##VIDEO ID:XidDBQV__UA## accordance with chapter 231 public laws of 1975 adequate notice of this meeting was provided by resolution of the municipal Council adopted on June 18th 2024 setting forth the schedule of meetings for the year 2024 2025 said 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 stream provided is for viewing only and is offered to the public as a convenience on December 6th 2024 public notice and zoom instructions for this meeting were published in the Herold news and posted at the city of Pake website at www.city of.com Council agendas instructions are also available on the last page of this agenda please be guided accordingly councilman love presid councilman monk president councilwoman Melo presid councilman Schwarz present councilman Garcia present councilman col monz um uh councilwoman can you please rise for Heavenly Father we want to thank you Lord for allowing us to meet this evening Heavenly Father Lord we present to you the agenda that has been set before us this very moment and we ask you to please please guide us in the decisions that will take place this evening Lord and we ask that you bring with health our council president in your beloved name we pray amen United States of America mayor mayor report mayor report I'm sorry um oh council president Sher um is unable to attend today's meeting and he has designated councilman monk to preside over the meeting in his absence thank you yeah open pinata drop pinata drop which will occur on May as it does each year our program will begin around 8 o'clock at night and will conclude after 12:00 I know that in Third Ward Memorial Park by Hughes link many have seen some work being done we have some uh pipe um Replacements there funded by FEMA we continue to mitigate concerns of flooding issues and there' have been a number of advancements in the investment in the area not just there but in all of our Parks we have a recent update through the county as we move forward with the um combining of palaski Park and dund the island and the expansion into North palaski and uh East Moro there are some challenges that we're facing with the land and the date in terms of completion may have been put a little bit but we continue forward working together in a collaborative manner to provide and enhance open space and Recreation opportunities for all of our community over the last couple of weeks we have held a number of activities at the last meeting we discussed the tree lighting ceremony as well as the holiday in the park there were huge successes we continue to gather a number of toys from donations that have come from the green I want to thank Mario as well as our business administrator Rick Fernandez gave a personal donation of toys some other staff members and different agencies have joined with us as we always provide for many families in the city um I want to remind the community that our parking will be free until uh January 7th January 7th I believe is the last day right after uh Three Kings Day which is the 6th of January and then beginning that Monday will go right into paid parking we had an extended period of free parking in this year in order to ensure that everyone enjoys the holidays as we are an extremely diverse Community celebrating many different holidays we understand as we approach where the quwanza or Hanukkah or Christmas which I think this year Hanukkah and Christmas fall on the exact same day um we will continue all of the uh activities that we do throughout the year many have seen the uniform decorations that we've done throughout Main Avenue as always I remind individuals that they should put out their garbage in containers as we have experienced some very windy conditions over the last few weeks which have resulted in an increase of litter throughout the city but DPW has been working around the clock only together can we maintain our city clean that's going to be the extent of my reports for now thank you sir thank you thank you mayor also there's um some addendums to the agenda this evening agenda 43a and there's a backup to item number 44 any objections yeah just just by way of background and U the reason for the walk on so uh the request is from the owners of I of uh 26 Jefferson the old panot site they're a logistics Center that has are in the process of selling it to another larger nationally Logistics Center uh and we have been reviewing this since Thanksgiving roughly and ultimately they're planning on closing next Monday hence the urgency from them um we had um done all our due diligence unfortunately the due diligence didn't finish until late last week um specifically Friday which the packets already went out and everything already happened and we had asked to see if we can put it on January 7th but the the property owners were adamant that the closing is happening next Monday and this is the last piece to close if the council sees fit to pass it as it is basically all we're doing is transferring it from one urban renewal to another urban renewal and I've added as background all of the information for the new um property purchaser and as you can see they're very renowned and wellknown Logistics Center throughout the country uh so we added that so that the council had it in their deliberation so so the terms all stay the same everything's exactly the same the only thing that's going to change is the name of the urban renewal as required by law and um as a council may or may not know the term starts from the the year the previous year's count so if this is is year five this owner gets it from year six to year 30 so they don't get extra because of this they start where the other one left off doesn't reset the clock it does not reset the clock in fact uh it's a requirement of the long-term tax batment law we can't do that even if we wanted to okay great things so any objections to adding 43a I see no objections okay and then there's also a backup to item 44 which is I guess additional information yeah so this was provided by our rent leveling attorney to simplify the original listing which had almost verbatim the ordinances with a lot of data this is just to summarize that data from the last memo so that you can see exactly the comparisons to the proposal versus the other municipalities great thank you okay up to it item five discussion of the rent leveling board I'm not sure exactly what you this has to do with ordinance have a discussion item in your pocket okay oh that's same I guess it's the ordinance right it's it's it's a to the background this here is this 44 it is 44 well I Council members the reason I was there is because at the last council meeting the council decided to lead that on as a discussion for the actual members not the ordinance this was the discussion of the members that were there and whether we're going to appoint them um and how that was going to occur so I think that's why that was there and then there's item 44 which addresses this as well as other items that um the mayor and the council have discussed in the past is that accurate May item 44 also addresses somewhat about the board itself it defines it does thank you it does Define in there in terms of what's what's called a land a land owner homeowner so on and so forth yes based on the on the last meeting um the mayor had discussed about adding that as part of the ordinance Amendment so that the council would have it before them so they can look see what it looks like and that is correct one of the amendments to the ordinance would clarify the definitions of each of the members and also include the homeowner as a permissible member uh as discussed at the last meeting and brought up by councilwoman colog monz okay so we have do we have any um questions or comments regarding the board itself at this time so I um so was he on the memorandum is this what we're going to be addressing because I see there's proposed amendments to the chapter 31 so if I may and again if I misrepresent what the council did at last meeting I think the discussion was um whether you're gonna appoint the members that you had okay that day right now because at least two for sure can be appointed immediately yes and one based on this amendment can also be appointed and one would argue the level of expertise of that individual as well which could be discussed um and if the councils feel so fit to do so could appoint okay the members uh and then we have the the amendment to the ordinance which makes that clarity as well as some other uh changes within the ordinance so I believe that's how it was set up from last meeting so I think the discussion items and we do have the resolution here from last meeting appointing those individuals but that would require the council to say we're going to do that and then we can add those on I don't think part of the packet I don't we have those names it was in the it in last week's packet it was in last week's packet but Madam clerk in preparation in case they the council needed it has brought the copies from last week in terms of questions to the ordinance we should say for discussing the ordinance or should that be part of this conversation as well I I guess we could save that for later we get to maybe we'll get to that ordinance Council okay I guess there's no is there any is it time sensitive to to vote to put these these individuals on the board or the next meeting it's um so I can only tell you where we are right now with the current situation which brought this up and we do have our rent leveling attorney here in case there's any questions but my understanding is there's been mediation trying to avoid the hearing and at the last discussion the uh the uh attorney for the tenant kind of did not want to hear anything and wanted to go to a hearing which then makes this a little bit more urgent than it would have been normally uh it puts this at the Forefront of discussion right so there there have been meetings there have been negotiations um and then ultimately as part of the mediation the the tenant the the tenants uh attorney felt that it would suit their inclin it' be the best inance of their client to go to the hearing so we we need a board I guess yes uh and if if you do notice one of the discussions and the mayor had uh discussed putting into this amendment which we did is an alternative in case the board is incomplete so that in the intrum there's still action that could be taken on uh these issues in the intrum of that happening because I know uh Susie was working on you know maybe a hearing officer or not this kind of sets up a multi multifaceted tiered approach in case there's an incomplete board that action could still be taken and and then if the council needed for example if this ordinance passed this case wouldn't be so urgent because we'd have an alternative until the board gets voted in council president um and I think that's where we're we're stated at in terms of a board with Andor herent offices so that that was the reason the discussion needed to continue okay um so the these members are being proposed here are is is to be permanent board members I say permanent I mean for how many what's the term term we don't have a resolution here the terms are four years don't you have the resolution there I thought you handed out the resolutions yes yeah if you can please hand the the resolutions out so the this was everything that you have just been handed was from last week's packet so they're they're foure terms and it's a a three- member board with three alternates so if if the council so choose to appoint six members they could appoint six members because there's three permanent and three alternates okay so is there a desire to add this resolution to tonight's agenda I hear you is do we want to add this resolution to tonight's agenda okay there any objections no okay so let's what numbers should we make this then3 43b 43b okay so being no objections we'll be adding item 43b resolution appointing members to the rent leveling Board of the city of Pake okay all right off to R six minutes can I please have a motion in a second to adopt the minutes for October 1st and October 15 so move second councilman love yes councilwoman Melo yes councilman Schwarz yes councilman Garcia yes Council MZ yes and council president monk yes okay up to six hearing of hearing of seven actually seven a hearing of citizens in ordance with the open public meeting Act njsa 10 col Ford d1x act the council opens every public meeting for comment of the public however in accordance with njsa 10 4-12 nothing in this act shall be construed to limit the discretion of the public body to permit prohibit or regulate the active participation at any meeting therefore please be advised that the council will not entertain any comments from persons who communicate obscene material make statements which are considered biased intimidation in which a person intends to intimidate any individual or group based on race color religion gender handicap sexual orientation or ethnicity or makes comments intending to harass or speak offensive language the person who makes these statements will relinquish their alloted five minutes for the public the clerk has two bells one will ring at four minutes and one will ring at your remaining minute for a total five minutes thank you thank you any anyone like to uh address the council at this time yes good evening Council uh president uh monk my first question is we have V veteran banners along Main Avenue and some other side streets and all uh my question to that is we're in the winter I remember last winter I found a lot of them on the ground and I brought them in I'm just wondering if they could be taken down for the winter and put back up in a spring um that's my question today which Banner what type of banners the veterans banners that's on the poles the PS on the poles yeah if they could be taken down for the winter be put back in the spring because during the winter with the wind and all even though the ties are there they're ripping the banners and other towns that's what they do too like in Wallington and Rutherford that's what they do they take them down that's my first question um my next question tonight's agenda item number eight team bake 522 basake Avenue um 522 bake Avenue isn't that the veterans hall why is it being called all team bake that's my question I think it's disabled veterans my next one is tonight's agenda item 23 which item item 23 23 yeah contractor uh inspection Management on Howard Avenue and Tennis Court um I don't if you remember a couple years ago there was a lot of issues in that area because you got the houses on both sides of the street and they have a some kind of a underground water that goes into the uh Park where they have the parking lot the one side that always gets flooded it's like a swamp over there and all that water goes into the brook and then it goes Downstream so the question that I have here is in fact I even brought it to the engineer and they were supposed to have looked into it but nobody really found any causes there and plus you have drainage coming off the back going towards the park all their home drainage when it's raining it all goes into the park so there there's a big issue here this my questions tonight thank you thank you so um guess your first question regarding the banners just a question for the mayor of business ministry as well as consider some advice from our engineer and if they believe that it's wise to take them down we'll explore that option if not and they can guarantee that