Everyone welcome together with stand algiance and we'll remain standing for a moment of silence for serving our country here to the flag
of the honor for which it stand indivisible. Thank you. We have good little frog turn into a prince.
Um, we're going to begin this evening with the uh move on to the approval of the minutes. We ask for a motion to approve the following sets of minutes as submitted. These are the February 19th session minutes, the February 19th close session minutes, the March 5th work
session minutes, and the March 5th close session minutes. Does anyone on the council have any questions or concerns about these minutes? A couple of minor edits that I made earlier. Hearing none motion to accept the minutes.
All those in favor. We did discuss uh um smart redevelopment agreement agreements. Uh moving on to administrative reports. We get a chance to look at the admin reports this month.
Uh just highlight a couple of things. Um for a month which we had a lot of snow, we still managed to do a lot of parking revenue which was good. Um and I want to give a special shout out to the DBW crew on February 27th worked 27 straight hours. They were uh out all night taking
breaks and making sure that the city was cleared. Um and uh they also picked up 106 tons of trash in uh in February. So big trash move. Um is there any questions or comments about the reports?
I would ask a motion to accept them. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I open the meeting up to the public. We do this meeting twice. We've asked that unless you have mobility you can step up to the to the microphone. Um which is
about you put on the state for questions. Council mayor Paul Stevens 39 Street. Um my comment question what it means about um something that's going to be discussed later. It's the first reading of the uh
ordinance for the sale of uh of I forget what it's called now. Anyway, to fisherman's mark. Um and in particular, I know you're going to talk about it, but I just hope that when you do talk about it, I mean, I'm curious about how
did we arrive at this $545,000 sale price. I mean it didn't go on the market so I don't know how it got there. There was that our asking price and they met it was there proposal from them
and we had um appraisals done on that part on that property uh in particular. I mean, that was a big issue, but the whole home property purchase was we never got any uh appraisals, independent
appraisals. Um, and so, yeah, I'd like to hear more about the process. I'd also like to know, you know, just exactly is there going to be any property left up there on on the site that can be
sold? Is this it? Um, I'd like to know about, you know, what the detailed plans are for it. Uh, is it just going to be a market? Are they going to move offices in there? uh all sorts of things. I mean
>> I know you for a while you said we want to sell fisher and smart. I know god it's been over a year ago now if not farther back that there was some kind of conceptual thing about what it would look like but we haven't heard anything
else since then. All of this and the reason I'm bringing this up now this is the first reading. I don't want to wait till the second reading when you guys are going to vote on it then and there. I want more opinions now. Okay. So, please
let's have some details about this. I know you've had to do it in close session, but now it's time to bring it out in the open. Thank you. That's exactly right. This is the time to talk about it. Um, and uh we have already posted the appraisal uh relevant to this
particular property on the Hulcom page website at city. So you can read the appraisal in its entirety. Um, and I was going to speak about this when we introduced the ordinance, but I'm happy to talk about it now. Uh, when the city conducted the appraisal of the farm market, the appraisal came in at
$480,000. Richmond then uh offered to pay $525,000 for it. So that that's those are the uh and Paul, we're gonna now we talk how were those appraisals done is another
thing. Who did them? That's part of the problem that happened before with this. We didn't get independent outside appraisals. We didn't get an independent outside appraisal. No, you you please let me finish. Paul, my goodness.
>> Okay. >> All right. The appraisal is on the city website. So, >> first wasn't posted if you had sit down feel like it's too early to get to be getting a hot end of the call. Uh, but I'm talking about myself. I I I'm
responsible for myself. So, I have said in public repeatedly that we had three separate appraisals down in various parts of the property. Um, we have not able we have not been able to release those appraisals. This particular appraisal we are now able to release because we're introducing the ordinance
to sell the property at Fisherman's Smart. The appraisal was done by Stockwell Associates. It was uh recommended by Mr. Post firm as an independent uh real estate appraisal uh and they conducted the appraisal. You can read the entire appraisal. It's on
the website. So that was the number that came up and that was uh we shared that number with fisherman's market and they came back with a higher than appraised price um for for the property. So uh all that information is available on the
city website. Uh with regard to the purchase uh you know once we uh we're still working on the redevelopment agreement with Christ that has to be finalized before the sale is approved. Um right Bill we do have I forget what's
the correct order. What's the correct order here? We approve the sale and then we have to finalize the redevelopment agreement before the sale. >> It'll wind up being simultaneous >> next voting session. >> Right. So next voting session we will uh in theory or we will propose to adopt
the ordinance that will allow a sale and also the redevelopment agreement. Um so the redevelopment agreement will that language will be available to the public uh then fisherman's mark after it's fisherman's mark intention to purchase the property and then to move towards site plan approval for whatever project
they're doing with the planning board. So, they're purchasing a project. They're purchasing property before they have final site plan approval for um for their possible expansion. Um and that's all I can show you. Hopefully, that's enough.
>> Well, I think you also asked about other portions that would be. >> So, I believe you also asked there are other portions of that property. Obviously, a lot of it is open space, but I do believe the historical house is something the state still owns that property. >> Correct. Yes. So we own we own that's
not the only part of the property that's been subdivided is is the part that we're now in the process of selling district part um that the the city is moving forward with Habitat for Humanity eventually that those parcels be subdivided um and we have not discussed
any possible subdivision beyond that. So there'll be an open state. Uh we're in the final stages. So we're just waiting to hear back from green acres about uh receiving the the funds from Green Acres and there's been no other further discussion about uh subing property beyond that.
>> And if I would just say one other thing too is you're looking for it on the website, you just go right to residents Hulcom Park and it's literally the first thing you click. It's everything's on here. Plus, from the time we purchased it, we
created >> zones that we could >> develop, so to speak. >> The and then there's the rest of it is protected property. So, there are three sections that we have uh rights to do on
it, what we think necessary, and one's fisherman's mark. the other ones where the lock cabin was and the third one that's not an unprotected land area. This Washington is headquarters. So everything else is protected.
