In accordance with chapter 231 public laws of 1975, adequate notice of this meeting was provided by resolution of the municipal council adopted on June 17th, 2025, setting forth the schedule of meetings for the year 2025-2026.

Send notice was published and posted on the city hall bulletin board by the office of the city clerk.

Please be further advised.

This meeting will be conducted in person.

The Zoom provided is for viewing only and is offered to the public as a convenience.

Councilman Love Present.

Councilwoman Mello.

Present.

Councilman Mayor.

Here.

Councilman Garcia.

Present.

Councilwoman Colom Montañez.

President and Council President Sheer.

President, should we all please draw us?

Heavenly Father, we thank you, Lord, for allowing us to meet this evening.

We ask you to please guide us in the decisions that will take place this evening.

And you'll beloved name we pray.

Amen.

I fled the leaders to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the Republic for which it stands.

And justice for all good evening, colleagues, members of the public.

The administration has requested that resolution number 42 be removed from tonight's agenda.

Is there any objection to removal of item 42?

See no lights at this time.

Yes.

Very good.

Well, we're on room number four five, excuse me.

In accordance with the every public meetings act and JSA 10 colon 4-1 at sec.

The council opens every public meeting for comments of the public.

However, in accordance with NJSA 10 colon 4-12, nothing in this act shall be construed to limit the discretion of a public body to permit, prohibit, or regulate the act of participation at any meeting.

Therefore, please be advised that the council will not entertain any comments from persons who communicate obscene material.

Or makes comments intending to harass or speak any offensive language.

The person who makes these statements will relinquish their allotted five minutes for public discussion.

Is there anyone who would like to address the council?

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the council.

Joshua Goldman, 185 High Street.

I thank you for the opportunity to address the council now for the third time regarding the re the zoning of the R1A district in the city.

Is approximately two weeks ago, the applicant in the application that was the um uh genesis of my concerns withdrew their application.

Um some of you may have been aware, some may not have been aware.

I'm hopeful that now that the application has been withdrawn, that any impediment to discussing a rezoning um has now been removed.

Um obviously I saw the agenda today, and obviously not on the agenda, um, but I am hopeful that that the council will consider uh a rezoning of the area.

I'm not coming as a uh my way or the highway.

I'm happy to explore alternative options.

I've never heard a constituency that doesn't uh want a rezoning of some kind, uh there may be disagree in terms of what is appropriate, what's not uh, but I do think it's appropriate and where is the um concern as in facing the prior application was that once the zoning is in place, your hands are tied in terms of how you can respond to applications only in accordance with the applicable zoning district that in in uh then in place.

Now the council has the opportunity to proactively make corrections, update the zoning to more appropriately reflect the 21st century, not the uh 70-year-old zoning that's in place.

Um I I would request the council to either uh you know, obviously that it's at their discretion, but you know, council president.

If if there's something that's intended to be planned, we discuss maybe at a later date to just let me know.

I don't want to have to ring my neighbors and friends, they're happy not to be here.

I'm happy not to take up too much of your time.

Um, but obviously it is something that is obviously of concern to myself and many of my neighbors.

Uh and I would believe it is timely to to make changes, so that is the purpose of my visit tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone anyone else wish to address the council?

Second motion and second to close councilman love, yes, councilman councilman mellow.

We have someone here.

Oh, I'm counting.

Forgive me, I didn't see you, sir.

Thank you very much.

Joe Concenti Council President.

Um, my question that I have is we had a historic in in the city of Basai for say about 30 years.

All of a sudden, a few years ago it was replaced by a historic committee.

My question is, where is this committee?

Who's on this committee?

And what's taking place with this committee?

Is there any way I can get a list of the names that was uh appointed for that um committee?

That's my question on that one.

My next question is we have several departments.

You got City Hall, DPW, recreation, depart departments.

You have fire department, we have the police department, you've got a fire chief, and you have a police chief.

So why is other people getting involved with these departments when all these departments have department heads and they get salary and they you know they have to do their protocols?

So why do we have people interfering with their positions?

These are my questions tonight.

That's the end of your question.

Yeah, that's a time.

Okay, so you asked about uh uh a city historian.

I know that for a long time the city had an historic.

I believe the uh position was vacated, right?

Um, and if I'm not mistaken, I believe the mayor subsequently did make a city historian, and I believe the gentleman's name is Mr.

Mark Auerbach.

Um, you can get information on he's no longer here.

I'm asking the new committee, is that what I'm asking about?

Who are they?

Which committee?

They used put together.

Well, there is a there is no requirement, sir, for the city to have an historic committee.

Current mayor Laura has not appointed one to the best.

Excuse me.

Yes, they did.

Right here in this country chamber, you guys voted it in.

Then what you should be doing in this case, because it is done by the executive as an as the uh ability to serve his purposes and that of his administration.

He's not the committee does not report to this council, it reports to him.

I would direct you to contact the mayor and ask him any questions you might have.

But it is not within the purview of this council to do anything except receive and file uh for the position of uh member of the historic committee.

The next question that was the question.

What was the question?

The next one, which was about the department.

Uh all these department heads are not, you know, you got people interfering with their jobs.

Then I think then I then I suggest, sir, that using this as a forum or anywhere else that you can get a forum to get one.

The administration has broadband to be the administration to be the executive to get the job done.

If the executive believes that they need 16 sergeants and four captains and three, whatever, that's their decision.

The council has no effect upon those decisions in most cases.

In some cases, there are, but they're not always the case.

With that ability to get things done.

I'm sorry, or legal spin.

You're not even on a it's not legal spin, sir, it's the law.

We're not even on the question.

Well, I appreciate talking to the your back as you walk away.

Is there anyone else who would like to adjust the council?

There's a gentleman here.

Yes, sir.

Good evening, Calvin Merrick.

227 Summer Street Passate.

Uh just have a quick question.

Um Baptist Church uh submitted an application for sign to be placed in front of the church.

It was supposed to be on first reading, last meeting that was canceled and second meeting tonight.

I read through it.

Maybe my older eyes skipped over it.

I was just wondering, are we on with this evening?

Mr.

Fernandez.

Yeah, I don't know if um that's a form for the council if we're talking about this the signage, right?

I believe that's a good one that would go before the zoning board, Mr.

Murray, not before this council.

Oh, okay.

The engineers office told us that it was going to be on the council meeting, last meeting, and then the second reading tonight.

But the last one are you talking about clergy parking or no, not clergy parking, loading and unloading.

Oh, the public services.

Okay, that's a little different.

Wow, services are going on.

Yes, yes.