the banners will be addressed by Case by case for the most part the majority of the banners remained on the post we have a well over a 100 banners I think it was a lesson 10 that had came down try to reinforce him if there's any concern then we will consider taking them down I know other municipalities have other municipalities keep them up all year I know for the veterans during the holidays they really prefer to have their veterans pictures up and many families have become accustomed to driving around and seeing as honor those who served on each right thank you thank you mayor May May I agree I mean our our our veterans um over the years have fought through a lot of different weathers and Ador all types of um conditions for our freedom so I I think those baners should should stay up as as long as they can all year long and we should do just what we've been doing reinforcing those five or 10 that that comes down thank thank you councilman um item question number the second question you had was regarding the entertainment license um I guess the mayor team has her own license there at this location I believe that that is referring to a not for-profit organization a 501 you see the uh the D is now located at 135 cestry where the VFW the DB and the American Legions merged the building itself is not dab the organization by State uh Direction had moved so the building itself is no longer under them but I can't speak as to the organ I'm just familiar with the process as to the address okay thank you and regarding your question the third question item number 23 um I'm not so sure that this ordinance this resolution is addressing that home you're ref you're referring to the house that's at the at the bottom of Pennington that's between no nothing to do with Penington I'm talking on Howard homes on Howard there's water under yeah this is the issue that it's this uh this inspection management okay that is a hiring Mr they could look into the whole area this this addresses the the tennis courts the flooding in the brook so so yeah if the council obviously is aware there used to be major flooding issues and I know the mayor's report reported on many occasions that the work that we've done there so far has significantly reduced the amount of flooding that has there especially the parking lot with the new drainage pits uh this continues along that same approach uh and this is for the design of a further drainage system and the construction oversight as part of the project this is another phase in the drainage system and then we hope to have an addition phase uh that would then address the road itself on Benson so these are all part of Hazard mitigation that we've been working through with FEMA and Green Acres and our Engineers to try to greatly reduce the amount of flooding I mean the mayor has discussed many of times about you know adding additional Green Space that'll be the next phase right adding additional Green Space rerouting the road so that uh there's a lot more ability for the area to absorb the water and feed it into the brook to go into the the river so this is just one part of many parts for this exact issue to address the exact uh flooding issue and also maintain um the longevity of the tennis courts Council may recall we did a project not too long ago where we resurface the tennis courts and and the Howard Avenue tennis courts were redone and one of the issues was where the drainage came off of the Hill down the train tracks so this addresses all of that so so specifically which area is this is this resolution address Benson Avenue the Howard Avenue tennis courts so it's basically next to the uh animal shelter that's that's where this project would be that area there by Benson the train trestle and the so and the courts so from from under the tracks at the bottom of Pennington from under the tracks to Main Avenue is that correct yeah so from Main Avenue from Main Avenue all the way to Pennington uh we've done work from the corner with a new parking lot and some drainage improvements we're adding additional drainage on the Howard Avenue tennis courts and we hope to obtain funding for the next phase which is the rerouting or shifting of the road and adding additional Green Space to absorb or some something sort of in that nature we're still waiting for the engineers to finish the Hydraulics to figure out exactly the best way to to minimize that flooding there thank you and since we're there about construction members May note that the bridge also on Pennington right there on Pennington and Benson was redone that leads to the brook right next to that house at the end of Pennington the uh the city along with the county did the work there to repair that that under okay thank you thank you all right anyone else like to address need to Cy agenda public yes ma'am hi good evening my name is Vanessa paa I am the program coordinator for the Pake City Coalition we focus on substance use prevention here in the city of Pake um substance use prevention among youth um and I am came here tonight to just highlight some of the work that we've been able to comp accomplish um with the help um and support of Mayor hect Deora his staff here at City Hall and uh a lot of other uh community members that we've partnered with um since 2019 uh we've worked directly with the mayor to establish mayor bores youth Council over the years we've um collectively youth council members have completed over a thousand hours in community service from writing proposals um planning community events such as the mental health walk Autism Awareness event uh Community cleanups planting daffodils in the city assisting uh with food distributions during the pandemic partnering with liquor stores to place um educational stickers and packages to prevent underage drinking um we've partnered with more than bootstraps to uh provide uh student financial aid services and so much more um we sponsored over 20 about 20 youth council members um over the years attend a youth leadership conference in terms of uh work in the community we partnered and collaborated with several of the government offices here in bake um and local nonprofit organizations um such as holding quarterly Community meetings uh with upo we partnered with the boys and girls club to have space use their space for those meetings we've trained over 50 employees in local bars and restaurants with tips alcohol beverage server training uh we work closely um with the mayor's office to um coordinate parents Suicide Prevention education in schools training uh Recreation staff and school resource officers uh with a nurtured heart approach uh training that um engages uh people that work with youth uh in positive youth engagement strategies educated counselors in vaping education over the years we uh trained over uh 200 parents in can and vaping education and uh we worked closely uh with uh the city to also develop a community directory for local organizations uh in terms of the work that we've done in the schools uh we work closely with the Board of Education to create a school policy change that would deter School administrators from sending kids straight to the suspension when they've been caught smoking um or with a smoking device and instead enroll students uh in education and Prevention Services uh which wasn't always the first option at the same time we connected the p uh public schools with access to a bilingual online seven session vaping prevention program um that is offered through the New Jersey prevention network uh it's a program called Aspire just to add another tool to their uh toolkit of resources when it comes to uh substance use Prevention Services and all of this has been accomplished um uh with the support of city hall with the support of Mayor Hector I just this is just a really big thank you to all the support that we've received through the city um and I know I only have five minutes but um I wanted to mention that we collect local data regularly and try to find areas of need to address and to prevent drug use among Youth and after analyzing several data points um we have consistently seen a rise in nicotine vape and marijuana used among youth uh here in the city of Pake but I want to mention that it's not a local issue it's a national issue so we're seeing this across the board um and we had a very I had a very detailed uh discussion uh with mayor Laura and his administrative staff about this topic last year and just want to applaud the mayor the health department and the police for taking Swift swift action after we had that discussion last year and just to give you an idea of how effective that um enforcement was when looking at FDA underage sale inspections between 20 12 and 2019 P City historically had a violation rate of less than 15% after covid um around 2022 uh violation rates Rose to 55% um and after the enforcement began began in 2023 the violation dropped down to 28% and that is what I call success from when uh we do enforcement in the city and uh just moving forward there's still a lot of work that needs to be done and I've provided a packet for each of our council members and uh people on the on the uh panel here um and these are just some of the pictures of some of the work that we've done um but also there on the left hand right hand side there is um a list of several strategies that have worked in other communities to protect public health and safety of residents uh particularly youth uh that would require action from Key stakeholders like yourselves um so I would like to at any point if anyone's interested in having uh more discussion I I thank you very much we have a absolute rule thank you so much any questions thank you so much to Mayor and to my colleagues I apologize for being late is there anyone else who would like to address the council that be close the public second roll call please councilman monk yes councilman love yes councilwoman Melo yes councilman Schwarz yes councilman Garcia yes councilwoman col monz yes and council president here thank you very much we are up to number eight number eight [Music] Communications I am sorry work to numeral 7 on our agenda community ation one through n are there any questions please on one through nine seeing no at this time is there a motion please to accept 1 through nine so Mo motion and second roll call please 1 through nine councilman monk yes councilman love yes councilwoman Melo yes councilman Schwarz yes councilman Garcia yes councilwoman goz yes and council president Sher yes thank you all matters listed here under considered routine in nature items 10 through 16 is that correct 15 sir 15 10 through Excuse me yes 10 through 15 a special uh separate vote on 16 please second councilman monk yes councilman love yes councilman Melo yes councilman Schwarz yes councilman Garcia yes councilman monz and council president Sher yes thank you now we're up to resolutions item 16 now we need to do item 16 should have stated at the traffic accident okay can we please have a motion to accept 16 please and second R call please on 16 only councilman monks yes councilman love exion councilman Melo yes councilman Schwarz yes councilman Garcia yes councilman col monz and council president sh yes now we go into resolutions yes we're up to R numeral on our agenda resolutions before the council number 17 is a resolution authorized in closed executive session no council president Mr Fernandez no council president Mr n sir none the members of the council that being the case we're up to items 18 through 43 are there any questions please on 18 through 43 please 43 say council president to 43b yes sir uh we have 43a is a 43b right 43b is a resolution resolution um to vote on members heading members to the you have a copy of it I'm sorry sir added a resolution 43b so to to appoint members to the yes you have it yes your question sir no I'm just I wasn't sure if you're aware that we added that to the 4 3 a change to move okay so we're proceeding with the rent leveling board is that that's the case to appoint members to very good I don't think the names were proposed yet the resumes were attached also have there's one back to back oh this is another one this is a significant move I would obviously ask my colleagues to as I know you do to approach it seriously and in depth um right good we didn't we we discussed the rent leveling board we did not discuss yet um or number 44 on the agenda we did not discuss item 44 that's the that's those are that's an ordinance not a resolution right do we need to specify I guess each person what they're being added appointed for what position yes we have to just an item 43b which is appointments to the rent leveling board we just need to spef ify what each person is being added to either as a homeowner or as the expert or landlord yes sir right okay so the names were proposed by right yes sir we would ask obviously of the three positions two of them have requirements special requirements from anyone else the one is a landlord must be a landlord uh an expert witness is questionable what does that really mean um and a renter is a renter so the only debate it would seem to me councilman would be in terms of U the expert piece what does expert really mean um it is not defined in the ordinance and I I'm pretty sure from having brothers and Gan laws and the rest of it not defining is probably the best thing to do someone considers themselves an expert have a nice day I think councilman council president I think in the paperwork that they gave us they um they added actually another attorney believe the last um resume that was submitted will be also consider a an expert as she does have a real estate background we're speaking about yes okay coun I was explaining I didn't know if you saw that um I guess the r l um attorney gave us an explanation and also added home as one of the Physicians that he explains what expert is what a tenant is what what's needed to be under that's it so we're maintaining three seats on this board correct and the three seats one would be a landlord one would be a tenant and one would be an expert have alter that's an alternate thank you okay Council counc yes out the homeowner definition has not exist yet because that would be part of the ordinance which hasn't yes been um rep passed um would it be appropriate to be um using the definition which doesn't exist yet so 43b is kind of detached is kind of dependent on 44 no it it would not right now the appointments need to work off of the ordinance as it exists that is the ordinance that we're passing or not passing tonight that's what you're saying well there's an ordinance for first for first read okay so but that's not into effect right now your ordinance provides for a landlord a tenant and an expert so appointments this evening um would need to fall into one of those three criteria should the ordinance the proposed ordinance pass then um that would also include homeowner so appointments tonight need to fit into the landlord tenant or expert box and L the res that we have before us forgive me for not remembering but coun Nom um not nominating anyone right now okay because mine doesn't fit into the present right that's how I'm understanding it me I believe last count meeting it was explained that the ordinance as it reads Now does not exclude the possibility of the council appointing a homeowner it just does not define what the expert is it really is up to purview of the council to determine whether the homeowner I know we had open discussion about it but the