Meeting call to order. >> Council member Bez Anderson >> here. >> Council member Chapman >> here. >> Council member Clayton >> here. >> Deputy Mayor Quinn >> here. >> Mayor Moore >> here. >> Please stand for a silent prayer and moment of reflection.
We'll >> now the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America to the standy >> as comply with the open public meetings act chapter 231 PL1 1975. Adequate
notice of this meeting has been provided in the following manner. The annual notice was for Asbury Park Press. the coaster in the Star Ledger on January 15, 2026 and posted on the bulletin board the same date. All notices are on file with the city clerk. We are now on
special event applications. I have a prayer in the park on July 25th in Springwood Park and I have two beach weddings on September 10th and October 6 and the buildings and trades job fair. Are there any questions?
All right, moving on to Marrison City Council. Council member Bezerson. >> Thank you, Council Member Chavelin. Sorry. >> So, I just would like everyone to know that the Music Monday concert series
will kick off this coming Monday, the 13th, with um Alexander Simone and A Night of Soul, 6 o'clock, Springwood Cla. >> Thank you, Council Member Clayton. [applause] Thank you, Deputy Mayor Quinn.
Um, I'm just going to I want to thank the high school and the Asbury Park Board of Education for opening this room up for us sort of last minute, but we greatly appreciate that. And also, I was at the job fair today. Uh, and want to thank the trade unions. We had, you
know, on and off hundreds of people throughout today looking to get trade jobs. It ended up being really great. [applause] >> Thank you. Mayor Moore, >> nothing for me. >> All right. Marrison, city manager.
>> Hi. Good evening. Nothing to report. >> Thank you. And Marrison, city attorney? >> Thank you. >> Thank you. We are now on to public participation. May I have a motion to open the meeting to the public? >> All in favor? >> Public participation portion of the
meeting is now open. Any member of the public wish to speak, please use the microphone, state your name and address for the record. There will be no >> I apologize about that. Is it sounds
loud to me? Is it too loud to you guys? >> Okay, good. Number one, thank you all for coming tonight. And believe me, this is not us against you, you against us or anything. We all live in Asbury Park and again my greatgrandfather moved here in 1888.
This has been like one of the toughest like u I'm going to say couple days for me to try to open figure out an opening statement. Number one, let's just get a couple rules down. Uh everybody will have three minutes to the
microphone. You can ask a question. You can make a statement about anything and everything. the when you're done, you'll be asked if you're done. Once you say you're done, you're done. Even if there's time left on the clock and then if it's a question that can be answered by the attorney,
the attorney will answer it and he will be limited to three minutes and we'll go that way. And if you have a long chain, people are passing one question to the next and next and next. We will not interrupt and answer questions in between. We will not be rude. We will wait till that chain is
done and then answer the questions as best as to our our ability. Now I I sympathize with the audience as I sympathize with the council here. The casino properties are a wreck. There's no question about it. Madison is not doing their job. There's no question
about that. I've been saying that for years. Where's Charles Day? Every time there's an article about Madison Marquette, he puts in the paper, Mayor Moore said they're tough to work with. I wish that was the truth. They're not tough to work with. They're impossible to work with. Something needs to change and everyone
up here agrees to that. And when I'm done, if any council person wants to add anything to a little bit of an opening statement, I have no problem with that. We want to get this casino back on track and agree that Madison is not the right organization to do that. Do I think a
massive lawsuit with an uncertain outcome with definite large legal fees is the best answer? I don't think so. I don't think that we want that as a first option. And I said that back when we met here the first time. I don't know if I
could morally vote on something that could potentially on a long shot put the city in worse financial shape than it's in because of legal fees and everything else. We're working on a couple possible
solutions. We have reached out to people that were involved with this in the past, be it Jimmy Arens. We've reached out to Clark Kaitton and Hints. Uh we've reached out to our construction department if we decide to pursue to buy back the
casino. You know, it's $1.5 million plus any money they put into it. So, the construction department has all their records of anything they put into it. You know, those new green roofs, they're not copper, but they weren't for free. It's something you can buy at Home Depot, but it costs a pretty penny to
put them on. So, we're trying to get it close to as possible total number, even though no matter what we say there, it'll be inflated. Uh, couple of the other possible solutions right now I can't share the details
with. Uh, and we're also, honestly, I am hoping for the tax credits for convention hall. As much as I do not like Mass Marquette because they're tough to work with, if we do not get those tax credits, there's no
question in my mind, convention hall is going to fall on the board. So, it's another reason I don't know if it's the right time to start a lawsuit and have the governor say, "Well, why should I give them $75 million when they're suing?" I mean, so then
what happens? Do we lose both? I wish this was a easy solution. There is no easy solution to this. Uh Tommy Teno has done a great job and tons of work. 900 pages of briefs, two hours of cross-examination with uh Judge Solomon,
I believe Joe Maris, he's done an equally as good as job representing the city. And one thing I'm going to ask everybody is no matter how you feel, please be real Asbury Park residents.
Let's not make this a circus. Let's not cat call. Let's not have cross conversations. Let's try to answer all the questions, give you some answers, and move on. But and again, if there's close conversations that people are out of line, I I don't want to, but I'm
going to have to have it removed because we're all here to like listen, receive, give our opinions, and then go from there. But let's just please let's prove
that we're true blue bishops, right, Tommy? Thank you. And if any other council person wants to add anything, that's again I've been trying to think of an open statement, but this is the toughest thing in 13 years. So that's all I have right now.
[applause] Okay. If not, then we'll open it up to the public. Sho 615 Asbury Avenue. Mr. Mr. Maraziti, you're fired. Mr. Mayor, I have tremendous respect for you as our mayor and as a person and
especially for standing up with me when I Asbury partners asked for my recusal from the planning. But what I expected tonight or I think I'm hearing is it implicit. Are we correct? Should we be hearing from Judge Solomon or is the
council saying we are correct that we have leverage and we can sue? And I I respectfully disagree with you because I've been hearing this from 22 years from from the council backpedaling and saying they don't want to sue. Nothing
is going to happen if we don't sue. spent 24 years of Asbury Partners putting their middle finger in our face. And I understand you want to corum, but I think we're all a little tired of being laughed at by Asbury Partners. And
I don't know if anybody from Asbury Partners is here, but you try to shut me up. You try You got me recused on your projects from the planning board, but I told you I wasn't going to shut up. The only way is to start the lawsuit. You
have the opening. Tommy Detto did incredible work with our redevelopment attorney. The city should be putting out a press release taking back the former one and saying that we do in fact have rights to take back the casino. In fact, we may be even be able to knock out this
whole agreement. But you see, with a lawsuit when you start it, that is you bring them to the negotiating table. It is your responsibility as the council to do this. I've said this for 22 years to the council that they have to stand up
to the developers. You know, we've had developers here before the master developer who built Cookman Avenue. Some of them have properties on the waterfront. Let's give them a chance. They have to jump over hurdles yet uh Asbury Partners gets everything they
want. Again, this is your job to do it. If the if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. We are not going away. [applause] Elections will come. We will put up candidates that will fight, that are
willing to fight, that the residents of Asbury Park are willing to put their money where their mouth are. If you will do it, I'll do it. Maybe I'll run for mayor. If I had you must fight as part of medicine.
What do we want? Save our structures. Save our structures. Save our structures. Save our structures. Save our structures. Save our structures. Let's forget about million multi-million dollar condos on the waterfront. And
let's concentrate on the buildings and the stuff that people came to Asbury for. The Empress, our historic buildings, the first structures. [applause] >> [applause] >> I think the feature is that I have an opportunity for three minutes to
>> Oh, you want to respond? >> Yeah. Move that closer. >> Okay. >> Only to the questions asked. >> No, I I said that at the beginning. >> I'm sorry. anybody with this microphone.
>> Come on, guys. >> Just keep talking. >> You can hear me now. >> Okay, good. I just wanted to make a couple of comments at the beginning here and I want to say this. Uh, yes. Uh, Justice Solomon did agree with Tom
Deno's opinion in his first report. [applause] But that's not the end of the story, which I'll I'll get into a little bit later. But I also want to recognize that uh Mr. Deno did a lot of hard work here
and uh through that process um it brought up some new issues that were not in front of Justice Solomon. And that led to exploring uh other documents and so uh at the proper time
and I won't take all that time now I'd like to explain those documents which uh in my opinion uh foreclose the ability of a city of the city uh to present a
valid uh complaint uh in litigation. And I I uh I say that with hesitation in a public forum. I don't normally say what my legal advice is publicly. Uh I
do it with my clients. But in this case, it's different. Um because I was asked at the meeting we had here last time we met uh when this room was packed uh to be transparent about the city's legal options and remedies. And that's when we
got into this debate about whether the city can buy back the casino building for $1.5 million plus the hard cost that it would pay. It's my my opinion that I will get into later tonight. Uh that uh
in my opinion it's not possible to do that. And for a an attorney to bring a lawsuit, you must have a facts and law that are uh presentable to a court. And
in my opinion, we don't have either here. And if you file a lawsuit, it's not simple cavalier. You file a lawsuit, see what happens. There's consequences. If you file a lawsuit that the courts consider to be frivolous and if that is
the case, then the legal fees of the defendant in that lawsuit can all be legal fees and legal expenses in defending the lawsuit can all be charged against in this case the city. So, it's
with great caution that I uh urge that we take a very careful look at this. Uh there is a uh there is there is professional rules of ethics and there's a statute with respect to frivolous litigation. I'll stop right there.
>> Hello. My name is >> Hello. My name is Charles Lada Chuck Lada. I live in 35 Charles Court in Ocean New Jersey. I'm a former resident Park. I got involved in this mess four years ago with Henry Vicaro when Paramount and Convention Hall were
closed to the public. And I would argue with our redevelopment attorneys that having two historic structures closed to the public does not meet the standard of commercially reasonable repairs. Okay? Closed does not make them commercially reason. There's a basis for a lawsuit
right there under the very weak second agreement that was instituted when Madison Marquette took ownership. Secondly, I've announced in the past that we have formed a a federally recognized under the IRS 501c3 organization to support the city's costs
in any legal endeavors. We have a anonymous donor who pledged $100,000 for the second $100,000 to match any public donations which are now at 17,000. So, there is $134,000 of non- taxpayer money that will start
this process subject to our nonprofit organization reviewing the attorney that would do this. And I'll tell you right now, my anonymous donor does not want to spend money on an attorney who is unwilling to fight. Without a fight, he's building to stay with an owner who
is not going to sense a dime. There's nothing to lose to try. And this idea that we would be counter sued for legal fees under a frivolous lawsuit. We all know what a frivolous lawsuit is. I think there is plenty of public purpose
and need to preserve these buildings that any frivolous lawsuit would be laughed out. The city has this right and we have a nonprofit with the city's permission. We can continue to raise money so that this cost is not burdened by the taxpayers of Asbury Park. Thank
you. >> [applause] >> One second. Thank you, Chuck. Appreciate it. >> Yeah. Henry Ricaro, born in Edward Park. I'm an acrobat. I now live in Upton. My family still better.
>> Is that better? Okay. Uh Henry Vicaro was born in Asbury Park. Sean that makes me an anchor baby. Uh I presently reside in Neptune. My family still owns a lot of property in Asbury Park. Uh first of all, it's it's a crime what's going on here.
We need somebody with a set of walls to sue [applause] and they have long term. Okay. I have commitments from people right now that would pay a million5 upfront to get the
damn building back. I have commitments for $15 million to start the restoration. I would put a bond up. I would put a letter of credit up to show you that we are real. We're not going to sit here and let these buildings go to hell. Thank you. [applause]
>> [applause] >> Thank you. Whenever you want to submit the ledgers of credit and the bonding, we'll accept it. Jim Katy, 313 Bond Street, unit 205. Also former member of the city council from 2005 to 2008. And the reason I share that last piece of information is
I believe I'm the only person in this room who was in the room when the 2006 uh dispute resolution agreement was negotiated and signed and the estoppel agreement in 2007. If any of you are betting people and
you've got a line on when hell will freeze over, get on your phones and place your bet. Because me being in alignment with Dan Shaneo and Tommy Deno on the same night, hell is about to freeze over. Mr. Deno, Mr. Shaneo have done an
excellent job in laying out the legal arguments related to the contracts and the governing development agreement on this matter. I want to discuss the political to the council members. As a former council member, there is a fundamental and primary question that needs to be asked.
Do you want to fight to save the casino? It's a yes or no. Because if you do, then who is the team that you are going to deploy to do this? In my reading of the reports and speaking with key cit citizen advocates about what has
transpired to date, if I were sitting back on the desk, I would be putting forth a motion tonight to fire Mr. Marzetti. what he is what he is doing in terms of not fighting for the city on our behalf on your behalf as a council reminds me
of the nefarious work of Mr. Aaron who I fought with everything I had to marginalize as one of our legal representatives during my time on council or have you told him that you don't want to fight for the building in executive
session I'm not sure so if Mr. Mr. Rosetti, if you or any members of the council, any members of the public, the press that are here want to talk about these agreements that are being thrown about the DRRA, the 2007 estoppel agreements, I am more than happy to speak with you about it because
again, unless Jimmy Bruno is hiding somewhere in here, I'm the only guy in this room that was in the room when this stuff was negotiated. And the stuff that you've written and said publicly does not capture the intent of the council in 2006 or 2007.
And again, Mr. Deno did a much better job than I would in laying out the legal component of that. Again, I'm focused on the political. Mayor Moore, you you asked for the people of Aspbury to come together and bleed the black and blue and stand with you and we're all one. They're here in
front of you. I don't think there's a person in this room that's telling you to demolish the casino. Mayor and council, the community has your back. ride that blue wave to save the casino. Now, some may say, "Well, when you were
on council, why didn't you do this? Why didn't you file the lawsuit?" I wanted to. I was in the minority. I was in the minority. >> Jim, I'm sorry. >> If I may, Mr. Mayor, wrap it up. It's at your discretion as the chair. >> 10 seconds. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you very much. Um, you don't need to be afraid. The city is in a much different place than it was. The Caribbean agreement is gone. Don't let that spectre hang over you. Right. I moved into the downtown 25 years ago. I was paying 875 in rent. Last month, I signed my rental agreement
in the downtown. I'm paying 3,700. The city is healthy. You've got the money. File the lawsuit and fight for the casino. Thank you. >> [applause] >> I'm going to use this microphone if I can be heard. Um, let me know if I
can't. Raise your hand and I'll know what that good >> I'm good. Okay. So, the the question of the estoppel certificate was just raised. There are a lot of documents, but this is a key document. Uh, it is uh uh called the estoppel and consent
certificate of the city of Asbury Park. I only know the intent of the city from reading this document, not was discussed in the room, but the the intent of the city is is recorded in this document adopted in 2007.
The circumstances that gave rise to this was that Madison Marquette was interested in coming into Asbury Park to take over the I'm going to call them the boardwalk assets. You know what I mean
by that? From Asbury partners. But they wanted assurance from the city that there were not obligations that of Asbury partners that they didn't know about. And so they asked for this
certificate. And this certificate states that there are only two agreements between Asbury Partners and the city in 2007. One of them is the 2002
agreement that set up the whole opportunity for Asbury Partners to take over both retail and residential in Asbury Park. The other one is the 2006 dispute resolution agreement. I only have three minutes, so I'm going to talk
now about the 2007 agreement. This agreement says, this statement says number one, there are no defaults at that time. That's what the city, that's what this says. It also says the city is
not entertaining issuing defaults of any obligations that Asbury Partners has. That's very important because that means there was never an agreement of Asbury partners to undertake the Clark Kaitton
hints $33 million report. And my time is almost up and I'll just reserve the rest of it to get into the rest of that. >> Yep. Next. Hi. Can everyone hear me? >> No. Louder. Better.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Uh Celia Moricette, uh 6146th Avenue, a 25-y year resident of Asbury Park, involved in the historic society, um and one of the co-founding members of SOS,
Save Our Structures Asbury Park. [applause] I'm confused u by Mr. Marisetti's position. Which of these is it? Did you Does he say that the contracts do allow a suit to take the casino for
construction default, but we can't because there is no default or the contracts just don't allow a suit to take the casino even if there is a default. Please um clarify. Hold on a second. Silia, that's all your
questions. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> He didn't answer. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, the question is, does does the the contract allow the city to file a
complaint to take back the casino? My answer to that question is no. And the reason I say that is because we have to go back. Justice Solomon said that the terms that govern are the terms of
the 2002 agreement that govern the right of the city to take back the casino and and Mr. Denno agrees with this because the takeback option does not exist in the 2010 agreement. it only exists in
the 2002. So you have to look back to that agreement to see if there is an obligation uh in the 2002 agreement to that Asbury Partners kept even after it sold the property to Madison in 2010.
The argument is, I don't agree with it, but the argument is that even after Asbury Partners sold the agreement to Madison Marquette, and Madison Marquette had the opportunity to use, occupy, repair, and maintain it, Asbury Partners still had an obligation to construct $33
million worth of improvements on property they don't own. That's the argument. But the agreement in in 2002 in section 3.05 5 has two parts to it. The first part says, it's a short paragraph. The first
part says that Asbury partners shall hire a professional firm or firms to undertake a a report and make recommendations for the rehabilitation of the casino complex. There's a lot of buildings there. I'm not going to break them down. It's a whole of those those
projects. And then it says, another really key paragraph is that within 120 days after that report is submitted, the parties shall agree
on a schedule to undertake the renovations. The word agree in that in that sentence is essential. It means that the mere issuance of the report is not the obligation of Aspbury Partners.
There had to be a a a second agreement to undertake $33 million worth of work and that that never happened. I see my time is almost up. I don't have time to finish that whole thought. But the
answer is no. We need an agreement by Asbury partners to do that work and there's clearly not such an agreement and there are documents that say just the opposite which I'll be happy to explain when I get another three minutes.
>> I believe um Tommy Desenno may have another point of view on that but I'm sure he'll speak later. Good evening. My name is Constance Agustini. Can you hear us? >> Excuse me. >> They can't hear you. >> You can. >> Okay. Sorry. Hi. I'm Constance
Agustinini. I'm a longtime resident of Aspberry Park. I live at DA Tower. Um I'm going I have a question, but first I'd like to say do something. I I'm seeing I see passion here, but I'm not getting passion here. And I'm sorry, but
I I I I should like let's do this. Let's do what we can. We thought a lot of words, but find a way. Question. What was asked of Justice Solomon after his April 23rd report that prompted his one paragraph April 28th report? Who asked?
Why did they ask? And who authorized that person to ask? >> Do do you mean do I need to repeat that? Would that help? >> No. No. can't hear you. >> I don't have the answer to that. >> Can't hear you. >> He said he doesn't have the answer to
the questions. >> I didn't have communication with Justice Solomon except for the couple of hours when we had a conference call and we had a discussion with Justice Solomon. >> Would you know who has the who has the answers to that question? Those
questions? >> Yeah. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Okay, come on, guys. No, but you know I'm just asking I'm giving her a little bit of levity to begin with. So I mean like that's >> okay. >> She doesn't need coaching if she does.
