--------- One, the notice requirements have been satisfied. The meeting dates for the year are confirmed at the annual meeting, are posed on the Bolton board in the lobby of the municipal center, and published in the record within the first 10 days of the new year. Salute to the flag, please. Omar, can I have a roll call, please?
>> Here. >> Here. Okay. First item to be considered is the transportation element of the master plan. New Jersey Infrastructure Bank. >> Yes. We've been talking and prioritizing pedestrian safety, vehicle uh
circulation, the age of our traffic lights and so forth over the last couple of years. The New Jersey Infrastructure Fund now has the ability to fund transportation projects and some of the eligible projects are in fact to fund uh
traffic lights, crosswalks, and other traffic group. Um in order to place us the best light to get funding from the uh I bank, we have this transportation master plan element uh adopted. So, I've uh not looking to take action tonight,
but John Jar will be here on March 24th, and I would anticipate any polls or something prior to that. We'll have that on the agenda. >> Any questions from council members? >> Okay, thank you. All right, next item.
Senator Kim's uh fiscal year 27 CDS application portal. >> So, We put a $2.7 million application requesting Congressman Balthimer last year to purchase a couple of properties in
platform areas to uh create natural estuaries. Congressman's office was able to get us $850,000 awarded. Um and this year with Congress, we have uh submitted the request to have
have the federal government fund the cross at home west. So that has been submitted to Congressman Goth before this year. So the thought was to to try to secure the balance of that $2.7 billion or portion
of it through Senator Kim's efforts. And uh Senator Booker also has the same opportunity to put the same application in with both senators or consider a separate application senator.
I guess the first thing is is are we in agreement that we want to submit balance of something? >> Yeah, definitely. >> Did we identify the properties that we were looking for secondary? >> Yes. Grant document
I don't have the addresses off the top of my head but >> and are they current families in there now? >> Yes. But this would be a process of fully 100% cooperative. >> There'll be an opportunity. >> I just think it's a, you know, given the
market, it's going to be very hard to convince families to vacate their homes. As much as I like the project, I would not want us to be doing takings under this. >> We won't. It's not. We have not even We're not even thinking about that. >> Okay. If they if they're interested in selling and getting out from under a
situation they're in because it's their properties are going to be hard to market, then they take the opportunity. If they don't want to, you can't we can't make the water go away unless we actually do something to make it happen, right? >> Yeah. But it'll all be cooperative.
>> Um, business district streetscape guidelines. >> Okay. project sent to you back in February. They put together asations. Um the the uh benches and trash cans and
so forth are probably not something that you need to take action already have. Um that process on the way benches and trash cans just did a year ago. Uh what is key on this and it will inform how they write the bid specs for the
replacement of the sidewalks uh on Washington and West Avenue. Um so we just need some input whether we're going to use stamped concrete regular concrete pavers that type of thing or what what the preference and then adopt that as your
design guideline. Now, we're not looking for action tonight again, but I would suggest the council be prepared. Send some of your preferences today so we can get that order to John Jar and he should be able to leave here on March 24th with
that detonation. >> Did you cost? >> He'll have some he'll have some cost. I can't I can't give you I can tell you what I like but >> well I think it would change but it's again it's going to be the look of your downtown. So I think you start
with what what the preference of the look is going to be and then if the cost factor drives in a different direction you go with that. But I think at this point it's uh you know if if the look is pavers uh or if the look is stamped
concrete orever whatever other want uh you know I think start with that so then he can price it out and get back to us with >> we're just talking about the two options between and concrete is that
>> or you could do non-standard Lauren. >> Lauren, go ahead, Lauren. >> So, I will say um in other towns I've seen concrete crack enormously. >> Um I know it's easily replaceable, but I would like to see durability or you know something from John if you can ask him
to give that back to us. Um the other thing is um on the benches, I would like to request benches with backs. I don't care what they look like, just something with a back. I think our seniors >> So the benches be >> they do
wasn't see. >> Okay. Because he's not showing anything. >> That part of the design guidelines. >> Okay. >> Okay. Because saying for seniors. >> Any other questions on this? >> I'm sorry. Yes. I I have a question on
the lighting. And so we had initially talked about lighting with solar panels that we can generate our own electricity through the light poles. This was something we'd looked into. I'm curious to know if that's an option. LED lighting
that way, you know, the gener if we're putting in all this lighting, especially along river edge, then our electricity bills can be more manage. to be >> just had a new area of the parts of it to make sure
that the solar >> it's a technical question right answer yes >> so usually it's the lighting has both in the poles like you can you know use the regular electricity and then generate solar >> on my flag pole boat home is it's 20
foot high flag pole. It's strictly lit by solar. >> Is there any provisioning for >> Yes. >> on the sidewalks >> your chips? Yes. >> Okay. >> And then we did I had a question about the the bricks in this like the red
brick. Is that for safety or is that aesthetic? David, you know what I'm talking about? like the >> curve or something. >> No, they put a they put a border in here. That's >> the border. Yeah, I >> believe I'll check with him, but I believe that there's some
differentiation color. >> Okay. Because >> only >> not my favorite. If it's aesthetics, I don't love it. >> Color. >> Color. But the bricks are fine. >> Any offset, I think, is what you're saying. >> Well, that's what I'm being asked. Color.
>> No, I'm the color. But yeah. It's the color. Oh, no. That this that's a different That's this. I'm talking about this. I'm talking, you know. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, I'll get all this stuff back to John. >> Okay, cool. >> Like, if it's Yeah, it could be cool
looking. It could it could look very smart, but um you know, that's all. >> We will see what uh is required for ADA and I'll have it give us some options. >> Okay. Thank you. breakfast. >> Which is nice. It's fine. >> Okay.
>> Okay. Next item is the planning board ordinance amendment recommendations. >> Do we have any questions on this? David, why don't you just give us that >> for tonight? >> Yep. >> Mayor, if you wanted me to speak on it, I can do that.
Go ahead, Wendy. >> Wendy's on line while she's on her way in. >> I apologize. Um, the affordable housing ordinances, uh, including your, um, general affordable housing ordinance, were sent to the planning board. They're
all in chapter 35, which is your zoning ordinance. So, it requires planning board consistency review. So, the memos from the planning board are recommending the adoption and noting that they are not inconsistent with the master plan because we deal with double negatives.
So, Wendy, um do any of these have to do with um specific places that like we've discussed about redevelopment plans or anything like this? Is it, you know, specifically the Clinton in site or like
or is this just affordable housing calculations? >> So, there are specific sites, a specific overlay sites. The Clinton Insight is not that redevelopment site is not one of the ordinances. In fact, on your
agenda for tonight is a resolution to authorize a an amendment to the agreement with Fair Share Housing Center. And the amendment would be to provide the burrow with more time to adopt anything relative to the dean drive site.
So everything but the dean drive site that is in your housing plan is part of the agenda. And this is all because the just to explain for people this is because the this is the time that we need to do new ones, right? I've seen many different
towns having to do these. >> Right. So the deadline for compliance with adopting implementing ordinances and resolutions is actually next Monday. So this is our last meeting before we would have to show the court that all of
the implementing action has been taken by the municipality by the burough. Um, so all of the towns right now and and candidly that's uh why I'm doing this on the phone right now is coming from someplace else that we had the same exact discussion. But all of the towns
are adopting their ordinances that would make their housing element and fair share plan come to fruition so to speak. So, you have a couple of ordinances dealing with overlay zoning um both new overlay zoning as well as increasing
densities on existing overlay zones from the third round that have not produced units. Um part of the approval through the court process and the program requires the bureau to take these actions if we want to continue to try to
stay compliant. The March 16th deadline is the deadline to adopt ordinances to keep your immunity ongoing through this process. It's the next shoot to drop, so to speak. The other thing is the affordable housing ordinance that governs how affordable units are are
controlled. That is also something that all of the towns that are participating in the program have to adopt because the regulations changed in December. So everybody has to update their ordinances to make sure that you are following the
latest rules and regulations and the proper citations to those rules and regulations. That's why many if not all towns are doing a repeal and replace to make sure that nothing is missed with the new citations. All of those went to the planning board
for consistency. And just so I understand maybe for the benefit of anyone else is that the that the town gets studied right and then they look at what places could get
apartments or developed and then from that they come up with a calculation. Is that how that works? >> You mean how the obligation is assigned to each municipality? >> Uh yes. >> No, that would be logical.
Oh, >> that would be a logical way. No, there's um essentially GIS mapping that is looked at to try to see where there's tree coverage and then it's presumed that that tree coverage may actually be
open land. Um it's also taken into effect what the income is of the municipality. Higher income towns get hit a little bit harder. um as well as a calculation of the non-residential development that has transpired over the
last 10 years. So all of those were ratios that factored into what Tennifly's obligation was out of Bergen County. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions on this topic? >> Okay, let's move on to the tree
ordinance update. Any questions on this one? Yeah, I I would need um Wendy to we might have to move this a little later in the agenda because Wendy should be looking at it when I >> uh review I mean Wendy I don't know if you can handle
>> I I think I can handle it. I I spent quite a bit of time looking at your comments and going back and forth on it. So >> go ahead ask your question forward. >> All right, here we go. Um so I want to do a couple of uh you know compliments
first. I see that we had increased some penalties. So that was good. Um you know again what what I I'm aware of in the environmental commission is just how many trees hundreds of trees that Tennifly loses each year that are not
able to be replaced or don't get replaced. So, you know, that's kind of the the backdrop as to why we have a strong uh tree ordinance as as strong as we can make it. So, um okay. So, basically, I
met with our tree foreman Marky Paleo to get his feedback because he's the one who really kind of encounters this so much throughout the year and he goes and does the reviews. And um so a lot of the feedback that I provided Wendy with uh
came really from from Mark and and my meeting uh Marky Pelito's meeting with me. So that's just I wanted to give that background of the council. So Wendy um I had asked some questions. Uh I'll I'll just go on some of the things that you
did didn't make it into your second revision that he thought would have been a a good idea. Um specifically, um the major it there's a letter M for anyone following along. Major tree
removal permit. Um the request to remove 20 trees or more on one lot is called a major tree removal permit. Um Mark was asking that to be lowered to a 15 trees on one lot because he felt that an
engineer should really review it at a lower uh threshold. Um >> so Julie, I did not make that change because that is getting more restrictive than what is currently on the books. So I felt that that was something that the council needed to give guidance on. I
did not unilaterally make that change. >> Okay. So I All right. Then I guess I'll I'll ask I mean that's why we're discussing it now. So I'm I'm uh letting the council know that the tree foreman felt that we should make that threshold
lower uh for an engineer to review the property uh at 15 trees for one property as opposed to 20. Uh >> um just for the council's edification, Julie, for those who aren't as um
well-versed on the the tree replacement ordinance um currently or or even how it affects with this proposed repeal and replace. Um there is two different paths. There's a minor application if you're under a certain threshold which has less requirements of review and then
there's the application for the major which is a heightened standard which is what Julie's referring to that um Marquet Bolito was wondering if we could change what that threshold number is on on the number of trees being removed >> and what is it currently the
>> 20 >> 20 >> I think she wants to keep it at 20. >> Yeah. So I I think uh >> I think we should defer to our professional. >> Yeah. So so much so so she didn't make any change. I I'm just conveying. >> So this is a this is a policy right
conversation in the sense of um high degree of respect for all the professionals but it's up to the council to decide what the policy is going to be. And I think this ordinance um is in um excellent shape. There's two things that have happened. We've increased the dollars for the permitting fees to
create the proper incentives and then provide the burrow with more dollars to plant more trees somewhere else. Right. But then on the other side, we don't want to make it more restrictive for the residents to be able to conduct their lives and do and do what they want to do
um within the context of of the requirements here. Uh well that that said though TW you know removing 15 trees from a lot to have an engineer review it as opposed to 20 trees from the lot. I mean that's you
know what he was saying uh would be better for the town idea there than this code. >> I really don't want to see lots clearcut. I mean I've seen a lot of them around town that don't replace their landscaping. And while I appreciate our tree escrow, I'm with Julie that, you
know, I think that if some residents coming in and they're cutting 15 significant trees, I don't think that's a too much of a burden to ask. >> It doesn't prevent them. It should it's just what we consider. >> I doesn't change it at all. >> At least we have an expert looking. >> We would we would Yeah, it would be
lowering the threshold for an engineer to look at. >> Keep something in mind. If someone's developing a new house on a property, um they've got uh they've got a structural engineer, they've got a civil engineer, and they've got an architect. So whether they're taking down 100 trees or no trees, there's already engineers who are
designing what's going to happen in order for that to get submitted to the building department. So none of that happens in any sort of arbitrary manner. And there's already engineers and professionals involved. >> So let them look at 15 trees. Well, >> it could be it's a could be either way,
but our tree removed. >> That's we don't want to make it boric, but go ahead, >> Julie. Our tree. I I might disagree with you there. I think I might want to make it a little restricted. >> That's okay. We'll have a vote and it'll go the way it goes. That's all. >> I'm just saying. >> Can't answer that.
>> Yeah. So, we >> town by town. >> Wendy. Wendy, is there a state requirement for this? No, >> no. This is us adding it in. >> Tennifly is Tennifly has a tree code uh
that you know some towns have absolutely no tree coat. You know, if you go out to western Jersey for example, you know, but uh but we you know have made that kind of commitment number years ago. Uh, so then I >> Well, I just want to correct that though because the reason there is this model
DP code now, this or model ordinance is because of the MS4 permit processes requiring it. >> Oh. Oh, so now they're catching up to what we were doing, >> right? It doesn't require necessarily payment and, you know, the same application procedures. You know, you
guys may recall the last version you saw had a lot of red line because it was all the stuff that we got to add into the the basis of the model. Um so there the model requires some kind of of tree permit for removal. Um doesn't
necessarily require this level of mitigation that that the burrow has done. >> Okay. So then um moving on to the tree replacement requirement table. Something that came up in the last number of years and >> vote on that Julie.
