The big news is the mayor’s announcement that FEMA said it will contribute $4.1 million to the rebuilding of the pavilions. This obviously changes everything. The two new bond ordinances were shelved pending further developments.
I will write about it this weekend.
Some info from someone who was there:
Nothing regarding decisions on key points of the original lawsuits was decided by Judge Lawson. The entire hearing had to do with Pringle’s letter of two weeks ago about the stay order and the fact that the mayor is passing two new bond ordinances this evening. It was argued ad nauseam back and forth. Despite the fact that the court has not yet ruled on key points which relate to the percentage of funding going against the general account and the percentage going against the beach utility ( the formula for calculating) and despite the fact that Pringle and the plaintiffs have yet to see the new plans for Taylor… the judge finally allowed defendants Northgrave and the borough to vote tonight on the two bonds.
Toward the very end the Judge expressed what seemed to be unfair to the petition referendum people in town. To compromise, even if the bond ordinances pass tonight there is a stay. They can not advertise and the 20 day clock for those opposing will not start after tonight. I believe that the borough still must wait for key points to be argued and for his ruling which he said he would fast track. The next hearing though will not be until at least the 3rd week in Jan.
I would hate to see how long slow track takes.
Judge Lawrence Lawson (love that name) is set to hand down decisions today on some of the legal conflicts involving the boardwalk development.
He is going to decide on the validity of Doherty’s invocation of redevelopment law. Hopefully he’ll rule that it was not justified.
He is also supposed to advise us on how much of the ($5 million!) cost of rebuilding Taylor Pavilion can be charged to the beach utility. As some of you are aware, the administration here didn’t wait to hear from Lawson before guessing what the formula might be and preparing bond ordinances based on those guesses. If their guesses were correct they will pass those bonds tonight.
I am curious to see what Lawson has to say about the cancellation of the $7.1 million bond that he ordered the referendum on and about it’s replacement with two other bonds. Will he order that those be subject to referendum instead? I certainly hope so. I think we need to ask the voters before we spend $7 million for two small, relatively simple buildings. I can’t understand why they are so expensive.
I will post the decisions as soon as I have them so unless they come after I’ve already begun my commute home they will up here on the blog this afternoon. Stay tuned.
**Update** According to the Patch, the two sides will have a conference today with Lawson.
DECEMBER 11, 2013
A special meeting of the Mayor and Council of the Borough of Belmar held on the above date at 6:00 PM at the Belmar Municipal Building, 601 Main Street.
PRESENT: Mayor Doherty, Councilman Bean, Councilwoman Deicke, Councilman Magovern, Councilwoman Nicolay, Borough Attorney Michael DuPont, Esq., Business Administrator Colleen Connolly, and Borough Clerk April Claudio
The Borough Clerk stated “Adequate notice of this meeting has been provided to The Coast Star, the official newspaper of the Borough of Belmar, and the Asbury Park Press on November 22, 2013 notice of this meeting was prominently posted on the bulletin board of the Municipal Building and filed with the Clerk of the Borough of Belmar.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MOMENT OF SILENCE: Our troops and their families
SPECIAL PRESENTATION: DPW new hires
WORKSHOP DISCUSSION:
PETITIONS:
REPORTS OF MAYOR AND COUNCIL:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
PUBLIC SESSION:Public Session on resolutions only on the Agenda. We will continue to have a Public Session at the end of this meeting.
RESOLUTIONS:
· RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF BILLS
· RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EMERGENCY PURCHASEPURSUANT TO NJSA 40A:11-6 (SEVENTH AVENUE SEWER MAIN)
· RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EMERGENCY PURCHASEPURSUANT TO NJSA 40A:11-6 (GROUND WATER STORAGE TANK ROOF)
· RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CALENDAR YEAR 2014SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT BUDGET AND SETTING THE HEARING ON THE BUDGET
· RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE INSERTION OF A SPECIAL ITEM OF REVENUE IN THE BUDGET OF THE BOROUGH OF BELMAR PURSUANT TO N.J.S.A. 40A:4-87 (CHAPTER 159, P.L. 1948)
· RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE INSERTION OF A SPECIAL ITEM OF REVENUE IN THE BUDGET OF THE BOROUGH OF BELMAR PURSUANT TO N.J.S.A. 40A:4-87 (CHAPTER 159, P.L. 1948)
CONSENT AGENDA:
All matters listed in the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Borough Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and will be considered separately.
