I saw frankly was I didn't think it would get anyone it didn't look like it would attract top tier talent. So I was surprised. Um I was surprised because there was no
second there was no motion made. There was no discussion. Um, and and again, I mean, there's supposed to be a written process, established document before solit solicitation
begins. There's supposed to be public opening, which I guess we're kind of doing after the fact. Um, so I have problems with how this was brought up. It feels maybe this is fine, but it feels uncomfortable to me to
bring it up in public session. Um because it feels like we're uh we're booing a narrative that could be used against us for for ongoing issues. Um so again, I would kind of echo the
kind of why are we doing this? Uh I also had my concerns that it seemed like it was like a lame duck attempt um at stacking professionals. I also had the concerns of if we're going to do it, I'm not against um fair and open going out
to RFP. Um I've done it all the time, but why selective RFP? Uh why just a few? I'd want to have kind of the whole gamut. I would like to go through all
the data regarding it. How much is this going to cost us? like on the onset, I'd like to craft it carefully, come up with who we're looking for in a broad sense, compare it to who we have. I'd like to have a discussion uh in executive session amongst
ourselves, which unfortunately it seems like we can't do um where we could say, hey, frankly, how do we feel about current professionals for those of us who can opine on the prior professionals, good and bad, like tell us more. um what can we bring to this to
help us craft that advertisement for the perfect professional going forward? So, it's all well and good if I just had a pile a repository of uh professionals resumes
that I can pick and choose from. Um, I I get the the comments like scrambling and making decisions under duress, but I don't know if I feel comfortable accepting that in public because we did
take a vote. Uh, and I look back on it, a vote was made. Um, well, Ken wasn't voted until March. So, it wasn't January. >> Yes. Because in January, we had the issues that we had. Then we had to scramble for, you know, Rich Aller for a
month. And then the unfortunate circumstances, as much as I would have liked to have met Ken Prior, um, you know, there there was there were applications that needed to be heard, >> right? But these unfortunate circumstances that you're referring to,
I mean, we can't really talk about, but prior to the unfortunate circumstances of getting rid of an attorney that we had for 40 years and yes, losing all the institutional knowledge. I mean, there's there's there's a bigger
narrative in there. So, I I think, you know, I'm going to tread lightly, right? Okay. Well, I'd like to replace replacing that attorney. I apologize. This isn't about replacing that attorney. This is about the process that didn't happen back in January. That
probably should have. Well, okay. So, and then I was on the other side of this and I kind of remember when Katherine Sarmad vaguely remember uh uh she had
gone out on her own and it seemed to me again as just like a resident that I don't know if you did you guys know were you made aware that she was going off on her own? Um circumstances changed for her. So to me that kind of made
sense that you know the we were looking at this. So I don't know that this just kind of happens snap of the fingers. I think there were some some reasons that I you know without the benefit of council uh without the benefit of executive session. I don't really want
to go into here but I think that I'm okay of course with having a fair and open process. Uh but I do worry about the the cost in money in the short term, the cost in
time to get up to speed for the professionals, the cost in optics to larger forces and narratives at play. Um I am worried about again kind of stacking
professionals in advance of a reorg. Uh, I think it I think this is in I don't think going out to RFP is in bad form and a fair and open process is in bad form, but I think the way that this came about after the fact after a posting had
already been published is pretty bad form. And I think it feeds an unfortunate an actual unfortunate circumstance of uh this board looking a certain way. I think you know
we can't dig into why our professionals were changed but there were legitimate reasons why we can't we could not go with our professionals. The other thing that was mentioned too was kind of we have professionals that are doing our master plan. We have professionals that
are doing big picture things. We have professionals. We have uh conflict professionals. Um, I'm concerned that like what happened with our prior planner is she was then moved
to the professional for the township. And what if like if we have a if we have a contract for our current planner to do the master plan, we say, you know what, you do the master plan and now we're
going to solicit someone else to take over as planner for planning board. I mean, how many planners can we afford? So, that's like kind of a a bigger cost concern, but that's it. Um,
random thoughts as I was going through. >> Any any questions for me? >> Yes, actually. >> Okay. >> So, you you use the term a couple of times stacking professionals. Can you explain to me what you mean by that, cuz I'm not exactly sure.
Uh, I'm not really sure. Uh, I'm thinking of we're in a quasi lame duck session. Here it is in December and we're talking about setting it up and
queuing up professionals in advance of a reorg. And I I feel uncomfort I feel like it it would be more appropriate, especially now that we have the 30-day term on some of our professionals, that it would it would be more fair and
transparent to let the incoming um planning board make the decision on who they want to use rather than us kind of having a hand in this. I don't I also don't want you know if there's a cost
involved again you know money and time that we burden them on the onset when they're just trying to get up to speed and then again you know having thinking I was going to have one
attorney having a conflict attorney then getting another attorney it was uncomfortable to have to kind of get up to speed over the course of some months. Uh, and
I would rather like this goes back to if there were issues if if we had an executive session, we could have a conversation. I would prefer to work with people that we have. And uh people may not see this about me, but
like if if if if there are people that we have that that are already employed and doing work for us, if there's an issue with something they're doing, if if we'd like to tweak the style of uh how they're doing things, I prefer to
actually make the effort to work with them. And I don't think I've worked with Ken. I've interfaced with Lindsay. Um, if I ask, hey, I'd like this done differently. Like,
I don't know. I think some of us haven't worked closely enough with these professionals to change them. Yet, these professionals have been slowly getting up to speed and now we're going to change them again. And uh it would be better just to be,
you know, having a conversation with our professionals offline and trying to work with them and improve uh how we're doing things. I I I don't know. It it just
I don't think we should be I don't know. What other questions do you have? Anyone else questions? >> I strongly agree with his last point. >> I don't know what my last point was.
Well, your last point was that, you know, we have two professionals that are doing uh in my eyes a a great job, but if there are others in the room that don't don't agree, then they should speak to the professionals and say,
I'd like to see see >> the unfortunate circumstance was up until September, we weren't allowed to >> what >> what >> we we as board members weren't allowed to contact Prof. professionals. >> They're here every meeting except for
this meeting. >> But if we had if we had a question or something that we'd like to address prior to that, there was there was no there was no connectivity. >> So conversation for Jim Zep who said that you can't contact anybody without permission. >> I'm saying who said it. I just said that that it wasn't it wasn't allowed.
