NJ DEP/UFT C/O CREAM RIDGE GOLF, LLC V UPPER FREEHOLD TWP

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF
THE TAX COURT COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS
TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY
DOCKET NO. 007457-2017
DECIDED: July 26, 2019
Katherine B. Galdieri for plaintiff Cream Ridge Golf, LLC
(The Kelly Firm, PC, attorneys).
Jamie M. Zug for plaintiff NJ DEP/UFT (Gurbir S. Grewal,
Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney).
Dennis Anthony Collins for defendant (Collins, Vella and Casello,
LLC, attorneys).
GILMORE, J.T.C.
This opinion constitutes the court’s decision on plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment,
seeking tax exempt status for a State owned golf course and restaurant, operated by for-profit
entities. For the reasons stated more fully below, plaintiff’s motion is hereby granted, and the
property is deemed tax-exempt pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.3, 2.3, and 1.10.1
1 The court notes that a separate action was filed by the Township of Upper Freehold against the
DEP (as such term is defined herein) before the Monmouth County Superior Court, under docket
no. MON-L-002213-18, in which the Township of Upper Freehold seeks damages against the
DEP should the subject property (as such term is defined herein) be found tax-exempt. Counsel
for both the Township of Upper Freehold and DEP are the same in that matter as in this, and any
issues of collateral estoppel or res judicata which may result from this decision shall be addressed
in that matter if and when they are raised.
NJ DEP/UFT c/o CREAM RIDGE
GOLF, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
TOWNSHIP OF UPPER FREEHOLD,
Defendant.
Approved for Publication
In the New Jersey
Tax Court Reports

2
Findings of Fact and Procedural History
This matter comes before the court on motion for summary judgment by plaintiff, Cream
Ridge Golf, LLC (“plaintiff”),2 seeking a local property tax exemption for subject property located
at 181 Route 539, Upper Freehold Township, Monmouth County (the “subject property”). The
subject property is identified on the municipal tax map of Upper Freehold Township
(“Township”), as Block 40, Lots 1.01, 1.06. Plaintiff maintains that the subject property is exempt
from local property tax as state-owned real property, leased to a private entity for use in furtherance
of a public purpose.
This motion follows the January 26, 2018 denial of plaintiff’s first motion for summary
judgment by Judge DeAlmeida, due to disputed material facts, a lack of necessary information to
decide the motion, and the necessity of adding the State as a party. Subsequent to denial of
plaintiff’s first motion for summary judgment, additional discovery has been exchanged, and the
State has been joined in this action as a plaintiff. Accordingly, the court makes the following
findings of fact pursuant to R. 1:7-4.
I. History of the Property, Lease, and Operating Agreement
The subject property is known as Cream Ridge Golf Course, and its land and improvements
are owned by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”). Originally
acquired by Frank Miscoski pursuant to a deed dated April 29, 1952, and recorded May 1, 1952,
the subject property had been operated as a private golf course by Mr. Miscoski and his family
2 Plaintiff has standing to challenge the local property tax assessment as the tenant responsible
for payment of property taxes, pursuant to our Supreme Court’s interpretation of an aggrieved
taxpayer under N.J.S.A. 54:3-21. Village Supermarkets, Inc. v. West Orange Twp., 106 N.J.
628 (1987).

