Starring and welcome to the township council meeting for August 4th, 2026. We have a slight change in plans tonight. The um police promotion ceremony which was originally scheduled for the conference agenda has been moved
outside. So even though we are live on Zoom now and I am making this announcement to you, the actual council meeting or conference agenda meeting will not start until after the police promotion ceremony and council returns
inside here. So you're not missing anything in terms of the council meeting. The council meeting has not started. Will start as I say when they return from outside. Uh I am going to put the uh audio on mute and uh when
they start coming back in I'll uh zoom out a little bit so you can see activity on the deis uh just so you have somewhat of an indication that we're getting ready to start the meeting. So we're going on mute and uh we will return shortly. Thank you for your cooperation
and p [clears throat] pat patience. Okay, thank you uh for those who have patiently waiting in the Zoom audience. Town council has returned and we're going to start the town council meeting. Just as a reminder, public comment is permitted only in person and not on
Zoom. So, if your hand is raised in the audience, it will automatically be lowered because there is no public comment permitted on Zoom. At this point, I'd like to turn the council meeting over to council president. >> Thank you. We're going to finish our uh
conference agenda before we get into our meeting. And I'd like to welcome Jared Salzer, who we are honoring tonight for his contributions to our community. She's so cute. >> Okay, thank you all for attending. Uh,
most of you know Bles by Jared Jarrett Seltzer. He has been an invaluable resource for our community. I think there's never been a time when he's been asked to contribute to some worth of cause that he hasn't stepped up. Um,
very recently we had our first repair cafe and I went in, I said to him, "Could you donate a little something?" He said, "What do you want?" I said, "Oh, pizza." So, well, he came out with a dozen pizzas and it made the event, you know, just I'm Italian, so just
having food around and having everyone really interacting, it just made it so special. So this is a little commendation to him. Whereas small business owners play a vital role in strengthening the fabric of the community through service, generosity,
and civic engagement. And whereas Jared Seltzer, owner of Bagels by Jared, has consistently demonstrated an extraordinary commitment to supporting the residents and organizations of West Orange, answering the call to give
whenever assistance is needed. And whereas his recent provision of pizzas to the Norway and Spain World Cup teams during their stay at a local hotel showcased both excellence of his establishment and his pride in
representing the township of West Orange on the international stage. And whereas Jared has continually contributed to local initiatives and community events, embodying a spirit of generosity and goodwill that enhances the quality of
life for all residents. And whereas most recently, his generous donation of a dozen pizzas to the Older Adults Advisory Board event and West Orange's first repair cafe created a welcoming and hospitable environment for
participants, ensuring comfort and inclusivity as residents gathered to have their items repaired. Whereas this cal act of kindness contributed significantly to the success
of the event reflecting the important role that community-minded businesses play in fostering connection service and support among residents. Whereas Jared's ongoing generosity, leadership, and dedication to the community service
exemplify the highest ideals of civic responsibility and local partnerships. Now though, therefore, it be resolved that the West Orange Township Council do hereby proudly recognize and commend Jared Sultzer, owner of Bagels by Jared, for his outstanding service, generosity,
and contributions to West Orange and extend our sincere appreciation for his continued commitment to our community. >> Thank you. Thank you very much. >> I'll keep it brief. Thank you, council. I really appreciate it. Very cool of you. Uh, Bagels by Jared started with the community. It was
giving out bagels from home. It turned into a business. COVID hit. The community kept us afloat through good and bad. And thank you for the recognition on that. Really, really appreciate it. You guys have a long night. We started late, so I'm going to let you go. And my kid needs to get to dinner. So, thank you. >> Congratulations.
Okay. So, we can now uh close the conference agenda. Is Madame Clerk here? >> Yeah, we need her. Madame clerk. There we go. All right. So, we'll close the conference agenda. >> Do I need
>> Okay. I'm sorry. >> Yeah. No, no. for everybody. >> Okay. Thank you. >> This is to inform the general public that this meeting is being held in compliance with section 5 of the Open Public Meetings Act, chapter 231, public law 1975. The notice for this meeting
was emailed to the West Orange Chronicle and the Star Ledger on October 30th, 2025. Councilwoman Castelino, >> present. >> Councilman Koviaak, >> present. >> Councilwoman Ruden, >> here. >> Councilwoman Williams, >> present. Council President Scarpa present. I
don't see the mayor. Okay. Uh will everyone please rise for the pledge of allegiance? I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all. >> The council is now in their public meeting. >> Okay. So, it is time for public comment. Um, I How many people in our audience are making public comment tonight? Raise your hand, please.
Okay, very good. Well, we'll start re right here on the left, Mr. Gibb. >> Council Ben. >> Yes, right after Mr. Fagen. >> Uh, thank you, Council President. Um, just as a reminder, we had police promotions uh scheduled for the conference agenda and they were moved
outside. Uh and that's why there was a delay in starting the meeting. Uh council president um tonight I'd like to start with uh someone who deserves some special recognition and uh he has volunteered for the downtown alliance
and of course I'm talking about everyone we know as Will. uh he has just come back from a tour of duty uh with the US Army and he was uh in the 411th CBRN and they are in charge of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear
defense and response and Will himself is a uh generator mechanic and uh uh in an infantry role operates a 50 caliber machine gun. So uh he's back and he's in our audience here tonight. So I just like to give a round of applause. Little
standoff. Okay, moving along. I just want to mention these are a couple of repeats. I'll go through them quickly. West Orange Fire Department is hiring and uh the details are on west.org. As well uh for school crossing guards.
Now we are in August already. September we'll be here. schools will be opening. So, now is a good time to uh get your application in and so that we can have maximum effect uh when school opens. Um uh a law that has taken effect a couple
days ago, August 1st. Now, when you go into a restaurant, it's called the Skip the Stuff Law. Uh you have to ask for specific things that might have just been handed to you before. Uh more information about this is on our website. Um, Mayor McCartney's open
office hours, uh, August 6, 6:00 to 8:00 PM. No appointment is, uh, ever necessary. Mayor McCartney's newsletter is online, uh, west.org. Uh, it's about things happening around town. And also, we have the, uh, council connection coming up, actually the end
of the month, August 27th, here in council chambers. No appointment is ever necessary. I want to remind everyone about the uh Essis County Home Improvement the grant program that's online. Uh you can come on uh online wwest orange.org see if uh you qualify
and there may be grants available to help you fix up your home. Uh ebike laws have taken effect now. You know every day we turn on the news we hear of an unfortunate or near tragic accident involving ebikes. So, uh, you know, the police, uh, they do a wonderful job, but
they can't be everywhere. Uh, prevention really has to start with, uh, being aware of the laws. Uh, health department newsletter has been updated, is online. There's a lot of, uh, health tips, wellness programs, general information can be found here. Uh, I included this
here, uh, pick up after your dog. Of course, most people do that. But what we have been finding, people are picking up after their dog and they're throwing the bag in their neighbor's garbage can or a business garbage can. And uh as thoughtful as it is to pick up after
your dog, you should rethink where you're actually throwing that garbage. And I guess the best rule of thumb would be, do you want it thrown in your garbage? Would you want someone else to do that? If not, uh rethink where you're placing that for disposal. Um, Tuesday,
August 18th, community event backpack giveaway. This information is uh posted to our social media. Colgate Park, Touch the Truck. This is going to be a great kickoff for the uh community service unit of the West Orange uh police department. Again, that's Tuesday,
August 18th, 4 o'clock to 8:00 pm. >> Okay. >> Uh Downtown Alliance uh has a um August 6 coming up, the evening markets, uh Alen Street and Main Street. Uh the weather looks like it's going to be great. And uh I want to point out that
you'll see a September 10th date up there. And that's because an earlier event had been rained out. So that's rescheduled. So uh this is not the last event of the summer. And by the time September rolls around, there's usually and hopefully plenty of summer left. Um
the budget is uh uh available at westn.org. Just scroll to this slide and you can look at all the uh latest updates and information. Now this uh here this mobile breast and cervical screening that doesn't happen September 16th. It is a little bit away but um
it's important to perhaps save this state because uh early prevention is key. So I want to promote this as early as I possibly can. Uh anyone who is uh been a little bit lax in visiting the doctor or think thinking perhaps that this doesn't happen to me, it happens to
somebody else. Uh there's no better time to take advantage of a of a screening and this information is on our website. There has been some changes to our Jity schedule. This information is on our website. The new canvasing map has been updated to the website and social media
for American Water coming doortodoor. They are legit. Um also the um tax assessor's office hours for July and August are scheduled online. Uh once again, state law when now those
yellow lights are flashing, you must stop in the crosswalk for the pedestrian. The pedestrian always has the right of way. Um and uh West Orange Public Library, the Revolution New Jersey is continuing August 22nd. I will
be doing a presentation on uh West Orange Public Library. I see Counciloman writing that down. And she's actually filling out invitations for me that she sent out. I so appreciate it. Thank you very much. And that concludes my report. At this time, I'd like to
present my esteemed colleague, uh Mr. Anthony Plesi, welcome. Hi, Anthony Paglesi representing County Executive Joe Definen. Uh just three things I want to bring up. Uh first, the Essex County Concert Series is ongoing. The schedule is is on our website and
one of our uh acts uh coming up in August is at Eagle Rock Reservation on Friday, August 14th at 7:00. Uh then September 11th is our uh September 11th ceremony. Uh it just seems like that uh tragedy happened yesterday, but it's
been 25 years. Uh and again, as always, it's on that day, and we start our program at 8 a.m. The public is invited. Uh and then finally, it's a little early, but we like to get our seniors aware of our upcoming senior wellness day, which this year is Tuesday, September 22nd at Cody Arena. Uh that
goes from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Uh and uh it's a free event. Seniors can just come. Uh we look forward to a great day that day. Again, all this information is on our website which is essex countyj.org. >> Thank you so much, Mr. Plesi.
>> Okay. Good evening, uh council members and fellow residents. My name is Kath Given. I reside at Seven Rates Place and I have been a lifelong West Orange resident. I'm a certified public accountant chartered global management accountant
and I hold a master's in taxation from Zen Hall University. I have uh spent more than three decades working as an auditor, tax advisor and financial consultant. I'm speaking tonight because the council is being asked to make an
important financial decision involving taxpayer owned property, specifically the proposed sale of 18 Central Avenue or 1.5 million. My comments are not about whether the redevelopment should
move forward. rather thereabout ensuring the financial information supports decision is complete, transparent and available before any final vote. As someone who has spent a career evaluating financial transactions and
risk, there are four key areas of financial due diligence I believe should be addressed. First, the purchase price. whether a significant public asset sold. One of the first questions I ask is whether an independent valuation
supports the purchase price. Was an independent appraisal obtained to support the proposed 1.5 million purchase price for the 18 central a so I respectfully request that if it will be
made available to the council and the public before the final vote. If an appraisal was not obtained, what valuation methodology was used to support the purchase price? Second, the financial reconciliation. In my profession, one of the most valuable
tools in is a financial reconciliation. It tells the complete financial story from the beginning to the end. I respectfully request one comprehensive financial schedule that reconciles the proposed purchase price, all remediation
costs, grant funding, township expenditures, purchase price adjustments, redeveloper reimbursements, remaining estimated remediation costs, and the township's expected net proceeds.
That type of reconciliation standard financial practice and allows both the council and the residents to clearly understand the complete financial pitch. Third, the longterm financial impact of the proposed pilot agreement. I
respectfully request a financial analysis of showing the proposed annual pilot payments, whether there are a minimum payment requirement and significant adjustments that may affect those payments, and how
the projected pilot compares to the conventional property tax revenue over the life of the project. These are important financial questions because they help residents understand the long-term financial impact of this redevelopment. Finally, is transparency.
I believe residents should have a clear understanding of the parties involved in this transaction, the remaining environmental responsibilities, and which financial obligations remain with the township versus those assumed by the
redeveloper. Those are not unusual requests. They are the same type of questions that an auditor, a government board, lead lenders, investors, and financial professionals routinely ask before approving significant financial
transactions. Whether public assets are sold, whenever public assets are sold, the standard should be the same. Decision should be supported by complete documentation, sound financial analysis, and clear accountability. My request tonight is
simple. Before the council votes, I specifically ask that the appraisal or valuation analysis supporting the purchase price, a complete financial reconciliation of the transaction and the financial analysis supporting the
proposed pilot agreement be made available to both the council and the public. This isn't about delaying the project nor is intended to suggest that anything is improper. It's simply about ensuring that the elected officials and
residents have the information needed to make an informed financial decision. Thank you for your time and consideration. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Justin. Did we Jack Jackie? >> Yeah. If anyone wants to talk about this
Yeah. Anybody else want to talk about this subject? Come. Okay. So, we'll get you up. >> Hello, Jacqueline Hendy, 6 Beverly Road. Um, good evening. I'm here tonight to comment on resolution 230-26 authorizing
the sale of township owned property as described by my neighbor Ken Gibbons. Over the last seven several weeks, I've spent countless hours reading redevelopment plans, planning board approvals, redevelopment agreements, township records. I also met with the member, the mayor and a member of former
member of the administration last week and I appreciate the time they took to answer my questions. Uh, this resolution is simply not about selling land. It is about transferring ownership of land that belongs to the people of West Orange. That distinction matters. Unlike most redevelopment deals, this wasn't
just private property changing hands. The township acquired these parcels, entered in redevelopment agreements, extended approvals, and has remained the owner of this land throughout the entire process. The larger question isn't whether the sale is contractually required. It's how quietless quietly
this became a transaction that many residents are only learning about as it's being finalized. This is not a criticism of any one individual, but it is a question about process. Residents shouldn't have to file an OPER request and piece together redevelopment agreements just to understand what's
happening to the land their government and thereby they own. Transparency shouldn't require detective work. Accountability shouldn't begin after important decisions have already been made. This isn't the first time the township has transferred publicly owned property to this developer. The former
library building was sold to Mr. Albert for $1 million. And it's also been stated publicly that approximately $500,000 was later returned to this developer from an escro fund for the certificate of occupancy. That project also promised community space for seniors. Yet earlier this year, the
administration proposed converting that promised space into municipal offices before the council rejected that proposal. I'm raising this history for one reason. It illustrates why residents deserve transparency before public assets change hands, not after the terms
have evolved. That's why I'm asking about the purchase price and the adjustment language tonight before the vote. First, the base purchase price of $1.5 million was established in the two 2017 interim agreement under the 2021 redevelopment agreement. This number
isn't appraised. In fact, it is reduced by a formula that includes normally incurred costs for demolition, the middleman property acquisition, underground storage tank removal, and additional future deductions from remediation and development costs that are still being determined. So what is
the current total of that of those future deductions be being distract excuse me being subtracted from the 1.5 million purchase price tonight and how was that figure calculated? Second the first amendment adopted in March allows preliminary construction whileation
continues and per developer to take title before remediation is complete. protections does the township retain if issues arrive or arise or the project is delayed again after title transfers? Third, is affordable housing still part of this redevelopment? If so, how many
affordable housing units are required? Fourth, the March amendment requires the redevelopment to post a bond within 60 days of execution in an amount to be mutually agreed upon by the township and the redeveloper. Was that bond amount ever agreed upon? Was the required bound
posted by the deadline? and if so, what is the amount of the bond? If those answers are available tonight, I respectfully ask that they be provided before council votes on this resolution. I want to reiterate this is the public lands. If the township has reached a point where this agreement cannot
realistically be reconsidered, I want to know when that point occurred and why the public wasn't brought into that conversation sooner. This will not be the last redevelopment project involving public assets. Residents need to trust these decisions while meaningful choices
are still on the table, not after they've become irreversible. When the township owns the land, transparency isn't optional. Residents deserve to understand the track transaction before ownership changes hands. They deserve to know what is being conveyed, what the
public is receiving in return, what protections remained after closing, and why this still today, remember this is a 2017 agreement, represents the best outcome for West Orange. This is what accountability requires. This is what good government looks like. And before
my time runs out, I would like to say if there is a way that we can kind of get all of these documents, especially when it concerns public land, this took me months to dig through ordinances dating back 10 years. And the lay person doesn't have that time. And so, how do we consolidate this and make sure that
residents are informed each step of the process before public assets change hands? Thank you so much. Appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> Um, over here, Justin, did you want to go next? Did you no >> trust in? >> Okay, Susan.
Susan Lick, Eagle Rock Avenue. At the last meeting, I asked the administration about the deal that it is making with 410 Main Street Holdings. The administration's response indicated concern about a leak from an executive
session. There was no leak. There are publicly accessible documents filed by the Superior Court of New Jersey Law, Division of Civil Cases related to this situation. On June 24th, 2026, Judge Aldo Russo
issued a court order that quote ordered that 410 Main Street Holdings LLC's withdrawal of its opposition to West Orange's motion for temporary immunity/interm restraints is accepted without prejudice
and is expressly conditioned upon the party's execution of a mutually acceptable written settlement agreement within 45 days of the entry of this order. End quote. So this is not a secret and the deadline for written
agreement is a non. The administration obviously does not want residents to know that their fate is being discussed behind closed doors. But we do know before this withdrawal of Main Street Holdings opposition, 410 Maine had been
consolidated with the other builder remedies lawsuits against West Orange. What is the status of those other lawsuits? Has the township been granted immunity against those cases? If those cases are still pending, then
why did the township make a deal with 410 Main Street? Why not wait for a decision on the other lawsuits? Why target the community in the 410 area? This feels like a knife in the back to everyone who lives in the 410
vicinity. The administration has sacrificed the well-being of an entire community for a grand total of two affordable housing units tacked on at the last minute to the original application in a desperate effort to get the applicant's atrocious building
approved. Two units. How many affordable housing units is West Orange required to build? In the likelihood that 410 Main Street Holdings will be permitted to build the monstrosity that had originally proposed, they will create dangerous
conditions for the residents in the surrounding area. Adding insult to injury is this is that this application was denied by the planning board in December 2024 after a concerted and organized effort by residents who opposed it.
Clearly, by this administration's backroom agreement, this neighborhood is dismissed and disrespected. Your clear message to the residents is that they don't matter and are not worthy of your consideration. I remind you that you are here to serve
all the taxpaying citizens of West Orange. Choosing to reneg on the planning board's decision and settle this case out of court seems easy, like you aimed for lowhanging fruit. Yes. sacrificed the neighborhood down the hill, the residents who skew blue
collar. The focus of the administration and the council must be on the well-being and the common good of the whole community and not on any developer's desire to maximize profits at the expense of residents. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. Anyone else over here want to make public comment? Justin. Good evening, Justin Goldzman, West Orange. Um, just special thank you to all of our newly promoted officers and to Jarrett once again. And, uh, it's
also National Coast Guard Day, so to anyone who served, thank you. Um, briefly on the bill list, there's several payments to higher rural for consulting services. I'm just asking if those are additional fees or if they're itemized accounting since we use them as
a contractual um obligation since we don't have a town planner. Um there is an $1,100 payment to Tran Isabelle and Sadiki. I'm just curious what professional services were made with them as that law firm is no longer associated with us and I'm just asking if that's related to the library and
settlement agreements that I had been asking about um on the central a property. Thank you for my colleagues and neighbors for asking those very diligent questions. Um, on agenda item 214 relating to 762 Pleasant Valley Way,
I believe at some point there were concerns over wetland status or suitability for development issues and forested steep slope areas. Can we just speak to the status of this proposed development and any environmental concerns that may be present? Resolution 224. I'm glad to see the
traffic calming measures like those four LED flashing signs near Gregory. Uh we all know the traffic uh and safety issues that exist there. My question is with theou itself. No price is outlined in theou on the agenda. So I'm just wondering if anyone can speak to the
projected cost associated on resolution 226 to extend our snow service contracts. Um I'm just wondering if there's any room um as we discuss those extensions to collaborate with the board of education for the opportunity of shared services. We have two separate
contracts and vendors. Those are additional expenses to everyone as the taxpayer. So the opportunity to work collaboratively should be something that we seek. um on 2983 the the parking program on [snorts] POT um um
just have a question because we've obviously many many meetings and residents well before I just questioning how we ended up going from conversations about two to four to now all vehicles as outlined in the ordinance.
every registered vehicle to a home in an or area that already has limited parking spots is going to create overflow elsewhere. I will let everyone else speak to that issue, but I would just urge you that as POT gets finalized because it is important and it must be done that we go to get those other five
streets done ASAP because we're taking one street offline and adding more parking to those areas. So ideally, we should have had all six of these separate unique ordinances done, presented them all at once, and voted on them all at the same time so that we're not creating overlog on other streets.
