--------- Bring our work session meeting to order. This is a board session of the mayor and burough council. The bureau of Seaside Park County voting state of New Jersey held on Thursday, March 5th, 2026, advertised for 700 p.m. Pursuant to the
provisions of New Jerseys Open Public Meetings Act. Adequate notice of this meeting was properly provided by posting the notice of the meeting on the official rural website on March 3rd, 2026. Notice the meeting of the governing body has been posted in the corridor of the municipal building and
in the office of the burough clerk. This meeting also was published as per the open public meetings act back in January 2026. Roll call. >> Council member Condos
>> here. >> Council member Connor >> here. >> Council member Pratt >> here. >> Council member Ratunda >> here. Council to >> here, >> Council President Wil >> here, >> Mayor Peterson >> here. >> Thank you.
>> And uh as implied in the aforementioned March 3rd notice, this meeting is also uh being livereamed and uh that too is occurring albeit I I look out and there
are some 30 uh open seats out there. So anyone who wished to come here in person certainly uh could do so. The focus of this work session uh will entail anformational
presentation and no formal action will be taken. We welcome the professionals involved uh for Seaside Park that have uh been working diligently at the direction of
the governing body for uh some period of time. We have with us this evening for the presentation of the planners report on annexation CEO Park's long-term planner uh Kendra Ley of Carl Mcmanis
Associates. And we also have uh with us this evening the representatives of the uh government strategy group consultant employed by Seaside Park for some period of time.
And we welcome uh Mr. Ken de Roberts and Chiron Roundtree. We have our special counsel here who's been uh working with us as lead counsel in the annexation uh
manner and that is Miss Jean Chipriani and we have uh our council as well uh who is here Mr. Zabarski. I at this juncture will turn the floor over to uh our professionals and uh they
will be here uh and can make uh any kind of a summary presentation. We can have uh we've had several information sessions uh over time previously uh whereby uh questions were asked,
comments were entertained and uh those were uh taken into account and incorporated into the impact annexation impact study of the government strategy group in particular. And the presentation from our our planner Kendra
Lely has been the subject matter of prior meetings before Seaside Parks Planning Board. Uh at which time we also have a a public presentation on her report. So with that perhaps I'll turn some uh
initial comments to special counsel. Miss Briani is here with us. >> Thank you mayor. I'm going to just stand over here. So hopefully I can address the council and the public simultaneously. I'm not going to be lengthy and then maybe somebody else will want to take my preferable seat. Um
but and to some extent it's I I'm not going to go on length because I feel like if you're here in this room, you've probably heard this presentation before. Certainly the governing body has heard it as ad nauseium. Um we've gone over a number of times what the procedure is that's laid out in the statute for
annexation. Um and everyone is well aware of that the first part of this which was a almost 10-year um process involved Berkeley Township and the application um and the time before the planning board and then with
the governing body and then there were numerous court cases um culminating in a decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court which found that the petitioners from Southeast Side Park had met the threepronged past and therefore were
able to move forward with a request to Seaside Parks governing body to consider annexation and the public and the governing body have displayed tremendous patience through this process. So one of the prongs in that threeprong test that
has to be met and it has to be met with if regarding the uh the land the the town that is being left um and the town to which the petitioners want to join that being seaside park and there is an
obligation that the governing body act in a in a way that is not arbitrary or capriccious and specifically that they um review the petition in an open-minded and unbiased manner and I'm quoting directly from the court the Supreme
Court case and conduct the proceedings fairly and objectively assessing the evidence before it and that when I talk about the patients that's been displayed by the governing body and the public has been the process here. We're going to hear the reports those reports have been
put up um online. Um there is also it was supposed to have been the day of the storm going to be a uh a presentation before the planning board um on specifically the planning report as well which was supposed to have taken place
before this one but you know we'll stop the rain and nobody's going to stop 2 feet of snow. So um it's it's moved to this point. Um what's going to happen now is there's as the mayor said there will be no action taken tonight
following this um presentation and the opportunity for the governing body and the public to ask questions. There will be an ordinance that would be set forth to in order to do annexation. There is uh it must be done by ordinance must be
twothirds of the governing body in this case a vote of four. Um, so it will be on for first reading. If it goes past first reading, then it would be on for second reading. If it were adopted on second reading, then when that ordinance is effective, as soon as it is
effective, which is really upon publication, then South Seaside Park immediately becomes part of Seaside Park. So all of the laws that govern Seaside Park also govern South Seaside Park. So um that's
going to be a uh a tremendous expansion. You will see on the agenda therefore for the 19th and 30th when those ordinances that are the ordinance for annexations there a bunch of zoning ordinances so that which simply mirror those that um
are currently in place for the south seaside park section of Berkeley Township. They mirror Berkeley's ordinances. So there's a continuation. There is zoning in place. The um intention is then to review in um you
know timely fashion those sections and put in place ordinances that reflect Seaside Park's planning objectives um and um make some other changes as well, but that could be done in a in a slower time frame. Um the only other things
that I want to point out for tonight are that when the as the governing body is um considering this I talked about the uh prongs the first prong being that the governing body acted in a way that was arbitrary and capriccious or in this
case what we're trying to do is act in a way that is not arbitrary and capriccious because we've got a lot of information that's been gathered and provided. who provides a lot of opportunity for public input. Um, but the Supreme Court has already determined the second prong is met. And I think
it's important for people to understand that that prong is that the Supreme Court has determined that uh would be detrimental to the economic and social well-being of a majority of South Seasside Parks residents if the
annexation did not provide. So if the governing body says no based on the information that it's received based on the on the response of the public that is the hurdle that we will have to get over as well. And the only other point I want to make is that should this matter
um go forward. If annexation were to go forward, then more of that patience to which I alluded is going to be required both of the residents of Seaside Park, the current residents and the new residents because as you will have seen in the report and as I'm sure you'll
hear tonight, the process of incorporating another section into the town um is going to be a slow one. Obviously, if the governing body determines to take that step, we'll do the best that we can to provide basic
services as quickly as possible. Um, but that there will have to be some patience. that's going to take a period of time and the statutory process does not allow really for that to be done ahead of time because there's no way
that you're going to want to have Seaside Park hiring people, buying equipment, expanding things without being sure that you are indeed going to go forward with the annexation. And as I had also discussed at prior meetings um
almost immediately after and so if there go is a second reading you will see a resolution to establish a committee of three members. There'll be three a committee of three people from Seaside Park chosen by the governing body. A committee of three people from Berkeley Township chosen by Berkeley Township's
governing body. They will meet at 10:00 in the morning on the Monday following the effective date of the ordinance to begin what can be no more than a 60-day process to try and work out um any financial arrangement. So that would
include any portion of uh Berkeley Township's debt that is attributable to South Seaside Park and anything else that they want to bring forward that they think is uh appropriate. Obviously, Seaside Park will be able to respond. If they cannot come to an agreement, so out
of those six people, two two teams of three um in order for a report to be adopted, it requires vote of four. So, somebody would have to be persuaded in the extremely likely event that neither team Seaside Park nor team Berkeley uh
has a uh a a participant who is persuaded by the other side. It will go to the court. court will appoint three people and then that determination will be made on the financial side and that is binding um whatever is determined by
the court. So it's it's an odd process. Um I hope that provides some explanation of what you can kind of expect to see going forward for this tonight. There is no question of any kind of of action. It's really just for information, but those ordinances will be coming up
fairly shortly. Thank you. >> Thank you, Jean. And >> do we uh we have Mr. Douts, do you want to summarize where we are and role? I I think everyone's well familiar and we uh
certainly echo the sentiments placed on the record previously by herself as well as Chiron of the uh civil if not very courteous manner in which this entire process has taken place to date. uh and
everyone involved is to be commended for that including those who've spoke out and made comments and offered questions as well as your group. So I'll turn the floor over to you. Thank you mayor. I'm Kender Roberts government strategy group. Uh first I want to thank the
mayor and council for having confidence in us to prepare such a comprehensive and important report. And I especially want to do a few shoutouts. I'd like to thank uh your special counsel, Miss Chupani, who's been very, very helpful
to us. And especially kudos to your burrow clerk, Jenna Jenowski, and your burough administrator, Karen Krun, who've been extremely helpful, as has been uh the the management team from Seaside Park. Very helpful. So the first
part of the study of what we did is had to gather data and we probably gathered enough data to probably fill half this room with paper if we didn't use digital ink and had to then once we did that and
then conducted a numerous interviews and then had to assess and analyze everything. So, it's a comprehensive task and uh Chiron Roundtree, our president who's here with us, she's the author of the report. She put it all
together. She had to get information from our entire team. And just to give you some depth of what our team consisted of, we have three members here. Gary Sarnney who's a public utility expert, Vince Denab who's not
only a former administrator but also uh a civil engineer and Joe Puitti who's a retired finance director from a major county here in New Jersey who's not here. We had a former uh police chief uh
Shannon Torres uh on our team. Uh, we had Doug Marvin, former administrator, doing a lot of administrative review type of information. We had Jennifer Norton, our information
technology specialist, Ted Monaceella, who's a real estate appraiser and an assessor in many communities. He's very familiar with the Ocean County. >> Excuse me, Ken. I'm sorry. I think people are having trouble hearing. I don't know if this microphone travels.
>> Yeah, I think it does. >> Does pull it out and >> we're stand there. We don't want to go back. >> So, those are the people. >> Sorry about that. So they everybody had to go through and analyze all the data points, do a lot of
the interviews and we even met with representatives from Burkeman Township and I would also like to thank them for their cooperation and supplying much needed information to us. Uh and as the mayor alluded, we had several public information sessions. Everybody has been
very civil and cooperative and uh very willing to assist us all along the way. And then putting the report together, the analysis was quite comprehensive. There were so many issues that had to be addressed and discussed internally
amongst our team. And Chiron had the distinction of having to put this all together and put together a comprehensive report which is almost 300 pages. Uh so it's there's a lot of uh
information and data points to digest in this report and we're very pleased we met the requirements of what you asked of us. It's an impact study. We did not make any recommendations pro annexation
or against annexation. That's up to the governing body to decide. But hopefully I I'm confident we've provided substantial information for you to make a very informed and quality decision. So with that, uh
Chiron, did you want to say a few things just to >> Sure. >> And some highlights. >> So uh can you guys hear me? Do I need the mic? >> Uh two things. I was asked to do a short presentation and two things about me. I'm never short and I'm I've never been accused of being quiet. So I'll put that
down. But if you need me over there, just I I can pick it up again. Uh, we just wanted to give a brief overview. As Ken said, the report's almost 300 pages. It's hard to kind of pair that down. We had about a dozen team members working on this report over about five months, six months. So, there's a lot of
information there, but kind of wanted to highlight some of it for everyone that didn't have amnesia and sit through reading the whole thing. Um, as Ken mentioned, our purpose of this report was not to say yes, do annexation or no, not to. Um, and we were we tried to reiterate that over and over and over in
the report. It's not our decision. You guys have that lovely lovely choice to make. Uh, Jean did a great job of outlining the process. Uh, our our great legislature has made this a challenge whether whether if if the council
decides to vote for annexation, it is a challenge because of the process that we must follow. And unfortunately, none of us in this room have control over that process. Uh but one thing that we do in government often uh is a lot of planning and taking a lot of time. Um as Miss
Cypriyani said, hiring individuals to come to come and work for the municipality. Uh purchasing, even purchasing, it's not like we can go out and just buy a car next weekend if you need a new police vehicle, that takes a long time and several months. So should the governing body decide to move
forward with this, the one thing that I want to reiterate as Miss Cypriyani said is patience is something that everybody is going to need to have because it is going to be a long and arduous process and there will be hiccups along the road. Um so what our study did we looked
at uh the various service areas of the municipality. So, we had a general government section where we looked at things like administrative services, staffing, governance. Um, we had an information technology uh expert come in, look at systems in both
municipalities, see how they can mesh together, see what security concerns there might be. Um, public safety, looking at police, fire, EMS, and how that could be affected by possible annexation. Uh, public utilities and infrastructure, public works and land use. Um and then obviously the question
that everybody always wants to know is finances and fiscal analysis. So those were kind of the broad areas that we looked at. Um I I used to teach at Ruckers. I used to teach municipal management and I used to say to my students when when you have a question about something in government get and you don't know the answer, just say it's
finances because that's what the heart of everything. But you really have to understand working through all of these other aspects to figure out how that will impact the finances. Um so at a glance some of our key findings um is it feasible for annexation? Yes, it's
possibly it's feasible. Um but if you do decide to move forward doing so with um staffing timing, patience and intent and planning it out properly and understanding that there will be those roadblocks. Um we saw or we estimate
about $670,000 in one-time transition costs. um you know, as a as a rough estimate, there's going to be legal fees, there's going to be processes. Um we would recommend that if you decide to move forward with annexation, um over a period of time,
hiring probably about 13 additional employees into the into the burrow for v in various roles, most of those um being in public safety and and public works. Um big big finance question, is there a possibility for a tax reduction? Yes,
our estimates are between 40 and 51%. Um the your operating uh costs will increase. Uh we're estimating in year one about $2.9 million, but that's off offset by um additional revenue that you would bring in. So, it's financially
feasible, but it's not automatic. Um, as I said in in the public safety area, uh, our recommendation, the recommendation that we put in our report would be look at potentially hiring up to five new police officers as a result of annexation if that goes forward. Um, you
would also need possible radio upgrades, uh, expanded patrol coverage, commun um, and increased communications infrastructure. on the public works um side, possibly hiring three additional employees um plus some additional seasonal employees. Uh looking at your
your uh uh trucks and the the differences in the the street structure. So you might need to change your garbage trucks or change your uh method of collecting uh waste. Um possibly purchasing more equipment. And again,
that can take a long time. it can take several months to obtain equipment. You have to order it. Um you have to go through the public purchasing process. So that's something that might be an area that you see some hiccups on if you do do decide to move forward. Um in
