In accordance with chapter 231, public laws of 1975, adequate notice of this meeting was provided by resolution of the municipal council adopted on June 17th, 2025, setting forth the schedule of meetings for the year 2025-2026. Send notice was published and posted on
the city hall bulletin board by the office of the city clerk. Please be further advised, this meeting will be conducted in person. The Zoom provided is for viewing only and is offered to the public as a convenience on on November 10th, 2025. Public notice and Zoom instructions for this meeting were
published in the Herald News and posted on the City of Pake website on www.c city ofpake.com council agendas. Instructions are also available on the last page of this agenda. Please be guided accordingly. >> Roll call, please, madam clerk. >> Councilman Love, >> present.
>> Councilwoman Melo, >> present. Councilman Mayor >> here. >> Councilman Garcia >> present. >> Councilwoman Colonz >> and Council President Shar >> President. Should we all please rise? >> Heavenly Father, we thank you Lord for allowing us to meet this evening. We ask
you to please guide us in the decisions that will take place this evening. In your beloved name we pray. Amen. >> Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. >> Good evening, colleagues and members of the public. Uh, thank you for joining with us tonight. As and matter of media business, the administration has requested that resolution number 42 be removed from tonight's agenda. Is there
any objection to removal of item 42? See no lights at this time. Uh we will kick off 42. I believe we're going to dive right into hearing of citizens. Yes. >> Yes.
>> Very good. Well, we're on Roman numeral four five, excuse me. In accordance with the open public meetings act NJSA104-1 sec the council opens every public meeting for comments of the public. However, in accordance with NJSA104-12
nothing in this act shall be construed to limit the discretion of a public body to permit prohibit or regulate the active participation at any meeting. Therefore, please be advised that the council will not entertain any comments from persons who communicate obscene
material. Make statements which are considered a bias intimidation in which a person intends to intimidate any individual or group because of race, color, religion, gender, handicap, sexual orientation or ethnicity or makes
or makes comments intending to harass or speak any offensive language. The person who makes these statements will relinquish their allotted five minutes for public discussion. Is there anyone who would like to address the council? Good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the council. Joshua Goldman, 185 High
Street. I thank you for the opportunity uh to address the council now for the third time uh regarding the re the zoning of the R1A district in the city. Um I'm not going to repeat um statements I've made in the past. you know, relevant reason I'm here today is
approximately two weeks ago, the applicant in the for the application that was the um uh genesis of of my concerns withdrew their application. Um, some of you may have been aware, some may not have been aware. I'm hopeful that now that the application has been
withdrawn that any impediment to discussing a resoning um has now been removed. Um, obviously I saw the agenda today and obviously not on the agenda. Um, but I am hopeful that that the council will consider a reszoning of the area. I'm not coming as a uh my way or
the highway. I'm happy to explore alternative options. I've never heard a constituency that doesn't uh want a resoning of some kind. Uh there may be disagreements in terms of what is appropriate, what's not. Um but I do think it's appropriate. And where is the
um concern as in facing the prior application was that once the zoning is in place, your hands are tied in terms of how you can respond to applications only in accordance with with the applicable zoning district that in in uh that in place. Now the council has the opportunity to proactively make
corrections, update the zoning to more appropriately reflect the 21st century, not not the 70-year-old zoning that's in place. Um, you know, I I would request the council to either uh, you know, obviously it's at their discretion, but
you know, council president, if if there's something that's intended to be planned to be discussed maybe at a later date to just let me know. I don't want to have to bring my neighbors and friends. They're happy not to be here. I'm happy not to take up too much of your time. Um, but obviously it is something that is obviously of concern to myself and many of my neighbors. Uh,
and I would believe it is timely to to make changes. So that is the purpose of my visit tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Any anyone else wish to address the council? >> Seeing no, I move to close second.
>> Motion a second to close. >> Councilman Love. >> Yes. >> Councilman Council Melo. >> We have someone here. >> Oh, I'm Forgive me. I didn't see you, sir. Thank you very much.
Joe Consenti Council President. Um my question that I have is we had a historic in in the city of Bay for say about 30 years.
All of a sudden a few years ago it was replaced by a historic committee. My question is where is this committee? who's on this committee and what's taking place with this
committee. Is there any way I can get a list of the names that was appointed for that um committee? That's my question on that one. My next question is
we have several departments. You got city hall, DPW, recreation departments. We have fire department. We have the police department. You got a fire chief and you have a police chief. So why is
other people getting involved with these departments when all these departments have department heads and they get salary and they you know they have to do their protocols. So why do we have people interfering
with their positions? These are my questions tonight. That's the end of your question. >> Yeah, that's it. Tonight. >> Okay. So, you asked about a city historian. I know that for a long time the city had a historian,
>> right? >> I believe the uh position was vacated, >> right? >> Um and if I'm not mistaken, I believe the mayor subsequently did make a city historian and I believe the gentleman's name is Mr. Mark Hourback. Um you can get information on >> but he's no longer here. I'm asking the
new committee is what I'm asking about. Who are they? >> Which committee >> of the historic committee that you put together? >> Well, there is no there is no requirement, sir, for the city to have an historic committee.
Current mayor Laura has not appointed one to the best. >> Yes, they did. >> Excuse me. >> Yes, they did. Right here in this council chamber. You guys voted it in. than what you should be doing in this case because it is done by the executive
as an as a an ability to serve his purposes and that of his administration. He's not the committee does not report to this council. It reports to him. I would direct you to contact the mayor and ask him any questions you might have, but it is not within the purview
of this council to do anything except to receive and file uh for the position of a member of the historic committee. >> The next question >> that was the question. What was the question? >> The next one >> which was >> about the department. All these
department heads are not, you know, you got people interfering with their jobs. >> Then I get salaries. Then I suggest, sir, that using this as a forum or anywhere else that you can get a forum to get one. The administration has broad
latitude to be the administration to be the executive to get the job done. If the executive believes that they need 16 sergeants and four captains and three whatever, that's their decision. The council has no effect upon
those decisions in most cases. In some cases, there are, but they're not always the case. >> Administration is provided by law with that administration with that ability to get things done. >> Or legal spin. >> I'm sorry. >> Or legal spin. You're not even on the
>> It's not legal spin, sir. It's the law. I have a question. >> Well, I appreciate talking to the your back as you walk away. Is there anyone else who would like to address the council? >> There's a gentleman here. >> Yes, sir. >> Good evening, Calvin Mar 227 summer
street. Uh I just have a quick question. Uh, Mount Mariah Baptist Church uh submitted an application for sign to be placed in front of the church. It was supposed to be on first reading last meeting that was cancelled in second meeting tonight. I've read through it.