Favorite topic for the night, 2984, the bond ordinance for over $3 million for various sewer infrastructure improvements. I'm going to get tired of being the storm water and infrastructure guy, but I want to highlight again that a storm water utility would generate
dedicated annual revenue to offset these capital improvements. Maplewood's utility generates $800,000 annually for storm water infrastructure needs through its utility. A utility would not only help us with flooding and infrastructure, but it would help us have a unique, untouchable revenue
stream that would help us begin paying down our debt on infrastructure, avoid the politics of deciding where to spend what monies, and minimize the need to bond for long-term projects like this. So, I think that's something that we should be looking into. Three non-aggenda items. The Essex Union joint
meeting has been in the news a lot lately due to concerns over potential contamination and odors. Just wondering if anyone can speak to any impact that that may have on our township. Um on the at the uh May 26th council meeting, I said the exact following words and I quote, "Doing this now, meaning a
moratorum propos before a proposed data center finds its way onto a planning or zoning board agenda gives us an easier time to address them as opposed to litigate and to fight them later." End quote. Monroe Township is now facing a $300 million lawsuit because a data center wants to come to town. the town
doesn't want it, but they, as we all know, cannot tell a business that they don't want to come to town just because they don't like the business. I'm asking us again to be proactive to protect our environment and to put the moratorium in place. You can repeal that later if necessary, but doing that now avoids
expensive legal sentiments and litigation down the road. Lastly, real quick, but also important, I saw a post that our police department uses Admia. Admia is a French identity and security software company. It's been in the news a lot lately as it relates to how certain individuals wound up on voter
roles, but also with concerns over TSA and biometric concerns. Um, not questioning our police department at all. I just want us to be cognizant that the software that we are using is national news about reconsidering its use for TSA and I don't want us to see us get roped into somehow mistaken
identity or issues related to our software. So, if anyone can speak to that, that'd be great. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else over here want would like to speak before I go to the right side? Okay. Yes. >> Could you give us your name and your
address? >> Maxwell Duben from 180 Gregory Avenue. And thank you so much again for the attention of the council and your time as well as trying to keep our community safe. Um, I was recently brought aware to resolution 224 to make Gregory Avenue
more safe regarding the traffic signs. I might argue that I'm the most affected by this particular ordinance as it was put in front of my house today at 8:30 in the morning. And so, pardon me for not having a written speech prepared.
I'm speaking from my heart as a resident that's concerned about my family because we previously had an accident on our driveway backing out that was documented where we were struck by someone that was distracted or unable to see us coming out of our driveway. While I completely
share our residents concern and the council's concern regarding the uh the speed that people drive on our street, I will say that this um this sign is currently obstructing an existing traffic sign uh that is indicating the
curvature in the road prior. And I have several photos I can submit to the council that show that it's blocking that sign and obstructing view which may confuse and endanger drivers which would unfortunately uh potentially be like an actionable
offense under New Jersey Municipal Land Use Law NJSA 40 col 55D-1 where actually I'm sorry I misited it was um just um unfortunately miss of
official uh just misconduct where um unfortunately Well, I'm sorry. Give me just one moment again. I kind of just got this all together just prior to the meeting. So, I'm sorry. Yeah, thank you. I appreciate that. It was New Jersey Municipal Land Use Law NJSA4
55D- C uh-1 where um it's a localized safety hazard. So, I just want to make sure like I I honestly haven't really eaten a single thing today since kind of this happening or speaking to uh Lieutenant
Thomas Mcmanis who like informed me he thought it was the best location for it and that it would fall under the jurisdiction of the traffic bureau but and and he wanted to ensure that it was available and visible to folks prior to e meeting the intersection and so um
while I don't think he was like trying to purposefully uh mislead us. I did do a little bit of research into the particular sign that was selected for that um intersection and that sign has visibility. It's the MPH Industries
Speed Monitor full matrix 3 message trailer. And it'll display the distance ether the speed rather of the car from 1,00 to 1,250 ft from the sign itself versus if a car is driving at 50 mph, it
takes 221 to 224 uh 243 rather uh feet in order to come to a complete stop. I don't think anyone's going more than 50 miles per hour hopefully on Gregory Avenue and hopefully but um that being said um it can certainly be moved to the
proper I mean the area where one it's not obstructing a driveway and clearly endangering like my wife my family like my mother who's of older age obviously and might be backing out and have a difficulty seeing and just anyone kind of that local area as well as confusing
drivers by obstructing the curvature and the road sign and therefore kind of defeating the purpose of that sign. And so if we could potentially move it to where the blinking light is on the corner of Northfield and Gregory Place where they're, you know, the the property owner signed up for having a
blinking light on their property and it won't be obstructing a driveway and endangering a local resident. I think that would meet the council's goals much better than keeping it in front of my house where it's endangering my family. And also like you know my wife has sleeping issues. It's going to be a
light that's constantly on throughout the night. And like we weren't consulted for this, you know, location of the sign. And I expressed my concern to Lieutenant Thomas Mcmanis. I don't know if that was documented and if the record can reflect now that I did complain to
him this 8 at 8:30 this morning prior to it was a brief complaint cuz I was on my way to work and so also pardon my dress. I just came directly from work in order to come. I was very pleased to see that we could hopefully come to a quick resolution on this because luckily we have a town council meeting today. But if we could just have this uh signed
relocated as soon as possible so that my wife's not losing sleep and that I'm not potentially getting into another accident in front of my home. And like the previous accident was so bad I couldn't leave my car. Like I was smashed in my door and had to leave the driver's seat from the passenger seat.
Like it could have very easily injured me or it could injure my family members. So, I really like applore implore the town council to as soon as possible like relocate the sign to a more suitable location. Thank you. >> Thank you for your very thorough assessment. I too was struck on Gregory Avenue. I'm at 343.
>> Yeah. Nice to meet a neighbor, but not under the circumst. And I also I also could say I had the pleasure of voting for a lot of the council members on currently on council and I appreciate immensely each of your service. I think I've had the pleasure of having some of you visit my home personally and so
certainly you know it's a it's a hard spot to take to back out of if we could make sure that it's a little safe from our >> address it later. So much for coming and sharing your concern. Anyone else over here? Yes. I'm swimming. >> Joy. Nice to see you again.
>> Nice to see you again. >> Nice to see everybody again. How are you? >> Um um Joy Bernett Pelot Place. Um I only had two questions about the ordinance. So the same question that Justin um
raised about it being all um vehicles where we previously I discussed it would be four. >> Um and then the only other thing is that I would like to ask if we can have the permits issued out of the substation in
the valley because that seems to would seem to make the most sense instead of having everybody drive over here. >> Okay. And that's it. >> Talk about that. >> I do want to say though that I um I did
notice the um the pedestrian uh pedestrian uh crosswalk with the sign up by Shopright, >> which is really I think it's really good, but nobody's stopping for people like and they're speeding like I I stopped for someone and people are like
blowing behind, you know? So I I don't know what you can do about that, but it's like a raceway. And there was a gentleman like standing with a dog and the light was flashing and everything and people were just stilling >> speeding by. And I mean that that little stop sign the stop signs they put on
Rollins are the same thing. I mean I know that the police actually have been really good about sitting on Glenn >> and coming down and you know and yeah and catching people and ticketing them. But it's just so much like it's I walked my dog and it's just really I've twice
this week someone almost hit me in a crosswalk. >> So like I don't know what we can do. But it really is very scary. Like I I see kids in my neighborhood riding scooters and bikes >> and people are just not stopping. It's like the stop signs don't exist.
>> Yeah. It's a problem. >> Yeah. So but thank you for sharing. >> Anyone else over here? Miss Fields Murphy. Good evening everyone. Kimfields Murphy Quinnby Place. It's nice to see that some movement
toward remediating the problem, the parking problem um in Valley is taking place. Uh to my understanding, Osborne has parking restrictions and PET and Quinnby are closer to getting parking restrictions. Those uh changes are
appreciated. However, considering the primary problem stems from Satan Hall Prep students parking on residential streets instead of in their designated parking lot, I'm confused as to why parking is not being restricted on all
the streets in the valley. Uh, is there a plan? Will the other streets be included? Uh, off the top of my head, I'm thinking of Swain, Rigs, Nutman, and Mitchell. And how? Because again, we're just
displacing the problem and spreading the the burden instead of remediating it. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else over here? Okay. >> Yeah, go right ahead. >> Good evening, Joseph Panulo. Uh, 200
foot notice area, West Essex Highlands and Essex Fels. Um, a quick update on a few things. Happy to be here this evening. The last time I was here, we anticipated an appeal to be filed by the developer in
the West Essex Highlands application. That appeal was filed on Friday, July 24th, and it was filed in Mount Laurel court, action and prerogative writ. And the developer is seeking three things, and uh two of those things are
essentially counts against the township for failing to act in good faith and deal fairly and breaching of the settlement agreement. The other is to ask the court to essentially override the town planning board's decision after 30 meetings, thousands of pages of
transcripts, no minutes, and dozens of testimony from over a dozen weare experts. In the record, um that Essex County docket number is
594026 for anybody who wants to know. I would like this township to know and you have heard me say this before here that the developer was an intervenor in the third round and they filed this appeal in that
old under that old docket number 469715 Essex County law and they're seeking to enforce a settlement from six years ago and they're accusing the town of doing certain things which the town a did not know and b could not have known at the time
did not be true and a lot of the things that were known to be true were not disclosed to the court by the town attorney at the time, not the current town attorney, but the developers attorney. There's a lot of documentation that show why this property, this project, this site alone did not meet
eligibility criteria under the law in the third round and still again in the fourth round. It was not available, approvable, developable or suitable. There are a number of allegations made in that appeal. Uh, I expect that we
care will move to intervene. I don't expect the township of West Orange to defend vigorously the planning board decision for different reasons. Among them, the town's in a tough spot. But I would like to come to the defense of this council now and the council that
was here in 2020 that had to this this complaint reads like an extortion agreement and a and a court complaint. The town was at the behest of the intervenor. The developer was an intervenor in the in the third round. There was one other
that's Redwood. Just incidentally, Redwood a month ago asked for a one-year extension for it to submit a plan in the third round. We're talking about 2027. Before that even gets heard, the two interveners in the third round won't
have pro projects built or affordable housing units running in this town if and before 2030. That's a fault of fair share housing council that's not doing its job to asssure that affordable units get designed and put into places where there's a realistic opportunity and they
meet criteria. That's not the town's problem. The town's problem was that it was put under a gun by the developer who sat at the table to define and negotiate the entire township's affordable housing obligation for which a 100 units were destined to go along with 400 more units
on 30 acres at the top of the watch second ridge when 20 years prior 25% less units were denied on four times that amount of land. There's a reason that happened then and there's a reason
this was coerced now. So I would like there are three other actions pending. I have talked about them before but I'll just let you know that in there are three pending D appeals, three different appellants for the D permits that were
issued. We care along with New Jersey Conservation Foundation represented by Eastern Environmental Law Center. That's at the appellet division awaiting a date to be set for oral arguments. In 516725 Essex County Law Docket, there's an action the developer is defending
against for violations of a master deed and prior settlement agreements with the former we care for interior circulation and access because it's a culde-sac with one way in and one way out. There's 1,200 more cars. It defied RSIs under this rule. There's no sanitary sewer,
portable water, mass trans public transit. There's not even a snap location within three miles. This thing doesn't meet criteria. This is going to be an appeal that will go forward. I would like the township to know that you are not without an affirmative defense to the claims and the assertions and the
counts made in that action that all the evidence is in the hands of people at weare and myself. And I would like you to know, don't be afraid to oppose this. We will help you do that. I will help you do that. This never should have happened. This problem is larger than West Orange. [clears throat] This is a
statewide problem. You're just a worst case example. >> Thank you, Mr. >> Sorry, Karen. >> Always wonderful to see you. >> Yes, >> Rachel. Come on out. >> So, everything Mr. P Rachel Klein will drive everything Mr. Panilla said,
obviously I completely concur with um and building on it. Um we're heading right into the same mistakes again that were made when dealing with this land. 762 Pleasant Valley Way is not a suitable site for
any building, not even for a single home. I grew up, my best friend lived um his parents still live on Westman Drive. Westman Drive is too close to the exit on 280. This proposed building would be between the exit on 280 and Westmin
Drive. Where do you plan to have the cars come out? Do you plan to knock a house down on Westmin Drive? Westmin Drive is still not a safe exit. It's got about 25 homes in it. It's tough. It's tight. We have to park there sometimes if there's a big synagogue event, but
combined with the tra high traffic off 280, especially with all the developments around us and then the um the new apartments traffic, what what would the plan be? And if you're going to have a traffic study, that should be paid for by the developer. The town
should never be paying for this stuff. You have the opportunity again to not fall into the same mistakes that you did. We fought really hard at the planning board. we're with experts and um public testimony. We'll do it we'll do it again. Um and also it's forested
land which again goes against the Mount Laurel doctrine itself. You're not supposed to be knocking down forests to be putting up affordable housing. It's literally in the Mount Laurel doctrine. Just because someone privately owns it does not mean it's suitable. Something Mr. Pull likes to point out all the time. Yeah, it's available. It's not
suitable. Yeah, it's on a main drag, but it's not accessible. The other thing is I want to just warn you 155 Prospect. It may look good, but there's been a stable right next door to it since the 1800s and we and the residents will be
fighting tooth and nail. And if the owner of that building thinks that he can out can meet us, he should go talk to Mr. Will. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else here who on this side who'd like to make public comment?
No. Seeing none, I'd like to make a motion to close public comment. >> Second. >> Second. >> Second. A motion to close. >> Second. >> Okay. >> All in favor? >> Any opposed? >> Should I go this way? >> Public comments. It doesn't matter. I
could go. >> Okay. Go ahead. Go. >> Okay. Councilwoman Castelino. >> Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. I apologize. Uh >> would you like to Yeah. Would you like to I >> I would just >> comment on any and all of these that you >> Well, when you feel it's appropriate,
I'll comment uh council president. Uh but I wanted to interject not so that I speak to those events, but >> uh to uh caution the council not to speak on uh the matters of or 10 uh or
uh the uh west uh ethics uh litigation. >> Okay. So basically that's what um we had here. 410 Main Street, 762. >> Yes. And so they're all
>> and 18 Central Avenue as well. >> 18 Central Avenue. Uh our redevelopment >> council. Yeah. >> Yeah. Mr. Becklman's coming. Uh so to the extent that you would like Mr. Beckman to address uh any of the questions, he would be the one to ask. I
understand he's not going to be here for about another 20 minutes. >> Okay. So, when he arrives, we'll let him answer those questions. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. And Mr. Smealdo, did you want to take um any of the any of the other ones about the bond ordinance?
>> Bond ordinance. I would turn to this better than I >> let you guys all >> you like Mr. respond to that. >> Yes. Council President, I just want to remind everyone to please speak into your microphones because when I watch the videos when I'm doing my minutes, I
cannot hear okay what people are saying. >> Thank you for reminding us, >> Mr. What's the question about the bond ordinance? Um, there was a question about the bond ordinance for the sewer and whether we should have the sewer. Just
>> I think that the comment about it was a storm water uh utility >> utility. The benefits of a of a storm water utility and I agree um with Mr. Goldsman. a storm water utility uh
you know could could pay for and the engineer sitting to the side of me would would be able to speak more to the projects that we could do with a storm water utility. But yeah, I mean I I'm all in favor of of
uh studying it um figuring out a way that we could properly assess um the township. you know, what would that what would that fee be? How much would we need per year? You know, again, how how do you and we have some
templates out there? Uh I think we brought up Maplewood. Is it Maplewood? >> Maybe. >> Yeah. So, you know, we could see what other communities have done and how they've they've assessed uh their residents. So, you know, there's there's some some data to go on. But yeah, I I I
I'm in agreement uh that we need to pursue that at the very least study it. Um as far as as far as the ordinance itself, I don't know if there was a specific question about it, but >> Okay. I know Miss Carbalo has spoken about this many times, her plans to try
to address this. I don't know if there was anything you wanted to say. And if you could take the question about the Gregory sign, do you is that something you can handle now? Good evening. Um, with regards to system water utility, like I said once before,
um, DP did have a grant >> um, approximately in 2022 and it was for many municipalities to conduct the preliminary disability study. M >> um in order for us to be able to do that, we will have to basically pay out of pocket now because those grants I
haven't seen them since then. Um I mean I could put an RFP together in the future and see you know what results do we get. I mean it is a process. It's not going to happen overnight. Uh once you do the preliminary physibility study
you got to get the community engaged. Then you have to do a final visibility study. Then you got to get the stakeholders um involved as well. And then obviously there will be an ordinance for its creation as well as the fee that comes
along with the storm water utility >> because that mean the residents will have to pay a fee in order for this to work >> and it would only be used for storm water. So most of the stuff if I'm not mistaken that I see in the bond ordinance they deal with the sanitary. So it doesn't mean that the money from
there will be utilized for the sanitary work. It's two different things. >> Okay. And the Gregory sign I know >> on that. >> Yeah, sure. >> Um, what type of fee do are you talking about? How much? >> It will depend. We will have to look at
other municipalities. We will have to come up with the total amount of impervious coverage within the township. They will come up with a rate per lot based on how much coverage they have. It could range from $50 or it could range
to $100. I know there's a few municipalities in the state of New Jersey do that have sort of established or taken like the initiative with the stormwater utility. You got New Brunswick, you got Maplewood, you got Readin. Um so it could range you know
depending on the size and everything. So we will have to see because it will be for the residents, it will be for the businesses, schools and etc. >> And could you offer any clarity to the Gregory problem with the sign?
>> Um I found out about the 183. Oh, I'm sorry. Council storm water. >> Yeah. So just real quick. So are you saying the storm water it would be fee for every resident like we do with the sewer tax? The sewer fee >> basically res. >> Yes. and it would only be allocated for
a storm water. Basically, the those funds or that fee will be utilized for anything that has to do with a storm water management including, you know, permitting. We need to be in compliance with D. It could be utilized for all the mapping that they request. It could be
utilized for cleaning the catch basin, sweeping the streets. It could be uh utilized for any of the improvements to the infrastructure throughout the years, you know, for our capital improvements. We could, you know, utilize it for anything that has to do with new inlets
or basins, uh replacement or enlargement of any pipes once we have an asset management plan and we know for sure what the capacity of the storm sewers are. Other than that, like you know, that's basically what you will use it for. Yes. >> What would be the downside of establishing that right away?
Why wouldn't we do why wouldn't we establish a um a utility a storm water utility? >> I'm not saying not to establish a storm water utility, but once again, it has to be also welcomed by the residents. >> Have you worked in other municipalities
where they've had this? >> Like I said, this is something fairly new. It actually was established by law in 2019. Okay. Mhm. >> And like I said, one of the few municipalities that have it established is New Brunswick, Ratin, Maplewood, and
I know there is one more. And I know in 2022, that's when the state of New Jersey came out with the grand availabilities for the um preliminary physibility study. Unfortunately, the township didn't take advantage of that at that time. So, we
will have to pay out of pocket and it's not going to be cheap. going to be six figure number. But like I said, I could do an RFP and see what responses we get >> and maybe contact the other municipalities that have done this already to see where we can go from there. >> That's it.
>> Okay. And the Gregory >> tax as well. >> I'm sorry. >> There's a tax associated with that. Correct. >> It's a fee. >> A fee imposed on the res. >> Yeah. Not a tax, but a year. >> It's public open space where it would be a set rate. It's uh it's like any other
sewer water sewer utility fee. Yes. >> Now, the Gregory the problem with Gregory where the sign is placed and the type of sign could >> Well, I found out about the 183 Gregory Avenue this morning when I saw the email from the resident. >> Okay. >> Um all I can say to the resident is um
and basically to every resident in the township, they need to understand that they do not own the frontage of the street. Basically, there is a rideway. Okay, there is a roadway width in every single one of those roads. Uh,
typically a county road is about 66 foot rideway. Um, the municipalities have a 50ft rideway and that's typically basically a 30 foot road width of pavement from curb to curb and then 10
ft behind it makes the 50. Then typically from the center line of the road on a carony road which is Gregory Avenue you will go 33 feet on each side and county roads are typically wider say about 40 ft or so. So counties and municipalities are
typically have the right to install what they need to install like signage utilities within that right of way. I will defer to our um chief of police in regards to the um installation of the sign today. Um and I'm sure him and I
can discuss and see if like there is any other location, but understand that if it is to be moved from there, another resident might not want it there. The truth of the matter is it seems like nobody wants anything in front of their property or in their backyard. >> Yes.
>> So, from what I'm hearing though, I didn't get a chance to to drive by there. >> [clears throat] >> Um, it's kind of blocking your drive the driveway. >> Yeah. >> Um, on your uh >> So, so I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Um, sir,
there's there isn't any correspondent back and forth with the >> No, no, no. I'm sorry. Like, we're not supposed to have dialogue during the meeting. No, no, that's okay. That's okay. That's what I'm trying to >> You're first timer. Don't >> just shake your head yes or no if I'm getting it right. So I So I believe the
issue from what I heard this evening was that it where the sign is is obstructing his view with the driveway. >> I said I found out about the sign this morning. I I was not involved. >> However, like I said, it is a public right away.
