Good evening, everyone. Please take notice that action will be taken on the following items at the regular council meeting on Tuesday, June 23rd, 2026 in Council Chambers, Sparta Township Municipal Building, 65 Main Street, Sparta, New Jersey.
The regular meeting is opened at 7:07 p.m. All council meetings are now live-streamed and can be viewed at the following link youtube.com/ @ symbol Sparta TWP/streams.
Adequate notice of this meeting was provided to the public and the press on January 7th 2026 by delivering to the press and posting on the Township website a copy of the notice. Madam Clerk, would you please do a roll call? >> Councilman Scott.
>> Yeah. >> Councilwoman Murphy. >> Here. >> Councilman Clark. >> Here. >> Deputy Mayor Sylvester. >> Here. >> Mayor Mayor DePuyt here. >> Here. >> Would you all please join me 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. >> This is the point in the meeting where I usually begin each meeting with an honest attempt to level set and set us
up with some hopeful and inspirational sentence or two usually about our community and civility. Uh, I do know that it resonates with some and even most people. For tonight, I'll just put it out there again that each of us in this room try to strive to be a role model for decorum
and acting respectfully to one another. Thank you. Uh, before we get into the first order of business, which is proclamations, uh, I would like to make a minor adjustment to the sequence of the agenda in order to bring together
the budget related items. We have a budget hearing coming up in a few minutes, but then we currently have the two resolutions for the budget later tonight. So, I'd like to make I'll ask my fellow council members here. I'd like to make a motion to modify our agenda sequence shifting
resolutions 8-1 and 8-2 up to the front of the agenda so they immediately follow the public hearing on the budget. May I have a second, please? >> Second. >> All in favor, say I. >> I. >> I. >> Motion approved.
Okay, it's always nice to start the evening with not only one proclamation, but two proclamations. So, I'll read the I'll read the first one. It's a proclamation. It's the 125th year anniversary of the Knights of Columbus,
Marquette Council 588. Whereas Marquette Council 588 of the Knights of Columbus was founded in 1901 and is among the oldest councils in New Jersey and in the world. And whereas for 125 years,
the members of Marquette Council 588 have devoted themselves to charitable service that strengthens families, supports local organizations, and contributes to the overall well-being of the community. And whereas
through long-standing partnerships with schools, parishes, and nonprofit groups, the council has carried out a wide range of community programs, including assistance to families in need, support for veterans, youth initiatives,
holiday outreach, and other volunteer efforts that reflect a steadfast commitment to helping neighbors throughout Sussex County. And whereas rooted in its Catholic tradition, the council's contributions reflect values that are widely shared in
the broader community such as compassion, service, and civic engagement. And whereas 125 years after its founding in Franklin Furnace, Marquette Council 588 continues to be a
valued and active partner whose legacy endures through the many lives it has positively impacted. Now therefore, be it resolved that the Township Council of the Township of Sparta hereby proclaims 2026
as the 125 year anniversary of the Knights of Columbus Marquette Council 588 and extends sincere appreciation for its long-standing dedication to service, volunteerism, and community support.
And I'd like to welcome up here uh formal council member and former mayor Gil Gibbs to accept the proclamation. We should have all the guys up here. Yeah. >> I'm just going to have to lose weight. >> I'll send you mine. Okay. >> First of all, I want to thank the mayor
and the and the council for recognizing us. Um yeah, I went from mayor to grand knight. I don't know what I was thinking, but that's all right. >> [laughter] >> But, we want to say thank you. Um you don't realize how much the Knights do. Um we put a list together about a couple
months ago and, you know, at one point in third for Thanksgiving, we delivered 3,000 turkeys to people in need in 2 days. We collected 700 coats for the needy. Uh we run a CCD class uh dinner uh breakfast.
We did over 400 breakfasts in one morning. Um we're all over the place. We just had a coin toss. We just had uh we collected food for the Sparta Pantry. We collected over 60 boxes of food and over $600.
So, you don't see us. We're not you know, we try to keep quiet and do what we can and help the whole community and it's not just the Christian people we're trying to help. We try to help everybody. So, thank you for everything and thank you for recognizing us. Appreciate it.
>> Thank you for everything. >> Okay, our next proclamation, also wonderful to do and you'll know what it is in a moment. It's on the agenda. It is a proclamation um for our 250th anniversary of the United States of America.
So, whereas the year 2026 marks the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, a defining moment in the history of the United States and its enduring commitment to liberty and self-government. And whereas New Jersey, known as the
Crossroads of the American Revolution, played a pivotal role in the nation's founding and witnessed more military activity during the Revolution than any other state. And whereas Sparta Township's history and early residents
form part of this broader story. And the semiquincentennial offers an opportunity for our community to reflect on the events and ideals that shaped the nation. And whereas the Township Council of Sparta has endorsed the statewide
Revolution NJ initiative and has established a local committee to support community engagement and planning for this significant anniversary. And whereas throughout 2026 Sparta Township will join communities
across the nation in commemorating the semiquincentennial through local celebrations designed to honor the spirit of our nation's founding, such as the July 4th parade, fireworks, a house decorating contest, and the lighting of Town Hall.
And now therefore, be it proclaimed that the Township Council of the Township of Sparta hereby recognizes 2026 as the 250th anniversary of the United States of America and encourages all residents to take part in local activities and
programs that celebrate this historic milestone. And I believe we have a few representatives here from the Rev 250 committee. Is Lynn Lightner here and >> Yes. >> Want going up, Lynn, and Nancy Modafferi and Pete Litchfield, please. >> [laughter]
>> How about a round of applause for those >> [laughter] [laughter] >> We're just looking forward to seeing everybody at the 4th of July parade. As you are aware, Sparta is the only town in Sussex County that is holding a parade. So, let's make it a very special
one. Uh we also have our uh time capsule that we're going to be uh burying in October. And one of my ideas was to get all organizations, the government,
the schools, and everything to do like a thumb drive. I had girls come up and say, "Can't we put perfume in there and shoes?" I said, you know, the thing's only about this big. So, if you have we could put a bunch of thumb drives in, so get with your organization, schools, and
we'll see what we could do. >> Along with a copy of the proclamation. Yes. And also, we were the first of only four count towns in the county to be state mandated as a Rev 250 county town. >> Great.
>> And school. And school. And school. Yes. >> Thank you again for leading the effort. Appreciate it. >> GOOD JOB. >> AND UNFORTUNATELY, MARY ANN Francisco was not available to attend tonight. But uh she works
diligently and she's also in charge of the um Bankert Museum and the Historical Society. So, we thank her very much. >> Thank you, Mary Ann. Okay, moving on. So, the first uh item
on our agenda first first um uh item will be the public hearing for the budget. This is um we're going to have uh I'll explain how we're going to go through this in a few moments. Um but I'd like to ask our town manager
if you'd like to read an opening statement first. >> Yes, thank you. Mayor, good evening, Sparta residents. Tonight, we will hold a public hearing on the amended 2026 municipal budget, which was originally introduced on April 28th.
Following this hearing, the council will vote on its adoption. I would like to briefly explain how we arrived at this amended budget. In early April, we were awaiting our annual financial statement from our auditors. Once we received it, we were able to introduce the 2026 municipal
budget on April 28th. Because this is the final year of our 3-year budget cycle, the budget was required to undergo a full state examination by the Department of Community Affairs. That review resulted in several mandatory amendments, which increased the total budget.
The budget has increased from 31 million 864,101 to 32,706,822. This represents an increase of 842,721 or 2.64% over last year. As discussed throughout this process,
the largest driver of the increase continues to be the significant multi-year rise in healthcare costs for the Township's 190 employees and retirees. This one area accounts for nearly 70% of the total increase. Other major cost
pressures include the repayment of the 2025 emergency appropriation of a $250,000, which was issued to cover unanticipated legal fees. The veteran tax lookback benefit totaling 275,000, which reduced the
surplus available for 2026. The continued subsidization of the sewer utility by general taxpayers in the amount of $203,000. Higher costs related to energy, including gasoline, diesel, propane, and electricity, to name a few.
By law, the Township must adopt a fully balanced budget that meets both the tax levy cap and the appropriation cap. Given the size of the increases and our limited surplus, we had to make expenditure reductions to remain compliant. After reviewing all the available
options, the finance team and I made the following adjustments. We reduced the 2026 capital improvement plan to zero, a reduction of $1.8 million. This was essential to stay within the allowable tax levy. We restricted overtime to essential
needs only, requiring approval from the manager's office. This works in conjunction with the existing hiring freeze and strict review of any replacement positions through the end of the year. We also hold most operating expenses flat or
reduced them, including council salaries for the remainder of the year, funding for community organizations, and close review of all discretionary spending. With unanticipated expenses such as such as litigation, limited fund balance, and 4 years of very little growth in our tax
base, the Township is now facing a difficult and unsustainable financial environment. The steps we are proposing represent the most responsible way to meet our legal obligations while avoiding deeper long-term impacts and protecting essential services for the Sparta residents.
The amended budget totals $32,706,822. The municipal tax rate will increase from 0.618 to 0.708. For the average assessed home of $372,660, this results in an additional $336.18 per year,
which equates to roughly 92% 92 cents a day. At this point, this concludes my overview of the amended 2026 municipal budget. I'd like to now turn it over to Tom and Dawn for any additional comments or clarification they may wish to offer.
After that, we will open the hearing and answer questions from the council and then the public. Thank you. >> I think I'll seize time. Okay. Okay. Okay. So, before we go on to the opening the floor to the public, I want
to clarify the different open public segments we have tonight. Uh there'll be five. Okay, so I want to go over the parameters specifically because we're going to abide by them. So, the first public segment is going to be in a
moment. That's going to be for the budget. That's the budget hearing. So, any questions or comments regarding finances or the budget should be in this first public hearing segment that's specifically for the budget. Then, later on in the agenda, we'll have
our first normal open to the public segment, and that's for items on the agenda, including the resolutions. Um but, of course, excluding the budget. We're going to cover the budget first. Then, we're going to have two different
hearings for ordinances. Each ordinance has its own public comment section during that hearing. So, that's the third and the fourth opportunity, and those are specific to that ordinance. And then last, we'll have our second typical open to the public comment near the closer towards the
2/3 through the meeting, and that's for items not on the agenda. So, um budget first, then we have items on the agenda excluding the budget and the hearings. Then, we have two different ordinances, then we have the final one at the end, which is items not on the agenda.
So, with that being said, um we're going to open it up to the public for comments, and then we will bring it back uh to the dais for comments and questions, and then we'll go right into the resolutions that we just moved up 8.1 and 8.2 to approve have a vote on
the budget. Okay, so please state and spell your name for the record. Each speaker is limited to one comment of no more than 5 minutes, and there's no yielding of time to another person. >> Excuse me, Mayor. >> Yes. >> So, what we're doing is having a public
hearing on the budget amendment. That's the public hearing, and then once we close that public hearing, we're going to adopt the amendment to the budget, and then adopt the amended budget.
So, it's going to go in that particular order. So, the public hearing is just on the amendment itself. We've already had a public hearing on the budget, the introduced budget. Just to clarify. >> Okay. Oh, yeah, a lot of the a lot of the comments and questions are probably
going to be related to >> Just the amendment. >> I think we we probably have some leniency with that in terms of overall questions. >> Danny Dericks Staffing to Sparta. Um Mr. Zep, thank you for your comments. You answered some of my questions. Um
You did admit You did allude to my first question and that is that um together you and Don created the budget. Is that correct? Is that the usual process? >> Yes. >> So, the manager and the CFO created >> It's a coordinated effort and and
we also have >> It's done with the department heads as well. Okay, so every department meets with Jim and myself this year. >> Mhm. >> And at the time Mike Garino and line by line you go through. >> Right. Thank you.
>> Okay. >> Please use your microphones. >> Yeah, unfortunately you you both have one to share. >> I'm going to >> So, my next question is what is the role that the um council members play in creating this budget? >> Well, the budget is
led by Mr. Zep. It gets approved by the council and our jobs as CFOs are to enforce it. >> Okay. Thank you. Um In your comments, Mr. Zep, you noted um unanticipated legal expenses. Thank you
for your uh response to my questions about that. Um I guess this is for either Tom or Don. Um do you have any concerns that our legal expenses are killing our budget? >> Um At this time we're still within
we're still within We have a They're not over If you're looking to see if they're overdrawn or anything, then no, at this point in time they are not. >> Is it a major concern? >> Everything's a major concern. Okay? >> Okay. Thank you. >> But no, at this time, no. >> Thank you. Um
And I guess this is for both of you again, Mr. Ferry, maybe. Um Can we rateable ourselves out of a budget problem? In other words, can we by bringing in a ton of new rateables, is that going to cure what's the problem with what's
ailing our budget? >> So, new [clears throat] rateables just spread out the the actual amount that we go out to the taxpayers for. So, if we have to raise $21 million, um and you bring new rateables in, um and you bring new rateables in, it
just gets spread out now to new rateables, and it decreases what everybody else is paying. Um the only thing that really will help is to um have taxes increase, um or cut services.
>> Okay, so rateables is not necessarily the panacea. It would It would help the individual, but it's not going to cure the issues that we're facing. >> Correct. Yeah, what we collect is what we have to collect to to balance the budget, and that's all. It just spreads it out to more people.
>> And you're confident that the budget that we've put together, that you I say we, the town has put together, you have put together with Don and and everybody, the auditors and Mr. Zapp, and you're putting us on a path where we can look look ahead to say that we're going to be
coming out of any of these crises. >> But, being the auditor for them for 15 years, um and looking at this budget, I would say this is a good start. >> Are there any major uh red flags you see? Any major concerns that should have
been addressed here that aren't being addressed? >> No, I mean, since the day I walked in, I'm in order to vote, so no. I I don't see any concerns. >> So, you think this budget is a solid budget and puts us on a good path. >> Budgets are budgets. They're just a uh uh
>> The blueprint. >> A crystal ball. >> Right. >> So, you never know what's going to come up. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Good evening, everybody. Ron Day, uh Sparta. Um I want to comment on the budget and the process and you know kind of kind of summarize how we got
here tonight. Um you know, when I when I go back to the workshop on on March 7th, um there were 3 hours of discussions on numbers. There were no handouts or slides that were given to the public to afterwards. I I felt that to me was a lack of transparency and I
was really disappointed. The initial budget introduction, I will say you handled that well. You gave us all the data we asked for. You did so timely. And I wish everything else went the same way. Um the scenario behind the adoption of the budget, you all received my email over
the week. And I'm not going to spend my time going through that here, but but again, I thought there's a little bit of of of of uh being misled there. Where it was it was a hearing, but the public was encouraged not to ask questions.
And I believe we were told the council couldn't answer that the real hearing would be tonight. So, to see it to say that was the actual adoption of the of the of the initial budget, I thought was was misleading. And then finally, here we are tonight with the amended budget in front of us.
Um And and again, >> Budget was not adopted. >> I Okay. With the amended budget in front of us for adoption. Um and again, I I felt here, you know, the details were easily available. I felt they were promised.
And again, in my opinion, this was just a lack of transparency. I I would have liked to see the details so I could understand it. >> They stayed within state parameters. >> I'm not I haven't asked you a question, but I will get there. Um lack of transparency. And and it I conscious. And the reason I say it was
conscious because the information was available. It was available easily. It was asked for and it was denied. So, in terms of the actual budget, you know, I I recognize this was a difficult year. But but one thing I still don't understand Here's a question. What is
the actual was 14% increase over last year before the amended budget. What's the number now with the amended budget? >> No, it was 10.7 before the amendment. >> Okay. >> Now it's 14.6. >> Okay. So, what is it now? >> 14.6. >> 14.6, okay.
So so >> That's the number 14.6. Yes. That's $336 a year on the average taxpayer. 92 cents per day. >> All right. So, I'm going to speed up here just cuz the clock is ticking. >> 14.6.
>> So, with a 14% increase the budget in front of us to in my opinion fails to properly staff the Sparta's police department. Um they have manpower issues. They've talked to it. We haven't done anything to increase it. So, that's a safety issue. This can't be ignored and continued.
Um we all know our police department does does a great job and I know you all believe that that as well. Um you know, when I read Daniel's reports, there's a lot of good information there. But let's give them the tools that they need to do their job. Um in terms of the fire department
again, it doesn't answer the the call for they need more equipment. They've been in front of the of the of the council and asked for it and it's been denied. Um again, another safety issue. Budget fails to provide any money for capital improvements.
I I I I recognize why that was done, but it's still you know, it's a problem. Uh it doesn't provide any money towards community parades or firework. And to me it it drains the reserves. My when I look at the reserve analysis, there's 2.4 million coming forward from
last year. That full full 2.4 million is being absorbed by this year's budget. That was the last numbers I saw. And if not Okay, well, let me let me go on. Those are the last numbers I saw. But the way I see it, there's no reserves available for this year.
There's reserves that we're we're building, but they can't be touched in next year. So, if that's incorrect, please please let me know. So, overall, I guess my the ending concern I have is So, as we go into 2027,
what this budget to me is doing, I wish I had more details as I asked for, so I could really tie this down, but it seems to be setting up a degradation to our ability to recover in 2027. Um and what's going to hurt that more is if there's any emergency appropriations,
we don't have the reserves, we're going to need emergency appropriations. I haven't heard that anyone has I'm I see you're watching the clock. >> Yeah, that's my job. >> Yeah. Yeah, especially when I'm up here. >> Yeah, everyone on, that's what I try to do. >> Okay. So, so so my question is if there are any emergency appro- appropriations
that have to get paid in 2027, it'd be good to understand that tonight before you adopt the budget. Um again, that's just a that's just a transparency. We're adopting this tonight, what's coming on the sales? Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Tom, before we go on to the next
>> What what's that, Mark? >> Before we go on to the next question, I just like to clarify a comment about how the surplus works. Um and the surplus coming into this year is about two 2.5 million. So, remember that surplus is not a stockpile of cash,
statics pile of cash sitting in a bank account. Okay, it's a snapshot of the town's excess funds at December 31st of a year. And then as with any budget, it fluctuates during the year, up and down, and then you per- project what you're going to have and then next December
31st, you get a number and that's the surplus at that point. So, it's not that it's gone. Every year, it's used during the budget. It doesn't just sit there all year getting interest. It's used as part of that year's expenses. Um and then you plan to make up for it as you go through the year.
Secondly, um I I disagree with the comment or the um accusation that there was a conscious lack of transparency. It's totally untrue. Everything was done according to the law. All the details were out there. I think the format that you wanted, Mr. Day, was not exactly
what you got, understandably. I I know we've I've emailed you on that, too. The details were out there. The amendment data was out there. The budget data was out there. So, there's this accusation is a little offensive. Hi, Jim. >> Are we
I don't think that was really offensive, Dean. No No disrespect, Mayor. It's a question. I know there was a process and even I even asked it at the We did a workshop, then we had the I guess the adoption of the introduction of the
original budget, and then the procedural process was laid out at that time, which in fact we we I could see the confusion cuz I was confused myself. I'm not defending it. We're here tonight. Here's our public hearing, and I think that's where we all wanted to get get to. But,
with the information as detailed previously provided for tonight. Not just only on the amended uh Mr. Ferry, but on the overall. So, I think that was where the public saw a little bit confusion to support that. That's all. >> Yeah, they were said they can make
comments. >> Mr. Ferry, the entire pile of taxes in the town is not going up 14%, correct? This 14% that you're talking about is on the 17% of the entire budget. Isn't that
correct, sir? >> [clears throat] >> The the 14% >> The 14% represents the increase on the average house, and that's just the municipal rate. >> That's just the municipal, right. >> Right. Our municipal rate was 61.8 cents.
