Township of Moorestown Township Council Official Action Meeting October 18, 2010

TOWNSHIP OF MOORESTOWN TOWNSHIP COUNCIL OFFICIAL ACTION MEETING OCTOBER 18, 2010

The Regular Meeting of the Moorestown Township Council was called to order by Mayor Roccato at the William Allen Middle School, Auditorium, 801 North Stanwick Road, Moorestown at 7:30 p.m. Attendance was as follows:

Daniel Roccato, Mayor Christopher J. Schultz, Township Manager John Button, Deputy Mayor Thomas J. Merchel, Deputy Manager/CFO Seth Broder, Councilmember Patricia L. Hunt, Township Clerk Greg Gallo, Councilmember Thomas J. Coleman, III, Township Attorney Michael Testa, Councilmember

Mayor Roccato read the Open Public Meetings Act statement in full, as printed on the agenda. The meeting commenced with a moment of silence and flag salute. Mayor Roccato welcomed everyone to the meeting.

Mayor Roccato advised that discussion on the Town Hall/Library would be continued until the November 8, 2010 meeting. He advised that Council had agreed that each member of Council would meet individually with Ragan Design Group about the alternatives the Group was working on and everyone has not yet had the opportunity to do so. In addition, by the next meeting, two newly elected members would be present to participate in discussions. Mayor Roccato noted that he felt continuing discussion was the fairest way to proceed.

There were no Reports from Council.

Mayor Roccato noted that two members would not be able to attend the October 25, 2010 Executive Session meeting. Mr. Schultz confirmed that a meeting would not be necessary. After a brief discussion, all members agreed to cancel the October 25, 2010 Executive Session meeting.

Mr. Button advised that he had the pleasure of presenting a proclamation to Joel Krott in honor of the 31 st Anniversary of the West Jersey Chamber Symphony Society on October 17, 2010, wherein Diane Allen also made a presentation on behalf of the State. He noted how nice the event was and expressed his appreciation for the Society and the fact that same is part of Moorestown. PROCLAMATION

WHEREAS, the West Jersey Chamber Music Society, is celebrating its 31 st Anniversary Season; and

WHEREAS, the Society remains the only all professional classical music ensemble in South Jersey and continues to provide cultural enrichment for the Township of Moorestown, as well as, offering alternative cultural experiences for young people. Page 2 October 18, 2010

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Township Council of the Township of Moorestown, County of Burlington, State of New Jersey, that, it is with a great sense of gratitude and pride, we do hereby give recognition to:

THE WEST JERSEY CHAMBER MUSIC SOCIETY AND THE SOCIETY’S ARTISTIC DIRECTOR, JOEL KROTT

With special consideration of the Society’s Founding Trustees:

James Palmer, First President William A. Angus, Jr. M. Jefferson Davis Andrew Inglis Elizabeth Klauder Cecelia Lane Robert Rorke in appreciation and congratulations on the 31 st Anniversary of the Society. Given under my hand and seal of the Township of Moorestown this 17 th day of October, Two Thousand Ten. Daniel Roccato, Mayor

Mayor Roccato proclaimed November Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month and asked that a proclamation be marked into the record.

PROCLAMATION

WHEREAS, in 2010, an estimated 43,140 people will be diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in the United States and 36,800 will die from the disease, approximately 1,130 deaths will occur in New Jersey; and

WHEREAS, pancreatic cancer is one of the deadliest cancers and is the fourth leading cause of cancer death in the United States; and

WHEREAS, when symptoms of pancreatic cancer present themselves, it is usually too late for an optimistic prognosis, and 75 percent of pancreatic cancer patients die within the first year of their diagnosis while 94 percent of pancreatic cancer patients die within the first five years; and

WHEREAS, incidence of pancreatic cancer is approximately 50 percent higher in African Americans than in other ethnic groups; and Page 3 October 18, 2010

WHEREAS, there is no cure for pancreatic cancer and there have been no significant improvements in survival rates in the last 40 years; and

WHEREAS, the Federal Government invests significantly less money in pancreatic cancer research than it does in any of the other leading cancer killers; and pancreatic cancer research constitutes only two percent of the National Cancer Institute’s federal research funding, a figure far too low given the severity of the disease, its mortality rate, and how little is known about how to arrest it; and