So that would be a letter that would come to the clerk.

Clerk, did you get the letter for that property as of yet?

No, so the engineering department would send would forward a letter to the clerk's office.

She doesn't have it in her possession, and then it would come for the council to review their recommendation.

So we have as of yet, I haven't seen that.

In fact, the only one I saw was a Broadway application.

I got that one.

So what we're what we'll do is we'll follow up with the um council president.

We'll follow up with engineering so that we can get an update to Mr.

Merritt so that you'll know exactly what it's on.

Because I haven't I haven't received that.

Okay, I was I was in there over a month ago, and the young lady called and she called the clerk's office, and it was supposed to be scheduled for first reading last meeting, which was canceled, which we realized, and it was supposed to be set first reading tonight in that order.

But I will I will defer to the clerk's office about that.

I haven't seen it come across my desk, so we'll follow up with engineering if that's the case.

I will personally follow up with engineering.

Okay, will somebody get back to me or yes?

Okay, because I'm the one that signed the letter and submitted every day.

With the council president's permission, we can follow up nice to see you, Mr.

Mayor.

Anyone else like to adjust the council at this time?

I see no one would like to leave above it question.

Second, motion and second to close councilman monk second, yes, yes, councilman love, yes, councilman mellow, yes, councilman mayor, yes, councilman Garcia, yes, councilman Colombo Tannez, yes, and council president shear.

Yes, thank you very much.

I understand that the mayor is joining us virtually this evening.

Yes, mayor, are you can you hear us?

I have a little cohes.

I don't see his name.

Yeah, he's uh he's not on this moment, but all right.

So we'll we'll uh await his phone call certainly.

Why don't we go into with the council's commission uh ordinances for second and final reading?

Remember number six number one, proposed ordinance 2501-25.

An ordinance adopting a redevelopment plan for blocks 3212, lots 21 and 23, corresponding to 91-95 Talkerson Avenue in the city of State, New Jersey.

Is there a motion, please to open public discussion?

Motion and second three roll call, please.

Councilman Monk, yes, yes, councilman love, yes, councilman mellow, yes, councilman mayor, yes, councilman Garcia, yes, councilman Colombia, yes, and council president shear.

Yes, thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.

At this time, the council will be considering proposed orange 2501-25.

Is there anyone who would like to adjust the council on this item and this item out?

Seeing no hands, I'm going to close the public portion.

Second motion and second roll call to close.

Councilman Monk.

Yes.

Councilman Love.

Yes.

Councilman Melo.

Yes.

Councilman Mayor?

Yes.

Councilman Garcia?

Yes.

Councilman Colomb Tanes?

Yes.

And Council President Shares.

Just like you, Mr.

Fernandez.

What are we doing on this?

So this is a redevelopment project that would eliminate two prohibited rooming houses on Paulson Avenue.

So this plan would uh demolish two rooming houses that exist.

Uh clearly there's a number of violations and situations that have occurred.

And it is additionally to that in our zoning code, rooming houses are a prohibited use.

So this plan would eliminate two prohibited uses.

It would then provide for an ability to provide brand new housing with a um over 20% set aside for affordable housing.

So we're not losing because one would already be reducing rooming houses and affordability, but in this case, we're providing valuable affordable rentals along with market rate and making it in a much more conducive uh establishment.

How many apartments will there?

So it's 36 units, 12, 12 of them being affordable with much more parking than what was there now.

And currently how many residences are provided in the rooming houses.

Uh so the rooming houses is ranging in that kind of vicinity.

So it's in the 30 room vicinity.

And why can't I uh tomorrow morning open up a rooming house?

What precludes so it's prohibited, it's a prohibited use in the city of Passaic.

So whenever possible, what we try to do is eliminate the prohibited use and convert it into a permitted use.

And with this redevelopment plan, we've given the incentive to the developer to be able to do that.

So just for everybody's edification, rooming houses are one of the most difficult uses to eliminate.

And the reason for that is that they're very lucrative because they rent per room versus per apartment, so they can have a very small space and get a lot of uh income from it.

So they're always extremely difficult to eliminate.

And I'm proud to say that under this administration, we've at least removed at least four or five of them and been able to convert them into affordable units for families.

Why can't I a rooming house tomorrow?

It's prohibitive use.

So, how did these rooming houses maintain themselves?

Is this so that they pre-existed the establishment of the prohibition in our code?

Very good.

Any questions?

Yes, yes, Councilman Monk.

Yes, thank you.

Thank you.

Um the um on page on page seven, which which refers to um parking standards.

So in item one, it says applicants are strongly recommended to obtain off-site parking agreements for a minimum of 10 years for spaces that cannot be accommodated on site.

So I what does it mean by applicants are recommended?

And right so yeah, okay.

I'm sorry, God, I didn't mean to interrupt.

Yeah, yeah, go ahead.

Please, please, please, please.

Right.

So under this plan, there is a specific parking requirement.

Right.

And if you look on page seven, you'll see the parking standards that we have for the apartments, which is standard in all our redevelopment plans.

If you cannot accommodate this standard and you are short, we are requesting that you make so when the planning board reviews this application, they may ask the applicant, your short parking.

Did you try to go get additional parking off-site somewhere else?

So that you can meet your parking standards, even though you couldn't meet them on your current site.

So that's why that language is in there.

So we're trying to encourage, don't just come ask for a parking variance, show us that you really need the parking variants because you've exhausted all other options.

Uh I see.

Okay, thank you.

And item two, which is something that has been added in, and um I I think which is you know, thank you, um, mayor and uh this is a Mr.

Business Administrator.

I think it's a it's a big it'll be helpful a lot regarding parking, and that is um item two is at a minimum one parking space must be assigned to each unit and no additional cost to the tenant.

Now, yes, I would recommend that maybe we tweak that a little bit because if you look at item three, item three states off-site shared parking agreements.

The planning board is hereby given the authority to waive any and all of a uses uses parking requirements in this redevelopment plan if a parking structure or surface parking lot with adequate capacity is located within 500 feet of the subject use.

Now the re the the purpose of item two, right?

We're in minimum one parking space, must be assigned to each unit, is because um tenants tend to you know they don't want to pay extra for a spot and they'll park on the street, you know.

And as the city redevelops site after site, and we're adding more housing, um, you know, we'll just cause more and more of a problem with the lack of parking in the city of Passaic.

Right allowing a lot to be 500 feet away, and the developer could use that lot 500 feet away as the parking spot that is being designated to the tenant, which he must designate for no cost, is really is really going to take away the the goal here of forcing tenants to park off site because again, if if you assign me a lot 500 feet away, that's uh the 500 feet is is almost a tenth of a mile, you're really basically and and and and the developer, the owner has to assign me a spot, it's really it's really meaningless because I'm not using that spot that's 500 feet away.