>> But it's still not allowed. So there's no insurance. >> Okay. Well, I mean it's not my understanding that that's the situation anymore. Um >> Jim Zep changed his mind. I have no idea how that came down, but at the end of the day, that's not the conversation that I had with him. >> Um,
>> well, if this is if this is on what I presented, which I think it is, then I would just add that uh I I had asked, you know, this goes back to the how are we going to pay for these professionals? Should applicants pay for them? But if like on a day like today where finally
we're sitting down and we're trying to improve process, it would have been fantastic. I wish I would have known the professionals were not going to be here. If the professionals were here, I feel like we could have just had like a one-on-one conversation and say, "Hey,
I would like you to do this." Do you think it's in your capability to do this? You know, we >> which is generally what happens when when Right. So that's genally happens when you go through this process, >> this process. But I'm saying we have our professionals. They're paid. We're
paying them, but we're seating all that time to hearing applications. On a night like tonight, we could have had them in. We could have had a fruitful discussion behind closed doors and kind of come up with like how can we improve the process? How can we smooth things over?
How can we make things better for business? But instead, we're talking about like let's throw them out and replace them again. We're not that's not again we're we're we're going back to the the idea that they're being replaced and that's not that's not the the object
of the game. The object of the game is to be in a position where if something should happen like it did in January that we are prepared for that instead of being put in a position where we are
unprepared have applications that have to be heard have to try to get temporary people in. I mean, poor Joan was scrambling trying to figure out how to how to run meetings because she didn't know who was going to preside over them. That's terrible. That's a terrible in my
opinion. That's that's a terrible. And I was going to wait my turn. But you keep the word that keeps coming up is scrambling, scrambling, scrambling, and under duress. We had we appointed Steve Warner and Amanda Wolf. We were all set. There was something that happened in the
planning and zoning office that presented a conflict that was never mentioned to us. >> I didn't say that was I didn't say that. What I said was >> it doesn't matter what you said. You said kept saying under duress scrambling and yes that happened. It was not
mentioned to us. We were caught in a situation where oh my god what are we going to do? Nobody told us about this even though they knew about it. So Amanda Wolf said, "I can't represent you, Steve Warner. I can't represent you
due to another unfortunate situation." So at that point, I reached out. We found Rich Aller. He was willing to keep going and going and going until we found somebody. I asked all of the board, "Do you have anybody?" Janette Burke gave me a name. Ken, um, Mark gave me a name.
And we brought them in. Janette's person decided, well, geez, I don't really want to do this. Mark had Ken's name. We were so lucky to get Ken. He is like one of the top lawyers. >> He just spoke. He just spoke in Italy.
He just spoke at the League of Municipalities. He's mentioned as a top-notch attorney, and we're doing this to him. It's not fair. He just got up to speed with the litigation. Um, I think he's absolutely fantastic. But to say that we were under duress, this board
voted. Didn't have to. We could have said, "Let's hear five more attorneys." But they voted. >> They voted for that we had to hear that night. >> We could have had Rich Holler. He said he would have continued on. >> Richer actually very specifically told me that he was only going to be with us for the month of February and then he
was done. >> I'm I'm surprised he only spoke with you, but that's not what he told me. He agreed to stay on until we found somebody. I also want to bring up the fact about um the planner. Um, when Katherine went out on her own, the way
we found out sitting here as a board, I guess it was around November, we're looking at the letterhead and we had a contract with Harbor Consultants. It no longer said Harbor Consultants and we said, "What happened here?" She never told us she went out on her own, so she had no backup with a bigger firm. And we
were all concerned about that. We expressed um, you know, concern. Um, and so in the December meeting, and it's in the minutes you just approved, Ernie said, Ernie made the motion, "Well, let's let her contract extend till the end of December." And everybody agreed.
>> We said, "Okay." So, when we knew we were going out for planner, I had three planners land um lined up. I had Lindsay with Neglia. I had the Price um oh gosh, I can never remember Price uh with a G out of Hoboken. And I had another one.
Lindsay came in. Everybody was enamored. And I never expected at that meeting for everybody to say, "Let's vote for Lindsay." We had to cancel the other two planners. So So don't say you're under duress. >> There were other two planners. >> Of course you did. It was announced here. Dory, did you not have to cancel a
um price? Whatever. >> Philips Price. >> Phillips price. Thank you. Um yes, we did. And everybody knew about it. Um it was brought up at the meeting. Never expected it. Everybody was just wanted her. So it was not duress. Everybody decided they wanted that and the other
two had have been cancelled. Um you know and everybody voted. Everybody was aware of it. So I don't appreciate the the scenario that you're trying to create that I brought everything here under duress. It is absolutely not true. You can backtrack, but that's what you just
said. What I'm saying is, and there's no blame here, and I'm sorry that you're coming at it from that position because this is not me in this position. I've heard and I've seen I didn't put you in that position. You put you in that position and there's there's there in lies the
rub. Okay. At the end of the day, I'm sorry that you're coming from a place of blame. No one is blaming you. That is not the intention here. No one is saying that you have correcting that. Thank you. I've seen your emails >> and I'm correcting that. Thank you. So,
what I'm saying right now is the point being circumstances being what they were in January. Listen, I've been approached on more than one occasion by various individuals who were uncomfortable with how it happened. Listen, whatever it is
or whatever's been said, one way or another, the conversation is being brought to bear right now. There is no blame here. There is no fingerpointing here. There is no >> scrambling under duress process that didn't happen in January. Of course it
is. Point point. Wait a minute. How is how a circum somebody's talking about circumstances, right? So circumstances being what they were. Did you create those circumstances? Because if you personally feel you created them, then I can understand how you would feel like there's blame there. No one's saying you
personally created them. We're saying circumstances being what they were. People can be victims of circumstance. Circumstances. Every person here had a right to vote. Everybody voted. Let's move on. Let's hear the rest of it. Let's hear the rest of it. I just want it on record.
Everybody I want it on record that everybody voted that it was not where somebody came in and said >> in under 20 seconds because I missed the last meeting and I was shocked when I listened to it. I want to talk about plans for next year. Blah blah blah. that haven't been having been said, we
can now move on to ordinance 2519. Not have any discussion, put a an RFP out on the website that was so defective that it had to be taken down. And now you're bringing back discussion after we wrote several people wrote to say this
is not, you know, what we want to do. So let's be transparent >> with that. The the issue with the defect with the ad that was a municipal issue that's not our issue, right? So our issue right now >> never should have gone without a discussion. So I do appreciate the discussion we're having now. I'd like to
hear what Burgett has to say. >> Yes. So would I but in at the end of the day the point being that no one is blaming anyone. No one is fingerpointing. I just need that to be understood. This is a basic discussion and we should be capable of having it
like adults. >> That's you didn't answer my previous question is why are we singling out only the planner and the attorney? We're not up to that yet. We'll get there. >> Okay. >> So, Burgett, if you wouldn't mind. >> Um, as the newest person on this board,
I am keenly aware of how much I don't know and how ramping up and learning things takes time. And like I didn't know that we couldn't have executive session because we don't have an attorney present tonight. >> But why? Let's can we get to you said
that at this portion Celeste you would tell us why we don't have an attorney tonight and and professionals why don't we have them >> during my conversation with Mr. Porro, when I asked him whether or not he would prefer to be present this evening, he
declined. He said no. And I asked whether or not the meeting could could continue without him. He said yes. That wasn't an issue and that he would prefer to not be present during the confines of this conversation. >> He could have excused himself for part of it, but been here for the important.
