All right, good evening everybody. Thanks for joining us. Uh it is December 8th, 2025 and this is a meeting of the mayor and council of Princeton, New Jersey. Madame Clerk, could we have the meeting statement, please?
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. David's going to do the land acknowledgement tonight. >> We gather today on the land of the Lenny
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 Lab Lamros is absent. Mr. Cohen >> here. >> Miss Saxs >> here. >> Miss Frogga >> here. >> Mr. Nulan
>> here. >> Mayor Freda >> here. >> All right. If you're able and want to stand and join us in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you. >> All right. First up are approvals of two sets of minutes. August 5th close session and August 11th regular meeting. Thank you, Brian. Someone want to second
those? Leticia. All right. All in favor, please say I. >> I. >> I. >> Thank you. >> Uh, next up, council announcements or reports. Any council members with any announcements or reports tonight? I
would just say one thing. Our projector is broken. So when people are public are making comments, we usually have a threeminut limit. Um, so you won't be able to see the timer tonight. So I will without interrupting but kind of saying
where people are so people know where they are in that. >> May I just have two quick announcements. Thank you. >> Yes sir. >> Uh from the um arts council of Princeton just to remind people about the artist village winter village on Hines Plaza
through December 21st. Hines Village on uh Artist Village on Hines Plaza and also the Olivia and Leslie Foundation student exhibit on Saturday, December 13th at the Arts Council of Princeton. Thank you. Okay. Any other council
announcements or reports? Anything at the table? No. Okay. Uh, we have a public hearing on ordinance 2520, an ordinance by the Municipality of Princeton regulating short-term rentals, imposing an occupancy tax on transient
accommodations, and amending chapters 15A and 16 of the code of the Bureau of Princeton, New Jersey, 1974. Is there a motion on that? Thank you, David. Is there a second? Thank you, Leighton. All right, we'll start up here and then we'll get to public comment. Uh
any comments, questions, whatever by anybody up here? You want to go? >> Sure. I will just um remark that uh the working group that uh put this together
which included staff and myself, the mayor and uh Leighton um spent a lot of time and uh looked at a lot of different options for how to um implement some controls
uh on the ADU or on the STRs in town. um sort of balancing the need to preserve uh traditional rental housing for uh long-term residents um as well as the um convenience uh and
need for alternative kinds of short-term rentals that aren't provided by our hotels. And I feel good about where we landed and I think um my colleagues on the task force feel good about it, too. So, I just wanted to make that comment.
>> Okay. Any Leticia? >> Yes. I too I want to thank uh the working group staff and and the committee that worked on this uh from the uh working sessions to everything that's been provided has been uh very
comprehensive and educational. I learned a lot from it and I agree that uh it's uh on where where we landed was what's was proposed and introduced and uh and thank you all who worked on it.
>> Okay. And >> thank you mayor. Yes. I just want to read a quick statement. Um, before we get into the language of this ordinance, I want to start where all good work starts, with the people who rolled up their sleeves and got it done.
My deep thanks to Deputy Administrator and Health Officer Jeff Ger. Our deep thanks myself, Mark, David, and the rest of Council, to Officer Jeff Ger, the steering team, the committee members, and everyone who showed up with data, honesty, and a willingness to wrestle
with the hard questions. This wasn't just drafting policy. This was problem solving in real time as a team. What you see tonight is more than regulation. It's a reflection of who we are as a community. Princeton is and has always been a
beautiful place to visit. Folks come here from everywhere, drawn to the energy, the history, the culture, the feeling. But our responsibility on this day is as bigger than being a postcard destination. Our job is to make sure Princeton remains a place where people
can actually live, raise families, build roots, and feel like they belong on their own block. This ordinance says loud and clear, we value community. We value neighbors. We
value stability. We value the kind of Princeton where year-round residents aren't pushed out by speculation and where the quality of life that built this town is protected for the long haul.
And let me be real for a moment. Having the right idea is easy. Anybody, anybody can talk vision, but working together to turn that vision into a real balanced,
equitable solution, that's where leadership shows up. That's where character shows up and that's exactly what this team delivered. And at the end of the day, and yes, I
said it, Princeton works when Princeton works together. And this right here is proof. So, I'mma go down a list to thank individually and collectively
Justin Leco, Alisa Dantis, Bernie Hovic, Derek Bridger, Taylor Gribbon, Robert English, Samantha Beer, Councilman David Cohen, Councilman Leighton Nulan, Mayor
Mark Freda, Lisa M. Maddox, Kate Willil, Helme, Gwen Croll, and last but certainly not least, Jeff Ger. Thank you all. Thanks, Leon. Any other comments up
here? All right. Anybody in the room here to discuss? Yeah, just come on up to the microphone. Uh, just give your name and address. And, uh, Chip, I'm sorry. Somebody in the back was was up first. I know the last anyway.
