All right, everyone. We're about to get started. If we can find our seats, silence our cell phones, close the back door and side doors if you would be so kind to do so. I greatly appreciate it. Hey, good afternoon everyone. We are on the record. Today is Monday, the 13th
day of July in the year 2026. This is a city council caucus meeting of the Jersey City Municipal Council. We had a scheduled start at 12:00 pm and that notice was sent out on Thursday, July
9th, 2026 at 4:23 p.m. to all of the reporters and posted on the city's website for our change from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. The clock on my cell phone is showing 12:15
p.m. May we have a roll call for the commencement of this caucus? Council person Brooks is not here. Council person Zupa >> here. >> Council person Efos >> here. >> Council person Little >> here.
>> Council person Gilmore >> present. >> Council person Singh >> I'm here. >> Council person Griffin >> present. >> Council person Lavaro >> here. >> And council president Ridley >> here. And Sean uh yes. Councilman Brooks will be uh absent.
>> Thank you very much. So, we have eight council members in attendance at 12:15 p.m. On behalf of Council President Ridley and the members of the Municipal Council in accordance with New Jersey Public Laws of 1975, Chapter 231, the Open Public Meetings
Act, also known as the Sunshine Law. Adequate notice of this meeting has been provided by the posting on the bulletin board of the first floor of city hall. The annual notice which is the schedule of meetings and caucuses of the municipal council for the calendar year 2026 and filed in the office of the city clerk on Tuesday, November 25th, 2025.
In addition, at its time of its preparation, the agenda of this meeting was similarly disseminated on Friday, July 10th, 2026 at 10:45 p.m. to the mayor, municipal council, business administrator corporation council, and to the newspapers and posted on the city's website. so I can certify as to
our total compliance with the sunshine law. Council President, I'm going to turn the meeting over to you. >> Okay. Good afternoon. I just want to before we start, I want to give a quick recap of our morning
meeting with DCA. Um we met with them at 10:00 a.m. this morning. that is why we moved this caucus back to 12:00 p.m. Uh, one of the first things that we wanted to discuss with them was the Q3 tax rate. Um, at our July 1st meeting, we
had a resolution to set a Q3 tax rate that the council voted down and the council was unclear or we were told that we could not set that Q3 tax rate that the date for us
doing so had passed. Um DCA says we are entitled to introduce a resolution at the next council meeting to set that rate. I believe that is the pleasure of the council, but we will discuss that. Um and we will then add that to the
agenda for Wednesday as the Q3 tax bills have not gone out yet and we will we would want those bills to go out so that the city can pay their bills. Um, so we will revisit that. As far as the budget, I know a lot of
people had questions and the council had questions in regards to us having the ability to go through the budget and make any necessary cuts. The council is the governing body of the city. We still have the ability to go through budget
and make or propose any cuts or changes that we see fit. uh us accepting anou this next meeting on Wednesday does not change that fact. So the council is still expected to do
its legislative duties and its governing duties and go through that budget. Um in addition to that, there were questions regarding our quote unquote rainy day fund. DCA does not want us to tap into
that as they would like us to make sure we have that cushion as it is smaller than they would like it to be. In regards to the OU, we do have to decide what we're doing at
this next meeting uh in regards to what loan terms we are accepting. So we should be taking that vote on Wednesday for theou in the loan terms of our transitional aid. There was a question
as to how that is determined seeing how there have been loans in the past given by the state that uh did not include interest rates. there were no interest loans and the long and short of that is um
that changes with the administration the state administration. So this administration would like to set an interest loan uh based on the amount that we are receiving as it is a large amount they
are not interested in giving a no interest loan. Um, those are the highlights. I will prepare something more in writing and if my council colleagues have anything that they want to add, um, please feel free to do so at
this time and um, we'll prepare a memo in a little more detail, but I just wanted to go over the highlights. >> Council President, that's a clarifying question. So, the administration was not interested in putting forward a no interest loan. You're talking about the administration in Trenton or
>> Trenton. >> Thank you, >> Mr. President. Um, I'm sorry, I was distracted a little bit. Did we talk Did you discuss the third quarter levy? >> Yes. I I said we would introduce a resolution at the next meeting. So,
>> this meeting? >> Yes. On Wednesday for Wednesday. Correct. July meeting. Wednesday. So that would be a late item added. >> Correct. >> The intention would be to introduce a quarter3 tax bill at the 2025
tax rate or at what tax rate. >> Well, that would be something that the uh council would have to decide what we want that resolution to say. It does not have to be at the current tax rate. Um it can be at the 12% that we proposed at the last meeting. It can be at the 15%.
Uh, we need to have that conversation. >> Council President, can you please talk one more time about rainy day fund? >> The rainy day fund. They do not want us to tap into that. They would be opposed. The state would be opposed to us using that money. >> We can't take anything out of him. Thank
you. >> I mean, we can try, but I'm sure they're going to deny that. >> Okay. >> And also, you know, a lot of a lot of people have been bringing this up. Did did you talk to them about land sales? >> Correct. >> And what did they say about that? >> They don't suggest that we do that. >> What was the answer?
>> That they do not suggest that we do that. >> Land sales. >> Mhm. >> Did they say why? >> Yeah. And we can go, like I said, I'll go into more detail and I'll put a memo together, but high level that's where they were on land sales and rainy day.
>> And rainy day. Okay. Can I can I just elaborate on that because >> Yes. slightly. So, with regard to some of the some of the options, short-term notes to spread one-time obligations over multiple years, something like tax appeals, again, the retirement payouts, etc., a
land sale or defeasing or retiring bonds, um they well, particularly for the first two, they did not recommend it, but it was asked very pointedly, could we do it? and they said you could do it. Um they were clear that we that
that's discretion, but there would be potential implications potentially if we change the levy in some way that could affect the terms of the loan, including the amount of the loan. So that wasn't clear as as to how that would be
impacted. Um [snorts] but those were options that they said were not necessarily off the table. Um but they there would it's not something that they would recommend. Um, I would just briefly say as it relates to the council authority, um,
they did say we, uh, the authority still resides within this body as it relates to determine determining Q3. Um, and also as it relates to the theou.
Um, theou is public yet, Bill, is it? Councilman, shortly after the meeting with DCA this morning, I did receive uh final copies of the loan agreements. I've shared those with corporate council and the BA's office uh to share with council and post to the agenda.