>> He chose not to be here. Okay, let's >> see what he says. Um, I I was not I'm sorry, Beard. That's okay. >> I'm sorry. Are you insinuating that I'm lying? >> I'm not going to get into this now. >> Okay. Well, the unfortunate circumstances that you said that you
just said, we'll see what he says. >> I told you what he said to me. Now, what he chooses to say to you, I mean, he says a lot of things to you. >> I don't know, >> but what he ch is going to be different. public. I'm not getting into this >> without the benefit of counsel. >> Yeah.
>> Come on. >> He's not here, so we can't. >> I understand that. And I'm I'm not I'm not attesting to his veracity. I'm I'm saying that Joan is is, you know, uh making a statement against mine and and I I think that's I'm trying to remind
everyone that we're in a public session. We don't have benefit of counsel. >> Here we are. >> You know, this is not doing anything good for the township of Sparta. I think we have >> when people make accusations they should either stand behind them or you know not make them. >> I asked why he was if you wouldn't mind.
>> Um I >> uh I didn't appreciate the timeline that fair and open process would be. It was I thought it was a theoretical
thing. Um, we're on December 3rd, soon to be December 4th. The town's reorg is January 6th. I saw the RFP that was posted on the website and I was
surprised by it. I don't know who wrote it. Um, I thought that it was inadequate. I think that an RFP for the planning board should be crafted by
the planning board. Um, I don't think that we have enough time to craft something. The holidays are coming. Uh, I have concerns about what
Mr. Porro is working on right now in relation to active board business and he is I I don't know what he's working on but um I
would want him to continue to work on our behalf and on behalf of the town. Um it there's been a lot of things said in this session that we have to be careful
with because it is a public session and I am not familiar with those things and it's very cryptic language and I would personally benefit from discussing this in executive session.
with our planning board attorney present. Um the litigation and the appeal is immensely important and uh I again as a new member of this board
um getting trying to get up to speed you know while also having my own work that I need to get done you know um it it's it's hard it's a So I can only imagine
what Mr. Porro is, you know, dealing with. Um Lindsay, did she also come on in January? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um little later than that. >> Okay. >> Because we were doing the we decid we knew we had to do interviews, right? >> Okay.
>> So maybe she was she came on actually after Ken. >> So she would have been the end of March, maybe beginning of April. >> You're right. She was after Ken. >> Okay. >> And Ken was not January. It was March. Correct. Can >> um you know if if this board or whoever
voted for her felt confident in her um I haven't seen anything that gives me pause about her professional qualifications and I'm worried because I did not really appreciate this
timeline that what we were supposedly talking about was let's do this now. Um I thought it was more of a oh next time that we need it kind of thing. Um, I would be I would be
um I would be worried that uh the that Lindsay and Ken who are both working on things and are both learning and trying to gain some of the institutional knowledge that the previous
professionals who held those positions for a very long time had. That takes time. And I I believe that they until they demonstrate that they should not be
given any more time to do that. I believe that they should be given the time to get up to speed so that they can perform to the best of their abilities and and that's that's that's my that's
my opinion. >> Very well said. Very good. >> Yeah. Agreed. Any questions? No, Ron, you're up. She said it perfectly. >> All right. So, um I you know, my my feeling is on the on
the the fair and open competition. I think every township professional should be selected through fair and open competition. There are times you can't do that. Um, and I think we we we had some of that and I think we did the right thing. But I still believe every
township professional should be selected through fair and open competition. And the reason you do that is I don't want to say who's good, who's bad. I I think what fair and open competition says is, you know, who's best value. Um, so you're not you're not looking at how do they do how do they do? And I don't want
to say anything that's going to discourage someone if we do go fair and open to say, well, they've already decided. So, so I want to be very careful how I I say it. So, let me just live it with every township professional should be selected through fair and open
competition. And I think um that should be done every 3 to 5 years. Take a look at what's new, what what who's out there that wasn't there, how you know and and you get a chance to assess performance. Now, the only other thing I'm going to say is um fair and open competition
costs money. Um, so, um, my feeling is I'd like to see if if we go fair open competition that we kick it down the road to next year. Let that board decide. Let's spend the money next year. Um, hopefully there's going
to be more more money available. Um, so I would I would definitely support fair and open competition. Was Lindsay Was was Lindsay selected through fair and open competition? I I had thought she was um but I I can't remember. I I kind of
remember interviewing a few people there having both come in front of us. So >> we should look at that. >> I reached out to several people >> but you know >> I'll let you finish. >> Yeah. But but so and to Joan's point I think that includes >> the attorney, the engineer and the planner.
>> I have a question. When you said best value, do you would fair and open mean that we're obligated to accept the lowest bidder? >> No. >> No. >> Okay. >> And and that's best value. You you you get to to weigh the whole package together as opposed to, you know, the lowest bid.
>> Yeah. >> The planning board has a budget. >> You don't have to do lowest bidder for professionals because it's a unique um thing and everyone is a little bit different, you know, in their qualifications and everything else. So that's why they're not in the bid
process because it would be impossible to write a actually if you wrote a bid specifically to all the qualifications you wanted. You you you'd in essence only be you'd be narrowing it to that one person. You know what I mean? So they don't they
don't do that. It's uh um Mark I agree wholeheartedly with Ron that we table this process until >> Would you mind bringing your microphone down? Of >> course. Thank you. Um I I agree with Ron wholeheartedly
that we should table the pro this process right now and do it next year when we will have a a 60% turnover on the on the town council. And obviously we'll have quite a bit of change here.
Um, so and to Berg's point, these people are up to speed. They know what they're doing. These pe, you know, this is one one of the top lawyers in the state. He's appeared before the Supreme Court. I
mean, multiple times. He knows what he's doing. And we should be just blessed. and grateful that he's helping us. Now, of course, there seems to be some some
accusation that Mr. Porro just fell out of my rolodex. But let me tell you about exactly what happened. Okay, so the day the day that we reorganized, we asked Mr. Warner. We nominated and
voted to have Mr. Warner join us. And then once he saw the videotape, he realized that there was some problems and he withdrew through his his uh
his candidacy, let's say. Um, I was one of the ones along with Joan, along with Anand Dash and several other people that scoured this state looking for people that would come up to Sparta,
New Jersey and be a an attorney. And it just so happened probably after two or three weeks of doing this and probably the 10th person I had talked to, I was the one that found Mr. Aller. Okay. And
and and he said it wouldn't he he didn't want it to be a long-term thing. So I kept hunting and uh and I put two and two together. Uh Mr.
