City Council Meeting June 15 2026

[music]
>> Good evening, everyone. This is the City
Council work meeting. Today is June
15th, 2026,
and the time is 6:41
p.m.
This meeting has been duly advertised in
the city newspapers
in conformance with the Open Public
Meetings Act, otherwise known as the
Sunshine Law. Roll call, please.
>> Ramona.
>> Present.
>> Barclay.
Overstreet.
>> Present.
>> Curtis.
>> Present.
>> Swepson.
Gibson.
>> Present.
>> Thomas.
>> Present.
>> For the record, Councilwoman Swepson and
Councilwoman Watkins will not be here
this evening.
May I have approval of the previous
minutes?
>> Motion.
>> Second.
>> All in favor?
>> Aye.
>> Madam Clerk.
>> First on the agenda, which
will be moved to the end of the meeting,
but doing work session is going to be
the hearing on the temporary mercantile
license suspension for Red Town
Hometown Liquor Store.
>> We need to let them know that
May I have a motion?
>> Motion.
>> To move it to the
action number
131. May I have a second?
>> Second.
>> All in favor?
>> Aye.
>> Uh resolution 121 revoking a mercantile
license of Hometown Liquor Store.
Any questions, council?
See none.
Resolution ordinance number six
advertising amendment to the city code
acting for Thomas Sisson.
May I have a I mean any questions,
council?
See none.
Resolution 122 authorizing appointment
of Richard Rashimi as tax assessor.
Any questions?
See none.
Resolution 123 authorizing payment to
Servpro for limited services provided to
the recreation department for
restoration project.
Any questions, council?
See none. Resolution 124 authorizing
acceptance and implementation of the
corrective action plan approved by the
state comptroller office. Any questions,
council?
See none.
Resolution 125 authorizing a notice to
proceed to CME Associates for
engineering service for Lorraine Avenue
improvement project in the amount of
$106,500.
Any questions, council?
See none. Resolution 126 authorizing a
notice to proceed to CME Associates for
engineering service for the third street
improvements project in the amount of
$50,000.
Any questions?
Seeing none. Resolution 127 approving
the renewal of plenary retail
consumption liquor licenses for the 2026
and 2027 term. Any questions, Council?
Seeing none. Resolution 128 approving
the renewal of plenary retail
distribution liquor license for the
26-27 term. Any questions, Council?
Seeing none. Resolution 129 appointing
Karen Upshaw as fund commissioner and
Shalonda Stewart as alternate fund
commissioner for the city. Any
questions, Council?
Seeing none. Resolution 130 introducing
the 2026 budget for the city.
Any questions, Council?
Seeing none. Resolution 131 authorizing
personnel transactions for the city.
Any questions?
Seeing none. Next is review of the bill
list.
>> Good evening.
>> So, you received the mail from our
office.
Um
First
There's two. There is a check register
and purchase order listing. I would like
to give you quickly the um
check register.
Uh it's page one.
And
uh
we have paid into GSAC UAY for our trash
service
um pick up and recycling
in the amount of $269,000,
$962.81.
Uh does anyone have any other questions
on that check register?
>> Yes, is this for the 2026 term?
For 2025.
>> 2026.
>> Okay.
>> Yes.
>> So, we're up to date now with our
payments.
>> Well, we're pretty much up to date with
them because remember that the 20
One of the years 2024 was deferred into
this year. So I believe that the monthly
payment for that amount is like about 17
thousand dollars. Yes.
>> Thank you.
>> So now we move on
to
the open
Excuse me, the purchase order listing.
On page one
there is a purchase order for Calvi
Electric of $14,000
and that is for the lighting on Main
Street.
Is this rain?
Not this one. Oh, no.
Did they finish?
I
They're working on it. That's all I
know. They I don't think they have fully
completed
uh the lighting because the lightings
have um
is uh
from dusk to dawn the light and that's
it. So so they're waiting for that to
come in.
Yes.
Then on page
>> Excuse me, will this be the final
payment for that project?
>> Um I believe so.
We I haven't received anything from
public works if there's anything to be
amended for this.
>> [clears throat]
>> Then we have the Atlantic City Electric
that's covering all our streets
um and some of our buildings and we're
looking at $41,960.74.
Page three
We're looking at a party tires.
And that's to keep up with our vehicles
and our tires for
public works, police,
and other city vehicles.
It's $3,967
If we turn over to page four,
we're looking at uniform
uniforms and
these are payments towards the public
works and
other
departments. They're uniform
maintenance.
And so you see that there's various
figures, so
we're looking at
$1,500 to $1,600
payment.
Page five.
If you go on to the bottom, second word
from the bottom,
it is a line of prevention resources for
$5,000
$547.93.
This is grant money. This is
the Atlantic County Municipal Drug
Alliance.
And these are programs that they do
throughout the year.
If you look at page six,
and
this is
you look at the second line,
it's $31,000 for our auditors and that's
they put together the debt service AFS.
It's starting to get into the audit now
and that's um
about
half or just a little bit under 50% of
the
that is $31,000
a year.
Does anyone have any questions on
the purchase order listing report?
Anyone second that?
Thank you.
>> You're welcome.
>> Mayor, you have anything?
>> No, I have nothing. Thank you.
>> We have a motion to adjourn the work
session.
Well, before we adjourn um
Councilman Carmona had his Washington
put in here.
>> Yeah,
he and everyone else
want to find out when they're going to
get the lines on Franklin Avenue. It's
not stop lines [clears throat] and uh
uh these Avenue also. The lines won't be
put on that and also the bike paths.
>> Right now, it's a great question. All
right, thanks. Just as an update for uh
all of Council.
Um
Public Works has gotten the approval for
everything already. You know who's going
to do the work, that's all set. The
issue right now is the time to take to
come out and do it. They won't provide
their paint truck to do them one street,
so they're going to do them all along
with the Franklin Boulevard project. So,
it's all going to be done at the same
time. They're going to do Franklin,
Leeds, and the other uh streets that you
mentioned as one project.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you.
>> You're welcome.
>> [clears throat]
>> I have a motion
>> Councilwoman Carmona, go back to uh
Resolution 131.
The um
recreation
I don't I'm not in agreement with that
because I know the amount has been
changed because we said that it wasn't
right, but it went higher.
And part of the time the recreation
director was there.
She was there part of the time for that
would not to be no one to have
had to sit in for her number one.
And then
>> So how long was the
director out there?
>> Exactly, I don't know. I don't know, but
I do know that she was she was in on
some of the meetings. You know, there
would have been no
reason for anyone to you know,
to fill in for her. The other thing is
um
with the recreation center being closed,
we have less activities there now than
we've ever had. And I just don't know
how much more
you know, how much more
program coordinator was doing that
was taking up for the recreation
director.
>> That's the issue.
>> So, yes. Um so, uh to your point, Mayor,
I
you know, we agree. Um I think we all
did. Um it was looked at, but there was
discrepancy in the actual contract. The
contract's built off of one way,
and uh our understanding of that
contract was a little bit different. Uh
I think it clarification from our our
clerk, which uh thank you
uh for stepping up and um
and kind of filling in blanks because
she was part of the original um
negotiation of that contract. Um we did
get the union on the phone. We spoke uh
through this whole process with the
union.
Um and we came with the compromised
number. That number represents our
stepping up into the position. It's only
40% of the time that she was um
working there. So, they didn't they
didn't pay for the full time, you know,
that she was out. They paid her
um as if she spent 40% of her time doing
that job.
>> So, it also was reported to the
committee that um they had to give you
all a list of all the duties that was
done.
>> Those list Sorry, [clears throat] that
list was also presented to the union.
Uh and that's they determined that it
was 45% of the work that
superintendent actually did.
The real discrepancy in the contract
will be worked out so that it spells it
out a lot better. It's the wording in
the contract that made it
confusing.
But we got to the bottom of it. The
spirit of the contract is always the
most important thing. In this particular
case, the union
explained what the spirit of the
contract was supposed to
represent and it was supported by
this King Allis person.
Actually walked with that negotiation.
>> So we all
>> I think I ought to be on record that
this was presented to us
as a grievance.
>> Correct.
>> And which had to be negotiated.
So that there was an adjustment
brought to the original claim.
Is that my understanding?
>> That's correct.
>> To address the manager's concern,
probably should be up there.
>> So this came in as a grievance?
>> Yes.
>> Yeah.
>> That's why the union is involved.
>> Yeah.
>> Now, I knew the union was because we had
mentioned the union the first time we
discussed it. But then when the amount
went up so much more
and I was just wondering because I did
hear someone say about the duties. What
was there that many more duties that was
being performed?
>> Well, remember when it was presented
>> to us, it was either 1,500
or the 6%, which whichever one was
greater. So we knew that whatever was
here was incorrect.
>> So that number should have been $5,000,
but we had to negotiate that number
down.
>> This number should have been $5,000?
>> That's what
>> What that number means is 6%.
>> No, so the 6%
the 6% Um,
or 15% was never in the contract. It was
mentioned, but it was never in the
contract. What's in the contract is that
she would make what the person above her
made. So, her salary would have been,
you know, at $36 an hour as opposed to
Oh, sorry. $40 an hour as opposed to her
just getting 6%. So, once
when I unionized Express, you know, how
that you know, what the spirit of that
contract was supposed to read,
we came up with a new number and we
negotiated that down to 30%.
>> Okay, that's really good.
>> Mhm.
>> So, you want to save
All right. Can I motion to close again?
>> Motion to close the motion.
>> Okay.
All in favor?
>> Aye.
Good evening, everyone. This is the city
council meeting. Today is June the 15th,
2026. This is 2026. And the time is 6:56
p.m.
This meeting has been duly advertised in
the city newspapers in conformance with
the Open Public Meetings Act, otherwise
known as the Sunshine Law. Please stand
for invocation and pledge of allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America and to
the republic for which it stands, one
nation under God, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all.
Please be seated.
>> Roll call of the members of the
council.
>> Present.
>> Bart Klein.
>> Openstine.
>> Present.
>> Status.
>> Present.
>> Swepson.
Gibson.
>> Present.
>> Thomas.
>> Present.
May I have a motion to dispense previous
minutes?
>> Motion.
>> May I have a second?
>> Second.
>> All in favor?
>> Aye.
>> Mayor, you have anything for this
evening?
>> I do not, thank you.
>> Next we have public portions.
We have Mr. Craig.
Is that Couch?
>> Good evening.
>> Good evening, council. Uh, I represent a
group of people from Oakland Avenue.