Maybe my older eyes skipped over. I was just wondering are we on for this evening, >> Mr. Fernandez? >> Yeah, I don't know if um that's a form for the council. If we're talking about the the signage, right? I believe that's
a go that would go before the zoning board, Mr. Mayor, not before this council. >> Oh, okay. The engineers office told us that it was going to be on the council meeting last meeting and then the second reading tonight, but the last talking about clergy parking or >> No, not clergy parking loading and
unloading. >> Oh, okay. That's a little different. >> While services are going on. >> Yes. Yes. So, um that would be a letter that would come to the clerk. Clerk, did do you get the letter for that property as of yet? >> So, the engineering department would
send would forward a letter to the clerk's office. She doesn't have it in her possession and then it would come for the council to review their recommendation. So, we have as of yet I haven't seen that. In fact, the only one I saw was a Broadway application. I got that one. So, we're what we'll do is
we'll follow up with the um council president. will follow up with engineering so that we can get an update to Mr. Merritt so that you'll know exactly when it's on because I haven't I haven't received that. >> Okay. I was I was in there over a month ago and the young lady called and she
called the clerk's office and it was supposed to be scheduled for first reading last meeting which was cancelled which we realized and it was supposed to be sec first reading tonight in that order. But >> I will I will defer to the clerk's
office about that. I haven't seen it come across my desk. So, we'll follow up with engineering if that's the case. I will personally follow up with engineering. >> Okay. Will somebody get back to me or >> Yes, of course. >> Okay. Because I'm the one that signed the letter and submitted every day.
>> With the council president's permission, we can follow up. >> Nice to see you, Mr. Mayor. Anyone else like to address the council at this time? >> I see no one would like to public motion. >> Second. >> Motion and second to close.
>> Councilman M. >> Second. >> Yes. >> Councilman Love. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Melo. >> Yes. >> Councilman Mayor. >> Yes. >> Councilman Garcia. >> Yes. >> Counciloman Coline. Yes. >> And Council President Shear.
>> Yes. Thank you very much. I understand that the mayor is joining us virtually this evening. >> Yes. >> Mayor, are you can you hear us? >> I have a co-host. I don't see his name. >> He's not on.
>> All right. So, we'll we'll await his phone call certainly. Why don't we go into with council's permission uh ordinances for second and final reading remosed ordinance 251-25 an ordinance adopting a redevelopment plan for blocks 3212 lots 21 and 23
corresponding to 91-95 Paulson Avenue in the city of state of New Jersey. Is there a motion please to open public disc and second? Thank you. Roll call please. >> Councilman Monk. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Councilman Love. Yes. >> Counciloman Melo. >> Yes. >> Councilman Mayor.
>> Yes. >> Councilman Garcia. >> Yes. >> Councilman Colut Daniel. >> Yes. >> And Council President Shear. >> Yes. Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, at this time, the council will be considering proposed Orange 25501-25. Is there anyone who would like to address the council on this item and
this item out? >> Seeing no hands, I move to close the public portion. >> Second. >> Motion and second. Roll call to close. >> Councilman Monk. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Councilman Love. >> Yes. Counciloman Melo. Yes. >> Councilman Mayor. >> Yes. >> Councilman Garcia. >> Yes.
>> Counciloman Coltz. Yes. >> And Council President Shar. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Fernandez. What are we doing on this? >> So, this is a redevelopment project that would eliminate two prohibited rooming houses on Boston Avenue. So, this plan
would uh demolish two rooming houses that exist. Uh clearly there's a number of violations and situations that have occurred and it is additionally to that in our zoning code rooming houses are a
prohibited use. So this plan would eliminate two prohibited uses. It would then provide for an ability to provide brand new housing with a um over 20%
set aside for affordable housing. So, we're not losing because one would argue they're losing rooming houses and affordability, but in this case, we're providing valuable affordable rentals >> along with market rate and making it in a much more conducive
uh establishment. >> How many apartments will there be? >> So, it's 36 units, 12 12 of them being affordable with I mean much more parking than what was there now. And currently how many residences are
provided in the rooming houses? >> Uh so the rooming houses is ranging in that kind of vicinity. So it's in the 30 room vicinity. >> And why can't I
uh tomorrow morning open up a rooming house? What procludes? >> So it's prohibited. It's a prohibited use in the city of Pake. So whenever possible, what we try to do is eliminate the prohibited use and convert it into a permitted use. And with this
redevelopment plan, we've given the incentive to the developer to be able to do that. >> So just for everybody's edification, rooming houses are one of the most difficult uses to eliminate. >> And the reason for that is that they're very lucrative because they rent per
room versus per apartment. So they can have a very small space and get a lot of uh income from it. So they're always extremely difficult to eliminate. And I'm proud to say that under this administration, we've at least removed at least four or five of them and been
able to convert them into affordable units for families. And >> why can't I aiming house tomorrow? It's prohibited use. So how did these houses maintain themselves? Is this >> So they pre-existed the establishment of
the prohibition in our code. >> Very good. >> Any questions? >> Yes. >> Yes, Councilman Monk. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Thank you. um
the the um on on page on page seven which which refers to um parking standards. So in item one it says applicants are strongly recommended to obtain offsite
parking agreements for a minimum of 10 years for spaces that cannot be accommodated on site. So what does it mean by applicants are recommended and >> so >> okay I'm sorry go ahead I I didn't mean
to interrupt >> yeah yeah go ahead please please please please just please >> so under this plan there is a specific parking requirement right and if you look on page seven you'll see the parking standards that we
have for the the apartments which is standard in all our redevelopment plans if you cannot accommodate this standard and you are short. We are requesting that you make so when the planning board reviews this application they may ask the applicant
you're short parking did you try to go get additional parking offsite somewhere else so that you can meet your parking standards even though you couldn't meet them on your current site. So that's why that language is in there. So, we're trying to encourage don't just come ask
for a parking variance. Show us that you really need the parking variance because you've exhausted all other options. >> Uhhuh. I see. Okay. Thank you. And item two, which is something that has been added in and um I I think which is, you
know, thank you um mayor and Mr. Mr. Business Administrator. I think it's a it's a big it'll be it'll help a lot regarding parking and that is um item two is at a minimum one parking space must be assigned to each unit at no
additional cost to the tenant. Now >> yes >> I would recommend that maybe we tweak that a little bit because if you look at item three item three states offsite shared parking agreements. The planning board is hereby
given the authority to wave any and all of a uses uses parking requirements in this redevelopment plan if a parking structure or surface parking lot with adequate capacity is located within 500 ft of the subject use. Now the re the
the the purpose of item two right where minimum one parking space must be assigned to each unit is because um tenants tend to you know they don't want to pay extra for a spot and they will park on the street you know and as the city redevelops site after site and
we're adding more housing um you know will just cause more and more of a problem with the lack of parking in the city of Pake. By allowing a lot to be 500 feet away and the developer could use that lot 500
feet away as the parking spot that is being designated to the tenant which he must designate final cost is really is really going to take away the the goal here of forcing
tenants to park off site. Because again, if if you assign me a lot 500 ft away, the 500 is is almost a tenth of a mile,
you're really basically and and and the developer, the owner has to assign me a spot. It's really it's really meaningless because I'm not using that spot that's 500 ft away. I I will be parking on the street.