WHEREAS, the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network is the first and only national patient advocacy organization that serves the pancreatic cancer community in the Township of Moorestown, Burlington County, New Jersey and nationwide by focusing its efforts on public policy, research funding, patient services, and public awareness and education related to developing effective treatments and a cure for pancreatic cancer; and

WHEREAS, the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network and its affiliates in the Township of Moorestown support those patients currently battling pancreatic cancer, as well as to those who have lost their lives to the disease, and are committed to nothing less than a cure; and

WHEREAS, the good health and well-being of the residents of the Township of Moorestown are enhanced as a direct result of increased awareness about pancreatic cancer and research into early detection, causes, and effective treatments.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED by the Township Council that the month of November in the Year 2010 be designated as “Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month” in the Township of Moorestown, Burlington County, New Jersey.

Given under my hand and seal of the Township of Moorestown this 18th day of October, Two Thousand Ten. Daniel Roccato, Mayor.

Mr. Schultz read Ordinance 18-2010 on second reading by title. He advised that if Ordinance Nos. 18 and 19 are adopted, a public hearing on water and sewer connection fees will be held.

ORDINANCE NO. 18-2010 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING PART 9 “NEW CONNECTIONS AND METER INSTALLATIONS” OF SECTION 175-21, “ESTABLISHMENT OF TARIFFS, RATES AND CHARGES” OF ARTICLE I, “WATER REGULATIONS: RATES AND CHARGES” OF CHAPTER 175, “WATER AND SEWERS” OF THE “REVISED GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MOORESTOWN, NEW JERSEY”

Mayor Roccato opened the public hearing.

Page 4 October 18, 2010

Mr. Begg began asking questions about protocol. Mr. Schultz responded. Due to the nature of Mr. Begg’s comments, Mr. Coleman clarified that the ordinance has to do with connection fees, not usage fees. Mr. Begg made several comments, neither in support of or against the ordinance. In closing, he hoped that Council would set up a periodic engineering study schedule for both the water and sewer systems in order to foresee needs.

There were no other comments.

A motion was made by Mr. Button, seconded by Mr. Gallo, to close the public hearing. The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

A motion was made by Mr. Broder, seconded by Mr. Button, to adopt Ordinance 18-2010 on second reading. Upon a roll call, the vote was as follows:

AYES: Councilmembers Button, Testa, Gallo, Broder, Roccato NAYES: None ABSENT: None

Mr. Schultz read Ordinance 19-2010 on second reading by title.

ORDINANCE NO. 19-2010 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING SECTION 175-44, “SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION CHARGES” OF ARTICLE III, “SEWERAGE SERVICE: RATES AND CHARGES” OF CHAPTER 175, “WATER AND SEWERS” OF THE “REVISED GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MOORESTOWN, NEW JERSEY”

Mayor Roccato opened the public hearing.

There were no comments.

A motion was made by Mr. Testa, seconded by Mr. Gallo, to close the public hearing. The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

A motion was made by Mr. Button, seconded by Mr. Testa, to adopt Ordinance 19-2010 on second reading. Upon a roll call, the vote was as follows:

AYES: Councilmembers Button, Testa, Gallo, Broder, Roccato NAYES: None ABSENT: None

Mr. Schultz read Ordinance 20-2010 on second reading by title.

ORDINANCE NO. 20-2010

Page 5 October 18, 2010

AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MOORESTOWN, COUNTY OF BURLINGTON, NEW JERSEY APPROPRIATING $165,000 AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $156,750 IN BONDS OR NOTES OF THE TOWNSHIP TO BE USED FOR PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING AND DESIGN EXPENSES FOR THE RESURFACING OF NEW ALBANY ROAD PHASE II PROJECT

Mayor Roccato opened the public hearing. There were no comments.

A motion was made by Mr. Broder, seconded by Mr. Gallo, to close the public hearing. The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

A motion was made by Mr. Button, seconded by Mr. Testa, to adopt Ordinance 20-2010 on second reading. Upon a roll call, the vote was as follows:

AYES: Councilmembers Button, Testa, Gallo, Broder, Roccato NAYES: None ABSENT: None

Mr. Schultz advised that direction to proceed with the engineering work in the next few weeks will be given.

Mr. Schultz read Ordinance 21-2010 on second reading by title and provided detail. He advised that same provided preplanning for 2011.

