Good evening. On behalf of the governing body of the city of Bake, we welcome you to the July 21st, 20126 city council meeting in accordance with 231 public laws of 1975. Adequate notice of this meeting was
provided by resolution of the municipal council adopted on June 16th, 2026, setting forth the schedule of meetings for the year 2026 2027. Said notice was published and posted on
the city hall bulletin board by the office of the city clerk. Please be further advised that this meeting will be conducted in person. The Zoom stream provided is for viewing only and is offered to the public as a
convenience on July 6, 2026. Public notice and Zoom instructions for this meeting were posted on the city of Pake website at www. cityofpayake.com. Council agendas instructions are also available on the last page of this
agenda. Please be guided accordingly. >> Roll call, please. Ma'am. >> Councilman Monk, >> present. Councilman Love, >> Councilwoman Melo, >> Councilman Mayor, >> Councilman Garcia, >> Councilwoman Colz,
>> and Council President Sher President, >> heavenly father, thank you Lord for allowing us to speak this evening. Father God, we ask you to please guide us in the decisions that will take place this evening in your beloved name we pray. 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. >> We're going to be going back and forth with this microphone and I do apologize.
We are on our agenda. Roman numeral 4, please. minutes of the November 6, 2025, December 2nd, 2025, December 16, 2025, January 8, 2026, January
status. >> Are there any changes or corrections to the minutes which are presented to us by the clerk? Seeing none, is there a motion, please, to accept the minutes as presented? So move, council president. >> Motion and second. Roll call, please.
Councilman Monk, >> yes. >> Councilman Love, >> yes. >> Councilwoman Melo, >> yes. >> Councilman Mayor, >> yes. >> Councilman Garcia, >> yes. >> Councilwoman Colton, >> yes. >> And Council President Sher, please. >> Yes. Thank you.
>> Members are aware, I hope. Um immediately at the end of the meeting tonight, not at the end but rather pri immediately prior to the end of the council meeting, the council will continue its function as council acting
as on behalf as a uh what appellet body uh to be uh to be not the same um as a pallet body. And we have before us two rent leveling board cases. One of which which we are asking
for it to be postponed. The other of which we ask that the council act in its judicial uh basis. We're up to hearing of citizens Roman numeral 5 on our agenda. 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 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 comments in intending to harass or speak any offensive language. The person who makes these statements will will relinquish their allotted five minutes for public discussion. Is there anyone
who would like to adjust the council, please? >> Seeing no hands, I move we close the public. >> Second. >> Motion and second. Roll call, please. >> Councilman Monk, >> yes. >> Councilman Love, >> yes. >> Councilwoman Melo, >> yes. >> Councilman Mayor, >> yes.
>> Councilman Garcia, >> yes. >> Councilwoman Colton, >> Council President Sher, >> yes. >> Yes. Thank you. group six. >> Are there any questions on items 1 through six? >> Councilman Monk, >> yes.
>> Councilman Love, >> yes. >> Councilwoman Melo, >> yes. >> Councilman Mayor, >> yes. Yes. Councilman Garcia, >> Councilwoman Colz and Council President Sher. >> Yes, thank you. Matters considered to be routine in nature
15, please. >> Thank you. >> Councilman Monk. >> Yes. >> Councilman Love. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Melo. >> Yes. Councilman Mayor. >> Yeah. Yes. >> Councilman Garcia. >> Councilwoman Colz.
Council President. >> Yes. Thank you. This is going speedily. Perhaps it should be coming later in the future as well. >> Not at this time, but there may be in connection with the appeals report. >> So noted. >> Mr. Fernandez.
>> No. Council president. Mr. >> No, no, that's not good. >> We could uh >> going through 17 >> 17 through 38. Is it >> separately? >> Yes.
>> Is there a need for a special vote? >> 37 >> on 37 and 38. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Are there any other items to be dealt with separately? Are there any other items the members have questions or
concerns about? I have no lights on for items. Items 17 through 36. You have a light. The lights don't work. >> Thank you, Councilman Mayor. Thank you, Councilman Love. I'm sorry. There's a light.
>> Councilman Monk, do you have a microphone there, sir? >> Councilman Monk, I'm giving you this microphone. >> I have to use two mics. >> So, you all for an hour in case you kill that one. Councilman Monk.
>> Yeah. On item 17. invite item. Yeah. Items 71. Yes. So, this is um a resolution to purchase install four automated license plate readers. Looking at the itemized
billing, the total bill here cost is 98,000. There's a warranty of $22,000 around 25% or actually if you take out all the extras like
installation costs and annual device license fees and so on and so forth. And the cameras themselves are around $43,000. But the warranty itself is $22,000 which
is 50% of the cost of the cameras. Yeah. I don't know what the science is, but it sounds a little hefty to pay 50% of the cost of an item to get an extend extended warranty. Especially where technology is going today, how
technology changes so fast. You know, a camera that works today, right, in in 6 months is outdated already with new technology and new systems and new software and so on so forth. I'm just like to hear some kind, you know, hear some feedback here. This is should
something that we should think of maybe uh not ac not not accepting the the extended warranty. >> Mr. Fernandez, can you help us with this item, please? >> Oh, you need the mic.
>> I'll try. Um to get it back to him while I'm >> these are the costs when we request for the warranty. These aren't your normal typical cameras, right? because they're on the vehicles. Um, so
I really wouldn't have a gauge on specifically what they go for other than these are these are the prices that we received, you know, and do we need the warranty? Well, because of the usage and the type of usage of the vehicle, it would be it would behoove us to do that
so that the camera, you know, can get replaced if damaged. understanding that, you know, each camera is $43,000. Oh, $12,000. So, each camera is $12,000 and each warranty is $6,000,
which is half of the camera. >> How long is the is is the warranty for? >> So, it's a 4-year warranty. >> Well, it doesn't say here how much the regular warrant. This is an extended warrant, right? This is extended
warranty, but I would imagine >> typically so typically the factory warranties a year and then extended warranties go beyond the year. This one would give us fouryear warranty
on the cam versus the one-year warranty. I mean, the technology changes so fast that it's not likely that we even have cameras on in four years. These same cameras just not just not likely. Just
>> Are you president if I may? >> Um, bear with me just a second. Councilman Mo, are you finished making that point? That's the >> how the last the last which >> but they hear you.
