Good evening everyone. My apologies for the delay. We are on the record. Today is the first day of July, 2026. This is a special meeting of the Jersey City Municipal Council. We had a planned 6 pm start and
my watch is showing 6:22. May we now have a roll call for the commencement of the meeting. Councilman Brooks >> present. >> Council person Zupa >> present. >> Council person Efos >> present. >> Council person Little. >> Council person Gilmore >> present. >> Council person Griffin >> here.
>> Council person Lavaro. >> Council person Singh >> I'm here. >> And council president Ridley >> here. We have nine council members at 6:22 p.m. We have achieved a quorum. Kindly rise for a moment of silence and please remain standing as we salute the
flag. John Turpac. On behalf of Council President Ridley, in accordance with chapter 231 of the New Jersey Public Laws of 1975, officially known as the Senator Byron M. Bear Open Public Meetings Act, adequate notice of this meeting was provided by
posting the notice of this special meeting on the bulletin board on the first floor of city hall. The agenda of this meeting was similarly disseminated to the municipal council, mayor, business administrator, corporation council, and to the local newspapers on Monday, June 29th, 2026 at 8:25 a.m. The
agenda was concurrently posted on the city's website. Consequently, I can certify as our complete compliance with the sunshine law. We have no first or second readings on this agenda. In fact, there are only two business items on the agenda. the public request for a hearing and agenda item 10.1
that said can council president may I begin calling the list of speakers? >> Yes. >> Okay. First speaker we have listed is Leverne Washington. >> I don't see here. >> Okay. Uh speaker number two Anise Arios.
No number two. Number three Javon Hudson. number Jean number number four Jean >> here >> Stallman >> oh okay number four Jeannie Stalman not
a D it's an S um I want to address the idea that it's the t the tax has to happen but the what you're listening to is that it's too fast and that you need to slow it down
because it's too fast. It's not too fast. It's not affordable. It's not that we get to it this year or next year or the year after. We're still getting to the same place. And if we don't make those cuts that get us away from that
same place, we are driving people out of their homes. I live in a two-bedroom apartment on a very busy street. My taxes with this 15% increase and add the board of eds yet again 15% increase. My
taxes are almost $20,000. That makes my life and many people like me completely unaffordable. It also drives down my property values and makes it next to impossible to actually get back what I've put into my apartment.
Because who's going to buy a two-bedroom apartment that's this year $20,000? If we have a structural deficit of $90,000 plus whatever happens every single year, we're doubling our taxes every 5 to 10 years. And that is
absolutely unaffordable. If we want to live in a city that's ultra gentrified and takes all long-term residents out of it in every single ward, I live in Ward F, then that's the city you're going to be
left with. So, I urge you to find more cuts and find more ways to figure this out because we have a ton of development, endless new buildings, and there's no reason we should be in a situation where they where we are so
desperate that homeowners are losing their homes because we will be losing our homes and there will be tax leans going on all over this city. Lastly, until this the city gets the appetite to
take on the board of ed and put their budget back to something that is sensible and affordable for everybody, we will never get out of this problem. Thank you. Speaker number five, Suas
the tall. Hello. I actually didn't prepare a speech tonight, but um I just wanted to say I made sure to campaign for all of you during election season on the promise of affordability. And
I'm not going to lie, me and a lot of other volunteers are disappointed in the fact that this 20% tax increase is even on the table. I'm thankful you guys decided to listen to people and lower it down 15%. But personally, this affects me and so many
other people around Jersey City. My parents really struggled to pay off the mortgage and this property tax is only going to make things worse. And there's several other ways to reduce city expenses through attrition, appealing to the state about the school budget, and many other ways like selling
city property. Middle class people are already suffering high taxation effects of COVID and inflation. It's just not advisable or feasible to increase tax on a middle class now at this very moment. >> That's all.
>> Speaker number six, Sarah Bernol. Good evening, Council President Ridley and members of the council. First off, I just want to start off saying that I am a proud um from a family of immigrants from the 1970s living in Jersey City. I want to begin by acknowledging that our
city employees work hard and desire fair compensation. However, when Jersey City faces significant financial challenges, fiscal responsibility must come first. residents to pay. Before asking residents to pay more, city hall should
demonstrate that it has exhausted every opportunity to reduce spending by reviewing staffing, contracts, consulting services, overtime, and other discretionary expenses. We must also acknowledge how we arrived here. Several
members of this governing body served while many of these financial decisions were made. Accountability should not begin only after a budget crisis develops. This council unanimously requested a state controller audit of the city finances from 2020 through 25.
Residents deserve to know where the one-time budget measures contributed to today's structural problems. We approve those decisions and how we prevent them from happening again to not repeat them. Council President Ridley, you said, "I believe that anybody that had anything
to do with this city's finances over the last few years are going to have a hard way to go right now." I agree. Accountability should apply equally to everyone involved during that administration. I also question that continued reliance
on one-time budget solutions. Using the open trust, the open space trust fund may provide temporary relief, but it does not solve the underlying problem. Selling underutilized city-owned property, however, can create long-term value by returning property to
productive use and generating recurring tax revenue. Unfortunately, me many residents view this process that we're doing here through smoky windows. A large tax increase is announced, creating understandable concerns from the residents. Residents attend the
meetings, offer ideas, and voice their fears. Then a lower number is presented as a way to say the council heard it citizens and compromised. Whether that perception is accurate or not, it undermines public trust. Greater transparency is needed so
residents can clearly see how decisions are made and how public input influence the final outcome. Residents have now heard tax increase proposed from 31% to 20 to now 15. We were told 20% was necessary to receive state assistance. If circumstances have changed, residents
deserve a clear explanation of what changed and why. Leadership requires making informed decisions, not presenting alarming numbers and asking taxpayers to solve a problem they did not create. You were elected to evaluate the facts, make difficult choices, and provide a reasonable pull fast forward. Fiscal discipline begins at city hall,
not with taxpayers. I hope residents remember the decisions made here tonight and the reasons used to justify them. Residents, stay engaged, continue asking questions, and when election season comes around, remember the choices made here. Ma'am, the three minutes accountable.
>> Thank you. Thank you. Speaker number seven, Jonathan K. Um, hello. So, I wanted to discuss something. uh the emphasis that the city council and and
mayor have kind of put on reducing the deficit has been cutting spending with not a lot of emphasis placed on raising revenues or increasing increasing revenues in general. Uh so I did a little research on ways that the city
can do that. Um, one is short-term debt financing. Ta tax anticipation notes up to 30% of the revenues raised from the previous year, which would be three uh 30% of 384 million or 115 million um
dollars that we can raise immediately. um along with utility revenue notes which would be 50% of the mun uh anticipated revenue from unit utility rents and miscellaneous utility revenues in the expected year which is 50% of 200
million or $100 million which would have been more than enough to cover the budget deficit we had before receiving state aid and then we received $120 million in state aid. uh these do have to be paid back next year and I
understand that there have been a lot of uh problems with short-term debt financing or or or one-time uh or or or having to pay off our debts. So, I understand that. What I don't understand is why we haven't looked into short-term payment in le of taxes or pilots. I
understand that pilots are kind of a dirty word, but that's not uh including the five and three-year options that are statutoily authorized by the state. Um, a little more information about those. They need to be uh to qualify for a
pilot program under the 5-year law, the property must meet the statutory definition of a commercial or industrial structure. Uh there need to be economic development findings. there they needs to be in an area in need of rehabilitation. But there have been a
number of designated areas in need of rehabilitation with a lot of um investment and infrastructure and yet to be uh given out contracts for those places. So considering the fact that we
were supposed to get a 20% property tax increase as a condition for receiving $150 million of state aid and then we got 120 million without that property tax increase just to lower it down to 15% which I don't which seems like not
that much not that big of a lowering. Uh I guess um I just don't understand why. I guess it has to be 15%. Uh the math on uh the math on that as well as not
raising not looking into raising revenues and short-term debt financing or short-term pilots. >> Sorry, sir. >> Thank you. >> Next speaker is number eight, Gage Wright. >> Gage Wright going once. No. Number nine, Charlene
Burke. John, before we begin my time, could you kindly explain to everyone why this chambers is so hot and no air conditioning here? Because everyone thinks this is by design.
>> It is not. I'm here as well. So, uh the the AC system is is not working. Charlie, I hope not. I'm in a suit every meeting here. I really hope it, you know, it's it's it's not I always advocate for the air to be on. >> Well, you have to understand Stan, we came from the Philip administration here
and those were tricks. >> So, thank you. Good evening, council. Firstly, I want to say that I've been here before numerous times talking about, you know, the uh what could be
done to help reduce some of our expenditures. And I spoke to you about the workforce and the employees and offering them vacation time off, voluntary vacation time off so that this
way you reduce the payroll and then why given the fact that this was mentioned way back in April or March, why not did the administration even begin a furlow program so that this way there was already steps taken in by the city to
reduce the budget needed for this year because now we're in July and you're not going to get a budget till uh mid July and then it's going to be voted on in August and that only leaves you four months of the year to make any really
significant changes. So now when you get the budget in July, one of the things that should you should be asking for is for every one of those line items, there should be all the way at the right hand
side how much has been already expended to date on each one of those line items. So that if it's a million dollars that's been allocated for this year and they already spent 1.2 2 million. You know that that request for that 10% reduction
that the mayor made to all those directors was nonsense and didn't feel as though they really had to comply and that it wasn't as serious as it is now to us who are faced having to provide
that money for this year. So you can understand I don't envy any of you in your position because you're feeling all the anger from people that have not seen an effort made on the city side to
reduce your costs so that in the end you're just saying you know what we didn't really work at it but here's the bill ladies and gentlemen and I know all of you live in the city so you too will effectively experience
some of this. But collectively as homeowners that have and I too am on a limited budget, having retired, it's tough and it really is to the point where I
went home a couple of meetings ago and for the first time I thought about maybe Jersey City isn't my home anymore. Thank you. >> Thank you, Charlotte. >> Number 10, Cameron or
number 10, Cameron. Number 11, Ivon Balser. Baler, I'm sure you have received my email on where the mayor said at a hearing, a runoff debate that he would not raise our taxes high. Something he
said in November of last year at the Frank Gallow. So, obviously the mayor lied, but this is what I wanted to uh talk about. We have including the mayor and three of the council which is four of you total. You are responsible for
the problems we have now because you voted yes for the last maybe 4 to 12 years under the previous mayor. So the problem we have that's your problem. You're responsible for this high budget. But I also want to talk about the fact
that people I know living downtown Jersey City are already paying $35,000 in taxes. That's kind of the norm for Van Worth Park. That's kind of the norm for uh Paul's Hook. So, I mean, what do you
what do you think? We are made out of what? Money. We're not We're not wealthy. But what really annoys me? I supposed to be grateful that you went down from 20% to 15%. Yet, if a land if a landlord on
the rent control building were to raise their taxes or raise their rents from whatever it is up 15%. You would use my tax dollars to take that person to court because the most you can go up is 4% on
the rent control on the consumer price index. You're doing more than that to us. That's why I've always called rent control the privileged people. And let's add in affordable housing, too, because they're not going to go up at all. Whether or not that that abatement gap
was given for affordable housing 30 years ago or was giving uh last year, they're not going to go up. It's people like me or the lady who has a a two-bedroom condo and is paying 20,000. That is disgrace. Before I came here, I
did a Google search. The average property bill within the United States, United States is under $2,000. So this is how we're totally off. The average property bill in the state of New Jersey is $10,000.
And before you have this tax increase, the average property bill is $11,000. We're even higher than the New Jersey state average. And we're definitely much higher than what people pay in the rest of this country. It's like it just doesn't make sense. And you're always
worried about affordable housing. No. Worry about affordable taxes. That's the problem we have. You taxes taxes and property are married together. And when you pull it away from one
group, you're pushing it off on another group. And I'm that other group that receives the higher tax bill. Vote no. Number 12, Esther Whitner. >> Good evening, council. Um, I just want to start by saying that I heard that the
council has been advised that if you don't pass this 15% increase, the state will uh impose a penalty on the city. And I first would like to know if that is in fact the case, that you have been
told this, and if so, uh, who told you? Or is there a document that can show us that this is the case? and um cuz I that that's what I'm hearing and I'd like to know if that is true. I don't think I I
don't think that there's anything wrong in telling us that because your decision will be based on whatever it is that you're being told. So, if that's what you're partly basing your your vote on, then let us know. But I'm sorry, what?
>> No, that was behind you, Esther. >> Okay. So that being said, in any event, it doesn't really matter at this juncture because you should be voting no on this right now. And I'll tell you why. You don't have a budget.
And so essentially what you'll be doing is voting on on this increase and handing over a blank check. You've had a blank check since January. I don't get a blank check. Not in my personal life, not in my work life. Nobody does. And so
what I suggest that the council do is listen to the people. Vote no on this. Tell Solomon to go back and do his homework and come back with a budget. And then once the public and you have
reviewed the budget, then we can have a vote. That is the way government should work. That is what you are entitled to. That is what we are entitled to. It's not difficult. I know you've been under a lot of stress, but you're making it difficult for yourself. This is stress that you're bringing on to yourself
because at this juncture, all you should be saying is no and show us the, you know, show us the goods, show us the budget. So, I ask that you do that. Listen to the people, take that into consideration, vote no. I also, if I have time, would like to ask about the
waterfront alliance uh that is part host of the um the event that's going on in downtown Jersey City for July 4th. Um what I I know that nonforprofits are charged for police and cleanup um on
events and I'd like to know how much they're contributing to the um to the event and how much it will be costing the city. So, if you could answer those two questions for me, have you been told that you have to vote on this 15%
otherwise there will be um a penalty to the state uh to the city? And can you give me clarity on the waterfront alliance? Thank you. >> Um if >> Exchange Place alliance, >> yes ex >> yeah I think you're talking about exchange place alliance
>> for the 4th of July. >> Yeah, she's she's perfect exchange place sit. So, we we'll get you all those questions. The mayor is going to be here this evening, so we'll have him speak towards uh what you first referenced in regards to
>> asking that question because I understand that it was directed to the council. >> He will. >> Thank you. >> The next speaker is number 13, Tina. Hi. Yes, my name is Tina Noles and yes, I do work for Education and Gilmore. Um,
I'm just here just to um tell Salomon to um just think it over to hear so many people calling the office and so worry about them losing their houses and just leaving period here in Jersey City knowing that they grew up here. It's a
sad story. Um just this week right here education of Gearmore know that um we was planning my anniversary and um we was having difficult in that. So to see that even happened it just show you that in our community that we give up so fast
because of what we go through and people losing us in a crack. So I just want y'all to go back and just think I already know education to get more. you already know what to do to do the right thing. I spoke to you today and I told you that it's not your fault or what
happened. Um, we already know about Philillip. Um, I actually reached out to him and told him that he's doing a lot of partying. He should come back here and return the money so we wouldn't be sitting up in this hot spot right now today. So, I pray he reached back out to
me. Um, I'm just saying to y'all guys, I know y'all going to do the right thing because we didn't vote for y'all to do the wrong thing. So, we're going to make sure we keep our eye out on y'all and make sure y'all do the right thing
for our for our for our community. Thank you. Number 14. Number 14, Edward Perkins. Not here. I saw number 15, Rosanna Vargas. Hi, good evening. Um, people who know me
know that I'm no um a political person, no affiliated to anything, but really this time this hit me really hard. I've been here for the last 20 years. Me and my sister, we bought a little house in Greenville and uh it's our dream that where my mom
plant her little flowers. My mom is 31 and she enjoyed her little backyard slashd driver is slash everything but it's her heaven right now. We so worry about it. We cannot afford a 15%
increase in those taxes. We cannot afford it. I don't know what the mayor wants. Like we make a Houdini and pull it out from our hats, but we don't have the money. I don't remember the last time that I saw an increase in my
paycheck for 15%. It's hard. I'm asking you people to vote no for this. These people voted for you. For you. Because you have to work for us. not to support a mayor Solomon who
has care only about his legacy. We do not care about his legacy. You work for us and I'm asking the people please remember their faces, their name because your political career only going to last three years.
Number 16, Albert Harrari. >> Good evening, council. Normally, I come up here and I speak for the residents of Jersey City. I speak for the community. I have to apologize. I'm being very
selfish tonight. Tonight, I'm speaking about me. I want to know where you're spending my money. I do not walk into the supermarket, give the cashier $100,
and then walking up up and d down the aisles and see what I can afford. Why can't we see a line item budget before you vote on this increase?
There are many, many things that can be discussed. I didn't write anything out tonight. I am just very, very upset for my neighbors and my friends and myself.
Okay. Some of you came here tonight with the decision already made. One of the council people expressed an opinion that to lower the
budget they should defund the police. Okay. Do you think that is a good opportunity to save money for this city? I don't think so. I think you really all
need to look at the line item budget and let us look at it. Speak on it before you increase our taxes. I'm not a young man, but I'm out five or six nights a week. I hang out and I have
my beer and we talk and I talk to a lot of the residents in Jersey City, but I'm hearing one word, one word. Recall. Number 17. Number 17, Eric Connor.