3
from 1958 onwards. On April 3, 2003, the Miscoski Associates3 leased a portion of the subject
property to A & KU Enterprises, Inc. (“A & KU”) for operation of a restaurant (the “Lease”). The
Lease commenced on April 1, 2003, and ended on December 31, 2003, with three, five-year
options available under the same terms as the initial agreement.
The subject property was purchased on May 12, 2006 by the DEP from the Frank Miscoski
Trust (“Trust”)4 through the Green Acres Program.5 The subject property comprises a golf course,
pro shop, maintenance structures, driving range, and the aforementioned restaurant, now known
as the Roost. In conjunction with the sale of the subject property, the Lease with A & KU was
assigned to the DEP, as landlord. Similarly, a separate lease with Cream Ridge Golf Club, Inc. for
operation and maintenance of the golf course, pro shop, and driving range on the subject property
was assigned to the DEP, as landlord, and expired on December 31, 2011.
On August 16, 2011, the Lease was amended to afford more oversight powers to the DEP,
as landlord (the “Amended Lease”). Section five of the Amended Lease requires the tenant to
maintain financial records for six years to permit the DEP to assess and review the profitability of
the restaurant. This obligation includes the submission of financial reports annually on February
28. Section ten of the Amended Lease requires the tenant to annually provide the DEP with
3 Subsequent to Mr. Miscoski’s original purchase of the property, various tranfers and
apportionments of ownership interests were made amongst various family members, trusts, and
entities owned and controlled by family members, such as Miscoski Associates.
4 Although the court references only the Trust for simplicity, the transfer involved all those
holding ownership interests in the subject property at the time, including the Trust, Ellen
Miscoski, William Miscoski, Kenneth Horner, Kathleen Horner, Donna Miscoski, James
Miscoski (collectively “Miscoski Associates”), and Cream Ridge Golf Club, Inc.
5 The Green Acres Program is governed by a collection of statutes and administrative code
sections: the Green Acres Statutes, N.J.S.A. 13:8A-1 to -56; Garden State Preservation Trust,
N.J.S.A. 13:8C-1 to -42; and Green Acres Program Rules, N.J.A.C. 7:36-1 to -26.

4
information regarding the operation and management of the restaurant. This information includes
various aspects of the operation and management of the restaurant, and requires DEP approval of
the pricing and types of food offered; hours of operation; time, selection, and pricing of alcoholic
beverages served; any marketing or improvement plans for the restaurant; and any plans to use the
banquet facilities for special events. In addition, the rent for the restaurant was fixed at five percent
of the gross receipts, less sales taxes and return sales, based on the prior month’s sales. The
Amended Lease became effective on January 1, 2012. The Amended Lease was subsequently
assigned to Meticulous Golf Management, LLC on October 10, 2012 “(Meticulous Golf”), with a
further assignment to Linx Golf Management, LLC (“Linx”) on February 12, 2015. With all of
the options exercised, the Amended Lease expired on December 31, 2018, but has continued as a
month-to-month renewal pending resolution of this litigation.
Separately, on August 3, 2011, the DEP, through its Division of Parks and Forestry,
released a Request for Proposal (“RFP”) for the management and operation of Cream Ridge Golf
Course.6 As a result of this process, the DEP and Meticulous Landscaping, Inc. entered into an
agreement for the operation and management of the golf course, pro shop, and driving range dated
March 1, 2012 (the “operation agreement”). The operation agreement bore an initial term of six
years, and a fourteen year renewal option that is subject to approval of the DEP. The operation
agreement provided Meticulous Landscaping, Inc. with control of the day-to-day operations of the
golf course and associated facilities “consistent with the operation of a public golf facility.”
However, DEP reserved the right to terminate the operation agreement if it determined that any
provision was violated. The operator is required to pay an annually increasing base payment with
6 The subject property is operated by the DEP’s Division of Parks and Forestry, subjecting the
subject property to the requirements of N.J.S.A. 13:1L-1 to -36.

5
an additional payment of fifteen percent of gross revenues. The operation agreement was amended
on May 22, 2012, to change the name of the operator to Meticulous Golf.
On February 12, 2015, both the operation agreement and the Amended Lease were assigned
to Linx. All terms contained in operation agreement and the Lease continue to govern the
relationship between Linx and DEP.7 On May 21, 2015, the operation agreement was again
amended to change the operator’s name to Cream Ridge Golf, LLC (“Cream Ridge Golf”), a
wholly owned subsidiary of Linx. The restaurant is currently operated by Cream Ridge
Hospitality, LLC (“Cream Ridge Hospitality”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Linx. Cream Ridge
Hospitality manages the restaurant in accordance with the terms of the Amended Lease.
II. Current Operation of the Restaurant
In support of its motion, plaintiff submitted the certification of Stephen Rice, CEO of Linx,
as well as the March 5, 2019 deposition transcript of George Chidley, Manager of the Office of
Leases and Concessions for DEP.
In his certification, Mr. Rice set forth the status of ownership and use of the subject property
relevant to the tax year under appeal. He stated that during the day, 95% of all restaurant patrons
are golfers, and during the evening restaurant patrons consist of a mix of non-golfers and golfers.
Further, he described the restaurant’s use for banquets and special events as accounting for 7.8%
of Cream Ridge Hospitality’s gross revenues in 2017. He approximated that 75% to 80% of these
banquets and special events were golf-related outings. Finally, he detailed DEP’s management
7 Although the initial six year term of the operation agreement expired in 2018, the fourteen year
renewal term has not been exercised, and the terms of the agreement have been continued in
hold-over status pending resolution of this litigation. Section 34 of the operation agreement
explicitly allows for continued operation of the subject property following expiration of the
operation agreement, subject to all terms and conditions of the operation agreement, and at the
sole discretion of the DEP.

