Here it is folks. This is a long and comprehensive post about what I have learned, acted on and thought. It is meant to encompass the entirety of the information learned and discussed regarding the sewer. 

Recently, the residents of Roselle Park received a shocking notification: a letter from the mayor announcing a sudden and substantial 100% increase in our sewer utility rates. This increase was explained as a result of a settlement agreement that the mayor had reached with the City of Elizabeth. Disturbingly, this agreement was made without prior knowledge or input from the public.

Upon receiving this notification, I immediately reached out to the mayor and the wider community via Facebook to seek clarity and express my concerns. Through this outreach, I received troubling information indicating that the settlement had been conducted in secret, without any prior notification or opportunity for public discussion. This lack of transparency has raised serious questions about the process and justification behind the dramatic rate increase, as well as the historical context and legal standing of the underlying issues.

I immediately suspected that the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (NJBPU) could potentially provide assistance in addressing this sudden and unexplained increase. My initial step was to reach out to the NJBPU and other relevant agencies in hopes of finding support and guidance. NJBPU indicated they hold no jurisdiction over our sewer and could offer no support.  At the same time, I began actively searching for others in the community who could contribute to the discussion and help shed light on this issue.Since the initial responses from the mayor were unsatisfactory and only deepened my concerns about the lack of transparency and the potential mishandling of the situation. 

During this period, another resident made a significant discovery that added a crucial layer of historical context to the situation. This individual uncovered a series of historical documents and newspaper articles that provided a detailed account of the long-standing issues between Roselle Park and Elizabeth regarding the storm sewer system. These revelations indicated that the origins of the conflict dated back over a century and had been addressed through various legal and municipal actions at the time.

1901
Roselle Park was founded, ironically because of a sewer dispute with Union.
1914
May 29, 1914: Elmora residents discover construction of the Grant Ave Storm Drain has begun and complain about it, marking the beginning of a contentious issue.

September 26, 1914: The problem escalates as Elizabeth contends that Roselle Park's drain will cause flooding in their section. Roselle Park maintains that there has always been a public waterway there, while Elizabeth argues that point entirely, they add if there was a creek there, Roselle Park has changed its direction, which they claim is illegal. At this time the Elmora Creek was already a legacy creek, meaning it did not currently exist, but there are claims suggesting it was significantly present within 60 years of these events and therefore subject to waterway rights over which Elizabeth has no authority to govern. 

The Storm drain is completed during this time

November 6, 1914: The Street Commissioner of Elizabeth is authorized by their council to close the storm drain. The authorization took place sometime before this article was published and a blockade was constructed out of concrete to block the Grant Ave drain from opening into open fields in the Elmora section of Elizabeth. The pipe physically opened in the area of the church at the corner of Grant and Galloping Hill, there it let out into open ground where Roselle Park claimed a creek once existed. All of this occurred before this article was published.

November 7, 1914: Roselle Park Mayor Fish and others tear down the concrete blockade erected by Elizabeth. The mayor and residents removed the blockage possibly on the night of November 6, 1914.
At some point, most likely within days of November 7, 1914, the Street Commissioner of Elizabeth blocked the drain again in a more substantial way causing RP to involve Union County Officials.

November 21, 1914: Union County orders that the drain be opened again after it was blocked a second time. The order gave Elizabeth five days to comply. 

November 27, 1914: The order to reopen the drain is ignored by Elizabeth. During this time there were several attempts by Roselle Park residents to open the drain, but Elizabethean residents guarded it. 

December 1 and 2, 1914: Two satirical articles are published, humorously outlining the "battle of the storm drain," where Elizabethans guarded their blockade, and at one point, Mayor Fish and others were repulsed in their attempt to remove the blockade.

December 10, 1914: Major flooding occurs in Elizabeth and Roselle Park, which is found to be due to the blockade making the situation worse. At this time it would seem that calmer voices prevailed as there is substantial movement in the disagreement and both sides are looking to fix the issue.