>> Uh well I mean uh yeah. Okay. Uh before I get to that, should we what is the consensus regarding uh lowering the threshold to 15 for an engineer to review it? Is is that how you want to do it? Because I >> What does the council want to do? You
just want to vote on the ordinance or you want to go through this detail by detail? >> Detail. >> What do you want to do? >> Detail. >> What do you want to do? Vote on the ordinance? >> Okay. >> Okay. So, go down your list. >> Okay. Uh well I hope with what I'm what the
feedback would be might alter you know this first draft this is a draft okay um okay so then one of the things that has come up as an issue in the last number of years is that the replacement of
trees has really turned into a lot of we we allow a number of minor trees to replace major trees. So like you might see herbivites a lot along people's u property and so that's a a challenge
that has been coming up from a lot of different areas different people I've talked to but our tree foreman was saying that in the tree replacement requirement table because now people really do plant herbivites these kind of
bush trees if you will and and we do allow miners to place majors at a calculation. He felt that um anything that is removed when it's 23 in or higher uh that we
should add some mitigation uh because it won't remove the water necessary that the 23 in or higher diameter tree would have removed. So specifically, so this is not about
changing the entire uh replacement t table calculation, but uh for category three and four and five, this is just ones that are 23 in and higher. They're saying replant
uh instead of three trees, replant it as four of these minor trees. And then instead of four trees, if it's a 33 in, you're taking out instead of four little trees to make it five. And again, you have to picture, you know, these kind of
small plant trees. So there was a request to change category 3, four, and five to make them uh one more minor tree higher. And I think then again specifically about water with removing
the water. So, does anyone have a ch like a a problem with that? Because I think that could be a good idea. >> We have backyards flooding. I know my backyard floods, you know, from downhill. I'm in the center of town. So, I I don't think that that's
>> consultation with DPW, right? >> That's who's making these recommendations. >> Let me just, you know, Mark is a great guy and he's our tree foreman. We promoted him to that a little less than a year ago. Uh, but I just need to clarify Mark is not an arborist and he's
not a licensed tree expert. >> So, just understand that. I mean, he's giving his opinion to what he was asked. >> David, is our burrow relying on him right now to do these tasks? >> He's he's assisting doing some doing the inspections, but >> Well, is he seeing flooding?
>> I'm sorry. >> Is he seeing the flooding? Well, >> well, he would see he would see whatever he was called to to inspect that. He is the >> What I'm saying is that we we should be we shouldn't say he's the expert. That's the >> our professional. So, I'm calling him
professional, but again, if our professional is giving these recommendations and Julie's relaying them very carefully. Thank you, Julie. We should pay attention to that. You always say defer to our >> But at the end of the day, there's more issues going on here than just a face guy. In other words, >> when we go from three, four, and five
trees to four, five, and six trees, again, it's a greater burden on the resident to help deal with that. And that's for replacing one tree. >> Yeah. >> Right. So, if they take of a diameter, >> it's also an enormous tree >> burrow to go out there and look at it
when to your point, >> more often than not, there are not one, two, maybe three professionals that are >> correct. Plus, there's also the additional the additional situation. Uh we have properties that having houses
built on them where someone's putting addition or a pool and it's literally no place to put trees. >> Yeah, that's that's why we have flooding in the backyard. >> But that's also why a lot of them are choosing herbivites and minor trees. So
in that area, that was the idea here is that if you're putting these small trees in that uh lot, which is what people end up doing, he's saying increase it so you can help with the water. >> What's your next topic you want to talk about?
>> Is this uh so so that's a no. We don't want to take that recommendation. Just Lauren and myself. No, I'm just concerned because I've spoken to a number of residents that find the additional trees to replace extremely cost prohibitive and and it's
a huge burden for them financially. I mean, I'm not trying to increase that burden. I think that yes, they're replacing, but to increase the number of replacements is concerning for me. And the other option is I do want to note though that um the reason why you do use
the minors to replace the majors is because if you plant a tree that's too big, it's going to die, right? >> So you do have to rely on those minors and that's why there's the opportunity to use multiple minor ones. >> Certainly I'm learning >> but like yeah >> my concern
>> I'm just going back to the general theme is it doesn't appear the majority of the council wants to make this more burdensome. >> Wait, I'm not sure. I think it's a split vote, mayor. >> Okay. So, well, we'll call We have the vote coming up at >> We heard the vote. If you guys want to vote,
>> I'm not voting on this ordinance. Am I voting on Julie's amendments? >> We're going to vote on the ordinance. >> Voting on this ordinance. >> And again, Julie's making draft edits to this ordinance, which I want to consider in the vote. So, we're gonna have the
ordinance that's on the table here. >> Wendy, for the next meeting, >> can you give us a draft with Julie's and Marito's comments so that we can consider it? >> Yeah. I mean, Julie has also had
prepared that that she sent to me that I reviewed and going through to see which ones should I could do and which were more policy decisions. So I'm sure Julie can share that with you. >> So the and these are these are this but to Wendy what you just made a comment.
These are policy decisions. So it is actually for this body to decide if you want yes or no. >> Amend an ordinance. We can amend an ordinance as sitting here as a group and vote on that amendment as as directing it to Wendy to draft. I mean it's not
introduced yet. >> Correct. >> So I just again Yeah. because the way it's kind of set up is making it like yes or no, but this is really the discussion time and you all can decide. >> So, um, okay. So, then we get to the
exemption, uh, Wendy, which was the one that was the one that jumped out at me most. Oh, wait. She's done. >> I'm sorry. >> Okay. No, I just uh you're the uh lady of the hour, so I figured I had to
>> It's It's burned in my brain. >> Wait till you're done. Okay. Um so the the one that we've been going back and forth on a lot was about the exemptions, right? >> Um so under exemptions, so just to explain to everyone, exemptions are if
you remove a tree, but then you're not res uh required to do any mitigation. So this is concerning because uh you know obviously with all the work of our tree code and we want to we want to
protect trees, we really want to limit exemptions because again that would mean that a homeowner does not have to >> Well, and just to clarify though, you still have to go through the process of getting getting your permit for it. You just don't have to mitigate it. >> You wouldn't have to mitigate it. Meaning you don't have to pay into a tree fund,
>> but you have to pay to >> a permit. Yes, you do have to pay for >> the permit. just a permit, but you nothing about putting into a tree fund and then if you can't replant, not getting it back, you'd be exempt from this replacement situation.
>> Just to be clear, for one tree, the permit's $25. >> Yeah. So, it's not >> Okay. >> Yeah. So, we're not really talking the the big enchilada here. >> So, this So, 1A was something 1.4A was something we we never had in our code
before. You did actually before I was the burough attorney. >> Oh, okay. As a resident, I know that it was there before. All right. So, not in our last >> before you there was nothing. >> Well, >> so not in our our last cycle, right? Okay. Because I didn't see it.
>> Okay. So, now this is saying you and I have been going back and forth about the exemption >> and first uh just do you want to explain the exemption and then I'm going to ask question? So the exemption would be up to four trees per acre over the course
of five years you would be able to take down. So by way of example, I live on a quarter acre lot. I would be able to take down one tree over five years without having to provide mitigation. Um somebody that has a 1 acre property could take down four. Somebody that has
halfacre, two, you know, so on so on with the math. So it's basically, you know, if you take down one in one year, you would still only have three left. If you have an acre over the next four years, you'd have to wait for the fiveyear cycle to finish from the last tree that was taken. So it's almost a a
courtesy for, let's say, you know, somebody that has one tree in the middle of the backyard. It isn't dead. Want to give a kid. >> Yeah. And you and maybe or insurance has threatened to cut their coverage because of the tree. I I did have that.
>> I had that, >> but that tree was dead. So, >> well, that one's dead, but Yeah. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> But um >> that's So, >> so if a tree if a property is less than an acre, >> but it would have solved the problem for the the woman that was coming in trying
to take the two trees down to get their solar panels. >> But she was able to get the uh she was able to get the dispensation to do that >> at a year delay. and you know an appeal process with 200 foot notice lists and
everything else. So it's a courtesy inclusion. Um >> um but here's my thing. If the the the the purpose of the tree code is not saying people can't remove trees or won't remove trees or or don't have to remove trees. It's the idea of the
mitigation. So, I I think this cuts right to the heart as to why we would exempt uh anyone from mitigating and that that's the the issue. And I I just want to be your if a property is less than an acre, this this does does apply. You
said your quarter of an acre to property. So, this is basically anybody. >> It's a ratio. >> It's it's a anybody can remove and you're saying not to to mitigate. And I I really don't know why we'd want to do that. I don't know why we'd want to do
that. The mitigation is what keeps the town having what greenery that it has. So why would we want to do that? That's a new that's a new thing. >> I guess as a resident I would say why
can't I take a tree down once every five years? Not that I have an I've never taken a tree down on my property except for in contemplation of construction. Right. Uh, >> and I would say that you absolutely can as you can now, but miticate, >> right? But I I I would just say
some of our a fair amount of our tree call code, including the amount of money we charge people to mitigate or fees they have to pay if they can't mitigate, you know, borders on very expensive
and forcing them to do things they don't necessarily want to do and they're sometimes unreasonable. So I don't think if somebody wants to take a tree down once every five years, >> what's the big deal? >> Well, is this once every Wendy? Do you want to explain the timeline of >> Well, no. It is if you know if you have
a quarter acre lot, you get one free tree every 5 years. >> Once every 5 years, right? Correct. >> If you want to take two down, you have to mitigate. >> Correct. And again, it's only the less than 23 inch diameter trees that you can do. Anything bigger than that, you don't get that freebie.
Uh, and then you know it doesn't it doesn't really save us with um manpower though because >> it's not meant to >> it's not. So I I guess I I I'm struggling to see why we're giving people the free up to mediumsiz tree
with no mitigation as a tree code. I I just don't see its value. >> So I I think this does give a little bit of balance. I am so much more concerned about the clear cutting the new construction, the, you know, expanding the boundaries into the next property and the water runoff. You know, there's
a lot of residents who live in town who have inherited these beautiful old trees and not all of them are surviving some of these storms. So, I think this gives a little bit of relief and I think the residents need that, Julie. Um, I'm all for, you know, mitigation. You know, I
am. I think we need a lot more sewers. Um, what I was going to say also is you didn't like that, you know, five to six and six to seven is instead of planting a tree, put in a storm drain. Like you must do four trees plus a storm drain so your water doesn't run off onto the next property. Like, you know, if we could be
real creative about that, but I will say this I I would keep this exemption in. I think it's good for our residents to have some balance. Um, when you get to landmark trees, I have lots to say. Um, well, I actually had to say that I think there was some good work in here about
landmark trees. So, >> I think this doesn't read with and do you mind if I go to it? >> Um, sure. You want to do the next section? >> I know. Keep this moving. Question about landmarks. >> One more feedback on violations, but you know, let me do mine first. Mhm.
>> Um, so the feedback on the violations and penalties, one of the ideas was a loss of a local license for >> issue. We don't licenses. >> Don't we have municipal licenses for tree cutters? >> We don't. >> Not that I >> if they don't behave if we
>> county what? Because >> we keep it in the building department like >> that. Yeah. Because when I discussed it, I thought that something like this is easier than a state license to get revocation if a person's making up stuff. We have landscaping
>> people that that are just tree cutting services that aren't landscapers. >> Yeah. >> They're not in the same thing as landscape. >> So, it it's to as a violation um take away the local license of the tree cutter that that violates by taking down a tree without complying with the
application process or >> but I'm not aware that we actually license cutters. I think it was, if I correct me, >> I think it was basically where you allow for your property owner to have a licensed tree expert or arborist certify
that they irrigated, >> but they're state licensed, >> right? >> But I think that was the point was, you know, what can you do to to to qualify stating that they're going to sign off on, you know, that that what they're putting forth is true.
>> And if if the only thing is state license It'll just take forever to try to revoke that license. So, we're hoping we could do something with more teeth. >> Yeah, we have on this. >> I mean, there there's always going to be a guy who's like, "Oh, yeah. It's uh
it's no good." >> I've driven up to so many people taking down massive trees in our town and I'm like, you know, looking around and I say, "Oh, you know, hey, I'm surprised the burl will let you do this." And they're I'm like, you know, uh, you know, I'm surprised they're you're
cutting down this beautiful 50, 100 year old tree, whatever it is. He's like, "Oh, yeah. You know, we didn't get the permit. We we didn't go through the burl. We're just going to clear cut it." You know, many times I I've heard that over the years. >> All right. We should not be allowed to work in our town. >> I I don't have a problem with it, per se. I just didn't see anywhere in the
burough code where we actually issue a license. So, there's nothing for us to take away, >> right? But they get don't they get permission in a permitting process through our building department? Well, >> can't we put them on a do not permit this person list? >> So, this is an off this is a complete offline discussion because we don't
issue licenses. So, there's no right. >> So, it's actually under it's under violation and penalty. So, it's not that we're trying to drill down, >> right? So, we can deal with that separately and come back and address it if we have to terms. >> Well, David, I know you and I had
discussed it prior. Is there something you can >> Well, from what I'm hearing, we would have to create a separate ordinance to create the license if we want if if the council wants to do. >> Okay. >> So, that that's what I think the member was talking about. You come back and revisit that and then if I create the
license, then you would strengthen it. >> Okay. So, then the uh so then the only fe the only feedback I had was just about the replacement table. >> So, I think I didn't understand you. So, I put in a table, but I don't I don't
know that that's necessarily what you wanted. I think what you're asking for is really what should be appendex A, which is the list of trees, >> the definitions stuff. >> No, no, no. The list of of trees that can be used. >> Yeah. Yeah. Types of trees, >> right? So, that that should be an appendex A to this. Um, I would just
recommend then just deleting what I put as section 1.9 summary because that makes no sense now. >> Okay. uh and just replacing it with the chart that we have the list of trees that are allowed. >> Okay. >> All right. Well, you know, that was my feedback. It doesn't seem like there's
much appetite to strengthening certain areas of this code. Then >> I have some feedback. Sorry. >> You have a question? >> Yeah. The way So, my concern of course is the landmark trees in town. You know, the 200 300 beautiful trees that we
have, year old trees. This will never qualify. The way it's written doesn't Excuse me. >> So, this is a plug-and-play from what's in our existing code. >> Yeah, it's not it's not going to ever qualify a tree. So, uh first of all, it says >> I'm not going to disagree. >> Yes, a tree may qualify. So, again, it's
not a tree qualifies or a tree must qualify with the following factors. So, the word may first of all, let's get rid of it. Second thing is that it will never meet one or more. Um I I think you know how is a resident supposed to say a
tree is more than 100 years old? I think there has to be some standard here where someone on our end says yes the tree is 100 years old it's landmarked or yes the tree is a unique flowering beautiful tree and we want to keep it because it's beautiful in a space that we need keep
it but if I can make another recommendation here >> the president always says no I never want this and then we take it down. So we're saying build qualify >> this. What I would recommend is let's for purposes of introducing tonight delete the section. Work on something that works.
>> I want a placeholder. So I I wouldn't want to delete it just in case. >> Well, because I don't think there are any landmark trees that have ever been designated. >> We just cut down two. >> But they're notated. >> There's nothing that's been designated. I >> I didn't say they were designated trees. >> No, they're easily a hundred 200 year
old trees that we just chopped. So, >> lots of hundred-y old trees in town. >> Not anymore. >> There's no designated animal trees though. >> Correct. But again, we don't have a process to designate and >> so let's deal with it. >> The president saying nope, don't want
it. And then it undesates. >> All right. So, let's deal with the landmarking separately. >> But why don't we why don't we switch may with will >> or must or must. >> Guys, we shouldn't be rewriting ordinances on the on the day here. I'm just saying that as is this will this is
ineffective. >> So let's just take it out then. >> I don't want to take it out. I want >> by way of example though I would not say shall because one of the the require or one of the options that were in the current um ordinance that got copied into this is the tree species is rare.
If a tree species is rare, it likely is not a native. So >> might be invasive, >> right? So just because something is rare doesn't mean it should qualify, >> right? >> That's what I'm saying. This sector needs needs maybe some >> So do we take it out or we leave it?
