I'll call you fast right now. >> Yeah. I'm back on. By the way, can you hear me? >> Yeah, maybe you can um your video. >> They could be from last year.
>> Yeah, they're last year's numbers. Okay. >> They change every like two years. They get refiled. >> That's a problem. >> I did. Thank you for asking. And it was funny to run into people who was on the next block on a book.
>> What a great job you did. It's only gone very late. >> Last question. If that stand right now, >> you care. You don't care. Do you find >> maybe some other time?
>> I don't have >> Okay, turn. Everybody have to turn your house. That's great. Um, she's waiting. She just texted me. She's waiting. >> I'm here.
>> Good evening everyone. Nice to see you all. Thanks for coming out. >> We were in a session the last hour discussing two legal matters. The first one being um the recent case management conference call that the city had with Gadian and
the court fair share which was held on May 26th and secondly we discussed a lawsuit that was filed in superior court against the city on May 20th. Um so we are now in the open. We will begin
by standing for the pledge of allegiance and will remain standing for moment >> of the United States of America indivisible liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Please be seated. We all know that Councilman Stan is joining us uh electronically this
evening. Councilman, uh we'll begin this evening as we uh do each meeting with public participation constituent concerns. Uh we ask that if you wish to speak unless you have mobility issues uh please step to the podium over here state your name and
address. You have three minutes in terms of the time for your questions uh or comments and your council may or may not Ch 33 Wilson Street. Welcome back from Ireland. I wish I was there right now myself.
>> Mr. Tiddle, could you just turn the air on? >> Okay, you just have to push the button. >> It should turn green when you push it. I think you just >> slide it. I say that. Okay. >> I I have some questions and I heard that
greening now got the budget later. You know, I wanted to think if I would raise some of these things ahead of time and you know, you had mentioned a few months ago that there was a problem with the budget and some things that were supposed to be there or some revenue
weren't there. You created a problem and so I guess the question is what was the problem? How big was it? How was it involved? Um how was it solved and how was it solved? Um, and the other
question I guess for GI like a second amendment to the budget and usually when there's an amendment to the budget that means some other changes. So what are those changes? >> Okay. Um, you'll have to clarify specifically what problem you might be
referring to. So I remember two months ago there was some you you didn't you didn't really go into detail but that there was some revenue shortfall based on some other things. >> Yeah. So uh last uh in 2025
there were several things that happened. Of course there was the significant assessment error. Um that's detailed uh in the budget um budget message. Um and I believe that in budget message we also referred to a couple of the other issues that we had. Um we had an over
expenditure last year um related specifically to healthcare costs. Um there were a couple of departments that had um overexpendures as well that kind of tied into to that. Um there was some overtime in the police department last year. There was also in the public works
um you know there's a fire at the transfer station. considered going to Mercer County which was much more expensive and we hadn't budgeted that. So that really accounts for I think most of what I would consider the shortfall. Um and that was carried forward about 60
roughly $60,000. Um, additionally, the council voted uh last couple three or four meetings ago to um to pay for the um the the library um pension um system failure
that haven't occurred in a bunch. Yeah. >> The question was how big on the appraisal and then how would the appraisal? >> Yeah. The total over expenditure for the city last year was 60,000 roughly
60,000 >> $60,000 and banks carrying it to this year's budget. We have to we have to account for that money this year. >> Well, I'm sorry. Maybe I'm understanding I'm trying to pick up different pieces, but I thought there was some like
overestimation of income coming in based on some appraisal. >> Uh, no, I'm not sure what you mean. like um like we had more we thought we had more money than we we thought we had less money than we thought we had was the point thought we had less money than we thought we had
>> the assessment issue is that what he's talking about >> I think he's talking about the assessment issue the assessment issue okay so you know >> I see okay so this is I have a narrative about in the in the in the budget
message so um uh the budget the short well not the shortfall but the total number as a result of the assessment error um that was paid out to various uh agencies um that was $651,000. So last year for example um the city
paid the school uh school tax we overpaid school tax by $359,000. So the budget the the assessment issue was born of a of a of a data entry error almost $29 million that was not caught when the book the bloom book was certified the budget was then predicated
on uh using that as part of the as part of the overall assessment in the city. So while that presented problems last year in so far as the city would have had a completely different budget um had that assessment error not been a part of
our figured into our budget. Um you know there I don't know the best way to say it. I mean monies were paid out to other uh to other agencies this year because the the um the overall valuation increased by $32 million. We kind of
broke even basically. Um the >> so the question I have is so we overpaid the school do we get anything back or the county? >> This money is lost. I mean it's lost from the municipality you know in so far as it benefited other you know the library and the school and
the county and the fire district that's fine. Um but yeah it's money that's never going to be recovered by the city. Um and it's hard to speak to what the budget would have been um without that without that mistake. I mean it certainly would have been completely
recalibrated. Um and uh so you know >> so so you think we would have had a lot more money to like do storm water or >> not necessarily um yeah it's it's too hard to speak about what the budget would have been um without actually knowing what it
>> Well I mean if you had I don't know it was 661,000 last year that went more than it should have then you would have had a lower tax break last year and maybe this year you have some you might have freed up for others.
>> I I I think it's a fair assessment. I think it's fair to say that our trend of building surplus over the last four years has been pretty good and that we would have continued to build surplus last year. Um we did not do that um because of this error. So I think that's maybe what you're driving at. So I was
just trying to figure out is it you know that's a you know it's a decent amount of money and you know we need something like you know fixing you know a storm drain or intakes or something that could have been money that could >> but you have to you have to look at it in the way that if we had if we hadn't
if we if we had crafted the budget without that $651,000 that we we that money wouldn't have been there that in the first place if it was a if we had caught a mistake. So, it would have been a completely different budget. But I do think you're I do think the point is worth making that just
because the trend of us um taking in, you know, bringing in more than we're spending every year um except for last year, you know. Yeah, I think that I think that that's a problem. Uh and yeah, >> and then what are the two amendments? Uh >> we're going to talk about those. So,
those have to be read into the record by the clerk. Okay. Um, and I'll talk about that process in a minute. It's very specific process. >> Michael, did you did Michael? Did you want to clarify anything on that last uh
from what I said? It was good to have Michael. >> Sure. Uh, and mayor as our councils. Uh I I think the mayor gave the the details correctly and properly and the way last in 2025
the city operations overperformed and that in con was in conjunction with the fact that the appropriations were based on that revenue coming in. So there was no loss of services. So what
happened was the city generated um you would have got a surplus and it ended up generating the same amount we had the previous year. It would have been $620,000 more had we not had that revenue shortfall. So a revenue shortfall is
similar to an over expenditure just outside the ledger. Um, so it didn't impact uh operations and and this year due to the fact that the assessment ended up increasing by 32 million that covered the $28 million difference. So
that's what mayor. >> Thank you. Good evening. >> Judy Bleon, 86 North Union Street. So, I want to start by saying a few a few meetings ago, I stood here and said,
"Well, gosh, now I see that the city doesn't care about storm water management. City doesn't care about um various ordinances that we have and so I was giving up and people need to know that blah blah blah." Well, I'm standing here now to say, well, you know what? I
think I spoke too soon because I do care and I think other people care and I have great concern about the fact that the same issue has now become more clear to me because I've learned with a minimum of my own research that actually the
information I was given by the construction and zoning official was not was not correct about what was going on in this property. It's a property you're all familiar with because I talk about it regularly, which is the playground property by Laborville Academy.
