Okay, everyone, we're about to get started. If we could find our seats, silence our cell phones, I greatly appreciate it. If we can close the back door, side doors, I greatly appreciate that as well. Again, we're about to get started, so we
can find our seats, silence our cell phones, close the back door. Thank you very much. >> All right. Good evening, everyone. We are on the record. Today is Monday, the 8th day of June in the year 2026. This is a city council caucus meeting of the
Jersey City Municipal Council. We had a scheduled 400 p.m. start. The clock on my cell phone is showing 4:03 p.m. May we have a roll call for the commencement of this meeting. Council person Brooks, >> present. >> Council person Zupa, >> here.
>> Council person Efos, >> present. >> Council person Little, >> present. >> Council person Gilmore. Council person sing. I see you. Council person Griffin. I hear you.
Council person Lavaro and Council President Ridley >> here. We have eight council members in attendance at 4:03 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 bolton board of 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, June 5th, 2026 at 9:30 p.m. And that's due to a lot of technical difficulties that we had with I Compass on Friday and
all during that week 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 a total compliance with the sunshine law. Council President, I'm going to turn it over to you. >> Good afternoon, everyone. We have a very
lengthy agenda for this meeting. Council people, I am going to ask that we do our best to stay on task uh and stay on the topic of the resolution or ordinance that is before us and if we have any additional questions that don't pertain
to those that we take them offline. And I'm going to jump right in and we'll start with Director Kierce. Good evening, President Ridley and members of the council. I'm here tonight to discuss resolution 26-3361
uh 1022. Resolution authorizes the award of a contract to Harley-Davidson of Bergen County Incorporated for the purchase and delivery of 10 Harley-Davidson FLT RXP Road Glide Motorcycles with the New Jersey Cooperative Purchasing Alliance
NJCPA for the use by the Department of Public Safety Police Division Traffic Enforcement Unit. Since its reestablishment, the traffic unit has aggressively focused on citywide enforcement of traffic laws, resulting in the issuance of more than 824 summones during the month of May for
various traffic violations. The acquisition of these additional motorcycles would further enhance the unit's operational effectiveness by enhancing mobility, allowing officers to navigate through traffic quickly and efficiently. Improving response times by enabling officers to reach emergency
situations more rapidly than traditional patrol vehicles in congested areas. increasing visibility, thereby strengthening traffic enforcement efforts, deterring unlawful behavior and enhancing public safety and supporting versatile deployment of traffic enforcement for crowd control, special
events, and community engagement activities. Total cost of the contract is $290,000 700 $2,907. Funding for the purchase is available through the federal law enforcement forfeite act account number T-16-0-800
>> questions. >> Director, good evening or good afternoon. >> Good evening, council. >> Uh how many officers do we have assigned currently to the motorcycle squad if you know? Presently there's about 12 officers there and with the uh new officers coming out of the academy uh late August the director and chief's
intention is to increase it by another five. >> And how many motorcycles do we have currently? >> Uh I can give you a breakdown. We have out of the older bikes we had 25 of them. Three bikes are currently being used for training in Essex County. Uh that's where we're training in new
offices. Six bikes are at the base and and are in active use. One bike is currently out of service due to a maintenance issue. One is staged at the police headquarter museum there. Again, that one does not run. Five of the 2024 motorcycles are being repaired for
repaired for repair to be used as training motorcycles. Four bikes are currently at DPW. Five bikes along with a trike were sold at auction last month for a total of 25. >> Essentially, what I'm asking is we have a need for these 10 bicycles. They're they're going to be accounted for by an
officer using them. The present bikes we have are 2010s. We were able to get them up and running, but obviously being 16 years old, uh, having been assigned to the motorcycles for over 13 years in my career, the ideal replacement would be 5 to seven years. So, these will
supplement what we have as we start putting the older one out of service. The ones we have now have, I'd say, between five and 7,000 miles. We worked the deal with the um, Fortley Police Department. They actually did a lot of the repairs for us. and we got them back and running. Had
they been stored properly when a unit was aversely disbanded, um it would have been a lot simpler to get them out, but right now we have uh six of them out on the street active. >> My last question is this 290,000 and change that was in the um forfeite fund, was it earmarked for anything else
before this purchase? >> No. Uh it's very limited as to what you can buy. It's got to be used for operational expenses and things like that. So, um, Director Ambrose had, uh, you know, when the mayor decided to reestablish the motorcycle squad, uh, it was pretty much with a mandate based on
all the council resps and issues that were dealing with traffic vision zero. Um, I think getting the the traffic unit up and running to its full capacity will benefit the city and also the residents. >> Director, um, quick question. You said
there were four at DPW. What's the status there? would they be in work? >> Some of them the oldest bikes we had were 2008s. Um the problem was is availability of parts. They've gone through upgrades. When I went to the Road King model approximately
2012, a lot of the parts are no longer available. So what we're trying to do is get auction them off city auction or the you know the online auction we use for other vehicles. Um, if they were operating, a 2008 may be worth a a base price for about three or $4,000.
Unfortunately, these are not operational. >> Also, they're waiting for to be auctioned off basically the Ford SMD. >> Question on the the use of the motorcycles there. Comparison of how effective these vehicles are at getting
traffic enforcement done over and against cheaper vehicles. I mean everything from just kind of like Suzuki style smaller motorbikes to something like bicycles even like what what is the effectiveness of uh Harley-Davidsons over and against other people?
>> Well, I I think two things. Number one, they're meant meant for this type of duty. They're built specific for police operations, heavy duty coolers and things like that. Um having been on the bikes myself and having had my own Harley-Davidsons, they are probably a
workhorse. the the other bikes. The other only bikes that were out, I believe, availability now are the BMWs, which are really not suitable for city operations. It's more a highway type bike. Uh CHP and other agencies like that. All you'd have to do is look
across the river. Harley-Davidson has been the principal motorcycle used by the highway patrol of New York City since its inception. >> So, I I'm sorry. Um, I wasn't able to write down the numbers quickly enough when you were speaking earlier, so I just want to make sure I have them
correct. Um, we currently have 12 off 12 motorcycle officers on traffic enforcement right now. And with the ones um in the academy, we are expecting five more to pass the course and become certified um for a total of
17 officers on motorcycles enforcing traffic, but of course acknowledging other officers are in SUVs enforcing traffic. Correct. >> Yeah. The intention is to I believe that the number they're looking to reach is 20. Uh from a historical significance,
when I was assigned there in the 80s and 90s, we had of 125. We had the largest squad in the state of New Jersey. >> Okay. Um and we have 25 motorcycles currently. They're not all in service, but um how how many of them are
functioning currently? >> We have six that are presently functioning. >> Six that are >> six are assigned to the operation where officers are actually using them every day and four are being used for training. >> Okay. So, and the other 15 don't work
like they they would need repairs. >> No, where some of them we're servicing. We're We've eliminated five along with a trike that was don trike is a three-wheel motorcycle that was donated to the city many years ago. Those have been sold. We have four that are
currently at DPW that we're using for parts or they will be sold. Unfortunately, as I say, they're not bringing. Had these bikes been operational, the city would probably see anywhere from $3500 to $4,000 per unit, but unfortunately they're not. Um, one
is at the police headquarters museum that's been taken out of service. Um, one bike is currently at public works awaiting parts and repairs. Um, six are in the use and active actively in use and the other ones are at the Essex
County uh, training facility where they're training the officers. >> Okay. So the the ones at the training facility correspond to some of the officers taking the course currently, >> right? Okay. Um and and so
my my question is how many of the bikes that we have currently could work like like not the ones that are being sold for parts? >> We have a total of 10 that are fully operational. Four of which are in for training, >> okay, >> purposes. Six are on the road. >> When we get these new bikes, these will
pretty much coincide. There's about a 4 month lead time from the date the purchase order is issue on the motorcycles to they're actually into production. So we're looking at the end of the summer probably September. And at that point that'll coincide with the additional offices that are coming out
of the academy around the same time for people to be selected and and sent for the training. >> Okay. So I'm sorry because to me the numbers aren't adding up. So first you said there were three bikes being used for training. Then you said there were four. >> I can go over the numbers again if you want.
Yes, please. I want to make sure they add 25. >> There are three bikes currently being used for training in Essex County. Okay. >> There are six bikes at the base, which is at motorcycle base. One bike is currently out of service for maintenance. That's in a DPW garage. One
is staged at the headquarters museum. That's also been taken out of service. There are five 2004s that are being prepared for repair to use as training bikes. So, we had a combination of 2004, 2008s,
and 2010s. 2010s being the ones that are actively on the road. Um, four bikes are at DPW, which are either going to be broken down for parts because we're not getting any people looking to buy them, and five bikes along with a trike, which was
never put in police service. It was a donation to the city, uh, was sold at auction last month. It's a total of 25. Okay. So, the the five that are being prepared for use as
training bikes and the one that is currently out of service for maintenance and one that is at the museum. Those in theory after a little work could be on the road as traffic enforcement. >> Not for full police work. No. >> And and why is that? Could you explain?
>> Because of the age. As I said earlier, the average these these bikes in that case you're using 2024s. they're 22 years old. That far exceeds the safety and reliability of them. They can use them for training. They'll be stripped down. Um, you know, where they can obviously in training there's always
chances that the bike will roll or something like that. Um, you know, it's just an age of the training. But for safety purposes, you couldn't put a 22y old motorcycle on the street doing everyday patrol. >> Okay. Um, so we we have 10 that could be
on the road for everyday patrolling, >> correct? Okay. And then we are seeking to get 10 more for 20 and we will have 17 officers who are able to um effectively serve as that are licensed as motorcycle officers
>> be fully trained and ready. Right. According to the survey, >> thank you. Yeah. And and is the intent and the intent is to train three more so that there will be 20. >> Yeah. The intent of the chief and the director was to bring the squad up a maximum of 20 at this point. >> Okay. And I guess my question then is
thank you for running through the numbers one more time for me. Um my question is then will the 20 all be on at the same time or could they possibly share vehicles in >> No, I think what what they the well I could go as I say the way that the squad was always run in the past it was you
the and I I believe they're following suit with this too is that you put out the your maximum amount of officers during your high volumes. So you may have more officers on duty during school time. You have m may have more officers on duty during rush hour and things like
that. But the the two tours that they are currently working the day tour or the evening tour. But there is flexibility in there when and if they have to adjust them for an event of some sort, say a city marathon, you may want to have all the motorcycles in during a daytime where you're doing a city mar or
a bike run or something like that. The flexibility is there. >> Okay. So there there are scenarios that can occur with somewhat predictable frequency where you would want to have all 20 officers on their bikes at the same time. >> Should the need arise, right?
>> Okay. All right. Thank you, >> Mr. President. Um director, I see you again. Um so let me just uh make sure I understood. So, um, this is
we're utilizing, um, forfeite funds for this, correct? >> Yes. Correct. >> Okay. And what's the useful life of these, uh, motorcycles? >> I'm sorry, council. >> What's the life the useful life of these motorcycles? >> Useful life is it's approximately anywhere from 8 to 10 years depending on how they're maintained and and and
driven. >> These bikes, keep in mind, the 2010s when were the last bikes that were uh purchased, but they had no mileage on them. the average bike had about 5,000 miles on it, which was was a lot. You know, the unfortunate part about it,
when they deactivated the squad, um they never did due diligence to take them out of service correctly, drain fluids, and put them up properly, store them. Um so that's why I think um a lot of the expense, which wasn't was minimal. I
think we it cost us about $3,500 per unit to get the bikes up and running. Uh which was, you know, got them back in service relatively quickly. Um and to to the BA's office, um so the useful life 8 to 10 years, I believe it
qualifies for capital dollars to be able to utilize capital dollars. Um I I would like to know the balance on the the uh forfeite fund. That being said, um I I've raised this before, so I'm going to be we are now um approaching we're in
June and we're approaching uh introduction of the budget which we anticipate after uh after the state budget is passed and we find out our situation on transitional aid. Um I have implored the administration to look at
using capital dollars rather than using other certain funds if we're able to do that. Um, and this strikes me as a perfect scenario. I'm not against the the purchase of these. Um, but it's while it's only 200 I say only, it's $290,000
that could be on capital dollars and we literally have on this agenda a $9.7 million reappropriation of bond money to fund other capital needs. Um, there's no reason why we can't include that in in such a um such a reappropriation of
bonds. And if there's a bond b additional bond money available, um I would not just implore but I'm going to um demand that the administration make that change because for taxpayer dollars um for taxpayers $290,000
is uh gets them a little further to less of a tax increase than we'll be staring down after the budget is introduced. >> Councilman, the forefeer funds are not capitals but close to it. They do not cost a taxpayer dollars money. It's not uh
>> No, but but for dollars and and I want to thank the corporation council. Um she shared the what what the guidelines are and my reading of it and you can take a second look at it and if you disagree with me, if anyone disagrees with me, that's fine and there's a different interpretation, but you could literally,
it seemed to me, use it for salaries and wages, right? So you could use it for salaries and wages for police and be able to save the taxpayer dollars around the salary and wages around the general operating budget as opposed to using capital dollars. Um instead we could use capital dollars and in place of that. Um
so again it's $290,000. It's $290,000 in savings that if we cobble these together and get to 3.8 million, as I understand it, that's 1% less that the taxpayers have to endure in their in their tax bill. Um, so I'm going to demand that it
be changed and it can be in this this agenda or the next. And if it's not, I'm going to ask the this corporation council if the city council has the legal authority to change the funding source um on these agendas on these resolutions um because I will make the motion to do that at the next council
meeting. So I just want to add that I think it would be great for us to have a separate conversation about the forfeite funds and the the rules and regulations around how we spend it. Um we can also look at the balance of what we have. Um in terms
of capital budget, we're going to talk about that um in today's session, but we are also limited in the amount of capital funding we have. So, I think we're open to discuss what's the best bucket of money to allocate for for this use, but there are a lot of limitations
on how we could use forefe funds. >> I mean, I know you've just been recently pointing, Miss Troy, so I'm not going to um but but I've been harping on this going back to February literally about this, not just this these funds, but other sources of funds. And um yeah, I I
can't allow another resolution to get passed. than another contract that u doesn't try to find a way to minimize uh the the the hurt and pain on our on the taxpayers. That is inevitable. I'm going to say it now, right? We're already in June. We we might as well start talking
about it. It's inevitable. Um our our budget situation is not good and so we need where we're hoping for that transitional aid and that it'll help us out. Um, but I'm going to do whatever I can to make sure that the taxpayers aren't going to be um, harmed u, minimize the harm to them um, in this
coming budget cycle. >> Councilman, I'm happy to look into the specific question you asked, which is whether forefeiter funds can be used to cover salaries and wages. I have not looked into that question previously. Ultimately, it is not the law department who is the arbiter of what we use that
money for. it's the county prosecutor who approves requests to use forefeature funds for various purposes, but we can try to connect with them and figure out if they would consider that an appropriate expense. And just to answer your second question, which was whether the council can amend um from the deis
contracts put forward by the administration, the answer to that one is no. While the council has the authority to review and approve contracts, ultimately preparing contracts is an administrative function. There's case law directly on point that I'm happy to share with you that makes
clear that council can't insert itself in negotiations, which is what substantively changing the terms of a deal would be. But I'm happy to circulate that for all of you. >> Any other questions? Thank you, director. >> Council President, before we call the
next speaker, I just wanted to mark Council Person Griffin present at 4:17 p.m. So, we now have all nine council members present. Okay, next up, uh, Vivian Webb, finance.
>> Good afternoon, council president and council members. I have one item for your consideration. Agenda item 10.1 resolution 30 excuse me 26315 authorizing an emergency temporary appropriation to establish and the
emergency appropriation is for grant funding only and this is to establish the grants for and a total of $9 million. We have HUD grants for home, hopper, and ESG for
2025 and a total of $4.8 million. We have a NJA grant and that's for a digital media studio project for the total of 1 $2.1 million. We have an increase of a NJ DP grant for park
improvements for our various parks from 2024 and that's for 1 million6 um $67,000. And then we have a sponsorship of the Jersey City free public library for our summerfest um concert series for
$13,500. >> Thank Thank you very much. Uh when we were talking with the administration about the agenda beforehand, uh I was told that tow truck expenses from uh this year's snowstorms were on this. Is that no longer the case?
>> This is to set up grants. >> Okay. So this is this is only grant money being appropriated to these >> being set up. Yes, these are grant. >> Yeah, I was looking for that item on the tow truck expenses that I hear. Right. We found we found an alternate funding source that didn't need to go for this
for, you know, for funding or ETA. So, that's not on the agenda, but it doesn't mean it's not getting paid. >> Got it. Thank you. And the and the Summerfest, the library, that is also grant money that we have been >> that's money that's coming in from the from the Jersey City Public Library to
the city to sponsor the concert series. >> Okay. So, it's it's taxpayer money that's allotted to the library that is being given to the city for the series. >> Back to cultural affairs. Yes. >> Okay.
>> All right. Thank you. >> Any other questions? >> Thank you. Deputy Director Hart, Public Safety. Good afternoon, Council President, Council members, Acting Deputy Director Lauren Hart, asking consideration for
item 10.20, resolution 26-334. It's a resolution authorizing the cancellation of the grant receivable balance. In 2023, the city was awarded a Division of Community Affairs American Rescue
Plan grant for $40,000 with a match of the city of $4,500. This was to purchase personal protective equipment for firefighters, which was damaged during the COVID pandemic. This equipment was purchased, but the cost was covered by the fire department
operating budget rather than the grant account that was established for that purpose. The $40,000 reimbursement check from the state of New Jersey was received by the city, deposited back into the fire department's operating budget. All the grant obligations were
met and the grant was closed out. This resolution is for the cancellation of the $44,500 that was appropriated in that particular grant account. >> Questions? >> I think I'm confused. Um, so initially
the the grant the grant was supposed to cover damage equipment during COVID. Correct. >> Correct. >> And we pay for the equipment to be repaired out of the capital budget.
So typically when we accept the grant, a grant account is set up. purchased the equipment that's covered by the grant and that money should be deducted from that grant account. >> That account. >> It was deducted from the wrong account. >> It was deducted from the fire operations budget.
>> That's what I'm So they never fixed it. >> This is the fix. So the equipment wasn't fixed. It was purchased. It was It was equipment that was damaged. So we're able to buy new purchase new equipment. And this is essentially to rectify the error of the drawing with the money.
>> The accounting error. Correct. Yeah. Okay. So going forward, do we have any anything in place to ensure this doesn't happen again? >> Typically the grant accounts have specific accounts set to them. So I'm making sure that every time we purchased it, it's being purchased from the appropriate account.
>> Correct. >> Okay. Councilman, there's three items on the agenda in a similar situation as this. Two were personnel or employee errors, human errors. One was an accounting error from the switch from FO which is our old
software financial software to the current software admins. So to the extent that you asked your question, we've made this correction so it won't happen again. >> Okay. And just for the record that so that's three errors out of we get hundreds of grants.
>> Okay. >> Vast majority of the grants have been fine. No accounting errors. This is one mistake. Again doesn't affect the bottom line. Doesn't affect the budget. This is us cleaning up the books so the books reflect what actually transpired. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you,
>> Lieutenant Cington. >> Good evening, President Midley and members of the council. Uh I'm Lieutenant Congleton here on behalf of the Office of the Public Safety Director to speak on item 10.24, resolution 26-338. This is a resolution authorizing a shared services >> with Senate. I'm sorry. Can you just
bring the mic a little closer to you? >> This is There you go. This is a resolution uh authorizing a shared services agreement between Jersey City and the city of Newark, specifically the Jersey City PD and the Newark Police Department Nybin Lab. Uh NY is the
National Integrated Ballistic Information Network. This can most simply be described as a fingerprint system for crime guns. Up until now, what we had been doing historically was when we recover ballistic evidence from a shooting incident within the city, that evidence, uh, typically shell
casings is delivered on a weekly basis to a New Jersey State Police Lab and then it goes into a a queue or a pile of work that the state police have to do. Uh, oftent times we will not see a return uh, in those cases for weeks and
sometimes months. And so what this uh agreement would do is allow us to have a Jersey City police detective assigned out to the lab in Newark. And we can now deliver that ballistics evidence uh daily and sometimes immediately depending on uh the seriousness of the case. And we're seeing turnarounds uh
again sometimes within hours uh or a day or so. The benefit to the city uh when it comes to this new system and and this agreement is that having that quick turnaround of that ballistic evidence enables us to not only quickly solve crimes and get the most violent
offenders off the street, but also uh equally important is many times we're able to prevent further uh crimes that would be associated with those shooting incidents uh by identifying the actors and getting them off the street. This uh agreement comes at no cost to the city of Jersey City. We're simply assigning
out a detective to uh the New York Police Department and the agreement essentially governs uh the details of of how that assignment would work. >> Be happy to answer any questions you might have. >> Questions? >> Yes. Um so how much how much are we saving by not using the third the third
party that we were saving? I mean that we were using. >> There's no uh cost that I'm aware of by sending the work out to the state police. Uh so that there's really no financial aspect of this. Uh really what it's saving us is critical time identifying uh those weapons and those
actors, >> right? Because the lab is what in South Jersey or something like >> uh there's regional labs. So I I believe that we would be taking uh the evidence historically to a a North Jersey regional lab for the state police. Now obviously we're going much closer. Uh but the big thing is is that quick
turnaround because often times if you're waiting uh you know days or weeks uh during these investigations that information by the time we get it might be stale. it might not really be helpful in the investigation versus getting it within hours or days. That can have a a huge impact.
>> We have a ballistics analyst already on staff. >> Uh the officer that we're assigning out is being trained by the Newark folks uh and certified as a a ballistics analyst. >> And will that officer do any work for any for Newark or another municipality at that lab? >> That is correct. Yes. So the the one of
our officers will uh will work in Newark, obviously take our cases, but also work on Newark's cases as well. >> Yes. And there's two reasons for that. Uh the first being that we don't have, thank God, enough shooting incidents uh to to provide them work on a everyday basis. Uh so when they're uh not working
on a Jersey City case, that's the benefit to Newark and allowing us to do this is they now have an extra person who can help with their case load. uh but beyond that uh it's also important for their certification process, their training process to get exposure to different types of analysis, different
types of weapons and so on. Uh and so we might not check all those boxes with the Jersey City cases. And so allowing them to work on those other cases that come into the lab is going to enable them to to get the training uh boxes checked to get their certification. >> Any other questions?
Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Deputy Director Diaz, Community Development. >> Good afternoon, council. I'm coming uh bringing you agenda number 3.2, ordinance 26-034.
Uh this is a ordinance uh requesting that we expand our CSBG board as recommended by the state of New Jersey who administers this grant to us. >> Questions? >> How many people are currently on the board?
>> Uh currently we have two. The current standing of the board allows for three. It's a tripart board. Uh we're extending that uh to at least six members, at most nine. Okay. Why not have the minimum be an odd
number as opposed to a even number? I assume there's >> uh because it's a tripart uh board. Um it's just the way the state recommends it in our bar laws. It's uh >> three members from local government, three members that serve uh lowincome communities, and then three members of
the public sector. >> So So okay. So six. So in six it' be two two of each. Yes. Gota. >> If there were a divided vote on that board, what would the outcome be? >> Um the uh so the tie would have to be
decided among either the director of community development or the director of HDC. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Noble it. Good afternoon, council president,
council members. I have five items for you today. First item, resolution 26-329, agenda item 10.15. A resolution ratifying an award of a contract to Software House International
for Autodesk software subscription to the New Jersey Cooperative Purchasing Alliance, Bergen County Co-op for the Department of Administration, Division of Information Technology. Autodesk is a 2D 3D computer aided design software used for precise technical drafting and
modeling primarily used by the division of architecture for rendering plans. The city currently maintains 15 licenses and the total cost of the contract is $63,762.15. >> Questions? >> I have a question. Um, I just want to
note that the contract is effective back to April 15th. Could you just explain what that's been like? April >> back to April 15. Yes. Um I think that had to do a lot to do with the temporary um money that was in the budget for us to be able to pass through
a lot of these contracts. >> Okay. Um so we're we're paying them already, right? >> We're using the soft we haven't paid them. >> Okay. Um but we owe them regardless of whether this passes or services rendered
from April 15th to now. Um >> Okay. I >> apologize. What What number is this? and 15. >> Okay. Next one. The second item is resolution 26-330,
agenda item 10.16, a resolution ratifying a contract to Dell for the annual support of spatial data logic software license under the state contract for the department of administration division of information technology. SDL is used for assessing
accessing construction zoning planning permit, food vendor licenses, pet license and other license permits for HEDC and HHS. We currently have 50 licensed for SDL shared with HED HEC and HHS departments. The total cost of the
contract is $61,444. >> Questions? >> Yes. Similarly, this is backdated to January 31st. >> Yes. >> Um the following item backdated to May 1st. I know we've talked about this before. Um I can business administration
just clarify what we're doing to make sure that we can avoid these kinds of scenarios going forward where we're approving contracts with city council that we are already in essentially that we're already paying for or that we are already going to be owing uh for services.
