Do you want me to call it to order or do you want to >> Yeah. You want me to start? >> Do you want to call it to order since he's not here? Yeah. Feel comfortable? Okay. >> Okay. Just just >> Yeah. I'm sorry. >> Good. Good afternoon. Uh this is the
special uh meeting of uh city of Cape May Council on Monday, November 17th. It is now 3:35 p.m. Uh st stand for the pledge of >> allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for its one
nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Under the open public meetings law, notice of this meeting was sent to the Kate May County Herald and the press of Atlantic City and a copy of the agenda was delivered to each member of city council, posted on the city website and the city hall bulletin board. Notice is
hereby provided that city council meetings are audio recorded and or video streamed live. Live video streams are posted to the Kate May city website. City of Kate May is not responsible if audio recording or live video of a streaming of a live video streaming of a meeting is unavailable. Roll call. Council member Baldwin
>> here. >> Council member Bodner >> here. >> Deputy Mayor McDade >> here. >> Council member Meyer >> here. >> Mayor Mullik will be arriving shortly. City solicitor Gillan Schwarz >> here. >> City Manager Dietrich >> here. >> Deputy Manager Riggs >> here. >> We have one resolution for the special
meeting agenda. It's 320-11 2022. A resolution providing for a meeting not open to the public in accordance with the provisions of the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act, NJSA 104-12. This is a discussion and presentations on risk management consultant RFP number 25-14 and discussions on health care
benefits. If we have a motion to adopt the resolution. Is there anyone from the public wishing to speak at this time? Seeing no one, we'll close public comment. >> Okay. Do we have a motion to adopt the resolution? >> I'll make a motion.
>> Okay. As Deputy Mayor seconds. Council member Meyer. >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor McDeed. >> Yes. Council member Bodner. >> Yes. >> Council member Baldwin. >> Yes. >> All right. No public. So, time into close session is uh 3:35.
All right. Good evening everyone. We are coming out of a closed session um in which we have to close. Uh before we do that, we are uh adding something to the agenda. Is that correct? Uh Mr. solicitor. >> I think the clerk has that. >> We do. There will be a resolution added
to the agenda relating to um healthc care benefits that we will discuss further in the regular meeting. Council >> Okay, that's great. Do I have a motion to close, please? >> I'll make the motion. >> Second. >> I'll second. >> All in favor?
>> I >> I All right. With that, we will open up our regular meeting of the city council of the city of Kate May. We are here in the Kate May city hall auditorium. Today is Monday, November 17th, 2025. The time
is now time is it sorry4 >> 5:44. Please join me for the pledge of allegiance. >> I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under
God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you. >> I think it was. >> Under the open public meetings law, notice of this meeting was sent to the Kate May County Herald and the press of Atlantic City, and a copy of the agenda was delivered to each member of city
council, posted on the city website and city hall bulletin board. Notice hereby provided that Kate May city council meetings are audio recorded and or video streamed live. Live video streams are posted to the Kate City website. The city of Kate May is not responsible if audio recording or live video streaming of a meeting is unavailable.
Roll call. Council member Baldwin >> here. >> Council member Bodner >> here. >> Deputy Mayor McDade >> here. >> Council member Meyer >> here. >> Mayor Mullik >> here. >> City solicitor Gillan Schwitz >> here. >> City Manager Dietrich >> here. >> Deputy Manager Riggs >> here.
>> And council, we do have one addition to the agenda. It's resolution 327-11 2022. A resolution authorizing group enrollment for all active employees and eligible pre65 city retirees into the health 15 group health insurance plan and prescription drug coverage plan to
be added to the regular agenda council. >> Do I have a motion? >> Um motion. >> Do I have a second? >> I'll second. >> Roll call. >> Council member Meyer. >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor Mcde. >> Yes. >> Council member Bodner. >> Yes. >> Council member Baldwin. >> Yes. >> Mayor Mullik. >> Yes.
And I believe we are moving past employee of the month tonight. Unfortunately, the employee was not able to make it. Uh Logan Walter from the construction office. >> Yes, she was missed or they canceled her flight back into town. So, she's not back in town. >> She's not here.
>> Stuck in places unknown at this point. >> Well, congra congratulations, Logan. Thank you very much. And maybe we'll catch you next time. >> Well deserved. >> Well deserved. >> Uh updates on old business, city manager. Thank you. Um, turned it off.
Thank you. Uh, first I had was if you're hanging around the firehouse, maybe around late afternoon, 3:30 time, uh, you may see the new ladder truck, uh, strolling through town and and arriving at the firehouse. So, um, they don't have an exact time, but that was around
the time that that I was given that the truck would be showing up at the fire station >> on Friday. >> Friday. Friday 3:30. Um uh the police the police headquarters building we obviously had the
groundbreaking last week. They'll be continue to do a little site clearing next week on Monday and Tuesday and they'll start and they're anticipating starting the driving of the piles. Not driving but augering in the piles uh the first week in December. So the following
week after Thanksgiving. So you'll from there on it'll be a probably a consistent operation out there uh throughout the the wintertime. Um and then the last thing I had I'm going to actually pass over to Deputy Manager Rigs uh that we had some good news from
the League of Municipalities. >> Thank you, Manager Dietrich. Um yeah, so I guess about a week ago um we received um communication from the president of the League of Municipalities. So, um, at the conference on Wednesday, we're going
to be, um, given the award, the 2025 Innovation and Governance Award. As you recall, the city has tried to partner with a bunch of private um, parking lots, starting with the Cape Baptist Church parking lot, and we tried to
engage with more to get park mobile and identify more parking spaces for the public. Um, as we know, can be a challenge here in Kate May. So we're trying to find creative solutions. So with that um they have recognized our efforts with the 2025 innovation and
governance award which is only two in the entire state that will be given that award and that's on Wednesday. Mayor, >> that's great. Good work that Justin you really I mean everyone involved with that with did such a great job but thank
you. That's awesome. >> Okay. Do we have any updates from the city solicitor? >> Um, we have a couple ordinances on tonight and um there's some proposed amendments in the packet uh for council's consideration. One potential
update that was not included in there and I'll be prepared to discuss it when we get to it is um the ebike ordinance, ordinance 582. We had some public comment last meeting about the definition section. So, I have some
potential language for council to consider to make sure that we uh confirm the intent of that. >> Great. Okay. Any updates or old business, city council? Okay. Moving on to mayoral appointments.
Um uh I'm honored to select uh someone for the historic preservation commission. Um and in this case actually uh this person Judy Decker who previously worked for the city has been around Kate May
forever um but is really passionate about uh historic preservation. Um but for her to be um put onto the boards, couple of the different classes within the board had to um change. And I I want
to thank Kevin Hammer and for um his willingness to to change positions to alternate one uh and Judy uh would come in at at class B member. So Judy, thank you very much and welcome back to the
historic preservation board. With that, we can move on to presentations. We have a presentation from Delasio and Associates on lead service line replacement. Mark, if you want to take come on up and take it away
the computer. Did you guys wear black computer? I'm going to throw you a curveball while you're getting where you're getting started. Um, could you give us a quick update on the road projects that we uh currently have going on? Do you do you
do you mind? >> Um, >> and no, I didn't tell you how to ask you that, but >> so you're talking about the current New Jersey Ibank project. >> Much closer for me, please. >> You're talking about the current Ibank project done by Ferazzi. >> Yep. >> So, it's a good thing we have our construction manager here to help with
that answer. But, um, so far so good. What you will see, and we've been talking to uh Mr. Dietrich about this, is that there is some grant money left over in that original allocation that we're going to be coming forward with to city council for consideration to add some more streets to that project. It
will come with a time extension. Um, but we're pleased so far with the um the results and how the contractor's proceeding, and we'll talk about this a little bit tonight. A lot of those streets that were selected were selected due to the fact that there are some lead service line issues that we're
remediating as we go. Um Cody, is there anything more specific that I that I missed? >> Sure. Um yeah, I don't have the blocks off the top of my head, but the contractors completed um the sanitary sewer and the water main replacements on about six blocks or so so far. Um they're continuing on, you know, doing
services and then they're going to move on to the next blocks. Um they've also brought in a separate concrete crew and they're working on I think they have two or three blocks done so far of concrete. They're moving along moving along. Well, >> Mark, that that was how much in I bank funding I
>> that was um well it was you I think your contractual award was about $6 million and you had $7 million of what they call principal forgiveness which was grants. That's why you have that delta of about maybe a million. So we're looking to add to that to keep doing some more improvements. But I mean for for the citizens that came to understand that
that's $6 million worth of work being done through uh grant for loan forgiveness. That's pretty incredible. >> Not too shabby. >> No. >> Yeah. >> And and so thank you first off for your work on that grant and now the continued work as we move along which I know will
be done well before Memorial Day. >> Take it away. >> So so I think we fouled the curveball off, right? Yeah. So, um, so first of all, we'd like to thank the city for the opportunity to work on this very important project and we're excited to share information with you tonight.
So, why are we here talking about lead service line and particularly the city's initiative? So, the US EPA's lead and copper rule, also known as LCR, is part of the Safe Drinking Water Act and is codified in 40 CFR part 141 subp part one, which was
first issued in 1991. The lead and copper rule revisions, also known as the LCRR, was published in January of 21 and introduced a major new development uh for every public water system or requirement that they maintain
all uh service line materials connected to the distribution main. Specifically, the systems must identify each service line as either lead, galvanized, non-LED, or unknown. Mark, >> Mark, can I ask you something?
>> Bring it closer. totally off not totally off topic, but I just I I never read that. Um I never read it as the lead and copper rule because I know we're looking for lead and and galvanized pipe. But what's
the copper issue in that it >> that's how the law was struck. >> Okay. >> How they annotate that in the statutes. >> Okay. >> But copper what we want, right? >> We want to find copper. Yes. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. So subsequent to that um the D
made changes to their title 59 water and water supply statutes annotated in 2021. The passing of that law required that all community water systems replace their lead service lines by July of 2031. Uh systems are required to replace the
entire LSL. That's our abbreviation for lead service line. And additionally, the water systems were required to maintain an LSL inventory, which is a essentially a spreadsheet or list that your water department maintains and submits to the D each year.
So, what is a lead service line? So, some of this is obvious. Um, the picture to your left shows a typical water service connected to your water man running underneath the roadway to a water meter pit, which is usually located behind the curb, mostly between
the curb and the sidewalk or sometimes behind the sidewalk. Uh, lead service line is a source of lead and drinking water in residential homes. A lead service line is a service line made of lead or service lead connected to a lead pigtail, lead gooseeneck, or other lead
fittings. So if you had a copper line that had a lead goose neck or a fitting on it, it's considered to be lead and has to be removed. In addition to that, New Jersey took it a step further and identified galvanized steel service lines the same as lead. So
if it's galvanized, it's considered to be lead. If it's lead, it's lead. If it's a component that's lead, it's lead. This photograph shows you four photos of commonly uh identified materials in the ground. Of course, the first one on the
top left is a copper line. We've all seen copper what that looks like. To the right of that is a galvanized line. That's gray or silver and a magnet would stick to that. Bottom left is plastic. We've all seen that. Most of us who um have seen some plumbing or go to Home
Depot, you'll see PEX systems. So, you know what a what a plastic line would look like. and then lead itself, which I haven't seen many of these in my lifetime, uh, gray or silver, shiny when scratched and the magnet does not stick to it. So, the city's lead service line
replacement program, we've kind of sectionalized that into four different um initiatives. You have the first one is a planning initiative. The second one is the public outreach. The third one is the field investigation and the fourth is the eventual engineering and design
to remove the lead and galvanized services from your system. So under planning, as you may recall last month, the city authorized our firm to facilitate the planning, public outreach, field investigation, and engineering services
for the city's le service line program. As a side note, we'll be working with the D to file what's called technical assistance, which is a grant to the D to basically pay for our services. So hopefully this initiative will all be done at no cost to the city of Cape May, and we're in the process of formalizing
that grant application. So planning. So shortly after we were contracted by the city, we were given the lead service line, which is a inventory maintained by your water department, had 4,124 total water counts on it. 30 of them
were identified as lead and galvanized, and I'll talk about how we're dealing with that. 870 were non-led, which means good services or compliant. And there were 3,224 unknown services. The 30 lead galvanized services that are on a map that you will
see are actually all being replaced as part of the Ibank project that the mayor spoke or asked me for an update on and the next IBank um round of projects. So hopefully when it's all said and done, the known lead will be totally removed and that's all being done with grant money.
So after we received that list, um we we've been fortunate enough to work for you guys for the last five to six years on your road programs. And as part of that process, our field inspectors kept very detailed notes when they were replacing water services that identified behind the meter what was being
connected to and uh basically scrubbing that uh that those inspection reports and also looking for redundancy in the city's uh waterline inventory for non-potable. We were able to remove a thousand accounts off of the unknown
services list. This map is a GIS map that shows the current state of where we are after we scrubbed your list. We're calling this the day one ground zero list. That is going to change when we get into the next couple initiatives.
