Meeting call to order. Council member Bezerson is absent. Council Member Chapman >> here. >> Council member Clayton >> here. >> Deputy Mayor Quinn >> here. >> Mayor Moore >> here. >> Please stand for a silent prayer. Moment of reflection. We'll now take the flag
to the flag of United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> As compiled of the Open Public Meetings Act, chapter 231 PL 1975, adequate
notice of this meeting has been provided in the following manner. The own notice was forward to the Asbury Park Press, the coaster, and the Star Ledger on January 15th, 2026, and posted on the bulletin board the same date. All notices are on file with the city clerk. We're now on to special event applications from recreation director
Alicia Floyd. >> Good evening, mayor and council. There are four applications for returning events before you. Are there any questions on any of them? >> Nope. That's good. >> Could you just tell me what's Keen at
the beach? >> Uh Kane University just wants to come down and uh give out information about the university on our boardwalk. >> Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. >> Yep. You're welcome. >> Thank you. Uh we're now moving on to Mars from the city council. Council member Chapman.
>> I have nothing. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Clayton. >> Uh yes. I just want to make sure that everyone's aware that on Sunday afternoon, the city is sponsoring with UEZ funds a jazz festival in Sunset
Park. It's from 12 to 8. Bring your own chair. There will be food trucks. There's going to be a lot of fun. Please come on out and enjoy a day in the sun with your neighbors. >> Thank you. >> Don't forget your chair. Thank you, Deputy Mayor Quinn.
>> No. >> Thank you. And Mayor Moore? >> Nothing. Thank you. >> Thank you. Moving on. Matters from the city manager. >> Hi. Uh, good afternoon. Nothing to report. >> And mayor of the city attorney. >> No report tonight. >> Thank you. We are now on to a presentation by principal Jamie Sodto of
the Mammoth County Vocational School District Culinary Education Center. Uh, and the partnership between the Asbury Park Mayor's Wellness Committee, the Culinary Education Center, and the Asbury Park High School. Okay. >> Greetings from the Aspbury Park Mayor's
Wellness Committee, the city's largest committee with the youngest member at 8 years old and maybe the oldest member, but I'm I don't really definitely the the committee that has the most fun and eats the best food um
and cares a lot about what our community is eating and what they have access to. So in January we were visited by uh the coaches from the high school football team and also police athletic league and they were telling us that the students
were showing up hungry at their after school programming and sports and they were not um it turns out they weren't eating the school lunch food and so they were showing up hungry, not able to perform and we were very concerned. At
the same time, we were introduced to the amazing principal Jamie Sodto from the culinary education center. And we since we uh if you remember my presentation last year, we are still on our living uh blue bishop's living well initiative
where we focus on plant-based eating as one of our four principles. So, we challenged principal Sodto to create plant-based meals for our hungry high school students. and not only did he step up, he just though hit it out of the ballpark. It's been an amazing year
and we hope to uh continue that into the future. Thank you. >> Um didn't realize I was talking today, but I'm Jamie S. I'm the principal of the Culinary Education Center. I've been there for 30 years. I started off as an instructor. Um my background is uh for
25 years I was actually cooking backstage at PNT Arts Center for all the artists running going to the school uh doing our work-based learning. Uh one of my biggest things working at the school was making sure that we were seen in Asbury Park cuz Drury Lane's a
oneway. So, we always called the hidden treasure and I wanted people to know who we are and I guess through word of mouth uh they wellness committee came to me and asked if we could do vegan meals. Um which for me wasn't a very hard push. My son
doesn't own a vegan restaurant in Philadelphia. So, I was kind of familiar. But one of the challenges I had was are they really going to eat vegan meals? So, you know, I came together with my great team. I have a bunch of great instructors. So, we try
to make things that were uh recognizable and friendly to what they were. So, we started with basic spaghetti and meatballs. And they were plant-based meatballs. We went to burritos. We went to and we did it all culturally. We even uh made Indian food.
We made a chana masala with sweet potatoes. And that was going to be the real challenge to see if they actually would enjoy eating it. And we got rave reviews and it was spicy and it was different. So then, you know, we challenged the students, all right, what do we want to make next? And we we had
everything even including desserts. We're vegan. Uh which in the beginning was a little difficult trying to make uh vegan desserts. But like once the students got the challenge and we bought the right products, everything kind of came together and then we were asked if we could extend it. So we continued to
do it. Um, I was very surprised at our students on how excited they were to deliver the meals cuz we were also walking them across and they were very proud of what they made. So, uh, with that being said, uh, I don't know if you want to show the
video. Um, this is kind of just a little bit about our program that we have. And just so if for those of you who don't know, we are located right next to Asbury Park and we are open to the public during the school year for our bakery and we are open for lunches and we are a high school and a college
program. The culinary education center is open to all Mammoth County students in 11th and 12th grade, creating a true world learning environment. All bakers are made from scratch are students who begin the basic fundamentals and gradually build their
skill. As it progressed, kitchen students get advanced at preparing daily lunches that are served to our community while also developing meaningful partnerships with the Adbury Park Wellness Community that helped address local food insecurity.
This includes creating vegan meals for the Adbury Park High School, supporting both nutrition and accessibility. In our dining room program, students focus on building a strong customer service, communication, and professionalism in a live restaurant
setting. Together, these programs with Andy Kane develop the next generation of professionals in culinary, speaking, and hospitality. >> And that show, just so you know, those that video was made by one of our other vocational school programs, uh, Communications High School.