So we are currently doing a data audit on all the contracts spread between all the different departments and some of the contracts have been dep prioritized given our budget situation and workload. So we're hoping to catch up on all of them as
quickly as we can. >> Got it. Um so so with these was there an active decision made on January 31st in this case or for the previous one on April 15th um where the department said okay we're going to renew this contract
or we're going to enter into this service um and then we have to later on catch up and get to city council or was it more of a passive just >> it renews um we have to let them know if we want to turn it off. >> Okay. Okay. Okay. So, it was a lack of
letting them know we're turning it off as opposed to a proactive authorization on those dates. Okay. Thanks for the clarification. >> Yeah. So, usually if you want to turn licenses off, we have to let them know ahead of time that we are going down a different number or we're totally
shutting down the um software. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I may ask um director, so both of these the last two contracts, they're like month monthly. It's not like a open open-end contract or anything like that. It's just a
>> No. Um the both these contracts for a year. >> They're what? >> 12 months. >> 12 months. Okay. Um for the service for 12 months. Is that >> correct? >> Regardless of how we utilize it, it's going to be be the same amount the >> correct. Okay. Um and then the second
thing just to piggyback on what the councilman Efos was talking about. Um so so who's responsible for these renewals? Does that fall squarely in your office or is there a fiscal uh person in the office? I believe every office has like a >> Yes, it does. It um it's a partnership
with my office and the fiscal office to >> there's a f there's somebody assigned to your office to do that. >> Okay. Um and I guess the question I would say and I guess I'll ask since we're talking about this in late contracts is is knowing that it's late
what's your mechanism or finances mechanism or um what do you guys do to make sure that uh that person who's in that responsible for that is >> so we have a sheet with all of the IT related software renewals and so we know
prior to expiration um we're we're able to get the actual quotes um before the expiration is and and start the process. >> Say again. >> We have a spreadsheet with all of the software renewals uh for the IT department and we are able to start
getting the quotes ahead of time before the actual expiration. The quotes actually within our hands before the expiration and then we have to process it through the the wreck and all the approval processes. And so I'm assuming that's a tool you're that you're putting into practice today because it's not it
wasn't utilized before because >> correct. >> Okay. Clear. Understood. Thank you. >> Yeah. No. Um when I came into office, we had very poor license management and software management. >> Understood. >> Thank you for doing that.
>> Next one. >> The third item is resolution 26-331 agenda item 10.17. A resolution ratifying an award for a contract with Celco part Celco Partnerships Verizon Wireless for
wireless data services for city mobile phones, data plans, and wireless connectivity required for the city operations under the state contract for the Department of Administration Division of Information Technology. The total amount for this contract is 139,474.92.
These are essentially our um cell phones, um Wi-Fi devices, and um tablets that are used by inspectors to go out in the field. >> Questions? >> Is this an open-end contract? >> 12 months. These are all >> months.
>> Yeah. >> Um every every year we'll have to renew it. >> No further questions. The fourth item is resolution 26.332 agenda item 10.18. A resolution authorizing an award of a contract to
Dell for the purchase of two 40gate 200G hardware appliances with 5 years of 40are premium and 40 guard unifi threat protection subscription as well as the 40 analyzer virtual machine subscription license under the state contract for the
department of administration division of technology. The total cost of this contract is 78,6251. The IT department is proposing the purchase of the 4gate 200G hardware appliance to strengthen and modernize the city's network security
infrastructure. This firewall solution provides cyber security protection, including intrusion prevention, malware, ransomware detention detection, secure remote access, web application filtering, and threat intelligence. This monitors both outgoing traffic and
incoming traffic. That's why there are two appliances. >> Questions. >> So there's hardware and support. >> Hardware support and licensing. >> Yeah. And what are these this what is the hardware that you got there?
>> So there are two devices that sit on our rack in the server room. Um and they actually monitor all of our traffic. So any outgoing traffic or incoming traffic actually goes through these devices. It looks to me, and I'm just doing a
a review of this, it looks like 33 40 34,000 is the subscription license with support for 5year subscription license. Um, and then is it fair to say that the balance is for hardware? >> They're both for hardware with the license inside it. So, there's two
different pricings on it. >> Yeah. >> If you look down, so they both come with the hardware and licensing and support for both. >> Okay. And what's the source of funds? >> The IT budget. >> Operating dollars. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Um I I would ask the the
administration BA's office to look into this as well whether this qualifies for um operating dollars. Again, $78,000. Um and it is there's hardware involved. I would assume I'm guessing I'm not an expert in these matters but that
hardware would probably qualify as uh cap potentially capital expense as well and for >> my understanding is these are for licenses again >> it's for licenses >> licensing hardware and support so it's all three
>> talk about hardware but the licenses wouldn't be eligible >> can you say that again the licenses wouldn't be eligible for capital >> the hardware where it could be. >> Yeah, but I think it's a small amount that we can we can >> look at that. >> Okay, next one. The fifth and final item
is resolution 26-333, agenda item 10.19, a resolution ratify an agreement with Microsystems NJ.com LLC for the support of proprietary computer hardware and software systems for the tax assessors office funded by the department of
administration division of information technology. The micro systemystems is used daily by the tax assessor's office to view and maintain and update assessment records for various properties around Jersey City. The total cost of the contract is $68,389.93
>> questions. >> Okay, thank you. >> Thank you, Bernard Hurt. Evening, council president, members of the city council. I'm speaking today on agenda item 10.39,
resolution 26-353, a resolution ratifying emergency contract award to Herk Rentals, Inc. for the emergency rentals of air conditioning units at the municipal court for the Department of Public Works. Total amount of the contract is
for $92,734. >> Questions? >> Uh, is there a plan for permanent replacement of the system as well? I imagine these units are just necessary as like a a stop gap right away because it's it's really hot. But you be able to
give any clarity on on how we're going to permanently fix the situation so that we don't have to >> You're ruining the surprise, Councilman. And when we get to our capital ordinance, we'll have money in there that will be in part to replace the uh the units there permanently. Okay. >> Um the replacement will begin this year
assume the council approves the capital funding and then this should get us through that this year because as they're putting on the units, they won't be operational probably towards the end of the summer or fall. And obviously we want to make sure there's some kind of cooling there during the summer months. >> Great to know. Thank you.
What's the source of funds on this >> one specifically is the Paa account. It's a account set up at the state level. Uh it's a account controlled by the superior court. Um so it's not operating funds coming out directly from
the city. We need authorization from the superior court and Trenton to spend the money and it has to be related to specific court purposes, specifically parking offenses. However, every courtroom hears parking offenses. So the superior court um was very gracious and
allowed us to use the money for that. >> What percentage of our cases heard in municipal court are in person? >> I'm putting you on the spot so you can >> Yeah, I don't know the exact percentage but the majority like I would say probably 85 90
>> as we look for ways to save money. I would ask the administration to look into whether we need that building for for the courthouse, whether we can't put the judges in another another spot. I I know from having practiced there that very few cases are heard in person. Only DUI cases get inerson dates. I'm sure another city office can accommodate a
courtroom. Uh it's a it's a very big expens expenditure to have that property. Uh and and maybe it has other uses for the city. >> Yeah, we're limited with definitely look into it. Councilman, we're somewhat limited because the AOC and the state have a lot of guidelines around that. From my understanding, every case have
to be offered as in person. some, you know, excluding DUI DWIS, you know, can be offered virtually. It's up to the the offended or the defendant whether or not they want to appear, but we have to make sure we have that available to them. And also for walk-ins is one of the big things that the court mandates that we
have an availability for someone to walk in to address any emerging adders. >> I appreciate it, Peter. Just something for the administration to keep in mind that we this may be a cost-saving uh uh opportunity and >> happy to look into it.
Thank you, Morgan Span, HHS. Good afternoon, council president and council members. I have one item for your consideration that is resolution 26-342,
agenda item 10.28. um cardiovascular conditions and hypertensive disorders including chronic hypertension, gestational hypertension and preeacclampsia are among the leading causes of pregnancy related morbidity and mortality in New Jersey. These
conditions disproportionately affect low-income communities and communities of color which compromise a significant portion of the population served by Jersey City Wick. Early detection and intervention are essential to preventing serious complications and improving health outcomes for pregnant and
postpartum individuals. By integrating blood pressure screening into routine WIC appointments, Jersey City Wick can provide a convenient, trusted, and accessible point of care for participants who may otherwise have limited opportunities for monitoring. The initiative will enable WIC staff to
identify individuals with elevated blood pressure, provide education on warning signs and symptoms, and facilitate timely referrals to healthcare providers for followup care. The city of Jersey City Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Food and Nutrition
is preparing an application for the Wick Maternal Health Center grant to fund the blood pressure screening and referral initiative for the Jersey City Wake Clinic. The Wick Maternal Health Center grant is expected to run from November 2nd, 2026 through October 31st, 2028 and
serve approximately 1,400 pregnant and postpartum people. HHS is requesting funding from the Wick Maternal Health Center and USDA to underwrite the Wick Maternal Health Center grant. >> Questions? >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. Yeah. >> Director Vincent, recreation. >> Evening, council president, city council members. Pete Vincent here for the director of rec uh as the director of recreation for the department of recreation and youth development. Uh I
have three items for your consideration. The first one is item 10.25, 25 resolution 26-339, a resolution authorizing the acceptance of a grant from the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs under recreational opportunity for individuals
with disabilities program for the city of Jersey City inclusive afterchool recreation programming. This resolution authorizes the acceptance of 20 a $20,000 grant from the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs under the recreational opportunities for individuals with
disabilities program. The city of Jersey City is required to provide a local share of $5,000 which will make the total amount of $25,000 for inclusive afterchool recreation programming for children, young adults, and families with uh disabilities.
>> Questions? >> Yes. Um, so what are the the locations for these after school? >> Right now, currently all of our programming is inclusive to those with disabilities and special needs. This
grant money will allow us to have specific events in different places. We have not um allocated specific places yet, but we have had uh events in the past throughout the city. We are looking at maybe returning to those those um
venues. We've had a special needs social club. Um so we're looking to try to do that across the wards. Uh maybe in the in the Heights, uh Ward A, obviously we're looking to do more more things there. Um but it's open for discussion.
>> There are um special needs organizations out there and groups. Do you collaborate with them on these this programming? >> We can. >> Um I I can give you more um a clearer answer on that of what we've done in the past. I could send that over to you. I'm
not really too sure of who we have worked on it with in the past. Um I'm sure a a great partner for us would be uh Special Olympics. Uh looking to do stuff with them anyway moving forward. Um but we we can definitely talk about that in the future. There are some local
groups my office can refer provide some information. >> Yeah, we're open to it. We're open to all solution. >> And um also um there's a lot of parent advocacy groups out there for children with special needs. Um I think um you
know they they can be reached out to as well. >> Yeah, my department will welcome communication from any of their council city council offices uh and collaboration with any groups um that you guys know of. Director, your memo makes reference to whole spectrum autism a couple of times.
Did you speak to the leadership over there about this programming? >> Um I'm my staff has the >> the reason I asked too is because uh they were concerned about uh be worried that the budget wouldn't reflect money towards that their programming. I was wondering if this was the
>> Yes. So this is an annual to my knowledge this is an annual grant that we've been accepting. So this money has been in our budget. So, we're just asking for it to be given to us once again. Okay. You can let me know offline about the communications you had with them. I got it out. >> Uh, councilman, can I clarify? We
reached out to them. Most of the grant they are using are for events. As of now, that's what we hear about. I would say if you want to do ongoing programming, you should work with private schools offering uh special need
education or maybe public school. and we can work together. >> Both >> or both? Yes. Thank you. >> Yeah. So, we're looking into adaptive sport programming uh as well as maybe even purchasing some sensory kits uh for those with special needs specifically
right now. >> Thank you. We should just not focus on occasional events. That's what I want to say. >> I agree. >> Thank you, director. >> Keep it diverse. Yes. >> If I may, just this is more to the to the BA's office. There's a there's a match requirement, right?
>> $5,000 local share. Um I recall uh Mr. Vivian um that we have a a separate grant account, matching grant account um for this um for these purposes. If we could get the balance on that.
>> Yep. Not a problem. >> Next one. Director. >> Yes. The next item is 10.26. a resolution exercising the second and final one-year renewal option with John J. Feckus Incorporated, Quality Electrical Construction Company for
sports lighting and scoreboard maintenance at various ball fields for the Department of Recreation and Youth Development and Division of Park Maintenance. >> Questions? >> Yeah, I'm not familiar with all of the um fields uh and basketball courts. If
you can like send me a list of them, >> Yeah, absolutely. That would be great. >> Oh, yeah. Coach Wolf, what's the locations? >> Any other questions on this one? >> Next one.
>> 10.27. A resolution authorizing the award of an open-end contract to Willy's Fence Company for chain link fencing citywide supply delivery and installation for the Department of Recreation, Youth Development, and the
Division of Park Maintenance, >> questions. >> Would this company uh fix the um fencing at Purging Field, Keith? >> Yes. Yes. Has it has it been fixed yet behind the back stop?
>> Thank you. >> I know the name is chain link, but is it it's not just chain link fencing, right? It's >> Oh, yes. No. >> And it's all it's just recreation. Not all parks, not city parks.
>> Well, we encompass all the city parks. So, it's not just recreational areas. It's all all all parks. Yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, director. >> Thank you so much. Have a good evening. >> Director Kaplan. Infrastructure.
>> Hello. Good afternoon, council presidents, council members. My name is Amanda Diamond. I'm the director of sustainability. Uh, I actually have um I'm I'm stepping up with uh Director Kaplan today. Uh, and I have two items on the agenda. I think I only wrote down
one, so I apologize for that. >> I have 1012 and 1037. >> Yes, I will be adding 1038 to that as well. >> Okay. Uh so the first one is 1037 uh resolution authorizing the city to apply and accept grant funding from the
Bloomberg Center of Public Innovation under the Love Your Block Grant Program. Uh this will be a project that is going to be focused on uh many grants for beautifification projects that we will be able to disseminate to neighborhood
associations uh across Jersey City including for planting native plants and also funding to apply um and receive fellows for um helping to manage those projects. Questions?
It's diamond. Uh the title of the so just to understand is it do we have the grant already? Are we just ex this resolution is to accept the grant. This is to apply and accept. So yeah normally
grant resolutions prior to um submitting the application you will send uh put forth a resolution to apply and accept. >> Thank you. I'm I'm sorry I didn't uh quite hear everything. Is this a matching grant? >> There is no match.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Next one. Okay. Great. The next one is resolution uh 26-352 10.38. And this is the resolution uh authorizing the city to apply and accept
funds from NJD for the purpose of the uh urban and community forestry stewardship grant program. And so this also, as far as I'm aware, is a no match grant. I can confirm that, but I just don't see it on the or on the resolution itself. It's a
no match. And this would be for uh hiring a consultant to help manage a young tree training program. So that would include hiring a consultant to help out the division of forestry um with managing uh smaller trees below an
8 in DBH uh to make sure that they uh have the correct height, they have a central leader and other um important pruning requirements that should happen with younger trees while the forestry staff is managing more of the mature
larger canopy of Jersey City. questions. >> Um, no, but just a statement. So, like, um, we'll take Monaceel for example, there there are trees, there's there's several trees that when they grow,
they're growing out. And so, like in Jersey City, we have a lot of narrow streets. So, when it comes to like not even tree trimming, but the process of picking the trees that we're planting,
um I think we need to consider the types um the way they grow. If you know, growing straight up would be great in a city like this because, you know, you see trees growing in people's windows on main streets and and um you know, blocking signage
>> um of stores. So, you know, we're just hoping that >> this is also a program that can help alleviate some of those issues. So, as um uh as an example, so primary objectives of proposing a pruning program include uh reducing like
crossing, rubbing or competing branches, eliminating code dominant stems, but also establishing appropriate vertical clearance over sidewalks, roadways, signage and infrastructure. So that is going to help us um prep the trees as
they grow so that they uh do have um uh so that people can have that kind of clearance. And we are uh uh the younger that we can do all like the prep work pr pruning will make it uh a more healthy and easier pruning uh uh later on when
the trees become more established and more mature. >> Okay. And and do we work with uh PSCG? Because a few weeks ago they were on my uh street just hacking away. Um there was no real pruning. They were just chopping, cutting
>> um away from the wires. >> So I know that the director of forestry has tried to um uh create a relationship with PSEG. I don't have the details of uh how involved he is in kind of
managing their their prunings but it is something that we are aware of and I can uh connect you to over email so that he can maybe provide a little more clarity on that. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you.
>> Director Kaplan you're up. >> Thank you council president. We'll see if ah I think we've gotten our technology working. Can council see the slides? >> They can now. >> All right. Without without a neck pain.
>> And director just if I could just interrupt just one second for people at home, you're only going to see the actual presentation. You're not going to see the people speaking unless there's going to be a ton of questions. So I don't know if council president if you would like to hold the questions to the
very end. >> Yes, we should. Let's get through the whole presentation for any questions. I'll call >> Thank you. >> I'll call for questions. >> Thank you, Council President Director. >> All right. Thank you, Council President. Thank you, clerk. Um, so I'm here today with some slides to speak about uh our
camera assisted parking enforcement program. Um, we're looking to pilot this and we want to explain a little bit to the council um beyond the resolution that's before you. Um the res resolution before you tonight is to enter into a contract with a company Automotus. We'll
discuss a little bit. There's two companies we're looking to use. The other company um previously had a resolution approved to uh work with them. >> Did we Can you tell me the resolution number? >> I left my paper at my seat. Um yes it is
>> resolution 1012. >> Thank you. >> Or yeah resolution 26326 item 102. It's for the council as well. >> Thank you director. >> All right. So today's conversation will talk a little bit about what the problem
is that we're trying to solve and what the technology we're looking to utilize is as well as the expected benefits. Um the survey results uh from a survey that we've had out for the last week or two um as well as our intention for the pilot timeline. Um and then of course
have some time for questions and feedback from the council. So the challenge um in a dense city like Jersey City, there's a lot of demand for curb space for various functions. Um much more demand than available curb
space. Um and if it's not managed effectively, it results in problems, safety hazards, traffic congestion, and other conflicts. We understand that some of the commercial districts also face
significant challenges with loading as well as turnover for customers to visit the businesses in those commercial districts. And we recognize that having good signs and even having robust traditional enforcement really aren't enough for
these curbside spaces to operate uh as envisioned for the benefits um of everyone. So, some specific challenges um are vehicles blocking crosswalks within or or too close to a crosswalk where
they're blocking visibility of crosswalks putting pedestrian safety uh concerns. Blocking bus stops as well um which impacts buses ability and people ability to get on and off the bus.
vehicles blocking bike lanes and vehicles blocking fire hydrants um which is another significant concern from you know fire safety and emergency response and we also recognize that the delivery both of goods to businesses and to
people um such as UPS, Amazon and FedEx as well as people getting in and out of Ubers and lifts as well as people doing delivery with vehicles and getting food from restaurants or bringing them to people have increased the demand on curb
space in the last number of years. Um so the goal of this program is to help us get to zero fatalities and serious injuries by improving the safety, the traffic flow, and overall reducing chaos
from illegal parking and loading. when people don't have a space to load, don't have a space to run in for their quick errand where that's when people are making the choice to park in a crosswalk, to block a corner, to block visibility, or to double park in the
street. So, a key goal of this program is to provide the loading space as designed and keep them operating and free of long-term parked vehicles so that vehicles who need to load, if you need to run and pick up your child from daycare, you'll have a spot to do that. If you want to park for two hours in a
parking spot, you know, you won't have a vehicle parking there for multiple days. So, that that's really our goal. Um, and we'll do that again by targeting through enforcement a few areas, some of which are listed here, and we'll explain
very clearly on a later slide about parking in crosswalks, bike lanes, fire hydrants, um, voting zones, um, and at the corners where we block visibility. So, the goal of the pilot program is to test and evaluate technology and
enforcement tools before scaling up. Um right now there are two vendors that we'll get into briefly. Um and we want to look at a variety of use cases and locations to understand where each technology works best before we really make commitments and and you know in
terms of contracts with vendors um towards scaling up a program. And we also want to you know focus this in a few areas where we can really collect a lot of feedback from residents, businesses, workers and and visitors. um in addition to having clear KPIs and reporting metrics about the
effectiveness of the program. So a little bit about the solution of camera assisted enforcement. So uh the enforcement uses cameras and software. It identifies parking violations in targeted locations and it helps the city enforce the rules more consistently and
efficiently in areas that we know have high conflict and high safety concerns. The impact of this technology in other locations in other cities has shown that it reduces double parking by over 95%. Um resulting in reduced violations you
um increasing pedestrian safety, increasing cyclist safety, um and increasing traffic flow by not having vehicles double parked and other vehicles having to go around them, which in and of itself is a safety concern. It also shown positive benefits for local businesses. It's shown an increase
in turnover. So, it actually increases the ability for people to park within the time allotted um whether it's a 2 hours for a restaurant or whether it's a loading zone where you may run in and and run back out um in a in a short
period of time. You may be aware Hoboken recently uh piloted a program. Um and being that they're our neighbor, we were very lucky to kind of get their data points in terms of what they experienced. And so we want to share that here. Um they
found a 59% reduction in the their bike lanes being blocked, a 44% reduction in bus stops being blocked, uh over 2/3 67% increase in the turnover at loading zones. So people were not parking in a loading zone longterm. They
were turning over and more vehicles were able to use those loading zones. They found that 93% of violators in Hoboken's program were not Hoboken registered vehicles. So not residents. there are people coming in mostly from out of town. Um
they also found and I think this is very important so one of the reasons why we're looking into this program that 93% of the violators did not receive a second ticket. Our goal first and foremost and can state explicitly and clearly is to make the street safer. our
the programs appear to be extremely effective of that. And when someone gets a ticket and changes their behavior, whether it's because there's a carrot now there is a loading zone they can use so they don't need to park in a bus stop or double park or you know they're worried about getting a ticket because they know their will the stick of the
enforcement. Um it will be extremely in other places like Hobogen it's shown to be extremely effective and that's what we're hoping to see here as well in our program. Briefly how it works. Cameras will detect vehicles in the no parking zones
or loading zones will have a time limit. Um business rules will be developed. Uh if a violation is detected, the system captures a timestamp photo of the license plate and the vehicle. Um the parking enforcement for Jersey City will then receive that image and that
potentially that video and they'll review it for accuracy. Um, so for example, if you have a truck near the ped plaza that's unloading and we say it's 20 minutes, but you have a truck rolling out kegs and they've servicing five bars all at once and after the time
limit, they're still rolling out kegs to service a bar. Our hope is that the discretion of a parking enforcement agent being a human in the process would not have a ticket issued when there's active visible loading happening even if it's in violation of the strict time limit.
That's why there's an important kind of human element here. Tickets are not going to be issued by robots. They are going to be using this this visibility from these cameras to help Jersey City PD parking enforcement agents expand their reach.
Once they choose to enter a ticket, they would enter it into a p the same pad they would use in person, print a ticket, put it in an envelope along with the information with the photographs, and mail it to the vehicle owner. Uh the devices will operate 24/7 um and
in all weather conditions. So we're looking at two vendors. Um Automotus is the company that Hoboken's clear program used. Um and that's the resolution before you uh tonight. Uh the second vendor MPS, they uh utilize
safety sticks. You you see a picture of them. They look like a parking meter stick, but they have cameras in them. Um, previously, I believe last council passed a resolution. Um, so we're going to be looking to utilize that and and start to utilize that technology within the bounds of that prior resolution as
well. Um, automotive is a fixed to poles and has visibility over sections of a block of the street. Uh, safety sticks are limited to a single spot. Um, and that's one another reason why we're looking to pilot them both and understand where where both technologies are most effective.
Um a little bit on data privacy. Uh these technologies are not surveillance systems. Uh the sensors do not capture uh they only capture deidentified activity for traffic and curbs. The only personal identifiable information is a
license plate. Their faces are blurred um beyond recognition. Um and these are software tools that the companies have already set up. uh only the license plate and images of the vehicle are captured for the parking enforcement purposes and no data is shared with any
third parties or used for any other type of law enforcement. Um and only authorized users have access to the system. Um so we did conduct a pre-launch survey in order to collect information from the public. Um we published a closing date I
believe last uh Wednesday. Uh we've kept it open but this data reflects the results as of June 2nd. Um and as of that time we've had nearly 750 responses. Um 97% self reported as residents. Uh 45% are pedestrians, 44%
are drivers, 33% use transit and 23 are cyclists. Um again people may selfidentify as multiple categories. Um we found that 27% of respondents and felt
significantly that parking behaviors affect safety in Jersey City and that 26 additional felt that extremely. So you know over half felt either significantly or extremely that safety was impacted by parking behaviors. And if you I added
moderately and other other areas you could see that almost all respondents agreed that there was some impact on safety of of parking behavior. Um the areas of most concern were blocked visibility at intersections, double parking, blocked crosswalks, and
congestion. Um in this slide you'll see the on the right the the dark blue is very often the purple is often and the light blue is sometimes. Um and the areas in which parking issues are observed by the respondents. The the highest was
vehicles parked too close to corners or intersections. The second category was double parking. The third was difficulty finding legal short-term pickup and dropoff spaces. The fourth was vehicles blocking crosswalks. and and the fifth uh of significance was uh delivery
vehicle stopping and travel lanes. Uh the types of locations with the most parking related issues from the survey were residential streets, commercial business districts, and school areas. Um based on what they know today, over half of the survey respondents either
support or strongly support uh camera assisted parking enforcement. 37% of respondents either oppose or strongly oppose the program. There was some free form areas where where respondents were able to express their concerns. Um and so we just
summarized a few of those into some categories of what we believe capture a number of uh concerns and mitigations. I'm concerns from the survey and then a few responses from our team on mitigations. Uh, one of the top concerns was the the lack of legal parking,
especially for short-term pickups and drop offs, which um I think we agree with. I know I experienced that as well. And, you know, our goal, you know, is to look at making sure this program isn't a stick without a carrot. Um, we want to ensure that curbside regulations reflect
the needs of the area that we're launching this program in. So we are committed to looking at the curbside regulations, the existence of loading zones, the sufficiency of loading zones in areas where the program launches. Um as well as collect data through these devices in terms of the loading zone
turnover rate and if it is continually full, it would mean we need more loading zones and we could work on roadway revisions to address that. Um we also are going to enforce loading zones that will create space for the short-term pickup and drop off operation. That's
our intent. Second area is privacy and surveillance issues. I think we discussed that on an earlier slide, but the cameras really are strictly used for parking enforcement. Um, there was a concern about it being a revenue generating tactic or a crash grab. Um, and while there may be a positive revenue flow
from this based on other areas experience that's pretty short-lived, the revenue comes in and then within a few weeks the number of citations drop significantly um as the behavior changes. So that really is our goal is, you know, not to collect money. I mean,
that's that's a that's a benefit when it's enforcing good safety, but the goal is that the revenue would drop significantly. And that's actually one of the key KPIs of this is that that the number of of tickets or citations issued drop significantly after launch.
um the technology failure or a loss of human discretion. And I think that's an important point of why the trained parking enforcement officers will be there to issue all citations. Um the camera will assist. It will not issue the citation in and of itself.