I became interested again this because there was various staging of materials, but nothing has happened. But my point in coming back here tonight about this now is what are we doing as a city with our
ordinances and with our requirements and with our planning necessity and with our court that says you have to give us a plan and then the players involved don't give a plan and nobody nobody
doesn't anything and I once that as I said a few weeks ago I said well okay I'm not worried about we're just lucky we haven't had a big storm we're lucky that the heat hasn't come in and we haven't had the kind of thunderstorms and flash flooding we're lucky that we're sitting here without worrying
about storm water management and without worrying about the various cover we're going to have to worry about it and so I'm I'm sort of here to say when last time I had silence from the council
will you guys please respond in some way. Do you even know what's not being handled by our own officials in the area of storm water management and the area of imperous covering and the area of
construction? Because if you don't deal with it, I'm not sure who does. And people like me can stand up here and complain all the time, but I can't really do anything. You can can you can you have some
response of some kind rather than just silence of Okay, Judy's bringing something up again that she's been bringing up since last May. So, I would I don't think you'll respond while I'm standing here, but we have a problem. We have a storm water
management problem. We have an impervious cover problem. We have a failure to bring to bear the actual ordinances. We have officials who are not familiar with them and it's not going to go away unless
somebody does something. So, can you speak to that at all? Anybody? >> Have you finished? >> You never know with me. But yeah, >> there's always the next uh public comment session. Please uh feel free to
sit down and come back. Um, I will just say that certainly while I was away this past week, I came back on on Tuesday and noticed that there were I think 18 or 19 emails back and forth on the subject. I did uh jump in today to say to speak to
which I I I don't typically do this because I think that it's it's important for the process to play out, but I did jump in today and and say to the attorney that this is this needs the plan needs to be submitted. It is going through the court and uh you know there is a process and there is a deadline
here but uh I I you know and I had a conversation this morning with councilman line about this. Um I you know did did weigh in. I heard had a response from the attorney that their civil engineer was on the site designing it and that uh you know when I left for
vacation uh few days before I left for vacation I spoke to the construction code official and said you know I know you're imminently expecting this plan. I want to make sure that I at least take a look at it and know what's happening with it. Um, and it didn't arrive um and then so when I came back um we had this
conversation. So, you know, they still I mean to the to to the extent that um you know, I'll say that still it's still a pending matter before the court and the court I don't remember what the court um deadline is. I think it's the 30th of June. I'm not sure.
>> July 2nd. >> July 2nd. So, it's coming up and they know that there's a lot of pressure to get the plan submitted and to show the judge and the city that they're moving forward in the way that's required. >> I I would just suggest that, you know,
since this is a matter that we do hear about frequently that we all could get copied on this, I haven't seen any of this and and at all and I appreciate that you guys have the chat about it, but since we do kind it is kind of
something that we've heard about a lot and so when stuff comes across or comes into the city I don't have any of the correspondence so I don't mind being uh sharing it to to understand what's going on >> and I would just say to thank you J for
bringing this to our attention repeatedly um there have been multiple missteps in this and I think the applicant put down a square footage that was blatantly wrong that if anybody had looked through the site, they would have seen that there was no way that this was under 400 square feet. Uh, and it's a
new construction pad, which obviously the ordinance uh that has to comply with our storm water management and our construction code official has acknowledged that and that's why they're now working on this plan. Um, and you know, really the applicant has hurt
themselves by not putting the right information in there with this court order deadline now July 2nd. We can't control what the court does. That's a separate entity, the judge. Uh but you know in terms of what the city can do to make sure this doesn't happen again, I think there are some things that we can talk about. Uh and one of the things
I've asked uh as well um you know just for some clarification as to what our construction code officials allow to do in terms of going on property I think will help assist this to make sure that it does not happen again. >> Yeah, there's an outstanding thing in my mind uh that legal question that I have
had a chance to address with the city attorney um about access. So, uh, you know, that that's something that I need to get an answer on. I just forwarded, uh, this email change to the council members. There are possibly other emails through other that I'm not copied on
through the construction. And, uh, so, you know, I often like the council woman don't find out about some of these things until there's 15 emails and I go in and say, "Oh, what's happening with this?" And they say, "Oh, there's a lot of emails about it." So, you know, to the extent that we can communicate, um,
we will. Um, so I'll I'll keep that in mind with the council members. Thank you. >> With respect, Baron, I know I said I was finishing just one quick thing because you're making references to the court. I've been checking the courts what the court does since December. We have an attorney who represents the town and every time the judge says, "Well, so
what's going on?" Our attorney who represents the town says, "Okay, yeah, wait, we can wait." So, we pushed this that I'd appreciate the idea of this deadline counting this time, but it hasn't counted any other time. Nobody for the town is saying anything other
than I don't know we can they're gonna we'll so I really would ask you to realize the judge will deal with what the judge can deal with or council for the city just says okay we'll just wait >> well then you know I don't want to get too far down the rabbit hole here with
with some of the stuff but uh I I don't typically speak to the prosecutor on legal matters the law is the law um and I know that often times the prosecutor will speak to the construction code official to understand the situation
fully if there's a you know extending I don't want to call them extenduating circus but just to understand the situation the law as as the construction code official sees it um so that the prosecutor who may not have an area of expertise in the uh you know the construction code um is more you know is
more sort of um informed let's say but you know I I I don't see it as my role or any role of any elected official to go down and speak to the prosecutor about what what the law is. It's the prosecutor's job to interpret the law
and act on behalf of the city. Um so, uh that's >> or to allow putting it down the road for another month. >> Well, yeah. I mean, there are a lot of people who are making independent autonomous decisions uh are professionals in the city and we engage
them and work with them because there's a level of trust and professionalism. So, you know, um I want to be careful about not potentially second-guessing um a a a determination that's made by one of the city professionals without
without cause. That's all. So, if I could just add, it seems um it it's frustrating to me to have to to hear things like our attorney is
just not pushing for the deadlines. I think having a conversation about the merits of the case and the details of the case is probably outside of the lane. um you know, especially for you, mayor, as the
administrator, chief administrator of the city and chief operating officer. Um but, you know, to just express the desire to see this resolved in a timely manner because it's it has been going on
for a long time. And I have to I have to say I am disappointed uh that the who would it the owner
has not clean their act up. I mean, at our one recent meeting, um, you know, the the director was here promising to do better, and I see an email like today
that no permits been submitted yet. So, I don't know what's going on, but I think we have to um, you know, we have to show them that there are consequences. Um, yes, it's a small town and everybody
knows everybody, but we have to we have to show that there are consequences to abiding by our regulations or not abiding. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Is there anyone else who would like to make a comment or ask a question?
>> We have one online. >> One online. >> Two people online, but one person with their hand up. Good. >> Okay. 39. Quarry, will you go ahead and unmute yourself and state your name for the record and then your comment? >> Uh Paul Stevens, 39 Corey Street. Uh
sorry I'm not there. Uh but I'm on vacation right now, but I thought it was important enough tonight to call in. Um, I was going to originally talk a little bit later under the budget discussion, but because of the discussion with Jeff and everything, I'd like to bring it up
now while because it some of this stuff resonates with it and I want to make sure everybody's on the same page so when the budget discussion does come up, it makes sense to us all. Uh, mayor, in your state of the city message in response to the 2024 tax assessment
error, which led to a 2025 revenue uh, shortfall, you said you had commissioned an independent investigation of the issue to determine how mistakes happened and bring those involved to account for the errors. You further stated you would
keep the residents informed of the progress of the investigation as you wrote our 2026 budget and budget address. Here we are having the hearing for the 2026 budget and the only thing I can find out about the subject before
tonight is the info in your budget message which essentially says the incident happened and the impact is $650,000. nothing about how it happened specifically or more importantly what has been put in place to ensure that it
doesn't happen again. In the budget me message you stated the proposed budget neutralizes up a total of 675k of lost revenue in 2025. I'm not quite sure what that means. It
almost sounds like the funds have been replaced. uh the the lost revenue was in fact paid though with funds from a fortuitous combination as uh Mr. uh said of underestimations of collected local
revenues and the existing city surplus not good planning. Good planning would have had a system in place already that would have prevented the errors from occurring in the first place. The bottom line is that there was a $675,000
loss of planned revenue in 2025 due to errors and another 65K from poor planning is gone and it's not being recovered. Missing however is a detailed explanation of how the errors happened
and what the checks and balances have been put in place to ensure they do not happen again. Another issue, there is an inconsistency between the message, the the budget message and the posted user-friendly budget. First, the 2026
average assessment in the userfriendly budget is listed as $501,000, while the message uses the 25 the 2025 average of $474,000
to talk about what the impact of this proposed budget is. This leads you to conclude that the impact of the proposed 2026 tax rate increase is only $33 in the annual tax of the average assessment.