>> No, no, I get that. But if it blocks anyone's view, whether it's this one to the police on that, I >> I appreciate that you will investigate it. Don't leave just Yeah. Yeah. the chief could come up and then I have just one more thing. >> Yeah. Nobody's view should be blocked from their driveway should be the
answer. >> And I was going to ask you to talk about the software thing anyway. So you could talk about this and then the software. >> Okay. First that the it's the speed trailer you're talking about. The uh it's movable. It's not permanent. This is the one that I spoke to the council. I was trying to get before school
opening to have placed. the first spot we wanted to do it was on Gregory Avenue prior to school opening because of all the issues we do have on Gregory Avenue. I um take great confidence in the traffic bureau and where they deployed it. Um what I will do is review it with
them and the command staff and see if there could be a better location. Just keep in mind Gregory Avenue is very unique and anywhere we put it is not going to be ideal for someone. But this is what we wanted to do prior to the school opening and with all the issues
we have on Gregory Avenue. That's why we bought the speed trailer and the number one priority was Gregory Avenue for deployment and that's where it is. >> I appreciate that. >> I will absolutely take the resident's concern into account and discuss with the traffic bureau if there is a better
location. Just keep in mind it's very narrow, very windy. We want people to see their speed. We need compliance with the speed on that roadway. The officers are out there every morning. I hope the residents do see them. They've been conducting radar just about every day,
staff permitting. They've been issuing citations and we're trying to prepare for school opening. This is one of the mechanisms we have to use to get the drivers attention. I will absolutely take a look at it, though. I >> I appreciate all you're do you've done and also on Ken's Terrace. I've gotten
lovely feedback from they're so appreciative of the respectful manner that all of the officers have been doing the work and ticketing the right people. >> Good. I appreciate that. And I'll relay the sentiments. There was something else you want to mention.
>> Yes, Chief. just wanted to um ask if you if you do move it um or if you do decide if your if your uh department decides that it needs to stay there, can there be communication directly with the resident who is most directly affected?
Mr. Dublin is saying that it the light is going directly into his house. So if that is going to be staying there, there needs to be communication and some sort of um solution that would make make it more tolerable for him or for any other resident. >> I understand completely. Not a problem.
>> And the only other thing was um Mr. Goldsman had uh some comment about the software, some concerns about the software that we're using. >> Yeah, I have to talk with the IT manager on that. Um and maybe Mr. Goldman, maybe you could email me that information so I can look into that. I don't want to
comment without speaking to the IT manager and what that is applied. >> Okay. Great. Thank you for all your question. So with the speed trap it you move it right. So it's not going to be there permanently. >> Right. It's a speed trailer that we're going to deploy townwide. The first
deployment was actually Gregory Avenue. >> You maneuver it to. It's not being >> it's a trailer with a display board. So it's going to be movable. Yeah. But Gregory Rabin was definitely the first priority of where it was going. >> Oh yeah, we have lots of problems, but >> we'll try.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Very good. Thank you so much for all you do. >> Yeah. And there was just we can move with that. >> There was just one thing Mr. Smaldo. I think um Justin had asked about the snow removal and if we had done looked at any shared services with the BOE.
>> So we're actually pulling this tonight because of the recommendation of Mr. Semero just to review the contracts a little bit more diligently. But the issue is that uh we are seeking as the administration to opt into you utilizing the um current contract and exercise
under local public contracting law to to add to say we want to do this because the contract was negotiated when fuel was a lot cheaper. >> When we looked into doing the uh if we did this we would have to look at today's price. That'd be one thing to be taken into consideration. And
additionally, I spoke to Mr. Moore last week and asked him if he would like to enter into and he said at this time they're not currently ready or available to do that. However, we will be looking to work to share services with them where need be in in whether other
matters or even if there becomes a snowstorm. Both he and I are of the same opinion that we hope we get no snow at all this winter. But um I think that's the sentiment of most people in here. But we did have that conversation last week and so you know anything we could do to help out the schools we would
certainly be able to do. >> Great. Yeah. As I talk to residents the shared service comes up all the time because of the you know devastating um >> but you know this was this was priced out when fuel was a lot lower and that fuel is at a lot higher now. So so that would
reflect if we go out that would reflect that would be reflected in the costs. >> Right. [clears throat] All right. Great. Did you have a question, council? >> Uh, no. In regards to those, M in response to Mrs. Moraldo, I had two been constantly since that last snow f the
two snowstorms that township had to jump in to assist the school district about chair service agreement. And so, uh, I understand our side of it >> and, uh, I know the school board's contracts didn't line up and that's usually a problem, too, that they do
need to line up >> uh, with the timing with ours. Um, but yeah, it would be great if we could have any shared service possible, but >> Okay. Well, you can continue to work on that since you're school's representative. >> Yeah. >> Thank you for all you do. Would you like
to go on do your p your response to public comment? >> Sure. you know, thank thank you everyone for coming down and I appreciate uh Mac coming here tonight and and being concerned um and rightfully so. And I I know the chief will, you know, saw him
texting already uh jumping on it. So, uh hopefully you'll be able to remediate that for you. Um you know, speeding heard a lot about that this evening. Uh it's it's insane and and Joy, your comments and Kim's your comments as
well. I just can't believe how people fly through these crosswalks. I've utilized the crosswalk at the Edison Museum and Thomas Hennis Museum and you know flashing sign and I just can't believe people just zip right down Main Street and they're not even paying
attention. And I don't know what it's going to take. I really I really don't. I know we have a lot of um county traffic that comes through here um which is both on Gregory Avenue and Main Street and that's been a challenge for many many years. But today I was coming
up on the Parkway from South Jersey and it's insane the way people are driving. You had four accidents on on the way and they weren't pretty. So I just hope a lot of folks uh slow down which um you know I just want to go to Mr. Fagan's
comments real quick. you know, we have all this that we're trying to do with speeding and traffic and I see the ebike last week. I had to contact the the chief. You know, kids were racing around the ebikes coming down steep hills right into Valley Way and my heart just sank.
And um you know, folks, if you're watching us from home, you have gota, you know, if your child has one of those ebikes, you need to pay attention where they're driving and where they're going because there are accidents waiting to be ha happen. And uh kids will be kids.
My kid was, you know, uh years ago on skateboards going down a hill and now we got these electric ebikes and you just got to be on top of them. So everybody needs to do their port in our community, but we're also battling a lot of drivers that are not in our community. And we're
just going to keep working it and and hope hopefully something will click. Um but maybe the pedestrian safety committee um I forget who our liaison is for that could um put more educational
materials out there. Um and it's just been really stressful. But I I do thank uh Miss Carbala, our chief and our administration for working the problem and uh we'll just keep working it uh as long as we can. in regards to a lot of
uh comments about developments. Um, you know, our attorney uh spoke wisely and um we will have close session uh in a little bit. So again, I'm not going to comment, but I do appreciate the uh comments from the residents and their
concerns because we are all concerned about affordable housing and overdeveloping our beautiful community and uh it gets frustrating. In regards to the comments about 18 central place and uh C Central Avenue, I appreciate um
you know, Jackie came in and and educated yourself. I was on the council back then when we approved the redevelopment agreements and our redevelopment attorney's here and he could explain some some things, but you know, we're bounded by certain contracts and um we'll you know, we have that
information. We feel comfortable uh with him here this evening. will be able to pass that. But we are we do have obligations um that we do have to honor and uh but we will talk about that when we get to those resolutions.
Um let's see. Traffic development. I'm going to keep it short so we could um move on. But I do want to uh congratulate all our promotions this evening with our police department. very proud uh first uh female police sergeant
Karen Mango uh and we appreciate all her service and all our police department service. Uh War will Will is Will still here? He left. Will Ardone? I gotta comment on him. I would be remiss if I didn't make a comment. Uh Mr. Fagan, thank you. Will has been part of our
Downtown Alliance family for many years. He also went through the high school's uh RO junior ROC program and it's just very touching uh to see him fulfill his
uh service requirements and just so proud of Will. He's a fine young man and um and watching him grow through the years and see all that he has accomplished has really really been uh heartwarming. I was really glad to see
him here this evening uh outside. I got a chance to speak with him and uh and just you know thank God he came back to us safe. So a great job uh will and thank you Mr. Fagan for bringing it up. There he is. There he is. Thank you council president.
>> Okay Councilman Kobe you like to go next? >> Yeah I was going to say if Mr. Becklman is here. >> Yes. >> Uh maybe he wants to answer any questions that you think should >> Yeah. Maybe we could ask our questions and and he could come up as we ask the question. I could re reiterate what some
of them were that were asked and you could about the purchase price, the appraisal. >> Can we wait till we pull it because it gets too confusing when we do it. Now, >> why don't you articulate any questions you have and Okay, we pull it. I'll I'll I'll converge all the questions.
>> I I don't have any questions at this point, but I do want to salute Mr. Gibbons and Miss Hendy for raising these issues because they raise a lot of good uh a lot of issues and good questions >> about
>> the sale of township property. And of course, as we all know, township property is actually owned by all of you guys. We are here as representatives. You guys are the ones who own this property. And that's why we need to be even more careful about how we handle uh
township assets particularly when we are in a situation we're in now a a difficult very difficult financial situation. So uh I think Mr. Gibbons mentioned that the that the stated price of the two parcels on Central Avenue was
supposed to be $1.5 million. It's not that. It's not even close to that because under a rather complicated contract, uh, the seller is able to deduct a lot of expenses and instead of $1.5 million
at this point, it's less than $570,000. >> So, there is a significant discount being applied here. The other issue that we have, and I think uh, Miss Hendy mentioned this about Mr. Albert, Mr. Albert has done great great things for
affordable housing and for disabled housing in uh in New Jersey, but he is also a very good business person. When he bought the property uh the old library that we had, he bought it for a
million dollars. It was a negotiated fee. There was no appraisal. Guess what? Apparently, from all we can tell, there's not an appraisal here for the two properties either. >> And I am not going to vote to approve
this unless we get an appraisal that tells us how much that property is worth. If it's if it's worth more than uh the $ 1.5 million, we should get that money for the benefit of residents. If it's less than that, then we've made a
good deal. But we don't know just like we don't know with the library what that market value of that property was and we don't know what it is now. So those are just two major issues with this with this project that uh hopefully we will address uh at some point.
Uh, Miss Lanchek, uh, as you have done for years, you asked very good questions and as you could also tell, uh, we are under guidance by the township attorney not to speak to these to these
issues. But I and I understand why Mr. Morero is concerned about this, but it I think this situation points to the potential downside of not being able to explain
uh what's going on here and you leave people thinking in many cases the worst of what's going on when it may not necessarily be that way. But because we don't talk about it, we're not transparent. Uh we're making all these decisions based upon, you know,
potential legal issues. Uh that's what's left. And I'm I'm sorry to do that, but uh again, I have to follow Mr. Samero's guidance on this. Uh maybe Mr. Samero can speak to this. Maybe there's some
way that uh he can speak to information that is public through the litigation that's ongoing down in Newark. I I hope that's the case and I' I'd love if uh he could explain some of
these some of these other issues. Uh not just about uh this particular project, but there are other projects where we're moving on. And the projects are the subject of builder remedies lawsuits that uh put everything in the
court. Even though a lot of what we're doing is trying to see if we can negotiate settlements for for these lawsuits because if they go to court before a judge, we are likely to get hit even worse.
I've said this many times before and I think Mr. Smero has said it before. We're trying to negotiate these settlements because if we go to court, if we go to uh uh a trial, >> just just I would make one adjustment. I wouldn't say likely. I would say
possibly. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Yes. And I know why you're saying that, so I I apologize. I should be more tempered in my comments with regard to the judge in the in the case. Uh Mr.
Goldsman asked a question about the uh traffic calming uh signage and he asked what were the cost was. The cost is about $31,000 for four signs. Includes both equipment and installation. So this is not uh a cost
cost-free uh transaction here. Um Mr. Dubin, I appreciate you coming. if I pronounced that correctly. Uh, if you would do us all a favor and send an email with all of your photographs and any other rel what you consider to be
relevant information to council counil at westtor.org and that will get it to the people that uh are very interested and need to to see that. And please keep the council up to date
with what's with what progress uh you can make here. Uh just for brevity sake, that's all I have to say. >> Mr. Samero, did you want to offer anything else about 410 Main Street or or is it something about >> about um 410 Main Street or is there
nothing we more we can say? Well, uh, I I think that it would probably be something more global about the status of the affordable housing litigation matters that we're involved in. We could touch >> upon a couple of the sites uh as we go
down. I I I think it's important for the for everyone in the public to realize uh that when I was retained to be the township attorney, it was clear uh it was made clear to me
uh by by everyone uh that they wanted an attorney that was going to uh rigidly oppose overdevelopment in this township. Uh we understood that the position that we were in at the time
that I was retained, the township was in a very precarious position. uh the township had not done what it had to do in order to uh be immune uh from builder's remedy lawsuits
and uh because we were in in a bit of a quagmire and the fourth round affordable housing regulations were were new >> uh unlike the prior rounds. uh it was unclear uh exactly
how best uh to uh proceed with the township uh in order to uh protect its interests. I mean, we knew what we had to ultimately achieve. The path on how to get there wasn't uh abundantly clear. Uh so
we knew that we ended up having uh five and then a sixth builder remedy lawsuit uh filed against uh the township with the sixth one uh being uh the 410 Main Street. Uh that was
after the time period where the documentation seeking to uh had the court impose immunity from additional lawsuits uh be
uh was filed. So the 410 Main Street's in a it's in a fairly unique situation. That's why the uh uh settlement well I wouldn't say the settlement agreement that's why uh the
court order came in uh providing us an opportunity to uh try to resolve their claims uh so that they did not uh oppose our motion for immunity. Uh
there was something that was said and I apologize. I I I didn't catch uh the resident's name. >> Miss L. >> I'm sorry. >> Miss Lick L if you say so. And I do apologize. >> She spoke on for
>> uh uh she said something that was very uh poignant. Uh that we represent everyone in the township and we do and certainly uh that was made clear to me as well. Uh,
so I have to do my job when we're talking about the affordable housing globally in a way where it's going to have the least impact
upon the township as a whole. And the one thing that we do know is, and I'm not saying this to m minimize anybody's concerns, no matter what development is going to
ultimately be targeted, there's going to be people that are against it. There are going to be people that are inconvenienced by it. Uh the phrase is, you know, not in my backyard. And and again, I don't say that in a a minimizing fashion. uh everyone moves
into their community hoping that it, you know, they moved there for a reason. They wanted to stay that way. I mean, that I I get it. That's human nature. Uh unfortunately, our legislature and our Supreme Court didn't see it that way. uh and our legislature
uh well I should actually say uh the Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that the goal of providing affordable housing opportunities takes precedent over almost anything you could imagine.
that doesn't mean that we're rolling over, but when you're looking and and and litigating a matter. Uh you have to be realistic about what your exposures are and then you have to try to reach a settlement that uh is something less
than what your potential exposure is uh if possible. And and when you reach settlements, settlements are just that they're compromised. you know that you reached a good settlement when both sides are not particularly happy with it because that means that one side didn't
prevail so much against the other side. Um, and that's what I'm attempting to do. Uh I'm I'm contending with uh a uh keeping a fragile immunity order in place. And that immunity order is
imperative for this township. If anything is done that jeopardizes that immunity order, those six builder's remedy lawsuits could turn into 10 in a week. and we had to stop. Uh we had
to put our finger in the hole in the dam before we could sit there and start to figure out how best to get from point A to point B. Uh any resident in any town, I'm not singling out West Orange, could come up
and point out less than perfect circumstances about any parcel of land in New Jersey that's going to be developed. We are the d most densely populated state in the union. Uh
I represent both developers as well as municipalities. Even when I'm representing developers, the ideal piece of property is never there. There's always environmental constraints, pollution constraints, you know, traffic issues, uh zoning issues. Uh so we could
you know and and it's not improper for anybody to come forward and have a critique of a particular project. That's their god-given right. And truth be told, we do factor that in as best as we can uh with regard to all the properties
that we are in litigation with right now. Uh but it's never black and white. There's two sides to both stories. And then there's a third side. And that third side is what ultimately the court will do if it's forced to make a
decision in West Orange. However, if we get to the point where the court is going to make a decision, we will have lost immunity because that means that we're not negotiating and
resolving claims with these people. So we are in a very difficult position. With that being said, um I could say that uh with 762,
we have a resolution on the agenda tonight for us to hire a traffic engineer. that traffic engineer is to assist in the litigation so that I can have an independent traffic engineer evaluate the traffic data that the
developer is purporting applies to the site uh as uh it projects would be uh generated from this project. Uh so we don't take developers statements
>> uh as fact and and we do uh critique them and where appropriate we do uh obtain our own experts. Our planner being one of them. >> I would imagine that the planner's bill uh that I believe was Mr. Gman asked a
question about >> was undoubtedly related to this litigation. Uh so we are doing what we could do uh to mitigate and we are in mediation and we're working with a mediator and we're not rolling over.
We're we're fighting tooth and nail uh to come up with projects uh that minimize uh the inconvenience that affordable housing is going to have upon the township. Not because people don't want
to take care of uh people that have a financial need for assistance, but because it is handinhand with overdevelopment. >> So, we we're we're balancing those things as best we can. I I don't want uh the public to walk out thinking that
they're left in the dark because there's anything nefarious going on. Mhm. >> Uh we're in litigation and if anyone is a little skeptical about that, I would just ask that you think about it with this thought in mind. If you were in the
middle of litigation, would you want your attorney to be telling your adversary the strengths and weaknesses in your case? The answer is undoubtedly no. And unfortunately, uh, public meetings being what they are, we can't inform the public of anything
that we're not informing our adversary of. So, there's a reason why we keep things secret, and that's to keep the sanctity of the litigation uh, intact. It's so that we could actually advocate and and obviously do what is all
involved in the uh, litigation process. So, we do have to keep it secret. We don't mean to do that because anything secret is going on uh that's adverse to the interest of West Orange. Uh in the ultimate case of irony, the reality is
that we're keeping it secret because we are advocating for the best interest of West Orange. Uh and uh that's certainly uh what we discuss and it's it's certainly what my my charge has been. Uh that there's no agenda here that is adverse to the best interest of this
township. uh my job uh my duties were clearly uh laid out to me and that's what my agenda is and and I hope that that lends some clarity uh to the process. >> Uh and and the same thing with the West Essex litigation. >> Yeah.
>> Uh look there's no secret that we ended up having a settlement agreement associated with that project. There's no secret that the claim that was filed against the township, not the board, the township, has to do with allegations
that we breached that obligation. So, obviously, I'm going to have to defend that litigation >> and uh how that litigation impacts our affordable housing plan. I'm not at liberty to discuss publicly at this
point in time. uh I just uh accepted service of the of the complaint and over the next month or whatever I'll be preparing >> uh an answer >> and uh I think that that addresses
everything that I wanted to say on the developmental issue. >> It does and thank you very much for that very thorough explanation. I think you put a lot of things in context that residents have had um questions about
for a long time and I think they're they were able to hear a little bit about some of the difficulties that we all are dealing with as we move forward and try to do the best thing we can for the residents of our town. >> Okay. Council me go back. >> No, no, I was I was finished.
>> Okay. >> Thank you. >> All right. You finished? >> Yeah, I'm done. >> Okay. Councilwoman Ruden. Sure. Um, I know we all need to move forward. Um, what has happened has happened, but I just want to to state that of the 564
municipalities in New Jersey, the majority of them met the deadline and did not expose their own municipalities to uh, builder remedy lawsuits. We have six builder remedy lawsuits. We missed
one deadline. Um, we could have filed our affordable housing plan on time and reduced our expense, reduced our exposure, and reduced our legal um costs, which are sky-high because we're
paying for everybody right now because of all of this litigation going on. Um, and you know, we're at risk of of serious overdevelopment. I do want to question how we could have
certain items on the agenda that we're being told not to talk about. Uh how do you vote on resolutions without discussing it openly? And it really is giving the impression that this is
democracy in the dark because we can't speak about things that we're supposed to be voting on tonight. So, I'd really like to understand how you cannot comment on a pending resolution. That's my question.
>> That's what we're talking about. >> We're talking about the resolution for 18 central. You said not to not to speak about that. >> We said we were going to have our council. >> No, I didn't say not to speak to 18 central. I Well, I did use the word development, so I apologize. I meant the
ones that I'm speaking to, and I did indicate at that point in time that Mr. Becklman was going to be present to answer questions. I think that the questions that the public had were legitimate questions to which a response is warranted. >> And I I would like Mr. Becklman to
listen carefully because there were a lot of questions on 18 Central Avenue that I will summarize and ask you to come up and talk about. Um but Councilwoman Ruden, I'm sure has many of of the same or more of her own. So listen very carefully and then after we
do our comment I'm going to ask you to come up and talk about >> and I apologize if my statement was >> perceived I did say globally I mean I just in my mind I wasn't talking about >> I apologize >> okay thank you >> I think I think the issue on on that
piece of property is very simple no bid no appraisal we did the same thing with this same developer um in the past I don't know why we would repeat the same mistake. Um, talk of a pilot
puts us in the same situation that we have all been in before. We know how pilots hurt the the tax base. So, I really appreciate Mr. Gibbons and Miss Hendy's comments. I uh feel the
same way that we should not be dealing with properties where we have not had an appraisal and there hasn't been a fair bidding process. Mr. Dublin, thank you for coming down. I hope that we can address Is it Mr.
Dublin? >> Do do Okay. Thank Thank you for coming down. I hope we can address what's going on in front of your house and that that there can be a better outcome for you and and your family
for joy. Um I I'm looking forward to tonight being a resolution for your your family and for um Miss uh Murphy Miss Field Murphy >> Fields Murphy. Sorry about that. I'm looking forward to that going forward.
