OPPORTUNITIES AS FAR AS ACTUAL POLICE TYPE RESPONSE THAT THAT WOULD BE HANDLED ON
[*This meeting was joined in progress*]
[5. PUBLIC COMMENT]
[00:00:08]
WHETHER ON WHETHER ICE FOLKS ARE ABLE TO ENTER OR NOT ENTER BUILDING THAT SPECIFIC ON THE TYPE OF BUILDING. I'M SURE, AS YOU'VE ALL SEEN THE NEWS AND I WOULDN'T SPEAK FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AS TO HOW THEY'RE HANDLING THINGS, BUT CERTAINLY I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT EVERYBODY LET THEIR NEIGHBORS BE AWARE OF THE KNOW YOUR RIGHTS CAMPAIGNS SO THAT IF THEY'RE CONFRONTED IN A SITUATION, THEY KNOW HOW TO BEHAVE THEMSELVES AND WHAT THEY THEY CAN DO TO PROTECT THEMSELVES.THANK YOU. I THINK WE SHOULD CONSIDER WE HAD IN THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, WE DID A IT WAS CALLED A SAFE CITY RESOLUTION.
SO SAFE MUNICIPALITY RESOLUTION.
I WOULD PUT FORWARD THAT WE SHOULD DO THAT AS WELL.
I'LL LOOK FOR THE PREVIOUS ONE THAT WE DID, AND WE CAN UPDATE IT WITH WHAT'S NECESSARY.
BUT I'LL PULL THAT FORWARD AND SEE IF THE REST OF THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE IS IN SUPPORT OF THAT. THANK YOU. COMMITTEE.
WE ALSO HAVE KNOW YOUR RIGHTS.
COMMUNICATION THAT HAS COME FROM THE GOVERNOR, AND WE WILL SHARE THAT AS WELL.
THAT IS IN ENGLISH AS IN AND IN SPANISH.
YEAH. SO I THINK GLORIA FORWARDED THAT OUT.
SO WE'LL TRY AND GET THAT COMMUNICATED AS WELL.
BUT THAT'S A GOOD POINT ABOUT THE RESOLUTION. PLEASE DO SHARE IT.
I JUST WANTED TO ADD THANK YOU TO CHAIRWOMAN JOFFRE FOR CALLING THIS OUT.
THIS IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WE AS A TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT.
AND YOU KNOW, IT'S IT'S A, YOU KNOW, SOMEWHAT UNTHINKABLE.
SO AND I ALSO APPRECIATE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEEWOMAN KEENAN RECALLING WHAT HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PAST BECAUSE UNFORTUNATELY, THIS HAS HAPPENED BEFORE.
SO WE WILL DEFINITELY PAY CLOSE ATTENTION AND USE ALL THE RESOURCES THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO US IN ORDER TO PROTECT OUR RESIDENTS.
ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? HI, MAYOR, THIS IS JIM MEEHAN.
I THOUGHT IT WAS IN PERSON, SO I'M AT THE TOWN CENTER.
EXCUSE ME. JIM, CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD FOR ME, PLEASE? OH, IT'S JAMES.
LAST NAME IS MY ON M I O N AND I'M IN SKILLMAN.
AND I JUST HAD A QUICK QUESTION ABOUT THE DCA CALCULATIONS, BECAUSE I READ THAT PRINCETON WAS CONCERNED THAT THE CALCULATIONS ON AVAILABLE LAND MASS, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY A BIG, YOU KNOW, FACTOR IN THE EQUATION, WERE INCORRECT, AND THEY WERE GOING TO REVIEW THEM AND POSSIBLY APPEAL THEM.
SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS MAYBE HAS THREE PARTS.
DID THAT THAT FACTOR COME FROM OUR DATA OR THEIRS? ARE WE MORE OR LESS CONFIDENT IN IT? AND IF NOT, CAN DO WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY, HEY, LET'S TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THE NUMBERS.
