DOCSLIB.ORG

MCS 20 Direct Property Investment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
MCS 20 Direct Property Investment Centro MCS 36 – International No.4 Investment Research September 2005 Managed Investment Assessments Pty Ltd holds Australian Financial Services Licence Number 228911. This licence enables Managed Investment Assessments Pty Ltd to undertake assessments of managed investment schemes. Disclosure of Interests Managed Investment Assessments Pty Ltd has received a fee from Centro MCS Manager Limited for the preparation of this Assessment. The Directors and employees of Managed Investment Assessments Pty Ltd do not hold securities in Centro Properties Group or the Centro MCS 36 – International No. 4. At the time of publication, neither Managed Investment Assessments Pty Ltd nor any associated entities have conducted any capital raising activity for the Centro MCS 36 – International No. 4. Entities associated with Managed Investment Assessments Pty Ltd may have provided advice to the Responsible Entity of this Trust and may do so in the future. Disclaimer This report is provided to investors as general advice on interests in managed investment schemes. This report should not be relied upon as a specific recommendation as Managed Investment Assessments Pty Ltd has no knowledge of the financial circumstances of any individual investor. It is strongly recommended that investors consult their financial advisor prior to making any investment. It is also recommended that investors review reports on this product from other independent research companies. Managed Investment Assessments Pty Ltd strongly advises investors to read all material provided by the promoter of this product including the entire Product Disclosure Statement. Managed Investment Assessments Pty Ltd has no influence whatsoever on the past, present or future performance of this product or its manager, and does not accept any liability for financial loss incurred by investors who choose to invest in the product assessed in this report, or any other product. © Managed Investment Assessments Pty Ltd 2005 Managed Investment Assessments Pty Ltd ABN 87 094 541 358 Level 3 North Tower, 333 Collins Street, Melbourne, Victoria, 3000 Email: [email protected] website: www.miaresearch.com Telephone: +61 3 9629 5777 Facsimile: +61 3 9629 5744 Centro MCS 36 – International No. 4 September 2005 Overall Rating: ‘Quality’ The Centro MCS 36 – International No. 4 syndicate has achieved an overall score of 73. It is rated as a ‘Quality’ investment offer. Overall Rating 73 ‘Quality’ This report is valid for 6 months from the date of issue or the close of capital raising whichever is the sooner Managed Investment Assessments Pty Ltd ABN 87 094 541 358 Level 3 North Tower, 333 Collins Street, Melbourne, Victoria, 3000 Email: [email protected] website: www.miaresearch.com Telephone: +61 3 9629 5777 Facsimile: +61 3 9629 5744 Centro MCS 36 – International No. 4 Annualised Returns to Investors 10% Income Return on Equity 8% The annual income distribution per unit on each $1 of equity 6% invested for each financial year Tax Advantaged 4% The proportion of the annual distribution that is tax 2% advantaged due to depreciation benefits, and building and other 0% allowances 2006 2007 2008 Funding Structure New Capital Raising (A$ mill) Interest Rate Management Property Purchase Price 400.305 Loan to value ratio 64% Stamp Duty & Acquisition Costs 12.925 Fixed for Interest rate structure Funds for capital expenditure 11.360 average five years US REIT Capitalisation Costs 1.886 Interest rate including margin Average 4.71% TOTAL ACQUISITION COSTS 426.476 Structure of Issue Less net US borrowings 253.539 124 million Ordinary No. of Units offered to TOTAL US INVESTMENT 172.937 Units and 71 million investors Plus syndicate and other establishment Unsecured Notes costs 22.012 25%‐50% of units and Centro participation TOTAL (rounded) 194.951 notes on offer Unit Issue Price $1.00 Capital Structure Management Fees Syndicate Equity Units 124.046 5% of property purchase Establishment Fee Unsecured Notes 70.905 price TOTAL (rounded) 194.951 On‐going Fee 0.73% MER 0.81% Net Tangible Asset Backing Distributions Quarterly Minimum Investment A$10,000 Per $1 unit $0.89 Syndicate Term Six to seven years Centro MCS 36 Benchmarked We have benchmarked key elements of the Centro MCS 36 Syndicate against a basket of closed end unlisted property syndicates with a similar structure, that undertook their first capital raising within the last three years. The accompanying graph places the benchmark level for each element at zero. Better than 30% Benchmark 20% 10% 0% -10% Worse than -20% Benchmark -30% Gearing Yield Tax Inter es t Mar gin MER Effectiveness Level 3 North Tower, 333 Collins Street, Melbourne, Victoria, 3000 www.miaresearch.com Telephone: +61 3 9629 5777 Facsimile: +61 3 9629 5744 