>> Oh, nice. So, we kind of try to keep all the students uh basically promoting our programs. >> Fantastic. I'm hoping most of the people in Asbury Park know about your hours and what days
they can go to eat there and how cheap it is and how good it is, but why don't you just expand on that a little bit and give them >> So, uh, we have a high school and college program. Uh, back in 1998, we, uh, actually closed the building down. We put all we had in the building
there was an order program, a grocery store, a cosmetology program, bake shop and culinary arts. Uh in '98 we uh moved some of the other programs to other buildings in our district. We have 13 different pro uh buildings in our district. Uh summermies and summer sharetime programs
and we put the students at the Sharon Hotel and at the time I think it was the Holiday Inn and they were there where the instructors were. We renovated the building. When we opened the building back up, we created a partnership with Brookdale Community College. So, Mammoth County Vocational and Brookdale Community College kind of work together.
All the students that are in the program for 2 years earn 11 free college credits while they're there. So, this way if a student's not ready to say leave the state and go to a different college, they already have that comfort zone, they just walk across the hall. So, we create that accessibility with them
throughout the program. Uh we have approximately 70 to 80 high school students in the program and about 90 college students. Uh we kind of work hand in hand through the building. Uh we usually are open for
our bake shop is Monday through Friday from 9 to 1:30 and we're open for lunch Tuesday to Friday. Uh depending on what classes are running, the college might be cooking lunch. Uh Tuesday to Thursday, high school will always cook
on Friday. And when the college isn't cooking lunch, the high school students actually run the entire program for lunch. So they prepare the meals in the morning. The afternoon class executes the meal and puts it out. We have dining room servers. We have a full uh bake
shop. Uh we already have our first order for the bake shop for uh October where we're making 2,000 cookies for a a conference in Atlantic City. So we're really giving them real world experience. >> Fantastic. Thank you. >> And
I I had been there many times before in the past or anything, but going with Karen with this new initiative, I said, you know, a lot of people in Asbury Park are new. A lot of people don't even know this is here. this is something we should like present to the public so they can take advantage of it.
Uh, Principal Sodto, you, your staff, everybody does a fantastic job. We can't thank you enough. >> Anything we can do for the community, uh, I'm very into letting the students make sure that they know how to give back. So, >> thank you. >> Congratulations.
>> I should finish up. >> Thanks to my colleagues here. We have Meredith and Shawn. We have grants out to continue the program. We have we haven't heard yet. We're up for a food justice award from the Paul Newman Foundation. We're actively fundraising
for this um through a nonprofit. So, if anybody's interested in supporting us and getting the the initiative kicked off in September, you can find me through through May or more. >> Thank you. >> I thank you both. Thank you. Thank you
for coming tonight also. Good job. >> We are now on to public participation. May I have a motion to open the meeting to the public? >> Move to open. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Public participation uh is now open. Any member of the public wish speak, please use the microphone and state your name
and address for the record. You have a 3minut time limit to speak. >> I'm back. Uh, Daniel Shauneo, Asbury Avenue. Uh, I I know each of you to be honest people and to have the best interests of the city at heart, but I'm
afraid you're going to repeat some of the mistakes of prior councils. And I'm specifically talking about your delay in addressing our concerns about the uh mis uh misleading uh document but and press
release from uh Mr. Maraziti regarding Judge Solomon's uh decision which I got to give kudos to Tommy Denno was not here because he did a lot of legal work and it's very clear I have a number of documents in front of me but first I want to read from a
letter that I wrote to the council in November 2005 to remind you of one of the main reasons you approve this redevelopment I excerpt the following from the agreement quote the rehabilitation and renovation of
certain city owned properties is of critical importance to the city. Close quote. I ask you to repeat these words each time you look at the current condition of our historic waterfront structures and then judge the progress shown by our master developer. Citizens
recognize that such things cannot happen overnight. However, we are now 3 years past the approval of this agreement and to my knowledge there is no financially guaranteed restoration plan in place for these treasures. If there are, they have been hidden from the public. Are we
being unreasonable when we ask for such commitments? Hopefully, I will be wrong in my estimation, but is my guess that Asbury Partners will never restore these architectural treasures. They will be sold, taken back, or Asbury Partners will simply disappear from the scene
before doing so. I said that 21 years ago, and I'm right, there's still nothing going on. Now, about Mr. Maraziti. Um, I don't know why we have to wait a month after we raised concerns about your press release and his his
error in releasing what he thought Judge Solomon said. I mean, real fast, I want to show Judge Solomon did say the casino was still subject to the 2002 agreement and Asbury Partners is on the hook for that.
3.5 says that the the massive developer will have to prepare a report and before the closing of the casino they did that. That's the Kaitton uh the Clark Kaitton hints report. It's right here. I don't know if Judge Solomon had it, Mr.
Maraziti had it or if the city has it. This is Don Semit Sammit the prior redevelopment uh director here. This is his copy with handwritten notes. And in fact, the casino was conveyed later. The
casino the casino could not be conveyed unless that $330 million report was there. And here I'll read from I'll read from the deed from the casino. This deed in the conveyance made herein is granted in accordance with the terms and
conditions of that certain amended and restated redeveloper and land disposition agreement. redevelopers agreement dated October 28th, 2002 as Azerbury Park as granter that the conveyance was made herein shall
expressly subject to in condition upon the terms and conditions of the afford said redevelop uh but not limited to the requirements of section 3.5 of the foraid redevelopers agreement. Even after the date of the recording of this deed, the city expressially reserves any
and all rights and remedies which may exist pursuant to article 8 of the redevelopment agreement in the event of a subsequent default by the guarantee. They have defaulted. >> I'm going to have to cut you off. If you want to finish a sentence or a paragraph, go ahead. But you're past
your time. >> I understand. So, I'll finish my paragraph. >> Okay. uh the the the report which is $334 million was never done though that was was scheduled the it was never done
by Asbury partners. I don't know why m Mr. Maraziti didn't bring it up. Here is a uh an article from uh December 2004 announcing the closing of the casino and it actually names myself as well as
Wernern Bombgartner in here who complained about the the low price that you were you were getting for the casino in the triangle and part of what the city says Jim Aaron who sold us out says that the price was low because of the cost that needed to be rehabilitated.