Uh sitting here in this hot room, it is not lost on me that we are 250 years away from our nation's founding. And that initial declaration of independence where our forefathers gathered in a room
to discuss pressing issues of the day. Taxation, representation, popular consent, the will of the governed, and all of the rights we enjoy today flow from what happened in Philadelphia 250 years ago. It is very
important to me that we continue to have a representative form of democracy. It is very important to me that we have trust and faith in our government and in our elected leaders. Right now I can tell
you with confidence I do not have trust. I do not have faith in you. I do not have trust and I do not have faith in you because I have heard over the course of how many community meetings now
dating back to February over the budget that there's a crisis that there's a crisis and then at the last minute to have a 20% tax raise sprung upon us. What happened to the meetings? What happened to the process of those meetings? Why was nothing decided
earlier? And then when the 20% was announced, we were told by you that that 20% was a requirement from Trenton to get state aid. Well, now we have our state aid, a $15 million grant, and 105 million in loans. Loans are deferred
payments as we all know. So, we're in effectively the same position as we are now, maybe with just a better interest rate. Now, I am worried about my neighbors because I can tell that my neighbors have also lost trust in you. We've heard from
Charlene. We've heard from Rosanna. We've heard from Albert. Do not forget their names. Do not forget their concerns. A 15% tax increase along with a 15% tax increase from the county along with a 15% tax increase from the
board of education hurts all of them. You have it within your power to vote no tonight to find additional opportunities for new revenue to raise, whether that's from parking reform, which would help price some of the externalities from the
cars that plague our streets. You can also look at selling off city land and turning that into a radical tax base. The administration has already reneged on at least one deal worth 23 million that has increased our deficit from 2025
to 2026 by reneging on deals. So now our city has less trust in the eyes of everybody who deals with it. You must vote no. You must find all their alternatives before Albert, before Rosanna, before Charlene can no longer call Jersey City home.
>> Thank you. Number number 18, Nick Zorowski. Good evening, council. I really just want to make two points. Um I I I'm sitting over here and I'm getting driven a little bit crazy because I feel like we're having
entirely the wrong conversation. Um, every time this budget conversation comes up, it's like, all right, either we have to raise taxes by an insane amount or we have to like cut the whole fire department or something. I mean, Mayor Solomon loves bringing this up that the size of the deficit. Sorry, guys. Like, my hands are tied. I really
I don't want to raise the taxes, but the alternative is like dissolving the whole government, and that's just not true. Like, if it were true that just there were no other option, I would say, "Okay, look, the math is the math." But that's not what's going on here. The
city has I mean at least tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars in excess land that's just sitting around. And now occasionally this gets brought up and Mayor Solomon rejects it and says that's a one-time revenue source. That's how we got into
this mess. Like we can't possibly touch the land. That's just not how land sales work. Let me walk you through it. It's pretty simple. The city has the land. The city auctions the land. Someone buys the land. The city makes money from that and then God willing someone does
something with the land and pays property tax with the land. The city doesn't pay itself property tax right now. It's worth zero in the hands of the city. And so what I really want to ask you here because I don't think anyone's framed it this way, but this is the way
I think about this is don't think about the situation we're in. Think about the counterfactual. Walk with me a second. Suppose instead of having this big deficit in all this land, we didn't have the deficit and we didn't have the land. Would the nine of you vote to send the
city into debt so that we could acquire all this land in the first place? Or would you say, "No, you know what? I'd rather have the $80 million than the land." You put it that way. I mean, look, raise your hand if you would vote to send us into debt to buy the land in the first place. And you know, we we probably would want to know that, but it's the
exact same decision you're making now. Would you rather have the revenue or would you rather own the land? And if you're going to decide you'd rather have the land, like at least be honest and look out and when you vote yes tonight, as you've already decided to do, maybe not all of you, but enough of you. We
know this will pass. But before you say yes, explain that you want these people and everyone else who couldn't make it to sit in this very hot room, you want them to pay more taxes so that the city doesn't have to sell its land. Like that's your value judgment. If that's
your position, just own it and say that you would rather keep the land than save us having to raise taxes. Because when you vote on this, you're really answering one question. It really comes down to this. What's more important,
that the city government keeps all the land it owns or all of Jersey City's residents keep their homes? Thank you. Number 19, Heeka Muslim. Number 19,
Handeka Muslim. No. Number 20, Stephanie Starts. If a budget is a reflection of our values, what is a 15% property tax introduced at the last minute before a long weekend with three days to deliberate before voting? A reflection
of your character, the lack of a conscience, your disdain for the public. After delaying the vote a week to hear community concerns, the mayor's first action was retaliation. He canceled contracts for composting and
parks maintenance that he was so quick to take punitive action. Makes me question if the point of this property tax is to drive people out of Jersey City. Let's let's talk about the state
conditioned aid. Let's entertain this scenario where it's a lie that was used to sway someone's vote. That's not only unethical, that's illegal. It's criminal, actually. It's jail time.
Now, on June 26, on Friday, a publicly advertised Zoom meeting featuring council members Ephro, Little and Brooks along with members of the New Jersey General Assembly discussed the rationale behind their support for the proposed
property tax increase. I attempted to record this meeting for my own reference, but Zoom told me the host disabled that oper option. Council member Brooks went on to state that the three DSA members are to be
dealt with as a block. That seems to tow the line of sunshine laws. They're a bit confusing. For example, the council cannot edit a Google doc. They can't reply all in an email, but the three DSA members can individually
as a group determine how they're going to vote. That is illegal. That is legal. However, if they were to go to talk to another member and that other maybe another member of the group and to talk to someone else, that would be determined to be a violation of our
sunshine laws. A vote taken in violation of the state's open public meeting laws is not automatically void, but it is voidable by a judge. I've submitted an Oprah request seeking those recordings. I've also written to the New Jersey
Government Records Council who has referred me to the County Prosecutor's Office. This is not a question of are we voting tonight. This is a question of there are far too many ethical concerns about the conduct of this mayor and some members of this council that this vote
should be deferred and tabled for another day. You should be ashamed of yourselves. People will lose their homes. Okay. The next speaker, Kevin Davis. I don't see Kevin. No. Number 22,
Anthony Miglori. No. Number 23, Michael Harmon. No. Number 24, Michael. I'm I'm probably going to butcher that, but number 24. It's number 24 here. Michael
number 25, Philip Carrington. Number 26, Mang Woo. Hey, good evening. Um, I was here last Wednesday and on Sunday as well. Um, today I don't have a lot of new things to say, but I want to start with 15% tax hike is just as bad as 20% is as
unaffordable for the city. And it's ironic that um we're talking about 25 to 250 years of anniversary. And 250 years ago, the whole American independence war started with the British raising colony
tax. And American people just don't like tax. We don't we don't we don't want to pay excessive tax. Um and this tax hike, as I stated last time, I I'm not exaggerating. I think it's going to put unbearable stress on the real estate
market and homeowners. It will collapse the market. Um so that's um that's that's I'm repeating this point. And today I also wanted to talk about some research that I did in the past week um about some funding programs I haven't
seen published that we have we were uh we are um actively pursuing. Uh, one of the one of the things I um I I I found it was the DOJ model cities initiative. I don't know if anyone has uh looked into that. Um, apparently there's a um
DOJ public um um initiative for 300 million total funding to be split between among like a few cities. Um so to to build um safe neighborhoods and for the city so that's a grant um not it's a it's a free money. So, I would
like to have, you know, I I I I hope the city will look into it. Um and um and discuss. Um another thing is, um there's also the DOJ cops hiring program because I know we're really concerned about public
safety. So, this is also something that's um DOJ's funding for hiring or hiring police officers. I hope these I I don't know if we're already pursuing that, but these kind of funding we can get from on the federal level. Um I
think it can ease our budget um stress. Um let's see. One other thing I found was there's this um maybe it's it's it's also in the package of the state aid, but it's a it's called a section 108 loan
guarantee. um that's supposed to be um enhance the credit of the debt um so that we can get a lower interest rate. I know we have we spend a lot of money on interest payment and uh if any cash management or any credit enhancement can be used to lower that interest payment
it'll be very helpful. So the section 108 I think is designed uh specifically for um affordable housing and building infrastructures for for housing. So this is also one of the things that the city needs for capital um investment. I think
we should look into that. Um there's one other thing called um Oh okay >> sorry ma'am. Our next speaker number 27 Maria Ross. Hello. Okay. My name Maria Ross. M A R I
A R O SS. So, as of of course, we'd rather be anywhere but here tonight, I'm sure, going through another long meeting with multiple uh constituents pretty much saying the same thing. U I would like to
address what Esther Winter said. Is it a fact that you have to vote for 15%? I saw some heads nodding when she said that. So if it is a fact that you have to vote for 15%, then why are we here? Why did you even call this meeting? Why
are we all coming up one by one begging you not to do that? Okay, so u I'm looking at the resolution that was on the agenda and it does not have any of the budget on it. So again, like was said before, you're voting for us to
give you a blank check. Um, and I'm quite appalled by uh Mr. Brooks who said that this is a wealth tax. 20% is okay. Well, do you want to ask Mr. Macco or Mr. Kushner to pay that wealth tax because the average Jersey City
homeowner cannot afford that 20%. Nor nor can they afford 15%. Let's start talking about 10% 7%. Let's and what I found another thing I found appalling was Mayor Solomon immediately went to
let's cut parks, let's cut recreation. Why doesn't any start with cutting from the top? You need to streamline your own government. So what I did today is I went to the website and I looked at all the different departments that the city has and there's multitudes of them.
could not possibly go to each link, go to each drop down and see how many each department had. So, I went to the mayor's office. The mayor's office has press, he has mayoral executive order, he has
cultural affairs and LGBTQ task force. um with the press. I'm assuming he also has an uh a committee or directors for his social media because everybody who's in public office has to have social media people. So I'm wondering where
that is linked to um uh the cultural affairs if I remember correctly under Philip's term term it was a city the arts and cultural affairs but the since the inception of JCAC they dropped the arts part and became cultural affairs.
So what does cultural affairs do? For instance, uh flag raising, parades, do we need an office with a six-f figureure director and assistance to have that? You need to go line by line by line and figure out what you can cut. And I think that's really important to do. Um I
looked at infrastructure, that was another drop down. Traffic engineering, transportation planning, transportation resources, three transportation, and yet there's gridlock. I'm sorry, your time is up. Uh, John Ross, the next speaker, 28.
Um, I'd like to come at this from a slightly different angle. >> You have to speak into the mic, sir. Hold the mic up a little. >> Okay, that better. >> Yes. >> Okay. Something I think we can all agree on simply is you are elected officials. Correct.
Okay. So during everybody's election pitch, transparency was a big and important part. This is why we changed with the people we had from the previous people. So I were going to suggest to
you that this evening you have an opportunity to prove whether you are sitting there in order to represent the people because you can clearly hear what the people want. The people want a
reduction in this ridiculous tax increase because we cannot afford it. It's just not tenable. you tell me where you could get an extra $6 or $7,000 just like that because if you can tell me that please meet me afterwards and
I'll take notes. So this is an opportunity for all of you to show us if you're truly there to represent us the people or if you are there
to do the government bidding. And I think by and large that's everything I got. Thank you. The next speaker number 29 Michael Thompson.
No. Uh number 30 Vitali Solivv. Tali. No. Uh number 31 Gopen Rail. No. Number Speaker number 32 Shamun
Rambrup. No speaker number 33 John Morland. Greetings council. uh would like to uh my name is John M and I'm I'm coming in front of you because we have
the most dialysis places in the state of New Jersey but you don't have a place that would take a person like me because I have this device called a elvad in which I have a uh helps the heartbeat.
So I have to go to Elizabeth and Mark clear for diialysis three times a week and we have all these diialysis up the street from me around the corner from me. So I want to know or see if y'all could look into getting one place to get
a elvac trained person there so that I don't have to go 20 miles to dialysis. And I also want y'all to look into this access link thing because they getting our senior citizens people's in wheelchair. They pick me up four o'clock in the morning. My dialysis is at 6 and
I don't get to dial at 6:30 cuz I got to go to Mont Clair in Elizabeth. So I'm just asking y'all to look in to these things for me to make it better for our people that are older, sickly, and just
not able to move on their own. Because a lot of people in here may have to get a LVAC because if y'all take their ALS they going to have a heart problem and I'm quite sure they don't want to go to Marle or Elizabeth to go to the doctor when we got 30,000 dialysis places in
Jersey City. Thank you Mr. Morland. Where do where do you live with street? The next speaker number 34, Daniel Feldman. >> John, my staff is gonna talk to >> Good evening. Dan Feldman, 155
Washington Street. Now, you are here tonight to vote on a 15% tax increase on the people of this city. Before you do, I'd like to show you one debt the city has owed and has never once tried to collect. Kevin just handed each of you a card. I'd like you to scan it and it
opens the whole record. the ordinance, the recorded deed, and every night it has been broken. Now, next to my apartment building stands the Candle of Life memorial, which honors 126 Hudson County soldiers who went to Korea and did not come home. When vandals damaged
it in 2014, a city in South Korea sent $100,000 to help restore it. People on the other side of the world took better care of it than we have. Now, in 2007, Jersey City gave up a public street beside that memorial, not for free. In
exchange, it recorded a covenant against the property. The lane beside the memorial must be closed and chained every night, 8:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. by the property's own security. The county recorded it. It binds every owner since,
and it is not stayed by any lawsuit. No court has touched it. Now, every night that lane sits open, and every night I report it in the city's own system. Tonight is one more in a line more than 400 long. Under the city's own code,
each of those nights is a separate offense at up to $2,000 a day. The city has collected 0. So, hold that against the vote in front of you. To close its shortfall, the city
is asking for 15% more on each person's tax bill, which homeowners pay directly and renters pay through their rent, while a landlord's bill at a war memorial sits uncollected and documented for over a year. Now, to the mayor's credit, the first time I wrote to him
about this issue, he answered within a couple hours. But the ordinance exists, the deed exists, the nightly proof exists. The only thing still missing is enforcement. Before you vote to bill the living for
the shortfall, collect the debt already owed to the dead. Scan the card. Read the record. Then do the right thing. Vote no on this tax hike. Enforce this
city's ordinances instead. Thank you. Number 35, Jack McKe. >> Evening, council. I'm sympathetic to everyone's position because uh I wouldn't want to be in your shoes. I come here as a renter, so I think I'm probably the only person thus far to
come and say this, but I understand the need for the tax hike with some stipulations. There have been very good points made throughout the room. Um I think there are aspects of the budget that we look at as untouchable for political reasons and it they have to be touchable. We cannot be focused on the
the next election cycle and needing the support of this union or that department. We need to be looking at this budget uh even kill and I'll just say it. I'm speaking about the police department which is like political dynamite but uh it can't be everything
else. That said, we also need uh we need greater we need greater creativity in our asset like our our revenue collection. I think that parking enforcement is a big one and I'm I know it takes time to develop legislation, but that is I mean measurable square footage in this city
that we are subsidizing for people who drive. And I know when I the last time I applied for a parking permit in 2023, I had to make a phone call and I when they told me the number, I said, "Oh, no, no, no. I want to pay for the year." They said, "No, that is the year." I mean, we're talking about millions of dollars.
Um, and that's something I think you should jump on now as soon as possible. I know you're a little bit busy tonight. That said, um, I do understand the need for a tax hike. Um, because more than an in increase in taxes, and as a renter, I'm not as affected, but more than an
increase in taxes, I fear the death spiral that happens to cities when you cut crucial services. We're not doing a great job of it as it is. So, I can't imagine if we were to cut traffic uh trash collection or pothole fixing, just let the parks go to heck, uh stop
watering the trees, so on and so forth. Uh I think that truthfully, I think that is a situation more dangerous than an increase in uh taxes because that you can do something about. You can't make a tree come back to life. You can't make businesses come back to this city once they decide that it's not a place worth
investing in. And it's hard to get residents back when the city crashes due to an economic crisis. That said, I don't know the ins and outs of this budget and I would I would love to see it. This does feel rushed and I'm sure that um I'm sure that some of you agree with me. So again, sympathetic to your
position. Um best of luck. I'll leave it there. Number 36, Fernando. Good evening, council members. Um, as a journalist that covers Jersey City on a regular basis, um, I echo the sentiments of a lot of my viewers and friends that are here in
Jersey City because they are getting taxed. And I, whether it's Al or Connor and others have talked about the importance of a line item budget, I think it's important to look in house where you can save some money. Now, it's my understanding having
covered the race last year that all of you ran on some message of transparency and affordability, right? I mean, that's what I remember and I know that a lot of you here uh are still sticking to that. And I remember on the night of your inauguration along with the mayor at
White Eagle Hall, I remember talking to the mayor just for a couple minutes at the bar and saying, "You know, James, I really want you to succeed. I know that you and I maybe sit on different sides of the ideological spectrum, but I want you to succeed. I want Juria City to succeed. I don't live here, but I frequent Juria City often. I contribute
to its economy. I come here and support local businesses, whether it's restaurants, clubs, you name it. I support friends of mine that own business here, and I want to see them succeed, but I also want to see friends of mine that live in Jersey City be able to stay here. The city that I live in,
just a little up north, my mayor does a really good job of balancing the budget and keeping property taxes low. Now again, we've heard the blame game for the last few weeks, whether it's on social media or whether it's in the press, whether whatever the previous
mayor did or did not do or whatever the current mayor may or may not be doing. It's up to you on the council to give some assurances to residents here today that they're not going to be priced out of Jersey City. There's nothing more disheartening than growing up in a town
and not be able to grow up in it, have a family, and retire in it. That seems really disheartening. And I hear that in the sentiments of a lot of residents that come up here today. And some of you might be standing sitting there saying like, "Well, Fernando, you don't live in Jersey City, so what is it to you?"
Well, I'm a resident that cares about his neighbors no matter how far away from where I live. And I care about them here in Jersey City, and I see lifelong residents with their tax increases staring them right in the face. Once again, a lot of you ran on transparency.
And I think it's important to look in house where you can cut some spending. Instead of hiring extra aids, maybe cut them, maybe restructure some contracts. We're sports fans, right? Don't we expect our teams to maybe restructure contracts with their players so the team can be more successful? Well, don't you
want Jersey City to be more successful? Maybe restructure some contracts and salaries. Yes, we don't want to cut services. I get it. Nobody wants to see that. But by the same token, I think it's important for all of you to look at residents in the face tonight and either table a tax increase or again at least
consider the fact that a line item budget is probably more feasible to see where you can cut spending and be more fiscally responsible. Remember, you ran on that. Thank you. Speaker number 37, Nilia Ponio. >> Evening. Um, thank you everybody that
came here today because I think you have expressed what most of us feel and I think it's necessary to tell the administration that we chose to ensure that our voice is heard. to me. I had written something for last
week. I send it to my councilman. Hopefully, he distributed amongst you guys. Today, I'm going to be a little shorter because I think we're talking too much and we're not seeing what we need to see, which is a budget. We came in here with um our mayor right
now is ideals versus reality. This is exactly where we are today. No real estate taxes and affordable housing were the basis of Salomon's campaign. winning a mayoral campaign on promises that he's not going to keep is really
sad for everybody. This is what we're getting instead. A hack on real estate taxes, affordable housing for some working families classified by the major, which is the most frustrating part, how insulting he could be, and gentrification for the other working families, especially for our senior
citizen. And that has been proven today. Look at everybody here and see what you guys are putting them through. However, this is the biggest point that I need to make today. We are having the mayor here tonight.