RESOLUTIONS BY CONSENT:
ORDINANCES:
Second Reading & Public Hearing:
ORDINANCE NO. 2013-19
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING CHAPTER XVII, ALCOHOL BEVERAGE CONTROL, OF THE REVISED GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE BOROUGH OF BELMAR TO INCLUDE LIMITED BREWERY AND PLENARY BREWERY LICENSES
Second Reading & Public Hearing:
ORDINANCE NO. 2013-20
BOND ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BEACHFRONT BUILDINGS IN AND BY THE BOROUGH OF BELMAR, IN THE COUNTY OF MONMOUTH, NEW JERSEY, APPROPRIATING $5,030,000 THEREFOR AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $4,778,500 BONDS OR NOTES OF THE BOROUGH TO FINANCE PART OF THE COST THEREOF.
Second Reading & Public Hearing:
ORDINANCE NO. 2013-21
BOND ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BEACHFRONT BUILDINGS IN AND BY THE BOROUGH OF BELMAR, IN THE COUNTY OF MONMOUTH, NEW JERSEY, APPROPRIATING $1,970,000 THEREFOR AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $1,871,500 BONDS OR NOTES OF THE BOROUGH TO FINANCE PART OF THE COST THEREOF.
Second Reading & Public Hearing:
ORDINANCE 2013-22
ORDINANCE OF THE BOROUGH OF BELMAR, IN THE COUNTY OF MONMOUTH, NEW JERSEY PROVIDING FOR THE CANCELLATION OF BOND ORDINANCE 2013-15, FINALLY ADOPTED ON SEPTEMBER 4, 2013.
PUBLIC SESSION:
MEETING ADJOURNED:
New Jersey State Senate President Steve Sweeney in Wednesday’s Asbury Park Press:
In New Jersey, the economic burdens for middle-class families and working people continue to make life hard. Property taxes continue to go up. We still drag behind the rest of the nation in job creation. State revenues are lower than expected. And economic growth falls behind other states.
Rhetoric about belt tightening in the face of hard times has gone on for too long. If we are truly going to make New Jersey an affordable place to live, it’s time we acknowledge and do something about this one simple fact: New Jersey has too much government.
That is why I have introduced shared services legislation that would result in taxpayer savings through the elimination of government redundancies. It would do so by creating concrete fiscal consequences for local government entities that refuse to enter into sharing agreements that would save money.
The legislation would require New Jersey’s Local Unit Alignment, Reorganization, and Consolidation Commission (LUARCC) to study municipalities to determine where taxpayer dollars could be saved through sharing of services. If the study shows that savings can be realized through sharing services for two or more local governments, and the state treasurer verifies the savings amount, the question of whether to share the service may be put to a public referendum in all municipalities involved. Any municipalities that strike down the public question or refuse to implement the shared service would lose state aid. The state aid cut would equal the amount they would have saved had they shared the service. If one town approves it but another denies it, only the town that denied it would lose aid*…………
I don’t even know where to begin.
Yeah, the middle class is dying in this country, and in this state particularly, and it is not of natural causes. It is a victim of classacide. (Is that a word?)
If one wanted to depopulate the middle class, one couldn’t do better than to implement the regime of over-taxation, over-regulation, and imposition of unending legal liability that businesses face thanks to national and New Jersey Democrats. And year after year New Jersey is ranked as one of the worst states in which to attempt any sort of productive enterprise. Contrary to what we are being told, a thriving middle class depends on production of wealth, not the forced transfer of wealth favored by politicians like Sweeney.
The government that Sweeney is the senate president of imposes among the highest income taxes and sales taxes in the country, but in all the years Sweeney has held that high office he has spent very little effort to do anything about that. I’ve heard him talk about gay marriage more than I’ve heard any talk about cutting state taxes.
You see, his taxes are good taxes. Its the taxes imposed by local governments that are the bad taxes. And in his mind the reason local taxes are so high is that some towns want to have their own police departments and their own schools. Bear in mind that New Jersey has always had a lot of towns and those towns have always run their own police, schools, public works etc. But we didn’t always have high property taxes. I believe most of the increases in property taxes are attributable to labor, public safety, and environmental mandates imposed upon the towns by the state. Sure, we know first hand that local governments can waste a lot of money, but Steve Sweeney is hardly someone to be calling the kettle black.
The real kicker is that under his plan towns that don’t want to go along with the merger recommendations of his consolidationist buddies would have their state aid cut. That aid is not Sweeney’s to cut. It comes from the state income tax we pay. Already we hardly get any of the money we send in income tax back as state aid. Now if we don’t do as Sweeney says, he’ll cut the rest.
