Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rent Leveling Board topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Passaic council reviews rent‑leveling board applicants, asks law firm to define 'expert' seat
Summary
Council received two resumes for the rent‑leveling board (one listed as 'Arthur g So to of 181 Polisson' in materials and Jorge Palacios), debated whether the ordinance should define the 'expert' seat, and directed city attorneys to draft possible qualification language before the next meeting; no appointments were made.
Get email alerts on the Rent Leveling Board topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Passaic City Council on Dec. 5 reviewed two resumes submitted for openings on the rent‑leveling board and asked the municipal law firm to draft clearer qualification language for the board's required "expert" seat.
Council documents showed two active applicants: one listed in the packet as "Arthur g So to of 181 Polisson" (as presented in the clerk's materials) and Jorge Palacios, recommended for the tenant seat. Councilwoman Montanez said she wanted clearer qualification standards so councilmembers would know whom to approach about service. "That's why at the last meeting I asked, what were the qualifications?" she said.
Council discussion focused on possible approaches: define "expert" with specific credentials (for example, a licensed real estate professional with defined years of experience), allow a homeowner to serve in the neutral or "expert" role, or remove the explicit expert requirement from the ordinance and substitute an additional resident representative. Staff said there is no controlling state statute that defines an "expert" for this board, leaving the municipality discretion to set local qualifications.
Council members asked that the city attorney provide suggested language clarifying the terms "expert," "landlord" and "tenant," and to address residency requirements for board members before the next meeting. The council also noted two resumes remain active and that a third applicant in the packet did not meet qualification criteria as presented. No formal appointments or votes were taken on Dec. 5.

