All meeting minutes posted on the township website are unofficial minutes. Official copies of minutes may be obtained from the township clerk.
Minutes: April 29, 2016*
Township Council Special Work Session Meeting
The meeting of the Township Council of the Township of Vernon was convened at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, April 29, 2016 in the Vernon Municipal Center, 21 Church Street, Vernon, New Jersey with Council President Dan Kadish presiding.
Statement of Compliance
Adequate notice of this meeting has been provided to the public and the press on April 15, 2016, and was posted on the bulletin board in the Municipal Building in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act, N.J.S.A. 10:4-7. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the municipal sewer system. Official action will not be taken.
Roll Call of Members
Present were Council Members Jean Murphy, Sandra Ooms, Patrick Rizzuto, Dick Wetzel and Council President Dan Kadish. Also in attendance were Mayor Shortway, Administrator Charles Voelker, CFO Elke Yetter and Township Attorney John Ursin.
Salute to the Flag
Council President Kadish led the assemblage of the flag.
Council President Kadish asked for motion to open public comments.
Motion: Jean Murphy
Second: Sandra Ooms
All in favor.
Gary Martinsen, comments that it is good that the Township is reviewing the sewer system contracts but more importantly is the premise of the contracts and the #s that got us to this point. Mr. Martinsen states that the total buildout for Town Center was supposed to be 99,000 gallons in sewer flow but the existing buildings would only need 42,500 gallons causing a shortfall of 55,000 gallons, and the CVS and the firehouse also bring projections down. Mr. Martinsen stated that the current MUA Engineer noted the Township never put in infrastructure for some of the proposed parcels which could increase shortfall to 60,000 gallons. Mr. Martinsen opined that tax dollars were spent to put sewer on private parcels and did not get put on all town owned ones which could lead to a criminal investigation as a misuse of taxpayer’s money and bond money.
Tom McClachrie, would like to request during the work session that Mr. Ursin clarify two questions. Mr. McClachrie states that he realizes the MUA is a parliamentary organization and questions that any actions to spend money, the MUA needs a majority of MUA commissioners to approve in the form of resolution that supports that action. Mr. McClachrie refers to NJAC 5-31(2.2F) regarding MUA Budgets, and states that no authority should take action on capital plans and if no authority action it should then be reflected back to the enabling authority. Mr. McClachrie again asks if the MUA can expend funds without the approval of Town Council.
Council President Kadish asked for motion to close the public comments.
Motion: Jean Murphy
Second: Sandra Ooms
All in favor.
Items for Discussion
A. Municipal Sewer System
1. Historical Review of the Origins and Contents of Vernon’s SCMUA Contracts and Related Developer Agreements
Mr. Ursin explains he will present an overview of the important sewer documents highlighting the key accomplishments of each and the key reasons why the Town entered into them which will guide the Council on assigning any further analysis. Mr. Ursin states he has not been given any direction or questions to specifically answer for this presentation and notes that when the Council had needed to address decisions they haven’t had all of the contracts available which is why this work session is being done. Mr. Ursin adds it is a useful historical continuity of the sewer system project and he will provide time, place and reasons for the creation of the documents. Mr. Ursin states the purpose of this meeting is not to engage or to criticize the historical decisions and that many may agree that the facts, premises or predictions of when these agreements were executed was then, now we know did not come true but continue to effect the decisions of today. Mr. Ursin states he is not specifically doing an analysis of the engineering or a history of the financial analysis or the obligations which the CFO and both the Town and MUA Auditor can review and analyze.
Mr. Ursin states he has provided the Council with copies named Exhibits A through H which are the most important documents related to the sewer system today and will comment on specific details in each. Mr. Ursin explains the sewer system concept plans began in the early 2000s and this presentation is a culmination of the agreements and his review of council meeting minutes. Mr. Ursin says the goals of the original plans were to create a Town Center area and at the time there were many grant opportunities available and strong interest by Intrawest to move forward. Mr. Ursin explains the financial agreement of 2005 between Vernon Township and Mountain Creek contains 2 preliminary agreements noted as Exhibits A & B which showed commitment from both of the viability of the sewer plant and expansion in creating a Town Center. Mr. Ursin adds the sister agreement executed in August of 2004 was the same agreement but between SCMUA and Vernon Township. He concludes at the time of these agreements, Vernon was being serviced 38,000 gallons by United Water and the decision about the future plans felt 38,000 was not enough and the goals were identified. The goals were planned that Town Center needed 99,000 gallons and Mountain Creek needed 166,000 gallons.