I've been living down here. I live at
329 Oakland.
Uh, I've been living down here 5 years
and we've had nothing but issues with
the road. Uh, Robert, I had talked to
you once. You were kind enough to return
my call once.
Uh, over 5 years I have trouble getting
any type of feedback whatsoever.
We do appreciate the fact that you guys
have helped us down there. Uh, you have
brought loads of dirt down there, which
unfortunately is not the right material
to bring down. Cuz our road gets flooded
about, you know,
three times a month and it it just goes
away. Last week you came down and spread
about seven loads of dirt. Uh,
it rained twice. The dirt's no longer
there. Uh, also the other issue with
that road is that some of the blacktop
is completely torn up. It's not a safe
road. Anybody in the township that has
driven down our road knows it's not a
safe road. It is destroying our vehicles
and all that. So, we're asking on
guidance, what can be done?
We believe there was a program back
2017, a study done that we live in a
a zone that's flooded, that's considered
flooded, and it's well documented.
Nothing has been done based on that
report that was done in 2017
by an engineering firm that the town
hired. And we're looking for some relief
on the road, possibly having gravel put
down instead of dirt.
The gravel would stay on the road that's
flooded. And then there's like 1/10 of a
part of the road that the
asphalt is completely wiped out. There's
bumps all over.
Any township employee that's been down
there, off the record, would say the
road is not, you know, drivable. Like I
said, Robert was kind enough to get back
to me and let me, you know, some time.
We represent probably about 15, 20
people.
There's other issues like the after
Sandy, there is drainage ditches that
were put in long, long time ago that
actually drain when the high tide comes,
but unfortunately after Sandy, that
those drainage ditches were not cleaned
up. So, the water cannot get out and
that's why it floods all over the place.
So, we're asking for some guidance and
some assistance on one, getting that
road towards drivable.
The other issue we we're asking is that,
you know, it floods all the time. So,
that's why the gravel would be very
well done. After 5 years of been living
down there, once you guys bring dirt,
you spread it out and do it good, and 2
days later it's gone because of the rain
and and the high tide. And I know you
can't do anything about the high tide,
it is what it is. But we need assistance
on there cuz we can't even drive. That's
why we got to talk, and out of here
because it's high tide tonight and it's
going to be about a foot of water on the
road. So, we won't be able to get back
to our homes if we don't get out of here
by 7:30 or so. The other question we
have is what's going on with the marina?
Um we all have boats and we'd like to
use the marina. Last year they closed it
down. We cannot get an answer on what
the problem is and when it's going to be
fixed. So, those are some concerns we
have. We tried to go the proper way. Now
we're going to start voicing our opinion
what we need to have. So, if you guys
can kind of like look at our the
situation down in Oakland Avenue,
um we really would appreciate it. You
know, we really having trouble with cars
are getting destroyed. It's very I can't
even bring my boat down to my house
because I can't get down the road. It's
you know, it's up and down, there's
potholes. Uh Robert knows, he's been
down there. Um so, any assistance you
can give us we really would appreciate
it. We don't want to become a pain in
the backside, but we have to just like
everybody else we're capable of doing
that. So, we prefer to work with you
guys and then try to get this thing
resolved so we can drive down our street
without our cars being broken and and
problems with that. Uh the flood's going
to take a while, but there is a a report
that you guys have from 2017. If you
don't have it, we'll be more than happy
to give you report which is paid by the
um the township of you know,
Pleasantville and it lays out the
problems with the drainage and
everything that the EPA and the DEP have
figured out and and and made
recommendations. There should have been
a bulkhead put up, no bulkhead has been
done. But, just the channels being
cleaned out would solve a lot of the our
problem with flooding. So, again we just
want to you know, let you know that
we're here.
Um we don't want to keep coming back,
but if we have to, we will. So, any help
you can give us we really would
appreciate it. Thank you for your time.
>> Thank you. Appreciate it.
Yes, could you
>> Yeah. follow through with the additional
questions?
>> First of all, thank you.
Thank you.
>> No no problem. No problem.
>> I must say
I must say that we we
really appreciate
your approach to the city.
Um it's respectful.
That's more than I can say for some of
the residents on that street where
uh comments were made that I will not
repeat today, but they were extremely
disrespectful.
Um please understand that we're trying I
mean I I've met with
Blue Acres and uh Green Acres and had
multiple discussions with them about how
since you and I spoke
about how we can help. Um the dirt was
supposed to service a a um
a patch for right now.
Um but the gravel is illegal for us to
place, so we can't you know do gravel.
We We attempted
>> I know but
you grow We've done stuff for 5 years of
putting dirt down there. The cost of the
dirt would definitely
>> Absolutely.
>> You know the gravel would have been you
know eventually you're going to have to
do it anyway for you.
>> They're not allowing us to use gravel in
the in the city of Pleasantville. We
can't We We're told we can't uh do
gravel. We tried, but we can't do it.
Yeah, we cannot do gravel in the city of
Pleasantville. Um
as far as it being uh
blacktop, I we can't do that until like
you said we remediate.
>> Just that one question.
>> Yeah, you said remediate. No, I know
exactly what you're talking about.
You're 100% right. I mean like you and I
have had
a lengthy conversation about this, so
you did prepare me with a lot of
information, and I just wanted you to
know that we're working on it diligently
because that's part of the
master plan for the marina area.
Lastly, the marina, we've identified the
funds, right? Remember it was money
first, right? We identified the funds.
We secured the funds, and now we're just
waiting for the company to come and do
it. The company's
Every company that we've talked to is
backed up opening up other marinas.
No, we we're looking. We're looking. And
if you have a company, feel free to give
me a call tomorrow. Tell me what you
have because we're just trying to get
somebody to come and do it. So, we want
to get it open just as bad as you want
it open. But, we do have some really big
plans for the marina.
It's some great stuff that you're going
to, you know, really be excited about.
We just got to
>> You know, the plans have been going on
for many years. You want to know that.
You know, all we're asking is that
sometime in the next couple years we get
this matter squared away. But, it's been
going on not 1 year, 2, 3, 4.
>> You can't have conversations going on
with the people here.
From the audience like this back and
forth. Well, probably just make a note
just to bring it back to committee.
>> Yep.
>> So, we all can just, you know, discuss
it.
>> Absolutely.
Well, we're we're ready. We just want to
do it.
>> Thank you, Mr. Craig. Next we have
Anthony Allen.
>> Huh?
What?
Anyway, I thought I was just signing in
to attend the meeting. So,
Yeah, Council.
I also represent that section of the
road and
I haven't been as vocal about my
concerns, I guess, but my biggest
concern is is my particular house. It It
sits lower and I guess originally years
ago
the asphalt or the concrete driveway was
above the the level of the road, but
over 20 years of laying down top soil of
it's it's now over that. So, my my old
driveway becomes a swimming pool even
when it rains
and it just creates a
a muddy mess. So, I just, you know, just
wanted to add that and thank you.
>> Thank you very much, man. Thank you.
>> Yeah.
Next have
Is it Diana?
>> I'm not
I was with him.
>> Okay. So, next we have Rosa.
>> Yeah.
Good afternoon.
>> Good afternoon.
>> Uh I live in 100 block of Canal Avenue
and I'm asking the same thing as my
neighbors.
Um the road from the school to the end
is crazy. It's just I mean they're
fighting to win. Nobody came
and then I don't know if you can give us
another meeting so we can talk because I
got a few of
other neighbors that could not come
today, but if you guys give us a time
or we'll be joining.
And then I I hope you can listen up for
our you know
needs.
Okay, thank you.
>> Thank you.
Next we have Mr. Olivia.
>> Good evening, everyone. How are you?
>> Good afternoon.
>> Good. Good. I've been visiting
grandchildren. That's why I haven't been
around
but I did have some questions on the
agenda.
Okay.
Um
for number six.
Um
when I attended the
um
Pleasantville School Board meeting the
other night, I learned about the fire at
the rec center.
>> When was that fire? Was it
>> Last year, wasn't it?
This year? This year was January and
Okay. So, then my question is I know
that there are no summer programs there
is this year because of the state of the
building and I see that you're going to
be approving a service program for
tonight and and my question is if we can
get to it later, but I have a few
questions. What took so long for us to
clean the building up such that it
impacted the summer youth program. So,
that was the question that I
>> [clears throat]
>> And the next question was the very next
one underneath
um for the implementation of the
corrective action plan. And I wanted to
know um
because I know that the controller's
office comes up with issues uh related
to
their audit. Uh
how many items were there and are these
just the regular items that they
normally do
or does it appear to be more this year
than previous years?
Okay.
>> So, um
Mrs. Caldwell, uh specifically as it
relates to the uh corrective action
plan,
this is not based on a specific audit
that's annually undertaken. This is
relative to a complaint that was made to
the office of the waste controller
back in about 2024 and they investigated
in 2025. It is a public document. They
had a finding that there were certain
things that um were not fiscally sound.
Um wasn't the worst report, but they did
ask that we submit to them a corrective
action plan, recoup certain monies that
were paid to certain people, which we
have undertaken.
>> Okay.
>> And many of the items we've already
implemented. In fact, we're implementing
it before the state issued its findings.
>> Okay.
>> Since then, we submitted the corrective
action plan to the state. They approved
it.
>> Mhm.
>> And because things were already
transpiring, this is simply to formalize
before council
>> Okay.
>> that which is already been accepted by
the state.
>> Okay.
>> So, it's it's really an overall and it's
really it's actually
going to be really good and the things
that have been implemented just better
checks and balances as well as fiscal
constraints and monitoring.
>> I I guess I thought this was the
like the existing audit, the regular
audit from the
the accounts that come and look at that.
>> With DC now.
>> But okay. So,
thank you. Since you brought up about
>> Yes, I'll go.
>> No, go ahead. You have questions.
>> Uh yes, it was a piggyback question.
Since you brought up about what has
happened previously, we know that money
did go out to a previous employee and
they're in the process of
paying it back. Uh is that something
that's working out? Are they in fact
paying the money back consistently?
>> Well,
>> Whatever the arrangement is.
>> Well, so this this is a public filing.
There was a public filing. Um the court
did um
enter a decision on behalf of the city.
Um and we are now in the process of a
litigation.
>> And that's actually taking place next
week.
>> Okay, very good. Very good. And the last
thing I just didn't know 131 authorizing
personnel transactions. What does that
mean?
>> Oh, that You're looking at the
>> [laughter]
>> Well,
that's just the personnel agenda, ma'am.