ordinance right now does not read that a homeowner cannot be appointed and I believe the question was asked whether other municipalities do so other municipalities have appointed homeowners so I think there's only three present that fit the specific description on the ordinance and then there's the additional who would be up to the council if if I'm correct I'm not sure Madam attorney thank sorry I I said I'm a little confused so right now we can it's the the one that right now we can appoint even though um I think the expert can be or that all three can it doesn't Define what a homeowner was before now we can right now the ordinance doesn't have a specific uh designation for Homeowner okay the proposed ordinance does um now there's no definition for expert so there could be discussion as to whether or not the particular person proposed is a homeowner and whether you feel that would satisfy the requirements has an expert I mean and and that would depend on the specifics of that individual are they developing property do they own multiple properties um but that would be a discussion that you could have um but if it's someone who you know owns a home in town maybe they they fit better in the proposed home homeowner category but right now you can only appoint someone that's either a landlord a tenant or an expert you can't appoint them simply because they're a homeowner you'd have to you'd have to have a expert you'd have to designate I mean there may be homeowners that are experts um it may be that you feel that people who own property or have been here you know have a special knowledge or maybe they own multiple properties I don't know the specifics of the person being proposed um but um simply being a homeowner um that person under the ordinance has it since tonight cannot say that again please I'm sorry that last sentence the per simply being a homeowner the ordinance in its president State doesn't permit you to be appointed just for that reason doesn't the word just for that reason speak to motivation not to fact I'm not sure I understand your question councilman Ken monz is uh foolish enough to want to appoint me to the to the board and someone goes up to them and says what makes you an expert right well you're expert well they're they're and I think that you know most people would would answer better than I could but I mean you're an expert because you're an expert um I've got three resumés before as does my colleagues as do my colleagues um and I will tell you I I have the pleasure of knowing two of the three and I'm sure three of the three are well qualified uh but I don't think it's within this purview of the council to psychologically analyze um what their motivation is well this doesn't and and it would be excuse me I'm sorry and it would be antithetical to what it is that we do currently with other appointees right to other uh to other committies and groups I wasn't speaking to motivation I I was saying that you would need to just designate someone as an expert that's not that's more qualifications perhaps than motivation okay that that's within the council's decision as to who they deem would fulfill the expert slot whatever qualifications you think are appropriate good and right now it is uh not defined in the bill that is correct so whoever the council agrees upon um that's absolutely correct good that's what in councilman have we answered the question but I think we have four resumes right in front of us okay so yes I understand now okay I know what to do what is the currently what is the definition of expert I know that we have um an ordinance in front of us that defines what an expert could be what currently what's on the books what defines an expert we we currently don't have a definition for expert um I think in the past from discussions often it was a real estate person or um someone with knowledge of property but there is no definition So you you're you're free to craft you know whatever you think qualifies as an expert um and that's through discussion so right now you could say someone's a contractor I think that's that's an expert you know for this board so why specifically ises the rent leveling board have this def have a requirement of an expert as opposed to a planning board a zoning board a um all the boards that you know that we have in the city why is specifically an expert a necessity requirement for rent level I I I wouldn't say it's a necessity that's the way the ordinance has sat for quite some time but I think if I was going to guess that the uh it it was to try to effective balance we want a landlord we want a tenant and then maybe we want someone with some specialized knowledge and at the time that was the decision that was reached by the council who enacted the ordinance but you don't have to have an expert right so if if if there was I I guess I'm sure there was a um a reason reason behind to requiring an expert are we just doing away with that by watering down the definition of an expert is that what we want to do um or is because is because we have find it difficult to find someone that's an expert or do we or do we feel that the board is not that important of a board that we need that level of expertise uh to help make decisions I just wonder why would we want to if if there was a need for an expert at one time there was there was a reason why whoever sitting on the council felt there was a need of an expert are we are we do we want to maintain that level for this board Council Council I think that's I'm sorry Council sorry Council excuse me yeah I'm sorry um I don't think we're looking to water down anything I think we're looking for the right person that lives here that's rented that's has that was a homeowner or whatever and has the interest of the people of the community um where the expert came I think what we were trying to do is put expert slh homeowner because if we have a rent leveling attorney I think the rent level attorney is going to be who our expert is I think the people that are going to be on the board are the ones that are going to be hearing everything and listening to what the needs are and making decision on past experiences right we all rented some of us are landlords some of us are homeowners and we're all here to do the right thing for our constituents right right so Council so why don't we just call it what it is and just remove the whole word expert call it a day why are we just trying to you know I use the word water it down just get rid of it if if if if everything fits into expert as you look read the ordinance that's being proposed just let's get rid of the word expert get rid of Sir get rid of the requirements of an expert basically the way the way this new ordinance describes what an or what a what an expert is I mean pretty much anyone will fit into that box so just get rid of the word expert let's not make someone called an expert not really expert councilman if I may in the ordinance I believe it was included contractors or individuals who can assess the degree of repairs in relation to any requests for um an increase I think I I agree with your position in that if anyone can fit as expert then what's the purpose of having an expert there may even add more weight to that person's perspective than anyone else referring to them I don't think it's arbitrary I actually believe that it is defined with the direction of the rent leveling attorney and uh the City attorney they define specific descriptions of what could fall into expert but at the direction of the council president at the previous meeting we looked into what other municipalities had done and came about that councilwoman Mar monz was correct other other municipalities added homeowner to it if I may and and I don't want to take up any time I'll give you a little bit of um a perspective of the Sation I had with the attorney as I was trying to figure out what's an expert same as you I try to understand why a homeowner wouldn't be an expert because they would be directly affected by decisions that are made if you own a one Family Home and decisions regarding rent or ordinance are made it affects your neighborhood but then that beg the question how much are you affected if it is only you personally and I think that that's where the perspective of a sitting Council I would propose um lied is an individual homeowner will consider the impact on my neighborhood whereas an expert whether it's an attorney a realtor a contractor will consider it from a broader perspective how does it affect the city as a whole I think that may be the sippy soap if we begin to designate individuals as experts who do not have that perspective then it may become extremely subjective one would argue three individuals with three different backgrounds it could be subjective any way they can decide but I believe the the point of the expert is to have someone who can objectively consider the case before them and way whether or not it impacts the city as a whole as opposed to uh I don't want someone having that decision on mle Avenue or on Summer Street because that's where you live I would argue that every member here whether it's a homeowner or renter will consider the entire city as a whole but I think the expert definition that was given is realtor contractor obviously an attorney or anyone that can speak towards a broad uh perspective in terms of the impact of any decision made by the rent leveling board but as it sits now there are three individuals that fit the ordinance and one who would just be a homeowner as to the council president's question I think I understood that first the qualifier would be just a homeowner is that sufficient to be included in the group and other municipalities have said yes and some municipalities have said no yeah thank you for me yeah bear with me just counc if you would mind May so other communities that we've spoken with have a board of three with alternates and have included homeowners as individuals who would be impacted by the decisions made so if in the in the ordinance if one person is a expert one person is a tenant um and when a landlord and when a landlord the expert could be anyone yes if could it be two landlords or two if the landlord holds a different time so if you're a landlord who's also a realtor a landlord who's an attorney you can't be put in as a landlord but you would have to consider whether their role as an expert would be considered so it would not exclude someone who's a tenant from being expert if they're a tenant and fall into the category of a contractor or an attorney or a realtor then they would be appointed as that but not as the tenant could it be a tenant a tenant who who's dile is the city of P I'm sorry who's who lives in the city of P I think that the ordinance requires you to be a resident of the city of P they have to have a vested I think that's where conversation was going in our last meeting whether you have a vested interest and if you are a resident who is a homeowner you have a vested interest in decisions that are made but whether that qualifies you as a specific expert I will say for the sake of transparency the the attorney who is present did not feel that a homeowner would be an expert but did agree that the addition of a homeowner has been acceptable in other municipalities so in terms of the definition I believe the clear definition would be someone who uh is in a field specific to the cases that will be heard from a broad perspective meaning you're not claiming one individual aspect of whatever role you're in saying well I live on this block and that's where most people rent so I'm an expert know the decisions that are made affect the city as a whole so you have to have some kind of um backgrounds where a realtor understands the market and has experience of how it is affected and decisions that are being made in terms of what's available rent or otherwise buying homes throughout the entire city and then individual homeowner which I would say is a stakeholder is directly impacted by the decisions made it might bring unique perspective without something additional like a councilman who's also a homeowner would be an expert because they consider decisions that impact the city as a whole but it would be more their Council experience than the homeowner but other municipalities have simply said homeowners can be included so if I may I own a home um and I am a realtor by profession um which I would suggest would be qualification um and I I also rent with one person you're getting Chuck full of nuts all three yes you you are not disqualified because there's already a tenant because you would be appointed as the realtor unless there's already a realtor then you would be appointed as a tenant but there's nothing in the ordinance and I would obviously defer to the expertise of the attorney there's nothing in ordinance that states you can only have one individual um occupy a specific category exclusively meaning you're appointing the individual for their role so if if I am a tenant who also owns property I choose to own property I'm a landlord but I rent at a building where I want to live and I'm a realtor you can only appoint me as one and if there's someone else who's a realtor and you're appointing me as the tenant that person can be appointed as a realtor and I can stay on because I'm appointed as the tenant the additional role does not exclude me or somehow disqualify me because there's somebody else who shares that role as long as I'm not being appointed because of that role yeah just real quick thank you because of the tency requirement of this ordinance every expert is either going to be a landlord or a tenant because you have to live in the city of Pake so you're either renting in the city of Pake who is an expert you're either a landlord who is an expert so one would argue that an expert is going to be also a tenant or also a landlord because you're required to live in the city of Pake in some shape or form right so you have to live here so whoever's the expert would in essence be also a tenant or also landlord they're just not appointed as such would the landlord would the would the landlord be in Conflict um he or she has self-interest here making decisions regarding property that might be next door to his I think that's the intent I think the intent is to have two perspectives because this would be the majority of cases landlord tenants so you have one tenant one landlord individuals that represent the groups that would be heard by the board and then the objective expert the intention would be that the expert would be the objective sort of splitting vote and and then the attorney would be an additional expert that can guide them to ensure that they're not acting outside of the perview of what is permitted by the law and because the ordinance has a hardship clause and a capital Improvement Clause right and and hence why the conversation happened the mayor was adamant to add construction inspectors things of that nature is because they're more equipped to evaluate the value of that repair well not repair because repairs aren't allowed but Capital Improvement or hardship right that can add to that conversation as opposed to Aesthetics to make it clear and for those of us who appreciate lat terms is if you painted the four walls and come back and said we raised your rent an additional $800 because we painted your walls you would have an expert there who would say no that that is not a capital Improvement you removed a wall in the apartment and expanded