say for Councilwoman Fischer, right? >> Uh let me see. That's what I'm looking. Hold on one second. I don't see council woman. >> Let me text her, Jerry. >> Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Okay,
>> I can start council or Okay, we'll give her a minute. Yep. No problem. >> We'll give a couple seconds. Let's see what she says and then we get ready to start the >> with the uh >> bunch of allegiance. >> Yep. Yep. You got it. >> Councilwoman Fischer will be here in a
few minutes. >> Okay. So, Thank you, Diane. Appreciate it, Councilwoman. >> Thank you. >> Let's get started, Jerry. Please. >> You got it. No problem. >> I would like to advise all those present that notice of this meeting has been provided to the public in accordance with the provisions of the open public
meetings act and the notice was published in the city website. Copies provided in the Bergen record and also placed on the bulletin board in the lobby of city hall. Written objections, if any, shall be made to the city clerk. We can all rise for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Yep. Got it.
Councilman Cohen >> here. >> Councilman Firestone >> here. Councilman Fiser. Uh, Councilman Immus >> here. >> Councilman Le >> here.
>> Councilman Preszano >> present. >> Councilman Cano >> present. >> Councilman Russo >> present. >> Council President Ramos >> present. >> We have a quorum. Council President, we can start. >> Yep. Uh the way we're going to work this
tonight, guys, and director Gonzalez can jump in to if I miss any clarifications how we want to do this tonight is we're going to have uh presentation by the director. Let them go through their presentation, take notes and any questions you may have. We'll ask them
all at the end. Uh for members of the public during that time period, if you want to ask any questions during that time period, during the presentation period, uh put anything in the Q&A. We're going to have the public portion for any live questions for members of the public at the end after all three of
our presentations. We're we're hoping we're allotting for each one an hour. So hopefully council members will I'm sure we'll have a lot of uh questions to ask uh throughout uh the evening. So we want to get all those questions in as much as we can. The process a little bit
different this year. Normally, we've had uh the budget already presented to us at this time, but this time we're basically helping or we're lending our voice to baking the cake uh with the budget. So, uh a little bit different uh process this year. So, Director Gonzalez, if I
missed anything, uh who is going to be presenting first for us? And and members of the council, uh also just uh put your hands up uh when you want to speak and then we'll go in the order that the hands uh went up. And members of the public, Rod is the person who will
invite you into the room at the end of the night. He's the person that controls uh the zoom for us, not director uh not not city clerk law and uh and so we'll take it from there. President Council President, I just want to say that Councilwoman Fischer has joined us. So
we have a full quorum. >> Awesome. So if anyone has uh any questions about that, uh Dr. Gonzalez who is going to be kicking us off this evening or batter up for opening out a baseball. I guess >> it's me.
Um so thank you so much uh Council President Ramos, Chairperson Firestone, members of the city council and members of the Hogan community uh including our city employees. Thank you so much uh for welcoming us here tonight and for your continued engagement throughout this
budget process. Um, I want to begin by uh acknowledging the extensive dialogue that started over a month ago in the administration and finance subcommittee and has continued ever since. Um, we really appreciate the time, the attention, and the patience that you've brought to this process as well as the
detailed requests for information to support your decision-making. Throughout these workshops, each director will present that information from organizational structures and divisional breakdowns to community feedback and most importantly potential cuts, revenue opportunities, and structural changes
for your consideration. This year, we have intentionally approached the process differently. As council president said, rather than reviewing a fully formed introduced budget, these workshops are designed to gather input from the council and the public to help shape the budget that will be introduced next month. So, let
me reiterate, these workshop presentations are not the introduced budget. We're here to narrow the gap and build the budget together. At its core, this discussion is about how we sustain a city that continues to grow while managing costs that are increasing faster than our revenues. To
keep us on schedule, I ask that council members hold their questions until the end of each presentation. So, thank you, Council President. And for members of the public, um please, as Council President said, please use the Zoom Q&A feature. If we're unable to get to every question this evening, we will follow up with answers in the coming days. We will
also take verbal questions at the end of tonight's workshop. Uh, additionally, we are going to leave the survey open until Friday night to collect further feedback based on workshop presentations. We've received more than 2600 responses to the survey thus far, which is more than 4%
of our population, and we really look forward to your continued participation. So, why are we here? As you know, we're facing a $17 million budget gap. And I want to be clear, this is not new information. Last year, two prior business administrators outlined a
structural imbalance and projected that we would be in this position. Those projections were accurate. In fact, the 2025 budget introduction presentation projected a $19.2 million gap for 2026. We're actually a little less than that.
This is not the result of a single decision or a single year. It's the cumulative effect of rising fixed costs, lower revenue growth, and prior reliance on one-time funding sources. So, let's put this figure into perspective. The municipal levy is about $70 million. A
$17 million gap represents roughly a 24% tax increase if only addressed through taxation. The average residential assessment would see approximately a $700 increase in the municipal portion of their tax bill. But this is exactly what we're trying to avoid. So my
presentation tonight will cover three areas. Where we are today, what is driving this current gap, and how we can work together to narrow the gap. For those watching at home, I do want to uh just define two terms um that we'll use tonight. Um I know the council is very
familiar with these. Uh ratables are the total value of all taxable property in the city. This includes homes, apartment buildings, etc. So you think of it as the size of the city's tax base, how much property value exists that can be taxed. The tax levy is the total amount
of money that the municipality needs to raise from property taxes to fund the budget. It is set during the budget process and it represents the total property tax bill for the entire city, not any individual property. So let's get into the drivers. This slide illustrates the results of
long-term structural imbalance. The demand for services is increasing because our community is growing. Costs are increasing because inflation is up, purchasing power is down, and we need to fund both recurring expenses and previously approved contractual obligations. Simply put, our revenue is
not keeping pace with expenses. This is not a one-year problem, and for several years, the gap was managed with temporary measures that we'll discuss tonight. Those measures are now largely exhausted. So, this slide breaks down the gap. On the revenue side, we are using $7
million in surplus as revenue, down from 12 million last year, which is a $5 million reduction. State aid remains flat. Miscellaneous revenue is modestly up by point4 million. And this is the net effect of two different pilots coming offline as well as an anticipated
increase in other miscellaneous revenue such as court or construction fees. Our utility surplus used as revenue is uh preliminary but includes a decrease of 1.2 2 million from the water utility and a decrease of 1.8 million from the parking utility. That reflects losses
from parking garages coming offline temporarily this year. On the expense side, um our health insurance for city employees is up about $3.2 million. Our debt service is up $1.9 million. Our personnel costs due to previously approved or unsettled collective
bargaining agreements are up $3 million. Each director will present detailed organizational charts and headcounts as requested by council tonight. Uh pension is slightly down by 300,000 and we've estimated a 1.6 million in net increases
to other expenses. Um but that number will most certainly decrease due to efforts that we will discuss during these workshops. Um these are not optional costs. They reflect previously proved obligations, contracts, and economic pressures. There are no massive new projects or programs that impact
these figures in 2026, just priorities and decisions that the people have made through their elected officials. So, how we get here? Uh, we have seen a declining workforce, rising
costs, revenue that just can't keep up, uh, budget bandaids, and the net result is, uh, declining reserves. From 2017 through today, our population and our housing have 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're critical infrastructure that protect Hoboken from flooding, keeping more than 3 million gallons of water from flooding our roads and properties. School enrollment has surged, up nearly 50%. Recreation participation has
increased by 14%, and that's actually only since 2023. and police call volume is up 17% and arrests are up 12%. Demand for services has increased across the board. But despite that growth, our total workforce
has declined by 2%. Uh we had 622 employees in 2017. We're down to 612 today. We are not overstaffed and we are not topheavy as we have the same number of departments and directors as previous administrations. Simply put, we are delivering more
services to more residents with fewer personnel. Specifically, we're seeing a 10% reduction in civilian employees and an 11% growth in public safety personnel. Public safety represents the majority of personnel costs and it's the fastest growing part of our workforce in
response to strong community support. Um, now I would be remiss if I didn't take this moment to send a massive thank you to my fellow municipal employees. We're here because we care about Hoboken. We love this city and we've been doing more with less to keep it
running now for years. This is not unique to Hoboken. Where we are, towns across the country are facing this and we are not immune to larger economic pressures. The financial pressures that we are seeing locally reflect broader regional trends. Since
2010, inflation is up roughly 50%. Purchasing power is down about 1/3. Healthcare costs are up about 55%. Utilities are up 25%. And fuel costs are surging, especially now with all these global pressures. And this is why
everything feels more expensive nowadays because it is. So simply put, it costs the city more to do business. In practical terms, the city would need roughly $96 million today to deliver what $61 million did in 2010. And this
shift affects every line of our budget. These are structural cost increases, not temporary spikes. Uh I want to take a minute to discuss utilities. So utility costs haven't hit our residents as hard as the rest of the state because of the Hoboken renewable
energy program. When electricity prices skyrocketed in June, our pricing remained flat. And since the start of the program, our residents have saved more than $5 million. So there is a little little bright spot for students.
So looking more specifically at our municipal cost since 2017, our debt service has grown dramatically. Now this number reflects the priorities of our community and the infrastructure that we rely on. It includes critical investments in roads, drinking water,
flood mitigation, equipment, parks, all of which are complete or under construction. Um meaning that this is all previously financed debt. Um, new capital projects that have not been permanently financed, such as 800 Monroe or Maritime Park or Sinatra Drive rehabilitation, have no impact on the
2026 municipal budget. They haven't been financed. All of this debt was previously approved by bond ordinances with support from at least twothirds of the council and the mayor. Now, certain personnel costs are also increasing. Um, salaries up 27%, group
health and pension up both more than 40%. Revenue growth however has not match matched this pace. Our ratables have grown marginally 7%. Uh miscellaneous revenues have grown but not at a comparable scale. And this mismatch is
at the core of our problem. Costs will only continue to rise due to previously approved personnel contracts. Existing labor agreements will add approximately $29 million in costs over the next six years with 97% concentrated
in public safety. To give you a sense of the impact, with a $70 million levy, an $ 8.4 million increase in personnel costs alone would require a 12% tax increase, and that's before any other rising costs or economic pressures.
Additional costs of taxes and pension are estimated at more than 11 million. And these figures don't include healthcare step increases, longevity, um the impact of higher overtime, or terminal leave due to bulk retirements. So, the actual impact will likely be
higher. These obligations are already in place and will continue to impact future budgets unless they're renegotiated. Public safety staffing and costs are a significant part of this discussion. Um, public safety represents less than half of the municipal workforce, but nearly
70% of personnel costs. Average salaries reflect this difference with average public safety salaries nearly twice those of non-public safety employees. Now, let me be very clear. This is not a criticism. It reflects policy decisions and priorities of our community, but it
will continue to be a major cost driver for years to come in our budget. Uh as I mentioned before our revenue growth has been our our ratable growth has been marginally our tax base is up is approximately 12.3 billion. Growth
has been modest at generally 1% annually. Uh even the three projects coming online in 2026 will largely benefit 2027 revenue with only 240,000 in new municipal taxes this year. and more significant growth is expected due
largely to north end redevelopment, but that won't help in time for this budget. And Director Brown will discuss that in in much more detail. So over time, our levy growth has simply not kept pace with inflation or with the service demand. In 2010, the levy was
61.4 million and in 2025, it was 69.7 million. That's a growth of 13.5% over 15 years, on average less than 1% per year. If the levy had increased annually at 2%, it would be $82 million today. Or if it had increased with inflation,
which is usually about 3 to 4%, it would be $96 million today. Either of those gradual annual increases would mean much less than a $17 million gap, or even no gap today. But instead to bridge prior gaps, the city relied on one-time
solutions, as I call them, budget band-aids. Um, so those solutions included using reserves as revenue, whether they were city reserves, utility reserves, or health reserves. Uh, also using federal relief
funds for CO 19 that ended this year. In some cases, in some years, more than $10 million in one-time solutions or band-aids were used to balance the budget. These tools helped avoid or reduce tax increases, but they were temporary. They're not sustainable, and
now they are largely gone. Most importantly, our city reserves, also known as our surplus. Our reserves declined from more than 24 million in 2018 to 10.4 million in 2026. In five of the last eight years, more surplus was
used than generated. Last year, 12 million was used as revenue in the adopted city budget, but only 7.6 6 million was generated. This year, we propose using 7 million um which is about what we generated last year to help stabilize our reserves and
in the hopes of avoiding a credit downgrade. Speaking of credit downgrade, declining reserves have real consequences. Increased risk to our double A plus credit rating, which now has a negative outlook. Higher borrowing costs,
potentially millions over time. reduced flexibility to manage emergencies and limitations on future capital investments. Our reserves are currently below 7% of our appropriations and a reasonable target is at least 10%. Although S&P ratings are both
qualitative and quantitative, there is no strict formula to bring us back to a stable outlook. So we have to look together to narrow look ahead and narrow the gap. This is not just about 2026. We need to course correct. Now, closing the gap requires
scale. For reference, every 1.4 million equates to approximately 2% of the tax levy. This is not a gap that can be solved through incremental adjustments. It requires structural changes, sustainable revenue, and disciplined cost management, all while delivering the services, programs, and
infrastructure that our community demands and relies on. Even with corrective action, we are still projecting a multi-million dollar gap in 2027 uh of about four and a half $4 million. Specifically, we anticipate increases in
pension, personnel contracts, mostly in public safety, and inflationary impacts on utilities, insurance, and healthcare. So, this reinforces the point that we must act now. To change our structural imbalance, our revenues need to exceed our expenses.
So, let's cut our expenses. This slide outlines some targeted reductions to expenses across departments. In administrations, the savings come from adjustments to legal services, elections, and eliminating print communications. Community
development reflects modest reductions to redevelopment and planning board budgets. In community services and infrastructure, we are shifting certain costs to other funding sources that don't impact the 2026 budget. Public safety includes reductions in overtime through operational changes such as paid
parental leave. And in transportation, we're scaling back consulting and vendor costs. Individually, these are relatively modest adjustments, but collectively they represent a broader effort to identify efficiencies across all departments. So, while they currently
total about $ 1.5 million in cuts, this is an ongoing process, hence the X million. um as you'll see on this next revenue slide as well. Um and we welcome suggestions, but this is very important. This is not a budget filled with waste
or excess. Further cuts will affect programs and services that our community cares about, and we need your guidance there. So, let's get to the revenue. That's part of the structural change. We need new or additional sustainable recurring
revenue sources. The tax levy is the single largest source of municipal revenue. Increasing other revenue sources alleviates pressure on the levy. We've identified more than 80 revenue sources, some of which have already discussed in council subcommittee. We need your help, both the council and the
community to prioritize to prioritize these strategies and implement them fast. We cannot include a revenue source in the budget that is not certain. When we submit our budget for review to the state, they evaluate new municipal revenue to ensure that it's legally authorized, realistically estimated, and
likely to be collected. They also assess whether it is sustainable, and properly documented so that it doesn't create future budget gaps. So, this graph summarizes some potential revenue sources by department um which each department presentation will review in much greater detail. Note that these are
annual um revenue estimates. The actual 2026 revenue will depend on when certain strategies are implemented. So they will be less than these figures. These are there are also some one-time revenue sources that have been suggested. Um some of which are
delinquent taxes which the city is rightfully owed like the hospital. Um others like land sales or requesting to use library surplus are effectively more band-aids. Um, fundamentally selling real estate assets to plug short-term
budget shortfalls is also short-sighted. To get into the structural changes, um, this outlines broader changes that are needed to create long-term financial sustainability. On healthcare, we are exploring options to reduce cost. That could include changing carriers, redesigning plans, and adjusting
contribution structures. On personnel, we need to manage headcount through attrition and a hiring freeze. Um, we are exploring legal and financial means to incentivize retirements if they are financially beneficial to the city and potential contract renegotiations,
recognizing that layoffs are a last resort and require specific lengthy steps under the civil service rules. Civil service layoffs are a blunt tool that reduce service quality immediately. They disrupt operations and because of seniority rules and offsetting costs,
they fail to produce meaningful or lasting financial savings. Under civil service, uh layoffs follow seniority. So your lower paid staff are cut first while your higher paid employees remain, minimizing your payroll reduction. And the costs offset
the savings. Overtime for the remaining staff, unemployment costs, potential union grievances, arbitration can erase these projected savings. They're also really slow to realize impact. Um they take about four months at least um which
would delay any potential relief to the 2026 budget. They also result in immediate service cuts. Our residents will quickly feel the impact. Reduced response times, maintenance, programming, and delays in permitting, operational disruption. um
we will lose institutional knowledge, specialized expertise and bumping which forces staff into famili unfamiliar roles and reduces their efficiency. Um and also as I mentioned before we have an amazing workforce and this will
result in lower morale, lower productivity and increased turnover among some of our highest performers. A layoff plan wouldn't be effective until nearly 2027. To close a $17 million budget gap, we would need to lay off 124 public safety employees. That's
out of 276, 44% of our public safety personnel, or 226 civilian employees out of 336, which is about 67% of our civilian employees. That is the majority of our employees across the board. At
the recommendation of council members, we are also evaluating ways to improve equity in the tax base through reassessment. and we're identifying opportunities for shared services with other municipalities to reduce costs. All fees that the city charges, with the exception of those for low and moderate
income residents, should increase annually with inflation. This gradual increase would ensure that miscellaneous revenues keep pace. Businesses increase their prices with market pressures. And why don't we? Finally, this reinforces the need for more consistent, sustainable levy growth
that keeps pace with inflation rather than relying on one-time solutions. As a reminder, had our levy grown by inflation since 2020 since 2010, it would well exceed our $17 million gap. So, together, these are longerterm strategies aimed at addressing the
structural imbalance of the budget. And now, I will dive into the administration and finance department. This department is foundational to all city operations, our communication and our engagement. The uh city clerk maintains our municipal code, our official city
records, our council agendas, our minutes, elections, and processes Oprah requests. Le our corporation council provides legal services for the city, labor relations, drafts contracts and ordinances, and oversees our compliance. Our finance um division including
payroll, tax assessor and tax collector oversees the annual budget, our financial reports, audit, accounting, payroll, property assessments, tax appeals and tax collection. Our personnel and benefits, also known as human resources, um as it says it
oversees personnel and benefits administration, employment law compliance and hiring. Municipal court oversees all operations of the court from scheduling and records to violations and payments. Public defender provides government appointed legal representation and public engagement um
which is a a new division that actually also reports to the chief of staff in addition to the BA and assistant BA. They provide public communications, our digital and social media, press and media relations, emergency communications, data reporting, digital customer service, which you'll see a lot
more of this year, and uh website management. Our purchasing division uh overseas bidding, public procurement, purchase orders, vendor payments, public contracting, and compliance. to look at our our change in employees since 2025. We've reduced overall
staffing with a net reduction in full-time employees. We reallocated responsibilities and positions across divisions like the creation of the division of public engagement which includes two employees formerly in the BA's office, one formerly in climate action and innovation and one in public safety.
We've made structural adjustments without expanding our headcount, like moving an outside council, moving to an outside council model for corporation council and not reappointing those three full-time employees. Um, we're not backfilling the second former assistant BA and we're not
backfilling one employee in the tax assessor's office. We're proposing three of the new of the nine uh new positions that have been recommended to us by the state in the municipal court. Only three out of nine. This reflects ongoing efforts to operate more efficiently.
To summarize our budget at approximately 7.3 million um which is comprised roughly of 7030 personnel to operating expenses, the department is a relatively small portion of the overall city budget. In 2025, it was about 6%. Um and
it's projected to decrease by uh by 1% this year. So across our divisions, most of our proposed lines are flat or reduced. For some specific examples, um our elections line has dropped by 65%. Our
legal advertising has dropped by 50%. Um we don't, you know, have the election this year and there have been changes in legal advertising where you no longer have to advertise in papers. So we're advertising uh online, which is saving a tremendous amount of money. Uh grants management is key to our
operations and this is across the entire city. Uh in 2025 the city received more than $4 million uh awarded through our grant writers with more than 10 million in grant applications still pending decision. The return on investment versus the actual contract costs that we
pay our grant writers is uh is an ROI of 85 to1. We also are seeing a 16% decrease in uh special counsel and this reflects efficiencies from moving to an outside council model by appropriation type. Um there's no
major expansions in our budget. Our salary adjustments reflect contractual increases, attrition, reallocation, and targeted staffing needs. Our operating expenses remain largely unchanged. This indicates that uh expansion requests were limited, existing resources are
being stretched, and we are truly keeping as lean of a budget as we can. Now, let's go to our budget breakdown. It actually is easier to see than the than the table. So you can see here that municipal court is the largest percentage of the administration budget
at 23% followed by finance, the tax assessor, city clerk, and special counsel all less than 10%. When you break this down, each division is a small fraction of the total. Um so any cuts here would have outsized service impacts.
But let's get into the cuts. Um so we previously discussed some proposed cuts for the department of administration as part of the general budget overview. Um those included the capital RX value program um of about $250,000, corporation council which was about
$150,000, special council 125,000. Um we're no longer doing print mailers saves us 33,000. Um we're reducing the elections budget by 170,000 and the advertising budget by 20,000. At a high level, um these are some
initial survey results that we've received. Um, and as I noted, the survey is still open. So, we're not going to spend a tremendous amount of time on the results today um because these are very preliminary, but um based on these initial results, the community also supports reducing print media in favor
of uh digital media supported very much so supported by advertising revenue. um removing health care benefits for part-time city council members, negotiating employee health care plans to reduce costs, which we previously discussed as one of our our main goals for the structural changes.
