All right, good evening everybody. Hey, we're going to get our uh we're going to get our meeting started. Uh welcome. Today is October 8th, 2025. This is a meeting of the mayor and council of Princeton, New Jersey. Madame Clerk,
could when you're ready. Thank you. Could we uh have the uh statement on the meeting notice? Notice of this meeting was provided in accordance with the requirements of the open public meetings act and state regulations governing public meetings,
including the time, date, and location of the meeting and clear and concise instructions to the public for accessing the meeting and making comments. In addition, the agenda and all related materials were posted electronically and made available to the public on Princeton's meeting portal in advance of
the meeting. Thank you. Brian's going to do the land acknowledgement this evening. We gathered today on the land of the Len Lapi. As members of the Princeton community, we aspire to show appreciation, respect, and concern for all peoples and our environment. We
honor the Lape and other indigenous caretakers of these lands and waters, the elders who lived here before, the indigenous today, and the generations to come. Thank you. Can we have roll call, please? Mr. McDonald, here. Miss Peron Lamrose here. Mr. Cohen
here. Miss Saxs here. Miss Frogga here. Mr. Nulan here. Mayor Freda here. All right. If you're able and you'll like to stand, we'll do the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. All right. First up, we have a proclamation honoring Chief Christopher Tash on the occasion of his retirement.
And I just want to mention that while we're going to read our proclamation, Pam Hirs is here from Senators Wicker's office, and she is handing Chief Tash a proclamation from the New Jersey State Senate. Uh we're not going to read that one also, but we just want to
acknowledge Senator Z Wicker for doing that for the chief. Uh and just anyway, so we're going to do ours and uh Leticia is going to start us off on our uh Yes. Thank you. It's my honor. This is a proclamation from the office of the mayor, Municipality of Princeton,
honoring Chief Christopher Tash on the occasion of his retirement. Whereas the municipality of Princeton is proud to recognize Christopher Tash, Chief of Police for the Mi Municipality of Princeton Police Department for his
dedication to public service on the occasion of his retirement. And whereas Christopher began his law enforcement career with the New Jersey office of the Attorney General in November of 1997,
serving as an investigator within the Division of Criminal Justice and Division of Gaming Enforcement. In January of 2000, Christopher Tash was hired as a patrol officer in the Princeton Burough Police Department
where he distinguished himself through professionalism, integrity, and a strong commitment to community policing. And whereas during his career, Christopher progressed through the ranks of patrol officer, detective, sergeant,
lieutenant, and captain. and throughout each role demonstrated excellence in leadership and innovative problem solving. And whereas as patrol officer, he served as a field training officer, was recognized with the chief's award in
2004 and was certified by the US Department of Justice as a community policing officer. And whereas as detective and detective sergeant, he investigated major crimes, oversaw sensitive juvenile
cases, supervised complex investigations, and served as evidence custodian, ensuring professionalism and integrity in criminal matters. And whereas as sergeant, he supervised units in the
patrol and safe neighborhoods bureaus. mentoring officers, implementing community programs, coordinating the youth police academy, community night out, and school safety initiatives, thereby fostering strong community
police partnerships. And whereas as lieutenant he served as commander for the investigative division which included the safe neighborhoods bureau, the traffic safety bureau, the communications bureau, and the records
bureau, managing critical functions ranging from serious criminal investigations and traffic safety initiatives to communicate communications oversight, public records management, and community outreach. And
whereas as captain, he provided direct support to the chief of police, facilitated collaboration across divisions, oversaw internal affairs, strategic planning, dignitary visits, departmental inspections, and media
relations, and secured valuable grant funding for departmental improvements. And and I got it. And whereas in 2024, Christopher was promoted to chief of police for the municipality of Princeton, where he led the department with vision, professionalism, and
dedication, strengthening community trust, enhancing officer training and wellness initiatives, expanding public safety partnerships, and ensuring the Princeton Police Department continued its tradition of excellence and service to the community. And whereas Chief Tash
is recognized as an accredited chief executive through the New Jersey State Association of Chiefs of Police, reflecting his commitment to the highest standards of leadership and professionalism, excellence in policing. And whereas Chief Tash has served with
distinction for more than 28 years in law enforcement, including 26 years of service with the Princeton Police Department, earning the respect of colleagues, community members, and partner agencies alike. And whereas Christopher Tash has served the community of Princeton with pride and
upon the occasion of his retirement, he is deserving of recognition and the highest commendation. Now therefore, be it resolved, I Mark Freda, mayor of Princeton, and the council of Princeton, County of Mercer, state of New Jersey, extend, sorry, extend the municipality's humble
expression of appreciation and sincerest congratulations to Chief Dash. We offer our best wishes for a long, happy, and healthy retirement. Thank you, Chief. Perfect. Thank you. Okay, next up, um, announcements and reports.
Any council announcements or reports? Sorry. Okay, thank you. No. Uh, okay. No announcements or reports. Great. And um, are we doing the best practices? We are mayor. Uh unfortunately Sandy is under the weather
and she has asked me to do it. Uh so if you don't mind I will uh so the best practices inventory has been around for over 10 years. Um and the state requires that we discuss it with council. There does not need to be a vote. Copy of the inventory is in the
packet for review. Uh the best practice inventory includes uh numerous areas, budget, capital projects, emergency services, personnel, procurement. Um and there are 70 questions. Not all of the questions are scored. There are
unscored questions that sometimes make their way into a subsequent year's uh best practices uh questionnaire. U out of the 70 questions, there are 43.5 total points you can get. If you are uh only get 31 points or less, you lose uh
some state funding. Uh we are at 42 points uh with our answers uh here. There were only two questions that we answered no to. And in speaking with Jeff uh me, Jeff, and Sandy were talking about this and we think uh one of them, one of the two nos may be a yes. So we
would only have one uh no, and it has to do with uh contracts posted on the website. So, uh, other than that, do you have a copy? And if you have any questions, I'm happy to address them. Okay. Thank you. Any council questions on on that? We've been doing pretty good
on that. Yeah. Pretty steadily year after year. We have. Yes. Okay. Terrific. Thank you. Um, next up, we have a work session and uh on municipal transit services. Michelle, are you gonna Yeah. So I'll um just give a brief uh so
at a previous work session um we uh council agreed to engage Taos advisors. Uh so they're here tonight. Um they've prepared an implementation plan for the new bus route uh that they're going to present tonight. This responds to the
transportation needs identified in the Nelson Nygard study. Um, Telus has developed a proposed route designed to serve multiple user groups, including residents of multif family developments adjacent to the shopping center who seek access to Nassau Street in the Dinky, as
well as employees, visitors, and other residents who utilize the Dinky for commuting purposes. The proposed route will also provide expanded local mobility options for residents wishing to travel within town uh without relying on a car. So this initiative represents
an important step towards advancing our goals, Princeton Council's goals and Princeton's broader goals of fostering a more sustainable and less car centric town. So thank you. Welcome to Telus. Uh Matt Thomas and George, forget your last name, but welcome.
Thank you. Thank you all. Am I on? All right. Thank you. Sorry. Appreciate uh everybody's time. Uh Mr. Mayor, council members, thank you for having us again. I'm Matt Thomas. This is George Piper. We're Telos Adviserss. Um, we're
a strategic advisory firm based here in New Jersey that focuses on infrastructure and transportation for closer. Even closer. Yeah, it's on. Yeah, it it is on. I'm just uh Yeah, unfortunately, you have to almost eat the microphone to for it to work.
I'm also technologically inept. So, if if I break anything else, just tell me. Uh but for purposes of this I'll also introduce George um who and share a little bit about his background. He was formerly the head of bus operations at New Jersey Transit and spent over 40 years of his career uh in bus
operations. As council member Lamrose said, we were asked to help think about the feasibility and implementation of a potential new bus route. If it's okay if you all take somewhere between five and seven minutes kind of run through some of what we found, what we might
recommend for consideration uh and then can open it up for questions, conversation, discussion. Does that sound okay to everybody? Wonderful. So, just by way of background, uh just to capture this and make sure everybody's on the same page, obviously the municipality of Princeton
has a long-standing commitment both to public transit and to sustainability. We are here on the back of some exceptional work that was done uh by members of the municipality and by Nelson Nygard to collect community input to do a robust assessment of transit
patterns of densities. Uh and building on that, I think one of the main takeaways from that work was that there's a strong desire uh for more connectivity, more transit routes between a few locations in particular, namely the Princeton station, the Dinky
Stop, downtown corridor on Nassau Street, and the Princeton Shopping Center. Uh there has been a I think a great deal of success that the municipality has had in receiving non-t taxpayer funding to support any number of transit enhancement or sustainable
transit projects which creates the opportunity for a pilot. And tonight what we want to do is review some of what we found around the feasibility of adding a new route and then of course open this up for discussion and conversation. Just to recap things quickly and the the terms we'll use here very much up for
debate. There'll be some branding that happens subsequently, but very quickly by way of background, the current route, which we'll we'll call the local, we wouldn't propose changing at all. It's a relatively long route. It has a large number of stops, but it
serves a very important community. It picks up people from a number of critical locations, whether that's affordable housing, senior housing, connects to a number of important locations. And what we understand is that this group has heard very clearly.
residents value this service highly. Uh so it's long, but it's fit for purpose. What we'd suggest in the in the vein of expanding transit is what's up on the screen now, which we would call, yeah, maybe quote unquote the express. This
would be a faster route with fewer stops that begins at Bedinki, stops in a number of locations along Nassau Street, ends at the shopping center, uh the apartment complexes near the shopping center, and then returns effectively by
the same route. Um, we could envision this running Monday to Saturday uh on a roughly 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. cycle recognizing that folks who are commuting and want that connection to New Jersey Transit would benefit from that. You might think about a slightly different schedule on
Saturdays uh for the same reasons, but uh by and large that would be it. And it would run on about 45minute frequencies. That's about as fast as you can get it while still connecting all three of those locations. As we mapped out the stops here in the specific locations, I think two really
salient factors to point out. One is that all the stops we would propose are existing bus stops. Uh they're places where either Tiger Transit or New Jersey Transit stops today. So we know that they're locations a bus can safely pull over, safely load and unload passengers.
