back. >> Oh god. You know, because of what you just said, I don't believe you, Council Person. >> All right, everyone. We're about to get started. If we can silence our cell phones, close the side doors and back
door, I greatly appreciate it. Hey, good evening everyone. We are on the record. Today is Monday, the 20th day of October in the year 2025. This is a city council caucus meeting of the Jersey City Municipal Council. We have a scheduled 4 p.m. start. The clock on my
cell phone is showing 4:07 p.m. May we have a roll call for the commencement of this caucus. Council person Ridley >> here. >> Council person Huings will not in attendance. Council Person Bajiano >> here. >> Council Person So Cle is not here.
Council Person Solomon >> here. >> Yeah, I know he's here. Council person Gilmore >> present. >> It's an inside joke. Council person Deise >> here. >> Council person Rivera >> here. >> And council president Waterman >> here.
We have seven council members in attendance at 4:07 p.m. On behalf of Council President Mortman and the members of the municipal council in the coordinates with the 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 provided by the posting on the Bolton board of the first floor the city hall. The annual notice which is the schedule of meetings and caucuses of the municipal council for the calendar year 2025 and filed in the office of the city clerk on Friday, November 15, 2024.
In addition, at its time of its preparation, the agenda of this meeting was similarly disseminated on Friday, October 17th, 2025 at 6:22 p.m. to the mayor, municipal council, business administrator, corporation council, and the local newspapers and posted on the
city's website so I can certify as to our total compliance with the Sunshine Law. And I just want to take this opportunity to congratulate my son and now my daughter-in-law on their marriage on Saturday. And happy birthday to my daughter-in-law today.
With that being said, I'm going to turn it over to council president Warman. >> Good afternoon. First director, director Kier. >> Good evening, uh, President Waterman, members of the council. I have one item before you today. It's item 10-12, resolution 25663.
Resolution will authorize the public sale of 127 vehicles no longer suitable for use through the public surplus.com online auction. >> Thank you. >> Evening council. I have one item uh to
present before you which is item number 10.8. This is resolution 25659. This is a resolution authorizing the renewal of a one-year contract in the amount of $60,000 for Brown and Brown uh to provide insurance consulting services
to the city of Jersey City and to be the broker of record. Uh the contract starts November 1st, 2025 and it ends on October 31st of 2026. Thank you. >> Good evening, council president and
council members. I have agenda number 10.7, resolution 25-658, resolution recommending the award and execution of a service agreement with Empower Retirement to administer the city's uh uh deferred compensation plan.
This contract will be effective uh January 1st, 2026 at no cost to the city. >> Thank you. Good evening, Council President and Council. I have one item. Item number 10-2, resolution 25-653
is a resolution authorizing the acceptance of the grant funding for the Hudson from Hudson County Open Space Recreation and Historical Preservation Trust Fund for the Lowe's um theater exterior rehabilitation in the amount of
$500,000. Thank you. Good afternoon, council president and council members. I have one item agenda number 10.1, resolution 25652. It's a resolution to cancel two tax sale
certificates that were sold by the prior collector. It was um owned by Conrail at the time. Well, thought it was. It's actually owned by Port Authority and you're not able to lean port authority. Nothing is coming from the city. It's
water and sewer funds that are being refunded. Thank you. >> Good evening, council president, council members. I'm here for resolution 10-5, resolution accepting the award of the
age friendly grants program from the New Jersey Department of Health and Human Services for the Jersey City Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Senior Affairs. This is for $24,244. Good afternoon, council president, members of city council. I have one item
for your consideration. Resolution 25657, item number 10.6, Six, a resolution authorizing the exception the acceptance of additional grant funding from the county of Hudson uh Department of Health and Human Services Office on Aging a
mid-year allocation for the senior nutrition programs uh for a total uh allocation of 425,598. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. you, Council President and members of the council. I have one item before you,
agenda item 3.4, uh, amending, uh, and updating chapter 188 of the municipal code, which is affordable housing and accommodations. Um, in short, the state overhauled all of the state regulations uh at the
beginning of this year and changed a lot of the rules uh under the uniform housing affordability controls and we have updated the ordinance to match the state rags. Do you have any questions? I did send around a comparison document uh
but I'm happy to answer any questions. No. Okay. Thank you so much. Hello, Madame President and members of the city council. The Division of Animal Care and Control has one resolution for today. It is agenda number 10.4,
resolution 25-657. It is a resolution recognizing the award of the 2025 Subaru Loves Pets program grant sponsored by Hudson Subaru for the Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Animal Care and Control for
the benefits of animal welfare in Jersey City. >> Question. >> Do you want to comment on 3.4 at all? >> 3.3? I'm sorry. >> Would you like me to wait until it comes up? I'll sit and wait. Okay. Yeah, we can do it now.
