Point Pleasant Beach News
August 2, 2011
The Mayor and Council of the Borough of Point Pleasant Beach met at 5:43 PM with Mayor Barrella and Council Members Hennessy, Rizzo (via teleconferencing) Corbally and Lurie present. Councilman Dyer was absent. Councilwoman Tooker arrived at 6:11 PM. The Municipal Clerk read the notice indicating compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act.
Clerk Ellsworth explained that she had received an objection to the place-to-place transfer of the Wine Point LLC ABC license so a special hearing, of which all concerned parties were apprized, was established at this time.
Jason Mandia, representing Wine Point LLC for transfer from 816 to 524 Arnold Avenue: will be calling two witnesses.
Prasada Raju Indukuri, owner of Wine Point LLC, T/A Wine King, was sworn in and testified: the ABC license was a ‘distribution’ license, he was familiar with the transfer application (marked as Exhibit A1) and wished to move the store from its current location to an empty storefront adjacent to the hardware store at 524 Arnold Avenue – at current location, his store it closer to another ABC license (the Elks) than it would be if the license were transferred as requested.
Clerk Ellsworth: upon questioning, clarified that the Elks License was a club license, Wine Point was a distribution license and Europa South was a consumption license; the objector and his Council were present; clarified that a club license can only serve to club members and their guests.
Borough Attorney Gannon: distance restrictions are commonly referred to as proximity ordinances; Borough’s Code states, at 4:3.3(a), that it shall be unlawful for a liquor license to be located within 500 feet of another premise holding an alcoholic beverage license and, at 4:3-3(b), that the license, which is within 500 feet of another, may be relocated as long as the distance between it and any other ABC license is increased – it also references state statute (33:1-76) as to how the distance between licensed premised should be measured – the main issue would be to determine whether, in fact, the distance was being increased as a result of the license being transferred – spoke to the Clerk about how the distance was being measured – our Engineer did in fact measure and he found that the distance did increase.
Mayor Barrella: asked if the distance between licenses was decreasing as opposed to increasing, could Council still approve the transfer (Borough Attorney: would be counter to Borough Ordinance) asked if Council had the power to still approve and supersede the Ordinance or if issue is moot if the distance is not increased.
Councilman Lurie: asked if it made a difference which types of licenses were in proximity to each other (Attorney Gannon: Attorney Hiering provided opinion that it would not make a difference as to which type of license was in proximity to another – if the distance, due to transfer, would be diminished, than Council does not have the authority to grant the transfer application).
Mayor Barrella: asked if Council had the information to make a distance determination (Attorney Gannon: Borough Engineer opined that the distance had been increased, but Clerk has asked about measurement – if to existing doorways, the distance would be decreased; Clerk Ellsworth: Borough Engineer used sketch with new doorway to determine measurement).
Attorney Mandia: explained that measurements had to be from nearest doorway of one ABC licensed premise to nearest doorway of the other ABC licensed premise (Councilman Lurie: the main doorway of the Elks, which all members use regularly, is the side door not the front door that was used for measurement purposes; Clerk Ellsworth: state statute actually states that the nearest entrance should be used and the front door is the nearest to the sidewalk).
Adam Bendinsky, applicant’s licensed professional land surveyor, was sworn in and testified: his rendering of distance from Elks to current location of Wine King license at 181.95' was marked as Exhibit A2 – his rendering of distance from Europa South to proposed entry of new location at 182.75' was marked as Exhibit A3 – explained how distance was measured from center point of doorways - distance was increased by .8' or slightly under 10 inches.
Mayor Barrella: asked if there were doorways there now (Attorney Mandia: applicant is not in that space which is currently empty and which currently has two doorways which will be sealed) – since measurements were taken to a proposed entrance, asked what steps had been taken to convert from existing doors to new door, which is what increases the distance by 10 inches (Attorney Mandia: none as they would not go forward with the lease if transfer application was not approved).
Councilman Hennessy: clarified that measurements were not taken to the existing doors. Mayor Barrella: would need to condition transfer on construction of new entrance and contingent approvals – asked if appropriate action would be to go for building permit and submit those approved plans before taking action on determining the distance - being asked to approve a transfer based on something that doesn’t yet exist, which is troubling (Attorney Mandia: construction of the door can be a condition, but not site plan approval) if they don't get permission from the building department to change the location of the doors, then they're out and we don’t have this discussion – wondering if this is not premature.
Councilman Lurie: to Mr. Bendinsky, computed distance to the Elks by taking point, is using a wheel more or less accurate (less) – our engineer used a wheel, so maybe not comparing apples to apples (also subject to interpretation as to the walking path).
Mayor Barrella opened hearing to questions for the witnesses.
Diana Anderson, Attorney for objector, Liquor Chain: indicated that your methodology was to measure to the face of the building where the new doorway is going and then you added to it an amount of recess - asked Mr. Bendinsky to explain the amount of recess (distance from the existing face of the building back to the physical position of where the door will be once it’s constructed, which was a distance of 8’) asked what the 182.75’ would become if the door were not recessed (would be less) 174’? (yes) asked if there was any guarantee that the structure of the building can support a recess of 8’ or that the traffic pattern can support a recess of 8’ or if there’s any other aesthetic reason to recess it 8’ other than to make it more compliant with the (proximity) ordinance (couldn’t answer as he is neither an architect nor an engineer).
Paschal Drew, Point Pleasant Beach (PPB): asked about measuring on recess - Elks is recessed from its door – have to go downstairs from front door, through foyer and doors to bar area – would have 15 more feet to make up for distance between current location and Elks).
Mayor Barrella: statute says have to measure from closest entrance - asked about inside recessing as compared to outside – going through front door of Elks into vestibule is akin to walking into a hotel entrance – have to go to the back of building to get to a service bar for parties and the operating bar is downstairs – if you recess on the outside, do you need to look at recessing on the inside – there are parts of the Elks in which alcohol is not served.
Councilman Hennessy: wouldn't it be more accurate to take the measurement to the door that is the entrance to the bar (Attorney Gannon: cannot tell you if the state statute has been interpreted that way).
Mr. Drew: here they’re proposing to recess a door just to make the measurement – State statute says as you would reasonably walk – as you would reasonable walk, all Elks club members go to the side door and go downstairs through the doors to enter the building.
Mr Indukuri: questioned whether the Elks serves liquor on its front porch.
