Council To Discuss Altering Alcoholic Beverages Ordinance, Emergency Generator, Referendums

The borough council has a full agenda for Monday night's meeting in the Municipal Center at 7 p.m.

Ordinance 2011-8, which would amend “Chapter 109 Of The Code Of The Borough Of New Providence Entitled ‘Alcoholic Beverages’” is on the agenda for introduction, which was originally discussed at two council meetings in March.

The amended ordinance would allow police officers to enter homes of any underage individuals who are illegally consuming alcohol.

Under the current ordinance, police officers can only enter homes of individuals under the age of 17 who are illegally consuming alcohol, which has created a number of problems for the New Providence Police Department.

“Currently, possessing alcohol on private property under the age of 21 is not a violation and is not something we can enforce,” said Deputy Chief Scott Torre at the March 14 meeting. “Where the problem arises is when our officers respond to a house and it’s a full blown, out-of-control party and we walk up to the front door and we can see there’s stuff going on inside the house and we ask to enter the house and check on the welfare [of those inside, but aren't permitted entrance inside].”

Torre said with this amended ordinance, police would be able to gain entrance to any home where there is underage drinking, and ensure the welfare and safety of those inside.

New Providence would not be the first to enact such an ordinance in the state. Out of 566 municipalities in New Jersey, 454 responded to a survey sent out by the borough. A total of 305 municipalities were found to have such an ordinance already in place, including the neighboring communities of Summit, Chatham, Berkeley Heights and Mountainside.

Other items on the agenda include the discussion of referendums for consumption liquor licenses and amending the open space fund to allow for recreation improvements, which were discussed at the March 29 meeting.

Mayor J. Brooke Hern brought up both items for discussion at that meeting, noting that the council has many months to further discuss both.

“I’ve always said that I’m not a big fan of the idea of having restaurants that serve alcohol in New Providence, but what I find is enough people have come up to me  and disagreed with me that I think this is the kind of thing that we maybe put it to the public and ask the question,” Hern said at the March 29 meeting. “I’m certainly not asking the council to pass on that, we have many months where we can do this. But what I’d like to do is begin the process of having an informed public discussion right here in Council Chambers, inviting various people who might have an interest in this one way or another.”

Vyzas said he thinks the number of liquor licenses that can be issued is limited by the town’s population, which Borough Attorney Carl Woodward said would be two or three in total.

“I guess typically, one of the reasons to issue liquor licenses is to generate some one time revenue, which would be from the sale of liquor licenses,” Vyzas said at the March 29 meeting.

Vyzas said it may not be prudent in economic times when some retail establishments and restaurants may not be willing to pay prime dollar for it and suggested the council get some pricing on what liquor licenses do sell for in the area.

“I think we need to discuss the economic benefits of it and the cost,” said Vyzas, who also brought up issues with respect to underage drinking and not encouraging it, and the cost of added policemen for any establishments with liquor licenses.

Council President Michael Gennaro said Vyzas points are all well raised and most, if not all, have been brought up the last time this was brought before council.

“Mayor, I appreciate your comments as well because my question was going to be, and I think now that it’s out of the table, whatever monies that are raised from the sale of liquor licenses, are they going to be used for tax payer relief or do we have another purpose in mind?” Gennaro questioned. “I think that all needs to be kept in mind as people decide on whether or not they want to go ahead with something like this.”

At the March 29 meeting, Galluccio said he understood what Vyzas meant by a one time revenue from the sale of liquor licenses.

“But in my mind, it’s not just that one time revenue. It is something that could help revitalize downtown more than it is now,” Galluccio said. “I believe we do set the guidelines on what type of establishments we would allow. Would we allow just a bar or a restaurant? I think those are the things we need to get answers on. What and how much authority do we have on setting that? I think it is a good time to start the discussion because there isn’t a lot of time for the referendum in November.”

The other item up for discussion is a referendum for amending the open space fund to allow for recreation improvements. At the March 29 meeting, Hern said a lot has happened since the first referendum.

“I don’t know whether a referendum such as this would pass or not, but I do think the times have certainly changed, perspectives have changed and it could be that there’s support for using open space funds to pay, for instance, debt service on bonds that might be used to turf fields and to address that,” Hern said at the March 29 meeting.

Gennaro said he thinks the biggest impediment towards improving fields in the borough has been the source to do it.

“We’ve all been through a lot of discussions and decisions over the last year about where those sources might come from and some of us I think are concerned about increasing burdens on tax payers to raise taxes to pay for the fields,” Gennaro said.

When the last referendum came out, there was concern among people that perhaps the language of the open space enabling language for the tax and the change was designed to allow funds to be expended on fields,  Gennaro said.

“Oddly enough, I can tell you in my conversations with the then mayor and other council people, there wasn’t any intent to use it to improve fields at the time but nevertheless, people thought there might be and they voted against.” Gennaro said. “But a lot has happened since then and certainly if we were going to consider using those funds for fields, I think it’s only appropriate to ask the tax payers as to whether or not they would approve it since that referendum was held in the past.”

Also on the agenda for discussion is Borough Engineer Andrew Hipolit’s report on the Emergency Generator, which the council discussed replacing, to provide power for the Municipal Center and the Rescue Squad, with Chief of Police Anthony D. Buccelli and Hipolit.

At the Feb. 28 meeting, Buccelli explained that the borough installed a new generator following a major snow storm in February of 2001, but the transfer switch was never changed along with it. Although the generator works fine, it can only power certain portions of the police station.

At that meeting, concerns were raised by council members that a new generator will be loud and discourage people from living in the area. But Hipolit said it is essential to place it in-between the Municipal Center and the Rescue Squad so it can allocate power to both equally.

The estimated cost for a new generator is $300,000, with another few hundred dollars in maintenance costs over the course of a year.

At the March 14 meeting, Councilman James Cucco voiced his concerns with spending so much on a new generator if there is an option of still utilizing the old generator.

“It seems to me that we’re talking about spending $300,000 so we can get electricity and an elevator working in this building when the main thrust was to provide for people in an emergency situation. And in that situation, the gym doesn’t have air conditioning. The numbers to me sound astronomical,” Cucco said. “I’m just a little puzzled why we continue talking about this $300,000 and to me, it doesn’t make sense to spend it just because it’s in the budget.”

Buccelli said right now, the transfer switch for the generator is old, the ventilation has never been upgraded and should have been ten years ago, and the generator should be moved outside.

“We’ve entered into an agreement with the Red Cross to use this as a regional shelter as well,” Buccelli said. “At the last meeting… I explained what our needs were from an emergency management standpoint and to do nothing is not a good option. So we need to do something because of the age of my transfer switch, because of a generator that is not enclosed and our own ordinance says we are violating the ordinance with the amount of decibels that generator is running on now.”

After much discussion among Hipolit, Buccelli and council members, at the March 14 meeting, Gennaro said it was clear that there were two options on the table.

“Either we go ahead with it as designed or we follow Mr. Cucco’s advice and consider using the current generator,” Gennaro said. “But I would suggest taking that generator and not just putting it outside, but moving it to where we are talking about putting the new generator and seeing what we would have to change circuit-wise in this building, to be able to handle it, and make sure it can handle the Rescue Squad and portions of this building that we want it to handle.

“I would ask for the council to provide some direction,” Gennaro said at the March 14 meeting. “This is going to require some work in the expenditure of funds on Andy's firm and I would think we would want a proposal from Andy telling us what that’s going to cost.”

Hipolit agreed to have a proposal ready for review and discussion by council members for the April 11 meeting.