Heat. Heat. I am making this uh announcement in being held in accordance with public law 1975 chapter 231. Adequate notice of this meeting rescheduled from March 18, 2026 to March 16, 2026 by resolution
number 26-91 has been provided by notice sent to the store ledger and the local source and is posted in the main lobby of municipal building and on the municipal website. Accordingly, the notice requirements of the open public meetings act have been
satisfied in regard to this meeting. Please stand for the salute to the flag. Pledge allegiance 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. >> Roll call. >> Mayor Carlage >> here. >> Councilman Bole here. >> Councilman Finella >> here. >> Councilwoman Jerro >> here. >> Councilman Morrow >> here. >> Councilman Piper >> here. >> And Councilman Stories
>> here. Can I have a motion to approve minutes of uh fee March 4th, 2026? >> Second. >> Motion made by Councilman Piper, seconded by Councilwoman Gardano Perno. Roll call. >> Councilman Bole, yes. >> Councilman Finala, >> yes.
>> Councilwoman Gerdano Perno, >> yes. >> Councilman Morrow, >> yes. >> Councilman Piper, >> yes. >> And Councilman, >> yes. >> Motion passes. >> Thank you. I'm going to move to the finance report. Councilman Morrow. >> Okay. Thank you, Mayor. Uh the finance committee met last Monday to begin our
review of the 2026 municipal budget and a few of the items on tonight's agenda stem from that meeting. Regarding those in the general agenda, we have resolution 2694 which authorizes our CFO to complete the annual transfers for appropriation reserves. This is
something that must be done within the first three months of every year. Next, resolution 2695. Important one here. Uh, this authorizes the bureau to transition from the state health benefit plan to the New Jersey solutions joint health insurance fund administered by Horizon
Blue Cross Blue Shield. We still have a few outstanding questions and this authorization to the new plan will only move forward once we receive answers we are comfortable with to those questions. If those answers are not satisfactory, the bureau retains the option to resend the resolution at our next meeting,
April 1st. So, if implemented with a June 1 start date, the new plan, while maintaining equal or better coverage, is projected to save the burrow at least $300,000 in the 2026 municipal budget. This is a big item here. It's why we're
trying to move with haste. Resolution 2696 establishes a new position for the DPW funded entirely through the clean communities and recycling tonnage grants, meaning there will be no impact to the local tax levy for this new position. Thank you, Greg.
>> An announcement from our finance office. The blue books for property tax relief for seniors and certain disability recipients are now available. Residents can receive free filing assistance at the Cranford Regional Information Center or they may contact the Burough Tax Office for assistance. Finally, we will
continue working on the 2026 municipal budget. Important to note, the governor's recent budget address indicated that Kennaworth state aid is expected to remain at the 1.008 008 million level from last year, which is very encouraging given early concerns
that the aid might be reduced. The CFO, burough administrator, finance committee, and department heads will continue to work together with the goal of introducing the 2026 municipal budget at our next meeting, April 1st. With a continued focus on efficiency, accountability, and protecting our
taxpayers, the finance committee is at work. So, thank you, Mayor. >> Thank you, Councilman Department of Public Works. Councilman Bole. >> Um, we collected and disposed of 204.5 tons of municipal solid waste for a
total cost of $16,851. Collected a dispos and disposed of 24.5 tons of comangle recyclables for a total cost of $1,83. We purchased 151,280
lbs of road salt for a cost of $5,561. Uh, the Kennor DPW has been gathering information regarding the location of potholes throughout the community. As weather allows, we have been sending crews out to make pothole repairs. As weather allows, we have also been sending crews out to inspect and clear
out storm basins for rainwater drainage. And that's all I have. >> Thank you, Councilman Department of Public Safety. Councilman Venestrella. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, I gave the monthly report at our previous meeting and therefore uh I have nothing to report.
Okay. Thank you, Councilman. Planning and zoning. Councilman Scree. >> Thank you, Mayor. Uh, total receipts for month of February 22,331.50. Mostly from building fees, $151,70. Uh, trust fees 27,449.
And next would be developers fees 12,787. Uh trailer storage fees 3,300 5,500 for road opening fees. Um also
three complaints. Um they were all snow related. Neighbors putting snow on I guess their neighbor's property. No regular zoning complaints uh for CCO applications. Um but they were just for new signage and
new business or sale of property. Um fees for trailer motor vehicle storage moves for are coming in as well. We're very busy with inspections at 2,00 gal panel also known as the old site onyx. Now with core weave onx and the substation inspection there every day
Monday to Friday conducting requested inspections. They're working closely with all contractors and our our team at Harbor Consultants to process all the permit updates expeditiously. N 29 building construction permits issued in the month of February. 26
building construction permits paid in the month of FE February. And that's all I have to report. >> Thank you, Councilman. Recreation and fire. Councilman Councilman Piper. >> Thank you, Mayor. Uh the record was read at the first meeting. uh the fire
reports first. We have a rec report tonight and the uh start out with the Union County Votech robotics team program. The UCBT robotics team has partnered up with with us as part of their outreach program to head four monthly robotics STEM sessions at the
rec center. We have had two sessions so far, 16 participants each, which have been great. David Dilva and his team have been doing a fantastic job for kids. Each of the four sessions have been maxed out and there is a waiting list for each of the sessions.
Spring sports, both the middle school baseball and softball triyouts have been completed, coaches are in place, teams have been selected, games are set, and the practices will be started within the next week. We have 14 players for our baseball team and 13 for the softball
team. The middle school track meeting was held. Registrations have been underway. We currently have 24 participants. The coach is in place, track meetings have been set, and practices uh will be starting within the next week, weather permitting. The Easter egg hunt, the egg
hunt is scheduled for Sunday, March 29th, with a rain date of Saturday, April 4th. The registrations will remain open until early Sunday morning, the day of the hunt. Full details can be found on the Burough website, recreation department/events,
along with the link to register. Finally, summer camp interviews for camp counselors were completed this past Saturday. There were 15 new applicants and 17 applications from potential return counselors. 2026 hires to be submitted for approval at the next
council meeting. The registrations will hopefully be open by the end of this month for residents and early May for non-residents. That's all. >> Thank you, Councilman. Health, Education, and Welfare. Councilwoman Gardano Perno. >> Thank you, Mayor. Uh the board of
education met the um met last Monday and as council councilman Mororrow pointed out the governor gave her address for the budget last Tuesday March 10th. So we're waiting to hear how it will affect
uh the Kennallorth Board of Education. As soon as we get that official notice I will pass it along. Uh, also Superintendent Davies is discussing with the board moving their elections to April and not have it roll in with the
traditional November elections. Uh, they just had their first discussion at this past board meeting and it'll go uh to two other their their feeling is that it will of course lend more focus and transparency to whenever there are board
issues. So it is not bundled with uh other elections and it falls in line with having their budget ready and ratified on time. Um for a social concern soups on is this Thursday. So if anybody is interested in
coming, please get in touch with the senior center or burrow hall. I imagine um I I believe tickets are still available and that would be 5:30. The health department met last uh Thursday night. They did set a date for the
health fair. Of course, it's not till September 19th, but that's pending approval with St. Teresa's, which is where they typically have it. And the library has um some new um events for
children. K kids culinary arts, Ktown Kids Karaoke, Babysitters Book Club. Um, of course the adults have spin a yarn, yarnies, and English conversations. Again, I urge you to go online. Many of
these require registration and space is limited. Um, so go online or call the library. And that's all I have. >> Thank you, Councilwoman. Burough engineer. >> Thank you, Mayor. Uh last week we had a pre-construction meeting for the CDBG
window upgrades for the senior center. We met with the contractor as well as members of the uh DPW and myself and uh there we got a schedule um when we when we need to finish by which is uh by June
uh for the grant. Other than that, um some other construction projects from last year, I've been coordinating with some of the contractors to get a date for them to start and get some um additional pre-construction meetings for some of the newer projects I haven't begun yet.