Chief O’Hara: the Elks filed a request a couple of months ago to extend their premises to use the front porch for the cocktail hour of a wedding – the premises are licensed once you cross the threshold to the inside of the building, both the first and second floor within the structure – bigger concern is that you’re comparing a club license to a consumption (Attorney Hiering opined that they have to be treated the same).
Attorney Anderson: case law might have a different interpretation than saying the licensed premises begins at the threshold – in Landing vs City of Burlington, the Court said you measure from the nearest point (of the building) to the nearest point of the building wherein the liquor is intended to be sold – talking about 8/10 of a foot – there is significant case law out there on exactly how to measure this - urged Council to research case law because the distance is minimal even if the proposed 8’ recess is approved and is structurally able to be accomplished – Council needs to have more information on just how this statute is interpreted - there is some significant case law out there that references nearest actual doorway – the actual doorway is the existing doorway that is there now.
Mayor Barrella: Ms. Anderson that is in the nature of argument not a question; keep thinking this whole process is backward – don’t even know if you can alter this building the way you need to alter it – if you can’t alter it, what are we doing here?
Attorney Mandia: need to go through two separate steps and this is the first step we’re taking on that road - going to building department is a useless step, as well, if we can’t put the license there.
Attorney Gannon: if Council doesn't have sufficient information to make the determination on the distance – should have a mutually agreed upon understanding of the method of measuring and how to measure - can look at some of the cases that address it and how the statute has been interpreted – statute says ‘in the normal way that a pedestrian would properly walk to the nearest entrance of the premises sought to be licensed’ – since it’s a matter of inches, there should be a meeting of the minds about how to measure it and how the statute is to be interpreted.
Attorney Mandia: your engineer actually found more distance than ours did (Councilman Lurie: they should have both used the same methodology – have used the wheel and if not paying attention can easily miss a foot) threshold issue is one inch over and both engineers said it was.
Councilman Corbally: asked how deep the store was (main section with recessed door is 123.9’ and there’s a stock area in the back so the total is about 141’; Attorney Gannon: marked Aquatecture Associates’ drawing, with measurements of proposed licensed area, as Exhibit A4.
Mayor Barrella: let’s proceed on the assumption that we’ve gotten past the first threshold, that the distance is farther away.
Attorney Mandia: there is only one objector – the A&P case law states that there has to be a widespread public sentiment against it that directly relates to health, safety, welfare and morals directly related to alcohol sales – the one objector is a competitor and in the A&P case they rejected the objection because it was from a competitor.
Councilman Hennessy: there is an objection from the police – read excerpts from police report – view as opening the door for expansion of licensed premises, which the department has vigorously opposed for many years – permitting licensed premises to cluster can also create enforcement and safety issues and dramatically increase pedestrian traffic – since our automotive traffic problems are well chronicled in the summer months, increasing alcohol and pedestrians in close proximity to each other also increases risks to those pedestrians and motorists – simply put, when you increase density, you also increase risk; are also putting license next to a totally different animal than what it’s next to now (Attorney Mandia: what you read was written to address an ordinance change – not looking for an ordinance change, within the current ordinance) talking about safety and enforcement issues – trying to move a distribution license away from a club and put it close to a consumption license at one of the busiest intersections in town, opposed to where it is, with the Elks and off the beaten path (Attorney Mandia: A&P ruling says increased traffic is not a reason to deny an application – has to be something related to the sale of alcohol that contributes to the danger of the society or the safety and welfare – could put a shoe store there that would have the same increase in traffic) but with a shoe store, you might not have someone stumbling out of the Europa that’s drunk and wants to buy a six pack to go home – they’re not going to stop in a shoe store (Attorney Mandia: argued that they could purchase a six pack from the Europa South – fit within current ordinance parameters which say any license).
Chief O'Hara: whether a change in ordinance or current application, it’s still an increase in alcohol at the busiest intersection in town – police concern, which we put on the record two or three months ago at the last time this came up before Council, is based on the public safety aspect of too much alcohol at the busiest intersection in town – record is clear from two or three months ago – that transcript states police objections clearly – looking at the overall safety of the public.
Mayor Barrella: questioned the Borough Attorney - if the distance was shorter would we have been done at 5:35 - if the distance is longer, what is the next step - what is the Council examining, what is this Council's authority and what should this Council be looking at (a license and its location is a privilege rather than a right – assuming it’s established that there is no issue with regard to the proximity ordinance, still have to look at the overall impact this license, at its new location, would have on the health, safety and welfare – you’ve heard some instances from the Chief as regards to where they stand – apparently there was a traffic report from the applicant’s traffic engineer that indicated there would not be a significant impact on traffic (Attorney Mandia: that was done when seeking to have the ordinance amended) so not part of this application – not bound by expert testimony, either the applicants or your own – but overall, you have to look at it from your standpoint as being officers and members of the community and also listen to any objectors from the general public and gauge their sentiment – basically a call you have to make based on all the evidence you have before you and your feelings if you do find negative impact on various aspects of the safe, health and welfare of the community) Mr. Mandia, your argument is in the nature that liquor licenses are a permitted use in the Beach and could put it anywhere as long as it would be further away from another licensed premises than where it’s currently located (Attorney Mandia: as long as it doesn’t jeopardize or endanger the health, safety and welfare or morals of the general public) asked for an example – is that like, you can’t put it next to a Church (can’t do that anyway – also not general sentiment against it, only a competitor’s sentiment) not so sure, because Mr. Drew is also opposed .
Attorney Anderson: would bring Council’s attention back to question of what happens if it's found that the proposed location is less distance – does hearing stop right there? – your attorney answered yes - jurisdictionally this Council would not have the ability to move forward – asked that Council proceed with caution as you’re talking 10 inches to a proposed doorway – in Raritan Road Baptist Church v Cranford, the language says to be measured from the actual doorway which leads into the building – it doesn’t say to the proposed doorway or the proposed recessed doorway but to the actual doorway that leads into the building – there are two existing doors that lead into the proposed location and haven’t heard, yet, what the measured distance is from those two actual doors to the Eurpoa South (Mr. Mandia: not actual doors as license is not in there and operating) they are actual doors now that lead into the building) – I was initially under the impression that the proposed door was at least a doorway and now I find out that there’s not even a doorway there – it’s not even that they are proposing to recess an existing door 8’, there’s no doorway there now – so there is no existing doorway into the building from which this measurement is being made – so I submit to the Council that you lack the jurisdiction to make a decision on this because measuring the distance from the Europa South to the actual door is less than the distance from Wine Point to the Elks (Mayor Barrella: let’s assume the Council asks the applicant to get their building approvals before they come back to this Council and they do so and receive approval, what is the objector’s position at that point) it’s still not an actual door – court saw fit to say actual door – a door for which you have a permit is not an actual door (is it your contention that we cannot take action on approved plans but must wait until the new door is actually built) not my position, but case law in which the courts saw fit to use the wording actual door (Attorney Mandia: in that case the license was operating so there was an actual door in use) splitting hairs because we’re talking about 10 inches obtained by recessing the face of the door 8 feet.
