|
Old Bridge Township Council
Agenda Meeting
April 1, 2002
An Agenda Meeting of the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge was held on April 1, 2002 in the Municipal Complex. The meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by President Butler who invited all to participate in a salute to the flag which was followed by a short prayer.
Deputy Clerk, Stella Ward, announced that pursuant to Section 5 of the Open Public Meetings Act, this meeting has been advertised in the Home News and Tribune and that the next public meeting would be held on Monday, April 8, 2002 at 7:00 p.m.
Roll call by Deputy Clerk Ward showed the following answering present: Councilmen Baker, Calogera, Greene, Hoff, Redmond, Councilwoman Panos, President Butler. Councilmen Maher and Testino arrived late.
Guest Presentation
Janet Phillips, Chairperson - Recreation Committee - April 8, 2002.
Hearing
1. Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. - Release/Reduction Performance Guarantee - Thursday, June 27, 2002 (standby meeting) at 7:30 p.m.
2. Highview Estates III - Release/Reduction Performance Guarantee - Monday, April 8, 2002.
3. Atrium I Phase II Metro Park South Application No. 79-00P - Release/Reduction Performance Guarantee - Monday, April 8, 2002.
Ordinance for Second Reading
No. 12-02 Compensation to Ward Commissioners ($750.00)
No discussion.
No. 13-02 Accepting streets within the Cedar View Estates for use as public roads
President Butler: The engineer's office has done a great job on the punch list.
No. 14-02 Bond Ordinance Authorizing Drainage Improvements along Marlboro Road Appropriating the sum of $2,325,000; Authorizing the Issuance of General Obligation Bonds or Bond Anticipation Note of up to $2,200,000.
No Discussion.
No. 15-02 Bond Ordinance Authorizing the Acquisition of Various Pieces of Capital Equipment Appropriating the Sum of $211,000 therefor; Authorizing the Issuance of General Obligation Bonds or Bond Anticipation Notes in the Aggregate Principal Amount of up to $200,000.
No Discussion.
No. 16-02 Bond Ordinance Authorizing Various Recreational Improvements Appropriating the Sum of $825,000 therefor; Authorizing the Issuance of General Obligation Bonds or Bond Anticipation Notes in the Aggregate Principal Amount of up to $783,750.
No Discussion.
No. 17-02 Bond Ordinance Authorizing the Acquisition of Vehicles and Related Equipment Appropriating the Sum of $130,000 therefor; Authorizing the Issuance of General Obligation Bonds or Bond Anticipation Notes in the Aggregate Principal Amount of up to $123,000.
No Discussion.
No. 18-02 Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 04-01 Heretofore Amended by Ordinance No. 42-01.
No Discussion.
Discussion Ordinance
1. Department Heads 3.5% Salary Increase
Councilman Testino: I believe it is fair to give cost of living increases; however, I am not ready to move this up until I review it.
2. Vacate a portion of Spring Valley Road from Marlboro Road to Rt. 18
President Butler: This was passed in 1995, instead of the ordinance stating "Marlboro Road", it was stated "Marlboro Township". This was a big problem. I believe that we are back on track doing what we were supposed to do.
Attorney Ruggierio: There was an original request that this road be vacated, and whatever description went into the ordinance, I am not sure if this was typo or not. Someone brought to the attention of the council that there was a misdescription which would have vacated an road that was being used. As a result the council vacated its previous vacation, and in essence left in the air the idea of what they originally intended to do, i.e., vacate this portion of road that did not have any development on it. This ordinance accomplishes the purpose that was originally intended by the action. What should have happened is that when we vacated the last ordinance, we should have adopted this ordinance at that time.
Councilman Calogera: If my memory serves me correctly, the reason for vacating that road was to add property to Legends which was recommended by economic development.
Attorney Ruggierio: You are correct about the reason for this.
Councilman Calogera: I believe that there is an application for the development of apartments in this area. We did not vacate that road. By our vacating it now, we will be allowing, if there is an application, that to be built upon. This will no longer be an economic benefit to the township.
Mr. Vincenti: By the vacation of the roadway, it makes that parcel one large tract of land that eliminates various front yard set backs. The way they have laid this out utilizes the road vacation to their advantage.
Councilman Calogera: There is no economic benefit to doing this vacation of this road to the town. Could there be a negative impact?
Mr. Vincenti: Please clarify "an economic benefit to the township".
Councilman Calogera: When we vacated the road, the intent at that time was for economic benefit to a business that was paying taxes to the town. We now have a situation where if we are going to vacate this road, and we have an opportunity to not vacate this road, instead of having an economic benefit to a business, we are going to facilitate a builder in building a bigger project. I am opposed to vacating this road.
Mr. Vincenti: If you view this in the way that you just explained, you are correct.
Councilman Calogera: Do we have legal bounds where we have to vacate this?
Attorney Ruggierio: Not to my knowledge. I don't think that we have done anything to cause the developer to rely upon it because as far as I know, these lands have never been developed. There may be a better argument, but as far as I know, I don't believe that we have a legal liability for having vacated this and potentially not doing it again if that is the direction that you decide to go.
Councilman Calogera: Is this technically township property?
Attorney Ruggierio: This is a paper road owned by the township. It is property in the sense that we have an easement across it. I have not researched the title. There was discussion at the time that the vacation was originally advocated by the developer about what the rationale was. The minutes would help you get the history of what you are looking for.
Councilman Calogera: I will be voting against this.
Councilwoman Panos: People are concerned that this is going to be apartments. If we hold off on vacating this, and let him make his application before the planning board and see how that goes, I just don't want to give this to him.
Councilman Redmond: How much property is there in total?
Mr. Vincenti: One tract of land is 43 acres; another 10 acres. In between there is a strip of Spring Valley Road which is a paper right of way that separates the two parcels.
Councilman Calogera: The width of the roadway is not the only thing in question. If there is a paper road they would either have to put that road into reality, or they would have to adhere to the width of the road and the set backs. If you vacate it, you no longer have to abide by any set backs which would increase density of the project.
Mr. Vincenti: If you look at the layout, they are relying on the fact that the road will be vacated and the set backs are relieved.
Councilman Calogera: As the planning board representative for this council, I advise that this is not in the township's best interest.
Councilman Redmond: It is 37,029 square feet.
3. Bond Ordinance - Capital Improvements to Municipal Complex ($400,500/$380,000)
Councilman Greene: If I want to make an amendment to this bond ordinance, is it done next Monday night? Councilwoman Panos mentioned that we flew by the ordinance on recreation improvements. I thought that there was movement for revision on that ordinance.
