All right, everyone. We're about to get started. If we can find our seats, silence our cell phones, close the back door and side doors if you would be so kind to do so. I greatly appreciate it. Hey, good afternoon everyone. We are on the record. Today is Monday, the 13th
day of July in the year 2026. This is a city council caucus meeting of the Jersey City Municipal Council. We had a scheduled start at 12:00 p.m. And that notice was sent out on Thursday, July
9th, 2026 at 4:23 p.m. to all of the reporters and posted on the city's website for our change from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. The clock on my cell phone is showing 12:15
p.m. May we have a roll call for the commencement of this caucus? Council person Brooks is not here. Council person Zupa >> here. >> Council person Efos >> here. >> Council person Little >> here.
>> Council person Gilmore >> present. >> Council person Singh. >> I'm here. >> Council person Griffin >> present. >> Council person Lavaro >> here. >> And council president Ridley >> here. And Sean uh yes. Councilman Brooks will be uh absent.
>> Thank you very much. So, we have eight council members in attendance at 12:15 p.m. On behalf of Council President Ridley and the members of the municipal council in accordance with New Jersey Public Laws of 1975, chapter 231, the
Open Public Meetings Act, also known as the Sunshine Law. Adequate notice of this meeting has been provided by the posting on the bulletin board of the first floor of city hall. The annual notice which is the schedule of meetings and caucuses of the municipal council for the calendar year 2026 and filed in the office of the city clerk on Tuesday,
November 25th, 2025. In addition, at its time of its preparation, the agenda of this meeting was similarly disseminated on Friday, July 10th, 2026 at 10:45 p.m. to the mayor, municipal council, business administrator, corporation council, and to the newspapers and posted on the city's website. so I can
certify as to our total compliance with the sunshine law. Council President, I'm going to turn the meeting over to you. >> Okay. Good afternoon. I just want to before we start, I want to give a quick recap of our morning
meeting with DCA. Um we met with them at 10:00 a.m. this morning. That is why we moved this caucus back to 12:00 p.m. Uh, one of the first things that we wanted to discuss with them was the Q3 tax rate. Um, at our July 1st meeting, we
had a resolution to set a Q3 tax rate that the council voted down and the council was unclear or we were told that we could not set that Q3 tax rate that the date for us
doing so had passed. Um DCA says we are entitled to introduce a resolution at the next council meeting to set that rate. I believe that is the pleasure of the council, but we will discuss that. Um and we will then add that to the
agenda for Wednesday as the Q3 tax bills have not gone out yet and we will we would want those bills to go out so that the city can pay their bills. Um, [snorts] so we will revisit that. As far as the budget, I know a lot of
people had questions and the council had questions in regards to us having the ability to go through the budget and make any necessary cuts. The council is the governing body of the city. We still have the ability to go through budget
and make or propose any cuts or changes that we see fit. Uh us accepting anou this next meeting on Wednesday does not change that fact. So the council is still expected to do its legislative
duties and its governing duties and go through that budget. Um in addition to that, there were questions regarding our quote unquote rainy day fund. DCA does not want us to tap into that as they
would like us to make sure we have that cushion as it is smaller than they would like it to be. In regards to the MOU, we do have to decide what we're doing at this next meeting uh in regards to what
loan terms we are accepting. So we should be taking that vote on Wednesday for theou in the long terms of our transitional aid. There was a question as to how that is determined seeing how
there have been loans in the past given by the state that uh did not include interest rates. there were no interest loans and the long and short of that is um that changes with the administration the
state administration. So this administration would like to set an interest loan uh based on the amount that we are receiving as it is a large amount they are not interested in giving a no
interest loan. Um, those are the highlights. I will prepare something more in writing and if my council colleagues have anything that they want to add, um, please feel free to do so at this time and um, we'll prepare a memo
in a little more detail, but I just wanted to go over the highlights. >> Council President May, that's a clarifying question. So, the administration was not interested in putting forward a no interest loan. You're talking about the administration in Trenton or >> Trenton.
>> Thank you, >> Mr. President. Um I'm sorry I was distracted a little bit. Did we talk Did you discuss the third quarter levy? >> Yes. I I said we would introduce a resolution at the next meeting. So
>> this meeting? >> Yes. On Wednesday for Wednesday. Correct. July meeting Wednesday. So that would be a late item added. >> Correct. >> The intention would be to introduce a quarter3 tax bill at the 2025
tax rate or at what tax rate? >> Well, that would be something that the uh council would have to decide what we want that resolution to say. It does not have to be at the current tax rate. Um it can be at the 12% that we proposed at the last meeting. It can be at the 15%.
Uh, we need to have that conversation. >> Council President, can you please talk one more time about rainy day fund? >> The rainy day fund. They do not want us to tap into that. They would be opposed. The state would be opposed to us using that money. >> We can't take anything out of them.
Thank you. >> I mean, we can try, but I'm sure they're going to deny that. >> Okay. >> And also, you know, a lot of a lot of people have been bringing this up. Did Did you talk to them about land sales? >> Correct. >> And what did they say about that? >> They don't suggest that we do that. >> What was the answer?
>> That they do not suggest that we do that. >> Land sales. >> Mhm. >> Did they say why? >> Yeah. And we can go, like I said, I'll go into more detail and I'll put a memo together, but high level that's where they were on land sales and rainy day.
>> Rainy day. Okay. Can I can I just elaborate on that piece? >> Yes. slightly. So, with regard to some of the some of the options, short-term notes to spread one-time obligations over multiple years, something like tax appeals, again, the retirement payouts, etc., a
land sale or defeasing or retiring bonds. Um, they well, particularly for the first two, they did not recommend it, but it was asked very pointedly, could we do it? and they said you could do it. Um they were clear that we that
that's discretion but there would be potential implications potentially if we change the levy in some way that could affect the terms of the loan including the amount of the loan. So that wasn't clear as to how that would be impacted.
Um but those were options that they said were not necessarily off the table. Um but they there would it's not something that they would recommend. Um, I would just briefly say as it relates to the council authority, um,
they did say we, uh, the authority still resides within this body as it relates to determine determining Q3. Um, and also as it relates to the theou.
Um, theou is public yet. Bill, is it Councilman? Shortly after the meeting with DCA this morning, I did receive uh final copies of the loan agreements. I've shared those with corporate council and the BA's office uh to share with council and post to the agenda.
>> Okay. So in light of all that um I will say uh the the loan the loan agreement is contingent upon certain things. I specifically asked as it relates to the increase um of Q3
uh because you know there was a lot of back and forth as it relates to the 15% the 12% at the last council meeting. Um and they did say that the parameters that's in theou are ironed out exactly what that
agreement would look like. Um so there is a potential if we move the tax levy from the agreed upon agreed upon point that subsequently we can have a
reduction in the 105 of the state aid. Is that correct bill? They made reference to um the $105 million loan in the agreement that if we move
the levy from that threshold um that number can potentially come down. >> So what I heard councilman from them is there we have two options as outlined the 15% and the 20%. Um during the discussion around uh what if council
found additional cost cuts uh and whether those cost cuts could be applied to a further reduction in the tax rate. My understanding is that their stance would be no that any other savings a would benefit 2027
or andor they would look to reducing the size of loan so those cost reductions would be used to repaying the loan uh earlier. That's how I understood the the discussion. >> Thank you, Bill. I mean, I I think
and this is not to like talk bad about the administration, but I think um this whole situation would been have been much better if what we received within
these last 72 24 hours was articulated and put in the public back when all these presentations were going on. Um, I think we we got lost in the communication. I think the intent was
there to try to get in front to try to not to notify the public. Um, but I think the administration, they spent so much time on explaining how we got here versus
trying to find a path forward. Um I don't I mean it's it's trying times ahead and I just think that with all of this at stake that we should have been better
with the communication better with the explaining um because even us a lot of us on the council you know we felt like we wasn't given enough information as it relates to the actual members that were
in the budget. Um, so if if the administration can can be better at that from a communication standpoint, uh, because in this union, it has to work both ways, right? We have to be transparent with each other. We have to
be honest with each other. And if we do those two things, we can we can almost get by anything. Um, but it has to be a us approach. It has to be like a holistic approach. that dialogue has to transpire in that manner. Um because I know as council, I speak specifically
for myself, like we we're getting hammered, right? Um so that's that's what I have to say as it relates to that as a council. We're still, you know, well within our authority to set that Q3 number um at what we think
is appropriate. And I will just say this for the public. I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't set that number near the current Q1 and Q2 quarters because all of the numbers are
indicating that the taxes are going to go up. And what you don't want to happen in my opinion is you don't want to give the residents false hope that this would this would be the the the tax um rate.