Mayor Barrella: asked Attorney Mandia – should the Europa South be directly adjacent to the proposed location and both premises had doors on Arnold Avenue, that would be too close (yes) – if the Hardware store no longer has a back door, are you saying that if you were to close up all the entrances of the ABC premises on Arnold Avenue and leave only an entrance in the back parking lot so that someone coming out of the entrance to Europa had to walk all the way down Route 35 South and around the parking lot to get to that entrance, that would be okay, even though the two were contiguous (State of New Jersey says you can).
Paschal Drew, PPB: ABC requirement is where you would reasonably walk - members of the Elks do not use the front door – they use the side door – so that the reasonable foot path would add an additional 30 feet making the proposal below acceptable standards.
Former Councilman Dixon, PPB: don't see how we can estimate a proposed door and allow an 8’ recession to the door - should follow what our professionals have to say and both the Chief and Lt. Dikun have made it clear they are not in favor of this.
Attorney Mandia: countered that they are not using estimates but have an actual proposed doorway with measurements – agree that we should listen to professionals but they do not relate it back to alcohol, it’s all traffic and safety due to traffic flow – that can’t be a reason for denying a place-to-place transfer.
Mayor Barrella: asked if Councilman Rizzo had heard the testimony (yes); Councilwoman Tooker came in midstream and missed most of the 10” testimony – should Council assume anything would be conditioned on them getting approval (Attorney Gannon: assuming there is a consensus on what is to be approved in terms of what is proposed for the licensed premises, then obviously if that is not approved, not built or cannot be built pursuant to the Uniform Construction Code or other regulations, then the transfer cannot be completed) so that it would in fact be conditioned on that; since Councilwoman Tooker came in beyond that, asked if she should or should not be voting (since she has not heard the entire testimony, she probably shouldn't vote; Council is not compelled to vote tonight – if Council needs further clarification from either the Attorney’s office, Mr. Mandia’s office or Ms. Anderson’s office with regard to how Council should review this, how our engineer should measure and whether or not that measurement is sufficient – might be the most appropriate way if Council doesn’t feel it has all the particulars to make an informed decision - if you have any questions on the threshold issue of increase in distance and whether it’s adequately or accurately presented in the framework of the ABC regulations) asked if Council could at least close the hearing (would leave it open to any new information from the professionals – would basically carry the hearing so that the public would have opportunity to question any new information).
Councilman Corbally: voted in favor of this last time because I think a liquor store on that corner could be a positive for foot traffic - reality is you're moving the door 8' back in order to increase the distance – also the reality is that the door on the Elks’ Lodge that everybody uses is the side door – uncomfortable with the way you’re trying to make this work, although in favor of the store at that location – trying to put a square peg into a round hole – Council voted not to change the ordinance at the last meeting - uncomfortable with the recess and the entrances – don’t know how I can be more comfortable with that - there is no door there now – sorry Mayor, I don’t think I helped.
Mayor Barrella: but you have – you’ve expressed a degree of frustration that’s understandable – this whole recess thing is really troubling me, that you have to take the front of the building back 8 feet to make it work within the ordinance – Miss Anderson is referencing case law saying we’re talking about actual doors versus proposed doors - need to be sure that our measurements are allowed to be to a proposed door where no plans have even yet been filed before we take action – same sense of frustration that Councilman Corbally articulated.
Councilman Lurie: based on all the information I’ve heard today, I’m not in favor of this application; Councilman Hennessy: not in favor of going against the police recommendation - didn't realize there was an 8' recess to get to the front door - thought it was the front door of the building – have a problem with that, also – already voiced disapproval in March 2009; Councilman Rizzo: agree with Mr. Dixon and the Chief – public safety issue – referenced work at Salon Utopia (landlord of proposed store’s other property), which was closed down due to mold and mildew and other violations – been getting calls that a lot of work was being done upstairs with no permits - cement is coming off the back of that building which is a danger to the public who walks there – concerned about buying liquor and sitting in car in the parking lot and drinking liquor.
Mayor Barrella: either need a motion to approve, deny or carry for further research by our professionals.
Motion by Councilman Hennessy, to deny the transfer request, was seconded by Councilman Lurie and carried by roll call vote. Councilwoman Tooker was not polled due to advice of the Borough Attorney that she should not vote.
VOTE: Council Members Hennessy, Rizzo, Corbally, Lurie….YEA
Borough Attorney will memorialize resolution for the next meeting.
Motion by Councilman Hennessy, to enter closed session to discuss PBA negotiations, closed session minutes, court shared services, attorney/client privilege and 3 possible litigation matters, was seconded by Councilman Corbally and carried by roll call vote.
VOTE: Council Members Tooker, Hennessy, Rizzo, Corbally…YEA
Councilman Lurie….No Vote, as he had stepped out for a moment
Closed session began at 7:05 PM and ended at 7:39PM.
Mayor Barrella called the regular meeting to order at 7:51PM. Present were Council Members Hennessy, Rizzo (via teleconferencing), Tooker, Corbally and Lurie. Councilman Dyer was absent. The Municipal Clerk read the notice indicating compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act.
A moment of silence was observed for residents Tom Fitzgerald, Sam Clements and Joe Hrymack, who recently passed away.
Clerk Ellsworth explained change to resolution 4/k, noted items to be voted on separately and added items to resolution 4.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PERIOD (Non-Agenda Items,
First Reading of Ordinances and Resolutions) OPENED AT 7:55PM
Steve Reid, Pt. Pleasant Beach (PPB): asked Mayor Barrella to describe his parking plan – no one knows about this – 42% of the people who live in this town are second homeowners – so, this is just political – opposes any parking plan the Mayor has, because he knows it’s a paid parking plan; opposes any rolling back of bar hours – has seen the town flourish over the past year, with new restaurants and stores – this would be a step backwards – need to start thinking about the whole town – asked Mayor & Council to vote “no” on Resolutions 1 & 2; congratulated Mayor for moving on the Animal House ordinance, but it was too slow.