With this budget, it's 70.8 cents. >> Correct. Thank you. >> And in terms of >> Nine nine nine point increase. >> And this will help us rebuild >> It's a start. >> from the prior administrations that drained it.
>> I mean, the big the big the elephant in the in the room or the gorilla in the room was that that water utility monies that was anticipated. Um as I looked at it, I said, "We don't have 1.6 going into next year." So, I
got rid of that because that would have been 1.6 going into next year's budget we didn't have. And then I found some excess some extra money um in reserve for uncollected taxes. I did anticipate some water utility money. I took in some general capital
improvement fund monies. And where we were left what you were left with was nine tax points, which I think to be honest with you being that taxes weren't increased over all the years and the fund balance is where it is. I mean, it could have been worse, but um
nine tax points is a start. >> Yeah. So, this budget as it is is helping us recover from the the wiping out of the budget by prior administration. >> Councilman, again, it's a start. >> Mark. Mr. Mr. Mayor, I'm speaking, sir.
>> could ask you we're at a process where we're waiting for the public What we're going to do, just so you know, once the public finishes, we're going to have a public comment >> go right ahead, okay? And then when you decide I can speak, tell me. Thank you. I'm done. >> If anyone Let me finish. If anyone has a comment directly related to a public
comment to answer or clarify, please do so. Otherwise, we're going to go down the dais when we finish this and everybody can have their time and we're going to circle back again. >> Except for you and Mike want to talk. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Okay, you're going to get your chance. You want to be petulant. Okay. Jim, it's all yours.
>> Prior administration Yeah, Jimmy Castimore. Prior administration in 2023, the Township of Sparta had a surplus of $10,973,000. The prior administration, that's what they left. The new administration came, what's it today? So, don't sit there and
say prior administration. That's poppycock. Okay, let's try this. I need some answers here. I'm going to read you some account numbers. 01-201 -20
-155-200. The next one is going to be 01203 with the same numbers. One is the 2025 coal expenditures for legal. One is the proposed budget for 2026. What were those dollar figures? >> All right. So, hi Mr. Castimore, how are
you? >> Good. >> Okay, first of all, when it ends in a 200, you're looking at an overall control line. >> That's right. >> not the individual line for professional services. >> That That line is Well, there is a >> line for operating expenses under there.
So, that includes office supplies, >> No, this control line is just strictly for legal. >> There is no control line strictly for legal each >> How much Okay. >> Each department has their own It's professional services/legal fees. So, it's not just legal fees, it's
professional services also in >> was it in 2025? >> It depends because I'd have to go back and find what department and and add them all up for you. >> Okay. >> Okay, because each department has its own line. So, to look at something that's a 200, you're going to get the wrong figure because the total spent in
that thing is for every operating expense under that line. >> Okay, that's the number that's the number I'm looking for. >> Professional services / legal fees usually ends in around a 262. The 20, you're looking at a council line. But, the that number will represent what
department it's for. So, I will get you what you need. >> Okay, thank you. >> But, I just it's nothing I can't just ramble off the top of my head for you right now, okay? >> Because >> But, you know all that. >> Because we put a budget in last year and we were [clears throat] in June when we put the budget in. It was the end of June, matter of fact.
And uh 40 45 days later we borrowed $250,000 for legal fees. >> Well, I will get it to >> put the budget in and here we go, borrow another quarter of men. But, the quarter of a million
is borrowed against your 2026 budget that you all have to replace. It's got to go back to 2025 and 6. So, you know, and the man says, "Oh, ratables don't bring um
a capital reserve, I call it, okay?" Well, new ratables do. Because everybody's taxes are going to get down and the overall pie is a bigger pie. We have no capital this year.
Not at all. Let me explain it to you this way. The budget for our fire department, and I'm not speaking for the fire department, is $71,000. I'm going to use some Mark Scott math. 20,000 people live in the Township of
Sparta divided by 365. Your life is worth less than a penny a day, according to this town council. >> That line wasn't reduced. >> Well, I know it wasn't. 71,000. So, the Yeah, I know. And everything keeps going up and up and up.
And there's no money. We're involved to your fire department. I'm not speaking for the fire department. Everybody knows this. My grandfather started that fire company. I'm very proud of that fire department. I think the whole town is. >> Yes. >> You get a free service. You know, so but if you can get those legal numbers, I'd appreciate it. Thank
you. >> 25 and 26 you're looking for? >> Please. >> Okay, and what I'm going to have to do in each one of them is I will have to pull out the professional services just to give you the legal number. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh Pete Litchfield 120 Conestoga Trail, Sparta.
Uh first of all, I want to the way I look at this, it's a little different than a lot of people. I look at it like we're all in a battle together here. It's like when I was in Vietnam, we got together, we knew what we had, how much ammo I had, how much fuel we had,
how much air support, all this other stuff. What I would just like to know is what is our position for the future? What are we doing? Do we got an economic development company coming in to help us see where we can get some good ratables that come into our town? Uh friends of mine that
live out of this town, they say, "Oh, Sparta, the Township of No." That's what we're known for. The other thing I would like to know, uh in Newton, what is their percentage of taxes from the municipal or from the homeowners
compared to commercial, industrial? I know ours is like 80-something percent comes from homeowners. Do you know what the Newton's are? >> I don't know off the top of my head. No. But
Yeah, I'm not In our town, you're right. I'm not sure what Newton is and yeah. >> We have a ratable analysis, I think. >> it was To be honest with you, we had our assessor cuz I'm the CFO of Sparta, uh Newton. I thought he said he was 15% and we were actually on the high side, but you have
to remember that >> Tom, excuse me, can you use your microphone? >> You have to remember that 15% I thought was the assessor's number, but you have to remember in Newton 30% of our ratables are not-for-profits. We got the county, we got the school, we
got the college, we got the hospital. So, and a lot of not-for-profits. So, that number, that 15% might be skewed more than 15% because of the 30% that are not taxable. >> So, Tom, the answer to We talked
earlier, 75/25. >> It could be. Yeah, if you if you >> All I I just want to know what our what our plan is going forward. You know, this I'm getting a a 10, 12%, 15% rate hike this year. What's going to happen next year?
You know, what's our plan? The enemy's coming. What are we going to do? Thank you. >> Mayor May, uh Councilman Scott, I I just to get some clarity up here, Mr. Dash. Um I I I think Mr. Scott wants to respond as well as others. Are we open
to responding to these questions as we're hearing them? Do you want us to hold our comments to everything we're hearing and then speak when we go up and down the dais? >> Yeah. >> What's the procedural aspects cuz in all fairness >> The procedure >> We're speaking over Mr. Councilman Scott as well.
>> Yeah, the procedure is for your own comments and your own questions for our professionals and just for our discussion, that will be in a few moments when we're finished with the public segment. Right now, if you hear a direct question you'd like to answer directly or to clarify something succinctly, briefly, that's okay, but
just be respectful there's other people waiting to come up, so >> Good. >> Yeah, if there's a direct response or direct clarification, that's fine, but just don't get into your full comments or questions. I have [laughter] a whole sheet. So. >> So, can I go? >> Is it related to that? >> Sure. >> Yeah.
>> According to Mr. Cassimore, I'd like to speak to Mr. Cassimore. During 2019 to 2023, the taxes were not raised in Sparta. During that period of time, inflation went up 31.9%. Tell me who's fiscally responsible
there. Number one. Number two. Mr. Ferry, isn't isn't I answered the question. I answered the question. This isn't a debate. >> No, Mr. Cassimore, this is not a back and forth. I'm sorry. >> This is not back and forth. If he's going to make a comment, I have the right to make a comment back. >> You don't. Sorry. >> Well, then we're not going to have him
be in or me and I'm not going to be able to look back at him. That's not going to happen. That is not going to happen. >> Be respectful, but you don't >> I'm being very respectful. >> I'm not you. He'll be respectful. Mark, please. You be respectful. Okay. Okay. But it's not a back and forth debate. Sorry. You can turn your mic on.
>> Thank you. Okay. Mr. Ferry, question. Newton is 1 square mile, isn't it? 2 square miles, right? >> 2.5. >> Right. Now, a third of your a third of your
buildings are not taxable. >> Correct. >> And the rest of the town is paved over, isn't it? The entire town is pretty much paved. Concrete everywhere. But versus Sparta. >> Well, we have actually we have the
highest we have the highest municipal tax rate in the county. >> Okay. >> Because of the ratable. >> You have the highest. >> Yeah. I mean, our tax increase was $366 um this year, too.
>> May I join in on this, Mark? If you mind mind I mean, Mr. Ferry, quite honestly, if you if the commercial industrial zones in Newton and all that stuff that Mark's be referring to is paved over, if you didn't have that contributing to
your tax base, what what what would be the financial status of Newton? And I don't want to talk about Newton tonight. We're here to talk about Sparta, right? We're just trying to get some type of metrics or some type of comparison, but I think in all fairness just to close loop on this, to water down ratables and say they're
not important, they don't contribute, let's stop the game right now. It's a good mix, there's a balanced mix of of smart development, smart growth, and and a good blend, and that's why all these zones exist in Newton and other municipalities. So, in all fairness,
let's not water down ratables as if they just stabilize the tax base and then it's still on the residents. It's bigger picture than that. Strong ratables, anchor tenants, and companies that are investing in your community do a hell of a lot more and bring a hell of a lot
more value to financial stability of a of a municipality. So, I just I I'm not here to talk about Newton. I'm here to talk about Sparta tonight. All right, and I and I mean that, Mark. I'm not overriding that. I just Okay, don't want to water down the ratables. >> Mark, Mike, can we move on to the rest?
Okay, we'll get back to this. Okay, any else Anybody else from the public have any comments about the budget? Okay, seeing none, we'll we'll bring it back to the dais and close the public comment period. >> Do we need a vote for the uh closure of
the budget of the um public hearing? >> You can if you like. You can take a vote. Motion to close the public hearing. >> That was full uh close the >> Mr. Close the public hearing. >> One more round if they want to have it. We're done with public >> Yeah, we're done with public comment for the budget. >> Dean, if you just want to ask for a
motion to close the public hearing, that's fine, too. It's a formality sometimes. >> I'll up. >> I make the motion close >> the public hearing section >> section on the budget only. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor. >> I. >> I. >> Okay. Okay, now we're going to bring it back
to the dais for comments and questions. Um, Mr. Ferry, just going back to your original comment, my my plan, tell me if this is out of order in terms of the law, we're going to have our discussion up here and ask questions and get to a point where then we will move to um, close
down the dais conversation and go to I mean, uh, adopt >> the amended the amendment itself. >> 81. >> And then once you adopt the amend the amendment, then you adopt the amended budget. >> Mhm. Yep, okay. So, we'll just be sure not to commingle
one and two. >> can have a you can discuss. >> Okay, so uh, my fellow council members, let's do this in an orderly manner. Um, please this reminder, this is not a debate format. Okay, so we're going to start at one end.
Please share your comments. If you have any questions for our professionals, ask them then. And then we'll come down and then we'll circle back again the other way if we need to one more time and do a loop back. So, um I can start. Councilman Scott, you like to go first?
>> Sure. >> Okay. >> Mr. Ferry, the budget as you have put together is is posed to help us rebuild the surplus. Is that correct? >> Yes, it's a start.
>> you. That's all I have. >> May >> Yes. >> Let me take a step back. I mean, when I go back and I look back at the workshop and I thought that was a very productive meeting and Mr. Zep, thank you to you and your staff. Don, thank you and Mr.
Ferry, thank you for rolling up the sleeves and really trying to pull, you know, the financial situation together for us under under the conditions. We see that. We understand it. It it It's a budget. And I feel when I when I looked at this
budget back in April, I think, was the workshop, we were talking maybe around a 10% increase. Things go good, things go bad, legal expenses, whatnot, but we got to where we're at. We submitted to the state. The state
uh had a number of questions. Mr. Ferry professionally handled them, got us right-sized with those type of questions, and if I'm not mistaken, Mr. Zeppy, you had it up to around 14.7, and then after that exchange with the state, we got back up to around that
15.1, 3. 7%. Just to lay out the framework. So, you know, as we look deeper into it, and I'm and you explained it well where you found some additional resources and revenues, etc., to to repair it.
My fundamental problem and in the workshop, when I sat down and I looked at this, I laid out a number of points that we needed to do, and and we did check off some of the boxes, but we fell short in doing others. Um I I said from the start this is a revenue issue and a spending issue, not
a tax issue. We had We had We had revenue decrease. We had our ratables trending down. We had our our expenses trending up. We sat here for 3 4 years. We didn't necessarily, not singling out anybody in particular, but we didn't actually put
any action plans together to help repair that. And we're faced with this now. So, when I see this whole budget exercise, folks, this is just to repair a spreadsheet. This is not a budget. And I mean that deeply, and I could do this for a living, and I I
it. And Councilman Scott brought up a good point as others in the thing, you know, if we're looking for ratables and trying to build a surplus, what's 2027 going to look like? Is it for to Mr. Witchfield's comments, what's the next year and the following year? What's
what's the build that's going to be put upon this? This budget falls for fall falls short of doing all that. I mean, I'm not going to go down and and prosecute each budget item or each item I thought was important. I think we had a spending issue, and I heard that we
cut back on discretionary spending. I don't necessarily agree, cuz it's my it's funny when certain things came up, money was found. When certain things weren't supported, money disappeared. We couldn't we couldn't fund in concept certain things, but in others
we found the money. So, I'm not I'm here to throw darts. We're here we're here where where we're at, but this budget does not account for running into 2027 with any fi- fiscal stability. This is guiding us to zero. This checks off a
box the state. You approved a budget tonight. We we send it submit it to the state. We get to the end of December, and we're back in the same discussions next year. And taxes, you know, and based on the amount of the the rut the revenues coming in, you you know, there's only way two three
ways to get revenues in here. And one is ratables. All right? And the ratables have been on a decline for a number of years. And that's a reflection of this council's platform. Not mine. I'm up here for a different reason. I'm here for financial
accountability and financial stability. All right? And I'm saying that I want to get that on record. I appreciate my fellow council members allowing me to do this tonight. Um 14.6 it is what it is, folks. We all got to we all got to take it, but we got to
be smart moving forward. All right? I don't really have much more to say about it. I think the comments from the public were fantastic. We're all concerned. I'm a resident. I have the same concerns as well. It kills me when we can't fix a road. We can't pave. We pave a half a
road because we can't afford to get the paving done on the other half. Or we got to have direct leagues cut their money's and distribute more of the expenses down to the families. It's not a budget. We we got we need a financial plan. We need a business plan
and a financial plan that supports it. Not just trying to reconcile with a spreadsheet, which we're about to do tonight. So, I appreciate the efforts of everybody putting the efforts in, whether it was certain issues being challenged over the course of the last 6
months to get us here tonight. It's a combination of the above and we really didn't act. And I'm not going to sit here and discount the 14% increase does not include any future legal fees. In
the event we have multiple multiple lawsuits and we're not going to water down the lawsuit impact here tonight, folks. If we get challenged or we get another lawsuit or we have to go further within lawsuits, there is no money in the budget. All right, just like Mr.
Castamore pointed out, we had to borrow 250 right out of the gate last year. I'm hoping that doesn't happen. I'm hoping Don, to your point, we have it just enough to get by and get us through. Putting the lawsuits aside, the financial aspects of the lawsuits, I'd
hate to see this budget get approved tonight and then have to come back to the public and say, "Hey, we need a half a million dollars because X, Y, Z didn't settle or we have to now go to depositions or mediation or whatever other sources and and challenges we get
through in the year. We got to get out of the lawsuit business, folks, and that that's my last comment. And I appreciate all of you letting me speak tonight. So, thank you. Okay, I'll I'll go next. Uh I've already talked about the surplus. So, just a reminder,
it is not static cash sitting in the bank account. Okay? It's what fluctuates during the year. Each December 31st, you have a snapshot of what the new surplus is. Um there was a reference earlier to the May
26th meeting and about the um public comment. So, I have I have the verbatim notes here. Um the amendments had just come in from the state and were still being processed. So, hence the reason why I I said you
may ask questions at this time. However, note that the council and township employees and professionals may be deferring responses until the future hearing for the final amended budget. So, that's the more insight to why we wanted to defer questions, which we did, and now tonight
we have the opportunity to address those. So, first, if I had my choice, I'd absolutely love to give our non-union employees salary increases. I'd love to lower health care costs. I'd love to increase staffing in many areas.
I'd love to fund lots of new programs for seniors, veterans, children, and many other constituent groups, including the police. But, this is not reality. It's easy to stand at the microphone or up here and say what you'd like to do.
It's unrealistic right now. Okay, we'd all love to do that. So, don't imply that those of us up here don't want to do that or any of us up here don't want to do that. The reality is that we, the council, led by our town manager and our professionals, have an active duty and
an obligation to pass a balanced budget within the constraints dictated by the law, whether we like it or not. And sometimes, like this year, we don't like it. Our budget is facing a dozen factors at play. Some going back to decisions made
8 to 10 years ago, keeping taxes flat. Some decisions to 4 or 5 years ago with very generous collective bargaining agreements with certain unions all unions, which affect the ongoing annual cost increases for wages and over also retiree benefits.
These contractual salaries and benefits go up each year and don't means we're locked into it. So even a year like this or year like last year or the we can't modify that and balance it with the rest of the budget cuts or the rest of the budget strategy because we're locked into those. So that
that's a that's a constraint. It's also being affected by macro issues. The health care cost crisis. I don't think any of us don't understand what that means from your own personal benefits. This affects our employees, also our retirees,
which the township pays a big portion of their premiums. It's responsible for almost 70% of the budget increase over 2025. There's also inflation. There's also lawsuits where Sparta is a defendant in the vast majority of those
cases. And to imply there is a legal budget. Every year there's a budget for lawsuits. There's a a legal budget line item. So don't be misled and think that there's a zero budget for legal expenses. This is an annual line item that we must fund.
I don't think it's I don't think it's appropriate to blame this current council's platform at all. It's It's kind of narrow-minded. Um and this budget doesn't just get us to zero. It actually builds surplus. If we wanted to be zero negative, then we wouldn't
increase taxes as much. This is designed to build surplus and and position us so we go into next year in a better position. It's not just a spreadsheet exercise. I will say for anyone up here, um you've had 3 and 1/2 months to dig into details and offer alternate ideas,
alternate suggestions, alternate solutions. So, this is where we are today. Um so, if you if you have things you left unsaid, then that's a shame. I want to highlight the historical context of our tax increases for just a moment. It's been brought up a few times
tonight about no tax increases almost for many years in the past. The annual tax increase for the 6-year period for 2018 to 2023, the percent change was negative for four of those 6 years.
Inflation wasn't negative. Other costs were increasing. 2018, 1.75. 2019, 1.55. 2020, -0.5. 2021, -1%. 2022, -0.34%.