6
oversight of various elements of the restaurant, including pricing, renovations, repairs, equipment
purchases, and the removal of equipment.8
Mr. Chidley’s deposition testimony was offered in support of DEP’s position that the
restaurant should be exempt from local property tax. During his deposition, he testified that the
inclusion of food and alcohol service is necessary to support the golf course, and provides golfers
with a better experience. He further testified that the year-round and extended hours of operation
of the restaurant are necessary to support its viability, as it avoids the necessity of hiring and firing
of restaurant employees on a seasonal basis. Finally, he testified that the Amended Lease is being
renewed on a month-to-month basis, that the operation agreement was being continued in hold-
over status, and that DEP was awaiting conclusion of this litigation before taking further action
with regard to either the Amended Lease or operation agreement.9
The Township submitted no evidence contradicting any of the above factual assertions.
Rather, the Township relies entirely upon its tax assessor’s opinion that the restaurant is
disassociated from operation of the golf course based on its advertisements, hours of operation,
and services offered to non-golfers. Further, the Township has adopted the legal position that
plaintiff’s obligation to pay any property taxes assessed against the subject property, under the
operation agreement, precludes any application for local property tax exemption. Specifically, the
Township relies upon specific language contained in the Amended Lease, RFP, and operation
agreement, as well as other documents.
8 In his certification, Mr. Rice references these requirements as contained in the operation
agreement with DEP, whereas these provisions are actually contained in the Amended Lease.
This minor misstatement does not impact the force or credibility of Mr. Rice’s certification.
9 Following conclusion of this litigation, the DEP anticipates engaging in an RFP process for
operation of the restaurant in conjunction with the golf course.

7
Section 9 of the Amended Lease provides that “[a]ny real estate taxes attributed to the
Leased Premises [restaurant] or the operation thereof shall be paid by the Operator of Cream Ridge
Golf Course.” Section 1.5 of the RFP provides that “[t]he Operator shall be required to pay all
operating expenses, including utilities and taxes, if applicable”, and Section 1.5.1 of the RFP and
Section 18 of the operation agreement both provide, in relevant part, that “the Operator will be
required to pay all property taxes assessed on the Golf Course Property and [the restaurant] . . . .”
The Township also relies upon a November 21, 2006 letter from the DEP to the Township’s former
assessor, advising of the DEP’s acquisition of the subject property, and that they “are not
requesting that this State-owned property be tax exempt at this time.” Finally, the Township relies
upon a May 15, 2014 letter from the DEP to Meticulous Golf, advising that failure to “pay all
property taxes assessed on the Golf Course Property and [restaurant],” constituted a violation of
the above referenced Section 18 of the operation agreement. None of these documents, however,
in any way contradict the testimony of Mr. Rice or Mr. Chidley.
As the Township has submitted no evidence disputing the statements made in the
certification of Mr. Rice or the deposition of Mr. Chidley, the court adopts the respective assertions
of Mr. Rice and Mr. Chidley therein as undisputed facts.
Conclusions of Law
I. Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is warranted when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact
challenged and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment or order as a matter of law.” R. 4:46-
2(c). All evidence presented must be viewed in “the light most favorable to the non-moving party”
but trial courts are encouraged “not to refrain from granting summary judgment when the proper
circumstances present themselves." Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 541