Um so we did meet with the SIDS on May 14th and overall they had positive feedback uh from the leaders of the SIDS uh representing the business community and provided I think some positive input uh into the conversation. Um one of the key aspects was maintaining an open
communication to the businesses throughout the pilot as well as uh remaining flexible and responsive to unintended consequences um including spillover of issues onto uh side streets. next door to the the corridor enforce. So that is something we're
taking into the next phase when we actually start to identify corridors. So the specific violations that are going to be going to be targeted through this program will be parking in areas of no parking any time. Often these are the areas on the corner that allow for
visibility to the side street or to uh pedestrians and crosswalks. It also will support no stopping or standing loading zones, school pickup dropoff zones, bus stops, um intersections, driveways, uh crosswalks, bike lanes, uh and blocking
fire hydrants, double parking, as well as parking on sidewalks. Um before we launch the pilot uh we intend to update and expand loading zones in any areas where we believe that is uh a deficiency uh where we're
looking at the program. Uh based on some surveys conducted from other projects, we anticipate that business needs loading typically lasts between 15 and 30 minutes and a business averages five deliveries uh per day uh typically between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. So we're going to utilize these this broad data
and we're going to work with the SIDS once we have specific locations really to establish loading zones. Um overall the areas that we're looking to pilot include commercial districts, areas near transit with high pedestrian and cycling
activities as well as areas with protected bike lanes um that have short-term pickup and drop off conflicts as well as areas near schools. So we're hoping in this pilot program to have a sample that touches on a variety of these different areas.
Um our timeline, we've met with the SIDS um and we've conducted the public outreach survey. Uh this week we have the council resolution before you. Um subsequent to that, we will work on finalizing locations based on input from the survey, input from the SIDS, and input from uh council members as well.
Uh once we have locations identified, we will begin significant amount of community outreach and noticing before we launch any uh actual citation program. For each location that we'd be looking to roll out, we've made a commitment to have a general community meeting. So, a
public meeting hopefully with some council members office. We'd love your support and helping make getting the word out and getting feedback um and information from the general community in addition to a meeting really targeted at the business community organized in partnership with SIDS. Um, we also will
be doing targeted location and corridor surveys, looking at loading zones, um, needs, uh, door-to-door noticing and outreach to businesses as appropriate depending on the specific zone, as well as flying and putting up information in pilot areas. Um, as well as ensuring
that the signs, stripings, and uh, pavement markings is what I mean by striping um, are accurate and reflecting the loading zones, no parking zones within that corridor. Again, our goal is not to trick anyone. We want to make it abundantly clear what the what what we're asking people to do to be safe
with their vehicles. Um, and then enforce that. Um, so I know that was a lot. That was my presentation, Council President, but I'll be happy to take questions and I can go to the podium for that. >> Okay. >> Questions? I do have one that came from
uh the residents. They wanted to know during this pilot, are they actually receiving live tickets or is it a warning sticker saying, "Hey, if you parked here 2 years from now, you could have uh received a ticket."
>> The the intent of the program is to issue actual citations, but that would happen later in the summer. Um we're looking to continue public outreach about specific locations once we've identified those. But when the program goes live, even while we call it a
pilot, we would be issuing citations that would be um fines and require payment. >> Um director, I have several questions. I'll try to be as brief as possible. Um just from a data standpoint, uh the
slide you presented, I think there was like 700 and something participants in the survey. Uh, do we have a breakdown of I guess where these people live as a where it said Jersey City residents, but
a breakdown as it relates to what ward they live in, um, the ethnicity and things like that. Um, >> I echo that question. >> Yes, we do. and and Councilman Gilmore and others, thanks to your offices for
helping us distribute this across the entire city. Um I don't know, Lindsay, if you have the data, um but it does represent respondents from across the city, although I do think it's a little bit biased towards downtown, but um it
is more representative than I think. >> Hi, Council President, members of council. Um, as of right now, and I will say we've now got 814 responses in the survey. We're, as Andy mentioned, we're continuing to collect uh responses
before we finalize any locations. Um, so we have for 07302, which is downtown, we have 33% of respondents. Um, we're from downtown. Uh, 07304 is about 17%. 07305
is about 12%, 07306 is about 13%. 07307 is about 21%. Uh and then others made up uh less than 3% of the total. >> Okay. Um, so
I would I would going to I just I would urge you guys when you're taking data, if your goal is to capture the entire city and how one feels about something, there is six
wards. You have to you almost You know how you spoke about before putting up these cameras, the measure you're going to do to warn people and do
all of that. That type of attention to detail has to be displayed in the survey period because this is what the narrative is going to be. We understand safety is important, but they're going
to say, "Oh, people downtown want to control the narrative." Right now, my office have done our part in making sure people participate and they have access to this information. But again, if the the
intent of this is to to see if to get the input about the pilot, right, we have to be very cognizant of how we're capturing data. Um because I mean I think the initiative is good. I think what we're doing is good, but we don't
want to get in an instance where it looks like a certain portion of the city is controlling the conversation, controlling narrative, controlling the infrastructure and things like that. Um,
and I guess my other question, I'm going to try to be brief because it's it's it's a lot with this uh with this resolution here. Um, and you know, some people are a little uneasy, right? Some people are saying, you know, what if
they're targeting certain areas? Um, I'll be on the record. I'm sick of cars, park, and fire hydrants in in in all that area, right? But I just know I know Jersey City and I know there's an opportunity for us to get it right. And
there's not an opportunity and if we don't get it right, what they're going to say is a tale of two cities again, right? So, I say all that to say that we just have to make sure we get it right. Now, as it relates to these no stopping
or standing areas and these I guess these tickets are going to be there. Um, how does it work if someone's in the in said vehicle um and they're waiting for someone? It's technically still breaking the law because there's no stop and the
stand. as it refers to if you're going in or out, but h how does that actual interaction look? >> Yeah. So, so first just to respond to your points about being representative of the whole city in the survey. I I wholeheartedly agree and to that extent we greatly appreciate your office's
support and other council members office support and distributing the survey through variety of different mechanisms. Um, and we continue to appreciate the support of and and advice and guidance to ensure that all wards are getting
responses and responding. Um, as Lindsay mentioned, about a third was downtown, but about a two-thirds was not. So, um, we'll love to continue that dialogue to ensure that we're having strong engagement across the city. That is a a key and important goal, and appreciate you bringing that up. Uh, to your extent, your question about whether
someone's sitting in the vehicle versus not sitting in the vehicle. Um, at the end of the day, it's going to be the ultimate judgment of the parking enforcement officer, but the program itself, whether you're sitting in the vehicle or not in the vehicle, if you're on a corner and you're blocking visibility of a pedestrian or you're
blocking visibility of a side street from the main traffic, it's still being a safety issue and a concern regardless of whether the driver is in the vehicle and the vehicle's on or not. Um, so ultimately, you know, if someone pulls
over and jumps out to put a kid in a car seat, that's going to be up to a parking enforcement officer whether they issue a ticket or not. Um, but they would be in violation and they would be creating an unsafe condition. It is very possible that they would receive a citation.
May I ask just on this note about the human element of the final call in the parking enforcement and actually sending out a citation? Um would infrastructure andor public safety develop a set of guidelines on what kind of calls the
parking enforcement officer should be making in these situations. Um, I like the idea that there is a human element and I also want to figure out like how we can avoid arbitrary decision making around whether or not to send out citations.
>> Yeah, absolutely. It's it's a really good point and currently there's a variety of arbitrary decisions, discretion being made by individual parking enforcement agents in the field. and as they're at the desk making these decisions, we will work with that
department with Lieutenant Sonowski um to kind of give some guidance to his officers and and also look, we're going to create business rules within the technology system. So, like for example, let's just say there's a 15-minute loading zone at 15 minutes and 1 second,
we're not going to pro we're probably not going to have that go to a parking enforcement agent. There's probably going to be a buffer and it's going to be determined partially based on workload, right? um to but but also you know in fairness and that's going to be a conversation where I'm not a parking enforcement
agent. Um I don't view these types of violations every day. Uh they are professionals in that right and this will be a conversation with their leadership uh to determine what these appropriate kind of policies and recommendations should be or or considerations when they're
issuing tickets. >> Yeah. Uh, one other quick question. Um, director, um, so there's a bunch of construction going on. Some city streets have been under siege for like 15 16
months. Um, so an instance where like the white the white street have been blocked off for the last before you even came to the city. Um, so an instance like that like how do we
How do we accommodate for that continue that continued construction that's going on? Because I think they're doing uh lead lines and water manes and stuff like that. So, let's say if um if a camber was installed at that
intersection and it say don't um park on the corners, right? That's the only place you can park. you park at the corner, then you got to walk down because you can't drive down. How how does how does how does the cameras work in that instant? So, most likely
um we're going to be targeting a small number of corridors and most likely those will not be um fully in residential areas or if they will they'll be within a block or two of a school or something like that. Um, in terms of the first phase of this pilot, when a roadway closure happens, and
obviously there's changes in traffic patterns at the end of those blocks, um, I think that I would recommend that that be part of the considerations of a traffic enforcement agent um, when they're reviewing the video that they take that into consideration, but they
also take into consideration the impact, right? So, if you're blocking the the intersecting street fully in order to unload, that's probably not good either, right? So, there's there's a trade-off here. Um, but I I do think that will be something we'd look to accommodate and as a consideration when
developing guidance and to the parking enforcement agents. >> Okay. Well, Lena, >> thank you. Um, I appreciate it. Um I believe you answered um some of these questions in our private meeting, but I just want to get this on the record. Um
>> Sure. >> The data is encrypted, correct? >> That is my understanding. >> And and where is it stored don't have the answer to that off the top of my head. Um I'm not sure if it's in the
vendor believe it's the vendor server, but I'm not positive. I had to get back to you on that. >> Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you director. This is we we had a good discussion about it. I think it is needed. City is growing. There are a lot
of people driving and breaking the laws. So we have to come up with a solution. So thank you for this. My only recommendation would be that enforcing this. So for example, if you are choosing four streets in downtown,
please choose four streets in all the wards. if we do not enforce it equally people will complain and then we have to come up with you know some solution so that would be my request and I would say that the reason most of the downtown
people have participated because that's how it is right they go out quite um openly about the opinion they go out in neighborhood meetings and they have been telling us that they like this enforcement because they are the ones suffering a lot because downtown is way
more congested than any other area. So I think I feel that is a reason you sees most of the people participated are from downtown >> director a few questions done >> oh you you done ma >> I'm good thank you >> thank you m uh hoboka seem to have a
successful trial did they renew the program >> they did not um hobok program launched >> um during Christmas season without strong conversations with their business community um also during an election
season and for thosear variety of of reasons they their program had a sunset and their council chose not to continue it beyond the sunset. Um despite what I personally believe would be encouraging numbers to the effectiveness on safety of the program um the business community
felt like they were not engaged um and did not feel like the program was successful to them and that was one of the key lessons learned and one of the reasons we've been doing strong uh SID outreach to our business communities in Jersey City. Now, for commercial districts to be successful, I think you
would agree with me, we need frequent turnover from curb parking. So, I'm certainly in favor of enforcement, but we also have to attack the root cause of why people are double parking, which is the lack of uh frequent available curbside parking. Uh
can you talk to what steps your department is taking to one fix the parking meters in well throughout the city but specifically in general square in Ward C and also change our commercial districts to be more uh shorter term parking on the street which would encourage people to park off street at
the parking decks which are are not full in Journal Square. >> So Councilman, I share those concerns and I think there are many strategies that could be implemented to encourage parking turnover. Um but right now what
we're looking at proposing is really specific to enforcing the rules that are there. Uh it is our desire to have a larger conversation and this is one of the recommendations in the draft transportation master plan um to look at parking regulations more broadly
especially in commercial districts. Um but right now I don't think we're prepared to have that long conversation. What we are prepared to do is to look at enforcing the loading zones, enforcing the safety elements. Um, you know, and to to us, you know, the the turnover is
important to the business district and the vitality and that is absolutely critical and important, but having adopted vision zero, that really is our top priority. And so looking at this program from a safety lens with other benefits, right, it'll benefit business turnover is is how we're approaching it.
Um, but we understand that there's more conversations about how to support the business community beyond this program. >> What timeline would you suggest for for for being able to roll out a more efficient parking system? For example, India Square the the people who are coming for restaurants are most ideally
they'd park in the empty lots there or the parking lots that were available. If you're going to drop off or pick up or you're there for a quick shopping um trip, you park at 30-minute parking, which I would be in favor of uh implementing. Same on Bergen Avenue. same on the boulevard between uh Bergen
Avenue and Tunnelly. Uh I think it's a matter of equity. If we're going to enforce, you also have to solve the problem of why there's a lack of uh why there's a need to enforce as well. So again, I'm in favor of the pilot program, but can we roll it out at the same time your office is ready to roll
out these parking changes? >> I don't think we're going to be ready to roll out. So we will be rolling out the changes to the parking on the corridors. That is something that we're committed to looking at. Um but to look at it comprehensively, to look at off-site
parking, to look at um pricing strategies of the meters, um that's a longer term conversation that we frankly are working to increase our staffing to accommodate um among other things. Um hiring traffic engineers. So, I don't have a firm timeline for that, but I it
it is an understandable pain point for many of our businesses and residents of the city and is something that we as infrastructure want to partner with the parking authority who really owns the enforcement aspect um and work
collaboratively towards having better curbside policies overall. >> Again, I'm not being critical. I'm in favor of the enforcement. I I often half joke I I want Stu to give me a parking book so I can t issue tickets myself. Uh so I you know there's a need for the enforcement for safety for keeping
people moving throughout Journal Square. Uh but I I I would implore your office to look into this other part as soon as possible because there's a you can't do it peacemail and and there's many pieces missing into what's causing a lot of issues and in terms of uh safety,
traffic uh difficulties for businesses. I would ask that you look into those. We could talk about it offline more too. correct. >> Yeah, to totally acknowledge and hear you and and we can talk more offline about how we can, you know, more broadly make things less of a pain point and
make this work better. >> Councilwoman Brooks, >> um, hi director. Uh, I just have two questions. One, uh, there was a slide that talked about, um, the percentage reduction in the Hoboken case study. How did they get a baseline?
So in Hoboken and and we are hoping um but have not yet got it exactly committed um that we're going to have these technology devices uh installed. See if I get that slide installed um it's not working. We'll have these
technology devices installed before we start issuing tickets. So they'll be able to pretty much run and then just capture the data before tickets are being issued. That's where the baseline comes from. Um and some of that also comes from ensuring that the system's calibrated um that the communication
between the vendor and JCPD is is appropriate and working. So during that kind of soft no ticket launch period we'll be collecting before data compared to >> Got it. Okay. And then my second question is um there in terms of the data security one of the slides talked
about not sharing uh with third parties. Um, so I guess we wouldn't consider the municipal prosecutor a third party. >> That's correct. Okay. >> Um, we've had a com preliminary conversation with the municipal prosecutor. Um, this technology has been
vetted in other municipalities in New Jersey as compliant. So, you know, the municipal prosecutor does not anticipate significant challenges about whether it is legal to do this. Um, but they do anticipate some, you know, challenges to individual citations. um and they've
been kind of talking to other places in the state that um have these programs to kind of understand what to expect. >> Okay. Yeah. Just highlighting that because I think it might be confusing if we're saying we're not sharing it with a third party that residents might think,
oh, the prosecutor, you know, you can't share that picture with them. Um but just to make that clear that that's kind of in in-house. >> Correct. I appreciate that flag. So to be clear, this would be shared with uh the parking authority or or now public
safety within the city government, it would be shared with um any municipal prosecution or adjudication of the citation as well. >> Now just to piggyback off of Councilman Brook's first question in regards to Hoboken, and I apologize if this was
answered. I stepped if this was asked, I stepped out for a second, but Hoboken, you mentioned did the pilot program. Did they implement the service? >> So, their pilot program had an expiration date and their the Hoboken Council chose not to continue their
program um for my opinion political reasons. Um I think there was some push back from the business community uh that responded negatively to the program as well as some of the timing of their roll out. They did roll it out during Christmas shopping season during an election cycle. Um and the business
community did not have as strong of engagement as we have intend we intend and have laid the groundwork to have um and we believe that they need to be critical partners in in the success and our initial conversations with the leadership of the various SIDs has uh
been very positive. So you know we believe that with the businesses as and the SIDS as a partner um and helping us shape the program we'll be able to avoid some of the political challenges that Hoboken's program faced. Although in my opinion their program data suggests that
it was very effective from a transportation and a safety standpoint. >> But how how long was the um Hoboken pilot? >> Don't remember the exact length, but I believe it was a few months. I believe it was kind of during the winter of
2025. Um I'm not sure the exact dates off the top of my head. I can get back to you on that. And uh do are there any uh municipalities in in the state that's um been doing this program for like over a year?
>> Yes. Um there are two vendors and this is where it gets a little bit wonky. Um the vendor Safety Sticks has an extensive deployment across the state. Um especially kind of North Hudson County and and lower Bergen County. Um they're active there. they've been active there Fort Lee area for
I don't know the exact time frame but for for an extended period. Um automotives has other cities in New Jersey. Uh I'm not sure the exact stent or scope of them. I can get back to you on that. Uh but they also are working with a number of other cities nationally. This is kind of
>> Okay. The the reason why I asked um is to see if we can get numbers from a m a municipality that's done this a long time versus a pilot program. Certainly, we can we can work uh to get that information. >> Thank you. >> Um
>> and just to be to clarify, Councilman, um we will see if that's instate and we absolutely have some of that data from other cities and other states that are comparable to us, but we can try to get both. >> Lavaro, >> I will also apologize, director. Thank
you for your presentation. Um I I didn't catch some of that, but um are tickets issued in real time or are they like can can an officer be looking at a recording and issue a issue a ticket? >> So they're not issued in real time. Um
the officer would review it, you know, a package of these on their desk as I understand it. Um you know, they they would get a few officers would be able to look at various locations. So it wouldn't be like a surveillance system that an officer is watching in real time. It would be when a violation
occurs, the information would be sent to an officer, I believe, in a short period of time, the next day, something like that. But I can get back to you on the exact time frame. >> Okay. And how many officers will be manning these monitors or or looking at the video? Any shorts?
>> We've had preliminary conversations with public safety and we'll get don't have the exact number. Um I think some of it will depend on the volume of citations issued. But overall, public safety believes that it will allow them to
redeploy current field personnel who are in these hotspots that we may be putting this enforcement and reduce the number of agents it takes for. So there may be one person at a desk instead of four people in the field. And then those field agents could be deployed to other
functions throughout the city. So the exact numbers I don't know that we've worked through that yet and some of it will depend. Um and also because we anticipate a large volume of citations when the program initially rolls out but then very sharply dropping off. You know we may be looking at different numbers
for the first few weeks of the program versus when it stabilizes. >> Um what if what if uh an individual wanted to contest uh the findings? Is it just like a normal parking ticket and
>> correct? Um they would be able to contest this um as a typical parking ticket. Um the other thing that would be possible is well you know because parking tickets are tied to a vehicle owner um and the vehicle itself as opposed to the driver they could I believe there's a process where they
could look into that as well. But um actually I believe I'm sorry I think that's I'm mistaken that was a different enforcement program as well for because parking tickets are issued to vehicles. This would would be contestable by the vehicle owner who'd receive it in the mail through the courts.
>> Yeah. I I saw a slide regarding um protecting residents privacy. Um c can you speak to that again as to what uh what's being done to to protect residents privacy in this >> certainly. Um we understand this is a concern um and we share that concern and
I think the slides up here uh that these are not surveillance systems that you know the sensors are there to capture traffic and curb activity and our understanding is that the systems will blur beyond resi recognition any personally identifiable information
outside of the vehicle's license plate. Um also captured will be images of the vehicle. Um and that these these images uh are only going to be used for parking enforcement purposes, no other purposes. Uh none of the data is shared with third
parties or other types of law enforcement activities. It will be shared with parking enforcement activities and with the municipal courts um as appropriate >> for disabled drivers um or passengers or elderly residents. what accommodations
are made if you end up parking in a no parking zone and drop them off or pick them up or whatever the case that might be there. >> Yeah, a great question. Um, you know, I think to me what's most effective in order to pick up an elderly resident in a commercial district, for example,
who's going to utilize a restaurant or, you know, one of the businesses is that there would be a loading zone that that that driver and that elderly individual could use. Um right now the alternative would be double parking in the street and allowing that person a short walk.
Um additionally we do have uh general handicap spaces uh along some of our business districts. So that also is a consideration when we look at that curbside management uh to try to support those individuals. Um this system is not
enforcing parking meters. I believe there may be certain ADA hang tags will have impacts to parking meters. Um I'd have to talk to public safety to really get the details on that. I don't have that information. But since we're not impacting parking meter enforcement directly with this, this would not um
impact any of those rules. Council members, I'm going to ask that if we have any additional questions, if we would uh send them via email to Director Kaplan and blind copy the council so that he can respond and
everyone can see it. Um because we do have some other presentations tonight. So, >> okay. >> Thank you, Council President. Thank you, council. >> And and Councilman Griffin says we have game three. Deputy Mayor Pod.
>> Can everyone hear me? Okay. Uh, good evening, Council President. Good evening, uh, members of the council. Um, I'm here tonight to speak on three different items. Uh, the first is agenda item 3.8, ordinance 26-040,
which is the proposed ordinance to split 10% of future pilot revenue with the school district. The second is agenda item 3.13 and 3.14 ordinances 26-045
and 26-046 which are collectively the ordinances for the pilot for canal crossing for the two different buildings on that site. Um so I apologize for the volume of documents we've given you today. Uh but
I'll start off by giving an overview of the project itself and then I'll turn it over to our financial adviser Tom Banker who will do the actual uh presentation on the analysis of the pilot terms. And then finally we also have Deputy Mayor
Bryant uh and Jen Cridio from the McManaman Scotland Bowman Law Firm who will be here in case there are any questions pertaining to the legal aspects of the school funding ordinance. So I think by now um most or all of you are familiar with the site. This is the
canal crossing redevelopment area uh directly across from Barry Lane Park and adjacent to the Garfield Avenue light rail station. On this map uh where it's demarcated phase one and phase two, you can see where the two residential multifamily buildings were going to go.
And then phase three is where the planned future of Garfield Park uh will go. Um uh as we'll discuss uh further, this will be the first development going into a historically very contaminated site which has not seen any development
for many many decades at this point. So to provide a quick overview of the benefits of the canal crossing project uh from the perspective of the administration um the first very significantly is 20% affordable housing. This will include
units at 50% of area median income and 30% of area median income. Those 30% AMI units are the ones that will be $1,000 rents and under. Uh which we're very excited about. Uh we will have new public park benefits including a new uh
30,000t park Garfield Park along with the beginning of the extension of the Morris Canal Greenway out from Berry Lane Park. The project will be built with 100% union labor for the construction phase uh and prevailing wages will be required for all building
service workers once the buildings are operational. Within the two uh mixeduse residential buildings, there will be 20,000 square ft of commercial and retail space, which I think um many recognize is desperately uh desired by this particular community.
