CAPE MAY — With a lawsuit presenting a possible roadblock to begin reconstruction of the Washington Street Mall’s infrastructure this fall, the city filed a motion Monday asking the court to dismiss a lawsuit from a group of Cape May innkeepers.

A group calling itself Concerned Taxpayers of the City of Cape May filed a complaint in Superior Court June 13 challenging the legality of a $3.5 million bond ordinance passed by city council in May.

The group wants the court to declare the bond ordinance null and void.

The complaint cites a city ordinance that specifies that the expense of maintaining curbs and sidewalks is the responsibility of adjoining property owners. It wants mall merchants to pay for new paving in front of their businesses.

At a June city council meeting, residents complained if they must pay for installation of sidewalks in front of their homes, then mall merchant should pay for repaving in front of their shops.

City Solicitor Tony Monzo told the Herald Monday the motion and brief proves the city followed all procedures of the bond law.

He said sidewalk improvements being assessed against property owners could be determined on a case-by-case basis whenever municipal improvements are made.

“Council has the discretion to deem them to be general improvements that are to be paid and spread among all the taxpayers as opposed to a specific group,” said Monzo. “For those reasons we’re asking that the court dismiss the lawsuit.”

Over the past 10 years, each time the city has passed a bond ordinance for sidewalk improvements, the city has determined that they are general improvements and has never tried to recoup the costs of sidewalks against any property owners, said Monzo.

While the lawsuit does not prevent the city from moving forward with the mall project, it calls into question the ability to sell bonds and notes to finance the cost, he said.

“That is something we need to work out with bond counsel to see if the city can still move forward with the financing arrangements but putting that aside, the city is still moving forward with the planning and the bid process,” said Monzo.

Time is of the essence since the city wants to start reconstruction of the mall’s infrastructure in October. Monzo said he hoped the issue would be before a judge for a return date for the motion.
He said a decision may not necessarily be made on the first court date.

Monzo said if the lawsuit had been approached by the city as a normal litigation matter with the city filing an answer, going through the process of a management conference and a briefing schedule, it would drag on into next year.

“We are hoping our motion is granted and possibly we can talk to counsel for the plaintiffs in the case to see if there is anyway we can resolve it,” he said.