for February 9th. Will the township clerk please read the statement? >> Notice of this regular meeting was provided to the public in the press on January 22nd, 2020. >> Can't hear you. Can't hear you. is posted at the municipal building in
accordance with the open public meetings act NJSA 10 col4-7 >> salute the flag pledge allegiance to the flag of the standyice
for all >> we have a roll Call please. >> Council member Canino >> here. >> Council member Ols >> here. >> Council member Rudo >> here. >> Council member Sparta >> present. >> Council President Higgins >> here.
>> Next on the agenda, mayor comments. >> Thank you, Council President. Uh January 22nd, Vernon Township um sustained a loss. Adrien Kovat, a freshman of Vernon High School, died on
Thursday, January 22nd. She's 14 years old. She's a freshman high school and was diagnosed with DIPG, which of brain cancer um in early May of 2025 is when it was
um diagnosed. Um, we have learned from members that uh that Adrien was an integral part of the SCY, which is the Swordfish Swim Team family, and she was described as one of the hardest workers and fiercest competitors we've ever
seen. Uh, throughout her illness, she has shown incredible strength, resilience, and determination, never never giving up hope. So, my condolences to the Kovac family. Um there is a gofundme if you just search
help for Kovac's family you'll find it. So if you could donate um uh to help the family. Another loss uh Harvey Rosf he was a Byron councilman. He was
Sussex County GOP committeeman and was also one of the candidates for commissioner. Um, I would ask for a moment of silence. Thank >> I have a couple members that just need to add to the
record the environmental um, excuse me, economic development advisory committee. um all one-year terms expiring January 14th, 2027. That is Bruce Campbell and David Keller.
Last week, I met with Mayor Eric Wilson and West Milford Mayor Michelle Dell to discuss the Highlands Act. There are 88 municipalities of the Highlands that have been required by the Highlands Act to severely limit future development and
to take measures at the local level to support the Highlands Act and the Highlands regional mass. This has resulted in a sign significant financial stress for Highlands towns, particularly those that are 100% within
the preservation area where restrictions are the greatest. There is currently a one-way flow of benefits that is outbound from the highlands with no effort to underwrite the cost uh and consequences of responsibilities placed
on the highlands municipalities. Highlands communities need some measure of financial support to account for the loss of development potential and mandates to take resource resource protection actions at the local level.
Consider that New York City pays 165 million annually in local taxes across the Catskill Mandela wershed in addition to funding the Cat Catskill Development Corporation and and the watershed
uh agricultural council's respective activities. There is a Facebook group um so Vernon Township we joined again with them and having a good meeting with them. Um Senator uh Anthony who is going to be
heading that up uh down the trend. Um there is a Facebook group called Highlands Impact Aid Now. Uh just follow that for more information on where we're at with that stuff. So I think it's um we seem to have a good coalition of of
mayors and uh assembly men um and senators that uh I seem to to kind of join the fight and hopefully we could get some funding. So um that's that's one of my comments. Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you. You'll notice that there were two two different agendas. One included the latest one, the presentation uh part number six. There's two distinguished guests here because one of the main subjects being discussed in town are pilot programs, the master
plan, uh any changes in uh funding and we thought it would be definitely worthwhile to invite both Corey Soner and Matt Jessup. Matt you've met before when he explained the pilot program and Corey's our town engineer from PLO. So,
uh, Corey, if you would please, uh, just, uh, if you just want to say publicly what's going on with the, uh, plans when they were last developed. I guess that was like 2021. And, uh, just
go forth to educate a lot of people. >> That's just all. Okay. This one. Okay. They're probably not aware of what's driving some of the changes and a lot of the resolutions that reach us come through you first and the land use board. A lot of your rulings >> tonight. Tonight I'm here for there's a
developers agreement on the agenda. >> Right. >> That as well. Right. >> And then that's what I was here to speak. >> Okay. >> Okay. The developers agreement is related to the Red Hand LLC development project that was approved by the news board. Right. >> Had nothing to do with the pilot program. It's just >> now the pilot's us, right? >> Yeah. What's it?
>> The pilot is on us. That's that's us. land use board had an approval for uh Redhead LLC and one of the the conditions of that resolution was to enter into a developers agreement with the town um related to that approval only and that developers agreement
basically outlines um uh requirements for um it's basically a document that outlines what they have to do according to the resolution approval is >> he explaining to you or to That's >> Yeah, I was going to say if you want to
turn and face the audience that would >> address the council. >> Okay. I was addressing to you. >> Yeah, you were. But there it's really here for them. >> Okay. >> Corner there. I was turning around and I'm sorry. >> All right.
That's got me all confused. >> Sure. You're near a microphone so that people online can hear. Tap >> it and see. >> It's not I can turn it on for you. Okay. So, basically what the developers agreement that was added to the agenda
is related to Redand LLC application that went to the LE board. They're required a court. One of the conditions of the latest court approval was for the applicant to enter into a developer agreement with the town. Developers agreement outlines the the requirements
of that they have to address according to the resolution from the board. Also establishes a performance guarantee for items that are going to be related to u the public improvements. There's some items are inside the uh the rightway of
a mega drive and they also are going to be relocating a portion of the town sewer main which was approved by the hill sorry not Hillsboro um Vernon Township municipal utility authority the MUA approved a relocation of the sewer main so this agreement basically because
they were touching parts of the municipal infrastructure development brought the need of having a developers agreement it's more than just a standard uh application because they're touching our infrastructure. So that was the main item inside the um developers agreement.
It also outlines the the dollar mouth related to performance guarantee related to the sewer line movement and also uh establishes inspection fees, you know, and other legal, you know, durations of of how long the project's going to take
and uh things of that nature. But they're all back to what was approved by the land exporter. And that was the reason for a developer agreement. >> And you just explain Red Hand because some people know Red Hand, some people know it by different names. There's
three or four names. >> Okay. I believe the the application from the board was called Red Hand LLC. Okay. Which the O'Neal Group is the owner's owner's applicant. >> Are you referring to a specific? >> It's not. It's not question or answers, ma'am.
>> Okay. I just wondered if he's talking to us. I wonder if he's >> This is just specific resolution in the agenda. >> It's not. It's not. You'll have chance. >> Yeah. You'll have your opportunity. Cory was here. He was here as a favorite to everyone here to explain what the
development and the agreements are so that whenever we speak on those subjects, we all have a good understanding because there's been some miscommunication and misinformation on a lot of subjects have been discussed. And it's it starts with the engineering and
it starts with Cory's company. It's one of our contractors. He's been a long time. He knows every piece of property in town, I think. And uh and all the engineering that goes with it. So there were there were questions and there were confusion, Cory, even on water run off
of the land over on Omega Drive as opposed to being sewage runoff. So those types of things go through you as well. Correct. >> Yes, they do. only related to the resolution for that was adopted by the land use board and
there's a resolution on tonight okay in the town to enter that agreement developers agreement right >> which outlines a very specific criteria that they have to address and handle and so they can be in in compliance with the
resolution that was approved by the landing board not this council you have a different resolution that's on your agenda tonight. >> Correct. >> To allow the execution of that agreement. >> Right. >> Okay. Um I do have some questions. It's
not so much directed at you. It's more directed at the mayor as we're discussing this development. It's reminding me of the request that I put in this morning. Um did you receive the email that I sent? >> Refresh my memory. So, I was asking you,
this has more to do with the schuma fee for uh Theta Grove. Um, so I was going to ask, I know Theta Grove um did not submit their schuma fee for the hookup and um there's currently
about $270,000 that they owe towards the town and towards the VTMUA. Is there any internal investigation going on about how they got a CO without submitting that payment? Because I know this is a different topic, but it's I can't help
but think of this as talk about this. >> Yeah, there's there's an investigation. Yes. >> Will that report be sent to all the council members >> as it's done? >> Um, >> are we taking corrective action to make sure something like that doesn't happen again? >> Yes.
And I also saw that Schuma set a deadline for this late payment to be received by the 4th of February and that date has obviously passed. Have they submitted that payment? >> I can't I can't answer that >> because they have this time. Far then
this these questions are a different subject. I'm sure they'll be brought up later. You've introduced a subject that okay >> the audience will probably be interested in has nothing to do with Mr. Doner. >> I just couldn't help but think of it. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
>> No other question from the >> Any other questions from the council? >> I'll be here if there's anything later. >> Yes, I do have one. What happens if the council doesn't approve? >> Well, that that's a legal question.
>> Okay. >> Because it is a board this, you know, they the Bernard Township of Landers board has made their approval, >> right? And the the only reason the the uh um developers agreement was in place is just to outline um the conditions of
the resolution and also so we can establish a performance guarantee to make sure that they complete the items that they said that the board required them to do. The board required them to do some of these items, not all of them, but some of the items to make sure they satisfactory complete those items. And
um and they posted the necessary performance bonds. They've proposed postmaintenance guarantees after they're done construction. So just basically um in my opinion it's a document to make sure they uph hold all the items that they promised they would do in front of the land use board.
>> Thank you. >> And for you no question at this time till later on but for the public the land use board meets what twice a month >> when there was when there's a full agenda. If there's if there's a subject to be discussed they have the meeting. If there's nothing on the agenda is
canceled and for the particulars of development, what a building looks like, sewage, that's the place to go. It once it gets to us, it's already through the professionals and it comes here for approval and monetary considerations,
but the real design of the building and all the rest of it starts with the land use board. Thank you, >> Council President. Can I just remind everyone to please talk into their microphones because um the public can't
hear. I can't make them any louder. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> On Matt Gess, you were here to uh educate us as well. So,
>> if you just describe to everybody who you are, you you've presented before. Maybe you could sit over where Corey was, speak to the uh >> I certainly will. I just wanted to add before I sat, council president, that I think I was here for the same um red-hand developers agreement that's on your agenda for tonight. So,
>> I I'm happy to sit and answer any questions that maybe Cory didn't. Um and then see where we go from there. >> Right. You were the main speaker on red hand whenever uh the pilot program was presented and you you were the main speaker on the pilot program. Correct. >> Correct. C president. So again Matt
Jessup McMahon in Scotland and Bowman. We are at the townships for redevelopment council and we did represent the township in connection with the financial agreement which is the document that memorializes the tax exemption for the Omega property or the
red property. Um, we also are represented the township in connection with the negotiation of the developers agreement, which is the agreement on your agenda for tonight, which memorializes the terms of the planning
board's 2025 approval of this project. You also have on your agenda for tonight a resolution that approves um a vacation of two easements, a sewer easement and a drainage easement and then granting of
new sewer easements and drainage easements. In short, as court mentioned earlier, the location of those easements which are for the benefit of the township are simply moving within the property. We're not losing a drainage easement. We are not losing um a sewer
easement. they're simply being relocated. That's not uncommon. So, the other resolution you have on your agenda for tonight um approves the relocation of those two easements. Obviously, Corey can speak better than I can on the exact science behind those things, but our
firm did represent the township in connection with those matters that are on your agenda as well. >> Okay. Do any council members have any questions? No. Okay. I'm sure the public may have questions later. You've touched on uh
the the pilot program. I'm sure that will come up later. And uh there's some documentation saying that we granted a 30-year pilot, but only a 20 year is allowed. Would you comment on that?
>> Oh, uh sure. Um, so the ordinance that approves the long-term tax exemption for this project does approve a 30-year u pilot. The township had sent over an ordinance
previously adopted, I think maybe in 2014 or I forget exactly when, um, that attempts to put a 20-year restriction on commercial and industrial pilots. Um, so two things. One, I would differentiate
that ordinance from the project that we're talking about right now because the project we're talking about right now is a residential project that is not a commercial or industrial project which um the ordinance that you're talking about uh specifically covers. However, the other interesting thing about that
ordinance is it is drafted as if it is addressing long-term tax exemptions under the long-term tax exemption law, which is its own statute in New Jersey, 4820-1.
However, when you read that ordinance and you look at the provisions of that ordinance, it mimics all of the language and the requirements of the 5-year exemption and abatement law, which is in 4A21.
That is a different law that governs a different set of tax exemption for different types of projects. So, as to the immediate point of a 30-year pilot for this Omega project versus the ordinance that the townships are previously adopted, they don't relate
because the ordinance only applies to industrial and commercial and our project is 100% residential. I would also again just add I think maybe the township needs to take a look at that ordinance because by its terms almost every provision of that ordinance
violates the provisions of or is inconsistent with the provisions of the law that it purports to summarize. >> Okay. A pilot program is payment in le of taxes. Whenever a homeowner or business owner
owes their taxes it's charted. How do you follow whether a pilot has been paid? >> It's the exact It's the exact same process. So, the tax assessor, they still assess the property even though it has an exemption. It's just listed as exempt. You create a tax bill based on
the formula in the financial agreement, the agreement that's signed between the township and the property owner governing the terms of the pilot. tax uh collector will compute that bill, will mail that bill, and then the property owner um who's paying a pilot has to pay
their pilot at the same time and subject to the same interest penalties and delays as a conventional taxpayer. So, your pilot is due four times a year, February 1, May one, August one, and uh November one. Just like all of the rest
of us conventional taxpayers, um, we all have a 10-day grace period. The pilot taxpayer has a 10-day grace period. If any of us fail to pay, we start getting charged interest. If the pilot owner fails to pay, they start being charged interest. And if we ultimately don't
pay, our real estate um, delinquency becomes a lean that the township sells at the end of the year. Similarly, if a pilot property owner fails to pay their uh pilot on time, then at the end of the year, they have a real estate tax lean against their property just like the
rest of us. That lean goes into the sale and it gets sold. So, they are treated in every way from a payment perspective, billing, collection, enforcement, delinquency like any other taxpayer. >> Okay. And could you update us on any
changes in Trenton concerning new laws that do away with pilots or change the rules of a pilot program or the money's flowing to or not flowing to the school district? >> Yeah, there have been no laws adopted that have changed any of the distribution mechanisms or uh
requirements with respect to a pilot. There are every year, I would say every legislative session, there are somewhere between three and six pieces of legislation that are introduced that attempt to um either modify pilots or
change the distribution method of p for pilots. Recall that unlike a conventional tax dollar that gets split up amongst the township, the board of ed, the library, the fire district, you name it, any other taxing districts, pilot dollar, 95 cents comes to the
township, 5 cents goes to the county, and those two taxing districts that get a pilot dollar. Um there are bills introduced from time to time. There was one introduced by um Senator Singleton four months ago, five months ago now, something like that. um that would
attempt to try and statutoily redistribute a pilot dollar in other ways, but none of those bills have been fully adopted or signed by the governor. >> Okay. Yeah. Any other questions? Council, >> if you could stay around, you're it's on
your subject is on the agenda, so I'm sure the audience will have some questions and if you could stay for >> certainly. Yes. Again, you have two resolutions. one to approve the developers agreement and one to approve the vacation of the two easements and then the um creation of the two replacement ements.
>> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. >> Next next subject is public comment. Uh, council member or council president, I believe Miss Caldwell is here to talk about where >> the affordable household resolutions and
ordinances. >> Introduce yourself, please. >> I'm Jessica Calwell, Jay Calban Associates. I'm the township planner. I'm here tonight for the affordable housing ordinances and two resolutions adopting a spending plan and a
rehabilitation plan for the township. Uh back in July 2010, the uh land use board adopted and the council endorsed a housing element fair share plan in compliance with the fourth round of
affordable housing regulations. Uh that was a deadline by June 30th. we did get a brief extension to July 14th. So, we submitted the housing element fair share plan and then by the end of the summer there was a deadline for any
interested parties to object uh to that plan. A fair share housing center filed a letter of interest. It wasn't a full objection, but it was uh requesting additional information which we provided as the township. And
then we entered into a consent order with fair share housing center which essentially they agreed to our housing element fair share plan. They didn't object to it uh with additional information that we provided. They were satisfied uh that we were meeting the
affordable housing regulations and then they just asked us essentially to do what we would need to do uh as required by the Fair Housing Act anyways which is to adopt an updated affordable housing ordinance which regulates how uh units
are restricted rented um various other items with respect to the uniform housing affordability controls and the fair housing act. So, that's one of the ordinances on the agenda. The other ordinance updates the development fees
for new residential development and um non-residential development, essentially residential development that's not inclusionary and new non-residential development pay a residential development fee which then the municipality can use to do various
types of affordable housing projects. Uh we also have a spending plan on the agenda for adoption under resolutions and this just identifies how that development fee um account will be spent over the next 10 years which is the
fourth round period. And then we have a rehabilitation plan which outlines a program that the municipality has to rehabilitate existing units that um might not be up to code. And that's one thing that we can use our development
fees to um housing for people who meet certain incomes if they have something like a furnace go out or need a repair or something like that. So uh that's what's on your agenda tonight and I'm here to serve those items.