Consent Agenda
C-1 Bingo/Raffle - St. Thomas the Apostle - BA5-02A; BA13-02A; BA14-02A; BA16-02A; BA17-02A
No Discussion.
Discussion Resolution
Resolution No. 174
Adopting Municipal Alliance Contracts 2002
BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, New Jersey that:
the attached agreement between the Township of Old Bridge and the County of Middlesex with regard to the Municipal Alliance is hereby adopted; and
BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and Township Council are hereby authorized to sign any and all documents necessary to effectuate the terms of this agreement as may be approved in form by the Township Attorney.
Moved by Councilman Baker, seconded by Councilman Hoff and so ordered on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Baker, Calogera, Greene, Hoff, Redmond, Testino, Councilwoman Panos, President Butler.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Councilman Maher.
DR-2 Supporting S-478 and A-540 to call a Constitutional Convention
No Discussion.
DR-3 Granting permission for Carter's Annual Tent Sale - 4/17/02 - 4/21/02
No Discussion.
DR-4 Awarding Contract No. 02-04 to Pioneer General Contracting for drainage improvements at Briarwood Drive, Bushnell Road, Buttonwood Drive and Walnut Court in the amount of $24,426.00
No Discussion.
DR-5 Outlining guidelines for tax abatement - Penrose Property, Block 17000, Lot 27.12
Attorney Ruggierio: We will have a sign off by Monday.
DR-6 Authorizing tax abatement for Penrose Property - Block 17000, Lot 27.12
No Discussion.
DR-7 Applying for new Neighborhood Housing Preservation Balanced Housing funds for the development of affordable rental housing for Senior Citizens
President Butler: Several months ago I did a presentation about what the Housing Authority was doing with respect to senior housing units - 100 units next to the hospital. Even though we received an extension, we want to move the paperwork.
DR-8 Stating the need for a housing program within the municipality under NJHMFA
No Discussion.
DR-9 Adding deed restrictions for O&Y Open space
No Discussion.
DR-10 Authorizing professional services contract to Urbitran/Garmen Associates - traffic engineering services
No Discussion.
DR-11 Authorizing cancellation of CDBG mortgage - Marilyn Taylor
No Discussion.
DR-12 Supporting Middlesex County's application for Green Acres for funding for Old Bridge Waterfront Park, Phase II
Councilman Hoff: The DEP believed they could not fund the entire project. Through Alayne Shepler's and the Mayor's efforts a letter is being sent asking the county to accept the completion of the fishing piers and the handrails, berm A&B, but not so with berm C (the original berm) which will be torn down and replaced. They will not do the finishing because it is too low for practical purposes. This will cost the county more money.
The sluice way protects the water which drains on the Morgan Beach area, and this required repair/replacement. T&M prepared a report which was reviewed by the DEP. The cost of repair would be $22,000 and up to $40,000 if we go with a rubber valve. I am grateful for the cooperation we have received from Mayor Cannon and Alayne Shepler.
DR-13 Supporting S-1044/A-1926 Project Labor Agreement
Mayor Cannon: This bill states that union members have to be hired for government projects. It is beneficial to communities because this could keep costs down and could be a plus economically to the townships.
Councilman Hoff: When we speak about "public" buildings, this is institutional work which has always required better quality control than industrial work because a public building must last forever. Our council was not cooperative with the labor people during the building of the library. We had a terrible architect; the awarding of bids was misplaced. The architect promised that we would get work for the trades - some of the iron work done partially by a union contract; a little by the electrical union; some by the masons, and some by the laborers unions. They paid union wages, and that is not what you need. I asked for someone to review the payroll which would have stipulated whether or not they are part of a collective bargaining agreement indicating if they pay into a pension welfare fund. If not, they are not part of the collective bargaining agreement. In this instance, they dealt with subcontractors. We have less than what we should have. The library is a mess partially because we did not have the right control, and partially because there was inferior quality control on the job and by award and selection of the contractors by poorly trained people. I ask that you disallow this contract. The proposed bill opposes a bill proposed by a ranking Democrat and Republican that a contract is given by local towns and counties by done by local unions and/or a practical union agreement where all other conditions are met. You know that there will be good contractor. I stand to oppose this agreement and the recommendation of the NJAA. I vote "no" on the issue.
RESOLUTION NO. 175
Supporting Bills S-1044/A1926
Project Labor Agreement
Denied
BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, New Jersey that:
WHEREAS, New Jersey's 566 municipalities are already under tremendous pressure to reduce costs and keep a lid on raising property taxes; and
WHEREAS, S-1044/A-1926 would legalize the use of project labor agreements in New Jersey and authorize any public entity that undertakers a public works project to enter into a project labor agreement with one or more labor organizations; and
WHEREAS, S-1044.A-1926 will result in restricted competition and higher costs at the expense of municipalities and local taxpayers; and
WHEREAS, the current system of awarding bids in open competition to the lowest responsible bidder has proven both effective and cost worthy;
WHEREAS, the Local Public Contracts Law has been consistently upheld by the New Jersey Supreme Court be in the best interest of New Jersey's property taxpayers.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, State of New Jersey, that it urges the State Legislature to oppose S-1044/A-1926.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this resolution be forwarded to State Senator Joseph Kyrillos, Assemblymen Joseph Azzolina and Sam Thompson, members of the State Senate Labor Committee and the New Jersey League of Municipalities.
Moved by Councilman Hoff, seconded by Councilman Redmond and so denied on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Calogera, Greene, Maher, Councilwoman Panos.
NAYS: Councilmen Baker, Hoff, Redmond, Testino, President Butler.
Prior to the roll call vote the following discussion took place
Councilman Redmond: The unions built Atlantic City taking the poor and unskilled and trained them. They now earn decent wages. This is the thanks they are getting. I cannot vote for something that is going to push them out of New Jersey to other states where they have cheap, non-union labor. We have to stop this and support the unions and keep the people in New Jersey working. I will also vote "no".
Councilman Calogera: I have spent a number of years as union and nonunion, and I think this is not geared towards breaking unions. I do think that nonunion can be as productive as union. I believe that this (bill) affords the municipalities the option. It is the responsibility of the municipality to keep taxes down. Does this mandate that you go with nonunion?
Ms. Shepler: You go with the lowest responsible bid.
