A major point of contention was the handling of the River Street resurfacing project, particularly the amendments to the project’s contracts. The original contract was valued at $151,000, with a first amendment adding $56,000. The current discussion involved a second amendment proposing an additional $781,000. This escalation led one council member to describe the situation as “very disturbing,” pointing out discrepancies in how the amendment was presented during a finance meeting. The member suggested that the additional funds could be better utilized for road resurfacing or sidewalk improvements, given that an engineering firm was already contracted for the project.

Clarification was provided by another council member, who explained that the original contract was for the construction phase, while the new amendment addressed the design and development phases. The council member emphasized the importance of certified project management to ensure adherence to timelines and budgets, arguing that a project management team was essential to mitigate the likelihood of additional costs through change orders. The discussion included technical details about the proposed improvements, such as new stormwater inlets, manholes, piping, and sidewalk constructions.

Concerns were raised about the practicality of the construction plans, especially regarding the narrow width of certain segments of River Street that currently lead to parking issues and traffic flow problems. A council member insisted that the design should include widening the street in critical areas to alleviate congestion.

Due to potential legal challenges arising from how the items were advertised, the council president recommended delaying the vote on the two pertinent items until the following Tuesday. This delay was aimed at ensuring the items were presented with the correct titles and details, thereby protecting the city from future legal disputes and ensuring thorough public communication regarding the project’s status and plans.

Further discussion focused on the financial aspects of the project, particularly the management fee for overseeing the construction. One individual questioned the justification for a $781,000 fee to oversee a $9 million contract, calling for a detailed breakdown to understand the staffing and expertise that would justify such a cost. The need for a clear explanation from the overseeing company was emphasized, with a speaker noting that “they need to say something, put something in writing like why are you worth this kind of money.”

In addition to construction concerns, there was a debate about the transparency of council meetings. One council member criticized the leadership for not televising workshops, stating that the lack of public access led to a disenfranchisement of the community. This member emphasized the importance of broadcasting these sessions to keep residents informed and proposed a resolution to formalize the requirement for workshops to be televised. The ongoing disputes about meeting structure and the broadcasting of discussions highlighted frustrations with leadership decisions.

The council president asserted that the authority to determine whether workshops are televised rests with them, dismissing the need for a vote on the matter. A heated exchange ensued, with accusations flying back and forth among council members. One council member criticized another for being irresponsible, citing a lack of engagement in committee meetings and implying that this negligence resulted in confusion and disorganization.

The meeting also included public comments, with Erica Williams, a young speaker and member of Generation Z, expressing her support for Councilwoman Dr. Lilisa Mimms. Williams highlighted Mimms’ role as a certified delegate working to support Kamala Harris and the Democratic ticket for the upcoming presidential election. She emphasized the need for integrity and power in leadership to benefit not just Paterson but the entire nation. Mimms responded with gratitude, acknowledging the support from her colleagues and mentioning her nomination by Congressman Pascrell and Assemblyman Wimberly.

The council transitioned to an executive session to discuss various legal matters, primarily focusing on workers’ compensation claims against the city. The agenda included numerous resolutions, all categorized under pending workers’ compensation claims involving individuals such as John DeCandido, Eric Diaz, and Raphael Hernandez. Each resolution was designated for formal action during the executive session.

The council president clarified that no formal action would be taken during the executive session itself, reiterating that the purpose was to discuss the matters privately before returning to a public session to take action on the discussed items. During this procedural transition, the council members acknowledged the importance of addressing these legal matters privately to ensure that the city’s interests were safeguarded.