There's the ability to do that without causing additional traffic congestion. And secondly, they provide pretty comprehensive coverage of stops along the route. The little circles on this screen represent about a quarter mile walking radius from the stops, which our
experience would suggest is about as far as somebody is typically willing or able to walk to catch a bus. Um, the only place you don't have that sort of level of coverage is on the university campus itself, which is obviously a different population and served by a fairly robust service with Tiger Transit.
What I just put up here now is just where you see the two systems overlapping. Obviously, there's some connection points between the two uh along Nassau Street, uh Palmer Square, the post office, Spruce Circle, and then up at the shopping center. But this is what the system would look like if the
council moves forward with a pilot uh when you put the two together. So, that's the route. Let me just talk briefly about how we might contemplate approaching this or how Princeton might contemplate approaching this. So we would propose piloting this, right? To
collect the type of data that you need to really assess whether this is something you want on an ongoing permanent basis to make tweaks and modifications to the system. Our recommendation would be a 12-month pilot that does a couple things. Uh one, it gives you sufficient time to really
assess usage and usage patterns. It accounts for some of the seasonality if it comes from living in a environment where the seasons are just different from a weather perspective. Also on a university's university town where there's different patterns over over different periods of time given professors, students, graduate students,
etc. Uh we think the cost would be of a ballpark of $400,000 for one year based on prior bids for similar proposals, existing contracts, uh general inflation. Um, and then we would suggest evaluating this on an ongoing basis,
doing pulse checks, checking writership, looking at dashboards, but really doing a formal sort of assessment of how the pilot has progressed in October to give you sort of sufficient time and enough data on key factors like wrership, cost per ride, the demographics of people who
are riding it, feedback from users as to whether this is something you want to continue. In terms of funding, as I mentioned at the outset, Princeton obviously has a number of funds that have been committed uh to the municipality
uh which can be used for a range of purposes to expand transit uh in the community or make transit more sustainable in the community. Uh the university voluntary payment, some developer agreements, uh parking revenues. Um, we understand that there
is about one a little bit under $1.1 million from those sources on hand today and another 1.2 million that's been committed. Obviously, those funds, as we understand it, are meant to invest in multiple programs, multiple initiatives, but it provides a non- taxpayer source
of revenue that could be used to run a pilot. And then we would posit that any sort of extension or expansion would be contingent, of course, on pilot success. and then a funding source uh not derived from sort of taxpayer fees that would
enable it to continue. And finally, just to touch quickly on implementation, there's more details that would sit behind this. Uh but there's really a few things that we would recommend, some of which are actually agnostic to to piloting a new route. So there's some steps that could
be taken to further boost reliability. A lot of progress has been made here uh related to existing contracts and enforcement of early departures that yeah help existing users and future users that have a more on-time experience. There's if service expansion is something the municipality wants to
pursue a number of steps related to that. There's branding and awareness to make people more aware of the transit offerings which would include some experienced Princeton sort of efforts to rebrand the MUN uh in a in a more recognizable user-friendly way and then the updated signage documentation etc
that would follow from that. Uh and then there's the actual sort of passenger experience the installation of signage the updating of maps and schedules which whatever vendor selected you would do. And then there's some additional things like digital displays where there's separate funding that could be used to
support that. So I'll stop there. Thank you for letting me go on for a few minutes and would love to take any questions or or any discussion you folks would like to have. Thank you David. Thanks. I have a couple of questions. Um
first of all um you have the metrics for evaluating the pilot. Um it would seem we would want to have before data as well as after data. Is that data already been collected? And when would the before data be shared just as a
comparative thing at various points or Yeah. So the before data your best benchmark is the current route. Right. So you look at things like writership. You have about 90 90 91 boardings a day on your current route. So you'd want to see something higher than that. Right. Right. or maybe you'd even normalize it
per hour and then slightly higher than that. Cost per ride currently is around $13, a little bit under $13 per trip, right? So again, you would want to see a number lower than that to say this new route has been successful. The survey I think is a little bit more subjective
than objective, right? But I think you'd want to survey sort of users and potential users to see if they value the service. They like the stops. They find it meets their needs. And then sort of assessing demographics, we would say that's probably something you would do in partnership with a vendor. To really
ask the question is are the types of individuals you anticipated the individuals who are using the service. For example, is it being used by commuters or is it principally being used by students who are also served by Tiger Transit? and and do you like that sort of outcome and profile?
Okay. Does that make sense? Yeah. Yeah. Uh second question, um I don't know if we have a transponder on the current MUN bus. I know the university does have transponders and tripshot app. Is that something? And I
noticed that it wasn't on your list of, you know, information uh sharing with riders. So, is that something we do currently? Is it something that we would do as part of this? Uh, yes and yes. So, you want to you have a transponder on your current bus,
a GPS transponder. Um, you would want to put that in the RFP and the contract for the new service and have the same thing. We looked at some alternatives to tripot. I know there's limitations. The reality is there's no slam dunk from an app perspective. You have a partnership
with Princeton University is highly beneficial. You get benefits of scale. There there are other apps out there that do similar things and have a slightly different set of pros and cons. U but there's there's not something that in our experience is a step function better um without getting into extreme
costs or custom development to replace tripshot. But but everything you just said about ensuring there's a GPS uh ensuring that that links to the app, ensuring that the vendor is sending the new routes into the API feed so that it gets picked up by Google Maps and other things is is absolutely part of this and
very important. Great. And my last question, uh there was a footnote on the funding page about the um dedicated funding for the EV buses, the purchase order for the EV buses. Uh, and that's to be reimbursed
by Reggie. Um, I if we don't get those EV buses, which I understand is been proving to be difficult, is that funding at all transferable or does that just evaporate because we didn't get the EV buses?
Yes. So, the So, I'll answer it in two parts and tell me if I answered your question correctly. Of that 1.1 million, 1.06x, 066. $480,000 of that is encumbered in that purchase order for the buses, but it's still in Princeton bank accounts as we
understand it. About $380,000 of that would be reimbursed via the Reggie Grant uh after that transaction closes. If you do not purchase the EVs, yes, that Reggie Grant expires. Okay, does that answer the question?
Yes. Thank you. Okay. Do we have other questions or com? Mia. Okay. Um I thought we had basically given up on the EV buses and that we were moving on from that. That was my sense that was not going to be possible.
Second, I don't know why I mean we we if we're hedging our bets on a Reggie Grant, we do have a very close gubernatorial race with one uh candidate who just announced recently that he's going to pull us out of Reggie on day one. So, if there's if we need to, you
know, secure any funds that uh you know, we just it's a very close race. Anyway, those those are my comments questions. Well, and council president, just for clarity, the Reggie grant is not included in these figures. That's sort of additional funding, but obviously
it's tied to a very fixed purpose. It it can only be used for one thing, right? And in terms of um using the Reggie grant and procuring the electric vehicles, um I think the decision has been made to
see how the market plays out with a vendor to see if um they are capable of supplying the EV vehicles within our time commitment. um but also to get
through this process and see where um it makes sense to have EV vehicles or does it make more sense to go with uh a gas powered vehicle. So right now it's
it's a little bit flexible. We still are in process to secure the EV vehicles um because we don't have to pay until we receive it's it's very flexible at this point. Our our delivery time I think is
somewhere mid next year at this point for those buses. Thank you. Yeah, I we have nothing to lose by keeping our you know our possibility of getting them. So, we haven't obligated anything. If they
come, they they're delivered and and that's important because when we do the RFP, we need to have some flexibility in that. But right now, we have nothing to lose by just keeping it out there. Okay, other questions or comments? Mayor just and this might have been
covered and I was paying real careful attention but in next steps for implementation considerations you have minimize early departure focus in contracting and discussion. What exactly do you mean by that? Yeah.