>> Okay. So, in light of all that, um I will say uh the the learn the loan agreement is contingent upon certain things. I specifically ask as it relates to the increase um of Q3
uh because you know there was a lot of back and forth as it relates to the 15% the 12% at the last council meeting um and they did say that the parameters that's in theou areed out exactly what that
agreement would look like um so there is a potential If we move the tax levy from the agreed upon agreed upon point that subsequently we can have a reduction in the 105 of
the state aid. Is that [snorts] correct bill? They made reference to um the $105 million loan in the agreement that if we move the levy from that threshold um that
number can potentially come down. >> So what I heard councilman from them is there we have two options as outlined the 15% and the 20%. Um during the discussion around uh what if council
found additional cost cuts uh and whether those cost cuts could be applied to a further reduction in the tax rate. My understanding is that their stance would be no that any other savings a would benefit 2027
or andor they would look to reducing the size of loan so those cost reductions would be used to repaying the loan uh earlier. That's how I understood the the discussion. >> Thank you Bill. I mean, I I I think,
and this is not to like talk bad about the administration, but I think um this whole situation would been have been much better if what we received within
these last 72 24 hours was articulated and put in the public back when all these presentations were going on. Um, I think we we got lost in the communication. I think the intent was
there to try to get in front to try to not to notify the public. Um, but I think the administration, they spent so much time on explaining how we got here versus
trying to find a path forward. Um I I mean it's there trying times ahead and I just think that with all of this at stake that we should have been better
with the communication, better with the explaining. Um because even us, a lot of us on the council, you know, we felt like we wasn't given enough information as it relates to the actual numbers that
were in the budget. Um so if if the administration can can be better at that from a communication standpoint, uh because in this union it has to work both ways, right? We have to be transparent with each other. We have to
be honest with each other. And if we do those two things, we can we can almost get by anything. Um, but it has to be a US approach. It has to be like a holistic approach. That dialogue has to transpire in that manner. Um, because I know as council, I speak specifically
for myself like we we're getting hammered, right? Um, so that's that's what I have to say as it relates to that. as a council, we're still, you know, well within our authority to set
that Q3 number um at what we think is appropriate. And I will just say this for the public, I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't set that number near the current Q1 and Q2 quarters
because all of the numbers are indicating that the taxes are going to go up. And what you don't want to happen in my opinion is you don't want to give the residents false hope that this would
this would be the the the tax um rate. Um and then subsequently you already have to make up for Q1, Q2 because they're all under the threshold and then you'll have that problem in Q4 where
you're asking for all of that. That's that's my takeaway from today. That's my assessment of the communication of the administration. I make one more comment just just to address the rainy day fund. So, it was
clear from me that um the fund balance they did not want to see it touched except for the 2 million that's been uh budgeted in the in the prop introduced budget to pay for snow the snow snow emergency snow removal costs. Um
so they they do not want that in the 2026 budget. It's going to be part of theou that's going to be um put forth before the city council um as a condition of the loan. Um and feel free to correct me if I'm if I'm inaccurate on that. Um but from from my notes and
my discussion um while they're not supportive of us using more um we talked about and I shared the idea that I proposed at this council about establishing an ordinance to require the replenishment of the rainy day fund the fund balance. um they were receptive to
that um and they asked us very pointedly if we have a fund balance policy and um we couldn't answer that at the time. I don't know if um I have that information at this point. Um but the necessity for us to establish such a fund balance policy um and they also
um according to my my listening and my notes is that uh um using it in future years is not off of the table for the city council um or this administration. So I just want to put that out as a as a
fact. And uh they didn't say they were not encouraging of it, but they did not they did suggest that it was not necessarily that that condition was for the 2026 budget to to not dip into the the rainy day fund. >> Councilman, uh can you clarify
did they share what's the percentage we can use in 2027 budget? >> They did not specify. We did not get into those. >> It's open-ended. >> Yeah. Well, I say it's open-ended again. They I don't want to misrepresent it because they discouraged it strongly
discouraged frankly I was right. So um what they said um the one thing I want to just say is that the quote that I was left with was the division of local government services is a compliance division not a policy decision. That policy is for still the city council to
ultimately determine. and and I made the case and and council colleagues that I would like to see this spread out over more more years. Um, and that's still kind of generally my position, but I have to kind of look at everything that
uh um that we've discussed and then kind of look at the options as well as the budget itself. Do a deeper dive on all of that before I can make any >> council. Can I justclation on that point? >> Thank you, Councilman. Bill, the um the comments around DCA
being essentially a compliance agency was mentioned, but it was also mentioned that for municipalities under transitional aid, their authority is far more extensive. The loan agreement is really quite clear that the only use of
fund balance in 26 they will allow is what we budgeted, which was about 2.3 million for snow removal. That's what's in the introduced budget that you have that's on the agenda. That amount is also referenced in the loan agreements as
what they will allow for use of surplus. >> I had one more clarifying question. Um, Bill, you had mentioned um that it sounds like should we should we find savings somewhere in the budget through our budget hearings um
and through amendments proposed and uh that that those savings would not allow us to deviate from either the 15 or the 20% um that we're being asked to sign theou toward um but rather that those
savings would toward the loan repayment. Is that correct? >> That's correct. I think the the the commentary in their position is grounded in a couple of things. One, we're already through July and they talked
about how long it takes to get through civil service restructurings with four to five months. So, the likelihood of any material savings that comes from salaries and wages in 2026 is very low. Should we find that? Right. They have made it clear that they view 27 for us
as another challenging year. Uh and they they would not they basically they made it clear at the end of the day we have two options and the options the 15% and the 20% tax rate increase. Those are the two loan agreements we have in our possession. Those are the two options they've given us. And and then I'm sorry
if I missed this, but um you'd also mention that those savings would either be toward the repayment or toward the 2027 budget. So given where we are in the year, the likelihood of material savings impacting
2026 is really quite small. And so, you know, I think their perspective like ours is to the extent we could find ways to be more efficient. They're all for that, but it's not something that's going to lead them to be swayed that there should be a third option that they
made it clear that there are two, and those are the two we have in front of us. And then on the note of the quarter three tax bill, if council proposed a tax bill um for quarter three that was different from 15 or 20% that was the
12% just as taking the hypothetical raised by my colleague um did I don't know if folks in the meeting or Bill you can answer this but um DCA says that that's in our authority to do even at a different number than the 15 or 20%
>> with the caveat that We still have to seek their approval which they made clear they would provide. So it's not quite within our authority. It's within their authority. They did make clear they would provide that authority because they understand we need to collect those taxes to keep the city
operating. We need the receipts. So okay, we would be permitted to provide to set a different tax rate essentially lower than 15 or 20% for quarter three. They said that they would give us approval even if we're signing this
says eventually it's going to get hiked up to the 15 or 20% depending on which we sign. >> Correct. >> Yeah. I mean that's that's the problem with the Q3 tax um bills in a nutshell. No matter
what rate, no matter what rate we voted at, um, budget is ultimately going to dictate that. And considering when we, when we're considering the budget, we also have to consider the terms of theou.
So, while the council authority haven't necessarily been script by default, it kind of like kind of like locked in, right? Because if if if we're taking the loan, there's terms
associated with the loan, right? So you you can't like I mean DCA position is like we can't agree on the terms of the loan and then try to operate outside of the parameters of the term of the loan.
And that's my frustration essentially with the administration is like we have to know this in the first inning of the game. Like we have to know this in the beginning. We have to be a part of the negotiation phase, right? We have to be
communicated. We have to be consulted because ultimately we're tasked with making a decision on the finances of the government, but we weren't in in the first inning. we we we weren't a part of the initial conversations
and that's like for me it it it makes my job extremely hard >> and just to uh >> piggyback off what Councilman Gilmore is saying it is frustrating right because it it's like as the council our backs are put against
the wall um to to vote on terms and agreements that we may not agree on especially when you know we have authority over over the budget and everything. So, you know, I I I get what the councilman
is saying and I I I also understand just looking at like the the the conditions of the loan what what needs to be done, but it it just it just feels like we were locked in before we even got a chance to vote or look at the budget.
So, council members, um the administration just handed us the two different versions of theou. This is the council's first time uh having access to this document. So, I would ask that uh after this meeting, you all go back and
sit with it. Um and then we'll have a clearer idea of uh where we're headed on Wednesday. But Bill is here. You're at the podium. your first up tonight. So, you might as well stay there.