2023, -1%. That did not keep up with inflation, nor other increasing costs that we were facing. Um in 2024, it started going up almost 4%. 2025, almost 4%. And now we're here. Um
I I I know that those councils back then and the town managers and the CFO at that time believed that those are valid decisions year after year. But, in retrospect, it's easy to see that that did not keep up with inflation and that keeping that negative or flat tax rate
basically for 6 years would eventually rise to the surface. When I think of the big picture, it's important to reflect on a couple things. One is the township still has not relied on very much at all on debt. We have not overused debt. It's extremely low. In terms of our employee base, our
operations across departments are extremely lean. There have not been any frivolous, huge projects, wasteful initiatives, or investments that the township has made. It's not mismanagement. It's not pet projects. That's ludicrous. Our employees are dedicated. They work
extremely hard to serve our community. Most critically, the township professionals and the council are making the necessary and unpopular and unattractive and painful steps to set the path forward to improve the budgetary situation. Um I'll leave it at that for now and
pass it on to Marty. >> Well, thank you, Mayor. I think that's summed it pretty well. Um and Mr. Litchfield, I just want you to know I don't want anybody out there to think that their taxes are going up 17%.
Just the municipal 14% of of the 17 is going up, but not your overall taxes as Mr. Perry said it was how many cents per day? >> 92 >> 72
92 92. So, on [clears throat] the average home. So, I don't want anybody out there to think that their taxes are going at at at an astronomical 14%. And a lot of people are are misled by that, but yours aren't.
Nobody's is. I just to keep our to keep our town green and the way that everybody moved here for, to keep it open, to keep it not overpaved or or overpopulated
and ratables it it is a There's many There's many documents and many articles and information that can show you that it depend upon the ratable what we need in our town. And
it was farmland and it's it is growing, but we don't want to be Wayne, we don't want to be any other town than a nice small community. And that's the way we want to keep it and that's what our goal is up here. So,
I appreciate all of your support and everybody up here, whether we all agree on everything, but to do the best for our town is the main goal. And the budget is going to be increased a little bit and
we'll get back. We've been here before. Several years ago, they there was the spending was cut to nothing because we were in a deficit. And we're not and we're growing. So, it will come.
Just have faith. We will get there. And that's all I'm going to say. Everything has been said. >> Neil. >> Thank you, Neil. >> Sure. Um I think it might be helpful. Um I'm going to just ask you some questions, Mr. Ferry, about your background. Um I
think that um we've had a lot of sometimes people questioning, you know, what our professionals say and do and I think it might be helpful. So, I'm asking these questions not because I have any doubt about your ability, uh but I think it would be helpful for people to understand your background. Um
so, sir, do you have any special education and training uh that prepares you to do a municipal budget? >> Uh so, I have my certified I'm a certified public accountant. Um I'm a registered municipal accountant. I also have my chief
financial officer um certification. I was a municipal auditor for 39 years, where I did multiple towns and counties, and school boards. Um I was also your auditor for at least 12 or 15 years. Um
and now I retired from my firm, but I still am the chief financial officer for Newton. And the reason why I'm here is cuz you you guys hired the town of Newton as a shared service agreement to help out with the finance with the
finances and the uh and the budget for this year. >> Thank you. And over those 39 years, um just an approximation, how many budgets have you helped put together or advised on over that time period?
>> 2,000. >> Okay. [laughter] Okay, thank you. Um now I I have some particular questions um with respect to the resolution. Um and I hope this is the appropriate time to ask because there's uh about the amendments.
Um if I could, sir. So, it's the document that says resolution of the Township of Sparta date of adoption 609 2026. Do you have that in front of you, sir? >> Yeah, the the amendment. >> question if you do. Um so, turning on on
the first page, um uh under the line that says current fund budget and the from, again, we went over this I think the last meeting. The from is what the original budget and amount was. As introduced, as introduced, the two is as amended. >> Correct.
>> Okay. Um so, under the current fund budget, um there the last line be- it says anticipated utility operating surplus and it went from 1,697,082 dollars
to 310,000 dollars. Could you explain why there's a difference that substantial? >> Um so, when I looked at the um utility fund, there was only $2.4 million in in the water utility fund balance.
Um the water utility fund balance itself used 1.7 and this had 1.6. That's 3.2 but only had 2.4. The reason why the the the other
the way it also worked was that the water utility used a lot of reserves like the PFAS reserve um the increase in water rates um and other reserves to get it
so that the current fund could use 1.6. I couldn't conscientiously let you guys use 1.6 because you would have not had 1.6 in the 27 budget. So you'd be putting
together a budget with a with a hole of $1.6 million. That's That's a lot of tax points. Right from the get-go. So what I did and and actually the state didn't even pick up on this. I picked up on this um when I was going through the budget process. So
what I what I did was reduce the amount that the water utility used to put in this budget and then reduced now the water utility budget and that's actually part of this amendment too. If you look at the water reserves uh the
water utility um adjustments. >> And that's this Can I ask Is that the 600,000 um from the water the PFAS reserve? >> Um >> The 200 and the 400.
>> Let me look. >> From the piece the water capital improvement fee? On the first page. >> No, the So, on the first No, it's more on the maybe the fifth page. Yeah, so um
200,000 was water capital fees which get reserved. So, part of the water utility, there's a capital portion of it that gets reserved. Um so, 200,000 was just used
to fund that 1.6. 400,000 was the P fast reserve. So, that's your 600,000. You're absolutely correct on that. Um but again, that would have been 200,000 and 400,000 you may not have in 2027.
Right. So, that was the other reason why and uh 1.7 million dollars was used in fund balance to help offset that 1.6. Um the that was a from. Now, the two on
the your water utility side, I only used 1,079,000, not 1,797,000. Again, that would have been money that you may not have had in the water utility. So, it would have been in my opinion,
it was a one-time fix and going into I I couldn't conscientiously let you guys absorb 1.6 million dollars with the next year's budget. Uh with a with with that big hole. >> And when you use the phrase may not
have, we may not have that, what was your basis for making that kind of determination? What goes into that analysis? >> So, I looked at I looked at what what's been used in fund in your water utility and what's been generated back. So,
I don't think you would have generated back $1.7 million in fund balance in the water utility. >> Just based on our prior history of what we brought in, it was unrealistic to think that we would generate 1.6 additional million. >> Yeah, that and the PFAS reserve. I don't
know what's coming in PFAS and and whether or not um your capital reserves would have been able to absorb that. And that money's there for a specific reason, not not to pay or not to help fund a current budget. PFAS is is a is a big freight train
coming down the tracks um because the DEP is requiring us or requiring all towns to lower the limit on the PFAS, which I forget what the antonym is for, but it I think it has to do with fluorosomething or other.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Four parts per billion. >> Yes. Yes. >> I just have a couple more questions really highlighting where I saw kind of what I would determine sort of substantial deviations from the previously introduced budget. Um and just trying to get an explanation of
what explains that deviation. So, if you uh turn to page two uh under section three on uh total section G, special items of general revenue anticipated with prior written consent of director of local government services.
Um first question is what is what is that mean? What what what what what are items that fall under total section G? Just give me some examples. >> Item three? >> Uh yeah, item three. >> Um that Those are basically federal and state grants. >> Okay.
>> So, that's So, every item of revenue, a grant, has an offsetting appropriation for the same dollar amount. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> And so, um it went from $56,125 $439,125. What explains that difference?
>> You lost me on that one. Where are we? >> yeah. I'm on page two. >> Oh, the 56,000. I'm sorry. Yeah. So, now that's another line item. Um So, these are other special items. Number three is for grants. Number um
The next section is other special item of revenue. So, what I did is so that the um 383,000 I utilized from fund balance in general capital fund um to help
with that $1.6 million so that the tax rate didn't go up to 12 or 13 tax points. Um So, I kept it at the nine. >> Okay, got you. And then um under summary of revenues, the first miscellaneous
revenues um from the introduced budget, it was at $3,987,482. Uh the amended, it goes to $2,657,434.82. Um again, same question. What what explains that deviation? >> Well, that was from the decrease from the $1.6 million.
>> Got you. >> Okay. >> Okay. See if I had any other Okay, that's all my questions about the resolution. Um And so, in preparing uh this budget, and obviously you had to familiarize
yourself with with with Sparta. Um and did you have to familiarize yourself with Sparta and its past tax uh increases or lack of it thereof? >> Um
not necessarily because my job is to when you guys hired me to to look forward, not backwards. Um, all right, and then this one we'll go to your experience. In in your experience, um, uh, is it more prudent
financial planning to have stepwise increases in taxes over time or is it more appropriate to just hope for the best, not increase taxes, and then see what happens a few years down the road? Absolutely not. No.
>> Absolutely not what? To have stepwise increases over time? >> Yeah, if I was your auditor, I would have been jumping up and down using 5 million, 4.7 million. Um, I work I think Sam in the Sam
the prior CFO Bill Close and myself worked pretty hard to get $10 million as a fund balance. And to be able to put capital um, 1.8 million, 2 million
uh, for pay-as-you-go capital items instead of bonding. It it took a long process. It took a lot of years. >> Okay. And so why is it that, um, it's more prudent financially for a municipality to increase taxes
stepwise over time as opposed to waiting and then doing kind of a big hit later? >> I think Mr. Scott uh, answered that question with with the consumer price index um, going up. You got to stay with that. Um, just ask anybody who went to a
grocery shop the last half a year. Um, you know, if if your your salary doesn't increase, but the way to, you know, gas prices going up and grocery shopping, you need to, you know, ask your boss for a raise
or take a second job. Um, so it's prudent to go out to the taxpayers not a huge increase, but at least the state in increase with inflation. >> Okay, thank you. See if I had
Oh, just a question on um when did we make the public aware of the amendments and what they were to the budget? Was that 2 weeks ago? >> So, [clears throat] um statute says that we only have to
advertise a budget amendment 3 days prior to the public hearing. We um you advertised it on the 15th of June prior to tonight. So, do the math. What is it?
If 10 days, 9 days. >> If I could just add a note, too. It was actually on June 9th. It was available because it was as part of the draft resolution that was on the >> No, the the amendment was put on the website on the 15th.
Just the amendment. The introduction was put on the next uh from what Dawn tells me, the next um April April 28th. And you put it on the night of April 28th. >> Yeah. Yeah, but I think I think >> But the amendment is only technically,
if you read title 48s, it's 3 days prior. >> But it uh so the uh the budget it was April 28th. The amendment was June 9th. And so, on June 9th because I think we went into this 2 weeks ago. If you had the June 9th and you couple that with
the April 28th, you had the entire budget as of June 15th or >> Yeah, basically yeah, the state doesn't doesn't have like do-overs. They basically tell you um you have the introduced budget. You
have and if you know, line item increases more than 10%, you have to advertise. So, we had to advertise. So, you have the introduced budget on the website and you have the budget amendment and you just kind of have to put the pieces of it together.
Um to get the adopted budget. This budget for the most part I didn't touch um the appropriation side at all. It was more on the revenue side um and the state really didn't find any issues with any increases or decreases
um on the appropriation side. I think the only appropriations I had to touch were the shared services because those dollar amounts were incorrect. But again, the shared services the same dollar amount just like a grant. So, if I change something here, it changes that
the other side but it doesn't really impact your tax rate at all. So, like I said, mostly all the adjustments had to be made were on the revenue side. >> Okay. And did you have an opportunity to look at
um I know that uh Mayor Brulenti has talked about the surplus is not a static number. Um but did you have an opportunity to see the surplus and determine what expenses were primarily responsible for reducing the surplus? Is that an analysis that
you did? >> No, uh the the fund balance if you use 0% zero as a fund balance, then your tax is higher. So, the more tax the more fund balance you use, the lower we go out to the taxpayers for.
Um I Of course, I looked at, you know, the trends, what you're replacing it with. I always use it I always say if you put more cookies in the cookie jar than you take out, you get more more cookies keep
going up. But if you take more cookies out than you're putting back in, you're going to have less cookies and eventually it's going to run out. So, I did look at um from 2021 to 2025, what you've been replenishing.
My What I always say is look at the history of what you're replenishing, you're putting back into fund balance, and don't use any more. That's always my suggestion. >> But as far as trying to determine there was a dimina- We've had a lot heard a
lot of discussion about a diminution in the surplus. You heard that today and tonight, right? That there's it's gone down. And so, I guess my question is, did you look to see, okay, what is causing it to go go down over this time period? Like, what are the the main drivers of the diminution?
>> It could be a combination of increased budget, it'd be a combination of loss in revenues. It It's always It's You know, there's not No, mostly it's not one thing. Uh lately, to be honest with you, it's um group term life insurance.
>> And that's the And life insurance that we pay for our employees, is that what that >> Yeah. I mean, we remember, we're cap- We have a 1977 cap on appropriations. Uh that was put into law to slow down
spending. With inside the cap uh appropriations, outside the cap are debt service and capital. But what's inside the cap are basically your operations. So, if you increase group insurance by 21% and and we're and
the state only allows you to go to 3.5, um that's a you know, a square peg going into a round hole. Um and you have to cut other other things, operations. Could be salary wages, it could be you know, anything
else. Um the next cap we have to deal with is the 2010 cap, um which is based on the levy, what we go out to the taxpayers for. That's the only cap that's capped by 2%. And both are watered down, but we have two
two driving forces that keep spending low, and you have to stay within those limits. >> So, even if you're So, even if you have an expense for which you don't have control, so we don't set the group insurance rates, right? This council nor this township. So, you have expenses
that go up, and then you have to figure out a way to meet that, and but you're also limited by the cap. Is that where the cap just says, well, we just because group insurance goes up 21%, we can't then come back and say, "Guess what? We're going to have to raise 21% to meet that." Because the cap's going to keep
you there. And so, what does that then put pressure on your surplus? Because now you need that surplus to make up for the delta between what you were allowed to raise via vis-a-vis the cap, and what the expense amount is that's gone up. And so,
was it not only group life insurance, but what about My understanding is health insurance was another one. >> But, that's the same thing. >> Same thing. Okay, that's the same thing. So, it seems to where a diminution in surplus is happening is where you have a difference between expenses for which you don't
have control over, limited by the cap, which causes you not to be able to raise revenue. Therefore, you have to rely on your surplus to fund that expense. Is that kind of fair summary? >> General Generalized, yes. Yes. >> Okay.
Okay, thank you. You've been very helpful. And so, I I really appreciate you kind of jumped in at the at the last minute. Thank goodness we have someone with 39 years of experience and 2,000 budgets under their belt to help us with this. It's it's greatly
appreciated. Um and you know, I I think uh with this budget, it's put us on, you know, we're going down the right path. I think that's been repeated um for, you know, better financial stability going forward. And that requires sacrifices
and, you know, I hope that in you know, future administrations, we can continue to do a more step-wise approach to tax increases instead of uh which looks like to me kicking the can down the road. So, I hope we we can do that. And I And I will take issue. Th- This township is not
not in the lawsuit business. But I'll tell you who is in the lawsuit business. It's developers. They're the ones suing us. And unless we want to move to an issue where we're just going to throw up the white flag every time, um I think that's probably not a township people want to live in. If you
just want to be at the mercy of people who want to do whatever they want and just threaten a lawsuit. So, I will take issue with that and I think you've established that it wasn't litigation expenses that were the main driver of the diminution in the surplus. I think we've established that that had to do
with our health insurance and things for which we don't have control which uh diminished it, plus being limited by the cap. So, that's all I have. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um I'm going to do one last one more round. Quick quick though, only if you have something new to add. >> Mhm.
>> I'll I'll start uh but try to keep it succinct so we have a big agenda in front of us still. Mark. >> So, Mr. Ferry, the the taxes um >> [clears throat] >> the the Trenton, our state government says that we can only raise taxes 2 and 1/2%? Is that correct?
>> Um it fluctuates with the consumer price index, but then you do an ordinance um that allows you to go to 3 and 1/2% inside the cap. 2% on the levy. So, there's two different caps.
>> Right. >> One is a spending cap and what is an appro- and one is a appropriation cap on spending, one is on what we go out to the taxpayers for. That's 2%. >> Right. >> That was 2010. >> So, we have our hands tied behind our
back and we have inflation roaring and we just can't keep up. So, you have to continually raise taxes, as you were saying, that little bit each year. You can't just >> You can't go more than the 2%. W- and it's watered down.
Um because there's adjustments, but like for pension, pension increases, debt service increases, things that you can't control. >> Right. >> The So, it's a watered-down. So, even though we went up 14%, you know, how you know, we said 2%, but it's really
14%, but it's cuz it's it's it's adjusted. Um and the state reviews, by the way, the the calculation um for the levy cap. That was part of the uh the s- the state review.
>> And the state doesn't allow you to use the entire amount of the CPI index increase, does it? >> It's just 2%. That's it. And then with those adjustments for your for things you can't uh c- control, like debt service, >> Right.
>> pensions and things like that. >> So, we just had a We just had a CPI print a few weeks ago at a 6. We have a 6% inflation rate this year. So, we're going to So, taxes will have to go up.
>> We'll have to put it together and see. >> Right. Okay, thank you. >> All right, just quickly, uh Mr. Zep, Mr. Ferry, um when you look at the you're defining health care as being the driving point here. In the last 4 years, while you saw that
trend of up increasing health care costs continuing raising and there's nothing we could do for 20 something percent increases. Did we work at alternatives? Did we change it's a simple yes or no. Did we change our carrier? Did we offer a different program? Did we try to do
more aggressive employee employer sharing or look for alternative ways as most private sector and other municipalities across the state has have done to help mitigate and offset I wasn't going to say get it back to zero, but to take that pressure off on a
health care. Did we Did we make any substantial material change to our health care over the last four years? And it's just a yes or no, folks. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay, great. Thank you for asking us that. >> add if I can So I've I've checked on this cuz I'm in the industry a little bit and it drives me nuts everything
that's going on with health care. I've asked town manager and others multiple times over the last few years if we've gone out to look at other alternatives, different brokers, if we want to go on a state health plan, which was a mistake. We didn't do it. And other things also about health and wellness programs, incentives for employees. I've drilled into this a lot and
we did do all that and we didn't change because it was not beneficial to change. If you ask any other town, changing over to other ones is actually worse now than it was even before, but we've done a lot over the last few years to look into this. I could just wanted to add that extra flavor to it. >> And when you're watching your revenues
decrease, you're down your your revenues are trending down, whether you want to define it on ratables and all these other the revenues coming into the town. There's three sources of way of ways of generating revenues. Did we do anything to look to increase or try to find alternatives and creative ways to
increase ratables or increase revenue without just raising taxes? And what I'm hearing tonight is the only way out of this is to tax ourself out of this. >> No, we've done a lot of shared services over the past few years. We added in Ogdensburg Court, we added in Hamburg
Court, we dispatched for four other towns. We have shared >> shared services cuz I just heard a little while ago that shared services really don't bring that much of an impact. And and and uh uh uh and that's really trying to maintain and mitigate your expense side. But
generating revenues when you're doing shared services as Mr. Ferry mentioned, you're just kind of offset it and maybe, you know, without hiring a full-time person share, you're still trying to hold the line on your financials. >> revenue, not the entire shared service is paying for what, you know, you're
still getting a little of that revenue. So shared services do help. >> And well, for court, it also um splits out the judge, too. >> Yeah. >> So it's not all taxpayers now. Now part of it you can allocate towards um
the the judge's salary into shared service. >> And that's not what they said 10 minutes ago. But it's not it's not it's not generating revenues. It's to It's to balance out your expense side, all right? It's not a revenue generator. >> No, it's not. >> It's to offset your It's You're playing
on both sides of the both sides of the sheet, right? You're just balancing it out. You're not In fact, you're generating >> You can factor in a a quotient like 5%, 10%. You can't get greedy, but yeah, you can generate some. It's not going to It's not going to make
break the bank in uh >> No, but it's something. >> It's something. No. >> Wait, let >> 10 minutes ago they said that shared services help. >> Let Mike finish, Mike. >> not the state of New >> Well, I'm a very much an advocate for shared services. I thought, you know, in fact
that Mr. Ferry's sitting here was was a smart decision. All right? I'm not I'm not against shared services at all. Um I had one other question, but you just Give me a second to rewind here. All right, you know what?