8
(1995). If the evidence presented by the non-moving party does not create a genuine issue of
material fact, and solely provides immaterial or insubstantial facts, it will be insufficient to defeat
the motion. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986). In other words, where
the evidence "is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law," the court must grant
summary judgment. Ibid.
II. Tax Exempt Status of Property Under N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.3, 2.3 and 1.10
Real property in the State of New Jersey is annually assessed and uniformly taxed unless
specifically exempt. N.J. Const. art. VIII, § 1, ¶ 1; see also N.J.S.A. 54:4-1. Property owned by
the State or its instrumentalities is tax-exempt when used for public purposes. N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.3
(“Section 3.3”). Generally, tax exemptions are strictly construed as they are an exception to the
constitutional requirement that all property is taxed uniformly. Twp. of Holmdel v. N.J. Hwy.
Auth., 190 N.J. 74, 88 (2007). However, “tax immunities for government authorities should be
liberally construed because they facilitate the provision of public services.” Ibid.
The exempt status of property owned by the State and leased to a non-exempt entity is
governed by N.J.S.A. 54:4-2.3 (“Section 2.3”). Section 2.3 provides,
When real estate exempt from taxation is leased to another whose
property is not exempt, and the leasing of which does not make the
real estate taxable, the leasehold estate and the appurtenances shall
be listed as the property of the lessee thereof, or his assignee, and
assessed as real estate.
[N.J.S.A. 54:4-2.3.]
Should the exempt land be used by a non-exempt entity, through a mechanism other than
a lease, N.J.S.A. 54:4-1.10 (“Section 1.10”) states in pertinent part,
When real property which is exempt from taxation is used by a
private party in connection with an activity conducted for profit, and
the use does not render the real property taxable pursuant to section

9
1 of P.L.1949, c. 177 (C. 54:4-2.3) or otherwise, the real property
shall be assessed and taxed as real property of the private party.
[Ibid.]
Thus, Section 1.10 closes “a loophole in N.J.S.A. 54:4-2.3 by eliminating the artificial
distinction between leased property and property used under a non-lease arrangement.” N.J. Hwy.
Auth. v. Town of Bloomfield, 8 N.J. Tax 637, 642 (Tax 1987).
However, case law makes clear that regardless of any lease or other arrangement with a
non-exempt entity, such property may retain its exempt status so long as the property is used in
furtherance of a public purpose. See Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Weehawken, 45 N.J. 336, 344
(1965); Walter Reade, Inc. v. Dennis, 36 N.J. 435, 441 (1962); Moonachie v. Port of New York
Authority, 38 N.J. 414, 428 (1962); Bloomfield v. Div. of Tax Appeals, 84 N.J. Super. 19, 22
(App. Div. 1964). “Even where government agencies lease property to private entities, exemptions
should be liberally construed because they ultimately favor private-sector activities [that] the state
considers to be valuable.” Holmdel, 190 N.J. at 88 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The management and operation of the Cream Ridge Golf Course, including its pro shop
and driving range, are subject to the operation agreement. The management and operation of the
restaurant is subject to the Amended Lease. Under either agreement, the analysis is the same under
Section 1.10 and Section 2.3, as both require an inquiry into whether the use of the subject property
is in furtherance of a public purpose. The Township conceded during oral argument that the
operation of the golf course constitutes a public purpose, but argued that operation of the restaurant
does not, and further argued that the terms of the RFP, Amended Lease, and operation agreement
preclude application of tax exemption. Despite this concession, the court will address the issue of
local property tax exemption for the entire subject property and all uses upon it.
III. Public Purpose under Section 3.3, Section 1.10, and Section 2.3