>> No. Again, my recommendation is to take it out, work on something that actually is workable. Um because I don't disagree with you. This this again, copy and paste from one. >> I would not I'm just going to say I would not pass this tree ordinance
without a section for landmarking in case for the next three months that we're talking about trees. Someone comes up and at least there's something for them to lean on here. >> All right. So, they want to take it out for this and then we deal with it separately. >> She's saying keep it in and >> I'm saying keep it in. And >> let's go around the table, Jenny. In or
out? >> What do you mean in or out? >> Landmark trees. >> The landmark section. Oh, I I >> I'm sorry. Weren't we not doing that? Didn't you just do that to Julie and say we're voting this as a whole? Because now you're switching tactics. So to Julie, you I said let's vote on each
I think you got to take out the landmark part. >> Adam, it's a mistake, >> John. >> Because we need Julie when someone comes right. >> No, keep it in. >> Okay, there you go. Take it out. >> Three months now. There's no protection. >> All right. So then just for for purposes of introduction um
>> if it's in you have a basic >> section 1.7 is just going to be you know left blank on purpose. >> So can we vote on all of Julie sections since we just voted on this one. >> Um and then section 1.9 is actually
going to be appendix A with the list of trees and that list of trees already in the >> 1.7 also has enforcement. Oh, I'm sorry. So that >> No, I'm that >> you're absolutely right. So it's not >> I I think >> as it turns out I misnumbered. >> Okay.
>> So we can just uh take out the the first 1.7 and leave the second one. >> You're going to leave you're going to leave. >> Okay. >> Even better. I I made a mistake. I misnumbered. >> So I I would vote call a vote on Julie's sections, please. So >> Okay. >> What do you mean vote on what? I think
we have to take the consensus on the other policy. >> Let's go around the table then. Jenny, >> the first >> we're do this quick time out unless you want to spend another 45 minutes. >> Do we want to vote on the ordinance as it is now and removing uh the landmark
tree section? Yes or no? >> Yes. >> No. I want to vote each thing that Julie just very patiently went through. >> You want to go through it all? Yes or no? >> I don't want to go through it all again. >> Yes. Yes. Yes. Take out the >> No. In other words, you vote on the
ordinance as it's written except take out the >> extra. Yes. Yes. John Jamie Julie >> at this point. I'm very confused by the question. I'm sorry. >> Fair enough. Okay. So, we're done with that. >> I thought we did the landmark tree five
seconds ago. >> We did because it was a whole clear section that has to be dealt with separately. saying then the each policy piece that I brought up, the first being about lowering the threshold from 20 down to 15 is the next thing to be voted.
>> So I can call a vote as a council person. I can call a vote. >> We're not even voting now. This is for >> voting. We're going to have a vote in a few minutes >> on the landmarks thing. >> We didn't vote. We have consensus here. >> So I'd like to call the question on Julie's. >> There's no question. >> There is no question. >> Can I make a suggestion? the council
person can bring the table. >> Lauren, can I make a suggestion? When the ordinance comes up from introduction, somebody makes a motion to amend the certain sections that you wanted to talk about. >> That's it. >> Does that work for you? >> Sure. >> Then we vote on it then. You guys vote on it then. >> Next.
>> Okay. The next is historic preservation. Um, this boils down to changing the structure of the historic preservation commission to an advisory committee with their powers evolved to
the planning board and the board of adjustment moving forward. >> Questions? >> Yeah, I have questions. Um, so the historic preservation is a commission like they're we're responsible for
actually saving some of the historic structures in the town and now we're saying to switch it over to planning board like >> it still be it just be it would advise the planning the comm the committee is staying >> the commission is staying as a binding
commission because I know it would be switched to a committee >> although then that's quite because a a commiss a commission is binding like an environmental commission is binding and so we're kind of >> this is a big change.
>> Well, a commission has the ability to have budgeting that a committee wouldn't. Um >> but also some of their some of their directives and things have more uh legal uh backing. And
>> so yes, the here in the instance of a committee, the committee would still be the one that takes the same role of doing the survey, recommending sites to the council because the council is the only one that can actually pass an ordinance to designate. Um what changes
is in the development applications the committee would be advising the planning board instead of being required to to give the decisions right on the certificate of appropriateness. >> Can you repeat that last sentence? I'm sorry. >> Yeah. So it's more on a development
application once something's already designated. the committee's there to advise the planning board on any development applications that would come in versus being a commission that would issue the certificate of appropriateness. >> Right. So in in effect, you're you're taking away the power of the historic
preservation commission from being the one that >> that's 100% what we're doing. >> Right. Okay. >> We want to change the structure of it so it goes to the planning board and the board of adjustment. >> And and what's the reason for that? >> I think there's too much bureaucracy. It's the same reason many years ago we switched the recreation board uh from a
board which excuse me from a commission to a board uh and it became advisory like all of our committees are and then the council and the planning board and the board of adjustment make all the de they make all the policy decisions. So if the historic preservation as a
committee has concerns about a certain home or or structure and they say we're concerned about this and then the planning board doesn't have to listen to that though right in this in this new structure but
>> right now that might be the only thing that was protecting certain structures or had protected certain structures historically. So if a designated it still will have those protections. >> Um >> yeah that doesn't change >> that. Right.
>> But when you're saying it's already designated but isn't the purpose of the historic preservation committee sometimes will actually in fact affirmatively designate something. >> Yeah. No council staff agreed to do that and the council >> still before the council. You make the recommendations. That part stays the
same. They still do the surveys. They still bring forth to the council. um properties that or sites or landmarks that they feel should be designated. That doesn't change. It's the development application side. It's the um you know, they'll make the
recommendation to what they think the planning board should ask for. If there's work being done on a historic structure, they give the guidance as to what the u historic elements are. Uh but the planning board would be able as part
of the planning board application to streamline things and run it through the planning board side as far as the actual um guidance or or requirements in the the in the resolution of approval. >> And does the historic preservation
commission like know of this restructuring or they >> Oh, not yet. >> Yeah, I have a major problem with that. So, first of all, I I need to hear from the HPC. >> Excuse me. I would like to hear from the HPC before any of this ordinance moves forward. I think this is um a mistake. I
think they have their own independent expert and budget as a committee. >> They have their own budget, not as a committee. >> Not as experts still as commission right now. They have >> right. I was just correcting you said committee versus commission. Switch it to commission.
>> Yes. I um I really think that they should not be advisory. We have tasked them with with significant amount of work over the years here. They as a commission or in its existing form have done a an incredible job. They've come
to us so many times with enormous amounts of work that they take upon themselves to do. Um not only are they preserving all our records, their archives, they're locating historic places around town. They're working with um homeowners. They're working with
businesses. not not in the same way and not as just an advisory. I don't think the planning board also has the bandwidth to take on all of the HPC. >> But again, I'm just making sure I'm seeking to understand. We're not asking the planning board to do this. >> I understand.
>> We're asking the same group of people, >> but when they do it >> to do the same thing and then just >> you're taking the power at the knees. And truthfully, I find this insulting. they do all of the work that we as a bureau task them to do and now we're
just saying we might take that into consideration because you're only advisory and what they have now is a respected position in which when they make a a historic um determination for preservation or restoration or something in our town we give it a lot more
credence. So I'm not going to ask somebody to volunteer their time for an advisory board. How do we do that for literally >> people volunteer their time for everything? >> But that's why the HBC is unique. >> Every other committee like everyone works hard on the recreation committee. Are you telling them that
>> not we're not saying they're wasting their time? >> The HBC the HBC the HBC gets grants. They they do I'm sorry. Look, I can't make this decision and don't think this ordinance is appropriately put on this agenda without hearing from the HBC. Let
them come and be part of this discussion. And until then, I think this should be told. >> Well, we'll have a vote tonight and we'll see how it goes and they can come to the next meeting. >> It should be voted. I guess >> that's you're entitled to your opinion. >> I have I have to say I am surprised that something that impacts the HPC. I would
like to hear from the HP. >> Well, we can hear from them um at the second reading. >> Second reading. And again, were they notified? Did they get noticed that this was done? >> Up to this it's up to this body's decision first. Well, I think as this body's decision that was disrespectful
and I want to make clear trying to change an entire committee of ours to not give them any notice that we will be discussing them and let them weigh in on the years of work that some of these people have done. I'm sorry. I think that's a huge mistake. >> Fair enough. Okay. Any other questions?
All right. Public comment time. Audience members wishing to speak will have a threeminut time limit to address the governing body on items on or off the agenda. Large groups are asked to have a spokesperson represent them. Howie, come up to the microphone and give us your name.
>> Howie side. >> First of all, I want to I want to thank you all when I called in at the last meeting. I mentioned about the storm sewer in front of my house was uh the next day it was taken care of. Kudos and >> the DPW at work. >> Yeah,
>> everybody did a great job and there was no flooding this with all the rain. Thank you. um little upset about hearing all this tree stuff because
I'd like to know uh in when somebody applies to cut down trees in our town, do they check to see if the shade condition on the neighbor's property is going to be affected? >> That's a is there a notification? >> There's a difference within a buffer
zone. Yeah. uh then there's a requirement a notification requirement. >> Okay. And then and then a study is done. >> No. >> No. Well, there be they could make their objection and then a decision would be made and there's an appeal process. So, >> so I've had a lot of a lot of work with
trees recently. Many of you know the property behind me on Ivy Lane in Anglewood. >> Uh you saw all the trees I cut down, how it's wide open. Well, I just got when I got your registered letter yesterday, uh I also got their registered letter
and they're cutting down 18 and 18. So, another 36 trees are coming down on that property >> in Anglewood. >> In Anglewood, correct? But now, you see, you can imagine how how much further they're stripping that lot, >> right, >> of trees. And that's why when Julie
talks about the 15, I don't really think that's that's a terrible thing to have to get a permit, have to have a uh a planner or somebody come in and take a look. And when you say it's going to cost them more, you know what? If they can afford to cut down 20 trees,
then they can afford the study to be done. You know, it really we used to be a tree city in this town and we're we're losing all our trees. It's becoming a a non-green. Look at fair share housing. They would take where residency should
be cut down and we have we have to do something. We really have to um a tougher ordinance I think is called for. Um if they can cut down 18 or 19 trees, they have the
money. So it's not a financial issue. Um, the other thing is I know we we there was a lot of talk about the parking lot over at the post office. I have to say yesterday when I went to the post office at 6:30 at night, there were no spots to
be found. So, that that lot is highly used. Um, so whatever you're going to do eventually with that property possibly, uh, it is being used. So, we have to make arrangements for people. Uh the
other thing that's very upsetting to my wife and I, we saw that all the restaurants in town and like all s gone. >> You have two open >> the Saraphina that that never opened. >> Saraphina is coming the end of this
month. >> Here tonight. >> I hope so. >> I mean, it's been almost two years >> and we have two more >> and but I see that Springhouse closed >> but Roto opens. They're >> they're doing renovations >> at Sunfly Deli closed.
>> They're doing renovations also. >> I called their number. You would think that they would have something on their machine telling people, you know, what holidays? >> I think they have a sign on their window that says they're doing renovations. >> Um, no, I will. >> Which which one?
>> Right. >> And on Thursday, there's a ribbon cutting at the new uh the new chicken place. >> What's it called? Roto. >> Roastto is opening Thursday. >> Okay, great. Great. >> And Masa Pasta soon. >> Yeah. Okay. On fire in this.
>> Don't worry. Don't worry. >> Well, I'm glad that I I spoke up. You know, you hear all these great things happening. Um, and the one thing is, so I just want to make sure I understood Wendy's with the >> What's the letter you have? >> I'm sorry. >> What's the letter? >> Registered letter for cutting down the
trees for city letter. >> You said you got one from us. Yeah, this is one tennis place I think. >> Is that one of the overlays? >> The overlays. >> Okay. >> So, I just wanted to clarify. Um, >> basically it's like Anglewood. There's nothing set in stone, although they have
some things set in stone, but >> this is just to protect us against the fair share housing. >> So, um, I was going to do my spiel later, but for you, Howie, I will do it now. um when the when you have a town like most
of Bergen County and like Tennifly that you can't meet the full obligation because we just don't have that much vacant property to meet a 290 whatever units 279. Um so what happens is under the amended fair housing act there's
this new requirement that's being interpreted to require vacant land towns to zone for the realistic opportunity of 25% of what that number is. So that is done by overlay zoning which is what you got the notice letter for and it doesn't
take away the underlying use. Nobody's required to sell their property. Nobody has to build the multif family housing >> just to protect us against builder's remedy. >> We have to adopt these ordinances to protect us from builder. >> Okay. Perfect. >> No no no application. Should someone
amass lots together to be able to develop, you would get the other notice like you got in Anglewood for a site plan application. >> And uh I'm glad to hear David said before about the the money possibly uh for the traffic lights. You know, free money is always good.
>> Uh I hope so. Um I know you guys were planning possibly a FIFA thing. Uh get your application in if you're considering that. I went to a meeting with Delaware uh River Valley Planning Commission last week. Uh it was a
representative from New Jersey. >> I'm sorry. >> The DRCC the >> the DVP. >> Oh. >> Um basically New Jersey the state is is putting a pot up of like five or 10 million I think and all the towns
>> to promote the different uh >> fanfests. So, if you are going to do it, uh, get something in and that way, uh, >> yeah, we actually just sent around, uh, we got an email that we could apply for a grant that help a local party.
>> Yeah, since the governor the governor shot down Jersey City, >> so this is all going to be all at the local town. >> No, it's awesome. We're excited. And also statement, the New Jersey state dot said they would come in
>> and make sure that your plans are safe, you know, traffic wise too in terms of like anything needed. >> Uh they would assist the borrow as well. So >> that's great. If there's anything else I would love your help on it, you know, just to keep us absolutely that'd be great. Thank you. >> Does the transportation committee still
meet? >> Uh I haven't been really involved because >> we still have it. But it's kind of like for me it's very difficult because I get paid by these agencies but for me it's very difficult.
>> Got it. Well, thank you for sharing this. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Howie. Yes. Andrew, come up to the microphone. >> Leading the witness. Maybe that's maybe his name's not in him. >> Yeah. >> Give us your
alternative name. >> I may not want to give my name. Andrew Mesh, >> I will not tell you what I learn. >> I appreciate it. So, I wasn't didn't come here to uh speak, but having just
heard 25 minutes or whatever about trees and considering what I've been involved with and by the way, I'm here as a president, I guess it's old age, I couldn't resist not about it. So I will say what's on my
mind and because I'm sure that you guys heard other people say their minds and for the first time in my life I think I'm reading it off of here because I just wrote it up. >> Um so
this whole idea of trees shades and all that I never really looked into it. Yes I've heard all types of things about it. I enjoy living in teraf. Uh it's a has been a nice mixture
of shade, trees, wildlife, biosphere, environment. You know, my wife keeps telling me about all the runoffs that used to come down on the east tail before all the construction. Uh now we just had a floods instead of the all the springs popping up all over the place.