I called a gentleman that lives in town in our town. There are two attorneys, two partners of the firm, Brock Iller, live in this town. I called them and explained the situation and they said, "Well, it just so happens that we're hiring a tremendous professional
right now for to expand our land use practice. His name is Ken Porro." And that's how it came about. And then Ken Porro came and appeared in front of us. We saw his resume and it was
tremendous. and he's done a great job for us this past year. He's he's our representative. He's involved in our litigation. He's the guy carrying the ball right now. And to trip him up or to take him off
the field and put someone else on when we're down on the 20 yard line in the red zone is is would be irresponsible for this board. It wouldn't be the right thing to do for
the residents of Sparta. That's it. I have more detail if you want, but I'll just >> I'll just hold off right now. >> I just have a question. Um, so >> when things had had gone sideways with Mr. Warner,
do you think that it would have been beneficial to you at the time if you were capable of going back to a repository of interested parties that you already knew were interested parties and being capable of working from that
as opposed to, as you put it, um, scouring the state, >> right? Scouring the state, correct? >> For a professional, right? I use the word scramble. You use the word scour. Six in one. So, do you do you think that it might have been beneficial to you to have had
a repository of professionals that you could have been capable of of going to and potentially utilizing that information? >> Sure. >> What would have been more um beneficial was if the information was disclosed to us
>> by the planning and zoning office. That would have been beneficial. We wouldn't have been in that position. >> Um we're not we're not discussing that. We weren't discussing Can I can I just suggest I I think this conversation is going a little bit further than than we probably should. >> So yeah, I agree. I agree.
>> Um so so that's my my point was that if we had the opportunity to have a repository of individuals available to us that could have mitigated some of the stressors that we had at the beginning of the year which was has been my only
point from the beginning. So, um, any other questions? >> Why not do it in Q4 of 2026? Doesn't have to be done now. >> So, I was just So, it sounds like Ron Ron made I think a good point. 3 to
five year potential turnover. Looking back, I I think we're saying we're in agreement that of course, like if Do you have a rolodex still? If you had a if you had this like magical rolodex of all the land use
attorneys and we had that and it was free, I think we all agree that if it had planners, engineers, attorneys that we we would love to have that, right? But it costs money. So to Ron's point, because I've I've heard Ron at some other town councils talking
about money and I think that's that's a good point. Um and and Celeste, I mean, master plan. So if we're if we're if the point of this is
you're trying to plan for the future and you're trying to say like best practices, we never want to be in that situation again, you know? that wasn't the greatest. I think most of us are in agreement that like the professionals we that we ended up with are good. I think
if we don't all agree that agree with that, we should have an executive session with our professionals and discuss what we would like to see from them and see if they were able to deliver on that and then follow up next steps accordingly. But I think we're in
agreement. I'll borrow the term from some we might be in violent agreement at times uh on this that of course like this is great. So my point was just like I don't know how much it costs. I keep hearing from everyone almost everyone
there's a cost involved. I would love to see that cost. There's amount of time involved. I would like to see that amount of time. There's a reorg coming up. uh it's it seems fair to let you
know that process happen and have but if if you're just saying best practices this is what I think then I'm in favor of favor of it of course I would expand again the scope to all the professionals not just a few because
you've you know you've been approached by people that say oh that January process was defective or they had problems with it whatever I'm saying when you single out two professionals and we have more than two, then let's let's keep it fair and open
and let's expand it to all of the professionals. >> I hear what you're saying. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I'd also like to make another point. If this RFP were to go out, it would be uh a very short turnaround. it would be
barely 30 days and they would be looking the people who responded would be looking and say why is Sparta turning over its professionals in less than one year. I don't want I don't want to put >> some municipalities who do this annually,
>> but >> but we're not necessarily like every other municipality and that and and I don't know of other municipalities that do do it every single year. >> So bigger if if I could just my thoughts
as an answer to that is it goes back to if somebody was selected under fair and open competition I don't think we should do it every year. If somebody was not selected that way, then I think we owe it to the township to do it. And that would be the reasoning is that because because they weren't done through this
process, you know, we appreciate what they've done, but we owe it to to the to the residents to make sure we're still getting best value, which is why we're going fair and open. I think that I know me personally as far as our our selections and and I'm
you know as I said I don't really have any I don't have any issues with with our professionals but uh I didn't I didn't feel a part of the process and mostly it came down to how it happened you know I mean but I think
that >> I didn't feel part of the process cuz it just happened like so unexpectedly Right. That's what I'm saying. And I think that's, you know, um I I know that's my feeling on it is is we got stuck in a in a place where we had to um
you know, and you know, and again, I I didn't take the chairwoman's uh uh comments as as derogatory towards you. I took it as a compliment for for you getting it done um with with all the stuff that got thrown in our in our face
on on on getting it done. But, you know, again, um I I would have preferred the way we did it a couple years ago where we brought a couple people in, interviewed, all of us interviewed them and all that kind of stuff. Um,
you know, but that's 2020 hindsight. I also agree. I I you know, I don't want to constantly change people either, you know. So um you know there's um to Ron's point you know a three you know I think it's a three to five year stint um
generally to get u to get an idea you know um you're your first year working for a town you're you're you're still learning you know um you know well you know every single town has different ordinances different land use codes
everything else so you got to get get up to speed on those whether it be the planner or the uh um you know again I you know full disclosure I I I voted to not replace our attorney or our planner
in the first place last time so I was I was on the short end of that but I >> no you no you better go back and check >> yeah everybody voted for Lindsay and that's why and I was so shocked because I had as I said I had three people lined up. >> And that night it happened
>> once we I'm I'm talking about Katherine. I I didn't I voted against getting rid of her. I voted against getting rid of Tom. >> But what I'm saying is once we got to Yes, I did vote for both Ken and and for her when we had him. But >> truthfully, I felt like that was our only choice at that point. That was that
was my feeling was that, >> you know, we had to we had to move forward. We had to get going as a board. We had backlogs and and we have two qualified people. But I didn't feel that I was personally a part of the process of of getting them. And and I understand
that's that's not a uh it's not an accusation. It's a it's a it's a realization of the of of where we're at. And I think that's >> you know that to me is a reason for a fair and open process. That that's all.