terms of it, your systems are very scalable and they actually uh they they could potentially work well together. So getting information um could be integrated relatively smoothly. Um, but you will probably you will need mapping updates, GIS updates. Um, you might need
to expand your permitting um platforms. Uh, water and sewer operated as separate utilities. Um, but you would likely need a storm water assessment, um, some some permit transfers and and to work on some of how how the separate utilities
integrate with a newly annexed uh, part of the community. Um, I kind of went over that. Uh, so as I said, uh, non- tax revenue, additional revenue coming into the burrow, we estimate a little less than $250,000 annually. Um,
and then all of your your additional tax revenue and as I mentioned, a little almost $3 million um, in operating expenses. Uh, as we looked at debt allocation, which Mr. had mentioned before you both sides will have to sit
that's Monday at 10:00 a.m. after this becomes effective. It's very specific in the law interestingly um and decide how debt can be allocated. We looked at three methods. Uh we can go into more detail on that, but we um would recommend pushing for an assessed value
uh method of determining how much debt uh Seaside Park would have to take up would take on as a result of annexation. um and some bond financing as it relates to that. As I said, we're estimating about 40 to 50% in tax reduction. If you
do decide to move forward, I'm sorry, I don't mean to not look at you. It's I'm trying to look at everybody. Um and so some financial considerations. Um you you're expanding your tax ratable base, which is big. um understanding and
moving when you if you do move forward picking a debt allocation model and and pushing for a debt allocation model that is beneficial and and fair. Um understanding the reasonable transition both the financial and the um actual
process aspect of it. um and making sure that you're positioning the burrow um financially to take on the additional debt um in a in a sound way. Um understanding and planning for your your planning uh your staffing and your
equipment and and making sure everyone is aware of that that transition period. Um so that's kind of an overall analysis of the report. As I said, I could probably talk a lot longer on it and we have team members here that are happy to answer
any questions, but we were said we were told to keep it brief. So, >> yeah. And if I may, mayor, my suggestion is that uh Kendra be able to give her report and then we move to questions. So, all the reports have been summarized. >> No, that's was my uh goal and we we do
as indicated and I uh agree with our special counsel. We have Kendra Lely here. uh our planner who's been the planner for the above seaside park for a considerable period of time and uh Miss Chipani has addressed one of the issues
and one of the potential questions which might be asked uh of by the public and that is uh why would the burrow of Seaside Park engage in an exercise whereby we're considering a set of zoning ordinances to be introduced as to
a section of the town and annex ation which may or may not ever come to pass. And the simple reason is we had to wrestle with uh what was uh the hand dealt by the legislature. The legislation involved doesn't uh spell
out any kind of process if there were an affirmative vote and the time that that vote occurs right thereafter there has to be zoning in place. Uh otherwise you'd have the wild west of zoning with no zoning in place. So, we had to come
up with what would be a fair, reasonable, and appropriate uh way to enact zoning and uh not to expend a great deal of money for something that might or might not ever happen. uh and the fairest and most appropriate uh
analysis uh included and this was thoroughly reviewed at the planning board level as as well when Miss Ley uh appeared and the board had a number of questions in its process uh what has been proposed
and there are set of zoning ordinances which in effect enact the zoning which is already in place uh in the south seaside park section of Berkeley Township uh and Also, uh I compliment Miss Lugley on our study. It thoroughly
looks at what are those zones, how many are there, and what are the uh material differences, if any, to the zoning that's in place in Cases Park, and what are the similarities uh those that are very substantially similar, and uh that
is in our study as well. So, uh, I will turn the floor over to Kendra and welcome you again. >> Thank you, mayor. Good evening, um, burough council members. Good evening, public. My name is Kendra Ley. I'm a professional planner in the state of New Jersey. I must admit this is the first
nication report that I ever had to put together. I've been doing this for over 30 years. Um, it was an interesting study. Essentially what I looked at um uh was really the planning and zoning impact of an annexation of um South
Seaside Park into the burrow. Um and that re and this report which which is not certainly as voluminous as the report that of 300 pages but it but it was very narrow issue but it's a very big issue because you're you are annexing in land zoning into the into
the municipality and you also have a master plan your own master plan that has specific goals and objectives that we have to look at and and understand whether there's a consistency or an inconsistency. And part of my recommendation or not, it's not a recommendation, part of my report is
what do you do when you do have inconsistencies? What's the next step? Um, and so part of this report talks about what those inconsistencies are. Um, and while there are some consistencies, I would say generally there are probably more inconsistencies
than there are consistencies both on the zoning side and the and the planning or the master plan side. Um and then at the the end of the report uh towards the body of the end of the report, the body of the report talks to what are those what are those action items that need to
occur that if if the governing body moves forward in and votes to annex in what needs to happen on the planning side and the zoning side um go moving into the future to ensure that when that that area is annexed into the
municipality that there is a consistency um that occurs. So, uh, I'm just going to go briefly through some highlights of the report and of course be able to answer any of the questions. I relied upon, um, some of the demographic data that was issued by a um, another
planner, Scott Bowman. He did the South Seaside Park annexation study. It was extremely comprehensive. It went beyond just a planning review uh and a zoning review, but it provided a lot of uh demographic data that um I didn't need
to reproduce. And so it it's an appendix to the report. It uses uh uh 2025 census data, 2000 census data, I'm sorry, 2020 census data. Um and and generally I have um uh summarized some of the interesting
facts that come from that comparison. And so what we looked at was what would what what does this municipality look like if the uh South Seaside Park were annexed in? You'd see a 40% increase in your land area. You'd see a 25% increase
in your population. You'd see a 52 uh% increase in housing units. Uh you would see a 12% increase in population density. Uh you would see 114 uh% increase in what's what's known as moderate income households. M moderate
income households range depending upon the size of the household between one person to five persons and that ranges about 70,000 uh dollars per year to about $112,000 per year depending upon the household size. So you would
increase um your household income 22% uh it the increase in your owner occupied housing units a 13% increase in your renter occupied housing units and 170% increase in occupied housing units with 10 or more units in a building. What
basically that means is that you would u um increase the number of multif family buildings uh within the municipality. Um so essentially what that means generally is that you would certainly see more diverse housing stock that would come into the municipality. Uh you could also
see uh a more economically diverse population. There would be an increase in as I said owner occupied housing units which bolsters the existing character of seaside park burrow. Um but the reduced housing values um also allow
for alter a different a different housing type. So giving more opportunities for for different housing units. I then went in through a zoning analysis as the mayor had indicated u and we list the number of zones. There are nine zones in in South Seaside Park
as compared to four. Just that those numbers alone indicate there will be inconsistency. Uh you know matching up zones is going to be very very um challenging. Uh and so while there will be a placeholder uh if this does move forward that you would adopt their
existing uh zoning districts, there will there will need to be an analysis. Uh I think not only as it relates to how these zoning districts mesh together, but even the zoning districts for South Seaside Park, there's probably a lot of existing inconsistencies there with
what's existing on on the land uses occurring currently. Um so that is going to be uh certainly a big uh task for uh the future. I provided the uh analysis between the key differences between the residential districts and the uh
non-residential districts. Um generally as I indicated you would uh certainly experience diverse residential dwelling types and and additional commercial uses that are not currently um in the zoning ordinance now. uh and uh certainly has the potential for leading to a more
resilient community uh especially on the economic side as we just heard and a more diverse uh makeup but there are inconsistencies no no doubt about that that would have to be addressed. I then went into the master plan consistencies. So in a municipality a town has a master
plan. That master plan is your vision for your town. the zoning that's adopted implements that vision. So, there's goals and objectives that go into the master plan. Um, I provided not only general goals and objectives in your
master plan, but I specifically looked at your land use plan uh and and went through those main goals and objectives. Um, and I'm not going to go go through those tonight, but but essentially uh what was found as I went through each individual goal and objective is that
probably other than maybe one or two objectives, there are there are inconsistencies and uh I provided recommend recommended action item items with the goal of if the this annexation were to go forward, you would want to
have a consistency across the entire municipality, the old the the existing burrow and then the new piece of Southeast Side Park that would come into uh the burrow and and those recommended action items uh are all the way at the bottom of the the page, excuse me, the
report which is 14 and 15. Essentially, a couple of things that would need to happen. Uh, one is that you'd certainly have to create a whole new land use analysis map parcel by parcel looking at South Seaside Park. Um, specifically in the residential districts, specifically
in the commercial districts, have uh take a look at um those inconsistencies with the goals and objectives and prepare uh reports and essentially you would be updating your entire master plan in my opinion. uh you would have to update your land use plan. You'd have to
update your circulation element. There's a lot of objection uh objection objections objectives sorry excuse me uh with regards to parking circulation. You are bringing in new land uses that you didn't necessarily have to deal with before. Um hotels where you have parking
certainly near um Island Beach State Park. Uh so there would be a lot of I think concentration on parking circulation um that type of thing as you're starting to take a look at and and and pedestrian parking bicycle um uh multimodal type of of transportation.
How how are you going to deal with with that? Whether or not you need to have any um increase in capital expenses. Uh and and that's all going to be dependent upon in my opinion a process that requires the public to be a part of it. Any master plan process through
municipal land use law requires public input. Um, and it is a time consuming process. It's not only time consuming, but it is costly. Uh, and so you're really updating your entire master plan and then really looking at the master plan first and then that that really
kind of dubtales into the zoning ordinances. So, while it will certainly require a full um update to the master plan and and the zoning ordinance um because of these inconsistencies, uh that that basically is my uh it's not
necessarily a recommendation, but my my u opinion that these are the steps that you would have to take to create consistency. uh and and then to do that in correctly and in accordance with municipal land use law uh it it will take time uh because you would want
public input into every step of that process. >> Thank you Kendra. With that, what uh what's contemplated for this evening'sformational session uh would be to allow any public comments or
questions and having the professionals who assisted the governing body along the way uh is what we had in mind to provide that professional input and assistance as per the open public meetings act. If anyone has a comment or question, if you
could please step step forth and give your name and address into the microphone and we will start uh with that. >> Mayor, may I have one? >> Yes. >> Just there's obviously many people here who don't norally come to council meetings. So, for the benefit of those
of you who do, I just want to let everyone know we we do have a resolution that permits uh five minutes for public comment. Each public comment five minutes or less. >> Good. This will be less than 5 minutes. Um, James FCR,
356 Roberts Avenue, uh, Seaside Park. That's my address. Uh, the my question is, what is the value of all the property and all the assets in my book Township?
>> Grab it. Come here. >> The value of the property is located within the This is the entire Berkeley Township. All of Berkeley Township, >> right? >> What's owned by Berkeley Town? >> Yes. >> That study has not been done. I presume
>> based on what you just said. >> Yeah. I can't. >> Can I correct? >> We have that information. >> Oh, you do? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. We we have the total ratable base of Berkeley Township because >> But that's not Well, I'm talking about the ratable base. I'm talking about the
Berkeley Towns Storage Authority, their golf course. >> Yeah. All the buildings, all the police cars, all the fire trucks, all the roads that they own. >> That wasn't part of our study, sir. Oh, because
>> I I asked I asked that because you're saying you make reference to the possibility of Seaside Park suing part of the debt of Brooklyn Township based on the rainbows in South Seaside Park. >> Correct.
>> All right. Now if that generates the rainbow seaside park create under the law an argument for Burke Township to assume a part of the debt based sellers vehicles. What about
the ownership of all the assets of broken township which I'm sure far more considerable that we get as an argument that can be used should there be an impass in the
negotiations between the commissioners of the two municipalities. At that point, you go, as you know, to the commissioner's appointed by the court, and I think a very important argument when dealing with those
commissioners is that Brooklyn Township has a certain value of property that it owns and that they should be taken into consideration and the exemption of that by Seaside Park. That's all I have to
ask. And since you don't have any answers, it's something that should be looked into in terms of any negotiations with Berkeley should Seaside Park uh annex South Seaside Park. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. Any other comments or
questions? Yes, sir. >> Do you want me to >> Oh, yes. Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. D. >> So, just to answer your question, that's a very astute point that you made and we did address that in our report. uh where we recommended uh three different
scenarios as to how debt could be aortioned. We also recommend there should be some type of an off offset uh credit for the total value of Berkeley Township's fixed assets and we didn't
make that number up. The numbers for the fixed assets came from Berkeley Township's audit report. So there were their their numbers. So that was we're in sync with you on that, sir. >> Thank you, Mr. Joseph. Tom Joseph, 704
South Bay View Avenue in Seaside Park, current Seaside Park. Um, let me start by saying I read the report. It took way longer than it should have, but I did not come away with any reason
why I should be anything other than in favor of annexation. So, just for context, nothing I'm about to say affects the fact that what I read says yes, we should do this. Now, I'm going to deal with just one issue. At the last of the
two public information sessions, I asked a question that I was hoping would be answered in the report, which is if we take our water utility and what South Seaside Park has, Shore Water, which is their water utility, and we put those
together somehow or other, do we still need well 11? And for those of you who live here and been around, well 11 is the proposed well to be drilled on the Desert Palm lot up on Ocean Avenue that's currently occupied by a derelic
motel. Okay. When I got to the report, what I discovered is it said over and over again, and I'm going to do everything in millions of gallons per month because you guys flip back and forth between units enough to make it confusing. And
I'm not going to do that. It says that we have a capacity in Seaside Park of 13 million gallons per month and a peak demand and typically in July on the worst year we've had and it gives three or four years worth of data or whatever
of 18 million gallons per month. So we apparently have a shortfall of roughly 5 million gallons per month in July and maybe August and maybe even June for all I know. So, that shortfall we apparently deal with by making 5 million gallons of water appear out of thin air. The report
doesn't deal with how that happens. Um, I came away thinking that's insane. So, I went to the material that RVE presented for the public meeting that we held for the Desert Palm Well, well 11.