So reasons for tree rules are to me maintain some level of balance of environmental consideration versus home ownership in our town. You know, considerations like runoff, shade
versus cost, leaf cleanup that you guys talked about a couple of meetings ago, expansion needs, we just built these, you know, so we all have to live here. We all have needs and want to do things. As a resident, I too see too many mostly
clear-cut properties popping up all over the place. Sometimes it's for a building space. Sometimes just seems to be for personal preference, right? I don't want to clean up my leaves and a nice rock garden is much better than a tree that
absorbs the water. Or I come from a city and I'm not just not used to trees. So therefore, I don't want to deal with it. Whatever the reason or I want to put in the pool, uh, for whatever reason, we're losing our biosphere
and the end results are the same. We're overrun by deer. Trees have nothing to do with deer, but they do support all types of other wildlife, birds, and everything else. Uh, we have a wonderful oak tree.
Do I like all the squirrels and everything else running around? Not necessarily. But they're part of nature. They feed the the owls, the hawks and everything that it's a circle of life and trees are key part of it. And no, aravari is not going to replace
an oak tree or sorry a walnut tree is something that is part of the circle of life. So I'm happy to hear that the council is consciously debating the various objectives and goals comparing environmental considerations with
people's needs to constantly grow and build. You seem to hear but however you seem to hear mostly think from people who want to build and change what's there. Environmentalists are usually quiet, but
they're out there and they are determined, but they usually don't know ahead of time and they don't come out with the pitchforks. I heard that projects usually one of the comments was projects have three or four professionals involved just uh professionals, but I would propose that
these professionals work for the property owner. So their objective evaluation and recommendation is to accomplish whatever they were hired for. They're not hired by the environmental commission. They're hired by the property owners. So they'll come up with
plans and ways and lawyers to make it work within the rules you guys set, which is the way it works. That's fine. But don't count on them to do what the environmental side may want. Uh happy to hear that some rules are
based on property size. like how many you can cut down on every five years based on rock size. But when Billy was talking about whatever this review is and I don't know anything about it I just listened to what I heard tonight. I heard absolute numbers and
whether it's 5 10 15 20 I I don't know enough about it. But if it's not based on a property size some proportionality if where it's 15 or 20 on an acre is very different than if I can take 15 to 20 on my quarter acre. Hey, I can have
my clear cuts. If it's 15 to 20 out of 500 trees, it's a very different. So my suggestion to you is whatever rules you come up with and that's where you get the big bucks. Make it proportional to the property size as opposed to an
absolute number. Some of the rules already have it. It should be just a guiding light of whatever you do, it should be proportional. Uh one suggestion may be that if the plans or whatever change people want to do truly don't enable proper medic
remediation on the property have an option to plant major trees just arboris somewhere else in town make them do a public good so they can so if I want a clear cut on my property I'm not
advocating that that enable them to plant maybe even the same number on Volt or whatever you guys or the environmental commission feels the town could use more trees. >> Sure, >> we do that. >> That's the fund what the fund
>> that happened nature center. >> Yeah, we have it on a nature center, but I'm talking about in town. Totally. That's a we that's >> And I'm not sure the fees again I I'm not going to get into what the fees are what you can but can you really replace
>> what we thought for the fees that the escro >> have you ever seen images of the current canopy channel flight? >> Uh not not from that point of view. >> I've seen I mean it's this is all anecdotal because I don't have it in front of me but the canopy now is denser than it was
>> 40 50 years ago believe it or not. >> Is it in town? >> Yeah. Isn't that because of a tree ordinance? >> Was the tree ordinance? No, it's because of there's plenty of tree. There's plenty of planting of trees in town constantly. >> I am just reacting to what I hear.
Again, I'm not saying don't cut trees. I'm just saying, >> yeah, >> make it proportional if there is no way to remediate, give them another alternative or something like that. There are people for whatever reason will not want less
tricks. But in the end balancing the town's needs with those of residents are always a challenge. I don't envy you but don't just play with the words. If in the end results the same if nothing truly changes.
So if the tree canopy is getting bigger that's great. >> That's wonderful. >> Uh that's a good sign. >> Yep. >> Thank you. But just for clarification, Wendy, do do you want to explain when people put into a tree fund like what this the fees um that would be paid into
the mitigation fund if the um property is unable to replant on site there. It's actually aligned with what it costs the burrow to source and plant a tree of that size. So it is >> rationally related. >> I don't know.
I got you. In >> fairness to our varieties, there are multiple types of arthroitis. Green giants are both, and David's learned this in the last year as we did this at the pool. We put the wrong ones in. Emerald greens don't grow and there's $95 and these don't grow and they're
going to look the same in 10 years. The green giants are 40 50 front. And okay, >> based on that, I just want to point out that I thought that the proportionate aspect is something that >> it's reasonable. >> It's very reasonable and worth
considering. >> Anyone else? >> I don't know how to write it for the permit. >> All right. Any other members of the public in the chambers like to speak? Is there anyone online members of the public who would like to speak? >> I have Jennifer Woo with her hand raised.
>> Who is Jennifer Woo? >> Go ahead, Jennifer. Yes. Hi, good evening members of the Tennifly Boro Council. I respectfully request that the borrow review the current ordinance regarding bicycles on sidewalks, specifically chapter 36.4,
bicycles, low-speed electric bicycles, and low-speed electric scooters on sidewalks. Under the current ordinance, children aged 10 and older are not permitted to ride bicycles on sidewalks outside of certain zones. While I understand the
importance of protecting pedestrian safety, I am concerned that the current age limit may unintentionally place younger cyclists in situations that are less safe. This past Sunday, my 10-year-old daughter was riding her bicycle on the sidewalk along Jefferson
Avenue while I followed behind on foot. As we approached two grown adult pedestrians, one began yelling that riding a bicycle on the sidewalk was illegal. My daughter became frightened and immediately moved toward the street. I had to stop her and reassure her to
continue safely on the sidewalk until we reach reached it Griffin Park. The situation highlighted a border concern. Many streets in Tennifly carry steady vehicle traffic and offer limited protection for young cyclists. Children in the elementary and early middle
school years are still developing road awareness, judgment, and confidence. Expecting them to ride in the street alongside moving vehicles may present a greater safety risk than allowing them to ride carefully on sidewalks while yelling to pedestrians. Tennifly has
already demonstrated a strong commitment to safety through measures such as providing crossing flags to assist pedestrians at crosswalks or crosswalks. I respectfully ask that the boro consider extending similar safety consideration to children who ride
bicycles to school parks and around their neighborhoods. Specifically, I asked that the bureau review the current ordinance and consider increasing the age limit that permits children to ride bicycles on sidewalks in residential areas
potentially to age 14. Allowing older children to use sidewalks while continuing to require that they yield to pedestrian and give an audible signal when passing would help balance pedestrian courtesy with the safety needs of young cyclists. This type of
adjustment could reduce the likelihood of accidents involving children and motor vehicles while still maintaining protection for pedestrians. My intention is not to reduce pedestrian safety, but rather to ensure that children in Tennifi have a safer and more appropriate option as they gain
experience riding bicycle. Thank you for your time and consideration. I appreciate the borrow's ongoing efforts to keeping Tannifly a safe and welcoming and community and I would welcome the opportunity to discuss the matter further should a council review this ordinance in the f future.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments, Jennifer. Will um the burough administrator sitting right here, David Fansaw, will take this we'll take this uh question up with our chief of police because he gives us advice on on these safety issues. Okay. Um
>> yes. Um, so I did call the police right away at that moment >> and I was told that if they showed up I would they I don't think they were even aware of the ordinance had a age limit. They just told me that we're not to have bicycle on the sidewalk even if they had
showed up and they told me that nobody would complain. >> So I just want to make sure that the police chief should have a record of my phone call as well that came in on Sunday. >> I appreciate Thank you, Mayor Zena. I appreciate it. >> You're welcome. >> You have a good night everyone.
>> That was Jennifer W. >> So, can I also add now that it's spring and everyone's back out on their bikes, I am seeing a ton of kids without helmets. I don't know if everyone else is seeing them, >> especially downtown. No one wears the helmets and they are riding in the street with our cars. Can we do some
sort of push? Maybe ask our police chief to do a safety push on bike safety and >> Yeah. >> Yes. Hold on. >> I think that would be a good word. or even in the mayor's message on Friday. >> Something simple, but just I'm just seeing a ton of it. >> Just write that there.
>> Especially the ebikes. I mean, they're like flying without the helmets. >> On helmets. >> I know, but they're still doing. >> All right. Comment time. Administrator's report. Does anyone have any questions for the administrator?
So, David, um I was hoping you might be able to talk a little bit about the additional meeting that we had regarding a grant for the deer member. It's not included in here, but if you
could let people know and I could talk a little bit more about it. >> Yeah. So, Dr. Connor had asked uh me to contact the Humane Society about a grant program for deer conflict management. Um >> what does that mean?
>> They would be an ed it would be a survey and then an educational program on um how to manage uh vehicle and deer conflicts, human and deer interaction, >> that type of thing. >> Can I can I uh
>> expand upon it so the council knows? So, I I I want to just also tell my fellow council members here that um I found this free opportunity, the big the big word being free. Uh it's responsive to the concerns and questions of some some
citizens that we have regarding deer. I did not pay Andrew to mention deer, but he just happened to mention them. I remember being on a forum with Jenny and Lauren and dear came up about, you know, so these we do get these questions. Um so we applied for a grant to receive the
tailored uh deer conflict management program. So Councilman Roglei it would be actually designed for Tennifly and it comes with expertise and latest scientific knowledge speakers like that and it's the urban wildlife division in humane society which is a national
group. Um the grant focuses on developing and implementing effective deer conflict management plans. Um but to have a better chance to receive the money and the grant and the community trainings, uh we'd need to give permission like via a resolution so that
they could work with our nature center, uh the green team, environmental commission, you know, and just to name a few of the local leaders who would, you know, welcome the assistance. Um so the resolution, uh they prepared a a
boilerplate one. Um, but uh I'd like us to put our best foot forward to be a leader in this and help our community because we do get residents who ask about this and um so I' I'd like us to be able to put the resolution on a
future consent agenda thing, but it is it comes with money. It's free. comes with expertise and basically we'd need to give permission for them to then work with groups like nature center and I I know green teams always got gardening questions about how they deter deer
could be anything from the fencing anything from what you plant and I I think it's a I try to be proactive just because of what I'm hearing from the residents because uh you know >> and why can't they work directly with the nature center
>> they they will probably do the bulk of the work with the nature center most likely. It's just that we would have to give permission via a resolution because we're the governing body >> and there's nothing else we have to do. Just >> um honestly I don't really see that to
be really what did you can say uh what did you uh perceive David? I I didn't >> No, I I think there's multiple year commitment to study or allowing them to do a study before you do take other measures such as deer hunts and so forth. it
>> and they work directly with a non burough agency to do that. >> They would they would be doing the study on their own to see if their conflict management >> address. Do you have time and does the burrow have time or resources?
>> Well, I think I think appropriately we would sort of hand this off to the nature center >> and is this something that the nature center is interested in? >> I'm sure. Yeah, I mean I will be talking to them, but I'll tell you a green team would definitely be interested in and because this is a national group too, so
it'd be like more cutting edge stuff and since it's uh you know stuff that maybe not every little nature center knows about yet and and also um I would just say it it's not just about the nature center or the green team, but it's also
they'd want to see that we're reducing any issues ues of the population. So I felt that it it's the type of thing that definitely would be handed off but I also happen to be the leazison for the environmental commission and green team.
So you know I'd be part of this uh solution um boxes. >> Yeah actually council >> out. I think our de population is needs to be under control. So, Councilman Lieri uh
has an interesting point. He he brought up another animal. Um this is this could also cover like wildlife conflicts and this is a deer case management study, but it's under that urban wildlife issue. We hear about coyotes, we hear
about foxes. Um so there there's a lot I think that we can tap into and like I say, free and comes with funding. Sounds like a great idea. double check to again check with an age center see if there's it >> right >> again free is
>> you know we have 163 employees that >> if we have to put work into this is not >> it's not free >> so again I I'd be really supportive of it if >> the nature center some other group wants to take that on what I don't want to do is burden David and his team again it
sounds easy right it's free but it's only a couple hours uh this week and then it's it's a a couple more hours the next week. >> The fact that we're not going to have automobile fatalities. Last council meeting I drove home dam damn near smoked three deer on the way up high. I
cleared them for you by the way. They ran away because I was ahead of you. >> But I mean I came around a blind curb. Three deer on the middle of the road. We are perilously close to fatalities in this town based on an overrun of deer which is a major >> but this this I don't know if this
>> I'm hearing the words exploration. I'm not hearing anything in terms of let it roll. They also kill our trees right which we can talk about trees and water and everything else consume everything on every property. >> I follow up with Councilwoman Dr. Okconor to make sure that's consistent with what you think. Uh
>> we have nothing to vote on tonight. This is merely something you'd like to explore. Yeah, share with us the information. >> So, I'll uh I'll circle over to Deb at the nature center, make sure she'd be a partner with them. I'll show you the um
initial letter. Uh basically the the humane society would need a that this idea of a commitment that you want to employ non-lethal strategies with doing uh management represent
>> well they well the thing is that Tennifly is not a a place that would have a deer hunt just by its you know geography. So in that way it's kind of a little bit easier to to say yeah we we want to try solutions. So
>> I have a question for David if we're moving off that Julie. >> Yeah no I will uh follow up with the nature center. So, we had talked about bringing in complete streets, and I know we're putting a lot of pressure on PSEG to start, but I have to tell you, the
conversation from Miss Woo is is a perfect conversation because the complete streets were supposed to give us bike lanes, better pedestrian walking, you know, an o a 360 overview. We're talking about, you know, a canopy. Um, and before PSENG comes in a month
and starts paving and lining streets, I really would behoove our burrow as a whole to bring in complete streets and and maybe make a better plan. >> Well, what what does that mean? >> I mean, maybe we make different striping on a road. Maybe we make better side
bike lanes. Maybe we And it's not not paving, mayor. Don't get me wrong, it's paving. But maybe we're doing something different with crosswalks or directional, you know, signals. Whatever it is, that's what complete streets are supposed to come in here. >> I guess we should get we can get some regardless of whether the streets are
paved or not, they can be they can be striped at any matter of time after it's paved. So that paving doesn't prevent that. >> Ways to to pave a road, put the drainage, put the sides paved immediately without us taking it.