>> So, what's uh also on the agenda is uh city council introduced um resolution um banning pet stores in Jersey City. We would like to also include if it's possible um the banning of the sale of
homebred animals. So, the resolution covers uh pet shops but it doesn't cover home breeders. So if we also included homebreeders in this who are not required by law to uh provide for the animals lineage, they're not required by
law to provide for a veterinarian of record for the animals health. They're not required by law to provide for uh the animals vaccination history. And uh these animals are not only a concern for public health, they certainly contribute to overwhelming your municipal shelter.
uh we would like to have them included in the resolution which we fully endorse. >> Britney, is is that a substantial change if we do something like that? >> Yes, it would be a substantial change if we introduce it. >> Well, how about let's say if we introduce it, but we want to amend it
before the second reading. Can we do that or just >> Well, yes, that that's when the substantial change would kick in. We can amend it up until introduction on Wednesday. Um, but if we introduce it as is on Wednesday and make that change, then it would have to go back to first reading,
>> but we'll just >> So, the idea is to put it in >> before Wednesday to make those um additions to the ordinance. >> Yes, sir. >> If you would like to introduce it at the next meeting and have us consider what um the board
>> council, if you want to be on this meeting, you just need you or some of your staff to meet with the law department prior to Wednesday. They can change the language. that can go forward. >> Is this a thing? >> No, it hasn't been introduced yet >> till after introduction. >> Okay.
>> So, we'll be in contact with you tomorrow. >> Mark, I just want to say uh I told you yesterday um Dana called in about a cat that was hurt on a Sunday and I was surprised your people showed up. I was very
pleased what you've how you've changed that organization down there. >> Thank you very much, Councilman. The uh the the people of Jersey City have animal problems seven days a week and I think it's only fair that they expect and get a response on all seven days. Thank you, sir.
>> Oh, thank you. Because we got It's a shame the way some people treat these animals. >> Save the cat, Rich. >> Yep. >> Not me, Dana. >> Okay. Where's the cat at now? >> He's taking being taken care of. He's taking care of
>> Yes. Mark. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Tanya. >> Good evening, council me president, members of the city council. City planning has three items for you today. The first of which um I'll be introducing.
Um, it is ordinance 25115, item 3.5 in the agenda, an ordinance amending chapter 345 in the municipal code and the municipal zoning map to create the hack >> split up. 3.5 >> 3.5
>> uh yes 3.5 correct um to create the Hackinack River Greenway overlay district. Um this overlay district um is part of our master plan implementation. Um, it coordinates the public creation
of the Hackinac River Greenway along the Hackinac River waterfront with private development along the western shore of Jersey City. Um, all development applicants along the river will be required to develop, maintain, and manage a section of the greenway,
including but not limited to the greenway alignments that the county has defined in their plan for the greenway. Um, in terms of ensuring performance, we're asking for a developers agreement that will be required as well as public access agreement and um, greenway
sections will have to abide by rigorous design standards that um, were developed in coordination with county staff. Um, in order to accommodate the costs of providing the greenway on private property, um, developments within the
overlay zone, um, get a lot coverage exemption and credit defined via formula in the ordinance where essentially the 30foot easement that is required to be dedicated for greenway creation would be subtracted from any lot coverage
calculation for development in the area. Questions? So when you say subtract it, so they'll give up the portion that infringe upon a greenway for extra density. Uh not
density. So um lot coverage is essentially how much um impervious surface whether that's building or paving etc that can cover a lot. And so the area that is dedicated
for the greenway will be subtracted from the amount of lot coverage. >> Oh >> yeah. So this isn't an as we're not accommodating via density. We're accommodating via lot coverage. >> Vot. >> Can you give me an example of like how
an example of how this would look in real time? Cuz I'm visioning and I can be wrong. Let's say if a building have to have a certain amount of setback but they fall in this zone. um would they now be able to come up above the setback?
>> Um not necessarily set back. For example, let's say you were building a new, you know, a lot of this is off of Route 440. Let's say you were building a new big box store like a Target or something like that. >> And normally because of our lot coverage
requirements, um they would have to include green islands with things like trees in the middle of the parking lot. What we're basically saying is in exchange for creating the greenway with the pathway and all the landscaping instead, you don't have to put that tree
in the middle of the parking lot where it's less. >> Okay. So, you essentially swap it. Okay. >> Any more questions here? Next one. Go ahead. >> Afternoon. I'm here on item 3.2, ordinance 25-112.
It's an ordinance of the Jersey City View Municipal Council amending the official zoning map and incorporation of ICO compliance provisions. Uh this is like the item that uh Matt Dilva just explained. This is an item that was recommended in the Jersey City master
plan land use element. Uh this is concern concerning properties in and around route upper route 139. um reszoning those areas that are mostly R1
or the the G government zone as uh three different zones being NC1, the R3 zone and RC3. Uh these zones range in in height from
five stories to eight stories. Um there was uh in we incorporated and and did outreach with uh council person's office. We adjusted down uh the the reszoning from NC
uh 3 uh to to the to the R3 zone as well as some other areas from NC2 to NC1. Uh so a change from what essentially could be say 11 stories or six stories down to eight or or five. Uh we also sent this
information or uh preliminarily to um the the community association in that area and this change meets several recommendations in the master plan. >> Matt, where does this go from? Uh um
>> where's Yeah. So far up 139. >> Good question. Uh so there was a a pri a prior um a prior effort done earlier this year that focused more at the the intersection of Palisade and Route 139.