WENDY, OUR ATTORNEY. DID YOU WANT TO? SURE. LOVE TO. YES, ABSOLUTELY.
THAT WAS DEFINITELY LOOKED AT BY THE TOWNSHIP PLANNERS.
IN FACT THE CLERK DID STATEWIDE MODELING, SO THEY HAVE VERY IN-DEPTH DATA, NOT JUST TO MONTGOMERY, BUT AS FAR AS HOW THE ALLOCATIONS WORKED EVERYWHERE. AND WHAT THEY FOUND WAS THAT THE DIFFERENCES WERE NEGLIGIBLE FOR MONTGOMERY.
MAYBE ONE THING WAS AND ONE THING WASN'T.
SO THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE RESOLUTION TODAY IS TO ACCEPT THE DCA NUMBERS BECAUSE OUR NUMBERS WERE FAIRLY CONSISTENT, EVEN IF THE LANDMASSES WERE DIFFERENT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? I GUESS WE WILL CONTINUE WITH THE RESOLUTION.
[6. RESOLUTION #25-1-54 – Committing to the Township’s Fourth Round Affordable Housing Obligation as Calculated by DCA]
YEP. OKAY. RESOLUTION NUMBER 25, DASH ONE, DASH 54.COMMITTING TO THE TOWNSHIP'S FOURTH ROUND AFFORDABLE HOUSING OBLIGATION, AS CALCULATED BY DCA. WENDY, DID YOU WANT TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION? YES. THANK YOU. MAYOR.
JUST BY WAY OF SUMMARY, I KNOW THAT OUR LAST MEETING THAT THE TOWNSHIP PLANNER, MICHAEL SULLIVAN, GAVE A VERY GREAT OVERVIEW OF THE NOW FOURTH ROUND PROCESS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND HOW WE GOT HERE AND WHERE WE ARE.
JUST BY WAY OF SUMMARY, JUST TO BRING EVERYBODY'S MEMORIES UP TO DATE, OR IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THAT PRESENTATION.
THE FAIR HOUSING ACT WAS AMENDED BY LEGISLATURE AND SIGNED BY THE GOVERNOR BACK IN MARCH OF 2024, AND THAT ALTERED THE PROCESS FOR HOW CONSTITUTIONAL COMPLIANCE WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING WOULD BE REACHED BY MUNICIPALITIES.
SEVERAL CHANGES WERE ENACTED. THE FIRST MAJOR WAS OFFICIALLY DECLARING THAT COA IS NO LONGER COA WAS THE COUNCIL ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WHICH PREVIOUSLY WAS THE ADMINISTRATIVE MECHANISM FOR IMPLEMENTING AND ENFORCING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING RULES.
SO NOW WHAT'S CREATED THIS DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROGRAM THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE COURTS, WHICH HAS PUT OUT RULES IN DECEMBER SOLIDIFYING THE REQUIREMENT FOR ALL TOWNS
[00:05:05]
THAT WANT TO PARTICIPATE TO ADOPT A BINDING RESOLUTION AS TO THEIR NUMBERS BY JANUARY 31ST. ONCE THE TOWNSHIP ADOPTS THEIR NUMBER, IT WILL BE POSTED ON THE WEBSITE AS WELL AS MY OFFICE WILL PREPARE THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION TO POST IT WITH THE COURT'S WEBSITE. THEY HAVE A DEDICATED AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITE ON ON THE COURTS ONE OF THEIR PAGES ON THEIR WEBSITE NOW.AND THAT WILL OFFICIALLY ENTER THE TOWNSHIP INTO THE PROGRAM.
THERE'S THEN 28 DAYS FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY WHERE AN INTERESTED PARTY COULD OBJECT TO THIS NUMBER.
AN OBJECTION CANNOT JUST BE I DON'T LIKE IT.
THEY'D HAVE TO HAVE A PLANNING ANALYSIS DONE TO SHOW WHAT WAS DONE INCORRECTLY WITH THE METHODOLOGY. AS I INDICATED, THE TOWNSHIP PLANNERS HAVE DONE THAT METHODOLOGY. AND IT'S IN THREE PARTS.