>> So, if I can respectfully disagree from a planning perspective, um, so this is less than a two and a half minute walk from any site. And what this allows is if there's a parking deck for example
that's within this 500 feet that they can make lease agreements which is standard even in our underlying zoning without this that you would make a lease agreement to accommodate your parking needs. That happens right now whether
this is in here or not. So a a developer can come in and say they themselves can be building a parking deck or they can partner up with another developer and build a parking deck between two properties and be able to use this to
facilitate the parking. So, it's going to provide the parking necessary and adequately. And this is typically reserved for more of the larger projects or projects that have a parking deck
nearby as an example. Let's take our parking deck across the street. >> You know, I I could Yeah, I'm sorry. >> Yeah. If there's a development, let's say nearby and there's a shortage of parking, what we've done, which the
boards have done, has put in their resolution as a um condition of approval that that developer has to actually pay the annual fee for that parking space and give it to each one of the units.
>> Okay. Okay. So, let me let me plan let me tell you what I would do if this was my project, okay? And I had I was putting up, you know, 20 units. And let's say this 20 units obligates me to have 30 spots. All right? And I have, I
don't know, let's say I have um I have let's say I have 30 spots on premises. Okay? I'm 30 spots. >> Okay. >> I could technically go rent a lot 500 feet away. Make a parking agreement with someone 500 feet away
and give those the the spots that are 500 feet away. Designate those as the free parking to the residents and on-site parking I get charged for.
>> Yeah. So where where the issue comes in if you read the first sentence, right? That would be a failure on the planning board because it doesn't give the developer the ability to do that. It gives the planning board the ability to wave it.
So if I'm a planning board member and I see that there's on-site parking and I don't make that condition, that's a failure on either board. It could be the zoning board or the planning board because they're showing on-site parking spaces. So, even though I understand
your concept, I disagree with it logistically because that's not what this says. It doesn't give the developer that right, it allows the planning board to consider that as part of their approval. So, that that would be my my
rebuttal to that >> argument. So what so what do we have to lose by um amending item two here? That a minimum of one parking space must be assigned to each unit and no additional cost on site as long as there's on-site
parking. >> Well, if you want to add as long as there is on-site parking because the the one drawback would be if there's no on-site parking, you've now eliminated the ability then to provide >> parking. So So I I don't see
>> if that's what the board would like to amend this to before it goes to the planning board. And just so I'm clear, >> at minimum, one parking space must be assigned to each unit on site >> at no additional cost if available.
>> Yeah. Or when adequate or if provided on site. At minimum, one parking space must be assigned to each unit on site >> if available. >> Well, it be a 2A and a 2B. At one parking space must be assigned to each unit at no additional cost to the tenant
and 2B would be when on-site parking is available this year. >> Must be onsite. I can do that. Add just do a an A and a B. That's a that's an easier way to do it. B >> will that meaningfully affect >> Rick?
>> Yes, sir. Mayor May the council president mayor. >> Yes. >> Council council president do the council president just quick question Rick does that in any way impact those who are receiving subsidized
assistance or are renting through uh what we often refer to as um rental assistance section 8. >> Uh it should not mayor. It should not. Basically, if I'm understanding it correctly, it would just say you're
still allowed to have that 500 foot distance to another parking space. But if it's on site, those no additional cost has to be first. It has to be on site first. like you cuz if I understood Councilman Monk's dilemma, it is that he
doesn't want the developer to make the free parking be 500 ft down and then charge you >> for the onsite one and and charge you for the accommodation. So, >> in the rare occasion, what I'm asking you is, I mean, have not heard it
correctly, but in the rare occasion where a tenant would want to pay for parking, Would that eliminate the option of that tenant being able to pay the additional fund for parking? Do you
understand what I'm asking you? >> Yes, >> makes sense. >> So, yes, I understand you correctly. Um, mayor here. It just says that they would not charge the tenant and that'll be part of whatever the
>> right for the initial space. So >> yeah, >> in your scenario, mayor, they could in essence get one and pay for another one. >> Understood. >> So basically, right? So basically in this, your first parking space is free.
>> Any other parking space above that one, you can be charged for. So that would allow individuals understanding the scenario you're talking about to be able to be charged for a unit. I I understand that. Perfect. Thank you.
Didn't this council and executive uh pass an ordinance regarding uh rentals and the ability to charge separately for things like parking? >> So that or would that be not relevant in
this discussion? So, at least from a planning perspective, in a legal planning perspective, I think we may be going down an area we may not want to get into like the specific charges and why they charge it on a lease, right? Because
that's a little different than in a redevelopment plan where you're seeing if you're going to charge, you're not going to charge them for the first spot. You can charge them for the, you know, the following spots, right? So that would not be in contradiction.
>> That would be that right. But you're still allowed to charge for spots. You just can't charge for the initial spot. M >> Councilman Monk, are you satisfied by by Mr. Fernandez's thoughts and of course the the mayor's guidance here? >> Right. So what we make like a 2A and a
2B and um >> Right. So the way if I can just if I can just read it off, Mr. Would that would that are you in agreement with that, sir? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Right. So, just for the mayor and for um council muk, I'll read it off the way
would it would be stated and then you let me know, mayor, if that's good with us with the change, it would say number two, at minimum A, one parking space must be assigned to each unit at no additional cost. B must be provided on
site if on-site parking is available. Great. >> Mayor, is that okay? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, I will make that change and that will be the change that goes to the planning board.
>> Susie, this is this is a tuminous change and would not affect. >> Very good. >> We're still in discussion of 25001. >> Council president. >> Forgive me. Councilman, you sir, ju just
a quick question. Um, one, my experience on the zoning board and then some feedback from some of these plans. Um, applications are great and they put some very extravagant and some detailed uh things in to get passed. My question is
how is this going to be monitored and how is it monitored in terms of um now the parking spaces given to tenants because um we've had some some complaints of that of um you know parking spaces were made available
during the application phase but once people started getting into those uh units they weren't getting parking >> right so that's why one of the directives from from the mayor was to make sure that we added that they can
provide at least one, right? Because what was happening is there was no requirement and you would go to the planning board and they would just vote on the plan and say, "Okay, they have adequate parking." >> Then the developer would build the project and say to everybody, "You got
to pay me $200 for a spot. You got to pay me $200 for a spot." And then the property tenants were like, "I'm not paying the $200 and I'm going to go on the street." So to avoid kind of what Councilman Monk was saying, right, and to alleviate that need, we're putting in every single plan, at least the ones
that we write as a redevelopment plan, that they have to provide at least one parking spot at no additional cost. So you know for a fact that you got one spot for you right now, if you own multiple cars, now you're on your own.