I'm not looking I'm not looking to halt this in any way paving I'm with you 100% John I'm trying to get complete streets in now >> maybe for the next meeting they come they're by the state >> recognize that they fail to show up all the time and they delay a process that we're going to ignore their their stuff as we have to
>> weave as babe >> pave 100% there's without question pave and pothole >> our our traffic engineers work with complete streets so uh >> let's talk to him and get some information >> we'll get some information from him as well as bike and walk lanes. >> But I will tell you that PSNG on a
positive note has informed our burrow engineer that they want they're going to be beginning milling uh on March 24th and they start >> I'd like to speak with them weekly starting March 24th and I'll make myself available back on that's been helping. I would
like that's >> I have you know I have received some >> go for it >> resident feedback that it's not enough >> for them to keep that >> is it incrementally positive >> helpful for for the safety of walking to school >> no that's what yeah like
>> quietly it's >> we need to get we need to hear from those residents for sure >> that's what I'd like to hear from I like to hear like we can do it more places >> well you have the striping but you also heard at the last meeting the recommendation speed bump right.
>> No, but it's the same street because the striping wasn't enough. >> That is why >> enough for the slowing down. There's two different issues. There's slowing down the cars, which is why we want this to be wrong. And then there was side and walk ling
has been helpful. >> Right. I don't think that >> I don't think that was discussed. I >> Yeah, I'll I'll I'll recirculate John Jar's after study on Leroy and where he made the recommendation on the speed tables because I think he addressed
>> where the striping hasn't realized the the uh goals that he had. >> What was the name of that street program you said? Was it >> complete street New Jersey state program? This this was talked about during our um
when we had the the meeting before like to make agenda for the new year, right? The complete streets. So, okay. >> The other one we should bring in and again they do this for free is New Jersey Bike and Walk. It's it's a group that comes in and analyzes your entire
town and creates bike and walkways and connects to your downtown, >> which I I really think, you know, we brought them in years ago and nobody was ready to do anything and then we made an initiative that all streets were going to have bike and walk paths and then we
repaved and never did it anywhere. So they come in, they're a New Jersey group. They come in, they look at your whole town. They say, "Add 14 bike lanes and paths here and everyone can safely get to where they need to go." >> Is that someone that John Jar knows about?
>> Sure he does. I'm sure. >> Any other questions for the B administrative? >> Any shot they can come for the next meeting? David, >> sorry. >> Any shot we can invite them for the next meeting? We could we could make an invitation. Sure. >> Yeah. >> All right. Said I John Jar will be here
at the next meeting as well. So >> that's okay. >> For new business ordinance 26-11. They get a motion on this one, please. >> So I just wanted to add to amend it at >> right. Amend it to remove the landmark
tree section. >> Well, I think Julie wanted to make the a motion to make her amendments. I wanted >> this isn't a vote on correct. So I'm unfamiliar with what the procedural is.
>> So it's a motion to amend what has been circulated or what would be introduced. >> But even if something is introduced, it lends itself to a public hearing on March 24th which would further have opportunity. Is that an incorrect statement?
>> On March 24th, if you wanted to amend it, you could not adopt it. It would have to get carried through. >> Yeah. >> The motion on the table is to um incorporate Julie's suggested changes
into this ordinance. Yes or no? >> All right. >> Right. So, it's yes if you want to do Julie's changes. No, if you don't >> So, do you have a do I have a second? >> Second.
>> Go around. >> What >> you want to do? >> Uh, so for purposes, >> so for purposes of explanation, the two changes would be to um change the definition. >> Things are it needs to be revisited. It
needs to be re landmark needs to be revisited. There was another there was a >> right. >> Okay. Yes, I know. But then there was the amendment on the types of plants that needs to be updated. >> The question is straightforward. >> Question is not proposing any
amendments. I want the the mitigation of the escrow fund. It has to have like or the the the point of this. >> So you want are you going to want this with Julie's changes or as it's written? >> And just to clarify, Julie's changes are that a major application would start at
15 trees versus 20 trees. >> Okay? And that trees that are on 345 or right on the table for mitigation purposes that are bigger than 23 inch diameter would increase by one more for the tree mitigation.
>> The landmarks has already been withdrawn to be figured out to be added in later. And the list of trees is appendix A which would replace the um chart that I thought Julie was asking for which wasn't the right one. >> So we're going to we're going to update
that. There is an inforce ordinance today. Each of these two proposed changes make that inforce ordinance >> they become strict >> more restrictive than what's current. >> Correct. Yeah. >> And als but also at least one of them
was in response to the fact that >> the herbivites aren't doing trick in the last. >> So what was your answer? >> Keep it as is. >> Keep it as is. Lauren >> vote Julie's amendment in >> Adam. Keep as is. >> As is.
>> As is. >> I vote my amendment. >> All right. Fair enough. All right. So, >> wait. Can I just clarify before we move on? Wendy, you'll add in a landmark tree section for the next reading. >> So, it would be amended in the future to add that in. But,
>> two more readings. >> Oh, yeah. No, it would need two more readings. It would be >> Can we have a separate ordinance then? Do you want a separate ordinance on that? >> That's what she's trying to say. >> Trace a Yeah. I mean, if >> Yeah. the only way to do it. You can we introduce it for next? >> It could be >> if you work with her on the wording
though. >> Yeah, I I need a lot to direction there. >> Yeah, I know. It's a So if you Lauren want to work on >> landmark tree, communicate with her and then for next time it probably could be its own ordinance.
>> Right. Okay. >> Let me let me ask >> because right now now >> I hesitate to ask a question. >> Go ahead, John. >> This is exhausting. If we remove that and I think you raised this point earlier. >> Yeah. >> And tomorrow somebody comes and says
they want to cut down a tree in the middle of Higher Park, >> a 300y old tree. >> Right. Right. >> Suppose that's the case. Is there anything preventing that or no? Because this hasn't passed. >> So So just so you know, >> none of these rules apply to the borrow.
>> So >> nothing nothing applies to the bow. And in fact, one of the changes that Julie had asked for, which I did make, was to delete the opportunity to be able to even follow a path to request the cutting of a burrow tree. >> Yeah. >> So, burrow trees are burrow trees.
Nobody can touch them. >> Some of So, yes, some and I also want to say with Wendy, they Yes. Some of the feedback was was taken into account. And I just also want to explain to everyone the reason I will vote for this tonight is because this was to fix a problem
where our the funds that are in our escrow need to be able to be appropriately used to replace trees to go and plant them around the town. So this fixes that issue that >> I think everyone thought it was very
doom and gloom. you know, it was one side or the other and it isn't all this is not completely >> nothing's changed tonight. >> This is not a bad Well, I know but the the intention of the the updates are to make improvements >> and also to make it easier to read for the public.
>> Yeah. Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Do we get a motion on ordinance 26-11 tree removal and protection minus the landmark tree section and an inclusion of appendix A? I have a second.
Um, oh, excuse me. I did that wrong. No, of course. Let me redo that again. Uh, Jenny, would you make the motion, please? >> Ordinance 26 Set the hearing for March 24th, 2026 at 7:30 p.m. or soon thereafter.
>> I have a second, please. Mark, could you please read the title of the ordinance and conduct the roll call? >> Sure. Ordinance number 2611, an ordinance of the burough tennifly burrow tennifly to repeal and replace 20 chapter 26 tree removal and protection.
Council member Corsair. >> Council member Dayton. >> Yes. And hope it gets stronger. Council member Jackson. >> Yes. >> Council member Michaels. >> Yes. >> Council member Dr. Okconor. >> Yes. >> Council member Roli. >> Yes. >> John, in two weeks when we pass this
again, then your question is no. No protections. >> Okay. >> Oh, Kevin Tremble's on. Is that Kevin Tremble? >> Ordinance 26-12 Downtown Overlay District. Uh, Councilwoman uh Dayton, would you like to make a motion, please?
>> What is this? >> Okay. I move. >> What is this one about? If I could just get the explanation. >> Overnight parking. >> Oh, how many more spots are we? >> So, this would raise it from 10 to 20. >> Okay. And in this particular lot, >> parking lot. >> Can we discuss this for a second? This
is first reading or second reading. >> This would be >> So again, I really think that we need a more permanent solution for our buildings downtown, especially our apartments for parking over, you know, this is just overnight. Correct, Wendy? >> Correct. Yeah,
>> it is. >> Considered a long-term solution. Yeah, >> I understand. But I'm saying while zero people are using them at night, if I own an apartment downtown, I want a 24-hour five day, you know, seven days a week, not five days a week, seven days a week spot. And I'm not sure that this is the right solution for those.
>> Do they have to get out in the morning or can they? Okay. >> Yes. >> Yes. God forbid. This ordinance is what creates the payment in le of parking for new development that is coming that may not have enough off- streetet parking
within this downtown um district. It to it reserves a certain number of spaces in parking lot. Oh, but there's still your overnight permit program which restricts parking during certain hours where the cars would have to move otherwise, you know, there's a
three-hour parking limit. So once those daytime hours are in effect, there's a grace period obviously in the morning. >> And understand this is also the parking that is attached to apartments is a stop gap on how much overdevelopment can
there be. >> And so the parking that is needed for people to live and work downtown needs to be attached 24 hours, seven days a week. And if that can't exist, then we I don't think we should just overdevelop and put people in there without parking
options. I think you're going to wind up having them park throughout the day in our commercial spots. >> How much did we make from the first leases? Cuz I do remember >> $20,000. >> $200,000 plus the annual parking fees for each spot.
>> And again, this allowed a lot of of housing to be attached. I really I know but we were rolling it out to see its success initially. >> Yes. >> So again like the balance is that housing I think needs designated spots.
>> All right. Ready to go? >> Okay. >> So someone needs to make the motion. >> Yep. Okay. Um >> I move to introduce on first reading ordinance 26-12 and set the hearing for March 24th 2026 7:30 p.m. soon thereafter. >> I have a second please. >> Second. Omar, could you please read the title of the ordinance and conduct the
roll call? >> Ordinance number 26-12, an ordinance of the burough testify to amend section 35- 804.8 parking in the B-1 D O downtown overlay district of the Burough Code.
Council member Corsair, >> yes. >> Council member Dayton, >> no. >> Council member Jackson, >> yes. >> Council member Michaels, >> yes. >> Council member Dr. Okconor, >> yes. Council member Rolary. >> Yes. Omar is public comment. Uh
>> ordinance 26 there's 13 historic preservation. Council president would you like to make u a motion please? >> Mayor with permission. The head of one of the heads of the HBC is on. >> Excuse me. >> Kevin Treble. >> What? >> We didn't get to hear. You didn't give
any notice that >> he's not. That's okay. Okay, we'll have plenty of time at the public hearing to discuss with everyone. >> Just saying there was no notice given to the HPC and we have someone here. >> That's okay. Got a policy decision. Go ahead, Adam. You want to make the motion?
>> Uh, do you want to make this one since I move to introduce on two? >> Congratulations. >> Ordinance 26-13 and set the hearing from March 24th, 2026 at 7:30 p.m. or soon thereafter. >> Have a second, please.
Omar, could you please call the role? Okay. Ordinance number 26-13, an ordinance of the burough of Tennifly County of Bergen, state of New Jersey, amending the revised general ordinances of the burough tennifly 2004 to eliminate the historic preservation commission as a
separate entity, form a historic preservation advisory committee and to authorize the planning board and zoning board of adjustment of the burough to exercise all the powers of the historic preservation commission. Council member Corsair.
That's a verdict. >> I I find this entire thing without being with the HBC or getting their feedback disrespectful to the HBC. It's an absolute no for me until I hear from them. >> Council member Jackson, >> abstain. >> Council member Michaels.
>> Yes. >> Council member Dr. Okconor. >> No. >> Council member Ri. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Public hearings. First one is ordinance 2607 affordable housing overlay zone
district. Uh Omar, could you please read the confirmation of publication of the ordinance and the title of the ordinance? >> Sure. Ordinance 2607. It was published on the burough website on uh March 2nd. is an ordinance of the burough tennifly
county of Bergen, state of New Jersey to amend chapter 35 entitled land development regulations article 8 entitled zoning regulations to create a new AH11 district. Okay, I'm going to open the floor for
public comments on ordinance 2607 only, please. Is there anyone here who would like to speak about affordable housing overlay zone district in the chambers? No. Anyone on Zoom who would like to speak about the affordable housing overlay zone district?
>> See no hands. Mayor. >> No. Okay. We're going to close public comment. Um, Councilman Rolieri, would you like to make a motion, please? >> Have a second, please. >> Omar, could you please conduct a roll call? >> Council member Corer. Council member
Dayton. >> Yes. >> Council member Jackson. Yes. >> Council member Michaels. >> Yes. >> Council member Dr. Okconor. >> Yes. >> Council member Rair. >> Yes. >> Okay. Ordinance 2608, third round overlay zones amended. Omar, could you please read the confirmation of
publication of the ordinance and title? >> Ordinance number 2608. It was published on the bur website on March 2nd. There's an ordinance of the burough tenfly county of Bergen, state of New Jersey to amend chapter 35 entitled land development regulations article 8
entitled zone regulations to amend the maximum permitted densities of affordable housing overlay zone districts. >> I'd like to open the floor for public comments on this ordinance 2608 third round overlay zones amended only. Anyone in the chambers like to speak?
Anyone online like to speak on this ordinance? >> No hands, sir. Okay, we're going to close public comment. Uh, uh, Councilwoman Corsair, would you like to make a motion, please? >> I have a second, please. Omar, could you please conduct a roll call? >> Council member Corsair. Council member
David. >> Council member Jackson. >> Yes. >> Council member Michaels. >> Yes. >> Council member Dr. Okconor. >> Yes. >> Council member Roer. >> Yes. Ordinance 269. Mr. >> Mayor, Mr. Mayor, I have a point of
information. >> Sure. >> Thank you. Uh, Councilman Councilwoman Coair's uh is not heard on this end of the of the meeting. Uh, I don't hear her her uh microphone working.
>> Oh, thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Pick it up for them. >> Okay. >> We test Could we test that, please? >> Can you hear me now? Yes. Thank you. >> Hey, Kevin. >> Okay, >> you're welcome. Of course, Kevin. Uh,
ordinance 2609, affordable housing provisions. Omar, please read the confirmation of publication of the ordinance and the title of the ordinance. >> Ordinance number 2609. It was published on on the bur website March the 2nd. is
an ordinance of the burough tennifi county of Bergen, state of New Jersey to amend chapter 35 land development regulations. Article 11 entitled affordable housing provisions. Article 13 entitled housing municipal housing liaison and article 14 entitled
mandatory affordable housing set aside. Excuse. >> Okay, I'm going to open the floor for any public comments on ordinance 2609 only. Anyone in the chambers like to speak on this topic only? Anyone on Zoom wants to talk about this topic only?
Seeing anything, Omar? >> No, no answer, sir. >> Okay. Uh, Councilwoman Dr. Okconor, would you like to make a motion, please? >> Sure. I move to pass and adopt on second and final reading ordinance 26-09 and that notice of same shall be published according to law.
>> Could I have a second, please? Omar, could you please conduct a roll call? >> Council member Corsair. >> Yes. >> Council member Dayton. >> Yes. Wait, this is 2609, right? Correct. >> 2609. >> Council member Jackson. >> Yes. >> Council member Michaels. >> Yes.