So >> I understand your frustration for injury Wilson Street questions. The first one is um I you're enclosed over the halfian project um and so how long
do you think it'll be before there's a timeline when we get to see the redevelopment agreement? Second part of that question is also has the town done any studies to see what the offtrack improvements are going to be needed for such a large project? Second question is
on local farm. Uh has they done an analysis because you're subdividing the property on providing you access both for fisherman's market and potentially for habitat for humanity and is there any ballpark figure on what that will cost or also making property you know
accessible or having some parking to use the property for public. >> I'll start with the second one first. uh ala now dedicated roadway has up to as far as the dairy barn. Um they're helping to have other
improvements for planning done you know we did uh we did remove the greenhouse which is an flat area. All the debris has been removed. Uh that's you know we talk we'll talk to the engineer a little bit about what parking might look like in that particular spot but no plans
have been have been made uh beyond dedicating the roadway on the site. So uh but the roadway is dedicated and it is uh sufficiently wide and appropriate for you know a street up to the back
where the pad houses will be. And then I'm going to defer to Bill for the first question. Uh the ball is in payouts court by the city sent return comments to them. Had a brief call with their attorney but haven't received anything back. So
waiting on that can't really speculate that's the one we're just >> if I might chime in according to a conversation that we both had with with uh open space is that uh barking on the
protected space to access the protected space is allowed >> correct of a restroom facility is allowed. So, it's we we can do things to
um make it more accessible and make it easier to use for the public on that protected project. >> I just want to think acknowledge Mr. Steven's concern. I think it it's um it's
important for all of us on this day to recognize that there's there's a sense of anger among the community for the cost of that property to the city and the the the the
machinations that went into arriving at that cost. I was not on council at the time. Um, but I read the close session minutes and um, there's a there's a less polite word,
but I I'll say persuaded the community that this was a good deal. I don't think we should blame uh appraisers, buyers for dealing in the realities that we
found ourselves. Um what's done is done and we can't undo that. Um and I know it's not easy for members of public to move past that, but
that's unfortunately where we are. Yes, sorry. Sounds like Judy. >> Judy Gleason, 86 North Union Street. Um, I actually have two things, both of which unfortunately or fortunately
involve fisherman Mark. One is I think I want to agree with what Paul has said and I want to note for all of us that appraisals actually wouldn't it be great in a hot market if that was it? appraisal is it. Nobody comes in above that. There's no more money involved in
that. That was the appraisal. That's it. The bank looks at the appraisal, I'm sure. But I think we are aware of market pricing and we know the city and selling things and what we need in terms of money in the city. I just know I agree
with all of Paul's questions and I'm hopeful that we don't just stop where we are with that. Uh the second thing though has to do with the um Fisherman's Mark Lambertville Academy St. Andrews playground issue which actually I thought I would never think of again
because I spoke about that on December 4th and expressed my concern that it seemed as though when people are trying to do construction they have a lot of things they have to get over and a lot of permits and a lot of other things they have to do and the city's pretty rough
on them. I have to do that by rough. You're told to do it. You have to do it. In this case though, the playground which has been in operation for a while, not to the public, but to the kids who go to school there, um was was was put
in there with no plans submitted to the city, no permits for from the city, no inspections from the city, and still to this day, none of those things have happened. I didn't realize that none of those things had happened until fairly
recently. And I had the opportunity to speak briefly tonight with someone from Fisherman's Mark who has said that that is changing and things will happen in the next several months. It's been a year, no plans, no permits, no nothing. And I
can't help but say what I said in December, which was I don't know anybody else who's ever gotten away with that length of time to not have to do anything. And I don't think it's a good idea. Our construction office
said they needed to do something. It took a while. They first said it and it was months later before they actually issued subpoenas and that's when they go to court and wait longer and do all that stuff happened. But if citizens can say
to the construction office, I'll get back to you when I can. I think we owe people that information because it would save a lot of people a lot of time and angst and trouble that they're not being safe. Now,
lastly, on that point, I believe and hope that actually this is moving forward more quickly than it may, excuse me, if they had that said it's moving forward right now. The the story was we have snow on the ground, so we can't do
anything. This was brought up in March of 2025. It was not snowing and it wasn't snowing when people like me were asking about it in May, June, July, August, September, October. So, I think I know that nobody wants to take
responsibility for what another office of construction officer would for whatever does or doesn't do. And I'm not asking you to. I'm saying I was told on December that you have an obligation if you get a notice from the city to do what they say and if you don't do it they will shut you down until you do.
Well, they don't and they didn't. And the playground is there and nobody shut anything down and I I'm just continue to be concerned that it looks like it matters who you are and I don't think you think that. So, please don't make it
look like you think that. Thank you. Um, Judy, I thought when we talked before, I thought the issue was the change of use that it was going to be open to the other people. So, maybe I misunderstood that. Uh, but I don't think it's I thought that was the issue that people were concerned about that before it was just for Fisherman's Mark Lville
Academy. Then there was a sign on saying this is going to be open to the public. I thought that people were concerned about that because before it was just open to Fisherman's Mark and now it was going to be open to the public at different times. That's what I thought the issue is. I didn't realize there was anything else with that.
>> No, no permits, no plans, no approvals. >> Still, still you mind if I can I ask a question? Please start. >> Step back. Is there overall concern
the safety of the children that are currently using some things that you have shared with us have no inspections? Yes, of course that's part of it. If we believe, and I do, but everybody
probably doesn't. If we believe that having inspections and having somebody look at what you're doing and having somebody make sure that you actually did it is important, which I think in our system and our belief we do. Yes, that
is. Yes, of course that's a concern because as we all know because we all either have children who could take children to playgrounds. We we want to know that somebody's looked at all that stuff when it's in our city. It's not a playground. Playgrounds have special
treatment. It's not that it's construction. Well, but yes, that is a concern. Yes, that is probably the primary concern. I came upon it because of the safety of the children and my concern that I
couldn't figure out why everybody else had to do things. >> Well, I think I would have a question for Bill. is that what liability do art does as a city face since it's still functioning and it's known that
there no have been no permits or no inspections and the token for the kids to use and we've known we've known about this for several months and the steps that we take have not beared fruit so to speak and then some
kid gets hurt and then the fingers thirst God forbid some kid gets hurt. >> Right. >> So, what's our exposure to keeping this open? >> I don't have um after review. I can't answer that.
>> I I can't answer your question. I I can't answer it either. And it would it would have been helpful had you called or written to or you know allowed us to answer your questions rather than show up at the meeting uh with a with a question that I can't answer. So, you know, I'm not prepared to answer the
question. I I have a memory that a violation notice was was issued and that they were supposed to go to the zoning board, but now it's been several months and uh you know, had other things. Uh so, it would have been wonderful to have known about this question of yours a little earlier today. So, I couldn't
contact the uh the selling officer to ask about that's water under the bridge, I suppose. Um, obviously everyone's concerned about children's safety and I will get an answer for you and email you tomorrow. >> Right. I was going to say, can we get this on our radar? >> Of course, it's our but I do have to respectfully say I think coming to a
meeting and bringing these concerns, that's exactly what we want people to do, but I don't I don't think you meant to say it that way and so I just wanted to say no, I I didn't mean to say it that way. It would have been very helpful if you had uh you know you're always welcome to speak publicly but if you want the
answers you know during the meeting that that that are important to you it would have been great if I had have been able to address this with the zoning officer today rather than have to have to do it tonight or tomorrow in the morning and then get back to you. This would have
been a perfect opportunity for me to explain to a broader audience rather than just explain to you via email tomorrow. So I I do I think it's important that you know when things go when things are when there are problems in our community that the community is also held accountable for taking action
in a way that is thoughtful to us who work very diligently and are very really concerned about everything here in the city. So I'll get your answer tomorrow and I want to end the conversation here because >> there's no thanks. I want to say for me, thank you for your question and we're
going to get you back an answer and the public is welcome to an ask any question at least of me when you're at the podium. I am helpful and and give you an answer and have to do at a time and we'll we'll set up a time to do it. >> So, we'll get the answer.
>> Thank you. Sorry, mayor, but >> I spoke with you and wrote to you on May 2nd, 2025 about this entire thing the day before they were going to open and expressed these very concerns to you. So, I appreciate your point and I think
it's a good one, but it's why I said laid out the whole thing May 2nd, 2025 with the playground scheduled to have its big opening May 3rd. And I said, "I I I really think you got to do something about this."