Um and then subsequently you already have to make up for Q1 Q2 because they're all under the threshold and then you'll have that problem in Q4 where you're asking for all of that. That's that's my takeaway from today.
That's my assessment of the communication of the administration. >> That's I make one more comment just just to address the rainy day fund. So, it was clear for me that um the fund balance they did not want to see it
touched except for the 2 million that's been uh budgeted in the in the prop introduced budget to pay for snow the snow snow emergency snow removal costs. Um so they they do not want that in the
2026 budget. It's going to be part of theou that's going to be um put forth before the city council um as a condition of the loan. Um and feel free to correct me if I'm if I'm inaccurate on that. Um but from from my notes and
my discussion um while they're not supportive of us using more um we talked about and I shared the idea that I proposed at this council about establishing an ordinance to require the replenishment of the rainy day fund the fund balance. um they were receptive to
that um and they asked us very pointedly if we have a fund balance policy and um we couldn't answer that at the time. I don't know if um have that information at this point. Um but the necessity for us to establish such a fund balance policy um and they also
um according to my my listening and my notes is that uh um using it in future years is not off of the table for the city council um or this administration. So I just want to put that out as a as a
fact. And uh they didn't say they were not encouraging of it, but they did not they did suggest that it was not necessarily that that condition was for the 2026 budget to to not dip into the the rainy day fund. >> Councilman, uh can you clarify
did they share what's the percentage we can use in 2027 budget? >> They did not specify. We did not get into those. >> It's open-ended. >> Yeah. Well, I say it's open-ended again. They I don't want to misrepresent it because they discouraged it strongly
discouraged frankly also right so um what they said um the one thing I want to just say is that the quote that I was left with was the division of local government services is a compliance division not a policy decision that policy is for still the city council to
ultimately determine and I made the case and and council colleagues that I would like to see this spread out over more more years. Um, and that's still kind of generally my position, but I got to kind of look at everything that uh um that
we've discussed and then kind of look at the options as well as the budget itself. Do a deeper dive on all of that before I can make any >> council. Can I just say on that point? >> Thank you, Councilman. Bill, the um the comments around DCA being essentially a compliance agency
was mentioned, but it was also mentioned that for municipalities under transitional aid, their authority is far more extensive. The loan agreement is really quite clear that the only use of fun balance in 2026 they will allow is
what we budgeted, which was about 2.3 million for snow removal. That's what's in the introduced budget that you have that's on the agenda. That amount is also referenced in the loan agreements as what they will allow for use of surplus.
>> I had one more clarifying question. Um, Bill, you had mentioned um that it sounds like should we should we find savings somewhere in the budget through our budget hearings um and through amendments proposed and uh
that that those savings would not allow us to deviate from either the 15 or the 20% um that we're being asked to sign theou toward um but rather that those savings would the toward the loan repayment. Is
that correct? >> That's correct. I think the the the commentary in their position is grounded in a couple of things. One, we're already through July and they talked about how long it takes to get through civil service restructurings with four
to five months. So, the likelihood of any material savings that comes from salaries and wages in 2026 is very low. Should we find that? Right. They have made it clear that they view 27 for us as another challenging year. Uh and they
they would not they basically they made it clear at the end of the day we have two options and the options the 15% and the 20% tax rate increase. Those are the two loan agreements we have in our possession. Those are the two options they've given us. And and then I'm sorry if I missed this but um you'd also
mention that those savings would either be toward the repayment or toward the 2027 budget. So given where we are in the year, the likelihood of material savings impacting 2026 is really quite small. And so, you
know, I think their perspective like like ours is to the extent we could find ways to be more efficient. They're all for that, but it's not something that's going to lead them to be swayed that there should be a third option that they made it clear that there are two, and those are the two we have in front of
us. And then on the note of the quarter three tax bill, if council proposed a tax bill um for quarter three that was different from 15 or 20% that was the 12% just as taking the hypothetical
raised by my colleague um did I don't know if folks in the meeting or Bill you can answer this but um DCA says that that's in our authority to do even at a different number than the 15 or 20% >> with the caveat that We still have to seek their approval which they made
clear they would provide. So it's not quite within our authority. It's within their authority. They did make clear they would provide that authority because they understand we need to collect those taxes to keep the city operating. We need the receipts. So okay, we would be permitted to provide
to set a different tax rate potentially lower than 15 or 20% for quarter three. They said that they would give us approval even if we're signing thisou that says eventually it's going to get hiked up to the 15 or 20% depending on
which we sign. >> Correct. >> Yeah. I mean that's that's the problem with the Q3 tax um bills in a nutshell. No matter what rate, no matter what rate we voted
at, um, budget is ultimately going to dictate that. And considering when we when we're considering the budget, we also have to consider the terms of theou. So while the council authority haven't necessarily been
script by default, it kind of like kind of like locked in, right? Because if if if we're taking the loan, there's terms associated with the loan, right? So you you can't like I mean DCA
position is like we can't agree on the terms of the loan and then try to operate outside of the parameters of the term of the loan. And that's my frustration essentially with the administration is like we have to know this in the first
inning of the game. Like we have to know this in the beginning. We have to be a part of the negotiation phase, right? We have to be communicated. We have to be consulted because ultimately we're tasked with making a decision on the finances of the
government. But we weren't in in the first inning. we we we weren't a part of the initial conversations and that's like for me it it it makes my job extremely hard >> and just to uh
>> piggyback off what Councilman Gilmore is saying it is frustrating right because it it's like as the council our backs are put against the wall um to to vote on terms and agreements that we may not agree on
especially when you know we have authority over over the budget and everything. So, you know, I I I get what the councilman is saying and I I I also understand just looking at like the the the conditions of the loan what what needs
to be done, but it it just it just feels like we were locked in before we even got a chance to vote or look at the budget. So, council members, um the administration just handed us the two different versions of theou. This is the
council's first time uh having access to this document. So, I would ask that uh after this meeting, you all go back and sit with it. Um and then we'll have a clearer idea of uh where we're headed on
Wednesday. But Bill is here. You're at the podium. your first up tonight, so you might as well stay there. >> Afternoon. >> Afternoon, not night. And um we'll start the budget discussion. >> Thank you. Council President, would you
like me to comment on the loan agreements? I I have not read the ones that we got in the last hour, but in general, I understand what the numbers are. >> I'll wait until everybody reads everything. >> I don't want you to say anything that might not be in here any longer. >> You got it. So, I will uh make some
comments on the 2026 budget uh introduction. I'm going to stay relatively high level because we have budget hearings coming up uh I think either later this week or starting early next week. So, I'll go through what I think the highlights are and then happy to answer questions to the extent I can.
Um so, first of all, some topline numbers in the budget as introduced. Fiscal year 2026 budget totals $886.5 million. It's nominally an increase over
the 2025 budget. However, as we've been discussing throughout 2026, the headline figure is bloated by over hund00 million in inherited unpaid obligations left over from previous years by the prior
administration. Those were created by a combination of improper use of capital funds, unfunded operational expenses, and the use of borrowing to pay for operating expenses. All of which uh we've been discussing for the past several seven months. So, what we've
tried to do in some of the materials we've distributed over the weekend and I want to comment on is what's the true cost? What's the more accurate comparison between the 26 budget introduction and 2025 as it should have been introduced? So, what we've been referring to as the true cost of running
Jury City's government, in our estimation, is down from what should have been $856.7 million in 2025 when adjusted for these costs to approximately 798.4
million in 2026 if you exclude these onetime obligations. So, that totals a reduction of about $58 million or just under 7%. two major items that go into that $58 million. We've talked considerably about
one of them is the savings and the health health benefits from the switch to meritane from Horizon. And then the other is paying down previous year's deferred spending which is down roughly $15 million. Those two comprise the majority of the $58 million reduction.
I'll talk a little bit about the department spending. And again to to do accurate comparisons here we have tried to adjust previous year and current year for proper accounting things like places where like infrastructure where capital
expenses were capital dollars were used to pay for operating expenses. We've tried to put the expenses where they belong and the proper use of funds where they also belong. So excluding public safety and across all departments, this budget reflects approximately 9.7
million in real costs again adjusted to properly align the costs to periods in which they were incurred. So that relates to salary and wages other expenses just for the the departments.