>> Council member Dr. Okconor. >> Yes. >> Council member Rair. >> Yes. >> Okay. Ordinance 26-10. Omar, could you please read the confirmation publication of the ordinance and the title? >> Mr. Mayor, just got a quick question about this one. Of course. Um, so this
one I know that we talked about last time that it individual all of the of the projects were kind of bundled onto one ordinance, but I just wanted to check because what we heard last time is that when the actual project comes up,
then then it will be a separate hearing, right? >> That's how it's always done. So, but again, I I want to understand that when we vote in open space that some of these elements might be wanting to vote up and some might be wanting to vent down. And in the last meeting and
in the budget meeting, I requested that this be partial out so that when we vote right now, I'm not voting in things that are named properly or not wanted in an open space trust. >> And mayor, you you can open your >> be 10 more. It' be 10 ordinances. So,
>> so vote no because you're going to have an opportunity to vote on funding for a nature center and for the things that our town needs because we put a parking lot in open space. I I made this request. I did not get an answer as to why it's bundled for this vote
>> because it was introduced as such. So, as we discussed at the last meeting, you would need to make a motion to amend to pull something out and then be a roll call to see if it's amended and then you vote. I I'd like to make a motion to amend. >> So, make them individual votes. >> No, you want to just take one out.
>> I want to just take one out. >> So, make a motion to take one out. >> Yes. I'd like to make a motion to take it >> then you can vote on that independently. >> Second. >> No, >> you can't. >> No, you either I'm sorry. If the motion goes have >> to start over. >> If the motion goes forward to amend it,
then it gets carried to the next meeting as amended. So, do you want me to call a vote for the as it is and let the vote be what it is? >> What you do? Which one? >> I'd like to take the parking lot as a separate vote. >> Parking lot. >> So, it's not going to be a separate vote. >> You guys, you're having a conversation about something that can't happen.
>> Property acquisition. >> So, the process is to amend to remove that item. >> Right. So, it's a it would be a motion to amend ordinance 2610 to remove the property acquisition from the ordinance.
There would be a vote on whether or not you want to amend it. If it's amended, the you would open the public hearing, but you would not adopt tonight. It would get carried for the nature center. >> It would get carried as amended for another public hearing on the ordinance
as amended. And it makes it only makes sense to do that if this council >> uh believes that they no longer want >> the additional space because for us just to delay it another week to vote 5 to one
>> then just a waste of time. >> It's just I'm trying to get money to ours >> respectfully. It's not a waste of time. If you want to talk about alternative ways to fund or a combination way to fund the acquisition of property that is not 100% >> council already decided to do this.
>> Yes, but you're saying things that aren't true. >> First of all, the open space trust is not intended for imperous uh property acquisition like this. So, I am saying something that's true. I understand how the open space trust works. I understand
that we take money from our taxes to make certain things that are required under the trust. and this might not be one of them. And so I want to ensure that before we pass a million dollars of open space funds from our residents that we are funding this correctly. And so
I'd like to explore opportunities within our budget and our budgetary committee and everything else. And at the end of the day, if I'm overruled and everyone wants to use it this way, then we use it this way. There's no timing on open space. So the
so the question is the question on the floor is >> there's a motion on the floor to amend the ordinance to remove the property acquisition. It needs a second and then a roll call. >> Right. >> This is not to adopt. This is to amend.
>> Right. This is to amend. >> I second because I don't have a problem with at least letting people be heard. >> Jenny >> Julie Jamie I mean Me too. >> So the motion on the floor.
>> She wants to pull that out. >> Pulling budgeting it. We could still talk about things later. >> So as a reminder, this does not give the money >> it. But then we can make decisions about this later. >> Correct. >> But I just want to budget this
>> and and I would note also that that acquisition of of property would be another ordinance. This is just appropriating money to >> appropriate the money and then I want you to talk about things. >> That's what I That's what I
>> And again I just want to reiterate John. >> Yes. >> To amend >> you seconded. I had seconded. >> So but you're still you're voting yes though. Even though you second you can still vote on this. >> Okay. So all right. So that's whatever that math is 4 to2.
>> Okay. So, Omar 26-10. Omar, could you please read the >> I'd like to hear from our bur administrator since he's in charge of the open space trust, the purposes of the open space trust for property acquisition and whether there would be a violation here. >> Well, your question is if this is an
allowable >> a specific execution, correct? >> You're not asking a policy question. You're asking a question about a specific. The specific has its own venue for discussion and vote. Correct. I don't want to pass something in which we are in violation of this ordinance
>> possible propert what we were advised by >> a bubble >> what we were advised by by the uh auditor and our consultant was that if you were to purchase the parking lot with open space funds that would be allowable as long as it stayed in the
state of open space. If you were to improve that, if you were to improve the lot, >> could stay in the parking lot? >> Yes. >> If you were to improve the lot with any structure, uh, then you have to repay the open space.
>> A million dollars. A million dollars. >> Yes. >> And if we repave it, >> you repave it, you're just you're maintaining what the state is that you bought. >> I mean, ultimately, and and this is clear for everybody. One, we're trying
to add parking in town, which we hear everybody says we need. Two, this allows us not to tax our taxpayers another million dollars. So, I'm for more parking and lower taxes. Who's up for that?
>> That sounds good. >> First of all, >> that's exactly >> that's not how it works. We are still We are still taxing them for open space. >> No, we already taxed. >> Yes, I know. And you know what they'd like from there? ballparks, gardens, parks, playgrounds, the swim club. And
when I say to you, when I say use open space and finish the baseball project, I get a hard no. Excuse me. I'm not done. And this is a policy. >> You can rant and rape as long as you want. >> It's okay. Go ahead. for you to spend open space knowing that
this is not going to become a green space or a municipal recreation or a blue zone or something. I think it's disingenuous. I think it's disingenuous of our council to tax our residents for open space purposes. Say no to something
like finishing up the baseball field at the center of our town. >> 60,000 >> you did. And and I'd like some other >> for the nature center. Would you be interested in $660,000? Yeah, the nature center would like a new building. The nature center would like an amphitheater.
>> My and that's 400 acres that we are responsible for maintaining with them. >> And I just tried to give it more money. >> You gave them $60,000. Okay. So again, you're giving a million dollars to a parking lot and six $60,000 to 400 acres of green space that we are responsible
for. So don't tell me >> I I understand they could they need they need working bathrooms. I support the city and they're they're doing great things. I was all ready to talk about all the great things. I think this should have been a discussion for a million dollars of open space. I wish
our residents were here to hear this. >> We're not voting on a million dollars right now. >> We're not voting on that. >> We're just budgeting the money right now. >> That's what we're doing. We're budgeting the money. We're not voting on it right now. >> Susan left an open space. >> Excuse me. Wait. I asked me. Hold on one second.
He's in the public. We're up here. >> Is our performance. Sorry, I thought you were talking. I was talking to Susan. Excuse me. >> One one one thing one thing. Before the burough council can purchase property, there needs to be a specific ordinance authorizing the purchase of property.
Appropriating money to have on hand in case you want to be ready if and when is once one part of it. But no property can be purchased without an ordinance. I just want to make that clear. I want to make it clear that it's done that we're purchasing property with the correct
funding. >> David, I'm sorry. What's left in open space? >> Right. So, the current balance in the open space fund is $2,142,648.15. So, if this ordinance gets appropriated, you will reduce it by the million dollar
one. I think it's 14 or is it >> one50,000? >> You think this is fast and >> there's another 423,00 you basically have about $700,000 left but then you'll be replenishing that um in 2026 with the
1% tax which is about $450,000. >> Oh, great. Uh, I'd vote to I'd like to request to amend this ordinance to add in the remainder of the baseball fields project. >> Okay. So, that's not the ordinance on the table. So, we'll have a vote. >> I'm amending. I'm asking to amend.
>> I mean, how does that even work? >> Okay. >> They just voted not to amend. >> New new request. So, >> so it's a new motion. Lauren is asking to amend the ordinance for some other whatever thing she wants to do. >> You mean finishing up the baseball field? >> Whatever it is you want to do.
>> Jenny, do you want to amend it? Yes or no? >> Okay, just give me a yes or no, Adam. Yes or no, >> John? >> Julie. Okay. >> I hope the baseball families are out there listening. >> Okay. >> Such a misdirection. >> It's not a misdirection.
>> We've gotten We've >> The baseball families are happy. >> It's exactly exactly what THEY WANT TO DO. >> I the baseball. They are very happy about all the new stuff, especially in their field. >> And it's theaterenuous to do what you're
doing, you know. >> All right, guys. Know better. >> Let's go. Let's uh let's focus. >> Yeah. First of all, what >> they came to us, John, Mr. Roli. >> Uh, mayor, I'm still speaking. They came to us and asked that request. Then they met with they I sent them to David. Then
David met with them and they asked again, can you do this project all at once so we don't go into construction for numerous years that we can finish this? that our families can have a full day with a snack shacking >> a random nothing that nobody knows anything about. >> That is not true. Our burough
administrator has met with them. The mayor's been on the phone with them. >> 6-10. Guys, you ready? >> You could talk over me, but >> yeah, you did last meeting. >> Say how happy they were. >> How happy they were. >> Well, I don't know. >> I'm just saying that everybody wants something. Everybody wants something.
>> It should be a complete complete project. >> I'm hearing nonsense. >> All right, guys. Guys, enough. Enough. We're having arguments about stuff that's not part of what we're doing here. >> All right. Omar, could you read the confirmation of publication of the ordinance and the title of the ordinance,
>> please? >> 26-10. >> Ordinance 2610 is um published in on the B website on March the 2nd. It is an ordinance of the burough tennifly in the county of Bergen, New Jersey, appropriating $1,75,000
for a real property acquisition. 1,00 $135,000 for municipal pool improvements, 65,000 for the nature center appropriation, 30,000 for fitness equipment, $17,500
for water irrigation at Gro Street Park, a total of 40,000 for electric keypads and a handball wall multi-use area at Roosevelt Common, and 25,000 for the down payment for a lighting project at Roosevelt Common.
Okay, I'm going to open the floor for public comments on ordinance 26-10 only. Is there anyone in the chambers who would like to speak about this ordinance? >> Anyone online who'd like to speak about it? Omar, is there anyone? >> I see no hands, mayor.
>> Okay. Um, Councilwoman Corsair, would you like to make the motion? I >> have a second. >> Omar, could you please conduct a roll call? >> Council member >> Corsair. >> Point of information. Mayor, point of
information. The the audio did not pick up Councilman Corsair's speaking. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Can you hear me now? >> Could she repeat? Yes. Thank you. So, yes,
usually very loud. I would my wish my husband >> Yeah, for those of us sitting next to her, we don't appreciate. >> Okay, Omar, keep going. >> Council member Jackson, >> yes. >> Council member Dayton. >> Sorry to the nature center, but I'm
going to have to vote this no today. >> Council member Michaels. >> Yes. >> Council member Dr. Okconor. >> Yes. Because each one will have its own hearing. >> Yeah. Council member Roer. >> Yes, under the same pretense. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh consent agenda.
Could I have a motion to approve resolution 26117 through resolution R26-1 139? Have a second. >> Second. >> Omar, please call the role. Council member Porser. >> Yes.
>> Council member Dayton. >> Yes. >> Council member Jackson. >> Yes. Council member Michaels. >> Yes. >> Council member Dr. Okconor. >> Yes. >> Council member Blair. >> Yes. >> Okay. In the interest of time, because we have um a major thing to talk about
in close session, I'm going to recommend we skip committee reports till the next meeting. >> Yes, sir. >> All right. I'm going to skip the mayor's remarks. Could you read the language to go into close session, please? >> Wendy. Resolution R26-140
at a meeting of the mayor and council of the burough of Tennifly County of Bergen, state of New Jersey held on March 10th, 2026. Be it resolved in compliance with NJSA 104-12, the mayor and council of the burough of Tennifly are going into closed executive session to discuss the following matters.
Leasing of Bur Burough property and potential litigation. Minutes will be taken of the meeting and released to the public at the time that the matters resolved. >> Okay. Um, all in favor? >> Any opposed? I got a motion to go into close.
>> I got a second. >> All in favor? >> Any opposed? >> Kevin, are you still online? >> Kevin? >> Yes, sir. >> I'm going to give you a call in the morning. Are you around? >> Uh, for your call? Absolutely.
>> All right. Figure around 9:00. Okay. >> Yeah, that'd be great. Thank you. >> All right. All right. Have a great night. >> Yeah. Thank you. You too. Part: 2
These are sent to the records of Urbanite Northern Valley Press and posted on the Bolton board in the lobby of the municipal center. The notice of this special budget meeting resolution number 26-115 has been sent to the record suburbanite and northern valley news has been posted
on the Bolton board in the lobby of the municipal center and the burough website. First 15 minutes are for public comment. Citizens are welcome to address the mayor and council on any governmental item of concern to them whether or not it is scheduled on the agenda below.
>> Citizens must give their names and addresses when recognized to speak. Large groups are urged to select someone to represent them. The public is advised that these meetings are recorded and are subject subject to the open public records act.
>> Okay. Hey, is there any member of the public here that would like to speak? I'm not seeing any members of the public here. Let's see on Zoom. It doesn't appear that there's anyone there the public to speak. So, we'll close public comment time. Hey, Susan.
How are you? >> Salute to the flag. Salute to the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. >> So we want now the judge was originally scheduled for the last. >> Yeah. Put it back in my >> You want to do the judge now or what? >> You could do the judge now. Hi, judge. >> You have his budget. >> Well, that's the problem. I couldn't
find the folder. Somebody moved it. >> My office. I had it out somewhere. They put >> But this isn't the most important. >> Well, the salaries are here. I printed this out. >> Okay. So, let's pass it around. That's 90% of the budget anyway. >> Yeah. >> If you want to pass this around, I'll go
see if I can find the folder while you do this page. >> Yeah. I'll make copies. >> Let's make copies so we have it perfect. Okay. Pass them around. So Josh, what's going on in the court? >> Everything is well uh well with the court. We uh the transition with Demer
was pretty wasn't seamless, but it was uh it was effective. >> We got everything running. Um in in uh I just want to let the everybody here know that in 2004 2024 when we uh looked at
Demerest um their numbers were pretty low. It was 691 for criminal filings and 38 for uh I'm sorry 691 for traffic and 38 criminal filings. Um in 2025 those numbers increased drastically. It was
1,336 filings for traffic and 73 filings for criminal. >> That's almost double. >> It's I think in some cases it's increased more than double in certain areas. But um but it we we've assumed
that and we're running effectively. We're running joint courts. So we didn't add sessions. Uh that was one of the uh concerns right >> I think you shared uh as far as expenses but we're able to do that in one session
a hybrid session with virtual inerson dememoration it's been running effectively um Dawn has been doing an amazing job as far as in its uh uh in servicing the the court
users but those those increases have been uh has has doubled her work, doubled my work. Uh there's some intangibles as well too. The intangibles are the increased, you know, temporary restraining orders that I hear at night.
