Good afternoon everyone. We are on the record. Today is Monday, the 22nd day of September in the year 2025. This is a city council caucus meeting of the Jersey City Municipal Council. We had a scheduled 4 p.m. start. The clock on my cell phone is showing 4:02 p.m. May I
have a roll call for the commencement of this caucus. Council person Ridley >> here. >> Council person Huings will not be in attendance. Council person Bajana. Council person Sole is not here yet. Council person Solomon is not here and council person Gilmore is not here.
Council person Deise >> here. >> Council person Reber here >> and council president Waterman. We have five council members in attendance at 4:02 p.m. on behalf of council president Waterman and the
members of the municipal council in the ordinance with New Jersey public laws of 1975 chapter 231 the open public meetings act also known as the sunshine law. Adequate notice of this meeting has been provided by the posting on the bulletin board of the first floor of city hall. the annual notice which is
the schedule of meetings and caucuses of the municipal council for the calendar year 2025 and filed in the office of the city clerk on Friday, November 15th, 2024. In addition, at its time of its preparation, the agenda of this meeting was similarly disseminated on Friday,
September 19th, 2025 at 5:40 p.m. to the mayor, municipal council, business administrator, corporation council, the newspapers, and posted on the city's website so I can certify as to our total compliance with the Sunshine Law. Council President, I'm going to turn it over to you.
>> Afternoon, first director, Director Kierce. Good afternoon, President Waterman, members of the council. I have two items before you today. First one is item 101025615. The resolution will authorize the sale of 28 motor vehicles and various motor
vehicle equipment through the public surplus.com public online auction which are no longer needed for public use. Second item is 10125616. Resolution will authorize the public sale of 73 motor vehicles through the
public surface surplus.com public online auction. no longer needed for public use. >> Thank you. >> Want to record Council Person Solomon present at 4:04 p.m. So we now have six council members
present. Go ahead, director. >> Hi. Hello everyone. Good afternoon. Um Deja Anderson, director of the Division of Community Development. I have agenda item 10.15. That's resolution 25-620. And this is a resolution to authorize
the municipal council um to authorize amendments and forgive the notes made by the Fairmount Hotel to the city of Jersey City and authorize the discharges of the mortgage for the acquisitions and renovation of 2595
Kennedy Boulevard in Jersey City, also known as the Fairmount Hotel. Um, I had come before council last week with some information, but I think there was some slight misinformation and miscommunication about this project. Um,
what this project is slated to provide to the community. And I think the developer also needed to answer some questions and concerns about the relocation of the senior citizens because this is affordable housing uh
for seniors in Ward B. Um, so this property received about three different funding streams totaling in the ballpark of slightly over a million dollars for work done in the property starting with
uh November 28th of 1994 and then subsequent years where they received this funding. Um, they have met their restricted period and their obligation for the funding that they've already received from the city. those restricted period ended in November of
2024. Okay. So, where we're at now, how these documents were written up is that there is a balloon repayment due at the end of this restricted period. That repayment due to the city is in the amount of
about $20 million. Okay? So, typically for community development block grant, we do not set those up as interestbearing loans. We're not a financial institution and we don't have the ability to take those payments in on a monthly basis. So if anything like
this was written into our contracts, it's almost always written in as a balloon payment at the end of the period. What the intent of writing something like that is is to give the city and the municipal council a negotiating position with the property
owner for us to be able to lock them into an additional or extended period of affordability. Um, this property owner did come to the city of Jersey City in 2022 and did request community development block funds to do the said
repairs to the property. um per community development block grant um they were not eligible for these fundings being a for-profit entity. Those funds are for nonprofits or for the municipality to use on their own. Um so with that being said, DCD advised the
property owner to go out and find another source of funding to do the repairs, which they did. Um they made application with the NJHMFA to do these repairs to the buildings for a pool of funding that was specifically set aside
for buildings whose rest affordable restrictions had recently terminated or were nearing a termination period so that we can continue to preserve affordable housing here in the city. Um are there any questions that you have
for me and DCD in reference to this? And I believe I have Jerry McCann here who can also additionally answer some questions on behalf of the ownership entity. >> Didn't they uh threaten to throw people out or they're moving people out? Uh
>> so not to my knowledge and that wasn't I wasn't privy to any conversations had like that with the residents. I do know that there had been some um community members who raised issues about that. Um, what I did provide or get receipt of was a copy of the relocation plan that
they did offer to all of the residents. None of those required any of the seniors to go to see caucus. That that's been something that's been floated around. Um, but I think Jerry here can speak a little bit more specifically to what information were shared with the
seniors in the building. Um, I know that they had about 8 to 10 vacant units inside of the building where they were willing to move some seniors in and then go repair their individual units and then move them back. Um, those that decided that they didn't want to move into those units were also provided a
list of available apartments within Jersey City and Union City was the and Bayon. So within Jersey City and Bayon for the period while the rehab work are going to be done in their units. So there's a a portion of the work that needs to happen in each unit that's
upgrade to the kitchens, upgrade to the bathrooms, and fixing all of the windows. And then there's common space work that needs to be done. And there's a dire need to repoint all of the bricks to the building. This is a historic site, so it's going to take a lot of work to make sure we fix that all in. But I definitely want them to be able to
answer some questions that you have. >> Hi. Well, my name is actually Jim McCann from the law firm of Connell Foley on behalf of uh uh the owner of the Fairmont Hotel. Um I can answer any questions you have about the proposal
before you today. I can assure you that um first of all, let me say this. I've represented this this property owner for 25 years. They've successfully operated a senior citizen lowincome housing project in the city of Jersey City for
over 25 years. I was involved in the original development of this project and I don't think it's ever come before before you before today with any complaints about how the residents have been treated. There have some people who've lived there for 20 years who are
very happy living there and they'll continue to be happy because there is no um desire, there's no plan, there is no indication that any of them are going to be permanently removed from residence in
this project. Also, I'll put on the record that their rent is not going to be increased after they go after the um rehabilitation is done and they go back into their apartment, it's necessary to temporarily relocate them because you
can't renovate the inside of their apartment with them there. So, what the what the developer has done, what the owner of the project has done is offer a relocation plan, which involves three things. The first thing is that there
are um approximately eight vacant apartments um in the property right now and they're vacant because the owner knew in the past 8 months that they wanted to do this renovation. So they kept some apartments vacant. So while if
if a resident chooses while their apartment is being renovated, they can temporarily relocate to another vacant unit in the building. they'll pay the exact same rent that they're paying for the unit that that they live in permanently, no increase, no matter if
they move into a bigger unit. Um, and then when their unit is done being renovated, they'll move right back to their to their old unit, which will now be renovated. The second option is they can relocate by moving in with family. And if they choose to move in with their
family, there will be no rent charged to them during the time that they're not living in the building. they can they can save some money if they can live with a relative for free. So there won't be any rent charge to somebody who moves off the premises. The third option is uh
the owner does have access to a market rate luxury building in Bon that's recently been developed in the past 10 years. He will re he has access to certain units there. He will relocate the the tenants to that building if they
can move to Bayon if they want to move to Bayon. they will not be forced to move to Bayon and they can live in a market rate building paying the same exact rent that they pay for their apartment right now. Um I believe that that's been put uh sent to a number of
council people um by email, but if it hasn't, I'm putting it on the record for the purposes of of tonight that that's the relocation plan. The other thing is this isn't um this isn't uh you don't have to take our word for it because the
relocation plan is um overseen also by the NJHMFA that's providing some of the financing for the renovation of this building and as you know that's a state agency. They've regulated this project for 30 years because it's been under their
jurisdiction and they have some very strict relocation rules which the relocation plan I just explained to you complies with. So there will be some oversight besides the city of Jersey City which you're welcome to provide oversight too, but um there will also be
some oversight from the state regarding the relocation and the renovation. >> Questions? >> Yes. after going through oh my god about three of these in this term here. Um one
I want to ask um have you guys done meetings with the tenants already and have you expressed those three different options to them and how do you plan to execute them? >> Absolutely. My client has met with many
many of the residents and many many of the residents are fully now in they understand the relocation plan and they're in support of it. Um I spoke to councilwoman Hulings today who's who it's in her ward and she's gotten a number of emails from uh tenants that
live in the building now in support of of the renovation plan and the relocation plan. and I don't want to put words in her mouth, but I did speak to her that earlier today. >> Okay. So, you guys have met with the tenants. Now, as it relates to the time
allocated for renovation, how long are you prefiguring each apartment would take? >> I think it's probably around 3 months subject to like the building's 30 years old, so there's there's a certain amount of work that has to be done. and they
don't know how how much certain things have deteriorated and things. But I think the overall renovation of the entire building is going to take a year. That would include the apartments being renovated, the common areas, and most importantly, the elevators, which are very old and need to be replaced. So,
the overall renovation is going to take a year, but that doesn't mean that every tenant is going to be displaced from their apartment for a year. Um I could get you more information on the estimated time for each resident um before Wednesday's vote on this.
