a more open, collaborative, and transparent budgeting process than what we have experienced over the last eight years. We've been meeting since February to start these conversations to work together, and we have implemented much of your feedback, and I thank you for all of your assistance. I especially
want to thank and acknowledge business administrator Jennifer Gonzalez and our entire senior staff here at city hall. Not only have they embraced this change, they've leaned into it. They've worked incredibly hard to put forward a budget that puts Hoboken on a path towards long-term fiscal health while continuing
to deliver the services that our residents rely on every day. Many of us on this council knew the budget was going to be difficult this year. It was not until I was sworn in that I got to see the full picture of what we were dealing with. Quite simply, Mayor Bala
left this city far less financially stable than he inherited it. My job is to pick up those pieces and put this city back on solid footing. This is what this budget begins to do. We are making real changes. No longer are we tolerating redundancies
in city hall. And I thank all of you on the council for supporting the reorganization of departments that makes us more efficient and more accountable. No longer will we be entering into agreements without understanding their long-term impacts. and I thank the council for supporting your efforts to
revisit and renegotiate the collective bargaining agreements that were negotiated under the Bal administration. On tonight's agenda, I am asking you to continue the progress that we have made by appointing labor council to dive directly into these negotiations. And no longer are we awarding contracts
in a way that ultimately costs taxpayers more, particularly when it comes to health insurance consultants where poor structure and oversight drive up the costs. And no longer will we allow this city to be dragged into unnecessary and costly litigation. Those days are over.
We often say a budget is a reflection of our values. Things we all agree on. Public safety, a reliable infrastructure, youth programming, but it can't be something that we just say when it's easy. It has to be something that we are willing to stand behind when
it is time to make hard decisions and pay for the things that we have collectively supported. For years, many of us sat on this deis and agreed that Hoboken needed more police officers. So, we voted to add them. That was the right decision. But that decision comes with
responsibility because the alternative is not abstract. It means fewer walking patrols in our parks. It means scaling back ebike patrols. It means returning to a time when our police present did not meet the needs of our community. That's why we added more officers at the
start of this year. And this budget does not cut a single police officer from our current staff. The same is true for our parks. We have all supported the acquisition, expansion, and improvement of park spaces across this city. We should be proud of that. But those parks
do not maintain themselves. They require staff. They require investment. They require ongoing care so that our residents can enjoy them. This budget continues to fund that work. The same is true for recreation. A few years ago, we had a real challenge with our recreation
program, especially with soccer. We made the decision to bring those programs inhouse and invest in them. Today, participation has doubled. We now have close to 7,000 participants across all of our recreation programs. We aren't going to walk that back. We are not
going to cut access to programs that our families clearly value, but we are also going to be fair. This budget asks that participants in our recreation programs pay their fair share, meaning the actual costs of these programs instead of
relying on taxpayers to subsidize their participation. I believe that is a more fair approach. And just to get ahead of the argument that this is a regressive tax, it is not. Period. It is a fee to participate in a program that you choose
to opt into, not something that everyone uses. And more importantly, if your family is on free or reduced lunch, your child will still participate at no cost. This budget ensures that everyone has access while also being responsible to taxpayers.
I recognize that tonight will be a long meeting, but it is an important one given the decisions in front of you and their long-term impacts on our city. With the budget tonight are a number of measures for your consideration that will update certain fees to better reflect the actual costs of providing
services and programs. I appreciate the council's thoughtful consideration of these proposals which are important part of rightsizing our revenues and putting the city on better footing. If they are not supported, then we are choosing to maintain an imbalance that shifts more
of the burden onto taxpayers who may not use the services they are being asked to cover. So, let's all be honest about owning that responsibility. I could walk through more examples and line items, but I would rather turn it over shortly to our business administrator, Gonzalez, and our
auditor, Steve Wilcox, to go into deeper detail. But before I do, I want to reiterate there's no magic trick to bail us all out. Unfortunately, this budget requires real work. That's what we were elected to do, including paying for the services that we have all voted for. I
want to leave you with a few key points. First, we were handed a very difficult financial situation. That is the reality. On day one, we were looking at a 24% tax increase. Through the work of this team, we have brought that down
through smart cuts, a hiring freeze, and other efficiencies to just below 19%. Is that easy to swallow? Of course not. But for years under the previous administration, the city's budgets were artificially lowered through gimmicks,
one-time fixes, and unstable practices. This budget begins to correct that, and it puts us on a path towards real long-term stability. Second, this city hall is not overstaffed. The nine of you hopefully know that better than anyone. Your call,
you call our staff, you email them, you text them during all hours on weekends and holidays. You ask them to do more faster and better every single day and they show up and they deliver. They are the reason that this city works. So
let's be clear. These aren't line items in a spreadsheet. These are the people who keep Hoboken running every single day. We should support them, not undermine them. And anyone who thinks we can cut just a few staff here or there to make up a
budget impact without feeling those consequences is simply not living in reality. That kind of thinking ignores what it actually takes to run a city like Hoboken and it does a disservice to the people who show up every day to serve it. Third, Hoboken is not alone in
facing these challenges. Jersey City is dealing with a deficit in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Montlair had to go to referendum to support its schools. Patterson is seeking a significant state bailout and there are dozens more situations just like this across New Jersey. There are real pressures that
municipalities are facing right now. We are not immune and we should not pretend that we are. Fourth, let's speak plainly about where Hoboken stands. Today, we have the lowest municipal taxes in Hudson County, dollar for dollar. At the
same time, we have some of the highest home values in the county. That is not something you see very often. This budget does not meaningfully change that. Today, we do not know what our neighbors might adopt. But even if this budget is adopted and introd as introduced, Hoboken will still have one
of the lowest tax rates in Hudson County. That is the reality and it is important that we keep that in mind as we have this conversation. And finally, this is a serious moment and it calls for serious conversations. If the goal is to grandstand and score
political points off one another, please don't waste everyone's time. It doesn't help anyone and it's not going to save anyone's tax dollars. We all know the reality. There is a narrow lane to make adjustments and much of this budget was set into motion long before this year.
So, let's be honest about that. Let's be realistic and let's focus on being constructive. If you have questions, please ask them. If you have more amendments than what we have already adopted, please bring them forward, but do so with a clear understanding of what
you are asking to change and why. I have been open throughout this entire process and I hope that you all continue that same openness as we move towards adoption. Thank you. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to the business administrator, Jennifer Gonzalez.
>> Thank you very much, Dr. Gonzalez. >> You hear me? Okay. Thank you, Mayor. Um, Council President Ramos, Finance Chair Firestone, members of the city council, and the Hoboken community. Thank you for being here tonight and for
your continued engagement throughout this process. I want to take this moment to express my sincere gratitude to Mayor Jabbor and all of our city employees. I've said it before and I would shout it from our four-story rooftops if I could.
We are here because we care about Hoboken. We love this city and we've been doing more with less to keep it running for years. Over the past several months, we've worked collaboratively with the council, our departments, and the public to better understand both the challenges ahead and also the choices in
front of us. This budget reflects that work. At its core, this is a discussion about how we sustain a city that continues to grow while managing costs that are rising faster than our revenues. Tonight, I'll walk through where we are today, how we have narrowed what was once a $17 million budget gap
for 2026 to a $13 million gap in a responsible way, what is driving the gap, and how we work towards structural budget realignment to benefit all stakeholders for years to come. I'm really appreciative of your time tonight, and I just respectfully ask that you hold your questions until the
end of the presentation. with that. So the situation we find ourselves in is not unique to Hoboken as the mayor said and we are not immune to larger economic pressures. The financial pressures we are seeing locally reflect broader regional trends. What cost the city
approximately 61 million in 2010 would cost us roughly 96 million today to deliver the same level of service. because inflation is up 50%. Purchasing power is down by about a third and healthcare, utilities, and fuel costs have all increased significantly.
In contrast, the municipal levy has grown only modestly, about 14% over that same time period. This is not a temporary spike. This is a structural shift in the cost of running a city. To that point, Hoboken is a growing city and with that growth comes an increased
demand for services. Since 2017, population has grown by more than 6,000 people or 12%. We have added more than 8 acres of parkland, including four resiliency parks, which are much more than parks. They are critical infrastructure to protect Hoboken from
flooding, keeping more than 3 million gallons of water from flooding our roads and properties during each intense rain event. School enrollment has surged, up nearly 50%. Recreation participation has increased by 14% since 2023 alone.
and police call volume is also up 17% with arrests up 12%. The demand for services has increased across the board because our community is growing. But despite that growth, our total workforce has declined. We are not overstaffed at
any level. We're not topheavy as we have the same number of departments and directors as previous administrations. We are delivering more services to more residents with fewer personnel. Specifically, we've had a 10% reduction in civilian employees and an 11% growth
in sworn public safety personnel. Public safety represents the majority of personnel costs and is the fastest growing part of our workforce. That is in response to strong support from our residents for increased public safety. So that leads us to the key issue. Revenue is not keeping pace with
expenses and the single largest source of revenue is the levy. On the revenue side, our ratables have grown marginally. Our miscellaneous revenues have grown, but they have not kept pace. And on the expense side, the bulk of our increases are driven by costs that are
beyond our control. While costs are rising with inflation and purchasing power is down, we still need to fund both recurring expenses and contractual obligations approved in previous years. Debt service has grown dramatically. This number reflects the
priorities of our community and the infrastructure that we rely on, including critical investments in roads, drinking water, flood mitigation, equipment, and parks, all of which are complete or under construction. To be clear, this is previously financed debt, meaning that new capital projects which
have not been permanently financed, such as 800 Monroe, Maritime Park, and Sinatra Drive, have no impact on the 2026 municipal budget. All of this debt was previously approved by bond ordinances with support from at least twothirds of the council and the
mayor. And finally, certain personnel costs have increased including healthcare and pension rising more than 40%. So, this is not a one-year problem as the mayor laid out. And during previous years, the gap was managed by temporary
measures including CO 19 relief funds from the federal government, the use of city, utility, and group group health reserves or surplus. And in some years, nearly $20 million in one-time resources were used to balance the budget. These
tools helped delay difficult decisions, but they're now largely gone. Entering the 2026 budget process, we were facing a $17 million budget gap. Last year, two prior business administrators projected that we would be in this position. Those projections
were accurate. In fact, the 2025 budget introduction presentation projected more than a $19 million budget gap. This budget gap is driven by declining one-time revenues, flat state aid, lower municipal reserves or surplus that can
be used as revenue. We are using $7 million in surplus as revenue this year. That's down from $12 million last year or a $5 million reduction. Miscellaneous revenue is up modestly.4 million. And this is the net effect of two pilots that are coming offline as
well as anticipated increase in other miscellaneous revenues, specifically court and construction fees. We're also using less utility surplus as revenue, reflecting losses from parking garages coming offline temporarily this year. Our fixed costs are rising,
including health care for city employees up 3.2 million. Debt service up 1.9 million, largely due to the public works facility and the waterfront construction uh reconstruction project. Personnel costs are up $3 million due to previously approved or unsettled
collective bargaining agreements. And other expenses are up 1.6 6 million in net increases from things like liability and workers comp insurance, sanitation, maintenance, and other statutory expenses. These are not optional costs. They
reflect previously approved obligations, contracts, and economic pressures. There are no massive new projects or programs that impact these figures, just priorities and decisions that the people have made through each of you, our elected officials. So, where we are today, through a
combination of targeted cuts and revenue adjustments, we have narrowed the gap from 17 million to approximately 13 million. We've reduced the projected tax burden from 24% to less than 19%. While I understand and certainly appreciate
the desire to make further cuts, doing so will only serve to negatively impact core programs and services that our residents rely on, will jeopardize our ability to regenerate surplus or increase long-term costs for short-term gain.
This introduced budget is designed to begin restoring the structural balance, not just close a single year budget gap in 2026. So, getting into the specifics of the 2026 introduced budget, total appropriations minus the library allocation and grants are 152 million.
Cuts made by the mayor's administration before we arrived here at budget introduction brought the municipal levy to just under 83 million, down from 87 million. While these cut with these cuts, the annual tax payment on the average residential assessed property is
down by about $160 to $3,548. This is about $530 more than last year or $130 per quarter. To reduce the gap, the administration implemented a combination of targeted
reductions in professional services and consulting, vendor contract renegotiations, operational efficiencies, and a hiring freeze. We also added revenue, including 1.4 million more in surplus in the water
utility. This is at the recommendation of city council members during budget workshops. We've removed as much capex as from our operating as possible in the water utility and we will instead bond for the fire demand project. We're also using $300,000 more in
surplus from the parking utility. This is a conservative estimate of anticipated revenue from options that were presented during budget workshops discussed with council members and to be voted on tonight. We've included the anticipated collection of delinquent taxes about
$600,000 as well as $200,000 in interest from the hospital payment plan. And we anticipate revenue increases um that are really limited by statute. So, we can't overestimate the anticipated revenue, which is why you see numbers like
300,000. Together, we're looking at 2.5 million in revenue and 1.6 million in cuts. These are meaningful steps, but they're not enough on their own to fully close a structural deficit. It's important to understand where the
budget is concentrated. Approximately 90% of the budget is in major cost drivers, including personnel, healthcare, debt service, and pension. These are largely non-controllable recurring costs or contractually obligated. That means that at the start
of the budget process, roughly 90% of the budget is effectively set. There is no discretionary spending to eliminate without impacting services that residents rely on. So here's a breakdown of those appropriations by department. Public safety is a major component of the
budget with approximately 45% of the workforce but almost 70% of the total personnel costs. Average salaries are significantly higher in public safety than non-public safety roles, reflecting both contractual terms but also our community's priorities. To be abundantly
clear, this is not a criticism. It is a reflection of policy choices, but it is also a primary long-term cost driver. Even with these pressures, Hoboken remains among the lowest municipal tax burdens in Hudson County. Dollar for
dollar, as the mayor said, Hoboken's taxes are the lowest compared to every other municipality in Hudson County. In fact, um roughly 3,000 municipal $3,000 in municipal tax on the average residential assessed property
with an increase of roughly $500 in 2026. We are actually still projected to remain among the lowest tax rates this year. If none of our neighbors increase their mun municipal taxes this year, we would move to the second or third lowest. But we
don't know of many municipalities who aren't increasing their taxes this year due to the economic pressures and rising costs that are affecting all of us. So where are we going? These historically low taxes have been achieved in part through limited levy growth kept artificially low due to the
use of budget band-aids. We need to change these habits for the future of the city that we all love starting now. We need to maintain our double A plus credit rating. Otherwise, there's a very real possibility that we will see a credit downgrade in 2027. Our double A
plus credit rating is the second highest that a municipality can achieve. It has allowed us to continue investing in Hoboken. If you think costs have increased now, let's look at what a credit downgrade would do to the cost of borrowing for critical infrastructure projects. From paving roads to replacing
water manes to developing parks, they all would have cost more if we had a lower credit rating. A potential credit downgrade could cost the city millions in additional interest over time. And declining city reserves have real consequences to our credit rating. City
surplus has declined by more than 50% over the past decade. This impacts our credit rating, our borrowing costs, and our financial flexibility. Rebuilding surplus is not optional. It's essential. Even with corrective action, future
budget gaps are projected. Without changes we are about to discuss, we anticipate order of magnitude gaps of more than $4 million in 2027 and $6 million in 2028. This is why our focus must shift from
short-term fixes to long-term structural alignment, which will take multiple budget cycles. To restore fiscal sustainability, we must act across multiple areas. First, control costs. We must manage headcount through attrition.
We must renegotiate contracts especially to contain healthcare expense growth. We must improve efficiency looking at shared services and regionalization. Also incorporating technology process
improvements and AI into our workflows. We must grow revenue, expand our ratable base quickly, enhance our miscellaneous revenues and align our fees with the cost of services provided. and strengthen financial policy,
limiting our reliance on one-time revenues and using surplus strategically. We need to budget conservatively because the tighter we budget, the less we regenerate in surplus. And finally, the levy. We need to move
towards predictable, gradual increases, not shocks. I certainly hope that 2026 is not only the first but the last year that I am discussing a double-digit tax increase with our community and with each of you. But it is going to take the
council working together with the administration to go beyond cutting expenses and to grow revenues. Specifically in terms of cuts, lowering our personnel costs. Previously approved collective bargaining agreements are projected to exponentially increase our
personnel costs, adding approximately 40 million over the next six years, 98% of which is concentrated in public safety. This doesn't include all contracts as certain bargaining units are still unsettled. So to give you a sense of this impact, with an $83 million levy, an $ 8.4
million increase in personnel costs alone would require a 10% tax increase. and that's before any other rising costs, economic pressures, or other contracts. Additional costs of taxes and pension are estimated at more than 11 million. These figures do not include
healthcare step increases, longevity, um the impact of higher overtime or terminal leave due to bulk retirements. So, the actual impact will be higher. These obligations are already in place and will continue to impact future budgets unless renegotiated.
We also need to lower our health care costs. As all of you have said, the city's current health plan that mirrors the new the NJ direct 10 is unsustainable with significant premium increases projected on top of 35% increases this year and broader instability. More than 70 municipalities
have recently exited the state health benefits plan. We can't afford to benchmark against the state plan any longer. The city also carries a significant liability for long-term costs of benefits promised to retirees totaling about $668 million. This liability
further risks a credit downgrade for the city. Our professionals, our actuary, reviewed multiple options for healthcare savings and cost containment. Options like switching insurance carriers actually increased costs and unilaterally changing payment structures for medical
providers is not permissible on a direct 10 mirror plan. reinforcing the need for fundamental plan redesign changes rather than calls for simple fixes. Plan design changes for coverage and weight loss drugs could together save the city more than $3 million per year
and also potentially reduce employee contributions benefiting our hardworking employees. As recommended by the council earlier this year, the administration encourages unions to reopen their contracts and consider these and other cost-saving options.
We also need to grow our ratable base. Our tax base is approximately 12.3 billion. Growth has been modest in recent years, generally around 1%. While you may see a lot of construction around the city, developments don't start contributing to our tax base until
they obtain a certificate of occupancy. So, even if the three projects coming online in 2026 um that will generate about $240,000 in new municipal taxes this year won't really benefit until next year. More significant growth is expected due
largely to north end redevelopment, but not in time to help this budget. It is worth noting that we received certain fees during construction, permit fees, construction fees, which did help our miscellaneous revenues this year.
So, as discussed earlier, a slow, predictable increase on par with the cost of living subject to statutory limits would enable the city to better calibrate our revenue with our expenses as impacted by inflation. And lastly,
our miscellaneous revenue also needs to keep pace with the cost of living. Because it hasn't, the city is subsidizing the cost of services that have gone up. And before this gets conflated, taxes fund universal services. Fees cover specific optional
services like permits, licenses, or programs. While when fees don't reflect true costs, all taxpayers subsidize the services used by the few. Aligning fees with usage ensures fairness, sustainability, and protects
core services. So let's summarize. The fundamental issue is simple. Our expenses are growing faster than our revenue. That's not surprising. Hoboken is a strong and growing city.
More people, more services, less purchasing power, limited revenue growth. But growth comes with responsibility. We need to manage our already our already approved costs, plan beyond 2026, and make difficult
decisions. Now, for years, the gap was filled with one-time solutions, and those options are gone. So, starting now, revenue must grow faster than expenses. This budget is the beginning of that course correction, and it will require partnership between the council and the
administration to go beyond cuts and grow sustainable revenue. We've already made meaningful reductions. We are not overstaffed. Further reductions of any amount would jeopardize essential services or programs that residents value. and some depend on. The administration remains committed to
rebuilding our surplus and our financial resilience, maintaining our strong credit and borrowing capacity, managing our labor and healthcare costs through renegotiation, and identifying sustainable recurring revenue sources. Bottom line, this
budget reflects shared responsibility and a shared goal to protect our core services while putting Hoboken on the path to long-term financial sustainability. We look forward to continuing this conversation with the council and the community as we move forward in the budget process. And with that, I will
take your questions. >> We're going to start with uh just the only thing I request from council members, don't interrupt other council member while they're speaking. Uh let them get their entire statement out and everyone have the opportunity to speak uh on that. So just hear everyone out.
Let's respect each other's uh speaking time. So, we'll start with uh Councilman Russo because he's on the telephone and he's recovering from his surgery. So, hopefully you're feeling better. Councilman >> if he's there. I think the drug's in. >> You there? >> I'm still here. Yeah.
>> Okay. Yeah. And you're you're on the clock >> if you want to be. >> If you want to be. >> Thank you everybody. I'm I'm I apologize with the delay. Um, first I I just want to say a a broad thank you to everybody who's reached out uh expressed our
concerns and and issued uh any uh any help to uh to me during this time of my recovery. Um it's only a week in. Uh it's been a rough go, but uh I'm always there in spirit with you guys. So uh uh I'm here on the phone tonight. So thank
you again. Um, I I just, you know, and I'm going to try to keep it as brief as possible because I know everybody's got a lot to say. Uh, I I heard, you know, I heard a lot of things both from the mayor, the business administrator about how we need to do certain things together and I appreciate that and I
think that is always the overall goal for us to try to achieve what we need to achieve in keeping our taxes as low as possible and providing the services we need as a city. And one recurring theme I hear all the
time is there are going to have to be some tough decisions made. I think where we all differ are those tough decisions. For some the tough decision is
pushing the tax burden onto our residents. For others it's cutting more of our spending. And that I think is the fundamental difference between the two sides of the coin here. I most certainly am one of
the people who would like to see further cuts across the city, increase revenues, the ability to keep our tax base relatively low for our residents and not increase their taxes year-over-year. I think I've been very
clear with that for my entire career. What we're doing essentially is trying to raise revenue in the form of fees, which is still a burden to our taxpayer. You could call it a regressive tax, you could call it a tax, you could call it a fee, you could call it whatever you
want, but at the end of the day, it is a continued or an increased burden to our taxpayers. I am trying to avoid that. I've issued some suggestions to the administration and I appreciate that
some of those suggestions are in in what we've now uh considered an increase in revenue to to our city which is great. Uh along with Councilwoman Fischer uh we talked about those those dollars in our our water utility. I love that that's in
there. I love that the administration agrees with that. But there are other things that the administration refuses to really look at and that becomes problematic for me. I personally think we are topheavy.
I think we do not need two assistant directors and a parking utility to function that that utility well. It's run many many years without those assistant directors. We talk about the big three that are
that are the drivers for the increases this year and we keep including pension in that in that big three but when I was watching the presentation pension actually goes down this year. Our pension cost is has decreased this year.
Why why do we keep saying that that is one of the drivers for a now 19% tax increase? It's not. Let's be open. Let's be honest. And let's tell the public the truth about it. Pensions are not causing
any increases this year. They're actually helping us. They're decreasing. As far as health care is concerned, I've been talking about this for some time now too. We are looking at health care in a way that it affects our employees. We need
to look at healthcare in a way where it affects the provider. we could achieve the goal. We're we're talking about $3.2 million when it comes to health care. I've asked for the data. There's zero data that shows that there's a 3.2%
in I'm sorry, a $3.2 million increase in in expenses in healthcare this year. There's zero data that shows that you're taking data based on a state plan that has nothing to do with the cost of the
health care in the city of Hoboken. We refuse to look at the real data. What are the claims? What are the claims expected to be? What is the change in those claims? How can we change the fee schedule to reduce that claim amount for the city of Hoboken? That has not been
looked at. We talked about potentially changing the plan structure to mirror a different plan or a new plan. That is not how you're going to get there. We are in in in essence our own
insurance carrier. We need to act as an insurance carrier and make those significant changes to providers as needed. This happens in everyone's health care all the time. Your fee schedules change without even
your knowledge. Your prescription drug costs change without even your knowledge until you go fill one. We have the ability to change those fee schedules. We have not done the work there. We refuse to do the work there. That's $3.2
million. There are so many things that the administration has not looked at that they should be looking at. I'll continue to ask I will continue to make those suggestions and I will continue to support a a flat stable tax
this year or a reduction in taxes this year. It is achievable, but we have to make those hard decisions. And for me, those hard decisions don't do not include increasing taxes at 19% for our residents.
We need to make those internal hard decisions. Change the way we do business. Restructure our government. Reduce the topheavy directors, assistant directors as much as we possibly can. That is how I think we achieve the goal
or at least approach the goal. >> Thank you very much, Council President. >> Thank you, Councilman Russo. Feel better. Uh, Councilman Firestone. >> Sure. And and thank you, Councilman Russo, for your comments and for your participation in some of these budget meetings. Uh, we appreciated especially
your comments as well as uh Councilwoman Fischer's comments and we've tried to incorporate those things in terms of crafting this budget. Now I think everyone at this dis can concede that this administration has approached this budget process very differently than
previous administrations. It's been way more transparent and the business administrator Gonzalez has listened to every single idea that you've put forward. They've listened. They've acted where it has impacted the numbers. They have looked at it really hard. So I
think that what we're talking about though is a number of decisions that have been made prior to this budget year. Right? There are a number of contracts that we have outstanding that are driving this budget. It's not a topheavy administration because I think everyone on this dis knows you could
wipe out the entirety of city hall and you will still not eliminate the budget deficit. Right? So, even a director of a director, if there is such a thing in city hall, and and I take Councilman Rousod's word that there's two assistant directors. Even if you eliminated those,
even if you eliminated all the directors that exist out there, it still is not going to get you to a million dollars. And we're facing, we were facing a $17 million budget gap. We're now facing a $13 million budget gap thanks to the hard work that this administration has
put in. It's unfortunate. I wish we could vote for a stable or lower tax rate. I'm a conservative. I'd love to be able to do that. But I also believe that when you go out for a big steak dinner, you pay the bill at the end of the night. And I don't think that we've paid the bill at the end of the night over
the last couple years. This budget rectifies a structural problem with the deficit and allows us to continue forward in a stable manner. Thank you, >> Councilman Canara. >> Thank you, Council President. Um, I am a bleeding heart liberal and for the first
time in my life, I'm agreeing with a conservative who is sitting to my right. Um, you know, I think what the administration presented today was is a budget that is responsible, maintains
core services, and trims as much of the fat as possible uh from our expenditures this year. Uh the reality is though that there are some things uh we can't uh continue to incur without increasing
revenues one way or the other. That again is if we want to maintain the same level of services that we're getting, our police, our fire, uh uh repaving roads recreation um you name it, parks. uh we need to
either increase revenues or we need to increase revenues and that's either with the levy increase or the fee increase. Um I'm in favor of a combination of both of those. I do not uh want to see core
services cut, but that's where we are. So from my perspective, you know, this is the starting point. Um I'll be advocating for some level of levy increase, responsible level. Do I want it to be 15% or 18% whatever it is now? No.