>> Come on up. Uh, what I'll do is when we hit two minutes, I'll just go two when we're down to one minute. >> So, >> um, I'll read off my phone so I don't stumble over my words. >> Yeah, just try to make sure, uh, for people on Zoom, unless you're speaking
into the microphone, they won't just as long as you speak loud enough for the microphone to pick you up. >> Okay. Is this a good distance? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Hello, council. My name is James Mowglever and I'm here with my fiance Nicole. We're all short-term rental operators here in Princeton. Before I
begin, I want to say thank you for the time and thought you've all put into this ordinance and for taking our situations into account. I know the reputation that Airbnbs and their operators can have and that it would have been easy to dismiss us. So, we truly appreciate the flexibility a three-year phase out period gives us as
we each figure out our next steps. I'll try to keep this brief since most of what I can add has already been shared in our letters and in Mayor Freda's uh conversation with my mom who is not here right now. Uh during the October 27th meeting, Councilwoman Lamrose raised a point that I don't think received the
attention it deserved. She stated that making a decision without considering all scenarios could lead to unintended consequences and suggested a two-step process in which regulations are set up first and the phase out period is finalized later. While I recognize there has been a lot of research, conversations, and consideration over
the years, and especially during these last few months, there has been no actual data from Princeton specific regulation or tax collection to base a final decision on. I'd like to respectfully request that the council include a sunset or review clause within the ordinance that builds in the flexibility to revisit the non- primary
residence discussion at a later date. Specifically, I'd suggest that the final decision be made two years into the three-year phase out period. This would give the council 2 years of real Princeton data to work with instead of relying only on anecdotal evidence and examples from other municipalities
with different demographics and needs and would allow for a more informed decision. If after 2 years the general consensus stays the same, it would be a straightforward vote to keep the ordinance as written and STR operators would still have one year to transition out of the business and into new careers. If the data suggests that
tweaks can be made, then the flexibility created by this clause will have done exactly what it was meant to do. I understand that after years of discussion, some of you feel a real sense of urgency to reach a decision and finally move forward on this issue. At the same time, because the topic has been on the agenda for so long, the
exact timing of this ordinance and the length of the phase out period may feel less significant to the council than it does to those of us whose livelihoods depend on this business. For many of us, this decision will shape our futures, which is why having the ability to rei revisit it with real data feels so
important. Thank you again for the consideration you've already given us over these past few months. And I hope this request receives the same level of thought. I'm happy to answer any questions and otherwise appreciate your time. >> Yeah. Thanks, boy. That was really good. You did it in two and a half minutes. >> Questions, right? You guys seem to um
know what's going on. Okay. >> Yeah. Thank you very much. Is there Chip? Did you want to comment on this also? Again, if you just state your name and address and I'll try to without interrupting you, let you know where you are on the timer. >> Chip Crider been on Bank Street is long
longer than anyone. Uh well, this is certainly better than what we had, which was nothing. Uh and I've been asking for a couple years, when when are you going to do something? Okay, it's it's a good f
first pass, but I have a few concerns. Uh I think enforcement is going to be a problem. Uh so how do you prove that someone's doing a short-term rental? None of the advertisements I've seen
online give the address. I doubt if Airbnb or Verbbo would respond to a subpoena for a noncriminal thing. Uh, so how do you prove that it is a short-term rental? You're not going to get people's leases or the paperwork for the rental?
Nothing. So, you know, if somebody gets charged with violation, you go to court and their lawyer says, "Well, how do you prove it?" And you're out there in the Greece. The other concern is, so there's an
Airbnb on our street. They took two de facto lowincome apartments in a rundown building, put money into the place, fixed it up, and I've watched the occupancy, and I've seen they're probably making a few hundred,000 a year
from that, and those low-income apartments are gone. The visitors come sometimes they pay attention to the parking rules. Otherwise, they said, "Well, geez, if I'm paying $400 or $350 a night, I'll just park and take the tickets cheaper." So, it was a problem.
It destroys neighborhoods. The other concern is you're worried about housing for the lower income people. I came to Princeton in 73. My first girlfriend in 74 came to Princeton on a bus because she dreamed of the culture
and the interactions in town. She had 20 bucks to her name. She got a room at Agnes Fring's rooming house right across from old Burough Hall. It's gone. That's really the bottom of the line. And I fear that all the regulations and
the fees and stuff, you going to charge a fee of $200 for a rental that might a room rental that might bring in $75 a week. Older couple that one one spouse dies, right? the other spouse has to rent a
room or two out to pay the taxes. Suddenly, you know, that's out of line. And then then your fine is only $1,250. That house will be on the market and then it'll be yed up like everything else. So, pay attention to the bottom.