>> Have we had uh a date yet for the sidewalks to begin? >> Uh not yet. I coordinated with them as we speak. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Christian. On the note with the sidewalks, the um what are they called? The ADA bubble things. What are those called? the uh detectable warning
surfaces. >> Oh, okay. I didn't know that. The northeast side of 14th Street and Monroe, it's completely shattered. Looks like it was shoveled up and thrown into the street. So, >> we are in luck because Monroe is the DOT
road for this year. So, when we're doing that, I'll have I'll have them uh prepare that. >> Great. >> When? >> As soon as they can get out there. >> Okay. Weather issues. >> But it is it is this year. >> Okay. All right. Great. Thanks. >> Chris, I have a question. I was in the parking lot behind the senior center and
there's a big concrete block with two cones on it right outside the senior center door. >> Yes. >> What is that for? >> Uh I believe DPW put that up there to prevent um >> that a parking spot was put there in error. It's a it's an accessible pathway
for the residents to get into the senior center. So if cars parked there, they can't get in there because cars are too parked close together and it doesn't make it ADA accessible. So we put that there because even though we put cones there or construction barrels, people kept on moving them so they could have that extra parking space. We So it's
just temporary until they get to parking lot strikes. >> Wait a second. >> And on the topic of sidewalks, so walking in here, parking on the side of the wreck in front of the rec center, I don't know if it's a salt.
We're we're either going to get that cord to see if it's actually a supply issue and that mix that they put down, >> but it's again uh we're going to meet with the contractor and then possibly get poured and then directed to the supplier depending on what they
CFO Thank you, mayor. Uh, as finance chair moral mentioned, we are actively working on the budget meeting with the departments and uh, looking to have something presented to you for an introduction at the April 1 meeting. And
that's not an April Fool's. >> That's all I have. >> Thank you, Bor Attorney. >> Thank you, mayor. Uh, mayor, there are a number of items on the agenda tonight that uh, deal with the burrow's obligation and comply with the fourth
round affordable housing obligations. Uh, I know that our affordable housing council couldn't be here this evening. We have our affordable housing planner here uh, who will be able to speak I guess specifically with respect to some of the overlay zoning ordinances that we
have. If you like I could give kind of a foundation. Can you do that so that I think there's probably some people here that would like to know why we did what we did. >> Sure. >> We can explain that to everyone. >> Fair enough. So, the uh regulations imposed by the state of New Jersey
required us to uh adopt a fourth round affordable housing plan as well as supportive ordinances and zoning ordinances uh relative to the same. in order for us
to immunize the burrow from builder's remedy lawsuits uh where builders essentially can ask the courts uh to permit them to develop highdensity inclusionary affordable housing projects
anywhere where they have a property interest. Uh this is not something that the bureau was looking to promote. I mean affordable housing obviously serves a purpose. Uh so no one has anything
against people that require affordable housing. Uh but there is obviously an impact associated uh with providing that because there are also market rate units that are included in those development
projects. Uh so uh certainly the burrow was cognizant of the impact on the community uh and charged our professionals uh with uh establishing an affordable housing plan that would enable the affordable
housing inclusionary projects to be developed in the least harmful locations throughout the burough. Uh there are 560 something municipalities in the state. uh all but the the urban centers have an
obligation. Uh so we're not in a unique position. Uh the affordable housing laws have existed since the mid70s and have been the subject of numerous uh lawsuits going all the way up to the
Supreme Court multiple times uh in virtually every decade since the 70s trying to invalidate these uh obligations uh but to no avail. So the reality is we didn't have a choice. We had to
provide this plan if we didn't want developers to come in, make applications to court, and have judges deciding what our zoning was going to be throughout the town. Uh it's always best for you to have some sort of influence on this. Um
I know that uh this does impact uh certain communities. The only thing that I could tell you is that we had strived hard uh to minimize the impacts to the neighborhoods that will be uh adjacent
to where these uh developments uh are being zoned. All we're required to do is provide a realistic opportunity for the zoning. It doesn't mean that these projects are going to be popping up, but we have to provide the opportunity for zoning. uh
because if we don't then we're gonna we're going to be told where it's going as opposed to us having uh input. So we do have a number of resolutions that are on the consent agenda. Uh those resolutions deal with us endorsing the fourth round affordable housing plan uh
which was adopted by the planning board uh and uh implementing and adopting a marketing plan and a spending plan. uh the marketing plan and spending plan language uh are uh requirements that the
legislature has imposed upon us. We're virtually implementing exactly what we were told. the uh fourth round affordable uh that that the fourth round housing element and fair share plan uh was uh heard at the planning board level
with with a public hearing and all we are doing is uh endorsing what has already been adopted. uh the ordinances that we have on one of the ordinance is just putting into place
regulations which we were told by the state that we had to implement. Then there are a couple of zoning ordinances and I imagine that's the what the crux of of the public uh are here today uh to uh that they have questions regarding
these are all overlay zones. These are not superseding zoning. So rest assured that whatever use you're currently using your property for is not being prohibited by this ordinance. This ordinance is just uh creating the opportunity
uh for uh the development of a new residential development which would have an inclusionary uh component to it. So, uh, we are doing this to comply with the requirements imposed by law and we're doing all of this so that we don't get
sued by developers seeking to put, uh, development in even less desirable locations than the ones that we had selected. Uh, and again, our planner is here, uh, is able to address, I guess, the zoning ordinances.
um you also played a crucial role in drafting the regulatory resolutions and the regulatory ordinance. Uh but I could just tell you uh that those ordinances which I imagine
and those resolutions I don't imagine anyone's really here for those we had very very little discretion on what to say in those. We were pretty much given marching orders uh by the state of New Jersey. Uh so that's the overview of what those zoning ordinances are, what
the affordable housing ordinances are, and those uh three resolutions. >> I just want to want to add if are you is that a wall mark? >> Yeah. >> I just want to just reiterate it because these overlay zones are there. This does not mean that any of these properties
will ever be developed. They're privately owned and they can stay the way they are forever. It's just that we have to show good faith to the court that we would allow that in the event in the future one of those properties was
sold and someone wanted to to put a pro a development there. So it doesn't mean that anything will ever be built. nothing. Hopefully, it'll never change and all the businesses we have will continue operating the way they are successfully and
we don't have we won't have any development. So, it doesn't mean that development is coming. There's no projects. It's just a zone an overlay zone. It just over basically the existing zoning just it just allows it.
That's all it does >> in the future. Can you just add something to that? And and our planner is here and he could uh say if I'm right or wrong, but I think that all those overlay zones >> uh did contemplate the fact that assemblages would have to be made in order to afford uh to develop the
projects. >> Um as a general rule, the more uses that your property has available to it as a permitted use, the more valuable it becomes because perhaps someone wants to buy it and do something with it. So, uh,
that's one way that you could look at it. I I I know people have legitimate concerns and certainly I understand it. Uh, but understand that, uh, I don't think that any of these overlay zones are going to open up the door for
someone to buy a house in the middle of the block and disrupt the entire block. They would have to buy multiple properties to do something with adequate buffers and setbacks and everything. Uh, and that and that's what our planner helped put together here. And >> I think I think most people here are
probably are within 200 feet of these overlay zones because I don't know that we really have residential properties in these overlay zones right now currently. >> Good good point. And and I think that our planner maybe uh
>> could indicate I I >> when you're dealing with the transition between different zones, there are enhanced buffering requirements to kind of protect the the residences. Is is that accurate? >> Yeah. >> You know what? I I don't know that we need to get into this until we get to
the ordinances. >> I just wanted because it was you for you to speak and have the opportunity to sort of explain that. >> Sure. Thank you. Uh, burrow administrator. >> Thank you, mayor. I just have to, uh,
a reminder and a notice. Um, just a reminder that petition filing for the June 2026 primary election is due Monday, March 23rd at 4 p.m. All petitions must be filed in the clerk's office. I also just wanted to let everyone know the RFPs are out for the fireworks display for 2026, and I do
expect them at the end of the year. And we do have executive for executive session. >> Resolutions 26-93 through 26-102 have been approve. Oh, I'm sorry, wrong line. Next for council consideration is the consent agenda consisting of resolutions
26-93 through 26-102. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda? >> Motion. >> Second. >> Motion made by Councilman Fenistella, seconded by Councilwoman G. Ordano Perno. Roll call. Resolutions 26-93 through 26-102 have been approved by one
motion. All items will be recorded individually in full in the minutes. Councilman Bole, >> yes. >> Councilman Finestella, >> yes. >> Councilman Jana Perno, >> yes. >> Councilman Mororrow, >> yes. >> Councilman Piper, >> yes. >> And Councilman Sces, >> yes. >> Okay. Before we uh begin with the uh
ordinances, I would like to just briefly explain the process. Uh the ordinances before the council tonight implement the bureau's court approved housing element and fair share plan which is required under state affordable housing law. Four of the ordinances establish affordable
housing overlay zones in different areas of the burrow. The ordinances are essentially the same in structure and standards but each applies to a different location. Because they are separate ordinances, the law requires that each ordinance have its own public
hearing. Even though many of the questions or comments may be similar. If a question is asked during the first hearing and applies to the others, this explanation will still apply to those ordinances as well. However, we will we will still open each ordinance individually for public comment before
the council considers adoption. Public hearing adoption 20263 an ordinance to enact 120-23.19 mark road overlay zone in the article 23 part 3 in chapter 102 of the code of the bureau of counterwork to provide district regulations for an overlay zone
and to address compliance with the bureau's affordable housing obligations. This ordinance establishes the Mark Road overlay zone in Canada to meet the burough's fourth round affordable housing obligations by permitting multifamily residential development with a 20% affordable set aside. It outlines
zoning regulations, design standards, green building practices, and infra requirements for properties within the overlay zone. Is there a motion to open the floor for public comment on this ordinance only? >> Motion second. >> Motion made by Councilman Bole, seconded by Councilman Fenistra. All in favor?