Because I own property in Hobok and I'll have to pay for it. But I also recognize that if I did go out to a big steak dinner, I wish Arthur's was still around, but it's not. Uh so we got to go to D and Harry's and we got to pay for it right?
Uh, I would also like to see fees go up targeted uh where it's responsible because these are optional services. As much as many of us need cars, when I first moved to Hoboken, I had one, but then I realized I didn't need
one and I couldn't really afford to have one, so I got rid of it. Um, but I recognize that we're not all going to go for levy increases and and fee increases where where it makes sense. So, we're going to go probably to cuts.
And what I ask my fellow council people to do is that if you want cuts, let's be specific. Let's be leaders and say, "Hey," and I applaud director or uh council Manuso for for at least identifying a
particular person or group or or position, but let's not be vague and say, "Oh, just cut 10% from from this department." Let's name positions, names, because then we'll know what the reduction in
services are going to be. Mhm. >> I'm happy to uh to vote for those so long as we are clear to the community as to the pain that will be incurred >> by those reduction in services because this job is about making difficult
decisions. I knew this last year when I voted yes on the budget even though I didn't want to >> because I knew >> I didn't want to hand it over to the state to make the decisions for us. I wanted to be part of the team that made those decisions for our neighbors.
So, thank you, Council L. Just keep on going. >> Um, thank you, Council President. I just want to start by acknowledging the work that went into this um budget and the level of communication and engagement um
that led up to tonight um from our business administrator uh Gonzalez and director and all of our department directors um and their teams. That process matters and I think that it's
helped me um come into this introduction with a clear understanding of the proposal. um and how the input from my council colleagues and myself and the community is reflected in that. Um, as someone that's new to this role, I think it's allowed me to engage more
thoughtfully, uh, with a stronger grasp of the hard decisions that are in front of us because none of these decisions are easy. Um, and I think we had an idea of what that was going to look like beforehand, but I think once we really delved into it, it became clear that there were going to be some hard things,
hard decisions to make. Um so because of that and with that said, I support moving this forward forward this process for this process. Um I also take seriously our role as council members um in what comes next and that's continuing
to uh to challenge assumptions uh really look at the numbers that are in front of us um and understanding the implications for our fellow residents because this affects you entirely. Um, so I'm looking forward to continuing to hear from
residents and um, I think that we still, you know, through this process, we owe it to our neighbors to be thoughtful and deliberate. Um, so thank you, >> Councilman Cohen. >> Can you come back to me, Council? >> Okay. >> Um, thanks, Council President. Um, few
thoughts. Uh, this budget season has been very different than the last six that I've been through. Uh usually around this time people are saying when are you going to introduce the budget? It's April already. Where is the budget? This year we've had budget hearings,
we've had budget workshops, they were heavily attended. There were lots of questions or lots of presentations. My council colleagues attended all of them. Uh and it was very granular. Uh meetings went late into the night. Uh I don't know three hours, three and a half hours on nights that were not council
meetings. uh reflecting I think a real effort to try and engage with the council early on. I don't think there's any surprises in this budget that's been presented by uh the business administrator tonight and I think that's been done by design. I think in the past
we've gotten a budget and it's a surprise frankly when it comes out what the number is, what the increase is. Uh this year it's all been signaled in advance uh to the council and not just to the council but also to the public. So, I want to give credit to the administration for being open, for being
clear, and for talking to the people of city of Hobok and like adults about what the situation is and what the costs are. And I think one of the important points of the presentation that was made tonight is that a lot of what we're paying for is debt service. It's a big
piece of our budget and that debt service has been approved by my council colleagues here. I mean that's, you know, I mean, some people refer to steak dinners. I don't think it's a steak dinner to have a resiliency park that has transformed Northwest Hoboken. I don't think it's a steak dinner to have
a seaw wall that keeps the Hudson River in the Hudson River and out of Sinatra Drive where the where the where the driveway uh and the walkway is collapsing. This these are essential things that need to be done. I think the these were all responsible votes that we
made for those bonds and I think all my council colleagues stand behind those votes for those bonds. Likewise, our public safety, which is a very large percentage of our budget. When you look at a dollar spent on personnel, and personnel is a big piece of our budget,
about twothirds of that goes to public safety. I I was here when lots of people came into city hall chambers demanding more public safety, more cops on the beat. Uh that we need to compensate our public safety to protect us, our fire
and public, it's very important. Okay. So when you talk about making cuts and you talk about being topheavy, if you want to be honest with the people of Hoboken, you need to take the cuts across the board. You can't just say I want to take out one person upstairs in city hall and that's going to solve the
budget because it's not. Uh if you look at the pie of the budget, the administration is a very I think it's like 4%. I don't know the exact maybe was 5%. But it's a it's a very small piece compared to public safety. But it's not politically popular and frankly it doesn't make a lot of sense to cut
public safety. I don't think we want to do that. But if you're going to be honest with the people of Hoboken, you have to acknowledge the fact that you voted, we voted for those contracts and now we have to pay those contracts. And you look at what they're doing in terms
of the accelerated costs that have been committed to and contracted for. This entire council voted for a resolution to have the unions come back to the table and renegotiate that because that's a critical cost savings that we could achieve to avoid layoffs that nobody
wants to see. We don't want to have layoffs in our fire. We don't want to have layoffs in our police uh force. But if we can't encourage our unions to come back to the table and see if they can be reasonable and save those jobs, save the
cost of the city for paying those salaries and paying those uh benefits, that will make a big difference to us and it'll give us flexibility with our taxpayers and not have to make harder cuts. When we talk about hard cuts, when I think about hard cuts, I'm thinking
public safety. Those are really hard cuts. And I don't think any of us want to make them, and I don't think the people I represent are looking for us to do that. But if you want to go where the money is, frankly, that's where the money is. So, what has the city done? It's worked hard to try and find ways to
reduce. We've now the city's now found about $4 million uh less of increase. One of the things that hap that to reduce the budget below 19% increase which again it's a big number but it's also a responsible number. Why is it
responsible? Because in past years we've sat here Councilman Canara and I have said don't do it don't do it but we've been told that our surpluses are a rainy day fund. They're not. Surpluses need to be regenerating. They need to be in there and adequate funding and Standard
and Pores doesn't think it's a rainy day fund. That's why they put us on negative rating. And if they a negative watch and if they reduce our bond rating, which none of us want to see, the next time we have a breach of our seaw wall or the
next time we have a resiliency park that needs to be addressed, uh we want to have a new uh public safety office out in the housing authority where people bonded for those things. People thought they were important because we needed to, you know, there had been a murder in the in the housing authority and we
wanted to have more police presence. We bonded for that. We talked about wanting to bond for capital improvements rather than putting into the budget. We have favorable rates that will save taxpayers monies. We have the benefit of an AA plus rating. We can leverage that to
reduce costs year-over-year. If we lose that AA plus rating, we're talking about millions of dollars that we'll have to spend the next time we have a crisis that we need to bond for. And and people can say they don't want to bond anymore, and I get that. And we need to be
careful about bonding in the future. But when a crisis happens that has to be handled in a capital expenditure way, it is the cheapest way for us to do that. So we can either, you know, we so I I hope and expect that the days where we look at our surplus as a slush fund to
reduce our tax increase by a percent or two for political purposes to be, you know, look, I I cut I cut your taxes. I'm a hero. But what is the cost? And the cost is millions of dollars of a potential downgrade. So we had been
warned about this downgrade issue in the past. Both business administrators last year told us straight up, don't do it, don't do it. We're like, well, the water reserve, the water surplus isn't really that big of a deal. It is. Uh the parking surplus isn't that big of a deal. It is. We need all those surpluses
and we need to have them at a responsible level. It's a not an easy thing to do what the administration's doing. you know, she mayor Jabbor stepped in to the situation and she could have said, you know, I I don't want to deal with this. Find me a lower number. I don't care what the consequences are. She's done the
opposite. She said, I don't I want to fix this. I want to put us on a path for fiscal responsibility. That's not an easy thing to do. I respect the the the mayor for doing it. I respect the team for doing it. I thank Director Gonzalez for the presentation tonight. and I look forward to working with my colleagues to
figure out uh ways to reduce costs uh and increase revenues. One last point, uh the the idea that it's regressive uh to raise fees for people who use services is just not true. As Director Gonzalez said, if you look at our wreck
program, if you're on SNAP, you're not paying for a wreck program. But why should my seniors who live in Thots Hill have to pay for the wreck program for kids who the 7,000 kids who are enjoying it? That's not fair to them. That's not it's not right. Those kids are enjoying
the program. Those families should be paying for the services that those kids are enjoying. That is not a regressive thing to do. That is a progressive thing to do. It's a smart thing to do. If people Councilman Caner doesn't want to have a car, okay, he doesn't have to have a car. But the people who do, for
the price of of the tank of gas, we're increasing what it costs to park on the streets of the city of Hoboken for a year. Not a crazy increase. It's a very we have three times as many cars as we have parking spots in our city. It's an extremely valuable commodity to have a
parking spot. Okay. So, tonight we're we're we're going to be voting to see if we can rightsize what the annual parking fee is. Again, if you don't want to have a car, you don't want to maintain a car, that's fine. But if you do uh we this is a logical place where we can increase significant and six figure revenues from
that one fee not regressive thoughtful. So so when we have a thoughtful opportunity to raise money where we can reduce a tax increase we should do it. If it doesn't make sense we shouldn't do it. We should talk about it. But if it's done in a thoughtful way, we should be
looking for opportunities to increase those fees to cover the cost of the services that our residents are enjoying. Thank you, Council. >> Thank you, Councilman Cohen. Council Imus, >> thank you. Um, so I guess I don't I I would like to say that everyone has said something that I agree with um here
today. Um and uh you know I come from the private sector and every other year we had a new health insurance plan just you know forced upon us and the reason was to to save the company money. Every other year you were told do more with
less do more with less. Here your budget was six million last year it's going to be 5 million this year and you have to give back two people. They're going to move to another group. So, I come from an environment where, you know, the status quo just shouldn't stay the
status quo just because it's it's been that way forever. So, um, in looking at this budget process, I I'm really grateful that the administration took a lot of, uh, the suggestions we had, uh, namely with the hiring freeze because I
really believe that we need to take a pause. We need to pause what we're doing and look at this over a 2 to threeyear period. We can't we can't just forge ahead and say we're going to hire new people. We're going to do this. We're going to do that until we know, you
know, what the impact of just being in a stable situation will be. Um so again I look forward to working with everyone and coming to a meaningful compromise which will re mean you know some increases in fees some increases in tax
and some more reduction in in expense to uh get to a reasonable compromise. So thank you. Thank you to all. >> Thank you council. Um >> I didn't order the stake council president. This time of the year is always
fun for me because it's something that I studied for, I lived, I've done, I've built, I've worked, I've cut, I've managed. And every year since I decided to pay attention to my local politics since 21,
I've said the same thing. Wake up. wake up to the administration. When I sat here like you guys do in front of that microphone, I said the same thing as I've said as I sat up on this day. I'm now privy more to see how things work and learn a little bit more which scares
me even more. Scares me even more. I now know why we have a federal problem because it breaks down at the local level because it's a mess. If this was a company that was publicly traded, we'd
be at zero. We'd be we'd have wallpaper for your stock certificates. So, I've put forth and many of you know that because I'm not shy to put my my views out there on social media or in my
letters. So, you know where I've stood on this and I've given the suggestions from day one. However, those are my suggestions. the administration reads it. Thank you, Phil, when you called me and you said, you know, we're going to put up an ordinance for the uh opening the
contracts. Thank you. People pay attention. However, the administration is in charge of this budget. And they're the ones that are going to make the difficult decisions. You know, I I struggle every time I turn in social media or I
hear something or I look at a nixel, you know, there's the old adage, if you and just so I don't screw this up, I'm going to say it a few times so everybody can get it. Say it a thousand times and it starts to feel true. Repeat it enough and you'll believe it. If you hear it a thousand times, it becomes reality in
your mind. Repetition turns claims into truth. Say it often enough and people start to buy it. Now, this is exactly done. Remember the book we read back in high school? I don't know for some of you that are younger if they make you read this
anymore, but 1984 Orwell. That's how he ran it. That's how they ran it in Oceanania. They basically said war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength. And finally, the people believed it. Well,
for the past two months, I've heard the same thing over and over and over. I'm transparent about the budget. I'm transparent about this process. That's awesome. However, it's not a solution. I can tell you all about something and
not give you anything to celebrate that we cut 17 million to to a little over 13 million, which about two of it, I think, came from our suggestions. scares the hell out of me.
We need structural changes as the administration has told us. That means the structural changes have to happen today. We have fiscal illusion that happens here with government here. It's just basically what that is. Smoking mirrors
is a quicker way to do to say it. As I look at this, while some might not agree with my thought process, I think there's nine million we can cut. And I want to remind some of my colleagues, even though you might not agree with
barn against the budget, y'all voted for it, including the mayor, majority of us have voted for the contracts. But let me go back and think of one thing. In the last election, some of us up here not included.
Affordability was told to us. That's what I'm going to work on is affordability. We lied to you and we're going to continue to lie to you because you just come back every other year, vote us back in, and that's what happens
year after year after year. It's the same thing over and over. And when you speak up against it or about it, you're considered the disruptor. The disruptor. When you're trying to
bring everybody's eyes to the problem. So when I hear cost out of our control, oh no way. That's excuses. Leadership is not excuses. Leadership is you make the difficult decisions that people aren't
going to be happy with and that somebody may throw an egg at your house. Somebody may berade you on the street. That's this job. This job is to take the crap cuz I can tell you none of us get great phone calls that say, "Hey guys, you're doing an awesome job. Thank you
very much." It's usually the other way around. And I have my wife who can tell me that because she looks at me and says, "How do you do this?" But this isn't about me. It's about you. And at the end of the day, when we're
looking to do, we just saw in the past presentation here that there was the things we had to do, one-time fixes. Well, when you raise fees, it's a one times fix. One time fix. That's it. So, we plug a hole this year and what happens next year? Same stuff
again. So, at the end of the day, I I have been understanding some people have taken my suggestions. I've spoken with the mayor about a few. I'm happy about the healthcare because we have had that discussion. I'm happy the contracts
are being discussed. I'll be happy to vote for us to open those up w with the um with the lawyers that we need. However, we have to make structural changes. We are topheavy. Don't let anybody tell you different. I've built
businesses. I've built platforms. And the first thing you do when things don't meet and you're in the red is you cut the top part. Because your worker bees are the ones that are running the city, not the top part.
So at the end of the day, when I hear I can't do this and I can't do that and I won't do this, that's not leadership. All that is is repeat it enough and you guys are going to believe it. We can do
better for you. We have to do better for you. And I will continue to do better for you. And I will not be happy anywhere near a double-digit tax hike for you. And I sure as hell won't be in support of fees for any of you. Thank
you, Councilman Fischer. >> Yeah. I um I actually have a few questions if uh that's all right of the business administrator or whoever can answer um on the materials that you provided um
you know I've been on the council for a decade and I'm really have been the only one that has taken a deep dive for the last 10 years and I'll continue to do that. I talk with my colleagues they've relied on me. I've worked you know um with many of them. We've talked through issues that were important to them, but
my background is finance. My 25 year career, the majority of which worked with rating agencies on, you know, maintaining ratings, um, getting upgrades, downgrades, etc. I work for companies that were rated. Um, you know,
I I understand how we got exactly how we got to where we got to. That being said, I don't understand some of what was presented to us tonight. So, I'm going to ask a few questions. One, um, Dr. Gonzalez, you
talk about these one-off um, uh, one-time um, revenue plugs and and you said, and one year there was one that was for $20 million. What was the year? And what was a $20 million one-time plug?
>> It wasn't one $20 million onetime plug. There was a year where there were actually uh two years where we had um more than $20 million in uh one-time
revenues injected into the budget. Um so combination of ARP funds, our health reserves, our city reserves, our parking utility reserves, and our water utility reserves. >> Okay. So I'm I'm just going to cut there. So I'm going to go to ARP for a second. when I've gone through the
budget and I I went through in detail looking very specifically to understand how much we used ARP um and how much we relied on it and it was millions of dollars >> but the revenue that came in went right out the door for expenses. It was a
almost like a grant. They were matching and there was no detail behind it. So it effectively didn't relate to the operations of the budget. It just kind of came in went out had nothing to do with it. So there was one year I believe there was $500,000 and it was probably
2020. So that's something that we've already absorbed for you to say and I'm super frustrated about this that there were years that we had $20 million in the use of our surplus. Those are not one-time fixes.
Those are dollars that we generate as a city and they're just a source of revenue every year. I just went and looked and the use of just our general surplus since 2016 averaged $10.5 million a year. It was 10 million in
2016. It went as low as 8.5 million in 2021 during CO and it went back up to 12 million. And so the these aren't one-time numbers. And to give an entire presentation that insults this city council, past city councils on using
one-time fixes, I'm beside myself. You can tell I'm pretty angry. Um, and so I would encourage you if you give this presentation again not to choose your words better because those are not the appropriate words. I have a question about the HR payment. You put in there
that in the budget is 800,000. How much are we under contract going to receive from them this year based on prior years? Uh we should receive um >> just sorry just for the for taxes water that are in the payment plan that we're
approving. >> Uh do you want them separate or together? >> Uh both it doesn't matter separate together or >> uh 1.5 million in taxes, 846 in water and that includes uh principal and interest. And so in our budget, of the
2.3 million, how much of that 2.3 million that you just said is in this year's budget as revenue? >> 800,000. >> So there's a million and a half of revenue that we have under contract that is not currently in this budget, but we
will be receiving throughout this year relating to HR, assuming that they pay us. >> Correct. because there's a statutory limit on how much we can uh assume for delinquent taxes. >> Sure. But if they pay us at the end of the year, that one a half million goes
into our surplus. And if we feel confident about getting it because we have the ability to file a tax lean, then in theory, we can use some of that million and a half throughout the year that we know we're going to get throughout the year, i.e. using more surplus.
>> You don't have to agree. a question. >> No, I mean you can answer, but you don't have to. >> I think that's your opinion. I don't think that helps us generate surplus, but I >> I don't need to. >> We haven't I think we asked what we
thought the surplus was going to be generated this year. When I went back and I looked at 2024, >> Mhm. >> right surplus generated in 2024 that we can use this year looks to be about 6.5 million. And that is before the portion
of reserve for collected uncollected taxes that we get back as well. So in theory if you look at the numbers including HR it looks like what we will be able to actually generate this year going into our surplus. So moving it off
the balance sheet into the surplus is at a minimum closer to $10 million possibly higher. that that's you don't have to answer. I'm just letting you guys know when I looked at it looks like it's 10 million could be more. We've asked for that estimate. We've not been given that
estimate. Um one the other thing is from an open space trust fund. How much money do we get from the open space trust fund in uh this year the last couple years? >> Um >> I think you mentioned it was like high.
I don't have the exact number but >> I want to say it's >> close to five maybe four seven or something like that. >> Hi one second. So when we talk about, you know, a big theme for how we got to where we are is
our debt, our debt overall has gone up about $200 million in the last seven year or last eight years. And it went from and and don't quote me on the specific numbers, just order of magnitude like 170 170 million back in
2017 2018 and we're at 370 million now. And that's a big number. And you know, as we've talked about, the majority of that relates to large open space and infrastructure projects that we invest in that we don't generate any ratables
for and we don't generate any um revenues off of it. Right? This is just us spending money. We're we're we're buying land at crazy marketplaces. when we originally looked to buy um the Northwest Resilience Park and I don't think there's anyone that questions
whether or not we should have done that. That that changed the landscape of Hoboken having a giant park in an area that had nothing. But when we originally budgeted, correct me if I'm wrong, we thought it was going to be a total of 10 million for the whole site and it ended
up being 5 million an acre. So it ended up being $30 million just to acquire it. It ended up being an almost $90 million park, right? And and not just a park, sorry, not just a park. It is a major infrastructure, you know, underground
that benefits everyone on the west side of Hoboken because we flood less. When we did the monarch trade, the monarch trade, something I advocated for a long time, it was a terrible financial trade for the city because what it did,
we traded some, you know, it was like a shell game. and we traded some properties, but what it left us exposed is we didn't have a place to for our DPW garage, right? We got it got traded out and we ended up paying full market price. I think the number was $80
million for the DPW garage. That is a garage that or that's an investment that doesn't generate any revenue, right? So, we have literally acquired a lot of things that are good for Hoboken um and not generated any revenue. That's a major driver. In 2020, we actually
amended big huge vote almost 80% of Hoboken voted to expand our open space trust fund, add an extra penny per assessed value and to expand the definition to allow it to be used for debt service. So, we have an extra 5 million actually coming into um the city
to help us offset um some of this debt service. So, we we have been growing our tax levy. if you if you think about um adding the um the open space trust fund uh to it as well. Um but here, you know,
we're here. I I I maybe disagree with um some of my colleagues that think we can get this tax rate into the single digits. I don't think we can, but I think we can get it down a lot further. I think uh and it's
maybe it's a combination of some cuts, but it's also a combination of some additional revenues that are just not they're just not in the budget. The the the city knows what they are. They're withholding them from us because they've decided that these are my words that
they want the surplus to be as big as possible at the end of the year to avoid a downgrade, but they want residents this year to fund it. And and I think we need to balance it out because I based on my 25 year experience working with rating agencies, we don't have to have a
big um surplus balance at the beginning of the year in order to avoid a downgrade. We just have to show that we have discipline. We're making good choices, better choices, and we're moving in better direction. And we can do that without a 18 19% um haircut. Um,
so I just think we we could have been in a better starting place than we're we're at. One last thing, and this is just a um it's a trick question. It's not a trick question, but I've asked the question of the administration. I got no
answer. It was put out. I commented on it aggressively on social media. And so to see on page two of this that a a slide that says, you know, if you look at the 2010 tax levy and grow it from
there at at inflation, you get to 90 million. Director, can you walk us through why you chose 2010 as a starting point? >> So 2010 was chosen as a starting point. Um, you know, it's right at the
beginning of the Zimmer administration. Um, I understand that I think you your suggestion is that uh we use 2011. Um, however, we had a state fiscal monitor. Um, there was a a tax increase in 2010. There was a tax decrease in 2011. That
decrease was because of a use of $10 million in surplus. It's also because we shifted um it was a transitional year from uh fiscal year to calendar year and that actually enabled a lot of that surplus that was able to be used. Um so
it it you know 2011 seems to be the wrong year given that um there was a huge injection of surplus in the budget. Um >> so I'll give thanks. So 2010 was the last year of the state monitor. the state monitor when they came in um after
Mayor Roberts and at the beginning of uh Mayor Zimmer um there were excuse me prior costs that weren't paid. There were contracts that weren't accounted for. Um and the state monitor came in and did a few things. One, they
rightsized the budget. They downsized um they downsized the city the number of employees. We had huge termination um costs to for the the people that lost their job. Additionally, they put a boatload of money into the surplus as
well as all those costs. It was a significantly inflated year when taxpayers had to fund all of that and it was very painful um for people in Hoboken. And 2011 was the year where we had less employees because we've been
right-sized. That was the base that we grew from under Mayor Zimmer. and we were able to give back some of the surplus because of less costs operating the city. If you actually grow the 2011 um tax levy and if you look if you just
look at the levy going all the way forward from there, we worked with you know we worked with those number of employees. They grew a little bit over time. We had cuts in 2020. That is the logical year to grow. And if you look at that year and you grow it by inflation,
you get to exactly where we are with our tax levy right now. not a fabricated $90 million one off of a, you know, talk about a one-time year, a peak year. So, the fact that they continue to use that, I just think is incredibly misleading to our community, which is frustrating to
me. Yes, we've seen transparency way better than the last years of the Bala administration, which has been helpful, but it's selective transparency, and we are still seeing remnants of intentionally misleading statements, and I will hope that those that will change
over time. So, with all of that, I'm not supportive of this budget being introduced tonight. I will vote no on it, but we will work really, really hard. We've been working hard to identify ways to bring this rate down. We're going to continue working hard. We will put up an amendment that hopefully,
you know, brings this down to a more reasonable level for Hoboken taxpayers, but still allows us to maintain our rating and the rating agencies. >> Thank you, Councilwoman Fischer. Uh, and I appreciate uh all my colleagues up here tonight for not jumping in and
cutting someone off while they were speaking. I saw the body language. So, I appreciate you guys like holding back a little bit. I saw saw your excitement, but you allowed everyone to get all their statements statements out. So, I know people clutching their pens a little bit tighter. So, I appreciate that. But, uh, a couple of things just
want to clarify. Uh in 2010, one of the reasons why the tax taxes were so high was because the council was unable to adopt the budget. And when you don't adopt the budget and the fiscal monitor comes in,
>> it's 29. >> We didn't we did not sell tax bills out. And so we had uncollected taxes. So our paid collected tax rate went down significantly. Mhm. >> And so once that happens, the state comes in and they just say, "We're going to raise the tax rate for your
uncollected taxes and that was like 73%. It's went all the way up to the 100%." But at the time, Hoboken had a 99% tax collection rate. So we just had sent out our tax bills, adopted a budget, sent out our tax bills. That would never have been the case. And so that was uh the
point there that started that that fiasco was the council not adopting a budget. So, I guess my lesson there is let's not do that again. I've always been steadfast in that. Let's not see that happen. No matter what the decisions have to be made, they have to be made. Uh I think there's
opportunities to look at new revenue sources that I've discussed the administration or others have as well. Uh that unfortunately still ongoing that couldn't be introduced in time for this tonight. I think we've had a much healthier dialogue and process up until this point, but but now it's in our
hands and you know, we have to do we do have to make tough decisions. Uh eat less steak, I guess, for everyone else up here tonight or make the steak at home like I do. But let's be a little more uh cognizant of the dialogue going forward. uh tomorrow or Friday, you're
going to council members, you're going to receive an email from the clerk's office into how the administration uh and how we could work with the administration to make those amendments possible. So any amendments that you have want to put forward, uh we'll put that process for everyone to to work
through that so we can clarify that and make sure that it goes into the budget the way it could be read properly and sent back to you on what what works and what doesn't work. We want to keep on having that honest process. The number goes in or comes out what it is back and forth to try and reach uh a little more
number that is a little more cognizant for for the all the renders of Hoboken. And one thing that I the approach I always I've always taken one other thing I want to clarify is one of the reasons why our surplus is down is because HR didn't pay their taxes last year. If
they had paid their taxes last year, that bond rating wouldn't be at risk. we would have had that $3 million last year and we wouldn't had that negative. So this year we we chose to put a tax lean on them if they didn't pay us. They paid us a million dollars over a million dollars a couple of weeks ago. If they
don't pay us the rest that we'd agreed to, we're going to go to a tax sale and we're going to get that money from last year and this year. And so that surplus that we saw is going to be regenerated just from that alone. And that'll put us in a little better position uh with our bond rating. But there are revenue uh
opportunities that I hope we explore and we explore those fully uh and continue having our that healthy dialogue with one another. Uh vote yes, vote no. But tomorrow we're still colleagues and we have to uh respect members of the public and how we conduct ourselves uh in those conversations and let's hear each other
out and move forward the best possible way we can. So I'm looking forward to the process making those tough decisions but make sure that we're doing them in a in a proper fashion to lead our city the right way. So Mr. Clerk. Uh, we can now call the vote on the introduction of the budget.