So, we conveyed the casino they are in default. Mr. Maraziti doesn't have I don't know why we need to hear from him. Dan, your time's up. Thank you. >> Anybody else like to be heard? >> Are we allowed to make a motion to you
have to Sorry, you have to stand at the microphone to speak. >> Are we allowed to uh make a motion to extend somebody's uh time to speak? you can vote be turned down because when we >> I think everybody here would be okay with that.
>> Well, it's would be against the law because when we adopted our reorganization, we set the time frames and the parameters of public participation where he left off, >> right? He could have brought his son, his wife, his daughter. You could hand
things if you had like something with five minutes, you could say, "My three minutes is up." And you could pass it to somebody else and they could finish reading it for the next two minutes. Is there anything that you have that I could read, >> sir? When you >> won't be as passionate, but I'm sure it'll be uh as factually correct.
>> We're Sir, can you give us your name and and uh address? >> Yes. My name is Sean Bell. I live at 1110 Fifth A. >> That's sea and start. This is a report I have here for $33.4
million that was adopted by the city council on November 29th, 2004. It says, let me read it. The work was never done. Uh should I should I read it? says, "Dear Don, please confirm and acknowledge you're in
receipt of eight copies of the casino and power plant court uh conditions and recommendations for rehabilitation report dated November 23rd, 2004. Uh, please distribute to Terry Reed, city manager. Brian Grant, city engineer. John Lefredo, city council. Kate Molina,
city council, James Bruno, deputy mayor. Kevin Sanders, mayor. John Hamilton. Right here I have Asbury Park Casino carousel and power plant explainer of justice justice Solomon's opinions. In January of 2026, a developer inquired
of the city of Asbury Park about a demolition permit for part of the casino complex. This led to a public debate of whether the city council or sorry the city could sue under uh contract for construction defaults and repurchase the casino. Retired New Jersey Supreme Court
Justice Lee A. Solomon was retained uh to opin on the topic. He was tasked with assuming a default occurrence, not finding if one occurred and relating what rights a city has after default. Justice Solomon reviewed two contracts. One, the 2002 redeveloper agreement with
Aspbury Partners AR and number two, the 2010 subsequent developer agreement with Madison Marquette. He accepted a brief and appendix from Thomas Dano Esquire and held a two-hour uh oral argument with
Mr. Dano with sorry whom was arguing the city's anticipated legal position and Asbury Parks redevelopment attorney Joseph Marisetti Esquire who was arguing the anticipated defenses of devel of the developer. Justice Solomon issued a
report dated April 23rd, 2026. His honor was first asked to answer this question. Which agreement govern governs construction obligations for the casino? He found it was the 2002 agreement with Asbury Partners. Here is his exact
finding from page nine of his report. Details of the casino redevelopment like the convention hall redevelopment were initially established by the 2002 agreement and further detailed in the 2010 agreement. However, unlike Convention Hall, the obligation to
redevelop the casino remains with Asbury Partners under the 2002 agreement. After establishing the 2002 contract uh governance, Justice Solomon was next asked this question. Does the 2002 contract allow the city to sue to
repurchase the casino if there is a developer default? At page four, 14 of his report. >> Yep. finish the paragraph and then pass it on. >> Yeah. Page 14. >> Omera, 107 and a half Cookman Avenue,
Ocean Grove. At page 14 of his report, the justice found that Asbury Park has the right to sue to take back the casino if there is an existing default. Here is the exact language of his report. Asbury Partners would be liable for any default in the redevelopment of the casino, and the city's remedies would be governed by
the 2002 agreement. These remedies may include repurchasing the casino, seeking injunctive relief, suing to cure the default, terminating Asbury partners' rights in the casino, and or taking other actions permitted at law or in equity. The contract states the city
must pay what the developer paid 1.5 million to repurchase the casino. The city can then sell to a new developer at market price. The April 23rd report certainly settled all questions Jud Justice Solomon was asked to answer. After receiving the report, the city did not make it public. Not even to Mr.
Dano. For some reason, a week later, Justice Solomon issued a second report on April 28. It is one short paragraph. It is unknown who asked for it or what question the city posed to the justice that prompted his response. In it, he reconfirms the contract allows a lawsuit to reclaim the casino if the developer
is in default. He adds that he offered no opinion on the likelihood of success of the lawsuit, nor the cost of it, only the right to sue if supported. Nothing was changed from the first report. The city still didn't make these reports public. The city then sent a third document to Justice Solomon for review.
Mr. Denno was not notified, not given chance to comment and inexplicably removed from the process completely. The public was not notified. It is unclear who at city hall made this these decisions or why. Justice Solomon then issued a third report dated May 28, 2026. In it, he reveals the city sent
him the 2006 dispute resolution agreement DRRA. The DRRA was a settlement contract made between the city and Asbury Partners in 2006 after the city tried to force Asbury Partner to do some emergent repairs and patchwork to each of the boardwalk buildings. They were relatively minor demands like asbestous removal and roof
leaks. The only major construction called for was the complete rehab of the Fifth Avenue pavilion where McLoon's restaurant resides. In short, Justice Solomon found the DRA did not change his opinion from the first two reports, but it is worth looking at his full explanation. In the 2006 DRRA schedule C
is the casino work. It is only $1.3 million worth of environmental cleanup and minor repair work. Here is schedule C headline straight from the DRRA. Schedule Casino projected costs 1.3 1 million 392,500.