>> Okay. All right. That's all
That's all That's all I have. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Um
uh in answer to your question about the
wreck center, the the delay was the
insurance company sending us a check.
So, you know, it took us uh
3 months to get the check from the
insurance company and then we were uh
forced to have to go out to bid.
Um we did find a way around it to get
things open. Uh we actually used a
co-op. So, it's being done now. Um all
work's being done now. And we should be
done with hopefully by the end of this
month and the work for summer camp.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay.
Let me list the names.
Next we have Ms. Williams.
>> I got Williams, 1300 Walnut Street,
Pleasantville.
Just want to say thank you
for what the seniors do to help see
Michael.
Wonderful opportunity.
And I'm grateful to be your president
and that being open
to the seniors so I can to be able to do
that. Had a wonderful time and I just
want to say thank you for that.
Also, where are we with the paving of
the streets in Pleasantville?
Are we anywhere or we I know at one
point
we were starting down that way, down on
this way, but we have no pavement.
Also, down the side of my house, it's
supposed to be a street. It is grass.
There is property in the back that is
not being maintained. I have brought it
up
and they cut it, but beyond that, it's
nothing but trees. Okay? I'm getting
ready to clean my portion up. This is
supposed to be a street.
It's not a street. It's grass.
So, I just want to know what's going on
with that.
>> So, um that issue, we can bring it up to
the budget committee.
So, they'll bring it up in their um
budget committee.
>> Okay.
>> And um you had the other question was
the street.
>> Sidewalk pavement.
>> Paving the streets. Like they started on
Avenue. Park Avenue is halfway done.
Park Avenue where the where y'all get
ready do that building. That street when
you come around that corner from the
graveyard on back, it's messed. You're
going to do something you have a grant
for that building that y'all took over.
And I believe that we also have grant to
fix that street as well. Okay, and then
what about the rest of the streets?
>> So I guess is there a list
that you all have?
>> Okay, so y'all working on
Okay, all right. All right.
>> But um Councilman Carmona can follow up
with you.
>> Okay. All right.
>> Yes,
yes.
>> Yes, Williams.
>> Yes.
>> The street that you referenced going
beside of your house, has it ever been
paved? That road?
>> No, but it
>> It's an old alley where we call it
Underwood Brewery.
I was raised right there in that block.
>> But it was a house back there.
>> Yeah.
>> When I moved in, there was a house.
>> Even I built one. But
so
that's probably going to be the last one
on this alley. I can't speak for Mr.
Carmona.
But
ever since I could remember
when I was
5 years old
when I walked across the railroad tracks
that was grass.
>> Okay.
So we'll follow
Councilman
>> Yeah, I'll follow.
>> We'll follow up with you.
>> We'll check it out here.
>> I'm sure he will.
Thank you.
May I have a motion to close public
portion?
>> Okay.
>> May I have a second?
>> Second.
>> All in favor?
Second and third.
>> All right. So, we are
going to move the hearing to the end. We
are at number item number two. I'm
sorry, number three, which is ordinance
number six, authorizing amendment to the
code adding a part-time assessor. May I
have a motion?
>> Motion.
>> May I have a second?
>> Second.
>> Roll call.
All right.
Roll call.
Colonna?
>> Yes.
>> Old Bridge?
I'm sorry. Old Bridge?
>> Yes.
>> Fattorusso?
>> Yes.
>> Gibson?
>> Yes.
>> Thomas?
>> Yes.
>> Ordinance moved to second reading.
Adoption date is July the 6th.
Next, we have resolution 122,
authorizing appointment of Richard
Pichemi as tax assessor. May I have a
motion?
>> Motion.
>> May I have a second?
>> Second.
>> Roll call.
Colonna?
>> Yes.
>> Old Bridge?
>> Yes.
>> Fattorusso?
>> Yes.
>> Gibson?
>> Yes.
>> Thomas?
>> Yes.
>> Resolution approved.
Resolution 123, authorizing the payment
to Servpro for limited services provided
to the recreation department's
restoration program. May I have a
motion?
>> Motion.
>> May I have a second?
>> Second.
>> Roll call.
Colonna?
>> Yes.
>> Old Bridge?
>> Yes.
>> Fattorusso?
>> Yes.
>> Gibson?
>> Yes.
>> Thomas?
>> No.
>> So, no.
Resolution approved.
Resolution 124, authorizing the
acceptance and implementation of
corrective action plan approved by the
state comptroller's office. May I have a
motion?
>> Motion.
>> May I have a second?
>> Second.
>> Roll call.
Colonna?
>> Yes.
>> Augustine.
>> Yes.
>> Fattest.
>> Yes.
>> Gibson.
>> Yes.
>> Thomas.
>> Yes.
>> Resolution approved.
Resolution 145 authorizing a notice to
proceed to CME Associates for
engineering service for for the Lorraine
Avenue improvement project in the amount
of $106,500.
>> May I have a motion?
>> Motion.
>> May I have a second?
>> Second.
>> Roll call.
>> Ramona.
>> Yes.
>> Augustine.
>> Yes.
>> Fattest.
>> Yes.
>> Gibson.
>> Yes.
>> Thomas.
>> Yes.
>> Resolution approved. Resolution
126
authorizing a notice to proceed to CME
Associates for engineering service for
the Third Street improvement project in
the amount of $50,000.
>> May I have a motion?
>> Motion.
>> May I have a second?
>> Second.
>> Roll call.
>> Ramona.
>> Yes.
>> Augustine.
>> Yes.
>> Fattest.
>> Yes.
>> Gibson.
>> Yes.
>> Thomas.
>> Yes.
>> Resolution approved. Resolution 127
approving the renewal of plenary retail
consumption liquor licenses for the 2026
to 2027 term.
>> May I have a motion?
>> Motion.
>> May I have a second?
>> Second.
>> Roll call.
>> Ramona.
>> Yes.
>> Augustine.
>> Yes.
>> Gibson.
>> Yes.
>> Fattest.
>> Yes.
>> Thomas.
>> Yes.
>> Resolution approved. Resolution 128
approving the renewal of plenary retail
distribution liquor license for the 2026
to 2027 term.
>> May I have a motion?
>> Motion.
>> May I have a second?
>> Second.
>> Roll call.
>> Ramona.
>> Yes.
>> Augustine.
>> Yes.
>> Fattest.
>> No.
>> Gibson.
>> Yes.
>> Thomas.
>> Yes.
>> Resolution approved.
Resolution 129 appointing Carol Upshaw
as fund commissioner and Shalonda
Stewart as alternate fund commissioner
for the city.
>> May I have a motion?
>> Motion.
>> May I have a second?
>> Second.
>> Roll call.
>> Kamona?
>> Yes.
>> Oldershaw?
Pattis?
>> Yes.
>> Gibson?
>> Yes.
>> Thomas?
>> Yes.
>> Resolution approved.
Resolution 130 introduced in the 2026
budget for the city.
>> May I have a motion?
>> Motion.
>> May I have a second?
>> Second.
>> Roll call.
>> Kamona?
>> Yes.
>> Oldershaw?
>> Yes.
>> Pattis?
>> Yes.
>> Gibson?
>> Yes.
>> Thomas?
>> Yes.
>> Resolution approved. Resolution 131
authorizing of personnel transactions in
the city for June 26, 2026 with the
system of new hires in the code
enforcement
as well as public works and added title
pay for personnel and recreation and
change of title for for personnel and a
resignation for the police department.
>> May I have a motion?
>> Motion.
>> May I have a second?
>> Second.
>> Roll call.
>> Kamona?
>> Yes.
>> Oldershaw?
>> Yes.
>> Pattis?
>> Yes.
>> Gibson?
>> Yes.
>> Thomas?
>> Yes.
>> Resolution approved.
Next, I need a motion for the bill list.
>> Motion.
>> May I have a second?
>> I'll second.
>> Roll call.
>> Kamona?
>> Yes.
>> Oldershaw?
>> Yes.
>> Pattis?
>> Yes.
>> Gibson?
>> Yes.
>> Thomas?
>> Yes.
>> Motion approved.
Last, I need a motion to approve bingo
and raffle licenses.
>> Motion.
>> May I have a second?
>> Second.
>> Roll call.
>> Kamona?
>> Yes.
August Beach. Yes. That is? Yes.
Gibson. Yes. Thomas. Yes. Motion
approved.
I want you to go to
the hearing.
You
want to do comments?
Oh, yeah. While I was going to let you
Anyone have a comment? No.
Issues? Anything? I
just like to thank everyone for coming
out and
invite you all June 26th to Lake Stage.
We're having a gospel
uh jazz concert at 6:00, 6:00 to 8:00.
So,
put it on your calendar.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Yeah. Anyone else?
Can
we take a
a 10-minute break?
All
is good.
>> All right.
>> All
right. Okay.
>> All right. Okay.
>> Anyone want to go over this?
>> Yes.
>> So,
>> Thank you.
>> I'm here to discuss the suspension. 60
days of
suspension.
This is a fake stamp.
Fake stamp is in the office. You know
they didn't have fake stamps.
>> Okay.
>> All right.
>> I mean, I'll I'll stick with the
disability issue.
>> No, it's not that except because it has
it has a number six. So, if I go
to six, it's easier for
>> Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> I get it.
>> Okay.
If the If we could have a little bit of
quiet here, thank you.
If the clerk would
put on the record the case. Okay.
We're here for the hearing of the
temporary
mercantile license suspension of
application for mercantile license 158
better known as Hometown Liquor Store.
>> Uh good evening. Tracy Cosby on behalf
of the city.
>> Uh for the record members of council and
our president members. Uh Samuel Reale
Jr. [laughter]
of the law firm of Helmer Conley Kassel
and on behalf
Okay, feel better now, man?
On behalf of the
mercantile licensee Hometown Liquors
LLC.
>> What's your last name, sir?
>> Reale. It's R E A L E, sir.
>> Not real?
>> No.
>> Reale.
>> Oh.
>> Okay.
>> Got changed, but not that much.
>> But that's real.
>> Most of the reality, but you know.
Somebody shortened it somewhere.
>> So I'm just going to give a very brief
opening. Um
this matter comes before this body
um as a temporary suspension of the
mercantile license of Hometown Liquors
mercantile license number 158.
They were entitled to a hearing uh
within uh 30 days, which is why the
hearing was scheduled today as to
whether or not um the license should
continue to be suspended and/or revoked.