So this is everything west um with the exception of some properties in and around Baldwin. So, there's a small piece between Concord and Baldwin Avenue. Then there's lots um in and around Oakland Avenue along Route 139,
Central Avenue and Summit Avenue. And as soon as you get to uh Bevon Street, um closer to Kennedy Boulevard, that's where this shift happens from a fivetory recommend recommended resoning to an
eightstory uh resoning. Then there are a couple smaller lots that are further off 139 which are recommended as as RC3 which is um lower still. Um and those
lots currently consist of multif family housing, a vacant lot or um a misapplied zone. Actually, there's a there's I think a nonprofit owned or privately owned property which is currently zoned
for government use. Um, and that's just that's a misapplied zoning designation. All right, Britney. Uh, I would like this to be tabled. I had a meeting with the people on upper end of 139. They are
furious. They have not really been consulted about this. They want to have a meeting. I had a meeting Saturday night. We had the uh Sergeant Banthony affair. I spoke to several of the older residents in that area. They're a little confused about this. They want to have a
meeting. They want to sit down with you and Tanya and they want this whole thing explained. They do. Most of them are deadly against this uh all this development along 139. City's getting overcrowded, overpacked, and people are
tired of it. So, Matt, let's arrange a meeting. I'm asking that this be tabled until a future date and we get everything settled and uh know exactly what the heck is going on because the people especially in the upper part of uh 139 do not want this.
>> Councilman, you can make the motion to table it on Wednesday and you can talk to the administration, see what they want to do if they want to withdraw it for you. Otherwise, you can make the motion. >> All right. On Wednesday, I'll make the motion to table it. Then >> withdraw. Withdraw. Withdraw.
>> Withdraw as a first. >> I call it withdraw. I call it tables. You know, the fact is that uh people are just getting tired of all this development. They're tired of what's going on. They're tired of the traffic and this is going to create many many
problems in that whole area. Matt, do you guys do a community meeting with regards to this or >> this was uh this is a recommendation that is backed up in the small area vision plan of the master plan which was
adopted in in 2021. That effort included thousands of of survey respondents uh meetings up to about 20 public meetings. This was a recommendation from that
effort. We saw that as being deficient for moving this recommendation forward. I admit I guess uh you know everyone's memory is can be um short from time to time but we saw that effort and that
amount of work being a way is moving this recommendation forward. Just like the Hackinack River riverfront greenway there's no public meeting on that either. This is an effort to move these recommendations forward. >> Matt, >> were you at the meeting on Beacon Avenue
about a year and a half ago on this where about 150 to 200 people showed up and they were furious and I've spoken to most of them, Carol and the rest of them from Beacon Avenue and that whole area. I spoke to them people the other night
again and they want further explanation. They do not want all this development along 139 and you have to we have to sit down and speak to the people. >> Rich, can I can I finish Rich with the questions? My questions. >> Yeah.
>> Thank you. So you guys back in 21 when you first embarked on this journey, you had meeting, you had public input and these recommendations are essentially contingent upon what happened there. So, at one point, um, the density was higher
and now they've brung it down. >> Um, because I heard you say something about >> I'm not sure I understand your question. This area currently is zoned R1, uh, or G, which is government. Uhhuh.
>> Um the the previous to that I'd have to research whether or not it was zoned differently if it was if it was more intense than than than R1 or or the Gz zone. Um is that answer your question? >> No, I'm basically I'm just trying to
figure out like from a density perspective what is zone for now versus if we change it what is the difference? What would be the difference? >> Sure. The the difference is that in R1 it's a uh threestory
uh 35 ft and 42 units per acre um along a corridor that consists of uh many non-conforming uh uses and uh structures. So there's auto uses, there's
standalone commercial buildings, um more auto uses and medical buildings, retail or or retail brokerage buildings. Um so there's a a wide range of uses in that area and structures that don't
conform with the R1 district and in one way or another. Um but this the shift is that it goes from that zoning which as of right allows for three stories 42 units per acre to a either a a fourstory
zone a fivetory zone or up to an eighttory zone. >> Thank you. >> Next one. and and this would this component of this concludes that recognizes that it triggers the ICO >> triggers
3.6 >> I have um item 3.6 six on your agenda which is the bas redevelopment plan amendment. Um I know that they have been meeting with the councilman on and off for the last four or five years at this point. Uh and we've finally come to I
think some kind of compromise and the compromise is that uh the maximum height is the maximum height that's currently allowed in the plan which is 12 stories and the difference uh is that we'll get rid of the density. So, in this plan,
um, you get five stories based on your, uh, lot size, and you can kind of go up. There's additional like three height bonuses, and you can get extra density, like the base density is 60. This will allow everybody to go up to that height to that max height as long as they do
affordable housing, and it gets rid of the density standard. I know that the history here, of course, is that we were previously looking at 20 and 30 stories. Yeah. Um, and now I think we're looking at something that's a lot more reasonable and will have the affordable housing.