The red is uh galvanized or lead lines. Green is good and yellow is unknown. So really our mandate here is to determine what all those yellows are, put them in the proper basket and then attack them accordingly. At this point, I'm going to turn this
over to uh Andy from our firm who is our lead service line public outreach expert. I don't know about that, Mark, but I appreciate the introduction. Uh my name is Andrew MG working for Mark. Um we're going to be handling uh a lot of the
public outreach as a part of this. Um big part of that is going to be sending mailers to all residents that have a service line that is either unknown status or lead status. Um that mailer I I included a little snippet of it, but
it's also can be found on the city's website right now. Um that will have all the information on basically presented tonight on what is a lead service line. Um if they have any questions, it directs them to contact us. also uh if
they want to self-report their self uh service line material. I'll get into that later, but um also we're going to be leaving door hangers when we go to the actual residence to replace the service line material. So, this is a QR code um on the mailers
that I just mentioned. You can scan that and it will take you to a self-reporting uh document through uh survey 123 which is a GIS product. So, as people get the mailer um or if we direct them to the city's website where this link has been
posted, um they'll be able to directly just uh follow the instructions and upload a picture of their service line material, answer a few uh small questions, and then um that record will go to us and then we can use that to
update the city's uh lead service line inventory. So, so just to add to what Andy's saying, the the purpose of self-reporting is would would be if you knew, for example, that you did have your line replaced by a plumber, and you knew that it was not uh lead, not
galvanized, that it was copper or plastic, and you knew that for a fact, you could take a photograph of the uh pipe coming into your crawl space or basement. If you had any type of documentation that helps us help the city uh identify the line, then the DP
accepts that. So if somebody says, you know, I replace that line, we take that documentation. We upload that into the GIS system. We go to the list and we actually change that from unknown to non-LED, which means it's in a good status. So, as much information as we
can get from self-reporting and people giving us feedback, the DP accepts that type of documentation to update your list. >> So, for many areas that have crawl spaces, um, they could just get that picture and upload it. >> They could do that or we'll get into how
we can do that, too. Yeah. >> Get my plumber to do it. >> Yeah. Um, so that takes us into the field investigation portion of our uh, lead service line replacement plan. Um, we will have field staff going door
todoor in the city of Kate May with the goal of inspecting uh, residences water service line material. Um, they're going to be wearing name tags. They'll be with city water department personnel wearing high visibility vests. Um, we don't want people to kind of be unaware of what's
going on. So that's why this public outreach is so important. So when people come knocking on their door and saying, "Hey, can I crawl around your crawl space?" They're not completely caught off guard and they're properly identified. >> Will you have a schedule of where these field reps will be um by week, by day,
for example, in the east end of town or west? I there's certain areas where some of us could notify a broad um cadre of >> So so we're going to try to do that because part of the notification process may be that person X doesn't live here full-time and I'm going to be here on
this certain time. So we're going to have to react to that to try to accommodate. >> Okay, understood. Uh in Village Green, I can notify about 200 households if I know when you're coming there, many of which are not full-time residents. So we can at least alert people that you'll be coming and mo many of those homes have
crawl spaces so they don't have to be present. >> We have your number to call you. Yep. Definitely reaching out to you. >> Yeah. So typically a water service will enter in a crawl space but in the small chance that there's a basement in Kate May could be in there or like a utility
closet for a motel or a business. Um so our inspection will be quick. It's just finding where the service line enters into the building uh and taking a photograph of that. They may, our field staff may also put a magnet on it if it is galvanized just to further evidence
um that it is indeed galvanized. Um it should about take 15 minutes. Your water will not be shut off and uh it is completely free. So the city uh residents will not have to pay for this service. Um, and as we mentioned before, if you would like uh to keep city
personnel out of your crawl space, you can report the service line material at that QR code or on the city's website. So once we have identified all of those yellow dots that were on that GIS map and we know what the service line
materials are, we know where the lead and galvanized are, the goal is to replace all of those lead and galvanized services. So that's when we will begin drafting construction documents for the replacement of all the lead and galvanized uh services in phases and um
that will be paid for with a grant by the New Jersey Infrastructure Bank. So just like this road program is paying for the the water and sewer utility updates, they have a a specific lead service line replacement uh pot of money that the city can utilize.
So just to be clear, the this grant will cover replacing those service lines, >> correct? >> And is that all the way into the house? >> So right. So ju just to clarify, the technical assistance portion of the grant will pay for our services to do the investigation and prepare bid
documents. The next step would be applying for construction funds. But yes, um that would include going from the meter pit into I believe we have to go to the first shut off. the house in the crawl space. >> Yes. >> I mean, so people understand that
clearly that could be a $5,000 job for some people. >> Oh, more >> or or more. I mean, so, uh, please cooperate with these folks because if you do have lead or frankly more likely galvanized, we know there are a good
amount of older houses in Kate May that may have galvanized. you could be looking at a free replacement, which as I was just corrected is probably significantly more than a $5,000 cost if you were to do it yourself. And we know that there's going to be challenges with that because that service line could run
over run underneath your favorite brick pavers through your favorite bushes and lawn. So, it's it's um yeah, there's coordination that needs to be done there. >> Is is there a a pot of money or do do you
>> Yeah. Yeah. So then >> go until it runs out. It's >> so so the New Jersey Infrastructure Bank does have money and it's still it revolves every year. So as quickly as we can navigate this and get in line, we can hit what's called fiscal year 26 funds
>> and try to get out of contract, call it phase one or however however much you want to be able to digest based on how much money they're giving you and just get right back in line uh after June, end of June of next year. But at least at that point, we'll have all the data. We know what we have to hit.
>> Okay. >> Anything else on here, Andy? >> Okay. So, some good news as a side note to all this. We've been um we've been through some trials and tribulations in a couple local communities where,
you know, you do do your investigation and you see, say, in a crawl space a certain material, but that doesn't speak to, well, maybe somewhere outside the building um a plumber made a repair. and you're thinking that the entire line is one material, but there's spot repairs of other materials involved and nothing's
really uh full failroof until you if unless you dug up the entire line. So, one of the technologies that we've been looking at uh which is considered another so just to bore you for a second um the the way the D allows you to update your LE service line is they have
self-reporting. They allow for predictive modeling. They allow for things like we had records of inspection records, field investigation. They have this column called other which is for emerging technologies. So, we're working with a company that actually does what's
called uh electrical resistance technology where they can go into the service line from the meter and run basically the line up through uh the service all the way into the house and based on small voltaic pulses. It corroborates or translates back to a
material. So if there is a change in material, say 10 ft behind the meter pit and it goes from plastic to say galvanized, it would pick up on that and then we know guess what, we're going to spend the money in time to dig that up and replace it as opposed to you're
guessing and you're spending dollars digging up services potentially with no reward and you've paid for that. So it's a way to streamline and make things more efficient. Um, we are partnering with the NJD on this and this company, uh,
which would put Cape May City on the map, uh, as well as everybody involved in the, um, in the program. We were on the phone with the D. We're in a preliminary conversation. We need to wrap that up with details how that would proceed, which I think it would
basically be for 40 uh, ser services inside the city as a research and development project. they those lines would be lack of a better term scoped. The persons who would um allow themselves to be part of that. I'm sure we all know a lot of people here in town who might volunteer to to do that. We
would test your water or actually the DP would bring in a third party testing company. Uh test your water before the scoping, have the scoping completed, have your water tested afterwards to make sure that if anything was dislodged that it was okay. and um they're going
to basically take that data and and see if that's a technology that everybody in the state could benefit from. I think that's a pretty neat thing uh for us and for the city and uh hopefully we'll be helping our sister communities in the future to make an ownorous um very
costly initiative a little less expensive. So our timeline um I guess tonight starts public notification, right? We're we're we're throwing it out there. Uh Andy, correct me if I'm wrong. On the city's website on the water department,
I believe a PDF of this presentation, the notice and the self-reporting forms and all that other information is currently there. >> Correct. Correct. Under the city's uh water and sewer department, there's like a subtab that was already there as a requirement by the NJ for lead service
line information. So, we've worked with uh Rob and updated that accordingly. So, we'll also be working, I guess, with Paul. We'll talk about how we can get notices out in the mail if we're going to have that ride on with another official city mailing or if we do that separately. But our timeline is uh we'd
like to start field investigations now. We'd like to take that through at least into the spring and and get you a good batch of uh of data so that we could get in line for that first round of I bank money for construction. And basically, we see this as a, you know, a two-year
initiative trying to wrap this all up by the spring of 28. So, we're hopeful that all a lot of the yellow turns to green and um you're in pretty good shape. I will say that I think strategically you've done a very good job attacking
the roadways that had lead on them. So, as we're doing the roads, as we're taking grant money from the eye bank to make road improvements, you were actually knocking out leading galvanized lines. So that was good strategic move by the city. Uh that's the conclusion of our
presentation. We we're going to have we have resources that are on our PDF which is hung on the city's website. We have a dedicated email um that comes to our firm if anybody has any questions or wants to do self-reporting. It'll come
right to our LSR lslrd delasio.com email. And uh we're off to the races. Mark, I I just have a couple of questions. You just mentioned um that if your street had work on it that it may not have you may not have lead. I'm just
trying to clarify that statement. >> Um so the on the city side Yeah. >> of >> it's been taken out. >> It's been taken out on those road projects and also our inspector was able to identify on what we call the property side what they connected to. >> Okay. All right. So if if that it was
observed that that was galvanized or lead, that's on the list. There's no list that if it was known to be copper or plastic, >> yeah, >> that would be enough in terms of the eyes of the D that you did a field investigation and you could take that property off based on that.
>> What we intend to do, we had discussed this with Paul, is we're really trying to move you guys towards a really good GIS system. And we believe that like most things the the DP will have a higher burden a level of burden of reporting
>> and recordkeeping. So as we go through each one of those yellow dots, if we get a self-reporting form, if we get our inspector found another inspection report or they we did a field investigation, we're going to tag that data to that point so that the city
could always refer back to that dot was yellow but it turned green and here's why. And if the DP ever asked for that, why did your lead service line change from 2,000 to a,000? Were you getting hokey with us? No, we're going to have all that documentation to show you how we did that. >> And the initial assessment is
non-intrusive either through the crawl space or through this other means that you're developing. >> Correct. >> But the actual work, will it involve digging up someone's front law? And you mentioned I just want to I'm just for the public. So when we get to that point, let's say someone has identified
as uh galvanized or le service line, there has to be a process. Uh we would probably confer with the solicitor, we'd have to get access. There's agreements that we need to sign. Okay. So everybody's on the same page so that if your favorite bush is going to be taken out, everybody knows. So yeah, no one's
just going to show up and start digging on your property. We're very >> But it does involve digging is my point. >> Oh, yeah. >> Okay. All right. So it's not it's intrusive. So, we want a lot of yellow to go green. We hope. >> Okay. >> But, but it's not necessarily they don't necessarily have to dig a single trench
from the water meter to the house. >> They depending on what's on your in your yard, they may be able to dig a hole at the meter, dig a hole out where it's going to go into your house and then mle it >> underground. But it really depends on and that's a
lot dependent on what other utilities are in the area next to it. And that that'll be part of the field investigation and figuring out what else is around there that that would be potentially in the way for them to put that water line in. >> Understood. >> They and they will have to get into a crawl space or a basement to get to the
first valve, I guess, or first fitting. >> Um spirit of conversations with the D about what happens behind that valve. If the rules say whatever's behind the valve is behind the valve, but we have to take it to the first valve or fitting inside the
crawl space. And and you say that in behind the valve as in like what's in the house. >> Correct. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Sure. Yeah. >> Mark, what year would a house be built that's generally doesn't have lead or or uh >> I think um those materials were stopped
being used in early 80s. >> 86. >> Yeah. >> 86 is usually the the date that they used because there was always some carryover of people that might have used it. I mean in this area probably it could be earlier than that but the
regulations are written such that I think 86 is is the known date that if your if your house was built in 1990 >> that's certified as >> so the the only issue you get into is let's say it's after that date and a plumber had to make a spot repair and
they ran the swains and they grabbed a piece of galvanized and they hunkered it on there, >> right? You're going to probably have situations like that. >> Okay, >> a quick question for you. If you're doing the field verification with these streets that you were talking about um
and you verified that there was um not lead or galv uh or galvanized um would you still scope that if it was something that was questionable or is that >> well it's so >> is that in the clear? So if if it's clearly identified as part of the field
investigation, which is one of the DP accepted methods, and we have a clear documentation of that, >> that's good enough in their eyes to have that removed from your list as an unknown to a as a non-LED >> because you're talking about from the street to the house. If so, if there
were repairs that were made, you're not going to know that. you you wouldn't know that until an emerging technology like we're speaking of would actually be able to go in there and identify that. So, yes, we're actually in the midst of a very large lead service line replacement where we're seeing things
kind of all over the place and uh >> Okay, >> that's why Cody's hair is starting to gray a little bit. Okay, >> I would just uh again say to the public um this is such a um important study and
to please um you know work with these folks because not only are they showing you um the health of the water that you have coming into your house, we're potentially providing a solution um to fix any of those deficiencies in the future. So, it's definitely um a good
thing for the citizens of Cape May >> and we'll definitely be looking for those 40 volunteers once we can get the particulars put together uh on that technology and try to get that data up to the state and hopefully they can put another tool in the toolkit to help everybody. >> That's great.
>> Just one more quick thing there. Um, I think it was our city engineer in conjunction with Delasio saved the city going through the D and them picking up this. We passed a resolution. It I forget how much it was like 800 and some thousand dollars.
>> Correct. >> Saved the city even that much more money. So, thank you all. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Gotcha. >> Great job, guys. Thank you very much. >> And actually, if I could just add one thing. So, the flyer that uh Mark talked about will most likely be going out in
the next quarter's water bills. So, that's what we're anticipating doing is putting that as an insert in your next water bill that that is sent out. >> But, if anybody hears this uh hearing tonight or by word of mouth with all the contacts and people of influence that we
have, if they would like to get a jump start on having their house field investigated, >> they could certainly reach out to us and we can do that prior to the mailer going out. We would really like to get a jump on this. >> That's great. >> So, like Moren, we'll probably get that PDF over to you and you can shoot that out to the Village Green Association and
and get that word out to those folks earlier. >> Yeah. Anything we can we can do before that mailer goes out would be great. >> If we have it on the city website as well, if we could go through our social media as well to just inform the public so they can look at it and um get moving
on it there, too. So after this meeting tonight, I already have people on the list I'm going to be phone calling personally to say, "Hey, we're coming in your house." That I know. >> Perfect. So, all right. Well, thank you very much. Appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, Mark. >> Okay. >> With that, we have a recycling update
from our superintendent of public works, Eric Bzinski. Eric, if you want to come join us. and he's promised to keep it about the same length that Mark's presentation was, I think. >> Hello everyone.