>> D5 Brunswick Avenue with Lamfilm and uh again I have 30 33 minutes. All right. Three minutes. Yeah. >> I'm taking forever here. Uh the uh I've reviewed the uh agenda that you're
working on tonight. Right. There are 11 resolutions. There are four uh ordinances and uh as I did last time or recently I I am going you don't have to try to grab it on the run but for the mayor and and Cindy I have a document
that that I'm reading from. But my questions are all right and again during the meeting if this this is when it comes up if you can't do it during the meeting and you'll catch up when you can. Resolution 71 2026 uh justice center improvements uh spending
$384,000. What are we what are we including in the uh in the improved resolution 72 uh 2026 shared services Frenchtown sweeping uh which is four times per year uh
threehour sessions at $300 per uh charge for each session. My question uh is two questions. All right. is the roundtrip mileage and machine time being included in coming up with that $300
and it's a door-todoor billing calculation. All right, $300 seems like pretty cheap number for to to take a piece of equipment. All right, and take it, you know, what is that? 20 minutes up. It's miles and resolution 77206
the pennies. I I object. No. Um uh I have not been able to locate the the policy that is being approved the cash payment rounding policy. All right. So obviously if it's not available and I maybe you can at least describe what how
how ridiculous you have to get for to resolve the issue. Uh the uh ordinance 60 2026 police chief or police director. Okay. There's some old people like Steve
and myself all right have uh seen this change or you know it there's things in the ordinance already the city has had extraordinary long history uh with police chiefs all right and uh police director and officers uh officer in
charge all right what are we changing now we we spent tens of thousands hundreds of thousands of dollars in this general area before. All right, it's all working now. Maybe we don't want to make a change. Uh and last but not least in
this degree, what is the discussion? And that is uh 13 Roman 13. Yeah. Um what is the discussion items uh GCRP uh the issue? All right. What are we talking about? All right. And what is the impact on the city? Having speaking
real quick, I can then ask a couple questions on the uh fisherman's mark uh sale. Uh is there how old is that appraisal? Okay, I know it's been going on for long and you know things change
and why did we only get one at the recommendation of the the attorney? Okay. Uh you know, get two. All right. Does it cost money? Yeah, it may cost money, but what what can you do? Thank you very much and have a wonderful day.
Appreciate what you do. >> Thank you. Uh let me take those in order to on the work center. Can you just highlight the improvements for >> sure?
We have the front and the rear door. When the city floods, we're we're actually installing. It'll be a pit out front and as the water raises a door will come up and cover so that water can't come into the building. So it
removes Dave right now, you know, we have the things that when it's going to rain, we have to come put them on and take them off. This is going to be automatic. And the only thing that may have to be done after the fact is after everything goes away and the water goes down is there might be a little bit of
water left in the bottom of the pit that has to be pumped out and you know there's going to be a pump with it that will pump the water out. So um so it's really removing the error of somebody privately installing
it. And then also the other benefit is that if the the doors are installed and you're in the building, you can't get out. But with these, they're installed a little bit out so you could still get out and climb over. Although I would want to do that, you could still have
gain access to the exterior. It still protects the the building from the water. So the the basis the basic the biggest part of it is actually the equipment and the this the hydraulic thing. >> That's the whole thing. It is the whole
world. It is. It's the pit. It's the concrete. It's the door. It's the whole kitten kaboodleoodle. >> Thanks. I don't think you know. So, I got to explain like why is she talking about a floodgates? Um,
and I just know that uh this was part of a a FEMA grant that we got. So, it's a 6040 share. So, uh >> 60% 6040 because it's a mitigation grant. >> Thank you. That makes it more acceptable. >> Absolutely. Um the the UH terms
agreement with Frenchtown at $300 the minimum. So Lester and I discussed it. Um that that that does include mileage and uh wear whatever wear and gasoline uh cost very little to to maybe not
maybe not today uh fill up the tank. But um we talked about that really one of the things that we could talk about when we talk about the shared service agreements is you know working in partnership and not necessarily always trying to make a buck off it right and so you know we felt like this was a fair
and it really is for Frenchtown Frenchtown and you'll see also we're going to do this with Stockton and a slightly different version with Westwell. It's really for them to meet their requirements for the MS4 tier A. So, you know, when the when the sweeper goes up there, the sweeper is going to make a quick trip. They don't have any
parking regulations. They're going to try and, you know, have the have the drains clear, but I don't expect that it's going to take more than a half an hour, 40 minutes for the sweeper to get up there, and the new sweeper can drive, you know, on the roads very comfortably. It's perfectly fine. Um, so, so, so, so
we set that we set that price with a with a mind toward meeting our basic expenses, but not being something that might not be considered natively. >> Um, number 77, >> the pennies. >> The pennies. Yeah, back to you.
>> So, um, this is it's, you know, there's a penny shortage right now. And so, we came up with a policy. Actually, we stole it from somebody else. I think Walter um our finance person gave it to us, but it'll be the rounding of cash transaction. When a customer pays a tax
or sewer bill in cash, the final balance due shall be rounded up to the nearest five sec 5 cents. Um the rounding up only applies to cash payment process and does not alter the actual bill amount uh recorded in the city's accounting system. Amounts ending in a penny
through 4 cents will be rounded up to five. amounts ending in six to nine cents will be rounded up to 10 cents. But no amounts are rounded like if if you're coming in, you're paying a bill and it's $10 and a penny and we don't
have a penny. You're going to pay $105, but that four cents gets credited to your tax bill. Tax payments are really the the only ones that have the pennies. So you're going to get that credit. We just don't have pennies to give back to you. So, you have to pay the five cents.
The four cents gets credited to your tax bill. Same thing would apply for the 10 cents. Does that make sense? It's like a rounding. We're rounding. So, you're giving us 5 cents. We don't have to give you four cents back because we're putting it on your desk. >> As long as you don't give us two cents.
>> There you go. >> It's not yearly as post office round. >> Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Google it. >> But we will make this available too on our on our website. But we have a legal page. We'll make sure we post it there so people understand.
>> Uh, regarding ordinance number 60, the introduction of language that would um expand the the municipalities ability to hire either police chief or police director. This is something that came up uh you know just the last uh just in the last little while when we were just
talking about uh you know position uh in police department. Um, and you know, we don't anticipate any changes in the short term. Do we have a an officer in charge who uh who has a four-year contract to sign a four-year contract? Um, an officer in charge has all of the
same uh protections and benefits as a police chief uh without exception, without issuing that traction, basically uh equal. Um so but this was a way for the city to eventually if it decided that at some point a police director
would suit its needs better that it was already in place. Doesn't uh doesn't it just just a mechanism to allow it make a decision at some future point about uh you know we'd rather have a police director or or or police chief. So >> yeah, it doesn't eliminate the police
director. So it's like either or. So and that was a a thought. Is it Isn't it already in our records? >> No. >> Well, I'm sorry. >> I'm asking. Isn't it already in the records? >> Police director and officer in charge, but not police chief. Uh police chief.