So to get into some potential revenue uh that we could look at just in the department of administration because each director will get into their own department. Um, we are looking at actually charging fees for the direct costs of processing OPER requests. In
2025, the city processed more than 4,000 OPER requests at an estimated labor cost of approximately $400,000 spread across nearly every department. While the city fully supports transparency and is proactively working to reduce these requests through a customer service portal, OPRA compliance represents a
substantial and unfunded operational burden. Based on conservative estimate of staff time already being incurred, the city currently dedicates an equivalent of 8 to 10 full-time employees to OPRA work across approximately 40 to 45 individual employees. Current ordinances allow the
city to charge up to $32 an hour for labor for unduly burdensome requests. But this framework is outdated under current state OPER law and it doesn't reflect the actual cost of compliance. OPER compliance is no longer a marginal administrative task. It is a cross
departmental operational function consuming meaningful t staff time and taxpayer resources. upon um if we were to update the city's opra fee framework to align with current state law would allow the city to recoup only direct labor costs for the most burdensome
requests not every request while continuing to uphold transparency and public access for a very rough estimate of potential revenue very rough we're assuming 25% of requests so a thousand are deemed unduly burdensome the fees
assessed for only for direct labor could range from 32,000 an hour per request to 96,3 hours per request to 256,000 8 hours per request. This is just examples. Even the mid-range estimate would
meaningfully offset existing costs without impacting routine or simple requests. Another uh suggestion would actually be adding fees for um officiating weddings. So, city officials performed 100 weddings in 2025 at no cost beyond the
$28 marriage license. Several other municipalities in New Jersey charge $250 per wedding. So, it kind of makes sense why people want to get married here. Um, it's free and it's also the most beautiful city in the state. Um, we recommend charging a nominal fee of $50
per wedding for Hoboken residents with a higher fee for non-residents of $250 consistent with other municipalities. We also recommend increasing uh fees through the clerk's office. These fees range from um $25 for a vending machine
to $350 for a pool table. Um last year the city clerk's office processed 61 licenses. And so our um estimated projected revenue is probably only about a,000 to $2,000 if we were to increase these licenses by
10%. It's not a huge amount, but every penny counts. Total annual revenue of these sources ranges from about 263,000 to 583,000. Note that these are annual figures. So any revenue in 2026 would depend on when
they're implemented. Um the scale of them. There's obviously a lot to work out still and a lot to discuss with the council and the community. Um maybe you could assume somewhere less than 50% of this for 2026. So I will close with this. Um the
challenges in this budget are not the result of any one decision or any one year. They reflect long-term trends. Our costs have outpaced our revenue for years. Uh temporary solutions delayed our structural change and those options are no longer available. So at the same
time, we continue to grow rapidly. We have more residents. We have more services and more expectations of what local government should deliver for our residents. We need to rebuild our surplus. We need to fully fund previous contractual obligations and restore our
long-term financial stability. In its simplest form, these are costs that have already been approved with support from the council and the community. They reflect our priorities. They reflect our growth. We are delivering more services to more residents with fewer personnel.
And we are not overstaffed at any level. Small cuts will not solve a structural deficit, and further cuts will affect programs and services that our community cares about. This moment requires us to align our financial structure with that reality. This is a moment of decision,
and avoiding those difficult choices today will make tomorrow's challenges now through 2032 much worse. So, let's course correct together. And please, let's work together. Thank you.
I'd happy to make your question. >> Thank you, director. Uh any members of the council who wants to start, Councilman Russo, >> thank you, Council President, >> and Councilman President Zano. >> Uh
>> director, I I appreciate your your comments and um you know, you said it a few times about all of us working together. and the words are nice, but the actions need to follow.
I appreciate the mayor's sentiment of not wanting to fingerpoint, but there's been a lot of fingerpointing. Uh, specifically, an email that went out to employees across the city of Hoboken. I've gotten scores of calls about
pointing fingers to the council talking about layoffs, talking about some of the hard decisions that uh need to be made. I am all for working together to help, but I want to reiterate the
process here. The process here is that the city council sets a dollar amount and the administration, the mayor and the directors use that dollar amount to their liking. We as council members do not lay people
off. We do not decide what programs will be cut. We do not decide what programs will be implemented or who hires who. That is not our purview. Our purview is to set the dollars.
Now, I am all for sitting here and helping along the way to try to make those changes and significant changes so that this city could thrive. But when we're talking about not wanting to fingerpoint and then there's back
back deal fingerpointing outside the public uh purview, that's troublesome to me and I need to put that on the record. I have no problem helping. But those decisions are yours, the other
directors, and the mayors. So, if we're going to do this collaboratively, then we'll do it collaboratively. But if we're going to fingerpoint, then we'll just set a dollar amount and all of you could do your jobs and make those significant cuts where needed.
That's first. Second, you went through a lot of stuff here today and I know we don't have hours, but you talked about some of the key drivers,
one healthcare, one pension, one debt service, and some others. Um, but in your presentation, you talked about pensions and it actually looked like it went down by 2%. So, how is that a key driver in the
increase in this uh budget gap that we're we're dealing with? >> So, pension our pension bill actually did go down this year um for the first time in several years. Uh but if I scroll back to
the slide that shows you grow growth over time um since 2017, pension costs have gone up 41%. So when I say that pension is driving us, we do believe that it will go up next year. Um again
set by the state, we have no control over it. These are our best projections. Um but we were lucky this year that we saw a decrease in our pension bill. >> Well, and I appreciate next year's concern, but in this year we're talking about a $17 million gap. The pensions
has nothing to do with that gap if that went down. So that's not a key driver in this year's pension. It is a so if you would like me to remove pension from this slide I can do that. However,
it is still something that is a key driver over time and it is good that this year it went down. >> I I appreciate that. I just I want to make sure that we're talking about this year's budget because this year is the major concern, right? I understand that
we have to plan for next year, but I don't want to mix up what's really driving this year versus what might be driving next year. So, so pension is not necessarily a driver for this year. Let's talk about
health care for a minute. >> You said it was an increase of $3.2 million. Is that an increase in what we are charging uh what we are basing our chapter 78 on or is that an increase in actual uh claims to the city?
>> So our estimated costs went up from about 30 million to 33 million this year. Um, and yes, those are the basis for chapter 78 contributions, which are I can get you an exact number, but um
somewhere around $4 million of that. See if I can pull up an exact number for you while while we're while we're discussing budget. Budgeting, correct? That $33 million. >> Mhm. >> Okay. So, what were what were our claims
for last year? Let me see if I have >> because again this isn't a traditional health care plan. This is this is dollar for dollar. So our claims are what we should really be basing our increases on, not necessarily what the mimicked
plan for the state is. So it's it's not an apples to oranges comparison. We do that so that we have a basis to charge our employees a chapter 78 contribution, but that doesn't necessarily reflect what the claims are for the city of Hoboken.
>> Our total cost of claims in 2025 was $31.8 million. And our total chapter 78 contributions were $4.17 million. >> 4.17. >> Yes. And this year we anticipate how much in uh chapter 78 contributions.
>> I don't have that number in the spreadsheet that I'm looking at, but I can certainly get back to you. >> Yeah, if you could get that to me, I I would greatly appreciate it. Um >> I need to understand what claims are versus what we're what we're budgeting because I think there's money to be
saved there. I also think as I've as I've offered in the past, I think we could restructure our plan document to decrease those claims while not having to rely on the unions or anyone else to come to the table. We can make those
changes without any of their input um because it wouldn't affect them. It would affect the provider. So, in other words, if a provider is getting, let's just make up some numbers, $50 for an office visit, we can most certainly
change our plan document to reflect that $50 goes down to $48 or $49 or whatever we decide and and reap the benefit of that cost savings. There's a way that we could do that because we are self-insured. I've been talking about
this for years and I think it's something that we need to explore. We we most certainly can't rely on just like we can't rely on the unions to come to the table about their salaries. We're not going to be able to rely on them to come to the table about their health care. If they choose not to do that,
we're kind of stuck. So, we need a plan B in place. As I mentioned at the council meeting, there has to be plan B for all of these decisions. So healthcare is is another another key driver here that I think we should make some significant changes to that will not affect employees uh but will affect
the bottom line. >> We we absolutely agree and that's why you've been invited to a meeting with the administration and finance subcommittee next week which we will review all of our actuarial recommendations with you. >> I greatly appreciate that invite and I most certainly will be there. Uh you
talked about um the rolling tax assessment. How uh could you describe to me um how that would either increase or decrease the city's revenue? >> Revaluations do not fundamentally change
revenue. Um it it more so changes the equity amongst uh the tax base. So it it it would not necessarily have an increase in revenue. Now maybe we would find some um you know some
properties that were not properly assessed or something like that but but fundamentally it's more about equity than increasing revenue. Um but it was a suggestion that that that had been made. So it is something we you know we'll look into. >> It would increase our open space trust
fund >> that it would >> and that would give capacity to fund some of the increasing debt. >> That is true. Yes. >> Well, that lead that leads me to my next questions. Are we considering changing some of these additional fees andor
taxes uh to offset any raises in our municipal tax, for example, the Hoboken Business Alliance, the as Councilwoman Fischer talked about, our open space tax. These are all additional costs to our taxpayers
um in a year where they're potentially going to get hit with a 20 I think you said it was a 24% tax increase if we do nothing. Right. So are we are we considering any of those changes? If we were to consider changes to our
open space trust fund, that would come at the detriment and the expense of open space projects that have already been um authorized. So, you know, we already do have debt service outstanding. So, I would have to do an analysis to see if
there is any room to even consider um lowering that this year. Um happy to take that suggestion and do an analysis. >> Yeah, look into that. But my bigger concern is really the HBA and the >> Hey, Councilman, can I can I give you two more minutes, Councilman? We're going to wrap up three hours. I have
Council President Zano. Councilman. >> I I appreciate it, Council President. >> No, no, no problem. >> No, keep on. >> So, if you could look into not just the open space uh trust fun, but but even the HBA and then uh whatever additional uh fees that we we tack on to the tax
bill. Uh I know you said that we're looking at the library. Um I've been asking for this for years. Uh, currently is the library paying the city of Hobok in rent on its buildings? >> Not that I know of. Now, >> I think that's a very simple I think
it's a simple way for us to generate probably over a million dollars a year uh just in rent for the buildings that they occupy. Those are all city-owned assets. Um, we can most certainly ask them for rent. We give them $8 million a year in the form of our taxation to uh
function. and we know that they don't need $8 million a year uh because they continue to put a lot of that money into their capital fund. That's why we're going to ask the state librarian to recoup some of that money, but we can most certainly ask them for rent for their three buildings um and and or any
other spaces that they're going to be uh using in the city of Hoboken when they come online like at the multi-ervice center or like at our new projects that are going to happen in the in the northwest. um those are all spaces that are city uh properties and or uh
allocated to the city. So we could utilize rent money that does have nothing to do with the state librarian or the uh library board as far as their cooperation in getting money back from their capital fund. We could implement
that that um that rent immediately. Councilman, just based on a a review of this, you're actually not allowed to charge rent to libraries. Obviously, I'll look at it more closely just because you've brought it up, but based on statute, you're actually not allowed to do that, meaning the library would
not be able to pay you out of any of their funds by statute. >> But my understanding is for their their core uses, right? Um I think some of their uh some of their buildings are utilized for uh administrative purposes, things like that. So again, please look
into it and and let's uh let's see if we could do if we could do that. I appreciate it. Uh and then finally, uh director, I'll I'll end here. I have a ton more questions, but I'll end here um so that others have an opportunity.
You said that we're not topheavy in the city of Hoboken, and you're comparing that to the last uh administration, I'm assuming. >> Okay. So right now we have the same directors
andor the same staff that was in place for at least the last eight years, probably longer, who have suggested and implemented a lot of the budget band-aids uh that you spoke
about. I always thought we were topheavy through the last administration. I still think we're topheavy. Are we looking at eliminating any directors? Are we looking at eliminating any assistant or deputy directors to try to save on uh
salaries, pensions, and healthcare there? >> We are not looking to eliminate any directors because we currently have um the same number as we previously had. >> Um and to your point about every director being here for eight years,
that is absolutely not true. And look, I personally have been here, however, not in this capacity by any means. Um, you know, I I did serve in an interim role in an assistant VA role, um, but in a very very different capacity. Um, so I respectfully disagree with that. Um, you
know, all that said, uh, no, we are not looking to eliminate, um, directors. We are looking to function as efficiently as possible. And we believe that the reorganization that that we did will allow us to do so. Um for example,
previously there were actually two assistant VAS. We are not backfilling that one position. Um we are that is the only one that that we have eliminated. But you know we are we are not looking to do that because we're not looking to eliminate employees when we are already
um seeing fewer employees despite a significant growth in demand for services. Contrary to the uh backfilling of the second assistant VA, uh we never had an assistant in the uh parking utility or or I should say there were
times that we didn't. Um but now we have two assistants in the parking utility. Um so my concern is that the assistants are driving increased cost, they're driving uh health care, and they're driving pension costs as well. Uh so I
was asking the question if that's the decision of this administration um then that's the decision of the administration. I think that goes to your point earlier about policy decisions. Um but you did lump policy decisions and priorities of the
community together and I think that sometimes those are not the same thing. Uh I think we need to differentiate the two. So I appreciate your answers. I appreciate you looking into the things that you couldn't answer here tonight. Uh and I'll yield the floor back so that
uh my other colleagues could could ask some questions. Thank you. >> Thank you very much, Councilman. Appreciate the questions. Going to going to go Councilman President Zano, Councilman, and Councilman Cano. >> So, thank you for the presentation. Uh
I'll start off with one with Oprah. Uh I guess this is going to have to you're going to have to give me more details on this. Is the OPER requests more for builders or uh residents that need to have zoning per or old permits pulled and things like that or is this uh
somebody wants transparency into something that happened with process? So, I'm trying to figure that out with the Oprah because the governor gutted Oprah and listen I've had to use Oprah on our own government because the government wouldn't give it to me the last administration. So, you know, as a
function of trying to get inside city hall, Oprah is the only legal way that people have. While it costs money, then there's a lot of things that I could easily see that could be basically automated that if you needed
uh you know your tax records, your uh construction permits that would save probably massive amount of time with technology which has been by the way from the past administration to this administration talked about technology but we haven't done anything. We've gone backwards. In fact, the website uh you
guys might want to go through that. I know we're changing but it's got a lot of leftover stuff. >> To address that one if you'd like. >> Uh you can and then I can address tech because we are working on that. >> Yep. So when we um first came in, one of the first things that we looked like uh
looked at was Oprah. So Hoboken seems to receive a lot of requests through Oprah um for various things and it is a councilman a multitude from from some people looking for permits to some people looking for emails. again, whatever they're allowed to uh entitled
to receive under Oprah will absolutely be given out. But I think there is a decision that needs to be made about what that hard cost is. Um because if you're spending upwards of let's say if you have eight people spending even 50% of their time, you're taking half of their salary plus their benefits, it is
a significant cost. So there just needs to be a determination at least in like a budget year that you're in um to make sure you're at a minimum just recouping some of the cost when it comes into these types of things because when I'm looking at them and unfortunately now I am seeing some of them um it some of
these things are taking people's time from 30 minutes to hours at a time just gathering all the information which again singularly no big deal but when you're adding hundreds of them I mean I want to say the clerk's office probably receives anywhere from 20 to 30 a
every single day from what I'm calculating at this point. So, just to give it a little bit of context because I I want to be clear, I don't think the administration certainly is trying to um not have people get information at all. Uh because this is something when I first came on, I was like, "Hey, let's make sure we're actually recouping some
of these costs because they are significant when you start adding them up." >> Yeah, I'm not in favor of oper costs period. So, I'll say that on the record because it's a part of transparency. It's a part of government. Just my view. So let me go on to then look at this. I
would like the uh business administrator. Do you classify fees as taxes or you or you don't? >> No. No. Because fees are services. >> So fees are render taxes.
>> Yes. So >> when I pay taxes, I get services. But the problem is when you start charging fees, it doesn't hit every economic class the same way. It hurts people that make $1 versus somebody that makes $10. So, I have a big problem with that
because again, the regress the word regressive tax. However, I don't want to get lost in translation is it means that somebody's making a dollar, if you charge them 50 bucks versus somebody's making $10, you charge them 50 bucks. There's definitely a different
implication. So, I'm not a big fan of fees from that nature um in general, but you know, you've answered that question, so we'll move on to the next one. Um, elections, you said 170 in savings. We don't have any elections this year, so it's not really a savings because next year we'll have 170 million 170k in in
cost there. So, I just want to bring that up. Um, I wanted to go back to the page where you had the uh the breakdown of everybody of uh mayor the the org chart, I guess you want to call it.
>> This one or this one? >> No, that one. This is the one I want. So, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. We have eight of them in there. Eight little buckets. Now, can I find out? And the the public engagement
group, are those full-time positions? How much are we doing in that? Because this is tough for me to look at this to say anything if I don't even know what the costs are. >> Uh, yes, but I I provided you the uh costs for all the employees. Um, and I
can Send that again if you'd like. The data division. >> Is that the one for the the 2025 in that or was that the 2026? Because I was a little confused. >> Believe 2026 was in I believe 2026 was included in that. Yep. >> Yep. >> Maybe I read
>> I can go back and double check too, but the intent was to provide you with 2026 and I'm happy to to provide that if it wasn't fully updated. We obviously had a a lot of uh shifts in the last few weeks. So, >> but I do believe I provided you 2026.
>> The one I look at, I mean, where did they do they fall under public engagement? Because I only >> fall under admin administration. Yeah. >> Okay. So, administration, it's probably why I didn't find it because uh Yeah. Okay. So, full-time 88 uh 110.
All right. So we have three uh I mean we had two before we just gained another one. Correct me if I'm wrong. We had three spokespeople essentially. Is that correct or not? Whatever you want to say. >> So >> so as you can see on the screen one is a
public information officer, one is a digital information officer and one is a senior public information assistant. They do all have individual roles and responsibilities. Um the public information officer um uh
was moved from the um uh mayor's office. The digital information officer uh is a is a new employee. Um one from climate action and innovation and one from public safety. So, we moved people around um one new hire and um we
actually uh have one employee who is um no longer with us. >> Okay. Well, I think that's I mean I think the other I mean even the last administration I said I thought we had too many people for that. Um we have a chief of staff that could basically take
over some of those roles. We have other qualified can candidates in there to do the same thing as well. That's a personal opinion. I think that that bucket is someplace where you could start. Uh, correct me if I'm wrong. Um, I see
the I don't see I mean guess it goes back this goes back into certain groups. Listen, you start at the top. We're topheavy. I don't care what you say on this. I'm not going to sugarcoat it like anybody else might hear. We're topheavy.
And when you have 70% budget cost and it takes 70% to make a widget, you start at the top. You don't start at the bottom. So people have to do heavier workloads. That's simple. And so I think uh when you have too many ch uh when you have too many bosses, which for me, this is
what it looks like and what I've done for a career that you have to trim the top first. You have to set an example because if you start cutting certain employees, which while you say you're not going to do it, you're going to have to be forced to do it because I don't see any other way out of this. I don't see the the
communities saddling 25% increase along with the HBO's 27 right now. So, you start at the top otherwise you kill morale and you lose efficiency from your from your uh employees. So, that's just something I
want to say. You're topheavy. I You guys can tell me you're not topheavy. You wonk. You're topheavy. But I don't make that decision. The administration makes a decision on hiring, firing. As Councilman Russo said, you guys make the decisions on where the money goes. We just say no to if the budget comes
through. Uh, under its current standing, uh, I'm I would love to see the health care costs go down. The biggest thing there, and I think Council Member Russo will be able to help us the most there. Um, I did want to also bring up that when I look at um
the if we stopped 800 Monroe and we stopped the waterfront project, how much does that save us? >> Nothing in our 2026 budget. >> Nothing. But then in 2027, we get ded. So if we stopped it today, we wouldn't
have a cost in 2027. Is that correct? >> Uh so we actually are probably looking at Yeah. 2027 for Maritime Park, 2028 for 800 Monroe. >> So if we stop impact >> Yeah. So if we stop this today, we
wouldn't have an issue in 2027. I I don't know what you define as an issue. I I think it is an issue to not build parks that our community has asked for. Um I also >> that that's great with the I'm I'm happy the community wants a park. However, I
think I've said before nice things cost money and at the end of the day 25% increase is a little tough pill to swallow and there are things we could do. I mean, I'm I'm more in favor of 800 Monroe being a school because we have another problem there, too, that we need
to help because that's coming as well that we're going to have to probably pay for some bonding for that uh in our taxes because the high school may come back. Uh so that's going to add some more aida to to the taxpayer. But that said, uh if if we stop those projects,
it sounds like there is a saving down the road and some believe. Um you made a comment on the bond issue, the 4.4 4 million over 20 year. Uh 4.4 million if we got downgraded. Is that correct? >> Uh yes. If we Well, that was a
hypothetical if you took the note sale from this year. Just giving you uh an idea of what the cost would be to say a similar future uh note sale. >> And so that is over that's just a that's every single year or that's over the the
amortization of of a bond. >> Uh that was that was over the amortization of the bond. Um, but it was just for one note sale. >> It was a hypothetical number, a hypothetical number so that you could see if we if we ran our current note
sale that we did this year um and which was at our double A plus rating and if we ran it at our uh double A rating if we were downgraded what the um cost would be over the life of the of the issuance. Can we go two more minutes, Councilman?
Is that okay? >> I'll try. Thank President. Um, >> uh, the merchandise I I I'd like to ask some questions on that. Maybe maybe it's just an idea. Uh, however, if you're going to sell merchandise, you got to start a business. You need a point of
sales. I'm more than sure with government employees, you're going to have to train somebody and they're going to have to the right things to do whatever, you know, because we have to go buy union contracts. Uh, we're going to have to outlay for inventory. we're going to have to sit on inventory. We're going to have to potentially lose
inventory. Um, so it says 7,500k. While it's small, okay, it's a it's a good thing there, but I think that uh I'm not so sure that that's you're going to create another another cost there. Um, the
while we talk about the parks, one of my biggest problems here is we always say they're infrastructure projects. I Yes, they are. Right. Northwest Park. Many people don't understand that that is a true infrastructure project with a pump that's not fully functional yet and the rest of the work around there is not
completed. So, uh I was a disbeliever in that until I did my research on that and you know that's a helpful thing. However, it's a four to five acre park and we just found out from the LA last snowstorm we spent uh 117 $17,000
to plow it. So, while we'd have these parks with infrastructure, we spent, by the way, we spent 30,000 for weeding. We spent 950,000 on a broken uh on a broken water line, which was paid for a by ARP funds, which I was not happy about. Uh
so, I'm looking at here is we do all these parks. So, when we get 800 and we get Maritime Park online, we're actually going to exacerbate this, which we don't actually put on anything. So when we talk about parks and infrastructure projects, we never ever ever address the
maintenance issues that go with this. So I'm I'm struggling here and we haven't had one other big discussion that nobody's talking about right now is the rebuild by design. Those 36 gates and all the walls and the maintenance of that. Who's paying for that? Some of that's not even on our property. It's in
Jersey City and and some north our north neighbor, I think. So these are the type of things that I'm questioning what's going on here. And as well, if we give suggestions to the administration, is the administration going to if we say we
want to see uh let's just say we want to see this number 25% lower, is the administration going to look to us to tell them what to do? Because by I don't think legally we can tell them what to do. We can give suggestions, but will they take the
suggestions and do it? Because I after all the years that I've done this and I've given the suggestions, they've been thrown out the window. So, I'm almost at a point where I just say I want to cut 25%. And then let the administration
decide because I don't understand if I'm going to do all this extra homework and then it just gets thrown out the window, it's a waste of time. So why we say we work together, it's a I'm I'm struggling here because what I've been trained the past two
years is that you do the work and then nobody cares about you. On the last point, you mentioned diesel fuel and all this other stuff. I don't that I'm I am so upset to even hear that because for the past eight years I've heard green
green green. We're changing. We're changing. We're changing. We're changing. and everything else is going up. We got green garbage trucks. We got green hop truck uh green hop buses. We've got solar panels in some of the buildings. I
don't get it. I thought green was supposed to save us money all of a sudden, but yet we're using all this gas still and it's diesel fuel. So, I'm just that's frustrating to me to hear that is that we're we're preaching green to the community, but yet we're not practicing green to the community. So, that's just
a couple points that I saw. There's more I could go on, but as respect to Councilman Roose, sorry, to President uh Ramos's Ramos's time constraints, I'm going to quiet now and I'll listen to the rest of my colleagues. >> Thank you, Councilman. Appreciate it. Uh, Councilman Immus.