>> I >> Does anyone have anything to say about this ordinance and this ordinance only? Please come forward and state your name and address. >> Okay, seeing no one, is there a motion to close the floor uh for comment on this ordinance only? >> Motion second.
>> Motion made by Councilwoman Gio Pacero, seconded by Councilman Piper. All in favor? I >> Is there a motion to approve this ordinance for adoption? >> Motion. Second >> motion might be Councilman Mororrow. Seconded by Councilwoman Gardana Perno. Roll call.
>> Councilman Bole. Councilman Fella. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Jer Perno. >> Yes. >> Councilman Mororrow. >> Yes. >> Councilman Piper. >> Yes. >> And Councilman Sces. >> Yes. >> Motion passes. >> Next up we have ordinance 2026-04 an
ordinance to enact chapter 120-23.18 in article 23 in part three. in chapter 120 of the code of the bur of Kennaworth to provide district regulations for an overlay zone and to address compliance with the bureau's affordable housing obligations. Okay. This ordinance establishes the market street overlay
zone in Kennallorth to meet affordable housing obligations by permitting multifamily residential development with a minimum 20% affordable housing set aside on designated properties along Market Street. It outlines zoning regulations, design standards, green building practices, and climate
resiliency measures for developments within this overlay zone. Is there a motion to open the floor for public comment on this ordinance only? >> Motion second. >> Motion made by Councilwoman Gardano Perno, seconded by Councilman Piper. All in favor?
>> Does anyone have anything to say or comment on this ordinance only? Please come forward and state your name and address. Okay, seeing no one, is there a motion to close the floor for public comment on this ordinance only? >> Motion. >> Second.
>> Motion made by Councilman Finestrella, seconded by Councilwoman Gardano Pacero. All in favor? >> Is there a motion to approve this ordinance for adoption? >> Motion. >> Second. >> Motion made by Councilman Piper, seconded by Councilman Bole. Roll call.
>> Councilman Bole. Yes. >> Councilman Finella. Yes. >> Councilwoman Jer Perno. >> Yes. >> Councilman Oro. >> Yes. >> Council Piper. >> Yes. >> And Councilman Scurice. >> Yes. >> Motion passes. >> Next up is 2026-05, an ordinance to enact chapter 120-23.17
in article 23 in part three and chapter 120 of the in the code of the bureau of Kennorth to provide district regulations for an overlay zone and to address compliance with the bureau's affordable housing obligations. The ordinance establishes North Michigan Avenue overlay zone in Kenoworth to meet
affordable housing obligations by permitting multifamily residential development with a minimum 20% affordable housing set aside on designated properties along Market Street. It outlines zoning regulations, design standards, green building practices, and climate resiliency
measures for development within this overlay zone. Is there a motion to open the floor for public comment on this ordinance only? >> Motion. Motion made by Councilman Finestella, seconded by Councilman Piper. All in favor? >> Does anyone have anything to say on this
ordinance only? Please come forward and state your name and address. >> Michael Schwitzer, property inside 75 North Michigan Avenue. The question is is with all this planning and so forth has there been any consideration that if
something happens what will be the effect on traffic how will any traffic increase mitigation be paid for etc. >> If all if some development comes all of that will be taken into consideration before it's allowed everything and that
the whoever whoever wants to build this property would would pay that bill. >> They would be responsible. >> Yes. Yes. There's there's accounts set up and >> because it's already very busy there, >> right? Of course. Yes. They would still have to go through all the appro the
whole approval process. It wouldn't just be that they could just go ahead and build what they want. >> Okay. Same thing would go for any additional cost associated schooling, etc. >> Everything. Yep. It all comes in >> to be absorbed by current residents. >> Correct. No, it would not be absorbed.
That's correct. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. Uh, seeing no one else, is there a motion to close the floor for public comment on this ordinance only? Second. >> Motion made by Councilman Piper, seconded by Councilman Bole. All in favor?
>> Is there a motion to approve this ordinance for adoption? >> Motion. Motion made by Councilman Fenistella, seconded by Councilman Piper. Roll call. >> Councilman Bole, yes. >> Councilman Finestella, >> yes. >> Councilwoman Garderno, >> yes. >> Councilman Mororrow, >> yes. >> Councilman Piper,
>> yes. >> And Councilman Scare, >> yes. >> Motion passes. >> Next up is Ordinance 2026-06, an ordinance to enact chapter 12-23. 20 in article 23 and part three in chapter 120 of the code of the bureau of
kennel to provide district regulations for an overlay zone and to address compliance with the burrow's affordable housing obligation. This ordinance establishes the west subner uh overlay zone in Kennallorth to meet affordable housing obligations by permitting multifamily residential development with a minimum 20%
affordable housing set aside on designated properties along market street. It outlines zoning regulations, design standards, green building practices, and climate resiliency measures for developments within this overlay zone. Is there a motion to open the floor for public comment on this ordinance only?
>> Motion second. >> Motion made by Councilwoman Gioano Perno, seconded by Councilman Piper. All in favor? >> I. >> Does anyone have anything to say for the on this ordinance and this ordinance only? Please come forward and state your
name and address. Hi, Howard Queller of 165 Summoner. >> These overlay zones are rather large. Is there any minimums amount of a property that the developer would have to buy or or would they have to develop the whole zone?
>> No, they would not have to develop the whole zone. Um, that I think that I'm going to have our planner answer that question because it's it's layered. There's several different answers for here. Okay. >> Uh Gabe,
>> uh Gabe Bale or Harbor Consultants. So, um Harbor Consultants help draft and >> you can stay up if you I'm sorry. Excuse me. If you have more comments, you don't have to sit down. >> I do. I'll get back up. >> Okay. Okay. I'm sorry. >> There there is no minimum requirement in terms of the number of units or parcels
included to develop a property. It's on a base forbase basis. terms of uh all the properties within this overlay permit the multif family permit density 20 units an acre but this in terms of
the number of of properties needed to be developed it's on a base you know base forbase basis so >> so basically each each request would be on its own >> own merit >> own merit its own okay >> yeah so thank you
>> does that answer your question sir >> right so so The developer could buy the lot next to you and develop it and you'd have no say in it. >> No, you would still have say in it. >> Yeah. >> And they would still have to >> um fulfill all their obligations and
everything and they would have to come to the burrow >> the whole process. >> Yeah. >> This all this does is give opportunity. >> That's it. I mean in terms of as the mayor mentioned all these approvals have to go for the process of board approval.
Uh so there's a say >> studies traffic studies just it's permitted and provides an overlay but it doesn't mean it's going to be approved that has to go for process to get approved. >> Can I if I could just expand upon that?
So that means that there's going to be a land use hearing. In this particular case, it would be a planning board meeting. And to the extent that an applicant puts a case in, you'll have the opportunity to cross-examine their witnesses. You'll have an opportunity to express your concerns to the planning
board. And those are factors the planning board would consider in rendering their opinion. Uh and I I I just wanted to I guess lend a little bit more clarity to the question relative to the earlier ordinance where uh there were questions about you know impact of
traffic and and and whatnot. Uh the planning board has the same jurisdiction it would have for any type of application. So to the extent that the planning board has the ability to impose obligations for uh anything that's offsite or anything that's onsite uh
under other circumstances it would equally have those rights with respect to these applications. So I just wanted to make that a little >> okay. Are you satisfied with that answer? Do you understand? Okay. Does anyone else anyone else have a comment?