ORDINANCE NO. 21-2010

AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MOORESTOWN, COUNTY OF BURLINGTON, NEW JERSEY APPROPRIATING $730,000 AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $693,500 IN BONDS OR NOTES OF THE TOWNSHIP TO BE USED FOR THE 2011 ROADS RESURFACING PROGRAM

Mayor Roccato opened the public hearing. There were no comments.

A motion was made by Mr. Broder, seconded by Mr. Button, to close the public hearing. The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

A motion was made by Mr. Broder, seconded by Mr. Gallo, to adopt Ordinance 21-2010 on second reading. Upon a roll call, the vote was as follows:

AYES: Councilmembers Button, Testa, Gallo, Broder, Roccato NAYES: None ABSENT: None

Mr. Schultz read Ordinance 22-2010 on second reading by title and in pertinent part. He advised that the Township has applied for a grant with the County for improvements to the park Page 6 October 18, 2010

(not just playground equipment). He read aloud what was included in the grant application. He advised that if awarded, the grant would be in the amount of $250,000, with $75,000 from the Township and the rest from donors.

ORDINANCE NO. 22-2010

AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MOORESTOWN, COUNTY OF BURLINGTON, NEW JERSEY APPROPRIATING $30,000 AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $28,500 IN BONDS OR NOTES OF THE TOWNSHIP TO BE USED FOR PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING AND DESIGN EXPENSES FOR THE FULLERTON PARK PLAYGROUND AREA

Mayor Roccato opened the public hearing.

Greg Newcomer, 235 Fellowship Road, asked if lighting for the tennis courts was part of the application. Mr. Schultz advised that it was not; staff is currently looking to address health safety issues. Mr. Newcomer advised there are issues at the basketball court also. He asked that lighting for the tennis court be considered in the grant application and monies.

There were no other comments.

A motion was made by Mr. Broder, seconded by Mr. Button, to close the public hearing. The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

A motion was made by Mr. Button, seconded by Mr. Testa, to adopt Ordinance 22-2010 on second reading. Upon a roll call, the vote was as follows:

AYES: Councilmembers Button, Testa, Gallo, Broder, Roccato NAYES: None ABSENT: None

A motion was made by Mr. Button, seconded by Mr. Testa, to approve the May 10, Budget Workshop, Official Action and Closed session minutes; the August 9, 2010 Official Action and Closed session minutes; the September 27, 2010 Official Action and Closed Session minutes; the October 4, 2010 Official Action and Closed Session minutes; and the October 14, 2010 Special Meeting and Official Action minutes. The vote was in the affirmative, with the exception Mr. Testa, who abstained on the October 4th minutes, Mr. Gallo, who abstained on the October 14 th minutes; and Mr. Roccato, who abstained on the May 10 th minutes, and the motion carried.

Under Residents’ Requests and Presentations, there were no comments.

The Township Manager read Ordinance 23-2010 on first reading. He advised that the ordinance authorizes a drainage easement with the Station Square Condo Association (property). Page 7 October 18, 2010

He advised that the easement was a condition of Planning Board approval which was never carried out. He stated that the Township is now handling what should have been done.

ORDINANCE 23-2010

AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF STORMWATER DRAINAGE EASEMENT OVER BLOCK 4402, LOT 2 AND ACCEPTANCE OF ASSIGNMENT OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED ON BLOCK 4402, LOT 1

A motion was made by Mr. Button, seconded by Mr. Gallo, to adopt the ordinance on first reading and set second reading and the public hearing date for November 8, 2010 at 7:30 pm. Upon a roll call, the vote was as follows:

AYES: Councilmembers Button, Testa, Gallo, Broder and Roccato NAYES: None ABSENT: None

Under Consent Agenda Resolutions, the Township Manager read Resolution Nos. 148-, 149- and 151-2010 by title and in pertinent part.

RESOLUTION NO. 148-2010

AWARDING LEASES FOR A PORTION OF BLOCK 5800/LOT 46, BLOCK 7200/LOT 1 AND BLOCK 7100/LOT 43 (BENNER OPEN SPACE/WINNER FIELDS) AND BLOCK 7401/LOT 3 (THE NAGLE TRACT) FOR THE CULTIVATION OF CROPS

RESOLUTION NO. 149-2010

AUTHORIZING THE TAX COLLECTOR TO CREDIT PROPERTY TAXES FOR 2010 AND 2011 PRELIMINARY PURSUANT TO 2009 TAX APPEAL SETTLEMENT

RESOLUTION NO. 151-2010

AWARDING A CONTRACT TO QC, INC. FOR LABORATORY TESTING FROM NOVEMBER 1, 2010 THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 2011

Mayor Roccato opened the floor for public comment. There were no comments; the floor was closed.