>> Who hears him? >> Yeah, they hear they >> hear me. >> Mhm. >> How often have these warranties been exercised in the past? It's not the first time. >> How often have these warranties been exercised in the past? And it's a simple. If it's every six months, yeah, get it. If it's never been used,
>> I'd have I'd have to get back. I wasn't prepared for that answer. Like usage of the warranty. Have we used warranties? >> Absolutely. Can I tell you specifically for license plate readers? I I couldn't tell you specifically, but yes, we have
called in warranties on numerous occasions for other products that we've purchased. >> Chief Sher, do you >> do you have any background on this? Um, first and foremost, this is a purchase from the burn grant. Uh, this is fully
paid for out of a federal grant, so there's no cost at all to the city nor the department. Uh, as to the warranty, I don't have an answer as to how often you've utilized that. These cameras are This is fancy. These cameras are mounted on the exterior of the patrol cars are
exposed to the elements. They are subject to vehicle crashes. They're damaged a lot in crashes and things of that nature. And so the warranty would help us to cover the cost of replacement when that occurs. >> If there was a crash and the system was affected by the crash, that would be covered.
>> That's my understanding. Yes, sir. >> There are also three to four cameras as part of the system and it also covers the computer interface, the software, things like that. >> If I'm giving you questions that you're not qualified, right, you you'll >> absolutely. >> Um,
do most departments have these machines >> have issues with the cameras? I couldn't speak to other departments, sir. >> Now, do they have actually these license plate readers? >> Yes, they are a core tenant of modern-day policing. Uh
they help us solve numerous crimes. Uh the cameras are always operational when the vehicles are driving around recording license plates. Not only are they used to enforce traffic laws, uh but you know, a car parked at the scene of a shooting will record all those license plates in that area. We can then
later track them down, put them through a database, find out who was in that area. >> Mr. Fernandez, do we have any alternatives to this uh this firm? Are there any other systems that work? They perhaps wouldn't
be. Uh >> yeah, so I want to say this one specifically out of a state contract if I'm not mistaken. So this was already bid out and it's used by law enforcement agencies throughout the state of New Jersey.
So there was there was the process was done through the state and we selected from them and this company and they've done a lot of work. they've done lots of our technology is from GTBM >> and to answer if if I may to reiterate I
should say the question of Councilman Monk um anything like this the the shelf life tends to be questionable because of advances that are made >> I would ask that the council would consider the response from the uh deputy
chief president that it's a mobile LPR and that some of the police vehicles are subject to crash. So if there's no limit on how many times you can replace it and considering that these cameras are utilized specifically for uh crime or perhaps identifying in a vehicle that
may result in a vehicle pursuit. If the total cost of the individual camera is 12,000 6,000 for a warranty for the individual camera seems like a lot unless we replace it three four times then it's quite the bargain if it covers especially the extended warranty. And I believe that this warranty allows for
unlimited replacement, whether it's a glitch, whether as the uh deputy chief mentioned, there's some kind of issue in a crash or malfunction because of a pursuit. So I think in the long run, but this is not odd when it comes to mobile devices because of the high risk and
liabilities as opposed to a stationary um camera set. We have a few of those around the city. the warranty may be less because the likelihood probability or expectation of wear and tear is much less than on a vehicle that has to go around especially considering the climate as well.
>> Councilman, if if it's important to vote on this tonight, I'm I'm I'm fine with it. If we can wait one meeting, I'd love to see the extended warranty. You know, maybe we're better off buying six cameras for the same amount of money and skip and skipping the warranty. You know, I have
six cars. I don't know. Again, there's so much information that to make such a decision and I'm sure the departments and administration h has like how many cars have it? Do all our cars have these cameras? >> Not all. >> So, are we better off in terms of are we
better off having six cameras instead of four cameras for the same amount of money? And this way there's more we have more video cameras, more data, right, for crimes and so on and so forth. By having 50% more cars with with the cameras and skipped the
warranty. Um, I'm sure there's the cameras we've had in the past, we know how long they they typically last when there's no problems, right? So, I can't I don't have enough information to advise or to even give my opinion on this, but just something to think about. That's all. Just again I don't know if we could wait here two weeks on this and
just to take a little bit of a deeper dive and see what's the best thing or this something which is more timesensitive. see if tell us whether there's a deadline on this. We will be respond to you, but I would go back to what the
deadly sh is still paid for by Albert. Not sure if this is there's any time limited that our next meeting is for two weeks. Um >> is this fully paid for by
>> the burn? Yes. Burn memorial system. Certain grants are only used for specific items. Is this grant specific only the LPR only >> specifically mayor specifically for training and technology?
>> So you're only but but maybe we're better off getting six cameras for the same price >> but without warranty >> because that's the problem. That's the price of the warranty. It doesn't matter whether buy six cameras or one up or and I think it's just important to highlight this and and it actually goes to what
the business administrator and I think what the deputy chief is trying to share with the burn grant is that we can pay for the grant with I mean we can pay for the warranty with the burn grant >> or we can pay for the cameras out of our pocket >> if something goes wrong. That's
>> right now we cover it with grant money. So something goes wrong with the camera we use the grant to pay for it. If something goes wrong with the camera and we didn't get the warranty, we're paying for that with city. >> I was I was suggesting get six cameras. >> Yes. >> Okay. This we have six cameras playing throughout the whole city.
>> Yeah. >> And if two breakers out the world, >> but Councilman Monk, we can stand a chance of all six breaking. >> Yeah. Come on. You buy a lot of >> I don't know if you can hear.
I'm strong. I go with no strong. >> I'm done. I'll give back point 50% warrant. It says that's with the grant. And I think sometimes when it comes to uh to government purchasing, um
we know that the prices aren't always >> the the most competitive. They're they tend to be kind of high, but that is the fact that the warranty is also covered by the burn grant is a unique component of this. And we want to keep that in mind that if we don't purchase it, we we could probably put it off. But did you
get a response from the CFO? Because that's the only concern is whether we're obligated to utilize the grant by a certain time or not. >> The date of the grant, but obviously the faster we can use it, the better. >> Um, >> if I can put my little two cent
on that side. >> If we could pass this down, forgive the inconvenience. We'll start off >> just if it makes you feel a little bit better. I know through the purchasing and the state grants, usually these companies go through bids. So, usually
they pick the best one and that has the best reputation. So, if they're um experienced in doing this, I I would feel comfortable. >> I uh believe I have consensus to go forward. Councilman Monk, is there anything for the you would have on that?