In fact, the combined impacts of the increases in both the municipal levy and the average residential assessment is $157 per year. an increase of 7.3% over the average for 2025
the 2025 annual property tax. Finally, there is $145,000 of debt service reserve being used to pay off receivable balances from ordinances from 2007, 2008, and 2024.
uh based on the auditor's recommendation. There's been a I hope there's going to be a discussion to know first off will this wipe out the death service account. Why is it being recommended by the the auditors in the first place and why are the auditors
only recommending this now? Two of those, like I say, date back going on close to almost 20 years now. Um anyway, that's what I had to say. Uh, thanks. >> Well, thank you. Um, that was a lot and
I certainly didn't catch the majority of it. Um, partially because I'm not feeling well tonight. Uh, but I I can speak to um um the first thing was about the uh the assessment error. So, so, uh, with
respect to the assessment error, uh, and how it's been handled, the city attorney did conduct an internal investigation, the council is in receipt of that investigation. Um, the council and I will be meeting probably, we have yet to set a date um, toward the end of this
month. In fact, I'm I'm hoping to set the date before the meeting ends. We'll take a minute at the end to just compare calendars um to to have an uh a special close session to discuss um kind of the the report and uh uh next steps and also
uh you know the the very strong likelihood that uh we will need to do some reorganization uh within the city uh within city hall in terms of structure and uh how we do things. So um just because it wasn't specifically hasn't been specifically mentioned yet
does not mean that we're not working on it. I'm not working on it. There's a number of very complex issue that involves a lot of uh staff members so that the report will remain confidential just because uh it uh we're allowed to keep it confidential and a lot of
sensitive information uh with regards to um personal relationships and that kind of thing. Um but the council will be looking at it um and discussing it. uh the I don't remember exactly when the report came out probably uh close to a month ago now. Um but we are working on
it. We will be working on as council with making recommendations. The report makes specific recommendations that the city can take um in the future to uh to avoid these kinds to avoid this particular problem. Um and you know it sort of ties into some other um issues
that we've been that I've been sort of talking about the last couple of years just in terms of our resources and our structure. So, um, we will be working, uh, on that over the course of the coming months. Um, I don't know if Michael or Christy caught any of those specific questions about the rest of it,
but, uh, I didn't I didn't quite uh I didn't make notes, so uh, you would feel like you want to speak. >> Sure. Mr. Stevens, I'm sorry you're not here in person, your budget schedule around your vacation schedule. I'm just
not seeing you. Um the the question with the planning uh I I did reference the operations of the city and when we are conservative and use our revenues that um that actually is a planning tool and we do that because not only does it
generate surplus but it makes us a little more resilient to the unknowns. Um even when there were errors like this um that planning provided enough of a cushion and a surplus that our in 2025
closeout ended up holding steady in that fund. Um again, not not not great news on one. Uh but I'm I'm pleased to say that we did not reduce that fund. Um I'm not following your math on the rate
just because I even followed in discussion, but I'm I'm glad to to talk to you offline, get those get your numbers and and and see and try to figure out where where you're coming from. Um, but I Christie, were you able to follow him on the tax rate
discussion? >> Uh, no. The the only thing I could comment on is you made reference to the average assessed home. Those numbers I got directly from the assessor. So, I would have to reach out to the assessor
to find out why there's a difference between what was in the mayor's budget message and what was in the user-friendly budget cuz they came directly from him. So, but if there's anything else that I can help with, again, I would be more than happy to meet with you offline. Also,
>> uh you'll find out that if you look at the user friendly budget that yes, those numbers I quoted are actually I got the same numbers that are there in the budget. So, uh yeah. Anyway, um so yes,
but and the some of the surplus was used like you said, uh we lo about 75 $150,000 of surplus was used uh to to cover that up. But I would also say that because we
did end up having extra revenue that we used uh because we overcolcted on cannabis and hotels and meters and all of that. Um that's lost opportunity. That was money that could have been out there for us to use at our discretion
and not to cover. And we are using it at our discretion, but using it for something positive as opposed to a negative that was caused by a big error in our systems. >> In the instruction budget, there was nothing that was
that was not put in 26 budget because of that error. um the the to effect of it was that that $630,000 is the surplus fund this year, but the appropriations from 25 to 26 um have
been meaning that the services and programs are intact and and are still able to afford to pay for them. >> Thank you. Um move on. >> We're going to move on. Um and questions we can ask them during that >> the health care is not something that we
really could control. We had a lot of turnover in the police department as people go their healthc care coverages change. So maybe you're covering one person and then all of a sudden that person leaves and the next person and you're covering a family which drives up the cost. You can't prepare for that.
There are things in this budget that uh and I don't want to belver the point but the health care when you start the year you get a number you think that's right but then all of a sudden it goes up that's why we drop down this healthc care benefits um and then the large tone
or the turnover is the other thing it makes it extremely difficult to budget for um so uh Paul I'm just going to mute you at this point but thank you >> thank you >> anyone else online or the room Motion
to close. Poll not please. >> Second. >> All in favor, please say I. >> I. >> I. >> Thank you. Um, tonight we begin with second reading of ordinance number 10-2026. It's an ordinance to exceed the municipal budget appropriation limits uh
allow NJSA 4A colon 4-4 through 45.14 the cafe bank ordinance. Um, so I'm going to ask uh Christie Eric, who's our CMFO uh who's online to just kind of run us through this uh just
explain it uh what this ordinance allows the city to do as we do pretty much every year. Chrissy, >> sure. Hi. Uh good uh good evening, mayor and council. Um so that ordinance is our
cost of living adjustment. So the state gives us a two two and a half percent and we're increasing it to three and a half percent that gives us the ability to increase our appropriations by that 3 and 12% and if you don't use the 3 and
12% you can use it to bank it for two future years. So, this is something that the state of New Jersey requires every municipality to do and this is something that's on our agenda every year. And yeah,
um I'm going to open up the public hearing for number 10 2026. If there's anybody who wish to speak to this ordinance specifically, u please the microphone. Anybody online wish to speak to it? Um >> Paul is has his hand up.
Uh Paul, do you have a comment to make about uh ordinance number 10? >> All right, he took his hand down. >> Thank you. >> Um show public comment period on this place. >> Second. >> All in favor? Can you say I? >> I.
>> Thank you. Period is closed. Is there any further discussion from the council on this? All right. Uh, in that case, I'm going to make a motion to adopt on second reading ordinance number 10-2026. Uh, is there a second? >> Second. >> All those in favor, please say I.
>> I. >> I. >> Thank you. >> Uh, next is a resolution to amend the 2026 budget. >> Mayor, I do have expert copies. Um, if anybody in the public wanted a copy of that, it came in too late. >> Uh, if anybody would like a written copy
of that, it's available here on the deis. Um and just in terms of process, uh so the way this works tonight because we have an amendment is that we we've already held a public hearing on the introduced budget. Now, um the clerk is required to read the amendment in full
and then we vote on the amendment um the state the state says there will be another public hearing on the then there will be another public hearing for the bud amendment itself on the June 18th meeting after which we adopt um we're not adopting tonight.
Okay. So, it's resolution number 110 2026 resolution to amend the 2026 budget of the city of Lambertville, county of Hunter in state of New Jersey. Whereas the local municipal bud budget for the year of 2026 was approved on the 23rd
day of April 2026. And whereas the public hearing on said budget has been held as advertised. And whereas it is desired to amend said approved budget will be advertised on June 8th, 2026 and the public hearing on the amendment will
be held on June 18th, 2026. Now therefore, be it resolved by the mayor council of the city of Lamperville County of Humberan that the following amendments to the approved budget of 2026 will be made. General revenues
surplus anticipated sheet number four from $523,000 to $643,500. Summary of revenues sheet number 11 surplus anticipated sheet number 11 from 523,000
to $643,500. Total general revenues items one, two, three, and four on sheet 11 from 3,232,95.19 to 3 month 3 3,443,595.19. Total general revenues sheet number 11
from 8,452,188.99 who 8,572,688.98 and I'm sorry but I'm getting a little tongue tucked. Okay. General appropriations. A. Operations within caps. Storm water maintenance salaries and wages on sheet number 15 from $7,500
to $0. Storm water maintenance other expenses on sheet 15 from $27,250 to 0. Do regulation. Other expenses from $11,500
to $26,500. Public defender salary and wages sheet number 15D from $2,800 to $4,800. Total operations item 8A within caps on
sheet number 17A from $4,594,65849 to4,576,81849. Total operating operations including contingent within CAT on sheet 17A from 4,594,65849 to4,576,81849. details salaries and wage on sheet
number 17A from $2,351,600 to 2,346,100 detail other expenses including contingent on 17A from 2,242,96849 to2,230,71849. 9.