Mr. Ursin explains that in both agreements there is a sense of urgency to move forward as deadlines are outlined and are very aggressive with the goal of construction and initiative by December 31, 2007. Mr. Ursin stated that these agreements are a major turning point by the Town Government that 38,000 gallons was not enough and more was needed and the purpose of the sewer analysis was to see if the sewer expansion was possible and the most efficient to work. Mr. Ursin adds the time when this was started was a boom time for development and there was a clear thought process of how Vernon would benefit. With the agreements in place, development did not happen and caused delays in any future development. Mr. Ursin states that a big expense in the agreements was Herald Square which was part of due diligence in exploring the expansion, cost was $1,000,000 but town received grant for this purpose.
Mr. Ursin points out that in back of agreement, Tab A, outlines the beginning of a formal agreement in October 2005 when hundreds of thousands of dollars were committed to Herold Square and Vernon moved forward with the Mountain Creek/Vernon agreement which was a precursor to SCMUA/Vernon agreement. Mr. Ursin added that in reviewing minutes of council meetings where these decisions were made, council and public were in favor. He adds this is an understanding of how we got here and not to criticize the past decisions, as the development climate was positive at the time and the future impact was not controversial. Mr. Ursin states that this is the point of no return for the future of the sewer system expansion, references that 380,000 was not enough, extensive studies were completed and the financial commitment is what the town still has to deal with. The total project estimate to SCMUA was $9.5 million through the SCMUA bond and the infrastructure cost was $4.0 million through the Vernon bond. Mr. Ursin comments that on pg. 3, the agreement acknowledges the estimated total of the sewer system expansion was $15.2 million and this sets up the scope of the construction and also the role of United Water in relation to the Vernon Town Center, SCMUA and Mountain Creek. Mr. Ursin states that on pg. 2.05, at this time the participants were uncertain of what role United Water would be to this project but in 4 years it wasn’t a surprise anymore and no one was left to answer to. On pg. 8 Mr. Ursin continued, defined the attempt the town and Mountain Creek put financial controls on projects and the developer could object if bid prices exceeded $12.3 million of SCMUA portion. Mr. Ursin added that pg. 13 was significant in that it gave first right of refusal and assignment restrictions and these provisions are in the agreements because it was believed the sewer allocation was highly valuable and a marketable commodity and would increase in value.
On page 18 “B,” Mr. Ursin says it talks about the construction of projects and completion and where allocation would go and concerned about the timing and thought it obtaining temporary capacity because they couldn’t wait until total completion in 2009 so projects could begin even before total construction.
On pg. 19, in light of the historical and developer of this project, 5.03 was a mistake when it was discovered there was no stopping, if after project finished and demand was not there - the developer never took that into account. In 2010, the sewer system became on line, bills were due and no revenues coming in; this part of the agreement became a major deficiency and the lack of understanding of economic conditions 5 - 10 years later. Sections 5.06 & 5.07, the effort to be diligent in 2005 the cap for SCMUA and Vernon operating costs which would have been ok if system started on time but five to seven years late became a problem. Mr. Ursin explained on pg. 21, 7.02 A & B prediction of cost controls and minimum connection fees of $1,000 and minimum sewer service fee of $1,000 but when it came on line through the MUA, these numbers were irrelevant and inadequate. Mr. Ursin adds the service fee was too high for the former United Water users and the connection fees were too low as compared with others around the county. A renegotiation of some parts of the agreement with Mountain Creek, amended the needed changes.
Council President Kadish stated that every council member has at one time or another toured the sewer facility and he opined that the VTMUA connection fees were created arbitrarily but the SCMUA fees were based on factual formulation.
Mr. Ursin states he does not want to discuss how the VTMUA has set their fees but explains that SCMUA is one entity and has based their costs on historical debt and usage. Vernon on the other hand has difficulty on calculating connection fees including the debt service of the Town Center, the historical system of United Water system but adds it was not arbitrarily based. Mr. Ursin adds the statutorily nature of the connection fee is based on who joins, # of users, new developers, construction and an amalgamation of different historical debt. Council Member Murphy asked about the 380,000-gallon usage. Mr. Ursin explained that was the Great Gorge entity which was later taken over by United Water then by the VTMUA. Mr. Ursin added that United Water is guided by public regulation and would have to go the Board of Public Utilities and do two things to service the Town Center and Mountain Creek areas: one is to expand the Sewer Service Area and 2 amend the waste water management plan. Council Member Ooms restated that per the 2005 agreement any shortfalls should be paid by Mountain Creek. Mr. Ursin explained the developer is responsible for yearly shortfalls of the operating costs and adds in 5.03 it explains not debt, operating deficits.