Uh Justice Solomon goes on to explain that work in this 2006 DRA had mostly been completed. McLoon's restaurant opened in 2008. Any minor outstanding issue was incorporated into the 2010 maintenance contract with Madison Marquette. What effect does that have? The city can't declare a default on the
casino for just that 1.3 million worth of work because the parties agreed that work is finished. However, Judge Solomon made clear that if there are any other construction obligations the developer had under the 2002 agreement that they failed to do, the city can default and
sue to repurchase the casino. And I don't think we need to rush too much because we have a lot of allies here who can continue to read. So I'll I'll read at a normal speed. Um Chris Olith from 306 Deal Lake Drive. Um and really um demonstrating I think the work
that so many folks have done in this room. Um which for me is disheartening because I feel like we're doing a ton more work on this than than you folks are. And you are the folks who can actually do something about what's happening in the city. So, I'll continue to read from this document. This finding
of the justice makes sense if you look at the default language in the 2006 agreement. Before you read it, you must know what the quote projects are under the DRRA and what exhibit F is under the DRRA. The projects are defined as
followed. One, work as described in section 3A and schedule A. Two, work as described in section 3B and schedule B. Three, work as described in section 3 C
and schedule C. Work as described in 3D and schedule D. And then finally, five, work as described in section 3E and schedule E. Each work item set forth above shall be considered a project and together with the projects as was shown
above. Schedule C is the casino emergent repair work for the $1.3 million. The other schedules are other buildings. Exhibit F is the other minor matters like replacing boardwalk benches and moving the Tilly mural. Below is a
default contract language of the DRRA, which makes clear that if the 2002 contract has defaults that are not listed in the projects or in schedule F of the DRRA, those defaults are not
extinguished by the 2006 DRA. I think that's really key information. And then we have it all listed here. To simplify, the city can't default the developer on any work listed in the 2006 DRA. The
city can default the developer on any other work not done required by the 2002 contract. This is exactly what Justice Solomon found. And here is his language from the May 28 report.
As discussed herein, the 2006 agreement superseded the 2002 agreement regarding certain redevelopment project obligations for the casino. The 2010 agreement then eliminated those obligations. That meant that Asbury
Partners remaining redevelopment 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 would were not subsumed.
If there are any remaining redevelopment obligations of Asbury Partners regarding the casino, remedies for default would be governed by the 2002 agreement. And I'll ask my next colleague to please reread that yellow highlighted statement
because that's really the thesis right there. >> Hello. Um Joshua Oxman, 510 Fth Avenue, Asbury Park. Um as she just said, if there are any remaining redevelopment obligations of Asbury Partners regarded
regarding the casino, remedies for default would be governed under under the 2002 agreement. Justice Justice Solomon then reminded us that it was not his job to tell us if there were quote any remaining development obligations unquote from the 2002 contract because
he wasn't asked to look. Recall he was asked to quote assume the defaults occurred not go find them. Here's the exact language he used in his report. quote, "It is beyond the scope of this
letter to evaluate whether such obligation remain and whether there has been a default with respect to any such obligations." So, the question has honored left for the city and the public to decide is this. Are there any construction obligations still outstanding from the
2002 contract not listed in the DRA upon which the city can declare default and sue to reclaim the casino? The answer is yes. $3.6 million worth of defaulted construction obligations. Here and here
is where to find it. Start with the language of the 2002 contract, specifically section 3.5. It states that the construction obligation on the casino would be detailed in report of all work to be done to be submitted by the developer themselves. Here is that
2002 contract language. Note that cops mean city-owned property. Section 3.5 which is about the casino property and power plant property. quote, "Both the casino property and the power plant property are cops as defined in article
4 and are intended to be sold as provided therefore in the master developer shall have prepared by shall have prepared a report by an appropriate professional firm reviewing the condition of each property and recommendations for the rehabilitation
or demolition limited to the rear of the casino building if necessary and the cost of renov renovation. Along with detailed schedule with a detailed schedule, the report shall also address any environmental conditions known or suspected with each with regard to each
property. The party shall shall within 120 days of receipt of the above report and prior to closing agree to said consent not not to be unreasonable withheld a schedule of renovations to be undertaken
by the master developer after closing. In 2004, the developer submitted that report drafted by Clark Kaitton hints which became part of the 2002 contract via the above section 3.5. Note well the clark report is not is not
separate from the contract. Once submitted it it becomes part of the contract for proof. See the operative words above quote to be undertaken by the master developer after closing unquote. Uh Bianca Beri, 1110 Fth Avenue, Asbury
Park. It is a lengthy and detailed report of nearly 300 pages. The cost of the repairs the developer obligated themselves to 30 33,614,000. Here's the summary right from the
report. Cost estimate attached is a preliminary cost estimate for the renovation and reconstruction of the casino, which totals 33,614,000. This estimate includes the construction of a new three-story retail section in the location where the arena part of the
casino now stands. The estimate includes restoration of the exterior and interior historic fabric of the building, but does not include tenant fitout costs. The attached preliminary cost estimate is based on a current floor area volume and other conceptual estimating techniques. As the design of the casino
progresses through the end of the construction documents, the estimate will need to be updated and refined. The cost estimate which has been prepared by the Clark Kenton hints and their cost consultant Becker and Fron Dorf represents the architect's judgment as a design professional familiar with the
construction industry. It is recognized that neither CCH nor Asbury Partners has control over the cost of the labor, materials or equipment. The final construction cost may vary from this estimate. Keep going. The developer submitted the timeline for repairs with the report. The dates for construction
work runs from 2004 to 2007. Two decades later, the developer never touched it, evidencing their default. Only 62 days after this report and timeline was submitted by the developer, well within the 120day contractual period, the casino was sold to the developer just as
contract 3.5 calls for since the repairs and timeline were agreed upon. If anyone is raising the question of whether this 2004 report is the same report to be incorporated into section 3.5 of the 2002 contract, it says that it is. Here
is the language right from the report. This right here, this report has been prepared in response to a requirement in section 3.5 casino property and power plan property of the city of Asbury Park Asbury Partners development agreement. The contract
the contract between the city and the Asbury partners requires the master developer provide a report by an appropriate professional firm reviewing the condition of each property and recommendations for the rehabilitation or demolition limited to the rear of the casino building if necessary and the
cost of renovation along with the detailed schedule. The report shall also address any environmental conditions known or suspected with regard to each property. The legal inquiry can end here. The Clark report created a construction obligation the developer never completed and that default
continues today. However, some may question whether the city formally approved of that timeline in the Clark report consistent with section 3.5 of the contract. They certainly did when they closed on the property 62 days after the report and the timeline was submitted. There are two legal reasons.