>> Very good. Thank you. But so all the things that are on our agenda typically this is an explanation like an education program for everybody including us. It starts with the land use board once again and Jessica is one of the main players on the land use board as a town
planner. She's a professional provides that information to land use board. They vote on it and then it comes to us as a resolution or an ordinance and uh so that's that's why they're all here. That's the information flow. They're the professional and they're here to answer
any questions as well and and make everybody aware on an education basis what the facts are. Correct. >> Correct. >> Yep. >> Thank you. So I guess you can take some questions too whenever the >> Sure. questions now or if you don't have
anything now later on fine as us. >> I do have one question. >> Sure. Um, so when someone applies to um be a part of the say they their furnace goes out and they're applying to be a part of that housing opportunity. >> Let make sure I have the terminology. >> The rehabilitation
>> rehabilitation that is paid for from that fund that 2.5% 1.5% that it's an equal housing opportunity fund. >> Yes. >> And that grant would come from there. >> Yes. >> Okay. I just wanted to make sure you understood that. Thanks. >> Yeah. So, it's a one and a half percent,
you're absolutely right, for new residential, two and a half% for new commercial. Those fees go into the fund. The the fund has been there for I think since 2005, but uh this is just re re-uping it essentially and continuing it.
>> It said at the beginning of the packet, I want to make sure I have the right packet that you follow. It says here that it was bumped up from 0.5% when it was established to 1.5 and then 2.5. Those were increased by the
state in about a few months ago, right? >> Um these were actually increased during the third round, but as part of the new fair housing act of essentially end of last year, these were all increased. So yeah, it's it's always been set based on state law.
>> Okay. >> Those those fees. Thank you. >> Excuse me, Mrs. Cowwell. Perhaps you might be able to enlighten the council and also the members of the public. What What do you mean by rounds and how
frequently these rounds are? >> Oh, sure. >> You know, are called or passed or whatever. >> Yeah. So, >> how it's done? New Jersey has uh a constitutional obligation that municipalities need to provide for affordable housing, what's called their
fair share of affordable housing. And the way that's come across is it's come in what's called rounds that are supposed to be essentially 10-year periods where a municipality is given an obligation and you prepare the plan, the housing development and fair share plan,
then execute the plan whereby those units are supposed to be provided. So we're now in the fourth round uh which is 2025 to 2035 uh which is why we're submitting now for approval so that we get covered for
these next 10 years >> and >> covered. >> Yes. And these are subject to what happens um >> if you don't comply. >> Yeah. Then you can the municipality could be subject to what's called a
builder's remedy lawsuit which essentially renders your zoning null and void and the builder gets to decide what they want to build and how high and how dense and all those things and um definitely not what um we recommend for
municipalities. So that's one of the reasons why you go through the compliance. It's to protect your zoning so that your decisions are made locally and not in a a judicial setting. So in effect, what the township does by following the
law on this is it protects itself and the community from being or having a decision thrust upon the community that may not necessarily be what the community wants. rather than working
through the planner as we have done whereby um we can kind of negotiate what goes on during that period in terms of the length uh uh and also the type of
housing that is required of us. >> Yes, absolutely correct. >> Thank you. >> Any other council members? No. Okay. So, let's uh have a motion to open the uh comments, public comments for items on
the agenda only. Large crowd. We are going to limit it to three minutes per person. And uh please just state your name uh when uh when you come up. Can I have a motion to open the floor to the public? >> Second. Moved.
>> All in favor? I. >> Any opposed? Floor is open to the public. Thank you very much. >> I'm going to take advantage of the seat and the microphone. Thank you. Good evening. I know we're supposed to state
our name and where we come from. I just want to say I appreciate these folks being here. I'm sure Bill and the others had something to do it do with it. However, you ask who I am. I say I am still a disenfranchised Vernon registered voter.
One out of the 2,433 signators on the petition to have the pilot question put on the ballot for vote >> on the agenda. >> So, I'm just going to do >> you're asking my name. >> Is this is this subject on the agenda?
>> Yes. 26-83. Um please explain why this has to be done on emergency basis. Um 95,000 um for it says SCUMA utilities. Um what specifically is it for?
2683 is the emergency temporary appropriations that you're talking about. >> Yes, sir. Why does it have to be done on emergency basis and what specifically is it for? It says SCUA, but what specifically
schema fees does it cover? Maybe the administrator knows it looks like it's to pay a bill. don't um think that I'm haven't had the opportunity to look in the drill down of
the comments and the letters and emails. I want an honest answer, but I'm asking a specific question. >> There's an invoice that I gave everybody. >> Well, this is the public comment so that they can get they can get back to you. >> This is the bill
>> the administration can get. This is not an an This is not a back and forth an answer. >> I'm here because we're all concerned about what's going in our township. >> Okay. >> And you and you've expressed that concern. >> No, I don't. I pay taxes in state of New Jersey.
>> So then there's also a request, I understand, from the county for their monies. How much are they asking for and what is that going to do? And do we have those funds as well? And in regards to Jessica Caldwell, I think she said um about the rounds.
We're in the fourth round. How many years do we have before we have to build the fourth round? 10 years. Is it maybe 10 years we have to build? So why the rush? Um
the developer the answer there's an invoice from Skuma >> to the town. So that >> and it has to be paid. >> What's it for? >> What's it for? It's >> which is it a connection fee? Is it what
property does it belong to is what I'm saying. I mean >> most please find certificate of annual charge executed by chairman of Sussex County Municipalities. These certificates are in accordance with the 2005 Vernon Township contracts. We're under contract to pay schumma on a
yearly basis. And this is this is the the invoice that came in and it was received in the finance department January 23rd. >> Does it have anything to do with the um other property getting a CEO and not paying?
>> This is her time to this is her again her time to trust you. You know >> please >> ma'am please. >> No I've seen you in action and I'm sorry I'm not >> okay you can I've seen you in action. I'm not impressed with you either.
>> Thank you very much. I appreciate >> You're welcome. >> Yeah. I don't know. Um I just think there's a lot of issues that are being addressed in a quiet manner which should really be addressed full throttle in
front of the public and it's unfortunate but we're asked to trust the process and so far I don't think the process has been so good. Um, it's very sad and um, >> I guess I'll leave it at that. But I'm
just saying going forward there has to be more checks and balances. I don't want to see if if I could be so bold to say just the mayor negotiating any more agreements without somebody on the council being involved. I think that's very important. More eyes, more ears,
better results. >> Okay. Thank you, Council President. I think it's to answer Miss Edward's questions. The 210,000 I believe that's the amount that is I'm
sorry 250 whatever that amount was I don't have the bill in front of me. Each year there are quarterly payments made to schuma which is the amount of money that's necessary to pay for the
treatment of wastewater and that was a portion of wastewater that was not included in the original budget. Okay, because apparently we used more wastewater.
So that had to be pace paid for. >> You talking about the 70,000 >> 70,000 >> 70,000 put these on the county that they'll be looking >> the county uh is the amount of money that had to be paid for the quarterly
amount. Yes, sir. >> So, so basically you have two contractual situations that needed to be resolved. There was no duplicity about this. It's something that we have to do
on a on an annual basis. and we have another member of our uh of our MUA sitting in the audience and if he chooses to uh speak with you after the meeting, I'm sure he'd be glad to
reinforce or clarify the position, but I I wouldn't think that any member of the township, the council would try and so to speak bamboozle you or anything on this. It's very very clear. Thank you.
Anyone else? >> Hello. Hi, my name is Ashley Sinnelli and I'm gonna address ordinance 2602. >> All right. >> Uh 2602, the ordinance for Burger Road. Um I just wanted to speak on this because I know many of you are not familiar with the situation. Um this has
gone beyond a typical neighbor disagreement. Um, why are we requesting this? Um, our neighbors have wasted municipal resources calling code enforcement on us no less than 10 times. They have threatened to kill our dog and
me. Could you speak up? >> Yeah, I'm having difficult >> different microphone. >> Relax a little bit. You >> I don't public speak. >> Okay. So, our neighbors um since we have moved in in 2024 have consistently harassed us to the point where we now
really want to go home because they are going to be a problem and we don't want to leave because we're scared of what they're doing. They have threatened to kill our dog. I have it in writing on multiple occasions because they don't like that I have electric fence. They have filed false complaints with animal
control. They have filed false complaints with the police department. They have called the town clerk. They have called probably every office in this building wasting municipal resources for meaningful things like where I park my car. They take pictures
of us when we leave the house when we come home. They take pictures of us when we have guests over. They take pictures of my underage child who was sitting in the audience. The strip of road that we were requesting is unpaved and leads to a gully that was filled with trash. Was an
ivy. There was nothing there. There's no public lake access. My neighbors have lake access on both sides of their property. We are asking for this for peace of mind, for safety. In fact, they have been sending people down my street who I see in the audience
tonight to take photographs of our children. I had to follow someone out to ask why they were photographing my home this past weekend. This has become such an issue. We are so uncomfortable. Every time I go outside, they are photographing us.
This is our first home. We're raising our family here and our dog is part of family. I shouldn't have to keep Vitamin K by my front door because I'm afraid my neighbors are going to kill my dog. I shouldn't have to be concerned that they are taking pictures of my 5-year-old daughter. She can't even walk to the
garage with my husband because this little strip of unpaved road connects our house and our garage without them out there. They walked to me the end of the street to putly harass us. The police have been to my house more times than I've ever called the police having
and by full of police reports. This behavior exhibited by these people has been nothing short of psychotic and traumatizing to us. And I ask you to please approve this ordinance so that we may feel safe at our home. Thank you. Oh,
name is Angelina. I'm a resident at 20 Burger Road. Uh, I am the neighbor that she just spoke about, which is completely untrue. I've been a resident there since 2018. I've never had any issues with any of the neighbors. Um,
they have moved in in 2014. and they purchased the house and from the beginning of the time that they bought the house, they systematically attempted to restrict public use of the roadway, which is the Burger Road. They initially put the signs on my property without knowing it's my property. And they were
actually the first ones to call the township and question that it's my property. Um, and actually that's recorded. I've never called the township on them first. um they misrepresented the legal status of the road, created ongoing conflicts, which I feel like this was a perfect
framing to take over the land because they have the garage on the left, they have the house on the right and they just want to connect it to have the culde-sac for themselves and essentially blocking the public roadway, the turnaround and the access to the lake that the other neighbors historically
did use. And um so I was the police actually they called the police on us the first time when I was in the stroller walking on Burger Road that's still as of today is a public roadway and they've been systematically blocking it physically blocking it with the car.
They've been calling the police on us. One time he called 911 when I walked on the road. Um so that's completely inaccurate and I didn't never called 10 times to the police and that could be checked. I mean that's completely
untrue. Um so let me go back to the facts because uh proposed vacation. So I'm here for the ordinance 2602 concerning the proposed vacation of Porsche Municipal Road. The initiative originated from the
residents of 24 Burger um a directly interested party and the plan was prepared by their funds. They paid the township to create the plan and um to create the ordinance. Under these circumstances, my hope is that council's decisions will be based exclusively on public interest and the priority of
safety. Burger Road is a dead and municipal road. The red residents, delivery trucks, visitors, and emergency have used since 2018. I've never had any issues. It's a public asset that serves our community has been maintained by public funds. Vacating would provide no meaningful public benefit. Instead, it
would primarily serve a single property owner and eliminate access for others. My main concern, if the road is vacated, there will be no proper turnaround at the end of the road. Um, this creates safety and accessibility concerns for residents, visitors, emergency vehicles. Township
roads must remain safe, functional, and logically designed. If the if you vacate that piece of road, it's it's literally just a narrow road you have to back up. This ordinance presents ongoing safety risks including mandatory vehicle backing approximately 400 ft. Um limited
access for any any trucks, cars, emergency services, and also right now we have um everybody backing up because they've been forcing everybody to back up along the the road. So if there's a FedEx truck or if there's a UPS Amazon,
they're just backing up all the way down the road. Um, notably the ordinance also provides no factual basis demonstrating any financial benefit or cost savings to the municipality resulted from this proposed vacation. Claims that warranted maintenance or lack of improvement are
also a little bit misleading because that's included in the ordinance. The township already maintains the road and paving was completed up to the point of proposed vacation. Um, the official maps municipal plans confirm that the road maintains municipal status along its entire length extends to the lake. So
it's not just a dead end street. It actually leads right into the lake >> and blocking it would >> wrap it up a little bit. >> Yeah. >> So it would just block any access to >> uh to the lake that historically have been used. So I actually have neighbors who did sign a petition. I think
somebody sent couple emails to the township clerk because they couldn't be here um in person. But I have never called the police 10 times. You could verify that with the police. I'm just trying to preserve the road because this has been systematically done since the
day they moved in and um here we are. I just want to preserve the road and that way the public could have access to it. If anything happens 20, 30 years from now and the lake gets restored, everyone can still use it and that's it. I mean as simple as that. >> Thank you.
I hope that um you make the decision based on everybody's interest, not just one person who wants to take over the culdeac. >> Hi, how are you? My name is Kevin Riley. Uh this also has to do with the matter at 25 road. um
bad at this, but this has been an ongoing torture. Realistically, I don't know what the dilemma is. So, we put up different avenues to make this right. We are going to pave an area at
the end of our road or at the end of our property. Sally cars um deliveries, everyone could turn around. The plow trucks could turn around. We are trying to make it right. The reason everyone's backing up the road, yes, we have been trying to make
it a thing to where that isn't a turnaround where my 5-year-old is playing and my dog is playing, but my neighbors have also chain linked their driveways to where there is no access on the road at all. They had two cactus plants hanging to deter people from
touching their chains. So, I'm a man of very little words. Just that's all I got. just see it for what it is and I hope you make a great decision. Thank you. >> Anyone else?
See, no one else. We'll close the uh wait. >> Okay. >> Good evening. from the Glenwood section of town. Um, I'm speaking to resolution 2696. I can talk about that now, right?
>> Agreement with Red Hand. >> I just want to point out a few things. Um, I feel like the people who signed the petition have been underestimated in as far as how much research we've done as this has gone along. Um, how many people in the audience are aware
that the developer gets the first 10 to 15% of the profit off that building, that $10 million project? They get that. And we're going to be asking single parents, single mothers, retired people to chip in for the profits for a for-profit company. It's it's it goes
against everything that we elected you to represent us for. We put you in these seats. We did not give up our rights to common sense, to critical thinking, to you know, we didn't sign allegiance to death to agree with everything they've done. There are many things wrong with
this whole situation, starting with the the situation with the MUA for startups. Secondly, we had three professionals speak and respectfully each of them, I respect them, but they weren't sworn in. Okay? And when Mr. Chesset was here the last time, we had the meeting in December, nobody even knew he worked for
us. Nobody knew because he didn't sound like it. He sounded like he's working for the developers. When when um when Mrs. Cole got up, she said, "Era money." Okay, if you hear these if you hear these nuances, these are this is a click working against the taxpayers. They're
working against us. And honestly, collectively, we put you in that seat to represent our opinions, not to not to save us from ourselves. Okay? We don't need saving. 2,300 people signed this ordinance. We don't need to be saved. We
want we want you to do the right thing for us. Not for red hand. Not for one key, not for a riot or whatever the hell the names are. It's enough. It's enough. This the statute all these limited companies and these different aspects. It's a it's a
Ponzi scheme and it was created and trended by the Soprano state and and honestly it's it's probably organized crime. This is insane. and we're letting this happen here. This is a beautiful place to live. I hate to see it destroyed. Like for example, Jefferson
is being faced with right now. They're eating up all the board of ed money, destroying the townships, and we just can't proceed full speed ahead because someone made an agreement before they even presented these properties. We found that out in our due diligence that they make an agreement with town that
they will get this agreement before it goes to planning board, before they do permits, before anything else. This isn't how you do things. This is really not and it's upside down, inside out, any way you want to call it. It is not working right for the taxpayers. I thank you and I really encourage you to not
approve this process. Thank you. >> Sty from Glenwood. Uh I'm going to talk about 26 97 and 98. Um we have 10 years to satisfy the requirement. I think we were lowered to
197 units over the 10-year period. So my question is why a rush? Why are we being jammed with all these apartment buildings in this town when it doesn't fit in our environment? It's not what
our town is. Our town is a country lifestyle. What do fourstory apartment buildings have to do here? Mr. Rudo, you said we may end up with what we don't want. We're there. We don't want these
apartment buildings. We don't want these pilots. the town's people have spoken. They don't want to be cified. I'll use that terminology. We don't want to bring in
about, if I'm not mistaken, it's close to 200 apartments between all of these buildings. That's not what we are. My question on the rehabilitation program is what other options have been looked at?