That is fantastic. But really, talk is tucked. And at the end of the day, it becomes putric dribble when you don't have a budget. We cannot see anything that you guys are doing. But we have to agree with you on this ridiculous tax hike. This is not okay. You should show
the numbers, resource allocations, and then make a decision on that. You don't know that. We don't know that, but we have to agree to that. Anyone here, any of you approving to this budget today without any transparency of this budget is doing a disservice on all the
communities that voted for you. And that's a shame. Thank you for tonight. >> The next speaker, number 38, Kevin Weller. Kevin Weller, 155 Washington Street. I was honored last year to be named co-advocate of the year by the James
Solomon Civic Association. I'm here tonight to advocate, but also to support this mayor and the people of Jersey City. So, let me start by being fair to our mayor. He inherited a hole he did not dig. He says the last
administration ran up the city credit card. And we know that's true. But Philip's council didn't vote the will of the people. Solomon is not full. And this council, we hope, must vote the
will of the people. So let's try to figure it out. The 15% to the people of Jersey City is the wrong percent and to the wrong party. The wrong percent because the right number is 100%.
Collect 100% of what the lawb breakakers already owe this city before you ask for a dollar more. And the wrong party because the bill is going to the people who follow the law instead of the landlords who don't. Some of them.
Every single day I send this city a report. Everyone in this room can Oprah it. It's very easy to find on just two buildings. Today is day 436. Mayor sponsored mandatory minimum law
himself when he was councilman. Mayor Phip signed it and Mayor Solomon once he took office put out an executive order seeking the maximum penalty for exactly these violations per unit per day. So let's use his own number. One
violation across just our 527 apartments at the maximum his order directs is just over $1 million per day. He has been mayor for 168 days. That one violation over those days is more than $168
million the city is owed and has not collected. And there are eight violations on that report, not just one. Oprah, you'll find it every day. The mayor told this city that if a landlord breaks the law, he would freeze
their rent and make them pay the fines they owe. That was the promise. The law is on the books. The order is signed. The only thing missing is the collection. If this increase truly can't be avoided in the short term, I don't know if that's true or not. Then call it what it
should be. A short-term loan from the taxpayers paid back in real tax relief the moment the city starts collecting what the law breakers owe. You said you would not put developers first or he did. This is how to prove it. Send the bill to the party that broke the law
at 100%. Before you send it to the people at 15. Thank you. Number 39, Danilo Kersner. Not here. Uh Sonia Kersner. Okay. >> Good evening. My name is Sonia Keshna. I
live I have lived at 100 100 Warren Street for 12 and a half years. I pay my rent on the first. When something in my lease says do a thing, I do it. When the city sends me a form, I fill it out. I'm
not special. Most of the people in this room are exactly the same. We are the ones who pay. We follow the rules. We show up, including at meeting after meeting like this one. And tonight, we
are the ones being asked to pay more. I understand the city is in a hard spot. I heard the mayor. I'm not angry at him for the hole he inherited. And I'm grateful he brought this down from 20 to 15% and I would like to say he came back
to listen, but he's actually not here. What I'm asking is a question of simple fairness, the kind we teach children. If two people are standing in front of you and one of them followed the law law and one of them broke it, who should get the
bill? Because in my building the laws has been have has been broken for every single day for years. The city knows it gets a report every morning. There is a fine attached to every one of those
violation. A fine this council voted for and it adds up faster than any tax increase in this room. More than a million dollars a day for a single violation across our apartments. None of
this has been collected. So the people who broke the law owe the city a fortune and have paid nothing. And the people who followed the law here in this room are being asked tonight to make the
difference in our taxes and in our rent. I did everything right. My neighbors did everything right. We are not asking for a favor. We are asking not to be charged for someone else's crime. There is money
owed to the city by the people who broke the laws. Go get that first. Get the audit, give the audit teeth, send the summons, freeze the rent exactly like you promised, and leave the
families who did nothing wrong out of the bill for the ones who did. Do not make the rule followers pay for the rule play for the rule breakers. Please, please. Thank you.
Speaker number Speaker number 41, Adrien Arosko. Good evening, uh, council president and, uh, the rest of the council. Um, I'm Adrian Androsco. I'm the, uh, New Jersey political director for 32BJCIU.
Um, we secure and clean office buildings, residential buildings. Uh, but we also secure city hall and other city government buildings. We also clean uh, buildings and maintain facilities at
one of the city's departments. Um, this isn't a easy position to take. Um, I know nobody here tonight is excited. Um, and it's very disappointing to be in a place where, uh, a very
difficult decision needs to be made. Um, sometimes difficult decisions are necessary and are not the most politically popular. Uh, the city inherited a quarter billion dollar deficit. Um, and this administration has
worked to close that gap by reducing spending, cutting some contracts, finding efficiencies, um, and even securing $120 million in state aid. Um, and um, you know, those
efforts um, have reduced the gap, but um, there there remains a very big gap still. And um we heard the governor emphasize the importance of avoiding layoffs of first responders and preserving public services. The workers
we represent uh understand the stakes here. Uh they're security officers, they're cleaners, they're frontline service workers, they're some of the most vulnerable workers in our society. Uh they keep this city running. And uh when
cities face tough times, they're often uh some of the first ones to feel that. Um but uh this decision is about uh stability. It's about preventing painful decisions in the future. It's about keeping the city afloat, protecting
public safety, preserving services, avoiding layoffs that can hurt hundreds of families. Uh we recognize that the residents are being asked to shoulder a huge burden. Uh but we also recognize that ignoring a structural deficit is going to just
create deeper cuts, uh greater instability, higher cost. Um what we're asking for is simple. That uh when you consider a budget, when you consider this tax hike to uh consider the uh the hundreds of of workers uh that it may
affect and their families. Thank you. >> Speaker number 42, Lysel Venoeva. >> Could you speak? Yeah, speak that. >> Yeah, before it starts click clicking. >> Um, I haven't been here in so long and I did not realize that there's a threem
minute limit. So, um, I counted at least 10 people who didn't show up. So, that's a surplus of about 30 minutes that I think is available. So, I'm asking for the courtesy to allow me to finish my speech. >> I've already edited it. It's not It's
not going to go that much, but I'd like to have the ability to finish my points. >> I don't think you guys can find that. >> Everyone gets three minutes. We have to be fair to everyone. Everyone before you got three minutes. Well, I I believe if you're asking me to pay more taxes, I could have another minute or so.
>> We haven't actually >> We're not in a classroom here. >> The clock starts now. >> I will I will go on. I will go on. >> I'm acknowledging the esteemed members of this legislative body which is supposed to work with but reasonably
independent of its executive branch. I supported his administration not only by voting for Mayor Solomon Slate all of you well you know and uh also assisting in his campaign but I don't feel beholden to James as much as I respect
him as a politician and as much as I like him as a person ethically I neither expect special favors from him nor from any of you just because you got my vote but I do expect you to deliver your campaign promises is prime of all is
reform. A tax hike, however, you know, whatever percentage you may suggest, is not right at this time, especially that your constituents are facing financial challenges. So, for your aids and your direct
reports, know that raising homeowners taxes is a sure way to alienate your base, without whom makes you a lame duck this early in this ad administration. I did not vote for a tax hike. I did not. I voted for accountability.
This administration, this council moving forward needs to steer clear of any signs of impropriy. Again, I voted for reform. You guys won and had been trusted to serve the city to the best of your abilities. You swore an oath. I was
there to witness it. So, I believed what you said. So, please believe me, too. that a tax hike now will be a disaster, not just for us, but for you. If you can't convince us that you've exhausted every and all avenues to fix a deficit,
then you can't expect us to pay more to fix the abuses of your colleagues. And if you already made up your mind to approve the tax hike before you even enter this hall, you'll you'll show that you're not any better than your
predecessors. The tax increase has to be the last resort. I'm not convinced that the city has done its due diligence to close the gap. Our scrutiny comes from decades of known abuses by those who sat there
before you. But consider also that each of you has a chance to distinguish yourself from the same old strategies of blaming predecessors without real followup, pencil pushing as productivity, lip service as empathy, compromising us responsibility, and
rubber stamping for personal gain. You know your constituents deserve better. And I want to be convinced that you took on this job because you truly believe that. If the former mayor is the one to blame, and he is, seriously hold him
accountable. I know you voted last week for an investigation, so it's on you to ensure that Steve does not get away with it the way he did with most everything when he was in >> Ma'am. Ma'am, your time is up. >> Facet of his time is up. >> Your
time is up. Please do not scream out from the audience. Please do not see again. That's Steve. We are not going to scream out from the audience. Everybody has three minutes. >> Can't we You have to be fair to all speakers. Everyone gets three minutes.
>> Ma'am, ma'am, you had your three minutes. >> You had your three minutes. We're going to have to step back from the microphone. We have to be fair to everyone. There are other people who wanted to continue their comments as well. >> Again, I'm going to ask you one more
time to not scream out or we're going to have to ask you to leave. We're going to have to ask you to leave if you continue to scream out. We want to be fair to everyone. >> Okay. >> Some minutes there. I lost some minutes there. >> I lost some minutes there.
>> Please, we have to let other people speak. >> We lost some minutes there. That was not my interruption. >> You don't have to be stamps. Listen and say no. We >> We're just taking the mic away. That's all. Calm down.
Right. The the next speaker is number 43, Amy Albert. Not here. The next speaker is number 44, David Wilson. I am not going to go over three minutes. Um,
uh, good evening, Council President Ridley, members of the council. Um, we've been over the numbers, right? On the one hand, there's a $255 million hole. It's a $120 million from Trenton. There are cuts to services and uh there
remains we're looking at a $20 million shortfall and then a 15% tax increase that we're talking about. On the other hand, you've got in just two buildings which have 527 apartments, you have each
day one mandatory uh just for each violation, you have one uh uh uh mandatory minimum fine for each apartment, for each day, for each violation. And there are eight violations. And again, this is just in
Portsight Towers. Um, and so that would produce, if collected, that would produce this $20 million in a matter of days. So it's not necessary to raise taxes 15%.
It's not necessary to pave Liberty State Park and put a B parking lot. Um, what's ne because there's not a revenue problem. Jersey City has a collection problem. And so what the council is considering
doing is it's considering reaching into the pockets of the taxpayer rather than bending over and picking up a pile of checks that are on the floor. It makes me think of the movie Catty
Shack where the character is played by Chvy Chase has uncashed checks, huge checks scattered all over his floor, right? because he doesn't care because he doesn't need the money. But Jersey City does need the money. Um, and so I
urge you to bend down and pick up those checks rather than reaching into the pocket of the taxpayers. And a previous speaker said, you know, if the landlord of a rent control building tried to raise the rent 15%,
you all would haul them into court and you would collect what the city's owed. I want to live in that world. Thank you. The next The next speaker is number 45, Jessica Bran.
Not here. The next speaker is Pam Johnson. Number 46. Not >> here. Yeah, she's here. >> She's here. Oh. Good evening, council. How you guys doing? >> A little stressful, right?
Um, I'm I have to be very honest. I am not here to tell you how to vote in any type of way. Um, I work with most of you and I know that you are all good people. Maybe not all, but some. Um,
I know that you are concerned about your constituents and their well-being, especially those representing the Southside, Southside Pride. And I'm here to speak about my neighbors and myself who cannot afford any tax
increase at all. But we also understand that we are in a situation and something has to be done. Personally, I own a two family home, but I do not have any tenants because it is a family home just like
many of my neighbors. They own multiple units and their family reside in them who can't afford to pay market rate rent. It is a burden for an increase. But what do we do? Affordability in general is an
issue and we cannot afford what we don't have. However, what do we do? We are clearly in trouble and we have to move forward to resolve this crisis. I pray that we can collectively get this
done and get out of this deficit. Is it factual and this is a question. So is it factual that if you guys don't vote on the 15% tonight that the state will mandate 20%. I think uh those are
whispers in in the hallways and outside and people really want to know where you guys stand with that and what will happen right if you don't vote on the 15% and then we're mandated at 20 from the state. So that is a question that I want y'all
to answer if you can. Um and and that's important information. We are not here to work against you in any type of way. We are here to work with you and we hope that we can work together to resolve this financial crisis.
I am not with cutting services either or laying off people. Just so I can make that clear. So, let's resolve this tonight and protect Jersey City and Jersey City families. But I'm still asking that question though. >> The mayor the mayor will be here at the
uh public speaker. >> I I think >> that's what you got, >> huh? That's what you got. >> So, let me let me say this. We uh we as a council have not received that and I don't want to speak for the mayor and the administration for what they received. That's why I'm saying the
mayor is coming here tonight and that is one of the things he will be addressing. If someone from the administration has a direct answer for that now, then I know a lot of people have asked that already. This is about the third time. Um so, if there is a direct answer that you would like to give now, then please provide
that. the mayor will be prepared to address those questions and share everything that the administration can share publicly. >> Okay. So after public speaking the mayor has uh committed to be here and that is one of the questions and I I have it written down so I will not forget to
make sure he answers that question. >> Thank you so much. Appreciate you. This is this is not a um explicitly saying, you know, I I hope this is not getting on what the um mayor is going to say when he comes here, but
from a legal standpoint, can you clarify whether the state DCA when we have a fiscal monitor that comes in in a in accordance with us getting state aid, whether that fiscal monitor can set a mandatory minimum tax rate for us?
Are they legally able to do that? Councilwoman, uh, Department of Community Affairs has very broad authority in general over municipalities. They have even, uh, more defined authorities for municipalities under
transitional age. They do have the authority, a director of uh DGS the has the authority to set tax rates for municipalities. There is precedent for that where there's not been
budget adopted or tax rate set in other municipalities. DCA has stepped in and done exactly that. So they do have very broad authority. >> Thank you for clarifying. Okay, next one. Council, ready to call the next speaker? >> Yes.
>> Okay, the next speaker is number 47, Sharon McCormack. Thank you to all in the city who work towards the 120 million in state relief. Tonight, I'm here to talk about the 15% tax increase. In the 1980s, there was a
game show called Double Whammy. And if you hit the wrong button at the wrong time, you lost. A cartoon whammy would come out. It would dance and sing, and sometimes it even wrapped. I'm the double whammy, and it ain't no joke. I'm cleaning you out and leaving you broke.
After the people of Jersey City attended all the creative budget meetings in the spring and the people were ignored during the prior leadership, the people have a reasonable expectation for forward momentum, acute scrutiny, and budget transparency that don't simply
place the monkey on our backs. Why don't we audit all the city spending in jobs? Because by and large, some city services have not improved. Audit all spending, each job, each department, and trim any fat off the bone. That's what corporations do when the numbers are
down. Hiring freezes, layoffs. Figure out ways to better manage the budget because JC pulls the money in. But we need to manage and enforce it better. We ask for transparency and accountability. And if there's an increase, it needs to be measured and scaled over time. We
can't be hit with 15 or 20% all at once. To some of us, this tax increase is the butter. To many, it means no bread and no roof. No more of even the necessities. It seems unrealistic. It feels unfair. Audit the board of ed. 35
grand a year per student and Dickinson public high school is ranked one out of 10. Audit the last leadership the city had, which we need accountability on. I understand that Councilman Lavaro and Zupa introduced the resolution for fiscal investigation at June 24th's
meeting and the council approved nine out of nine. Thank you. So, it's not just a cakewalk off to New York City after the New York Times interview in the beginning of the year with the former mayor stating plainly that he had a quote clear and deliberate playbook end quote involving quote getting
comfortable facing off with labor unions, interests, and community groups. After end quote, after the avoidable fiscal mess created and left behind, we're now considering adding even more burden in front for the people to bear. We deserve better. Do not place the
monkey this debt on the backs of the hardworking residents paying up the wazoo for mediocre at best quality of life services and little return on deep investment. I'm cautiously optimistic about cuts in public park funding. The more the little people have to tighten
our belts, the more those quality of life rest bites matter. But Vonia pools still not open as July. The little people can't be asked to play atlas and carry the weight of the world on our breaking backs. That would be a double whammy.
The next speaker is number 48, Renee Lee Guerrero. >> Good afternoon everyone. I am here I am in Ward B. Joel Brooks, you're my council person that I voted for and I'm very disappointed. I voted for you and
the mayor and I'm very, very disappointed, hurt, and and I feel betrayed that y'all said that y'all were going to make Jersey City affordable and you decided affordability was 15%.
All right. And um so far all I've heard is um cutting services and increasing our taxes. Nowhere have I heard about let's look for additional revenue. I say look at the pilot program and
review it and see how you could increase those payments. Okay. And that's my one contribution for this evening. Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker, number 49, Richard Green.