The only thing I would ask for I'm just curious for the next time this was thumbs up if I can get a copy of the warranty. >> That's in how many years, Councilman? >> Why don't you still in six years? >> Sure.
>> Why don't you ask to buy more cameras? >> No, I asked for a copy of the warranty. >> We have We have a response from the CFO. Mhm. >> funds may be expiring for the grant. Not 100% sure. Okay. Back to the safe.
>> I believe that we have consensus at this point to proceed with 17 as is. Do you have Do you have any other uh I'm getting comfortable with this big mark. I like I like him. >> Oh jeez. I thought it was going to be
him from >> And I thought it looked like a Rita's ice cream. shows you where my head is at. >> Councilman, >> um if I could just ask the administration, this looks good. Um to if I get a copy of the warranty. Just very curious what they offer for this,
you know, 16 $6,000. Okay. Yeah. The other ones I have just more of a of a com I guess a question on um resolutions um 20 22
23 20 um sorry 24 24 25. So I just I was reading through the comments
uh from our purchasing department of you know as they're rating the different vendors of who to go with. Um, so I I just I'm curious what type of CR what point system I know we spoke about in
the past, but I noticed in each of these resolutions where they do a analysis and a summary of the justification why to pick one vendor that's more expensive than a different vendor. The first paragraph
uh points out that the this in this this particular vendor is called says is a womanowned business formed in 1991 and that's what each one of these resolutions has a very similar letter. Is that one of the criterias that we use
in PIC that if it's minority owned um they get extra points in the grading system of when we pick vendors? Well, that's actually a statewide kind of thing. >> I I priority,
>> right? I know. I know it's statewide. Question is, does city use the same? >> It's not the It's not the sole deciding factor. It's a percentage of >> It's not the sole deciding factor. It's under the category of ownership. It may
get, you know, maybe they'll get the maximum percentage, but it it's not enough to sway the vote. Like price is usually the highest percentage. >> And veteran status, I believe. >> Veterans as well. Yes. >> Human owned, minority owned,
veteranowned, those are all different categories. Yeah. There there is positive prejudice shown towards uh women and minorities, councilman, as I'm sure you are aware. >> Yes, I know. I'm very well aware and I understand it and I understand the state
does. I wasn't sure I wasn't I was asking but I wasn't aware that wasn't sure if the city it used that criteria as well. >> The city can only use that criteria or more not less. >> Yeah. And then the the it's compounded by the fact it's a
federal program. So it's these are every single one you listed is for our community development block grants and homes which are uh federally funded programs. >> Oh and also that you know the res that you spoke about has been with us for the
last 10 years and are currently in the middle of several projects with us. >> I noticed >> but there's no warranty. There is they include it in the price. That's why that's why actually on one of the contract is like 50% more than the
lower. So it is in there. Um okay. I know I I I it did it did the summary did mention that the city has been working with this vendor and that
this vendor has um experience in these type of funds and grants. I I I I was I was >> just so that one's a very unique product because it is it was based on the art funds for um Can you hear me? Am I
>> doing? >> Yeah. So, that one was a unique one because it was the art funds, but it was specifically for uh women or um individuals of domestic violence. Like, it's a very it's $3 million. that's very
specific and they are familiar with the program. The reason why I want to share that they've been with us for 10 years is because that very much was a practice 10 years ago specifically for contracts. I know that it was with the previous administration may be concerned now but
just if you consider 10 years ago there was definitely a push um where there was a point system but this particular one after they were chosen they've been with us for 10 years and have had a good track record. But in the past again under uh different presidents there were
criterias in terms of uh point systems that we may have continued in terms of this particular one but not so much because of that but more because of their past work with us. Does that make sense? >> No, thank you. the the the other criterias as well justify I mean picking
this vendor you know based on I was just asking because I didn't see in the past you know that that was you know in the summary um that to that point thank you >> any other questions on the resolution before us
>> yes I have question um 20 >> do I really need the mic 20 >> Ian um was the anticipation um completion for this >> the rubber ice. >> So
this is to authorize the contract. So you you want the time of delivery. >> Yes. When will >> So this once this passes, we can formalize the contract and then we'll have a pre-construction meeting. So, you know, we're going to try to get them in there as soon as possible, especially
before the the cold winter comes. So, we do have enough time that they could do the site work and prep work within be in the fall before the construction. So, our hope is we can get them in as soon as possible.
>> What is the process exactly, Mr. Fernandez? We publicize the availability of of of certain project and invite people to bid on it and then they send their bids to purchasing agent who looks them over and opens them all up. Yeah.
So depending on the type of project. So this one specifically um a lot of the heavy lifting is done by the engineering department. So you know typically before this we've hired a firm to design it. we have construction
design and construction inspection. Um then after that, depending on what it is that you're buying for the construction or for the improvements, you know, then we'll do a separate bid uh for those items. And in this one
specifically, it includes the site preparation, the rubber surface installation, the site drainage, and all the stonebased preparatory work. uh because it is for the rubberized um
surface at Colonel Johnson which is a spray park, right? One of the largest spray parks we'll have in the city. >> Yeah. And and so it needs additional groundwork. was going to ask if the administration has no objections given the uh councilwoman's interest in item
plenty if it would be all right and without setting precedent but for her to be able to uh be part of that process um if that meets the uh the approval of the administration and the mayor. >> I was just about to say that I thought you were going to say she'd be the first
one to slide down the spray pad slide. I'm like what? >> No, I already reserved that. number one be some advantage to this presence. >> Are there other questions please on the all the resolutions presented up to 37 and 38?
>> No. >> And no there there are no lines because there's no elector. Um hearing none. Is there a motion please to accept? >> Motion second. >> Motion and second. This is items 17 through 36. Roll call please ma'am.
>> Yes. Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Thank you. 13 37. Please. May I have a motion to accept? >> Motion. >> Motion. >> Second.
>> And second. Thank you. 137. Roll call, please. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Councilman May. >> Yes. Council. >> Yes. resolution. >> Yes. Motion passes on 38, please. Is there a maker of the resolution?
