HILLSDALE—The agreement between the “conditional redeveloper” of the former Waste Management property and Hillsdale calls for a six-month deadline to complete a redeveloper’s agreement and requires the redeveloper deposit $25,000 in escrow to reimburse borough professionals who provide services for review and development of a final redeveloper’s agreement.
The conditional redeveloper is CP Hillsdale LLC of Morristown, which consists of Claremont Development LLC, and March Development LLC, both of Morristown.
The conditional redeveloper’s agreement was approved Oct. 12 by council but not released to the public prior to council’s Oct. 12 vote, which the mayor said should be reexamined even though public records law does not require the so-called draft document to be released.
If the 180-day period to produce and sign a redeveloper’s agreement is not met, the redeveloper’s agreement remains in effect unless terminated by the borough.
Should the $25,000 escrow account be depleted to below $5,000 the agreement requires the redeveloper replenish it back to $15,000.
Moreover, should the redeveloper have a “material dispute” over $5,000 or more in charges from any borough consultant, any of the borough’s professional consultants may stop all work until the dispute is resolved with the borough not held liable for work delays or ancillary costs.
The conditional agreement spells out specific tasks to be completed by CP Hillsdale LLC, but notes if any action or approval from a local, state or sovereign authority with jurisdiction over the redevelopment project had yet to be obtained, a day-to-day extension shall be granted.
Within 180 days, CP Hillsdale LLC is required to:
- Prepare a concept plan and map for the Redevelopment Project.
- Commence negotiations with Hillsdale for the execution of a redeveloper’s agreement.
- Prepare a preliminary cost estimate for construction of the project.
- Prepare and provide analysis of parking requirements, traffic patterns, construction schedule and environmental constraints affecting the project.
If after 180 days the conditional redeveloper has not met its obligations, the borough may advise the redeveloper in writing of its failure to to perform required obligations and give the redeveloper 30 days to remedy the situation.
However, following that period, the borough can cancel the agreement.
The council passed Resolution 21-217 on Oct. 12 that designated CP Hillsdale LLC as the conditional redeveloper of several former Waste Management lots in the downtown redevelopment area. The resolution passed, 5–0. Frank Pizzella was absent.
Mayor John Ruocco said he preferred that the conditional redeveloper’s agreement referred to in the resolution be released publicly before a council vote.
Citing exceptions for “draft” documents in the Open Public Records Act, the council, borough clerk and borough attorney said until approved and signed, the agreement remained a draft document not subject to public release.
Pascack Press requested and received the document the day after it was approved and then signed by Ruocco.
Claremont Development lists three owners with one-third shares: Richard Sciaretta, Maximilian Dorne and Jeff Bastow; March Development lists two owners with 50-percent shares: Anthony L. Marchigiano and Justin Marchigiano.
Mayor, council clash
Ruocco wanted the council to release the conditional redeveloper’s agreement that was referred to in Resolution 21-217, affecting 131 Patterson St., 77 Brookside Place, 145 Patterson St., and 60 Brookside Place.
After the ordinance on the redevelopment area passed Nov. 18, 2020, Ruocco objected to certain provisions and lodged a veto notice; the council voted to override the mayor’s veto of portions of the ordinance, and it was adopted Dec. 30.
Resolution 21-217 notes “CP Hillsdale LLC (and its successors and assigns, including an affiliated urban renewal entity, the ‘conditional redeveloper’) is under contract to purchase certain properties within the Redevelopment Area… and the conditional redeveloper submitted information pertaining to its experience and qualifications to the borough seeking to be conditionally designated as the redeveloper of the project site.”
The council, borough attorney Mark Madaio, and borough clerk Denise Kohan say the conditional redeveloper’s agreement was considered a draft document, and under OPRA, draft documents — or documents not yet approved or signed — were not required to be publicly released.
Madaio said once such documents are approved and signed, the clerk may release them under OPRA standards. Pascack Press received the document Oct. 13 after it was approved and Ruocco signed it.
Reached by Pascack Press on Oct. 13, Ruocco noted the council’s pushback. He said some members “took exception to the fact that I would question a practice that has been going on for some time.”
He said, “The practice hangs its hat on the fact that an agreement or contract is still a draft until the council has approved it. I can understand that approach if the agreement is still being worked on. But once it gets put on the agenda for formal discussion and approval by the elected body, it seems to me that good government would require that the public should know the content of that document, particularly when it involves the expenditure of public funds.”
Ruocco said Oct. 12 that the agreement referenced in the resolution should have been made public prior to the council meeting. He said the governing body agreed on the document days before the meeting.
“It’s troubling to me that this is not made public, made available to the public, prior to a vote,” Ruocco said.
Kohan and Madaio said that the Open Public Records Act defined the unapproved, unsigned document as a “draft or deliberative document” and that it was not required to be released to the public before signed or approved by council.
Madaio said the “OPRA standard” was the standard for the release of draft documents, “and spares the clerk from making judgment calls.”
He called the OPRA standard “a uniform standard” that applies to all public document releases and that “it was not up to me or anyone else to second-guess the clerk” on the OPRA standard.
Councilman Anthony DeRosa took exception to Ruocco’s call for release of documents not required to be released under OPRA.
“But the inference is that we [as] council may not be doing things transparently and in open and we in fact are. We’re doing it by law so I understand if you want to pursue other avenues to perhaps change that, but here and now all I’m saying is that we’re doing everything right,” he said.
At press time, Ruocco said he was considering asking for a ruling on similar situations from the state Government Records Council, which says it is “committed to making OPRA work for the citizens of New Jersey.” Its responsibilities include issuing advisory opinions on the accessibility of government records and resolving disputes regarding access to government records.