Otherwise, I think you should go on this. And I think it's very generous that you give existing things uh three years. And lastly, I think you need to tweak up the definitions in the zoning ordinance to make sure it's pretty clear
what a short-term rental is. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else in the room that wants to speak on this? >> Okay. Uh I see that a hand up on Zoom. Uh Adam's the technology guy in the
back. Let's bring Tina in. Hi Tina. Hi Tina. Tina, it looks like you're muted if you're trying to talk. >> There we go. Hi. Can you hear me? >> Yeah, now we can. Tina, if you can just um introduce yourself and your address
and are you able to see me? Can you see me? Give you a hand signal as far as the time. >> Yes, I can. >> Okay, thank you. >> Okay. Tina Clement at 13 Vanderavventa Avenue. I have a I have a question. I think what you're doing is is fabulous and looking at, you know, the short-term
rentals. I have a question about rooming houses. How what happens if somebody is given the okay to rent their house, their duplex, whatever, with x amount of
people because of the square footage. H what does that stop them from running it to say if the square footage says you can run it to 10 people, they they rent out all the rooms to 10 people. If it's a family, that's one thing. But if
they're all individual individuals, do they sign the master lease? Are they individual leases? How is that how is that controlled? And and what happens with that? Um, and what
that changes the neighborhood because you can have short-term rentals come in and out of a property, you know, a month, two months, and if If there's a master dee, they're covered. And I don't think a land owner
can just have individual leases. So my So I don't know whether I'm making sense, but um can a master lease with renters subleasase the master lease and not
um be affected by the m master lease? Is that legal? And do they have to live there? >> So if I want to rent out five rooms in my house and do >> we're just I just want to look at our our attorney and staff and make sure that we understand the question. Do you
guys >> It's sorry, wasn't that clear? Maybe. >> No, that's okay. I think it was I guess you you reference a a rooming house when I'm assuming a rooming house is similar to to a hotel more than a a a
dwelling a a single dwelling. >> No, no, you're wrong. A rooming house is if I took my house and rented out four rooms in my house to individual people, is that not a rooming house?
>> It it is. >> You can't >> I I think that rooming houses are allowed very sparingly in the former burrow. Uh they're not permitted in most zones throughout the town. I think the
maximum is up to 10 people, but I think it's for longer term rentals. They're not if it's, you know, for 30 days or it that that would not meet the definition, I think, in our ordinance of a rooming house. It has to be for long-term rentals.
>> Well, and it also doesn't meet the definition. A rooming house is actually exempt from the definition of short-term rentals. So >> well then how do you control people that are renting out rooms in their house? >> Um
>> so let's Okay. Right. So let if if your question is dealing with rooming houses which is not part of this ordinance >> then that's a different question which we if you want to um if you want to tell us how to contact you we will have the appropriate person talk to you about
rooming houses. But the the the public hearing tonight is specifically on this ordinance. So we're we're not going to go into >> short-term rentals come under. I know people that are doing short-term rentals in their house
as short-term rentals. It's not listed as a rooming house. >> Okay. But in actuality >> it is >> it is a rooming house because they have different terms within their property of how people are
living there and and the housing department I think I understand this according to the square footage of a house you can say well you can have five people rent to five people you can have 10 people or whatever.
What controls are there to stop me, say me, from renting? I have a three-bedroom duplex. I can rent the three bedrooms and my attic and my living room. What controls are there in place
to to not say that's not a rooming house? >> I think >> and all these people come in and out at various different times. Do they all go under a master lease? Is that how you get around it and then
they can sublet on the master lease? Do you understand what I'm saying? >> Not entirely. I mean, I think in if those you if those rooms were being advertised or marketed, we would be able to and this goes back to back to Mr. Krider, your question about how they're
being monitored. Um, we will have a surveillance platform that will assist with monitoring. So, if these units that you're talking about are being advertised, we would be able to pick those up and if they were part of a rooming house that was not necessarily uh in line with this ordinance, we would
be able to either correct that with the owner or, you know, enforce it accordingly. >> Okay. And >> they have to register. >> Do they have to register? And then my other question is >> how do you know that a homeowner is
living in the property that they are renting the room? How would you know that I was living in my house? >> The ordinance stipulates it needs to be your uh on your driver's license or voter registration card. >> I see. Okay. That So I would have to be able to prove my
driver's license or my voter registration that I live there. >> Correct. Yes. >> Okay. I I think there's still I'm sorry. I think the work has been incredible, but I think there still are a lot of hidden
>> there's nobody checking it. hidden hidden I don't know branches under under the ordinance that need to be uh flushed out because I I I do know people that do rent rooms
um and may not live in that property and that changes the complex of a neighborhood. >> Let me just let me just Okay. >> And also does zoning have any impact on if you If you if you're a short-term rental, is
that commercial? Does your property now become commercial or not? >> No, it does not turn a residence into a commercial property. >> Okay. What would turn it into a commercial property? >> I >> You'd have to change the use from a residence to a commercial use. Tina, I
really want to stay focused on the ordinance that we're talking about. So, my ordinance really is focused on how do you deal with short-term rentals that rent out multiple rooms in their house. >> Okay. T Tina, it sounds like you have
specific questions about specific properties or specific owners and you're more than welcome to take that up with our staff at any point in time and we can address those issues. >> Okay. But I think >> I would I will do that and I think it's
important that it's part of the ordinance. >> It is part of the ordinance. The ordinance limits the number of rooms that can be rented in in a house. I don't remember off the top of my head. It's either two or four.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Well, I think >> I just I I I love the work that you're doing. I know it's it's a mega issue. So, I'm on your side. I just these
points have come to my attention and I just wanted to bring it to your attention. Um, and that's what I want to do. >> Okay. Thank you, Tina. >> Thank you. >> Yep. All right. Was there anybody else
on Zoom that wanted to speak to this? All right. No other hands up. Was there anybody else in the room that wanted to speak to this? Just come on up to the microphone. Just introduce yourself. Give us your address. Uh, as I said before you came in the room, our timer is not working.