Attorney Ruggierio: I believe that this responds to an executive proposal or a proposal in the legislature, and this would maintain the status quo that the lowest responsible bidder would get the bid which is why the League of Municipalities endorses the bill.
Councilman Calogera: The Long Shoremen's Union killed the waterfront in New York. For a bid to be more competitive with industry in New Jersey, that is a viable option, and I am going to be voting in favor of this.
Mayor Cannon: This is not changing anything from the way it is and encourages more competition which benefits the community by keeping costs down. If you lessen the participants, they are going to have a stronger control of the outcome. The municipalities are going to be at their whim. I don't believe this is for or against unions or non-unions, but rather to give the municipalities the opportunity to get the best people for the lowest cost. That is why the League supports this.
Councilman Testino: Governor McGreevey signed a legislative order saying that project agreements can be used for the state. The Assembly enacted the same type of law for municipalities, counties and the state government which says that unionized labor can be used on a project basis - not across the board. The Supreme Court has already struck this down across the board. The Assembly approved this by a majority vote with one "no" vote. The mayor wants us to oppose what the Assembly has passed and what the Senate is considering.
Mayor Cannon: The resolution was sent to me. Upon review and evaluation, I felt that this had merit and that it would affect Old Bridge. I was asking for your support.
Councilman Testino: There are a few double negatives in the resolution. If you are supporting this resolution, you are opposing the Assembly and Senate bills.
Ms. Shepler: Mr. Testino commented that the State Supreme Court has rule that this is illegal on a blanket basis is correct. But that court case left open the door for a permissive use. It is my understanding that these two bills as written would be mandatory stating that municipalities will and there is no flexibility . . . I believe that if these bills get passed, it will add considerably to the cost of municipal projects. We would not have been able to do the repairs to the buildings in Laurence Harbor if we were forced to use union contracts. We do pay prevailing wage, and the laws in the State of New Jersey make ample protections for the use of competitive bidding. I feel that if these bills are passed, they would prohibit competitive bidding limiting the jobs to those who are favored by the unions. I ask that you support the league's position in opposition to the Senate and Assembly bills.
Councilwoman Panos: Would that affect the companies who are currently repairing our curbing?
Ms. Shepler: Yes, that would be affected.
Councilwoman Panos: If we are in a contract now, what effect would there be?
Ms. Shepler: I assume that there would be no retroactivity to that bill. The next time there were a bid, there would have to be labor contracts.
Councilman Testino: I disagree with that. What would that mean to be on a project basis if this were across the board? I think what the bill is saying is that "a project basis" means that the governing body would have to say that we are designating this project as a "union" project. You could not do this across the board unless we are going to, for example, build a library again. We could say that this would have to be a union basis project, and bid it that way. The library was built by nonunion The law makes no sense to me, but I have not read the entire text.
Councilwoman Panos: This goes for the "Y" or anything that we hope to build at a reasonable price?
President Butler: We are going to look at each project.
Councilman Hoff: The quality contractors for large projects are all in the union classification already. Sometimes they work two sides of the coin. They are the ones you need because they are qualified to do the work.
DR-14 Authorizing a waiver of construction permit and zoning fees for Laurence Harbor Little League
No Discussion.
DR-15 Authorizing formal settlement with respect to the Lambertson tract
No Discussion.
Discussion
1. Potential sale of three plenary retail distribution liquor licenses
Ms. Shepler: We currently have five distribution licenses. Under the new census guidelines, we are entitled to three more. Do you wish to issue new distribution licenses (package goods only)? These licenses would be at a public auction with the setting of a minimum price as determined by the township council. East Brunswick had a license up for auction for $300,250 with no takers; Marlboro sold one within the last two years for $175,000.
President Butler: Let's have that researched.
Councilman Hoff: Are you sure they have to be auctioned? It is option or law?
Attorney Ruggierio: It is an option. The law was changed many years ago because people were willing to pay serious money. There have been situations where towns have used an historic vista and built a restaurant. The old type of award of liquor licenses entailed having no standards-just people coming in and making their presentation.
Councilman Testino: For two years I have been asking about this. I don't want to do this in a rush.
Ms. Shepler: This is only a philosophical question as to whether you want to add more distribution licenses. I put this on the agenda because Himanshu and I spoke about this a while ago. I sent a memo to the Clerk in October.
Councilman Maher: How previously were these licenses awarded traditionally?
Ms. Shepler: I would have to ask the Clerk's office; I don't know. They are not done more frequently than a ten-year cycle when the census numbers kick in.
Mayor Cannon: The last time I remember was in the '70's. There was much controversy surrounding it.
Councilman Maher: I suggest getting background information as to how previous administrations handled this.
Ms. Shepler: Let's ask Rose-Marie who has historical information.
Attorney Ruggierio: We have too many consumption licenses for population. They would automatically be retired. In the case of Birch Hill the licenses was suspended for two years, and this will come back to you at the end of that time to determine if you are going to award the license again. If the revocation were sustained, that license would be evaporated.
President Butler: I will request information for next week.
D-2 Certification of funds memo
Councilman Testino: Mr. Shah is not present to answer the question what precipitated the memo and why are we changing the course of practice.
Ms. Shepler: This does not change the course of practice but a reminder to the department and division heads that in order to purchase anything in this township, you need a purchase order.
Councilman Testino: Let's move this to the next agenda.
D-3 Employee liability for vacation, sick and comp time
Councilman Maher: Mr. Shah asked me to carry this until he can review the report with us next Monday evening.
D-4 Reappraisal of Woodland Trails Property
Councilman Maher: Residents are stung that the appraisal went from $5 million to $13 million in two or three years. Do we have an option to throw the two appraisals out the door and get additional appraisals in our condemnation procedures?
Attorney Ruggierio: I have spoken to people in the business apart from these two appraisers who are $1 million apart, but still substantially above the $5.2 million as mentioned. Most are telling me that the numbers are valid. Is it theoretically possible for me to go to an appraiser that might be influenced to get him to come in with a lower number that might not be as accurate, and then present that at a hearing or trial? I don't think that you would want me to do that because we would end up with the same outcome.
Councilman Maher: Why didn't we go with our "hired gun" - Buchalski?
Attorney Ruggierio: I use him because he is an excellent witness in a contest proceeding. Mr. Buchalski has a conflict, and could not be the appraiser. I could give you the details in executive session. Patrick Ard is the appraiser who is doing the work; the other is Guiney & Associates and Bruce Gunther is the appraiser for that firm.
Councilman Maher: Can you give us a list of their certifications or qualifications?