10
When property is used by or leased to a private, for-profit entity, the relevant inquiry under
either Section 1.10 or Section 2.3 is whether the lease or agreement furthers the property’s use for
a public purpose as is otherwise required for exemption under Section 3.3. Walter Reade, 36 N.J.
at 441; Holmdel, 190 N.J. at 88; Bloomfield, 84 N.J. Super. at 22. The New Jersey Supreme Court
has stated,
The concept of public purpose is a broad one. Generally speaking, it
connotes an activity which serves as a benefit to the community as a whole,
and which, at the same time is directly related to the functions of
government. Moreover, it cannot be static in its implications. To be
serviceable it must expand when necessary to encompass changing public
needs of a modern dynamic society. Thus it is incapable of exact or
perduring definition.
[Roe v. Kervick, 42 N.J. 191, 207 (1964).]
The public purpose of a government agency is defined by its enabling statute, and it is
against the statute that use must be weighed in determining the applicability of an exemption.
Moonachie, 38 N.J. at 423. Further, a public purpose is not lost merely because a government
agency generates income from the property’s use, but when the income related use becomes
primary, the exemption is lost. Id. at 426-27.
The DEP purchased the subject property in 2006 pursuant to the Green Acres Program,
using funds appropriated from the Garden State Green Acres Preservation Trust Fund Act.
N.J.S.A. 13:8C-1 to -42 (the “Green Acres Act”); see also N.J.S.A. 13:8A-1 to -55 (“Green Acres
Statutes”), N.J.A.C. 7:36-1 to -26 (“Green Acres Program Rules”). The Green Acres Act provides
that “[m]oneys appropriated from the Garden State Green Acres Preservation Trust Fund to the
Department of Environmental Protection shall be used by the department to . . . [p]ay the cost of
acquisition and development of lands by the State for recreation and conservation purposes.”
N.J.S.A. 13:8C-26.
a. Golf Course

11
Various statutory and regulatory provisions establish golf as a recreational activity. Most
importantly, the State Park and Forestry Resources Act (the “Act”), governing the Department of
Parks and Forestry as operator of a property, defines “recreational activities” to include golf.
N.J.S.A. 13:1L-3. In the corresponding administrative code sections, golf courses are listed as
facilities falling within the purview of the Act. N.J.A.C. 7:36-25.10. Lastly, in the legislative
history for the 1971 Land Acquisition Act of 1971, N.J.S.A. 13:8A-19 to -34, golf courses are
identified as recreational facilities. New Jersey State Department of Community Affairs, New
Jersey Open Space Policy Plan, 106 (1968).
These provisions clearly establish that golf courses purchased by DEP, and operated for
recreational purposes, fulfill a public purpose assigned to the DEP. As such, Cream Ridge Golf
Course, its pro shop, and driving range, constitute the type of recreational facilities envisioned
under the statute, and are exempt from local property taxation under Section 3.3 and Section 1.10.
b. The Restaurant
In addressing the status and impact of the restaurant, the court highlights that the:
[DEP] shall have the authority to grant such rights or privileges to
individuals or corporations for the construction, operation and
maintenance for private profit of any facility, utility or device upon
the State parks and forests, lands and waters as the department shall
find necessary and proper for the use and enjoyment of the lands by
the public.
[N.J.S.A. 13:1L-6 (emphasis added).]
Under this provision, the DEP is authorized to allow private entities to operate and maintain
land in a manner necessary and proper to support the DEP’s public purpose for the subject
property. This principle aligns with the fact that incidental uses of public property in furtherance
of the statutory public purpose will not void an otherwise applicable exemption. See Moonachie,
38 N.J. at 427.