>> Questions? >> Thank you. >> Danny. Good afternoon, Council President, council members. um for your consideration. I have one item on the agenda today and it's
ordinance number 25-11, agenda number 3.1. The title of the ordinance is an ordinance of the city of Jersey City and the county of Hudson, state of New Jersey, providing for a special emergency appropriation in the amount of
$14 million to fund contractually required severance liabilities resulting from the retirement of employees within the city. Um, Director Kyle Greavves did circulate an email
this morning justifying the context of this ordinance. I'm not sure if you had an opportunity to review it, but if not, I will go through it. Um, first and foremost, this liability ordinance is strictly for public safety. This is due
to the retirement of fire and police officers. Um the repayment will be spread out over five years and that will be in 2026 to 2030
and it will be an equal installment of $2.8 million plus the the interest which is approximately 2.5%. The budget impact
back in 2020, the special emergency, which was $2.6 million annually, that was also done in equal installments, ended this year in 2025. The new repayment of this ordinance will
begin in 2026 and which increase the annual obligation by 200,000 plus the interest. Now, here's the urgency of this ordinance. The city must close its books on
December 24th, 2025. Without closing, the $40 million plus, any cash deficit will need to be raised in the 2026 budget, which will significantly impact
taxpayers and fiscal stability. Now, for context, if we were to have this additional $40 million in an annual appropriation in this year, that would have resulted in an overall
tax increase of 4.72% rather than the 0.97% increase which was adopted by the council. Any questions? And I have a question. >> So
for the future hirings of both police and firefighters, what does this do to that? >> This has nothing to this is strictly councilman strictly for the the retirement. So any new police officers or fire will be captured in the current
budget. >> Councilman, for a quick refresher, we've done this every year. This is based off the Christy legislation that required us to make some of these payments but not do the balloon payments. This is where we could pay that but not directly impact the budget per year. So we're allowed to bond out for it to minimize
the disruption or the obligation of the taxpayers. As individuals retire and they have the balloon payments that we have to owe them per their contracts and per the unions, this is just a way for us to make the payments without making them in one year. We can stretch that payment out 5 years.
Is this something that's common with other municipalities of our size? I just I'm curious. >> I think all the municipalities do it. Um and I will get you those municipalities that actually do it on a you know on a yearly basis like this. Well, like you
know we said this will be spread out over 5 years. >> Is that like uh the best way to do this financially in your opinion? Well, historically this is has been the best approach for us to do it, but also we're looking into other
avenues where we can do this. Now, like I said right off the bat, if if we were to put this in into the annual appropriation, obviously that would increase taxes, >> right? >> Yep. >> Councilman, the issue that we deal with is some years it could be 5 million, another year could be 20 million. It all
depends on the class retiring and the obligations of those individuals retiring. So this is a way to kind of stabilize it so it's not a up and down burden on us, you know, depending what year it is and what the circumstances are >> because you can't anticipate basically who's retiring and all of that. And
>> that's correct. >> Oh, and we have to do the budget before they retire, I assume. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> It's chasing everybody. >> Wow. Okay. Um >> Okay, Danny, we just trying to we're
trying to just absorb this. Oh, sure. >> That's what we trying to do. >> Absolutely. No worries. >> Because I know with police and fire, the retirement is always depending on who's going out. >> But, um, trying to figure out how does the overtime, you know, effective in
this, you know, with them. How much overtime do they get? >> Yeah. >> Right. Because they have a lot of overtime, too. So they always say that's the majority of our budget.
>> Overtime wouldn't affect their pension. So these payments don't include that and this doesn't affect us being able to pay them for overtime or anything else. It's completely separate with it. >> But but Danny, you're looking into other ways in which we can do this, right? Because going out bonding all the time.
We still paint it. I like you saying we're just not painted all at once, but we still paint it. >> Yeah. So like I said, we the finance department is actively working with the BA's office >> on, you know, other options how to mitigate this process moving forward.
>> Okay. All right. Thanks a lot, Danny. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Jennifer. >> I just want to record council person So present at 4:19 p.m. So we now have eight council members present. >> Back. >> Yes.
>> Hi. Good afternoon, council president, council members. Congratulations, Councilman Sole. Congratulations, Sean. Um, I have two items for you today. Um, agenda number 1013, resolution 25664.
This resolution is to designate a loading zone on the east side of Erie Street, just south of Pavonia Avenue. um to be in effect Monday through Saturday 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The next item is 1014 resolution 25665.
This is a resolution to consolidate the bus stops on Palisade A at Jefferson A and Prospect Street. Um just the northbound bus stops and the new bus
stop would be at Palisade and Waverly. >> That's it. Thank you, >> Jennifer. Uh you do you have anything to do with all these permits being issued for people to work on the weekends and everything? >> Yes, that's me. >> Well, it's got to stop. Uh 6:30 on
Sunday morning, my phone's ringing. They're down on Broadway and uh what was it? Broadway and Sip or Broadway and Tunnel. Broadway and Tunnel waking everybody up in the neighborhood, bringing in tractor trailers and everything. When the cops got there, they said they had permits. >> Yesterday, this morning, same thing.
This cannot go on. People are tired of it. You can't wake people up. You can't make noise in the neighborhood. Nobody's enforcing the construction rules in this city. They got them working on buildings. there what the people on Sip Avenue and the senior citizens house
have had it also. It's got to stop. >> Understood. Um the the project that happened on Tonnelly um that had to do with a crane and we typically leave the crane construction and uh crane removals to the weekends because it is difficult
to have those road closures during the weekdays. Um, and I know that night work is is pretty unfavorable in that neighborhood. So, we did have that um done on the weekend, but >> six o'clock in the morning and people calling me at 6:00 in the morning,
waking me up to tell me they're being disturbed. I I didn't get one call. I got several calls. People are furious about this. I cannot go on. Jennifer, >> how long is How long is it going on, Jennifer? Do you know? >> Um, it was just the weekend. Okay,
that's it. >> Okay. And then uh how about the movie detail on up by uh great uh what is it on Baldwin Avenue? You have anything to do with that? >> Um I'm not too familiar with that one, but I can look into it with >> look into it because the people they're
telling people they can't park. They're telling the people in the houses there they can't turn their lights on at night because they're filming. What are they crazy? >> You know, >> understood. >> Thank you, Jeff. Thank you.
