' * H«r »-•»-< * .JfLantern 31 October '84 17

Sewerage District No. 1: A Presentment

\ fF^om Page 16) vironmental Protection and County Health Department. The Hospital was discussing its expansion with the Commissioners Of course, the new addition would have to be permitted to add into the Hospital's other lines that connect into the District sewers. The Acme-Jamesway shopping center was having continuing /septic problems. The County Health Department was considering ordering it clksed if the shopping center did not correct its septic problems or obtain permission to hook into the District sewers. New store owners and home owners were seeking permission to hook into the sewer system. The long, anticipated arrival of the County Municipal Utilities Authority into the Court House area was still at least six years away. New development in the downtown Court House area, without sewers, would stay at a standstill, as it basically had for twelve years. B. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE SEWERAGE DISTRICT FROM 1983 The Sewerage Commissioners had regular monthly meetings, with rare exceptions 'for a death, illness or vacation, for 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1951 and 1982. Most meetings were on the regularly scheduled third 'Wednesday of the month. However, in 1983 the Commissioners held meetings only four times : on January 19, March 30, August 10 and September 1, 1983. The next meeting was not until April 11, 1984. This was at a time, as will be discussed, when drastic changes occurred. The other important issue relates to the readings on the flow meter, the only means of determining the capacity of the plant. This instrument makes a daily recording of the flow of sewerage treated. The operator takes the readings daily, logs them and then prepares the monthly report* to the Department of Environmental Protection and County Health Department. Since its installation in 1977, the readings varied daily from 200,000 gallons per day to over 500,000 gallons per day. By a simple mathematical equation, a monthly

average gallons per day would be determined. From 1977 to March 1981, the daily readings varied greatly, as did the monthly averages. However, when the meter was finally repaired and readings resumed in August 1982, after almost eighteen (18) months of being out of order, the readings were drastically lower. From August to April 1963, the monthly readings averaged only 40,000 gallons per day to 50,000 gallons per day. However, the daily readings were varying from 24,000 gallons per day to 91,000 gallons per day. The meter then broke for a few days in April 1983. When readings resumed in May, another unusual change occurred. The monthly readings averaged a steady 45,000 gallons per day for May, June and July and 47,000 gallons per day for August. The daily readings were very steady, always between 43,000 gallons per day and 47,000 gallons per day. Then in late August 1983 the meter was broken again and not repaired until December 6, 1983. The monthly readings for December 1983 through April 1984 averaged between 75,900 gallons per day and 108,000 gallons per day. The daily flow readings were again varying between 46,000 gallons per day and 144,000 gallons per day. The Grand Jury, although finding no evidence that the meter was tampered with or that the readings were altered, were of the opinion that the drastically lower readings and steady readings during 1983, right after the meter had been out of operation for 1 Va years, should have raised questions by the Commissioners as to why the readings were different and the reasons for them. Instead, the Commissioners relied upon those recent readings to determine, sometime prior to September 1, 1983, that the plant had additional capacity and could accept additional hookups. They chose to ignore or disregard the past i readings for the years 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980 i and 1981 which showed th£ plant to be i substantially overloaded. They also chose i to ignore the earlier engineering studies that found the plant to be overloaded. The only reason given by the Commis- i sioners for their new opinion as to the i

plant's capacity was the closing of the K & E plant. The K & E plant was supposedly one of the five (5) major users. The K k E plant, in operation since before everyone's memory, closed down in September 1980. They all voiced the opinion that since a major user closed down, there was additional capacity. However, when questioned as to their basis for that opinion, they all indicated that it was based on information given to them by Michael Vistenzo. No one had facts to support this proposition. The determination by the Commissioners that the K & E plant was no longer in operation and therefore there was additional capacity in the sewer system will be discussed further in the Findings section. In the late Winter-early Spring of 1983 Michael Vistenzo became aware of certain developers' interest in constructing a nursing home on Magnolia Drive in the downtown Court House area. That street, however, is not serviced by the District's sewers. The sewer main is approximately one block away.- The location, however, was opposite the Jamesway-Acme shopping complex, also an unserviced complex. Michael Vistenzo was aware of the developers' interest due to his contact with them during their construction of another nursing home but of the downtown Court House area. Michael Vistenzo was unable to recall more specifically when he became aware of the proposed project on the Magnolia site. The Minutes of the March 30, 1983 meeting of the Sewerage Commissioners reflect that the proposed nursing home wants to hook into the sewer system. The members agreed "it would be all right with the Sewer Commission if all forms and State approval is shown to the Commissioners." The Minutes are unclear as to what the Commissioners were approving. They later stated to this Grand Jurythat State approval also meant approval if the treatment plant had capacity to handle the project's sewerage. There is no further records of any discussion or involvement regarding the nursing home project until August 1983. The next Commissioners meeting was on August 10, 1983, a five (5) month period of meetings or formal business being con- *

ducted. At the August 10th, 1983 meeting Barbara Beitei, the Township's grants coordinator, and Richard Haefner were present. Richard Haefner is a local businessman wbo owns a store for which he had previously sought sewer hookup for a few years but without success, being told that no bookup6 were being permitted. He is also President of the local Chamber of Commerce, a group concerned about the sewerage problem in town. There are no records to indicate that any Open Public Meeting notices were adhered to. The main point of business raised at that meeting was the septic problem at the Jamesway-Acme complex. The County Health Department informed the Sewerage Commissioner by copy of a letter dated June 28, 1984 and through informal discussions during that time that the shopping center was a health hazard and that it should be given priority consideration to hooking into the sewer system. The Health Inspector who was handling the problem, Charles Adelizzi, had been told by Michael Vistenzo, just prior to that date of the letter, that the Sewerage District was thinking of hooking in more people, presumably in order to raise more money At the Sewerage Commissioners meeting. Michael Vistenzo wanted something done about the Jamesway problem. Michael Vistenzo estimated that the shopping center complex would add approximately 10,000 gallons per day of sewerage to this system. Barbara Beitei was requested to obtain information about obtaining grant money, with the possibility of building a new disposal treatment plant in mind.The next meeting occurred on Thursday, September 1, 1983, only three weeks after the last meeting. This was another special meeting. However, again, there is no indication that the Open Public Meeting notices were adhered to. Michael Vistenzo stated that the meeting was scheduled for that date at the request of and for covenience of the nursing home developers. Mr. Mayer, one of the developers, had called Michael Vistenzo approximately a week before September 1, 1983 and requested the meeting so that a presentation could be made to the Commissioners. (Page 18 Please t *

4 m nil Inom

MUNICIPAL PUBLIC QUESTION Should Lower Township permit its police employees to transfer from the public employee's retirement system to the police and fireman's retirement system and provide for the financial requirements of such a pension fund transfer?" 4 tf • * ' *7 .|

H TAXPAYERS OF LOWER TOWNSHIP P.B.A. Referendum For Change of Pension Plan : =■— -, ADDED COST TO TAXPAYERS * ■ 835.673.56 <- TWENTY-SIX YEARLY INSTRUMENTS 865.446.00 — TOTAL YEARLY COST TO TOWNSHIP *107,163,66 Z ' i .a.i.iJi.u.,.1^

■ VOTE NO | VOTE N6

to Municipal Public Question on November 6th. " recommended by Taxpayers Association and majority of members of Township Committee

I We invite you to join our organization and attend our meeting the first Wednesday of each month at the Millman Center. Ordered and Paid for By lower Townehy Taxpayer. AMooahon. Ed Rate. PreodeM hembi ' / * - w- r- 4i