>> Mr. Con? >> I >> Yes. >> Miss Fischer, >> no. >> Mrs. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Ly, >> yes. >> President Zano, >> no. >> Mr. Cano, >> hi.
>> Mr. Russo, >> no. >> President Ramos, >> I. >> So, let me read this statement for the uh record. The municipal budget of the city of Hoboken, county of Hudson for the fiscal year 2026. Be it resolved
that the following statements of revenue and appropriations shall constitute the municipal budget for the year 2026. Be it further resolved that the budget be published on the official website www
hoboken njgov on April 24, 2026 and also applicable. It will be advertised in the following online publication of the Bergen record on the governing body of the city of Hoboken does hereby approve the following as the
budget for 2026. Notice of hereby given that the budget and tax resolution was approved by the council of the city of Hoboken at a hearing on April 22nd, 2026
and a hearing on the budget and tax resolution will be held in the city of Hoboken on May 20th, 2026 at 7:00 p.m. at which time in place objections to set budget and tax resolution for the year
2026 may be presented to taxpayers or other interested persons. Thank you. Just just uh put that in layman's terms. That's when we'll have our budget hearing uh May 20th. But if there's any amendments, that date may get pushed back a little
bit if there are amendments to the budget. uh while we go through that process any amendments have to be presented to the state and then get once again advertised to the members of the public so they can have all the adjustments to make their comments make sure that they have all the information uh to make their comments at that time.
Obviously uh up until that time any point in public portion you can speak about the budget uh and any other item you may like. >> Yep. >> So want to do F1 F1 and F2 >> we we have to do actually J22 first before we do F1 and F2. >> Okay. So we're going we are going to go
to J22 which is an ordinance for second reading. So any members of the public that would like to speak on J22 which is an ordinance for second reading >> can speak on the first one.
>> Yeah. >> It just has the number. >> Oh the J over there. >> Jabbor 22. >> We have Mr. Carry not J27, J30, J26, 27, J30, J23, J26,
J31. Excuse me. >> Doesn't look like anybody. >> Yep. So, I see no one for uh J22. So, motion to close public portion. >> Second. All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. Members of the council J22. >> Members of the council, J22. >> Council present.
>> Councilman Russo. Thank you, Council President. Um, you I said this at our last meeting. I'll say it again. You know, we just talked about our budget uh in some detail. Voting on this cap bank allows the administration to spend more money. Um,
if we vote against the cap bank, we will force their hands to spend less money. >> Um, I talk about this year over year. I think a cap bank is a bad idea. Um, it just allows us to exceed the statutory
limit that is set before this set for us by the state. I mean, in our in our summary of ordinances tonight, the the business administrator put it very clearly, right? This is an ordinance that's required that's required to allow the municipality the flexibility to
increase appropriations which is spending by a percent that's greater than the 2% cost of living adjustment established by the state. This in essence says you can spend more than the state wants you to. We allow
you to exceed by a 1.5% increase over that 2%. This is not the year for us to allow a 1.5% increase in spending. This is the year for all of us to say, you know what, not a good idea. Let's not do it.
Doesn't mean next year we can't come back and and re-evaluate that or the following year, but this is not the year that we should be doing this. We should we should all share in the responsibility. I think uh Councilman Cano said it uh in his remarks. He wants
everybody to put it on record. Well, let's put it on record. Let's all put it on record. We're all going to be unified and holding the administration to spend less this year. This does that with a vote of no. I am
for all of you. Please do not vote for the cap increase this year. This is something that will hold the administration and hold this council our feet to the fire to spend less money. Thank you, Council President. >> Thank you, Councilman Russo. Uh, anyone
else on the cat bank? >> All right. Uh, call a vote, Mr. Clark, please. >> Mr. Con? I >> Mr. Firestone, >> yes. >> Miss Fischer, >> no. >> Mrs. >> No. >> No. >> Mrs. Le?
>> Yes. >> President Xano? >> No. >> Mr. Cano, >> hi. >> Mr. Russo, >> no. >> President Ramos, >> hi. >> Okay. Uh F1. >> F1. >> You have a resolution. Uh Mr. Clerk,
that is members of the public allowed to speak on F1 and F2. Okay. >> Why are we going to F1? >> F F1 is resolution authorizing an emergency temporary appropriations in accordance with NJSA 404-20.
>> Any I see no one for F1. No, we have >> anyone for F1. >> Members of the council F1. Just clarifying that it's through May. >> Excuse me. >> I think we're just clarifying to the public that this is for through May.
>> May. Thank you, Councilwoman. Thank you. Through May. Thank you. Uh, Mr. Clerk, call the vote. >> Mr. Con? >> I Stone. >> Yes. >> M. Fischer. >> Yes. >> Mrs. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Lac. >> Yes. >> President Xano.
>> No. >> Mr. Cano. >> I. >> Mr. Russo. >> Hi. >> President Ramos. I >> F2 resolution providing for the increase of revenue for uncollected tax percentages.
>> You have no members of the public sign to speak on this item. >> Motion closed. >> Uh the resolution uh >> Councilwoman Fischer, >> you had a question. Okay. Okay. >> Uh call vote. >> Mr. Con. >> Firestone. >> Yes.
>> Fisher. >> Yes. >> Yes. Yes, >> Mr. PresidentO. >> Hi, >> Mr. Cano. >> Hi, >> Mr. Russo. >> I'm sorry. Where are we on this? I couldn't hear >> F2. >> This is F2.
>> Yes, >> catch up here, guys. Sorry. >> Where's that? >> What What was it? Just explain >> resolution providing for the increase of uh reserved for uncollected taxes percentages.
>> Hi, >> President Ramos. >> Okay, good. Thank you. >> Uh now we're going to ordinances for a second reading. >> Yes. J >> J23 will be
>> ordinance amending chapter a hearing on an or amending chapter 97 filming. >> Uh J23 uh Mr. Manny Riveraire J23. >> Thank you and good evening council
president and members of the council members of the public. Mr. President, I was unaware that um F1 and F2 had a separate um possibility for members of the public to speak. There was no >> J23. Amanda, come on. >> There was no sheet there, but uh uh that
is important for members of the public to know. Now, I want to ask questions here, council president. Um, in interest of time and avoiding a repetition um, in these multiple ordinances and multiple questions that need to be asked, I respectfully
um, ask if I can group all of my questions in one or if not I would like to also ask then I will be coming up various numbers of time asking almost a repetitive question. Question one, how
do these rates impact the current fiscal year 2026 budget? Uh what is the anticipated revenue? How would it affect the fiscal projection of this fiscal cycle? Second,
what is the estimated revenue? How does how does the increase affect the current budget or future budgets? How are these new rates
implemented? Especially the ones that regarding film and others. I'm making a generalization in case you accept. How do you implement them? How do the residents know? Will they be implemented
immediately as um the signature of the mayor is on it on them. Fourthly, are there exceptions or exemptions for qualifying members of the public,
persons with disability, seniors? Not in 23 obviously because no senior is going to be filming something unless we don't know what they're doing. There might be some intrepid seniors. But the reason I generalize the the question,
council president, is so that if it's possible and council president and members of the council agree, if you and the council are willing to address these questions concurrently, I would hope to yield the remaining time
of the over six to seven times I signed my name. if you could address them, council president, in regards to the parking permits, the fees, >> and all the types of individual increases you will be voting on this
evening. Again, if it serves the betterment of the process, I leave it in your hands, council president. Thank you. >> And I yield. >> So, how about I'll answer when each one comes up. All right. I'll say >> that is correct. So for J23, uh we don't
know the impact per year because we don't know how many films are going to be filmed in Hoboken this year. So we don't have a direct number of uh projected revenue for that for J23. Okay. But then so I'll go to the other ones when we get to them. Okay. >> I appreciate that, Council President. And then I officially yield back.
>> Thank you. Appreciate it. Uh we have no other members of the public sign to speak for J23. Motion to close. Second. >> All in favor? >> I. Any questions, >> Council President? Yes. >> So, on this one, um I I definitely
support increasing fees. It was actually very uh interesting to see all the ways that we charge for the films. Um you know, if it's a small film, it's one way, if it's a bigger film, it's another way. And um we still charge, you know, X
for parking. Um where I think the ordinance fell short, I think we had, you know, we kind of raced to put the fees in. We put some soft language in about parking and idling. Um, but it's really just soft language. It just says
do your best to not use all the parking spaces. And and I feel like one of the big issues that we hear from neighbors every time we have a big film that's on our wonderful streets with brownstones and and row houses, you know, they'll take up four blocks of parking for, you
know, a long period of time and it's just incredibly disruptive. And so it it's lacking any kind of cap or um um cap on the number of spaces or telling them that they have to use our local parking garages, etc. to not be
disruptive. And and I'm telling you like our phones blow up. There are sometimes when the phones just like blow up overnight and when it's a big film in the middle of Hoboken, every council person is getting is hearing from the neighbors um in every one of us, right? People are losing their mind. The second
is um idling. They've added some language again um saying, you know, make sure you follow our local idling laws that doesn't allow uh these trucks to idle. We have these laws on the books right now. I don't get the sense that they've ever been enforced. I don't even
know who enforces them because I know I walk by and those refrigerated, you know, the air conditioned um changing trailers and stuff, they're idling all day, right? And it is just diesel fuel, you know, coming onto the sidewalks. We
um one of the the major ones, the Hadad, actually has a department that has like an environmental um they have like a number of their trucks now have some sort of like green engine and less gases, etc. And so it would have been
nice to require that or incentivize or give something, you know, better pricing if they put that in there. Um, so I'm not going to support this because I just think that, you know, my protest vote, it'll pass, but my little protest vote is I think we should have done a better job um on this for Hoboken residents,
especially relating to parking and idling. >> Thank you, Councilwoman. Council President, >> Councilman Cohen, >> just just briefly uh in addition to kind of rightsizing the fees for the movie filming that goes on and is disruptive in our community uh from movie uh
companies that have big budgets for locations. And New Jersey is trying to be competitive and we do we we the governor uh Governor Murphy tried to encourage uh filming from New York to take place in New Jersey. There's a big Netflix uh operation that's happening in
Mammoth and I think it's something that the state's supportive of. Uh but we've tried to get the numbers to where Jersey City's numbers are so that you know we're we're charging the same amount. We have just as great locations as they do. But it also includes more advanced
notice to the neighborhoods when they when filming is happening. One of the phone calls that that I've gotten, Councilwoman Fischer referenced is, you know, we didn't even know they were coming. I just found out yesterday now we've got like 45 days in advance they need to apply for their permits 3 days
in advance the neighborhood needs to know that it's coming. So, it's not just about uh the fees, which are reasonable and appropriate, but it's also about giving advanced notice to the neighborhood, which is something that is going to be appreciated. I know in in
the block, so at least people know it's coming. And I think part of it curiosity, people like, oh, what's, you know, is uh, you know, is Gwynneith Paltro going to be on my block or whatever. I think people are interested in that sort of thing out of curiosity. But I also think it's about convenience, too, because if your street's going to
be taken over for parking, it's good to find out about that more in advance, and this ordinance does that. Thank you, Council President. >> Thank you, Councilman Cohen. >> I mean, it's okay to them. >> Uh, where's the council? Call the vote. >> Mr. Cohen, >> I. >> Mr. Feststone, >> yes. >> Mr. Fischer,
>> no. >> Mrs. >> Yes. >> Mr. Leen, >> yes. >> Roseno, >> hi. >> Mr. Cano, >> hi. Mr. Russo >> I, >> President Ramos, >> I hearing on an ordinance amending
chapter 65B to update the city's development fee ordinance in accordance with the December 2025 NJAC 599 regulations and amend fair housing act.
>> We have only Mr. Rivera to answer your question. Uh this fee also doesn't have a direct number. This is just taking up to the state regulations for this, but it all depends on who develop who's developing at that time to pay the fees. That could
vary every single year. So don't have a set number for that. Okay. Uh motion to close public hearing. >> Motion second. All in favor? >> I I council call vote. Mr. Con >> I. >> Firestone. >> Yes.
>> Fisher. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Yes, >> Mr. Le. >> Yes, >> President Jano. >> Um, I >> can >> I >> Mr. Russo >> I >> President Ramos
>> I >> hearing on an ordinance amending chapter 65A to update the city's affordable housing ordinance in accordance with the December 2025 uniform housing affordability controls
the NJ NJAC 599 regulations and the amended fair housing act we have no members of the public sign speak for J25. It's not fe regulated there. Uh motion to close public hearing.
>> Motion >> second. All in favor? >> I. >> And members of the council. >> Call a vote. >> Mr. Con? >> I. >> Stone. >> Yes. >> Mr. Fischer. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Zyus. >> Yes. >> M. Mrs. Le. >> Yes. >> President. >> Hi.
>> Mr. Cano. >> Hi. >> Mr. Russo. >> Hi. >> President Ramos. I >> hearing on an ordinance amending article 17 entitled meed and pay station parking to extend the hours of meed parking
enforcement in designated business district zones on Fridays and Saturdays. Uh we have Andrew Wilson. >> Thank council. Uh my name is Andrew Wilson. I'm a Hoboken resident. Uh I'm going to be speaking a few times tonight. You guys really packed all the
good stuff in all in one agenda. So I appreciate it and I apologize. Uh but I'll keep it quick. Um so very supportive of this ordinance. Uh I watched the caucus meeting. I believe this is going to bring in about $300,000 um in a normal calendar year, about half that this year. Uh that's going to be
very helpful revenue for the city. Um, in addition to that, so basically what this ordinance does is it extends meter hours on the weekends within the business districts. Um, that's going to be really helpful for businesses. So they depend on the turnover of cars uh within these spots in front of their
businesses. Um, when you rightsize the price of parking, you create uh availability for people who need it. And that's what this ordinance does. Um there's also an interesting stat that director sharp brought up that I believe
that between 80 to 90% of the people using these metered spots are visitors to hope. So this is not residents paying the fee and then even within that 10 to 20% the residents are getting a 50% discount. So this is highly highly uh
biased towards u visitors to the city. Um and it's good policy. The one thing I would challenge you guys on is, you know, we just had this wonderful conversation about government efficiency. Uh how we can be more effective with government. Um and we had a really good example of that last year
with the camera uh camera assisted enforcement of parking violations. And we should be exploring that that plan again uh for the management of our meters. So we could have things like more efficient collection of meter fees. We'd have smart loading zones. we could
integrate all of this technology into our current infrastructure so that we can collect uh fees more efficiently um and yeah just better use our our resources. Uh Fort Lee has a really good example of this working really well. If you guys ever want to go to Fort Lee
with me and look at parking spaces, uh you guys have my number and I'd be happy to take you there and and explore some options. See you again. Very uh supportive of this plan. Um and I hope you'll vote for it. Thank you. No one wants to go to Fort Leandrew. >> Good Korean.
>> That's what Uber's for. >> Uh, >> J26 Jim Vans back. >> Oh, and Jess Andrew residents of Hoboken are not required to pay the fee for the extent that
>> I don't need Jim Vance. Um, awoken residents, thank you very much for all the work you folks are doing on this. I have I will try to hold it down to uh minimum. Um, this is about turnover business.
It's about making more spaces available without having to add more spaces. years ago, uh there was a similar ordinance and a whole lot of people jumped up and down because we don't have to pay more for parking. But it's good
for business to have the turnover. Uh the Mr. Sharp uh knows his numbers. We've worked our way through this and I I think uh it should pass because it will it'll be good for business and we need to do all we can to help the
businesses. Thank you. I see no other speakers for J26. >> We're good. Answer your questions already. Thank you. >> Motion to close public portion. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I was the council. >> Yeah. Just quickly, um when this was originally proposed, uh in our um
subcommittee, I'm on the parking I chair the parking and transportation um subcommittee. I think we uh the people on the committee were hesitant uh to support it. Um it just
felt like although we understand the argument of turnover, we also understand that when we think about Washington Street, we have a lot of residents that live on Washington Street that rely on parking, you know, in the neighborhood. you know, it's I don't want to say it's
unique to Hoboken, but it's, you know, every single block um and ev everywhere has uh residents that live here or park here. So, um we worked with Director Sharp to eliminate um the the the meter
fees for Hoboken residents. So, it still gives flexibility for Hoboken residents. Director Sharp mentioned that it's only about 20% of these spaces that happen to be um residents, at least for those those hours. Um but at least for residents they won't you know be
burdened with this increased um fees. I did speak with two different business owners uh in the second ward. Um, I will tell you they the I I would say in general we we are there's a commitment from the administration to more proactively work with our business
community in advance of uh putting forth these ordinances that that hasn't really started yet, but it but they're committed to doing it in the future. But I did talk to a couple businesses that said they don't think it's going to be a problem. um and for their employees
often that may park uh uptown anyway on Washington. Um but I did say that if for some reason we start hearing a lot of negative feedback from businesses that we would I would support revisiting it, >> but I'll support it tonight.
Sorry, Council President. Um I have a couple questions for Director Sharp. got a fan. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. I uh in between this again some questions that came up as I was looking over the agenda uh today. Um can
you tell us when was it first discussed to raise these rates? I know you just came back to join us, but when when was this discussion starting? >> Last month sometime. >> Last month. Yeah. Okay, good. So, last month um and
was there an economic study done in that last month on the impact of the businesses? >> No, >> there was no economic study done in the to see what impact this this would have. Okay. Um three, when do we speak to HBA
leadership? Uh last week. So, Okay. So, we talked about it a month before. We talked to Hoboken leadership last week and the conversation I've had with my businesses and maybe a little
different than than Councilwoman Fischer's ward, they didn't even know these fees are happening. So, did we just not learn from the clear debacle, which is not you weren't here. I get that, but unfortunately you're in charge now.
that we had a major outcry from our businesses because we did not educate. If I know from the caucus what you told us, what you're now going to do is then go and educate the businesses about it. Your words, not mine, that you're going to tell them that the fees are going up. So, kind of parallel to what
Councilwoman Fischer said, it's after the fact. And I've got a huge problem because the first ward is the commercial district. This impacts all my people, all my businesses. You can walk up and down Washington. They're empty. My mom and pops are toast. They've all moved
back to further beyond Willow because they can't afford it. But I gave that example in the caucus of that one individual that yes, she doesn't want to park in the street, wants to park in a garage, but we don't have that ability right now because we're super packed by 9:00 a.m. in the morning and it doesn't
empty out anymore. Used to be 150 spaces across the street from me uh every night and now it's down to like 34. good thing for revenue, but it's telling you that we have a problem. So, I'm very concerned is that any type of fees that
we raise because we're asking our businesses to do more and more and more that we don't check if there's economic studies on it. We just say, "Oh, we're going to turn cars over from it's going to happen from that way." But we looked at Clear and we saw a massive problem.
So I would like to see going forward that if we're going to increase fees or we're going to do something that's impacting our businesses because by the way this could impact people coming to Hoboken because we got negative connotation already for parking problems in Hoboken. Now we're saying now we're
going to charge you and again I'm going to use I'm going to be extremist here and say an arm and a leg by increasing these rates. that may turn away people coming in to do to to come and visit Hoboken because a lot of the businesses are relying on outside of Hoboken to make their money
now. So I'm hopefully I mean I'm not supporting this. I mean it's hurting my businesses and the fact that I have one of the busiest businesses that have come and go come and go come and go and they didn't even know about it. Fortunately he can't be here tonight to express that
that he didn't even know about this. So when we speak to leadership, leadership might have one view, but when we get it, we got to trickle it down to the members. We can't just pop something on a month and then not talk to our businesses. And anytime we go forward, while I'm not in the mood of hiring
consultants, we need to look at the economic impact because I don't think what these consultants or clear consultants or like by the way uh we're making all these decisions, guys, without getting our $500,000 Kimley Horn
presentation. I just want to let you know that in the Kimley Horn presentation, there are keys in there and especially in my amendment that I'll propose forward that they mention this, but not everybody's been privy to that. We paid 500,000 for that. But we're making all these decisions when we're
not even get all the information back. And I I just want to make it clear that going forward, we need to in the Department of Transportation while you were gone, some of the transparency that we say we're having was lost and it was a fog. And I want to make sure that the
public knows that there was no economic study done. This came up in a month. You talked to the HBA a week ago and now we're voting on it. That's not good government and we need to change that. We need to get better at what we do. >> Council Cohen. Um, >> oh, sorry. Go ahead. You go.
>> Oh, no. I'm not gonna come. Whatever you want, >> ladies. >> Okay. Mine mine will be really quick. Um, I just wanted to raise the point, and this came up after talking to the HBA and uh another uh business owner up on Washington who who essentially said,
you know, every other surrounding town ends at 9:00, so these poor people are going to all wind up getting tickets. That's what's going to happen to them. So, you know, you you see on social media how people all over just complain about parking in Hobok and they complain about
getting tickets and and I think that's that's essentially what what will happen. So, we'll get a little bit of maybe a little revenue from this this small number of people that will stay from 9 to midnight that are not residents. But, uh I don't know that it's such a goodwill, you know, gesture.
It's not a good look, right? So, >> thank you, Councilman Cohen. Uh yeah, a different point of view. Uh we're talking about $75 to $100,000 this fiscal year and we just saw the budget
presentation to know that we need $75 to $100,000. Number two, it's common. You don't need a study when you know what common sense is. Okay, this is not raising >> Oh my goodness.
>> raising rates. Okay, that's funny. Uh >> you we're not raising we're we're charging rates. Okay. It's free parking folks from 9 till midnight on Friday and Saturday nights. And who's coming to Washington Street on Friday nights from
9:00 to midnight. You don't need a study to know those are people going to bars, restaurants, and clubs. They're people who are coming to Hoboken to enjoy them. Now coun other my council colleagues think nobody wants to come to Hoboken. should walk down Washington Street between 900 and midnight on a Friday
night. It's hopping. Okay. Why do people want to come to Hoboken? Because we got great clubs, we got great bars, we got great restaurants, we got great businesses that people want to patronize. And to pay $220 an hour, uh I think that's what the number is where you're charging zero.
Okay. Where we're realizing 75 to $100,000 in a fiscal year where we need that money. It's common sense. You want to pay for a study? I'll give you a study. This was published in Better Blocks, New Jersey just this week. San Francisco showed a 30% increase in
visitors and higher spending after implementing systems that have shorter parking duration and encourage parking spaces turnover, which increased the number of shoppers. That's study San Francisco really happened. 30% increase. I I mean, you know, you want to pay for
a consultant before you ladies please. You want to pay for a consultant before deciding that we can realize revenues from visitors to Washington Street. I mean, it's that that is bad government. That's a waste of money. Okay? We're letting our our business owners know about this. Frankly, if there's going to
be more turnover, and if it's anything like what happened in San Francisco, it's going to improve the business. So, we're getting the word out there, but we're doing this for our taxpayers, okay? We're helping them. This is a good thing. Thank you, Council President. Thank you, Councilman Cohen. I mean,
sorry, Councilman Quero, I'm done. >> Thank you for the compliment. Uh, >> you want to go? Um what's always >> look I'm going to Councilman Cohen echoed a lot of my uh stole a lot of my thunder but um yes you know I was looking at this and I was expecting to see you know the line cross through the
rates which has been doubled and therefore crippling uh uh fees for people but all I'm seeing is is the times extended from 9 to 12:00 p.m. So I wonder if when we went out and spoke with all these businesses we were clear with them and said hey do you have a problem with extending uh the time from
9 to 12? I suspect most of them would have said, "Who cares?" Um, that's my guess. If we if we're worried about the um dampening effect of people coming to Hoboken, we've been talking about this dampening effect forever. I moved here in 2006 and
the downtown area between the hours we hours of the morning and and and the hours, you know, in the evening we're all hanging out is as crowded as I've ever seen. Right. So, people are still going to come. Um, we look at some other places like down the shore or New York
City. Well, New York City, they they don't charge, but there's parking is is extremely expensive and they treat it as a commodity. So, I think this is a smart move as well. Um, it's going to encourage turnover uh so that people who are coming can find it easier to park.