>> Council President, members of city council, I'm here today on three items. 3.7, which is ordinance 25-117, 3.8, ordinance 25-118, and 4.12108. So, we're here today with multiple items
in service of one goal, the dedication of the parcel parcels of the hearsmith branch embankment to the city for use as publicly accessible open space. Each of the items before you today serves to make that possible. Those items are as follows. A settlement agreement, that's
3.7. A pilot application for block 1 development site, that's 3.8, and an amendment to the inclusionary zoning ordinance, which is 4.1. was actually introduced at the October 8th meeting. We ask that all three be heard for the November 12th meeting for um for second
reading. The history of how we got to these documents in their specific form is important. Approximately 8 years ago, the Albanese organization was brought in by the Hemans to negotiate a settlement deal with the city and its parties to ongoing litigation regarding the Harmus
bris branch embankment parcels. The parties that make up the city at all are the city of Jersey City, the Embankment Preservation Coalition, and Rails to Trails. Over those years, we have worked to find an acceptable agreement to all parties among the turmoil of changes of
the market, politics, and a pandemic. The settlement in front of you is the result of hundreds of hours of discussion between the parties, and it's not perfect. It represents the best compromise possible between all of these parties. So, what's in the document? What is the solution that we have
negotiated in this settlement? There's eight parcels that make up the embankment blocks. We refer them starting at the easternmost block at Marane Boulevard is block one. They go all the way to uh block 8, which is just west of Newark Avenue backing up to the
freight rail tracks and up the hill uh that extends to Journal Square uh with a future connection to the Bergen Arches. This deal turns over blocks 2 through eight to the city as publicly owned accessible land. Uh publicly accessible
uh owned land. Sorry, publicly owned land. Yes, it will be accessible as well. U block 7 has a portion that's privately owned. Uh has one piece that's privately owned. It'll still include a 30-foot public walkway. So, we'll create this connection among all the parcels.
So, block one will be developed. It'll be developed with the zoning that was put in place in 2012, so long before this negotiation happened. The zoning with one modification. The zoning currently allows for 400 units of housing and 200 hotel units. This
settlement agrees to allow them to build all 600 units as residential. They'll build within the height and bulk requirements that the zoning allows. This does not change the zoning envelope. They will build 15% affordable housing on the 200 units that are converted from hotel to residential.
Block one will include a 30-foot walkway along the entire block, including a grand stair to get up to the walkway, as well as an elevator and public bathroom. Also, as part of this part as part of this agreement, the developer will not only build all the improvements on block
one, but they will build a bridge that connects block one to block two and they will build out block two as a public park. Though initial designs have been circulated for that block, it will be designed through an open public process with community with input from community
members including the embankment preservation coalition who has strong vision for the future of the embankment parcels. And lastly, the developer will build a new ball field on the site of the existing Roberto Clemente Ballpark to solve a long troubled drainage issues
and finally make it a field that can be utilized in multiple weather conditions. This is a highle summary of the settlement deal. The other items in front of you are the ones are ones that are in service of this settlement. Future steps will include a planning board hearing to review their preliminary and final site plan
approval, a redevelopment agreement with the JC that details these same development facts in the agreement as well as a detailed schedule and timeline details. Uh Britney can cover the other questions you have in terms of the legal aspects of the settlement. Um but I just
wanted to say thank you to some people who work very closely on this and I believe are the reason that we have this deal in front of you today. Um, I can't thank everyone on the project, but I'd like to take uh because there's way too many, but I'd like to take a minute to thank some that spent an enormous amount of time on this. So, that includes, uh,
former corporation council Peter Baker, Britney Murray, John McKiny of the law department, uh, who worked on this when we know we're they're pulled in so many directions. Um, Joe Bowman from MSB, Morin Crowley, Steven Gucciardo, and Shan Gallagher from the Embankment
Preservation Coalition. They have a strong and unwavering vision for this land and continuously pushed us all to make this deal the best deal it could possibly be for the people of Jersey City. Uh the Alby's organization at this point in my career I've worked with hundreds of developers and I don't think
I know many that would have hung in this long and spent so much money for something that was so close to failure so many times as this deal has been. Uh the mayor and city council of course for your continued support in this long and difficult solution. I hope we can count on your vote for these items to end the
27-year embankment conflict. This truly is a historic day. I'm going to turn it over to Britney. She's going to go through some of the details of the actual legal side. And then we do have NW here as well to talk about the financial aspects of the pilot as well as the developer. Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you, Ania, and council. Just very briefly because if you have questions about the actual project, that's going to be um for the others. But for me, just to give a background, um litigation started in this um case back in 2005
when Conrail sold a segment of the Hearth branch. Um and at that time the embankment preservation coalition joined with the city in objecting to the sale and we filed um many different litigations