square footage and now you have two bathrooms where you had once one bathroom in an additional bedroom then reasonably one can expect that there will be a significant increase in the rent which you don't want are individuals on a board who are making arbitrary decisions because then that will ultimately result and they coming right back to the council so I think the goal is to have specific stakeholders that's where you have the landlord and the Tenant that's where the cases are going to be heard almost along the lines of a jury of your peers right a landlord wants to see a landlord up there a tenant wants to know there's a tenant up there but then the objective expert who can be either one of those but is not appointed as one will come with an objective third View that could make it more uh again lack of another term objective Equitable because the council can always referred to it was a third vote and the person has no vested interest other than just being the deciding vote I councilman monik was speaking and I interrupted him I do apologize Council I I I I really I still don't understand this whole expert I'm sorry for being so naive I mean I think you know sitting the city council we make bigger decisions than this and I'm no expert in any field you know over here this's one board is deciding you know and and they have to have an expert I'm trying to understand and if if it's Bas and based how the ordinance defines it I mean and slash exper slash land land land landlord right um or homeowner homeowner right it's an expert for Homeowner that's not present forgive me if I'm incorrect presently it doesn't Define it as that we're asking for it to Define it as that right yes that's correct yeah presently you're talking about the proposed amended ordinance right right the expert is gonna be expert homeowner yeah expert or homeowner or it's or so could be so when we propose a individual for this third position we're going to propose them as an expert or as a homeowner yes okay okay you have to have a landlord and you have to have a tenant and then the third can be an expert or or a home or a homeowner or a homeowner so pres there are four applications where you have a tenant a landlord one realtor one homeowner you can if you choose as a counsil I believe you'll be able to point point three as permanent and one as an alternate if the council chooses to allow a homeowner okay other questions if I may just uh one last question we have as as I mentioned before we have a a gentleman a lady who are renting an apart their apartment um they own property um they own properly and they're very knowledgeable isn't it conceivable that we're setting up a scenario where um the two two of the three members are going to be at odds with each other and the third one is going to make the decision I think it's that way on purpose right that's why there's seven council members or nine planning board memb right to have that balance where eventually the majority would I think the goal is perspective council president you want the person who can see through the lenses of the individuals that are coming before them you want someone who can say as a tenant I I understand why you may be upset however it appears that the expert have given testimony and pointed directly to the fact that this is a reasonable increase there's been improvements in the apartment the landlord has made a compelling argument or the landlord might come in and say look as a landlord I don't agree I think it's an unconscionable increase as a landlord I may sympathize with other landlords but not to this extent and it far exceeds any reasonable expectation of increases but I think that is the goal that each individual who would come here would have a representative because if he only had tenants three tenants then a landlord could and I would argue propose have a right to come back to this Council and say I'm not fairly represented on this board that you've approved and vice versa if it was all landlords or all experts Realtors and they would go neither of you understand what it's like to rent or to own you simply buy you have a commercial interest or your concern is profit so I think it perhaps and I don't want to go back into history but I believe that that may have been the wisdom of the existing Council to look at the idea of having those individuals who represent or perhaps again I'll refer back to that sacred model of uh of Justice where you have a jury of your peers or those who represent the individuals that come before them people who would understand what it's like to be homeowner or tenant or rather landlord or tenant I'm always uh concerned about intervention by government in all matters in today's world politics leads us to discuss issues which are in my opinion purely personal and matter in terms of gender and status and everything else that there is um I'm I'm concerned that if one has such a committee um will it affect the marketpl so that that's a great question I think one that's important for us to consider but there may be a dynamic that we have not discussed and may put the the council at ease this board gives its suggestion it's determination at the end after considering and hearing the cases if the parties do not agree this goes to tenant landlord court and then goes before a judge if they cannot agree on a decision because this comes before the rent leveling board they have to a certain extent powers to say we have heard this and this is the recommendation and decision that we have made but the landlord or the tenant always has the option to appeal this to the courts which is the ultimate Authority this is simply a level of government or another layer that is provided by the city council no different than if somebody did not agree with a decision in planning or zoning or Redevelopment and say I want to appeal this they can come back to the board or they can go somewhere higher now I think with that stated if if we're going to be um again transparent and fair we want to make sure we have ethical individuals on that board because some people may not have the means to go and appeal if the decision is against a landlord they may have the resources to say I'll appeal this if it's against a vulnerable to make the image more Stark single mother who can't afford the fact that a landlord said you're going from 900 to 2400 and for whatever reason the board says we uphold this I don't have the money to pay the rent I sure don't have the money to go to court so of course we W responsible individuals and that's where I think the people that live in Pake have a vested interest and fall into the category of the um of the of the description for the ordinance become so important but I I do understand your concern it is a board where as councilman monks shared you can decide anyone can be on it but it's also a board that will have some impact I don't believe because it's Case by case would have a direct impact on the market as a whole meaning you could see this board making one decision on one case and then go the other way on another case since it all depends on what are the circumstances how extenuating they are and what is the compelling argument at the end of the day our rent leveling attorney who is held accountable by the council and this government would have to give report so by of definition would seems to me that the uh the attorney would have extraordinary power um in terms of interpretation the attorney of the board right to the extent that they would be able to guide whether or not individuals or making decisions in line with the law and ensure to advise or direction that they can't go outside of the law meaning they can't allow that board to arbitrarily make decisions that set precedent throughout the entire city that is not the perw of that board they don't make precedent for the city that's why I said one decision made one case would not have any bearing though you can refer to it on the decision made on the next case if am I correct on this m attorney you are correct okay I mean and the purpose of the rent level and attorney board is really to advise has to you know this is what the ordinance permit you to do these are your parameters um and to guide them I'm attendance um I'm paying $1,800 a month I know where these numbers come from but that's another slide paying $1,800 a month um living with me is my wife uh my mother children right what happens when a landlord decides to buy property raises the rent um and the individuals contact legal aid or whoever um to be represented is it the conflict of interest yeah if that's today council president I Believe by law those decisions and those Agreements are supposed to be made before finalizing the purchase of a property if I buy a building that has tenants that is not and I will ask obviously for the direction of those who work in the field as experts though we are still arguing what that means but you cannot simply buy a building and not have in the contract a clear direction as to what will happen with the tenants whether they you purchase the building with the tenants continue the lease whether you need to advise them the the role of the board is to ensure that any action being taken by a landlord or any lack of response by a tenant Falls in line with our ordinances and existing laws so if a landlord is acting outside of that then that board could say no you are not in line and the attorney could advise and say you are correct and that that landlord is acting outside what the ordinance would permit in the city but I think the exact same laws that govern the exchange of property between a purchaser and a seller remain now we know in a city like ours and I've received accounts and you received accounts where individuals go I wasn't given a lease the landlord refuses to give me a lease and keeps raising the rent every month and won't even give me receipts for my rent in order to circumvent the process of being held accountable by government there's no records I think having a board set and having an attorney and professionals will go a long way in ensuring that the residents of the city know that they have some recourse if this is occurring outside of that we have received direct accounts of individuals going the landlord rented the room in my apartment and told me if if I'm not if I say anything I I'll be kicked out and I I'm not receiving any receipts from my rent and it won't give me a lease right now there's nowhere to go outside of giving a complaint to the police in a long bureaucratic process that by the time you get to see anyone who may have the authority to have a decision made in your favor years have passed as as a uh renter I come to the committee and I make my case do I qualify for a legal aid an attorney no I don't believe that would qualify first so how does this family my family how do how was it I'm sorry in front of the court forgive me attorney if that family was to go to the court and they don't have the means they would qualify for legal aid because that's based on income eligibility if they're appealing a case and they go before the court I don't believe that legal aid would be utilized before this particular committee because it's intended to be a step before getting there yes so I I don't believe but I think M attorney I I I thought you were asking me about when they come before the board they come on their own yeah but for a court they would qualify if they're income eligible to apply for income eligible you know for certain types of things they'd have to apply aren't the aren't these individuals me um I'm at an obvious disadvantage um the landlord who's trying to raise my my rent by $1,000 a month which is ridiculous and unaffordable and all the rest of it um how does one the right of the of this process that the tenant will have the ability to utilize some experts to help him or her proceed it would seem right now the landlord inherently has that our rent leveling attorney I'm sorry there I think that would be our rent leveling attorney the rent leveling attorney represents the interests of the city neither of the landlord or of the tenant rather one of a legal perspective of what is fair and whoever is before him whether it be the tenant or the landlord can appeal to that I think that's the presence and why it's so necessary to have the rent leveling attorney present they are integral in the process in fact Paramount to ensure that the individual as you said Can appeal to the attorney and say it's this legal and that's what the attorney's role would be without an attorney I agree with it would not be an effective board as it would leave it in the hands of individuals that could subjectively and perhaps even and unfairly make decisions but we have any experience from other municipalities who have rent leveling boards have they witnessed increases yes significant increases they face increases some are significant and are supported again depending on the degree of repairs or the justification you didn't receive an increase five years you are far below the market there was a purchase and there were significant changes made to the building you brought in more people than you initially agreed with rent and then you have made a request of the landlord I'm just throwing out decisions initially it was you and your spouse or your spouse and a child and now it's you your mother your father and two cousins who live in there and the uh the landlord is saying the rent will be increased each municipality again each is a case by case and it is the responsibility of the individual before the board to make the compelling argument as to why the increase should be upheld or not and again the opportunity for appeal is made available to any individual where they can go to landlord tenant court right now they're going straight to landlord tenant court if there's any issue or just not going at all and that question there that I I'm kicking myself how many cases a year did we have that would be challenging for us Jo Joyce I believe was it yes so discussions with the rent leveling attorney there's been over 55 just in the past two years discussions and over 65 letters that have gone out to tenants and landlords that have been managed by the attorney because in the absence of a boort right um and then unfortunately at this point there was one that we could not mediate and required the necessity of a hearing which is what we're in the process of doing now so this there are significant requests coming to the city on a daily basis and it's been exacerbated after the pandemic so just to piggyback on the mayor's comments this is a Statewide issue it's not a city of paic issue all these towns even towns that have never had rent Control ordinances right are talking about doing that because we're not talking about normal increases anymore that are maybe five six seven eight percent we're talking about raises in some cases mayor you brought the other day one that wanted to double the rent from 900 to 1,800 justification which if I what I was referring to is we we don't we can't quantify how many cases we don't have numbers for how many simply turned away and said you know what I'll just leave the apartment we get a number of those anecdotally we don't have data on that we have minimal data on those that we've tried to intervene where they've actually gone to the courts the desire here is obviously for us to provide that opportunity for individuals to be heard in in a more uh effective and organized setting however however