Good evening. >> So, just giving a quick update. First and foremost, I want to thank council, mayor, manager, solicitor, and most importantly, Frank and code enforcement with dealing with the recycle update.
Um, so, as you know, we put an an effect in in May for a new ordinance putting a city limit for recycling. Um, we only had a couple issues, which I was shocked. um couple businesses around
town putting too much out. Come to find out, it's multiple businesses putting them together. So once we separated it all out, it kind of worked itself out. Uh we had three businesses total throughout the whole town that kept being over limit over limit. So we
worked with them. There was no fines issued out to anybody. Um we are still picking everybody up. So was kind of whatever over the city limit we were they are outsourcing the rest of the recycling. Uh with that being said we
collected roughly 80 ton less of single stream recycling this year than we did last year >> and that was through a the end of August. >> That was through the end of August. Um, and additional to that, we had the two
two trucks only went out for a um, I guess relief three times this summer versus 12 times last year. So, I mean, other than that, that's all I have to report. I can I can I ask you a question? >> Yeah.
>> So, you obviously you think it was a success. Um but um did you see any issues with it moving forward that you feel need to be corrected? >> I don't think so. >> Okay. >> What kind of feedback did you have from your staff that are actually picking it up?
>> Um great. I mean we're let picking up less 80 ton. I mean think about it. 80 ton is a lot. >> And I guess also was the was there good feedback with regard to how the materials were put out on the street side? Yes. with regard to the cardboard and all of that.
>> Yes. Everything was bundled up nice, tied. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Um like I said, there's not really much blowing around. >> Well, that's probably good, too. >> Yeah. So, >> yeah. >> And you said in your in your report that there were no u violations or or or fine.
>> None. >> Well, so let me although just going to add to that. So, we had a lot of notices sent out. So, you know, Eric and the his team tracked on a weekly basis if there were issues and if somebody was overweight, they would get a notice and
and they kind of went through a three-step notice part. And then if they were if after a third notice, that's when they would have gotten a ticket. Um, nobody everybody came into compliance within that three notice step. Um, and what I think is really
good, when we had so much of this of a change, I only got about three calls from business owners to really come out and meet with them. So, I would go out with Eric and the and a business owner and meet with them and kind of go over why we're doing this. And and I I felt
pretty positive with the interactions that a lot of the businesses understood what we were trying to accomplish and, you know, were were very accommodating and working with uh public works department and coming into compliance. So I I thought I feel that the program
was a a very good success uh considering that kind of uh outreach and input we had from our businesses. >> Had a chance um over the course of the summer to deal exactly with that situation where there was um outreach from someone who was concerned about
whether they were going to get um whether whether they were in violation of the ordinance um or not. And I can tell you first off going through that process dealing with Eric and the staff I mean I thought I was impressed by the
fact of the detailed records that you kept um which you showed me reflecting this you know this particular organization and others. So I mean you went into this with not just an idea but with a plan and you followed through on that. Um the other aspect of it was just
as just as the city manager said, I know in this issue, there was discussion all the way through. You were in contact, you spoke with um you know with those individuals and the bottom line is it it all worked out. So I believe that um
they came into compliance, but also they were satisfied as well with the communication that came from the city as well as working with the public works. So, I really appreciate um you know, putting that into action, knowing what we wanted to get have done, um what the city wanted to have done, knowing that
there could be look, when you're changing, asking people to change behavior, change how they do work. Um sometimes there can be a response to that and you're going to be the first one to to see it and to feel it and to hear it and just how your staff responded in kind. So, uh, thought that
was very, uh, >> I commend you and, uh, Frank because this was a huge undertaking and you guys were out on the front line. So, I commend you because, you know, we know that this seemed to be a very difficult and challenging issue. Um, and you guys
just executed um, very professionally um, and dealt with everyone in a very professional manner and a very responsive manner. Um, and I think that you were in large part your your involvement, the both of you were the reason why it was successful. But thank thank your staff cuz I know that they
put up with a lot before this and um that was the reason one of the primary reasons for us you know executing on the change. >> Like like I said like we came we came to I guess we started this what two years almost. So you know it's we weren't
against picking up the recycling. We just we had an ordinance that said we weren't picking up commercial recycling. So again, we're here for our businesses and our community to provide a service, >> right? And we failed the compromise and you executed. >> So again, I I believe this ordinance
went into effect I think May 13th to be exact, not counting. Um everybody in the whole town was in compliance before July 4th. That's a great >> So I think it was a big change but I
think it was a change for the good. So but again thank you guys every with everything and I'm know the staff thanks you too. >> Eric, can I can I ask you just one follow-up question? Sure. You mentioned that there were roughly 80 80 tons less have been were picked up over the course
of of the of the year so far. Did you notice any change as far as more at the recycling center? Was there more activity there? Oh, there was definitely more activity at the recycle center. >> Okay. So, people were you're seeing more >> drop offs. Again, we we opened up the recycle center seven days a week before
we kind of put this into effect to help support the community and a lot of the businesses and homeowners were bringing it themselves. >> Well, and I think also there's some places in town where, you know, people are only weekenders and so and I used to
be one of these. I would just go to the center on Saturday morning and take what I had there. Um, and so rather than having things sitting out on the street all week and blowing all over the place and you know, uh, they just adapted their schedule to doing that and, you know, just kept it for a couple weeks
longer and took it over themselves in a bucket. So, you know, no harm, no fail >> and credit to the public for working with this ordinance and responding in kind and realizing it's open. Um there are extended hours over there and people are >> people are utilizing it.
>> Yeah. So >> anything else? That's great. Great work. >> Do you have the Do you have the tonnage additional that's being picked up at the yard now? >> I can get that for you. >> Yeah, if you could just send an email. I'm just curious to see, you know, where we are as far as the difference.
>> I could No problem. >> Thank you, Eric. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Great job. Yeah. >> Okay. With that, we're on to ordinances for second reading. Consider consideration for adoption.
>> Yes. First, we have 580-2025, an ordinance to update the uniform salary and classification plan for the department of personnel positions in the city of Cape May with a public hearing tonight. Council, >> is anyone here wishing to speak on ordinance 580?
>> Anyone here for ordinance 580? Seeing none, we'll close public comment. Do I have a motion? >> I'll make a motion. >> Do I have a second? >> I'll second. >> Any questions or comments, council? >> Roll call. >> Um, some some questions. Some comments.
>> So, I there is a amended version of this in council's packet. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Um, and that was also, I believe, in the public packet as well. >> So, the there were two amended versions. Uh, one was sent out this afternoon that
the public has not seen yet. >> Um, but that is meant to replace the previous amended version that was in council's packets. >> Okay. >> So, >> for like ease of discussion, if there is since the
original amended version is is already available, maybe the change to the amended version is really what we have to go over. Um if unless council can discuss whatever you want obviously, but just for purposes of a motion when you
get to that point um you may be able to just incorporate that original draft with whatever changes were made today that weren't available before this meeting. >> There was one Mr. Gillan Schwarz. Is that correct? >> Two. >> Two. Okay. Two made this afternoon. >> And they're not significant enough to
have to reintroduce. No, we we would I I was just trying to clarify what we're talking about because instead of going line by line with each one. Um but we may have to with the ones that just weren't available before today's meeting. >> So I think the understanding is that the
public saw the amended recommended amended version on the website. So the motion might be to amend as per that version but also add the two that were completed this afternoon. >> Right. So, if you'd like me to of the
two that we were altered this afternoon was to the deputy city manager, the maximum was lowered to 125,000. >> Right. >> And on the stipen list, uh the fund coordinator back, >> the fund commissioner is still present. Actually, I think it was present. We
were going to get rid of it and now it's back. >> Y >> So, the fund commissioner was still a $5,000 stipend. So just those two changes in addition to the amendments that were already on the website for the public to view. >> So how would you like for us to
introduce? >> So the you uh motioned there was a motion and a second. What you could for purposes of discussion, you could consider somebody could make a motion to amend
um to incorporate all the changes that were in the packet except for the modifications that the clerk just went over, which are the deputy city manager Max >> and the fund commission >> and the fund commissioner stipen. >> Yep. So those would be baked into your
motion. And again, this would be republished and then we'd be talking about that for another second reading and adoption at a subsequent meeting. >> So we'll have a motion to amend and then a motion to reintroduce as amended and then we'll start that over again
anticipating that this should come back um unless other changes are made on the December 16th meeting. >> Okay. Prior to the new year. So, I'll make a motion to amend ordinance 580225 to for the one that was posted for the
public and then for the changes that were made today to uh the deputy city manager salary uh to 125 and read back onto the stipen list the fund commissioner at 5,000.
>> I'll second that. We have a motion and a second. >> Um, and we need obviously a roll call on that motion for the amendment. >> Yep. >> Ready. >> Roll call, please. >> Council member Meyer, >> yes. >> Deputy May McDade, >> yes.
>> Council member Bodner, >> yes. >> Council member Baldwin, >> yes. >> Mayor Mullik, >> yes. >> And now a motion to uh reintroduce 580 2025 as amended. I will make a motion to amend to introduce 580 2025 as amended.
>> Do we have a second? >> I'll second. >> Any questions or comments or council? Roll call. >> Council member Meyer. >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor McDade. >> Yes. >> Council member Bodner. >> Yes. >> Council member Baldwin. >> Yes. >> Mayor Mullik. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Again, we'll readvertise. We'll bring this back, I believe, on December 16th. Council. Next, we have 581-2025, an ordinance amending chapter 7 of the code of the city of Kate May regarding on street parking permits. Again, with a public hearing tonight.
>> Is anyone here wishing to speak on ordinance 581? >> Good evening, Chris Bazar, 228 Windsor Avenue. Um, I took a look at the ordinances for adoption tonight and um, the we actually worked on this. I worked with uh, Council Member Bowwin and
Council Member Meyer and um, I think the spirit of what this ordinance was meant to be amended to is being overlooked on this. Um, initially it it was a long thought idea that on street parking was for basically year-round residents. For a long time, people thought that was the
case. After further de uh diving into the ordinance, it was realized that wasn't a requirement for the the parking. And furthermore, it was realized that what was happening in the more the historic part of the area of Kate May is you have parking permits being given out that aren't being
utilized. I think the spirit of the ordinance was to maximize the utilization of limited parking resources in a town where we complain about parking all the time. Um, I'm not here to argue back or forth on the short-term on on short-term rentals whether they should or should not have parking
permits. However, at least in a short-term parking permit situation, that space is being utilized. That property is being rented every week in the summer. It's being utilized. Somebody's parking there. Um, my concern is and and we discussed um that obviously the the property owner of a short-term rental is making money on
having that parking spot. So, why not charge them exorbitantly and have the the city make money off that as well if that's what they're using it for? My concern is this ordinance doesn't address non-residents. And the concern I have is if you go down
through many of the streets in Kate May in the historic district, Windsor, Congress, North Perry, you can drive down one of those streets in the middle of the summer and there are 8 to 10 spots that have reserved parking signs and nobody parked in them. in a town
where we cry about parking all summer long. And the whole idea was to number one, it's my my opinion, my belief that council's their responsibility is number one is to the residents of the town and then number two to the visitors and the the businesses. Not a not a far number
two, but still council's job is is primarily for the residents. whether you're a year- round renter and you live here on the island renting some a property or you're a year- round property owner that lives here. And I just don't think this ordinance goes far enough to solve that problem because as
introduced and as adopted, if it's adopted as written right now, you're going to have second homeowners or non-uron residents that apply for an on- street parking permit. They're going to park there the four weekends they come throughout the year and the other 48 weekends and weekdays that spot's going
to be left open in key areas of the town that need parking. >> Can I can I ask you a question? >> Yeah, sure. >> What specific um it's a opinion question. What specifically uh do you think is deficient in in the proposed ordinance or what should be added?
>> The ordinance doesn't require proof of your own residency. >> Okay. >> I I I think that in the ordinance and it's it's not hard to do. You could show a utility bill. You You don't have to own the property. I think the ordinance should be very specific to show that you have year-round residency in order to get an on- street parking spot. It it's
it's a privilege, not a necessity. People have bought properties knowing that there's no parking. And I just think it's disheartening in the center of town during the summer or busy weekends in the offse to see spot after spot after spot open with no cars parking there. And that was something we kicked around in the beginning was that
to to show proof of your residency. Um, you know, we talked about again including short-term and charging a different rate. And I don't I don't really have a a a dog in that fight. I don't care one way the other on that one. But I think the idea behind modifying the ordinance was to again
maximize the utilization of the limited parking in town. And I don't think that the way this ordinance is drafted, I don't think that it it handles that. So, >> Chris, I suspect you're suggesting as well that those spots that you're talking about are probably in some of the the the prime areas where we're
looking people are looking for parking throughout the >> Oh, this time of year, right around right around the mall in the historic area. >> I I would say if you were to take a copy of the historic district map and overlay it on where these issues exist, they're almost identical. Okay. So, so what you're saying is it's even compounded by
the fact that the not including that or including um non-residents is actually um compounding the problem just because of the number of those spots that we're including would be in that in that prime area.