With the um situation with health care, tax increases, um no additional revenue coming in from any other projects, any other type of new ratables coming online to stabilize the taxes. What would be your suggestion moving
forward to 2027, 28 to stabilize and move forward? Or will we be in the same Are we looked at this point of this conversation, and the only thing I've been hearing is we did all the great things, we did what what we can, inflation, CPI, rates are going up, and
and just like you run a household, if if if everything's going up and your salary's going on, you either go out and get another job, or you go out and you work two or three jobs. You don't You don't sit there and just say you're going to absorb it. It does It financially doesn't work. You wouldn't run your household this way. And so,
putting all That's my my analogy for tonight. Putting that out there, what what recommendation, Mr. Ferry, would you be able to give this council tonight moving forward? Is it Is it simply just we're going to have to bear future tax increases?
>> Well, that I maybe um you could start off with a zero-based budget. Um instead of taking last year, adding 5% or 2%, you start You say, "What do you need?" And you start off with that
with all your your departments. You look at your capital. Uh There's a There's a lot of stuff >> do. >> And and that's great. So, if if we go into next year and we're we're not spending a half a million or 800,000 dollars on legal fees, that drops to the
bottom line and goes into that bucket, correct? >> it's a it's crystal ball. Yes, correct. >> ball, like everything else we're talking about tonight. If we generated additional fees, I know we increased some of our fees just on on the fee basis side of it, we made an adjustment,
but if we increase our revenues coming in, would that help >> get the water line stable? >> Absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. >> this is not just a spending issue. You know, it's a revenue it's revenue generating revenues. And I think generating revenues is more than just raising taxes to the to the residents of
this township. >> You You The other thing is you could look at the your ordinances and what your um for your fees and permits, your other licenses. You could look at those and see if you're up with other towns in Sussex County and you know, increase
some of those. >> Which we did. >> Right. >> Which we did. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And we started >> But, we're but [clears throat] we're doing it now in a reactionary phase, not in a planned phase that we saw we saw these trends going for 4 years, but now we're just reacting tonight. And I get it. It It's where we're at.
But, I mean, moving forward, you know, [clears throat] you all these things taking into consideration, you cannot ignore generating revenues incre increasing the money coming onto the spreadsheet helps balance out the spreadsheet. Not trying to move numbers
around just to have a zero on the bottom right corner of a spreadsheet. I mean, we need to pay attention to revenues, folks, and and revenues come in different forms, and and it's not just on taxpayers' back. So, that's all I have to say. Thank you for your comments, Mr. Ferry. >> John, can you get us those uh those
legal fees cuz I believe that that Mr. Sylvester is exaggerating by like 200%. >> 200%? >> Yeah, sure. You said a million dollars. >> On average our average legal fees but for lawsuits would be I think Mr. Zep said about 200 grand a year. >> Well, Mr. Zep has said it all broken
down on the chart. >> About 200 grand a year on if just running a township. >> I think it was 717,000. >> a lot more than that. >> Um >> He's got it right there. >> Yeah, go ahead. >> Yep. Um This year
>> Jim, use the mic, please. >> Yeah. >> This year we're up to uh 288,000. >> Half year. >> Yes, as of June. >> before, so if you're accumulating these legal fees but for lawsuits and and and and defending for whatever reasons the
lawsuits and legal fees on average basis just to run a minis- municipality we we had about a buck 50, 200,000. That's kind of a line item as as a placeholder in the budget, correct? But then you have these additional fees coming in. So, the importance of legal
fees cannot be ignored. The You know, whether it's right, wrong, indifferent, we're getting sued or there's or we're defending something whether it's you agree with it or not, the legal fees do have a financial impact to this township. >> All right. So, when we did the budget this year, we did take steps to try to
put some extra in there so that we wouldn't have to go to an emergency appropriation. So, what you do is you look at the department and you look at a the past 4-year trend and you see what what did we spend? Okay, what did we go
over? So, when you look at it, you can see in this in this spreadsheet what they were given in each line item in 2025 and how much was spent out of that line. The only way that you can get a true fact is to overdraw the line. It's the only way you're going to know what
you're spending. You can't borrow money from a different line. It doesn't show an accurate. Last year we ran it and we made sure we knew. So, when we sat down to do the budget this year >> in your budget for the expense of the >> and we said, "Okay, that line hit 250,
so let's give it 250 or more." >> Understood. >> And that's how we did it. >> So, the escalators were there to build that and cover and make sure we had funding for that, but there was no emphasis of looking Look, take your eyes off the spreadsheet for a moment and how do we generate revenue coming into this
township that could bring an increased numbers to balance that out. We're fighting a spreadsheet with numbers here. And I get it, Don, you've done a great job under the conditions that you've been faced with and all the professionals that worked on that. It's not an attack. I just want to make sure
that there's other ways of fixing this to just then other say raise taxes or cut expenses. But we can't cut expenses because health care is going up 20 something percent per year. You got to do something. Can't sit here and just keep on raising taxes. It's non-sustainable.
>> all agree. >> I I I said that. >> I think we all agree on that. I mean no one wants to do it. >> And that's my answer. Marjorie, you have something to What? >> No. >> Councilman Councilwoman Marjorie? >> Marjorie can go next. I'm going to go last. Good. >> Oh, I I got all my questions answered. Thank you very much. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. We're glad to have you aboard to help Don here. Two of you did a great job. Thank you. Much, much appreciated as all of our department staff done. And uh No, I'm not going to
We could have legal fees or we could have over paving and that's where I'm going to leave it. Neil, do you have anything? >> Uh sure. I think the underlying of what I I'm hearing is I mean I agree with, you know, Councilman Sylvester. Sure, let's
increase the revenue. Um but what will be the source of that revenue? Now I um I don't He can correct me if I'm wrong. I I I think he's an advocate and he you know, for commercial ratables. Um is that's one
way. But you have to look at it as a trade-off. Now, if you want to understand municipalities that rely heavily on commercial ratables, those are towns like Secaucus that has the Meadowlands. They don't need to put as much pressure on their on
the uh residents for cuz they have the Meadowlands to generate that. Teterboro has the airport. Um so >> Teterboro airport doesn't pay taxes, sir. >> The Teterboro relies on the Teterboro Airport and and um so
people have to ask themselves sure if you want to rely on commercial ratables to raise your revenue there's always a trade-off. The trade-off is as we've gone through what do we want Sparta to look like?
Sure there could be a balance. I mean we could we could put as many commercial and go from what looks like about we rely on commercial ratable analysis in 2026 10% of our revenue 9.85% is derived from commercial.
That is up from 8.71 in 2000 from 2016. But you could move this and shift it to 50% of your revenue could be generated from commercial ratables. But is that a town that we want Sparta to look like?
And that's a policy trade-off that this council will have to grapple with and find that type of balance and I think that's something that's done both of the planning board level but also this this council but I you know before people think that commercial industrial ratable improve
increasing that is the panacea I think you also have to look at that and you also have to realize that the problem I've always had with that type of an is it doesn't factor in the costs at the time. It simply says this is development this amount of square foot this is what the rate will generate and
you have no idea of what the actual cost of that actual rate will be in terms of municipal services infrastructure on the town etc. And so it just hasn't caught up yet and if people think that increasing commercial
ratable will lower your property tax I do recommend you read the analysis that was done by New Jersey Futures which put that that that to bed. It did did find that at all do using analysis of a tons of municipalities,
tons of data and so far as I've seen no one has been able to have a counter uh to that. So again, I do think I do agree with Councilman Sylvester. Yes, we need more ratables. Yes, Sparta needs to be a more business-friendly town. It does.
I I I, you know, it really does. There shouldn't be uh businesses who want to come in who will not have such an increase in intensity and use shouldn't have to jump through a thousand hoops to open their business. Unfortunately, that's a reputation that we have and I hope, you
know, future administrations including this council and our staff can make it easier and we've already it's already happening that they are. We've already gotten a lot of praise for our construction officials, our planning office uh in making it easier for people to open a business in Sparta and I hope that
continues. So thank you. >> Yep. Councilman Clark, thank you for those comments. I appreciate that. So couple last comments. First of all, legal expenses aren't just litigation costs. They are affordable housing representation which we've gone through a lot in the last year or so. It's also
general township operations. It's tax appeals. It's employee matters. It's all of that. So when you see a legal number, it's not simply litigation. Uh Tom, you answered all my questions in advance pretty much before tonight. So I don't have any additional ones for uh but um
before I forget, I want to thank you and Dawn for all of your hard work and for being here and for all your preparations and for um helping us through this. I I think that it's a misnomer to say that um the administration here did not see this coming and it's been going on for 4 years. That's a joke.
Because the vast majority of townships and boards of ed throughout the state and maybe even beyond that are in the same situation, very similar situation if not the same. So to say to say it's our town, we're unique and we didn't see this coming and that's that's a that's a joke, I think. But my final comment is you feel it you
feel the pressure, right? And the stress. It's clear that these are really challenging times, right? And they're stressful and you can hear it in everyone's voice. It's frustrating. We have huge budget challenges. We found that we're finding a way at least now to get through it. We have a plan. This should position us good going into the next year.
And in reality, lots of towns are facing this. And it's while it's good to diagnosis and learn from the past and look backwards, the way out is not to blame. I hear lots of blaming going on out there and up here. That's not the way to get out of this. We will get through this. We'll be fine.
We've had rougher times years ago and we'll be fine. I'll leave you with a quote. When I think of times like this and how people react, the following comes to mind. The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of convenience and comfort, but where he stands at times of
challenge and controversy. All right, let's move on to uh resolutions. >> No. >> We have to vote. >> We have to vote. >> That's what we're doing. We're going to vote on >> Not the amendment. >> That's the resolutions. >> Yeah, not the amendment. We're going to vote on resolution 8-1.
>> No, you have to Yeah, you have to adopt the amendment. Yeah, so that's that one resolution. >> Yes. Okay. Okay, I'm going to uh make a motion to resolution 8-1, adoption of resolution number 26-120 to amend the municipal budget. May I
have a second? >> Second. >> All right, may have a roll call vote, please? >> Councilman Scott? >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Murphy? >> Yes. >> Councilman Clark? >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor Sylvester? >> No. >> Mayor Blumetti? >> Yes.
>> Okay, that motion is passed. And now I'll make a motion for resolution 8-2, adoption of 2026 municipal budget. >> I will second. >> May we have a roll call vote? >> Councilman Scott? >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Murphy?
>> Yes. >> Councilman Clark? >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor Sylvester? >> No. >> Mayor Blumetti? >> Yes. Budget has been adopted. All right, let's move on. There is no minutes for tonight. Town Manager Zapp, would you please
present your manager's report? >> Thank you, Mayor. You know, our Parks and Recreation Department's summer programs begin next week. There's still room in various programs, so please visit Township's website under Parks and Recreation Department. Women's softball and men's mushball
begins on Monday, June 29th, and the teams are ready for some friendly competition. Camp Sekoya is almost full. Our staff is ready for the 2026 day camp program starting June 29th and runs through August 7th. The senior pool at Nolan Heights
officially opened early June, but seniors can still purchase a season pass by contacting the recreation department. We're having some upcoming events for the public. The annual 4th of July parade presented by the Sparta Elks Lodge
number 2356 is scheduled for Saturday, July 4th, beginning at 10:30 a.m. Traveling along East Shore Trail through White Deer Plaza and ending at Mohawk Ave School, Dykstra Park. Friday, July 10th kicks off the free concert series at Dykstra Park from 7:00
to 10:00 p.m. with the rain policy indoors at the Mohawk Ave school. The lineup includes the following. July 10th, The Outcrops. July 17th, John Lee. July 24th, The Hawthornes. July 34th, Billy Hector.
And August 7th, Denelia Cotton. The Cultural Affairs Committee does a great job organizing these events. For complete lineup of performers, please visit spartaarts.org or go to our website under the Cultural Affairs Committee page.
We congratulate Toula Bodo on her retirement from the from the Sparta Library after 19-plus years serving the residents of Sparta. Petition packets are available for candidates wishing to run for Sparta Town Council. All petition candidates must reside and
be registered voter in Sparta Township. Petition packets can be picked up at the Municipal Clerk's office in Town Hall. Monday through Thursday, 8:30 to 4:30 and Friday from 8:30 to 12:30. There are three vacancies. Petition must be filed by 4:00 p.m. on
Wednesday, August 19th, 2026 to be eligible for the November 3rd election. The Township has implemented a summer hour schedule for Town Hall and other municipal offices starting Friday, June 26th with office hours from 8:30 to 1:00 p.m.
every Friday through the summer months ending on September 4th, 2026. Monday through Thursday, we will continue from 8:30 to 4:30. The the Sparta Library has also announced their summer hours. Please visit spartalibrary.com.
Please be advised that July and August there will be one council meeting each month. Tuesday, July 28th and Tuesday, August 25th. This concludes my report. Thank you. >> Thank you. May I have a motion to accept the manager's report as presented?
>> So moved. >> May I have a second? >> Second. >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Motion carried. Okay, we're now at our open to the public segment for items on the agenda. Again, this is for items on the agenda
including the resolutions not related to budget and not related to the ordinance hearings. Each ordinance will have its own hearing. And there'll be a second public comment again at the end of the meeting for items not on the agenda. >> So what's left? >> Okay.
>> Okay. Seeing none, we'll move on. >> I have a question. I just want to make sure I know when to speak. So the budget discussion's obviously over, but a lot of comments were made that need to be addressed and the public didn't have a chance with regard to previous councils and previous things and things like
that. So with that any comments related to that, it wasn't a budget discussions, that resolution, would that be done now or would that be done in the last one? >> I think that's at the end. >> I think it's at the it's at the last one. If it's necessary, it's at the last
one. >> Last one, not now. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> [cough] >> Okay, moving on to expenditures. Michael, do you read the expenditures for today? >> Yeah, the expenditures as of June 23rd, 2026 totals $436,479.09.
Do we have a motion to approve? >> So moved. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Expenditures are approved. We have no introductions of ordinances tonight. So we're moving on to hearing of or
hearing of ordinances. Madam Clerk, would you please read the title of ordinance 26-11? >> An ordinance of the Township Council of the Township of of Sparta, Sussex County, State of New Jersey, amending Chapter 18, entitled Comprehensive Land
Management Code, to define and prohibit data centers within all zones throughout the Township of Sparta. >> Thank you. This time for ordinance 26-11, we're going to open up to the public for comments. >> Hi. Nate Rogoff.
Um I have a couple of concerns with this ordinance. First, a little bit of sloppiness I saw in the definition of data center as outlined, and also some potential unintended consequences of this ordinance. I'll say first and foremost, I agree with the intention here, which is no large-scale data
centers in Sparta. It goes against everything we are as a town. No large-scale crypto mining, no AI data centers. It's not what we want, right? But first, as far as sloppiness, if you read in the first section, data centers, shall mean facility building, da da da, including the purposes of
telecommunications. If you move down two paragraphs to some of the exceptions to this definition, the term data center shall not include a facility building or structure primarily used for telecommunications. So, there's a contradiction in the definition of data center in this ordinance.
And also, like the idea that a high school or public IT department is a necessary exception to this rule can lead to the unintended consequences of small-scale tech companies, tech startups, maybe just someone who wanted to build an app and run on their own
servers may not be able to under this. The words primarily are used extensively throughout the definition. How do we go primarily, right? What is counts as primary use or is it just storage, some storage? There's a that we hit companies or small things we
don't want to, right? With this. Um so, as for hitting those large-scale operations we don't want, I think if you stay with the language in this in all of the different functions, all the different equipment that you don't want used, there needs to be some sort of size threshold. Whether square footage,
power consumption, something along those lines, um or something of that sort where we hit certain things but not smaller operations, stuff like that. So, just concerns over the definition. I think that definition should be amended. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Is Connie >> Uh Rob Auto, Sparta. Um so, yeah, I would just quickly add that I think it's necessary. I agree on all those points. I tried to define data centers. Too many caveats. So,
I would focus on the size as well, but I know that we have an upcoming ordinance. So, I'm kind of happy to do this and know that with land use law, whichever um if one doesn't filter it out, the other
ordinance would. So, I think we're kind of covered there. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the dais and close the public comment for this hearing. Uh the council, any discussion or
comments on 2611? Uh we'll start on my far right. >> No, I'm I'm >> Me? Oh, sure. No, I am uh glad we are uh getting ahead of this. As you've seen, uh if you just open any paper today, you
will see uh discussion of uh data centers, the large ones. Um I think that, you know, to to some of the comments about, you know, when we first looked at this, trying to define this based on water usage, all right, let's take all the big negatives of
these things that you hear about. Water usage, um you hear uh electricity usage, noise, um and then trying to set an ordinance based upon those metrics, um it just became kind of impossible,
really. It's It's better to sort of do a a more blanket one. Um we know what what we are um we're trying to avoid. Uh we've seen how this issue has uh roiled uh even towns in our county, and we're hoping to avoid
that. Um look, the technology is changing every day. I think that there could come a time where And then listen, the economics will fix this. Like they the data The people who are building these things know that the negative and the externalities that they're dealing
with, and so a rational economic actor is going to come up with uh a type of data center that doesn't have the same water, electricity um uses, and I hope that, you know, there'll come a time where that happens, and this township can maybe revisit this
ordinance because, look, we have to be um you know, as has been spoken about today, we don't want to carve out economic uses in this township. It's only when those kind of uses at this stage have have too many negative consequences and
externalities that I don't think this township wants to bear that we have to carve out um as a permitted use in the township. But, you know, the technology is is changing all the all the time and I think there will be probably in the years ahead. And
I think we did try to um cuz what a thing that was brought to, you know, Councilman Sylvester and I or Deputy Mayor Sylvester and I, you know, spoke about this cuz I know he has experience in in this area. Um we didn't want to sweep into simply cuz if you think of a data center, it's
simply something that has data and stores it and transmits it, right? That could be um you know, a planet network server that's taking your the data and sending it off and letting you send your emails and watch your cat videos. Um the that's a transmission. That's a that's a
data center. We obviously did not want to sweep that into it and so that's why um we kind of worked together to carve that out. Um and you know, I think that this is one of those, you know, don't make uh the perfect enemy of the good and and and try to do the best that we can and I
think as technology develops and you know, who knows, we may have someone come before the planning board and ask for a use exception and and be able to address, "Hey, I'm not going to have these electricity demands. I'm not going to have the water demands. I'm not going to have the noise demands." So, all the ills that you
that led to passing this ordinance, um we will not cause those ills, so let us in. Um so anyway, I applaud, you know, we all worked together on this. This council kind of worked collaboratively together. Um it was uh a really a united effort
and um I really appreciate the work that each one of you have done and contributed uh to this ordinance. Um that's all I have. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other comments or questions about this ordinance? >> I um I'd like to thank you very much for your comments. That was That was very
great. I I really appreciate that. And yes, if someone comes in with any kind of um application, we have a little data center right in downtown Lake Mohawk, which most people don't even know is there. But it's really and it's considered data
center, but it's not causing any any problems to the community, to our environment at all. So, as we grow and as things change, this can always be amended or can be taken in front of the planning board to have it amended. But thank you very much.