Page 2 Centro MCS 36 Benchmarked (cont’d) The extent to which elements of this Syndicate offer vary from the benchmark is expressed as a percentage. The gearing level of 60% is higher than the benchmark average. The Syndicate’s forecast first year yield of 8.25% is similar to the benchmark but significantly higher than retail property yields currently prevailing in Australia. The tax advantaged income received by investors in the Syndicate is slightly higher than the benchmark average. The interest rate margin is lower than the benchmark average. The MER is slightly lower than the benchmark average assisted by economies of scale due to the size of the Syndicate. Centro MCS 36 – International No. 4 Strengths: Centro MCS 36 Syndicate (‘Syndicate’) provides investors with an exposure to a large geographically diversified portfolio of retail properties based in high density residential areas on the east coast of the United States. Key features of the Syndicate include a clever if complex investment structure, an equity hedge of 100% of initial investment in the US REIT and forecast distributions from the Product Rating 68 US REIT until 2011, an interest rate hedge averaging over five years ‘Attractive’ and a property portfolio with a high weighting towards non‐ discretionary retailers. This contributes to our rating of the Syndicate as an ‘Attractive’ product. Issues to be addressed: This is not a ‘set and forget’ retail property portfolio and will require intensive management during the Syndicate term. This issue is of particular relevance to the supermarket tenants that require expansion space. The success of the Syndicate hinges on the Centro Watt property management team, particularly the leasing department, taking an active asset management approach to maintaining and enhancing portfolio performance. Centro MCS Manager Limited Strengths: Centro MCS Manager Limited (‘Centro MCS’) is an established manager of Australian based retail property which has integrated what appears to be a strong management team in the United States through the joint venture with Watt Commercial, and the acquisition of the Kramont Real Estate Investment Trust. In rating Centro MCS we have taken into account the asset management Management Rating 81 capabilities of the United States East Coast management team based ‘Superior’ on our meetings with key executives and leasing officers. On this basis we rate Centro MCS as a ‘Superior’ manager in relation to its ability to manage the Syndicate. Issues to be addressed: Although the Australian based funds management team have ultimate responsibility for the success of the Syndicate, the main focus is on the involvement of the Centro executives on a day to day basis with respect to the management of the property management and leasing process that will determine the performance of the portfolio. The move to deploy Australian based executives into the United States based management team is an attempt to ensure the greatest possible integration of business cultures. Potential issues are likely to arise from a breakdown in communication between the ‘on site’ management team and the Melbourne head office. Level 3 North Tower, 333 Collins Street, Melbourne, Victoria, 3000 www.miaresearch.com Telephone: +61 3 9629 5777 Facsimile: +61 3 9629 5744 Page 3 Centro MCS 36 – International No. 4 Overview Centro MCS 36 has invested in 30 properties in eight states that formed part of the New York Stock Exchange listed Kramont REIT, purchased predominantly by the Centro (98.5%) and Watt Commercial (1.5%) in early 2005. The previously listed REIT comprised of 93 properties located across the east coast of the United States. Centro MCS 36 is the third syndicate launched by this group based on ‘The third US based Centro a portfolio of United States shopping centres. The syndicate is the syndicate’ largest to be launched in Australia with total capital of $A426.5 million to be raised. The equity to be raised via this offer is A$195 million. We have been informed by Centro that due to a lack of access to retail property in Australia due to tightening property yields and strong investor demand it is becoming progressively more difficult to launch syndicates with Australian based retail property assets. Centro believes that United States based retail property is currently attractive based on the diversification and higher returns that can be delivered to investors. The Syndicate will purchase interests in the assets through the acquisition of units in the existing ownership entities rather than a straight forward property acquisition which will ultimately be owned ‘Indirect holding in underlying by the US REIT. A 97% share of all the properties in the REIT will properties’ effectively be owned by Centro MCS 36 Syndicate. Investors are referred to the Product Disclosure Statement for further information as well as the Investment Structure section of this report. As part of our assessment of the Fund, executives from MIA visited the offices of Centro Properties Group Limited on four separate occasions including: • Wednesday 1st June between 3pm and 5:00pm; th • Thursday 7 July between 11am and 2pm; • Wednesday 27th July between 10am and 12pm; and • Wednesday 31st August between 11am and 12pm.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Phase 1 Study
