The City of Bayonne has asked the Superior Court to dismiss a lawsuit filed against the Bayonne Local Redevelopment Authority in November.
The Port Authority sued the BLRA and three contenders for the purchase of property on the former Military Ocean Terminal after the BLRA voided a signed contract in order to consider other more lucrative bids.
The BLRA signed an agreement with the Port Authority in September that would have handed over ownership of about 92 acres in what is called the Maritime District – one of six areas of development on the MOTBY.
The BLRA was allowed to void the deal because of a quirk in notification of a special meeting. The BLRA apparently failed to notify two newspapers necessary to meet the letter of the open public meetings act and had to vote again.
But instead of voting to seal the deal with the Port Authority, the BLRA voted to rescind the deal and then later agreed to sell the land to Ports America for $90 million to operate a car import/export operation.
In its suit, the Port Authority claimed that its offer was actually better, providing $50.5 million as the sale price plus $86 million in infrastructure improvements.
The Port Authority suit alleges that the BLRA committed a “breach of contract” and that its competitors had interfered with the contract.
“We filed a motion to dismiss last week,” said Jay Coffey, who serves as director of the city’s Law Department and counsel to the BLRA. “We are waiting for their answer to the motion.”
The Port Authority suit contends that the BLRA should not have voided the contract, and claims that a violation of the Open Public Meetings Act required the BLRA to ratify the previous decision to sell the land to the Port Authority.
The city, however, said such an opinion is in “conflict with the spirit and the letter” of the Open Pubic Meetings Act, which requires that bodies such as the BLRA operate in the best interests of the taxpayers.
“The Port Authority’s argument is inconsistent with the policy and intent of the Open Public Meetings Act, good governance and separation of powers,” said the city’s legal response.
Not only was the action taken by the BLRA legal, it was appropriate in regards to getting taxpayers the best deal possible, the legal brief continued.
“The BLRA took appropriate steps to remedy the Open Public Meetings Act violation, which included voiding the proposed [Port Authority] agreement and the authorization to sign it,” the brief said. “At its heart, the Port Authority’s argument, if accepted, would deprive the BLRA of the ability to make the best possible legislative decisions affecting the citizens of Bayonne.”
The City Council is hoping to use some of the funds from the Ports America deal to help balance two municipal budgets.
“I understand a date has been set for Feb. 6,” said Anthony Chiappone, who also serves as a member of the BLRA. “I am confident that we are on firm legal ground on this issue.” He continued, “These are the facts. An improperly held BLRA meeting initially approving the Port Authority contract in clear violation of the Open Public Meetings Act was held. I formally objected in letterform to the BLRA attorney Jay Coffey. He confirmed the violation. The remedy was to hold a new meeting and the contract with the Port Authority was rejected at that meeting. Thus, it is our contention that that there was never a properly, formally ratified contract with the Port Authority. Nevertheless, I am hopeful that the Port Authority will decide against pursuing legal recourse and to evaluate the situation more fairly and carefully. I do not believe that court action is either necessary or beneficial as I am sure there can be a way for the Port Authority, Ports of America, and the City of Bayonne to all work together for the mutual benefit of the city of Bayonne and the maritime region and industry.”
Councilman Ted Connolly, also a member of the BLRA said he agreed with the city’s call for the court to dismiss the Port Authority’s suit.
“Simply stated, if the meeting was not correctly advertised then it did not comply with the legal requirements necessary to be considered a meeting,” Connolly said. “Therefore, it was not a legally sanctioned meeting – period. Just because there were commissioners present and citizens in the audience doesn’t make it a legal meeting.”