12
Specific to the current case, privately operated restaurants located on public property have
been found exempt when supporting the primary public purpose. See, e.g., Walter Reade, 36 N.J.
at 441. The service of non-intended customers in addition to intended customers, even if
substantial, will not lessen the public purpose. Bloomfield, 84 N.J. Super. at 21-22.
In Bloomfield, the Appellate Division found a restaurant owned by the New Jersey
Highway Authority and located on the Garden State Parkway exempt from taxation. Id. at 24.
The restaurant had separate access from the Parkway and local roads in Bloomfield, with the
entrances being divided by a barrier. Id. at 20. The court concluded that the property was primarily
devoted to the public purpose of serving the highway patrons. Id. at 22. Specifically, the court
stated that the “non-Parkway portion of the business, although concededly substantial, is
nevertheless an incidental source of additional revenue to the licensee.” Id.
Most recently, the Appellate Division reversed a Tax Court decision declaring a restaurant
operated on the Kean University campus by a for-profit entity to be non-exempt. Gourmet Dining,
LLC v. Union Twp., A-4799-17T3 (App. Div. May 31, 2019) (slip op. at 2).10 In so holding, the
court found that the attention brought to the University from the restaurant, the revenue provided
to the University from the restaurant, the regular patronage of the restaurant by the students and
their parents, and the restaurant’s location on the campus, as persuasive facts for granting the
exemption. Id. at 11.
Here, the court finds plaintiff’s and DEP’s arguments persuasive that the provision of food
and beverages has become an expected amenity to the golf and recreational experience, and that
the restaurant’s existence is necessary to the golf course’s success. This is further supported by
10 Approved for Publication May 31, 2019. A Petition for Certification to the New Jersey
Supreme Court was filed on June 24, 2019 and remains pending.

13
the State’s oversight and control of various aspects of the restaurant pursuant to the terms of the
Amended Lease, ensuring it continues to serve as an amenity in furtherance of the golf course’s
successful operation. Moreover, the factors the Appellate Division found persuasive in Gourmet
Dining are equally applicable to the restaurant here: the restaurant is located directly adjacent to
the golf course, the large percentage of patronage from golfers, and the additional revenue provided
to the DEP.
Additional support for provision of amenities as fulfilling the public purpose of recreation
can be found in Jersey City v. State Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 227 N.J. Super. 5 (App. Div. 1988).
There, the court held that the development of a public marina, including a boat storage and repair
facility, parking area, and a coffee shop, was an acceptable recreational purpose as defined by the
Green Acres Program. Id. at 13, 17. This decision, while not addressing the local property tax
exemption of the property, established that the DEP’s development and maintenance of a marina
and its accompanying amenities further the recreational purpose of “boating.” Id. at 22-23.
Consistent with these opinions and statutory authority, this court finds that the restaurant
facility is exempt from local property tax as an amenity provided in furtherance of ensuring the
success of the golf course. Amenities to a golf course such as a driving range, pro shop, and
restaurant make it competitive with other golf courses, as these amenities have come to be expected
as part of the overall golf experience. The court finds that these amenities are a reasonable
provision in support of the DEP’s recreational purpose in owning the property.
In contrast, Township relies on Twp. of Holmdel, 190 N.J. 74, to support its contention
that the restaurant portion of the subject property is not entitled to an exemption. However, this
case is distinguishable. In Twp. of Holmdel, the New Jersey Highway Authority built an
amphitheater and later a reception center, operated for-profit. Id. at 79, 81. The amphitheater was

14
built under the Highway Authority Act, which allowed the New Jersey Turnpike Authority to
construct and maintain “highway projects” defined as "any express highway, superhighway or
motorway . . . together with such adjoining park or recreational areas and facilities as the Authority
. . . shall find to be necessary and desirable to promote the public health and welfare." Id. at 79
(citation omitted). This statutory definition was later amended to only include projects that were
directly related to the use of highways and facilities already constructed. Id. at 80. Subsequent to
the amendment, the New Jersey Highway Authority changed the use of an existing facility by
converting it into a reception center, which was found by a governmental investigative committee
to be a violation of the amendments made to the statute. Id. at 81-82. The reception center was
leased to a private entity to operate and host events at the facility, with annual payments and a
portion of the profits going to the Authority. Id. at 82. The Court ultimately held that the reception
center was not entitled to an exemption from local property tax. Id. at 99.
While the use of the property in Twp. of Holmdel as a reception center was contrary to the
express amendments of the enabling statutes, no such issue exists in this matter. Statutory and
regulatory guidelines specifically authorize the DEP to operate golf courses for recreational
purposes, N.J.S.A. 13:1L-3, as well as allow for operation of its facilities for private profit. See
N.J.S.A. 13:1L-6(a). There are no legislative or administrative enactments or amendments
suggesting that operation of amenities of a DEP owned recreational facility should not be exempt.
Defendant also directs the court’s attention to the extended hours of the restaurant as
evidence of a lack of a public purpose. The fact that the restaurant is operated year-round and past
the operational hours of the golf course does not detract from this court’s decision. The restaurant
supports the success of the golf course during the times the course is in use, as well as during off-
hours by creating a location for social gatherings in direct proximity to the golf course. Further,