Richard Green. Number 50, Shane Mitchell. Good evening, council. My name is Shane Mitchell and I'm a proud WRC resident. Hey, Tom. I'm also the New Jersey Pill Director for the Hotel and Gaming Trades Council, the union representing hotel
and hospitality workers in our region. I just got off the picket line, so I'm coming in a little sweaty here. Uh, we have more members living in Jersey City than in any other municipality in the state, and for their sake and mine, we need a Jersey City that's affordable and provides great public services. Jersey
City is a place where our members both work and live, and we all want to stay in this great city and see it even greater. The mayor has been consistent in his transparency about the scope of the problem facing the city. After three terms of gimmicks, I'm glad to see an administration dealing honestly with
Jersey City residents, even if it is a harsh truce we're facing. Our members know the difference between leaders who protect working people and leaders who balance budgets on their backs. We know the mayor is keeping working people in mind and the council as well as you all
make difficult decisions on budget cuts to make sure this transition doesn't put even more burdens on the people who can afford it least. No one is happy about tax increases or budget codes. But we can be glad that there's a straight shooter and a straight council
now in office and a mayor who's proven through his career of public service standing in the line for our members when we've been on the picket line fighting Airbnb that he's putting everyday people ahead of special interests or personal interests as the case may have been with the prior mayor. My union looks forward to being a
productive partner in the conversation about the direction of the city both in this budget and in the years to come. The success of hotel workers in this city is a testament to the strength of our community, the resilience of our economy, and the heartfelt belief that we all share that we can make Jersey
City even better. Thank you. The next speaker, number 51, Maxine. Maxine and Alustin Mobley. No. Number 52, Lorraine Oliver. No. Number 53, Salmon Zeb.
Oh. Number 54, Jeff Vorheimer. >> Hi, I'm uh Jeff Warchimer. Thank you. And I um both a renter and own a small property in the city where my daughter resides. And like everyone else, I've
seen I printed out my print out that saw the for this third floor walk up the uh taxes go from 9,000 to 11,000. And like everywhere else, I'm pained by it. My hope was my daughter would be able to live there hopefully the rest of her life. Obviously, at this rate, that's getting a little bit tighter. I did want
to say a couple things of uh thoughts of gratitude. First of all, when I first came to the I think the first meeting I came to about this subject was in February or so and I I think the council, the department of finance and the mayor have done a much better job of
being open and honest. I mean, the last communication from the mayor regarding the city's finances was by far the best I've seen. And compared to the board of ed, it's it's incredibly clear. Uh and I'm thankful for that. and I'm thankful for you um your commitment to uh and I
believe you are aware of how our the residents feel and are are going to work on it regarding voting on the increase. You I spent a career working in finance so I tend to be I try to be a little unemotional about these things and I think you know this money's already been spent. The last communication pointed
out 109 million is in this budget that was should have been taxed over the prior 10 years or so. It's already gone. Plus, we're halfway through this year and I presume the deficit just from the, you know, given the numbers is 75 hundred million dollars already. That
money is sadly it's gone. We could argue about it all we want. In fact, if we didn't vote the increase, we'd be doing just what the prior mayor did and what we all despise about it that hiding increases and putting an offer a future that eventually came to this day.
You know, I also want to express gratitude towards the everyone who worked for um to get 120 $105 million loan from the state. I was surprised and grateful. And if you think this was popular in the rest of the state, please look at my Twitter feed where the mayor
has taken a excuse me, the governor has taken a lot of flack from him and think, "Oh, this is a payoff." You know, I mean, um and so hopefully we can work together for uh the future I want for myself and for my daughter in Jersey City. Thanks, The next speaker number 55, Donna
Raruchi. >> This is such a >> Please bring the mic. Yeah. >> Heart-wrenching discussion, you know, and position to be in. I don't even know what to say. I just want to go through the floor. Um, you know, this format isn't the best. the the the um the ward
meetings were really better because we had people there who were experienced, the council members and the finance people and all who could you know respond and explain some of the some of the proposals or you know what's possible, what's not possible because
even tonight people making proposals that sound good but are not legal or not tenable. You know, the state has seems to have so much control over this over the municipalities and you know, I think that what we need
to be doing is mobil like we're all here talking about the the tax increase and the horrors that that that brings, but we also need to be mobilized to the state to, you know, to change these laws and give give the cities more power,
more control over what we can do. like we cannot raise taxes over on the on the uh developers because they have to be the same amount as what's what's uh how homeowners are taxed. It's really not fair. But that's the law and we have to
mobilize ourselves. We can't just leave it up to politicians to negotiate these things and our, you know, our city council and mayor should be mobilizing us as well as through our neighborhood associations and whatever to get out there and lobby and advocate for
ourselves. You know, I think there's a lot of distrust in government since Watergate and whatever. people like it seems that people who we elect no matter how wonderful seem to have to prove themselves because nobody trusts politicians these days. You know, I
think that a lot of the um the I think that the council and the administration has worked a lot to try to find places to cut to cut, you know, that will not be permanently damaging for the city because there are some cuts that would be some things like, you know, layoffs,
mass layoffs. They would be um like those are those are tax owner homeowners who would be throwing out of work. Plus, there are contracts and so on. It's just um I don't envy you. I think that everyone is honest. I think that you've
been as transparent as you can. I think we do need to know what kinds of restrictions the state and requirements that the state has has put on us. But I think that we need to, you know, there does have to be an increase and and and
cuts. But I I agree maybe we could find more. I don't know. I just I think we just have to work it out and all there's going to be some pain for everyone and we need to fight more to change change
all the laws and the restrictions on us. >> Oh no sir. Sir, are you on the list? >> Not on the list, sir. >> You have to be on the list, sir. >> Not the list. >> Has to be heard. I >> You have to be on the list. We're still going through the list. No, no. The list there's actually two more speakers, but you're not on the
list either way. So, >> you're not registered to speak, sir. You have to register in advance. Uh, the next speaker is Helen Davis. She registered to speak, but she did not register electronically, so it did not appear on the list. >> She's not here. >> No, she she is here. She's right there.
>> She's here. >> And then and then after that, we Oh, >> Miss Davis. Yes. Yes. She she's here. That is That's Miss Yes, that is Oh, >> that's Miss Davis's. Okay. Davis and uh I'm glad I'm very pleased to be
here and I'm also glad to be able to address the um council. A few of you know me and they know that when I speak I do try to tell the truth because I don't lie. One of the things
that I want to ask is that we are concerned about this raise and it's it's a hardship. It's a real hardship. Um, I have four children and they all grown and they I'm living in Jersey City
cuz I spent 90% of my life here in Jersey City, but my kids moved out because they said they can't afford Jersey City. And it hurts me to my heart because I love Jersey City. Anybody know when you call the arm, I'm the first one
to stand up. I'm the first one to go out. But we have serious situations here on hand. We need to address this tax uh situation. We need We even got a building on Montgomery Street that
nobody ever thinks about or right across from a old medical center that we could use for homelessness for children that run away from home for adults that for women's that's sleeping on the streets for men's that's sleeping on the street. We can divide that building up into
three section and also use the basement as a cooling area when it's so hot outside and it's stifling so they can go there and get some air. But we as people like to like to help one another. We
would like to think that we will go help one another. And by saying that is that let's look deep into our hearts and see what we can find. not just look to cover our pockets, but to see what we can find to help each other. And these taxes are
really, really bombarding us. I know perfectly for myself, my husband was a veteran. I have no help. I live alone. And uh when they talk about school taxes, I don't know when the last time I had a kid in school. My son is 65 years
old. And um I told I was telling them I said I'm looking over the hill at 80. And my daughter said, "Mom, don't say that cuz you had that." I said, "What? What happened to my life?" What I really want to say is that God bless us, God
help us, and God see us through this situation. I don't want to take up no more time, but all of these things that I wrote out that I would like for the council after the meeting, I wrote everybody a paper just to show you what's on my mind and what's in my
heart. If it's okay that I give it to you after the meeting. Okay. God bless you and may God forever keep us strong in Jersey City. >> Pam. >> Ma'am, >> can you get the copies from her and give it to us? The last speaker for today is
Glenda Cannon. >> Co-pastor Glenda Canon Grace Christian Church downtown. I've been co-pastor for 50 years. My husband was a veteran and I appreciate you all letting me speak. He was in the Vietnam War. He's deceased and gone on and I'm carrying on the church. And guess what? We were
homeowners young people. We bought a home. We educated our children here in Jersey City. Went to college here in Jersey City. And now, guess what? Am I angry? Heck no. Am I mad? Not so.
But what are you? I'm disappointed. I'm disappointed in what is happening within this city. No, we cannot afford it. Taxes. I know. I know Mayor Solomon, what I'm asking this this group here,
these council people here. I'm in ward F and I'm very proud of my ward and the people who represent me, you got to do something. You have to do something because guess what? I'll be I'm going I'm hitting on 80. And guess what? I'm still working.
And when I saw 20%, you got to be kidding me. And when I called city hall to give a breakdown on my taxes, you know what they told me? Oh, guess what? Don't pay it now because it's going up. Going up? Are you for real? And then they said it broke down
to 50 15%. I'm hearing all this stuff. What I'm saying to you council people that represent us, please do something to help us. And not only that, I'm representing widows. I'm a widow. and all the widows and all those people. We
cannot afford to live in this city anymore. My children have have grown up. I done educated them. Guess what? Food prices have gone up. Water prices have gone up. I asked the forestry to come out and trim a tree in front of my house, which the city planted 60 years
ago. Y'all want to hear the response that I got? That's not a priority. My husband is a He was a veteran in the Vietnam War. I'm working. I worked 40 years on one job and I'm still And you're going to tell me that it's not a
priority. What is the matter? This is not a rocket scientist project. I'm telling you good people that sit up there on this council every day. Do something to help us because we cannot afford to live in this city anymore.
And why did you vote to raise the taxes and didn't ask me if it was okay if I could afford it? because I can. WHY DID YOU DO THIS? I'm telling you all, help us before we die out.
Good God Almighty, help us before we die out and and give us some relief cuz we need relief. I thank you all for listening to me and I'm so sorry, but I get so excited that you know, you know how it is. And thank you for inviting me
to come in our old age. We still reside in these houses. We still praying paying property taxes and trying to keep it up and your time is up. >> I understand. Please get there and vote.
John Council. Yeah. >> What was the the young lady's name? >> Glenda Canon. >> Huh? >> The one who just spoke. >> Glenda. >> Glenda Canon, I believe. >> Canon. Miss Cannon. >> Glenda. >> Yeah, I just spoke.
>> Thank you, M. >> We got it. Um, I believe uh that concludes our list of speakers. Uh, Madame President, I believe the mayor is here. Do you wish to defer to him? >> Uh, have the mayor here with us. Uh, and
he would like to say a few words. >> All righty. Um, >> you're not you're not in the camera angle. >> I'm on camera. I apologize. Let's see. I'll be over here a little easier. Um, >> and John. Oh, well, you're turned in the camera now, right?
>> Yeah. >> Is that good? Because then I can go like this a little bit. Perfect. >> On the camera now. >> So, first I I just uh the last speaker, Miss Canon, uh Miss It's good to see you. Um when Miss Canon's church is right by where my kids uh uh where I walk in my kids, so I'm always seeing
her right after church. So, it's good to see you. And I and I think you know I wanted to give a little bit of a message both to the public who's here as well as to the council um which is both heartfelt but also substantive because I think there are some key updates that are more important for the public and for the council to discuss as we're
debating what's uh before us today. Uh but wanted to start with just the the connection right and Miss Canon you know used the word of saying hey I'm disappointed there is no way that I wanted to be here standing here talking about a massive tax increase. I have talked to you individually. I have talked to many of
the individuals directly in this room and I have talked to literally thousands of Jersey City residents about how unaffordable our city is. It is is a thing that I have heard over and over again and never in a million years did I want to be sitting here saying let's do
a big tax increase. And you guys all certainly did not sign up and say this is what we needed to do. But I also signed up to be a leader and to tell the truth and to move our city forward. And
when got into office, we knew our budget was bad. We immediately started digging and we learned the scope of how bad it was. $255 million deficit. 30 almost 30% of our entire operating
budget was missing for this year. That is the recipe for the destruction of a city. for a city that cannot work, that cannot govern. So everything that I have done, the council has done has been about how do you solve the greatest fiscal crisis in the city's history? How
do you get us through this incredibly awful time? And there simply is no easy solution. There is no good choice to move us forward. Um but I think but I think there are >> let's not sell out >> but but there is a path that is painful
but is one that we are moving forward on that I think can move us forward. So I wanted to address I I know I listened to many of the comments. I apologize I can't take comments now but the council have some questions but I I listened to many of the comments that were made and and a lot of people said well why are we voting on this before we have a budget?
Why are we voting on this now? So, let me just lay out the the timeline here because I think it's really important and it gets to why we're making these choices and why we're putting these things forward. So, today is the last day legally that we can set our third quarter tax rate. So, if it does not come today, you cannot set your third
quarter tax rate. That means the increase from the city, the increase from the county, and the increase from the schools all come in the fourth quarter on that bill on November 1st. Putting it all on that last bill is unconscionable. Putting it all that
people have to pay it in one time is going to be devastating to even more families. What we're talking about now we have to advance something in the third quarter to give people at least 5 months 6 months to be able to address
it. And now I wish I'd come into office 3 four months earlier and I could have had more time to set this up. The other thing people have said is okay but why haven't you introduced the budget? So there there's a clear answer for us. When we found out the hole that our city was in, $255 million hole, we knew that
the only way to get through this hole without complete devastation, and I'm and I'm saying what we're doing here is not awful and tough and difficult, but without complete devastation was getting $120 million from the state. I could not introduce a budget to the council, to
the public, to any of you with a $120 million just missing gap. I did not know what we were going to get from the state. I had to negotiate tooth and nail. The members of the council were helpful. The members of our state delegation were incredibly helpful. We negotiated tooth and nail to get $120
million. I couldn't introduce a budget without the $120 million cuz that's just a massive gap. I couldn't introduce a budget with $120 million until it was signed into law. And it was signed into law last night. Last night is when we found out we were getting the $120 million. That is the most money that any
city has ever received in the history of New Jersey. That speaks to the scope and size of our crisis that we asked for more money and they gave it to us. Now, why did they give it to us? They gave it to us because we opened our books to the Division of Local Government Services. That is the state government that
oversees local governments. We opened our books. We said, "Guys, look at it all. Verify that this crisis is real. Verify that this crisis exists." And they did. And they gave us the aid. But they also gave us some hard truths. They
looked at our books and it is the opinion of the division of local government services that to balance our budget without mass layoffs would require a 20% tax increase. That is what they have said to us by looking at our books. Now that I did I proposed that
I'm no one else. I proposed that because I thought I need to get this 120 million. I need to balance our budget. I need to provide core city services. I need to make sure the 911 calls are answered. the potholes are filled. I need to do that. But I also have a job to listen. I sat here all last meeting
last Wednesday, heard, I think around a hundred speakers. We've done social media, Instagram lives, and then I did a community meeting that went about four and a half hours that every single person was was gonna speak and say their mind and say their piece. And as I listened, I heard many of the things you all brought up today, which is that
these increases are devastating. They're going to be incredibly painful. are going to be potentially, you know, the the tipping the balance between whether folks stay and leave in Jersey City. And I heard that and I said, I have to do something to the point that you made, Miss Canon. You said, we'll do something. So, the council pushed, they
pushed me and we reduced it from 20 to 15. Now, division of local government services didn't think we should do that, but we did a series of painful cuts. Cuts that are going to impact life in Jersey City. The VIA program is reduced. our park maintenance contract is gone
and we're gonna have to make it up with existing city personnel, right? Um we're doing cuts to contracts. We're doing cuts to a number of things that really deeply matter to us as a city. Um and those cuts got us to the 15%. Right? But here's the the thing and it's the thing
that that's important to know is this $105 million in aid, this literal lifeline that without this money our city would stop functioning, it is coming with conditions. The Division of Local Government Services is not going to give us $105 million in a loan
without any conditions. Those conditions will include things like the term, the interest rate, but they will also include the tax rate that we as a city have to set because the state has made it clear this is not a long-term process. We can't go back to them year after year after year for more and more and more. They've basically said, "We're
giving you historic aid, but you have to get your finances back into order." Now they think we should do 20%. We, the council, everybody here is saying that that's too much and we've gotten to 15. When this loan goes forward, when when
this when this Well, guys, when this loan goes forward, we cannot we will not receive >> Sir, we can't we can't yell out. Please let the the uh mayor have his comments >> when when >> if if we have excuse me, we have to keep
an orderly meeting. anyone yells out, we're going to have to ask you to step out. >> Correct. I when I'm going to be done talking, regardless of the vote at the I'm happy to answer all your questions and individually for any member in this room, I'm happy to answer all your questions. But but after so the core of
it is that these conditions are going to be placed upon us and if we're not going to get the $105 million, if we don't accept the conditions, we're not going to get the $105 million. That is literally the lifeline for our city. 105 loan, 15 and aid, 120 total. That is the
lifeline. Without that money, we cannot run a functioning government. That is how bad the crisis that we inherited was. And that all of us are taking the tough steps to solve. If we don't advance the third quarter tax estimate tax bill today, the state is still going
to require. There are still going to be conditions on that money. We are still going to have to accept them. and delaying the tough vote today to only put it in place two months from now when ultimately it's now going to fall in the fourth quarter bill is going to make it harder for residents. It's going to make
it more difficult for residents. And the state has been clear the only other solution is mass layoffs. I believe I have an obligation to keep people safe, to get their 911 calls answered, not to lay off police officers, not to shut down firehouses, to make sure that our
city remains a functional city because the people who are most harmed by service cuts are working-class people. I cannot cut our youth programs. Our youth get too little. There's too much violence, too little to do in the summer. Those programs have to remain. And yes, we are cutting. I listed some
of the cuts already, right? We we did the hard work to find 11 million of cuts over the last week based on what council asked for, what the public asked for, and that's what gets us down to the 15 million in aid in addition to the success at the state, in addition to additional revenue at the state. That is
where we're at. So to just sort of summarize, I very much appreciate this is the hardest vote or hardest decision that certainly I as a leader have ever made. This is extraordinarily difficult for the people of this city. There's no way
there's no bones about it. There's no way to to sugarcoat it. There's no way to say that somehow um you know there there's some silver lining here. But at the end of the day, leadership requires that we look the problem in the face that we clearly identify how we get
through it. That I that from day one was the state support. That was the only way we could get the money to keep our government afloat. We succeeded, but that money cannot is going to come with conditions. It is going to come with something attached to it. And if we just
push it down the road a couple months, that makes it harder for our residents. It makes it more difficult for our residents ultimately when they're faced with the tax bills. And then the ultimate goal of all of this is to never be here again, to do all of the work
that is required so that we are never in this situation again. both from a government transparency standpoint to make sure we're putting in place all of the corrections, all of the procedures, all the things that would ever prevent a city from being in this type of financial ruin again. And fiscally to
make sure that we are never sitting here again talking about a double-digit tax increase. That is what we are here to do. And if we kick the can down the road, if we delay things, we are going to come back and have to face these problems because the thing is the bill will always come due. The bill will
always come due and residents have a right to say, "How the hell did this happen? How do we have to pay for the mismanagement of the prior administration, but the bills are real? We opened our books to the state. We got the historic aid and now we have to take the steps to take the tough steps to
solve it and then move forward as a city and make sure it never happens again." Now, I'm sure you guys all have a lot of questions about the state aid. So, I know we have a team here that's able to answer them. So, thank you. >> Remember the I'll get it after. I promise you. just just so weird. >> Sir, sir, this is this is not a this is
not a Q&A session. The mayor has had his Q&A sessions. The mayor has made his comments and must vote tonight. >> We just had to we have four more public meetings. Um we'll give you the dates and there's going to be the introduction of the budget and the votes on the budget in July and August. But but I
Yeah, not tonight but for the final budget. So, just to be clear, mayor, you're stating on the record that 105 million for transitional aid came with
stipulations. Those stipulations are the proposed 20 or 15% tax increase. >> Sure. What what I can say and just to be
you know fully clear the transitional aid the loan will have a memorandum of understanding between the division of local government services in the city of Jersey City. That is how that process works. They don't just give you the money in an account. There's a memorum of understanding. Division of local
government services will set terms for that loan. Um so the terms will include the the time, the payback, the interest rate, all of those things. Um those will be ne those will be basically set by division of local government services to us. Um we will not be able to get the
money until we have accepted and agreed to the terms that they are setting for us. Um that will be memorialized in a memorandum of understanding and there will be a conversation with division of global services ultimately when they uh determine what those terms are. So how
do how do we start at 20? Like why why is 20 the initial mark that's that's pondering? >> Sure. Absolutely. So I I I can say obviously they've done their analysis and that's where they're at. We introduced the same number and then push
back based on listening to the public and feedback from the council. But the the short version, right, is we started with a $255 million deficit. We cut that deficit by 55 million to move it to 200. That was due to the changes this council made, changes to our health
administrator, cuts to programs like Pompadoo. That's how we got to 200. So they looked at that $200 million gap and they said, "If we give you 120 million in state aid, you still have an $80 million gap." And the 20% increase
covers that $80 million gap. So that's where the 20% came from this year. But they also looked at next year and the year after for basically a five-year plan. And what they showed us what they they showed what our numbers show is that our future years are difficult too.