>> Yes. Hi. Um, I think this is going to be a relatively quick question. Um, Director Gonzalez, could you go back to the slide where you showed um that you had already brought on I think it was four or five police officers, but that
um I think eight are scheduled in July and that is a I think it was a $3 million hit. Um, >> so I would actually strongly encourage us to move to the next presentation for that because director will talk a lot more about that.
>> Sure. Because really my my question about that had to do with uh does that affect um are you doing anything to sort of uh plot out the costs and how all these changes we're putting in now or
even for the additions will affect 2027, right? because this is a deficit that is like hurting us um over multiple years. So my concern is like if you do you know if if if hiring freezes are on the table what does that look like and how would
that affect us over like a threeyear span? >> Yeah. Um well certainly we'd have to determine exactly what the scope of the hiring freeze is. Um and I think that that you can discuss the cost of public safety uh much more thoroughly in director Franti's presentation.
Great. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councilwoman. Uh, Councilman Pero. >> Thank you, Council President. I'll be brief as well. Um, look, I just want to thank the administration and my colleagues here and those who who have already spoken,
even though I think some are one some have more good faith than others, but uh we'll allow the process to decide and hope to be proven wrong. uh I think we have an opportunity here and and yeah it might be I don't know the exact rules because I haven't you know although I've asked for them every
statute of what we can say and what we can direct but we are being given an opportunity here to opine on where we want to do the reductions and where we want to see fee increases and where we want to do levy increase where we want to cut spend etc etc etc something that
we haven't been given before. Uh in the past we've been just given here's the introductory budget and then let's go to war about it. We're looking to avoid some of that pain, right? The the administration is looking for input. If we've already heard some some people are
dead set against, you know, uh in increasing fees, some people uh really want to focus on uh staff cuts, right? So that I think is going to help the administration put forward the the the budget that um that they'll introduce in the next couple weeks so that we can
then you know get a head start uh uh on on on you know taking it across the finish line um and and you know having as much of community support uh as possible. Why are we here to kind of say this uh we we agree with this approach
versus that approach? It's because we are the city's the representatives of of the people in town, right? So, the award council people, you there's nobody closer to the residents than you are. They're calling you about every stop sign, pothole, etc. So, we need your
feedback in this process to say, "Hey, the community is not going to love this or the community is going to love that, right? And the community is not going to love this, but it's necessary and we're going to have to push it across, right?" uh as a as a as an at large um you know
we I try to take as an expansive view and think about more policydriven uh solutions but here this is our opportunity to give input. I appreciate having this opportunity at this point in time. Uh let's you know let as we go through I ask everyone to you know let's
try to check our cynicism at the door. I know it's really hard. I have a hard time doing it, but I'm really trying this time around. And and let's see if we can do this together. >> I think you muted yourself, Joe, a little too soon. >> I meant to say that's it. Done. Thank you.
>> Thanks. Uh, Councilman Cohen and Counciloman Fischer. Thank you, Council President. Uh first I want to thank Director Gonzalez for that comprehensive presentation. I want to thank the administration for doing something that we haven't done before. Uh I think being
very early and being transparent about the budget gap uh the numbers that we are looking at the risk of a significant tax hike beyond uh many times what we've discussed as a city council before we
even have had a budget presented to us. And I think that this is a very helpful uh process and I think that I appreciate the granularity of Director Gonzalez's presentation. Uh so thanks for that. Um
and uh and and I look forward to going to continuing down this road where we're talking honestly about these issues with the community. Uh two uh one I uh Councilman Cano talked about how some people may be opposed to fees
uh and and I I wanted to just address uh my thoughts about that. You know uh a lot of people in the city of Hoboken do not have kids in uh in the wreck program. Uh that's you know kids who kids who participate who enjoy them.
Uh Director Gonzalez mentioned that those uh those charges are not taxes, they're fees because they relate to the users who actually use those fees. I think that's an important point. Uh the suggestion that this is somehow regressive, uh I I reject that notion.
Uh for people who are on free and reduced lunch programs, those people pay nothing for those programs. So the idea that there's a flat tax and people who are disadvantaged or unfairly being uh uh suffering from a regressive program I
I think that's that's incorrect. I think frankly the opposite is true. My understanding is that the recreation department the costs relating to the wreck program have been accelerating that the in order to do the same programs year-over-year the costs have been significantly increased. And I
suppose when we hear from our rec department uh about that, we can ask and get some specificity about that. But frankly, the people whose kids are not in the rec programs are subsidizing those programs because it's my understanding that that the fees that
are assessed do not cover the costs of the services that are being provided. So, I think that, you know, if if we if we're looking for opportunities for revenues, I think that I do not think that fees should be off the table at all. I think that we should be looking
carefully at what the costs are associated with the programs and see whether the fees for the people who are enjoying those services are aligned with what those costs are. Uh, so again, I think that if there's something that's being unfair here, I think it's being
unfair to try and pass along those costs to the taxpayers of Hoboken whose kids do not participate in these programs. And that if kids are going to enjoy these programs, those families are the ones who are the most logical source of the fees to cover the cost of the services that their families are
enjoying. So that was one point that I wanted to make. Uh when I first joined the council in 2020, I I raised a question that some people thought was controversial, but I noticed that on the survey that went out, uh
there was a question asked whether part-time city council members should be receiving uh healthcare benefits from the city of Hoboken. I understand, director, and you correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that our health care plan that we have for our employees is
intended to mirror the state plan and and the way that the state works. And it's also my understanding that the state plan does not allow for health care benefits for part-time employees. Is that is that correct, director? >> Well, yes, we mirror the state plan.
However, the um I'm not sure if I can answer your second question about if the state plan allows for part-time employees, but the only part-time out uh employees that the city provides healthcare coverage for our city council members. >> Okay. Well, I guess the question I would have and maybe you could get back to us
on this is what is the cost to the city of Hoboken for uh council uh members uh healthcare cover? >> Absolutely. >> That's okay. Um, and then, uh,
let me see if I had any other questions. Uh, no, I think that's it. I I I I again, I I look forward to hearing the results of the survey. I think it's heartening that over 2,200 people answered those questions. I think that's going to be valuable data for all of us
on the council. We all have anecdotal data. We all people complain about things. People tap us. People email us all the time. But I think to get data from 2200 people and and again, director, you said that the survey was originally supposed to close on the 22nd. It's been extended until what
date? Uh I believe it's still open now. >> Friday at 11:59 p.m. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh that's all I have. Thank you, Council President. >> Thank you, Councilman Fischer. >> Sure. Um just two quick questions. one
is and we've we've asked for this um I think I've probably asked for this every year for a decade. What what does the next two years look like? So, as we're contemplating, you know, a 20% tax increase this year, does that mean next
year we only get a 2% tax increase or, you know, the following year it's only 2%. I mean, what do ba based on reasonable estimates and contractual obligations, what do we think the next two years are going to look like?
So, I did present that we think that our gap next year will be uh potentially around 4 million. I have not projected out to 2028. There are so many unknowns. I can certainly see what we can do. Um, but all that said, you know, a $4
million gap, uh, you know, we can we can do that math, but at the end of the day, it's very hard for me to see to to tell you what a potential increase would be um that far into the future. But I can certainly tell you trends and key drivers and and
I'm happy to uh, you know, to expand upon this slide here if if that would be helpful. >> That would be helpful. I appreciate that. And um what is so I want to kind of weave in a
few things. I I agree that we are we have opportunities to make leadership um cover basically to merge some of the directors
into combined roles and I think there's redundancies um and I think there is an opportunity at the more senior level um and I know that that's not something that's being considered. I know there's an organizational structure that's been
proposed. Um, but I do I I I think the structure more solved for people than it did for, you know, the needs of the city. And I and I think we see that in a couple buckets. So the public engagement is probably, you know, another example
of one of those um buckets. I don't disagree that we need, you know, more public engagement, but I think if you were to step back and you were to say, you know, what what what does that actually look like and who are who and what skills would we hire into
the city, it may not be just solving for city employees? Um, one one question though I have is I know that you know under climate action last year um we are upgrading not only our website but we're
also upgrading like the system behind it. So what what what like it efficiencies are we looking are we going to be able to achieve? are we looking at anything, you know, like AI to use AI in any capacity to be able to um support
communication and even for example responding to Oprah. So, while I appreciate the comments um from our corporation council and and they're not a surprise. We we've seen those numbers um you know, the hours that you mentioned, you know, I think are
definitely excessive, but charging for government records versus, you know, trying to figure out how to make more government records more readily and easily available to shorten the time frame and hours that are spent on them.
feels like that's a a a better exercise than keeping people from being able to access public information. So any any comments that you >> So we're doing that too. So that that's what I mentioned with regard to a customer service portal. Our goal is to
have as many records as possible digitized. They can be accessible through a customer service portal. We've been working on building that out. Um so that will that will certainly result in some efficiencies. um it's hard to quantify exactly what that means yet and
what the impact of that will be on uh specific responsibilities and roles and things like that. But what I will say to you is that um our goal would be that a lot of our Oprah requests can be answered by someone who's just wants information can find the information
publicly available. Um that is certainly a a big goal. Um, in addition, you know, there are AI features integrated into our um, new website such as a a customer service chat and things like that. So, we're we are looking into um, ways to
both use AI and use um, our you know to be launched um, website and a customer service portal to um, provide more information more readily. Um, and I and hopefully that will reduce the number of requests we receive. Great.
Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, Counciloman Fischer. Any other I see no other hands up. Uh thank you, council members, for your insights and your questions. Really appreciate it. Uh let's go to our next director is
uh I believe Director Fanti. Is that correct? >> Yes. We'll get that presentation up. One moment. And if I just add while we're waiting that I I appreciate a number of good points that council members made tonight
uh to try and uh help move the path forward here best we can. I think they're all worth looking into. >> Okay. Do you see Director Fante's presentation now? >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Thank you. Thumbs up. Thank you. >> Good evening, ladies and gentlemen of council. Um welcome to uh three new members uh first workshops that you've been part of. Uh I look forward to the next 30 35 minutes of giving you an
overview of the public safety department, our budget and the responsibilities and assignments that come under public safety. What you'll see tonight is what is the public safety division? So many people think it's police fire, but what does the public
safety department consist of? It does consist of the police department, the fire department, the office of emergency management, which you'll hear me refer OEM, our emergency medical services, which came under our watch in 2022. You'll hear me say EMS, our court staff,
and our security guards at both city hall and the multi-ervice center. We also have boards and committees that I as the director and and some of our members are part of which includes the al alcohol beverage control. You'll hear me say ABC. The oversight of our outside employment
program for the Hoboken Police Department, which you'll hear me call OEP. Our EMS board, which I sit on the board of directors after we went to a hybrid system in 2022. uh our events committee, our film permit committee, and soon to be oversight of
our drug testing for our employees. The Department of Public Safety consists of twothirds of the workforce of the city of Homoken. There are personnel issues hourly. What do we deal with because it's so personnel driven? Recruitment, interviews of all
prospective employees, interviews of future promotes, hiring, promotions, discipline, retirements, benefits, payrolls, and overtime management. Please go to the next slide.
In this budget overview on this simple chart where we're going to get more detail in future slides, 97% of the public safety division is salary and wages. It's because we're personnel driven. As you see the future tonight and tomorrow night's budget
workshops, you're going to hear committees and divisions that are filled with projects, different types of committees, different types of redevelopments, different types of services, different types of revenues in public safety. It's personnel. You
see on the right a 6% change year-over-year budget increase in public safety. For those that have been on a council for a long time, since 2012, I've been doing budget workshops with you, presenting from the OEM coordinator,
then as police chief, and now as public safety director. This is my fifth budget workshop. In all of those years, you saw a plus or minus 2% increase or decrease year-over-year. Why are we seeing 6% in in public safety this year?
As you heard from director Gonzalez of the many drivers, here are the drivers that are specifically affecting the public safety line. First, you see American Rescue Plan from 2021 through 2025. All cities around really relied on
those millions of dollars that came in in eight. Those ended on December 31st, 2025. It's why it's not only Hoboken where you're seeing the potential tax increase you're seeing in Jersey City, Union City, New York City, Montlair,
Boston. It is a regionwide problem. Healthc care benefits I know was mentioned and discussed on whole. Why is the price points that are set for the city to pay even a self-insured is that these programs for health care and healthcare
benefits for our employees have gone up 55% in just the last three years. 55%. That is a statewide problem in the state of New Jersey with the cost of med medical costs going up. Traditionally, in decades, you would see
50% increases, but when you see 55% in a three-year issue, this is a state of New Jersey problem. I saw about the pension cost, and yes, while there was a decrease of 0.2% 2% this year. Of course, it's something that is so personnel driven when we're
dealing with salary and wages. Pension costs the last three years under the Murphy administration skyrocketed for the municipal contribution so that budgets were fully financed so they could be solvent for the next 20, 30 years in any type of economic climate.
That was a commitment by Governor Murphy in his second term and is what is on all cities, not just Hoboken. Today in 2026, contractual agreements, you heard that a lot in your last uh presentation by
Director Gonzalez. The contractual agreements were done with long over long periods of time where collective bargain units took 0% over the past couple years to try to help through those budget cycles. What
we're seeing now is those salaries coming up at the end, those percentages which were all approved by city council have been and all signed by the prior mayor are coming on board this year and next year. realize those contractual agreements started with zeros over the
last couple years. And there was a a slight talk on inflation. Whether you as a council member or the citizen watching at home, prices in your daily and weekly and monthly bills are being driven up by inflation costs.
That's goods, services, equipment, IT costs, fuel. All of those costs are also rising within public safety and within municipal budgets. Please go to the next slide. Here is the organizational chart for
public safety which shows it is not just police and fire. Again, it is twothirds of the city workforce, some 400 employees while also being being responsible for the oversight of now 209
EMTs that work for Hobok and Volunteers Corp. Hoboken EMS. If you attend League of Municipality classes and briefings, if you attend any joint insurance fund GIF meetings, a
driving cost of city of all municipalities is personnel matters and personnel civil liabilities. We have been very successful in the last four years in those areas. Every day I work with the five public safety leaders from the police chief to
the fire chief to the OEM coordinator to the supervisor to the security and court to our EMS president so that they are able to function and properly focus on operations of their units and their teams. I also work every day with all
seven union presidents with seven seven collective bargaining units all coming under department of public safety. I also over have oversight of the OEP program which now comes under the office of emergency management which through those contracts bring between 500 and
$600,000 a year back to the city general fund. We also have as you see committees on the on the outskirts and on the right. First there is the ABC board which is the alcohol beverage control. We also have the events committee. The last
three years I ran the events committee. I also sit on it looking at it now from the public safety end. We have so many events that come before us in the city of Hoboken. Through my experience with homeland security and the training I had and the classes I used to teach as police chief. We bring that public
safety and homeland security eye to all of our events so that we have the safest events in the city of Hoboken. You also see the film permit committee and well I'll talk about some fees later but the last since 2023 I was running the film permit committee. Last year we
had 20 major motion pictures filmed in the city of Hoboken with only two presenting problems where it was resident complaints and complaints that I took from you sometimes in the middle of the night that we quelled. I still sit on that committee today. There is also at the bottom of emergency
service medical service the EMS board of directors. You'll all recall in 2021 and 2022 Hoboken volunteer ambulance score was almost ready to fail. Votes came before you to start looking at outside providers. The will of the council and the
administration at time was to let's try to work it through keeping it for Hoboken volunteer ambulance score. When I joined this position in 2020 at the start of 2022, we immediately started to have oversight and de developed a hybrid program for
Hoboken EMS and Hoboken volunte because of the hybrid system and the start of billing for our patients which with no balance billing to any of our patients. We have now saved the city of Hoboken taxpayers over $1 million
because the city of Hoboken used to pay $250,000 here just to keep EMS running in the city of Hoboken. In 33 years of service to the city, including as OEM coordinator, chief of police, and now in
my fifth year as public safe director, I've always been about accountability, fairness, transparency, and all of you sitting on here, at least most of you know availability 247. No matter what the temperature of the week is, the
month, the prior council meeting, when you call or text or email, you know you get a response immediately. Let's go to the next slide. Here is the changes in full-time employees and part-time employees year-over-year from 2025 to 2026. In the director line, as you learned earlier
tonight, there is one employee that was moved to administration. On the police department end on full-time employees, we had several resignations which lowered the full-time staff by four. You also see part-time
addition of five that is based on finally adding crossing guards. In 2021 when I left the chief position we had 31 crossing guards because of lack of interest because of postcoid people not wanting the position. We went down to
16. We finally are making this week our first hiring which brings us up to 21 which was based on community demand, school demand that wanted crossing guards in certain areas. When we talk about full-time policing, and I will come back to this a couple times and even at the end,
we have three numbers. When we talk about police staffing, we had a table of organization prior to 2024, which was in place for 5 years, which was a total of 146 police officers. We saw an outcry that we did not see
enough officers in past. We didn't see them on Washington Street. We wanted an increase in police staffing. The city council along with the administration approved an increase at the end of 2024 to raise the table organization from 146
to 156. We then went into 2025 and we saw the demand both from council members, from community groups, from residents. They wanted community policing, a citywide community policing program. In talks
with the public safety committee, each of the council members, members of the public, we saw kicking around of numbers of 190, 180, we came to an agreement after talks and multiple meetings with Chief Agar giving presentations and with my talks with council members and last
year's council president. We came to an agreement of the need to have a community policing bureau that would be seven days a week and at least two shifts would need at a minimum 170. You as a city council approved a table of organization that allows us to hire up
to 170 today as we have this presentation. We have 147 officers. Now, yes, collaboratively, and that's why we're coming to you on March 25th and not where I came before you May 26th last year, two months later, there was
an outcry by you all on the city council that want earlier budget workshops. Mayor Jabbor, Director Gonzalez has brought this to you so that we can begin the conversation earlier. Do we want to staff and fund 146
officers? Do we want to staff the the table organization that you approved in 2024 for as 156? Or do we want to staff that 170 and have a 16-hour a day community poling this year or at the start of 2027? That is a major
discussion for us to have and collaborate on. When you get into the dollars and cents of my budget tonight, you will see I funded it for 156. And that is something that we will that this is our proposal and this is something before you get it as an introduction. But again, it's something that we can
talk collaboratively when we go to the fire department staffing. Okay, we have you see the decrease of five. We had retirements of five highranking fire officials,
longtime 30, 40year members of the force. On OEM, you're going to see you see the reduction of by six. That was twofold. We had a couple resignations and also we had had some of the individuals that because they did some work in emergency
management were budgeted under emergency management. they've been put back to where they originally were from in different uh different um departments and divisions in building security. Those are all
part-time employees. Basically, if we have 14 security guards, 18 or 12, it is our set so that we properly secure city hall and also what we saw the demand over the last two years, the multi-ervice center. As we've increased city services in multi-ervice,
whether it's from senior services to the health department to records to recreation to the building department to housing, all of them are in multi-ervice which is why we put a security guard in multi-ervice center each day. And while
under volunteer ambulance while you see all dashes because we have oversight in a hybrid system where the agreement where we gave Hoboken EMS five years to be our uh basic life support entity that does EMS services and save Hoboken. We
are responsible and have liability for 209 current staff of Hoboken EMS and Hoboken volunte. So here's just the overend just the top number which is combined salary and wages and O and E on the director's line
we have that decrease because of the one salary moved to administration or else we would have a balance of zero in PD why is there 9% increase it is twofold first we have salary increases that are contractually approved where there were
zeros in early years of the contract agreements and no retropays Now these salaries are coming on board these increases. So in one major line of this this year is the PSOA has a 10% increase but that is actually
actualized 7.5 because they received 5% on January 1st 5% on July 1st. So 7.5 is the actual number on the PSOA. But why is nine even higher? That is because we
have budgeted for 156. So again, today we have 147. We would to get to 156. We would hired nine for July 1st if we all come into agreement of it, which with the administration uh and with you. So
that was nine police officers budgeted for six months starting July 1st. So it's a it's four and a half salaries on the year. We also have a major operation expense addition to the police department.