There's a threem minute limit. So, if you try to watch me every now and then, I'll hold up when it's two minutes, when it's one minute, just so you have an idea. >> Okay. Hello everyone. >> Uh, my name is Natalia Mover. >> Why don't you just pull that microphone down? Help her with that mic there. >> Hello everyone.
>> Thank you. My name is Natalia Mogiliver and uh I'm resident in Princeton and um I'm honored to be here you know like in in front of you you know like and uh tell you you know like my um my vision
you know like about this business and about this future you know like of this business because for me it's not just business for me you know like it's my passion would become my profession for the last 10 years I call myself a pioneer of this business you know like I was one of the first ones who opened
this this one and I love it so much that for me you know like it become joy and um happiness of my everyday life. Okay. And I am here as immigrant woman. I am
here as a mother as a daughter. I'm here it's my kids right here James and Nicole. And uh I really appreciate you know like you for consideration and you know like I hope you will make a right decision if
you already made okay because for us for us you know like I think you know like we made something magical you know like in this town and right now it's a Christmas time it's the most magical time of the year and I hope something magical you know like will happen today because you know like um
what we did you know like I'm talking of course about you know like uh our places we have um about I think 16 places altogether uh eight uh 14 okay 14 places you know
like I just double check okay and um we are very responsible host we do everything possible you know like for people to come back you know like you know like to us many many times and feel very very happy and you know like and um
love what we do. Uh we have international guests you know like from all over the world and we have like a 3,000 you know like pos positive reviews. Okay. And I think it's cost something. Okay. It means you know like we we do for our Princeton community
something very special. Okay. You know like uh and it's not a difficult it's not an easy business. is 24/7 you know the customer service we are and we do you know like we don't use AI like hotels you know like the do we use
personal touch and I think you know like in this business it's very rare especially in 21st century okay because if you read you know like the news you know like hotels will use more and more you know like AI it will be less personal touch but before people come to
us they ask us 100 questions and we are 24/7 available In China right now, it's plus 13 hours. What time is it now? 7:30. In China, In China right now, it's 9:30 a.m. And people call us from anywhere. >> I need text us and we are here for them.
>> I need you to finish up. >> Yeah, I I'm done. I'm done. Guys, thank you so much for everything, you know, like uh happy holidays and um ask me any questions, you know, like I will be happy to answer. >> Yeah. And your letter was shared with everybody.
>> Yes. Yes. Thank you. uh Mark, you know, like I really appreciate to meet with you another day. It was a beautiful conversation and uh I'm very thankful for everybody. Thank you so much and I >> thank you. >> You make a right decision. Thank you. Byebye. I mean I
>> Yeah, I just wanted to um respond to the request to sort of delay the decision or to uh put a sunset provision in and just reassure you that I mean I appreciate the point that uh decision- making using
real data that we have collected once we're operating um the registration system is a good idea. We will follow the uh the data that we gather.
We can amend the ordinance at any time. So, but I I'm reluctant to put in a sunset provision because that puts the burden on us to renew it. Whereas if we say, you know, show us that
things are working out well, you know, and we don't need to get rid of the non-owner occupied units, you can bring it back to council and we can reconsider it, but it sort of um relieves us of the burden of having to renew the uh the
ordinance. So that's my uh preference just to reassure you it can be changed but um I don't want to put in a sunset. >> Okay. Yeah. Leighton I'm sorry I >> Yeah. I want to thank you for your passionate uh commentary and tell you
that we I I think all of us hear you and we appreciate the uh what you offer Princeton in a variety of ways that is unofferable in other ways. But my message to you, as Bernie Miller once said, don't let uh perfect
be the enemy of good. Uh there are some things here that that may not be as good as we would like them, but at the end of the day, this is not, and I want to repeat, this is not an attack on great and good operators. This isn't support of quality of life so that people can
live here, raise families here. Every Airbnb here in Princeton is an opportunity for someone to come here for a minute or two and leave, but not not for someone to live, raise a family, age in place, send
their kids to school. That's the problem. We do appreciate everything you're doing, but we hope you understand that our job is to protect all the people, and the people that live here are much more important, quite frankly, than the people that visit. Thank you.