    DELAWARE RIVER JOINT TOLL BRIDGE COMMISSION SOUTHERLY CROSSINGS CORRIDOR STUDY PHASE I TRANSPORTATION STUDY Prepared for: DELAWARE RIVER JOINT TOLL BRIDGE COMMISSION Prepared by: THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP, INC. EAST ORANGE, NEW JERSEY June 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Southerly Crossings Corridor Study TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................Executive Summary Page 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND STUDY METHODOLOGY.............................................1-1 1.1 Background.........................................................................................1-1 1.2 Objectives of the Southerly Crossings Corridor Study .....................................1-3 1.3 Traffic Forecasting & Analysis Methodology................................................1-3 1.3.1 Overview.............................................................................................................1-3 1.3.2 Travel Demand Forecasting ................................................................................1-4 1.4 Alternatives Development and Screening .....................................................1-7 1.5 Alternatives Analysis-Measures of Effectiveness .......................................... 1-10 1.5.1 Level of Service...............................................................................................1-10 1.5.2 Construction Cost Estimates............................................................................1-11 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ..............................................................................2-1
    [Show full text]
  • Cape May County Transportation Study
    Cape May County Transportation Study Prepared by: Cape May County Planning Department 4 Moore Road Cape may Court House, New Jersey 08210 www.capemaycountygov.net 2006 Cover: Rendering of Proposed Middle Thorofare Bridge Replacement, Ocean Drive (Co. Rd. 621) Lower Township. Cape May County Transportation Plan 2006 CAPE MAY COUNTY PLANNING BOARD Resolution Number 03-06 ADOPTING THE CAPE MAY COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLAN Whereas, the County of Cape May seeks to provide state-of-the-art transportation facilities for the convenience and safety of its residents and visitors; and Whereas, it is necessary to provide a Transportation Plan to meet the current and future transportation needs of the County and to satisfy Federal and State planning requirements; and Whereas, Cape May County has prepared said plan addressing these issues and wishes to adopt this plan as the Transportation Element of the Cape May County Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, prior to the adoption of any component or amendment of a County Comprehensive Plan a public hearing must be held in accordance with NJSA 40:27-4; and Whereas, on September 19, 2006 the Cape May County Planning Board held such a public hearing and listened to and addressed the concerns of the public regarding the plan. Now Therefore Be It Resolved by the Cape May County Planning Board that the Cape May County Transportation Plan is hereby adopted as the Transportation Element of the Cape May County Comprehensive Plan; and Now Therefore Be It Further Resolved, that in accordance with the provisions of NJSA 40:27-4, attested copies of this plan shall be certified to the Cape May County Board of Chosen Freeholders, the Cape May County Park Commission, and the Municipal Clerks of all municipalities in the County.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis and Modeling of Cape May County Roadway Elevations and Evacuation Routes NJDOT Research Report No: FHWA-NJ-2005-022