>> Okay. Yeah. Because cuz that's my major concern cuz like I said going through these things um I mean everyone have came in under under three months. They're doing gateway east one over now which haven't been renovated since it
inception I believe. Um but I do understand the lengthiness as it relates to the actual elevators. But my primary concern was um the dwellings. how long does it take uh for the dwellings and
that clear communication have been with the tenants and they know what the expectations are because the last thing we want to happen is this um renovation take place and then everybody say oh I thought this I thought that I thought
this um and like I said just going through these rads and these renovations it's I don't know it's it's just been a mess and I don't know who's part have it been on. I just know that there's been major major in fact I no
I'm not even going to say that but it's just been it's been a lot of problems with these renovations as of late. >> All right. I will I will go back to the developer and make sure that I uh I relay your concern that the residents be
treated properly during the renovation and that the the renovation of each apartment be be done as expeditiously as possible. I think that's I think that's I know that's the goal anyway, but I I'll relay the concern for sure. >> Questions? Yeah, McCann, I don't I don't
want to disagree with you, but >> last council meeting there were a couple of people sitting right up front here that were complaining very much so about the building and the way they were being treated, right? >> I mean, I know you're the lawyer representing them, representing them, and you're not going to say anything bad
about them, but they did. >> So, I I know I do know that that happened. I I wasn't representing the client at the time, but my clients talked to those folks. I don't know if he's changed their mind or not, but I could tell you it's only less than a
handful of people who are upset with the renovation plan and the relocation plan. My understanding is the vast majority of the people that live in this building now understand and are in support of it. Jim, let me ask you a question because I was at the meeting. Part of the um
conversation was that they had to move a floor at a time. That was part of the conversation and that was a concern because if everyone didn't agree then they couldn't move they couldn't do that project on that floor at the time because of the piping it's something
with the piping in that building on one side >> right it might be a strip of apartments at a time right I understand look I understand the problem the thing is in order to renovate the building um >> you know you have to that it has to be
done in a in an efficient way in order to get it done quickly. So that may very well be the case that they have to re they have to vacate certain apartments at the same time in order to efficiently per perform the renovation of those
apartments and the common areas. >> And and another concern was okay where would their things be stored at? because you you're dealing with seniors and they really you know can't pack up everything um because of their age and you know the
discomfort of it. So is the um developer willing to pay their storage and pack it and store it really was there I was at the meeting. Okay. I I will check I may even be able to check even be able to check on some
of these questions before this meeting ends. Okay. But I will check on whether or not I know I know the uh the owner has a staff and I'm sure he'd be willing to have the staff >> based based on my prior experience um work with these folks to help store their belongings. But I'll I'll check
that out for you. >> Please please check on that because they was concerned about that. I know. >> Okay. Um Jim, I'm going to read the relocation plan. I mean, we just got it, I uh someone recently and thank you director Anderson for helping us answer questions. I think my big question is you know so the you know what's written
in the plan at first glance looks all right. What happens if the developer doesn't follow through on the plan? What's what's the mechanism? Who enforces it? And what's the you know potential consequence for not living by what's being committed to? >> Uh I'll have to check the uh the
financing documents to answer that question for you. >> Sure. Yeah. If you could just do that next 24 hours. That's the important thing on on our end or at least in my experience has been you know sometimes we've gotten good plans but then you know they're the show to get the vote and then once the vote happens then the folks think they can kind of not abide
by them. So I just on our end very important to just understand that process >> acknowledged. >> Thank you. All righty. >> Um just want to record council person Gilmore present at 411 and council person at 4:14. So, we now have eight
council members present. >> Good afternoon, council. Uh, director Shyron Richardson of Housing Preservation. I'm coming before you today for pretty much three items. Item 3.5, item 4.4,
and item 4.5. Um, now I will say that I'm happily h happy to report that last week um concerning these uh resolutions. Had a meeting with Isaac from uh Councilman Solomon's office because my concern was that when I saw anything
that was going to need to be enforced. Uh the concern was is are we able to enforce it? And so because when these resolutions were uh submitted with the first reading, I hadn't really had a conversation with anybody. And so I didn't want to have something passed just for the people to be promised
something that couldn't be enforced because we didn't have the mechanisms to enforce it. Um after the conversation it appeared that item 4.5 and item 3.5 would be something that would be more dealt with with the uh office of code compliance and I know the prosecutor's
here and so he can speak more about >> some is that better? >> Yeah. >> Okay. And so I know the prosecutor's here. So I believe he can speak more to item 4.5 and item 3.5. Again, my concern was that when I saw something uh that affected my department, I wanted to make
sure that it didn't add more burden to my department because as you guys have heard uh throughout the city, I understand that there's a staffing issue. But just to put some understanding to that, uh, one of the things our office does in order to help, uh, enforce these ordinances is that we
review landlord registrations. Uh, when I first got to the office, uh, five people were reviewing about 700 registrations a year. That number has moved up to 1,700, but now we've lost three staff members. uh when it came to the short-term rentals um after the
Airbnb decided to enforce it more, the numbers that we had last year doubled in less than one year and I only have two staff people doing that. So the concern was that before we pass something, please have the conversation with the officers so that we can ensure that when have when the people are now wanting to
be enforced, we can assure that it's going to be enforced because I had somebody reached out to me already and then their property was not rent control. Well, that's a whole another issue that had we talked about it prior to you don't have somebody who's out there again hoping because they're looking at these meetings, they're
coming to these meetings and they're hearing this is going to be done. But if the person who has to do it is not consulted, unfortunately, the tenants suffer and so I just wanted to make sure that we are having that dialogue. But I'm I'm again I'm glad to say that Councilman Solomon actually had Isaac
come to our office. And so after having the conversation, as of right now, it appears that it's not going to add undue burden upon our office. It's just some things that we need to clarify. But again, I just wanted to be sure that moving forward, we we can have the conversation because again, I don't want people to expect something that we can't
provide simply because we don't have the staff. >> So, director, then I have a question. >> I have an answer. >> So, with these amendments and providing that this passes, you know, >> yes, >> what changes do you have? So on my end so far it just seems like it's just a
matter of clarifying some things on my end. Now the prosecutor when it comes to the enforcement I think he has an enforcement component that we will not necessarily have to enforce from housing preservation. Again, I want to let the prosecutor speak for himself. But on our end, when when we talked to the
councilman's aid, it just seemed like chapter 260, there was some clarification things that pretty much we're going to send submit about three items that you guys would have to look at and and amend, but they were not items that would actually wreck the whole office. And so again, these are
three small clarification things I think that will help move this along on my office. >> Your your office won't be required to do enforcement if that's my office. No. >> Okay. That's in the U ordinance, >> right? So, I think four when you look at the the the enforcement, I believe it's
4.5 and 3.5 deals more with the enforcement aspect. My office is going to be dealing with clarifying some things in chapter 260. And then, and so those things are things that we're going to be able to do out front. And then of course we're still talking about if if
some more enforcement issues arise, we just want to be sure that we can let the council know this is what you guys are asking. This is exactly what we can do because when the constituents talk to you, we want you to have the confidence of knowing that what you told them we can do. But as of right now on the
enforcement side, it's it's not uh interfering with office. Just some clarification points. >> Okay. Is this submitted to the um the law department for review all of these? And does the law department have any um
information or opinion or on these ordinances? >> It does go through. We changed it to make sure everything went through from the council people through the law department. We really do um just check it for form if sometimes we're not
involved in the underlying substance of drafting it. Um, I know there were conversations between Isaac and John McKini about this. Uh, and he gave his opinion. If you want our opinion in writing, we can do that as well. Um, I also did have a conversation with
Director Richardson after it came up and we were all trying to figure out um, what would be put on what department and like you said, one of them was really we were just shifting some language around and clarifying something and it wouldn't add a burden because his office was already doing something that was
included in it. So unfortunately we have those conversations after but we can we can give you our opinion on it. We'd love a written opinion. >> We do look please or hand >> and then if I may also that was another suggestion that my suggestion was that in this case and I can only speak for this case with that a conversation
between my office the prosecutor and the law department because again I think those that would tie everything up and then it leaves everything pretty clear for everybody to understand what can be done. I know the prosecutor is here too. Um prosecutor, would you would you come up
and explain this on I guess your enforcement and will you guys be able to enforce this or you know what is the situation here cuz um the director is here too. I want you guys both up here so we can get clarity.
