--------- Let's call our meeting to order. This is a work session of the Marinville Council Bo of Seaside Park County Board, State of New Jersey, held on Thursday, March 19th, 2026, advertised for 7 p.m. Pursuant to the provisions of New
Jerseys Open Public Meetings Act, adequate notice of this meeting was properly provided by transmitting the notice of the meeting for publication, the Assburg Park Press, and the Ocean Star on January 2nd, 2026. Notice of the hybrid meeting was properly provided
also by posting the notice on the seaside park website on March 17th, 2026. Notice of the meeting of the governing body also has been posted in the corridor of the municipal building and in the office of the municipal clerk. >> Roll call.
>> Council member Condos >> here. >> Council member Connor >> here. >> Council member Crack >> here. >> Council member Rotunda >> here. >> Council member to >> here. Council President Wil >> here. >> Mayor Peterson >> here. >> Thank you.
>> We have uh this evening a proclamation to be presented. However, I do not see the representative from the Upper Shores Library here and I know she had indicated she has a difficult time on Thursday evenings and might not. That's
Miss Swoon Bryce. I don't see her. So I will temporarily put that aside and we'll uh handle that uh at the appropriate moment during the regular meeting and if she arrives uh we will be able to do so as well uh as we join with
all other participating municipalities in recognizing uh in Seaside Park as well as throughout the state and country national library The first item on the agenda is
anformational session additional discussion of an addendum to the annexation impact study that had previously been the subject matter of prior meetings and that had been uh produced, disseminated
and posted. The uh addendum has been uh created by the government uh strategy group uh whose representatives are here and the governor body uh had expressed
uh questions and comments that focused upon one portion of the uh study and that uh entailed unfortunately a medical situation involving the uh individual ual with the finance department and the
other individuals in the finance department uh thereby leading to uh questions posed by the governing body and indeed uh by the public. Uh that being said, I will turn the floor over
to the uh financial people. We we welcome uh Ken here as well as an entire uh team focused in particular on uh financial aspects of the uh study itself and we
also have with us uh along with our attorney we have special counsel and uh Miss Cypriyani. Welcome to all and perhaps I'll turn the floor over to Karen. I use the microphone. I'm Kendra
Roberts. I'm with Government Strategy Group. Uh so I want to deal with this issue straight ahead. Uh there was an error in the report. Uh, one of the
numbers was counted twice which caused an artificial increase in the projected savings in overall property taxes. For that, I take ownership and responsibility for it. I apologize
to the mayor and council and more importantly to all of you because that's not the standard quality of our work. Uh it's unfortunate how it happened. Uh I can explain to you in short detail how
it occurred but nonetheless it happened. uh but as a result of the March 5th public hearing there was uh confusion in the report as to the way and manner in which the property tax information was presented.
It was not clear and that's why I had uh suggested to the mayor that we will issue an addendum report to distill and crystallize and that's what we did. Uh and that report uh was compiled by uh one of our finance
experts on our team who I'll introduce. >> Hello. So we did that prepare that report but so I I just want to give you a little context of our team who put this report together the the entire study. our
director and project manager Chiron Roundtry. Chiron has been a a manager and administrator in a number of communities uh across the state and is probably in the top tier top echelon of municipal management.
We have Ted Lamella. Ted is the tax assessor. Ted is the tax assessor in uh a major community in Mammoth County. And in addition, he's a real certified real
estate appraiser and does appraisal work for municipalities throughout the state. And he's admitted as an expert in the state tax court. We have Gary. Gary is our municipal utility expert. He
knows infrastructure, water, sore, etc. And he's the one who contributed to that part of the report. Couple people who were not here, Vince DA. Vince handled public works. Vince is not only a certified public works director, he's
also a licensed civil engineer. So, we got extra bang for our buck with him. And then we had Doug Marvin. Doug is a retired administrator and I've worked with him in the past. He's successfully admitted into superior court as an
expert witness in litigation involving establishing permits and fee revenue schedules. And especially with what we're doing with beach badges and uh some of the other fees, uh we brought him in to take care
of that. And then on the police side, we had uh retired chief Shannon Torres. Shannon uh was a chief up in Keyport. She retired and has been doing consulting work for us and others and
she served on the executive board of the chief state chief's association and she's now uh joined and was recruited by the Department of Homeland Security. So that's a type the type of people that we had working on this report. And
as we discussed with the mayor and council on March 5th that we were going to take another look and come up with a better message for articulating tax increase. We brought in our senior finance expert, John Gross. John's been
a municipal manager, administrator, elected official in a number of communities and is our top expert in this field. So, we brought him in. So, I I asked John to just take a quick walk through how he we put together the
agenda report. >> Thank you. Thanks. Thanks for the opportunity to to be here this evening to the governing body and and to the public. Um when when Ken asked me to look over the report which is about a 200page report uh and and boil it down
to an addendum uh to make it easier. We took a look at at at the report and the the report basically is two components. Uh the first component is a description of of management of the management needs and requirements with the with the
annexation to try to project out really what this means on a day-to-day nuts and bolts basis to to the municipality how it runs and from that estimate um what a potential the potential increase costs that would come from that. The second
half of the of the the report, which is probably the a third of the report, is going through the machinations of the the calculations and the the um the factors that impact those calculations in terms of the assessed values and the
the difference in the way the two different towns assess their properties. uh as well as uh how it impacts the differences of education and and costs with with regional school districts. Um
so when when I looked at that I I I I thought about it a long time and working with the team we decided that we would try to break this down the report based into three um different charts uh that should should be relatively easy to
understand and we're certainly here to go through any questions you have about that this evening. Um the the first chart is within the report uh focuses on calculating all the different tax
entities. Uh what what what what their um actual what it was actually in 2025, what it would be projected with 2026 without annexation and what it would be with 2026 with annexation. And basically looks like a a a blown up tax bill that
that you would get. Um and so the and if you if you go through that process and when we go through that process you'll see that it's almost all just calculations of of known facts with the exception of what the increase costs
will be to uh the municipality because of annexation and that's that is what I spoke about is the the first twothirds of the report deals with projecting that um nobody knows the answer to what that really is going to be. Uh the report does an analysis that comes up I think
with a a reasonable expectation of what the costs could be ultimately knowing governing bodies as I do governing bodies are going to look way not to spend that money and and frankly I I as a manager I would expect that there'll be ways to find not to spend the monies
that were projected in the report but the report is a conservative look at at at how to do this and and I think it's fair to reflect that in in these calculations. The the second chart is strictly taking that and turning that into tax rates.
And again, uh that's probably you'll see some of that on your tax bill. Um they're very similar. There's also other documents that you can find online uh about that that breaks down your taxes and and municipal tax municipal tax rates for all the different entities
that tax you. And then the third one was taking a look at a taxpayer uh with a a a typical house assessed to the value. We picked the number of 600,000 to make it make it easy math of what the what your taxes were would have been in 25.
What your projected taxes would be in 26 with without annexation and what it would be in 26 with annexation. And you know, the the bottom line is that came down to that that a typical $600,000
house based on the calculations and our estimates of what the increased cost would be uh ends up at about an 8.02% uh savings for uh for that property owner, which is a little less than $900.
So, this is this is the process that we went through in doing these calculations. Getting back to Ken's uh concerns about u how we did we we we actually went through u and did used numerous methodologies to calculate them
to make sure that we were cross-checking our numbers to make sure that everything um made sense and I feel I have high confidence in that in this report uh that it reflects the the the actual calculations um that are necessary for
this analysis uh and and take into account the estimate estimated increased cost that that the report identifies uh as well. So thank you. >> One of the issues and areas that I I
would like to address is you made a mistake in the report. How can we trust the rest of the report? I just want to address that with you. So if you have the addendum on page four, this is the church chart John Detroit.