I'm not so worried about somebody who's coming and and and parking for work because my guess is that they will have arrived by 9:00. Uh and so um so they should have a spot as we all know they shouldn't be staying in that spot over 4
hours cuz that's that's not uh permitted. So uh I'm supportive of this and I hope my colleagues are as well. >> Just want to add one point there to clarify. So uh we have a helper program. That's the nickname of it. Basically provides steeply discounted uh parking
rates for workers of Hoboken businesses uh to park at municipal garages. Right. It's been a longstanding daytime program. Uh this program will be expanded to uh workers who are working evening shifts as well. So they'll have uh a discounted parking option for the
first time, not just for Fridays and Saturdays, but for every single day of the week uh to be able to park in the parking garages when there is more availability during the evening and overnight hours. So I just want to make that point clear. Uh, one other point, uh, we have Park
Mobile data that goes back many years and we did we did an analysis and over 6,500 uh, transactions have been made uh, in the business district zones between 9 and 12 on Fridays and Saturdays uh, just
in 2025, even though they're not even on, right? So people are already attempting to pay for parking during that 9 to midnight window uh even though it's not technically even uh permitted at that time. Just want to make a couple clarifications there. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Uh call vote. >> Mr. Con. >> Hi. >> Mr. Feststone. >> Yes. >> Miss Fischer. >> Yes. >> Mrs. >> No. >> Mr. SL. >> Yes. >> President. No,
>> Mr. Canero. >> I Russo. >> No. >> President Ramos. >> Hi. >> Introduction of an ordinance amending article 17 entitled meeted and pay station parking to revise meter parking
fees for non-residents in and permit parking zones retroactive to CPI increases since since 2023. >> Thank you. Uh, Rose, you didn't write which ordinances you want you're going to speak on. You know which one?
>> J30. Okay. >> J30. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Thank you. >> No, no worries. I just wish I wasn't skipping you. Uh, J27, we have Andrew Wilson.
Andrew Wilson, Hoben resident. Yet again, I'll be brief. Uh the conversation we were just having, it reminded me of a Yogi Bara quote. Uh he's talking about a country club and he goes like, "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded." And I think that's a lot of the conversation that we have around Hoboken. Um we talked about not
being able to find parking. Well, that's because it's such a popular place that everyone wants to be. Uh the only reason why there isn't any parking available is because it's underpriced. Um, but I I'm here to speak in favor of both this ordinance and J28, the following one, which increases the parking fines to
state levels. Uh, these are examples just good governance. Uh, this this will bring in $150,000 per year at an inflationprotected rate forever. Um, we talked a lot about the inefficiency of the administration, but what about the
inefficiency of the city council? Every single time the administration needs to raise a minutia rate such as CPI adjustment for parking fees, the administration has to come back to the city council and beg you guys to make an amendment. You have the option, you have
the opportunity for this to be the last conversation about parking meter rates in the entire history of Hoboken tonight. Um, I would like to extend the same idea into a lot of other uh municipal fees and concepts. Really, the
uh city council, you guys ordain every single loading zone. You guys ordain every single multi-way parking stop. You guys ordain every single ADA spot. This is a real inefficiency that I think that this the city council should continue to work to resolve um so that we can you
know the administration can be more efficient and the city council can be more efficient uh in serving us. So thank you very much. I would appreciate your vote on this. Thanks. >> Thank you Jim Vans J27. >> Thank you. >> Uh motion to close the public hearing.
>> Motion. >> All in favor? Second. >> All in favor? I >> I >> uh the council >> point of I don't know if I say point of order or what we do next question. Um >> I'd like to introduce an amendment to this. I circulated >> uh this is the parking. Yes.
>> Non-resident park. >> Oh, this sorry the next one. I apologize. >> This one too. >> Apologize. Call vote. >> Mr. Con. >> I stone. >> Yes. >> Fisher. >> Yes. >> Mrs. >> Yes.
>> Mrs. Lac. >> Yes. President >> I Mr. >> Cano >> I >> Mr. Russo >> I'm sorry uh I couldn't hear. Was there an amendment proposed? >> Not yet. No, not yet. The next one.
>> So this is on the original. >> No, no, no. >> This is J27. >> Yeah. >> Yep. Okay. Uh I'm a no on this. >> President Ramos. I >> Nord introduction amending chapter 190-44 entitle violations and penalties
to establish municipal parking violations violation fines consistent with NJSA title 39 I just told this is J28
we have no members of public sign to speak motion to Motion to close by portion >> second. All in favor? >> I >> I'm sorry, Mr. Vance. You wanted to speak on J28. >> Mr. Vance, J28. >> Oh,
>> I'm sorry. Motion reopen the hearing. >> You signed you wrote J28 also. >> Thank you. >> Members of the council. >> Uh, call the vote. >> Mr. Con. I >> Stone. >> Yes,
>> Miss Fischer. >> Yes, >> Mrs. Imus. >> Yes, >> Mrs. Lac. >> Yes, >> Mr. President. >> Yes, >> Mr. Cano. >> I >> Mr. Russo. >> Hi, >> President Ramos. >> Hi.
>> Okay. An ordinance amending introduction of an ordinance amending chapter 190-12.1 entitled sale and use of temporary no parking signs to revise the fee schedule for temporary no parking signs
associated with construction activities. >> J 29 motion to close the public hearing. >> Motion second. All in favor? >> I. >> Members of the council, >> council president. So, uh, I'll be brief more brief on this one. Similar to the
filming one, although I do support increasing these fees. Um, we race to increase the fees without doing anything to cap the number of spots, cap the length of time. And you know, we have situations across the city where people
have, you know, a three-year construction project and have, you know, multiple temporary no parking spots taken from the neighborhood just because they're paying, they get to disrupt the rest of the neighborhood for 3 years. And that just doesn't feel like it's the
right thing for our community. So, I would have hoped instead of just racing to change the fees for purposes of the budget that we actually would have been thoughtful about this one and and more thoughtful about having a cap on number, cap on length of time, requiring that
contractors, you know, assemble offsite, maybe in a parking garage and and come together to the site um you know, with their workers. And I know some of it is um you know relates to supplies and materials being dropped off and of course we have to be thoughtful and
accommodate that as well. But just letting a project that is delayed for whatever reason just take up parking spots for a long period of time. Um I I don't I think that's something that we should change. So I'm going to be a no on this. Any
>> other members of the council? Council President. >> Council Russo. >> Council President. Yes. And bear with me here because I can't really hear over the phone, so I'm trying to listen on my computer as as we're going with this. But I have a question for Corporation Council. >> Sure. Um,
you know, what one of the comments that was made by a member of the public uh prior to the last vote actually caused me a little bit of concern about having the council become a little more efficient by allowing the administration
to just kind of act without the city council ordaining certain things. And it kind of sparked the question in my head. There's a clear separation in powers between the the uh levels of government here and that's why we have to do that.
So the question then becomes, can we, the city council of today, bind future city councils by allowing for these CPI increases year-over-year without a vote? Uh, and I didn't think to ask the
question prior to that statement. So, I I apologize. But, uh, but it does cause me some concern because what we're clearly doing here is we're eliminating that that separation of powers, right? We we are we are that uh level of check and
balance for for government. So, I don't know uh what the answer is, but I would love for corporation council to kind of opine on that. And bear with me. I'm I'm listening on my computer. So there's a little bit of a delay. >> Sure. Hopefully you can hear me. Okay.
Um yes, the answer, short answer is yes, you can. I mean, if you think about it from a very practical position, it would be very difficult for you to only implement one year worth of whatever, right? That's not exactly good government. Um it's one of the reasons you have staggered terms. So there's
always people of the same level on the the council every single year um year after year. So the simple answer is yes. >> Point could council >> uh I mean look I'm in favor of this ordinance but just to since we're
talking about it uh I figured you know I appreciate Councilman Russo's worry about the tyrannical rule of the Jabor administration and raising the parking fees up to CPI or whatever. >> Um but if if it happens I I pledge this.
I will stand next to you and raise an army to to oppose the situation. >> Council President, when you get a chance >> or Yeah, Mike, I'm just having some fun. Or we can pass an ordinance and and and remove the power. So, >> Council Russo,
>> good council. >> Um, what Councilman Russo is saying, I actually >> Yeah, thanks. >> Hold on, Mike. It's >> I appreciate you're on here. Look, I I appreciate you, Joe, that you
think you're having a little bit of fun, but I'm not sitting at that table and to make the comment is a little inappropriate. Um, it's a question that came up. I asked the question, I got an answer. And quite
honestly, for the last five months, I've been very, very quiet about the things that I disagree with other than speaking at the council chambers. I'm giving this administration every benefit of the doubt. So, to continue down that road,
and it's not the first time you've done it. It's not the first time other council colleagues have done it. But to continue down that road, we could go back to a very contentious relationship if that's what you're looking for because that's what your comments are are probing towards. So I appreciate the
fact that you have your concerns, but you should appreciate the fact that I have my concerns. And to do that specifically when I'm not sitting at that table is really disheartening to me. >> I have my concern. Council President Zano. Yes. Councilman. Um what
Councilman Russo brought up it I mean I was just thinking about that as well how we pigeon futures. Is there is there somewhere written in our in our I don't even want to I don't think it's
wrong. was in our charter that this assumption even though that I hear a lot of times in politics it was done this way. I've always been told in that when you have to check that. So is there could
and again I'll I'll I'll place a vote tonight. I did on the last one but Council Marusa Woody brought up. Could we cite where it makes this legal to do that? Would you be able to provide us with where I have to go look to find this? >> To do what? Just I I want to make sure I'm very clear because it's very hard
for me to hear the councilman. Um I understood the gist of he's saying, but to do what? Are you saying to bind a council next year because you're binding the council and the mayor and the city as a whole. So to bind them for an additional fee. Is that your question? >> No. No. My question is if we're giving
the CPI allow somebody to do something recurring every year, where in the law or where in I don't know what the right word is a resolution, can you point me to that direction so I can read it for my own sanity? >> I can't a second, but I'll find you something. Sure. Of course. >> Thank you, >> Council President. Just a point of
order. Just so people know what this ordinance is, we already have the CPI in the ordinance. This is just because CPI on such a small number like every year we can't actually increase a meter rate by 3% because the meters kind of need
whole numbers. So what this does is allows us to kind of catch up and actually increase it by the CPIs for the last few years because now we're finally at a point where it's like the first rounded up number. So it's just that that's from a practical standpoint
that's what this is doing. Thank you, Councilman. Uh, call the vote. >> Mr. Con? >> Hi. >> Bye. Stone. >> Yes. >> M. Fisher. >> Yes. >> Mrs. >> Yes. >> Mrs. L. >> Yes. >> President Zano. >> I'm a no. I'm a no.
>> Sorry. I'm a no. >> I was confused on which one we are because we weren't talking about the size. >> President. >> No. >> Hi. >> Mr. Russo. >> No. >> President Ramos. >> Hi. Now
>> hearing on an ordinance chapter 141A entitled parking parking permits to revise the parking utility fee schedule >> for residential and visitor parking permits. >> Okay. Uh Mr. Andrew Wilson.
>> I warned you guys. Uh so >> I thought you had him. Uh, I'll read it right now. >> What is the market rate for a parking permit in Hoka? Uh, I I think that's like a >> Mary I'm sorry. Thank you. Apologize. Thank you. So, I've been trying to
figure out what the the market rate of a parking permit in Hoboken would be. Um, and I I think a good correlary to this is the municipal garage spots that you guys have already ordained. Those are uh between $3,624
to $3,948 per year. Based on kind of that vague math number, what this ordinance is talking about is changing the current discount of an on street spot.
>> Kevin, >> please. Um anyway, sorry if we can reset my time. Uh so we're talking about changing the discount of a current uh permit from 98 12% to 97 12%. Okay, that that's what
we're talking about relative to the market rate. This is nothing. Um I'm very supportive of this ordinance, but this is still laughably low. Um, I think about the fact that, you know, I'm a city bike member and the city bike membership is $239 per year. And I
thought I think that's a really good baseline for where we should be having starting discussions on what this price should be. Um, if you are a resident who doesn't own a car, who regularly uses zip car uh or city bike, you're paying way more to the city than somebody who
parks their private vehicle on the curb every single day, 247. I I don't think that that's fair. The average zip car spot, uh, bringing up the curb study that we do have some prelim preliminary data on, uh, the average zip car spot in Hoboken earns
the city $5,48 per spot. City bike, the entire city bike network uses 65 parking spaces to serve half a million rides. And each of those city
bike spots brings in $3,692 per spot, right? That that's at the level of these municipal garages that we're talking about, but we continue to throw away all of our curb space or the vast majority of our curb space for pennies on the dollar.
This ordinance will bring about $400,000 per year is my understanding based on Director Sharp. Um this is revenue that should be directed towards constituents um for non-driving purposes. This money
should go towards funding the hop. It should be go it should go towards funding the hop study. It should go towards subsidizing city bike. It should go towards uh revitalizing and refreshing the bicycle master plan. As far as um the ordinance, are you
amending this ordinance, uh Councilman, or is it the ordinance that you put at the end of the >> This isn't a back and forth. No, go. >> He talked about doing an an amendment. >> Okay. So, there is an amendment. >> You can't just council members like one-on-one like that. >> Okay. So, there is an amendment on the
docket at the end of this meeting um that would create exclusions based on income. I think that is heavily misguided. These permits are already heavily discounted. What? Like, like I said, the even go even if you vote for this ordinance tonight, that is a 97 and
a half% discount off of market rates. Is someone um I think that the idea of a sliding scale is reasonable if we were talking about anything remotely close to market rate. But if you're if you're talking about
income uh income eligibility, the administrative burden to administer a a further discount for low-income residents um is just not feasible. Um so yet again, I directionally support this ordinance. Uh but I think that we should have continued conversations about what
the price of parking in Hoboken really is and how we can increase availability of these spots by bringing these rates somewhere even close to what they should be in reality. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh Jim Vance
Jim Boken, resident. Uh, first of all, I want to start off with saying that Councilman President Zano's idea of of making sure people modest means are able and need and who need a car for various reasons are accommodated in some way,
shape or form. Um, this is serious money we're talking about, but it's not the way this ordinance is written. Um it says in one of the where is to manage limited curb space, generate revenue, reduce property taxes. Um
right now we have in this town half of the households own automobiles. And so basically when rates what I think are below market, those of us who don't have cars are
subsidizing those who do by allowing them to park basically for free. this raising this thing. We're going from a dollar a week to $2 a week to park your car on what is public right away which we all own and we're all you own a car
or not are giving away for peanuts. We have a parking problem that's been kicked around since I got here 46 years ago. What is the parking problem? Oh, there not enough patients. So on and so forth. What the parking problem I think we have to do, we have to identify it.
And the parking problem is how long it takes one individual to go find a parking space. You come back at 5:00 in the evening, you have a place to park. I people tell me they drive around for 30 plus minutes. That's a parking problem. Well, what if it took 20 minutes or 15
minutes or 10 minutes or maybe five? When's the I don't each individual no longer have a parking problem. And how do you get to that? Well, you got 9,000 spaces, 14,000 plus parking permits. We're overs subscribed this ordinance.
Whereas, say 28,000 households, 14,000 of which own automobiles. You really want to start solving the procking problem and you really want to reduce property taxes. There's a real pot of money here. And what I am
suggesting is that we figure out, and Mr. Sharp back here knows his stuff. U we figure out what it will take to solve the parking problem. That means raising the price of the parking sticker to where you reduce the number of people
because I can tell you folks folks have cars to take the laundry home to money mommy on the weekends. People I watch in my block street sweeper comes by the guy just pulled out comes around a block and parks there and he parks there for the rest of the week and does this again. We
need to seriously look at pricing the parking so we no longer have a parking problem. And this ordinance is a joke. Thank you. >> And you sign for J30, right, Manny? Yeah. Rose Marco,
>> just pull it down. >> I can touch it. It's like touch it. Right. >> Okay. >> I'm going to be quick about this. Um, full disclosure, you all know I don't have a car. But anyway, an 85% increase for senior citizens on this car tax,
which let's face it, everybody just came up here to tell you there aren't enough parking spaces. So, you're taxing people to own a car because some people want to tell us all how to live. How can anybody justify this when senior citizens only get a 2.8% increase on social security and 10% increase on their Medicare? I
mean, come on, guys. 85% increase. I understand you want to catch up, but senior citizens really, this is how we have to live. And the idea of taking away one visitor permit, I I need someone to explain that to me. If a senior citizen has a home healthare worker, that's one pass so a family
member can't come and visit them. I mean, that's really awful. You know, I hope it doesn't happen h happen to any of you anytime soon because this is how some senior citizens have to live. Thank you. SO IT goes back when we have an emergency.
Okay. Uh >> Manny Rivera Solair >> just what this is you're making changes on the plot. You're not introducing anyone. I appreciate council president uh you
>> calling me back even though I was going to yield but I see the imbalance of not being able to speak many many times but I regret my uh my actions earlier because I know you do sir and I'm sure
many members of the public do as well but when you are hearing a discussion one-sided it it boils the blood because As a born son of Hoboken, as a person who has seen everything from it being costing nothing, from it costing 5 to 15
to 50. Of course, of course we understand CPIs. Of course we understand that things get expensive. Council President, I had notes here from the caucus meeting, notes here from yesterday, notes that I made to yield, but I will not because you cannot have
one person speak for everyone saying that it's okay. Let's raise it to the hilt because I could afford it. But you don't know what your neighbor could or could not afford and I am upset because I'm a person with a disability. I don't
have a car. Full disclosure on that. Couldn't even afford it. Born here. Can't afford to have a car any longer. Can't ride a bike. Maybe this person wants bicycles on every single corner. Admirable. But not everybody could ride
a bike because people are with disabilities such as myself with a cane cannot ride a bike either. So how can you sit here and justify that you can just raise things because oh that's the way the world runs. It's true that's the way the world runs but that's not how we
should run it. We should be sensible. We should think on our seniors on our workforce. You know that there are teachers who try to live here, but on their pay they couldn't even pay the rent. And yet you want to continue to
raise parking fees, all types of other fees. Who knows what else is coming down the pike because we we we're not sure because there is a lobby that has the ear of influential people that wants to say, "Oh, it's okay."
No, I disagree wholeheartedly. I respect the person's opinion, but I disagree wholeheartedly. Do not move to my city 2 years, 3 years, and 10 years. Again, you have the right to do so, but do not assume that everyone could pay $50 because not
everyone could. If I speak for myself as a person who lives here, a person who had a great life, lives, but right now, the situation where I'm at, it's it's a stone throw away for me not even being able to live here. Again, a person who
was born here because other people could afford it. Why do I have to pay and my fellow residents have to pay? Because someone else could afford it. Well then, sir, madam other, if there's a municipality
that you believe works for you, then congratulations. You found a new home. But not here. I hope you I hope you have considerations. I hope you put the amendments that are going to be raised later. I hope you put those in
because people need to be protected. Yes, anybody who wants to pay the $95 to $200, you are welcome. We'll take your money, but protect protect the citizens that can't. And I appreciate your time and I thank you. And now I yield back, council president.
>> Thank you. Cheryl, Kevin, you on J30, Kevin? >> I think you set up in the wrong spot. Okay, >> I can touch it. >> Yeah, it's broken. >> Good evening, council. I actually wasn't going to get up because oh my god, this
meeting is just going on and on. But I really, really, really hate class warfare. So, I felt like I had to get up and say something cuz somebody actually said in this room, the way you solve the parking problem is you just make it available to the very rich. You sky you
raise the prices sky high and you eliminate people who can't afford as much from the parking. The other thing I wanted to I don't really understand where this market rate parking space nonsense came from. That is so ridiculous.
Couple of things. City bike, whatever you pay for that. And and I have to have to also qualify. I don't have a car either, but I'm getting annoyed when I'm hearing some of the things that I'm hearing here. If for some reason people who were um
subscribers to City Bike or whatever it is weren't getting bikes because they were oversubscribed, we would add more. We would get more. They would be able to get their bicycle when they wanted their bicycle. People who use corner cars, same thing. If
somehow or other Zip Car, whoever says, you know, saw that people were not able to use those cars when they wanted to, we would add more. When it comes to your parking permit, if you have one, and we keep saying that there's like we're
giving out like double the parking permits of the spaces, so you're not actually guaranteed a spot. So, you're paying for something you might not get. So to raise these things on something that you're not really offering is ridiculous. And that's all I have to
say. Thank you, >> Kevin Davis. I have to apologize for earlier. I also have to apologize for something else. years ago, I got into a disagreement with Miss Valick and I was a little over
the line and I'm sorry about it because she was just up here and she nailed the point really well about how this raise in residential parking permits is a war on people based on class because the
less money you make, the higher percentage of your income will go to this. So, I'm sorry, Cheryl, and thank you for those points. Now, I have been here non-stop for the last two years complaining about this because I knew it was coming. The president of Bike Hobok
and a bunch of other people signed a letter calling for residential parking permits to be $240 a year, which at the time would have been a 330% increase. And now they said the quiet part out loud that it's not enough. We got to keep raising it until certain people
stop parking. But I don't really have much to say about that. I want to talk about the Department of Transportation and parking and their pattern of, you know, lack of transparency around fees related to cars. So, can you take
one down and pass it around? Uh, these are three exhibits from an Oprah response I got on the clear program. Now, I made a reading light. It's only six pages, so it's not war in peace, but this response was, and luckily I'm a
voracious reader, but you'll like exhibit A because it's addressed to you guys to the Hoboken city council from the Hoboken Transportation and Parking Department. Now, I got this document because on the emails in the Oprah, they
had a live link of documents about Oprah, I'm sorry, about uh the clear program, which was the automated ticketing uh of vehicles that were getting charged the same rate as a human police officer giving them tickets on the street, not based on somebody giving
it from camera. And even though it says it's from the Hoboken Transportation Department, the metadata on the file has three people that edited it. One, Jordan Justice, who's the CEO of Automotus. He also donated $1,000 to our current mayor. And
you can kind of see why because he has the revenue projections on exhibit B. But on exhibit A, the whole thing is a memo urging you guys to make clear permanent for the year. Well, forever, I guess. and is estimating $1.5 million in
revenue from citations with yearly program costs of 160,000. Now, in exhibit B was the original revenue projections that Automotus made. I don't know if uh you guys on the city council got it. I guess it's only for
the cool people. So, on exhibit B, um assuming that people keep illegally parking after getting a ticket, they assumed $4.5 million in revenue. But then they assume that people's behavior changes and it's 50% less, $2.3
million. So the program is so successful, people stop illegally parking and then you don't meet the revenue targets that they're giving out. And they're projecting based on that rate 26,83 tickets, which they get $5 a ticket for each ticket Hoboken gives out. So, this
corporation makes almost $150,000, but not anymore because the revenue projections fall lower. Instead of $2.3 million, they're projecting $1.5 million. So, I ask, what's going to happen when they're not going to hit the $1.5 million? Well, in the rules that you guys gave
them for clear, you didn't give them any rules. They can determine what the grace period is. So, what if you guys make it permanent and then they lower the grace period so they can meet their quota? Hm. Last but not least, exhibit C has a familiar name. It's an email from the
former chief of staff to the mayor that resigned in February. And then he gets a job with automotives. Wow. Working in government's so profitable. He can work for the government, then work for one of your clients. And guess who succeeded him as chief of staff? His wife.
And his wife was some on some of the other emails. I'm sure there was no conflict of interest at all. I'm sure when they were watching Bridgetton at night, they weren't talking about the clear program and how they're going to take more money out of people's pockets
and all this other stuff. So, this is just one example. He's discussing the mayor's last NIXLE before Mayor Jabor took office. U and there's other documents which show that he coordinated communications with the former transportation director. So, before he came to the meeting, they got their
talking points from him. So well done. Keep that in mind when you vote on this tonight. Thank you. We have no one else for J30. Motion to close public hearing. >> Close public portion.
>> Second. >> All in favor? I >> members of the council. >> Yeah. Council president. Council >> presidento. So, I looked here down at the resolution, the emergency or uh well, I don't know if it's emergency,
it's just NB, what do we say? NB4. >> Yes. >> Um, >> however, when I read this and it says entitled parking permits to establish a 50% discount on resident parking p permit fees for SNAP residents, I'm okay with that. But SNAP versus affordability
uh are two different things. affordable housing. And if you look at it, affordable uh SNAP benefits can be short-term. That's the problem is like if you're out of work and things like that, it could be SNAP benefits could only be a few weeks. Now, that causes
some problems there. My amendments, which I I can pass around, you want to pass these around. You've guys got these in your emails, but let me This is what I would like to see, and I'm going to put this forth. uh to add public and affordable housing exemption to the following categories to the list of
residents exempt from any increase on the residential parking fee permits. Residents of dwelling units owned or operated by the housing and housing authority and residents of deed restricted affordable housing usage subject to income eligibility requirements. I also would like to have
a second amendment that would be medium income exemption adding the category residents with household income at or below the area median income for the city of Hoboken would be exempt as well from this increase and that would be taking guidance from the workforce housing
program. Uh these amendments essentially I write down at the bottom it helps it its goal of making Hoboken affordable. Now, I'm not so sure that that MB4 exemplifies what I put forth here, but I
mean, I'd like to put those amendments forward. I don't know. I mean, somebody asked >> I think in in NB4, uh, I believe it does, uh, quantify amendment one. Amendment two, it does not. >> Okay. So, I would,
well, I I don't know. I'd like to propose these two amendments. I mean, what is that protocol is a second? >> I'll second that. >> We have a motion and a second to add uh amendments. >> But but I also >> both right >> for both.