>> Correct. And and it and it's compounded by historic district regulations as to what you can and can't do as far as far as parking in front of a house. and and there's regulations within the ordinance that state that you have to be turned down for being if if you're able to put parking on your property, then you can't get an on- street parking spot, which
makes sense. Put the parking on your property. But in the historic district, there's a lot of rules and regulations that prohibit that in some areas. Um, and I I'm all, you know, the I'm all for people being able to apply for the parking. I just want it utilized. And I don't think that that
not having it a preference for year- round residents, whether an owner or a renter year round, I don't think that that tackles the situation. And and I I would prefer to I would prefer to drive around and I'm sure visitors would rather drive around in downtown Kate May and be looking for a parking spot and
see spot after spot after spot taken than to drive down the streets in the center of Kate May in the summertime and see spot after spot with a reserve sign and no car park there. Mhm. >> So >> I in response to that I I don't that nothing that you said was like
unreasonable or anything, but let me explain at least from my perspective why it's not written that way because it was a conscious decision to amend it to not having some residency test, but to eliminate
>> the short-term rental scenario, which most certainly would not include a resident. Right. So, and part of that is not having asking municipal staff to have to scratch their heads as to whether somebody's a resident or not because
people are going to bring in all types of different documentation to show that. Like, you're going to say, "Hey, how do I prove I'm a resident?" Well, I got a utility bill here. I got a voting card there or whatever it is. and perhaps council could come up with a laundry list of things like a passport
application as to like what you would need to pass the test. But the goal of just getting out of that was to eliminate some of that headscratching as to like is somebody a resident or not. >> Um we don't make distinctions on and and
on like beach tags, you know, based on residency, non-resident. So to get away from a residency test seemed like the wiser approach here. But I I understand >> and I get the beach tag per you know a beach tag has unlimited supply there. There's not unlimited supply in parking,
>> right? And then so not this isn't like passing the test of being perfect for sure. But what it is doing is coring these permits away from properties which are most certainly not being used by residents. So, you're probably going to capture there's the potential that
you're going to capture a property that maybe somebody doesn't live there, but they're also not renting it. So, um, and I get that. And again, that's my my point is they're not living there and they're not renting it. So, the property is going unused as so is the parking
spot and and and we're trying to tackle parking. We're trying to come up with a solution that best utilizes the parking. And in that instance, I just I think that's where this ordinance is lacking. You know, I that's my that's my my take on it. You know, whatever council wants to go and whatever direction you guys want to go in, the ordinance needed to
be reviewed. And I think there's some changes that are are well worth it. Um but overall, I think it's not going to change those areas where there's six, eight spots on a street that are being utilized by non full-time residents. And you know, you're going to have people
drive up and down streets and look for parking and with plenty of spots open they can't utilize. So just working with that illustration just you know for a moment because I realize you know mentioned about this needs to be something that could be workable for the city clerk's office as well. I mean, if
someone, you know, presented a driver's license or a tax return. I mean, those are those are items that can identify. You can you can take certain certain items and certain certain documents that say this is what these these were our
bright line um items as far as providing proof. I mean, a driver's license generally is going to establish your residency. Your tax return is generally going to um establish your residency. I mean, a gas
or water bill, that's a whole another story, right? That's not because there's that's not going to capture the second the second homeowners. they I don't know where they're going to get the bill done, but essentially those those types of documents, I'm sure we could that there's others that can be
identified that could be written into into the the framework as far as how to enforce such an ordinance. >> And don't get me wrong, my second purpose for being up here is to make Aaron's job as difficult as possible with this, too. >> It's too late, Chris. >> I I see her sweating, Chris. I see her
sweating. I >> wouldn't it just be a license because nothing is the intent of that. >> I think there was the intent and >> there was the intent but with the modifications that have been made that intent is has disappeared. >> You'll see that there specifically are
year round residential fees for meter to no meter. So it specifically states year-round residential. >> And where does it say non-residential fees? It doesn't there. So, so you felt say you felt that staying silent on it cuz that's why I was confused meant that you could >> the recommendation I'm going to take the
bullet for that cuz that recommendation to change it came from me. Not that this was worded as resident before, but I recommended a change to that to be easier to implement. Not that I I I have 100% faith in the clerk's office that
whatever we come up with they can deploy. >> Yeah. But just from a practical standpoint, dividing a line at if you have a meranty license, you can't get one of these. It's an onoff switch versus what what then we're having a discussion about what it means to be a resident. And a resident is not just
driver's license. It's there's a factors analysis to that. You know, if under the IRS code and you know, we can come up with that if that's the direction council wants to go in and we can we can do that. But this seemed more straightforward onoff switch. I will say
this too. I'm not and I said this before. Nothing that Mr. Bizar is saying is like ridiculous. It's it's a it's a critique of this which is it's not perfect. If you were to adopt this and implement it, you could just like the recycling ordinance see how much of a disaster or not it is for the year and
then change it because we're changing this. We already have some a process in place. We can modify that. So that's an option here too. It's not the end of the world if you adopt this. you you are what you'd be doing is eliminating short-term rentals from the cadre of pro properties that are going to be able to
get it. Then you you're left with the balance of okay, you're definitely going to capture the residents as part of this. You're if you're not a short-term rental, you the rental people will fit the non-renal people are residents, so you'll you'll capture them. The concern
that Mr. Bazer is pointing to is you may the you may have an overfilled cup with people that are just taking up parking spaces that aren't using them. >> And I think he's suggesting narrowing the scope. Yeah. >> Right. you know, as far as as far as with that with the idea that one, the
original intent behind this ordinance was to utilize the parking spaces, particularly in the the busiest time of year, and to um you're going to you're going to capture that by having people who are residing in Kate May all the time as opposed whether whether they're
renting full-time or whether they actually reside in Kate May as opposed to look, you know, the second homeowner who's going to be here for um intermittent ly. >> Yeah. >> Um, can I ask a a uh just a technical
question on how it's written? As you pointed out, under C one, it says year- round residential with no parking meter 500 annually. Number two, year round
residential metered space 750 annually. If we weren't taking those steps, then shouldn't that language be changed? I mean, it it basically says resident. >> It's it's it's um the permit would be
year round for a residential property. This is because it's drawing a distinction between residential and commercial in here. >> That's that's basically saying non-commercial. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. The wording applies to the permit itself, not to the resident or non-resident using it. >> Right.
Okay. Any other questions for Chris? >> Yes. If we Yes. >> Oh, no. CGS maybe. I'm I'm going to sit down now, but thank you. >> Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this ordinance, please? >> Thank you, Mr. Bizar.
>> While Miss Sheen's coming up, can I ask a genuine question, though? If somebody is a yearround resident, I understand that there are a lot of different factors that determine residency for people who might live here six months out of the year or couple, you know, but if somebody is a year round resident, would that not be on their driver's license?
>> Yeah, it should be on the driver's license. >> So, is it are we complicating this like am I just issuing year round residents only? Like, and if you have your Kate May address on your driver's license, you can that's how you pass the >> unless unless they don't have a driver's
license. Let's get through public comment. >> But then they're not driving a driver's license. There >> there there is the opportunity here. >> We don't have a car. We have driver. >> Let's Let's go through public comment and then we'll we clearly are going to talk about this. I apologize. >> That's all right. >> Thank you. >> So, I'm just going to throw another loop
into it. >> Stacy Shan, 928 Columbia Avenue. Um, I'm just looking for some clarification, Chris, with the fact that what areas it actually pertains to because some of my concerns has to do
with um how it's being rewritten. Does that include people that would be living above the mall? Would they be allowed to get those parking spots also? >> No. Um, the language in here excludes is the proposed language excludes commercial property. So that would
include mixed use with commercial on the bottom. It's specifically targeted towards a res purely residential properties and that language is in there. >> But when you say um commercial when a >> I know what you mean like >> because why I'm saying that is because
BM it was this was done because of B&Bs, right? >> Because they didn't have parking and then and they let people have parking. >> B&Bs and residents. Well, then because B&Bs is is considered a business, so you're not going to let the businesses around the mall do it, but B&B is
considered a business. Or if you rent your property, that's a business, too. >> This is specifically referencing residential property. This is what it's targeted towards. >> Okay. So, they can still be a rental that they do an Airbnb. >> No, no, because under this draft, it's
that's that's >> I'm just asking for clarification. Yeah. So, like if there's a pie, the things that are carved out, >> Airbnbs, right? Transient rentals, mercantal licenses, you can't you can't hold a merkante license and a the on
street parking permit at the same time. So, that's eliminated. >> Also cut out of that pie is commercial properties and that would include the mixed use properties. I know there's like an apartment upstairs, but the use is a mixed use with commercial
that's excluded. So, um, it's really targeted towards the purely residential property. So, it might even be, you know, it might even be a duplex residential property. >> Um, and I think there's a limitation in here about like one per property. So, it
shouldn't just be like a bunch of them showing up. >> Okay. >> Thank you. I appreciate your clarification. >> Anyone else on this ordinance on ordinance? I apologize. Uh, >> thank you. On ordinance 581.
>> Seeing none, we'll close close public comment. Do I have a motion on this ordinance? Can >> we can we let's introduce it. >> Just a motion. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Do I have a motion? >> I'll make the motion. I think we have maybe just include it include towers,
right? >> No. >> No. >> Okay. Just >> Yeah. Do I have a motion? >> I'm sorry. What is this motion? >> This is to start the discussion amongst ourselves >> on the ordinance. Sorry. >> Oh my god. >> A motion on the ordinance. >> I'll make the motion. Mayor, >> do I have a second?
>> I'll second. >> Okay. Any questions or comments? I I know the answer. >> I I Yes. >> Yes. Okay. Go ahead. >> The the actual original intent was for year round and I'm looking at this now. Everything kind of alluded to that. Um,
but is there, and this goes back to you, Mr. Schwarz, um, if we change that and just add the year- round component to this, would that substantially change this ordinance where we'd have to? >> Yes.
>> Even though it says residential, >> even Yeah, >> residential is the the use of the property. >> Well, how about this? Change the question if if I may change the question a little bit. would saying that they have to they're required to prove residency based on
what it says in here to the clerk. Is that substantially? >> That would be part of the application for the permit. >> I would say that if if that's the direction council wants to go. I think we just let's let's decide on what we want it to say and not worry
about republishing. We're already republishing a couple things tonight. So, >> we're going to be on the same schedule. >> Let's make let's make sure it says what you want it to say. >> Clear. >> Yeah. Do we have enough time before the end of the year >> the requirement to show residency? >> Yes. This will not >> I don't think it's that substantial personally
>> to change it essentially the the proposal would be to change it to the test is not Airbnb or not or merkantal license. It's >> are you a resident? >> Yep. >> Do you reside in the building connected to this proposed spot? That's the test.
That's how you get a permit. >> Mhm. I I mean I can come up with a framework for that. >> But I think you still want to have the mercantiles excluded. I think you know you still want that exclusion, >> right? But you also want to you also want to exclude the I just got this for
convenience and I may not be using it. >> You really want to target it towards the people that are living there and going to use it that are not Merkante licensed. What if you have what if you live here year round at your bed and breakfast and also use it as a >> that's a business. They have a
mercantile license. >> No, they have a mercantile. They're not. >> So, they're excluded. >> You can't you can't have one and the other under this scenario. In either case, it sounds like >> part of the problem, I think, is is you have people that aren't residents here, maybe residents of
a city up the road, um, and they use it on the weekends. So, we have empty spots if they're not here. >> And that's what you're trying to avoid. >> That's what we're trying to avoid, I think. >> Well, then, you know, you can't have it both ways, right? Right. So, >> and that's that's what we, you know, outside of year round. I thought the
year- round resident with no parking meter. I thought that covered it. >> I thought that covered it, too. >> But that's why >> Well, but legally, I guess we have to do >> have an additional monkey wrench to throw into here. Um, if we were to amend
and reintroduce and have this come back December 16th, it would not be effective until January 13th. In here, we have the renewal schedule is by February 1st annually >> with a $150 late fee. >> So, >> and that would not give me enough time
to >> I mean, council could council could adopt this. I think we >> I think we >> And then and then allow Chris to And then allow Chris to come up with a amendment >> to clarify it. >> Yeah. So at least you can get
>> Yeah. So I can at least get the word. >> All All you'd be doing is further dialing this back. This is dialing everything back already. What you guys are proposing to do and talking about tonight would just dial this back a bit further. So, and it might as well take
that step to get to confirm the licensing structure going into 2026 and then we can talk about dialing that back further. >> And it may just take a little bit of time to review applications that have been submitted until the new ordinance comes about. >> It just may take a little bit extra time
>> to review those applications. >> If if I may, that the coordinance doesn't the parking the way it is now, the applications aren't until April 1st anyway. So there's no pressing need in the middle because >> Oh no, this this >> this change is correct. But if you weren't to introduce this and do anything with it, the current parking
structure doesn't go into April 1st anyway. >> This started just because it didn't match when our meters turn on anymore. That's how this turned into let's revisit the on street parking regulations because the meters turn on April 1st but our previous permits were
not active until May 1st and then now a lot of our meters are extended through December 31st. So >> can I make a suggestion then this is what I'm just going to suggest and then everyone can comment. Um, I'm going to suggest that we pass this this evening, but that we ask u Councilman Meyer and
uh Lorraine, would you be willing the two of you to uh work on an amendment to this ordinance >> for our next council meeting >> or or or whatever appropriate time >> in January? >> It's going to be a meeting in January. >> Is that okay?