Kristin Hennessy, PPB: generally, would favor hearing from the public – a non-binding referendum sometimes might be a good way to gauge – but reiterated that 42% of homeowners and business owners would not have an opportunity to vote – asked what mechanism the Governing Body was going to put in place to allow them to participate in an open, honest, transparent democracy – disingenuous to exclude that many people; proposal for strengthening the Animal House ordinance started in July 2009 with Councilman Hennessy – Councilwoman Tooker did give him a bit of support when he called for zero tolerance – now scrambling for solution – should have been addressed 2˝ years ago.
Ben Dispoto, PPB: the 58% of the people who vote here cannot vote in the towns of the other 42% – good idea to gauge sentiment – business owners also vote in the towns where they live – we can’t vote there – referendum would give a good idea, from the general population – good first step, just need some clarity.
Max Gagnon, PPB: a long time ago, spoke to Council and the Storinos about establishing a parking lot on Gull Island – would provide parking and revenue – hasn’t heard one word from anyone – it’s a long-range plan – it seems to go nowhere – have to look ahead and plan – business people won’t be happy if the parking plan goes through.
Marilyn Burke, PPB: statistician would say 58% is a good number – asked when the tax increase from the bonds would go into effect – asked if employee is still taking car home – should be stopped.
John Olsen, PPB: here for himself and neighbors – all in support of parking plan – should apply to taxpayers, not just residents – wording is currently very restrictive (Attorney: suggested “taxpayers and residents” because some residents are not taxpayers) needs to be clarified this evening – referred to Mr. Moffet’s statement at last meeting that town was ruled by a small, vocal minority – Council has opportunity to elicit comments from the people who live here and deal with this stuff all of the time.
Barry Moffet, PPB: reiterated that Point Pleasant Beach is a very innocuous area – this is a resort community – businesses thrive on people who come here at night – an early closing would be a disaster – the business owners and employees live in this town.
Ron Gasiorowski, Attorney for Jenkinsons’ and Martell’s: enjoyed listening to comments from the community – if this is just a survey, as Councilman Corbally says, there are cheaper and more accurate ways to do it – demonstrates a prejudice and animosity on Councilman Corbally’s part, towards his client and his industry – attended meeting with Council Members, Mayor and business owners and there was not a harsh word spoken, an extremely collegial feeling between all – believed this is an engine being driven to harm his client – it’s private industry that makes this nation, state and community run – imposing an early closing on bars & restaurants diminishes their value, destroys business and harms tax revenue – will affect hundreds of employees and property values – tourists drive this community – this will have a disastrous affect socially and financially.
Ed McGlynn, Attorney for Jenkinson’s: when he left the meeting with business owners two weeks ago, was not expecting to see a resolution on early bar closings on the agenda – at the meeting we had, Mayor, you publicly spoke that you were not in favor of same – you and I also spoke about the ancillary impact this would have on businesses throughout the community – came in a spirit of cooperation – Jenkinsons voluntarily gave up “Teen Nights” at the request of citizens and members of Council – Mr. Bassinder voluntarily gave up a Monday night event that had become problematic for the Police Department – he and his client feel betrayed and deeply offended by Councilman Corbally, who is driving this resolution – midnight bar closings, done in this type of format, will affect business immediately – will affect employees, their income, and it will be devastating to the community in general – is a partner in properties downtown – have suffered with them for a time and is finally seeing a turnaround – now there will be a parking problem downtown – this is a very dangerous road – wanted to work with Police and Administrator to try and assist with these problems – cited an article from August 1930 relating parking problems in District 4, there have always been parking problems there – this will not solve the problem.
Councilman Corbally: walked the Boardwalk last Saturday night – spoke to the Storinos – sat at the bar at Jenkinson’s – complemented Frank Storino on the security and the fact that he was there – will go up every weekend to get a better feel for what is going on – went outside at 1:30AM and spoke with police who were getting prepared for the bar closings – he underestimated the job they do in this regard – he could see their angst – described the behavior of bar patrons whom he witnessed on his way home – girls who could barely walk, guys looking for a place to go to the bathroom in District 4 – staggering guys banging on an unoccupied police car window and planking the car – people in that area have to live with that nuisance every Friday and Saturday night – quality of life stinks – the worst in calculable history - home value is going down – offended by Mr. McGlynn’s statement that he is targeting the Boardwalk – he’s representing the people in District 4 – making a bigger deal out of this than is needed.
Mr. Gasiorwoski: asked why it’s being considered, if it’s not a big deal, and if Councilman Corbally has really given any thought to the implications of such a resolution.
Mayor Barrella: Council deals with big and small issues all the time – thanked Mr. McGlynn for his acknowledgement that he is not driving these referendum questions and resolutions (Mr. McGlynn: I know they’re not being driven by you) – he is very much concerned about early bar closings, but it’s not fair to attack Councilman Corbally – it’s an option – thinks it’s the last thing Council should consider doing – a lot of people think that, while we would suffer in the short term, would be better off in the long run – County deadline is August 19th to put a question on the November ballot – that is what is driving it – it’s a genuine concern – we didn’t create this problem and it’s not fair that we have to pick up the tab – likes the idea of an earlier last call, with the businesses still being open for food, so people can sober up – will hurt businesses and rental units – but asked if we really want those rental groups, if they can’t behave themselves – Chief wants to give the process a chance to play out – if we can’t resolve the problem, should at least know what people think.
Mr. Gasiorowski: everyone has to acknowledge the great success of Martell’s and Jenkinson’s, which is accomplished because of the intelligence of the people who run these businesses – if they saw those businesses in danger, they would make every attempt to solve the problem.
Mayor Barrella: when Mr. Storino and Mr. McGlynn came to see him, it was an acknowledgement of the problem and the need to fix it.
Mr. McGlynn: want the opportunity to continue – this clouds the picture.
Dave Cavagnaro, PPB: thanked Council for the resolutions – asked if wording would be changed to “residents and taxpayers” – assumes that the parking plan has nothing to do with the metered parking that was proposed years ago – gratified that people are suddenly worried about the 42% of non-residents – PPB had a referendum in the 70s about an electrical plant on Gull Island – nobody was worried about the 42% then – with regard to bar closings, this is a non-binding referendum - by law, must be placed on General Election ballot – all it will give is the opinion of the people – Council will do what they feel is right, regardless of what the public says – should move forward – since these businesses owners are here and willing to talk, hopefully, neither of these issues will come to fruition – Council has authority to cut bar hours any time they renew the licenses – do not need a resolution – opportunity for the townspeople to speak.
