Minutes of Special Commissioners Meeting   -   January 6, 2010

Prior to the opening of the meeting, Mr. Groon led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

The special meeting of the Board of Commissioners, Borough of Wildwood Crest, Cape May County , New Jersey , was held in the Municipal Court Room at 3:00 p.m.  On roll call the following answered to their names:

Gould - Cabrera – Groon – Yes

Mr. Groon read the following statement:  In compliance with the Open Public Meeting Act, Chapter 231, P.L. 1975, the notice requirements have been satisfied as to the time, place and date of holding said special meeting by posting notice on the bulletin board in the Borough Hall and by mailing and fax transmitting same to The Herald and The Press on December 29, 1009 at 10:00 a.m.

Mr. Groon next announced the one-way in and the one-way out method of ingress and egress in case of emergency.

Prior to the opening of the meeting, the Clerk stated the no other business, discussion or public comments would be permitted except specifically with respect to the items listed in the Notice of Special Meeting.

The first matter for discussion was the 2010 Capital budget.

There was discussion of the various projects contemplated in 2010. Mrs. Gould inquired if every item on the list was “absolutely” necessary. The response was that the list had been checked several times and everything on the list was required.

The discussion also included some items to be moved to the 2011 budget.

Mrs. Gould inquired as to the $400,000 earmarked for “recreation facilities.” Mr. Cabrera responded that it included the tennis court and basketball court.

Mr. Cabrera asked the CFO as to how a capital budget of $2.7 or $2.8 million would impact the 2010 municipal budget. The CFO responded that the 2010 budget will contain provision for $400,000 in the capital improvement fund, which are funds to be utilized as 5% downpayment or direct funding of capital projects. Including the $400,000, there will be just under $500,000 in the capital improvement fund for 2010. He added that the impact would be on the 2011 budget when interest payments will be due.

Mr. Groon stated that it was his goal to maintain a consistent figure from year to year with the capital improvement fund.

Mr. Groon discussed the situation on Washington Avenue . He indicated that there was a flooding issue in the area, but the project will require more in depth examination of the entire area in order to ascertain a solution with final costs to be determined after the in-depth analysis.  Mr. Cabrera concurred that waiting until 2011 would make sense.

The CFO indicated that for purposes of capital budget discussions, the list he had been provided was sufficient. However, in order to have bond counsel prepare the bond ordinance, a more detailed description of some of the projects would be required. The Clerk indicated that the Engineer would have to provide detailed descriptions for some of the infrastructure projects.

There was a discussion of the various roofs included in the list. The CFO indicated that if it is an entire roof replacement, it can go in the capital budget. However, if it is a roof repair, it must be placed in the operating budget. The CFO provided a list of information he would require for each of the various projects in order to place them in the appropriate budget.

The CFO added that it was his intention to place the beach walkways, generator and emergency pump into the capital budget to be paid directly from that budget without bonding, which would leave sufficient funds in the capital budget for downpayments on bonding.

The next matter for discussion was the Fern Road Park Pavilion. The Clerk indicated that he had a resolution to authorize notice to bidders, but indicated that the funding would not be in place in time to receive/award bids. Mr. Groon inquired of the CFO if any of the projects discussed would be affected by the temporary budget. The CFO responded that he was waiting until after this session to see what items were to be placed in the 2010 budget, which would be placed into the temporary budget. The CFO added that the budget process will be delayed because of issues at the state level. It was his intention to introduce the budget at the March 24, 2010 meeting because it was his opinion that it would make no sense to introduce earlier because the state will not be able to take action until later.

With regard to the Fern Road Park Pavilion funding, Mr. Groon indicated that there are funds available from an earlier funding source, and it was desired to attempt to obtain additional funding from the UEZ to complete the project. He inquired of the CFO if it would be possible to “anticipate” those funds if an affirmative response is not received from the UEZ prior to introduction of the budget. The CFO responded that it would not be “anticipated” in any event; that it would be included in the bond ordinance which will specify that any grant monies received will reduce the debt.

The Clerk reiterated his concern that if the project is authorized to be bid at this meeting, there would not be funds in place to award at the appropriate time. The Solicitor suggested that the bid specifications include language that the amount bid would be held until a certain date. The Engineer responded that it is automatically sixty days, but he believed that language could be inserted in the specifications extending beyond the sixty days. The Clerk inquired of the CFO as to his intentions with regard to introduction of the bond ordinance. The CFO responded that it was his intention to introduce the bond ordinance at the meeting of January 27, 2010.

THE CLERK READ THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION IN FULL:

RESOLUTION NO. 172-10

(Authorizing advertisement of Notice to Bidders for construction of an Elevated Band Stand at Fern Road )

Mrs. Gould motioned, seconded by Mr. Cabrera, that the foregoing Resolution be adopted.

Vote:          Gould-Cabrera-Groon-Yes

The final matter for discussion was environmental consulting services for beachfront. The Clerk indicated that he had provided each of the members of the governing body with information from the Engineer regarding this matter. It was his opinion that it would not be appropriate to discuss the matter at this meeting since a member of one of the firms submitting proposals was present at the meeting. Mr. Groon agreed, indicating that the matter should be placed on the agenda for the January 13, 2010 meeting. The Clerk added that in the meantime each of the members of the governing body could individually have discussions with the Solicitor or Engineer with any questions they may have based upon the proposals submitted.

Peter Lomax indicated that he was at the meeting to be available to answer any questions or clarify anything contained in his firm’s proposal. He offered to leave the meeting in order that the governing body could further discuss the matter. Mr. Groon thanked Mr. Lomax for his offer, but added that the governing body had not had sufficient times to fully review the proposals submitted and the matter would be discussed at the meeting of January 13, 2010.

There being no further matters for discussion, Mrs. Gould motioned, seconded by Mr. Cabrera, that the meeting be adjourned.

Vote:          Gould-Cabrera-Groon-Yes

Dated:        January 27, 2010

Kevin M. Yecco, Borough Clerk