Again, by mandates, we had in July July 1st of 2021, it was mandated in the state of New Jersey that every single unformed officer wore a body kit. Now, in the beginning of that period, it was signed on by the governor
to uh give municipal grants and reimbursements for these body cams. That only covered the actual body camera, not the storage. What we see was that this ex this
reimbursement ended on December 31st of this past year. So, as we go into 26, all 566 municipalities in the state of New Jersey are now having to fully fund an officer's bodywn camera. For an officer's bodywn camera, the cost for
every officer that wears one over a given year, which includes the body cam, the maintenance, and the data storage, which has to be stored on on certain data portals, and also has to be uploaded for certain reasons. We are talking at $1,500
per police officer. This year, we add a $147,000 expenditure to our police only because of the state mandate to wear body cameras. We also saw become that came before you in 2025, which now takes uh hold this
year, is that with technology, so many things are done with police forces on their cell phones. They're punching in their assignments, their bolos, uh, adisements from PD, pictures taken
for evidence, interviews that are done, note takingaking that's done on them. We cannot, we cannot have police officers utilizing their personal cell phones to do that type of work. So, Chief Agar and his staff came to the administration and me in 2025. We came
to you and this was approved. The cost for those cell phones for those police officers is $75,000 a year. So you have 147,000 added for body cams, 75,000 for the cell phones. On the fire department
line, uh we only see a 2% increase. Basically, our is staying stable and our increases was contractual increases for all firefighters in both collective bargaining units. On our building security, you're going to see that 15% increase. Why do we have that? They have
a contractual pre-approved increase again where there was no retropays in the past. A 5% increase this year. The other 10% comes from the added hours by putting a security guard at the multi-ervice center in our office of emergency management. You see this
decrease of 31% that was again was because of the resignations and currently not filling the deputy officer of emergency management coordinator position. Hobok volunteer ambulance court the annual donation stays at 40,000 no
longer having to submit the $250,000 to run operating costs and then you see there'll be no purchase of police vehicles plan and the the the price for ABC is minimal let's go to the next slide please this gets more in detail showing the
differences to the dollar for salary wages and fore on the PD line you see the n it's a 9.5% increase. Again, salaries contractual and funding 156 officers. That on amount that I talked about that is a little over $200,000
signifies a 23% increase in operating expenses again by Axon body warn cameras and the cell phones. The fire department stable and 2% through the contracts for the firefighters. That is funding 130 firefighters.
Let's swing back to 2022. We had meetings with Jersey City Chief McIll and Mayor Phillip. We had about six months of meetings discussing regionalization. What were the positives to that? What were the negatives to that for our
workforce and for our city? For the city, it would have been the numbers then would be a savings of $1.7 million if we went into that per year. For our firefighters, yes. Would they be busier? Without a doubt.
However, there was the operations uh the chance for further operations in specialized units and the opportunities for promotion which would have increased. What we heard in 2022 was that the council believe it was a 5-4 vote and
one of the unions did not want that. So at in 2022 I said to all the city council members then we need to increase our staffing. At that time, we had just coming off, we had just come off a major fire that everybody remembers from Jackson Street, and we were only putting
three firefighters on a fire truck. We consistently increased the fire table over the next four years, some of that offset by grants that we successfully achieved. And we are now at 130 and we have four firefighters on every fire engine.
When we go to uh again the volunteer score, we're talking $40,000. Building security, that 5,000 is just for training and uniforms. Again, once again, no acquisition of police vehicles and ABC is a minimal
price. Please go to the next slide. Here on these graphs, it just shows clearly in the two oranges, you're seeing that 96% of the public safety budget is police and fire.
On the other side, 97% of we discussed is personnel. Please go to the next slide. We look at and we talk about revenue and cut considerations. Public safety, especially law enforcement, some of it by statute,
cannot be in the revenue making business. However, after we're seeing the surveys, again, 3% of the public, that is a major sample size of our public of our citizenry to do that to do that survey.
uh we took some data from them and we also did some some assessment. What did the survey show us? First on the personnel end, we asked the public, do you want to see more police officers on the street? Would you like to see less or would you like the staffing to stay
the same? 50 cent 57% of the public to date on this ongoing survey says keep it the same. We asked the same question about the fire department. 75% of the answering public answering the survey said keep it the same.
When we look at summones, again, we do not issue summones for revenue. We do it for public safety reasons. However, yes, there is revenue that comes from that. And again, while there's some disagreement, that's what we're here for
for debate and and good healthy conversation. Where can fees be raised that helps the revenue business? The public safety committee is going to seek in the coming weeks uh fire chief criminals and I bring to you a change in
pri fire fire prevention fees which comes into what is going as the prices in the region that not factored yet into this budget can actually add $16,000 in revenue annually.
Oprah fees as we're seeing that there was discussion heavy in Director Gonzalez's Q&A. We received the most OPER requests in the state of New Jersey. As of today, we are almost at 700
OPE requests. And you know where most of them go to? To the police department for body cams. When you have five minutes, go search on YouTube Hoboken Police and watch all the professional uh people that are making money off of
creating content and channels showing DWI arrests and shoplifting arrests in the city of Hobok. We had to take a part-time employee last year and turn him into a full-time employee because we were not able to
reach over requests in the law by given time. We have people that are making money off of our body cams. These are not people that just want to they're wondering if the government is doing anything wrong or they want to know
about information. They're using video content of our officers body cams and that is a majority of our Oprah requests. I am sending over to the employee in the Koboka Police Department some half a dozen a day, sometimes two
dozen in a given day where body cam footage needs to be redacted, needs to be viewed from all angles. It is an arduous task being put on by people that are making money off of our property. film permits.
So film permits is another fee that we have major motion picture companies coming in and filming in the city of Hoboken. Now where we generate revenue is they are paying very good parking expenses as far as paying for the meters and the uh the no parking signs. We try
to limit every fil major film to three blocks, no more than that. and we then try to get them to use private properties for any extra u vehicles or storage of vehicles. We have learned over the year with some
negotiation of what goes on in our city properties where we are charging film companies hundreds or sometimes a thousand or two to film a movie in our city just a mile away in the city of
Manhattan. They are paying $100,000 a day. $100,000 a day. We're charging a,000. We need to increase our film permits. That will bring some revenue. And these are
major motion picture companies, not our city residents, that will get hit with that fee or if we want to call it a tax. These are companies that are worth billions. Grants, this is another area where we do get some revenue. Whether we're applying
for grants through YAS, YASI, J grants, FEMA, the justice department, but they're very limited. We have been very successful in our acquisition of grants in both police and fire. For fire right now, it's offsetting the cost of four firefighters. So, it does bring us
several hundred,000. We have increased the table each year contingent on if we receive that grant and if we are awarded another grant. So we increased our table last year but we are waiting. If we get the
grant that covers that then we will add to that. We will not add to that on the taxpayer dime. On the police end we do not see grants that offset operating expenses or offset salaries overtime. What we see is
supplemental patrols. Many of these grant opportunities are about public safety in pedestrian safety areas. The two biggest areas are DWI and pedestrian crossings. So, we see many grants, but they're small. 5, 10, $15,000. But what
does that do? It enhances and adds our pedestrian safety work, our DWI work at no cost to taxpayer. Again, no matching funds. And you see, it makes our street safer when we do that. Summones. We're seeing when the public
is asked and even the council, it sounds like an easy fix and a great idea which on the concept it is let's summon more or let's use summones to offset expenditures and gain revenue. I broke down two of the ones that are in
the survey that had high answers which we all want. Let's first talk about ebikes. Everyone on here, including myself, residents that are watching, want ebike enforcement. We've discussed this over the last couple years, includes
education. It includes putting officers out to handle that. In 2025, there were approximately 600 ebike violations issued in Hoboken on city ordinance. I had meetings with
our uh court director, our min our violations administrator last week on city ordinance summones. 100% goes to the city. The average fine on our ebike violations was 80 bucks. So you're
talking about $48,000 in the area of ebike stop sign summones. 394-20144. This is the state statute for stop sign. In 2025, the Hoboken Police Department
issued 608 stop sign summones. Now, people are going to say only a couple a day. The Hoboken Police officers in their traffic management and in their regular patrols are issuing summones from 50 to 100 different statutes. the specific that includes careless driving,
improper turns on red, uh disregarding a pedestrian crossing. For stop signs specifically, there was 68 where 356 plead guilty, less than 50 were dismissed. When we're talking 8% of summones in a statute
being dismissed, to have over 90% success rate is outstanding. All others were plea bargained. State statutes under title 39 and this is actually better than it was 10 years ago. 50% go to the state of New Jersey.
Used to be 85. So the city gets 50% back to the violations bureau in total for stop signs. We raised $17,500 give or take a couple dollars in 2025.
That is six months of a part-time employee of one part-time employee. Calls for service for a police department. Why aren't they doing more with ebikes and stop signs? In 2025, the Hoboka Police Department
responded to 117,370 calls for service. That is up 20% from the prior year. 321 per day. We're talking about 1314 calls for service per hour.
Their arrests were 143 143 individuals were custodally arrested and put into handcuffs and brought to Hoboken Police Department in 2025, which is up 14% from the prior year. That is four per day for two officers to process
for some 3 to four hours. Please go to the next slide. As we move into the conversation, the Q&A, I throw out some questions, some that have to be decided by us as administration, some we want to
collaborate with you. What is the proper staffing number for the PD for 2026? Is it the 147 that we sit with today? Is it the 156 that you approved at the end of 2024? Is the 170 with a 7 day a week, 16
hour community policing. Is it more? We've heard some council members 190. Let's do it. But there is a cost with that. Or do we go less like we did back in 2010 and went down to 128 where we were not protecting the streets as appropriately as we need to and can't do
the services that the public wants? Our fire department staffing 130, four firefighters on fire trucks. In 2023, we had a fire in Norc where our firefighters found the deceased
firefighter Brooks on that cargo ship fire which got national acclaim. And the biggest problem that came from that in the findings and the studies was that there was only three firefighters on that first fire truck that arrived. And on that first fire truck, two of those
firefighters died. That is why I came to you saying we need four firefighters on there and that is why you bought in. When we have four firefighters on a fire truck or the difference of three, when a fire engine arrives on a call,
an alarm fire, a still alarm fire, an order of smoke, when that first fire truck arrives, three things have to happen. initial inside assessment by fire, whether it's one or two, the hookup of the fire hydrant, and the
captain making the assessment and setting up the instant command from the outside. When you only have three, the option has to be made, do we send one firefighter in a building or do we send two and not hook up the fire uh lines to
the hydrant and run the risk of it being a real fire and delaying water on a fire? The faster you get water on fire, the faster you save lives and the greatness the the chances of not having any catastrophic loss.
We together administration, director of public safety, you as a city council, we increased four. You also have a question of two fire engines are 20 years old in our fire and we have so many expenses of
repairs on these two engines. Do we go 2026 and 2027 with not purchasing an engine? Do we add one or do we replace both? That is a subject of this collaboration which is why we are coming to you two months earlier than we did
last year. Facilities. We have been discussing this, taking you on tours and discussing this for four years. The Hoboken Police Department at One Police Plaza has been a police headquarters since 1993, but has been a building for over 50 years in service.
The air ducts in that building have deficiencies that always cause problems with our HVAC systems. We are next month adding a second HVAC system in less than 10 years. We are spending
millions over years in IT costs, in HVAC cost to try to keep that building going, renting trailers so we can have offices outside so we could expand locker rooms because we have so many more female employees
that we have brought on to the Hoboken Police Department in the last 5 to seven years. Our fire headquarters is well over 100 years old with no ADA compliance at all. Our vision collaboratively and Council
President Ramos and I had some good talks in December and January. I've had good talks with Mayor Jab since she came in. We need to look at what are we doing with our public safety facilities. We need work with developers, any agency that's going to come in to help offset
costs because we need new facilities for our police and fire. We need a communication center that has police, fire, office emergency management, EMS, and 911 all in the same room, all under one supervisor instead of being in five different areas. 911 being outside of
Hudson County. Our office emergency management, do we purchase high water vehicles or not? Do we try to regionalize with that as far as use of assets or do we just keep relying on that OEM coordinator that 24 hours a day is doing
everything he and his small staff can do to keep us safe when we have that middle of the night or holiday emergency. Another key thing that you have is the overtime management, which is key. So, since 2014,
I've always brought up a an overtime formula. And there I bring this up because it was a council question when the you had your one-on- ones with with the BA's office. So, we follow in public safety in an overtime model that was created by the
Department of Community Affairs, DCA, when we had a state takeover back between 2008 and 2010. hours I sat with then fiscal monitor Judy Chapoti. So we take our number of our minimum staffing of workforce in the
street for police and fire. Both are approximately 6600 hours per payroll. We take 5% of that which comes out to 330. We then send to the two chiefs. We have a 330 per payroll 330 hours per payroll
overtime model that we are following. How do we price that? So you take your staff and you take your median police officer where we have 147. We take the 73rd officer in in seniority. What is his or her overtime rate? And we take
the median firefighter number 65. What is his or her overtime hourly rate? And that is how we come up with the number. So this year with the two with the fire and and police, one has $865,000 budgeted for, one has $830. The police actually came down approximately
$100,000 from last year. They are on track right now after the first quarter to be on par with that. The fire we budget the same where last year we came in under, we are trending towards that currently. That can help us later on.
However, we have to remember on a public safety end different from the other division budget workshops, what do we have to prepare for with the unknown? Do we make sure we have monies in there in case we have the hurricane that
paralyzes us for a week to a month or the major snowstorms where we had two backtoback including the largest snowfall in eight years? the large scale events like a square block fire
and already with the known that we have world cup sale 250 July 4th these are the questions that while we discuss Q&A and we have discussion we all have to have in our mind so that we come to the best budget to bring forth
propose introduce and adopt for 2026 thank you for the your time and listening and I look forward to the questions. >> Thank you, director. Let's start with Councilwoman Immus. She was the uh council that had a question regards to public safety in the last score around.
So, we'll start you council if that's okay. >> Uh thank you very much. So, um director Fanti, my question is the 9% um increase in the budget include the 4 and a half um or the you know salaries which is 50%
of the nine total, right, that you're proposing. uh to add in this fiscal year. Uh and so I guess I want to know that's just a quick yes or no. And then uh how would that uh are you projecting
out for 2027 also because that means that we would have nine additional uh so that I would like to know that the full cost of the nine. >> So the nine when you yes we did budget for nine starting July 1st we did six months. So, it's four and a half the
salaries. So, when you take salary, pension, and estimated benefits, because you don't know if you're hiring a police officer that uh is under a single plan or a family plan, we estimate it's approximately $100,000. So, the nine months, the sorry, the six
months for those police officers would cost $450,000. That's what's added to our salary and wage budget lines for those. And those 156 would be budgeted into uh 2027. And
on a whole year cost, those new officers would then cost $900,000. They have a uh a slight increase they would receive on July 1st, which would probably take that up from 900,000 to to a little bit less than a million. So it would still be in the 900,000 range.
>> Okay. Thank you. Uh, anyone any other council members for director Fronti? Uh, see go up. Uh, council president Zano then council Russo. >> Thank you, Council President. Uh, director Franti, thank you for the um,
uh, presentation. I do want to this may not be the form, but I want to say thank you. I know that some of the ebike I've I've seen some officers in Washington Street and they have stepped their patrolling up of that and I've actually spoken to a few and uh you know
they're doing the right thing by that. So I do want to commend you on that and at least you know not many times I say positive things as many will say but I wanted to at least get that out why we're in this call. >> Uh this is a difficult >> you got we got happy Paul tonight. Happy Paul.
>> Well hold on there's a good and bad right? There's a there's a rose. >> It's fine. >> Thor um >> I had I had I ended up with the bar the bad part. Listen, the bottom line is uh I was not a fan of that police contract
as you know. I abstained on that vote uh with Councilwoman Fischer. We ran the numbers and we knew that this was coming and we tried to express that. However, there was no conversation on that and many of my colleagues, some of which I still sit today, voted yes for it, including the mayor.
Um, we're in dire straits right now and when, like we said, 70% to make a widget, right? And I understand everybody did a fair job to get paid and all this other stuff. However, um with your leadership, uh and some of the the accolades that you've accomplished over
your years, I am asking you, and I don't expect a response back, that your influence on your employees to have them come back to the table to speak to the mayor uh
potentially in some of these contracts would be extremely useful. I know it's a difficult uh it's a difficult thing to do. It's a difficult thing for me to ask. However, as you tell us of all the great things which you've done, especially with the EMS and I even again
I'll say the ebikes. Um you know, you are the one that's going to be instrumental in getting potentially some conversations with the unions uh done to help the mayor with the budget gap that she has. So, I'm asking you uh
as a neighbor, as a councilman, and as uh somebody who's respect what you've done, that going into this next difficult discussion next month or two, that your leadership could help the mayor uh get some people in the room and
at least have that discussion. >> It's more of a statement, but question, but I'll follow up with statement that thank you for that. I think I can definitely help in there. So we need both sides, both the administration and the collective bargaining units to want to be able to
discuss any reopening. Uh we are not going to discuss contract negotiations here. I have an idea that I think could be a win-win for both administration and the unions. Uh I want to make it clear, I think we brought up then last year, uh the
business administrator and myself were not in in the negotiations for those police contracts. Yes, we do know that >> I and and both union presidents know this so I have no problem mentioning this over the term of the contract
the total number of percentage the officers received is exactly what is deserved and earned 100%. Would I have restructured it differently? 100% absolutely I've told both presidents that the area of health care uh again at
55% increase over the last three years. I have an idea and I hope I am in the room for any discussion because I I think I would be able to help both sides. So I I thank you for the comment on that. >> Okay. And one last thing, uh, I will
tell you that I will be fighting tooth and nail to deliver you a state-of-the-art police station, fire station, OEM station, uh, with the garage B plan that I have set up that hopefully the mayor will uh, work with me on in that it will not cost the city
a penny. that will be paid for with local residents around there and you will get the necessity of accesses that I know you want to get. Uh so hopefully that with some hard work in the next year uh maybe even the next couple
months when I can sit down with the mayor uh that I think there is a very very strong possibility that the first ward will deliver what you're looking for and not far from your basically just down the street on the other side uh that you will um be benefiting from a
new a new station that everything that you've asked for potentially will will be delivered at no co zero cost to the city from what I've been told. So, I'm excited for that and I do want to give you that uh pledge and I've always said I've wanted the police station to stay
in the first ward and I'm going to do everything to make sure that it does. >> Thank you, Councilman. I look forward to I know the mayor is eager for that discussion. I know the council president is. We are eager to get these talks going and that's exactly how it should be paid. Nothing from the taxpayer.
That's it. Councel, >> I'm good. I'm good. I'm good. Council Ramos, >> that that was that was pretty >> That was pretty happy. >> It was It was I'll say that my good debates in the past. >> Everyone's like, uh, Paul Paul went into
the phone booth and spun around. >> Uh, Councilman Russo. Oh, sorry. Councilman Coner and Councilman Bruce, I apologize. Um, thank you, uh, Council President, although I think I'm skipping ahead of, uh, Council Member Russo, but I think he's fine with that. Um, so, hey, you
know, I appreciate Councilman President's comments, but I would say, hey, you know, loop some of us and love to hear your plan for the police fire and all that stuff. Not have to, you know, meet with the the mayor first. We're your colleagues. Please, uh, please reach out. You know, my phone number. Um, you know, one thing I'll say
is, you know, you guys are looking for input as to what we're looking where we'd like to see revenue increases, cuts, etc., like our inputs on the budget. And I would say this is an area where I do not really want to see cuts and where I think um it would actually
be a danger to the city unless it is something like um adjusting health care plan uh to be a little bit more right-sized that could that could uh uh you know help out there. Um, for the past four years, uh, I've heard nothing but doom and gloom, especially from some
of the folks sitting on this call, uh, that the city's dangerous, that we're under attack, that, you know, I'm being a little hyperbolic, but it's that's been the sentiment. The response back was to uh you know talk to our professionals uh the chief uh the public safety director, the chief staff and
their response was okay if we want to meet uh this this demand uh which was really towards community uh policing we needed to staff up and so we met that call. So I thank my colleagues for for um you know helping raise that table of organization. I think to not staff that
up I think is not uh an appropriate move and I think we need to do that. Uh for a long time we've always kind of thought about what's good enough. If we we haven't uh thought about like the future with the number of people that were expected to move in I think we need to get ahead of the game. This is an investment not necessarily a spend. Same
thing with the with the compensation that we've we've given to to to uh the both police and fire. I think these are welld deserved. I always say that I think in, you know, this country especially, we we're we're willing to uh spend millions of dollars to compensate
people who wiggle a mouse uh for a living. But the second um we talk about compensating the people who keep us safe, people who teach us uh their fair share, all of a sudden we start to think about, you know, what we can afford. So um so you know those are just my
thoughts on you know this particular department and why I really want to make sure that we protect what we have and kind of see through on the investments not only personnel wise but infrastructure wise there and I'll ask this of my you know council colleagues as well. Um in the future you know if we
we talked about um you know the the contract that some people were were against for valid reasons yet they abstained. So if you're if you are against something moving forward, please just vote no and abstain if you're conflicted, right? And we all know what
a conflict of interest is. We all have them from time to time. So if you're conflicted, abstain. If you're not conflicted, but you just disagree, vote no. Thank you, >> Councilman Russo. >> Thank you, Council President. Hey, director. How are you? I appreciate
everything tonight. Uh I like Joe I think everyone I think all my council colleagues uh are on the same page of making sure that we're keeping the city as safe as possible. So um I want to start by just saying that right a couple things that you mentioned director that
let's start with the healthc care uh number that you said 55% increase where where are you getting that number? Are you basing that on the um increases that the state has seen in their state health benefit plan? Is that the number that you're looking at? >> That is correct. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. And and again, I just want to reiterate it, right? Like I think that's a >> I think we're comparing apples to oranges. We are not the state health benefit plan. We utilize that percentage to allocate our chapter 78 fees. That doesn't necessarily mean that our health
care costs increase that much. We have to look at our exact claims and we have the ability to do that because we pay them dollar for dollar. So, I I think that's a um although I understand why you use that figure because that's really when it comes to those contract conversations, that's what we look at.
>> And it's also what the city says their price point for last week. >> Yeah. But it's it but again, I just want to point out that that's not actually the the increase to the city of Hoboken. That was the increase that was anticipated in the state plan and what we used to allocate our chapter 78. So,
it's a nuanced kind of thing. So, I just want to make sure that we all understand that because I think that's where we can make some of those significant savings when we talk about the health care in the city of Hobok and for our employees. Uh, speaking about that specifically and
talking about our contracts, uh, as Councilman President spoke, uh, I think you having the ability to kind of serve as a union representative in the police department when you served in our police department, uh, then of course being the
chief of police and now the director of public safety. I think you have a unique perspective in how to do that. um if in fact those unions kind of refuse to come to the table and I don't I don't want to use that word right but they don't want
to re renegotiate they want to kind of maximize what they have uh you know not kind of change their benefits or their salary structure or whatever it may be if in fact that becomes the case in your position you what would your plan be to
either one get them to the table or two if they don't come to the table What's that plan B? >> So, as a union president, uh you may have even been on a council. Uh myself and Vince Lombardi were the presidents
of the unions back in 2008. What the city is allowed to do is change the provider, which could greatly lower cost without any >> uh say by the unions. I'll speak from my experience and say that you don't want
that. We almost ended up with Oxford Health Plans in 2008 which would have been yeah it would have been the same uh coverage as far as percentage in network and out of network but your in network doctors was so few you it would been impossible to find them. >> Mhm.