A motion was made by Mr. Gallo, seconded by Mr. Button, to adopt the resolutions. Upon a roll call, the vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

Under Manager’s Report, Mr. Schultz read the note sale report provided by Mr. Merchel into the record. He explained same. He also advised that staff is awaiting a meeting with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection in furtherance of the solar farm project. Page 8 October 18, 2010

Finally, he advised of a sewer main repair that would be made on Church Street by the Township and asked that the public be aware of the activity.

Mayor Roccato advised that the rate hearing was noticed for 8:15 p.m., therefore, Council would move forward on the agenda until it was time to begin the hearing.

Mr. Gallo asked questions concerning the expenditures. Mr. Merchel answered his questions. A motion was made by Mr. Button, seconded by Mr. Testa, to approve the expenditures. Upon a roll call, the vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

Under Discussion Items, Mr. Coleman advised that he has met with the Township Manager to discuss the Pulverizing site, and where the Township stood concerning the liens and tax collection. He advised that the Township is owed approximately $1.7 million (1987-present). He advised that several months ago, at a Council meeting, a company from town proposed the relocation of its operations to the subject site. In addition, the Manager has been approached by others considering locating their light industrial businesses to the site. Mr. Coleman advised that he asked that the matter be placed on the agenda so that Council may discuss moving forward with a suitor and possible development of the site. He felt the Township’s best leverage would be to take back the tax title liens on the property and foreclose on them. He advised that there is a February 2010 five-year report, authored by Mark Austin, US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) that finds that the property may be used for light industrial and recreational purposes. He noted that the USEPA will be declaring that residential development can never occur on the site. He advised that the soil is clean to the satisfaction of the USEPA. There is still a groundwater contamination issue which will continue to be monitored. Monitoring will be decreased from every six months to every six years. He again advised that due to the recent USEPA report, he feels that taking back the property would provide the most options to the Township. He confirmed that the Township does not own the property; the actual taxes due are in the amount of $627,000 plus interest (tax title liens equal approximately $1.7 million). In addition, there is a $1 million lien from the USEPA on the property, which would have to be negotiated with or paid to the USEPA. Mr. Gallo advised that the Township has been approached by a developer with a use that fits the property; however, it is possible that the USEPA will want its share. He felt that, in this economy, developing the property, through a collaborative process, would be positive. Upon request for authorization, it was the consensus of Council to allow the Township Manager to move forward as he sees fit.

RATE HEARING – 8:15 P.M. (Verbatim Record)

TOWNSHIP MANAGER: We are going to open the connection fee rate hearing. Just so the audience knows, Mr. Kondracki is sitting behind Mr. Merchel and he is our utilities special counsel and he will be available to assist us with this. Mr. Merchel will actually handle the testimony part with my assistance. So, we will start at this point in time.

This is a public hearing that is being conducted on a proposed adjustment of the water and sewer connection fee rate schedules of The Township of Moorestown. Under the law, a municipal utility is required to recalculate its connection fees at the end of each fiscal year. Page 9 October 18, 2010

Notice of this rate hearing has been given in accordance with the law. Notice has been published in the Courier-Post on October 12, 2010 and the Burlington County Times on October 13, 2010 and was posted by the municipal clerk of the Township of Moorestown on October 8, 2010.

This hearing will be conducted in the following manner: The Township will present Thomas Merchel to testify concerning proposed connection fees. After Mr. Merchel testifies, any member of the public in attendance will have an opportunity to ask questions of him. After Mr. Merchel testifies and is cross-examined, anyone wishing to make a statement concerning the proposed connection fees may make a statement. After everyone has had a chance to make his or her statement, the public hearing will be closed and the Township Council will consider the proposed adjustment to its connection fee rate schedule.

At this time, I will call Mr. Thomas J. Merchel.

THOMAS MERCHEL: Thank you, Mr. Schultz and Council. I just want to be clear that my testimony has to do with Resolution 152, which is the actual connection fee, itself. Mr. Kondracki will be handling the flow criteria portion, which is Resolution 150.

My name is Thomas Merchel and I am the Director of Finance and Deputy Township Manager for the Township of Moorestown.