The plan is structured such that the highest amount of density is located directly adjacent to the Garfield A light rail stop. um in line with principles of transit oriented development. There will be structured parking roughly three spaces per five
units in both buildings. Uh and then finally, as we'll discuss a little bit more, uh part of this whole process has been the remediation of very significant environmental contamination on the site. So, a little bit about the history of
the site. Um the this plot was previously used for industrial purposes for over 50 years. Um including the generation of chromate chromium which is a highly toxic industrial chemical. Uh
due to that contamination, the site was left undeveloped for for many many decades and all credit to the community uh a very extensive litigation process ensued for to determine who would be forced to bear the costs of that
remediation. In that sense, the site is very similar to the Bayront site where we have a very sim similar history of contamination that was only ultimately remediated due to the efforts of the community. Um and there was also a great deal of cooperation with the corporation
council during the Healey administration to bring this litigation against PPG and get uh consent order requiring them to clean up the site. So in 2009 there was a joint consent order signed uh which led to the extensive remediate
remediation efforts that have occurred over the past 15 years. Um there's significant amount of detail we can provide here but uh at its most basic in 2020 the D finally issued a no further action letter indicating that the site
is prepare is ready for redevelopment and there have been multiple progress reports from the courtapp appointed site administrator since then providing more detail on the status of the remediation efforts. This slide just goes through the development program for both buildings
and bu in a little bit more detail um and shows you the split. Uh the building on block 10 is slightly less dense, six stories and 215 units with a little bit less commercial and a little bit less parking. The second building is
obviously more dense and a little taller uh with more units, more commercial and more parking. So, of course, this is the first pilot that we're bringing before you as an administration for the council. So, we just wanted to briefly talk about how we believe our approach to pilots differ
substantially from what it has been in the past. Um, in addition to the school funding ordinance, which we'll talk about in a second, uh the the core belief of the mayor is that pilot should be used to unlock public benefits and should not just be a giveaway to
developers to line their own pockets. Uh we believe that this project and the myriad public benefits that are part of it satisfy uh you know that requirement that philosophy. Um every pilot application that we bring before you for your consideration will have been
vigorously readed by independent outside adviserss and we will not allow there to be any ambiguity in the terms of what the developer is required to do which has happened in the past. Um, going forward, if you do choose to pass this pilot, there will be regular audits of
this pilot and all the other pilots that may be passed in the future. Uh, and it's part of my role and the mayor's commitment, which is to drive the maximum possible public benefit that we can get out of every single one of these deals within the constraints that we are
given. So, finally, before I turn it over to the uh to Tom Banker, our financial adviser, uh I'll talk briefly about uh the school funding ordinance, and Deputy Mayor Brian is also here to answer any questions about that. Um so, as I think
all of you are aware, in 2017, the prior administration issued an executive order purporting to share 10% of future pilots with the school district. that order was never actually implemented and so this would be the first time that the city would actually be voluntarily sharing
pilot revenues with the school district. Uh we spent a lot of time considering how to do this the right way and legally and our proposal is to dedicate 10% of pilots to uh 10% of the revenue that comes from pilots for a school
infrastructure capital fund. um those funds would come in from the pilots every year and be deposited into the fund. This would apply to this pilot if you were choose to pass it. We would also seek to retroactively apply it to a
certain subset of pilots, specifically those that were passed in the last 5 years for projects that have not yet received a certificate of occupancy. So a couple examples of that are the embankment project which obviously is just getting going now 701 Newark which
is currently under construction. At the point at which those projects come online and begin paying pilot revenue um they would be subject to the money would go into the fund in order to decide uh what capital
projects are funded out of the capital fund. There would be an oversight committee composed of five voting members. Two from the city government, one from the board of ed, one from the school district, as well as an independent member appointed by the mayor. And then there would also be a
non- voting city council liaison um who would provide input into the process but would not vote on funding decisions. All committee recommendations for funding would come back before this council for approval ultimately before any specific project is funded.
Um I'll now turn it over to uh Tom Baker who will provide the actual pilot presentation. >> I hope you have the presentation with the thing to advance. >> I do. >> Good afternoon or good evening uh council members. My name is Tom Banker.
I'm the president of the Banker Group LLC. We're an independent financial advisory firm that's been in business since 1999. We uh provide services to both government and private uh sector
organizations. Uh we provide independent financial analysis of the economic feasibility of development projects. We have other services but that's the main thing that we do that applies to this assignment. Uh I have a long history in
local government in New Jersey. Uh this is actually we are approaching my 52nd anniversary of my start in government which was with the city of Newark where I served as the budget director and the assistant city administrator. I've been the executive
director of the Essex County Improvement Authority for 11 years. I've been the top administrator in the uh burrow of Caldwell and in the town of Belleville. I also was the deputy county administrator for Essex County. I have
25 years of classroom experience in uh the uh Colombia University graduate program in public administration and an overlapping 20 years of classroom experience in the Ruters University graduate program in public
administration. uh for the last 27 years starting in 1999 I've operated the banker group LLC uh as I said we are an independent uh advisory firm we have both public and private clients the one
you're mo probably most familiar with is we have been for the last 16 years the redevelopment advisor to Harrison uh here in Hudson County we're very proud of the progress that we've helped Harrison make in converting the south
side of the uh the beehive of industry into a very successful example of of the use of redevelopment. Uh so that's my background. I'm happy to drill down more into that if anyone is interested. >> Oh, that's good. Thank you. >> Okay. All right. Thanks. Um
so you you already heard from the deputy mayor about most of the statistics of this project, so I'm not going to dwell on the size of it. It's 500 units, 20,000 ft of retail, you know, almost 300 parking spaces, and it's about a
$320 million program. The uh you heard again these statistics. Uh it's 675,000 square feet, so it's a very large project. Um and you can go to the next next slide. All right. So, what what has
been proposed is that the this thing doesn't want to stay put, but uh what's been proposed is a 30-year tax abatement uh starting at 10% for the first 10 15 years going to 11% over the next 10
years and the last 5 years at 12%. It also includes what I would call an aggressive uh program of the alternative which is uh under pilots you play the greater of two formulas. The uh percentage of annual gross revenue which
is what the 10 11 and 12 represents and the alternative is a percentage of quote otherwise applicable taxes which is what full real estate taxes would otherwise be. and that advances from 20%
uh through stages of 40 60 and 80%. What's happening here is the proposal after negotiations with the city includes uh an aggressive set of the OAT numbers. Uh the 80% can normally be in
effect for as little as one year. In this case, it's being proposed to be in effect for the last six years. That's a very significant uh difference from uh from from what is typical. You could advance the uh slide please.
All right. Um as was as was uh talked about earlier and I'll now emphasize it because it was a big part of our analysis. This proposal is not what the developer asked for originally. uh the developer
basically said they wanted to build this project, they wanted the pilot, but they weren't prepared to to work through the major public improvements that the city was interested in. After negotiations with the city, and I was not involved,
this is this is my observations, not something that I participated in. Uh as you heard, there are two very significant outcomes. one is the uh improvements to Garfield Park, the creation of this new 33,000qt
park and also improvements connective connectivity improvements to the Mars Canal Greenway. Uh all of those improvements are being borne solely by the redeveloper. So those are at the redevelopers expense and they must be
completed prior to the final CO being issued on the project. As you heard, this project has two phases, two buildings. Those public improvements have to be completed before the CO will be issued for the second uh building's
uh CO. Uh when we reviewed this, one of the things that we noted was that the costs for this project are materially higher than what we typically see when we are reviewing applications for tax
abatement. Um the uh the cost at over $500 a square foot for the phase 1A and almost $450 a square foot for uh phase 1B uh are are are definitely higher than what I would say would be the the
typical. However, there are four major reasons uh for those costs being higher. Number one is this project is seeking public assistance not just in the form of tax abatement but it's also seeking public assistance from the New Jersey
Aspire program which is run by New Jersey EDA and it's seeking support from the New Jersey Housing Mortgage Finance Agency in the form of lowincome housing tax credits. because of EDA's involvement, they will be required to
provide prevailing wage on as was noted in the deputy mayor's presentation on both all construction activity and all of the building service activity after completion. So that's the first reason for increased cost. The second reason uh
is that in addition to the public improvements of the parks that you heard about, this site does not currently have what I would call normal public infrastructure. There are no local streets. There are no sewers. There are no water manes. All of
those infrastructure improvements will be installed as part of the development and they will be installed at the redevelopers expense. The third thing is you did hear about the environmental conditions and they were not borne those costs were not
borne by the redeveloper but the results of that and the conditions of the site require that there will be specialized construction techniques required on this program. They will not be able to use the normal shallow spread footings. They
will not be using the same normal building materials. These will not be stickuilt buildings. They will be using specialized construction due to soil conditions and topography. They'll add to cost. And lastly, while I know it is desirable to the municipality and it is
a requirement of the Aspire program, there will be 20% affordable housing provided as part of this project under the standards of those programs. And as as typified here today, uh that will mean that the the average rent received
on the 20% affordable component will be less than 50% of AMI. Uh the highest number is 50% of AMI and there's a significant percentage that will be at 30% of AMI. Those are costs that would
normally be, you know, be borne by, you know, full rents. when you're not getting full rents, it increases the cost to be borne by the rest of the project. Um, we think that those reasons are uh a reasonable um explanation for
why the construction cost, the project costs are higher than what we would see typically. You can go to the next slide. Okay. So our our our methodology was to basically compare uh two scenarios uh for each of the two phases
of the building. Uh we assumed that the project would have to have prevailing wage and all the things I just mentioned in on the last slide. But we assumed that there were two scenarios. one in which the project would pay full prop
real estate taxes and the second in which the project would pay the pilot under the terms that I outlined earlier. Uh what we determined and as uh exhibited on the slide that's before you is that under full property taxes it is
our opinion that this is not economically feasible to be constructed that the developer if not granted a tax abatement cannot secure uh traditional financing cannot identify traditional
equity investors because the returns are not adequate. uh what you can see here and again uh I'll do it just for perspective probably as much for the uh the the audience as for the council itself is that we measure three metrics
the internal rate of return which for uh long-term projects uh to be competitive needs to be at least 8% and usually up to about 12% is not considered to be a windfall. So those are reasonable rates
of return. Under 8% you probably aren't going to attract either equity or lenders. The yield to cost is another measure. And this is a measure that is uh you basically take the net operating income for the project and compare it to the
total cost not to the equity but to the total cost and that's done in the first stabilized year which is typically the second or third year after the co. Okay. Those numbers need to be north of 6% in
order to be sustainable for again investors and lenders. Uh and up to 7% is still in the range of reasonleness. When you get over 7% we could start to argue that it's it's getting to be uh pretty rich. In this case, as you can
see, without uh without a tax evatement in the full tax scenario, um neither project has an adequate irr or an adequate yield to cost. And then the final measure is something called the debt service coverage ratio. The debt
service coverage ratio is the relationship between the amount of free cash available after you pay normal expenses and that's the amount that's available to cover your mortgage. Okay? Most traditional lenders will not
consider lending money long-term unless you can exhibit a coverage ratio that's at least 120% of your obligation. So, if you owe a million dollars as your mortgage payment, the lender wants to see that you have net operating income
before debt service of $1.2 million or more. Again, as you can see from this chart, under full taxes, the debt service coverage ratio for both phases is well below the level that would be considered adequate for debt service
coverage. In the alternative with the pilot that is was outlined, the the IRRa falls into the range that we consider to be adequate but not excessive. The debt service, I'm sorry, the yield to cost is
really not adequate for phase one and I'll get to that in a minute. It is adequate in phase two and overall combined it would be considered adequate. And the debt service coverage ratio is just barely adequate at the build at the beginning. It does grow as
the as the project goes on because typically debt service doesn't increase its level for a period of up to 10 years. So, so what we're concluding here is that this project in the opinion of the of the banker group uh is not
feasible if required to pay full taxes and it is feasible although not excessively so if it receives the pilot that was uh that was requested. Next slide please. Okay. So from the standpoint of the city
uh obviously in addition to the public benefits that were discussed earlier the city's concerned is what is this mean to the city financially. Okay. Currently uh the city you know full city taxes on
the site on all the lots that make up this property. It's about $171,000 a year of which the municipal share is about $63,000. What we are projecting based on the the rent stream and the terms of the pilot
is that there would be a annual stabilized pilot of just under $2 million a year of which the city would get the vast majority uh about 1.85 85 million. Over the 30-year term, we're
talking about $88 million uh payable to Jersey City. That's the city share. Um and so overall, this means this project over that 30-year time frame would yield a net increase of
about $85 million. You can go to the next slide. You heard tonight uh that there's also on this same agenda a ordinance that would provide for Jersey City to provide
uh revenue sharing from this pilot and other pilots to the board of education. The math is straightforward. The proposal is for a 10% uh share. So over the 30-year term, that would mean $8.8 8
million to the board of education that they are not currently receiving. You can go to the next slide. Again, this is just a graphic uh illustration of the relationship between what the current city share is of
revenues generated by the site and what the city share would be assuming the approval of the pilot. uh it's broken down into the phases. Again, it's the same $88 million over 30 years compared to, you know, a very small number uh
$2.5 million currently. So, so our findings as as the uh independent advisor is that uh you have a offer to invest about $318 million uh into your city. Um that investment
would generate a very large number of jobs. Uh those jobs would be union jobs or at least union scale because of the prevailing wage requirement. Uh we also we noted that we do think the project is
expensive but we believe that the uh uh those costs are reasonable because of the four factors I identified and compared to the proposal made by the developer. While we think the cost might be able to be amilarated slightly, we
also think the developer was overly enthusiastic about uh his expectation of how much uh state 80 is going to get. So we think that if we were to be preparing this ourselves from scratch, we'd end up in the same place through slightly
different math, but we'd end up in about the same place as was proposed by the developer. Um, as I said before, uh, we believe that the tax exemption is necessary for this project to go forward in the form in which it's proposed. We
were not asked to examine it. But I will tell you that in the event that the tax exemption is not provided, the developer's only choice, and again I have not talked with the developer about this, but based on my experience, it is likely that the developer would revisit
the project and would reconsider the project, but would remove all of the public benefits that are currently included and would perhaps come back to the city offering to build something similar, but without the park, without
the Mars Canal extension uh without the affordable housing component and you know and without the sharing of the revenues. So uh but again based on the assumptions that if the city wants those things you know the affordable housing
and so on that it's not going to happen in full taxes we think it can happen and is economically feasible with the pilot. And finally, we don't think that the returns that the developer will receive from the pilot constitutes anything more
than what are reasonable and fair returns uh in the market in which they're competing. >> Last slide. And uh so in conclusion, it's basically I'm repeating my opinion that I've already said. It is our
opinion that the uh approval of the tax exemption would not result in excessive profits to the redeveloper but rather is necessary as a necessary part of the financing structure to facilitate the construction of the 500 plus units
including the over 100 affordable units along with the other amenities like the retail space, the structured parking, the public parking and the the I'm sorry, the public park uh and uh the the streets, the water, and the sewer improvements. We don't think that
happens without tax abatement. We do think it will happen with tax abatement, and that's reasonable. I'm happy to answer any questions or to drill down further into anything that we talked about at the surface level. >> Thank you.
>> Questions? >> Yes. Good afternoon. Council >> Council Griffin. Go ahead. >> Thank you, Councilman. Um, couple of questions. Uh, one, um, what would the annual conventional taxes be
without a tax abatement? >> Uh, give me one second. I will pull it out. Okay. Otherwise, applicable taxes of the combined projects would be approximately $3.8 million a year.
>> Okay. >> What share would be going to Jersey City in that scenario? >> Uh Jersey City share would be about $1.4 million out of 3.8. >> Thank you.
And my second question was um what was my second >> you say it was 3.8 8 million >> the the affordable housing component. I'm I'm know I'm new to the whole pilot thing, right? But I am familiar with redevelopment plan. So the redevelopment
plan calls for 9%. >> Pilot calls for 20. >> Yes. >> Now I don't know if I'm doing magic math, but that's 29% affordable housing to me. So preceding >> Yeah. The 20 the 20% supersedes the 9%.
>> Thank you. Councilman Lavar. Yeah. >> So, let me just start with some simple. Thank you for the presentations to the deputy mayor and Mr. Banker. Um, you are retained by the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency, just for the record. >> JC is my client. Yes.
>> And, um, how long have you been um, work? >> This is the first project I was asked to do for them. >> Okay. Um so um will we be receiving the underlying proforma um information or is it already in here?
>> We we we have submitted a full report. You saw the you know the presentation the documents are available. I'll defer to the deputy mayor as far as I don't know the practices about distribution of documents internally. So I'll defer to the deputy mayor. Uh yes, councilman,
you have the developers proforma uh in the pilot application which was uh sent circulated to all council members today. And then we're also happy to provide the long form version uh which is mostly a bunch of Excel tables uh that the Baker group prepared.
So this project, it's my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, has uh had site plan approval in January. That correct? >> That's correct. Yeah. the JC designated um the developer. Um when was that
designation? >> I I want to say it was at least four or five years ago, councilman, but I would have to check. I don't know that off the top. Jen, do you know that? >> I I think the res the ordinance says 2018 initially. Um and then there was a
redevelopment agreement. >> Hi, Jennifer Credidio, McMadam Scotland and Bowman. We're pleased to represent both the redevelopment agency and the city. The redevelopment agreement for this uh project includes other parcels beyond just uh this project. The
original agreement was authorized in 2018. There have been several amendments including the most recent one in 2025 and one more to specify some uh additional details with respect to the park that will be contemplated by the
redevelopment agency next week. The redevelopment agreement is with um is with who? It's a there are four parties that are collectively designated the redeveloper in part that is because you know as you know ser having served as
the chairman of the JC for some time >> the uh in order to have a pilot you need to be an urban renewal entity which obviously both of these entities are and then because it is a multi-phase broader project there are four related entities that are all part of that agreement
>> four parties are part of that agreement right correct and this project itself All all four parties are involved in this tax abatement. >> It's really going to be undertaken by the two UREs that are identified here. But as you as I said, it's you know the
RDA is a little larger than just this site. >> Okay. >> That was part of my document request. I don't know if uh that got to the JC, but uh for for copies of the um amended redevelopment agreements, I'm assum assuming it's been amended since it was
originally um authorized probably in 2018 according to to the ordinance, I believe. >> We're happy to provide all of those. Yes. >> Thank you. So, I I would assume that the redeveloper has redevelopment agreement.
Um it's been suggested that this project was not feasible without a tax abatement. Um and yet and yet we've authorized the redeveloper agreement. Um which on its face seems to
suggest that uh that there was some analysis done to suggest that they're capable and they have the resources capacity to be able to do this this project. Um and then additionally um they got received site plan approval.
Right. So so how did they I'm not I don't know how this necessarily works but um what was the original plan that was proposed and was that plan originally um it's not the plan that's before us today. I'm assuming um that January 2026
site plan approval. Um it's a different project with probably the 9%. No. Uh, no, Councilman. The site plan approval that was received in 26 in January 2026 was for this project, >> excuse me, >> was for this project. It's >> for this project designed before us.
>> So, typically, Councilman, I believe Jen could probably comment on this further. We would always want the pilot to be the very last step in this process because we don't want to commit the city to an agreement like this and to a subsidy like this until we are absolutely sure
that the project is ready to go and has received the other entitlements they need. So, so that site plan approval in 2026 is the site plan approval for the current project proposed today. Um, anyone else have questions? Because I have a bunch, but I don't want to tie
things up. >> Brooks, >> uh, thank you for the presentation, everyone. Um, so is the current, um, redeveloper or land owner, are they paying conventional taxes until they get acco?
>> Yeah. Yes. The the property is taxable depending on, you know, whose name it's in, but in whoever's name it's in would be paying taxes currently. Got it. So, >> the numbers that I used in the presentation are from your tax assessor's records.
>> Got it. So, I guess just for the public, all 12 of you that are watching for the Knicks game. Um the uh but many more will watch on YouTube, I'm sure, later. Uh so in this year where we are in a major deficit um
the pilot would not go into effect in 2026 because this project would not get a co earliest 2027. Is that correct? >> More likely 2028. >> 28. >> Okay. Thank you. Um and then my second
question is um the are the affordable units income restricted with annual uh income reertification or are they um lucky for life rank? >> No, New Jerseyy's affordable program
requires annual reconsideration and they are income specific. Um, in the documents that were requested and that you'll be receiving, you'll see the distribution includes units for which the maximum income is 30% of the AMI,
you know, uh, and the others are for 50%. Normal COA also usually includes units as high as 80%, in this case, the deal negotiated by the city is actually for the lowest level of affordability.
You know, meaning for the most needy families as opposed to the ones that the state law permits. So, this is actually a more aggressive use of affordability than even the requirements of state law. >> Thank you.
if you can. Um, well, first of all, I mean, I I like this project. Um, I think it brings develop to a area that has been neglected for a long time. Um, I love the fact that it's 20% affordable.
Um, but you spoke to 30 and 50% AMI. Um, I know everyone's not savvy as it relates to that terminology. So, can you talk real numbers as it relates to actual rents that will be um paid on
these affordable units? >> Before he answers that, we're not going to use the projector anymore, right? Because I'd rather shut it off. >> Yes. On the game on, Sean, >> if I can do it, I would. >> Go Nicks.
Just saying every time I watch them, they one. So, >> well, we gonna hold you. We going to definitely hold you to 9:30. >> Okay. I I have the numbers using the 2026
um affordable chart, which is not something it's set locally. It's >> Keep going. >> It's just a projector going. >> Okay. I thought the aliens were coming. The links are coming >> for a studio apartment at a studio
apartment at 30% of AMI, the monthly rent is $774 a month. Okay. For a uh for a one-bedroom apartment, you know, the 30% rent would be $829 a month. For a
two-bedroom apartment, the 30% rent would be $995 a month. Okay. For a three-bedroom apartment, the 30% rent would be $1,149. >> Now, that I'm sure the aliens are coming.
>> Don't be nervous. It's okay. >> It's not over your head, Sean. >> Yeah. Right. >> Yeah. Good line. Uh uh. So, Councilman, is that responsive to your question or you want me to keep going with? >> No, no, those that's that's great. Um,
and I just want to want to reflect that the school will also be be receiving a portion of the pilot. Uh, at one point, you know, the pilots were just coming straight to the city and the school wasn't uh getting anything. Uh, and then
if you look at from a tax standpoint now, the land is vacant. So, how much annual tax is the city receiving like as we speak? >> Right. Right now, you're getting your share of this entire site, which is about 4 acres, you're getting $63,000 a
year. >> That's what we're getting now. >> Right. >> So, I I would like to just address that because it's not an applesto apples comparison, right? So saying that a vacant land that generates certain revenue that I could build a two family house on it at this point and it's going
to generate more revenue than yes currently generating. Right. So um regardless of whether it's a fivetory building or a seventory building or whatever the case might be um the more appropriate question to look at is um
what are we getting in return for this abatement? Um so and and you you've outlined all the different um things and and the questions that I have around this is are we getting fair rate of return for the city of Jersey City? And you're suggesting that we are. Um but
I'd like to dig into that, but I'll allow others people to do that. But but I also know that that kind of argument that like it's it's generating nothing today and so we're going to get a development. People have made that argument um repeatedly for all every tax abatement that's come before the city of
Jersey City. And it's always true. It's never never not true, right? That like you take a vacant property and you you develop it, it's going to be it's going to be more valuable at the end of the day. So, sorry. Well, well, I I I just would offer and to repeat a couple things that I said, but to to your
question, number one, it it's not just more money than Jersey City is getting today. The municipal share from the pilot is more money than the municipal share of full taxes would be each and every year for
the entire term. Yeah, that's the municipal share specifically. You're also getting, as was pointed out in the presentations plural, you're getting a new park. You're getting a new addition to the Mars Park, you know, uh, system,
the walkway. You're getting basically some municipal streets and municipal infrastructure that the city under if you were just going to, you know, build a neighborhood, the city would normally pave the streets and build the water manes and build the sewer lines. That's
being done. So the city's benefits go beyond just what are you getting now versus what you're getting in the future. You're also getting community benefits and you're getting affordable housing. Yes, that's that's a that's a pretty big package of things that you're
getting again that you would not get, you know, to the argument if you built two family houses. Uh you'd get none of those other things. You'd get a bunch of two family houses. You wouldn't get as much tax revenue. You'd probably get more school kids. I wasn't asked to do that examination, but I've done it in
other towns and in other projects, so I know how that, you know, how that plays out. What you're getting here, again, this is what I've been doing my whole life, my whole adult life, is you've got a proposal for a project that is going in an area that has been noted has not
had development on a site that has beenow for 60 years, right? And you're getting something that's going to be hopefully a catalyst to more development in the area, more positive things. But even if it's standing on its own merits,
it's a pretty good deal in my opinion. Yes. I I mean, like I said, I like the I've seen pilots where they've only given 10% 20% it'sund and something families that will potentially have been
forced out of housing in Jersey City, namely Ward F. Um I know for me the the pilot checks so many boxes for me. I'm done. So, I'm going to jump in real quick and then I'm going to ask if there are council people who haven't asked a
question yet that we let them ask a question and then uh we still have a lot of agenda to get through. But in regards to the community givebacks, we are giving back a park. How did we land on the park being that we have Berry Lane
Park right next door? >> I'll defer to the deputy mayor. That wasn't part of my assignment. Council President, I think Jen could also comment a little bit on this. Uh, the park was originally contemplated as part of the redevelopment plan as part of the overall extension into the site
to build a neighborhood here and then to extend Morris Canal Greenway. Now, what the situation was when the administration walked in was that there was no definitive timeline and no source of funding for the construction of those park improvements. So that's when we
made the strategic decision to prioritize pushing that forward and creating an actual timeline for doing that as part of this negotiation. >> Just one other thing uh council president also obviously we want green
space when we're uh talking about dense development but more than just green space we want green space that interacts with the entire community. We don't want uh private green space that is, you know, closed to members of the community. And so this park both adds on
to the green space that is overall available to residents in that area, but allows for better connectivity of the project itself with the surrounding residents. >> If I may, council person because I for me was the question wasn't answered,
which is why did we decide in the park? Was that already um and I'll say this that you said to the community, was it already written into the redevelopment plan? And then if that was the case, then how did how how did that come about around that? And and I'll just share because I've I don't know if others
folks have um had a meeting with Jersey City together and they they feel like Lane Park is down the block. So like um why are we contemplating another park is um with with the questions that they raised with me which I'll raise here today.