And I would really like to propose that tonight we discuss getting this whole resolution for the rest of the streets because all we're doing is kicking the can down the road. All of these streets are going to be the streets that are not getting the permits are going to be overburdened by the streets that do have the permit. I know there was a kickback
and we decided to do it one by one, but that is not really playing out very well. I think the other issues uh we cannot really discuss but and I I I am pleased to hear that the snow service contract
has been removed because frankly the price that we paid for the snow removal this year was astronomical and one of our vendors is charging around $570 an hour. I think we can do better. We
should put this out for public bidding. That concludes my remarks. Thank you. >> Great. Let's uh go to Councilwoman Williams on Zoom. >> Thank you, Council President. I appreciate you. Um just to the public, thank you so much for your indulgence as
I am unable to appear in person this evening due to a medical procedure, but I am fine. So, thank you very much. I just wanted to say um [clears throat] while I do appreciate the opportunity for us to continue talking about
affordable housing and for the um very clear and um explanatory information provided by our council. I also want to just speak >> Councilwoman. >> Yes. >> I'm sorry. Can you speak a little louder?
>> Okay, I'll try that. Hold on. Councilwoman, are you there? >> I am. I'm just trying to adjust my speakers and microphone so that >> Thank you. >> I can be heard a little better. Just one second.
Does that work a little better? >> Yes. >> Okay. Great. Great. Great. Great. So, um, again, just talking about affordable housing and just wanting to thank our legal counsel for giving his very, very informative explanation on our current
situation, how we got there, um, why we're there, and how we're trying to navigate out of that situation. But I also want to als um just remind the public that we got there with informed
information from our planning director, from our BA at the time, as well as the administration, indicating that if we in March did not move forward with continuing a contract
with the planners that we already had in place, that this was going to happen. And so it is on record and unfortunately we are here and this is to the detriment of all of our residents including us because we're residents as well. But
this is where we have to talk about making better decisions and these decisions are going to impact not just our families but our children's families. And so we have to do better for West Orange in general. And so I
just want to say that, you know, thank you to to Mr. Samero um for trying to dig us out of this hole. It is a situation that I am continuing to hear when we when we come to these meetings
of not in my backyard. We have current members of the council doing investigatory work to find out information that is still detrimental
to litigation that is current. And so it is very very very very frustrating for us to be able to as a municipality, as a council, as a township to balance our
state required obligations with some of how we have practiced and behaved in the past. We have to set a different agenda moving forward and development is going to have to happen
in West Orange for us to meet our state obligations that are mandatory before 2035. So I I just want us to understand that there's nothing that is trying to be kept silent or private. We're trying to
minimize exposure and expenses to every resident in in West Orange. As far as Central Avenue is concerned, these agreements and as real estate professionals, we understand when you go
into contract and under contract, the contract goes into perp perpetuity based on the agreement that was made at that time. Yes, it may be a situation where the market changed, but it doesn't mean
unless you cancel the contract and then risk whatever existing conditions are in place at this time that you may not necessarily do the best service. So yes, maybe prices have increased and a current evaluation
might be telling us that the property is worth more that but that is not when the contract was consummated. And so you can't just pull out of a contract that's pre-existing because you think you might be entitled to a little bit more of a
profit. So those are just some of the things I wanted to speak to tonight. My colleagues have spoken to a lot of the things that are already going to be on the agenda and I know we talk about brevity and I know always we we want to say a lot but those are the things that
are in my wheelhouse that I think I need to just comment on and and then we can move forward with the meeting. Thank you council president. Thank you everyone for your time and listening. >> Okay, great. Thank you very much. Okay, I will try to be um brief. I think we've
heard a lot. Um Mr. Duben, thank you for coming down. It's nice to meet you, a fellow neighbor on Gregory. We are going to do everything we can to try to figure out what to do with your situation and do do whatever possible. Um, [clears throat] I do want to speak about the affordable housing debacle. Um,
I this is a a very difficult situation because the council had done quite a bit of research. I know Councilwoman Castelino had gone to the league and she had spoken to many municipalities who had fought their affordable housing um
requirement. Um many of us thought that we should we were getting um guidance from the planners that you know it was not worth our time and you know like so many before Mr. femorero got here. I will say because I appreciate all of his
um advice and I take it seriously and respect it. But you know, in the prior days, I have not always been comfortable with the advice that I've gotten from the so-called experts. I know when I go to the doctor, I get a second opinion. If I go to a lawyer, I often get a
second opinion. I was not comfortable with the work that was being done in the opinion. And so I actually reached out to an engineer and planner, someone who had both degrees. And they said that it was unconsionable that we had not fought it because with
all the golf courses we had with the swamp lands, it should have we could have easily had it reduced. That was a different opinion that I got from an unbiased person who I trusted. The planners that we had were given
$300,000 $150 in a one year, $150,000 to do economic development and $150 to do planning. Now, we knew over that course of the year that at June 30th, this affordable housing was to be put in
place for the for New Jersey. They had a year I don't know if they were misdirected. I don't I don't know you know what the problem was but this should have been fought and within that year with that amount of money they were
given we they should have done the job. What happened was they came back at the end of the year and wanted another $40 $50,000. I mean, to me, that was outrageous. And I think all of my council colleagues, except maybe one, I know even
councilwoman Castelino thought that we needed a different planner. So, that's what happened. That's the way I saw it. And I did my due diligence. I sought the experts. I often get a second legal opinion,
although I really trust Mr. Samaro's judgment in most cases, but that's my assessment of of that that situation. And I just want to go on record and have the the public understand why I made that decision and I went why I made that
vote. Um so with that, I'd want to um sum up 18 Central Avenue. I think you weren't here, I'm sorry, um to hear all of the questions, but Mr. Gibbons had a lot of
good questions. Um, the purchase price was one of them and I know Jackie had the same question. The appraisal, is an appraisal warranted in this situation? Have we done our due diligence and gotten an appraisal? I think that's important. And everyone has concerns
because this same developer, you know, we had asked for the appraisal for the library and it was sold for only a million dollars and that was a whole library. And then when I got on the council, that developer asked for
$500,000 back out of the developers fund. I voted no and so did one other council member but three of them voted yes to give him another 500,000. So that I think because of that history
residents want clarity on this. Uh Mr. Gibbons also asked about financial reconciliation. He thought a complete story a complete schedule of financials should be available to the public as well as us. um he wanted to assess the
long-term impact of a pilot. And I think given uh the history we have with pilots in our township and the concerns that many of our council members have with pilots, I think it's important for us to see the numbers and understand the numbers and if that could be given to
the public as well. I think that's important for transparency. Um, there were concerns over the environmental responsibilities that were negotiated in that contract and I think uh, Councilwoman Koviaak brought them up
pretty clearly. Um, you know, the stated price was going to be 1.5 million. Um, but the seller can deduct so many expenses I think for environmental and other uh, issues that he right now the price looks like it's $570,000.
So, I'd love clarification on that. Uh, and those are those are the main issues that I think we'd like to uh address and the transparency and the environmental are key. >> Yes. Go ahead. And if any of my
colleagues have other questions that I have to count to council, was there a formal presentation being made when we got to this issue? >> No, not a formal presentation. We had Mr. Beckman uh coming to discuss uh certain components of this in closed
session, but the public had uh certain questions. >> Okay. >> Uh understanding what those questions are, uh I think Mr. Becklman uh could answer many of them >> uh and uh I thought that >> it would be good if he were to address
the public and then obviously whatever else >> is attorney client advice would be done. >> Right. Do any of my other council colleagues I'm not done with my comments. So, just just in future references in in prior uh presentations,
not that we've had many of these agreements, um there's you the council would get somewhat of a formal presentation on the public when something like this would uh come to us. Okay. Just Okay. Yeah. I was expecting
to to have a a memo that that went with the contract or No. to the hands of >> Yeah. >> For example, when Mr. Albert presented for the public Yes. at at the public session. Yeah. No, that's okay. Years ago, well, I think I might have been the
only one up here that was present back in 2016. Um, there was a formal presentation that was made. So, you know, we can understand all the ramifications of the of the transaction. And I think it's important in these
types of situations that the, you know, the public does understand and they understand that we are trying to be transparent. >> I I I understand that. Um, all I could say is that this is a con it's it's it's a purchase contract. Uh and many of the questions
from the public are things that have already been done and done long before >> uh my my tenure here >> uh such as the the the pilot and the redevelopment agreement. >> No, I understand that. >> So, I didn't know that those were questions that would have to be
addressed to the public. I just assumed it was a purchase contract. And that's fair because it, you know, again, this was done so long ago, but there were other, I believe we were receiving parking spaces >> for this project and some other >> benefits to the immediate community. And
so, it's just good when there's a visual for the public, >> summarize it all >> so they understand just just moving forward. >> And I would have liked to have had just for the future a redline copy of how this is different than the original 277 agreement. It would have been nice to
see what you know what's changed or what has been amended. >> Well, I don't think and and Bob could speak to it. There there is no amendment. The uh I I don't think that the >> agreement >> uh redevelopment agreement had a form of
contract that was drafted now. So, I don't think there was anything that was to redline. >> Okay. um at the time that the uh amendment uh to the redevelopment agreement was done as you know that that's something that I had worked on
>> uh and we did have uh certainly uh it was explained it wasn't actually red line it was an addendum >> right >> uh and and and we went into it in depth at that point in time uh and to that extent and and certainly uh you know Bob
uh drafted uh the uh agreement ment with the purchaser. >> Mhm. >> Uh and he's here to answer questions, but I I could alert uh to the fact that this particular uh site uh was uh a site
where we did negotiate 22 parking spaces for the benefit >> uh of the township. Uh that wasn't something that I had negotiated. I had worked with the uh purchasers attorney uh to sufficiently define uh the
parameters of that and and and to document the easement. I remember we all discussed that >> um and this site uh also is and it's is not something with respect to this purchase contract but it is related to the land use approvals of the senior
housing. I believe it's getting 18 spaces uh from the other site. >> 17, >> I'm sorry, >> 17. No, we're getting 22 for us and then the other site is is off uh parking 17 additional spaces and the affordable
housing units on Tom. So the the affordable so there also there was the the affordable housing that was built on Tom Street as part of this deal. So that so that there is affordable housing that was placed into this deal and that that has all been completed and I'm not going
to go too far. I don't want to go off the reservation as far as the purchasing and everything else, but this was a contract that was done uh and completed and to date everything and the conditions of what we have to do to get all the approvals for the sites, both
sites. um and and one is completed and the other one we're we're in the process of remediation which we have Matrix New World overseeing on our behalf and they're moving forward. Uh this is so there's been a lot of benefit to the
fact that this was a a hazardous site that is now being remediated and will be cleaned up and and for those who are familiar on the council and know maybe not in the public as we see with our our our remediation that we're trying to do over on Lakeside, it it's a lot more
difficult to remediate a site for habitable living than it is for a site >> that is for warehouse or or um not residential living. >> So, so there's a lot of time, money, and and investment into this property and
and as Mr. Seamaro pointed out, a lot of these deals were um finalized prior to a lot of us being invol up here are involved with it now, but there's a lot of positive things that have come out for it. And this is a this is a sale of a contract. And I I don't know if I can deviate much more from that without
going into >> Well, I I think that it would be good if Mr. Beckman was to go. There's a one other thing and you made me remember when you said what you said. One significant benefit of this transaction is the fact that
>> Mr. Alper actually frontloaded the affordable units. >> Developers are very loathed to do that because they're not making their return on that. >> Uh so to that extent I I I think that he did handle uh the uh development very honorably.
>> Uh and I haven't seen other developers do that. Okay, that's >> so uh that's about the extent. I mean, obviously I looked at the redevelopment agreement when I did the addendum. Uh but Mr. Beckham was retained to uh represent us with respect to the closing
and he's here today and I think he can answer many of those questions. Um and even before he speaks I just want to re reiterate that you know a pilot was already granted on this project and a
pilot is adopted by way of ordinance and a pilot has an introduction like every ordinance and an adoption on every ordinance with a public hearing. So all of the stuff that was gas or financial betting associated with that today is
stuff that long preceded today. Uh but Mr. Beckman could discuss it a little bit further. >> Mr. Beckman, you're on. come tell us what we can do to >> I'd also I'll let I'll let councilwoman ask any questions she has before you >> I'd also like to know if there is any
document that would that should have been included in this presentation today that would show a conflict of interest um or some sort of recusal memorandum if um a person who is on the council has
received money from the purchaser there. >> No. Um, whatever the disclosure laws are under Elac Law Enforcement Commission, um, I'm not sure what your ordinance requires or what the prohibitions would. I have no knowledge of that.
>> I I first I'm >> Okay. So, Councilwoman Tammy Williams recently received a contribution from the developer who was purchasing this property. And I think that there should be [snorts] or I'm asking you if there
should be some sort of disclosure form that should be along with this agreement and whether or not it is appropriate to have a recusal memorandum because this contribution was made quite recently. >> I don't I don't see that please.
>> Uh campaign contributions are are controlled by uh elect laws. So that that's where the regulation comes from. Uh I'm not aware of any uh any are this is the first time hearing
it so forgive me. Uh I'm not aware of any code section that speaks to this. Uh and I'm not sure if there was a code section that speaks to this whether or not it wouldn't be preempted by by law. uh >> what is the document that should have that that should be included if there is
a potential conflict of interest? >> There is no >> or somebody who is on council and will be voting on this. >> There is no document to be included in a uh a resolution or a contract about a conflict of interest. Uh the conflict of
interest laws uh are relatively clear uh but campaign contributions aren't one of them. If if there was some type of illegal contribution that might might possibly
uh be indicative of a close financial or personal relationship that would trigger a conflict. But uh by and large uh I'm comfortable with uh the fact that a lawful campaign contribution doesn't preclude
uh members of the uh council from voting on anything. Uh in point of fact, uh it happens with with great regularity. Uh many professionals that do work with municipalities uh make campaign
contributions to uh elected uh members and they're not procluded. This council has been speaking for months about transparency and the need for transparency and the fact that this is not being >> speaking to to the concerns that you
have. Don't rise to a disqualifying event. >> I'm not I'm not suggesting that it is a disqualifying event. I'm saying that for the purposes of transparency, this should be on the record.
and and that's your opinion. I don't think that there's a legal opinion that's being factored. >> Thank Yeah. Thank you. I'd just like to add that we've been talking about this now for a year. The concerns that many of us have about campaign contributions to developers and engineering firms and
other firms that we do business with. Um it there are I've talked about it quite a bit. There are illegal loopholes in the law that allow this to go on and they c everyone continues to benefit. So it is legal but I feel it's unethical.
So does some of my colleagues feel it's unethical. That's why I take no campaign contributions from anyone, not even residents when I run for office. It is unethical. It's clearly unethical, I think, by most people's standards. But unfortunately, as our council is, it's
legal. So go ahead. Okay. Um, so as has been noted by several people already tonight, um, what we're doing tonight is implementing things that were already agreed two years ago. Um, I also was not involved
in negotiating this project. Um, I I was just being retained for other projects in the town around this time or shortly after the the 2021 agreement was was approved. Um, but I've looked at this closely. I've looked at all the
documents and so here's what I can gather from that. Um, initially this deal was reached in 2017. >> At that time there was an interim redevelopment agreement that set forth the general parameters of what the project would be, what would be built,
which actually ends up what was built. um 94 to 100 units um residential units and some level of commercial space on the ground floor. That has not changed. Uh in addition meeting uh providing 17 affordable housing units offsite on
another site and in the very first agreement the purchase price was listed as $1.5 million. So that number was established in 2017. I don't know how or why I don't know how that agreement was reached. Do was there an appraisal for that?
>> I not I saw no appraisal. I'm not aware that there was an appraisal. >> Should there have been? >> It's not required by law. Um part of the benefit of redevelopment is that you can negotes the other question about bidding and whether it should bid out. Um it's I see
as a benefit to the redevelopment law to the municipality that you are not required to select the lowest bidder to do a redevelopment project. And there's good reason for that. You want to have the discretion to select the developer. you want to select um without having to do it just based on what the price would
be. Um and it gives you that flexibility to negotiate directly. It does the same thing in connection with selling properties. It gives you the ability to choose how to sell properties for what to sell them for. It does not require an appraisal. Um you could give properties
away if it made sense. So there there's no local public bidding law. There's no local land to build which would otherwise have certain parameters and require appraised values for acquisition of property. >> Are appraisals typically done in these cases? Because it I mean it seems like
it just gives a municipality the ability to give something away for nothing or to come up with any price they want in a typical redevelopment agreement. Wouldn't an appraisal be even though it's not legally required be done? >> Not typically. It it can happen. It does
in some circumstances. that may be the decision that's made. Um, but no, it's not typical. I wouldn't say it's typical. >> Okay, that's concerning. Thank you for educating us. >> Yeah. Um, I I've seen it. I've seen it in circumstances where the parties deem to make sense. They couldn't agree on something or other negotiating and then
they typically agree, let's just get an appraisal. >> Um, that apparently wasn't the case here. Um, there was an agreement on the 1.5 million. And I do want to talk about what that actually means because the agreement built in these deductions. Yes. Uh just for comparable per
purposes, this this is about 1 uh5 acres. Is that correct? >> I believe so. U >> there's there's two parcels that would that are >> Okay. And and the selling price is is now about half a million dollars. >> Well, I want to I want to detail that.
>> Okay. But it went down, but now that's what it's going for. >> It didn't go down. it. This is already in >> other other propert items have been >> deducted >> deducted from it. Yes. >> But in town right now, we have a property that just sold for $1.1
million, not far from this. Um that is 23 acres. So just so that the public understands what's going on here, this is a very small number for a piece of property that is four times the size. >> Well, I don't know if that acreage is
accurate, but I can I [clears throat] can give you the the >> and and it's you can't compare every single like if there's a property and again if I could detail the history of this property, you know, then there's a context for what that number is. Again, I don't know exactly why it was 1.5 million.
>> Can you just take council question? >> Yeah. I just want to give the public a clear picture because being the only I'm not sure if Councilman Kroak was here at that time. >> I certainly was. >> You were right. Okay. >> Yes. I council in 2020 at the end of 2020. That's right. Okay. Couldn't remember. Sorry, council.
>> But it was a very different council then. >> It's very different council number one. Um but number two though, but it was also a very different time. The housing market was extremely much lower. That property was not clean and it was a
building was on it that was that was falling down and a lot of issues were there. It was a detriment to the community. And part of the reason that um we uh started this uh project was one
to fill our obligation for affordable housing and two just because it was a blighted site uh in the middle of a our community. So I mean you have to be fair when you think about when we started this and pricing values. I too am in
real estate and at that particular time is a much lower market than what it is today. Thank you. >> No, thank you for that context. Uh you may have been closer to this certainly than I was. So that's helpful. Um but but I I would echo that. So that's the number that was agreed to in 2017 plus
deductions. So as as uh council pointed out, the town apparently was concerned to get rid of those buildings and have them demolished quickly. Um which the developer agreed to do. >> Sir, >> sorry. >> They were hazard. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yes. they would there was there was concern about their condition
and that they'd be demolished expeditiously. Um so while under the early iterations not even having the full redevelopment agreement uh the developer did proceed to demolish the selective flash property at its own cost of about $300,000 which
they're not getting paid back. So they put that that expense out right away. Um as the agreements moved forward and evolved and the project became more fleshed out um there was there was some amendments and started to address how the property was going to be cleaned up
and how that would the responsibility for that would be. So going back a step the properties were were acquired by the township so they were in the township's ownership. Um at that point there were no taxes being collected um as there wouldn't be. Now, we acquired the
selected flash property through a taxlean foreclosure and the Bleman property, the other part of the parcel, um for $100,000, which again the developer funded. So, the developer paid the $100,000, $400,000 into the project
right at the outset. Um, now the h 100,000 at that point, the negotiations had reached a level of deductions so that the money that the developer was going to continue to put out at the at the front of the project would come back off of this $1.5 million purchase price.
So, that's been the understanding since 2018. Um, as as these agreements were being amended, the final agreement was formalized, a redevelopment agreement in March of 2021, which detailed all of these these understandings. Um, why the
town would hold the property and clean it up is because it had HDSR funding. So 75% of the cleanup was covered by by the state grants with 25% being paid directly by the municipality as per the grant rules. Um, so I I believe you the
cleanup has exceeded or is in the neighborhood of about $4 million in total. So again, the cost the actual cost because of the grant were 25% of that. The developer funded um they there is a
deduction for the additional cost incurred with that selective flash property. And this is what's all set forth in the March of 2021 redevelopment agreement. It specified what those deductions were. the known and the future deductions that were unknown. Um,
and again, it it reconfirms the sale price March of 21, March of 2021 is still $1.5 million subject to the following deductions. There was an increase in cost to that demolition I referenced for about $300,000. >> Um, I believe that was triggered by the requirement for prevailing wage because
it was township owned. So they did get the developer is is sorry the the town and the developer agreed that that additional cost of 75,525 would be deducted from the anticipated cost that they they had planned on. >> Excuse me, Mr. Be. I I just want to make
a point for my colleagues just so you as you're listening to this math, $300,000 to take down that site when again it's smaller than what we're dealing with over on Lakeside Avenue. We're looking at $4 million now to take that site that
Barton press down. So, you know, that's just how much costs have risen since that period of time. So, I just want to put everything into perspective with the pricing. Go ahead, Mr. Beckman. Um, so the other is I mentioned the deduction for the $100,000 that the developer put
out to buy the Ben property >> and there was the possibility that move that moving forward the developer would contribute and actually make the payment of the 25,000 that the town would be putting towards remediation. Um, if they
had that would also be deducted from the purchase price. So it looks like we hadn't taken advantage of that. um which means it's not going to be deduction. We'll have to see the numbers and all of this would be verified specifically and documented before closing on the property. Um so we know what the
deductions are. I'm telling you what we know from the agreement and what I've seen over the past week as to or what I've been told what the numbers are. Again, all subject to verification and documentation. Um, so in that concept of the developer paying 25% of the the costs, they did do
that for the removal of an underground storage tank um on the properties. So their 25% that they paid was $13,9775. Those are the deductions listed in the agreement from March of 2021. So already
known, we already knew those are coming off the purchase price. The unknowns were, as I mentioned, any additional 25% covered by the developer. Um, it's possible that some of that happened, but as far as I know from the LSRP discussions, there weren't there were no other payments. So, there's nothing else
to deduct there. U, there was disposal of contaminated concrete, the concrete structures from the select fresh property. Um, developer funded that. It was about $109,000 and and some change number, but again, that's in the agreement that that would
be deducted. And then there was a demolition cost for the biddment property minus NEHDR funding. I'm still trying to get a handle on why that was not funded with um by through the LSRP. And I believe there's talk about possibly
trying to claw some of that back, but they've explained to me and I don't fully understand whether or not any of that could have been covered by the fund. If it can, it's possible that some of that money will come back. Absent that that that was $636,000. Excuse me. Uh, when you say they, is
that the um the grant? >> The grant program state. >> Yeah. State. >> But assuming that's not the case, that that was that was expensive. That was $636,000 that included the demolition and all disposal. So that's the deduction as Mr.