Those savings partly reinvested in services residents count on um and uh in particular public safety uh safe and clean streets and youth programming. We've provided appendices again distributed uh over the course of the weekend that provide far more detail on
those line items. So I'll I'll leave that particular topic for now. As introduced and without any adjustments for prior year expenses, salaries and wages approximate $298 million. That represents almost 34% of
total expenses. And even with no adjustment is only a 4% growth over 2025 as it was introduced. Of that amount, 70% or almost $210 million is related to public safety salaries and wages.
There's another 4% or 12.7 million for certain uniform officer retirements and other compensation benefits. Other expenses total 302 million representing 34% of total expenditures. Other expenses includes group health
insurance $170 million proper funding for the insurance fund commission funding for a variety of reserve accounts. Debt service due to decisions made by the past administration represent 87 million or nearly 10 10% of total
expenditures. Much of that represents debt service related to expenses acrewed in prior years funded by emergency and special emergency notes. Turn to revenue. The 2026 budget includes a total tax
levy of $459,953,660.72. That represents 51% of the total revenue the city will collect. That's up 75 million or 19% from the 2025 levy. That assumes a 15.5% increase in
the tax rate. The remainder and the of the increase in the levy comes from is generated from new ratables. The proposed tax rate impact on a home assessed at $500,000 is approximately an additional $634 a
year or $53 a month. When combined with the expected increase of 14% in the school rate, approximately the same amount in the county rate, total increase on a home assessed at 500,000 is approximately $1,700
or $143 a month. Note that for every 1% change in the municipal tax rate, the impact on the average homeowner is $40 a year or $3 a month.
The next largest source of revenue in the proposed budget is local revenue and special items, including third party agreements totaling $190 million. State aid totals $185 million. That includes the recurring $65 million that Jersey City has received annually for a
number of years as well as the $ 105 million in revenue from the loan budget as introduced assumes that the loan would be paid back over a period of 10 years at an interest rate of 2.75%. We also expect another $15 million in
the form of transitional aid grant from the state that is included in the introduced budget. Other local revenue includes pilots pilot revenue of $82.8 million. That's a decline of almost 9%. From 2025.
Importantly, the decline in pilot revenue as a result of expiring pilots is expected to continue to be a source of challenges for our budget in 27 and beyond as the older pilots continue to expire.
Pilot revenues, as you know, often generate more tax revenue for the city than traditional property taxes. And so losing that source of revenue will make both the budget more challenging for the municipality. In addition, other local revenue
includes franchise payments from the MUA of $33 million. That is a materially higher amount than historical as a result of financial mover maneuver that involve the MUA issuing bonds to accelerate payments to
the city. Essentially funding the city's operating budget with that payments issued by the MUA. That source of revenue will also decline in 27 by another $10 million, putting additional pressure on the 27 budget.
Since we're already more than halfway through the fiscal year, I think it's important for you to know and to note that year-to date through June 30, 2026, total spending is approximately 415 million or 47%
of the introduced budget on track to meet the budget as proposed. Lastly, a comment about cash balances and and liquidity. As of July 1st, the city maintained cash balances of approximately $115 million.
We've talked about the importance of adopting a Q3 estimated tax rate for a variety of reasons, but not the least of which is the city relies very heavily. As you can see, is reflected of the percent of our revenue that comes from tax receipts on
collecting taxes. is therefore paramount that we set an estimated Q3 tax rate to avoid any kind of liquidity or cash shortage for the city.
Note along those lines, we typically remit tax receipts to the county and to the schools in the month of August. We do have the ability to defer that to the month of September, but without cash receipts coming in for the city, we will not be able to remit those payments to
the school or the county. So, the introduced budget goes a long way towards addressing inherited budget gap through a historic level of state support to address past costs and a substantial reduction in the structural deficit by reasonably raising revenue
combined with expense reductions. To be clear, more work, much more work, and more revenue is needed to bring the city budget into a structural balance. Also, just by note, by historical
standards, Jersey City expenditures have grown 9.9%. 2020. That's below the rate of inflation, which is almost 24% over that period of time. And while public safety has seen modest growth, 9%.
Other cities have grown very close to the rate of inflation over that period of time. And then finally, looking forward, if the loan agreement and introduced budget are approved by the council uh Wednesday, uh immediate next steps aside from the Q3 uh estimated tax
bill, we will transmit the budget to DCA through their online portal, hold budget hearings, and hopefully finally adopt the budget in the month of August. Recognizing that we'll answer more detailed questions at the budget hearings. Um, I'll leave it my comments
at that, but I'd be happy to address any preliminary questions. >> Council questions for Bill. >> I one question on the the health care costs um and the unpaid bills that um
we're now going to be paying and I believe have started to already pay um from the beginning of this year. Um were any and I'm I'm sorry this is maybe not pertinent enough for um for the resolution before us but I think it it's
pertinent. Um what what was the availability of negotiating any of the any of the health care bills that are have been unpaid and that we need to pay down in this 2026 budget. if a individual gets a a bill from health care um there's some room for
individuals in cases to be able to negotiate down and and to you know push back against the private insurance company or whatever it may be. So I just want to see what kind of um options we had and and what we explored. >> Sure. So first we'll recognize the city
self-insured. We used Horizon and now Meritane as a third party administrator. So what they do is administrate claims when participants members of the plan visit providers doctors. We then pay
Ryzen or now merit they in turn reimburse the doctors. I would say there is virtually zero ability to defer those payments. And I can tell you as a matter of our own experience, uh we have been threatened
many times by Horizon before the switch for paying late. We've been charged late fees and only about a month or so ago, they were threatening to stop payments to providers at all unless we made the last payment
which city council approved. What happens if we don't pay Horizon or Meritane in that instance and they don't pay providers is the providers then bill the patient the patient's on the hook. So there is those are not negotiable that is the business of health insurance
as it works in the United States. So be because of the self-insured uh character of of our um health plan there was no room to be able to negotiate. I understand the deferred payments. We were already getting in trouble. Um, and we didn't want to
continue that practice. But even just being able to take bill after bill and I understand this would require a lot of staff capacity, but even that was off the table to be able to negotiate the costs of the different bills that um were on the table. >> Horizon would clearly have no interest
in deferring payments to Jerry City and even more so since we switched to Meritane. have zero interest or reason to allow us to defer payments. Okay? And I just want to be really clear that deferring
is not just deferring and delaying a payment, but negotiating down the price of certain of these bills. >> So the price of the bills is the price that is set between the third party administer and the provider. So that's one for example, it's one of the reasons
why we're saving money with meritane is meritane has negotiated better rates with more providers, right? >> Those are fixed between provider >> and the third party administrator. Those are not rates that we set. >> And there was just no option opport
because we we switched to maritain. We saved you know $25 million was great. Um but there was no opportunity to go back to the horizon uh the bills under horizon and say hey we think that we could try and negotiate down some of these bills. No I don't believe so.
Although I will say along those lines you know we we are looking very carefully at past claims. We're doing a complete study of all claims administered by Horizon to see if they were properly adjudicated. And if they're not then we will seek
reimbursements from Horizon. We are working on that. Thank you so much. That's good to know. >> Mr. President, >> Bill, um [clears throat] I just want to ask about the surplus again. Um so the
budget includes 2.2 million surplus. Um how much is the actual surplus will be? Do >> you have the exact number? So at the in at the end of 25 the city's
fund balance was just over 40 million but of that cash surplus it was approximately $28 million in cash. >> Bring the mic a little closer to you Kyle. >> So the cash surplus amount was 28 million. uh the fund balance totals a little higher. Um you're only allowed to
use the cash surplus in the budget. So that 2 million is portion of that 28. >> Okay. >> You should you should be able to find that in the uh annual financial statement. >> Say it again. >> That number is in the annual financial statement. Um >> okay. >> Looking for the sheet, but I'll be sure
to send that to everybody. Um, looking over all of the anticipated revenues, general revenues under miscellaneous revenues, it's my understanding that we can um anticipate and include in the budget up
to the amount um that was realized in 2025. Is that accurate? I >> believe so. Yes. >> Yeah. So, I I don't want to go line by line. And just for the general public, we got this
um budget Friday night at uh 11:30 p.m. It's now Monday at noon. Um we will have budget hearings. I'm sure the council president will talk about this, but um so I'm not going to spend my time going line by line through this. Um and we'll have more opportunities to discuss this
moving forward. Um, so if the council's not asking a lot of questions, um, it's not, uh, for for lack of interest. Um, we're just going to need a little more time to to take it all in. Um, the general question though I have is that,
uh, you're not realizing um, including the total realized amount from 2025. Um while it may be small differences or or um for example um just looking at uh
pilot application administrative fees on sheet 4B um the previous administration in 2025 had anticipated $2,396,593. They fell short of that um goal and
realized 2,367,455. And then your budget includes $2 million. $367,455 less than what was realized in 2025. Um I can assume why you did that, but I'd like you just on the record to say
kind of generally across the board why you did that. And then I just really want to ask about public safety fees um where it was realized 346,999 on the same page and anticipated in the
budget is 2.3 million and if you could clarify as to how you were able to realize more than you got in anticipated cash in 2025. Um I assume DLGS um reviewed that and gave you the green light to be able to introduce that. Um,
but if you could just speak to those two points generally. >> So, I'll speak on the uh at public safety admin fees. So, we were recently auditing our offduty reserve and historically the way offduty deposits have been handled is the administrative
fees were all sitting in in our reserve account. So, we had to go back to 25 review all the deposits. Uh that's why last year that anticipated amount was so low because this goes back years. The funds were not properly dispersed to the
general fund. We did an audit. There was about 2.1 million in admin fees collected last year and 25 that were due to the general fund. So it's not realized in the operating fund last year, but we did identify that amount in cash receipts. Um and we anticipate that
to be a recurring revenue in our in our general budget. Uh year to date was close to a million dollars already in uh offduty admin fees. So that is the reasoning for that. >> So so that was realized in 2025 over 2 million although accounting didn't
whatever book >> the deposits were going to the offduty reserve. So the offduty reserve had a surplus of funds available. you're projecting it for 2026 or or is it you're using the 2025 numbers? >> The monies from 2025 are are rolling over to 26.