H one total general appropriations for municipal purposes within caps on sheet 19 from 5,384,130.94 to 5,336 5,366,380.94. A operations excluded from caps
stormwater maintenance salaries and wages. Sheet 20 from $0 to $7,500. Storm water maintenance other expenses. Sheet 20 from $0 to $27,250. Total other operations excluded from
caps on sheet 20A from $792,516.85 to $827,266.85. Total other operations excluded in tax 25 from $869,8734 to $94,6234. Detail salaries and wages on sheet 25
from $50,500 to 58,000. Detailed other expenses sheet 25 from $819,3734 to $846,6234. D. Municipal debt service excluded from caps. Interest on notes on sheet 27 from
0 to $13,500. Total municipal debt service excluded from caps on sheet 27A from 1,57 1,547,700 to1,651,200. H2 total general appropriations for
municipal purposes excluded from caps on sheet 28 from 2,743,584 to2,881,384. Total general appropriation appropriations excluded from caps on sheet 29
from 2,743,584 to2,881,384. L subtotal general appropriations items H1 and O on sheet 29 from 8,127,188.98 to8,247,688.98. Total generated general appropriations
on sheet 29 from 8,452,188.98 to 8,572,688.98. Summary of total appropriations H1 total general appropriations for mun municipal purposes within caps on sheet 30 from
5,384,130.94 to 5,366,380.94 a operations excluded from caps other operations sheet 30 from 792,516 $16.85 to $827,266.85
total operations excluded from caps on sheet 30 from $869,8734 to >> say Cindy it's 869 million. Is that right? Oh no. I'm sorry. Never mind. You were right. >> Okay.
>> Sorry to break your stride. >> That's all right. from $869,8734 to $94,6234. D municipal debt service sheet 30 from 1,547,700 even to $1,651,200
even. Total general appropriations on sheet 30 from 8,452,188.98 to8,572,688.98. Be it further resolved, the certified copies of this resolution be filed forth with the office of the director of local
government services for certification of local municipal budget. So amended. It is hereby certified that this is a true copy of the resolution amending the budget adopted on by the council on the fourth day of June 2026. >> That is it.
>> Thank you. Greatly appreciate that. Uh I'm going to speak to this just for a minute and then I'm going to turn it over to Christie. Um so we had to end a bunch of time as you can tell from all of that. uh Christie will
explain the the the first uh and most significant amendment requirement. Um >> I can't hear you. >> I'm sorry. Okay. Can you hear me now? >> Thank you. >> Sure. So, the most um significant um amendment to the budget was with respect
to interest on the notes which was a figure of $13,500. Um and so Christie will explain that. Um and then and then basically what happens is once you start tinkering with things inside or outside the cap, it tri triggers a lot of other things. Uh and
when Christie uh she spent some time with the state today going through the budget. Um the state identified a couple of other issues. Uh one in particular was there was a state required a negative cap adjustment for the public assistance which moved to the county last year. So there were a number of
smaller things that happened kind of simultaneous to this big thing um that generated a number of further decisions that were were made. Um and one of the things I'll note here as well I mean budget's just an incredibly complex process in a lot of ways. Um, you know,
when we started to at one point when we worked on this budget, we had um information from the DCA that we were allowed to um put first year expenses for storm water um uh outside of the cab, which we did in one of our earlier
configurations. Uh and the auditors then said that we couldn't do that. Uh today the state said that in fact we could do that. So there's, you know, even at the state level, uh, between the state and and auditors, there's often kind of conflicting information. Um, and so that
triggered a lot of these changes. And could you want Christie just to speak to this generally specifically um the $103,000 what what happened there? And um uh and if anybody has any specific questions about this, there'll be a second reading of this um and public
comment period when we uh when we seek to adopt it on June 18th. Um, so Christine, I'm going to turn this over to you. >> Okay. Sure. Uh, so the $103,500 uh when we were putting together the preliminary budget worksheets, that
number was not on the worksheet. So the uh budget got prepared there was three set of eyes. There was my eyes, Michael's, Michael Droll, and the auditors. Um, none of us caught it. as I was entering everything into I was at
city hall and I was entering all the information into the computer system and I found the error uh after the budget was already introduced. So I did let the mayor and uh Michael Doulus know that and the auditors know that this was an
oversight that it wasn't caught. So, we kind of knew going into it that this when the state reviewed the budget that this was going to be something that we needed to amend. Um, the storm water, which was also amended, again, that was really just moving it from inside cap to
outside cap. So, the money is still the same. It's just a different place where we're putting it on the budget. >> Mhm. >> And uh the other changes were again because there's the cap. So you have your which is the ordinance that we did
earlier today that 3 and 12%. So there were we were so close to our cap we were trying to pay for stuff out of the trust the dog regulation and public defender because we have money sitting in there because we were trying to alleviate some
of the money some of the um uh cap issues in the budget. So, when I was on the phone with the state, they said, "You're going to have to do a negative cap adjustment for the public defender and the dog and the public assistance,
which was moved to the county." So, after some back and forth with the state, they let us move the storm water from inside cap to outside cap. And instead of getting a negative cap adjustment, which would then hurt us in following years, we decided to bring the money back in for the dog and public
defender because that's where it belonged. because it would have had an adverse effect on us for the following years going forward. So those were really the probably four major changes and thank you Cindy for reading that. I know that's dreadful but I appreciate
everything and I appreciate everybody's help on this budget this year. Uh this was not an easy task and I really appreciate um all the staff and the finance committee and everybody on your hard work this year.
>> Thank you. Uh Christie, uh does anybody on the council have any questions about this amendment? >> Um I I just feel like I really want to note for well for the record too is that some
a lot of this information is kind of we're hearing it for the first time, right? So, you know, it it gives me a little pause that um I would like uh to get a little
bit more involved in the budget process. You know, it's it's June 4th and um we're all hearing about this description um right now. So, yeah, I do have questions because I'm not, you know,
involved. You know, I I think we need to be brought up to speed as a council as problems arise and and say, I mean, I'm always on a need to know basis. And look, I'm a person. I really want to try to always find a solution. And um our
only desire is to be helpful, but I I just don't find the door to be open. And so that's why then I have questions, you know, like it just doesn't feel good, you know? So my question really is and in plain language and and you know
Michael and I always have these discussions about plain language and budget speak right so he appreciates so okay so we had to go so look the budget's been late this year which is part of this whole issue with a delay because we're going to have to vote on a budget that we you know we've just you
know see information on on late so it's I've been working on it all year as a council so so that's why we have like you know kind of specialized questions is the budget slate. DCA is still looking at it now. They're going to have to look at it again, which is Mike because
there's the we do a budget, the budget goes to DCA, they review it, they have to come back to us, right, and tell us it's okay, which is part of the reason why we're so late now. It we were late later with the budget. There are issues. We're fixing
it. just to explain to people in plain speak what's really you know kind of happening here and and then this will go back to DCA we'll get a budget that we can approve because we all want that to happen. So we had the first problem in the budget like we can be clear about it
with the assessment error and it was kind of this is my interpretation so I just want to know that I'm right because I'm going to have to vote on this that was kind of handled by the increased in assessed value that some what we could have made and the increase in assessed
value with the increased tax levy went went to that instead. So we took care of that right and that's right there. So there's no, you know, nothing else involved in that. So that was the wash as we refer to it. So now with this
$103,000 that wasn't included in the line item. So was that money that we had to make up? So that's why we have like we had to adjust these amounts. So how you know that's just trying to explain it to
people, but explain it to me because that's the first time I'm seeing it tonight. So, I'm assuming that we had do we had we had to make all these adjustments to get to that number or it was handled a different way. >> Christie, do you want to ask for a question, please?