>> Yeah, absolutely. >> Full support. Uh we'll we'll implement whatever. I'm just at that point I will have already sent letters to everybody and implemented renewals. So we're looking at implementing this version for this year and then maybe affectuating those changes for next season
>> 2027. >> Can I ask I'll work with you I'll work with your office on the application to make sure it's >> or can we just if there's an agreement with um Mr. Gillan Schwarz with Councilman Baldwin and Meyer on what the
date what the language should be. Why can't you just include that in the letter? It will have been passed by that point, right? Or pretty close. >> So, >> they're due back by January or January 31st. >> Don't Don't the permits the permits expire at the end of the calendar year
now? That's the way the language reads, right? >> Actually, I believe so. Yeah, >> they expired October 31st. They expired October They expire. It currently >> we have seasonal annual year round. That's why this has gotten so convoluted over the eight years. That's why we're >> That's probably I'm looking at like an
>> and the annual one's this the 31st. >> We we'll be able to take care of the admin. I will work with you and we'll take care of the administrative process >> and craft a letter >> and craft a letter to to be in the spirit of what city council is looking for in the final adopted version
>> so that maybe we can put a waiver of the late fees for this year. >> Yes. >> In the amendment version. We won't >> ju just to guide um the clerk and the solicitor and and our city manager. I I
heard a lot of agreement for what um Mr. Bizer said in regards to the um restricting this to the residents. Is that a general feeling among council that we kind of have a direction? >> Yes. Yes. >> Yes. >> Everyone would kind of agree with that.
>> Yes, >> Mr. Meyer. So, and I I agree with that as well. So, it sounds like to that portion of the ordinance, you have five members of council all in agreement. That that makes sense
>> and and we'll have um Councilman Meyer and Councilwoman Baldwin work on that moving forward. >> No, that's fine. We'll we'll be able to implement it. I would appreciate you guys adopting this tonight and then we'll we'll definitely figure out the amendment part of it. >> All right. So, we have a we have a
motion and a second on the ordinance as listed on the agenda. >> Yes. >> Any other questions or comments on that motion? >> Roll call. >> Council member Meyer? >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor Mcdeed? >> Yes. >> Council member Bodner? >> Yes. >> Council member Baldwin. >> Yes. >> Mayor Mullik.
>> Yes. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> But I I do think uh we appreciate public comment because I think we sometimes we make a a better product because of that. So, thank you. Uh with that we are on to >> 582-2025
an ordinance of the city of Kate May amending and supplementing chapter 7 vehicles and traffic to regulate the operation of electric bicycles and scooters. >> There's a public hearing tonight. Mayor, >> do we have anyone wishing to speak on 582 >> U Raj Johnson 826 Lafayette Street. Um
thank you for this ordinance. I think it's important for the safety for all those concerned and uh very well written. Um my question is um have you thought about how you're going to educate the public
um on these rules and regulations because this is something that you know if um if you're driving a car you have to pass a a driver's test and you know the rules etc. uh but in this case I think um attention
has to be brought to the education of people about this. So um if you haven't thought about how you're going and last time when we did talk about this I know one person said um
uh let's go into the schools and talk to the kids about it. Let's have um make sure that the rental places know the rules. Um I would extend that to actually um every business in Kate May
because we did clarify that um many of the um electric vehicle users are um employees that are coming into town. So, um, if you haven't thought about how you're going to educate people,
um, Mr. Bogner, I I see that you're shaking your head. Yes. >> So, one of, um, this past week, uh, the bike and pedestrian advisory committee had a meeting developing their priorities for this coming year. And I
sit as the, um, city council leazison for that committee. and the city manager attended that meeting as well as the committee was formul formulating their goals for to suggest to the city for this year. I can tell you that um one of
the priorities um is and the the committee made a point of emphasis is working on issues regarding ebike safety and scooter safety recognizing that education and behavior modification need to be a
component of you know of of that of of that working. um you know they they're aware of the ordinance and I I would say this I know that um the committee endorses the fact that um the city's taking action has is on this on this
particular ordinance but I think we're just really I want to say a first step in the process would you say Paul I mean we had there was a good discussion about this and I think there's several different ways that um that were suggested that the city can go about doing this um would you like to
>> Yeah. So I mean I I think that the BPAC will probably take the lead on helping develop that. We'll probably take some of the methods and outreach things that we learned in developing the outreach for the low-speed vehicles as a as a
model to kind of reach out and do that. So you know that'll be developed over the winter and spring for next year. >> I always several ideas came up in in the course of that meeting. >> Council member >> Bodner and we're just trying to formulate that as well. >> Council member Bodner. Oh, thank you.
>> We're just trying to formulate the best way as far as to get those ideas out that were discussed um at this last meeting and the prior meeting um that'll be most effective for getting them out to the city. But we were this topics that were discussed were communicating
communicating with the school. Um other topic another topic that was discussed is there was success in the flyer with the low-speed vehicles and to do to do the same thing for uh for ebikes as well. Um also discussions about getting
the word out through uh through through social media. Um, I know that we've already spoken with the the vendors that um that rent those uh the ebikes out to folks, but we also recognize this is
something that's come up through discussions I've had with a number of different people and through the committee. We need to we need to get people who are living in town, you know, as well. It's um it's not necessarily the rentals, you know, but it's people
who are actually here on a um people who live here, people who are working in town, um people who come down here regularly throughout the season. Um so I think we've we've identified a number of different groups to uh focus um that
communication component uh to as well as to educate. So we are working on that, but appreciate you mentioning that. >> Okay. Um, and if um, if you could keep us up to date on your discussion on that, that'd be really appreciated. >> I'd be happy to.
>> Thank you, >> Roz. One other thing too, Mr. Bodner and I just recently did with the um bicycle and saf pedestrian safety committee is they went around to every bicycle rental company in the in the city which there
are few on the island I should say and um put a QR code with obviously the owner's permission sticker on every bicycle that they physically rent and that QR code basically just said uh Kate
May bicycle safety information. So, anyone who's renting can can scan that and it immediately goes to the Kate May city website. But what's great about that is as we update that website, it the QR code just goes to the website. So, uh those are things that we can add
to the website that you know as things evolve those stickers don't go uh you know unuseful. It we we can update the website and it's going to take you to that website. So, um, thank you to all the, um, rental, um, agencies that
allowed us to do that because that's that's a pretty cool little program that that the bicycle and pedestrian committee worked on. >> May I make a comment, mayor, >> please, Mr. I would just like to recommend to everybody in this administration to think back over the last year of our changes that we've
made, the ordinances we've uh changed and think of ways we can put this into the uh water water bill because you know you're going to get the residents, you're going to get the businesses and uh I I think that that's our probably most effective and least costly way of
getting out to the people and they're forced to put we're forced they're in their hands, you know, right? You can't they can't say that I didn't know because we spent the money to mail it to them. >> It's a good idea. Yeah, definitely. Okay. Um
with Do we have any uh uh further public comment on this ordinance? Seeing none, we'll close close public comment. Do I have a motion? >> I'll make the motion. >> Do I have a second? >> I'll second. >> Any questions or comments, council? >> Uh just a point of order. Was there I
know at the last um the introduction of the ordinance there was a discussion regarding one of the definitions and I just was >> I have some language prepared for that if council would like to hear it. I know we're getting to the wire on some of these things but um the Mr. Van Walsome,
I think, raised the comment about the technical specifications for each type of vehicle and device and and there's mile per hour limitations in there. And I think the intent really is that those are descriptors, not that if somebody
can prove that it goes 30 miles hour, not 25, that all of a sudden they're exempt from this. Um, but it brings up a good point which is we can clarify that expressly here because it really is a developing kind of area with these new devices coming in. We don't know what
the changes are and I think those references were made in good faith to federal regulations and state regulations which may change. So the proposal the suggestion here would be um in the preamble to the definitions. So
if you look at 7-63 definitions and then the first after the first sentence you would add the following language. The definitions contained in this section shall be construed in a practical and common sense manner for the protection of public safety consistent with their
use in NJSA 391-1 and applicable fed federal regulations. References to maximum speed, motor power, or wattage are intended as general descriptors and shall not be applied as strict limitations. Vehicles or devices that are substantially
similar in design, purpose, and intended operation shall be deemed included within these definitions, notwithstanding variations in technical specifications or capability to exceed stated speed thresholds under certain conditions. In the event of any apparent conflict
between a technical or overly literal reading of these the following definitions and a reasonable common sense interpretation consistent with the intent of this article. The common sense inter interpretation shall govern. So that would be the language added before you get to the definitions so that the
municipal prosecutor and the municipal court judge know what council intended when we adopted this. >> And respectfully, I know one of the reasons that we were looking at this. Look, we we modeled this ordinance off of lower township's ordinance. Westgate May also adopted an ordinance using the
same definitions. So, I think by crafting it this way, we're not changing the definition itself. So, we still have consistency with the definitions with Lower Township and West Kate May, but we still get the spirit of that addressed within this particular ordinance as well.
>> Right. And this is uh basically a restatement of how a a court would really interpret this ordinance. You know, you're you're not supposed to strain these definitions. They're not you should these things shouldn't be designed and and read to require a law
license to understand them. It should be, you know, people off the street without legal training should be able to understand what it is we're trying to do. So, that's a restatement of that. But if council wants to adopt or amend that to include that language, you could you could uh entertain a motion as as I
stated. Do I have a motion to amend as stated? >> I'll make the motion. >> Do I have a second? >> I'll second. >> Any questions or comments on that amendment? Roll call. >> Council member Meyer? >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor McDade?
>> Yes. >> Council member Bodner? >> Yes. >> Council member Baldwin? >> Yes. >> Mayor Mullik? >> Yes. Now, can we vote on that as amended? >> Does it change it? >> It would be a reintroduction to reintrod. >> So, you can make a motion to reintroduce
as amended. >> I'll make that motion. >> Do I have a second? >> I'll second. >> Questions or comments? >> Roll call. >> Council member Meyer? >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor McDade? >> Yes. >> Council member Bodner? >> Yes. >> Council member Baldwin? >> Yes. >> Mayor Mil?
>> Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. We have uh 583-2025, an ordinance authorizing an amendment and extension of the lease agreement with the New Jersey Transit Corporation for block 1060, lots 4.01 and 4.02, commonly known as the welcome center,
with a public hearing tonight. >> Is anyone here wishing to speak on ordinance 583? Anyone on 583? Seeing none, we can close public comment. Do I have a motion? >> I'll make the motion. >> Do I have a second? >> I'll second.
>> Any questions or comments, council? Roll call. >> Council member Meyer, >> yes. >> Deputy Mayor McDade, >> yes. >> Council member Bodner, >> yes. >> Council member Baldwin, >> yes. >> Mayor Mullik, >> yes. >> And finally, 584-2025,
an ordinance amending chapter 525 of the city code to promote workforce and long-term housing opportunities in the C1's zoning district. >> And the Do we have anyone wishing to speak on ordinance, >> pardon me, 584?
Good evening, Jules Rous, 1010 New York Avenue. Um, clearly now with the slight change that was made in the ordinance that the uh workforce housing and long-term housing enables long-term apartment rentals in C1 zoning district
and under terms and rates as determined by the owner. I think is that is that a clear understanding now that we have Mr. solicitor. >> So, just a point of order because you raised it. There is a two
versions of this in the council and public packet. One of which is what we talked about last meeting and was published. The second version is a version that incorporates or seeks to incorporate the planning board's most
recent discussion, which really doesn't change anything substantively in the ordinance. All it does is any references to workforce go to workforce and long-term housing, but the the same conditions and parameters
uh are in there. It's really just the description of of the the def naming the definition, but the the content of that is hasn't really changed at all. >> But the basic principle is the C1 district.
>> The basic principle >> long turn around. >> Correct. And that's defined in this latest draft as 90 consecutive days. I just want to make make sure everyone understands that that although we'd like to see uh workforce housing we don't
have the the opportunity at this point in the community to give them a reduced rate uh which is that's that's the 10 trend that is happening elsewhere in in in the country where they're forming either through the municipal government or
another organization to provide reduced rates but that's not the case and And that's not what this ordinance provides. Um, you know, some of us have been here a while and some of you are new. You know, the Wilson the Washington Street
Mall was opened in 1970 and 71 and in 2007 it was redone. when they redid it in 2007, they they upgraded all the utilities uh and the infrastructure so that could
provide the uh best circumstances for the the uh retail market at that point. By that time in 2007, almost all of the uh commercial properties in the mall were owned by
investors, not by the occupants. When it was formed back in 2000 or in uh 1970, almost all of the buildings were owned by the actual occupants. Those those people people owned their unit. They lived upstairs or they used it for
office. and in some cases their their their store manager lived upstairs. It was was never uh really intended to do anything but to serve that particular business. So we've we've looked we've we've gone almost full circle now where
uh the investors own the units in in the C1 district. Um, you have before you the information about, you know, what the definition of of an apartment is, how how many square feet of habitable or
square feet of space you need. There's no there's no question about that. I I think that's fine. But you need to understand that one apartment could have four occupants based upon the numbers that are calculated in the ordinance. So you've got the opportunity to have four
people. But there's another thing that that needs to really uh come into play and and that was the criticism I had when I spoke before that there has not been a study done of what really encompasses
and and is included in the C1 district. You don't know how many buildings there are, how many different uses there are, how many of the second f second and or third floors are being used, how many
how many potential uh buildings can be converted to apartments. We we have no idea as to how complex you're making this circumstance by changing the zoning to pro to
eliminate the need for parking. It's this is a huge change without any substantive information and facts. And I don't think it's it's frankly proper to make that that kind of a change not knowing what it is that you may be doing
with the community. Uh we talked earlier about the license the permits for for homes. Uh here we could have and I've I've I've gone I've picked taken the time to count the number of buildings in the C1 district and to try and you know
make some kind of sense as to what would happen if a number of those properties are converted to apartments. You know, there's there's there's there's 70 two-story buildings, and of those 70, there's 25 of them that have a third floor. And that that that offers a to a
a potential for a huge number of new apartments. And if uh if a developer came into the community and said, I want to have 30 new apartments in Cape May. I'm not going to provide any parking. You'd you'd go wild. You wouldn't permit that. And I wouldn't expect you to
permit it any more than I expect you to permit allowing the the C1 district to have apartments without parking. It's unreasonable. Um, and the only the only way you know that is if you know if you have the facts and that's not been done by the
planning board and obviously it's not been done by council. Uh so it it it in my view without that you do you do have a very difficult time being being arbitrary and capricious in the decision that you're making to vote on this
ordinance as it's presented. If you took it if if you do do it if you do make the change and allow no parking think about what you're going to do. First of all it has any kind of change for the exterior has to go to the HPC.