uh in the last 20 years. So from my count going through all our files, it's spanned multiple corporation councils, m multiple mayors and councils. We litigated 21 cases in the state court and then we have um filings at the STB,
the service transportation board that have been ongoing for many many years. Um so a settlement the proposed settlement agreement in this case would resolve all these legal matters um between the signitories relating to the legal abandonment of the rail line by
Conrail. It would, as Ania described, permit the redevelopment of block one and preserve the right of way on that parcel and require transfer of blocks uh 2 through six and then a portion of block seven and block 8 to the city. Um
we will not be paying for it um at that time once the transfer occurs. So how the mechanism works in the settlement agreement there are settlement conditions. This um agreement is also attached to the ordinance. Um there are proposed settlement conditions that once
they are met um and then in addition to the termination of our pending litigation uh and STB proceedings as well as receiving a letter from Conrail letting us know that um after as we've been talking about abandonment um after
abandonment is authorized Conrail needs to consummate the abandonment. So we need that to occur. Um and then that will get rid of all the pending litigation and STB proceedings. Then a clock um would start ticking. So it's
going to be this sooner of um closing on title to block one, which is where the current owner of the property, the LLC's um headed by Vicky Heyman, there's a purchase sale agreement between um her companies and the Albanesey's
organization. Uh and once block one uh the sooner of the closing on block one or five years from the satisfaction of all the settlement conditions and the effectuation of the termination of pending litigation and STB proceedings
then the title to blocks um 2 through 8 would come to the city at that point in time. So we have a lot we have a lot that we've been discussing. There's a lot of attachments. If the council would like, I can also provide a confidential memo going through all the litigation.
As you know, we've been here multiple times renewing contracts for outside counsel. We've spent a lot of money litigating this case. People have spent a lot of time and effort. Um, and it's all for a good cause, but as we always tell the council, uh, a settlement is
preferred over continuing litigation because you never know what you're going to wind up with. Um so that's why we also um suggest that the council approve the settlement agreement. It does need two readings. It is an ordinance because there will be a transfer of property. So this is the introduction and it will
come back as well for a second read. >> Any questions? Anyone? >> Are we going to hear from Jean Rolino? >> No. Um yeah, NW is going to go first on the pilot and then >> are you Mike Hanley, NW Financial? Um
financials may be the kind of simplest part of this equation for you. I believe you received a memo going through the details. The project at conventional taxes would have a yield of about 5.4%
and an internal rate of return of around 5%. The pilot would take that yield to 5.96% and an IRRa of 7.9%. The project provides $40 million in
value of public benefits and 30 affordable housing units. The project and the economics of the project based on the settlement that's agreed on and the financial terms of the pilot produce
what is the lower level of a financable project for the developer. It also generates you know initially around $3 million to the city's budget when it's stabilized and over $120 million over the term of
the pilot. questions. Question. >> Thank you. Next, >> my name is Eugene Palino. I'm a partner in Janova Burns. I'm just going to add a couple of things. Um the amount of
property that's that's going to be transferred without um any charge con consideration is about five plus acres. Um the Roberto Clemente field will be um done with rehabilitated renovated. There
are uh numerous community benefits. This kind of a project with $40 million of community benefits that were outlined could not happen without the pilot that we have. It's it's just impossible to do it in any
other way except with this kind of a pilot. And this is a a pilot without I I have to tell you without any redevelopment area bonds. It's just a pilot. We're not coming here to ask for additional funds. Um, it's it's just
what is normally asked for in a long-term tax exemption. I also wanted to point out that the property is subject to historic preservation. So, it's going to go through not only the planning board, but HPC.
Um, there is a um uh the there's an RDA involved. So, that'll have to be negotiated. We've pretty much negotiated with Joe Bowman. You heard that Joe Bannon was involved. He was present at a variety of meetings that we've had relating to this. So, we'll go through a
redevelopment agreement. Um, that's really all I wanted to say to round up the conversation. The details uh are significant. Um, as you heard, this case is two decades old. Two decades. It's gone to the federal district court several
times. It's at the Federal Surface Transportation Board. There's been multiple superior court cases. It's been litigated to the hilt. Uh this council has spent a lot of money. Everybody else has spent a lot of money just with legal
fees. That's we're there. One of the major things that the embankment coalition wanted was the ability to have a park. And guess what? There will be a park. And there'll be a 30-foot walkway even through the area that it on block
one that'll be subject to a development. And all around it on block two there'll be a playground that my client is is going to be building. So build playgrounds too that are that he will build. So, I don't want to add more to
this to make it more confusing, but uh as both Ania and Britney have indicated, all these pieces have to gel together. Any one of them falls, it doesn't work. Okay, thank you.
>> Any questions? We have all experts here today. >> Sorry. >> No, I was asking the council, do they have any questions? And just very quickly also the um one ICO amendment that's on for second
reading will need to be um come back on November 12th because it hasn't gone to the planning board yet. >> So we would just need a motion to carry that ordinance to the November 12th meeting >> 41 >> 4.1 ordinance 25-108.