>> Okay. And and I'm sure that for a reason, right? But but but but we still retain the ability, let's say, for years to not have it chief and have a director. So it didn't eliminate the position. It gave
us the flexibility. So it's not we we're not undoing the past but you know we created opportunity but for someone to leave the department after these four year or whatever we could go back to we could have a direct
it doesn't it's like the best of both worlds as my mother would say. Uh, in regards to the DCRP, that's a little bit complicated. I'm not going to talk about it right now. It's going to require you. >> Yeah. So, um, I think if you can hold on
to that thought for a few minutes and then just, uh, lastly, getting back to Fisher's Mark, the sale there. So, the, um, the, uh, the appraisal was, uh, was, uh, sent to the city as of February
2nd, 2024. So, it's two years old. Um and uh you know the only thing I would say is that you know we've been having conversations we've been in various parts of this process now for more than two years right we put out an RIP to understand what interest there was in
the building I don't even remember what all the dates were I couldn't come up with any tried but we've been in process uh for a long time both in conversation with fisherman's mark and more broadly about what to do with the with the property so that's uh that's where we
are with that um second a second um appraisal. >> Yeah, we didn't do a second appraisal. I don't know, Bill, if you want to wait on that. I I assume that we thought one would be sufficient. You had any thoughts on that? I don't remember specifically
>> the way we appraisal and we obtain one, >> but that's right. So, thank you so much. So, gentlemen's probably just about to say that. I would have forgotten that. So maybe Jen can say a little bit more on it.
>> Sure. Hi everyone. Jen Oliver, the executive director at Fisherman's Smark. I clearly am on the hot seat tonight. Um but happy with um and first I think I just want to one say to our community is if you have
issues or concerns about who we are and what we're doing, I would love it if you would pick up the phone and call me. Um I have an open door policy. I'm around. I would love to get to know all of you and try to address some of these concerns so they don't necessarily have
to come in front of the council. Um, so I did want to just say in regards to the uh purchase of of the property, we're really excited about this. We did uh we had our own appraisal um and we are paying what was over market value at
that time. I want to remind you all that we are a small nonprofit in this organization taking care of our neighbors. And so, um, you know, I appreciate if you all could be a little gentle with with with us. Um, we're all doing our our best to just serve our
community. In terms of our future plans, we will go in front of you as soon as we we know. Our original plans that we had presented to council when we wanted to um to ask to to to submit our proposals to purchase it um have kind of gone arry
because uh there is a storm encroachment with the small creek next to the to the building. So obviously we want to do our due diligence, but I'm confident what we bring in front of council and planning board in the future is going to be something really wonderful and special
that will meet our needs. And then lastly, just in regards to the playground, I just want to um one publicly say I can as the director of the organization that we probably we probably failed in some of the proper uh protocols of building a playground, but
it was we were not building it. that was another organization building it for us and it's been a lesson that we've learned and obviously as we go forward with the construction project at market down the road we I can promise you we will do everything absolutely perfect um
because that's really how we want to operate. Uh the playground has been inspected by a playground inspection. The only children that are using it at this time and will use it moving forward are the children of the academy um and those families um have signed off
knowing that it has not been inspected by the city of Lambertville. It is in process of getting all of our permitting and uh there does unfortunately need to be some um minor construction to the playground so we are not um it
jeopardizing previous coverage. But we're a good organization. We're really good people. Well, I like to think I follow follow a really good moral compass. Um, so I just ask if you guys have questions and concerns, pick up the phone and call me. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you for addressing the playground
issue, too. I know you didn't come here to do that, but hopefully that information was helpful. Uh, >> yeah, we're very much on it. So, >> uh, I should just follow. Uh, the zoning officer is not on Friday, so All right. Is everyone online?
We have eight online motion to close the public period. Is there a second? >> All those in favor? >> I thank you. >> Now we get to move on to something really really lovely.
Tonight we have with us Lori Cleveland who's the executive director of the Southern Conservancy and Marian Bor. She's the chairperson parks and rec. And we're so delighted to have you both here to celebrate and to acknowledge uh all of the amazing things that Solan
Conservancy does in this area. Uh in particular, the partnership that they formed uh with Lambertville, with Maryanne and with uh neighboring communities to plant 50,000 trees uh in the area, but uh so badly been affected
by the uh the ash uh crisis and uh you know, partnership which I value personally. I find it very inspirational. I don't know how many trees we planted in Lambertville, but it's always a delight to get out there and be a part of that whenever I can. And we did want to acknowledge the in
particular proclamation that uh this last and greatest thing that you have done for Lambertville. So, I'm going to go ahead and read this and then I'll ask you where you step up to to the council and sh everybody on the big picture.
So uh proclamation whereas the satellite conservancy has been partnering with city of landfills parks and recreation commission since December 2024 the plant used and management bases species the music mountain along land nature trail
and whereas they have donated and helped plant over 600 trees and have helped to work to manage invasive species and whereas the city has lost hundreds of white ash trees due to the emerald aore and are now facing another crisis with the American beach due to beach sleep
disease. And whereas the Zo conservancy applied for and was awarded a conservation grant through the Delaware Water Conservation Waters Conservation Fund with support from the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation in the amount of
$93,500 for working with the Philipp Lambert nature trail to plant woody plant native woody and avatar brows. All of which helped improve habitat, reduce flooding, and improve air and water quality. Now therefore be
resolved by the governing body of the city of Lamville, county of Hunteran, state of New Jersey. Sland Conservancy is hereby commended for their ongoing efforts to provide support to municipalities in the Sland Mountains and be a further hereby recognized for their contribution to the city of
Landville and the surrounding communities and provide much needed projects that will improve and preserve our mountain side and the quality of life for residents creatures of all kinds. Thank you. Is there a motion to uh to adopt the proclamation? >> Second. >> All those in favor, please say I.
>> I. Great. So I'll go down and give you your calculation. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> Here you go. >> We'll have the coun comes as well. >> Thank you so much.
>> Oh, thank you. Oh my god. I'm glad to be in here. for sure. And actually more than anything, >> amazing I look forward to helping plant the tree. >> Thank you. Thank you so much.
>> We'll join you. >> Thank you. Next time. More trees. Thank you. >> It's development is always interesting. It's always interesting. What else happen? Um so we'll move on to the consent
agenda now. So consent agenda is comprised of uh of resolutions which are considered and are typically enacted in one uh in one motion. Um during questions by the c of the council or any of these um we can have a discussion and
if you want to pull pull anything out we can certainly do that uh separately. So, are there any questions or concerns about any of these items that aren't currently? >> So, that is currently amended. >> Great.
>> Um, good. So, then I would ask for a motion to adopt the consent agenda. It's a resolution built on consent agenda which are number 69 to the 2026 through 79 2026.