N.J.S.A. 40A:26A-1 is known as the “Municipal and County Sewerage Act” and N.J.S.A. 40A:31-1 is known as the “County and Municipal Water Supply Act.” Both Acts provide that a municipality must recompute its connection fees at the end of each budget year after a public hearing is held. The revised connection fee is thereafter imposed upon those who subsequently connect to the system in that budget year.

Both Acts contain a formula that a municipality must follow in establishing sewer and water connection fees. As part of the formula, a municipality must determine its capital base in both its sewerage system and water system. The capital base is determined by adding together all the principal and interest payments made by the municipality on any bonds or loans used to defray the capital cost of developing the system as of the end of the immediately preceding budget year, including sinking funds and reserve funds, plus all capital expenditures for the development of the system as of the end of the immediately preceding budget year which were not funded by a bond ordinance or debt. In other words, the municipality must add together all principal and interest payments, sinking fund balances, reserve fund balances and cash outlays for the capital cost of developing the water and sewer systems as of the end of the immediately preceding budget year. Any amounts received by way of a non-reimbursable grant from any federal, state, county or municipal government, or any gift from a private person, is not included in the calculation of capital base.

A municipality must also determine the number of service units as of the end of the immediately preceding budget year according to a statutory formula. The formula involves calculating the average daily usage for the average single family residence in the area served by Page 10 October 18, 2010

the municipality. Once the average usage per single family residence is determined, the total number of service units can be calculated.

The capital base for the water system and the capital base for the sewer system are then each divided by the number of service units to produce the connection fee per service unit for water and sewer, respectively.

I performed the connection fee study for both the water and sewer utility in accordance with these statutes.

With respect to the water utility, I first performed a study to determine the average daily water usage for a single-family residence in the service area of the Township. As the study period, I used calendar year 2009.

The study area was comprised exclusively of all single-family residences in the Township that are served by the water system. There were 6,460 single family residences in the study area.

The amount of water used in the study area during the study period was 566,809,000 gallons. Dividing that number by 365 days per year, I calculated that the average daily water usage for a single-family residence served by the Township was 240 gallons per day.

I then calculated the total gallons of water billed to all customers in the system during this same study period. This came to 853,113,000 gallons, which equaled an average usage of 2,337,296 gallons per day during the study period.

I then divided the average usage of 2,337,296 gallons of water per day, by the average single-family usage of 240 gallons per day and calculated that there were 9,723 equivalent dwelling units or EDU’s, in the water system based on the statutory formula as of the end of the immediately preceding year.

With the assistance of the Township auditor, we calculated the capital base of the Township in the water system in accordance with the statutory formula contained in the “County and Municipal Water Supply Act”. I included all debt service payments, including principal and interest payments, made by the Township to defray the capital cost of developing the water system through the end of the prior fiscal year, and I added to that all reserve funds and cash capital expenditures made by the Township for the development of the system as of the end of the prior fiscal year. I did not include any gifts or grants that may have been received by the Township, or any other item that the statute excludes.

Based on these calculations, the capital base of the Township in its water system as of the end of the immediately preceding fiscal year was $24,974,365.

I then divided the capital base by the number of service units to determine the water connection fees per EDU in the Township for the next year. The connection fee per equivalent dwelling unit came to $2,569.00. Page 11 October 18, 2010

I then divided the connection fee per EDU by the number of gallons per day for a single- family EDU to determine the connection fee per gallon per day for nonresidential customers in the Township. The connection fee per gallon per day for nonresidential customers came to $10.69 per gallon per day, with a minimum connection fee equal to the connection fee that is charged to residential users. Mathematically, the rate per gallon is the same for both residential and nonresidential users. Not all residential users will reach the average residential usage, but they pay a connection fee as though they had. To be fair and consistent, we charge a nonresidential customer a minimum connection fee as though they had reached the average residential usage.

There a special water connection fee for hotels and motels. The connection fee for hotels and motels is a function of the number of rooms, plus the amenities offered in the hotel or motel. The connection fee is calculated by multiplying the number of guest rooms by the rate per guest room, which is one-half of the residential rate. However, any office space, convention or meeting rooms, restaurants, laundries, et cetera, that are on the premises are calculated separately at the nonresidential rate per gallon of estimated usage.