Um not not not to mean that we don't you know u we don't keep with with those people. You know, again, last time we did it, we had a fair we did a full open process. >> Yeah, we did the competitive contract. >> Competitive contract and >> and I voted along with the majority of
the board to uh to retain them that that year. Um you know, so >> um but just so you understand that that's that that's where I'm coming from is is just just feeling like it was a hurried process and a >> no, we were all put in a position that we shouldn't have been in. I agree with
that. You know, I'm with you on it. Um, but really, you know, we were so lucky to end up with the individuals that we did. I would like to see I guess it's my turn now. I would I would like to see the 3 to fiveyear process. They have been getting, you know, I think up to
speed in an excellent manner. We have the litigation ongoing to bring somebody else in. That's the the cost that you're not considering. There is a cost just to doing an RFP, but to bring somebody in to get up to speed on this very complicated issue. Um, and you know, if
you're not understanding it, if you're not one of the three of us who serve on that board. So, um, I ask you to consider that. And I ask you if you want to do fair and open, you know, it will be a decision we can make as a board. I think we've heard all the comments. Um,
but all professionals, don't just pick two. And I think it sends a very bad message to those two professionals who now are like, why do I want to work at Sparta? They don't even want me. Um, and the specs. How come the planning board is not doing the specs? Who is doing the
specs? Shouldn't we dictate if this is going to go out for an RFP, what we want in a planner, what we want in an engineer, what we want in an attorney, what we want in a secretary. I mean, that's what we should be doing >> for competitive contract. That that is the way that it works. >> Fair and open, transparent. That's, you
know, all or nothing. We're not picking Why did Why did you just pick two? You know, I really would like to know that answer. The reason why two were picked was because those were the two that were in question when people were discussing how they were uncomfortable with the process in January and how that >> when were people discussing this because
this this did not happen with me. Excuse me. When people were discussing with me how they were uncomfortable with what happened in January? I think Ernie said it best when he kind of >> Exactly. As I said, I I just felt like I and I don't I don't think I'm alone. I I didn't feel like I was part of the process,
>> you know. So that's all I I I I think that's maybe what we're trying to do here is to is to you know correct that and that we you know >> exactly >> we bring in one or two other people and go all right you know what we were right we were right the first time we got we
got the right person >> and let's why don't we just agree to do that in about three years then you know when the board is really changing over in 2026 a lot of you are going off at the end of it and maybe that's a good time to do it but you know you you to keep trying to get people to get up to
speed and cost the money that that's going to take. It just isn't sensible to me. >> Can I ask a question along those that line, John? So, you know, when I when I hear the conversation tonight, I think what people are putting out
their opinions, but what it's really going to come down to is there will be a vote. Do we want to do this or not? Is is that correct? Before we go forward, >> I I think at at some point there there will be a vote. It will not be tonight. >> Right. I agree. I agree with that. So, so you everyone's going to have a say.
Everyone's going to have a vote and then we go with majority consensus. But, but I think the idea tonight is let's just hear everybody out. >> But, but again, I want to be I want to be careful because >> I want to make sure the conversation doesn't do anything that's going to
hinder somebody from applying, you know, and you know, and I'll leave it there. >> Okay. >> So, I >> My last question is though, why wasn't this even on the agenda? You clearly wanted this to be discussed that you told our professionals not to
come. >> The decision was made last minute. >> The agenda was redone because the attorney was not coming. That's why the Larry and Tana Allen application for um >> No, the the Larry and Tana the the
extension of time was moved because um Mr. Simmons had an eye doctor appointment and was likely going to be late. So, um, so since Lindsay was not going to be here, we decided to carry that. Originally, it was going to happen on the December 17th meeting, but, um,
given that the, uh, I believe it's the engineer for the applicant wanted to be able to be available, that got carried to the January 7th meeting. So, the only issue was the resolution, which when I called uh when I called Ken to find out what the status of that resolution was
because we hadn't received it, even though it was on the uh agenda, >> it was just heard November 5th. They have 35 days. It was just heard November 5th, >> correct? And I just asked kind of rushing it. >> I just asked him the status. I didn't ask him anything other than what the
status was because we hadn't seen it. And uh but 48 hours ago on Monday, you knew that this would be under other board business because I've seen your emails. >> No, I was not confident at that point that it would be on the agenda at 48 hours ago.
>> Is that my email that uh I sent requesting to have a conversation about it? >> You were lots of requests to have conversation about it and Ron requested to have conversation about it. Um other than the >> could be better to have a conversation. I did not receive a response from Rob or
from Mark. Um Joan had indicated that she had sent an email to Jim Zep and was not going to reiterate that in an email to me, but everyone else who responded responded that they would be um amiable to uh fair and open for various reasons.
>> So let me just interject there. So I you didn't get a response from me because I had already sent and copied you in my response to Jim. I apologize. >> And the other just FYI, yeah, you you sent it to another email address, which which is um my personal email address,
but it wasn't in there. Um so I don't I didn't get that. I got the second one, but it was like 12 hours after the fact, so I didn't feel the need. >> I I I realized that after the fact, so so I apologize, but one way or another. >> No, but I just want to correct that. And
then uh with the record too, I had a question. So now is it am I understanding correctly that you you're the reason you're seeking to cure the process undertaken in January
retroactively and this isn't meant in the way it's going to sound but at the behest of non-planning board questions concerns whatever that were raised to you personally >> is a member of the planning board is a member of the planning board Chris Dunar
is a member of the planning board. Brian is a member of the planning board. We we've all had, you know, we're all members of the the planning board. >> No, no. Um, you made some remarks a little bit earlier that said, "Oh, I've heard from people, outside people that have >> weren't sure how how that happened in
January, so I just wanted to >> Oh, there were members of the public that had approached me as well." >> They'll be here. They'll be here for the public session in just a few moments. >> Okay. There were members from the from Yeah, exactly. >> For those of you who can't see, it's packed. Um but but okay so so just to be
clear um there were so I think it is appropriate now that we're at least afforded the opportunity to have this discussion and then proceed with discussion because I think the right way to cure this if that's how you see it is to have this
amongst ourselves and to frame this amongst ourselves first >> and um so for for Janette's um portion because unfortunately she couldn't be here this evening she uh asked me to read the following. And this is Janette Burke's statement. I believe Ken Porro
and Lindsay Knight are doing excellent work. However, without the opportunity to interview additional candidates, it's difficult to know whether there may have been other options that were equally qualified or more cost-effective. Maintaining full transparency in processes like this is simply sound
business practice and critical for the future of this board. Um, Chris Dunbar also asked me to to uh reiterate the sentiments of of her email without um giving full disclosure of her commentary that she is in favor of of a
fair and open process. Um, and and that she she would she would welcome the opportunity. So, um, that having been said, >> um, I think everyone has >> I just, you know, I just like that. I mean, and I think
the this isn't a reflection on our on on these professionals. This it's a reflection on the process. >> Correct. >> You know, that that's what I'm going to make clear of. I don't you know, I don't have I think they've they've they've done a great job. I just feel like um we
didn't fully go through the process um last year because of how everything tumbled one thing into another and where where we found ourselves and we had to we had to do what we did, you know, and
u but I but so so again it has it has nothing to do with the uh with those professionals themselves. It has to do with it has to do with the process and uh um you know you know and and that's it. I just want to make that very clear.