>> Motion and second. Thank you. Roll call. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Thank you. Motion passes. We're up to Roman numeral 8 on our agenda ordinance for introduction and first reading. 39, please. And
a proposed ordinance the designation of restricted parking for disabled person by New Jersey license plate number. Is there a motion to accept for set down for second and final reading at the council meeting of August 4? Is there a motion, please? >> Move. >> Motion second
>> and second. Roll call, please. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Thank you. Number 41, please, is a
request by the attorney for the applicant requesting that their uh hearing which was to be tonight be postponed to August 4 due to the hospitalization of the attorney, I believe. Without prejudice, is there a motion please to accept? As I said,
John, >> I'm sorry. Please. Communication was from the other side saying they're on vacation August 4th and be postponed till after August 14th.
>> So we have two of them left at the same time. >> No, we did want we need to put on the meeting because other side isn't available August. >> That is for that's the second one. The second
>> September September September 1st. Okay. To move on 41, please to move the hearing date to September 1st from August 4. >> D. I need to um move my um
the first motion. >> Well, we did roll call. No, we didn't do roll call. So So I'll take it without prejudice. >> Still move it. Council President. So 41 to change the hearing date from August 4 to September 1st. This is based on Robert Front Koba Esquire. Is there a
motion please to accept the September 1st date? >> Yes. >> Motion and second. Roll call, please. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> May. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Yes. Thank you. Payment of bills. Roman numeral 10. Are there any questions on the bills? Seeing no hands, is there a motion please to accept the bills as presented by the clerk? >> So move >> motion >> and second. Thank you. Roll call, please.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Thank you. Administrators report, Mr. Fernandez. >> Not at this time, sir. >> Mr. Mayor, sir, >> just briefly, I want to update the
council on some of the work that has occurred in the city. Um, we just completed the uh milling and paving of the roads around our St. Mary's General Hospital, including the boulevard and House Street, as well as some side streets, hillside between Van Hatton and
Richard Street. Also, we've completed a number of the ADA ramp sidewalk improvements down Broadway, Pake A, and throughout the city in all of our wards. I also want to briefly share that over this weekend, we'd have uh a number of
events. We had doing it in the park on Sunday which was a huge success. Continued the tradition started with Mr. John Willis well a little bit prior but he was such an instrumental part and his wife and his child kept it going. We also had the last watch party the FIFA
watch party. I want to take this opportunity to highlight business administrator Rick Fernandez all those who worked with UEE. Renee Renee Nunes who uh set up the media, all of our police, our fire, who ensured that uh from crowds that went up to 6,000 to uh
rainy games where we had about a hundred that stuck through to the very last watch party where Spain defeated Argentina. We had uh quite a number of individuals from all over the city who came and found out that we had uh many residents who are Argentinian and uh and
Spanish. Spanish which we always are reminded is a country not just the language. So they show up. It was a fierce uh fall game. We also had our very first ever lucha libé presentation with traditional Mexican wrestling right after the FIFA games. I also want to
highlight that the work at the courtyard the plaza has uh has officially been set to start for Tuesday. Uh there will be minor work in preparations and then after the uh Puerto Rican flag raising on the 26th
which we halt to that day without prejudice maybe a little anyway maybe not as objective but the work will begin after that flag raising and uh then we will have a remarkable and beautiful and amazing plaza right there in front of
city hall and Brag Park project is almost complete in couple weeks it will be completely finished and we look forward to announcing that to the community. Um over the last couple weeks we had a few storms. One that was very
difficult. We had a number of trees that came down. Um there was a loss of electricity. It came at a time that was very difficult especially in different areas of our city because of the inability to respond. um specifically in terms of phone calls unless there were
extreme emergencies for some residents. I want to take this opportunity to highlight and thank our PC police department with our deputy chief sher here. Um they were extremely responsive. Um it was extremely uh difficult and I use that word uh twice purposely because
there were many challenges not just with the loss electricity but we had some instances where trees came down on people's homes. council president, members of city council happened throughout the area and other municipalities. But I also want to highlight our DPW PSNG was of course inundated with phone calls. So there
were delays. There were areas of our city that were out for electricity 3 to 4 days. During the time we were dealing with an extreme uh heat wave. There were very many concerns. I want to thank our OEM, our human services because we were
able to provide shelter, emergency shelter as well as cooling stations uh throughout that entire time. And uh we were grateful that the heat wave pass. I also wanted to share council members on behalf of the seniors. They've been enjoying our amenities. They've been doing bingles in the park and traveling
to the park. our seniors remind the council that they're so excited to work together and all of the amazing programs that continue to be uh provided to them. With that stated, I will conclude with this. It's been uh it's been some some
difficult days that we're going through. Many in our communities are concerned, little confused, questioning why different approaches have uh have limited uh their ability to
travel around the city. Businesses have um posed their concerns and shared them. On behalf of the council and administration, we have uh we have put out information to the community of what resources are available to those who find themselves in uh extenduating
circumstances because of all that's going on. Um including help when it comes to food for families that are left um behind after a particular parent may no longer be available and the bread winner is not there to provide the food.