And they prepared a variety of reports including a level two environmental study and whatnot. And what they indicated is well six operates with a capacity of 17 million gallons per month. Wells eight and nine
any one of which can operate at one time each have a capacity of 13 million gallons per month suggesting that they only looked at the data for well eight say or well 9 but not the complete capability. We will write off well 10 as
if it doesn't exist cuz it might as well not exist. So we have according to RVE in numerous places in their documents that they presented at that public meeting 30 million gallons per month of capacity.
If one of those wells should fail, we need some excess because the other one doesn't handle that 18 million by itself. So, South Seaside Park, according to the report, has a capability of 18 or 19 million gallons
per month, only 9 or 10 of which is consumed at the peak of the summer by South Seaside Park, suggesting they have in excess of 9 million gallons per month. that 9 million gallons plus either well
8 or well six will be sufficient to supply the 18 million gallons that we need in this summer. So, my reading of the data, if I believe RVE's numbers, and I have no reason not to, and I certainly hope they're right, because otherwise that
public meeting you guys held needs to be held all over again because those numbers are all over those those reports. And if they're wrong, that meeting was a waste of time. And I don't believe that for a minute. We have sufficient capacity between South Seaside Parks capabilities and
ours to meet our needs, including in the event of a well failure. The RBE report also says our mains are interconnected to both Seaside Heights on the north and South Seaside Park on the south.
The report I just read says one of the expenses we'll encounter as we go forward is if we're going to need to use them, we'll have to interconnect them the systems. I'm not an expert. I don't know the degree to which we're already connected or not, but RBE certainly believed we
were. So, I don't think that's real either. I I it makes sense that we would be. So I came away with the conclusion that one of the benefits we get from the annexation is frankly we no longer need well 11. That's a several million dollar
build and drill and whatnot. And it eliminates the need to take a block long on Ocean Avenue and destroy a third of it or a half of it by plunking a well down on it. So I looked at that and said if they'd done their study right, we'd
be celebrating that. And that's several million dollars and several millions in extra ratables we'll get that they'll Thank you. I'm done. Okay, you get the idea. >> Thank you, >> Mayor. With your permission, we'd like to have our uh utility expert Yes, sir.
>> to address those uh comments. >> So, NJ on firm I'm >> sorry for the record your name and use the mic, please. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Awesome. >> My name is Gary. I am a licensed
operator, a T4 W4C4 from the state of New Jersey. So, when you talked about all your wells, you said that if you added up your wells, you would have an additional amount of water, which is absolutely true. The state of New Jersey
defines firm capacity as taking your largest well offline because one could fail. And that's where your deficit came from because you had to take your large swell off. You are currently doing vein replacement which is tightening up all your leaks which you are slowly gaining
capacity back again. So your infra your what what the burrow has been doing is using the New Jersey infra infrastructure trust loan which you're getting principal forgiveness and as you replace the water main you're losing less water for leaks
but your well still needs to be done. Nevertheless, shore water is a private entity. You will not be purchasing shore of water. So that is a private company. So you cannot just take that for any annexation. So that is a
separate uh issue. The interconnections don't have all meters and and uh the proper pits to uh read all that water. It's basically an emergency interconnection. So you'd want to rebuild those interconnections. And that was the cost we were talking about looping them back together. So you have
the proper amount of flow and capacity coming through those interconnections. >> Thank you Gary. >> Thank you sir. >> Any other comments? >> Can I can I comment on that? >> If you have any other public comments
>> Shirley Crestle 700 North Bay View Avenue. Um I did not read all that report. I read something about Central Regionals's increase. Now, I thought I read that it could increase by 62%.
It why? That seemed like an awful lot. >> Ratables. >> It's a good question because the aortionment is based on ratables. So, the good news is um you know, Seaside Park could
>> I'm sorry. Could you bring the microphone back over here, please? >> Thank you. >> Oh, I thought it was loud. No, you >> the good news is Seaside Park, if the annexation were to go through, uh, gains a bunch of writables, the bad news is that the aortionment based for county
taxes for the regional school district is based on ritables. And even though despite the fact that South Seasside Park only brings three incremental students into the regional school system, the school tax is
projected to go up uh over $3 million, right? >> What >> um our Yeah, I know. I think there there's a large caveat taking Shirley's time here,
>> but anything to do with the regional school tax gets somewhat of a caveat right now that actually as the report was being finalized and distributed right then and there a whole new development occurred from a legal
perspective and a factual perspective. And yes, some of the attorneys involved in it and there's no definitive answer of what might occur, but they do there is a study out there that has an impact
that I I'm told, but I can defer to Jean on that. I think it first gets looked at by the central regional school board then depending on their action it would go to the state commissioner and ultimately that has a bearing on how the
district might be funded what the district would consist of. So there's a whole lot of moving parts from a legal perspective. >> Basically we had asked for the rep in the report for basically the most conservative response. So there, as the mayor had
stated, there are changes that are possible that could have a positive impact in the sense that there would be uh less of an increase and less payment overall, but for the report and for the public to to really, you know, we have
to deal with the universe that we have right now. So we had asked for the most conservative >> and just accurate like right now since South Seaside is part of Berkeley Township they don't pay anything near what we've been paying right but now
they will be up there with us >> like we pay over 200,000 per student I think it's I think it's more than >> it's not based on per student that's the problem with when you use that as the denominator it's not student on their tax bill south seaside park right now
because they're Berkeley Township you. >> They're on a different formula than what we are. Different. Correct. >> Okay. One other thing that got me confused. >> Did you have an expert here? No. We have our representative to the central
question. Um certainly not an expert. Uh and what I have to say is basically for sorry Joanne Penn 208 K Seaside Park. I am the representative to Central Regional Town Seaside Park. Um, we did
have a meeting last night and nothing was discussed at all and I believe you are correct. There's been a lot of components to this, but I believe you're correct there that it does go to the board first, but unless the board puts it on its agenda,
it doesn't have to go anywhere. That's my understanding. And right now, >> it's kind of slight number. That's that's my understanding. >> Needs no changes right right now. >> Well, thank you for reporting and thank you for your service on the board,
>> Charlie. >> Okay. The other thing was when you mentioned transition over time, um like if we're responsible like the next day, how are we doing like like won't they don't we have to pick up their garbage? >> Yes. >> Yes. Mhm.
>> And how is that going to be done if we can't get down the street? Because the garbage truck's too >> going to be down there. It's going to be a challenge. >> You can the the bureau could contract with a private contractor to pick up garbage in the interim. So there's
there's different uh methods to take to do transitional uh >> I wasn't sure what the transition over time was. Well, our positive means basically, you know, what I was saying in the beginning about the patient is >> we'll do something
>> and and do the best that we can, but that you know what what happens on day one is not going to be what service provision looks like you know three years from now. Okay, >> that's really over time you because other it's it's not
>> feasible from a practical standpoint or a procurement standpoint or financial standpoint. And also we need to figure out what we're dealing with, >> you know. So it's it's that's where the the patience is going to come in. And the only thing that confused me on the
whole thing is like you said in the beginning how you know um the property tax thing could come down and then there's all these other expenses that are now coming in like are we really going to save money and you don't have to answer
that but it's just my confusion in my head that you know it's supposed to come down and then we got the planning board stuff that's going to be done and we have to buy this and our payroll is going to be skyrocket up and I know we're taking in their money but it just it just seems like a lot of expense and
I have to roll that around. Thank you. >> Any other comments? Yes. >> Hi uh Kathy Spafino uh 59th Avenue. Uh getting back to the central regional on page um 190 of your report you mentioned
another option which is that we could Seaside Park could withdraw from the regional district start a nonoperating school district and pay tuition on the seven send receive basis. I wondered I
don't know if if they talked about it. Some of us went to the meeting at Sentinel Regional when that whole K12 thing was being discussed and they also stated that as a possibility for a town like Seaside Park that is very heavy on the property value and very light on the
student enrollment. I wonder if Joanne if the council has thoughts about that. >> Well, you can't automatically do it. you have to petition to do. >> I I understand it's a process, but have you thought about going down that mayor? Mayor, if I may, I was at that meeting
as well. What what in order to do that and from what I believe from the feasibility study is if the central regional school board decides to go through with the regalization >> and it goes to a referendum for seaside park, then we can vote no and then we
can go and enter the uh send. But until that process actually goes into effect, we we're not able to do that unless that process takes place. >> But that's the K to2 idea in page 190 of your report. That was not even brought
up. This was saying we could do that now. >> Problematic. >> Yes. Any other comments? Yes. Ed CL 48 11th Avenue. Okay. I'm a little confused. A lot are confused.
Do you anticipate that the first reading of this ordinance is going to be in two weeks? Was I think Miss Cypriani alluded to the date of March 20th. >> Yeah. I mean that would that has been discussed. Obviously that's up to the
governing body. >> Now um >> it's March 19th. There's the >> Would that >> the zoning ordinances have been introduced? >> Okay. Would that be the ordinance that would say yes annexation or no
annexation? Is that what that ordinance would be? Okay. Since there are a lot of unknowns and the school being one of them and some of these other costs, why why does this ordinance need to be
introduced in two weeks? Like does the legislation require that once you get a study then two weeks later you have to have I mean why couldn't we wait like I don't even know how much time it would take to maybe figure out these things to see what the school's going to do to see
what this is see what the master plan and all of that why do we have to hurry up and do this in just two weeks so the statute does not require that in terms of whether it's a good idea to take
additional time or not. Um, you know, some of these things you you talk about looking and into the planning and whether or not to make the zoning as Miss Ley said that there there is a significant cost attached to that. So, it's it's one of those things I think on
which reasonable minds could differ. If you want to go ahead and incur those costs without knowing whether or not you're going to go forward then then that is a process that the law would permit. Um certainly reasonable minds
could also say it's you better to decide that essential question before you start incurring those costs. So that's really you know it it there's it it cuts either way. I mean, I'm not for it or against it because I still don't understand a lot of it. Wouldn't
there be some kind of like ballpark figure as to what it would cost to redo the master plan? I mean, is it going to, and I'm going to exaggerate to make a point, is it going to cost $10 or is it going to cost $10 million? You know, isn't there >> I think somewhere in between.
>> Miss Liz Le is definitely the best person to give that. >> You're probably in about the $100,000 range. >> Okay. Well, well, and and and I'm not saying it's not because I don't know the first thing about that either. I was a middle school teacher. You want to know anything about the world geography, I'm
your guy. Um but I guess what I'm asking is would it be possible to um kind of put these tenative costs on the table and and see I don't know. It just seems to me like we're we're rushing into this and I like I said, it's not that I'm for
or against it. I I just wondered >> do you people have enough information to go forward with this in just two weeks? That's my question. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> One issue you mentioned and I can be as certain as one could be. It was to wait until the school tax issue has been decided. Uh that I think we can all agree on. uh will not be decided 2
weeks, 2 months, and I could fill in some more blanks thereafter. We've already heard it has not even been yet discussed on the agenda at the central regional school board level, much less any referral to the New Jersey
Department of Education. So, where we are, and there's been a development, as we all know, within the last week alone, that Ocean Gate uh closed their schools. So there's a different factor. They're all moving parts with the school situation and the taxes. So it's
unfortunate and Seaside Parks perspective, it hasn't we haven't been treated fairly in terms of the taxation, but we are fortunate to have a fine school that's been there for many, many years. So any other comment? Yes.
>> But two at once. Denise Corey 336th Avenue. Um I guess from a standpoint of the budget is coming up as well. Are you building contingencies into the next year's budget based on the fact
that how this works? We might be in a little flux and then you're going to so are there's like contingency money going into the budget. But >> because the way this looks and the dates and then the team three has to meet and all that, it seems like you might be
passing a budget that doesn't correctly take into account the money that's going to need to be spent on equipment, police officers, and things and upgrading radios. >> So, are you simultaneously working on the budget? Will there be an extension
for the budget? Uh I believe and we we spoke with our council we will have an adopted budget probably by by the time this goes through we can ask for to amend that budget if annexation goes through. >> Okay.