Um the probable cause that I have to make determinations, you know, at night, too. Uh and even search warrants, but they always happen during holidays. So maybe in Christmas time frame uh I don't think I slept uh answering all these
calls from the courts but but those things are occurring but we we are running effectively um because of the uh increase in workload I am asking for an increase in salary as well to for Dawn
and myself and the increase is roughly about $8,000 for Dawn and $8,000 for me. Um, >> how does Can I ask you a question? >> Sure. >> How does it work with court fees? So, Demer, they're whatever they're the bad guys are there's twice as many bad
guys now than there were two years ago. So, when we charge when you when you institute when you levy a fine against someone, the court fees that go along with that, does that become revenue for our court to help to help to help go towards our expenses? How does that
work? That would be governed under the shared services. >> Each court keeps their own revenue. >> Each court keeps their own revenue. So Demer has increased revenue >> and decrease. So we need to have
conversation with Demer about that. >> So we have a 5-year contract, okay, with Deer. >> We're two years into it. >> So in years 2, three, four, and five, it goes up 2% per year. The money that Demer puts us.
>> Okay. Um there is an out clause if uh you wanted to get out of the arrangement, but it's a 12-month notice, right? >> So, you're in for a year regardless if you want it. >> Uh I do have a call into my counterpart uh the administrator for Deness just to
go over this to see >> right >> if we can have some reasonleness and I think so increase the amount >> which I think they all they will come around to. Oh, >> but from a contractual perspective, >> I understand, but I think
>> but is there service levels? So, I'm going to make it up. You get a speeding ticket. Do you have to be seen within a month or could we make it two months >> when you come into court? >> Well, the the speedy trial act would uh
come into play, but we we try to schedule it as just as soon as possible. Why do you ask? because well if if if Demarest is if we've doubled the amount of volume of Demarrest and again they're making more and
spending less and we have 10 people yes it's a lot if you're going to see 10 people next week if you say you're going to see those 10 people over two weeks now it's only five people a week right and I'm just giving you the sil smaller example so if you spread it out you will
get to a point there's peaks and valleys If you start adding people into that valley phase, you have a more consistent view and you will have less over time, you'll if you don't have to see 25 people at night, you might only need to see 20.
>> So there were I'm sorry. There were peaks in value when we were just uh 10:00. Yeah, >> I think there's only peaks now >> with them. Um and that's a fair again's
numbers have doubled. Um and the shared services agreement doesn't capture that cost. >> Additionally, I want to give you a comparison as as well too. We shared the numbers with David as well too. Demorris
numbers and tenfly numbers are almost neck andneck now. Um, so we service just as many summones nearly with Demer as we do with Penfly as well relatively. >> So there's a radical distribution of
people that you see among the two tanks. >> Yes. >> Does it seem then that their revenues are higher because their infractions are of an higher order of magnitude? >> I think their numbers are Demer's numbers. uh and I don't want to talk
about someone else's death are increasing to the level of penis >> population is not ours. So, one of the caveats that I was told um >> back in the summer was that uh Demerest
brought on uh three or four recruits as new police officers. >> And as I'm told, as the trend goes, newer police officers tend to write a lot more tickets. >> So, 2026 would be interesting to see if that level sustains itself or drops off.
And then likewise, Tennifly is set to bring on three or four new recruits most likely before the end of 26. So you might see then the spike in >> another busy Christmas.
But um Sam is was even reported in um I believe a local paper uh that among the 10 towns in Bergen County. This is one of the towns that increased its crimes uh among the top 10 counties.
>> In review, how is it working? >> It's working well. we're able to service everything that you receive. >> Um I will add some other expense items that you should be aware of which is
>> um there is an increased need of interpretation service. There's more people that interpreters and we're seeing that and there has been an increased amount of change of venue matters. So if uh Loi for example has a
problem that matter may be changed to our jurisdiction here by the assignment judge for handling. Um we've seen more of them. It's typically those cases that come here are more complicated cases
because there's a conflict there. It involves a councilman there or or something to that effect that comes here or other jurisdiction. But we've been receiving more than um my first trust when I've seen an uptick in that. When
we do that though, yes, >> we're going to require more services for public defenders potentially and more services for an ultimate foster career if necessary. >> There's nothing you can do. >> We there's nothing we can do. I think it's part of part of the function of
being part of the function of the community. cost of >> no person um >> for their virtual >> question is you know a couple years ago
when you had a secondary avenue in your office to help alleviate you know that it was a higher case at some point was um are you interested in going back to the posting office or you think one
person is doing the right now. >> Thank you for asking that question. So, um we are effective right now Don as our court administrator and uh we have uh
pulled in um a a person that helps during court nights and on on situations that we need. However, uh the request is also for a temporary account person. It's just necessary because even when
Don uh is out of the office, there's someone that needs to be here to receive and service people and there's an increased number of filings that has to be inputed into the system and there's some coordination with police department
that needs to occur and that has to throw this out there, but it's always good to have somebody in succession plan too. knows her own who knows you with and says that yes who knows are she at least um and I think that person you
know needs a couple more years at least before they you know could stay but um I'm going to ask my council I I've seen this office be very busy I know filings are up I would I would consider a
secondary parttime office admin here I don't know >> it's been requested Yeah, that's the judge. >> Just read that request >> and I'll be back. >> We used to have two in the office, John. >> And so now we're down to one.
>> I understand. >> I think uh the next step is for David to speak to his counterpart. You know, there's revenue, there's cost, and as we get more revenue allows us to invest more. >> I mean, I know the position right now says vacant.
Um, we did a part-time position for what was said 20 hours that it didn't have the benefits, didn't have the the healthcare. We've um we we had a part-time, we transitioned into a full-time, and now
we're in need of a part. >> When do we get when do we get the data for how many uh how many cases or how many matters were resolved and the court fees and revenue that produced? Um, we provided the data to uh David. So, you
have all that? >> Yeah, it's in there. Susan's almost copying it for you. So, it's in there. >> We have the information we need to be able to have a conversation with Demer. Yes. >> About Yes. >> Okay. >> So, I I think recommending though that we put this position in the budget.
Whether we choose to hire in the budget is going to be a longer conversation after dememor finding that salary. >> Yeah. Well, what's here for 2026 is what is currently being recommended, >> right? Can I ask? >> Yes. So it's currently in uh it's
currently in for the 20,000 >> which is so it's in other words it's here. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. and and there's been a historic history with personnel in that office.
Um you know it's been quite a revolving door >> which we get into in different setting. um you know a longer conver conversation but um >> why is it
>> we can't get I don't think >> any other questions for the >> ask we just can't discuss performance the budget >> any other questions >> I'll just I'll I'll make one comment um I took on the position of the presiding
judge of county so congratulations >> thank you thank you so I I I couldn't get to see all 70 uh courts and uh 39 judges at play as well relative to um and what I
do see is that there is a trend uh an increase in filing countywide. We're almost at precoid levels countywide. We're not there yet. We're not there yet uh with this municipality, but when we
get up there, I think we're going to be operating at their optimal level. >> How's working with the customer's office and there good hiring the same people? >> Yes. Uh they're they've been uh great.
Um our our prosecutor um say that he's uh one of the best if not the best. Uh when I took this job, Judge Bell um predecessor made one clear
comment. You have the best prosecutor >> Thank you. Thank you all. >> Good to see you. >> Good seeing everybody. Good luck. Take care. Thank you. Yeah. >> Um before you close off of the court, I just we passed around the RFP response
from the prosecutors that was shared back in January with you. Um again, this will fit into my discussions with Demaras, but you know, the prosecutor's asking for a a substantially large increase. Certain
percentage bases, it's it's up there. Um so the prosecutor unlike in a lot of other jurisdictions is not an employee like the judge. He's a contract uh service uh at his uh at his choosing. So we have not authorized
his contract for 2026 yet. So he was appointed but we haven't settled his contract until we determine what this is going to be. >> Is that something again we can share with DERS that cost? I mean they would have to have a percentage cost there. We'll be very upfront with that rest and
uh you know hopefully they'll uh they'll find some way to >> keep Yes. >> Thank you everybody. >> Thank you. >> Before we get started a couple people's birthdays today.
>> Anybody? Anyone at the table? >> Omar. Happy birthday. >> And they both And they both told me earlier that their birthday present is that our 7:30 meeting will be over at 7:45. Thursday. We should have a council.
serious feel. >> I don't want to go home, but the mayor comes to my house early in the morning. Well, you know, next time >> my English Sunday. Oh, I love the shirt.
>> Anticipation based on I think it's going to was born a day after me. Okay. Different year >> and I haven't had a birthday in 15 years. So you know the deal
357 versus 307 that is an increase. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. We have >> Oh, wait. There's more. >> Thank you. How's the blood coming? >> Okay. So, good night.
>> But Yeah. So, >> guys, >> okay, go ahead. >> Yeah. All right, guys. Let's focus. >> Go ahead, Susan. >> Okay, so Adam just had a question about the 90,000. The 90,000 that
>> utility. Did you get the Thank you. Sorry. Okay. So the pool utility started last year and what we have to do is anticipate revenues and appropriations.
So we anticipated $37,000 in revenue and the appropriation would be the same. But to meet that we had to allocate $90,000 from the current fund budget. Okay. >> The current our regular budget.
>> Our regular budget. It was raised at chat station regular budget >> in 2025. >> In 2025. >> So in theory, we really thought we'd get 210 $220,000 from outside people and we added 90 to the 220 to get you the 307.
>> Yes. But the good news is that we really exceeded because we realized in cash and revenue 314,000 >> including the 90k.
>> It was exceeded. We we anticipated really what we were anticipating was 217 right before the 90. That's what you just said. >> Y >> but we raised 314. So you can't use the ser the 90,000 as surplus in
>> So where did the 90,000 go? >> We have to give it back. >> We have to to the current fund because that it it's more complicated than >> then it's complicated. Okay. So what you
have to do is you have to you can't use the surplus from the current fund in the utility budget. >> So a separate budget >> it has to go back but it doesn't really
fully go back. So what happens now? Let me go forward to 26. So in 26 it will be um this isn't right. Can I look at your memo? In 26.
>> Yeah, that was my last memo. So this year we're going to anticipate $357,20 >> and our realized revenue was the 314046. So we're anticipating more than what we realized. And you're not allowed to do that.
>> So for this year, what we have to do is take 42,000 from the current fund and allocate it to the pool utility. So it's less than what it was last year by uh $47,000.
>> So that's a good downward trend >> because we're actually taking the pool was very successful. I mean, there was really a $7,000 surplus. goal is going to be to have them raise additional revenue to get that $42,000 down to zero,
>> which is the goal. >> We should also have lightened expenditures this year because last year we had a lot of capex because it was right. Yeah. >> Close to that number. >> Well, there was a pool that the pool was extended for two weeks, right? >> Yeah. So, you're talking you're separating the capital from the
operating the oper on the operating end. There was a slight overexpendure for >> two or three reasons. one because of the the need to drain the pool and paint it in the beginning of the season, we had to pay Crescll uh and and have our staff work Crescll. So, we
had to pay for that. Then we also extended the season into September and that cost us money uh during the height of the pool season and you know Jamie Cannon is dealing with you know teenage lifeguards to you know they don't put a
high premium on working. Um, so when you get around the Fourth of July holiday and other key time frames, she had to authorize paying them time and a half, double time to make sure she had coverage for the holiday events. So we
hopefully we'll have a better handle on those things this year and incorporate it into the budget. >> So I guess the question is I don't maybe I'm missing it here. What are the anticipated expenditures in 2026? >> It's going to be 357,20. No, that's the revenue
>> the same expenses are equal >> equally appropriations. >> That's how >> okay so let me second to the last paragraph some reason. So then the question is why don't we set the
anticipated revenue to 314046 and then we don't have to use the uh additional $40,000 uh from the current fund >> because I think you're going to create another over expenditure when you do that in this pool utility you're going to have right now.
>> Can I ask the question a different way? >> Yes. Of the $357,000, how much of that are you estimating to be surplus? >> I'm hoping that we um are self sustaining. >> You say what? >> Self- sustaining. There probably won't
be much surplus. >> So So it's a break even then based on that answer. >> Yeah. >> No. Well, the the last year's expense was 329, >> right? Why do we think it would be higher or manage to? >> We're trying to we're higher.
>> We're marketing more. We're sending out postcards. We're we're >> I guess the so what is the whole intention of the operating budget is break even. >> So it's operating budget not >> correct operating budget. >> It's pool utility.
>> The pool utility. Perfect. We think we're last year we the most revenue we're allowed to recognize is 314 which is the max revenue we had the year before. That's just what the rule say. So therefore make it 314 and stick within that uh budget.
>> So then I have to cut >> you're not cutting anything. You're reducing the >> the funds from the current fund,000. >> You have to cut the budget. You have to cut it. You'd have to cut their budget,000. >> We spend $300,000 in 90 days. Said
differently, $3,000 a day to operate the pool. >> That seems absurd. Somebody has to $3,000 a day to operate pool. >> It's one of So, you have I I'll go over some of the expenses with you. >> Last year, we spent on uh lifeguards
$95,000. This year, we're budgeting 90. That was for the season. We also had part-time. That's $1,000 a day for rent. >> $3,000 a day. >> It's a three month season, 90 days and $95,000 a day. Yeah. >> For lifeguards.
>> Yeah. >> Someone needs to explain to me how many lifeguards are there making $1,000 a day. >> Like that seems extraordinary on Tuesday. >> I didn't know. I think we have six lifeguards that reported that $1,000 a day. >> So you're paying life guards $150 a day
for an eight hour shift or $20 an hour? >> No. No. I mean, we need to on a >> Tuesday $20 an hour which is the camp is like >> we can decide we want to manage the budget like >> I guess my point though is again if I'm
just understanding it properly I'm just trying to >> whatever we could set as revenue that's what we should set as expense >> but then I'm just going to let you know what the expenses are because we really cut them back So do you have cattle goals?
>> Then we have to raise then again the team has to work harder to bring more people in which will accidentally exceed the revenue we have. And guess what? Then we can spend more on cost. >> But what Susan's trying to tell you is that if you know that your expenses are going to be at 357,
>> but we don't. >> You need to bring the revenue to that same level and bring in more revenue to reduce the reliance on the 42. So the 42,000 is going to be the last eight. So if they if if membership is me well it would it doesn't you wouldn't spend it
out of the out of the operating volume if they raise more less our surplus. >> Yeah it will automatically lapse into the current as soon as you allocate to a net zero. Yeah, >> that's what you post.