Mr. Ursin states that the 2005 agreement “A” between Mountain Creek and Vernon Township was executed in October of 2005. The agreement labeled “B” between Vernon Township and SCMUA was finalized in November of 2005, signed soon after due to more straightforward contract with less negotiations. He explains that SCMUA is made up of 6 or 7 participating members who contract to get service and Vernon’s sewer agreement is very similar to others in the county. Mr. Ursin states the highlights of this agreement describes the formulas of how rates are charged, the procedure of how SCMUA’s budget prepared and annual charges of the members. What is unique to Vernon is in 4.02C which is the critical understanding when Vernon contracts with SCMUA, it explains that Vernon requests 265,000 gallons of allocation and Vernon agreed that it would pay for it all whether used or not. In 4.06B, the rate stabilization fund was created of which 60% of the connection fees paid to SCMUA would be applied to stabilize the rates and to benefit the rate payers but the first customers to hook up would be unfairly, burdened. In 4.09B the agreement references the debt to improve infrastructure to transmit to SCMUA which are called the SCMUA bonds and also called the 409B bonds. The rest of the agreement is standardized rules and regulations. Mr. Ursin explains that now once the two agreements are done, there is a partnership with Mountain Creek and Vernon moves forward with the sewer system. The construction was expected to be completed by 2007 but there was a gap in the period and was not completed until end of 2009.
Council Member Ooms asked if there is a limit of the Rate Stabilization? Mr. Ursin answers that the county connection fees up to 265,000-gallon amount is unknown and can’t be determined due to change in connection fees.
Mr. Ursin recaps that the sewer system was proceeding and nearing an end but role of United Water was uncertain and came to forefront in 2008. The Township Council started discussing doing a physical and financial study to purchase United Water section which was debated and no decision to purchase United Water was made. The main reason to purchase the United Water area is for the customer base and allocation and because United Water would become the middle men since Vernon Town Center system was not connected to SCMUA. Mr. Ursin points out that page 9 talks about absorbing all costs of United Water and Vernon taking over costs of relocating and replacing Pump Station #1. On page 12, Mr. Ursin notes the agreement is the definition of payment to United Water reimbursing them for all legal costs, permit fees and also a markup of 20% due to Vernon needed to bargain with United Water to fix problem that Vernon was not connected. Mr. Ursin states the most important paragraph on page 25 informs Vernon that because United Water is the middlemen, they are going to charge as a bulk customer and every gallon used or not which were estimated to be six-figure costs.
In 2010, the system was certified and Vernon started receiving bills from SCMUA but had no customers. Mr. Ursin explained in March of 2011, Township Council passed Ordinance 11-05 to make application to purchase the United Water system and purpose was to fix the middleman problem. In 2010, which was a source of debate, the plan to buy United Water solved the problem to remove the cost of the bulk tariff and to control all sewers in Vernon as one unit which was to Vernon’s advantage. The Council then began to consider what would happen once Vernon owned the United Water System and brought up the issue to create an MUA. Mr. Ursin explained to create an MUA is statutorily authorized and can be one town alone, two towns jointly run or a regional unit like the SCMUA. He adds it takes an enormous amount of work to create a MUA and adds that commissioners be appointed so that decisions are politically insulated. Mr. Ursin said the council realized that it was a time when Governor Christie was focused on scrutinizing MUAs like the Passaic Valley Sewage Authority. In 528.3 it references that the local finance board would not approve Vernon’s application unless clauses were inserted that members were not paid, disclaimer regarding OPRA and anti-nepotism policies were in place.
Mr. Ursin answers the two questions posed earlier in the meeting that the parliamentary procedures are defined by the Rules and Regulations of the VTMUA and the MUA can expend funds without Council approval. The reason why the MUA may approach Council approval for the sewer expansion is because the MUA does not have the bonding capacity that the Township has. Mr. Ursin summarizes that the purchase of United Water was to make the sewer system more unified, to remove the middleman and delegate the system to an autonomous agency. Council Member Murphy questioned who paid the bills before there were users. He adds that the bills had come in with no users and the cost was paid by all taxpayers and if town had not created the MUA the cost would have remained self-contained. Mr. Ursin stated that all costs were repaid back to the Township when the MUA added users.