>> And I and I got that. I understand that. That's the approval. >> So this was this was a response to those complaints. >> So how is it monitored after the approval? >> So what's going to happen is there's going to be a
resolution that's made that makes this part of the resolution. when they get their certificate of alcheism. See, that is made part of the resolution. And if there's a complaint at any point, they can be uh they can be in violation
of the approval and can be cited and made to uh bring it back to the approval in jeopardy of losing that approval if they don't follow the what was approved. So if I'm hearing correctly to my question, um it would it would result in
a complaint. If a complaint comes, then the investigation will be >> correct. >> That's what I need. >> Yeah. >> Are there any other questions on 25125? >> Yes. Yes, please. Council president
>> Councilman Monk. >> Thank you. Um on item I'm sorry this is uh building facade and streetscape and layout. Item 15 states any proposed multifamily development
with 20 units or larger shall incorporate approximately 2,500 square ft of interior community space as a fitness center business center. Now if you go to page
11 which has possible floor and elevation. I don't see in there any space allowed into this community center.
So there if you look first just for the council's edification this is a concept it's not what the planning board sees right it's kind of an idea of what you can see but in this case if you look this this site plan is
shaped like a U if you look at that corner unit um so if you got the long hallway before you get to the shorter hallway there's a there's corner space and that says very clearly amenity space.
So it says amenity area. >> Oh, I can't I can't read it. It's so small. >> Yeah. So I mean I would show you on the I don't know if you could zoom in. If you zoom in so it's an there but again just for the council when I draw these
plans up it's not going to be exactly what the planning board gets right. the developer is going to develop a plan based on this guideline that then the planning board is going to review based on this guideline. Right? So, we're giving you concepts and ideas so
that you can the board can kind of get an idea of what it is that they're looking at. But to say this is exactly what the planning board is going to get wouldn't be accurate, right? there. As long as they meet the guidelines and all the other pages, this is just kind of an
idea and a concept because I'm, you know, I'm not the architect or the engineer. So, when they do their their plans, you'll get a much clearer version of what it is. This is kind of just a concept. >> Okay. Okay. So, I shouldn't I shouldn't
say, oh gosh, it's is an amenity room, but in scale with the other apartments, it's not two and a half thousand square feet. Right. But that doesn't mean that this may not be. So there's >> just as an example, this says floors two through four. >> If they have this corner on every single
floor, they've exceeded. Got it. >> Got it. Very good. >> Right. But I don't know. Again, this is a concept. What they submit to the planning board is what the planning board's going to review. And for example, let's say they come in and try to play fast and loose and make that a
unit. Well, then they're not following the guidelines of this plan and the planning board can say, "No, that has to be an amenity space because you're missing the 2500 square feet of amenity space." >> Got it. Thank you. Thank you,
>> Councilman Mayor. Please, are there any state or city incentives for this redevelopment? So this is a rehabilitation plan and what that does is you you have the the security that once
the council and the planning board pass this is a plan that if you follow the guidelines and you don't deviate is most likely going to get approved. Right? So that's a benefit. So there's a um a sense of security as an investor. And
then secondly, because this is an area in need of rehabilitation, if they qualify, so let me right, depending on their perform, if they qualify, they can um apply to this council for a five-year tax. Now, there
are criteria. That's why I said they must qualify. So, if they're making a claim financially on this, the state the the short-term tax abatement law wouldn't allow them to qualify to come before us, right? So, that's why I'm prefacing with that. I want to know what those numbers
going to look like. And then, obviously, we're promoting affordable housing. So, every applicant, whether it's a redevelopment plan or just somebody who wants to build affordable housing, can always apply to our office of community development for funding. So, uh, I wouldn't be surprised
as a council member to see an application for funding through HUD, but that's that's money specifically for that purpose. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions or comments on 251-21-25? Seeing none at this time, is there a
motion to close public hearing? >> Move it. >> Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Councilman Monk. Yes. >> Yes. >> Councilman Love. >> Yes. >> Counciloman Melo. >> Yes. >> Councilman Mayor. >> Yes. >> Councilman Garcia. >> Yes. >> Counciloman Gom. Yes.
>> And Council President Sh. >> Yes. Thank you. The ordinance passes unanimously. Number two, please. Proposed ordinance 25. >> You closed the public. >> We closed. I'm sorry. On the ordinance itself. No move. And second. Roll call, please. On the ordinance. >> Councilman Monk.
>> Yes. >> Councilman Love. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Melo. >> Yes. Councilman Mayor. >> Yes. >> Councilman Garcia. >> Yes. >> Counciloman Gomez. Yes. And Council President Shear. >> Councilman Mayor. You had a comment. >> Yeah. Just wanted to make sure 2B was included in that. But
>> 2B is included in that. 2A and 2B. Was that on the ordinance? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. We can go to the next one. Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Good. Next is 254-25. An ordinance adding part 12 clergy parking permits to chapter 295
vehicles and traffic of the city of Payic code. Is there a motion please to open public hearing? Motion >> second >> and second. Thank you. Roll call. >> Councilman Monk. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Councilman Love. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Melo. >> Yes. >> Councilman Mayor. >> Yes.
>> Councilman Garcia. >> Yes. >> Counciloman Komz. Yes. >> And Council President Shear. >> Yes. Thank you. At this time, ladies and gentlemen, the council will be deliberating proposed ordinance 254-25. Is there anyone who would like to address the council on this item and this item only?
>> Seeing no hands, I'm moving. >> Roll call, please. Just keep that thought. Council, >> no. I >> Councilman Love, >> yes. >> Councilman Melo, >> yes. >> Councilman Mayor, >> yes. Councilman Garcia. >> Yes. >> Councilman Colutz. Yes. And council
president Sher. >> Yes. Thank you. M. Uh. At this time, ladies and gentlemen, the council will be delivered in proposed order 254-25. Is there anyone who would like to address the council on this item and this item only? >> This is on the ordinance. Now >> we have to vote on the ordinance.
>> Council president. >> Can we just vote on the ordinance? >> No. Open. >> All right. So, let's vote on the ordinance. Council Monk has something to say and he'll have the opportunity to say it once I take my foot out of my mouth. But let's What do we need to do first?