as well as connected them with existing resources, legal and otherwise, where appropriate as a city, as we are often times called upon to be that safety net for individuals when they find themselves in such conditions. We continue to share that our city will
always be there to support our residents, our most vulnerable residents during this uh this last week where uh because of course it's a summer and many individuals may be away. Um I have had the uh blessing of having um Chief Sher
available on the phone and his response to the concerns of community, the needs for events and activities and uh specifically difficult days whether handling large crowds for an event or responding to storms or having uh
impromptu gatherings that we find out about later um which are appropriate to recognize and memorialize people. The response has been just excellent by the Pake Police Department as well as our fire department and our emergency responders. So, I wanted to take this time publicly to thank our emergency
responders, our chief and uh all those working together to ensure that the safety of the city is uh maintained and is priority. It's one thing where we're having uh just an event, but it seemed like there was something going on in every corner of the city, whether FIFA,
whether uh gatherings, and then in the midst of it, heat waves and storms, all while they still had to continue doing their regular jobs. So, kudos. I commend them. And uh they don't they don't really look for recognition. They do their work every single day um beyond the expectation that even we have. And
that is amazing. Thank you, council president. Thank you members of the city council. >> Thank you, mayor. And please know that if in terms of your very kind remarks, if we sub substituted everyone else's name and just put yours there, >> we cannot uh on behalf of of
the residents and and citizens of this great city. So much of what is going on is is due to your inspiration and your commitment and your ability. Um, and it really, uh, speaking for myself and many of my colleagues as well, it really has been a great pleasure and honor to work
with you. >> We are up to a hearing. >> Yes. Councilman, >> I'm new to this, especially relatively maybe a year. I've never done a hearing before. Could you just tell me to remind
how this works? We let I'm going to do that and no doubt very poorly which is why I'm going to impose upon our attorney to share with us. Uh but we are acting in a judicial body as a judicial body with all the rights of court. Um we
are being asked to adjudicate between the concerns of the uh owner and the renter. >> The landlord. Yes, the landlord and the tenant. the appeals pursuant to uh section 23110 of the municipal code
which allows either a landlord or tenant to appeal directly to the council if they are dissatisfied with the decision of the rent leveling board. >> So this is this is their second step. The applicant already was heard by rent leveling board. The board of three
members in of landlord uh expert and renter are represented on that board which makes the determination. Right. >> That is correct. There's already been a full hearing uh and a >> exactly Suzanne. What exactly is this
council doing in respect? We evaluating what's been said. Is new information going to be presented to us? No, we we we're not to evaluate new information. What we are to do is to look at the
record. Um and the tenant has it's the tenants, uh appeal, they've submitted paperwork um identifying what they believe the rent leveling board did wrong. uh if the tenant is here, they
may articulate why the leveling board is wrong, but we and the landlord may respond if the landlord is here. Um but we are not in a position to swear people in and take new testimony. There's
already been a full hearing and that you are acting um as a body that's looking this at this as an appeal. >> Any questions? Mayor, does that answer your question? >> Yes. Thank you. >> Are there any other questions for members of council is the proceeding?
>> Council President, just to clarify the council president to the mayor part of this proceedings. >> That's correct. >> Thank you. That's right. >> Well, miss you mayor, but thank you so
much. So, >> we are uh going to uh have the pleasure to welcome Miss Mr. Donovan Henderson of 266 Pacific Street submitting an appeal of a decision of the city of Payic Rent leveling board and requesting that the
city council schedule a hearing date regarding the appeal. Susie, is this the actual appeal we're in now? >> Yes, this is >> very good. Is Mr. Henderson here? Is the And who is repres Mr. Henderson? Are you being represented by one or
yourself only? Very good. And Susie on behalf of the city who is you'll be acting as as the attorney. >> Yes. >> Very good. Mr. Henderson, if we can welcome you to >> Very good. For the record, if we could
>> Could we have your name? >> Thank you. And you are an attorney man. >> Yes. >> And your law firm is >> very good. >> Yes. Good evening, council. I appealed the decision that the rent
leveling board made on two counts. The two counts were retaliation and submitting fraudulent documents to the rent leveling board. During the hearing, I testified throughout the hearing that I submitted rent receipts
that showed the base rent. However, the landlord has presented my mother over the past 17 years with a discount on her rent. We are in superior court right now in regards to that section. However,
when the landlord the landlord did not show up for the dece the December hearing, he showed up in January. The rent leveling board asked the landlord's son, are you a agent of the landlord? He said no. They said we cannot accept your
testimony. You have to get an attorney. They hired the attorney in February. In January, the landlord's son came with a rent receipt and he said this whole this whole thing I have to
explain this whole thing boils around to uh a illegal lease that was presented to us which is part of my testimony for the retaliation and the fraudulent documents. Okay. So the landlord raised the rent was raising the rent 222% which
is against the law. Okay. That came about due to uh uh me raising a question to the New Jersey Attorney General about a flood we had in the apartment. Now, the flood in the apartment is very important and I'm going to break
everything down. When the landlords Yes. 222%. Uh the board uh ruled that they were it was wrong. They they ruled in favor of the tenant. They ruled in favor of us.
The rent is was 473. They were proposing it to go up to $1,500 to $1,500. But they put a clause in the rent stating that if my mother passed away because I live with my mom, I'm a co-enant in the apartment. They were
upset with me for holding them responsible for repairs in the apartment. So they came with this illegal lease two weeks after I submitted a letter to the state and submitted a letter to the landlord. They >> Yes. Yes, I think what the council
president would like to know is how what did the uh rent leveling board uh determine? I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, they raised they only allowed a rent increase of $17.78%. >> And they also stated that it was illegal
>> um uh per month. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> So ultimately, your rent as a result of the decision of the board went up um to $490.78 a month. will actually not go up because we're in superior court about the rent
as of right now because of some illegal activity on behalf of the landlord. So, we are in front of superior court as it relates to that. So, the rent has not been raised at this point. Um the the rent >> that's their determination that it would go up 708.