>> We're anticipating close to what we collected last year in 25. >> So what happened to the 2 million? >> It's returned to the general fund this year and that'll be uh impact uh a positive impact on our fund balance at the end of the year. So that those 25
deposits and years prior that were sitting in the reserve account were due to the general fund. So while we can't anticipate duplicating the amount of admin fees, um we are using the amount we collected last year, any anything else from prior
years would essentially be like revenue that we're not anticipating as a positive to our overall fund balance. And on the other items, again, it's just good budget practice and recommended by DCA as well to not go to the max of
every single line item. It does set you up for, you know, potential shortfalls at the end of the year if these and other items, you know, and other areas don't perform as well as they did in the prior year. So historically, yes, we have gone to the max in in in many
scenarios and you'll see that in our fund balance has been dwindling yearbyear and that's partially the reason for that. Did you run the the balances on each of these revenue items to see year to date what the collection rate was or what the collection amounts
were to be able to um project whether or not we were on on track or not? Yeah, we're pretty we're pretty confident in where we're at to date. Uh we do have a half a year. So, we like to project double that. So, >> I'm going to respectfully I I asked if
you ran the numbers. Um not not whether you were confident. I just asked if you ran the numbers >> very frequently. Okay. >> I'd love to see the numbers. >> No problem. >> Yeah. >> Council President, go ahead. >> Thank you. Um
I had a few questions sort of procedurally. Um my understanding is that in previous years the council would get a printed out for for each department during the departmental budget hearings the council
would get a printed out um line item budget at that budget hearing. Um, you know, I think this is a council that definitely wants to do our due diligence and um is really eager to come prepared
with more detailed questions. My question is, would it be possible to share a copy not not your original Excel spreadsheet, but a copy of an Excel spreadsheet for each department that shows the line items so that we may review and prepare questions before the
departmental budget hearings? >> Yes, we will. I I've spoken to the council president about over the weekend. Uh we needed a little bit of time to kind of clean those things up and make and to make them available, but expect to make them available to the council over the next couple days hopefully at most.
>> Great. Thank you so much. >> And thank you, Councilwoman Little, for that. Let me jump in. Um as Councilwoman Little said, we the council usually does have an itemized budget in front of them department by department, line by line, each employee. We have not received that
yet. Finance is working on it. They plan to get that to us. They are also uh planning to have the department presentations to us ahead of the budget hearings. As such, I am looking at our
current schedule for the budget hearings and if we do not have what we need in time, then we will look to push out those budget hearings. I don't want you all to be rushed with reviewing all of this information. Um, so I should know by the end of today how we're going to
move forward with budget hearings because I know you all have to set your schedules and I also want you to be prepared. >> Thank you. I appreciate that. Um, that will be really really helpful. My my second question was um
I know municipalities across the state and across the country are struggling with the increased cost of health insurance for their employees. uh can Jersey City is in a somewhat unique position because we are self-insured. We don't use the state health benefits plan. Um I was wondering if you could
speak to the cost savings between those two and if if this is truly a better deal, if they're comparable, uh what the advantages and disadvantages are. So, we had estimated and we budgeted uh $25
million in savings in health benefit expenses for 2026. A large portion of those savings came from or we expect to come from the difference in the networks between Horizon and Meritane. the issue and one
of the issues driving cost for Jersey City was an extraordinary use of out of network providers and so we all know in network providers generally cost less Jersey City had a disproportionate amount of out of network users so our
the analysis that we had showed switching to me lowered costs by putting more people into the network without having to change their providers The net reduction in 2026 though I would think of as a one-time
resetting of the bar looking forward like we've been advised to assume something on the order of 15% a year increases from the lower starting point. So it is significant reduction in our expenses but I think we like everyone
else expect to continue to see double digit growth in health benefit expenses over the coming years. So everyone across the board is seeing these increases. Absolutely. the state health benefit plan though um when we were making the switch to maritine um
was that up for consideration as well to to move toward the state health benefit plan >> I've not seen a comparison between our plan and the state's plan >> I have a question >> what was done was I'm sorry has there
was an RFP last year done the proposals came from Horizon and Meritane to my knowledge there was not a comparison to the state plan So, I'm not I don't I haven't seen it. >> Hey, Bill, I may have missed it, but how much how much do we owe Horizon?
>> Right now, our our bills to Horizon I I've not I've not got an update in the last week or so, but I think the last claim was something on the order of $4 million. We expect that to continue to dwindle over the coming months till we
get to zero. So, it should be single digits. I don't know the exact number. Okay. Um, I remember when we were meeting about uh switching over healthcare and I remember I can't remember the name but there was some
sort of fund or something where um we were paying extra I believe and Horizon owed us money like $9 million I believe that was the number. >> Okay. Yes. So, what you're referring to, Councilman, is as part of the contract
with Horizon, the city had agreed to allow them to hold almost $10 million as what we refer to as a working capital account. The the use of the working capital account was supposed to be for the runout period, which is essentially where we've been the last few months,
where the contract expired, but the bills continue to come in over the runout period for several months. So, the agreement with Horizon was during that runout period, they could use that $10 million to offset invoices, which is
what we've been doing. >> Okay. So, what was the original number? Do you know offh hand? >> It was just shy of $10 million 9.9 something. And >> I'm sorry, not that the amount that we owed them >> at what point in time in back in January, I think we owed them as much as
like 17 almost $20 million. Okay. All right. So, Okay. Um, and piggybacking off of Councilman Efos's question about uh the bills and the deferments and
everything, can can anything be negotiated where we do pay less and maybe pay over stretch out the payments >> at the same amount? Like if we owe them $4 million, instead of paying them 12
months or instead of paying them four months, a million dollars a month, could we pay eight months? >> We we do and one-off cases or via being one example of an item on the agenda where we've spent months negotiating with them to reduce the cost of the
service to the city. Um so that's an example of, you know, something that took multiple months of of negotiating to get where we are now. uh with Horizon specifically, it's a you know, negotiating with them is really a non-starter. Um although I said before,
we will do everything we can and we are going through a a complete uh claims audit going back multiple years to see how they adjudicated those claims to ensure that they paid attention and got Jersey City the best value and perade and paid providers the lowest
possible rate. So, we're going through that exercise. >> Okay. And is that would that be considered an audit? Are we auditing this? >> It is uh a claims audit is what it's referred to. >> Claims audit. Okay. >> Thank you.