>> But I but I'd also like to I don't believe that the SNAP is the same as >> that's my problem. I don't think SNAP equals what we want to do. >> Quantify, >> but SNAP's easy to qualify. But again, it's temp it could be temporary. You could be out of work and get SNAP benefits. So we have a we have a motion
and a second to add both amendments. Call vote >> on the amendment. Mr. Con? >> No. >> Stone. >> No. >> M. Fisher. >> Yes. >> Mrs. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Le.
>> No. >> President. >> Hi. >> Mr. Canero. >> No. >> Mr. Russo. >> Hi. President Ramos. >> Uh, I like the first P party amendment,
not the second part. No. >> So, >> so amendments fail. >> Okay. So, can I >> now council president finish your statement? >> So, I would just like you to note who voted no up here. >> Yes. >> They basically said screw you. Let me
make that very clear. You know, >> what Manny just said is exactly how many people feel here, that our city's changed, it's gentrified to something it isn't or wasn't, and people feel marginalized.
So, when I looked at this, that right, >> instead of just voting no, what my council colleagues could have done is said, "I'll work with you to make something better for the second part." Instead, they voted to kill it. Let's just think about that next time
you go to the voting booth because I'm sick and tired of this. Sick and tired of it. I didn't do this for political purposes. I did it because I listen to what people are telling me. And quite frankly, the NB4
SNAP is not the same as affordable housing or a deed restricted unit. Get that through. Again, I it's not like I just pulled this out of my backside. I did research on this, but your council tonight just gave you
the middle finger. Just remember that. Gave you the middle finger. I'm disappointed in this deis right here. All you had to do was say to me, "Let's work together and find something out." Instead, you say, "No, this is the most basic thing I could have given
anybody." You just told the community, "You don't count. We raise the fees. We try to do something that doesn't cost us that much to show goodwill and nothing. Nothing. I mean, this is just it's frustrating.
Day in and day out. You sit here try to put something forward that the community wants or you try to say something. Again, I'm the boogeyman. I'm giving you back what the people are telling us because you guys are sitting in your ivory towers,
not listening to the people. You're not listening to my businesses in the first ward. You're happy with a $4 million I found in the budget to get it down to 13. You're happy with a 15% 19% increase. Oh, they can pay it. Don't worry about
it. We'll get elected next year. But you don't think about it because our renters have not been hit with these raises yet. You can't keep hitting landlords with 10% increases and not going to come down. You can't keep hitting residents with fee raises because they're one-time fixes.
And I can't wait to hear the responses back to this little diet tribe I just given you. I can't wait because the only thing you need to hear right now is they voted no against you.
Councilman Cohen, >> you got to sit down. You have to sit down. It's not your It's not your turn. You have to sit down. >> I want to know. >> It's not your turn. Please sit down. >> Councilman Cohen, sit down. >> Sit down. Thank you. >> Sit down. Sit down or leave. Please,
>> Councilman Cohen. We're trying to run the meeting. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank Thank you, Alice President. You know, I mean, uh, we got these amendments in an email that were sent to us
less than 48 hours ago, I think. I think we I think we got him Monday night. Uh no discussion, no outreach, no nothing except uh an accusation that we're giving the middle finger. I mean the just the just the triggering profanity
ridiculousness uh on something that was not shared and not discussed with any of us with any of us. And we either vote yes and we're good people or we vote no and we're the we're the worst of the worst. Okay. Uh so so let me just explain that that one
of the two amendments were acceptable to me and to to the rest of us and and that was with respect to SNAP benefits. Why do why would I support SNAP benefits? Is because it's easy to check. If you have a card that shows that you're eligible, you can do that. The people who work
behind the counter at the HPU have a tough job. They have a lot of people. They have a lot of documents they have to go through. They have to go through registrations. They have to go through proof of address. They have to determine whether each person is eligible for their permit. Okay? And they and they do
their job well. They're patient. They're hardworking people. Okay? But for them to get proof of income, W TWS, whatever it cost to show your average median income, not only would it be an administrative nightmare for the people behind the counter, but you're talking
about the most sensitive personal documents with respect to people's income that are going to be shared across the table where people are going to have to walk in with their tax returns or whatever they're going to have to do. Okay. Councilman President did not discuss this with me or any of the rest of us. I think that is a
reasonable basis to not want to overburden our staff at the HPU to determine what someone's average medium income is to determine whether they're eligible for a discount. If you have a card that shows that you're eligible for SNAP simple straightforward easy to determine something that could
be reasonably done. Okay. Do we want to have a great idea that overwhelms our people, overwhelms our limited resources, overwhelms our staff? I don't think so. Just because you have good intentions doesn't mean that it would work. So I think this was a administrative nightmare that had not
been fully thought through. I'm not questioning his intent. I think it's a good intent. I support the intent and that's why I support having SNAP benefits as a simple way for people to determine that they're eligible for a discount. Okay. But to get the kind of abuse that I just got and and the
suggestion that my motivation is anything other than trying to have our our people who work for the city of Hoboken who have a difficult job to do it every day to make their lives easier and not worse is where I'm coming from. Okay. So again, you know, he doesn't
have to apologize to me if you know he thinks I'm a terrible person. Go ahead. That's fine. But why did I vote no? That's why I voted no. Okay. So I'm fully in support of I think it's a good idea and I think we can support the first amendment. The second one, while intended, would not have worked as an
admin, it would have been an administrative nightmare and it would have exposed a lot of confidential information to people waiting online that really didn't have any business looking at it. Thank you, Council President. >> Council L. >> Um, so I fully support amendment one um
from Councilman President's first amendment. Um and just to answer a couple of uh people who came up uh they were concerned about it not addressing seniors and and it would address seniors um age 62 or older as well as any um US
military veterans they would receive a 50% discount which I think would leave it at like 4750 um which is less than the the rate going now. So wanted to make that a point. Thank you >> council. Uh, thank you, Council
President. I also will not be asking for an apology. I don't need one, but since you put words in my mouth, I'm going to go ahead and put some in yours. Uh, Councilman President, um, you call yourself a disruptor. There's a difference between being a disruptor and being willfully misleading, which I think is generally
your practice now. Uh, and and so I will do my best to respectfully call it out. Uh and sometimes it will verge on the disrespectful based on the amount of vitriol that you've spewed not only to us today but to us over the past. Never
in good fun always with a lot of venom. So understood. Um I think Councilman Cohen and Councilwoman Le pointed out, you know, a couple of things. One, I would ask that you hold us to the same
standard that you want to be held to. In the past, you've said, "I will not vote on something that just arrived at my desk." I think we got this yesterday. And and and as Councilman Cohen pointed out, there's a lot of administrative items to work through. As Councilman uh
as Council President mentioned, he likes the First Amendment, not so much Second Amendment. I agree. The vote today wasn't on, hey, do you agree? Uh uh do you want to have a conversation about this? I would be more than happy to have a conversation on on on the first one
and see if we can make it less administratively burdensome to administer. Okay? I think the second one swallows the whole thing. So please don't tell people what is in my mind. You don't know. You don't know my situation. I
don't live in an ivory tower. You don't know how I grew up. You don't know where I grew up. You don't know my personal circumstance. Give me the respect of as I do all of us that I have the best intentions of the city of Hobok and in my heart
with respect to the facts of this ordinance. The facts are yes, it's an increase. And I admire uh Andrew Wilson for his analysis, although it was a little bit cheeky, but it it the point wasn't to be
literal. Is the point was to describe that if this is a commodity, we are severely subsidizing it. As as Mr. Vance said those without cars in Hoboken who are using city bike and zip car and things like that are
subsidizing those of us myself including with cars. Hoboken is a majority commuter city. 56% of us do not drive to works which means 46% of us do. Okay.
But the majority of us do not. Having cars in town puts a stress on our economic system. If we didn't have any cars, for example, we wouldn't need a traffic bureau, but we do. That's not realistic. So, we want to rightsize
the fee here. And it is still going to be relatively inexpensive for most of us. For all of us, no. But that's the tough decision. We talked about leadership. I know I'm going to anger some people by voting yes on this. I wish it could be free for
everyone. I wish all the fees, all the all parking, uh, all you know, all public transit, uh, all pet registration fees, everything was free. But then our levy would have to be really high and that's unfair. So, we're targeting those
who use the services. If this hold on if this was um we talk about uh you know if this was a a private business you know what would we do? Uh Miss Fallak I disagree with you on this one. If if uh the only reason
City Bikes not City Bike has been raising their prices but they you know they don't add more bikes um because we won't let them because of the contracts and things like that. But let's say if it's an actual, you know, business in the free market, okay? If I ran like an ice cream shop, for example, had limited
ice cream cones and it's staff. There you go. Uh, and you know, all of a sudden, you know, the cost of milk went up or the cost of cream went up, cost of sugar goes up, but I'm selling out every day. My first
move is not going to be I'm gonna fire my staff. The first move is going to be I've got a commodity, people want it, so I'm going to increase my prices a little bit to retain it. That's what we're doing here in this instance. We're we're taking a targeted approach. It's going to be painful for some, affordable for
for many, and hopefully it'll free up some parking spaces. Thank you, >> Councilman Russo. >> Thank Thank you, Council President. I appreciate it. And sorry for interrupting, Joe. I thought you were done there for a second. Um, look, I I appreciate everybody kind of
arguing back and forth about the amendment on on this, but I think what we're losing sight of is the actual increase. We we can make sure that everyone can continue to afford
at this level by now voting for the increase. We don't have to look at SNAP benefits. We don't have to look at affordability. We don't have to look at any of those things. The reality here is uh and I think Joe said it best. He wishes it could be free. Well, it can. We have the ability
to choose to make it free. What I am tired of hearing tonight though is that why should someone subsidize someone else? Well, that's our government people.
Why should Ro Marco subsidize my children's school in Hoboken public schools? Her kids are out of school. But she has to do that because that's our system. Why do I have to pay for the hot bus
when I don't use that to go to work? I use my CAR BECAUSE THAT'S OUR SYSTEM. Why does someone who uses city bike have to subsidize parking in Hoboken when they don't own a car? Because that's our
system. That's the way we do things. That's what government looks like. You can't have it both ways. We can't say we want to be the this this liberal, democratic, socialist kind of a of a place
and then not have the same oomph when we're trying to subsidize those other groups of people. You have to make a choice. And it's okay if you choose ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. I I fully respect who whoever and whatever they're going to do.
But don't use the counterargument to your benefit on this one when you're going to use that exact argument later for something else. I've been very consistent across the board that I think parking in Hoboken
should be part of the tax base that we all pay. Councilman Ramos and I have been talking about this for 20 plus years as our as our elected lives and specifically in Hoboken. I don't know I don't know where
Councilman Ramos stands on all of it, but at some point I know he's never supported those increases. I know at some point other council members have never supported those increases. And if you change your mind, great, no
problem. But own up to it. Don't use the counterargument that, well, why should you subsidize someone who doesn't use it? BECAUSE THAT'S OUR SYSTEM. That's what we do. YOU DON'T LIKE THAT SYSTEM? WELL, then we got to change the whole system guys.
But at the end of the day, I do not believe that increasing the parking rates for a family like like the gentleman who came to us at our last meeting who his kids are now in college using cars, their second, their third, and their fourth car in the family
because they have no other choice should have to pay $300 for a parking permit to park in the city of Hoboken, which by the way is not just $300. >> Yeah. >> Because it increases yearly. So in two years that $300 is going to be about $350 if the CPI is a little little over
3%. >> That's going to compound every year. I think this is a bad policy decision. I ask all my colleagues to vote vote this down and come up with a different way to try to generate revenue in a in a
difficult tax year. But this is not the way to do it. especially on those who are having the most difficulty paying for their parking in the city of Hoboken. Thank you, Council President. >> Thank you, Councelor Buso. Councilman Fischer, >> thank you. Um, so I heard a a phrase in
a book I was read or listening to the other day. Um, which is money doesn't necessarily buy happiness, but it definitely buys choices. So the more money you have, the more choices you have. So, as we start thinking about
the people that are in parking garages that can afford the $400, $300 to $400 a month, um they clearly have more money, they have more choices, and those with less money have less choices and may um need to park on the street. And as as
>> you got point there, >> as uh um Cheryl Fall mentioned earlier, um you know, they are not guaranteed a spot anywhere near their house. They're not even guaranteed a spot at all. And
um and the question isn't what is the market price comparison when you have an option to park, but you don't necessarily always have the ability to do so. you know, as a policy, the city, we we subsidize things all the time,
like we subsidize recreation. We subsidize everything we do in the city. We subsidize trash, right? We subsidize um our public safety and parking is something that we have subsidized for a long period of time. And um you know,
making a significant change, I don't think about the people that are wealthy that can afford it. I think about the people that are least wealthy and can't afford it, right? That to me is what we're solving for. I mean, this parking
permit is a regressive tax no matter what. no matter what you think because even even if we're doing considering carveouts for um you know people in the HHA or lower income people that qualify for section 8 or wherever we're ultimately going to
get to um there's still plenty of people out there that don't live in the housing authority. Maybe they are able to live in Hoboken with a lower income and we're increasing the fee for them. And I'm not opposed to increasing fees. I just think
that the the rate that we're considering here um is high and um and we're doing it on our existing, you know, population. I've I've always generally opposed material increases, although I did I was the fifth vote for the last
one that went from 26 to 52. I think um but I think these weren't well thought out. These were let's just come up with numbers that gets us more revenue for the budget. Let's increase all of them. Um and and I I don't think that's the
approach that we uh should take. You know, as we're thinking about trying to we have to minimize cars in Hoboken, no matter what. We have a 20 We've had a 20% increase in population. We did nothing to do that. We um and we have
another 20% increase in our population coming over the next seven or eight years. But just increasing the parking is not going to reduce the number of cars in Hoboken. What will reduce the number of cars in Hoboken is an alternative form of transportation. What we really need to do is have a bus or a
hop system that we can rely on that everyone in Hoboken can rely on. So they say, you know what, I don't need to have a car to do errands in Hoboken. I can hop on a bus. It's not going to Rose. It's not going to happen tomorrow, but it's something we need to think about. Otherwise, 20% increase in population
means 20% increase in in cars because we don't have and and not a concominant 20% increase in streets. Um, what I do want to say though, just because there's a lot of emotion up here on both sides, I think it's um I think it's really
disingenuous for for people to call out my colleague Paul, President Zano, for being angry and pointing fingers. Um,
and you know, it's a it's a pot and kettle issue, right? We have we have witnessed everyone who's been on the city council, myself included, over the last several years, um just throwing excuse me, throwing boulders at each other,
right? And and it's still happening and it's a shame. We have a new mayor. We have a new opportunity to not throw boulders at each other, but there's some political culture that has been hard um to let go of. I would remind everyone on
here um before you point a finger about a lastm minute amendment. First of all, Councilman President Zano raised this at the caucus on Monday and he talked about it last week with a few people. So he said it in the mix of this group. It took however long to get it actually I
think he got it out pretty quickly after that 48 hours in advance. You know, an example was when we were changing our pay-to-play laws way back when, you know, Councilman Cohen was here changing them at the DEIS that night, you know, without, you know, something that the
community hated, right? So, before we start pointing these fingers, just remember, we've all done this and sometimes we just need to do it. Sometimes, you know, things are moving forward quickly. You need to get something out there. and the fact that you actually sent it 48 hours early and not 5 minutes early like our former
mayor used to do. I commend you. Thank you for giving us 48 hours notice. So anyway, with that, I have a technical question. People said that they were supportive of amendment one.
So right now we have a second reading that is before us. We already have an amendment on as a first reading that incorporates SNAP, which I'm okay with. This amendment expands to include
housing authority, although I I don't know if our law already has that, but also um residents of deed restricted um affordable housing units. Are we It It sounds like people We may get to five votes to support that. So, we need to incorporate that. How
>> I I think we have it in uh >> it's not >> it should be >> it's not the bottom one that's in the new the ordinance in the new business is only SNAP. >> So we so we could add uh >> Excuse me. >> Yeah. I just wanted to comment
>> how still have pay pay parking for us. Yes. >> I spoke to director Reco this evening about the housing authority. My understanding is that there's 400 residents of the housing authority that have parking spots and those are included in the rent that those
residents pay and that it would be very unlikely for those residents uh to have or need a parking permit because they have essentially >> true that he said unless they had a second car. >> No, they have that's that's >> there's a spot versus a permit. Two
totally different things. things because those residents still may want to park on Jefferson Street to go visit someone. So for that he needs a resident parking permit so you don't pay the extra things there. So that was >> uh Director Sharp was supposed to have those addresses in here all the housing
authority are five senior buildings uh everyone over 62 uh military veterans uh SNAP beneficiaries and the reason why SNAP beneficiaries is because we just followed the model that the recreation program follows. It makes it a lot easier that's already in place just
through the SNAP benefits as opposed to bringing other documentation in. That's why we we uh okay, we chose to do the SNAP benefit model. So, uh it should be all-encompassing. That's why we have it going for first reading just to include those amendments in the first reading. So, we this passes tonight.
>> Uh just that'll just be overed by the other one. So, Mr. Sharp, uh >> I don't think it's in there. The the one that I'm looking at online, it looks like it's just SNAP and it's not. HP housing authority the address 76 Bloomfield uh
I forget the one on Madison Street 3113 street uh all those >> section 8 it should be section 8 as well so for example all the applied buildings in and of themselves probably shouldn't be included but the section 8 in the applied building should >> those those are individuals they have to
>> we don't we can't >> yeah yeah >> just just to clarify so the the the senior discount is already there. It's already an existing uh policy, right? >> Uh veterans, persons with disabilities. So, SNAP is one way to capture broadly
speaking a lot of other different groups uh that would qualify for say housing authority and SNAP, right? Uh it's not perfect, but uh it is one established program that uh is an add-on to the
existing uh carveouts for seniors uh over 62 and veterans and those with uh those with disabilities >> and housing authority residents and the addresses that >> that HHA residents are not currently included in there. But
>> if that's then no objection for me. Yeah. So, >> so we're going to include >> I think I think it's how I think the way to do it is it's housing authority residents >> and section 8 if you have a section 8 voucher because those are easy
>> because and then you have you just I I know plenty of people that don't have SNAP. >> Yeah. >> That live there. Um and I also know people that live in some of the affordable housing buildings that are market units in an affordable housing building. I will request before we get to the item for new business to first
reading. you sit next to uh corporation council Perez and you add that language in there that we >> can I ask one additional question >> council president I miss you um
>> my last downgrading you but counciloman >> somebody else might know this um right now >> does that discount then extend to households with more than one car uh >> yeah for the first people Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you, >> Council President. Council President. >> I would like to offer an apology to my colleagues. >> However, I need you guys to understand something. I am struggling with this budget. I am struggling with these fee increases
because they're regressive taxes. And Councilman Firestone, you should understand with our economics and finance background, this is the epitome of you don't teach this to our kids how to do this, right? So you you can understand the position that I'm struggling with because econ 101,
finance 101, everything I learned is the opposite of what we're doing with these budget and fees. And so I'm sitting here frustrated beyond belief. And it's it just keeps boiling over, boiling over, and boiling over.
and I brought it up in the caucus. I sent it to you at 9:49 p.m. I sent it to Jerry Lure. I don't know when it came to you guys. And I don't want to blame you, Jerry, when when you sent it out. However, I just hear this over and over that
there's a portion of our community that's overlooked. And I'm it really bothers me to sit there when I listen to him along with just all these extra fees that as councilwoman said the regressive tax. It's just so frustrating guys and I I hope you can understand the
disposition. I want to work with you. I want to talk to you. I sent you this purposely to hear anything back. I told that's the reason for our caucus. Our caucus is to bring things up. And I thought about it and I'm like, "Huh, that makes sense. Why don't we try this? And I appreciate
you guys agreeing with amendment one. Amendment two, while it would broaden it, I do understand that there could be some issues. However, our middle class in Hoboken.
We can't overlook them as well because you're we're banging them on everything. We're getting 11.2% in water. We're going to stop the uh the special rate with the electricity that's going to go up. That's going to be a shock. We're gonna their rents are going to go up on
the back of this if landlords pass this on. The cost of food, cost of parking, the cost of a ticket. I I mean that's my concern. And so I apologize for getting hot, but I just feel sometimes we lose focus
on parts of the community that are not represented here, that may not be able to get here because they have three kids at home, a single mom, a single dad. They can't get here and they can't voice their opinion. And
so therefore, I'm listening to that. Many of us hear these stories, but somehow we never pay attention to them. And it's just a small way we can say, "Hey, you make Hoboken great. You're a part of our community." But again, I'm
passionate about this job up here. I care about every single resident. We might disagree with things and we might get hot up here, but at the end of the day, we're all trying to do the same thing. Just some of us may be
may take it to a different level. So, I say publicly I apologize to you as you requested. >> No, they didn't want you to. >> Well, you didn't want me to. But I'm doing it because yes, I know my limitations and I know some of the
>> points I get to, but I am sorry. >> Thank you. We'll hug it out later on. Uh, call vote. >> Mr. Con? >> I stone. Yes, >> Fisher. >> No,
no, >> Mrs. >> No, >> Mrs. Le. >> Yes. >> President, >> no. >> I >> Mr. Russo. >> No.
>> President Ramos. >> I do vote. Yes. A hearing on an ordinance amending chapter 190-71 entitled municipally managed electric vehicle charging. >> This is a tough one. >> Revised
>> revised fees for the owner. I >> can't hear. >> Is that your voice? >> No, no, no. You're talking that was you. >> The revised fees for cityowned electric vehicle charging stations.
Yeah. Uh, we have no one to speak on this >> motion to close public portion. >> Wait, wait. Sorry. Sorry. I apologize. We have our fire prevention. No one to speak. Second. All in favor? >> I. We have. This is J31. Members of the
council. Vehicle charging. >> Call vote. >> Mr. Con. >> I. >> By stone. >> Yes. >> Fisher. Yes, >> Mrs. Imus. >> Yes, >> Mrs. Leen. >> Yes, >> President.
>> Mrs. Eevee. >> Mrs. Ee. >> Yes. I >> Mr. Cano. >> I >> Mr. Russo. >> Hi, >> President Ramos. >> I here uh hearing on an ordinance to amend the city code of the city of Hoboken,
chapter 101 for fire prevention fees. >> No one signed to speak. Motion to close. Motion to close public portion. >> Second. All in favor? >> I mess council. >> Call vote. >> Mr. Con. >> I stone. >> Yes. >> Fisher. >> Yes. >> Mr. Zyus.
>> Yes. >> L. >> Yes. >> President Zano. >> This is the fee. >> No. >> Mr. Cano. >> I. >> Mr. Russo. >> No. >> President Ramos.
>> I. Hearing on the ordinance of city hobok and entitled in the county of Hudson state, New Jersey authorizing the vacation of an easement granted to the American Legion Post 107. Commander Carrie John.
Good evening. I'm John Kerry, commander Hoboka, Post 107, American Legion, president of the Veteran Center of Hoboken. Uh, I want to thank you for uh your attorneys, Chris Brown, your
director, and uh you, Councilman Russo Rabano. I'm sorry. >> I'm the better looking one. >> Rose, I'm I'm slowly can I tell you uh we need your support uh for this ease correction of our lease. Unfortunately, DCA wasn't happy with the wording on our
lease and uh this will allow us to go forward build 18 more apartment for homeless veterans. We presently have six and it's been a labor of love and we were working on it for a long time and I hope you all support it. Thank you. >> Thank you. Council, call a vote. Mr.
Clerk, close the hearing. >> A motion to close the hearing. Motion. >> Second. All in favor? >> I. >> Call vote. >> Mr. Con? >> I. >> Firestone. >> Yes. >> Fisher. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Imus. >> Yes. >> Mr. Le. >> Yes. >> President. >> I.
>> Mr. Cano. >> Hi. >> Mr. Russo. I >> President Ramos. >> I hearing on an ordinance of the city of Hoboken and the county of Hudson state of New Jersey authorizing a lease agreement between the city of Hoboken and the Hoboken World War Veterans
Holding Corporation on property referred to as block 43, lot 3435, city of Hoboken Tax Map. We have no one to sign up to speak. Motion to close public hearing. >> Close public portion. Second. >> All in favor? I
>> I councel >> call the vote. >> Mr. Con. >> Hi. >> Firestone. >> Yes. >> Fisher. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Imus. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Lac. >> Yes. >> President Jano. >> Hi. >> Mr. Canero. >> Hi. >> Mr. Russo. >> Hi. >> President Ramos.
>> Hi. >> Uh, public portions on agenda items and resolution. >> Public portion agenda items. Rose Markle. You have to grab Y. >> Okay, I'm going to try and be quick. It's a
long night. Um, under the claims we have, you know, we need to tighten our belt, right? So, I'll just put some things out there. A 50gallon tote for $112. Send somebody to BJ's. It's a lot cheaper. We're leasing an awful lot of car vehicles, but I see an awful lot of
expenses for repairs and services. Just wondering how many cars that aren't under lease because leases are under warranty. And car washing used to be done years ago when we only had one director in each department. They were washed in-house. Now under the agenda,
CD5 to9 affordable housing. As we sit here and discuss a budget and all these fees going up, that's a bigger joke than going green in the city. Who can sustain a 19% tax increase, 27% school tax increase, and expect it to remain affordable? I hope somebody can
explain it to me. CD8, this one I don't understand at all. If somebody can explain it, it has to do with I guess Airbnbs, you know, just a quick synopsis. I don't want to be here for another four hours. CC 1 through8 4 months in and legal fees have already
increased by almost $100,000. Doubt that budget line is even going to come close to cover this. TX1, how does someone make an overpayment of $7,200 in taxes? Just curious. T1, um, I went to this
Zoom meeting on Monday, and this is claims to be for roadway improvements, but when you dig deep, there's always the devil in the details. Some sidewalks are being replaced, and the um, engineer told me that it was built in there. Last time I checked, broken sidewalks are the
responsibility of the homeowner, not the city. So, but these are going to be taken care of. So, now I'm going to ask, can you bond for the rest of us that need repairs for our property, too? And I hope some of you paying attention to me. T3. Uh, so another great negotiation here.