>> Yes, they ruled against the 222 Yes, they ruled against 222% increase. $1,500. >> No, $473 to $1,500. And the rent levaning board ruled against that and said they could only
raise the rent 3.7% the ordinance from 1999 and we are in superior court now. Um, in regards to that, so they submitted this illegal lease. I are when the landlord's son came, they didn't show up in December for the December hearing. In
January, the landlord's son came and he says, "Oh, the $1,500. That's that's a mistake. That's a mistake. We didn't we didn't mean to put $1,500 in the lease that we were going to raise the rent to $1,500." And he says, "Here, here's a copy of the rent receipt from January,
and it shows $826. And that's not the rent receipt that they had given to us. So my argument to the rent leveling board is they tried to defraud you by submitting rent receipts that are not in
comparison. The when I was giving my argument before the rent leveling board, the attorney interjected and said that there are two ledgers. Yes. No, this is not new. I
>> I think he's trying >> Yeah, I I think he's trying to reiterate what happened at the hearing. Um, but perhaps you could confine your comments to what you know what actually the board
did that was wrong instead of a play by. >> Okay. So what the board did was wrong is that the board chairman in the middle of my argument made a statement. I'm trying to show you he made a statement in terms of the
reason why they submitted the illegal document to the board. The attorney had made a statement that there's two separate books that's on public record from the February um hearing of this year. My argument to that was
the IRS says you cannot have separate records. You cannot have a ledger showing one thing and rent receipts showing another. That's against the law. What I'm saying that is wrong. What I'm saying is wrong by the what they failed
to do. But you said what they failed. What they failed to do was ask the appropriate questions as to why what was the purpose of you submitting a rent receipt that you is different from what you gave to the tenant. Why are there
two separate books? One that you say is a ledger that's different from the rent receipts that you are given to the tenant which is in violation of the IRS code. That's my argument in terms of the fraud and lent document. Appropriate
questions were not asked during the hearing. An invalid statement was presented by the rent leveling board chairman who stated to the attorney is that a proquid which he got the
terminology incorrect. He was referring to a quidd proquo which is not has nothing to do with illegal documents. Quidd proquo deals with favoritism that someone gives you in in concert of
getting something in return that has nothing to do with this. Other statements were being made during that hearing that was inappropriate. I sent a certified letter to you, Mr. Chairman. I sent a certified letter to the city
clerk asking for the chairman to be removed from the rent leveling board. He was not he was able to make um a final vote on the hearing. I believe that this affected the case. This is in regards to the fraud and lent documents. >> Mr. Donovan, if I could ask you a
question. Sure. Ultimately, the board found that in your favor that the landlord could only raise the rent $17.78 per month. So ultimately uh they
accepted the documentation apparently that you uh gave to them. So what other power >> Let me finish. What other power do they have under our ordinances to do
anything other than simply evaluate the documents and make a determination? You're talking about IRS and DI books and um I I suggest that might be beyond the board's powers. U what practical
what what practical outcome would you even seek? The board did not rule in favor. They did rule in terms of what you're saying in terms of the rent, but in terms of the retaliation, they did not rule in my favor. And you are correct that the board cannot address
anything that's in relation to tax fraud or anything. What they could do is evaluate because in their decision they stated that the they could not tell because the records were the the rent receipts were all contradictory. They
failed to do an investigation which is in their power to say why are these documents contradictory? Why are these documents are not in line with your general ledger? their own attorney testified that there's a separate ledger
for >> Yes. And and and we heard you. But yes, but just once again, >> um what they accepted your version of the documents is true. So
really um what else do you see that they Let me please finish my questions before you start your answers. What do you foresee and under what legal standard under our municipal ordinances that they could have taken any further action on
the fraudulent document portion of your appeal um other than to accept your documentation is true and and confine your rent increase to $17.78 um per month. They should have ruled
that the document that was submitted to them because they didn't do a proper investigation. They did not do a proper investigation as to why the landlord submitted a document that is not the same document that you presented to the
tenant. They ruled in favor of the landlord in terms of the retaliation. What they could have done, which they did not do, was doing an investigation. They did not ask follow-up questions. Instead, the chairman made an
inappropriate comment. Now, in regards to the inappropriate comment, I did file a complaint with the local finance board, which I have a letter here if the council would like to see it at this time. I don't I don't want you
to go into what you filed with, you know, an ethics committee because that's not what we're here for. Um, I I want you and I think I've heard or we have heard and I don't want to cut anybody off, but um what the basis um of of the
first portion of of your three-part appeal is that you believe that they should have ruled and just one more time, is there what what would have what would have been the outcome that
you seek as a result of anything and under what under what portion of our municipal ordinance will the board be empowered to do anything? >> I believe that if the inappropriate comment was not made by the chairman and
an investigation was done by the rent leveling board by asking specific questions, the outcome would have been different. That is what I believe. Do you believe you would have gotten an increase rent that was less than $17.73
a month? >> No, I'm not arguing. I'm not even arguing about the rent. I'm arguing about two counts that I'm appealing. The retaliation and the fraudulent document. I'm not arguing about the rent because that's before the superior court right now. My
argument Yes. >> Yes. Yes. >> Good evening. Uh Carola Marquez of the >> Sure. Good evening. Carola Marquez of the office of friend and once on behalf of the landlord
Tavvaris Realy LLC. Um just to try to summarize very briefly um with regard to Mr. Henderson's concerns that the rent leveling board did not ask the appropriate questions.
Um, I should note that um Mr. Henderson um had the benefit as well as the members of the rent leveling board to uh cross-examine um the landlord which was my client uh one of the uh agents of the
of the of the LLC. Um there was ample opportunity to ask the questions and Mr. Henderson indicated that you know we they should have asked these questions why there was a discrepancy with the receipts uh why was there you know different receipts um provided to the
rent leveling board during different times uh or phases of you know this went on for about three hearings separate hearings um so everyone had an ample ample opportunity to ask those questions cross-examine uh my client and my client
responded to that and at the end as um council indicated ated the decision was made and also with my client um uh we we we did uh concede to the fact that the
increase was erroneous um and therefore accepted the increase that was permitted by the ordinance which was $17.78 above the 473. Uh so again uh the information that was
provided by Mr. Henderson as part of his submission for the appeal is not new information. It's the same information documentation that was provided to the rent leveling board. Um there are no new arguments um or new information or new
evidence that would warrant for you know an overturning of the decision of the rent leveling board. Um the other thing uh that I want to just point out is that Mr. Henderson mentioned that um there's a superior court matter. Um at this time
there is a filing on record but there's been no movement in that superior court uh case. Um for what it's worth. That's all I can say about it because like I said there's been no further movement other than beyond the original filing.
Um, again, uh, I submitted my response to Mr. Henderson's appeal. I don't know if the board has been provided with those documents because I otherwise I can just read it um to the board. Um, and and
it's it's pretty straightforward being that there was no new information provided to warrant uh an appeal of of the rent leveling board's decision. Um to be quite honest, I believe that um um you know the as council pointed out as
well the uh solution to the problem has uh been provided and established and at this point I don't know what Mr. Henderson is seeking. But the point is moot, right? You know, we keep going back to fraudulent this receipt, fraudulent that receipt. But um that was
all considered as part of the ultimate decision by the rent leveling board to go with Mr. Henderson's account of the um the the information facts and the rent leveling board made that decision with regard to the rent. Um, as far as
what did what was the uh considerations with regard to the the rents that were submitted, the rent leveling board had an opportunity to cross-examine my client and ask them why the discrepancies and those questions were addressed. Um, and you can go back to the record and uh get those responses
from my client. You'll you'll hear um you know his explanation for it. And at the end of all that, all that was taken and gathered and considered and the rent leveling board made their final decision. >> Very good. Thank you. Any question?
What questions? >> Sorry, here's something. What is the question? Is it Is it to decide if the $17 increase should stay? Is that the whole question here tonight? >> No. Um he's actually not appealing that
Mr. uh what what's being appealed is that the rent leveling board did not do anything about an allegation of fraudulent and inconsistent receipts >> which is why I was questioning the ultimate
>> going to the board of some form or another. Well, if we're talking about IRS fraud and yeah, I I I would suggest that's beyond the board's >> past. But so what else? What is >> the other two things which um we Mr.