It says total taxes to be collected. And there's five components to this. The total county taxes, local municipal, local school, regional school, and the assessed value. So I'll start with the assessed value
first. So >> each town has to publish >> I don't think they have >> I don't know that the page four that you're referencing from the addendum but I don't know that that was outside so unless you
>> looked at it online that's part of it surely but it's not >> Yeah I'm just showing you that's what we have >> right page but was put on the website and was put out once we received it is like a f I guess Yeah, seven pages
seven. Thank you. >> So I think we have to have to talk through what's on that if people don't have it in their hands. >> So basically the various components were calculated using the information in the report. Uh and key components like
regional school tax there's a big increase there. That number came from the regional school business administrator. We didn't make that up. The local school tax remains unchanged because your local school district is a sending district. They pay tuition for
each student and there's no change incrementally in the number of students because of Southeast side park. The county taxes we gauge the monitor increase from 25 and extrapolated that into 26 and 27. So the only thing
subjective there is instead of a 5% increase maybe we should have used a 4% or 6% increase we chose five. Then comes the municipal portion of the tax. That's the only area where there could be really much variation
and that was derived that we calculated out the total revenues uh that would inure from annexation beach badges additional inspections from code enforcement etc. Uh and then the
other thing was operating expenses. You know what additional operating expenses would be needed and those are all detailed very well detailed in the report. Then salaries and wages. We recommended hiring a number of people in
police and DPW and even code enforcement. Now, we took the approach that we would rather be conservative and set that mark high. And as John alluded to, the mayor
and council aren't going to just accept our recommendations and hire uh each number of employees. They're going to really scrub it to make their decision as to what they feel is absolutely essential. But for forecasting, we'd
rather uh make those assumptions on the higher side than the lower side. So that's what we did. and then debt service. We made assumptions that there would have to be some type of compensation
possibly to Berkeley Township in consideration uh for South Seaside Park portion of the debt that Berkeley Township had. And it's hard to attribute it dollar by dollar that dollar was spent in South
Seaside this dollar wasn't. So we took the approach which is probably the fairest and uh equitable is to base it on a percentage of assessed value. That's how we did that. But on the other hand what we also did is we went one
step further and I know that you brought this up on several occasions as well. uh we said look if South Seaside Seaside Park has to incur and pay part of the liability they should give credit to the
offsetting assets on the balance sheet uh because those funds are used for what's called fixed assets. So in Berkeley Township's audit report they list uh they disclose the amount of
fixed assets they have. So we took the same percentage of that and offset it against the debt and that's how we came up with the relative portion of uh payment that Seaside Park may have to
make that they may have to make to to Berkeley Township and that's going to be up to the committee that goes through the negotiations etc. But uh we then
went one step further and said that amounts probably about 2.6 million will finance that over 10 years 10 years of bonds. And so the amount that's computed into the projected tax rate is the debt service for the first year of that bond
issue. So we put that all together and that's what makes comprises the difference between with annexation and without annexation. I said we focused a lot of
attention on the municipal portion because the school county and local school we have no control over and so we just accepted those numbers. So that's the only areas where there could be variation. And then there's one other component that went into it one-time
costs because to go through the negotiations to go through getting everything set up, there's going to be some unique one-time costs associated with annexation. And again, you know, if you want to criticize us,
we criticize us because our estimate is high, but we'd rather be high than be caught off guard and so forth. So we left a lot of buffer room for the mayor and council to have flexibility in
evaluating and analyzing if annexation go through how they can proceed with it. So I just wanted to run through that exercise with you to share with you that you know all the information that we had is detailed in the report in terms of
number of police officers, fringe benefit costs etc. And those numbers all came together as John mentioned crystallized into the table uh that we presented in the agenda report. So with that uh mayor and council
members I guess we open it up to questions. >> Yes. Is there any uh points that want to be raised at this juncture by any governing body members? Any comments? Mayor. Yes. >> One thing only because when we spoke about it um when we had the separate
meeting when we look at the sample home that you gave the example for the without annexation is a current Seaside Park resident not a current South Seaside Park resident comparison. So I think that should be made clear to everybody. It may not represent exactly
the same way if you're a homeowner in South Seaside Park. It's correct. Yeah. >> Any other uh comments from governing body members? Anything uh Jean you want to add or at this juncture or
>> No, nothing at this time. >> And uh anyone from Ken your your group? >> We're fine. >> Okay. uh what we'll do and uh as a precaution airing on the side of caution if that's the right verbiage in terms of
numbers we uh have this meeting as being a hybrid meeting whereby individuals can participate online as well uh albeit there are numerous uh empty chairs out in the audience I see uh that being said
I will open up the floor for any public comments or questions this being an information session. Tom >> Tom Joseph 704 South Bay View Avenue, Seaside Park. The tables you refer to in the
addendum give in the table on tax rates, it gives the percentage differences. The county stuff is all pretty much consistently minus5.17% and there's some other numbers for the
municipal and the schools and whatnot. And then you apply it to a $600,000 home and suddenly the 15.17% becomes 13.17% and the school one which is 52%
becomes 34%. Since you're talking percent change in tax rates and then you apply those to a $600,000 home to convert them to dollars, why are all the percentage differences
changing? Last time I checked, multiplying by a constant doesn't change percentages. That's a great question. Uh Ted, you want to answer? I mean the simple answer is that the
tax rate is based on the full ratable base which includes commercial properties as well. What you saw in that flyer the 13% is just on a single home 600,000. So uh you
you you'd have to then equate there may be some classes of property commercial which are higher. >> Okay. >> It's not a constant. So you you can't extrapolate 15% equals 13%.
>> Yeah, I understand that. But what you're saying is that the projected tax rates are composite tax rates. They're not tax rates for a particular class of property. >> Correct.
There's one tax rate for every property type. It's discriminatory. Even >> then the percentage change in the tax rate applied to the $600,000 home should have the same percentage change in the tax. You just contradicted what he said. But he was talking about based on the
the values u swing >> the value is $600,000 >> right >> the it's the difference is the the baseline um on the chart on page five the baseline is verse is is the
difference the difference between annexation and no annexation with the baseline of the projected annexation. They're they're different numbers. They're not the exact they're not the same number. The the chart on page six
of the report is the difference um with a baseline of without taxation. >> All right. I understand what you know what I'm saying. I understand what you're saying and I convinced myself there was no way in hell that 52 whatever percent made any sense. It was
like you changed in effect you're changing the denominator in the calculation by going from in one case pre-anexation and the other post and computing the percent change. >> It's one is a look forward and the other one is a look backward. >> That that >> so I'm going to say the thing I've been
saying privately to people all along. This is the worst report worst written report I have ever seen. You left out all the important issues. You leave out little details like that that make it impossible to make sense of this. And all we come away with after your
wonderful little speech about the credentials of all your people is why are you wasting our time with this? If you can't annotate things to explain to those of us that actually read it and want to understand it, leaving out all these critical things,
it just makes it hard to take any of it seriously. I'm very disappointed. Any other comment? Yes, sir. >> James Fulcomer, 356 Roberts Avenue, Seaside Park. There
is one thing that is very clear. financial experts representing Berkeley Township at the planning board meeting uh that led to the annexation before the courts and the financial experts from
the petitioners all agreed on one thing that if South Seaside Park becomes part of Seaside Park, the taxes in Seaside Park for a homeowner would be less. And this impact study says the same thing.
So it's very simple. If this municipal council wants to lower taxes, you vote yes. If you want to make taxes higher, vote no. Remember years ago, while I was
still while I when I was much younger, the uh decision was made was was made to say no. And as a result, the people of the individual taxpayers
of Seaside Park pay tens of thousands of dollars more over those years in taxes. Let's not repeat the same mistake. Let's create a greater seaside park with lower taxes. Thank you.
>> Thank you, sir. >> Yes, sir. >> Um, good evening. Greg Raymond, 38 Brighton Avenue, Seaside Park. two questions quickly. Um, and I know past history is no guarantee of what your answer will be, but I assume you've done
these before. >> The annexation >> this type of an exercise >> with other towns. >> Analytics. >> Analytics. >> Analytics. We've done >> Yeah, the analytics. So 8% is the estimate. When you do these reports, how
close do you do you typically get it close to right? Meaning is the 8% you're not guaranteeing it but >> No. Exactly. >> But but based on your history does does what you did the ballpark come back? Yes or no? >> Close. >> Yes.
>> The second question is you mentioned negotiations and leverage that will happen after the process. Help me understand what kind of leverage anyone has in that negotiation once the deal's already been you signed to buy something
and do something. How does anybody, and I don't mean it in a sarcastic way, how does our town have any leverage on the debt that we take on or what we do or don't do after that? >> If I may. >> Sure. >> Yeah. So, I mean, you're right. In in one sense,
we we once you've taken it, you've taken it. But then the question really becomes what is that additional cost, right? What is the debt? What is the portion of the debt? What are the fixed assets? Obviously there's a reduction um in some of the expenses of Berkeley Township. So
all of those things come in. So in terms of the negotiation there are two aspect or there are a number of aspects. So one reason that you know we have some leverage and that Berkeley has some leverage in the sense that we both have an incentive to come to an agreement is
that if we don't come to an agreement ourselves in 60 days then it goes to the court. The court appoints three people that we have no control over who those people are. We can submit whatever our calculations have been, whatever our reasons for them
may be, but those three people appointed by the court are going to make the decision. So the fact of maintaining some level of control gives both municipalities a reason to try and come to an agreement because at least we kind of know what each other's position is.