    “TURNING PROBLEMS INTO SOLUTIONS” ANALYSIS AND MODELING OF CAPE MAY Need a solution? COUNTY ROADWAY ELEVATIONS AND Think Jersey DOT EVACUATION ROUTES FHWA-NJ-2005-022 May 2006 SUMMARY This study determined the evacuation times under varying population, hurricane level, and NJ Routes 47/347 reversal lane operation scenarios for Cape May County, New Jersey. Roadway elevations throughout NJ Routes 47/347 corridor study area were established via a GPS survey to verify whether the roadways are usable in the event of a hurricane. Results of the study show that the current NJ State Police reversal plan is ineffective and needs to be revised as the bottleneck during evacuation would exist south of NJ Route 83, the initiation point of the current reversal plan. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND Disaster response, to both manmade and natural catastrophes, in the areas of high population density, is centered on evacuating people quickly and efficiently. Being the most densely populated state in the country, New Jersey faces considerable challenges in effectively coordinating and responding to emergencies. In this project, a microscopic traffic simulation based model was developed to evaluate the effectiveness of the existing State Police “Routes 47/347 Reverse Lane Plan” for Cape May County. This contraflow strategy, also known as lane reversal, was modeled to maximize roadway capacity for the existing network on Routes 47/347. This study determined the evacuation time estimates for various scenarios considering different levels of traffic operations, seasonal area population, hurricane intensity, and behavior response. The behavioral response curves, also called the S-curve models, were applied in this study to approximate behavior responses and to temporally load demand onto the network.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Gloucester County Traffic Study
    CENTRAL GLOUCESTER COUNTY TRAFFIC STUDY I!J! DELAWARE VALLEY ~ REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION CENTRAL GLOUCESTER COUNTY TRAFFIC STUDY 1993 (REVISED) DELAWARE VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION - THIS REPORT IS PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER- This report, prepared by the Transportation Planning Division of the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, was financed by the Federal Highway Administration of the U. S. Department of Transportation and the New Jersey Department of Transportation. The authors, however, are solely responsible for its findings and conclusions, which may not represent the official views or policies of the funding agency. Created in 1965, the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) is an interstate, intercounty and intercity agency which provides continuing, comprehensive and coordinated planning for the orderly growth and development of the Delaware Valley region. The region includes Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery counties as well as the City of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania and Burlington, Camden, Gloucester, and Mercer counties in New Jersey. The Commission is an advisory agency which divides its planning and service functions among the Office of the Executive Director, the Office of Public Affairs, and three line Divisions: Transportation Planning, Regional Information Services Center which includes the Office ofRegional Planning, and Finance and Administration. D VRPC 's mission for the 1990s is to emphasize technical assistance and services and to conduct high priority studies for member state and local governments, while determining and meeting the needs of the private sector. The DVRPC logo is adaptedfrom the official seal of the Commission and is designed as a stylized image of the Delaware Valley. The outer ring symbolizes the region as a whole while the diagonal bar signifies the Delaware River flowing through it.
    [Show full text]
  • New Jersey Legislative Last Date of Action
    NEW JERSEY LEGISLATIVE LAST DATE OF ACTION for February 27, 2014 Office of Legislative Services -- Office of Public Information Legislative Information and Bill Room ? State House Annex, Room B-01, P.O. Box 068, Trenton, NJ 08625-0068 (609) 847-3905 / Toll-free in NJ (800) 792-8630 ? Hearing Impaired: Dial 711 for NJ Relay Web Site: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us 216th Legislature -- First Annual Session Bill Number Sponsors Current Status A126 Aca (1R) McHose, Alison Littell /Space, Parker /Tucker, Cleopatra G. +14 2RS Provides for voluntary contributions by taxpayers on gross income tax returns for development of Northern New Jersey Veterans Memorial Cemetery. History: 01/16/2014 INT 1RA REF AMV 02/10/2014 REP/ACA 2RA 02/27/2014 PA (73-0-0) 02/27/2014 R/S SWR 2RS Identical Bill Number: S361 A214 Aca (1R) Gusciora, Reed /Spencer, L. Grace /Chivukula, Upendra J. +2 SLP Clarifies authority of municipal court to suspend driver's licenses; establishes that the terms revoke and suspend are to have the same meaning under Title 39 of the Revised Statutes.* History: 01/16/2014 INT 1RA REF ALP 02/06/2014 REP/ACA 2RA 02/27/2014 PA (74-0-0) 02/27/2014 R/S REF SLP Identical Bill Number: S1774 A347 Aca (1R) Caputo, Ralph R. /Prieto, Vincent /Tucker, Cleopatra G. +9 SCU Authorizes municipalities to impose penalties on creditors that fail to timely remedy code violations of certain properties in foreclosure.* History: 01/16/2014 INT 1RA REF AHO 02/06/2014 REP/ACA 2RA 02/27/2014 PA (72-2-0) 02/27/2014 R/S REF SCU A456 Aca (1R) Green, Jerry /Burzichelli, John J.