>> Um and your report should I have gone to a planning board meeting to get that or how would I get a copy of that? >> I believe it's on the website. >> That one is also on the website for a long time. And then this is just an off the and this is for the southeast
side part part of the room. How does this affect them voting in the primary? Where does this put them when it turns over with the statutory of the printing of the ballots and whatever? What if they're in their home and they get a Berkeley ballot? Where are they going to
vote? How does that all change into the system so their voting is seamless and they're not disenfranchised in any way? I can only tell you that from the legal pers part of it, if it were to take place, you know, when the ordinance is effective, they are now residents of
Seaside Park and they would vote in Seaside Park. In terms of what the board of elections, obviously that information would be provided to the board of elections um and there would have to be a polling place available for them to vote in person. in terms of, you know,
and and you know, hopefully that information would get out so they would not receive uh a Berkeley ballot. >> Who would be ultimately responsible for that? >> That's a board of elections. >> So they would be made aware that team
three is meeting and they're us now. So that there's no sort of grayer because you'd hate to see anyone. >> Yeah. So, so I I want to be clear that the the the threeperson teams have no impact on um residency. I mean the the
the change the annexation is effective on the effective date of the ordinance. So as of that effective date that South Seaside Park would be part of Seaside Park and those residents would be residents of Seaside Park for voting
purposes, etc. and for tax purposes and everything. what the two three person teams or team three or whatever you call it. >> Team three, I like it. >> Team three, um what they would be arguing about or maybe just agreeing
beautifully in in a magical world. Um would be sort of uh you know the an assignment of debt, how it would be paid, what that amount would be. um any you things could be discussed is any
there was a a an illusion to property owned by Brookley Township they could say you know we have this we think that you should take it we you know have those discussions if there is not agreement then that's again you they have 60 days it goes out to the court
that is about money and some amount of money that Seaside Park will then owe to Berkeley Township and then it would be that part of that what it gets determined is payment, how that'll be paid over time. And that's part of what either the
team three or the court uh appointed commissioners would be deciding, but that would not affect whether or not the annexation took place. The annexation takes place on the effective date of the ordinance. Okay. >> Well, just so they don't get lost in the the voting shuffle, please, because I
think that's >> tragedy if that happens. Thank you. >> Yes, sir. Good evening. My name is Phil Lcastro, 4112th Avenue, Seesaw Park. Just a couple of quick questions. The tax rate calculations that are being done, are
they done on the overall tax rate? >> Talk about tax rate calcul is is that based on the total the total tax rate or is that is that just on municipal tax rate? municipal. >> So it's only municipal tax rate >> only municipal. So the question I have
to ask you is is is so for example on the average in Seaside Park what kind of dollar savings is that projected to be because we don't we just pay a total tax bill right we don't we don't we kind of look at the breakdown by county by school by by municipality but what's the
average municipal tax um rate for the average homeowner and what are we talking about in real dollars I I mean I know my total tax bill I say 40% of my number that's a pretty big But I know the municipal shares the usually the small one with the county is known
the smallest parts. >> Do we know that? >> We do know >> I'm not clear. I'll say it here. >> I mean yeah we didn't. So the overall tax increase by about 52
let me restate my question and you can come sure is my question my question my question is this >> the 40 to 50% reduction that was represented here tonight is that on the municipal tax rate and the answer was yes not on the school tax rate not on the county tax rate so I'm asking a
question to the average Seaside Park homeowner how much is the municipal tax rate on average I would say between 20 to 25%. >> Your name, sir? >> I just joke for Rudy. >> Part of the strategy group.
>> Yes. >> And like I said, I would estimate between 20 and 25% overall deduction. >> So what does that mean in real dollars? >> Well, it depends. >> What's the average? We know we know what a >> just take the tax and reduce 20%. >> Okay. So if someone's paying $10,000 a
year in taxes, >> they're $2,000 savings >> $10,000 in their municipal tax rate, >> right? >> In total tax >> of total tax. So 40 to 50% on the on the municipal tax rate, 20 to 25% on the on
the overall tax rate. And we do we know an average I'm sure you've seen this. Is there an average tax an average taxpayer the average tax reasoning >> yeah this is losing the question is what is the effect on municipal tax
I don't have you have the ability of the percentage of the local tax school tax central region tax >> I understand I Oh, I just I'm just curious. We talk about 40 to 50%. >> That's all and what we're talking about is 40% on the municipal tax rate. So,
>> right. So, everybody go home, look at their tax bill, see how much it has municipal rate and we could be talking about a 25% reduction in that number. And I suspect that number is probably going to be somewhere between two and two and $3,000 homeowner. That would be a good number to put out there. That's
all. So, one more question. So if if you be just beg our indulgence uh we'll get the information. >> Yeah, no problem. Great. And I got one more question and this may have been answered. I may not have understood it. Uh Southeast Side Park is part of
Berkeley Township now and they are invested in Berkeley Township. When they leave when they leave to come somewhere else is do do they are they entitled to something from Berkeley as they pull out? because they've obviously paid into Berkeley Township for a number of years.
>> No, >> no. Cuz I'm I'm a school guy. I'm I'm in the school business. So that's I know there's a little bit of seminaries and there's not. So there's nothing. So Berkeley pulling out can Seaside Park can expect nothing from Berkeley Township if in fact South Seaside Park pulls out and comes here. If South
Seaside Park and if if the governing body votes to accept South Seaside Park in as part of Seaside Park, then there will be discussion between Seaside Park and Berkeley Township as to sort of the
financial arrangements. the the statute provides that we would take on Seaside Park would take on some portion of Seaside South sorry Berkeley Township's debt that was attributable to South Seaside Park if any you know we we don't I don't know that right now and then
there would be discussion about other uh aspects I thought what you were asking is if the people of South Seaside Park could expect any money back from Berkeley >> No I meant I meant to come into Seaside Park I didn't mean anything Yeah. No. And uh and and that will be a
discussion. That's one of the things. But it is also likely that it would go the other way. >> Yeah. And and just one last piece >> or it may just you know equalize out. >> One last piece before I leave I believe in your calculations you estimated this too. You estimated the school tax based
on the current school tax structure. Am I correct? Central and all that stuff. That's that's a smart thing to do because deregalionalizations regionalizations consolidations are >> are far and few between far and I mean so far >> very far and few between. Thank you for talking. >> So just to answer that question about
the school tax uh the information that we use in our report came from the school district. >> Yeah. And then >> again I apologize for not having this answer off the top of my head. Our our our tax guy was supposed to be here tonight and had a medical issue. I knew it was in the report. It's on page 184.
So a property class one, the current average annual municipal taxes are about86.90. The estimated post annexation annual municipal taxes would be 4258 um for class 2 properties 99.50 versus
um 5294. >> That's the overall tax. Yes. >> The municipal tax. >> Yeah. And then prop uh property class 4 11,919 going down to 8,79. >> So what percentage is that roughly? Is
that 25%? 40. >> Uh one second. >> I'm sure you have it, right? >> Yeah, it's in it's on the report. I'm >> already read the first 178. >> You know what? Couple more. Um for class one, it's a 51%. For class 2, it's 46%.
For class 4, it's 26%. >> Thank you. Thanks for your time. There two other yes or no. >> Then we have the back >> Carlo Robosio 477th Avenue just to get further clarification on the whole tax question. I think the report might have been a little misleading because I think it indicated that it was for the total
uh tax bill but now you've clarified it's just for the municipal portion that it will go down. Am I right? I'm understanding that correctly now. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, so then uh we also heard that the uh cost for the school regional
school could is going to go up. So, does that mean that the Seaside Park municipal sorry the school portion of our taxes might go up and then offset what went down on the municipal side and essentially either wipe it out or we could still see an increase in total
taxes based on what we have to absorb from the regional school. >> Go ahead. The total taxes I don't think we do. I don't >> The regional school is going to go up approximately $3 million. >> So that's going to be picked up from somebody, >> but it's going to be offset by over $10
million of tax proceeds. >> Sorry. 10 million >> tax proceeds >> tax increase property tax increase from South Seaside Park. So uh tax collector increase. Does the report indicate that
the South Seas Side Park taxes are going down as well? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> So, they're both going everybody's taxes are going down, but we're having increase in costs. >> Increase in cost, but you also have an increase in revenue taxes. >> Okay. >> Which offsets the increase in cost.
>> Okay. >> Okay. So maybe a new calculation on the the the net, you know, uh potential decrease in taxes would be helpful to everybody because right now the number we're hearing is 40 to 51%. But that's
not really accurate um in the total tax bill. We all think about our taxes as the total tax bill and it'd be helpful to understand what the net effect is going to be. It might be zero given the increases in, you know, in uh, you know,
school uh, taxes going up and, you know, based on the the total breakdown of our uh, county, municipal, and uh, >> I thought you said there was a $7 million. >> Yes. >> Yeah. I don't think that's clear.
>> Did you say yes? >> Thank you. Excuse me. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. I'm sorry. I just I don't know if everybody could hear and and I'm I'm wary about saying this because I I'm not a math person, but I think that what the
>> there's additional cost. 3 million is for the regional school tax. There's also county tax increases. There's also appropriation increases. So all the increases are offset by the additional revenue by about $2.4 million.
So is it so is there so there's 2.4 for more like to the good >> regulated increases in just the school >> the amount to be raised by taxation will go down by 2 million $4 million >> there you go that's >> the net is that
>> yes both overall taxes and municipal taxes >> yes >> Bobby ring 19 drive south DC party >> I I want to point you guys to pages 200 and 2011 of your report >> county uh tax assessor's website publishes the general tax rate for every
municipality in Ocean County. And that tax general tax rate includes school districts and because county includes local taxes and the rate that is published on that site is 1 point excuse me 1.735. You make reference to that on the bottom of page 200. You say the
general tax rate for Seaside Park in 2025 is 1.735. Does that rate not include county, school district, and local taxes as as indicated on the county tax assessors website? >> No, that's just the county tax.
>> No, no, the county tax assessors the general tax rate >> the general tax rate is calculated by >> right >> I believe the m the municipality's general tax rate was 67 cents.
So this 1.75ation >> this is a confirmation of the county rate the school rate and the municipal rate. >> Correct. >> So if you go to page 201 it shows the amount to be raised by taxation the net taxable value and the estimated overall tax would be 1.025
and goes on to say based upon the above post annexation cate park general tax rate again including school county and municipal is estimated to be 1.025 025 indicating a 40.9 reduction in overall annual taxes. So I'm asking for a
confirmation that it might contradict what you just said a moment ago. Does this or does this not include county school and local taxes? People are walking away from this meeting with the impression that this 40% reduction only
applies to the municipal levy and not the levy for the county and the school district. I don't know. >> I think they're overall. >> Yeah, I think percentage overall. >> Okay, that makes that makes sense. I
mean, if you look on the Ocean County Tax Assessor's website, they publish the rates for every the municipal rates 1.735. >> So, I was I'm I'm not on the finance committee of the council, nor am I a finance expert. I don't even balance my own checkbook. Right. So caveat with
that. But when I read through this, I had to read it three times for the very reasons that you asked that Carlo asked. And being somebody who needs to work it through in my head, sometimes you have to read it three or four times to get it. And I did make a call to Bill because it was one of my first questions
was we're saying this and people are only going to hear 41%. And before we say that, what are all those assumptions? And do we believe all those assumptions? So for me, I'm just going to speak for myself. This is an impact study with information and assumptions
that now I need to take and digest and decide, do I believe these assumptions? What assumptions do we maybe as a council want to adjust and say we don't believe this assumption to be true? And it may not be that same number. So this is a perspective as you provided based on all of your assumptions. And that was
my very question. We don't control what the county rate is. We don't control the school formula. We don't control the local school formula. We can control what we spend here within our municipality. I think the way I digested it myself is once we collect all the
revenues that we're currently collecting plus the future revenues, we offset those with whatever these new expenses are going to be one-time or ongoing, right? you end up with a bucket of money that will be more than in the scenarios that they've been describing will be
more than what it takes to cover all of those taxes. So therefore, that will become what's and I'm going to use my words, not anybody else's, available for a tax decrease. In my head right now tonight, I don't know if all of that can
or should go to a tax decrease because >> yeah, >> we don't know. But that's the information the way I understood it. >> There there are three different budgets published in this not budgets but >> summations of revenue and expenses. One is a projected budget for the bureau for
2026 based upon historical increases. The other is a projected uh budget uh taking on the costs that have been uh projected to increase for the school tax and for county taxes and for annexation. And then there's yet a third that had
adds in the revenue for um that will come from the additional property taxes collected from Southside Park residents. >> Correct. >> So all of all of the expenses that we've spoken about tonight that are potential expenses have been accounted for in this in one shape or another. This is a
really >> estimated estimate. Absolutely. >> Any of that can change. >> I understand that too. Um thank you for clarifying that. I I had some real quick things I wanted to say. Let me uh say something. >> Uh on page 208 of the report, it states
that the general tax rate will fluctuate between 26 and 51% dependent on the property class. >> Right? So to clarify, it says the actual tax reduction, not the tax rate. >> Right?
>> Okay. So um for those who don't know, class two property is single family to four family. That makes up 91% of the residences in our community. They're estimated to see a 46% reduction based upon what this report projects. So I got my 10 10 reasons why
Seaside Park should adopt this. Number one, omni operating revenues are meaningful and recurring right out of their report. Operating expenditures increase but remain manageable and within projected revenue. Quoting out of their report. Number three, long-term sustainability is achievable with
disciplined financial management. quot anium report. The report identifies that some of the personnel um that they want to add or suggesting that we add are to fill current vacancies. We're currently down two police officers from the authorized amount and the report
identifies that there really should be three more DPW employees. So number four and number five is this will allow us to get Seaside Park back to strength. Number six, an analysis includes all potential costs, including onetime and ongoing costs, uh, including payroll.