Finally, I calculated the irrigation connection fee. The irrigation connection fee for a 1” irrigation connection is equal to the residential water connection fee of $2,569. I applied a generally accepted volumetric factor of 2.25 for a 1 ½“ irrigation connection, 4.0 for a 2” irrigation connection and 16.0 for a 4” irrigation connection, since these larger pipes have a greater flow capacity that corresponds to the volumetric factor that I applied. I multiplied by the volumetric factor by the residential water connection fee of $2,569 to determine the connection fees for 1 ½’, 2” and 4” irrigation connections. These connection fees would be $5,779, $10,274 and $41,097, respectively.

I then went through similar calculations for the sewer utility.

With respect to the sewer utility, I used the water consumption figures for the first quarter of calendar year 2009 as the study period. The reason that I used the water consumption figures for the first quarter only is that these are the winter months where most, if not all, of the water that is used by a home is discharged into the sewer system.

The study area was comprised exclusively of single-family residences in the Township that are served by the sewer system. There were 5,587 single family residences in the study area.

The amount of usage in the study area during the study period was 86,649,000 gallons. Dividing that number by 90 days, I calculated that the average daily sewer usage for a single- family residence served by the Township was 172 gallons per day.

I then calculated the total gallons of usage of all customers in the system during this same study period. This came to 128,990,000 gallons, which equaled an average usage of 1,433,222 gallons per day during the study period.

Page 12 October 18, 2010

I then divided the average usage of 1,433,222 gallons per day, by the average single-family usage of 172 gallons per day and calculated that there were 8,317 equivalent dwelling units or EDU’s, in the sewer system based on the statutory formula as of the end of the immediately preceding year.

Again, with the assistance of the Township auditor, we calculated the capital base of the Township in the sewer system in accordance with the statutory formula contained in the “Municipal and County Sewerage Act”, which is the same methodology as used for the water system. The capital base of the Township in its sewer system as of the end of the immediately preceding fiscal year was $33,416,335.

I then divided the capital base by the number of service units to determine the sewer connection fees per EDU in the Township for the next year. The connection fee per EDU came to $4,018.00.

Again, there a special sewer connection fee for hotels and motels, which is based on the same methodology that is used for the water connection fees.

In my opinion, the proposed revisions to the water and sewer connection fee rate schedules are both necessary and reasonable in amount. They are necessary since the statute requires the Township to recalculate its connection fees at the end of each fiscal year. They are reasonable in amount since the connection fees were calculated in accordance with the statutory formula and are designed to have the customer pay its proportionate share of the water and sewer systems in the manner required by law.

EDWARD KONDRACKI: The State of New Jersey gives a very formalized way of doing this. Hence, the formality of the rate hearing and the formality of Mr. Merchel’s testimony, as dictated to us as the State has laid it out. That is why we are doing it formally, if you will, this evening.

MAYOR ROCCATO: Did you want to add anything to Mr. Merchel’s testimony, Chris.

TOWNSHIP MANAGER: No. I just wanted to thank Mr. Merchel and now we would open the public hearing to any members of the public who wish to ask any questions at this time. If so, please state your name and address, prior to asking the question, so that Clerk can make an accurate record. This is questions only at this time; not statements.

EDWIN BEGG: 209 Parry Drive. Excellent presentation. A couple questions. My recollection of the average daily water usage was 250 gallons or something like that. Page 13 October 18, 2010

MAYOR: That’s 240 gallons per day.

BEGG: Okay. What happened with my house when I have 240 coming in and only gave back 170 or whatever the number.

KONDRACKI: I’m Ed Kondracki, Special Counsel. That is consumptive use. Part of that goes to irrigation; part of that goes to –

BEGG: Yea, I thought –

KONDRACKI: Right, right. The 172 is a really tight figure. So, that does not take into consideration consumptive use. So, what the Township wanted to do is actually find out what the average residential use is in terms of sewer and didn’t want to rely on water consumption figures coming in because part of that doesn’t get introduced into the sewer system. So, a study for sewer was done in winter months only and that shows a truer figure of what goes back into the sewer system. Now, that 240 for water use is a year-round average which takes into consideration washing cars, filling swimming pools, irrigating lawns, etc. So, 240 on the average gets used; 172 of that goes back into the system, with an average waste of 70 gallons a day going into washing cars, filling swimming pools, irrigation and the like.