Think about how many different applications you might have to have to the HPC by changing windows. Third, if you put a third a third floor apartment is going to have to have stairwell or outside uh exits and th those units have
to be approved by by the HBC. Think about >> three or four people that own those buildings decide that they're going to have construction done. All of a sudden you could have the possibility of dumpsters,
trucks going in and out delivering materials, taking away debris, the subcontractors, the employees. Think of the problem that we would have with the movement of cars and vehicles around that mall and particularly if it's done in the
summertime, it would be horrendous. I mean, it's tough enough in in right now. And think of the problems that the police, fire, and EMTs will have if there's an emergency. I've seen many many days where you might have to spend
five five or 10 minutes just to get to go around half of the mall. I don't I don't like to go down the mall at all in the summertime. There's just not enough there's not enough ability to move. Once of all the if if if I'm correct mayor
>> that you would have approximately 30 apartments after it's all said and done over a period of years. Think about the number of cars that are going to be generated by those residents and the impact that you're going to be making on the residential area because that's the only place
you're going to be able to park unless they decide to go and rent somewhere else some space. So that if if some if an owner wants to convert his apartment or convert his second and third floor, he
has the ability to do that by going and renting a space rather than just asking you folks to provide that it doesn't have to have parking. There's there's a bunch of things that can happen.
Those buildings, if you look at them block byb block, all those buildings are really connected on a blockby-block basis. Each one of those is going to have to go through significant change now,
providing for fire separation. It is unbelievable what would happen if we had a fire in one of those units. It could go right down the block. So I it's important to look at, you know, h how dangerous are the circumstances if you
allow all these units to be converted for for apartments. There's a there's a couple other things that could happen in addition to the the impact on the on the residential areas. I I believe there's frankly is a is an ethical and legal
legal question on voting for an ordinance that changes the zoning requirements granting an extraordinary financial benefit to a specific group of owners and investors that is not available to everyone else. You're
you're making a very very specific change in an ordinance to grant specific things for for just a few people. I don't think it's fair. I frankly think it has some serious issues to it.
There's there's there's a there's a lot of individuals that would be really interested in renting a place on the mall and that it it wouldn't be used by anyone other than one family or one person. And think about if you if you
want to have children there or pets, where are you going to tell them to go play? on the mall. There's only two places that have any grass. That's Congress Hall and Rotary Park. It's un it's it's it's very difficult for me to
expect or to even suggest that you allow the entire C1 district to have apartments and eliminate parking. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Roush. Um Mr. Rous, obviously we we've talked about this privately. I don't think we'll
necessarily agree. Um but you did mention last time around the 90 days being an issue which is is an update within um the ordinance in front of us which is requires one year which I
think is important because what your point was at that and I don't want to have to make your point but um your idea that somebody could lease an apartment for the summer and then go to Florida or whatever And frankly, that's not what we're attempting to do in this.
>> Yeah. I I would hate to see Airbnbs, correct, short-term rentals. There's no question about that. >> So, that has been addressed in this most recent uh amendment. >> I think that was really in the first amendment as well, in the original. Uh but the the the only other it's not a
change. The way I understand the ordinance is you cannot rent for less than 175 days. This is this is actually one year. >> So the the ordinance that's up for consideration says 90 days. Just so
we're clear. There's there's a another draft of this addressing the duration. And if that hasn't been done yet, but council could certainly consider and vote on that tonight. >> What was what again? What's the change? >> One year. >> One year. Not >> one year. That's that's fine.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Well, I I think it addresses what your concern was, which I know there was more than one, believe me. >> Oh, yeah. >> We we don't necessarily agree on all those, but I did agree on the 90day issue that you you brought forward at the last meeting, but just allow me a
second to read this because I think it need it deserves a fair shot. And then also to add where this came from, right? This we didn't just pull this out of the air, but let me let me read the preamble, if you will, for this ordinance. Whereas the city council of
the city of Kate May recognizes that a vibrant, sustainable, and resilient community depends on the continued presence of yearround residents who contribute to the city's social, civic, and economic fabric. Whereas the city council further finds
that the availability of long-term and workforce housing is essential to asssuring that the city remains a dynamic and livable community throughout all seasons. And whereas the city council seeks to encourage the creation
and preservation of residential opportunities that foster year-round residency and to advance the related community benefits that flow that flow from increased long-term occupancy such
as supporting local businesses, strengthening community ties, making it easier for workers to live near their job, and promoting a stable and reliable housing market. And it obviously goes on from there. But I just want to go back
quickly to the genesis, right? The planning board has seen multiple applications over the last couple years of having short-term rentals above the mall. I personally and I've heard from many people think that short-term rentals
above the mall would be a disaster. Um just the idea of people changing on Saturdays um during the busy season um and and and frankly many of us know that other communities have taken very strong
action on Airbnbs on V on VBOS's. Um the city of Kate May has had a long history of weekly rentals. We we have not taken a lot of strong action on it. But I do think uh looking at the mall, you have to ask yourself as planning the city, is
that what we want to see happen? Do we want to see short-term rentals um become of the space above the mall? And then the second question um was you also have these businesses that only have a shop on the first floor and
largely only have second and third floor use for space for for storage and is that the highest and best use of that location? you know, considering the fact that we know we have a affordable house housing
crisis in in the city of Kate May, knowing that we have those spaces that are basically just left unoccupied or unbeknownsted officially to any member uh of the of the city. There may be
people living there that frankly are good contributing workers and people involved in the community but frankly are there illegally. So this was the process that we went through that says, okay, A, do we want short-term rentals
on the mall? And I think unanimously I heard that would be a bad idea. B, should those should there be kind of a carrot to this? you know, should um businesses have the opportunity to help house their own employees or other
employees? And that is that is what we're attempting to do. I I I want to be clear that this isn't meant to be um you know, a 90-day rental for for a for a family or something like that, which is why we looked at that change. But I just want to make sure
that this did you understand that this didn't come out of nowhere. There there's we've been made requests by developers that want to ch make changes. And the other thing that some of the developers have said is hey we wish that these rules were made nice and clear so
we don't make these expensive applications through engineers, architects, attorneys um and and again get denied which I can understand. I'm sure you can as well. So um that's what we're attempting to do through this ordinance is really set the standard
moving forward. And I I know you disagree with some of the uh portions of it, but that's what we're attempting. >> I fully agree with uh with the uh the terms of the rental, but that's not the that's not the question here. The question the question is, is it
reasonable to not require parking? You have that in written into almost every other district in town that whatever the use is, it is equated to parking. In this case, you're saying you
can have as you can you can have frankly as many as four people per apartment. Three or four people could have their own vehicles. Where are you going to put them? We've already talked about the difficulty in this town with parking.
you're you're exacerbating it. It's unfair and it's being done to satisfy a few people who want to take their vacant space above their income property and rent it out for more money.
>> We're I I can assure you no one up here is doing it to satisfy that. >> Mr. Roush, I if I can add to that, I I don't know that the community this is affecting feels like they're being given something. I feel they may feel like they're getting something taken away because if this is just kicked to the
curb tonight, apartments above commercial uses is in the code right now as a permitted use, >> but they have to provide parking, >> right? So then, but remember that this didn't come from some private party saying, "Hey, I'd really I'd like it if
you do this." This came from the master plan. This is in the master plan. I watched the planning board meetings or attended them >> and and before and before drafting this I read the master plan and it's cited in here. That's where this is coming from. It's a response specifically to that.
>> Um but everything that you're saying though about parking of course parking is a problem. >> Nothing in the minutes. >> Mr. Rous, can I finish what Mr. Rous can I finish what I was going to say first? >> What I was going to say is your parking concern is legitimate. It's it's there's
no hiding behind the fact that there's a parking problem. That's going to exist whether or not council adopts this. The policy decision on the table is are we willing to recognize that parking is always going to be a problem there that the master plan indicates that new parking
opportunities are scarce and or to non-existent essentially. And are we willing to recognize and sacrifice maybe that there might be some parking issues with the opportunity that we might create a year-round community or invite
those opportunities in. So that that is the policy that you you have to sacrifice one to maybe get the other. Um, but I think the policy positive on the other end of that is they're trying to build a year-round community and build that back and not see everything
be a rental and have people live here and have people that have families that can serve on boards and volunteer their time and have the things that a year-round community has. So, this is what that's geared towards. But, yeah, parking's a problem. But the the
positives, there's also positives here potentially. Well, the positives have they've glossed over the mere fact that we don't have enough parking and you're you're adding to the problem. And quite well, it doesn't it just it
does not make any sense to take a small center district for of the community and say there's no parking going to be required here. But when you get out into the other residential areas which are more conducive to people living in year
round than the center core of Kate May, I mean the center core of Kate May is not what I'd call quote the best residential area in town. So just remember you're going to have application after application. Now I would suspect when they come in with a
different use, they're not going to want to provide parking. I'll see how you handle that at that when that comes before city council. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Chris Mazair 228 Windsor Avenue. Um there's a couple things I would like to
discuss in this. First of all, um contrary to Mr. Roush's belief, one of the key principles of urban planning is to have a vibrant downtown area that allows for both residential, commercial use, and retail. That is the key to any
thriving city is to have a downtown that allows for their residents or workforce to to live there. Look at any city, any small town, and contrary to Mr. Rous's belief, most of the residents that would live above these properties most likely would not have cars because the types of
park types of residential usage this would have were be for people that would want to work, walk to work. It's located close to the bus depot, which is for a reason. The bus heat is located near the downtown area so that people have mass transit to be able to get around. I'm
not sure if Mr. Rous has been down at the mall area around 9 or 10 in the morning when you watch everybody get off the buses to come to work downtown because that's the transportation they use. Now, will there be some that have cars? Of course. I also would like to point out the fact that every time we
come up here, people complain about parking until the idea of a parking garage comes up. Then everybody says, "No, no, no. can't do that. There are locations in the city of Cape May where a parking garage is viable. That's not what I'm here to discuss. I'm just throwing it out there that we can't
argue we don't have parking every single time and then when the idea of a parking garage comes up, turn our head like we don't know it's there. >> We we already brought up dogs living in these on the mall. >> Well, and and then that's that's the second point. the the makeup of
the idea of of downtown living and the type of people, I'm sorry, the ideas that people have about living in this day and age are differ from before. Plenty of people would have a dog in an apartment and realize they have to get up at 5:30 in the morning and walk it around the block to let it go to the
bathroom. It happens all the time. Plenty of people are more than willing to get up and walk their kids down to a brand new Lafayette Street park that we're building for children. They don't need to have an acre lot to have their kids play. If they choose to live in an area like this and if they do want to have those amenities, then they do live
off island. They live in other communities and they bus in or they drive in. That's their option. In regards to the one of the main reasons I wanted to speak tonight was this wasn't introduced by council. This was introduced by the planning board. This was introduced by the planning board
because it was brought to the planning board's attention that the master plan calls for workforce/affordable or moderate housing in the C1 district, specifically the mall area. My concern is I'm not sure why
the the advice of the planning board was to make it just the mall area, which is what the master plan calls for. Council's decided to extend that to the entire C1 district, which I agree with Mr. Roush on. There are a number of buildings inside the C1 district that are outside the mall area that we don't
know exactly what they are, what they would be. Furthermore, I have concerns if you go outside the mall area because for all intents and purposes, the buildings in the mall are developed as they're going to be developed. Will they be changed inside? Of course, they will be. But the outside facade is pretty much going to remain what it is. What
does the zoning board do with an application when somebody goes in front of them and they want to add a second story onto a Washington Commons building for workforce housing? Does the zoning board have to apply the parking rule to that now? Can somebody all of a sudden add a second floor to a building in the C1
district that has every other variant, no other need for variance other than parking and claim they want to make it workforce housing? I don't think that that's been thought out all the way down the road. I think that the mall area is a perfect area to test this out in to see what happens. And you know what?
Maybe Mr. Roush is right. Maybe we do it in the mall area and there are 50 more cars around that have to be parked and it causes a traffic issue. And thank God we didn't exacerbate that and extend it to the rest of the C1 district. I think there are unintended consequences of extending this to the C1 district, the
entire C1 district when really the master plan and planning board which includes an engineer, a planning and use attorney recommended it just be in the mall area. So my concern is why we chose to just haphazardly extend this out to the entire C1 district.
>> Mr. um Chris, we did not. It was in it was in the master plan. It said C1. We started at this table with just the mall. Then we had a request to open it up to the to the C1, which was consistent with what was stated in the
master plan. And the planning board endorsed both. >> Well, the plan board didn't endorse it. The plan board said we gave you our opinion. You guys chose to extend it. So, we're not going to change your mind now. That's what happened at the plan. >> Okay. But at any rate, it that's the original in the master plan said the
entire C1 district. In fact, I think it's at the C1 and the C2. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, that was not something that we made up at this table. Look, we started with just the Washington Street Mall overlay. At this point in time, I have no skin in the game as to which one it
is. I would just like for us to move forward. I I and I agree and that's why I'm I'm sorry. No, you're fine and that's why I'm just trying to understand. >> I have been through this process from the very beginning and I am the spirit of this which uh Mr. Gillan Schwarz read
out was exactly what I wanted to see happen. We're doing this to to try and reinvest in this community with people who live here. And if we don't do this with at in the mall or the C1, what's going to happen is everything that Mr.