>> Good. >> Yeah. I'll just echo this was designed to Well, we look we thought about doing a size restriction. We thought it was more tactical to do it based on description and type, which in a sense will prevent the ones the mega ones that people are afraid of, but it will allow
the um smaller and medium-sized businesses that we want to attract. Any other comments, questions? >> Yep. >> Just that and it's more of a legal clarification. The gentleman made a point that the definition may be in contradiction. Are we agreeing with that or is there something that we could
clean up right now um just to address that? I thought that was a good point and it's just the way it maybe it was reading or being interpreted. >> We had actually identified the council and I we had we had identified that and we had decided to keep it in because
when you read the ordinance as a whole and you read the the exception to the initial definition as a whole, we had um not wanted to focus on that um that minutia. I think the intent of the two paragraphs are clear when you read that
telecommunications together with the type of use that's being prohibited. I so we did acknowledge it, we did discuss it, and I think as a council, as a body that we decided um that it was um it was consistent with the >> it's acceptable the way it reads. >> Correct.
>> Okay, thank you. >> No comment. >> Okay. All right. May I have a motion to adopt ordinance 2611? >> Well, I'm sorry, Mayor. We we acknowledged the um the planning board had a um a consistency review. They found it uh uh uh uh consistent. Just acknowledging
that for purposes of the record. >> Yes. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Yep, so we acknowledge that it was found consistent. >> Correct. >> It's a master plan. Okay, now may we move on to a motion to adopt 2611? >> So moved. >> Second. >> I'll second.
>> Uh, roll call vote, please, Madam Clerk. >> Councilwoman Scott. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Murphy. >> Yes. >> Councilman Clark. >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor Sylvester. >> Yes. >> Mayor Bummedy. >> Yes. Ordinance 2611 has been adopted.
All right, moving on. Madam Clerk, would you please read the title of ordinance 2612? >> An ordinance of the mayor and council of the Township of Sparta amending chapter 18 entitled comprehensive land management code to amend portions of
section 8-4.29 entitled economic development district, portions of section 18-4.35 entitled PDRM 1 district zone, and portions of section 18-4.36
entitled PDRM 2 district zone. >> Thank you. Okay, I'd like to open it up for public comment for 2612. >> Roberto, uh, Sparta. Good evening. Uh, we stand at a
crossroads in Sparta's history. Um, tonight I'm going to speak in support of this ordinance. Um, I don't think it's a reactionary measure. I think it's a tool to align our zoning with the foundational vision of our 1984 master plan and subsequent iterations.
For years I've pleaded with our governing body and statutory boards not to simply sit idly by and wait for development to arrive, but to actively prepare and plan. By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail. Tonight is
the culmination of that call to action. Our objective [snorts] is simple. To advance the public safety and welfare of our residents, we must address the rapid intensification of commercial zones along the Route 15 corridor. When evaluating these facilities, we
must face an undeniable reality. Size matters, as does intensity. We do not need to guess about the strain on our infrastructure. Data is clear. Township police data confirms that the Route 15 corridor has our highest incident rate of traffic accidents.
Empirical studies from our traffic studies show that demand already exceeds peak hour capacity, creating severe backups and encouraging unsafe driving. 2612 honors our 1984 master plan's mandate to reduce traffic congestion and
to protect our rural character. >> [snorts] >> By capping building coverage at 75,000 square feet, we recognize a fundamental planning relationship. Larger buildings generally correlate to greater traffic volumes and generally correlate to
higher truck trip rates, but that's not always true. To [snorts] be clear, we should be in favor of supporting local small businesses, reducing our community's economic and environmental risk, and diversifying our commercial
base, but a 75,000 square foot cap is not a cap on ratables. We just heard 85% of our tax base is derived from residential properties. We're exhausting our remaining capacity trying to force significant commercial revenue from limited land.
>> [snorts] >> Chasing this unqualified promise of massive commercial ratables, like the traffic clogged in intersections at North Village, or the environmental albatross like AO Polymers. Come on, Cas Dimmer. Um Does it
Does a great dis- a grave disservice to the 85% um of our community that relies on clean air, clean water, manageable traffic now and into the future. Furthermore, we need to recognize the
delicate balance of planning criteria. When we prioritize massive commercial footprints, we do risk a negative impact on our greatest asset, our residential property values. Quality of life drives value in Sparta. Industrial blight diminishes it.
Chasing the commercial promise at the expense of our residential character is a net loss for the vast majority of our citizens. Once these massive structures are built, they're rarely reduced. They're etched into our landscape, leaving us to inherit the structural consequences
indefinitely. The proposed cap in 2612 is logically tied to our existing infrastructure, reflecting reflecting the reality that our greatest non-civic buildings max out at roughly 65,000 square feet. It ensures that future growth respects
the structural reality that we've already built. Furthermore, Sparta would not miss out on a true Goldilocks proposal. Any high-quality development that fits our community scale would still be entertained through our standard conditional use process via
public hearing. We're not closing the door to responsible growth. We're simply closing the door to industrial scale blight. To strengthen this, I would also advocate for a land carrying capacity overlay. Think of this like a modern safety check.
While ordinance 2612 sets a hard limit on building size, LCCO overlay ensures that any major development stays within the actual physical and fiscal limits of our environment. Crucially, this would require that a project be demonstrably financially beneficial to
our community. We've seen recent large developments fail to deliver on promised ratables, resulting in not just increased traffic, but also under anticipated school costs, higher municipal service demands, and accelerated roadway maintenance cycles.
An LCC overlay uses performance-based standards to monitor real-world impact, energy loads, aquifer draws, infrasound, fiscal viability, ensuring that if a project is too intense for our environment, we have the data to say no before it's too late.
So, just I'll just finish. The 1984 master plan reminds us that a plan must live in the minds of those who make daily decisions. Let us vote to protect our roads, safeguard our aquifer, and preserve the landscape we call home. Let us choose a philosophy that ensures we
remain a community where we celebrate people and nature together, development in balance with community. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Auto. >> Thank you. >> Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is David Gray, Gray Law Group. I hear
I'm here speaking for the Michelotti Quarry property, which is the primary property landowner within the PDRM-1 zone, which this specific ordinance impacts. I tried to listen to the introduction of this ordinance on June 9.
Unfortunately, the advertised meeting did not have any audio on its YouTube. So, I was expecting my client to receive notice because they're in they are independently affected by this ordinance, but they received no notice
under New Jersey statute 40:55D-62.1, which is a requirement. My client recently submitted a land use application to utilize the railroad. They are rail adjacent to the New York Susquehanna and Western Railroad.
The PDRM-1 zone is specifically designed to allow for rail adjacent use. The ordinance in question takes away rail adjacent use. If adopted, this ordinance would amend the PDRM-1
zone to reduce the maximum permissible building size by 57% along with related changes to allow an unlimited number of tenants in these buildings. Right now, it'd be capped at two tenants. And to allow additional dock door
ratios, allowing for truck traffic as opposed to train traffic. The proposed This proposed ordinance is arbitrary. It's capricious for three independent and overlapping reasons. None of these should be a surprise because your own expert has said that
this ordinance is inconsistent with your master plan. First, it's materially inconsistent with the master plan with respect to three specific goals set forth in this township's master plan. Second, it ignores the PDRM-1 zone's
fundamental statutory and design purpose as a rail adjacent district. And this ordinance rests on a demonstrably flawed premise that smaller buildings produce less traffic. A premise that the weight of traffic
engineering evidence contradicts. And which this ordinance's own internal amendments undermine. I do note that introducing this type of rezoning ordi- ordinance immediately after an application was made by my
client is timed in an apparent response to that specific application, raises serious concerns under New Jersey law regarding the townships good faith and procedural integrity of the legislative process. Council should be on notice that any ordinance adopted with the purpose
or effect of defeating a pending application may be subject to legal challenge on spot zoning, improper motive, and due process grounds. I'll turn to your master plan briefly. There are three specific goals which are inconsistent that this ordinance is
inconsistent with. Goal number two, providing safe and convenient movement of vehicles. It's inconsistent because smaller footprints can generate higher traffic. The ordinance ignores rail dependency and importantly, operational intensity.
Goal number three, preserve economic balance. This ordinance strips away tax ratables. Uh it's a 50% 57% reduction in buildable area, arbitrarily curtailing tax ratables, jobs, economic yield, and
there is no offsetting benefit provided. Goal number six, to continue to encourage the village neighborhood land use pattern. It's inconsistent because the ordinance uses physical footprint as the sole proxy for compatibility, ignoring operational use and impact.
What am I saying? What is important is what the buildings are used for. If the buildings are used for things like utilizing the train, utilizing the rail, that gets vehicles off the road.
If a building is used as a trucking depot, that puts trucks on the road. So, what is important is the use, not the size. Reducing the size to 75,000 square feet means that these buildings will not
be able to be used for rail adjacent use. The PDRM1 zone was specifically designed to leverage proximity to the New York Susquehanna and Western Railroad. In the zone, the text contains extensive
detailed framework for rail adjacent use. And I see my time is running out, so I'm just going to briefly end with the fact that resolution 8-3, which is on your agenda, is a legal brief that this council is going to be asked
to adopt. It's 11 pages long. It cites seven legal cases. It says nothing about the railroad. Nothing. It ignores your master plan. It ignores your own experts.
And it is based on the flawed assumption that smaller buildings adjacent to rail means less traffic. That is not true. Your own experts said that is not true. I ask you to listen to your own experts,
follow your own master plan, and do not vote on ordinances that are arbitrary and capricious because it will add to your budget of unanticipated legal costs. >> is up. Thank you. >> Appreciate it. >> You know, this is funny.
Jim Castimore. The lady that the town pays big money for sat at the planning board meeting last week and said, "This doesn't work." She went over through the whole thing. It was very very very very good presentation.
The planning board vote was six against, two for, and well, the chairperson abstained. I guess she didn't want to get kicked off the planning board, so she abstained. It's not the way you're That's not leadership. But it was a 6-2 vote.
This doesn't work. She cited all the ramifications why I think you need to go back and look at what she had to say and say pull this ordinance out completely. And you have a man sitting right there. Put a plan in and you're saying um plan
doesn't exist. We'll just kind of slip this through. Reduce the size of the building. I hate to tell you this but uh I got a funny feeling he's kind of like me when you throw the first dollar into a fist fight. You don't back down.
And I think you need to you know, you've got too many lawsuits going. I mean the budget is broken because of lawsuits. We got two people sitting up there right now and alongside you sued the town twice. That costs money.
Cannabis ordinance, you got told. Do not do this. You did it anyway. Yep. Voters voted it out. Wasn't re-appealed within 21 days, became law. My understanding is lawsuits coming for
that, too. Is that correct? Yes. >> your question. >> Oh, yeah. I know you can't. >> No. >> I mean no resolutions, no nothing. We don't like water quality plan approved by the state of New Jersey. Ah, let's go sell sue.
Got an online landfill since 1984 sitting wide open. Can't get it closed. I don't think the DEP is in any rush to give you a permit because heck you're suing them. This this whole thing is wrong.
The lady said said right there and said it's wrong. You better listen to her. That's what we pay her for. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else from the public? Okay, seeing that I'll bring it back and close the public comment period on this. I'll bring it back to the council for
any discussion or questions or comments. >> Sure. Ordinance 26-12, you know, the 75,000 square foot consists of zero view. The planning board issued a determination indicating that this proposed ordinance is not consistent with the master plan.
Keep in mind that the master plan is 42 years old and does not account for changes that have taken place over the years. Example, North Village and the crash data that we've seen that came out of that. Despite this, there are sections in the 1984 plan that suggest
that future development should avoid excessive congestion, parking problems, and urban developed densities. Therefore, the planning board's determination should have been that the ordinance is not wholly consistent rather than inconsistent in my opinion.
Here's a Here are some examples of where it is valid. 1984 objectives. This is when the town was largely an agricultural district. To encourage number six, to encourage
the village neighborhood land use pattern. Locate future development in areas that avoid excessive congestion. Route 15 is at its max. We've heard that from our engineer. Parking problems and urban development
densities. Allow for balanced set of land uses. Retail, office, public, etc. as appropriate. Locations for convenience commercial zones, convenient commercial zones would be based on criteria such as lot size,
road frontage, traffic generation, utilities and environmental impacts. Number seven, safeguard the tax base through appropriate use of existing and potential non-residential land. Safeguarding the tax base does not mean
increasing the tax base. It means protecting it. About 85% of the ratables are residential in nature as we mentioned. Number 10, prepare for more block detailed block development plans for environmentally sensitive areas such as
the Germany Flats and Blue Heron areas. Everyone was essentially envisioning an area like Wilson Drive where we had small uses all all throughout. Under the 2002 re-examination, the under the land use element number 50, it says
in number 11, economic development, "Pre-existing non-conforming middle and sand gravel uses have occurred in the Germany Flats aquifer area and proper management of existing and future uses is necessary to protect the ground water
quality." Commercial buildings for single users limited to sales and showroom facilities. Limitations are recommended on project size and scale. There was no issue here when 175,000 ft was proposed.
Why is there an issue now? Is it the It is the same cons- consistency reference regardless of the square footage. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> [clears throat] >> Well, I mean, based on the report that
we received from our professionals and the majority vote that was decided upon by the planning board. Um I mean, I I think it speaks for itself. I mean, I I think the planning board did a great job. They outlined
They They deemed it inconsistent and that's their purpose and intent as a board is to advise Council and and and provide those recommendations and I thought the Planning Board did a great job along with the professionals as well. So, I stand behind them 100%.
Additionally, this ordinance, folks, is leading us right back to another lawsuit, not only with the current applicant, but probably with other other property owners throughout the EDC zone, which the whole intent of that zone
is for economic development, commercial and and other uses that are defined in it. If you want to fix the zone, fix it properly through master planning process and reevaluation. Do not come up here and just throw an ordinance out hoping that it's a stopgap gap measure or some
quick fix. It's going to lead us into another lawsuit. And I'll end on this. I've said it and I'll continue to say it until my colleagues finally get behind me, which they haven't as of yet. Educate before we start Let's put in legislation and ordinances in place.
Let's do our research. Let's educate ourselves and look at all the scenarios and options that are available to us before we just come in here and shoot from the hip, throw ordinances around, and create additional legal costs to write those ordinances, to have
professionals opine on them, to sit here all night and debate them, and then and then go ahead and defend them and and try to defend them in lawsuits. See the math? That's all I have to say. Thank you. >> All right. I'll go next. I I don't share your views on most of that. I I'm not
I'm I'm just pointing out my I'm speaking now. Yes, I I don't share your views. I think there was a lot of generalizations there. >> That's great. >> Um so, in reviewing the in in watching the meeting and in reviewing the reports that came out of the Planning Board, um I I
I know there were >> [clears throat] >> doing their due diligence and were following the planners guidance. When I read that and looked at it, I had a couple issues with it. Um, not wholly consistent does not equal substantially inconsistent.
The the simple specific update here generally does, in my opinion, advance the goals and objectives of the master plan. Um, what the planners report communicated was that this ordinance wasn't going far enough. So, I I ask you to watch and read.
It wasn't going far enough. That doesn't mean, however, the ordinance isn't generally advancing the overall goals goals and objectives of the master plan. Just take a read of the entire master plan and all the amendments since 1984, including the most recent ones, and look at its overall goals and objectives about the Sparta community.
So, the planners' opinion that even more dramatic changes would have a larger impact doesn't mean that this one change, this controlled reasonable change, is inconsistent with the overall goals and objectives of the master plan. That's how I read it. And the the report also acknowledges,
quote, "Managing economic growth with impacts on infrastructure, visual character, and natural resources is a balancing act." Unquote. So, why then, if the governing body, who are representatives of the community and of the people, believe that this one
change is in the best interests of Sparta, should that action be deemed substantially inconsistent with the overall goals and objectives of the master plan? That's the charge. >> Argue. Uh, yes. I I
I agree with you. I the largest building we have in town now, I believe, is 68,000 square feet. And other than ShopRite, which is larger, but that's doesn't count. Uh, it doesn't say that you can't
Six, pardon me? >> No, don't don't Let's not back and forth. Let's not get there. >> The uh it doesn't count as far as using the rail. And it didn't say that you couldn't use the rail with 75,000 square feet. And the
the economic growth does not have to change depending upon the size of the the building. 75,000 square feet is very very rational. Um we should have probably done this before, but we
didn't. Um the environment that we want to keep at this area is not to overdevelop. And it is the most highly trafficked and
highly at highest accident rate anywhere in town. And we're already rated D. So having a beautiful area and keeping it at 75,000 and not massive buildings is what we're looking for.
And overall protection of our residents is what's the most important thing. So I agree with this. And it it does it is not inconsistent with the master plan. So that is my belief. Thank you. Thank
you. Neil. >> Sure. Um so when I received the report from uh the planning board planner, um I took a look at it
and I'll just be kind I think it suffers from a lot of methodological and analytical flaws. First off um I think it would be helpful uh that she puts in what is the definition of substantially consistent. At no point do
we have the standard uh uh that was her task. Um again, when I read this, it looks like uh, we have someone substituting their judgment for, uh, a policy. What's the best way to,
uh, curve, uh, traffic, uh, improve the aesthetic environment, have a consistency of scale. Those are policy decisions made by the elected officials of Sparta. What we seem to have here is just a disagreement on the means by which we
are achieving that. And to me, that goes beyond the scope and responsibilities of the planner. And so, if you want, there's a Supreme Court case which defines what it means to be substantially consistent.
And they said, "Thus, the concept of substantially consistent permits some inconsistency, provided it does not substantially or materially undermine or distort the basic provisions and objectives of the master plan." And so, what the, what
needed to be in here was not "Oh, it doesn't guarantee safety." That's not the standard. What was needed to be in this document, which was not, was that how does this materially
and substantially distort the basic provisions? That's a pretty high standard. This doesn't do it. It simply looks to me as a disagreement over the means by which this council, uh, following in on the will of the people and the elected
official, to some, to, as elected officials, to carry out that will, which is to do something about, uh, the overdevelopment in that. Now, she may disagree that maybe this isn't the, the most precise way, but to me, that's not the charge that she was
tasked with. The charge was to find how this substantially and materially undermine. Instead, it's, "Well, it doesn't really guarantee that." And one thing that also would have been helpful is for her to deal with the prior precedent of the own planning board. Now, you'll recall how we got
here. 2101 had no limit on footprint size. Absolutely none. Then you had 2221, which was passed, which limited it brought us down to 175,000 square feet.
And that they found was consistent. So, how is it that you can reduce the size from almost unlimited down to 175 and find that consistent, but when you go to 175 to 75, somehow that's inconsistent?
To me, that seems a little arbitrary. Next, we have the analysis about, well, if you really want to have economic development, you need to have a bigger um a bigger square footage. And
as if she's now doing as a proxy for economic development, size. And as we know, a ratable isn't just based upon the size, right? It's based on the type of building, where the place is located, the materials.
And so, you could have a 75,000 square foot marble encased, you know, let's say, Open AI wants to build something at 75,000 square feet and they're going to spend a ton of money to build it. It's going to be a pretty good ratable.
Just because something's bigger doesn't mean it's going to bring in more revenue. So, she makes the same flaw that she accuses us of. She accuses us of equating intensity with size, yet she's equating
size with economic development. So, that's another flaw that I found, and I think that's why it's helpful that we have this resolution tonight to disregard that. Um because I think another thing too is I one I think it was said that this Am I
right, uh Mr. That this does not make as a prohibited use rail adjacent uses, right? We didn't change that. >> That's correct. >> So, rail adjacent uses are still allowed under this. >> Correct. >> Okay. Now, whether they are economically feasible to a developer, that's not
something that we take into consideration. It may or may not be. Right? So, I think that needs to be right off the bat. This does not prohibit rail adjacent uses. Now, it may a developer may find I can't do a rail adjacent use
uh anything under 75,000 square feet. Okay, but that that doesn't make this arbitrary. Um second thing is if we're I don't think we should put all our eggs in the basket of of bigger means better. We want this zone to be
economically diverse. Meaning we want to attract different types of businesses and spread it out. You can see where municipalities go wrong where they go all in on one type of economic use. What happens when there's an industry downturn? Right?