>> So for uh the administration BA's office, I made a few requests uh that we have not heard back on yet. So on July 1st, I sent an email asking for a list of all new hires from January 15th till
the present. I do not have that. Uh after the layoffs on Friday, I asked for a list of the salaries of all the employees that have been laid off. I do not have that. Uh I asked that the council receive an update on the pilot
audit that was set by executive order of the mayor. I do not have that. And this is information that the council would like as they review the budget. And I'll echo the council president's request demanding it frankly. Um the
other thing that uh I've asked for the financial plan, the five-year financial plan um as we had a meeting earlier as well. Um not just PDFs but electronic file formats, excels with actual formulas so we can see how things are
being calculated. Um so I would ask that for uh this budget but also for financial plans the five-year models that we have projecting and and also um I know that an organizational chart was requested some
months back and nobody received that either. So can we please get that as well? And also when the ordinance passed to to change the language for the salary ordinances, which again could be less than or more than what's average for Patterson and Newark, the administration
told us we received a an update as to who got salary increases and when. Uh it's been several months. We have not gotten that. So if I can, council president, I would add that to your request as well. >> There's nothing else to add. I'll just add a question to that to the corporation council. What are our legal
options to compel these information requests to be delivered to the city council when they've been ignored for a long time now? >> So, Councilman, as you and I have discussed previously, there aren't any hard and fast time limits in the law as
to how quickly the administration needs to respond to you all. The legal mechanism to try to force compliance from the administration would be to sue, which municipal councils in the past have done, and we'd be happy to talk with you about who you think it would be appropriate to represent you all in that
instance. In this case, I would strongly encourage the council and the administration to do more talking, not just during council or caucus meetings, to understand what are the challenges in obtaining this information. um just so that before things escalate you
understand you know what's in the works or not um because escalating to litigation which is the next step is a very expensive and timeconuming effort all the documents requested are public information correct >> only if they already exist councilman
>> okay for example a table of organizations so if I filed an OPRA request there's a timeline that the city has to respond to my OPER request even as a council person >> OPRA only permits a person to obtain ain public records that already exist. So certainly whatever records exist in any
form you could be entitled to under the OPER timeline. >> Right. So so just so everyone in the audience knows this council spends a lot of time outside of caucus and council meetings asking and talking to the council. We speak with the council we speak to the administration in bi-weekly meetings before our council meetings. Uh
a table of organization a list of who got hired. Those should be readily available. Yes, Peter, if you or M like what is what is the administration position as it relates to these outstanding requests? Is it like as the council
asking for too much? Do you need more time? Uh can that be communicated like like like what is it? >> It's mostly time. So a lot of these documents don't exist in forms that are the parameters that you've asked them for. For instance, we do have a list of
all employees, but if you're asking for certain employees, we have to go through that list, pull out that information to provide it to you. If you just want the entire thing, we can provide you the entire list that will have, you know, the the the hire dates, the names, the
salaries, etc., but it's about 158 pages long. >> Is that a an an Excel spreadsheet or you're just saying like you're going to send us a word document that'sund and something pages long? >> I have a PDF version. I can see if we can convert that to Excel or some kind of table format for you, but that's the
version that we currently have it in. >> There's a termination list that already exists because it was enacted. >> Yes, that's >> so we could get that list like >> I I provided the provisional termination list. I didn't provide it, but it was provided to the council president, I believe, over the weekend. I did forward
that list to Councilman Griffin, who asked for it, and I believe Councilman Efro also asked for it, and was provided a copy of it. Yeah, I have that list, but it doesn't it doesn't list the salaries. >> Oh, so I have to go back to that list, pull out the salaries, and put them in there. So, it just takes some time to do that for you, council president.
>> You I mean, Peter, I say all this to say that if this information is communicated, right? And granted, you everybody had work, everybody is doing something, but at the very least, if the council requests something, at the very
least within 72 hours, we should have a answer as it relates to when you can get it, how much time is going to take, and things that like these are like reasonable requests. A or chart. I don't think it's that hard to get a chart. A
copy of New Hires, hence the term new highest. We just did it. that should be readily available. So, some of these things are not like it's not it's like it's not far-fetched stuff. And the frustration with us is like when you
when when you're asking the counsel for something, it's like it's emergency surgery. Stop everything you're doing and attend to the surgery. Right? And that's that's part of the frustration because when people come to us and asking us questions, right? We just want
to make sure that we're armed with the information that should be available. I don't I I just honestly don't think it's a hard act. I >> I also can't imagine given the budget crisis that there are so many new hires this year that we can't put together a list quickly.
>> Again, we could talk about each of these individually. In general, though, just for your point, Councilman, we do prioritize the councilman, right? Uh, I will say that from my experience in this position and previously, there have been a lot more requests from this council than traditional. I think that's good. It shows the council is doing their
homework and they're definitely proactive in the process, but that puts restraints on our employees and our time frame that we're doing things. The priority is always if you are voting on it, we want to make sure you have that information as quickly as possible because it it affects your vote as it should and you should have as much
information as possible to make informed votes on the agendas. So that has always been the priority and why, you know, we work diligently to ensure that you do get the information prior to your votes and that if we can't give you that information, I've always instructed the staff to put a time frame in there so you know when you could expect it if
it's not prior to the vote, you know, when will you eventually receive it should it impact your vote. Um, a lot of these things like the organizational charts, I think I made a comment to even on the record before, we do anticipate providing those. We wanted to provide them during the budget hearings because we have to prepare them. The orbit
charts from the last administration are outdated. You know, they weren't always kept up to date. There is missing information. So, we could provide you a version of them, but not have the correct version that reflects what the new department directors are instituting in their individual departments. So, that was why certain those documents you
haven't received yet because as part of the budget hearing process, we're trying to make those available and update them so that accurate reflects information. So, when you speak to budget directors, you know, you're having the same conversation. You're not talking about different things. >> All right, Peter. Today is July 13, 2026.
There's three pressing documents, well, four that the council would like to receive. How long do you prefigure that it will take for us to get those documents? >> So, as I stated, I can get you the census report that has all the names on
it today, but it won't be sorted. If you want me to sort it, it's still going to take a little bit more time. I have to have staff available to do that. the organizational charts. I can get you the current versions today, but it may not have the most accurate information into it. >> Okay. All right. Well, if you can get
give us that list now, and then uh when when you guys get the other list, if you can give us that, that is >> Sounds good. We do. >> Council President, I just have one more comment I would like to make on the budget. Um, so I this is just not looking for a response here. Um, I just
want to correct something for the record for the general public. It's been reported that the council's um, budget has increased some 20 some%. I want to be perfectly clear that's a misrepresentation. It's inaccurate. Um, I'm coming short of
just saying the L word on this. U, but, um, it's really um, not factual at all. Look at look at your lying eyes on this budget and you'll see that the appropriation for 2025 for council
office salary and wages is 3.7 million and the appropriation for 2026 is 2.6 million less than 2.6 million. That's a 1.1 million decrease from 2025 to 2026.
to say otherwise is truly cherrypicking numbers, trying to find ways to um deceive the public, frankly, mis to mislead the public. And it's wrong and it needs to stop. Turn the temperature down. Stop stop the nonsense on that
stuff. And I will point out that on the mayor's office salary and wages 2025 introduced was 1 million and 13,737 and for 2026 it's 1,68,549
which is a $55,000 increase from 25 to 26 despite what everybody's all the other kind of reporting that's going on um out of this from this administration. So, as the council president and another letter said before, do better. This is
not do right by by the people of Jersey City. Stop misrepresenting um what's what this budget represents. >> Okay. Thank you, Bill. >> All right. Director Goodman, cultural affairs. Good afternoon, council president, city
council members. I have one item in front of you today. It is item 10.13, resolution 26-437. This is a resolution authorizing an access permit with New Jersey Transit to
utilize their parking lot for this Sunday's World Cup event and to issue a certificate of insurance. >> Questions? >> Number [clears throat] uh 10.13. >> Are they looking
Are they looking to get paid or they're donating a lot? You're donating the line. >> Okay. >> Thank you, director. >> Director Kirst OM. >> Good afternoon, President Ridley, members of the council. I have four
items before you this afternoon. First is resolution 2643510.11. This resolution authorizes the execution of an agreement between between the city of Jersey City and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for the use of the city's public safety training
facility during designated off hours. Under the terms of this agreement, Port Authority New York, New Jersey will pay the city $1,000 per training session conducted between the hours of 2:00 p.m. and 1000 p.m. Monday through Friday. Port Authority currently employs
approximately 2,300 sworn members. Each officer is required to complete mandatory firearms qualifications twice annually. satisfy the requirements. The PA anticipates utilizing the city's public safety training facility for appro approximately 100 training days
during each qualification cycle. Based on the anticipated uses usage, the agreement is expected to generate approximately $200,000 in annual rental revenue. This partnership maximizes the use of an existing existing municipal asset during periods when it would
otherwise be idle, generates a new source of revenue for the city, and does so without impacting normal city operations or training activities? >> Questions? >> Director, I see that they're also paying us $500 of overtime to cover our
staffing requirement needs. >> That's included in the $1,000 uh fee. >> Oh, so it's 500 per per stu per trainee. 500 for any overtime. >> Correct. And that would only be if in fact there was somebody out sick or something like that.