Is there anybody else in the room that are on anybody else in the room or on Zoom that hasn't spoken that wants to speak? Okay. Any other comments from up here? Yeah. >> Yeah. Um just want to say this is this is a
really complicated issue. Um and I appreciate the work that our committee has done. Um, and I hope that where we're going to land is the right place for the
community, balancing the different interests and concerns and needs. Um, but if it's not, I hope that as with any policy we implement, there can be unintended consequences. It can it can perhaps
um not play out the way we had hoped. And so I hope that we'll all be willing to uh as with the ADU ordinance, the accessory dwelling unit ordinance, we'll continue to monitor and see if it is um
complying with both the letter and the spirit of the law and and um you know, if there are changes that need to be made with this, we we will make it. And I I just want to say we're an international town. I know there's some resistance in Princeton to referring to us as a city
or anything that has urban connotations, but there are people who have the need to travel here from all over the world. We're a university town and we do have a need. There are many people who live here and cannot accommodate the people
who want to visit them, their relatives, um, and and all sorts of businesses and academic and other pursuits in Princeton. And there's no ability for the people to for for guests, relatives,
um colleagues to find a place to stay in Princeton. And Princeton is losing a tremendous amount of money to other towns around us because that is the only place that anyone who wants to visit or interact with people in Princeton in a
professional way can that's the only place they can afford to stay. Unfortunately, the ADU the Airbs and Airbnbs in Princeton have not proved to be a solution either because they are so
insanely expensive that um you know only very wealthy people could afford even one night of an Airbnb in Princeton. So, um I think you know I I
feel some degree of trepidation about imposing regulations when we don't have more data than we do. But I am comfortable with it because we all agree we it is good for Princeton to have
people who are invest in the community and are invested in our community long term. Um a um and b uh a priority for us is is for people who live here to be
able to remain in the community. And what this ordinance does is enable those who already live here to access the equity in their property. And this is the same principle as the ADU ordinance which is there are many Princeton has
one of the highest Alice asset limit limited income constrained indexes for a community of its um demographics in the state. And there are many people here the for whom the only
thing that they have of value is their property. And if they are competing with owners who live out of state or out of Princeton,
um that that has the you know the let me phrase it the reverse way. if basically they have um they are given preference, they have the monopoly what that the people who live in Princeton and are invested in our town and we are
continuing to allow them to operate um an Airbnb including in an ADU. It gives them the ability to access the equity in their property and to remain in Princeton and that is I think a a primary value for everybody on council.
Um so that is why I feel that we are moving in a in a good direction. Um I don't know what the solution is to provide the ability for people to live to visit in Princeton but I hope we can all be
thinking about creating opportunities for that and it and unfortunately the Airbnbs are not that opportunity. They're they're too expensive and and I understand what what you've said and that that that you're earning your living that way and but
there are only very few people who can afford to visit Princeton. Next year prices $100. So, it may be cheaper than a hotel, but the town doesn't I think get the tax room, but I can have a
>> Yeah. Yeah. If there is a cheap Airbnb be in Princeton, I have yet to see it, but I look Yeah. Go ahead, Mark. >> All right. Yes. Le >> uh I'm probably going to get in trouble for saying this, but I'm going to say it anyway.
You know, the research that we've done suggests strongly that most most of the traffic Airbnb that filters in and throughout Princeton is due directly or indirectly
to what? Can anyone take a guess? >> The university. So maybe it's time for the university to take a look at providing more alternative accommodations for the people who come
here to visit on behalf of the university. How about that? Thank you. >> I second that motion. >> Okay. Anyway, we don't >> the responsibility of the residents here in Princeton to support the university's
traffic for visitors to the Princeton town. That's the university's responsibility. So, I just, you know, want to put that out there. It's something for people to think about. Thank you. >> Okay. Is there anyone else in the room or on Zoom that hasn't spoken yet that
wants to speak to this topic? >> Just come on come on back up. >> Um, I obviously understand the direction that the vote will be going in. Um, so thank you for acknowledging the sunset clause idea. Uh, to clarify, so we are
when we saw the ordinance the the moment it was released online, um, we kind of let out a sigh of relief that our work um, speaking with the council uh, kind of paid off that it went from zero to one to two to three years. So we
genuinely appreciate that. um given the fact that things can change, things can be tweaked, we are relying on those three years. Can we rely on that >> if put into action today? >> Yeah, I don't see any reason why that would change. >> Okay. Um because once again, despite
anything, it is our source of income. We have three years to figure something else out, but it is something we're relying on. Thank you. >> Yeah. Yeah. No, it's a good question. Thank you. >> Okay. Seeing nobody else in the room or no one else on Zoom that wishes to speak to this, we'll close the public hearing
and this is a roll call vote. >> Mr. McDonald, >> yes. >> Mr. Cohen, >> yes. >> Miss Saxs, >> yes. >> Miss Froga, >> yes. >> Mr. Nulan, >> yes. >> Okay. Thank you all. Appreciate that. Uh, next up are two ordinance
introductions. First is ordinance 25-21, an ordinance by the municipality of Princeton updating certain lane use reservations and amending chapter 11 of the code of the township of Princeton, New Jersey, 1968. The public hearing
will be December 22nd, 2025. Is there a motion on that? Thank you, Brian. Is there a second? Thank you, David. Uh, roll call vote. >> Mr. McDonald, >> yes. >> Mr. Cohen, >> yes.