BEGG: The other question is -- and I guess if by definition that’s what the law says, then that’s what we got to do. But, just looking at it physically, here I’m talking about the pipes – sanitary water distribution and sanitary sewer system collection – the entity, is this household which is the furthest by water travel distance should get a higher charge then someone who lives right on pine street. Say the pipe starts at the east end, or whatever is the furthest point away, so pipe starts at, when you measure in inches, and when you get to Pine Street, or the pumping station, that you’re talking about pipes’ diameter and feet. But, think of that entity back on the east end with all that piping going through the center of town and ending up at the sewage treatment plant or the other way, the pipe goes to the pumping station from the water plant and pipe coming from the end of the line.

KONDRACKI: You can’t do that under the law.

BEGG: Okay.

KONDRACKI: What the law provides is that the charge is set to be uniform throughout the system. To the extent that someone is further away and requires more infrastructure – for the purposes of connection fees and for the purposes of service charges, you can’t do that under the law. I want to reiterate or emphasize that what Tom Merchel testified to is connection fees, which if you are an existing homeowner in town, this calculation does not affect you at all. This is basically for the new customer coming in – new residential customer coming in, a new commercial customer coming in, who may be making a new connection to the system. So, if you are a current resident in town, connection fees and what Tom has testified to have no direct influence on you. There is an indirect effect in the sense that the Township has the responsibility Page 14 October 18, 2010

to charge these fees in accordance with the law so the Township can recoup its fair share for the water and sewer infrastructure. But, what Tom has testified to does not affect you whatsoever.

BEGG: I wasn’t asking you that for that reason.

KONDRACKI: I just wanted to make a clarification in general, because sometimes the connection fees can be misunderstood.

BEGG: Okay, fine, thank you.

KONDRACKI: Thank you.

TOWNSHIP MANAGER: Any other questions?

GREG NEWCOMER: 235 Fellowship Road. Is there a method where part of this ordinance talks to people who are getting new connections which ensures that they are communicated to their level of use is 240, I think you said, gallons per day, and that this is a concern that we want them to be using wisely the water. We don’t want to have a higher use for them and that’s important. Is there anything in this law, or this resolution, that we’re putting through. And two, is there anything in this fee that would involve structural administration of that notification ongoing with any new users divorced from the old users certainly just so that we ensure the use is done well. You get this water installed with the sewer connection. You have the water in your place and your sprinklers go off, and your sprinklers blow a couple heads, and the water goes down the street, and it goes down for a while, will you be notified, one. Two, that’s the kind of administration and towns do do that. Towns do notify users that, hey, your water is clear high use, this is important. You should do that, and by the way it costs you money. Is there any of those items mentioned.

KONDRACKI: No, they would not be appropriate for this ordinance. They’re in other aspects of the Township’s water and sewer ordinances. What the connection fees are, are calculations made pursuant to a statutory formula to establish what the connection fee rate is for water and sewer. The Township has other ordinances that deal with the usage of the water and sewer system, water use restrictions, and the like, and they are in the other ordinances.

NEWCOMER: So, I go on and I get the fee basically, and the town now by this resolution, this new fee, and I, excuse me, and I get this new connection right and I want to make a connection and I get a new connection fee and with that, any information about the cost, and with the sizing, if it’s a hotel, it’s one thing, and if it’s a residence, it’s another, that’s all that this fee addresses.

KONDRACKI: That’s correct. Because what the statute says is that you have to look at historic information to calculate connection fees. So, if you are building a new home in town, it’s not going to matter if it’s a two-bedroom home or a seven bedroom home. The law requires all residential units to be charged the same connection fee. So, you’d be charged the same Page 15 October 18, 2010

connection fee for a residential unit, whether it’s a one-bedroom apartment or whether it’s a seven-bedroom mcmansion. That’s what the law requires.

NEWCOMER: But, the law does not say anything about educating the consumer, I guess, is what I’m saying.

KONDRACKI: Well, again, that’s not part of this ordinance. It’s covered in other ordinances, I guess.

NEWCOMER: Thank you very much.

KONDRACKI: You’re welcome. Thank you.

TOWNSHIP MANAGER: Are there any other questions? Seeing no questions, we’ll now open it to anybody who wishes to make a statement. Seeing none, then, Mayor, seeing no one wishes to make any further statements or questions, I recommend that the public portion of the rate hearing be closed.

MAYOR : Council, may I have a motion to close the public hearing.

BRODER: So moved.

GALLO: Second.