And so this is not an is a situation where our budget we we can push everything into next year because next year is going to be fine. We're in a place where we're going to have to do extraordinary work which we at the team are committed to doing to get next year's budget fully in order, fully uh
operational so that we we're not back in the situation again. So they looked at that 20% they said okay that covers not just your 80 million gap this year it also prevents fiscal distress next year. That was their calculus. Now, when we were when
we said public said, everyone said that's too much. You can go to 15. There's basically we we did tough cuts, but cuts we think we can survive with that. People are going to feel people are going to feel it in the parks, right? They're going to feel it with our public works contracts that are going to
be reduced, but that we can survive with those cuts. And that gets us to the 15 this year. and it gives us six months beginning of next year to set up next year's budget. Do the hard work to make next year's budget work. Last but not least on what they're sort of looking at
is if they think 20 is the right number and we're fighting tooth and nail to go lower than that. They're not going to keep going down. They're not going to say as a condition of this loan we're going to go to single digits as as desperately as I would like them to.
That's simply not. They've looked at our fiscal picture. The only thing they have said is that your only other option would be mass layoffs. I do not support mass layoffs. That does not mean we can't can't cut waste. But ultimately, which we've talked about our budget, we've made it the public. The vast majority of our budget is public safety.
Twothirds of our budget is public safety. It's police, it's fire. Our police force is down 150 officers in the last six years while our city has grown by 50,000 people which means our police force is even smaller over the last six years. Right? Those that keeping keeping
people safe and funding those services is crucial and and they've made it clear that that's their analysis. >> I just I just want to focus on DCA stipulations. That's it. Just just DCA. So you guys got to the number because
you figuring the 120 the 80 million deficit um and to stop distress from next year, right? So I guess so I'm going to need legal I'm going to need bill. I'm going to need everybody input on this here. So, Bill, what is the rule
as it relates to the stipulations for the funding as it relates to the terms that are set and try can give us the answer in the clearest terms, not so much of the political jargon and like in
the clearest term if you can provide um what happens when a state come when the state come in provide transitional aid and have these stipulations because I just want to be very very clear on
these DCA stipulations as it relates to if we vote for a increase or if we don't vote for an increase and things of that nature. I just want to be crystal clear on that point. >> Councilman, I I'll pass the mic to Bill in a second, but I want to cut the line here because this does get into legal
territory. So the mayor has mentioned that in order to formalize the aid that the state is offering us, we'll need to enter a memorandum of understanding or anou. That's an agreement. It's a contract like any other. Our communications back and forth with the state about the specific terms of that
contract are confidential negotiations like any other. Like when we talk about settlements, those are confidential because that's a contract just like this. So there are some terms that because they are not yet finalized, we can't share publicly. And so I I'll pass the mic to Bill to say what, but I do want to explain.
>> Don't pass it yet. Don't pass it yet. So in light of it being con confidential and with so much uncertainty and I guess Bill can jump, what if anything will happen if the council say, "Hey, well, you guys have your confidential
contractual agreement going back and forth. We don't feel comfortable on voting on this. What if anything happens with with with the fourth quarter >> permission to pass the mic to bill? >> Yes, you.
>> So, Councilman, I think the most likely path in that scenario would be that we would introduce a budget at the July meeting. We would shoot to complete and adopt a final budget in August. That final
budget has to be approved by DCA. There's no circumventing DC at the end of the day. And part of that budget will be the tax rate for 2026. That would be the final tax rate for 2026.
As I mentioned earlier, the DLGS at the DCA has broad authority to strike that tax rate and to set it where they think it's appropriate and the budget has to be balanced. We would then have a final tax rate
around the month of August. We'd be mailing Q3 and Q4 as well as Q1 and Q2 for next year. Shortly thereafter, residents, property owners would receive
Q3 and Q4 due dates that would fall very, very close to one another at that point because we'd be mailing say in September. The fourth quarter is due November 1st. So the payment dates for Q3 and Q Q4 would essentially fall more or less on top of one another.
>> Okay. Now, is there precedent for this? Have the state at any point provided aid and a municipality was unable to pass a budget or set a rate? Have the state come in to
set that rate? I am aware of at least one relatively recent example where uh DCA set the tax rate for a municipality because the municipality failed to adopt a budget. >> They set it for them. >> They set it. How does that process look?
They just they just say this >> they could they could dict that as I said the budget ultimately has to be approved by them in any event even under the best of circumstances it has to be approved by them. So in that event, if there's no budget in place, they have the authority to step in.
>> If we don't have a budget in place, >> if we don't have a budget, >> we don't have a budget in place at the or at the end of the day, they have to approve the budget. So through the approval process, they still have very broad authority to set it where they think it's appropriate. Bill, just in terms of the timeline, if I if I could
step in. So DCA is going to review the city's final budget in uh that we adopt sometime in August, right? And we're going to need to balance that budget and and in terms of theou they're going to send, which we the council has
not yet seen, there will be terms to the loan. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. and DCA could, knowing that or learning that this council has not yet had an opportunity to cut any additional spending, determine that this council or this city acted reasonably and if we
were able to come up with with a lower tax increase. Is that a possibility? Because we haven't had an opportunity yet to review the budget. I think it's highly unlikely given our discussions with DCA that they would set it honestly lower than 20%. They've reviewed the
numbers that we've been working with, right? Going from the start, they've reviewed the budget gap. They've asked us questions. They've done their diligence. Based on that diligence, we were able to get $120 million in aid from the state. And the books we showed them, and I'm breaking the law as a
lawyer. I don't know the answer to these questions before I asked them. So, uh, the DCA reviewed our books. They reviewed our spending from 2025, right? They approved the 2025 budget presumably. Yeah. >> Right. So, so they knew the 2025 budget.
They've also reviewed the proposed 2026 budget uh which did not necessarily have any salary cuts to it. We submitted a budget to them as part of the transitional aid or a draft budget I should say as part of the transitional aid application. It
was a necessary part of the TA application. >> It had some cuts to it. Uh and it is also a budget that is generally consistent with the temporary budgets that the council has approved to date.
So and this council could vote to keep the current Q3 rate and if it's appropriate to raise the tax to a certain to say 15% when we get the final budget DCA could look at that and approve the budget without any issues with our loan application.
>> I actually do not believe that the council can vote to keep the Q3 rate as is. I think the path will be that the final Q3 and Q4 rates will be set when the 2026 budget is approved. It'll be done together.
>> Will be done today? Is that what you said? >> Together. >> Together. >> So, so what's the purpose of today's vote then? >> Yeah. So the purpose of today's vote is to seek authority from the LGS to increase the tax rate for Q3, the
estimated rate in order to avoid the entire tax increase falling on the Q4 tax bill. So were we to pass the resolution as written tonight, we would be able to bill property owners for Q3
at a higher rate so that Q3 and Q4 would be would balance out, right? Because there's a catch up to do for Q1 and Q2 because the rate was lower. So that's that's the purpose of tonight. We need the LGS approval
to re increase the rate by the amount in the resolution. >> Can I jump in? If I could just answer Councilman's question just a little more depth as well. Obviously, they have looked at annual financial statement. They've looked at the surplus or in this case lack thereof. They've looked at our
existing debt obligations multiple years into the future. They have a full picture of our finances and their message is clear. Their message is to go below the tax rate that they believe is accurate requires cuts to recurring
spending. So if folks want again so and that's the the phrase is mass layoffs. So if if there are mass layoffs that cuts the recurring spending. So yes DCA can look at that and say those costs are not in the future those costs are gone
in the future. What what DCA has been very clear to us about is that given the extraordinarily precarious financial p position that the city is in, having spent most of its rainy day fund, having significant debt obligations into the future, having passed costs multiple
times into the future, that if those practices they are not going to support um they are not going to approve. Uh so that has been clear from DCA's conversations that they are looking at the cuts of recurring costs which is in the city the only way to do that
mass layoffs. >> So they hold on Mike because I don't want to forget my thought. So if this council basically say um we still think 15% is too high, we're going to go lower and you know that's what we're going to
vote on. What if anything happens at the DC DCA level from that point? >> So as I understand it and I'll add ask legal counsel and finance to come in. So they are going to set conditions on the loan. Conditions on the loan will
include a tax rate. If our tax rate does not meet that, that would jeopardize our ability to receive the loan. That that is step one. Step two is when the final budget is passed, DCA is going to review that and and they
will determine if that budget sets us up for fiscal basically for fiscal stability in the future. So they have legal authority to amend or reject they could reject the approved budget and send it back to us. Um and as uh director Vicera said, if a budget is not
set and the tax rate is not set, they have the broad authority to set the tax rate for us. You guys wanted to add to that. >> They can essentially reject what the council uh voted on. >> That's correct, Councilman. The only thing I would add to that is >> if we want theou,
>> if we want $120 million, >> we want That's what I'm It's contingent upon the aid. If we don't get the aid, then I mean, what's I don't even want to indulge in conversations about if we don't get >> I'll indulge it. Um
>> Okay, go ahead. I'm happy to indulge the conversation. >> Okay. Again, let's not >> um so so I I would just want to ask if um we've heard this um there's anou that's going to come. Theou is going to
stipulate that we're going to have to do a 15% or 20%. Have there been any discussions at all about a third or fourth or fifth option that says, "Hey, we can come up with some other cuts and other things in in our budget and come up with a lower tax rate." um and and
not harm uh and push out every single Jersey City resident. Um h have have we had anybody in the conversation in Trenton talking to folks in Trenton about that and representing the people of Jersey City in that conversation? So, Councilman, the the very first
conversation that I had directly with the governor of the state of New Jersey was a conversation where I laid out the consequences of not receiving state aid. And the consequences of not receiving state aid to indulge in this conversation would be the legally maximum tax increase is 31%. that is
without going to referendum before the voters unless it would be imposed and it was layoffs of about 50% of our public safety and civilian workforce that would destroy our city every single resident of our city. Every single one. If we do
not get the $120 million in aid that is before us respectfully, mayorfully council, let me finish the question. >> Well, let me finish. Yeah, let me finish. So, that that adds up to roughly, and you can correct my math,
about a 25 to 30% tax increase just for the $120 million. So, the entire purpose of our conversations with the state was saving Jersey City and the residents of Jersey City. Now, when we got to the place that we're at right now, we have had multiple conversations about how
devastating a 20% tax increase would be to our residents. We have outlined that in multiple ways to the residents of the state uh to the uh state officials. And when we got to the point of hearing how pushing for the 15%, we had multiple conversations at that point with the
state and talking through how we could do it, how we could make the cuts, how we could keep people in the city. So the short answer to your question is yes. Every conversation we've had with the state has been around preventing harm and pushing out people to Jersey City from again a $255 million deficit.
Did we ask we have $13 million in um what was that thing called? Tax appeals. Um, and we instead of dropping it into our budget and having the taxpayers pick this up, um, in this tax year, um, since
the law allows us to do a three-year note and spread that over 3 years, did somebody ask the question and say, "Hey, if we did this, um, would you be okay with that and reduce it from 13 million down to a 4.25 25 million or
thereabouts, 4.33 million um 2026 uh expense. Um and pushing 8.66 million over to 20 27 and 28. Um yeah, it's kicking the can down the road. Um but it it alleviates the
pressure on Dur City residents and that's literally 2% 8.66 million, right? So um that's 2% less. We've discussed retirement payouts, $4 million. Did anyone have the conversation about retirement payouts and saying um let's let's bond for that
over five years? And so only $1 million 800,000 would be on the 2026 budget. Um with the 303,200,000 being passed over over the next four years. Um beyond that, that would save us nearly 1% again on uh for the
taxpayers of Jersey City. Um I I I also just want to add this, right? So, and I don't know about other council people, but I've sat in some meetings with everyone. We we've gone through these meetings, the models have shown a 20% increase, and I've called them into question, why are we not looking at
something lower? like and and and and then just a month ago, we were told as city council members that we would have the opportunity to when the we receive the budget to amend the budget and be able to present amendments to DCA ourselves. Uh I don't know if anyone
else had that conversation, but I had that conversation and now it sounds like we don't have that opportunity. All we have is 15% that we have to like, you know, eat and swallow. and and frankly um I'm not prepared to do that. I'm not
prepared to take it take it at its word. I want to make sure that somebody is in there is talking to DCA and I'm happy to have the conversation myself at this point and let people know that the people of Jersey City deserve to be to be to not be burdened with this huge in
tax increase that will literally drive um my family and friends and people that I've grown up with and known and so many others out of this city. Uh, I kid you not. I I I've been very patient about this and and trying to propose a whole host of different options and
responsibilities, but now we here we are at the cliff and the precipice and and I know it's going to cost me politically. I know where that what that looks like. Um, and I'm willing to take the hit. you've known that when I joined this ticket and um when I joined this team and I would urge my council colleagues
like um I don't think we should just take it this way and like we should find a way to like um find a way to fight to to reduce this tax burden for the people of Jersey City and appeal to Trenton directly ourselves if we need Oh, >> wait one one second. Councilman Gworth,
let's let uh Councilman Brooks say. >> No, I want to let the folks have their say. They feel passionate. Um Councilman, can I uh just make a couple of comments in response? We started that. >> Sure. >> Uh with comments around tax appeals. >> Go ahead, Bill.
>> Right. Thank you. So, first of all, nobody knows municipal finance better than the folks at DCA. So, we have had conversations with them about how to do this in the most costefficient way. They understand and we understand we can legally finance tax appeals is also it's
a short-term loan. It costs money. It's throwing away interest that doesn't need to be incurred in a three-year period. It also adds a burden to 2027. I think we all know, we've had the conversation that 2027 is not going to be an easy budget year
for us either. So to say we're going to save this small amount in 26 in order to incur unnecessary interest expense only to add it to 27 would not be in my opinion financial
advice that I would give and then for Councilman Brooks to go in. So the answer is is yes of course we sat with DCA and said we have bills on our books that could be deferred. This is the purpose of the $105 million loan. We
have over $110 million of credit card bills on our books right now. The loan and the $120 million in total aid is what allows us to spread that out to prevent in significantly worse outcome than what we're sitting with today. As awful as
today is so yes, we have gone through each specific item. But what DCA and from me very personally am unwilling to do is I'm unwilling to continue the practices of the Philip administration that led to this crisis. I will not repeat what Mayor Philip did to this
city over my dead body will we have that happen. If we if we push if we push if we if we push this year on this year's alone, we are spending tens of millions of dollars on interest payments that simply were because things were bonded
for because of the credit card. We are going to destroy the city if we continue those practices. And so what we're able to do, yes, is get a $105 million loan, $120 million of total state aid to enable us through the worst fiscal
crisis in the city's history. Right. A fiscal crisis that councilman, you had nothing to do with, right? A fiscal crisis that fundamentally falls on somebody who isn't in this room. And we are making the tough choices. I absolutely understand and respect where you're coming from. I I know this is I know you as a very deeply as a human. I
know how deeply you care about the people of the city and I know how you are fighting to keep them in their homes that that there I know that but also know that we are fighting too and that we have fought every day to try to deliver a city government and a city budget that ultimately can get us
through this incredible crisis. All right, Councilman, I'm sorry. I apologize for taking the mic there. Yes. Councilman, did you have anything else? I didn't want to. No. Okay. Um, so I have a question about the estimated
third quarter tax bill. So, um, our counterparts at the board of education and the county have already, uh, approved increases. Um, and so, um, regardless of what happens tonight
in this, um, body, those increases are happening and will be sent to taxpayers. Is that correct? No, no, it's not. The the we the municipality send out the tax bills. The tax bills will go out together when we
have a a tax rate set for Jersey City. Okay. So, if um no increase is approved, then the tax bill would go out with those increases. There will not be a tax bill that will
go out. We've passed the deadline for setting for sending out Q3 estimated bills. This resolution is was required to send out a Q3 estimated tax bill. So if there's no
increase passed tonight, then the entire increase from both pro uh prospectively from here from this body and the county and the board of ed would all go to the fourth quarter. There still we there still will be a Q3
and Q4 bill, but the result of doing that will be they will be going out essentially around the same time. The due dates will be around the same time because of the compressed time frame. It'll be set when the final 26 budget is approved.