Um this arises out of
um
a raid essentially by the police uh
where they confiscated suspected
controlled dangerous substance
um and uh
other uh paraphernalia and or um monies
that arose out of uh
search warrant that was authorized by
the
judge of the Superior Court. Um my
position is to present the proofs and
the testimony of the witnesses.
Um my witnesses that I'll be calling
will be Denise Scott as well as uh
Sergeant Matthew Ly Ly Ellie. Um
at the conclusion, you will have an
opportunity to deliberate. Counsel for
Hometown will have an opportunity to
cross-examine and or present his own
case
as well as
open and
provide you with a summation at the end
at the conclusion of the the city's case
to chief.
And you will make the ultimate decision
on what should
be the disposition of Hometown Liquor.
Mr. Mayor
>> Thank you.
Uh Mr. President, members of council
Um yes, we are here for a hearing
tonight.
The question is is what type of hearing
are we going to have?
Uh under your ordinance, it's one of the
strange ordinances I've seen quite
honestly in 51 years of building
license.
And it says something like this. It
says, "Well, if somebody thinks there's
something wrong." And I'm putting up 150
What's it? 155
I'll give you that in a moment.
This code is 155-16D.
Says immediate suspension.
It says, "Notwithstanding the above
provisions, any activity at the licensed
premises
which results in an arrest on our
premises
uh for an indictable offense
for such conduct at the licensed
premises shall be reason to immediately
suspend the license pending a hearing,
which as your counsel suggests has to be
within 30 days."
Problem is is that there's no prior
review of that by you.
It is essentially operating on somebody
else's dime
if you would.
Uh here nothing more than a probable
cause finding by a superior court judge
by way of a search warrant.
And there's no right of due process
that's been preserved for the licensee,
but I mean what can I do about this
in this in that type of procedure?
So, we get this charge and and I think
it's important that we remember exactly
what the allegation is.
And that's why a letter dated and signed
by Miss Scott
um on May 25th
wherein she writes uh that the hearing
is for the unauthorized sale of
suspected
marijuana in violation of section
155:16A5.
And then that letter includes language
as it relates to that particular section
section which reads, again, as we see
this in pertinent part,
"in an unlawful manner or in a manner
that constitutes a breach of the peace
or a menace to the public health,
safety, or general welfare." Now, herein
lies part of the procedural
issues
that I think exist with respect to this
hearing. I think the record needs to be
clear about that.
If you're going to establish unlawful
conduct,
there has to be testimony to that
effect.
Here the allegation is one of possession
of marijuana in violation of the most
recent change in the law at 2C:35-10
S4, I think it is,
as it relates to THCA
and THC products.
And there's a weight
that's assigned in that statute by which
above that is legal and below that is
not legal.
So, you have this problem of how are you
going to establish it if you don't offer
testimony as to the unlawful conduct
because only unlawful conduct
as it relates to this particular charge
could also be a matter that breaches the
peace
or constitutes a threat
to public health, welfare, or safety.
So, we asked for production of the
materials.
And we were not provided any reports.
We were provided copies of complaints
and issues.
>> I'm going to This is No, I'm going to
object because this is an opening
statement. You want to make this a
procedural hearing or challenge, that's
different. Because now you're making
putting me in a position to rebut what
you're saying. You either have an
opening which goes to the merits of the
defense of your matter
or that's your closing statement. It's
not applicable for an opening because
now you're trying to tell them what's
wrong with the ordinance.
This is your opportunity to to have your
your opening on the merits of your
defense. So, then I will basically take
exception and will will have a rebuttal
to your opening, which is not typically
what transpires.
>> Here's the dilemma with that, and I
appreciate your solicitor
>> So, it's for the record, right? It's
preserved for the record.
>> record.
>> [laughter]
>> But, here's the dilemma.
The dilemma is that
there's no facts.
There's no evidence.
If there is, it hasn't been provided to
the mercantile licensee. No offense.
How's it to defend?
You don't have any evidence to justify a
particular action at this time.
You may in the future.
If there's a criminal conviction,
you clearly have authority.
But, you wouldn't even have to take an
action because this is a licensed
premises.
Under the liquor laws, if there's a
conviction, there has to be a
divestiture.
This hearing
and in fact, the suspension of a license
and the threat of revocation is
premature.
>> [clears throat]
>> And the fact that Ms. Cosby stood up
indicates one of the particular problems
we have in this proceeding, and the
record needs to understand that.
Most times,
not always, but most times when
governing bodies have these, you have
your municipal prosecutor present the
case.
Here your solicitor is serving both
functions.
That's conflict.
My suggestion is that the evidence you
have no evidence, you're not going to
hear anything by way of evidence
to justify action at this point.
The license should be returned.
You should monitor this.
Your police will be monitoring it in the
context of the interaction with the
prosecutor's office. And if and when
there's a conviction for a disqualifying
crime,
you won't even need to take action.
Title 33 of the ABC law, intoxicating
liquors in New Jersey, will act as an
operation of law to revoke the license
being held in the circuit.
That's my opinion.
>> And I I appreciate that because you've
given your challenge on the record, and
I think that to the extent that it's not
quite an opening on the defense
um in your case, but it certainly is
apropos if you are challenging the
process. And because you are challenging
the process, then I'm duty-bound to
respond accordingly. So, we're here
specifically to answer the question as
to whether or not
the owner of Hometown Liquor
has violated the mercantile license. The
mercantile license was given to him
um through an application process.
There's no constitutional right to be
able to open a business in
Pleasantville. You must be able to go
through a check. You must be able to
perform properly. You must be able to
submit to the ordinance, which was
published, which is available for every
business that wants to do business in
Pleasantville. You have to go through a
background check. So, there are hurdles.
It is not simply the right to possess
property. This is a mercantile license
that is based on being able to submit an
application, pay a fee, and be awarded
it.
He was awarded it. He understood that he
was going to do business in the city of
Pleasantville, and that he had to abide
by the municipal ordinance.
Whether or not there is a premature
aspect to the suspension,
that's not for you to decide. It's
certainly not for me to argue here today
because this is what has transpired, and
frankly,
Mr. Real, as well as his client, have
waived any challenge as far as I'm
concerned by presenting themselves here
today. They could have gone to court in
an order to show cause to try to prevent
this matter from going forward, but
instead they came here to present their
case. And part of the case all I've
heard thus far would be that it's
premature, and that Castle should not
enforce the law because this ordinance
is the law, and if this ordinance is
invalid, then someone needs to say it
is, and it's not me.
Not today at least. And while yes, I
have to be reasonable, and while it's my
job to be able to look at what the law
requires and what is provided, there's
been notice given to the applicant. That
notice he is supposed to abide by. He
knows what he is supposed to do and not
do. So, it's not about whether or not
he's been proven guilty. This is not a
court of criminal jurisdiction. This is
not a criminal venue. This is whether or
not he has availed himself to the
ordinance by having the business, by
paying the fees each and every year, by
renewing his license each and every year
since 2013 or 2014.
He has submitted to the will of that
ordinance. And now, as far as me, the
city solicitor, prosecuting this case,
the city of Pleasantville does not have
a prosecutor any longer. And by statute,
assuming our new window that we did, the
prosecutor falls under the municipal
attorney's purview, but we don't have a
municipal prosecutor. So, there is no
conflict.
We don't have to go out and get special
counsel. This is a pre- a preponderance
of the evidence case. That means more
likely than not. It is not clear and
convincing evidence. It is not beyond a
reasonable doubt.
And the purposes for which we are here
today is simply whether or not he has
violated the mercantile license. The
mercantile license that he has that he
has been granted and that he has renewed
year after year after year. And I
understand the fact that his business
has been closed. That's understandable
and he has every right to to to fight
and his advocates should advocate on his
behalf. I don't blame him for that. This
is not personal. This is business. We're
all here to do a job. But at the end of
the day there are facts and there are
proof because the standard is set forth
in the complaint summons that was issued
by
the sergeant
who investigated this matter.
The the plain reading of the ordinance
and the fact that he had a mercantile
license. That's it. It's a very narrow
scope. We're not talking about the
liquor license. We're not talking about
whether or not he actually had illegal
contraband on his premises. And yes,
suspected if it is an arrest on an
indictable offense is sufficient to rise
to the level of a preponderance of the
evidence of this ordinance.
And that's all we're here for today.
I'm not going to direct you and counsel
knows that I don't direct you.
You know that you will listen to the
proofs and make the decision you want to
make.
I have two witnesses. I have not been
advised that any other witnesses are
here on behalf of
Hometown Liquor.
The fact that they put on the record
that they weren't provided with any
discovery is a fallacy. I provided them
with the same documents exhibits one
through four that this body was given
today. Today, before you came in it was
up there or being circulated at the time
at which you arrived. He received the
exact same thing. That is what the city
intends to produce.
I've not received anything reciprocal,
and that means that they're not going to
use anything reciprocal, but I have
certainly provided discovery to them.
There is a criminal investigation
pending, and we are not going to
infringe or somehow impede on the
ability for the police or the
prosecutor's office to do their job, as
well as the due process of Mr. Brown.
So, we are not going to tread into the
criminal realm.
We're going to stay squarely within that
which is confined to the ordinance.
If Mr. Rial would like to say something
else, he may. Otherwise, I will call my
first witness.
>> Well, you know what comment I'd like to
make is
is that we're talking in the context of
being able to prove something,
regardless of the standard of evidence,
whether it be preponderance, clear and
convincing, or beyond a reasonable
doubt.
It requires evidence. What you have in
front of you are a series of complaints.
It's not evidence.
It's all we need.
>> Okay. It's No, no, no, no, no.
No, Councilman.
>> Yeah, it's not Respectfully, sir, it's
not all you need.
Because there has to be an ability to
know that what's alleged
is in fact unlawful.
I It doesn't matter how this all shakes
out, but at the end of the day,
there has to be some modicum, even in
connection with a mercantile license, of
due process.
And that's my concern here,
is that this governing body,
with jurisdiction,
is exercising that jurisdiction a bit
prematurely.
Because the very charge that brings us
here
requires evidence,
and probable cause statements. How do
you cross-examine a probable cause
statement? If there's a detective or a
sergeant that's called, nobody thinks
I'm going to ask about the lab reports?
Now, your solicitor says, "Well, we
can't go into that because of the
criminal case." That's exactly why this
is premature.
And therein lies, I think, the problem.
Counsel's going to call a witness. I
have nothing further to say at this
point. We'll hear and see how it all
shakes, but bottom line is
again,
stop and think about it as related to
the due process requirements, even in
connection with a mercantile case.
