HOWELL— An attorney’s letter to the municipal clerk that ended up in the hands of the public sparked debate during the June 14 meeting of the Howell Township Council.
The letter pertains to ongoing litigation surrounding the Pinnacle property, a 140- acre tract near the Manasquan Reservoir that Howell officials were considering purchasing and retaining as open space.
The township purchased the adjacent Harms tract for $12.75 million in May 2006 as part of an $18.2 million initiative to purchase open space. The remainder of the money was set aside for the Pinnacle tract purchase. However, the council voted 4-1 in May 2006 to back off from the Pinnacle deal.
Pinnacle Materials Inc. sued Howell almost immediately after the council abandoned its plan to buy the tract. The legal wrangling has continued ever since.
The concern expressed by some residents is that if officials are planning to buy the entire Pinnacle tract, or a portion of it, with the money remaining from the original bond, how will they also use that money to purchase the Global office building on Route 9 to make it the home for municipal offices?
Howell officials have adopted an ordinance making $6.9 million the town has on hand available for the purchase of the Global building from a private owner.
Officials have said they will not issue new bonds to buy the Global building.
In response to the May 25, 2011, letter from attorney Lawrence E. Bathgate II, which states there is an agreement of sale to sell the Pinnacle tract to Howell, municipal officials told the public that there is no contract with Pinnacle to purchase the land.
Bathgate represents Pinnacle Materials.
Mayor Robert Walsh said representatives of Howell met with Monmouth County representatives last week and discussed the possibility of the county buying the Harms tract from Howell. That could allow Howell to use the money it makes from selling the Harms tract to the county to purchase Pinnacle.
“But there is no contract right now to purchase Pinnacle,” the mayor said.
Walsh said the council has an interest if the town could own the Pinnacle property, but with assistance in funding the purchase.
On June 10 a copy of Bathgate’s May 25 letter to Howell municipal clerk Bruce Davis was posted on an Internet website that includes information of interest to residents of Howell. That private website is not the township’s official website.
Resident Suzanne Veitengruber referenced Bathgate’s letter during her comments at the June 14 council meeting.
The portion of the letter that raised concern among some residents states, “As the township is aware, the soil removal operation (at Pinnacle) ceased many years ago and we are under an agreement of sale to sell the property to the Township of Howell. We would, therefore, respectfully request that the township adopt a resolution releasing the ($242,000) bond in accordance with its standard and customary practice. Inasmuch as the bond premium is substantial and was due on Dec. 31, 2010, we would respectfully request that the matter be placed on your next agenda.”
Council members said they were surprised to be informed of Bathgate’s letter, which was addressed to the clerk and copied to the township administrator and the engineering department.
“I have a big concern that a member of the public has some correspondence that we are supposed to set a policy decision on,” Deputy Mayor William Gotto said.
TownshipAttorneyMcKenna Kingdon told the public there is no agreement for the purchase of the Pinnacle tract and she said Howell is under no obligation to purchase the land.
Kingdon explained that the council passed a resolution in 2010 to authorize the execution of an agreement of sale which was part of an initial settlement attempt with respect to the Pinnacle property.
Funding for the property was going to come from the state, the county and Howell, the township attorney said.
“If and only if we could obtain the funding from the state and county [would the purchase occur]. If we were unable to do that, the agreement of sale would expire,” Kingdon said.
That is the agreement of sale Bathgate is referencing in his letter to Howell, she said, adding that the agreement has expired by its own terms.
“This is not a secret. We did this last year,” she said.
As of now the parties have not renegotiated the terms of the agreement and have not executed a new agreement, Kingdon said.
“We are trying to get alternative funding,” she said. “That is it. There is no agreement.”
It was explained that when a party asks for the release of a bond, as Bathgate did in his May 25 letter, the council does not receive a copy of the letter. The item is placed on an agenda and discussed by the council.
Walsh called for an investigation in order to determine how Bathgate’s May 25 letter to the township wound up in the hands of the public.
Township Manager Helene Schlegel said she plans to investigate the release of what she called proprietary information.
— Contact Christina Haberstroh at [email protected]