>> Director, how many um session will they use it for? >> I'm sorry, council. >> How many how many session will they use it for? >> Cycles. It would be two training cycles that approximately 2,300 office. Each officer has to go through the mandatory
training from the qualifications from the attorney general's office. So they're they're estimating their cycle would be approximately a 100 days each cycle. >> Thank you. >> Sorry, just follow up. So So it's it's it's $500 guaranteed and $500
reimbursement for overtime. >> Correct. >> Okay. So it's 500 uh $500 is guaranteed. We we may get additional money if one of our our officers or DPW or whoever's manning the facility, for lack of a better term, is at is out sick and not in their normal course. >> Correct.
>> Work. Okay. is what what's the going rate uh in the region for for this type of work? >> It's it's hard to judge with the in introduction of the conceal carry permits for civilians. A lot of the private rangers uh choose not to u
utilize the services of police departments simply because they're making more money. Um based on our uh review of this, this is a fair and equitable distribution of funds and there again will benefit the city when the range is not being used during
evening periods and will not impact our qualification cycles. >> Uh is there indemnification built in so we >> Yes, there is. That'll be part of theou. >> Thank you. >> Okay, next one director. Next item is 26461
1037 resolution to authorize the settlement of a claim by Centy Towing and Trucking in the amount of $36,000 for emergency towing fees, emergency towing services provided during the winter storms that impacted the city in January and February of 2026. These
services were necessary to support the emergency response operations and maintain safe and passable roadways during severe weather events. >> Hey, director. Um I know we voted on the tranch of these before. Is this the continuum of >> these are additional funds that they had sent in.
>> Okay. >> And they were they were verified. >> Is there any other outstanding ones outside of this? Cuz this will essentially be the second batch. >> Yeah, I believe there's one more company. King had provided additional um invoices which are being reviewed for
veracity. And to be clear, these this service is for not cars that were towed off premises. This was just to relocate them so we can plow through the >> That's correct. CN potentially one more outstanding that's
pending that you guys are reviewing. One more contract with another tow vendor. >> My knowledge, I believe King is the only one that had submitted additional invoices which are being verified. Now, are as it relates to the contract, were these
because this was an emergency contract, right? This wasn't something like uh uh uh normal where they went out to bid, was it? This was like emergency contract. >> That's correct. Yeah. Based on the request and the the need for do snow
removal, these were solicited on an emergency basis. Now, does the contract speak to if they get paid per volume like based on how many cars they move? Like how what they get paid on an hourly basis? >> Oh, hourly basis.
>> Correct. >> Yeah. And do you know the rate the hourly rate? >> Um I believe it's somewhere around hundred and some odd dollars per I haven't got the exact in front of me. >> And director um
You know what? Go ahead. I got my thought. >> All right. Next one. >> All right. Next would be 2646210.38. Resolution authorizes the settlement of a claim submitted by Easy Towing and Recovery in the amount of $57,000 for
emergency towing services provided during the winter storms that impacted the city in February of 2026. These services were necessary to support emergency response operations and maintain maintain safe and passable roadways during severe weather events.
>> Questions? >> Yes, I I know what my thought was and it Okay, so when the snow was what, December, January, and we're in July. What What took so long to bring these resolutions to >> I think it was a delay in submission of
paperwork, a delay in review. And obviously when my staff had them, I was a DPW director at the time and a person of my OEM staff, Tim Lawrence, was the responsible for overseeing the operations. So we had to verify each item one by one to make sure that the
items submitted reflected their actual services. >> While we're on the topic of snow, uh, have we filed claim against our salt distributor? send a written update to the council before the next council meeting. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. The final one is 26473 10.49. Resolution ratifies the emergency award of a contract to a Glennowitz demolition and environmental company for the emergency demolition of a partially collapsed building under construction at 84 Stegman Street at a removal of
associated debris at a total cost of $114,700. During a severe storm on Friday, July 3rd, heavy rain, lightning, and wind gusts exceeding 50 miles an hour caused the second level of the structure to shift from its foundation onto an adjacent property, creating an immediate
threat to public safety. Following a preliminary damage assessment conducted by the office of emergency management, homeland security, Jersey City fire department at a city's construction sub code official determined that the structure posed an imminent hazard and order its imed its immediate demolition.
The evacuation of several surrounding properties was also deemed necessary to protect nearby residents and the public. Repeated attempts to contact the property owner using the information posted at the site were unsuccessful. Given the urgent need and the dem urgent
need of the emergency and the immediate danger to life and property, there was insufficient time for the Department of Public Works to solicit formal quotations. Emergency demolition and DRE removal were thereby authorized and this resolution ratifies the emergency
contract in the award of $114,700. >> Yes. um to the administration. I just want to make sure um as it relates to this service that this developer is not
granted any permits to build unless this bill is paid in full to ensure that we place a lean on said location um to ensure that the city's being reimbursed for these services. if we can make sure
um that we're very strict on that u because ultimately the onus should have been on the developer to bring to bring the building down and not have city workers out there working on Saturday and Sunday and us negotiating private
contracts with private vendors. That's something that they should have done. They're well within capacity to do it. In fact, I'll even make the argument you should pull all open permits until he pay because he's got about four or five new constructions going on right now.
And and as a FYI, I believe this is the same developer who owns a dilapidated bank on one on Monteello Avenue that just had an electrical fire and he's doing nothing
to even secure that. So, yeah, this this this developers. [snorts] Uh, >> hope he's watching. >> Councilman, we agree fervently with you on that matter. Um, I'll let the corporation council opine about our legality of what we can do for them
specifically. However, the intent is obviously we approach the developer first, ask them to remit payment to us to reimburse us because that's the quickest way to get the money back for the taxpayers. However, if they're unable to do so, you're correct. The lean is our our next greatest option. Um, I've also ensured that before we went out there and during went out
there, all violations that should have been assigned to them were assigned by our construction department. They have made sure that they've looked at everything that applicable, you know, from every construction angle, safety angle, fire, all that kind of stuff. They've done the due diligence there. Um, and I'm happy to talk offline about,
you know, what we should do broadly for any developer, not just this one or any homeowner that is not follow our standards and what we should be doing for reviewing those practices. >> Maybe I miss it. Uh, Peter, can we char the owner to pay for demolition?
>> Yeah. So, that's the first step is always to ask them to pay before we even, you know, put a dime of the city's money out there, right? And in most cases, a lot of developers are willing and responsive. They have contractors that are supposed to be posted on the site and working on the site and maintaining the site and they're the
first ones to do that. Right? In this case, the contractor who is posted was not the contractor that was actually doing the work. So, there was a lot of violations relating to that. Um, in this case, because we contacted the uh developer and first couldn't get in contact with them and when we did, they
were not moving as quickly as they should be given the eminent danger. We had to bring that inhouse and have the city do the work for them. The second step there is then we contact the developer and say hey we had to do this work. Here's why we had to do it. Remmit us the money. If they remit us the money
back, then at least that part of it is resolved. If they do not pay us for that money for whatever reason, then we attach a lean to the property, which means they cannot sell the property or do anything with the property until that payment is made to the city. >> So Peter, I'm I'm I'm sorry. Um but
director Kier said he tried to reach out to the developer and had no success. So the first day Saturday when the you know Friday night the incident occurred they tried to contact the developer Saturday they could not get a hold of them Saturday. I don't believe it is until Sunday or Monday that they finally
got a hold of them but they're unable to have their contractor their people respond quickly enough. So that's when the decision was made we have to do it because if we need another building we had to vacate the buildings next to it and obviously you know we want to ensure the safety of the surrounding premises and any people that might be going by
it. Sarah, why don't we um move to put the lean on before asking them to pay so they don't try any uh funny business trying to sell the building or or the property. The the um demolition statute allows for a city to act quickly in an emergency like the director did and well
done uh and put an immediate tax lean on the property. >> That's correct. We can do it any order of operations. >> I understand the recommendation. >> Yeah, Peter, I I'm with you on asking them to pay. I would just put the lean on it now. Let's not miss out this opportunity.