Koviaak accurately pointed out. So you end up now getting a payment after all this deductions of about $580,000, not a full 1.5 million. So again, we talked about the appraisal um and the lack of appraisal. Not uncommon.
That's actually the norm. Um I did look at the assessed valuation and it's it's about it's under $500,000 for both of those properties. Your assessed values are actually pretty much right on ke with fair market value estimates. Um so there's something to look at if if you
want to have some level of comparison. uh the 1.5 billion is like three times the value of the assessed value of the property. Um and even the money the actual money that will be paid the 580,000 exceeds what the assessed value of the property is.
>> Um >> Mr. Beckman, could I just interrupt just very briefly? You are doing an amazing job. >> Thank you. >> That took me a week to figure out and you're doing it off the top of your head. So I'm very impressed. But I do want to just make slight corrections to
some of the numbers you're you're giving because uh I I think it's accurate that it's not we're not getting $580,000. We're getting $567 thou,568 and we have a difference in our math of 5.
>> Okay. >> So, so it's a little less than we're getting. Also, the assessments of the two properties total up $654,500. So, it's much not not much, but it is significantly less than I think you
mentioned $800,000. But I just want to I just want to make sure that that the numbers are that we're speaking are accurate to what we understand. And and again, I'm not trying to be critical. You're doing this off the top of your head. So, so, but so it's not quite as
favorable as you're talking about. Uh, but I I just wanted to throw that in. So, please go on. >> Right. So, so why do we do redevelopment? It's so it's it's I I municipalities are not profit corporation. Um, so we're not in the
real estate business, but you are in trying to improve communities and you have the power to do that through redevelopment. So, here's how I look at this. And again, I didn't negotiate this project or the deal, but I'm looking at it. I'm evaluating it for what it what it is. Um, you you got these messes of
properties cleaned up and demolished the unsafe buildings with the assistance of this developer who entered these agreements with us early on. I suspect that maybe the $1.5 million was supposed to approximate what the cleanup would not be so that it was at least enough there that it was going to
cover the cleanup. I don't know that I'm speculating as to why why why the number would come up. Um, so as I see it, you have you took care of that problem. You're cleaning up the properties. You you're getting a a good redevelopment project, which is the
purpose of doing the redevelopment. You're getting 17 afford you've got 17 affordable units already built and and conveyed to the township. And you're getting 22 parking spaces on the site, and you're getting 567,000 or so dollars. I don't think that's a
bad deal. Um and again not my deal but it it makes sense and it's the public purpose of redevelopment is being accomplished and we're getting some return on the property that could be maybe it is it's approximate to a little bit less or whatever the the fair market value but I I don't think that is the
the key of what needs to be accomplished. >> The important part though is the next question the long-term financial impact of the pipes. >> Um as Mr. Smearo pointed out that was all subject to a hearing into 2021. I that's kind of what people would like to understand. >> I can tell you the
>> short if that was, you know, built some some other way without a pilot. You know, what would the tax >> council president if I may that just isn't relevant to the transaction today? I I I I I think and I understand
uh that members of the governing body uh may not have supported what had taken place in the past. >> Uh but that's not why we're here today. We're here today because there is a
contract that obligated us to purchase this property. And uh we could discuss this further and and based upon the interaction I'm hearing on this subject matter, I think that we should go into
close session and discuss the finer details of the contract and obligations uh so that we all have a crystal understanding. But and and certainly if there was a desire to discuss
the pilot at at a different point in time, I I think that we could do that. Uh but uh that's not what we're here today for. And I don't think that's something that should be factored into the vote that the decision
>> that you have today. But I do want to know the um financial impact of the pilot. Those numbers, could they be available to the public and could they be available to I mean is that >> when you say the financial impact of it, the uh
the pilot agreement does indicate what the formula for payment would be. And [snorts] uh >> rather than you you you threw me a curveball. I am wondering
whether or not the pilot application is operable. I think it probably would be at this point. Yes. >> So the reality is >> could be made available >> there. There would be a lot of stuff that's made available. There may have to be something that's extrapolated
>> uh for something to be digestible. Uh, and I don't think that that's something that we could pass on to the developer now that it's already executed. I don't think it's an escrowable service, but if you wanted to, it could be looked at and and possibly some information would have to
be extrapolated, but something could be sent to >> Yeah, Mr. Gibbons was would did request that kind of information and I think it should be available to the public if we could. >> Uh, and and I suspect Well, I I won't say that. I I would say ordinarily that that that is something that often occurs.
>> Okay. Counciloman Kesley. >> Well, again, Mr. Hanley, um, wouldn't he have done uh the projections? Do you have that, Mr. Dinette? >> I mean, back in 2020 one,
>> that would have been NW Financial, correct? Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, I I know again when Prey was here, there was a whole presentation to the council. Mr. Alper got up and spoke. I mean, I remember this >> and and that we
I mean that's what happens when >> I have done it before. We always had the financial >> analyst come in >> and and show it a projected traditional tax scenario versus a projected uh >> Yeah. >> So if he did do a report and and I don't
know the answer to that but certainly you seem to remember it then yeah that and that's something that would be final at this point and would be >> Yeah. >> So we could look to see if that exists. >> Okay. Great. >> Yeah. I already asked for it. Didn't get it. >> When?
>> As soon as I knew this was going to be on the uh agenda last week. >> Okay. Uh well, we we we could look and I've got the numbers for the for the pilot. It's sort of be out of context if you don't have the performers, but I
have that. And Mr. Sullivan is holding it up and waving it and shaking his head at me. That's interesting. >> Well, yeah. >> Yes. If anything, um, so yeah, I'd answer some questions about the pilot. The pilot agreement is clearly a public
document and um, and it that's what the parameters are, that the terms for the pilot. Um, and so the the payment that would be being paid on taxes is about $74,000 and change. Um, the pilot first year projections is I I think about $325,000. That's the simple answer to
the short-term impact. The long-term impact is that number will go up um as as the property is fully leased out and and occupied. >> Um so that that's the the very short and general answer. U but yes, the there there would have been an application
that would have had some more financial documents which maybe was being waved back there. I'm not sure. Um I wasn't asked to provide that either, but it it's it it is findable. It's somewhere in public records. As you can see, there's interest not only in the council but in the public.
>> But again, it's to Mr. Samero's point. It it's it's it's off of what we're doing here tonight, which is really just taking the next step and implementing something that's already been agreed to. >> I appreciate that. It's just our job as council people is to help the public understand how we're spending their money.
>> Yeah. And that's why I'm happy to take the time to elaborate and answer the questions. >> Thank you so much. Go ahead. Um, so I I think that's pretty much where we are. There was somebody mentioned financial reconciliation. I'm not sure what that means. Is that the question that
>> that was related to >> pilot? Okay. >> No, it was actually an allin >> allin. Yeah. >> Every all the cost inputs, all the actual numbers. So you get a one picture, you look at one spreadsheet. >> He called it the complete financial
story. and he's an auditor so you can imagine what he's looking for. >> I think that we kind of walked through it. Um it has been provided to council. Um but those that's the price what it is the deduction. Um
then there was actually cleaning up the properties. Um so that's the full picture. >> Um >> excuse me. So to his point and to our point, so originally when the project was projected, there was some kind of
snapshot given, but and uh you know again our CFO between the both of you, we should be able to get a rundown on what was actually you rattle off some numbers here. Can that just be enumerated and sent to us so we could
see that in a document? >> Yes, it has. I guess it has been shared with everybody. That's what I >> guess. Okay, that's sure. >> All of these expenses. >> Um, no. Well, so we're going to reconcile that. We're going to see the documentation >> for the closing. For the closing
>> before the closing. Yes. Yes. >> Yeah. That and that's put that's put in the agreement. >> See the problems and years pass. The council isn't privy to the closing statements and we should be see seeing those like virtually. >> I don't see a problem with that. Um, it's something we were going to do
anyway. So, there's no reason not for you not to see it. Um, and we actually did change one thing in the agreement, which is Mrs. Smarel pointed out, which the the easement for the parking area. Uh, we now have the developer agreeing that they have to have that executed and
recorded as a closing condition. So, before they take title of the property, that will be done. >> All right. Good. We talked about that. That's good. I was worried about that. >> And we're we're already look I'm looking at a form of document for that. It's we're negotiating as we speak. Um, so that's already agreed to here as well.
Um, >> and were there any other conditions with uh the other property at 17 Thompson Street that we needed to >> they met all those? Okay. >> They they did that preload. As I said, it's unusual that the developer is completely finishing the affordable
units before they even put a shovel on the ground on on their project. The market rate >> now. And again, just just the point too because again, I defend my vote many years ago with this project. We had a very severely blighted area. We had was
an obligation what was that the third ground and um and that's was my reason to support. I understand where my colleagues and the public get a little you know
little concerned for the pricing but again we don't have a crystal ball. you know, if we could all see what our houses are worth now versus what they were worth back in 2016, you know, it it tells a much different story. And that's why we had a
reevaluation. A lot of us got clobbered with our taxes this past year. So, um, pricing has gone up, but again, we have to honor contracts, uh, from when they were written. >> Yeah, there's a there's a couple things you're touching on. one is as you describe the condition of the properties
of 2017 um to today. And if if you were to take that and say, "Well, what is it worth today?" It's it's clearly worth more. It it's been cleaned up. It's got these development approvals. There's a concept in um condemnation acquisitions that you
can't evaluate the property based on the redevelopment itself. Um but what were the conditions leading up to that? um because otherwise nothing would be affordable. Every everything you would try to purchase would be based on the value that you created by doing the public project. So it's it's difficult
to try to say what what would we pay for it today because those agreements were reached years ago. >> Yeah. I just want to understand the benefits of the pilot that we got as we summarize that I'm hearing are 17 affordables, 22 parking spaces and cleanup.
That's what we're getting. >> Yeah. Well, basically >> take down take down of the building. the demolitions, de developer loaning money up front for us to accomplish those things and the redevelopment you that's that's why we're doing this to redevelop the sites and to make them better, more
productive used properties, >> satisfy our numbers. >> I mean, that in itself is is a public benefit. >> Okay, thank you. >> Anything else? >> I mean, can we be here? >> Yeah, sure. Come on up. We want to shed
as much light on this situation as we possibly can. William Sullivan's Quincy Hollowback on behalf of the Albert Gen. Um I'm I'm not going to re labor a lot of the chronology uh that we just went through here. It's already 9:43. Um but I do
want to make a couple things clear especially um for the record. Um there's uh this council approved a redevelopment plan on for this property in 2016. They approved the first redevelopment agreement that has the $1.5 million
purchase price in it with some of the deductions in it approved by this council I believe unanimously in 2017. The uh 2018 there was an amendment to the to that agreement whereby Mr. Albert agreed to fund the middle the middleman
purchase. Right. Um if you don't and we're going to develop the property then you got to buy it. Somebody had to buy it if we're going to develop it. We paid for it. We just wanted a credit against that now for the purchase price. In 2018, we did a second amendment to the
agreement where we agreed to fund 25% of the USD removal costs. That's a small $14,000. 2021 we do the re the new redevelopment agreement that includes the 17 units of affordable on Tomkins and lays out all
of the credits against the 1.5 million that we can could know at the time that's the uh increase in seleto flash demo costs the 100,000 Bleman purchase by the way let's deal with this appraisal thing right off the bat right if the gentleman who was here before who
was talking about appraisals and how much he knows about appraisals Well, one of the things you really know about appraisals is you're allowed to you're required to factor in environmental cleanup costs in the cost of the property. If you as a town are going to
condemn over somebody's property and it's worth $5 million, but there's a $6 million cleanup on it, they don't get the $5 million. The money gets put aside to fund the cleanup. This property is the definition of a brownfield property.
It's underwater. its value if you got a fair market appraisal would be less than zero. So go get an appraisal. It's going to tell you that that it's worth less than zero. It's a meaningless conversation.
The new redevelopment agreement included the 17 units of affordable at Tomkins. that agreement and and you know the the old administration that we all want to criticize insisted that we build the Tomkins unit first because they were
afraid that we would build the market rate units and then blow off the affordable units and you guys would lose the credits on the affordable. So guess what he did? He built the affordable units. There were people living in them right now. While you want to talk about renegotiating the agreement on the purchase price, there were affordable
people living in those houses because he built it and honored his obligations under the agreement. That, ladies and gentlemen, is bad faith. Mr. Sullivan, I have to interrupt you. Nobody here has said anything about redoing anything. We are simply trying to bring transparency
to this process. I'm hearing you want to Why do you need an appraisal unless you're going to talk about what the problem is? Because as much as perhaps you admire the previous administration and the people that were running it, there are people here, including me, who
have a great deal of mistrust for any transaction that they did. When you talk about doing Tomkins, you probably also remember we've got about 80 units of affordable housing in the downtown Prism uh properties that were never funded
that we allowed those guys to walk away and gave them $12.5 million and never required them to fulfill that obligation. So that's why they came to you and said, "We're going to build Tomkins first." >> People that are building affordable housing in this town. We did the senior
project. We did we did affordable units on the 100 units. The west orange project. Uh the the first one in West Orange, the 17 to you're blaming you're casting. >> I just said Mr. is a >> the best developer in this town with
with this problem because of what you had at prison. >> Would would you let me just finish please? Okay. I'm sure you heard me talk about what a great developer for affordable housing and disabled housing Mr. Albert is. >> Y >> no question about that. He's also a very
good businessman. >> So two things. Wait, could you just let me finish that good? Would you please ask him to let me finish has the floor? Please let him finish and then you could Yeah. Everybody needs to
calm down. So there is great justification for being skeptical of any financial transaction that previous mayors conducted here. We are
now this day in terrible financial shape because of the decisions that were made over the last 10 years. So all I'm doing is trying to be skeptical of what's going on. you know that if there isn't an appraisal, there
is no certifiable market estim evaluation of the value of the property. It wasn't done in the library case. It wasn't done in I think a current one for for Prism. We're just
saying we want a fully transparent and clear idea of where our residents money is going and whether it's being used wisely. Now, please, I talked too much.
>> No, I appreciate that. Uh, just going back for a moment to the other things that were in the credits in 2021, there was the disposal of the Betleman concrete not covered by HDSRF. I actually asked this question uh uh through uh um uh through Mr. Becklman to
the LSRP and we were told that those for some reason demolition credits can't be reimbursed through HSRF. I don't know why. I haven't had a chance to look and figure it out, but that's why that number's coming off because you nobody's getting state money for it like they are everybody else. We're providing a 22
parking spaces, right? That's a condition in the planning board approval which is you know valid and we have permits and we're starting the initial uh work on the site and the remediation is going on but you're going to get 22 parking spaces in the valley which you desperately need as we all as we all
know. Let me mention something about the financial agreement. So we have we have enforceable redevelopment agreements and we have an enforceable financial agreement from 2021 that has the pilot. The last time anybody paid taxes on these two properties, they paid $74,000
a year. That was a long time ago. That was before they defaulted and then the town took the property. So, so ever since that's happened, you've gotten zero from the property. Now, I I I'll tell you standing here like like every pilot we that I've ever negotiated and
for a residential project, the value of the payments going forward is based upon percentage of the annual gross revenue. That's how it works, right? So that's why you never see a number in there says this is what you will pay in year three, right? Because it all depends on how
much revenue the project generates. So in this particular case, years 1 through 15, you're getting 10% of the annual gross revenue and then it escalates after that. Right? So you can do any kind of rough math you
want. 64 or sorry 94 market units, 10% of gross revenue. you know, run the numbers yourself. We project, estimate that we're in the neighborhood of $300,000 a year. So, right now, you're getting nothing on a property that's worth nothing, right? And you're going
to get $325,000 a year in pilot payments. And by the way, not not for nothing, but it's in a binding contract, right? Uh, so that's kind of all I really want to say. I don't think Joe
wants to say this. Come on, Mr. Albert. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> I appreciate you being here. No. And and what the frustration is on my part is I wish the development of what we do for a living, both affordable and
remediation, was a process that's quicker because you're right, some people are brand new to this project. And you have to come up to speed with all the nuances of what happened in the past. And
so you you have to go through all this to come up to speed and see you know a number is just a number today in 2026 of 1.5 million but there was a lot of story behind it and I'll try not I I don't want to take up a lot of time in 2006 um we started the BDA for the Orange and
West Orange BDA which is brownfield development area to clean up the whole valley. Um I I own nothing in in the valley at that time. Uh but I sat on the board and I still do for 20 years. Rose descent is on that board. Um and we
we've done some great good non-paid just like you guys, you know, meetings. Um and and and not just my properties, we're doing the whole valley just like you're now going to be doing in another part of town. Um, in 2008 I finally bought the Harvard printing site and
that included the parcel in West Orange and that was a private acquisition. So a little different from this scenario. But then it took until 20 at 2016 not by the behest of the output group but you guys decided to do a redevelopment plan that encompassed select the flesh biddment
and and that area. So again we were just working together on both the BDA the redevelopment plan. I had no real connection but we were all working towards improving the valley and I did I was a neighboring stakeholder. It took
till 2017 when I think uh we you know we went into the first RDA that the terms of a deal came through. Terms of deal came through in general it wasn't 1.5 it was 1.8 but the municipality said we need select the flash down now it's
about to collapse and we own it. So we said 300 we paid 300,000 out of our pocket in I don't know 2017 or 2018. Was it anticipated that it would take all the way till now to to maybe start recouping any of our funds that we put
in? No. We thought the township was responsible. The deal was a township was responsible for the remediation. You were in the chain of title on everyone's pleasantly calling it a BDA site or or it's a super fun site. It's one of the
worst. Okay, that's that's an EPA statement. They're not easy to remediate. So, at that time when you talk about amount, it was 1.8. We paid the 300,000. That's why at closing, it's 1.5 with the deductions. The deductions only relate
to your responsibility as the owner of the site to remediate it. That's not going anywhere. So, you could say, "Wow, the 1.5 went down to 500,000." The minute the council way had nothing to do with me with tax leans stepped into the chain of title, you were the party
responsible to do the remediation. >> And that's why those things are deducted because those were the township's responsibility. You talk about appraisals, right? The appraisal, there's a $4 million cleanup. Nobody had
HDSRF funds at the time. You had a $4 million cleanup. You're also, I think, allowed in an appraisal if a if a structure is hazardous and could collapse, deduct those costs. Mr. Sullivan said it very loudly. I'll say it quieter, but it had a negative
value. That's not just an Albert thing that I think any professional hopefully that you know you trust, any professional you choose, that's how appraisal you've seen eminent domain. That's how values are put on properties. We were able to carve out a a plus value
because we worked jointly to go to I was on that committee for 12 years before 13 years before you got that HDSRF grant. We picked that site, put it into the uh HDSRF and got the state to fund most of your obligation to clean up.
Let's talk a little bit about Bitman. Most of the facts are right because of the site being needed to be done in and and it's holistic. was part of the plan. I talked to the owner of who was in the toner of Bitment. I bought I went into
contract for 100,000, but it behooved the town at that point for the cleanup in the whole site to make no money the exact price I paid to the seller. So, there's always costs on the I didn't eat any of that. I gave it back to the town for the exact $100,000. And yes, that's
a deduction because you were granted the land that makes up what what you say 1.1 acres. Township wouldn't have had that land. It wouldn't have been cleaned up. The township didn't approach the the the seller. I did because it was in the benefit of myself, but most, you know,
the whole township that was whole part of the redevelopment plan. When we added that site, it was told there's a lot of overflow parking needed for Luna. Can you create 22 municipal spots? It wasn't my idea. But it it made perfect sense on the site. We had added
land. Nobody wanted more units. People said, "Hey, Joe, in 2017, we'll give you from 94 to 100 units." Every developer you ever know would have said, "I'm going for my full 100 units." Made more sense when we were doing the whole thing to only have 94 units.