Nobody knows exactly what the court and in this case people are going to do. So there are all of these different factors that come in um in terms of what the leverage is and you know we'll have to
go out of go through that analysis. Obviously, we're going to start from different perspectives as to how that would be done. And interestingly, the cases that are out there, right? There's the statute that said these are things to be to be considered, but the the the cases that are out there, there are not
a lot any that really talk about how that valuation is done, what gets to be considered and what doesn't. Um and so that lack of certainty other than the statutory language is something that
again provides both sides with some wiggle room. There are going to be things and I don't want to you know >> No, I wouldn't I wouldn't even >> typically when you go into a negotiation, you don't give your uh your colleagues away, but you know, there are going to be different things that are more important to Berkeley and there's
going to be things that are more important to us and and we'll see where that goes should it get to that point. >> Yeah. And and to this gentleman's point, if if if you're voting yes, then it's so important that there are people sitting here that are masters at negotiation
with business acumen. Um because that's what it's going to become. >> Uh and so that's it. Thank you so much. Just to go back to your numbers, the >> the numbers will be close, but they're based on a certain set of assumptions and and so those assumptions like how
much debt is taken on or what other decisions the municipalities decides to make could change those numbers. Um it's very very nuanced and there's a multitude of factors that came into getting that numbers, >> right? But I was in consulting for 40 years and when you retain a client,
>> you sit in front of the client and you say from past experience, >> here's generally what you should expect >> other otherwise I shouldn't be hired again. >> You know, things can happen out of your control, >> but overall the framework of what you set up,
>> we should be seeing an 8% without surprises. I I can tell you as a municipal manager now for 40 years. Um I've I've I've read a lot of reports. I've written numerous reports. Uh I as a
manager I'm always looking to spend less than whatever's in the report. And I think I think that that's always the focus. Now, obviously, you don't know what you don't know, but um I think the estimates in here are top end estimates as far as personnel and things of that
nature. So, as a manager, I think the your governing body is going to be looking to spend less, not more, which means if that's true, if that happens, then these numbers look better, not worse. >> Yeah. Sounds like you're committing them to 11 or 12%. Thank you.
>> Okay, you go. >> Yes. Katie Quank, 48 11th Avenue. Um, I have one question. Well, I have two questions. First of all, um, Government Strategies Group, how many annexation reports has your firm done?
>> This is our first. >> Okay. My next question has to do with when you were talking about debt service. >> Yes. >> And debt service would be the amount of money that Seaside Park would have to pay South Seaside Parks debt service to
Berkeley, but it's offset by assets, a percentage of assets. You mentioned 2.6 million. What does that number mean? Because I'm trying to make notes and I kind of got lost in the weeds somewhere. Is that what you anticipate
the debt service minus the assets will be? >> So, if you bear with me a second, I'll tell you how that's arrived at in our report on page
177. actually goes back to the it's on page 176. Uh the total allocable debt and future capital needs we estimated to be 2.6 million and we also
calculated the debt three different ways. we presented in the projected tax rate is the most conservative approach that was using uh the relative assessed value. We also
provided two other approaches that also have merit which would result in lower debt service uh lower debt payment. U the second method is based on a per capita calculation method and the third is
based upon relative portion of geographic area which produces an even lower number. So that's wasn't up to us to decide. We the only decision we made is we included the more conservative number in the report. I guess my
confusion comes from the fact that after this ordinance is is passed then we have the committee of three and three and they will work on this number. But why do they have to do that when you've already come up with a number?
>> No. >> Okay. Once again, if I may, um because the that that number, what that number is is not a known quantity. As you said, they go through three different scenarios on how that number could be
calculated. Basically, you know, Berkeley Township has taken on a certain over the years a certain amount of debt. Just like we bond, they bond. And some portion of that bonding is attributable to South Seaside Park. There are numerous ways to calculate
that would be these are three. Another you know would be to say well how much of that work was done here there you know which may be difficult to parse out. So the reason that they can't you know they've come up with different numbers but they're based on different
methodologies. when I was saying about this, you know, there being some incentive for Berkeley Township and Seaside Park to come to an agreement because of the control factor as opposed to having, you know, unidentified people appointed by the court is part of that
is if we can't come to an agreement either based on a on an agreement on what the methodology should be or, you know, old-fashioned horse trading because as I said there are other factors and they're going to be things that are important to them, things important to Seaside Park. Um that we're
going to have to try and convince these uh the the three courtappointed people as to what the correct methodology would be. So I think that if I'm that the um the 2.6 represents a conservative way to
do it. Now Berkeley Township may have an even more conservative way that they're going to try and do it, but that was the most conservative approach. And in order to not be overpromising um in terms of being able to get that number lower, the more most conservative
number was dealt with for the report. Um but that is not an established number. >> No, that that much I get. So Berkeley could say we're going to establish debt um service by some percent of assessed value and Seaside Park might say well we
want to do it based on a per capita thing and that's what has to be worked out. Is that right? >> Right. And then you know and we talk about negotiations and you know there's a >> there is just in in having done a lot of negotiations of different kinds over the
years ultimately I think and everybody agree this it comes down to the number. >> Oh absolutely. >> You know so it's sort of like well if you do it on this calculation and your number is you know six and I do on this calculation my number is two. Well, we
may not ever agree on what the methodology should be, but maybe we can both agree on four. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I don't know if our attorney andor the consultant as well could address the point because I don't want the record to
reflect something that could lead to a misunderstanding. A question was asked uh as to the consultants group, how many such annexation reports have you ever done? A relevant inquiry would be how
many similar relevant annexation reports have ever been done in the state of New Jersey. I say that because uh and it's relevant to a prior comment as well. the statute back in 1979 1980 when this
issue arose hearings took place and a decision was made. That statute has been modified, changed and then amended at least three times. So 1982 was when the statute was first changed and it's an
entirely different procedure that is now in place. Fast forward, have any towns, especially of this magnitude or any portions of towns or land ever been subject to an annexation study? So, a
good lawyer, you ask a question, you know the answer. But I'll ask our attorney perhaps could address that. And then even of greater relevance that we were faced with a situation looking at the greater experienced uh groups, consulting groups out there. Are there
any that have been in the forefront with some of their experts in a recent similar but by no means equal situation that occurred with Princeton Township, Princeton Bur? The answer is yes. Seated at this table there are uh are there any
groups out there that have handled joint services agreements, mergers of certain services between municipalities? Who was one of the leading uh consulting groups in that field? And again, we have some of the experts and they and I'd feel
free to have them address whether it's the Princeton Burough situation, Princeton Township, others. But you can all see there is nothing like this that has occurred in the cases and the Supreme Court has addressed it and that's why we have on our website the
case the New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled on this and they too had to wrestle with a statute that some have referred to as having some gaps in the procedures and some of the last comments and questions really zero in on one of
those gaps that were left for applying statutory interpret invitation and when that fails the rule of reason that is something that uh we've wrestled with at length. Uh but perhaps our
attorney could ask if there if anyone is aware of any study that's similar at all >> in terms of uh the studies and obviously annexation is something that comes up very seldom. It's not that it has never happened before and uh in this area I
think there was a portion of Tom Jerver that joined in with Lavallet what the level of studies that were done in those cases and particularly in this case or in our situation by the sort of what I'll call the receiving municipality. So
the the mayor had referred to the gaps in the statute and and I know a lot of people in this room and I feel like I'm repeating myself so I ask you to bear with me but the statute has a procedure in place and a fairly detailed procedure for the you know we'll call the this the
potentially sending municipality. So obviously the people in South Seaside Park, they had a uh burden to make before the planning board and then through the courts and they got reports in that regard. Um and Berkeley Township got reports on
the same thing. But to be in our position, right? So, Lavallet in the in the Tom's River Lavallet case. Tom's River probably reports and the um Westmont Shores I think it was that was trying to to join up with Lavallet. They
did it. What what Lavallet did to consider it I don't know. And one of the reasons for maybe that may be a question of scale, right? So, in a lot of the times where there's an annexation, it's a really relatively small area. In this case, South Seasside Park is a
relatively small area of Berkeley Township, though Berkeley Township obviously um you know did a lot of work to try and and uh see what those impacts would be, but it's a you know really large portion um relative to Seaside Park. So we're not in the same position
as as uh a lot of towns. So that there there certainly have been planning reports that have been done that would have to be done and there have been some financial impact reports. This kind of largecale report to try and consider I mean you're never going to catch all
aspects. We all know that. to try and con and really look at the foreseeable impacts in terms of municipal operations as well as planning and the financial aspects is extremely rare particularly
for the receiving municipality. So I you know obviously we'd always want for everyone to be pleased and to feel confident but simply the the the level of experience and the kinds of reports that government strategies have done are exactly the kinds of things that we
needed them to look at. Just to add to that, government strategies group for the past 20 years have been looking at operational studies and management studies um and financial analysis for municipalities and counties throughout the state of New Jersey. To
to everyone's point, this type of annexation is just so rare. I don't think there's another firm that's active in New Jersey that can say they have done one like this. >> My question was not meant in any way, shape, or form to be a criticism. I really ask over point of information
>> of course just wanting to clarify that I don't think there's another firm in New Jersey that that could say that they've done something that's active. >> Yes. Any other comments? Two. >> Okay.