Attorney Ruggierio: That is on the back of the appraisal. They are MAI appraisers which is the highest certification an appraiser can get.
Councilman Baker: Do you remember the report that Himanshu created with respect to the cost of educating a child? We are trying to plan deep into the future, and after putting children through school at $10,000 each . . .
Attorney Ruggierio: That rationale could be used to justify any acquisition, but I think that the experience that we have had with acquisitions is that this is the trend in an upward market. Whenever we have looked at a property and we have hesitated or delayed, we always wished that we could have acquired the property. I hope that when you consider Lambertson, you will keep this in mind.
Councilman Baker: Will the building 400 homes in Aberdeen affect this appraisal?
Attorney Ruggierio: I am going to ask the appraisers about that. This issue was raised once before. The rule of thumb in the building business is that if you take 25% of the purchase price of a home, that is what you are paying for in land costs. Think about the prices of houses in Old Bridge. This almost supports the $100,000 price that appeared in the appraisals.
Councilman Testino: I noticed that their appraiser was not using the stipulation. Can we revoke the stipulation and go back to court since this has not been boding well for the township?
Attorney Ruggierio: I don't think there is a chance for that, but I think that we are going to get a judge to confine their appraiser to the stipulation. I read the stipulation to be sure that my feelings were correct. The stipulation states that the out bounded property other than the 139 lots would be valued as vacant land. Our appraisers did not give any value to that so there will be an add on to the $13,770,000 to accommodate that. An appraiser asks themselves what would a person wanting to buy this property pay me for this vacant land realizing that they would have to go through the design, application and the approval procedures before a planning board. How much quantity of wetlands and other environmental restraints do I have on the property that are going to influence what the yield is going to be. It is a totally different set of comparable sales that an appraiser looks at for those purposes because there are sales of that nature where a builder buys on the speculation that he is going to get an approval versus those builders who buy an approved jobs like the comparisons in the appraisals that you received.
There are a lot of wetlands in the 25 acres; there are design constraints that have to be taken into account.
Councilman Testino: They are basing their appraisals on 165 lots.
Attorney Ruggierio: Without any type of articulation about how they did the analysis, they took a piece of land and realized they could get another 25 building lots out of that. They multiplied that by $100,000 and add it to whatever the essential value would be.
Councilman Testino: They are setting the upper parameters. Are you saying that our appraisers missed another item and now we are going to see an increase in our own appraisals?
Attorney Ruggierio: I always contemplated that there would be some increase in value for the areas that did not have approved lots.
Councilman Testino: We are not getting all the information to make decisions.
Attorney Ruggierio: You are not wrong, and I will find out tomorrow. Both appraisers missed that issue if it were missed.
Councilman Testino: They should have put it in writing that this was not worth any monetary value beyond the other lots.
Councilman Greene: I think it is unfortunate, but every time this came up, I expressed a concern. I said it was going to come in at a substantially higher price; I may have even put a price on it. I was even criticized by people who would come up to me and say "How dare you, Mr. Greene, quote that kind of figure!". When I even said very simply that the developer had an approval for 139 lots, they said "No, it does not have approval". Unfortunately, we are dealing with a developer who is very knowledgeable and has a very knowledgeable attorney. He has positioned himself where he is unfortunately going to get a windfall. I hope in the end that it does not happen, but I just had to say that I have been speaking about this all along, and unfortunately, my number was right there.
Councilman Calogera: The appraisers for the other side are doing a better job than ours.
Attorney Ruggierio: You are being unfair to our appraisers. You are not appraisers or in the real estate business, and I think it is inappropriate to criticize these professionals. I investigated this as much as I could with the right number. The right number is what would a willing buyer pay for this property if it were for sale? Are you suggesting that you could buy it for $5.2 million. Let's not forget that when we had an appraisal in hand for $5.2 million, we knew that we were going to pay a little more than that.
Councilman Calogera: I think this council is reasonable enough to know that the land would cost a little more. I think that they had to move forward based on the rough estimate based on the first appraisal figuring that it would be a little more, but not to the extent that the final numbers came in at.
Attorney Ruggierio: Maybe you were not at the executive session, but I believe that I made clear what the appraisals were coming in at to the council before the council voted 8/0 to go forward. Get behind your decision; bite the bullet. We will get the best price we can, and let's stay together on this. Now is not the time to point fingers at anyone including the appraisers.
Councilman Redmond: We are losing sight of our purpose which is to preserve open space. We are bound to use honest appraisers. Did anyone expect the other side to come in with a lower appraisal? I believe that we are naive if we think that Mr. Smeltzer's appraisal was going to be even with ours. I believe that this land is valuable to us. We accomplished something great here. I think that twenty years from now our kids will be playing in a park in that area. This should have been done a long time ago. We are doing the right thing.
Mayor Cannon: We are all disappointed about the price. The $14 million has been out there ever since we tried to negotiate with Marvin in 1999. We thought he was off the wall. I agree that we have made open space preservation a priority, and unfortunately, we are in a market where we are in competition with a private developer who are looking for enough land to meet the demand for housing, and there is pressure from communities who want to preserve open space. This is a much tougher situation from years ago when you could have leisurely pick up the pieces. They should not get one cent for the wetlands because they are not worth anything, and they cannot build on 25 lots without many variances. I think that we have to put the strongest case forward to contain the appraisals that we have received which takes into consideration the fact that there is additional open space even though it cannot be utilized.
President Butler: I believe the judge has a group of real estate commissioners who are looking at these appraisals. The question is if we don't agree with what they come back with, can we go to court with this to try to get a better deal for the residents of Old Bridge?
Attorney Ruggierio: Yes, the only down side would be that we would pay attorney's fees and costs.
Councilman Calogera: They were using comps on parcels that were bigger than the Smeltzer parcels. I know the square footage was less.
Attorney Ruggierio: The adjustment grid is where the appraiser adjusts for the different comparables. No properties are exactly the same. The appraiser indicates why he made the adjustments and how he made them. One way to be sure that you are reading them right is to be sure that where the adjustment looks negative, it is positive. They are taking it off the comparable and adjusting it to the subject property. You will be able to see how the appraiser made the adjustments, and why he thought the appraiser made the adjustments and why he thought that this comparable was more value and why this one is not.
Councilman Calogera: I thought the square footage did not come into play.
Attorney Ruggierio: You might be right about that.
D-5 Update on YMCA/Community Center
No Discussion.