>> Second. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Thank you. Motion carried. We'll approve the bills hopefully. I'll take a motion to approve the bill, please. So move. >> I'll second. All >> in favor? >> I >> I
motion carries. Ordinance is first reading. First ordinance that we'll consider this evening is ordinance number 05-2026. It's an ordinance of the city of land bill authorizing the sale of city owned property. real no longer needed for public purpose establishing procedures
therefore concerning block 102 41.01 on the tax map of the date more commonly known as a property located at 62 262 North Main Street to Fisher's mark. So we've already gone through most of this here. I'll just note that the property
is 125 ft by 230 ft 28,700 ft equalizing just 66 acres. Um, I'll also note that uh having having worked toward the school, I'm very excited about it personally both as a resident
and as the mayor, I do want to highlight that the work that Fishman Smart does so integral to the success of our community, our whole community. So many people in our community struggle um with so much uh need and want and Miss Mark has just been really a godsend I'll say
to to people in our community and the little partner in every single way. Never had a moment when I couldn't get Jen on throne. I never had a moment when I wasn't grateful for all of the programs that they that they share with the community. Everything is just
amazing work. So, thank you and Mark. Um, so unless there are any further comments, I would ask for a motion to reduce the ordinance on first reading of the public hearing scheduled for April 23rd. >> Some moved second. >> All those in favor?
>> I you motion carries. We'll see you in that one. Uh, next will be ordinance number 06-226. It's an ordinance to amend the Lambertville city code 2014 chapter 2 the administrative code and all other references to a police director to
include the police chief. I think we've kind of explained this one already. So unless the council have any council language or sure of course I would enter motion >> second.
>> All those in favor of using ordinance number 06 on first read with the scheduled hearing and April 23rd 2026 please say I >> I ordinance number seven 2026. Uh, this ordinance would seek to amend will amend
Lambertville city code 2014 chapter 16 canvas section 16 through 12 of the maximum public. So this is following up on a conversation with tax. I had I think this once u that will reduce the number of cannabis licenses that can be issued
for class 5 retail sales to three with a requirement for two of the three micro businesses. I would note that this ordinance does not require any review by the planning board. Any any comments on this from councils? No. I think we talked about it last meeting, but I'm
glad we've got this back on the agenda. Great. >> All right. Uh I'm going to make a motion to introduce ordinance number 072026 on first meeting of the sec public meeting public hearing. Second reading scheduled for April 23rd. I have a second. >> Second.
>> All those in favor say I. Hi Harris confirms the second reading ordinance 03-2026 more the city of Randville County state of New Jersey tremendous zoning ordinance article 12 affordable housing
the planning board have their consistency review memorandum which file the city on March 5th they voted 8 to zero to the ordinance the amendment the ordinance substantially consistent with the master plan So, we've talked about this quite a bit. Um, I'm going to begin
by opening this up to the public for the public hearing on this tour. So, anybody who wishes to speak to it. Is there anyone online wishes to speak to this? Hearing none, I'll ask for a motion to close the public hearing.
Second calling public hearing. Motion carries. There is questions on that for a motion to adopt ordinance 032026 second reading grant final approval. So second all those in favor
ordinance number 04-2026 an ordinance to amend the Lamville city code 2014 GH3-1 sanitation retail food establishments food and beverage vendors and cottage food operations.
So uh this will um this will reduce the fees for the temporary food licensing and change the process required requiring them to go to the county department for an inspection department first. It also changes the fee schedule for food licenses. I'll
open this up to anyone online. All right. I'll make a motion to close the public hearing on this list. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor of closing the public hearing for ordinance number four, please say I. I. >> I. Any comments from the council.
Motion. >> Motion. Second. >> All those in favor of adopting ordinance number 04, 2026 on second reading granting the final approval, please say I. >> I. >> I. Moving on to board appointments. Two board appointments this evening. Um
Cynthia Richards to unexpired TR vacated by Lisa Nichols and Fred Eisner second death board after 18 years and I think uh an excellent an excellent member and in fact she will I talked to the zone board she will not
be as I think the first time we'll ever make that uh made a direct appointment into a board like that typically we go through the uh the uh the um um alternates first, but I think that
record will serve very very well. So um unless there are questions on that, I would ask for somebody to confirm my nominations. >> So move second motion. Sorry. All those in favor of the two nominations, please say I. >> I. Okay.
>> Be nice to see Linda Weber back >> on a board. >> Yeah. Yeah. And 18 years on the board is an amazing thing. >> It is. >> You know, when you look at all the volunteerism that we do in Lo 18 years, it's fantastic. Know we all appreciate
all of his efforts. Uh all the time he spent all the time. >> Yes, it is. I think I think it just reflects on the dedication that the volunteers have who take these positions, their dedication
to the city, attending their people with so kindly of their time for no compensation and for um
being strong minded and able to make a correct decision when necessary whether it's for or against I thank all the people that I work so as you have many times it's amazing group
of people love a lot of expertise built and always committed grant are a shared goal um in fact we're going to move on to a conversation about the DCP so for those in the public the DCP is the divine
contribution retirement program and this is a uh retirement program for part-time employees uh of municipalities. Um and basically I'll bold this as simply as I as I can. Um
it came to uh the library's attention after their last audit that a number of their part-time employees had not been enrolled in this program. Uh it's a mandatory program. It's a state run uh program for principally for for part- timer part-time people who do not uh who
are in that eligible but peers are the t the te that uh enrollment um so uh the auditors pointed out that the library employees have not been enrolled in this um and uh so the library and I have had
some conversations about what this means to kind of sort through things here um So basically the the city was doing the libraryies payroll for many years. I think since 2013 since the first u part-time people
started working at the library. Um and so we were the administrators of the library's payroll up until um 2022 December 2022 when the library assumed responsibility for the payroll of their of their employees. Um and and it was
only recently that this uh this this problem was discovered. Um and it's a problem which needs a resolution. Um there's a a number here the total of the the total due um which is a which uh is obligated to be paying is just over
$33,000. So for this program there is an employee um contribution and an employer contribution. um and those are required for for both uh employee and the employer. So those were not made um starting in 2013 for two employees of
the library and by 2019 there was another employee uh of the library. So um those have have not made and need to be made. Um during that time the city administered payroll during the bulk of that time the city administered payroll
the way the way the law um plays out in this matter is that uh I'll probably defer to bill at some point just to make sure I've got all this exactly correct. Well, here I'll I'll just note employees have to have contribute 5.5 of their earnings pre-tax and the municipality or
the or the entity will cont the employer will contribute 3% of their earnings to help build the long-term financial security. So that's what the program looks like. Um and the uh the employer is responsible for overseeing these uh
with with these uh deductions from from the from from the from the payroll and also meeting the mandatory uh match for the mandatory number presented for them. Um so the the library is the the employee is the employer here. Uh
however the city was the administrator for the the payroll for this period of time. Um, and this is where we get into kind of a a question of uh who's responsible. Um, and uh, you know, I'm going to ask Bill that's weighing down, but the employer
is legally responsible, but the city bears as the administrator of the of the payroll bears probably some responsibility or or opens itself up to potential legal action because it failed to to do this over the time period in
question. So what we're what we're grappling with here a little bit is uh you know how the back payments get get made um and um so you know I will note I've had a number of conversations with the library
uh and their um their treasurer uh over the last week and also with the auditor. Um the library does not have enough surplus to pay for this. They have a small surplus. they they they their budget is very close to the bone um and they have one dedicated
um capital account for which resolutions are needed to withdraw money. So you know question of the needs to pay this but how it gets paid um and so that we continue to talk about a little bit here tonight. So I think that basically sort
of outlines it. I I I will note that um you know one of the things that's I think a factor for me and I don't know whether this would be a factor for the council members and their and their points of view the the city had had an agreement with the library where was the
library was paying at $60,000 a year up until 2022 for payroll services and also for insurance costs. I think the insurance costs as I understand were about $10,000 a year. So there was just this agreement that was never in writing like the city was being paid roughly
$50,000 after uh you know after the insurance to manage the payroll. Um and then the library uh and I worked toward shared service or a memorandum of understanding uh in 2022
where they took over the payroll and we we stopped um you know collecting that that sum of money. um that money just went into the infant city's general fund. So it was just treated almost like a source of revenue for years. Um and so you know I think that that for me that's a bit of a factor um in in my own
personal view of this situation. So with that you know Bill have I missed anything here? No. Okay. So with that I want to hear kind of what the council's thoughts are. I mean, I think that personally I think that the city bears some some if not all the responsibility for for for the payments it passed to,
but uh you know this is obviously a group decision, some policy decision. Um and and please jump in. >> U so mayor if I have a question. Uh so this came as a result of an audit thresher u from 2013 to this past year.