>> Afternoon. >> Afternoon, not night. And um we'll start the budget discussion. >> Thank you. Council President, would you like me to comment on the loan agreements? I I have not read the ones that we got in the last hour, but in general, I understand what the
>> I'll wait until everybody reads everything. >> Okay. >> I don't want you to say anything that might not be in here any longer. >> You got it. So, I will uh make some comments on the 2026 budget uh introduction. I'm going to stay relatively high level because we have
budget hearings coming up uh I think either later this week or starting early next week. So, I'll go through what I think the highlights are and then happy to answer questions to the extent I can. Um so, first of all, some topline numbers in the budget as introduced.
Fiscal year 2026 budget totals $886.5 million. It's nominally an increase over the 2025 budget. However, as we've been discussing throughout 2026, the headline figure is bloated by over $und00 million
in inherited unpaid obligations left over from previous years by the prior administration. Those were created by a combination of improper use of capital funds, unfunded operational expenses, and the use of borrowing to pay for operating expenses.
All of which uh we've been discussing for the past several seven months. So, what we've tried to do in some of the materials we've distributed over the weekend and I want to comment on is what's the true cost? What's the more accurate comparison between the 26
budget introduction and 2025 as it should have been introduced? So, what we've been referring to as the true cost of running Jury City's government, in our estimation, is down from what should have been $856.7 million in 2025
when adjusted for these costs to approximately $798.4 million in 2026 if you exclude these onetime obligations. So, that totals a reduction of about $58 million or just under 7%.
two major items that go into that $58 million. We've talked considerably about one of them is the savings and the health health benefits from the switch to meritane from Horizon. And then the other is paying down previous year's deferred spending which is down roughly
$15 million. Those two comprise the majority of the $58 million reduction. I'll talk a little bit about the department spending. And again to to do accurate comparisons here we have tried to adjust previous year and current year for
proper accounting things like places where like infrastructure where capital expenses were capital dollars were used to pay for operating expenses. We've tried to put the expenses where they belong and the proper use of funds where they also belong. So excluding public
safety and across all departments, this budget reflects approximately 9.7 million in real costs again adjusted to properly align the costs to periods in which they were incurred. So that relates to salary
and wages other expenses just for the the departments. Those savings partly reinvested in services residents count on um and uh in particular public safety uh safe and clean streets and youth programming.
We've provided appendices again distributed uh over the course of the weekend that provide far more detail on those line items. So I'll I'll leave that particular topic for now. As introduced and without any adjustments for prior year expenses,
salaries and wages approximate $298 million. That represents almost 34% of total expenses. And even with no adjustment is only a 4% growth over 2025 as it was introduced.
Of that amount, 70% or almost $210 million is related to public safety salaries and wages. There's another 4% or 12.7 million for certain uniform officer retirements and other compensation benefits.
Other expenses total 302 million representing 34% of total expenditures. Other expenses includes group health insurance $170 million proper funding for the insurance fund commission funding for a variety of reserve accounts.
Debt service due to decisions made by the past administration represent 87 million or nearly 10 10% of total expenditures. Much of that represents debt service related to expenses accured in prior years funded by emergency and special emergency notes.
Turn to revenue. The 2026 budget includes a total tax levy of $459,953,660.72. That represents 51% of the total revenue the city will collect. That's up 75 million or 19%
from the 2025 levy. That assumes a 15.5% increase in the tax rate. The remainder in the of the increase in the levy comes from is generated from new ratables.
The proposed tax rate impact on a home assessed at $500,000 is approximately an additional $634 a year or $53 a month. When combined with the expected increase of 14% in the school rate, approximately
the same amount in the county rate, total increase on a home assessed at 500,000 is approximately $1,700 or $143 a month. Note that for every 1% change in the municipal tax rate, the impact on the average homeowner
is $40 a year or $3 a month. The next largest source of revenue in the proposed budget is local revenue and special items, including thirdparty agreements totaling $190 million.
State aid totals $185 million. That includes the recurring $65 million that Jersey City has received annually for a number of years as well as the $ 105 million in revenue from the loan budget as introduced assumes that the loan will be paid back over a period of
10 years at an interest rate of 2.75%. We also expect another $15 million in the form of transitional aid grant from the state that is included in the introduced budget. Other local revenue includes pilots pilot revenue of $82.8 million. That's a
decline of almost 9%. From 2025. Importantly, the decline in pilot revenue as a result of expiring pilots is expected to continue to be a source of challenges for our budget in 27 and beyond as the older
pilots continue to expand. Pilot revenues, as you know, often generate more tax revenue for the city than traditional property taxes. And so losing that source of revenue will make both the budget more challenging for the municipality.
In addition, other local revenue includes franchise payments from the MUA of $33 million. That is a materially higher amount than historical as a result of financial mover maneuver that involve the MUA issuing bonds to accelerate payments to
the city. Essentially funding the city's operating budget with debt payments issued by the MUA. That source of revenue will also decline in 27 by another $10 million, putting additional pressure on the 27 budget.
Since we're already more than halfway through the fiscal year, I think it's important for you to know and to note that year-to- date through June 30, 2026, total spending is approximately 415 million or 47%
of the introduced budget. on track to meet the budget as proposed. Lastly, a comment about cash balances and and liquidity. As of July 1st, the city maintained cash balances of approximately $115 million.
We've talked about the importance of adopting a Q3 estimated tax rate for a variety of reasons, but not the least of which is the city relies very heavily. As you can see, is reflected of the percent of our revenue that comes from tax receipts on
collecting taxes. is therefore paramount that we set an estimated Q3 tax rate to avoid any kind of liquidity or cash shortage for the city.
Note along those lines, we typically remit tax receipts to the county and to the schools in the month of August. We do have the ability to defer that to the month of September, but without cash receipts coming in for the city, we will not be able to remit those payments to
the school or the county. So, the introduced budget goes a long way towards addressing inherited budget gap through a historic level of state support to address past costs and a substantial reduction in the structural deficit by reasonably raising revenue combined with
expense reductions. To be clear, more work, much more work, and more revenue is needed to bring the city budget into a structural balance. Also, it's by note by historical
standards, Jersey City expenditures have grown 9.9%. 2020. That's below the rate of inflation, which is almost 24% over that period of time. And while public safety has seen modest growth, 9%.