>> Maybe here. Councilman, >> I'm not following. >> We should listen to Councilman Monk what his comments. >> Councilman Monk, we're supposed to be listening to you, which is becoming increasingly difficult. >> And you should listen to your city clerk that says you should listen to me.
Um >> yes, thank you. Thank you, Council President. Um a few points, a few questions and points here. Um number one, you know, just as we as we just discussed at length about parking, the
lack of parking in the city of Pacific, um should we allow these parking permits for clergy only if the institution does not have off-site parking? Some of these u religious institutions, they currently
have offsite parking with a sign for clergy only. >> That was question one, >> Mr. Fernandez. and and um mayor, you jump in if if I'm going in the wrong direction. >> Yes.
Rick, I just before you begin, Rick, I just want to I just want to add a little perspective that the clergy parking is often provided not just for service, funerals, things of this nature that may require a specific space right in front
of whatever temple or institution, whether it be a synagogue, mosque, and church or parish. and it is often used on different days outside of what we would expect would be their regularly
scheduled uh date. So if you do not have um space in the front and you are forced to park in the back because you already had an existing parking lot that may create an inconvenience in terms of those particular ceremonies. That's just
one perspective that they are not just limited or exclusive to the use for what we often consider service but specific for all operations that much like a loading zone strategically placing them in the front
becomes a necessity on the hours where they are provided. But uh if if I if I may, but the ordinance if in section 295-65 states that the part of the requirements
is to provide proof of vehicle registration and valid driver's license. Um indicating I could be wrong indicating that that spot is designated to a to a specific vehicle.
>> Correct. And unless and of course I understand your perspective unless the city is going to limit what kind of vehicle the particular applicant would be allowed to drive or how they will utilize the vehicle whether they are the ones that lead a funeral procession or whether they are the ones that must be
present at the very opening of the uh building. I just typically and again we're just following the model that exists in every other municipality uh throughout the state. They are typically provided without any restriction or
conditions in regards to whether there are existing parking lots or not or whether they utilize the parking lot for them. So what's it? Yes. The ordinance actually requires each
application to be considered and one of the considerations is the adequacy of existing um you know parking at the house of worship off streetet parking. So you know that that's going to be one
of the considerations. Oh, I see section D. Section D of uh the ordinance here. I see that >> a consideration just not a restriction meaning each circumstance may be different in the application there may
be extenduating circumstances why even though there is additional parking uh particular lead of a house of worship would be applying. >> Can I can I ask from a practical point of view Mr. Fernandez how often does this occur?
that we have applications for >> well we don't have any now because we haven't permitted it yet right so what'll happen is we'll get phone calls for example funeral processions and things like that I mean mayor that happens almost constantly for funeral processions and things like that where
the police department may post up no parking to try to do that this would now just just for a point of perspective we're we're we're having a conversation about houses of worship that actually have parking. I want to tell you, especially with the type of municipality
that we are and the age of our infrastructure, that most of these houses of worship actually do not have these expansive parking lots. Yeah, we have some, but many of them do not, which is almost this is almost a
necessity for these events because of what's happening throughout our great city, which we're embracing. But if you're asking, currently we don't have this availability, hence why the mayor wants to propose it. But secondly, we get funeral procession requests
constantly. And just like the mayor said, we have to block off in front of that facility because if they got to bring, let's say, the casket down from the house of worship into the vehicle, if we don't restrict that area, people
are going to block it and use it. Mayor, did I describe that accurately or did I go off on a tangent? >> No, that is a scenario. However, to the councilman's point, Councilman Monk, it is specifically designated to a particular vehicle. However, yes,
practically speaking, it would be utilized to ensure that no one else is taking up the space. But however, I would just like to add that some of the spaces that are considered adequate parking may be in uh distance to the actual house of worship, which does not
take into consideration handicap or other limitations of the individual that has to lead the service, which would open up additional applications of wanting handicap or accommodations. This puts all of that to one side and does
exactly what every other municipality has done in the similar case of providing a particular parking space for the lead to utilize as they see fit in their duty. I don't see how this is going to take
care of that scenario of a funeral because >> um Councilman, we're trying we're trying to play around because obviously there are certain times where you create a scenario that is intended for one use and perhaps creates a benefit. We often
avoid trying to create a problem. So I'll just speak as plain as possible. If the parking space is designated for the clergy, no one takes it up. If no one takes it up, then during a funeral procession, a hearse or the clergy can have that parking restricted because
it's restricted for other purposes. Unless we're going to show up with the police during a funeral procession and say, "Hey, that hearse is not your car." And the pastor or the or whoever it is, the imam or the rabbi is saying, "Well, I'm driving it." And we go into a back and forth, but the likelihood is we're
not. They will use it and we will expect them or at least have a reasonable expectation that they will act on good faith and if not and if violations are so egregious and we have to put police in front of churches, synagogues, mosque or temples or whichever house of worship
may apply and we say hey you you're abusing it during funerals. So the the intended but not specific purpose is to ensure that there is an available space that can be utilized for operations by the lead clergy who applies considering
that they do not have adequate space in proximity to the entrance and if in the future it is utilized for other means much like if there's a designated space in city hall for the council and no one's supposed to park there but we have a delivery and we say, "Hey,
since it's open, put the delivery there for a second, unless a council member objects, the space, even though it wasn't the intended um desire of the uh putting the space aside, can be utilized in those means." I hope that that made it clear.
>> Yeah. The reason what I where where I was going with this was that uh in 295-63 in um item B it says there that the designated clergy parking spaces shall be clearly marked with appropriate signage indicating number one clergy
parking only, number two the days and hours during which the restriction applies and three the penalty. Right. So if if I if I if I live across the street from a church or from a synagogue and I'm not a member of that
synagogue or church and I see oh it says there that I can't park there on Sunday um you know between 8:00 a.m. and and 12:00 p.m. Uh but I can park there Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday. I'll put my car there. How will that help a funeral that happens on Monday,
Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Saturday? Then of course we would have an expectation that they would schedule their services around the designated hours. But we would have no way of compelling them to do so. Nor would we have any reasonable expectation that
they wouldn't do so as we have with every ordinance we place them on for your vote and we expect the public to adhere to them. And those who would benefit from an approved application would be expected to understand that the sign is intended to protect the space or
to reserve it only for those hours of operation. Any dispute would follow the same procedure as any dispute when it comes to traffic, whether it's street cleaning or whether it's restricted parking loading zone, they would call the appropriate traffic division or the
police and it would be resolved. And if there are repeated or multiple offenses, then we would consider removing the uh reserve parking. >> Okay. I I I just I just not clear because item C says it's 4 hours in a single day and and number two, two
separate time periods per week for regular services. So I I just all these different scenarios. I'm just not sure how that's going to cover, you know, to save the time from the police department, you know, every time there's a funeral to start. >> But it's not about a funeral. Councilman, it's not about a funeral.