There's many that are available. We can allow uh mother daughters again which we refute when we put a resolution through a few years ago outlawing them. They are qual they qualify for rehabilitation.
So why can't we go back to allowing that again? I would have been a perfect candidate to have that when I had my dad living with me for five years. It would have been great to have him have his own quarters instead of having to live in my
living room. But anyway, that that's another story. We need to look at other options, not just put up lowincome apartment buildings and senior apartments. Who's going to pay $2,800 a month to
move to Vernon where there is nothing here except recreation? If you own a home and you're getting tax deductions, that's different. Well, when why would you pay $2,800 rent every month out and get no
return back? It makes no sense. I don't think these apartment buildings are going to fill. I don't see it happening. We got apartments up on the mountains that are h empty. So, how what makes anybody think we're going to
fill 150 part apartments in the next 10 years? I don't see it. Thank you. is Christa Gary. I have lived in Vernon for about 52 years and I've seen many mistakes made by former community leaders and I don't want to see that
happen again. I believe that the majority of earned citizens believe that adopting the proposed pilot program could prove to be a serious mistake for our town. Often pilot programs have been extremely lucrative for the developer where they have often taken advantage of
municipalities with creative contracts and operations to make sure the developer pays the lowest amount under the agreement. While payment in lie of taxes programs are designed to incentivize development or gain of contributions from taxexempt entities,
they come with significant financial and social drawbacks for local communities. Some of the downsides are reduced school and county funding. Pilot payments go directly to the municipal budget, leaving school districts with little to
no revenue from the new development. Higher tax burdens for residents. New residential developments increase the number of students and the demand for public services like police and fire protection. Without a corresponding increase in school and county tax
revenue, these costs are often shifted to the homeowner through higher property taxes. Another reason is long-term revenue loss. Municipalities generally receive less money through a pilot than they would under conventional taxation, even
if the agreement provides a steady short-term stream. Unlike property taxes, many pilots are voluntary or not legally binding, leaving municipalities with limited enforcement options if an organization decides to stop paying. Developers and
entities may fail to file required financial audits or violate the terms of their agreements. I hope that all of the above reasons that I just presented will have an impact on the present council and cause you to reconsider your stance
on this very important, very risky enterprise that would be binding for 30 years. I urge you to listen to the sensible voices of the people whom are overwhelmingly against this project. Thank you.
Good evening. May I approach and give a hand out to everyone? Sure. Thank you. >> This could be for the >> the record as well. Thank you. Thank you, sir. >> Good evening. My name is Kurt Stevens.
Uh, I am your local farmer. I'm also one of the petitioners that helped the petition against the pilot. Um I'm not a very good public speaker so this is good practice so bear with me here. Um it is said that the foundation
of all good relationships starts with good communication. Uh given my feedback to you all at the last meeting about not feeling heard and given the failure of the council and the clerk to reply to written communication from the petitioners. I'm here again to try and
get some clarity and to progress the dialogue here. As a reminder, there were over 2400 Vernon residents who signed the petition regarding ordinance 2517. Uh despite this, on January 23rd, the petition was rejected.
Uh the clerk under guidance from the attorney cited the Millennium Towers uh legal case. Uh I didn't really know what that meant. Uh, I spoke with some attorneys myself, did a bunch of research, spoke with others in the community, and essentially what I understand that to mean is that it's a
it's a legal shield uh that protects administrative acts from petitions. Um and then this goes into a bit of sort of very dense language is is going to be hard to you know speak about here but
you know my understanding is that petitions can't work against administrative acts but they can work against legislative acts. So this sort of boils down to an argument about uh what does this pilot ordinance represent? Um, so my understanding, and
please, we have a bunch of experts in the room and a bunch of people on the line that are interested in these answers. Um, but my understanding is that an administrative act is when a council merely fills in the blanks of a law that already exists. It is the
simple execution of a preset policy. Uh, however, the clerk's rejection letter to us fails to identify exactly which pre-existing ordinance or plan mandates a 30-year tax break for this project. Uh, if there is no written rule being followed, then this council is not
executing a policy. You are creating one. Um, a legislative back, as I understand it, is when a council exercises its own discretion to set new standards or enter into new permanent contracts. Our research suggests that ordinance 2517 is a legislative act for
several reasons. Uh first is the absence of a mandate. The township's own records are silent on the requirements for this pilot. There is no ordinance that specifies a 30-year term and no preset financial formula for this redevelopment area because no rule existed. The
council's decision to grant a 30-year term in December was a discretionary policy choice. In New Jersey, such a choice is a legislative act subject to referendum. Second, this ordinance deviates from established township policy. Uh Burnon's
general policy on tax exemptions. Ordinance607 establishes a clear 20-year cap. By granting 30 years for the Omega Drive project, this council did not administer an existing rule. It created a new 10-year extension over our only written precedent, which feels like a
major shift in the duration of tax exemptions, which is a primary matter of public policy. I know the gentleman earlier said that perhaps because it's industrial commercial that it wouldn't apply to this, but you know, this does seem like a commercial
development. It's it's it's a multi-million dollar investor investing in a commercial enterprise. Um, and then I know I got to wrap this up. We got a lot of people here. Um, lastly, you know, fiscal impacts. You know, we've debated these costs at length.
I know there's a debate whether the school has capacity to absorb this or not with existing meetings. Uh, but the fact remains that the Omega Drive financial agreement itself in section 4.4 admits that the project's financial benefits are speculative and
not guaranteed. Again, that's in writing in the financial agreement that the town entered into. It's speculative and not guaranteed. So, despite this admission of uncertainty, the agreement commits Vernon to a 30-year term that provides no direct funding for our schools.
Deciding to shift that long-term fiscal weight onto the public based on speculative revenue is a legislative decision that demands public oversight. And then lastly, as as many of the audience have already alluded to, you know, there's a clear public mandate here. there is over 2400 signatures
representing approximately 25% uh turnout as compared to our most recent general election and that's almost double the legal requirement for a referendum. So in closing, we ask the council tonight to resend the clerk's
rejection and allow this ordinance to go before the voters as the law intended. We have done our part by bringing you the names of over 2400 neighbors who want a say. If this rejection stands, we will be left no choice but to take the
next necessary steps to protect the public's right to oversight. This includes seeking a judicial review of the clerk's determination in superior court as well as launching a general initiative to establish permanent uniform standards for all future pilot
agreements which are likely to be quite restrictive. Uh we would much rather resolve this here tonight through the dem democratic process you were elected to uphold rather than through a protracted legal process. The choice to avoid that path lies with
you and I would ask that you address myself the audience if not now in your uh comments at the end. Thank you. Let's see. This is nice. Um, Jackie, pardon me. I wanted to ask a question to Mr.
Jessup before I say what I have to say to make sure I have some element of accuracy here. Um, Mr. Jessa for the law for the state. Do we have to >> our legal requirement is to submit the four phases to the state? Is that
correct? >> Because I asked him if >> you would take the question if you're up to it because you were here for his education. If you care to answer her directly, it's up to you. >> So can you describe what do you mean by the four >> legal requirement is to just submit the
plan to the state. Correct. for the four phases. We have to submit each phase our fair share to the fourth round housing element fair requirement is to submit the plan the zoning the all of that to the state. Is that correct? >> Jessica will answer your question about
your round four housing next year. So for round four, we had to submit our plan to what's called the dispute resolution program, which is in the superior court. >> So legally, all the phases have to be completed by us. That's our legal requirement for the sound. Correct.
>> Uh it's a little different. I can give a a longer explanation later, but I think I' I'd like to address where the units fall in the various phases because this isn't all under round four. So, the reason I'm asking is the, you know, we hear the 10 years a lot and I'm
wondering what happens if we don't have all of the units built within that 10 years. That's not our legal requirement. Correct. It's just required that we have all of our plans in place, the zoning, this that and the other because we can't developer to build. >> Yeah, that that's correct to a certain
extent. And a lot of these units go back to round three, which is why it's not really like a lot of people and saying, "What's the rush in round four?" These are actually round three units because really nothing was built during round three. But it's not to a certain extent.
We What I'm saying is in 10 years if all of these 194 units, 197 whatever it is are not built, there's no legal ramification. That is correct. Because Vernon can't force a developer to be built here. 96 units from round three
plus 194 for round four. >> Are we required to have these buildings erected within 10 years by law >> if they're approved by the board? If you do something to not have them >> if a developer doesn't approach us at all in the next 10 years, let's say for
all of those units responsible. >> What we have to do over time is show that the zones are still viable if they're not being >> correct. We have to provide the building opportunity, all of that. >> Yeah. >> But legally, if the buildings aren't built, if a developer didn't come to us
within 10 years and we didn't build this, there's no legal ramification. We've done our part. We made the zoning. We made it available. We made the opportunity. >> I think you're making a lot of sweeping statements that I would want to,
you know, we'll leave it just now. She answers your questions. >> Yeah. So, I was at a job site a few weeks back in Greenwich, Connecticut, and I was sitting in a room with Greyar Developers and Acriman attorney. Greyar
is one of the leading developers in in the country. They're well known. Acriman top attorney, Ford real estate development pilots uh in the nation, nationwide recognized. They're not little small potatoes local. And we were
I've been to quite a few jobs with them. and we have the kind of relationship where we can have casual conversation and we were talking about what's going on in Vernon and I showed them the December 29th meeting um specifically when Mr. Jessup was speaking with his
presentation. And you know, I bring this up because someone before said it acted like he wasn't a representative of us. And what's funny about that is that the attorney that I showed for one of the top real estate firms in the country said, "Where's your representative?" I
said, "He's right there." And I said, "Why?" And he goes, "He sounds like he's for the developer. I've never seen someone represent a town and not give any cons, negatives, talk about any negotiation." And he said, "I find that really odd." He said, "What I also find really odd is that O'Neal, they know of
O'Neal." They said, "We also find it really odd that O'Neal is coming to you back to back to back with all these developments 55 plus 27 unit and 99 unit." And I I don't know if there's any more on the schedule >> running over and you're
>> So I'm wondering how he got in touch with O'Neal. Did O'Neal come to us or are we probing them? Because they're of the mindset and they are powerhouses in this industry that O'Neal wouldn't have come to us for all of this one after the
other after the other. And the timing is too coincidental with all of this state mandate. So, I'm wondering if we can get some backstory as to how O'Neal found us and why they're hitting us back to back because they seem to think that we're kind of pushing them to do it. So, I'm
wondering why because legally we have all our phases complete or if we have all our phases complete, we don't have to have these buildings erected in 10 years, >> you know, and that's been said at the meetings. We have to have these built in 10 years. No, we don't.
>> No, we don't. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else? Seeing no more members of the public wishing to go forward. May I have a motion to close the meeting to the public? >> Motion. >> Second. >> Second. All in favor?
>> I. Next up, review of the bills list. Any comments from the council members on the bills list? >> Yes, I have comments or questions. And this is probably would be for the CFO.
So, I'm disappointed that the new CFO is not attending the meetings. Um, but I'm just curious, how does the QPA paid? >> Monthly. >> It pays monthly. So, I would think
every month it should be the same amount of money. >> Yes. >> I see varying different um charges. So was just curious is we voted at the last meeting for his salary. Does he charge us extra extra or
>> I'd have to look at his contract. >> Okay. Yeah. I'd like you could send that to me. I appreciate that. I'm just curious how he's paid because I would think it would be the same amount every month. And then the next question I see
tree service. So, I remember sitting in the audience before I um came up here on the deis as a council member talking about that bucket truck and there was a lot of it was a big price tag and a lot of people were for it against it. But I
remember you guys saying we're going to cut down trees and we won't have to use tree service. And then I had noticed that somebody went to Ruckers and signed up for a tree class. But now I see almost $8,000 of tree service. So I
thought that bucket truck was supposed to be in lie of us ever hiring anybody else. That's how you made it sound like this is good investment. So if we're not using that bucket truck for trees, what are we using it for? >> We we are using it for trees. What what
you're seeing is trees uh and limbs that are around power lines. That's something that our guys are not going to be doing is working around power lines. They're I don't think they're even allowed to. Um that is for the power for the electric companies to do. >> Okay. So, have you used it at all the
bucket truck? >> Of course. Yeah. They've used it already for uh cutting down, you know, trees and uh it's been used various times. Absolutely. >> But doesn't the electrical people do the tree service. >> They do tree service around
>> they charge the towns. >> No >> and they charge the towns. >> So what what happens is um if there are trees um that are not they do their own tree cutting as well. Uh but then there
are trees that uh it could be a down power line or uh there are sometimes that we have to call guys out for uh trees that are near a power line that could be could be an issue. Um so that's you're seeing uh some of that. But we
went through uh we went through the uh I guess five years that the truck has almost like a 20 year lifespan on it. and we went through the um the cost of what that would be and we we estimated that within
5 years that truck will pay for itself. But there are certain situations where uh we do have to call a tree service. Uh there are also at times when you could have multiple down um that we do need assistance because only have you know
like I said one truck. Um, so there are numerous times that uh that extra hands are are used. That's why you're seeing that bill that could be reduced uh probably greatly.
>> Oh, I'm sorry. Can you repeat that? >> It's going to be reduced that bill >> I would assume. Yeah. Through um uh I would assume that eventually it would be reduced more. Absolutely. Like I said, our guys not working on power lines.
Yeah, KMM Tree and Lawn Service is working on power lines. >> They they have um I I don't know exactly what what they've done. Um I don't I don't have >> Sounds like it's the lawn service. All right.
>> Well, they're they're they're a tree. They're they're a tree. I don't know which one you're looking. >> And they're cutting near the power lines. >> That could be the reason. >> Good. All right. >> Yeah. We don't um if it's something that we can do, we do it ourselves. But but if it's something that um and around
power lines, like I said, I don't know what that that can >> and then there was a $400 charge for a dangerous tree. Okay. All right. Just checking.
>> Any others? >> Um I do have one >> call. >> I just was curious as to what this is. It's um $1,250. Um Amy Hackett Mac Grant Q2 Consult. Could you just elaborate on what that is? I just didn't know what it was.
>> I don't know where you're talking. What What check? >> Can you give a check number, Carl? Sometimes that helps. >> 65279 >> page one. >> I don't know what that is. I'll have to get back to you. All right. >> Thank you. Is it a grant?
>> A consultant for a grant. >> That's what it said. >> They give a very small >> Oh, the M grant. Yeah. >> And if you could look into 65304, please. repaired with floor for $28,000.
>> If I have an answer for that one. >> Perfect. >> Um it's the DPW had to replace the floor and that was in uh bond ordinance and improvement properties and a resolution was passed last year. Um there was two quotes on it and that
was the better of the price and it was finally done. So that's why you're seeing the bill now. Was the floor uh bottom pitted? >> It's the >> It's like a coating that goes on >> epoxy. >> Yeah, similar to that. It's uh it's a
lot cheaper than having to rip up the concrete water. So, plus it also has u some ripping stuff in there. So, so non-slip and and and it's easy to clean up as well. So, >> thank you. And it's lighter in color
which um helps with working in that in that uh in the shop. >> Any other vote on the bill's list or just make a motion to >> motion to accept the bills list.
>> Moved second. All >> in favor? I >> need a motion to accept. >> Um, >> we have a second. >> I'll second.
>> We'll hold the minutes. >> Have a motion to approve the minutes from January 15th executive session minutes. >> I'll make that motion. >> Thank you. Second. All in favor? >> I
said there's a roll call. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Runo. >> Yes. >> Sparta. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Have a motion to approve January 15th
reorganization meeting minutes. Move. >> Second. Council member Cantino, >> yes. >> Council member, >> yes. >> Council member Mugo, >> yes. >> Council member Sparta, >> yes. >> Council President Higgins, >> yes.
>> Motion. >> Have a motion to approve January 21 26 special emergency meeting minutes. >> Moved. >> Second. Have a second. >> Second. >> Roll call.