Let's talk about Tomkins for a second. Tomkins is in your plan. Tomkins is built. We are in full compliance. You could ask fairshare housing and Josh Bower full compliance and helping you and know you have other issues. Those
are in your plan now to unravel if potentially it ever got unraveled. Well, the 17 units are part of the plan. The Bolin property, like I said, if it got unraveled, I wouldn't, you know, if I'm not I would get my 100,000 back and the Bolin property. We've been working
since the 2017 nine years quite frankly spending when you add in what would cost to build Tommpkins to get us to get building permits for um Select the Flash we call it or 18 central we're we're close to probably
$10 million. So we're right there. We we we want to finish what we can we said we were going to do. We said we'd build you the units. We said we clean up the site. Um, I think we've lived up to every single iteration of the redeveloper
agreement. Now we're just looking to finalize and this is, you know, a critical time, right? We're we're ready to build. We received putting some foundation permits from your building department. We've done work. I would I would politely ask that let us
finish, you know, our agreement together. Um, Bill said it. We think we did a great job with Valley Road. We we we 55 of those units, family units are in your plan. 64 units of senior housing
and you could look at the building are in your plan. >> No. >> No, that's not true. >> No, >> that's not true. We were told that 64 units would be in our plan. The state only accepts 17 >> because you met your senior obligation
probably, >> right? But when we were told to build 64 >> when you sold that to the that the council at that time the impression for the public was that 64 units >> you didn't say it that would have been represented by your your fair share housing >> didn't sell you I didn't say I was ever
meeting >> when when it was sold to the public >> by someone right >> by somebody and we have that we have that on tape >> we were told and I was not on the council at that time that this would account for that share plan and that's
not the case in this case with the the building that you're you're developing. It's not even 20%. It's 18% of the units are going to be affordable housing. >> 17 >> 17 which is 18% of >> 17 94
>> right and right correct >> 17 of 17 of 94 by 17. >> Yes Tom got to ask Tom please. I don't want to do the math. You You're absolutely right. If that's what you you were told by a planner, all I know is >> we were told by the mayor.
>> Okay. >> The former >> All I know is 64 units of unbelievably deserving seniors are now living. I know. No. I Anyway, in my opinion, maybe I shouldn't give my opinion. Those other 30 some odd units that you're not
getting credit for are still serving a a public benefit. Again, maybe I shouldn't give my opinions. That's my opinion. I know the people who live there. Um, and I think it's it's a benefit. Um, and I and I think it adds to the area, but those are only personal opinions. But
that building's built and done. As far as this one, we are trying to improve the valley. Um, we've worked uh, forget about environmental. We've helped the flood hazard in the valley. We've opened up, this is definitive by the D. We've opened up a
coverted stream in that area. job. >> We've increased flood capacity by 400%. These are factual. My opinion should have probably stayed out of me. These are factual answers. Um, we've improved the Now, it's it's in orange, but we are neighboring towns. We've worked with
them on the transit hub and reopening that station. Yes, that station has gotten about 4 million, don't quote me on that one, tap grant funds to be reopened and and cause a a transit hub. The Harvard site that again is in Orange not West Orange but sister site is a
smart growth award winner which meaning you're doing environmental you're doing flood hazard uh and you're doing transit oriented I think we've improve that area again maybe I shouldn't go back and this is really the last step that we thought we
were lock step with the council councils change and that's why you have to come up to speed but we did asurances you guys gave us written asurances for the last nine years for us to move forward, build 17 units, deed restrict them as
affordable, but that can't be undone, do all this environmental work, and now we're ready to start. And we were hopefully hoping that this would be more of a hey, this is this is a great day because we're able to sort of finish off Central Avenue. You know, there's no
other developable sites there. I'm not going to ask you for anything more on Central. We we had three buildings. We're building it and we're very proud of the work we've done and we'd like to just do this building. Um, our banks are ready. Like I said, we have permits. Um,
it would be a real real huge hardship um, if we weren't able to literally tomorrow call our bank and say, "We'd like to start construction." Um, but that's up to your uh, you know, we're asking for your consideration. >> Yes. Sorry.
>> How was the $1.5 million price agreed upon? How was it arranged? >> How was it determined? >> How was it determined? >> I don't know exactly. I I knew they threw out, you know, uh 1.8. Like I said, >> you had to have been there. I know it says one, in in my mind, it was always
1.8 because then they said spend 300 today. So I and I, you know, 100 units, $1.8 million was $18,000 a dwelling unit because I know the redevelopment also pledged back to number of units. Um, I don't know the exact methodology because
it was not my throw out. It was the It was the township. >> The township threw out the number. >> Yeah, >> in my recollection, I think they did. >> Yeah. >> Can I just make another statement, too? And and looking at where we're at with Lakeside Avenue, we we are waiting for a
state grant to be able to do a takedown and and that is what enhanced that project. because we were able to take take down and and demolish the building right away thanks to uh Mr. Albert. Um so you got
to weigh in all the factors. It's easy to play Monday morning quarterback after you know all this has been all this has transpired but there was a lot of different variables back then and um I appreciate all the work that has been done to the area because it was a very blighted area.
um you know your buildings for affordability. Uh I think you've done a nice job and you're always a great partner to the township in regards to other organizations in regards to char charitable organizations that you always
try to contribute to. Um, I know when we did talk about the 22 spaces with the arts council being down there on Luna stage, that was important at the time cuz as we all know, um, the the ladies who have been advocating for the past 10 years, um, we don't have parking down
there. So, that was all part of it. There's a lot of different variables. Things are coming to my memory as I'm sure the same with you as we're presenting here. I know Mr. Sullivan for a very long time. And if he got heated, I know it's because like folks, you got to go back and look at the tape. We
sound like we're not going to do this deal. And um so you got to watch, you know, sometimes as we present, but I know in fairness to my colleagues, Mr. Sullivan, you know, there there are a lot of questions and there was a lot of doubt and and unfortunately mistrust in
prior administrations. Um so that's where we are today. So, I appreciate both of you coming here to um explain. >> Sorry that I got I'm sorry that I got heated. I I I've
I've lived this project since 2006. I really thought that we were right on the edge of starting to build stuff. And when I hear this, it starts to sound like there's a pullback and that would be very unfortunate for a whole lot of reasons. >> Sure. And I'm sure you see the social media comments that are out there as
well. Well, so you're right. There is pull back because I read things and and statements are made. But again, we got a big mayor's race in in November. So, I just hope everyone could see through that and we're able to >> to go into close session shortly, talk
about whatever else we need to talk about and and start getting something done here. Thank you. >> Councilwoman Ruden, did you have a question? >> No. >> Okay. >> I I just appreciate the time to explain it. >> Um, one other point was made. I pretty
sure Mrs. Smaldo, I I sort of was trying at some points to help um I know when you were doing, you know, the the library move over there. Um to for a municipality to demo select the flesh embeddment versus what we're saying as
those offsets are literal fractions of of when municipalities and you know that from I know other things you've done at time but that was the beauty of a public private partnership. we thought, you know, working on it together for economies. Um, but thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate your being here. >> Okay. So, let's move forward. >> Okay. The consent agenda. Approval of minutes of previous meeting public
meeting June 24th, 2026 and July 7th, 2026. I just want to point out that I did make those corrections. >> All right. Sent a couple of corrections for me to do today. So, I did that. >> Is there consent? >> Consent.
>> Consent. >> Report of township officers. None. Reading of petitions and communications. And >> I'm sorry, uh, Madame Clerk. I was not present at the June 24th meeting. Okay. >> You want to refuse from that?
>> Yes, please. I was on vacation. >> Okay. >> Okay. Reading of petitions and communications and bids. None. Bill list. Are there any questions on the bills? >> Yes. >> Uh Miss uh Council President, I just
want to uh uh there was one billing error on our invoice. >> Uh it's subject to a $1750% reduction. >> Okay. >> So, I I spoke to uh our CFO and uh they'll just be right.
>> Thank you for clarifying that. Okay. Go on, Councilwoman. >> Yes. >> Hold on just a second. I have a question on invoice number 911334. The total amount on this invoice is $37,000
$25152. It is unclear to me what exactly we are paying for because some of this bill has 88. It's it's done in percentages. And in particular, I would like to understand why it cost $5,000
to powerwash the stage. Entire homes are done for a third of that. How could it cost $5,000 to powerwash the the OPAC stage? How large is the stage? And who has
looked at this? So that's an engineer certificate based on the bid that was publicly awarded and that's the prices that were bid by the contractor. So, yes, I do sometimes pay on percentages because I cannot pay for
100% of the items. Okay. >> So, but did you did you look at the cost for $5,000 for power washing? >> That's what it was bid and that's what the bid awarded. And was that based on square footage? How was that price?
>> It's a lump sum price. >> Okay. Have you have you um checked this the stage to see how it looks? >> That's what the inspector does. And yes, we have an inspector on site every time
that the contractors work. We have two contractors working right now at the Ospect. One is the ZN construction and the other one is empty contractors. We also have the inspector also go and inspect the uh roadway project which is the reason why the overtime is there too >> for my department. So, it says that
there were removed and replaced overhead window enclosures for $3,000. Can you tell me how many windows were removed and replaced? I won't be able to tell you from the top of my head because they don't do it all at once, but figure there is about four windows, two on each
side and at least one or two in the back. >> Okay. >> Couple in the back. >> It says that that the stage expansion is 88.64% complete. When will it be completed? >> We're actually talking to the contractor
right now because after they remove the old flooring that they had, we discovered that there is more issues with the floor. There's more, I would say, cracks. There's also gaps that needs to be filled in. So, we're actually today we're in conversations with the contractor to remediate that
issue with the concrete. >> Is that going to be an additional cost? >> Some of it is part of the prep. It could be also extra. I'm not sure. It depends when he comes back. Probably be a couple thousand dollars more.
>> So, there'll be change orders that we'll be presented with. >> Just like I explained to you last time, every job has a change order. >> Okay. >> And not everything can be seen during construction. Even when you have a pre-bid meeting, I cannot have anybody
remove the old floor when you have a lot of equipment sitting on top. So yes, that's what happens when you're trying to remediate or rehabilitate an existing building or an existing structure. >> Okay. Just >> there are things that are missed. >> A couple more questions on this. Sure.
Go ahead. Says it says contract allowance for electrical work not specified. Yes. >> That's $15,000. Has that >> has that been charged? Has that been done? >> Not yet. No. >> And the same thing goes for the contract allowance for work not specified?
Like I said, every time there is contract allowances, it's just in case anything arises. So, a lot of time sometimes this is what I do. All right. Sometimes I just charge it to the item itself. Like it says in there, a contract allowance for work not specified.
If you look in there, there's also supplemental items in the engineers con estimate which I do them myself in certificates. One of them is the item for excavation of um rock excavation. We weren't expecting to hit rock, so that will be considered an item of work not
specified. >> Okay. And then I just wanted to follow up on my question from last week since we're now talking about the Ospac. Sure. About the signs. >> What has been done about those signs? >> The signs will be replaced. Okay. There will be six that will be replaced. One
will will keep. >> Okay. And the other will be removed or >> Yes, they will be removed. and we will save them and utilize them somewhere else. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Are there any other questions? Councilwoman Ruden. >> No. >> Thank you.
>> Yes. Councilman, >> Council President, I just wonder if there is a process that perhaps we could adopt on when we're in council meetings if there are questions that legitimate questions of course that a council
person wants to ask, but has the opportunity to do that outside of a council meeting. It would, I think, potentially save us time, potentially significant time. All of the questions that were asked uh
appears to me that they could have been asked Friday, Monday outside of the council meeting as opposed to what goes on here. I just wonder if if the rest of the the council thinks that
>> maybe we should try to uh >> take a different approach so that we can save some time. >> Well, I think I think some of the questions were asked. I know I did see some questions, but it I would agree that anything that we could ask in advance should be, but anything that you
still need answers to, Councilwoman Ruden, go ahead. I did you did I I think ask a number of these questions in writing. >> I I asked to pull the bill, but there were a lot of lot of things that I had. And by the way, you know, I asked a lot of questions and and I got all of my
answers today at 5:18 um right before the the meeting took place. And I was told that this is because the township is on some sort of a summer schedule. What is the summer schedule? >> I didn't say it was that the township was on summer schedule. I said please apologize for the summer schedules. We
have we have staff that goes on vacation. Not everybody's readily available. >> I myself was away for a couple days and I still was working and so we you know the employees are do their time. It's summertime. So we try to accommodate our staff because they work very hard. So,
while we understand that sometimes these questions and and quite frankly, this last one was these last round of questions was quite voluminous, um, and we try to do our best to answer them in a timely manner, but we also have other obligations. Um, and to Councilman
Kobak's point, you're you're free. You always ask me questions to speak to people. If you have specific questions such as powerwashing that, just please call ask me or and we can set up arrangements so we can make phone calls. Sometimes a phone call is a lot easier and quicker than what our staff has to
do to sit around and and input all this stuff and for us to gather this all together. So, it's a one central place. You see that I send it I say everything is sent to my staff to to compile it and then we try to put it together and and do this. But, you know, this is this is
several hours of labor work for us to answer this. So, >> I appreciate that. >> So, the fact is, you know, we we try to answer every single question we can. Not every question is u may not be understood and we may not give you all the answers but it's it's quite laborous. I mean today in itself it
today you know I have a director's meeting which we spent about two and a half hours prepping for this meeting. I met with about two hours I met with the police department this afternoon to discuss about the um permits and how we're going to administer this program if in fact it does get approved tonight
on second reading. we can't administer what we need until we know what the final outcome of the ordinance is and so on and so forth. So, so when I say it's a summer hour, I have people who are on the staff who are, you know, sometimes they're not quite readily available. So,
so and I did apologize to that and I said that's what it was. So, um so we we will answer whatever we can in a timely fashion. >> Okay. Could you um quickly kind of go through the any other questions you had bill list >> on the bill list?
>> Well, my only my only other questions had to do with the uh summer camp which Mr. Johnson has has responded to me. Um but still my question is that these are employees who work for the summer camps
and I was um surprised that for a weekly salary for the director of the program director of the summer camp is $6,000 a week. >> These are not employees of the township. No, >> these are vendors providing the service
and all we're doing is re is collecting the money on their behalf. >> We This is no money that we're paying. this is what the the program is being run by and this is the cost of the program and that's the cost they charge to run the program. We're just we're just basically a conduit to run the
program. We're not paying this is not our money. >> Councilwoman Castle wants to clarify a few. >> Yes. So there's there's there's just because I've been involved with permits on the board side and and and with the township. So and had my own kids go to
these summer camps. So some of the camps it depends on the m how Mr. Johnson is what situation he has with the coaches. So some of the coaches have it set up
where as Mr. Smalda said as a vendor where they provide their service, they take care of all of the uh they take care of all of the payments for their
coaching staff. So, it's not just the coach, it's all their staff that they have working for them in that camp for that week and what other other fees they may need for that camp. So, that's one way. Another way, sometimes um the wreck
pays the coach a stipen directly um and pays all the coaches directly. However, they've gotten away from that because of the year that the council um two years ago when the council started
not approving bill lists and there was the issue with the mayor and people weren't getting paid for months on end. There was that situation. um these coaches weren't getting paid at all and that was a big big problem and
so um they started you know now billing them with their as a vendor service and it seems to work much quicker for payments for these summer camps for the coaches. So there are checks and balances there but that's why you see
that fee so high because it's not just for the one coach it's for the entire staff. >> Thank you for clarifying that. Okay. Did you have anything else to >> No, thank you. >> Okay, let's move on. >> Resolutions. Uh, resolution I'm sorry. Resolution
22626, 22726, and 228 26 are being pulled this evening or removed I should say, from the agenda. >> All the snow plowing. No, do it that way. They do it at the end.
Okay. Are there any resolutions being pulled this evening? >> Yes. >> Council woman. >> I think um >> two two 214
>> 214. >> You're pulling it or questions? I am pulling it for for a vote. >> Okay. >> On that um 216. >> Okay.
>> 216. You're going to pull. >> You said you're pulling two 226. >> Yep. 226 227 228. They're removed. >> And um two 230 230.
>> Okay. Okay. Anything else? >> No. >> I I do have a concern. Go ahead. So with pulling 226 227 228 I hope this gets resolved by the next meeting. I remember
last summer with when Mr. Reynolds was here that we we pulled snow plowing contracts and because what happens if we don't secure these and do them in a timely fashion, we're going to wind up paying more because as as the summer
goes by and we enter into the fall season, um the the contractors get booked up and it's going to cost us more. So, I just want to make sure that next meeting this is resolved. Yes.
I think we do that. Mr. Mr. Smealdo, can we get this resolved you think for next meeting? Is that feasible? >> We just was on the recommendation of our legal that we just >> Great. No problem. >> We're presenting this so we can stay ahead of the curve. We just want to make
sure that we have everything correct. >> Okay. >> Great. Does anyone else have anything? >> No. >> Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda? So move. >> Is there a second? Thank you. >> All in favor? >> I.
>> Any opposed? The consent agenda is implemented. >> Okay. Resol uh resolution 21426, resolution authorizing a professional service agreement with Bright View Engineering for professional
traffic engineering services expiring on December 31st, 2026 for an amount not to exceed $7,500. Councilwoman Ruden, you pulled that. >> Yes, I pulled this because I this seems to be involved uh with with a builder's
remedy lawsuit and I'd like to know why the um the developer is not paying for this and why we are paying for this. >> I think Mr. Simero answered it's our expert. >> Yeah, it's our expert. we needed.
>> But shouldn't they still be paying for it? Even though >> they're suing us [laughter] before when he went through that whole dissertation. >> Okay. Is there a motion to approve 214-26? >> A second. >> Okay.
Councilwoman Castelino. >> Yes. >> Councilman Kovia. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Ruden. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Williams. >> Yes. >> Yes. Council President. >> Uh, the motion carries. >> Council President, if I could just interrupt a moment. I know we have a few more and I don't know how much we're
going to be discussing them, but >> um, is it possible that since Director Carbalo is here and we have two ordinances? >> Yeah. >> That could we just see if she could answer those questions ahead of time? Yes. >> Would that be >> That would be fine. And so she could go home. You know, there were really only
two questions and and the one I think Mr. Smro and I talked about um how many per household. We were giving each res we had put in that we were giving each resident with a car with a valid license plate a um
a a sticker but if it's going to cause chaos and we have to limit that. It sounded like Miss Bernett was fine with limiting it to the four per household. Do you have a some thoughts on that? >> Yeah, that's on first reading, right? >> No, it's on second.
>> One's on second, one's on the other. Sorry. >> I'm asking the opinion of Yeah. Our engineer because I know she's surveyed this and dynamic traffic had weighed in. I mean, if if it's if she feels it's better to limit it to four.
>> Well, that's what we all agreed on last time. It wasn't for every >> It was for the registered vehicles. for all that should be >> four per house per house. >> But the but the resolutions do not reflect that. >> Yes. Go ahead.
>> If I'm not mistaken, at the last council meeting, right, everybody wanted to be something uniform across the township, which was four permits >> and >> one guest >> and one guest. Like I mentioned, I believe at the last council meeting, the available spaces at
Pilot Place is only between 19 to 21. >> Mhm. >> So if you are going to issue four permits per unit, >> you're basically talking about 200 and something permits.
>> Well, it's not assuring anybody a space. It's a first come, you know, if they get the space. >> There is no guarantee that anybody's going to get a space, >> right? We they understand that and they they've communicated that to me. But um Mr. Samero, I guess it sounds like the we it should be stated with four per per
dwelling, right? >> It's your decision. >> Yeah, that's what we're agreeing. >> We've drafted it as as we thought that we were to >> uh >> let's limit it to the four so we have the least amount of I think we Yes. Go
ahead. Um, so my question on these is, and I briefly mentioned this last week when we had the meeting. So now Quimby was added, which I was surprised to see on this agenda
because I it wasn't on my agenda in my packet. So obviously, it was added by my colleagues or my council president. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. Well, I thought we were supposed to all vote when we add something. I thought we had Well, we have a procedure where we go into pending matters to to
vote. >> My issue with all these is going to be that because I had received comments from residents in the area that people are knocking on doors and asking them to
sign a petition. Are we sending out letters to each of the streets to get surveyed or we're not doing that with any of these? >> I did a survey. The survey was done at the beginning of the year. That was back in February. >> But which street was that? All
>> of them. Oh, so you did them again. >> I did a survey for all the streets. >> Those surveys, I believe 37% responded. Right. >> Okay. >> But I have not sent any additional surveys after that. >> And that was the I know. But but you
have, you know, people knocking on doors asking people this and it's annoying some of the residents. So >> those people are not the people that live on the street on the street work asking their neighbors. Those are other people that took it upon themselves to knock on doors. >> All right. Well, the the the reason why
I'm stating this is silly season is >> I know it's silly season, but at the end of the day, we have a process where it gets mailed out to the residents. And listen, I I I I I feel for the people in the neighborhood. I think we should have
did all the streets at once. I said this right out of the gate. I don't know how this is going to work. I'm going to support it with the four. Again, as long as it's Monday through Friday and no, not on the weekends and to 4:00 8 to 4:00 p.m.