It's not going to continue all night. >> Of course. >> Okay. Well, that being said, >> what's the answer? >> What's the answer? >> The attorney knows. Do you have an answer to that? Because it wasn't directed. >> Yes. If you know, yes, by all means, answer. >> Yeah. I I My name is Kevin Stark. I'm
the city attorney. Um, I I think what you're asking, and I just want to clarify this, was after Justice Solomon issued his uh [clears throat] first report, he issued a a second, I think it was just a a couple sentences in a um in a subsequent letter, right,
where where he said in effect, um, I did not determine whether or not there was a default under the contracts. Um after he he he actually called me and said I'm issuing my report the first one. Uh he sent it uh to my office um and I said
you know there's not nothing in here about issuing a default. And he said well if that wasn't clear I'll send you a second letter that says that I that was not what I believe I was asked to determine. I was asked to evaluate what the remedies are available to the city
in the event there was a default um not to determine whether there was a default under the agreements. So that's that was the circumstance of that coming out. >> Thank you for that. And uh finally just uh we all know this. I hope that you up there know that these buildings are the
soul of Asbury Park. Not that building >> I said once you say you're done you're done. >> Did I say I was done? I'm sorry. >> Yes. Because your time was up and we went off. >> I had I had 17 seconds. >> No. Once once you're done asking questions you're done. If I didn't make that clear, I apologize.
>> Thank you. Hello, my name is Lori Crin. I live at 1201 Ocean Avenue in Bradley Beach. I was born down the street at Fitken Hospital, now Jersey Shore, and I've been coming here for 65 years. And my question, um, I'm curious as to how
Justice Solomon came to have the 2006 DRRA when it was not part of the original proceeding nor of his first two reports. Please answer these questions. who at the city took part in any conversations about the need to send the
DRRA to Solomon before contacting him about the DRRA? Please recap the substance of those conversations. What was stated to Justice Solomon about why the DRRA was being sent and did any
council person know this was being done? >> Is that all your questions, ma'am? >> Yes. And >> and yeah, the buildings are the soul of Asbury Park. Just repeat what she said. That's it. >> Yeah, somebody has the answer. Answer.
>> Yes. Um uh Justice Solomon, after he issued his report, the the initial report and and the subsequent one, um it became apparent to me that there was a missing document. I I actually did not know at the time that Justice Solomon um
had that had that document in 2006 um DRRA um he had it honestly because Mr. Deno uh provided it to him um and I I it might have been lost in the in the shuffle because I think there was about I and I I did not know because I wasn't
involved in what was um the entirety of what was provided to him and I wasn't part of the conversation he had but that was included in the 900 page or so that Mr. Seno gave to him. Um I called him and pointed that out. Um he was unaware that he had it. Uh he uh looked at it
and said um I'm going to issue a subsequent report now that I had this. I I think I might have sent him a separate copy of it as well just so he knew what I was talking about. And then he decided he needed to issue a subsequent uh report which led to the uh I think it
was May it was in late May I forget the date of it report that came out um where he included that as part of the discussion and I think I don't know if that came up during I know there was a um I think a couple hour phone call with um Mr. Deno Mr. Marziti and Justice
Solomon. I was not on that call. I don't know if we came up during that call. So that's the circumstance. >> Thank you. Without any help, what question was not answered? >> That was helped
with council, were they not? >> Yeah. Just the last question. Did any council person know this was being done? >> No. You asking them, you asking us. What do you want to do? >> Whoever has the answer. >> I did not know until we got all the
reports. >> Okay. Did not know. >> Did not know. >> Okay. Did any So everybody's know >> Thank you. >> Take this off. >> Michael Labram, 600 Second Avenue. I'm sure you can hear me. Uh, I've been here
three and a half years with my wife, so I'm a newbie. Thank you for the opportunity to address all of you on the city council this evening along with attorneys. Um, after Justice Solomon's April 23 report was mailed to the city, my understanding and the understanding of a lot of folks in this room is that
Mr. Denna was removed from participation without being told he was being removed or why. I'm trying to understand why he was removed, who made that decision. It appears to me and perhaps a lot of people in the room that an advocate for Asbury Park community is being silenced
and shunned seemingly because as well researched facts conflict. In my opinion, conflict does not necessitate being removed from a conversation, something this country seems to have a lot of problems with right now. Can each council members state on the record if
they knew about it and agreed with such removal? I'm done. I did not. >> Thank you. But if I can I I don't know that to my knowledge, no one removed Mr. Denno or Mr. Maraziti from any
conversation with Justice Solomon. Justice Solomon, as I said, had I my understanding was a two-hour conversation with both of them. Um had I I guess gave them extensive opportunity to respond. Um to my knowledge, Mr. Mr.
Marzini did not have any conversations with Justice Salman after that. Uh I believe that Mr. Denno did not have any although I although I don't know um I had a couple of conversations. They were probably 2 minutes long when I uh provided him with additional
documentation. So Justice Solomon and and I think this is how most Supreme Court justice and former Supreme Court justices operate. they they get the documents, they have an opportunity to speak with people and then they issue their rulings. Um there was not ongoing
discussions that were unknown to people. It was just Solomon doing his work. So I don't think there was a removal. I certainly is not aware of it if if there if there were. >> If I could just say I did not have any other conversation with Justice Solomon
other than the one that uh Mr. deseno and I uh participated in together. >> And my answer is no. If you were looking for the council is >> Hello, Frankata from 2096 Avenue. Uh had
a question regarding the uh Mr. Denno had twice requested that Justice Solomon clarify his report commenting on whether or not the city's press release was incorrect. So apparently it was incorrect and
he uh tried to get clarification from uh Judge Solomon and he all he got no answers. So it it appears like he was stonewalled. So was so number one was there a request to not respond because he's
submit this report and somebody has a question about it to Seno and he's not getting answers chirps nothing he ought to be able to get some response saying oh you're you're wrong or you you are absolutely correct so we you know we
should know that for number one and if somebody stopped them who stopped him and my other comment is kind of related but we talk about the followup or the right to sue What is this? This is um uh when when
somebody Oh, default. We have I've heard that word so many times. The city the Madison Marquett's in default or and what are what are the what are the consequences of a default? Oh, I've always been told, oh, you know,
it's a it's a precursor to a suit. Where's the suit? There's no consequence to the con constant constant defaults. the the building falling down, being closed, you can't pass through. Tell me that's not default and there's no
consequence. So, is there going to be a consequence for all of these defaults other than saying, "Oh, they're in default." [applause] >> Frank, you done? >> Yeah, I'm done. >> Thank you. >> I'll I'll take the first question and I'll be quick because I think the second
one's longer. Um uh I I saw Mr. Dennos's uh two I think there were two of them to Justice Solomon. I did not have any discussions with him about him. Did not communicate with him about him. Um I think I that was up to Justice Solomon uh whether he responded, how to respond. I had one conversation with Justice
Salman, not about that. Um a member of the press uh called him was asking for him to comment on something. Left him a voicemail. He called Justice Salman called me just to say uh I just want to let you know I've gotten a call from the press. I am not inclined to respond to
the press. Um I stand on the written uh rulings that I have sent out. So maybe the same applies to Mr. Senate. I don't know. So I didn't discuss that with the question about the default. The default that we're talking about here is
the default that would enable the city to buy back the casino buildings. That's the focus of what I have been talking about. That's the focus of the issue raised by administer deno. That's the focus of the questions to justice
Solomon. So I will address that. [sighs] The in order to have a default you have to have a a legal obligation that has not been met. And so what we're talking about here, as I mentioned earlier, is
the question of whether Asbury Partners had a legal obligation to undertake the $33 million Clark Kaden hints recommendations. And that's where the problem occurs
because there never was an agreement by Asbury partners to do that. And in fact, I'm going to go back to the 2007 estoppel agreement which said in 2007 there's no default by Asbury partners
under any agreements. And it also says that has attached to it a couple of uh of exhibits that are very telling. And one of them uh is u uh an exhibit B which is has two parts. Part A,
paragraph A talks about the scope of work and the work plan for 2007. Nothing to do with casino. And then B is the long-term vision, not an immediate obligation. the
long-term vision which if you read it is a paraphrase of the scope and characteristics of the Clark Kate and Hinsson hints report that would be roughly $33 million. It doesn't mention the report
but it describes projects that would be of that magnitude and it says that's subject to a later agreement. a later agreement, not part of this. There's more to be said about that, but I can't do it in one second.
>> If they don't reach that agreement, Dan, >> please don't push it down. >> No, sir. >> No, you said your time was up. I'm going to make >> Tom his time is up. That's why he did this. >> Last question.
That's all. >> Okay. Well, then he can pass on to somebody else. No, he asked it. >> Tom, you're not going to interrupt the meeting. >> No, you're not gonna answer the question. I got it. That's on the record. Thank you. >> Where was Solomon? >> That's on the record. And what's >> answer his last question?
>> What's also on the record so I don't have to say it to the 28 people you gave me questions to, which I have no problem with. I told you to do that. >> Just so everybody doesn't have to ask me. If the person behind you was Judge Solomon, I wouldn't know. Never seen the
man. Never talked to the man. never gave instructions to anybody in the city to ask the man, send the man, do anything to with the man. So if that's going to be a constant question because I'm not the lawyer. >> No speaking out please. >> You're the mayor.
>> You're the mayor, >> right? And if I got involved in you all said would say, "Oh, yeah. We want Okay. >> So much for good me." >> Okay. Thanks. >> So, Gabriella Cuchinada, 209 6th Avenue.
Um, thank you for providing this venue to have lots of people here and speak. Um, just like everybody else, I don't think Asbury Park would be Asbury Park. We would lose really our heart and soul if we don't have these buildings. And I think they're just so so important,
especi stating that Justice Solomon found no viable path to retake the casino. Those words appear nowhere in Solomon's report. Knowing what you know now, will you retract the statement? That's one. And then for the city attorney, Kevin
Starky announced that he was going to redact Justice Solomon's April 23rd opinion before releasing it. Were redactions made? If so, where were they? So, I don't know who wants to answer first. So,
>> I will not now. Let me think about it. I will correct the statement if it needs correction. I will not retract it at this time. the one. Okay. Thank you. >> Yes. No. >> How about now? >> Yeah.
>> Thank you. Um your question was um Oh, redact. Yes. Uh I did say publicly I was I uh thought that um just portions of Justice Solomon's ruling at least the initial one should be redacted. I thought some of them, some parts of it
were sensitive and if there was going to be litigation that maybe should not be disclosed. Um, I'll be honest with you, I was overruled by the mayor and council. They said, "We want full transparency with the public. We don't want to hide anything from them. Don't redact it and put it out." And I follow the instructions of my client, people up
here. >> Thank you. >> Hi, Mitra Caral. I live at 1206 L Street in Belmar. My question is, the 2002 contract says the casino can't be sold until the city agrees to have a timeline
of repairs. Are you saying they sold the casino without agreeing to a timeline? And doesn't it make more sense that they closed accepting the Clark report? I'm >> Is there any further question? >> No, that's it. Okay.
>> Thank you. So the the argument is that the agreement says that the 2002 agreement section 3.05 as I mentioned earlier there was to be a conversation with 120
days to approve to agree to the schedule before the closing. It says that the closing happened and the agreement did not take place. And so we looked into that what was going on. The collect cadence hints report was issued in
October of 2004. In December of 2004, there is an ordinance adopted to authorize the sale of the casino building in 2004.
In fact, the deed was signed on Christmas Eve 2004. The ordinance explains that the the city council desired to accelerate that closing and do it in 2004
to avoid a tax increase in 2005. Newspaper accounts indicated that if they did not do that, uh, there would have been a 35% tax increase in 2005. So the city wanted to collect that money
for the casino in 2004 so they could apply it to that. That's why there's no agreement. They did they obviously waved that. They obviously Excuse me, sir. Excuse me, sir.
>> The consequence of that happening was a waiver of doing it before the closing. Yes, that's correct. there was a waiver. They went ahead and did it before the closing and it's explained why in that
ordinance and in the newspaper story. They didn't have they didn't take the time to enter into that negotiation. >> Thank you. >> I'm sorry. I'm going to have to repeat the question because I don't remember it. >> The first question was, "The 2002
contract says the casino can't be sold until the city agrees to a timeline of repairs. Are you saying they sold the casino without agreeing to a timeline?" >> Yes, I am saying that. I'm saying exactly that. Yes.
>> Oh, the second question was, doesn't it make more sense that they close accepting the Clark report? I I I could you I can't hear you that clearly. >> Doesn't it make more sense that they closed accepting the Clark report? >> No, it doesn't because the agreement in
2002 requires that to be an agreement and an implicit acceptance of a report that would require a $33 million project is illogical. So, they had to do that. They did not do it. And if they had done
it, let's assume they had I'm sorry, my time. >> Finish your finish your sentence. >> Okay. So, if they had if they had um accepted that by the closing, that would have meant there was an obligation of
Asbury Partners to do something, right? That's right. And if they had not done it by 2007, they would have been in default. And the 2007 estoppelled certificate that I I read to you while I spoke about
before says in 2007 there's no default. No. >> So, I'm sorry, sir. It's >> complicated. >> Dan Dan, >> the 2007 >> We are friends and I don't want to have to put you out, but I mean
>> the 2007 >> I'm sorry I'm I'm being interrupted and I'd like to explain it says contemplated and it also says both things. It says there's no default and there are none contemplated. Both both statements are
made in the 2007 estoppel certificate. It's important document and there's more to be said about that which I'd like the opportunity to do. But the answer is there's no agreement implicit. >> Okay, your time.
>> Mike Neil 700 Asbury AB Asbury Park, New Jersey. Hi Dan. Um, I've got a statement, but right off the bat, here's the croc of you keep telling us. You said there's no default. They right the first day they didn't sign the
agreement before everything was done. You just stated that two minutes ago. So there's they've never told the truth from day one back to 2002. Anyway, about the 2007 contract, we are told that just from Justice Solomon
considered the contract. Mr. Maziti admitted to gpgov.news the 2007 amendment to the 2006 agreement of the contract yet the 2007 contract was not
sent to Justice Solomon. Doesn't that prove Solomon did not review all of the contracts? Who decided to hold back the 2007 form from Justice Solomon? Why was that decision made? Was the city
council told about the 2000 agreement was being kept from Solomon? How does each council person feel that now they know it? And why won't you send the 2007 contract to Solomon now for his comments?
Those are my questions. But even before you answer those, my last question is I'm tired of coming to all of these meetings. Everybody up there states we don't know what to do. who are afraid to sue. Do your job and sue them. They've
[applause] been screwing us for 2020 years right now because it goes back to 2006, but it goes back even earlier than that. They are not going to do anything. They're full of if they say they are going to do it because they are not.
They have proven over and over and over again no work is being done. How can you say there's no default if they haven't done a thing? It's absolutely ridiculous that we're up here week after week. You guys sit there, you allow every kind of
building that they want to put up that goes up. You're about to build at the corner of Ashbury now in I don't know, Ocean, whatever that street is. So they can make more money building more condos, raising all of our taxes. They pay and we have to pay them all. And
everybody out there stands there. There's nothing we can do. There's a tremendous amount you can do. Do your job and sue them. We are all tired of it. If not, I'll buy that back in 1.5 million if that's what they're offering cuz it's ridiculous. The city has it. We
have the money to do it. We have the money to fight it. And we want all of this preserved and saved for all of us. Do your job. Excuse [applause] me. I didn't hear. >> Thank you for my time. >> Okay.
>> Let me just correct you on one thing. >> Okay. >> Madison is not building the condominions. >> I agree. >> Madison is not the builder of the condominiums. >> It is true. It is true. >> We all know they split it up and divided
it all up. So the question I think the question that you asked is why wasn't justice Solomon provided with the 2007 estoppel certificate the answer to that question he was it was part of the
package of documents provided by Mr. Denno uh the 900 pages that he's referred to many times included many documents including the dispute resolution agreement the establish certificate the Clark Kate and hence
report all of those documents but the question before justice Solomon was not to look at all those documents and to answer those questions his question was where where is the obligation if there's an obligation is it under the 2002
agreement because that's the only agreement that gives the opportunity if there's a default to take back the casino. And so the focus is very narrow. It's is there an obligation from that 2002 agreement that is still with
Aspbury Partners and that's what I've been talking about here. The obligation would be to undertake the Clark Caitlyn's $33 million project. There might be other defaults. I'm not saying there's not other defaults. We're focusing on this particular default that
would allow that very unusual remedy of taking buying back the buildings. And you have to find an obligation in the 2002 agreement under Justice Solomon's thinking in order to have that option.
And that's where it's very clear there needed to be an agreement. There was not an agreement. and the 2007 estoppel certificate uh which I I didn't get a chance to fully explain. It talked about the long-term vision in that document
and it describes in a few a few numbered paragraphs as I said before projects of the scope and characteristic like the Clark Caitens report and it says that those obligations
and I'll read from the very document that was adopted in 2007 such scope and characteristics are subject to the mutual approval of the city, the joint venture and Asbury partners to be memorial, this is the key
part, to be to be memorialized in a subsequent developers agreement. That means there wasn't one yet in 2007. and and that means that there wasn't one
in 2010 either because this is also attached to the document in 2010. But that footnote doesn't end there. The footnote goes on to say an Asbury Partners LLC shall not be liable to perform or
complete the scope of work set forth in this paragraph B. >> Paragraph B. Mr. You got to finish your sentence. Your time's up. >> No, sir. Sir, sir, >> sir, your time's up.
>> Sir, your time's up. From day one, it's in default. Exactly. Speaker [applause] says, read what it says. If there is no agreement, Joe, read that part. What happens if there is? >> Next speaker, please. Come on.
>> I'm sorry. I'll wait till like 3 minutes to respond to Mr. Marini who gets 3 minutes every time. It's >> the stupidest setup I've ever seen. [applause] >> Yes. >> Hello. Uh, I'm Denise Morano Nadell. I live at
2096th Avenue. I'm a lifelong resident of Asbury Park and now my family lives here with me. Couple of different issues. Number one, this is for you, mayor. >> Can you hear me now? >> Yes.
>> Under the Robert's rule of order adopted by the council in 2005, you, Mr. Mayor, have the discretion to extend the time of any ma member of the public. Please do so if it's a matter of impact. Thank you.
Okay. Now on the 2007 agreement was signed by the mayor, approved by the council resolution attached as an exhibit to that resolution and then appended to the formation document of
Madison Asbury Retail. Everyone accepted the 2007 agreement and the Clark Canton hints scope of work known therein as exhibit B refurbishing all buildings a
new threestory building where the arena stood carousel as a festival market new stores next door and elevators plus an observation deck and restaurants in the heating plant.