THERE'S THE NONRESIDENTIAL DATA THAT LOOKS AT THE BASICALLY INCREASE IN COMMERCIAL USES.
THERE'S THE INCOME FACTOR AND THEN THERE'S THE LAND CAPACITY FACTOR.
AND AFTER REVIEWING THE METHODOLOGY AND IMPLEMENTING THEIR OWN NUMBERS, CLARK HAS INDICATED THAT ANY CHANGES WOULD BE NEGLIGIBLE.
AND THAT'S WHY THE RECOMMENDATION, WHICH IS BEFORE YOU TODAY ON THE RESOLUTION, IS TO ADOPT THE DCA NUMBERS, WHICH PROVIDE FOR 78 UNITS OF PRESENT NEED, WHICH IS A REHABILITATION NUMBER, AND 260 UNIT CREDITS OF PROSPECTIVE NEED.
AS INDICATED PREVIOUSLY, THAT DOES NOT MEAN ALL NEW BUILDS, AND IT DOES NOT MEAN NEW BUILDS AT A 5 TO 1 RATIO.
THE TOWNSHIP HAS BEEN VERY GOOD AT CREATING OPPORTUNITIES FOR 100% AFFORDABLE, WHICH DON'T HAVE MARKET RATES ALONG WITH IT.
OTHER OPPORTUNITIES EXIST THROUGH BONUS CREDITS AS WELL AS THROUGH EXTENSION OF EXISTING CONTROL, SO THAT YOU DON'T LOSE EXISTING UNITS THAT MAY EXPIRE DURING THIS TEN YEAR OF 2025 TO 2035 PERIOD.
IN ADDITION, I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE RESOLUTION ALSO TAKES INTO ACCOUNT RESERVATION OF RIGHTS, WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR ADJUSTMENTS TO THAT NUMBER BASED ON ACTUAL VACANT LAND THAT IS AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN HOW THE LAND CAPACITY FACTOR WAS CALCULATED.
THE REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT EXACTLY THE SAME.
THAT THAT MIGHT BE TOO RATIONAL.
AND ALSO RESERVES THE RIGHTS IN CASE ANY FUTURE LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS HAPPEN THAT CHANGE THOSE ALLOCATIONS OR THE OVERALL STATE REQUIREMENTS, AS WELL AS ANY LITIGATION THAT WOULD CHANGE THE REQUIREMENT.
ALL OF THOSE RIGHTS HAVE BEEN RESERVED BY THE TOWNSHIP IN THIS PROPOSED RESOLUTION, SO THAT ANY ADJUSTMENTS THAT ARE MADE ON A STATE LEVEL CAN BE BROUGHT DOWN TO THE MUNICIPAL LEVEL. AND THEREFORE WE CERTAINLY RECOMMEND THAT THE TOWNSHIP CONTINUE TO PARTICIPATE AS IT'S DONE IN THE PAST.
AND THIS WILL ENSURE YOUR ABILITY TO CONTINUE TO HAVE HOME RULE OVER YOUR LOCAL ZONING, WHICH OTHERWISE COULD BE ABSORBED BY THE COURT.
IF YOU'RE FOUND TO BE CONSTITUTIONALLY NOT COMPLIANT WITH YOUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING MANDATES. THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS? I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM AHEAD OF TIME. I WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY'S COMFORTABLE WITH HOW THEY'RE VOTING.
I HAVE A QUESTION. WHAT IS THE PLAN TO OBJECT TO THE NUMBER BASED ON WHAT WE ARE CONSIDERING, THE VACANT VERSUS WHAT THEY ARE? WHAT IS THE PLAN? I'M NOT SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING EXACTLY, BUT LET ME REPHRASE THIS TO SEE IF THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME.