15
year-round operation provides a continuous stream of income, which supports the operative
success of the restaurant. It would be unreasonable, and not in conformity with statutory
provisions or proper deference to the determinations of the DEP to require the restaurant to close
and dismiss all staff when the golf course is in limited use. The extended operation of the
restaurant in no way diminishes its support of the subject property’s public purpose.
c. Additional Arguments by Defendant
The court also finds unpersuasive Township’s argument that the contemplation of property
taxes to be paid under the operation agreement, Amended Lease, and RFP should preclude
application for tax-exempt status. The language contained in all three documents directs the
operator of the golf course to “pay all property taxes assessed,” while a preceding provision in the
RFP requires payment of “all operating expenses, including utilities and taxes, if applicable.” Even
in the absence of the RFP’s “if applicable” language, the direction to “pay all property taxes
assessed” is clearly intended to assign an obligation to pay property taxes in the event that they are
actually owed. The remaining documents supplied by the Township are similarly unpersuasive.
The November 21, 2006 letter from the DEP to the Township regarding acquisition of the subject
property does not promise that no tax exemption would ever be sought, but simply advised that
the DEP was not “requesting that this State-owned property be tax exempt at this time.” (emphasis
added). Similarly, the May 15, 2014 letter from the DEP to Meticulous Golf, simply reiterated the
terms of Section 18 of the operation agreement requiring payment of the local property taxes which
had been assessed. No language in any of the relevant documents precludes an application for
local property tax exemption.
Finally, Township argues that the state bidding procedures have been violated due to the
application for tax-exempt status for the subject property, as well as the delay in rebidding,

16
resulting in a windfall to a private party, and violating the square corners doctrine.11 In essence,
Township alleges that the subject property was intended to be taxable at the time of bidding, and
had it been known that the subject property would later be tax exempt, the bids for the subject
property would have been substantially different, therefore benefitting the successful bidder at the
expense of all other potential bidders.
This argument is entirely without merit. First, the RFP explicitly stated that the winning
bidder would be responsible for payment of “all operating expenses, including utilities and taxes,
if applicable.” (emphasis added). Second, even discounting this provision in its entirety, the party
making application for exemption here is not the original bidder to the RFP, but is an assignee who
has made the application for exemption five years following conclusion of the RFP process. It is
inconceivable to this court that application for an exemption for the 2017 tax year by an assignee
of the operation agreement in any way impacts the fairness of the 2011 RFP process, nor is the
DEP’s delay in rebidding or renewing the Amended Lease or operation agreement contrary to
public policy.
In Jersey City, the municipality argued that the DEP violated the same public bidding laws,
N.J.S.A. 52:34-6 to -20, as the Township does here. 227 N.J. Super. at 19. However, the court
found that no bidding laws governing the leasing of DEP property were applicable, as the previous
bidding statute, L. 1983, c. 324, § 6, e.d. September 1, 1983, was repealed, allowing the DEP
“discretion to negotiate this kind of lease for public recreational purposes.” Id. at 20.
During oral argument and in its papers, the DEP made clear that the expired Amended
Lease and operation agreements have remained in month-to-month and hold-over status due to the
11 The government and its agents are to act solely in the public interest, in other words turn
square corners. F.M.C. Stores Co. v. Borough of Morris Plains, 100 N.J. 418, 426 (1985).

17
present litigation, and its inability to adequately market the subject property due to the uncertainty
of its operative value pending resolution of the tax exemption issue. The court agrees with this
exercise of discretion by the DEP, and finds the Township’s arguments unpersuasive.
Conclusion
In light of the above, the court finds the subject property exempt from local property tax
for the 2017 tax year under Section 3.3, Section 2.3, and Section 1.10, and judgment shall be
entered accordingly.