Do you agree that this 2007 agreement included exhibit B was fully accepted by the city council and both developers and it was part of a binding contract histo history history question mark? If not, please identify
specifically which part of your claim was not accepted and why. >> [clears throat] [snorts] >> I'm sorry. Are you done? >> I'm done. Yes. >> Thank you. >> So, the answer to that question is it was
not accepted. It was stated as a vision for the future. It was not as part of this document. It was not then an obligation. In fact, as I read to you, it says that in a footnote on the on the
next page, page 510, such scope and characteristics are subject to the mutual approval of the city, the joint venture and asbury partners to be, this is the part that's important, to be memorialized in the
subsequent developers agreement, meaning it wasn't yet an obligation. Hold on. Speak up. Speak up. And >> it's not an obligation. It goes back to 2002. I was in the room, John. I negotiated. It says that that's what it
says in the documents. And you have the discretion as the chair to have people like myself and Tommy and Dan have longer time. You have discretion to do that. We have more information. Not to any other members of the public, but we have >> If you keep on talking, I'm going to
have you put out lock you up, Dan. Come on now. >> Let him read the part. That's when they are >> and it says if you don't reach agreement, Asbury partners still on the hook. >> That's what it says.
>> I don't I don't see that line. It says it says the parts of the estoppel are reading. >> Let him read the sentence. Let him read the sentence. So everybody reading the same footnote where he's waiting. >> I'm answering the question and the the
answer to the question is no. That document in 2007 did not commit Asbury Partners or Madison Marquette to do the work that you described. And what's very
important too is that in 2010 the 2010 what's called the subsequent developer agreement we call an SDA between the city Madison uh Madison Asbury Retail Madison Marquett's
subsidiary refers to this in in in the reference to what its oblig what it was going to do regarding the casino and the power plan. It says basically this that the as I
said Madison Marquette gets to own those buildings and then it says that the the the work to be done on that is to be subject to a subsequent developer agreement. This is still 2010
and it says that that point there's to be a subsequent developer agreement regarding the casino and the power plant and there shall be no commencement of construction by Madison until the parties all agree that means the city
and Madison Marquette. So this language in 2007 gets carried over into the 2010 agreement. That's why I answer your question the way I did. >> What does it say if they don't reach your answer?
>> No, answer the question. We'll read next next lady, please. Thank you. >> You know, for those who have spoken, thank you. But please be respectful to the next dozen or so people that still need to speak. >> Hi uh Chris Olith uh Deal Lake Drive in
Asbury Park. Um thank you for hosting us tonight. I'm one of the co-founders of Save Our Structures Asbury Park SOS. Thanks all for being here. Um first a comment and then a question for Mr. Maraziti. Just the comment being that um while we appreciate this opportunity,
this format doesn't really seem to be working to get the answers that folks need. We have literally decades of experience in the room and we have to, you know, um you know, we're we're doing this, you know, to try to get answers for Mr. Denno and others who really
haven't had the opportunity to to be able to truly air what the technical questions are and have a sophisticated dialogue. So, I'm hoping that can be part of a next step if we can't come to some type of conclusion tonight. So, on behalf of Mr. Deno, I would like to ask
a four-part question to Mr. Marazidi. Mr. Deno contends the following of the 2007 agreement. There's going to be four things I'm going to ask you to please confirm or deny. First, Madison Marquette is only responsible for
exhibit B if Madison signs a construction subsequent developer agreement for the casino. Number two, Justice Solomon has already found that Madison did not sign a construction SDA for the casino, which
is why he found Asbury Partners remains responsible under the 2002 contract. Number three, if Madison does not enter a construction SDA, the 2007 agreement
is void as to Madison for this work. And number four, paragraph seven of the 2007 agreement twice states that the quote master developer shall remain liable slash responsible to complete the
scope of work annexed as exhibit B end quote until a construction subsequent developer agreement is entered. Please state whether you agree or disagree with each one of these four points. I try to remember them. Um,
it's >> I'm happy to submit them as well [clears throat] if that's helpful. >> Yeah, sure. That that would be helpful. >> So, the first [applause] thing is um, let me find it.
If Madison does not enter construction SDA, the 2007 agreement is void as to Madison for the work. I wouldn't use the word for I'm sorry. I'll read it again. >> It starts with letter A, Tom. Uh, Joe.
>> Uh, A. Oh. Madison Marquette is only responsible for exhibit B if Madison signs a construction subsequent developer agreement SDA for the casino. That's right. Uh, two B. Justice Solomon has already found that Madison did not
sign the construction SDA for the casino, which is why he found Asbury partners responsible under 2002. That's not actually correct. Uh that's not the reason he found that to be the case. He found that to be the case because he
interpreted the 2010 agreement not to include an obligation by Madison regarding the casino buildings. That's what he did. C. If Madison does not enter a construction SDA, the 2007 agreement is void as to Madison for this
work. That's right. They have no obligation. I wouldn't use the word void, but they have no obligation to do the work unless they sign an agreement. And then D, paragraph 7 of the 2007 agreement twice states that the master developer shall remain liable responsible to complete the scope of
work indexed as exhibit B until the construction subsequent developer agreement is entered. That's correct. But what does B say? What does B say? >> B says it has two parts. A paragraph A
and paragraph B. Paragraph A is the the work for 2007. In paragraph B, which is called the long-term vision, it explicitly says that there's no obligation for anybody
to do that work. Madison, Marquette or Asbury Partners unless there's a subsequent developer agreement. So it it exactly does say that and that's the footnote that I've read a couple of times. doesn't have the obligation. >> No, it says it says Asbury Partners does
not have the I did read it a couple of times and >> he sounds like Asbury Partners attorney. Not all the same crappy >> that is [applause] >> I have I have read that and I'll read it
again. Uh this is the this is the part that is answered to your question. Such scope and characteristics are subject to the mutual approval by the city and all parties to to be memorialized in a subsequent developers
agreement. So it's not done yet. Nobody has the obligation to be memorialized means it hasn't happened yet. There's not an agreement. And this is a quote direct quote. Asbury Partners LLC shall not be respon liable to perform or
complete the scope of work set forth in this paragraph B. Paragraph B of exhibit B is the paragraph that desc. I have read it exactly as it was written
and and uh it is referring to the to the very expansive work that is the long-term vision which means it's a vision. It's not yet decided. So that that's the problem. I wish it were
otherwise. I love those buildings as you do. I I I I I have spent my youth in Asbury. >> Okay. >> I That's not the point. >> Okay. >> Thank you,
>> Kristen. >> Christian Avenue Ocean Grove. >> How's this? >> Can you hear me? >> Stay in the back. Try to take this phone off the microphone. >> Kristen Omera,
>> Cookman Avenue, Ocean Grove. Um, not to dwell too much on the same topic, but Mr. Maraziti, in your June 30th interview with OPGV News, you said the 2007 estoppel and consent
certificate and the 2006 dispute resolution agreement are the documents that govern the casino obligations and the Clark Kaitton hints $33 million scope of work was never an enforcable duty of Asbury partners.
But the estoppel language that Tom Denno cites and you just cited shall not be liable to perform or complete the exhibit B work is tied to the joint venture between Asbury Partners and Madison Marquette and to that joint
ventures signing a subsequent developer agreement. I understand that Justice Solomon has found that a subsequent developer agreement never happened. So two questions. First, do you agree that
the shall not be liable to perform or complete language only applies if that joint venture actually entered a subsequent development developer agreement and does not on its own
release as partners? And second, why did you not mention the joint venture and subsequent developer agreement in your comments to OPGOV News when those details seem central to understanding who is responsible for the work outlined
in the Clark Kaden Hans report? >> The answer to the first question is speak up. >> I'm sorry. Don't the clock isn't ready. >> Is that all your questions, ma'am? >> That was it. Yes. Thank you. >> Okay. So the answer to the first
question whether uh the obligation is is an if that language that excuses Asbury partners is only if there's not an agreement is no I don't agree with that because the word if is not in there no there's no reference to the word if
that's an interpretation that I don't share. Uh the other uh part of your question was uh maybe you could restate that. >> And second, why did you not mention the joint venture and subsequent development
developer agreement in your comments to OPGV News when those details seem central to understanding who's responsible for the work outlined in the Clark Kate and hence report? >> Because I don't think that was relevant to the conversation I was having with that reporter at that time. It's very
complicated. There's lots of things to say. You can only say a certain number of things in an interview and you can't get through the whole thing. I haven't gotten through the whole argument yet in this in this meeting that's been going on for almost an hour and a half.
There's a lot to be said, but that's not a relevant point. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Good evening. Joanne Camardi, De Lake Drive, Asbury Park. Thank you for your time. I have two questions or a two-part question. Under New Jersey law, can a
contract only be accepted in writing by saying, "I accept your offer, or are there other ways? If there are other ways, can you list some of them?" So the question is that all your questions ma'am >> that's it. Thank you.
>> Can a contract be accepted uh can you say that again? If >> can a contract only be accepted in writing by saying I accept your offer or are there other ways? >> It can be accepted by that in writing.
And I think what you're referring to is Mr. Deno's argument that actions that implement a contract idea is a commitment and I don't agree that that applies here at all to a $33
million uh uh project. I mean we're looking at a $33 million project. And the theory here is, remember this, Asbury Partners has sold the property to Madison Marquette. We're looking for
an obligation of Asbury Partners regarding those projects to undertake a $33 million project on property it does not own. >> It does own it. It does own. >> Uh, you know, M Mr. where I'm having
difficulty um be with the the call outs from the audience. You're asking you're asking me to give you an intelligent answer. And the the
uh the issue is can you infer by some action that these that the one party has agreed and in this case Asbury Partners to undertake a $30 million $33
million plus project on somebody else's property Madison Marquette owns it and and I would submit to you no and the you know the we haven't talked talked about the timelines or the schedule. I want to talk about the schedule which is part of
what they were to agree to. Now the schedule is actually not included in the Clay Cart Clayton hints report. It comes about a month later and the schedule that was attached to the documents
submitted by Mr. Deno to Justice Solomon contains a schedule that calls for uh many almost all of the work to be done by uh the end of 2005. That would have meant if that happened
there would have been there would have been a default statute of limitations would have started to run in 2005 >> and and excuse me excuse me I'm talking about the schedule that is offered by
Clark Kaitton hints in November not October and it also has a line item with respect to the renovations. The renovations are not to begin according to this schedule until there's tenant commitments for the space and the tenant
commitments for the space were to be completed by December of 2006. >> Okay, >> that's what does the deed say? >> Thank you. >> Thank you for your time. >> Thank you.
Good evening everybody. My name is Bob Wright, resident of 309 4th Avenue in Lansburg Park and also a lifetime resident of Inner Lake International Ocean Down. Worked on that boardwalk every summer from age 10. Yes, I legally till 21.
>> I started to >> What's that? >> I started at 13. >> There you go. No due respect, no disrespect, John, or the council, but I feel like you your opening statement to us was I'm on the same side as you.
From what I've sat here listening for the last hour and a half, you're not. Bottom line, you're not. Henry and Jerry made a big presentation and talked about all the money they can bring to the table
because you guys are scared of the legal fees, etc. You should take them up on their offer. Let them put their money where their mouth is. >> I did. >> Would the city support our fundraising effort? Would you give our blessing to go out to the community and ask for
donations? Would you support us? or they're going to say, "Why are we giving money to a city that doesn't believe in your cause?" If you'll give us a letter to authorize us, we'll form a committee and we'll get the money. >> You file suit. >> I'm sorry.
>> That's okay. It's fine. They're allowed to talk. I respect Henry. I respect time. I interrupted you and we'll answer your time. >> Understood. It's okay. I'm okay.
To that end, I feel like nobody here gives a crap about those villagers. You say you've been there since you've been a child. Doesn't seem like you're caring now. Everything's been No, no, no, no. Wrong. This is wrong. That's wrong. I'm not
stupid. But I know you're a lawyer, so you're supposed to be the opposite. I got about a minute left, so I'll ask my question. under New Jersey law isn't complete performance of a contract
without a counter offer now an acceptance of the offered terms. Now, I looked into it. Yeah, I used AI, but it does say that. Did the city make a counter offer to the Clark report? Those are my two-part
questions. >> I'm done, John. Thanks. Thanks. >> Yeah, you bet. I'm going to ask you to repeat the first question. I didn't understand it. >> Under New Jersey law is incomplete performance of a contract without making
a counter offer an acceptance of the offered terms. Now, if you're going to tell AI and New Jersey law books and I looked it up in a wrong, I'm going to be surprised. >> I don't understand how that even relates to what we're talking about. >> We're talking about the terms of the contract.
>> The terms of the contract. Yes. >> Uh, we don't have a contract. That's the problem. >> Is it correct under the laws? Well, I'm asking you a general law question. >> I don't understand how how that relates. So, I'm going to say I don't I don't I don't understand. >> I'm going to call you Muhammad Ali
>> cuz you knucked me really well. >> All right. So, the next question you had was was did the city make a question. >> Did the city make a counter offer? >> Did the city make a counter offer to the clerk report? There's no record of that happening. >> Why you don't answer the first question.
>> That's why you want to answer the first question. Exactly. >> That's not why. >> Then answer the question. >> There is no >> It's a general legal question about contracts, business contracts. >> I don't >> I have a master's degree. I took law
some law classes and I did look at it. >> Yeah. I'm I'm I'm not prepared to to accept that. So, >> of course, >> we know why. >> John, thanks. This has been a big waste of time for everybody here. What are we >> hide? If you want to make that question,
it's your discretion to ask him to answer the question. In fact, to compel him, >> it's my discretion to say, Jim, please, you know, >> I never did this to you when you were on council, and I was backing you against some of the people you mentioned before.
Yes, ma'am. >> My name is Janet Pzo and I live at 321 Sunset Avenue and I moved to Asbury Park full-time after retiring from teaching because I love the diversity in the community. I love the art. I love the music and I love the history of the
buildings and the entire community itself. I think that it's really important when you move to a community that you get involved in it and just not say somebody should so here I am. All right. Under
New Jersey law, do you agree the following is correct? If the developer makes a summary judgement motion during that motion, must the court resolve all disputed facts in favor of the city and then allow those disputed facts to be
resolved at a trial? >> That all your questions? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> If there's a summary judgement motion uh that has to be based on the idea that there are no disputed facts. So the summary judgment is only granted
when there is no dispute of fact. If there's a dis dispute of fact by by the very nature of it, it can't be a summary judgment. Summary judgment means that on the basis of the allegations in the complaint, the plaintiff wins without a
trial. If there's a dispute of fact, there has to be a trial. So the way to defeat a summary judgement motion by a defendant is to challenge the factual statements and then the court will say I can't grant summary judgement because
there's a dispute of fact we have to have a >> Thank you. >> Hello Tom Peter Abad [clears throat] Avenue Ocean part of the SOS team over here. Anyway, um, in section
3.5 of the 2002 contract, it says that the construction work is to be undertaken by the developer after closing. Is that a clear statement? Is that understood clearly? Is there an ambiguity there?
>> Is that all your question, sir? >> Um, inlaw ambiguous is defined as having one or more meaning. If you say ambiguous, what is the other meaning? Do you think >> can you repeat? I can't un Can you get closer than Michael? >> Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. Do you think that on
a summary judgement motion if the city maintains to be under undertaken means to be undertaken? >> Let me let us let us know when you're done with all your questions. >> I'm done with my questions. >> Thank you, sir. >> No, stay there. Stay there, please. I
have to get some clarification from what they would help question. In section 305 of the 2002 contract, it says construction work is to be undertaken by the developer after closing. Do you think the words to be
undertaken are clear or ambiguous? They are clear, but that's not the that's not the entire sentence. that that is to be undertaken after there's an agreement to the schedule and that >> that is that
>> it says it says the whole section >> says after closing >> I I I have it here >> I will read it >> a minute So, thank you.
Um the parties shall within 120 days of receipt of the above report that's the Clark Kent his report and prior to closing agree to agree to said consent not to be unreasonably
withheld a schedule of renovations to be undertaken by the master developer after closing. That's that's the whole sentence. So that's agree to something to be done after closing, but you have
to agree to it. And it was not agreed to >> and and there was no there was no the parties are to agree consent not to be unreasonably withheld. >> That means that there needs still to be
an agreement. It doesn't mean that there's just an obligation without the parties agreeing. The word agree in that in that agree in that sentence is the key word. The parties have to agree. It means two.
>> Uh >> the person in the microphone is the only one asking questions. It means that there would be a negotiation and the parties would present their position and they would come to an agreement and if one party is unreasonable then this provision that
says uh uh consent not to be unreasonablely withheld would come into play. But there has to be there has to be there has to be a a conversation and negotiation to arrive at an agreement. That didn't happen. >> You get 25 years to make an agreement.
I didn't agree. >> There's no agreement. There's no contract. >> I accepted the company. >> Sir, you're not whatever Tom just told you to say. You said your time was up, not me. So, >> I'm not going to talk. >> I said, >> I'm allowed to talk to him.
>> Okay, fine. >> But he's not allowed to talk anymore. >> Question was, is does Toby undertaken clear? >> He is not allowed to talk anymore. Do you want to use your 3 minutes now or you need to use your sir? >> 10 minutes now like I asked for. >> Well, sir, if you have nothing else,
you're done. >> Connie Connie Desperado, West River Road, Rumson. My family grew up on Sunset Avenue. My dad had an office in our house. We all went to Holy Spirit Church. I'm sure a lot of people in this room can remember the casino once had an
ice skating rink. >> It opened up the door for figure skating for me and my siblings. I still coach 30 some years later. So my question runs, you know, Aspire Park runs deep in my blood. So I feel for everyone in this
room can't thank Mr. Seno enough for all. [applause] However, it's amazing as well. This will go back to the summary judgement motion. The 2002 contract says
the city can't sell the casino to the developer until a construction report with timelines for repairs is accepted. Two years later, the developer presented the Clark report to the council with a timeline of repairs. They were to close
within 120 days. The city closed 62 days later. Are you saying that was a coincidence? They signed the contract two years earlier in 2002 but didn't close until 2020 2004.
Doesn't it make sense that they held the closing for two years because they were waiting for the Clark report to be finished? That's the first part of the question. And are you saying that in a summary judgement motion a court will refuse to consider the timing as proof
that the parties accepted the Clark report and why? >> Sorry. Yeah. >> So there's a couple of questions there. One has to do with a summary judgement uh motion. The summary judgement motion would be made in this situation by
Asbury partners, right? That's what would happen to Asbury partners would say that the if we filed a complaint that the complaint should be dismissed and summary judgement should be granted in its favor. That's how summary judgement works.
And so therefore, as I said earlier, the court would look to see if there is at least the dispute about the elements in the in the in the complaint and the city would have the burden of proving our
case and alleging it in in a complaint, all the elements of the case. We'd have to argue that there is a an agreement and we'd have to argue what the timelines are. And the timelines we have are here that
have been that I've talked about uh that are part of the uh the were submitted in November not not part of the of the Clark Kate and hence report itself. There's an ambiguity there, a dispute,
but let's just assume that that's that's the timeline and the schedule that had to be agreed to in the uh in the agreement to do the work. You look at those timelines and the city would have to demonstrate that that those timelines
applied. We'd have to show that there was an agreement and we that's the failure here. We don't have an agreement. The arguments are that there's an an implicit agreement, right? That that that uh the city the parties
meant to be an agreement. I don't buy that argument. Not for a $33 million project. There would have to be lots of specifications about that. The other argument is that because there was a closing that there was an implicit
inclusion of that report in the closing. But that's contrary to what the agreement says. The agreement says section 305 says there has to be an agreement. The other argument is that the deed says >> not agreement.