So, one of the findings Nelson Nygard had is that there was a community desire for greater levels of reliability on the existing bus route. One of the things we observed is that the one of the bigger things that's um driving that
is buses departing slightly early from their stops. As a general matter, you'd rather have a bus arrive or depart slightly late than slightly early. If you think of the way people use buses, they expect it to arrive at a certain time. There's the ability in the new RFP
to put that in explicitly as a contract provision and attach sort of penalties to it. And there's the ability at your next renewal of your current contract to do the same thing. Um, there's been good progress already as we understand it just from conversations. You have a very responsive vendor currently. Um, so
hopefully you would never have to use a penalty, but you could give yourselves an additional tool uh to try to enforce that and drive increased reliability. Thank you. Thanks for asking that, Leon. I was going to ask that myself. Any other questions or comments?
Anything else that you were hoping we would ask you that? Uh, no. That's great. Diana, anything? Okay. Thank you very much. Um, thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. I I just want to thank Deanna and Jim too for all your persistence
working with the consultants and uh it it's taken quite a bit. Do we have um Go ahead then. We'll go ahead with the RFP. So, thank you. Thanks for being here. Yes. Thank you. All right. Next up, our deputy
administrator health officer, Mr. Ger, is going to talk about short short-term rental stuff. I thought I was going to have the the short one, but I guess I'm not going to. Um, all right. Good evening, uh, mayor and council. Thank you very much for, uh, giving me the opportunity to
speak on short-term rentals and the work that's been done thus far. Uh the purpose of tonight's work session is to review the progress of the short-term rental workg group, highlight key key policy decisions requiring council's
input, and outline uh proposed next steps in advancing uh this initiative. Short-term rental conversations in Princeton trace back several years. Um, in October of 2018, for some background, New Jersey enacted a state law imposing
taxes on transient accommodations, which also allowed local jurisdictions to enact ordinances and taxes. By 2019, conversations began with local residents uh who were raising questions around short-term rentals in Princeton,
including how they would be regulated moving forward. At that same time, uh, our office of rental housing in Princeton was going through reorganization and restructuring, ultimately moving from fire safety to the health department. And shortly after that, as we all well
know, uh, the pandemic shifted much of our focus to immediate public health needs. Um, so as a result, many of those early conversations were put on hold during that time. SDRs uh resurfaced a few times in the years that followed, but it wasn't until our uh mayor and council goal setting
session that we formally made this a priority. Early in 2025, we created a dedicated short-term rental workg group bringing together staff from administration, health, engineering, planning, zoning, rental housing,
Mayor Freda, Councilman Nulan, and Councilman Cohen. The team researched and reviewed how other municipalities manage short-term rentals while also identifying what steps would be we would need to take locally to establish clear goals and effective regulations for Princeton.
When the work group came together, we outlined four primary goals um for developing a local short short-term rental ordinance. First, to ensure public safety through inspections and clear enforceable requirements. Second, to preserve neighborhood
character and address concerns raised by residents. Third, to maintain housing availability for long-term renters and potential home buyers. And finally, to balance those interests of property owners, visitors, and the broader community with a focus on the missing
middle. With these goals in mind, the team began extensive research into how other municipalities across New Jersey have approached short-term rentals. We reviewed ordinances from Asbury Park, Hamilton, Pennington, Trenton, Atlantic City, and several others. Members of the
short-term rental work group also met with officials from Asbury Park to discuss their implementation process and lessons learned. Through the work, we found that more than 25 municipalities across the state currently have short-term rental ordinances in place, which helped inform our approach locally. Um, alongside this policy
research, there was parallel work being done with a group, a subcommittee group that also explored software platforms to support efficient and transparent administration. Because short-term rentals are transient and often difficult to track, uh, various types of software provide a
reliable way to monitor listings in real time, manage digital registrations, and streamline inspection and renewal workflows. Ultimately, we determined uh that a combination approach of two separate softwares, Open Gov and Decard, uh would
best meet Princeton's needs. Open Gov is already uh currently used by rental housing for long-term rental inspection registrations, inspections, and renewals. And since Princeton already contracts with them um for the software and across several other departments, there's no additional cost uh that would
be associated with that. On that front, the monitoring platform called Decard, which costs $5,000 annually, um, offers strong tools for compliance tracking, and I'll get into that a little bit more in a future slide. And then regarding staffing, uh, over the past few years, we've been strengthening our rental
housing division. Um, right now we have a full-time inspector along with two part-time stipen positions, and their flexibility has really been instrumental in getting our inspections into a place where they need to be. And again, I'll speak more to this when I get into some of the revenue and costs associated there.
So, before we actually get deeper into the draft itself, um I want to take a moment just to provide a brief overview of really what what went into developing the ordinance itself. As a group, we carefully considered what components should be included to make the ordinance both effective and fair. Based on our
research and discussions, we structured the ordinance around six key elements. Regulations that establish clear boundaries for short-term rental operations. Permit applications and associated fees to ensure proper registration and accountability. Application and inspection processes to
verify safety and compliance. Issuance of permits and appeal process for transparency and due process. Operational requirements for hosts to maintain neighborhood standards and violations and penalties of support enforcement and consistency. Um, all these elements were designed to be
reasonable, enforceable, and align with both the state law and a potential local ordinance. So, looking at some of the main components of the ordinance draft that was put together, um, we feel that these are straightforward and align aligning with Princeton's existing long-term
rental process, following Lisa Maddox's legal legal guidance and reflecting on how other municipal u municipalities manage their short-term rentals. Uh the permit and registration fee mimics that of our long-term rentals. Uh there are many properties that both are are uh
suited as both a short-term and a and a long-term rental. So for consistency sake, we kept it at this. But again, this was just part of the draft ordinance and we can discuss that further in terms of the fee structure. Um in terms of the application process and inspections, it would follow that of many of our other departments in terms
of registration, inspection, an notification of approval, denial, and then an annual renewal. Um after this process they would be issued a permit or we'd go into an appeal process uh where the homeowner would be provided with operational requirements. Another component is the
occupancy tax which I mentioned earlier. Uh it's also included as part of the state law. Uh again we'll get into that in more detail in the next step in ter terms of revenue and costs. Um, in terms of the operational requirements and how they would work in practice, um, our
current rental housing staff would be able to handle both the registration process and the inspection requirements as we currently stand. The open gov system would help streamline the process by automating much of the clerical work along with making it easily achievable for SDR operators themselves. Uh once
properties are registered, inspections would be scheduled and uh owners would still be able to operate their short-term rental units between the registration and the inspection. This slide gives us a broad picture of the potential revenue impact and it is a broad picture. So uh just bear with me
and I'll explain a little bit and obviously we'll go through some questions and and comments. Um, the numbers are meant to show the general scale, not exact figures since they're based on publicly available data from sources like AirDNA, which is a short-term rental monitoring platform that pulls uh listing numbers from host
sites. And sometimes they can include duplicate listings when a property appears on both um Airbnb and Verbbo or other sites. So, we're treating this as a high level estimate. Uh, once we have a monitoring system in place, we would have a much more accurate and detailed um idea of what we're looking at from a
revenue perspective. Uh so while they're broad, we do expect that the actual revenue numbers will fall somewhere in between these ranges. Um in terms of cost of municipality, as I mentioned, those will be min minimal approximately $5,000 a year for the sur the monitoring program uh monitoring program for the
STR sites. And then in terms of framing how we came up with these figures, uh they're based on numbers number of listings we've identified which ranges depending on the data source as I mentioned along with the median revenue per listing and occupancy rates. The occupancy rates will vary depending on
whether short-term rentals are limited to principal residences, which again um we'll discuss a little bit more as something that council will need to consider. Um when we went through these statistics, it's important to note that um it's very difficult to get exact
numbers unless you're actually monitoring it yourself through a surveillance company. um there are duplicate listings and unless you're actually doing real-time monitoring with a registration process, you really won't know until you get involved. So, this is more kind of food for thought for council to understand that once the tax
um uh was initiated as part of the ordinance if and when that it were to pass, um this revenue would be coming in as part of that short-term rental tax, the transient tax um that the state allows as part of that law. Um, am I okay to go to the next slide and I can
come back to this one? Is that okay? All right. Um, so this is one of the key considerations that the short-term rental work group uh was discussing and we wanted to make sure that we gave um the entire council ample time and and uh discussion to consider. Um, this is the
longest slide, so just please bear with me. We're wrapping up, I promise. Uh, so this topic to consider is the principal residence requirement. Um, if it's included in the short-term rental ordinance, it would require that short-term rental units must be the principal residence of the owner or long-term lease, which is identified on
the property owner or long-term lease's driver's license, voter's registration card, state identification card, etc. Um, there's four options to consider if we were to um add the principal residence uh portion of the short-term rental ordinance. Option one, and these
are in no particular order, uh requires that the short-term rental unit be the principal residence of the owner or long-term lease effective immediately with the passage of the ordinance. Uh the benefit here is obviously it preserves neighborhood integrity and if housing affordability by preventing uh you know investors from purchasing