>> Kathy Fulcomer 356 Roberts Avenue Seaside Park by the post office. South Seaside Park by our local vernacular down here and Berkeley by law. And I hope that the next time I ever come to this mic, I can just say Seaside Park
and it covers all of that. Uh yeah, and um I wasn't going to say I was going to speak about the zoning and I will in a minute um because I'm not addressing anything financial. I'll leave that to the experts that we have uh that you
guys have hired and 50 years ago my husband and I also were involved in this. So in adults, Jim and Kathy Fulcomer are persistent. So is Don Whiteman and we are consistent and we just keep right on going. So, um, about
the zoning aspect of it, um, I mentioned that last time and I want to be quite I want to really emphasize that my husband was the, uh, chairman of the zoning board of adjustment in Berkeley a while
ago, quite I don't know number of years ago. And what he would find is that, and maybe I think all your council people understand this, maybe some of the citizens might not be that familiar with it. Um when a place is zoned, let's say
it's zoned for single family homes and a company wants to come in and build a multiple family uh different levels uh apartments, whatever it is, if it's not in agreement
with the present zoning ordinance, you have to get a variance. In the variance, the the uh person makes an application, the company, whoever wants to build the building, whatever it is, comes before the board of adjustment and applies. Now
my point is you folks have this unique opportunity and it may not happen again where you can control the citizenry, the type of homes and keep the quality of life that we all love about Seaside
Park, South Seaside Park, whatever you want to call it. You want to keep that. You have an opportunity with you next Seaside Park to control the zoning right next to you. You can't control Seaside Heights, but okay, that's that. But we
in South Seaside Park, we have to come through Seaside Park to get over the island. So if you want to control the type of housing, the people um well not necessarily the people but the type
of housing and the kind of either homeowners, renters, whoever is here. You would control all the zoning but not just the zoning. you would control any of the
variances whether you want to uh accept the variance or whether you do not because right now even our own councilman down there Jimmy Burns first councilman he doesn't live here he lives
over there all the council people in Berkeley live over there and the zoning board lives over there so you're in a situation over there, meaning Berkeley over there. Uh, so you're in a situation
where this is a one-time opportunity, although you could have had it 50 years ago or 48 if you want to whatever the exact year was. I don't remember, but you have an opportunity to make that kind of decision and it's a very very
important decision. Yes, finances are on the top of everybody's mind, but like I said, I'm not the expert on that. But you have this unique opportunity to make all of Seaside Park and South Seaside Park the delightful, peaceful, wonderful
little community that we all share. Thank you. >> Thank you, Shirley. >> Shirley Cresell, 700 North Bay Avenue, CES Park. I just need to clarify a couple of things. Central Regional we were told would be going up 62%.
Is that still the correct figure? >> 62%. >> That's what it said in the originally and we were told that when we last 62%. Did that change? >> Yeah, >> the number is the same. I don't remember 64%.
>> Yeah, we were told 62. I know the the difference in >> so that it's >> okay. I'm going to assume that 62 >> is it 62? >> It will increase by 62%.
>> Okay. And then the 40 to 50% decrease in our taxes. That's not really true. >> No, that's what I think that was >> that there was an error. >> Yes. >> Okay. It's like telling a kid he's
getting a bike and you give him a pump. >> Thank you. >> Any other comments? We have those online. Yes, >> Joanne. Joanne Penn 208 Cape Court Seaside Park. Um, a lot of the discussion over the
past few weeks, months has been about the taxes and I am asking the council when you consider your vote to not forget about the humanistic part of this decision.
The citizens of South Seaside Park have been urging us to go forward with this for a long time. Not only urging, fighting, practically begging for us to bring them in as a part of Seaside Park. And I think the humanistic part of it is
so important to those 500 plus citizens that are there that they want so much to be a part of us. And I realize the taxes are important. I realize the zoning is important. Um, but when we listen to the
hearts of the people in South Seaside Park, I think we really have to think hard about why they want this and what we can do for them. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other comments in the uh
audience? If not, we'll go on to the anyone participating uh virtually. Uh if if so, if you could have a comment, raise your hand appropriately and uh give your name and address into the record.
>> Hi, this is Dave Arbback, 2014th Avenue, Seaside Park, New Jersey. >> Yes, sir. >> Um first of all, um I've uh sorry about that. I've um sent quite a bit of emails, so I'm glad
that's all going to stop now, I hope. But um I I do believe mayor and council and u government service group you need to amend the original study. The original study is incorrect. The addendum is meant to be additional
information but the initial study still set off a bunch of information about 40 to 50% tax cuts which is incorrect and that study needs to be amended. And by the way, in general, as um
I believe it was was Ken said, I mean, the study's very thorough. There's a lot of information, but it's completely incorrect on the tax impact, which drove a host social media comments and concerns about the residents that I
think requires that it be amended, not aended. That's my first comment. Um, my second comment is I do want to thank uh Bill Craft, Tina Condos who did reply to my emails. Uh, I wouldn't say necessarily
happy with responses, but at least I got an appreciation for them reading my email and understanding my concerns because although there's a lot of experts on the government services group, I think I outlined exactly what's
in the addendum on Sunday night. Um, I happen to be an experienced financial guy and consulting guy. This isn't like rocket science to go through this and it it's a it's a shame that there was a mistake made. I'm glad Ken you approached it and raised it up front, but the fact that matter is it's wrong.
Needs to be amended and needs to be changed. And again, I want to thank Gina and Bill for just kind of like and saying thank you for writing your comments. That's all I have to say on that. And the last point I want to make is um
I I don't believe that this um we keep on saying that this is the most conservative view of this case. First of all, it's primarily a one-year view of what's going to happen primarily. I mean, there are a five-year estimates
on, by the way, beach badge sales. I appreciate that. I could do that on the back of my hand. Um, there are some personnel discussions in there as well, but I don't think this in any way, shape, or form represents the most conservative view. And I'm particularly
concerned about potential litigation that's going to arise over time about things like zoning, master plans, and that kind of thing, which we all know are the real expensive kind of litigation expenses. and they're the things that are going to fundamentally
change the nature of what Seaside Park is all about. I'm not I'm not necessarily for against this. I have lots of friends at South Seaside Park. I just think there are a host of issues here that based on the report and based
on the way people are saying things are not representative of reality. And all I want to suggest is let's think about a pause. Two weeks ago, Chiron got up and
led with 40% tax decrease. That's not happening. So, how we could go from March 5th to now and have an ordinance being tabled for the first time when there were
material and misleading statements in a report that neither the governing body nor the consulting group could answer. And by the way, I run a big consulting business far bigger than any one in this room. You need to like understand that
coming in. If you're going to leave with that, you need to make sure it's correct. And I understand there was a mistake. I'm glad everybody fessed up to it. But let's just pump the brakes for a moment here. Why are we issuing an ordinance today when there are people in
the town that don't fully understand this? I do thank the the um I I guess the the mayor and governing body and G uh government ser for issuing dendum that clearly addressed one of my
issues that I had raised at the March 5th meeting and I thank you very much for that because that kind of cleared a lot of the confusion. But the other thing I I did request in emails to everybody was this is not a one-year decision.
We put our trust in this governing body to take a look at what this is going to look like over, you know, again what I believe a five-year period is reasonable to assume. I can do the math on one year. That's easy. But five years, what is this going
to look like? And I believe that the governing body needs to provide us their best bet. I'm not asking for a mathematical exercise. When I've run businesses, sometimes I have to pop a number out of my you know
what to get to the answer, but at least I put it on record that this is what I think is going to happen. And at the end of the day, I'm just I want to make sure that we're providing the most um accurate, reasonable assessment of what
this is going to look like, not only from the tax base from but a master plan point of view and a zoning point. Um, and again, by the way, I just want to say one more time, I appreciate all of your service and putting up uh with at least the folks that I assume you all
read my emails. I do thank again certain members for reading them, but um I do think this is a very very complicated issue. I know you've all spent your time on it. Um I just think we're we're rushing into it by introducing the first
reading of an ordinance tonight. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Any other comments from those participating virtually? >> Uh, no, it doesn't appear so, mayor. >> No one else. Anyone else with comments? And yes, Jay
Jane, 1710 North Bay View Avenue, Seaside Park. hearing the comments from the previous speaker. Uh he raises several points and one particular first let me address the uh uh
the amendment to the the report. Um certainly I know some of the uh members of the team from government strategies that have uh participated in this exercise. But the reality is that uh the well of public information and
perception has been poisoned by what occurred at the last meeting. I walked out of here with an understanding that the projected tax increase was in the range of 40 to 50%. That information has been repeated in
publications uh public media uh into the previous speaker's comments uh regarding social media commentary pro and con error of that magnitude is inexcusable. I would encourage the governing body to
move slowly, very slowly uh on the whole matter, review the numbers, perhaps uh have a an independent review of of the information that's been gathered as I referenced last at the last
meeting. Again, this is an important consideration and to your legal council's observation that this is of a magnitude that is significant whether it's done on the basis of population where you're looking at a roughly 50%
increase in the population of the community, which for those of us that live here, we realize that that's only a small portion of really the community. referencing the point earlier tonight that uh frankly the residents of South
Seaside Park are part of the community. There is no distinction between there may be a a municipal legal boundary but seaside park residents, South Seaside Park residents, summer visitors, summer residents,
frankly uh with with probably very few exceptions even understand that there is a legal distinction between South Seaside Park and Seaside Park. The residents of the barrier island are a community regardless of who they paid
their taxes to. At the end of the day, this is frankly little more than, you know, tax savings shopping. Admittedly, there will be advantages to Seaside Park. I'm not sure that they're reflected in the report
that you've all seen and are now considering. Like the previous commenter, I'm going to suggest that introducing an ordinance at this time isn't appropriate. Thank you. >> Thank you, Jeff. Any other comments?