Vince Castin, PPB: perhaps if people looked at them, it might be revealing to both sides, there’d be a positive response to residents and business owners; asked about item 3/j - think at this time, that $12,000 is out of line; asked about 3/y – fire companies could have fundraisers to do this as they got the generators free; asked about 4/d – don’t we have enough, are we getting a new one; asked about 4/f - don't think early start time is a good idea; asked about definition of indecent or lewd dress in 2011-23, section 1 on 3:21.
Mike Ramos, PPB: thanked Council for successful Recreation “Fishing Night;” heard at other meetings discussions not only about closing bars early, gauging public opinion, things that can be done upon license renewal and about our Police personnel costs being underwritten by nightclubs or the facility having that event - know silly season is upon us and politics is starting to run rampant - this issue is very important to this town and its businesses - hope it's done with an open mind to take care of the residents and well being of this town and not politicized - all have to work together - as long as this is non-binding and only to get an opinion – referring to the hotel tax, Council has demonstrated, in the past, that public opinion doesn’t really matter – realize Council members change as do residents, but all residents have the desire to live in a community that’s pleasant - live behind Antrim School and seeing what’s happening this summer as, are people on Curtis Avenue – this process is too important to this town, its residents and businesses to become part of the political process – want to know how we’re moving forward as a community with all aspects working together.
Frank Kinneavy, Owner/Operator Frankies Bar & Grill, PPB and Rod’s, Sea Girt: owner/operator of Frankies for 25 years and Rods in Sea Girt for 30 years - have personally experienced midnight closing in sleepy community of Sea Girt with fairly few businesses - at Rod's, first year, saw a 35% decrease in revenues - lot of other issues other than financial devastation that would affect this town – tremendous safety issue – will still be entertainment at Boardwalk and other establishment but customers will leave early and at 11:30PM will fly out of town to get to other towns where there are later bar closings – see it in Sea Girt, won’t let my kids out on their bikes after 9:30PM - should have a statewide closing – causes an incredible imbalance in traffic, which is dangerous - safety is a huge issue – inconveniencing your own residents who go to an 8PM movie and would like to come back and eat and drink in their own town- going to force them to go to other towns and risk a DUI - if you have midnight closings, your kids are going to be going elsewhere instead of walking to bars – residents have legitimate complaints but think they can be resolved if you give the owners of these businesses a chance - this is a busy resort town and early closings would devastate it.
Anne Lightburn, PPB: don't think referendum should be on ballot because it raises the expectations that this Council will close the bars early - every Council has the ability to put conditions on licenses at renewal - think you heard from enough residents – should work with these bar owners and slap them hard on renewal if you have to – lot of interest from residents in getting results and Police are manning extra patrols – worthwhile to have discussion with those establishments that are generating the problems regarding the cost factor of those extra patrols - there are other ways of surveying the public - world is changing, bar crowd is changing – this is a society issue - public is enraged enough they will not forget this – think referendum is a bad tactic.
Motion by Councilman Lurie, to close public participation, was seconded by Councilman Hennessy and carried by roll call vote.
VOTE: Council Members Tooker, Hennessy, Rizzo, Corbally, Lurie….YEA
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PERIOD (Non-Agenda Items,
First Reading of Ordinances and Resolutions) ENDED AT 9:19PM.
Clerk Ellsworth: CFO has asked that Council hold action on item 4/c.
Councilman Lurie: asked that item 3/z be held for separate consideration (Clerk Ellsworth designated as Resolution 5); I have another concern, Consent Resolution 1 – asked Councilman Corbally to clarify and define.
Councilman Corbally: If you are a taxpayer in town, under what I would propose, you would get five passes that you can use in any non-pay spot - parking limitations for non-residents/taxpayers would be from midnight until 8AM from Memorial Day to Labor Day - people coming down during the day to go to the beach, those coming down with their kids at night to go to the rides could park on the streets - but at 12 o’clock, if you don’t have a parking pass, our PEOs could walk around and give tickets (Councilman Lurie asked if this would be throughout the whole town) yes, it would force the people going to the bars to park in the Little Silver Lot or park in the lots provided by the different owners of the bars - at 8AM, everybody can park wherever they want. As far as the personnel go, the people that work there can park on the streets at 8AM the way they park now - nobody’s trying to get the employees off the streets, they’re not the problems here. As for night employees, the Storino family owns 50 to 100 properties in town and each one would get 5 passes – they could cover their people that work the late shift at night with passes so they didn’t have to park in their own lots - don’t see any real downside to this - it would clean up District 4 and address their problem with the quality of life - the only people that would not be parking there would be the people at the bars, that I walked in back of the other night - they’d be forced into Little Silver Lot or forced into private lots - they’d have to pay to park as opposed to parking for free - but everybody else would still get parking for free that comes to town – people that go to the beach, fishing, watch the fireworks, go to the concerts, or that come down for kids in the afternoon - nothing changes for any of them - it just changes the quality of life for the people in District 4 at 1AM to 2AM - people aren’t going to be sleeping on their lawns and in their backyard at 2:30AM because they won’t be walking that way - the problem’s coming from people walking to their cars (Councilman Hennessy: asked if this would be town-wide) Yes (Councilman Lurie: asked if it would be worded as you just spoke about it - more than it is now ) yes (Councilman Hennessy: asked if the question can be phrased: Do you favor free taxpayer parking town-wide?) yes, and there’s also going to be and interpretive statement underneath the question (Attorney Gannon: suggested that the interpretive statement be fairly broad so that you don’t, to quote one of the residents, raise expectations; 12 o’clock closing is fairly self-evident and it does indicate it’s non-binding; to do an interpretive statement for the parking is a little more problematic - the interpretive statement can raise issues if it’s challenged, but that’s more in the binding – asked if it would be town-wide or District 4) town-wide - everybody who lives or pays taxes in town should get 5 passes - it’s from midnight to 8AM (Mayor Barrella: asked if parking would be restricted town-wide) yes (Councilman Hennessy: asked what would happen if a family has four cars and they have six guests) they could borrow passes from neighbors as they would be transferable (Councilman Hennessy: referred to trip Mayor made to the County with former Mayor Hennessy - met with somebody from the County about the original parking plan and were told that by law you have to two sign, I think, per block) John Trout got pricing for signs in the spring of this year - for the signs, the posts, the in-car stickers and everything, including the install, for Districts 3 and 4 was $30,000 (Councilman Hennessy: there’ll be signs on every block of every street – town will have to put them up and give people notice that they can’t park there from midnight to 8AM).