>> Again not we're not not going to publicly discuss collective bargaining uh strategies. I haven't even gone in detail with director Gonzalez or the mayor nor the presidents. I think I have an idea which can bring our sides together in a
win-win which does not lower the coverage of our current elective departments. >> I I agree. I think there's a path there to do that too. Um but it it takes a little bit on our end from the from the city side >> um to make sure we do that. Uh, another
thing that you you spoke about, of course, one of the things near and dear to me is our Hoboken EMS. Um, you you have it in your org chart and I want to make sure that people out there that are listening understand that it's not necessarily a city division. Right.
>> Correct. It's the agreement has includes city oversight where a director which the public safety sits on the board of directors over managing >> uh their finances in structure. >> But again there's no there's no staffing there that are quote unquote city
employees. There's no um there's not a a a expense or revenue that comes in from that. Right? All of those things are very separate from the city's budget in in that capacity. Um the only allocation
that we make as you presented in your in your budget was that $40,000 per year uh allocation to the to the EMS uh in the city of Hobok in the volunteer ambulance corp. Uh and that's been historically the same for at at some time at this
point. Uh I don't think it's changed over many years at this point. So that's the only allocation in our budget. So that's the only thing that really affects our budget. Um but there is >> there are two thing there are two things that that that uh is different from
that. So this in 2026 is the fourth year the city of Hoboken is not paying $250,000 so that the Hoboken volunteer ambulance corp can keep running covering for their fuel cost covering for their supplies, their stretchers, uh their defibrillators. So that's been a million
dollars because of 250 times 4. Another area which is key because we took them on and the city agreed for a five-year plan till 2029 that they are our primary BLS the the basic life support uh provider for the city in a hybrid paid
system by sitting on their board of directors there could be the potential liability. So if something goes wrong with a patient or a response to a call, we went we started exploring this as you
remember because in 2021 60% 60 of the calls for service in the city of Hoboken for EMS were handled by outside ambulances. We had police and fire waiting 15 minutes, 30 minutes, 45 minutes for responses by outside
agencies. While it was taking police officers and firefighters away from their job, there were people in need of medical care that were waiting that long. In 2025, we did not have one shift, not one shift, 365 days, two
shifts a day that had mutual aid coverage. That is how far we've come along. Y >> and also sitting on the board of directors making sure their finances are in order and that their structure is in order is to make sure we try to limit any liability on the city of Hobo. So it's unseen cost. It could be a
potential uh major cost if it's done wrong. >> Appreciate that. And then just uh another question you talked about the cell phones. I mean that one stuck out to me because $75,000 for cell phones. >> Are we is there an alternative to that? So, in
other words, right, they were using their cell phones for for pictures or notes or things like that. Is does it necessarily have to be cell phones that were using or is that $75,000 a cost whether that's digital cameras and note takingaking things or cell phones,
right? Like does that kind of come out in the wash? Is that is that something that would just be the same whether we went with cell phones versus some other apparatus? cell phones because there they're all inclusive of being able to take calls,
text, receive be on apps to re receive say the detective bureau within their own has a has app that they're able to discuss uh only with them within the investigators on a on a case answer calls 24/7 from any witnesses they couldn't use their personal phones for
taking pictures realize city phones as as I said when Chief Agar brought it to me 100% of what's on those phones are operable they're a city government >> entity now. So, they're paid for by the city. So, uh I think uh Chief Agon staff
did did a very deep dive for a year to see what is the best what is the most cost effective uh system to come up with and that is how they came up with this what we brought to you back in the fall and it took effect this January. >> And then this last question is the one I get probably the most and it's always
the elephant in the room, right? Why do we need a public safety director when we have a chief of police and we have a uh chief of the fire department? Why do we necessarily need one? >> I love that you brought that up because we had a couple uh council members, maybe even yourself, that discussed that
in a one-on- ones with the the business administrator. When I came into the role in 2022, uh most public safety directors, which as a public safety director, uh the reason for that is to handle the
administrative part and function of public safety is to leave the chiefs to do run the operations. A civilian director does not oversee operations, does not do deployments of police, deployments of fire fire. I work with
those two chiefs with their budgeting, the resolutions, overtime management, hiring practices, recruitment, interviews, promotions, but oversight of the two chiefs is without a doubt the last thing I do. The
last thing I do. When I was brought in, it was to run to oversee police and fire, handle the administrative end, oversee OEM, uh oversee security. Within one year after that, we added health department, comms, social
workers. Um, we had EMS. EMS is something that it needed to happen. We all, you were one of the advocates for we want to keep it whole based. Someone had to go and do that running. Okay. >> Also, the running of three committees.
There isn't a director that works more hours in the in the week. I am available 247. You have work that is done that is not that of the police chief or fire chief. There
is daily work with 100 to 200 emails per day. the payrolls, the uh policies, community engagement, dealing with the administration in meetings, uh World Cup
planning a year and a half ago, uh Fourth of July planning, my communications with the other public safety directors in the county. These are things that are not what the police chief and fire chief do. Uh we we have I
just actually I actually did a memo to because I had heard some of this dialogue some of it had to gone public. I had sent director Gonzalez uh a memo just a week ago about the responsibilities the daily the weekly you know the
summer and winter storms that we had the winter storms. We had two major ones. I monitor that weather every single day. I was the one who organized all those meetings of the 10 to 20 divisions. The police chief and fire chiefs don't
do that. I ran those meetings every four hours. I worked with all the other directors and all the division heads to make sure we had a preparation for an emergency response. And once the emergency was over, we then turned it over to DPW for that.
the hiring, the interviewing, the discipline from the different divisions, helping with retirement, working with promotions. These are things that are done again hourly management of OEP. OEM took over outside employment program. I
am coordinating with Kevin Pruz and John Petraino daily about about OEP mitigation liability. >> I believe me, I I know all I know all your qualifications and I know all the work that you do. It's what it's what's done every day. And I agree. I agree.
>> There's been a false narrative that what you why do we need a public safety director when we have two chiefs? >> Because I do a lot more then why >> I and I appreciate that. Believe me. And I think it's just one of the things that I want to make sure people understand the the reasoning behind it and
especially knowing that when you were the chief of police, you didn't have a public safety director, right? So it was >> I did the first two years. >> I did the first years. we've gone back and forth with them and without them. And I want and I want to give you the opportunity to really express the things
that you do and the things that >> um that the city kind of relies on you knowing that we're shifting that again, right? So this comes and goes. There's a public safety director sometimes, then there's sometimes that there's not. Then there's some roles that you you have had
in the past and now this year again you're going to have different roles and and less roles, right? Here here's the opportunity to to explain to the public why we as a city >> I can explain more like I did in 2022. So when I was when I was brought up for consent in 2022 the vote was 711. Okay.
And when I spoke to you that night I said maybe a couple years from now you won't need a public safety director. I said it in my public document. >> I remember >> I was a new chief in 14 15 and 16. Uh we had a senior fire chief at the time. We went to we had a public safety director
when at that time we did not need we the police chief and myself fire chief we made the play we did we didn't need it he was only overseeing two two divisions at the time
what we saw in 2022 when I was asked to come in and they knew and everybody knew I was talking to other cities everybody knows who those mayors were that I was talking to when Jason Freeman called me and said will you talk will to talk with us. What did we have?
We had a situation where nobody wanted the police chief position. So, we had an interim that was now retiring. So, we had to bring on a new police chief at that time. We had a situation in the fire department that now is being I think managed well and
working great handinhand with the fire chief that once I was able to get uh involved in that last year I think we're seeing a very good uh working relationship but there was a a very strange situation going on that needed to be have some oversight over. We had
OEM at the time where we had a lot of situations with utility companies that were saying we want to work with somebody uh from the administration uh better. We had security coming after uh
co that now were acting working out of their titles and were deunizing and forming their own union. We had a EMS system that was failing. This is why I was brought in. And also, one of the things back then, which
again, that's still here. One of the things I was asked for, uh, we need new police and fire facilities. We're not going to ask the police chief and fire chief to put in hours per day to work on that. The community engagement involved with that. We then see problems that
transpired over the next year or two, which took me from four divisions to eight because a director had to leave. I also overtook his three committees. So you can ask director Gonzalez, you can ask the last um business administrators
uh Caleb Stratton and uh Jason Freeman, you can ask the chiefs the the amount of work that is done that takes the administrative part portions off their plate. And then also when you add security, the EMS management, who's
going to manage EMS at that point? Who has had the success that has helped save EMS and bring money back to the taxpayers? Ask Tommy Walter if he would rather somebody else to help oversee that division. That is why I am here and that is why I think Mayor Jabbor was the
third mayor that brought me on in one of these situ in one of these positions. I think it's why you voted 90 because you know the dedication, you know the availability. Some of you may have difficult differences than I. I always take every one of you calls and you know the commitment is there. The nine of you can discuss your opinion of the work I
do. You can't question the commitment. >> Thank you. I appreciate it. Director, >> that's all I have. >> I think Councilman Cohen. >> Thank you, Council President. Uh I think if you ask someone why why do you have your job, you might get a long answer.
And I think we got one. uh >> without looking at a note. >> Uh >> that was short for Kenny. >> So um uh I I want to say uh uh the the second the first person I called with the idea that we should introduce a
resolution to have the uh collective bargaining groups, the six groups come back to the table and and negotiate in good faith to see where we could find savings. was the council president. The second person I called was Councilman President Zano. And I want to say that
uh I agree with everything that he said about that. I just want to say that for the record. Uh I I agree with everything that Paul said. I I I appreciate his comments. I want to second those comments and I want to I want to
encourage you director to uh encourage uh all the public safety unions as well as all the and for any of the other union representatives that are watching for all the other bargaining groups. Uh the council passed that resolution unanimously. Uh Councilman Russo started
this meeting by saying that you know there are fears about layoffs that are going around and people are concerned about it. I want to be very clear that the resolution that we unanimously passed wanted those collective bargaining units to go back to the table to avoid layoffs. The idea being and I
think the people of Hoboken are right when they say that they like the staffing of the police and they like the staffing of the fire. I think they like their public safety representatives. I think they feel that they're protected. I think they feel that they're safe. I think it's because they are. But but
they our public safety uh employees deserve the credit for doing the work and we want to keep them. So uh you know I would just encourage all of them to you know if they're listening to this meeting tonight the the goal here is not
for layoffs. Uh the goal here is to find cost savings in a way that we can keep them. And that is that's what was in that was in the resolution. It passed unanimously. and I hope that everybody comes to the table in good faith. So, uh the I I
would take one issue with my council colleague, uh Councilman Cano, uh where I think his comment was that he only wants to see possibilities for cost savings in healthcare. I think that we should be looking uh across the board uh to see I don't think we should limit it
to to one category. So, uh I encourage creativity, I encourage thoughtfulness, and I encourage good faith bargaining across the table. Uh, and I and I'm and I I'm pretty confident that all non-counsel members feel the same way. I
think that we all are seeing what we can do to keep all of our municipal employees doing the work that I think council uh that director Gonzalez made a very good case for not wanting to fire people because it's not costefficient. It seems like it should be
costefficient, but for the many reasons she described during her presentation because uh having fewer people do different things, moving people around, the most junior people leaving uh based on uh legal requirements that you're
losing you may be losing headcount, but you're not uh serving the people of Hoboken. Well, so uh other than that, I I I want to thank uh you've uh director Fanty for the presentation and I want to thank all
of our public safety uh workers for their dedication 24/7 to helping our city and uh you know look forward to to moving this process forward and and I hope to hear that there have been some good productive conversations across the table. Obviously, the council does not
have a seat at that table. Uh but uh I I know that we'll be hoping to hear some positive results and some constructive meetings of the mind. Uh and I'm not saying these are going to be easy conversations necessarily and maybe director, you have a really easy way to
save a lot of money and that's great, but some things may not be easy, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be exploring them. I think we should be have the same way that we're taking a serious look at all of our expenses and all of our revenues. I I I I would encourage our our friends in the unions
and leaders of of the unions to do the same on on their part. And it's not because we don't respect them. It's because we do respect them. We want their input. We want their thoughts. And if they and if there are good ideas and good thoughts coming from the administration, I hope that they're
given serious consideration. and and if they agree, great. And if they have a counter proposal, they should make that. But again, we don't have a seat at that table. But I just hope everybody comes to it with open uh minds and open hearts and uh you know, this is serious times
and it and it requires serious measures. And with that, that's all we have. Council President. >> Thank you, Council. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh Counciloman Fischer. >> Hi. Um, first off, I would say that uh, as you and I discussed, I liked it
when you had um, public health under you. Um, for all the reasons that you outlined, um, we've seen you be a good manager of a lot of different troubled areas. And I think the reason why you get involved is it highlights where we
have gaps in our management. And um so to me I I don't want to overburden you but um I wish that more stayed under you and we were able to to achieve some efficiencies that way. Um the uh and you
are always my first call from a safety standpoint. If I need anything, you're my first call I make. Um the uh couple very specific questions. One is we we've talked about this in the past. Um, and you mentioned that effectively you're
giving two stop sign tickets a day and I know you're giving all a number of other moving violations, but stop signs are like it's an interesting example because I would say if you were to ask people in our community where we think we're not
giving enough tickets, I think unanimously they would say one of two things. um one is ebikes, but more importantly it's cars not stopping and bikes not stopping at stop signs. So, I feel like um I'm hopeful that there's a
way that we can allocate resources to address that specific thing. And and one question is, is there a way for us to I don't know if we can, but make a local ordinance so that they can people can be
fined under a local ordinance where we get more of that revenue. um or is it because it's you know a title 39 or whatever it's called that we don't have that ability >> by state law you cannot have a paralleling ordinance that is covering
the same dialogue uh as uh the state statute under title 39 now one area of course there's always workarounds you look at Washington street where the police department would issue a 394138mm for double parking uh because we have a bike lane there
>> the city council administration came forth a few years ago, no parking in a bike lane. And that was that held uh legal mustard. >> Yeah. >> For stop signs, you would not be able to do that. Um it's it's because it's covered under the law. So when Carrie
Aelini brought me the numbers of statutes and I saw 608, it's funny. I said, "That's all." She goes, "You have no you you real you don't realize how much title different title 39s that the police officer are using." So, at the same intersection, they can issue a
failure to yield to a pedestrian. Officers are not going to take a stab at a charge to see if it holds in court. They want it to be solid. There's also warnings where people are stopped. They have a good driving record. They're not suspended. They don't have a long history. They get warnings. It's used as
educational purpose, but there's a lot of different statutes. Kerry felt it was very high having over 600 in stop signs because she sees um red light tickets uh improper turning on red failure to yield a pedestrian. So
when you add those those those add to a couple thousand. >> Sure. I >> I just want to touch on two more things with stop sign summones. So two two issues with stop sign summones. One is location. Where does an officer set up
to be able to stop somebody for going through a stop sign? There's also what we've added in the last couple years, which definitely helps pedestrian safety, and I will say, and Director Sharp is on this afterwards, I was against not having too many intersections that were always stopped.
I was worried about traffic being stalled. However, pedestrian safety is shown clearly increased because of those allway stops. And what you what a lot of people see at intersections now because so many are always stops. You
see the hesitation of who's to go and who's not. It looks like people are rolling through the stop signs. So there is some driver confusion but cars are going at lower speed. So those are two factors which I think limit uh limit stop sign summones but also increase people seeing cars going through stop
signs because we have so many intersections that are always stops. >> Got it. I I the only thing I would say in response to Carrie is just as um someone who hears about it from
constituents and she may not um we hear and I know because I've spoken to a number of my colleagues, we hear from people all the time that we're not stopping people that are going through stop signs. It's like people think stop signs are um uh optional or whatever in
Hoboken. So if there is a way to to do that more, one of the things in the other part of this question um is in the past I know that there was an interest and hopefully a focus on updating the handheld devices so tickets could be
issued a lot quicker um to make it more efficient and um it was a budget item a couple years ago. It didn't get in the budget last year. what what's the status of that that would allow for not that not that we want to make it predatory out there, but to make it maybe more efficient because when people have more
of a fear of getting ticketed, they're more apt to not run through a stop sign, you know, not um yield to a pedestrian or not not yield to a pedestrian, etc. >> The handhelds was for for the speeding. So, I will check with Chief Agarat tomorrow if they're still exploring
that. A problem under the speeding statute 39498 is the >> it wasn't it wasn't speeding. It was a hand it was a handheld ticketing device. >> We are trying to get >> we are trying to get the Hoboken police smart to receive them. I think we may be
even in waiting of receiving them. You will see them in our offic's hands in 2026. >> Awesome. Okay. >> Sorry I sorry I misund >> which is which hopefully >> is that the speeding question uh Tiffany just asked? Sorry, that that was speeding.
>> No, no, no. It was just >> using electronic ticketing. E ticketing. >> Yeah. >> Gotcha. Okay. I love >> the the handheld devices. Like I I got a ticket in New York cuz I got hung up in an intersection. I got pulled over instantly and they gave me a blocking
the box ticket within I'm not kidding within 60 seconds. It was crazy. And then they walked away. And I know that the tying up the time of police officers giving out tickets was an issue a few years ago and this seems like that could
help resolve it and maybe um allow for more ticketing. And again, it's not like we want to be predatory, but you want I don't know, you want to do what you can to deter um unsafe behavior and and if there's a way to make money off of it at the same time, I think that that is a positive.
>> And we'll get much faster data on the way it's set up as far as officers turning in summones. we will get uh hard data as far as what summons is being issued when and at what frequency and location. So we'll have a lot more data to share with translation MPD.
>> Yeah. So the the next question's a more challenging one and it's a position that I've held um from you know over the last year or so um as we're thinking about building out this new community um policing division. you know, we had uh a
community to policing effort um under Lebu where he he it's he took the police department and converted it back. He put police on the ground. He put police on the streets. He put, you know, um police were a lot more visible with effectively a similar headcount that we currently
have. He just decided to use it differently. H how much time have you spent pursuing doing something like that? and you know and how can we do more of that or consider more of that before we significantly expand the police force.
>> I had talks with Chief Aguar back in December when we knew coming into the budget year of what would be the minimum number that he could at least get community policing going. Uh first I had a community policing division. I I was in in the first uh community policing
institute training class in 1996 that the state of New Jersey had. I was a sergeant and commander of community policing. When I was chief, I br I actually I brought community policing back from the prior chief and put police officers in the parks and the waterfront and back on bikes. Uh
Captain Abu just put officers in different areas. He did not bring back community policing. When I talked about it with chief with Chief Aguar, the minimum number for him to have a community policing unit is the 156. And that's why I went back to Chris Baldwin
the first week of January and said we need to budget for 156. So at least we can get community policing going 7 days a week at least one shift. So that is what needs to be managed, engaged as far as do we have community policing one shift, do we have it no shifts or do we do go for two. So, but there's
definitely 156 gets us moving towards having the community policing that you desire to see. >> So, what I desire to see is to take the existing organization and look at it and restructure it. So, there's a greater allocation towards community policing
with the existing footprint, not adding a 30 person new division because you can't do community policing with the existing group. And that that's where I in in all the meetings that we had um when I was still in public safety, the the my my takeaway is that wasn't
considered. There was there was um an attachment to the existing staffing structure and an and really just an unwillingness to change from that structure. even when we needed to have police in Church Square Park, you know, I was told that they couldn't afford one
police officer in Church Square Park because it was going to upend their structure. And I guess my point is is should we be looking at that structure and saying maybe we need to be thinking about that structure differently and and restructuring it in a way that addresses
the community policing needs without having to hire, you know, 30 more people. So it sounds like that like I said it was a difficult question to ask and it sounds like >> it's a good question. It's a great it's great it's a great conversation for you. Yeah, >> you there's different trends in
different years where there's different problems like three years ago, car theft come started coming back then uh what we saw post 2022 uh when we had criminal justice reform start kicking in where we had recidivism
in the areas of uh shoplifting, small drug offenses, thefts, simple assaults. Uh we have we've seen an an in an uptick in in the homelessness population. Uh the uptick in the homelessness
population postco along with criminal justice form where people were not going to jail for fourth degree crimes and less brought about recidivism. So there's different assessments yeartoyear by police. Chief AO meets with his command staff every week. He lays out
the deployments of the police officers. uh he does it with his staff. Uh we discuss high-end problems, regional problems, trending problems. When he saw the issue starting to move to parks, that's why you started seeing the response to the
parks. >> It wouldn't just be boots on the ground. We started adding cameras to Churchwood Park and different areas. Community policing and walking patrol is always on the table. realize with 321 calls for service when you when it's
foot patrol that does delay responses. And on foot patrol, community policing is not just about let's see the officer's feet on the ground. No, it's about communicating with the public, communicating with businesses, running community programs, doing community meetings, uh getting
involved in the schools, anything that's on that officer's post is that what they are supposed to do community interaction with. It's not just response. When you're trending to 117,000 calls for service, it is tough to respond to 13
calls per hour and have and take people away from uh the uh motorized patrol. Now, there's foot patrol in target areas and community policing are two very different things.