MAYOR: All those in favor, please say “I.” (All said “I”) Opposed, abstain. That’s unanimous. The public hearing is closed. Thank you for your patience. Tom, a tremendous amount of work you put into that and it shows, well done. Council, any further questions for Chris?

TOWNSHIP MANAGER: This is on Resolution 152-2010. We’re going to do that one first. (There was no response). Resolution 152-2010 is a resolution approving adjustment to connection fee rate schedules. I will just go thru the class – class one, residential, it would be $2,569; class two, non-residential, hotel, motel, $1,284.50; and class three, non-residential, general, per gallon, per day is $10.69 with a minimum connection fee of $2,569; and class four, is the connection fee for certain affordable housing projects, and I’ll just read that, connection fees to public housing authorities and non-profit organizations building affordable housing projects that consist of new connections to the system are to be computed by providing a 50% reduction in the connection fee established in this Rate Schedule.

MAYOR: Do we need to do these separately?

CLERK: Yes.

MAYOR: Alright. Council, any other questions for Chris? If not, I’ll ask for a motion to approve 152-2010. Page 16 October 18, 2010

TESTA: So moved.

GALLO: Second.

(Upon a roll call by the Clerk, the vote was unanimous in favor.)

MAYOR: Thank you, that passes unanimously.

(End verbatim record)

The Township Manager read Resolution 150-2010 by title.

150-2010 Establishing Projected Flow Criteria for Connection Fee Purposes

Mr. Schultz advised that this resolution memorializes Council’s previous policy direction in furtherance of incentivizing business and addressing change of use issues.

Mr. Kondracki advised that Council, staff and the professionals, for the past six months or so, have been working on modernizing the water and sewer connection fee ordinances and making them more fair, open and transparent. He advised that the ordinances adopted earlier this evening were two ordinances which established the water and sewer connection fees and the criteria for the fees. The resolution plugged in the number for the water and sewer connection fees. He confirmed that a residential use connection fee is the same, no matter how many bedrooms. The question is determining the fee(s) for commercial uses. Staff put together a schedule of uses, adopted NJDEP regulations for projected flow for a number of uses; and where those numbers seemed out of kilter or not accounted for in NJDEP regulations, the Township developed its own flow projections based on studies in Moorestown and in neighboring towns. The intent was to make everything very transparent for new users coming in on how projected flows will be calculated. This is referred to as the usage resolution and its adopted NJDEP criteria in most instances, and other more desirable criteria based on periodical data. This resolution fits Moorestown today and Moorestown in the future.

Mayor Roccato opened the floor to the public.

Brian Sattinger, 512 South Washington, asked if a connection fee would be imposed if new tenant moved into a space where the previous use was the same as the new use. Mr. Kondracki advised that there would not be a fee imposed. A fee would only be imposed if the square footage increased. If there was a change in use (a card store to a restaurant, there would be no connection fee). There is no fee for change in use; only for an expansion in square footage or new construction. Same was a recent policy decision of Council. Council felt that removing a connection fee for change in use was a good way to attract the kind of ratable the Council wants to attract. It is a way to develop and redevelop ratables.

Page 17 October 18, 2010

Edwin Begg, 209 Parry Drive, thought the residential use seemed to be more regulated than the commercial use. Mr. Kondracki said that that is not so. He advised that the purpose of the rules is to make it transparent what the rules are when first coming in. He explained how calculations were made. A brief discussion was held on water capacity issues.

There being no further comment, the floor was closed.

A motion was made by Mr. Button, seconded by Mr. Broder, to adopt the resolution. Upon a roll call, the vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

Mayor Roccato thanked everyone.

There were no Comments from the Public.

Under Closing Comments from Council, Mr. Testa commended Council for addressing the Township’s connection fee issues. Mr. Button echoed same. Mr. Button also advised that the Appearance Committee would be meeting tomorrow night. Mayor Roccato wished all candidates luck in the upcoming election.

At 8:56 p.m., a motion was made by Mr. Testa, seconded by Mr. Button, to adopt the standard resolution to enter into closed session for purposes of discussing a lease agreement. The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

At 9:04 p.m., Council returned to the public meeting. Due to the sensitivity of the matters, Council had nothing to report with regard to the matters discussed in closed session.

At 9:04 p.m., there being no further business, a motion was made by Mr. Gallo, seconded by Mr. Broder, to adjourn. So moved.

PATRICIA L. HUNT, RMC Township Clerk