December 12, 1914: Elizabeth declares that Union County should prove Roselle Park is allowed to drain into a creek, and if so, argues that Roselle Park has changed the creek's direction. Here, Elizabeth is taking the legal position that they can do whatever they want in Elizabeth, including stopping a storm drain and invites RP to test the legality of their claim or right to drain. 

During this time it appears that the blockade is no longer defended. 

1915

February 17, 1915: The dam blocking the storm drain is removed by Union County Officials without incident.

May 24, 1915: Elizabeth files a lawsuit against Union County, naming Roselle Park as a party to the suit. Important to note that Union County is named as the defendant here and RP as a party to the suit. 

October 26, 1915: The lawsuit is dropped, and Elizabeth pays Roselle Park's legal fees.
This is the handshake deal to which Mayor Signorello is referring. This is not a handshake deal, there is plenty of evidence to know what happened, including paying RP’s legal bills which indicates only one thing. 

1916

June 30, 1916: Elmora residents petition Elizabeth to install a sewer system to address flooding issues. Here they had two options; connect to McPhearson line or Grant line at a significant savings in construction costs. Elizabeth chose the Grant line to connect to. 

1919

October 17, 1919: Elizabeth builds a connection to Roselle Park's storm drain, Elizabeth initiated this connection without the express permission from Roselle Park. At no point was Roselle Park consulted about the use of the drain for their own purposes. Connecting to our drain allowed Elmora to be developed into the community it is today. 

This timeline highlights the long-standing issues between Roselle Park and Elizabeth concerning the storm sewer system. The conflict began in 1914 when Roselle Park proposed and constructed a storm drain to alleviate flooding on Grant Ave and nearby streets. This construction led to a series of disputes, blockades, and legal actions primarily driven by complaints from Elmora residents in Elizabeth who believed that Roselle Park's drain was causing flooding in their area.
Despite initial resistance and multiple interventions by Union County and both municipalities, the issue persisted until Elizabeth ultimately connected Roselle Park's storm drain to their sewer system in 1919. This connection, initiated by Elizabeth without Roselle Park's express permission, formed the basis of the current system.
Given this historical context, it is evident that the storm sewer issue has deep roots and that the decisions made in 1919 were meant to address and settle the ongoing disputes by creating a joint system that both parties benefited from. The recent 100% increase in sewer utility rates, based on an alleged necessity to disconnect from Elizabeth's system, appears to disregard this historical context and the legal settlement that established the current infrastructure.
Expecting there to be formal contracts governing this arrangement is nonsensical, considering the context of the early 20th century. The understanding and agreements at the time were often handled through public meetings, municipal orders, and mutual consent rather than the formal contractual agreements we rely on today. The fact that Elizabeth publicly recommended attaching our drain to their sewer in 1914 and bid the project without the express permission of Roselle Park in 1919, completing the project on their own, highlights the informal nature of such agreements. It underscores the improbability of finding a formal contract documenting these actions, yet it was clearly a mutually understood and accepted arrangement.
I wrote several letters to our congressman, seeking federal assistance and oversight. I also contacted the Attorney General of New Jersey, urging a review of the circumstances surrounding the rate increase and the settlement with Elizabeth. Additionally, I communicated directly with the mayor and members of the council, expressing my concerns and calling for transparency and accountability. To amplify the community’s voice, I started a Change.org petition to gather support and highlight the widespread discontent. Councilman Greg Johnson demonstrated a willingness to engage with me by responding to my concerns. He visited the area of concern with me to better understand the historical context and the current issues. During our discussion, Councilman Johnson revealed that during a council meeting, he specifically asked for historical data related to the storm sewer system and was informed that no such data existed. Yet, later, Mayor Signorello claims he knew about the historical data but argues that it doesn't matter.
The settlement deal, as it currently stands, is deeply problematic. The mayor claims that settling with Elizabeth was a better option than facing a $40 million lawsuit. However, given the historical evidence we have uncovered, this assertion appears to be false. Based on the historical context, it's clear that the relationship between Roselle Park and Elizabeth regarding the storm sewer system has been contentious and complex for over a century. Elizabeth publicly recommended in 1914 that Roselle Park connect its storm drain to Elizabeth’s sewer system, and then in 1919, Elizabeth took it upon themselves to bid and complete the project without the express permission of Roselle Park. This suggests that any notion of a binding contract, as Mayor Signorello suggested was necessary, governing this matter is nonsensical and the opinion that the historical data is not relevant because no formal contract exists is troubling. It raises serious questions about whether the mayor and the council were aware of the full historical context and whether it was considered in their decision-making process.
The decision to settle was made in a secretive and clandestine manner, without the knowledge or input of the residents who are now bearing the financial burden. This lack of transparency is alarming and completely undermines trust in our local government.