    [Show full text]
  • Disaster Recovery Reform Act Section 1209 (Contraflow Provision): State
    Disaster Recovery Reform Act Section 1209 (Contraflow Provision) State of the Practice in Selected Locations Federal Highway Administration Office of Operations June 2021 FOREWORD The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Operations (HOP) has satisfied the evaluation of contraflow operations requirement mandated by Section 1209(b)(2)(B) of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act (Pub. Law 115-254) through a process that resulted in the documentation of the state of practice of contraflow applications. The FHWA conducted a review of available contraflow plans, then interviewed State transportation officials and State public safety, emergency management, and homeland security officials who were determined to be current or former practitioners of contraflow operations. The FHWA also worked closely with staff from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to ensure that pertinent agencies sufficiently coordinated, per legislative mandate. This guidance document summarizes the literature and plan review and stakeholder interview findings and, per the applicable requirement, will serve as a State, local, tribal, and territorial governments state of practice summary. Martin C. Knopp Associate Administrator for Operations Notice The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies. While this is non-binding guidance, compliance with the applicable statutes and regulations cited is required. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document.
    [Show full text]
  • DEP Bulletin, 02/11/98
    TABLE OF CONTENTS FEBRUARY 11, 1998 Volume 22 Issue 3 Application Codes and Permit Descriptions Page 2 General Application Milestone Codes Specific Decision Application Codes Permit Descriptions General Information Page 3 DEP Public Notices, Hearings and Events of Interest Section A Administrative Hearings and Appeals Section B Environmental Impact Statement and Assessments (EIS and EA) Section C Permit Applications Filed or Acted Upon Division of Land Use Regulation Section DI CAFRA Permit Application DI-9 Freshwater Wetlands General Permit DI-11 Freshwater Wetlands Individual Permit DI-18 Freshwater Wetlands Letter of Interpretation DI-18 Freshwater Wetlands Transition Waiver DI-24 Stream Encroachment DI-26 Waterfront Development DI-30 Waterfront Development General Permit DI-31 Division of Water Quality Section DII Treatment Works Approval (TWA) DII-33 Division of Solid & Hazardous Waste Section DIII Transfer Stations/Material Recovery Facilities DIII-35 Incinerator DIII-35 Class B Recycling Centers DIII-36 Vegetative Waste Composting DIII-36 Sanitary Landfills DIII-37 Hazardous Waste Facilities DIII-39 DEP Permit Liaisons and Other Governmental Contacts Inside Back Cover Christine Todd Whitman, Governor,New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection ,Robert C. Shinn, Jr., Commissioner 2 General Application Milestone Codes Application Approved F = Complete for Filing M = Permit Modification Application Denied H = Public Hearing Date P = Permit Decision Date Application Withdrawal I = Additional Information Requested R = Complete for Review C = Cancelled L = Legal Appeal of Permit Decision T = Additional Information Received Specific Decision Application Codes AVE PLAN = Averaging Plan PA/SOW = Presence/Absence/State Open Waters Only FP/A = Footprint/Absence of Wet., Waters & Transition Area PA/T = Presence/Absence/Transition Area Only F/F = Farming/Forestry/Silviculture Exemption R = Reductions FP/P = Footprint/Wetlands Present REG = HMDC/Pinelands Exemption FP/SOW = Footprint/State Open Waters Present Only SPEC ACTIVITY = Special Activity (Linear Dev.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation
    Chapter 4: Transportation 4-1 INTRODUCTION This chapter evaluates the potential benefits and impacts of the Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project on transportation. The analysis addresses regional transportation issues, local highway traffic operations, and accident history. This chapter also describes the new mobility options for pedestrians and cyclists as well as the project’s potential impacts on transit service and marine transport. Interstate 87/287, including the Tappan Zee Bridge, is prone to frequent and heavy congestion. The Replacement Bridge Alternative would not generate additional traffic volumes across the Tappan Zee crossing as compared to the No Build Alternative (see Appendix B). The capacity of the bridge is controlled by several factors, including a reduction in the number of travel lanes west of Interchange 