Councilman Lurie: asked the Chief how much he thinks it’s going to cost to enforce this (haven’t even begun to calculate enforcing something like that so couldn’t give you a number now - parking enforcement goes off duty at 1AM - ordinance is from midnight to 8AM, so obviously there’s going to have to be people out there all night long, if you want to enforce it.
Councilman Hennessy: So you need more PEOs (Yes, at a minimum).
Mayor Barrella: asked the rate for PEOs (a little less than $8 an hour) so if they write one ticket, it for six hours ($48 for parking ticket; but that money doesn’t replace the budget money - goes to different places) understand your concern, which is very parochial - you’re worried about the police budget, I get that - but the reality is that PEOs kind of pay for themselves (can only increase the budget by so much) aware of and working on that.
Councilman Lurie: asked if it would be hard to get PEOs to work from midnight to 8AM (Chief O’Hara: we’ve never asked, but you’ll want people that are a little bit more mature than 18 year-olds).
Councilman Corbally: I think everybody jumping the gun, acting like we’re enacting this as a law - if we decide to go this route, it will be discussed and worked out a lot longer (Councilman Lurie: if people are going to vote on a plan, I think they should know what the plan is) we can define the plan a little bit more.
Mayor Barrella: asked Councilman Lurie if it was his contention that in order to vote on this, there should be a plan and that plan must include full financials - you’re questions are dealing with financial aspects - how many PEOs and how much they get paid - you’ve established that we would need more enforcement - along with more enforcement, probably, would come more revenue.
Councilman Hennessy: believe we’re jumping the gun – asked Chief if he could read his email as it pretty much sums up his sentiments – “Mayor and Council: Chris Riehl and I just met this morning to develop several committees to deal with the quality of life issues that were discussed at (the)….July 19th, meeting. We have come up with 3 separate groups to cover the various issues that are affecting the tourism industry in town and the quality of life that goes with it. During this meeting, I was informed that there are two proposed resolutions on the agenda for Tuesday night’s meeting that would, in effect, put public referendum questions on the November ballot. At this point in time, I think it is premature to authorize putting these issues on the ballot. I think that the meeting last week was a positive step forward and that we should let the committees move forward to try and come up with solutions that will work. Placing these non-binding referendums on the ballot will set the process of committees back before we even get started. From the get go these referendums will be a dark cloud hanging over the businesses and will put them on the defensive. I would like to see you reconsider the placement of these resolutions on the agenda and hold off until the process of working together plays out.” - can’t say it much better than that - heard from many people tonight including the gentleman who spoke about the ripple effect that this caused - referendums are a good idea, but not when you have two questions of this volatile nature - anybody can say they’re non-binding, heard that about ten times tonight - it’s two volatile questions and we all know the direction it’s going - people can say it’s not going to affect the political season, but you’re putting two of the most volatile questions that have probably come about in this town’s history on a ballot in November and, nothing against you Mayor, in a mayoral race - don’t know how much more volatile and political you can get - this Council won’t even be deciding on these non-binding questions – suggested letting the process play out, letting the Chief and Administrator put the groups together - haven’t even given it a chance - may not need these (Councilman Corbally: I agree) Mrs. Lightburn made a good point – if we can’t work this out with the groups and committees and/or we start to see a problem, next year, this Council doesn't need a referendum to order the bars closed at 12 o’clock – if you put on a referendum in November, people are going to ask why the bars aren’t closing as they already voted on it – agree that it will cause a ripple effect – didn’t even know these questions would be on this agenda until I got it Friday - we didn’t even discuss them before they were put on the agenda and only ten days after the July 19th meeting – baffled and can't support either one right now.
Councilman Corbally: in all fairness, you’re not going to be able to do, support them next month or two months or three months or four months or five months or six months from now, either - resolutions for referendum have to go on general election ballot – these will not be able to get put back on, for non-binding, until November 2012 – will allow me to hear from the people – otherwise how do I hear what the public has to say (Councilman Hennessy: because they can come to Council meetings - you’ll know if the problem exists - I won’t be here to vote on it).
Mayor Barrella: know you won’t be here to vote on it - so, if in November, the discussions have fallen apart, will you vote for an ordinance to shut the bars at 12 so it can be passed on first and second reading by this Council (Councilman Hennessy: asked if the Mayor was giving the process of putting these committees together and solving a problem until November – asked if there was a deadline) there’s a deadline - Police have come up with twenty some odd suggested changes - one of which is cutting back on last call, making last call earlier, going to a service, not sale, last call - substantial progress, to me, would be, this summer, to institute a 12:30AM last call, a 12:45AM last call with one drink and keep the place open, serve food after that to get these kids sober - Mr. McGlynn took two weeks to study that report. I’m sure he knows what’s in there. You know, it’s either acceptable or it’s not acceptable. The bottom line here is should this take a year to do, we’re repeating the summer of 2011 in 2012 - that can’t happen.
Councilman Hennessy: agreed - if it takes a year to do, then the Council, in next April or May should decide on this - you don’t need a referendum to figure that out (Mr. Dispoto: you don't want to hear what the people have to say; Mayor Barrella banged the gavel to restore order) listened to everybody tonight - cannot vote on something that was placed on the agenda without any prior discussion.
Councilman Corbally: I’m going to make a motion to approve Resolution 1 on the taxpayer/residential parking only – as per the police “Operation Rice Krispies” is a short-term solution - Mr. McGlynn and the Storinos have the Police plan – Police are doing a fantastic job this year and have said it might have some effect into the beginning of next year - going to be more diligent and go up and watch and see what’s going on, more, myself - can’t have another year in 2012 like 2011 - public just can’t take it and we can’t afford the manpower to police it, to put a Policeman on every single corner - just not right - because of that, I’d like to see what the public has to say – referendum is only gauging the sentiment of the taxpayers and will give us and give me some semblance of understanding if a taxpayer only parking plan is something that the voters are interested in at all. So, on that basis, made a motion to approve Resolution 1.