Other cities have grown very close to the rate of inflation over that period of time. And then finally, looking forward, if the loan agreement and introduced budget are approved by the council uh Wednesday, uh immediate next steps aside from the Q3 uh estimated tax
bill, we will transmit the budget to DCA through their online portal, hold budget hearings, and hopefully finally adopt the budget in the month of August. Recognizing that we'll answer more detailed questions at the budget hearings. Um, I'll leave it my comments
at that, but I'd be happy to address any preliminary questions. >> Council questions for Bill. >> I one question on the the health care costs um and the unpaid bills that um
we're now going to be paying and I believe have started to already pay um from the beginning of this year. um were any and I'm I'm sorry this is maybe not pertinent enough for um for the resolution before us but I think it it's
pertinent. Um what what was the availability of negotiating any of the any of the health care bills that are have been unpaid and that we need to pay down in this 2026 budget. if a individual gets a a bill from health care, um there's some room for
individuals in cases to be able to negotiate down and and to, you know, push back against the private insurance company or whatever it may be. So, I just want to see what kind of um options we had and and what we explored. >> Sure. So, first we'll recognize the
city's self-insured. We used Horizon and now Meritane as a third party administrator, right? What they do is administrate claims when dispense members of the plan visit providers doctors. We then pay
Ryzen or now meritane they in turn reimburse the doctors. I would say there is virtually zero ability to defer those payments. And I can tell you as a matter of our own experience, u we have been threatened
many times by Horizon before the switch for paying late. We've been charged late fees and only about a month or so ago, they were threatening to stop payments to providers at all unless we made the last payment
which city council approved. What happens if we don't pay horizon or meritane in that instance and they don't pay providers is the providers then bill the patient the patient's on the hook. So there is those are not negotiable that is the business of health insurance
as it works in the United States. So be because of the self-insured uh character of of our um health plan there was no room to be able to negotiate. I understand the deferred payments. We were already getting in trouble. Um, and
we didn't want to continue that practice. But even just being able to take bill after bill and I understand this would require a lot of staff capacity, but even that was off the table to be able to negotiate the costs of the different bills that um were on the table. >> Horizon would clearly have no interest
in deferring payments or and even more so since we switched to Meritane. they have zero interest or reason to allow us to defer payments. Okay? And I just want to be really clear that deferring
is not just deferring and delaying a payment but negotiating down the price of certain of these bills. >> So the price of the bills is the price that is set between the third party administer and the provider. So that's one for example it's one of the reasons
why we're saving money with meritane is meritane has negotiated better rates with more providers right >> those are fixed between provider >> and the third party administrator those are not rates that we set >> and there was just no option opport
because we we switched to maritane we saved you know $25 million was great um but there was no opportunity to go back to the horizon uh the bills under horizon and say hey we think that we could negotiate down some of these bills.
>> No, I don't believe so. Although I will say along those lines, you know, we we are looking very carefully at past claims. We're doing a complete study of all claims administered by Horizon to see if they were properly adjudicated. And if they're not, then we will seek
reimbursements from Horizon. We are working on that. >> Thank you so much. That's good to know. Mr. President, >> Bill, um [clears throat] I just want to ask about the surplus again. Um so the budget includes 2.2
million surplus. Um how much is the actual surplus will be? Do >> you have the exact number? So at the in the end of 25 the city's fund balance was just over 40 million
but of that cash surplus it was approximately $28 million cash >> bring the mic a little closer to you Kyle. >> So the cash surplus amount was 28 million. Uh the fund balance total is a little higher. Um, >> you're only allowed to use cash surplus
in the budget. So that 2 million is portion of that 28. >> Okay. >> You should you should be able to find that in the annual financial statement. >> Say it again. >> That number is in the annual financial statement. >> Okay. >> Looking for the sheet, but I'll be sure
to send that to everybody. >> Um, looking over all of the anticipated revenues, general revenues under miscellaneous revenues. It's my understanding that we can um anticipate and include in the budget up
to the amount um that was realized in 2025. Is that accurate? I >> believe so. Yes. >> Yeah. So, I I don't want to go line by line and just for the general public, we got this
um budget Friday night at uh 11:30 p.m. It's now Monday at noon. Um, we will have budget hearings. I'm sure the council president will talk about this, but um, so I'm not going to spend my time going line by line through this. Um, and we'll have more opportunities to
discuss this moving forward. Um, so if the council is not asking a lot of questions, um, it's not, uh, for for lack of interest. Um, we're just going to need a little more time to to take it all in. Um the general question though I
have is that uh you're not realizing um including the total realized amount from 2025. Um while it may be small differences or
or um for example um just looking at uh pilot application administrative fees on sheet 4B um the previous administration in 2025 had anticipated
$2,396,593. They fell short of that um goal and realized 2,367,455. And then your budget includes $2 million. $367,455 less than what was realized in 2025.
Um I can assume why you did that, but I'd like you just on the record to say kind of generally across the board why you did that. And then I just really want to ask about public safety fees um where it was realized 346,999
on the same page and anticipated in the budget is 2.3 million and if you could clarify as to how you were able to realize more than you got in anticipated cash in 2025. Um I assume DLGS um
reviewed that and gave you the green light to be able to introduce that. Um, but if you could just speak to those two points generally. >> So, I'll speak on the uh at public safety admin fees. So, we were recently auditing our offduty reserve and
historically the way offduty deposits have been handled is the administrative fees were all sitting in in our reserve account. So, we had to go back to 25 review all the deposits. Uh that's why last year that anticipated amount was so
low because this goes back years. The funds were not properly dispersed to the general fund. We did an audit. There was about 2.1 million in admin fees collected last year and 25 that were due to the general fund. So it's not realized in the operating fund last
year, but we did identify that amount in cash receipts. Um and we anticipate that to be a recurring revenue in our in our general budget. Uh year to date was close to a million dollars already in uh offduty admin fees. So that is the reasoning for that.
>> So so that was realized in 2025 over 2 million although accounting didn't whatever >> the deposits were going to the offduty reserve. So the offduty reserve had a surplus of funds available. you're projecting it for 2026 or or is it you're using the 2025
numbers >> monies from 2025 are are rolling over to 26. >> We're anticipating close to what we collected last year in 25. >> So what happened to the 2 million? >> It's returned to the general fund this year and that'll be uh an impact uh a
positive impact on our fund balance at the end of the year. So that those 25 deposits and years prior that were sitting in the reserve account were due to the general fund. So while we can't anticipate duplicating the amount of admin fees, um
we are using the amount we collected last year, any anything else from prior years would essentially be like revenue that we're not anticipating as a positive to our overall fund balance. And on the other items, again, it's just
good budget practice and recommended by DCA as well to not go to the max of every single line item. It does set you up for, you know, potential shortfalls at the end of the year if these and other items, you know, and other areas
don't perform as well as they did in the prior year. So historically, yes, we have gone to the max in in in many scenarios and you'll see that in our fund balance has been dwindling yearbyear and that's partially the
reason for that. >> Did you run the the balances on each of these revenue items to see year to date what the collection rate was or what the collection amounts were to be able to um project whether or not we were on on track or not? Yeah, we're pretty we're
pretty confident in where we're at to date. Uh we do have a half a year. So, you know, we like to project double that. So, >> I'm going to respectfully I I asked if you ran the numbers. Um not not whether you were confident. I just asked if you
ran the numbers >> very frequently. Okay. >> Love to see the numbers. >> No problem. >> Yeah. >> Council President, go ahead. >> Thank you. Um I had a few questions sort of procedurally.
Um my understanding is that in previous years the council would get a printed out for for each department during the departmental budget hearings the council would get a printed out um line item budget at that budget hearing. Um,
you know, I think this is a council that definitely wants to do our due diligence and um is really eager to come prepared with more detailed questions. My question is, would it be possible to share a copy not not your original Excel
spreadsheet, but a copy of an Excel spreadsheet for each department that shows the line items so that we may review and prepare questions before the departmental budget hearings? >> Yes, we will. I I've spoken to the council president about over the weekend. Uh we needed a little bit of
time to kind of clean those things up and make and to make them available, but expect to make them available to the council over the next couple days hopefully at most. >> Great. Thank you so much. >> And thank you, Councilwoman Little, for that. Let me jump in. Um as Councilwoman
Little said, we the council usually does have an itemized budget in front of them department by department, line by line, each employee. We have not received that yet. Finance is working on it. They plan to get that to us. They are also uh planning to have the department
presentations to us ahead of the budget hearings. As such, I am looking at our current schedule for the budget hearings and if we do not have what we need in time, then we will look to push out those budget hearings. I don't want you all to be rushed with reviewing all of
this information. Um, so I should know by the end of today how we're going to move forward with budget hearings because I know you all have to set your schedules and I also want you to be prepared. >> Thank you. I appreciate that. Um, that will be really really helpful. My my
second question was um I know municipalities across the state and across the country are struggling with the increased cost of health insurance for their employees. Uh, can Jersey City is in a somewhat unique position because we are self-insured. We don't use the state health benefits
plan. Um, I was wondering if you could speak to the cost savings between those two and if if this is truly a better deal, if they're comparable, uh, what the advantages and disadvantages are. >> So,
we had estimated and we budgeted uh, $25 million in savings in health benefit expenses for 2026. A large portion of those savings came from or we expect to come from the difference in the networks between
Horizon and Meritane. The issue and one of the issues driving cost for Jersey City was an extraordinary use of out of network providers and so we all know in network providers generally cost less. Jersey City had a disproportionate
amount of out of network users. So our the analysis that we had showed switching to meritane lowered costs by putting more people into the network without having to change their providers.