11, and weaving maneuvers at interchanges in Rockland and Westchester Counties. While it would not address the capacity constraints along the Interstate 87/287 corridor, the Replacement Bridge Alternative would implement six important improvements at the Tappan Zee Hudson River crossing: The eight-lane configuration of the Replacement Bridge Alternative would be sufficient to meet the projected increase in traffic volumes on the bridge without the need for a reversible lane; The Replacement Bridge Alternative would include 12-foot lanes and left and right shoulders, which would improve safety conditions and reduce the delays associated with traffic incidents and accidents; The Replacement Bridge Alternative
    [Show full text]
  • DEP Bulletin C.(
    7c' ,74.1()' 1~'d. DEP Bulletin C.( TABLE OF CONTENTS Au ust 14, 1996 Volume 20 Issue 15 Application Codes and Pennit Descriptions Inside Front Cover General Application Specific Decision Application Codes Pennit Descriptions General Information Front Page Public Hearings Contested Case Hearings DEP Events of Public Interest Appeals on Applications DEP Subscription Inforrilation DEP Public Hearings and Events of Interest Section A Administrative Hearings and Appeals Section B Environmental Impact Statement and Assessments (EIS and EA) Section C Pennit Applications Filed or Acted Upon Division of Land Use Regulation SectionDI CAFRA Permit Application DI-8 Freshwater Wetlands General Pennit DI-ll Freshwater Wetlands Individual Pennit DI-14 Freshwater Wetlands Letter of Interpretation DI-14 Freshwater Wetlands Transition Waiver DI-19 Stream Encroachment DI-21 Water,front Development DI-24 Waterfront Development General Pennit DI-25 Division of Water Ouality SectionDII Treatment Works Approval (TWA) DII-27 Division of Solid & Hazardous Waste Section DIll Transfer StationslMaterial Recovery Facilities DIII-30 Incinerator DIII-31 Class B Recycling Centers DIII-31 Vegetative Waste Composting DIII-31 Sanitary Landfills DIII-32 Hazardous Waste Facilities DIII-33 DEP Pennit Liaisons and Other Governmental Contacts Inside Back Cover 'I Christine Todd Whitman, Governor'New Jersey Department of Envirorimenal Protection 'Robert C. Shinn, Commissioner I You Are Viewing an Archived Copy from the New Jersey State Library I, I ! I I r';" :1 : I General Application Milestone Codes . 'Ii I I :1 - Application Approved F = Complete for Filing M = Permit Modification Application Denied H = Public Hearing Date P = Permit Decision Date Application Withdrawal I = Additional Information Requested R = Complete for Review i :.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Hearing
    Public Hearing before ASSEMBLY CONSUMER AFFAIRS COMMITTEE “Testimony concerning retail gasoline pricing in Cape May County” LOCATION: Cape May County DATE: July 9, 2002 Administration Building 11:00 a.m. Cape May Court House, New Jersey MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE PRESENT: Assemblywoman Nilsa Cruz-Perez, Chairwoman Assemblyman Jeff Van Drew Assemblyman Peter C. Eagler Assemblyman Paul R. D’Amato ALSO PRESENT: David L. Sallach David Eber Eileen M. Mannion Office of Legislative Services Assembly Majority Assembly Republican Committee Aide Committee Aide Committee Aide Hearing Recorded and Transcribed by The Office of Legislative Services, Public Information Office, Hearing Unit, State House Annex, PO 068, Trenton, New Jersey TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Charles M. Leusner Deputy Mayor Middle Township 4 Malcom C. Fraser Mayor Cape May Point 7 Jerome E. Inderwies Mayor Cape May 8 Rudolph M. Callender Media Spokesperson Cape May County American Association of Retired Persons 11 Louis Emonds Private Citizen 14 Eric DeGesero Executive Vice-President New Jersey Fuel Merchants Association 21 Joyce Gould President Chamber of Commerce Cape May County 44 Frank Dominguez, Esq. Representing Division of Consumer Affairs New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety 46 James Benton Executive Director New Jersey Petroleum Council 47 John Maxwell TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page Representing New Jersey Petroleum Council 61 Michael Brogan Director Office of Consumer Affairs Cape May County 61 Albert Cremin Service Station Operator North Cape May 65 Roland Bonner Service Station Operator Marmora 70 Derrick Tomlinson Service Station Operator 72 Gary Rash Service Station Operator Ocean City 76 APPENDIX: Statement submitted by Jerome E. Inderwies 1x Testimony submitted by Eric DeGesero 2x Testimony submitted by James Benton 16x lmb: 1-87 ASSEMBLYMAN JEFF VAN DREW: I’d like to call this Consumer Affairs Committee meeting to order.
