MARGATE – Appellate Court Judge Stephan Skillman ruled Feb. 14 that municipalities incorporated under the Walsh Act have the right to take a municipal ordinance to public referendum, effectively overturning a ruling by Superior Court Judge Valerie Armstrong that stymied efforts by the Margate Concerned Citizens group to put the city’s plans for firehouse renovations to a referendum.

It took nearly four months for the Appellate Court to render a decision in a case that captured the attention of municipalities statewide that operate under the Walsh Act.

Skillman said that even if it involves public indebtedness, under the Home Rule Act municipalities are bound by such petitions as long as they have the required number of signatures.

The case stretches back more than 18 months. In September 2010 the city commissioners passed an ordinance that provided funding of up to $2.3 million for renovations to Margate Fire House Station 2 on Brunswick Avenue.

The ordinance provided for $115,000 to come from the capital improvement fund and the balance, not to exceed $2,185,000, to be bonded.

Residents who objected to any expansion at Fire House 2 formed a citizens group and collected more than 700 signatures on a petition to put the issue to a referendum – more than the required number of signatures required by law to put an ordinance to a vote. They presented the petition to City Clerk Tom Hiltner in late September 2010.

City Solicitor Mary Siracusa rejected the petition, saying that municipalities incorporated under the Walsh Act were not obligated to send issues that incurred public debt to referendum.

The residents behind the petition, Steve Woerner, Anne Pancoast and Maureen Dougherty, filed a lawsuit to halt the renovations. It went before Armstrong, who ruled that the city was not required to act on the petition since the Walsh Act does not require issues of public indebtedness or the incurring of debt to go to a referendum vote.

Woerner, Pancoast and Dougherty appealed. Working on the case pro bono, attorney Christian Scheuerman of the firm Mark, O’Neill, O’Brien and Courtney in Pennsauken argued the case Oct. 17, 2011 before New Jersey Appellate Court Judges Skillman, Anthony Carrillo and Jane Grill.

The ruling, as written by Skillman, states that the Home Rule Act of 1917, which allows a referendum if the required numbers of signatures are collected, supersedes the Walsh Act.

Mayor Michael Becker, who voted against the initial firehouse proposal, said Tuesday, Feb. 14 that he was pleased with the judges’ decision.

“This is a very good thing for all the residents of New Jersey, not just Margate. No matter what side you might be on, the fact that people are able to participate more directly with their government is a very good thing.”

Pancoast said Tuesday that she was “thrilled to death” with the judges’ decision.

“This is a plus for all Walsh Act municipalities. Now anyone who has concerns with municipal spending can bring it to a referendum,” she said.

“This decision is far reaching beyond Margate. I would like to hear from our solicitor, and I really feel the New Jersey League of Municipalities will have an opinion and I will wait to comment until then,” Commissioner Maury Blumberg said Wednesday.

Commissioner Brenda Taube said she is pleased with the decision.

“It’s great news for the residents of Margate and every New Jersey governing body under the Walsh Act. Our expenditures are funded by our taxpaying residents, so if they have an issue with large capital expenditure such as our Fire Station No. 2, they should be able to voice their opinion in the form of a referendum.”

Dougherty said the plaintiffs are not seeking reimbursement for legal fees.

“No, we are not seeking anything from the city. The work was done pro bono,” she said.

“I think the state of New Jersey should be happy with this decision,” she added. “Securing the right of citizens in Walsh Act communities to have a voice on matters of indebtedness has been denied for too long.”