properties solely to operate them as short-term rentals. But on the downside obviously existing non-principal short-term rentals uh would not be allowed to renew their non-principal short-term rentals or continue to operate once the ordinance would be passed which obviously could be disruptive. Also, tax revenue would drop
significantly uh with this option based upon the previous slide because there would be fewer short-term rentals and lower occupancy rates in Princeton's short-term rental stock. Uh second option is more of a um kind of a uh phase out period of 12 to 24 months. So,
it's similar to option one, but it provides a grace period uh to remove properties from the STR market and either convert to long-term rentals or make it a principal residence. Uh the advantage here is that it gives owners time to either remove the property from
the market or convert it or make it their principal residence. But the disadvantage would be similar to option one where eventually those existing non-principal short-term rentals would no longer be allowed to function. Um the third option is actually currently drafted in the short-term work group draft. Um, this would allow
non-principal short-term rental uh rentals to exist under the ordinance, but upon transfer or ownership of a non-principal resident short-term property, uh, the right to operate would immediately uh, terminate. So, in this option, the new owner, if they decide to operate the STR, uh, the property would
need to be their principal residence and a new registration would be required. So essentially it would allow things to continue status quo for owners um as it allows for the existing non-principal STRs to operate unless there was some type of uh transfer transfer or sell. Um
if it were selected for inclusion in the ordinance, it would potentially be the most appealing since it would allow non-principal STRs to maintain their current operation until the property were sold or transferred. Um, this option does require some monitoring by municipal staff who would have to track
compliance based upon deed or transfer dates, adoption of the ordinance, etc. Uh, but with the surveillance software, we'd probably be able to do that. And then option four would exclude the principal residence uh entirely, and that would mean that short-term rentals could operate regardless of whether
properties uh the property is the owner or the long-term lease's legal address. It's likely the smoothest path for current non-principal STR operators and brings in the highest tax revenue, but also goes against those initial goals that we outlined uh in one of the first slides. Um, a considerable disadvantage
is that it could limit home ownership opportunities for local residents, especially those who may be lower moderate income. Obviously, could affect neighborhood cohesion and affordability. So, it's kind of the other end of the extreme um of what we've seen. And through some of our short-term rental uh
research, uh there are more towns utilizing some form of principal residence clause um and some degree of it as we mentioned option one through three there. Um so those are the options from a principal residence perspective. I can go back to that slide uh once we
wrap up. This is the final slide here. Um next steps for the short-term rental work group would to take and incorporate council feedback from this evening. Um update the ordinance as needed. Um, we are on pace to, you know, if in fact
council would like to see a first u an introduction for the ordinance, uh, we could still probably do that and make that work before the end of the year and get this implemented early 2026. Um, but ultimately from an operational perspective between open gov and our
staffing, um, we are well set up to be able to handle this if and when council mayor and council decide that they would like to to go ahead with the ordinance. So, thank you. Thank you, Jeff. Okay. Okay. Uh Michelle, thank you Jeff. It's very comprehensive.
Um I just I want to clarify one point to upfront and that is on the owner occupancy requirement. Are we talking about the owner needs to be there during the rental? No. Or does that mean that the owner has to
reside for a certain number of days or months per year as the primary residence? Can you Yeah. So, the owner would not It's a good question. The owner would not have to physically be there at that time. Um, it seems odd because one would think, well, how where would they be going? So,
some individuals, they rent out their property through a short-term rental for a few weeks if they're going on vacation or if they have a work trip, what have you. Um, there's other instances where there might be um you might have a separate uh you know, maybe apartment or something like that on property, you
would be physically there, but we're also opening that up for long-term leases to be able to have this option because our long-term rental renters are typically part of the community, part of the neighborhood. So, this gives them another option to potentially do that. Um, so at this point it would be the
number of days I don't think we have in the ordinance in terms of how many days you would actually have to physically be there, but that's the way it's defined right now. There I don't know if there's a certain requirement by state law that you have in order to claim your house as a
primary resident, you have to be in it like six months or more a year, something like that. So it may coincide on from a legal basis. Lisa, well, the way we have it drafted is is is focused on, you know, the principal residence would be that person's the
property at which they have their, you know, driver's license, address, or their state ID. Um, I'd have to look and see exactly if there's some specificity in the law in in that portion of the law, but um but basically
the primary residence, it can only a person can only have one primary residence. So, in terms of them physically having to be there, I'll have to look. We'll have to look and see to make sure you this this doesn't get abused. Yeah, I I think you we need to have that in the ordinance. I think it would have
to be really clear because I know like there's a lot of there's a lot of real interest and it's really growing, this whole house swapping thing where people can, you know, like there's not time shares anymore, but you can use your house like a time share. So, this would fall into the short-term rental um
agreement. Um you can come back to me. I have some other questions, but I can't think of Sure. Uh David and then Leighton. Thanks. Um two things. I remember uh in the early days when I was
gnawing on this bone. Um one of the concerns was collection of the occupancy tax. Um, when the units are rented through one of the online marketplaces like
uh Airbnb, they actually do the collection. But if it's rented in another way, they don't do the collection. And the question is, h, you know, do we feel prepared or ready to
take on that task from a sta staffing standpoint? I don't think you talked about it uh during the presentation, Jeff. Yeah. So, I mean, another great point in terms of the tax collection with the surveillance software, it provides a lot of information in terms of what
platforms they are being rented through. So, with that information, we could determine whether or not if it's obviously being rented through Airbnb and Verbbo, um we would know that it was being collected. If it was not and we saw that a large percentage of those dates were going through another pro
another platform, we could follow up, especially if they did not automatically charge. Uh on Airbnb, it is it's pretty interesting. If you go on there and you see towns in New Jersey that are collecting this, you'll see it pop up under the breakdown of costs. Um it'll have the state tax, it'll have the local
tax. And Airbnb has been very good in terms of, you know, once you notify them of this, they automatically put it on there. So there's a lot less to worry about there. Uh but with the surveillance platform, I wouldn't I wouldn't be too concerned with those other sites and missing that. Right. And that's obviously another conversation
with Sandy, but uh from what we've heard through the larger sites, it's not an issue. Terrific. And then uh the other thing is more of a comment than a question. Um, you know, in terms of the estimates of what the revenue could be, I think that
we may have more what I will call intermittent rentals in town, you know, rather than people who are renting a couple of rooms or or a half of a duplex or an ADU
um year round where the 79% occupancy rate that you've assumed may be accurate. I think we're going to see a lot more professors going away for the summer and renting for a couple months. Um people renting to cash in on the reunion market, you know, just for a
week. Um and so the comment is um don't count on quite as much income as was estimated, but um at the same time, I'm excited about the potential for the income from the occupancy tax. And I don't know if people remember as as
chair of the finance committee a couple years I unofficially awarded Jeff the award staff award for the most money saved when we changed from uh uh corner house to Catholic charities and you might win the prize again this year Jeff
for identifying the most potential new income. We tried to be honest and obviously the high end of the range we're going to showcase that just like the low end of the range. Um yeah I think the 79% occupancy is probably a little high. Uh but again the revenue also might be a little bit skewed there. So somewhere in
that range. Overall I think you guys did a great job and thank you so much for the effort. Thanks Leon. Thanks Mayor. Yeah first I want to say thank you Jeff Alysa start naming people you miss people but
the whole team David Mark for for for helping bring this thing along. I want to refocus though for a minute. uh you know, we looked at the numbers, the revenue, the 3%. Let's let's really go back to the basics of like
why regulating short-term rentals are important. Um, you know, we talked about owner occupancy. This is critical because let's think about it for a minute. We're trying to build affordable housing here. We're trying to make Princeton more accessible to more
people. But yet if we have people with the ability who do not live here, who could live anywhere, Burbank, Africa, New Zealand, and own a home here and put it on a rental market as
transient home. They compete with our hotels. They compete with people who want to grow old here. They compete with people who want to raise a family here. They compete with everything that builds community. and what we stand for here in Princeton.
And again, we're not trying to make money through this endeavor. We're trying to make peace. We're trying to build community. And if you live here and this is your permanent residence and your license says you live at 230 Birch
Avenue like I do and you want help to raise a family to grow old in place by using your land and your property as an Airbnb, you should be able to do that. But if you do not live here and all you want to do is churn and live wherever you want
to live and create a problem for the neighborhood people here in this community. And I'm not saying it's always a problem, but you have to make an investment if you want to be here. And as far as the two, the third and the fourth option of continuing to have
Airbnbs until they're sold, that is perpetual. And to me, if that is the option we are going to end up with, there's no reason starting to go down this path at all because we got to nip this in the bud. If you want to have an
Airbnb here, you should have a commitment here. You should live here. Your license should say you live here and then you can churn. You can rent your house because if you do that, you're going to look out for your neighbors and your neighborhood. We have
got to stop new construction here in Princeton, New Jersey that has no intention at all of having a family live there, but is a boutique hotel operator. We cannot have that. And if and if we don't nip this in the bud and do
something right about this, do something about this right now in the next 25 or 30 years, what we are going to have is a bunch of we're going to have more Airbnbs here than regular livable people and livable units. And people are just
going to work and invest in Princeton, but they're not going to live here. That's not a good look. And I'm hoping that myself and the rest of my council members see this for what it is. We we we have got to move on this in an aggressive way. Thank you.