The the video I watched said we're going to get $7,000 from the bike program. Really? That's the best we could do, the $7,000 for all these bikes that are all over town. And they the director Andrew said that, you know, we have all these bike riders. I don't understand who
negotiates this devil in the details. We should be getting more money than $7,000 for a bike program. Thank you. >> Thank you, Rose. Appreciate it. Zachary King, you're the best. >> Hi, Zachary King. Uh I'm with
organization Hoboken United Tenants. Um so, first of all, I want to apologize. Uh you've been having to hammer out this budget all night, and I think it's partially my fault. I have an unpaid parking ticket, so I'm going to try to take care of that. Should solve this problem for you. >> Get it together, Zach. >> Um, yeah, I I'll get it together. So,
uh, as you all know, but it needs to be said again and again, 66% of Hoboken's population are renters. When we're talking about the budget, that money, the property tax is mostly covered by renters. If renters uh, rent didn't cover property taxes, landlords would be
making no profit. By definition, those landlords have to be making a profit on top of their costs, including property tax. So, renters are shouldering the burden of the taxes in this town. Um, Hoboki United Tenants is here tonight to speak about short-term rentals. We think
that this is a major issue for the housing stock in our community. We have heard that the uh community development subcommittee is basically considering legalizing some Airbnbs in Hoboken. We are flat out against this. We've been running surveys with tenants around
Hobokin. We've been hearing about all the problems being caused by Airbnb and Verbbo. These short-term rentals are taking housing out of the community, taking rentals out of the community, and they are turning it into small-time profit basically for slum lords. We've heard from a number of people that
entire buildings of housing are being turned into basically illegal hotels. Um, and I am particularly concerned that you're not considering a full ban. And the details of the exceptions you're making are particularly interesting. So
apparently, this was in an email I read from council person uh Imus, uh the regulations the community development subcommittee is considering would narrowly allow Airbnb and Verbbo in owner occupied small less than four unit buildings and then it would only be one
unit. Council person Immus, if I'm not mistaken, you run a Verbbo in an owneroccupied small apartment building. >> Don't use the council person's name directly. Just say a council person >> with with just one of those units. So, I think it's extremely unethical uh and
totally within my rights to call out that there's basically an exception being carved out for one council person's illegal verbbo in a rent controlled unit. So, this is just wildly, wildly unethical that you're allowing this. Um, it makes no sense from an enforcement perspective. Uh,
this is going to be a complicated and expensive enforcement mechanism. The fact that you're considering like hiring some contracting company to deal with how you're going to regulate, oh, which units are which and which ones are we going to allow and which ones aren't we? No, just ban verbos, ban Airbnbs.
That's that's all you have to do. And then find people that do it. Make a little money for the city. All right. Uh, and then uh one more thing. If you're I want people to know that we're spending 19% of our budget about 19% of our expenditure is going to public safety. Only about.35% of our
expenditure goes to the housing division which is not enforcing any of our laws. I don't know about you, but I find that illegal rent increases and families being driven into homelessness is a serious public safety issue. So, if you can't find anyone in the housing division to enforce the laws that are on
the books, move them into the criminal code, right? move them into the criminal code. They don't need to be in the civil code. Let our police who are wellunded and I'm sure many I'll talk to our police. I bet many of them would love to be enforcing laws on slumlords taking advantage of our community.
So, let's talk about that. Move it into the criminal code if you don't have the budget to be enforcing the laws. And finally, levy heavier vacancy taxes and actually enforce them. We've got housing units all over this city sitting empty because of a tax loophole where people can write those off as losses. They can
just hold units empty and write them off. You've passed some laws to deal with warehousing and vacancies. You're not enforcing them. Pay someone to do it. Go enforce those. Raise the fees. Make some money for the city. We've done some calculations. Back of the napkin math. You could probably only make a a
small amount of money, probably like a million dollars a year or something from taxing uh your your Airbnbs. If you legalize this under this absurd and unethical plan, uh you could make a hell of a lot more money, probably conservatively about five times as much money if you just enforced the warehousing laws we have on the books
and levied those fines against landlords holding housing empty in Hoboken. Thank you very much, >> Gerald Ale. Sorry. Good evening again, council president and members of the council. I'm speaking on the same resolution.
What is in front of you is a clear example of putting the cart before the horse. You are being asked to move forward on an RFP tied to short-term rental enforcement without a completed policy framework without meaningful
public engagement and without answering a basic question. Are you solving a problem or creating one? I would argue you are creating one. We hold public meetings on matters far less consequential than legalizing Airbnb.
individual development projects, park redesign, even what flowers get planted. Yet, on something as impactful as converting housing into short-term lodging in a dense rent controlled city, there has been no comparable public
process. No community meetings, no broad engagement, no honest forum for renters and residents to weigh in. Instead, you are moving forward first and justifying later. And there's something else that
needs to be addressed. At least one council member on this council has already stated that this process will lead to permitting Airbnb in small owner occupied buildings like Jersey City, which doesn't rent control buildings
with less than five units. But we do single family condos, both owner occupied and nonowner occupied two, three, and four unit buildings are all rent controlled in Hoboken. So the idea
that you are going to model the ultimate legislation after Jersey City's laws, which by the way apparently haven't worked out so well, you are tipping your whole card that you want to weaken or eliminate rent control protections on
smaller dwellings. How dare you even suggest such a thing? So through council president I ask is councilman quantero accurately describing the ultimate intent here when he says they're go you're going to ban
it on rent controlled units and it should be banned on everything but at least at this time that's what we've been told or is the public being misled and lied to and like councilwoman I says you're actually going to permit it in smaller buildings or do we have council
members so unfamiliar with our rent control laws that they shouldn't be anywhere near crafting legislation that will impact it. I don't want history repeating itself. And historically, tenant protections have been eroded
here. Behind the backs of the public and in conflict with our rent control laws, improper eraser of legal based rents were granted and legal reinterpretations have harmed tenants for years. Thus, we must stop this intended legalizing
legislation in its tracks. Those previous maneuvers had real consequences for people who lost protections they were entitled to and affordable rents that they should have been paying. So, when we hear conflicting narratives now
about what this vendor will enforce, we need to take that seriously and deal with it. We cannot allow confusion to shape Airbnb possible policy. Now on enforcement, Popokun already has a housing division created to among other
things do exactly that enforce. If it hasn't delivered, the question is why? Before we add another vendor contract, is it staffing, structure, political will, something else? If that hasn't been answered, this is not fixing our
enforcement issues, of which there are many. It's repeating the same mistake with more layers and more cost. And that brings us to the core issue. Short-term rentals. They are not neutral. They shift housing away from long-term residents. That mean less supply, more
tearowns, higher rents, more noise, more trash, reduce quality of life, and more pressure to convert housing into short-term use. Regulation or guard rails, as Councilman Clero has referred to it, doesn't remove the incentive to
undermine tenant protections. It legitimizes it. Once you build the system to permit and enforce short-term rentals, you are no longer debating them. You are embedding them. And that decision has never been fully debated in this city. And thus, in a year with a
$17 million deficit, with every step towards legalizing short-term rentals, you step closer and closer to a costly ballot initiative or referendum. This is not about small details. It's about whether housing in Hoboken should
function as homes or as transient commercial inventory. And tonight, a yes vote bypasses that question entirely. I noticed how many of you are reading and not listening. >> And for those reasons, I urge you to
vote no. >> Thank you, Council. Thank you, U. Fick. We have Andrew Wilson. >> Is this broken? >> You can lift it up. >> Yeah, bro. >> It's my last time up here, I promise. Uh,
>> you can talk on T2 and T3. >> Yeah, cool. Um, so T2, city bike contract. uh city bike. It is the most successful, popular, and important transit program that Hobogen has introduced in the past decade since the
hop. Um and with just 65 parking space equivalents, this program uh uh accommodates half a million rides per year. That's like one parking spot doing the job like doing the job of 20 cars.
It's incredibly efficient. Um, and like I said earlier, each city bike parking space generates $3,692 for the city. Um, it's very impressive. This contract, I it's my understanding this is a nocost contract for the city.
Uh, and we get revenue share on top of that. There are also some uh some new features within this new contract. There's overflow parking. That's going to be really helpful by the path. Basically, we no longer have to have uh valets at the path to store the overflow bikes. really excited for that. Um I'm
excited about the expansion into the northeast. There's going to be a lot of development happening in the city here over the next few years. Um and we're going to get new city bike stations with the redevelopments that's going to accommodate all of the uh new demand up there. This contract is very important for that. Um and lastly, the new
contract uh has scooters in it. Uh I'm excited about the scooters. The scooter plan is redacted, but I'm excited about it. Um, as far as uh concerns about the program, I I I think that um cost is one of the main legitimate concerns about
City Bike. City Bike right now is $239 per year, and I've heard some concerns from the city council about uh and a lot of residents about the cost of the program. So, I just want to address that. um a couple of big city bike uh or lift
managed programs throughout the country, Capital Bike Share and then Divvy in uh Chicago. So, Capital Bike Share is $120 per year and Divvy is around $140 per year. So, they have a lower price than the New York plan. And what I want to
stress about that is those those programs are less expensive than than Hoboken, dirty cities and New Yorks because they subsidize the program directly. So Capital Bike Share, they actually take in all the revenue. They take in all the cost of the program so that they can have that lower uh that
that lower membership fee. And then in Chicago, they pay $3 million per year for that program to cap the price for residents. So I agree that the program is expensive. I agree that we should be doing more to reduce the cost. The solution to that is to subsidize the
program. We just voted to raise the price of parking. I think we can use some of that revenue to offset the price of city bike for a lot of residents. I'd love to see that happen. Um so I I I hope that you vote for this. Uh the other one I want to talk about is T3, uh which is the construction
contract resurface 13th Street between Willow and Hudson Street. Um, I have been complaining about this sidewalk for the past 6 years. Uh, th this sidewalk is completely unacceptable. I walk through it all the time. Um, you know, Tiffany, I know that you know it's
horrible. I know you understand it's terrible. Um, I I I walk on it to get to the uh to Aulia all the time. I walk on it to get to the Madison all the time. I walk on it to get to the post office all the time. Um, and it's completely unacceptable unacceptable. It's the worst sidewalk in all of Hoboken. Um, if
you have a stroller, it's impassible. If you have any kind of mobility issue, it's completely impassible. I trip on these sidewalks all the time. It's it's way overdue for this sidewalk to get resurfaced, widened, um, and more accessible. The street needs to be
resurfaced anyways. So, this is a great time to do it. Um, so I really hope you vote for both of these. Uh, thank you very much. >> It just says we retain meaning. >> Thank you, Andrew. Uh Jim Vance, >> I'm gonna correct the record
over that. Doesn't matter. It just means we they don't >> Jim Vance regarding the city bike uh or um resolution. >> The addresses >> um everybody's falling over themselves
to subsidize people driving cars or owning cars or parking cars. We can't wait to make sure that that we basically have free parking. uh at $2 a week. Um there's a cost to the people who are not
taking up space, who are not polluting, who are not creating creating congestion and there's so if we're going to do a subsidy, let's say, okay, you get to park your car if you can find a place
for what is it, $80, $90 a year. We ought to subsidize the people using city bikes for that price up to whatever it costs to have a city bike. You guys want more
cars or do you want more bikes or would you just like to have what everybody's talked about here is equity? Let's subsidize those who are using a city bike the same way we're subsidizing those who are clinging out of our
streets. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Vance. Uh Kevin Davis. >> Thank you, Kevin. Best speaker tonight. Uh Ernest >> Boy. Ernest Boy, I got you. Thank you. >> All good. >> Hey, thank you. Ernest Boyd to Marine
View Plaza. I'd like to just say from our vantage point, the pickay bickerings of the city council, they don't inspire real confidence in y'all. At least from a at least from a personal perspective, no disrespect. Um, what also doesn't
really inspire confidence, I'm going to speak about Airbnb. I'm going to second my Hoboken United Tenants friends, Zack, Zach and Cheryl. um is the fact that some of you have left so much money, as
I said two weeks ago, money on the table. There are some of you in front of me who and I'm going to speak very personally about this. I'm the one who pursued warehousing in Marine View Plaza. I pursued it. It meant it it means that we could have we could have
lessened our we could have had five more million dollars in this city had that been pursued. I had to do that personally. That's not my job to do that. I have a job. In fact, my job, no disrespect, Miss Fischer, is in film. I was probably one of those sets that was
disrupting Hoboken. My bad. But that means that I had to go knock on 432 doors. Nobody. Nobody in this town did that. I could have made y'all $5 million if we just do a easy calculation. And
y'all did not want that. You're fighting over fees. But but the people who you do not want to tax and I don't know why you don't want to tax them. Actually I I feel you I feel there might be a reason. Those people who you would tax would be
the landed gentry of Hoboken. The 1%. They are the landed gentry. The only reason not to tax them is because either you are landed gentry or the landed gentry are your friends. That's it. That's the only choice. Thank you.
any Manny >> Good evening, Council President. Once again, Manuel Rivera, six board. Council President, I will be brief. I see that that clock is moving awfully fast, so I'm trying to keep pace. I'm just kidding, council president. There are members of the public who here who are trying to speak on public portions, so I
will be brief. I just want to make a statement, but I will ask questions on the consent agenda. Cuz president, if you can please let members of the public understand the contracts tonight on corporate council. We know the corporate council made a on the caucus hearing or
the caucus meeting. Uh some inference as the reason why these are here this evening. if corporate council could explain that to members of the public who are here because corporate um pardon me, council president, I am here to inform you that only one person viewed the caucus meeting and that was yours
truly because that view counted. Um there was also um about 600 people who watched the meeting uh last meeting. So there are people who are not getting the information that they need, council president. So as important if we cannot get the information in the caucus
meeting then we have to ask the question here. So I will say this. If the items in the caucus are not fully explained, then council president, members of the public must find a way to get answers to the questions that they
cannot ask at the caucus meeting. And the questions that you ask you, the council, there are a lot of great questions. Some of them I'm very impressed. Some of them I'm not because you skip complete sections. So transparency is not just about asking
questions internally. It's about ensuring the answer are the answers are shared publicly and clearly. So I respectfully ask please help members of the public understand the reasonings
behind these votes tonight even ever so briefly. These answers go a long way to building trust and keeping the residents informed. Mr. President, that statement I made because it is important for members of the public to understand
sometimes members of the public don't come up here because they don't have uh other things to do. They have plenty of things to do. But when it's important when one point of view is being spread other in favor of another, it's hard
for one to just let go. comes better than you look at my gray hairs. I come up here twice a month religiously. Every meeting religiously as much as I can, Council President. But when I get no answers, when other
members of the public get don't get answers, it's frustrating and it's heartbreaking and it's defeating and it should not be. Answer the question this evening. Council President T2 totally against it. There should be no subsidy. If you're not subsidizing residents who
live here, who have disabilities, then subsidize nothing. No elitist should come here and expect to be subsidized. If you want to pay, pay the full price, just like you're going to pray for your parking spot. Again, there are
plenty of other places who who who don't mind that, but there are people who do not ride bikes and do not care for them. Respectfully, I say this. So, Council President, I could go on and on. Public safety, the the um
infrastructure. Here are the notes. You know the questions. Answer them if you can. Council President, I don't like to be up here raising my voice. is not in my character. But this evening is one for the record books. I swear to you, this
is one for the record books where people come up and ask you do this, do that. You are our representatives. Listen to us. If you cannot do that, then I don't know what we are voting for. We need to make better decisions in the future. Then I respectfully yield back. Thank
you, council president. >> Thank you, Mr. Mr. Mayor. Uh the the corporation council items are all extending the contracts for the legal teams. We we do a peace meal until the budget's adopted. So just filling in
those gaps there. Uh Mary Andrea Mary Andrea 159 Street. I'm not going to be up here but five minutes. So, could I please have everyone's attention? I would appreciate it. Thank you.
I don't know if any of you have ever been in an apartment house that has B&Bs. I work for somebody in one. When someone dies in this town, it becomes a B&B. When someone moves out, it becomes a
B&B. If the family owns the building and the other apartments were dealt with had apartments for daughter or son-in-law or whatever and they move out, it gets torn down. I've been here long
enough to see this pattern. Now, I work in a building that has eight units and four are B&Bs. A friend of mine around the corner lives in a 10-unit building and six are B&Bs.
Now, unfortunately, Fortunately for me, I don't live in a building with that kind of horrible hotel atmosphere because I suffer from migraines. And these buildings are very noisy. The people that come up and down with
their suitcases or go out for the tourists or whatever they're doing, they don't really give a excuse my language, that people are living there and some people are sleeping at that time. Not me. Like I said, I don't live
in a building like that, but I work in one. And it's horrible. And this has been going on for years. And I cannot believe the inefficiency I've seen. Not You're new. You're new. You're new. I have seen for years
because I've been in this town since 1987. So that makes me a bit of a pro to see the inefficiency of councils and nothing's been done about these Airbnbs. Do you realize there's hotel taxes?
All you people could have been getting money for years. Years. They charge 3,000, 5,000, 2,000. It's just for a couple of nights. But you people don't I'm not insulting
you specifically, but this council doesn't think smartly. And I'm not for BMBBS because it robs us of housing. You have to get old and die. and then
the landlord because none of the laws of a lot of the rental laws haven't been kept up or the landlord was stupid enough not to put increases. I've been getting a tax sir charge since 1987.
Every single year through six landlords I have been getting water and sewer every single year. Luckily, I got mine just for May. So I won't get slammed
when you pass your 19 or 14 to 19% INCREASE BECAUSE I SAW ALL the deals, Tiffany, with the Northwest, $30 million, then it became $60 million, then $90 million, then $120 million for
that stinking park. You know, >> Hoboken became too much of a good thing. You can actually make a place undesirable with all the continue building with not enough parking and I don't have a car.
With all of that, nobody is wanting is going to want to live here. They really won't because when you raise those taxes, what you have to do because the council before this and and and before that one
away the money. NOT EVERYBODY RIDES BIKES. NOT EVERYBODY GOES TO a park. In fact, I stopped going to the parks. It's just not worth it. And speaking of paying of subsidize, I don't have children, BUT I'VE SUB I'm gonna have to subsidize some god-awful
increase in the board of ed. I have to swallow it, too. I'm just saying this this this B&B and you need to abstain has to be has to be
illegal because all you're doing is you're going to hopefully get enough rich people to come here and eventually even rich people don't want to pay. They don't want to pay for no parking. They don't want to pay extra fees for this because it hits them too.
It's not time >> almost. >> I know when my time is up, Reuben. And the fighting that goes on. I would have thought that went out with the last one, but I've had to witness it for every single one. I haven't been
here for a while to see this. But this is insane. The BMBBs are you people are making money and other And you're talking about no housing. That's because they go to B&Bs. How would you like to
live in a building with six people coming and going like a hotel and you idiots, not no offense, have not been taxing them. You don't know how to handle money. This
town never did. >> Thank you for your time. >> Thank you, Mary. I appreciate it. Uh >> motion to close the public hearing on consent agenda. >> Motion second. All in favor? >> I. >> Members of the council, any items you
would like to remove for discussion? >> Uh >> yes. >> CD. >> Wait a second. Paul get >> Wait. CD8 and T2. >> CD. >> CD8. >> T2. >> T2. Thank you.
>> CD. >> Council President. What? One second. Councilman, I'll come to you next. >> Y >> CD3 and >> uh T3 >> C3. >> Yeah. >> Council Russo. >> Yeah. I could hardly hear, so these
might be repeats, but uh CD8, CC6, >> CD8, >> CD62, >> and what was the other one? >> CC CC6 and CC7. >> CC6 and CC7. Okay. >> Yeah. And then T2 >> and T2. Gotcha.
>> Paul removed T2. So I'll just come to you after that. Okay. >> Any other council members? >> I did it. >> Clos Mr. Clark. >> On the consent agenda, Mr. Con? >> I. >> Mr. Fstone.
>> Yes. >> M. Fischer. >> Yes. >> Mrs. >> Yes. But it's staying on CD8. >> We haven't We're not voting on it yet. voting on CD8 >> the consent we pulled CD8 to talk about >> Mrs. Le >> yes >> presidento
>> I can >> hi >> Mr. Russo I >> President Ramos >> I CD3 >> Councilman Councilwoman Fischer CD3. >> Yeah. So this was the question I was
about to ask you. So, um, what CD3 is, we approved a, uh, redevelopment agreement years ago for This is the water f music factory. And in that
agreement, they were supposed to provide 30 on-site parking spots. Something happened. They were going to have stacked parking. And they paid a guy to come and do the automatic stack parking. the guy didn't do it. He stole the money and went away. So, what the
developer went and built the building. So, the building's built and they want to open it and they can't comply with the 30 units because they didn't replace the stacked parking um because he didn't want to pay for it again. So, he's
asking the city to allow the building to only have 18 on-site parking spots and then 12 off-site parking spots. And so when they go to the planning board, they have to they have to show evidence that they have those 12 parking spots
offsite. They'll get their approval. They'll get their CFO and they're required on an annual basis on December of every year. And this is a condo building, right? So now you're talking about 40 residents and a resident condo
board once a year is going to have to show that they have these 12 um parking spots offsite somewhere. So my question to corporation council is what if they don't have it? What's the
recourse? What's the remedy? And you know what's the fine according to this? >> Dr. Brown. >> We've he and I have talked at length about this multiple times. >> Good evening. Yes. So, as per our
previous conversations with those um 12 parking spots that are going to be located offsite, that responsibility is going to be transferred to the HOA um per the the transfer that will happen once the developer sells all the condos.
It will be their obligation to then satisfy that uh that requirement per the redevelopment agreement. If they do not satisfy that um that that that obligation, they would be in default. That would be a remedy that we would
have to take on. Um you know, in terms of the violations, I'd have to look through the redevelopment agreement to see what um see what that uh would incur, but they would be in the fault of that agreement. And that >> I I feel like um Thank you. I mean, I don't have the whole redevelopment. We
just have this section. And the section doesn't say what the remedy would be. And so this reads as though we're effectively reducing notwithstanding they have to show it to get planning board approval. But a year
later whenever and it doesn't even say how long the contract needs to be for doesn't say that the contract can't be cancelellable. It just says when they go to the planning board, they just have to say, "Hey, I have this agreement, you know, for 12 parking spots over here and
as soon as they get their approval that they just cancel the agreement." Like there's there's nothing here that says it has to be maintained. There's nothing here that says if they don't do it, they have to pay the city a fine. Like we approve this building and the density
with 30 parking spots. I think I think every I think the amendment says that every December they need to supply the parking agreements >> to the director of community development. >> Yeah. >> So in a situation where they did not >> um
>> so they don't say say you ask them you're the director of community development and it's December 1st and you don't get it and it's just suddenly it's December 5th and you call them and they're like yeah sorry we just don't have it anymore. like what do what will
you do? What will you do at that moment? What does the document allow you to do? >> I don't have the document in front of me and also that would have to go into a future document. I my understanding redevelopment council is not here. So
that's going to be transferred to the HOA. Whatever the penalty is with those outstanding obligations, I'm sure it would revert back to that. Now, >> I I I guess what I would love to see um
is this being delayed. One meeting, just one meeting to very specifically tighten that language. That makes it more of a hammer. I know you're chomping at the bit, Phil. um that makes it more of a
hammer to make sure that they are complying and providing 12 spaces for the additional density that they're getting. Otherwise, this is just what we always do in Hoboken is a burden shift from a developer who made a bad choice,
made a bad contract, whatever it is, to Hoboken residents and taxpayers. And I don't think that's fair. Go ahead. You're next. Councilman Cohen, >> I actually am going to compliment what you said. I I don't have any issue with you saying in fact I raised the exact same issue with director brand
>> because I had the same concern >> and what I discussed with the director maybe you don't remember was the was the concept of possibly them losing their certificate of occupancy that I I mean that's what we talked about as a possible remedy and that that would be memorialized in the agreement so that if
they fail to demonstrate that they have leases for the requisite number of spots offsite that they simply will not be able to rent out their condo or sell their condo units anyway, they'll lose their certificate of occupancy. And that's what you and I discussed. I don't know if you if you had any additional
discussion with redevelopment council about that, but but that was I specifically had the same concern >> and yeah, no, I just I I I'm literally complimenting what you did because I had the exact same concern. I've been dealing with this developer personally
myself. uh whenever this fellow has a problem, he tries to make it the city's problem. And I want to make sure that that if he if he marches into the zoning department or the building department that they don't just issue a CO to him,
if he hasn't satisfied the requirements of this commitment. I >> I did have a conversation with the redevelopment council. I'd have to look back to my notes. I know that this was something that we discussed. Uh it's okay if you want to push if you want to hear >> put this to the next meeting. We can uh we can revisit the conversation. That's
not an issue. >> All right. Perfect. >> Moved. >> Thank you. >> We will be pulling CD3. Uh CD8. >> It's pulled. >> Council Panzano. >> Yeah. I I think there's
um some misconceptions here in the public on this ordinance. There's a resolution. Sorry. There's um >> there's a process that the subcommittee has to go through or the city has to go through on this. And I wish some of my
the residents that brought up these um thank you for those that are here. >> Uh there's been initial discussions. There has been nothing signed sealed. There's been stuff put forth. Councilman Cano has put something forward. We we discussed it. We aren't at anywhere near
a final finish finish line. This is a process where uh we have to go and look for people that might be able to help the city. This is not a this is not an RFP. This is the ability to put an RFP together. Now, that said,
to the point where there would be any type of uh ordinance passed or that, and I think Councilman Cano can agree with me on this one, that this there would be a public process on this. This is a hot issue. We get it. We understand that. However, this tonight seemed like it
stirred up a hornets's nest and it it's not a hornets's nest. All it is is doing is allowing the city to potentially look at somebody that could help the city actually execute something and therefore have the ability for an RFP. So, this is not the it's not the devil's in the
details. We're not hiding anything. And Councilman Cano did some research on this and he put something forth. It was discussed. It was the first time we discussed something like this. We had talked about it a couple of months before. This is not something that's going to happen like tomorrow. So, I
would like everybody to understand that you will have the opportunity to speak on this. This is just a step of a process of how the city has to go through something if we get to that point. If we get to that point. So, this is not an end all beall vote here. And I know that when we put those those
short-term rental nump things on there, everybody kind of gets crazy on it, but this is something that is literally kind of protocol how we have to do things if we were to actually enforce or police. I think that's the better term because there are companies out there that
actually do this and they may actually have services that could help us with some of our enforcement potentially on rent control as well. So this is this could have a silver lining to it in it, but we are not close to something that you know is going to come here next week
type of scenario. So I just want to make sure that the public knows that that this is literally just to allow when we get to a point if we do if we do they can go out to put an RFP which is a whole another process and uh councilman you can if you want to opine a little
bit more on it just it's it's procedural. >> Yeah. Uh, Councilman President Santo has forced me into awkward position of agreeing with him. Uh, which I don't appreciate. >> Phil just agreed with me and oh my god, it's amazing. It's amazing.