Michael Schwitzer again this time 20 ride. Uh so they're looking at the map. It appears that there are two properties that were missing. You know if you're taking a look at the entire uh corner there from the proposed uh zoning. Just
wondering those question why that is. Reason behind that. Which which ones are you? >> The the corner right where your finger. Yeah, there's two properties there that I think they matter. Is that
>> Yes. >> One's not colored. >> The black one in the far right corner. >> Is that Rosel Park? >> Right there. >> No. No. Right there where your finger. >> Yeah, those two properties. It seems like it's an oversight or something to
me. I'm just curious what the thought process was behind that. >> I don't think that's it. >> No, >> that's I believe that's >> Rosel Union or Ros the map I looked at said Kennorth. That's the reason for that first question.
>> Yeah, it looks like it's outside. >> It's outside our boundary. >> Yeah, >> if it's outside the boundary, then that's fair. Like I said, >> that's a good question. >> On the Google maps. >> Yeah, >> question. Definitely not.
>> I I I believe so. Based on this mapping, >> but you could find out. That would be interesting to to learn to just verify that. >> You know what the addresses are? So, we can >> I don't know off the top. >> I have the map in my office. I can send it to you. >> That is kind of where they should be
included. >> Yeah. Now I mean >> this this in terms all the properties that that are mapped have block and lot so these properties don't have block of lot. So it looks like it's outside of Canada because that you're looking at
our tax map and the tax map will have marijuana plots not other municipalities. >> Okay. >> Okay. And then the second question is assuming somebody is interested in any of these properties and this goes for
all the ordinances here uh and they really want a piece of property. Is there any plan or is there any thought that might impact current owners for meeting the uh requirements uh that
>> the current owner has no obligation to sell their propert. understand that but in in order is there any plan or any uh implication that eminent domain may come into place now >> not not I don't think anyone on the governing body here has any interest in
doing that >> question at all >> anywhere is another thing right no that is not not in our plan I think I can speak for everyone up here but that is not >> what any of us want to do >> other places have we're not
>> our obligation is just to provide zoning opportunity, not to ensure that it gets vertically constructed. >> We just want to comply with the law. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Lisa's getting her exercise tonight.
>> Hey, anyone else from the public wishing to speak? Good evening, Mayor and Council. Robert Herbert North Street. Thank you for this opportunity. uh mayor and the attorney
that uh individual land owner has to sell and then just get I understand sure >> if we didn't make this overlay zone zone
we would lose control when they went to the planning planning board where now They got to go planning and look out for the best interest of the county. >> Right. So, >> we have protection. That's why we're
doing this so that a developer can't come in and just build wherever they want and do whatever they want. >> Exactly. >> We have protection from the court and we did not have that currently. >> We were the burrow was exposed in a very big way. >> So,
have control. Correct. >> Thank you. >> Come on up. >> Don't be shy. >> Um my name is Deraldine Tomzola. I live at 17 Kingston Avenue.
And um you know this town is only about two miles square. Very small town. And I don't know why every person in town, every resident isn't made aware of this, not just the people who are within 200
ft, you know, I mean because it would affect everybody the whole, you know, to me the whole town and and I'm going to raise something I mean other than this because I have no faith in the planning board because many of you don't know that last
year the planning board approved Dunkin Donut That's the owner knocking it down and it's supposed to be a drive-thru. And the building next to it is going to be a residential housing which originally was not zoned for, but the
pling board approved it. And I know the traffic at the boulevard and and Michigan. I can't even get out of my street in the morning. So, you know, like you said, should a developer want to do this? We also have
this on our burough website, right? It is posted. So, it the information is available um to the public. >> I don't know how I don't even go on it. So, I don't know how many people do, you know, do go on it. But, like I said, they went ahead and and approved that
which, you know, really wasn't zoned for residential housing. And I live in the that building's directly behind my house on the Boulevard, but I don't think anybody else in town is aware of that. that that was approved. The same thing like if you're going to build something
the other side of town, I would like to know about it and have a say yes or no. I mean, I'm in this town almost 69 years this year and I see big changes. You know, the traffic is overbuilt and and
everything else. >> So, I don't know. I don't think anybody knows about that. But anyway, thank you. Thank you for for that uh information. Maybe we'll find a way to other ways to get information out to the public.
Anyone else? Okay, seeing no one, I'd like a motion to close the floor for public comment on this ordinance only. >> Second. >> Motion made by Councilman Bole, seconded by Councilman Festrell. All in favor? I. >> Is there a motion to approve this ordinance for adoption? Motion
>> second. >> Motion made by Councilman Piper. Seconded by Councilwoman Gerardo Facero. Roll call. >> Councilman Bole. Yes. >> Councilman Finella. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Gardana Fisero. >> Yes. >> Councilman Mororrow. >> Yes. >> Councilman Piper. >> Yes. >> And Councilman Scurries. >> Yes.
>> Motion passes. The last ordinance we have this evening is 2026-07. an ordinance amending part five and chapter 120 of the code of the burough panel to address requirements of the fair housing act as amended and the uniform housing affordability controls as amended regarding compliance with the bureau's
affordable housing obligations. Okay. The purpose of this ordinance is to amend the land use code to comply with the fair housing act and uniform housing affordability controls ensuring the creation and long-term affordability of very low low and moderate income housing
units. It establishes detailed requirements for inclusionary developments, affordability controls, design standards, affirmative marketing, monitoring, and enforcement mechanisms to meet the municipality's fair share housing obligations. Is there a motion to open the floor for public comment on
this ordinance only? >> Motion second. >> Motion made by Councilwoman Gardano Pacero, seconded by Councilman Piper. All in favor? >> Okay. Does anyone have anything to say on this ordinance and this ordinance only? Please come forward and state your name and address.
>> Good evening again. Bob Herbert, 14 North 12 Street, Kennorth, New Jersey. I do have a question on page three of this ordinance, article B, definitions. If we can get some, if I can get some clarity of it, the The first definition
addresses accessory park apartments. Is that only going to be allowed in the overlay zones or throughout all the township? So um um so this is just these
definitions are related from the uniform housing affordability controls. It does not mean that panel workers permitting any accessory apartments. uh this just in terms of providing a definition for
guidance if maybe in the future the bureau does but it does not permit any accessory apartments uh the only the overlay only permits multif family developments and the underlying zoning within itself. Okay. So then my question
is why would we even list that under accessory apartments? And the last line in that article says accessory dwelling units on the same lot when the law has not been passed yet to delete single
family zones. I know our our government is trying to delete the single family zones which you know is very disheartening. It's the American dream. everybody going on home own. And I'm just concerned and I think as this was discussed year after year with the
planning board, I know without mentioning names, some of the planning board members were concerned that that this doesn't pop up to the whole town that somebody can add an accessory dwelling unit or make a door in a garage and convert it to a one person
apartment. And you know, a lot of people are concerned with that. So, I'm just looking for clarity tonight. If this ordinance is only for the overlay zone, that that possibly may happen in the future or is it throughout the whole
town? The ordinance, the affordable housing ordinance applies to any affordable housing unit itself. Those are the regulations. Those provide the regulations related to that. Um so in
terms of like I said you know the accessory department accessory blowing unit uh is is not permitted in in counterware. None of the overlays permit this type of use. Um so just in terms of
the definition that was provided from the state this as a guiding principle but it does not mean the burrow is permitting these type of uses within any area in the burrow at all. >> One four units if you and we don't have
four family houses in >> um at least we're not supposed to but one four right am I right? Yeah, we do have a a six family. >> May I may you be able to link clarity if you make >> um so uh Dave, we we we were provided a
model ordinance and and and that's what we modeled our ordinance over. Correct. >> So there are things in our ordinance that are not reflective of actual uh zoning uh that's covered in our uh housing element and in any of our
ordinances. Correct. Correct. Uh and we would end up having to change either our housing element. Uh that's a portion of our master plan that has public uh hearings associated with such an action if we were going to include uh or make
some sort of change to include accessory structures in the future. >> Correct. Okay. So we just adopted this ordinance essentially as is because the state strongly recommended this. If this was a state model um just in terms of providing a basis for these type these
requirements and these uh regulations related to affordable housing but it does not like you said it does not mean even though it's it does not mean it's permitted and and we entered into a settlement agreement with fair share housing and we were uh also had a court
order telling us that we had adopted this particular ordinance uh as part of our settlement and as part of the process to secure the unit. >> Yes. The the the the court order was the overlays. So none of the mechanisms were related to accessory apartments or
accessory dwelling units. So all of the mechanisms are related to the overlay zones >> to the overlays. >> Yeah. Okay. So it's not throughout the town which is my biggest concern. But regarding that it's not with our affordable housing under chapter 120.