also with the absence of a board which you have our individuals who believe that some extreme approaches may be the best solution because they're not privy to what could be potentially available so you have individuals saying if we create this initiative throughout the entire city it will resolve the problem and we go no it won't and it hasn't been successful in any other city where Extreme Measures implemented broadly throughout the city place I would argue we've never taken that approach but W without something and our books ordinances say that there is the opportunity to create something you have some organizations perhaps very well-meaning don't make any judgment or motives who who attempt to present Direction before the residents of taking broad measures throughout the entire municipality that I don't think anyone in government regardless of your political views or position would responsibly support that's what the other concern is is that there's a vacuum when there's a vacuum everyone wants to fill it with their ideas and their suggestions I think a rent leveling board and there's going to be some trial and error that's why we have an attorney and an attorney can be called in at any time by the council to ask for report and question and to follow data and then perhaps visit again and say we must change this ordinance and redo appointments in four years but I think that it there is a compelling argument as to why we should have a board because right now we're just getting people comeing to City Hall we calling council members going and I had one today literally today go raise my rent $800 and he wants to rent someone in the apartment that I'm in take one of the rooms and say this person is going to live there and won't give me a lease or receipt all of these are illegal actions you're not allowed to do that are impose upon a tenant we have recours just none that can be expedited whereas this layer of government oversight may be able to expedite a decision and send a message to landlords directly does it also I promise to apologize to myle there's a six-year Sunset but that's um any increase regarding the rent see the red leveling those those increases there yeah but that's for the increase not for the rent leveling in terms of the appointment as the council president was talking about increases the exorbitant increas I don't I don't know if we got into that topic but yeah since it's brought up there there is a proposal before the council to consider but that is a separate topic though related a little bit different in terms of capping the uh the amount in which anyone can increase within a single year and if there is justification or compelling argument to come before the board that the board again with the experts can determine it so if councilman love is renting counc president and he he invested significant Renovations perhaps even at the request of the tenant I want another bathroom I would like a bigger kitchen my kitchen is too small and I would love an island and councilman love and his magnanimous Act of you know caring for those says I'm going to invest and then later decides I need to be reimbursed somehow and make the money it's not so magnanimous it's more practical I need money um says I want to increase the rent and the Tenant says no I'm not paying it's an unfair rent increase that could come before the board where the expert could speak to it the degree of the repairs or investment in the apartment and whether it was justified or whether they come to an agreement in between maybe you don't raise 900 600 makes sense and you're still there at Market last question I yes if I were a landlord if I was in building construction and I was going to build 20 apartments and there would be three apartments with the economically oriented me why would I want to go to a community that has this kind of instrumentation which is going to disadvantage me terribly conceivably um why wouldn't I go to another municipality with close to or equal uh desirability proximity to New York in terms of all of this stuff it's a fair question and I I would respond in this way there are municipalities that limit the increase at 5% and even less um we did not take that approach I think we've taken an extremely reasonable approach to ensure that we consider both the landlord and the Tenant this is addressing increases specific increase from one year to another in terms of you renting a market if you begin your apartment and you've made luxury apartments and I think that there is an argument to be made I'll throw out some arbitrary numbers to make it fair of I spend $20 million to buy a property it it was let's say off the top ta rols a not for-profit organization I buy the building at $20 million and I invest an additional $40 million and I make luxury apartments in proximity to New York with a wonderful and I set the price for the apartments this orderers to not prevent you from setting the price according to the value of the apartment in the market now if you set that apartment I'll throw out a number at $4,000 people will complain and say I went the luxury apartment that you invested the $20 million in for $800 $100 I've responded to people if you purchase a home at 500,000 you have a mortgage and the city comes in and after you've calculated I'm going to rent the first floor for 2500 and now I only have to pay 1,500 the city says no you can only rent at 500 the landlords or the homeowners will go berserk on us and say I'm gonna lose my home because you're dictating how much I'm allowed I I have to pay my mortgage in the same way those who buy property they have obligations they've taken whether loans from the bank they have obligations so in that to that you can set your rent and what you cannot do is rent it at 4,000 and let's say someone in the city decides I want it for 4,000 and then the next year you've made no repairs you've done nothing you say I'm gonna raise the rent $8,000 you go what are you how are you justifying this if you can justify you come before the board if it is not justifiable you go listen you can raise it 20% that's what people raise all over but you want to raise 100% of the rent you have to justify the city sake and I believe that we stand on strong ground because we have worked to incentivize developers we have offered them whether tax abatements parking incentives Redevelopment opportunities locations we have facilitated the process developers work well with us but we have an obligation to ensure that nobody in the city is uh is unfairly or or has to deal with an unconscionable increase of rent and there's no recourse for that thank you sir thank you for bearing with all my questions councilman yeah thank you Council pres I just want to address one thing the mayor the mayor mentioned just now and my other questions I'll wait until we get to item 44 but this last point of that if someone builds a brand new asset in town and he could set the pricing whatever he wants to right let's he sets it a $4,000 and this way he could get paid the the what he believes he needs to make the development work yes there's in the real world it doesn't work like that necessarily and I'll give you case in point let's take sake um Pennington Pennington what's called Pennington Pennington properties properties right painting properties this guy dumped in a lot of money into renovating the whole the HP St Mary's Hospital right it's very nor it's very typical when you develop something new or you take an asset and you dump in a lot of money that has a lot of units the first year that you're leasing out is not necessarily your Market rents if I'm sitting with a 100 units and I'm 95% occupied I could my next lease I could wait to get my $4,000 but when I build something new or I renovate something new renovate something old building now I'm sitting with 100 empty units I don't charge $4,000 a first year because it's more important for me to fill the place up quickly and wait for year two or wait for year three because I'd rather be full at $3,000 fill up quickly and then on my second turn when I at least on my second ter then I go to my market rent what I need to make this investment viable then I go to my $4,000 basically way I'm bringing this ordinance we are going to bankrupt any new development in the city council president if I may councilman I want to say Point well taken duly noted again I'll go back that the ordinance does not restrict you from doing so but simply states that if you wish to do so you have to come before the board it doesn't say if you come with that the first year was 3,000 and it's understandable and that's why you have the expert on their you also have the landlord the property owner who would say yes just like you just gave an expert testimony giving context and perspective to why that increase would be justified that would be how the board would operate and then ideally of course there's no perfect scenario where everything is decided exactly how we think it should but just as right now in this Council you have an expert perspective though you argued earlier that you're no expert in anything but here you are you have an informed opinion and you gave it that would operate similarly with the board where someone would say yes your increase makes sense because you rented at far below in order to fill the appointments and the next year it's justifiable what this board would be able to oversee and the intent I would propose of this governing body is that someone who has no justification cannot get away with saying I'm going from $900 to $1800 I've made no repairs and the tenant has no recourse and they received the letter you will be evicted next month if you don't agree to this right now there's no measure to stop that and that's what it would address but again I'll reiterate it does not restrict a property owner or one who buys an asset from that limit the individuals themselves may have perspectives that's why we want to make sure that it is fairly represented with a landlord a tenant and an expert witness appreciate that however appreciate that however excuse me if you'll take the presidency for just a few minutes um what what if someone goes before a board has a landlord has a tenant as a homeowner whatever it is right and and an attorney and an attorney right and I say you know I was charging $3,000 when I leased up and now I need $4,000 right how do I prove that the Market should be $4,000 I'm not doing any Renovations I build a brand new asset Witnesses like any other board if you go before the planning board or the zoning board you may bring Architects you may bring contractor whoever you're gonna bring you may bring an attorney you may come before this board and present a compelling argument as to why you must raise or you can't pay and it doesn't make sense and when you were first approved for the development you may show that on the record there was an expectation that this would occur so I don't know of any investor that would write a 10 or 12 20 or $50 million investment in an asset in a city where you don't know what's going to happen in year two all right I don't know a bank this so they'll give a loan on an asset so fast if under under this scenario but definitely as an investor an investor will not put money into a new so know what's gonna happen because everyone knows that year one you have to give it's called concessions right there are times you give one month concessions two month concessions if let's say the council just made the argument yeah see forgive me for pointing out but you said everyone knows would include the members of this board so if you say everyone knows a reasonable May mayor everyone yeah but but it doesn't guarantee me no it doesn't guarantee you're right right so it's nice to you know but planning board doesn't guarantee zoning and that's why many and that's why many times with a planning board zoning board a property someone will go into contract contingent on getting zoning approval yes right but now how does someone come and invest in a new asset yeah with and knowing that if they build in Pake right and then next thing you know is that in Rutherford someone picks up puts up 300 units now it's a little more difficult now to rent out your new asset you have Pake so you give a two-month concession right just to fill it up yes you don't know what this board is going to do but you do know that you can appeal it I know I know it becomes a little bit of a challenge if you think but if in this hypothetical you're going the board's not going to make a responsible decision and I would argue that I believe that individuals within the city and the individuals that are proposed here are reasonable individuals who understand the market live in the city if we appoint individuals who make decisions that will adversely impact our city in terms of investment or development then we have recourse in saying we won't reappoint them but if that same argument could be made for every appointment what if we place someone on the parking authority who makes bad decisions what if we place individuals on the zoning board who make bad decision I think the intent of the appointment and the direction of the council does carry weight I believe that if a landlord and again it can be sensitive If a landlord decides or property owner decides I'm going to rent at 3,000 which is reasonable let me fill up the apartments I need to fill them up and then I'm going to increase the rent I do not see where we would be flooded with cases coming to this board stating we don't want this increase because I think people who go into Apartments like that have a reasonable expectation I think there are conversations that happen in the lease I don't think a property owner who buys an asset especially we're talking about4 $50 million these scenarios who will not let tenants know in their lease that your increase can go from 3,000 to 4,000 next year because if you put a raise outside of the lease anyway it can be challenged but you receive a lease to go in these apartments and those lease become binding contracts legally and I don't believe there's a responsible developer Investment Group that would enter people into a contract understanding they're going to increase without addressing it so I don't I'm not saying it's a moot point I believe that there is a process to address that so mayor so you're saying that based on this ordinance someone could lease an apartment of $33,000 and put in the lease that next year please be know yes if you agree to that you have agreed to it is a bind we have made that clear and we V finish okay one second now if that apartment become vac they V the person vacates yes okay now someone else is leasing right you could go from 3 to 4,000 yes yes because you're not increasing on the individual outside of a lease okay so whatever the market so I just wanted that's just driv I have all these questions I want to driving I could I just clarify one thing that um this to the extent that there's new construction this isn't applicable yes why is that uh it State Statute that new construction um are not subject to rent leveling so you just have to put a provision in the lease that that reflects the statutory criteria that's what I was stating with I didn't see it I I thought I read through I didn't see where well that wouldn't be in the ordinance that's State Statute that says if a municipality enacts a rent leveling ordinance a new construction is exempt for I think the life of the mortgage or 30 years