D-6 Sluice valve along Cliffwood Way/Reconstruction of Groin
Ms. Shepler: This was discussed earlier by Mr. Hoff.
D-7 Authorizing abandonment of monetary claims against Riley Systems Corp.
Attorney Ruggierio: I could pursue this and get a judgment, but it does not seem worth it. He apparently has no assets.
RESOLUTION NO. 176
AUTHORIZING ABANDONMENT OF MONETARY CLAIMS AGAINST RILEY SYSTEMS CORP.
WHEREAS, Riley Systems Corporation was engaged to conduct a dog and cat census by the Township of Old Bridge; and
WHEREAS, Riley Systems Corporation failed to complete said census after receiving partial payments; and
WHEREAS, the Township of Old Bridge has filed a complaint against Riley Systems Corporation and its president, Winston Riley III; and
WHEREAS, Riley Systems Corporation is now defunct and Winston Riley III has no assets to satisfy a judgment.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, State of New Jersey, that the Township Attorney is formally authorized to file a Notice of Dismissal with the Superior Court of New Jersey dismissing the matter entitled Township of Old Bridge v. Riley Systems Corporation, et al without prejudice.
Moved by Councilman Redmond, seconded by Councilman Hoff and so ordered on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Baker, Hoff, Maher, Redmond, Testino, President Butler.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Councilmen Calogera, Greene, Councilwoman Panos.
Set Date
1. Standby Meeting to hear any liquor licenses not acted upon by June 24th and to list bond hearings to eliminate having them at our combined meetings during the summer schedule - Thursday, June 27, 2002 at 7:30 p.m.
2. Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc.
Discussed earlier in meeting.
3. Public Storage, 3651 Rt. 9 North (Standby meeting - Thursday, June 27, 2002)
No Discussion.
Reports
1. Veteran's Park Property - reach out to developer and provide status of development proposed to be constructed adjacent to park
Attorney Ruggierio: We received prices for this property. This has to be reported on in executive session.
2. Towing and Wrecking - increasing rates for tow truck operators and review of the enforcement of regulations
Attorney Ruggierio: Jim Condon drew up ordinances at least twice in connection with towing. Recently he met with Capt. Bonfante, and I understand that all of the captain's issues have been worked out. We will be able to present that to the council shortly. I don't see any reason to report on that Monday.
3. Relocated "no parking" sign on Maple Street - relocate the sign closer to Rt. 18 to where Maple Street widens
President Butler: We are waiting for a report from administration and Traffic and Safety. Is that report forthcoming?
Ms. Shepler: They gave us a verbal saying they had no problem relocating the sign. I am waiting for a written report.
4. Drainage - 107 Autumn Road
Mr. Vincenti: No one disputes that there is a drainage problem. We had an agreement whereby the developer would fix the problem when weather permitted. I have a written confirmation that the work would be done by the end of April.
5. Revisions of Zoning Ordinance
Mr. Vincenti: Mr. Sheehan is not available tonight, nor is he available next Monday. Our staff has scheduled a number of meetings on a weekly basis to get through the ordinance in an expedited fashion over the next five weeks. I have scheduled a meeting on Friday morning with Messrs. Sheehan and Rizzo. I am giving him the information that we have reviewed. We have a commitment from Mr. Sheehan that he will help us expedite this.
Councilman Redmond: Do we have a date when council is going to be briefed on this?
Mr. Vincenti: We have red-lined sections, and we are giving this to Mr. Sheehan. This is a work in progress rather than something that you can see. We can provide copies of the information with our comments if that is acceptable. You are welcome to sit in on the meetings.
I suggest going forward with the meeting on Friday, and I will reschedule something else later next week. I will coordinate with Mr. Redmond.
Councilman Testino: I still want Mr. Sheehan to come before the council to answer questions about the timetable. There is an allegation that he has been dragging his feet.
Mayor Cannon: The review process has gotten bogged down because we tried to do it with a committee that we could not get together many times. That is why this is being done by the staff. It is too difficult to rearrange everyone's schedule.
6. Codification of Code Book - Attorney to submit recommended changes of any power shifts and adoption of ordinance for council review
Attorney Ruggierio: I am up to page 225 of 298 pages. My recommendations are in writing. I think I will be done this week.
7. Chronological events of Cedar Ridge II from October 2000 to present
Discussed earlier.
8. Safety of wall around civic center
Ms. Shepler: Mr. Vincenti examined this and has prepared a memo. There is work that needs to be done, but it is not immediate.
Mr. Vincenti: Mr. Heims has stated that this work has needed to be done for a long time. There is a wall that is bowed out and out of plumb. There is masonry that is deteriorating, and there is other work that needs to be done from a safety standpoint.
Ms. Shepler: The recommendations were that we should ask an architect to review the structure; cordon off the area; and there are slope stabilization problems that were caused by the contractor doing the work on the civic center. That area needs to be reseeded and stabilized which can be done immediately. I will send you a copy of Mr. Heims' e-mail message.
Councilman Hoff: We are asking for a report from a sub-official who does not attend these meetings.
Councilman Testino: I asked for the safety concerns to be addressed immediately.
Councilman Hoff: I want to see the reports come directly from Mr. Vincenti
9. Garbage problem at Madison Center Convalescent Center
Mayor Cannon: The health department issued a summons. The area has been visited by our code officer also.
Ms. Shepler: The letter from the resident stated that he had spoken to a number of officials over the years. The last complaint was made in 1998 which is when we straightened this out. They have left the dumpster lids open again, and they have five days to correct the problem. Mr. Capasso was visited by Mr. Ryan of our Code Enforcement Department.
Councilman Testino: Before Madison Center gets any more permits, perhaps we can have them redesign their trash enclosure.
Ms. Shepler: The largest portion of that facility is in Aberdeen, but Mr. Capasso is a resident of Old Bridge.
10. Legacy Grand update
Mr. Vincenti: There will be a special meeting of the Zoning Board on April 11. Revised plans have been submitted which were sent to CME Associates because I have a conflict on that. CME will prepare their report in advance of that meeting. This is an ongoing process, and there will be many hearings before the Zoning Board.
Councilman Baker: There are many residents in Ward II who have no clue as to what the Legacy Grand update is. I am sure that the attorney can summarize what is happening. I have yet to get a report from administration.
Mayor Cannon: You cannot judge an application that is before a board. You can put together a summary of what the application involves; how many units they are asking for, etc. There is no problem with that; this is public information.
Councilman Baker: Can we put the CME reports on the website?