>> We part of the Red Sea, >> right? Um, >> we brought it back together. >> Yeah. Uh, so yes, this is there's a couple different um, uh, steps to take here. uh just to talk about like the rumors and stuff and it's like oh they're doing
this for the World Cup. Even if we passed the law today would not be able to go into effect before the World Cup. So that's the non-issue for us. So let's just take that. Okay. It is my turn to speak please. Thank you. >> I got let him finish please. No one interrupted anyone all night.
>> So um so yeah just um things that from my perspective right because I've been very public on this topic. I would like to put in a regulatory construct for this uh first and foremost to protect our below market value housing stock.
Second, uh to create the rubric so that if it is happening in town uh that is happening uh in the places and in the ways that we want. So we don't have situations where there are unruly visitors disturbing tenants because when
you're living in an apartment building, you don't go into it expecting it to be a hotel. But I do recognize that, you know, I personally, although it might turn out to be that way, I'm not in favor of a complete ban because it would just lead to, I think, a black market.
Uh, and then the last bit is the reality of tax revenue because that is a reality. So, let's not pretend that that's not a thing. I agree also with a lot of the hut people who are here before who are talking about enforcement. Uh, I do think we need to get much more aggressive in our
enforcement. most of the enforcement mechanisms puts the onus on the residents to >> on the residents to um >> can you can you finish? >> We're gonna get to you finish. >> Most of the enforcement uh puts the
burden on the residents to to file the complaint. >> So I asked the community uh development director, Mr. Brown, to put on the next CD South meeting. We'll discuss how we can talk about enhancing enforcement uh measures with with that office. I think we need to get more aggressive and we
can get creative in the subcommittee on on enabling the u the department to do so. So, thank you. >> Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Russo. >> Thank you, Council President. Uh I don't have a lot to add. I mean, uh both my colleagues are correct. This was um
simply discussed as a starting point. Uh and quite honestly, the members of that committee are all over the place. So there's there's no clear consensus on where we're going or how we're how we're moving it forward, if we're moving it forward or anything else. Um the only
thing that I'm a little confused on was maybe I misunderstood in our committee meeting. I didn't think we were going to have anything on the agenda tonight. Um am I was I wrong in that assumption that that we were going to move this forward? I thought we were going to pull this off
so that we could continue having conversations in the subcommittee. I think this this this item I thought was going forward, but the other items for the exemptions and everything else that is going to be worked through still. And
>> one thing that this does help with, council, if you don't mind, uh >> is this can help with enforcement. >> They can capture uh apartments that may be under rent control that can be violated. Now they can they
will be the violation police this management company potentially. So they do have the ability to do that. We already know that rent control room apartments should not be Airbnbed and this can help capture that.
>> Council President >> currently >> so I'm sorry Councilman >> Russo >> Mike you okay? Council President. >> Sorry, Counciloman Fischer. I apologize. >> Yeah, I >> Yeah, I'm here. I was just trying to listen on the computer.
>> I apologize. You want Are you You want to keep on going, Mike? >> I I'm fine. That's I like I said, I was I was just under a different impression. >> Thank you, buddy. Appreciate it. Yeah, I I I don't think anyone's sentiment I it it
you know this is one of those things that um when you see a phrase at the top um and you hear you know you see some of the media that it is um very polarizing and when I had spoken
with council president about this um I I think you were I'm going to put words in your mouth and feel free to say no but it sounded like whatever the presentation that you guys were able to see, the enforcement of the rent control
was the part that was more interesting than anything. But it's it's the ability to to have management around a rent control framework with short-term rentals or whatever like more crystallizing some of um crystallizing
policy but it wasn't just to say hey we want rent control or uh Airbnb and rent controlliness cuz I don't think anyone here you know wants that right we don't want to see you know we we can debate whether or not um uh single family
resident owned etc have more flexibility and I would say whatever our choices are we should get behind that irrespective of of Diane we have plenty of people that believe that in Hobok and plenty that don't but I don't think anyone up here and I'm going to put words in
everyone's mouth wants to support a building that is all should all be rent controlled not owner occupied and is fully Airbnb there's no interest up here in supporting that direction at all. No, but but they don't we don't enforce it
enough. We don't track it enough. We know that. And I think the the point of this is we there's technology out there that we're unaware of that's going to give us, you know, better tools and we should we should find that. >> This is Thank you for the for the point
there. What this tool does, it goes into Verbbo Airbnb. The city gives them all the addresses for the rent control apartments that we have registered throughout the city and it scrubs all of those websites
and see if those are being advertised on there and those individuals with this mechanism can receive violations. We all recognize that we have trouble keeping up with enforcement with people doing this and this is a mechanism to allow uh
this website or or this management company to monitor this for us uh in a much better way than we're currently doing right and whether the other things happen after that those are still conversations as everyone said President Zano said it comes those are just conversations happening but this can be
an enforcement mechanism for an existing problem period Mhm. >> Vote. >> Mr. Con? >> I bone. >> Yes. >> M. Fisher. >> Yes. >> Mrs. >> Abstain. >> Mrs. Le.
>> Yes. >> President. >> Hi. >> Mr. Cano. >> Hi. >> Mr. Russo. >> No. >> President Ramos. >> Hi. >> Uh, CD6. Councilman Russo.
God. Can I CC6 and CC7 um uh both for uh the DOTUS firm if I'm reading correctly here. >> Uh my understanding is is this and and
I'll continue to ask this this question. >> These are these are functions that were well at least the um >> what was this? >> The Oprah uh litigation stuff. CC. >> Uh, yeah, Mike. >> That's something that's always been handled in house.
>> Mike, you didn't say CD6. >> No, CC6 and >> CD6 and CD7. >> CC. >> Oh, you didn't >> I thought he said CC. >> He didn't post CD7. >> Oh, CC6. I apologize, Michael. >> All right. I thought CD6. >> That's okay. If you want me to hold off on it, I can.
>> Y I'm yelling at Director Brown to get up here. >> So, you know, I I gave him the hot foot7 general litigation. >> I told him to wake up the Oprah litigation. >> Uh Oprah's always really been handled
in-house. So, um my understanding or or my assumption I should say is that we would continue to do that because we're contracted out as our corporation council to the entire firm that that would be handled under that
$480,000 yearly. Uh now looking at it, seeing this again, that's not the case. Um, could you explain what the change is and why why we're doing that? >> I I think I understand Oh, I'm sorry. I think I understand your question. And
you asked about um OPRA more specifically for this one. And um Corporation Council to my knowledge has never handled uh true litigation. So, the OPRA that this covers is actually litigation stemming from OPRA uh denials.
He's on delay. >> All right. You ready, Mike? >> Mike, you ready? >> Yeah, I'm ready. I'm I'm I'm just listening and and trying to catch up. There's a delay. Um and then on the the general counsel uh what is what is being
performed for general counsel litigation? >> Sure. So the general litigation >> for your firm rather than what others are doing in general counsel. >> Sure. For CC7 which is general litigation. So those are really matters
that just come pretty quick. For example, bid protests or something like that. um which we had one recently. Um we have a bankruptcy issue that has popped up. And so those are the ones that again more emergent matters that can just be handled by the law firm.
It's not a question of you know the litigation itself. It's just a question of who's actually going to be handling it. So it's a little easier for me to do things like that when it's a merchant matter to be able to just give it to a litigator at the firm to be able to handle. That's a long delay.
>> Okay, there's about 10 second delay. >> Yeah, it really is. >> Sorry, just just follow up question there. Why is it that we're increasing for Dakota specifically? Why are we not
just handing that to other uh councils that we have on on retainer? >> I mean, if you have a preference of a law firm, let me know what it is. I don't know the difference. So, again, I'm comfortable with the attorneys that I have on on my roster. So, obviously, if it's an emergent matter, it's easy
for me to reach out to them and make sure they do it exactly how I expect them to do it. Yeah, I feel bad. >> Okay. Okay. All right. 10 seconds up. Mike,
you good, Mike? All right. All right. >> Think he's good. >> Hope he's hope he's okay. >> The answer wasn't that long. >> I don't know if you if you got all that. >> No,
>> no, we didn't get anything. >> Sorry. I said the only >> We didn't get We didn't get any of it. >> Who >> Who gets it? I'm just looking at the dollar amount here. like why are we increasing for one firm when we have other firms that are are or potentially
at a limit where we could tap into that, right? The mayor's been committed to trying to decrease those those contracts. So, let's continue that um through through the law firms as well. That's all I'm saying. >> All right. We appreciate it, Councilman. Thank you. Uh quot vote
>> on CC6 >> and CC7. >> Uh Mr. Con. Fire Stone. >> Yes. >> Mr. Fisher. >> Yes. >> Mrs. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Leen. >> Yes. >> President Zano. >> Hi. >> Mr. Cano. >> Hi.
>> Mr. Russo. >> No. >> President Ramos. >> I. >> Uh T2. Councilman President Xan. >> All right. So, I spoke with Jersey City. I took with Councilman Zupa. Uh because
evidently Jersey City had some issues in their caucus where they I think the quote was somebody had said that they were being taken for a ride. However, when I spoke to him later in the day, he hadn't really mustered anybody up, but
they were concerned about the contract as well. >> Mhm. >> Um I want to bring I I kind of listed a couple things. I know I mentioned some in the caucus. However, um what what's really bothering me is that a lot of the stuff like for example I understand the
the virtual stuff and things of that nature, but everything that we're doing for that is actually helping City Bike make more money as well with with that. But one of the things that I'm I'm confused on and and maybe I didn't bring it up, but I did talk to uh the
transportation director about this. So, uh, there's no ADA compliance on on the bikes. Like, there's no trikes. So, I, you know, we're we're a municipality and we have to abide by ADA laws. And so, we have a private corporation coming in and
maybe they get a special pass. I don't know. But I would think that if we're using municipal property, we should have ADA compliance and we're not ADA compliant with the bike racks. I don't know on that, but I thought that maybe that's something should be should have been in the contract. But I also think
we have to remember this and it's going to go back to we're asking our residents to pay more on the fees. We're not really asking a private company to pay more on their fees. And so I feel like City Bike gets a pass and we build their equity in the lift
program which has gone from a value of I mean this is last year's data but 250 to 500 million. Uh and I I struggle with that and I hope my council colleagues I've been asking this for a year and I feel like we're up against a deadline again and we're being forced to vote on
it and I think there's more that we can get in this. We do give a subsidy for those that ask the question. And there is a subsidy of about I mean correct me if I'm wrong director sharp but I think the numbers you said to me it was like 100 grand right roughly um we paid 200 in the old days we took in 90 am I wrong
on that >> so on a typical year it was 200,000 that would pay uh Georgia City paid more >> um in terms of revenue it varied year to year anywhere from the 90k to 120 125k range so typically there would be a
delta of 70,000 in in the best year. >> Yeah. >> In terms of being in the red, right? So it was not a revenue positive program. >> So just to clarify there, >> this we understand. Yes. We don't put the 200 out, but we only get 1% and the old contract was 4%, we would get five.
>> So again, when City Bike offers us these two contracts, two options, right? And we I spoke to you and you'd said you'd gone back and asked for of course more percentages. They said go Yeah. Bye. No, not happening. Uh I feel though that as a
council and Jersey City feels I think the same way is that the contract doesn't give enough back. You know, we have um they are not going to be they don't have to be compliant with the new ebike laws coming. So you can get on a city bike, you don't need registration, you don't need insurance, don't need anything of that. So they got to carve
out on that. It seems like everything with the municipalities, these guys get some benefit. And believe it or not, I'm saying a private company getting benefit, massive benefit from our public space, we should get more out of it. That's all I'm saying. I want you guys to understand that when we vote on this,
this is also a three-year contract, nonADA compliant, which I'd love to look deeper into. Uh, and there's a 2-year option on that. So, I just as we ask our residents for more, if we get more back from City Bike, you know, you can do
more with the program. And I'm not against the program because it's successful. We have more almost as many rides as Jersey City does. In fact, I thought we should have been driving the discussions because it's been successful here versus City Bike, even though they have more stations, we do more here. So,
I was a little disenfranchised with that. But the fact that Jersey City's council also expressed some concern, didn't follow up on it, should raise our eyebrows at least that we should keep this on the radar to see what we can do. Because if we can siphon off another percent, it's too late if we vote on it,
but if we can siphon off one or two more percent and the numbers go up, well, that's more money for us and it helps all the fees that everybody wants to talk about here. So, I'm I just want to say that this contract to me meant a lot. Meaning that I think we could have
got a lot more out of it because we are a model city for City Bike. We are literally a model city. So, I when you make your vote tonight, I'll be voting no because I think we can get more out of the program. I am happy with what City Bike's done and I'm not against it. I just think the the contract should have had more into it where we get a
benefit. >> Yeah. Let me just clarify real quick. So yeah, I mean we all want to get more out of the contract, right? But just the nature of competitive contracting, right, a concession agreement, the way local public contract law works, we've kind of talked about this, right? It all
it all comes down to the scope of work that's in the RFP, right? So the scope of work goes out and you receive proposals back basically and then they're evaluated by an evaluation committee. And once a uh highest ranked
vendor is selected, you're you're largely prohibited from being able to to negotiate real material terms like a higher revenue share, right? You can make an ask, but ultimately uh if you go too far on the negotiation side and there are material
differences from uh what was asked for in the scope versus what ends up in the final contract, then you could be at risk of uh having a challenge, right? In this case, Lyft was the only respondent, right? Less likely. Uh but at the end of
the day with this situation, basically you have two choices. either uh you reject all the bids, right? In this case, one bid and you go back out to RFP if you want better terms, or you vote on what's there, right? And that's kind of what's before both city councils tonight. And uh if uh you don't don't
vote to adopt this uh contract tonight, then the uh 60-day extension that's in place right now will expire at the end of this month, and that will require another extension to keep the current program operating. uh which for both cities will be tens of thousands of dollars and a tough budget year. So I
just just putting that all out there. >> So the question you brought up an interesting point. >> I know you weren't here last year but for a year I've been asking about the city bike contract and I only found it by happen stance and having a conversation with somebody from Jersey City that oh it's going on and then I
finally hammered away a little bit. And so what you're telling me with the contract law and again I fair and I appreciate that that there's protocol but going into it then the conversation I was trying to have for a year with I'll say the last administration I I
don't think uh Mayor Jabore really this it kind of just dropped on her desk kind of after probably there was already discussions but during those times like when a council person's asking that cuz they know that something's coming up and they know that it's a success and there we know we can get more and we have questions. The bottom line one is the
ADA in compliance. I don't know how they get away with it because we're a municipality. We have to be ADA compliant. That is not We have a contract with them. That's not AD. There's no trike on there. There's no ability for somebody that I don't understand how we can do that. But what
I'm really struggling is that, you know, take it or leave it type of thing. We have too many times contracts come back to this council. It's take it or leave it. And I just think going forward like on something like this for a three-year contract, there should be some conversation, especially when the
council reaches out to your department, now you're taking over again that this communication is back cuz the feedback I gave you guys was I thought well thought out and we we actually agreed on a lot of points >> and we made the ask for all the points you included. If we would have gotten to
before the RFP, we might have been in a different scenario and we might have set the table a little bit differently and then City Bike would have had a more react. They're not stupid. They got tons of lawyers on this. But all I'm saying is I feel that this contract, yes, we get we don't put the 200,000 out. That's fine.
But I feel that there's more in here. And I would like to further pursue why we don't have to be ADA why they don't have to be ADA compliant. like why they don't have to provide I I think it's trikes but that would be a big question for me. >> We can get more info on that. I would
encourage us to actually have that direct discussion with Lyft, right? >> And kind of hear their perspective and how they operate ADA or non-ADA and other programs and the challenges around having uh trikes or ADA uh compliant, you know, bicycles in their fleet. Um, I
think it's enlightening to kind of hear it from from the operator's perspective and kind of just how practices are across the country. But, uh, and the last thing I'll say is last last last thing hopefully it's very late. Um, the scope of work, the specs in the RFP did
try to incentivize through the the evaluation and scoring criteria the highest possible revenue share. And sometimes when you get one respondent and you know, you get what you get. So, um, >> ju just so the they're monopoly. We sign
in there that we they there's no competition that can come in. Correct me if I'm wrong. >> They have a monopoly on this in Jersey City and Hoboken. Lift can't come. >> What do you mean by monopoly? Sorry. No competition. No other bike share can come in. >> Exclusivity. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Okay. So, that's a monopoly. Just so >> for three years. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That that that's a that's a term that is competition in the gets you better in the contract. Yeah, I I I agree. I agree. We would all love to have 10 responses. >> Council official, please. >> Yeah.
>> So, I just uh two things. Firstly, um a member of the public came up and was all excited that there are scooters in this contract. I just want to be very clear. There are no scooters in this contract. >> No scooters. >> It basically just >> carves out and says that they're not
included. if they ever were to be included, we have the right to decide that and to have a future conversation. So there's no scooters. >> No scooters. They mention scooters in their proposal because it's something that they want to do at some point. >> Uh but no, we made very clear both
cities are on the exact same page there and that's not happening without an additional side contract. What the the one thing I would say in my my experience being um on the council for 10 years and I think Councilman Russo is on the phone. What we don't do a good
job of is understanding our value in these and we we don't negotiate great contracts and this isn't pointed. I just I I don't know how we can do a better job. And I say Councilman Russo because we were going to do like a smart cities thing years ago where we were going to
build those giant we're going to have these giant kiosks. They were going to build it for free and we were giving away all of our data and if it didn't work we were going to be stuck with them and had to get rid of them. And we just we were moving we were just moving forward without any economic analysis
any understanding of the value of the data of our community. And when we did push, Mike and I pushed, we we did an uh we hired someone to do an analysis and they came back and just said, "Walk away from this." like you are leaving so much
money on the table and I feel like we don't do the financial analysis of our own and we we need like a we need to hire whatever financial firm we have to do economic analysis before we go and
negotiate an RFP right it shouldn't just be we want these terms and the operational you know considerations it should be someone should review all the economic data Like to to Paul's point, our and we we learned this our um our
network in Hoboken and our use is way more profitable and way more active than Jersey cities, right? They're just different, right? They're very they're sprawling. We're concentrated. Um and that has a tremendous amount of economic value. And just going in knowing what
knowing what City Bank is, City is, sorry, City Bike is making, knowing what we're making, being able to, you know, project that out and come up with, you know, the cut that we want to have, especially thinking about expanding and then creating an RFP around that. I just
think we I just think we need to do better around all our contracts. And we saw that with the scooters. When we had the scooters, we left so much money on the table to begin with because we wanted to be the first in New Jersey. and then we went back to add more economics. Well, let's just try maybe and think of the a better way to get
more economics first and bring some maybe more math financial people um involved. >> Council Russo, >> thank you, Council President. and and my colleagues covered a lot of a lot of things that I want to speak about so I won't rehash it but
you know I I just find it sometimes I find it comical where you have members of the public or even members of the council who who talk about you know subsidizing something or not subsidizing something and then in
the very next breath you hear the same people come to the microphone and say, "Hey, let's use all those parking fee increases that you just passed to subsidize my bike program >> because that's what I use to get around Hoboken or get in and out of Hoboken.
>> I mean, it's it's almost comical at some point. Again, I don't mind subsidizing for people. That's part of what government does. But to be so brazen as to say, I'm not concerned about one member of the public
because I want to use that revenue I'm generating off their back to subsidize the program that I use. And then to understand that we're not, as Tiffany just put it, we're leaving a lot of money on the table. And Paul articulated
the same point. City Bike thinks they have it all locked up all the time. I'm inclined to just tell City Bike, "Sorry, but no thanks." I promise you there'll be an up andcoming bike share program that'll
come into Hoboken in a week. Especially with a deal similar to what we're put putting forward tonight. It's just frustrating to me. It really is. People think that they could walk into Hoboken and they could step on our residence and I'm not about it.
>> I appreciate it, Council President. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh, and Council Cohen, I'm sorry. >> Thank you, Council President. Uh, I guess a different point of view on this. Uh, I appreciate Councilman President saying this is a successful program. I mean, I
know that the the uh uh the station 11th in Washington closest to me had 35,000 more than 35,000 rides starter begin just in the last year out of that place. Uh if if and I also appreciate
Councilman President saying that, you know, we're kind of at the deadline here because if we don't approve this tonight, >> we're going to risk a suspension of service when we have so many people who rely on it for commuting and everything else to get from point A to point B.
Number one. Number two, we risk being charged, I believe, $18,300 a month uh as a charge, which we would not incur incur otherwise. and we would have to go out to bid again likely to get another vendor to get into the process which is
going to be a minimum of three months where we could have a suspension of service while we have to pay $18,300 a month. So, uh, Director Sharp is suggesting it could be even longer than 3 months. So, so, uh, we're we're we're not in a good spot right now. And and
and uh it's not to say that we couldn't be in a better spot, although it it was good to hear uh from uh Mayor Solomon and and Mayor Jabor last week and their joint announcement that we are going to be saving $200,000 a year, which was
referenced in the earlier discussion, that we would have ordinarily had to pay on our last deal. Uh and that it is, you know, we've this is not our first rodeo with respect to bike share programs. Uh we had the next bike program. We had a a
Hudson bike program. Uh and they were not as good as this program. They were they were they were not as uh you couldn't use them in New York City like you can do here. A lot of people commute in the city take advantage of that. Uh there's a lot of advantages to having
the city bike program. Of course, we can do we can always look at doing better. Uh, and you know, to Councilman President's point, if we can start having discussions earlier in the process, maybe when we send out to bid with Jersey City, we can have some aspects in there that we could do better
on. But where we are tonight, I really think it uh we should support this program and work on improvements for the next time around. Thank you, Council President. >> Thank you. Call a vote >> on T2. >> Councilman Cohen,
>> I. Councilman Firestone, >> yes. >> Counciloman Fischer, >> yes. >> Councilwoman Imus, >> yes. >> Council L, >> yes. >> Councilman Preszano, >> regurg. >> Councilman Cano, >> I. >> Councilman Russo,
>> no. >> Council President Ramos, >> hi. >> T3. >> Uh, all right. Uh, we are finished with the items. >> T3. T3. >> I apologize. I just Tiffany, I just question T3. Uh,
I'm appreciative of Andrew Wilson's impassioned plea. >> We're almost done. >> She's She's >> I'm appreciative of uh Mr. Wilson's impassion plea to Will you
>> Can she speak, please? >> I know. I know. I know. Um 13th Street has needed to be improved for four years. Um it's been a rough road, pun intended,
and tonight this is to improve it. Uh from Hudson Street all the way over to Willow. Um and by improvement, it's a repaving of the road ADA. Um, >> Pascalina,
>> Pascalina, she's I can't hear her. She's speaking. >> Um, it is ADA upgrades at the corner and it is making improvements to the sidewalk. It is not widening the sidewalk. Um, there are a couple instances where we are uh bumping out
the sidewalk to keep trees. Um, the original plan that the city put forward was to eliminate like 17 trees where we are now. No, no, don't worry. >> I know. I know. I know. Shock and awe. >> Please.
>> It is uh we're down to eliminating seven trees, but replanting two trees and and modifying the sidewalk to accommodate some of the existing trees. >> Thank you. The reason just the reason
why I wanted to pull it um is and it pegs off first of all I want people to know we're doing it is it pegs off something we just talked about with the city bike >> this >> all right Pascalina it's time go ahead
>> um we spent a lot of emotional time and a lot of time with neighbors uh on the redo of this road and where we left off last fall. Pascalina, >> Pascalina, she's speaking, >> please.
>> Um, where we left off last fall was a group of a large group of neighbors talking with um our former HBO director and and providing feedback, wanting to maintain trees, etc. You know, we were
in a maril race. Our former HPO director left. we it just kind of um fell by the wayside at the end of the year and then I I waited to bring it up again um this year with a new mayor. We had blizzards
etc um until recently and I received a text from the mayor saying that this was going to be on the agenda that we had to have a public meeting and in fact we had to award a contract before the end of the month or we would lose the money. In order to award a contract, you had to
put an RFP out for the contract, which meant you had a plan that was approved by someone in a room that agreed that this is the plan. We're going to go seek a contract. All of which happened since January. And I wasn't notified. None of
the um neighbors were notified. So to this point where things happen within the city and they just unwilling to engage um and continue a process that had four years and it's my neighbors are
incredibly frustrated and insulted by it. I'm incredibly frustrated and insulted by it and I just want that not to be the case on a go forward basis. Like if if we have a community meeting and there's a follow-up, like let's be respectful of all the people that are
involved that put time and effort to try and come up with a great outcome as opposed to once again waiting till the last minute, gun to our head, have to get it done or, you know, the sky is falling. That was a Don Zimmer thing. It was always the sky is falling, sky is falling, sky is falling, sky is falling.