>> The really only major change that we had to make was the interest on investments. So, we did get the state um the review notes back from the state on Thursday. I was uh I was out of the office Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday last
week. I was down in Atlantic City at a conference. I we did not get approval from the state until 3:00 this afternoon. So I know that it is disheartening that you are just seeing it for the first time today. But I you
know I have been working on this uh all week. So um you know but the only major change that was the uh 103,000 for the interest on investments. Anything else was Yeah. Go ahead. I'm
sorry. >> Yeah. I'm just trying to I understand what you're saying and I Yeah. But it was so to explain this error that it was omitted. So it wasn't revenue we had to make up from somewhere or how did we
make up that revenue if it was revenue we had to make up from somewhere? That's my my question. I know you seriously, you know, telling you what to do and everything. I don't even know you're there, but like that that's my only question. Right. Well, if I could add on
to that high school the it I think what the council woman's saying is so we had to add appropriations of $103,500. Right? So that's money being spent that
we had not originally accounted for in our original budget. Right? So now you're it's like finding out oops I had an automated payment that I didn't report in my checkbook. So that subtracts from somewhere. So I think the
question is is this are all these re I don't want to say reappropriations are all these um amendments these changes basically like ripple effect from having to fill that $103,000
gap that you have to kind of move stuff around and it winds up creating a list of you know we took it from here we put it there we had to move that like because That's kind of how accounting works. Like you don't just take it from one place. You have to
>> you have to get it from the right account and the right you know category and that creates many many many entries. >> Uh no is the short answer to that and uh Christ I'll let you answer this but the offset for this is going to come from surplus from anticipated revenue in
2026. So, >> so is that the >> So, is that then the >> other side? It's the $643,000. >> So, so our surplus anticipated in the
2026 budget originally was $523,000 which is the same amount we used in 2025. Um this year because of the error we're adjusting that uh surplus anticipated to $643,500 and um I was comfortable with doing it
this way as oppo well first of all we didn't have a lot of time to go into the budget and do a deeper dive and and when you look at the budget Michael certainly had time to review I think with the some of the particulars with the council members there there wasn't necessarily going to be it wasn't going to be an
easy um place to find $103,000 by going through the orientage. We'd already cut a lot from departmental budgets this p this year that we had this was the first year we made substantial what I would consider substantial cuts in departmental budgets. Um a and so that
$103,000 knowing that this year we anticipate um the revenue that we've been uh getting over the last few years through the the excess revenue from cannabis and parking and fees um is also going to be augmented by the $525,000
in revenue that we expect to get from fishing mark by the 20 um in green acres and by an addition by $39,000 in uh revenue from the from the county grant. So, we're going to be taking in
uh just in terms of sale of real property this year, more than $800,000 um from either grants uh the open space grants um and and sale of of property divisions mark and a smaller sale uh which was affected at the last council meeting for for property only I think
$8,000. So, so you know, we knew that there was going to be a lot more surplus this year that was going to be generated as a best practice. This is not, you know, this is not something that we want to be doing. Um, we obviously want to catch a number like this uh in in
process of the budget and we didn't and I accept responsibility for that. um it's got to be it's got to be offset somewhere and um this is this is what we've decided would be the the the most efficient least painful way to do it without compromising our departmental
budgets. >> So I have to go back to what you said initially and Michael was kind enough to draw my attention to the spot on the sheet. So, we have this $103,000 hole in appropriations,
which is money we have to spend, which we didn't account for. Why did our surplus? Would would it have increased by an additional $103,500? It's 643,500
if if we I guess I I Yeah, I still don't like Yeah. to Councilwoman's point, I don't understand where the $13,000 got, whose pocket it came out with, you
know, it's like always taken from one account to another, right? selling. >> So the the term is surplus anticipatement and that is how much surplus that we anticipate we're going to generate and be able to re regenerate in the current
year. So the number that we are drawing in is larger in surplus anticipated. That $523,000 was the number that we originally planned in 2026 that we were going to
use as a displayed surplus that we regenerate and then put back in the fund at the end of the year. Um we're increasing that number to 643,500. Now all the other items on the sheet um
that Christine calculated moves um items within the various categories to keep us compliant with the caps >> problem we have in >> so that would be like a ripple effect. Then we start moving the you have to start moving stuff
and you end up with all these little little tea account changes that there finance. I know >> and the problem in any small community with an $8 million budget is the 2% or whatever the cap is the cap is. So we
don't have the room each year if we were dealing with a hund00 million budget 2% goes a lot further. So, we're always against the caps. $100,000 plus expenditure coming in then requires us to move that through the entire budget to reduce it caps.
Hence, Cindy's tremendous job reading all of these lines. I was impressive. >> Thank you, Cindy. >> So, so the short answer is yes. This was a ripple effect of the $103,000. All these all these >> all these lines. Yes. Yeah. What I was
ask question. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Are you good? >> I'm good. >> But what I what I'm not good about is I I just I just feel like we need to talk about the budget and and and
correct me if I'm wrong because I I just do, you know, we really like learning about the budget. It's so you know, it it's so informative and it's an art. You know, Michael tries to educate me on a budget speak and then I go back the
place because we go back and forth because it's hard. You know, it it really is. But we love the best interest of the community at hand. We want to understand what's out there and and and I I do, you know, I want to I I love the
budget. I love numbers, but I do. I just and and I feel like to that uh like talking to folks and talking to the public in plain speak about laughing with the budget is just fine and and and everybody will still love each other.
But we have to, you know, be clear, you know, and and that's what how people understand the budget. We have to meet them there. >> Great. And uh I'll I'll say it to a limited extent here. I mean, it's one of the things that I really want to talk about in closed. Uh is is how the
structure of the city operates. Um and you know, I don't have to say the obvious, but we have a number of excellent people who work for the city in a very part-time way. And um that can cause difficulty in terms of efficiency and meeting schedules and getting things
done on a certain time frame. I I'll say for the record, this budget came out, it's way too late for me personally. I I don't like to operate like this. It's put me under a lot of stress over the last couple of months. And um and you know, whatever that doesn't really worth anything to anybody, but if it's able to
generate a conversation about a system that we can improve, then I'm all for it because I don't want any stress and I want to budget out before June. So, um we'll leave that there for the moment. And uh we'll have a very active
conversation about this um in close session at the end of the month. >> Um >> if I could um >> No, you may not have a public comment on this. All right. I'm sorry. I'm not going well.
>> Please go ahead. >> Thank you. Um, >> can you hear me? Can you hear me? >> My apologies. Go ahead. the I I'm just a little disheartened
right now that we're dealing with this emergency on the heels of dealing with the the assessment problem. It's like one after another.
And I've heard excuses and g's and gollies and this the we have a very big problem that
collectively we will address and solve. But these last six months finding out how things were overlooked or missed on the financial side of this. In my
knowledge, this is the this is the this one bubbles to the top. And we're going to have to make difficult decisions. I'm ready to make them because this whole thing has been an
embarrassment to the way we do business in the city. I'm not blaming anybody. I'm I I'm I'm just lured that two errors made backto back have and you can pull
the money anywhere you want out. We could pull the money all out of surplus and use it all, but the money is gone. And saying that, well, it's a wash this year because our assessments went up. Well,
we we overspent or overbudgeted money that we were never supposed to get in. So, saying it's a watch, I I I don't know if it's if that's a proper way to characterize it. There were mistakes made that we have to fix and and it's
going to fall where it falls because you cannot continue to get ourselves in a financial hole after after so many people for years and Michael you were
there worked really hard to reverse the negative flow of dollars out of the city and I'm happy we have the money to get us out of this, but I would have much rather spent it on something else that
would have been more valuable to the people that pay taxes and and balance their checkbooks in in the city on an annual basis. And we have a problem doing it. And that's my statement.