Counsel.
>> Thank you.
Are you going to stand here the entire
>> Yeah, unless you want to use that for
the witness.
>> No, I I
I'm not going to use it for the witness.
I was just curious whether you were
going to stand here the whole time.
>> I'm comfortable.
Unless you all want me to move, I'll
move. No, I'm good.
>> Jeff, can you have a seat up there?
>> Sure, I'll stand here. Actually, no
problem.
>> I'd like to call my first witness,
Denise Scott.
Thank you.
>> [snorts]
>> All right, good evening, Miss
Would you like me to stand?
Yeah, give me a second.
Good evening.
>> Good evening.
>> Your name for the record.
>> Denise Scott.
>> Okay. All right, if the court reporter
and or the city clerk would swear her
in.
>> Can you raise your right hand?
Repeat after me. I, state your name.
>> I, Denise Scott,
>> swear
>> affirm
>> swear affirm
>> that I will tell the whole truth,
>> and nothing but the truth.
>> So help me
, God.
>> All right, good evening, Miss Scott.
>> Good evening.
>> I'm not going to hold you too long.
>> Okay.
>> All right.
>> Going to keep your voice up because we
are recording from a different vantage
point. So, okay.
>> Um and can you just for the record state
for whom you are employed?
>> The city of Pleasantville.
>> Okay. And what is your position with the
city of Pleasantville?
>> I'm the deputy clerk.
>> And how long have you been the deputy
clerk?
>> Nine years.
>> And what is the job responsibilities of
the deputy clerk?
>> I assist the clerk. I work with the
ordinances, resolutions, the minutes,
OPRA requests, and vital statistics.
>> Okay.
And do you have any type of license as
the deputy clerk?
>> I have a vital statistics license.
>> From the state of New Jersey.
>> And is that part of the clerk's office?
>> Yes, it is.
>> Okay. And does the deputy clerk
as Is there someone over you other than
the clerk?
>> Just the business administrator.
>> Between you and the city clerk, is there
anyone in between?
>> No.
>> Okay. Do Does that mean that you fill in
for the clerk in her absence?
>> Yes, I do.
>> Okay. Are you familiar with the
mercantile license application process?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. And have you
ever become familiar with someone called
or business called Hometown Liquor
Store?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Um are you familiar with
the process for
businesses applying for a mercantile
license?
>> Yes, I am.
>> Okay. And can you tell the body what the
process is?
>> They will fill out a application, do a
background check, submit ID. Once we get
that, we copy it and send it to the
police department. Once the background
check is cleared and all inspections of
the building has been passed, they
receive a mercantile license.
>> And when they receive a mercantile
license, is there a log or something
that you enter it into?
>> Yes, we enter it into our computer
system.
>> Okay. And are they given a number?
>> Yes, they are.
>> Okay. And how is that number generated?
>> It's generated by what number they are
when they apply.
>> So, it's sequential?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. So, I'm just going to show you
that which has been marked as exhibit
one.
Do you have any objections?
>> No, I stipulate to all of it.
>> Okay, you stipulate to all of it. You're
stipulating that I can admit it into
evidence?
>> Stipulate the the license application as
well as the license agreement. No
objection about that.
>> Okay.
Are you familiar with that document?
>> Yes, I am.
>> And what is that document?
>> It's a mercantile license for Hometown
Liquor Store.
>> For what year?
>> For 2025 and 2026.
>> And what is the E if there's
an expiration date on that?
>> May 31st, 2026.
>> Okay. And is that the date at which it
expired?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. And is that a true and exact copy
of that which is purports to be?
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
And I'm going to introduce this. I know
that this is an informal proceeding, but
it is nonetheless the proceeding. You
already have the exhibits, but I'm going
to introduce this into evidence marked
as exhibit one.
>> I thought which number, counsel?
>> Exhibit one.
>> Okay.
>> Miss uh
Scott, do you recall
um
providing um the withdrawal?
I'm going to show to you that which has
been marked as exhibit two.
>> All right.
>> Have you ever seen that document before?
>> Yes.
>> Are you familiar with that document?
>> Yes.
>> Okay, what is that document?
>> It's a mercantile application for
Hometown Liquor Store.
>> Okay. And if you just take a look at
that, please.
Just go ahead and take a look through
it.
Tell me whether or not that is uh a true
and accurate copy of what it purports to
be.
>> Yes, it is.
>> I have an objection to this document.
>> And what is your objection?
>> Objection that there's no foundation
laid that Miss Scott was employed in the
office at the time this application was
made.
>> Is this document kept in the normal
course of business?
>> Yes, it is.
>> Have you ever seen that document before?
>> Yes, I have.
>> Have you ever renewed the mercantile
license for Hometown Liquors in the
past?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. And once they have one
application, do they need to submit
another application if they are paying
their licensing fees every year?
>> No, they do not.
>> Okay.
I think that that's a sufficient
foundation.
I'm going to move this into evidence as
exhibit two.
I'm going to ask you to turn to that
which has been marked as Bates stamp
number
page number two.
Bates stamp two.
And by the way, have you ever seen that
particular application before?
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
How long did you say you've been with
the city of Pleasantville?
>> 9 years.
>> With the city of Pleasantville?
>> I'm sorry, 25.
>> Okay.
At the bottom of page two, can you Does
this indicate the type of mercantile um
the type of business that this
mercantile license application is for?
>> Yes, it does.
>> And what type of business uh did they
apply for this mercantile license?
>> Liquor store with lottery sales.
>> And what type of goods um
did they indicate they would be selling?
>> Alcohol, beer, cigarettes, soda, lotto,
and cigars.
>> Is that
Are those, excuse me, are those the type
of items that they were approved to
sell?
>> Yes.
>> Is that the basis for which a mercantile
license would be granted based on the
application?
>> Yes, it's misleading.
Yes.
>> I don't agree that it's misleading, but
it's preserved.
You Have you ever, other than this one,
are you familiar with mercantile license
applications?
>> Yes, I am.
>> Okay. And are they required to set forth
the type of products that they're going
to sell?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. And if you wanted to determine
what type of products they were selling,
would you look at their application?
>> Yes, Your Honor.
>> Okay.
It's not leaving. But it's preserved for
the record.
Okay.
Um and um is it Do you have any
personal knowledge
of Hometown Liquors?
>> Yes.
>> Are you familiar with their location?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. And what type of business do you
know it to be, if at all?
>> A liquor store.
>> Oh, okay. All right. Are you familiar
with John? Is the City Clerk's office
the custodian of records?
>> Yes, we are.
>> Okay. And um
does the City Clerk's office maintain
mercantile licenses for uh cannabis
businesses?
>> Yes, we do.
>> Do you maintain a registry for cannabis
businesses?
>> Yes, we do.
>> And do you know uh whether or not um
Hometown Liquor Store has a mercantile
license for the for a marijuana
dispensary?
>> No, Your Honor.
>> I object as to the relevance. We're not
here for that.
>> Oh, it's relevant.
>> May I put my objection on the record,
Your Honor?
>> Thank you.
>> We're not here for that. We're here
because of an allegation of unlawful
conduct on or about May 28th, night
2026,
dealing with the execution of a search
warrant and whether that conduct engaged
was in fact conduct that was contrary to
the health and general welfare of the
community. We're not here about a
license application from 2013 or 2014.
It has no relevance
to what we're here for today.
>> So, the relevance um
Your Honors
is that this does form the foundation of
every other mercantile license that they
received, which has already been
testified to by Ms. Scott, that they
only need to fill out one mercantile
license and that every year they're
issued an application and every year
they renew it when they pay their fees.
So, therefore, this is the foundation
and the basis for which he has been
granted a mercantile license and she's
already indicated from exhibit one that
it is a liquor store except for here in
this mercantile license which is was the
most recent one.
The purposes for which the question
asked about a cannabis license is
because
this may be a different scenario had it
been
a cannabis license dispensary. And
therefore, you are entitled to know that
question and it is wholly relevant
whether or not they have a mercantile
license to sell cannabis. And I think
what was the uh the the answer, Ms.
Scott?
>> They do not have a license.
>> Okay. Thank you.
Can you please turn to that which has
been date stamped six
in exhibit two?
Is it the standard procedure to have the
mercantile license
signed by the business [clears throat]
owner?
>> Yes.
>> And is it the standard procedure to have
the mercantile license application
Sorry. Application
notarized have the signature of the
owner notarized?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. And do you see the name of the
owner there? Are you able to make it
out?
>> Yes, Russell Brown.
>> Okay. And is it notarized by a notary
public?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. All right.
Is there any reason to doubt that that
is
the application was made by Russell
Brown?
>> Objection.
>> No.
>> Okay.
Are there two Russell Browns?
Do you know?
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> [cough and clears throat]
>> What's the relationship if you know?
>> [snorts]
>> Father and son.
>> Okay. Do Are they both affiliated with
um Hometown Liquors?
>> Objection.
They're both owners.
>> They're both owners. It That's your
knowledge. That's what you say. Okay.
All right.
Okay.
Um
I'm going to ask you to turn to that
which has been marked as Bay Stamp 13.
Do you recognize that document?
>> Yes, I do.
>> Is that your signature at the bottom of
the document?
>> Yes, it is.
>> What is that document?
>> It's a notice of hearing.
>> What's the date of that document?
>> May 25th, 2026, which is a typo. It
should be May 28th, 2026.
>> Okay. All right.
And to whom is this letter addressed?
>> To Russell Brown and Russell Brown Jr.
>> Okay. And you're the author of this
document, correct?
>> Correct.
>> Is there
This is a true and accurate copy of that
which it purports to be?
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
And
I I I apologize. I think that I missed
To whom is this letter addressed?
>> Russell Brown and Russell Brown Jr.
>> Okay.
And what is the purpose of this letter?
>> To advise them
of their
mercantile license being revoked and
they have 30 days to respond or have a
hearing.
>> So, [snorts] this is a notice of a
hearing?
>> Yes.
>> Is this Would you call this a due
process notice?
>> Yes.
>> Now, Ms. Um, Scott,
I think I just had
one more final question for you.
Have you had an opportunity to look at
the mercantile license?
Um uh
the mercantile license uh
ordinance?
>> Yes.
>> Have you ever seen it before?
>> Yes, I have.
>> Okay. Um
does the clerk's office maintain the
ordinances for the city as well?
>> Yes, we do.
>> Okay. All right.