Ask, they may say yes, they may say no. If you put the lean, they're they're going to have to pay it at some point. >> Also, um please help me understand. So, if there are other projects going from the same developer, can we put the whole councilman asked the same question. I'm
still not clear. What are the consequences for the same developer or owner if they are things like this is happening? How are we making sure that ongoing projects are so we can talk offline once a developer
has already been granted a permit. They do have certain entitlements under that permit. We can certainly enforce our code and make sure that any violations that are happening on any sites are enforced and are remedied. >> Thank you. All HHS.
>> Good afternoon, council president, council members. I am here with three resolutions. Agenda items 10.19, 20, and 21. The first is 1019 resolution 26-443
to uh apply for and accept $115,000 in funds from the state department of health to support the staff in our sexual um disease clinic. Um this is a renewal of a grant which we've had for many years.
questions >> 10:19 >> Paul is there any match >> there there is no match that it's generally not required from the department of health grants uh and this uh is not complete support but substantial support for our disease
investigators >> thank you >> 1020 resolution 26-444 also uh authorizing application an acceptance of a grant from the state department of health for public health
infrastructure. This is approximately $119,000 um dependent on the final grant amount that they award. It will not be less than that. This is essentially a a [snorts] renewal of the strengthening public
health infrastructure grant which we've had for several years previous. or can you talk about uh the services provided via this grant? >> Yes. Um I can briefly I was uh um
this is going to uh again be 100% for salary support. Um uh we are going to use it to upgrade our data and the availability of our data for both governance purposes as well as for the
public. Any match here? >> Pardon? No, no match. This this is um this will asking >> every every dime that comes through this grant is is is uh reimbursing a direct
cost in staff. >> Are the staff already um on staff or going to be looking to hire to fill those positions? I think uh that's a decision yet to be made. It's possible that we can
reallocate someone to it. It's possible. We also talked about the possibility of of um having someone as uh for just the one-year term of this grant uh to really start the infrastructure project rather
than maintain it perpetually. So, I would suggest, and I'm not saying that you should, that the person meets the qualifications. It's my understanding that uh it was provisional employee laid off who was grant funded. Um, and so if you're looking for
somebody, maybe it uh folks can take a look over there to see if there's somebody that we can bring back to the city and and um give them an opportunity to be able to take care of their families. >> Very much noted. >> Uh the final item I have is 10.2. 21
resolution 26-445. This is simply to amend an existing resolution 23-645, a contract which we have with the state university of of Rutgers um for our um
EPA air quality monitoring grant. This is simply to adjust the term of the contract since the grant which EPA ultimately awarded was 4 months shorter than the expected three-year term. >> So, so with this um
is this for the entire city or is this like in heavily uh chromium contaminated parts of the city? This is this is to monitor outdoor air quality. We f we deployed a strict and also to um engage affected community
members both on the issue of air quality but other environmental issues in their area. It's uh all uh 100% uh well the three air quality monitoring stations we installed were all in public housing sites on the south and west side of the
city. uh uh Booker T, Curry's Woods, and Marian. And community members from each of those neighborhoods were recruited and hired both for the steering committee for the project as well as to provide support for the equipment.
>> Thank you. >> The grant is almost complete and and it will be closed out uh within the next couple of months. >> Thank you, Paul. >> Thank you, council. Next up, uh, Robert Baker, public
safety. >> Good afternoon, council. Council President, I have four resolutions. My first one is item 10.8. It's resolution 26432. It's a resolution authorizing the city
of Jersey City Department of Public Safety to accept a gift from Silverman Building LLC for the City of Jersey City's Department of Public Safety annual senior event. It's in the amount of $5,000.
>> Questions? >> What was the number again? >> 10.8. Next one is item 10.9. It's resolution 26-433. It's a resolution authorizing the city of Jersey City Department of Public Safety to accept a gift from the
Exchange Place Alliance District Management for the City of Jersey City Department of Public Safety annual senior event. And this one is in the amount of $20,000. >> What is the annual senior event? We
already did Rock the Block or whatever the new name of it is. >> It's a new event. >> No, it's it's a it's a continuation. >> Uh so so we did Rock the Block already again, whatever it's called. Is this from Rock the Block or is this >> No, this is for the senior event. This
is for the senior the senior events that have already passed, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Councilman. It's the same thing. They called it a senior event. It's for Rock the Block. Uh I believe the money was already provided to us, but we have to do it by resolution to officially accept everything. So, this is more the cleanup
to make sure that legally we accept the money. >> So, I thought Thank you. So, so this is the second time these these these entities are donating to us because I do remember voting on these resolutions. >> I think those might be for FIFA.
>> So, some of these entities have donated to us for multiple events um as part of philanthropic effort of city to >> No, there's there was something else too. Yeah, >> it was it was for senior events specifically. I I can double check that, but I know that donated us for other things as well >> because
this is um >> No, that's that's Kushner. That's >> Yeah, these are the ones that were down it looks like down here. So, the other ones So, I guess the bigger question is for the ones that's held on Bram Hall and
Ocean, um are those sponsored as well? Peter, because we do what, five of them? >> I believe they do multiple. I don't know exact four or five. I I would have to double check. I just don't have the information in front of me, Councilman. >> Okay.
>> Next one. >> Next one is item 10.10. It's resolution 26-434, a resolution authorizing the city of Jersey City, Department of Public Safety, to accept the gift from Marane Boulevard Enterprises Incorporated for
the City of Jersey City Department of Public Safety for the annual senior event. And this one was in the amount of $5,000. >> All right, next one. Last one is item 10.45, resolution 26-469.
It's a resolution authorizing the city of Jersey City to apply and accept grant funds from the New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Highway Traffic Safety, Drive Sober or Get Pulled over grant for funding year
2026. This is so we could apply. The uh New Jersey Division of Highway and Traffic Safety will determine how much um the municipality actually gets. And this grant will be used for uh combat DWI. It
will cover u police overtime. >> Questions? >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> James Woods, Sergeant JCPD. Good afternoon, Council President Ridley
and members of the council. My name is Sergeant Jim Woods. I'm here to present on behalf of public safety resolution 26464. That's item 10-40. This is a resolution >> 10- I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. 10- >> 10-40 10-40.
>> Thank you. This is a resolution authorizing an award to of a contract to extraduty solutions for the administration of the police offduty program and a provision for onduty scheduling software through the cooperative excuse me the purchasing cooperative of America PCA for Jersey
City Police Department. The goal of this program is to acquire software and outsource the scheduling and administration of police the police department's offduty program at no direct cost to the city. Police Department has set out on a mission to ensure that customers of the offduty
program get an organized and accountable and consistent product from the officers who work at these details. In order to deliver this, we believe that a combination of outside administration and robust scheduling software will provide the quality that we're looking
for. Vendor Extraduty Solutions is capable of providing both. Uh they will handle the program's paperwork, financial transactions and collections as well as the scheduling compliance and provide a guaranteed payroll to the police department along with providing a
host of other scheduling software for the department for use on all of our scheduling needs. This will allow us to stop using paper forms and increase accountability and accuracy using mo excuse me utilizing modern software with robust capabil uh excuse me reporting
capabilities. Onboarding Extra Duty Solutions will allow us to move several civilian employees of the police department to areas within the department where they're desperately needed. Consistent with our offduty ordinance, Extra Duty Solutions will charge an 8% fee per hour, which will come directly from the administrative
fees we already collect for users of the program. Thank you. >> Questions? >> So, one second, Council Councilwoman Little. >> Thank you. Um, thank you so much for this description. Um my understanding
was that in the previous administration overtime scheduling was frequently frequently exceeded what had been budgeted for and that this has been a priority of this administration to sort of um rein in overtime spending. Is this
software something that you foresee um helping public safety get a better um a more streamlined scheduling procedure in place and something that would long-term save money on overtime? >> Sure. So, this is uh a two-part thing.
We have the offduty, which is how the city makes money with offduty officers at construction sites, and then we have the on duty. Overtime is not paid for offduty. That's a separate ordinance-driven rate. the overtime you speak of is a concern. Currently, all of our overtime scheduling is done on
paper. Um, this solves that. We move everything towards an electronic calendar where there's a ton of checks and balances, we avoid abuse, but most importantly, we can also plan ahead because we can see in real time what's occurring. So whereas right now this
weekend schedule lives in a piece of paper on someone's desk, soon we'll be able to look at our phone, find out what our scheduling needs are as they dynamically happen. And I do hope that this is going to have a very positive impact on how we do overtime. >> This this is for the officers you see on
uh they're in uniform but off duty working construction sites of the flagger jobs and there's no cost to the city for this. Correct. >> There's no direct cost to the city. No, this does not change anything with the flaggers. This is only how we're going
to schedule police officers at those offduty jobs. >> Right. And for this software, instead of entering into a contract with them, they take 8% off of what off the top of whatever we we make. That's correct. Per hour. Yes. >> But the the software isn't for all
overtime. It's just for this specific kind of offduty work. Is that right? >> The software is for both sides of the house. >> It is for both. >> Off duty and on duty. In order to ensure compliance at the department level, we need those systems to be for both. Otherwise, there could be potential for abuse on either side if they're not
together. >> Even when the city is getting JCPD to do overtime, >> we are not paying for that. >> We're not paying for that because all of the costs of both sides are being paid by the 8% transaction fee on that from that one side of it.