How many other audit every year as does the city? And how come we have we reached out to the auditors to ask why they didn't catch this yet? >> I I haven't specifically. There was a couple of emails that went back and forth about the the different funds in the library. Um but I didn't
specifically ask why they caught it last year and why it was never called before. Program has been in place I think since 2007. So it's been a while. Yeah. >> Yeah. Been in place for a long time. Um so so I mean I think that's very problematic that you know obviously the nobody's happy about this situation. And
I agree. We have to come up with a solution, but we also have to find out why this did happen. And I think the number one question I had right away is why didn't the auditors check catch us? That's a fair question. I'm happy to ask it. I I haven't asked it. Um but uh it's
it's a good question. Um yeah, I mean this the withdrawals started in 2013 and you know possible that it was such a small amount that it was overlooked. I'm not sure. But uh you know we're talking a variety of light.
>> We've had more than we've had one auditor for a long time and we didn't have the same auditor for several years. We have the auditors back who who u I guess it's a great question. >> Well, so you brought up a point. So the auditor that caught this audited the
books in the past and did catch it before. film while we're going. Yes. 11 or I don't know how long they were the same, >> right? It's a library. But did the did it over what is it the same time period
or >> we might be going down. I'm not sure if the library question >> is we did the library have a separate auditor >> besides the one that
>> so their auditor missed it. >> Yes. didn't raise any red flags to the city and our auditor >> still didn't know what the library was doing basically. >> Well, I think they've done the same
auditor for at least three years. Um, what's that? >> I think it's the same auditor. >> It is. >> Yeah. >> Um, so yeah, their books get their books get audited completely independently of ours. There's no Go ahead.
>> So I also thought there is there a requirement that the entity that's handling the payroll is responsible for collect that. So even though these even though these library employees are not technically city employees because the city is handling the uh the the
contributions to the paycheck were the ones responsible for doing that. Is that correct? This is where you can weigh it. I think it will require >> there's not um it's an administrative law issue. There's not a lot of precedent for it. So um I guess her
question is um if the city's back essentially said the shares could go >> and the total amount about $33,000 I'll go. We need to support the library. Yes. you
know, wherever, you know, figuring out our systems and how we operate the city is one bucket over there, which we're working on. We obviously need to do some more work on. We need uh, you
know, systems in place. We need or we need a lot of things. We're not going to talk about that now, but our library, the margins are slim. We supported this institution. It's the backbone of our community. $30,000. I think we need to own up, you know, our part of it. I
don't I don't feel the need to to take a, you know, the you know, split it or anything. I think we need to do this. But what we need to do though is really commit to sharpening these systems that
we have. And uh again, you know, however we're going to do that, I think it's bigger than just than an art chart. I think we need, you know, second eyes on things. You know, I don't want to be an English teacher, but you know that, you
know, m, you know, double check, checking, you know, having a couple people check before something happens might be the way to go. Um I'm a big proof reader and I don't want to see an error but but we need to go in that direction obviously and and commit to
that. Uh the library I think is is is our institution. We need to support it. >> I agree with her. I agree with that. >> Yeah. >> I support the library. I think they're tremendous resource in the community and
provide so much um support and opportunity for people. We should do everything that we can to support them. Um but PCC said how much? 33 >> It's 33,000. >> $33,000.
Okay. Um which is going to be a a struggle for them. Um are they prepared like going forward? >> Yes. Going forward they will be Yes. for the price. Yes. >> Okay. So, it's really like if if you were looking like, oh, let's prrate it.
We're really only talking about really three years that we'd be paying for quote for that, right? But that's nothing, you know, it's a small portion. So, like why do that? It it doesn't make
any sense. But, um yeah, I think we should we should support them. Well, it's not a secret in this room how much I think the library has done, is doing, and will continue to
do for the adults and children of this community. Um, uh, it's an oversight that nobody caught. >> And I guess the question is is
that we feel that well we should take all of the responsibility or act the responsibility. Um it's not like we're setting a precedent here. I mean this is a very unique first of all it's a very unique
library and it's a very unique situation where things got overlooked. the profits got a little low. So uh we are we are we wrestling with how much we
should pay or should are we saying that let's take the responsibility >> whole thing. >> Yeah. Let's take the responsibility view us as as city government as the
responsible party here. Um, and I'm fine with uh with uh taking the responsibility. >> Yeah, I think excuse me. I think we need to the bigger issue is
I'm not that this was missed in an audit for 13 years. That is >> unacceptable. >> unacceptable. I'll tell you, I never met an auditor. I
was never that lucky. >> I didn't get that luck. Is like we should talk about it. You know, we want to do it. We're going to do it and that's the right thing to do to help out our our partners. But the real issue is what's going on. And uh to
the council woman's uh comments about um organization, we need some sort of handoff um and not just in this area but other areas of financial responsibility. We need handoff um with signatures, you know, where when party A completes a
task and has a has a a dollar figure that gets passed to party B and then party B runs with it that that there's some confidence and level of confidence in that transition that people are accountable that what they're
passing is correct and accurate. >> Right. And just since we reopened the tour, sorry, ma'am, but since we're going to be talking about just the, you know, just organizational thing, it is kind of
worth, you know, sitting around and having conversations about it of how to do it rather than, you know, on times, you know, we just get here's some piece of paper about how we're going to do it. But you know sometimes just tossing some stuff around sometimes birth ideas like that you know a plan of working through
some of these things to identify the issues. I think we can do that as a group. You know sometimes we go out and find oh we got to consult to do this or that. But I think some of those things that we can work through with the folks who do it too. You know, I think it's
something for us to that we're all eager to kind of make it work with everybody because everybody works really hard tries to do, you know, and get done, right? >> Yeah. It's a problem well well made. I
think councilwoman uh nobody on the st city hall wants this kind of thing to happen and uh and uh we take our jobs very seriously. We take the responsibility of trust of the public seriously. We take our institutions
seriously and uh you know as hard as these moments are this moment the assessment issue um you know other issues that we've have these are opportunities I'm looking forward to Bill's um report and suggestions about
uh ways in which you know as an independent um kind of investigation unfolds or recommendations come to us how we can only make the city operate more effectively or taxpayer or people who work so hard or us um or anybody
who's involved in any part of the kind of the work that we do. We're deeply committed to it. I'm never afraid of kind of owning these issues and and finding the best way forward. So, we've got some things that we have to work on and um you know, I'm looking forward to
to getting them addressed and uh and getting things running a little bit smoother from time to time. um this run pretty smoothly but obviously we got a lot of things falls and this is another example of you know possibly something that was missed by multiple um people
auditors here in finance and whatever right so >> well we don't have one anybody actually doing HR >> right >> somebody that has that experience knows the laws so does a great job with the payroll
>> but that's not just HR it's also I a fulltime CFO would be great, right? It's everything roll out, but we'll be talking about so hang tight. But in the meantime, we'll go ahead and work with the library to make sure that those payments uh are
made. We'll incorporate them into our 2026 budget and um take care of it. >> I would also ask that we follow up on the audit. >> Yes, absolutely. >> Sure. council assist, excuse me. I also understand I
understand Cindy's concern, but I think it's broader than that. Yes, it's very important to have somebody do do HR and not necessarily someone who is also or the same, but that's a
decision, you know, that will be made in the future. But I think I think >> it's it's an issue and we're just gonna try our best to make it work for everybody. >> You know, did you want a motion to confirm that?