I'm I will be parking on the street.

So if I can respectfully disagree from a planning perspective, um so this is less than a two and a half minute walk from any site, and what this allows is if there's a parking deck, for example, that's within this 500 feet, that they can make lease agreements, which is standard, even in our underlying zoning without this, that you would make a lease agreement to accommodate your parking needs, like that happens right now, whether this is in here or not.

So uh a developer can come in and say they themselves can be building a parking deck, or they can partner up with another developer and build a parking deck between two properties and be able to use this to facilitate the parking.

So it's going to provide the parking necessary and adequately, and this is typically reserved for more of the larger projects or projects that have a parking deck nearby as an example.

Let's take our parking deck across the street.

You know, I I could if there's a development, let's say nearby, and there's a shortage of parking.

What we've done, which the boards have done has put in their resolution as a um condition of approval that that developer has to actually pay the annual fee for that parking space and give it to each one of the units that so let me let me plan.

Let me tell you what I would do if this was my project.

Okay, okay, and I had I was putting up the you know 20 units, and let's say this 20 units obligates me to have 30 spots, all right.

And I have I don't know, let's say I have um I have let's say I have 30 spots on premises, okay?

I'm trying to go 30 spots.

Okay, I could technically go rent a lot 500 feet away, make it make a parking agreement with someone 500 feet away, and give those the the spots that are 500 feet away, designate those as the free parking to the residents, and on-site parking I could charge for.

Yeah, so where the issue comes in, if you read the first sentence, right?

That would be a failure on the planning board because it doesn't give the developer the ability to do that, it gives the planning board the ability to waive it.

So if I'm a planning board member and I see that there's on-site parking, and I don't make that condition, that's a failure on either board.

It could be the zoning board or the planning board because they're showing on-site parking spaces.

So even though I understand your concept, I disagree with it logistically because that's not what it says, it doesn't give the developer that right, it allows the planning board to consider that as part of their approval.

So that would be my my rebuttal to that argument.

So what so what do we have to lose by um amending item two here that a minimum of one parking space must be assigned to each unit and no additional cost on site as long as there's on-site parking?

Well, if you want to add as long as there's on-site parking, because the the one drawback would be if there's no on-site parking, you've now eliminated the ability for them to provide parking.

At minimum, one parking space must be assigned to each unit on site at no additional cost if available.

Yeah, well, when adequate or if you provide it on site at minimum one parking space must be assigned to each unit on site.

If available, well, it'll be a two A and a two B.

I don't know.

One parking space must be assigned to each unit, no additional cost of the tenant, and two B would be when on site parking is available this must be on site.

I can do that.

Just do a an A and a B.

That's a good that's an easier way to do it.

B would be will that meaningfully affect Rick?

Yes, sir.

Mayor the council president, mayor's yes.

Council president, do the council president.

Just a quick question, Rick.

Does that in any way impact those who are receiving subsidized assistance or uh are renting through uh what we often refer to as um rental assistance section eight?

Uh it should not, Mayor.

It should not.

Basically, if I'm understanding it correctly, it would just say you're still allowed to have that 500 foot distance to another parking space, but if it's on site, those no additional costs has to be first, it has to be on site first.

Like you because if I understood councilman monk's dilemma, it is that he doesn't want the developer to make the free parking be 500 feet down and then charge you for the on site one and and charge it for the accommodation.

So I guess in the rare occasion, what I'm asking you is I mean, I'm not heard it correctly, but in the rare occasion where a tenant would want to pay for parking, would that eliminate the option of that tenant being able to pay the additional fund for parking?

Do you understand what I'm asking?

Yes.

Makes sense.

So, yes, I understand you correctly, um, Mayor.

Here it just says that they would not charge the tenant, and that'll be part of whatever the right for the initial space.

So in your scenario, Mayor, they could in essence get one and pay for another one.

Understood.

So basically, right?

So basically, in this, your first parking space is free, any other parking space above that one, you can be charged for.

So that would allow individuals, understanding the scenario you're talking about to be able to be charged for a unit.

I I understand didn't this uh council and executive uh pass an ordinance regarding uh rentals and the ability to charge separately for things like parking.

So would that be not relevant in this discussion?

So at least from a planning perspective in a legal planning perspective, I think we may be going down an area we may not want to get into like the specific charges and why they charge it on a lease, right?

Because that's a little different than in a uh redevelopment plan where you're saying if you're gonna charge, you're not gonna charge them for the first spot, you can charge them for the you know the following spots, right?

So that would not be in contradiction.

That would be that right, but you're still allowed to charge for spots, you just can't charge for the initial spot.

Councilman Monk, are you satisfied by by Mr.

Fernandez's uh thoughts and of course the if the mayor's guidance here?

Right.

So what would we make like a two A and a two B and um right?

So the way so if I can just if I can just read it off, Mr.

Mayor, would that was that are you in agreement with that, sir?

Yes, yes, right.

So just for the mayor and for um councilman monk, I'll read it off the way it would it would be stated, and then you let me know, mayor, if that's good with us with the change.

It would say number two, at minimum, a one parking space must be assigned to each unit and no additional cost, b must be provided on site if on-site parking is available.

Great mayor, is that okay?

Yes, yes, okay.

So I will make that change, and that will be the change that goes to the planning board.

Susan, this is this is a to minimumist change and would not affect very good.

Okay, we're still in discussion of 2501.

Council President Hambuch.

Forgive me, Councilman Your Sorry.

Just a quick question.

Um, one, my experience on the zoning board, and then some feedback from some of these plans.

Um applications are great, and they put some very extravagant and some detail uh things and to get passed.

My question is how is this going to be monitored?

And how is it monitored in terms of um now the parking spaces given to tenants because uh we've had some some complaints of that of um you know parking spaces were made available during the application phase, but once people started getting into those uh units, they weren't getting parking, right?

So that's why one of the directives from the mayor was to make sure that we added that they can provide at least one, right?

Because what was happening is there was no requirement, and you would go to the planning board and they would just vote on the plan and say, okay, they have adequate parking.

Then the developer would build the project and say to everybody, you got to pay me 200 for a spot, you gotta pay me two hours for a spot, and then the property tenants were like, I'm not paying the 200, and I'm gonna go on the street.

So to avoid kind of what councilman monk was saying, right?