>> Council member Canino. >> Yes. Council member Ols >> abstain. >> Council member member Zudo. >> Yes. >> Council member Florida. >> Yes. >> Council President Higgins. >> Yes. >> Finally, regular meeting minutes on
January 29th. May I have a motion to approve regular meeting minutes? >> Second. >> Welcome. >> Council member Canino. >> Yes. >> Council member Holmes. >> Yes. >> Council member Rudo. >> Yes. >> Council member Sparta. Yes.
>> Council President H. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Next up, we broke up the uh consent agenda resolution. The uh non-convent or introduction
for the motion for the consent agenda discussion. If anyone cares to have a discussion on any individual ones, let me know now. >> Okay. So, um, yes, if you could pull out 2691
>> 91. Okay. And let me see what else. 2696 >> 96 on it. >> That That's not on consent. >> That's not on the consent. >> Oh. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. All right.
Wait. I think I might have something else. >> So, where what where does the consent Oh, >> 81 to 95. >> All right. From 2691 91. Um, >> I'd like to fill out 2683.
>> 83. add that. You okay? >> I'm fine. >> And I'll uh that's 2685. >> Getting confused here. >> Then you'd be looking for you'd be looking for a motion for resolution 268182.
84 86 to 90 92 to 95 that motion. >> Second roll call. >> Roll call vote. >> Council member Can. >> Yes. >> Council member. >> Yes. >> Member Rudo.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> For President Higgins. >> Yes. Motion. >> Okay. We'll go in order then. Emergency temporary appropriation discussion >> 26 >> 2683 >> was that
>> that was me. Um so I'll make a motion. >> Oh yes, second. >> All in favor >> I have quite a few questions about this. From what I see >> to be put on the agenda I mean seems to be put on the table. >> It was it was it was
>> okay. Thank you. So, from my understanding, this is because we're being charged an overage. Um, and what I'm really concerned about is when I look at the letter from SCUMA, um, it says that it was received by the
mayor's office on December 18th, 2025. But then the letter itself is dated for December 20th, 2025 from Skuma. And then it wasn't received by finance until January 23rd of 2026. So over a month
from when it arrived in the mayor's office to when it was received by finance. And Danell wrote an email that was in our packet that says the mayor handed me the final billing from Skuma on Thursday MUA meeting. It was dated received by his
office on 1218, but he says he just got it. So, I was unaware that we were being charged an overage, which has resulted in me not putting enough in the temporary budget for the township. So, that's why we're voting on this. I'm just wondering what is with the dating
on this because it says received by the mayor's office on the 18th of December, but then it's dated December 20th. And why wasn't it received by finance until January 23rd? >> Your guess as good as mine. I have no
>> It says it was received by your office. >> I was It was in my inbox and I questioned whether or not that should even like why did it even come to my my box where or at least I got a copy of it. But that should be really you know
again and I handed that off to Spoon to to excuse me to to Denell since she's the director. So yes, I did hand it when I when I received it I handed it to her. where where I got lost in the shuffle or
um I can't tell you. I don't know. >> I'm glad that we could solve the problem by voting on this. But my other follow-up question is um will the finance department in the future be sent these communications to prevent this from happening again? Is there a way that we can make sure that notices from
schuma are not just sent, they're also sent to the new CFO so that this doesn't happen again? They said I don't know where where that that letter originally I mean if you're tell it came in directly to the finance office that it came I I don't know like
I said I don't know I don't have the the tracking of where that where that came in. Um but it just it it I I get what you're saying. It just it confuses me because it says received by your office September 18th. It says that you gave it
to her at the MUA meeting and it says received by finance a month later. So to me, I've asked my question >> 18th finance a month later after >> it says on the document December 18th, that's the mayor's office
finance January 23rd. And then there's an email that sent us from Denell saying the mayor handed me the final billing statement from Skuma on Thursday at the MUA. It was stated received by office 1218, but he says he just got it. So I just want
>> So scoop that schoon is uh uh that's their comments right about when it was sent in. >> No it's your office >> that's marked by your secretary. >> That's the date that's there
might not have changed this stamp. I have no idea. Like I said, I don't know my box and and I honestly I wasn't even gonna because normally it's that gets dispersed, you know, to to the appropriate departments. Um
>> cuz I was >> I was shocked. I just brought it over to to her and that was the first time she saw it too >> cuz I was thinking at first maybe it was that her stamp is incorrect, but it says December 18th, 2025. So, unless the secretary has not changed her stamp to a
different year in over a month, which I highly doubt, but anyway, but that's my questions. >> Yeah, you know what? That's >> because like I said, I I noticed it in my my mailbox and then I think it was like the day after I brought it to >> Well, the the other issue is is that it
was received on the December 18th by the mayor's office, but it was written by Skuma on December 20th. >> That confuses me, too. >> That's crazy, too. It makes no sense. I I cannot >> It's a really weird letter. And then the email from Denell is just very
concerning as a council member. I'm reading that and I'm like, I better ask about this. So, >> well, also it's there seems to be a lot of frustration on Denell's part as well because she even says that Skuma refuses to notify the MUA of a number of items and others have no issue sending
correspondence to me directly. Yeah. >> The game with that. So, >> they should be sending all communications to her. They should for CC her at least her. It shouldn't just go to the mayor. >> As I said, I was I just said, "Hey, you know what? I'm going to school to to the
NUA meeting." I just bring this to her anyway. I wasn't even going to bring it to her. I fig she had it. >> On the email chain. >> Yeah. Another question is if we approve the $95,000, have we been paid from the
uh group? >> This has nothing to do with group. >> Okay. So, we got where if if we approved the $95,000, is it added to next year's budget? Does it come out of last year's budget? What's the consequences to paying this
$95,000? >> Yeah, that that's that's a question for uh for the MUA. It's >> that will have to that would have to come out of this this year's budget. >> Oh, yeah. If it was given to Yeah, right. So, >> 2026 budget. >> Well, she's adjusting the 2026 budget.
>> It's 2026 budget. >> Yes. >> It's a temporary budget for 2026. So, it's going to be in the >> We're adding 20 $95,000 or Yeah. 95 already.
Like I said, schuma uh the MUA pays their own bills. So, um that that should not >> Yeah. When she refers to the budget, it's the MUA budget. >> Yeah. >> Not our budget. >> Oh, the MUA budget. Yeah. Pat, >> what's that?
>> No, I thought it was on our It's on the MUA budget because you sit on the MUA board. >> Okay. Any other comments on uh on that resolution? >> My questions are answered. >> Okay. >> Visual vote on that one.
>> Yes. >> Roll motion to uh >> it's already been moved on. It's a roll call. >> Council member Casino. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Council member.
>> Yes. >> Council member Sparta. >> Yes. Higgin. >> Yes. >> Next resolution up for discussion is the one that uh I had a question on. This is for for Mr. Stoner.
>> So a motion resolution 2685. >> 2685 is is a resolution. >> I'll make a motion. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Discussion. >> Discuss. >> Yeah. So, there's a uh construction of an on-site septic field
located at Woodland Trails Campground. So, Woodland Trails Campground off of Route 565, right? And it's a summer only type or it's not a year round uh location. Are there are there plans to build uh year- round facilities there? Is that
why we're approving a septic or what's the details on this? >> This is for Freema Works approval. We're um building a new septic system to replace existing system on the it's a treatment works approval because it's um
they're not expanding. It's it's actually for campsites that exist today because there's several um septic systems on that property. You can't have multiple septic systems on one property because there's a campground. Every time they do something with their septic system, they need a treatment works
approval which is approved at the state level, the D level. >> Okay. So, anytime you do a treatment works approval that he asked the town to consent to the submission of that treatment works approval and basically I believe they do just kind of what you just stated there. You asked a question,
are they expanding? They doing something new, you know, they want the town to, you know, give the consent if they're okay with the septic system, you know, being constructed for whatever may be on that property today. Okay. So it's not a new they're not expanding. They're not
changing the operation just replace an existing system. >> Okay. Right. >> I could So who who inspects the the construction of that? Is that still the board of health or is then the D? >> The D the county the county >> county board of health
>> county health department will but they the county acts as the agent for the D. Okay. So the treatment works approval and the in and this the approval of the septic system gets done at the state level >> but then the county will do the inspection. >> Okay. >> Be involved with the approval. Their engineer will sign off on it. The county
be involved with it as well. Not not so much from Trend. >> And this is strictly just a a blessing for them to send it in. We have no financial obligation. No oversight on this. >> Yeah. There's actually one form in the treatment works approval. It says um it specifically states consent from the
municipality. They cannot submit the application unless the town consents to it. And basically this resolution gives the mayor the authorization to sign the consent, you know, for the submission of that treatment works approval application. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. No further questions on 2685. >> Roll call vote. >> Council member Canino. >> Yes. Yes. >> Council member Rudo. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> President Higgins. >> Yes. >> Motion carries.
>> Next resolution is question is 2691 authorizing signatures on township checks pursuant to NJSA motion and a motion to the table. >> I'll make a motion. >> Second. >> Second.
>> Favor. >> Discussion. Just discussion. open for discussion on signatures. >> Okay. The point I want to bring forward is I believe the CFO should be on each signature. So if you're picking two people, the CFO would be the third. I
think she needs to sign just about everything. >> This is um why we're adding her. >> Say again. >> This is I believe this is for adding her. >> We still >> Yeah, but I want her with every signature.
So from here you can use two correct. So it could be the CFO and the mayor or the BA and the tax collector. I think she needs to be on everything that needs to be signed. And if I'm interpreting that
differently, who out of the four below listed should be the principal signatures? So you could put pick the clerk and the tax collector. Well, then it should be, in my opinion, the clerk, the tax collector, and the CFO.
Or maybe it should be just the CFO and maybe another person, either three or two. But the CFO needs to be on every signature in my opinion because she's responsible for all the money in this town.
Some the only if if she was on vacation for two weeks >> something had to be done. Yeah. >> So she couldn't I get what you're saying. >> Mhm. Then we would have to when she goes on vacation we'll have to have it. >> One of the others one of the others would have >> Yeah. But I believe she should be on
everything. She needs to know where all our money is going all the time. Is that going to be a problem for that to occur? >> Well, motion to add that. >> You already have the chief financial officer here. I think what this is is
just all you always want it. And and I logistically sometimes you can't have that. So there may be some times where she's not in the building. God forbid something happens to her. >> So you always have to have that. And that and that's why you have multiple you have five um different people if you
always will have three but you know if people aren't here >> so I don't disagree with you. I mean, and she's ultimately responsible. Um, it's her license on the line, >> right? >> So, she should I'm sure she probably would want to be signing. >> Agreed. >> I can't speak.
>> Agreed. I mean, >> but I but you just can't if you do do that, then you tie up the the potentially you tie up the town. So, you have to have the ability to to go outside of that. >> That would only be if there was an
extreme emergency. >> I understand. I understand and you're right. >> You know, um I just think she should sign off on everything. Um >> resolution um is so that the bank
accepts our signature cards. This that's basically what this resolution is for. We have to submit signature signature cards to the bank and we're letting them know who the sign signature cards are going to be. That's what this resolution
is. I think this was done because the CFO just took No, >> say it again. >> I believe this this was done because again the um the CFO she she has to sign uh the signature card. She's new to the she's new to to the township. So
therefore her signature has to be >> okay. when I when I got on right you put your signature too because you therefore it just it just reinstates every uh every person that has >> on a card. >> Yeah. >> So this is only about putting a name on
a card >> to have the authority to sign. >> Okay. >> And you can't just have two people. So any one of these members uh Tina or tax collector, municipal clerk, myself can sign checks. All it is just gives the
authority to sign checks. That's all it is. >> Is it possible to amend this resolution to require the CFO to sign every check? >> Is that something that's possible with this? >> Well, the CFO sees sees every check, right? >> But to sign,
>> you can't force one per, you know, someone to make it mandatory that their their signature always has to be on there. Um, >> well, it's saying two out of You're saying it's you can sign individually. It sounded like you just said, but the
resolution says two two out of the four. >> So, you usually the checks have two two require two people plus plus these checks have to go through a voucher process as well and people have to sign off on that. But you always have to have two people because you don't want >> you don't want the business
administrator just taking a check and and signing it and cashing it, >> right? So, it's a safeguard, >> but it's more than a signature on a card being presented to the bank. >> Yeah. Yes. >> Our CFO is the last person when we do our Rex and we do our POS and
everything, our CFO is the last one to approve anything. So, if her signature isn't on the check itself, we wouldn't even get to that part of printing out a check if she didn't sign off on the
wreck >> on the PO, >> right? >> On the purchase officer. Oh, >> she is the last. There is a process. There's four of us that have to sign off on that before a check is even printed. And the CFO is the last person to sign off on it. If she wasn't to sign off on
it, we wouldn't be printing out a check. >> Excuse me. By law, >> by law, the CFO must approve the uh any amount of money dispersed attesting to
the fact that the money is available. If she doesn't attest that there is money to cover the check, she can't sign it. Right? So in effect that becomes her authorized signature. >> Well, but this is not what it's saying
here. It's authorized checks, withdrawal slips, other bank items with two out of the four below listed principal signatures being required. So again, I still say >> she's doing it if she doesn't. >> But but saying two out of two people
have to sign it >> and that's just for the check, the physical check itself. So, one person can't take your checkbook and and write checks. My business, my account, there's myself and my and two other partners can sign because sometimes I'm not there. If
I'm on vacation or something comes up, I'm sick and vice versa. So, we we always put have more people just in case. And sometimes in government in in in the summer, you could have three of these people gone. >> So, they can s they can sign as a single
signature. a check. No, no, you always have to have two people. >> All right. >> So, you have to have two be the CFO. >> You have to have two of these five people. But before you even get to the check, there's a whole process where there Yes. There's a PO, there's a voucher is done, the vendor signs it,
the department head signs it, the CFO has to certify that there's funds. Also, in resolutions, we put in there that there has to be certified funds. >> Um, >> okay. But I do understand what you you're saying and I am I would venture to guess
that the CFO because her license is on the line that she is making sure that all of these checks she probably reviews the check through admins spits them out every month. She probably checks make sure all the the paperwork is done because if she doesn't she has a
fiduciary she has a fid fiduciary application. >> She's got a license to maintain. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Okay. You're okay with the way it's worded then? >> I guess I am. >> Yes, I have to be. >> Okay. So, we'll have a motion to accept resolution 2691. >> Roll call.
>> Roll call. >> Council member Canino? >> Yes. >> Council member Holmes. >> Yes. >> Council member Rudo. >> Yes. >> Member Sparta. >> Yes. >> Council president. >> Yes. >> Marries. >> Being that there were the listings of
all the questions, we'll now move to uh approve the consent agenda. Do I have a motion? >> We already we already did that and then we just did the individual ones. So now we're on number 10 just resolutions that were pulled off to discuss individually.
So next resolution would be resolution 2696. Well, unless people don't have any problems with them, then you can maybe move it for a consent. >> Well, I asked >> Yeah, that Yeah, you you asked um you asked for 96 2696.
And also 2696. >> Yeah. Well, >> 2689 and you can just go to vote discussion. >> So, we might as well do each the last three um individually. >> Sandy, did you just say 269?
>> We already voted on >> 26 89. >> We already voted on that. >> Oh, I'm sorry. 26 96. >> There's the um the agreement. >> Yeah, that's 96. >> Yeah, 96. >> I'm sorry. >> Right.
>> Got the wrong one. >> So So of those three, is it just 96 that you guys want to discuss? >> Uh single vote. >> Yes. On that one. The other two, you're okay to vote. So you could do a consent for 2697 and 2698.
>> One one motion on consent for those two. Then we'll >> come back to this 96. >> Exactly. >> Okay. Have a motion to approve uh 2697 and 2698. >> Moved. Second. >> Second. >> Second.
>> Second. >> A second. >> Roll call. >> This is for the two resolutions. >> Yes. 97 and 98. >> 98. Yes. >> Council member Canino. >> Yes. >> Council member. >> Yes. >> Council member Rudo. >> Yes. >> Council member Sparta. Yes,
>> council president. >> Yes. >> Carries. >> I need a resolution to open up discussion on >> motion on open up resolution 2696. >> Discussion moved. >> Second. >> All in favor?
>> No. >> No consent. >> No, it's it's just discussion. >> Okay. 2696. >> I don't have a discussion. I ready to go to vote. Okay. Because you're the one that had >> I pulled it out. No, I want to vote
separately. I don't want to discuss. I'm just going to vote separately. >> Okay. >> Is it Does anyone have any questions on it? >> Any other questions? 2696. Pat, anybody good? >> Roll call vote.