You can look at You can look at states have done that. West Virginia is one of the poorest states in our nation. Why? They went all in on coal. And all the promises they gave to those miners and all those people never panned out. And the people who got rich were the people on the
mine, but the people didn't. And now they don't have that. So, we need to spread this economic diversity. And so, by limiting it, maybe we'll attract different types of businesses. And so, that is also what went into this. Um so, again, I I I'm glad that we have
the resolution tonight uh to find the inconsistencies. I think there's a lot of flaws in this. And I And And normally I would you know, I I agree. We should support our professionals and give deference to them based on their experience. But when I'm simply looking at and looking at the law, I just don't
find where she did the proper analysis that this somehow substantially and materially undermines. That's a big standard. At no point does she use the phrase substantially and materially undermine, which is a phrase that she should have used in order for us to actually give
deference to her analysis. And I think if we gave deference to it, I think we would be acting arbitrarily because this to me seems like backing in in a policy choice that she made, which was goes beyond the scope of her responsibilities. Thank you. >> Yeah, let me address some legal points
briefly. First of all, the Mr. Gray made a comment that notice was not provided to his client under Section 62.1 of the Municipal Land Use Law. If you actually read Section 62.1 of the Municipal Land Use Law, you
will see that notice is not required. Uh That's a super note That's a super notice requirement. The criteria for super notice here is not uh met. Uh secondly, the discussion of this council has
centered on whether or not the ordinance is consistent with the master plan. It seems to be the majority of the council agrees that the ordinance is consistent with the master plan. However, the important point is even if, as the council has to acknowledge the planning
board's finding, the ordinance is found to be inconsistent or partially inconsistent, the council has followed the letter of the law set forth in Municipal Land Use Law Section 62 by providing a companion resolution that identifies the reasons
even if the council agrees that the ordinance is consistent. I understand it does not agree, but even if it's inconsistent, the legislator has uh provided a means for the council to pass a resolution that accompanies the ordinance to set forth the reasoned
resolution the reasoned uh uh basis for the ordinance to be passed notwithstanding the planning board's finding. So, we have here tonight not only the ordinance, but we have a companion resolution that says that even
if the council was to agree the ordinance was inconsistent, which it does not, it is prepared to move forward legally under the statute uh with the reasons provided in the resolution. And I won't belabor the record to respond to each of Mr. Gray's points, but each of
Mr. Gray's points, respectfully, are addressed in the council's uh resolution that should be uh considered as part of this ordinance hearing and and voted on after um And in addition, Mayor, we should also
just note the recommendation from Mr. Poro and address that. Uh I think you were going to do that. >> I do that. Yeah, I do. Before I do that, I just wanted to clarify two elements were brought up tonight that said there were changes in this ordinance. One was about the allowable doctors. There's no change.
For buildings in the same size, 75,000 under, there's no change in the allowable doctors. Also, the allowable build- building tenants, there was no change. No, the existing doc- the existing ordinance has a requirement if the building is I'm I'm looking at the
planner's report right here. Um For buildings over 100,000 square feet, then there becomes a requirement for allowing two tenants per warehouse as a maximum. It's not addressed under under 100,000, there's no requirement in the existing ordinance, nor in this proposed
ordinance. Um so, I do want to acknowledge uh Mr. Poro's the planning board attorney's um documentation to us around the planning board's um recommendations that came along with the report of their
finding. Um some explicitly acknowledging the two recommendations. Um and for each of them I will uh state the reason why the governing body is uh disapproving of them or rejecting those reasons and we'll have a vote on
that though. I'm not just going to state them. We're going to have a vote on that uh for consensus. So, first the first recommendation is I'm going to read verbatim, "Scope of proposed ordinance 2612 needs clarification. The board discussed the differing nature of the three
encompassed EDPDRM1, PDRM2 zones. For example, possibly continuing the 175,000 square foot structures in some of the zones but not all." So, what we'll be voting on is the reason that we are um not approving or
going along with that uh rejecting that is that the council believes that a uniform approach to the maximum square footage allowable across all three zones is the most efficient, effective, and equitable solution. Uh the second recommendation
states that the board should consider and I'm assuming naming the governing body uh should consider a framework of tiered site design standards, scaled environmental regulations, and mandatory traffic impact studies that adjust
accordingly operational intensity. Um for that one, the council believes that incorporating a tiered site design standards, scale scaled environmental regulations, and mandatory traffic impact studies um are beyond the scope of the intended change and would add increased
complexity at this time. Additionally, I want to point out that each of those zones already has traffic impact study requirements in them. So, um that that was just an oversight I I assume. Um so, those are the two recommendations
and um the reasons. Now, I'm going to uh uh make a motion that the council acknowledge those recommendations and the reasons why um we are um disapproving of those uh two together. So, I'll make a motion.
May I have a second? >> Second. >> Um may I have a roll call vote, please? >> Councilman Scott. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Murphy. >> Yes. >> Councilman Clark. >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor Sylvester. >> No. >> Mayor Blumenauer. >> Yes. Okay. That has uh
been approved. Okay. Uh before we get to the final vote for adopting this ordinance, um Mr. Dash, would you like to add any additional comments about procedure in terms of the relationship between this and the resolution 83? >> No. So, um the the the Municipal Land
Use Law statute requires this resolution to be considered contemporaneously with the ordinance. So, after the council votes on the ordinance, it should then vote on the resolution. But,
in fairness, I I I will open if anybody wants to speak on the resolution itself and you feel like you haven't had a chance, I don't want later an objection that that there wasn't an opportunity to be heard on the resolution.
So, anyone here who wants to speak on the resolution because the council is going to vote on the ordinance and then it's going to vote on the resolution. So, to the extent you want to speak on resolution I don't have the >> 83 >> 8-3
uh and you haven't already made your comments, now is your opportunity. Seeing none, the council can now proceed to vote on the ordinance and then vote on the resolution. >> Okay. And just procedurally we're going to do
this vote and we're going to do the >> [laughter] >> resolution quickly and then we're going to do about a 10-minute recess. This just timing-wise. Okay, may I have a motion to adopt ordinance 2612? >> So moved. >> May have a second?
>> I'll second. >> Uh Madam Clerk, a roll call vote, please. >> Councilman Scott? >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Murphy? >> Yes. >> Councilman Clark? >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor Sylvester? >> No. >> Mayor Boom Matty? >> Yes.
>> Okay, ordinance 2612 has been adopted. Okay, moving on. We are going to move right into resolution 8-8-3 for the reasons just noted. Um resolution of the Township of Sparta in the County of Sussex, State of New Jersey
setting forth reasons pursuant to NJSA 40:55D-62A for adopting ordinance 2612 notwithstanding the Planning Board's finding that ordinance 2612 is inconsistent with the Sparta Township Master Plan. I may have a motion to approve resolution 8-3. >> So moved.
>> May have a second? >> Second. >> Any further discussion? Okay, Madam Clerk, may I have a roll call vote, please? >> Councilman Scott? >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Murphy? >> Yes. >> Councilman Clark? >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor Sylvester? >> No.
>> Mayor Boom Matty? >> Yes. >> Resolution 8-3 has passed. Okay, may I have a motion for a 10-minute recess? >> So moved. >> A second? >> Second. All in favor? >> I. >> I. >> Okay, we'll reconvene at 5:00 of. Thank
you. >> Jim. No. Go on. Go on. Go on. Go home. Fine. Thank you. Really? >> Yes. >> Thank you, Mark.
Yeah, thank you. I'm trying. >> Um, because >> Right. >> Should be >> Right. >> Let me know if you Okay, that was a multi-agency >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> [clears throat] >> All right, I'm going to make a motion to
go back into our public meeting. May I have a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> I. >> Okay, we're back in public session. We're now going on to the remaining resolutions. Uh at this point we have resolutions four through eight left. I'm going to carve out six and seven to
handle individually. Um so unless there's any opposition, let's uh handle four, five, and eight together. So I'm going to make a motion to approve resolutions 84, 85, and 88. May I have a
second? >> I'll second that. >> Okay, any conversation or discussion? Okay. I'll just add a couple of comments. Um many of you probably know of the New Jersey School of Conservation. I don't remember how many >> 75 years.
>> Eons ago. 75 years ago. Okay. Um it's located up in up in Stokes um in our county. It provides environmental education to nearby elementary schools. It offers professional development to our local teachers. >> Yeah. >> It contributes to the local economy. It has partnerships and relationships with
numerous local youth programs and associated nonprofits. And it provides internships and jobs for uh county residents. >> And they want to defund it. >> Uh just clarification. So this is the current administration in Trenton trying
to defund the funding that they've relied upon just for the public's >> For yes. >> They've they've got yeah. >> And this is just that this isn't any this isn't a financial contribution. This is just showing support that we asked them to fund it. >> Okay. Yes. They've done cuz
because they have completely defunded it. So if that happens, it will close. >> Yeah. It's about >> Well, it has happened. >> Yeah. >> So we're Yeah, we're joining many other municipalities that have said that they want to keep it going. And this is a >> Including the county >> a resolution.
>> The county too has already passed a resolution. Um this has bounced around for quite a number of years in recent times. Montclair State University had a a management maybe financial stake in it. Um so it's bounced around a bit in the last I don't know, maybe 5 years, 3 years. Um and they have a nonprofit that's been trying to raise funds, but now it's it
was supposed to be guaranteed funding on an annual basis. And now um it's it's not a given. It's getting cut, but it's up for um it's at risk. So it typically my view is that we we don't um I know many of you are all of you share this. We don't get involved in um state
supporting national politics or national um issues, I'll put it that way. And even typically not things going on in Trenton unless we feel that there's uh a regional link or a local link or something that affects um us and our neighboring towns and our
communities and that's why this one falls into that realm more than some other ones that we get approached with. So, I just wanted to clarify that as well. Okay, we have our we have our motion. We have our second. So, >> I would just say I think you know I agree with you Mayor Brueckner that
normally we don't do these resolutions involving any kind of legislative work at the state unless it has a direct impact on Sparta or you know the Sussex County and as you can see in the resolution Sussex County teachers have attended
teacher professional development training on conservation at the New Jersey Conservation School. The Community College has entered into a partnership with it. You know I think probably Sussex Tech has had people go through there and get training on it. So, if this gets defunded and it
doesn't exist anymore this would have a direct impact on on Sparta and the larger community. So, I think it really falls into that sort of exception. So, I think that you know having just returned from some of our national parks out in
Wyoming we need more people to staff these. You know those are real huge assets and people who have expertise in conservation are normally the people who get those type of jobs and so you know we need to encourage more people to get into this and not discourage it and so
I think this is a step in the right direction. I hope Governor hears from all these communities that have passed similar resolutions and we can get and they'll decide to return funding for this very valuable asset.
>> Absolutely. Okay, let's let's go to vote. All in favor of resolution 86 say I. >> I. >> I. >> Resolution 8 has been >> I may just clarify just clarify the two or three you carved out. Can you go through that again? I want to make sure you got me on the record. Voting in
favor for them. All right. Thank you. The carve outs, the original carve outs? >> Yeah, we carved out >> bundled. >> Oh, the bundled four, five, and four, five, and eight. Yeah, we we have yes, we yes. >> All right, thank you. >> Okay, and last resolution 87, a
resolution authorizing the submission of a grant application and execution of a grant contract with the New Jersey Department of Transportation for the Town Center Drive Improvements Project. Uh may we have a motion to approve 87? >> So moved.
>> May we have a second? >> Second. >> Uh Town Manager, would you mind just giving a quick just just brief comment about this? >> This is very similar to the other DOT grants that we try to take advantage of every year. As you know, the previous years we have taken advantage of the
Main Street sidewalk improvements. That was through this program. Um this year Town Engineer Stoner and I put our heads together and I think Town Center Drive stands a good chance of getting an award. It's a it's a linking road between Main Street and and 517.
It's due for some attention. Um so we're going to throw our hat in the ring and and see if we get some money out of it. Uh this resolution allows us to start the process. >> Right. >> Thank you. >> Does Hakemian have any responsibility there? >> Excuse me?
>> Does Hakemian, the shopping center owner, have any No, any responsibility for that road? >> He doesn't. It's a public road. >> Okay. >> Just one quick question. >> Sure. >> Uh is there any matching funds with this or how what's the grant structure like?
If we're awarded a grant, do we have to >> It will depend on the award. Uh but there's usually is some type of contribution that the town would have to make towards it. Uh there's times when it's 50% and there's times like uh the Station Road project that we had done a few years ago, that actually got fully
funded. We we really didn't have to put a whole lot of money into that one. So, it all depends on how they're feeling. >> And what's the dollar value to grant? Uh what's the cap on it? >> I'm going to >> That was That was just too quick. That's >> Yeah, I I Corey and I are working on this today.
>> Okay, well, uh we're still putting the numbers together, but I estimate the number to be approximately $150,000, you know, for the resurfacing of the roadway. Um the with the uh some other costs that might be related to uh to the project uh related to the
milling, paving, striping, engineering costs, inspections. It might be get closer to 200,000. We'll request the whole amount. Likely you'll get probably a >> the soft They cover the soft costs of doing that? >> A certain percentage. It'll cover the inspection costs up to a certain amount, and it will cover up uh engineering costs up to 5% I believe.
Um unlikely you'll get the whole dollar amount, especially cuz we do have two sidewalk projects that are out, you know, right now on um on the um um uh you know, coming into on 181 to your Sparta Avenue sidewalk grants for the
last 2 years, which we're not We're going to ask to do them next year. So, we got a couple grants that are in the in the books we're not completing. I I assume we'll probably get around $150,000, and then you'll have to fund the rest. >> And the turnaround time on approvals? When submission? Already taken
>> Submissions are due in July, and they typically They typically come out around election day, go figure. Uh but the the November they normally come out there was about who who gets grant funding, and typically every every municipality in the county for the most part gets some
kind of funding. They They used to be very specific about who gets it. They are now, but the um uh but they try to spread it around. >> Right. >> And that would not be this year. Yeah, you you have um 18 months I believe to complete the
the project. So, even though it comes in 2026 be constructed in 2027. >> All right. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Corey. >> Thanks, Corey. >> Okay, all in favor of approving resolution 87 say I. >> I.
>> Okay, 87 has been approved. Now we're going to uh our second and and last open to the public segment on the agenda tonight. Uh this is for items not on the agenda. Again, items not on the agenda. Uh please state and spell your name for the record. Each
speaker is limited to one comment of no more than 5 minutes and no yielding of time to another person. >> May I also speak, then? All right. Beth Broderick, North Shore. I have two questions. Number one is
can we, instead of having a 5-minute limit, can we up that to seven on items not on the agenda since we only have one opportunity to address council and sometimes there's a lot of back and forth and topics take more than 5
minutes sometimes. I know that it happened a couple of times tonight where everybody was watching the clock. So, if we could kind of put that out there or come up with some opportunity other than email for residents to speak with council on, you know, at meetings or whatever. And
number two is we're hearing 75,000 square foot caps and buildings and warehouses. What are we doing with all of the empty buildings and storefronts that are already built and here? If you go up to
where the movie theater is, Furrari just put a lot of money into it. There's a bunch of empty buildings there. You drive down Main Street, a lot of There's a lot of for rent signs. Do you think maybe the I don't know or it's business development council, whatever, can
somebody please come up with some way to fill those buildings because it's not putting Sparta in the light that >> [gasps] >> businesses would want to come here. Like we we we want people to come and spend money and look at the town and want to be here. But when there's so many empty
buildings, you're really not doing a whole like the appropriate you is not doing anything to boost the town and money and making it worthwhile to be here. So, I really think that you need to look at that instead of non-stop ordinances about this, that,
and the other thing, but make it attractive to bring the businesses and the people here. That's all I got. >> Thank you. But the second part is good for Mike and Mark. They're on business development committee, so it's good fodder for you guys to take back and keep going forward with that,
whatever ideas are coming out of that. Um Thank you, Beth. Appreciate it. I do I do want to share because this has come up and you can sit. That's okay. Or or take your time. >> [laughter] >> I hear. Um about the public comment period and the protocols. And this has come up in the
past, and um I did look into it. Anecdotally, I've heard from the different towns in our county around what kind of public comment periods they have in their meetings. And ours is far and above one of the highest, most
frequent amount of minutes provided to the public. Um I did do some research because I wanted to make sure that what we were doing was appropriate and accurate not short-changing. Um I looked at the 20 closest towns to Sparta and looked at the
amount of time they allowed per speaker and the amount of segments they have. And the of the 20 towns, only four of those towns offer two 5-minute public comment segments. The rest are all less. So, two a four towns out of the 20
closest towns to Sparta offer two, like we do, two five-minute segments. Um so, when I looked at the the average, Sparta offers double the average of those 20 towns. And that's some big towns, some small towns, not just in our county, they go to Morris County, of course. Um
and they're all located within approximately 20 miles of Sparta. But, I just did that for my own so I could sleep at night. Just want to make sure see what other towns were doing. And again, out of the 20 towns I looked at, um only four offer, like we do, two five-minute segments.
Um so, there are other avenues to engage with us. Um Here at the microphone, standing is not usually the ideal place to work really work through a solution or work through a problem. It's good for public comment, it's good for questions. Um if we have a chance to sit down or talk
to either staff or the council, you get a lot more done like that with one-on-one or in small groups. Um the public comment period is not really meant to have an in-depth working meeting together. So, but I appreciate your suggestion. I just wanted to share some of that information, um just about kind of what I found in that research.
Okay, any other people like to speak? >> Good evening. Late night. Um Emily Sarafino, uh Wendy Bush in Sparta. I'm speaking in my personal capacity here as a citizen. Um and I'm just going to read an email that I sent to council twice in the past
2 weeks and did not receive response to except for Mayor Bluemetti who acknowledged my but did not answer any of my questions. I'm speaking to express my profound disappointment in the decision to go out for a search for a new town manager. As someone who has worked in this town for
years with a variety of town managers and a variety of capacities, I'm conf- I can confidently say that Jim Zepp stands among one of the finest public servants I have ever encountered. He is transparent, knowledgeable, diligent, and deeply committed to the well-being
of Sparta. His decades of ser- of service to our community, coupled with his leadership and institutional knowledge, have made him an invaluable asset to the township. And Mr. Zepp, how many years have you worked in Sparta? >> 25. >> Thank you. I have had the privilege of personally
working with Mr. Zepp since his time in the DPW, and I've consistently found him to be one of the most reliable, professional, and dedicated individuals in municipal government. Sparta has been fortunate to benefit from his leadership, and I struggle to understand the rationale behind seeking a replacement for someone who has served
the community with such dedication. Any doubt in his role or performance only sheds light on the shortsightedness of council. I disagree with Mr. Clark's characterization that this resolution is as economic due diligence. Mr. Zepp is an employee, he is not a service. Under
that rationale, every employee position would be vulnerable every year, and a search should take place for every single municipal employee. Equally concerning is the manner in which this decision was introduced and voted upon. The process appeared abrupt and lacked the level of transparency and
professionalism that residents should expect from their elected officials. I am disappointed by the actions of Councilman Clark, Councilman Scott, and Councilwoman Murphy. Introducing a proposal of this significance without prior discussion is inappropriate, and the fact that it appeared to catch both
fellow council members and Mr. Zepp himself by surprise is unprofessional and unethical. This is not how town council conducts business. Leadership requires transparency, communication, and consideration for the individuals affected by such decisions. Publicly
raising questions about an employee's future without affording them the courtesy of prior notice undermines trust not only within the governing body, but through the community, and destroys the morale of community. It raises legitimate concerns about how a township's staff members are valued and
treated under this council. I'd like to commend Mis- Mayor Blumetti and Deputy Mayor Sylvester for their professionalism, decorum, and willingness to address these concerns concerns regarding the motion. Regardless of individual opinions regarding the town manager position, the comments reflected a commitment to
thoughtful governance and due process. Now, these are the six questions I asked and have not received any answer for the two times I've asked them. One, and Councilman Clark, Scott, and Murphy, you can answer because it was your motion. What other positions are going to go out
for RFP or executive search, and when can the town expect emotions for those? Can the council confirm whether any council members had discussions with potential candidates for the town manager position prior to the motion being introduced? I think Councilman Scott, you can answer that question.