So, all the new folks that have to be hired, police officers going to the police academy, new patrol cars, new radios, everything. The increased ratables in Seaside Park, the ratables will increase in Seaside Park by over 1 bill788,216,500
or 52% more ratables than currently. This creates number eight 10,620,328 in additional real property taxes results in all residents of Seaside Park helping to pay. This is this is a big one too to me because just used to be
member of the fire company. I've retired from that but the um fire company was supplemented through a $35,000 stipen paid by um Berkeley Township to Seaside Park to provide fire protection in South Seaside Park. Burket Township declined to help pay for the new $1.6 million
ladder truck that Seaside Park has purchased for for its residents. Now, if annexation occurs, every single person who lives in South Seaside Park will be helping to pay for that $1.6 million ladder truck at a level far in
excess of $35,000 that was the stipen. And we do all this by lowering the general tax rate, which I guess we got clarified now, right? It includes everything. um which includes local school and county taxes by an average of 40.9% for the class 2 as I said that's 91% of
the properties in town lowers that by a potential 46%. And then I've got a bonus number 11. All of this an analysis use what I think is very conservative projection. I think you guys even mentioned that some gene maybe you mentioned that we they were
asked to show like worst case scenarios. So with worst case scenarios there's a to potential 46% property tax savings. >> Yeah. >> That leaves a very big window for this governing body to say hey you know what with this additional income maybe we're
only going to lower taxes 40%. Or 35%. And we're going to make some investments some things that we previously postponed previously said we'd like to do that but we can't afford it or some previous things that uh some thing other things that need to be uh to be looked at. Thank you for your time. Thank you for
the report. I enjoyed reading while I was on vacation last week. >> Thank you. >> Yes. >> Yes. I'm Don White, 2000 Bar Avenue. Uh one thing that no one has talked about, uh the savings that's going to occur
with um the elementary school. has no >> when you think about it. Uh we pay Southeast side park about $4 million to uh Berkeley Township for the elementary school uh since if we went to Seaside
Park. that $4 million now which we're putting out in our taxes is a savings for just not South Seaside Park but it would be a savings for both Seaside Park and South Seaside Park because as I say um uh you pay student uh we were paying
an awful lot for one of our students about $4 million to send to the elementary school. Thank you. >> Thank you, Don. >> Thank you. >> Any other comments? I'm about to go on the Zoom platform. Yes,
>> I'll just leave it there. Yeah. Um I'm going to ask about the zoning. I know money is much more exciting. It gets all the adrenaline a lot of maybe the zoning, but um name and address. >> Oh, sorry. Kathy, I'm in 316 Roberts Avenue, South Seaside Park, Seaside Park
in Berkeley. Okay. Um uh a question for Kendra. You did mention that the zoning in South Seaside Park is more diverse and different. >> Correct. >> Okay. Uh could you elaborate on that?
>> Uh just just a few moments. I don't want to take my >> Sure. For sure. So, um ju if anybody wants to uh look up on the the report itself, it is on page um three and four where it lists all the different zoning
districts in South Seaside Park and what the permitted uses are. Um and then there's an analysis of South Seaside Park versus um Seaside Park specifically on the residential side and and what's permitted, what's not permitted. >> Yeah. Because diversity always means to
me a lot of different things. So you use the word diverse. Are you just talking about um so the type of housing perhaps? >> Correct. The type of housing housing that's permitted where it's permitted. Some housing is permitted in commercial districts in South Seaside Park where it
isn't necessarily here. Um mixed use is permitted in in uh Seaside Park versus non South Seaside Park. Mhm. >> But so so essentially what is going to happen if the annexation goes through is that all of the existing zoning districts will be melded into Seaside
Park, >> right, to temporarily >> and then and then there's needs to really be a master plan, right? And that so that you can kind of reestablish new zoning districts, >> right? Well, I was just going to point out because of that and we understand
that that um some of you may not know or you probably do that we in South Seaside Park even though we have representation uh all our representation lives over there. All right. Now uh and it was
commonly called known and still is we are known as Berkeley Township cash cow. All right. So in case Berkeley Township decides to have more different zoning, more building, we have no way to make
some of them over there understand us over here and here. Even your um your impact study said that we were very much we a few blocks down are very much like you folks a few blocks up. Now, if
Berkeley decides to change their zoning and have more building, more housing, you have to remember that we unless we take a boat, we can't get out of here unless we come through where you guys are. So, I want all of the uh people
here and everyone to consider that if you do enex um gez Berkeley Township. No, you're not in Berkeley Township. If you were at South Seaside Park, guess who controls the zoning there? You do. And you could keep this entire community
and this part of the barrier island from where Seaside Park starts all the way down to Island Beach, the delightful, warm, and wonderful community, wonderful beach culture that we have. And I would
think that you would all like to be able to control the zoning there to keep everything as nice as it is. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Well, this is way up. >> Hello, Paul. Martino, 9 9th Avenue.
Thanks everyone for your time. Thanks for your great study. I got to tell you, I'm confused as I've ever been in my life. Questions have not been answered with the taxation stuff. It's very unclear to me. I'm pretty intelligent guy. Not as intelligent as my friend
Phil, but I'm pretty intelligent. We talked about the tax reduction 40% to 50%. At first, you said, Mr. Perty. >> Yes. >> That it was on the municipal tax. Now we're hearing it's on the whole tax. And you know what? Quite frankly, I don't it
doesn't even matter what you say. There's confusion. If anyone here on the board, because you're going to be making the decision, would make a decision whether or not to marry their partner with the data that you have right now, you're all crazy. If anyone here would
make a decision to buy a home for a million dollar or $2 million with the data that you have right now, I'm not I'm not downing any of your information, but to look it over, to comprehend it, to understand it clearly, you're making
a mistake. Why is the rush to do the ordinance if the government's not th for forcing us by March 19th? I would suggest mayor and get government board you represent us people to give this more time. Get your information that you
need and understand and understand clearly. So there's no I'm not really sure let's page through this and let's page through that. Let's make a good decision that 10 years from now after 10 years of hard work by South Seedside Park, which I commend them for
continuing their efforts and they got through to the New Jersey Supreme Court finally. Let's make some time. I'm not taking 10 years. I'm just saying don't do this important decision in two weeks. comments in the room. Yes, Gail.
>> Thank you, mayor. Good evening, everybody. Just to clarify on a couple of things. Um, South Seaside Park border Gail Coleman, 101 Southwest Central L, Seaside Park. How you doing? Um,
South Seaside Park, Shore Water Company, and the Burrow of Seaside Heights. We do have emergency where we can connect uh when we had the boardwalk fire and supertorrm Sandy sou seaside part shore water helped us and as well as seaside
heights. So any of that should not be a uh concern as far as backup water. Um for us police department uh we cover down there all the time. I see the cars
whether I'm walking my dogs or I'm looking out my windows at my house. I have a glass fishbowl and I see our cars going down there. God bless. I'm glad we could do it. I don't want it to turn into what it was 15 years ago where we
were always covering there for Berkeley Township with no compensation. Um, so with that being said, I don't really know if we need to hire five more police officers and I understand we're down two with the
former chief and uh, Lieutenant uh, Confederac out. So, but that can be addressed down the road. Um, those are the only two things that I have to say about right now. And then as far as the central regional thing,
there's no way that we're going to get out of that. There's no way. Joanne knows I was on the board. I don't know how many other people in here were on the board, but there's no way we're getting out that way.
Currently, there is a way, but if you guys want to talk to me individually, I will tell you individually there will be a way. It's not going to be conventional. It's gonna probably piss off some politicians locally, but there is a way. Um, thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> And I am for South Seaside Park Julian Seaside Park because they're our neighbors. They support our truck first aid squad, our police departments, our fire departments. They support our local
businesses. What's left of some of them now, but anyway. So I'm in favor. So thank you. >> Thank you. >> Before we hear people again, I I want to go online if anyone hasn't spoken and
that's in the room here. If not, we'll uh go into those who may wish to make a comment or ask a question uh via the Zoom platform. And if anyone does, if you could speak as slowly and clearly as
possible and give your name and address into the record. >> Hi. Hi, Mayor and Council. My name is Amy Herrick, 33 Porter Avenue. This is I'm a newly here, so um this is my first meeting and um my question is actually quite different from what I heard, but
I'm sure it's somewhat related. Two days ago, I received >> uh I I hate to cut you off and I apologize, Professor M. Blur. Uh, I've seen your email. I believe you're here and we do have our planner here and uh
we have some very important business >> this evening. In fact, the second reading and hearing on ordinances and I believe is that what your uh your name was the same as the email. It's about what you describe as the ramifications issues associated with the overlay zone.
>> Correct. So, I was I was invited to this meeting at 7 p.m. So, I've been online. Yes. And there have been uh how many 59 other people originally online albeit uh as the room had 30 vacant chairs when we
started. So anyone could have been here but we did it as an added precaution. Uh when we under the open public means act we've advertised that for a public hearing which is a very important issue for this town and it will happen this evening uh momentarily. So at that time
uh your comment as to the ordinance your question uh will be entertained. >> Should I and should I should I go over there right now or should I >> you either way uh you certainly may there's there's seats available if you want to that would be fine. >> Am I okay just to stay online?
>> Yes. Either way is fine. It's been advertised uh as what's called a hybrid meeting with participation under both forms. Thank you. Any any other individuals wish to make a comment or a question that are
participating via the Zoom platform? >> Yes. >> My name is Dave Barbak. I live on 214th Avenue in Cet Park. >> Yes, sir. Um the last couple of questions here
about property taxes were very I believe the town council and you mayor owe the citizens just a very quick um summary of like the property tax impact in ways that we
don't understand like in terms of our bill and it was not clear to me it was not clear from the answer to some of the questions about whether the reductions or to the municipal tax for the county. So just what's like, you know, if you
were running a company, you would give a best, worst, and medium case on what an average overall property tax bill would be to each of the residences. That's what I would really appreciate to see. It's been kind of confusing all the
chatter in the background about what the report actually states. So, if you could do that in the next couple of days, if someone from the consulting firm could do that, that would be greatly appreciated. >> Uh, they're here and I see Mr. McRoberts has his hand up, so I'll have him
briefly comment. >> So, mayor, you the the information is in the report and you know, unfortunately, there's, you know, thousands of points of information in the report. Some gets lost in translation. I apologize as Chiron mentioned that our uh tax expert
had a medical emergency today. Couldn't be here. But what we will do is by Monday morning we will have for you a pull out section just on property taxes so that it's straightforward and clear and you don't have to filter through the
report to see that information >> incorporate them on that. >> Yes, sir. when I when I get my property tax bill like again I I honestly by the way the report I think was very thorough tax reduction but there are three
components on my tax bill I would like to see a best work average case which I think you have the information for in those three categories municipal county and school tax just like my seaside park
property tax that would be a great way for me to feel a lot more confident about the path we're undertaking. >> We'll try to mirror an average tax bill like the what it actually looks like. >> Yeah, we we uh do a courtesy as you
probably are aware. We do a pie chart with our bills. There's actually other components of a tax bill. There's your uh uh central regional your regional school tax. There's your local tax component of the school. Uh there's the municipal and the county. Am I missing
any? We have a lot of experts here better than I am. But they're all part of each percentage. There's a library tax. >> That's part of the county. >> Yeah. For 2025, the municipal tax was
39%. The county tax which included the library health and green space tax was 31%. And the um the uh regional school tax
including the the district or local school tax was 30%. >> Yeah. I don't know if everyone in the room could hear. So on by sometime on Monday there'll be a breakdown that is being requested on the the tax sort of
the average tax for each uh area the county school and municipal that will be placed on the website. >> A clear clarification. >> No thank you sir. I said it before but I should probably repeat it. the uh
regional school tax as a separate >> entity and it's very fluid. It's uh Seaside Park has raised objections over the years in the manner in which it's been imposed. Uh there perhaps those objections will come to fruition if this
process continues. what is ongoing but it's a lengthy one and it's based in part uh on the number of students in part on the number of students even at the lower school and it's also property evaluation which was not the basis upon
which the regional school was originally formed. It was not based on any kind of overall assessed valuation. It was based on a per pupil basis. >> But yes, >> I just just to make it clear for everyone too like that formula is not a
the central regional school board did not set that formula. That is a state set formula. So just want to be clear on that. Right? Know everyone's very anti-entral regional at times and I know I am biased. I'm an employee at central regional but it is a state formula not a central regional formula not a seaside park formula. A New Jersey formula.
>> It's a state statute. >> State statute. >> That's a good point. Good point to include. Absolutely. Thank you, sir. And anyone else uh over the Zoom platform who may wish to speak? >> Uh no, that's it. May
>> No, no one else. Yes. Uh Edie, >> a totally different question, >> and I'm not volunteering, but how are you going to choose the three people for team three? There's a statute in place and we've
referenced the statute a little bit earlier whether the manner in which it was put together very comprehensive in parts and perhaps leaves some areas uh that has to have reasonable interpretation otherwise. So I can turn it over to our special counsel to
address the topic but we're premature that has not happened at this moment. So there's nothing in the statute that requires or or dictates who the three people will be. Um obviously because it's a financial component, you want to
have people who uh have some, you know, but that's really going to be up to the governing body and those people will be appointed by resolution. there can be compensation for them, but that's really, you know, going to be up to the governing body who they they think will
be the team three that will uh will be able >> started, Denise. The >> um be most effective for the bur who gets to decide. That was my question. >> The governing body. >> Thank you for answering.