>> That's what it means. An agreement. When you say you have to agree, it ends up in what? an agreement, a contract. And and the other argument that's made is that the deed in 2004 uh included a statement that that uh
refers to section 305, but that's later changed by the the 2007. >> But was it all a coincidence? >> Was it was it all a coincidence? I mean, you're not really answering the question. >> Was it was what a coincidence? I'm not sure I understand the question.
>> Is it answer A through C in order? You're you're monologuing instead of answering A through C. Answer her. >> I don't know what you mean by A through C. >> Give me a question. >> Do I have the time to do this? >> Lot of time.
So are structures. >> I'm looking for A through C. I'm not seeing A through C. >> There's not an A through C here. >> Read the questions in front of you. >> It's a statement. >> No, no. Here's what we're going to do.
Ma'am, take your piece of paper. It's just wait a couple of times. No, >> you're not brother. I'm sorry. >> They're right there. >> Okay. Well, >> yeah, I'll read this. I'll read the I'll read >> Take it back. >> The summary judgement order. What does
that tell us? >> Let me let me let me read the the statement if I may. May should I do this? Mayor, I I have zero time on the phone. >> He has it. He hasn't. >> Hey. Hey. Ho ho. Come on everybody.
I was going to give you the opportunity to take it back. Get back in line and read it again. >> If if he can't figure out if you >> look at the look at the final sentence >> the final sentence. >> You want me to look at the final sentence? Are you saying Are you saying
that in a summary judgement motion a court will refuse to consider the timing as proof that the parties accepted the Clark report? Why >> is that what your question is? >> Okay. So that's what your question is. >> Refuse to consider the timing as proof
and I'm not sure what that you mean by that. The timing of what is it? This schedule >> the clock part >> the cler report timing. I've explained the contract to the details. That's what she means. >> But she says what she means. You're
saying what she's in the question. It's in the >> 2022 to 2024 times the contract and the closing >> the two years in between. >> Well, the court grants every judge motion if we say the timing is the proof of the contract. That's what she
>> Yeah. The argument I guess is that the timing is proves that the fact that there was a contract. Is that the point? >> Yes. the ant that that is doesn't make any sense to me at all because the
timing the timing uh we're assuming is this document in November that's not part of the Clark Pence Pence report we're we're relying on that report in 2000 October 2004 the
timing the schedule is not in it comes a month later that's a problem that's a problem and so I don't think that I would accept I would accept that conclusion. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Hi, I'm Carol Noli from 511 Cookman Avenue. Um let's get into some more details about that section. I have 3.5, but you say it's 3.05. Isn't it true that that section of the 2002 contract does not state that the acceptance of
the Clark report schedule of renovations must be in writing? If you hold that it has to be in writing despite the contract not saying so isn't the 2002 contract itself the required writing
because it is self-executing by that I mean it forbids a closing unless the schedule of renovation is agreed to in 120 days and 62 days later they closed
evidencing acceptance. If you insist the agreement had to be in writing, even though the contract doesn't say that, then the 2002 contract itself is that writing. It's self-executing. It says
there can be no closing unless the renovation schedule is agreed to within 120 days. Yet, you closed in 62 days later, which shows that the schedule was agreed to and accepted. If your opinion
is still no, are you saying that on a summary judgement motion, a court will refuse the selfexecuting contract argument as a matter of law and deny the city a trial of on that issue.
[applause] I'm not done. I've got a minute 20. your statement in the beginning about, you know, this is a big scary lawsuit and we could lose a lot of money and I don't know if we want to do that. We have just put a giant sign out to all major corporations to come to Asbury Park and
do as you like because we're afraid of you. It's just like in your home when a tree hits your your house and you're like, "Oh, I don't want to call my insurance company because my rights may go up. What's the point of having insurance?" is done. We have to have a
lawsuit. And finally, can we concede our time to our own personal hired attorneys to speak for us? Thank you. >> I'm going to answer that for a second before I'm not going to take any Mr. Marz, but I'm going to answer that.
You know, I've been on council for 13 years, mayor for 12 years. I've been to 12 what 144 meetings whatever 288. I've never I've never seen 90% of you any meetings to do with rent control
important subjects to the city be Airbnb and everything. I'm happy you're here now. There's been other meetings where again I hope Charles Day is here because every time there's an article about park mayor Moore says Madison Marquette is impossible to work with. So I mean this
is not like the first time like myself and other council people have said we've had enough of Madison Marquette also and as far as the attorney the attorney works for the client. The client's the council and at this point in time we have not been told the attorney to start legal proceedings. So as much as you all
want to beat him up you can beat me up. And anybody who knows me knows that I didn't go to Asbury Park High School. My two sisters did. a stupid uh poso uh with the he was the president of
the board of education wouldn't give ocean township the right to send kids here so they built their own house so I went to Ocean Township but I grew up in Aspbury Park I've worked for Aspbury Park I give our heart and soul to Asbury Park my wife yells at
me like who do you love more me or Asbury Park said very you because you make dinner I mean I've been good friends with a lot of people in this from Tommy, Dan, Henry, everybody else. So when people get up there and say, "We don't care." That's enough for me. That's >> You guys want to care? I said you were
afraid. >> Yes. Because you want to know why I'm afraid about Look around this room. Do you see the diversity of the city in this room? Do you see diversity of the city in this room? Does anybody see diversity in the city in this room? Tell me. >> No. So, a lot of people in this town
don't even know this is going on, which is unfortunate because we don't have a local newspaper that reports. The press does sporadic reporting. You people are informed. I'm happy you're here, but the majority of the people in Asbury Park do not know this is going on
your town. [cheering] >> Throw him out. Throw him out. Throw him out through his language. So, I apologize. I'm not picking on you, but there's been a lot of issues where I haven't seen anybody. And this is not a diverse Asbury Park crowd. So, that's just like I said,
>> I said at the February meeting, if it was in February, I morally could not support a lawsuit unless, and there was plenty time to do it because people are talking about recalls. Recall me. I don't give a damn. I'm not running. >> So, but the thing of it is there was
plenty of time for everybody to start a petition and get this on the ballot and let the taxpayers decide because if we win, God bless you. You're right. But if we lose, it could put the town in bankruptcy. Could I don't want that to happen
on the ballot? >> Are you Is that your statement now that this council will not sue unless it's a ballot referendum? I didn't say that. You >> just said you said put it on the ballot. >> I said that was my personal opinion back in February, March, whenever we were
here. Don't twist my words, Dan. You've never done that before. Don't twist my words. >> I don't mean to, but I try to say it. >> Well, that's not what I said, ma'am. Again, I apologize. >> I took out my frustration on you. >> I I'm from Jersey. I can handle it.
>> Thank you. [applause] >> Okay. So, the question had to do >> I want to get to bankrupting the city. It cost us uh 2,000 hours at $400 an hour. That's only 800 grand. The the parking
>> Jim said Jim, I'm going to cut you off too. >> And and what happens if we lose >> so people but when the majority of people park say fight the fight that you may win, then you may get high. I just
place that fighting. >> I can tell you my experience in the public sector and the private sector. File the papers and watch how they respond. I guarantee the conversation [applause] from this.
>> We're going to go back to the microphone. >> Ma'am, I'm sorry. He's just I'm right be happy to answer the question. Uh you're the statement is if you hold that it has to be in writing despite the
contract not saying so isn't a 2002 contract itself the required writing because it's self-executed. The answer to both those questions is no. It has to be in writing. It has to be in writing uh under New Jersey law if
it is a contract dealing with real estate. You cannot have a verbal contract dealing with real estate. And if and the and the question as to whether it's self-executing it is is not self-executing because the document says there has to
be an agreement that there has to be agreement to the schedule of construction. >> It never happened. who negotiated that >> before closing itself. >> That's the audience. >> The before closing part makes it selfex
but Joe doesn't know that. >> Come on. >> Okay. Ma'am >> Joe's not a litigator. >> Hello. My name is Elena. >> I could respond to that statement. Yep. Mayor, >> I think that's I I have a point of
personal privilege on that. I would want to respond to that statement, >> Mr. Mayor, if I may. I want to respond to the state I want to respond to the statement that I'm not a litigator. >> You can do that? >> All right. I'm going to do it in the next few minutes. Ma'am,
>> yes. Hello. My name is Elena Zanis. I reside with my husband, Paul Fish, at 1405 Third Avenue. First of all, I just want to say this is our we're going into our 10th year in Asbury Park and you've all been a very big part of the improvements that I've seen and I want
to thank you for that and tell you that I am not here to be adversarial or unkind. I'm here though to ask you why you can't use the law to fight these people who are destroying our
structures. And my question now is explain and and and just this is an example. I was given this question. It's an example of how you've mentioned several times about ambiguity. We can use ambigu ambiguity. Otherwise, we wouldn't have to go to courts and have
lawyers. There would just be the law and it would it would just be decided like that. So there are tools. Please, please find the tools and find the use of the law to to argue for this. We need to save these structures. And so, here's an
example. Explain why specifically though, because it's come up a couple of times. Why the closing does not qualify as acceptance of the Clark report under the doctrine of
ascent by action under New Jersey law. Why >> you done that? >> Yes. >> The answer to that the answer to that question is because the agreement the the section 305 requires an agreement
before closing. I've explained that there was not an agreement before closing and I explained why the city apparently waved that opportunity because as I mentioned earlier they wanted to get the closing in that year
2004 within 62 days not taking the 120 days because they wanted that money for the for the casino of of 1.5 million and the the marine properties so they could
put that in the budget and avoid a 35% tax increase. And that's why it's not self-executing. And that's why the fact that they closed does not mean that they agreed to all of that. Now, I the statement was that I'm I'm not a
litigator. That's not true. I am involved in a 15-year lawsuit defending a client in a in a case that involves hundreds of millions of dollars. We have been uh have had motions for
summary judgement. We've had motions of every type. We've had many trials at the trial court. We've had the appellet division. And my client in that case has won 98% of those challenges. Right now
it is in the Supreme Court. We're waiting for oral argument because the appellet division decision uh was in our favor and the the the plaintiff in that case has filed a petition for
certification in the Supreme Court. I am very familiar with with litigation and I can tell you that that litigation has cost millions of dollars. >> I did. >> Yes. And and I could and I and and you
know, think about it here. If I had given the advice, take the litigation, maybe they would hire me. I'd make more money. But I'm trying to be honest about my opinion and what is in the best interest of my client, the city of Asbury Park, not what is in the best
interest of my law firm. >> The city did not wave the CCH report. >> Hello, my name is Stephanie Usack. I'm currently Wall Township, New Jersey. Uh, in December of 2004, the city council voted to allow the city attorney to
close on the casino. And this the city attorney back then, James Aaron, said on the record that the Clark report was used in the negotiation of the casino sale contract as a quid proquo to lower the sales price. Mr. Maraziti told OPGV
News that it never happened. Since Mr. Aaron actually negotiated the deal, isn't his statement made come temporariously with the closing 22 years ago more reliable than Mr. Meeriti's statement now? Does Mr. Mayor Ziti hold that a court won't consider that as
proof that the city accepted the Clark report and are you saying that the court won't accept that as a summary judgement motion? >> The statement that um the Clark report for $33 million was used to
negotiate a lower price for the casino to a million5 is not correct. the report in the newspaper must have been wrong. And the reason I say that is because >> why is everybody wrong, sir? >> Well, I I'll tell you exactly why they're wrong.
>> Because the amount for the the amount for the casino of a million5 was established two years before the Clark report. That was part of the 2002 agreement. In 2002, the city agreed to
sell it for a million5. They did not reduce the price of the casino because of the carb reporting. That's just not accurate. >> I'm sorry. What happened on December 17th? I missed that. >> What happened on December 17th?
>> I didn't say anything about December 17th. I said >> you don't even know what happened on December 17. December >> renegotiated $250,000 more into the contract so they could close the budget. They renegotiated December 2000 December
2004. December 17. They did not They did not They did not change. >> No. What What's clear? >> He has said that before. >> What's clear? >> They closed because of tax money. >> But he didn't say that they were negotiating. He just told her they didn't.
>> They did not in December 17th. No, they they put an extra $250,000 in from the materials credit on the board. It was a 750 uh boardwalk construction credit. They went on December 17th and said, "Give us an extra 250 on that." And they
said, "Okay." And Jim Aaron said, "We use the Clark and support to do that." So they accepted it that night, but he doesn't know that they did that. >> I do know that. The part the the issue the question the question was whether
the car kint report was used to negotiate the [snorts] purchase price of the casino down to 1.5 million and the answer the answer
the answer >> that's not the question that's not what you saying >> it's not what I said >> they got an extra 250 but they didn't change Okay, >> that's how they Tom Tom, we still have quite a few speakers. >> Okay, >> the reference to the if I may. The
reference in the >> No, you may not. I don't want to hear it. >> The reference in the newspaper was >> I'm sorry. The reference of the newspaper was the statement that the the price of a million5 was reduced
>> because to a million5 because of the report. That's not true. >> He didn't say reduced. >> My god. Is this facts or what? >> That's what >> Yeah. And that's and that's not correct because the price was established two
years earlier. >> December 17th, but you should All five will be assured. Three when I write. Damn it. [applause] >> Good evening. My name is Joanne Courthouse. Um, I've been a Jersey Shore
resident for 62 years. I know I look much better than that, but I just thought I'd put that out there. >> Can I get your address for the record, please? >> I'm sorry. >> Your address for the record, please. Uh, >> I live in Neptune at the moment. Thank you. >> On Donald's, please. >> Mhm. Um, >> I'm sorry. Um, did I read somewhere that
the parking in one year made $10 million last year, 2025? >> How much? >> $10 million you made just in the parking fees. >> I believe it was seven >> parking lunches. Yeah. And we're worried about
>> three. But what do you think? We don't pay salaries. What do you think? We're not us. It's We haven't I'm sorry. >> Right. Sorry. >> Yeah. You used to make nothing. You can't fry poverty when you're making $33 million. I'm sorry, $10 million on those two things. You can redirect your
budgets around when you're squiggling over $1.5 million. >> So, let me ask a question, but then before he answers, I'm going to answer as far as the park. I'm just >> Okay. >> Very shortly. >> Okay, let me do my question then. Um, the city and the developers. Whoops.
Excuse me. >> Okay. I always thought I had a big mouth, but the city and the developers put two things on the deed for the casino. My apologies, technical difficulties.
>> No problem. So, the city and the developers put two things in the deed for the casino contract section 3.5 of the 2002 contract which is the requirement to have a construction obligation and
article 8 which is the default clause so the contract section can be enforced. Are you saying that the parties forgot to put the main ingredient, the actual construction obligation? Are you saying or doesn't it make more
sense that they agreed to the Clark report which they received 62 days before the deed was made? And lastly, are you saying that a court would won't consider that a legal judgment motion? >> Summary, sorry.
Yeah, I'm saying that um the inclusion of the reference to section 305 in the deed and the reference to the article 8 remedies does not resolve this issue. Why? Because when you refer to
305, 305 includes the fact that there needs to be an agreement. It doesn't it it's not the agreement without the parties agreeing to the schedule of construction of the improvements. So the reference
Yeah. to the schedule. That's what that's what the uh 305 said that there has to be an agreement >> to the schedule to undertake the renovations. That did not happen. the timing,
the schedule, not what renovations you must do, what cost you. It's >> okay. Dan, >> did he answer all your questions? >> Three questions. >> What are the other two? >> It was had to do with summary judgement,
I think. And and the three questions and as to do them in order. >> Okay. Are you saying the parties forgot to put in the main ingredient, the actual construction obligation? >> I don't know what they forgot or didn't
forget. All I know is they didn't do it. I think that it was a deliberate decision to wave that requirement because they needed the money to avoid the tax increase. That's what I think happened. But I I don't know. That seems to be what the records reflect. You're
implying that they w >> He said he doesn't know because he wasn't there. >> But he's saying they waved it. >> I think it's a waiver. Yes. I I think that amounts I I do agree. In answer to the question, I do agree that it is constitutes a waiver of that
requirement. They went ahead and closed without that agreement. >> So if you sued and went to court, you'd be able to subpoena the former members of council and ask them to answer that question. >> Okay, Jim. Okay, Jim. Question two, doesn't it make more sense that if they agree to the Clark report, which they
received 62 days before that the deed was made? >> They didn't agree to the Clark report. That's my my saying, doesn't it make more sense that they did rather than you saying, I guess they waved it. Doesn't her argument make more sense? No, I I don't think it does because I think that
in order to have an obligation uh of a party to undertake $33 million worth of of repair, you have to have something more than an implicit understanding. You have to have where's
the where's the agreement on the timeline? >> Ask him the last word. >> So, we here let's do the last word. Are you saying a court won't consider that a summary fact >> consider it on a summary judge motion that they're going to say no there's no
question of fact created by this deed even though you just said there is because you don't know that there was a >> you can't answer the question Tom let her >> I'm I'm assisting her she has she has a voice >> answer the question >> so here here's the issue about summary judgement the summary >> summary judge motion
>> summary jud the judgement the summary judgement motion motion in this situation ation would not be made by the city. It would be made by it would be made by Asbury partners. The summary judgement would be for a summary
judgement uh on behalf of the defendant to dismiss the the case. If there's a dispute of fact, the court would not issue a summary judgement, but would instead send it to trial if there's a
dispute of fact. And there would be a trial. >> She's asking, "Doesn't this create a dispute of fact? Does it put it in the >> Yes, it is. >> We would get to a trial. [applause] >> That's
no I would get to a trial. >> I do not agree with that." >> Okay, hold on one second. Please, >> just to get back to the park meter students, >> I'll blur everybody and take us out of this for a second.