Thanks, Lee. Um, do we know how many Airbnbs there are currently in Princeton? So, based our best estimated guess is uh from the surveillance platforms that we've met with anywhere from 100 to 150.
um the one that was quoted on there that said up to two something there's got to be duplicates in there. So I think 125 150 is probably accurate. Okay. Um so is this also the maximum amount of tax revenue that can be
generated? It's lower than I 3%. Yes. Yeah. 3% is so that's statutory correct. That's unfortunate. Um okay. Um
what about in terms of the uh time the the different options uh in handling the already existing uh Airbnbs? I'm wondering is there have you Lisa is
there you know I I want to make sure that none of the options were considering and I'm sure you wouldn't have brought them forth if but you know we have to avoid a taking or you know if people have invested you've I just want reassurance that you've explored all Absolutely. There is there is actually
case law the third circuit there was a very detailed case about these exact issues and it dealt with many of the options were that you're considering. So, um I I think really any of the options and and if you're, you know,
looking maybe at two or three, you're you'd you'd be on very firm ground with um even I mean, even if you wanted to outright prohibit, you know, as of day one, all of the short-term rentals, unless they're owner occupied,
you'd be able to do it. You might want to The only caveat would be if there were existing contracts already in place for short-term rentals. That would be the only area that I would tread lightly because you don't want to infringe upon existing contracts. But other than that,
I don't think there's any requirement that you do any anything more than that. So, you're in really good shape legally. Okay. So, um I first Jeff and and uh Leighton and David, thank you for for all the work that that
you put into this and you know obviously it the sooner we handle it the better. Um and I I agree with Leighton having done all this work um let's not spend years deliberating. I think we should choose a path and move forward
expeditiously and we can always um modify if if we want to but I I I hope that we will move forward. Um just expressing my personal preference I think um just left to right it was option two um of the uh 12 like giving
giving the the owner you know I think it was 12 to 24 months or to to uh change the classification but but I also would be open to um when when the unit changes sale you know I'd be open to whatever
you know the consensus was just giving my personal opinion. Um, but I I also want to say like for for the for people who who own Airb Airbnbs in town, there's this is not an attempt to vilify them. I will say that, you know, I have
an Airbnb that's right across the street from me. Um, and of um, one would never know that it's an Airbnb. I just happen to know because I found out uh thirdand but but they've
been very responsible. Um I think there are neighbors in my neighborhood who um are more of a problem than than the Airbnb. So this is um not to in any way pick on Airbnbs, but the point of trying
to maintain the the um our neighborhoods and the and and you know um not just have large swasts of town which which feel like a hotel and and to have people who live in our community who are
committed to being here long term. And um that is what building part of what building community is. So if we can um but I I you know for the same reason that we pass the ADU ordinance, we you know are
very much in favor of people using Airbnbs to access as a as a means to to remain in town to access the equity in their property. Um so we want to make sure not to constrain that in any way, which it sounds like you haven't. Um I
mean you you've really done excellent work to um sort of avoid the the minefields and to to um emphasize the positives which for me are generating tax revenue which we deserve because these are people who are operating a business in Princeton
and they should be paying the appropriate taxes. So those are my more than two cents and Mia thanks for bringing that up. one point when we met with Aspbury Park um they selected a similar option to option three definitely different town different de demographics shore town
however they started with about the same number of short-term rentals um when this law was passed 2019 so we're talking six years and they started with about 150 properties they're down to about two or three remaining that are nonprincipally not principal residences
so if it could give you an idea in terms of what happened there again different town but Um it does slowly, you know, turn that way. Brian, Brian, uh well, thanks, um to everyone who worked on this. Let me echo thanks to
Jeff and your team and to David, Mark, and Leighton. Um I followed almost all of this. Um and it makes a lot of sense. I just have a couple of questions on some of the uh sort of uh intermittent
rental categories that you mentioned. The person who um goes away for a month on vacation. Uh the person who has a work assignment that might be um 30 to 60 days in a different country or a
different city. and then the number of residents who will take advantage of the uh demand for housing during Princeton University reunions and may rent their homes once a year. So, of those I I
don't know how many of them do that through word of mouth, how many do it by newspaper advertising and and web advertising or and how many might use the platforms. But where do those categories of renters fall in this
regime? The way that it's drafted is that it it would every single one would be triggered here under the ordinance. So I I think we even added language most recently. Um, I think in response to Leighton, you had a couple of comments and and we
added language about ensuring that it didn't matter how often the property was rented. But actually, this the state statute disqualifi if you don't rent on an online marketplace, you're not subject to the 3%
occupancy tax. If I remember correctly, that was a that was a key feature of the state legislation. So if you do it word of mouth, we can still regulate and make them, you know, pay the registration fee, but we won't
be receiving any occupancy tax from those. So So do we know um of those intermittent or sporadic renters, how many use the platforms and is it the use of the platform that would mean they have to register and collect the tax?
So, somebody who rents their home, again, the example of one week or 5 days for Princeton reunions, how would they be treated? They would anyway there every they would be treated the same. They I I I was under the impression that
because under the hotel law the even if there's if it's basically everybody has to pay the tax. So, I I'll have to doublech check that. Yeah, please please do because I that's what I remember from the research I did early on. Okay.
And the other thing that I'll say, Brian, is that somebody who's renting by word of mouth, they are off the grid. They're not in any of the Jeff's numbers because those were all pulled from the online marketing sources. So, we have no idea how many people are doing that. We
have no way to track them down and to, you know, bring them into the system. It would be completely on an honor honor system if they did. Yeah. And yeah, as we mentioned earlier with the STRs, due to the transient nature, definitely harder to provide surveillance, which is why we need that
backup system to help there. Uh we come across a number of long-term rentals that just due to their non-transate nature, uh they're unregistered. Uh we'll hear about it through neighbors through complaints. You know, we might come across a property that has complaints on something else and find out it's a long-term rental. we'll work
with the landlord to make sure that it's registered. Um, so in short-term rentals, based upon legal lease's legal guidance, um, if it's word of mouth, I'm assuming they still should be paying the occupancy tax, but clearly the larger platforms are drastically easier to provide monitoring for. Um, and you
also, if you're looking to put your property on there, that's your best option in terms of trying to find people to fill it most of the or, you know, part of the year if you're looking to advertise. So, Okay, Michelle. So, it sounds like I was going to ask
about the admin uh expense to monitor this, but it sounds like it's really going to be kind of through the systems of Airbnb and VBO and that type of thing. I just wonder like I think that they add that tax in. I wonder if they're where that tax is going today.