And to alleviate that need, we're putting in every single plan, at least the ones that we write as a redevelopment plan, that they have to provide at least one parking spot at no additional cost, so you know for a fact that you got one spot for you, right?

Now, if you own multiple cars, now you're on your own.

And I and I got that, I understand that.

That's the approval.

So this was this was a response to those complaints.

So, how is it monitored after the approval?

So, what's gonna happen is there's gonna be a resolution that's made that makes this part of the resolution when they get their certificate of out because you see, that is made part of the resolution, and if there's a complaint at any point, they can be uh they can be in violation, though they can be, they will be in violation of the approval and can be cited and made to uh bring it back to the approval in jeopardy of losing that approval if they don't follow the the what was approved.

So if I'm here correctly to my question, um it would it would result in a complaint.

If a complaint comes, then the investigation will be correct launched.

That's what I mean.

Yeah, yeah.

Are there any other questions on uh 250125?

Yes, yes, please, council president.

Councilman Monk.

Thank you.

Um an item, I'm sorry.

This is uh building facade and streetscape and layout, yeah.

Item 15 states, any proposed multifamily development with 20 units or larger, shall incorporate approximately 2,500 square feet of interior community space as a fitness center business center.

Now, if you go to page 11, which has possible floor and elevation, I don't see there any space allowed it to this community center.

So there if you look first, just for the council's edification, this is a concept, it's not what the planning board sees, right?

It's kind of an idea of what you can see.

But in this case, if you look, this site plan is shaped like a U.

If you look at that corner unit, um so if you got the long hallway before you get to the shorter hallway, there's a there's a corner space, and that says very clearly amenity space.

So it says amenity area.

Oh, I can't I can't read it, it's so small.

Yeah, so I mean, I would show you on the I don't know if you could zoom in.

If you zoom in, so it's an there, but again, just for the council, when I draw these plans up, it's not gonna be exactly what the planning board gets, right?

The developer is gonna develop a plan based on this guideline that then the planning board is gonna review based on this guideline, right?

So we're giving you concepts and ideas so that you can the board can kind of get an idea of what it is that they're looking at, but to say this is exactly what the planning board is going to get, yeah, wouldn't be accurate, right?

They they're as long as they meet the guidelines and all the other pages.

This is just kind of an idea and a concept.

Because I'm you know, I'm not the architect for the engineer, so when they do their plans, you'll get a much clearer version of what it is.

This is kind of just a concept, it's just an idea.

Okay, so I shouldn't I shouldn't say, oh gosh, it's is there amenity room but scales the other apartments that's about two and a half thousand square feet.

Right, but that doesn't mean that this may not be so there's just as an example.

This says floors two through four.

If they have this corner on every single floor, they've exceeded the very but I don't know again.

This is a concept.

What they submit to the planning board is what the planning board's gonna review.

And for example, let's say they come in and try to play fast and loose and make that a unit.

Well, then they're not following the guidelines of this plan, and the planning board can say no, that has to be an amenity space because you're missing the 2500 square feet of amenity space.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman Mayor, please.

Um are there any state or city incentives for this redevelopment?

So this is a rehabilitation plan, and what that does is you have the security that once the council and the planning board pass this.

This is a plan that if you follow the guidelines and you don't deviate, is most likely going to get approved, right?

So that's a benefit.

So there's a um a sense of security as an investor, and then secondly, because this is an area in need of rehabilitation if they qualify, so let me right, depending on their performance.

If they qualify, they can um apply to this council for a five-year tax abate.

Now there are criteria, that's why I said they must qualify.

So if they're making a claim financially on this, the state the the short-term tax abatement law wouldn't allow them to qualify to come before us, right?

So that's why I'm prefacing with that.

I don't know what those numbers are gonna look like, and then obviously we're promoting affordable housing, so every applicant, whether it's a redevelopment plan or just somebody who wants to build affordable housing, can always apply to our office of community development for funding.

So uh I wouldn't be surprised as a council member to see an application for funding through HUD.

But that's that's money specifically for that purpose.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments on 2501-25 2501-25?

Single minute to sign is the motion to close public hearing.

Second roll call, councilman monk, yes, yes, councilman love, yes, councilman mellow, yes, councilman mayor, yes, councilman Garcia, yes, councilman Colombones, yes, and council president.

Yes, thank you.

The ordinance passes unanimously.

Number two, please.

Proposed ordinance 250.

You close the public.

We closed, I'm sorry, on the ordinance itself.

No, second and second roll call, please on the ordinance.

Councilman Monk, yes, yes, councilman love, yes.

Councilwoman Mellow, yes, councilman mayor, yes, sir.

Councilman Garcia, yes, councilman Colombanez, yes, and council president here.

Councilman Mayor, you're gonna add a comment.

That's yeah, just wanted to make sure that to be was included in that, but to be was that on the ordinance, yes, sir.

Okay, we can go to the next one, yes.

Yes, okay, good.

Next is 2504-25 and ordinance adding part 12 clergy parking permits to chapter 295, vehicles and traffic of the city of Passaic Code.

Is there a motion, please to open public hearing?

Motion and second, thank you.

Roll call.

Councilman Monk, yes, yes, councilman love, yes, councilwoman mellow, yes, councilman mayor, yes, councilman Garcia, yes, councilman Colombanez, yes, and council president chair.

Yes, thank you.

At this time, ladies and gentlemen, the council will be deliberating proposed ordinance 2504-25.

Is there anyone who would like to adjust the council on this item and decided?

Seeing no hands are moving.

Roll call, please.

Just keep that thought, councilman.

No, I okay, yes.

Councilman Love, yes, councilman mellow, yes, councilman mayor, yes, councilman Garcia, yes, councilman Colombanias, yes, and council president chair.

Yes, thank you.

Miss uh at this time, ladies and gentlemen, the council will be delivered in the proposed order 2504-25.

Is there anyone who electron just the council on this side of the side?

This is on the ordinance now.

We have to vote on the ordinance.

Council President.

Do we just vote on the ordinance?

No, open.

All right.

So let's vote on the ordinance.

Councilman has something to say, and he'll have the opportunity to say it once I take my foot out of my mouth.

But let's what do we need to do first?

Maybe here, Councilman.

I'm not following.

We should listen to Councilman Monk with his comments.

Councilman Monk, we're supposed to be listening to you, which is becoming increasingly difficult.

And you should listen to your city clerk that says you should listen to me.

Yes, thank you.

Thank you, Council President.

Um, a few points, a few questions and points here.

Um, number one.

Uh you know, just as we as we just discussed at length about parking and lack of parking in the city of Pacific.

Um should we allow these parking permits for clergy only if the institution does not have off-site parking?