>> Um, sure. Why don't we uh I mean, I think it's pretty un pretty well understood. But for the record, >> I'll motion to that the city pays incorporates 2026 budget to pass DCR payments for both the employer and the
employee. uh of the library >> in the amount that we in the amount that we talked about I think it's 3 33,000 I think that was the how recent is that recent >> just
no seriously >> we'll say 33,25155 and there's a little that the libraries got paid. That that's that's fair. So, we'll stick with that number. That was the number I had on last time.
>> So, there was a motion. >> That's all right. We have we have a motion. We have a second. All in favor? I >> Thank you. >> Quick question. Um, are we doing anything for the library now? city services for the life.
>> Uh we are starting to do their payroll again and we we adopted the memorandum understanding at the last council meeting >> and is there exchange >> there are there's $86 per payroll that back to us and it goes directly to Sue as a study.
>> Okay. >> And in in that payroll they will be allotting this money. >> Yeah. Okay. >> The deductions will be made. Yeah, >> the deduction. >> We're surprising because I think that sounds like where some of the confusion came in. It's like, you know, I mean,
Cal point we're administering this. It's not our money. So, and I think, you know, we're we're trying to be gracious and I and I want to be gracious, but you know, administration is not the same as ownership.
>> Yeah. Now, it is. Okay. >> Okay. Not the same, but now we're being clear. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> All right. We're going to move on to landlord issues with SCL. Uh Lindsay reported that need to resolve an issue that they have a payment processing. However, now an issue with
the application process that's causing a delay process. Um Lindsay, you want to talk about that for a minute? >> Yeah. All of the return landlords who have been trying to access the portal since this past Thursday have not been able to
um find their properties online, which has been preventing them from completing their registration on time. The deadline is on the 31st, so they're all really panicky that they can't get this completed. Um, so we were talking about
possibly extending the deadline so it's fair for the landlords um, even though they waited till less than a to get filed on time. >> What was the window again? >> January 1 through March 31.
>> 90% of them filed in this week. >> But but you know, we wanted it to you. We're asking that you extend the deadline to April 10th, but only for people who have been in the process. You know, you've, you know, you're in the process of submitting, you can't submit.
You've got your document, but you can't make your payment. Not somebody who decides March 31st that maybe they'll file some of their documents, but we want people that are in the queue ready to go to extend April. >> Has the problem been solved with people?
>> No. Well, well, the question is not how can we penalize someone if they can't even if they're at the last minute if they can't access the program to do what they supposed to do.
>> Yes. Except April 1st if you're going to try, you already would have been charged that late fee. >> Well, charge, >> right? Giving April 1. My only question is is how would someone prove they were in
the process? You know, we can say it >> to reach out by email or or call. I've been getting a lot of phone calls just saying, "What am I doing wrong? I can't use the portal." We love all of that. So, I know the people that are actively trying to get this done versus the
people who I can't get in front of. >> Well, the people aren't going to do it anyway. People like me. So my concern if I thought it why don't we just extend it and not worry about if you're in the queue or not. I think just easier to say hey let's extend it till the >> the you could say >> I think it's less work for you guys I
assume >> to you know gets a little >> it sound it feels kind of it could feel kind of arbitrary if you're you know >> not arbitrary >> not that I disagree with you I'm appreciative of you sending it for the
10th but here's what happens people file part of their application and they don't finish it or they don't pay it >> and Then when we say we don't have the full application technically you're not filed you know I don't want to be chasing you to get your fire you know
safety certificate and I don't want to chase you to get your money you know to pay for you to pay if they haven't paid that's you know that's how that's how we know >> you mean annually or >> yeah you know so we may get pieces of it
and so we know it's hanging and they don't always follow through but I do agree that it should go that we work at. But this is this is like the whole year we're going to be chasing people for pieces of their application. Right now we have like 47
>> um short-term rentals. Of the 47, I probably have five of them that had pieces that they filed, but they haven't finished. And then you have maybe 20 some that haven't filed at all. >> Where's What's our >> right?
>> Where's Where's the So >> other than a other than a a uh monetary violation, okay, what the next step? I mean, what what's what process do we have to revoke?
because this is sounds like people are just playing the system or if we're talking about public if there's information that we need from these short-term rentals that deal with public safety,
we've got to shut up. >> It's not just short-term rentals. I offered that as as because I can pull that out of my head. 276 landlords and probably if you apply the the percentage it's probably about the same.
>> So is there an ETA on a fix on this? No. He thought that he had it fixed this morning and it was fixed for 38 minutes before it broke again. >> Who? It's the software program that hosts our landlord database. >> Is there more than one software
host? Well, yes and kind of because they're merging their systems, right? >> Well, SDL was just bought out by the civics plus pilot and so that's kind of part of our problem. No, that's the problem.
>> Well, given that that's >> given that that's the problem. What's >> I think there's two different So, there's the hammer for the residential landlord. They can't evict the tenant unless they're registered and so they're going to have to do it. they don't have that the short-term rental people don't have that issue. You're chasing more.
So, I think you need more of a hammer with the short-term rentals because at the end of the day, the residential landlord, they're going to I would I don't know. I would assume they're they want to go to court and evict the person's house paying
apples and oranges here. >> Yeah, there's different issues here. Um >> I didn't mean to I mean if if people aren't paying and it's It's a safety issue in their rental units. Nothing to do with someone not paying their rent.