I don't have I don't have an issue with the with the professionals. >> Ernie, I just want to if I can just tag on to that. You know when when I'm hearing words like you know cure the process and and and you know you know my feeling is we did the right thing. We
did what we had to do. um we you know now we're at a point we have a little bit more time. So to to me it's not a matter of curing the process just there's an opportunity to to to do a fair and open which I believe we you know we we should consider as a board and vote on the board and then based on
the result that I vote we move forward or we don't. We have additional information though. Can you give us the dollar cost of what the process will be and you know why we would do it before a new board takes
place you know see if the other board even wants it because it is a lot of money. >> So and also not just the dollar cost of going and doing the RFP and the people doing the review. We haven't decided even who would be doing that review. You
know, last time it was done in 2023, the town council and the town manager and everybody took that process and then they gave back an application and said, "This is the only one you can look at." >> Okay. you know. Yeah, we >> remember it took like six months back then for that process
>> because we went through a competitive contract and that was different and they went through every page of the 100 plus page RFP and there were there were pl there were I think there was like seven or eight applicants and guess what six of them didn't cross their tees and
didn't dot their eyes >> competitive contract. There was only one person left. >> No, there were two. >> There was one person left. >> One on town council on there. There were two. >> One on town council, one on planning. >> I'm not sure this is stuff we should be getting into.
>> No. But my question which, you know, was will you provide us please with the dollar amount that it will take you know who's going to be doing the reviewing? How much money is going to be spent whether it is by the QPA or you know everybody else the attorneys who's going to be involved in this process? and also
come up with some projection of how much it's going to cost to get up to speed if we hire another attorney and um have to um get up to speed with the current litigation. That's what I'd like to see because that's going to help in our decisions. >> We need facts >> that we should have.
>> The unfortunate circumstance is that trying to put together a projection of how how much it's going to cost for somebody to get up to speed is going to be dependent upon what their what their hourly is or what their rates are. >> Well, you can take the average. You can take what we currently have and you can say this is how long it took one person
to get up to speed. Now it's going to take just as long for another person to get up to speed because there's a dollar cost associated with that thing, right? That that really, >> you know, we shouldn't be looking at we can ask that question if we bring people in. You know, you know, how many hours do you think it's going to take you to come up to speed? But we shouldn't make
that decision for them. We shouldn't do that analysis. >> And the RFP offering talks about the rate. It dictates the rate. >> That's right. So, it's not these people don't just come in here and throw out numbers, right? They they come in here knowing that they're going to get 225 an
hour, >> plus or minus. I don't know the exact number. I'm just throwing that number out as an example. >> Like, let's not do it in a vacuum. >> Okay. So, my takeaways from what I've heard,
people are concerned with litigation. People are concerned with cost. People are concerned with turnover. Right. Can it can can we >> timeline and the timeline? I I'm >> I don't think that right now like
December of 2025, 30 days before a reorg. I don't believe that now is the right time to say yes, let's go ahead and do an RFP. >> Typically, it happens in November to December. Now, we have 30-day clauses we
put in last year. We put in 30-day clauses. So, we can do this in January. >> I I'm not saying that. Typ typically in in November and December is is the timeline for when RFPs go out for professionals so that they have a repository of individuals for their
reorganization meetings so the review can happen in that space. So, that's that's very typical of municipalities to do that. um >> when I brought it up last year didn't go through because it was going to be too costly and let's wait for the new board. Those were the two reasons.
So, here we are again. >> Celeste, did you have litigation and kind of bigger picture concerns in your list of concerns? >> I did. I I do have litigation. and I have costs and I have challen >> um >> I mean even if an RFP was out on the 1st
of November that still would have been 60 days during one of the most busy times of the year and now we're in December and people are just trying to finish up work for the year.
I mean like we've we've already lost 30 days. So, and from my understanding is all of the four professionals would all have to respond to the RFP. Yes. So, fair and open is a 20-day
window to to to leave it open for for the ad. So, there's a 20-day window where applicants can apply and the QPA acquires that data. And once once the window is closed, it's closed. If if if the window closes at 10:30 in the morning and somebody um puts in an
application at 4:30 in the afternoon, they're right. They're they're not part. >> Okay. So 20 days from tomorrow is Christmas Day. >> No, it would be from the 17th because we can't vote till the 17th. So you're into 2026 with a new board. >> Don't we still need to put together the verbiage on
>> Right. We were never asked we were never asked what should go in this and what we want to see in a professional. Who's supposed to come up with my thought process, >> right? My thought proc >> I am >> my thought process when I originally
started this, one of the reasons why I didn't want to wait until next year is because I value the opinions of the current board. I know some of you may not think that and
yes, there are times we violently agree and there are sometimes we violently disagree. And I think that's what makes us a good board. I think that's what gives us the opportunity to have these conversations to bring forward these points to to to give this data and and
to give us the meat that we need in order to to make good decisions. Right. I value your opinion. I wanted your opinion. Can I can I wait until January? Absolutely. This process can be done. I
may not be sitting in this seat. At the end of the day, we can leave it to whomever, but when we do take the vote, we can decide on that at the time. But one way or another, the reason I wanted to be capable of doing it was so that I could have the opinions of the people
who are sitting in this room so that when I personally whether I was sitting in this chair or not sitting in this chair next year could have that information could use that information and you know keep that in mind in the forefront because whether you're on this
board or on the other side of the deis you're still part of the community and your voice still matters your opinion still matters. and I thought that that was a very important piece for me to bring forward into the process. Um, I was mistaken. I
also, like Ernie, thought that it would be an opportunity to bring forward a comfort level for certain people who were uncomfortable with how the process went in the beginning of the year. I was mistaken. I'm allow, you know, I mean, I'm I was mistaken. So, that's why we're
having this conversation now. That's why we're getting our opinions out now because I do value every word that's being said in this room and I really want that to carry forward. I think it's important. So, like I said, my takeaways are we need to understand what the what
the uh impact is on litigation. We need to understand what the cost is and we need to understand what the you know what the ramifications are of turnover. Those are my takeaways. That's what I'm going to work on. And that's what I'm hoping to bring back to the table when
the discussion continues and the next round of this discussion will likely continue in closed session so that we can have people here and have those conversations with them and we can have a deeper more meaningful conversation with each other. I just wanted us to be
able to take this opportunity to share with each other to bring forward an issue a topic that is a hot topic um and and obviously needed full time consideration and discussion. I think
it's important um so anybody have any questions of me? >> Can can we take a threem minute break? >> We can do whatever you'd like Ernie. We're going to take a a a fivem minute recess. >> Just like to say I do appreciate the
conversation because I said I was shocked last month when I looked at the YouTube and there was just an announcement. So I I do appreciate it coming back and I think you know I learned a lot from all of you and hopefully you've learned from each other and we take this all into consideration
and look at the bigger picture of things and not just the right now. What's going to be best in the next year, three to five years. >> I don't think this is uh such a bad thing though, however we got here,
because we could look back at the previous year or those of us who've served more than that, cuz I just came on January. Um, and we can look at it and frame it as like goals and objectives. Again, if we could have like a one-on-one with our professionals and check in with them at the end of the
year before we kind of switch out people on this board, this might be a good exercise to put together in an ideal scenario, what would we like our professionals to look like, right? So, that is something those of us leaving
could put, you know, package up for the next. >> That's a great idea. >> Yeah. It's just kind of >> I don't even know if I'm gonna be here in >> kind of kind of an exit interview, >> right? >> So to speak. >> All right. So five minute recess.