Megan Bradley 601 Second Aspbury Park. There are two legal reasons why the closing is is an acceptance of the Clark report by Asbury Park. First, New Jersey law has the doctrine of ascent by action. It means a party need not accept a contract in writing with specific
words like quote I hereby accept your offer. End quote. A contract can also be accepted by acting on it and completing the proposed agreement or by accepting the benefits under the proposal. Here section 3.5 indicates no closing will take place until the Asbury Partners
submits the construction proposal and the city approves the construction timeline within 120 days. After Asbury Partners submitted the Clark report with a timeline, the city closed in 62 days. The action of closing on the property was legal acceptance of the Clark report. Second, and this is a more
powerful position under New Jersey law, the quote doctrine of merger by deed end quote dictates that upon the delivery and acceptance of a deed at closing, the original contract of sale is fully executed. All prior negotiations, agreements, and stipulations are
absorbed into the deed. Consequently, the deed becomes the final sole repository of the party's rights. Usually, that will extinguish all rights in the contract by merger. However, there is no merger if the parties include in the deed an express survival
clause. That means if an obligation from the purchase contract is repeated in the deed, it is not merged and stays in effect. Here, the city and Asbury partners specifically include the developer construction obligation from section 3.5 of the redeveloper agreement
into the deed. So, it runs with the land. That means it can't be extinguished even by a subsequent p purchaser like Madison Marquette. Here is the exact language from the casino deed. This deed and the conveyance made herein here is granted in accordance with the
terms and conditions of that certain amended and restated rede redeveloper and land disposition agreement quote redevelopers agreement quote end quote dated October 28th 2002 as approved by ordinance number
2002-2617. It is the express intention of the city of Asbury Park as grantor that the convey conveyance made herein shall be expressly subject to and conditioned upon the terms and condition of the I4 said redevelopers agreement as same may
be amended from time to time including but not limited to the requirements of section 3.5 of the A4 said redevelopers agreement even after the date of recording of this deed the city expressly deserves any and all rights and remedies which may exist pursuant to
article 8 of the redevelopers agreement in the event of a subsequent default by the guarant by the grantee. Note that last part well the casino and that's the end of that uh deed >> Sarah Borvage 412 Main Street.
Note that last part. Well, the casino deed incorporates both the section 3.5 construction obligations and article 8 of the redeveloper agreement. That's the default and remedy section. It is a senseless argument for the developer to claim the parties took took the time to
include the deed section 3.5 which is the construction obligation requirement. Section 8, which it which is how to default the failure of that construction obligation, then claims the parties agreed there is no construction obligation to default. They would have
no reason to put that in the deed and make it run with the land if the clerk report wasn't accepted. Redevelopment of the casino is the entire purpose of the contract. The above is the sum of what justice
Justice Sleman found in his three reports. It is clear he found the contracts allow a lawsuit to protake the casino if there are defaulted construction obligations from the 2002 contract. It is indisputable that the clerk report is a defaulted construction
obligation. Additionally, the section 8 default provision in the 2002 contract has another tool in the city can use to declare a default. It is called the abandonment provision. It was not discussed by Justice Soulman because he was asked to assume construction
default, not find one. Here is the abandonment clause right from the 2002 contract 8.1 abandonment notice. A abandonment of any or any part or portion of the project by master developer or subsequent developer shall
mean the failure to adequately staff or dil diligently prosecute the project to ensure the achievement of the project. B. Failure by master developer or subsequent developer to meet the the times for these commencement and completion set forth for any part or
portion of and or to meet the terms and conditions contained in this agreement shall con shall constitute a default for that property or portion of the project only. Asbury Partners was retained 24 years ago on a 30-year waterfront
redevelopment plan, WR, that expires in 2032. They never began casino redevelopment, which is clearly a failure to diligently prosecute the project. That date, 6 years from now, is 2032, is vitally important. If the city
waits to sue until after the WR expires, they risk running into a defense called the doctrine of l of latches. Under the doctrine, the court may find the city waited too long to press their rights and rule they expired with the
need to sue now is now emergent. The city's press release. Okay, I'm going to leave that for you. >> Rebecca Rudolph, 3117th A. Um the city's press release uh the city released Justice Solomon's three reports with a
four fourth document a summary from their attorney Mr. um at this at the same time they issued a press release that was based on what Mr. said just not just what doc justice Solomon said Mr. Dano was given no
advanced notice of publication so he could respond in his summary Mr. Mayor Zidi claims, quote, "Justice Solomon and I are in agreement about the effect of the dispute resolution agreement on the inability of the city to take back the casino buildings." End quote. That's an
entirely false attribution to Justice Solomon. Justice Justice Solomon said Aspberry Park can't default the work listed in the 2006 DRRA. He said the city can default any other work governed by the 2002 agreement. That would be the
33.6 million listed in the Clark report. Mr. Marzetti never mentions the Clark report as part of the 2002 contract in his summary. The city's press release attributes the sentence to Mayor John Moore. Quote, while the report confirms
that reclaiming ownership of the casino property is not a viable path under the existing agreements. End quote. That's another false attribution to Justice Solomon. The words not a viable path under the existing agreements do not appear anywhere in justice justice
Solomon's reports. It's also the opposite of what Justice Solomon said, which is that the contract support a lawsuit to retake the casino if there are defaulted construction obligations under the 2002 contract. The press release never mentions the Clark report