>> Lauren, ask your question. Go ahead. >> No, that wasn't that was open >> because some part of open space were allocating to run the pool. >> No, >> no, >> we we >> just forg nothing in in maintenance and nothing in facilities. So, there's some items that
that recreation wanted to add. There was 2,000 added for special events. Swim school supplies, there was another 2,000. Swim team supplies, another 2,000. Uh the there's a cost for the audit for the utility, 4650. >> Okay, we don't have to go through the
individual ones. It's a matter of $40,000 on this overall budget, which is not a big deal. >> A little bit, but then you might have >> The point is just a fundamental strategic thing. Do you want to make it balance or do we want to add more in? or chooses to add more in. >> That's the answer that's being presented. I mean,
>> doesn't that go in back to us? A surplus, >> but you never, you know, you never sort of get it back that the 90k I raise taxes. So, or the 90k and I don't get that back. >> Where does it go? >> It goes to surplus, which you need a multiple PhDs. I've been asking for I've
been trying to figure out for years. >> It is the hardest thing I've ever done in my entire life. >> It's from two years ago from >> offline. We can talk about it. you like if you learn a lesson. >> It's the weirdest government thing I've ever seen in my entire life. >> Well, it's a fundamental intentional thing to ensure that the town almost
could never go bankrupt type thing because it it sucks in money and you can't ever get it out. >> Have you ever seen a Phantom Zone in Supergirl? No, but they had to do that. >> Every $100 you spend, you want to budget 102 because then the 102 the $2 spent
get set aside earn money for your town. >> How's that? You don't want to cut your your um surplus too low. You don't want to you want to make sure you can cover your expenses, generate surplus so that you could anticipate your surplus in a
subsequent budget to relieve your tax burden. >> Yes. Where are we Julie? Go ahead, please. >> The great number that is the cost to run it. And then in addition that 135,000, those were capital.
>> That's capital additional. Okay. >> Where are we on memberships this year as compared to last year? >> Jamie just gave us a report. We're running at at the same point as we were last year. We're running about $62,000 behind
>> behind last year behind budget behind last year. So the time >> but last year was the first year and we given them an arbitrary deadline of February 28th and we also didn't have two blizzards. So people >> probably aren't really thinking about
swimming uh at the pool, you know, during February. So >> and do we Sorry. Go ahead. So, we're going to extend the early bird uh discount stuff till April 6. >> Why? >> Uh to generate more memberships. >> We're assuming that you just identified
the rate limiting factor as being cold and ice, not people I mean, you missed it. I kind of like people to miss it. Is that next year? No, next year we we have better visibility at this meeting, right? When people don't miss that deadline. I mean that deadline is a deadline for a reason arguably but I'm
okay to not do it but my preference would be to you know that's the deadline because it's it's for municipal budget visibility that we lack and therefore there should be an additional cost to it not but that's just basic.
>> What are other opinions about that? I think we do better. The the discount is smaller than the getting more people in is what really helps us get over the top on. I think this number here would tell you we got to try to get as many
people as possible. We're not fully absorbed in our uh >> Yes, Lauren. utility. By the way, the way other towns do a utility is they actually do like it's not penny tax, but like a very
small tax per household generate retail >> pools. >> I don't know. That's that's a Susan uh David question. I don't >> municipal. >> Yeah. I mean that that really it really becomes a public policy decision for the
council as to that would be almost like sort of you sort of forcing the entire community that no long whether they wanted to or not by virtue of the tax point of change the arrangement but that was the whole point of having utility choice but >> well well the utility itself is to be
self liquidating so it's not it's not coming from your adorable fees and a utility if you were serving your religious organizations and so forth they're exempt from paying fees like uh water rents, sewer rents, that type of thing. And that's why they're separate
attorneys in a lot of cases. Um as they're exempt from adorable home taxation. >> We effectively do that now for almost everything whether it's senior center, the recreation program, um the library, whatever it might be, where while they
each individually have fees specific to their programming, right? their fees don't cover the the the cost of utilities, the cost of everyone's salary. And so that's borne by the general taxpayer. I mean, the options that I've seen in
utilities is that instead of this membership and membership prescribe is that the entire town is welcome to it if you do this per household tax, right? That's the obvious thing is that the pool is for the town community. Show a license with your, you know, whatever it is. Here's your bass to the pool for the
year. your household has already been taxed through. >> I mean, that's another way to think about this utility >> if this membership is is going to become a hassle every year. >> Yeah. Then that's obviously the pride of of the council, whatever you choose to do.
>> Now, I will also tell you that that a number of towns heavily subsidizing their pools, you know, and a number of them are failing. So, I mean, we really pulled a genie out of that. >> No, it's awesome. I think it's a muscle we did last year.
>> Yeah. >> With everything else around us really failing, >> but >> still in Demrest, >> Cresco is doing um okay. Um I'm I don't know that much about Demerest, but >> you know, pools, municipal pools,
however you organize them, however you structure them or whatever you call them, they're basically another service >> just like recreation, just like a library. They cost money to operate. We want most of it to be paid for by the users, right? Because it's an expensive operation, so people have to be
invested. But we're always going to have to subsidize all of our programming. >> I will tell you one thing for Councilman Robilieri that I would be open to, which is I don't know, I believe you were supposed to meet with the mayor of Alpine since we've been subsidizing the mayor of Alpine.
>> So, I don't know if we've moved if you've had any mayor of Alpine and I had conversations that are ongoing. So, one thing that I would be open to is immediately I I I think historically the Alpine members are, you know, Tennifly
members. I would immediately >> stop the Alpine early discount effective immediately until the mayor of Alpine could find time to >> one thing that was explained to me in a previous budget meeting when I was asking about the playground equipment is
that the rules for the playground are are very stringent in something like a pool because of the the uh what's the insurance name? Oh, it's uh it's it's not just playground equipment for pool. It's playground equipment that we put anywhere in the burrow. Okay.
>> Has to meet those stringent guidelines of the joint insurance fund, the JIF. So So that really makes these very expensive operations. >> Yes. >> So do we want to take action on that >> on the for Alpine members? There's no longer an early discount.
>> Yes. >> Are they charges out of town or charges in town? >> No, they're charges inbound. >> I have a question that as well. So why don't we take that action immediately until >> that's fine. >> Yeah. >> And they also take >> right >> again that we were going to say let's
give it another month before the mayor. >> Are you eliminating from all of our programs at this point? >> Well, they should get the >> it's the it's the not rates necessarily, but they take spots in our team. >> So I absolutely again let's give it 30 more days for the mayors to connect. If
they can't come to a resolution in 30 days, then we could temporarily suspend members until we come to a reasonable resolution. >> I think September only because everyone's already signed up for strict sports >> and we don't really hold too much summer except for
>> if you're already in, you're in. >> We're not going to do it retroactively. >> I think we have a little time to negotiate a new contract. We never had a contract. It was a handshake deal, >> as I'm sure you know. We should have a uh we should have a shared services
agreement or internal local. >> Yes, that shares the service. >> We don't have anything in writing. >> Let's do that. >> Yeah. >> Susan, what's next? >> Okay. So, >> um so this I was like back this form back because it's preliminary and I
haven't to auditor yet. Uh so couple things happened uh this year which were very good. the Bergen County Utilities Authority went down by about almost $300,000. So that was a decrease in a budget
appropriation in what budget. Um, we also had a decrease in PERS, the public employees, uh, retirement >> retirement and PFRS. Uh, and to to add to the utility decrease though, that was
offset in part by increases in electricity, gas, and items like that. So, the 300,000 went down a little bit, but it was very good. We also have adequately put in reserves terminally so
that when somebody retires, an employer retires, we have sufficient funds to cover that and we are going to have uh quite a few retirements this year and next year. So our reserves are good. So we didn't have to budget for that. are there's another um appropriation that we
pledge for which is payroll reserves which we allocate like if we're in contract negotiations we might put funds there to to um you know we allocate funds there to cover the cost of the increases when we do the negotiations
uh so that we put less in this year last year I think we had 300 and something this year we were only going to put in like 200,000 so that was financial discrete decrease increase in our um appropriations. Now we look at the
revenue side. So the the appropriation number it's is it's all those items roll up into the 38 million878 which is towards the bottom of the sheet. So that is a very good um decrease in um from
2025 as compared to 2025. It's up but not as much as it could have been. the revenue side I I think I'm I don't know if the auditors would agree but I think it is uh I think it's fairly stated but now remember you can't
realize more than you cannot anticipate more than what you realize so if you look in the 2025 column um most of the items are lower except for the receipts from delinquent taxes because that's a special calculation
where everything else will be lower than what was um realized. >> Can you make it equal to? You just said it be equal to. >> Well, you won't want to do that because if it comes in less than >> something like court cases, we just had a whole conversation that it's higher
than it's ever been. We're getting new officers which are going to make it go up even more. >> Again, I would have made it Government doesn't let you. I would have made it 120,000, but I certainly wouldn't make it 95. Again, it doesn't matter. But the point is >> it's very close though what I anticipate.
>> Sure. But if you do that every time that's we have to tax people more because we're not driving the revenue. >> Perhaps I'm not particularly bright but this implies we're running $8 million deficit. Sure. >> An $8 million deficit. >> Yeah. >> And this is what happens. This is our
revenues. Then we figure out our our cost to operate and then the the it's like a plug is the amount to raise through taxation. So you're telling we need to raise taxes by 20% of the budget. >> No, >> why not? Well, not 20%
>> looking at $30 million amount to be raised by taxes versus an operating state of $38 million. >> I have an $8 million gap on million. I check >> that's the 8 million is all the stuff on top balances it. >> The 8 million is the total of the revenue, >> right?
>> And then this is the cost. So, you're getting you're getting this here. You're raising this here and that's where you're getting that's where you're balancing. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Can you ask about the level of surplus? >> Oh, yeah. You can ask about that. Okay. It's high, which Thank you. Good job.
Um, what does the order say? And can we >> She just said she hasn't shared it with the auditor. >> I know. I know. When you go to the auditor, I'd like to just hear what he says. Well, we're over three at this point, but we're taxing raising. >> Okay. So the surplus is is going to be
$6 million. Of that >> of that we're going >> we're going to be taking >> we're going to beating 50%. >> Yeah. 53%. >> We will appropriate 53%. >> That's how much is the surplus we used. >> Yes. That's where it got the 3.3 >> and then and we hover around 50%. We do
that every year. >> Yes. We usually aren't at that high of a level of a number. usually, you know. So, >> what kind of >> I'm saying we're generating a very nice surplus. >> Well, that has something to do with >> So, if you use if you use So, we're
generating more and more surplus because that's but that's a direct function of the fact that taxes go up. Therefore, we create more surplus. But if we start using much more than 50% in 2 or 3 years, we'll have zero left.
>> Exactly. And then you'll have to have a mass you'll have to have a large tax increase to account for it >> for bond ratings. They the Moody's will look at the surplus and if we're consistent if you go up to 16% they may say oh
they're utilizing more of their surplus to offset taxes and it'll be and then we are >> let's see where again everything comes in United States. >> That's it is something to consider. That's true.
Where's the um where are the parking spots? All that additional revenue >> that was unanticipated. That considered revenue not anticipated that helped our surplus. That's one >> one of the no longer unanticipated because now we're doing consistent.
>> So So here's the here's the issue there. >> We did that ordinance and we set the fee but we if you recall I said at the higher fee we had no tambers. So we can't anticipate revenue unless we have a lease in hand that guarantees the revenue is going to come in. Uh so when
you don't have that and you get the revenue in it goes into a category called miscellaneous. >> What about all the parking? >> Miscellaneous revenue on discipline. >> Okay. What about all the parking uh along railroad? Susan's got a she's gonna put that into the uh into the
>> adopt she's gonna put that into the uh >> into this when we get >> but that with those leases is I think it's 30,000 >> 29,000 >> 29 >> 29
>> yeah 29,000 is what's going to be anticipated for those leases right that incremental to here >> that would be that would go in here >> which would lower taxes Yes. >> Now the what's before you you're going to introduce them in just another 10 spots. >> We can't anticipate that 200,000 even
though we we sold we at least two you know the 200,000 last year >> but don't we get the don't we there's the upfront and then is there the monthly or something? >> We didn't we didn't do >> it basically takes correct me if I'm wrong it takes a year takes a full cycle
to be able to anticipate revenue from the previous year and the new year. But I think we I thought there was two elements to it. We I'm almost certain we said it was >> but we can't but I think that just took effect January 1st. So we can't anticipate that revenue either. >> Okay.
>> So you'll get you'll get the revenue. You just can't you can't recognize the revenue increasing your projected revenue. >> Right. I guess the the uh you know I go through this every year >> and it's a good thing and that's why you guys are running the budget for the the
borrow for us and not us dayto- day. I feel like we're always very conservative in the sense of we keep adding to the surplus which again I know that's a good thing right the surplus keeps getting bigger >> but if every time
it's unanticipated you know instead of the 95 instead of 100 it's 95 >> once it's only $5,000 I don't suck it up but if you do that over and over and over again that does become >> part of the issue with the actual lease so where you $200,000 from that would
really be one revenue, right? So you So it would be hard to anticipate that. >> So after 2026 when we get >> $1,000, >> right, >> a month or something $1,000 a month, we get that in that $12,000 for rent spot
would be the anticipated >> in the 2026 budget. >> So the so what is hold your breath, Adam, next year will have even more money. >> Yes. >> That you can anticipate. Yes. You both have the money. >> Either way, this money is going to go go into surplus.
>> Yes. >> Whether it's anticipated or not anticipated. >> All right. Let me just double check if this is the correct level of surplus. I'm curious to know if the order keep in mind the number I got was from the order. They just didn't see this yet. >> But does the auditor and this is Jamie
so I don't mean to take it, but the owner knows the rest of the taxes that are happening in the referendum and everything else. I just tell you that there's other towns the the other towns. Yeah, I think the other towns are out in a real >> problem. They're up to 10% tax
increases. >> This is amazing. Like I think first of all, we're not anywhere near tax increases are too small. is also I don't think the tax rate is crazy either more money but the tax rate is very tax%
>> the referendum is replacing the other referendum >> okay what else we got >> guys we have five minutes before No, we don't. This was the only Do we What else do we have? >> This is it. >> This is it. >> I have a question for you. >> The uh total assessment valuation. So
from 25 to 26 has gone up by $30 million. What's the bottom? Third number from the bottom gone up by 30 million. Is that 30 million a function of reassessments on individual houses? Is it new assessments because of new construction? What is that from me? So
Jeff would tell you that because he does the assessment. >> I I'll get something from Jeff, but I I believe it's the new construction added assessments. >> Count on your 30% completed cos because we had a lot of outstanding cos that were open.
>> Yeah, there's still a lot of outanding cos. That's one of the things I want. Jeff is very good and he'll give us a real breakout. one >> um but from what I understand it's it's the it's the added new assessment so it's primarily from your new
construction but I'll ask him to give a detailed >> but again 30 million for >> no >> so in other words so from 25 to 26 the new construction generated like 750,000 >> additional taxes >> just on that
>> oh yes it is excuse me You haven't council told us not to tell each exaggerating someone else. So, in fact, we already have those spending because we have multi-year
contracts. Are we done? >> So our next >> and insurance no that's not insurance for me is not a contract. We have like labor agreements that you do absolutely nothing. >> I'm going to close this.
>> Yeah. We're done in Sep. >> Okay. Can I get a motion to close? >> So moved. >> Can I get a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Thank you everyone. >> Thank you Susan and happy birthday Susan and Omar. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. The the camera is still rolling.