Belmar residents pay around $5 million a year in state income taxes. We get back in state aid typically less than $1 million a year. The rest goes to the Abbott Districts. At least with our property taxes we do get something for our money. The income tax does nothing for us. If Sweeney was really on our side he would let us keep our police department and get rid of the state income tax instead.
*see prisoner’s dilemma
Steve Sweeney looking down at us.
My Libertarian Party colleague John Paff, chairman of the party’s Open Government Advocacy Project, emailed me this story from the Wildwood Leader yesterday:
Crest’s closed-door minutes questioned
WILDWOOD CREST— A Somerset man who leads a government transparency project has taken issue with the borough’s meeting minutes, questioning if the information provided to the public is sufficient.
John Paff, who is chairman of the New Jersey Libertarian Party’s Open Government Advocacy Project, sent the Wildwood Crest Board of Commissioners a letter this week stating that minutes regarding a closed-door executive session Nov. 18 are too terse, and do not provide enough information regarding the hiring of a special investigator to oversee an internal investigation.
Commissioner Don Cabrera, who was not present at the meeting Nov. 18, said Tuesday that the board would consider Paff’s concern.
“We’ve always done it this way,” he said Tuesday. “And if we did something wrong it certainly wasn’t intentional.”
Paff also sent a copy of the letter to the Wildwood Leader. (See Page 8 for the letter).
“Just because you are talking about something sensitive doesn’t mean you sanitize the minutes,” Paff told the Leader on Tuesday.
The minutes in question, which Paff provided with his letter, state that the Crest was holding interviews for the open position of the borough’s administrator. In addition to the interviews, the minutes state that a discussion “regarding the hiring of a special investigator” was also held.
But the minutes do not detail the discussion itself, which is why Paff took issue……………….
Belmar needn’t worry about getting a similar letter from Mr. Paff because we don’t even have executive sessions in Belmar. The last time the council here went into executive session, Ken Pringle was mayor. Paff is concerned that important information is being withheld from the public in Wildwood Crest, but here in Belmar its even being withheld from the council. And with the exception of Jim Bean, none of the council members seem to even care.
I used to complain to Ken Pringle when he was mayor that the minutes of the executive session were never released to the public, even after the subject matter could no longer be considered sensitive. But at least the council members were kept apprised of what was going on and would presumably not keep quiet about any malfeasance that might be occurring. Presently we have no such protection.
I’ve protested on more than one occasion the total absence of executive sessions under this administration. I was told that nothing sensitive enough to warrant an executive session has arisen in the three years Doherty has been mayor. This is, of course, ridiculous. With all the dancing and pivoting we’ve seen with respect to Belmar’s numerous controversies and legal entanglements, I’m certain that more time is spent discussing that stuff than is spent discussing the normal business we see at the council meetings. Its just discussed in the smoke filled free back rooms. Or maybe at the breakfast table. Who knows?
And that’s just the stuff we know about. For example, I was able to learn about this little matter thanks to the Open Government Advocacy Project’s website:
Belmar pays $7,500 to settle police excessive force suit
On October 10, 2012, the Borough of Belmar (Monmouth County) agreed to pay $7,500 to a Bradley Beach man who sued members of the Belmar Police Department for allegedly beating and choking him. In his suit, Jason Bernardinello said that on July 25, 2009, when he was 19 years old, he and some friends were riding their bicycles on Ocean Avenue at about 10 p.m. He said that Special Officer whose name was stated in the lawsuit as \”Sean Bowers\” (but who is presumably Shawn Bowens or perhaps Sean Bowens) grabbed one of his friends\’ bicycles, tackled the friend from behind, \”slammed [him] violently\” and handcuffed him. Thereafter, while Bernardinello was allegedly having a \”civil discussion\” with another office, Bowens reportedly screamed \”Get the f**k out of here\” to him. Bernardinello claimed that when he tried to \”respectfully and calmly respond,\” Bowens grabbed his throat and started choking him and shoved his head into a light pole. He claims that four other officers jumped on him and \”pummeled him while he lay, defenseless on the ground, punching him in the face and the groin while bystanders pleaded with the special cops to stop the beating.\” Bernardinello further claims that he was detained at police headquarters for two hours and the officer on desk duty, who \”was highly intoxicated,\” refused to let his parents see him. The case is captioned Bernardinello v. Belmar, Federal Case No. 3:11-cv-0413 and Bernardinello\’s attorney was Dan A. Druz of Belmar. Case documents are on-line here. The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public\’s right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant. None of Bernardinello\’s allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $7,500 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Belmar or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Belmar or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Bernardinello $7,500 than take the matter to trial……………..