>> So, we'll we'll see what happens. It should be an interesting >> woman. I'd just like to just so just so you know as far as this street we did not anything out there because we were just advised of this on Sunday night. So there is no empirical data from the admin >> that was a while ago.
>> No no no this one another new this new one this new one for Quinnby this is not this is has the administration had nothing to do with this one. So this was after >> Quinn a while ago when you sent to everybody right they were part of the >> I'm sorry >> Quinnby was part of the initial one right
>> it was Rick Swain Quimby lot and Rollinsson will send in February they all got Listen I know you're trying to to expedite things for the residents and I could appreciate that but when the residents come up and ask them why there's mistakes on resol on uh the
ordinances this is why because we you know throwing it to legal legal last minute administration last minute like like >> Mr. P was here last time. >> We can't that's but we would but we did not say we were doing Quimby last time. So,
>> okay. >> Again, this is not fair to do to the administration and to our legal counsel. If you're going to do any more streets, do them all in in one shot because peacemealing this is a disaster waiting to happen. I feel bad for the chief and
and our police officers. >> Okay, so we know what we need to do now. We'll do the limit to the four and the one as we agreed upon last time. >> Okay. >> Four per household. And it'll be the same for both streets. And if anybody else comes on board, it'll be the exact
same. It's just a control H. I'm on the date. >> So, so, so there there is an issue with uh doing this. Uh this ordinance is on second read. >> Yes. >> Uh changing it from all to four I think is a substantial change. uh which means
that uh you can't adopt it with that change in it today. Um >> can we adopt it and amend it next week? Can next time because we really want to move forward on this. >> Didn't you look at it after he sent it?
So >> go ahead. >> This when we had the meeting on first reading we all agreed that it would be for >> Yes. hurt and and the change was the mistake was done by legal, not by what the council had requested. So that
change should have been reflected in what we got in our packets. >> That was not relayed to me. I wasn't at that meeting. Uh but nonetheless, it puts us in a position where if you're changing it to four, it's a substantial change. But that change was done two
weeks ago and it just wasn't relayed to your office. So it should not hold up our res >> just the title. >> Yeah. And and in fairness to legal I I mean we're there late at night and throw
I'm surprised he got the name of the street spelled correctly in the whole >> also another last minute >> last minute deal. Last minute deal. We're doing amendments in in in the 12th hour of the of the 12th hour and so it's
sloppy and so yes legal overlooked it but in fairness Mr. summer we did say four >> one notice and I do appreciate council >> uh the the hours that we run it difficult >> the way we operate it's ridiculous
>> the reality however is it wasn't uh it wasn't noticed with uh Ford it was noticed with Paul the agenda was published and the agenda had this particular ordinance on >> correct >> which reads all instead of four so we
would have to retreat tonight like an introduction >> at 4 >> and then we could adop go for adoption at the next meeting. It would have to be republished as amended here tonight. >> Okay. >> Um
if you are interested in pursuing uh the Quimby ordinance uh that also could be introduced tonight. >> Let's do that. and amend it to be
adopted subsequent >> to the first ordinance because it's actually working. >> The QuinnB ordinance has the same errors in it. >> Yeah. >> So it have that would have to be about >> errors. Why? >> That's why you don't give it to them on
Monday >> before the meeting. and and and this this was a process that this council has been screaming about that we have ample time to read through everything and go over it >> and nothing will be adopt uh voted on
that's not in the packet on Thursday. >> Talk about let's just move it forward the best we can. What's the most obedient way to do that? >> So that would be uh having a motion to introduce this ordinance as amended from changing all to four.
>> Okay. tonight. >> We'll do that. >> Uh and uh we would need a motion to do that. >> I never even read it. I never >> And then uh I I honestly would >> nothing on chair thrive.
>> I think that Quimby if it's going to proceed should be introduced at the meeting where Elot is being adopted. >> Yeah. Go ahead. I think that since if we have to go back to square one, all of the streets should be included.
>> There's no way we could do that. >> No, >> too complicated. >> No, let's just go with what we have and and move forward. >> Then Quinnby is moving forward and POD is not. >> No, Quinnby would not be moving forward. >> Can we amend it on first reading? Because it's only first reading. We
can't amend Quinnby. I don't feel comfortable with both the ordinances as written being adopted the same day. And the reason for that is Quimby is drafted as if [clears throat]
Pot was adopted. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, understand that you make redactions and you make additions, >> but I'm working off of the POT template for Quimi. >> Okay. because they're both going into the new same section, new vote, >> right?
>> So, it would be better. >> Okay. >> Uh I don't I don't I'm not even sure we could do it the other way. I would just feel more comfortable doing it sequentially. >> All right. So, let's do that. Um
and just move them both forward. >> Yes. And and I know the chief had some a concern about >> No. about the annual um >> No, I don't even want to go there yet, Mr. Shamro. Um what from my recollection and it was very late and maybe got lost
in the transition. I thought the agreement was going to be up to four permits per household >> through valid registration and insurance, not four. Not every resident is going to get four permits, right? >> It was up to four.
>> And the valid registration insurance is in this dovetales. >> Yeah. >> Uh something the chief just reminded me. >> There were problems that I had with with the PE lot
ordinance as well that I I I sought to correct in the Gwimi. Um the way that it was written was indicating that the registration has to be registered to the address. There's a problem with that. If you lease a
vehicle, it's not registered to your address. It's we it's registered to the owner. >> So, I saw that as a problem and I was correcting it in >> QuickB. So, we'll correct it in both. >> Um, hold on one second. I have to see how I corrected it. >> Make it
um >> Yes. >> Okay. Let's let the chief And should I take I'll take councilwoman. Uh yeah. >> Yeah. Go ahead. >> Thank you, Council President. I I just
want to remind everybody when you are in council chambers and we're talking over each other, it's still very hard for us to comprehend what's happening. But when I am on Zoom and listening to one person
continue to talk over and council president, you are responding to everybody's comments and you are overtalking them and we can't follow what's going on. So I am saying this on my behalf, >> but I'm also saying this on behalf of
the residents who are on Zoom. Please, if >> Thank you very much. Let's try to move forward. >> Go ahead. Yes, council. I don't understand why we can't just do this correctly with all of the streets
up to four vehicles um that are registered per household and just do this correctly and possibly schedule a special meeting that will take all of five minutes >> to get
to get this done before >> I would be open to doing that. It really has to get done before school >> has to get done. And there have been too many errors in too many years and it's not because of silly season. It's because this has taken too long and now
a school year is upon us again in September. >> Yeah, it really we look at the calendar. How fast can we get this turned out to us? What is the the notification that needs to be made? and how quickly can we do this so that we can vote on this
>> keep the 27th date for people to begin to get their permits. >> So, I'm just gonna interject here. >> Yeah. >> If we don't have an ordinance to enforce and we don't know what we're going to enforce, then the police department doesn't know how to plan which we discussed this afternoon on how many
permits and things that we have to order these things. We have to order signs. So, even if you get this done next week, each time we go take any longer, logistically, we may not be able to accomplish this by September 1st. I'm just throwing it out there because
because we have to we spoke to our we already spoke to our printer. >> They told us it take it could take up to 30 days to get our stickers. So that's which we and and hanging tags if we're going to do also the um um >> visitor
>> visitor permit and we also have to order the signs which we could probably get them somewhat quicker and install but we have to figure out how many we need and what we have to purchase. So we need the critical information in order to proceed. So we're not we're not lagging.
we're we're just we're waiting to see what the final product is so that we can actually order it because we don't want to order something and spend money that we don't have to. So, I just want to make sure that we're all clear on that. So, depending on how fast we get this done is how fast we implement this. So,
it may not guarantee a a start of school if it's not >> right. Well, for these two streets, we should be able to knock it out. We should >> Well, council council president, that is an unfair statement to say to the administration because I can't promise you that. Don't make a promise that you can't keep because I'm not going to make
that promise. I can tell you right now I am not making that promise. They told us today a 30-day turnaround for stickers. Today's August 4th. That's September 4th. We could make the school with if we ordered today. If this goes in two more weeks, I can't promise you that. And don't please don't make that promise.
Don't put me in that position because I'm not going to back that up. Plain and simple. We will do we will meet we will move and and get that done when we can. But I you know you know we we work we we we do pull off magic from time to time
but I can't make that promise when they're talking to a vendor. Right. >> Yes. >> I don't feel comfortable being able to draft this language at, you know, 20 and a quarter to 11 at night
>> and salvage the PE lot uh ordinance uh for introduction tonight the way that it ought to be done. Uh what I would suggest is that we pull the governing body and see if there is a
desire to put Pot and Quimby in one ordinance in which case I could get that corrected in a day or two. >> Okay. >> If if you wanted to uh accelerate, we could have a special meeting for the purposes of introduction. You could even
have a special meeting for the purposes of adoption >> and it could be a Zoom meeting >> that doesn't address [snorts] the implementation issues that uh administrator just mentioned. >> Um if there isn't a desire to group the two of them together uh then I would still
suggest the same process for POT alone. So, if uh you're amendable to that, council president, I would suggest that we we poll the council to see if there's both roads. >> Mhm. >> Or or one road and then we
>> you're recommending to do them together for so we can >> is the desire for the council to go in that direction with >> Yes. It should be one word. It's something you don't have to publish twice else. >> That makes sense. That makes a lot of sense. Okay. So, should we take a poll?
Well, then I got a question. >> So, if you're doing it anyway for the two streets, why can't we do the rest of the neighborhood so we don't have to have this nightmare reoccur every other day? >> This this these are decisions that are
are for you. I I will, you know, if they [clears throat] all are going to follow this same rule, uh then well, some of the streets have parking regulations of their own and they're
happy with them like um Nutman and um >> not until everybody from scene hall starts parking over there, >> but they're not going to be able to because it's like a few hours in the morning. So those those that have it that are happy with it don't need this. >> Council President, I have a question.
>> Yes. >> Where is the data on Quimby that it suggests that they want these same parking regulations? Do we have a majority? >> Yes, they have a petition with a majority. >> I'm sorry. I'm I'm sorry. Can I finish, please?
>> Yes. Where is the majority of the signatures in the households and where is that data verifiable? >> They they did a petition and people signed it, >> right? But who is the person who went and secured the the signatures?
>> One of the residents, >> right? And what when does we as a municipality start reacting to just a simple petition that is not a verifiable uh data? Like we should be driving this by data, verifiable data. And again,
I've heard Councilwoman Castelino indicate that some people felt pressured. If we don't have an accurate source of data, we usually when we make these kind of decisions to change ordinances and resolutions, it's done by
the administration. We don't have just regular residents knocking on people's doors making us change ordinances and parking regulations. That's not scientific data. That's not administrative data. That's just somebody bullying somebody potentially.
And I don't think we should be making decisions where the data isn't verifiable. Again, >> it is not verifiable. We have the administration, we have the engineer sending out a survey with a 37% return
rate. We have not gotten any information or indication that these signatures are verified, that they're actual. That's not how you do data. That's not how you do any type of research. I don't agree that we include Quimby
until we get some type of verifiable information from the administration going out and saying the majority of the residents want this. Are you finished? I am. Okay. They did that in February and they only got a 35
uh respon uh% response rate. That is why at this point the residents have been coming here for months and months and months from the different streets and on both Quinby and Pot the majority of the residents want this. So that's why I
feel comfortable to go with those two streets because the majority of the residents have demonstrated that they want it. The majority of the residents have not done that. And again, I'm asking you and I asked this question at the last council meeting. I asked the engineer to to answer the question, how
many spaces are on on POT versus how many of the permits we're going to be giving out. That's why we changed the language that it's that included it to say up to four permits and not guarantee every household four permits because
we're giving more permits than there are realistic spaces. And so on Quimby, my question again goes to the engineer. How many homes are on Quimby? How many people actually are responding to this survey? And how do we verify that those
are actual resident signatures that really want this? Again, we have to do this based on accurate data. >> Okay. I think we've heard this before, but C uh Mrs. Carbalo is willing to um
reiterate it. So for King Queenby Place, we have 38 property owners of which I believe there is five households that have multifamilies. Okay.
And we received approximately 13 responses. >> I didn't. That's why they came here. >> That was in February, right? >> Yeah. Old data. >> So figure 38 + 5 that give you 43. Out of those 43, only 13
>> units responded. >> Right. But the new data has been communicated to uh Mr. >> We didn't see any. >> I I sent him and I sent Mr. Samero from the township, >> but it's >> not our data.
>> Didn't have to be done properly. But you don't get a a response when you send out a mailer. And the residents have come here and told you what they want. The majority of the I think we have to just move forward with these two where we know that the majority of the residents want it and others will come if they
want it. >> That's not a majority of the residents and that's not a legitimate polling. >> Yes, Mr. Samara. If you don't have the votes and support of grouping them together, then the ordinance isn't going to pass.
>> I think we might. Let's take a poll. >> So, I think that we should just do the poll. Yeah, let's just do the poll and >> together or not. >> Okay. I'd like to see them go together as quickly as possible. >> I second. >> Well, it's >> Well, I just raised hands for who them being together.
>> What together? like all we'd have a single ordinance that would end up the same rules and regulations that we're talking to and we'll continue to talk to and and verify tonight for both Quimby and Pot to be introduced at the next council meeting or a special meeting.
>> A special meeting. We need to move >> I think we have to read that and are in support of that to >> Okay, so we got it. >> Okay. So, >> okay. So, we're not going to do all of them. >> No, one one second. Can we have the same question be for all of the streets and and do a poll of the council? >> I'm not sure what all the streets you're
talking about are. >> So, the streets that were mentioned were Swain. >> Okay. >> Rigs, >> I'm sorry. >> Nutman. >> Nutman was not surveyed. >> Okay. >> Nutman doesn't want it. I talk to people. >> Okay. And Mitchell.
>> Mitchell wasn't surveyed either. The only street that were surveyed were the streets in the valley that were Wayne, Queen Bee, Pot, and Rollson. There was only five streets surveyed in February of this year. >> And if they haven't been surveyed, I don't think it's right to do that.
>> So what are the roads? >> It would be Rigs, Swain, Quimby, Pot, and Rollinsson. >> So the all they're all surrounding C, >> right? >> Rigs, Pot, right? Swing
>> swing. They spell that. S W A Y N E. >> Okay. S W A Y N E. >> I'm sorry. S W A N A I N E I N E. >> Okay. And what's the fourth one? >> Mitchell. >> No, not Mitchell. Quimby and Rollinsson.
>> Rollins. Yeah, >> R O L L N S O N. >> That's correct. So it's five. >> So it's just four roads. >> Five. >> What's the fit? I got Rigs, Pelot, Swain, Rollinsson, Quimby. >> Quimby. all of them. Let's take a vote on that.
>> There's a test that there's like >> Yeah, I can see that. >> So, let's let's talk about this. >> This isn't a parking district like the other parking permits. Each one of these will only allow the
people that live on the streets to park on the streets. No, it's a it's a zone between >> it's a zone parking. >> No, this isn't zone parking. This was only pilot street parking and then the
addition was only >> right >> parking. So the problem with this whole exercise is that you put it on one street, the next street comes because it because the residents know it's going to spill over
to them. That's what happened to these folks. >> It was this these uh restrictions were placed above the their uh streets >> and now that's why they want it. So you don't do the whole area. It it's just we're going to have this
every council meeting. >> Yep. >> I say we move forward and get this done and then let if rigs come. Somebody on on rigs I think Mr. Gibbons is surveying his street and if they want it they'll come.
>> The people that just is is is our engineer is our engineer. >> But she only got a she didn't get a good response. >> She's not going to go walking knocking on doors, is she? >> No. No, >> Council President. >> Yes.
>> Is the overriding consideration problem concern the fact that students from the university are parking on the road >> at the primary school? >> High school. >> The high. >> Yes. >> So, >> and we we met with them. We I went went
with uh Mr. Smile. We went to meet them and they want their students to park in their parking lot, >> but they can't control >> and they have they're they were trying to assist them. They were trying to get more CDL drivers, blah blah blah.
They're trying to do what they could do. But the end of the day, and this problem goes back 30, 40 years, it was West Orange High School. So, you have a parking lot that just has always had enough spots for the uh staff and the students always parked on the street,
even when it was West Orange High School, because I was told by many West Orange High School alumni and and that's the issue. They're kids. So, if they miss the shuttle bus, they they're going to show up on the street somewhere. Somebody
>> is it is it just too uh simple to indicate? I mean, I'm not sure why we even have parking zones. Why don't we just indicate that you have to be a resident to park on our our residential streets when you have a decal? >> Is that legal? >> I thought it wasn't legal.
>> What do you mean a res a res? >> Had to look at it, but it's just top, you know. >> Well, that's why we have the the passes the passes because you have, you know, people that have, you know, home health aids come to the home. You have business. Everybody has business.
>> Yeah. That's why I said the weekends I wouldn't support this because it's going to be crazy with people having barbecues or company over. >> This is Monday through Friday >> with the parking. I think I think we should try it as quickly as possible and
have a special meeting to reintroduce. >> And I like doing both of them at the same time. It's cleaner and cheaper. And >> so we want to do all five screens. Is there is there we have a poll on that? I don't think we should do all five because residents haven't weighed in. >> Well, I do you want to have a poll on
it? >> Yeah, we could have a poll. Sure. >> At your meeting. >> Of course, we could take a poll if everybody >> How how about if if I make a suggestion that we do Rollinsson, Quinnby, Rigs, and Swain >> and Pot.
>> That's what we're talking about. >> Okay. So, that's all five. >> Okay. All five. >> So, is there I mean If the president who runs the meeting wants to have a >> We could have a poll. Of course, we could have a poll. >> Who Who wants to do all five?
>> All right, we'll do all five. >> Sounds good. Let's get it. >> Okay. >> We have Councilwoman Williams. >> Councilwoman Ruden, you >> I'm Ruden. I mean, uh [laughter] >> Williams. >> Williams. We forgot her up there. Councilwoman Williams, you have a vote
on this. >> Yeah. I've always said to do all five. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, if we're going to do all five, are we saying that people have can only park on the street in which they live or you going to create it like a zone? >> I do it a zone. >> Do a zone. >> Zone.
>> I'd do it like a zone. >> And then we got it all done. We don't have to worry about people coming back here for the next month or two. >> And then we're going to say it's up to four. >> Yeah. >> Read. And they have to be read. How many visitor passes? >> We said one. >> We don't want them selling them. We want
one >> cuz that's the other problem. >> And and if somebody has more than one person that comes, they can call in, right? >> Like I know somebody has a bunch of children, a child or people come from a state >> to do service to give services and
there's more than one >> sometimes within the hour. So yeah, >> if you want that damage, >> I'm sorry. >> Say it again. So we're going to give one visitor, >> but yeah, but the council president was
suggesting that that they need a second one. I think >> you had said it the last time. >> We we do grant parking permission. If somebody calls in and says, "I have a visitor or a contractor and they are going to be in violation of this ordinance," we have granted parking
permission in the past if they call in. >> Okay. >> Usually it's for the two to five overnight, but if you want to include that, >> this would be for the day. Yeah. because I know a lot of people have told me they have more than one person that comes to the house within the same hour sometimes to do services for children or babysitting or
>> and I just want to remind the council that I tried to uh suggest in the last council meeting that up on different streets in the township this may become an issue. We give poor visitor parking permit. >> Yes. >> Permissions, right?
>> And I requested that the council just stay consistent. >> Yes. >> Throughout the township, but again, that's your decision. >> We've had people that waste >> opposition to that. They want to keep it to one. >> You want to do four? >> No, I want to keep it to one. >> One. This is a different situation. It
demands a different solution. >> If we, you know, we could always amend it if there's problems. If people comment out their problems with it, we can amend. >> I have a recommendation. >> Yes. Go ahead. >> The rest of the parking zone, and this was another thing that I saw, uh, and
that I was intending to fix with the subsequent ordinance, uh, delivery trucks and service, uh, vehic uh, delivery vehicles and service vehicles were an exception to a parking. >> You want that? >> Yes, of course.
We don't want to create any problems. We just want to make sure that kids go park where they're supposed to be and the residents could come home at lunchtime and park in front of their house and have >> Okay. So, let let me read to you the
language that I was proposing to fix >> the uh issue associated where this uh that I pointed out where leased vehicles aren't registered to the address. >> Okay. They say that residential decal shall be
limited to residents of the streets for up to four vehicles registered or leased to licensed drivers who reside in residential units located within the district. >> Perfect.
>> And up to one visitor pass registered to each residential unit. Participation in residential parking uh program requires the filing of an application for a residential parking
decal on PDL. No, PD links and I put the I guess.apparking permit. >> That's is there a comm or a net or anything else? >> I'd have to get that from the traffic bureau. Mr. Samo, I I don't know that. >> Okay. I should probably get the rest of
this. Should should we just real quick do we want to put the actual software because what if in the future the software just say the the police department approved software because >> yes >> yes >> do we have to what if that changes in the future
>> right that's a good idea thinking >> duly noted why you have >> yeah that's why you wear all the hats >> I got a huge brain which will need to be detailed on the website. Is that detailed on the website?