Do we? So, it's not added in for Princeton specific because Princeton hasn't passed this as part of the ordinance. Once we pass that, it'll go through DCA and then those platforms will be notified. They'll have to add it in and then those payments go to the division of taxation
and then they'll come back to prison. Okay. So, it's pretty seamless in terms of our administration. Yeah. But we have to do the upfront registration fees. So, we'll be doing some admin. That's correct. And then at the end of the year, you know, obviously we work with finance and Sy's office to make
sure that our numbers match up in terms of what's coming in on their end. Okay. My my last comment, I know it's not maybe a major goal, but I do think that the occupancy tax revenue is a goal. I mean, I think it it is something
that I I would personally um suggest being added to the goal list. Um at first, I didn't really understand about the housing availability or the neighborhood character, but I understand that better now. if you're adding in and making a requirement of the owner
occupancy. Uh we just need to figure out a def definition of what that is exactly uh in terms of time frame. But um yeah, I mean it's another it's another tool for people who want to age in place or who maybe can't afford the high costs
here like we did with ADUs. Um so I I you know I I like that. So I don't know a option one two three four I don't know. So I I don't I can't weigh in yet. I have to think about that a little bit more, but thanks. So let me just jump in. So Jeff, first
of all, thank you and all the staff that worked on this because it's a it was a lot of work. So that's deeply appreciated. But I know the entire five years I've been mayor, I've had residents of this town complain about these types of rentals. And some might be in your neighborhood and you don't
notice it. and the people that own it are are good good residents in that regard and considered their neighbors, but there are plenty that are not. And when people are wondering why are there 10 cars parked on the street and I have no idea who's coming and going from a
from a property that that's worrisome. So I think the goals where we're talking about preserving neighborhood character and we're trying to keep the housing stock as robust as possible are great goals. And I think also related to that is just a safety issue because I think when we first started looking at this
quite a while ago, um there were instances where people were renting a basement or whatever and if there ever was a problem, a fire or whatever, people literally had no way out. So there's a whole bunch of reasons why we should do this. And I and I think it's a
it's a good balance between you can still make some money from your property, but you got to be respectful of everything going on around you in your neighborhood. And uh anyway, I would strongly suggest option two, which sets a deadline. I like the 12-month
deadline, but maybe it's 24, but I think 12 months is more than enough time to figure out either you're going to live here or you're going to sell the property. It's not hard to sell a property in Princeton. So, I'm not too worried about somebody if they don't want to make it their principal residence, they can easily sell the property. Um, anyway, that's my three
cents. That's easier. Just two more cents. Uh, so Jeff, uh, and everyone else that worked on it, uh, thank you. Uh David, I recall years ago we at a League of Municipalities conference, we had a meeting with uh an
individual who gave us information on short-term rentals and ever since then I think our f our first year on council. Our first year on council. Yes. And ever since it was something that we had expressed interest in. So thank you for moving it forward now and and doing all
the research. It's it's uh and veryformational and I don't see why we wouldn't want to do that. I think it's definitely something as far as regulating short-term rentals. It's something we we should move forward on. Uh initially I was thinking option one
because you know thinking well we've been talking about it for so long and wanting to do it. Let's let's do it right away. But I do take into consideration how it would be if there's individuals who uh who don't they're not
uh they don't reside they're not it's not the primary residence or they uh you know they just use it as uh as a short-term rental and so I could see where that they would need time to transition. So for that reason I agree
that option two probably makes more sense. uh but and and for all the reasons that were given uh before as far as maintaining the character of our neighborhoods and safety reasons and everything else that's been expressed. I
agree and again thank you for all the work that went into this. Okay, I'm I'm going to end it right now, but I just wanted to make one quick comment about Princeton University and their reunions. You know, we have people here that just
wait and wait for the reunions and they have a beautiful home wherever and they rent the home out for reunion week for $30,000 and they go to France, pay for their vacation, and they come back. That's 3%
that should come into our coffers. So, we made a point when we looked at this ordinance and did our homework to capture the the reunion crowd. So don't sleep on the reunion crowd. That's money we're going to recapture and get back
for for for our communities because they are competing with the graduate and the Nassau in that's money that should come to our coffers. So again, just just keep in mind that this ordinance is is is not against
Airbnbs. is building the character of Princeton and our neighborhood and it and it's keeping the money home and it's allowing people that may be vulnerable to use their properties to stay here longer. This this is a great ordinance and again I want to thank Jeff and your
magnificent crew for nailing the hell out of this. Thank you. Thanks. Okay. I I think you got a good sense of Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. I just wanted to say because I did not weigh in on which option. I'm in support of option two as well.
Thank you, David. Yeah, I think two is the consensus. Well, it's rare that we have a consensus right off the bat, Jeff. I'm going to end on that note. Thank you. Take it while you can. All right. Thanks. All right. All right, we're going to move on to uh we have a
public hearing on ordinance 2516, an ordinance by the municipality of Princeton regulating parking and amending chapter 19 of the code of the burrow of Princeton, New Jersey, 1974. Would somebody Thank you, David. Is there a second?
Thank you, Leticia. And this is uh for the end of Pelum, I think. Just making a no parking zone to make it safer to turn and correct. No parking prohibition on Pelum um on the end where it intersects with
Harrison. Thank you. It's always good to let people know what we're what we're about to vote on. Okay. Any questions or comments up here? All right. Any questions or comments from anybody in the room on this one?
No. Anybody on Zoom have a question or comment on this? All right, seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. And can we have a roll call vote, please? Mr. McDonald, yes. Miss Peron Lamrose, yes. Mr. Cohen, yes.
Miss Saxs, yes. Miss Braa, yes. Mr. Newan, yes. Okay. Thank you. Now, we have a number of resolutions. Resolution 25336. Resolution on the mayor and council of Princeton authorizing the sale of surplus personal property no longer
needed for public use by auction on gov deals. Thank you, Laticia. Brian's got the second. Any questions or comments? All right. All in favor, please say I. I. Resolution 25337, resolution of the mayor and council of Princeton authorizing an increase of
$4,200 to the not to exceed amount for the professional services agreement with Mans Woodward Studios, Inc. for Princeton Fire Department headquarters conceptual designs for a new not to exceed amount of $63,000. Leighton's got the motion. And I'm
sorry, was there another hand up? Michelle's got the second. Sorry. Uh questions or comments. All right. All in favor, please say I. I. Resolution 25338, resolution of the mayor and council of Princeton authorizing an increase of
$20,000 to the not to exceed amount for professional services agreement with appro MC McDermott Mastro and Murphy PC for 2025 labor council legal services for a new not to exceed amount of $72,999.
The TC has got the motion. Leighton's got the second. Questions or comments? All right, seeing none, all in favor please say I. I resolution 25339 resolution of the mayor and council of Princeton authorizing the award of a professional services agreement to Scar
Rinsky uh Hullenbeck LLC for environmental legal and litigation services for an amount not to exceed $100,000. Is there a motion on that? Uh thank you Leon. Is there a second Brian? Thank you. Questions or comments?
All right. Seeing none, all in favor please say I. I I resolution 25340 resolution of the mayor and council of Princeton approving a chapter 159 special budget item NJSDCA DLGS water sewer storm water
improvements/ sewer rehabilitation $810,000. Thank you Leighton. Is there a second? Yes. Okay. Thank you. I'll second. Brian, you get the second. This is $800,000 we're getting from the state that our taxpayers don't have to pay for
sewer work. So we it's a good thing. All in favor, please say I. I. I. Resolution 25341, resolution of the mayor and council of Princeton authorizing the release of a performance guarantee in the amount of 1,926,770.28
to Tune Development Urban Renewal LLC for the Harrison/Thune Multif Family Housing Development Block 7401, lots 1.102 and 1.02. 02 zone Harrison/Turhune Redevelopment. David has the motion.
Michelle has the second. Questions or comments? All right. Seeing none, all in favor, please say I. I. Resolution 25342, a resolution of the mayor and council of Princeton authorizing release of a performance guarantee in the amount of
$65,856 to RPM Contracting LLC for the 900 Herrentown Road Major Site Plan Development Block 901, lot 21, zone S2. Is there a motion on that? Thank you, Leighton. Brian's got the second.
Questions or comments? All right. All in favor, please say I. I I resolution 25343 resolution of the mayor and council of Princeton authorizing the award of a contract with Celco Partnership doing business as Verizon Wireless for the
lease of public property for a wireless telecommunications facility at Princeton Public Library. Is there a motion line? Brian's got the motion. David's got the second. Questions or comments? David. Hallelujah. That took a while. All right. See no
other comments. All in favor, please say I. I. I. Consent agenda, paying bills, uh, refunds, uh, banner over Washington Road. If nobody needs any of those pulled out, Leticia, moving those in block. Yes. Thank you. Is there a second? Thank you,
Leighton. All in favor of those, please say I. I. Okay. Next up, public comments for items not on the agenda. Uh, again, uh, we had the signup sheet. People have signed up. I'll try to call you in that order. You come up. Uh, it'd be great if you'd say
your name, you'd say your address. Um, you don't have to give the number on the street. If you want to give your street, that'd be great. You each have three minutes to speak, and the timer will be up up top. Uh, Karina, I think you were first.
Okay. Can you hear me? Okay. Yes. Perfect. Okay. Hello. Good evening. My name is Karina Heath. I live on Walker Drive. U most of you may have already seen us at the pre uh one of the recent town council meetings, but we're
here on behalf of vote 16 initiative. And for those of you who may not know, our goal is to infranchise 16 and 17 year olds in school board of education um elections. So, my peers and I have been working to meet with school board members, research policy, and build
community support for this issue with which we've seen tremendously. And we even got to lobby at the New Jersey State House, as well as being supported by District 16's very own Senator Andrews Ricker. So, as you've already heard, and will hear again today from other students, we find that our voice
in the educational community is often deferred. Luckily, vote 16 would provide us with the platform that we need to give students a direct say in electing school board members who dictate budgets and curricula that specifically impact our everyday lives. A vote holds more
power than words from a student representative can. Moreover, student representatives, even ones elected by ourselves as students, represent only two seats for the entire student body. and they are often not just overlooked but can even
be censored by the administration. So instead, hundreds of votes from 16 and 17 year olds themselves create a more unified constituency that the school board will have to acknowledge and campaign to disparagers can ask why don't students just speak up to the
school board and why do you need a vote? Well, we as students can bring up issues that we find important to public comment at schoolboard meetings as many times as you as we want, but there's no real incentive for any action to actually materialize until the board members know
their actions will truly impact us, not just as students, but their own seats as well. If the student body's support isn't at stake, then board members simply defer to band-aid solutions and ignore the true complex solutions that students truly see. Furthermore,
offering a secret individual vote to each student creates a more diverse environment where students can feel comfortable to voice their indiv individual concerns and opinions. More importantly, we must look past conventional education within classrooms. Education extends beyond
this school. Research demonstrates that voting is a habit. So, if you start early, it's much more likely to become habitual. That's crucial because votes in today's day and age are vital to our democracy. And more specifically, students will also be able to receive encouragement from the supportive
environment that they have with their household right now. Finally, we should consider the aspect of responsibilities and fairness. Bluntly put, the number of 18 years old is arbitrary and not based on scientific research. Historically speaking, with the 26th amendment, the
age for voting was lowered to 18 as a response to the Vietnam War. And instead, in our modern day and age today, 16-year-olds can drive, hold jobs, pay taxes, and even in some cases be tried in court as legal adults. They should be entrusted with suffrage. We
strongly urge you all to propose a Princeton ordinance in support of vote 16 and open up discussions with our legal teams. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, Sonia is is next. Let me just just as you as you come up when you get to the microphone just adjust it so it's
kind of close to your mouth. If if the if the microphone's not picking you up, the people on Zoom and the recording later on YouTube won't be able to hear you. So, yep, you're good. Perfect. Um, hi, my name is Sonia Ali. I live on Hawthorne A in Princeton. Um, okay.