That was one scenario. It's not about a funeral. It's it's about providing a specific reserve space for houses of worship, which is not inconsistent with what other municipalities have done around the state. It is a provision that the council is able to make and that the
administration can request, but obviously it would be up to the council if they would choose to share it. Obviously, any scenario can be brought up as to whether or not it's going to be productive, beneficial, or meet all of the needs of whatever house of worship is applying for. I would argue a
proposed no ordinance or approach we take meets all the needs of anyone who is applying. But this is one that we have identified that many clergy as it is and those who lead houses of worship tend to be of an older age. Not that we
can't identify a few that are young or maybe multiple, but many aren't and it's become increasingly an issue and requests and it is within the power of the council to approve it and of course we would have the opportunity to share
with the number of clergy that it was an ordinance that was passed to accommodate them and then we would monitor it, regulate it and bring reports to the council if there are issues which I imagine and we have seen in the past the residents have no hesitation coming to the council to let them know this
ordinance is in work. >> Yes. And Council Monk, Council Monk, if I may. I know you have the floor. >> Um, I think I think some of those things can be covered by item three as well and see additional time periods special. Um,
it says religious holidays, but I'm sure that if anyone puts an application in for anything, including funeral processions or any types of things can be brought forth to the city council for approval. So, I think that kind of covers what what you were saying as well
if there's some different events that need to be covered. >> Right, Council? I appreciate that. The only thing is how do you post on a sign when a funeral's going to happen? Again, if you're a neighbor across the street, >> it's not for funerals. Can we Can we put this on the record? The parking is not
for funerals. Funerals was just one example. I just want to make clear. Funerals was one example that was utilized to to express or demonstrate that the reserve parking for the clergy can be beneficial in other scenarios
outside of its intended purpose. such as if there is a funeral and the particular clergy has to drive the hearse or the vehicle that's going to carry the body or be in the hearse and say rather than put my vehicle put the hearse in front
of the church on my vehicle cuz we're having the funeral during the hours of operation that we typically have service. Anything outside of that, yes, there are multiple scenarios that we could say this doesn't help. We're looking to present it to the council for
the scenarios that it would help. >> Okay. Thank you. I have one last comment and I will um I'll be quiet for this ordinance. Um >> no no don't don't feel that way at all. Councilman, we >> appreciate your insights.
>> The ordinance allows two spots, right? Per um how many how many institutions do we have in the city of Pay? >> That would qualify for this. >> Yes. >> Numerous. Numerous. Numerous. I would
probably say it could be anyone's guess but I would probably say certainly in excess of 100 >> or more >> some of the some of the uh religious structures have a large membership many
have a small membership right >> and many don't need it many if I may add council president many would not even qualify simply because some of the buildings that were constructed over a hundred years ago the front of their buildings things are already restricted
from any parking, meaning they're they're painted yellow or they're on a street where you cannot park. So, but your your estimate is I think very close to accurate in terms of the numbers. >> Okay. >> If I can just I just if I can just
interject just one minute and I hope I'm not out of line and I apologize to my colleagues to the mayor. In fact, I am. But it seems to me that this is a relatively dimminimous change we're looking to make to accommodate our our
ministers, rabbis, imams, etc. Um, I don't want to suggest that all this conversation is not a trap. Every conversation is, of course, but it seems to me that we're taking away the uh the impact, the desire here to accommodate as much as we can possibly. If there's
any group that some of them are going to lift on our shoulders, it's going to be that of the clergy fall that they do for us in any number of areas. And and I think that being said, I would commend moving forward with this ordinance. Councilman. >> Yeah. No, I I can't agree with you more,
Council President. I was I was actually if I if I may finish council president um I was actually um wanted to tighten it up so that it's more as convenient as possible >> for all the religious leaders and not
that we just creating more headaches for for them. >> I I I think what it's going to come down to is is what it so often comes down to councilman and that is the situation at the moment at the time. what else is going on. Um certainly there's no church
that wants to be disruptive to traffic flow or parking flow whatever and some of the same is true of residents and it's a question of having the necessary flexibility on a practical point of view on a situational point of view. Um I I
think that might very well address it through the sensitivity of our police department and of course the administration. >> Welcome. Thank you. Are there any other comments that we have on 24 254?
Where are we on this? This is our public hearing. >> We already closed the closed public hearing. Now we're moving on the order. >> We have a motion. We have a second roll call, please. >> Councilman Mo. >> Yes. >> Councilman Love. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Melo.
>> Yes. >> Councilman Mayor. >> Yes. >> Councilman Garcia. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Colom. Yes. and council president sheer. >> Yes. Thank you, >> Mr. Mayor. You on the uh on this inepth conversation?
>> No, not at all. >> Now, can we present you for your report, sir? C. I'm going to make it brief. Um I will let you know that we were able to give out over 1,200 turkeys to families during this
Thanksgiving holiday. I want to highlight the efforts of our human services along with Judith Sanchez, Mariel Sabria, our youth council, the Pake High School uh youth bible club, so many other volunteers, the uh the LDS
church in the city of Pake, as well as Veterans, Police, Fire, and so many others who came together um as well as the US Federation of Chaplain. They assisted us in giving out not only 1,400
turkeys but also bags 1,400 bags as well as uh gift cards. We also want to acknowledge sponsors like certified angels and uh the the headquarters of ShopRight as well as many other locals. We we'll provide you with a list of
them. I also want to let you know that I had uh I was able to lead a panel during the legal municipalities regarding uh autism and approaches for assisting families. Uh we are working very closely
with some of our state agencies as well as not for-profit organizations uh to address concerns not just of uh those who are children and minors with autism or on the spectrum but those who are adults. We have some extremely
innovative and exciting opportunities for collaborations and approaches that we look to present to you at the next council meeting and to all of the city council. We've begun work on Brag Park on main between uh Burgess and uh Summer
Street. We're extremely excited or rather Highland and Burgess before you get to Summer Street about the work that has already begun there. I'm I'm going to pause that and uh and limit my reports because I am virtual and I'm
having a tough time here. >> Any questions for the mayor? >> Mayor, thank you so much. >> Thank you very much. We're on to our agenda. Revenue number seven, communications items 3 through 11. Are there any questions please on 3
through 11? See, at this time, please accept 3 through 11. >> Motion second. >> Second. Roll call, please. >> Councilman Monk, >> yes. >> Councilman Love, >> yes. >> Councilwoman Melo, >> yes.