>> Council member Canino, >> abstain. >> Council member, >> abstain. Council member Rudo, >> yes. >> Council member Florida, >> yes. >> Higgins, >> yes. >> Motion carries. Introduction of ordinances.
Motion to introduce ordinance 2605 >> for first reading. >> For first reading. This is the ordinance to repeal and replace existing chapter 133 affordable housing and municipal code township of Vernon. >> Moved. >> Second.
Roll call. >> Council member Canino? >> Yes. >> Council member Holmes. >> Yes. >> Council member Rudo. >> Yes. >> Council member Sparta. >> Yes. >> Present in hand. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. That's a non-discussion item, right?
>> That's the way it's been done in the past. Yes. >> Yeah. >> Ordinance 2606 to repeal and replace existing article 14 affordable housing of the municipal code of the township of Vernon. >> On first reading.
>> On first reading. >> On first reading. Have a motion to introduce ordinance 266. >> Second. >> And a uh roll call. Roll call. >> Council member Canino? >> Yes. >> Holmes? >> Yes.
>> Council member Rzudos? >> Yes. >> Council member Sparta? >> Yes. >> Council President Higgins. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> 13. Public adoption. Public hearing adoption of ordinances. Ordinance 2601.
Calendar year 2026. model ordinance to exceed the municipal budget appropriation limits and establish a cap bank. May I have a motion to open a public hearing on ordinance 2601? >> Moved.
>> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I member the public didn't come up on that public. >> Any members of the public wish to comment on 2601.
>> That's Dorian. Please can you explain that a little bit more would like further explanation on that >> on on this ordinance >> going from two to%. >> So the part part of the um budget
process the U state has allowed the municipalities do a cap bank and that cap bank is for two years. So if you don't exceed your 2% uh you can put it to the future and borrow that some of that money if
there's an emergency. So uh some towns have done it uh when they when they when their budget for an emergency purpose would have exceeded their 2% that that they can annually increase a budget on. Um, but they can't
go over I think it's 3%. And every year, every year a 2% goes off. So it doesn't accumulate 2% 2% 2% 2%. It's only good for two years. And it's only used again in in an emergency if the budget if there's an issue with the budget.
>> So they could have used it for the $70,000 that um they neglected to get payment from from uh O'Neal >> 55. they could use that money >> if if there if there is no money if there if there was no other way that they could pay for it theoretically.
Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other comments on 2601? Seeing no more members wishing to come forward, may I have a motion to close the public hearing on ordinance 2601? Moved. Second. Second.
>> All in favor? I >> have a motion to adopt ordinance 2601. >> Motion. >> Second. >> Roll call. >> Council member Canina. >> Yes. >> Council member Ols. >> Yes. >> Council member Rudo.
>> Yes. >> Sparta. >> Yes. >> Council President Higgins. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Here's ordinance 2602. Ordinance to the township of Vernon County associate, New Jersey, releasing, extinguishing, and vacating the rights of the public in a
portion of block 436, lot 22, Burglar Road. May I have a motion to open the public hearing for ordinance 2602? >> Moved. >> Second. >> Second.
>> Second. All in favor? I. >> Any members of the public wish to come forward make any statements? had a couple of people already. No further. >> Hey Dassi, I would just like clarification on this, please. It's my
understanding that B Road was used as a right away for the fire department if they needed to access Lake Wanda for water. So, does that does the town own
the road? >> My understanding is the town owns the road. It's paved and it is a dead end road, >> right? It's a dead end for the >> practitioners lives at the end of that road. The other one lives at the next to the last house and their their
neighbors. They're next door to one another. Well, isn't there a jeopardy of our emergency services in Holland Lake Center if they can't? This road was created as an emergency
access to the lake where they get water from. So, isn't it an e doesn't interrupt? >> No. >> That how can you was this before the land use news board? has something.
>> Did the planning board did review this? >> And is that the planning board reviewing or what did they say? >> You have you have the engineer. >> Yeah. >> Yes. Can I speak about this?
>> That would be good. I appreciate that. >> You say I just want to understand this one. >> You can share. Good. Okay. Um, this this part of this ordinance is for
the vacation of a a the last piece of Burgger Burger Burgger Road. Um, which is between the two two property owners uh two properties that are owned by the same property owner. Um, Mr. Riley had spoken, but property owners spoke
earlier. They own a house that's on block 436, lot 22, directly across the street. They have their their garage with block 438, lot one there. The rightaway is a 20 foot rightway. There is no culde-sac, no turnaround. There's
a it's a a deadend street which did tie into the border into the property owned by Lake Wanda. There's no draw down location, no stand pipe. There's no docks. There's no boat. There's um there is no direct, you know, access into Lake Juan, which everybody knows Lake Wanda
is not fully full right now, but still it's not um a direct access where you can have a drill. >> Fire department's got to pull out of the lake at this point. And there's other locations like Wanda, they can get to much easier than this location. >> Okay. >> We did re review with the land use
board. It was brought to them last uh last week, week before last and uh they did uh we reviewed that by went through the description of the vacation and explained that there is a 20 foot rightway. There is no room for a culde-sac or bolt or turn around.
Anybody goes out to the end of that roadway, the only way they can turn around is going onto the either the house property or the garage property. They cannot turn around inside the 20 foot ride right away. technically without going on somebody's private property. They had to back out just like what's happening today. I did visited
the uh property. I've been to the property a couple times, but I went down today just to refresh my memory because it's been a while since I've been over there. I did notice that, you know, a couple of the driveways are chained across. People cannot turn around. They have to back out the roadway
the without going onto the the property at the end of the street. they still would have to go on somebody's property to turn around. So, they still would have to back out. This is this rightway is actually vacated 77 feet
right away. What we do is basically the town is vacating their rights to it. We're not selling the property. We're not deeding it to anybody. We're vacating our rights to it. At that point, then the property owners can do their own um claim to that property and and add it to
their properties on both sides, east side and west side of Burgger Road if that's what they desire to do so. But it's right now we're giving or vacating our right to it. I spoke to the DPW supervisor. He's fine with plowing the road without having that access to that
area. And it feels they maintain Burgger Road exactly as they had today. Uh this past summer they did pave. They paved right up to the part where it's going to be vacated. They didn't go past that. That is new newly paved. And um so
that's where we're at today. We're you know this was requested by the property owners at the end of the street and I believe u the request was valid and and they put up the compensation for the preparation of the deed uh vacation documents and we prepared the documents.
It's ready to be uh uh vacated. Then that the only other question I would have then is why are we vacating or why are we selling it? It's a township piece of property. Why are we just giving it away freely? >> May I answer?
>> It's no. >> You can come back if we >> um >> it's a valid it's a valid question valid comment. Um the vacation of roadways rightways is a common common situation they do in a lot of towns. Um, I've had
situations in other towns where they've had the uh lake communities, septic systems or, you know, parts of a of a a dwelling area even inside a rightway because it's not constructed properly and then they'll vacate that understand right aways. I have one across my property. But my question still lies is
why are we just giving it away freely? Can you answer why this thing gets put up for sale and let the people buy it? >> Okay, I'm going to get stared at instead of an honest answer.
>> Oh, valid question. >> We have it might affect it might affect the vote. Who knows? >> Okay, I guess we got our answer. Thank you for your explanation. It's not your issue.
And uh I feel it should be >> anyone else. >> Maybe we should table it. >> I have ahead. >> When I approached the township about this, it is my understanding that in the state of New Jersey paper roads when are
not they are not maintained which this road has not been maintained. We have cleaned up countless piles of garbage. The road is not paved when we purchased the property. The adjacent homeowners are the ones who maintain the property and therefore are the ones able to obtain. >> But that does not give you a Sorry.
>> You're don't >> That's not what I'm saying. I'm sorry. >> No, she she's not allowed to be speaking with you. You're saying that you're >> I would just like to say I can't show you a visual. This small patch of road is between my house and my garage. I cannot cross to my garage without having
to go across. It puts, like I said, my daughter at risk. Puts the dog at risk. That's why they keep calling animal control makes and the dog goes to the garage. They're taking pictures of my five kid because she's crossing the road. That's why we're for safety.
There is no access to the lake. As Mr. Stoner had stated, he had been down there. Other people have come down to see it. They understand that there is no access. There is nothing there except a dead gully on a lake that is dying. the
dying lake. Um, and I'm just asking for this because I don't feel safe in my home because of these people. Thank you. >> I might take a look at it. >> I would have brought pictures. >> Oh, yeah.
But just just uh you know both have visited um Pat you actually yes that site um there there is no like lake access to it. It's it's completely blocked by shrubs and weeds and uh which
are more than six feet high. Um like I said our police department went there as well just to just to confirm that there is no safety issues. Um, and they didn't find any as well. >> Sorry.
>> Um, Steve, just to clarify, what is the size of this piece of land that we're talking about? And is it a built >> 77t long by 20 ft wide? >> Excuse me. >> Excuse me. >> What you say? The area.
>> Yeah. He wanted to know the area. >> 1,500 ft. So, it's not a buildable lot. It's not like the town could sell it for somebody to put a house on, >> right? >> So, it seems kind of >> And it's not being absorbed into a lot block. Correct. >> No, it's not. Um, if I was a property
owners, I would likely file a, you know, a a claim to that property and then it could be absorbed equally into each property next to it. When a town vacates a land, a piece of property like this, when it's part of the original subdivision, it typically goes back to both properties on half to the one
property on the east side and half to the west side. They just happen to own both sides >> and then the tax assessor would >> join the lots and assess it. Yes. Because they own the tax. >> Yeah. So, we're doing tax roles as a different additional area to the
property. not going to be any taxes going to get absorbed into either side. >> Sure. Come on up. >> So, I know I requested to pave that road. Um, >> can you So, I requested that road to be paved back in 2024. Um, this was prior
that prior to knowing that the neighbors wanted to vacate the culde-sac um per se, right? It's not enough to create a turnaround. Yes. Um but I asked to pave the road because it's been a dirt road for for since 2018 and probably for decades before that.
>> Um so they they decid the plan was to pave the whole road until um the current neighbors said that they want to take over the culdeac to create the safety and peace. But like everybody else, all the res residents, we have backyard, we
have the front yard that the kids could play, the dogs could play. I'm not sure why um there's a need for the road to be used to play and like you said I remember um back in the day they did they put access they weren't they used to put accessories on the other side of
the road but now they're not it's not allowed right so that's that's what created this whole accessory one side and a property on the other side >> it is there is an an existing non-conforming condition when on when that property where the garage is today current zoning will not let accessory
structure be on its own property And actually that does kind of lean better for zoning now if they do combine the lots and they have the principal structure and the accessory structure on the same lot. >> Okay. >> You know the um you cannot get put accessory structure by itself on a property today unless you got a use
variance from the landport. >> Okay. And I've also asked this question. There's also the shoreline that belongs to Lake Wanda that I believe the township took over and that would actually give some space for the like a K turn to turn around but I wasn't
nobody had answered that question and I'm not sure there's like so there's a shoreline right according to the survey it doesn't belong to um myself or the residents it just belongs to the township or like Wanda that no longer has a HOA so my question is um because
you are vacating this road then they get to privatize the whole all the shorelines too. So, I understand there's no access right now, but this is a long-term consequence for if the lake gets fixed if um the township maintains
the lake. Then, historically, I spoke to the neighbors who've been there for 30 years, they did use it. So, as of today, it's not being used, but vacated today, then in the future, nobody could use it. >> That's correct. And at least in the
public, you know, we're vacating our public rights to that. 77 ft of the at the end of the roadway. >> Yes. >> When you're saying about sewer, but there's no sewer net. >> Just sewer. Okay. >> Just access like you said right now there's no, you know, it's it's not
maintained. There's no um access even though historically there has been access because Lake Wanda is is not in the greatest shape right now. But my point is in the future, I'm thinking future, what happens if they rebuild the lake? if they maintain the um all the
the the shrubs and whatever is going on in the lake. Once you vacate it, that's it. There's no going back. And they get to use not only the road, but they privatize all the shorelines as well that my neighbor wants to actually >> shorine. Yeah. Yeah. Um yes, technically
that shoreline becomes, you know, right up against their property. >> Yeah. Um I don't see in the in the future then you know getting getting access and putting a a boat ramp or doing think you know the the some other type of uh straight access into that lake without
considerable D permitting to do so. Um I'm just dealing with what's there today. >> Yeah. I'm just saying like future wise and um just thinking of that. >> Yeah. And um I guess that's it. The the
lake access and the future consequence of it. >> I think one of the big issues was always with that like a turn vehicle can turn around. >> Um being that it's there's no culde-sac there's no it's only 20 ft in width. No vehicle can turn around that 20 ft either at this location or in front of
your house even. It's it's too narrow without going. If they turn around in front of your house, they go into your property to turn around. Same thing what happened here. It's not big enough for somebody to actually turn around physically without going on one of those two lots. >> And actually, somebody brought up a good
point. Why is it being given away for free? Because the ordinance says it's um it's a cost of the township. It's it's it's um it's something else. It doesn't specifically say it's just because one person wanted to request it because they
just want to own it. That's simply is that they just want to own that whole um section. It's not because of anything. It's the cost of the township and we don't get anything out of it. And me as a taxpayer, I've been paying there since. I've requested to pave the road
so everyone could use it. And now people coming with the strollers, people coming with the bicycles and they get stopped right at the time, right at the point where it was supposed to be vacated by the residents of 24 Bergen telling them it's a private property. But it's not a private property until you decide if it
is. And it's been ongoing since they moved in. So, this is just formalize and legitimize um what they've been lying about. That's it. >> Thank you. >> I'm happy to answer any other questions. >> She has already
>> Does anybody have any other questions about the property? No, >> you've already come up. >> It's just one. I do have a question for Yeah. If we're vacating the property,
how come it wasn't put up for auction? Like it just the the part that I'm grappling with is it's a road that the town currently owns. And yes, the homeowner owns property on both sides, but then there's a whole area behind it that would then be closed off from the
public that includes lakefront access. And it just seems I'm just curious why didn't we go out put it up for auction or if they're offering to buy it, how come that wasn't considered? Because it just seems strange to just give up road
that we own as a town. >> It's up to the town's decision. Um it's very common to vacate a situation, you know, like this where they're this is a it looks like a driveway. If you go to the site, it looks like >> Yeah. I mean, I I looked at it on Google Earth. I looked at the map and I know other members have gone up and seen it.
So, and we were sent photos of it and arguments from both sides. And that's just the part that I'm really grappling with is how come if we're if it's road that the town owns and someone wants it, we're just going to give it to them. I mean, I can't that's what I'm grappling
with. >> I think those >> I don't know if auctioning off what the what the uh you know how how that would work. Let's put it that way. Okay. If you you did try to auction up, you have
a property between, you know, this property at the end of the end of the roadway and then you'd have maybe the lake association. They might be interested. I think that's the only two people I think would have a valid >> Yeah. >> thing to it. >> It just seems
I'm just repeating myself. >> There is there is no lot block for that. >> There is no lot block. It's be able to sell it. >> Why not? But you're restricting it. So any kid that wants to go fishing on the side of the property there at the edge
will never be able to use that anymore. >> Can't use it now. >> Maybe access to it now. >> No, it goes right to the lake. >> According to this map, then Corey Stoner wrote a wrong map. Then am I right, Corey? you know, say historic line, but
physically great today that you without going through woods, you know, you know, growing up overgrown areas, you know, to the lakes, you guess, you know, you that's the only way you can get to it. I >> like it goes right to the edge.
>> The land use board has reviewed it. >> They did not have any maps. They had no supporting information. >> They did. I had to ask for each document and I was still getting documents today. >> That was from the land use board.
>> That was from everything that was done in this town. >> Okay. >> I had to ask for each individ >> the land use board was provided. >> They didn't have it either. >> I explained it was explained to the land board. >> Yeah. >> They didn't have all the supporting
documents. >> They Well, they didn't question anything either. So I guess if they didn't ask those questions, right? >> Well, we are >> okay. Let's uh close the uh motion to close the discussion and the public
comments on 2602. >> Moved. Second. >> All in favor? >> I roll call on the order. >> Roll call vote. Motion for a roll call vote. Just a roll call.
>> You just call for roll call. >> Roll call vote motion. >> I'm sorry. Made the motion. And who seconded the motion to adopt? >> I I made the motion. I think Carl seconded >> if they're closed. It's a closed public comment. >> Have a a motion or a second to
>> I think I make a motion to adopt 262. >> Have a second. Second. Roll call vote. >> Council member Cantino, >> no. >> Council member Ols, >> no.
