Speaker numbers apply only to this recording.
The Vineland City Council held a regular meeting on August 11, 2026, at 5:30 PM, presided over by Council President Paul Spinelli. All council members were present: Dr. Elizabeth Arthur, Scott English, Albert Vargas, Vice President Cruz Gomez, and President Spinelli. The meeting included public comment, adoption of ordinances on final and first reading, approval of multiple resolutions, and a motion to refer a redevelopment plan amendment.
All four ordinances were adopted unanimously (5-0) after public hearings were opened and closed:
Three ordinances were passed for first reading unanimously (5-0), with public hearings scheduled for August 25, 2026, at 5:30 PM. (Note: The raw transcript states the public hearing date as August 28, 2026, conflicting with the minutes which state August 25, 2026.)
Discrepancy: The minutes show each of the 18 resolutions and the motion were voted on individually and approved unanimously (5-0). However, the raw transcript indicates that a single motion was made and adopted to approve all items on a consent agenda as routine and non-controversial. The summary below reflects the unanimous approval of all items.
Resolutions approved:
Motion approved:
No comments were made by council members during this agenda item.
court uh and having you know city officials come in the developers come in everyone to testify to this it's it's not ideal so I would like the city to do this to do their job in this matter um additionally in my email I reference um the fact that data one is claiming to be a public utility and claiming that uh that's a permissible use in the IB zone um in fact they it is not a public utility and thus the use would require a variance um under our municipal code um a public utility is defined as any utility authority commission special district or other corporate entity data one highlights this other corporate entity part um whether regulated or not by the board of regulatory commissioners that provides gas electricity water sewerage uh telephone or cable service so I highlight this word here service which requires that you know data one would be supplying uh a utility to uh you know the the public someone other than itself um and I I cite case law here that um shows that time you gotta wrap yourself up all right um so essentially yeah well did anyone see the email yes all right Rick would you like to respond to the lady as war is what we have done or not done I'm sorry I heard that there was a a violation that was issued but were there were two stock work orders issued as well as fines that were issued uh when we learned of the um uh construction actually we learned of it from um testimony from the applicant himself so uh that has been done uh we've also met with DCA um and they're also uh assisting as well so fantastic um I filed an OPA request earlier for that information is there any way that I could be provided with that sooner than the seven day period yeah all right awesome thanks thank you anyone else saying no one close that session okay Mr. President I present ordinance number 2026 56 and ordinance to amend and supplement ordinance number eight which establish classification compensation plans for the city of my various animal control titles which is ready for a public hearing chairman's motion the ordinance number 2026 56 be taken up for public hearing open to public for discussion so move second Dr. Arthur yes council member English yes council member yes vice president gomez yes present spineless yes is there anyone in the audience who wish to be heard on ordinance number 2026-56 state your name and where you live Nancy Martin uh bridgeton um I'm here to comment on the specific ordinance um which is updating the city's classification and compensation plans for various animal control job titles specifically uh the inclusion of inclusion and creation of the animal attendant and manager positions and classifications I understand that it is standard administrative procedure to align city positions with civil service guidelines but this ordinance is specifically creating hands on caretaker roles which raises a couple of practical questions so as we've previously discussed Violet does not have a municipal animal shelter since since April since ending the contract we know that designing and funding and building a state regulated animal shelter with the proper licensing proper protocols it's a major infrastructure project it's it takes time it takes money it's not something that can happen overnight we also know that violence temporary solution is to pay the private local boarding company the canine academy to hold the animals on a temporary basis so this really presents some operational contradictions and some questions because violent civil service employees which this seems to be creating cannot legally and operationally work inside a private business running day-to-day kennel operations so this leads me to my question since we have no municipal shelter and since city workers can't actually operate inside the private boarding facility my three questions are one what would be the immediate operational plan for these newly created animal attendant positions within this ordinance such as where would they physically be expected to work two are taxpayers expected to funding sal to be funding salaries for these animal caretaker positions that don't actually have a physical municipal facility to work in and report to and three if that's not the case then the introduction of these titles is that signifying that the city has in fact secured an actual building and instead of the canine academy which would then be a staffed entirely by city workers and if if that's the case then this plan would need to be public because we're still we're still not getting the same kind of transparency and and clear cut roadmap for what the city's plan is but these positions don't seem to align with where we are in terms of building in terms of kennels in terms of land in terms of any of that it seems like they're kind of putting the cart before And three, if that's not the case, then the introduction of these titles, is that signifying that the city has in fact secured an actual building and instead of the canine academy, which would then be at staffed entirely by city workers. And if that's the case, then this plan would need to be public because we're still we're still not getting the same kind of transparency and clear cut roadmap for what the city's plan is. But these positions don't seem to align with where we are in terms of building in terms of kennels in terms of land in terms of any of that. It seems like you're kind of putting the cart before the horse. So I'm not really sure what's happening with this plan, but that's that's my comments and my questions. Thank you. Okay, thank you. You got the information to help this lady if you you need to do it, Rick. Mrs. Martin, do you did you give Mr. Tanetti your contact information before? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. All right, anyone else? Close the public portion. Chair undertains a motion public hearing on ordinance number 2026-56 be closed. So move. Second. Dr. Arthur? Yes. Councilmember English? Yes. Councilmember Vargas? Yes.