>> Can we just wrap it up now? >> Uh well, we have we still have updates in case anybody has >> Well, I I can give my update. >> I can quickly >> He just needs to use the restroom really quick. Can we just do five minutes? >> Thanks. >> All right. Recess five minutes.
Yeah. >> Wow. >> How about those giants? >> Oh my god. you know that that was the very first game that I watched and I watched it all the way to the end >> that I said I saw nothing good >> still going on
>> even the ones they lost I I felt excited um except the one there was the one game I think it was the second game >> I didn't feel excited at all last week's a tough team though New England's tough best record but
>> they should have you know they just was not a not a good game. But I'm still >> still there. >> We got to get rid of the general manager. We got to get we have had all >> I go back and forth on that and and I hear I hear you saying, you know, >> I mean, when the thing that stayed
constant over the last >> 10 years of dry. >> So, if I look at the general manager's job, right, it's get the right people. Um, we got dark, we got neighbors. >> Not sure. >> Hello.
>> Oh, hey Dory. I think we're still live. >> No, it's not. If these are going to work, they're gonna All they do is amplifies. Everything is off. Everything's shut down. >> Can you double check just >> the the volume? It's It's off. I'm looking right at it.
>> I'm being told we're live. We're We are up to updates. But before we do that, I just want to say thank you again to everybody here for our dialogue. I think we made good progress. I think we kind of bonded a little bit even though, you know, sometimes we get heated. I
think that's good. We need that. Um, our opinions are all valid and I'm glad we were able to voice them here tonight. So, let's move into >> agree with that. But before you move on to from other board vi sure, >> I just want to say I do have like a concern that our um October meeting was
cancelled. The second meeting, our November meeting was cancelled. Uh, we could have done some business. I know the Messor application we could have done in October and there was no discussion. I guess my concern is there's no discussion by the board to say do we want to cancel it? we have a vice chair, we have a quorum, you know,
let's discuss it. Let's just try to be open rather than just a dictate that this is happening. Um, so as we go forward, we can consider that. >> Well, the second meeting in November was canceled because it's usually canceled for League of Municipalities. We had >> We had it last year. We did not cancel it. Just I mean, you went, Mark went,
but everybody else could have been here. We had a quorum. >> We had no professional. >> We had a vice chair >> because Ken was was presenting >> sent somebody. >> Ken Ken was presenting. He would have sent he said he would have sent somebody, but just, you know, in the future, discuss it with us. That's all. >> Okay. Well, I I discussed it with Ken
and he told me that he didn't have a substitute. So, I'm sorry. I I guess I'm getting different information. >> Or something. >> Um, >> there were things as Rob suggested because I know he put in an email. There were things we could do. We could talk about process and procedure and other things that we never really get an opportunity. Like today, we're doing an
open discussion. We could have done that on another topic. we could, you know, things that we just should be exploring. >> Noted and we can we can bring that into next year with whoever is sitting in this chair.
Um, so moving on to updates. So, town council, Councilman Scott, if you wouldn't mind. >> Yes. Uh we're happy to uh happy to welcome Mike Sylvester who was sworn in last week
and he'll be join he he has joined the council and and that should help us a great deal. >> A former planning board member >> a former planning board and zoning board member. So he'll bring a a good perspective to the council. Um right now
we're talking about a couple things at the last meeting. We're talking about the disabled vets uh uh tax exemption that in the state of New Jersey, there's a
law that says when a a vet becomes 100% disabled on or about the day that that they receive that disability, uh that from then on they don't have to pay taxes on their home going forward.
Sparta is one of two municipalities in the state that goes backwards and says as of the date of your 100% disability, we will give you all your taxes back
that you paid over the past two years. And I'm not making a judgment whether that's good or bad, but what it does is it it just blows a hole in our budget. And we've we've uh had to give back some some 200
plus,000 this year um backwards. I I you know, and so that's what's in in debate right now with the uh town council. Um
the uh the next week next week's uh Tuesday night's meeting we will be take we we will be voting to repeal ordinances 257 258 and 259 which are the marijuana
ordinances after the referendum that came out 65% voted no for uh cannabis stores in Sparta. and and 35% voted yes. Um and hopefully
the board will take action on that. And that's that's really it right now. >> Okay. Um Rob, would you mind taking on environmental? >> Um sure. We met I think that meeting we
met in the conference room because town council was going on. Um, we discussed a little bit about what the planning board determined. Uh, we talked about road salt. Um, with the upcoming storms
and, uh, we talked about impervious cover guidance. And, um, we talked about earning our bronze certification. Once again,
>> question for you. Um, >> have you guys had any discussion surrounding Earth Day? >> Uh, yeah, but I don't have that handy. Uh, I believe that we've talked
about Earth Day. Uh, I'm trying to figure out if that was when we were going to try to do a cleanup and there was discussion about LMPF doing their cleanup within Lake
Mohawk. I brought up that, hey, maybe you guys maybe could we could coordinate. Uh, there was some confusion that I've tried to explain that Lake Mohawk Preservation Foundation is not an only Lake Mohawk
um >> organization >> organization. Yeah. Uh and so they would probably be very happy to support the efforts here in town hall. Um I think the consensus was that they would like
to hold um whatever they hold here uh in in this area. Uh we had tried it over by um the school and then there was an accident and it was poorly attended. So
uh planning for that I think is ongoing. Um but they don't we talked about maybe oh maybe we could do the morning LMPF cleanup and then at least if we let them know what we're doing then when people
return their supplies then they could be instructed and know if you if you still have some gas in the tank um go to town hall and proceed. >> Thanks. I have a question. Do we have enough salt and sand to get us through
the winter storms? Because they're predicting that it could be pretty snowy. >> Well, uh I'm glad you asked because I think the answer will depend who you who you ask. Uh I think Mr. Zep was successful in getting a salt shed.