Councilwoman Tooker: Seconded the motion - contrary to what Mr. Reid said at the beginning of the meeting, the Mayor really has not discussed parking since 2008 – after we won a big victory and campaigned on a parking plan, we stupidly thought that that was what we should have done - we did and everyone knows that it didn’t go anywhere - I’ve continued to talk about it but the Mayor has not - looked into a parking deck, last year, a jitney, all that kind of stuff - still think that’s very viable and something Council should be talking about - would like to form a committee with residents and business owners to talk about something like that – especially if we’re going to close residential parking in the streets to everyone but taxpayers, we’re going to need some more parking - we need relief in our neighborhoods – it’s insane, but people who live east of the tracks live in what’s become a war zone - don’t mean to belabor that because it’s been talked about since the spring - can talk about raising revenue from the parking, later, if that’s what we want to do - but we need relief and we need it soon - night parking is the problem as people are coming from the bars and disrupting everything - police can’t be everywhere, don’t want police on every corner read that somebody put garbage cans out in their neighborhood, because people throw their garbage in front of our homes - don’t want garbage cans in front of our houses - if parking is closed overnight, it will go a long way to solving the problem - all the crowds will be contained to the parking lots where the police can supervise them and where there are garbage cans – has been a hotbed issue for years – putting it on for the referendum, finding out what the people think, gives us another tool and some knowledge - if the people that don’t vote here, add their opinion, that’s great – get emails from non-residents all the time - talked to Mr. Fernicola, today, who suggested other questions – “Do you favor residential parking?” - “Do you favor paid parking?” – while I like his ideas, it’s too late to back up and now put those on.
Clerk Ellsworth: I have a motion and a second to approve the resolution affecting parking in residential areas. There was a change on the question and it would say “limiting parking on public streets to taxpayers and residents of the Borough of Point Pleasant Beach.” It also would include an interpretive statement as outlined earlier in the meeting.
Councilman Lurie: this could have been done cheaper as a survey to the residents – am fine with hearing what the residents have to say on Resolution 1, on the parking – but am not in favor of the 12 o’clock bar closing.
Mayor Barrella: asked Clerk Ellsworth about the cost of a referendum (the cost of a referendum, for us, would be zero, because the County prints the ballots - the only time that the municipality pays for a ballot is in the Primary Election – the County pays all expenses in the General Election; Councilman Lurie: then I stand corrected on the cost) knew that because the top said that “No cost to the municipality from this question being put on the ballot.”
Clerk Ellsworth called the roll on the motion to adopt Resolution #1 (Approval of non-binding Referendum asking the question “Shall the Governing Body of the Borough of Point Pleasant Beach institute by the appropriate action regulations limiting parking on public streets to residents and taxpayers of the Borough of Point Pleasant Beach?”) which was carried as follows:
VOTE: Council Members Tooker, Corbally, Lurie….YEA
Council Members Hennessy, Rizzo….NAY
RESOLUTION 2: Approval of non-binding referendum “Do you favor 12 midnight bar closings in Point Pleasant Beach?” was considered.
Motion by Councilman Corbally, to approve non-binding referendum “Do you favor 12 midnight bar closings in Point Pleasant Beach,” was seconded by Councilwoman Tooker and defeated by roll call vote.
VOTE: Council Members Tooker, Corbally….YEA
Councilmen Hennessy, Rizzo, Lurie…NAY
Mayor Barrella called a recess at 9:50PM. Meeting resumed at 9:58PM with Mayor Barrella and Council Members Tooker, Hennessy, Rizzo (via teleconferencing), Corbally and Lurie present. Councilman Dyer was absent.
Motion by Councilman Lurie, to approve resolutions covering items listed below, was seconded by Councilman Hennessy and carried by roll call vote.
CONSENT RESOLUTION 3:
a) Release dewatering bond – 201 Parkway ($540)
b) Payments to Galvin Law Firm from BOA escrow ($1229.90)
c) Approval of Payroll #14 ($286,363.65) and Payroll #15 ($294,390.67)
d) Change Order #1 to Earle Asphalt for road improvements Channel Dr (-$10,357.94)
e) Release dumpster bond – 404 New York Ave ($250)
f) Approve membership in PPB Fire Co #2 (2)
g) Approve junior membership in PPB Fire Co #2 (2)
h) Performance Bond Release – LaManna Building
i) Maintenance Bond Release – Curtis Ave LLC
j) HELD for separate consideration (Authorize Boro Engineer to provide roadway
k) Approve American Cancer Society ‘Breast Cancer Walk’ S/E App – 10/16/11
l) Memorialize date change for Recreation “Family Fishing” Night
m) Approval of Jett Foundation S/E app for JettRide on 8/5/11
n) Appointment of additional counselor for Recreation Summer Park Program
o) Approve NJ Environmental Fdn S/E app for canvassing through town
p) Payment of 3rd quarter tax levy to the County of Ocean ($1,932,840.85)
q) Payment to HD Supply Waterworks ($14,472)
r) Payment to Four Point Refrigeration for replacement A/C unit ($7100)
s) Approve Frankie’s ABC License Extension App for 9/17/11
t) Payments to T&M Assoc from escrow accounts ($740)
u) Payments to Galvin Law Firm from Planning Bd accts ($447.50)
v) Oppose A-3285 Requiring certain public contract bid advertisement to contain
certified cost estimates and specifying grounds for the rejection of all bids
w) Payment to NJ Health Benefits for employee health benefits ($101,769)
x) P O to SPS VAR for police service contracts ($3495)
y) Authorization for Boro Engineer to bid project to install generators at fire houses
z) HELD for separate consideration (Approve ABC Social Affairs permit for Chamber of
Commerce on 9/17/11)
aa) Approve ABC Social Affair permit for VFW on 8/20/11
bb) Appt of seasonal comfort station attendant (1)
VOTE: Council Members Tooker, Hennessy, Rizzo, Corbally, Lurie…YEA
Motion by Councilman Lurie, to approve resolutions covering items listed below, was seconded by Councilman Hennessy and carried by roll call vote.
CONSENT RESOLUTION 4:
a) Release unexpended Board of Adjustment escrow accounts ($1350.65)
b) Approve special event app for Grace Tabernacle Bible Church for Boardwalk outreach
c) HELD for insufficient funds (P O to Mitchell Humphrey for Bldg Dept computer/
Software upgrades - $9200)
d) Auth to go out to bid for sanitation truck
e) Approve special event app for St Peter PTA ‘Fisherman’s 5K’ on 3/24/12
f) Auth early start time of 7AM for 2010 road improvement construction project
g) Payment to Denise Sweet & Assoc from BOA escrow ($200)
h) Auth for Bay Head by the Sea to utilize port-a-john for remainder of summer season,
contingent upon approval by Code Officer
i) Payment to Martin Ackley Assoc for Channel Dr asphalt core & test ($1500)
j) Final payment to Albert Marine Construction for Boston Ave bulkhead replacement
k) Payment to O C Soil Conservation for FY2010 road program ($1,620)
l) P O to Schaefer Systems for 125/95 gallon refuse containers ($7612.50)
m) P O to Detcon for two 40 cu yd roll-off containers ($12,816)
n) Authorization for Ocean Fire Co #1 to charge for parking in the lot adjacent to that
Fire Co on Sundays in August, contingent upon research that is done by the Borough
Attorney - Closed Session Item
o) Approve Closed Session minutes of May 10, May 31, June 21 and July 12 - Closed
p) Approve Memorandum of Understanding with Mr. Frank Huber regarding religious
expression and solicitation - Closed Session Item
VOTE: Council Members Tooker, Hennessy, Rizzo, Corbally, Lurie…YEA
RESOLUTION 5: Approval of ABC Social Affairs permit for Chamber of Commerce on 9/17/11 was considered.