that's why I refer back to the lease that's Guided by their lease okay okay fine good I I'm just looking for clar again no no I think this is a healthy discussion I appreciate the discussion so so new construction is notes all this stuff is is not as of what date construction as of the date of the ordinance or as of the date of the construction it's preexisting stat it's just not applicable whether so you can't Implement any type of rent controls on construction within the first 30 years the of of and that's what I was trying to say earlier I don't from what I've read I don't think this ordinance is um is yielding to this is yielding to existing properties because we know there are landlords that have dilapidated property and want to increase because we've seen that especially after covid and want to increase justifying nothing that they've done so I think this from my understanding from what I read this is more if I me council president um just for the sake of council president the question was posed that if an asset is purchased uh councilman monk had shared and let's say $50 million and for the intent of filling the apartments which often occurs that's the direction that's taken you rent for $33,000 and then of course common practices the next year you may want to raise it to 4,000 or what would be reasonable for the luxury apartment to which we clarified that that that would be governed by the lease The Binding contract that you determine however additional information has been shared that by state statute New constructions would not fall under this order orance rent leveling ordinances or laws would not apply to a new construction or a new asset for the life of the mortgage so not that it's a mo point but for all intense purposes that is not an issue of concern regarding this particular ordinance this ordinance would deal with existing property and specific to any exorbitant or outrageous increase or maybe any increase that falls Beyond or goes beyond what limit is proposed they would have to go to this board and make a compelling argument so in the scenario of someone saying you paid 900 there's been no repairs now it's 1,800 and if you don't pay it you have to leave that tenant would have the right to request to be seen at the rent leveling board and have the landlord justified in the rent leveling board would make the determination and then if the landlord doesn't like it they can appeal the case but it does not apply that's so the response to the councilman was we do not believe that it would reasonably deter investors from wanting to come into the City and have a new project I'm just TR to flush out no it was a great question excuse me the last sentence that you said a new project it would not deter an investor from wanting to come here and and have a new project because this law would not apply to them and about an existing structure which is radically an existing structure and if there's a vacancy we also clarified that if there's a vacancy you can rent it but if you if you are in the property and you have signed the lease and let's say your lease allows for $150 increase a year you've signed that you it's a binding contract you agree to that but for whatever reason the landlord arbitrarily or thinks he can justify by any actions that he's taken throughout the year says I want to raise $900 outside of your lease or you don't have a lease you can take this to rent leveling to be considered and the rent leveling board can make the determination that there is no justification for an exorbitant increase and say no and then the landlord could appeal or he would accept that uh decision so thank you sir um forgive me I was out for moment yeah so so just to clarify another thing yes so that's in this ordinance I'm looking at C is um 1 two three 4 B under 20 231- 23 under C it says the provision of this chapter shall apply to all dwelling units occupied on or after the effective date of the section up until the 6th anniversary of the effective date of the section any dwelling unit which becomes vacant throughout the duration of the section's effective period shall not be subject to the provision of the section so that's just for clarity so any unit that becomes vacant you could take it from 800 to 1800 this is this is to provide protect the people that are living currently living in a unit exactly that that's what we and this entire ordinance after six years would have to be Revisited by the council to continue or it ends okay okay so the really the only I I guess um just trying think of the scenario of a property that could be technically be affect is that let's take uh Pennington right so I believe like you know they underwrote the underwrote uh to rent like a $25,000 right what I've heard again I haven't seen the financials but just what I've heard they wanted to fill up very quickly which they did it's amazing the parking lot is full already place the building is full I think they rented it out like for $1,800 $1,900 right so in that under that scenario why would why would they be it's new construction that's considered new construction in the term of the mortgage initial term of the morgage they're Exempted but but it it the the it's doesn't have the original mortgage they already flipped the property someone else already owns it so it's a new mortgage now it's not the original mortgage from the developer even more so right so their loan their loan yes is based on that 2500 increase 25 whatever the mortgage right so when you get the mortgage you got to show that there's enough income if it's already 100% occupied sorry if they're already 100% occupied you know well that the mortgage is going to want to see the current rent roles and they're basing their mortgage on the current rent roles so the argument that they would need more than that to meet their mortgage is a little tough right so but again if the lease if the lease says they can have the increase the lease can have the increase if it's under the initial ter if it's under the initial term of the of the of the mortgage it's Exempted and if any of those are vacant they come in at whatever the market will bear so those are kind of the general not I'm just I'm giving a scenario of this ordinance where I don't even know who owns a building okay all right that where yeah just because they could pay the mortgage does not mean that it's a they had to put in equity also now they bought this thing to fill it up quickly with the idea I would imagine again I don't have any is what I heard from the great the example in your hyp if it if it's a new contract and they have no lease and they problem then then yes I could see an issue hard but but again I don't see that being the scenario with professionals going towards that round with no lease and and buying the property and now renting at 2500 with no recourse I I don't see that happening but let's say in the rare case that it does the ordinance which is not touched with this ordinance has a a hardship uh component in which they go to the board and show that they're way below the market and the mortgage and their equity and they're allowed to bring it up so even in that rare case which may exist allows them to do it allows a hardship application to bring it up to what's called fair market and that analysis is brought before the board the board analyzes it and can come up with I was adamant I was adamant about that component because because of the development right again if you are below market and you have the justification you can automatically bring it up that's why I did not I do not like the idea of having an approach which is often referred to as rank control or capping at such a low amount that individuals go I will never recover my investment this specifically addresses existing property where an individual outside of a lease is facing what I mean outside the lease even if they sign one the increase is not justified by the lease where someone is giving you an unconscionable rate increase and you have nowhere to go but this does not refer to new construction new projects and again any project of this magnitud if you have a luxury apartment there is a market rate for that apartment and if you have a lease that contract is binding this will not circumvent or supersede any contract that is already existing meaning this board can't go we saw your lease we don't agree with it and we're going to make a decision that you don't have to pay the lease you signed your lease when you win in that is a separate contract a question by me you in mind for the past while we've been discussing item 44 yes um what I would like to do if you don't mind if members would allow me I would like to finish the agenda and 44 determine what hour it is and people's disposition if we'd like to go forward or to postpone to another meeting meeting in the future um if if that's to the council's liking yes very good with your permission we are before us item 18 through 43 I'm sorry 44 so we will be leaving out for the time being the ordinance 44 as well as 43b colleagues are there any questions on these items if I can ask everyone to please turn off their lights are there any questions please council president so will this include 18 to 43a I'm sorry man it's going to be 18 to 43a you got to give me a little bit louder 18 to 43a 18 through 43a inclusive okay are there any questions please if not I'll take a motion please to accept items 18 through 43 some council president second there's a motion there's a second Ro call please councilman monk yes councilman love yes councilwoman Melo yes councilman Schwarz yes councilman Garcia yes Council monz yes and council president Sher yes with the council's kind permission uh item number nine item number 11 excuse me payment of bills are there any questions on the bill see no lights at this time is there a motion please to accept the bills as presented by the clerk motion and second roll call please councilman monk yes councilman love yes councilwoman Melo yes councilman Schwarz yes councilman Garcia yes councilwoman colz and council president Sher yes thank you I'm going to take the Liberty uh Mr Mayor Mr Pres administrator to leave things uh to do 43b separately yes 43 B and well we're up to resolutions is there a motion to accept are there any questions please that being the case is there a motion please to accept items 43b 43 43 b sir to pick up the names the uh the rent leveling board the names the appoint are you saying you want to do you want to proceed we have to give recommendations for the different positions I'd like to First assure that we have an ordinance with which which brings us to 44 sorry originally 44 we're we're discussing now for yes okay we agree yes let's come back to the question but I would appreciate if we could um go thoroughly but a bit quicker me was sure on 43 excuse me on 44 is there a motion to open public hearing move it Mo second roll call to open public hearing this is first reading first so this will be set down for the meeting of January 7th 2025 yes ma'am can I we voting on 40 44 I have a motion by councilman love second by councilman Melo roll call councilman monk I'm sorry Council Schwarz you we had some question yes in terms of I I have I personally have some very considerable concerns about this ordinance I've been on this Council for a long time a long time when I started on this Council one of the most councilman Garcia has been here much longer than it is one of the most significant issues that we had was the current rent controls in place in that the combination of the rent controls and the inability of landlords to raise rents they then went and did property tax appeals claiming that they couldn't cover the cost of the property taxes and one consistently and that was rectified by doing two things two very significant things to the rent controls one thing was to take the property taxes out of the equation in which any property tax increase regardless of how what or how much got added to the top of the rent no questions asked free pass and there was the flip side of that ordinance was that if the property managed to get a successful tax appeal every dollar of the tax reduction had to be refunded dollar for dollar to the tenants and overnight all of the tax appeals ended overnight in addition to that we did a permanent vacancy decontrol which means once the unit went off of rent control it never ever again returned to rent control as a result of that I think as a direct result of that the city of paic has become extraordinarily attractive to investment because people know they can make an investment they can do what they want and they have they're are not subject to any other constraints now I I understand there are concerns of of what's going on here but once you start putting in any type of cap whether it's 8% or anything else now the a is behind the developer to demonstrate why his thing is why he's allowed to do that and um and and you have a lot of developers which have already invested considerable money into the city of Pake specifically because there was no rent regulation these people run very well-run buildings and to start putting the level of controls over them first of they not going to do any other projects here um it's going to completely change the environment of why pic has has been so attractive to this investment and that's why I'm extraordinarily concerned about I understand we need to put in some definitions to try to accommodate a rent level in Port so that there's a forum to have things but to have it go past that set of definitions and start putting in um controls which will have which can have negative impacts in terms of in terms of the the considerable investment which has gone into the city I am extraordinarily concerned about about doing such an such in ordinance if I may respond if the council president would allow and I'll be succinct I I am proud of the development that has occurred over the years and admire the work that was done prior to me our city wants to attract investors we have a responsibility to the residents of the city to protect them I believe this Council has done so over the years I want to share this I was adamant that our Administration present this ordinance to some of our bigger developers who agreed that this was reasonable these building owners I would push back that not all are responsible as as you described in terms of business and uh in terms of property owners some are derelict and some take advantage of vulnerable individuals we are slowly approaching a time where we have a population they may be even more vulnerable because of the outcome of certain elections and certain rhetoric that has been shared there are individuals that could be subject to rent increases and threats I believe this is a reasonable approach what is being requested often of us is not reasonable I believe that this protects individuals who we are seeking to protect without in any way creating such a burden or such an issue with potential developers and I don't know how many more $50 million projects we're getting in the city of pin I I don't see 10 or 20 but if we can get them great ratables I think that our track record has created relationships where people understand this Council and this Administration look to work with those who want to invest in our city I think the number is high enough that the increase will still make uh a benefit or still result in a benefit for the property owner it excludes new projects so that is not an issue but we