Mayor Cannon: Yes. The plans are maps.
Councilman Baker: Can you give a summary of the status?
Mayor Cannon: We just gave you the status. There is a meeting scheduled for April 11. I am trying to figure out what you are asking.
Councilman Baker: I want a summary of what is going on at Legacy Grand. We just heard that the applicant is going to give us revised plans. That is an update, and that is what I want said. I will read the whole report.
Attorney Ruggierio: I have no recollection about saying to give the public an update. I cautioned you that this is a D-variance when if they are approved by the zoning board can be appealed to the township council. You must preserve your objectivity if you are called to sit in judgment.
Councilman Baker: That is why I want administration to be the speaker if only to state a meeting date. The whole town wants to know what is going on with Legacy Grand.
Mayor Cannon: Neither I, Bill nor Alayne are involved, and Mr. Vincenti had to recluse himself.
Councilman Baker: Who is involved?
Attorney Ruggierio: The applicant makes an application to the zoning board, which is an independent, quasi-judicial board, and they make a judgment based on the evidence as presented to them. None of us are aware of the proceedings except Mr. Rizzo within the Department of Community Development. He advises the board about planning issues. He is aware and does objective analysis of what is submitted to him.
Councilman Baker: Is there anyone in the township who has a non-biased opinion who can legally give an update on the Legacy Grand application to the citizens of Old Bridge?
Councilman Redmond: From the township website you can click on the zoning board agenda. We should put a description of the various hearings.
Mr. Vincenti: Mr. Sumal has reports on the website with respect to developments in almost every ward.
Councilman Calogera: The best way to keep residents informed would be to request that the zoning board meeting be televised with an advertisement done well in advance.
R-11 Status of paving Inverness Parking Lot
Mr. Vincenti: The township adopted a bond ordinance pertaining to this. There are negotiations going on with respect to Hovnanian and the settlement issue where potentially Hovnanian will come to the table and either build or give money to the township. It is my recommendation that we move forward with the township's plans to construct the parking lot irrespective of what is happening with Hovnanian.
R-12 Salaries paid to township professionals under escrow ordinance
Ms. Shepler: Mr. Shah sent you a memo regarding the planning and zoning retainers.
R-13 Status of negotiations with YMCA groups to provide a facility
Councilman Greene: Please remove this; Mr. Maher will be covering the subject.
R-14 Feasibility of developing Mannino Park
Councilman Greene: We should take more of an active role in getting that park developed. When I have conversations about this, people say that there is no access and most of the land is wetlands. I understand that negotiations with Mayor Vas of Perth Amboy is what is holding this up. I think he is a decent person, and I think that we should contact him. I would be glad to sit down at a meeting to see what we can do insofar as gaining access to the park.
Councilman Baker: I will go with you.
Mayor Cannon: He was to get back to us in January with a plan. He wanted to do a global plan for that area. I agree that we should move ahead. We have an authorized wetlands delineation which shows there are over 100 acres of developable land. This is a wonderful piece of property in a wonderful location for a multi-use park, and I agree that we should be moving on it. We have the money for a concept plan, and once that is in place we can move ahead. Whatever action is necessary to gain that access, I support.
Councilman Greene: It is 165 acres of which 111 is uplands, and we own it. All we have to do is acquire the 300 square feet piece of land (about one acre), and I think we should actively move on it. If there is anyone in addition to Messrs. Baker or Calogera who would like to meet with Mayor Vas, you are welcome.
Councilman Redmond: This is a part of the land deal with the county. I will get that information by calling Mr. Albanir
Liquor License
1. Authorizing new liquor license -Sal Joper, Inc. (McGuires) No. 1209-33-025-003.
RESOLUTION NO. 177
Authorizing New Liquor License Sal Joper, Inc. , t/a Mickey McGuire's
BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, New Jersey that:
WHEREAS, Saljoper, Inc. t/a Mickey McGuires has failed to renew their Plenary Retail Consumption License No. 1209-33-025-003 in a timely manner.
WHEREAS, Saljoper, Inc. t/a Mickey McGuires has filed an application for a new Plenary Retail Consumption License.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge hereby grants a new Plenary Retail Consumption license to Saljoper, Inc. t/a Mickey McGuires.
Moved by Councilman Redmond, seconded by Councilman Baker and so ordered on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Baker, Greene, Hoff, Maher, Redmond, Testino, Councilwoman Panos, President Butler.
NAYS: None.
NO PARTICIPATION: Councilman Calogera.
Prior to the roll call vote the following discussion took place.
Gina Oros (Spector & Ehrenworth representing the Chapter VII Bankruptcy Trustee, Nancy Isaacson): Sal Joper is in bankruptcy. They were originally in Chapter XI bankruptcy which was converted to a Chapter VII which is a liquidation. We did not renew the license on time, and we had to apply to the ABC for a special ruling in order to renew the license. That is why there is a new liquor license application being made. Technically, it is a renewal application. We are also requesting an extension of that license to the trustee so that she may convey it. Nancy Isaacson plans to sell the liquor license to a potential purchaser. I believe that purchaser has a transfer application pending. This license was located at McGuires.
Councilman Hoff: What is the name of the business the license is being transferred to?
Ms. Oros: The name of the business is New Jersey Wines and Spirits which is a business that is located in East Windsor. I was speaking with the broker who indicated that the business plans on renting out the space that was McGuire's restaurant and using the license at the premises where it was formerly used. This is a consumption license.
Attorney Ruggierio: The councilman wants to know if this is a "Broad C" license.
Ms. Oros: I can only speak on behalf of the seller and the trustee. There is a transfer application pending. There has been a background check and an investigation as to the lay out of the premises.
Councilman Hoff: Statements inaudible to the stenographer present and on recording.
Ms. Oros: The broker has indicated that the purchaser plans to use the license at 292 Rt. 516 which is the old Sal Joper (McGuire's) restaurant. We are looking to sell it to a purchaser who is going to use it at the licensed premises. Because the business in the bankruptcy, there is no longer an operating business. It was vacated in June 2001.
Councilman Hoff: Statements inaudible to the stenographer present and on recording.
Ms. Oros: I am not applying for the transfer on behalf of the bankruptcy trustee. We are applying for a renewal and extension to the trustee. My understanding was that we had an opportunity to renew the license, and that period of time expired. We had applied to the ABC for a special ruling to allow us to renew the license.