>> So one one other thing that I'll add that I forgot to mention Berry Lane Park as you all know is very oriented towards active recreation. This is more of a passive recreation type park. I think they serve two different purposes. Um, and as Jen said, in the context of this
overall site and with the light rail station right there, I think it would be very important to have those kinds of spaces within this tract as well. I don't know if you have any more background on how the park >> did we consult with the community. Was that driving this choice to decide to
put a park in that location? I don't know. I'm just asking. I don't know the answer to that. I wasn't >> I mean I I know initially at one point there were conversations about um doing I guess like the white box thingy for um
a rec center. Um there have been since I've been in office this have been in probably at least two or three meetings with respect um to this site. Um I mean that question have honestly have come up
that we have the park there. Um, I also think that, and I don't want to be speaking for the developer, I also think you said something about being at cuz at one point we were saying, well, why don't you just put more housing? I guess the configuration or house something
about the the space, something with the spacing that it wouldn't be big enough or something >> just because of how buildings are laid out and windows. There's only so big you can make building on a particular footprint. Councilman
Zuba. >> Yeah. Uh yes. Question. If if I was if I'm a homeowner uh and I hear pilot, I'm going to assume I'm getting screwed. And that's not correct as as we know. Uh but what what outreach is is for the deputy mayor? So So uh what outreach is the administration doing for public
education? uh so that our residents know that this is good for Jersey City and that because of the commitment to give 10% to the schools is also good for the schools and that our residents are not the ones being screwed but perhaps you know maybe Hudson County would be be upset uh but the schools will be taken
care of and our residents will be taken care of. >> That's a great question Councilman. I think it's important not only for this project but for all the projects we're hopefully being doing together going forward. Um, with this one specifically, we'll be doing at least three community meetings next week before the ordinance
would come on for a second reading if that were the case. Um, so that will be, you know, part of our extensive outreach. The mayor will be there, I will be there, uh, for that engage with the community and I believe we'll also be doing a survey. Um, and we're open to
any other forms of community engagement you would like in your ward or more broadly across the city. >> I'd appreciate it. one page or two or a flyer we can put out for social media purposes and to our emails. >> Very happy to provide that. >> Councilman Afro, >> you go.
>> Okay. So, just one question and I'm sorry if I missed it for retail space. Is that also going to be affordable? >> The the retail space is not currently subsidized in any way. It's 20,000 ft of
retail. Uh but obviously at this point it hasn't been pre-leasased so we can't speak to exactly what you know what the c the market will determine what the rents are that you know can can be achieved there. >> Would you subsidize that or
>> normal? Okay. So that's a tough question. Retail again without getting too deep into it retail follows residential not the other way around. You need footfalls before anybody is willing to open a store. So
creating density in a neighborhood is a good thing for retail. Being next to a transit stop is good for retail. Um you know having having a base of regulars, if you will, 500 units of regulars is good for retail, but you still have to
create the atmosphere. It's too early in this neighborhood to determine uh exactly what they're going to do and the market will determine it. The developer will clearly want the space to be full and will be if the market isn't that
strong, they will uh they will ask for lower rents in order to fill the space. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Can I ask another one or somebody else? There we go. >> We still have council people that haven't asked anything yet.
Go ahead. >> Um, thank you for this presentation and um, Deputy Mayor Podar, I just want to say that um, you know, I I support the use of pilots very judiciously for for
strong projects that would not be able to be constructed otherwise. I think this project hits a lot of strong high points like affordable housing 20%. Um you know green space um retail space and
and I do want to thank your efforts um in negotiating and driving a hard bargain and getting us to a good project. But that being said, I do have a few questions on sort of the specifics. Um, so my understanding this
is phase 1 A and 1B and there's other phases in this redevelopment plan. Um, if if we could be provided with sort of like a map showing the different parcels, the different phases and who owns them and what their environmental remediation status is. Um, just so we
can kind of better visualize the surroundings. That would be really helpful. Yes, councilwoman. There's actually a progress report from the site administrator that was submitted to the planning board as part of the application for final site plan approval for this project back in January that
has both a map and the status of each tract as you're describing. So, we can provide that to you after the meeting. >> The surrounding as well, >> every parcel within canal crossing. >> Okay, great. Thank you. I appreciate that. Um I've also um heard some
concerns from the community. I understand NJD um certified this as you know ready for development but um you know this is a community that has um faced years of environmental injustices and um I think that you know I've I've
had people from New Jersey from Jersey City together reach out to me and I think there's an understandable fear um because this community has had people die from cancer because of the chromium here and so I wanted to ask if there there's any plans for an independent
environmental assessment um or whether there could be ongoing monitoring of the site um because I would hate to create affordable housing for our most underserved populations only to have only to have them be suffer suffering
from contamination. >> I fully agree with you, Councilwoman. Um there are currently two forms of independent monitoring happening right now to my knowledge. The first is that PPG submits these very voluminous technical reports and I believe Isaac might have already provided or can
provide some of those to you. Um they go into extensive detail. I think you would understand it much better than I would as an engineer. Um but those are submitted directly to D at this time and D reviews them as part of the ongoing compliance requirement. Secondly,
pursuant to the consent order, there is a site administrator. His name's Ron uh Ricko. I forget the last name exactly, but he submits regular progress reports as well. Um, those are all available, all the documents I just mentioned are available publicly on a website called
chromecleanup.com that is maintained by the site administrator. Um so rest assured for now those independent monitoring obligations continue and we're happy to you know specifically provide the latest documentation from both the D and from
the site administrator. >> Wonderful. Thank you so much. Um my last question about this specific project. Um and I know we spoke briefly about this when we had our meeting a few weeks ago. Um but you know just wanted to get it on the record. uh this area is somewhat of
a food desert and I understand there's uh 20,000 square feet of retail space but currently the plan is to divide that into smaller sections and not have um one area set aside say 10,000 square ft or greater that could potentially
attract a grocery store. And I believe at that point in time you mentioned that um the administration was looking into other locations nearby that could potentially hold a grocery store. And I was wondering if you could speak more to that. Is a grocery store at this site totally off the table or is that still
potentially on the table? And if you could provide more information about um bringing a grocery store to this area. >> So, Councilwoman, um first of all, I appreciate collaboration I've had with Councilman Gilmore and Council President Ridley. I've been in discussions with
both of them potential sites for grocery stores in this community. So, we're eager to continue those discussions. Um, as we had discussed a couple council meetings ago, one potential site for a larger scale grocery store like an Aldi or something like that would be the 470T
communal site, but there are also other potential locations in that area. With regard to this site specifically, um, I believe it's about 11 to 12,000 ft of retail is concentrated into the 1B building. In theory, you could have a
grocery store in that spot. So that's not off the table. As uh Tom said, we would have to see what happens when the time comes for actual lease up. Um but it wouldn't necessarily be at the scale you want. Um I think one of the things
I've observed about that particular neighborhood is there's a lot of smaller places to shop, right? Smaller corner stores, smaller retail areas, but there isn't something at scale. So I think we're really hoping we can find something at scale to serve that community. >> Okay. Thank you so much. Um, I also I
have questions on 3.8, but are are we talking about that separately or is now the time to ask about 3.8? >> That's a school funding ordinance. >> Yeah, >> we could talk about it now. Yeah. >> Now, >> can we stay on this subject? I'm sorry. >> Let's uh let because I know some people still have
questions on the pilot and then then we'll address school funding. >> Great. >> Um, so thank thank you all. Um, yeah, appreciate the presentation. Uh so I mean with with pilots, counties and schools have to raise the and the school districts have to raise taxes to kind of
meet the needs of the added population over time. Um without the money being, you know, without actually getting money from the the development itself. Um, and so I guess my question is, and that's what we've seen is that despite Jersey City having an injection of money, um,
in these kind of like big shots over all of the pilots of our past decades, uh, the the schools have had to take up taxes so significantly. Um, so I guess my question is like what would the county miss out on? What would the schools miss out on? what is it that
they would need to raise taxes by on Jersey City homeowners um to make up that difference in the kind of the services that they need to provide for another 58 units coming online um to this part of the city and if we could get that estimate then that would be
helpful in in wrapping our heads around um yeah just all of the factors in in this equation here. Do we have an estimate like that presently? Um so as part of an analysis such as the
one that we did for this project um we do provide a projection of the impact on school public school populations. uh and um you know in the documents that will be provided because this was part
of the report we submitted. Uh the the the the harsh reality is that most new construction does not generate nearly as many school kids as people think it does. Uh except the affordable
component tends to overproduce in terms of school population. This is supported by a report that was done by Rutgers University which is called who lives in America's housing. It was published in April of 2025.
David Listaken is the professor. He's someone I've worked with. I know him personally. Uh it's actually the third such study that he did. His first I believe was 2006. The second I think was 2015 or 16. And now he's his latest is
2025 and it's widely considered the most comprehensive study of its type not just in New Jersey but in the entire United States. Using that that document as a basis uh building 1A of the two that
we're talking about would be projected uh in its nonaffordable component. you know, the the market rate component will generate a projected 6.9 school children. That's in the 172 units that are not
affordable. In the 43 units that are affordable, it's projected they would produce 21.8 school children. So the entirety of of the phase 1A project would produce 28.7 school children
roughly 3/4 of which would be from the affordable units in the phase two >> time span is that >> that's that's at at stability at stasis when you full up fill up all the units. So you have 200 in that example 215
you know full apartments you know there would be as I said roughly 28 round numbers 28 school kids one quarter from the mark from the you know market rate three quarters from the affordable okay
>> similarly in building 1B there would be and this is the larger of the two buildings the 234 units of market rate would produce produce eight school children. The 59 units of affordable
would produce 30 school children. So again the ratio is roughly 3:1. So between the two to two phases you have 66 you know school children of which
roughly one quarter uh if I'm counting correct 15 would be from the market rate component and the other 51 would be from the affordable component and that's again those are not my numbers those are the numbers from David Listiken and the
you as I said it's his study published just last year who lives in America again that is the dispositive study of actual school children generation from new construction of multif family buildings.
>> Okay, that that's helpful. Was there any kind of estimate or or way to get an estimate of the county side of things that >> Well, again, I I used to be the deputy county administrator in county, so I spent part of my career worrying about
county service delivery and the components that go into it. The reality is that counties operate as essentially a residual. They don't have like a a funding source that's identified for each county service. The way it works is
again if you if you want to get into the painful details is the equalization methodology takes every municipality in the county adjusts the value of their property so that each town pays its fair share based on that. It's not really
linear like like schools. It's a it's a you know it's a completely different concept. Um, counties again don't have they don't have the same caps that school districts have. They don't have the same caps that municipalities have. Um, and no county has really
demonstrated that, you know, these kinds of changes in tax abatement negatively affect their ability to deliver services. >> Okay. Councilman Griffin and Councilman Lavaro have something that they want to get on record and then we need to move on. Um just in light of the last
question, I just um hope that we do that no additional school children will come in because these affordable hous uh homes will be going to Jersey City residents. Um but I was speaking to an environmental organization in that area,
Greco, which is uh Garfield Randolph All Arlington Carter Orient. Do I have that right, Frank? Garfield, Randolph, Arlington, Carterette, Orient, Greco. Okay. Um, and their concern with
the development is that Hexavaliant Chromium 6 will go airborne. And one thing that uh they're requesting and I'm requesting too, and I actually had a conversation about this earlier on uh
even before we were um elected to office, that air monitors uh be provided uh during during and after construction um you know to to make sure that
>> uh yes, Councilman. So there has been air monitoring in the area during the period of the remediation. Uh we're happy to raise the developer whether or not uh there's there's some form of air monitoring program that might be suitable and we can also discuss that with the site administrator to see what
is currently happening and what additional efforts could take place. So happy to have a further discussion about that. >> Thank you. >> Council me. um suggested as a statement on the um contamination
uh I'd ask the administration to look at uh if maybe you have already uh the Bayfront uh development and what uh procedures are in place um for monitoring uh potential contamination. It was suggested to me again by Georgia City
together that there might be more um uh proactive kind of monitoring rather than just kind of relying on D and and PPG um who I would have on the latter have no faith on uh them providing us uh appropriate monitoring on that site and
so forth around that. So, um, that being said, I'd like to just focus on the proposed your slide that says proposed financial agreement and the numbers uh for the the revenue that would be collected from the pilot. Um so so just
so I can understand what the numbers are. Were you suggesting that um this tax exemption for example in year 25 it's 11% of annual gross revenue or
80% of other applicable taxes whichever is larger. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um and so it would be great to see the numbers broken down that way. If you have estimates around that that is provided in the larger presentation, you
will get that when you get the other documents. It's already there. >> Okay. Very good. Um and then my other question as it pertains to uh the calculation of the payments um and correct me if I'm wrong. It's been a while since I've done this, but uh it
was my understanding there was like a another method by which to calculate potential uh tax abatement uh revenue which is by total project cost. >> Okay. Yes. Under under the statute
without again without drilling too deeply there's basically two methods that are available. Uh one method which is the one included in this you know proposal is a percentage of what is called annual gross revenue and that
term is defined in the statute. It's basically all of the rents all the parking fees everything that people pay is the total of that the annual gross revenue. In this example the developer would pay 10% then 11 and then 12% of
that number. The alternative is a percentage of total project cost. The total project cost is also a defined term and it generally is most of the things you would think of that went into building the project. There are some
things excluded but it's close enough that you can say how much was spent. In this case 300 plus million dollars. Okay. the municipality can agree to have a fee of not less than 2% of that
number. It has rarely been used in the last 30 years because what it does is it works against the economics of development. When you build a new development, the hardest years are the early years. That's when you're trying
to stabilize the project. You've got the highest cost, greatest overheads, the greatest vacancies with a percentage of total project cost. You pay the most money in the early years and effectively less money as time goes on because the
time value of money goes down. So if you were paying a flat 2% every year for 30 years, by the end of the 30 years, it's worth about half what it was in the first year. Well, that's the opposite of what you want if you're trying to make something work because that those first
three, four, five years when you're struggling, you're paying the highest amount and later when you're doing better, you're paying the lower amount. So, >> the developer >> the developer Yeah. So, >> for the city, it's a fixed amount. >> Yeah. For the city, it's a fixed amount, which sounds good at the beginning, but
it's gets, you know, gets worse at the end. And it doesn't help make the project feasible. it actually works against the feasibility of the project. So in the years that I've been doing tax abatement and I go back to the 1970s
because in NORC I was in NORC in the 70s in the Gibson administration and we were >> you told us >> yeah they No, I'm just giving perspective in terms of why I would know NORC as an example but we we did tax abatement but we did very few even in
those days and since then less than 2% maybe less than five at most percent of debate. We run the numbers project question. >> I'm sorry. >> Did we explore that and run the numbers as a comparative? >> Yeah. And the project doesn't work in the early years when you use it doesn't work. >> We just assumed it doesn't work and
>> Oh, we ran the numbers and it doesn't work. >> You did run the numbers. >> Yeah, sure. >> Did you share the numbers with me? >> We I can but I it wasn't part of our report. >> I'd be happy with the permission of the client to provide that. >> Okay. >> Well, do we need the permission of the client or because that's if we ran the
numbers. You work for the JC. Well, that's that's what I'm saying. That's, you know, >> my point is you work for the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency. >> I've made a request for information. >> You said the developer for that, but like you you ran the numbers. So,
>> you you can furnish that. >> Yes, I can. >> Yeah. Okay. >> All right. Um, >> right. >> And then and then in terms of the the agreement as it's currently structured with its 10% of a of annual gross
revenue or the percentage of other applicable taxes um in terms of the staging from 10% in years 1 to 15 and increasing it to 11% from years 16 to 25 and then the last 5 years at 12%. Did do we run numbers at another annual um at
another percentage annual service charge um and and have we looked at those numbers to look at the IRRa the yield to cost and all the other things that you were looking at? >> Again we do run significant numbers runs and we have you know and they are
included in our report. Um when you run numbers and they achieve just barely the you know the level that for feasibility you if you you know that if you increase it you will lose the feasibility. You
don't have to run every alternative you reach a limit where anything above that won't work. So that's the way we run numbers. So this is in our opinion the highest numbers that can be used based on all of the you know factors that go
into this. The 10 11 12 is the highest numbers that still make the project feasible for the developer based on the standards that I talked about in the presentation as adequate returns to attract private investors and adequate returns to attract traditional lenders.
Higher numbers would not do that. So, council members, if there are any other numbers that you need that are not in this presentation, can we do uh like we did for or like we said we're going to do for director Kaplan, put that in an email with the council on it so that we
can all get those answers. >> I will put it in an email and I'll ask for um 11 12 13% and just take a look at what the real n those numbers generate and and you'll have to forgive me. Um, I
have uh PTSD from 10 years on the city council and uh I've received numbers in the past that said uh uh that these these projects were not uh viable and so forth and then kind of looked at the numbers and um and realized that in fact more could be done um that the city
could have made made a better deal at the end of the day. So um I'm a little skeptical. So prove me address my skepticism. Indulge >> skepticism is good. Uh we're going to uh wrap this up, but we promised Councilwoman Little that we would uh she
has question on 3.8. >> Uh thank you so much. Um so for 3.8 um this is codifying a certain percentage of uh the pilot money to be dedicated to a fund for
school improvements. And I understand it's not exactly the same as if it were part of the regular tax base and um in which case it would go to the school's operating budget, right? Um but it is an attempt to sort of write the wrong if
you will of pilots essentially but in the past pilots would go to the city and none of it would go to the school district. And so this is an attempt to sort of write that wrong. Even though it's going into a different
bucket than the operating budget, it is going to the schools. My concern is that um and and I I commend the administration for putting this forward. I think um I'm I'm very excited to codify this and attempt to write this
wrong. Um my concern is that's not enough. I mean, if you are a homeowner and you are paying taxes, more than 10% of your tax bill goes to the schools. And um if we are going to c take this step and codify it um and
attempt to write this wrong, I I would it be in the ballpark of 20 to 30%. And I just wanted to hear how you reach 10% and if there's any flexibility in making it higher. Thank you. >> So, Councilwoman, I'll let uh Deputy Mayor Brian comment as well. Um but I
would just open by saying um the schools will receive the full amount of their levy uh irrespective of what we do here. So the 10% to the capital fund will be on top of that from the municipal share
of the revenue. Um I think you know it is it is difficult to say exactly what like the perfect number is where we started from a place where the promise was made to share 10% and obviously was never implemented and executed effectively. Um we think it is a fair
percentage that protects you know the city's interests as well as provides a new funding stream for many improvements that we know the schools desperately need. But I'll let the deputy mayor uh comment further. >> Sure. Thank you for the question. Um it is definitely an attempt to write the
wrong but it is also um an attempt to support capital improvements. If you have seen the schools, you know that there are serious capital and infrastructure issues. The way that the SDA works and the criteria by which you
get funding for a new school building is um it has a lot of barriers and you have to actually be able to prove that you have a permanent capacity deficit. Our city cannot do that because we have schools that are both overenrolled and
underenrolled and so there is a need for rightsizing that we have to do sort of in the board of ed space. So this is an attempt to sort of cut through some of those pieces to actually give the residents and the kids schools that give them an environment that is respectable
HVAC systems, roofs, you know, things that we can do without having to meet all of the sort of sophisticated criteria of the SDA. >> Can I piggy back on that? >> Councilman say something. >> May thank you. Um, in the presentation
you just gave on 900 Garfield, there was a the structure of an oversight committee. Um, is that oversight committee specific to the canal crossing project? This is supposed to be the general oversight committee structure
for any of the 10%s from pilots going. >> Thank you for the question. That is exactly right. The latter is correct. It is the oversight for any money that goes into that fund. >> Okay. and and then any of those capital projects would need to get city council
approval as well >> after they were decided by that committee. They would come before you for final approval. >> Right. Thank you for the clarification. >> Councilman Lavari, you still have a question. >> I have some a few requests for information. So, um
since it's retroactive to 2018, would like to see estimates on all of those tax abatements that will be impacted by this. if you could share that uh and provide that analysis. >> Yes, councilman. I can tell you right now which projects would be impacted
retroactively. Uh they would be Bayfront Penrose phase 701 Newark 808 Pavonia also known as the Pompadoo. Uh the embankment and then the Sussex Street project. Um all of those will be captured. I've requested the analysis on
how much money will flow in from each of those pilots. Um so we can get that information to you. Okay. And then I I just want to we had asked for the analysis and I believe for conventional taxes for the city and then the amount of the the pilot revenue. Um and so we
can compare and contrast. I'd like to see the same for the schools. Um to be clear, I understand that the the it's going not be in favor of the schools regardless of how that unless unless we were to do a much larger percentage which would would hurt the city of Jersey City at the end of the day,
right? Um, we're here to try to we're doing this to to to incentivize the development and and to be able to try to get the affordable housing. Um, and obviously we have our own budget issues that we need to solve as well long term. And so uh um we don't want to shoot ourselves in the foot by uh
overpromising to the Jersey City Public Schools. But I think it's uh um it's in everybody's interest because the of the situation as it stands for both the Jersey City public schools and the city of Jersey City and frankly the county um
which has proposed a 14% tax increase public schools. I want to go back I want to on the record and thank Mr. Vicera who's out there I think for educating me that because I had said made some remarks about the Jersey public schools uh not increasing taxes with their proposed budget or with their approved
budget and in fact there is a a 14.4% tax increase that comes with that and I want to put that on the record. I said some things that were wrong and erroneous in a previous council meeting. Um, but we all have our budget issues. And so even though it might be small in
one in one development, we should go eyes wide open to know how much we're kind of creating the gap and the delta for the for the Jersey City Public Schools and for the county too. Um, because all of that impacts on both of them. Um, so would love to get that analysis for the both this as well as
other other developments as well. >> Yes, we'll provide that. Sure. So, the New Jersey Schools Development Authority is responsible for um you know, rehabbing and and and capital improvements to our schools. So,
with that being said, is there any opportunities out there for us to get matching funding from them as we move forward um with uh collecting this 10%
um since it is their job to um make the improvements. >> An interesting proposal. Hadn't thought of it. Um, it's definitely something we can take back and think through. Um, as I said, their sort of criteria for building is very specific and we don't
currently fit all of those in all of our neighborhoods. So, um, happy to go and think that through. >> Thank you. >> Thank you so much. Council Me, you're good. Or you have something else. >> I did have a follow-up question. Is that
I want to let other people speak if they >> I'll just ask one more if I may on this. Um so how did you uh Councilwoman Little asked it already, but how did you come to the 10% like is it just um I know the the former mayor had 10%. Um I've shared
with the administration that uh I I recall councilwoman Princei um put forward a resolution and don't know what the number was that uh was put on that resolution. Um but it was I think more than 10% at the time. It was not binding by any measure. It was just a resolution
of the city council. Um, so how did you kind of arrive at that 10% number? >> Um, yes, Councilman. First of all, I I remember you raised that issue. I believe Councilwoman Little had also raised that question of a separate resolution that passed. We searched high
and dry, wide and far. Uh, asked the clerk, asked various other stakeholders who would know much better than we did, couldn't identify it. So, um, just just for the record, just for your awareness, um, in terms of how we got to the 10%, obviously we started from the place of that was what the public actually
thought that we were doing already, right? The public assumed that we were doing that since the 2017 executive order um, was issued. We we ran the numbers that you're asking for in terms of what the differences in the share is at different levels. Um and our conclusion was that uh remaining at that
level was the most appropriate way to balance um bringing new funds into the system for these capital projects the deputy mayor uh mentioned while also protecting the city's interests um in terms of its own financial position. Um
so we can we're happy to continue that discussion after we provide those numbers numbers to you. But I would just note that in terms of the cost of instruction, the school district will continue to receive the full amount of its levy every year. >> The last comment goes to Councilwoman
Little. >> Thank you so much. Um, I did have a follow-up question. Um, and thank you for your your explanations. Um, and I am not an attorney. I don't know if this is even doable, but another complaint that we receive about pilots is that the
developers don't pay as they pay less, right? And the small homeowners then have to the the school tax levy is coming from predominantly small homeowners and properties that do not have tax abatements, right? Because the tax abatements do not go to the school's
operating budget and as you say, they will still receive their full levy. Um, is there a way? So, I I've loved this idea of putting a certain percentage towards capital improvements, you know, putting air conditioning in our schools, fixing their roofs, etc. It's so badly
needed. Um, is there a way to allocate a certain other percentage to the school's operating budget to alleviate some of the burden on small homeowners and, for example, condo owners in properties that
are not tax abated? I don't know if that's even legally possible, but I'm just throwing it out there. So, I think part of the objective with putting these funds aside for capital improvements was, as the deputy mayor
said, to uh provide a stream of revenue for a need that we don't currently have, other options to provide rather than increasing the amount of operating dollars uh which can be provided by
state aid, by other tax revenues, etc. Um part of the other issue is that if we uh provide funds in as part of the operating budget, the um control over what those funds are used for um will
not revert to the city council, right? It would be just a a number that's provided over the school district. that would be received as miscellaneous revenue and it would not uh necessarily prevent the raising of taxes because it
would not be received as taxes, it would be received as miscellaneous revenue. So the uh most protective way in order to balance the respective needs of the two entities while giving the school district funds for something they don't
currently have a lot of options to fund um was to focus on capital rather than operating dollars. >> Thank you. Yeah, my question was not um about reducing that 10% for the capital. I like having that 10% for the capital, but if we were to do an additional 10%
for operating, is that something that's feasible or or >> it's it's problematic because there are there would be no city council participation in in the expenditure of those funds and it may actually increase
uh may not actually have a tax reduction effect on the school district budget because of budgetary mechanisms how those dollars are received. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Joan, senior affairs.
>> Thank you. Good evening, council president, counsel. I also have Paul Kate with me from my department. Um, I'm on resolution 26-346, agenda item 10.32, a resolution authorizing the
cancellation of grant receivable balances and or grant reserve appropriation balance on this list of six. I have two. One is $3690. That was in 2023 when the money was
supposed to be moved into the salaries account and somehow or other that didn't happen. So, we lost that. And the other one was $74.40. We had $4,000 in um 2024 2024 to buy
supplies and we just came a little short, but but I'll watch that the next time. >> Questions? >> That last part again, Joan? the the second one for $74. What happens is we get $4,313
to buy supplies and we tried to come close without going over, but we we we we went down a little lower. So this year, now that we noticed that happened, we'll be >> okay. >> That's from That's from the grant last year. >> 2024. >> 2024.