Good evening, council president, members of council. >> Yes. >> Uh I'm here to speak on agenda item 4.5. >> Um more specifically the uh single complaint sufficiency. Um
and I my understanding is that agenda item uh excuse me 3.5 >> replaces 4.5. Um, I think some of the questions that have been or statements that have been put in front of the council the past uh few
months have afforded me the opportunity to enlighten people about some of the challenges in municipal court. Um, there are certainly challenges that I've been having for many years as municipal prosecutor and I'm pleased that there's
now an audience for me to air those concerns. Um, one of the things that I've explained and I've had some positive conversations with the port side residents in the past few weeks is that a summon by itself is not a fine. Uh, a summon is not a fine until it's either
pled to or until a judge finds them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Many states treat code summones as civil enforcement matters. New Jersey does not. It treats it as a quasi criminal offense. And the burden of proof that my assistant prosecutors have in domestic
violence cases, in assault cases, in theft cases is the same burden of proof that we need to prove on each and every code summons. Um, and secondly, another issue in line with that is that not every municipal court judge
acts in conformity with one another and it's very frustrating. Um, what ordinance number 3.5 does is clarifies that a violation for which the maximum fine is $2,000 is a per day violation. Um, that is something that state
enabling statute makes clear and it's something that our state supreme court clarified in 1999 that one summons >> can get you $2,000 a day. Um, we do nonetheless have judges in municipal court that require multiple summones for
multiple days. Um, agenda item 3.5, ordinance 25105, will make clear that one summons is $2,000 a day. More so, some judges require a separate trial on
each and every single summons. So, not one trial in which there's a 10, 20, 100 summones happening and one opening argument and witnesses, one closing. Some judges actually require a separate trial on each summons. And you can imagine the frustration that has on
getting through code enforcement quickly. Um, just to sort of like clarify, believe it was mentioned to the council that uh all the ordinances against Portite Towers are in pre-trial conference phase, and we're back for a
pre-trial conference on October 23rd. And this is the court calendar for October 23rd. It's 14 pages with 13 summones each. So, it's over 150 summones, but that's only for three violations.
no uniform security, no superintendent on as super on site at 100 warrant and failure to register their landlord statement. Yet, we have over 150 summones because when those summones are written, we don't know what judge
they're going to be assigned to. So, we write the summons every day to cover ourselves and emphasize to the offender that these are per day violations. If we had had this clarifying language earlier, these would be three summones,
only three summones that I would need to get in one of I can harmonize if you want. Um, only three summones, but instead it took us almost eight weeks to get the court to put these 150 summones before
one judge. So, when the port side residents speak about the frustration of the timing, one of the first things I said to them when I spoke uh to the president of the association last week was a lot of their frustration is my
frustration. And let me just parse that out because I want it to be clear. When a summon comes into the municipal court on a criminal matter or a traffic matter, data entry takes that defendant's name and puts it in the computer to see what else they have open
in the court to make sure that those subsequent summones get in front of the same judge and the same assistant prosecutors. The municipal court does not do that for code violators. So you have a situation where if it's like port side where it's the same issue being
written over multiple days or it's one of my task force inspections where zoning is there, fire is there, code compliance is there, housing preservation is there. If those four inspectors turn in their summones on different days, those could conceivably end up in four different courtrooms. So,
what's so important about this ordinance is one, it's going to cut down on the number of summones being written, but it's still going to emphasize that these are per day violations, but two, I bring up the second issue because there are a lot of important questions to ask about the municipal court. I I
say with complete confidence, the work that my office has done in the past seven years has brought us light years of where we were when I started. And we're at a point now where my assistant prosecutors and my support staff, we are firing on all cylinders. And if it
doesn't look apparent to the folks at port side or it doesn't look apparent to the council, that's the opportunity to ask me questions because there are frustrations. We are hitting walls such as this and the scheduling and it taking eight weeks to get port side in front of
one judge. Um, and I'm happy to talk about those things. So, I'm happy that I have a conversation with the port side residents. I uh want to give thanks to Councilman Solomon for listening to my concerns and withdrawing 4.5 and instead
introducing 3.5. Um to all of the members of council, uh I encourage you to reach out to me and ask questions when you have questions about enforcement and municipal prosecutions. And I just can't emphasize enough um how much of a impact this single sum in
sufficiency ordinance will have. Uh so I strongly encourage that you that you pass it. Um and I did just want to note I I'm just joined by deputy chief municipal prosecutor Vishnu Camrage and code compliance director Joe Barrow. Um and with that I'll take any questions the council.
>> Yes. Hey Jake. Um just help us understand like how does this process look in totality? Um someone calls about an infraction or a violation said department go out there they write
the infraction the infraction what what is the steps in those processes? >> Well so it depends on what the violation is. Um some you know I mean it also depends who they're calling in in theory they're calling the residents responsible. and then it's being uh
channeled appropriately. However, uh code compliance receives direct constituent concerns. My office, the prosecutor at jcnj.org mailbox um is heavily traffked by the public, which we're we're pleased with um because we want the public interacting with the
municipal prosecutor's office, but um my office prosecutes on behalf of 17 different agencies, a combination of code and law enforcement. And some of them, councilmen, require a notice of violation in which they're given a period to abate. And then if they don't
abate, it goes to summons. But some of those can go right to summons. Um the process then is once it's on summons, it goes to scheduling in the municipal court. That is not under me. Sometimes folks think I oversee the municipal court. I
don't. I'm just one party in front of the municipal court. And I've over the years raised concerns in the criminal context, in the traffic context, and the code context of how long it takes for a first appearance. Um, I've even gone to
the county assignment judge a few years ago with those concerns, and we've seen improvement, but eventually we slide back and we actually see sometimes between 6 to 8 weeks between issuance of a summon and a first appearance. Um, and then typical adjournments because I
think another thing that um, folks think that when you go to municipal court, you're there for a trial. You're not. You're there for a pre-trial conference. And you know, when I talk about the quasi criminal burden of proof, that means that the landlord that's accused
with putting her trash out early has all the same constitutional rights as the domestic violence defendant. And trust me, as we get tougher in court on code enforcement, they're hiring better and better lawyers and they're asserting all their discovery rights. So, you're probably looking at on your more complex
code enforcement, two to three status conferences before a plea or a trial. And the court, again, I'm not in charge of scheduling, typically adjourns matters for four weeks in between each pre-trial conference. I often say when I was a a defense attorney at at the
county, I resolved homicides in less time than it takes for us to resolve code enforcement in the municipal court. Um, so I think there's a a light to be uh shined on the scheduling in the municipal court. Um, but I again I hope that answers your question that I'm trying to paint the picture that it's
not a summon and a hearing and a fine. There's a lot of steps in between and we're I've got great lawyers and great support staff. We've expanded the office since 2018. Um, but it it does not happen as quickly as I think some folks would perceive. And I I just want to be
clear, there are states that do summones on a civil um enforcement mechanism where you get the summons, you go to court, and you're there to pay a fine or disputed. And that's just not New Jersey. New Jersey treats these things as quasi criminal. >> You alluded to the fact that you um the
the timing has increased with regards to the summones. Do you have data on how many summones you're doing relative to years past? Do you have any data on like, you know, what's being enforced or what the emphasis is on?
>> Uh, I actually do. Um, so I have data on the Office of Code Compliance. >> Um, so far this year, the Office of Code Compliance has written 13,681 summones. In 2024, the Office of Code
Compliance wrote 18,299. In uh 2023, they wrote 18,526 uh summones. Um in 2021, sanitation, commerce, and housing code enforcement were combined into the office of code compliance. We used to have three
separate sets of inspectors that went out and did property maintenance and lensure. Before we combined those three divisions into the Office of Code Compliance, their totals combined were about 3,300 summones in 2018, about
4,700 summones in 2019, and about 4,500 summones in 2020. So, the Office of Code Compliance is more than quadrupling the work of the three offices that made them or that came together to form them. And also with regards to
which judge hears you know the summones, is it the discretion of the judge to have a separate trial for each summons or is it that just the way the case filing system is? No, it there there's at least one judge that believes each
summon should be its own trial with its own opening, its own states case, its own chief and case and chief. Um, and that is what it is. But I think, you know, I can't change. I mean, I guess I could do an interlocatory appeal on such
a small issue, but it's one judge. And then you also, you don't know what ruling you're going to get. If we were to appeal that, we could create bad law that that judge is right. and uh then we're stuck with that across the board. Um single complaint sufficiency will uh cut down on that because we'll be able
to just do the one summon for the multi-day violation moving forward and then argue at sentencing that um these are per day violations. And I actually think for the summones that are pending um you know we have to prosecute these the way the law was when the summones
were written. But I I think it's going to clarify to the judges what the law always was because the councilman's office is just codifying uh what the Supreme Court clarified with this exact issue in 1999. >> So Jake um with regards to the number
you said these are the number of citations that was just issued. Do we have any data that speaks to the amount that were dismissed uh that went to trial and the perpetrator was convicted or that went to trial and it was thrown
out or that was thrown out? Councilman, I I so I I have um we we do track dispositions and we're at about um we've gone up so we track the
disposition of property maintenance fines. In 2023 we were at about 800,000 this year. Year to date we're at about 1.2 uh million. Um, but there's also this other I think
misperception. Nothing is dismissed without a reason stated on the record. And I think um because ordinances are quasi criminal. We plea bargain most of
them. And that's just a reality. And that's a reality across the United States and any prosecutor's office of any level. Um, so you know, let's take like the lowest hanging fruit, which is like the the trash summones. Um, we might have
trash bins brought out early and we're going to have a summon for trash out at the wrong time, trash for more than 5 in above the the rim and trash creating a nuisance. If I can get$500, $750 on one of those summones rather
than taking them to trial, I just I I can't take every defendant to trial. So, those two will be dismissed and we're going to get a substantial fine on the uh third one. And that's that's just the reality of criminal and traffic and code prosecutions in any office across the United States.