Yes, sir. >> Bobby Ray 119 Surf Drive, South C7 Park. Just in response to uh Jay's comments, the U tax shopping is not a valid reason for any community to DNx from another. It would be immediately rejected by a court that saw that happening. Three
courts unanimously, including the state supreme court, ruled that the petitioners had met all three prongs necessary to prove that you deserve the right to be annexed from birth. I just want to make that. >> Yes, Alex.
College condos 447th Avenue. Gentlemen, I want to say it publicly. Thank you very much. Your words were outstanding and my sentiments exactly. Any other comments? Hearing none, I would uh close. Anything
further from uh the consultant group or attorneys or anything at this juncture? Well, we we thank you for coming and we'll close the public portion at this time and move on with the balance of the
agenda. >> Sure. >> You're all certainly free to leave it and we thank you for coming down. I assume that doesn't apply to me. >> Nope. >> I will shift out and give you one
spot at the end. >> Okay. Thanks. Do we have in the audience Sloan voice? Is she I don't see her because I've been to one of the ceremonies with council member Condos. Council member Connor, we were happy to
attend the 30th anniversary of the library and I know she had a diff difficult time on Thursday. So, I'll hold that off to the regular meeting on a proclamation for the library. The
first uh other item on the agenda is discussion of discover card merchant class action settlement. I don't know if we could uh I think the attorneys will agree uh probably uh who gets the lion share of
these kinds of class What profession are you in? >> Part of the legal system. So I don't know if you want I know Jerry forwarded it to the clerk and everyone Steve looked at it. Uh >> can't hurt to join in.
>> Yeah. I mean it's doesn't cost you anything. >> You may get a couple of bucks down the road. You mean it may end up uh at some point some money might flow to the town, but I don't know that it's a windfall, but anyone have a a problem with going
ahead and joining that having >> no harm. >> The uh next item, this has been on the agenda on several past occasions. It's discussion of which buildings might be
listed for free service pursuant to section 10 of the cable franchise renewal ordinance 22601. And the town had asked that all the municipal buildings be included for uh
free cable service. And we'd also asked for free internet service. and uh the attorney for the cable company uh objected and in the verbiage that we had
included in the original uh suggested ordinance and I know everyone's discussed uh we thought at the very least uh each and every municipal building should have free cable and that would include the community center, this
building, the police station, uh, the burrow hall, >> lifeguard, >> and in public works, >> lifeuard, >> lifeguard, >> lifeguard headquarters, all should be included. I I know speculation why they
bought at the internet aspect of this, but I don't know, maybe we we have the benefit of a lot of expertise to of our attorneys here. I don't know if uh if either of you have some background on why they're bulking at the internet portion.
>> I I I think mayor they just they didn't like the language that said as we designate and they Mr. Quinn specifically asked which buildings are you do you want? In other words, he didn't want an open-ended >> whatever building you decide. He wants to know what buildings do you want. So I
think the answer is let's tell them the buildings we want and that's the answer to his question. >> So list them out individually. put that in the ordinance. What about the internet aspect? >> Yeah, that's the aspect as you know I have represented a number of towns and and done this particular dance before
and it is always the issue internet. I'm not surprised you Mr. Zarski say that they're looking for identification regarding free cable of specific buildings. Um I certainly would you know that you may want to start out with a a large number of those. It is the
internet they do not provide. We I've had that same argument um and discussion in many many towns and they uh they do not provide the internet service. Um you know what the rationale for that is and
why it's so difficult for them I could not tell you but I know that something that becomes an issue is that they feel to a large extent what they do for one they will have to do for all. Well, the other thing if I could add just from my background in, you know,
television and media is once you have internet, you can stream whatever you want. You don't even need the cable, >> right? >> So, it's not in their best interest necessarily to give you internet if you can then use any other over-the-top service. I'm assuming that's why they
probably don't want to do it. So, you don't need their cable vision cable. Don't they provide one free internet? >> Except one. >> So we should designate the building we want for the one free internet and cable and tell them all the other buildings we want cable >> free cable service.
>> I don't know if we have it in multiple today though, right? >> Currently we have free cable in the police station and public works and we have free internet in the municipal building. >> So the community center has uh has cable there, right? >> What's that?
>> The community center has cable cable. We we stream. He's straight. Okay. >> See? >> Okay. See? Yeah. We're getting something in there. Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, procedurally now, we had introduced
and actually passed an order. >> They didn't like the language. I know. >> But they're just looking for what buildings do you want the cable in and you get one free internet. That that's all they want a response back. >> So, >> at present, do we have a free internet? >> We do hall.
>> So, that would continue. stay there. Yeah, >> that was part of a different set like not part of the cable franchise. I think that was part of the Altis settle >> Altis. Yeah, that's speaking of class action suits where we prevailed. One of the few towns that had
the courage to sue Altis. So we that's something we recovered. >> So as for a different >> So that would that you're correct. That's a different corporate entity. So the uh ordinance could be or should be amended in terms of designating
>> I would answer his question first and see if it's necessary to amend the ordinance. >> All right then we'll put that >> designate a building with free internet and cable and the other buildings with cable. Just have to send him that answer. That was the question he asked. >> Yeah. and designate those buildings
and then if he thinks if he wants, you know, if we need to amend the ordinance, if they insist on that, then we can amend the ordinance. >> Everybody uh okay with that? >> Sounds good. >> All right. >> Yeah. The third item is discussion of a
proposal dated March 11th, 2026 from Rem Remington Vernick Engineers for construction management inspection of the 14th Avenue storm water pump station that's listed for consideration resolution 226157
at this evening's regular meeting. Any background comments from >> this is this this is for the management before we discuss this for the engineering. This is actually move
forward. We have the management for the inspections and um that portion of the project. This is the next phase. >> Okay. >> Anything else that that's on the regular meeting?
>> Yeah. And the second or next item E is discussion of a proposal dated March 11th, 2026 from Remington Vernick Engineers for additional work for the procurement of storm water management equipments listed for consideration
resolution 2261 158 at the regular meeting. And anything further from Marty, your perspective or Karen, any other background? >> Yes, mayor. This um came before us before, but we're going to rebid because
um I believe last time we bid it in entirety for all the pieces of equipment that we were looking for, including the generator. Now, this is going out to bid by correct, Steve. It's going we're split up all the all the components separately. >> Correct.
>> So, that too is on for action uh later at the regular meeting. Anything else from council at this juncture in terms of uh we have a proclamation
and what we'll do uh in the absence of the uh upper shores uh librarian this uh I can read it into the record and we will present it to them at the first uh upcoming uh moment. It's a proclamation
from the B of Seaside Park uh proclaiming National Library Week. It's actually in April. It's April 19th to 25th. And the uh resolution bears repeating as to the importance of course of libraries and we're fortunate
enough to have a very uh active and highly acclaimed in fact in the whole state ocean county library system and the upper shores is uh one example of that. Uh it's whereas libraries spark
creativity, fuel imagination, inspire lifelong learning, offering a space where individuals of all ages can find joy through exploration and discovery. And whereas libraries serve as vibrant community hubs, connecting people with
knowledge, technology, and resources while fostering civic engagement, critical thinking, and cultural enrichment. And whereas libraries provide free and equitable access to books, digital tools, and innovative programming, ensuring that all
individuals, regardless of background, have the support they need to learn, connect, and thrive. And whereas libraries partner with schools, businesses, and organizations to maximize resources, increase proficiency, and expand access to
essential services, strengthening the entire community. And whereas libraries empower job seekers, entrepreneurs, and lifelong learners by providing access to resources, training, and opportunities that support career growth and economic
success. And whereas libraries nurture young minds through story times, STEM, STEM programs, and literacy initiatives, fostering curiosity and a love of learning that lasts a lifetime. And whereas libraries protect the right to read, think and explore without
censorship, standing as champions of intellectual freedom and free expression. And whereas dedicated libraries, librarians, library workers provide welcoming spaces that inspire discovery, collaboration, and creativity for all. And whereas
libraries, librarians, and library workers across the country are joining together to celebrate National Library Week, under the theme, find your joy. And now, therefore, be it resolved by the mayor, Johnny Peterson Jr., the
Council of Seaside Park, on behalf of all our citizens, hereby proclaim April 19th to 25th, 2026 as National Library Week. And during this week, and in fact every week, we encourage all our residents to visit their library,
explore its resources, celebrate all the ways that libraries help our community indeed find joy. And that is the resolution that we will present uh an upcoming opportunity with the library folks.