>> Any other comments on hearing? None. I will thank everyone. Yes, J. Jay Delaney 1710 North Bayiew Avenue in Seaside Park. A couple of questions. Uh first to the planner. Uh your report references the Bowman report and attached it as an appendix. There's no
indication of a date on that or the purpose for which that was uh prepared or who commissioned it. Uh it was prepared for South Seaside Park. Uh and u my understanding was that it well not my understanding in reviewing the report
there was definitely more opinion uh in that report as to why that particular professional thought it would be a good idea to annex. Um but I I don't know if there was a date on the report or not. I thought there was >> but anyway that that was my
understanding of they commissioned the um Mr. Bowman to to do that. >> Is Mr. Bowman present or will he be present to take questions on uh his portion of the report? >> Not that I'm not that I'm aware of. I and I and I specifically um really
narrowed the pieces of the demographics because it's all factbased information as well as the comparison of some zoning districts. Other than that, none of the other um points in that report or anything that I would have pul pulled into my report.
>> It uh it creates a false sense of independent information that was commissioned to reflect Seaside Park's wishes to uh understand the pros, cons, and impacts. Um secondly, I just want to comment in general. We've heard a lot
tonight from a significant number of people and certainly South Seaside Park has been represented. I'm not sure they meet the 40% threshold that reflects the overall addition of tax base that will be added to Seaside Park's task tax base
as a result of an annexation. But uh I'm I'm sort of focused on that 40%. uh particularly given the uh some of the uh information that's in included in the various reports that identifies the South Seaside Park section of Berkeley
Township representing 10% of their tax base and I think uh uh most are aware certainly those from South Seaside Park are aware of the effort and time and public meetings that were held uh by Berkeley Township. However flawed the
result may have been according to the court's decisions. Uh but that was an extended period of time. Uh in this case we're talking about somewhere depending on what measure one uses a basically a 40 to 60%
uh expansion of Seaside Park. And yes that has both advantages and disadvantages. But that is a significant change in terms of the operations of the municipality. Uh its tax base, its land area. Uh there's been I think a good
healthy discussion tonight on the zoning impacts uh and the planning impacts. None of which have really been fully vetted. We're we have some cost guesstimate uh together with all the cost guesstimates that have been uh presented by uh government strategies.
uh there are significant number of underlying assumptions that are you know frankly uh just that they're assumptions the biggest being the school taxes and the school taxes represent the largest portion of the overall tax impact so I
will uh echo the comments of some of the previous uh speakers uh there is no rush here uh let me go back to one final point uh we've heard from residents of Seaside Park heard from residents of South Seaside Park, but we haven't heard anything from the taxpayers. And as a
lifelong resident of Seaside Park and someone who was here through the last annexation questions in that instance, the governing body sought to include the voices and sentiment of the taxpayers, the property owners of Seaside Park. Uh
they contribute financially. Most of them have their homes uh anticipating to either retire here. They spend the better part of their uh you know uh of the year here. Uh and they haven't been hurt. And frankly, given you know, this is not a criticism, but it's a fact that
given this time of year, so many of our residents are not here. Uh very few of our uh taxpaying property owners are here on a regular basis. And I think that's a huge voice that needs to be considered. And I hope that this
governing body as representatives of all of the taxpayers not notwithstanding the fact that you're elected by voters uh take those their concerns into consideration. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
Any other comments? >> Hearing none, I would thank everyone very much for coming. >> Yes, sir. >> May I just uh >> Yes, sir. >> respond to the question of timing. It's not on. It's not on. Maybe
>> Well, let me just uh >> respond to the question of timing. >> The longer you wait to adopt an ordinance and annexation, then later you will get a tax cut because there are a
lot of steps that have to be go gone through by the municipal council. And if you wait long enough instead of getting a tax cut next year, there'll be an year after that or maybe no tax cut. Thank you, sir. And thank everyone this
evening for your comments. And again, as our uh consultant had noted early on in this process, thank everyone for their civility, for their intelligent comments, questions, and all part of the record in the process. Um
we have a significant meeting late to go this evening. Uh I'll turn for there any other work session comments devoted to the topic. There should not be as that was expect to stay right just like the priest said we expect you to stay with
the >> that was the sole topic of the work session that now having been concluded I would entertain the emotions and if everyone could please be as quiet as possible apparently >> I'm sorry if I could just ask everyone
as you're leaving which I can certainly understand and I kind of wish I were going with you if you could be as quiet as possible because the meeting is continuing >> and I would entertain a motion to adjourn the work session and then uh go into the regular meeting. >> I'll make that motion.
>> Motion by council president Wil. Second by council member to roll call. >> Council President Wil. >> Yes. >> Council member Tote. >> Yes. >> Council member Condos. >> Yes. >> Council member Connor. >> Yes. >> Council member K. >> Yes. >> Council member Otanda.
>> Yes. Not yourself. Part: 2
This is a regular meeting of the mayor and bureau council. The bureau of seaside park county bureau should state of New Jersey held on Thursday March 5th 2026 advertised to begin at the conclusion of the work session which has now just ended pursuant to the provisions of New
Jerseys open public meetings act. Adequate notice of this meeting was properly provided by posting the notice of the meeting on the official burough website of March 3rd 2026. Notice of the meeting of the governing body also been posted in the corridor of the municipal building, the office of the municipal
clerk. This meeting also having been advertised at the January rework meeting as a regular meeting. The purpose for the uh renotice requirement was as an added precaution in the event that there were uh more people that uh wanted to attend and were not permitted because of
the building limitations. And that was not the case. But we did naturally as the notice had to have gone out and did go out, we allowed it and had are continuing to allow participation over the Zoom platform. Uh that being said, there were a number of extra seats
throughout the meeting uh at the beginning and throughout. Uh that being said, I'll turn the floor over to our clerk for a roll call. Thank you. Council member Condos, >> yes, here. >> Council member Connor >> here. Council member Craft
>> here. >> Council member Rotunda >> here. >> Council member Tote >> here. >> Council President Wil >> here. >> Mayor Peterson >> here. >> Thank you. >> Let us all rise together now for a moment of silence to be followed by our pledge of allegiance. I aliance 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. The first item on the agenda is request for approval of the minutes of the February 19th, 2026 work session in the
February 19th, 2026 regular meeting. >> I'll make that motion. >> Motion by Council President Wil. >> Second. >> Second by Council Member Condos. Roll call. >> Council President Wil. >> Yes. >> Council member Condos. >> Yes. >> Council member Connor. >> Yes. >> Council member Crack.
>> Yes. >> Council member Otendo. >> Yes. Council member Toe. >> Yes. >> Motion approved. >> Next. Request for approval of the February 19th, 2026 close session. Minutes. Any comments from council. If not a motion, >> I'll make a motion.
>> Motion by council member Connor. Second. >> Second by council president Wil. Roll call. >> Council member Connor. >> Yes. >> Council President Wil. >> Yes. >> Council member Condos. >> Yes. >> Council member Craft. >> Yes. >> Council Rotunda. >> Yes. >> Council member to
>> Yes. Next are the ordinances and the first is final reading and adoption ordinance 22608 amending chapter 200 entitled development regulations to create a residential inclusionary overlay zone.
And we have with us uh this evening uh again Jean Chipriani of our special counsel's office uh who has uh advised us throughout this process and our planner Miss Kendra Ley who has also uh
done a great deal of work on this issue which began long ago and has already included uh various public hearings along the way which have already taken place. But, uh, with that, perhaps I'll turn the floor over to Kendrick and give
a summary of where we are. And >> is it okay if I stand over here again? >> That'd be fine. Yeah, the mics are picking up there. >> So, um, the the ordinance that is on the agenda, do I need a mic? Can you all hear me? Okay. Uh, is is a uh an implementing ordinance of your housing
element fair share plan. So, I'm going to just give you a broad overview of affordable housing in five minutes. Um it's a it's a 40-year history and it's very complicated and comprehensive. Uh essentially the Fair Housing Act was adopted in uh March of 2024.
That Fair Housing Act was adopted by the state of New Jersey. The state of New Jersey requires that every municipality provide for a realistic opportunity to provide your fair share of affordable housing. Uh with that fair housing act, there was a number of uh units that was
assigned um to each municipality and in Seaside Park uh your obligation uh which ranges from 1987 which is when the first Mount Laurel decision was placed uh was put in into place to 2035.
Um the obligation uh is uh let's seeund 157 units. So, the question always to me is, well, how do we possibly provide 157 units in a town that has zero to to
really no vacant land? Um, and the answer to that is that the rules and regulations allow for a town like Seaside Park to do what's known as a vacant land analysis. When we do a vacant land analysis, we're able to reduce that obligation. And in in this
particular case, we reduced it to zero, meaning that you didn't have any vacant land that would support 157 units. Great. That sounds amazing, right? However, the rules basically say while you can take your realistic development potential, the real units that you could
possibly um create to zero, that doesn't mean that the rest of it goes away. You you don't just erase 157 units. That's something called unmet need. You have to by law provide zoning that creates a realistic opportunity uh for for
affordable housing to occur in areas that may redevelop over the next 10 years. The planning board adopted a housing element and fair share plan on May 19th, 2025. Uh the fair housing act, the law, the state law required that all
municipalities adopt their plans by June 30th. So you were in that time frame. I will say to you that we are in what's known as the fourth round. The fourth round runs from 2025 to 2035. Um, as I just indicated, the Fair Housing Act was
literally adopted right before the end of the third round and implemented and required extremely stringent time frames to get things done. U I would uh say that the sorry the the planning board adopted uh
the housing on the fair share plan. It went into something called the affordable housing dispute resolution program program. This program was led by seven retired judges uh and what's known as special adjudicators were assigned to each of these towns to what's called
mediate. They it was a mediation a negotiating um arm of the court. And the and the purpose was that once these plans were submitted to the program of which there were 400 and some odd towns that did that um anybody could challenge the plan. They could review the plan
make sure that it is or is not in compliance with the fair housing act and Mount Laurel doctrine uh which is the affordable housing doctrine and uh they were to provide their comments their challenges by the end of of August. We have one challenge from sh fairshare
housing center. Fairshare Housing Center is a nonprofit in the state of New Jersey. Um they are uh basically uh representing the interests of low and moderate income households in the state and they challenge every single um housing element that was submitted to
the program. Uh in this particular case, I would say it was a light challenge. They weren't necessarily um challenging anything of substance, but they wanted to kind of have a seat at the table uh and be able to have some participation and and make sure that the town did what
they were supposed to do, which means that they were supposed to do certain things within within a time frame. Um the main component of your plan is to meet this unmet need uh requirement. And so your unmet need for the fourth round
while your total unmet need was 157 that was from again 1987 through 2020 2035 but the the actual amount for 20 uh sorry 2025 to 2035 was uh I think it was 18 um and so 18
units is somewhat manageable uh but we actually only had to provide for five and the reason why is the housing the the fair housing acts basically said you have to provide for 25% you have to zone for 25% of your unmet need. 25% of 18 is
is five. And so we implemented an overlay zone. This overlay zone was included in the housing element fair share plan that was adopted by the planning board um in May. Uh and u this what's known as the real the residential
inclusionary overlay zone is what is before the governing body tonight. They went through first reading. They went through consistency review at the planning board a couple weeks ago. The planning board found that it was substantially consistent with the housing element and now tonight is the uh is the public hearing on this
ordinance. This ordinance uh would allow for an overlay zone to occur. Uh which basically means that the base zoning that that is currently on that um property uh which is I think I have the block on lot. It is block 91 lots 24
through 27 and lots 34 through uh 54. It sits on the north side of of the the um town and this is approximately 1.3 acres. it would allow 20 dwelling units per acre. However, it's an option. It is not saying that that absolutely will
happen. Um the again the base zoning as is which is residential can somebody can still develop under that. They can still build single family homes. This just basically, if you can imagine, sits on top of that zoning and allows for a the owner and/or developer that would come
through an option to provide inclusionary housing. In order to take the the ability to take that additional density that's permitted at 20 units per acre, there must be a 20% set aside affordable housing. So, you don't just get increased density and you build all
market rate units. Um, essentially, this is what's called inclusionary zoning. It allows for an increased density so the market rate units can subsidize the affordable units which are substantially less than the market rate units. Um this would potentially produce 26 dwelling
units of which five would be set aside for affordable housing. Um the the uh and that would be total buildout. Somebody chose to do that. The ordinance has specific bulk regulations. is we tried to sort of mimic what's the existing um underlying district uh bulk
regulations allowing for slightly well not slightly but higher um lot coverage because when you do multif family housing um obviously it's a higher density you need more lot coverage and you need the ability to park the site anybody that would develop under this
again this is not development that's coming to the municipality this is allowing this is implementing zoning that allows for an option to occur It may or may not ever happen in the next 10 years. But the responsibility of this bureau um to be compliant with the Fair
Housing Act is that this ordinance must be implemented in order to implement your housing element and fair share plan. And and the main crux of the reason why you do this, not only to provide potential for affordable housing, is that you eliminate the uh
the thought pro the um risk of having a builder's remedy lawsuit. which basically means is if you don't adopt a plan and you don't adopt this ordinance, a builder can come in and pick a piece of property and say, "You know what? You haven't met your obligation for affordable housing. I'm going to build
at 50 units an acre and I'm going to meet your entire obligation potentially." And so it it limits the risk of that happening. You control the destiny of your zoning. And this is one way that you do that. And that's and that's implementing the zoning that
would implement um your housing element and fair share plan. Um so with that mayor I I can um answer any questions that you may have. There's a second ordinance on we could talk about that after you do the public hearing. The second ordinance is more administrative
type of of um language that is not relevant as far as that specific zoning district. >> Thank you Kendra. And there are all skipping ahead to the agenda for resolutions. There are some related ones as well. Um, but I thank you for all
your hard work and thank the planning board, our special counsel, uh, our town attorney, everyone, planning board attorney, everyone's worked hard, uh, for the better part of the year on this. Anything from council at this juncture?