ARE YOU ASKING WHAT THE PLAN WOULD BE AS FAR AS IF A VACANT LAND ANALYSIS SHOWS THAT WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH VACANT LAND IN ORDER TO PRODUCE THOSE NUMBERS? OR ARE YOU ASKING ME IF WE'RE OBJECTING TO THE LAND CAPACITY DATA AS PART OF OF DETERMINING WHAT THE OBLIGATION IS.
BECAUSE WHAT WE CONSIDER VACANT AND BUILDABLE IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT.
SO PARCELS THAT WERE IN THERE THAT WERE ALREADY PART OF OUR PROGRAM BEFORE.
SO WERE THEY REMOVED. AND WHAT DID THAT DO TO THE NUMBERS.
SO IF THERE'S PARCELS THAT ARE ARE OF AVAILABLE AT THE PRESENT TIME, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE APPROVED FOR SOMETHING ELSE BUT HAVEN'T STARTED CONSTRUCTION, THEY WOULD STILL LIKELY SHOW UP ON THE LAND CAPACITY FACTOR.
BUT WHEN WE DO A VACANT LAND ANALYSIS, IT WOULD COME OFF.
THE VACANT LAND ANALYSIS IS GOING TO BE PART OF OF THE SECOND PART OF THIS PROCESS.
BY JUNE 30TH, YOU HAVE TO ADOPT YOUR NEW HOUSING ELEMENT FAIR SHARE PLAN, WHICH IS HOW YOU'RE GOING TO IMPLEMENT YOUR NUMBERS. THAT'S WHERE WE WOULD ADDRESS A VACANT LAND ANALYSIS AND INCORPORATE THAT INTO THE HOUSING ELEMENT THAT COMES WITH THE THE FAIR SHARE PLAN AND HOUSING ELEMENT THAT WOULD GET ADOPTED BEFORE JUNE 30TH.
WHY AREN'T WE DOING IT NOW, THOUGH, AS PART OF IT? BECAUSE THAT'S NOT REALLY AN ANALYSIS. THAT'S WHAT.
SO. AGREEING TO THIS NUMBER I THINK IS IS PROBLEMATIC.
YOU KNOW, IT'S A VOLUNTARY NUMBER SAYING WHY WE DISAGREE WITH IT BECAUSE THAT THEY HAVE PARCELS IN THERE THAT ARE ALREADY APPROVED.
[00:10:01]
ARE WE TALKING ABOUT. SO THEY GET BILLED AND WE'RE STILL ON THE HOOK FOR 170 MORE UNITS.OR ARE WE GOING TO TAKE THEM OUT OF THAT IN OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN? THE THE LAND THAT IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT WOULD COME OUT.
AGAIN, THERE'S THERE'S TWO SEPARATE THINGS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. AND I THINK THEY'RE GETTING MIXED INTO ONE IN CALCULATING THE OBLIGATION.
THEY'VE DONE THIS THING CALLED A LAND CAPACITY FACTOR.
WHEN WE DO OUR PLAN AND SAY HOW MANY UNITS WE CAN ACTUALLY SUPPORT, THAT IS WHEN YOU DO YOUR VACANT LAND ANALYSIS.
AND SUPPOSING YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH VACANT LAND AVAILABLE TO HIT THE OBLIGATION, YOU WOULD REDUCE THAT.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE RESERVING THE RIGHT TO DO. YOU REDUCE YOUR NUMBER TO WHAT'S CALLED AN RDP, WHICH IS THE REALISTIC DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL.
BUT THAT'S THAT'S WHEN YOU'RE DEVELOPING THE PLAN THAT'S SEPARATE FROM HOW THE LAND CAPACITY ANALYSIS IS DONE.
RIGHT. SO WE AND IT'S NOT RATIONAL.
THE NUMBER, I MEAN, THE NUMBER IF, IF WE PUT THIS OUT THERE IS WE AGREE TO THE NUMBER OF 270. RIGHT. WE'RE PUTTING THAT IN THE PUBLIC RECORD EVEN THOUGH WE THEN CAN SAY NO, BUT WE WE SAY WE CAN IN A SENSE BACKTRACK IT BASED ON OTHER INFORMATION.