What specific benefits or improvements does the council anticipate will result in replacing Mr. Zepp? In light of budget discussions, how much will this executive search cost? What is the projected timeline for recruitment and then hiring and onboarding a new a new town manager?
Was the council attorney consulted prior to this motion? Did he advise that this was a good decision for the community? And given that this is a personnel matter, which is usually discussed in executive session, why was the motion introduced and considered publicly without prior discussion? I truly hope the council fully considers
the implications of this decision and the message it sends to township employees and residents alike. While the public nature of this action has already generated concern within the community and further damage to the reputation of this council, the potential loss of an experienced and dedicated public servant
such as Mr. Zepp would be a significant setback for Sparta. Thank you. >> Thank you. I'll leave it I'll leave it open in case anyone would like to address any of those questions at this time or do it separately. >> are you going to answer her? >> Wait one second. >> Are you going to answer her?
>> Honey, would you like to? >> I I have no comment for the I have no comment. >> Yeah, I haven't um I apologize. I haven't seen your questions. I've been traveling, but I will um I stand by the comments that I made uh previously.
Um also, I would caution people uh before they stand at the mic and accuse someone of unethical behavior. That's quite a charge. Quite a charge. And it was not It was simply a motion to go to an executive search firm. Now, you
may disagree with how that process unfolded, but I would caution people, particularly those who serve on boards, who know how governments work, before you level a charge of unethical conduct to any member and
think through that. Because none of us up here are trying to do something unethically, either intentionally or unintentionally. So, I I take real issue at that. I will
look at your your your questions. I stand by what I said. It's a simply not to replace the town manager. It's simply to have a proposal to get cost estimates about uh a uh executive search firm, uh which we haven't done yet. We I haven't received
them yet. So, that that process is just starting. Um so, but I'll I'll take a look and and and get them, but I would again, I really do take issue with with someone standing up and accusing uh this council of unethical behavior, particularly when
you can't cite any type of uh actually rule, bylaw, uh legal precedent uh for that charge. So, again, I would caution people before you make that. Uh do your homework. And if you're going to make such a uh
a charge like that, um you better be able to back it up. Thank you. Okay. >> [clears throat] >> Can I go? Okay. That was very well said, Emily, and I'm very proud of you. And thank you for bringing it here. So, I'm going to take
some of that up. You were looking at me, Neil, when you said it something about threats, especially from people sitting on a board. You looked at me. Was that some kind of threat? I'm not even understand I hope not. I hope not because that's how it came across. So,
that's not a that's not a good idea. Well, you were. So, watch the tape, and I'm just saying. So, here are some things that I have an issue with. I'm sorry, this is my time. This is Okay. But, I want my time back.
Okay. I want my time back. So, here's what I have a problem with. As long as we're all going to vent where we have problems, I got a little bit of a problem with the fact that certain members of this board have nothing but all they keep doing is
talking about the previous administration when it comes to this budget. So, I'm going to educate you guys as far as what the previous administration, some of which I was privileged enough to be associated with, provided to you and the professional staff like Bill Close, different planners, different
professionals that we had, everything that we did since you guys want to keep talking about that. So, let's take a little walk down memory lane. First and foremost, previous administration had almost $11 million, and regardless of what you guys are saying, what I'm showing to the crowd
right now is the actual bar chart that is actually on the website that shows the way we were with it during these years. And if anyone would like to see this, I'm happy. Here it is right here. So, we
rose the rateables from nothing at all. How do we had 11 million dollars. We had rateables flowing that were balanced. People didn't even realize they were here. It was a well-oiled machine. We had a capital budget every
single year. Jim and Tom, you know this, of a minimum of 1.5 million. Minimum. Usually it was two and two and a half million. While at the same time we were growing in surplus. All of our salaries got all of our our employees got salary increases. Our rec
programs grew and flourished. Every single civic event was funded, might I add. Um and still through all of this we were meeting and because of all the work that we had done, all the collective initiatives that we had taken
to grow this budget, we had money coming into the surplus. We you keep talking about why we didn't we didn't raise the taxes. You know why? It's simple. We didn't have to. We had rateables coming in and guess what? I was sitting on 12 million dollars worth of surplus. We
were. So, it would have been irresponsible for us, while we're growing our surplus, having capital, growing programs, treating our staff really well, to raise the taxes. And I want you guys to all remember as well,
three of those years were COVID. So, I want you all to put your thinking caps on because you heard us up there multiple times saying people were losing their jobs, losing their homes, losing whatever. And you know what? We didn't need to do any of any raising of taxes during a time when people were stressing
and it was such a horrible time. So, I just want to bring that little point up because everyone seems to have a problem remembering that. Really, when it comes down to it, we also, and Corey could attest to this, Jim could attest this, we also were meeting with professionals
to build community centers, splash pads, pump parks, all of that. These are all things that we were meeting with professionals to talk about because we were so solvent and fiscally, financially strong. Okay? Here's the other thing. So,
with all of that said, maybe you guys that have the problem that want to keep talking about previous councils should spend the same effort and amount of time that you seem to expand on blaming everyone else fixing the problems that you created yourselves. You know, you
seem to spin this narrative constantly to mislead everybody um that that you're the victims and not the perpetrators of this. This chart makes it very clear. When the new majority came on the council in 2023, the first thing they were saying was, "We have too much money
in the surplus. We have too much money." They weren't happy with the amount of money we had. And you can go back and listen to recordings of that cuz that's factual. Just some other things. At the end of the day, our residents need to understand the gravity of the situation we are in right now financially because I don't think they are and it's not a
joke, okay? First and foremost, if we've are not financially solvent, it affects the schools, their borrowing power because they piggyback off us, and also if we are not financially solvent, we run the risk that the state comes in, the local finance board comes in, your
property taxes can plummet. It's not good. So, this is not a joke. People need to start paying attention to the gravity of what is going on here. And two other things, the master plan um um you know, I keep hearing people say, "Oh, it's never been reviewed since
1984." That's not true. Every 5 7 years a professional master plan review was done. It is filed. It's filed in town hall and I have it, too, so does every member that sat on the planning board for the past 20 years. So, it has been reviewed professionally and updates have
been made to it. Um the second thing is >> Chris, I'm going to have to ask you to wrap up. >> Well, Neil took my time, so I'm taking some time back. That's fine. >> Okay. >> Um the other thing is the, you know, comments that we've been here before and we can build our way back. That's true.
We have been here before, but let me tell you something, it took 12 years to build what was wiped out of here in three. Okay? And in order to make that change and the way it happened last time, people started paying attention,
they they paid attention at the ballot box, they paid attention in town hall, new people were moved around. That's how we came out of it and I will not sit here anymore and listen to the insults to all the people that worked so hard, some are sitting right here, to bring it
back. It's disrespectful and it's not fair. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Good evening. I'm an unhappy citizen of Sparta Township, taxpayer. >> Can I get your name, please? >> Jessica. So, I'm here tonight to advise you that
um there was an incident which I was a witness of. And this incident went to court and it's currently in litigation and I was informed that my personal information, my social security number, my date of birth, my home address, my
telephone number, has all been released. It was not redacted. I believe it is your duty as a Township to protect your citizens and redact this information. This has been shared like confetti amongst lawyers, lawyers that have been fired.
It has also made its way to the accuser. So, with this black cloud of lawsuits above our town, with your negligence, you are opening the door to more lawsuits. That's it. >> Thank you. On that note, if you'd like to have a
conversation afterwards or set up a meeting about the situation, we can. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. >> Do I [clears throat] sign in as well? I don't know that I have. I apologize. Caitlin Gagnon, Summit Road in Sparta.
Uh I too am speaking in my personal capacity and not in my capacity as the board president uh for the Sparta Board of Education. I think it's very important to note Emily does have a right as a citizen, as a resident of Sparta, to speak her mind and advocate for township employees where she feels
possible. She made it very clear at the beginning of her commentary that she was speaking in her personal capacity, and I would ask that we we respect that. I am not the type to say something online that I wouldn't say in person. So, having said this, I appreciate Mayor
Blumetti and Deputy Mayor Sylvester for the way that you handled last meeting. And I think it's very important to note that while I understand there are certain elements that perhaps can't be discussed when it comes to personnel
matters or um and again, I'm not going to speculate on whether or not someone was raised or noticed, whether or not discussions had happened privately or in executive uh I'm not going to speculate there, but I do think when you when it comes down to it, what Emily was likely speaking to,
there should be a culture of no surprises. That's a really a culture that I think any public entity, let alone elected officials, any elected official capacity, striving to avoid surprise motions is such an integral part of not
only communal representation and transparency, but respect for your colleagues. And I think that's what disappointed me most as a listener last meeting was feeling like not only were your colleagues perhaps not noticing again, not only speculating, I'm not sure whether or not
discussions happened that were private, um but ultimately I think also conveying on some level where you can without breaching your ethical obligations, without breaching your personal integrity, letting the community know why you are making this decision.
And while I am certainly all about fiscal responsibility and RFPs sometimes are a great example of that, I also believe that you have to be able to justify a large surprise decision through a motion. So, I would just ask
respectfully and courteously if the members who advocated for this motion would perhaps be willing to share in the best of their ability with the guidance of your counsel, what you can convey in terms of why you
reached this decision. Because sadly, there are rumors and there is information that's circulating that certain council members are soliciting or speaking to various members to potentially sit in Mr. Zep's seat. And I don't know that that's
appropriate. Now again, rumors. I am certainly aware that those fly. I'm often the victim of many of them, but I do think it's important to be able to convey to your constituents, especially those that voted for you, why you're making this decision and why it's
a decision that we should trust. Because I think that if you're able to convey that in a compelling way, you'll have the support that you seek. But when we see turmoil, when we see surprise motions, and the entire council descends into this back and forth as to what's
right, I think that's where you get some of the comments that you're now criticizing. Um and while I respect your right to do that, I want to be very clear, Emily has a right to speak in her personal capacity as do I. So, Mr. Zep, always pleasure working with you. I will
continue to advocate for you for the best to the best of my ability as well. And please we're all ears. We'd love to learn more. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Joanne Scally, Sparta, New Jersey. Uh first of all, I'd like to apologize to Mr. Zep on behalf of myself, my family,
and a good majority of our town on the shenanigans that went on at the last meeting. It was a humiliate humiliating and shocking for Mr. Zep, all that were in the room, and watching from home. I find it reprehensible to bring up a motion for RFP RFP on a dedicated
employee of many years who did a great job in the DPW and as our town manager while the employee is sitting in a public council meeting. Mr. Zep was very professional, educated on procedures, and had to advise you on the proper way to search for a new
manager. Mr. Zep had to advise you that the most towns do RFP to hire an executive search firm firm, which then you had to change your motion. Um even though you were talking about the possibility of terminating him, he was very professional. Why didn't the
three of you and your attorney know how to do this motion and how a RFP works? That's a good question, but you want to get rid of a manager who professionally does his job and was courteous and professional sitting up there after
being attacked. Uh you should have gone into executive session when um Mayor Blumerdy and Deputy um Mayor um Sylvester said we shouldn't be talking about this um before going deeper into this public humiliation of an employee sitting right next to you.
The three of you, same three, blindsided um What else say? The three of you blindsided Mr. Zep, Mayor Blumerdy, and Deputy Mayor Sylvester. The behavior was exactly what you did to Councilman Cieriello and Councilman Blumetti when you hired Mr. Dash. Councilman Cieriello even
mentioned that he had to walk out of an executive board meeting because of what was said. And he um which shouldn't have been being discussed. Councilman Cieriello resigned to maintain his integrity. And that's a shame. He served a term on here and then
um he was forced to resign to maintain his integrity. That's sad. I don't think the search for and especially the hiring of a town manager should happen before a new council is seating sit seated in January. Elections are a little over 4 months away.
Do not hire. I hope you're not planning on installing a friend into the manager's position like you did in the past. You blindsided Councilman Cieriello and Blumetti with um that one. Councilman Cieriello was adamant meeting should not continue without a seated attorney. That was at your reorganizing.
Of course that was railroaded through. Um our sweet town has become victim to many things that have shown a bad light on us and was talked about coast to coast and even out of the country. I know that because I get kidded about how I always talk about how sweet my town and everyone's lovely.
Um with friends while I'm in Wawa. The one thing that stands out is there's one common denominator in all these things. I'll leave it at that. Thank you. And sorry again and I appreciate everything you did for our town. >> Thank you.
>> [clears throat] >> Pete Litchfield, 120 Conestoga Trail. Uh Jim, I just want to thank you for all your help over the years and you have a lot tougher skin than all these people. And I know things will work out well for you. Where was the money going to come from to hire a a head hunter to find a
replacement? We're just saying how we don't have any money. They don't work for free. I know that. I used to use them that in my Uh the other thing, I'm looking at your ordinance here. If you look at this traffic study, it's boilerplate from the warehouse.
Why do you Why don't you just tell people that want to build over there, this is what's going to come back. Be ready for it. I mean, every time we come here and they're building something on even when the ShopRite was being built, the state didn't do anything to do widen the road.
And uh the place is a mess now. We have more kids living up there. A busload every day going into our schools. The developer never gave you a nickel towards the schools. >> Nope. >> And then we have the traffic report that
says the same thing over and over. Tell the people, if you want to build, you better be ready to sue us because we're going to give you this first. What's the difference if I built two $75,000 75,000 square foot buildings or one 150?
The traffic The traffic's going to be state's going to come back exactly the same. It shouldn't be building anything there. I don't even go on on 15 on the weekends. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, baby. >> Who else? >> Yeah.
The cannabis ordinance planning board came and said, "Don't do it. You did it." Planning board last week voted 6-2, "Don't do it. You did it."
At the meeting 2 weeks ago, the very end of the meeting, former chairwoman Joan Firman spoke up >> [clears throat] >> and she said the following. "Back in September 2025,
there was an application that went before the sub planning committee. And person was told uh no, you got to go to the full planning board. That went to the full planning board. Mr. Zepp signed off on it. Mr. Zepp,
I've known you a long time, Jim. You've got a lot of integrity. Who told you to do that? Who instructed you to do that? To sign off and circumvent the planning board, circumvent all these ordinances,
and just Help me. I'm curious. >> I think I'll be >> I'm the curious person in the world. >> Yeah, I think those are accusations Aaron on circumventing a process, which I don't think happened, but Attorney Dash, would you like to comment at all on that? >> Well, Jim signed it. And Joan Furman's
the one that said it's not an accusation. Joan Furman sat right in that meeting, and I sat right there when she made this. So, she's making an accusation that's not true? >> I don't know. Perhaps. I'm not sure. Everyone has their own opinions on that. >> Yeah, Mr. Gassman, you're welcome to
make a public request to satisfy your inquiries. Your question is you may disagree, but your question's not proper, and you can disagree with it. Mr. Zepp isn't going to answer that question in this forum. >> My question's not proper? >> You heard me. That's what I said. So, you can disagree with it, or you can
make an open request. >> What is the impropriety of that question? >> I'm actually not going to engage with you further. >> Yeah, there are legitimate reasons why decisions are made that aren't illegal and aren't circumventing. >> Well, I'm just curious why it didn't go
in back in front of the planning board. That's all. >> Okay. >> You know, and I was Joan Furman's the one that said Jim signed it. So, I'm I'm only repeating what what was put on video and put on tape. Matter of fact, they had to stop the meeting until we got the audio to work. That's the
second time around that planning board meetings the somehow the audio doesn't work. So. >> It happened last last year. Yeah. >> [laughter] >> And the other thing too is while we're talking about this, is there any way you can get more microphones and when you all talk to the
public that you bring it closer to yourselves because if you're sitting at home watching, you don't hear half of what's going on. I'm being serious. It's It's just constructive criticism. You all could get your own microphone real close to
you because you can't hear. I mean, I know that uh um Margie has a very soft voice and >> I do? >> Yeah, you can't Yeah, cuz you sit back >> first person that ever said that. >> sit back in your chair and that's why you can't be heard. >> Oh. >> So, thank you.
>> No, thank you. Thank you. >> I almost forgot to say that. >> That's a good point about the microphones. I've noticed that in the past too, so I'm going to keep getting in everyone's face here to keep reinforcing that. Thank you, Jim. >> George Miller, aggravated sport citizen. Um you've mentioned going to zoning and
getting answers. Well, every time I come down here, I get no answers. I get treated like I'm some subpar citizen. So, now I'm coming to you and I I would like to know why when I go down here I'm being told that
something's a civil matter and they won't pursue it and then I turn on the town meeting and you're discussing my property. The lawyer said that he wasn't you weren't to get involved. I was treated like crap in zoning. And here I am looking for answers.
>> Well, we can definitely talk to you more. >> get nothing on Oprah. When can we talk because I come down here and nobody I get treated like garbage. >> shouldn't be treated like garbage. That's not It's not a >> That's how That's the way I'm treated. I'm telling you. >> It's not acceptable. Yeah. >> Okay, yeah. >> So we'll we'll we'll let we'll let's look into it and understand exactly what
happened. That's not acceptable for anyone. >> Understand. A lot's happened. >> Yeah. Sorry about that. >> All right. And what about these OPRA requests that get denied? Why is there no transparency in this town? >> OPRA requests are treated extremely carefully and according to the law. So,
if there's a denial, there's a reason why. Maybe it was too broad. I I don't want to speculate. Um I mean, there's >> So, I can get a time to speak with you then? We can make a meeting or something? >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, we can we can figure that out, right? I mean, either about the OPRA request or especially about the handling
>> About everything. Oh, you just want to handle one thing? Let's knock it all out. >> George, we we've we've met before. >> Oh, yeah, we've met before. >> Right. And open door every time for you. So, just make a >> Open door, I wait 20 minutes.
>> No, I I've always met you when you've asked to meet with me. >> You you know what I'm meeting you about? Your employees, right? >> Right. And and I'm I'm I'm happy to meet with you. So, just >> Well, they're still here and they're still abusing people. >> We'll we'll discuss further and we can dive into your your concerns about the
OPRA and all. And as as the mayor indicated, there's usually a valid reason. >> And collusion and everything else. And I do know what it means, Mr. Clark. I'm done. >> Thank you. >> No idea.