>> So, yes, it took him close to $7 million. >> 7,972,85524. >> Thank you. >> Okay. And what was it spent for? >> Excuse me. >> What was it spent on? >> We asked and no one answered that question. >> I'm going to answer. I thought Jim knew
the answer. >> No, I didn't go through the budget. I just got back into town. I will, John. Don't worry. >> Okay. Wow. >> So, number one, there's expenses. There's salaries. There's the equipment
itself. Number two, we don't have a parking department. We have a transportation utility. The money goes into the transportation utility. and you don't live in town, but if you lived on First Avenue, if you lived on Hex Street
or all the streets have been paved within the last several years, that money from the parking meter utility has been used to do that. The reason we get a grant from the state for say about First Avenue from Central to
Memorial, and don't quote me on these numbers, but I'm being close. We got like say like say $400,000. The job was over $3 million because in one amount of that job would have been $600,000 because they do a 2-in mill and
pave which most towns do. That means they take off 2 in they put down 2 in. In Aspbury Park we still have the original sewer pipes. They're terracotta and leaking like hell and I and I infiltration and inflow are coming into it and the sewer plant. It's costing us
more money to pump clean water instead of sewer. So that job that should cost like say 600,000 is costing the city $3 million because we have to go down 8 ft and remove the sewer lines. In the past
six years, this council's paved and removed more sewer lines than the past 10 councils combined. And it's something that has to be done because this system when when it rained all that rain the other day if they were all terracott pipes the sewer plant would
have backed up because it would have been pumping 20 million gallons of water instead of $4 million of what it's supposed to be pumping. So the money goes into the roads >> and suggested that for lighters
the every year is that money so for the 2026 2027 2028 are those funds already promised to something else are they already budgeted for back projects or can they be used in future projects? >> There was also like $4 million taken out
of fund to put surplus so we didn't have an obnoxious tax increase. We still had a tax increase, but we used some of that money >> to but you you didn't get an obnoxious tax increase with the city of Asbury Park,
>> but so we do we did use some of that surplus to help offset the budget increase. >> Excuse me. You're saying that those money should not be used for the >> There's Look, if we if we were flushed with money, I wouldn't be worried about
the money. We're not flushed with money. I'm not happy we had to have a tax increase this year, especially because of what the board of education has been done to us because of a stupid S2 bill. Everybody's taxes. I pay taxes. We all up here pay taxes. All of our taxes went through the sky. You think anybody's
happy about that? I'm not. And that's why, you know, I'm not >> Right. So you have the same problem at your school. But I mean, so we did the right thing that I thought, right? Our CFO argued with me with like, you know, we tried to keep it either flat or a
decrease because of the board of education going up so much. But you can only do that so long until it's going to clutch up and hit us hard. If we were flushed with money and like had $100 million in the bank or something like so, I mean, look at our budget. It'll show you what we have in the bank. We
don't have this type of money in the bank that everybody thinks we have. And I'm not saying because that because of this crowd, everybody in the state thinks Aspbury Park is flushed with money because we're the number one beach. We're the number one this. This city is not in great financial shape.
>> Though they were forced upon us on it by a previous council on the waterfront. >> Thank you, ma'am. ready. >> My name is Lisa Daly. I am a lifetime resident of the Jersey Shore. I have
recently moved to Brick Township. Um, my questions are, Judge Justice Solomon makes these three findings using these exact words in his May 28th, 2026 report after reviewing the 20 the 2006 DRA.
All three mean the 2006 contract. did not extinguish the 2002 contract on casino construction obligations. First, Solomon said this. The 2006 agreement explicitly states the projects
other than those listed therein shall remain governed by the dispute resolution provisions set forth in the 2002 agreement. Second, Solomon said this. Asbury Partners remaining development obligations, if any, would
only be those that were provided under the 2002 agreement, but that were not listed as projects under the 2006 agreement and therefore were not subsumed. Third, Solomon said this, which is the
most clear of all. If there are any remaining redevelopment obligations of Asbury partners regarding the casino default remedies would be governed by the 2002 agreement. My questions are isn't it clear to Mr. Maraziti that the
construction items listed in the 2006 DRRA are governed by the DRRA but any other casino construction obligations are governed by the 2002 contract. Why does Mr. Maraziti continue to tell
the media that the 2006 DRRA wiped out all the 2002 construction obligations when Solomon's three statements say the exact opposite? Please have Mr. Maraziti point out the exact language where Justice Solomon states all construction
obligations in the 2002 contract are wiped out by the DRRA other than the ones listed in the DRRA. Will the city council correct their press release with Solomon's three findings because they are the opposite of what was reported in
your first release? >> Excellent. >> Thank you. Are there your questions? >> Excellent. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> So this this is the question about the DRA, the dispute resolution agreement.
The dispute resolution agreement was executed in 2006 and it is a document that is very interesting. >> Can you answer these questions in order? >> Give us a copy. >> I am I'm
>> We don't want background. We want yes or no. That's all we want. Yes or no? No. Come on. Isn't it there's a lot of questions on this page I don't think you asked. Isn't it clear to Mr. Marazini that the construction items listed in the 2006
>> you're that's >> give us her phone. Yeah. Okay. So, A there it's A through D. Uh, isn't it clear to Mr. Mariti that the construction items listed in the D
2006 DRA are governed by the DRRA, the dispute resolution agreement, but any other casino construction obligations are governed by the 2002 contract. That's the key question. Are there other
obligations? That's the point that Mr. the Justice Solomon uh asked. Are there other other obligations? Let's assume that there are other obligations. Let's assume for the purpose of this question
that the DRRA didn't deal with all the obligations that Aspbury Partners had. That's the question. So we look back then we go back to the 2002 agreement >> and that takes us to >> Do you disagree with that? Do you agree
or disagree or no? >> Yes or no? >> I disagree. I disagree with that and I'm gonna I'm gonna explain why. I'm gonna wait a minute. I'm going to explain why because that takes you back just as
Solomon is saying if there's another obligation Asbury partners has then it's governed by the 2002 agreement. So you go back to the 2002 agreement and I would like to be able to finish my sentence. you go back to the 2002
agreement to look for the other obligations and and and >> I I I will respectfully ask that I not be interrupted. I'm not interrupting anybody question. >> Excuse me. >> He's answering the question. If he has
any right to add to it, you're not going to tell him to stop halfway through. >> If you don't like my answer, I I respect that you don't like my answer, but I'm giving you my answer. My answer is that you have to go back to the 2002 agreement. That takes you to section 305
where you look for that obligation >> and 3.5 and that's where you look for that obligation. That obligation is not there because it required and we've been saying this over and over again required an agreement to do the Clark Clayton and
>> if it was a look at >> yeah if there was an obligation if if I would say this just as Solomon said if there's a remaining obligation and if if there was an agreement >> if there was an agreement >> doesn't say that
>> uh if there was an agreement then that would be a remaining obligation. That would be something that the city could seek to enforce. Could they enforce it now in 2026 when the statute of limitations is long
since gone? No. So the other questions here >> how how many more are >> there are three more >> three more. >> So B is why does why why does Mr. Maris the question is why it's not a yes or no
why does Mr. He to continue to tell the media that the 2006 DRRA wiped out all the 2002 construction obligations when Solomon's three statements say the exact opposite. I've
just explained that uh that I'm assuming for the purposes of the discussion tonight that the 2006 DRRA did not wipe out all the obligations. I'm going to look for them because that's what Justice Solomon talked about. C. Please
have Mr. Mary point out the exact language where Justice Solomon states all construction obligations in the 2002 contract are wiped out by the DRRA other than parentheses other than the ones listed in the DRA. I don't He didn't say
that. I don't >> You told the press he said it. >> No, I told the press that he said and he he said that. >> Okay. Okay. Okay, >> the DRRA uh >> Justice Solomon said virtually
eliminates all of the obl all of the remedies the city had. He used that phrase unless there's an obligation that that is left over. And that's what we've been talking about all night. And it it's clear that there's not an obligation because there's not an
agreement. And then D is will the city council contact correct the press release with Solomon's three findings because they are the opposite of what was reported in your first release. >> That's for the council.
>> That's for the council. And I I don't think there's a reason to do that. >> We need a new lawyer. Tom. >> Okay. >> Okay. You're done, man. Thank you. >> I think so.
>> I'm sorry. >> The last question was for >> What was this question? Sean Val 1110 fifth a U. Isn't it true that in a contract matter the six-year statute of limitations begins when there is a default? Isn't it true that article
8 of the 2002 contract states that no default can be binding until the city issues a formal default notice to the developer? Isn't it also true that the city has not yet issued a default notice to the developer for failure to redevelop the casino? Isn't it true that
the statute of limit excuse me the statute of limitations has not yet begun? Read the questions. >> Yeah. No, I understand the questions. No, I I um I I don't agree that the >> Excuse me. The question was, isn't it
true that in a contract matter, the six-year statute of limitations begins when there is a default? Not agree or not. >> It's not not true because it's the the statute of limitations is adopted by the legislature. It's a statute that says
when you have a contract, you have six years to bring a lawsuit if there's a default. And why is that the law? It's be law because memories fade, documents disappear, and
the uh the policy of the state and and every other state that I know of is that we want to have repose and settlement of business of disputes, contract disputes. So after six years, even if you have a great case, you cannot bring it. And so
I do not agree that that the the statute of limitations is extended until one party decides to file a notice of default because that would mean >> I apologize. We didn't ask whether you agree. >> Yes, I'm answering the question. >> We were just asking if it's true or not.
The next question, >> but I I >> we didn't ask if you agreed or not. Just said whether it's true or not. >> Yeah, you're asking my opinion. I mean our case statute of limitations begin on a default. >> No the statute of limitations begins on
a default but not on the not on the notice of a default. >> Joe's question and answering his questions not Mr. D >> when the default occur it here. Here here it is. Isn't it true that in a contract matter the sixear statute of limitations begins when there is a
default? Yes. >> Yes. Thank you. Yes. >> Second question then, please. >> Isn't it true that article 8 of the 2002 contract states that no default can be binding until the city issues a formal default notice to the developer? No, you
don't extend the statute of limitations by holding off on issuing a notice of default. That that would mean you could extend the statute of limitations indefinitely beyond six years. And that's not that's not what the law requires.
>> As if the contract said that the contract says it's not binding until they declare new contract. No, >> I'll show it to you. >> Okay. >> I don't know who I'm supposed to be talking to. Read the question.
>> Isn't Isn't it also true that the city has not issued yet issued a default notice to the developer for failure to redevelop the casino? Uh I'm not sure about that. There might be there might have been a notice of default. Isn't it true that the statute of limitations has
not yet begun? No, it is not true. The statute of limitations has run no matter which way you look at this. Because if there was a default under the schedule, if there was an implicit agreement to accept the uh report and the schedule
with it, that schedule, the dates in that schedule expired in 2005 and 2006. many more than six years ago. >> You didn't tell your default though. >> I cut and pasted the word binding out of the contract. I don't know why you say
it's not in there. >> Okay. Did sir, did he answer all your questions? >> Yes. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. >> We're wasting our time. >> Then go home. >> Wasting tax money with this >> and I don't know why you don't see.
>> I'm sorry. Go ahead. Thank you. Uh Bianca Berolei, homeowner and business owner. Before I ask my question, I would like to just get out ahead of this false narrative that we are continually being told and I'm sure will continue after this meeting. This blatant lie that is
constantly being told to us by Madison Asbury partners, by the Tri City News, and by some of the people on this stage. The lie that Madison Asbury Partners are somehow the only developer capable or willing to restore the historic buildings on our waterfront. It's not
true. It's blatantly untrue. Multiple other developers who actually care about historic preservation and the people of Asbury Park would love the opportunity to take on this project and do right by us. It's worth asking yourselves, where does a lie like that come from? Who
benefits from a lie like that? And why do they continue telling it? [applause] My question my my question from SOSAP is for Mr. Miraiti a hypothetical. Let's just pretend that you are 100% right
about section 3.5 of the 2002 contract, the Clark report and all of it. Justice Sol S Solomon found that the abandonment clause in the 2002 contract is binding on the master developer and all subsequent developers. The abandonment
clause says that default can be declared if they do not diligently prosecute the project. It has been 24 years of a 30-year plan and all we have gotten is an inquiry about a demolition permit. Please explain why the city shouldn't
sue now under the abandonment clause for not diligently prosecuting the project. And with my remaining time, Mr. Mayor, I would like to remind you that being dismissive and condescending to your constituents, forcibly removing them from the room is not what encourages
people to come to these meetings. You're old enough to know that. [applause] >> The only person removed tonight, not the people who have been talking a lot, person just got up and started using foul language in front of everybody. Make that sense.
>> Let's be respectful. >> I don't remember cursing tonight. >> I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> So, the question is about I was the Question answer. >> I think I have a question to answer,
right? About abandonment. >> Yeah. >> So, uh the question is about whether there's an opportunity to use the abandonment phrase. So, in order to do that, you have to show what was abandoned. That gets us back to
the agreement. There's not an agreement. There's not an obligation that No, we're talking we're we're talking about I'm not I I I I don't want to be misunderstood to say that there are not other things that can be done with
respect to remedies against Madison. I'm not saying that. We're talking about we're talking about the very specific focus on whether there is a buyback option. That's what's on the agenda. That's what went before Justice Solomon.
That's the narrow issue we're talking about. Has Madison Marquette failed in other ways? Yes, definitely. But we're talking about this abandonment of this obligation. Is there in order to show abandonment, you have to demonstrate
there was an obligation in the first place. That's why we're having this problem because they never did undertake that. Thank you, ma'am. >> Hi, my name is Leanne Bay. I run the Asbury Park Beach Batch Fund. I
currently live in Neptune. The 2002 contract and the 2010 contract both say the waterfront redevelopment plan is incorporated into the terms of each contract. that plan expires in 2032. Can you guarantee that if we wait
to sue after 2032, a court won't find that since we let the plan expire, we let our rights expire? Can you guarantee that if we sue after 2032, the court won't use the city letting the 2032 plan expire as a reason to employ the
doctrine of latches against us? six years. >> Okay. >> So the the the assumption is that when the plan expires in 2032 that the the agreements go away. That's
not true. The plan is the authority to enter into the agreement. Once the agreement is entered, that lives longer than the plan. the plan can die, but if there's an obligation in an agreement, and we've got agreements here, uh there
have obligations, the agreement controls, not the plan any longer, the agreement controls the duration. And for example, if an agreement was entered into with a future redeveloper on
January uh December 31st the 2031 and it called for a project that would take three years to complete. That agreement would control that timing not the plan that in this assumption would expire
>> guaranteed the statement. So I would say that the idea of the premise is wrong that it's in in redevelopment law which I've been practicing in New Jersey for over 25 years. Redevelopment law the
redevelopment plan can expire. But if there's an agreement that continues until a certificate of completion is issued that says all the work has been done under that plan. and we've issued certificates of completion in the city for some projects. It's controlled by
the uh by the agreement. So the issue has been raised as to whether there would be latches if we waited until then. I've talked about the statute of limitations which is six years. Latches can be shorter than that. But if it
latches is a doctrine that says you waited too long to bring your case, that that could be an argument that is already there's already one that can be raised now in the litigation. And and and if if there was to be litigation, it
certainly would be raised. Um, someone is taking names. >> Yes. >> You just say yours. >> Moren Nevin. >> Address. >> What's that? >> Address, please. >> The address is West Trenton, New Jersey. >> Thank you.
>> I am Moren Nevin, a journalist under my by line, Moren Duffy, a columnist and a broadcaster and a podcaster. I bought a home on DA Court in November 1999. I soon read an exciting editorial in Tri
City News about a new radio station, WY GG88.1 FM, which needed talent to fill the airwaves with tolerance and love that would foster peace and goodwill. The reason for that sentiment was crystal
clear once the license holder's name was revealed. He was Abner Luima, the Haitian immigrant turned philanthropist nearly killed in a Queens, New York police station in an horrific gangland
style attack. Having witnessed and reported the tactics of New Brunswick's redevelopment while I was a student and on assignment for New Jersey Monthly in the fall of 1981, I quickly recognized Aspbury Parks
own rundown conditions as on the brink of a similar seismic change. That spring I plan I pitched W to >> there
WY GG Restore. I pitched the uh restored by the shore the restored by the shore um idea for a show to wg um we would we started as a weekly talk
show and that's how we ended for neighborhoods neighbors voice to voice their own dreams so they wouldn't lose control of this redevelopment. We shared our mic with renters and landlords, elected leaders, politicians,
historians and engineers, and some of the best legal minds that had successfully res re sorry resurrected other cities and were willing to share what they learned and
listen to homeowners struggling to revive and maintain this precious mile of crystal blue ocean. Many of them are here tonight. The studio always buzzed with breaking news. We
also welcomed plumbers and carpenters and roofers, home contractors and merchants, all capable of providing the means of bringing invaluable dusty gems like the elegant Victorians once occupied by physicians back to life.
Even before we became Asbury radio, the radio voice of Asbury Park. Thank you, Helen Delpi. >> You're going to have to finish your paragraph. Your time's up. >> The radio. Sorry. The sound makers of the sounds
Asbury Park. Soap. Everybody know Soap? Yeah. Sounds of Asbury Park. Were at my door volunteering to bring us on and off the air. not just on the first
Fourth of July of the new century, but every week. And that's where we leave it because I actually these people probably don't know the name Terry Weldon. >> Okay,
>> Moren, your time's up. >> All right. >> Thank you very much. This was more of a statement. I have a question about the code violations of these buildings. >> Marine wrapped up. >> Marine, your time is up. >> Ask a question.
>> Marine, your time is up. >> No. Marine, your time is up. >> The code violations that put the the first and only official historian for the city of Asbury Park in prison. call me.
>> Are you serious? >> Wow. >> Wow. >> Can I Can I give my time to Moren? >> Can I give my time to Moren? >> Your discretion, Mr. Chair. >> No. >> That was a no. >> Other member of council can make a
motion and ask for a second to open up the floor to extend the time of Miss Nevin. If another member of council is willing to do that, >> you need a first to make a second. first as a promotion. The answer, sir, is no. It's your time. >> But you've been doing that all night.
>> No, I haven't. I told you your time was up. I gave you more time. She gave you three hours to ask one question. Let her ask the question, not [applause] >> if you want, you can ask her a question for you. You can ask the question for her. I'm gonna I'm gonna take my time, I
think, um, and start by saying that this format is an exercise in absurdity. I [applause] can't believe Mike Harvello from Ocean Grove. I can't believe that after weeks of opportunity to prepare to engage the community that this is what
we've had to sit through a negotiation between Tom and Dan and Jim >> a litigation with it's completely unproductive litigation because it's people yelling at each other. How is there not a conversation before this with all these interested parties in a room settling this so that we could have
a productive conversation as a community? It's shocking. [applause] This is the reason people don't come to meetings. People don't understand any of this. Nobody knows what a Clark Kaitton Hens is. We are looking to you as the representatives of this community to to
move in the interests that the community is trying to share with you. Those interests are protect these buildings and prevent this hide these hideous structures from going up all over the waterfront. They're not okay. They're not okay. The
city has a long history of government involvement in development. Eminent domain is a century old here. The government took Duckies in the developer's interest. The government took anybody's and Down Street in the developer's interest. The government
took Kay Harris's childhood home in the developer's interest. And nobody seems willing to apply that same energy to the developers that are squatting on these buildings that are crumbling that matter to this community. So we hear you say
that your hearts are there. We hear you say that you believe in the future of this place, but our eyes are telling us something different. And we don't understand why. We don't hear clear statements of policy. We hear reactions. This has been, I don't know, five or six months since that sticker went up in the
carousel window. And I don't see that anything is happening. We hired somebody and spent $20,000 to get a report back that the three lawyers on the panel disagree with and everybody here in this room disagrees with and it's just a bunch of discord. Why can't we just text does somebody have Joe's phone number? Solomon's phone number. Can we just text
him? Can we ask him? Why is this so difficult? And would it matter what he said? Would it matter what he said? If we paid him to give us this report, everybody disagrees with the results. Why do we pay him to begin with him? Everybody could just override him. Why aren't we asking him for clarification?