Now, the ordinance clearly says on page one, an in ordinance amended part five, affordable housing in chapter 120. >> All it is is saying it's a definition, but that definition doesn't pop up anywhere saying
>> Oh, in our ordinance. >> Exactly. >> Right. There's no language correct for >> and and there's no there's not been uh certainly to my knowledge and you've been involved more than I have, Dave, but I don't recall anybody explaining any interest. >> Gabriel.
>> Oh, Gabriel. I'm sorry. Uh no one expressed an interest in pursuing that. That that wasn't >> Okay. Thank you very much for uh clearing that up. Thank you. >> Nobody question mark while we're here. Would it be uh would it mess up the whole uh program if you threw a line in
there to say this only pertains to affordable housing, not the rest of the >> bar? That would be redundant. Uh and I wouldn't suggest that we change it at this point in time on on second read. >> So it's not necessary in your opinion? >> I don't think it is necessary. No. >> Okay.
And that's minus fault. >> Anyone else? >> May I? >> My name is Jesco. Good even everyone. I live in 25 southern Michigan Avenue many many years. >> My question >> when you talking about photo is that
going to give a preference for Kenworth people from Kenwood to anybody from outside >> um >> let's say project those those stipulations would happen at the specific project when the project was uh
planned with the planning board. So, and I don't believe that we could say just Kennoworth residents um as far as I understand the law is that but it is from our region. So, there's an area that people and it's our surrounding
neighborhoods where people would be able to apply for affordable units. >> Okay. And I don't know if this question what about doesn't affect overall our taxes the the value of our home. It's it's
going to be benefit or >> well there's not a project that's really presented. So I I don't I couldn't answer that because this may there may never be a project presented. So each project would would stand on its own
merit and the negotiations would be different for each project if they even come about. >> Okay, understand. >> Okay, anyone else? Um real quick with the uh preference will be given if u
if I'm um the people like you can give seniors preference and veterans but there'll be a time period so we would you'd have to act quickly. So there but that would have to come up um as the projects came up. Mar put it in ahead of time, but they said you really can't.
You got to wait till uh and then set those conditions for those because I think if anyone should have it should be seniors and veterans, they should benefit at least give them first crack at it, first preference. So that will hopefully be >> and and that depends upon the development.
>> Yeah. the the marketing plan, which was one of our resolutions, uh is a plan that is uh uh is following regulations that the legislature put into place that require the units to be
marketed in such a way that we can't unduly influence the process. It's a lottery process. There is some waiting that takes place. uh and again told how this has to be done and that's what's in that one of the resolutions in the uh
the consent agenda which was adopted. >> I was also told we would be able to do seniors and veterans. You're saying we can't do that with this lottery. >> No, you you you would end up having to have the property zone or the person has to do a an application for that. If if
someone came in and they wanted to do an inclusionary project and they wanted it to be veterans housing, uh then they have to make an application for that and then at that point in time it gets adjusted. I I'm involved in, you know,
maybe not as much as Gabe, but I'm in six towns and I haven't seen anybody zone for veterans housing without there being an active applicant seeking to develop a particular piece of property. So, it would be highly unusual for us to say that we're going to designate a
particular zone for veterans housing without having a developer that wants to do it. Um, >> yeah, you have to wait for them to have a >> but at that point in time it certainly could be done. >> We would try to put it in. >> Yeah. >> And it would not be we're not allowed to
do 100% senior or veteran. We only do a certain percentage. I know that's a stipulation. And council member, it depends on each project. Sometimes projects are 100% affordable housing. Uh could be a senior 100%
senior affordable housing project. I mean, each one is on a different application in terms of what >> and they get different grants and different funding. Mo most of the veterans housing, I think all the veterans housing that I've seen in my career have been 100%. because they end
up having federal funding and there's federal programs for it and they they require that. Um but again that's a developer by developer and property by property process and we cross that bridge when we get approached by a
developer that wants to do it. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Anyone else? proceeding. >> Seeing none, I'd like a motion to close the floor for comment on this ordinance only. >> Motion second.
>> Motion made by Councilman Skiri, seconded by Councilman Piper. All in favor? >> I. >> Is there a motion to approve this ordinance for adoption? >> Motion. >> Second. >> Motion made by Councilman Piper, seconded by Councilman Finestrella. Roll call. >> Councilman Bole. Yes.
>> Councilman Finestella. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Jera. >> Yes. >> Council Morrow. >> Yes. >> Councilman Piper. Yes. >> And council. >> Yes. >> Motion passes. >> Okay. At this time, I'd like a motion to open the floor to the public. >> Motion. >> Second. >> Motion made by Councilman uh Bole,
seconded by Councilwoman Gardano Perno. All in favor? >> Does anyone have anything to say for the good and well-being of Countorth? Please come forward and state your name and address. Okay. Seeing no one, I'd like a motion to close the floor for public discussion.
>> Motion. Second. Motion made by Councilman Scare, seconded by Councilman Piper. All in favor? >> Okay. Next, we have um uh workshop items to discuss. Any workshop items anyone would like to
discuss? Um, >> is this in the right form here? Because we just closed the floor to the public and workshop session. I'm not really sure how the what's happening here. >> Speaking as
>> Okay. So, she's coming up as a department head. Okay. >> Um, it's >> Kristen Bole. Uh, >> Henorth. kind of worth >> 575.
>> Um, I'm coming up to talk about our summer camp fees and the changes that have happened to our program since the fees were increased in 2024. Um, I have
members. >> Thank you. Okay. Um, I had put in a request to amend the fees to our residents for summer camp
um to increase them based on the decrease in non-resident registrations after their fees were increased in 2024
as well as the consistently increasing minimum wage rates that are happening every year. Um, last year, if we go to
the second page, it'll show you our budget numbers from 2018 to now as to what we brought in and where we ended up. So in 2018
when fees were straight flat across the board, we brought in 109,192 in fees. In 2019, we brought in $100,629 in fees. 2020 and 2021 were COVID modified years,
so we did not charge any of our residents for summer camp that year. we had money left over, so we were able to provide modified camps for all of our residents for those two summers. 2022 was our first full year back. Our
registrations were still low. People were still uncertain. We brought in 82,943 and we started that season with 44,671. >> In 2023, we brought in 131,000. So I understand. So that 44
671 was a leftover from 2019. Okay. >> Yes. Um in 2023 we brought in 1,00 31,156 and we started that season with
57,340. 2024 we only brought in 97,520. started the season with 80,148 and it was a decrease of 33,636 from before the fees were raised for
non-residents. 2025 last summer we brought in 86,432. Started that season with 44,000. Payroll alone for the summer was 95,129. If we didn't have the cushion from the
previous year, we would have been negative. We would not have been able to complete uh complete payroll. There was a $44,000 decrease since before the fees were raised. >> Has your question in the years 23 to 24 25 are we maintaining the same amount of
counselors with less enrollment? >> We in 20 last year we we did bring in more because of 2023 how many we had how many campers we had. So
in order to cover the ratio, we increased our amount of counselors to cover the ratio, but then we didn't max out. We had enough counselors to cover if we maxed out for the summer. >> So because 2023
had a lot of families joining, we based our 2025 camp counselor number 24. >> 24. Okay. Okay. So, when 25 came around, did we reduce the number of counselors? >> No, we didn't. >> How come?