There's there's directed patrols where if you have and we've done this we did this on Washington Street when I was chief with you two summers in a row where >> we put officers we I took seven or eight officers and we put them on Washington Street in the evening hours when it's high explosion area that was directed
patrol not community policing community policing is more of a concept and not a response to calls for service uh so there's there's two different areas I know Chief Aguar wants more foot patrols uh every time we discuss it. I saw
officers on about eight or nine bikes outside police headquarters today. I summize that without a doubt that's training more officers to get on bikes, which has always been great in our bikes storefront in our housing area. So, I know he's open to it. We have a lot of requests for services
that come in daily, whether it's a phone call to police, a call to the mayor's office, an email to me, and it's always about prioritizing and like triaging. Uh but without a doubt, it's not resistance to community policing. We want it. I
want it. I know Chief Agui has told all of you last year. He wants foot for patrol. He wants it this year. Of course, always the more staff does provide more because when you move people to that, you do have to take them from somewhere. And that's something that has to be looked holistically by he
and his his and uh command staff. But I what I would say is I agree with one exception, which is I I think it's not just him looking at his command staff. I think it's you,
him, the mayor. It's a group of people saying, "How are we allocating our existing resources? And are we allocating them in a way that is meeting the needs of the community?" And and I think if we we've had mayors in the past that have deferred to the police chief
to decide what the structure is that they want to use. And I and I think there needs to be more of a combination um working with the administration and and thinking outside of the box, not
just preserving the structure that you have and adding to it, but in times like this where we really are under pressure like last year, right? Ravi was or former mayor Bala was leaving office and he's like yeah 30 you know it was like Oprah you know 30 police officers for
you and 30 police officers for you with literally no financial consideration and no discussion on what realistically does our community need right like what what you've done in church square park has significantly reduced the tension within our community we didn't know that before
it happened we didn't know that that's what it was going to take do we need seven more people in square park I don't know that we need that. So like those kind of real conversations and and and also from a cost um cutting I you know we all support I'll agree with Councilman Cohen which I don't very
often that we um we support our public safety. We want you know I do think more and more people feel safe except for ebikes and I think that people are very respectful and appreciative of the work that you do chief and everyone. I think things have calmed you know down. We
have some hot pockets in certain areas, but in general, we want to be supportive. But that doesn't mean unlimited funding and unlimited police officers without any cost considerations, which is what happened last year. >> What happens a great >> and so this year and and where what I
would say for you in particular is I personally am appreciative of your focus on costs and efficiencies um etc. So, I have confidence like like um Councilman Preszano and uh Councilman
Combo said um hoping that your kind of involvement in the way forward with our contracts I think is going to be very um helpful. Um, one just one last thing. I'm just going to respond to Councilman Cantero because I, you know, he says things to irritate me on on purpose, I
think. But when we last year when we had when the um the 8-year contract was put forth and Councilman President Zano and I abstained, we didn't like the contract, but that's not why we didn't that's not why we abstained. We sent a
barrage of questions to the administration, including what is the future impact? what does this look like? What does the budget look like? Like what are we how what does this look like in 2026? And we got none of that. We got no answers. We were also the only ones who asked those questions. So last year
we were focused on this year when all of those who voted yes on the contract last year weren't weren't considering the impact this year, but now suddenly you are. So one of the reasons why you can abstain is when you don't feel like you have enough information. We should be abstaining all the time if the
administration is not giving us, you know, the future impacts of major financial decisions, whether it's hiring, whether it's large projects. We've gone a decade basically without any type of future forecast. And I am I am uh optimistic and and appreciative of
the fact that already director Gonzalez, the mayor, they're really trying to add transparency and forward-looking, you know, forecasts, etc., back into our conversation which I think is you know going to make all of our jobs a lot easier to vote yes or no. So that's it.
So thank you for your presentation. >> Thank you Councilwoman. >> Thank you Councilwoman. Uh thank you Director Fanti. You are off the hot seat. >> Thank you. >> Appreciate it. And and I really appreciate everyone's uh questions
tonight from council members. I think it's been really uh helpful uh in moving this process forward. That's why we're we're we're allowing more time for the conversations. I think it's really been helpful. And then we'll hear from Director Sharp.
Next for uh transportation. Hi everyone. Can you hear me? >> Yeah. >> Yes, we can. >> Great. >> All right. Thank you. Um too. >> Yeah. The transportation and parking budget hearings after dark is a is an
annual tradition uh for Hoboken. Uh so happy to be back doing that again. Um, all right. I'll jump right in. I know we're running really late. Uh, good evening everyone. Um, for anyone who doesn't know me, uh, my name is Ryan Sharp and I have the honor and the privilege of serving as the director of
the Department of Transportation and Parking. Uh, and working alongside some of the most talented and hardworking people anywhere in municipal government, period. Um, as you've seen through the previous bud budget presentations tonight, uh, we're going to be doing things a little
bit differently this year. And I think that's pretty cool. Um, so instead of officially introducing a budget and then providing a presentation that summarizes that introduction, uh, I'm going to be presenting tonight uh on a proposed budget for 2026 with a goal of getting
additional feedback from city council and residents uh, prior to introduction. Uh we're then going to take that feedback and combine it with feedback we received from over 2500 responses through uh the resident budget survey that we put out and then hopefully
introduce a final budget that is uh ultimately stronger and more responsive to the community. Uh so with that said, I'm going to jump in and uh quick note that the first half of the presentation is going to be uh going through the proposed budget and numbers and things
like that. Uh the second half of the presentation, I'm going to do something uh a little bit unique where I'm going to go through and identify some potential spending cuts and revenue enhancements that can help uh reduce the overall city's budget deficit for 2026.
Uh first I'm going to begin with a department overview using our org chart as a guide. Uh there are eight divisions across the department. The two divisions on the left, signal and traffic maintenance and planning are primarily responsible for traffic planning, uh, vision zero, roadway improvement
projects, signage and striping, curbside management, maintenance of traffic for construction projects like rebuild by design, uh, bike share, EV charging, and much more. Uh, the six divisions on the right side of the ORC chart are more focused on operations and parking. Uh
that includes our off- streetet division which is responsible for managing uh parking garages and lots that are uh owned and maintained by the city. Our on street division is responsible for maintenance, operation and revenue collection for the city's 200 plus on
street parking pay stations. Uh the parking enforcement division is responsible for you guessed it uh enforcing parking and curbside uh regulations across the city. uh parking services is responsible for providing customer service uh providing or
processing tens of thousands of uh permit applications and temporary no parking temporary no parking sign requests. Uh answering questions to the public, taxi licensing and more. Uh transit is the hop shuttle bus
operation. and accounting and finance is responsible for bookkeeping and reporting on department finances, uh, purchasing and things like that. Moving on to our department headcount, we're currently budgeting for five fewer FTEEs or full-time equivalents uh,
compared to the 2025 budget through attrition. Uh, there's actually been a long-term downward trend in the headcount for transportation and parking. uh going back to 2018, there were around 90 people uh in in terms of headcount for the department and we're
now in the high 60s. Um any further reduction in headcount uh I believe would have a very negative impact on the on the department's ability to deliver key services. Uh most of which are either revenue generating or public safety focused in nature.
All right, so getting into the numbers now. This year's proposed budget for transportation and parking is 22.3 million, which is actually about a 7% reduction from 2025. And in the next couple slides, I'll get into some more detail about why we are proposing a 7% decrease in our budget uh
compared to last year. Uh starting with the revenue side of things, we're proposing using uh 2 million from surplus this year instead of 3 million in 2025. Anticipating more than two million two million in surplus this year will deplete our fund balance
to unhealthy levels and negatively impact uh future budget years if the surplus is not significantly regenerated. Um overall we expect garage permit and miscellaneous revenue to be relatively flat. Uh but we are forecasting meter revenue to be down by
about 7% this year due to impacts mostly from the two major snowstorms that we had in January. Uh and for context, the meter revenue through January and February is running about $300,000 uh behind the pace of 2025. Again, largely because of those two storms,
which had a significantly negative impact on the volume of meter transactions uh during the first two months of the year. on the appropriation side of the ledger. Uh structural expenses that we generally don't have control over from year to year. Uh things like uh pension
obligations, health care, uh debt service, and the annual transfer to the city. Uh combined, they account for about 55% of our total proposed budget for 2026. Uh so that only leaves 45% of our budget remaining where we have some level of
discretion over. And the vast majority of the proposed expenses uh for that 45% are for critical uh revenue generating salaried positions and operations. Uh we're proposing a small increase in operating expenses to keep up with the
inflationary market pressures that we've all been talking about tonight and also to avoid falling behind in critical infrastructure projects. Uh while our salary and wages are proposed to be flat year-over-year, uh we're also proposing a smaller transfer to the city this year uh of 6.5
million uh because of a lower surplus that we are proposing to anticipate going back to that 2 million versus 3 million. Um, and when you combine that with a potential reduction in revenue because of the rough start to the year with the really poor weather, um, we're
trying to be a little bit conservative here, uh, with the transfer of the city. All taking into account that need to regenerate the surplus, uh, which is really critical for the, uh, medium-term and long-term, uh, financial health of the parking utility.
Uh just for perspective there with the transfer to the city uh going back to 2018 the transfer to the city was around $4 million and last year was $ 8.3 million. Right? So uh a transfer that uh continues at that level of increase
year-over-year is just not sustainable without completely uh depleting the parking utility surplus and or gutting other revenue generating services in this negative feedback loop. Right. And this slide provides a more detailed breakdown of our proposed salary and
wages and operating expenses by unit uh which roughly corresponds with the department divisions that I went through in the OR chart a few slides back. Uh a couple highlights. The parking enforcement operation uh costs the most to operate out of all of our divisions, but it also brings in significantly more
revenue than its costs. Uh but it's also important to note that transportation and parking uh pays for all of those costs to operate parking enforcement related uh costs uh but receives none of the revenues for parking violations. I want to make that clear that all parking
fines are paid into the city's general fund through the municipal courts and none of that revenue actually goes to uh transportation and parking and therefore cannot be budgeted for through our department. uh an important point that a lot of people don't don't realize. Uh some
other key operating cost drivers for uh these divisions includes uh utility costs and IT expenses for the director's office. Uh contracted software like the online permit system and merchant processing fees for all those permit applications uh for parking services.
uh contracted services. Uh for example, our parking uh enforcement management system that is the uh kind of big uh brain that behind the scenes helps operate the the parking enforcement operation. Um we call that PMS. Also
vehicles and all the supply to support the park enforcement operation are the key drivers there. uh for off- street the key uh cost drivers are contracted services for professional uh operation of the garages which is currently through laz parking. Uh also
there are a lot of merchant processing fees as you can imagine through uh hundreds of thousands of transactions per year for all the garages combined. Uh utility costs can be relatively significant for large facilities like parking garages. Uh and then facility
maintenance that's required to uh maintain a state of good repair for each of the garages and lots. uh for the hop uh fuel and vehicle maintenance are kind of the two big drivers along with the contracted service for uh Pacio which provides the
real time GPS tracking in the mobile app with real-time service alerts and and kind of the the higher tech part of the of the operation that is uh a big convenience uh factor for riders uh for the on street division that is is
responsible for maintaining uh parking meters across the city. It's a lot of supplies and materials. Also, the merchant processing fees again and the wireless connectivity fees for each of those parking pay stations. Uh for planning, it's typically
professional services and vendor fees that are the key cost drivers there. Uh a couple examples would be um hiring engineering firms to uh do design and construction administration for uh grant funded projects. we typically get typically through municipal aid and
local aid through NJ dot each year uh and other grant projects as well. Uh typically the city still has to take on the costs of or the soft costs that are associated with those construction grants. Um and for signal and traffic, uh it's a
lot of supplies, materials, right? It's the the signage. It's the uh sign poles. It's the paint. It's the paint machines that operate them. It's the drills that are used to drill new holes for for signs. Uh all of those materials are
really the big kind of cost drivers uh for the signal and traffic division. Uh this slide helps visualize the breakdown of our department operation by division and shows the split between salary and wages and operating expenses.
OE is about 55% and SNW is about 45%. Uh and as I mentioned kind of in the last slide, you know, enforcement and the garage operations account for a little more than half of uh the cost by
division. And this slide helps visualize the overall proposed budget breakdown by appropriation and revenue categories. Just another way to kind of look at it uh visually. And now for the second half of the presentation, I'm going to provide a few
slides that uh show some potential options for uh reducing the budget deficit uh and using the kind of unique nature of transportation and parking as a self-funded department uh to try to
help uh improve that situation, right? And these options are not final. There's a lot of flexibility for them. Uh so the goal here is to kind of put some things out there and get your initial feedback
on what you like, what you don't like, and again hopefully we can take that feedback and uh turn that into something in the introduced budget that's going to be really meaningful and uh responsive to uh budget needs for the city and for
the needs that the public have have expressed through through all their feedback that we've received so far in the budget survey. So this slide here um basically shows a combination of spending cuts and revenue enhancements that uh combined could help
reduce the budget deficit by about $1.8 million in 2026. Uh this assumes that uh a lot of these spending cuts and revenue enhancements in the slides that come after this are adopted and implemented as soon as
possible. Um but again there's a lot of flexibility there and that's intentional right we had to make some assumptions here to provide a slide like this to show what was possible uh but this is kind of the start of the discussion not the end of that discussion
so I'm going to start with potential spending cuts and for a department like transportation and parking that has been running very lean in both uh headcount and in terms of operations uh for a number of years now. It is
really difficult to and sometimes counterproductive or to to make uh spending cuts in certain areas because you want to be careful not to make spending cuts that are going to also negatively impact revenue generating operations or the public safety focused operations of the of the department uh
that have been very successful uh over the last decade. Uh but here are some potential options, right? starting with renegotiating the City Bike contract. Uh there was an RFP issued for uh a new program for Bike Share. The 5-year
contract with City Bike through Lyft uh expires this year. And so there's an opportunity right now to negotiate uh some potential cost savings there that we think could add up to potentially $150,000 in 2026
and nearly a million dollars over a 5-year period. Uh so that is a high priority. Some other options include reducing the number of on street parking pay stations. Uh, a lot of people don't realize that it costs money for each
paystation to be out there in the field live turned on. Whether it makes $1 per year or $10,000 per year in revenue, uh, it has effectively flat costs associated with each meter for uh, wireless
connectivity and uh, for merchant processing. that's kind of baked into the overall uh meter operation contract that the city has uh with the meter company uh metric. Uh there's also the ch a possibility to
reduce on call engineering contracts in favor of more in-house work. Um to make that work well, you probably would need to hire someone else in house, right? which would result in in savings, a little bit of savings this year and more
savings over time as uh there's a shift in in kind of focus from uh outside consulting to more in-house work. Uh but wanted to put that out there because I know it's a discussion topic that comes up a lot. Uh also possibility to delay a
hop study that was planned for this year to 2027. uh could also delay a street asset inventory mapping uh program that helps identify pavement condition assessments which gets factored into the pavement
management program and helps prioritize which streets are going to be uh put into the capital improvement plan for paving over the next few years. It collects conditions that will pick up potholes and uh can even pick up on sidewalk uh imperfections and uh many
many many other conditions. Striping that's faded and help uh efficiently and cost-effectively develop an in-house plan for prioritizing inf infrastructure improvements uh within our public rights of way that could be delayed till 2027. Uh and then also potentially reducing
the quantity of striping maintenance. Uh there's a lot of striping maintenance that is required as you can see across the city. Um and you know that is a high priority, but it's also something that does have a little bit of discret discretionary uh cost associated with
it. And so this is just one option, right? There are trade-offs for all of these, but in the effort of transparency, we wanted to be open and put these out there up front for you to consider. The next couple slides focus on revenue enhancements. So again, these are just a
handful of potential options. There are other options that could be discussed and there are other ways that these could be uh structured. Um but we had to come up with some kind of of estimate and some kind of structure to show for this presentation uh just to get the discussion going. Right? So I'm going to
walk through a few by category and uh would love to hear your feedback when I'm done uh with this section. So the way things are structured uh there is a range for each one of these and this is additional revenue that we think is possible to be collected in 2026.
uh this is not annualized and um you know it assumes that uh if there's if there are ordinances ordinances required uh for these that they get adopted uh very soon as soon as April uh and implementation would begin uh as early
as May in some cases. Um, so for meters and paid on street parking, a few options for generating more revenue include extending metered parking from 900 p.m. to midnight in business districts only and only on Friday and
Saturday, right? To match up with uh the surge in parking demand uh during those two evenings each week. Uh it's it's good for business uh in theory because uh there will be more parking availability uh on street for businesses
that are typically open later on Fridays and Saturdays in our business districts. Uh also increasing meter parking fees from $2 an hour to$ 220 an hour. Uh that would mostly affect the visitor side of
permit parking zones. So would have almost no impact uh on residents that have resident parking permits. Another option would be implementing increased metered pricing in business districts after the first two hours. This is also known as progressive rate
pricing. A lot of cities do this where uh there is a an initial fee that captures the vast majority of transactions and in Hobok in the first two hours about 90% of the transactions are captured in that first two-hour period. Uh, but if you want to stay
longer than two hours, there isn't a uh time restriction necessarily that would would would uh force you to leave, but there would be an increase in price to something that could be $4 an hour or $5 an hour for each hour after the first
couple hours uh to uh nudge people to hopefully either park in a garage if they want to be there long term uh or if they're willing to pay a higher price and a premium to get that premium parking. on street near wherever they're visiting. Uh then they would have to pay
a little bit of extra for that. Uh another option would be launching a smart loading zone pilot program. Uh existing loading zones on Washington Street using the automotive cameras that have been used for the clear program late last
year. Uh those cameras have the ability to do a lot of different things and uh not just enforcement. Um, and other cities in New Jersey, including Fort Lee, have uh launched a similar program where they basically charge uh a small
fee per minute in loading zones through an easy pass type model. Um, and there's grace periods involved. So, it's a way to to uh try to capture a combination of different loading needs. Right? Right now, the loading zones that
we have in Hoboken uh are trying to do a lot of heavy lifting for a lot of different types of of of loading needs, right? It's also the commercial loading needs that can take 30 minutes or an hour. Uh it's also capturing those ultrashortterm pickup and drop offs and
food deliveries and things of that nature. Um, and so there's many ways you can structure that to uh uh generate some revenue and also accomplish some key policy objectives for turnover and better management of the loading zones
that we have in Hoboken. Another option is to formalize and regulate uh parcel delivery hubs. Uh that is one way to provide more efficient uh package deliveries through delivery service providers where uh
there is a hub on a street somewhere and uh that uh truck delivers to that hub and they're paying for basically reserving that space on the street and then uh people are loading up carts or potentially cargo bikes in the future
and then they're delivering delivering those packages within a few block radius. uh which cuts down on a lot of the legal parking that you see through delivery vehicles and conflicts and and traffic and a lot of the tickets that uh delivery service providers have
complained about uh in the past because they find it challenging to make dozens of deliveries each day in Hoboken given the challenges of finding parking across the city. Uh for parking garages, uh one option is to activate special event rates during major events like the
World Cup, America 250, and other special events across the city. Um you know, that basically is uh putting into effect a higher flat fee that uh tries to stem some of the the surge in demand
and helps manage uh that daily parking demand during those special events and can also generate some additional revenue at the same time. So, another thing that is a good policy uh initiative. It's it's a good best practice for parking management, but can also generate some more revenue.
Uh the last one on this page is increasing what we call the helper program fees from $6 a day to $9 a day. And basically, this is a program that provides steeply discounted parking to employees of Hoboken businesses. So they can park up to 12 hours per day in a
parking garage um that is owned and operated by the city of Hoboken at a discount rate. Right? So that helps with uh the the the parking cost burden for employees of our Hoboken businesses. Then we have permits, right? One option
is to increase residential parking parking permit fees from $61 a year to as high as $122 a year. Right? It could be something somewhere in between, but for the purposes of this presentation, we wanted to put something out there that uh we could kind of speak to and
kind of go from there, right? And it seems like a big jump, $122 per year, but when you break it out per month and per day, it's about $10 per month or about 33 cents per day to park uh most places across the city. And that would generate a significant amount of
additional revenue in 2026 and beyond. Uh, another option is to increase temporary no parking sign fees for construction by 20%. Right. Uh, there's been a significant amount of con uh, construction activity across the city for several years now, and that's not
going away anytime soon, unfortunately. Uh so you know one way to kind of capture the negative impacts of that construction right the negative externalities that our residents feel every single day is to provide a
slightly higher price for uh construction companies that are paying that that are doing the work in Hoboken um and using that revenue to offset some of those impacts. Another option is to increase overnight visitor permit uh
fees from $9 currently to $14 overnight, right? We call those the virtual visitor permits or VVPs. Um, and you know, that's a 24-hour visitor parking uh permit effectively. So, it' be up to $14
to park for 24 hours on the visitor side of uh permit parking zones. Another option is to introduce license fees for for private shuttle buses. Um something that's been talked about in the past uh and uh would would be a good policy
initiative to generate revenue and regulate uh a large number of private shuttle buses uh in the heavily congested uh Hoboken terminal area where there is going to be even more of a premium for curbside access. uh once the
uh Hobon connect project is is completed uh also increasing parkletit and streetery monthly fees by at least 10%. So that would be going from a fee of $2.75 per square foot to at least $3.3
per square foot uh beginning this year. On the enforcement side, again, this is not revenue that would go to uh the Department of Transportation and Parking. it would go to the city. Uh but we put this in here anyway because we uh control the operation of parking
enforcement. Uh so a couple options would be to increase minimum fines for parking violations to $50 across the board. Most parking violations in Hoboken currently are at or a little bit above 50, but there are a small number that remain that are lower than 50. And
uh most of the title 39 violations that director Fanti talked about in his uh presentation previously for parking uh are in the $50 to $55 range currently that are similar types of violations to the municipal ordinance violations that Hoboken has. So it'd be going to parody
effectively with those title 39 state violations. Uh and the big one is the overtime meter uh violation which is currently $35 for a ticket. So that would be the primary driver uh of revenue here, putting that one up to $50 per violation.
And the last one here is integrating technology to improve enforcement operations. And basically that would be uh restarting automated enforcement of various violation types along Washington Street um similar to what was done at
the end of last year. And again, that can be done in a lot of different ways, right? That could be only for bus stops. It could be bus stops and loading zones. It could be uh bus stops, loading zones, and EV charging. It could also be for bike lanes, right? So, there a lot of different ways that uh we could approach
that. And it is an innovative use of technology that frees up a lot of other uh labor resources to do other enforcement elsewhere in the city. uh you know doing things like uh enforcing resident permit parking violations which
has a direct impact on improving you know quality of life for residents uh in terms of keeping as much parking as possible available in permit zones. Almost done. I believe this is the last slide for
revenue enhancements. Um outdoor advertising, right? We're about to go out to RFP uh for a big advertising concession that would include advertising on bus shelters, on hot buses uh renewing the current concession a
city has for ad panels um on freestanding ad panels that are there's about 13 of them and that contract has generated typically over $100,000 per year annually. Um, so this is a potential big revenue driver that will be a top priority.
Uh, for EV charging, one option would be to increase idling fees at charge point stations uh, from 5 cents per minute currently to say 25 cents per minute. Right? Again, that helps from pol from a policy perspective with driving turnover
so people don't just squat on the limited number of EV charging stations that we have in the city. Uh and then higher rent payments at Jolt stations. Jolt has taken over uh the operation of the Volta or Shell stations
that were have been installed um across the city over the last few years. And we have negotiated higher monthly rent payments from $350 to $500 a month, which would generate another $36,000 in 2026.