Um, so I cannot imagine a situation in which there would be a dismissal of all charges unless there's a poorly unless there's like a problem with the summits, right? Um, for example, I mean, courtside
la last time that we were in court, some tickets were pled to because those were the only tickets that didn't fall into these three categories. Um, and there were a few dismissals. Some were complaints that were written under the wrong ordinance. I couldn't
prosecute them. I can't prosecute something written under the wrong ordinance, but I still have that violation written the right way. So, I didn't lose anything by dismissing it. Um, so I just think that this perception that tickets are thrown out or dismissed
is a an unfair perception. >> Okay. I mean, be that be that as it may, um, I just think that I mean, I get the challenges and complexities of the municipal municipal court as a whole,
but for me, when I'm looking at legislation as it relates to violation is a tent to deter behavior. And if we constantly have the same individual and or individuals or entities committing the same offense and let's say I don't
know if you give director Richardson and his establishment 27 tickets and he's able to go to court and plea to four violations and then next year he do it again and then the following year he do it again. I guess my point in asking the
questions of the differentiation in members more specifically I'm trying to figure out if there's repeat offenders constantly being able to receive plea bargains and if so what are some of the reasons do we have to write the
violations better is it a matter of not us not having the capacity to actually prosecute all of the citations like I'm just trying to understand exactly What is going on? >> Sure. So, I do want to say that we do catch repeat violators. Um,
again, CO compliance is one of 17 offices that send me summones for prosecution. Um, but they themselves flag repeat offender and they'll write it on the summones sometimes. But the other thing, um, COVID forced well, it was something I wanted to do. I wanted
my office to go digital. I when I became municipal prosecutor, my office did not have their own files. They would sit in court and and this is common in municipal courts across the state. They would borrow the judge's file and work off that and then when the session was done, they'd hand it back up. It's
completely inappropriate, but it's common practice in municipal courts across this uh state. Co when we went virtual, there was no way to share files. So, we've now gone to virtual file management. So, my office has a folder for every address that's ever been written a summons. Um we have case
notes. I get a sometimes I sit in and cover for my prosecutors in the code enforcement court. I'll see who's in the waiting room. I'll look up the address. I'll go to the case notes. I'll have such detailed notes from some of my assistant prosecutors that like I go into that conference ready to get the bigger fine. I know what their excuses
are going to be. Some of my APS keep such meticulous notes that I'm able to stay 10 feet ahead of these people because they have every excuse in the world, these landlords. Um, so we are able to flag them. Again, my point is not to sit here and say everything is perfect. I think if from sitting on the
council, it looks like there's enforcement challenges. I think the bigger issue is our failures to appear our um properties. In fact, you um Councilman, your office, one your aid, Miss Walker, emailed about uh an address today and she had indicated that it was
put into CC clicks fix um in July and I looked and code compliance went in early August or late July and wrote the summons. >> Yes. >> The whole nine yards. And so I said, I'm going to go in and I guarantee now to I can understand we're sitting where you
sit. That's like that's a dismissal or that's his office being weak. I go into the court computer and I look and it's a failure to appear. Nobody ever showed up. So I take the summons info. Um fact the inspector was here a moment ago. Um and he wrote off the tax plate and I
take my um code enforcement lays on and we have a deeper research system than the tax plate. He spends 15 minutes and we finally wind down through three different LLC shell companies and we finally get a human being. So, the tax plate, and this is not a fault of I'm
not putting this on the tax assessor, the tax collector, but these LLC's make it nearly impossible to bring a human being to court. And as long as they know that, and as long as they they that these summones go into space, that's why there's frustration. So, those summones are going to be rewritten because we now
believe we have better information on a registered agent. Because I'll tell you, the most of these LLC's ignore the summones until they see a human being's name written as a care of. So, I now have a new registered agent's name, and those will be written shortly. Now, look, I'm I don't I don't expect you to
be gracious that 8 weeks later, I'm still uncovering this, but that's the reality of LLC owned property. Senator Stack has a bill in the legislature right now to make sure that our state requires that there's human beings behind LLC's. The state does not do that
right now. You could go on Treasury and you could look up LLC, registered agent, LLC, registered agent, LLC, and you could go down a wormhole of LLC's until you get to human human being. Um, and that bill has passed the state senate. It's currently in the state legislature, and I hope it gets put into law because
I lay that at the state the state's feet that it's just impossible to tell who the human beings are behind some of these investment properties. >> Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate I appreciate. You got one more question. I think you >> one more.
>> Oh, well I had two more, but >> uh what percentage of the cases that you deal with uh do eventually go to trial? Uh I I don't know that I could quantify it, but I do have my um currently have about
30 cases scheduled for trial between now and December 19th, but that contemplates code, traffic, and criminal. I'd have to break this out specifically. Um, I think I would stick with standard 20 to 10% go to trial, which is
I think kind of a common statistic across all prosecutor's offices. >> And what happens eventually when you know you go to trial, there's a judgment made and they don't pay. Like let's say >> I I if if you were a plant, you couldn't
have done better. Councilman, I you know, >> we did not collaborate on any of this. I have this >> um >> we're going to invite you to our hearing soon, too. By the way, >> somebody recently said to me, "Why don't you write a letter of everything your office has done since 2018?" And I said, "There's not enough paper in Jersey City
for me to write that letter." Um in the old days before I was municipal prosecutor, that judgment went nowhere. And so I have to give um thanks to my friends at the law department, um Phil
Adelman. we uh coordinated to now have a streamlined process and I believe it's the parallegal Tuesday Cardwell. I hope that's not weird I'm saying her name, but she does very good work. Um we now docket those judgments. So, um we do trials in absentia against LLC's, which
is people that don't show up. We do default judgments against people who stop showing up. Uh we send those right up to the law department to be docketed as leans. Um, so no, it doesn't just float in space. It becomes a docketed judgment. And and I again, we can't do
that without the law department's help and they're fantastic on getting that done. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Hey, thank you, ma'am. >> Seriously. >> Thank you. We appreciate you. >> And just one quick um logistical point and for the clerk um and we thank the prosecutor for um you know, working very effectively over the last two weeks and
for reaching out. It would just mean that we would ask the council to defeat 4.5 when we get to 4.5 because 3.5 replaces it. >> Yeah. So once we introduce the ordinance um when we get to that second reading, I would just need a motion from the council to go right to to defeat instead
of holding a public hearing on something that is not going to get adopted. >> Thank you. >> Oh, I just add one other thing. Um, first of all, I want to say I didn't appreciate Councilman Gilmore making painting me out to be a criminal in my department to get the point across. I just don't know what that was about.
But, um, to Councilman Rivera, I just wanted to clarify again what you asked me about four 4.4. Um, when it comes to clarifying what was asked as it relates to how does it affect my office? One of the issues that have come up is that when it comes to registering your
property, though we uh basically only enforce rent control properties, what's not clear is that even though your property may not be under rent control, you still have to register. So that's one of the things we want to clarify to let every person know that whether or not you are exempt or unexempt, you
still have to register your property. So something like that since we're already doing registrations, it doesn't add any undue burden on my department division, but it also clarifies for for those bad actors or maybe good actors, maybe not. But either way, they understand that
when we want a registration, you can't say we're exempt. You still have to register your property. So that's an example of something that we're already doing, but we want to clarify that it must be done. >> I appreciate that. I think if the prosecutor would have spoken before you, I would have never asked you that
question. you know, he gave us a whole boatload of information that we probably been asking for several years now, you know, and um, you know, it's it's uh I'm glad that, you know, there's some clarity, you know, with uh with the port
side people. Uh, you know, they've been here day in and day out. Um, we wore it, you wore it, you know, and u I'm glad that uh, you know, that there's a there's clarity. That's important.
>> Expect an invite from uh the committee by the way. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> And thank you >> council members. If I could just end it with I know um Councilman Clay asked me before just because something is legally permissible does not necessarily mean it's advisable which is why we always
you know tell the councils to speak to the departments and divisions that are going to enforce it because something could be yeah sure we can do that but these directors know practically how it works daytoday and they have the best knowledge behind it. So that's why sometimes when we give you a
confidential memo, we say you might want to ask somebody else as well because they might have the the inside baseball for you. >> That's true. Thank you, Tanya. >> Good afternoon, council. Um Tanya and I are here on two items. Uh the first being agenda item 3.6, Six. Ordinance
25-106, an ordinance the municipal council of the city of Jersey City referring and adopting amendments to the Bright Street redevelopment plan allowed accessory uses in the in zone 3 residential infill. Um this is uh coming before the
council in the form of a first uh reading ordinance as opposed to um directing the planning board to study an amendment. Um therefore um and because of its location uh should this be introduced it would go
to the historic preservation commission because it's partially in a historic district then to planning board and then uh return to city council in the form of a second reading ordinance. The ordinance uh before you is um attached
to this document. It is one page on page uh four if you have um this ordinance printed out on its own. The top it says zone 3 residential infill paragraph C and the yellow highlighted section uh is
the scope of this amendment. is simply looking to add the accessory uses for retail sales, retail services and cafes uh for uh businesses that are less than 2,000 square ft. Um and that is the the
scope of this ordinance. Are there any questions? >> So what's the uh geographic scope of the Bright Street redevelopment plan? Yeah, it's uh it is uh I think it's just two blocks uh in in
half of one city block. Um so it's just two two sides of the street on Bright Street between uh Barrow um and where Bride Street ends at at Grove. Um so it is a small area. There is um
it's largely built out um and it's in a historic district. So, anything that would happen here that would perhaps include something as an outcome of this amendment would still have to go to Historic Preservation Commission. And there is um existing space uh that is on
the ground floor uh that could potentially be used for necessary use here. Um and since this isn't mostly in a flood zone that ground floor cannot be um habitable uh if if rehab to a certain
extent. >> Great. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> All right. Just so there's no confusion, Matt's not up here anymore. It's me, Tanya. I know we get confused a lot. We're different colors today, just so you all know. Um, but I am here at the
request of the council president to clarify issues on an ordinance that you tabled. I believe it's 11.1, but the ordinance is 2586 and that's the journal square amendment. >> That's 11.11. >> 11.11.