If not, uh, anything from Jean from your perspective? >> Absolutely not. If not, we'll go into the audience for any public comments on final reading adoption ordinance 22608. If anyone has them, if they could give their name and address into the record. >> Sure.
>> Thank you for this opportunity. Uh my name is Mike Lombardo. I live at 26 Farragate A. How you doing, Mr. >> Um couple things. I'll try to keep this quick. Uh nervous, so bear with that. Everybody knows when the summertime is
over and the crowd go home, what do we get? Taco Tuesday at the sawmill. But included with that, we get parking. >> Don't ever have to fight for a spot. If a building like this, a project like this is put in, that eliminates that
parking spot for everybody. I have three vehicles at my house. I have two houses on my property. One's a summer rental and one's my is my own. Um, it's very difficult to find parking even today. Uh, there are five handicap parking
spots that are assigned to residents in front of my house alone, which is a great opportunity for people that need that. I'm not debating that, but it makes it difficult to find parking. This would be horrible for my renters, my tenants, everybody else's tenants,
everybody else that has family that comes down. and you lose money because if you can't park, people aren't going to come. Um, I think there are other opportunities. Desert Palms just sitting there waiting for something to go and be put in its place right there. Um,
the other issue is I am backed up right next to the compactor that was moved from the front of that lot to the back for the sawmills, recycling, and trash. We hear it getting dumped every night. we hear getting pulled by the uh
sanitation department every morning. So, if there's a building, a large structure there, that's all going to echo back into our house. Um, not to mention the marijuana that's going to come from that situation as well. Uh, I appreciate your time and
that's all I have for right now, but thank you very much. >> Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. >> Any other comments on the second reading, Ordinance 22608? Good evening. South Kapano, 38 Fargate Avenue,
guys. I I love what you're trying to do and the presentation was fantastic. Thank you. Clarified a lot for me. My concern like my buddy Mike there is I have two buildings and I have people that have been coming to my place for
over 20 years. I have a I've taken Farragate Avenue. I pioneered Farrigate Avenue. I've been there 41 years since 1985. You remember Farragate Avenue in 1985? Well, I certainly do. But I'm proud to
say Farragate Avenue was a nice and beautiful family block there. And now you have all these new stands and businesses on the go that went through Sandy and the fire. And now they just
recently put up all brand new businesses. Now I believe in fair housing and and especially for the affordable act. I believe in that. I just feel that that part of town that's the resort part of town. That's that's
the boardwalk. And if you take away 200 cars for people to go to the beach daily and then go to the boardwalk at night, you're going to lose a lot of business. Those pe those guys that have those stands, they're going to they're going
to get hurt. People that have come down and rent for years, if those stands aren't functioning right or it's it's a little crazy to car, guess what? They might not go anymore. So this is what I'm facing. And so therefore, I say try
to find another place, you know, frankly, to just put the building on. I mean, I just don't think it's a good idea to put it right on Ocean Avenue in front of the wall. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. Any other public
comments? If not, we'll go into the Zoom platform. I know there's at least one comment. >> Oh, >> yes. the uh individual I believe that uh had been very patient previously and wanted to make a comment and had written
an email in Is >> there now? Are you coming on now? I can hear you. >> Yeah, there's somebody at the podium. That's not me. I'm I'm on the internet. >> Yes, that's who we're trying to get. Have you you've spoken up um an hour,
two hours ago? >> Yes, I did. >> Yes. And your your name and address again, ma'am? >> Amy Herrick 32 Porter. >> Amy Harris. >> Amy Herrick. >> Amy Harris. 32 Porter.
>> 32 Porter. Yes. And And your comment? >> My comment is I'm just trying to understand this whole situation. and I received this notice two days ago. I am a new owner. Um I'm very present right now. I I want to be very involved. I received it two days ago and I live
locally. So I'm wondering about the other neighbors and and today I finally received the plan. I I couldn't see because it said it was going to come with a map. I saw the map and now I saw the area that was affected that's listed. I do understand
absolutely that affordable housing has to be in any single development you do. I do. I lived in the hills in in Bedminister. I know how that works. I know you have to do it for a certain amount of years. I also do understand that. But I do understand that take away everything. Um the height that you were
talking about seems a little obsessive to take away every single view we would have. So I mean what was proposed in in that situation seemed a little obsessive to just build up everything to I mean I would like to live in that affordable housing where I'd be close to the beach.
I mean I I don't know. I'm just trying to understand, but I think that we need a little more time here. As I said, I received a notice two days ago and I I spoke to someone yesterday, very nice, he's wonderful, and I'm not going to say his name. And then today, I finally got a map and I said, "Oh my god, that's my
that's like right next to me." And that's fine. But again, I think that I would I would be not averse to applying having this affordable housing, but I think it should be a structure we should all decide together. And and one last question. I mean, I know we all know
what we're talking about, the land. Has this already been like, do they want to sell? I heard they did not when I bought in here. I know the Verizon building that is like, you know, right next to my house, they said they're never leaving. So, I mean, is this something that, you know, that they would actually agree to?
>> You may I'll turn that over to uh special counsel. And >> yeah, just two things on that comment and hopefully I can uh be heard. One is as as um as Lily said, this is an overlay zone. So there's the existing
zoning remains in place. This provides another opportunity. Um that opportunity would have to be taken over taken by the property owners. It's always within the control of the property owner. if they make any application if they go with the
underlying zoning or with the overlay zoning. Um I to the comment I believe I heard I don't believe that there's any anticipation of uh any particular property being used any owner who is selling or looking to
take advantage of the overlay zoning at this point. Um so that is always going to be in the control of the property owner because it is an overlay and um does not remove the existing zoning. And also on the question of time, I think
it's important for the public as well as the governing body uh to be aware that under the legislation in order to get the judgment of repose and have the protection from the builder's remedy, the ordinances must be
adopted by March 15th. So though normally I know the governing body is very uh accommodating and and uh wanting to get lots of public comment and and maybe take a little additional time. In this case, in order to provide the
protection from a builder's remedy lawsuit that I believe everyone uh knows it would be a good thing for the bureau, you must have your ordinances in place by March 15th. >> Thank you, Jean. Yeah, I guess the only
other thing I wanted to mention is that this ordinance was actually uh the draft of it was appended to the housing element fair share plan that was adopted back in May. So, this has been available for public review um uh you know since May and it's been in in the um
documents. That's what's been submitted and and that's what the court is looking at uh as far as implementation. >> Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Are there any other uh comments? We have one person waiting in line in the room.
Two people. Uh anyone else online that and no one's raising their hand. So I'll go into the audience. Your name? >> Yes. Hi, I'm Diana B. I'm at 32 Faragate Avenue. First I want to say I did receive this certified letter. Um
it my doorbell rang by the postman on the 24th. This is marked the 19th. After reading it, I found that there was first meeting was on the 19th of February. Correct. Was there a meeting two weeks ago
regarding this? >> The the first reading. >> Yeah. First reading of the ordinance. Yes. February. >> The ordinance itself was attached uh all the way back in May of this year. It was uh subject to a planning board hearing as well. Well, I'm just asking because
if I got a certified letter, I just was wondering how would I be able to come to a meeting on the 19th if I didn't get this or the 24th and it's postmark the 19th. However, um the only thing I want to say for the most part is I totally agree with my other two neighbors uh
regarding the situation as far as you know, we have a hard time parking as it is. Um and it will cause a lot of problems for our family members and and all of that as well. The only other thing I wanted to mention is three years ago they came with the
dumpsters right behind our homes and what I've experienced with that was constant flies after those dumpsters were put there. So this is something we have to live with as well. And now from what I also understand is that in
speaking to someone who knows people who own part of the areas of this lot, they're speaking of doing this on one side and not the side of the dumpsters because they can't take these dumpsters out.
So, not only do we have a problem with possibly having building there, which is going to hurt the homeowners there, it's also going to be on, from what I understand, one side of the lot, not the lot side of where the dumpsters are, which is a big problem.
That's mainly what I have to say. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> And Jay couple of questions eliminate some of the concern about parking. Um if I may address the
question if this development were to happen uh there would be or what off street parking would be available for the units. So the um ordinance requires that the any development that would occur on this uh property has to meet the residential site improvement
standards which is the the state law and so all parking would have to occur on site. >> So there wouldn't be uh theoretically there would be more parking for this new development than exists generally uh
considering the existing pattern of development. Um well there the this particular development if one were to come forward has to provide for their own parking on their site. There could there would have to meet again the number of parking spaces per the bedroom
count for the unit. Uh whatever that total is they have to meet that. And so the the idea behind that is that it would eliminate off streetet parking requirements. Um, so I'm not sure if I answered your question, but that's I don't know what the existing situation is with parking and what happens on this
lot as it relates to the neighborhood. Um, but but the idea behind it is that there would not be overflow parking that would have to park on the street. >> Um, just a couple of other questions. The uh the overlay area consists of what
is now presently completely undeveloped. >> That's correct. >> And it's used as parking lot public. >> That's what my understanding. And what is the uh the size and square footage of the overlay area? >> It is 1.3 acres. >> So it's like uh say 90,000 square feet
or something that >> uh yeah >> and under the existing zoning what's the maximum permitted uh density and what would that translate into the number of units? >> So the ex I would have to look that up. the the existing um density right now is
our um residential zone, but I'm not sure what the me it's based on minimum lot size, but I've looked it up as to what the minimum lot size is. >> Doesn't provide comparison,000 5,000 ft. >> 5,000. >> So, the current permitted uses are
single family dwellings on 5,000T lots. >> That is correct. So this overlay would uh provide for a higher density. Is that also limited to single family detached dwellings or >> that the if you >> I didn't finish with the old house.
That's or does it permit uh uh attached townhouse type or some sort of other multi-dwelling? >> Yes. So the um the only permitted use in the overlay zone is multif family dwellings which would include town houses or apartments.
not single family, >> but it wouldn't preclude single family detached. >> You you would do the only way you could do single family detach is under the base zoning of the R district. You would not be able to do that as part of the inclusionary. >> And I think what I heard you say during
your presentation was that uh this contemplates construction of up to 26 dwelling units, five of which would be affordable. >> Yes. the if you were to maximize the density over the 1.3 acres, you would uh
come up with a total of 26 dwelling units of which five would be affordable. >> And those are uh the five that are affordable. Are they perpetually dedicated or is it a 30-year? >> So, if they were rentals, it would be a 40-year deed restriction. And if it was
for sale units, let's say they were town homes, it would be a 30-year deed restriction. Um, and is it possible for you to do the quick calculation of uh, well, maybe I can do it my head is if it's roughly 90,000 square feet, 5,000 ft minimum lot
size. >> If it's 1.3 acres, it's not 90,000. >> It's 57,000 square ft. >> Wow. >> Thank you. So, >> just so people know, it's 43560
square feet in an acre. um times 1.3 is 56,628. >> So it's roughly >> you would get you would have 11 homes potentially on that property. >> So this is essentially more than doubling the exist the permitted density
from what's there. >> A little bit less than doubling. Yes. Okay. Thanks. >> Thank you J. Any other comments on second reading? Of course, the the record should reflect the foresight of the governing body over the years.
>> Oh, we have a a comment again. This is >> I'm sorry. I knew this. I'm not out of >> and your name again for the record, ma'am. >> Amy Herrick 34 question. >> Yes. I mean, question is, I know this, you know, you're trying to entice us and
make us feel like really good about this, but the question is, do we really have a choice in this matter? >> No. >> I just want to know like I mean, we're trying to digest it. Do we really have a choice? Is this a decision? No. I just want to know
>> you need me to help. the the open public meetings act uh encourages and allows comments not questions. So is that a rhetorical question? I I do we have a choice the state of New Jersey has
mandated this upon each and every municipality in the state. So did the town have a choice rather than litigating against the state of New Jersey? The answer hypothetically is probably not. That would be a pretty
unwise choice that we would use resources with a very limited opportunity to prevail. I believe there were 12 towns in the state of New Jersey that did file a lawsuit and that was
just dismissed. I don't know if they're pursuing other remedies in the federal courts. >> It was it was also denied by the US Supreme Court. was denied by the United States Supreme Court. So the there's that answers somewhat. So the town has
been wrestling with the issue and complying with the mandate uh for the better part of the year uh for and some towns have not but that's not before us.
>> I would like to rephrase my question. I would like to rephrase my question. I understand as a town we do need to have this affordable housing. My question is is this actually is this the first place you're going to go, you know, like do we even have I'm saying my community here.