That concludes the work session agenda. Anyone on the council have anything additional for work session? If not, we'll go into the audience. If anyone has any comments on any of the work session items, if they could give their name and address into the record.
Yes, Tom. Microphone this time. Tom Joseph, 704 South Bay View Avenue. Uh on the storm water pump station, have they put together or or are they putting together a bid package for the construction itself? I mean, this is construction
management inspection, but what about the bid package to go out and get bids to do the job itself? Did that go out and I missed it or has that not come out yet? >> I'll turn it over to the B ministry. >> So, that we've already paid for those services and engineering. We paid for design, permitting, and um bid specs. Uh
but the bid specs are not out yet. >> So, this is the second phase of that project. When we get to construction, this will cover the construction management and oversight. So, do we know when we're going to go out for bids on the project itself? >> Not off the top of my head, but I'll follow up with you. >> Okay. Thanks.
>> Any other comments on work session items? Hearing none, I would close the public portion and unless anyone else from council entertain a motion to adjourn the work session, take a brief moment and then we will move into the regular meeting.
>> Make the motion. Motion by council member Craft, second by council member to roll call. >> Council member Craft, >> yes. >> Council member Toe, >> yes. >> Council member Condos, >> yes. >> Council member Connor, >> yes. >> Council member Otanda, >> yes. >> Council President Wils, >> yes. Part: 2
Call our meeting to order. This is a regular meeting of the mayor and burough council of the burough southpark county voting state of New Jersey held on Thursday March 19th 2026 advertised to begin at the conclusion of the work session meeting which has ended
several moments ago. Pursuant to the provisions of New Jerseys Open Public Meetings Act, adequate notice of this meeting was properly provided by transmitting the notice of meeting the publication the Asbury Park Press and the Ocean Star on January 2nd, 2026.
Notice of the hybrid meeting was properly provided by posting the notice on the Seaside Park Bureau website on March 17th, 2026. Notice of the meeting the governing body has been posted in the corridor of the municipal building and in the office of the municipal clerk. Roll call.
>> Council member Fund >> here. >> Council member Connor >> here. >> Council member Craft >> here. >> Council member Otenda >> here. >> Council member T >> here. >> Council President Wil >> here. >> Mayor Peterson >> here. >> Thank you.
>> And let us now all join together and rise in a moment of silence to be followed by a pledge of allegiance. And we particularly offer our condolences to council member Craft and his entire
family on the loss of his wife Pat Craft who was a longtime good friend to the Burough Seaside Park and to Char First Aid Squad and other organizations. And we remember her and we pray for her
family for Bill as well. I pledge algiance 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 March 5th, 2026 a work session March 5th, 2026 the regular meeting. Any comments from council? If not, I motion. >> I'll make a motion. >> Motion by council member Condos.
>> Second. >> Second by council president Wilk. Roll call. Council member Condos, >> yes. >> Council President Wil, >> yes. >> Council member Connor, >> yes. >> Council member Crack, >> yes. >> Council member Rotunda, >> yes. >> Council member Toe, >> yes. >> Motion approved.
>> Next's final reading and adoption binding ordinance 22610 providing for the improvements to parking lots 1, 2, and three, and appropriating $2,800,000. Therefore, and authorizing the issuance of $2,800,000
in bonds or notes of the B of Cath Park to finance the cost thereof. Any comments from councel on second reading? If not, we'll go into the audience. Any questions, comments on second reading,
final reading 22610? Seeing none, I would close the public portion and entertain a motion from council. >> I'll make the motion here. >> Motion by council member Connor. >> I'll second. >> Second by council member to roll call. >> Council member Connor.
>> Yes. >> Council member to >> Yes. >> Council member Condos. >> Yes. >> Council member Crab. >> Yes. >> Council member Otanda. >> Yes. >> Council President Wil. >> Yes. >> Motion approved. Next first reading and introduction ordinance 22618 an ordinance to exceed
the municipal budget appropriation limits to establish a cap bank as per NGSA4A 4-45.14 uh standard procedure this town and most towns as well to have what amounts to
that excess if needed. Uh and this is a first reading. Any uh comments from council? And if not, a motion. >> I'll make the motion. >> Motion by council member Connor. >> Second. >> Second by council member Rotunda. Roll
call. >> Council member Connor. >> Yes. >> Council member Rotunda. >> Yes. >> Council member Condos. >> Yes. >> Council member Craft. >> Yes. >> Council member Tote. >> Yes. >> Council President Wil. >> Yes. >> Motion approved. Next is first reading introduction
ordinance 22619 accepting annexation of 168 acres known as South Seaside Park in the township of Berkeley. >> Any comments from council first reading? >> I do mayor.
>> Yes. um similar to what other people have I guess commented to us and I think we've had a lot of opportunity to hear from the public both at those information sessions which took place at Tribero and then again here um I I don't necessarily disagree with people who say
the report should probably have a version two that gets published. I think that was stated tonight and I think we should ask them to do that. Um but you know I think I speak for myself and others up here is that we take this role very seriously. Um, this vote is not one that we initiated or chose to have to
do. It's been placed before us and now we need to do the best we can. Um, I think it's a complex decision. Um, privately and I think somewhat publicly I've also, you know, questioned why we had to move so fast, but here we are. Um,
and I think in my opinion, we're all going to come at it from a different perspective. Similar to what Joanne said, she looks at it one way. Someone else is looking at at zoning, someone's looking at financials. I think at the end of the day, we need to each take the information that's been provided in the
study as well as our own expertise and make a decision based on what we feel comfortable with and representing all of you as our constituents. I don't think it'll ever make anyone happy in this and that's just a given. So, I'm okay with that. Um, I also consulted with our
attorneys to make sure that regardless of the vote tonight that we each have the opportunity, should this move forward to a second reading, to change our vote on the 30th, thereby giving ourselves what unfortunately is only 10
more days, but it is still 10 more days. Um, so just wanted to make that clear that that weighs into my thoughts tonight. Any other comments from council? Mayor, >> I just want to echo what Gina said and I appreciate those comments that you made. This is not an easy decision for any of
us. I think it's important that, you know, what Gina said is that we we're all taking it very seriously. Um whether or not we respond to emails or not, we see them and we read them. Um and we really do take everybody's input into account. Um and like Gina said, this is not an easy decision, one that we are
definitely taking seriously. Just want to echo >> just so the record's clear, there may have been a misunderstanding uh from one uh questioner in the audience. The uh addendum impact study and Jenna has has
been published in its entirety online. So I guess >> I guess just for clarity though, the addendum is actually brand new information that's not even in the original study. It's written differently. It has different tables in it. And I think what's being requested is that the original full study in my
opinion should be redlined to show what's actually was incorrect and then revised. And so you have a version two of that complete study. There'll be sections that are untouched and then there'll be sections that are either replaced by you could delete say this
section replaced in its entirety with >> yes >> add a dendum whatever the number you want to call it is but I think that's what's being requested and for purposes of going forward regardless of decision you'll have a document that reflects the latest information
>> any other comments from council >> is there a motion for first reading. >> I'll make the motion. >> Motion by council member Craft. >> Second. >> Second by Council Member Ratunda. Roll call. >> Council member Craft. >> Yes. >> Council member Rotunda. >> Yes.
>> Council member Condos. >> Yes. >> Council member Connor. >> Yes. >> Council member Tul. >> Yes. >> Council President Wilk. >> Yes. >> Motion approved. >> Next on the agenda are authorizations. There are two. The Union Church Easter
Sunday service Sunday, April 5th, 2026, 6:00 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. Location, Fifth Avenue, Ocean Beach. The second is Pure Towns River Yoga and Wellness Beach Yoga. Saturdays and Sundays, May 23rd to
September 7th, 2026, time 7:45 a.m. to 8:45 a.m. J Street Ocean Beach. Any comments from council on either of the authorizations? Or if not, a motion. >> I'll make the motion.
>> Motion by council member Craft. >> A second. >> Second by council member Tote. Roll call. >> Council member Craft. >> Yes. >> Council member Tote. >> Yes. >> Council member Condos. >> Yes. >> Council member Connor. >> Yes. >> Council member Rotunda. >> Yes. >> Council President Wil. >> Yes.
>> Motion approved. >> Next are payment of claims 226134. reports approving payment of the itemized claims as set forth on the check registry bill list for the period March 6, 2026 to March 19th, 2026.
Any comments from council or if not a motion? >> I'll make a motion. >> Motion by council member to second. >> Second by council member Craft. Roll call. >> Council to >> yes. >> Council member Craft. >> Yes. >> Council member Condos.