Yeah. And so I don't I don't know how you want to proceed. if you want me to explain or you have questions. I would assume that if you have questions that might be the easier way to do this. >> Yeah. >> So, >> yeah, you
>> this is the go. You go. You go. You go. >> I just want to make >> I just want to make sure which one this is the one we talked about that we table from last week. That's why I was >> No, you go first. My bald brother from another mother. >> This this one just so we're clear.
Council person, this one is the amendments on the Journal Square60 redevelopment plan. >> Yes. And if I remember this correctly, the issue was some areas within the vicinity being excluded from the zone.
So that's that's my question was essentially centered around I because for me I just couldn't understand that if parcels were within the scope of the zone why weren't those parcel parcels ex um
included in in the uh 2016. >> So if I I'm going to answer it's going to take a minute. I'm just going to rewind slightly. When we did the initial community meeting, we came to the table based on the resolution from uh Councilman Bojano's office and we
presented an entire zone 4 mandatory affordable housing amendment. We also had additional amendments that the county had requested and even uh the city for additional parking even the community. So, we had like kind of a parking overlay. Then we had the uh arts
walk overlay um parking and then we were adding 3,000 Kennedy which is where the Dollar General is. That community meeting um the feedback we got was that they were not ready the community and neither the councilman's office to move
forward with zone 4 mandatory affordable. Zone 3 already has the mandatory affordable. So we made the decision to basically separate the two. So there is nothing in here that deals with the zone for mandatory affordable
housing overlay. We have separated it out and we will potentially move it forward in the future after working with the councilman's office. So the only thing if you're seeing a map that has some lines on it, that's a map change to correct split zones. So there are some
lots that have developments already um and they're split zoned. And so that is really just kind of correcting that development so that it's all the same zone. They were already going to be zoned. They were already being developed as zone three.
So there is nothing in here that's excluding some and including some. We've separated out that affordable housing component completely from this one. >> Okay. So I guess my my next question is
as it relates to the type of dwellings can be built in three and four what are the difference? >> So again really nothing is happening in four in this amendment unless it was included in the parking bonus. Um we're
really not doing anything to three. We're not really changing anything either. Uh unless it was the parking bonus. Again, the only thing I'd say that is unique is the Dollar General. Now, the Dollar General was in a different redevelopment plan, the St.
John's redevelopment plan with all the buildings that are behind it. There is no more zoning for that site. So, that site cannot be redeveloped with anything. So, the really only logical conclusion was to include it in the Journal Square redevelopment plan. If
you look at the map, it's a really weird kind of cutout. So, we've included it in and included it in as zone 3, which is what's around it across the street and etc. So, that's really the I don't know if that's what's kind of throwing everybody off, but that wasn't zone 4,
that was St. John's redevelopment plan. >> Why did Why was the affordable housing um not included? >> Are you asking Madison? I didn't answer. >> Oh, why was why wasn't the affordable housing included in this um amendment?
>> Because the feedback that we got from the council person's office and the community was that they were not ready. >> They don't want affordable housing up there. >> Not that they don't want affordable housing. They didn't want the reszoning. >> What? So >> that's that's that's why I'm trying to
figure out the diff because how do you like Just step back one thing. We're talking about two lots that paused this ordinance as opposed to several city blocks that are zone 4.
So we rem we had an alternate uh mandatory affordable housing language for all of zone 4, >> which was much smaller than the request that's being made before council. and the planning board heard this
presentation. A motion was made to incorporate that language and it wasn't seconded. >> That's in the resolution for you tied to this ordinance. So it came to planning board, it was
presented. Motion wasn't seconded. motion that did not include that language was made, seconded, and passed. >> That's what's before. >> What if we disagree with the planning board and let's say the council says
like we'd like to add these parcels. What is would we send it back to the planning board or would we amend it? >> Just the parcels that you were talking about. I would say that that's spot zoning and it's arbitrary, right? Because when we looked at it, we looked at zone 4 across the board and we
made a decision that was wholesale. It was based on evidence that we were able to use based on square footage and affordable housing and real numbers. To come up to the table and say 1 2 3 4 these lots I want to be 20 or 50 is arbitrary,
right? And so we called it out immediately. So if you want to pass an affordable housing amendment, you can pass it. I think you can bring it back to not this ordinance, but you can bring back a separate ordinance dealing with just zone 4, but you should do it so it's not arbitrary and it's not
benefiting just one developer despite the story that you're being told. >> Okay. And initially, you guys met with the community and that was their position. Subsequently, you went to the board. Um, so Rich, >> oh, let's get something straight. Oh,
let's get this straight. We had a meeting up there and the people did not want certain areas to be have big buildings put where one and two, three and four family homes are. It has nothing to do with affordable housing. I had an affordable housing bill passed in
Journal Square. So, I'm tired of hearing people say, you know, we we went for it. All new buildings going up in Journal Square have to have affordable housing. But we're trying. The people came. I think there was what 142 people signed in and probably another 20 or 30 came
after that that didn't sign in. Maybe close to 200 people and they don't want their one, two, three, and four family area destroyed like they've destroyed Journal Square. I mean, people looking at these buildings and we're tired of it. And I'm just looking at here this
project for 180 Baldwin Avenue. 2,000 units on Baldwin Avenue. What are you kidding me? Our streets can't handle it. Our sewers can't handle it. People are tired of it. We need affordable housing. Yes. And we're going to get affordable housing, but let's preserve some of our
areas and stop chasing people out of this city. >> Oh, so that that was the intent to try to preserve that area designated for ones, twos, to try to keep some type of community type of
>> stop the big buildings from being built next to one, two family home. It's disgusting. They're chasing people out of this city. >> I mean, I understand the argument on both sides. On one side, it's like, "Oh, we need we need affordability. Let them
go as high as they want." I also understand the other side of people wanting to like these people have called Jersey City Homes for 190 years. So, I mean, I I I I get both sides, but thank you for clearing that up. um direct
because I wasn't >> I didn't know I didn't >> uh that's why I was saying I didn't I didn't I didn't know that and that's why you're the expert and that's why we wanted to ask you >> so we would have to put a resolution
forth to look over zone 4 um to get is that what you just said >> you so again when we the councilman issued resolution which was very broad, >> right? >> Um, so we took in a ton of issues. It wasn't just the affordable housing. We
were asked about the parking. We were asked about again 3000. Um, this is an expansion of the art walk so that we can um allow that to also be bigger. There were a lot of things. We added senior housing. We added a lot of um
rent control. I'm not sure if you read that piece in it. So, we added based on one of the community meetings, there was a big push back that we were losing rent control buildings. So, this ordinance now has um language in it that says if you take down rent control, you have to replace it one for one, but not with
rent control with affordable housing at the 30% or below. So, the amendment before you today has all of those things except for the zone 4. That that that's the plain reality of it. >> Okay? So, if you wanted to move forward
with zone 4, you would have to do a new I assume I'm not the legal person, but you would have to do a new resolution or it has to start at the planning board again. >> Well, Matt Matt might know the answer. Matt is very sharp. M.
>> Yeah. I mean, I think Councilman Ojano said that he would look at passing another resolution to study that matter further. Um so we're staff's prepared to undertake that that work. >> So when you guys expert opin opinion um
basically this this ordinance right here it checks several boxes as it relates to the demographic of the parking. There is some affordability in here. I think that was the misperception is that you're stopping affordability. No, there's
still a portion of affordability within 11.11. There's still a mechanism to to to obtain some affordability. >> Oh, there's one that's already in there. Um, and it's it's it's already worked.