    [Show full text]
  • NJDEP Bulletin, 01/14/98 Issue
    TABLE OF CONTENTS January 14, 1997 Volume 22 Issue 1 Application Codes and Permit Descriptions Page 2 General Application Milestone Codes Specific Decision Application Codes Permit Descriptions General Information Page 3 DEP Public Notices, Hearings and Events of Interest Section A Administrative Hearings and Appeals Section B Environmental Impact Statement and Assessments (EIS and EA) Section C Permit Applications Filed or Acted Upon Division of Land Use Regulation Section DI CAFRA Permit Application DI-10 Freshwater Wetlands General Permit DI-13 Freshwater Wetlands Individual Permit DI-19 Freshwater Wetlands Letter of Interpretation DI-19 Freshwater Wetlands Transition Waiver DI-25 Stream Encroachment DI-28 Waterfront Development DI-31 Waterfront Development General Permit DI-34 Division of Water Quality Section DII Treatment Works Approval (TWA) DII-37 Division of Solid & Hazardous Waste Section DIII Transfer Stations/Material Recovery Facilities DIII-39 Incinerator DIII-39 Class B Recycling Centers DIII-40 Vegetative Waste Composting DIII-40 Sanitary Landfills DIII-41 Hazardous Waste Facilities DIII-43 DEP Permit Liaisons and Other Governmental Contacts Inside Back Cover Christine Todd Whitman, Governor,New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection ,Robert C. Shinn, Jr., Commissioner 2 General Application Milestone Codes Application Approved F = Complete for Filing M = Permit Modification Application Denied H = Public Hearing Date P = Permit Decision Date Application Withdrawal I = Additional Information Requested R = Complete for Review C = Cancelled L = Legal Appeal of Permit Decision T = Additional Information Received Specific Decision Application Codes AVE PLAN = Averaging Plan PA/SOW = Presence/Absence/State Open Waters Only FP/A = Footprint/Absence of Wet., Waters & Transition Area PA/T = Presence/Absence/Transition Area Only F/F = Farming/Forestry/Silviculture Exemption R = Reductions FP/P = Footprint/Wetlands Present REG = HMDC/Pinelands Exemption FP/SOW = Footprint/State Open Waters Present Only SPEC ACTIVITY = Special Activity (Linear Dev.
    [Show full text]
  • Cumberland County Delaware Bayshore Recovery Plan - December 2013 Letters of Support
    Cumberland County Delaware Bayshore Recovery Plan - December 2013 Letters of Support 2 Cumberland County Delaware Bayshore Recovery Plan Letters of Support Cumberland County Delaware Bayshore Recovery Plan 3 4 Cumberland County Delaware Bayshore Recovery Plan Letters of Support Greenwich Township PO Box 64 Greenwich, NJ 08323 Mayor William Reinhart Lisa Garrison, Clerk November 20, 2013 Dear New Jersey Delaware Bayshore Long Term Recovery Committee, On behalf of Greenwich Township, I want to thank you for your hard work in and dedication to guiding the efforts of the Cumberland County bayshore’s diverse group of volunteers - from four different townships and numerous agencies - in the effort to develop a regional recovery plan in the aftermath of hurricane Sandy. You never allowed us to drift off course, and we know that presented quite a challenge at times. Please accept this letter as our commitment that Greenwich Township will remain dedicated to this effort. We are very enthusiastic about the opportunities ahead. As we move into the funding and implementation phases of the plan which we have developed together, Greenwich intends to remain engaged. We place a very high value on the enlarged sense of community which this cooperative effort has fostered. We’ll continue to work with our neighboring municipalities to preserve and strengthen
    [Show full text]