The net reduction in 2026 though I would think of as a one-time resetting of the bar looking forward like we've been advised to assume something on the order of 15% a year increases from the lower starting point.
So it is significant reduction in our expenses but I think we like everyone else expect to continue to see double digit growth in health benefit expenses over the coming years. Sorry, everyone across the board is seeing these increases. Absolutely. The
state health benefit plan though um when we were making the switch to meritane um was that up for consideration as well to to move toward the state health benefit plan. >> I've not seen a comparison between our
plan and the state's plan. >> I have a question. >> What was done was I'm sorry. as uh there was an RFP last year done. The proposals came from Horizon and Meritane. To my knowledge, there was not a comparison to the state plan. So, I'm not I don't I haven't seen it.
>> Hey, Bill, I may have missed it, but how much how much do we owe Horizon? >> Right now, our our bills to Horizon I I've not I've not got an update in the last week or so, but I think the last claim was something on the order of $4
million. We expect that to continue to dwindle over the coming months till we get to zero. So it should be single digits. I don't know the exact number. >> Okay. Um I remember when we were meeting
about uh switching over healthcare and I remember I can't remember the name but there was some sort of fund or something where um we were paying extra I believe and Horizon
owed us money like $9 million. I believe that was the number. >> Okay. Yes. So, what you're referring to, Councilman, is as part of the contract with Horizon, the city had agreed to allow them to hold almost $10 million as what we refer to as a working capital
account. the the use of the working capital account was supposed to be for the runout period which is essentially where we've been the last few months where the contract expired but the bills continue to come in over the runout period for several months. So the
agreement with Horizon was during that runout period they could use that $10 million to offset invoices which is what we've been doing. >> Okay. So what was the original number? Do you know offh hand? It was just shy of $10 million, 9.9 something. And
>> I'm sorry, not that the amount that we owed them at what point in time in back in January, I think we owed them as much as like 17 almost $20 million. >> Okay. All right. So, Okay. Um, and
piggybacking off of Councilman Efos's question about uh the bills and the [clears throat] deferments and everything, can can anything be negotiated where we do pay less and
maybe pay over stretch out the payments >> at the same amount? Like if we owe them $4 million, instead of paying them 12 months or instead of paying them four months, a million dollars a month, can we pay eight months? >> We we do and one-off cases or via being
one example of an item on the agenda where we've spent months negotiating with them to reduce the cost of the service to the city. Um so that's an example of, you know, something that took multiple months of of negotiating to get where we are now. Uh with Verizon
specifically, I'd say, you know, negotiating with them is really a non-starter. Um although I said before, we will do everything we can and we are going through a a complete uh claims audit going back multiple years to see how they adjudicated those claims to
ensure that they paid attention and got Jersey City the best value and paid and paid providers the lowest possible rate. So we're going through that exercise. >> Okay. And is that would that be considered an audit? Are we auditing this? >> It is uh a claims audit is what it's
referred to. >> Claims audit. Okay. >> Thank you. >> So for uh the administration BA's office, I made a few requests uh that we have not heard back on yet. So on July
1st, I sent an email asking for a list of all new hires from January 15th to the present. I do not have that. Uh after the layoffs on Friday, I asked for a list of the salaries of all the employees that have been laid off. I do not have that. Uh I asked that the
council receive an update on the pilot audit that was set by executive order of the mayor. I do not have that. And this is information that the council would like as they review the budget. And I'll echo the council president's
request demanding it frankly. Um the other thing that uh I've asked for the financial plan, the five-year financial plan um as we had a meeting earlier as well um not just PDFs but electronic file formats,
excels with actual formulas so we can see how things are being calculated. Um so I would ask that for uh this budget but also for financial plans the five-year models that we have projecting >> and and also um I know that an
organizational chart was requested some months back and nobody received that either. So can we please get that as well? And also when the ordinance passed to to change the language for the salary ordinances, which again could be less than or more than what's average for
Patterson and Newark, the administration told us we'd receive a an update as to who got salary increases and when. Uh it's been several months. We have not gotten that. So if I can, council president, I would add that to your request as well. >> There's nothing else to add. I'll just add a question to that to the
corporation council. What are our legal options to compel these information requests to be delivered to the city council when they've been ignored for a long time now? >> So, Councilman, as you and I have discussed previously, there aren't any
hard and fast time limits in the law as to how quickly the administration needs to respond to you all. The legal mechanism to try to force compliance from the administration would be to sue, which municipal councils in the past have done, and we'd be happy to talk with you about who you think it would be
appropriate to represent you all in that instance. In this case, I would strongly encourage the council and the administration to do more talking, not just during council or caucus meetings, to understand what are the challenges in obtaining this information. um just so
that before things escalate you understand you know what's in the works or not um because escalating to litigation which is the next step is a very expensive and timeconuming effort >> all the documents requested are public information correct
>> only if they already exist councilman >> okay for example a table of organizations so if I filed an OPRA request there's a timeline that the city has to respond to my OPER request even as a council person >> OPRA only permits a person to obtain public records that already exist. So
certainly whatever records exist in any form you could be entitled to under the OPRA timeline. >> Right. So so just so everyone in the audience knows this council spends a lot of time outside of caucus and council meetings asking and talking to the council. We speak with the council who speak to the administration in bi-weekly
meetings before our council meetings. Uh a table of organization a list of who got hired. Those should be readily available. Yes, Peter, if you or M like what is what is the administration position as it relates to these outstanding
requests? Is it like as the council asking for too much? Do you need more time? Uh can that be communicated like like like what is it? >> It's mostly time. So a lot of these documents don't exist in forms that are the parameters that you've asked them
for. For instance, we do have a list of all employees, but if you're asking for certain employees, we have to go through that list, pull out that information to provide it to you. If you just want the entire thing, we can provide you the entire list that will have, you know,
the the the hire dates, the names, the salaries, etc., but it's about 158 pages long. >> But is that a an an Excel spreadsheet or you're just saying like you're going to send us a word document that's something pages long? >> I have a PDF version. I can see if we can convert that to Excel or some kind
of table format for you, but that's the version that we currently have it in. >> There's a termination list that already exists because it was enacted. >> Yes. Yes. >> So, we could get that list like I >> I provided the provisional termination list. I didn't provide it, but it was provided to the council president, I
believe, over the weekend. I did forward that list to Councilman Griffin, who asked for it, and I believe Councilman Efos also asked for it, and was provided a copy of it. Yeah, I have that list, but it doesn't it doesn't list the salaries. >> Oh, so I have to go back to that list, pull out the salaries, and put them in there. So, it does take some time to do
that for you, council president. >> You I mean, Peter, I say all this to say that if this information is communicated, right? And granted, you everybody had work, everybody is doing something, but at the very least, if the
council requests something, at the very least within 72 hours, we should have a answer as it relates to when you can get it, how much time it's going to take, and things that like these are like reasonable requests. A org chart. I
don't think it's that hard to get a chart. A copy of New Hires, hence the term new highest. We just did it. that should be readily available. So, some of these things are not like it's not it's like it's not far-fetched stuff. And the
frustration with us is like when you when when you're asking the counsel for something, it's like it's emergency surgery. Stop everything you're doing and attend to the surgery, right? And that's that's part of the frustration because when people come to us and
asking us questions, right? We just want to make sure that we're armed with the information that should be available. I don't I I just honestly don't think it's a hard act. I >> I also can't imagine given the budget crisis that there are so many new hires this year that we can put together a
list quickly. >> Again, we could talk about each of these individually. In general though, just for your point, Councilman, we do prioritize the councilman, right? Uh, I will say that from my experience in this position and previously, there have been a lot more requests from this council than traditional. I think that's good.
