From time to time, items written on this site or elsewhere will be re-published here so that they may be seen by a wider audience.
Only Township Committee members or Township employees may post here. Please write to them directly (here are their email addresses) if you have any questions.
As far as our state government, the BPU, the BPU office of cable television and Verizon, the free services which we should have been installed already in the Pine Brook Area are not even planned. The new director of the DCA was one of the sponsors of the Verizon bill and is a Corzine appointment.
Ron the second one talks bout Doria's bill and its conditions - well most don't know (including most Verizon Employees's) that Verizon is not guaranteeing any complete build out anywhere within any timeframe!
The 11th hour it was removed from the bill.
The BPU is a joke and its commissioners serve at the whim of the Governor unless he wants them to serve on his toll road support group!
Frankly it makes me sick to even write this email about it.
I sat with the Verizon President and their Chief Engineer at a wedding in 2006 when they joked about not serving rural areas. Of course Doria is from Bayonne and I believe the other legislator was from Camden. Are you surprised?
I asked Frank Bastone to follow up with the BPU because Montville was/is the test community for true dialogue, cooperation, and results between the BPU, Verizon, and any state municipality. When I challenged the BPU and Verizon to make things happen like they tell as at the League Convention well they reluctantly agreed so now Montville copy's both parties on all correspondence and we are still no further along than we were in November.
As you can read below it was all BS.
To be clear I do believe the support staff at the BPU understood the implications of this bill and tried to put some teeth in it. They told me at the League Convention that the commissioners refused to put any language in the bill to protect the citizens and municipalities from what I will call "cream skimming" which is simply targeting high revenue easy build out areas and skipping the more costly areas within a municipality.
This has been going on since the last League Convention back in November
Of course I just got back from Saudi where the 6 year old privatized telephone company, Saudi Telecom Corporation - (STC) now has data and telecommunications competition. The stuff occurring in the USA is great material to share with them on how a major corporation such as STC can manipulate the Saudi regulatory agency.
Regards, Art
Posted by
Art Daughtry
on
March 29, 2008 5:00 PM
DOG PARKS AND SKATE PARKS
Well I’m going to use this blog topic, since Ron set it up for township committee members, to address some citizen and volunteer concerns.
Over the years the infamous million-dollar dog park was used by my campaign staff to exploit the miss deeds of former elected officials and their use of open space trust funds. I’ll get to the multi million dollar skate park in a moment however it appears the public has a tough time separating what the tax payers have paid for property and the volunteerism and efforts of concerned citizens. There is a dedicated, caring, dog park committee that raises funds to operate and improve the dog park. These folks care about their pets and the animals in general. When they run fundraisers they are greeted with the million-dollar dog park stigma. Fellow citizens that is truly poor form and totally unwarranted. These volunteers would have been happy with a dog park on a piece of land anywhere in Montville Township. They didn’t pick this piece of land and like the metro tract, behind Barry’s pharmacy; these properties were bought with open space funds to block development.
On to the future skate park. Again one of the advocates of a skate park had similar concerns regarding fund raising because the original skate park was touted to cost over a million dollars without the land. Of course taxpayers read this and would then criticize the volunteers that work with the kids and try to raise funds.
Now if you think the million-dollar dog park was a political jewel try this one. The skate park is the number one priority of the recreation commission and the sub committee is recommending the use of the metro tract behind Barry’s pharmacy as the location. I believe the township paid between 4 and 5 million for that property. So how about a 5 million dollar skate park as political fodder.
My point to all of this is please don’t blame or criticize the dog park or skate park volunteers as they fund raise. If you want to criticize have a great time offering the criticism of former elected officials that purchased these tracks for the amounts the taxpayers paid for them. It is not simply a matter of whether you wanted development along Change Bridge road or not it was also the wheeling and dealing around town that went on with taxpayers open space funds that prompted the million-dollar dog park and the possible future 5 million dollar skate park.
So please, volunteerism is the foundation of this township. Respect the folks that are trying to provide a service to the township.
First let me say Thank You to those that attended the 2 recent debates to hear first hand the issues and facts presented by both sides. Citizen involvement and awareness is the foundation of our democracy and I applaud your participation.
There have been claims made that your Township Committee has held ‘closed door’ meetings at which numerous decisions were made, that we impinged upon citizens’ rights and that we violated ordinances/statutes. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Without discussing any of the individual issues, please be aware that this Township Committee obtains and follows the opinion/advice of our legal counsel on all matters of substance – whether it is appropriate ‘closed session’ agenda items, changes to and enforcement of Township policies or the issuance of public statements.
Each Township Committee member has their own persona and some residents may like one’s styles better than others. But each one of us (Jean Bader, a Democrat, included) operates with integrity and responsibility to the position to which we were elected. For others to claim otherwise is a blatant misrepresentation.
So when you cast your vote tomorrow, please vote on the real issues that face you as an individual citizen and all of us collectively as a Township. If you believe the Republicans have a better grasp of the issues, potential solutions and a vision for our future – great! If you believe otherwise, vote for the alternative. But please do not cast your vote based on these false claims that only serve a political purpose and end up dividing our residents.
Jim Sandham
Posted by
Jim Sandham
on
November 3, 2008 3:59 PM
Re: Towaco
OK the traffic lights are being installed this week.