>> Councilman Mayor, >> yes. >> Councilman Garcia, >> yes. >> Counciloman Gomez, yes. and council president. >> Yes. Thank you for receiving file items 12 through 22, please. 12 through 22.
Are there any questions please on 12 through 22? Seeing none at this time motion to accept 12 through 22. So motion >> and second. Roll call, please. >> Councilman Monk. >> Yes. >> Councilman Love. >> Yes.
>> Councilwoman Melo. >> Yes. Councilman Mayor, >> yes. >> Councilman Garcia, >> yes. >> Councilman Colz, >> yes. >> And Council President Sher, >> yes. Thank you. Pass A, please. Resolutions number 23 is a resolution authorizing closed executive session of the city council, the city of December
18th, 2025 at 7 p.m. or any time thereafter. Do we need a closed executive session? >> No. Council President, >> thank you, man. Mr. Fernandez, Mr. Mayor, I don't know if you can still hear us. >> Yes, I can hear you. No. >> Very good, sir. Thank you so much.
Members of the council, >> no. >> Very good. We are on resolutions and we have a group of them. Item 24 through 15. >> 86. >> I see through 86.
And we're taking off 42. >> Correct. >> Mr. President. >> May I have 26? >> 26 separate vote. >> 26 separate vote. Any other comments or questions please on the resolutions is presented. >> 28.
>> No. >> Separate vote. >> Oh no. >> You have questions to 28. >> Councilman, please. >> This salt this comes as uh as we need it. It's not like uh you got $195,000 in salt and you're making salt water when you're done.
>> No, I know we have Fred here. I'm sure Fred would love to do that, but no. So, basically what happens is we fill um we fill the trucks, we fill our storage unit, and then as it comes up, we call for it. And the beauty is that as we
propose these things, they go into trust accounts. So, you know, some years are heftier than others. So, it's as needed. We're not It's not like, oh, we just >> we didn't commit $295,000. >> No, we did not. Only as needed, but there is enough there that if we need it, we have it. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. >> Thank you. Any other questions, please? >> Yes, council president. >> Councilman, forgive me. Yes. Yes, sir. >> Yes. Thank you. Have a few questions. Just uh want to point out item 27
uh for oil. Just a slight minor change. Um the the cost the cost per gallon is $2.18 and 0.0539
of delivery. Um and the resolution is for 8.5,000 gallons per month. So, the total should be 18,988 per month as opposed to 18,955 a month. >> Is that an item that should be corrected
in the resolution? Councilman, >> uh, I was just pointing it out and what whatever the council feels appropriate there to do. If I could ask you to repeat your question so that our attorney can uh give us a thought on this. >> It's not a question. It's just I'm just pointing out that the amount of gallons
and the cost per month fee cost is 18,988 as opposed to the resolution says 18,955. >> So we're talking about a differential of how much? Well,
>> I >> There's a typo. >> We'll accept it as a typo, Councilman. >> Okay. >> With your permission. >> You please. Of course. Okay. The next is item 34. >> Item 34, sir.
>> Yes. again just the fourth whereas this this resolution is from June 25 2025 through January 1 2026 that's just another three weeks is is this long is it supposed to be longer or we need just
for the next to end off the year uh for to purchase uh computer hardware. So what happened because I agree with you and I questioned it myself is because the state this is based on a state contract
and the delay on the state in getting the bid in we had to do this to cover us until the January 1st 2026. So the reason for that was based on the delay of the new contract by the state.
>> Uh okay thank you. Okay good thank you. And my last question is on item 35 resolution 35 awarding contract for burglar alarm monitoring equipment and maintenance.
So this resolution has a monthly fee plus an hourly fee. So the monthly fee comes out to around close to $30,000 give and take but the
resolution is for $45,000. So just to get some clarity on what's in is it two separate you know is this is there some things which are included in the monthly fee and then anything that's out of that
um spec goes to an hourly fee. Is that is that how this works? >> That is accurate. Okay. So on the back of the resolution where it has the bids from the other vendors,
it also includes as all resol as all resolutions have, it also has who was awarded the contract in prior years and also at what rate. So this company I believe it's the same company
um actually was a different company that was awarded in prior years had an hourly rate of like pretty much was half of what we're paying now. Um, and
a premium hourly rate also pretty much half what we're paying. The only difference is they went up monthly. It doesn't say what our monthly fees were in prior in prior years. >> You're saying there's no comparison factor, council.
>> Correct. Correct. >> Mr. Would that information be be readily available to you or not? >> Uh, not right now. Let's say I would have to go up to the purchasing office and >> if if we would ask the administration if we could take this off and have it on our next meeting, would that be uh
>> again always when it's December and there's contracts, I always get nervous because if they don't if they don't make it back, if they don't make it back, I don't have a contract for next year. So that's my concern. uh the bids I can tell you that the bids that you have are accurate right that's
what came in and the the one discrepancy that you may see is that when they gave us an hourly rate if you look above the awarded to >> it was it started in 2022
>> so the hourly rates in 2022 were a lot less than they are now going into 2026 and that's why we get into several year contracts so we can lock people in at an hourly rate that's less. So just for the board's edification, I don't want you to
see, oh, they jumped from $65 to now $100. Well, no, that was $65 from 2022 and now it's $115 for 2026. >> I just I wanted to make that clarity. It's not like it's last year to this year.
>> The previous contract took from 22 to 25, >> right? So, we're locking this rate in for those next three years at the 115 um rate. >> Right. So, so Mr. Business Ministry, you touched on another point which I wanted to bring up which is of concern that
this resolution makes no reference what I could find that it's a three-year contract is a very open-ended resolution. It has doesn't say when it starts, doesn't say when it ends. I mean, typically resolutions say exactly for
what period of time we are authorizing this contract. >> Let me check real quick. So um I am getting you the answer right now because what may happen is
this makes it makes the the bid part of the process and sometimes if it's and I I'm not disagreeing with you councilman usually what happens if it's in the bid for the three-year process, then it becomes it's it's part of the
resolution. So, I'm just verifying that right now. Um because it's not I don't have it as part of the backup. What I have as part of the backup is exactly what the council has. So, I don't have the actual bid specs, but I
can get you that information. I mean I mean before we vote on it when we have >> I understand I understand completely your request I unfortunately I don't have that I don't have that in front of me
>> okay >> Councilman can I have uh some direction from you I I again if it's I just uncomfortable voting on on a resolution without any time frame in it. >> Yeah, unfortunately I don't have that. The backup I have is the same you have.