Rous is stating is a problem with this is going to be a problem because we're going to have applications coming before the planning board that will have houses short-term rentals viable. Construction will happen. People will be turning over and we won't have any ability to be able
to have an area in this city in which we could say to people here's someplace to come live and people will choose like you said to live someplace like that because they live in New York, they live in Philadelphia. People like living in the middle of it all and they're not dis
they don't discount the fact that they're living in a mall or they have to walk two blocks to go to a park. >> Well, and that and that's my my only concern is that I I think that the mall area is ideal to begin the process. Um and and and I I get your point. You know, if wants to be expanded, I think
it's a perfect area to start with the process to alleviate the concerns of some of the residents who think it's going to be too much. God forbid if it's too much in that little area then it's going to be too much in in the whole C1 area >> and and that is where we started and then we went to the whole district and
you know at this point >> I I think for those of us who have been involved in this and and had these discussions >> start somewhere >> I would like to see us move forward >> this is really very much about trying to see what we can do in this city taking a step forward I'm sorry to sound like I'm
on a soap box but I am because I I'm I feel very passionate about this. It's something this city has to do or the viability of this community will not be here in 10 years because there won't be anyone here. The demographics will change tremendously. Look, you don't have to tell me I grew up here. You're
in the real estate. Born and raised here. I know that >> you know exactly what's going on with home. >> Yeah, I and I agree and people blame us for it and it's not us. I want year round housing here. I want people to be here. >> I'd like to I'd like to see young people in the park. And and and I just also want to point out you when it comes to parking,
>> there's there's not a single building on the mall that meets the parking requirement. So let's not act like variance after variance after variance after variance has been given to buildings in the C1 district for parking. And it becomes at some point
the plane board should be revisiting the fact that a variance should be an exception, not the rule. When you have a variance being given out over and over again, it's time to look at your zoning requirements. Well, I I think that there's been some um we've I would say it's been misrepresented at times as to
what the the purpose and the intent is. Okay. And we'll leave it at that. >> And and that's that's my only my only question and thought that's all >> Mr. Bazer with some of the updates that we just read. This is going to go back to the planning board anyway. I' I'm happy to hear what they would say in
regards to the mall or just the mall for >> I've heard the chairman's not very easy to work with. We'll ask you to have a conversation with um but if I'm happy to hear what the planning board says and if they say just the mall, I'm fine with that.
>> And again, I've spoke my piece. Whatever council decides to do and move forward, that's that's my concern in in opening up a new hopefully viable workforce housing. Uh but there may be unforeseen circumstances or things that happen and I'd like to see that in a smaller scale
rather than a larger scale and then not be able to close the can of work. >> I don't disagree with you. Okay. I'm going to I'm going to bring up because I was the one that said let's expand it to the entire C1. I I actually didn't say that. I originally said it was too congested on the mall. I felt like if we're going to do this as a trial
experiment, then we look at the outside part of the not just the mall district, we look at the C1 and we don't do them all. If we're looking at as a as a trial, there's more space out there. There's more areas for parking. We know parking is going to be an issue, I
think, no matter what. It's a it's an issue now, no matter what in this city. But if we do it in the outside part of that mall, that was that was what I originally came in here saying um as a uh as an experiment. >> Okay. >> And that's how it got expanded.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else on this ordinance? >> Stacy Sheen, 928 Columbia Avenue. So two things. So, I guess the council is thinking if they put long-term housing above the mall, it's
going to be cheap enough for people to come stay there that are working in Kate May. That's the that's the thought because my point is is I don't think it's going to be the rent's not going to be that cheap for people to be able to
be able to come and live there versus living in North Kate May if they're going to be working in Kate May. they're just not going to be able to afford it. I don't think the people above the mall are going to say, "Oh, we're going to make it really inexpensive for these people to come live here." So, I don't
know if you're looking if you're looking for workforce housing. I don't think the what these people are going to charge is going to be feasible for these people to afford. My second point is before if you wanted to have something
above the mall, you had to put money into the parking trust in order to have if you didn't have parking, you had to pay for the parking into the parking trust like a parking spot you would have and we're not are not requiring that
now. I've been on the zoning board and we've had people come before us and they wanted to add on and we've denied them because they did not have the space for the parking that was going to be required. We've also denied people that had restaurants and wanted to put on a
boutique hotel above them and we said no because again they didn't have parking. Now we're going to give this all to the mall people. They're going to have um not a bo not a boutique hotel, but basically they're going to have dual um
options for them that we are not allowing for the other parts of the town. How as a zoning board member am I going to say, "Oh, they can do it over here, but I'm sorry. You you know, I know you're in the non uh
congested area, but you still have to have more parking than the people in the mall. Well, Stacy, you'd have to go back to the to the master plan. So, if this was such an issue of controversy, why was it passed in the master plan? >> Well, don't get me started with the master plan, how that was how that was
passed. They didn't even allow enough time for people to talk about the master plan when they passed it. >> It it kind of got thrown in there without a a proper uh debate on the master plan. All I'm saying to you is that is currently what is in the document and all we're trying to do,
one, we're trying to support that. And second of all, we're just trying to see if we can move this needle forward. This is not supposed to problem solve everything wrong in the city. But I mean, we have to look at as whole. There's a lot of things in that master plan that
maybe we wouldn't go with, right? There's a lot of things that got thrown in there versus, you know, making Lafayette Street one way and Washington Street one way that was supposed to be taken out that didn't get taken out. So to say, oh, it's in the master plan, therefore we have to do it. There's a it's the master plan, but there's also some tweaking that can go along with it,
too. >> And we're tweaking it. I think we are. >> But are you tweaking it the right way? That's my concern because you're also going to create issues in the other part of town if you're allowing them to do it in this one area that's already congested. We're already congested,
already have parking problems. Matter of fact, you allow parking above the mall. I mean, parking above the mall. Geez. Um, you allow housing above the mall, right, with these apartments. Are you taking away the parking spots that are supposed to be for the businesses?
>> So, now people go to these h these places up there, they're going to be like parking and going upstairs to their apartment or whatever. They're going to pay for it that could be going to a store. So in the long term, are you going to be hurting the businesses because you're allowing part, you know, >> and then that business would decide not
to put apartments up there. I mean, it's all about free work. >> No, no, no, no, no. That's not for them. That's for the whole mall. If you have one place having apartment and the other one's not, are they going to be parking there, taking spots away from the other people? Because you already have that. >> People living there are going to be
parking their cars there. They're not going to pay to pay to pay to park for hours on end. I can't even talk. >> Oh, sorry. I mean, you know, if they're not going to park their car there at 7:00 in the morning and pay all day long to keep their car there.
>> I don't know. Handicap parking there is just like the supposition that we're going to have the rent's going to be so high that people can't afford it. >> Well, it that's the point, right? It's going to be high enough that people that might want to have a a place there, right, and say, "Oh, I just want to come
down in the summertime. be above the mall. They'll pay maybe they have enough money to pay to park there. >> We're going to make them rent if for a yearly rental. It won't be the situation. >> Why? They I think they rent for a year if they wanted to and have a place. >> A lot of money, >> you know.
>> Hey, that's where the economics of KMA has changed, but Yeah. Okay. >> You just made my point. That's why we want more housing. >> Yeah. Yeah. I'm just going to say this and get more not in response to any specifics, but
we as a community have to address affordable housing and every single way to address it is not easy or else it would have been done. Every single one of them is imperfect. Um, every single one of them is expensive. Uh, it could
be potentially extremely expensive for the the city. Um, this puts the onus on the developers. Um, but I I don't think it's perfect. I think a lot of the questions that are asked are legitimate questions, but I think it's ju just
the public needs to know how difficult it's getting to hire people. And I'm not even talking from businesses. I'm talking for the city. when it comes to police officers, when it comes to lifeguards, um when it comes to people who work in city hall, um people are
having to be further and further away from the city of Cape May. This one thing is not going to change that, but every community is going to have to look at different and unique ways of creating affordable housing. Again looking at
this seeing that you have unused apartments on the second and third floor of these buildings and also again realizing that this is preventing those from becoming weekly rentals which I don't think should be uh overlooked.
That's that's a big thing in this is preventing those uh apartments become more short-term rentals. That's just not what we need on the mall. Um, so again, I I'm just saying, look, it's not perfect. Um, but we're going to have to
really look at unique ways of providing affordable housing. Everyone knows the cost of real estate and the lack of real estate on our island at this point. Um, with that, I've had a request that we take a three minute break. Um, so I'm
going to ask that we adjourn for three to five minutes. If um everyone could uh do their thing and we'll we'll be back in a couple minutes. All right. >> All right, everybody. We're back in session.
>> Um, >> solicitor, would you give us an update as to where we're at with this ordinance, please? >> All right. I'm going to go over a few changes here um and then we can talk maybe consider a motion.
So the first change to this is all of the changes that were already included in the packet from the master plan which were in the packet that was available to the public and available to council. So that will be baked into any motion and
that that is just amending the name of it the definition. It's not really changing anything substantively. Also the city manager instead of the city clerk is going to be doing some other thing but it's really not changing the content of this. So those would be in
it's in the things that are in yellow. >> Anything that's in yellow is from the m is is in response to the to the planning board. So that would be the number one. Number two is the three additional preamble paragraphs that the mayor
already read. Not going to read them again. Um and the next thing would be in the section one the new definition would be the change from 90 days to a
year as the durational limitation. The next change would be in section two regarding what where and what this would cover. So instead of eliminating apartments above commercial uses, what
we would do is establish eliminate it in all areas of the C1 district outside of the Washington Street Mall. So before we did one where it was just the Washington Street Mall within the C1
district, this latest amendment would just completely cover the the areas outside of the mall but still within the C1 district. So and then the the last part of this is
in in those areas that it would cover. The intent here is um that any apartments that may be lawfully in in use prior to the effective date of the ordinance but not
currently used as short-term rentals may not then be converted to short-term rental after the effective date unless they receive some sort of use variance or related approval from the zoning board. In other words, there may be some apartments that exist out
there that may be in use as owner occupancy or um long-term rentals. We don't want a conversion upstream for those ones that fall outside the uh that fall within this new area that you're you're delineating here.
So, aside from that, those are the changes. Everybody clear on that? and if if adopted or if voted on as as an amendment, it would have to be reintroduced. But really, I don't know if we're going to be able to do this by
the end of the year, but ultimately these changes will be sent back to the planning board and they can review and discuss these and consider a uh a review of these. But as part of that referral, I'm going to request, and
how they handle this is up to them. that's their board. But I would request that the planning board consider as they usually do consistency with the master plan. Um and then any generalized comments
separately so that you could may find that this is consistent with the master plan and still think that from a general policy standpoint as a board member that they might do something different. Um, but it's a two it's usually two pieces
of information coming out of the planning board. Is it consistent with the master plan? That's one narrow kind of inquiry looking at the objectives of the master plan and then we may have some generalized comments. But I would ask them to bifurcate that vote so that we just consider the master plan issue
first and then uh any general comments or you know do you like the form of this or what do you do it differently? You can vote on that separately, but that's going to be explained in a referral uh email if council adopts these amendments and asks it to be sent over to them.
>> Chris, bear with me for a moment just because there's a lot here and it's um Could you just clarify again the the area that we are talking about for the workforce housing, long-term housing? What would be
all areas of the C1 district except for the Washington Street Mall blocks? So, in the prior prior ordinance, the blocks of the Washington Street Mall were picked out. >> Councilwoman Baldwin, could maybe you
want to provide an explanation? Can I can I actually before we go there? Let's hand it to the planning board and get their recommendation one way or the other. That comes back to us to review and we go from there. >> Can can I say I mean we've been here for almost 5 hours
>> and I think that any good, >> you know, decisions >> you're sitting down for 5 hours are not going to be made. Now I I I really think that we need to take a step back. I think that maybe getting a few people on this, you know, on our on our council to
sit down and really work on something, bring it back here. We know it's not going to be introduced now until at least the beginning of the year. I just hate to bounce things back and forth without really thinking through, you know, what's, you know, what is really
being affected by this. I don't know if we've even had that opportunity. I just think it might be a good idea if I I don't know, coming up with something. I we we originally talked about the mall area, then we're talking about the, you know, the outside part of
the mall, then we went to and did the whole thing. Now we're looking, you know, there's just >> But the only the only thing at this point that's changing, the only variable is really that piece of it. Correct. Everything else >> Well, it's it's, you know, it's the year. It's um >> Okay. Well,
>> um I'm trying to think. I I was given this tonight and I and I honestly didn't really have a chance to sit and digest it really too well. Um, you know, probably right before we came in for our close session. Um, I don't know.
