Council puts freeze on Ice Palace referendum Final cost of improvements would be 'staggering,' mayor says BY PATRICIA A. MILLER Staff Writer No way.That sums up the reaction of GOP Brick Township Council members to Mayor Daniel J. Kelly's request for a November ballot question on the $5.4 million purchase of the Ocean Ice Palace property on Chambers Bridge Road. "We're talking about a facility that right now, yeah, it needs work, but you can use it today," Councilman Michael Thulen said at the Aug. 7 council meeting. "I don't get it. I really don't get it. Mayor Kelly wants a referendum. Let the referendum be on whether or not he is elected. I mean, come on. This is ridiculous." Democrats Kelly and Councilwoman Kathy Russell are both pushing for a ballot question on the purchase of the 13.3-acre property and the 40-year-old ice rink building just up the street from the municipal complex. Russell read a statement from Kelly, who was at a Police Camp graduation ceremony that night and did not attend the council meeting. Kelly said the purchase of the "antiquated" hockey facility and property was premature, since the final cost of all the needed improvements and additions was not factored into the purchase price. "Bear in mind purchasing these properties is only the first step proposed by Mr. Acropolis and his fellow Republican council members to transform these buildings into a recreational sports complex and senior citizens center," Kelly said. The mayor estimated the final cost of the project at somewhere between $35 million and $40 million. The entire project would place a "staggering financial burden" on the taxpayers and should be put on the November ballot as a referendum question, Kelly said in the statement. "Surely the people who will be paying for that project ... should not be denied the opportunity to make that decision," he said. "Our people deserve better treatment and more respect, not the arrogant treatment of being told they will pay $5 million for structures with a checkered past and an uncertain future." Russell said she had been reviewing the contract for the past two weeks to see if the purchase would be a sound business decision for the township. "I believe we have to have all the facts," she said. "I believe discussion needs to take place within our community. This could be the site that would be good. I'm not saying it's not. We need to know the actual cost." Some of the issues in the contract include whether owner Joan Dwulet will have the right to stay on the property after the sale, whether she should be paid a consulting fee of $75 per hour for 25 hours per week and a fair market value on the equipment, Russell said. Too early for contract details Councilwoman Ruthann Scaturro, who chaired the meeting in Council President Stephen C. Acropolis' absence, cut Russell short. "We are not going into the contract right now," she said. "We are not there yet. You'll have every opportunity to bring up these points, which may or may not be very valid points. I just find it a little disconcerting that he [Kelly] is not here. This is a very important issue we should have been discussing as a group." Discussing contract points during negotiations puts the township at a disadvantage, said Township Attorney Jean Cipriani. "In the best interest of the town, you cannot be put in the position of negotiating a contract where every single thing you do is out in the open and the other side has full privacy," she said. "Negotiations cannot take place in this forum and be effective." The proposals Russell mentioned were from the seller, Cipriani said. "Some of the things you mentioned are specifically things that have been rejected," she said. "Those are not agreed-upon terms you are mentioning." Scaturro told Russell she was "kind of jumping the gun." "There may be things in there we necessarily don't want to come out right now," she said. "It's a little unfair to bring all that up when all we are discussing right now is an amendment to the capital budget. When we get to the point when we have a concrete sale of agreement, then I think we can bring those issues up." Councilman Anthony Matthews said he thought it was "outrageous" for Kelly to mention "Republican" council members. "Can we make this issue any more political?" Matthews said. "I'm just outraged....that Mayor Kelly would say that. Then again, I guess I shouldn't be surprised." Back around 2002, the "Scarpelli team paraded in" to a Pop Warner dinner Matthews attended with his daughter and proceeded to discuss plans for a community center than would run about $30 million, he said. "They didn't ask for a referendum," he said. "We are looking at a capital improvement of about $5 million for the property itself. Anything else we do in the future will be done in conjunction with the citizens of Brick Township, to have a voice in that." The ice rink building was discounted by 85 percent in the purchase price, Matthews said. "Our business and finance committee have done their work and understand the shape of the building," he said. "You can be shortsighted or you can look down the road with a vision." GOP council members also took issue with Kelly's statement that he didn't really know the negotiations for the property were going on until they were almost completed. Kelly was present at a January closed session where the purchase was discussed, Scaturro said. "We had full disclosure at those meetings," she said. "For anybody to come out and say they didn't know is absurd. "He sat in closed session with all of us," Matthews said. "He said he needed to research the numbers. The only thing that separates the mayor and the administrator is a door." No second on the motion Russell persisted during the council comments portion of the meeting and again asked that a referendum be put on the ballot. "I'd like to make a motion we have a referendum for November," she said. "You can make a motion, but you won't get anybody to second it," Thulen said. The township has until Aug. 24 to put referendum question on the November ballot, Cipriani said. But Cipriani said it was a "little late" to be thinking about a referendum. "If the issue had been brought up when it was first discussed with the governing body in January, that would have been a viable alternative," she said. "Then it was viable. It was allowed to proceed by everyone in that room, to the point where we entered into contract negotiations. Many of the major terms have been agreed upon. It wasn't raised in a timely fashion. You have time to get it on. It's a little late to put that on the table. It's not really operating in good faith." Councilman Joseph Sangiovanni said the township could not pass up the opportunity. "I don't want to be sitting here 10 years from now and the $5.4 million will be $15.4 million," he said. "We owe it to the taxpayers to go after it."