Some of these uh religious institutions they currently have off-site parking with a sign for clergy only.

That was question one.

Mr.

Fernandez, and and um mayor, you jump in if you if I'm going in the wrong direction.

Yes.

Uh yeah, Rick, I want to before you begin, Rick.

I just want to I just want to add a little perspective that the clergy parking is often provided, not just for service funerals, things of this nature that may require a specific uh space right in front of whatever temple or institution, whether it be a synagogue, mosque, and church or parish, and it is often used on different days outside of what we would expect would be their regularly scheduled uh date.

So uh if you do not have um space in the front and you are forced to park in the back because you already had an existing parking lot, that may create an inconvenience in terms of those particular ceremonies.

That's just one perspective that they are not just limited or exclusive to the use for uh what we often consider service, but specific for all operations and that uh much like a loading zone strategically placing them in the front becomes a necessity on the hours where they are provided.

But uh, if if I if I may, but the ordinance if uh in the section 295-65 states that the part of the requirements is to provide proof of vehicle registration and valid driver's license.

Um, indicating I could be wrong, indicating that that spot is designated to a to a specific vehicle.

Correct.

And unless, and of course, I understand your perspective, unless the city is gonna limit what kind of vehicle the particular applicant would be allowed to drive, or how they will utilize the vehicle, whether they are the ones that lead a funeral procession, or whether they are the ones that must be present at the very opening of the uh building.

I just typically, and again, we're just following the model that exists in every other municipality uh throughout the state, they are typically provided without any restriction or conditions in regards to whether they are existing parking lots or not, or whether they utilize the parking lot for them and so what's it called?

The ordinance actually requires each application to be considered, and one of the considerations is the adequacy of existing um you know parking at the uh house of worship, off-street parking.

So you know that that's going to be one of the considerations.

Oh, I see section D, section D of uh the ordinance here.

I see a consideration, just not a restriction, meaning each circumstance may be different in the application.

There may be extenuating circumstances why even though there is additional parking uh particular lead of a house of worship would be applying.

Can I can ask from a practical point of view, Mr.

Fernandez?

How often does this occur?

That we have applications for well, we don't have any now because we haven't permitted it yet, right?

So what'll happen is we'll get phone calls, for example, funeral processions and things like that.

I mean, mayor, that happens almost constantly for funeral processions and things like that, where the police department may post up no parking to try to do that.

This would now just just for a point of perspective.

We're we're we're having a conversation about houses of worship that actually have parking.

I want to tell you, especially with the type of municipality that we are and the age of our infrastructure that most of these houses of worship actually do not have these expansive parking lots.

Yeah, we have some, but many of them do not, which is almost this is almost a necessity for these events because of what's happening throughout our great city, which we're embracing.

But if you're asking currently, we don't have this available availability, hence why the mayor wants to propose it.

But secondly, we get funeral procession requests constantly, and just like the mayor said, we have to block off in front of that facility because if they gotta bring let's say the casket down from the house of worship into the vehicle, if we don't restrict that area, people are gonna block it and use it.

Mayor, did I describe that accurately or did I go off on a tangent?

No, it that is a scenario, however, to the councilman's point, Councilman Monk, it is specifically designated to uh a particular vehicle.

However, yes, practically speaking, it would be utilized to ensure that no one else is taking up the space.

But however, I would just like to add that some of the spaces that are considered adequate parking may be in uh distance to the actual house of worship, which does not take into consideration handicap or other limitations of the individual that has to lead the service, which would open up additional applications of wanting handicap or accommodations.

This puts all of that to one side and does exactly what every other municipality has done in the similar case of providing uh particular parking space for the lead to utilize as they see fit in their duty.

I don't see how this is going to take care of the the scenario of a funeral.

Um councilman, we're trying we're trying to play around because obviously there are certain times where you create a scenario that is intended for one use and perhaps creates a benefit.

We often avoid trying to create a problem.

So I'll just speak as plain as possible.

If the parking space is designated for the clergy, no one takes it up.

If no one takes it up, then during a funeral procession, a hearse or the clergy can have that parking restricted because it's restricted for other purposes, unless we're going to show up with the police during a funeral procession and say, hey, that hearse is not your car, and the pastor or the or whoever it is, the imam or the rabbi is saying, Well, I'm driving it, and we go into back and forth, but my likelihood is we're not.

They will use it and we will expect them or at least have a reasonable expectation that they will act on good faith.

And if not, and if violations are so egregious and we have to put police in front of churches, synagogues, mosques, or temples, or whichever house of worship may apply, and we say, hey, you you're abusing it during funerals.

So the the intended but not specific purpose is to ensure that there is an available space that can be utilized for operations by the lead clergy who applies, considering that they do not have adequate space in proximity to the entrance, and if in the future it is utilized for other means, much like if there's a designated space in City Hall for the council, and no one's supposed to park there, but we have a delivery, and we say, hey, since it's open, put the delivery there for a second, unless a council member objects, the space, even though it wasn't the intended um desire of the uh putting the space aside can be utilized in those means.

I hope that that made it clear.

Yeah, uh the reason what I'll where I was going with this is that uh in 295-63 in um item B, it says there that the designated clergy parking spaces shall be clearly marked with appropriate signage, indicating number one clergy parking only, number two, the days and hours during which the restriction applies, and three, the penalty.

So if I if I if I live across the street from a church or from a synagogue, and I'm not a member of that synagogue or church, and I see, oh, it says there that I can't park there on Sunday, um, you know, between 8 a.m.

and and 12 p.m.

Um, but I could park there Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday.

I'll put my car there.

How will that help if funeral that happens on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Saturday?

Then of course we would have an expectation that they would schedule their services around the designated hours, but we would have no way of compelling them to do so, nor would we have any reasonable expectation that they wouldn't do so.

As we have with every ordinance, we place them on for your vote, and we expect the public to adhere to them, and those who would benefit from an approved application would be expected to understand that the sign is intended to protect the space or to reserve it only for those hours of operation.

Any dispute would follow the same procedure as any dispute when it comes to traffic, whether it's street cleaning or whether it's restricted parking loading zone, they would call the appropriate traffic division or the police, and it would be resolved.

And if there are repeated or multiple offenses, then we would consider removing the uh reserve parking.

Okay, I I I just I'm just not clear because the item C says it's four hours in a single day, you know, and number two, two separate time periods per week for regular services.

So I I just all these different scenarios.

I'm just not sure how that's going to cover you know, to save the time from the police department, you know, every time there's a funeral to stop.

But it's not about a funeral councilman, it's not about a funeral.