AS OPPOSED TO LIKE OTHER MUNICIPALITIES IS BASICALLY SAYING WE DISAGREE WITH THIS NUMBER IN BOLD. AND THIS IS WHY, INCLUDING SOME OF THE OTHER REASONS THAT I LAID OUT WHERE I THINK THE STATE IS LACKING BECAUSE THE DCA IS COMING OUT WITH WHAT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN BUILT AND WHAT HASN'T BEEN BUILT. AND SO THEY'VE KIND OF PUT THIS FORWARD WITH INACCURATE INFORMATION.
SO MY CONCERN BY SAYING YES TO ANY NUMBER ALTHOUGH I DO UNDERSTAND THIS IS A RISK ANALYSIS AS WELL. YOU KNOW, THOSE MUNICIPALITIES THAT ARE THE ONES THAT ARE PUSHED BACK OVER THE YEARS REALLY HAVEN'T HAD THE SAME KIND OF, I THINK, EFFECT THAT WE'VE BEEN WORRYING ABOUT.
SO. I JUST FEEL THAT THIS NUMBER JUST DOESN'T MAKE MUCH SENSE.
THAT WE WOULD AGREE TO THIS NUMBERS, I THINK, A LITTLE BIT. WE'RE LOSING OUR POWER IN THIS ONE.
I DO UNDERSTAND. I KNOW THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN HOW YOU CALCULATE AND HOW THE THE THE DCA METHODOLOGY TO CALCULATE THE LAND CAPACITY VERSUS THE VACANT LAND ANALYSIS.
THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT TOOLS.
ONE IS DONE AT THE FOREFRONT AND ONE IS DONE AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE HOUSING PLAN. AND CERTAINLY EVEN IF YOUR NUMBER, LET'S SAY, WAS 800 AND YOU HAVE ONE DEVELOPABLE ACRE THAT YOU COULD ACTUALLY BUILD ON, THEN YOUR RDP WOULD GO DOWN TO PROBABLY THREE WHEN YOU ACTUALLY GO TO BUILD IT.
SO THAT'S IN TWO DIFFERENT STEPS OF THE PROCESS.
AND I THINK THAT IT MIGHT BE GETTING SMUSHED INTO ONE RIGHT NOW, BUT THERE ARE TWO DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT CALCULATIONS.
SO EVEN IF YOU ACCEPT THE 270 NUMBER, IF YOU'RE MAKING LAND ANALYSIS, AND THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE, I HAVE NOT DONE THIS.
BUT IF YOUR VACANT LAND ANALYSIS SHOWS THAT YOUR REALISTIC DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL IS SIX, YOU WOULD ONLY HAVE TO SET FORTH A PLAN SHOWING WHERE SIX UNITS WOULD GO IRRESPECTIVE OF WHAT THE PROSPECTIVE NEED WAS.
OKAY. I HAVE COMMITTEE MEMBER TODD WITH HER HAND UP AND ALSO DEPUTY MAYOR.
SO I'LL HAVE COMMITTEE MEMBER TODD FIRST AND THEN DEPUTY MAYOR.
THANK YOU. BRIEFLY. I JUST WANT TO SET FORTH MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY.
SO BASED ON THE DCA NUMBERS, WE DID HAVE OUR PLANNER TO ANALYZE THEM AT THIS STAGE. AND THE DIFFERENCE IN THE ANALYSIS AT THIS STAGE WAS BASICALLY NEGLIGIBLE. SO THAT IS WHY THIS RESOLUTION IS AGREEING TO THE NUMBERS AT THIS STAGE.
I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS ANOTHER STAGE WHERE WE WHERE THE NUMBERS MIGHT CHANGE, AND ALSO THEY MIGHT CHANGE BECAUSE OF POLITICAL AND ADMINISTRATION CHANGES.
AND THAT'S WHAT MY CONSIDERATION AND MY VOTE IS BASED ON TODAY.