Um, good evening. I am a junior at Princeton High School and I am here to also speak about vote 16. As you have heard tonight and will hear in the following speeches, my fellow students and I are beyond proud to live in a community and go to a school that promotes civic engagement and responsibility. However, the practice of not allowing 16 and 17 year olds who are
directly impacted by the decisions made by the made by this school board to vote directly contradicts the values that me and my peers have been taught and seen our entire lives. Allowing 16 17-year-olds vote in to vote in schoolboard elections teaches my peers and I in a tangible way that our voices
matter. When students see that their votes can actually shape their everyday lives, whether it's resources for clubs, funding for sports equipment and coaches, or impacting the mental health resources at our school, they actually this teaches students that their vote
matters and their voice matters. It takes voting from an abstract concept that we learn about in civics class to an immediate real um action that people are encouraged to do. This early meaningful engagement can have a powerful ripple effect as data has
shown. Um, experiences from un municipalities that have infranchised younger voters like Tacoma Park, Maryland show that 16 and 17 year olds have actually turned out in higher numbers compared to the rest of the population. Furthermore, when younger people are encouraged and allowed to
vote earlier in life, this promotes habits um and shows that they are far more likely to become lifelong voters and active participants in civic life. Furthermore, starting your voting journey in a schoolboard election, which is a comparatively lower stakes um and the local environment compared to a
state or national election, can make the voting process a little less intimidating for younger voters. At the same time, the real world consequences of schoolboard election um can demonstrate to young voters that their participation has a direct impact. This is especially important as recent
research conducted after the 2024 and 2022 elections have found that voters under 30 are significantly less likely to vote than older voters. In addition, widespread apathy and disillusionment has been growing and likely will continue to grow among college students and generation Z voters. I am sure that
the entire board can agree that this is a significant problem as voting is one of the foundational aspects of our country's democracy. If we allow 16, 17 year olds to vote in this comparatively lower stakes environment that still allows them to
feel that their votes that their vote matters, reversing the trend of apathy, it could have powerful effects and implications for our democracy to follow. By embracing vote 16 for schoolboard elections, Princeton has the opportunity to lead by example, something that this community has always done and I would hope will continue to
do in the future. By endorsing a program that acknowledges its youth's maturity, their stake in the system, and their ability to contribute thoughtfully to our local democratic process, this board can not only show that they care about the youth of Princeton, but they are willing to endorse in them and help them
succeed in the future. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Yeah, Alex. Good evening. My name is Alex de Guuadas and I'm a senior at Princeton High School. I'm a student deeply committed to this community, particularly to the
excellence of our school system. I stand before you tonight not to ask for a right from my peers and myself, but to assert that we have already earned the responsibility that comes with it. The immediate objection is often maturity, but I ask you to look closely at the
depth of involvement present in our current student body. We are uniquely prepared for this duty. As residents, we are more involved in our communities than ever before. And in school, we are taught everything we need to advertise this right responsibly. In my US history
class, we learn a lot about government. Not only its history, but also it structure and the constitutional context of our laws. Beyond the classroom, our extracurricular curricular activities and hence our learning. I participate in mock trial
and it isn't just about winning a case. It's where we learn about law and policy through hands-on application. But for this learning experience to be a reality, we depend on the funding from the school board. And it highlights why why we must be allowed to vote. For
example, last year we had to pay for the bus to the mock trial competition. The school did not cover it. These costs create barriers to participation. Yet the world doesn't often often doesn't know what clubs need more or less funding because the people who live the
reality of these budgets, the students have no direct voice. We are the stakeholders who can offer the most necessary perspective on how financial decisions impact the daily function and equity of our educational system. A 17-year-old students vote is a vote
informed by direct financial and educational stakes. Furthermore, our civic life doesn't stop at the school entrance. I'm an active volunteer at Community Park North and Peter Gardens where we plant native trees and do restoration work. That is active
tangible civic engagement that improves this town. At home, I engage in dinnertime discussions with my family during which we voice our own own opinions on political and social matters. Like me, there are many more. US students are emerging adults who are
who are already participating in the civic life of Princeton. Hence why we should be allowed to vote. Additionally, by allowing 16 and 17 years olds to vote in schoolboard elections, you're fostering a habit of voting and civic
participation that will endure for decades, strengthening our democ democracy from the foundation up. I advocate for the vote 16 initiative and urge the Princeton Towns Town Council to introduce this measure as an ordinance empowering the next generation of voters
and leaders. Thank you. Thank you. James, can you all hear me? Okay. Thank you again for giving us the opportunity to speak and express our concerns and opinions on lowering the voting age. My name is James Hong. I'm a
current senior at Princeton High School and a head captain of our school's varsity fencing team. My biggest reason for advocating for lowering the voting age is because the decisions that our school board makes directly affects 16 and 17-year-old high schoolers. Although school events and some policies are
managed by the student council, major financial and facility related related decisions are controlled by the board of education. Many of our finances have been directed towards improvements such as tennis courts and parking lot lines. However, many students have voiced that school finances could be directed
elsewhere to student transportation, clubs, and underrepresented sports. We understand that the board wants us to have the best resources and funding that they can provide, but sometimes it is impossible to know what this is without the student voice directly weighing in.
Speaking personally, our school's varsity fencing team has experienced funding issues regarding equipment and hiring coaches. Fencing remains as one of the mainly studentled sports in our school. After the death of our old coach, Sam Blanchard, we have not had an experienced coach in the last year. This
has left it up to the fencers and team captains to schedule events. For example, we almost missed the largest high school fencing competition in the entire world because our coaches didn't know of its existence. For over a year, our team has been self-funded by our own booster club and
students and students. Many of our equipment orders have been denied or postponed over the past year. Only after 3 weeks of appeals were we able to purchase new fencing reels which are needed to host matches. In order to obtain essential equipment such as this, the responsibility was held by the
captains, not the coaches. We need these responsibilities to be shared by both coaches and cap and athletes. I desire to have a fencing team that doesn't need to be only run by students. I want to have coaches that are able to teach us and help us improve at our sport. If
students have a direct voice in the board, we're able to solve these issues efficiently and effectively. If enabled, voters aged 16 through 17 would be able to express their opinions and experiences with the conditions of our school faculty. Teachers are often provided with subpar resources. It has
gotten so bad that some teachers moving to more rigorous classes leave after only a year because they experience a more faster and demanding curriculum. Throughout the school year, we see these struggles firsthand and want to support teachers the same way they support our education. We are ready to vote because
we as a demographic understand these issues firsthand. So, I'd like to ask the panel to strongly consider vote 16. Thank you. Thank you, Ash. Hello. Um, my name is Ash Nean and I live on Mount Lucas Road and I'm excited
to be speaking again in front of you guys today. Um, and I'd just like to discuss some of the questions that I've heard uh in the past couple weeks relating to the vote 16 movement because I know um that it is a very progressive take and that there can be a lot of uncertainty um in allowing our youth to
vote. So the first question I've heard is why do we need students to be able to vote when their voice can be expressed through the board leaison. So this position exists to give students a direct way to advocate for the student body at every meeting and ideally can introduce and advocate for all pressing issues we're facing. This year I have
been lucky enough to be elected as one of the two student board leaison and I just recently started the position. I'm not claiming to know everything, but I do know that having two seniors bring up issues that are important to the student body is a vital introduction to the student voice, but it can't be the end of it. There's not a lot of ways that
students can get their voice heard by the student liaison besides just reaching out to them. And while me and my co-leer Anie Bettincor are working to implement ways that like suggestion boxes that they can actively do this, there's still a big discrepancy between the students and the student board leaison.
I've also heard that because of this disconnect, many students are not educated or informed enough to be able to vote. And I agree that there is a big lack of awareness of the school board. But I do take some offense to the idea that students because they are uninformed may use their vote to purposely harm the school boards and the
school. Voting requires registration and it requires showing up to polls. And students who want to create a negative impact, like voting for a candidate who advocates for no homework policies, for example, are not going to be the ones who put in this amount of effort. By infranchising students, we excite them.