That was one scenario.

It's not about a funeral.

It's it's about providing a specific reserve space for houses of worship, which is not inconsistent with what other municipalities have done around the state.

It is a provision that the council is able to make and that the administration can request, but obviously it would be up to the council if they would choose to share it.

Obviously, any scenario can be brought up as to whether or not it's going to be uh productive, beneficial, or meet all of the needs of whatever house of worship is applying for.

I would argue a proposed no ordinance or approach we take meets all the needs of anyone who is applying.

But this is one that we have identified that many clergy as it is, and those who lead houses of worship tend to be of an older age.

Not that we can't identify a few that are younger, maybe uh multiple, but uh many are, and it's become uh increasingly an issue and requests, and it is within the power of the council to approve it.

And of course, we would have the opportunity to share with the number of clergy that it was an ordinance that was passed to accommodate them, and then we would monitor it, regulate it, and bring reports to the council if there are issues, which I imagine we have seen in the past.

The residents have no hesitation coming to the council to let them know this ordinance isn't working.

Yes, and councilman Councilman Mark, if I may, I know you have the floor.

Um I think I think some of those things can be covered by item three as well and see additional time periods, especially.

Um it says religious holidays, but I'm sure that if anyone puts an application in for anything, including funeral sessions or any types of things, can be brought forth to the city council for approval.

So I think that kind of covers what you what you were saying as well, that there's some different events that need to be covered.

Right.

Council Melov, I appreciate that.

The only thing is, how do you post on a sign when a funeral is going to happen?

Again, if you're a neighbor across the street, you can't do it.

It's not for funerals.

Can we can we put this on the record?

The parking is not for funerals.

Funerals was just one example.

I just want to make clear funerals was one example that was utilized to express or demonstrate that the reserve parking for the clergy can be beneficial in other scenarios outside of its intended purpose, such as if there is a funeral and the particular clergy has to drive the hearse or the vehicle that's going to carry a body or be in the hearse and say rather than put my vehicle, put the hearse in front of the church on my vehicle because we're having the funeral during the hours of operation that we typically have service.

Anything outside of that, yes, there are multiple scenarios that we could say this doesn't help.

We're looking to present it to the council for the scenarios that it would help.

Okay, thank you.

Uh I have one last comment, and I will um I'll be quiet for this ordinance.

Um no, don't show that way at all, Camusman.

The ordinance uh allows two spots, right?

Per.

Um how many how many institutions do we have in the city of Passaic?

That would qualify for this?

Yes.

Numerous, numerous, numerous.

I would probably say it could be anyone's guess, but I would probably say certainly in access of 100.

Some of the some of the uh religious structures have a large membership, many have a small membership.

Right.

And many don't need it.

Many, if I may add council president, many would not even qualify simply because some of the buildings that were constructed over a hundred years ago, the front of their buildings are already restricted from any parking, meaning they're uh they're painted yellow or they're on a street where you cannot park.

So uh, but your your estimate is I think very close to accurate in terms of the numbers.

Okay.

If I can just I just if I can just interject just and I hope I'm not out of line, and I apologize to my colleagues uh to the mayor from fact I am.

But it seems to me that this is a relatively uh minimumist change we're looking to make to accommodate um our our uh ministers, rabbis, imams, etc.

Um I don't want to suggest that all this conversation is not a triple conversation is, of course.

But it seems to me that we're taking away the uh the impact, the desire here to accommodate as much as we can possibly.

If there's any group that's something that we're going to lift on our shoulders, it's going to be that if the surgery's call that they do for us in any number of areas.

And I think that being said, I would uh can move in further with this ordinance, Councilman.

No, I I can't agree with you more, Council President.

I was thinking, if I if I may finish, Council President.

Um I was actually um wanted to tighten it up so that it's more as convenient as possible for all the religious leaders.

And not that we just creating more headaches for for them.

I I think what it's going to come down to is what it so often comes down to, Councilman.

And that is the situation at the moment at the time, what else is going on?

I'm certainly there's no church that wants to be disruptive to traffic flow or parking flow, whatever.

Um, and it's a question of of having the necessary flexibility on a practical point of view on a situational point of view.

Um I think that might very well address it to the sensitivity of a police department, uh, and of course the administration.

Okay.

Thank you.

Are there any other comments that we have on 24 2504?

Where are we on this public hearing?

We're already closed.

So now we're moving on the ordinance.

Yes.

We have a move and we have a second role called.

Councilman Moss?

Yes.

Councilman Love.

Yes.

Councilwoman Mello.

Yes.

Councilman Mayor.

Yes.

Councilman Garcia.

Yes.

Councilwoman Colomb Montan.

Yes.

And Council President Shea.

Yes, thank you.

Mr.

Mayor, I'll have an adjustment on the uh on this uh in-depth conversation.

No, not at all.

Helpful.

Council President, I'm gonna make it brief.

Um, I will let you know that we were able to give out over 1,200 turkeys to families during this Thanksgiving holiday.

I want to highlight the efforts of our human services along with Judas Sanchez, Macio, Sana Breyer, our youth council, the Passaic High School, uh, youth Bible club, so many other volunteers.

The uh the LDS church in the city of Passake, as well as uh veterans, police, fire, and so many others who came together, um, as well as the US Federation of Chaplains.

They assisted us in giving out not only 1400 turkeys but also bags, 1400 bags, as well as uh gift cards.

We also want to acknowledge sponsors like certified angels and uh the the headquarters of shopright as well as many other locals.

We'll we'll provide you with a list of them.

I also want to let you know that I had uh uh I was able to lead a panel during the weagon municipalities regarding uh autism and approaches for assisting families.

Uh we are working very closely with some of our state agencies as well as not-for-profit organizations uh to address concerns, not just of uh those who are children and minors with uh autism are on the spectrum, but those who are adults.

We've begun work on Bragg Park on Maine Ave between uh Burgess and uh Summer Street.

We're extremely excited, or rather Highland and Burgess before you get to Summer Street about the work that has already begun there.

I'm I'm gonna pause that and uh limit my reports because I am virtual and I'm having a tough time here.

Any questions to that?

Thank you so much.

Thank you very much.

We're on to our agenda reminder number seven communications items three through eleven.

Are there any questions please on three through eleven?

So it's time as a speech at three through eleven.

Motion second roll call, please.

Councilman Monk?

Yes.

Councilman Love, yes, Councilwoman Mellow, yes, Councilman Mayor, yes, Councilman Garcia, yes, Councilman Colombanez, yes, and Council President Sheer.

Yes, thank you for receiving file items 12 through 22, please.