>> Procedural questions. Uh so I need to ask for a motion to adopt the resolution and then there's a second reading of the resolution. So it's a >> that resolution that will be read next month. So we have to do the you have to
adopt the resolution number 100-2026 which is a resolution to amend the budget and run and then the public hearing. Christy, is that correct? >> Yes, that's correct.
So we we have a public hearing on it even though it's a resolution. >> Well, we just did the resolution. Yeah. >> So now you have to adopt that resolution to amend and then you can have the budget the the public hearing on the budget. We don't have the old budget. >> Okay. So she was
>> So there's no public hearing on the budget tonight. >> There is. >> There is. >> Yes. But you misunderstood. >> Say it one more time. It's got it on here. But >> that's okay. You have to make have somebody has to make a motion to adopt the resolution to
amend the budget. >> When that's done, then you do the public hearing on the budget >> as it has been amended. >> Yes. >> I'll make a motion to to >> to amend the to adopt a resolution to amend the 2026 budget. >> Second.
>> All in favor of adopting the resolution 110-2026, please say I. >> I. >> I. Now we go on to the public hearing on the as amended. >> Got it. Thank you. Um
>> I have a quick question. What what's on isn't the agenda to have a budget hearing uh in a regular meeting coming up or has that changed as well? >> It's happening now. Well, yeah, you do the we're doing the public hearing now,
but then at a regular meeting is when hopefully the state will allow us to adopt. >> Okay. >> So, we're just doing the public hearing. >> Just to clarify, we do have a just to clarify that we do have approval from the state to adopt after
the second public hearing on June 18th. So you have the public hearing on the B budget as amended and then you have we already have approval to adopt. There's nothing else. No further review by the state of New Jersey is required. >> Thank you Christie.
>> All right. I'm going to uh open this public hearing for the 2026 budget. Anybody would like to speak to this please to the microphone. You have three minutes in charge of time for your questions or comments. Hey,
>> David. I think the battery may be gone, but but try. >> Sorry. >> I don't need no >> D. 255 Brunswick Avenue and land. Uh I just want to make sure that what we're talking about now is the the amended
2020 uh 202026 budget for the year. My question is as a re that when you get to the bottom line what additional monies are added or subtracted and what's the impact to the
voters to the taxpayers? Is there a number change at the bottom? >> There's there's not. Okay, it stays the same. >> Okay, stay the same. Everything else is in the budget message is is the same. Nothing else has changed. It's just shifting
around within the budget. >> Okay, good. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Jeff Tiddle 33 mult you were talking about it, but I'd like to get more accurate numbers. So, so fisherman's mark the sale of that section was 525. Then you said how much
are we getting back from green acres because you mentioned that. >> Yeah, I've mentioned it a couple times. I don't remember the exact number. Cindy, do you I think it's >> which project >> for the green acres for farm is 2 >> 40,000 I believe 236
>> 236 from green acres and then we're getting 209 from the state. 309 from >> 2009 >> 209 from the county then >> we're getting right
>> so then what's the cost budget what's the cost a year on debt service and maintenance on the property >> uh well I can't tell you I can't tell you the cost of the debt service on the property because it's been rolled into a
larger debt uh >> bonded already, right? >> Yeah. I don't I don't know what that is. Um >> go back and look up cost notes are, but we don't have that. >> Yeah, I don't I don't have that clear. Um there's still I forget what the
balance is. Sue might have a general idea in the bond. It's there's probably still $300 or $400,000 in the the original purchase bond that allows us to continue to do site planning and that kind of thing. And I can get you those numbers if you want. >> Just curious.
>> Yeah. Thank you. >> Judy, please 86 North Street. Right before we started the public comment, someone said on the phone there's a public hearing on June 18th. And is that is that correct? I I think
it was Christy or somebody said that. >> Yes. >> So, tonight's a public hearing. Christy, we do we have to have we have to have a second reading of the amendment. Is that correct? On the 18th, >> you have to have a second uh reading and a public hearing.
on the June 18th. >> So, we're having a public hearing on the amended budget right now and we're going to have another public hearing on the amended budget on June 18th. >> This public hear >> this public hearing is on the budget as introduced. The second public hearing on
June 18th is the budget as amended. >> Oh, so whatever we're talking about now is supposed to be pre the amendment. >> Yeah. two shots. >> So, it is totally Yeah. And answering Mr. B's question. We're having a hearing
on the pre- amendment budget, not the amendment. >> Let me let me just clarify if I can in case. So when we introduced the budget, we set down a date for public hearing. That's today. Whether it whether the state approved it or not, adopt it or
not. So we are public hearing on what was introduced and approved by the council past meeting. We know we have to amend it. So we're now starting the amendment process which will have a second hearing which will have a hearing in June. We can talk we can talk about
anything this public hearing. When we get to the next public hearing, it'll be specifically on the resolution that we put our first reading or the board put our first reading today budget. >> So the on June 18th, excuse me, on June 18th,
>> are we discussing the resolution to amend the budget or are we discussing the amended budget? We're discussing anchor >> and or the changes in those various line items to be clear. So we're voting and
we're having a hearing now budget. So then next time we >> that we and then we will also on June 18th >> adopt the budget >> that reflects the amendment. >> Correct. >> So we're not doing a budget adoption tonight. >> No.
>> Correct. >> Which presupposes that nothing anybody says at the budget hearing on June 18th means anything because you're going to be voting on whatever you already had. Well, and which goes to the fact that then you also have it and we need to adopt the budget by the way. So kind of
it's >> yes in your reference to like the the ju the positioning of the deadlines kind of >> that's the plain speak version. >> Okay. Got it. So, if I am reading this correctly, and I do not feel confident
in that, but I'm looking at the statement, the mayor's statement, budget address, it looks to me as though Fisher the property that was sold to Fisherman's Mark was sold for $525,000. >> They haven't closed yet.
>> It looks to me as though the price on the property that is in the process of being sold to Fisherman's Mark is $525,000. >> Correct. I I know I know of no placement that it says it was ever open for public bidding or any opportunity for any other
offers. It looks as though that was a once and done. Is that I'm just reading what I have, so there may be more information that I don't have. >> Well, you're just stretching the the the the hearing on this, but um the the price was decided on um
following two separate appraisals. the city council, they off they made an offer of $40,000 above the city's appraisal uh and and the council um thought that that was hot. So, um of course, we haven't finalized it yet. Um but the the the agreed upon price is
$525,000. >> So, my only reason for saying that number and you just said, well, we're stretching the public hearing part. Isn't that money being counted as being part of the budget world? >> It's not. and and uh >> so so and in fact
there was a number of discussions about whether we could use that money in the budget um but in the end because the the sale of the market isn't happening until August at the moment and something else has kind of come up in the meantime um
with respect to that project I haven't even had a chance to talk to the council about it because it just happened yesterday not a major thing don't worry about it but uh you know we didn't I we decided that it was a a risk to and if we had incorporated if we had wanted to
incorporate the sale of fisherman's mark into this year's budget in any way um the state told us today that we would not be allowed to adopt the budget until after the closing which would mean that we couldn't have adopted this budget until the until the meeting council
meeting in August um which uh I was not willing to take a risk on. So, you know, the $103,000 potentially could have I mean, there were there have been a lot of conversations about the best way to do this. Um, and a lot of conversations with the state, a lot of internal
dialogue and decisions have to be made about it. So, when that money comes in, it will come in as uh, you know, as it classified as unanticipated revenue um, at the end of the year. So, we will have a significant amount unanticipated revenue come in this year.
So, the tax impact on residents of Lambertville based on this, whichever budget numbers you want to talk about, which since you all know what the budget numbers are that you're going to really talk about on June 18th, eventually
we'll talk about those. It seems as though there's going to be a tax increase. It seems as though it's been a handy way to deal with the money loss, but I can't figure out. I see the 33 that I don't see. Well,
I see that number and I also heard what Paul said and I heard that some scurrying about trying to figure out what Paul said, but it sounds as though there's going to be a fairly decent tax increase under this budget. >> Not at all. >> So maybe what we could do and be since
we are having public hearing without like really having really gone through the budget highlights. So maybe Michael you can go through some of the highlights. which is, you know, in terms of the tax increase. >> Well, so I'm happy to do it.