It shows the council is doing their homework and they're definitely proactive in the process, but that puts restraints on our employees and our time frame that we're doing things. The priority is always if you're voting on it, we want to make sure you have that information as quickly as possible because it affects your vote as it
should and you should have as much information as possible to make informed votes on the agendas. So that has always been the priority and why you know we work diligently to ensure that you do get the information prior to your votes and that if we can't give you that information I've always instructed the staff to put a time frame in there so
you know when you could expect it if it's not prior to the vote you know when will you eventually receive it should it impact your vote. Um, a lot of these things like the organo charts. I think I made a comment to even on the record before we knew anticipate providing those. We wanted to provide them during the budget hearings because we have to
prepare them. The or charts from the last administration are outdated. You know, they weren't always kept up to date. There was missing information. So, we could provide you a version of them, but not the correct version that reflects what the new department directors are instituting in their individual departments. So that was why
certain of those documents you haven't received yet because as part of the budget hearing process, we're trying to make all those available and update them so that accurate reflection information so when you speak to budget directors, you know, you're having the same conversation. You're not talking about different things. >> All right, Peter. Today is July 13,
2026. There's three pressing documents, well four that the council would like to receive. How long do you prefigure that it will take for us to get those documents?
>> So, as I stated, I can get you the census report that has all the names on it today, but it won't be sorted. If you want me to sort it, it's still going to take a little bit more time. I have to have staff available to do that. The organizational charts, I can get you the current versions today, but it may not have the most accurate information into
it. >> Okay. All right. Well, if you can get give us that list now and then uh when when you guys get the other list, if you can give us that. >> Sounds good. We do. >> Council president, I just have one more
comment I would like to make on the budget. Um so I this is just not looking for a response here. Um I just want to correct something for the record for the general public. It's been reported that the council's um budget has increased
some 20 some percent. I want to be perfectly clear that's a mis representation. It's inaccurate. Um I'm coming short of just saying the L word on this. Um but um it's really um not factual at all. Look at look at your
lying eyes on this budget and you'll see that the appropriation for 2025 for council office salary and wages is 3.7 million and the appropriation for 2026 is 2.6
million less than 2.6 million. That's a 1.1 million decrease from 2025 to 2026. to say otherwise is truly cherry-picking numbers, trying to find ways to um deceive the public, frankly, mis to
mislead the public. And it's wrong and it needs to stop. Turn the temperature down. Stop stop the nonsense on that stuff. And I will point out that on the mayor's office salary and wages 2025 introduced was 1 million and 13,737
and for 2026 it's 1,68,549 which is a $55,000 increase from 25 to 26 despite what everybody's all the other kind of reporting that's going on um out of this from this administration. So, as the council president and another
letter said before, do better. This is not do right by by the people of Jersey City. Stop misrepresenting um what's what this budget represents. >> Okay. Thank you, Bill. >> All right. Director Goodman, cultural affairs.
Good afternoon, council president, city council members. I have one item in front of you today. It is item 10.13, resolution 26-437. This is a resolution authorizing an access permit with New Jersey Transit to
utilize their parking lot for this Sunday's World Cup event and to issue a certificate of insurance. >> Questions? >> Number of 10.13. >> Are they looking
Are they looking to get paid or they're donating a lot? They're donating the line. >> Okay. >> Thank you, director. >> Director Kirst OM. Good afternoon, President Ridley, members of the council. I have four
items before you this afternoon. First is resolution 2643510.11. This resolution authorizes the execution of an agreement between between the city of Jersey City and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for the use of the city's public safety training
facility during designated off hours. Under the terms of this agreement, Port Authority New York, New Jersey will pay the city $1,000 per training session conducted between the hours of 2:00 p.m. and 1000 p.m. Monday through Friday. Port Authority currently employs
approximately 2,300 sworn members. Each officer is required to complete mandatory firearms qualifications twice annually. satisfy the requirements. The PA anticipates utilizing the city's public safety training facility for appro approximately 100 training days
during each qualification cycle. Based on the anticipated uses usage, the agreement is expected to generate approximately $200,000 in annual rental revenue. This partnership maximizes the use of an existing existing municipal asset during periods when it would
otherwise be idle, generates a new source of revenue for the city, and does so without impacting normal city operations or training activities? >> Questions? >> Director, I see that they're also paying us $500 of overtime to cover our
staffing requirement needs. >> That's included in the $1,000 uh fee. >> Oh, so it's 500 per per stu per trainee. 500 for any overtime. >> Correct. And that would only be if in fact there was somebody out sick or something like that.
>> Director, how many um session will they use it for? >> I'm sorry, council. >> How many how many session will they use it for? >> Cycles. It would be two training cycles that approximately 2,300 office. Each officer has to go through the mandatory
training from the qualifications from the attorney general's office. So they're they're estimating their cycle would be approximately a 100 days each cycle. >> Thank you. Direct. >> Sorry, just follow up. So So it's it's it's $500 guaranteed and $500 reimbursement for overtime.
>> Correct. >> Okay. So it's $500 uh $500 is guaranteed. We we may get additional money if one of our our officers or DPW whoever's manning the facility, for lack of a better term, is at the is out sick and not in their normal course. >> Correct. >> work. Okay. is what what's the going
rate uh in the region for for this type of work? >> It's it's hard to judge with the in introduction of the conceal carry permits for civilians. A lot of the private rangers uh choose not to u utilize the services of police
departments simply because they're making more money. Um based on our um review of this, this is a fair and equitable distribution of funds and there again will benefit the city when the range is not being used during
evening periods and will not impact our qualification cycles. >> All right. Is there indemnification built in? So we >> Yes, there is. That'll be part of theou. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Next one, director. Next item is
264611037 resolution to authorize the settlement of a claim by C Denty Towing and Trucking in the amount of $36,000 for emergency towing fees emergency towing services provided during the winter storms that impacted the city in
January and February of 2026. These services were necessary to support the emergency response operations and maintain safe and passable roadways during severe weather events. >> Hey, director. Um I know we voted on the tranch of these before. Is this the continuum of
>> these are additional funds that they had sent in. >> Okay. >> And they were they were verified. >> Is there any other outstanding ones outside of this? Cuz this would essentially be the second batch. >> Yeah, I believe there's one more company. King had provided additional um
invoices which are being reviewed for veracity. And to be clear, these this service is for not cars that were towed off premises. This was just to relocate them so we can plow through the >> That's correct. CN
potentially one more outstanding that's pending that you guys are reviewing, one more contract with another tow vendor. To >> my knowledge, I believe King is the only one that had submitted additional invoices which are being verified. Now, are as it relates to the contract,
were these because this was an emergency contract, right? This wasn't something like uh uh uh normal where they went out to bid, was it? This was like emergency contract. >> That's correct. Yeah. Based on the
request and the the need for do snow removal, these were solicited on an emergency basis. Now, does the contract speak to if they get paid per volume like based on how many cars they move?