Mr. Ursin continued that once the VTMUA was created, the next year was spent on holding meetings, making rules regulations and procedures in preparation for having customers. Mr. Ursin explained that Exhibit E is the Interlocal Agreement between Vernon Township and the VTMUA which was dated December 12, 2011 which specifically begins to reconcile and assign responsibility for financial aspects of the sewer system. He adds this agreement endorses the United Water purchase and endorses the bond ordinance #11-22 which funds this purchase. The agreement further endorses Ordinance #11-23 which creates funds for the MUA operating costs. Mr. Ursin describes on page 7 shows an accounting of the costs that Vernon paid in 2010 was $120,000 and in 2011 was $697,000 which were owed back to the Township. He continues that on pages 9 & 10 there is an accounting for the bond ordinance which created a reconciliation roadway for how finances conducted between the MUA and Vernon Township and adds it is important to note $2.8 million is the funds for the MUA to draw on until there are ratepayers by the acquisition of United Water or by connection of new Town Center users.
Council Member Rizzuto restated that of the $2.8 million bond, the portion that the town had fronted was recovered. Mr. Ursin added that some of that amount was paid prior and the bond continues to be paid of which the CFO will have the accounting.
Mr. Ursin explains Exhibit F which is the financial agreement between Vernon and Mountain Creek which is a critical document in the understanding of development of the partnership and responsibilities. He adds this 2005 agreement made significant assumptions based on development demand and time to take to complete the system and understanding finances when system had ratepayers. Mr. Ursin said we started to see the shortcomings of the agreement and coming to table and address the fact that all of the development Mountain Creek had proposed still had not happened by 2011-2012 and was a major problem. Vernon began to re-negotiate with Mountain Creek regarding their responsibilities with the best interest of the Township and addressing concerns of Mountain Creek. Mr. Ursin added this agreement got Mountain Creek to recommit with more precision and teeth and more detail to all of its commitments or it might have ended up in major drawn out litigation due to the delay in construction, cost controls and missed projections. He added that Vernon could have come to agreement that worked for both and moved forward with the future understanding to commitment or litigation where Mountain Creek’s obligations would not have been paid.
Mr. Ursin states in the 2012 agreement it highlights on page 6, 2.02 that Vernon Township would take on the Sand Hill Pump Station and we negotiated that Mountain Creek would take on that responsibility which was a major cost for maintenance and upgrades. Mr. Ursin says in section 5.01 is the critical negotiation, the heart of the disagreement because the original agreement never contemplated that sewer system would come on line and bills came due with no revenues - no one thought it was possible and was Mountain Creek responsible for the 2010/2011 shortfall or none of it. During the negotiations, discussions ratified by the Township Council, responsibility of the shortfall should be equitable by Vernon and Mountain Creek by a 37%/63% ratio of that shortfall respectively. Mr. Ursin adds that the 2005 agreement was lacking in the definition regarding the shortfall so this negotiation was reasonable. The recommitment to paying all costs of the Vernon bonds was a major factor because it would have been a problem for Vernon and the CFO confirmed the bond payment are current.
Mr. Ursin stated in section 5.04 the agreement restated the method and calculation of the deficit or surplus which was not done correctly in original agreement. In section 5.05 he adds the procedure was set up that each year Vernon would send notice to Mountain Creek up to the present, certifying amount of deficit and proper appeal process which he noted that has never been done by Mountain Creek. Mr. Ursin continues explaining on page 11 section 6.01 that in 2012 the system is now online, with hookups in Town Center, United Water customers paying fees and MUA finances appeared to be okay.