At that point, the tax rate is set and bills will be mailed. Okay. And just for the folks that made time to be here and people that are watching at home, um I I don't mean it to sound like a silly
question, but as a legislative body here, we have no power to increase or decrease the county or the board of ed um levies. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Um, my last question is
in the budget amendment process, um, a budget amendment would would need five votes to pass. Is that correct? Or six? >> It's it's six if it increases and it's five if it decreases a line item.
>> Okay. and in the budget process. Um I'm I guess I'm asking the administration to speculate, but uh would they look favorably on budget amendments that further reduce our spending? >> I I would be speculating there. I assume
if they're credible expense reductions that they would look favorably upon them. Sure. >> Yeah. Yes. I I would just that that was the clear message from from they will look favorably on expense and budget reductions that are recurring, right? So what they said is look you cut a
contract, you cut personnel, those costs are off your books, not just when you cut them but for the future years. They DCA will absolutely look favorably on that. What they have been very clear to us is is they would not look favorably on is things that take charges off the
books this year to put them onto future years because they look at our overall financial position, the amount of debt that we have, the lack of city surplus and the financial distress of the city and believe that those decisions will make the city worth financially and will
not approve those. Thank you. >> Sorry. So, let's go. Uh let's go. Councilman Gilmore and then we'll make our way down. I mean, I'm sorry, Councilman Griffin, then we'll make our way down. Gilmore, you spoke already. Let's give the council people that
didn't speak yet a chance. >> So, um, Bill, we don't have a budget in place. So, um, what was your guide and uh what was our guide in spending in the first six months? Um and and also um when do we
have to have a budget in place before the DCA steps in? >> So the guide for spending in the first 6 months are the emergency temporary appropriations that we've brought to council. We run in January and two subsequent that took one that took us to
June 30 details department by department spending that's been presented to council and approved. The last one approves spending through June 30 with our discussions being that our final budget would supersede that. So on the
current course, introduce the budget next month, approve it in August when the final budget is approved. Since the tax levy is a major portion of the budget, that's when the tax rate is set and approved by uh DCA.
Um, also I didn't quite get the I think it was discussed. So just remind me what what would happen if we let's say put out uh let's say we increase uh the taxes 5%.
Right? What what what penalties do we suffer again? So my understanding is that if there this resolution is not passed the most likely course would be that we will have a final tax rate only when the
final budget is approved in August. this particular resolution I'm highly confident having spoken to DCA or actually authorizes me in this particular instance to ask them for approval to set the rate as
stipulated in the resolution. I know I have highly confident they will approve that. There is no other alternative that I can say I am confident they would approve which is why I believe the most likely outcome would be we will adopt
the final tax rate only when the final budget is adopted in August. So, okay. So, the the the the third the third quarter, right? Um we're voting. Are we v are we looking to raise the
taxes in the third quarter uh to get ahead of ourselves or is this something that the DC the DCA is uh requesting us to do? So, so we we our administration, my administration has proposed the third
quarter increase to prevent the entirety of the increase from falling towards the end of the year. To Bill's point, uh, Director Viceras, if we don't do the third quarter bill now, the third and fourth quarter fall near each other at the end of the year so that the
entire increase is concentrated on those bills at the end of the year. The the purpose of this and and this gets back to the the purpose behind it and when why do this before the budget's in front of you is to prevent this massive bill
appearing on our residents books at the very end of the year as they're getting ready for holidays. Now to the point that Councilman Brooks just made that's been alluded to by other council people. If you get budget we introduce DCA has their vision right they've said based on
our analysis we're looking at 20% We've had our conversations with them doing that hard work to say we believe 15 can can balance the budget this year and not set us up for failure next year, not set us up to be here again and and
imposing pain on our residents again next year. They said that but they have also said to the question is if this council finds recurring costs that that wants to cut in our process in the budget process they will be fully supportive because that takes those
books those costs off the books in the future. >> So sorry Jake I got just one one question. So, as it relates to theou because I get well for me that's kind of what's making my decision hard is I
don't have access to theou and what's like what the terms are but you're asking me to to vote on something which going to be dictated by theou that's like saying hey um we'll sell you the
car you can drive it off and when you come back we'll tell you the terms terms. >> So I mean I I guess like >> at what point do we have access to the terms of on the on theou? >> Sure. Yeah. I think that's so just to
understand the question but but I just want to walk through the timeline for everybody. >> The the loan in the budget was passed yesterday. It was passed yesterday. So we literally started the conversation today about what those terms can look like. As soon as those terms are set by DCA and
they're ready to be voted on, they will be shared with the council because you have to vote on them. I understand I don't because I don't >> hold for money but hold on >> certainty in the contract like it's it's a hard >> understood but this gets to why the
third quarter is so important because if we do not set this third quarter bill now knowing right that DCA has said to us that they think 20% is where our tax increase should be that we've had the conversations with them to 15%. But knowing that those are the numbers,
right? That those are the numbers that they have seen because they have had access to our full books, that if we know that that's where those conditions and terms are going to end up, then pushing these costs off ends up becoming incredibly
irresponsible for our residents. Now you say what if we as this council come in decide that we can cut further in ways that reduce our structural costs. DCA will approve that and they'll approve that budget on the fourth quarter. They
will they are reasonable to the councilman's earlier point. They will meet and review all these things with you. They're happy to I'm sure to do that. But what they are not going to do is approve budgets that they believe
make our financial situation much more precarious in the future. So hopefully that gives you the context of the it was passed yesterday, start today, but today the last day to set the third quarter rate and if we don't set the rate, then the full costs push off to our residents into the future.
>> No, I understand the timeline. I'm very aware of the timeline. The problem with the timeline is the people that's on the hook for the bill like it doesn't it's not available for public consent. It's a
hard act to ask for any amount of money without all without understanding the terms in anou and everything. Um so I mean >> it's it's
it's hard man. Um, council council. >> Right. Yeah. On >> on that note, um, >> okay. Okay. Please, >> on that note, it looks like so this is not anou that is public because that is obviously being negotiated. Um, but it's
been reported and this is public reporting. I'm I'm citing uh by reporter in in the room right now actually uh that it looks like uh the DCA is saying a 15 or 20% rate hike are the only
options offered. Um now again that that is not anou and so we do not have the full scope of what that looks like. um which I I I'm anxious to see as well. But I do want to say there that now seems public uh that there is a very
clear uh answer at least on the two options for what we're looking at the relationship. Is that right? >> So So let me just be clear. I we any kind of direct terms that's confidential negotiations. What I can say which I've
said here is that our conversation with DCA they have told us that they believe 20% increase is what they think is the choice for our budget and we and I have had conversations with them pushing to help Jersey City residents saying we can
get to 15 and do it in a way that's responsible. >> So those are the conversations that that have existed. >> Understood. I just want for the for the public um that there is public reporting now uh identifying this message from the state. Um I have uh there's one I know
we're talking about the timeline quite a bit. Just want to be super clear. If the quarter 3 estimated bill is approved today, when would the quarter 1, the quarter 2, and the quarter three bills be due?
If it were to be passed today, we would >> start printing and then mail the Q3. We could typically the Q3 would be pay uh pay payable August 1st. We have some ability to move that should we choose to
do that. Fourth quarter is payable November 1st. That but Q4 is only set once we have the final budget. So the final budget this this bill today only sets the Q3 estimate. Q4 and then next year's Q1, Q2
are set by the final budget. This year's Q1 and Q2 are going to have to be paid by the taxpayer at some point. Is that correct? >> Correct. So 2026 Q1 2026 Q2 those are already paid but paid at a lower rate.
>> So if we increase the rate for all of 2026 there is a catchup which is the reason we're looking to pass this resolution. Okay. >> So that that catchup can be more evenly spread between the Q3 payment and the Q4 payment. that catchup is reflected in the Q3 and Q4 bills.
>> Correct. >> Okay. Um, thank you. And then I know we started to talk about that this, but we us voting on the estimated tax bill tonight considering this 15% that does not lock us as a city council into 15% as the
final 2026 rate. Um, however, with the state fiscal monitor, um, there I just want clarification. How much wiggle room do we really expect there to be if we can find even small cuts or even a bit more revenue being
generated outside of property tax revenue? >> So the answer to the first question is the again the final rate gets set when the budget gets set. So the 15 sets the estimated rate for Q3. Q4 we'll know
when we pass the final budget. Introduce the budget in July. approve it in August. Whatever that tax rate happens to be, should we find alternatives that materially change the budget as long as it's a balanced budget that's approved by DCA that will set the
Q4 rate and then there would be a some adjustment. If it happens to be lower, there'll be an adjustment to it. Happens to be higher, there'll be more catchup to do. >> So, so they are saying this, it looks like two options, 15% or 20% with different rates is what's being
published. Um, but potentially if we as city council look and are able to shave in different places or find additional revenue sources, the 15% could move and it could move
south. It could move toward a lower rate potentially if we find responsible ways to shave off. I think the short answer is if we if the there's going to be would have to be an amendment to anou once theou is signed but my conversations have been very clear which
is exactly what you said which is if there are cuts to the structural parts of our budget DCA understands that and so yes they'll be like yes you we can go lower responsibly uh that is 100% there there'll probably be a mechanism by which it would have to be amended and
they would have to review and approve uh the proposal >> theou that we contract with them will have to be amended in addition to our amendments as council people will have to be approved by DCA. That's correct. >> Well, we don't have theou terms yet,
right? So, it depends on what the final terms of theou are. >> Yep. Okay. >> So, Councilwoman Little, I know you're next, but Councilman Zupa has a follow council's question. Uh so so obviously the worst case scenario is not passing
anything tonight, putting it all on Q4. However, we could pass a different percentage, say 12%. And then cut 4% out of the budget and there would be no catchup in the fourth quarter. It' be it'd be 12% third
quarter, 12% fourth quarter. And if we showed DCA that we've cut director salaries, we've cut programs that maybe are duplicative, we've cut some of the top heaviness that are that Mayor Fulp created in our city, uh would that be an accept could that could that be an acceptable outcome for DCA? Were we to
pass a resolution tonight authorizing 12%, I have absolutely no assurance that that would be approved by the director of local government services. >> Even if we cut the the qual the four the three uh 3 percentage point or four percentage points, that won't be known
until there's a budget introduced, which is why I believe the most likely course would be the tax rate will wind up being set when the budget is adopted. Councilwoman Little. >> Thank you. Um, so since this is public,
I just want to make sure it's in the record. Um, because it is public, it is on Twitter. Um, John Highness at Highness Hard News tweeted it. The tweet says, "As the Jersey City Council questions the Q3 tax bill rate before their vote on 15%, I just got a hold of
an email from the deputy director of the Division of Local Government Services offering two options for the $15 million loan. A 15% or 20% rate hike are the only options offered. The email then goes on to say, the screenshot of the
email posted by Highness Hard News says, "Here are the two options. 15% tax levy increase equals 10-year repayment schedule at 2.75% interest annually and 20% tax levy increase equals 15-year
repayment schedule at 2.25% interest annually." That is it. That is the email. there are no other options. Um, this I I I know you've given a lot of lengthy verbose answers, but I really need these questions to just be yes or no.
>> If we do not pass 15% tonight, do we jeopardize this loan? If I can just cut in, mayor, if you would permit, I I do think it's important to note for the record that there is a difference between what the city can represent based on its interactions that it has
had with the state subject to any limitations on what the city can share because of confidentiality or privilege. What might have been >> one second, Sarah? what the city can share based on its knowledge and its interactions subject
to limitations due to confidentiality and privilege and what might be shared in the public sphere that with all respect to our local media. I at least personally as I sit here and I think other representatives of the administration have not had the opportunity to vet. So I would just urge caution for the record between the
difference between what the city can lawfully represent and and what has been shared in the public sphere. Um but short of that I'm happy to >> Okay. So, you're not letting him answer the yes or no question. >> I I understand where you're coming from with the question. Again, I I cannot
speak to to that specific, but let me just try to be as direct as I can, which is the state the the loan will come with terms and conditions. It will. So, so that is clear. It will come with terms
and conditions. We're gonna have to meet those to get the loan amount. That that's the the core of what we have to do. >> And as I understand you've answered my colleagues questions,
um if we do not pass 15% tonight, there is a chance the state could mandate the state DCA could mandate that we pass a budget that is includes a 20% tax hike. There is a chance. Is is that accurate?
Yes or no? >> Yes, there's a possibility. >> Is pass is >> Let's let Councilwoman saying she didn't go. >> Thank you. >> Um, you know, we have been going out for
these meetings and people have great suggestions. >> Councilwoman, move the mic closer to you. We cannot rely just on taxpayers. That cannot be the only revenue for Jersey City. I think this is loud and clear. Everybody has shared that. And I'm
sorry. I'm really nervous. This is my first budget meeting and it's been tough on most of us, but we want to do the right thing. So do you think for all the suggestions people have given can we think about revenue
generation before Q4 so when Q4 happened we don't have to do this all over again so 17% 20%. Let's see if we are able to you know some wonderful ideas were shared in these meetings. So 4 million
is 1% even if we raise 20 millions or 30 millions we will be able to cut 7%. So what are the thoughts on I'm I'm jumping on Q4 right now just because >> you know there has to be some some
>> right yes some really >> thank you councilwoman so which we have shared with all members of the council is that the city has an aggressive plan to generate more revenue that is not part of property taxes going forward. So traffic enforcement is maybe the best
example. It's about keeping people safe, but we will generate more revenue from it. We increase the number of tickets issued on a weekly basis from about 100 to 150 to 700 to 800. That will generate significant revenue for Jersey City, but it takes time for that revenue to come
in and DCA will not let you budget for it until you actually have it in your books. So, this is all revenue that helps our 2027 budget. It's not revenue that can help us in 2026. We are continuing to explore every idea and every option to generate more revenue
for Jersey City that is not property taxes and we will continue to explore all of that as well. >> Thank you. And Esther had a question about fireworks on 4th of July um at Exchange Place. Who is sponsoring it?
>> So there are multiple sponsors for the fireworks to be able to enable us to do them at no cost to the taxpayers. The sponsors include, and I apologize, I'm sure I miss some, but the two biggest sponsors are Macy's, um, the Exchange Place Alliance are the two biggest sponsors of it. There are other sponsors
as well. I apologize, I don't have them at the top of my head, but those are the two biggest sponsors. >> I think I think RWJ as well. Yes. >> Are we spending taxpayers money on this celebration? >> No. >> Thank you. And I think what Esther was
asking, she wanted to verify that the SID was uh contributing towards the public safety for the event toward that bill. >> Well, the sponsors collectively are paying for everything >> and we're not paying for anything.
>> The city sponsored events. Correct. Madam President, I Oh, go ahead, Michael. um you know uh we there's there's the city we we we own a lot of property and I understand
um the message behind gimmicks one time gimmicks but you know we're at a point where we're talking about you know we're talking about people's homes we're talking about people who's been in Jersey City longer than you know before I was born
right um and And you know, these are people that I see every day, my neighbors, my my my my family, and and you know, you know, I passed the the no knock ordinance back in 2016, right? Protecting homeowners from being harassed into selling their homes, and
you know, presenting us with this now, it's it's rough%. >> I you know, I I just got to let you know that. I mean, Councilman, I I again, I I know how deeply you care for Jersey City and how deeply every member here cares
and why this is such a difficult position that all of us are in. And and it's always important to just take that step back. The emotions are real. Emotions for me, emotions from the council, emotions from the public. Take a step back and just also just we were put in the worst fiscal crisis in our
city's history. Every choice out of it is going to be deeply painful. I'm proud of the work that we've done knowing that we can always do more. Proud that we found 55 million in cuts and efficiencies at the start. Proud
that we got the largest aid package in the history of the state. The large I'm going to repeat the largest aid package in the history of the state to help us through this time. um and of developing a plan to get us out of this so we're not just doing this year after year
after year that we have real plans in place. Every idea is worth considering. Um so anything that someone has an idea on helps us get through this uh and helps us move forward. But there are tough choices. Uh and again the the choice has been laid out very clearly for us around the only way to
responsibly close this would be to cut structural budget deficit with layoffs or advance tax increase and that's what we're trying to do as much cutting as possible. Uh but that is where we've been and I appreciate where you're coming from.
>> Yeah. Uh thank you. Um, so the effective tax rate in 2025 was 2.335 per $100 of assessed value. Is that correct? >> That's that's correct. >> So with a 15% increase for
2026, that would increase to 2.685. Not asking to do the math in your head, but sounds like a familiar number. >> Okay, that was a question from a resident. I don't know if that was answered
there. There is just a tax calculator that we've put on the website for anyone who wants to uh look at that. You can uh input the assessed value of a home. It does have the calculations there for the school, county, municipal, and then other taxes as well. So, just uh as a
reference. >> Thank you. And I know you've talked about um having to have long-term conversations with DCA. Um what might that tax rate look like next year?
We have not engaged DCA in a specific conversation around 27. We have shared the forecast with them and I think they certainly have the capability of looking at the financials themselves and seeing how much the deferred charges we still have in 27. So I think they understand
that 27 will be a challenging year for us which I'm sure is part of their thinking as to why we have to do as much as possible to fix the structural gap in 2026. it carries over to 27.