Councilman Lurie: thinks the Seafood Festival has gotten too big and the crowds pose a danger (Carol Vaccaro, Chamber of Commerce: the wine garden has never been filled to capacity and there has never been a problem with it; Chief O’Hara: has no problem as long as his recommendations are followed).
Motion by Councilman Corbally, to approve Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control special permit for Social Affair for the Point Pleasant Beach Chamber of Commerce “Wine Garden” on September 17, 2011 (Rain Dates: September 18, 2011, September 24, 2011 or September 25, 2011), contingent upon adherence with Police Chief’s recommendations, was seconded by Councilwoman Tooker and carried by roll call vote.
VOTE: Council Members Tooker, Hennessy, Rizzo, Corbally…YEA
RESOLUTION 6: Authorize Borough Engineer to provide roadway evaluation ($12,000) was considered and held. Administrator Riehl to provide Council information on what’s been done over the last 10 years and they can rank what still needs to be done.
Ordinance 2011-19 (Single Stream Recycling) was considered on second reading. Public hearing was opened and held with no member of the public wishing to be heard.
Motion by Councilman Corbally, to close public hearing and adopt Ordinance 2011-19, was seconded by Councilwoman Tooker and approved by roll call vote.
VOTE: Council Members Hennessy, Rizzo, Tooker, Corbally, Lurie…YEA
Ordinance 2011-20 (Smoke Detector inspection fees) was introduced on first reading. Motion by Councilwoman Tooker, to approve Ordinance 2011-20, was seconded by Councilman Hennessy and carried by the following roll call vote. Public hearing will be held August 23, 2011.
VOTE: Council Members Hennessy, Rizzo, Tooker, Corbally, Lurie…YEA
Ordinance 2011-21 (Seasonal Rentals) was introduced on first reading. Motion by Councilwoman Tooker, to approve Ordinance 2011-21, was seconded by Councilman Hennessy and carried by the following roll call vote. Public hearing will be held August 23, 2011.
VOTE: Council Members Hennessy, Rizzo, Tooker, Corbally, Lurie…YEA
Ordinance 2011-22 (Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Bond) was introduced on first reading. Motion by Councilwoman Tooker, to approve Ordinance 2011-22, was seconded by Councilman Hennessy and carried by the following roll call vote. Public hearing will be held August 23, 2011.
VOTE: Council Members Hennessy, Rizzo, Tooker, Corbally…YEA
2011-23 (Police Regulations – Public defecation/disrobing and tailgating) was introduced on first reading. Motion by Councilwoman Tooker, to approve Ordinance 2011-23, was seconded by Councilman Corbally. Motion died for lack of action.
Motion by Councilwoman Tooker, to approve Ordinance 2011-23 as amended with Chief O’Hara’s suggestion to add parking lots to list of places, was seconded by Councilman Hennessy and carried by the following roll call vote. Public hearing will be held August 23, 2011.
VOTE: Council Members Hennessy, Rizzo, Tooker, Corbally, Lurie…YEA
Councilwoman Tooker: 456 tons of recycling generated revenue of approximately $8,000 and savings of $40,000; asked Chief O’Hara to share the police report (during weekend of 23rd - 25th, issued 125 borough ordinance violations of which 48 were for drinking in public - 156 borough ordinance violations for that week as compared to 44 in 2010 – there were 52 criminal arrests during that same week; 104 borough ordinance violations last week with 94 over the weekend as compared to 44 in 2010 - no fireworks Thursday and Friday was calm with the thunder storm - 31 criminal violations as compared to 22 last year – “Rice Krispies” program accounted for 28 of the 104 borough ordinance violations this past weekend and accounted for 36 out of 125 the previous weekend - extra officers making impact – heard a lot of positive feedback - thanked Council and residents for their support).
Councilman Hennessy: thanked Mike Ramos and Glen Paesano for running Recreation “Family Fishing Night” – attended by many families - thanked Mayor Barrella and Councilman Corbally for showing up – a good time was had by all.
Councilman Rizzo: thanked all for a very enlightening meeting and ended teleconferencing connection.
Councilman Corbally: echoed Councilman Hennessy’s sentiments about “Fishing Night” - great thing to see Inlet being used by our kids; through end of June, court revenues are up 15% or $27K and meter revenue was up 10% or $56K - cell tower revenue is $93,000 compared to $15,000 last year (only had one provider last year and have four now); got a feeling that I never had before of anxiety while watching the officers get ready as they waited for people to come out of bars – have taken it for granted that it’s an easy job in Point Pleasant Beach – have a new found appreciation for the police department which is doing a great job.
Councilman Lurie: had Cook’s Lane resident complain about overgrown trees on Seacoast Property.
Mayor Barrella: thanked all for proceeding in professional matter during discussions; wrote to Governor on July 22nd about PPB taxpayers paying $95,000 to $155,000 for Police protection for a situation that is not of our making - lot of ideas bandied about regarding parking garages, which are an expensive proposition - state financing should come for that as they directly benefit from tourism industry; happy that the ordinances that were requested by the police were done very quickly by Mr. Gannon; interesting and ironic that while there’s also a committee consisting of hotel owners and realtors to address problems, there’s an “Animal House” ordinance being introduced but no one is worried that it might offend the hotel owners and realtors; hope we never see a repeat of last week’s behavior in which a Borough professional publicly attacked and called into question the integrity of our Police Chief and Lieutenant – such behavior will not be tolerated in this Chamber.
Administrator Riehl: tax bills should be out by end of week; property auction will be held on August 18th at 10AM.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PERIOD OPENED AT 10:26PM
Carol Vaccaro, PPB Chamber: asked al
Published September14, 2011 | Council Minutes | 1257