And um
are you familiar with any other
instances of mercantile license
um hearing being held?
>> Objection.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> Frankly, it's not relevant.
>> All right.
I have no further questions of this
witness, but I do reserve the right to
recall her, and of course I have the
right to redirect.
He He's going to probably have some
questions for you, so.
>> And also, President now
>> Yes.
>> Hi, Ms. Scott.
>> Hello.
>> How are you?
>> Good.
>> I just want to
ask you a couple questions.
Um the letter you wrote
>> Yes.
>> Who told you to write the letter?
>> I'm sorry.
>> Who told you to write the letter?
>> We get We write the letters when we get
the information from the police
department.
>> Okay.
Who gave you the information to write
the letter?
>> Objection. It's a template.
>> I'm sorry.
>> It's a template that we use and we
>> I I understand the nature of the letter.
I'm asking you, who gave you the
information saying, "Please write the
letter."?
>> The police department.
>> Who in the police department?
>> I I I'm going to object only to the
extent that
you're asking her to say who told you to
write a letter. No one had to
necessarily tell her to write a letter.
She's saying she was advised by the
police department. So, I think that it's
vague, and I think it needs to be
rephrased.
If you don't understand, you can
indicate you don't understand the
question.
>> Yeah, I'd like comment on the conflict.
Ms. Scott
who specifically contacted you either by
phone, in person, or through email
saying, "Please write a letter to
Hometown Lenders notifying them of a
hearing."
>> It would be Liali.
>> The sergeant?
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
And what information did he share with
you
when he contacted you?
>> That there was a raid
and that came business.
>> Okay.
>> From the business.
>> Did you ask him any questions?
>> No, I did not.
>> And you just issued the letter.
Fair enough?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you. Nothing further.
>> Um Miss Scott, very quickly. Um
you previously testified that you have
been involved in other mercantile
hearings, correct?
>> Correct.
>> Okay. Is there a standard by which when
the police department um undertakes
criminal investigations or raids of
various business or any business that
they come to the clerk's office and
advise you of what's transpired?
>> Yes.
>> And do you have a procedure in place
where you um
based on what they've indicated, if
there's a violation of the mercantile
license, that it's temporarily suspended
on notice to the owner?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. So, Mr. or Sergeant um Liali
didn't have to tell you to write the
letter, did he?
>> No.
>> Did you know to write the letter?
>> Yes.
>> You knew the write the letter because of
the circumstances that you were advised
of?
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
I have no further questions.
>> First, I have to
>> [clears throat]
>> Uh Miss Scott, did you memorialize your
conversation with the sergeant
in any form?
>> No.
>> So, there's no writing of any form that
memorializes what the sergeant told you
in that communication.
>> No.
>> All right. And finally, was the
communication in person, by phone, or in
person?
>> By phone.
>> Okay. Thanks. Thank you.
>> Um Ms. Scott, you can you can have Thank
you so much. But if you just be kind
enough to wait in the back just in case
you need to be recalled.
Do you have to wait while they finish
up?
Good afternoon, you guys. State your
name.
>> I'm Adam Lloyd.
>> Do you swear to confirm?
>> I swear I do.
>> Then I will tell the whole truth to the
best of my ability.
>> I will tell the whole truth to the best
of my ability.
>> So help me God.
All right. Sergeant, with whom are you
employed?
>> The City of Pasadena.
>> And how long have you been employed by
the City of Pasadena?
>> I'm on my 14th year.
>> And in what department do you work?
>> Uh the criminal investigations division.
>> Of what department?
>> Uh the detective bureau.
>> Of what department? Of the police
department.
>> Okay. Thank you.
Um and in the criminal investigation um
is it unit?
>> It's section.
>> Section.
>> Okay. In the criminal investigation
section, what are some of your primary
responsibilities?
>> I investigate homicides, sexual
assaults, robberies, burglaries, frauds,
narcotics,
child abuse.
Just that. Mainly double homicides.
>> Okay.
And um is this work done um
um
in an undercover capacity or is it done
um in uniform?
>> We base.
>> And have you had training in um these
type of investigations?
>> I have.
>> And can for the benefit of the City
Council, can you indicate what training,
if any, you've had in criminal
investigations dealing with
um narcotics readings?
>> I have been in
narcotics patrol, uh narcotics
investigations, advanced narcotics
investigations,
uh drug enforcement patrol.
Uh I was assigned to the Drug
Enforcement Agency for a short period of
time.
I walked in those
narcotics investigations.
>> Thank you.
Um
>> I'm going to direct your attention to
May 28th, 2026.
So, you would call participating in a
drug raid at the
Hometown
Liquors at 1000 Blackhorse Pike, the
City of Blackwood.
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> And uh
Do you know prior to that raid whether
or not
um
with you or not?
Did you ever undertake a search to see
whether or not Hometown Liquors
possessed
a cannabis license?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> And uh what what sources did you use to
determine whether or not they possessed
a cannabis license?
>> The state website.
>> And uh did you find that they possessed
a cannabis license?
>> They did not.
>> Okay.
Um did you Did there come a time when
you sought court intervention
relative to
Hometown Liquors at 1000 Blackhorse
Pike?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> And what was that court intervention?
>> Uh application for search warrant.
>> Okay. An application for a search
warrant?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> And what was the underlying purpose of
that search warrant?
>> I don't know. The distribution was
suspected.
>> Okay. And was that search warrant
granted?
>> Yes.
>> And who granted it?
>> A superior court judge.
>> And did there come a time when you
executed that warrant that search
warrant?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> And was that search warrant executed on
May 28th, 2026?
Okay.
I'm going to refer you to that which has
been marked as Exhibit 3.
This is the complaint summons.
You can come up and I can to a look at
that.
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> Do you see your name on there?
>> Yes, I do, ma'am.
>> Are you the author of that report or
that complaint?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> Okay.
Then the body of that complaint is there
an affidavit of a probable cause?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> Present, we need to introduce this
into evidence.
Did you find that page?
>> Yes, ma'am. It's on
>> Did you author that as well?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> Okay. And is an affidavit essentially
under oath?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> Okay. And did you tell the truth when
you wrote that?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> To the best of your ability or your
knowledge, was that what you believed to
have occurred?
>> Yes, it's a summary of my notes.
>> That's a summary of what?
>> The that's the complaint.
>> Okay. And uh that that document has been
admitted into evidence. Would you be
kind enough to read that affidavit of
probable cause?
>> Yes, I will.
>> And can you keep your voice up?
>> On May 28th, 2026, Pleasantville Police
Department Detective Bureau executed a
Superior Court approved search warrant
at 1000 Whitehorse Pike, Hometown
Liquors, in reference to an ongoing
narcotics investigation. Under Russell
B. Brown and Russell B. Brown Jr. were
distributing marijuana from their liquor
store located in the city of
Pleasantville.
Undercover officers conducted a
controlled purchases from the
establishment. Suspect accepted cash
payment also debit credit card
transactions through the business
accounts.
Suspect marijuana was sent to the New
Jersey State Lab and provided over uh
the legal THC limit for sale without
first obtaining a New Jersey Cannabis
license for sale.
Hometown Liquors is not a licensed
cannabis dealer within the city of
Pleasantville.
During the search warrant execution,
approximately $31,000 in currency was
frozen in the business accounts.
$10,260.31
was currency seized inside the business.
$7,000 in Borgata chips and $11,000 in
money orders were also seized. Over 100
individual bag packets of suspected THC
edibles or THC
THC edibles were recovered, and
approximately 9 oz of marijuana were
packaged in over
100 individual package containers or
bags.
>> And after the execution of that search
warrant, did there come a time when you
conferred with the Atlantic County
Prosecutor's Office?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> And through that conference, did
uh
the Atlantic County Prosecutor's Office
agree with you to
charge
Russell Brown and Russell Brown Jr. with
the enumerated offenses set forth on
summons 2026002244?
>> Objection. Calls for a hearsay answer.
This individual is not a member of the
Prosecutor's Office.
>> relaxed proceeding, so I will rephrase
my question.
Did you speak with someone at the
Atlantic County Prosecutor's Office?
Subsequent to speaking with someone at
the Atlantic County Prosecutor's Office,
did you initiate those charges?
And
what How many charges are on that
particular summons?
Set forth in Exhibit 3.
>> There are five. One is a conspiracy to
commit
>> Okay. And um
Okay. Okay. And are any of them
indictable offenses?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> And how many of them are indictable
offenses?
>> Four.
>> Okay. And are indictable offenses
presented to the grand jury unless it's
otherwise dismissed prior thereto?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> Okay.
And um
although this is on a summons and
complaint, um
is there a co-defendant also named
Russell P. Brown?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> And how do you know the difference
between Russell P. Brown and the other
Russell P. Brown, they although they
have the same addresses?
>> I did not know.
>> Okay. And
let me present to you that which has
been marked as Exhibit 4.
And I'm going to ask that you will
Excuse me, look at the document.
Take a look at that document.
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> Is your name listed on that document?
>> Yes, it is.
>> Are you the officer that [snorts] wrote
that complaint summons?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> Okay. Is that a true and accurate
representation of what it purports to
be?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> Okay. All right.
Move that into evidence.
Is this the same summons and complaint
as the Excuse me, complaint summons as
the one that you just reviewed?
>> It's the same charges.
It is one numeric difference.
>> Okay. And that's Exhibit 4. What is the
summons number on Exhibit 4?
>> 0102
S as in Sierra, 2026,
002243.
>> Okay. All right.
And
the difference in these two people are
the dates of birth that are set forth in
the
initial caption, correct?
>> Yes, that's right.
>> All right. All right.
Um
And did you just testify that they were
the same charges as set forth in summons
in the 2244?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> Okay.
Is there anything different in either of
these charges other than the date of
birth and any other identifying
information?
>> No, ma'am.
>> Did there come a time when
Russell P. Brown, who was born in 1963,
presented himself to the Pleasantville
Police Department?
>> Objection. The relevance. Well, if
somebody was charged If I may finish at
least, counsel, my objection on the
record, I'd appreciate it.
When somebody a player is and is
processed on a summons isn't relevant to
this.
There's an arrest. It's in the criminal
process. Your own prosecutor your own
solicitor, excuse me, I'm confusing the
two.
Um, has said this is not going to be
about a criminal proceeding.
Yet here we are in the middle of talking
about a criminal proceeding and you can
imagine what the cross-examination may
look like. But again, it's not relevant.