>> Council member Zudo, >> yes. >> Council member Sparta, >> yes. >> Council member Council President Higgins, >> no. >> Motion does not cover 263. That's >> Have a motion to open a public hearing
on 2603. >> Move. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> members of the public wish come forward. Any any comment on 2603 which is orders
the extending lease agreement between the Vernon Township Board of Education Township of Vernon subleas lease agreement between the township and dog owners gathering society of Vernon Township for certain approved real estate identified on the official tax
map at the township block 308 lot 2. No one coming forward. Close it to public. Motion to close to the public. >> Moved. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor?
>> I I call vote on 260. >> A second. >> Motion to go. >> Motion for adoption ordinance 2603 and a second. Have a second. Vote. Second.
>> Okay. Roll call. >> Council member Canino? >> Yes. >> Council member Holmes. >> Yes. >> Council member Rudo. >> Yes. >> Council member Sparta. >> Yes. >> Council President Higgins. >> Yes. >> Ordinance 2604, an ordinance to amend
chapter 250 entitled fees and escros to the code of the township of Vernon Sussex County, New Jersey. I have a motion to open the public hearing on ordinance 2604. Moved. >> Second. >> Second.
>> All in favor? >> I. >> Members of the public wishing to come forward make a statement on 2604. >> Have a motion to open to the public. >> We're open. >> We're open to being mean. Closed. >> Close.
>> Make a motion to close it to the floor. >> Do I have a second? Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> have a motion to adopt 2604. >> Moved. >> Second. >> Roll call vote.
>> Council member Canino? >> Yes. >> Council member Holmes? >> Yes. >> Council member Rudo? >> Yes. >> Council member Sparta? >> Yes. >> Council President Higgins? >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Have a motion to open the floor to
public comment. limited to 5 minutes on any topic. >> Moved second. >> All in favor? >> I open to the public. Um any members wishing to come forward
through five minutes to subject Edwards. Thank you. Um, this might be after the fact and I apologize because I didn't look at all my notes and it's a little frightening to get up here all the time and address everybody and and the public, but I had a question and
maybe Mr. Jessup can answer this for me. Um, in regards to the pilot programs and they talked about um, if we don't fulfill our obligation, we could have a builder's remedy where they can come in and do whatever they like more or less.
That's how it sounded to me. Mr. Jessup, if you don't mind, um, if we allow the builders to come in, purchase the property, they go through the approval section, that doesn't mean they can't build, and that doesn't mean
that we have to give them a pilot program. Am I correct to stay in that? They can still build if they want, but they just don't have to have a pilot tax exemption program in place. Bill that's correct.
>> That's correct. Well, it seems quite that that part is always left out. The public doesn't is not aware of that. Um I think that's a very important fact. Um let's see number the other one which which I wanted to ask um in the 2689
says when Red Han LLC the owner the predecessor of Omega Drive Redevelopment urban renewal LLC entity was the owner of the redevelopment area I had seen a letter by um one of the O'Neals um I don't know if it was the DCA I believe
saying that they were changing their entity name to become um new development entity. Is Red Hand a redevelopment entity? Do they have their own stipulation? Is that what I'm getting at?
>> Well, I asked that question at the land use board. Uh Lauren O'Neal, who is an O'Neal, she's their attorney, >> right? She's the one who wrote the the letter, I think. And our answer was that it had something to do with family history and they it's an LLC tied to the
O'Neal Group as a functioning LLC for this uh oper for this development. I'll allow Matt to uh clarify that a little bit further. >> Uh thank you, Council President. So, I'm I haven't I don't know that I've seen the letter you're referring to, but I'm
going to presume for the moment that it is the letter to DCA that is applying to have the name changed to say urban renewal. >> Correct. >> Okay. Perfect. >> Not redevelopment entity, urban renewal. And the reason >> to do the affordable housing. >> Yes. And the reason that they did that
is because under the long-term tax exemption law, a pilot can only be granted by law to an urban renewal entity. And under the statute, an urban renewal entity must have the words urban renewal in the title.
>> So you often see redevelopment entities as a company start out as the address of the property LLC and then when they go to get the pilot, they amend the name and the certificate of formation to be an urban renewal entity under New Jersey law and change the name to say address
urban renewal, LLC, comply with the statute. >> That's what I figured. But is Red Hand is it under Red Hand LLC? Are they the ones that that doesn't say Urban Renewal Developer? Uh like >> it's Omega Drive Redevelopment, Urban
Renewal LLC. >> Red Hand LLC, the owner, the predecessor of Omega Drive. So they were before Redand and then they changed the name to Omega Drive Redevelopment. Is that how I'm reading that? started as Red Hand
and ultimately made its way to the Omega Drive entity that they created for the project which they then converted into an urban rural entity via the letter that you had seen uh written down to the division and the division would have written a letter back approving that uh transfer. >> Thank you. That's what I was curious about.
I was hoping that um the council and the mayor would tonight um if that's the case or the attorney for the council give the consent that they're going to reply to the petitioners about our
request for an answer as specifically in regards to can the clerk just site the clerk was supposed to just validate the petition right the names and whatnot and then it was supposed to go on to I thought the town council in conjunction
with um the attorney advising them. I just think that the response was a little light and um some here think that we didn't really get a good response at all. I mean millennium as the farmer
affectionately known as the farmer said u there's a dispute which category falls under administrative or legislative and I think that should be addressed. I don't think that should go to the wayside. I think that needs to be addressed
and I hope the council feels the same way if not for this time but the next time because the 99 you think the town was up in a for the 27. You have no idea what's going to happen if the 99 comes in. >> You want to address it? >> Yeah.
>> Okay. I'll let you finish your time. I mean you have I think you have a minute. Um, one of the other things, um, it was mentioned, it kind of seems to me that the town council, you know, they're always paying the schools. You said if they if there's an
assessment and then the owners win, the schools, usually they get they keep their money, they'll get a refund back to the town. I understand that. But we're only one taxpayer. We have two pockets. one pocket for the municipal, one pocket for the schools, but we're
only one taxpayer. And I want you to keep that in mind because it seems like you're always separating the fact, well, we're the municipal, we get the money. Yeah, taxpayer. So, I just wanted to say that. Um, and I guess I'll end on that
if Mr. King has something to say. That's >> uh Yes. With regard to Millennium, uh in Millennium, they discussed how a um pilot project on a redevelopment under the redevelopment law is exempt. The legislature has exempted specifically
under the redevelopment law and the pilot portion of the redevelopment law is included in that um any referendum. Uh in addition there there's other there's other sections of like the budget law with the cap uh bank that
we've done here. That's not something that could be um put on referendum either because within within the budget you can't do a referendum on a budget. The cap bank ordinance that we did today is part of that and there's case law a separate
line of case law on that as well with regard to millennium with regard to the distinction of administrative um that was discussed and that was used. It was a judicial creation. It Millennium was appealed. went up to
the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court abregated probably about eight or nine cases that qualified a decision on that administrative you know distinction that was created by courts. So that administrative thing
that administrative description has been ripped out. You can't use that. What the courts said, the Supreme Court said is the legisl legis legislature can give and take away. With regard to Millennium, it was
clear that under a redevelopment, a pilot is part of redevelopment, you cannot do a referendum on redevelopment. >> All right. >> That's just that's just what the law is. >> Okay. But I guess incentive attorneys who feel differently, I don't know.
Well, that that by the way that Millennium was also followed up by a more recent case in uh Orange, West Orange. I forget the name of it, but the court also um referred to Millennium in that as well.
>> I just wanted to this one thing out to the um town council. Please keep in mind that we're not going to be here in 30 years. This is our children, our grandchildren. This is their future. 30
years is a long time. Remember when they come to you and say, "Oh, we got to do it. We got to do it or we're going to get sued." Fear your mongering type scenario. You have 10 years to to show that we have a plan in place if a
developer wants to come in. And number two, we don't have to offer a pilot to make it happen. It should be the other way around. What are they going to give us to come into the area? So, thank you very much.
>> You're welcome. >> I'm going to read because I want to be sure I say it correctly. My name is Peg Dassi and I've lived here for over 40 years. But I'm here tonight to formally contest Ordinance 2517.
This agreement is not merely a difference of opinion on development. It is a violation of our municipal standards and mathematical failure that shifts multi-million dollar burden onto
the backs of the burden taxpayers. I am asking this council to resend formula tonight based on three specifics of failure. The first one is NJSA4A
20-8 requires a developer to prove that the project is the only feasible with a tax break. However, Mr. Jessup in the last uh time he discussed this
testified that this project would yield an intern to rate of return of 5% under traditional taxes. In the current real estate market, a 5% IRRa is a typical baseline that is not a
financial failure. The pilot is a tool designed for blighted areas where no one will build. It is not a gift to a developer who simply wants to turn a 5%
profit into a 15% profit at our expense. The developer's own financials indicate in the financial agreement a profit every single year. Therefore, I am asking for an independent audit of
the financial proform that is if that audit shows the project is viable without this subsidy of the pilot, it constitutes an illegal gift of public
funds under New Jersey law. Second, I would address the gross versus net deception being fed to the community. The mayor's office claims this project brings in 3.7 million
compared to 3,800 permanently generated. That sounds like a win-win until you look at the real figures. Under traditional taxes, this project would have generated $3.2
million for our school district. Under this pilot, the school defense zero. We are projected to be adding new students at a per capital cost that is adds up to
a multi-million dollar liability over 30 years. When you actually subtract the cost of those students, the net benefit to the town is less than $500,000 over 30 years. This isn't good new
revenue. It's a cost shifting. We are forcing every other family in Vernon to pay the developer share of school taxes. That is fundamentally wrong. Finally, we must address the
ordinance607 which is permanent standardization of law on pilots where Mr. Jetson has spoken saying that it doesn't apply. The attorney we
went to sees it differently. He says it's the baseline and that the fact that it's just commercial and income producing does not limit
uh residential. In fact, it is in essence saying residential is not allowed for pilots because the laws in New Jersey are exclusionary. They're not
inclusionary. >> Oh, sorry. My screen went blank. >> Didn't hear the impact. Got to move fast. >> Pardon me. >> Got 20 seconds. >> In conclusion, we're asking the the you to resend the ordinance tonight. If
you're not making a bad deal, you're creating a li liability. We, the tax swingers of Berlin, as witnessed by our petition, demand you follow the framework of607, audit the developers necessity and
protect our schools. Will any member of this council move to consider this ordinance tonight based on any of these financial discrepancies? We sure hope so. Thank you. here. Just want to thank everyone for
for your service tonight. I know these meetings are difficult. There's a long agenda to get through and I honestly, you know, trying to focus on you. So irrespective of what our differences may be, thank you for sort of helping conduct the affairs in the the town
here. Um, and I'd also like to say, Council President Higgins, you know, I appreciated how you started off this meeting almost like an educator sort of prompting the professionals to engage with the public and trying to sort of
pull answers out of them and trying to facilitate that communication. So, I appreciate that and I'm hoping we can have a little bit of that here right now uh with with me professionals here. Um, you know, attorney Kang just provided some comments to our formal council
woman here and I know we have another attorney present that also sort of specializes in as well. So, I'm hoping we can perhaps hear from him as well. So, um, again, I'm no attorney, so I'm sort of not necessarily telling you, but also trying to, uh, get your
recollection here, but, you know, in your rebuttal, you sort of stated that the Millennium case was clear, went up to the Supreme Court, and there was also more recent case law uh, in Orange, New Jersey. And I believe that's uh, uh, I just look at my notes here.
Um, uh, this is administrative, but in orange, the council was following a plan that had already set the rules. Um, they had a redevelopment plan that set out a lot of detail around pilots and terms, etc. And Vernon, you know, there are no
rules. Our 2021 redevelopment plan is silent on tax terms. Oregon 16-07 says it's fun. So by choosing 30 years with no existing mandate, we aren't really administering. We're legislating something. So can you sort of address
that distinction? >> I I would wait until you're done with your five minutes. >> I was I was hoping we could modify the format of this a little bit and just have a little bit more of a because your your response may necessitate more. What people don't understand this is not
a debate. We don't go back and forth. You know, you usually what happens, you'll ask, people would ask their questions the way that the open session is. You can comment on anything you want. You have questions, then the council would take it back to the mayor, the administration would come up with
the answers and then provide them maybe at another meeting or email them to you. you know, with all due respect, you know, you're essentially violating the constitution by denying this petition and this is going to result in legal expenses being incurred
by the town. You know, it seems like the stakes are rather high and the community is quite upset about this. So, I understand that in normal course of business, it's not a debate. And I'm not trying to have a debate. I'm honestly just trying to have more of a dialogue. I'm trying to speak to you in a very respectful way. But there's thousands of people that are upset by this. And
again, you've cited some case law, but you've only really touched the surface of it. And I'm just really trying to understand your perspective because maybe you can talk me off the ledge here and you know, we can just end this right here and you can. >> So, so you you've talked about litigation. I would advise this council
not to discuss it any further. I cannot discuss it with you because I don't want to give up any attorney client privilege information with regard to pending and possible litigation you've just threatened. clear statement. It's a good legal statement and uh it does abide by the
rules of the council and and the discussion. It's I have total support for that statement. You really can't answer your concerns. >> I would say >> I'm sorry. You can't answer the response
that you gave us in an email and clarify it. >> That's a for sure. >> Yeah. I mean, it is a little frustrating that we are we are formally communicating you as a petitioning body to the council and we're not getting any responses. We're communicating with the
clerk and we're not getting any sort of formal responses. You know, perhaps this is not the right forum to have this discussion. perhaps I'm naive to the implications of the process and you know etc etc but please respond in
some fashion in a timely manner and just don't ignore because it sort of just makes it worse if if folks are just being ignored. So, um, again, we're trying to decide where to take it and just honestly trying to understand position of the town more clearly and draw these
distinctions. And, you know, your attorney is advising you, but perhaps you might want to consult with other attorneys because there's a lot of folks out there that are very well informed, educated, you know, and the case law is not clear from
what we can tell. So, I hope this isn't just sort of dismissed outright and you just you just carry on. I mean, I hope you really look at this more closely and consider the different paths that this can take. >> Appreciate it. Thank you. We'll take advisement.
>> Sir, >> good evening. Back in the hot seat. >> I'm sorry. >> You said I'm back in the hot seat. >> And you would be, sir? >> Harry Shortway, Vernon, New Jersey. Just for the record, former mayor, former deputy mayor, former council president, former councilman, former MUA
commissioner, former board of ed member about 30 years on volunteer committees throughout the township. I would like to briefly address the issue of sore connection fees for the Theta Group development and how the newly obtained recordsffect
the questions of culpability. On January 27th, 2026, the Sussex County Municipal Utilities Authority notified the township and MUA officials that the final certificate of occupy had been issued without notice to
Schuma and without payment of the required connection fee, which they calculated as $213,000 plus. This is important because the connection fees also go to help earn rateayers.
under Vernon's agreement with Schuma and I believe this is in the 2005 agreement and then they re um addressed it in 2013 of certain connection fees go into a rate stabilization fund for burning customers. This helps keep sore rates
lower for local users. If connection fees are not collected, the benefit is lost or it's delayed. The VT MUA is owed over $70,000. Burn's MUA regulation says the connection fee must be paid when a
building permit is issued to connect to the source system. The word shall makes it mandatory. The documentary record shows that the developer had actual knowledge of connection fee obligations as early as July 2022. At a preliminary source service
allocation, meeting the developer's representative acknowledged understanding of the fees, the charges, and the billing procedures. We also know the property owner at the time was a former BTU MUA chairman. Therefore, he had prior experience with
municipal utility authority operations, further indicating familiarity with connection fee requirements. The SOUR inspection approval occurred on June 25th, 2025. In November of 2025, internal emails show the develop
developer actively was seeking a hardship and also a waiver of connection fees and requesting the proper application. This confirms that the developer knew the fees were required and were due before connection and occupancy.
Certificates of occupancies were issued on or about December 29th, 2025. Under New Jerseys Uniform Construction Code, a certificate of occupancy can only be issued when all laws and ordinance ordinances are met. The code clearly
states that all required fees must be paid in full before a CO is issued. Despite that knowledge, the project was connected to our source system. Certificates of occupancy was issued were issued. Apartments were rented and
assumed revenue was generated. At the same time, no confection fees was paid to either Vernon MUA or the Suis County MUA and Skuma received no application as ever been filed with them. Based on
these facts, the issue is no longer a simple administrative oversight. The record establishely establishes clear non-compliance with regulations and raises credible questions as to whether source services were knowingly obtained without payment of the required fees.