And lastly, for uh mobility, um increasing the monthly rent that corner cars pay. That's also going to be a new RFP for this year. Uh currently, Zakar is paying $150 per month for rent.
And conservatively, we put two $225 per month here. That could be a lot higher, and we would hope that it would be a lot higher, but we needed to put something in here. We want we wanted to be a little bit conservative. Uh the last one is launching a delivery robot pilot program uh similar to Jersey City uh
which would include fees for licensing uh companies to operate in Hoboken and potentially per bot fees for every robot that is in circulation within the city. Uh so that's a lot of information and I'm happy to go back and and and talk
more about those slides or any other part of the presentation. Uh, but really wanted to put that out there for discussion purposes and and and hope you guys uh uh yeah, I'm looking forward to to a great discussion. Thank you. >> Councilman President Zanos, your hands
up first. >> Welcome back, Director Sharp. I hope you can turn the department of trans of um non-transparency into the department of transparency again because while you were away we were left guessing pretty much everything that was going on. So I
hope you can bring that in and you know you've made some best efforts with me but uh I've been very disappointed with this department since you've been gone. Not I'm not blaming anybody. However, I think that was the old administration that had some
I'll just say it's the old administration, but we there was a lot of things that happened on the last part of that administration that caused uh I think many of my colleagues um to have some aida and frustration. So, I'd like to see that change. Uh I look at some of
this um you know you're one of our few revenue producers so therefore cutting costs for you is massive because that translates into directly to us. So efficiencies are the key things. One I've watched living
across from a garage is the inefficiency of the garage. There are a lot of times that I will walk in the garage and just kind of look and see empty spaces and those are monthly uh those are monthly commuters uh or people with you know
a yearly uh or a monthly pass and sometimes those monthly passes those spaces stay empty because somebody leaves for a business trip or leaves for a vacation or does along those lines. Um, ultimately I think that we should be make our garage more efficient so that those spaces aren't left uh un underutil
underused. In other words, if we know somebody's out for two weeks and somehow we can do a pilot program and we find out that, you know, we have a thousand monthly users that are gone for two weeks. We now opened up a bunch of spaces across the year and we can
increase parking revenue in our garage, which is more expensive than on street parking. Now, I love all the ideas about new parking fees and taxing the crap out of our citizens uh and and business pe and everybody coming to our town. That's
awesome. Uh little faciciousness there. However, we cannot sit here and do these things when we do not provide adequate services for our parking garages packed by 9:30 a.m. every morning. That is a massive problem for me is that my ward
gets drilled on this because we're the commercial district and that if somebody wants people are stopping, locals are stopping not not going to the restaurant, not stopping and grabbing something or worried about getting a ticket or just avoiding Washington Street altogether. So until we come up
with solutions, these fees are nice to plug holes. However, we have to give solutions to the community first before we just go beg for them for things. This will take me in my second one. You mentioned bus stops. Well, since Jersey Transit
doesn't listen to us, why don't we just take the bus stops away? The bus is stopping in the middle of the road is a traffic calmer. That stops traffic. Okay, so traffic on on Washington Street is you can only get two and a half cycle lights now. And so I look at it that
way. We make those loading zones because now tractor trailers are coming. And guess what? We take all the other loading zones and make them back into parking. You have nice long loading zones, corners everywhere. Happy golucky. Bus stops are every other street either side, we're golden. So
there's another revenue producer we could do. Um we or I believe if we have professionals sitting in these seats and you look to be again, I'm going to say it topheavy again. Uh, and not talking the top two layers. The third layer looks very, very
heavy. Um, we're doing all this outside stuff. The hop study, AI, I hear AI, AI, AI. I've heard that you several times in these presentations. Okay. Either we have the data, we plug the data in. You guys go to conferences,
you learn about stuff. We don't need to pay somebody $60,000 for hop study. Either we need to put more on or more off, or we can run it through AI to give us the routes we need to do it. So, that's a cost savings. I don't want to ever see that thing come up even in 27 or 26. Uh because I'll I'll get on my
soap box on that one. Um parking fees, raising the monthly parking fee. Uh uh yeah, you make it sound sexy. However, that's a difference for some people. I mean, you say 50, 100 bucks a year is nothing to somebody.
That's something. If we're going to start doing that, then all modes of transportation, all modes of transportation need to be paying parking fees, not just one mode of transportation. Um, if we go further,
um, if I look at garage B, uh, and, and again, this might be technical, might be legal, I don't know why, but, um, certain floors of that garage are used for municipal services. Uh, is there a way that some of those municipal services or vehicles can be moved onto
city property that allows those parking spaces to become more of a revenue generator. Uh, I know garage B and several other garages are will be taken offline here and there uh for fixing thing. The Midtown garage, the Park A garage is has still been off. Maybe we
can find better homes for the municipal municipal vehicles and we can actually turn those into revenue generators. Um before we go looking at our citizens or our guests, um you know, I I believe the
Amazon pilot that I'm watching out of my window every day and we've talked about that we're finding better places for that, but I don't I think you need to do better marketing to let them know kind of the money that we're collecting from that that it's quite significant and that we're also solving a problem with
double parking and we're also solving a problem open up loading zones. So, I think I'll recommend that to you that maybe that's something your department can do is let the community know a little bit more that when you see that Amazon truck in that space for 9 10 hours, they're paying for that thing and
that's bringing in some very good revenue. Um, and as the discussions we've had um the other thing that I wanted to ask here is you talked about progressive parking. Is that done through an algorithmic program that they would have uh would that it's just two
hours is a set thing or or would it be a sliding scale? Um that that's another question I have because I'm not in if we're going to pass uh anti-algorithmic pricing for rent control or for rents, then we need we can't use it for anything else in the city because that's
just not fair. It's it's not uh it's not looking at everything equal. Um, if we go back to the clear program, which you casually sedered over, I should say, and that clear program for many of us, some of us not on the council, some of my
colleagues didn't have to deal with it. I had to deal with it because the bulk of it was in my ward. This is not something that was rolled out correctly. The mayor agrees as well. However, some of those things that were done,
people were pissed. I mean, and the the initial data that I've seen, and I haven't gone into the deep deep file I finally got this year. Um, the other file we solved for about two minutes, five minute double parking or whatever to to three minutes. I mean,
it wasn't like uh a substantial big increase, but I could be wrong. I'm waiting. I'm looking waiting to find some time to look into this other data to to dive into it further. Uh I want to mention this. We spent $450,000 on a Kimley Horn study before you left.
Before you left and I have not seen a presentation made to us and we actually increased the contract after you left to get more stuff and we didn't get it. So I am I'm waiting for that. If I paid $400,000 for a curbside study, I need to
see that. And I will be a no vote on almost everything here until I see that Kimley Horn study because we paid $450,000 for it, we as the council who approved it want to see things on the back end. Um, again, with all of your
expertise that sits within the housing housed inside transportation authority, I don't know why we need any consultants. You guys are consmate professionals. uh you know what you're doing. You guys go get different degrees. You go to different conferences. You go to different classes. I look at the bills for it. You
guys know what you're doing. We don't need outside consultants to do it. I am I am thoroughly convinced we're inhouse. We are a profit center for you are a profit center for the city and therefore any dollar you save is going to be
something that goes directly back to the taxpayer. Uh and one last thing I'll make this point here for every uh every time you want to increase revenue uh to make it worthwhile is you should have cost savings. So if you want to
increase uh if you want to increase fees on something then that same amount of increase should be a cut in costs and this way you get a triple whammy on actually solving a budget issue from that perspective. Um
uh hang on one one more that I've got here. Uh if you uh the loading zones, bus lanes, parking fees. Um okay, that there was one chart you showed about the inventory or finding
out what we needed from. We don't have anybody that can do that. Um I would think that's an in-house thing. We don't need to hire somebody to go do it. That's just that's just me. We want ideas. I'm giving you ideas. And then you said you were going to lose three people on enforcement. So,
not that I want to say that every person is, you know, if we have more people, you make more revenue and fines. I definitely don't want to find my community. Uh, however, I do have a lot of the POS that are dispatched in my area, especially the one that, you know, I'm not happy with that sits around city
hall. Uh, because I don't think that's a good use of time. Um, just me personal again. But I see it all the time. My question would be is knocking off three of parking enforcement, does that in does that hurt parking revenue or does
that hurt safer streets by taking three of them out? And if so, is there a way to potentially look at them for part-time and that they could help uh manage that? So, I know it's a lot. I'm not expecting you, Ryan, to answer that. I will be coming back to you, but those
are the things that I see immediately. I don't want to take up more time because it is 9:38 at night and I want my uh two other council colleagues to have a fair crack at this. So, if you could I know it's a lot. We could probably watch the video again and see everything, but we'll we'll circle back. But these are
some very big points for me that would that I need to get on board with before uh I start raising fees on my um on my residents and even my visitors at this point because the businesses are are starting to chirp a little more with inflation and some of the other costs
which the costs that the city is citing that they're having issues too. So thank you very much. >> Yeah. Thank you. And >> council happy to respond >> again. uh make your response brief and you'll guys talk offline a little bit. Well, as a whole, then we'll go to
Council Immus. Go ahead. Ryan, Dr. >> Yeah, go ahead. I'll just I'll I'll answer one or two questions real quick and then and then Councilwoman I miss yours. >> Um the PEO question. Uh yeah, I I I I
agree. Um this is just a snapshot of kind of where we're at now. the negative three. Um, but parking enforcement uh is a, you know, it is a public safety uh unit first and foremost and it's
critical for managing curbside management across the city. They do so much. They're on the front lines of uh the entire operation, right? And um, you know, enforcing public safety violations like parking and crosswalks. they're the
ones who are enforcing the loading zones, right? If the clear program is not doing that or if smart loading zones aren't doing that. So, um it is a revenue generating significant revenue generating entity. Again, even though re revenue does not come to transportation
and parking, uh it's about a 2.5 to one ratio in terms of the revenue that a typical parking enforcement officer brings in relative to the cost for uh for for that PEO allin. Um and then there is no algorithm for progressive
parking. That is based off of uh parking survey data and other metrics that go into kind of best practices for curb management. Uh and lastly, curve management plan. I agree 100%. Uh and we absolutely will be uh providing a
presentation and a summary uh for that final report. There are a lot of great recommendations in there that speak to revenue generation, more efficient curb management, better overall parking management for the city, right? Given the really complex challenges that Hoboken faces, uh discussions about
tradeoffs and how we can kind of navigate through that. And I really look forward to having those discussions because um you know it's the first time the city has ever undertaken that kind of a study that really looks into comprehensive and innovative approaches
to all of the parking and curb management challenges uh that that are faced in the city. So look forward to continuing our discussion. Council Imus. >> Uh, yes. Hi. So, I just had very quick
um question and a comment. So, I didn't see anything in here about charging for the hop and I know that was um part of the survey, right? Uh so I'm curious as to what is the overall cost to operate
the hop every year and if we did charge for it uh would you then be able to maybe do your study and uh because people keep saying let's expand the hop, let's expand the hop, let's offer more services. Um but it it appears that you have eight eight employees devoted to
the hop. So could you just give a little more color to that? Thank you. >> Yeah, sure. Happy to. Um, yeah, the hop used to be a dollar per ride up until about 2019. Uh, then, uh, the city began making that service
free to the public and using parking revenue effectively, uh, to cover the costs of the service, right? Ridership increased significantly uh, when it went free. No surprise really. Um and
uh it's probably one of the most popular services that is in the entire city right now and we get more positive feedback and compliments about the hop than at least for this department just about anything else. Um so reintroducing fairs I think is a is a
reasonable uh consideration and we have considered that uh and it's something that I think has to be on the table frankly. Um but there are costs associated with uh implementing the fair payment infrastructure.
Um and it will likely reduce the overall volume of riders to some degree. Uh and the revenue that we expect to generate uh even at say $2 per ride um is not going to is not likely to completely
offset the costs which are about a half a million dollars per year currently. Um, and you know, one of the reasons why the hop study was something that was planned for for this year and I I guess was planned last year uh pri prior to
when I returned um was to look at the big picture of the service, right? Not just where to optimize routes or or or expand one additional route for example. Uh there are many ways that you could improve hop service and improving hop
service has been uh a high priority for uh you know this administration, multiple council members um and the public. It's consistent feedback that we get. And so there are a lot of ways to do that. That can be done through adding
new routes. That can be done through uh adding more peak service to deal with peak demand. Uh that could be expanding the time of services that the hop is operating to nights and weekends. Uh it could be going to a hybrid ondemand
approach where you have a hop on demand that supplements the fixed route service. Um or you could use a combination of those approaches, right? Uh so there are so many different factors that go into transit planning in a way that will uh efficiently and
cost-effectively improve the hop operation in a way that will also uh you know not result in significantly higher cost to the city which is front of mind right now. Um so yes we do have uh some level of expertise to do certain things
in house but transit planning at that level given the significant volume of work and limited you know FTEES of staff that are trained in that kind of work currently working for the city makes it really difficult to do that kind of study without hiring outside
professionals and that is why that study was was there um this year >> director sharp I'm not saying that you don't need the um the study I I would think the study would be a good thing to do, but I I feel like in this time like
offering free services when we have no money is just is just to me I feel like everything should have something that offsets it. So I you know I appreciate that it's a great service. I think it's fantastic. Uh I've heard a number of
constituents just say to me I don't understand why it's free. That that that's what I'm and I I know that you would have to build in, but you could think of doing things like more creatively like a monthly pass that you would buy right through the
through the um through the parking um app, right? So there there has to be a way that we could offset that and try to um you know either either improve the service or or just take away a little bit of the cost, right? because we're
looking for every pretty much every dollar we can get at this point. >> Yep. It's a very reasonable uh consideration and we were we're going to look into it. Thank you. >> Hey, Council Council Russo. >> Thank you, Council President. Hey, director. Welcome back again.
>> Thank you. >> Director, in in all your years, um prior to you leaving, did you have uh assistant directors or deputy directors? Yes. Many many of those years. >> Who were who were the assistant
directors at that time? >> Well, I don't want to get into rice notices and things like that. I defer to >> uh corporation council there, but when I when I started the position in late 2017, >> there was one deputy, right? And you
know, I effectively before I was promoted served as sort of a de facto second deputy where I I effectively managed the transportation side of the department, right? Um >> but director, let's be very specific, right? >> Yes.
>> I want to know if there were deputy directors by title, right? Because I don't have the ability to get into personnel. >> Yeah. Uh I I could deal in titles, right? So you were not a deputy director before you became a a director.
>> No. >> Um >> but when you were a director, did you have a specific deputy director by title? >> So I I don't believe that there is an official civil service title that is
deputy director, right? Um, so, so no, by by civil service definitions, if that's what you're looking for, there was not a >> I'm looking for title director. Very, very specific. By title, I don't think
you ever had a deputy or assistant director, and I don't think there was one prior to you leaving. >> There there there was there was Yes. I I can't name names, but there there was someone who was definitely in that role.
and uh they retired in 2020 and then there was a deputy director hired in 2022 and ever since then there has been a deputy director effectively of parking and operations
and in this current case if I I'll go back and back to the or chart which will help guide the discussion a little bit deputy director over here for you know policy planning, capital programs, the
transportation side of the business. Uh that is that is currently an employee that has been working here for a long time and has been promoted into the title. >> That that that's what I need to know, right? They were promoted into that title. >> Yes. It's not a new It's not a new FTE
that was hired for that position. >> Nope. >> Nope. Dealing with titles here, not not people, not numbers of people. um second deputy director uh of operations, right? So now we have two deputy directors and a director.
Um when you had no deputy directors and then when you had a deputy director, did your department ever run inefficiently and have any major problems? What without a deputy director, it is
without even one, it is extremely uh difficult to efficiently operate this department because it's one of the largest departments in the city in terms of >> the uh number of staff. >> I'm asking you specifically because we're we're in a unique position, right?
You were the director then. So, did you have difficulty running your department? Was it inefficient and and having difficulty when you only had one or when you had none? >> It it was it was less efficient and more challenging. Absolutely. And if you look
at the the revenue generated, if you look at the number of violations that have been issued, uh you know, you look at the budget, you know, increasing kind of year-over-year, you can direct almost directly in a straight line trace increases, right? Going back to having
directors. >> Yes. Yes. Across the board >> in revenue, not not budget, just revenue. >> Well, they being a self-funded department, they're they're kind of hand in hand, right? So, so yeah, I mean, being able to do an 8.3 million transfer
to the city, that's not possible without having deputy directors that help with the efficiency and managing the immense responsibilities for the day-to-day department operations. Keeping in mind the city has also grown in population uh
relatively significantly during that time and continues to grow. The number of construction projects and grant-f funded projects and capital improvements that the that the the uh department has taken on has risen significantly uh since then as well. Um, so when you
factor all that in, you know, you look you can look at the metrics and they they tell the story, but uh but it's absolutely critical. And we look at the headcount. Now, I mentioned that in in in 2018, it was closer to 90. It's in the high 60s right now. And that is a
result of a shift from having a lot of individual uh people who are are working in the department doing a lot of you know administrative type jobs to expanding the scope of their work asking everyone to do more with
less and basically through attrition continuously adding more and more responsibility to more and more employees. And despite all that, all those metrics that I talked about have been increasing year-over-year
significantly and and continuously. Um, >> I appreciate that. But >> so I just wanted to put that out there. >> My contention is that we are topheavy. You've heard me say that. You've heard many people have heard me say that >> in in a situation where you spoke about it,
right? We have reduced number of employees this year, right? We are choosing to have employees at the upper echelons of the department rather than backfilling some of those uh PEOs or those that may
function in a different capacity in maintenance or whatever whatever else it may be. Uh that to me is problematic, right? I don't think we necessarily need deputy directors to run an efficient department. Um, I will continue to harp
on this because I think it's unfair uh that we are topheavy rather than filling the ranks of those that I think we need to run the department efficiently. Um, you also have an account clerk um, division of accounting and finance.
No other department has a division of accounting and finance in the same way. Why are we not utilizing our department of finance rather than
having that additional employee under the parking utility where they're doing that function? Why are they not part of the overall finance department in the city of Hoboken? So the way we do things in transportation and parking, we have
eight divisions, right? You could probably consolidate them, but the way the operation has worked well is having uh kind of distinct divisions, right? And we only have one FTE uh and one part-time employee that are
in the finance division effectively, right? >> Uh there used to be a second employee there. that employee has now moved into uh the city's finance department effectively administration and is doing
double duty between the two departments. Right. So that is a a perfect example of an efficient way of operating. Um that kind of speaks to your to your point, but this is not a bloated division and this is also a department that accounts for, you know, 20% somewhere in that
range of the entire city's revenue and budget, right? So to not have staff that is, you know, focused on uh bookkeeping and reporting and purchasing all of the
all the administrative work that goes into managing sort of a behemoth of a department that does a ton hundreds of thousands of transactions per year uh in parking and so forth would be its own
inefficiency. and would would would lead to uh a poor overall operation. >> Again, >> I understand your concerns, right? And and it will lead me into my next statement, but no other department has that, right? So, we run everything
through our finance department and and that is a remnant of when we transferred from a parking authority to the parking utility and brought that inhouse. So my next question is, have you and
this administration explored creating a parking authority so that this would be a totally separate authority from the city of Hoboken where we could function independently where it can function independently
and the revenues and the um and the the day-to-day operations can be kept in increasing our parking working in the city of Hoboken, increasing our transportation in the city of Hoboken and running that in a more efficient way
so that we don't necessarily, and you and I have talked about this for many years, that the city doesn't come and raid the coffer, so to speak, where you're giving that $8.3 million to the city year-over-year. right now. This is a very uh um different year because we
have a massive budget gap that we have to fill. But in in the idea of planning efficiently over time, is this the best option for the city of Hobok and keeping it a utility or is potentially moving this back to an
authority where the sole and only purpose is the parking and the transportation in the city of Hoboken and we're not being bogged down by all these other things that the city is requiring of the parking utility.
Yeah. I mean, selfishly, I I don't love giving away, you know, >> you could you could say director >> four million,5 million, $8 million a year. Sure, I'd love to keep that. But, you know, unfortunately, that's that's not my job, right? And and >> as city council members every year get
to vote on the budget, you know, there are trade-offs, right? And year after year after year, there has been a consensus from city council that uh there is a preference to uh have a transfer of funds
>> to the city's general fund to help reduce the overall tax burden for residents, right? And that's just a trade-off that is a policy decision ultimately. Um and as long as you know it's a parking utility, that option remains, right? If you go to a parking
authority, that can't happen anymore. And you know, there are trade-offs there as well. So, >> yeah. Sure. Agreed. And and and my question to all of it is not that one is better than the other. My question to all of it is, have we explored it? And what does that look like,
>> right? I I think we need to explore every option in every department all along the way because we need to figure out what not only this massive uh potential tax increase is going to be this year, but what does that look like over time so that the city becomes more
efficient, right? That that's really the question. It's not that you should do it right now and it's your decision or it's the council's decision. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, are we looking at things kind of outside the box? Because if it is something that
we're looking to do, there's potentially more opportunities for the the city of Hoboken or the parking at that point authority would have the ability to purchase parking garages, uh, bonds for those parking garages, right? That
that's all outside of the city of Hoboken. that becomes your own self self- sustaining authority just like the housing authority or a municipal improvement authority or whatever else is there. So uh the real question is have you looked at it and if you haven't
looked at it I think it's something that we should start to look at because there may be efficiencies there and there may be a longer term plan that could help the city in its in its uh planning. >> Yeah. It's not something that we've looked at to
to my understanding. >> Appreciate that. >> Yep. Um that's that's the bulk of what I had. I'll most certainly let my colleagues ask the questions. It's getting late. >> Thank you. Appreciate it. >> Appreciate it as always. >> Appreciate but but don't hire Kimberly Horn to do
that study. >> Okay. >> Councilman Fischer >> noted. I think I was I think Phil and andor Joe were before me, but I'm happy to go. Do you want me to go or do you want Phil to go?