as part of the 2002 contract either. How did the city press release become so mistaken? It is unclear who wrote the press release. It is likely that someone at city hall read Justice Solomon's opinions and did not themselves consider the Clark report. They may not have
known of it. And that's no sin because after all, it's 22 years old. They mistakenly thought the 2006 work obligation described in the DRRA was all there ever had been. Not knowing of the Clark report 33.6 6
million in redevelopment obligations. They took a step beyond the justice's reports. They declared their exits or there exists no other construction default and unfortunately wrongly attributed that to Justin Justice Solomon. If the city reviews this matter with the Clark report in hand and
reconsiders, they will see that Justice Solomon's opinion confirms the city can sue to reclaim the casino for failure to abide by the 2002 contract obligations, which is an existing default. They should issue a new press release stating
that. Thank you. >> Uh Joseph Damilla, 516 Summerfield. Um well, I was going to continue uh reading that that very well written, eloquent statement there. Um just here to say that it's obvious that based on a lot of those findings and a lot of education that um a lot of us are doing on our own
which has been extensive and uh filled with a lot of care and a lot of uh genuine effort. Um it seems that having a like we're just obviously upset about a press release saying there's no recourse for uh a lot of these actions involving the casino involving the um
convention hall and all that and then there's a press release that's kind of stating the otherwise of what's pretty apparent in uh the findings and the Solomon report etc. So, I think everyone's um speaking for a lot of people when we say we just want a little transparency and maybe a little more educational um insight into what what's
being said and why because it's a lot of people now uh basic opinion on the streets are that hey we can't do anything and that's it. They're throwing the towel in and I understand that this is a difficult and delicate matter in all parts especially on on the end of the the legal uh side and obviously the the political side but like everyone's
just here because they care. There's no there's no genuine malice in what we're trying to do and what these these these reports are these these statements are being written. These uh groups are being formed to come here to talk about this because everybody cares. Everyone that's in this room deeply cares. You guys care enough to be here at this time on on a
Wednesday. Um I know I'm I'm sacrificing plans to be here for the time being and um it's a small sacrifice to to show solidarity in like a city that we have all choose to invest in uh to to live um to be here you know financially, spiritually everything. Some people have families here like we care about the
town. We care about where it was. We care about where it's going. You guys know this and that's a lot of the stuff that you know we kind of like repeat here, but there just needs to be I think we're asking for a little bit better transparency about what why these things are being said and these these statements are being conclusive when they're maybe probably not based on just
reading that. Um and just in general the insight of what's going on with the development. Um it's very clear that there's a lot of finger pointing as to who's responsible for why certain decisions are being made. And we know that it's it's intentionally vague. We know that there's many other groups and shell groups of these developers.
There's Madison Marquette, there's Madison, there's retail, there's Aspbury Partners. Just that system alone is not clear to the average citizen. I think it should be. I don't think it's asking for a lot. There should not be the burden of education on citizens to other citizens about how our own government works. I
just don't think that's our job. And a lot of us are taking that upon ourselves to do that and to show up here educated. Um, I think we've had a lot of correspondents with um other members and I believe legal people behind the behind the scenes that are just giving very unsatisfactory and just honestly uh
tonedeaf answers to go look it up and go read about it. That shouldn't be the extent of why anyone's in the governing seats that that you you guys are um respectfully. You have to care to be there. We have to care to be here. Can we all just care together at the same time and try to get something that is satisfactory on on all ends and
transparent? I think that's a great place to start. THANK YOU. STEVEN DANTE UM 300 Emory. I'm feeling pretty cynical and what I observe here is performative democracy. You folks listen very carefully and very
nicely to what people in the community say and then you go off and do exactly what you want. There's a lot of cynicism here. Um, we've heard from homeowners
who say they're required to follow the building codes to the letter. And yet we have large contractors who get all sorts of variances.
We're getting the impression that the real deals happen behind closed doors and that we are just for show. We just pay the taxes and the parking fees because we're the
flunkies. We're encouraged when we see renovations that have begun at the convention center, but then it occurs to us, wait a second, those are our tax dollars doing this on a building that is privately owned.
And we're told the city can't do anything about this even though the Solomon report says otherwise. I'm thinking there are a lot of people here along with me who have come to the conclusion that Madison Marquette and
its partners Madison Asbury Retail, Asbury Partners, AR and the Asbury City Council, a wholly owned subsidiary of Medicine Marquette. They have nothing but contempt for the
wishes of the people in this community. The thing is, you can't continue to ignore us because we are becoming better organized and our voices are getting louder. The indifference to the loss of our
historic buildings amounts to a craven devotion to profit. and the drab buildings imposed on our city is a surrender to mediocrity. Has anyone ever looked at the Toll
Brothers thing that just went up next to Wesley Lake? It is hideous there. Finish your paragraph, sir. >> Okay. I just want to say um two things. The
the proposed project in the carousel parking lot cannot be approved. The project that is slated for the parking lot of the empress cannot be
approved. And I'm telling you, we are getting organized. We will rally. We will demonstrate. We will hand out leaflets. We will talk to people who consider buying into those buildings and we will stop it. I'm telling you, it's
done. We will stop it. We've had enough. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else like to be heard? >> Can I get another three minutes? >> I'll say something. I'll finish what Dan was saying. I know >> a sleeping giant as a woman.