are being inundated with constant complaints by residents I know the council members could speak to it directly it is every day we're getting these complaints of individuals was going my rent went up double double I than God I don't know what that's like and you're right if there's a tax increase but caps have occurred there's been caps on tax increases caps sometimes they serve a purpose this cap again I think is reasonable so councilman to be SST because I I don't want to revisit every argument that's been made this evening I believe that investment will continue I believe our residents will overwhelmingly respond with gra gratitude and not be subject to the direction of organizations or groups that don't necessarily have the best interest of the entire city in mind but have a specific goal that benefits their agenda I think that this is a good ordinance but I respect the decision of the council I would ask that it be considered on this first reading because I think that we have a responsibility a duty it is not an issue in per se it is a Statewide issue it is an affordability issue every person who's running for office keeps ringing it up the complaints are coming from every single City and I think we have an opportunity to be at the Forefront leaders in this in a responsible way that does not hurt investors and at the same time protects the renters and we have an overwhelming majority of renters in this city the majority of our residents are renters they are not developers now everyone knows I'm developer friendly but if we do not have an appropriate response to protect from these exorbitant outrageous and malicious tax increases we might find ourselves with our bags to the wall and behind the eightball at a swelling push that the city take Extreme Measures and I think again I'll conclude this is a pragmatic and responsible approach that considers the developer and the investor while protecting the overwhelming majority of residents that are renters in the city thank you thank okay thank you mayor g mon yeah thank you um Can can I get some clarity on in this ordinance when it's when it refers to um a below Market rent increase yes of course so as part of your package we included what um the HUD guidelines are for rental limits in our region so that's part of the your backup uh we're under the P Bergen and Sussex region and if you look there's two sets of rents there's a moderate income and then there's a lowincome rent I want to say and I'm going by memory now because I'm looking at the ordance not the numbers roughly a low rent for a two-bedroom is like 1481 something like that 1458 1458 so what this ordinance says is if you purchase this property right and your investment and somehow you got the mortgage because you had to show the rent roll at whatever it was so let's say that you get the mortgage and it's at $900 not $481 right what this ordinance allows the purchaser to do is to go up as high as 20% rental increases year over year until they hit that 1481 number so it triples the the uh increase amount because they're so below the low Market rental within our region so what that does and and the mayor was adamant about balance is that the least the the least we can do to stabilize and balance is get the landlord to the minimum low rental limit if it's significantly below it's fair and it's statistically analyzed by Hud it is fair for the tenant and it is fair it's a it's a fair rent for the land landlord so we carved out at the mayor's request a specific section to allow for this additional increase because it would be unfair to keep it at the $900 right when the lowincome rentals these are people below the poverty line would be at 1481 and this Sun's in six years I just want to make sure everyone knows this is six years after six this is not a decision that lives on perpetuity forever six years the council has the right to revisit if there is an effect on this city that the council does not wish to continue I will leave it there for the council's consideration has a Sunset and there was a specific purpose why six years was chosen what was a so the impact without going into detail considering after the pandemic which already exacerbated pre-existing issues of a individual Community sometimes faces many hardships we consider the impact of it in a uh a term that would help in terms of recovery an approach that we can justify as a city takes the market about six years to recover or to set itself right and a six-year term is an appropriate amount of time where the council could revisit and say we don't want to continue this or this has worked out very well and we've seen increased development yeah yeah I miss I didn't understand a six year six year yes after considering the pandemic the many years of the pandemic or how many years of the pandemic and have having some um conversations as to how long it takes for the market to correct itself Cycles in terms of when rent increases Investments the impacts in city we decided the six years again is an exact science would be enough time where it would have significant impact to protect residents who just came off of a pandemic while not being so long that you couldn't imagine a council within this lifetime saying we can revisit this I after six years what happens six it comes before the council it ends it has a sunset so it automatically ends and then the council could decide bring this back or no but it or it's a sunset it ends in six years it is a six-year approach to protect the tenants who are being targeted by some landlords who feel that the tenants have no recourse if one could argue that uh it's not every six years that we have a mark cycle but four years would that change anything I if I can be candid I wanted it to outlive a term and not fall into a four-year or two-year term that it would not be confused as a political move but rather a very specific and considered Approach at addressing issues that resulted after the pandemic you've had families come here directly and say time understood thank C can I get some clarity on paragraph B of it says the provisions of the section shall sued the UN the provision of this chapter 231 so is it what what B councilman is on page 23123 B yes 23b yes the provision of this yes so supersede any provisions of this chapter with which okay what what would you like what's the you just want it says period with the exception of Provisions contained in 2312 2 four is that it was so the reason that is remember we talked about those Capital Improvements and we talked about those hardship waivers we wanted to make sure that that stood was still in effect and this would not limit that from happening because of everything we just discussed here this evening those were reasons why that was carved out but 2312 and 2314 also talk about a permanent vacancy decol oh which continues here but the the biggest issue is post 99 and pre-1999 so we didn't want to take out of effect what the current ordinance says right so the current ordinance says if you were there before 99 there's specific Provisions there because you've been in that unit since 1999 we didn't touch that this is moving forward that's why it was called the rent stabilization of 2025 so that anyone who's been in and that's probably the ordinance you were discussing originally anybody who's been in their unit since 1999 still gets the benefit of whatever the ordinance read today moving forward these this is not relevant to those tenants that's not this is not relevant to those tenants those tenants fall under the original ordinance and would remain the same and when that tenant vacates it goes back to uncontrolled but now it's subject to this yes because it's post 1999 so it would be once it's vacated everything we talked about this evening but you have number of units which have been vacant since 1999 and therefore are not currently subject to rent control those would be subject to this so so if they if they're vacant in this scenar they've been vacant since 1999 no theyve not been they were vacant at some point since 1999 but they are they've been occupied for the past five years if they're occupied within the the last five years and they don't fall under the new construction exemption they would fall under this current owners so I'm still not clear it says with the exception of Provisions contained in 2312 and 2314 which Provisions those Pro those Provisions basic those are the pre9 those are the the pre-1999 so let me pull up four all right so number number two is the establishment of the 1999 ordinance and it goes all the way um and then four is increases to base rent so four which specifically for those pre-1999 individuals cor says that there's a permanent vacancy decontrol to those individuals to those units yes it's decontrolled so which means so let's take your scenario right now I'm I'm pre-1999 I'm sub to this $25 a month right maximum right now I leave you can set it at whatever you want whatever the market can bear you'll set it right and then you'll fall under the if this ordinance passes you'd fall under the requir of this ordinance does not say does not just say vacancy de control it says say permanent vacancy de control this would control I'm sorry this would control yeah our current ordinance would control anything past 1999 so I don't understand what it means with the exception of the provisions in 2312 and 2314 those are some of the provisions I'm not understanding the verbage so I I don't where where do you see permanent I'm trying to find permanent I don't I don't I don't see that here no's trying to respond he said where do you see permanent I don't know if he uses that specific word the word permanent may not appear it's I'm I'm I pulled up the ordinance I'm reading it right now and I don't so because I want make sure you guys hear each other speaking I don't believe the word permanent is there is it was at the time it was written that it did not go back into effect once it was vacant right because you didn't need to State it right the moment it became vacant it was not part of this ordinance so you didn't have to state in perpetuity it automatically went away whatever ver says over there makes it it was per made I don't know if uses were permanent but whatever verbiage it does have over there it was a permanent de control right what I'm saying is by the mere fact of the vacancy it's decontrolled because this doesn't no longer apply so it was it was decontrolled I'm sorry our rent leveling attorney if the council president would allow could give a specific response you want you go to the mic council president Council Schwarz I can explain the provision if you like Chris Rodriguez BR up to you I'm the rent leveling attorney for the city of Pake again your name sir I'm sorry Christopher Rodriguez thank you uh now if you were to to look at the current code under 232 2 31-2 B There is a specific clause and I have the code before me that says the terms and Provisions of this chapter shall not apply to any dwelling unit which becomes vacant after the effective date of this section nor shall it apply to any multiple dwelling housing space rented offered for rent for the first time subsequent to the effective date so the effective date of 231-2993 believe councilman Schwarz that might be what you're recollecting as the permanent um control date for for becoming off of rank control one second that your question so you're saying that is no longer relevant to that and would now be subject to this that's correct because if you go to the the new proposed ordinance it exempts itself from The Establishment Clause so anyone that's under the the 231 D2 requirement is still protected by those requirements but then anyone who's not who's outside of that would fall under the new ordinance of course unless the unit was vacant and you're offering it forun for the first time there's no such restriction uh in other municipalities there are restrictions against um increases for subsequent tenants even if the unit is becoming vacant we're offering no such restriction in our proposed ordinance okay thank you councilman councilman monk yeah thank you go back to the explanation excuse me by the way thank you Mr oh of course no problem so on this Mr business administrator we were referring to earlier about the lowi income rent limit of 1458 so if someone was that they can increase 20% a year right do they need to demonstrate before the bread leveling Board of Renovations they' have done or they could automatically go up 20% no so I believe in the ordinance it has a component in which that has to be verified so that someone doesn't come into the mayor and say I uh I got double I got my rent doubled right uh let me just just pull that one up because I'm I'm going from one to the other so I apologize let me just get to that section here um okay so application below Market rent uh a property owner who is currently renting a dwelling unit that is below the applicable low housing rent um can increase up to that number for the 20% uh accompanying an application uh the property owner must submit to the rent leveling board copies of updated landlord tenant registrations and things of that nature and then they'll review the application which is under item two and then item three is the 20% limit so they don't so they don't have to necessarily do work improvements they don't have to do work okay so so which of so then this chart has low home yeah so I don't want that you to get confused on the chart um because there's it's based on income limit this is not based on income limit it is based strictly on rent so basically what we're saying is the lowest income in our region for a two-bedroom is 14 um 58 we're saying that if you're below that the the minimum like you should be able to go to at least the lowest we're allowed to in our region so if you're at 900 you can get up to that 14 but just like the said you don't want to grab somebody and completely double their rent from one moment to the other so it allows triple the amount increase till you get to that number and then you can follow the rest of the ordinance so it's trying to facilitate the landlord getting to that number faster because they're so below market now none of this precludes the landlord because I know you said something about repairs none none of this precludes the landlord for going in for a hardship variance I said variance of my using my Z planning for a hardship request or a capital Improvement request if they're going to gut the building right just to reiterate what the mayor said this is not for maintenance or for General emergency repairs because you didn't fix the roof for 10 years and now they're a hole in and you're fixing the hole in the roof right it has to be Capital Improvements that you made that somehow benefit the tenant as well right so those are the criteria that's already been established in the ordinance so nothing includes you let's say you are at that $900 and you say well 1458 is not enough right you can say this is the fair market this is what I've done to the property this is why I um deserve this hardship or if you don't want to go through all that headache you just do the 20% and get you to whatever number you can live with but that's a way to limit that impact on the tenant to not get that double and also give an incentive to the owner to say we're not going to hold you to that 900 00 or a thousand let's say it's $1,000 under this ordinance you get 80 bucks not any more right now you can do 20% of that okay so