That is precisely why an independent third-party investigation as we did with 20 resolution 22-100 when we investigated the actions of a BA here. A third party investigation would be appropriate. It would determine who had
authority, what decisions were made, and whether Vernon's ordinances, MUA regulations, state UCCC code requirements were properly properly filed. This is not about personalities or politics. It's about equal enforcement of law and protection of
public funds. For those reasons, I respectfully request that the council place the matter on the public agenda, preserve all related records, and authorize an independent investigation. Thank you. very difficult to follow.
>> I'm going to stand right here just old school. >> You sure? Sure. You may come up. Um, I've mentioned this before, but there's constant banter on social media.
Some of it real, some of it not real. It was just recently somebody posted that the mayor did a special favor and a special underhanded deal with Vernon in to give them a dedicated sewer line. I'm no fan of the mayor. I've been critical
of the mayor. That's just not true. I can remember when Mr. Shortway was sitting where you are talking about the line going to the Vernon end. Do we go under? Do we go over the creek? It's been going a long time. Resolution 2237
by the MUA. Let me just preface it. It was recently posted that the plus 55 was supposed to pay one .edu DU per unit. But once again, the mayor um did an underhanded deal, backhanded deal, and reduced it to
33. However, in 2022, there was a resolution by the MUA saying that um it was resolved that um the property located at Theta Drive would pay a total of 33
edus, which is 6 per unit, which is exactly what normal one-bedroom apartments cost. One edu is normally reserved for a three-bedroom house. So, I just say that to say that some things you see are real, some things
aren't real, but I've seen enough lately to really make me have concern, just like council councilman Cantino mentioned, about the dates and the explanations and did we get it in December? Did I give it to her when soon as I got
it? It seemed maybe that's not the case since it was timestamped 4 days before it was even dated, but he didn't give it to her until the meeting of the night. I want to come back to that. But there was discussion about
there was discussion about this um resolution. I'm sorry. Um ordinance or was it a resolution? I'm sorry. It it was a resolution resolution um that was mentioned earlier by a couple of people6007
and it talked about the eligibility of commercial and industrial property. I asked you for clarification on that at the last meeting. You said you looked into it. You came back, the attorney said it wasn't considered commercial. I've looked at legal reviews. I've also
looked at um a well-known real estate publication um finance lobby and they say that anything greater than a forplex with the owner living in one of the four apartments it's considered commercial property.
It's not residential. It's there to turn a profit. Once again, I don't know that we've been given the right answers. Maybe the attorney that's here tonight have some of those answers and how they come to the decision that it's not commercial property.
But I think the clarification is important. I don't know if we just didn't know about602 or if there's so many ordinances it just got overlooked. I don't see that it was ever overturned. So, I am concerned about that. And then finally, and I sure don't want to go too
far over my time, but finally in that um MUA resolution, it clearly stated the amount of the edus, but then it went on to say that the board of commissioners of the MUA
instructs the administrator to collect the connection fee from the property owner and notify the township building department of the future future connection. The edu calculation of 33 will become effective upon closure of
all permits. Now, I know Miss Bright, our former CFO, was also the chief financial officer for the MUA, and I know there was information back and forth, and she was questioned previously about bills that
were MUA bills that were on township bills, and she told a former council member and myself when we were sitting on the back row, "Well, it all just goes into one big bucket and then I put it where it needs to go." And we we complained about that and we said that's
not the way it's supposed to be done. I don't understand why the town is paying the schuma bills. I don't understand why the MUA they have their own accounts. They collected or or maybe I'm wrong. I would like some
clarification on how that's done and what our involvement is and why we're in the middle of this and why it's not the MUA VTMUA dealing directly with schuma. And if I could get an answer that tonight for that tonight, that would be wonderful. And I thank you very much.
>> Just a comment, the the uh edu uh calculations. I have nothing to do with that. >> I just read that it was in 2022. I haven't even known, >> right? But you made a you made a statement that basically said that I backhanded some >> No, I said
he was actually >> said he was on social media that were completely erroneous. >> Okay. >> So I'm just kind of cautioning people. But on the other hand, when you start seeing things like this pop up on social
media, like the correspondence from the CFO of the MUA to the town clerk and the dates and the times, it it's very concerning and I don't understand how it could have been dated timestamped by your assistant 4 days before it was
dated, but how it didn't get stamped into finance in 23rd, but Miss Bright by her correspondence to the clerk said that you gave it to her at the MUA meeting on the 22nd. It still goes on to why is the township
responsible for this? We keep tell keep being told they're two separate entities. Keep being told that they collect their own money and that they're solvent and they don't need the town's input. Give some clarification. I would challenge the president or council
president at the next meeting to have representatives from the MUA here, both the the chairman and the CFO and the building department because it's been rumored that the CFO of the MUA instructed the building department to
give them a CO even though they hadn't paid their connection fees. I don't know how that's even possible. She's not been an employee since September. But there needs to be some kind of internal you guys need to ask the question and these are the only ones that can answer them plus the plus the
building department have they paid their connection and I guess that's the most and were they given a CO or were they given a TCO and why would they be going before the MUA looking for hardship relief if they
already paid which they were instructed to do by the by the board of the MUA to the chief financial officer to connect those fees before they were permitted. I know we have our own CUFO now. I know they're supposed to be separate, but there's going to have to be some
communication between the two of them. You guys need to know what's going on because I ask questions and nobody ever seems to have Thanks. to support the condon uh really I'm wondering what we're all
doing here. I'm wondering what Mr. Jessup is doing here. I'm wondering what any of us are doing here because you guys have sat at this table for several meetings saying, you know, I don't think the people understand. you know, you guys are misinformed. You don't know what's going on. You should you have to
show up. You have to ask questions. Well, we've done that and we don't get answers. We get answers to nothing. >> You brought him here who is a specialist, an expert in this field. We can't even direct questions to him. He has to look at you to see if he can answer us. Why is he here? He should be
here to answer us. All of us have questions that just never seem to get answered. And I don't understand how you can ignore it. I I think you're forgetting that our tax dollars are paying the salaries of the people we're asking answers for. >> May I ask you a question? >> No.
>> No, I can't ask you a question. >> Have you listened? >> Listen to anything that was stated by you staying. You haven't learned anything. And these gentlemen came here and uh the town planner came here. They they gave you facts. >> Yeah.
>> And you're sitting here as if you didn't hear one word that they were saying. But we had >> Don't you Did you absorb it? Did you absorb what they said? >> I did. >> Okay. Good. I'm glad because we're absorbing what's taking place as well. We're trying to put this in place
>> to bring the professionals here to uh answer your questions and have you listen to them rather than listen to us because they're professional. But >> what he said he did his parting for answers from you on things everything he said he should be able to not even be in
this room and you should know everything because these are you're voting on these things. You're playing with our money and you should know every single thing without him even being in the room. he would speak. This is his job. He shouldn't have to be here. You should be able to answer every single thing that
we ask of him. >> That's not the way it is. And you know, that's not the way. I'm not an attorney. I'm not a town planner. I'm not a professional engineer. That's not my background. So, how can I answer those questions?
>> Questions ask you simple questions. >> Simple question. Let me ask you a question that I've given you the answer to three times. Financially, the questions that come up financially is a prime reason why we
voted for the pilot. It's a hands down no choice. Best for the town, best for you, best for the kids. >> And you have one of those. And at the end of this meeting, I like conclusions. My comment at the end, I'll I'll go
through that again for you to let you know how it's best. And maybe you'll listen this time. Maybe because you think you know a lot more than you do and >> I think I know more than you. >> Well, I I think you can still have two minutes to say what you want and then then we're done with that.
>> I think you're making a decision for all of us. You're obviously not. I mean, how we put you in there to represent us. Represent us. >> Excuse me. Not represent you.
>> Yes. You gave us the authority by the vote in a constitutional in a democratic republic to make a decision based upon information that we know that we believe
to be of greater import. This is not something where you go by the uh who yells loudest. I've been very clear and I'm sorry. I'm not going to sit here and be be belabored by somebody who's
unhappy with the council president and what he's saying, but I've told people I don't put my wet finger in the air to see where the witch is blowing, the wind is blowing. Okay? I take what I hear and
I listen to it and if necessary, I adjust my thoughts. I adjust my outlook. Okay? But I do not go with the group that yells the loudest. That's not the way this government
works. If you don't like it, vote somebody out. That's the way it works. >> We would have if there were enough people willing to run and be a part of the charade. >> Uh I don't call it a charade. >> Secondly, I don't think, you know, I
find No, it's my speaking time. You sat on that parking lot and told us that the mayor was violating the rules because he hasn't involved you guys in any developer discussion. He threw you under the bus in the parking lot. >> Mayor, no, the mayor. >> I was there.
>> Excuse me. You were there. What you took out of context was what I said that the mayor and I had a disagreement because I wasn't called when there was supposed to be a meeting. Okay. You said the mayor hasn't involved you when he has met with
the >> on the contrary. There was there were meetings that I've had with the mayor. >> Okay. >> Final comment before your time's up. Have >> I This is ridiculous. Ridiculous.
A waste of our time. >> Excuse me. I've got an answer. >> Answer me. >> Not talking to you. Hi, my name is Raymond from a moment. There's a
what's the communication between the council I'm sorry between the uh the uh Marcy uh town clerk and the uh chief financial officer questioning on how the
issue of the the the mayor's issu comments were being overlooked and why it was not paid. um essentially the member of the administration. I'm
not going to use names simply because it doesn't resolve anything. I cannot collect and this is from the uh this is from the director of the MUA. I cannot collect a connection fee until
everything is actually connected. it. I didn't notify you that it was and no one contacted us to see if they paid their fees. Zuma needs to be paid as well. And that
doesn't come from me. It comes from county MUA. Uh and that was from, as I said, the director of the uh of the municipal utility authority. What we
obviously to me what happened is there seemed to have been somebody overlooking something but all bills are paid by the municipal utility authority. Hey, we have a shared service agreement which
allows which requires that the bills be sent to the uh the uh member who was judged to be in responsible for that. I would imagine accounts payable or
accounts receivable and those those payments are made out of the uh of the accounts the ledgers of the MUA. So but for what Mr.
uh Dunlop was asking it's all done it's just done in this building. It's done in this building to save money and that's the reason why if maybe people would like to spend more money by putting it in a separate building and
hiring a separate staff but I don't know why you would do that and spend money that you don't necessarily have to. >> Thank you. >> My name is Raven Slack from Vernon. Um,
I'm not a very good public speaker. Um, I'm much better in writing. So, that's why I didn't get up earlier. But I just want to say real quickly, if you're going to tell them not to answer questions from the gentleman farmer because of a legal threat
and uh someone else said, oh, it might have been you said it was a it's not a debate, right? We don't debate here. So, if we can't come here to, you know, to petition our government for a redress of grievances and you're not going to have a debate and there's questions that you
won't answer, where do we go for that debate? Because then it should be a debate, where does that take place? Because that's where we should go. If it isn't here, where is it? That's what you're here for, isn't it? I
mean, if it's not, then where do we go? >> Nothing. >> I'm waiting for your five minutes to be up, ma'am. >> I'm sorry. You're waiting for my five >> five minutes to be up. >> No, because I'm done. I just want an answer to that. I'm not going to spend five minutes starting. >> So, I explained the legal reasoning why
the petition cannot go on the ballot. I cited the case law. Unfortunately, you don't believe it or don't want to believe it. So, you I don't I don't know what else I could say to um to make you happy.
>> So, the township needs another lawyer. Okay. Thank you. >> Hi, it's Larson. I'm from I have a few a few questions actually. um regarding that I wanted to first isn't a question or it's a comment. Are
you aware that the town of Chadam out of their 11 pilot programs there are two in non-compliance that have not paid their their tax their taxes? Okay, that is a big issue. Who's going to follow up on it? And I the information we received from Mr. Jessup is in conflict with what
I got here in the actual uh agreement. Okay, just bear with me a moment. Again, it's 8.3 article D. In the absence of default by the entity blah blah blah, the township agrees to consent to collateral assignment by the entity to any secured party or secured parties of
its interest in this agreement and to permit each secured party to enforce its rights here and under the applicable security agreement and shall upon request of the secured party execute such documents as are typically requested by the secured parties to acknowledge such consent. This provision
shall not be construed to limit the township's right to payment from the entity. Nor shall or shall the priority of such payments be affected by the secured party exercising its rights under any applicable applicable security arrangement. So that's what we're
touching on upon defaults and delinquencies. Where does it say what we're getting as far as a tax lean? Where does it say we're getting 18% 20% whatever for delinquencies? What does it say the remedy is for a for a default? It it it's clearly not on here, but
you're telling us that it's just like any other tax and every other attorney we've spoken to says it's not tax. So, it's not like a regular tax lean or you can just, you know, sell the property at a tax lean sale at the end of the year. Please tell me in this in this document where it says we can sell it as a tax lean.
>> So, first the section that you just quoted. Yeah. >> Is for purposes of when the developer gets construction financing, the lender who's going to lend millions of dollars to make sure that the project gets built. Yes. >> They want the right to pay the pilot in
the event that the developer does not. The provision you just cited is to ensure that the construction lender can pay our pilot when their developer doesn't >> not forced to. >> Correct. >> 100%. >> We get our money. yours.
>> Watch annual service charge or minimum service charge payments as the case fast. Why don't you go a little slower so everybody can hear you and we can all say understand it. All annual service charge or minimum annual service charge payments as the case may be made
pursuant to this agreement shall be in lie of taxes and the township shall have the rights and remedies of tax enforcement granted to a municipality by applicable law including those of inrem tax foreclosure pursuant to NJSA 545-1
just as if said payments constituted regular property tax obl obligations on other real properties within the township. >> What page page and paragraph? >> What page and paragraph is that? >> It's section 4.6A.
Rights and obligations paragraph >> section 4.6A. Section 4.6 is rights and obligations related to tax exemption. 4.6A is the paragraph that I just read >> and that's in the agreement
>> above it. Immediately above it, it says in 4.5, the entity's failure to make the requisite payment of annual service charge or minimum annual service charge or if applicable van taxes in a timely manner shall constitute a default
capital D defined term under this agreement and the township may among its other remedies as provided in this agreement proceed against the project pursuant to the INREM Tax Foreclosure Act. NJSA545-1
at SEC. In addition, the township may terminate this agreement with respect to the project in accordance with section 5.3 and it goes on. >> Is that the agreement that was part of the ordinance that was passed and that's an executed agreement? >> Well, I can't see whether this is executed because this isn't my copy
obviously, but >> but is your copy have that same language in it? Is your copy executed? >> Yes, it is. >> And that's executed by the developer >> and the town. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Mhm. >> MUA, are they are the lenders going to be paying the MUA?