>> Dan Jacobson, 10 deal court, Asbury Park. Uh I play a lawyer in the pages of the Tri City News and I'm here tonight to uh finish what Dan's thought was because it's it is an interesting one. That's why I asked for the article. So, um this is something I've thought a lot about. The Solomon the Solomon report,
his opinion was that any outstanding redevelopment obligations for the casino are potentially subject to the default provisions of the 2002 agreement. I think that's pretty clear. Then I think Joe Maraziti uh expressed his opinion that he feels there are no other
obligations out there which means there's no default and there's nothing else the city can do. And I think he based that on largely a 2006 dispute resolution agreement. I read it again. I I don't I very much disagree with Joe on that. I don't see it at all in that. I don't think that was a settlement of all
claims. And I think there's even language that says it's just the partial um just settles those claims. What uh Dan was talking about is in that 2002 agreement there was a requirement that the redeveloper provide a report um
that suggested the uh uh the rehabilitation of the casino uh cost estimates um detailed schedule and uh the renovations to be done. that was in the agreement. That report was done. That's the Clark Clayton Hint
report that had a uh $32 million price tag on it and gave a timeline uh for the work. Now, the 2002 agreement said that uh before the closing and within 120 days of the receipt of that report, the two parties were supposed to agree on a
timetable. And the mystery here is we as at least at this point, we have no evidence of what happened. So the the the property closed, it was transferred to uh Aspbury Partners. This report is out there. Um and then Tommy has been arguing that the closing ratifies that
report as as obligations. And I think there's a point to that. Um you know, my position has been that you really can't say what's been happening yet. You can't really conclude what happened, which means it's got to be an issue at a trial in front of a judge. So when you get to the trial, it goes to the judge. this
case can't be thrown out based on that because no one really knows what happens. What Dan was pointing out, which is new, which which I heard about today, too, which kind of gets to the mystery of this report, there was an Aspberry Park Press article um December of 2004 when the city council authorized
an ordinance to sell the casino property, Asbury Partners. Dan was there complaining about something and uh what is interesting about is what it said is so it passed and Jim Aaron it was kind of small here I had a I had a expanded here. Um
so the article as they were talking about the sale of this casino property and again uh what was there an agreement made for obligations which would now be subject to default. The article said that Aaron said, the redevelopment attorney said the cost for the casino
was struck because of of the substantial cost to remediate environmental problems and then rehabil then rehabilitate the casino. A new report from Aspbury Partners estimates a cost of 32 million to be borne by the new owner to renovate the
building. So, I think what what's interesting here for those of us who have been looking into this is there's a news report that this Clark Kaitton report um was discussed by the city redevelopment attorney when they authorized the sale of this property and he said the reason the price was set
fairly low is because of the substantial costs. So, there was a recognition suddenly of this report in connection with the the transfer. >> Did you finish your paragraph or pass it on? >> Yeah. But anyway, so that's that's the significance of that if anyone could understand. I don't know if the lawyers do or anybody else but that goes to the
issue of are there existing obligations and the role of that report that was discussed in connection with the approval of the sale. So that's kind of a new information that becomes yeah becomes an issue for trial. >> Thank you. >> Michael Labram 600 second Avenue. I'll
promise to keep this short and sweet. Obviously, we had some very passionate presentations this evening which we all agree as neighbors and friends are important. So, the question uh Tom Denno has formally requested Justice Solomon to issue a clarification on the city
council's position of what we've been talking about tonight. My question is, will the city council support that or will you request that the justice not respond? I I if if Judge Solomon
issues a report, I'd love it. >> Thank you. >> I mean, why would I disagree with it? >> Thanks, Sean. >> Thank you. >> Seeing nobody else, I'm going to make a motion to close. >> Second. >> All in favor? Hi. >> Public participation is now closed.
>> Moving on to the minutes. >> Yeah, I'm going to I'm going to respond to Dan because I've had to feel Dan and Tommy Danu's calls. >> Um all week multiple times today. Dan say >> Oh, you you you Dan. You say here.
>> Yeah. Yeah. You did. So, I just want to mention to the guy who said we all care about Asbury Park. Everybody up here cares very deeply about Asbury Park. I've been here the least amount of time and I've been here 25 years. And so I just want to be clear, we all care very deeply about Asbury Park. Um I think
you've also read repeatedly we have one of the most complicated redevelopment plans in the state of New Jersey. That has been reported over and over again. Problem for us is that redevelopment plan happened before any of us got anywhere near this council. I was in college when the redevelopment plan took
place. And uh I'm gonna make one point that's going to be specific for SOS because you know the the weeds of this issue and it's an issue that I've discussed with Dan and an issue I've discussed with Tommy. And I ju I want to mention one more thing. The reason we did the Solomon report was to get
clarification on the most complicated redevelopment plan in the state of New Jersey. And I don't know about every anyone else but I could use an opinion on the opinion because I found the opinion extremely difficult in this room. Dan's an attorney. I'm an attorney. Kevin's read everything, has a
different opinion. Tommy Dano is an attorney. Joe Marzidi. So, I can count you five attorneys right now who have read these three reports from Solomon and have different opinions. And I'm going to tell you what my opinion is different than Tommy, but maybe you can convince me differently. Is the
waterfront redevelopment plan called for a report to be done. And that's the Clark Kaitton hints report that keeps get getting brought up at this meeting. However, the waterfront agreement says you got to do this report. What it doesn't say is you have to do the
obligations in this report and a later contract is done. There's no later contract done. So, they complied with the waterfront read agree reag. But there is nothing that shows me I'm one person and I think other attorneys
in this room maybe not Dan um that this report was not agreed upon. It was not agreed upon. It was done which was the requirement. It was not agreed upon. And this has been a conversation with Tommy and I all week. So you have So I say all of that to say we care deeply about
Asbury Park. It's complicated. And before we go into World War II with Madison, spend hundreds of thousands of dollars. I need somebody to tell me that the called for the obligations of the Clark 8 hints report to be done, which is
absolutely not what it says. That's my two cents. That's it. >> And I'm just going to add to Amy's um remarks. I've been here since 1974 when this redevelopment plan came to the
city. I was one of you. I was one of the people at that microphone begging the city council not to accept that redevelopment plan and not to get into bed with just one entity. So I I understand your passion, your frustration. We're feeling it as well.
>> That's why we need >> the public portion is over. The public portion is over. meeting out, please. >> Thank you, Anthony. Go ahead. >> Moving on to the minutes. I have executive and regular meeting minutes from June 10th, 2026. Do I have a motion?