Attorney Ruggierio: It is not unusual for a bankruptcy trustee to have the license transferred person to person in the hands of the trustee. During that period this usually becomes an inactive license because the trustee is charged with selling or disposing of it under the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. In this case before there is any reinstatement of this license at the premises, they would have to come before the council and get a renewal for that location. The trustee is performing a person to person transfer. If the application is made for the exact location of the license, they may not need to make that place to place application. The transferee would be the party to make that application.
Ms. Oros: It has been represented to me that there is an application for the transfer of the license pending, and the applicants have gone through the background check and have provided the specifications for the layout of the premises.
Councilman Hoff: Statements inaudible to the stenographer present and on recording.
Attorney Ruggierio: The trustee has to possess the license and then perform a person to person transfer to the new owner. The new owner is not getting a license at this time. The only thing you will be approving by voting in favor of this action would be to approve the transfer to the trustee.
Councilman Baker: Does the opening of Miller School change the status of that liquor license?
Attorney Ruggierio: Those issues are with the local issuing authority, and that would be you. There is an ordinance provision with respect to distance from a school. That is not important for this issue because you are transferring to the trustee. I can council you if and when there is an application to make a transfer.
Councilman Redmond: Is it correct that a trustee is appointed by the courts, and they are entrusted with items of value in the bankruptcy - the license being an item of value. The trustee allowed the license to lapse, and we are supposed to pull them out of the hole.
Attorney Ruggierio: We see this a lot with trustees because they are not operating a licensed business; they are merely safeguarding the assets. They went to the ABC and received permission for a late renewal. The ABC would routinely issue such a renewal.
Councilwoman Panos: Is this transfer the same license as the restaurant/bar?
Attorney Ruggierio: There are three types of licenses that as a council member you have to be concerned about. One is a distribution ("D) license; the other is a consumption license ("C). Years ago there was something called a "Broad C" license which allowed and allows a licensee, as long as there was a bar, to sell packaged goods out of refrigerators around the bar where you sell liquor by the drink. It is inappropriate to direct a question to the trustee, but the question was what is your configuration going to be of this bar? Is it going to look more like a package store as opposed to a bar, or is it going to be a bar and collaterally sell packaged goods? That is the kind of question you ask when they come to you for a person to person or place to place transfer for whatever facility they are proposing in the future.
Councilwoman Panos: Can we direct what type of license for that location?
Attorney Ruggierio: No, this is still a Broad C license, but you might want to put reasonable restrictions subject to review by the ABC that you do not want it to look more like a liquor store than it does like a bar. It is considered more of a nuisance if it is a liquor store.
Old Business
Recreation Bond
Councilman Greene: I want to give my position on the recreation bond. The first night we approved that (first reading March 25, 2002 Ordinance No. 16-02 Recreation Improvements $825,000/$783,750), money was taken away from the golf course. There was a good deal of confusion. The Clerk's office, as well as the finance director, was confused on the numbers. I expressed my concern last week feeling that I had the right to revisit what we had done, and I think it is unfair that we are doing something for the "Y", which I support 100%, but taking away everything from the golf course which the administration has been working on for several years. Every criticism that is being thrown at the golf course is similar to those relating to the "Y".
I will attempt to propose to do something more for the golf course because I believe that we can work on the golf course as well as the "Y", and I think we should also try to find $30,000 so that we can do something for Veteran's Park. I want the council to understand that I am not double-dipping or going to the well again, but I feel that I have the right to look at the overall history of the golf course and the "Y" and try to do the right thing for the Mayor, who has been working on that for a long time and get both going at the same time.
Councilman Testino: At some point when we get the Lambertson property under control, I ask that we look at another way to revisit the golf course by either putting a council sub-committee together by visiting the other private municipal courses. I don't think that we should say because we did not fund it this year, we are not supporting it or that some of us don't like the idea. I think there is a choice in priorities made by the council, and I support the "Y" 100%. We are looking for the "Y" to come here to run it, but perhaps we should look at the choices on the golf course and rethink what we are going to do it in terms of how we are going to get it. I don't know that we are going to put $11 million in the budget for either of these projects in terms of bonding and debt service. We are going to have to find this money.
I envision the money that we put in for the "Y" as concept money to decide how much we are going to need. We have been looking at this from a number of different standpoints, and we all agree that the "Y" should be running the facility and doing those types of things. Perhaps we should have a professional golf manager run a facility. Ms. Panos stated that this works well on Staten Island. I would like to visit those courses and find out how much money the City is realizing from this lease option. That would be a real option for the township without having to fund $11 million. The majority agrees that Lambertson should be going ahead, and I believe that Bill (Ruggierio) is going to give us a final report. We might have control of that soon, and I think the next step is going to be to see if we can find a way to not carry all the costs under taxpayers' dollars. I am willing to head that up, but I want to see us get this under control. I anticipate that happening during the next week or so.
I am not ready to put either of these issues on a bond issue now, nor am I ready to say that I believe that we are going to hit the lotto on the golf course, and we are going to get $1 million per year to fund the bonds. I believe that the amenity of a golf course is a good thing for the township, and I think that at some point we have to address it to determine if we can bring it here. If you are ready to vote $22 million in bonding, you (Councilman Greene) may be by yourself.
Councilman Greene: That is not the case.
Councilman Testino: If you are suggesting reviewing bringing a golf course here, I would be willing to work on that, but if you are suggesting doing that to the exclusion of the "Y" or should we try to split hairs, now that we are getting the property under control, I think that we can take the next step. Government does not move very rapidly on any of these issues, and I don't think that we are going to see a "Y" shovel in the ground this year or next. What I think we are going to see is how much do we really need to bond for and how are we going to get that money? Are we going to involve MCIA and try to get that money spread out over other taxpayers?
Councilman Greene: What you are saying is what is good for one, is not good for the other. If you are going to do that for the golf course, then you should do the same type of business plan for the "Y".
Councilman Testino: I am merely saying that when we speak about bonding, you put $600,000 in and say Old Bridge is building the golf course, designing it, and we are going to run it. I am not ready to make that commitment; I want to look at lease options.
Councilman Greene: You made that commitment for the "Y" by putting $350,000 in (the bond).
Councilman Testino: We put that money in so that we have available money to do studies, financing and concept sketches. That is what you have that money in there for. You are not going anywhere with $350,000. You know it, and I know it. Nice try to set up the dichotomy, but you are not doing it. I am not against the golf course.