>> The first one was from 2023. >> 23 and 24. >> Okay. and okay has the others. >> Good evening, council president, council members. Uh this is on the same resolution which is 26-346.
And uh for the record, Paul Kate, uh director of disease prevention and injury prevention. So I have four of the grants that are we are addressing this evening. The first is our STI grant or STD grant. There is a balance of 66
cents. It seems a little bit ridiculous, but that's okay. Um, the issue there is when we report this grant, you could only report in whole dollars. So, there's either up or down. So, it's just a balance issue there. Uh, the second is our EHE or ND HIV epidemic grant. Um,
there are two that you'll see in front of you. Um, one is a continuation. They gave us an additional 3 months. Uh, the issue there was we were to hire a nurse practitioner. Um the problem we had there was the money that we were allotted to hire the nurse practitioner
with was well under the market rate that uh nurse practitioners are are paid. So we had a hard time bringing somebody on board. We ultimately were able to bring somebody bond but it was not within the full uh range or time of the grant. So
we left some money on the table. So the way that grant works, there's, we'll call it schedule A, which is salary and wage, schedule B, operating expenses. We couldn't move money across the board, so it stayed within salary and wage. Sorry. Uh, and that that money was left on the
table. So that's where you'll see the 43,000 and change and the 1,247. Uh, the other is the strengthening grant for uh 2024 2025, $10,000. uh $10,620.
Uh we that was for hepatitis B testing. Uh nationwide there was a uh sourcing issue with um finding a uh hepatitis B antigen testing agent. Uh we do our testing through the NJ FEL or public
health environmental labs. uh the FEL labs and even LabCore uh Quest Diagnostics had a problem sourcing the hepatitis antigen. So we weren't able to test at the level that
we wanted to. So that that money we we couldn't reallocate it to another line item. So we had to that money had to be left on the table as well. or as it as it relates to the the item that you spoke about for the 43,000. Um you said it was something about
salaries and wages. >> Yeah. Uh so we uh that was for a nurse practitioner. Uh it took us a while to find a nurse practitioner and bring somebody on board at the rate that the grant allowed us to pay because we they
can make more money in other places for the rate that we were able to pay through the grant. >> Okay. So quick question. Um I know these grants have different type of stipulations. do the grant um permits like let's say uh I guess subsidizing a
salary because a lot of times these jobs people are not like that enthusiastic about taking them because the salary is so low. Um, so I was wondering um, and I guess it's probably more of a question for the VA or legal if um, if it can be
a combination of 30 something,000 from the grant paired with I guess money coming out of that department's budget to increase to increase the value of the salary for said position. >> Valid question. Yes. Uh, we've we've
tried to make that argument. Uh I think the problem I don't want to say problem the challenge we'll say it's kind of word salad at this point there is the candidate who might be accepting that position probably does realize that
if it's grant funded there's a timeline if that if that grant money runs out they realize that their their positions in jeopardy. So if they're 100% or x% grant funded when the
grant is done, they realize that their job could be eliminated. So that it's it it there's a there's a challenge with that. >> Okay. But um but we can do the the combination of distribution for a salary from grant. >> Yeah, absolutely. We can offset
>> but then we but like you said you'll run into that same issue. make up a number $120,000 from the grant and throw in $30,000 city funded to make it a a competitive position to get the right candidate in the door. Sure.
>> Absolutely. >> Thank you. >> Hi Paul, quick question of these grants um what was the time period for them? >> Uh so the STD grant in question here is uh 2022 2023.
The EHE grant is uh 2023 2024 and the strengthening grant is uh 2024 2025. >> Okay. Is this just part of your normal cleanup or was anything prompt this to >> Yeah, this in conjunction with uh Miss Web's team to uh just reconcile balances
that were uh open on the books to get everything closed up. >> Yeah, good job. Thanks. >> Good. >> Thank you. >> Have a good night. Thank you. Sonia Dublin, DPW. Good evening. I'm here to um present 3.16
ordinance 26048 the ordinance authorizing the city of Jury City to renew the lease agreement for Bun Brunswick Community Garden. >> 3 >> 36 >> Brunswick Community Garden.
>> This is an ordinance. the last ordinance in the uh pack >> 26-048. >> What do we um is this like one of those dollar a year leases or >> have a lot? >> Okay. >> Yeah, it's a community adopt a lot on Brunswick.
>> Yeah. >> Oh, okay. That's all I want. >> They do a good job. They maintain it really well. >> Yeah. They just celebrated their 25th anniversary last year. to their community institution. >> Thank you, director. >> And director Dublin, I want to thank you
for taking care of our compost bins. >> Oh, no problem. It's a work in progress. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Laura. tax assessorist. Good evening, council president and council members. I'm Laura Takuri from the Jersey City Tax Assessors. I'm here
for resolution 26-328 item 10.14 a resolution authorizing the payment of the claims submitted by Adams Reman and Heaggan Associates aka Civil Solutions to perform the digital tax map maintenance.
This resolution authorized a payment of $8,63 to Civil Solutions for the digital tax map maintenance services provided to the tax assessor office from January 1st, 2026 through March 31st, 2026. Although the contract expired in
December 31st, 2025, Civil Solutions continue to provide digital tax map services to keep the city tax maps current and accurate. >> Questions? Um just a a question. Could this have come to our attention as city
council earlier this year? Um because we were using the services since January. >> Well, we actually working on a contract to hire the company. I'm going to present the resolution to award the contract in the next meeting. >> Okay. To to move from this company to
another company >> and we did a bid. So we have a bunch of companies that apply for it. So um for all of them that I apply we went through the process of selecting and that's how we ended up getting the that's actually the same company uh was picked for
continue with the services. >> So we authorize authorized these services past the contract expiration date. >> Say it I'm sorry. Say it again. >> Sorry. Uh this you the tax office authorized these services beyond the
expiration date. >> Yes. because we needed to update the tax maps and also when they needed 200 for radius uh we need a GIS technology. So yes, we had to use the tax map system. >> Okay. >> Yes. Uh this question is is is for uh
the BA. Um, so when when department heads know that a contract is about to run out, um, you said you're you're looking to put something in place where they contact you or give you a heads up so it hits
the agenda. Correct. Because I mean that's six months. >> Yes. We talked about this in the earlier item. We are doing a data audit of all the contracts that are um being managed by department directors so we know which ones have expired, which one will be
expiring so we can get ahead of the paperwork. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, Paul. HHS. Good evening, council president, council members, and uh let me stand second to none in my admiration for the New York
Knicks. Uh respectful of all our time, I'd like I'm here on items 10.29 through 10.36. >> Um I'm going to recuse myself from 10.29 to 10.31. Um so I'm going to leave the room. If someone can text me when I can
come back, that'd be great. Thank you. >> They'll text you. >> It will be very quick. council uh person. So, grouping together exactly those three items, this is simply modifying the terms of the contracts for the for
two subgrantees and one vendor of our EPA air quality monitoring grant. Uh the grant was actually awarded for four months less than the original projected time. So this is simply cleaning up the contractual arrangements and ending the
grant as scheduled by the grtor. Um >> that's 20, right? >> Yes. 29, 30, and 31. >> Any questions on those three? >> Thank you.
>> Okay, next one. It's not the problem here. Time is not the problem. you can. >> Oh, well uh 10.33 uh permission to apply for and accept the public health infrastructure grant
from the state department of health. Uh this is a grant which we are guaranteed to receive as long as we submit a valid application. It's a approximate slightly more than $100,000. We have a great need identified for it
already and uh we intend to submit an application next week when it's due >> questions. Okay. >> 10.34 and.35.
Um these are companion grants. uh over the past several years we've received uh substantial support from CDC co money through the through similar grants parent grants of these and these are uh
small grants which are just using the last of those funds uh through our New Jersey Association of County and City Health off uh officials. Uh we don't actually know the dollar amounts yet because their funding is is incomplete.
U the thing we know we will be able to use it for is to recoup some overtime costs for inspections work in this busy festival season as well as the World Cup events. >> Any questions >> for 10:35? Can I ask you um Councilwoman
come a little closer to the mic. Okay. uh for 10:35 I'm sorry there you go >> 10:35 can I ask you do you have any idea what should we expect based on previous years >> oh so in previous years the funding was
substantial in the first year it was over $2 million we used it sub to um really offload a lot of costs from the city budget the second year was somewhat reduced but again the same purpose This is the last little tranch of funds
which were unspent and the grtor wants to push them out uh into into the local health departments. So um no, we expect this to be a tiny dollar amount and the grtor doesn't know how much because
they're still reconciling spending from the prior rounds of grants. Thank you for your question. And then um I think lastly 10.36 um this is a something that we are requesting to be pulled. Um, it's a
grant which we thought we would be non-competitive on because it has a regional focus and we thought we the city would be much better served by partnering with Hudson Regional Health Commission who is if they are successful
in their application. They're only five uh for the entire winners for the entire state. A substantial amount of the work they do will benefit Jersey City. So, uh, with respect, we would like to pull that from the agenda. >> Okay. Noted.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. And good evening, >> Charlie Marcato. >> Good evening, Council President, council. Uh, I have three items um up for consideration. The first is agenda
10.2. 2 26-316, which is the adoption of the cash management plan, which the state law requires that we adopt a cash management plan. And it just tells you where we're depositing our funds and basically where
we're putting our money and earn our best interest. >> Questions? >> Yes, council president. Um, thank you. I have a question about uh the banks listed uh in the cash management plan. Are these all institutions that we are
already banking with or are these all new institutions that we would be entering into? >> None of them are new. They are this currently where we bank. >> Okay. So, Citizens Bank is on the list. Um so, we currently have funds with Citizens Bank.
>> Yes. Uh this is a bank that uh does a lot of investment with Geog Group. It's a private prison company uh responsible for running owning uh Delaney Hall in our neighboring city of Newark um where Jersey City families uh and neighbors
are are being detained uh right now in in just abominable conditions. Um is there any way we can exit our banking agreement with Citizens Bank? We can discuss that with the CFO. I mean
um absolutely we can discuss that in the f we have um had them as a banking partner for a while >> but anything is up for negotiation. >> Okay. Yeah, I think that would be meaningful um especially with our commitment uh as a city to be a
sanctuary city um and you know the resolution we passed to abolish ice. I think it's incredibly important we we explore that. Um, I I couldn't in good conscious support continuing a banking with Citizens Bank. Thank you. >> I would like to second the councilman's
comments and I am also wondering if this is time-sensitive that we pass this or whether it would be possible to for the administration to withdraw investigate um divesting from Citizens Bank and then bring it back at the next council meeting. >> I mean the cash management plan is
basically where we have our funds currently. So passing it is basically just saying where we have our funds right now. Um we uh we actually just interfering
the best rates at the moment. So passing it doesn't um stop us from changing the bank. Um, and if you wanted to go with another bank, we we we would just have to amend it or if you wanted to add
something to it. I I guess what I'm asking is are we are we required to pass this at this meeting? Um and will there be penalties if we do not or if we would prefer to not even
pass this until we are able to withdraw um funds from Citizens Bank and and you know enter into agreements with other banks. Would that be a possibility? >> Shirley Bill is behind you. >> Evening council. Uh I thought maybe I'd
take a shot at answering that that question. So it is not timesensitive. Um we we could adopt this at a later point. The only thing I would add to that because the cash management plan addresses or would list any financial institution we did business with in
2026. Citizens would still be on there. So if you passed it at this council meeting, we could still consider and withdraw our business from citizens even even though they're listed on the on that uh cash management plan. It would not prevent us
from moving ahead and doing what what you suggest. We just need to discuss that. >> Thank you. >> Council President, I I have a question. Um so would I guess this is a question for BA andor Corp Council. Would it be
possible to walk on a resolution about divesting from Citizens Bank um at this meeting? >> You first. Chief No. Uh yeah, if the council want to introduce a resolution, they're more than welcome to do it. Um I don't think it would bind us, but again,
we're committed to doing that. So, um I have no objection to it. I don't think the administration has any objection to it, but practically, yes. >> Did you say the administration is committed to divesting from >> Right. We have we're committed to deploying the divesting with with the finance department to see if we can do
it. I'm pretty sure we can, but I don't want to commit to that on record that I'm actually exploring the options there. um and pursuing a divestment assuming there's no legal or other restrictions on that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I can assign >> just just to clarify. So even if we
divest tomorrow, the cash management plan would still reflect that Citizens Bank was a business vendor in 2026. >> That's correct. Council there's no harm in passing this on Wednesday and then whether by resolution or other means encouraging the administration to divest.
>> That's correct. Next, >> thank you. >> The next one is 10.326-3 uh 317 which is for a list of qualified firms to perform various legal services. This
was actually spearheaded by the bond council. So if you have any questions, they will be happy to answer >> questions. >> What is the difference between 103 and 1044 giving a spec contract to a specific firm?
I I'll take that question. So, resolution 10.3 is just approving the list of qualified firms. So, the city put out an RFQ. It received responses. This resolution is memorializing the firms that were deemed to have submitted qualified responses consistent with the
RFQ framework. It's just establishing a qualified pool. It isn't awarding any contract to anyone. Separately later on in the resol in the agenda, we have a resolution that's actually awarding a contract to one of those firms from that qualified list. >> So the list firms in 10.3, they have
varied hourly rates. Sarah, can you speak to how your office will select which firm to give contracts to and when. For example, >> I'll note that the RFQ did not just solicit hourly rates. It solicited a variety of various cost proposals. uh in
the arena of bond council, there are a number of alternate compensation arrangements that are pretty um typical with municipalities, but rather than just soliciting what the city has solicited in the past, which was a percentage of bond note sales or something similar, the city elected to
ask firms to provide a variety of cost proposals, including hourly rates. And so the finance department along with the law department worked closely to review the proposals that we received. It's a little bit more complicated than just picking the low hourly rate because it required various computations to figure
out assuming the city's you know typical bond sale practices you know considering what director of Aara is contemplating for this year we needed to run some numbers to figure out what the actual total cost would look like for the city and I'll defer to finance to share the
specifics on that. So based on three bond sales, we we think that um the the uh ward to Delworth is going to give us the best the best available um
uh amount to that we're awarding 125,000 and based on the three bond sales, we think that they're the ones that are going to give us the best price. >> Okay. Council, if I just add one thing more specific thing, the proposal
contemplates uh 50 cents per thousand of notes issued, which is in comparison to the the last contract we had was 80 cents. Uh some of the bids were as high as a dollar. Uh so it's half of the highest and is the lowest
for what we anticipate doing in terms of issuing notes in uh in 2026. Okay, next one. That was the three. The three. >> Okay, thank you.
>> 44. 1044 is the third one. >> Has a question about 1044. Then um corporation council can answer I think. Um is that firm still doing business for JC? I don't know the answer to that. I can look into it. Yeah,
>> in their in their response as their um references they put in city of Jersey City and JC whatever year to the present. I be concerned if they're doing work both for an autonomous agency and for the city. >> We can look into it.
>> Any other questions on 10.44? >> Okay. Uh, Director Woodson. >> Good evening, Council President and Council members. I have two ordinances for your consideration this evening. First would be uh ordinance number
26-037. It's agenda number 3.5. It's an ordinance amending chapter 84 alcoholic beverages and cannabis article one unary retail consumption and distribution licenses temporary
enlarging permission permissible hours operating during the 2026 FIFA World Cup. It's pretty much just extending the uh closing times for bars and restaurants until an additional hour. >> Questions?
I I think it's a great idea and and businesses and especially in WC have been asking for it. I'm a little concerned by the requirement that they make application to the city given the short time frame between now and when the games start and and just the if every restaurant or bar made an application to the city. I doubt whether
that we can do a turnaround. I wouldn't want any of those bars or restaurants to be penalized for doing what they should be able to do, which is stay open during during the World Cup. We're actually going to have a very simple onepage application and be able to invoice them because there will be a $100 per day
fee. But we've simplified the process so it's not going to be very difficult for us to handle. >> $100 fee to stay open longer. >> Yes. >> Per day. >> Per day. >> What was the reasoning for charging the businesses? >> We did uh I think Hoboken's charging
very something very similar as well. and the and the amount of business that they would pick up from the crowds for the extra hour. >> I'll ring the bell at Park Tavern to pay their fee one night, but uh >> Okay. >> Um quick question. Um
would is there is it possible to extend uh the hours of dispensaries during this time period or I guess in general or is that preempted by state law? Um the hours are that would be have to be an ordinance change so I don't think we'd get that early enough. Um and the
dispensary is closed much earlier >> that time. It's midnight 11th to midnight depending on the day of the week. >> Um so I don't know I don't know if we've had any interest uh in anyone asking for extended hours the dispensaries or if
that that's the case. It hasn't been communicated to us. >> Okay. Yeah. I've had one inquiry and I've uh just wanted to get it on the record today. We could talk offline. >> Okay. Sure. >> U but wanted to explore a potential pilot program.
>> Uh director, is this just uh for game night >> during the four I think it's 41 days for FIFA? Yes. >> Okay. But I I mean I don't think there's a game every day.
So, I guess basically it's going to be straight through. It's going to be from June 13th to July 13th available straight through. The business can select whatever dates they choose even though even if no games are on. >> Well, it's there's a game on it doesn't have to be a late game. I think there's
a game on it's it's through that whole time period of June 11th through July 19th. Just felt it was simpler to put it that that way as opposed to just just listing every day that the game's on. Okay. And
um because I know every game is not going to be in in New Jersey because I know um I was told that one of the the reasons why we're doing this is because when people are coming back from the games, they have a pl like tourists, they have a place to go, but I know there's games in LA. I know there's
games in Canada. There's w there's there's more watch parties all over. So just because I mean there's games in LA, but I think they'll be watched throughout all the bars in New Jersey. Um I attended a meeting um and thank you
Director Woodson for um attending this meeting and also um for explaining it to us tonight. I attended a meeting um with the historic downtown special improvement district and most of their most of the bar owners said that sorry oh most of the bar owners said that they
probably wouldn't take advantage of it but the handful that did want to take advantage of this said that they would probably only stay open late when there was a late night game like one in LA because of the time difference then they you know so they're not necessarily going to be extending their hours for
all of the 40 days this would allow them to do that if they wanted to, but most of them will probably only do it when there's a late night West Coast game. Correct. >> Um, is what it sounded like from that small sample size. So, just wanted to throw that out there. >> Uh, one question, what would be the
approval process? So, anyone who is applying would get will get the approval or would you select the applications? >> Well, it's anyone who currently has a liquor license. >> Okay. And you'll approve for all of them? >> Yes. Okay,
>> just a followup. So, section D, the new language D1 says license establish must apply to the ABC board secretary with a non-refundable $100 fee. So, every day they have to they're going to stay open. They have to do a new application. >> Oh, it'll be one application that
they'll just list the days they want to be open. >> Okay. So, this ordinance does not say it's a $100 fee per day. So, I think we should we maybe the administration can clarify that. I not sure there was a change made that you should have received today that that was added to
there. >> So So if I want to stay open the whole 41 days, I got to pay $4,100. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> I don't anticipate >> bar a day. >> Our businesses aren't >> the city's not benefiting from FIFA the
way that they should or we should. Uh I I think we should rethink this $100 day. Even if they stay open three days, uh we should be promoting businesses and our business, especially in Ward City, are suffering enough. $100 is a couple rounds of drinks per person per day. I I
don't I don't see it. >> Whatever the council chooses, if they want to reduce the fee, that's it's at the council's discretion. >> Can I uh councilman, uh I think we do we should do little research before Wednesday. what I have learned that New York City is charging pretty hefty
amount and we can check with Hoboken too and then based on that we should decide on Wednesday. I would say charging a feast is a good idea so that there are limited bars open not everybody is doing it and they are just getting approval
not even opening. So we can check >> so >> this I I think I I I think uh charging we have it all wrong especially with the struggling businesses looking at this as an opportunity to make money
to catch up on bills to pay their staff and and and to to to reup on inventory. um especially on the south side of the city where um there's a stigma where a lot of people don't want to go. Um
so I again I I just think um we we need to look at this differently. We need to look at it as opportunity and not a cash grab for the city. >> Is city going to spend money maintaining these bars open late with the approval?
I I agreed to notify public safety of all the locations because it may require some uh response from public safety. So they they will be aware of the list of all the businesses that that have chosen to stay open the extra hours >> cost for the city.
One more question on this. Enforcement wise, is it would it simplify things to just extend across the board for every bar and restaurant and enforcement wise not have to kind of figure out where we're sending law enforcement to
check on the end time of bars and restaurants staying open during this period? >> I I would want to answer for public safety. >> Yeah. Yeah. I guess I mean as the council woman >> mentioned earlier there seem to be very limited interest as far as the extra hour and it's mostly a few games that
are have a midnight game. >> Okay. I don't think this will be as widespread as initially thought. >> Just offer a brief note of caution for the council as it is thinking about potential amendments to this ordinance. What we're talking about here is an
administrative fee. And administrative fees legally can be used to cover the costs of administering regulations. And so the cost of vetting the applications, the cost of enforcement, but they are not a source of revenue generation. You can't effectively exact a tax on a business by assessing them a fee. So
just to be mindful to the council in case anyone was thinking about exploring potential revenue generating strategies that would not be appropriate on a regulation like this. Okay, next one. >> Next is very similar. It's item number 3.15.
It's ordinance number 26-047. It's enabling ordinance amending chapter 296, streets, sidewalks, and public rights away. Article 7, sidewalk cafes, and sidewalk sales, temporarily enlarging permissible hours
of operation during the 2026 FIFA World Cup. This is an extension of the outside seating >> questions. >> Okay. Thank you, director. >> Thank you, >> Elise Gibbs.
Evening, council president and council members. I'm here to this resolution number 26-335 agenda number 1021. Um after reviewing the grant accounts
identified in resolution 26335 um has been completed by the grants division based upon our records. the grants uh included in this resolution have been fully expended in accordance with the applicable grant uh agreements
and all reimbursement funds due to the city have been received and properly and um properly accorded accounted for. In addition, um we only have one balance that appeared to be a duplicate entry and does not represent an actual
outstanding receivable or reserve appropriation balance. As such, no further financial activity is expected for any of the grant accounts listed. Um, therefore, the cancellation of the grant receivable balances and or grant reserve appropriation balances contained
in this resolution is appropriate and necessary to accurately reflect the city's financial records. Um, facilitate the proper close out of the grant accounts. Um, this resolution cancels reserve appropriation balances totaling
1,400,88940 and grant receivable balances totaling 99,77140 questions. >> Okay, thank you. >> Kyle Greavves, finance Good evening. I have two items. Uh first
is ordinance 26033, agenda number 3.1, an ordinance to exceed the calendar year 2026 municipal budget appropriation limits and establish a cap bank. Uh what this is is uh allowing the uh municipal budget to
increase certain appropriations beyond the statutory limit of 2%. So back in October of 25, DCA issued a local finance notice as they do every year um allowing municipalities to do this. Uh this is uh action required prior to
approval of the budget. And what this would do is generate an extra eight uh $ 8.9 million I believe in uh budget appropriation uh flexibility for us. So that does not necessarily mean we will
budget up to the the the maximum. Um it just is as a budget tool in case um that we need to you know go beyond the the statuto 2%. And if we fall below that um maximum amount the amount will be banked for future years for the next two budget
cycles and this is this is not to be confused with the tax levy cap. This is related to that >> questions. >> So hi Kyle. Um so so the cap bank is um
capping expenses is that correct? >> Yes. Certain appropriations. So the budget is split into multiple categories but two of the larger appropriation buckets are within the cap and outside the cap. The appropriations in the cap are your you know your general operating
expenses, personnel, insurance, uh pension obligations and and items such as that. Um those are capped at 2% uh with some you know exclusions. Uh we can add bank from the prior years. Um and ultimately you get your calculation of
what total uh allowable appropriation is for those that subsection of the budget and that uh calculation is provided in uh the memo I shared. >> It's 2% of certain expenses cap. >> Correct. Yes. >> Okay.
So it doesn't but by extending this we're not um >> you're not committing to budgeting up to three and a half%. It just gives you the option to uh you know ultimately go up to that threshold um if budget calls for it. If like I said if we come below that
amount as we have done in almost every year um you bank it for the next two budget cycles. And you also need to legally to adopt your budget, you need to be under that cap by the dollar, you know. So, >> and and how much have we bent to date?
>> To date, so in 2024, we banked 18.9 million and in 2025, we banked 21.2 million. That's not real cash, right? No, >> this is a non-cash reserve. It's essentially like I did mention this in
my um memo because I I was worried that might be the assumption which is non-cash. This is essentially uh an exception uh in the calculation for um what we can appropriate this year. >> So if we wanted to um
utilize that, we would have to increase taxes. Not necessarily. No. Not necessarily. Okay. >> Tax levy cap is entirely separate from this. So whatever our appropriations is, uh you obviously have to fill the gap with with revenue or taxes. Um and that
doesn't necessar the additional appropriations don't necessarily mean a certain tax increase is on the table. >> And my final question, the they each uh has a 3% threeyear expiration date on it. Is that
>> it'll be a so anything we bank this year will be available for use in 27 and 28 and then it expires. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Next one. >> Ordinance 26041 agenda 3.9.