It doesn't make any sense. >> It doesn't make any sense. And and I I don't live here. I'm not a taxpayer here for the record. And when the panel when the panel says that they're concerned about budget and they don't want to bankrupt the city, that's important and
that matters. That's a concern that everybody in this room should hear and take to heart. But there should be options that the community can talk about. At least when the developers submit plans for gray boxes, everybody says, "Well, it's got to be good because we're the
waterfront redevelopment plan is impenetrable." But when it comes to protecting these buildings, it's like, "Forget about it." >> Yes. >> So, I'm going to say them out loud one more time. It's the Paramont Theater. It's Convention Hall. It's the Steam
Plan. It's the Carousel. It's the Casino. It's this high school. [applause] It's the English. It's the Saturday Theater. And it's the Turf Club. It's Holy Spirit Church.
Thank you. [applause] >> Patano 204 7th Avenue as Park. been here 30 years. I know all these guys. Okay. Um I came to talk about the wrong thing tonight. I was going to talk about parking and flooding, but apparently
nobody cares about parking or flooding because we're so interested in what Jimmy Aaron did 20 years ago. Okay. Uh Amy, you want four more years? My daughter's a therapist. She'll be happy to talk to you. You'll need a checkup from the neck up. Okay. I never saw so
many lawyers in the room my whole life. Everybody's litigating what Jimmy Aaron did in partnership with Larry Fishman. Good luck with that. All right. And guess what? That $30 million today is probably a hundred million. Right, Henry? It ain't I used to build for $100
a square foot. Now it cost me $400 a square foot. So it ain't 30 million. It's probably 100 million. All right. So this is what I'm here to say. I can't get on the council meeting for art projects. Vince and I Vince is 85 years old. We're the greedy developers. He's going to leave his money to charity. I'm
just trying to pay my taxes. About a half a million a year. Cost us $25,000 a month in taxes and interest carrying our lots in the waterfront that I have not been able to build on in 20 years. But Michelle Alonzo says everybody's
objecting to developers. Well, you're looking at one. You want to see the gray box? It's called the Rhythm. That's where I live. It's a beautiful building. We got an award. Okay. You want to see some more projects we did? There used to be a gas station on Main Street. Go look at it on the corner of Main and Fourth.
The beautiful blue building. Okay. How about the Dollar Tree? It's now Exitto Fresh Market, a new supermarket. Putting a million dollars into it. So, I am not Madison Marquette. I am not Larry Fishman. And Jimmy Aaron was your enemy,
not this guy. Okay? So, get your history straight because I was here from the beginning. Don't blame John and Amy. They got here in 2012. Look, I'm on your side this time, Amy. Look at that. It's miracles happen. You send me to Atlantic City and I come back and look what
happened. Okay. So, all I'm saying is return my emails. Okay. I'm trying to get on the city council agenda to get my projects on my lots approved. Don't stop me and Vince. We're not Madison Marquette. So, Michelle Alonzo says,
"Oh, a thousand people come check. We can't do anything." Well, I counted about 150 lawyers in this room and you're not against me because everything I come look at my projects, okay? You like Bond Street Bar. We used to have $2 beers and and $5 burgers, but now we got
inflation, so it's a little more. Okay? All right. So, don't pick on little guys. Let's get the parking garage built by the empress so we have some parking. And let's fix the the weir on the lake so we stop flooding Lake Avenue. THAT'S WHAT'S IMPORTANT.
>> [applause and cheering] >> THANK YOU. >> THAT'S HARD TO FOLLOW. It's hard to follow. >> All right. Uh Jameson Miller, 400 deal drive. Uh been here since 2012. Um I came in here with no notes. I didn't come with a piece print a piece of paper. I have a whole lot of notes
that's going on. So, first I would like to request as Mike kind of said uh this week in Asbury, he said, "Please set up some kind of special session uh about what's going on and give us a presentation because this is chaos and this is not what everybody thought was going to be happening in the 3 hours
that we're going to be sitting here. Also, set up a special session with what Henry brought up and save our structures. You all should have a meeting and be in a room and be coming to us and to give us information. It's it's really unacceptable that that we just open this meeting with public comment and we're just throwing stuff at
a wall. Um I would also love another presentation from the city about our current apparently legal stat uh position on the agreements and where we stand because I thought that's what I was coming for today. Um, and then also what happens after the plan expires in
2032 because we're all asking that question and we've never gotten that information after about 6 hours in this room through two special uh high school based city council meetings. Um, early in the meeting there was a recommendation uh to not go ahead with
the lawsuit. I think it was based on risk assessment. I think Mayor Moore you you kind kind of confirmed that later on. Um, I would like to know if there was not that risk involved, would you push the city to move forward with that lawsuit and would you believe that we have merit in that case? Um, I don't
want to hear the words subsequent developer agreement heard ever again, but here we go on it. Um, you stated that there's no obligation without a subsequent de developer agreement. So, if there's no obligation, then how have we ever held them in default in the first place? I don't understand that
legally. I'm not a lawyer. Um, the notifal in 2007 from that agreement means absolutely nothing to me. I I mean I moved here in 2012. Those buildings were vibrant. There were shows up until just a couple years ago. I went to the first Asbury Beerfest that was in that
building in October and it was amazing. And I understand they moved into the winter later on. That was that was fine. But like that building has been specifically both the casino and convention hall. Um, it sounds like it was represented that Asbury changed
their position between the 2002 and 2007 agreements. Uh, and we went ahead with a sale even though it was in the previous agreement that we cannot sell without having a plan for that. So why can't that position why can't our position change between now and then? And what commits us to saying this is what we did
and we just had a waiver. If there was a waiver and I'm not sure because that language went back and forth, but if there was a waiver, can we confirm that? It was later said that it just constitutes a waiver. So like why is that a thing? Um I'm running out of time. So I obviously it's the opinion of
a lot of people in this room who don't have a lot of faith in what's coming from him. I I'm just going to say that I I I have no disrespect for you. I'm sure you have a great great resume and everything and and you've worked hard on this, but we just we don't have a lot of faith. Um so if
that happens we we need to uh get Justin Solomon or another third party involved again. Um there was an agreed upon vision that was spoken about earlier and then like well there's no obligation of that vision but the current vision is obviously not it and that's what
everybody is trying to yell at the top of their freaking lungs. It's hard to not get emotional about this. [applause] The current what's going on is not the vision of 2002, of 2007, of 2010, of 20 years, 50 years from now, whatever you
want to talk about. This is not the vision and we're trying to do something. So, give us the the ways to do something. Hold some special sessions. Give us information so we're not throwing everything in a wall and wasting everybody's time because that's
really what we need. Please [applause] If I can, I'm going to stay. I'll repeat any of my my questions. But my my question request is can we have some more special sessions where you guys give us information? >> Can we can we can we put anything on record about that? Can we can we say
we're going to try to do that? I I I I don't need a full commitment, but >> we I started off the beginning saying we're working on many different things right now. Some of them can't be discussed. >> Obviously, we wouldn't do that. Uh, as
far as like I don't know, maybe two or three. You you picked two or three and me and D council. I didn't know how to run this meeting tonight. So, if it's run poorly, blame everything on me because last time Mr. Marine made a presentation, we got booed at that he
got to talk for an hour and everybody else got three minutes. So, I said, Joe, you only got three minutes. So, I mean, if I did if I screwed this up, I screwed this up. I'll I'll take blame for it. >> You You did not. But how how is the perfect way to have a meeting about this subject? And don't need an answer
tonight, but everybody has my phone number. It's listed. It's on the website. It's on my business card. You got my email address. Somebody has a better solution of how to figure this out without crossalking and this that
everything. I mean, and just factual and everybody has the right to disagree, but let's just do it respectfully. And maybe, yes, maybe we can figure out a way to do that. And I'm open to doing that. But again, I'm I swear for two weeks, I've been trying to figure out
how to run this meeting. And when we were in closed exec, I was still trying to figure out how to run this meeting. And I couldn't come up with the right way except said, Joe, you're not going to make a presentation because we're going to get booed off the stage. and we would have and anybody denies that is a
liar. And so the only thing I could think of is let people ask questions and let if he could answer them, he would answer them and we'd go from there. So if there was a screw up tonight, that's all on me. >> I I don't think he screwed up and I I was here for the last one. I don't think he was booed off the stage. He made his
presentation. There was a lot of public comment after. I think that's a little better of a format. Just personally, I'll move on to just the the rest of the questions. without No, no, no, no. The ones that already asked. So, I said without without that risk assessment that you you two have kind of put
publicly today, uh would you believe that our suit our our case would have merit if we move this forward if there wasn't a risk of a massive bill on the back end if we lose? >> Personally, me, I'm not 100% sure.
>> Okay. That do you have any opinion? You want to say anything publicly? I know lawyers don't like to do that. >> Yeah. I You also >> represent the position. >> Yeah, sure. So, the question is if there was no risk of losing, do we have a
case? I don't think we have a case. >> Okay. >> You don't you don't need to explain. >> Yeah. I don't I think in fairness and honest don't have a case. Um I if if I I asked the the if the lack of an
agreement means there's no obligation, how have we found them in default? I don't understand that legally. It doesn't make sense. >> If I may say something to to all of you, we we care. I know you there's been statements
that we don't care. we're sitting here. >> But I want what I want you to know is this. I remember when I was um on the other I I sat on the board of education. But before I became a member there, I was yelling and I was saying you should
do this and you should do that and why aren't you doing this and and then I became a member and I realized that there were certain things that could not be done. There are just as there are now. There are things that we are working on that we can't
share with you. We meet in executive session and so we're listening to you. We hear you. We see you. And trust me, we feel you. When I first came on council, I said, "Hey, intimate domain. They're in violation. We need to get rid
of them." But then I received education. And so there's a lot of things that you don't know that we know we're unable to share with you. But that doesn't mean that we don't care because we live here
too. >> And we love those. No, I know. But some people did. And I don't want you to believe think for one minute that I don't. Amy doesn't. John, Ivonne, Eileene, our city manager, our deputy,
our our attorneys. We love Asbury. We go up on that boardwalk in the beach and we enjoy it and we see you up there sometimes and you're enjoying it as well and we want you to continue. We have a lot of activities here. We don't want to see those buildings falling in the
ocean. We want you to be able to enjoy them. I know there's a commercial or um something about Jersey and they and they have the the convention uh building. Have you seen it on television? Yeah. And they went all the way back into the 30s and 40s. So yeah, we want to protect
them and we're doing what we can, but we're not unable to share that with you. I >> I so I understand that there's things you can't share with me. Um what I'm just asking is how how we can find them in default if without an subsequent developer
agreement there's zero obligation to do anything. If there's no obligation, I don't it it sounds like you can't find them in default of something. So that's that's why I'm I'm just I'm just trying to illustrate that and that's I think that's the the last question that I actually presented during my time. So
>> yeah, >> if you have anything to say back to that >> as I've been saying a couple of times and I appreciate the comment about the format. It's difficult because it's halfhazard questions is not a full presentation. I know but um the I've
been focusing on the question as to whether there was an obligation that Asbury partners had that remains out outstanding that could be the basis for that very
unusual takeback uh remedy where the city would pay back a million and a half plus hard cost. That's that's only available under one contract, the Asbury Park Partners contract in 2002. That does not mean
that there are not other defaults and failures by Madison Asbury Retail. There are there are we've sent notices of default for a number of things over the years uh that are
different than what we're talking about here. There are there are outstanding default notices not to do the Clark Kate and Hints $33 million report because I don't think there's a basis for that. I
>> I wasn't specific about that. I was I was general default about the convention hall casino Paramount and those things. Yeah. I I find it weird that they have no obligation in >> there's a there's a whole story. >> We're going to have to move on. >> Okay. No, >> I appreciate the
talent. That would be the best. Reappoint Tommy Solomon. They hash it out. >> Tommy call. Solomon didn't talk to Tom. We call Solomon. Solon doesn't talk to us. He won't Solomon don't speak to Okay, sir.
>> Sir, you're up. >> Hi, my name is Robert Ender. Robert Bruce Ender. Uh, my family is from Allen and Aspbury Park a long time ago. Actually, since the 40s. I currently drive Middletown. Um, I began my involvement with the defending
of the casino when I held a gathering in February in the cold and many of you many of you attended that. um listening to this trying I'm going to step back a little bit from the legal interpretations that have been going on and take a bit of a broader stroke and
say that I want to make sure everybody's careful not to repeat even a slight trace of the footsteps that were taken by previous councils which were largely fear-based cautionary extremely cautionary a little
bit nervous even and I feel terrible that you have all inherited this mess that was created before your time and I do empathize with that. Um, but I think that perhaps as you debate the legal
implications of all the different there's a lot of interpretation going on here. The strategy for a lawsuit may not just be necessarily be in this predicting the exact outcome of all the facets of it but in showing strength against uh
suboptimal developer that is that is repeatedly let down the town and the city and I think as a strategic move which you're not expecting maybe there's an advantage to initiating the first steps of such a proceeding so that
they realize that you mean business And maybe that's a first some steps, additional steps should be taken rather than them hearing that they're not going to do anything. >> They're going to stand down. They're not going to do anything. Maybe a continue to take these steps. Maybe the first steps there was a lot of questions that
seem to be unanswered, unreed by Justice Solomon. Maybe with additional reimbursement, we let him continue that process and and uh and come up with some of the unanswered questions. It's not definitive. Obviously, he's not uh this
is not a trial, but maybe we need to take those additional steps to see some of these unanswered questions. Maybe there's something yet unturned, a stone unturned that maybe give us a little bit more leverage going forward rather than debate what's been covered, which seems
very interpretive. Maybe we need to do that. Uh you need to do that as the next step. Um, also I wanted to to mention that this is the A plan is is a legal uh repercussions for their failures.
But the process of how this has gone on for all these years seems to not be working. And I think that a B and a C plan should be how else can we deal with this opaque difficult
entity that is in has such a huge footprint in the city. Now what can we do if the legal approach is not going to be the approach? What other measures can be developed and created by yourselves and and us in conjunction to ensure that
if the legal approach is not going to be the path that we take, what other approaches can be taken to make sure that what's happened in the last 15 years doesn't continue to happen to the point where there's a point of no return of the buildings. >> If you could just finish your paragraph, could your time's up?
>> Yes. I just wanted to encourage maybe the city begin uh some sort of secondary approach. maybe a historical preservation commission some other approaches that if the legal approach is not the one there's a B and a C plan to ensure that the buildings are protected.
>> Thank you very much. >> Thank you brother. [applause] >> Good evening. Um my name is William Asado. I live on Cookman Avenue in Aspbury Park and I have had a home there for about 10 years.
>> Yes. Is this better? Yes. >> Okay. It's been a long evening and um it's probably been for some people as well an emotional evening and I want to recognize that. Um I also want to thank
the team that is leading the work at SOSP. Um as they took [applause] they took upon themselves the very hard work of trying with whatever verifiable
facts have been available to sort of engage this electorate so that there was a grounding in facts and not just emotion. But to that end, I will note that facts seem to be difficult to come by um in
general and I think that that complicates the task of governance and I think it's something that we should all collectively pay attention to. Um second,
we spent an evening clearly sort of seeing demonstration that there are multiple ways to interpret the same set of data. That's what the evening illustrated more than anything. I'm going to offer that
the two prominent people who were interpreting the data are not the only people available to interpret the data. And if there is indeed this sort of impass between those two readings,
perhaps it's time to invite a third impartial party to weigh in as well because it really did turn a sort of debate [applause] between two legal lines and I don't think that that moved anything forward and I do believe that
the task at hand is to move something forward and so I would recommend that the council, if it is within its governance model, think about establishing a blue ribbon committee to really sort of have
an opportunity to address the issue at hand and to do so, Mr. Mayor, with the diversity that you referenced a bit ago, right? Because this does not represent all of Asbury Park in this room right now. And I think an ad hoc committee, a
blue ribbon committee, something of that nature where suddenly we turn the paradigm from fighting each other to working together. Imagine if all of this discord is harnessed towards finding a
solution and a way forward. What? [applause] So that's my recommendation. I'm going to leave you with that. It's been a long evening. Thank you for serving. >> And just one thing I think at the beginning you said facts are hard to come by and you you're absolutely right.
I'm going to tell you this. I'm not ashamed about this and I never lie or hedge or anything until Judge Solomon's report. I never was told about the clerk caden and hence report. So I mean everybody thinks mayor and council know everything and told
everything. And another problem is like as much as like we want to meet, we cannot meet legally with more than two council members. So we can't get a majority except like before a meeting at
close exempt. So it's not like, hey, why did we like all get together the past two weeks and spend five hours a night trying to figure this out? We legally can't. It's against the law. The sunshine ball. No more than two of us can meet at any one time. But again, for
me to be the mayor and never be told about a Clark hatton hits report, there's a a problem where Mr. Deno wanted to look at the 2004 book. He talked to the city clerk. City clerk said, "John, there's a problem." I said, "What's the problem?" He said, "We can't
find the book." I said, "We'll tell him that. Tommy will believe it because he knows how bad the records are. And if he doesn't believe it, he can come down and look for it." And but that's how bad the city records are. the the minute for the entire city from 2004 is missing. So any ordinance,
forget the boardwalk, any ordinance about anything, nobody knows anything. Our records in the past are horrendous. That's part of the problem. But your suggestions are deeply appreciated and we'll look into it. >> And Mr. Mayor, if I may, one more thing. >> Yes, ma'am. You don't have to solve it
by yourself as you're thinking about how to structure this evening and structure this moment, right? You could have, I believe, reached out to a broader constituency and ask for recommendations as to what would be the most productive
way to structure an evening like this. As a former CEO, I didn't have to have the answers. I just have to marsh it. >> I did I did ask several people besides council members and I got very little help.
>> We're asking again and next time we do this please send us we there's got to be a better way than how it's going tonight. So just send us email us ways to do this better and >> I'm in. >> Is there still a standing waterfront redevelopment subcommittee under the
council that has two members of council attorney and then appointed members of the >> public. I I don't know when they did away with Jim. >> I just asked >> No. Yeah. No, there's not. >> Well, it was because you're supposed to rewrite the plan.