Um, >> we have an applicant that has come in and utilized it and we have other applications that have been submitted subsequently >> that are utilizing it and presumably they will be moving forward. >> All right. >> But isn't isn't this project that's
going forth? There's a building already there that's 28 stories in the vacant lot. I I that's why I'm confused with this. Not far because now we took out the affordability here, but not too far is >> the site that you're talking about,
those buildings got the 20 stories because they built the homestead extension. So that was the one of the initial amendments from like 2017 that if they built the home homestead extension, they could get up to the 20 stories. There is
no affordability component from it because it's that old essentially. And that zoning is actually pretty liberal. Um, and you can see Homestead is coming along right now. >> I I just want to say something. We've had over 20 meetings about the zone 4
issue specifically after the first meeting and you are still working with and we are still working with planning to address all these concerns including potentially expanding zone 3 or zone 2. And you know, uh, Tanya, you were at the
meeting. There was the place was mobbed and people, uh, they were from all over the area of Journal Square basically, and they've had it. They want affordable housing, but they don't want neighborhoods destroyed anymore.
It's still confusing. Believe it or not, it is because you have a a building there that is tall and this one, the lot that it is exempt can build that height and can give you affordability, but this is not included in this plan. So, we would have to do another plan in order
for that lot to be included to get affordability. >> I I don't know how that's not spot zoning. I I >> I just I just can't I I'll just keep saying it like yes those 20 stories were decided at that point for zone 3 for the
homestead extension that was a very specific bonus. Same thing for the central lab when we were asked to do the mandatory affordable we did it I think very methodically not including um square footage cost of units and had our architect work on site for it and for
zone 4 the only thing we estimated was that they needed an additional 10 stories. So, in a zone that allows for six, you're looking at 16, not 20, not something or other. >> 16, nothing higher than that. >> No, that was what that was what we um were proposing for the zone 4. It also
happens to be that zone 4 is that is not in a high-rise zone, right? For the most part, those are three, four, sometimes fivetory buildings. So, we were looking for a kind of gradual um height decrease as it got further
away from the path. In addition, the the the mandatory affordable housing language that was was once part of this effort uh kicked in at for lots that were above 30 units and
also on properties 9,000 square feet or more. The properties that are part of the amendment before you are two properties that front on different streets are partially tied but kinkedked
in the back and on their own are less than 9,000 square feet. Are there any other properties that were changed in this plan other than like let's say the one that was not included,
but were there ones that were included? >> So, there's ones that were split zoned um development properties that had some that had to have a map change, but there's very few of them. It's on page 13 of at least your ordinance. And you
can see really it's just three of them. And one of them isn't even a zone one of them isn't even a zone three. It's a zone four. of the I guess part of the confusion that because it was once in there and then I think part of the uh confusion is
because affordability was once in there but when you went to the community meeting the people didn't want the affordability and because they was concerned about their neighborhood but it it could exist. That's that's the question. It could exist that that's you know because it was once there. >> Yeah.
>> People didn't want it. We we can send the language that was once proposed for zone 4 >> that was removed upon public right >> input and meetings with >> because that's affordability there too. >> We could pass that along but I'm not
sure um I don't know if the council >> needs more explanation on that because it's not >> it's not just a it's not just a a map change as what was proposed the other night. Um, it is language that has its
own standards and provisions. We can send that along if it's if it's asked of us. We'd be happy to. >> Thank you. You can send that plan. All right. Thanks a lot. >> All send it or >> Yeah, send it.
>> Okay. Good evening everybody. Uh two items for the finance department. Uh 10.1 resolution 25606 authorizing insertion of special items of revenues and appropriations into the calendar 2025 budget. These are just
grant awards um being set up post adoption. Uh, you said 10.5, Kyle. >> 10.1. >> There's no questions on that. The next item is 10.17 resolution 25622.
Um, couple pieces here. These are um annual debt service obligations that we have to address. Uh $124 million um in bond anticipation notes that we're looking to convert to long-term debt um
into general improvement bonds. Uh then there's another piece here for 86 million in short-term debt we're looking to issue in bond anticipation notes and then 6 million in special emergency notes. Uh this is this is all debt already authorized by council and prior
year ordinances. Um, so there's any questions on the particulars there, I can answer them. >> You have 10 point. >> Yeah, I I noticed that on the agenda, but I believe the law department is going representing
Oh, not yet. Good evening, council president, council members. Jennifer Wong, director of traffic engineering. I have three items to present. First item is item 3.4, ordinance 25104.
This is an ordinance designating reserve parking spaces at various locations. All locations were reviewed and approved at the September 3rd committee meeting. Next item 1012,
resolution 25617. This resolution is designating a loading zone at 911 Bergen Avenue. The loading zone would support the deliveries and loading needs of the building and it would be in effect all
days all times. The final item 1013 resolution 25618. This resolution is to designate a loading zone at 200 Monosel Avenue. Um
the entrance to the Bergen Lafayette Monastery School is on Dwitt Avenue. So the the loading zone would be on um the side street and it would accommodate the pickup and drop off um the pickup and
drop off for the school. Uh sorry, the the loading zone would be in effect school days from 8:00 a.m. to 6 p.m. >> That's the new building on Joey. >> Yes.
>> Hey Jennifer, quick question. Um, is is someone else here from traffic for 3.2 >> 3 being withdrawn? That was made an error a while ago. The council requested certain uh intersections that have no right turn on reds. I don't know why it
said all property. I think it was an old, you know, uh, resolution or ordinance that got somehow pushed forward, but we're withdrawing that. It was made an error. >> Oh, okay. If you look at the actual notes of it at the very bottom, you'll see the intersections that were listed that came from individual council members.
>> Well, we well eventually we're still going to vote on those intersections, right? Okay. >> Yeah, that that one was already presented at the July uh meeting. >> So, this was a duplicate of that ordinance. It was >> just had that mix.
>> The original ones were voted in July. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, no problem. Thank you. Good evening, council president, council members. Uh I am here to speak to resolution 25611 uh agenda number 106. This is a
resolution uh awarding or if you will continuing a contract for Long View Technology Solutions to service our harm reduction kiosk that we have at the HHS building on MLK. Uh this will continue through June 30th, 2026.
Uh the idea was initially to scale this out across every ward. Um but fiscal restrictions prevent that right now. Uh, so this just allows us to continue that contract for one year. I could speak to some specifics of the
of the uh contract with them if you'd like. It uh so will not exceed the newly proposed bid threshold of $53,000. We're estimating at about $39,000, but there is a little bit of buffer there. Uh we have a $14,000 gift um grant from the
medical center to help offset those costs. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Have a good evening. Owen, >> I know um that you were here for um resolution, but they telling me they just waiting for some approval. So, if we get it by Wednesday, it won't be a
problem. Okay. Thank you, Sean. Take it from the top. All right. On to our first readings. Item 3.1, city ordinance 25-101, is an ordinance of the Jersey City Municipal Council approving a tax
exemption and authorizing a financial agreement with Sussex Street Associates regarding a project at 177 Grand and 193-195 Grand Street pursuant to the long-term tax exemption law NJSA4820-1
exec. This Yeah. Okay. the applicant and NW Financial should be here as well. >> Hey Jim, >> good evening again. James McCann from law firm of Confolley appearing on
behalf of uh the applicant for this tax abatement Sussex Street Associates Urban Renewal LLC. Um, this project is uh located on Grand Street uh between Maron
Boulevard and Vanvorst. Uh it's in the Paul Hook neighborhood. It's 413 units. Uh 62 affordable housing units included in that number. 7,500 square ft is being dedicated to
OLC uh for use as a nursery school. And there's about 7,500 square ft of uh retail space with approximately 70 parking spaces. Um the question before the council
tonight, I think is um I can tell you this is a very nice project. The question before the council is why should you give this project a long-term tax abatement? And the answer is because um it includes 62 affordable housing
units. um in accordance with Jersey City's inclusionary zoning ordinance. And what that basically means is that in downtown Jersey City in in a in a in a place in in in Jersey City where it's
very hard to get affordable housing, um there'll be 62 affordable housing units. Um 21 of them will be low income. 10 of them will be very low income. Uh 31 will be moderate income. And the
majority of those units, which is 50, will be two and threebedroom units, which give Jersey City families a chance to move into the Polus Hook neighborhood, downtown Jersey City. Um that's the first reason. The second
reason is because the building will support the expansion of OLC, which is a neighborhood school that has been in Jersey City for a very long time and and serves the population in the Paul Hook and the surrounding downtown and other
parts of Jersey City. and the developer is dedicating um as part of the amendment that was approved is dedicating 7,500 square ft to that school um to be used as as another site so they can expand and and
have a nursery school in there. Um so those are two significant community benefits I think that the council can look to. There's there's a third which is that for a very long time um St. Peter's Prep um has been looking to to
round off their football field um because they don't have enough room for a complete end zone um on their football field. And it just so happens that this project is adjacent to the football field and the developer is dedicating a little less than a thousand square feet
of its property that will then be able to be used um by St. Peters Prep to uh to uh make their football field a little bit better and and increase their end zone for for the kids who go to that school and the fans. Um so that that's
really it. There's also um there's also a lot of employment that would be created there. Um estimate of over 400 construction jobs and 72 permanent or full-time jobs that will be built with this project that will come with this project. And I think the really
important thing is and um hoping that NW Financial will come up here and explain it to you in more detail, but um this project is not going to get built without some form of financial assistance in in the form of a tax
abatement. And the reason why is because it is downtown in the Paulus Hook neighborhood. And the ICO was a great was a great thing to stimulate affordable housing and get developers interested in it. But the real challenge behind the ICO is that we have to find a
way to get the projects built. And the way financing is right now, the market is very difficult. And this project cannot be financed without a tax abatement that will create a consistent revenue stream over the first 15 years
for the of the project. this project won't happen without this tax abandonment. Um or it it will be very difficult or impossible for this developer to attract investors and lenders to finance this project because
the bottom line won't provide sufficient basis for the lender to justify it. So, one of the important components of um a long-term tax abatement is whether or not you pass the but for test, which is but for the tax abatement, will the
project get constructed? And in this case, I'm pretty confident the answer is no. It won't get constructed. Um so, and I think the 62 affordable housing units are are the reason why the council should consider this uh favorably.