When somebody's arrested,
how they're arrested, when they appear
has no relevance to the question before
you, which is right now.
>> Okay.
>> Was there an unlawful conduct?
>> Oh.
So, here's why it's relevant.
Because specifically the ordinance says
that
the temporary suspension followed by the
revocation of hearing has to be premised
on an arrest
due to an indictable offense.
And Sergeant
uh
Lyle Ellie has already testified
that
both
Russell Brown
one and Russell Brown born in 1963
were charged with indictable offenses.
And so my second question before I was
interrupted
was was Russell Brown summons ending in
uh
2243
did he present himself to the police
department?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> And when he presented himself to the
police department, was he processed?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> And what is processing mean?
>> Uh fingerprint, photograph, and linking
that
submission to
>> And when you were photographed
and you were fingerprinted
and when you linked that to the
complaint, is that affecting an arrest?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> And so was Russell Brown born in 1963
arrested?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> And he was arrested Was he arrested for
an indictable offense?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> Have you had an opportunity to review
the ordinance?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> Okay.
And um
And this is really just your
professional opinion as a police
officer.
Notwithstanding the fact that there was
a suspicion of marijuana
um
without a mercantile license
or a cannabis license.
Um do you believe that there is a basis
for the violation of the municipal
ordinance?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> And what would be that basis?
>> The dishonesty in the license.
>> Excuse me?
>> The dishonesty in the license.
>> And that [clears throat] would be why?
>> Uh the licensing is
for uh
alcohol businesses to be able to
sell alcohol beverages. And marijuana
is not
related to THC products.
>> Okay.
Now, was there a money laundering charge
in the complaint?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> And is money laundering a third-degree
or fourth-degree indictable offense?
>> It's a third-degree.
>> Okay.
And um in the money laundering, is money
laundering a crime of
um
fraud?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> Okay.
And just to be clear,
um
was Mr. Brown
born 1943
and Mr. Brown born in 1963,
were they served with notice
of these complaints?
>> Uh they were provided to Mr. Brown when
he signed his copy in the municipal
court department in the
uh senior
>> Okay.
I have no further questions at this
time.
>> Okay.
Counselor President, any questions?
>> Yes.
>> Um Sergeant, I I I Eldridge, is that how
it's pronounced?
>> You said it right in the beginning.
>> God damn it.
Probably the only time I do it.
At least I got it right once.
Um let's talk about the money
laundering.
What evidence of money laundering do you
have on the fact that you seized some
money during the search during the
search?
>> Objection. This isn't about evidence.
This is about what the arrest is and
what the complaint is.
That's all.
And he's not going to He's not going to
answer. You know why he's not going to
answer? He'll answer any other questions
you have in the now scope. I didn't go
that far. I didn't open that door.
And this is for your client's protection
as well as the prosecution of this
matter.
It speaks [snorts] for itself. I did not
even have him give his opinion. He's
read from the affidavit of probable
cause.
>> And
>> Which you have a copy of, so there's no
deviation. There's no subjectivity.
>> I'm asking for a specific ruling on my
objection. Is the counsel telling me
that I cannot cross-examine the sergeant
as it relates to the content of his
probable cause statement?
Before we go further, I need a I need a
a ruling from the counsel.
>> No, counsel is not going to give you a
ruling on that.
I don't know how they're going to give
you a ruling on that.
>> Could you rephrase your You're
>> You're asking them to You're asking them
to opine
on evidentiary matters that go to
superior court. Which go to the grand
jury or are basically during an
investigation.
If you want to ask him how he wrote the
report, if you want to ask him about the
superior court judge who issued the the
uh the the search warrant,
but you can't ask him what proofs they
have than that which is set forth in the
report. If it's in the report, he can
answer the question.
>> Again, my note as it relates to the
conflict that your attorney finds
herself in, I think it's one of
>> There would be no conflict because he
would be my witness no matter what my
position.
The witnesses wouldn't change.
And he's the only one that I'm directing
this to.
>> Madam President, was your permission
always to series of questions? We'll see
how it unfolds from there.
So, Sergeant, can I take it you won't
answer my question as to what evidence
of money laundering that you possess?
You will have the answer to the
question.
>> I can read you off the probable
>> I'm not asking about the probable cause
statement. You say there's there's money
laundering. My question is what's the
evidence of the money laundering?
>> You can You can answer the question to
the extent that it comes to that.
>> I was going to read it off that
affidavit of probable cause which would
actually answer your question.
>> Which says basically you seized money.
>> No.
>> You asked him the question what amount
of money.
>> It says also a debit card and credit
card transactions were ran through the
business.
>> Where were they seized?
>> Seized.
>> How were they seized?
>> Sir, you're getting to the investigative
matter of the report. So, I'm not
>> I didn't write your probable cause
statement, sir. You did.
>> I guess I did.
>> So, in your probable cause statement,
you've just read to this council, you
said there's evidence of debit and
credit card statements. My question is
where on your affidavit on your on your
inventory is a record of of debit and
credit card purchases and taking. Can
you just tell me where it is on the on
the inventory? Because I was provided
that.
>> Sir, I'm going to respectfully not
answer that due to the criminal matter
that's actually
>> Okay. So, you're denying it. You're not
going to answer that question. You're
refusing.
>> Right now, yes.
>> Okay. Let me ask you a question. Let's
back up a little bit. What was the date
of the undercover buy?
>> Not going to answer that either.
>> [clears throat]
>> And
was any of the evidence that was
submitted You you lab report, Frank?
>> Sir,
if when you uh
properly request your records
department, they will gladly provide you
with that.
>> I prove I requested it of the this of
the bureau solicitor.
>> What What does
>> Do you have a copy of a lab report in
your possession?
>> does the probable cause What
What does the affidavit of probable
cause say relative to a lab report?
>> That's not the question in front of the
witness.
>> You asked me to get a lab report.
>> I'm asking him if he has a copy of a lab
report.
Why wasn't it provided as part of the
discovery?
>> I don't have any criminal discovery, nor
did I ask for it, nor would I produce it
in this civil
local local hearing matter on an
ordinance. This is not even a municipal
court.
And I'm pretty sure that under the
Attorney General intern Attorney General
guidelines,
they wouldn't even require it. You
couldn't even get this on Oprah. Not
yet. You can make a request as the
attorney to get this the discovery.
>> I did. I For the record, I made a
request to your solicitor for a copy of
the police report lab.
>> You made the the request for the
purposes of this hearing.
And I am not empowered to give it to you
no matter what my role would be here
today.
>> Okay.
>> That goes through the prosecutor's
office, frankly, and anything local you
can get from the police department.
>> Have you provided a copy of the lab
request and subsequent What First off,
what lab did you
As in State Police lab?
>> As indicated, New Jersey State Police
lab.
>> Okay. All right. And so, you got a lab
request and a lab report back on the
control.
>> It's in the investigation process.
>> Okay. That's all.
Uh you sent a lab out for the stuff you
seized on the 20th?
>> Sir, it's in the It's in the process.
>> I'm sorry.
>> It's It's in the investigation process.
>> In the investigation process. So, as we
all sit here tonight,
the charges is that on May 28th, they
acted in
an illegal unlawful manner or in a
manner constituting a breach of the
peace, right? And you've testified that
it's a breach because it wasn't on their
mercantile license.
That's correct?
>> I did not say that.
>> You didn't say that. I misunderstood.
>> Yes, he did.
>> I thought counsel asked you what was the
basis
>> [clears throat]
>> of your belief as it related to the
violation of the ordinance or the size.
The size.
>> Okay.
>> And the size is because they don't have
a didn't have a a dispensary license.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
Um are you familiar with the concept of
preemption?
By way of state law.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Okay.
Do you know whether they needed a
mercantile license under the marijuana
licensing law?
>> Yes, sir, they did.
>> They did. May I ask you how you know
that?
>> Through my experience of over THC
content of certain product, you need
cannabis dispensary license.
>> Okay.
>> What state did I have?
>> What state?
So,
as we sit here, you'll testify to
whatever by way of the word in your
probable cause statement, but you won't
provide any testimony as to the
underlying facts. Is that accurate?
>> I will not say it because it's a pending
criminal matter.
>> I'm just going to object to the
>> Thank you. I have nothing further.
>> Okay.
Okay.
So,
I'm sorry. I'm still
>> I'm finished.
>> Okay.
Um
Sorry, but
did you obtain an order from superior
court
to seize the assets of Russell Brown
1940 Board of 1943 and or Hometown
Liquors?
>> Objection. It's beyond the scope of the
original. It's a beyond the scope of the
investigation.
>> where the questions you were asking, so
your objection is preserved for for
whatever.
Did you?
>> Yes, that was approved by superior court
to have a search of
>> Okay. And and the order of seizure, was
it affected?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. And are those assets now frozen?
>> Objection to the relevancy of this.
>> It's all relevant because you are saying
that you don't have any facts. Those are
facts to support what he's saying about
money laundering. You opened the door
for money laundering. I didn't bring
that up.
I brought up the charge. You just
brought up what facts do you have? And I
just asked him whether a superior court
judge ever provided an order issued an
order to seize
assets or to freeze them rather.
And he indicated yes. Those are facts.
Those are facts that go toward the
breach of the merchant mercantile
license.
>> I don't have any more questions at this
time.
I have no more questions. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> I would ask that you stay close by just
>> Yeah, I'm not sure whether or not we may
need to recall you.
>> No problem.
>> Thank you.
Do you have any rebuttal to say?
>> No.
Not a rebuttal.
>> Okay. So, the city rests.
Well, you want to hear our closings?
>> Oh, yes, but yeah. Please.
>> Yes, sir.
Not sure where to start, but I think I'm
going to try to be short.
You asked our licensee to come in and
defend against
an allegation.
You let someone testify to a report, but
not allow any questioning as relates to
the substance.
You kind of did.
There's a report from analysis from some
undercover purchase that occurred at
some point we don't even know when.
But that's not the basis. The basis is
on May 28th.
All material that has absolutely nothing
to do
with this. That the whole thing about
money laundering and an order issued by
the court. First of all, we weren't we
provided by a copy of that by your
prosecutor.
But obviously she knew about it cuz she
asked about it.
We weren't provided a copy of that.
My earlier observation to the governing
body was that this was premature and it
still is.
You haven't heard any evidence. I
recognize that some of you may say that
well, there's probable cause.
I hate to think of any of us having to
stand before somebody and try to defend
ourselves based on some probable cause
statement without an opportunity to
challenge the substance of it.