Henderson started to talk about were allegations of retaliation and harassment >> also would not be a this board is not if there's an issue then you file a complaint with I'm not sure which body but this is this board serves as an to
appeal or to reverse a decision from the rent loving not to take complaints of the rent loving board. We do have um a provision in our ordinance that talks about retaliation. Um but the the um it's there, but it it
doesn't specifically relate back to the powers of the rent leveling board. Although in this case they did find that they had jurisdiction to address the retaliation and harassment complaints um and found that the conduct did not rise
to the level of retaliation and harassment um and and that is something for the council to take a look at um from two perspectives. Number one, um should the violations
um the anti-harassment provisions which are set forth in 23113 which provides any tenants desiring to remain in their units may do so without provocation or retaliation from landlords for the purposes of this section. Harassment of tenants may mean
conduct committed intentionally or negligently by a landlord or anyone acting on its behalf. uh reduction in basic services, necessary health, safety and welfare of the tenants, heat, hot water, adequate security. Um so
really to to I could give you a legal opinion that that perhaps those kinds of determinations are better filed in superior court than before rent leveling board. Um but they did rule uh but they found it that there was nothing that
rose to the level of retaliation. >> No. So that's only recorded. I'm sorry. >> Yeah. So So in other words, the board rent leveling board determined that there was no retaliation of the landlord to towards the tenant.
>> Yeah. >> And Mr. Henderson is appealing that decision as well claiming based on the bas on what it what happened what transpired there that it does reach to a level of retaliation. Yeah.
>> Now it was >> we would not um the board would not be able to make any kind of award uh to uh to the tenants if if they made such a finding. >> But was he substantial basis of the
penalty attorneys? >> Sure. I understood they could if you find retaliation under violations and penalties there could be a fine but that would go to the municipality not the tenant. >> Yes. So where where do we go from here?
I'm still not sure what our what our >> Well, I would suggest that we um continue on because we really didn't get to uh Mr. Henderson's allegations of why they are wrong with the retaliation and harassment. He was addressing the
fraudulent inconsistent uh receipts. Uh I I would hear it out uh from both sides and then we can deliberate and if we want to have a more extensive legal discussion maybe that's best in close. Um,
I think we're going to be doing we're not rehapping the hearing. Um, which is essentially what you're, if I heard you correctly, that's essentially what we'd be doing is having another hearing when that hearing has already taken place with regard to each
of those counts in front of the rent leveling board. My understanding, the last time I was here with front of the rent leveling board and Mr. Henderson expressed that he was intending to file this appeal. He was told by uh Councilman uh C council Rodriguez that
the appeal would be um basically for the council members to make the determination as to whether the rent leveling board made an error in their decision without having to rehear. We're not going to put on a trial again. We're not going to >> No, no, no. You're not. But just as if
you were in a court, you can make a a an argument, you know, um I believe these five factors constitute harassment. Um but we're not going to >> but if it's not new information or new allegations or new evidence, then
there's no need for that to be entertained. There's >> actually the the the opposite. We're not considering new we're not considering new evidence, but if there was um a clear
error of the rent leveling board um then that's what we're here to determine. >> No, somebody need this. She probably >> Do you have a grievance against the leveling board or is this an appeal of the le of the determination of the
$17.73 increase? >> No, the $17 increase that is not part of my appeal. That's separate. >> Understood. >> Um, do I have a grievance with the state against the leveling board against two people? Yes. That's separate from this.
However, in term Okay, that's the question for you. That's the answer to your question. >> Th those two those two people are >> uh th the rent leveling board attorney uh Mr. Rodriguez and Mr. Sto for
comments that were made during the rent leveling board that were inappropriate. And as the attorney mentioned in terms of the fraudulent document, she is correct. I did have the opportunity to ask the the landlord questions when he
was on the stand. However, part of that grievance is about I was cut off during my argument while he was on the stand and I was not allowed to finish. That is part of my grievance with the state in
terms of now the state says there is probable evidence and they are going to conduct an investigation. That is the letter that I'm giving here because her testimony >> we're not hearing anything about >> I I understand there's a
side of you know I filed a grievance with the state I have one with the superior court so I'm trying to figure out where now the councilman the council members stand in making any decision with regard to the rent leveling board. I mean, if he had files a grievance with the state, where does that put you in
terms of, let's say, making a decision at this point? Does it even matter? >> We we haven't >> Yes, I agree. And I'm concerned that we have recognized too many of my follow
at least we might be going world beyond my own confidence in terms of determination of of what should or should not be the case here. Um it seems to me on one hand that the $17 is dimminimous but Mr.