THAT IS CORRECT. I'M NOT YOUR CONSIDERATION.
BUT YES, THE PLANNER DID INDICATE THAT IN REVIEWING THE THREE FACTORS THAT GENERATED THE NUMBER. ANY CHANGES WOULD BE NEGLIGIBLE.
AND I WANT TO SECOND AND ECHO COMMITTEEWOMAN TAYLOR TODD'S COMMENTS.
WE HAD A REALLY WONDERFUL DISCUSSION AT THE LAST TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE MEETING. AND I HOPE FOR FOR THE RESIDENTS THE BROADER RESIDENTS UNDERSTANDING IS, YOU KNOW, BASED ON OUR, YOU KNOW, UNDERSTANDING AND MEETING WITH PROFESSIONALS WHO, YOU KNOW, HAVE GOTTEN REALLY GREAT. GREAT FEEDBACK FROM FROM RESIDENTS ON THAT DISCUSSION.
THAT ANY KIND OF ADJUSTMENTS WOULD BE NEGLIGIBLE AND POTENTIALLY PUT US AT RISK.
AND THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION WE HAD LAST TIME THAT, YOU KNOW, WE REALLY WANT TO KIND OF CONTROL OUR DESTINY IN THIS AND AND MINIMIZE RISK OF LITIGATION, ETC.. AND WE WANT TO AVOID SOME OF THE RISKS THAT SOME OTHER TOWNS HAVE TAKEN. AND SO THAT'S WHY YOU KNOW, I'M SUPPORTING THIS RESOLUTION TO MOVE
[00:15:03]
FORWARD. I THINK IT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF OUR TOWNSHIP AND OUR RESIDENTS.I GUESS AT THIS POINT, WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT, BUT JUST TO I ALSO WANTED TO REITERATE WHAT COMMITTEE ONE THOUGHT.
AND DEPUTY MAYOR BARRAGAN SAID.
WE DID HAVE A GREAT MEETING THAT THE PRESENTATION SLIDES ARE ON THE WEBSITE FOR ANY RESIDENTS WHO ARE LISTENING IN, PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT YOU GO OVER THEM.
I KNOW IT'S KIND OF COMPLICATED.
BUT AS WAS EXPLAINED TO US BY THE PLANNERS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE STILL RESERVE THE RIGHT TO ADJUST ANY POSITION IN THE EVENT OF ANY RULINGS, WHICH WAS THE MONTVALE CASE.
SO IT'S NOT THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS ALL IN THE RESOLUTION, WHICH WILL BE OBVIOUSLY ON THE WEBSITE ONCE WE ARE DONE WITH IT.
SO, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHAT'S BEST.
AT LEAST WE HAVE CONTROL OVER WHAT'S HAPPENING.
LOSING YOUR PLANNING, ZONING CONTROL FOR THE TOWNSHIP, AS MANY MAY HAVE SEEN IN OTHER TOWNSHIPS, CAN BE VERY HARD.
SO THIS THIS IS THE THE BEST WAY TO MOVE FORWARD FOR US.
AND YES, THERE ARE MANY OTHER STEPS.
THIS IS JUST THE INITIAL STEP.
SO JUST LETTING RESIDENTS KNOW THAT.
AND THAT'S WHY, YOU KNOW, I'VE ALSO DECIDED THAT THIS IS THE BEST WAY OF MOVING FORWARD ON THAT.
AND AS I SAID, THERE ARE OTHER STEPS.
AND, YOU KNOW, WE KEEP CONTROL OF HOW THIS MOVES FORWARD AS A TOWN.
OKAY. AT THIS POINT. MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 25, DASH ONE, DASH 41. SO MOVED.
COMMITTEE MEMBER. TAYLOR. TODD.
AT THIS POINT HAVING NO OTHER BUSINESS, WE'LL MOVE INTO ADJOURNMENT.
SO MOVED. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU EVERYONE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. BYE, EVERYONE.
THANK YOU. BYE. THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.