>> Councilwoman, take it away. It's fine. >> Um, so a couple things. First of all, um, just addressing Kimley Horn because I was I think the fifth vote on that. Um, Dr. Sharp. I one of the things that
happened since you left is, you know, that we did get a draft of it and and it was incredibly frustrating because we really pushed for um city council input to be a stakeholder in um in that. You and I
talked about it. Um and ultimately we had interviews but we were our feedback was not only significantly underrepresented in that report um it actually didn't accurately represent the
feedback that we had provided. So I think it's still in draft form and I think that we need to revisit it. It's like one little paragraph, but I think it's really important because we talked about how that report was couldn't be just a theoretical, you
know, guide on all the things that we need to do. It really need to balance the challenges that Hoboken is facing with our parking demand on our streets. And we needed to make sure that it it represented both. And and I know that
that feedback is exactly what we gave Kimley Horn. that's not what the report says. So, it really needs to, I think, be modified to reflect that and we should talk about that in the parking and transportation um subcommittee. Otherwise, um I would argue it was a
waste of $450,000 and it gives us things that we are that we already knew and we didn't need to pay um a consultant for. Um, I do want to just jump in the hop uh conversation again because I think I probably helped
influence the decision for that not to move forward at the end of the year. I don't believe that was planned. My understanding is it was an endofear project um because there was extra money uh that was not spent last year and so yes there's a desire to do more I think
with the hop and why not spend money and hire someone else to tell us what to do with it and and I just don't think that that's how we should be thinking about the hop you and I talked or exchanged notes on this briefly like one of the things that you said to in your exchange
with um Councilman IM was if we were to increase the fees to like$1 or $2. We may lose a few few riders. Like our goal in Hoboken should only be we have to not lose riders. We have to add riders. We have to do everything we possibly can to
create a public transit system that that gets people less reliant on using their cars, you know, within Hoboken for errands for any reason. You know, we've had a 20% population growth as you mentioned, but we've never done anything
to expand our public transit to support that. There hasn't been any connection between transportation planning and our community development. We just keep approving all these buildings and there's no connectivity with transportation and planning to say how are we addressing the cars that are going to come along with these people
and the just don't let them park on the street and that will be enough just isn't working. One of the things I think last year and I I have a different opinion than um um Councilman President Zano on this is um having Director Weber
there is he he actually brought I I thought it was great. Not I mean I adore you and I'm happy to have you back but he brought a couple things that I thought were critical. He has a tremendous amount of experience in like parking um planning and infrastructure
management and he provided this critical connectivity between the different departments to make sure that we were addressing our infrastructure in a way that had the least impact on our roads. and it was a really important voice and we felt that voice and he was able to
bring a lot of resources to the table and I hope that that's something that you do and and you bring back to the table because it left with him and two he understood the the need for parking in Hoboken and he didn't he said to me
once you know we we're adding a municipal parking garage um on the north end and and and like many transportation planners opposed to it initially but because of what he grew to understand the demands for parking in Hoboken were. He said the following phrase, "The more
I can get cars off the street, the more I can do with cars on the street." And and he knew he can't do things on the street without getting those cars off the street. So, some of my concern with what you've that what you presented is you've gone back to your ways, which is
you've been and I'm going to say it and you can defend it, but you've been anti-car for a really long time. And I think that we we evolved past that and we we addressed the fact that cars are a reality in Hoboken and we have to we have to figure out how to make the
changes that we're thinking about in the context of how people use our streets today, how they live in Hoboken today. And we need to do that a little bit better than we've done um in the past. Another place where I I I disagree. So,
going back just to the hop, I'm not opposed to doing a hop study, but it's certainly not an end of a year, let's just use money and see what we can do to expand. >> Is it just me or Council Fisher is lagging a little bit? >> Am I lagging? Can you hear me now? >> I can hear you clearly.
>> Okay, >> I can hear you clearly. >> I think you're good. >> Okay. So, just with regard to the hop study, I'm not opposed to a hop study. I just think a lastm minute, you know, just to see if we can, you know, add some uh buses on a Saturday or later in
the evening, spending money on that is a waste of money. What we need to do is come up with like a 5-year plan that says 5 years from now, we need to have double the number of buses. We need to have triple the routes, you know, double the hours. And what do we need to do from now until then to get there? I
actually don't think that's a $50,000 study. I think it's a much um bigger bigger study. I don't want to see that spent this year, but I want to see it planned for this year, ready to be um RFPD and spent maybe in 2027 because it's it has to be one of our biggest
priorities. And then the only other thing I would say I there's there's actually a number of things on your list that I thought were creative and you know, we should definitely revisit some of the pricing that we haven't looked at in a long time. You know, Councilwoman IMA sent me a note saying we only charge
125 or whatever it is for corner cars. And my response was we we haven't looked at corner cars in probably 8 years, right? So that is definitely worth looking at. But but some of it is I just don't want to do it ad hoc. You know, you mentioned just increasing 10% the
cost of our parklets. Like we spent a whole we spent months trying to redo our parklet ordinance. not just the fee that we randomly charged way back when, but also how they should be used, etc. So, I don't want to just randomly on some of
those just make changes. Um, I think we need to revisit, you know, Parklets. Um, we need to revisit Parklets. And and lastly, um, for now, and this is where I disagree with Councilman, uh, President Zano, I I'm
not okay with the the Amazon hubs at all. Um, I might be okay if they're priced in a way that they are operating a business on our street, not just not
just, you know, having a temporary no parking, you know, permit or whatever for the day. I mean, they're taking away loading zones from adjacent properties. the one that is is near Councilman President Zano, like that's just not that's not actively used by other
businesses, but the ones that were being set up throughout the city, we we got complaints left and right from neighbors that couldn't use the, you know, the parking and and stopping for any reason, businesses that couldn't use them. And so, I personally think that if they want to use hubs, they should do it in some
of the private lots that we still have or just away from the public right away. And if they're going to do it in the public right away, we should be charging them like a business that's, you know, a Washington Street business is $100 a square foot. This isn't this isn't just letting them, you know, use our public
right away and take that away from it. Doesn't matter what the price is. We're taking away an an amenity that our businesses and our residents rely on. And I I think we can't take that lightly. So anyway, those are just some of my comments. I would like to I would
like to see maybe some of what was on a long list and I appreciate, you know, thinking through um some of those and I think some of those can be, you know, are justified and um are achievable, you know, in the short term and I hope you bring them to our um our next
transportation committee. >> Yep. We'll do. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councilwoman. Uh Councilman Cohen, >> thank you, Council President. Um just a few thoughts. First, thanks for the presentation. It's great to have you back, director. Uh we missed you. Uh and
uh and we're well served to have you here. And thanks for uh thanks for all the the really good ideas uh about ways where we could achieve additional revenues. Uh I really do think that uh one of the most precious resources we have in the
city of Hobok and I think the reason why we invested in the Kimley Horn study is that our curb space is precious and it is uh you know we are a mile square city. the number of cars in our city are going up, not down. And the number of
residents we have are going up, not down. And uh and I think that it's pretty clear to me that we're underpricing a lot of the things that we have in the city. And uh uh I mean, when you look at what a monthly parking spot
is in the city, uh you know, I mean, you'd be lucky to find a monthly spot for $200 or less in the city. And uh and I remember when I first came on the council, we were discussing about the fact that we were looking to raise a
parking permit from $18 a year to park on the street, which I was thinking of times the 15 $15 a year to park on the street, which to me seemed like free parking to me. uh you know, less than a parking ticket to park for a year on the
street to raise it up to I guess we went to 54 I think was was the was the big jump. >> 52 $152. And I remember >> being told that you know uh this was going to be Armageddon and that people
were going to absolutely freak out uh to have to pay over$50 $50 a year for a parking spot in our city. And uh it it passed with a blip. It really did. Uh and and since then uh the
the demand for curve space is has gone up extraordinarily. Uh and uh I think the reason why we were looking at things like the the pilot program uh that was on your uh your first slide for the smart loading zone pilot, I think is
because I mean right now it appears to me that we are basically giving enough free parking for our loading zones on Washington Street. Uh and uh and that's seems like insanity to me. Uh I I'm I was glad to hear that Fort Lee has
figured out a way to uh use the technology which I think we have available to us uh to to monetize that uh in a way and and if people overstayed in the loading zones I think we have the technology to enforce that as well which
is something that we did during our trial period. I also think my colleagues on the council were comfortable with the notion generally were comfortable with the notion that it's not a good idea for someone to park in a loading zone for three hours. Uh, and that to be able to have those
spots turn over to service the blocks on our main business district makes good sense. So, uh, I know I've talked about this with council president. I mean, in my mind, I think that we should be moving on this quickly uh, uh, to to move forward with it. We've got the we've got the technology. We've made the
investment in that. I believe we don't get to keep that technology forever if we don't use it. uh I believe it's in demand in other communities and I really would hate to see us lose that opportunity. The other area is uh with with respect to bus stops uh I I do
disagree with with my colleague Councilman President Zano on this one. Uh I think the fact that buses don't always use the bus stop is not a reason for us not to continue to treat them as bus stops. Uh, I think that uh they
should be used and and if we need to talk to New Jersey Transit about that so that their operators are using the bus stops, I think that we should be having the bus stops cleared and I think we should be including uh the automated enforcement with respect to our bus stops to make sure that they're clear. I
know that that there was more controversy with respect to double parking and bike lanes and enforcing that and I hear that and I respect that. Um, but I do think that there is a consensus amongst us. I could be wrong, but I do think that with respect to bus stops and loading zones, there is a
consensus that this is something that uh that we should be able to enforce. And frankly, I'd like to see it enforced from Observer Highway to 15th Street. I think that that this is uh this is uh something that makes sense, something
that will help our businesses by having loading zones turn over and it will help our commuters to make sure that they're dropped off in a safe place on the side of the road in the bus stop and not in the middle of Washington Street where they have to dodge uh parked cars
leaving parking spots uh and look in every direction. I think the buses should be able to pull into a clear spot and safely deposit the riders and keep the traffic flow going up and down Washington Street moving uh as opposed to viewing our bus buses dropping off in
the middle of Washington Street as traffic calming devices which I do not think is a best practice or or a good idea. The bus stops are there for a reason. And then as a commuter who goes in myself uh 4 days a week into the city, those bus stops are really
important for you know I think we have like 10,000 people who are using it uh one way each way every day. Uh I think we have the highest ratio of public transit users in in uh the state. So
anyway uh any those are those are my big thoughts. Uh but I I I really would like to see us realize some of these revenues and to and to take those things on. I'm not saying every idea is a good one, but for those at least those ideas, I think
those ideas whose time has come, particularly in a year when we have a $17 million uh budget gap. Oh, and one last point. Uh I don't know that I don't know that it's random to increase uh fees on uh on an outdoor dining
establishment by 10%. I think that's actually a pretty conservative I I I I've heard criticisms from other council members that they're underpriced, that they're again, it's we're talking about very valuable real estate. We're talking about real estate that could be used for
parking spots and uh uh you know, if it's if it's something that's really working well for the businesses, I think that's something that the businesses could handle. So I I I I fear that if we did some kind of extensive study to figure out what the optimum price point
is that uh we would be, you know, not realizing revenues that we could be realizing and spending a lot of time on doing something. I mean, it's not to say we couldn't fine-tune it, but I kind of I kind of like the idea of of trying to find logical areas where we can do
better to help our uh to help our taxpayers. And I think that's one of them. Thank you, Council President. That's all I got. >> Thank you, Council. >> Thank you, Council Councilman Conterero. >> Uh, thank you, Council President. And,
um, again, thank you everybody for your comments. Again, uh, Director Sharp, be looking for feedback. So, just not to reiterate a lot of what was said, but just so you can get kind of my barometer. I almost uh I disagreed with almost everything that was said early
on. Transitioning to almost agreeing with everything that was said just before me with the exception of one thing Councilman Cohen said I don't know what that one thing is yet but since he disagreed with me before I will figure it out and I'll email him about it. Uh with respect to Councilwoman Fischer
that was about 50/50. I do want to say that I do agree one thing with one thing um holistically with what she said which was trying to figure out a way to get more people as many people as possible on public transportation um including the hop. Um my view has always been that
you know within the our mile square city uh if you're able-bodied there is no reason you should really be getting into a car uh to go from one place to another. And if we move do more things to increase accessibility to public transportation, you know, we can extend
that to folks with mobility uh challenges. So, if we're able to um somehow increase hop, you know, I'm against charging. Well, I understand the need to charge for it, but if we're going to go down that road, I really think we need to expand service and look at frictionless ways of getting on
because if folks are expected to have a dollar, like who has an actual dollar? we all have our uh tap and go functionality, but you know, if we're able to combine kind of the ability to get more and more people onto these services while offsetting, uh I'm I'm all for it. Um you know, one of the
reasons why I kind of disagreed with some of the earlier speakers is I think look, I don't agree with every one of these revenue proposals or or or cut proposals, but this is one of the um unique areas where we can make a meaningful change. uh now uh and it
would affect really the users of a particular service right um my perspective is you know a lot of things parking in a garage having a car in Hobok and for most of us most of us not all of us most of us we should really think about the cost should be
associated and we should be thinking about is it worth it for me to have this car or park in this space um you know drive instead of walking the 10 blocks where I would wouldn't have to park there. That's the thought process that we should be going for and that's how we
should be thinking about adjusting the fees. Um I think if we're just wholesale say no, we're not going to look at these uh increases or cuts holistically, we're just not really serious about um attack attacking our our um our issues here.
And you know, I think Council Cohen's right. I think we need to rightsize uh some of these charges um you know, in the modern, you know, era. Um, one of the things I was thinking about, and this applies not only to your department, but some of the other departments that we'll hear about
tomorrow is, you know, we keep focusing on not increasing fees because of inflation. Um, because everybody is pressed and that's true, but inflation affects everyone, including the city, including what it costs to run the city.
Gas is no cheaper for the city of Hoboken because they're a city than Phil Cohen who's driving around in a car. And you know, while we are making strides to go green, the reality is that a lot of our
heavy machinery is legacy stuff and still runs on gas and diesel. We still have to do that stuff. Um but we're always thinking about you know if if everyone all inflation is happening because all the businesses the
costs are going up and so you're passing on the prices on to the customers is the city supposed to absorb that cost at all times. And if we absorb that cost and we don't charge for the individual fees, the only other avenue is to raise taxes
that you know spread uh the cost to folks who maybe aren't using these particular services. In this instance, maybe having a car uh or or parking particular place and that could be unfair uh in some instances. And so
the other side of that is also, you know, if we don't want to then increase the fees, then what do we do? Well, let's fire a bunch of people is the easy answer. But as uh business administrator Gonzalez mentioned, that's not so easy and it doesn't always have the intended
effect. So, another reason why I'm kind of not in favor of doing the uh personnel cut move is as you were mentioning if in your department in particular, you've got two deputy directors, you've got a lean
staff, but you do a lot and I think a lot of it has to do with how you're able to organize and how you're able to distribute the workload and manage the staff. And I think you do need uh those folks there. But what I also am thinking about is yeah, I'm empathetic to this
idea that maybe we should bring some of this stuff in house. I've heard a lot today about hey, we've had this expertise, we have this expertise, let's bring it all in house and in the same breath they're saying by the way you should fire your staff. So I can't reconcile the two. Um I'm so I'm not in
favor of of going down that road. I think we our staff is good as it is. Uh I would like to see us uh get a little bit more efficient with some of our enforcement. Um, I think we can do that by way of using the automatic plate readers that are already on our our
parking utility vehicles. So, we're, you know, enforcing uh people who are illegally parking on a resident side, right? We need those spots. It frustrates me when I can't find a spot on the resident side cuz somebody's parked there. Those people don't always get tickets cuz our folks have to get out of the car. So, if we can just scan
them and send them tickets in the mail, that'd be good. Um, and as Councilman Con was saying, if we can move to uh move on some of the more automated um charging for loading zones and things like that, I think that would be beneficial. So, I think there's a lot of
opportunity here in this presentation. I look forward to moving for uh uh to moving ahead with some of uh these fee adjustments in the next couple meetings because as you mentioned, time is of the essence. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Thank you, council. Uh, any other council members? Before we go to public, I just want to uh just add that we don't have to adopt all these fees. I think director Sharp and uh in my conversations with him
before the meeting tonight and with all directors was just to give all the council members uh the options. I think uh we wanted to have tonight. My goal was to have tonight. That's why our meeting is going till 10:30 right now is to hear everyone. I wasn't stopping
anyone tonight. Wanted to hear everyone's thoughts in totality to make sure that the administration is hearing your voices and the directors are hearing uh the council member voices as they are as they are finalizing uh their budget introduction to us. uh and to
make sure we're part our voice is part of that that process and we want to see what things going forward. And I'll just add that you may not be uh on certain committees. Uh but that doesn't preclude you from reaching out to either
directors of those committees or the chairperson of those committees or myself that you want you may want to see items discussed from a polic perspective in those committees. So I know I know many council members reach out to me and those items are going to be placed on uh
the committee agendas uh moving forward the next couple of weeks and months. So let's uh keep that dialogue going. So I hope uh the council members appreciate all the time they had uh to talk to the directors and and lay their opinions and ask their questions and we'll do this
again tomorrow night. And now we'll go into the members of the public. And I just want to apologize again. Uh I'm not on camera tonight and hopefully I will be tomorrow night. The police spaces I normally use in my house are being occupied by other family members uh uh tonight, but hopefully
you'll get to see my wonderful face tomorrow night on camera. Uh Council Russo. >> Yeah, Council President. I appreciate it. You know, I just wanted to make one quick statement. You know, I asked questions. I made my my points here tonight, but what I didn't do was
characterize anybody else's comments. Um I I just find it >> find it difficult to continue to try to work collaboratively when I have council colleagues always trying to characterize the ideas or recreate the the narrative
in a way that was not the case. Um that becomes problematic for me, right? I don't want to put words into anybody's mouth. Everybody's got their opinion and I appreciate that. Right? We may disagree on some of those opinions, but I never say Phil said this or or my council colleague said that or I don't
do that. Right? The one thing that I can do though is talk about the words that were spoken in this last election. Everyone who ran, every person who was on that ballot, and every co council colleague who supported somebody who was
on that ballot talked about one specific thing, and that was making Hoboken more affordable for its residents. And a lot of the things that we spoke about here tonight does not do that. That's a concern to me. I want to make sure we're we're looking at things in a way where
where we're not increasing costs across the board, whether that's through a tax, a fee, or anything else. I want to explore those revenue opportunities that actually does not hit someone's pocket. There are opportunities out there that we could utilize. That's that's the only
point that I continue to make. The cuts that I like to make are very specific. They're not about individual employees. are about the top heaviness of this city that's gone on for some years for at least eight. Now we're moving into nine.
Okay, maybe even before that. So I don't characterize anyone else's comments. So I I would appreciate my colleagues not characterizing mine. If you can't reconcile with something, council people, I understand that. But please don't put words into my mouth or any of
my colleagues mouth. Make your statements. I got no problem with that. present your ideas. I have no problem with that. But if we're going to work together, we need to start working together and stop taking the shots. I
don't do that to anybody. So, let's >> I appreciate that, Councilman. Oh, thank you, C. I appreciate it. >> Uh for members of the public, we're going to go uh two minutes. Uh clerk Lore will notify you when you have 15 seconds remaining. So, we're going to go
two minutes and and in that time period, uh I would just advise you ask the question within those two minutes as as opposed to opining uh an opinion. So, if you have any questions, please uh use your two minutes wisely uh through this
portion. Uh we Mr. Clerk, >> we have uh Y399466. if you would please state your name, please. >> Yes, sorry about that. It's uh Casey Coons. I'm a 19-year resident and owner
of Hoboken. Um so, I'm not sure if I really have a questions, but I do have comments. Uh not necessarily opinions. Um but first of all, thank you all for, you know, posting this presentation with the PowerPoint, uh and all the city workers who have been working on it. Um,
one thing I would like to stress to everyone on the call is uh, you know, not just looking within Hoboken internally to decide on fees or organizational structure. I think it's really important that we are looking beyond uh, director France had
mentioned, you know, the uh, filming cost in New York versus they are here. So I would suggest that we really take a look beyond our own boundaries within the city to understand what our optimal organizational structure could be and uh fee structure
across the board. Uh wherever there's any services that we're offering that another community is offering, how do we stack up against that? Um I totally understand uh Director Gonzalez's uh um point on you know working through
attrition a VSSP program uh versus layoffs. I think that is a very wise decision especially to ensure that we're remain keeping uh the best employees within our staff. Um, and again would stress that
uh it's going to take time but and we might not be able to get there this year but at least if we have a strategic plan put into place it's something that we can work towards u throughout the year and next. Um let's see what else I have uh in terms of shared services just
stressing the point of you know looking beyond what's already on the paper that you you're proposing. Maybe there's shared services on the purchasing side that could also happen. Okay, thank you. And embrace technology and the downstream effects in terms of personnel I think is really important.
Thank you very much. >> Thank you. I appreciate the comments. Thank you so much. Uh who is next? >> Council President, I don't see any hands being Oh, wait. You know, Manuel Rivera.
>> Come on, Jerry. You know You knew it, Jerry. Manny, Jerry's trying to cut you off. >> No. Um, good evening, Council President. Yes, I was stepped out to the other room for one quick second. Um, I appreciate the presentation this evening, and I
appreciate um everyone um who's on the meeting. Council President, I know that two uh minutes is is not enough for um everything that was presented from 6:00. So, I will just take this question because it was the last um director who spoke. Director Sharp, can you explain
to members of the public if you have an understanding of you want to eliminate some pay stations? Would you have an um or would you be able to give members of the public information in regards how would you make the determination of which one would you um eliminate? And if
you eliminate one, would you post a sign or someone to let um a person who's paying for for parking, where would be their closest or next um uh pay statement? That would be a question that if you could answer, again, you don't have to answer it this evening if if
it's too much. Um and and council uh president I would just like to say again as was said before by council member Russo um characterizating characterizing people's um speech um is is something that should be avoided at
all terms. State your case and let everybody else's case be stated with their words. Um so I say that because I was offended but I will I will speak at another time about that. But again I would like to thank you all. I would like to thank um Director Fante for
explaining to members of the public what his um uh um pardon me what his department is about and the work that he does which is valuable to our city and again to um uh business business administrator Gonzalez
for her um take on on the budget. We need everybody to be sincere and egos to be set aside this time around please. Thank you. And that's all I have. Council President, thank you all. God bless you. >> Thank you, Mr. Manny. Uh, motion to
close. >> All in favor? Oh, wait. >> I rest. I just want to say rest in peace to Bob Myers. Have a good night, everyone. >> Thank you. >> Good night, everybody.