So, he would probably say that they're probably well supplied with salt and they have uh they got good prices and they stockpiled the salt. Um, and then the environmental would probably say, "Stop salting our roads. The salt levels
are are too high." Um, >> I think that that they often oversalt, especially around >> You know what? I encourage you to join an environmental commission meeting. We're very friendly and you could sit in there and express your concerns. I guarantee you will get some positive uh
feedback on that commentary. On the other on the other side of the coin, the uh they they spread less in the state of New Jersey. That's >> overall. >> New Jersey just >> Well, we save it for our bagels. >> Everything bagels. >> Sorry. >> Yeah. Sorry. I can't hear.
>> We save our salt for everything bagels. >> The mic. >> Yeah, we can't hear you. >> Couldn't hear it. >> Yeah. Joan couldn't hear you. >> Oh, okay. Oh, we use less salt in New Jersey. >> No, no, no. I said the township uses less. They do use less salt than the
state highways. State highways got a lot of salt on them, >> you know. So, um, but, um, >> but what you could do >> to your to your point on, you know, woring about salt and sand, I know a number of years ago, um, there was there
was an issue one winter, but it had to do more with a, uh, uh, a strike in the Long Shoreman or something like that down in the, you know, uh, or or something down on the docks where it got unloaded and it was it was a statewide
shortage. >> Yikes. you know, and I and I remember that one very well because it was it was actually the same year that they had the Super Bowl at Giant Stadium. And that was the other problem with it was the state uh grabbed the a lot of the salt
and sand to make sure that the roads around the stadium were all salted and sanded for the Super Bowl. So, um that's the only time we were had an issue. you know, that's a long time ago, >> but I would I would encourage anyone concerned about that to check out the
township website. Uh there's information about um a citizen science project where you can uh order test strips and you can go out right after a storm or before a storm and kind of get baseline levels of how much salt is in our waterways and
then after the salting, how much flows into them and why is this a concern? Can I kick you into overdrive for for a minor site plan? >> I'll try to keep it high level. Um, >> that works. >> And I referred to >> Yeah.
>> High level and quick. It's good. >> Yeah. So, I I'm just going to cheat on my October 1st, 2025 bullet points. Thank you, Emily. Um so since I stepped on in January, I've observed um some
ways in which things have done. I've learned a lot um to kind of the points of it takes a while for professionals to get up to speed. We're not professionals, but it takes a while for all of us to get up to speed. It takes a while for us to um learn to work with
the uh supportive staff, obviously. Um so, uh what what I've gotten feedback from business owners as well as I think planning and zoning office is that um we tried to we tried to step beyond our
usual just minor site plan saying yes or no and provide a little more context. And Ron might be surprised because he said you're not going to be you're going to get burned out before finish. You're not going to be able to keep that up. But um I feel like they're more v ver
verbose which is not surprising but I try to restate the project scope um in our determinations. I try to site all the relevant code that we found that may apply to um the projects and then I
pride we we then vote a determination on next steps for the applicant. So, we kind of say like this is this is the signage concerns. These are the uh tenency concerns. This is what we think you need to do. And then, you know, if you have any
questions, see the office. It's not perfect. I think we're getting better, but uh it's difficult. The other thing that we're working on, which I know has been an ordeal, um, for, you know, those that do the hard work, um, but the the
minutes, um, I'm going to lay the blame on Ron because Ron, uh, and I think but I think rightly wanted to have a more accurate representation in the minutes um, with not just the topics discussed and the decisions made, but who was
there involved and how did they vote. So, we are um catching up on our minutes with who is there and how did they vote as an additional uh
piece of data that's now in the minor site plan subcommittee minutes. So, thanks to planning and zoning for doing the hard work for that. >> Great. >> Can I ask one question, Rob? Um,
relative to the minutes on the minus site plan, will we have a year-end summary? >> Uh, yeah, great. >> I think that's a great idea. >> So, can you can you just kind of like go over what was in the year- end summary? So, kind of like everybody's up to
speed. I know that that was a bill thing, but >> So, so what we were using there was there was a spreadsheet and it's it's it's morphed constantly. Um, and everyone had different views of it. So basically was a listing of every application that came in when it came in
when it was decided what was being requested. Um and and at one point we had everyone what was everyone's vote. Um I'm trying to think what else was there. Rob, can you think? >> Um sometimes we asked an applicant to
resubmit or refine. So that's been capt >> but it was a narrative kind of of key events and stuff. So I mean aside these minutes would be very difficult. Um and we've changed depending on like how we've met. We've met virtually and I think that was a carryover from COVID
maybe um before my time. Uh but then if it's inconvenient or to try to get quorum it's it's over email. Um we would never be able to produce minutes that are six pages or 150 pages long and no one would want to read that. But we try
to capture the important points. Who was there? What uh what the project was? Um what the application number was, when was it when was it received? When was it determined on? What was the
determination? And who voted how, right, Joan? I don't know. >> Yeah. And and Ron's familiar with that spreadsheet. We were kind of working on it. I think um if I'm guessing what your question is, it um you haven't seen it. So, we were asking that we start to do
it with the minutes and I know Dory did it with the July minutes. Um, so it was in that packet, but we wanted we should get to the point where it is in every single month. So, yes, we'll do a year end. There should have been a year end I think for December 2024. There should be
one for 2025 and then we should be able to incorporate it monthly, you know, going forward with the set of minutes with the planning board. Um, master plan subcommittee, our next meeting is on December 8th. Um, that's
Monday evening. um will be fine-tuning um some of the discrepancies in um the the presenting of the update for the um uh stakeholder meetings um and and the
responses that we got. Um, also we're going to be moving into uh get doing a deeper dive on the goals and objectives um for the master plan. and we'll be getting an update at that point on where
certain um key points are, how far um the work is progressed to date. And um that's pretty much where we are at that point. and the uh intended presentation of the stakeholder subcommittee I'm
sorry of the stakeholder meetings not just the large scale but all of them is intended to be uh was intended to be today but as mentioned earlier it'll be um at our December 17th meeting um or that's the target date currently and
that's it that's all I have so Ernie you're on >> you have to open to the public >> oh sorry you're right we open to the public. I apologize, Jenny. I apologize. We are going to open to the public. >> I only have one thing, and I'm just speaking as the public, not as tap into
Sparta. I appreciate the robust conversation about the RFP process and everybody's opinions. Um, I'd like to give you one from the cheap seats out here. Uh, the three to five year, I agree, Ron, is probably the most
responsible thing to do. Um, having said that, the engineer hasn't been re had an RFP for years and if there was one, I believe there may have been one at the same time, but that they did one for the attorney in 23. There were no
other applicants similarly uh to the circumstances that the planning board face at the time for the attorney. So, um I would ask that maybe that's considered for next year. >> Absolutely.
Okay. Apologies for for not going to the public originally, but now >> motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn and second. All in favor? How are you? Hi