Like how what they get paid on an hourly basis? >> Oh, hourly basis. >> Correct. Yeah. >> And do you know the rate the hourly rate? >> Um I believe it's somewhere around hundred and some odd dollars per I haven't got the exact in front of me.
>> And director um You know what? Go ahead. I forgot my thought. >> All right. Next one. All >> right. Next would be 2646210.38. Resolution authorizes the settlement of a claim submitted by Easy Towing and
Recovery in the amount of $57,000 for emergency towing services provided during the winter storms that impacted the city in February of 2026. These services were necessary to support emergency response operations and mainta maintain safe and passable roadways
during severe weather events. >> Questions? >> Yes, I I know what my thought was and it Okay, so when the snow was what, December, January, and we're in July, what what took so long to bring these resolutions? I think it was a delay in submission of
paperwork, a delay in review and obviously when my staff had them, I was a DPW director at the time and a person of my OEM staff, Tim Lawrence, was the responsible for overseeing the operations. So, we had to verify each item one by one to make sure that the
items submitted reflected their actual services. While we're on the topic of snow, uh, have we filed claim against our salt distributor? >> Send a written update to the council before the next council meeting. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. The final one is 26473 10.49. Resolution ratifies the emergency award of a contract to a Glennowitz Demolition and Environmental Company for the emergency demolition of a partially collapsed building under construction at 84 Stegman Street at a removal of
associated debris at a total cost of $114,700. During a severe storm on Friday, July 3rd, heavy rain, lightning, and wind gusts exceeding 50 miles an hour caused the second level of the structure to shift from its foundation onto an adjacent property, creating an immediate
threat to public safety. Following a preliminary damage assessment conducted by the office of emergency management homeland security, Jersey City Fire Department at a city's construction subcode official determined that the structure posed an immitted hazard and order its imed its immediate demolition.
The evacuation of several surrounding properties was also deemed necessary to protect nearby residents and the public. Repeated attempts to contact the property owner using the information posted at the site were unsuccessful. Given the urgent need and the demol
urgent need of the emergency and the immediate danger to life and property, there was insufficient time for the Department of Public Works to solicit formal quotations. Emergency demolition and debris removal were thereby authorized and this resolution ratifies the emergency contract in the award of
$114,700. >> Yes. um to the administration. I just want to make sure um as it relates to this service that this developer is not granted any permits to build unless this
bill is paid in full to ensure that we place a lean on said location um to ensure that the city's being reimbursed for these services. that we can make sure um that we're very strict on that.
Um because ultimately the onus should have been on a developer to bring to bring the building down and not have city workers out there working on Saturday and Sunday and us negotiating private contracts with private vendors. That's something that they should have
done. They're well within capacity to do it. In fact, I'll even make the argument you should pull all open permits until he pay because he's got about four or five new constructions going on right now. And and as a FYI, I believe this is the same
developer who owns a dilapidated bank on one on Monteello Avenue that just had an electrical fire and he's doing nothing to even secure that. So, yeah, this this this developers. Uh,
>> hope he's watching. >> Councilman, we agree fervently with you on that matter. Um, I'll let the corporation council opine about our legality of what we can do for them specifically. However, the intent is obviously we approach the developer first, ask them to remmit payment to us to reimburse us because that's the
quickest way to get the money back for the taxpayers. However, if they're unable to do so, you're correct. The lean is our our next greatest option. Um, I've also ensured that before we went out there and during we went out there, all violations that should have been assigned to them were assigned by our construction department. They have
made sure that they've looked at everything that applicable, you know, from every construction angle, safety angle, fire, all that kind of stuff. They've done the due diligence there. Um, and I'm happy to talk offline about, you know, what we should do broadly for any developer, not just this one or any
homeowner that is not follow standards and what we should be doing for reviewing those practices. >> Maybe I miss it. Uh, Peter, can we char the owner to pay for demolition? >> Yeah. So, that's the first step is always to ask them to pay before we
even, you know, put a dime of the city's money out there, right? And in most cases, a lot of developers are willing and responsive. They have contractors that are supposed to be posted on the site and working on the site and maintaining the site and they're the first ones to do that. Right? In this case, the contractor who is posted was
not the contractor that was actually doing the work. So, there was a lot of violations relating to that. Um, in this case, because we contacted the uh developer and first couldn't get in contact with them and when we did, they were not moving as quickly as they should be given the eminent danger. We
had to bring that inhouse and have the city do the work for them. The second step there is then we contact a developer and say, "Hey, we had to do this work. Here's why we had to do it. Remmit us the money." If they remit us the money back, then at least that part of it is resolved. If they do not pay us
for that money for whatever reason, then we attach a lean to the property, which means they cannot sell the property or do anything with the property until that payment is made to the city. >> So, Peter, I'm I'm sorry. Um, but director Kier said he tried to reach out
to the developer and had no success. So the first day Saturday when the, you know, Friday night the incident occurred, they tried to contact the developer Saturday. They could not get a hold of them Saturday. I don't believe it was till Sunday or Monday that they finally got a hold of them, but they're unable to have their contractor, their
people respond quickly enough. So that's when the decision was made. We have to do it because it's leaning on another building. We had to vacate the buildings next to it. And obviously, you know, we want to ensure the safety of the surrounding premises and any people that might be going by it. Sarah, why don't we um move to put the lean on before
asking them to pay so they don't try any uh funny business trying to sell the building or or the property. The the um demolition statute allows for a city to act quickly in an emergency like the director did and well done. Uh and put an immediate tax lean on the property.
>> That's correct. We can do it any order of operations. >> I understand the recommendation. Yeah, >> Peter, I'm with you on asking them to pay. I would just put the lean on it now. Let's not miss out this opportunity. They're ask they may say yes. They may say no. If you put the lean, they're they're going to have to pay it at some point.
