The most notable discussion revolved around the treatment of the homeless in Passaic. A resident, identified as Griggs, voiced her distress after discovering that the belongings of homeless residents had been discarded as trash. Griggs shared a personal experience in which she purchased a coat for a homeless woman, only to later find out that the woman’s belongings were thrown away. She urged the council to consider implementing lockers for the homeless to store their possessions safely. This suggestion aimed to prevent the loss or disposal of their belongings and emphasized the need for compassion and recognition of the limited resources available to homeless individuals.

In response, the police chief clarified that there was no official directive to discard the possessions of homeless individuals. He stated that items left abandoned were typically collected and stored, allowing individuals to reclaim their property. The chief referenced a specific situation involving items left in public spaces and reiterated the city’s approach to supporting rather than penalizing the homeless. The mayor supported the chief’s statements, highlighting the city’s existing resources, such as the Dignity House Resource Center, which offers assistance to homeless individuals.

Despite the assurances, Griggs reiterated her proposal for lockers, and while the chief acknowledged the idea, he noted potential legal concerns about the city’s liability if items were lost or stolen. The mayor assured Griggs that her proposal would be explored further, stressing the need for a responsible approach.

In parallel, the council deliberated on the challenges posed by the Rent Leveling Board’s staffing shortages. The board, responsible for adjudicating disputes between landlords and tenants, currently lacks sufficient members to function effectively. Various solutions were proposed, including amending the ordinance to allow a hearing officer to handle cases instead of the traditional three-member structure, which requires a landlord, tenant, and expert. This adjustment was suggested as a way to streamline the process and ensure hearings could proceed without needing specific individuals to fill the roles.

There was also a proposal to relax the board membership requirements, suggesting that appointing three residents instead of mandating a landlord, tenant, and expert might broaden the pool of potential candidates. Advertising for board member applications was considered to ensure that interested individuals could be vetted based on their qualifications. However, concerns were raised about this approach, as it could lead to a less structured process than the current appointment system.

The council acknowledged the necessity of maintaining a balanced board, historically difficult to achieve, and discussed the possibility of including landlords who own properties in the city but reside elsewhere. A consensus was reached to revisit the structure of the Rent Leveling Board at the next meeting, with the aim of developing recommendations for board appointments by December 17th.

In addition to these community and administrative concerns, the council also navigated complexities surrounding the ongoing construction of a parking deck. A significant change order amounting to $300,000 was discussed, attributed to unforeseen soil removal and the need for a new retaining wall. Plans to close State Street for three to four months to accommodate material deliveries were outlined, with expectations set for the parking deck framework to begin taking shape early next year.

The council also addressed the financial implications of appointing a paid hearing officer for the Rent Leveling Board, noting that while costs are associated with legal representation during hearings, the current system of mediation has been working adequately in many cases.