>> Miss Saxs, >> yes. Miss Frogga, >> yes. Mr. Nulan, >> yes. >> Okay, second up. And just to remind people on ordinance introductions, we don't discuss them because we've scheduled a public hearing. And if you start to talk about it before the public hearing, you've defeated the purpose of the public hearing. The second
introduction is ordinance 2522, an ordinance of the mayor and council of Princeton concerning salaries and compensation of certain personnel of the municipality of Princeton. Public hearing December 22nd, 2025. Sir, thank you. Leticia has got the motion. Is
there a second? Thank you, Leighton. Uh, roll call vote. >> Mr. McDonald, >> yes. >> Mr. Cohen, >> yes. >> Miss Saxs, >> yes. Miss Frogga, >> yes. >> Mr. Nulan, >> yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh, we have a list of resolutions. First up is resolution
25-400. Resolution of the mayor and council of Princeton authorizing a one-year extension to the contract with We Drive You, Inc. for public transit services for an amount not to exceed $384,4728. Is there a motion on that?
Thank you, Leighton. Is there a second? Thank you, Brian. Questions or comments from the council members on on that? All right. Seeing none. All in favor, please say I. >> I. >> I.
>> Resolution 25401, resolution of the mayor and council of Princeton, authorizing the award of a bid contract to Edward H. Craig, Inc. for 2026-2027 traffic signal maintenance for an amount not to exceed $86,960.
Is there a motion on that? Thank you, Brian. Is there a second? Thank you, Leon. Questions or comments? Mia? What am I going to ask? Traffic signal on the on the corner of Tune and Harrison. Are are we finally is any of this money that we ever all lot
going to We will ask the new vendor to see if they have the ability to um get the uh traffic signal to sense your vehicle there. Yeah, it's a real problem when, for example,
it's 1 in the morning and you have to sit there for 15 minutes and >> it's a long wait. >> So, that would be great. >> Okay, that was a very specific question. Thank you. Are there other questions or comments? All right. If not, all in favor, please
say I. >> I. >> Okay. Resolution 25402, resolution of the mayor and council of Princeton authorizing the award of a bid contract to Waters and Bugby, Inc. for emergency/On call sanitary sewer repairs and related services for an amount not to exceed
$500,000. Is there a motion on that? Thank you, David. Is there a second? Thank you, Leon. Questions or comments? Leon? >> Yes, Deanna, if you could help me. It it seemed like
this company bid like $1.2 million and yet the award was for 500. Is that through some stipulation at the state level? >> Um we're putting it as a an emergency on call um contract and so I think we're
looking at just specific uh quantities of work. we were able to reduce it down um to this quantity. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, so Leighton is a great question, but not everything in this list will
need to be done every time we ask them to do a repair, but this covers them saying for all of these specific tasks, this is what we're going to charge you. >> Gotcha. >> And if it at any point during the year exceeds the 500,000, it would have to come back to us. Okay. >> Thank you. >> No, thank you. >> Thank you, Mayor.
>> That's quite all right. Uh okay. I'm sorry. Any other questions or comments? All in favor, please say I. >> I. >> I. >> Okay. Resolution 25403. Resolution of the mayor and council of Princeton authorizing a site license agreement with Crown Castle Fiber LLC
for 120 John Street uh-Prc-05. Leticia has the motion and Leighton has the second. Uh questions or comments? Okay. Okay. I think people in town will continue to uh enjoy the improved uh cell service as we continue this
program. Uh all in favor, please say I. >> I. >> Resolution 254044. Resolution of the mayor and council of Princeton authorizing site license agreements with Crown Castle Fiber LLC for new wireless installations at 45
Cutler Road, 246 Valley Road, 70 Jefferson Road, and 250 Hawthorne Avenue. I just want to point out the difference between this and the previous one. The previous one was actually the equipment is uh it's replacing a street light pole. I mean a street traffic
light traffic light, not street light. Traffic light where the rest of these are the the common polls that they put up. That's why they're two separate resolutions. >> Anyway, I'm sorry. Did I ask for a motion on that? >> Thank you, Brian. Leticia's got the second. Questions or comments?