>> Yeah. >> Yes, sir. >> Mrs. Bette had um a question about can this be done out of the substation in the valley? I don't know what the logistics are. You know, you do it. Can you do that? >> And then uh the next paragraph is along with the application, residents must
submit proof of a valid New Jersey driver's license and vehicle registration or lease agreement that confirms the driver's address. >> Yeah. >> With proof of insurance. >> Perfect. >> Okay. So, that was the corrections that
I had identified as being needed anyway. >> Right. And we talked about being renewed annually and I think the chief wanted it renewed annually just so that we could sign everybody up. Right. The permit will expire December 31st of that year regardless of when the application is submitted. It's not a calendar year. It
just >> ends the December 31st of that year. >> So I would like to add to this conversation, not necessarily have to be worked on now. >> Um and the director and I were going to speak to Mr. Samaro on Friday or weekly
meeting is that what we would like to see too is that at some point can we amend our overall ordinance to say that >> parking registration for any parking permit in the town of West Orange gets renewed on an annual basis so it helps our police department. >> Okay. >> Doesn't have to be addressed now but
it's something for your consideration >> because if we're going to use PD links it's the way we can enforce to make sure >> you can enforce it because if people move out people whatever we can keep track of do that with the uh handicap >> handicap parking too.
>> The handicap. Yeah. >> Yeah. Each year. >> Well, the handicap permits come under um zoning. I'm zoning um engineering. I'm sorry. >> They should be renewed yearly, too. Especially in especially >> a lot of the streets that you're talking
about >> because well, not well actually not some of those streets, but there's other streets that have a lot of multif family and you know, they have new tenants constantly. So, Councilwoman, so we can take that into, you know, we don't have to delay delay this conversation, but I just wanted to throw that out there so
that when I speak to Mr. Samurro on Friday, we can talk more about our thoughts and ideas and and we'll include the handicap. >> Absolutely. All right. >> I I have one request on this though. Yeah. On the parking decal itself, >> I highly recommend you put Monday through Friday.
>> Could you be a little quiet back there? Thank you. So, we're going to we're we're talking about the logistics now on how we're going to do. We spoke about in today specifically about POT. If we're going to do it for a regional area, we'll probably have to figure out how we're
going to do it because we have to keep track of these. Also, there has to be a tracking mechanism on these. So, we we had this discussion today with the traffic bureau and the and the police administration. So, we will um we will discuss it again. And this this goes back to my point before, council
president, that we don't know what we're doing, >> right? >> So, we don't have the direction. So, I can't order things until we finalize it. >> But this is good. Now, if we do everything all of them be >> Yeah. >> clearer. >> Well, ju just so if it's on the decal, they can't can they know it's from 8 to
4 Monday through Friday. >> It's going to be the ordinance. It doesn't matter what the decal is is the decal. The decal doesn't matter. >> Okay. >> The ordinance is the ordinance. They're in violation. They're getting the ticket. >> They got it. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> They're in violation. They're getting the summits >> and something can go out to Satan Hall from the mayor, the administration
indicating that this policy so that they can tell Council President again again we're micromanaging this. We put up a sign and it says no parking. They park there, they get a ticket. >> But as a courtesy, wouldn't it be nice to say? >> Well, no, there's no courtesy. >> I think they're going to >> There is no courtesy. It's an ordinance.
They get a ticket or they don't. It's discretion of the officer. There is no discretion here. If they're parked illegal, they get a summon course. >> Period. I'm just thinking of a note to to tell the the headmaster. >> No, you're No, you're thinking about less phone calls. >> Yeah. >> So, that's what you're thinking about.
So, >> so it's No, we will tell the headmaster, but the police marks a ticket. We don't go knocking on everybody's door and say, "Excuse me, could you please your car at 2:00 in the morning?" We don't do that. >> That's all I'm suggesting >> to keep it keep
>> officers are not as always nice as >> Oh, I hear Harris thinks they're great. Okay. >> Nicer. Oh, you [laughter] >> we still have to go to close. >> Okay. So, do we know what we need to do? We just have to pick a date. Um how
quickly can we get this so we can get a date to um I want to keep that 27th whatever. >> Well, I the administrator is indicating that he wants to talk about it on Friday. I I'll start working on it tomorrow and I'm sure that there's going to be some additional questions that I
have uh as I start to write this um because this is >> so then maybe Monday we could have a a quick meeting even >> because it's only first reading so we won't have to have the >> you have to notice it. Yeah, the notice. >> Okay, you can notice it today. >> First reading and then
>> yeah, first reading on Monday goes out that >> it was approved on first reading and then the adoption date will be blah blah blah. >> Yes. So if we if we can just make some time >> if I may suggest that if anybody has if any of the council have any questions
specific to this particular >> ordinance that you have additional questions that you send it to me and uh and Mr. Morero and blind copy everyone on the on this list so everybody's in the loop and and [clears throat]
including director Carbalo so that on Friday if we have those questions pre ahead of time we can perhaps discuss them >> engage in dialogue with each other on those >> yeah that's why I said you blind copy do not get this is not a conversation
amongst yourself but if you >> we can at least blind copy it so we we are >> scheduled Monday for the first >> you can have the the meeting on Monday or Tuesday in order to have the second reading on the 18th which is our next
meeting regulars scheduled meeting >> I would respectfully request Tuesday only because if we get this crafted by Friday we you know I don't know if we we need to council we need we need digestion time so and I'll give you an
opportunity to digest it so we're not we're not having another one of these meetings where we're on the and trying to change things. So, I would suggest Tuesday. >> Maybe we can just make a time on Tuesday. That would work for everybody. I'm available all day. >> Well, that will that would be for first reading. >> Yeah. Yeah.
>> And then the 18th, the following week, we can adopt it. And but if we know we're going to do all the streets and we're going to adopt it, they can certainly put the orders in because we we have agreement that we're going to do that. Well, >> we have three. >> Let them handsle. We will have to have
somebody come in here to hold host the meeting, council president, because if we're because we >> Yeah, >> we need you need to come in here and open up the meeting. So you have to come down here. >> I'm available. >> I just want to make sure that >> if we're going to do a hybrid meeting, we need at least to have somebody here
to >> So we'll do Tuesday the 11th. What time my colleagues and what time's good? >> How about noon? >> Noon is fine for me. Does noon work for you? right now on Zoom. You could be on
Zoom. I I No, I know. I know. But >> it could all be on Zoom. I'll just come in if you want >> and just get this done. All we have to do is take the vote. It should take 10 minutes. >> Yeah. You have public comment, too. So, if you have 50 people come on public reading, >> no first reading.
>> You still have to have a open public meeting. Public comment. Okay. So, >> I wish we had five minutes meetings. >> We never do. Can is there anybody who can't do noon? Okay. No. >> Councilwoman Williams, are you 12 noon
on Tuesday the 11th? >> On Zoom. >> On Zoom. >> He's on. >> Oh, okay. So, >> I asked >> We've got four. Let's just >> What date is that again? >> The 11th. August 11th, Tuesday.
>> She's not on muting. Okay. >> Okay. Uh so I I think that we need a a motion to pull ordinance uh 29 >> 83 >> 83 and 2986.
>> Make a motion agenda. >> I'll second. >> Okay. Uh >> Councilwoman Castelino to pull. >> Councilwoman I'm sorry. Councilman Kroviaak. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Ruden. >> Yes. Councilwoman Williams,
>> she's st I'm here now. >> Okay. >> Yes. To pull 2983 and 2986. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. And council president. >> Thank you. The motion carries.
What resolution were we at? >> No, we had one more second one for director Carbalo was only 982 >> so she could go home early. >> Go home. We were trying to get her out of here >> by 10 or 8. >> So, anybody have a question for director
Carbalo? Only 982. >> No, I'm good. George. >> That's it, right? Or she can go. >> She can go. >> Yeah. >> Thank you, director. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Got some sleep. >> Thank you.
>> Scheduling the meeting for August 11th. Just wanted to >> the 12 noon. >> Okay. 12:00 noon. Thank you. Just wanted to clarify. >> Thank you. >> Oh, yeah. Can you be here? >> Yeah. >> If not, we know that. >> We know where to find you.
Okay. So, let's go back to the resolutions. >> Okay. >> Resolution 216-26, a resolution approving the accumulated time remaining to Carmine Ruda upon his
retirement at the sum of $41,2438. Councilwoman Ruden, you pulled. Yes, I pulled this because I just want to put on the record that the category of limited time due is um questionable and it is still being investigated by the
office of state controller. So for that reason I cannot support this. >> Yes. Uh council president. So um the question was asked about the limited time due for this resolution. Um I researched Mr. Ruda's limited time due
it uh it arose from his unused 2021 vacation time. Um our labor attorney has issued communications to the council about uh unused vacation time during COVID. It
was allowed by the administration at the time to be converted to limited time due. that was their um that was their understanding of the state statutes that govern vacation time. Um so Mr. Rud's 24 hours comes from that that 21 hours uh
from during the CO 19 pandemic. >> Thank you very much for clarifying that. >> Yes. And I just want to make a statement again. All of these uh payouts are all, you know, they're
all confirmed by the legal department. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Okay. Is there a motion to approve 216-26? >> Make a motion to approve to >> I'll second it. >> Councilwoman Castelino, >> yes. >> Councilman Koviaak, >> yes. >> Councilwoman Ruden, >> no.
>> Councilwoman Williams, >> yes. >> Council President Scarpa, >> yes. The motion carries. >> Council President, I think that we need to go uh into close session before we uh vote on 230-86. >> Okay, I'll make the motion to go into close session.
>> Is there a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Okay, we are recessed to go into close session. We already did that. Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. So, we got a lot done today.
That's the whole nine. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you for staying with us, everybody. We're back. We're going to journ from executive session. >> I need a motion. >> Need I'm making the motion. >> Second. Okay.
Ajourn uh executive session to continue the public meeting. Councilwoman Castelino, >> yes. >> Councilman Koviaak, >> yes. >> Councilwoman Ruden, >> yes. >> Councilwoman Williams, >> yes. >> Council President Scarpa, >> yes. >> The motion carries.
>> Okay. And we are going to vote on So, sorry. >> I'll make the motion 230-86. Wait a minute. Where's Mayor? >> Yes, she is. >> I'd like to make a motion to approve
230-86. I'll second. >> Okay. >> 18 Central Avenue, Urban Renewal. >> Okay. Uh, Councilwoman Castelino, >> yes. >> Councilman Koviaak, >> yes. >> Councilwoman Ruden, abstain.
Councilwoman Williams, >> yes. >> Council President Tharpa, >> yes. >> The motion carries. >> I can make a motion to go back into executive session. >> I'll second. Okay. All in favor? I. >> Any approved? Any app?
What? Whatever. >> Opposed. >> Any opposed? Thank you. Couldn't think of it. >> Thank you. >> Good night. >> Okay. Thank you for sticking with us. I'm going to make a motion to close executive session >> and reenter
>> and reenter. Yes. Thank you. >> I >> Yeah, all in favor. >> Any opposed? Okay, we are back. Um, okay. So, ordinances on second and final reading 2981-26,
an ordinance amending and supplementing chapter 7, traffic section 13, parking prohibited at all times on certain streets of the municipal code of West Orange. Is there a motion to introduce on second? >> Okay. Councilwoman Castelino,
>> yes. >> Councilwoman Koviaak, >> yes. >> Councilwoman Ruden, >> yes. >> Councilwoman Williams, >> yes. >> Council President Scarpa, >> yes. >> Okay, the motion carries. Public hearing. >> Okay. I don't see anyone in the audience who would like to comment.
>> Okay. >> No comment. >> No comment. >> Is there a motion to close public hearing? >> Yes. >> Okay. Councilwoman Castelino. >> Yes. >> Councilman Koviaak. Yes. >> Councilwoman Ruden. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Williams. >> Yes.
>> Council President Scarpa. >> Yes. >> Okay, that motion carries. Is there a motion to adopt 298126? I >> make a motion to adopt. >> Second. >> Okay. Councilwoman Castelino, >> yes. >> Councilman Koviaak, >> yes. >> Councilwoman Ruden, >> yes.
>> Councilwoman Williams, >> yes. >> Council President's Yes. The motion carries. 2982-26, an ordinance amending and supplementing chapter 7, traffic section 10.1, stopping or standing prohibited during certain hours on certain streets.
>> I make a motion to approve second, too. >> You don't want me to read the whole thing? >> Second. >> Okay, so >> Councilwoman Castelino, >> yes. >> Councilwoman, I'm sorry. Councilman Koviaak, >> yes. >> Councilwoman Ruden, >> yes. >> Councilwoman Williams, >> yes.
>> Council President Spark, >> yes. Okay. public hearing. >> Okay. Seeing no one in the audience, I guess we'll close. >> Make a motion to close public hearing. >> Second it. >> Okay. Councilwoman Castelino. >> Yes. >> Councilman Kakovia. Yes. >> Councilwoman Ruden. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Williams.
>> Yes. >> Council President. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> I'll make a motion to adopt 298226. >> I'll second. >> Thank you. >> Councilwoman Castelino. Yes. >> Councilman Graoviac. Yes. >> Councilwoman Ruden. Yes. >> Councilwoman Williams. Yes.
>> Council presidents. >> Yes. >> Okay. The motion carries. On to ordinances on first reading 2984-26 bond ordinance providing for various 2026 sewer capital acquisitions and
improvements buy and in the township of West Orange appropriating $3,214,200. Therefore, and authorizing the issuance of $3,53,490 bonds or notes of the township to finance finance the part of the cost
thereof. Is there a motion? >> I make a motion to introduce the first reading. >> Thank you. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you. Councilwoman Castelino, yes. >> Councilman Kovia, yes. >> Councilwoman Ruden, >> abstain. >> Okay. Councilwoman Williams, >> yes.
>> Council President Scarpa, >> yes. >> Okay, the motion carries. I just want to um note that quickly. 29885-26 an ordinance amending and supplementing chapter 7 traffic subsection 7-32.1
handicap parking on streets and subsection 7-32.2 restricted parking zones. Is there a motion to introduce on first? >> Second. >> Thank you. >> Councilwoman Castelino, >> yes. >> Councilman Kovia, yes. Councilwoman Ruden, >> yes.
>> Councilwoman Williams, >> yes. >> Council President Scarpa, >> yes. >> The motion carries. Pending matters, new matters, council discussion, an ordinance to prohibit highdensity data centers as a principal use within the township. >> I I'm too tired.
>> Do you want to table it? >> Yeah. >> No, I I just like I would like this to move forward. I think it's a very good idea. I don't want to get into further problems going forward. I I don't either, but I just don't like we own the property at Lakeside Avenue, so we would
have So, it's not like somebody come in and say, "Oh, I'm going to build." >> No, that's not true. Um, Councilwoman, it is zoned for an industrial use, which is a permitted use under our current ordinance. >> I mean, I'm I'm more than happy to table
it to the next meeting. Yeah, >> I agree that it's late, but at the end of the day, um I I do not want to continue to kick this down the road. We have a settlement agreement with another property, not a settlement agreement, I apologize, it's late. We have a
redevelopment agreement um that we have to also deal with. And if that does not go through, we are in our in our current ordinances allowed to for this use to be permitted. So we cannot we cannot not
deal with this. This is very immediate for um our township. >> So maybe we should just kind of do a straw poll whether we want to move forward. >> Yes. >> And have the you know and the mayor already said she was working with our plan with our planner on this. >> So
>> well the administration could present something to us. >> Yeah. >> Okay. They could present something to us. >> Yes. I'd like to >> I'm in favor of >> I'm in favor. >> Moving for >> I I just have to ask the question. What is how do we define high density data centers? Because I tried to research
this and the there is no accepted definition of what this is. So I'd like to before I vote on it, I'd like to know whoever put this forward how they're defining highdensity data centers, please. >> Yeah. I mean, when we go to the
definitions, we can come to some type of clarity on what that is going to be and and include that in as we go through with this ordinance. So, I I I don't disagree with you, Councilman, but we need to define that.
>> Could I make a suggestion on this? >> Yes. >> Uh, this is a growing trend. We know that it's a growing trend. There are different towns that have done different things. Uh I think that we probably should call our planner and have our
planner explain to us what certain towns have done, what the concerns are. >> Uh and that would give you some ability to narrow the issues that you wish to prohibit. >> I agree. Um I'm contending with a similar issue uh in another municipality
and and it seems like the AI related data centers are uh the greater concern. Um and >> yes, >> there also may be a way and and I don't know about this because I haven't looked into it yet. There may be a way to
regulate the uh adverse impacts without just banning some of the use uh that you might want to consider. Maybe you don't, but you might want to u because data centers
>> uh up until the last 24 months have been considered a very good ratable with a very uh uh small impact on infrastructure demands. But the AI level has now jobs. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yes. Councilman,
>> Governor Cheryl uh signed into law a couple of bills related to this last month. So, I suggest whoever is looking at this that maybe they take a look at what uh what the law is in New Jersey now because we may or may not need it if
we're >> if we're going after high density. >> But that's good to have it just in case. >> Okay. So then we we should bring the planner in for a meeting to discuss this. >> Yeah. And see how if she's moving forward with the mayor. I know the mayor
did suggest that she was in to someone she was. >> So So then we have um ma council president. We have three votes to >> Yes. >> move this forward then. It sounds like >> Yes. >> Thank you.
>> Can we reach out to or you want me to? >> I can reach out. Okay. So, uh, moving on. Amendment to the ordinance for pop-up 40s. >> So, I I have a comment on this. So, when we talked about a while back when we first uh introduced
this a year or so ago, I had worked with the police chief. Our concern was if there well, there was concerns that if you were to do a fundraiser, um, we should make an exception. However, we did talk about if you're going to do a fundraiser, you would need
to apply for a permit. So, that's not written into this version. >> It isn't. I I as an the attorney, I would not recommend that. I mean, you're going to apply for a a permit anytime someone does a tricky tray in the house
or that that seems to be a little uh >> well, overreaching. >> Here's the but here's the problem. I know, but we had some really crazy parties, >> right? >> Where I was in the New York Times,
[laughter] >> so how do we protect ourselves? Because we've also had some parties that like people thought >> here's here's the way it's in the up. >> You're going to get a phone call at one of these crazy parties. >> Yeah. >> I don't think the crazy part is going to
be your fundraiser to run for council next term. I think it's going to be a party where someone is renting out their house and having tents in their backyard and selling thousand dollar champagne bottles and them doing drunks and all
that stuff. So, when you get called out there >> and you see that that's what's going on, it's a violation. >> I I get that. But what happens if when you have the person that says, "Oh, I'm doing a fundraiser for this charity." And >> just someone says something doesn't mean
that they get all that goes through my office. I have people that have a stolen bicycle and they say a stranger gave it to me. They're still arrested. >> But as long as there's a mechanism in place because we do have had people that circumvent the system. So I just want to
make sure this is, >> you know, >> I would say I understand what the and I'll be happy to talk to the chief about it. Do do you really want someone to be violating law if they don't get a permit to have a fundraiser for accounts seat?
>> Well, the reality is the person is going to go get the permit. It's not a big deal. >> I'd like to just leave it as is. I was concerned that there's a loophole in here where anybody could say that they're a 501c and do whatever they want. >> Well, that's the I have a problem with that. >> Well, a lot of these crazy people who do
parties will just be a 501c and that's the end of it. So again, you have to have 501c3. >> What? >> They need to be 501c3. >> They could easily make themselves one if they want to do these parties. Anybody could do that. >> A 501c3.
>> It's getting >> to have a party. Um if they're being disorderly, then they're still being >> disorderly, >> you know. So So >> yeah, but it's hard for us to regulate them. >> We we can micro dissect any ordinance. I I think that this ordinance I I spent
some time on it. The first time I didn't because I was told all he wanted to do was increase the penalty. Uh and then uh something caused me to look at it a little bit differently and I and I ended up coming up with
those revisions. Uh I I I know council Koviaak gave me a call about uh uh kind of fine-tuning the language >> around the 501c3, you know, political party kind of thing. >> We got a lot of people who 501c3s that
all kinds of things, you know, >> you want my suggestion is that >> we leave it as it is for a while. Yeah. To see how it works. >> Exactly. And I think it's something that, you know, if we find using it, >> then let's find out how they're abusing it. Then we could tailor it. Yeah,
>> if if if that's a suggestion. Yeah. But >> this way we won't waste time on it until >> Okay. So then so then I think that that's ready to go. Karen, you could put on for the next council meeting. >> Right. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Um Okay. So
>> make a motion to close the >> Yeah. To adjourn the meeting and enter into an ABC. >> I'll second that. >> Okay. Um, okay. Councilwoman Castleina, yes. Councilman Kovac, yes. Councilwoman Ruden, >> yes.
>> Councilwoman Williams, >> yes. >> President Sparba, >> yes. >> Okay. >> So, this is a 797-26, a hearing on the renewal for 2026 27 for Angelito's LLC at 540 Valley Road. They
have met all their um requirements and they are a special conditions. Um >> I thanks >> Lency none of their special conditions have changed. They did not request a hearing for any changes. So um they just
want to move forward with the renewal. >> I make a motion to approve. >> I'll second. >> Okay. Councilwoman Castelino. >> Yes. >> Councilman Koviaak. >> Yes. Councilwoman Ruden, >> yes. >> To approve. Councilwoman Williams,
>> yes. >> Council President Scarpa, >> yes. >> The motion carries. And is there a motion to adjourn the ABC hearing? >> I'll make a motion. >> A second. >> Okay. All in favor? Any oppose? The meeting is adjourned.
>> We are done. Good night, West Orange. Thank you for hanging in