>> That that agreement is not between the MUA. >> Interesting. All these all these disjointed parts. You notice how this section you repeated is 4.6, but it goes on here 8.3. It's all convoluted. Why would they? They're two different sections. One thing is you're what
you're doing is you're trying to make a great big philosophy so people can't understand it. This is done to deceive. Okay? That's why it's done. Do you know the meaning of of the red hand? Do you have any idea what the definition of red hand is? It's an anti-semitism. Why
don't you read up on just Google red and then while you're at it, Google blackand blackand is about terrorism. We made a pack with the devil. Okay? And this document is doing nothing to help our township. nothing to help us. Okay. And the fact that you went and found this
cute little way of going and calling this a residential property versus the commercial properties is very interesting. You didn't find a way to help the town. You found a way to help the developer beat us, didn't you? You're really working for us, aren't
you? I encourage everyone to look up Red Hand, the anti-semitism definition of red hand and black hand. >> Thank you. Anybody else? >> This >> I'll be quick. Scott Pastel from
Glenwood. Um, I just see and I I'm hoping everybody on a council sees that over the last few meetings since the the whole pilot project um has been being discussed that there's a really
big erosion of trust from the town's people against the council and I see it getting worse and worse and worse. Um, I don't think this is setting a, you know, a good base for things moving forward. I
I just see it pretty horrible. I feel bad for the two new towns council people that came on. Now, um I find it really hard to fathom that we the previous count uh town council would really
scrutinize things like the you know garbage drop off down to the penny looking at every possible bill and then very easily other than Jessica D. Benadetto very easily rubber stamp a yes
on a what I see as a really losing uh pilot program that that we're looking at for 30 years. It's it's insane to me how easily that went through. I could see maybe it goes through and everybody's arguing and you know we finally came to it and people aren't
happy but it it it was an argument. It was a pretty easy yes that that happened with that. So I guess my real issue that I have is that you know I previously and maybe naively I had faith in the town council to be kind of a guardrail that's
in place to provide some financial financial and other common sense to to things like this. You know I think the mayor should bring up projects. He should throw them out there. But the the town council for me is what is supposed to be, you know, looking at does this
really make sense for the town. Um, and I just don't think that's happening now. I I think you know my I might again I might be naive but for me my thought on the council is you know the people that you elect are there
to basically portray what you are electing them for. So they're not to get elected and then think that they know more. I totally disagree with with what Mr. Rudo was saying. You know I'm I'm smarter than you. You elected me. So
now, you know, you guys hang out and and I'll make all the decisions. >> I didn't >> I think just let me finish. I think if it's a 50/50 uh topic or it's a really contested subject, then yes, you're entrusted to provide the the deciding
vote. I elected you, you do that. But in this case, there's an overwhelming majority of people that are not in favor of this. And you know, there were posts about, you know, uh, we defeated the Democrats or we beat the liberals on this or whatever. I'm the most
conservative guy around and I was at the recycle center and there's people there that I've seen them speak here. I see him post online. I disagree with them 98% of the time. We were on the same page with that because this is a a unifying
uh subject that I think most people are not for. There are some people for it, which is fine. Um, but I think that, you know, it's a good cross-section of the town that we were able to throw a petition together, get more than twice
the number that's needed, thousands of people, and if that if they had had more time, we would have gotten a lot more from from what I saw. Um, and that's totally being disregarded. And acting like it's some kind of victory uh to me is is kind of crazy. So again, I can be
wrong, but I think that the the town council for the most part, unless it's some egregious error that's happening, should represent what the large majority of the residents that elected them want to happen. >> Um, so I'm hoping at least that the two
new members, and from the questions that I've heard, I think that is going to be the case. I'm I'm really hoping. I wish Jessica was still on on here. Um, but I'm hoping that moving forward we really look at what the town's people want and
not think that we're smarter than them. I know there was a there was a comment uh two meetings ago or one meeting ago that you know you people have to do your homework and do your research. The people I saw here know way more than I do about this. I looked into this. I tried to look at some pilot programs
around the state just to see the terms are all over the place which to me means you can negotiate those terms and you can either get terms that work for you and work for the developer. I understand he has to make money too or you walk away. It seems like we were kind of
negotiating from a panic state like we'll take whatever or something else was going on. I don't know what but I don't know why we have these horrible terms for our town for this 30 30 years and the you know throwing out the 3.7 million that's great if if it was a lump
sum that would be great. This is spread over 30 years. You know we're not building any Taj Mahals with that money that's that's coming in and and money now as anybody with any financial sense knows is worth a lot less in the future. So 30 years down the road, this is not
going to be great and we're going to have town council saying we have to raise your taxes. We're stuck in this, you know, this agreement that we can't get get rid of. So I went on longer than I should. I'm sorry, but thanks for your time. >> Thank you. >> Excuse me.
>> My name is Kathy working. Two questions. How many pilot programs are be discussed at this time in preparation for further projects? Because I'm under the impression that you need to have the pilot before you
can get the U building permits. >> Are there any more pilot programs under consideration? >> There have been none submitted to the council from the land use board where it
would originate. that I'm aware of. No, I'm on the language board. >> Yeah, >> I recognize that I spoke already. I'm not I'm not really allowed more time, but if you'll just allow a a small measure of civil disobedience here. Um,
the woman that just asked the question, I was under the impression that pilots aren't coming from the land use board. They're coming from you guys. >> Comes here. The project is approved at the land use board and then a request for a pilot will come here. There's been
no more projects that have been out of the land use board over to here to even be considered. So, the answer is none. >> Thank you. Maybe I just misunderstood, but I thought it. Anyway, so just in sort of digesting what everyone has said
this evening, it seems like this issue of administrative versus legislative and case law, which which is not cut and dry. It's subject to interpretation. Um, but to me it seems like the real conversation that the petitioners should have with the council
is not over case law, but it's really over the financial benefits of the pilot because it still feels like uh you and Mr. Rudo feel strongly that this does offer really strong financial benefits to the town and perhaps you know we just need to hash it out more because again
the agreement says that these revenues are sort of speculative and it's it's all forecasting and I'd really love to see um degrees of forecasting. So, you know, what is the bear case? What is the base case? What is the bull case? You know, there's there's a whole range of
outcomes that can come from this pilot. And I'd really just love to stress test this a bit more and and just see see where that riskreward balance truly lies because I think what was provided to the public felt optimistic. um you know
not just a farmer but I also you know in an earlier life had a significant background in financial analysis and you know compounding is a very powerful thing and this what was published to the community assumes a lot of compounding over 30 years. So will we really get the
three semi- million or is it going to be something different and I I really just implore that we have an honest conversation about that and perhaps there can be some sort of working session between the council and and uh petitioning body to kind of hash this out more. Again, I don't know what the
correct form is and I'm cognizant that I've over I've sort of already overaided my time here. It's quite late, so I don't want to belabor it, but again, I would just implore you to keep the lines of communication open. Let's just try and avoid a big snafu that's just going to leave a black eye in the town. Let's somehow talk about this and work this
out, please. So, >> we'll do our best. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you. as long as we're being civilally disobedient. That's the two questions that I thought maybe the attorney while he was here could answer. One was that um607
considered in their deliberation and what was it that led him to think that it was residential. >> He's here. He's the one I think that made the decision. answer that. >> So again, that that ordinance in each
section quotes statutory language from the 5-year exemption and abatement law, not the long-term tax exemption law. The 5-year exemption abatement law does define commercial and industrial. It is not residential. On the contrary, even
if we were to imputee the long-term tax exemption law into this ordinance and ignore that every provision of the ordinance disagrees with the long-term tax exemption law, the long-term tax exemption law also makes a distinction between industrial, commercial, and
residential. and residential projects, whether they're single family, multif family, 500 unit or plus towers in, you know, an urban environment or a 20 unit project in a suburban environment. Um, they are residential under the long-term
tax exemption law. It is why the land tax gets exempted. It is a distinction made in the uh long-term tax exemption law. >> Thank you. Thank you, >> Mr. If the group
did not pay the se the sewer connection fee of $7,000, are they can we negate the financial agreement based on that because they didn't hold up to the financial agreement that we had just like you were arguing back and forth with the lady sitting up in front and
Larson. >> I don't think you you >> really can't answer that. No, that one I I I did want to come up here, but that one I can't answer. I don't know about the dispute amongst a a fee of the MUA. I don't know which project it relates to. I don't know what agreement is in
place that would or wouldn't provide the township with rights and remedies against the developer. I'm happy to look into it if you want. Maybe Mr. King is, but I I just don't know about the MUA outside of your >> Yeah, I can't answer that. >> Right. >> Thank you for your honesty. No, I
appreciate the honesty. It' be nice if Mr. King >> any anyone else? Okay. Have a motion to close the comments to the public. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I do to council comment.
Um may I begin? Where are we? Where are we at here? Next is council comments. Need a motion? >> No motion. >> Start with uh Carl if you have any comments.
>> So I just want to go back to I I noticed a lot of people in the public tonight were asking questions about the same thing. Um just know you do not your voices do not fall on deaf ears. Um, so I'm very concerned about what I have
learned in relation to um, Theta Grove not paying their schuma hookup fees on application and the fact that they were given not one but multiple cos full cos
hadn't their hookup fees and that's over $200,000 correct in SCMA hookup fees and fees for the VTMUA that they had not paid yet. And I read through the emails that I received in my request and I
can't really figure out exactly what happened or why that went down. There seems to be a general understanding that this is not the way it's supposed to be done when I read through those emails, but I really this is something that should be into. So I know you said that
you're doing an internal investigation. Can you just reassure members of the council that we will receive documentation and a report of that internal investigation? >> Yes. And just just just to be clear, nobody's getting out of paying fees.
>> No, I that's not what I'm insinuating. >> Sometimes people, you know, think that I deal cuts or slack with the I will look into it. What I'm concerned about also is that
Skuma sent us sorry Skuma sent us a deadline for this late payment to be received by noon on the 4th and to my knowledge they have not received that payment. Correct. >> Can't answer that. I don't I don't know.
>> No, because that payment comes from >> from the MUA. >> From the MUA, >> but we would still That's public information though. >> Well, you'd have to get it. >> Okay. Um, also, and this is something I wanted to ask you directly about, mayor, because I did see in one of the emails
that was sent to me, um, communication between you and Mark Serantino of the Unneil Group that a hardship application was being discussed as early as November 8th in one of those emails. Is that hardship because you said we need to get
them, there's no hardship application on the MUA website. Where can we get them a hardship application? That was on November 8th and there was no notice from the MUA administrator that the fees had not been paid been paid until
January 2nd. So is that potential hardship being discussed in relation to that hookup fee in November? Because that makes me concerned. I have to say when I'm looking through what I asked for and I'm looking through those emails that stuck out to me that you're
discussing a hardship with these people from the O'Neal group in November, two months before the administrator of the MUA noticed that that fee hadn't been paid. >> So I just there was some confusion on
because again I I can't speak for the MUA. Um so I tried to handle as best as I could about how that hardship process um takes place. So that's the discussions that that you heard well
read um about how they go about doing it and then then you have to wait from what I understand things have to start with a discussion at at the MUA meeting. So there's there's some >> you went through that in those emails afterwards. Yeah. I saw that you
directed them to the MUA. >> First, you're discussing it with them, a hardship in November, and then two months later, we find out that they haven't paid their connection fee. And I'm concerned by that because if you I'm not implicating you in anything. I just
want context. What was were they just >> if they were if they were given a hardship, right, which is 20% over five years. >> Yeah. That that's for >> So that's that's what we're getting at, right? um what is that dollar amount? Right? And then if they get a hardship, then that's that's when they they make
make those payments based on hardship. >> But mayor, I I know what the hardship process does. What I'm asking is that potential hardship that they were discussing with you in November, was that over their connection fee? >> That's correct. Yes. Yeah. So, they were
discussing the connection fee with you and the fact that they hadn't paid it in November, but then finance >> because they had to get in front of SC uh the MUA to make their case and then there was >> they haven't even done that as of now. Correct. >> They did.
>> Yeah. So, >> January 27th. >> Okay. January 27th. But still, that's three, four months later. I'm It just makes me concerned because >> that's not right. It was delayed for two months. >> It's on the agenda. They delayed it for two months.
>> Not the not the uh the hardship for the MUA. >> So that's already been voted on >> the hardship there on January 22nd and it was >> they didn't come. >> He's talking he's talking >> told the lie about what happened. >> He's talking about the hardship to the
MUA. >> No, you're you're you're talking about the 99 unit building. No. >> Oh, I'm my apologies. My apologies. >> No, they came but they didn't show up. It was on the agenda. They didn't show
up and it said it was being delayed either March or April. >> My apologies. >> So, the question still is >> appointment >> if they didn't pay. >> That's what I'm concerned about is that they got a CO when they hadn't paid their connection fee, which they would
pay really at the beginning of the process. And I mean that's from what I could find in MUA code. I I could be mis Nobody's disputing that this should have been done much earlier. >> Yes. agree.
>> Why is it that like when I look through these emails, I see the administrator of the MUA asking in on January 2nd, January 2nd, she's asking, "Did anyone ever collect the fee for their
connection?" But then I look back into November on November 8th and you're discussing a hardship with them. That disconnect there just makes me really uncomfortable. I have to bring it up and I sent you an email about it this
morning. So, it's not like I'm but I I I have to make that public. But that that makes me very uncomfortable when I look through those emails and see that. >> Mr. >> I have no comment. >> I'll save it for the next meeting.
>> Okay. >> I have like 15 minutes written down here. I'll pass. >> I I have some comments I just want to make. A lot of people have that come up to spoke tonight, they're friend of mine, or at least I think they are. And
uh whenever friends have a conversation, whenever two people have a conversation on a subject and you prove your point and you you give your opinion, the other person's supposed to listen to what you're saying and say, "He has a point. I might not agree with it, but then the
next meeting you don't come up and and say the same thing you heard as if I never said it. So, I'm going to say again exactly what took place with the pilot. Everybody is confusing two buildings. A 99 unit building, which is an emotional
uh drawing that's been presented. It's in the land use board. It's not through the land use board. It's the project across the street from Acme and it's not even approved and it's still in discussion purposes. Has nothing to do with this. But most of the people I've
spoken to, I have mixed that up with the 27 unit building on a 3/4 acre piece of property sitting behind this building that's generating for the town $900 a year taxes. So for those people, even
Scott, is it going to generate money? Yeah. 900 bucks a year as paying the town for for the taxes on that vacant piece of property. 900 times 30 years. How much is that? 900. If you take $900 a year and
multiply it times 30 years, how much do you have? >> $27,000. Compare that compare that to $3.7 million that the town will get from the from the pilot program on that building.
>> It doesn't go right here. >> And for people that are sitting here complaining about I'm speaking I'm speaking people that are sitting complaining about their taxes. This is a way to generate tax revenue. We're facing a budget that's that's that's
unbelievable. And here is money. This is income. This is revenue. And we're not giving anything up. There's a building going up that's going to have four apartments in it that are lower income type of housing, but there it's in the same
building. They'll pay less and it may generate even if you go by tripling the number of students that the uh the planner said up to 14. There's no cost to the school district to add 14 kids,
but we in the town are getting over that course of time $3.7 million. >> That's not true. That's not true. >> How can that not be true? It is true. The financial I'm That's my turn to speak. I sat here and listened to all the stories and I heard, you know, that
we're we're we're shaking hands with the devil and we're we're in the with the mafia and all the rest of the stuff. red hand and all the rest of the things. This is a building that's going to benefit the town. It's going to tie into
the sewers. It's going to uh improve the area behind the building and there's going to be four apartments in there that that may have some lower income people in it. That's the bottom line. And the rest would I have built the
building? No. because I don't believe that they're gonna get the rent that that they're gonna get. >> Which means I could get $3 million. But guess what? You're not a developer. You're not a developer and I'm not a developer. They took they took the chance to do it. It's it's their chance
to take. They claim it was an 11 million project. They could fund 10 million of it. They need to pilot to get that other million dollars. They took the risk. Let them take the risk. They're taking. >> We just got the answer that if they fail, we're still protected.
>> We're not going to lose. >> And how can you how can you compare getting $900 a year to the the amount that I just said, it's it's it's a closed closed case with with no downside. All this thing about going to
blow up the schools, there's going to be all the students. That's all hearsay. Even if I I said multiply it times three, you know, say that to 14 or 15 students. So what what's that going to do? This is a great opportunity.
And then the other thing that's happening at the same time with the budget and and with all the people here, you got a lot of answers for a lot of questions. So I'm going to give you a project to do. We have 119 veterans that
are not paying taxes now. And that's the law and we vote it every time and and that's okay. They deserve something, right? So they don't pay taxes and that is a hole in our budget one. It's up to $1,79,000.
Now we collect for our taxes for our town from our residents for our use in the town $19 million. You've we've just created a 4.5% hole in the budget. So, how about somebody next meeting come
along and give us some ideas how to generate a closure for that to hold. >> I can I can give you one pilot >> that's going to help. Maybe you can give me two now. That's something constructive. That's We're trying to do something constructive. You're trying to
beat it down, but there's no uh no options here. Where are the options? We have we have requirements to provide lower income housing. You just heard the uh the law on it. You you heard the accountants. You heard you heard our attorneys. You heard this attorney. But
you're not listening. So work with us. Where are the ideas >> businesses? >> So that's all I have to say. That's it's an opportunity. I always look at things as opportunities rather than problems. and uh to be so emotional about it and
bring in the devil and all the rest of the stuff here is uh >> too far. >> I think people need to also realize we're all taxpayers here. We're all living. We're all taxpayers. Um >> and like I said, the this program was
was negotiated um through our financial advisors at Jessup as well, CFO, everyone has looked had eyes on the stars. just had a wing in a prayer. Um, like I said, and people know Council President, he he
rises over many, many things. Um, so it's to say that we just not caring or uh reckless. It's it's not it's not true. And and anyway, but just
keep in mind we are taxpayers here, too. So, we're all in this together. I >> like a motion to adjurnn, please. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I I