The complaint and settlement agreement can be viewed here.
I should tell you that Belmar Councilman Jim Bean does know about this. He found out about it from me. Does that seem right to you?
I can’t any information about the results of this year’s 10th Ave Freeze Out. Even it’s own Facebook page has no entries past the morning of the event. Anyone out there know anything?
Nobel Prize economist warns of U.S. stock market bubble
BERLIN (Reuters) – An American who won this year’s Nobel Prize for economics believes sharp rises in equity and property prices could lead to a dangerous financial bubble and may end badly, he told a German magazine.
Robert Shiller, who won the esteemed award with two other Americans for research into market prices and asset bubbles, pinpointed the U.S. stock market and Brazilian property market as areas of concern…………..
……………….”Bubbles look like this. And the world is still very vulnerable to a bubble,” he said.
Chris Smith has announced that FEMA has awarded us $1.7 million for marina repairs. If this is for the $1.9 million claim we already have submitted for, then the municipal portion of our debt as reported here should actually tick up by about $200,000. If its on top of the $1.9 million then, yeah, that would be very good news. I will report when I find out.
BTW, the rejiggering of the boardwalk development bonds, if they pass, will alter the proportions of our total debt. It will decrease the beach utility portion by about $2.5 million and add $2 million to the municipal debt. We’ll find out on December 11 if Judge Lawson will allow it, and if he does they will pass at the council meeting scheduled for that evening. (In Belmar, all bonds get passed in the minimum time required by law.) Lawson is also set to hand down his decision on Pringle’s challenge to the mayor’s redevelopment plan on December 11. Should be an interesting meeting that night.
Smith also announced that the South Monmouth Regional Sewage Authority has gotten a $2 million grant from FEMA to move a Lake Como pumping station to a less flood-prone location. (Sandy put the original one under 6 feet of water.)
Also in the news, Gannet has this to report:
Federal report: Sandy relief funds need better oversight
WASHINGTON — The $50 billion the federal government approved for Superstorm Sandy disaster relief is at high risk of being spent improperly, according to a new government report…………
………“When disasters occur, the destruction caused by those disasters must be addressed immediately, and disaster relief funding must be delivered expeditiously. However, the risk for fraud and abuse increases when billions of dollars are being spent quickly,” the report said.
Shocking.
Should beach fees be set by counties?
Bill advances to transfer authority away from towns
TRENTON — Is it time for the counties to take control of beaches — and beach badges — away from Shore towns?
Democrats in the Legislature say yes. Their argument: If Shore towns gave up control of their beaches, it would clear the way for a regional approach to fortifying against storms. There could be a single beach badge issued by the county, good in any town, and local officials would no longer have to worry about maintaining and policing the tourist hot spots.
Bill A-3891 from Democrats was advanced Monday by the Assembly Environment Committee in a party-line vote. A Senate committee approved the bill in April. Next up are votes by the full Assembly and Senate.
But there’s little love in Shore communities for the proposal, which would allow Monmouth and Ocean counties to assume complete responsibility for the operation and control of beaches, moving that power away from municipalities upon agreement with town officials.
“If something’s not broke, why fix it? Creating a new bureaucracy doesn’t sound helpful,’’ said Belmar Mayor Matt Doherty, who’s against the bill.
However, there’s an out. Phew!
If the measure becomes law, a town could opt out through an ordinance or resolution and stay in control of the beach.
Doherty said that’s a likely scenario for Belmar. “I don’t believe there would be any support in Belmar for giving up control of our beach area,’’ he said.
That ordinance would pass in record time, even for Belmar.
Here is what Mark Rosenwald, a top commenter for the Press said in his comment:
It’s all about the money generated by the beach fees. The towns get to hire their political allies and their kids for summer positions, they use money generated by beach fees for “other” things related to the beach. There are towns in Monmouth County that have used beach money for police vehicles that “help” patrol the beaches for 3 months, cranes and other heavy equipment that are used on the beach for 3 months, and a host of other municipal uses. The Mayor of Belmar wants to use the beach tag money to not only rebuild his pavilions (the town makes a bundle leasing them out) that were lost to Sandy but to expand them for other non beach related use. Fortunately the courts have temporarily stopped this. The amount of money that is quietly, through creative accounting, that is funneled from the beach into the towns is enormous. If Dougherty wants a future in politics, he better get on board with the Democrat leadership.
(Obviously, this Mark Rosenwald guy is opposed to our recovery.)