Good afternoon. I'm Chris Albaneseise. Um, I appreciate your time today, council president and council members. Um, first, Russell Albaneseise and I would like to thank all of you for take for you and your staff taking the time to meet with us um to review our plans
for the park, the renderings, the baseball field, etc. Um, uh, Mayor Fipup has always been very supportive of this project. Uh, so we appreciate his efforts. And NIA has been
working on this project for eight years plus now. And, um, has been very dedicated to see this project go forward. And we also appreciate the embankment preservation coalition's efforts and their vision to move this project forward. Um, uh, a lot has been
said, so I don't want to repeat everything that's been said, but I do want to make, um, two points. Um, uh, we we went into the neighborhood to talk to all the people in the community to describe the project to them. Um, we
had renderings. We have a website. Um we went to uh uh farmers markets, other community events, sat down with people one by one to explain the project and ask them if it was a project they would
support. The result of that in only a couple of weeks is this. We have over 600 petitions signed from people in the community that uh uh eagerly and desperately want this project after this
20-year fight. And again, we can provide all this to the council. Um, and we, you know, when we develop in areas, whether it's Long Island, New York, Battery Park City, upstate, Jersey City, we love Jersey City. Um, we always look to give
back to the community. That's it's not aligned. If anyone goes on our website and sees what we've built, we always give back to the community. We're very proud even though the zoning didn't require it for to be building block two. As Jean said, two playgrounds, open
space, walk path. We have public bathrooms on block one. So, we're basically giving the community two parks. Um the other thing that um came up was the baseball field. And we walk the baseball field. It's across the
street from block one. it's in, you know, poor drainage, flooding, poor condition. So, we met with uh baseball parents and um other community members and we're thrilled to be uh offering this to deliver a new baseball field for
the parents and the kids. Um lastly, local hiring has always been important to uh Russell Albanese and I and um we've partnered with Jerry Walker of Team Walker to implement a workforce
training employment strategy to ensure that local labor has a meaningful opportunity to par participate in the project. And we actually put together a employment and hiring plan. It's a two-page memo, which we'd be happy,
we've shared it with some, but we're happy to share it with all of you. Um, I listen, overall, this is a truly special project. It is a remarkable opportunity
for the community to have this land, this open space, these parks. Um, I think it's a one ina lifetime opportunity for the the residents of Jersey City to get this embankment property but but have it built out by
the developer and um I appreciate your time and I hope that you'll all vote for it. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Any questions from council? >> Sure. >> That's it. Okay.
>> If there are no questions, I'll just say a couple things. Um, so first I want to thank um, you know, Director Chilon and and all the staff that she referenced uh, in moving this forward. Also just personally shout out Isaac on my team who's spent a lot of time uh, on this as well and been been phenomenal. Um, you
know, for me it's at the oneyard line. So uh, you know, we're still waiting to hear back from the Embakement Preservation Coalition on their views of the settlement as presented to us uh, at this meeting. U, but a couple just I think important things to highlight. Uh first on the issue of affordable housing um one thing that we brought up was you
know the initial as of right project was 600 units. It was 400 uh market rate and 200 hotel. What this does is it would transfer the 200 hotel to residential and then apply the ICO to that 200 unit um mix. uh fair share housing has looked
at this um and so they have uh seen it and are okay and comfortable with with this amendment to the ICO uh to allow us to get affordable housing because obviously if it was as of right we would get zero units of housing uh that we need. Um obviously you get the 5 acres of open space um which is incredibly
important and the 20 years um of litigation. So, all all really great things to get to the one yard line, but also don't want to, you know, want to make sure we just make clarify for the record. We're still waiting for the embankment coalition to have that final review of the settlement before Wednesday.
>> Um, I just want to give an opportunity to I see Miss Heyman here. I know she's not on, but I know this been a long project for her. I don't know. Uh, would you like to say something? I know all the 12 years I've been here, I know you've been advocating for this. I I just want to give you the right to say
something. It's very unprepared. I just want to say thank you to all of you for your time and efforts and I'm very very happy with my partners that I'm working with on this project and I hope that you'll all see that we're
going to do some very good things for the city. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you, Miss Simon. Okay, that's it. No more. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Sean, you can take it from the top.
>> Okay. All first readings were touched on earlier. 3.1 38. Um item 4.1, second reading ordinances. Uh just to reiterate, we're going to need a motion to carry this ordinance to
the November 12th meeting. So then all of the um Six Street embankment associated ordinances will all be heard at the same meeting. Next item 4.2, 2, city ordinance 25-109 is an ordinance supplementing chapter
332, vehicles and traffic, article 2, traffic regulations amending section 332-9, stop intersections to designate various intersections into multi-way stop intersections. And then item 4.3, city ordinance 25-110,
is an ordinance authorizing the city of Jersey City to enter into a lease purchase agreement as Allesie with Jackson Square office LLC as a lesser for a ninestory office building to be constructed on block 22502.