>> Could I ask a question on this change to it being only now outside of the Washington Street Mall? The intent, I believe, is that my office would not issue mercantile licenses, short-term rental mercantile licenses in the C1 district once
this ordinance was effective potentially. So now, if we are saying only outside of the mall, am I still am I able to issue uh short-term rentals for the mall area? >> It's really a question for council, but it really that's why I'm raising it. >> We're really regulating potentially an
overlay. You know, we started out with just the Washington Street Mall, then the whole C1 district. Now we're doing basically a negative image of the C1 district, taking out the Washington Street Mall. That's what's on the table for discussion. But wherever that overlay is, I think the the ultimate
intent is if you establish workforce housing in those areas, if you didn't have short-term rentals before the effective date of the ordinance, really don't want new ones coming online, unless of course they go to a board. >> Okay. We we've discussed this for a while. I think we send it to the planning board and get their honest
recommendations and we move move from their recommendations and then and hey we we give them exactly that is give us your recommendations. If uh we had a commenter from the public say today that it was for one part of
the mall or just one part of the C1 only then fine let's hear that from the planning board and we and we move from there. So council's agnostic potentially for purposes of a vote to send it back to the planning board as to if it's yes the whole thing or that and then
whatever the planning board's recommendation. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So we have um >> everything that I stated before and including that last thing can be a motion. >> I'm sorry. Did you include the parking which is a >> handicap?
>> Any um well, I'm just going to state that if any workforce housing um is not going to be eligible for an on street parking permit >> or a handicap parking >> any type of on street permit.
>> That's fine by me. So, do I have a motion? >> I'll make the motion >> to to amend. Motion to amend. Do I have a second? I'll second. >> Any questions or comments on the amendment? >> Roll call.
>> What is the amendment? >> Everything that was just >> everything that I just went over, Mr. Rous, >> we have a motion and a second. Any questions or comments? Roll call. >> Council member Meyer. >> There must be a parking requirement. There must be a parking requirement
added to this ordinance. So, I'll give up a no vote. Uh, Deputy Mayor McDade, >> yes. >> Council member Bodner, >> yes. >> Council member Baldwin, >> yes. >> Mayor Mullik, >> yes.
>> So, are we then reintroduc? No. Are we reintroducing at this point and then sending it to the planning board? >> Are we? Technically, if we if we introduce it tonight, the planning board meets uh I think
twice and and then twice in December. >> It's a question of whether we can adopt before. >> Yeah, we would technically bring this back December 16th. >> But the problem is you you don't know what you're going to introduce because you don't know what the plane board's going to say. So there's nothing to introduce tonight. There's
>> a >> you've just asked the plane board to relook at this in a broad brush. So, >> so this is not on the radar for >> I don't think >> this year we're going to send it to the planning board and wait for them to get back to us. >> Yes. >> And if it goes past the end of the year, it'll die and then we introduce come
back and introduce whatever the outcome of that is after the new year potentially. So the the motion could be just to refer the amended ordinance to the planning board for their consideration. >> Perfect. Okay. >> It's a Christmas miracle. >> Next next uh
>> Oh, I think we actually need to do that. Is did somebody making that motion then? >> You you amended it and now the motion is >> motion to refer >> to refer to the planning board >> to defer to the planning board. >> To defer to the planning board. >> Do I have a second? >> I'll second. >> Roll call.
>> Council member Meyer. >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor McDade. >> Yes. >> Council member Bodner. >> Yes. >> Council member Baldwin. >> Yes. >> Mayor Mullik. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> And my sincerest apologies, but we are going to have to revisit the salary ordinance.
Um, ordinance 580-2025, uh, council made one amendment to the deputy city manager title, but we did not amend the assistant municipal manager, which is
also an equivalent title. So, the recommendation is to make the salaries match. So, the recommendation if council would like to reopen ordinance 580 2025
to lower the maximum salary to 125 to match the deputy city manager. >> Do I have a motion to amend? >> I will make that motion. >> Do I have a second? >> I'll second. >> Questions or comments? Roll call. >> Council member Meyer. >> Yes.
>> Deputy Mayor McDade. >> Yes. >> Council member Bodner. Yes. >> Council member Baldwin. >> Yes. >> Mayor Mullik. >> Yes. >> And now >> motion on the amendment. >> Reintroduce as amended. >> Do I have a motion? >> I'll make a motion. >> Do I have a second? >> I'll second. >> Roll call.
>> Council member Meyer? >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor McDade? >> Yes. >> Council member Bodner? >> Yes. >> Council member Baldwin? >> Yes. >> Mayor Mullik? >> Yes. >> Thank you all. >> All right. Moving on to public portion on the resolutions only. Mayor,
>> is anyone here wishing to speak on resolutions this evening? >> Quick Stacy Sheen, 928 Columbia Avenue. My only comment is around resolution 321 having to do with the pipe that broke it
again on on Queen Street. I happen to be walking by when it was broken, you know. So, it's it seems like it's in the same spot that it broke before that we paid all this money to fix. Are they not fixing it properly that it got? Now, I know the reason was because the the
storm came, clogged the pipe up with the sand and the pressure, you know, was great and it broke in that same spot. I think we got to put a procedure in place that the pipe is cleaned out so that it doesn't back up the sand to to
put the pressure on that pipe. You know, I was walking down the street, it looked like a river. It was that much water. Thank heavens to one city water water guy was gone bass on his way home from work I guess and was able to turn off the pump that was pumping the water out out there but that was my only comment
that instead of this pipe keep breaking we got to put a procedure in place to prevent it from breaking in again in the future. So if I can comment on that. So it didn't it's not the same pipe. There's actually from that pump station, there's actually two pipes that lead from that
pump station, a 30-in pipe and a 16-in pipe. Um, what had broke previously was the 30-in pipe. This was a 16in pipe. Um, the defect that broke, yes, it the pressure built it up, but it was going to fail anyway because the the ductal
iron the ductal iron pipe had a weak spot in it that was corroding and would have broken at some point. this the extra pressure just forced it in. And I ha but to go to the final point I have instructed to make sure that you know when we have storms like that that they
are to make sure to go out on the you know at both of our pumping stations and make sure that the outlets are open so that it does not build up pressure. But this would have broke and and failed in the future anyway just because of the the material failure that had happened.
And it wasn't like the pressure blew it out a joint and it was a a pressure failure. This was a a weak spot, a deterioration in the pipe that would have failed eventually. >> Right. But literally >> it's right in the same area.
>> It and it was on the but those pipes go right side by side, >> right? But I'm just saying it wasn't even like it was higher up or it was like right within like 3 ft of going left or right. >> Coincidence it was but it was the the 30-inch pipe, not the 16inch pipe that broke last time.
Anyone else on resolutions this evening? Seeing none, we can close public comment on resolutions. >> Council, anything to remove from the consent agenda this evening? >> Anything to remove, council? >> Could we please remove 323? >> Yes.
>> 3:22. >> Okay. >> Okay. All right. So, do we have a motion to adopt the rest of the consent agenda? >> Do I have a motion? >> I'll make the motion. >> Do I have a second? >> I'll second. >> Roll call. >> Council member Meyer? >> Yes.
>> Deputy Mayor McDade? >> Yes. >> Council member Bodner? >> Yes. >> Council member Baldwin? >> Yes. >> Mayor Mullik? >> Yes. >> All right. So, going back to 322-11 2022, resolution of award of Harborview Park Bid. >> Do I have a motion? >> I'll make the motion. >> Do I have a second?
>> I'll second. >> Any questions or comments? Roll call. >> Council member Meyer. >> No. >> Deputy Mayor McDade, >> yes. >> Council member Bodner, >> yes. >> Council member Baldwin, >> yes. >> Mayor Mullik, >> yes.
>> 323-11 2025. Resolution establishing a 2026 commemorative beach tag for the city of Cape May. >> I've asked that we table this just for further discussion. Do I have a motion to table? >> I'll make that motion, mayor. >> Do I have a second? >> I'll second. >> Roll call. Council member Meyer,
>> yes. >> Deputy Mayor McDade, >> yes. >> Council member Bodner, >> yes. >> Council member Baldwin, >> yes. >> Mayor Mullik, >> yes. >> And on the regular agenda, we have 32711 2022, a resolution authorizing group enrollment for all active employees and eligible pre65 city retirees into the
air health 15 group health insurance plan and prescription drug coverage plan. >> Do I have a motion? >> I'll make the motion. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Any questions or comments, council? Roll call. >> Council member Meyer, >> yes. >> Deputy Mayor McDeed, >> yes.
>> Council member Bodner, >> yes. >> Council member Baldwin, >> yes. >> Mayor Mullik, >> yes. >> On to new business. Council. >> City solicitor, any new business? >> Nothing tonight. >> City manager? >> Nothing. >> City clerk, >> very briefly, uh, the rest of the week
is the League of Municipalities Conference in Atlantic City. So there will be a number of city employees who are up the road and not so if you can't get a hold of somebody there's going to be you know uh limited staffing the next few days. Um also city offices are closed obviously next Thursday and
Friday for the Thanksgiving holiday and that's it council. >> Okay council members councilwoman Baldman. >> Nothing tonight mayor. Thank you. >> Councilman Bodner. >> Thank you mayor. Nothing tonight. >> Deputy mayor. >> Nothing tonight sir. >> Councilman Meyer.
>> Uh thank you mayor. I just want to point out to the public that even though I do have a vote here, the votes are not always of my personal opinion. I want to thank the people in the public, whether they're here or not, for reaching out to me and uh expressing their feelings about certain things and I happen to
agree with those people. >> Thank you. Um I just I just want to say one last thing on this affordable housing issue that that that not not that we haven't spoken about it enough. Um, the only thing thing I feel compelled to
say is, um, the last thing we want to see on the mall is short-term rentals. And I think a failure of any type of ordinance um, preventing that is likely going to
cause short-term rentals on the mall. So, I I'm saying that now so that when people celebrate that this may not happen and there short-term rentals on the mall, just remember that I said this. That's all I'm saying. Thank you. Anyone else?
>> Happy Thanksgiving. >> Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. Have a wonderful evening. With that, with with that with that, >> we open it up for public comment. >> Uh Stacy Sheen, 928 Columbia Avenue. Um,
one thing, this is for the solicitor. What is the what's going on with Local? I've had a lot of people ask me what's going on with the legal process. I know we won a couple of those court battles with local trying to get them to comply. Oh, sorry.
>> Uh, the legal process is ongoing. It's in the appellet division right now, and it's going to be argued in December. My second question has to do with uh the West Kate May bridge that's going from West Kate May to Kate May. Um I'm seeing a lot of things on social media saying
it's going to be a pedestrian bridge. And why I say that in quotes is the whole idea was going to be bikes. You can't have bikes and pedestrians together unless you're going to make it a lot wider because the whole idea is somebody's going to be on a bike coming over that and somebody's going to be walking their dog and there's going to
be um accidents if we're opening it up to bicycles and people if the bridge is not made wide enough. So just keep that in mind. Is it going to be a bike bridge or a pedestrian bridge? Because even in the summertime when it comes to the boardwalk, we do not allow bikes after a
certain time because it does get dangerous. That's it. >> I hesitate to come up, but my name is uh um Peter Garcia and my wife my wife and I have owned 705 Carney Avenue for um uh since 1983.
And uh I I'm I'm here today uh and I I I will take less than five minutes, I promise. Uh to uh because of my concern for what will become of the memorial br memorial benches uh that have graced our
prominade for many years. U virtually all of them are sturdy and should not be trashed. I would like to suggest that some of them be designated uh as uh quote chatty benches uh and be placed in
various locations in our beautiful town. The term chatty benches can simply and easily be searched and I think most people would find the subject most interesting to read about. Uh I've seen uh that many cities and towns un and
universities in our country and around the world um have uh have um implemented the idea. Essentially it incorporates the idea that if I'm sitting on this bench I'm willing to to I'm willing to
talk to you. Um it is it is supposed to be a good uh mental health practice uh and cut down on isolation and loneliness uh that implement if if this where this practice is
implemented and it might even be a tourist attraction. Um so um I would also like to uh propose the idea that uh since it seems we Cape May will have a surplus of benches that the city
consider arranging four of them uh in a square possibly place like Lafayette Park where people could come and have meetings. You know, obviously everybody in this room could sit around that square and be outdoors, weather permitting, and um and consider that
could be so-called like a a chatty square basically. Um and um you know um I okay um you know the one last point I want to
make all thank you for your attention and uh uh and for all you do to make this town livable and a wonderful place to visit. Tonight is exhibit A of your dedication and thank you very much >> Mr. Garcia. I think obviously you've
mentioned the chatty bench before >> one time a long time ago. >> Um and it's a great idea and as well as sort of the you know uh but I think the the intention with the prominade benches um we've either they're either being picked up by people who do own them we
are replacing benches up there or um other people are signing up. Those benches I don't think we want to put back into purpose because of their the integrity the structural integrity of them. >> They all look very sturdy. Well, there there's >> it's hard I'm I hard I I I find it hard to believe that structural integrity is
a problem. >> Well, that's been uh verified by the city manager and uh Mr. uh Brzinski from the public works. But what I was going to say is we could take a look and see if we have a bench, say at the community center that currently is not
memorialized or, you know, ownership and maybe designate that on there. So, I'll take a look at it and I I'll reach out to you um and let you know what we come up with. >> I just wanted to Since I stuck it out, I wanted to present these ideas and you know, >> the idea is terrific. Um, but I think we
could find some one other existing that might be in a little bit better shape. >> Are all the benches going to be trashed? >> No, not all of them. Many of them are >> I mean people, but the ones that people are not taking back and the plaques, what happens to the plaques? >> The the plaques are made available to them if they want the plaque.
>> Yeah, because all those plaques were just charming to pass and look at. >> Yeah, we've contacted everybody. Yeah. And it's a shame that they're going to be gone. >> Well, they're all going to be replaced. All the plaques, all the benches for anyone who wants to sign up for the new program. >> Yeah. Well, thank you very much. I'm
sorry to have to come up here at the end. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else this evening? >> Seeing none, we'll make a motion to adjurnn. >> I'll make that motion. >> Thank you everyone. Have a wonderful evening and again, happy Thanksgiving to everybody. Thank you.
>> Time is 8:25.