Thinking about the discussions during the Workshop/Borough Council meetings.Presentation by Maser Consulting of Vue Program - Interesting presentation by Maser regarding a computer system currently installed in the Borough. The presentation concerned expanding this program and the cost of same. Matawan Borough's Water Dept. is currently utilizing this program and will continue until July 2009 at a cost of $500. month. It appears to be a great program which will significantly assist the Borough. Middletown was mentioned as a township that utilizes this system. Don't see how anyone can compare Middletown to Matawan. Middletown is not dealing with the budget deficit of Matawan. However, with the current economic climate (which shows no signs of improving) we don't see how Matawan can afford to invest in a program of this magnitude.
Comment - This contract was awarded to Maser Consulting by a previous Borough Council. Why wasn't the eventual cost of expanding the Program discussed? Were other Engineering firms contacted for pricing or was this another "plum" given to Maser like the $300,000+ no bid contract for the Road Program?
Sign Ordinance - Mr. Monfort of the Matawan Historic Sites Commission handed out a draft of Downtown Matawan Signage Design Guidelines drafted 2/3/01. An enormous amount of work went into the guidelines with no action being taken to date. All seemed to agree that an Ordinance that can be enforced is necessary. Mr. Monfort will be working on updating the guidelines. It was noted that a current Ordinance is in place prohibiting neon signs from being displayed in store windows. This ordinance is not being enforced. Residents were receptive to working with Mr. Monfort and the Commission to bring the process to fruition. We support this program.
Ordinance Prohibiting Elected Officials from Municipal Work - Even the "Thinker" realizes this is a no brainer. While there is currently an ethics code in place, it does not appear to be followed. The Borough Attorney, Pat Menna, Esq. presented the Council with a draft of the Ordinance. Council members made certain recommendations to amend the draft. What concerned us was that current sitting Council members were allowed to contribute and eventually we presume will vote on this Ordinance. How can sitting members of Council who are currently performing work for the Borough make recommendations or vote on this ordinance? It defies logic! The question is whose interests are being protected, the individuals or the Borough?
Unemployment request - W. Malley - Former Councilman Malley applied for Unemployment Insurance and the Borough was listed as a former employer. Needless to say another no brainer. The Borough Attorney, Pat Menna, Esq. was instructed to return the form unsigned with a letter of explanation.
Items held over: Gas & municipal vehicles usage, Discussion on Recreation, Discussion of Pension Deferment, Extension of four day work week.
Borough Council Meeting
Towing License approval - R & A Auto Body, Inc. was held. Why is not known.
Reappointment of Chief Financial Officer - Council members voted to reappoint the current Chief Financial Officer. The only no vote came from Councilman Bud Mullaney. Although he gave no reason for his vote.
Comment - We believe the Council acted in the best interests of the Borough in reappointing the current CFO.
Payment of Bills - Key Auto Body was listed on the Bill List. It was noted that Councilman Kevin Mendes (whose family owns Key Auto Body) abstained from voting.
Comment - The bill list was not published on the website. However, it was mentioned that Key Auto Body Shop had an invoice on the list at the meeting. Hmmmmmmm!
We will still push to get the Bill List published on the Borough website. As residents are entitled to see how their tax dollars are being spent.
Hope to see you at the next meeting.....
17 comments:
Sign ordinance is a step in the right direction. How about creating lines for parking spots? Little things go a long way to creating an appealing downtown. Matawan currently has none of them. The signs for the most part are unappealing. The sidewalks need repair. Flowers would be nice. Benches. I live in Aberdeen and even if I wanted to go to a restaurant in town, I don't even know where I would park. How about some street signs that tell people where they can park? Or outlining the parking spots on main street? That would be a nice first step....
I believe the ordinance barring a councilman from doing work for the borough should be re-worded. For example, under the current wording, any person working for Verizon would be forced to choose between his job or serving on the council.
Any ordinance would be imperfect but I think it would be fine to simply say the council will not engage in any service contract that would materially benefit any council member or his immediate family. All council members have the affirmative responsibility to notify the council when any such situation exists.
I have personally used both Mullaney Tire and Key Auto Body and would recommend their services to others. But I agree using them for borough business would create a conflict of interest.