>> All right. All in favor, please say I. >> I. Resolution 25405, resolution of the mayor and council of Princeton authorizing the award of a bid contract to We Drive View, Inc. for the operation and maintenance of the Princeton Transit Service Express Route for an amount not
to exceed $39,840. Is there a motion on that one? Thank you, Brian. Is there a second? Thank you, Leighton. Questions or comments? Leon? >> Yes, just just one comment. As I read through this resolution, it it seemed
this this pertains to the new bus route that will run from the shopping center to the dinky. And it it seemed to kind of refer to the uh and it went through the stops, but really sort of referred that the stops
would be the major stops. But I just wanted to encourage people within the sound of my voice who travel on either one of the two routes to encourage them to get on and off at these various stops and that also to let
them know that even though the stops are designated, I believe I'm correct, Deanna, that you can say, "Hey, stop here." So you you don't have to wait for the designated stops no matter who you are on in anyone in Princeton. Even though you may not live on the corridor
of this uniquely uh different route, you can and should use it and stop wherever your heart desires on and off of it. Just wanted to make that clear. Thank you. right on our uh the we drive view uh muni service that is a functionality
that we do have along the route while these are fixed routes um if you are on that route and you want to hail the bus you just wave your hand and the bus will stop for you >> how and I would also hope that we provide some education around that fact
and that service because that is critically important for all of our ridership to Okay. Yeah. >> How is that safe? If there if anyone at any time can say, "I want to get off." Or anyone on the street can hail the bus and it has to to stop. How How does that
work? >> I I've never heard of anything like that other than like a cab, a taxi cab. Um these are 25 mph roads typically and the bus is not moving
>> in excess speed so they have the time to um re or the driver has the time to react and respond. >> We've been yeah not what I'm about to say doesn't mean that it's an excuse to do it but we've been doing it for an extended period of time and there's no
reported problems that I've heard in the the few years when we've had that. though I don't >> correct >> it appears to be working. I'm just offering that as an observation. >> Okay. So >> what's that? >> So um
how then could I mean presumably if there are many people who are asking to get off or to get on on the express route then it it's no longer an express route. >> Right. I think I I think what would have to happen is if that
happened to the extent that it interfered with the timeliness of the express route, then we would probably have to change the the rules of engagement, so to speak, on the express route. >> Right. >> Right. So, we'll have to monitor that. It's a good it's a good point. >> Yeah. We're we're constantly monitoring the ridership and the onboarding and
offboarding um along the routes and um we drive you has been very good to alert us to different trends that they're seeing um in ridership in our monthly meetings. And so that would be something that as the mayor said we would just
adjust. Um perhaps you know there's an offset where there's a stop that has lower ridership and we could just make some some shifts along the route. It no it sounds fantastic. I just it's it's
almost like on demand which we which we wanted but it was millions of dollars. So like if we could get on demand for the price of we drive you that's great. I just wasn't aware of that. >> It's on demand on that route. >> Yeah. It's not fabulous. >> It is not on demand transit. Sorry.
>> Right. It does not vary from those roadways. Um, that's the difference with on demand. >> Yeah. >> I'm sorry, Leon, did you have your hand up again? >> Yeah. And I just, you know, wanted to say that, you know, the good news is that we we really want to create ridership. You know, this is this is
costing $33,000. Uh, and and if if if it's only filled uh early in the mornings and late in the evenings, that's not going to be in our best interest. So, I'm not um advocating for seniors during rush hour, but in the
in the middle of the day when they get up and they get moving around, I hope that they'll use the system because we need them to. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other questions or comments? I was just going to comment this is the one-year pilot that we had talked about at a previous council
meeting. And so we will be um monitoring the success of the route and um looking at if there are opportunities to adjust um or cease operations within that
one-year pilot. >> Thank you. >> All right. All in favor, please say I. >> I. Hi. >> Resolution 25406, resolution of the mayor and council of Princeton ratifying a contract awarded to the Valley Butcher LLC for deer
processing services for an amount not to exceed $20,625. Is there a motion on that? Thank you, Brian. David's got the second. Questions or comments? Mia, >> um is by deer processing services um are
we're making the deer available for food. I think in the past for people who are food insecure. Is that correct? Okay, great. >> Okay, any other questions? >> All right. All in favor, please say I. >> I. I.
>> Next up is the consent agenda, paying bills and release of a maintenance guarantee. Leticia is moving the two of them together. Leighton has the second. All in favor, please say I. >> I. I. >> Next up, public comments for items not on the agenda. I had two names, but sir, I think you were first. first if you
come up and just introduce yourself and again there's the threeminut thing. I'm sorry the projector is not working. I'll do the two minute one minute. >> Sure. So my name is Von Kawaja. I'm a resident of Princeton. I have a question for the council to which uh I request an
answer. So, there is a video now in the public domain which shows Councilwoman Froga at the New Jersey League of Municipalities conference in Atlantic City uh disclosing that the council made a decision to move public comments to the
end of the meeting that is off agenda comments to the end of the meeting presumably to forstall disruptions. So, this is verbatim what she said. What we did was the public comments, we moved it to the end of the agenda. So we
got through our meeting then moved it to the end of the agenda. But my question is where they're being disruptive, you know, large groups and yelling, what action can we take? So I can send this to you if you want. So here's my question. Was the decision to move
public comments off agenda motivated by a desire to discourage public comments off agenda which seems to be a natural interpretation of Miss Frogga's comments because you can indeed deal with large-scale disruptions by making sure
that the comments are at the end of a meeting so that there's no one here to give them. Now, I've spent the last 10 months traveling up and down this state speaking before town councils and county commissions from Clifton to Trenton.