12 through 22.

Are there any questions, please on 12 through 22?

Single exactly motion accept 12 through 22.

So motion second, roll call, please.

Councilman Monk.

Yes, Councilman Love.

Yes, Councilwoman Mello, yes, Councilman Mayor, yes, Councilman Garcia, yes, Councilman Colombon Tan, yes, Council President Sheer.

Yes, thank you.

We're passed by number eight, please resolutions number 23 is a resolution authorizing closed executive session of the city council of the city of the second December 25 at 7 p.m.

or any time they're after.

Do we need a closed executive session?

No, Council President.

Thank you, man.

Mr.

Sernander, Mr.

Mayor, I don't know if you can still hear us.

Yes, I can hear you.

No.

Thank you so much.

Members of the council.

No.

Very good.

We are on resolutions.

We have a group of them.

Item 24.

Through 156.

I see through 86.

And we're taking off 42.

Correct.

Mr.

President.

May I have uh 26 separate vote?

26 separate vote.

Any other comments or questions, please on the resolutions is presented.

28.

No line.

Separate vote?

Oh, no, it's on you a question 28?

Councilman, please.

This is all this comes as uh as we need it.

It's not like uh you get 195,000 in salt, and you're making salt order on your nose.

No, I know we have Fred here.

I'm sure Fred would love to do that, but no, so basically what happens is we fill um we fill the trucks, we fill our storage unit, and then as it comes up, we call for it.

And the beauty is that as we propose these things, they go into trust accounts.

So you know, some years are heftier than others, so it's as needed.

We're not, it's not like oh, we just we didn't commit to 195,000.

No, we're not only as needed, but it's enough there that if we need it, we have it.

Okay, yeah.

Thank you.

Any other questions, please?

Uh yes, Council President.

What is that?

Monk.

Councilman Monk, forgive me.

Yes, yes, sir.

Yes, thank you.

Uh a few questions.

Just uh want to point out item 27 uh for oil, just a slight minor change.

Um the cost the cost per gallon is two dollars and eighteen cents and 0.0539 cents of delivery.

Um, and the resolution is for 8.5,000 gallons per month.

So the total should be 18,988 per month as opposed to 18,955 a month.

Is that an item that should be corrected in the resolution, Councilman?

Uh I'm just pointing it out, and what whatever the council feels appropriate there to do.

If I could ask you to repeat your question so that uh our attorney can uh give us a thought on this.

It's not a question, it's just I'm just pointing out that the amount of gallons and the cost per month fee cost is 18,988, as opposed to the resolution that says 18,955.

So we're talking about a differential of how much 33.

There's a typo.

Well, accept it as a typo, councilman.

Okay with your permission.

You please, of course.

Okay, the next is item 34.

I am 34, sir.

Yes.

Again, just the fourth, whereas this resolution is from June 25 2025 through January 1, 2026.

That's just another three weeks.

Is this really long?

Is it supposed to be longer?

Or we need it just for the next to end off the year uh for uh to purchase uh computer hardware.

So what happened, because I agree with you, and I questioned it myself, is because the state this is based on a state contract and the delay on the state in getting the bid in, we had to do this to cover us until the January 1st, 2026.

So the reason for that was based on the delay of the new contract by the state.

Uh okay, thank you.

Okay, good.

Thank you.

And my last question is on item 35, resolution 35.

Awarding contract for burglar alarm monitoring, equipment and maintenance.

So this resolution has a monthly fee plus an hourly fee.

So the monthly fee comes out to around close to $30,000, give and take.

But the resolution is for $45,000.

So just I get some clarity on what's in is it two separate, you know, is this is some things which are included in the monthly fee, and then anything that's out of that um spec goes to an hourly fee.

Is that is that how this works?

That is accurate.

Okay.

So on the back of the resolution where it has the bids from the other vendors, it also includes as all resolution as all resolutions have, it also uh has who was awarded the contract in prior years and also at what rate.

So this company, I believe it's the same company.

Um actually was a different company.

There was awarded in prior years, had an hourly rate of like pretty much half of what we're paying now.

Um, and a premium hourly rate, also pretty much half what we're paying.

The only difference is they went up monthly.

It doesn't say what our monthly fees were in prior in prior years.

You're saying there's no comparison factor, councilman?

Correct, correct.

Mr.

Venom, is with that information be regularly available to you or no?

Uh not right now.

Let's say I would have to go up to the purchasing office.

If if we would ask the administration if we could take this off and uh have it on our next meeting, would that be uh again?

Uh always when it's December and there's contracts, I always get nervous because they don't know.

If they don't make it back, if they don't make it back, I don't have a contract for next year.

That's my concern.

Uh the bids, I can tell you that the bids that you have are accurate, right?

That's what came in.

And the the one discrepancy that you may see is that when they gave us an hourly rate, if you look above the awarded two, it was it started in 2022.

So the hourly rates in 2022 were a lot less than they are now going into 2026, and that's why we get into several year contracts, so we can lock people in at an hourly rate that's less.

So just for the board's edification, I want you to see oh, they jumped from $65 to now a hundred dollars.

Well, no, that was $65 from 2022, and now it's $115 for 2026.

I just I wanted to make that clarity.

It's not like it's last year to this year.

The previous contract are from 22 to 25.

So we're locking this rate in for those next three years at the 115 hour.

Right.

So Mr.

Business Minister, you touched on another point, which I wanted to bring up, which is of concern.

That this resolution makes no reference to what I could find that it's a three-year contract.

It's a very open-ended resolution.

It has doesn't say when it starts.

Doesn't say when it ends.

I mean, typically resolutions say exactly what period of time we are authorizing this contract.

Let me check real quick.

This makes it makes the bid part of the process, and sometimes if it's and I know I'm not disagreeing with you, councilman.

Usually what happens is if it's in the bid for the three year process, then it becomes it's it's part of the resolution.

So I'm just verifying that right now.

Um I don't have it as part of the backup.

What I have as part of the backup is exactly what the council has.

So I don't have the actual bid specs, but I can get you that information.

I mean, before we vote on it, then we have I understand I understand completely your request.

I unfortunately I don't have that.

I don't have that in front of me.

Okay.

Councilman Lunk, can I have uh some direction from you, please?

I I again if it's uh I just uh uncomfortable voting on on a resolution without any time frame in it.

Yeah, unfortunately, I don't have that the backup I have is the same you have, so I I'd have to go up to the office to verify, Mr.

Fernandez.

I you knew how rare it is that we ask for something to be held.

Um I'm concerned, however, that from what we're hearing the without specific specificity in terms of three years, etc.