That's my presentation. and happy to answer any questions that uh council have. >> I think my questions was a combination, but I want to hear the financial um presentation uh before I ask my question. Um and in particular, the most
important question I need to know is how much w revenue will the city be collecting via taxes with and without the pilot? >> But I think I can answer those questions, but if NW Financials here, I'll defer to them. I
Good evening, council president and council members. Dan Daniel Marinelo, NW Financial Group. Um, as with a lot of these projects that come before the city, our firm is brought in to analyze the developer um, submission, review the
financials that have been um, presented by the developer. We as a firm are an extension of the city in the sense that our job is to review it, provide you all with um our financial analysis to determine whether or not as the
gentleman just mentioned the law requires um a but for test. I mean it's a it's a bit subjective as the law is not specific as to that. But the question is whether or not the project as it is presented could be built from financial
standpoint at least um if it was to receive conventional taxes. And so when we do that analysis, we look through and we've pres pro provided a memo to to the council. Um we look at as with anything, it's cash flows. It's
revenues versus expenses. We look and make sure that the revenues that are presented by the developer are accurate, reasonable within the market of the area. We do the same thing from their cash flows on their expense side and they've presented both. We actually
have had many meetings back and forth going back and forth with with this developer. And just as a side note, we did not uh recommend and are not recommending the same pilot terms that the developer was originally requesting. Um we had gone back and forth to
determine what we felt was um a reasonable percentage for the pilot, the abatement that both provided the developer um cash flows and a financable project, one that they would want to continue to
invest in while also providing the city with the rep repres um revenues and um um stream of pilot payments. So in that vein, we look at obviously the current property is not producing a significant
amount of revenues as much as it might under a new development. I believe the current taxes on these sites are about $630,000 a year. Um, if this project were to be built as has been presented based on the
value and the cost of that project using the current tax rate that would be approximately 3.53 $3.6 million a year. And so we throw we put that number into the cash flows and try and we look at it as a bank might look at it. would you
underwrite this project um at 229 $230 million? If a bank was going to provide a loan to this project, they would want to see significant coverage on their loan. So, one of the first things is to look at does the cash flows allow for a
1.2 times coverage on your loan. Most banks actually would like to have more than that today, but they would most the minimum they would do is 1.2 2 times coverage. The cash flows based on conventional taxes is below 1.2 times.
Even 1.2 is difficult for banks today to get their arms around. But at conventional taxes, they wouldn't even get to that point. The other part, the other um percentages that we look at, the matrix that we look at is whether or not there's a yield on cost or a
internal rate of return. That makes sense for a developer who is about to invest, you know, 50 plus million dollars of their of their own equity along with a bank providing the rest of the loans. And yield on cost is essentially the cash flow divided by the
total cost of the project. Um most developers are looking for a return in that sense of approximately 6 to 7% even higher today under the conventional taxes God bless you under the conventional taxes that return is
somewhere just about 5%. So to think about that in real terms would you know the alternative the risk of providing significant equity into a project like this to receive an only 5% returns um is not something investors
would be looking and interested to do. We look at what are the alternatives and the only real mechanism that we have as a municipality in the state of New Jersey is the long-term tax exemption law. often used as an abatement is the word, but it's not an abatement in such
that the developer is not paying taxes. It's just referred to as a payment in lie of taxes. And so what we try to do is negotiate that amount. We know that the 3.6 million of the conventional tax is too high for development of this sort
of this nature. Um, as the gentleman mentioned, as the counselor mentioned, the affordable housing, having 30%, 50% and 80% of area median income rents in that building bring down the revenues a significant amount. It doesn't decrease
the cost of the building. And so we try to look at and and and um negotiate the number that does work. How do you how do you get to a number for their responsibility for payments in lie of taxes that also gives them returns that
they might be acceptable for and a bank would want and remember I always think of it as a partnership in the sense that you you really do want the developers to have returns because you want them to continue to invest in that building and you want them to do a really nice job and you don't want something built there
that is not going to be something the city could be proud of. So, you want them to make money in the incentives, but at the same time, we need to make sure that they're paying what we believe the building from a revenue standpoint can pay. And we try to push that as much
as we can. In this particular case, we ended at a a 30-year term for the pilot, which the term is very important really on the lender side. Um, it's really twofold. the banks as the as the councelor mentioned would like to see
the term of the pilot match the term of a loan. Um it's the one line item in the tax in the in the uh expenses of a development like this that the developer really doesn't control and the banks know that. And so the banks, it's really
important for the banks when they're underwriting projects like this to see that that tax line item is one that they can project forward for the term of their loan. So what we do is we tie it to revenues and that's what the law
allows for. So if the developers revenues come in even higher than we are projecting city shares in that benefit because the payment in lie of taxes is based on the gross revenues of the project. So in this particular case for
market rate buildings the law allows a minimum of 10% of gross revenues to be the pilot. In this particular case, we negotiated the first 15 years are going to be 12% of gross revenues and the
second 15 years it would jump up to 13% of gross revenues. I mentioned before regular taxes it would be about 35 3.6 million. The gross pilot is going to be about based on the rents and revenues that we think will be achieved in that
area about 2.5. So that's the difference as you're looking. you have $630,000 being um produced at those properties today. Under the pilot, that number will go to about 2.5 million. And the city will
receive that full amount of the 2.5 million. It's close. What happens in that situation is you have this the gross pilot is paid and then you have 5% goes to the county and you also receive
2% administrative fee. That's in the numbers that we presented to you. So the difference the difference um per year right now they're taxing them well we're taxing them for vacant land 630. If they
should if they should get the pilot it would be 2.5 and they and if they were able to build without the pilot it would be 3.5. >> If this were to be I always it's I've always cautioned folks when I when I present that number of 3.5 million or
3.6 6 on conventional taxes because that assumes the building would be built in the same fashion, right? So really what that number here is for illustrative purposes so that you can get an idea of what it could possibly be if it was conventional taxed even though that
building won't be built. Certainly not the same building that has been presented. No, but I I just I need a roundabout way to justify when someone say, "Councilman, you voted for a developer to get a 30 year a 30year $35
million abatement." Um, so that's why I just needed that information. Now, my next question, um, maybe this is more for the administration. Um, this land was essentially zoned from something to
current, right, Peter? So, if you can speak to that on the record, it was I think it was originally zone, what was the original zone? >> Transition zone. >> It was a transition zone. So, part of the benefit that the developer got for
being able to upzone was the triggering of the IO in the community give back. So for me looking at this project in totality is like you've already broken that portion of the deal because if you build anything you're going to have to
do 10%. Am I understanding that correctly or no? >> I'm not following exactly. 10 >> it's 15% >> downtown. But what I'm saying is >> affordability. Is that what we're talking I'm I'm sorry >> talking about the IGO councilman.
>> Yeah. What I'm saying is this land was already upzzoned, right? Yes or no? Anybody? >> I I'm I'm sorry. I can't speak to that. But >> the lawyer is here. >> Yeah. I have the lawyer address it. >> So, yes.
>> Okay. Thank you. Land was already >> pursuant to the O. Yes. There's an amendment to the redevelopment plan. >> Yes. So what I'm saying is that's not a that's not an incentive to give a pilot because we've already given you do the
in the incentive to build a more denser project for the triggering of the I just want to make sure I'm understanding correct because I know this is my first term and I'm not really from but I do want to just make sure I'm understanding this correctly. Initially it was one
zone. We've obliged to upzone it for them to get more density. And for them getting more density, the give back was the school and the amount affordability whatever dictated down there via the IO. >> Is that correct?
>> That correct? >> That's all I need to know. >> I think it's 15% affordable. >> Yeah. >> Councilman, the way you phrase the question, the answer is yes. the property was upzoned, but at the time of the upzoning,
um there was no financial analysis done as to whether or not the 15% affordable housing could be supported. That's not part of the land use process. >> Okay? >> You know, that's part of the that that's part of the the financial pro the
financing of the project comes after. So what what the amendment did is it figured out a way how you how you could get a building on that site um and yes create additional density but it was from a land use perspective.
There was never an analysis done as to whether the 15% which was the goal that was the goal of the ICO was to get 15% affordable housing whether that goal was realistic from a financial point of view. >> Okay. No, I just want to make sure I'm
just trying to take all this information in so I can make a sound decision and I just wanted to make sure that I was assessing the situation properly. That's all. >> Right. But it was land use >> and then financing. And so that's that's the James. >> Sure. Would you
>> have have there been any buildings built in downtown using the 15% affordable housing um without a abatement or would this be the first one that's built or do we have any information on that?