>> They didn't like it. >> Okay. Yes, ma'am. >> Hello. I'm Felicia Simmons, Sul Avenue, Asbury Park, lifelong, president of WCC Historic Renovation Association, formerly known as the Westside Community Center um and statewide um problem solver. Um I've heard a lot through this
meetings. I've been involved for a couple decades now. And um the question that we danced around um the agreement, they can't be in default because they didn't default anything because there's no agreement. There is no time limit on an agreement. You can make an agreement
now. Instead of spending $20,000 to the judge talking about suing, you could have put $20,000 to a planner to come up actually with the plan. When he spoke about, hence not a lawyer, just a person with a little common sense, right? When he spoke about defaulting to the first
um agreement and then afterwards it said in this um consequent agreements that it has to be an agreement made, the gentleman just spoke about that you couldn't come to terms with it. So, no one decided to write it. And um instead of being um reactive, be proactive
because there's nothing saying that you can't write to agreement which you can hold them in default for today, yesterday, the day before, the day after, next week, right now, 10 minutes from now. Right? We keep talking about lawsuits, but in all honesty, it's a neglect of a job that needs to be done
that has not been done yet. And it's not something that can't be done. Literally, you can do it tomorrow. And the question is to the lawyer directly so I can hear a yes or no. Is there anything saying that we cannot write that agreement? We don't have to wait for Madison Marquette
Marquette to write the agreement. We can write the agreement. That's the lawyer. And then second part um and pretty much to everybody else. Anything great in this town has happened because the um community has decided to do it. when they talk about rent control
or inclusionary zoning that all started with the people. It was a group right inclusionary zoning rent control as park affordable housing alliance um affordable housing um group of which I was a founding member and part of decided on our own that we're going to
do something that we're going to we wrote a complete report and if you don't read the first report you won't even understand the second report which the city just took ours and then revamped and then our if you read the um rent um rent control you won't understand it unless you read the first part which we
wrote first and then they revamp it. So what SOS is doing now is quite awesome because that's actually how you get stuff done in this city. Then I want to throw out here some of this stuff sounds ridiculous backdated and everything else because we actually need a new form of
government right um it's been a couple decade at least a decade now where we have to talk about extending the board where we don't have the sunshine law where only two people can meet right we can talk about actually the whole community being um meant to come together we have to talk about these
things and not just talk about and do it and in all honesty I just really want the answer to the question why can't we write that report or agreement that you consistently said that there's no agreement to file them in default for, right? Why can't we write that agreement today?
[applause] >> We could write an agreement today, but it wouldn't be binding unless both parties signed it. It has to be when agreement means that all the parties affected have to agree to it. So, one party can't write an agreement and make
it binding on other people, >> but one party like the people wrote the rent control ordinance and then the city took it and then lifted it up and then spit back what they wanted. It's called negotiation. >> Why can't we start that? >> An ordinance is a very different
document than an agreement. An ordinance is the government has the power to adopt laws and they can do that without the consent of any other party >> sir. So what you're I'm sorry because I
hear a lot of word play and and this um and and in weeds the hence the party is two people have to agree on the agreement two parties two sides that has to be mandated that's in a contract that agreement has to be written. So, you're
saying that Madison Marquette will never never, right? Um because this could be a good legal standing, right? This could be something you can actually litigate. Will not um successfully sit down and agree to agreement, right? Because I remember the former John, right, from a
Madison Marquette um the question that a reporter asked at Star Ledger um asked um why is there no affordable housing on the beachfront? And he answered real clearly because the city never asked for it. So, are we saying we don't have an agreement because we never put up an agreement? We never said we wanted an
agreement and we never had a negotiation for agreement because we never put up one. >> Okay, Felicia, >> just a question. >> No, I appreciate it. And your time's up and I believe Mr. Mariti answered your question. >> This is Mr. Mariti's. Mr. Mariti.
[applause] Madison Marquette or Madison Asbury Retail would have to agree and sign the document for to be binding on them. I have been very frustrated and I think many people in this room know that about
the difficulty of getting Madison Asbury Retail to accept a grant of $13 million for the Paramount. I am very frustrated with with Madison and I find that that
even when you want to give them money that is available from the legislature, it's like pulling teeth to get them to sign that document. So I I'm not naive enough to think that if we put an agreement in front of them that we like
that that they would sign it. I do not agree with that. So, >> so you're saying just just for clarity that and and plus the question is we've never put an agreement or suggested to sit down and write an agreement and if we put an agreement in front of them, you're saying that Madison Marquette
won't sign it. >> Correct. >> That's my belief. Yes. >> Right. Inside of your belief, what is fact? Have we ever done it? >> Well, yes. I >> We're going to have to move on. >> No, this is a quick question from the lawyer. >> Yes, we >> have we put an agreement about the waterfront in the casino.
Kelicia, your time's up. I'm trying to tell you, we've met with them and asked to have agreements, and we've been told no. [applause] Sorry. >> Can you guys hear me? >> I'll put my professional voice on.
>> My name is Cindy Schwarz. >> Pull it up. Okay. My name is Cindy Schwarz Marcelis. I live at 902 New Street here in Aspbury. I have more of a comment than a question. As Schwarz has lived in the northwest
dodgy end of Aspbury for over a hundred years, my grandmother wrote in her memoir about watching the Mororrow Castle burn down in front of Convention Hall. She wrote about watching the Hindenburg
fly over the beach. My great uncle was a bootleggger here in Aspberry during prohibition and brought whiskey to the city and we should all be grateful for that. My cousin was a hairdresser here in the
60s and 70s with Danny Devito. So my family has a very long illustrious history with this town. In 1986, I was an intern at Mammoth Hospital and I said to my dad, "I want to invest in
the city." And my dad, an Asbury native, said to me, "The city doesn't care about us. Don't waste your money." Fast forward to nine years ago today, my
husband and I bought a property here in Ashley and we love it. and my thing moved around. Sorry about that. But my dad, who passed this year, was horrified to see what has happened to
the historic structures in this city. My grandfather worked at the casino in the 30s. In fact, he broke his foot pushing a piano from the casino to convention hall. And back then there wasn't any
insurance so it was a bit of a problem. But we still love this town. I'm not a lawyer. I'm just a taxpayer and a resident. I don't really know much about this. But what I do know is that
we can't I cannot imagine not fighting and trying to go against what we all believe is important. I understand from what has been said that this is not an easy fight. That
Madison Marquette is not doing their due diligence, nor are they being forefront. But that doesn't stop us from doing everything we can to preserve this city.
Do we all agree? [applause] Aren't we all sick of corporations screwing us over? >> Prove my dad wrong and show us that the city does care about its residents and
its history. And can't we agree that what makes the city by the city? The city we all love. Don't we all love our city? [applause] Great people. >> If you could finish art,
>> if you could finish your paragraph, if you could finish your music, >> if you could finish your paragraph >> and structures. >> Yeah, there you go. >> No, no, but you can finish finish your par. Finish your thought. >> Finish your thought. >> Oh, okay.
>> Yeah, she's heard. >> Okay. So am I. And one last thought before we build any more structures in the city, let's consider storm management
because if any more of our lakes overtake the area, we are all going to be underwater. Let's see what [applause] >> Thank you. Uh good evening. My name is Matthew
Dannis. I live at 705 Bond Street uh in Asbury Park, New Jersey. Uh it's a uh it's a wild time when Patano is the little guy in Asbury Park. Uh in addition to being a 20-year resident of Asbury Park, uh I am the
director of the Asbury Park-based teen think tank project. Uh it is the nation's oldest teenrun public policy think tank. Uh to our knowledge, we are the nation's only teenrun think tank, but that does not invalidate our claim.
After each time we present policy or uh advocate for a cause, we ask our teen advocates two questions. Uh the first, what did you learn? The second, are we any are we any closer to a resolution? Uh, if any of those teens were in
attendance tonight, I am confident that they would answer in the negative to both questions because I certainly haven't learned anything and I certainly don't feel like we are closer to a resolution as a city. So, in the spirit of resolution, I have a few invitations on behalf of those
teens and advocates everywhere. Uh, Mayor Moore, you are looking for a better solution to further this conversation. Uh, I'd like to invite representatives of team Dano and the city council uh to participate in a
moderated panel discussion debate that complies with any sun uh sunshine laws so we can get definitive answers to legal opinions that we weren't able to get tonight. Uh, our organization will run it. Uh, you mentioned Charles Day a few times during this conversation. Uh,
he recently wrote an article uh about our advocacy efforts. uh both locally and throughout the state. Um I think you'll find us qualified to pull it off. Uh the second invitation I have on behalf of the Teen Think Tank Project uh
is for all of the pro lawsuit citizens. Uh if you would like to get a question on the ballot, contact us. I believe August is the deadline um for ballot questions. Um if I'm mistaken, I can correct myself in our private
conversations. Uh but we will review your quest and use the opportunity as a learning experience uh for our teens. Um you'll have to go out and get your own signatures of course, but we will uh work to get that paperwork together for
you. Um if you would like to take us up on the offer, you can find us Teen Think Tank Project. We are the only organization on the internet. Uh finally, I have an invitation for the council. Uh part of the frustration that I have
and I've heard from others here uh is that we have little faith that there is a collective vision. Um so I'm going to assume there are several individual visions. So I invite each of the council members
to answer the following question. Uh what is your personal position on the prospect of a lawsuit? Uh our attorney said that he serves the client which is you. Would you support a potential lawsuit on this default action if it was
viable? Uh, elections are coming in November and I think it would be a valid topic of conversation amongst voters. Thank you very much. [applause] >> Yeah, I'm sorry that was a direct question to each of the council members. So, I'll say a couple words. Uh, but I'm
going to tell you that AGD has kicked in in full force. So, I've said this before. Um, and I'm partly saying this to Tommy behind you. I have read >> I have read every text message you've
sent me, every blog you've written, and every um article you've written. Listen, I'm fading, so this is going to be a little all over the place, but I'm going to do the best that I can. And I think you know, and I know that I'm concerned about the 3.5 agree, you know, where it
says agree and then there's no agreement. Now, can you get me past that? Maybe. That's why I'm reading all of your stuff. But that is a major concern for me personally. And everybody's saying, "Sue, one, I hope you've not complained to me about your
taxes." But I want to be crystal clear. I make under $100,000 a year. I am struggling to pay the taxes in this town as is. So, I am at least cautious cautious before I gamble with all of your monies on a lengthy lawsuit. I'm
not saying I won't do it. I'm saying I'm cautious to do it because I make under $100,000 a year and can barely afford my taxes as is. So to your point, >> can you get me to a lawsuit? Yes. Am I
there? No. And the other thing that is wildly unpopular is I want to see convention hall stop destructing. So what is my main priority over the next few months is tax credits for Madison Marquette to do the work to make
Convention Hall stop falling into the water. So can you get me to a lawsuit with the casino? Maybe. But my priority is for Governor Cheryl to give tax credits to Madison Marquette to stop Convention Hall from falling into the water. That is my number one priority
and I'm just speaking for me. >> Um question is still open to the rest of the council. >> Yes. So I'm going to follow Amy and agree with what she says. I'm not for a lawsuit. I'm not against a lawsuit. I am
still gathering information. We are still having conversations with others behind the scenes. And so this is a process. We have to answer to everybody in the city, all 16,000 people. And so this process needs to be
very clear in my head before I make that decision. And it's not I'm not going to kick this can down the road. These are conversations we're having now. >> And I got to say one more question to your point. The question isn't lawsuit or not lawsuit. There was other options and I think people talked about it but
one of the options is a subdevelopers agreement for that project. And I know people don't want to hear that word but 2002 2006 2007 2010 it has always called for a subdevelopers agreement for the power plant, the casino and the carousel. And so is there a way to use
leverage from this report for those dialogues and those conversations? I think Angela sort of referenced there are things that we have going on behind the scenes that we're not talking about, but the goal would be to avoid a decade worth of litigation and to have a subdevelopers agreement with community
input that that area gets developed. So, I'm going to say that and just so you know, I'm reading your articles. When you called me a good poker player, I thought, well, he's never played poker with me because I'm not a good poker player. I I um I'm also getting education. So
yes, I want to save the buildings as I mentioned to you earlier when I became uh back in 23. Yes, I said intimate domain. Now they're in violation. They're in default, but I had to be educated because
can the city afford let's say that we do we s we we sue. Can we afford uh to to rehab the casino? Is it going to bankrupt the city? Now, I heard uh Mr. Vicaro and the other gentlemen, you said you have $15 million. So, you know,
that's something that maybe we need to listen to. We need to talk to you and see what you can do to help us if we were to go that route. So for me right now I'm getting education because I have to also all of you that are here about the buildings there are others that are
not here and there are others who are saying well you know if my taxes go up I can't afford to stay here. I have people that are afraid to lose their homes because they're being taxed out of their homes. So that's another thing. I just don't represent those of you that are
here. We represent all of the 16,000 that are here in Asbury Park. And so I have a huge concern, but I need to be educated. And so I am I get information from Tommy and I thank you. I did, you
know, um you you Facebook me or messaged me and and I appreciate that. I I I read the information. So I'm being educated and and uh and then we make my decision. As I said earlier, um there's things that I can't discuss because that's why
we have executive sessions so that we can just discuss those things. Okay. As of today, no, I would not support a lawsuit. I would support it going forward if I thought we had an opportunity and a chance of winning. But
if it is going to cost people their homes because we'll have to raise the taxes to cover the expenses. I do not believe I know you mean well. I do not believe that you're going to raise millions and millions of dollars to
support a lawsuit. And therefore, if I think that my neighbors are going to have to lose their homes to support a lawsuit for a building that does not have anyone living in it,
I'm not going to do it. >> It's the entrance way to Asbury Park. >> Let's just lock it down ourselves. I if we have an opportunity and I think that this is something that we can win
and we have the information and knowledge that we don't have today then yes I would support it. >> That's it. Thank you. >> Yeah, under the right circumstances, yes, I would support the lawsuit. Right now, I don't think we're there yet. And
again, we do have other options going on behind the scenes that we are looking at very seriously. They cannot be divulged because they're confidential and there's more than one way to skin a cat. So, but under
>> John, do you have a timeline on that? >> We're hoping as soon as possible, but I know >> it's like the timeline for construction. >> Yeah, but again, because it's not just us involved. There's three or four different parties involved in their essence to keep it strictly
confidential. >> Soon as we find out optimistic about it, >> I'm more optimistic than pessimistic about it. And they were hoping to have this solved by now and something
happened where it's not solved. So could happen tomorrow, could never happen. We have no idea. But uh we are looking at other options. But if that doesn't come through and under the circumstances and I'll go on record everybody donate to
Henry and Chuck. John Moore says donate to Henry and Chuck so they group with your support. I can't go to rich people as Chuck L. But if the city supports a group that would >> you use my nameion.
>> Okay. Have you give me his email but yes thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. Just be clear, would you? >> Well, that's his question. Who would sue? Asbury Park and white. >> Well, you don't have me at that yet either. I'm not. You don't have me at
that yet either. You can talk, but you don't have me at that yet either. 2007 says if you don't do that agreement, as part, it says it right there, black and white. Asbury partners is still a subject. his whole >> Madison Marquez build it not as part
>> it doesn't matter you read what you said he wrote the council wrote said as part is a subject under 2002 it goes back to them >> okay to draw >> because it says agree after
>> but that's who you sue affect the tax credit >> you ready Yeah, >> Tom Denno 3600 Route 66 in Neptune. Um, when a judge says in a finding, I find
something is blue, it's okay for lawyers to say, he might have meant royal blue, he might have meant ice blue, that's fine. That's that's called interpretation. But when the judge says blue and a lawyer stands up and SAYS HE SAID GREEN, THAT'S a misinterpretation.
None of this is subject to interpretation. It is misinterpretation by Mr. Maraziti. And I'm going to show you again again and again tonight some of that. And I want you to remember I've had the same position since 2002. Maraziti has had three different
conflicting legal positions since February. Go back and look at your tape from February when he did this at the school. You know what his argument was? He said that 2010 controls the casino. and he put up a graphic that said, "Oh,
these are the only documents you have to look at." Little foreshadowing. He didn't have the 2007 up there. He didn't have Clark Kaitton Hints. When he talked about the 2006, you know what he said twice? Ignore it. It's completely irrelevant. It has nothing to do with this this contract. Okay? So, that was
his position then. So then we get Judge Solomon's decision which says not only is the 2002 agreement covering the casino under the 2002 agreement we can take it back upon a default. It says those two things. And then what did his
memo say about that thing? This is what he said. Joe said that that Solomon said Solomon concluded the Asbury partners never nevertheless remained obligated under the 2002 agreement but that this obligation only applied to the casino.
Right? That that we agree on that. Then he says therefore the extraordinary takeback remedy is no longer available to the city because it was only included as a potential remedy of the 2002 agreement with Asbury Partners. It was not included in the 2010. No kidding,
Sherlock. THAT'S WHAT SOLOMON TOLD YOU. It's not in the 2010. Why did you tell the media and why did you put in the mayor's mouth that Solomon said the that that the 2010 controls? He said it's the 2002. Then Mr. Starky thinks that I'm
not very bright. Like I really bought the fact that he was only holding the report because he was going to redact it. He was holding it because Joe Baraziti panicked when he saw the first report that said was right and he starts sending documents to the judge and he wants him to change his mind. He sends
him to 2006 and and and and Starky wouldn't allow him or anybody else or who did it to include me on that because if he sent 2006 I would have sent the 2007. It's an amendment to the 2006. How do you not send the 2007 and not the
2006? I'll tell you something about the Clark report. John, you didn't have it. You know who else didn't have it? Joe. You know how I know that? Because after I started writing about it, he tried to download it from my website and I got a notification from my website saying Joe Marazini would like to download the
court and hence report. He didn't know about it. Also never mentioned the 2007 until I brought it up in an article. Then suddenly he says, "Oh, well, let's go to the footnote in 2007." But you heard him say tonight he refused to read the two parts. that that footnote
clearly says it only has to do if we make a s sub slement DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT. SOLOMON SAID THAT WAS NEVER DONE. THEREFORE, go back to the 2002. If you were going to ignore Solomon, the hell you hire him for? But here's the two parts we asked Joe to look at
earlier. And it's right right from the 2007 agreement. >> Tom, >> yeah, >> I gave you two extra minutes. You've used one. >> Just expired. >> Okay, I WON'T READ THOSE, BUT JOHN, I'M
GOING TO SEND THEM TO YOU. OKAY, it says twice. >> No, I said I said I I'm giving you two extra minutes. You used one. So, I want you to use your last extra minute. >> Okay. >> To your benefit. >> This is what it says that Joe wouldn't read. >> What page? What page? >> This what page? What? >> What page are you reading from?
>> I'm reading from the 2007. I only like brought a snippet, not the whole not the whole thing. It It's towards the bottom. This is what it says. master developer shall remain liable to complete the scope of work which is annexed exhibit B uh attached here too. Then it goes on to
say some more words and it says until such subsequent developers agree into enter which Solomon said never happened developer shall remain responsible for the obligations set forth in the scope of work annexed as exhibit B to this
stop certificate. Joe refused to read that tonight. Ask yourself why. Because he doesn't want to admit that that's the controlling language, not that footnote. He doesn't want to admit that. And Amy, you just said something tonight. You dropped the challenge. You said, and and
you said it to me before. You said, "Prove to me accepted." Clark Kate H. I have given you. >> No, I did not say prove to me. No, no, no. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm sorry. I acknowledge we accept it. I acknowledge it has obligations. What I did not what I don't what where you're
losing me is there's no agreement agreeing to it. Okay. The 3.5 says you got to do this report. >> They do the report. They give the report and then the report disappears. So you know what? Just pause his time a minute or unless that's mine.