I see everyone from Paragot over here. I see I see my neighbors. I I don't know them. Hi, I'm Amy. Um I just want to know um is this is this a first hit? You know, I know we need to provide it, but do we have a choice as a neighborhood? There's other properties definitely in
Seaside Park, but I want to know before I even start asking questions or looking into it more, is this is this the first place that we're going to you're going to send in to provide this because I know we are required it, but is are we your first person to hit? That's it.
>> Thank you, ma'am. I I I can refer to anyone who wishes to answer. I certainly understand your concerns and where I was gone momentarily. It doesn't address uh your entire question, but uh I do >> thank the governing body over the years
and this addresses the parking issue and particularly your neighbors and those in the community had asked this town for many years why we couldn't provide more public parking and that indeed is one of the public purposes for which the town
had acted upon the property that had come up earlier in a different context where the location of a a former motel, the Desert Palm. And among the many public purposes that being contemplated and the reason indeed for the taking was
public parking and uh that's expected to occur on a portion of that uh particular lot. So that addresses it. But Kendra, >> um just to address the the question because this always comes up, why did you pick this area? What you know, what were the other alternatives that you
looked at? So the law is very clear that when you are when you are proposing overlay zoning to meet the unmet need um it has to be a property that may redevelop in the next 10 years. So when we started to look at properties in the
in the burrow as we were putting together the housing element fair share plan we looked at churches and and that type of thing. Um, and I will say that the Fair Share Housing Center uh has been very stringent as to what they
believe parcels to redevelop and and unfortunately the law doesn't necessarily even define that. So, we were all kind of trying to figure out what that meant. When we look at a parcel that's vacant and parking is on it, it is a prime in my opinion from a planning perspective, it would be a
prime spot where redevelop may occur um over the next 10 years. And so that's why that particular parcel was chosen uh versus anything else in in the burrow. >> And in answer part to the question, a number of different options were weighed
very carefully and that entailed the process that has been going on for uh this year. Any other public comments on the second reading? Hearing none, I'd close the public portion. And I entertain a motion from
the council for second reading ordinance 22608. >> I'll make that motion. Mayor >> motion by council president Wilk. >> Second. >> Second by council member Rotunda. Roll call. >> Council president Wil. >> Yes. >> Council member Rotunda. >> Yes.
>> Council member Condos. >> Yes. >> Council member Connor. >> Yes. >> Council member Crab. >> Yes. >> Council member Tote. >> Yes. >> Motion approve. The next is the related ordinance spoken about moments ago. It's final reading and adoption ordinance
22609 establishing affordable housing and development fees. And I can turn it over again to Kendra the background uh as it's uh by and large a lot of administrative uh and compliance with the statute. >> Right. So this is what's known as your
affordable housing ordinance. Uh this is an ordinance that is an I would say operational ordinance administrative ordinance. Um if I want to build affordable housing, I look to this ordinance uh to to tell me how to affirmally market the units, how I income qualify people in them, how they
are built, ADA accessibility. Um it's the ins and outs of affordable housing and what somebody would have to comply with. It mimics what's known as the uniform affordability or sorry uniform housing affordability controls which were adopted by the
state. So there's a state law that says basically everything that you read in that ordinance. It's like 43 pages. Um we have to mimic that. So this is this is basically a um local ordinance that mimics the state regulations. The other
thing that it does uh which is these are new ordinances for the municipality is it allows for the municipality to collect development fees. Development fees are collected on new single family homes and non-commercial excuse me non-residential um the assessed value of
of any non-commercial new use or expansion of a of a use. those fees. 1.5% of residential assessed value of new builds um and then 2.5% of assessed value of of non-residential goes into
your affordable housing trust fund. You can utilize your affordable housing trust fund for affordable housing purposes and that's to offset any any need to pull from your general fund. is a collection to help for to provide for administrative costs um to provide for
any again affordable housing uh future affordable housing. So these ordinances as as I said are um extreme administrative operating standard operating type of procedures and are um mimicking the state law. >> And obviously Kendra and we have two
experts here far more verse than I. that uh conceivably the statute at the state level allowed a municipality also to impose those kinds of fees if it wanted to upon even residential
uh redevelopment or an addition so to speak and I understand with input and recommendations from the planning board and the governing body we determined that that would simply not be appropriate and it would be something
not reasonable in Uh, so we are not imposing those fees on homeowners who may want to upgrade their home to an addition. >> It would just simply be new a new bill. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So that I think that's an important point as well. >> Absolutely. >> Any comments from council on second
reading. >> If not, I'll go into the audience if there are any public comments on the final reading adoption ordinance 22609. Seeing none in the audience, anyone online? >> No one on Zoom. No one on Zoom. As such,
I close the public hearing and I'd entertain a motion for a second reading to 2609. >> Motion by council member to second by council president woke roll call. >> Council member to >> Yes. >> Council President Wil. >> Yes. >> Council member Condos.
>> Yes. >> Council member Connor. >> Yes. >> Council member Craft. >> Yes. >> Council member Otanda. >> Yes. pleasure. >> And I'm throwing all the attorneys in our firepower here. Can the next on the
printed agenda goes to authorizations and claims of I skipped ahead to the resolution list momentarily? >> Is that meat muster? >> Not a problem. >> Not a problem. What I will do because we have our professionals here. Uh we have
not resolution 226129 approving the fourth round affordable housing spending plan. Resolution 226130 approving the affordable housing affirmative marketing plan affordability assistance manual and rehabilitation
program manual. And finally 226131 appointing a municipal housing liaison. uh and I'll get whatever uh input of uh professionals may wish on those uh three different resolutions and uh I can speak
to the municipal housing laser on part uh we've looked at other towns as have our professionals who ideally might serve it has to be a municipal employee and it's all over the lot in other towns but the most logical individual who
indicated a willingness to accept the appointment would have been the as the uh chair of the zoning code enforcement, Alexa Palary. Uh but obviously we had a number of uh individuals uh uh the three the other ones are right here in this
room. Any one of which could have served capably and a uh that's the one and the other two uh perhaps the affordable housing the spending plan and the affirmative marketing plan if we want to address that. >> So the spending plan is essentially your budget for the affordable housing trust
fund. uh it it indicates what you believe you will collect in development fees over the next 10 years and then how you will spend them. Um and each February the municipality has to report to the DCA what you've collected and what you've spent. And so that there's a
yearly um analysis of of that. So that's your spending plan. You must adopt that in order to collect development fees. The court must approve that. The affirmative marketing plan is is basically the plan that is required that if somebody were to come in and build
affordable housing, it has to be affirmatively marketed to the region. And the affirmative marketing plan sets out the ways in which that must occur in accordance with state law. >> I think that was there anything else? >> No, that's fine. I appreciate it very much.
>> And it's been our practice though it's not required by law. We do allow public comments on resolutions. So I won't deviate from that. If anyone wants to uh make a comment on the 30 129 1301 131 seeing none in the audience. Is there
anyone online? >> Seeing none 132 also. >> Oh I missed 13. I did and I apologize. Kendra wait. 132 is authorizing a settlement consent agreement with Fairshare Housing Center. That's the
actual lawsuit and I think it was correctly characterized uh earlier by Kendra. I've heard courthouse lore how they characterize the different groups of municipalities and so I probably shouldn't but they say the good guy
lists and the bad guy and we are the good guy lists our town. It's there was only a few that were but I'll turn over to Jean Triani on that. Yeah, just very briefly as Kendra said and the mayor just alluded to, um, Fair Share Housing
uh, challenged every uh, municipality in the state that had uh, submitted a plan. Um, and there were the phrasing I've heard is like soft challenges and hard challenges. We had the soft challenge which was really just essentially more information but since they didn't have a
challenge we need to do the settlement. The settlement which was also um what was uh was worked out simply is for the actions that you've already taken tonight with these ordinances. Um and so
the the card is been put before the horse and now we ask you to drive the horse. >> Thank you Jim. So I would entertain from the council as a consent agenda those resolutions 129, 130, 131, and 132. Do
we have a motion? >> All right. >> Motion by council member Connor. >> Second. >> Second by council member Rotunda. Roll call. >> Council member Connor. >> Yes. >> Council member Otanda. >> Yes. >> Council member Condos. >> Yes. >> Council member Craft. >> Yes.
>> Council member T. >> Yes. >> Council President Wilk. >> Yes. >> Motion approved. And we will thank and excuse certainly our special counsel and Kendra, our planner, and thank you for all your guidance, wisdom, and and being here well after hours. I we do
apologize, but it was very much >> No worries. Good to see everyone. >> Back to the agenda authorizations. I'll summarize the Bloom Thirst Valor Supplements LLC Police and Fire 5K. Saturday, May 23rd, 2026, 7:00 a.m. to
noon. Boardwalk Stockton Avenue to 13th. Second, Encompass Healthwalk to support Parkinson's. Saturday, April 18th, 9 to 11:00 a.m. Boardwalk, J Street to 2nd Avenue. And C, Seaside Park Summer Basketball League, Monday to Thursdays,
June to August, 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 13th Avenue, basketball court. Any questions, comments from council or if not, a motion. Uh item B um does not name Seaside Park as additionally insured.
>> Well, that's an important one. So that we must need then an amended certificate of insurance which would name Seaside Park as an additional assured. If that goes through for approval, it would be approval with that condition.
Anything else from council? So if not a motion of the three for approval with the one condition on item B which is mandated >> on here. Do you have it? >> Yes. Well, that's not it.
Correct me if I'm wrong. It has to say in the body. >> Yeah. Description of operation. It's not the certificate holder but just the additional right there. >> No, no,
Councilman KF is correct. The only name says certificate holder. We should be also in the description of operations as an additional insured. >> So correct. >> Well, I agree. >> Jenna will require that of them to file an amendment.
>> Yeah, it's two of us. Just another job. >> I'll make the motion. >> Motion with that. Uh item B is conditioned for the three. Motion by council member to second. >> Second by council member Condos. Roll
call. >> Council member to >> yes. >> Council member Condos. >> Yes. >> Council member Connor. >> Yes. >> Council member Craft. >> Yes. >> Council member Okendo. >> Yes. >> Council President Wil. >> Yes. >> Motion approved. And I I have to take a moment and editorialize and I apologize
to everyone up here if I'm usually long-winded, but a special thanks. We worked much of the day and I can't I can't say I worked, but I was involved in the process. Thanks to our clerk, to Jenna, thanks to our deputy clerk Owen
to putting this together and allowing uh what and the zoom era was a very very problematic situation that most towns quickly abandon and that is having a hybrid uh form. There are many pitfalls,
many problems, and we did it just in the to air on the side of caution. In the event there were more people than there were seats, that didn't occur, but we allowed it to occur. The towns that tried that right after March in March
2020, regretted it. I think all of them quickly abandoned. There may have been one in Ocean that kept it up, but we we managed to do it. And I thank both of them. They were run with it all day. the company and to reboot the complete system. Thank you. I was going to
the next on the agenda is approval of payment itemized claims set forth from the check registry bill list for the period February 20th, 2026 to March 5th. There's a motion. >> I make the motion. >> Motion by council member Craft. >> Second by council member Connor. Roll
call. >> Council member Craft. >> Yes. >> Council member Connor. >> Yes. >> Council member Hondes. Yes, >> council attend. >> Yes, >> council. >> Yes, >> council president. >> Yes.
>> And the next are those resolutions not already acted upon. 125 authorizing a 2026 raffle license application. 126 approving coin toss dates for the Seaside Park Volunteer Fire Company. Number one. 127 authorizing the sale of
surplus property no longer needed for public use on an online auction website. 128 authorizing the shared services agreement with Ocean County Prosecutor's Office for Regionalized SWAT and crisis negotiation services. And we had already
voted on and approved 129 to 132. Any comments from council on the other resolutions just summarized? >> None. >> No hearing none. As I indicated, we uh allow public comment on resolutions. If anyone has any, if they could give their
name and address into the record. Seeing none in the room, I'll turn to the Zoom platform. Any comments on resolutions? >> No comments on Zoom. >> I see none. So, I would entertain a motion by council as a consent agenda for 125, 126, 127, and 128.
>> I'll make the motion. >> Motion by council member Condos. I'll second it. >> Second by council president Wilpole. >> Council member Condos. Yes. >> Council President Wil. >> Yes. >> Council member Connor. >> Yes. >> Council member Craft. >> Yes. >> Council member Rotunda. >> Yes. >> Council member to
>> Yes. >> And that concludes the written agenda and I'll turn to council if there's any uh anything else at this juncture to be presented by the council members. Seeing none, I'll go into the audience.
If there are any public comments, if anyone has them, if they could give their name and address into the record. Seeing none in the room, I'll turn to the Zoom platform. Those online. >> No public comment on Zoom. >> Seeing no public comment, I'll then
close the public portion and I entertain a motion from adjournment for adjournment from council. >> I'll make the motion. >> Motion by council member Connor. >> Second. >> Second by council member Ratunda. Roll call. >> Council member Con? >> Yes. >> Council member Ratunda. Yes. >> Council member Congress. >> Yes.
>> Council member Craft. >> Yes. >> Council member Tob. >> Yes. >> Council President Wil. >> Yes. >> Motion approved. >> And thank you everyone for coming and thank you for those participating out via Zoom as well. Hold on. J.