>> Nothing's changed, >> right? >> I think what but maybe we can repeat >> was Yeah, that's all I'm asking. You know, like she asked a question. Why don't we talk about the you know what the tax impact is? >> And I appreciate that and that is what
I'm asking for. But I I did my impression was that we weren't sorted out clearly on the way that Paul looked at the numbers and on the his telephone commentary which appear to be numbers and the numbers that are in this sheet which appear to be numbers. There appears to not be an agreement on those
numbers and I'm just wanting to know when before the June 18th the public will be able to know whether you all have sorted out the numbers that Paul had or the numbers that are here or what is going to be the increase per thousand
or however whatever you say for assessed value so that we have some clue before the June 18th >> the numbers in the budget address >> I don't to just kind of review them. >> Well, but we're not changing the terms of the tax, >> right? So, there's a proposed increase
of 0007 for every $100 assessed value. So, that's um from 045 in June of 2025 to 46 in 2026. So, even though the number in the budgets changed and we had to amend it, the the the basic information in terms
of the tax rate does not change there. there there's not going to be some surprise increase that's not reflected in the budget message. >> So for $100,000, what would be the increase that you're seeing? >> Well, so an easy number. >> Well, no. So I'm happy to review it. So
during the budget passage, okay, great. So you haven't seen the tax rate by property value. So So that's not going to change. So I don't understand what the question is. >> I'm asking not the rate. I'm asking what the actual tax amount is.
I'm just I mean I have I printed it out. I see that I'm I'm not a tax person, but I'm not stupid. I can probably figure that out. I just wondered for the public record of what we're talking about. What does that actually mean? And I picked an easy number like $100,000,000. That means that there's a total increase
of $43.52 for the year. Um and then the I'm sorry, the local increase a second here. $7. The local increase would be $79,000. >> $79 for this year on $100,000.
>> So, whatever your house is, you could divide it by $100,000 and then multiply that with the $7. >> Well, we have a charting assessment. >> I see that. And I have a chart. I'm just trying to have it be an understandable thing for people. >> Well, that's why we have the chart. Um, and that's Everybody doesn't have the
chart. Well, they should have it because it's it's posted on the city website. We work really hard to make sure the budget is accessible to people. >> I Yes. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> We have Paul Stevens. Mr. Stevens, go ahead, unmute yourself
and ask your question or make your comment. Well, I guess uh couple of things on the questions that didn't get answered earlier was I had a question about why we were using debt service uh $145,000
of debt service to pay off ordinances from 0708 and 24. Why the auditors have recommended this? And the question is also does that wipe out our debt service
reserve? Okay. >> And I can also talk with uh Mr. Duris about this. I I mean about this issue with whether or not in the mayor's uh budget message it said
$33 a year for the average increase. I get $157 a year, which is the same number as in the userfriendly budget. It's right there. It says that it's 7.3%.
And it says that in the userfriendly budget. Okay. >> What is >> I'm sorry. Could you say that again? >> What What page are you referencing? >> It's towards the It's towards the
beginning. Okay, let me pull it up right now. I'm gonna be late to dinner, but that's okay. >> We could talk. We could talk another time, sir. I didn't >> Yeah. So, >> I just want to reiterate, Paul, that we always value your uh comments and I
thank you um a number of times for mistakes that you've caught and we appreciate that. Harrison resent second page >> yes down at the bottom >> the comparison impact on a residential tax payment males
prior year 215 >> those are the same numbers I got when I did it and it's because in the memo the the the memo the message memo That chart
had only has the assessed average value for 2025. It doesn't have one listed there for 2026. And so I believe what has happened because I can get $33 just like the mayor. He used the same as assessed
value for both of those calculations for the average. I identify where he's speaking. I'll let him look at this mayor. >> Yeah, Paul, we'll have to I'm sorry. We have to we can't
>> but but but please answer please answer the question about the debt service. >> Another four minutes if Yeah. >> And was there any other question that you have, Paul, that we might be able to answer uh tonight? >> Yes. the the the one about the debt
service reserve. Is it is the money that's being used from the debt service reserve going to wipe out that fund because there wasn't much in it to begin with? >> He does a good job of explaining that request. It's a paper transaction.
Christie, >> so the answer to the question is no, there's not. Uh we've actually replenished that debt service fund. I'm I'm assuming you're talking about the reserve for debt. >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. So, we have replenished that
throughout the year throughout. >> How much is it now before this? >> Did you hear the question? >> Yes. I'm just I'm trying to find the number for you. We have $726,000 in that fund.
>> Okay, that's good to know. It was down to like 200 at one time. 200,000. >> Sorry, I said 762,000. Yeah. Yeah. And it was down to, like I say, 200,000 at one time. >> Okay.
>> Just answer and those questions on and the grants at the back of the budget, they were some old receivable balances that were on there prior to me becoming the CMFO. And it was just some cleanup items that the auditors had suggested because they
were old outstanding receivables that we were never going to collect on. So, we were just trying to do some cleanup things. >> Yeah. I think it's great that they're cleaning up stuff that's almost 20 years old, but I just wonder why they're waiting till now to suggest it. That's all.
>> We've done a lot in fairness or I shouldn't say that, but we've done a number of cleanups uh in the last three or four years of ordinances that go back 15 years. So, uh, it's something that we've made a a priority, not a priority, but a a practice um to do, uh, in the
finance team. It's something that we've talked about and actually accomplished. And you you'll see that and uh in and cast meetings uh and resolutions to clear out old ordinances and uh transfer balances and you know just it's just on a practical level when I ask for a
capital fund you know uh report it's so much better to get something that's only three pages than to get something that's nine pages and it's got a lot of balances of $12. Um so we we make an effort to do to keep on top of that stuff. >> I understand you guys do. I'm wondering
why it took the auditor so long to know to tell us, oh, you should get rid of these, too. I I do understand you've cleaned up a lot. Uh, but this is more geared towards are the auditors doing their job? It was there. It's been there
for a while and this is the first they have told you to clean it up. That's all. >> Thanks. >> Okay. Well, I'm going to mute you. >> Thank you. Hey, hey, good evening everybody. >> Well, um, any other comments while we're
talking about the public hearing on the 2026 budget? >> All right. I will answer a motion to close the public comment period. Please move. >> Second. >> All those in favor, please say I. >> I. >> I. Thank you. So, we will move off the adoption in uh June June 18th.
>> So, please come back. Um, next is the audit. It's a resolution to approve the 2025 audit um proposes available page for the city and also finance page. Um and uh
question on it. The only thing that is already on it of note was the over expenditure. Um not to not do that. >> Thank you very much. But >> and the over expenditure is due to
health >> which we don't control. >> That's correct. >> Which which >> classic auditor you know people come in people go hard for
>> so unless there aren't any any more questions about that I ask for a motion to approve the 2025 model please with the correction with the corrective action plan. They have to be two separate. >> Sorry. >> The audit first. >> The audit. >> So, is that a motion for the audit?
>> Resolution. >> Thank you very much, Councilman. I'll second it. All in favor, please say I. >> I. >> I. Thank you. >> And then the corrective action, please. >> We have one more. >> Sorry. >> You never know what's going to happen in the third public television section.