>> One more from me. Um, so ju just so I'm clear, the the the bonding, the other things that were considered uh oneshot gimmicks and so forth will not
be considered by DCA um in order to um to be in compliance with their requirement to set the determined rate for this loan. I wouldn't want to speak for them that specifically, Councilman, honestly. So, if it was something like we wanted to
finance tax appeals, could we have that as part of a budget introduction or an amendment? Uh, I think I I would have to see what their reaction to that would be. >> That that has not been in terms of the terms of anou that has not been
discussed yet. So, I can't speak at all to theou terms. Again, just speak to the existing conversations with them of looking at our debt and looking at our future budgets and have them having said very clearly that the cuts that they are looking for are the recurring cuts that
come off year after year, not ones that put costs into the future. >> So, so we could propose those amendments during the budget process and seek DCA approval. >> I I look reject it. >> Correct. I'm telling you here that based
on my conversations, I I don't think they're going to look favorably on them, but you are correct and and it would be the council's prerogative to at least to propose it and and have their review of it. Uh so, yes. >> And then would that include uh land sales?
>> Uh no, because land sales require DC will not approve a land sale unless the the bill of sale is in hand, right? So, they're not going to they won't approve a speculative land sale. Is it is is it feasible to still attempt
to do some some land sales? Um I mean that would be an exclusively executive uh function. Council couldn't authorize that, but sure. Um I I would be happy to have a conversation with the council. Again, I
think the biggest thing we'd be looking at, and I've said this before, is you can structure these as leases over a long period of time so you don't create the So this year, right, part of our problem we're all sitting here with today is that last year the budget was filled with $33 million in a land sale
that went poof and disappeared. And so this year, that's that is a full 8% of the tax increase that we're talking about was that $33 million that was used last year that just went away this year. So if we're doing considering those things, they need to be structured in a way that lasts over time so you don't
create these, you know, kind of ticking time bombs in your budget year after year after year. >> Thank you. >> And a follow-up question on that. If land was sold this year in 2026, would the revenue from that land sale
done from here on, would that actually count toward the 2026 budget or would that have to count toward the 2027 budget? It would only include in the 26 budget if it were included in the budget that's submitted to DCA for review. And that in that case it would only be
included if again the the sale had been completed and the and the cash was was in the city's coffers. >> Okay. I I understood that any new revenue generation this year. >> Yes. Would then go to 27. Yes. >> So it wouldn't even count toward even if
it were all approved in >> Right. >> It doesn't count toward our budget >> at at this point in the in the year. It would be very unlikely that it would count toward this year's budget. >> Okay. I don't is that the the only thing I would add to that is we would need a completed land sale right of some
materiality before the budget was approved otherwise it would not be in the 26 budget. So start to finish selling a property closing on the transaction in the time frame we're talking about between the
now introduction of budget approval of the budget seems highly unlikely. Okay. Um so you mentioned earlier that um the 20 the 15% rather was to make sure that
we have we don't really get ourselves in trouble in 27. Um so if 15% passes tonight what does uh 27 budget looks like as it relates to the uh tax le?
>> Sure. So, so with 15%, right? I know what our budget looks like at 15%. The 27 budget, we are going to do work day in and day out to not be in a position where we are talking about a double- digit increase in 2027.
Day in and day out, we are going to work to make sure our77 budget comes in responsible and is something that we can handle um as a city. So right now the 2027 budget has many of the credit card bills that we've discussed in the
26 budget. Those still remain in 2027. Fewer of them but costs that we have pushed off still remain in the 2027 budget. Um so we're going to work very very hard and again my commitment that I've made repeatedly is to make sure that we are not in a similar situation
like this in 27 and in future years. Um there are things to the point that Councilwoman Singh made. We get the traffic revenue. We get additional revenue. We're exploring things like signs across the city. All those will build revenue for us to help that 2027 budget. And that's all the work we're
doing over the next six months. >> All right. Council, >> uh Madame President, um I have a question for corporation council. So the terms of theou which are beginning to be negotiated
um any discussions are supposed to be confidential. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> Okay. Um, with that, uh, I'd like to make a motion for executive session so the council can
talk to corporation council about, uh, what those negotiations would look like. >> Seconded by Gilmore. >> Motion by Councilman Zupa to go into close session. Oh, I'm sorry. >> My name is Brooks.
>> Watch yourself there. I'm kidding. >> And seconded by Councilman Gilmore. >> And John, I'll just note for the record so that it's abundantly clear there are limits to what we can discuss in closed session. Closed session is not a free-for-all to continue the
conversation in private. So, our discussion will need to be extremely narrowly focused on any potential litigation risk and any ongoing substantive contract negotiations. So just want to make clear for the record that that will be laser focused topic of
conversation. Closed session meeting minutes are not private forever. They only remain private for as long as the city has a legal interest in the privileged conversation that we will be having. And it is very likely that the conversation we will be having is
something that the city will no longer have a privileged legal interest in short order because it will all become public as we finalize the terms of anou and the budget. So, I'll just note for the council and for the public that there is a limited time period in which these conversations are protected to
protect our privilege, but that will likely be a pretty short time horizon for this conversation. >> And I would also ask the council uh before we vote, if we're going into this executive session, um that we be mindful of the public's time who are waiting for
us to have this vote. Uh, and we do our best to keep that till 20 minutes and try to get up back up here around 10:50. >> And last, >> I'm sorry, 9:50. >> Apologies, council president. Last thing, um, the council president has been provided with a written resolution
for the council to vote on to authorize this executive session. I would just ask that our parliamentarian provides a resolution number for purposes of recordkeeping and then once it's voted on, it will be published. It will be attached to the agenda for public review, but there is a written resolution for the council's
consideration, which I would recommend that either the clerk or the council president reads into the record. >> I have not been given a copy of this. So, would the council president, who presumably does have a copy of this, announce the number of the resolution?
>> 11 second to pull it up. >> What is it? What? So, so I can read this close session motion into the record. There is a number. Since we only have uh one resolution, this would be resolution 10.2. Um should be resolution Okay,
that' be resolution 26-425 then, I suppose. >> Yes. >> Yes. Thank you. >> And it's in your email, John, but we'll let the council president read it into the record since I know your hands are busy. >> I will read >> on the motion to go into close session.
How do you vote, Councilman? I think uh she wants me to read it into the record first. >> Okay. >> So, let me >> I'll defer to our parliamentarian on the order. >> Read into the record, council president. >> So, res resolution authoring a closed session of the municipal council on
Wednesday, July 1st, 2026 at uh 9, let's say 9:30 by the time we get through this vote to discuss issues related to anticipated litigation and contract negotiations. Whereas the open public meeting act requires that all meetings of governing bodies shall be open to the
public through NJSA 104-12 sets forth exceptions to this requirement. NJSA4-12B7 authorizes the governing body to hold a close session to discuss pending or anticipated litigation or contract negotiations in which the governing body
is or may become a party or matters falling within the attorney client privilege to the extent that the confidentiality is required in order for the city's attorney to exercise his or her ethical duties as a lawyer. And you did want me to read the entire thing, right? Or just the title
>> up now. Council President, you're on roll. You're almost done. >> Just the title. Okay. So, you have the title and the number, John. Very well. On the motion to go into close session, how do you vote? Councilman Brooks, >> I. >> Councilman Zuko, >> I. >> Councilman Ephro,
>> I. >> Council person Little. >> Hi. >> Council person Gilmore. >> I. >> Council person Singh. >> I. >> Council person Griffin. >> I. >> Council person Lavaro. >> Hi. >> And council president Ridley. >> I. Motion to go into close session
approved. 90. >> Can Can we clarify? Closed session takes place in council caucus room. Caucus room. >> Members of the public are allowed to stay in council chambers. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> And the aotted time for this, we're aiming for 20 minutes. Is that correct?
>> 20 minutes. So, we expect to be back around 9:50 9:55. Okay, ladies and gentlemen, we are back on the record at 10:19 p.m. There are no petitions and
communications listed. There are no officer communications listed. There are no reports of direct directors listed, nor are there any claims. That brings us to the next agenda item 10.1 resolution 26-424
entitled a resolution authorizing the city of Jersey City's chief financial officer or tax collector to request approval from the director of local government services to exceed the 105% calculation of estimated billing and
prepare and mail estimated tax bills. Um so John after um carefully reviewing everything taking all of the consideration in uh from the DCA with
limited information we do have um I just think it's beumb upon this council to fight for everyday residents in Jersey City. Um, and I want my legacy to be contingent
upon the things that I told people. People have trusted me and have trusted this council and representing their best interest. So, in light of all of that, um, I don't know where it's going to go as it relates to the terms from the DCA
and theou, but I'm going to propose because there's going to be some increase. So, I'm going to motion to amend to 12%. >> Second.
>> Motion to amend resolution 26-424 made by Gilmore, seconded by Ridley. Um, if you wouldn't mind just explaining on the record where what the language will be on this
resolution and maybe the administration can help as well. We will have to reduce this to writing. It can be done orally now, but at some point we will have to have a written recitation of what is being amended. What is the language that we are amending and what will it say
once amended? >> Members of the council, I cannot amend that on the fly. The calculations are not quite as straightforward as saying 12%. Uh so I cannot at this time tell you how to amend those numbers. I can work on that uh tomorrow. But the levy
calculation is not quite as straightforward as changing one number from there's no 15 for example in the resolution that can be changed to 12. >> So >> right. So >> how much time would you need today to do it?
>> I cannot do that today. There's a question for the for the corporation council. Sarah, if the council amended the ordinance to reflect a 12% uh tax increase as opposed to a 15% >> uh and voted on that, could the final
resolution reflect what that calculates out to be without saying it today? Ultimately, that question is going to hinge on how specific that resolution needs to be in
order to request DCA's approval of the rate, which ultimately is a question for our finance team. Bill, I don't know if you're prepared to answer that, but all I can say is that we would need to look at those rags. I presume there is a reason we put the rate uh specific rate and not just the percentage that gets us
there into the resolution. And that's why the resolutions have always read the way that they have. I don't have that in front of me, but I'll I'll defer to Bill in case he knows on that score. >> So So Bill, I just want to be clear. Can we be clear about what the resolution currently says? Because it doesn't currently say 15.
>> Correct. We've been talking about it as say as 15% increase in the rate. That is an underlying assumption. But the resolution as written as required by DCA talks to not only the rate but the total levy. The total levy includes school,
county, municipal, and other. That's a somewhat involved calculation. There is a model for that. It would take a little bit of time to do that. I do not have that as we sit here right now. >> So, just to be clear, um the only thing
the council will have at their disposal in light of those complexities or complications or whatever you want to describe them as. The only thing the council can do is either vote
vote on it in its current form either up or down or carry it or do what we normally do with other resolutions. The ability to change the levy tonight is not
is not feasible. Is that correct? I if if the requirement is to correctly calculate the numbers in that resolution, I cannot do that tonight. >> Well, I I'm asking you guys what is the requirement. Don't rely on me. I I don't
I'm This is why I'm relying on legal and >> Huh. I just did a little AI calculation. Sorry. I just did a little AI calculation. So, the difference between the 20% number and the 15% is 5 percentage points. And the difference in
levy is is 19,342,872. So each percentage point of tax increase is approximately 3,868,574. So we can make a reduction of $1,65,000. >> 11 million >> to get down to the 12%. >> 11 million.
>> Yeah. To >> if that's what the council would do, what I can tell you is I don't know if that's an accurate calculation or not. Couldn't the resolution, since we're asking DCA to allow us to send a Q3 tax bill, couldn't the resolution say the
council authorizes a a tax levy reflective of a 12% increase? >> I don't know the answer to that. These were not questions that were posed to my office. >> You're sounding underwater. >> Sorry about that. I don't know the answer to that as I sit here today.
These were not questions that were posed to my office or to finance at any point prior to today. So, we have not had the opportunity to prepare those resolutions or dig into those regulations. It's possible. I don't know that there's a statutory framework that requires the resolution to be constructed the way it
is. I presume there is a reason we have constructed these resolutions the way that we always have. But I I can't speculate as I sit here. We can take some time to look into it and see if that's something that we're able to run down right now. But I can in in good faith tell you because I don't know.
>> So we have what I'm hearing is we have two options at this point. We either vote on 10.1 or we withdraw it. >> Can sorry council legally can amend any resolution whether or not there would be consequences to doing so. For example,
if it doesn't comply with some other substantive statutory requirement or if it could lead to some other financial or legal consequences. That that depends. I don't know. We haven't had the opportunity to look into it. So, procedurally, you can certainly amend. If the question is what would the
consequences be of doing that, um, I can only speculate at this point without looking into it further. >> Council President, if I may, would it be possible for us to walk on this um, other resolution that was distributed to the council earlier while corporation
council and the finance director figure out if it is possible to amend? I'll have to answer that one as well because that is not possible for a special meeting. There are particular rules of order that apply and the business that the council is going to address at the
special meeting needs to be noticed in advance. Our own code of ordinances makes very clear that you cannot add any additional business beyond the items that were publicly advertised. What you could certainly do is take any walk-on items that you have today, read them into the record, share them with the
public, commit to introduction at the July 15th meeting. That's no problem at all. But you can't take any formal action of the governing body beyond the business that was advertised in the agenda. >> I have the number if you guys want to just update the number can just uh I
mean where you rely >> because I think Bill has said he can't make that calculation tonight. So even giving him a little time is not going to assist with that. So I think we are either going if we are amending we need to move forward with the uh Councilman
Lavaro's number or we either need to strike the numbers if we strike item three that's in there now and replace it with the council uh is looking to do 12%. Um does that solve the issue? is item
three is the only thing that has numbers in it. >> Apologize. I was trying to research the previous question. Could you restate that, council president? >> What I was saying is Bill has already stated he can't calculate that this evening. So the only uh point on this
resolution that has numbers is it is uh point number three after the uh now therefore be it resolved. So, if we strike.3 and we change that language to say um that we're looking at a 12% tax increase for Q3 instead of what's
currently there, do we need a number? That is the question that I don't know the answer to. I don't know if there's a statutory or other requirement to list it as a specific number versus just percentage. Um I don't know what DCA requires and if Bill doesn't know off the top of his head, we would just need
to look into it. So there would be some risk with doing it that way that we are not doing it the right way. >> The only thing I could add to that is the model for that resolution was provided to me by DCA. So we were following the model provided
by them used by other municipalities in New Jersey. In this instance it was >> Bill. >> You are the finance director. Bill, I would imagine that within your ability, your expertise and your
capabilities that you can arrive at the appropriate number that reflects 12%. In fact, I have the faith and confident that if you don't arrive at the actual number,
you'll be damn close. Is there any way you can take some time to look to see if if that's feasible or is your position flat out you can't do it? >> I could try given some time and I appreciate your confidence. I I am happy
to try to take some time to ensure that's correct. But just to give you a sense, Councilman, that those numbers I rely not only on my tax collector department, but on fi people in my finance department to make sure that we're doing it. We did it accurately.
>> Well, I mean, the percentage point is is I've been hearing over and over the percentage point is close to $4 million. So Sarah, I guess my question of
Corporation County, I mean, excuse Corporation Counts. Um, what's the real harm in the number not being exactly what it's supposed to be, if any? >> One risk, and again, it's not a good
thing to be soliciting legal advice on the fly from your corporation council, um, who hasn't had the opportunity to research or think through all of the potential consequences. One is that the vote here tonight does nothing. If there's a defect with the resolution, it
could virtually be meaningless, in which case there would be no request to FTCA to authorize any tax increase. Um, obviously, Bill spoke earlier to what the financial consequences of that would be in Q4. Um, it is conceivable to me
that if we get the numbers wrong, there could be other consequences. May Bill can speculate better to that in real time on a hot mic than I can. Councilman, I think if the number turns out to be incorrect, it increases the likelihood we will not get the authority
that we're seeking to. >> So, all right. So, I guess my next question is the next meeting would be July 15th. I mean,
this is how I'm looking at it so the public understand. uh in light of us not being able to decrease it, um the bulk of the conversation is really going to transpire at the next meeting when the
budget is set. And when you talk about the punitive damage for the homeowners, the potential of them going into lean and have to pay the lean, that date, it's set in stone
in December, whatever that date is. So in light of all that um I don't know if the council the colleagues feel comfortable just pulling a resolution all together dealing with it doing a budget and by then you may have um
ironed out terms from DCA as it relates to theou um because part of me with the information that I'm receiving is almost like this meeting means nothing because we got to vote on the budget anyway.
So in light of all of that um because like we just have to overturn every stone for the residents. This for a lot of residents is the difference between being homeless far as living with a family
member or not being able to pay your bills. This is a very important vote. In fact, this may be the most important vote that I've casted in my tenure on on the council in five years. So, for me, in light of all of that, I just want to
be able to say that I had all the information at my disposal. I did everything in my power as it relates to what was available. There's a lot of things that's not available. We can't amend it to 12. I know in my heart that it's going to go up, but there's nothing
we can do to stop it from going up. That your taxes are definitely going to go up definitively. That is the one thing I'm certain about. So, in light of all that, um I don't want to put nobody on the spot, but we all got elected to do our
job. So, I'm going to motion to withdraw table whatever the proper term is to deal with this resolution. >> Second. >> Oh, wait. Wait one second. There is um if I'm not mistaken, John, I believe there's already a motion on the floor.
>> There was a motion on the floor. The motion was to amend the resolution, but language to do so was not forthcoming. Right. Unless >> So, we need to vote that motion down. Correct. >> Unless there is an option. Is are we >> No, I I I'll just share the quick
research I've been able to do while this conversation is happening. There's a public statute. This is NJSA54-66.3A2. It says that the municipal governing body may authorize by resolution an estimated annual tax levy for the county in each such taxing district by setting
an amount within the range computed by the tax collector in consultation with the chief financial officer. We do not have the tax collector here with us this evening. So I do have concerns that it would be inappropriate for the council to set that number without consulting with the appropriate statutory officers.