Let's not have that be the theme of this administration. But I hope everyone does support it tonight. Um, it's a big improvement and it should be done by the end of the summer. >> Thank you. Call vote. >> Mr. Conn, >> I stone. >> Yes.
>> Fisher. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Yes. >> Mrs. Le. >> Yes. >> Mr. Presidento. >> Hi. >> Mr. Canero. >> Hi. >> Mr. Russo. >> Hi. >> President Ramos. >> I. >> Ordinance for intro uh first reading.
An ordinance to amend chapter 58-23 permits to introduce block party permit fees. >> Call vote. >> Mr. Con? >> I. >> By Stone. >> Yes. >> Fisher. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Imus. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Le. >> Yes. >> President.
>> We have >> Wait, which one was it? >> Ordinance number one. >> Ordinance one. >> First reading. >> Permits. >> Oh, no. No. >> No. >> Cano. Hi, Mr. Russo. >> We already voted on that.
>> Mr. Russo. >> No. Do we have the >> might be on mute? >> We get back. President Ramos. >> Sorry, buddy. Uh, no. >> He's in there. >> No. >> Okay. Ordinance for introduction amending chapter 192 entitled parking
for persons with disabilities to replace reserve space with a general space on Third Street between Garden Street and Boomfield Street. >> Colote. >> Mr. Con. >> Hi. >> Fly Stone. >> Yes. >> Miss Fisher. >> Yes. >> Mus.
>> Yes. >> Mrs. Le. >> Yes. President. Hi. >> Mr. Cano. Hi. >> Mr. Russo. Hi, >> President Ramos. >> I order for introduction amending the redevelopment plan for the Northwest
industrial redevelopment area. >> Is is this >> Mr. Con? >> Is this for >> Is this for water music? >> Do we know, >> Dr. Brown? I can't remember.
>> Is this for water music? is for water music, but the plan amendment does not go into the details of what we were discussing. I think you can adopt this on first tonight and then by the time it gets to second, we would have already hashed out the thing that
we need to hash out with the agreement and you can do both in one fell swoop. >> But what is going what goes to the planning board? >> That's >> both the both this and the agreement go to the planning board together. No, the plan amendment goes to the planning board. You're sending the plan
amendment. So, the plan doesn't allow for off-site parking. The what the plan amendment that you're voting on here on first reading >> would allow for off-site parking in that in that sub area >> um within certain parameters. So, it's just the zoning to allow for off-site parking,
>> right? But why would we want the planning board to even opine on that if if we haven't agreed to allow that without a hammer? Like I feel like that that information about the about the offsite needs to go with this. So like I wouldn't want this to go to the planning
board right now. I would want to pull this. Let's approve it and then submit it so the planning board is aware that off-site parking is only Okay. >> Thank you. >> All right. >> Pulled. >> Uh uh
>> community develop CD14 that is for >> y >> that item. So pulled. Uh let's do we're going to do new business really quickly if we can. Uh one sec. We're going to go new go to new business first. Uh just get these two items.
>> All right. >> Transportation and parking. NB1 and NB2. We can vote them at the same time. >> This is NB1 is the emergency portion of it. All right. >> NB2 is for the overnight uh paving hours uh because Marina is still closed and
this allows them to do some paving overnight hours as as making a little less of a traffic nightmare. >> All right, questions. Call vote. Mr. Con? >> I fly Stone. >> Yes. >> Miss Fischer. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Zimus? Yes. >> Mrs. Le? >> Yes.
>> Mr. Presidento? Hi. >> Mr. Cano, hi. >> Mr. Russo >> I >> President Ramos >> I and then we're going back to the ordinance introduction for first reading. We have the emergency portion
of it and then the amendment. Uh do we want to read the amendments? >> Yeah, we didn't get it. >> You have it. >> I think I gave it to you, Phil. >> I think I gave it uh >> Oh, no. No, I had it >> and I think I hand it over to uh Jerry. >> Oh, we signed it. >> We signed it.
We did have it. >> Thank you. I can't read it. I can't see it though. >> Okay. Uh here's here's the change part. uh recipients of supplemental nutrition assistance program SNAP benefits and
residents of the Hobok and Housing Authority, Section 8 housing and single room occupancy SRO housing at 1301 Washington Street and other senior living uh residential properties including but not limited to 4001st Street Marian Tower, 76 Bloomfield
Street Colombian Towers, 514 Madison Street, Colombian Arms, and to whom the signage bears their vehicle registration 50% of the fee for the first vehicle per household in accordance with chapter 141A-2I sub one.
>> Thank you. Uh call vote. >> All right. Let's do NB3 for the urgency. >> Yep. Vote. >> Mr. Con. >> I Stone. >> Yes. >> Fisher. >> Yes. >> Mrs. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Le. >> Yes. >> PresidentO. >> Hi. >> Mr. Caterero. >> Hi.
>> Mr. Russo. >> Hi. >> President Ramos. >> Hi. >> Now for the ordinance. on uh on the ordinance. Mr. Con. >> Firestone. >> Yes. >> Fisher. >> Yes. >> Mrs. >> Yes. >> Mr. Le.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Presidento. >> Hi. >> Mr. Cano. >> Hi. >> Mr. Russo. >> I President Ramos. >> I >> uh public portion. Uh Pascalina. Pascalina. Pascalina. You made it. I
>> feel like she's already spoken. You wasted your five words. What's the sign you saying to every day? Why you have a word? You put so many handicap
a lot of I 10 years ago. I pay 10 years ago. I bring all the P all the time. Now they make me wait to 12 for most. I don't mind to wait. Thank God I'm empty to wait. Okay. What's the reason? I want
to know. I want to know the reason. Why? Why they approve? >> I'm not a part of the committee. >> You lost the tongue after tonight. >> You saying 20 days. >> You haven't been approved. >> Huh? Your application has not been approved at this time. >> Not going to approve.
>> No. >> Why not? >> I'm not I'm not part of the committee. >> Do you understand? That's what you do. Do you understand? I have experience. I have experience with everything. You put so many in the cup.
So many zone. Who told you that? Mariana try everything he can. Brana lawyer the cons all try to intimidate me. I not been intimidated. You understand? I not being good guy for I take care of people. Good
thing. So I like to know who the first line shot last year. Oh I see. I see. Then second you mafia okay tell come
all this side for this Ibn live public that's what apartment look like that's disgust if you don't know
you understand I want to know what's Who's this person who said no she can why? Why you said in 20 you don't know for sure don't open your mouth >> you understand >> I had the address wrong >> don't open your mouth because
you understand I like to know why and why I want to know that's it 21 years I wait one time thank god I see a lot of people behind the bar and I don't give up now this place everybody
think I steal my That's all I say. You make me wait because somebody tell you let her wait. She get frustrated and come. No, I not get frustrated and I come. I don't care if you wait until tomorrow morning. I don't get frustrated till I find out the truth. Till you say
who's this person who said no. >> I don't know. >> I park by the mid for a few minutes. They give me ticket. at paper set 90 75 a minute for 15 minutes for the regular car. Not for me,
not for handicap. Why you put so many handicap bend for the zone money talk money talk the money do everything. So the person who said no now you say yes
and the lady I don't know what's the name over there you say I call you tomorrow I know you're not cool I said I say yes but I know somebody told you zap your mouth somebody told you I know what I say I went through many years
many years I went through with the mafia I know the mafia all over but thank God for I take care a lot of the mafia thank god So I not give up. I want to know why. How many people when Shend the Roose
sing never be day type. Do you understand? >> Mhm. >> If you don't know what you said, don't say started the guys over there for the Oh, I learned then you lost your tongue. Everybody if you know words to do nothing don't get involved. I'm not
afraid of the talk. I'm not afraid. When I said the truth, that's the truth. Ryan shot got to know. He got to know what he did. Roose George told me he seen a lot of money. George,
he told me and the TD bank. Okay. I know he pass. So I don't give up. >> Okay. >> I don't want no ticket by the home. I park for 1 minute. 15 seconds. >> 15 seconds before
>> to till your time is up >> on the talk. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> I talk I told you already everything. Everybody know you know >> you lose. >> Thank you.
>> Elizabeth Adams. Could you come down more, please? >> Could you put the mic down more, please? >> It's not. >> Yeah, you do. >> Oh, okay. Oh, it's manual. All right. Sorry. All right. Now, as I say, for
something completely different. Good evening. Tonight, I'd like to begin by expressing my appreciation to and for the intelligent and articulate people who showed up to actively express their First Amendment right of freedom of
speech at the April 8th, 2026 Hoboken City Council meeting. However, it was very surprising and extremely disappointing to discover that Steven Stevens Institute long considered
to be a leader in the Hoboken community does not share in this viewpoint. Even though it is true that Stevens like Columbia University is a private institution and therefore feels that it is their right to dictate their own
policies regarding retaining or not retaining any members of their faculty or student body. If they receive any sort of federal or even state assistance or grants, perhaps they might be persuaded to sing a different tune in
this regard. Truly free and open discourse and dialogue is essential if we are to progress, evolve, and therefore advance as a society and ultimately as a civilization.
Switching gears, I would like to discuss some outstanding topics regarding Earth Day as they especially relate to Hoboken. I am speaking here of the continuing problem of the careless
discarding of plastic bottles, most commonly water bottles throughout Hoboken. Apart from the city providing more receptacles to adequately deal with this issue, in the meantime, matters could be
greatly alleviated if people would simply choose to be responsible and not randomly discard the bottles to begin with. Contrary to what some people may choose to believe, all of these bottles
do not somehow magically disappear. In reality, if they are not properly disposed of, they will inevitably end up in a landfill where they will not readily decompose or worse in our rivers
and ultimately in our oceans where they will threaten marine life and ultimately our entire ecosystem. Some years ago, I had the opportunity to view a documentary here in Hoboken,
which is also available at tunes entitled Plastic Paradise. I guarantee that if you've rolled your eyeballs on this topic, this documentary will permanently cure you of that tendency.
It's also interesting to note that many times upon encountering these bottles, I have found many bottles half full, 3/4 full, or even completely full and not even opened at all. Instead of allowing all of this found
water to go to waste, I take these bottles to whatever tree or trees that are nearby and give them a drink, after which I put the used bottles into the nearest recycling bin. This Friday, April 24th, is National
Arbor Day, which actually has a longer history in our country than Earth Day. It honors our trees that effectively function as an integral part of the respiratory system of our planet. I have
more to say regarding this topic. However, it will have to wait until next time. In the meantime, remember that every day should be considered to be Earth Day and is as it is indeed our precious home. Thank you for your time.
>> Thank you, Enrique. How's it going, guys? So, uh, my public portions is going to be dedicated toward a certain email I received involving a young lady that, uh, emailed me in regards to my book and how I, uh, spoke of it at the city hall meeting and how
she described it as a civil intervention disguised as a Mr. novellet that raised neuroeththics concerns and violations that would occur if in the event the book in question if my book were correct if were true of technology being malicious
it would be the case I wanted to add on to that because I actually like that idea I thought it was a good idea so um neuroeththics in my opinion would be if not is the result of faith-based systems technological based systems taking a stand against malicious use of technology that involves
real-time uninterrupted communication and real time sensory transmission. If you touch your face and I feel it, if you go to acupuncture five times a week and I feel it on my skin on the same spot, you needle yourself with that with you knowing that your existing is pestering others will be brought up in
an an ethics committee and you will be questioned. To incorporate that in some sense of a future scale that if there were ever technology like that, we could in fact actually hold committees and hold people responsible for even the most minute violations. That'd be the best case scenario.
I'd like to quote the pope. The world is being ravaged by a handful of tyrants. And if in the event this type of technology is even available tomorrow, it's up to us today to actually remove it. That's why if anything else I'd like to make a declaration that if in any event
any and all women of this planet are using this magical uninterrupted real-time technology that all women are absolved of the crime and sin of using said advance to real-time uninterrupted magical technology. That being said, evacuate that technology. Leave the real
time Neuralink scientist lobby. Thank you. >> Thank you, Enrique. Mark Yes. Yes. Yes. Don't. Yes. I do that. >> All right. So, I am here to talk about the uh Grand Street Pilot Project.
>> We had a good meeting >> on March 31st at Our Lady of Grace about this fiasco. We had four council people attend and we had scores of people show up. And I want to just highlight the
shortfalls of this program. First of all, it eliminates 20% of uh street parking spots. It allows no parking space for appliance, furniture, food, or package deliveries without blocking the street. It provides no parking space for ride
share, drop offs, and pickups without blocking the street. It offers no parking space for residents to load or unload vehicles without blocking the street. It offers no parking space to load or unload a disabled person. It offers if it offers narrow streets
presenting danger to passing cars and bikes as car passengers open their door to exit their vehicles. It prevents poor visibility and blind spots for cars entering and exiting Acme and other driveways increasing likely of a car car or carike collision. It offers
protected bike lanes which pose a danger to pedestrians and other cyclists as ebikes and scooters often ride the wrong way on the protected lanes. It prevents more danger pedestrians as they have to now cross two lanes of traffic. Prevents emergent vehicles from passing as narrow
lanes are blocked by delivery and ride share vehicles. Um and it has caused businesses up to 40% of their business due to lack of parking. And even just recently this week, um
even when the trucks are complying and they're parked on the right side of the street, >> when you have cars on the left side, even a Budweiser truck or a landscape truck today, if they're even 6 in away from the right, that causes a problem to pass down that street.
So even even in compliance and plus they take up a number of spots. Um I think the whole bike lane situation is it's kind of lost uh it was created to encourage fitness and to reduce the carbon footprint and um
it does neither because we have either we have ebikes and instead of a scooter burning gas we have a power plant burning gas to power those batteries. The ballards make it more difficult to
park for a minute and they keep destroying those ballots ballots and they have to be replaced. The ballots prevent the entire street from either being plowed or cleaned. Uh the ballads make snow removal
impossible. I'd like there to be a moratorium on these ballots. They're very obnoxious. They just keep popping up all over the city. The point is you paint the street as you like and then you put cross lines in it and then if
people park there to an excessive time you ticket them or you tow them but these pallets just create there's no place to even park for a minute. You need an offramp and we don't have one with these. Um and then we have another pilot. So,
there's a lot of outrage about this Grand Street failure pilot and now we have another pilot, the Adam Street pilot and um I mean the whole process is confusing because you got a DOT grant I'm not even
sure I understand it. You got a DOT grant to repave Grand Street and to retain it and then they added all this pork. They put in um they put in ballast. They put in pre preset parking spaces. They put in a protected bike
lane. They didn't get they got no income from it. No input from anyone regarding this situation and they just did it. And now they want to do it to Adam Street. So what's that going to be? The DOT grant I believe is for repaving and
repainting. Now are we going to put in this pork again with this this Adam Street grant? We have one failure here. Now we're going to have another failure here. So, I just say that the DOT grant, and it's unclear what these grants are for, should be to
repave Adam Street and paint it, repaint it, and then let's reverse that Grand Street fiasco and rip up all those ballots and
repaint it and stop with this all this this ridiculous pre pre-parking that reduces parking. and uh go from there and also get people's input because this was kind of snuck in there. We had no idea this was going to happen and was so unpopular
that the ceremony the ceremony was cancelled when it was to to to kick this thing off. >> Thank you, Mark. Appreciate it. Thank you, >> Cheryl Alec. >> Yeah, we ask him. >> There's five minutes to midnight and
there's another speaker. I just want to >> We have two more speakers. We got you. >> Okay. >> You worry. >> So, I I I do appreciate that the council did pull CD8, the Airbnb resolution. I'm so used to these things just getting voted on in the consent. So, we got to
hear a bit from the council and I I must admit it was one of the more condescending council comments that I've ever heard. Does anybody up there really think that me, Mary Atraka or Eric Vulpi
misunderstood something when it comes to what you're putting on the agenda? like don't don't don't Yeah. Um what's going on is kind of the old hobok and shul. We used to do it with redevelopment zones. Oh, we're not
passing a redevelopment. We're just sending it to the planning board for them to consider it. We're not doing anything. We're just moving down the tracks. Even putting that resolution on Tiffany on the city council agenda is evidence
of clear Tiffany intent intent to pass Airbnb legislation. And I'll tell you what else I heard. Oh, we'll all get to talk about it. We'll get to talk about it after you put forward something that is horrible.
There's no doubt in my mind. And I'm going to tell you why. So, I'll get to the banning Airbnb in rent controlled units in a second, except for the special carveouts for Councilwoman Fischer's friends who have brownstones and want to Airbnb, the
garden unit or something else. Non rent controlled units. I actually happen to live in a non-renrolled building right now. I got to tell you something. I don't want strangers in the hallway. That's a safety issue. I pay attention to the people who get on the
elevator because I want to know who lives in that building. And these are market units. And that means when the market gets a little soft and nobody will rent the $3700 tiny little one-bedroom, guess what
happens? Airbnb. I don't want that next door to me. I really, really don't. Now, as far as banning it in rent control departments, especi except the special little carveouts,
this is a city council who doesn't do anything nothing nothing about tear downs. You actually vote for them. You uphold what the zoning board does. When somebody goes to the zoning board and says, "I want to tear down my rent controlled building that has eight
tenants in it." And the tenants are like, "Please don't do that." And the owner may even know that they they don't have a right to tear to evict those tenants for that purpose. But what happens is the tenant is living in a building that they know that owner wants
them out. And periodically the owner says, "Hey, there's a unit you can move to over here or hey, you want $6,000 to haha pay for your move?" So when you create that kind of pressure on rent control departments, particularly those
that are not in a historic area, they're the next on the chopping block to be torn down. And none of you have ever even considered any legislation to do any sort of protection of those buildings. And there are things you can
do. I think New York City just passed something. It's not good enough, but it would be a start. So, um, thinking that you're taking care of the below market units, landlords who happen to have below market units that are actually happen to
happening to charge the legal below market rate, they're going to be resentful and before you know it, they're going to bail. They're going to sell it to a developer. Bye-bye. If you want to pass Airbnb legislation, it has to be extraordinarily
restrictive. And you know what? If you thought about it for 30 seconds, you'd know that Cheryl Phallic has already written the extraordinarily restrictive Airbnb legislation. It's not going to bring in that much money. But honestly, what you're considering is not
going to bring in that much money either. And then I want to say something about enforcement where we all talk about how we don't enforce really well. Yeah. You know what? No >> Right. Because like sitting RIGHT UP THERE ON THE DEIS, YOU have an illegal
rent being charged right now. Just look to your left or your right depending on where you're sitting and nobody says a word. Lastly, if you noticed when I spoke, I said I hear that you're going to try to model
this on the Jersey City legislation. I said that. And later on, Council if we need Yes, I hear. I see. Later on, Councilwoman Fischer goes, "Oh, if we have to do some special something or other for single family buildings." Yeah, that's right. You're trying to
undermine it. I guarantee you this will go to the ballot if you don't open it up to the public before you put whatever trash you're going to put in front of us first. It's not going to happen. If I personally have to collect every single
signature for a referendum, it's not going to happen. Thank you. Thank you, Cheryl. >> Motion to go for the meeting for two more speakers. >> We're extending. We're extending the meeting. >> Mary. >> All right. Voting to extend past
midnight. Councilman Cohen, >> I. >> Councilman Firestone, >> yes. >> Councilman Fischer, >> yes. >> Councilman Immus, >> yes. >> Council Le, >> yes. >> Councilman Preszano, hi. >> Councilmano, I. >> And Council President Ramos, >> I. Mayor Andrea, right? >> Thank you. You really could have been
dirty and said no, >> but you wouldn't do that to me. Mary Andrea, 159 Street. I once again would be grateful for all your attention as I give all of you my attention. I uh was stunned to learn that there
were 688 uh B&Bs, Airbnbs in this town. And then I just found out there's over a thousand. That's a lot. That's a lot that you're not benefiting from. That's a lot of people that don't
have a place to live. And nobody wants to live in a hotel. Nobody wants to live in a hotel. Now, I know I'm not a muddied person and I don't have any power, but I still don't want to live in a hotel and my friends don't want to live in a hotel either.
So, the class system continues to go on in this town. Now, I have a couple of quotes that were made tonight by Tiffany and Mr. Cohen that would actually validate my suggestion. Oh, don't look so down
child. And it's not a bad comment. Uh you mentioned that Hoboken I'm sorry that we was it was regarding something about that the that we have a overwhelmed staff problem and
that we have an administrative nightmare and it was in earlier on in the meeting. I'm sorry I didn't write down what it was but that's not a bad thing. You were just commenting on the stress and the problems that this poor city has that it just can't get its job done. You didn't
say that, >> but you said it was overwhelmed um overwhelmed staff problem administration of nightmare. Go look at the tape. >> It was it was with respect to something that they weren't doing there. >> That's right. I I'm in agreement. I'm
not faulting you. I just thought those were good words. And Tiffany, you said something very good. I have to say your suggestion. We need quote. We need to review economic value for negotiations and RFPs. You know, I hear
the thread all the time. You only have three days to make this decision. So, a lot of times you make poor decisions based upon money, but you're going to lose it. Now, I've seen those packets. They're ridiculously gargantuan and I know
nobody gets through them. So, I have a suggestion for looking at the economic situations, for handling the rent control offices, for handling all those overwhelming
duties that people have, you need AI. Now I have been reading about AI since 2022 and the Financial Times, Wall Street Journal and um they they talk about it most. I really like the
Financial Times myself. It's very good writers and um Anthropic is the way I would go. Not Alman, but you need you don't have the ability. You won't have to worry about paying medical insurance.
I'm cold, hard, and realistic like every businessman out there is. And whether you like it or not, it's coming. And it will do a better job if it does numbers and calculations. I know he can't think. It only puts in
what you put it in, but if you have to do calculations, now this city is not unlike a lot of cities in the United States that have overspent. and the CEOs. We are topheavy. Six figures for lots of you folks out
there. If you get rid of those and the worker bees that aren't making six figures, they can handle that. But you need you're going to have to do it because this city can't function. It has not been able to function for the 30some
years I've been here. You spend a lot of money, different faces, you waste a lot of money. That M Mark was talking about those ballards. I came up here once and asked what they were because they get knocked down all the time. And I went down to the city's office by where the
parking is at the time. I don't know where is now what what department it was. It was $175 per ballard. Now that's a piece of wasted money. And they were just they're just dead all over the street on mine. And you keep
putting them up. There's ways to cut. You live in a home, you can't make the rent, you can't eat, you'd make cuts. You can't eat steak, you eat beans. I grew up that way and I'm a pretty smartass woman and I'm not stupid enough
to realize you have to make cuts. The people have been living on easy street and so you're going to hurt everybody in the process unfortunately to pay for that $17 million debacle. But there's ways around it. And you're
getting rid of rent control, not you. Allowing people, Meridian is a big offender. He's got a lot of properties with multiple units and he's turning them all into BMBBS when they leave or die. And if you want
the evidence, I can give you the names. Now, I'm not gaining anything out of this. I've been up here. I've been here already almost 12:00. >> Yeah. But I'm speaking wisely. >> And I hope you understand. I'm not here
to attack you. Although it may sound like it, but I'm frustrated because I DON'T COME HERE THAT often because I'm sick of this place and I'm sick of Hoboken. Yes, I'll leave one day, but I'm stuck here right now.
But you can't keep doing what you're doing. How many people are losing their apartments to BMBBS? And how many people are not doing their job at the rent leveling board? I personally go down there to get my rent
increase. I personally go down there. You must understand it's got to work better to save any capitalist country and you've got to make money, not waste it. It's sinful to waste it. Please, I'm
not stupid. And you all know it. Or maybe the new people don't know it, but I'm one one smart dame here. >> You are. >> Yes, I am, Reuben. >> I agree. >> So, please don't make hasty decisions. And Tiffany had a good idea. And AI can
do it for you. And I'm not like a big AI fan, but I know a hell of a lot about it. So, please, and one day, you're going to be forced to use it. >> Thank you, Danny. bring us home, Manny. >> Well, well, well. A whole new day for me. I appreciate it. Council President,
I just want to say, Council President, through you, I want to thank Council Member President Sanano, Council Member Fischer, Council Member Russo. Um, in explaining T2, it is important that people know that it's not that we are
against anything. is that we want better terms for Hoboken, better fees for our community. And again, I also want to take the lead as as council member Vizano said, I would like to clarify, which I usually don't have time on the
same moment to clarify a a statement. I may have said it in my moment of of passion in my prior or yesterday's um conversation that I might have been flippid with um bike riders. I have nothing against people who ride bikes. I
thank them for saving the earth being Earth Day yesterday. So I want them to know that I have no animosity. Never have and never will. My neighbors ride bikes. My sisters and my brothers do as well. So we just want to make sure that everything is fair and equal for every
resident of Hoboken, not just the ones that have the most. and council president. There are two quick statements that not statements um public issues again because there are almost 600 people who watched the meeting. Um
Friday, April 24th is Hoboken Arbor Day tree tour. It commences at 9 gathering place at multi-ervice center. It is a great great opportunity to tour our city and understand what trees are
are all about. Just like council member Fischer was explaining before, they are very important. We should never take down trees without replacing two. Also, council president DEA National RX Takeback. It is on April 25th
and there are four locations in Hoboken. 106 Hudson Street, 221 Jackson Street, 220 Adam Street, 3113 Street. I didn't have my glasses there. So, council president, with that, I just want to say that um again, we appreciate
your time. We know that times get heated, the emotions get heated sometimes. And um again, I want to um be brief uh in lie of the time. And I just want to say um I hope we pray for the men and women for the safety of the men and women of our armed forces deployed
in conflict areas. We say Slava Ukraine, glory to Ukraine, her Slava, glory to the heroes. And with that, Council President, God bless you. God bless you all. God bless Hoboken. And I yield back the rest of my time. >> Motion to close the meeting. >> Motion second.
>> Favor. That's why I