Believe the Ordinance is being reworded. Get back when it is presented again to the Council. In the meantime, Councilman Mendes' family owned business has continued to do work for the Borough. Mullaney has done work for the First Aid Squad.
An Ordinance must be put in place prior to any serious conflict of interest.
As always, thanks for your comments.
For the record, Matawan does have a Code of Ethics. Unfortunately, it has not been followed. Hence, the need for an Ordinance.
I guess every-one in Matawan ,especially all the cry babies, have forgotten ,the Mendes family "DONATED " the land where the Public works building now sets!!!! I wonder how much someone else in the town would have Sold the same size parcel for to the town if they had the opportunity to???
What does that have to do with a Councilperson doing work for the Borough?
I see on bills paid ,,that the borough paid $1400.00 to have a tree 'Trimmed " at 9 Union Street. I believe that is a little exorbitant for a trim job!!? So I rode by, I see a number of the neighbors trees had fresh trimmings also, did the borough pay for those also ??? I think the contractor who did this should have to show where he charged the neighbors seperatly and that that the borough wasn't charged for their private property work!!
What is the date of the payment for trees trimmed at 9 Union St?Don't see it on this meetings bill list. We will be glad to check into it if you provide further information.
Thanks.
Advocate: Answer to your Question of billing for tree trimming. PO Date 12-30-08 pd date 01-29-09 to contract #8-01-26-300-241 WHICH CALLS FOR 'TREE Removal' I called it a tree trimming , as thats all it was, and is the tree REALLY on Borough Property????? Go look for yourself and you will see what is stated is right!! Along with the trimmings of a few neighbors trees... The WOOL has been pulled over the eyes of all for many years... Where is the check system for this type of work?? Have a good investigation as I know you SHOULD be concerned about this?!
Ironically, the particular Bill List of 1-29-09 is not on the Borough website. Would you kindly send a copy to our email address?
Thanks for the info.
Its on Bill list of Feb 3,2009 Page 14 Line Item # 1 the other dates are when Po# was Issued I Guess ETC. You should be able to fine it now and I hope you went over to 9 Union Street aand looked at the tree THAT WAS NOT CUT DOWN AS STATED!!!! Only a trim job. Plus the neighbors?? Which the borough may have paid for??
Kudos to you for checking the Bill List. Residents must be prudent in how the Borough spends our tax dollars. Questionable spending should be mentioned at the time the Bill List is presented to the Council.
Now from what we see it was $200 for tree trim and $1400. for tree removal. Sounds hefty. However, not aware of pertinent data. Will check into it.
Thank you.
Lots of luck , recently the property owner denied access to go across his proerty to look at what was done,, What's being hidden here?? $1400. IS a lot of money ,when we we have a budget crisis. The billing says an Emergency tree cutting.. What emergency??? Doesn't look like the tree in Question would have caused any damage to the residence in question if the Top that was trimmed out would have came down. What council person is responsible for this type of work?
Anonymous, Your anger over the tree removal is misplaced on the homeowner. A gentle reminder, the homeowner has the right to deny access to their property. Go directly to the source, the Borough of Matawan. You can make an anonymous inquiry. Check with the CFO, the Shade Tree Commission, Councilman Fitzsimmons, Chairperson of Finance, or address your question directly to the Borough Council at the next meeting.
Don't let anyone intimidate you at the Council meetings. You have the right to ask questions. Having witnessed (in previous years)Council members becoming abusive to residents. We believe this has changed. If anything, Mayor Buccellato has drawn criticizm for giving too much latitude to residents.
Good keep paying fees to have trees removed or trimmed on private property at Borough expense.. WE have lots of money for this type of favors .Whats the homeowner trying to hide??? Yes I understand the right of access!! The property owner didn't mind having the tree work done by a contractor hired by the borough BUT!!! don't let NO- ONE have the right to ckeck on it!! Something SMELLS here!! A neighborhood concern.
Are you saying that you asked Borough employees/officials about this tree removal and were denied an answer?
No: Not at all. I'm saying borough officals should be wondering why we were paying $1400.00 to have this tree work done{what ever was done } trim or cut down.. When there is such a budget problem??And if was a necessity to have it done at this cost? Who's decision was it??
Post a Comment