>> Also, um please help me understand. So, if there are other projects going from the same developer, can we put the whole councilman asked the same question. I'm still not clear. What are the consequences for the same developer or
owner if they are things like this is happening? How are we making sure that ongoing projects are so we can talk offline once a developer has already been granted a permit. They do have certain entitlements under that
permit. We can certainly enforce our code and make sure that any violations that are happening on any sites are enforced and are remedied. >> Thank you. All HHS. >> Good afternoon, council president, council members. I am here with three
resolutions. Agenda items 10.19, 20, and 21. The first is 1019 resolution 26-443 to uh apply for and accept $115,000
in funds from the state department of health to support the staff in our sexual um disease clinic. Um this is a renewal of a grant which we've had for many years. questions
>> 10:19 >> Paul is there any match >> there there is no match that it's generally not required from the department of health grants uh and this uh is not complete support but substantial support for our disease
investigators >> thank you 1020 resolution 26-444 also uh authorizing application an acceptance of a grant from the state department of health for public health
infrastructure. This is approximately $119,000 um dependent on the final grant amount that they award. It will not be less than that. This is essentially a a renewal of the strengthening public
health infrastructure grant which we've had for [clears throat] several years previous. or can you talk about uh the services provided via this grant? >> Yes. Um I can briefly I was uh um
this is going to uh again be 100% for salary support. Um uh we are going to use it to upgrade our data and the availability of our data for both governance purposes as well as for the
public. Any match here? >> Pardon? No, no match. This this is um this will asking >> every every dime that comes through this grant is is is uh reimbursing a direct
cost in staff. >> Are the staff already um on staff or going to be looking to hire to fill those positions? I I think uh that's a decision yet to be made. It's possible that we can
reallocate someone to it. It's possible. We also talked about the possibility of of um having someone as uh [clears throat] for just the one-year term of this grant uh to really start the infrastructure project rather than
maintain it perpetually. So, I would suggest, and I'm not saying that you should, that the person meets the qualifications, but it's my understanding that uh it was provisional employee laid off who was grant funded. Um, and so if you're looking for
somebody, maybe it uh folks can take a look over there to see if there's somebody that we can bring back to the city and and um give them an opportunity to be able to take care of their families. >> Very much noted. >> Uh the final item I have is 10.20. 21
resolution 26-445. This is simply to amend an existing resolution 23-645, a contract which we have with the state university of of Rutgers um for our um
EPA air quality monitoring grant. This is simply to adjust the term of the contract since the grant which EPA ultimately awarded was 4 months shorter than the expected three-year term. >> So, so with this um
is this for the entire city or is this like in heavily uh chromium contaminated parts of the city? >> This is this is to monitor outdoor air quality. We f we deployed a st and also
to um engage affected community members both on the issue of air quality but other environmental issues in their area. It's uh all uh 100% uh well the three air quality monitoring stations we
installed were all in public housing sites on the south and west side of the city. uh uh Booker T, Curry's Woods, and Marian. And community members from each of those neighborhoods were recruited and hired both for the steering
committee for the project as well as to provide support for the equipment. >> Thank you. >> The the grant is almost complete and and it will be closed out uh within the next couple of months. >> Thank you, Paul.
>> Thank you, council. Next up, uh, Robert Baker, public safety. Good afternoon, council. Council President, I have four resolutions. My first one is item 10.8.
It's resolution 26432. It's a resolution authorizing the city of Jersey City Department of Public Safety to accept a gift from Silverman Building LLC for the City of Jersey City's Department of Public Safety
annual senior event. It's in the amount of $5,000. >> Questions? >> What was the number again? >> 10.8. Next one is item 10.9. It's resolution 26-433.
It's a resolution authorizing the city of Jersey City Department of Public Safety to accept a gift from the Exchange Place Alliance District Management for the City of Jersey City Department of Public Safety annual senior event. And this one is in the
amount of $20,000. >> What is the annual senior event? We already did Rock the Block or whatever the new name of it is. >> It's a new event. >> No, it's it's a it's a continuation. >> Uh so so we did Rock the Block already
again, whatever it's called. Is this from Rock the Block or is this >> No, this is for the senior event. This is for the senior the senior events that have already passed, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you, Councilman. It's the same thing. They called it a senior event. It's for Rock the Block. Uh I
believe the money was already provided to us, but we have to do it by resolution to officially accept everything. So, this is more the cleanup to make sure that legally we can accept the money. >> So, I thought Thank you. So, so this is the second time these these these entities are donating to us because I do remember
voting on these resolutions. >> I think those might be for FIFA. >> So, some of these entities have donated to us for multiple events um as part of philanthropic effort of the city to >> No, there's there's something else too. Yeah, >> it was it was for senior events specifically. I I can double check that,
but I know that donated for other things as well >> because this is um >> No, that that's Kushner. That's >> Yeah, these are the ones that were down it looks like down here. So, the other ones
So, I guess the bigger question is for the ones that's held on Bram Hall and Ocean, um are those sponsored as well? Peter, because we do what, five of them? >> I believe they do multiple. I don't know
exact four or five. I I would have to double check. I just don't have the information in front of me, Councilman. >> Okay, >> next one. >> Next one is item 10.10. It's resolution 26-434, a resolution authorizing the city of
Jersey City Department of Public Safety to accept a gift from Marin Boulevard Enterprises Incorporated for the City of Jersey City Department of Public Safety for the annual senior event. And this one was in the amount of $5,000.
>> All right, next one. Last one is item 10.45, resolution 26-469. It's a resolution authorizing the city of Jersey City to apply and accept grant funds from the New Jersey Department of
Law and Public Safety, Division of Highway Traffic Safety, Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over Grant for funding year 2026. This is so we could apply the uh New Jersey Division of Highway and Traffic
Safety will determine how much um the municipality actually gets and this grant will be used for uh combat DWI. It will cover u police overtime. >> Questions? >> Okay, thank you.
>> Thank you. James Woods, Sergeant JCPD. >> Good afternoon, Council President Ridley and members of the council. My name is Sergeant Jim Woods. I'm here to present on behalf of public safety. Resolution 26464.
That's item 10-40. This is a resolution >> 10- I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. 10- >> 10-40. 10-40. >> Thank you. This is a resolution authorizing an award to of a contract to extra duty solutions for the
administration of the police offduty program and a provision for onduty scheduling software through the cooperative excuse me the purchasing cooperative of America PCA for Jersey City Police Department. The goal of this program is to acquire software and outsource the scheduling and
administration of police the police department's offduty program at no direct cost to the city. Police Department has set out on a mission to ensure that customers of the offduty program get an organized and accountable and consistent product from the officers who work at these details. In order to
deliver this, we believe that a combination of outside administration and robust scheduling software will provide the quality that we're looking for. Vendor Extraduty Solutions is capable of providing both. Uh they will handle the program's paperwork,
financial transactions, and collections, as well as the scheduling, compliance, and provide a guaranteed payroll to the police department along with providing a host of other scheduling software for the department for use on all of our scheduling needs. This will allow us to
stop using paper forms and increase accountability and accuracy using mo, excuse me, utilizing modern software with robust capabil uh excuse me, reporting capabilities. Onboarding Extra Duty Solutions will allow us to move several civilian employees of the police
department to areas within the department where they're desperately needed. Consistent with our offduty ordinance, Extra Duty Solutions will charge an 8% fee per hour, which will come directly from the administrative fees we already collect for users of the program. Thank you. >> Questions?
>> So, one second, Councilman. Councilwoman Little. >> Thank you. Um, thank you so much for this description. Um my understanding was that in the previous administration overtime scheduling was frequently frequently exceeded what had been
budgeted for and that this has been a priority of this administration to sort of um reign in in overtime spending. Is this software something that you foresee um helping public safety get a better um
a more streamlined scheduling procedure in place and something that would long-term save money on overtime? >> Sure. So, this is a two-part thing. We have the offduty, which is how the city makes money with offduty officers at construction sites, and then we have the on duty. Overtime is not paid for
offduty. That's a separate ordinance-driven rate. The overtime you speak of is a concern. Currently, all of our overtime scheduling is done on paper. Um, this solves that. We move everything towards an electronic calendar where there's a ton of checks
and balances. We avoid abuse, but most importantly, we can also plan ahead because we can see in real time what's occurring. So whereas right now this weekend's schedule lives in a piece of paper on someone's