It seems to be wrong from a due process
perspective.
Let alone violation of other
constitutional or civil rights.
This proceeding is premature. I
understand what your ordinance says.
I understand that everybody in
connection with this matter acted in
pursuit of that ordinance.
But it doesn't change the fundamental
nature
that that ordinance challenges
logic
and the concept of the defense of due
process.
You may have I'll be the first person to
stand here tonight and say to you you
may have
a basis to take action.
But your re-conviction
a plea of guilty
but even then it won't be necessary
because as I said before under title 33
by operation of law
whoever owns that license will have to
divest themselves because they will be
criminally disqualified. You won't have
to rely on your ordinance. It will all
be done for you as a matter of law, by
the state's division of alcoholic
beverage control.
This proceeding
I think you've you've seen it. You've
experienced it today.
In the context of how this has been
conducted.
The evidence that's been
And I use that in a very broad sense.
That's been
provided to you.
But there's no substance to it because
there's no ability to look behind it.
How do I defend? How does anybody defend
themselves in that environment?
That's why this proceeding is
untimely
in the context of the scheme of
regulation.
It ignores some of the aspects of
preemption
in the context of the licensing.
And we haven't raised that here. It's
not really necessary to raise that here.
But my recommendation to you
my suggestion to
my
proper, if you will, on behalf of the
licensee
is you hold this. You give them back
their license
at this point.
And everybody's on notice that somewhere
down the road
that license may not only be potentially
in jeopardy
but more.
That's I suggest to you thing to do that
in fact protects the process.
Protects civil and constitutional
rights.
Remember, everybody in this building
even Mr. Brown at this point
is cloaked with that presumption of
innocence.
So essentially what we're doing is well,
we're taking a license to do a business
from someone
on the prospect that maybe that person
may be guilty, but we're going to just
ignore the the protections of
presumption of innocence.
Now, your your solicitor will stand up
and say "This isn't a criminal
proceeding. None of that applies."
Well, to ignore that
is to ignore the practical reality of
what it is you're doing.
And I don't think you need to do that.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
>> Thank you, Counselor. Um
So, I I agree
with
Hometown
Liquors' attorney relative to
due process.
Everyone is entitled to it, and the
presumption of innocence until which
time they are found guilty.
It is a fundamental constitutional
right, and we cannot take it back.
I would
You know, and and I feel for any
uh licensee
uh who has to appear before a body
um and deal with these circumstances.
And yes, he is also correct that I am
going to tell you that that's not what
this proceeding is. It's not the
criminal proceeding. And the criminal
proceeding is a very, very high
standard. It is beyond a reasonable
doubt.
Beyond a reasonable doubt. This is
[clears throat]
preponderance of the evidence, more
likely than not. And I can tell you that
inasmuch as he hasn't been convicted,
and he may never be convicted, and it is
not my goal to see him convicted. I have
no opinion on that.
My job is to simply present to you
what the ordinance says and the
witnesses.
He had an opportunity to cross-examine
them, and he did. He had an opportunity
to bring witnesses, and he didn't. He
had an opportunity to present his own
client. Do you know why he didn't?
Because he wants to afford his client
the right to remain silent, the same way
that he tried to elicit information for
the criminal defense from our client.
Or from my client.
So, you know, or witness I should say.
You can't have it both ways.
He could have presented a defense if he
wanted to. He could have presented other
witnesses.
He chose not to. And we've really
expanded this frankly beyond that which
it should be.
And notwithstanding the fact that he
hasn't been proven guilty and may never
be, we don't know that. You shouldn't
even be thinking about that. What you
should be thinking about because it's
not premature is that there is always a
balance
between the rights of the state balanced
against the rights of the individual.
You cannot just have people and
businesses running around willy-nilly
opening up, selling what they want to
sell, and even when it's a legal
contraband. They've got a problem with
the mercantile license. It's not always
just that which, you know, at the end of
the day, you know, there may be this
huge indictable offense over them, and
you have to deal with them differently.
But the ordinance was put in place
specifically. It didn't just say, "Oh,
we're going to immediately suspend for
anybody because they're selling
uh potato chips and they said they were
only going to sell socks." No, it's
whether or not they have been arrested
for an indictable offense.
And particularly this or the
allegations, we can't just turn our
heads to that.
The allegations are such that someone
could lose their life if it's true.
And this body has an obligation to the
health and welfare, to the safety of its
citizens, to make sure that people are
not just, without being licensed to sell
cannabis, opening up these shops. Now,
maybe they'll turn out and they'll be a
regular.
But that's not your role. Your role is
to go by that which a court
has provided an court to search the
premises based on probable cause.
Whether or not you believe that Sergeant
Light Lionetti, whether he's credible,
is he credible? Do you believe him?
Do you believe the witness Ms. Stockton,
whether or not she's credible?
That's all it is. Is are they credible?
Have you looked at the report? Do you
look at the ordinance? What does the
ordinance say? The ordinance isn't
vague, it's not ambiguous. And it gives
another shot at the apple because it
says that the
licensee can petition even under
revocation this body to get the license
back.
So, it's not necessarily final and
forever. Now, when they may do that,
that's up in the up in the air. I don't
think that there's anything saying they
couldn't do it next month.
So, this isn't about disenfranchising.
This isn't about dispossessing the
business owner of an opportunity to make
a living. This is about protecting the
citizens of Pleasantville. And that's
the fiduciary responsibility that this
body has.
And if you had every establishment there
who was a liquor store or who was a
candy store and they were suspected to
sell anything, whether it was drugs,
whether they had guns, no matter what it
was, if if they were arrested for an
indictable offense, you have an
obligation. And that is the balance.
It's not premature.
You're not going to wait 2 years to to
whether or not there there there's a
conviction or acquittal
or 6 months whether or not there's a no
bill or an indictment. And then let's
say there's an indictment. They're still
presumed innocent until which time
there's a conviction or a dismissal.
Your responsibility is to look at the
plain reading of the ordinance. The
words are the plain reading are the
plain meaning.
And they specifically set forth
that if there's fraud,
misrepresentation, or other dishonesty
in the conduct of the licensed activity.
It also goes on to say the immediate
suspension,
notwithstanding the above provisions,
any activity at the licensed premises by
the licensee or any agent of the
licensee which results in an arrest for
an indictable offense for which
the licensed premises shall be reason to
immediately
suspend pending a hearing before city
council, and you have the power to do
three things.
You can vacate that suspension.
You can uphold the suspension for
a term certain, or you can revoke it,
which would require them to come back
and file a new license
It's not really a new application, but
for them to appear back before this body
for hearing to reinstate the revoked
license. That is your job. That is what
the ordinance says. There is no conflict
in the presentation by your municipal
attorney. There is no prosecutor
for the city of Pleasantville any
longer, and when there were prosecutors,
prosecutors by statute fall under the
municipal attorney's office.
So, I'm asking you
to make your decision whether you are
going to deliberate in private, whether
you deliberate openly, it's at your
purview.
Use the law. I am not going to tell you
how you should decide. I will tell you
what I believe the law requires, and I
believe that
we have met our burden.
I believe that my witnesses were
credible. I believe that the documents
speak for themselves. I believe that the
court intervention when you're talking
about orders, uh
well, search warrants, when you're
talking about uh seizure orders, which I
have not seen. This is testimony that,
you know, that the witness information
the witness has given me. And by the
way,
like any other civil proceeding and most
criminal proceedings at the lower level,
the adversary actually has an
opportunity off the record to ask some
proper questions
and they did not.
>> I I I I never interrupt counsel during
the closing argument and I'm going to do
it right now. That last comment was
absolutely inaccurate. No witness has an
obligation to speak to counsel. I could
approach anyone and say, "Would you like
to talk to me?" and they have an
absolute right, unless they're
subpoenaed and sitting on a stand, to
tell me where I can go.
To suggest that somehow I have an
obligation or an opportunity to go and
interview anybody
based on the testimony I heard tonight
would have been a feudal act at at least
and recognized as such based upon what
your solicitor emailed and provided to
me.
To suggest somehow or other that counsel
had an obligation to go ask the sergeant
Iannelli
what he knew or what he was going to
testify to is not a part of the law and
is certainly not a part of this
proceeding.
>> So,
this solicitor is not a witness.
This solicitor and and her emails are
not in evidence nor shall they be.
And there are
circumstances and hearings where in the
presence
including municipal court in the
presence
of the other party, whether it's the
prosecutor or the presenting attorney
the adversary attorney can ask for a
proper of what the witnesses will
testify to.
And that is absolutely the law.
Be that as it may, I would ask this body
to make a decision
and I recommend that the license be
revoked until which time a new
application or a new
motion is made for it to be re-heard.
The re-heard standard is clear and
convincing evidence. I don't believe
that there's any room or any ambiguity.
I believe that
the city, through this office, has
sustained its burden because it's only
more reasonable than Excuse me, more
likely than not. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
We wanted [snorts] to deliberate
in private.
Should we go in private? It doesn't
matter. Yes.
>> Please.
>> Do you have any entry room?
You don't have any entry room?
>> No.
>> We'll wait till they come back.
Well,
>> [laughter]
>> Yes. Yes.
>> [laughter]
>> You don't have anybody to deliberate
with?
>> I just think that we need to finish up.
>> You want to deliberate?
You want to deliberate?
>> Yeah, we can.
>> Thank you.
All right, we're finished deliberating.
That's fine.
>> Um
Next is resolution 121. There's
resolution of revoking revoking the
merchant's town license of Hometown
Liquor Store.
>> Can I have a motion?
>> Motion.
>> May I have a second?
>> Second.
>> Roll call.
Come on up.
>> Yes.
>> Oldest speaker?
>> Yes.
>> Faddis?
>> Yes.
>> Gibson?
>> Yes.
>> Thomas?
>> Yes.
>> With that, being said resolution 121
revoked the mercantile license for home
town liquor store has been approved.
>> Mr. Peoples
Did you email to anyone?
>> I'm sorry.
Yes.
>> [cough and clears throat]
>> Yes.
Thank you. You're welcome.
I thank you for your courtesies.
Thank you so much.
I like Calvin
>> You can write here.
>> Okay.
I don't want to have anything
>> I don't want to walk out.
>> I don't want to
>> I have a second. Thank you.
>> I have a second.
>> Second.
>> All in favor?
>> All right.
>> Good night everyone.
>> Mr. Walls, do you have a second?
Mr. Walls, do you have a second?
>> Um, we are through.
>> [music]