>> I'm going to abstain. I will get to those. >> Council member Connor, >> yes. >> Council member Rotunda, >> yes. >> Council President Wolf, >> yes. >> Motion approved. >> Next, the resolutions are read in summary fashion. 226135
authorizing two of 26 rifle license applications. 136 Appointing a seasonal employer to the B of Seaside Park Marina. 137 Appointing Special Law Enforcement Officers to the Bur of Seaside Park. 138 approving the alcohol beverage
control social affair permit for Seaside Park volunteer fire company number 189 authorizing an education reimbursement 140 appointing John Guz as recycling yard attendant 141 memorializing
payments to the LOSA program 142 appointing James Granken as lifeguard captain 143 appointing Jake Stein ments as beach control manager. 144 opposing the real rules in their
current form which have initiated initially by the DP and thereafter uh passed and the lame duck session of the legislature. 145 authorizing the payment of emergency
time. 146 amending resolution 226119 to correct compensation for the account clerk payroll clerk 147 accepting fiscal year 2025 community development block grant funds and authorizing the
execution of the subreient agreement 148 authorizing TNM Associates to provide professional engineering services to provide design contract administration and construction observation services for fiscal Year 2026 NJ do DOT municipal
aid roadway improvements to F Street. 149 appointing seasonal employees for the Department of Beach Control. 150 authorizing a salary increase for the chief financial officer. 151 authorizing a salary increase for the code compliance supervisor.
152 amending resolution 22678 to change the terms of compensation for temporary building inspector. 153 authorizing an adjustment of designated water sewer utility councils for block 88 lot 9 154 authorizing an emergency appropriation
in accordance with NGSA 4A4-20 155 authorizing the acception of a donation from Seaside Park Historical Society that being the wall outside painting and the memorial
to former mayor Delaney named after him for all the mayors in the uh history of the town. 156 authorizing seasonable pump operators for the 2026 summer season. 157 authorizing Remington Vernick
Engineers to provide professional engineering services for the construction, management, and inspection of the 14th Avenue storm water pump station. 158 authorizing change order number one to the contract with Remington Vernick Engineers to prepare
NJIB. That's the I bank SFY 2026 cleanwater SRF application for the procurement of municipal stormwater maintenance equipment 159 authorizing the mayor to sign a CAPRPA permit application that being an application
from the Seaside Park Yacht Club and reflecting the uh historic recorded lease arrangement 160 appointing a qualified purchasing agents and that being our clerk Jenna who we congratulate
and thanks for her service. >> I don't know. >> Do does anyone on council have any comments? Uh we discussed several of them at the work session. any on any of the resolutions >> just on uh 144 the real rules. I'd just
like to acknowledge I know that mayor you've been working with other mayors up and down the coast on this and also our assemblyman Paul Kitra has been extremely vocal on this. It impacts pretty much everybody who owns homes along the coast. So if you're not familiar with them, I'd encourage you to
read more about it or get engaged. And obviously, you know, we're fighting the battle at the state level. Um, and I think it's a definitely a, you know, regardless of party, this is something that everybody should be. I'm glad that we have it on here.
>> Well said. And, uh, you're correct. Uh, one of the leaders, and in fact, not just the area, the entire state is the assemblyman from this district, Assemblyman Kenich. Um and the three senators, Senator Ammano, Senator Hol
uh have all opposed this vigorously um in the in the voting. Senator Singer and it's uh been opposed at the Ocean County Mayor Association level as well. They the three senators I mentioned are
co-sponsors of the bill. The bill uh to amend this drastically, if not repeal the entire uh real rules, has been uh introduced by the Senate President. And this uh bill, I would just encourage
anyone and everyone to go online, read about it, obtain a copy, uh even look at the minutes of our own planning board has discussed it at length. and we welcome and thank the chairman who's here and and uh member council president
Wilk have been out in the forefront uh addressing this has been described as a substantial overreach of the authority never authorized to the D and uh why it's become promising perhaps that it
might get abs repealed or amended is it is an entirely bipartisan group that are fighting these rules And I could go on at length as to the relevance with our barrier island community as well as
South Seaside Park and uh we've talked about this at the planning board as well. What this could if this is not corrected what could happen. Um so I well said and I know we've talked about here and the planning board as well. It's very very unfortunate. has a very
potentially devastating impact and it isn't has gone so far it's up and down almost every town in Ocean County. It's up the river up in northern New Jersey towns that had no idea they were going to be affected and that's probably why
it's getting such opposition now that seems to be growing. Any other comments from council on the any resolution hearing? None. I'll go into the audience which is our practice not required by law but we do allow comments on
resolutions if anyone has any if they could give their name and address into the record. Yes. Uh Edie >> Ed 48 11th Avenue. Just two quick ones. um these real rules, is that the program by which they're saying that any new
housing or any housing with substantial uh renovations has to be elevated even higher? Is that what this is? >> That's correct. >> Okay. That I just I just didn't know that's what it was called rules. Okay. I was aware of that and I think it's awful, too. Um, one other question on
147 when it talks about the uh, block grant fund for handicapped accessibility improvements on Ocean Avenue. Is that for openings that are not part of the current boardwalk project? >> It's tied to the current boardwalk project. >> Yeah.
>> So, the the cement cutins to go up to the ramps, that's what this block ran to cover. So was that part not covered by the original contract with the verwalk people? >> So it it's part of the contract. It's just being paid separately. It's being paid through the grant instead of
through the uh the funding that we got through the IP. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Any other comments on resolution? Shirley Crestle 700 North Bay Avenue on 150 to 151 the salary increase for the chief financial officer and the code
compliance. Um this isn't usually the time why are we giving an increase in March >> because when they started and it's their annual increase been one year since their last >> so they start in March and this is the correct okay thank you. >> Any other comments on resolutions?
Hearing none, I would close the portion as to resolutions and entertain a motion from council as a consent agenda. >> Make the motion. >> Motion by council member Condos. >> And second by council member Rotunda. Roll call.
>> Council member Condos. >> No, I was. >> Yes. >> Council member Rotunda. >> Yes. >> Council member Connor. >> Yes. >> Council member Craft. >> Yes. >> Council member to >> Yes. Council President Mo. >> Yes.
>> And that concludes the written agenda on us on the council at this stage. >> Yes. >> Announced that uh Friday, May 22nd, we're uh this is going to be our first annual Seaside Heights has have reached out to us to uh you know do a tug of war. I think I think we did we we passed
a resolution to to do this, but uh it's in the works. Uh the recreation committee is the administrator. We met with the representatives from CISA Heights. So it's underway. is going to be your Friday, May 22nd at 3 p.m. kind of a kickoff to summer party memorial weekend. Little friendly competition
between the Heights and the Park uh tug-of-war and proceeds are going to go to benefit both Seaside Park, Seaside Heights Fire Department. So, uh come on out. We'll be on our social media. Um they'll be >> y% tribal.
>> There's also it was a freeway when this was envisioned back a year ago. The charter of first aid school I think is very important. >> So that draft flyer needs to be amended >> and it will be amended because that is >> work in progress.
>> It's a work in progress but we are going to get the updated one up there and uh you know go to the exit 82.com for more information when it gets up and uh it's going to be good. Come on out and support all of the recipients of the donations and and whatnot.
>> Where's being held exactly? It's going to be held at Porter Beach. >> Porter Beach >> at Port of Seaside Heights and Seaside Park. Um that'd be good. >> And there's also a discussion of a community tug of war too. So members of the community
as well as people are the as we speak it's the two companies have a team and then employees. Yes, that's what was in the first council or mayor. >> Each mayor is gonna have their own.
>> I think that >> just the mayor. >> That's the third one. So, you're going to have a tie. >> Well, just know Richie's gonna be away. >> Oh, man. >> It's an opening for us. But and John, I
think the um subways in Tom's River are going to donate part of their proceeds on on Mondays and Tuesdays. >> Jersey mics. >> We heard Bums might be doing some donations, too. >> You don't ask the answers now.
>> I can tell you part of the competition is how much each town raises. Okay? And you could get a little the winning town could get a little award with that also. >> And do >> bragging rights. >> Bragging rights. >> So get your wallets ready.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> I have a question, Councilman. When you said it's going to be on Porter Avenue. Yes. >> I mean, are you going to do the real deal and and have the municipal border marked off Porter Avenue
on one side, the seats on the other? >> Oh, hands down. It's going to be real. professionals. I like there may be a promo video coming out too. >> There is going to be a promo video >> uh two weeks prior that's going to go around on social media and there's going to be a cup awarded each year. Also,
this will be the first annual cup. >> Um and there's going to be some fun things done doing that promo video that's going to go out prior to >> any uh anything else from council. >> I love costume. No.
>> Oh, mayor. I'm sorry. >> Um, I just want to share with you all some of the Beach Badge revenues because I know early in the year, uh, somebody had asked for it and I said I would get it to everybody. Um, that we did in 2025. Uh, so in comparison, 2024, which was a
very bad year, we we did $1,995,29916. Um, in 2025 we did 1,971,947 and1 cent. Um, you can see there's cents there because if you all remember last year we stopped eating the credit card
fee which pretty which I know in 2024 amounted to just under $51,000 the town was paying uh for credit card charges. So then we put it on the the person with a credit card. That charge goes there
with their beach badge fee. Um so the delta there the difference was $23,352 less in 25 than 24. However, in 2025, I don't if you remember in the beginning of May, the weekends were open. The weekends were were horrible in weather.