>> So So you know we do Tommy, you know what we do? We call Jimmy Aaron who's sitting on the beach somewhere and we say do you remember this report? And then we call Clarks and we say, "Do you remember doing this report? Do you remember what the outcome for this report was supposed to be?" Of course, nobody remembers anything, right?
Because it's 20ome years ago. So, so you I think I've discussed this with you before. It's hard for me to see where we agre where the city of Asbury Park in 2004 agreed to this report. Now, I know you say it's by a scent. I'm a I'm a
legal services attorney. I am not a contract attorney. You could be correct on that. But where you lose me is I see no. It literally Tommy disappears. >> Okay. May I answer? >> Yes. >> Okay. I have given you in the past five different pieces of evidence that will get past a summary judgement motion.
That's the way you decide. >> You get past a summary judgement. Tell me and then we go to trial. And what I'm saying to you is I want to get the leverage to get the subdevelopers agreement. Maybe we don't have a 10-year trial. >> Please let me answer your question. Okay. You said can I show you anytime we accept it? Jim Aaron's statement on the record says that we accept it the
contract. >> Well, I gotta stop. Jim Aaron says in the Asbury Park Press article by Nancy Shields, he says this. He does not say we accept it. That is not what he says. He says this report was done and the reason that you know the the casino's so
low is because all the repairs that need to be done, blah blah. He does not say we accept the obligations of this report, Tommy. Okay. >> I wish he did. Okay, Amy, if you're looking for a document that says I hereby accept the Clark Kit report. >> No. Oh, okay. Let me get there. Please
don't. I'm listing you the things I gave you. Let me just say upfront, you reject them all because you have so far. Okay. You reject that Jim Aaron said it. You reject the fact that it's in the deed. You reject the fact that 3.5 is self-executing that says don't close.
And when you do close, this becomes an obligation. You You don't agree with any of that. That's what I said. >> Okay. You don't really Okay. I got something new. >> That's a different I got something new. >> I got something new. I contacted Caffra
and they gave me something this week. >> Okay. >> I say we accepted it in 2004. You say you don't see where there's proof of that. I contacted Caffra and this is what I got. In 2006, Caffer wanted to know how's it going with that Clark Kate
and Hint report from 2004. and clerk Kate and hint sent them a 123 page update and said this is how we're doing with that report. So, you're gonna still stand there and tell me what's that? Now, I just got this. I wanted to
surprise everybody tonight. Can I read it? >> Hey, Amy. I've sent you those other five. And so far, YOU SO FAR. SO FAR, so far you've told me to blow my nose with it. Those are absolute absolute proofs that will get us past summary judgment,
get us to a trial. And this one. Oh, you want two more? How about twice? Uh the historical society wrote to you guys in 2006 and said, "You're about to knock down the arena pursuant to the Clark Kaitton hints report and we want to go in and take the artifacts." And you know
what you guys did with those two letters? You filed them inside the Clark Kaitton hints report. That's how I got them. So you're going to tell me you're going to ignore all these things that'll get us to trial. I might as well just blow my notebook. Why should I take part in further proceedings? I've now given
you seven pieces of proof that we accepted it. And it says right in the documents that we accepted it. I don't know what else to do. I'm telling you, we're going to get past the summary judge. They're not even going to make a summary judge motion. In fact, this is so strong, I might make the damn summary
judge motion. Okay? YOU YEAH. YOU NEED SOMEBODY THAT KNOWS that that wants to do that. That's the problem. >> And you don't have a guy who wants to do it. >> [applause] >> more and more money will put the screws on.
>> Thank you for the time. [applause] >> Thank you for the new material and please send it to us. >> 40 years everyone. My name is Rebecca Rudolph. I live at 3117. Um, I'm going to continue to ask Moren's
question that she was denied earlier. Um, in regards to code violations. Now, in the past, for example, the city jailed the city historian for code violations and yet there has been no code violations issued to the master redeveloper. Why is that? It's clear the
casino is in disrepair. Cite them non-stop. those funds can be utilized to then repair the casino and every other structure that we are working to save. So why can't we continue to site Madison
Marquette for their lack of you know code violations? Exactly. >> Good question. And suddenly it's I believe it's going to start to happen almost immediately. >> Why hasn't it happened before? Why is it
just happening now? They had been given code violations in convention hall and other places but again this is something like we have talked about in those exact and you know we're under the same impression you are it should have been done and will be done
>> is it is it actively being done now >> how much are they being fined is that are you able to >> I can't hear with everybody talking back. I can >> Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Okay. How much are they being fined each time they are
ne neglecting the contracts that they have here with us? What are they being fined and where are those funds going towards? >> We're we're you're talking about >> these code violations. Yes. Aren't they being cited and fined? >> Yes. If they got code violations or
fines, they go to court. I mean, have we, you know, hit them with a ton of them? Why? Why? >> Because >> you I get a parking ticket and then I might use my >> Okay, you can get up to the microphone. >> Oh, thank you.
>> But good point. Came up. Going to start. >> You're an 800B gorilla. and Moren, >> excuse me one second, sir. When I said no, Adam, the city manager was going to
go pull you down to the side and talk to you about it. So, if you want to talk to Adam after the meeting, the city manager about the code fines, where's the other young lady? Uh the city manager will talk to you about it after the meeting.
Adam, raise your hand. Okay. >> Sorry. Thank you. Okay. All right. >> Yes, sir. This is two different issues. We have the 2002. >> Can I just get your name and address, please?
>> It's Joseph Mey 10003rd apartment 311 as >> Thank you. >> Okay. We have the two issues. We have the two issues. We have the 2002 south end and we have the 2010 north end. Now, in terms of the C casino, we're going to argue that, but convention hall is a
national historic registered building. Allowing them to do what they're doing is probably against federal law. I mean, you have to at least maintain it. That is there's no way that that when and they bought it knowing that it was
declared in 76. So, they bought it knowing it and they didn't maintain it. I don't see why you can't take it back just for that reason alone or or the government or the state or anybody else because they're certainly not maintaining an historic building. You
know, you you don't let you know the independence hall just crumble. You know, you fix it or you ask for donations or whatever you can do. Um so, ignore the fact there is no timeline for that. You just it has to be done. Um, I'd like to request from everybody for
the town some kind of map of Madison Market, you know, retail and Asbury Partners and this and that because some of the new developers are sneaking in and they're just subdevelopers of the subdevelopers of Madison Marquette. Madison Market sold their retail thing
that the retail sold the retail to somebody else so that they could, you know, bow away from that. Um, so what is developing versus maintenance? If you surrender a building over, I would hope they would at least spray paint the metal pieces so they don't rust away
when the steam plant threequarters of the stupid railings that would take Rustoleum is gone. It's just gone. So, you know, that's silly. You know, just it just neglect. It's all it is to it is if we can find even the tiniest tiniest
thing inside the scope, sue for that. Just sue for that little tiny thing. bringing up B stuff and then you have that little, you know, you said you had to fight to get them to sign that thing for the the grant money. That was the start of agreement of a timeline because
they agreed they would get it finished by December. There's no reason you can't amend that timeline to now include new things because new things in the convention hall have to be done and there has to be a timeline. So if you're going to get more money, you know, from the state, there has to be a timeline. I
can just magically say we need more money. Um maybe we want a moratorum on building, you know, they got enough little money in the in the game and if if they don't get to do what they want to do, then there you go. Um non-binding
arbitration just so they can say, "Well, this is our interest. This is what we wish to do." Um just did you expect income from the retail? The answer would be yes, but they didn't give you the retail. So that was your reason for signing to maintain
the building and to get the income maintaining building. You didn't get the income. I would think that's implicit in you sign the contract. Okay. Let me and Joe Joe will correct me because I'm going to be right but not as right as he
is. The agreement and Jim might know with convention hall is you're right. So the national historic guidelines, but the deal that was cut with the city is like they just have to keep it broom clean. They can shut it down tomorrow and just say they have to
keep the public access open, which is the walkway through, but they could shut it down tomorrow. They shut down convention hall. They never told us why. We shut down the Paramount because it was had a tarp with an electrical sump pump, but people were watching like, you
know, shows and like we caught that when we shut him down that so believe me. And the only hope we have there is Shipo was involved and we're trying to get Shipo to step to the plate to give us some
more backbone and leverage. Everybody's saying like, "Hey, we're not doing our jobs. Shipo's been reluctant to help us force them to do anything, which they can. And then as far as the the $13 million for the Paramount, we can't make
them change anything because to get that job through the state and it's with the COVID money. So that's why it has to be done by December 31st of 26 because if not, the president's taking it all back. Specifically, it had to be what was
going to be done. A, B, C, D, and E. And we can't know go from AB Y's K E. So that can't be changed. But as far as like conventional, they can shut it down totally tomorrow and they will not be in breaking any law. Joe, correct me if I'm
wrong. >> Yeah, they, you know, the mayor many things I couldn't agree more with most everything you said. Actually, we did send a notice of default to Madison Hasbury Retail about Convention Hall
probably in 2002 or three. We got back a letter. We we the notice of default was to say that they were not maintaining convention hall. They responded that by saying all they have
to do is sweep it. That's exactly the position they took. That's their argument. They got a a definition from the dictionary of maintain and that's that was their position. It's about an eightpage letter with many statements as
ridiculous as that. >> That's the the problem in dealing with Madison retail. You're absolutely right about the fact that Convention Hall is on the National Register of Historic Sites and the State Register of Historic
Sites. In addition to that, as the mayor mentioned, there is a uh preservation easement with the state office of historic preservation and that gives the shipo state historic
preservation office the opportunity to enforce that. We had a meeting with Shipo. We asked them to step in and take the lead on that because they have the financial wherewithal to do it. What they said at that time was there's
applications pending by Madison for historic preservation grants and they were working through that process at that time. Fast forward, we're now at the point where the review
of the the tax credits, the so-called cafe, cultural affairs facility expansion program that uh Governor Murphy put into place. That process of that tax credit application is being we
here finalized at EDA. wrapped into that uh are the historic preservation grants as well. So if they get that if they get that it will cover the historic preservation grants and the cafe project
that's the position that Shipo has taken that they're working through on that process. if they don't get those grants and I tax credits I should say and I agree with the statement that that if they don't there's a real serious
problem with the ability to keep those buildings I'm talking now about the the north end convention hall grand arcade and Paramount Theater we if they don't get those tax credits in a few months there's very great concern that those
buildings were will deteriorate. What What is the next move? The next move is to pressure the state if that happens to take the the preservation easement and make it effectively
enforced against Madison. The state can do that and that's the next step waiting in the wings with respect to convention hall. >> Get a televised press conference now only in a natural emergency. Get
attention on this. >> You've got to hide your light under a bushel. >> We're we're get that money trying to get Paul Mikey every day and then go Paul as We all Everybody's
working on the tax. >> Get TV cameras down there. >> Get TV cameras down there. >> I just wanted to suggest something for how do I get all this information? It's really stupid. But Google Docs because you have to read an email. You have to read an email. You have to read an
email. You try to coordinate. But if it's all put together in front of you, you can say that's useless. Let me pull this with that. Let me add this back. It'll be much easier. Just it's one big document. people just keep contributing and you toss them through everything and it's great.
>> Thank you very much. [applause] >> Hi, >> Regina Flynland. My husband Enrique and WGO and I um lived in Asbury for over 20 years, got married here 23 years ago and
um 506 8th Avenue. And so tonight was quite insightful and I concur that the city seems to be kind of taking in information, doing things they need to do behind the scenes and keep things moving. It it seemed a little
disappointing to hear the lack of commitment to move forward if there's a financial implication. So, my few questions are, do we have a director of marketing or public relations for the city of Aspberry Park?
>> Yes or no? >> No. >> No. Okay. So that seems to be one of the problems because since we don't have somebody in that position that could be spearheading the information that's coming to us through various reports and
getting it outward to various networks to get the swell of community support throughout the state and I think the country um which might help with the financial implications that we're all so concerned about as taxpayers.
When you think of Jacqueline Onasses saving um Grand Central, which was slated for demolition by a big developer, and she got on the board, and before you knew it, things shifted and it went all the
way to the Supreme Court. It went to the Supreme Court. And look at Grand Central today. And I believe the vision that we have as a community is these are our grand centrals. >> Same architect. >> Oh, there you go. Same architect. My
daughter's an architect. You think I'd know that? Nope. Right over the head. But see, so so you have these gems in the making. You have a well of community support, but what you don't have is a strategy and a plan to get out to the
public to bring the money forward so you too can feel confident that you're not impinging on us, the taxpayers, and you have something to go with. That is my suggestion and I'm willing to help in any way I can.
>> Thank you. uh DJ Dunn. I live at 812 Prospect Avenue and um I was here for the February meeting as well. Uh and my assessment at the February meeting was there was an agreement, then there was another one that was lousy and then there was another one that was even more
lousy. But my point is, and I said this back in February, we we are looking for the endgame here. It's been 20some years and there's still this vision that has been talked about has never been agreed to. So it it
really boils down to in my mind is do we understand our heritage and I I think we really do as a town. I mean from what I've heard from everybody here tonight people understand it and appreciate it. Do we respect it and will we pro protect
our heritage? And it reminds me of a story, a true story that I heard earlier this year. Part of our heritage here over the years, uh, was Palace Amusements. >> One of many buildings that had to be torn down. I'm not questioning any of
that. I wasn't here then. But in that building was a very famous ferris wheel that you could see. Correct. That ferris wheel was built over 150 years ago in a town in Pennsylvania. Earlier this year, they
erected that ferris wheel. They bought it back and erected it on the riverfront in the town of Phoenixville because their heritage was Steelworth and they're proud of that heritage. And I'm I'm sure that took courage and bravery from a lot of people in that town. I
don't know what legal implications there were, but clearly I'm sure there were some. My point is, I think what you've heard tonight more than anything else is we're asking you to exhibit some of that courage to go step out of the box. I hate that phrase.
And I would say to Mr. Maraziti, I take him at his word. He has given his best advice to the city. What I think we're asking you to do is to say, "Thank you, Mr. Mayori, but we're going to try some other things first." And it sounds like
you are behind the scenes. I hope that's the case. But I think the end game is, like I said back in February, $13 million for what? Are we going to see shows in the in the Paramount this year? And everybody shook their head. No. We
want we want these buildings not only to be preserved. We want to use them again. We want to live with them again. We want to be proud to show them to our families that come to visit us. And I think that can be done, but it's going to take a lot of courage and hopefully no more
legal ease. That's all I got to say. Thank you. >> Thank you. [applause] >> Anybody else like to be heard? >> All in favor? >> Public participation is now. Wait a second. We got one more. >> Oh, no. I was just saying I was I was I
was second to the audience. You're tired. Now everybody leaves and doesn't care about city businesses. >> There's nothing big on there. >> I don't believe
>> what I can't hear. >> What about the city's insurance? is the city considering potential insurance applications of somebody getting hit by a piece of the building, right?
>> And do you have a structural engineer? >> They have to give us structural engineer reports every year. >> Yeah. Thanks. That was something smart a past council put in that they have to give structural reports. So >> that was it was a smart thing that they
did put in the contract in 2002 that they have to put the structural reports >> put in the contract in 2002 we get >> we get them we get them >> for convention hall I don't know about the casino
>> but now that they're closed Okay. >> Talk to >> Okay. >> I have executive and regular meeting minutes from June 24th, 2026. Do I have a motion? >> Second.
>> Council Bezerson, Council Chapman, Council Clayton, >> Deputy Mayor Quinn, >> yes. >> Mayor Moore, >> yes. >> On the consent consent agenda resolutions, I have 2026 300 through 2026 310. Do I have a motion? >> Move it. Second.
>> Council member Bezerson. >> Council member Bezerson. Yes. >> Council member Chapman. Council Clayton. Yes. Deputy Mayor Quinn. >> Yes. >> Mayor Moore. >> Yes. >> Resolution 2026 311. Resolution authorizing payment bills. Do I have a motion? >> Second. >> Council Bezerson.
>> Yes. Council Chapman. Council >> Clayton. Deputy Mayor Quinn. Yes. >> Mayor Moore. >> No. >> Resolution 2026 312 resolution war bid for the boiler replacement upgrades in the city of Aspbury Park, New Jersey. >> Move it. Second. >> Council member Bezerson, Council Member Chapman, Council Member Clayton.
>> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor Quinn. >> Yes. >> Mayor Moore have a seat. >> Yes. >> Resolution 2026313 resolution approving change order number 11 for the new fire department headquarters. Do I have a motion? >> Do you have a second?
Eileen. Yes. >> Council. >> Yes. >> Council Chapman. >> No, because I don't feel that this is a city obligation. Council member Clayton. >> Uh, Deputy Mayor Quinn. Yes. >> Mayor Moore.
>> Fire department floors. Change our 11. >> Yes. >> Okay. Resolution 2026 314 resolution authorizing appointment to Sunset Lake Commission. Lori Balbo. >> Move it. >> Second. >> Council Berson. Council Chapman. Council Clayton.
>> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor Quinn. >> Yes. >> Mayor Moore. >> Yes. Second read ordinances 202610 bond orders providing for the various capital improvements and acquisition of various capital equipment appropriating 3,800,450,000 therefore and authorizing insurance of
$3,616,377 bonds and notes finance portion of the cost thereof authorized and by city of Aspberry Park New Jersey >> move second. >> All in favor >> all in favor. Council member Bezerson, >> yes.
>> Council Chapman, yes. Deputy Mayor Kuin, >> yes. >> Mayor Moore, >> yes. >> Thanks. >> Bond ordinance 202612 bond ordinance providing the various sewer improvements and the acquisition of various sewer system equipment appropriating $1,13,87100.
Therefore, authorizing the issuance of bonds and notes finance portion of the cost thereof authorizing city park and county mom, New Jersey. Motion open. All in favor? >> Move to close. >> Second. >> All in favor. >> Do I have a motion to adopt?
>> Move to adopt. Second. >> Council member Bazerson. Yes. Council >> Chapman. Council Clayton. >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor Quinn. >> Yes. >> Mayor Moore. >> Yes. >> Ordinance 20 2614 ordinance of the city of Asbury Park amending and subing chapter 11 of the code city of Asbury Park regarding traffic and parking
regula regulations to implement alternate side parking regulations along Hex Street. Do I have a motion to open? >> All in favor? I >> All in favor? >> Do I have a motion to adopt? >> Council member Mazar. Yes.
>> Council member Chapman. Council member Clayton. >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor Quinn. Yes. >> Mayor Moore. >> Yes. >> Ordinance 20265 ordinance establishing restricted parking space for use by handicapped persons at the pri city of Asbury Park and amending supplement section 7-36 entitled
handicap parking. Chapter 7 traffic revised general ordinances of the city of Asbury Park, New Jersey. Do a motion to open. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Move to close. >> Okay. Second. All in favor? >> Motion to adopt. >> Council Bas. Council Chapman. Coun.
>> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor Quinn. >> Yes. >> Mayor Moore. Do I have a motion to adjurnn? >> All in favor? >> No. >> No. >> Don't say that. >> Thank you everyone. Have a good night.