>> I think this is this would might be the first one that I've been working on. I don't know the answer to your question. if it if one has been built without >> understand that might be more of a question for zoning and planning and we get your response on that. >> Yeah. >> I just want to put them on the spot for that.
>> Have any developers been successful in in um essentially being a part of the uh 15% like without the without abatement. So I mean I I can I can answer. I mean so so we have had
you know three or four lots that have had the zoning changed so now have the 15%. A couple of those developers say that they are moving forward to break ground without an abatement. Uh but they haven't yet broken ground. They haven't broken. you know, so but that but if I could just say I mean this gets to I
think the question which is less for the applicant but more for the council and the administration which is to say um if we if this does move forward I assume every developer who is developing at the 15% is going to say well you know the economics didn't work for these guys doesn't work for us and we're going to
get a tax break and you know one of the things I had suggested uh earlier when this had come up was that we we have a kind of policy uh that you know you So it's not one one project moves forward, one project doesn't, but a clear policy around the ICO that says look, if we're
say if we say the economics don't work, we have a clear policy that applies to everybody as opposed to one individual project. Uh so I just want to sort of state that that concern. Um I did just want to ask for for NW, could you produce an analysis for the council of what it would look like if this were
required at 20% affordable housing as opposed to the 15? Obviously, I understand that the pilot payment might look different to the city. So, you have to weigh those things. Uh, but, you know, I see if we're considering giving a pilot, I'd like to at least consider the economics of what it looks like to maximize the amount of affordable
housing that's being delivered in that building. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. Yeah. And one other thing I just wanted to add is part of the part of the um the payment in l of taxes the law requires as in addition to the percentage of gross revenues there's a
phase in of regular taxes. So it is important I I did say for illustrative purposes the $3.6 $6 million which it is in comparing would this be built or not but it is an important part of the
analysis over the 30 years. What the law requires is that over time you start to phase in the number gets closer to regular taxes. The law actually says >> 20% 40% 60%. >> Yeah.
>> The last five years will be at 80% of regular taxes. And the goal of that is so that when you get to the end of the pilot term, you know, both the city, you know, the the the payment is going to be close to what they would be paying in regular taxes by the time you get near
the end. Most developers actually ask for one year of 80%. You know, and one or two years of 60%, so that you don't hit that for very long. In this particular case, we've maxed that out and pushed back on that. So you get five years
>> 60% and then five years of 80% at the end. >> And I think just to highlight like we we we work so hard to do the ICO uh this developer is nailing the ICO and you know he's he's providing 62 affordable
and very low affordable units. I mean, you know, he he's doing what we asked, you know, and and um I I would imagine we should be okay with that because he's he actually nailed what we were asking for.
>> Thank you. Any more questions? >> Go ahead. >> Is there any union or wage commitments uh in this pilot agreement either for the construction or the permanent jobs? Um yes. So um as part of uh city
ordinances for a tax abatement like this um the applicant has to commit to complying with the living wage ordinance as recently amended by the council. Um that's number one. Number two, um
there's a PEKA project employment contract attached to your packet that's also part of this tax abatement. >> Thank you. >> One other thing, uh I will tell you that I've never seen
in a tax abatement negotiation the numbers analyzed the way NW Financial has done it in this case. Councilman Solomon, I heard what you said about maybe the possibility of a policy, but I would also tell you you're probably right. If if this tax abatement gets
granted, some more developers might come asking for a tax abatement. But if you only consider the ones that are complying with the ICO, that might not be such a bad thing because you can negotiate every single one with NW
Financial and whether see whether a pilot is justified as it is in this case and that might speed up the production of affordable housing in the downtown area. Okay. So, one more question, Jim. One
more thing, and um this is, you know, something that maybe we can expand upon offline, but I know it was mentioned that there's up to 400 construction jobs. Councilman Solomon just asked some questions about construction. We get a lot of our um
local residents, contractors, people who are looking for work, always, you know, stating that they aren't privy to these construction jobs on the sites and, you know, don't know how to bid on these jobs. Um, is there some type of wiggle room? I know some of the projects that
we built recently in Ward A, we've had uh like an open house where uh people could come and speak with the general contractor to see what was available to build on. Can we uh see if maybe a developer is open to doing something like that if this passes? Can
>> Sure. Um this this uh this applicant is a a local developer that's developed many projects in the city of Jersey City. I'll talk to them before um before Wednesday and and come back to you, Councilwoman. >> Thank you. >> These people are not in the union. They
have their own business, right? And I want that stage because I know I get those calls too that there are some people who are skilled but they're not in the union and they want to have a right to bid also. We just want to make sure that they have that opportunity. That's >> okay. I think we can figure that out.
>> Okay. Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Go ahead. >> 3.2 I believe is going to be withdrawn at uh the Wednesday meeting. Item 3.3, city ordinance 25-103, is an ordinance supplementing chapter 332, vehicles and
traffic article 3, parking, standing, stopping, amending section 332-31, parking restrictions for street cleaning purposes on Lincoln Park. Items 3.4 through 3.6 were touched on earlier. On to our second reading
ordinances. Item 4.1, city ordinance 25-096, is an ordinance amending chapter A352, enabling ordinances of the Jersey City Municipal Code, memorably designating Bentley Avenue from John F. Kennedy Boulevard to Westside Avenue in the city
of Jersey City as Walter R. Lesniaak Way. Item 4.2, 2. City Ordinance 25-097 is an ordinance authorizing the execution of documents amending and releasing certain restrictions imposed
on block 15801, lot 5 within the Jersey City Medical Center site to allow for its redevelopment. Item 4.3, city ordinance 25-098, is an ordinance amending chapter 218, multiple dwellings of the code of
ordinances the city of Jersey City by adding subsection 3, mandatory disclosure for rent increases to section 12 and correcting language in section section one, 4.4 and 4.5 were touched on earlier. We
are going to have a special um going to have a public hearing on the 2025-2026 exchange place alliance special improvement district assessment role and budget. We do have the attorney here to answer any questions that the council
may have on the assessment role and the budget. >> Any questions? >> No questions. >> No questions. >> No questions. Thank you for being here. >> Yeah. I don't even think ain't no need to waste his uh time steps, >> right? We have a request for a public
hearing. Right now, we have 43 speakers. Next, any questions or comments on petitions communication 6.1 through 6.29. Hearing none, we have one office communication. Any questions or comments
on that? Any questions or comments on reported directors 8.1 through 8.4? We have our claims. And then on to our resolutions. Item 10.1 was touched on earlier. Item 10.2, city resolution 25-067,
is a resolution commemoration of the 85th anniversary of the Katine forest massacre and the 86th anniversary of the German Soviet invasion of Poland. Item 10.3 and 10.4 is what I just touched on earlier. It's the assessment
role and the budget of the 2025 2026 Exchange Place special improvement districts. 10.5 is a resolution authorizing a license agreement between the city of Jersey City and the Jersey City Public Schools to grant Jersey City Public
Schools exclusive use of the southwest corner of Paul Hook Park during select hours. Item 10.6 was touched on earlier. Item 10.7 is a resolution appointing Julie Serrano as a member of the Jersey City Ethical Standards Board. Item 10.8 is a
resolution reappointing Daniel Cronin as a member of the Jersey City Ethical Standards Board. Item 10.9 is a resolution appointing Philip Rivo as a member of the Jersey City Rentle Leveling Board. Items 10.10 through 10.13 were touched on earlier. Item
10.14, resolution 25-619, is a resolution increasing the city's bid threshold to 53,000 and authorizing the qualified purchasing agent to award contracts pursuant to NJSA 40A1-3
and 1944A-20.5. >> Council, we just have to do this. Um, the state has increased the bid threshold from 44,000 to 53,000. These new numbers took effect July 1st, 2025. So, we're just authorizing our uh QPA,
our purchasing agent, to issue window contracts, anything between 175 and now instead of up to 44, now it's 175 and up to 53,000. So, those will not come before the council. So, anything below that $54
uh,000 threshold is >> in between 175 and the $53,000. So, you still you have to get two quotes and then the uh purchasing agent may award them. >> Got it. Thank you. >> Okay. Item 10 10.15 was touched on
earlier. Item 10.16, resolution 25-621, is a resolution of the Jersey City Municipal Council authorizing a close session on Thursday, October 2nd, 2025 at 5:00 p.m. to discuss issues related to pending litigation.
Item 10.17 was touched on earlier. Item 10.18, resolution 25-623, is a resolution appointing Patrick G. Patel as a member of the Jersey City Cannabis Control Board. That being said, may I have a motion to
adjourn at 5:52 p.m.? >> Motion. >> Motion made by council person Sole. May I have a second? >> Second. >> Second by council president Waterman. All in favor of the motion to adjourn at 5:52 p.m. All council members present by
acclamation, please say I. >> I. We are out of here at 5:52 p.m.