This is an ordinance authorizing uh making of various public improvements and acquisition um in the amount of $9.5 million. Uh and this is all being raised from our capital fund balance. These these funds
are not tied to any prior uh debt authorizations or any other capital projects. This is just the net of our assets and liabilities in the general capital fund. So authorizing improvements uh with these funds does not require us to raise any new debt and
it does not require us to repurpose any proceeds from any other ordinances. And um see in the ordinance the dedicated use of funds is split into four purposes uh that we worked on with the uh business administrator's office. Uh
purpose one is information technology improvements and acquisitions for 1.9 million. uh public work equipment acquisitions for 81,000 uh infrastructure improvements totaling 5 million and general building
improvements totaling $2.5 million >> questions >> questions um easy one asphalt resurface resurfacing roads resurface is that what that is >> yes correct >> when do we find out about that program I
guess more to the BA >> yeah So, they haven't actually gone out to figure out exactly what streets they want to do. They have a list that they've been working on. My I think the intention is to discuss this to figure out, you know, priorities from the council. They do know how much will need
to be done overall. The 3.5 will not get us there entirely, but it's a good step to make sure we do not miss this window of the summer and fall to make sure we get some of the streets resurfaced in the interim as we work on larger capital plans to, you know, fully do as much of the city as possible.
Can we talk about what the building improvements would be? >> The building improvements are HVAC replacements primarily Bishop Street. >> That's the HVAC. >> Correct. So that would be specifically two buildings. Um, Municipal Court and
Bishop Street. Please get a breakdown of how much money is in our capital account and how much of it is um allotted or or or funded elsewhere. For example, uh the prior administration told us that Courthouse
Park was a a commitment that the city had made. Turns out it was an unfunded uh that we can have a full breakdown of how much money we have in the capital account and and what if anything is being allotted. For example, 3.9 is asking us to to change an aotment or
appropriation. I'm not really sure where the money is right now. Anyway, so I'd love to see a breakdown of that, please. >> These are this funding is not tied to any uh current uh projects. This is the fund balance surplus in the capital fund, but we can provide you a summary of what's on the general capital fund
ledger. And the way we have it um organized is by ordinance and whatever the purposes are within that ordinance. So, some ordinances may say general improvements. Um, just a heads up, but you know, we try to, you know, detail it as much as possible. >> That'd be helpful. Thank you.
>> Yeah, a copy would be very >> We'll send it to we'll send it to the clerk so we can >> they're not tied to any project. Where did what was the money intended for? >> So, it's it's this is a fund balance rolls over year to year in the general capital fund and um it's it's just net
of your liabilities and what your assets are. So your assets are essentially cash and your improvement authorizations. So if we authorize to spend money on a project um and we borrow the cash for it uh you know it's part of our assets and
majority of our our fund balance here is derived from um premiums that the city receives when we go out and issue bonds and notes. uh people bidding on on the debt will will pay above market value and that's essentially excess cash for
us to hold and we could either you know appropriate it for improvements uh put it in the budget as a revenue item or pay down debt service. In this instance we're using it for improvements >> in layman's terms count essentially surplus. So, I'm not a big financial guy myself,
but that's how I always equated it. >> But, but the the money was um we bonded for for something, right, at some point. >> The capital fund is not just capital improvements. It is also, you know, our notes for operations and things like of
of that nature. So, if you look in the uh annual financial statement, I'll give you the actual sheet number, it'll u sheet 38 of the 2025 uh financial statement and it'll tell you what the prior year fund balance uh capital fund
balance was and the additions to that. Uh last year were, like I said, premium on sale of bonds uh 6.2 million. So that's excess cash that the city received people bidding on our debt uh above face value and then there's
another 1.2 on premium of sale of notes and then there's a small amount of proven authorizations canceled last year and 113,000. So all that rolls up into 10.2 million which is what we have overall in the capital fund as as as surplus.
>> So h how much was the total capital fund balance this point? uh 10,243,000 >> we're proposing to use 9.56 million is >> now yeah of >> the 10.2 too. >> I I guess my next question is just how
do we prioritize these? I mean certainly the HVAC is urgent. >> Council, these are a lot of requests that came in the preceding yearly in 2025 that were originally tied critical to the uh last administration's attempt
to pass the capital ordinance. because that was never completed and because we're still working on the priorities of this administration and this council, we just want to make sure that any critical items that need to be done yesterday essentially are funded in some source. Um asphalt as you guys know is you know
you've seen the roads out there. Uh the IT infrastructure improvements we have certain critical systems that are past end of life that need to be replaced. Um the brining machine is something that you know I think we all know from last year is critical to the streets. So, we want to make sure we have it fixed and ready to go this year. Um, and the
remaining infrastructure improvements are related to projects that are grant funded but require a match from the the city. So, we just want to make sure there is some money there to go through with the match so we don't lose any of the other grant funding that would be out there. >> 3B, 3C, 3D are all grant funed projects
and it serves as a match. >> Yeah, they have matching. I I don't exact I don't know the exact match for it, but we do have to provide a matching dollar amount to get money back from those projects. >> Thank you. >> Right. Have a good night.
>> John Lynch, DPW. >> Good evening, council president, council members. Last minute full pull in. Director Levy is still out from the passing of his mom and our automotive director was unavailable. So nevertheless, I have three items for the division of automotive 10.40,
10.41 and 10.42. So 10.40 40 resolution 26-354 a resolution authorizing the award of an open-end contract to Samuels by wise for auto parts for automotive parts and
accessories the light duty city-owned vehicles and the fleet of vehicles under the state contract for the department of public works automotive division. This is basically for the parts accessories and they're a local vendor that specializes in both foreign and
domestic automobile parts for all our automated uh auto automotive related services >> questions. >> Do we have did you provide um as awards and expenditures?
>> Uh let's see. >> We're getting them for you councilman. I made the request in anticipation for all the contracts that have been previously used to get those information before you vote. >> Thank you. >> John, you may have may not have this and please extend my condolences to director
Levy. So ask the administration, what vehicles are light duty under state contract we have in our fleet and I imagine we don't have any foreign vehicle. Okay. They actually didn't list them.
Um, looking here and seeing what notes they gave me. Um, >> councilman, we do have some foreign vehicles related to public safety. Um, we can talk more offline if you want to get more information about that. >> Yeah. Yeah. I'm I'm going to ask too, Peter, if you could provide me a a
listing. I know you provide me an older version, but every city, every car that's in the city fleet, uh, what department it's in and who's it signed to and ask for that audit again. Um, and then I'll go to
>> Does that exist? >> I I was provided by with with some document, but I know from uh speaking of some employees that's a little outdated. So, if we can get a full counting of every vehicle in in the city complete and where it's not just not just the department's assigned to, but who what
person it's assigned to. Councilman, generally we don't assign a vehicle as individual persons. We usually assign to a department. um exception may be public safety has some special exceptions to that, but we'll get to whatever extent possible we have. >> Thanks, Peter. I'm requesting that each
department head provide the city administration with the listing of where they assign their vehicles to whom. >> You're going to send it to the automotive department or to. >> Okay.
>> Okay. Next one. John. Right. We have 10.41 resolution 26-355 a resolution authorizing the award of an open-ended contract to fully power systems for fortliftly repairs needed through uh the source contract uh again
for the department department of public works for the automotive division. This is basically uh to specialize for repairs for six for the city's six payloaders, the four skid skiers steers and two evacuators. Uh they're the
current vendor and the funding is is the remaining as the same as last year. >> Say that again. >> So the funding uh cost which is uh asking for 60,000 is the same as last year. >> What was the expenditure last year? >> Uh around he's saying 30,000. So, we
didn't even It's as needed. >> Yeah, it's open-ended. >> So, if I can get the same information um for the past several years, four years. Thank you. >> Okay, next one. John >> and 10 10.42 4226-
356 resolution number resolution ratifying the award contract a rare step of fleet. It's the purchase of fleet management maintenance software for the department of public works. This provides the automotive division with the necessary uh software to track
all the vehicles, the fleet, the vendor utilization. And this does everything uh work order management, vehicle uh maintenance scheduling, parts and inventory control, repair request laboring and tracking, labor repair cost, vehicle maintenance and history,
driver assignment tracking, pre-trip, pre uh trip inspections, and fleet reporting and analytics. >> What was the source of funding? >> Excuse me. >> Repeat that. >> The source of funding, sorry. Oh, it's uh for 86,98560.
>> No. What account is it coming from? >> Uh automotive >> operating. >> Operating. >> Yeah. >> I'd ask again just to kind of look at this and software. I'm not sure qualifies. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Good evening, >> Sean. That is all the directors I have. I'm going to ask that we defer to 3.12. I believe Councilman Gilmore has um someone here who wants to help him
present that ordinance and then after that we can take it from the top. >> Hey, good afternoon. >> Good afternoon. >> Um my name is Renee Steinhagen. I'm with New Jersey Apples Seed Public Interest Law Center and I've been working with uh
Councilman Griffin and Councilman Gilmore on what I'm call what we're calling award redistricting. Um I want to make something clear. There's a political response and there's a legal response for this. Politically, as you know, the Supreme Court is eviscerating
the VCR, the Voting Rights Act. At the same time, they're allowing partisan jerrymandering. Our Supreme Court has made it clear that partisan gerrymandering is not allowed though there's been no particular case
um typically that has been brought where someone has challenged partisan gerrymandering. So the practical response here is what happened in Jersey City in ward redistricting in our last
um the last 10 years. I will say that was an anomaly. New Jerseyy's ward uh Jersey City's ward rec uh commissioning um commission historically followed the law. And when I say followed the law, it's not just state
law. They followed federal law as well. In this particular case, they did not. And what this ordinance is doing is implementing federal and state law. And I will tell
you very clearly in what components both are a state constitution but the statute governing ward redistricting requires a concept of compactness. This law the ward redistricting law was
passed in 1981. Okay. It simply required compactness be considered without defining compactness as well as population deviation of 10%. By 1982,
the US Supreme Court is acknowledging that one can measure compactness by using some statistics called the popper Pauly measurement of compactness as well
as the Rio and I think everybody should understand Mr. Rio was the head of Rut at Rutgers. So, in fact, the Supreme Court case uh has a footnote in the concurrence by uh
Justice Stevens that just goes on and on and on about Ernst Rio. I just want you to know that. So, what this ordinance does, unlike our state law, it actually just defines compactness.
The definition is one used by other state courts and has been used in jurisdiction. So it's not something that we're changing. It is consistent with the current state law. But this ordinance is now saying that one would
evaluate compactness by using these measurements, these objective measurements. I'd like you to know that the program that the Jersey City Commission uses generates
those compactness scores. So, it's not like we're creating something new. You are just implementing the current law, the current practice, the federal courts, other state courts, and everybody uses these measurements.
In the last round, there was no mention of these metrics and the commission did not consider the measurements. They did not consider compactness. Period. So, all you're doing is implementing
current, state, and federal principles of redistricting. The second substantive issue in this ordinance is something called communities of interest. You're defining communities of interest.
That definition is coming out of New Jersey Supreme Court cases defining communities of interest. It requires the commission to consider communities of interest.
Though our our supreme New Jersey Supreme Court said that the New Jersey law does not require you to consider communities of interest. The Voting Rights Act does.
Clearly the rule the compactness analysis that the US Supreme Court has required in a Voting Rights Act case. The compactness analysis requires you to
consider communities of interest. That is the rule beyond community. Compactness is beyond geometric shapes. Compactness requires that it also includes that voters share cohesive
cultural, social, economic, or historic ties. That's what you're defining communities of interest. So this ordinance is implementing the VR the voting rights act regarding compactness analysis
by requiring the commission to use communities of interest. The next substantive is that it's requiring the commission to use census tracks and not election
voting districts. Well, our state law and our federal law is quiet is silent on that matter. But no, no commission has ever used election voting districts before. They have always used census
blocks. In fact, in the last round of redistricting, the very commission in Jersey City where it is the superintendent, the different board of elections, they just have the clerk sitting on it. In every
other municipality where there was redistricting in Hudson County, they use census tracks. Only in Jersey City, they used election voting districts. We claim they use election voting districts because they wanted to know how people voted
that and they used how people voted in shaping the districts. So that issue was not pontificated on. It has never been pontificated on. But I'm saying it is consistent with practice in redistricting
both here in Hudson County as elsewhere to use census tracks and not election voting districts. Now, the next important aspect of this ordinance is in direct response to the citizens, the voters of Jersey
City's discontent about the process. new uh the state law that governs does govern you can't do something inconsistent with the state law but we're implementing the state law does require
all meetings of the commission to be open to the public that is very different than our constitution and how congressional redistricting goes all right we're not saying it's not like you are
now saying meetings must be public when they were under state law private. They're not. All we are doing now is requiring that there be at least one meeting at which alternative BAPs are
discussed. Meaning there must be a meeting and we're also requiring there must be a meeting. It could be the same meeting as the one before where this commission hears about the voters's feelings about
their communities of interest. This is not inconsistent. It's not not allowed under state law. But this is Jersey City, the city council now responding to the dissatisfaction
about what happened last time where there was only one public meeting where the decision had already been made about what plan and people got up and commented and the voting went on with no response
from what went on. So this ordinance is a response to making sure that Jersey City's commission and where I say that you have the power to do so. There is no what we called
field preeemption here that means the state hasn't preempted the world because the reality is the commission has to listen to federal law as well. So all we are saying is is that you guys
who must pay for just so you know there was um there were 18 or I think it was 20 citizens groups brought a challenge to the redistricting map that was drawn. Well, guess what? The city of Jersey
City paid for the defense and the city of Jersey City actually wrote a brief in support of the what we call a ward redistricting map that was gerrymandered um in retaliation for the way the voters
of Ward F the old Ward F voted period. It was a retaliation based on their voting, their support of an independent candidate and that is in essence a form of partisan gerrymandering.
Um, so I will answer any questions. What I'm really want to let you know is that this ordinance is consistent with federal and state principles of redistricting.
It will help prevent partisan gerrymandering and it will help protect the very essence of your ward redistricting law which was to protect diverse communities within the city and
making sure that the communities of interest that are not necessarily only on racial lines. And that is why no one challenged, we did not challenge the ward redistricting map under the voting rights act because it was not racial. We felt that there was a gerrymandering
going on and a disrespect for the socioeconomic um communities of neighborhoods that had developed in the city. It was not racially based and therefore there would not have been a voting rights act claim. But that does not preclude the
conclusion that a commission has to follow the principles of the voting rights act. And the voting rights act compactness analysis requires a commission a redistricting commission to actually
consider communities of interest. Um if in fact you are to feel that you are not um this is not within your jurisdiction that this is inconsistent
with state law though that I do not it is my opinion that it is not inconsistent with state law. Uh and I do not believe that there is field preeemption because of the fact that you have to follow both federal and
state law. I do think uh that the locality has the authority to make sure that their commission for which they pay for follows and implements the federal and state law uh principles of ward
redistricting one can always pass a resolution but in that in mind even if there is an argument of field preeemption I'd like to bring uh the pre previous person was telling you about his history in Essex County I'll bring you up to Something more recent,
um, Newark has passed an ordinance requiring that 16-year-olds have the right to vote in schoolboard elections. I will give you a legal opinion. I think that's field preempted. I don't think
Newark had the authority to pass that ordinance. Um, guess what the political response has been? There's been nobody who is challenging it. In fact, this federal the state government was even saying they would
consider mandating it for all municipalities. Why? Because it's in a political assertion. And I would argue that here if you pass this ordinance, no one will challenge it. The election
officials, they're going to challenge it and to say communities of interest. We don't want to have to consider communities of interest even though the federal government the federal law requires us to consider communities of interest. Who is going to challenge it?
>> Okay, Renee, let us uh get you some questions. >> Okay, you did a good job. >> Well, I you know I didn't this is a new a new role. I >> I know you want to go watch Nick game. >> That was very >> My husband wants dinner, too. Yeah,
>> that that was very thorough. Thank you. I I haven't had a chance to speak with Councilman Gilmore yet. So, my questions are mostly off off the cuff. Uh did you have a chance to to review or contribute to the ordinance and how it's written? >> I wrote it. >> Okay. Uh so, the the fourth whereas down
uh makes some allegations. Uh and I know this case went to court. What was what was the last court of jurisdiction? >> Uh the the New Jersey Supreme Court. >> We did not have any federal claims. There was not a a Voting Rights Act claim. uh and and the sup did the Supreme Court make any of these
findings? I think there's six things uh from that the Ward Commission in 2022 failed to adequately consider the statuto requirement of compactness all the way down to Ward's DNF are bearing significant reductions in their lack of compactness and overall political coherence. >> No,
>> we had a 5 to4 decision which changed in the last minute from an oral argument. I thought it would have been the other way around. Um they just just you know the claims that were brought were dismissed already in the trial court. Uh the appellet division reinstated the
compactness claim and then the Supreme Court the majority dis reinstated the trial court. Um >> there is >> basically they basically decided that in 1981 the statute they just they picked
up their 1979 decision. We are the only state in the country that um still looks as compactness visually. And we had a five majority saying the W F was compact and a minority saying the W F wasn't compact visually. Okay.
>> Right. I I'm not disagreeing with some of the allegations in the fourth whereas I'm just the lawyer in me is concerned about putting that into an ordinance into our city's law when it was litigated in court and and a court found that not to be the case whether right or wrong. >> Where is clause? I don't I don't believe
that the wearers clauses should be put in the ordinance. >> I guess I did this wrong. This, you know, the ordinance should not have the wearers clause, >> right? Well, I I mean the the what the council's reviewing and the public's reviewing and voting on. So really, the
meat of it is regardless of what happened in 2022 going forward, there should be more of a conversation about compactness and in communities of Sorry, let me get of interest. Right. That's >> Yeah. know it just should be that compactness should be we should use the
very measurements that the city commission um the programs they use uh generate every single court other than our US Supreme Court has uses these metrics of the hyper Pauly and the Rio
score to measure of compactness and then communities of interest and our 1981 law does not include the requirement to use communities of interest. Communities of interest developed the concept of communities interest its relationship to
compactness have developed since 1981 by the US Supreme Court under the voting rights act. So we would be this ordinance would be implementing the voting rights act. Do you understand? It would not be it's not a matter of
that the state controls everything. No one would argue that federal law doesn't apply to our ward commission. >> So, so compactness wouldn't be a new consideration. The only the only change for the next ward commission would be communities of interest. >> No, communities of interest is not new. Communities of interest is required. The
use of the metrics is not required. Compactness is required in our uh state law and our US and our New Jersey constitution. >> Robert, that's what I'm asking. Yeah, it's the metrics. It's the way you evaluate compactness. As our law stands
now, you the New Jersey Supreme Court says you can just do this visually. Every other court in the country, including every other federal court, is using these metrics and the commissions are using these metrics. The definition of communities of interest is adopted
from Judge Kchman. it is uh used they they used it um in the US congressional redistricting here in New Jersey. They just said that it was not required. The the election officials actually wrote an amicus brief saying it's a great
concept. We think it's wonderful. We should, you know, we just don't have the resources to do it. They're forgetting about federal law, though. And I do think that they have an obligation to implement federal law. What's new is we're defining that the uh procedurally
that the public meet there must be one public meeting that at least discusses alternative plans and there must be a meeting at which you consider commentary from the community about what they perceive their community of interest to be. That does go on under our
New Jersey Constitution in the congressional redistricting. And the concept of communities of interest is something that every single advocacy group from the League of Women Voters to the Institute for Social Justice to everybody is presenting and as actually
a strong communities of interest requirement is the answer to the elimination or the visceration of the VRA by the recent US Supreme Court decision. And as well as compactness is a concept that the North Carolina,
the Pennsylvania state supreme courts that have now found against prohibited partisan gerrymandering, they use compactness scores to determine if there's been gerrymandering. And that's what Mr. Reebok said, Rio said in 1965
from his post at Rutgers University. >> I I appreciate your analysis. No, thank you very much. Uh just question for Corp Council. is the administration weighing in and perhaps is the great example of legislative counsel. >> This is true. >> So, I'll start by saying I I have
enormous respect for Renee. >> It was a fantastic analysis. No, thank you. >> Her her presence here, but I do respectfully disagree. I have provided a memo to Councilman Gilmore laying out the law department's analysis of this proposed ordinance. I see there being a
very narrow question for the law department on this ordinance. It is not whether the substantive and procedural requirements that this ordinance purports to impose are good as a policy matter or are important matters of fairness. That the question is simply whether this is a regulation that can
happen at the municipal level. Um and our assessment is that that is not the case. Um, as Renee has pointed out, while there may be these similar procedural and substantive requirements in federal courts and in other states and even in other cities, notably they
do not appear in the very comprehensive state law that creates these ward commissions. Um, that is the municipal ward law. You have heard Renee refer to a concept of field preeemption. So that we do not disagree that there is uh that
we agree that there is no state law that this proposed ordinance conflicts with directly. There is no state law that says the council cannot do something like what it is trying to achieve in this ordinance. But there is a legal doctrine called field preeemption that says when a state legislature or a legislature of a higher authority has
acted so comprehensively in a space as to fill the field of regulation, it leaves no room for lower authorities like a city to act. And it is the law department's opinion that that is the case here. The MDL spells out a very comprehensive scheme. It creates
entities that are state entities and invites no participation at the local level. And further, the Supreme Court in the case law that is cited in the preamble to this ordinance expressly rejected the notion that these criteria should be read in. And it is my view
that if in fact federal law required what our state law does not expressly require that New Jersey Supreme Court would have figured that out and told us it. And they declined to. And so it is the law department's view that this ordinance is likely in excess of
municipal authority. Candidly, realistically, if the council elected to pass this ordinance, what I think is likely to happen, I I agree with Renee that it is hard to imagine who would challenge it, but what is likely to happen is is simply nothing. That the Ward Commission would convene and it
would conduct its business the way that it would like to uh at some point in the future. Um, and this ordinance would have no effect and the city would have no way to bind the Ward Commission to these requirements that it is attempting to inject through this ordinance. The law department's view is that the lawful
way of accomplishing the goal um that is articulated in this ordinance would be to pass a resolution calling for the state to amend the municipal ward law and incorporate these various substantive and procedural criteria. I will say I have not had the opportunity
to engage with Rene's analysis which clearly is detailed and thorough but this is the first time that I'm hearing about it and so we would be happy to given more than 36 hours engage with it in more detail but at this time it is the position of the administration and the law department that this is likely
an excess of the council's authority. >> Sir, I thank you. I I'd appreciate the memo if you wouldn't mind sharing with me and and Renee again if you wouldn't mind if you have anything in writing I'd like to review it. >> Yeah. No, I don't have anything in writing at the moment. Um, >> I'll go back and listen to that.
>> You know, my position is even if if the state if the city is right, the reality of it is politically this is going to be very very difficult to get the state um to change the law. They haven't changed the law since 1981 when every other state has changed the law. Um, and as I
said, we didn't bring any claims under the federal and we didn't raise these arguments in the court that the VRA required them to do communities of interest. This was a claimed solely under the New Jersey law. Um, and they were working on statutory intent from
1981 which predated the VRA and the communities of interest issue. And we had politics and I'll be that's the very honesty here. and something changed from oral argument to by the time whether it was Qatari threatening uh judge uh
>> okay we won't get into uh too many specific we have your side of it we have the corporation >> council but I just want to reinforce >> that Newark passed an ordinance and has affected voting rights for 16 year olds even though most election experts in the
state think that there's field preeemption and that the locality doesn't have control over that. So, there's something political here to be said and I think it's important for this city council politically who saw what happened and we all know what happened. Okay.
>> To make sure that it won't happen again. >> All right. Any other questions? We're good. >> I'll ask one. >> Okay. >> As I dare, um I'll ask the corporation council. Um so I I don't see a chapter um in this ordinance. know um if you
pass and it's your opinion that it's not uh uh legal binding uh where does it find its place in the municipal code and or or how does that process work I guess is it
>> I have no idea >> okay get back to you before Wednesday unless the BA happens to know >> okay we'll investigate Oh. >> All right. Take it from the top, Sean.
>> Okay. >> To our first reading ordinances. Item 3.13.2 we touched on earlier. Item 3.3 city ordinance 26-035 is an ordinance amending chapter 23 section 23-7 judges salaries, vacation
leaves, and other benefits. >> Questions? 3.3. >> No questions. >> All right. 3.4 City Ordinance 26-036 is an ordinance of the Municipal Council of the City of Jersey City, amending chapter 73, Women's Advisory Board of
the City of Jersey City. >> Next one. >> Next question. >> Oh, sorry. Item 3.5 was touched on earlier. Item 3.6, city ordinance 23-038 is an ordinance of the Jur City Municipal Council supplementing chapter
90. Article three, establishing a ban on breeding of sale of dogs, cats, and rabbits. >> Questions? >> Item 3.7, city ordinance 26-039 is an ordinance of the municipal council of the city of Jersey City, amending
chapter A350, rules of order of the Jersey City code to establish the 12th day prior to caucus meeting as the deadline for distribution of the municipal council meeting agenda. This ordinance if introduced
um the second reading ordinance that's on uh 4.3 26-031 would be would have to be defeated. >> Questions? >> I just going to confirm that we we would
need to vote down 4.3 and then approve uh 3.7. We would approve 3.7 first and then we would move to defeat item 4.3. >> That's move to defeat is a a motion separate from a vote.
>> It it would be a motion to move to defeat so we don't have to hold a public hearing on something that uh is not going to be adopted or can be. >> I like that. Okay. Thank you. >> I thought you would. >> It's new Sean.