Donovan Mr. Mr. Henderson, excuse me, um has made it clear that that doesn't that's not the main complaint that he has. His main complaint is against two individuals who acted inappropriately, the lawyer and the chairman. However,
that is not within our competency. If you get if the health issue tonight is two members of the rent leveling board, why is it necessary for the attorney for the landlord to be here? It's has the issue is not the $17. The
issue is a grievance against the leveling board. So what does it have to a to do with this the landlord at this hearing >> for >> the grievance which this is something that's not before the board is any
grievance he has with any member of the rent leveling board or what he did or didn't do before you know with an ethics um complaint. We shouldn't even be looking at that. We shouldn't be addressing that. We're not going to address it. Um this is simply, you know,
the the tenant filed an appeal alleging um that the uh rent leveling board made errors uh in connection with their findings on fraudulent documents, harassment, um and retaliation. there's a submission
in your packets um which outlines uh the argument which um if I you know it it's basically um that the landlord's son became you know angry
and and wanted to raise rent uh and then really talks a lot about the documents um so and and that's really the basis um of this appeal and I don't
you know the the the papers are here the the presentations are really just meant to be highlights of what's already here council president if I may >> one moment >> just just to the attorney
>> please forgive Councilman. >> Yes. Um maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see anything from the rent leveling board themselves in this packet. >> No, this is simply um
>> so the reason why I asked that question >> um even even if it was in our privy, we wouldn't be able to make a determination on any wrongdoing without information from this is all based on Mr. Henderson's view of so we wouldn't have
anything from the rent leveling and if I may and so one like I said even if it was in our privy which is not I I think that the decision that's at hand and and this is just me you're the attorney and you can guide us the right way
is the increase which was the action the only action I see was taken by the rent leveling board was to to and actually it was favorable to the client with the $17. So again, I'm I stand with my
colleagues. I don't have a clue at this point of what our task is tonight. I I don't >> Yes. >> No. Council, please. >> So So I I just want to get a a clear
understanding. Um, and as council president uh articulated, Mr. Henderson has already said the increase is not an issue. >> That's correct. The attorney for the client has clearly stated that her client um they've I'm sorry, the rent
leveling board already determined that the increase for whatever reasons, they took in consideration all of those documents and the actions according to the the representing attorney all the actions of her client and they
determined $17 would be the increase. So once again, council president, um I just want to be clear on what we are hearing. >> Well, there are three the three basises for the appeal are the fraudulent and inconsistent receipts, which in any
there's really there's nothing you can do about that, and it's mood issue. Um the retaliation and harassment. Um they made a determination. Um you know, I I've reviewed the submission as it is. I don't see anything indicative of any
retaliation or harassment and I guess the the reliance is on the provision in our municipal code um which um prohibits harassment and that the rent leveling board actually did take jurisdiction of the issue and make a determination. The
practical effect however to uh Mr. Henderson would be nothing because there's no relief that they could afford him in connection um with that determination. And um I I would just if we're going to get too further along,
maybe we should go into an executive session to discuss, you know, legalities. But um >> would that would that need to be a request from a council member >> to go into close session? >> Yes. >> Yeah. Well, it's up to it's up to the
chair to determine if we should go in that direction and I would >> um >> suggest that I think we have a little bit more to explore council as a as a public body. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um >> I'm fine with that. So that that that wouldn't afford any relief to to the tenant. And what I was
going to say is that the you know with respect to factual findings um of course the rent leveling board as any underlying finder of fact cuz they heard the testimony. They they reviewed the whole record and we only have you know
what's what's before us which you know um has a has a little bit uh in it but they're entitled to some difference. >> According to what we've heard there are three issues. Fraud is one
which clearly this council is not confident to determine. The second is >> retaliation which I don't know if it's been shared to the council what that retaliation has is or has been. And the third
>> and the third was harassment and again we've heard no testimony on that. Um we are not this body is not supposed to identify new information but rather go over existent information that was provided.
Is there anything ma'am from your from the uh landlord's point of view anything further you can share with us that would one part of me says that this is a clear issue of of constitutional infringement of the rights of an individual that
there's any number of things and I don't know what any of them mean. I'm not an attorney. I don't I don't suppose that I want to be. My daughter-in-law is an attorney. My brother-in-law is an attorney. My brother's an attorney. I've got enough attorneys in the government. the booster and one of them is a cop
president. Uh I I don't have any additional information. I just I hate to repeat myself but every all the information and documentations were provided to the rent leveling board. The rent leveling board and Mr. Henderson had benefit of the
documentation exchange of of evidence uh cross-examination of my client from both the rent leveling board and Mr. Henderson. Um, I do uh I don't want to confuse this even more, but from my reading of Mr. Henderson's appeal, it
seems like yes, he's appealing the fraud, retaliation, and harassment, three counts. But when you look at it, uh it seems like the core issue of each uh at the end he writes uh bias and uh
he he claims that the board was bias and improper conduct. and he makes mention to failure of a certain rent leveling board member not recusing himself. So >> I I'm going to intercept you for just a moment because forgive me I I I'm
hearing uh all this as my colleagues as well. Um voluntary boards or established part of our government to involve the citizenry in the decision making affecting them as members of any given
jurisdiction, municipals, county, state, whatever. Um it seems to me that the kind of involvement that we're being asked to adjudicate here is well beyond the competency of any of the founding fathers and mothers in terms of how government should be structured. I can't
imagine for the life of me um how many how many people are sitting on boards like this feeling that they have little knowledge of what's going on or what they're being asked to do or why they're being asked to do it. Um,
I'm I'm debating whether to entertain Councilman Mayor's suggestion that we postpone this hearing for another date to further explore it. Uh, but I'm concerned that by doing such we could provide some basis for in the future of
being just drowned out at these meetings and it's neither time nor competency that this council has. Can you give me any final any final thoughts on this case, ma'am, from your point of view? >> Uh, other than that the there is no new information that was provided by Mr.
Henderson or any new evidence to that would otherwise change the mind of the rent leveling board had they been presented with that information. Um, and that's where we are. We don't we don't have anything further. >> Good deal. Thank you, Mr.
Henderson. Could you give us a brief explanation >> in terms of the retaliation? I did Mr. uh Councilman Love is correct that you weren't provided with information regarding the four hearings which if you
do go into executive uh session I would ask that that information be submitted to you because it's very important to this case. I did argue during the four sessions of December, February, and March, three of the
hearings, that there is a pattern. When you talk about retaliation, you have to show a pattern. There's a pattern. I testified during the hearing that when we did not have heat in the apartment,
we went to the city for help. As a result of that, the landlord said, "I'm not going to fix nothing." He didn't fix anything for over a year. My mother is 86 years old. A 86 year old woman living in an apartment with no heat. I had to
call in the state to force the landlord to fix. That's a pattern. In September of 2025, there was a flood in the apartment. I submitted a letter to the landlord in writing and to the attorney general of
the state of New Jersey. As a result of that, he submitted a invalid lease saying, "We're going to raise your rent to 222%." That's a pattern. July of this month, there's a flood in
the apartment as of right now. I sent all of you an email because I tried to download the pictures which I my my copy at home, my printer at home is not a photo showing water coming from the
ceiling. That's a pattern. I sent you the testimony of the email response to the landlord. The landlord responded back to me on the 10th. I contacted him on the 6th. On the 16th, I followed up with him. when are you coming to take
care of this because we have the heavy rains he said I am busy that is a pattern when Mr. Sto who made inappropriate comments no you don't have access to that
grievance but that grievance show Mr. Henderson had a right as a tenant to crossexamine the landlord, but he was interrupted by the chairman of the rent leveling board for matters that happened outside of the
council's jurisdiction. All these are you file an application with correct >> the September um the September issue in terms of the flood in the apartment that was a part of my original when I came to
the rent leveling board about the rent increase to show that the landlord illegally tried to raise the rent after I questioned question him about the ceiling leaking. The ceiling >> resolved before you went to the rent leveling board, right?
>> Before and during before and during. Yes.