lots 36 to 37 between Orient Avenue and Carney Avenue on Mont Luther King Drive and ancillary. Improvements throughout Jackson Square >> BA I think they want to table this. >> Yes. So this based on my feedback from
what you guys the council discussed last time I think we want to carry this at least one more meeting. I think it will require a motion by council if the clerk wants to confirm. >> Sure. So, this will be another ordinance that will require a motion um to carry this meeting I mean to carry this
ordinance to the next meeting which is November 12th. >> You know, Sean, I've been getting calls. People are saying we're building this building. Meanwhile, our police stations are falling apart. We need uh second prison has been reopened. Uh, a couple
of the other precincts are ashamed and nothing's being done about them, but they're willing to build another building, which we really don't need. When we have all the buildings down in MLK and half of them don't have people in them. >> If I get if I could just add, I know carrying it is fine on my end, but but
the point I just want to emphasize here is, you know, we just got to stop spending money. Um, we we have a tough budget situation. taxes have gone up. And while I think this project has merit and is a bad project, but it's it's, you know, going to be, you know, six starts with $5 million annually once it's built
and up to 9 million, it it's a we we just, you know, we got to stop spending money as a city. Um, and you know, we're going to have to start saying no to things. And I it's hard for me to see how we get to a yes on on this. We just don't have the money to keep spending on
projects like this. Well, I guess we'll carry it until the next till we get the finances together really because I I know I know what I hear when I go on that side of town and sometime it's challenging when you're on a on a other side of town and you're trying to build
a neighborhood up. How when we have to spend money on that side of town, they get push back. Some people feel that way. So, um how can we find funding to make sure this project is built? because based on the renderings that I see, it
would be almost like a pedestrian plaza up that way where people can gather. And so on that side of town, um those people feel like they're forgotten about. That's the information I'm receiving. So, um we we we find money for anything
on various sides of town. So, we have to see how we can pretty much find funding on that side of town cuz those people deserve to have a pedestrian plaza and and walk from place to place, too. Those are the concerns that I receive when I'm on that side of town. They want that
also, too. But we need to figure out how it could be done cuz they deserve that, too. >> Well, just want that. Yeah. I I like I said, we have to figure out how. But just just to be clear, um the presentation and the actual project um
is twofold. One, the original plan had the beautifification with the park, with the plaza and everything. The only thing really new is the implementation of wanting to do a ninestory building, >> right? And that's what boosts the
financial burden through the roof, right? So, we've all advocated for affordable housing. >> Correct. >> We all know that land is at a premium. You can't get more land. >> You can't get more land now. >> Right. So, if we're in a position to say
we want affordable housing, we can't get more land. We already have the land. How do we embark on a journey? Correct. right now. If you're going to tell me that we're going to spend this amount of money and you're going to have affordability in the places for seniors
to go, for kids to play, and for people to live, >> we can go for it. That's it. >> Totally different conversation. >> And that's the conversation because when they brought the plans here, I said we needed a senior side. >> Yes. >> On that side, >> right? And so if all of that can be
figured out, then we can move forward with this plan. But I just wanted on the record that that side of town deserve um certain um luxuries too. I keep hearing luxury housing on this side of town. >> They deserve it too. So um as they going
back and we are carrying this, tell them to figure that out >> how that can be done. >> Okay. Thank you, Peter. And just to reiterate, when we carry the ordinances, the second reading ordinances, we're not going to be conducting any public hearings on either one of them.
>> Yes. >> Okay. Just wanted to make that clear. And we have our public request for hearing. Right now, we have 51, but the last two are duplicates, so we have 49 total.
on our petitions and communications. Any questions or comments on items 6.1 through 627? Hearing none. Any questions or comments on office communications 7.1 7.2? Any questions or comments on reported
directors 8.1 or 8.2? We have our claims and on to our resolutions. Items 10.1 and two were touched on earlier. Item 10.3, city resolution 25-654 is a resolution of the municipal council
of the city of Jersey City in support of House Resolution 1178 introduced in the House Committee on the Judiciary of the 818th Congress and urges bill to be reintroduced into the 119th
Congressional Session proclaiming a declaration of environmental rights for incarcerated people. Items 10.4 through 10.8 were touched on earlier. Item 10.9, city resolution 25-66
is a resolution authorizing the payment of a claim submitted by Millennium Strategies LLC for providing grant consultant services. I believe uh the BA we're going to be uh withdrawing this one and carrying it to the
next meeting. >> That is correct. >> Thank you. >> All right. Next item 10.10 10 city resolution 25-661 is a resolution of the municipal council authorizing the tax assessor to cancel
real estate taxes on block 11611 lot 1.02 on 335 Washington Street as the property was acquired by the city of Jersey City. Item 10.11, city resolution 25-662,
is a resolution of the municipal council authorizing the tax assessor to cancel real estate taxes on block 1156, lot 2.01, C0509, C8003, C8004, C8005
on 155 Bay Street as a designated unit and theater have been acquired by the city of Jersey City. Items 10.12 through 10.14 were touched on earlier. Item 10.15, resolution 25-666
is a resolution recognizing the legacy of the church of God in Christ temple and its founding and current leaders. And 1016 resolution 25-667 is a resolution recognizing the life
ministry and conseration of Bishop Dr. Eddie F. Williams Jr. With that, may I have a motion to adjourn at 5:12 p.m. >> Motion? >> Motion made by Council Person So Cle.
May I have a second? >> Second. >> Second by Council President Warerman. All in favor of the motion to adjourn at 5:12 p.m. All council members present, please say I. We are out of here at 5:12 p.m. Thank you so much everyone watching
at home and everyone present. Remember, teamwork makes the dreamwork. Have a great rest of the day and night and stay safe.