Mr. Ursin explains the current debt service in 2012 was between $400,000 - $600,000 and the MUA Auditor commented the MUA would be fine in 2014, 2015 & 2016 but in 2017 there could be problems. This agreement gave Mountain Creek a 5-year deferral of its commitments which became representative of development problems and economic problems; assurances that development would get moving, it took debts beginning to be repaid March 2017. This created some provisions in sync with the MUA debt and financial issue going forward. The debt amount to SCMUA from the MUA was $150,000 and that increases to $600,000 in 2017 and to $1.5 million in 2023 so between ratepayers online, the rate stabilization fund and the 5-year deferral could be accomplished to benefit Mountain Creek and the MUA. In section 8.02, the projections from 2005 with respect to connection fees and sewer system fees that were just wrong, it was too early to predict adequate figures. This agreement brought Vernon/Mountain Creek agreements up to point to today. Schedule A is a recalculation of fees that Vernon absorbed in 2010/2011 which is payable to SCMUA. Schedule B is very relevant as it is the Vernon Bond payment schedule going forward that Mountain Creek had been and will be paying until 2033. In summary this is the financial agreement that updated the 2005 agreement between Vernon Township and Mountain Creek.
Exhibit G is a restatement of Vernon’s 2005 agreement with SCMUA with the idea of creating a single system with respect to the Vernon Township SCMUA relationship rather than two separate systems. This agreement was extremely advantageous to Vernon because the 265,000 gallons Vernon had contracted with SCMUA the minimum payment was the maximum flow so everyone that was added the Township wasn’t gaining because you still had to pay. Combining the two systems fixed the mandatory minimum and created a minimum flow and the 380,000 gallons from United Water and the 265,000 gallons from Vernon gave a total of 645,000 in maximum allocation, which means every cost Vernon added moves it toward the minimum # of 461,000 without paying additional cost. Mr. Ursin stresses that if Vernon did not do this, when we added a customer we would have added additional costs similar to running in place so a fixed minimal flow was very beneficial to Vernon Township. Also, Mr. Ursin stated was the allowance to take credit under the rate stabilization fund (60% of SCMUA cost) for any new users for example the Vernon Urgent Care. Mr. Ursin restates this agreement created one sewer district - one relationship between SCMUA and Vernon Township and created a minimal flow amount which also applied the rate stabilization fund to the whole district.
Mr. Ursin explains Exhibit H which are the financial agreements between Vernon Township and the VTMUA which was first executed in 2011 and re done in 2014 due to terminology changes requested by the auditor. Mr. Ursin summarized by saying he has provided to Council up to present the controlling documents explaining the rights and obligations of Vernon Township with respect to the sewer system.
Council President Kadish asked for motion to open meeting to public comments.
Motion: Patrick Rizzuto
Second: Dick Wetzel
All in favor.
Tom McClachrie, asked for a clarification of the amounts from the Vernon bonds. Mr. Ursin stated the bonds, called SCMUA bonds or 409B bonds or Cap Appreciation bonds are all the $12 million that SCMUA spent to expand the sewer service plan and infrastructure within Vernon Township which are directly billed to Vernon Township, being paid by the VTMUA. Mr. McClachrie added we are paying interest bonds of 4 million and paying flow that even if the amount of users is doubled, the user fees payments will double or triple because of these debt payments coming due. and the other 7 million that the VTMUA agreed to pay back is added to this no matter how its expanded and try to rates steady, it will increase dramatically. Mr. Ursin said an honest assessment to move into the right direction is that Vernon bought too much allocation then and needs two and half more users to operate efficiently.
Victor Marotta, commented that in 2009/2010, Mountain Creek/ Intrawest came to an end due to bankruptcy negotiated purchase and was very important because if the $1.9 million credit was null & void, the Township would have been on the hook had anything gone wrong.
Rick Boydston, owns nine condominiums in Great Gorge Village and appreciates the transparency of this work session about the sewer contracts but feels the Council should be more involved because of the burdens of taxes, uncontrollable sewer fees, condo dues, for little amount of town services. Mr. Boydston opined that the council needs to be involved more and adds United Water should not have been bought without taxpayer’s approval and Vernon needs better cost controls over MUA costs and expenses and go back to SCMUA to renegotiate if possible and increase costs shouldn’t all fall on Great Gorge residents.
Council President Kadish states the Cap Appreciation Bonds can’t be prepaid and we have already renegotiated with SCMUA in the past 5 years and we are committed to that rate schedule to bond holders. Mr. Ursin adds the bonds cannot be renegotiated until a certain date because they are held by financial institutions and anything given to Vernon would also need to be given to the other systems run by SCMUA. Mr. Ursin adds the complicated costs of the septic system are growing and if the user #s are not increased, the problems worsen. With costs expanding, the need for development increases to spread costs over more users which becomes a financial formula - more development versus more users, spending smartly. Mr. Boydston questions why the Township isn’t reaching out to commercial entities to come. Council Member Rizzuto comments if Vernon does nothing, Vernon would be paying more and we need to add more commercial users for greatest efficiency but without water or sewer, big businesses won’t come.