>> Item 3.8 and 3.9 were touched on earlier. Item 3.10 city ordinance 26-042 is an ordinance of the municipal council of the city of Jersey City establishing chapter 346 lu youth liaison council of
the city of the Jersey City municipal code is creating the Jersey City youth liaison council. >> Any questions? 3.10. >> Just one question for the councilman. I didn't get an opportunity to review it in great detail. Is there a staff
assigned to this? Uh we were originally uh putting in some language around administrative support um but we were talking with law department and right now we've taken administrative support out of the language of the ordinance so that we're not overly prescriptive and
it seems like correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like it would be an excess of city council powers to direct the administration um into how they would put administrative support behind this Um but we are saying that a city council
member at least would be uh involved in the uh youth leaison council um and that the mayor's office could designate uh to also help staff this. >> So you the law department is happy to have
a conversation around what specific forms of administrative support you are seeking and whether or not they are permissible. the the draft that we reviewed was unclear and that raised some legal questions and so if you want to put a little bit of meat on the bone before Wednesday, we're we're happy to work with you to spell out what that is
and make sure it would be appropriate. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Hey, Sean. >> Okay. Item 3.11, city ordinance 26-043 is an ordinance of the municipal council of the city of Jersey City, County of
Hudson State of New Jersey, amending and supplementing chapter 3, administration of government, article um four, department of law of the Jersey City Municipal Code to establish the position of legislative council to municipal council to clarify the respective roles of corporation council
and legislative counsel. So, uh, council members, this is the followup to the resolution that we passed, uh, stating our intent to create a legislative council position. This is the ordinance that I promised I would
bring forward. Um, as I stated when we did the resolution, it is something that the residents have been asking us to do probably since I've been on the council. Um it is something that almost I think almost all of you asked
me to look into um as council president. So I did look into it. There are two other major cities under the mayor council strong mayor Faulner uh system and Trenton that uh have their own
separate attorney from the administration that I know of. Um, and so I want to make sure that we have the conversation and we follow through on what we said we were going to do. So, this ordinance is here. Um, and I've sent you all communications and
documentation on why um I feel that we have room to move forward. >> Yes. Um, I I just want to say that I think um I think it's a great idea um for us to have our own counsel. Um
especially with this I mean Tom's an attorney but other than that um none of us no one else uh went to school for this stuff and every time you know when I look at law it's for me it's so many great areas and so many interpretations.
Case in point, we just witnessed something um not too long ago. We went to the court, you know, even the judge's interpretation at the Supreme Court, that's the determination of a 54 uh
decision. Um, so I guess ultimately if you know the council responsibility is to look out for the best interests of the constituency of Jersey City, um, that we find some way to have some legal
representation that's specific focus is for the council. While I don't believe that this administration is anything like uh past administrations, I do believe that um if there's a a ability
to create some function where we can have this independent representation, if you will. Um I think we should uh really home in on that. Um, you know, and no knock to Sarah, um,
like I said, but I just think that this this business of being like, it's hard. It is hard. Um, so to rely on um, expert opinion, if you will. Um, and
I gotta keep going back to the previous administration. Like so many times like there's been instance where we were trying to get things done and it's like, "Oh, no. We can't do that. We can't do that." Um, so I'm in favor of having that um representation as uh for the
council. >> Yeah, I agree with Councilman Gilmore in that regard. Um uh I appreciate the conversation I had with the mayor last week about this and when he recognized that you know and what Councilman Gilmore was saying that may not be this administration but
future council future administrations may be at uh differing opinions and and it's important for the council to have guidance. Uh I do have a question though. Uh, so Sarah, in your office, you you'll give us advice and always it's up to us to determine whether to
take that advice or not. And if we get it wrong or someone thinks we got it wrong and we get sued and there's litigation, the city represents the council because we're in our official capacities. Uh, section F of this ordinance uh, indicates that the council shall have the discretion to determine which opinion, meaning between
legislative council and corporation council, governs its actions consistent with applicable law. So, we always do that. My question would be if legislative council gives us an opinion which we follow resulting in a lawsuit who is representing the council members in that lawsuit or who determines which
law law firm to hire because I assume we'll still be governed by uh will be acting under the color of law and govern and um indemnified by the city but I have some questions about the logistics with that. >> With your permission I'd like to answer
the the narrow question first and then share a little bit more on the record. I think it's important as the advocate for the city, representing the city's interests, that I have the opportunity to weigh in in a public forum on this question because there are a number of
legal and other complexities here. To answer your question, council person, the law department would arrange for conflict council to represent the council members in that case. And so the law department would either uh take a firm that it already has an open contract with or put forward a new
contract before the city council for it to approve or deny to represent the council members in that case. But it would not be myself and and the other members of the law department who would represent you on a matter we had already perhaps even publicly opined um against your position in. We we couldn't
represent your interests if we had expressed opinion that was contrary to them or or your view in that case. Um, more broadly, I will share with the council that when this first came up in the form of the resolution that was previously passed calling for the introduction of this ordinance for the
public's awareness, the law department drafted a memorandum dated May 3rd, which was circulated to the council members. It's also incorporated into the agenda of this council meeting. It's in the letters um from directors portion of the agenda. It is not confidential. It
is publicly available. Um, and I I want to start by noting that I appreciate what Councilman Gilmore said and I thoroughly agree that the law is so complicated, particularly because it is often full of gray areas. Um, however, what council is trying to accomplish
here and the specific way that they are trying to accomplish it um is not a gray area. It is in one of the few black and white settled areas of law where the highest authority in our state. The New Jersey Supreme Court has weighed in on a virtually identical factual question and
has decisively stated that the council doesn't have the authority to do what it is seeking to do by this ordinance. Um I'm referring to a case that is called the Municipal Council of Newark versus Sharp James, the then mayor. The then Newark council tried to do not only what this council is trying to do, but they
tried to do it the same way. So, they tried to pass an ordinance that would call for the city to uh for the council to put forward a contract, a professional services contract to engage a consultant law firm, which is exactly what this ordinance contemplates. And
the court there said that that was not possible. And and they said two important things that apply here. So first the court made clear that under the Falconer Act it is the expectation that the council and the mayor work together to protect the city's interests
not any elected officials interests or any particular branch of government's interests and a helpful analogy on that front is we if you look at the seal above you it says corporation of Jersey City legally the city is a corporate entity and just as a corporate CEO and
board of directors don't each get their own lawyer they have one general counsel that is tasked with acting in the interest of that single unified corporate entity. That is also true of a municipality in New Jersey under the Falconer Act. But more specifically, what that case said was that a council does not have the authority within its
legislative legislative purview to put forward a contract for professional services. The court determined that that is a uniquely administrative function that could not be co-opted by the city council. It said in no uncertain terms, the Falconer Act's mandate is clear and unmistakable. The mayor is charged with
the duty to negotiate and sign subject to council approval contracts that bind the city. And the city council is charged with the duty of approval of contracts presented by the mayor. And so the court concluded there was no room for the notion that council could put forward its own contracts for its own
consultants, which is precisely what the council attempts to do here. And to put a practical point on it that I think illustrates why that must be the case. If the council advances this ordinance and then either itself tries to put forward a contract resolution or asks the administration to put forward a
contract resolution, I'm the lawyer for our finance department and our procurement department. And if they ask me if that contract or any payments pursuant to that contract are legally authorized, I will say no. That is my opinion. I hope it doesn't get to that point. But I think that illustrates why
it is essential that we have one voice that the city speaks with, one advocate who represents the city's interests rather than two. I will also note, as I pointed out in that memo that I circulated on the 3, that anytime there
is an actual bonafide legal conflict of interest, there is already a mechanism for the council to get its own representation. You can ask the law department to render an opinion that there exists a conflict. we would happily provide one. Frankly, we are
overworked as you all know and so we would be more than happy to procure independent counsel to represent you. But more to the point, we have put forward um what I will say is a a compromised proposal and I think frankly a good one whether or not it resolves this particular dispute, which is that
the council is certainly able to hire as aids barred attorneys. They would not represent the city. they would not be covered under attorney client privilege because again that's a fundamentally administrative function. Um but the law department would be happy to share our resources with the council, our access
to case law databases such that you have the opportunity to um have someone within your staff who can help you assess the opinions of the law department, do your own research, do your own legislative drafting and so we would be very happy to work with you on that path forward if if you're all
amendable to that. I have two questions. Um, so if we I understand what you're saying. If you have an opinion and then our attorney would have an opinion and it ends up in court, you can't represent us. Now, if you give us an opinion now
and we don't take it, like for instance, the the uh ordinance that we that Councilman Gilmore put forth where there's two different opinions. If we don't listen to your advice and we move forward with that and there's a lawsuit, do you represent us then or you would have to outsource it?
It would really depend on the specifics of the case, but generally in order to be entitled to representation by the city and indemnification by the city, you need to follow the legal advice of the city's representative. And so there is a mechanism, this is reflected in our city's code under the portion of the
code that creates my role um for the city to decline to offer representation for someone in the event they don't cooperate with their own defense. >> Okay. And then my other question is because I know you mentioned the uh Newark Sharp James case, but New York has their own attorney and they have for
quite some time. So, um I mean I guess they just decided to do it, but >> I mean I I'll quote my friend Bnee here. Um just because something is unlawful doesn't mean someone is going to challenge it. And so it is my view that those municipalities passed ordinances
that that could be challenged and those challenges would almost certainly be successful including under the council of Newark versus Sharp James case that no one has elected to do it yet does not does not give that legal blessing. >> Who would have standing to challenge it?
Just the administration, right? >> Certainly the mayor. And can I say something that I already um told council president, thank you. This is a great idea and both of you with the experience sharing that. Um but
I do feel that this is not the right time because right now we are in deficit. Any expense is to taxpayers. they are already not feeling good about so many things and um hiring um you know
council is going to be extra expense. I just do not feel this is the right time. We should revisit it next year when we are more stable. Like me, I would be more stable. I am a new council. I want to learn all the aspects of this. Um so
my personal opinion is that this is not the right time for for us to go move forward on that. >> I I respect that and I understand we're looking out for the budget, but we hire new people every day. There's an article out every day with us
>> extra money what anyone we are hiring it is extra expensive we can avoid and again thank you you know your office has been great uh we are getting more support than we can expect so I understand there can be a tricky
situation but just because there can be a tricky situation we should spend more money right now I would not support that I would wait And then we'll revisit next year to see how it goes and then if everything is
better than what we have right now and you know we are avoiding hiring couple of positions we have open we are not hiring almost all the departments uh do not have enough employees in the city so I think this is something we can put on
hold for some time. Well, I think um I mean I understand your point as it relates to the finance, but Sarah just spoke to um something that we have in play that if it's deemed
that we need independent representation, we will be able to get it right Sarah. if there's a bonafide legal conflict. And so the idea that maybe you would approach questions slightly differently if you were in each other's shoes, that doesn't typically rise to the level of
warranting independent legal counsel. But if there's a bonafide adversarial dispute, then we have an ethical obligation to obtain outside to represent you. >> I appreciate the council president opened this up for dialogue. So I I apologize for asking questions after I
ended my first round of questioning. So, and I appreciate Ma's comments, too. Um, if we were to move forward on this, the administration's not opposed to legislative councils, the form of of which it's it's that person's hired, right? I see student. Thank you, student. Not your head. Um,
so what are our options? It would be one to hire an aid who's a lawyer, not a council colleague who's a lawyer, but a lawyer. Now, when the city hires attorneys,
there's a there's a procurement process. The administration puts out RFQS. The council votes on those lawyers anyway, right, to to to award a contract. What would the difference be between the administration putting out an RFQ or legislative counsel to assist the
municipal council and we would have to vote on that person anyway? You're you're referring to pro procuring outside council, not hiring attorneys for within the city. I I understand that to be the question, but >> Right. Right. So, uh I think what the council president's proposing is we put
out the RFQ as a council, we select the attorney, that attorney represents us or or we hire. So, the only significant difference between what I think I'm understanding you're proposing, which is the administration puts out an RFQ for firms, consults with the council, you
pick who you like, we put on a contract for them to provide services directly to the council. The only difference is that under the Falconer Act, under the Supreme Court case that we've been talking about, all of the legal services of the city need to report to and be under the direction and supervision of
the corporation council. And so this ordinance expressly tries to create a provision that does not report to the corporation council but rather to the council itself. And under the sharp James case that is fundamentally problematic given the structure of municipal government.
>> Now the the ordinance uh proposes the legislative council and corp council working together anyway and trying to have a consistent opinion on things. Is there any way to to make that work where legislative counsel works on the in your your your office but gives it can
disagree with your opinion? >> To be clear, everyone who works in my department can disagree with my opinion and they routinely do. >> You hear that third floor? Um, an alternative that I proposed in that May memo that I circulated was that I
would be more than happy for there to be a dedicated individual or frankly even division, whatever you want to call it, of attorneys within the law department who are tasked with only working for the council, only responding to questions from council, not taking on other projects or working for other
departments. Fundamentally, under the Faulner Act, those individuals do still report to me. I don't see any way around that. I am happy to make whatever reasonable assurances within that structure you would accept. I'm more than happy to, you know, talk about what
could make sense for protocol for how we handle disagreements within the law department. Um although I don't think that frankly resolves fundamentally what the council is trying to accomplish here, which is someone that is distinct from the law department. But if you are interested in that proposal, frankly, I
would be thrilled to have the council involved in the recruiting and hiring process because it has been tough. So, I would I would welcome your involvement in that. And certainly, we could put on a contract for outside counsel with a budget that is strictly for answering questions from the municipal council.
>> I'm just trying to get creative because we we agree on the ends, which should make this a lot easier, right? So if we if we disagreed on the end goal and it'd be more of a fight, but I'm sure there's we can accomplish being an independent council having representation and not in a position where your recommendation to
the mayor would be to challenge us in court. This sounds like we're not there yet, but we're working on it. >> Councilman Nefros and Council Lavaro. >> Yeah. Um, I think we've discussed this before uh at a caucus, but if you can
clarify again what the difference between this ordinance would be and if one of us or many of us had someone who is a lawyer on our staff that provided legal and policy recommendations to us
or even if the entire city council had a staff member who was maybe entitled policy expert expert but had a lot degree and was speaking from you know legal experience and expertise. Um and
maybe those two scenarios are themselves quite different but yeah what were the kind of different consequences be from what the ordinance is in front of us. >> I see two big differences. The first being one I think is straightforwardly
legal and the other is I think straightforwardly not. But the second difference that I see is I do see um a cost difference between those two models. If that is if the attorney that the council engaged in the form of an aid was brought on as a municipal
employee. Um attorneys are very expensive. The city's cheapest standard hourly rate is $175 per hour. I do see in the draft ordinance that it contemplates having this legislative council um staff every council meeting. And you all know as well as anyone how
long those run. And that's in addition to any legislative services or research services that you would want above and beyond that. So I would just caution for your consideration that cost should be a factor in this analysis as well. >> I guess I mean the specifics around the the legal question. What is the what is
the difference that makes you know the the one set of uh circumstances pretty clearly legal and not at risk of getting us into this like hot water of conflict. Having a BR attorney as a council aid
who is not an authorized attorney of the city avoids the problem of the Faulner Act which says that the city should have one lawyer and should speak with one voice and and have one legal opinion. Ultimately that person could give you information. They could do research. They could do legislative drafting. They
would not be your attorney and so your communications with them would not be privileged. It could result in a situation where they give you advice. They say, "We've done a preeemption assessment here. We think this ordinance is valid. I disagree. The city gets sued. We need to get outside counsel."
That that that's already the case. That already happens with non- attorney aids. That happens. I won't point fingers at the one attorney at at the council on the council, but it's conceivable that could happen from council members themselves. So, the difference either way, the conflict issue could arise. Um
but it would be much more concerning in the context of having an unlawful attorney representative who is taking a legal opinion that purports to bind the council um that violates the Faulner Act structure. >> Okay. >> Council member Lavara.
Um just some quick comments and um yeah the um there was brought up about if uh council members have some uh legitimate issues I think and differences and whether they have legal representation. I can attest personally
that I had my own legal counsel that was afforded to me by the previous administration um when we had a difference on a lawsuit that came before uh before the city and city council was referenced in myself of that lawsuit. So I asked for my own counsel and received
it. um on on the ordinance itself. Um I I support this. Um I think it's necessary and again as I believe somebody said earlier and I've said
before that uh um well Sarah, you're great. um the the future of the city council and for the city of Jersey City uh have I think it's important for the city council to have its own uh legal representation to be able to fall back
on and to be able to have um that um potentially necessary independent objective advice uh because I've witnessed firsthand that it's not always that way. So um I'm happy to see this move forward and support this uh
initiative. I'm glad that uh the language in page two of this document and in the limitations section um I've addressed some of the tension between that and um I think it's a good compromise on that and guess we'll see
where this goes ultimately. Uh that's all I have to say. Thanks. >> You're great too, Councilman. >> Um I was just going to say uh corporation council, you issued a memo in May. Are you looking to issue a any
further opinion or guidance or not? At this time, >> I have no plan to unless there are specific questions that would be helpful. I think that memo comprehensively addressed the questions posed by this ordinance. Admittedly, it was written in response to the
resolution that was approved by the council that called for introduction of this ordinance, but key legal issues are the same that there may have been some small changes in the ordinance between that resolution and what's being introduced here that were frankly so small that I can't list them if they
exist, but the substantial components, the structure of it, the the concept that the council is putting on a professional services contract remains the same. And and that's what I analyzed in that memo. Thank you, >> Council President. I make one more comment just just to address the the budget issue on this whole thing. Um,
for my part, just on the record that uh I am certainly concerned about the the economics and once that budget gets before us and we're able to look at things and figure it out um and be able to figure out whether or not uh it makes sense. Um but I'm very open to kind of
deferring on on this to uh but I think it's important to get the the ordinance uh approved and um and move it through um and then figure out the timing in terms of what works best budgetarily for uh the city. But I think it's great to
have this option. >> All right, Sean. >> Items 3.12 to 316 we touched on earlier. On to our second readings. Item 4.1, city ordinance 26-029, is a franchise ordinance granting permission to 24
Bright Street LLC. I'm not going to read everything into the record because we're going to do it at the meeting. Um, any questions on that ordinance? Hearing none. 4.2 City Ordinance 26-030
is an ordinance authorizing easement with Exchange Place Alliance District Management regarding a park. Item 4.3 we already discussed with the introduction of the first reading. This will be defeated. Item 4.4 city
ordinance 26-032 is an ordinance enabling ordinance of the municipal council of the city of Jersey City amending chapter 122 public assemblies permission required and um hours of conditions. Any questions on
that? >> No. >> Hearing none. We have our public speakers right now. We have 61. >> Yes. >> And any questions or comments on petitions and communications 6.1 through
650? >> I'd like to request 6.37, please. 37. >> Yes. Anyone else? Yeah, I I have a handful I'd like to request. Um, would
you like me to just send you an email? >> You can either read them or you can just send me an email and I'll send them all to you. >> Okay. I'll There's There's a few, so I'll send an email. Thank you. >> Great. And whoever requests anything, I will make sure the entire council gets copy.
>> I'd like to request um items 6.38 and 6.39. Thank you, Sean. >> Anyone else? Going once, going twice. Let's we'll go watch the next. Um, no officer communications. Any questions or
comments on reporter directors 8.1 through 8.10? >> Uh, it's requesting 8.10. And question for the administration. Looks like there's the mayor sent letters um appointing certain individuals to certain boards, but those
aren't up for this meeting. What what was the question? >> So 8 8 8.9 8.8 8.9 >> So okay so only one of them requires advice and consent of the municipal
council. The other one is direct appointment from the mayor. >> Okay. Thanks John. >> You're welcome. Yeah. >> And thanks to the aids for stopping that door from rocking back and forth because it's my head feels like it's rocking back and forth.
Um, on to our claims. We have our claims and then on to our resolutions. Items 10.1 through 10.3 were touched on earlier. 10.4 is a resolution author uh, excuse me, resolution urging the Jersey City
Medical Center to seek a commitment to fair wages and benefits for resident physicians and fellows. That's resolution 26 318. Resolution 26319 10.5 is a resolution recognizing Ishmam
Gupta, a seventh grade student at Frank Cordwell Middle School 4, for his outstanding accomplishments at the 2026 Scripps National Spelling Be. Item 10.6, resolution 26-320.
It's a resolution honoring Holy Rosary Church upon the conclusion of its 140th anniversary year and recognizing its contributions to the city's Italian American heritage. >> Um Sean, we're going to have folks from the church Cummings and I I assume
probably for um Isan's resolution and others council president, would you be comfortable with us deferring them to the top of the meeting? >> Yes. So 10.6, right? You have someone coming for >> um 10.6 six. And then I didn't introduce 10.5 or um
>> yes, he'll be here. >> 10.7 through 10.10, but I would assume >> be here for 10.5. >> So, let me let me just get that right. So, it's 10.5, 6, 7, and 10. They're all going to be here.
>> No, I think the the AAPI were were given during the ceremony, right? Or no, >> it was. I'm not sure. I'll have to consult with my staff to check to see if that's >> So, we'll make sure you know for Wednesday, Sean. >> Yeah, just let me know if we're going to make a motion to defer and we'll do that after we introduce the first readings.
>> Since we're talking about that, council question, I I mentioned for the council colleagues, uh the Jersey theater center is having their voices um international festival. Um they have a number of artists and dignitaries from foreign
countries. Um there's no resolution here. I just um invited them to come to the city council and with all of your indulgence uh do a photo op um and welcome them here and recognize them here in Jersey City. >> Next one. Sean.
>> All right. Since we talked about the 567 and not 8, so we'll go to 10.8 resolution 26-322. It's a resolution of the city of Jersey City honoring it sed during the city's
inaugural AAI heritage month celebration. Same thing for uh Raul Pat Rajul Patel 10.9 10.10 10. We talked about 10.11. Resolution 26325
is a resolution authorizing a shared service agreement pursuant to the Uniform Shared Services Consolidation Act with the Jersey City Municipal Utilities Authority. 10.12 was touched on earlier. 10.13 City Resolution 26-327
is a resolution introducing the and approving the 2026 2027 budget of the Journal Square Special Improvement District. directing the city clerk to publicly advertise the budget and schedule a public hearing and directing the tax assessor to prepare an assessment role of properties within the
district based upon the budget. Items 10.14 through 10.22 we touched on earlier. 10.23 23. City resolution 26-337 is a resolution authorizing the execution of a release waiver,
discharge, and covenant not to sue agreement with New Jersey Sports Exposition Authority and the North Arlington Police Department to allow Jersey City Police Officers use of firearms range at the 1E landfill in
Carney for training purposes. Items 10.24 24 through 10.42 we touched on earlier. Item 10.43 resolution 26-357 is a resolution authorizing the payment
of a claim submitted by Murphy Orlando LLC for providing professional legal services. Item 10.4. You >> I thought you were going to say >> I'm so sorry. Sorry about that. Go ahead. I uh Councilman Lavaro and I were engaged in a game of chicken to see
whether he would ask the question or I would preempt the question and and we both lost. Um this is a claim for work that was done out of contract in 2025. For your awareness, the law department is currently undertaking an incredibly ownorous audit of all of our outstanding
contracts and also claims. You might think it would be easy to answer the question, who do we owe money to? What invoices have not been paid? including for out of contract work for previous years. It is incredibly difficult. We are doing an exhaustive accounting of outstanding invoices. We are trying to
do that without inviting people to demand money from us that we don't have. It is an art and not a science. Where we find or are told that there are outstanding invoices, we are then going into a defunct system to figure out whether payments were issued so that we are not double paying vendors. I'm telling you all of this because this is
the first of many claims for services that were rendered out of contract in prior years that will be coming before the council soon. A preliminary assessment, which we are still fact-checking, suggests that there is over $200,000 worth of outstanding invoices for legal work that has been
performed for the city. So, we will keep you all apprised, but this is unfortunately the first of many. >> How much do you estimate? $230,000 is the latest 230 230,000
and wow it is really late I'm doing my best 230k is the current number that we are working with we are not just approving and paying those invoices especially when they have been outstanding for so long we are scrutinizing to make sure that those invoices comport with our contract expectations with the standards of
billing practices in the legal profession where we see inconsistenc stencies or don't understand what was done if it was legitimate. We are reaching out to the firms. They are not happy about that process, but we think it is our responsibility. That number may go up as we find more invoices. It will hopefully come down at least a
little bit as we engage in that negotiation process. >> Just just one um to to the business administrator's office. Um so so this money is coming from 2025 uh dollars. Yes.
what the account number seems to indicate. >> I would have to double check with finance. >> Okay. The um account number starts with a 05. So, I'm just assuming that that's a shell, but I don't know. Um that that being said, I I think I've asked this in a previous meeting. I
don't know that kind of response to that, but all of these 2025 expenses claims um if the money's coming from that 2025 money, is that the rainy day fund? And if you could just verify that for me and kind of where our balance is
with the rainy day fund. Um, which I believe in the annual uh or the annual financial report or something to that effect uh was over 21 million. Um, but that was as of December 31st, 2025. Uh, I'd like to
know what that number is that stands today if we've spent out from it. Thank you. >> Any other questions? >> Item 10.44 was touched on earlier. Item
10.45, city resolution 26-359 is a resolution appointing Christopher Solar Rosano as a member of the Jersey City Cannabis Control Board. With nothing else, may I have a motion to >> adjourn?
Sean, >> no. Keep going, Sean. >> At 9:22 p.m., I heard the motion made by Council Person Griffin. May I have a second? >> Second. >> Second by Council Person Little. All council members in favor of the motion to adjourn at 9:22 p.m. By acclamation,
please say I. >> We are out of here at 9:22 p.m. Thank you so much everyone present, everyone watching at home. Remember, teamwork makes the dream work. Let's get home and cheer on the Knicks for another victory. >> Knicks, go New York. Go New York. Go
>> no York, man. It's f somewhere. You got you got you got your