And we give them a reason to tune in and learn about candidates, and they will be more informed because of it. And we also give more people a reason to run for school board. So, we have contested elections, which is very important um to have political engagement within our community. Vote 16 gives everyone a
reason to get critically involved because it feeds the political discussions that our Princeton community thrives on. My last comment here is to simply address the question we received in our last speaking. Yes, students in Princeton who do not attend Princeton
public schools would be able to vote in schoolboard elections. I think that the likelihood of this is extremely small, but it does not negate the possibility. However, I would like to call attention to the fact that community members who do not have children at Princeton public schools or do not have children at all have the same right to vote as those who
do. Parents whose children attend private schools in Princeton or elsewhere can also vote in schoolboard elections. And the small fraction of 16 and 17year-olds living in Princeton that do not attend PHS is not a reason to bar the hundreds that do from their infranchisement. Thank you so much for your time and we look forward to
continuing this work in Princeton. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, Rhonda. Yep. Yes. Did you know I can't hear a word?
I know that you can hear somewhat because you and I have had conversations before. I don't really like this thing. I don't even know if you can hear my voice. very upsetting to come to this meeting.
No accommodation for me. No sign language interpreter. They could have set up a screen and done some kind of YouTube over captioning. Nothing. Nobody understands what it's like to sit there as a deaf person while
everybody else gets meaningful participation and can hear what's going on. I got up. I was going to leave this meeting. I got up. I couldn't take it anymore. I went downstairs to the police
department. Going to walk out the door. It's an atrium. After 5:00, the doors are locked to the police department. You walk in through an atrium. You do an inger and there's another door. And then I saw that the
Princeton Police Department decided to put this poster up near the atrium. You say, "Okay, what's the problem?" Look, it's no secret here. When I came on scene in January, I had to advocate.
Nobody in this entire municipal building was displaying the public accommodation posters. Nobody. There's only one department here who I trust offers some kind of genuine accommodations,
treats deaf people with respect. That's Diana's department, the engineering department. They actually care what a place of public accommodation is. Just because you put the poster up is a form of compliance.
The poster in and of itself cannot stop discrimination, bias, and harassment at that atrium. Only a hearing person could use that intercom system. Please don't tell me that Princeton Police Department doesn't know how to
fix the issue. There are different options they could use. Death person wants to come in that building after 5:00 when the doors are locked. They're going to have to provide an accessible system. I pointed it out to your alleged
ADA coordinator a couple months ago. Nobody does anything. Even your mayor discriminates. Last week I was under distress. Comes up. He mouths words. Can't even write on a piece of paper. How can I help you? I understand. For
your ADA coordinator, you go to Bernard. Excuse me. I cannot pronounce his last name. And then if you're not satisfied, you go through the mayor to have appointed people here who show really no genuine interest or concern in the ADA,
which is strictly for disabilities. And the New Jersey law against discrimination is a state law that covers at least 10 to 12 protected categories. This is a copy of the Princeton Police Department. My time's already up. They don't even comply with her own
special memorandum. Princeton Police Department, this town discriminates with a capital D, biased with a capital B, and harasses with a capital H. I've given up on your ADA coordinators. I will look for a private
way to deal with it. Think your police department is horrible. Okay. Jessica's next. Can I Mark just Hi, Jessica Vieira. Can you hear me? Yes. The acoustics are really bad in here, by
the way. Um, I applaud the efforts to address tonight's uh transport there to address the uh outstanding transportation issues and shortcomings. But bear with me as I highlight very quickly how the proposed plan falls short of what is needed. Princeton Township comprises an area of
approximately 18 square miles. We have two major state and county roads that bring traffic through traffic deep into the heart of our colonial village, pushing local drivers onto side streets. As noted by Carolyn Jones in her diligent reporting, pedestrian safety is a huge issue with two plus incidents
occurring daily, never mind the environmental concerns of congestion and traffic. So maybe we could offer some effective public transportation options. Maybe we could work with New Jersey state officials to improve road safety and therefore living conditions in our town. Our current transportation offerings are an amalgamation of four
distinct systems which even if they were cobbled together, fail to provide adequate service to our ever growing community. They don't even effectively cover the former Princeton burrow, which in its day was 1.8 square miles. The first, the most micro of public offerings is the Princeton MUN. We know
it well. It runs from 7:30 to 9:00 Monday through Saturday. It does a loop, stopping at all the expected routes for any senior citizen in town. It also hits a few more general stops like Palmer Square in the shopping center where it connects with other New Jersey transit lines. In a few central locations, the
MUN also overlaps with Tiger Transit and New Jersey Transit. The second offering, although not open to the to the entire public, is Princeton Public School Systems bus service. Um, this offering is mandated by the state. And although Princeton public schools has a
world-class team managing it, the bus service is often underutilized. Most of our side street rush hour traffic is parents taking children to and from school in private vehicles. They snake their way through carriage path roads trying to avoid the main arteries that are clogged with 18-wheelers and
throughput commuters. Nearly every time I see a MUN bus, it's empty. Why? I propose it's because taking the bus is actually slower than walking. The MUN route looks like a crude figure 8 that covers three corners of the old Princeton burrow. It takes 1 an hour and
20 minutes to complete. And doing so would mean you'd have traversed through most of the Old Burough, but would have totally avoided Princeton Middle School and High School and most of Carnegie Lake, Riverside, Littlebrook, and the Roughbrook residential areas. Never mind if you live in Washington Oaks or Edel
Farm. May I remind you that these neighborhoods are also part of Princeton Township. The third offering is graciously provided by Princeton University and understandably their focus is campus and getting their students to class on time. Tiger Transit further segments our community into
north and south of Nassau Street. These buses are rarely full and I don't know many unaffiliated residents who use them regularly. Lastly, we have New Jersey Transit. It's important that our micro bus service connects with New Jersey Transit for the times when we want to escape the congestion of downtown
Princeton. Interestingly, New Jersey Transit also offers a special seasonal bus, the 610 route, which caters to middle school and high school students who live in the Little Brook and Riverside neighborhoods. It costs 85 cents a ride. It only goes one way, once a day, Monday through Friday during the
school year at 3:40 p.m. I don't know the history of the 610 bus, but its existence gives me hope. It tells me that we have precedence in working with New Jersey Transit to solve some of these pressing issues. Confused? Me, too. Sounds like spaghetti, right? In general, getting into and out of
Princeton is okay, but getting around within its borders, not so much. By the way, don't try to go anywhere on Sunday and after 9:00 p.m. cuz it's really slim pickings. In a time when we're choking on traffic, pedestrian vehicular accidents are at their highest and we're safe. We are
increasing Can I just finish? No, I just asking how much how much longer it was. That's fine. Um, and we're increasing residential housing density. Solving for safer streets seems pretty timely. Town council should make the safety of our residents their top priority. Our downtown businesses want foot traffic,
but there's no safe public way to get there. Let's confront the state about how the about the flow of heavy traffic through our streets. The time is now to set weight limits and congestion targets on the main arteries. And lastly, let's work on effective solutions to rationalize the public the public bus
systems. The time is now to create a collaborative bus system which is accessible to all, that serves every corner, and is efficient to use. Thank you so much. Thanks, Jessica. Okay.
I just want to thank our Princeton High School students for coming out tonight, and I'm sorry that we lost several of you. I really appreciate that you all didn't push beyond your time limit. Um and um I I do believe if Princeton High
School students could vote in every election, the world would be a better place. Um but uh I think there are some legal issues that um I know you've been in touch with Brian and that he's looking
into. Um, what is the plan for ongoing communication with our with our high school students who are advocating for this? Well, I don't I don't know if there's an ongoing plan, but um I was approached by
a reporter from the tower uh several weeks ago to see how I felt about uh vote 16. And I did some research in preparation for the conversation. And what I learned was that only Faulner Act municipalities
are able to enact younger voter ages um within their boundaries. We are not a Faulner Act municipality. So my understanding is that we're relying on the state legislation to pass before we can take action. If anybody
has information that's to the contrary, um, I would be interested to know it. Okay. Well, Brian, did you I would just say I've been reluctant to, um, acrew attorney's fees, but my next
step would be to reach out to Trisha just to confirm that the form of government prohibits us from passing an ordinance. Okay. Okay. Well, this is not the ideal setting to go back and forth, but um maybe we can set up a time for you
all to come in and we can we'll we'll re talk to our attorney and maybe we can, you know, meet with you and talk further and it's really wonderful for you to be advocating for the right to be civically engaged and I hope we can figure out
some way to move forward. if not this then than then working together to to change things at the state level. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Leon. Yeah. I just want to tell you that you know you already are being heard and no
matter what decision is made here tonight, you keep keeping on. you keep doing what you're doing and keep changing the world because you know whether you get the right to vote today or tomorrow, you can move the needle and you can impact on who's going to be the next people on board of education. You
can be heard without being voted without a vote. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. All right. Motion to adjurnn is in order. David moved. So moved. Thank you. Michelle seconded. All in favor say I.
I. Meeting is done. Thank you all for attending. Have a great evening.