>> I was hoping that we would get our numbers back. I was hoping the first year would be a hit and then the second year we'd be able to start building back. And that's >> so it the the payroll issue really was our poor forecasting. If if we really think about it,
>> if that's what you want to call it, that's fine. In 2020, >> I'm sorry, Kristen. That's not what I want to call it. We forecasted a number based on the prior year, which was based on a prior record year, and we're not decreasing it, but we're seeing lower enrollments. But if we're keeping the
staff the same, it sounds like we didn't forecast correctly on how many counselors we would need. I'm not trying to say point fingers or anything. Just it seems like it's a fact, >> not how I want to say it. >> Okay. >> This year, I'm decreasing based on the
numbers of the past two years. Um but in order to move the program forward, especially with the minimum wage rates being increased
significantly, we need to increase our fees for our residents because that is the primary attendant of our camp. On the next page, I have the breakdown
of the registrations from 2022 to 2025. In 2022, we had 204 residents registered and 106 non-residents. 2023, we had 225 residents registered, 196 non-residents. After the fee increase in 2024, we had
167 residents and 48 non-residents. 2025 we had 145 residents and 34 non-residents. In the previous evaluation in 2024 when those numbers were pulled for the registrations
um the St. Teresa students choice students were not counted as Kennaworth. So those numbers when it was originally pulled were skewed because there was no question for
clarification on those numbers. Um so when I broke it down more and gave the real numbers, it was significantly different than what was presented. Um,
I understand the council's stance on raising resident fees versus not also raising non-resident fees. I get it. But primarily the residents are the ones now that have to fund this program
because we don't have support from burough budget. It's has to be self- sustaining and the only way to do that right now I feel is to increase the resident rates.
>> Are the uh students from St. Teresa's and the choice students now counted in the resident Yes. numbers. Okay. Because that's important. >> Mhm. >> So Kristen, a few questions. Yeah. >> Um where are the campers going, the non-residents? because we're still the
cheapest camp in town and we've pulled the numbers with the exception of Clark. >> Uh good point. Uh in surrounding towns, um we're we're still at the bottom of the tier. I think Clark was the only one on your report that came in a little lower that also accepted non-residents.
There are other towns like Union that don't even accept non-residents. >> So Union is um very small. They only accept 50 campers >> because they don't want to compete with the Boys and Girls Club or the YMCA.
They can't. They charge a flat rate. They're not self- sustaining. >> Mhm. >> And they have burough funding. >> So, my primary question though is where are the non-resident campers going? Where do we suspect they're going? >> It's a suspicion I'm asking. I'm going
>> to talking about a 66% drop off. >> Okay. I'm going somewhere with this. Where do we think they're going? I think they're either going to the YMCA or the Boys and Girls Club and staying in their own town. >> So they're spending more money to do that. >> If they're going to be spending more money, they might as well stay in their own town. >> Okay. So that's that's a good point. So
all of the programs that our town runs have to be primarily focused on our residents because they're they're Kennorth program. >> Correct. >> So we're not really in the business of worrying about can non-residents afford our camp. It's 100% about the residents.
Now, I understand what you're trying to do here with the numbers and trying to make the budget up, and I applaud you for that. I just can't accept not charging more for non-residents because of what you're putting in front of us and only going after residents for the increase.
>> We we still would be charging more for non-residents >> in 2026 verse 25. That's not what you proposed to us. >> Not not in 2026. In general, we're still charging more for non-resident. I mean, in the rate, if you have a budget problem and we're looking at a
shortfall, I'm for increasing the rates. I'm not for only increasing it on our residents. The It's not a charity we're running here. This is a camp. If it needs to be sustained, it needs to be sustained, and I get that, but I can't have it on the backs of just the residents to pull it back.
>> Well, then we raised the 75. >> Wait, wait, wait. Stop. Stop. Wait. Why is this happening here? This should be happening with the department, the recck department, but it should be and it should also
happen then if you want to bring in someone from the finance committee. This should not be happening in work session. This should be happening within the committee. >> Why wouldn't this happen in work session? >> Because that's how we don't bring each this is why we have committees. >> Mayor, we can't have >> It sounds like you want this to be
public. cannot have the finance committee meet with the recck committee because we have quorum requirements we have. you have uh the head of the the of the wreck department which is Councilman Piper should be meeting with you and how do you know that meets I don't know but
then if it didn't happen then why are we doing this >> and it needs to come to the full governing body for workshop I'm sorry mayor you could have asked that question instead of assuming that you were right about our meetings we discussed it >> but hold on so I >> this is absolutely appropriate place to do workshop mayor you for a workshop
>> you know what >> this >> someone else is talking you should listen to yourself at that one. Then >> can can we I made numerous requests to meet with my subcommissioner with the exception of Councilman Piper.
The others did not want to sit down. >> We schedu that was supposed to be Monday at the last meeting. It was supposed to be >> back in November and December. rescheduled two meetings got rescheduled to accommodate their whatever else they
had going on which I understand it happened >> then >> well you and Chris Councilman Piper came to the meeting >> everybody else there >> right Councilman Spice and Councilman didn't show up >> twice I conveyed my position of
Councilman Piper tell me but the one in December he found out after he was already at the because I was sitting right next to him when he called you >> and I go to all the other meetings on that. >> So I don't understand. >> So then this meeting
>> so then this meeting was scheduled. >> It's over here >> and then they said she can talk to us at work. >> Well, I remember at the last council meeting you all were supposed to meet the following Monday. >> So I thought this was coming
>> which got moved to Thursday. and then got cancelled. >> So, I guess my question would be to the three committee members, why can't you get together to meet with the rec director, >> figure it out and bring it back to
council so we have all the information instead of having this >> what happens with every other department discussion. So, just to enlighten everybody, this came to the finance committee and unanimously the finance committee balked at not raising rates on the non-residents while they're looking
at the >> finance. How am I going to be able to finish a thought if everybody keeps interrupting and then when everybody gets interrupted, they get mad that they were interrupted. >> The finance committee mad >> the because this is exactly what happened with with the mayor and me 5
seconds ago. Let's have a decorum here where people get to finish the thought. >> All right. All I ask I guess not how could it go to the finance committee if it didn't start with the rec committee. >> Kristen had reached out and we see member of the three showed up.
>> You're all assuming process wasn't followed here and it absolutely was and we can enlighten you on how that >> So why don't you let the other two committee members talk about >> fine I won't finish the thought I was making from the finance committee perspective. I don't know why this got contentious. Miss Bole is here trying to
talk an advocate for the campers. I don't understand why this had to be called out in a public session the way you did, mayor. This is absolutely the place to work this year. This is absolutely the place to work something >> I I'll tell you the finance committee when they met on this, they could not swallow the pill that the residents
would not see the increase. We are all for you sustaining this camp the way you have been. I applaud you on being able to do that with most of the programs you run, if not all. So, that's a wonderful thing. I think the 3-day option that you proposed back on the table, you should run with that one. I would be more than
willing from a finance perspective to see that on a on a resolution or fee ordinance, whatever we have to do. The whole fact of raising fees, I think it needs to be done across the board, not just to residents. The town's financing everything for the residents and it's
done through their taxes. So to increase fees for them anywhere and not do it for the non-residents in the same program, I understand the starting point is 150 verse 75. non-residents 150, residents 75. That when we did our review two years ago was the appropriate breakdown.
We were actually still cheaper than the surrounding towns who were charging in some cases more than double of the resident rate. So we were following the formula that other surrounding towns have >> and I understand that. But if you actually look at what those other towns offer and how their camps are built and where their finances come from, there is
no comparison. Clark does not pay their employees. We do. The camp does. Clark camp does not. Union does not. Roosevelt Park, which is run from the the school district, is the
only one who is self- sustaining. And we can't compare them. They have 300 campers a week and over a 100 employees. >> Yeah. But they take non-residents, too. So, >> yes, they do. Yeah. And they charge a lot more than we do. So when we're talking about >> they offer lunch and they offer breakfast and they offer swimming and
they offer labs, they offer weights. There's no comparison between the >> you get what you pay for. But when we're looking now at losing campers because we increase from 75 to 150 while they're still at 350 a week or whatever the I'm making that up. I don't know what their number actually is. I know what our
numbers are. But when we're looking at that, it's hard for me to to acknowledge that we're losing non-resident campers to a camp that would cost 100 to 150% more than our camp. It's it's if it's an economical reason to come to Kennorth camp, it wouldn't make economical sense
to go somewhere more expensive even after we increase the fees. So that's just looking at it from the the numbers perspective. It's a hard pill to swallow and I again I am all for you doing the the raising of fees so we could sustain the program. I think it needs to be done across the board.