That um this is something which deserves further it's completely understandable packet, it was in the packet, it's on the website.

If you go to the contract period, the contract for the period of one year with the option to remove a contract for discretionable with the two one-year terms.

It's in the uh well, there you go.

I'm reading the same one.

I mean, on the city of the state.

So yeah, I'm not on that.

I'm not on the website, but yeah, so that's on double check.

But let me go to the website real quick.

But that seems exactly how we would write it.

Yeah, hold on.

Um monitoring equipment.

Do you have it readily available?

Um, that's it's on it.

Basically, he's looking at your website, the city clerk's website.

It's on bring you that, though.

Well, just want to make sure I'm looking at the right place.

I want to make sure that listen, I understand the councilman's point exactly.

We just want to make sure that it's the accurate.

Um, but that does seem like what it is.

We'll we'll do one year with a two-year option, which is pretty much what we did for the first round.

That's just go to city clerk's office real quick.

I'm telling you, get so used to the mouse, then now I'm using this pad here.

It's my I'm going everywhere but where I need to go.

It's in bid post date.

That's right.

All right.

I have it here.

Contract period is for a period of one year with the option to renew the contract at the city's discretion for two one-year terms or one two-year term.

So at the council's discretion, it would be up to a three-year term, which is consistent with the original one.

That's why the original was 2022 to 2025.

Thank you very much, Councilman Mayor.

That's exactly what I would have gone upstairs to pull.

Okay.

Does that provide satisfaction to everyone in terms of there any other questions that I would just ask, please if um at a later date over the next week, if someone could just send me what the last year's you know the prior year's contract, what the monthly rate was as well, just for comparison, please.

Mr.

Mr.

Fernandez will be getting back out to you shortly.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions on these resolutions before us?

With the council's permission, items 24 and 25.

Is there is there a resolution to accept?

Yes.

Motion and second on 24 and 25.

Roll call.

Councilman Monk?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilman Love?

Yes.

Councilman Mellow?

Yes.

Councilman Mayor?

Yes.

Councilman Garcia?

Yes.

Councilman Colombon Tanes.

Yes.

And Council President Shear.

Yes.

On 26, please alone.

Move it.

Second.

Roll call, please on 26 only.

Councilman Monk?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilman Love?

Yes.

Councilman Mello?

Yes.

Councilman Mayor?

Yes.

Councilman Garcia.

Stay.

Councilman Colombon Tannez.

Yes.

And Council President Shear.

Yes, thank you.

That was on 26.

On 27 through 41.

27 through 41.

Are there any questions, please?

Seeing none.

Is there a motion on 27 through 41?

Second.

Councilman.

Councilman Monk?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilman Love?

Yes.

Councilman Melo.

Yes.

Councilman Mayor?

Yes.

Councilman Garcia?

Yes.

Councilman Colombon Tanes.

Yes.

And Council President Shear.

Yes, thank you.

That was only I'm sorry.

That was 27 to 41.

On 43.

To 86.

To 86.

Are there any questions, please?

No.

Roll call.

We need a motion.

Second.

Councilman Monk.

Yes.

Yes.

Councilman Love?

Yes.

Councilman Mellon.

Yes.

Councilman Mayor.

Yes.

Councilman Garcia.

Yes.

Councilman Colomb Montanes.

Yes.

And Council Presidentier.

Yes, thank you.

There are no other resolutions, correct?

That is it.

Okay.

We're on payment of bills.

Remember nine.

Are there any questions on the bills?

Senior Large.

This time is the motion, please accept the bills as presented by the clerk.

Motion and second roll call, please on the bills.

Councilman Monk.

Yes.

Yes.

Councilman Love.

Yes.

Councilwoman Mellow.

Yes.

Councilman Mayor.

Yes.

Councilman Garcia.

Yes.

Councilman Colonel Montagnez?

Yes.

Council Presidential.

Yes, thank you.

Administrator's report.

Remember number 10.

Mr.

Fernandez.

Yes, Council President.

I have uh a brief statement.

Um, I'd like for the council and for the edification of the public just to see the number of resolutions that we did amending the budget, which we call chapter 159.

And I just like to take this moment to let everyone know the amount of work that goes into these are grants that we receive to offset our budget.

And what you passed today was offsetting our budget by almost 20 million dollars in grants that this administration goes out and applies for, and that just goes to show the work of all the staff that we have here.

Uh I have to give thanks to our CFO Omar Garcia that puts all this together and every single director that goes out and applies.

And when we say at our meetings that we look, we turn over every rock and try to squeeze every bit of juice wherever it is.

I just want to show that this is an example of that.

We are one of the municipalities, and our auditor constantly tells us that out of all the municipalities, which they have many in the state of New Jersey, they've never seen a municipality go after and receive as many grants as the city of Passaic.

So that's a testament to everyone's work, and I just wanted to make that clear.

Uh, and whenever I have the opportunity, I'm gonna let everyone know that this is what we're doing here in the city of Passake, unlike uh many of the other municipalities that we have.

Thank you, Council President.

The council joins joins you, the administration, certainly finance area, and thanking uh all of our employees for the extraordinary work that they do to bring us where we are.

Certainly uh we would not be in the good shape that we are without their assistance and direction and guidance.

Um, any questions or comments from members of the council?

Yeah, I would like to congratulate our business administrator because he was recognized down um at the Lago Municipality.

Yes, yes, so congratulations for best dancer or for what happy to be here.

I was very humbled and honored.

It's not every day you get a career achievement award, and I was uh lucky enough to have a distinguished service award from the New Jersey Municipal Managers Association for my years of service as a municipal manager in the state of New Jersey.

So I'm very proud and humbled uh to receive that.

But just like I said five seconds ago about all the work it it takes a village, and we have a very strong knit village here in the city of Passake, and I'm proud to be a part of it.

Well done.

Thank you, and thank you, Councilman Mamel, on on uh bringing that out.

And uh Mr.

Council President, Councilman Monk.

If I could just amend what our business administrator just said um for his years of service, I would change it to first years of service and for his future years of service to the city of Passaic.

Yes, thank you, Councilman Monk.

We uh we all joined you in that in that thought as well.

Uh at this point, is there a motion please to adjourn?

Motion motion may we have a second motion and second to adjourn.

Roll call to adjourn, please.

Councilman Monk, yes, yes, councilman Love, yes, Councilwoman Mello, yes, Councilman Mayor, yes, Councilman Garcia, yes, Councilman Colombon Tanez, yes, and Council President Shea.

Yes, thank you.

This meeting is adjourned.