>> I'll make the motion uh for the resolution to approve the correct action plan for the 2025. >> Second. >> Second. Uh, all in, please say I. >> Hi. >> I thank you. >> Um, go ahead. We'll we'll wing it. By the
way, mayor, just may need to be excused by some. >> Uh, this should be fairly brief. A couple of points of discussion. Um, just an update on the farmers market. It's going well. We have somewhere between four and 600 people coming to the market um the last three Sundays. Um I'll be um
I was there the last couple weeks, but I'll be there uh every Sunday for the foreseeable future making sure that it's all running very smoothly. Um and um there's been really a lot of a lot of positive feedback on local musicians every week, etc. So um
council, I ask you to offer us a PE hospital fund update and access to public water. Um yeah, we've uh had a lot a lot more tests come back, you know, that are positive. Um but uh so there's just I guess we wanted to talk a little bit
about um some of the new wrinkles in applying for um this fill fund um that we haven't really talked about before. Most of the folks who have been positive have been on private wells with no water service by their homes. But what we do
know now is if you have water service or you have a water line, you think you have a water line in your street, you're going to have you're going to the DP in order to be um compensated by the spill fund, you're going to have to connect to public water. And there's process
involved in that that we're learning how to do. But um the VIA has been great. There's form where you fill out to verify public order. If there is public order, they'll give you a cost. You need a a plumber to actually do the
connection and get you get the estimates for that to submit to D and uh an estimate for closing your well. So, there's three estimates now that have to go in and go to the spill funds. So, if anybody finds themselves in those circumstances, you know, I've been
helping people with applications. They're trying to do them maybe in a little group. We have a group on Perry Road that, you know, is doing it to be able to open street all at once. Um, we're going to learn if there's any ancillary costs at all from permits or
anything, uh, police, what's necessary that the spill fund doesn't cover. But I guess the you know more to come but uh positive you know positive test but I think that what we're learning is that it's really important to get your to
test your water. Um we can't DP is not going to be able to test everybody. some of these folks were just in the line of the source investigation. But um even up on what I'll call Squad Hill, you know, I really urge people to to test their
wells. We we had our grant we had we paid for what 12 15 tests for for people. Um it just it doesn't cover it. So it's a great precaution. uh let us know what your test is and I'm
here to help with you know with getting stuff done through D. I've been in contact with them. I've been actually giving a list of folks that are going to need to hook up to public water so they'll know about some of the changes that we're facing. And the department is
still looking at taking a look at um the the issue of where the smell is coming from for the existing treatment systems for folks that got the poet what we call poet systems to treat their water. So the department is still on and paying
attention to that. Maybe the last thing that I forgot to mention is if you are on a well and you're hooking up to public water, several people have asked, well, can I keep my well open and hook up to public water? You can't get compensated from D if you want to keep
your well open and D requires you to close your well. So any questions my number emails on the website you know people can contact me. >> Thank you council woman. Um Cindy an
update on abandoned property please. >> Right. So we have one property that the governing body has classified as an abandoned property and that is uh 40 South Union Street. So uh finally after several months we were able to get in
touch with the property owner who lives in the Midwest. Um and he has assured me that he's going to bring the property taxes up to date and he said today he had someone over there cleaning out the backyard. He's also been in touch with
um the construction office to see what type of permits that he needs. Um I was very upfront with him and let him know that it was the governing body's decision as to whether they were going to move from the abandoned list or not and that you would require some action
and that also we needed to have a timeline attached to his plans. So, he has um hired Eric and I'm not going to say his last name right, I apologize. Ronarian
um who is a local engineer and uh he is working with him. So, I'm still skeptical and he knows that. >> But, uh we'll continue to measure the progress, but it seems like at least that maybe is out of danger. Um, we also
have in the past two weeks received vacant property registrations for four of the other properties that were on the list that we weren't really certain where they were in the mix. So, things are moving forward. Properties um 69
York Street sold. So, things are moving and I feel more confident about where we are. >> Thank you very much for all of your work on that. Um it's uh really required a lot of a lot of good oldfashioned kind of like pounding the pavement. Um really
thank you. Uh also just note that um the construction code official did offer did post an unsafe structure notice at 40 South Union Street as well. He went over and took a look and deemed it unsafe. So glad to know that we've been able to contact property owner um and get that
sort of moving along. Just one other thing I wanted to just mention. I mentioned this a little bit in Landerville matters but I I yesterday I met with a number of elected officials from um Delaware Township, East Amwell, West Amwell, Hopewell. I met with um
additionally um Bill Blette from the county planning office and sland conservancy and the water uh wershed institute to um hopefully work together to apply for resilient the resilient NJ um regional resilience planning grant uh
that grant application is due the 2nd of July and um I've offered for the city of Lambertville to take the prime um responsibility for administrating that grant. Um it's going to be um next week I'm going to the East Annwell Township
Committee meeting to talk about the grant and the Delaware township meeting to talk about the grant to hopefully gain enough support from local leaders to pursue the grant. It's a complicated um application process. Each municipality has a has a uh an application to fill out as the prime we
have a different application to fill out uh lot of responsibility and uh you know I promised each of these municipalities that if they join uh in the effort you know I would I would work very hard to make sure everything went smoothly for all of them. Um, you know, we have a lot
of part-time people and we've talked so much about the importance of regional work, whether it's just storm well, I shouldn't say just, but whether it's storm water or flooding and more um protection for trees or open space, you know, these are all things that are of great value. And you know, if the
project goes forward, if the grants awarded, it will also allow each of these municipalities to um to satisfy their climate change related hazard vulnerability assessment, which is a requirement of the state. So, I'm hoping that that's going to be enough of a of a carrot to get everybody involved and to
get the application in um a deadline of June 12th for municipalities to either say they're in or they or they don't have bandwidth or whatever. Um and at that point, you know, we've offered CB and I have offered to help um each municipality write their uh their applications and do their budgeting and
all that. So, um that'll be a a top priority of mine um in the last half of June. So, I'll keep everybody up to date on that. Um, otherwise just ongoing road projects. There's nothing really new other than what I mentioned on Phil Matters about the the 2027 grant
application for the DOT. Um, and I think that that's um it on announcements other than say that city office be closed next uh on June 19th in celebration of Junth. Um then our council meeting is on
Thursday, June 18th. Um now up to the the last public participation would like to speak for Wilson just that you had mentioned earlier you had an court mediator on Khob. Is there anything for the public
to know and the second thing has DP gone to court yet to try to get on the site? Um, no. The second question and um I think I could probably say that um uh we're going to go into mediation with Khob and we will probably have a meeting
next week. Um looking like possibly next Friday. >> So there's a mediator that's involved and >> we're also uploading the letters from the court. >> Yes. Yeah. So the one thing that we uh that I overlooked um was uploading to
the city website. The last couple of correspondents was the one from KAB and the one that city filed on Friday before uh last Friday before the conference. So those will be uploaded on Monday. We need to read those. >> The judge has asked us to with them,
>> right? >> But I don't think we have an answer. We don't have anything from D. >> No, we don't have any. It wasn't a hard it was a I don't know. Yeah, they haven't. They're kind of, you know, since now it's a legal matter, they
can't update us on this, you know, and good luck with your meeting. Ki Dur was on the council there. Yeah. Mr. Sustainability, you know, worked with Karen and I've been my attorney on many issues over the years. So, you should push. And Sue Lwood in Delaware also,
>> it's a long time employed. >> Yeah, we'll be the next mayor. >> I can't tell you how excited I am about the possibility that we might get this grant. I think it's just a wonderful opportunity. I'm going to retouch the mayor of Stockton, which I haven't done yet, but um West Animal's definitely in. We need three contiguous communities,
municipalities, and at least one CB and Dante, of course. >> Yeah. >> Any other public comment? Anybody online? All right. You may have a motion to close the public comment period. >> Second. >> All in favor? Hi. >> Hi.
>> Um, before we adjourn, can we take can I just ask you guys about the schedule for the week of the 22nd? I didn't hear from council speak the calendar. And handy didn't let everyone in, but uh I say Friday though.
>> So, um, Councilman Segman, we're just looking. Do you have a calendar with you that you could take a look at? >> I'm sorry. >> Have your calendar. I'm just trying to see if we can schedule this um special close session meeting before we >> Yeah, I I I responded to you. I'm
available every day except I think Wednesday that week. >> Okay. So, >> any any other day? >> Right. I'm completely available on Wednesday. I'm available. >> Okay. >> Wednesday would be mad. >> Okay. So, can we do Wednesday at Wednesday the 24th at 9:00?
>> Sure. >> Councilman Segman. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Great. So city will ask you to notice that meeting um special close session meeting on Wednesday the 24th at 9:00 am at city hall.
>> Thank you very much for uh for that. Um now I would ask for a motion to adj. >> All in favor please say I. >> Thank you very much ladies and gentlemen. Is that an iPad? But you can miss you as a pet.