So I I'd have to go up to the the office to verify. >> Mr. Fernandez, I you knew how rare it is that we ask for something to be held. Um I'm concerned however that from what we're hearing the
without specific specificity in terms of three years etc that um this is something which deserves further >> it's completely understand packet >> huh >> it was in the packet it's on the website if you go to the contract period the contract for the period of one year with the option to renew a contract for
discretion to two one-year terms >> one two-year term it's in it's in the uh >> well there you go >> am I reading the same one I mean I'm the city of states Yeah, I'm not on that. I'm not on the website. But yeah, so that's on the website. Double check. But >> let me go to the website real quick. But
that seems exactly how we would write it. >> Yeah. Hold on. >> It's the right bit. Burg alarm monitoring equipment. >> Do you have it readily available? Um >> because that's it's on basically he's looking at your website, the the city
clerk's website. It's on You can bring your >> just want to make sure I'm looking at the right place. I want to make Listen, I understand the councilman's point exactly. We just want to make sure that it's the accurate um
but that does seem like what it is. We'll we'll do one year with a two-year option, which is pretty much what we did for the first round. That's just go to city clerk's office real quick. I'm tell you, get so used to the mouse
that now I'm using this pad here. It's my I'm going everywhere but where I need to go. >> It's in bit posting. That's where I found it. All right, I have it here. Contract period is for a period of one year with
the option to renew the contract at the city's discretion for two one-year terms or one two-year term. So at the council's discretion, it would be up to a three-year term, which is consistent with the original one. That's why the
original was 2022 to 2025. Thank you very much, council and mayor. I would have had to pull this later. That's exactly what I would have went upstairs to pull. >> Okay. >> Does that provide satisfaction to everyone in terms of
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Are there any other questions that >> I I I would just ask please if um at a later date >> over the next week if someone could just
send me what the last year's, you know, this prior year's contract, what the monthly rate was as well, just for comparison, please. >> Mr. Mr. Fernandez, we'll be getting that out to you shortly. >> Thank you. >> Are there any other questions on these
resolutions before us? With the council's permission, items 24 and 25. Is there is there a resolution to accept? >> Yes. >> Motion and second on 24 and 25. Roll
call, please. >> Councilman Monk. >> Yes. >> Councilman Love. >> Yes. >> Counciloman Melo. >> Yes. >> Councilman Mayor. >> Yes. >> Councilman Garcia. Yes. >> Counciloman Golz and Council President Shear.
>> Yes. On 26, please. Alone. >> Move it. >> Second. >> Roll call, please. On 26 only. >> Councilman Monk. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Councilman Love, >> yes. >> Councilman Melo, >> yes. >> Councilman Mayor, >> yes. >> Councilman Garcia,
>> stay. >> Councilman Colonz, >> yes. >> And council president. >> Yes. Thank you. That was on 20. >> Six. on 27 through 41. 27 through 41. Are there any questions,
please? Seeing none, is there a motion on 27 through 41? Move it. >> Second. >> Councilman. Councilman Monk. >> Yes. Yes. >> Councilman Love. >> Yes. >> Counciloman Melo. >> Yes. >> Councilman Mayor. >> Yes. >> Councilman Garcia. >> Yes.
>> Counciloman Colz. Yes. And Council President Shear. >> Yes. Thank you. That was on I'm sorry. >> That was 2 27 to 41 >> on 43 >> to 86 >> to >> 86
86 >> to 86. Are there any questions, please? >> No. >> We need a motion. >> Second. >> Councilman Monk. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Councilman Love. >> Yes. Councilman Melo, >> yes.
>> Councilman Mayor, >> yes. >> Councilman Garcia, >> yes. >> Counciloman Colom, yes. >> And council president, >> yes. Thank you. There are no other resolutions. Correct. That is it. >> Okay. Well, payment of bills, we're on the new line. Are there any questions on the bills? >> Seeing all at this time is the motion,
please, to accept the bills as presented by the clerk. Second motion and second. Roll call, please. On the bills. >> Councilman Monk. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Councilman Love. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Melo. >> Yes. Councilman Mayor, >> yes. >> Councilman Garcia, >> yes.
>> Councilman Colon, >> yes. >> Council President Shar. >> Yes. Thank you. Administrators report numeral 10. Mr. Fernandez. >> Yes. Council President, I have a brief statement. >> Um, I'd like for the council and for the edification of the public just to see the number of resolutions that we did
amending the budget, which we call chapter 159. And I just like to take this moment to let everyone know the amount of work that goes into these are grants that we received to offset our budget. And what you passed today was
offsetting our budget by almost $20 million in grants that this administration goes out and applies for. And that just goes to show the work of all the staff that we have here. Uh, I have to give thanks to our CFO Omar
Garcia that puts all this together and every single director that goes out and applies. And when we say at our meetings that we look, we turn over every rock and try to squeeze every bit of juice wherever it is. I just want to show that
this is an example of that. We are one of the municipalities and our auditor constantly tells us that out of all the municipalities, which they have many in the state of New Jersey, they've never seen a municipality go after and receive as many grants as the city of Pake. So,
that's a testament to everyone's work and I just wanted to make that clear. Uh, and whenever I have the opportunity, I'm going to let everyone know that this is what we're doing here in the city of Pake, unlike uh many of the other municipalities that we have. Thank you, Council President.
>> The council joins joins you, the administration, and certainly finance area in thanking uh all of our employees for the extraordinary work that they do to bring us where we are. Certainly, uh we would not be in the good shape that we are without their assistance and
direction and guidance. Um any questions or comments from members of the council? Yeah, I would like to congratulate our business administrator because he was recognized down um at the LEO municipality. >> So, congratulations
>> for best dancer or for what? >> Happy I was very humbled and honored. It's not every day you get a career achievement award. And I was uh lucky enough to have a distinguished service award from the New Jersey Municipal Managers Association
uh for my years of service as a municipal manager in the state of New Jersey. So I'm very proud and humbled uh to receive that. But just like I said 5 seconds ago about all the work it takes a village and we have a very strong knit village here in the city of Pak and I'm proud to be a part of it.
>> Well done. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you, Councilman, on on bringing that up. >> And uh Mr. Council President, >> Councilman Mark, >> if I could just amend what our business administrator just said, um for his
years of service, I would change it to for his years of service and for his future years of service to the city of >> Thank you, Councilman. We uh we all join you in that in that thought as well. Uh at this point, is there a motion please to adjourn?
>> Motion. >> Motion. >> May we have a second? >> Second. >> Motion and second to adjurnn. Roll call to adjourn, please. >> Councilman Monk, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Councilman Love. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Melo. >> Yes. >> Councilman Mayor. >> Yes. >> Councilman Garcia. >> Yes.
>> Counciloman Komz. Yes. And Council President Shear. >> Yes. Thank you. This meeting is adjourned.