HOOOORAY!
Art
Posted by
Art Daughtry
on
November 25, 2008 3:43 PM
Let's state some facts & put some stakes in the ground - The vast majority of us would like to see the junk yard replaced with a better use. - The Township Committee did not believe big box to be an appropriate use as it was removed from the re-zoning ordinance. - The owner originally submitted a plan for 400 age restricted housing units. The TC generally liked it, but raised preliminary concerns on # of units and bldg heights. Demand for this type of development still exists within the township. - The owner then changed to a big box plan (which he is entitled to do), but it raised new concerns traffic, lights, noise, crime. I note traffic first as the developer did not have access from or exit onto Rte 46 approved from NJDOT. - Age restricted housing would add over $2 million in tax revenue per year (say 360 units at $6k each); big box would add $500-$700k (Home Depot is $250-$300k). - Zoning Board of Adjustment reviews the variances requested (18 of them including use, set backs, etc.) to determine if big box is an appropriate and reasonable use for the area. The ball is now in the ZBA court. My perspective is to improve the use of the property but not at the expense of the neighborhood and the local residents.
Posted by
Jim Sandham
on
November 25, 2008 3:45 PM
I am replying to e-mails & postings on the sewer rate increase in the interest of providing more facts & being fair.
Postings & E-mails are wonderful, but they don’t always present all the facts nor both sides of an issue….
The ordinance introduced is 'proposed' and the TC is considering other scenarios that could take the rates down a little. But let's use the current proposal for now.
First, the underlying causes of the sewer rate increase are:
1. Increased debt to complete the last 2-3 of 18 separate projects to add sewers in town. Some of the money to pay for these projects had been accumulated within the MUA, but when that was dissolved in 2000/2001, prior Township Committees put those funds into the Muni budget in 2004/2005 to the tune of $2,400,000. We had our Township Administrator determine what a true allocation of expenses would be and it's $100-$150,000/year, which is what we have been charging since 2006. So this TC has reviewed the situation & determined that we have to bite the bullet now for the past.
2, Our sewer treatment cost is rising about 10% a year from price increases & volume. We can't do much about the price increase (from Parsippany), but we can hope to lower volume by charging those that use more a higher fee. Hopefully, that will encourage them to use less.
Second, the EPA has mandated a usage based system, vs. the current universal flat fee. I think usage based is a more appropriate method. Right now a senior citizen who lives alone gets charged the same amount as a family of 5 - that's unfair. Also, it doesn't incent reducing usage if it's a flat fee. We don't meter sewerage usage on an individual house basis, so we have to use water usage. In order to be fair to those that have lawn sprinklers or fill pools in the summer, we are using the 'winter quarters' - Oct 1 to March 31 - as the basis for the sewer usage charge. It is not perfect, but it’s the best we can do for now. In some towns many residents have separate lawn sprinkler meters, but that would cost $300-$500 per resident and we didn't think we should force our citizens to incur that. Of course any citizen has the right to install a separate meter & get charged accordingly.
73% of homes use less than 20,000 gallons of water per quarter and another 22% use 20-40,000 (the overall average is actually 16,800). The fee at 10,000 & 20,000 would be $120 - $142/qtr. So it's flat at $120 at 10,000, but it’s an 18% increase at 20,000. While this sounds like a big deal on a % basis, as you can see it's a $22 increase per quarter. We don’t like any increase, but this is not overwhelming.
Those who are opposed are sensationalizing this by quoting 300% increases - that is for someone who is using more than 120,000 gallons per quarter! Which is the equivalent of 7 average users. The Township is paying more for that volume at the treatment plant, so the resident should pay more! And there are no more than 16 such homes in our town.
I hope this clarifies the situation a little.
Of course, we always encourage citizen participation at any TC meeting on any agenda item, so people are more than welcome to come out tonight.
Posted by
Jim Sandham
on
December 9, 2008 4:58 PM
Some updates
At the 1/27 meeting the TC voted 5 - 0 to purchase the prefab new animal shelter structure. The new structure will go on the 7 church lane site and the existing building will be demolished.
In the next two weeks the Board of Ed is expected to sign the lease with Montville Township to renovate or construct new Board offices at the 86 river road site
The old salt storage barn behind 86 river is scheduled for replacement however the new salt barn will be co located with the county facilities behind the new police station on rt 202. Then the old salt barn at 86 river will be demolished probably along with the old storage barn where the dpw was located.
The lights on rt 202 are finaly done if you haven't noticed.
regards, art
Posted by
Art Daughtry
on
January 28, 2009 9:25 AM
I've noticed the lights are done. I've also noticed that the railroad bridges have been painted (rather like putting lipstick on a pig, as the structures themselves are in sad shape). Also, I've noticed that 202 is still a pothole filled disaster. I was hopeful that THAT was why the roadwork signs were up, but alas, it was just the bridge painting. Any word on when/if the road will be repaired? It's a disgrace.
D Ambriano
Posted by
Anonymous
on
August 13, 2009 5:11 PM
Hi Donna
Actualy the County was supposed to pave under those bridges this month however we asked them to re consider improving the drainage. The County is making some changes and doing some limited drainage work. As far as when it will be completed you can check with Tony Barile, Twp Engr. on 973-331-3300.