It was great during the week when we weren't working and then when the weekends came working it was horrible weather and then uh in August we actually had closed uh not the beaches but there were no beach badge checkers for four whole days not together but
four whole days. So that's additional revenues that we would have lost during that time. So quite frankly it's not too bad. We pretty much came even with a very banner year in 2024 with uh just being, you know, uh $23,352
less than the year before. So, yes, >> we had terrible weather. >> The weather was good. You know that from your place? >> Oh, yeah. I have police report for February. >> Yes. >> All right. In February, we had 363 calls for service, 40 motor vehicle stops,
eight motor vehicle summones. It was one motor vehicle traffic accident. No domestic violence incidents. 11 emergency first aid calls were answered. Seven firearms background investigations were processed. Five background investigations were conducted for I
guess class one and class 2, right? Um employee training during the month of February. Less lethal reertification was Patrolman King. Ocean County Police Academy instructors were Patrolman Stilton, Patrolman Delcanti, Patrolman Bus. There was one internal affairs
investigation in February, one detective bureau investigation, one suicide, one sexual assault, no use of force reports, and the PD uh participated in the Central Regional High School job fair. >> Thank you, Chief. >> Thank you, chairman. Anything else from
council? Hearing none, we'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. last time. Shirley Prezle uh 700. Thank you. You haven't uh on the comment about the beach badges on the website where
you get the boxes, it says March 15th that the badges went on sale, >> but they're not >> online. Online they're online. >> Online. >> Online. It's still >> The online sales started March 15th. Everything's regular like May 1st in
person at the uh bath house >> when uh and you can pick up if you're if you bought them online, you can pick them up in person starting May 1st. >> My main question is when we had the first ice storm, we were told about the warming center at Triboro.
Then the second storm when people were without power for either one to three days, nothing was told about a warming center. Do we still have a place where if you're freezing in your house, there's a place to go that has heat? Cuz nothing was came out about it on that
one. I don't know if there's a generator or does the firehouse have a generator for people open here. >> This building was attached to trio. Um >> but there was no brought people here.
>> Um there I believe there's a problem with the generator. >> Okay. because >> because there you nobody was told anything. Some people were quite trippy in their homes. >> So maybe we can think ahead. Hopefully we not till next year. But um
remembering to put something out because there were people that we didn't know where we could go. Thank you. >> Yes. And hi uh Tom Bars 27 Brighton Avenue. Um, is there a reason there is no moi moi
moy mobile mats on Brighton Avenue's access point to the beach? >> Yeah. Yeah, there is. Because um if if there were moi mats there, vehicles go up and down there. Mats would would rip up potentially. >> You should look at Harding Avenue in
Wharton Beach. And you should look at Kitty Wake in um Serest Beach. They are both emergency access uh entrances to the beaches and they both have uh on the sides um pedestrian
uh mobile mats for people to access that. And I can tell you as a resident, you know, on Brighton, it is very challenging for our older residents to get to navigate that access point onto the beach. and I think there's more than
enough room for at least a pedestrian section to be placed there. So, I'm just asking that be taken into consideration. The other uh question I have not to go back to the um amendment that was passed relative to the annexation. I know it is complex. I appreciate your efforts in
this. Uh I am disappointed that as numerous times including myself from the first information session um it was requested that we go at this in a very conscientious slow pace. Um and even um Councilwoman
Condos had mentioned that the time stamp for this. No one has answered the question as to why this ordinance had to be uh presented today for its first reading and what is driving the urgency and I'm just sharing my disappointment
that that question has never been answered as numerous times as it has been presented to the council. And then lastly, in the ordinance itself, what is in what is the portion of the 168 acres
that is being annexed? Because in the ordinance, the title talks about accepting annexation of 168 acres known as South Seaside Park. But in item number one, where it says, "Therefore now be ordained, the Burough Council
accepts annexation of a portion of the 168 acres known as South Seaside Park located in Township Berkeley." What is the portion of uh the annexation that is being considered? >> It's the whole 168 acres that >> is written wrong.
>> Yes, I wrote it and I would have wrote it wrong. Um that portion that part of that aortion should be removed. It's not a substantial change and it doesn't change the ordinance, but for priority sake is 168 acres. >> Okay. So, this has to be correct. >> Yep.
I believe you have it in order for your portion and it's >> that's fine. And my last point again to Councilwoman Condo's point about revising the annexation analysis. >> I mentioned this at another previous
meeting. You should encourage your consultants to put a picture of Seaside Parks, beaches, and boardwalks on that board, not Seaside Heights, which is on there. And I actually had shared that with them offline in one of the first meetings, but apparently they chose not
to make that change either. So, I just want to leave you with that as well. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. >> Thank you. >> Would you like to go behind? >> Um, very quickly. So to >> name please. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Greg Raymond, 38 Brighton
Avenue in Seaside Park. Um, again recognizing Miss Condos and Toto's messages. Thank you. Is the second question that Mr. Bars asked, is there an answer to that as to why you heard from some of my fellow residents that it
might have been good guidance when mistakes are made to just take a step back and assess things? the the public perception, the look. I mean, it looks really rushed. Why did it have to happen today?
Was it is it a state law that you had to do something on on the 19th of March? You did you have the opportunity to push this out? >> So, there's no legal requirement as far as a particular date. Certainly nothing like the 19th of March. though as I've
indicated there are parts of the statute that are surprisingly specific but that is not one of them. Uh there is not a uh legal requirement as to requires a particular time. Um but certainly uh you know the consideration of the ordinance
and the question there's been a lot of debate on it but to your question no it was not a legal requirement. >> Yeah. and and and it may not it may have been the right decision that you've made but I you're all in this and thank you for your volunteering your roles and so
forth but the optics of what we just did with off of bad information so quickly you've left yourselves and the whole community open for second guessing should the data have not been accurate and should we have made not such a great
decision so I ask when you come back in 30 days if you decide to pause >> 10 days in two in 10 days. If you decide to pause, that's not a sign of weakness or error. It's a sign of just giving yourself the time to look at the data
that's accurate and make the best decision. Um, thank you very much. >> Thank you, sir. Any other comments? Yes, F. >> I'm sorry. Um, hey, 21 I Street. This is more a a community service comment.
There the historical society is having a breakfast on May 16th and the tickets are in. They're $20 for a ticket. Um Tribar and John has tickets or you can
get them. I have some tickets. Um there's a limited number because of fire regulations and there will be no tickets sold at the door and there's also going to be since it is Armmesus day um there will be a
collection of toiletries and whatnot taken for our troops overseas and a list of those requested donations, excuse me, are on the back of each ticket. So hopefully you guys will support it.
>> It's only $20. >> Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. $20. >> Yeah. >> And we're actually getting that on our website, too. >> And for those of you who remember our 125th uh year that we had here, we had a breakfast for the same thing uh at Tribar and on on Armed Forces Day,
Armmesus Day. I know that's a that's a for my my days too. Uh um uh it's it's exactly similar to that. That was very successful that day. There was a number of items that were donated for the armed uh for our service people overseas. So
um for those of you who were there for that one, it's very similar to to that event for the 125th. Yes. >> Cater. >> Cater by Yes. >> Any other public comments? >> Yes. Mike
>> Mike Stataphino 59th Avenue. Uh I want to lead off by saying that I agree with the council in the opposition to uh the rules of Rio in its current form. But I don't think that we should blow off or
have disrespect for the research that has been done for the dangers of what might happen here in 75 years. I definitely will be dead. There's no doubt about it. But my ancestors will
hopefully be holding property in this town that I love just as much. But I want to just say that if we don't take into consideration our methodology of handling things and move towards renewable energy, then
their projections are going to be real and there will be no seaside park, south seaside park or much of the barrier island will be gone. So, let me just say we have to try to work within the system
and not think that the D is just our total enemy. Let's work with them. Let's try to make a plan that will help us survive so that there will be a seaside park in 75 years. Thanks.
>> Thank you, Mike. And we could certainly debate it, but I uh would encourage everyone to look at uh Sen's research. And unfortunately, the study was uh based on a old uh outdated study
through some Ruters individual, Rutgers University individuals, and one of the authors has disavowed it, repudiated it, and gone against it. So that's what we're dealing with. But that didn't stop the D.
You are correct. Ultimately, and we were asked recently to start a suit and we do not necessarily sue at will or rightly at something. The first approach is always to act with reason. I agree with
you. Try to work something out and hopefully it won't fall on deaf ears. It's a Senate President is is driving the ship and so it's got a bipartisan group of legislators are all working on this. So, but as we speak, it's been
adopted and it is in effect already. >> Yeah. Any other uh comments? Hearing none, we'll close the public portion. I'd entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion motion by council member.
Second by council member Clark. Roll call. >> Council member Connor. >> Yes. >> Council member Craft. >> Yes. >> Council member Condos. >> Yes. >> Council rotunda. >> Yes. Council member to >> Yes. >> Council President Wilson. Motion approved.