>> So Roso Park's fees are 260 for residents and 50 more for non-residents. >> Okay. So they're at 310. You said 260. So they're 310. So they're more than double our camp. So they >> more than double our camp, but only $50 more than their residence. >> But still the non-resident rate is more
than double our camp. So I can't see somebody sending their if economics was the reason I can't see them going to Rosel Park. No. >> It doesn't make economic sense. >> I don't think they are. >> Yeah. So that I don't I don't that's why I asked my question. Where do we think the campers are going? I don't think they're going to surround
where we think they're going. >> I think they're not going to camp at all. That's what I think. >> Well, that that's their decision. >> And it hurt us. The the thing that I'm most concerned about the dwindling funding that's happening
>> to our program has sacrificed all of the different activities that we were offering at one time with field trips and different things. Right now it isn't a robust program at all. And if you
visited any of the others, and I don't know if any of the committee members had the opportunity to do that, you would see the vast difference and why at this point, even if say we wind up with an
all resident program, they're going to have nothing to do because we're not going to have funding to have any kind of activities for these kids to do other than play in the playground. No, we'll have to vastly increase them. I'm sorry.
We'd have to vastly increase trying to avoid this budget is going down and I just think that the residents have not been given any increase in how many years? I'm not sure. >> 2015 was the last time we increased it because that's when we started doing the background
>> 2015 and we started absorbing the >> 10 years. >> We have not increased the residents fees, >> right? What is your proposal to increase for? What is what? What do you want to increase the fee to? >> I had originally proposed to increase
them to 100 >> from $75 a week to $100 a week. >> $25, which I would be fine to revisit that and even if we were to lower that as a starting point at least
to try and make up for some of the loss. I mean, we're talking. >> So, your proposal is that the non-residents would pay $150 a week and the residents will pay $100 a week. That's your proposal. >> So, we could look at it. What does everybody proposal is? Is a 30% increase
on residents and a 0% increase on non-residents. >> And you went through why we doubled them. And I think it's very important to note we're only talking about non-residents and looking at them in the camp. The resident numbers go down year after year, too. So if we're not increasing the fees on the residents,
why are they going down? So we have >> because our program is offering we're making assumptions based on the non-resident attendance on what the success of the failure rate is going to be. >> Experience. That's why >> well I I can I can actually tell you from experience cuz my children went
there. >> Mine went there in the years we're talking. So I can tell you you don't need to be on a pedestal telling me about the experience. I've lived the experience. I don't see how this governing body can debate this and say we need to raise the
fees for our residents and keep non-resident fees flat >> for $25 a day. Break it down for an 8 hour day. >> So charge that to the non-residents as well. >> We did last year. We are talking about a new fee.
>> There's another variable here guys. >> All right. So listen, they ended the 3-day program and forced them to go into 5 days, which is basically a increase. So they wanted the discount. I think that and when exactly did that happen that could be a big part of this >> happened the exact
Yep. It's another reason why we >> bring that back I think would bring up. >> So what do we do for what I said it is? >> What's the what's the fee for that? Let's talk about the fee. >> That should have it. and raising fees is residents or non we're blaming the raising of the fees as to why attendance
went down. So if we do it again it could >> right >> yeah we lose negatively affected again that's we don't know for sure >> without the fee for 3 days >> right now >> what is your proposal for three days I
wonder what your proposal is >> I didn't see 60. >> So $60 a week >> for three days. And what is the non-resident? Is that is that an option? >> 90.
>> $90 for three days. >> I'm sorry. What was that? 60 for resident. >> 60 for res day. >> Okay. >> All right. So that's the proposal. So what does everyone think about that? Let's just get a vote here on $100 for
residents and 150 for non-residents for five days a week. Um >> Ken has this >> that raises the fees for residents. >> I understand. But let's get an idea of what everyone here on the governing body thinks about it. And then it would be $60 a week for residents for three days
and 90 for non-residents. I'm putting on the table what Kristen is presenting so everyone has the opportunity to come to their own conclusion on how they feel about what she wants to do. >> Okay. Be forthright. We're increasing resident fees with that proposal and not
increasing non-resident fees. >> Right. But last two years ago, we doubled the non-resident fees. We doubled. That is a very important >> where may it may not have killed the camp. Maybe removing the three-day option killed the camp. This is and we're talking about killing the camp is
not the conversation we're having. We're talking about workshopping here. We're not trying to come to a vote. We're workshopping. If you want to take a vote on it, Ken had his hand up. >> Yep. >> I I was just going to suggest you're talking about trying to determine what the fee should be. You need to determine
what your costs are going to be first. You're going to have to have your estimate based on how many counselors you're going to have, how many hours per day, how many days per week. Come up with that estimated payroll cost. Then whatever functions you want to do and what those costs are going to be, whether it's renting inflatables or this
and that, come up with a total project cost. Then you go back and you look at your estimated number of participants. >> Of course, that's where base fee bases. >> You're not going to know. >> We we should use last year's numbers to
forecast attendance for next year. I think that we would see an increase in attendance if we bring back the 3-day option. And I note here the afterare and all that. And we talked Kristen, we allow families to drop their kid off an hour before the camp actually starts. We should charge. That's that's a service
that everywhere else, including the schools, they charge for before care. There's no reason why we should be paying our counselors and then not have that as a fee. So there are ways there are ways I think we should be bringing in the revenue. Just so just so we're clear, um, not all my counselors start
at 8, >> okay? >> That it's a smaller number and very few get dropped off at 8:00 to be perfectly honest with you that I don't know how much of an impact that would actually have or help, but I do understand what you're saying. I know a lot of towns do charge for before care and they do
charge for afterare in in the sense of like late pickups. Some towns charge per 15 minutes. And I think that's kind of ludicrous because a parent can't control traffic. A parent can't control what if
their boss makes them stay late. Like there are circumstances that I will stand firm on being empathetic to and not nickel and dime people just because we can or because anyone thinks
that we should or because other towns do it. I I I applaud you for saying that because I'm empathizing and sympathizing being one of them, the Kennallorth taxpayer who has to bear the fees for all the things that happened in this town, which is why I stand firm against
raising only resident rates and not raising non-resident. I didn't want to raise anyone's rates. And I'm sure you remember that. I didn't want to raise anyone's rates unless it was absolutely necessary until we got to a point where it was absolutely necessary to raise the
fees to cover the costs. We're there now. We're there. And if it were up to me, we'd go back to the way it was and I would start from the ground up again and rebuild it like I did the last 15 years.
>> To see it kind of fall apart in two was a little tough to swallow. >> I think it's hyperbolic to assume that the fees raised on non-residents is the whole reason why we lost all the attendance. I think there are other factors, including the three-day piece,
that would be a little more played a big role in that. Chrissy, can you tell us what what activities, you know, I know there's a lot, but a summary of what you used to have and then two, three years
ago, how what the finances have changed and I don't want to lead in with anything like I don't know in the past two years because I have not had a child there how the activities and all and
trips and all have changed. So, we no longer have trips at all. The last two years we have not had trips. Um, last year the campers couldn't get shirts. Um, we didn't have the amusements, the blowups, the kickoff
party and the sendoff party at the end of the summer, the one in the gang and the one at the end. Um, daily used supplies weren't replaced. Um, we kind of
made do with what we had left and it's going to be end up being the same thing this year because I have no way of projecting how many registrations we're going to have to even order supplies. So, >> and when's your cut off so that you have
time to do whatever? >> Um, ideally the end of May. So it gives you June >> to put it together >> when usually I'm ahead of the game because we we've always had a cushion,
>> right? >> And we don't have that anymore. >> So you're starting in the negative. >> No, we have $7,000. >> Okay. That wouldn't even pay for one trip. >> No. No. Well, depending on the trip, I
guess, but it wouldn't pay for buses, that's for sure. >> Right. Who paid for a trip? Wasn't it outside? Like >> the trips were the trips were donated. >> Yeah, they were donated trips. >> They were donated. But we had we had outside vendors coming in and we had which we did have two outside vendors
that I found relatively reasonable that were able to come in last year and but that was the only thing that we did. >> So the trips doesn't increase fees or not. The trips really had no impact were not impacted by the fees. >> No. No. >> Yeah. Okay. >> No, the trips weren't just the supply. Look, I'm still s curious why our
resident numbers are going down in the camp. I mean, I mean, we're focused on the non-residents making assumptions that fee increases happen. What's going on with our Kennorth kids? Why are they >> That's the three-day thing. >> That's the three-day thing for bringing that back and the fact that they're just thrown into a gym to
>> residents did not lose that option. The only people that lost that option in 2024 were the non-residents. >> Okay. So we still have kids in Rosel Park because they have sewing classes, cooking classes. >> They have, >> but we'll we won't have that. Charge
$9,000. We don't have that kind of I I listen I I think we're making comparisons to neighboring towns. Maybe we shouldn't. I think we're talking about fees being the reason why we're losing campers. I don't think it is. I I think there might be something else going on with the camp. It could be what you're saying, Mr. oil that the council
the the thing is hot and kids do rather be outside playing. Parents are changing their tune. >> We do know every single one of these kids and every single family >> over the years we've known every single one of them. We have parents telling us that no they can't afford it. >> The out of town kids out of town parents
one of them is coming in. >> Here's the thing. Then that becomes us doing a charity for the non-resident. Listen I get it free. It's not a charity. >> Well, it's a reduced cost. is subsidized cost for non-residents and we're saying
that we have expenses going up like payroll and all these other things. We can't afford to do that for non-residents. Our taxpayers I pay over $20,000 to live in my house. I it's it's gotten too out of control. We can no longer rely on only increasing fees for
our residents in the name of doing it for a non-resident. I I stand I stand against this. >> All right. So, let's see how everybody else feels about it because we we can go we can sit here till 10:00 tonight. >> So, let's
>> an assumption >> with >> Kristen's proposal. What are everyone else's thoughts? I know yours. I know Tony's. I don't know how anyone else on council feels about
what she wants, her proposal, what she put on the table. more than to go $90 for everyone that comes to the camp and bring it back to when we had tons of people coming. >> But that's not I know I understand that but that's not on the table. Let's stick with what her proposal is.