Then there has to be at one point more than a monetary u penalty. >> What kind of escalation is possible with to fix this to resolve this? I mean we should be able to tell them this is
costing us x number of dollars, right? We're not collecting the fees. We're we're spending x number of hours and the mayor call and yell out, >> you know, >> oh, you know, I mean,
>> like you get this like you get this the nice person and they're doing their best, but clearly there's a bigger problem here and it's probably not something in this individual's um I don't want to say it has nothing to do with a person's skill set, but there
may be something else going on. If there's an integration, there may be something else going on that this person isn't aware of and it's undoing whatever he's trying to achieve. So, it needs to be escalated within his leadership so
that others can take a look at it. I think you've hit the nail on the head because I heard Lindsay probably for the first time since she started get angry. Um because she's dealing with people who are not familiar with SDL and she's asking for the right representative and
they're not available. >> Well, you need to Yeah, you need to escalate. You need to ask to speak to their dire, you know, their their manager, their director, you know, don't say supervisor because, you know, that's just like, yeah, they'll hang up on you, but, you know, ask to speak to their director or go to their website and
start looking up names from the top down and call. I wonder question about the registration. Can people do that? Go in person to city hall or >> Yes, of course. They can email it presents the option of emailing all the documents
online for them to pay. So I can't find it on just come in to you and pay for it. >> Can can I read something on that ordinance, please? I think it will hopefully uh so failure to make application for and to obtain issuance of a short-term rental permit prior to
the advertising short-term rental or any other internet based platform or online uh shall be the equivalent to make application for shall be the equivalent to operation of a short-term rental property without a permit shall constitute a violation of the code and will result enforcement action and the
issuance of the sons shall subject the short-term rental owner uh and the responsibility to issuance of fines and palent And and also, you know, beyond that, I mean, we have something on here that says after we we we can decide after a year if you're not if you're not
acting, we can we not issue your license at all. Right? So, there are a couple mechanisms in here that we should be looking at a little bit more closely to >> Well, I used some pretty strong language. I've said your short-term rental has expired and and by using that language, I was able to get about five
people in. But, you know, they all do the same thing. They wait till the last minute. But I I'll take >> you send a bill draft letter that says you're in violation and uh we're we're no longer >> one more thing. Is SDL the only way they
can file these applications? >> They can email me the documents and I can do >> so just because SDL is down not my problem. Do you know what I'm saying? You have a workaround. So if you
have >> pay the price pay, you know, pay you do it. I'm sorry it's not working. We're working on it, but this is what you have to do. And I but I know it's a lot of chasing down, but you know, well, here's what's not just a lot of
chasing down. We have people who historically wait last minute and then come in. I mean, this week we've had a good amount come in. But what happens is then they're calling and now she's on the phone. She's on and she can't get to do anything but answering the phone.
>> What if you set it up that because I would assume that people with baby pay in January that would be better not till the end. So what if you had an early bird price that if they got it in within the first week in January it was it's cheaper. So the price is the price, but we're going to let them a little bit.
And this isn't my just but uh it's an idea. >> It's an idea. >> Get a book of stickers. >> Oh, but we could also set this up at a time when we know >> where there isn't other stuff going on like we're going to have coming up. >> So there's a lot of stuff going on that
we're part of the big propert. So, if we could set this up at a time where we could try to huddle them, they're going to get a little incentive to get their registration in. At that time, they get discount. >> So, so instead of giving them a penalty, you just make it
more expensive to wait. >> Well, Lindsay and I will take a look at the ordinance again. We'll put it back in front of all of you for you to take a look at and make comments. And then we'll ask our good friend, Mr. Opal over there to add some very strong language to them
>> or >> take until it's fixed. Take this service offline. >> You know when >> Yeah. >> I don't want to say do you remember when you know when you had a credit card you
had to put it in a machine. Now you just stick it in there and push code. Well you know when the machine goes down you have to do it a different way. So tell them maybe we're not using SDL. We're doing it however you did before.
>> Still in towns. >> Okay. Are we motion? >> It's on the website. All right. I'm going to make a motion to uh extend the deadline filing for the spiritual church application waving late until April 10th
206. Is there a second? >> Second favor. >> I see here time in years. >> All right. So voted no. Who else voted no? >> The president.
>> Okay. What about your brother now? I don't press your friends over here. They can come down. >> Okay. All right. talk while you're on the dance. >> Yeah, right.
>> We only want you notice public hearing on increase rates and uh we got a notice from the town of West Animal pending ordinance related to their development fees. Um yeah, really I didn't really write down anything for on projects, but
I do know that um I'm still waiting on Violia to give me a final date starting the construction work for the South Franklin Street project. I said middle of April. Um the uh storm replacement program is underway. That project is underway. It's helping um around the
city. And uh we removed the the uh the the um compost to sleeves from your heart today. And I think that's all I have at the moment. Um announcements. Um just a couple of things about chat fest
locals nights poster preview. Friday, April 24th from 49 at North Union Street from church to bridge street chat festival as everybody should know is April 25th and April 26th from 11 to 5. open up the meeting to public
participation. Once again, same rules of before Paul Stevens 39 Corey. I just wanted to clear up make sure everybody was clear on why I brought up what I did earlier and it wasn't to go back and rehash what
happened the cost and thought. Uh look, I'm not perfect either, but I make mistakes. I try to move on from them and I've moved on for that. But I try to learn from my mistakes. And when I brought this up earlier, it wasn't
trying to rearview what happened. All right? It was so that we learn from I wanted to learn from what happened back then and that's the only reason I brought that up. Okay. Uh thank you.
Thank you. >> Hi uh Karen Henberg won Woodstream Court. I'm al president of the library board and I just wanted to say thank you uh for agreeing to on those back payments. Um and also to say that though I it is not my job to hire the uh the
auditor. I'm ab strenuously suggesting that perhaps we get a different for next year. So thank you the still day 255 Lick Avenue. um just wanted to comment and observe and and again the library has done wonderful
things over the years and I think we all recognize that um and listening to the whole conversation and again the public can't you know you might as well put a glass wall up we we can't talk right all right now you've already made a decision
but I want to comment about that all right maybe you you know if there's something like this that comes up on the agenda you know you know say public disc you any items. All right. And two things. One, whatever the number is, it's $33,000 or whatever, and whether
it's 100% the city's going to pay or the library is going to pay 50/50 or whatever. All right. And you jumped on it immediately. And that is the auditors of both organizations have the responsibility and have the insurance,
all right, to make up for this shortfall. All right. So I would be very slow to you know uh you know and and we pay unless we're do getting it for free now the audits all right thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars it's
free you know and so I think that's where it needs to go it needs to go to the auditors both both places and say you screwed us up all right and you you didn't do what you had to do unless
there's an exclusion in their per performance terms, but go for go for go for somebody else's dollars, right? Not ours. Okay? And and then, you know, look look at how you when you these things come up in the future. Thank you for
this. >> Great. Jeff Hill, 33. I read the two characterization reports the D had done on uh the hill and the one on Torus and on the landfill and it's pretty much what weeded at the highest level the
closest property is going in uh or wants to go in. Uh and I guess I wanted to just follow up. Have we heard anything from D about getting access to the site to finally find out if that's the >> No, they turned it over to uh to um
Yeah, there kind of. So, yes. How many people do we still have and does anyone want to say anything? >> We have six hanging out with us, but they're all quiet. >> Thanks for being with us tonight, folks.
In the room, um I make a motion to close the public per second. Those favor. Hey now favor. Thank you.
Let's buy it out. NZ.