 As stated by the mayor:

"This increase was not illegal - it was unfortunate - but not illegal. Our plan now is to comply with the settlement, and look for grants and aid to offset costs, and hopefully lower our bill substantially next year and beyond. You may take issue with how this was handled, and I truly apologize for that, but this was handled in a way recommended to us by folks who are experts in this topic."

This response dismisses the importance of public input and fails to address the core issue of transparency and accountability. The secretive nature of the decision-making process has obscured any opportunity for oversight and community involvement. It appears that every aspect of this settlement was mishandled. Given the historical evidence and the troubling nature of the settlement process, it is clear that the entire situation warrants a thorough review and immediate corrective action.

The settlement deal, as agreed upon by Mayor Signorello, carries severe ramifications for our community, both immediate and long-term. By settling, the mayor essentially accepted responsibility on behalf of Roselle Park, which has led to several adverse outcomes. By agreeing to the settlement, Mayor Signorello effectively conceded that Roselle Park was at fault. This admission is deeply problematic, especially considering the historical evidence that suggests otherwise. The historical context indicates that Elizabeth itself recommended connecting Roselle Park’s storm drain to their sewer system and even completed the project without Roselle Park’s explicit permission. This crucial information was seemingly overlooked or dismissed in the decision-making process. With the settlement in place, Roselle Park has lost any leverage it might have had to negotiate a more favorable outcome. The settlement agreement essentially closed the door on any further legal recourse or negotiation, binding us to terms that were agreed upon without adequate understanding or consideration of the historical context.

The immediate consequence of this settlement is a 100% increase in sewer utility rates, which places an undue financial burden on the residents of Roselle Park. This drastic increase came without prior notice or sufficient justification, leaving residents to shoulder the cost of a problem that historical evidence suggests was not our responsibility. The decision to settle was made in a secretive manner, without the knowledge or input of the residents. This lack of transparency is deeply concerning and undermines trust in our local government. As Mayor Signorello stated: "Our plan now is to comply with the settlement, and look for grants and aid to offset costs, and hopefully lower our bill substantially next year and beyond." This statement indicates a reactive approach, rather than a proactive one, and fails to address the core issue of how the settlement was reached in the first place.

In the long term, this settlement sets a dangerous precedent. It suggests that our town is willing to accept responsibility and financial burden without thorough investigation or public input. This could encourage future claims against us, knowing that we might settle rather than fight for a fair outcome.The entire situation underscores the need for immediate action. We must demand the repeal of the 100% rate increase and call for an independent review of the case by the Attorney General of New Jersey. Additionally, an independent public inquiry should be established to investigate the handling of the settlement, including the historical context and the decisions made by local government officials. This is crucial to ensure transparency, accountability, and to prevent similar issues in the future.

In summary, the ramifications of the settlement are far-reaching and deeply concerning. The mayor's agreement, made without fully understanding the issue and in a secretive manner, has left us with little recourse and a significant financial burden. We must take action to address these issues and seek a more just and transparent resolution. We must demand the immediate repeal of the 100% rate increase and call for the Attorney General of New Jersey to review this case. Furthermore, an independent public inquiry should be established to investigate the handling of the settlement, including the historical context and the decisions made by local government officials.

https://chng.it/xgXWBNDWzq