>> Move it. >> Second. >> Council member Chapman, >> yes. >> Council member Clayton, >> yes. >> Deputy Mayor Quinn, >> yes. >> Mayor Moore, >> yes. >> We're now on to consent agenda resolutions. All matters list on consent are presented collectively to city council and be considered for approval
with one vote. These matters are considered to be routine in nature. There will be no individual discussion on these items unless desired by one or more council members. Uh on consent tonight, we have resolutions 2026 268 through 2026 291. Do I have a motion?
>> Move it. Second. >> Second. >> Council member Chapman. >> Yes. >> Council member Clayton? >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor Quinn? >> Yes. >> Mayor Moore? >> Yes. >> Moving on to individual resolutions. First up, I have resolution 2026 292, resolution authorizing payment of bills.
>> Move it. Second. >> Council member Clay uh Chapman, >> yes. >> Council Clayton, >> yes. >> Deputy Mayor Quinn, >> yes. >> Mayor Moore, >> no. >> Resolution 2026 293, resolution authorizing a contract with Lexipole for online police training.
>> Move it. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Council Chapman? >> Yes. >> Council Clayton? >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor Quinn? >> Yes. >> Mayor Moore? >> No. Resolution 2026 294, resolution authorizing
emergency traffic signal repairs needed at Comtock Street and Asbury Avenue. >> Second. >> Council Chapman, >> yes. >> Council Clayton, >> yes. >> Deputy Mayor Quinn, >> yes. >> Mayor Moore, >> yes. >> Resolution 2026 295, resolution authorizing appointment to the Real
Rentle Leveling Board, John Walker. >> Move it. >> Second. >> Council Chapman, >> yes. >> Council member uh Clayton, >> yes. >> Deputy Mayor Quinn, >> yes. Mayor Moore. >> Yes. >> Resolution 2026 296. Resolution of the city of Asbury Park, County of Mammoth,
state of New Jersey, expressing support for Senate Bill S24, sorry, Senate Bill 4, S4042, the First Responders and Veterans Lung Cancer Screening Access Act. >> Move it. >> Second. >> Council Chapman. >> Yes. >> Council Clayton,
>> yes. >> Deputy Mayor Quinn, >> yes. >> Mayor Moore, >> yes. We have one addition to tonight's agenda of resolution 2026 297 resolution to approve placetoplace liquor license transfer and expansion of premises for AP Restaurant 3 LLC.
>> Move it. >> Second. >> Council Chapman. >> Yes. >> Council Clayton. >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor Quinn. >> Yes. >> Mayor Moore. >> Yes. Moving on to ordinances for introduction of ordinance 202610 bond ordinance providing for various capital improvements and the acquisition of
various capital equipment appropriating 3,800 uh $1,450 therefore and authorizing the issuance of 3,616,377,000 in bonds and notes to finance a portion of the cost thereof authorized in and by the city of Asbury Park in the county of Mammoth, New Jersey with a public
hearing date of July 8th, 2026. Do I have a motion? >> Move it. Second. >> Council Chapman. >> Yes. >> Council Clayton? >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor Quinn? >> Yes. >> Mayor Moore? >> Yes. >> Resolution 202612, bond ordinance providing for the various sewer system improvements and the acquisition of
various sewer system equipment appropriating 1,153,87100. Therefore, in authorizing the issuance of $1,153,87100 bonds and notes to finance a portion of the cost thereof authorized in and by the city of Asbury Park in the county of Mammoth, New Jersey with a public hearing date of July 8th, 2026.
>> Move it. Second. >> Council Chapman, yes. >> Council Clayton, >> yes. Deputy Mayor Quinn, >> yes. >> Mayor Mort, >> yes. on ordinance 2026 uh sorry ordinance 202614 ordinance of the city of Asbury Park amending and supplementing chapter 7 of the code of the city of Asbury Park
regarding traffic and parking regulations to implement alternate side parking regulations along Hex Street with a public hearing date of July 8th 2026. >> Move it. >> Council Chapman. Yes. >> Council Clayton. >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor Quinn. >> Yes. >> Mayor Moore.
>> Yes. Ordinance 202615, Ordinance establishing a restricted parking space for use by handicapped persons at the property located at 2032nd Avenue in the city of Asbury Park amending and supplementing section 7-36 entitle handicap parking of chapter 7 traffic for revised general
ordinances of the city of Asbury Park, New Jersey with a public hearing date of July 8th, 2026. >> Move it. >> Second. >> Council Chapman, yes. >> Council Clayton, >> yes. >> Deputy Mayor Quinn, >> yes. >> Mayor Moore, >> yes. Moving on to ordinances for second reading and public hearing. I bond
ordinance 202611 bond ordinance providing for the acquisition of various beach equipment appropriating $541,000 therefore and authorizing the issuance of $541,000 in bonds and notes to finance a portion of the cost thereof authorized in and by the city of Asbury Park and the county
of Mammoth, New Jersey. Do I have a motion to open the meeting for public comment on an ordinance 202611? >> Move to open. >> Second. >> All in favor? Public comment on ordinance 202611 is now open. Any member of the public wish to speak, please use the microphone,
state your name and address for the record, and your comments may only be about the ordinance. >> Dan Shao, 615 Asbury Avenue. Uh, I approve of the the resolution, but also Jim Aaron said in the newspaper report that the
Clark Kaitton hints report was accepted. Okay. It's not relevant. >> Anybody else like to be heard just on the ordinance? >> Move to close. >> Second. >> Do I have a motion to adopt ordinance 202611?
>> Move to adopt. >> Second. >> Council Chapman. >> Yes. >> Council Clayton? >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor Quinn? >> Yes. >> Mayor Moore? >> Yes. >> That's all for tonight. Do you have a motion to adjurnn? Move >> to adjourn. >> All in favor? Thank you everyone. Have a good night. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you.