>> My opinion bring back the 3day where you want if you got to raise fees got to be across the board. >> Okay. >> That's my position. >> Me too. Okay, >> Doug.
>> Well, we raised out oftowners and didn't raise residents and now we're going to raise residents and not out of town. I think that's kind of washes. >> We're not raising a ton of money for our residents. >> It's basically for a ton of money
outside of town. >> We doubled the fee for out of town. >> Yes. So, I mean, I can go either way with this because it's not that much, but then again, those people can't afford $25. I get that.
>> But I I said it last time and I'll say it again. I will always work with our residents if there's issues. >> That has to be in the field. You can't just randomly do that, >> right? >> Because then that could look like favor.
>> I know. But if I get enough feedback saying to me that there's issues, I would bring it to you guys and we would talk about it. So I very clearly would
approve a $25 raise for the residents this year. Nothing for non-residents. Bring back the 3-day >> and see where that goes for this year. Why aren't we considering raising
everybody? Like I don't I understand we did it two years ago. Wow. When has PSEG ever not raised rates in a year? What is >> your proposal to raise the uh >> So you got Why can't I ask I'm asking what do you want to raise it to? How much you want to raise it? It's 150 now.
>> Proportional would be desired which would mean the non-resident would go up higher than the 25. But what if you did everybody 20? So non non-resident and a resident go up 20. So we're not proportionate because the non-resident is now seeing a less percentage increase
than the resident. I I just I cannot swallow telling our constituents that we're going to raise their rates, but anybody coming in from a different town stays at last year's rates. >> If we can figure out that there's still $50 more for out of town. >> I don't want to tell our constituents
that we're looking out for anybody but them. It's not affect every town differential price for Cranford Pool. They charge me more. >> Every town charges. >> All right. So, you're you're proposing 20% increase across the board.$20.
>> $20. So, it would go from 100. It would go from uh 95 to 170. >> Yep. I I it would have to be a fair increase for everybody who attends the camp at that. 10.
>> Is that going to make the money you want? >> Yeah. >> What was that? I didn't hear what you said. >> Yeah. >> 10 for each category and then bring back the three-day. >> Yeah. >> That Chris, I think that's great. It
would get my problem is just solely that we're going to raise increases on our constituents and not the other people that use the camp. You solve that problem. >> 85 and 160. But I'm sorry. >> Miss Grodano, you're just agreeing that
you would rather council woman, you're agreeing to raise resident rates. >> We pay enough in taxes in these tax. >> I pay more than we pay enough. >> Then we don't need the kids going to camping extra money. >> So your proposal
is $85. >> All right, guys. $85 for residents and $160 for non-residents. and bringing back the three days a week appropriating that amount whatever that is. >> Yeah. >> What was what what would the numbers be on three days a week then?
>> So it's just dividing divide it by five >> and then multiply it by three. >> Three. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Is that what everyone is everyone? >> Yeah, sounds fair. Sounds fair. >> Yeah. It's just very amazing to me that looking out for our residents would be
considered grandstanding. I I can't get over enough already. Stop. Stop. Stop. Look, statements were made. They're on camera. >> No, this shouldn't even be happening here. This should >> I am appalled that we would call that grandstanding. I'm using that word. >> We It is we
may this was on the agenda last meeting. I pulled it off. >> Okay. >> My my just just to clarify a little bit further. My I understand about the taxpayer.
My hangup with that phrasing was that it's not Yes. It's it's resident participation that pays for the camp, not taxpayers on a whole because the burrow doesn't fund this camp at all. >> Right. >> Yeah. But the burrow funds all burrow
operations. and you say that, but we do pay the insurance for it. If there's uh lighting that needs to happen at the rec center, all these things get paid for by the taxpayer. So, it's not 100% funded by the fees. I just I would like to make that clear. It's especially the insurance for the camp. So, there are
things that the taxpayer absolutely pays for to keep that camp going. And usually something like camps when you're doing insurance premiums or either by payroll for your counselors or by the number of attendees. So, the more campers we get, the more the burrow has to pay for the insurance there. So, while we're looking
at this resident versus non-resident, there's a financial impact for more residents hitting our camp. >> Am I wrong about that, Ken? >> No. Well, thank you. >> There's more kids. >> Okay. >> Okay. So I think that's what we came to
this conclusion is everyone >> Kristen actually had it ready. I I don't know Laura where that came from. It was you or you put that together yourself >> but there was a good baseline that she had routed around was which Laura on those emails? >> Yeah I sent it to her. I sent it to her and my leazison first.
>> Makes sense. >> That's the that's the order of it. >> It looked like it captured everything except for the resident fee increase. excuse me, the non-resident increase and now the new numbers that we have. >> Okay, we're good. >> Okay,
>> next meeting. >> All right, any other workshop things to discuss? Okay, >> I had some, but I guess it should be executive. >> We're going to go into that next. kind of like you know hopefully you got
you know >> um is that what we talked about >> trying to I don't know if like I said you may only become >> well if >> you mention it more of the time definitely more >> I'm sorry I'm not I can't hear you
>> don't go specific but what is it a contract >> potential threatening definitely a threatening And it it's not it's not including a potential it's not including an employee. Correct. >> No, it's not.
>> Okay. Um we've talked about it before, so I'm not going to be surprised, but I just don't know if >> if it's going to the next step, gets in the litigation force lawsuit. You know, it won't take long. I just want to make
more aware of it and I think when I might have written more here at the time maybe maybe you're not aware of it so I just want to mention it and we delve deeper if you think required it >> well if this is going to be discussed it
definitely needs to be discussed in executive session I just don't know that can we add that on >> to this does it need to be discussed tonight >> if it is I think I would need to talk to you so I know what it is so I know how to identify it cuz we have to get some
description. >> So >> well I guess if if is it legal to add it on or if you can't add it then I going to have to wait >> you know say >> it's been dragging on and on >> indicate it's potential litigation. I'll
hear what the subject is and then we'll see if we clarify the resolution after okay >> or just not discuss it. Okay. So, I guess for the executive session, uh, mayor, uh, we have our employment
council here. We're discussing, uh, contract negotiations with health benefits, >> and then there's a potential litigation matter, which I'll have to define when we step out that discuss. >> Does anyone need a fivem minute recess before we go into executive session? >> No thanks.
>> No thanks. >> Okay. >> Okay. I'd like a motion to go into executive session. >> Motion second. >> Motion made by Councilwoman Gear Person, seconded by Councilman Piper. All in favor? How's >> everyone doing? >> Okay. This time, the governing body will
entertain a motion to enter. I did that already. >> I just want to add that no formal action will be taken by the governing body. We will uh reconvene solely to adjourn. Heat. Heat.