Mayor Cannon: On one hand you have the golf course for which there have been two studies - one by a golf expert who gave you a very optimistic picture and that the demand was there, and another done by a financial institution that gave a very conservative picture. Both said that there was demand and that the golf course would make money beyond maintaining and running the golf course. The golf course will make money above and beyond being self-sustaining.
On the other hand the "Y"/community center has had no business plan, financial or feasibility study. We told the "Y" in Red Bank that we did not need them. They offered to do a feasibility study which was estimated to cost about $25,000. Assuming that was feasible, they were going to build and run the "Y". The financial exposure to the township would have been minimal and all the services would have been available. That sounds like it has just been dismissed. Now I understand that the Freehold "Y" is running the show. You asked Mr. Shah to obtain proposals from our auditor which we have not addressed. I don't understand how you can take two facilities, one of which you have been told will be self-sustaining and supported by those who use it, but it will make money that can be used to buy open space or used to support other recreational facilities. There is a lot of support for the "Y" community center. I want to see this happen, but we have no business plan to determine if this is financially viable and whether it can be self-sustaining. Now you are suggesting taking the $7 million and spreading it out among all the taxpayers and have them pay for it. This was never presented as an option.
Councilman Testino: When you first came up with the golf plan, we would be making $1 million a year; now it is down to $5000. The real problem with the golf course is determining what the fee will be and who the management will be. Who is going to design it and build it? We have not answered those questions. You want us to put $600,000 in before we decide if a golf pro come in and develop and run it and pay us fees. Why can't we do that? Why do we have to develop it?
Mayor Cannon: I think those are decisions that have to be discussed, but you don't seem to discuss anything.
Councilman Testino: I told you that this was the priority in the bonding. We did not say this was over. You are the one who wants to set up to say no that we are not for golf. I am for golf before anybody.
Mayor Cannon: You could fool a lot of people.
Councilman Testino: If you want to look into lease options for the golf course, I say to the president of the council that when we get Lambertson under control, I would be willing to look into those options and report back to the council. Let's see if we can make money for year one from rents off the land.
Councilman Greene: Let's do the same thing for the "Y".
Councilman Testino: Let's put it up for a vote.
President Butler: We will have an update on the Lambertson tract Monday.
Councilwoman Panos: Just like last week we had these members of the recreation committee who said they spent actually years volunteering their time on this committee. We had people who did put time into this . . . studies. They come up with a golf course. We put in. . . how much did those studies cost us?
Mayor Cannon: $50,000.
Councilwoman Panos: Total? We put time and money into this, and then we just dropped it. I am all for a YMCA, but right now it is a concept. We took all the money from a golf course where time and money was invested . . . studies, and there is still more to be done. I don't think that we should just drop the $600,000. Give something to the progress of the golf course or some sort of work to be done at the golf course. I would think that maybe not $600,000, but throw something towards there. Just don't drop it. That would be my idea on the golf course thing. Let's do a little 50/50 thing.
This thing with Mannino Park . . . we have had studies on that, there is delineations. We have a measly $25,000 going towards that?
Councilman Testino: That is all they asked for.
Councilwoman Panos: Maybe we ought to ask for more. I would like to revisit the recreation thing, and I would like more money to go for Mannino Park. I hope Southwood gets improved.
Councilman Testino: Let's put it up and see what you vote on Monday night.
Councilwoman Panos: I ignore when you say those things. I am going to ask . . . there is nothing in here for Vet's Park. Has anyone visited there recently? Another $50,000 would make that complete. I am asking you to walk to Vet's Park . . .
Councilman Testino: I walk there lots.
Councilwoman Panos: Do you see any need for improvements?
Councilman Testino: I see need for improvement all over town.
Councilwoman Panos: I guess that I would be asking for is to give some equality or compromise to the golf course and not drop it after the time and money has been invested in it and to put more money toward Mannino Park because we have also done studies there, and if we have to take away something from the concept of a community center, so be it. We are all for that; however, let's go where we put time and money and to please give Vet's Park some money.
Councilman Calogera: I have no problem with a golf course if we make money. I am still caught up with in looking at different reports. The last one I saw was $245,000. Let's straighten this out first. I think that a golf course could be positive if we can do a positive cash flow. I ran on a platform of a recreation center, the reason being that people in our community need it. It is a wide-based community service. There is a difference between that and running a business that is a golf course. One is a resident based need. I don't know how many seven, eight or nine year old kids are fighting over the use of a golf course. But now they are fighting over gym time, basketball, etc. which is a priority.
I believe that a rec. center is important. Mannino Park is also important. If the golf course can make money, it is important. Rich, are you saying that you are against a rec. center?
Councilman Greene: I want a YMCA.
Liquor License - Sal Joper, Inc. (Mickey McGuires) No. 1209-33-025-003).
Attorney Ruggierio: You must extend the new liquor license to the trustee.
RESOLUTION NO. 178
Authorizing Extension of Liquor License - 1209-33-025-003 Sal Joper, Inc., t/a Mickey McGuires to Nancy Isaacson, Trustee
BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, New Jersey that:
WHEREAS, the regulations governing Plenary Retail Consumption and Distribution Licenses published by the New Jersey Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control provides that upon the transfer of rights in any license to a person or entity by operation of law, such person must make application to extend the license; and
WHEREAS, Saljoper, Inc., t/a Mickey McGuires has filed for protection under Chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code; and
WHEREAS, Nancy Isaacson, Chapter 7 Trustee of Xanadu Corp. has succeeded to ownership and possession (in trust) over License No. 1209-33-025-003; and
WHEREAS, an application to extend the licensee to Trustee, Nancy Isaacson, has been filed in the form provided by the regulations of the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, State of New Jersey as follows:
State License No. Licensee
1209-33-025-003 Nancy Isaacson, as Trustee
Sal Joper, Inc. t/a Mickey McGuire's
393 Route 516
Old Bridge, NJ 08857
The Township Clerk is hereby directed to execute any and all documents necessary to implement the provisions hereof.
Moved by Councilman Redmond, seconded by Councilman Baker and so ordered on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Baker, Greene, Hoff, Maher, Redmond, Testino, Councilwoman Panos, President Butler.
NAYS: None.
NO PARTICIPATION: Councilman Calogera.
Motion
to adjourn at 10:15 p.m. made by Councilman Hoff, seconded by Councilman Redmond and so ordered on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Baker, Calogera, Greene, Hoff, Maher, Redmond, Testino, Councilwoman Panos, President Butler.
NAYS: None.
Reginald Butler, President
Rose-Marie Saracino, Township Clerk
pg |