So I it seems like you were heading in that direction anyway, but just wanted to share that update with you because that's the best I'm going to have in real time. >> So on the motion to amend, which we have no language forthcoming. Is that fair to say administration? Yes. Okay. How do
you vote? Council person Brooks. >> Motion amend. >> Have to defeat the motion on the floor. >> Right. Right. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate the guidance. Um, on the motion to aven I amend. I vote no.
>> Council person Zupa. >> On the motion to amend, uh, I think we're compelled to vote no because, uh, we don't have the language we require. So, vote no. And then point.
Council person Efos. >> For those reasons, I vote no. Council person Little. >> Since we do not have the language, I vote no. >> Council person Gilmore, >> no. >> Council person Griffin.
>> Council. >> Oh, Council Person Lavaro, >> no. >> Council person Singh, >> no. >> And Council President Ridley, >> no. >> Motion fails. I understand there is another motion on the floor. Is that correct? Yes.
>> Plenty of information question. If the current resolution is voted no, can it be brought back in a different form on July 15th, assuming that DCA changes their mind to give us some leeway to vote on the Q3 tax bill on the 15th?
>> An identical new resolution could be introduced. It's just a resolution. It just needs one vote. So that there's nothing that would stop the council from considering a substantially similar or even identical resolution at a future date. The question is just what would its lawful and financial effect be which I I won't beat a dead horse. I think
that that's been commented on. >> Bill, the DCA gave you a response today on uh whether we can extend the Q3 tax bill. >> My conversation with them today. Um I learned that we are actually already past the deadline for having done this
which was yesterday. uh which leads me to not feel encouraged that they would look favorably upon the same resolution at a later date which is why I've my advice earlier or my best guess that we
would be on a path to setting the tax rate when we adopt the budget the final budget. >> So ju just so everyone knows we couldn't get the we were trying to limit the the tax increase to 12% couldn't get the exact number as we were required to do so. Uh so if if we vote no or withdraw
the resolution uh we have to get it right so that we limit your Q4 fourth quarter uh bill because as Councilman Gilmore said the deficit is what it is to an extent that there will be there would have to be it would be unreasonable not to have a tax increase but it would be incumbent on this
council to to do what we can to lower the burden in the in the fourth quarter which I know many of you in in WC told me you you you grateful for you put faith in us to motion >> there was what is the motion is it motion to vote on the resolution
>> no to withdraw >> it wouldn't it wouldn't matter you vote you can vote no or you can withdraw it's the same >> oh yeah okay all right whatever >> we call for the vote >> so >> do you wish to speak on I was just going to say I'll defer to our parliamentarian
but I believe that the correct procedure here is the administration could withdraw its own agenda item or the council can vote and just vote no or as it chooses. >> That is correct, counselor. >> So, is the administration looking to withdraw? >> You're not.
>> Okay, then let's call for the vote. John, with regard to resolution 26-424, how do you vote? Council person Brooks. >> Before I vote, I'd like to make uh some brief remarks. Um, one,
uh, you know, some some residents spoke on something that I I said, uh, about a wealth tax, and I said it last night in my community meeting, and I want to say it again that, um, I did not intend to
offend um, or cause harm. Um, and I said this last night in our Ward B community meeting as well. Uh there are luxury apartment complexes in Ward B that are taxed at the same rate as uh a
workingclass condo owner um or a single family homeowner or two or three family owner occupied um home and uh you know it's regressive property tax is regressive and the reason that um I had
supported a uh higher increase is that on those, you know, um that that that on the upper end it is a wealth tax. So 3 acres, love you guys, love the restaurants,
love the pool, um assessed at $136 million. So every percentage point um that we go down that we don't increase taxes, we're losing the money from from them. Same thing
with the Agnes. Um, both these properties are are, you know, lucrative. Um, nice places to live. Um, and, uh, you know, owned by corporations. So, um, you know, that's kind of where I was coming from. And I I just wanted to make
my my remarks clear. Um and you know on the on the kind of point of property taxes being regressive, we need comprehensive um tax reform in
New Jersey. um municipalities um going to the wealth tax point, municipalities with high income earners, uh folks that can afford 6 thou6,000 or $7,000 a month in rent. Um you know, I
think that we as a municipality should be able to tax the rich by getting the ability to get do a municipal uh income tax on high income earners. So, I just want to be very clear uh where I stand. Um, and with
that, I vote no. >> Thank you, Councilman Zupo. >> I'll try to be brief as well. I just want to start with a thank you to all of you for coming here tonight, the last meeting, and voicing your concerns. Uh, thank you those who came to the wart council meeting, uh, community meeting. Uh, and as I said there, I'll repeat
here, you have every right to be passionate, angry, uh, and you have every right to express that to us. Many of us weren't on the council before, but we're here now. We ran to make tough choices. We ran to make the responsible choices and I'm I'm privileged to
represent you in doing that. Uh thank you should also go out to the administration uh for listening to the public and making cuts. Uh as as many of us said, before the residents feel any kind of burden of tax increases, the city has to to to make spending cuts. Uh thank you to our state representatives
for seeing Jersey City's promise as an economic driver for the state of New Jersey and we're going to need you again uh because you're you have to allow us to make difficult but responsible decisions to cut spending before deciding the terms of the loan. Uh and if there's a term of a
loan with a set amount, then I certainly would have a lot of questions. Uh and and to the state comproller, uh we need you to investigate how we got here because you as residents deserve to know where every penny of your money goes. Whether you've been here for 89 years or one year, this is your money and this is
your city. Uh today we're we were voting on on just not not the overall budget obviously, but just whether to to increase your tax levy, your tax bill in the third quarter. Obviously, we're doing that without seeing a budget with which caused many of us concern uh
without being able to confirm whether each and every one of our city departments spent less than they did in 2025 to reflect the deficit that we knew about when we took office. Uh and without fulfilling our role as a council to make responsible budget decisions. Uh
so so voting yes would be trying to spre spread out the tax burden over quarters uh three and four. So, I know and as I said in my community meeting, I I I uh don't begrudge anyone who who indicated previously they were going to vote yes.
There's a lot of tough decisions here. I I and I I've said before and I'll repeat here for everyone here. I don't think Mayor Solomon or his administration are trying to dupe the taxpayer. I don't think anyone here is a bad person trying to make a a poor decision. They're doing the best they can with the information
before them. Uh voting no, however, uh is that you you're going to bet on this council to find salary cuts and spending cuts uh the same way the administration did in the past week when they uh cut to get from 20% to 15% and and every
percentage point is $4 million. So just keep that in mind. Uh I had proposed um in in my meetings with Mayor Solomon. Again, I appreciate his time this week uh deferring or uh cutting some money
that amounts to what would be 3 to 4% with uh of our budget or of the tax increase without cutting services. Uh so when you hear about the $110 million that the prior administration put on a credit card, some of that is money that we need to budget for. it's responsible
to budget for, but we're not currently spending. So, if we can look into that money and find any cuts to to alleviate the burden, it's our responsibility to do so. Uh, and as I said a few moments ago, based on our structural deficit, uh, the responsible thing at some point will will likely to be vote for vote on
a tax increase. Uh, but without seeing a budget and looking at every single every single dollar being spent, I can I cannot responsibly look you in the eye and raise your taxes. Uh, so it doesn't mean it'll always be a no because again the responsible thing will be to vote
for a tax increase, but it's a no today. >> Council person Efos. >> Um, yeah, appreciate everyone uh coming out this evening. It's been a long night. Uh, appreciate the folks who have joined the town halls uh that we've
held, the community meetings we've held. Um, I will also vote against this resolution um with some uh some fear honestly about uh where we
are headed for the quarter 4 bill. I just want to be really clear about that. um over the past weeks been weighing all of our options here uh with the constraints from the state uh through DCA as we just got to talk out for quite
a while with the with the mayor and and team here um and the constraints of the deficit that we walked into. Um and I really do worry about the position that we're going to be in uh with a quarter 4
tax bill. um containing the entirety of the year's increase and we will look line by line at every single department at every single item to make sure that our money is being used responsibly. Um,
but I I am uh skeptical that we are going to be able to get to a place where a quarter 4 tax bill for a lot of residents in Jersey City is is not just a you'll
death blow. So, um I say this with a lot of reservation that I'll I'll vote against because it's it's clear that popular support has come out against it. not just in a small way or a marginal way, but um that's that's been clear and I think the council has felt that. I know the administration has felt that as
well. Um so we'll continue the transparency. You know, we um we've held uh council agenda town halls since February, since the winter when we started in office. We um do
weekly office hours uh every single Friday. our council office, we did a town hall uh following the announcement of the 20% uh increase um proposal and ahead of the the statement um indicating
uh that we were considering voting for this that I put out with uh Councilman Brooks and Councilman Little. Um and then we also explained the message that we are hearing from Trenton very clearly about the constraints that we were feeling and uh we had a town hall just
last night. uh we had an additional um office hours. We we've been uh appreciate my team trying to go above and beyond to make sure that we're communicating with the public throughout this and really appreciate the public communicating with us, sharing their concerns and their voices. So, um voting
against this, it is it it is with a bit of reservation, but it's also with respect for the clear outcry uh from the public here. Um, and we'll we'll keep working. Uh, we'll get to the budget hearing process. And, uh,
I echo what my colleague, Councilman Brooks, said. We will be introducing a resolution to tax the rich um, to allow for a long-term plan. This is not immediate stuff, but a long-term plan to make sure that we, as Jersey City, are empowered to make the people who can afford to pay pay the most wealthy in
this city pay up more than the workingclass people uh, in this city. And um that's not going to happen overnight, but we're committed to this long fight with everyone here. >> Council person Little,
as many of you know, I had a number of reservations about putting the entire tax burden on Q4. I thought that would be extremely painful for homeowners to have it all concentrated in that last quarter. Um especially given that our tax lean sales occur in mid December. I
truly worried that putting it on Q4 would cause more people to lose their homes. That was why I joined my colleagues in putting out an initial statement um with tentative support for an estimate. But between last council meeting, this
council meeting, and my community meeting on Monday, I have heard loud and clear that you would rather have transparency and you would rather let us go through the whole budget process, go
line item by line item, see exactly what we're debating, and and I have to respect that. I do worry about the homeowners who will be hit hard by a massive Q4 tax increase because
like my colleague said like there and and like the DCA is telling us there's no scenario in which our taxes do not go up this year and having that all concentrated in Q4 is very worrisome. Um if you are a homeowner I encourage you
to start putting aside money now for Q4. Um, I'm very very worried about Q4, but especially given that DCA can come in and and mandate a percentage for us if they so choose to do so. Um,
but I have to listen to what the people are asking for, which is you would rather have the full budget process, full transparency than the benefit of having it split
across Q3 and Q4. So, um, I also will vote this down. >> Thank you, Council Person Gilmore. Um, first I just want to take this time to thank everyone for coming out on this off council week um to express your
concerns, representing your interests. I want to thank all my colleagues for hosting all of these different community meetings. I also want to give um respect and due diligence to the administration um for sitting here during these
presentations providing as much information as possible to the public at large. Um but for me, this this vote is what I'm morally born to do. Um, I've took a
pledge to represent the interest of the residents of Jersey City. Um, I just can't consciously vote yes for something with so much uncertainty. I'm not willing to give my own personal
check to anybody, nor am I willing to give the people's personal check to anyone. I remain steadfast and committed trying to find a reasonable medium. I'm going to be completely honest. I get a lot of flack for not being politically
correct sometime. Um, but I'm going to be completely honest. It is almost indefinite that this year the tax levy is going to be risen because of the past failures of the prior administration and
also because the cost of a living. Um, so I urge all of you who have the capacity to save as much as you can. Um, because at some point this increase is going to be upon us. Um, but this vote
tonight is essentially about me trusting my preparations. I said this wasn't going to be a hard vote for me because I was going to trust the preparation. I was going to trust the information that was available. I was going to trust the numbers that I went over. I was going to trust my communication with state
officials, with the administration, and I was going to trust that I did my due diligence to go over everything to be decisive in making my decision tonight. So, this is not a vote against the administration, but is a vote in the interest of the residents of Jersey
City. So, with that being said, I vote no. >> Council person Griffin. Yes. Um, so I want to thank everyone for coming out tonight. And you know, as an elected official, as a public servant,
um, what I was taught was that when I walk into a room, they don't just see me, they see a community. And, you know, I I know we are in we're we're in a bit of a pickle, right?
But uh you know I have faith in my colleagues. I I I have faith in the administration um that we can we can um come to a better resolution. Also I I am going to reiterate uh
Councilwoman Little, Councilman Gilmore, um please make sure you're going to you know you save up your money uh and get ready for Q4. Um but we have we have time, right? we have time to go through the budget process and and you know try
to make this tax increase as low as possible. But yes, we are going to be dealing with um a a substantial increase. Um but we we want to move away from the 20. We want
to move away from the 15 and and we want to make um solid efforts to um you know make the cuts we need to we need to make without um cutting as many services needed in the
city. And um I'm going to vote no. >> Council person Laro. >> Yeah. I I just want to say thank you as well to every resident who came out tonight to speak. Um I want you to know
I've been listening at town halls, community meetings, in my email inbox, and tonight in this chamber. Um there are no easy answers here. Um every option involves a trade-off. Every decision has consequences for real
families. And tonight we heard from the mayor and the administration about the conditions Trenton has imposed with this $15 million loan. And so I also just want to say this on the record and say something to Trenton, to DCA, to the Division of Local Government
Services, to the legislators and the governor who made this historic investment possible. We hear you. We understand the weight of this obligation. Jersey City will honor it. I am confident that the city council will make hard choices. We will find
additional revenues. We will make responsible cuts. We will do the difficult work that long-term fiscal sustainability requires. Not because we have to, but because the families of Jersey City deserve a city that is not just solvent today, but affordable for
generations to come. Keeping Jersey City affordable is not just a fiscal obligation. It is a moral one. We will not squander this opportunity. We will earn this investment. As one speaker said tonight, this vote
is al is a statement of values. And I've lived here in Jersey City for 48 years. And tonight, I'm speaking on behalf of the families who did not cause this crisis and who deserve to know that every possible option has been exhausted
before we ask them to pay one penny more. My standard has been consistent from the beginning. Every stone must be turned over before we ask Jersey D. City families to pay more. The city council has not yet received the budget. Not
blaming anybody there. I've been raising alternatives privately and publicly for for months. From the rainy day fund to bonding to fund accumulated sick and vacation leave payouts owed to retiring employees to management furlows to using
restricted funds to offset general fund expenses to right-sizing open-ended contracts to implementing citywide austerity measures. Until every option is exhausted, I must vote no. I also want to be clear about something important. I have been told that there's
an exception to trends conditions that if the city identifies and implements additional cuts to operating expenses, DCA may accept those reductions in lie of a higher tax rate. With that door open, I intend to walk through it and in the coming weeks, I will be introducing
every cost savings measure and every revenue reallocation that is available to the city and I will put DCA to the test to review and approve each and every one. If Trenton is is serious about fiscal responsibility, and I know they are. I believe they will welcome
that work, and I intend to find out. Trenton has imposed conditions. I respect it. But the families of Jersey City have imposed conditions on me, too. And those conditions are that I fight for them with everything I have at every opportunity for as long as I hold this
seat. So, tonight, I am voting no. Not because I don't understand the fiscal crisis, not because I don't recognize the state aid secured by our delegation, not because I take this lightly, but because I owe it to the city that raised me and is raising my daughter, and
because this is a statement of values. My values are with the working families of Jersey City. I'll keep fighting for them. I vote no. Council person sing >> as I shared earlier this has been really hard. Nobody wanted to be in this
situation where we are at not administration. Mayor promised unaffordability. Obviously he never wanted to be here where he is or all of us for that matter. Um but we are so
it is really important to understand that we will be char we'll be trying all the ideas all possible ideas to generate revenue but $250 million is a huge amount. So there will
be there will be you know burden on all the families living in Jersey City. it. You know, it is sad. It is extremely sad. It is hard to be here to make that decision. Obviously, today
I'm voting no, but just want to make sure that we understand that we are trying hard. We we we got elected to be your representative and we know that we are responsible. We are doing everything. We are not letting any stone
unturned to do the right thing. So tonight we I'm voting no, but um I hope we all can think about Q4. Just as my colleague said, let's save some money so
there's no surprises. Thank you everyone for being here >> and Council President Ridley. Um, so a lot has been said here tonight and my council colleagues in the
administration know that I've been at no all day. But that doesn't mean that this vote is still easy because we have to really make residents aware that there could be consequences, right? We don't
know, but there could be. Um, and I want residents to be prepared for that and to know that uh, similar to what my colleagues have already said, there will be some sort of increase. What that will be at this point, we don't know. Um, so
just be aware of that. And to my council colleagues, we have work to do. We have work to do. We are beginning budget hearings um, tentatively scheduled for the week of July 13th. And I would ask
that you all make yourself available, come with your suggestions, go through um the budget and I have also solicited uh assistance for us to go through the budget um if we have questions, need
help. Um so we are prepared and we just have a task to do. And also thank you to the administration. I do not take any of the work that you did lightly. any of the work that our state- elected officials did, especially Senator McCery. Um, this is a difficult time for
everyone. So, I just ask residents to please keep that in mind. I vote no. Resolution 26-424 is defeated with no votes in the affirmative, nine votes against and no abstensions. >> Motion.
>> Okay. Mo motion. Motion to adjourn made by believe I heard second >> by Gilmore. Second by Griffin. >> Yes. >> How do you vote? Council person Brooks. >> Council person Zupa. >> Hi. >> Council person Efos. >> I. >> Council person Little. >> Hi.
>> Council person Gilmore. >> Council person Griffin. >> Hi. >> Council person Lavaro. >> Council person Lavaro. >> I. >> Council Person Singh. >> I. >> And Council President Ridley. We are adjourned at 11:04 p.m. We will
reconvene on July 15th at 6 PM. Thank you.