coun I'm sorry [Music] coun so that's that's the lowincome rent limit you use 20 you go 20% at a time to get to that number okay and then after that the ordinance would apply of the 8% per year or or the ship or but if if it takes you four years to get to that number then it applies for two years and then there's a sunset I right it's only six years so if you're doing 20% for I'm just doing the math if you're doing 20% for the next four years then you only have two years that you worry about this and then there's a Sunset and then you could one would argue at sunsets the council doesn't do anything they could then in six years raise it to whatever you want do what they wish right so what what happens I guess more of a legal question if I if I rent an apartment for $2,000 and I give a two-month concession or I give two months free what is my rent you you still no You' still established the base rent in, okay you're not stuck at the two months free no I what considered 2000 and a new construction if when you build a new building and you take a a construction loan right and after you finish construction and you occupy the building then you put on a permanent loan which loan you said there's a state statute that says that any new construction for the life of the mortgage there is no restriction right that would be the permanent mortgage it would not be the Construction Construction the construction loan you wouldn't defensively you wouldn't be ten you wouldn't be tenanting that until the end of the construction loan right yeah and I know there's concessions and there's you know you may be getting an OC before you switch but the idea is when it's ten tenanted and that would be at the final permanent mortgage okay so I guess really what um I I I understand the purpose of this ordinance I get it 100% obviously someone's living somewhere and all of a sudden their their rents double right I'm just one thing I don't know I don't know the answer I was I'm wondering if we have any experts right that know the answer to this how this impacts I think Council Schwarz touched on this earlier how does this impact valuation of buildings in other words that we know there are a lot of buildings here in the city right many many apartments big percentage of the city is apartments and apartments are evaluated or valuations are done based on income right based some profits right if if we are prohibiting we are slowing down the process for landlords to bring a an apartment up to market right now we all agree if an apartment 800 it's way below right now if it takes someone two three years to get it as opposed to one year or if they come in with a hardship consideration okay right okay but we we are essentially lowering the value of these properties which gives the owners of these buildings a tool or a reason or excuse why they should be paying less taxes which which let now because a large percentage large percentage of the properties in the city are Apartments so we're giving a very big per potentially a potenti a a large percent of the buildings of properties in this to go for tax reconsideration and if they are successful and we know that income producing investment properties are based on income there's a good chance they will win an appeal what happens then is is then the tax is will get shift the homeowners someone got to pay pay that bills right so if if the taxes are lowered on apartment buildings it means all those taxes the taxes will get shifted over to homeowners in the city of Pake how do we deal with that one I would say there are many reasons why um developers would arguments that tax there are many reasons why homeowners would uh or Property Owners would make arguments that their taxes should be lowered this would not be the one reason why they come to the city or tax appeal or take on a tax appeal I I can only respond as I have said consistently like I don't believe in extreme positions just don't I don't like the idea of restricting rent increases to the point where people flee and say I I can't make money in the city and I don't want to invest I also understand that there is a vulnerable population and they're not just in our city I've seen other municipalities take extreme approaches either a callous one that only considers investors to their detriment if not immediate in the future and then again the other side which I've mentioned those who take political positions and Pander to a group and then the city is hurt I generally feel that we have vetted this that we have addressed and considered every side that we have addressed legal issues that we put a sunset on it for that purpose because we do not believe that we hold Infinite Wisdom or have it and aren't so arrogant to try to impose a decision now on those who would serve in the future we have utilized our attorneys but I know this Council also is concerned for the residents I do not in any way want to portray this as my crusade or fight we have so many residents who keep coming and saying there's no defense I've seen organizations come in and rally individuals and tell them let's all go fight and we've withstood these things before and have an extreme measure again I don't support those I believe that this is a reasonable approach that we would be at the Forefront that we have we have gone beyond expectations and I've heard it directly from developers and investors in this city to encourage investment over 200 million on our East Side people know we are not known as the city that will not help we want development but not at the cost of the lives of our residents we need to provide them a defense I believe in this ordinance wholeheartedly I believe the spirit and principles behind it is something that the entire Council can get behind developers have and investors have professionals to speak on their behalf they have attorneys they have Architects they have Engineers they have Bankers they have people to defend them the tenants don't they have us and we are here right now charged with an opportunity to put something reasonable before them and I believe that's what we have before us so I don't know I would lie to you if I told you that I think it' have zero effect on the market but I would propose that anyone who thinks that they know for 100% it would have an adverse effect on the market can't say that for sure they don't know the future I do know we have a PR before us and we've taken a reasonable approach that has been vetted by attorney that we have presented to developers who said this is reasonable thank you and they understand because they hear the outcry some of them have been on the news for people attacking them and going we'll work with the city that's what we're doing here so again I think new projects are exempt I think residents will be protected and I think there's recourse and measures that can be taken by the property owner to reach up to market rate if they're not there and then in six years I believe that it ends I know that it ends and the council can revisit thank you thank you mayor counc so I I really appreciate mayor I really appreciate the clarity that you've provided on this it I I understand where your thoughts are coming from and those are valid issues at the same time I I would if if the council's a meable I would feel more comfortable tbling this to the next meeting I object and I put that on the record and I have never done so but councilman and I I will take this opportunity to say that I I don't want to cut you off but this is how serious this is to me as mayor you have all authority to do so you are the counsel and the legislative body but often it's been the case that an individual's opinion gets to determine whether the entire Council gets to speak up it's fair the council allows but we put a lot of work into this and a lot of study and I have not heard and I often backed off and iest even when I have believed in an ordinance I've deferred to the wisdom of the council I would politely respectfully request that you put it up for vote and if the council by majority rejects it then I'm fine with that I live with it and I will continue to fight for an ordinance that defends those who are victims to abusive malicious and evil property owners who know that there's a population that don't have money for attorneys can't fight if this was one incident and I have never pushed for an ordinance over one incident we are overwhelmed by complaints of residents that go my rent is being doubled the court won't hear me I don't have a money for attorney what are you guys GNA do and I cannot go back to them and say when I had the opportunity to fight for it I back down so I'm asking allow the council as a whole to consider it and if the council as a whole rejects it that is Fair because that is the process the correct and most ethical process there is a checks and balances I don't want to deal with the organizations that keep screaming for rent control because I think it's a ridiculous and irresponsible approach and I don't want rent control of the city but I admit something has to be done in defense of the residents these if if and I am not one of these liberal progressives and I'm not going to get into this soap boox of politics but if a few people say I wanted to bring $50 million to p and I'm not bringing it because you defended the poor and the vulnerable I can live with that I think the city can because we've had record Investments and there's never been an approach under this Administration that has made investors flee I don't see anything in the ordinance that would do so so I just ask that councilman you have the right to request it but I as mayor I'm asking that you put it up for we so we could hear from the council as a whole because it is that important it impacts the entire city and I don't have an answer for res and I can't do this through executive and I wouldn't want to do it through executive power but I have a responsibility to respond to them and they're coming every day with this I I appreciate the considerable thought that went into constructing this it's clearly something which was not done randomly or Hazard and clearly there was a lot of thought that goes in um and it's something which which which is is worth considering I one of the concerns that I continue to have so what happens in year six once you have something like this there would be considerable pressure to vote and renew it for another six years at that point because once you have something like this it's not there when when you have the threat that expiring it would be a lot more pressure to renew it than than you have today even perhaps it may be or it may not it may work it may work overwhelmingly and developers may continue to invest but what happens if we don't I I will take your scenario suggesting I'm not suggesting that we not do it I'm I'm asking that we table it till the next meeting but this would be a first reading corre if I'm correct right this would be a first reading so conversations can continue to have and I'm not saying this is the approach but perhaps in other municipalities the tabling results in the death of a Thousand Cuts as we continue to speak at it I have nauseum and then it's gone and all I'm stating is this if it's if it's a consideration for the entire Council because all of us have to deal with it you gave a scenario what happens if there's pressure if we don't pass it and we have a large number of residents that are out on the street they got evicted because raises continue because we did nothing then I can make the argument that there would be overwhelming pressure to respond now on the extreme perhaps adopt an outrageous rent Control Ordinance because political expedience would required right now I don't believe that I'm being motivated by political expedien I would hope not and I don't believe any of us have but I am telling you genuinely that we have residents coming every day and if it was not the case I would not push here but it is every day and I speak to landlords and ask them listen can you consider not raising double I have no means of forcing that I don't have the power or authority to say you cannot double this person's rent but this Collective body has the authority to implement an ordinance that gives people a responsible approach while still considering whether the landlord can raise so all I'm asking is that it be considered for first reading and then every question that is necessary as is the right and the responsibility of councilman members to ask them during the week so that our professionals who have worked so hard on it can answer them and if you're confident in the next meeting we pass it and if not then I understand but to table it now I have not seen a reason why tbling it unless the council as a whole says we don't like it but that's not what I'm hearing and I have a great deal of respect I believe you're motivated rightly Council M shorts I've always considered that your approach has been one that is considerate and reserved and I'm not saying that to when you over I know what your position is but I'm telling you I'm dealing with this every day is every day I'm getting message from families and you can ask some of your colleagues because they're getting it as well and I don't know how to respond to them outside of the most responsible ordinance that we can come up with and I believe that's what we have before you so all I'm asking is that you consider a vote of the whole and if there is an objection that that be recorded but that we get an opportunity to move forward because the pressure is on and there people real people suffering Council schw you made a motion is there a second to the councilman's motion can I just hearing none my colleagues Mr Mayor members of the administration let me first join with uh I think all of my colleagues who St this is a result of expert work um I remember well the ordinances that in previous administrations this Council has been asked to act upon the difference is frighten nonetheless this is one of the most if not the most significant pieces of legislation that many of us will ever pass or deny as such it has tremendous gravity I am concerned about this Council which has worked so well together for that to be torn aunder however there is no doubt that this is for first reading it does not pass unless it goes through second reading respectfully I will accept a motion to accept for first reading second reading on January 7 second Motion in second roll call please councilman monk yes councilman love yes councilwoman Melo yes councilman Schwarz yes councilman Garcia yes councilwoman go monz yes and council president Sher yes and if I may thank the council and the administration for the tremendous work that has been invested here if there's new information I would hope that it would be shared with all of us um this ordinance is up for for second reading it has just been introduced no more um and the council certainly has any number of things that it can do to make the ordinance even better or whatever that being said ladies and gentlemen members colleagues is there a motion to adjourn to council president 43 we have to 43b appointing members to the rent leveling board I believe we can do that at the next meeting um perhaps with more insights is there a motion to ad please so Move Motion second motion and second to adjourn roll call please councilman monk councilman love yes councilwoman Melo yes councilman sh yes councilman Garcia yes Council MZ yes and council president Sher yes thank you thank you