He adds the reason why there was no referendum for the United Water purchase was it was not required as Council Members are elected to make the best decisions for the Township. Also, he states the VTMUA is an autonomous body and if they needed to have Council approval to spend any funds, approvals may be politically motivated but the MUA does have to provide to the Township Council with an annual report.
Mr. Boydston opined that back in 2004 the public wasn’t invited or not involved as much as today. Mr. Ursin stated all meetings were public with a development mindset with very aggressive goals. Mr. Boydston confirms he wants to understand the history to move forward for the taxpayers. Council President Kadish adds that prior to 2000, meetings were confrontational and wanted to hold Mountain Creek to the fire and be cautious of the sewers. Mr. Boydston continues that if more were involved and understand how this developed and the look of the future. The reason there was an imbalance of commercial to residential ratables especially increasing commercial in Town Center.
Council Member Wetzel states the VTMUA does not have the ability to bond and if the system faults the Town would be held responsible. He adds that Mountain Creek needs to expand and is a great driving force and if we are blocking their plans we will suffer. Mr. Boydston states that we need more CVSs or other ratables in town and we need to actively pursue them.
Council Member Rizzuto no business is willing to invest unless they see commitment of infrastructure in the ground. Council Member Murphy states that residents are struggling to be added into this system, assurances are needed by the developer.
Mr. Boydston, profit on investments going to increased costs. Council Member Wetzel and Ooms commented that the Economic Development Committee is responsible and this issue can be brought to their attention. Council Member Ooms explains all the members have reviewed these contracts and are trying to understand and are actively engaged in this to make the correct decisions. Council member Murphy had asked to have an outside analysis of these contracts be done but Mr. Ursin can explain and maybe only a financial analysis be done. Mr. Boydston ask to use the website for public.
Carol Gunn Kadish, questions what safeguards should have been in the contracts if expectations were not met. Mr. Ursin explains no one in 2005 knew what was to happen in 2008-2009, in hindsight, the decision to buy the whole 265,000 allocation, all comes due on same day should have been changed. Ms. Kadish added since construction will not happen immediately, will Vernon foot the bill for a while? Mr. Ursin says the operating costs are slowly increasing and bond payments increase at a given pace. Ms. Kadish restates that the MUA only needs the Township to bond not for approval of all expenses and asks Mr. Ursin for confirmation to which he agrees by design to structurally isolate by certain degree from politics.
Mr. McClachrie questions in the 2005 contract between Mountain Creek and Vernon it imposes on formulation of VTMUA the Vernon Bond payments of $11.5 billion? Mr. Ursin states the SCMUA bonds under the interlocal agreement MUA/Vernon Township takes the debt to be applied against rates it received.
Council Member Murphy questions if Vernon currently has a credit from Mountain Creek? CFO Ms. Yetter answers Vernon has $1.794 million credit. Council Member Rizzuto asks if is renewed every September? Ms. Yetter states yes.
Closed to Public Comments
Seeing no more members of the public wishing to speak, Council President Kadish asked for a motion to close the public portion of the meeting.
Motion: Patrick Rizzuto
Second: Dick Wetzel
All members were in favor.
Council Member Rizzuto thanks Mr. Ursin for the preparation of the meeting.
Council Member Wetzel also thanks Mr. Ursin.
Council Member Murphy comments that Vernon doesn’t have enough areas now and doesn’t think we should be considering to expand.
Council Member Ooms thanks Mr. Ursin for his presentation and also thanks public for their participation and engagement.
Council President Kadish discusses the proposed expansion and the sewer plant which was originally designed for Vernon and asks if SCMUA can redesign with little rate increase to serve other districts to lessen our responsibility and potential use.
Council Member Wetzel adds that the development Indian Fields in Hamburg has very reasonable rates.
Council Member Murphy restates that the SCMUA tour was very informational and is open to the MUA commissioners to tour for their own understanding.
There being no further items of business to be conducted on the agenda, a motion for Adjournment was made by Council Member Murphy, seconded by Council Member Wetzel with all members voting in favor.
The Special Workshop of the Township Council of the Township of Vernon was adjourned at 12:18 p.m.
Lauren Kirkman, RMC, CMR
Minutes approved: July 25, 2016