It's becoming common practice in New Jersey to put a consolidated public comment session at the beginning of the meeting for both on and off agenda comments. In no jurisdiction is it regarded as acceptable to move comments to the end of a meeting in order to
reduce public participation as such. So Kaine versus Board of Education uh of Ocean Township public bodies cannot use procedures whose purpose or effect is to thwart participation. A procedure that frustrates or discourages comment does
not satisfy the Open Public Meeting Act. So this decision not only discourages comment but seems intended to do so. And I'd like your answer as to whether it is or it's not and what the rationale was. >> Yeah, sure. There's no intent to limit
or disrupt public comment. Uh it is entirely within our purview to decide if we want to have public comment at the beginning of the meeting, in the m middle of the meeting or at the end of the meeting. and we decided that it made sense to conduct all the municipal business prior to having the public
comment. And I think as you saw tonight, we were pretty generous with the back and forth with people during the public hearing on the ordinance. So, I think we have a pretty good track record of allowing public comment. Um, and we're well within the Open Public Meetings Act as far as the guidelines to allow uh to
allow public comment. And I So, anyway, I'm not I'm not concerned. I I think we're I mean I know legally we're we're fine and I I think we have a really good track record of of actually probably at times providing more time. I mean, we tried to do the three-minute limit, but
plenty of times people go over and we've we've had we've had probably what 60 70 people at a number of meetings where they all got a chance to speak. During co we had 300 some people that wanted to speak and we scheduled a second meeting. So, we
didn't go past I think like 11:30 at night and invited everybody to come back. And at the second meeting, we made sure that everybody that did not have a chance to comment at the first meeting commented before anybody else did. So, I hear your concern and I don't know the context of what was said before Leticia
made her comments, but not having been there, it's easy for people to, let's just say, take things out of context and put them out in a way that maybe wasn't the intention. So, that that is not what we're about. So, I want to reassure you on that. That is
>> so I just wanted an answer on the record. And I would just say that it is a natural interpretation of her comments. So I can send you the video. It may not be the correct one, but it is certainly a plausible one. So you can but you've answered my question. So that's >> if if I may, I would like to provide
some context. Uh because I was at for the entire session. I'm sorry I didn't see you there. Uh but I would like to provide some context. I don't know if you were there for the entire session. >> I wasn't there at all. Before I made my comment, uh if you were there, uh you
may have uh heard one of the panelists, uh the issue that was being addressed, what some of other members that were there were asking about meetings that go on so long that it takes a while uh for
the governing body to get to the agenda. uh and one of the panelists was suggesting that one way to address it was to limit all public comment to 30 minutes tops. That was one. If you
recall, if you were there, another comment, another panelist suggested that uh if the governing body already knew which individuals would come to meetings on a regular basis and speak and that
they made they made the suggestion that instead of how we do it here, we allow everyone who wants to speak to speak to only call on individuals that they knew who were not going to uh prolong the
meeting to select only who they were going to allow to speak. what we do and and the just to make put it into context what we decided to do in order for us to be able to conduct business which we do uh and also allow everyone who wants to
speak the opportunity to speak whether it's 200 300 uh we move it to move it to the end of the agenda so that everyone who wants to speak has the opportunity to do so but it's not to prevent anyone from speaking
Yeah. And and I would I would just add one thing. I know some governing bodies put the public comment at the very beginning of the meeting and if you literally show up five minutes late, you've missed it. So, personally, I do not like having the public comment as
the first thing on the agenda because I think that's a sneaky way to avoid public comment. But that's my personal opinion. But I think where we have it is is it's a I think it's a good balance. But anyway, >> I regard my my questions answered. Thank you. Yeah. No, thanks for the question.
Chip, I think you were also on the or did you want to speak? You already spoke on the other thing. >> Yeah. >> No, no, I know. But this this signup is for the for items not on the agenda. >> Oh, >> but you're good. >> Can't can't read. >> No penalty. You're fine. Okay. Um,
anybody else in the room for public comment? Anybody on Zoom for public comment on anything not on the agenda? Okay, then we'll close the public comment section and >> I move to adjourn. >> Thank you. Is there a second? Thank you,
Mia. Is all in favor say I. >> I. >> Okay, we're done for the night. Thank you very much.