>> Hey, Ronde. Um a lot of discussion tonight around the budget, around transparency, and and and and those type of issues. Something I've asked for in in the past and I'm going to ask for again tonight is
can we get some type of a financial status review during the year as part of a town council meeting. Now, it seems that every time there's a new budget that comes forward, everybody's surprised. As if as if no one's seen this this
coming. So, similar to to to what Deputy Mayor Sylvester suggested, we need a plan. We need We need to know during the year, are we on track or are we not? If this was a business, that's how it would run. So, from a town perspective, from a
taxpayer perspective, will you consider giving a financial review of the town mid-year? The budget's set, we're halfway through it. How are we doing compared to the budget? Are we on track or we're going to get surprised? So, that's that's the request that I'd
like to get a response on. >> Yeah, we'll consider it. It's a good idea. Um I wouldn't imply that others aren't doing that, though. We have a financial professionals that are employed by the township that are doing that. So, it's just I'm not sure if you're implying that's not being done. I think you're asking
that it's done. We have an update during a our meeting, right? >> What I said is there always seems to be a surprise, you know. >> To whom? >> To to people up there. And I'll give you an example is the reserves. It was one number here, then it was one number there. Um it just seemed that the fact that the reserves
have gone away, >> They haven't gone away. >> Well, so let me ask the the question. So, when I look at 2026, okay, there was it was a 2.4 2.5 million dollars in in reserves that carried over. So, that money's going to be absorbed in
2026. So, that to me says there is no available reserves. Well, let let me >> I'll let you finish. >> Well, yes, that we have available to us in 2026. So, is that a correct statement or an incorrect statement? >> I'll take a crack and I'll ask our
professional who adjusted it if I'm wrong. Um so, my understanding is no, it's not gone. It's that we start with 2.5 million. Our budget every budget going back for eons relies on that working capital and that working surplus during the year and you're using some and
you're regenerating some as we collect taxes, as we do we're regenerating surplus. So by the end of the year, it's not it's not only a downward cycle. It's you start here during the year goes like this and it ends here or here or here. >> So you and I have the same understanding. Where we disconnect is
during the the the year that is being generated. We we we're going to we we put 4 million into ROT account this year. We can't touch that ROT till next year. The carryover from the budget from last year, you can't touch the next year. So what carried over $2.4 million
is going to get absorbed by the budget leaving us no money for emergency reserves if we needed this year. So is that a correct or incorrect statement? >> I'll ask. Mr. Can you use the microphone, Tom?
>> 12:31 >> Yeah, I'm sorry. >> [laughter] >> Looked at the fund balance as of 12:31 unaudited financial statements. It was $2,465,000 and we utilized in this year's budget $2,165,000.
So that leaves about $300,000. But again, you're going to generate you know, some you hopefully ex- at least $2 million hopefully. Hopefully. >> But when you as you generate it, when is that money available for use?
Not until the year. End of the year. So so if we have a crunch this year, we've got 200K to play with. That's my point. So I think a financial review would be helpful here. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, Mark. >> Thank you. >> You. >> I >> I've sat here all night and I feel like
I have to say anything, but >> General Goff and I there's this one theme. Every other person if not every person, has used the word transparency when they're talking tonight. And it it's you know, we we start off every meeting with Mayor Blumetti's message to please be courteous. We're all on the
same team. We're working together. But a lot of the players feel like they have no idea what the game plan is. Um and and that's why you're talking about surprises and things and Mr. Zep and I have gone back and forth and we don't always agree, but the way that he was
treated last meeting was was was extremely unprofessional. It was upsetting. So I I do commend the mayor and and Deputy Mayor Sylvester for their decorum under the unusual circumstances and Mr. Zep for truly being a professional and a gentleman
to help them work through that. Um that was above and beyond. But um but honestly, it's really every single person, the same word keeps coming up and I don't know how to make it any clearer. But there's so many things that
are happening that the public just feels like they're unaware. I come to most, if not all, meetings and I still find things that I am completely unaware of. So if sitting here and coming to the council meetings and meeting what's posted reading what's posted online and
reading the agenda and reading the ordinances and reading what's coming up or hearing, if I'm reading all of that and I still feel like sitting in the audience that I'm surprised, that means there is a definite lack of transparency. And and
the public is craving it. We're asking over and over again. It's a matter of of being honest with each other, being honest with the general public, treating the public with the same respect that you're asking us to treat you with, treating your fellow council members
with the same level of respect that you're asking for. Um I can't my phone when there was no audio on what transpired at that meeting. I don't think I've ever gotten that many text messages
unless someone was congratulating me for some wonderful achievement. Because nobody knew what was going on other than the fact that there was a lack of decorum, obvious upset, obvious surprise, and they didn't have
the audio at the time to understand what was happening. Um just do better. We all have to just do better. More transparency, just as honest as possible. So, when things people in the community hear a rumor, like
someone has someone in mind for Mr. Zep's position, that they'll be like, "That's absurd." Because if you attended a council meeting, or if you read this, if you did this, you would know. So, that we as a community can feel like we can support you better because we
know where you're coming from, and we can respect and and believe in what you say. Because so much of of what we hear is one opinion one week and one week the next something different. Or even in the same statement, like Councilman Scott,
tonight you were like, "The master plan is outdated and hasn't been updated and this and that." But, these are the reasons that it follows the master plan. Now, I'm totally confused. Then it's it wasn't updated, but it actually has been updated. It's been certified. So, I'm here. I'm reading everything I can
get my hands on. I'm listening to everything you all say, and I am still truly confused. So, if being here and entrenching myself in all of this still doesn't make it crystal clear, then there's a definite lack of transparency. And I just ask you all, please do
better. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Genie, you're up. >> All right, anyone else? >> Jenny wants to know if Glenn will speak. >> [laughter] >> Okay. All right, Jen. Okay. All right, seeing
>> Glennon, if I can just respond, um I I think people have to focus on with respect to the comments about uh the motion for an executive search. I I stand by the comments that were made uh 2 weeks ago. Uh this is not a search to
replace uh Mr. Zell. That's, you know, and it would be uh I can speak for myself. I do I have not and will not and do not intend uh to meet with any candidate. We're not there yet. That's not That would be outside the scope of the motion.
But let's focus on what the motion was. All right? Now, people may have their interpretation of that. That doesn't make it what the motion was. The motion was simply to do uh to go to RFP for an executive search. That's it. That's it, folks. We have cost to find out how much it
would cost. Okay? That's All right. That's all it is. We don't First, we have to find out what it would actually cost. And then we have to make a decision. That's all it is. Okay? So, I stand by and the reasons for why
that happened, I I explained them uh based on the contract as interpreted. It seemed like the prudent thing to do at the time. But again, there is at least speaking for me, no intention to meet with anyone. Have I met with it? No, absolutely not. That's not what this
uh motion is about. Um and no one's trying to to to deprive of anyone's right to speak. But I think like you get a lot of accusations thrown at you, and I think we have a right to as elected officials stand up for
ourselves. We have a free speech right, too. And if if someone's going to make a very highly leveled charge of an unethical conduct, that's serious. That's a serious charge. And so, you have to be, you know, all I'm saying is
be prudent when you make those and have the evidence and the law to back you up and not just simply spout off. Um it will do your argument better um and you'll probably get a better resolution of it. So, that's what I meant by that. Thank you. >> Are there any other
reactions or comments right now? Okay. All right, we're going to move on to council liaison updates, everyone. Um okay, I will start at the far end. Council liaison updates. Any Can you use the microphone?
>> Business development is meeting on Thursday. Uh we have uh we are underway with the website and it's uh with the QP Q PR QRP
I'm sorry. Qualified purchasing A Q Okay, thank you. All right. It's 11. All right, that's it. Thank you. >> [clears throat and cough] >> The comment about vacancies and not to belabor it, it's you know, I make it a personal
uh commitment [clears throat] to myself to walk around, visit the the businesses that are currently here, and introduce myself, shop here, spend money, get information, get feedback, and I reach out to the property owners and seeing what ways we can do to help them fill
their vacancies. It's a work in progress. Hopefully, the website will be one first start to promote our existing businesses. I've reached out to all the real estate community professionals here for all the listings to try to promote and bring back Sparta. It's a work in progress, but I think it
starts here. We if if we're if we're showing that we're business-friendly and we're open for business, people want to come to Sparta. And I'm just I'm just working [clears throat] with, you know, the committee the the BDC as well as a bigger outreach personally
cuz I believe [clears throat] in it. I stand for it and it bothers me. We have sign ordinances, but yet there's more real estate signs than, you know, and and for sale for lease signs around than than than than we fight for other sign ordinances. So, stay tuned. I'm trying I'm trying my
best along with the committee to to continue to pro and we would take on more volunteers. You know, it's a it's a it's a it's a community outreach effort. So, I would also suggest anybody that wants to get involved, please please join us. Thank you. >> Yeah, the more the better on any of
these committees, especially the BDC. Uh couple updates from the last 2 weeks. Um June 10th, I had the pleasure of attending the Sparta High School Student Awards event uh to present the Distinguished Student Award to Hannah Dodson. So, congratulations, Hannah.
And good luck in college. Uh June 14th, I had the honor of attending our uh Flag Day event here in Town Hall. It was wonderful, beautiful day. Had an amazing uh ceremony hosted by the Elks with the the all the flags going back to whenever and then I know some of you out there were there, too, and
I had the opportunity uh to share a few words. It was just a wonderful day. Uh on the 17th, I went to the Sussex County League of Municipalities quarterly meeting, uh which was uh >> Interesting. >> Interesting, educational, uh valuable. And the 19th, um oh, I
witnessed the uh commencement for Sparta High School. Again, I've heard horror stories and has been horror stories about the heat. It was actually one of the nicest days this year so far, but congratulations to all the high school grads. Uh commencement ceremony was was wonderful. And uh just finally, there's been ongoing of course affordable
housing meetings with our professionals that have been continuing on. So, we're uh I think again in the home stretch, but more to come when and we can share more on that. Council liaison updates? >> Um yes, I attended Sparta High School
graduation also at my alma mater. It was the best day ever. A little windy, but it was perfect. Um and the League of Municipalities, it was it was a very interesting meeting. Um with
the Elks, um we have the 4th of July parade coming up. We have had They're still Uh they could still take donations if anybody's willing. And uh I have gotten them a quite a few, but
they're taking any donations. >> [laughter] >> And uh let me see, we've got LMCC, the uh bridge is going to They're getting another quote at the beginning of July
is the last update I have on the Westshore bridge. I don't know anything about the closings yet. The start date uh has not been conveyed yet to us. The uh
Westshore by Manitou, the gatehouse and that the wall will be starting at the end the end of July. So, that's all I have on that. As soon as I get it, I'll let you know. This is The wall The wall going down to the
gatehouse before Manitou bridge is falling down. Yeah. Yep. Above the bridal path. >> thinking the wall by the building, you know. >> Oh, no. Yeah. Um the senior committee, the senior
Olympics Tri-County, September 16th at Station Park for anybody that would like to enter, please contact the rec department. Uh they're looking for sponsors and looking for seniors to answer phones at the
senior center and volunteers here at town hall to be the point of connection when they we walk in as as guides. Uh the environmental committee, the um having native plant discussions with
guidelines and tree ordinance has not been uh updated since 2025 and needs to be when you remove a tree, you it's certain trees have to be okay to be removed and then possibly be replanted to protect our environment. Um
the ash trees, as we know they fall from the top, so that is something that is has to be looked at as well if you're if removing trees and to protect them. Um do do do What else? Oh, the Rev 250 committee. We
had our proclamation tonight. We will have upcoming events that are on the website. Um we will have the as Mr. Litchfield said, we're going to have the 20th the 50th from 50 years ago, the
capsule's going to be opened in October at the uh at the library. And we're going to put in I think that's a great idea to reach out to all the I'll put that on the website as well. Reach out all the businesses and anybody
any groups that want to put any information in there. I think that would be terrific. So, we will continue with that. And I think that's all I That's all I have. Yep.
Oh, the Ministers I'm sorry, the Ministers of Apollo band at September 10th at the First Presbyterian Church and October 4th is the time capsule. At 2:00 at the library. That's it.
>> Uh no updates because all my meetings are happening Wednesday, Thursday and then the following week. So all the committees that I'm on have not met but they will be meeting so I have more to report at the next Council meeting. Okay. Um
let's go back down to this end now for unfinished and new business. Reminder this is specifically intended for Council business. So things that are carrying over or things new for discussion consideration future follow up. Mark. >> Nothing.
>> Me? >> Yep. >> Well, first of all I just want to thank everybody for their participation tonight and I hope everyone safely celebrates this great country's 250th birthday and I'm wishing all you all a happy 4th of July. God bless. >> Thank you. I
I would like to um propose that we look into two ordinances for upcoming Council consideration. Um I've researched done some research on them and done some have some foundational information for both. Um so I'd like to proceed with that and
have our attorney look at converting them into a draft ordinances. Um the point tonight is not to vote on them. It's just simply to demonstrate uh enough interest from at least a couple Council members. Now the first one is around artificial turf fields.
Um so this would be uh into um an ordinance to to manage both new and replacement artificial turf fields. And again, I've done a number a bit of research on this already. Um, so that's one, and the second one is um administrative, it's regarding the role
of the environmental commission member on the planning board. Um, over the last couple years has been some uh clarification and lack of clarification around the code regarding the role of the environmental commission person who's the liaison on the planning
board. Um, so the purpose of this update would be to require that the environmental commission member is a class four planning board member and not an alternate, and that we ensure that that stays that way. Um, the New Jersey statute language supports this. Um,
the environmental commission member can also be a class two in certain circumstances, that's also a voting member. So, again, a minor change, not going to um doesn't have to go to planning board, doesn't it's just a a minor administrative change. I think it's important just to get on the record so we're not running into any issues down the road.
Um, so I just want to um assess interest on those. Environmental commission person, planning board, um and the turf fields. See if there's general agreement to look into them, move forward. >> Okay, so are you looking for a motion
for the the attorney in consultation with council to investigate uh an ordinance that's governing artificial turf fields, is that what you were looking for? >> Or how to dispose of them, or how to >> of it. It's mostly
around creating new ones and replacing existing ones. So, to put some structure around that. Um, I'm not sure if we actually have a need a motion. Typically in the past what we've done is floated it. Um, and decided to move forward with it just to explore it more. It's not a vote on the ordinance or the change. It's just
that there's enough of an interest from a couple people at least to >> Mayor, if I may >> just me going to the attorney saying, "Hey, write this up." That's not really appropriate. So >> I don't know enough about where where the details of what you're suggesting. I don't know if if I don't know enough information to vote
one way or the other on this. I mean, you're proposing I don't know understand is the maintenance, the upkeep, the removal, the disposal? Is it related to the PIFA, the environmental concerns related to it or the perceived or real environmental issues related to turf
fields? I heard some, you know, previous conversations, but I think that's something again, here's this educate before we legislate type conversation. See where to like talk to our rec, talk to our school boards. I don't know the purpose or intent of why we're focused
on artificial fields right now. >> Because I've heard from constituents and it's been something on my mind for a long time and it seems like a gap out there about um the proliferation of artificial turf fields and I know a lot of people don't want more built. Um that's one issue, they don't want to take grass and make
it turf. There's other people that say even as far as, "Hey, if we have turf and it's getting old and it's becoming dangerous >> How do you get rid of it? >> grass. Yeah, so just So this the education I get, Mike, that's what this is part of is the next couple months. We have time now over the summer is to pull this research together, share it so we
can all make a decision. Uh this is not saying tonight that we're going to support it or vote for it, but if we don't get the ball rolling um then there's no way to move forward. So um yeah, it's just a to get the ball rolling, present information >> to the environmental committee Thursday
night and we've talked about it, okay, but >> Yeah. >> Mr. Otto left, okay. He uh >> Yeah. >> We'll talk about it and we'll see what we can come up with. >> not high stakes, but we do need to continue business as usual and pass the budget, so I don't want to do this beforehand because it's
we too much focus on, so um um again, it doesn't mean it has to go anywhere, but I think it makes sense to pull it together and uh get something moving on it. >> No, I think it's worth I I commend you Mayor Bluemetti for raising this as opposed to all of a sudden an ordinance pops up and
we don't know where it came from. >> [laughter] >> But I would I think both you know, this came up probably last year about artificial turf. There's plenty of literature on some of the negative environmental and medical you know
medical downsides to artificial turf fields. So, I think it's and you know it's a big part of of Sparta is our fields and some of them are turf, some of them not. So, I think it it has that you know, I don't say it's urgent, but it's
something that would impact us. So, I think that's worthy of it. The second one if you know, I leave that up to the lawyer and and and whoever if there needs to be further clarification of of this and they deem it's necessary to do it by ordinance. They might as well look at it and figure that out.
>> Yeah. >> You you have my support for at least starting the process. >> Thank you. >> Would you need the planning board to chime in on that? >> No. >> The chairman the chair or the attorney? >> Which one turf or
>> No, for your for the second one the >> Yeah, I believe it's governing body's decision. If we if we learn that it has to go to the attorney for feedback. I don't think it would though. It's already out there on our books. It's just it needs more clarity. >> Yeah, I'm happy to look at the environmental statute the township statute
and to make sure that we reconcile the current position with the statute. >> I have it I can forward it to you. >> Sure. >> I isolated that looked into it a little bit. So, I'll [clears throat] find a language. Again, it's not it's not earth-shattering ordinances, but I think we do need business as usual. We have to keep moving forward now.
So, okay. I think that's all I have. Oh, one last comment is just about working together going forward after this budget process This the the you know, I've heard a lot of um countless concerns tonight about the
budget. And no one likes it. And believe me, it's been torture for the last few months. And you know, I'll reiterate that everyone has had 3 and 1/2 plus more months to contribute and shape it to their realistic satisfaction. I'll say realistic because there are
constraints. So, um we are where we are, but there has been that opportunity to do what we could to shape it. I just hope that we can look forward together on this matter and work together in a in a collaborative spirit um after we got through tonight. So. >> Okay. Any new business? Unfinished
>> like to wish everybody a happy 4th. Can you hear me, Jim? Good. Never had that problem. The happy 4th of July. Thank you all for coming and coming out, expressing your opinions, views. Everybody online, thank you very much. And happy 4th of July. And I look
forward to it and Rev 250. >> Neil. >> Um >> Uh no unfinished or new business, but again, we'll uh Well, actually I do. I do like um Ron's suggestion. I think a gut check is
probably a good idea at some point. You know, where are we? >> Um back in the day when >> Don, can you use the microphone, please? >> I'm sorry. Uh again, I thought you could hear me. I'm loud as well. Back in the day when Bill Close was Township Manager, he
required a CFO to be at every town meeting. If that's something you want to go forward with or have once have us here once a month or something for updates and questions for the public, maybe that should be something that should be reinstalled. >> should talk about um you know, when we
would have maybe you know, I mean businesses do it every quarter. You know, we we'll talk amongst ourselves about, but I think it it it's not a bad idea. Um so, as new business, why don't we talk amongst ourselves about how to do maybe a an assessment so we can um clue
people in. Um I think it's a good idea. Um I I I like it. >> Renew and one. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> And again, um I also want to commend um Councilman uh Murphy and and the Rev 250. Uh we really
are leading the way in this county for the celebration. And you know, Mr. Litchfield is here. He's hugely instrumental in that. Um and it's something that, you know, really proud of the work that you've done. Um you know, Pete has done. Um
And thank you. And so I hope everyone does enjoy uh the 4th of July. And uh thank you everyone for your time and attention. >> All right. Thank you everyone. May have a motion to adjourn? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Second.
>> Time is 11:07. We are adjourned. All in favor? >> Aye. >> All right. We are adjourned. >> All right. Take care everyone.