>> So, so this integrates into how we'd run the offduty right now. So, it can reflect, you know, what officers are on duty, off duty, etc. That way you know the appropriate you know appropriate amount of officers off duty to work these jobs and everything else and there's no cost uh besides what will be
attached to the administrative fee for the actual vendors that are utilizing this. >> So is it is it Sergeant Woods? >> Yes sir. Um so so currently it's it's being done
with paper right and this uh program and system will um digitize all that make it electronic in some way. Um so the cost comes from the offduty side. On the on duty side um
is there a separate cost that's build or how how is that being paid for? Um the offduty vendor, the extra duty solutions developed the software for both offduty and on duty. The cost for both of those suites of software plus their
administration is only taken out of the billable hours on the offduty side. >> How does that impact offduty rates? >> Right now we pay, excuse me, the city ordinance defines a administrative fee
of $22 per hour worked. This would be 8% of the $75. There's a couple of rates, but if we just generalize the $75 one, this would be a $6 uh $6 of that $22 administrative fee would go to Extra Duty Solutions
>> and and who's who's going to administer um the program? Is it being administered within the um police department in terms of I would assume the scheduling, but how about the billing side of things? So the perk of outsourcing this to Extra Duty Solutions is it provides us with a
safety for the compliance on the vendor side, making sure that we get paid as well as a collection mechanism that we currently don't have. Right now, every two weeks, Extra Duty Solutions is going to forward us the money whether or not they've received that money from the actual customer. So this protects our
payroll. >> I have a question. So, the officers that will be off duty or overtime, will they have to have this uh uh software on their phones? >> Yes. >> And is there GPS?
>> Yes. >> People will know that they're on site. >> That is one of the major perks out of this is from the compliance issue is that we can ensure the people that we're charging money for that our officer is on scene. Every single police officer has already received a cityisssued cell
phone. It is our intention that we put this software on that phone that when they go to the job, they are forced to sign in on that job and all of the uh information for that that job will be there and provided to the officer. >> Okay. Now, let me let me ask a question.
Um and maybe this is a a a question for the vendor. Is there something that they can put on a phone where the officer has to log in like every five or 10 minutes because we don't want nobody leaving the phone and bouncing. [clears throat]
>> That's a great point. I don't believe that the vendor has that installed right now. I do know they have a geo fencing um provision in the app that while you're in that job for 4 to 8 hours, you need to stay within that geo fence. So if you were to leave that, we could be
notified. Well, I mean, if but if the phone is there, you're not going to get notified. >> I would certainly take that back to the vendor and see if there's something we can do. >> The thing is the the offduty the offduty program is paid by the vendor. I mean,
by the people who's asking for the service. So, I mean, they can't be off duty and get overtime. It's for offduty and overtime. Correct. >> I was answering your question for off duty. I show up to PSG. >> They're going to they got to they're going to be at their post. They post
whatever their post is. >> When an officer is on overtime, they have to check in. There's roll calls of the radios. That that's the to your point, Councilman, to ensure some officer isn't doing their own thing, so to speak. They have protocols in place of the police to make sure that if they're clocked in, they are working. They're responding. They're accounted
for. in the past. In the past, >> they was going home. >> They were going home. They weren't showing up and you had people signing them in. Um, and it it was it was people were basically stealing time and we need
to avoid that. >> That was for the offduty I believe is what you're referring to, Councilman, which you know the council is very aware of. There's been a history of legal actions, etc. That stuff will be accounted for with the new software where you're geo fenced into that. Um, and to the councilman's point, that really is a contract between the vendor
and the police officer. The city does, I guess, have eyes on it, but we do not administer it per se. That is a direct contract between the officer and that company. Um, but for the over the overtime, we do monitor that. There are check-ins. You know, the supervisors are obviously making sure their employees
are where they need to be. >> Thank you. Bernard Herk, VA's office. >> Good afternoon, council president, members of city council. I got two resolutions for you. The first one is agenda item 10.36. Resolution 26-460
is a resolution ratifying emergency contract award to Herk Rentals for providing air conditioning units at the municipal court and the East District Police Station. Total money contract is $77,532. >> Questions?
>> So, this is for the wait uh >> can I ask you >> air conditioner and at municipal court? I thought is this annually? They just had an issue last year with the >> Yeah. So, this is to provide temporary
cooling units for BCI and for the courtrooms and all of the other administrative offices. Last year, we ran into this issue again. We provided temporary cooling units, but the second reading ordinance that you passed last council meeting uh which gave us uh
dollars to uh do building improvements to the HVAC over at the east district and the municipal court. So, uh a bid a bidspec was just previously approved which is going to be going out soon to replace the whole entire system over there at the courthouse and then Bishop
Street next. Oh, so this is just something in the meantime until that gets settled with a permanent fixture. >> Yeah, this is just a temporary solution to get them proper cooling through the summer months. >> And and Bernard, just to be clear, Herk Rental isn't you, is it?
>> No. >> Okay. >> It spelled differently. [laughter] >> What's the duration, Bernard, for the this contract? >> Uh, I believe this goes into the end of September. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. And and when do we expect the work to be
done? Because I know the east district they've been soon as the soon as the PO get issued and the scope of work in the contract I instruct whatever vendor gets award the bid um I'll instruct them to purchase the material as soon as possible.
>> Okay. The council identification the anticipation is to have all the work for both those facilities done prior to next summer. So obviously we're not going this process again where we're trying to find stop gaps and spending more money than we should after doing a permanent fix. Obviously as you guys know that was
a capital ordinance that was passed last time. So the permanent fix is not interacting affecting the operational budget. It comes from the capital. >> They could use some of this air in a municipal building. >> Right. And I mean you know just to be clear you know these are people that
that protect and serve our city and you know we've been through heat waves. So, you know, it's important that we keep them as comfortable as possible. >> I I I also just want to say, you know, I missed the last couple of meetings and I know we got some complaints that it was
very warm in here. Um, it's either very warm or very chilly. Um, I would take the chili especially during these summer months over the warm. >> It feels great Sean here. Thank you. And thanks to Bernard for fixing our air yesterday. I understand it wasn't
working over the weekend. So Bernard is the man. >> Job, John. >> All right, next one. Bernard. >> Next one is agenda item 10.46, resolution 26-470.
This is a resolution rejecting all bids received pursuant to NJSA4A1-13.2 to subsection E regarding a public bid for the procurement of HAC services. Uh recent bid came in from municipal from McCluskey mechanical contractors in the
amount of 9,889,946 and this went way over the total amount that uh we budgeted for. >> Questions? Okay, thank you. Oh, wait one second. Councilman Griffin has a question. >> Yeah, I'm sorry. I can't get the
Why Why are we rejecting? >> So, the amount The amount that they uh submitted the bid was close to $10 million >> to provide citywide maintenance for HVAC services, and that was way over what we budgeted for. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> We're going back out to bid. >> No. So the again the background for this new purchasing law you're allowed to bid once see if you receive any bids. If you do not receive it you have to put it out a second time. That's what this bid is. Uh if the second time you don't receive
any bids or you receive bids that do not comport with what your ask is through the bid process. You can reject all bids and then you can do direct negotiations. So that's the intent. Now this is the second time we're rejecting it. we can then go back to the vendors out there that maybe shown interest and say is
there ways that we can tweak the contract not substantially but enough that would make it beneficial to you and fall in the lines of the budget we have set for it >> right and and and these are the uh these are the vendors who placed the bid >> right so this is rejecting all
>> we're rejecting and going back to the people who placed the bid or responded to the bid to renegotiate >> correct I don't think we're just limited to the people who responded. We could >> It's open >> It's open to anyone who provides a service. I'll double check that with
purchasing. Um but we have to stay substantially to the terms of the original bid process. We can just try to tweak it or clarify language that may have made it not um opportunistic for different vendors. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Director Marion planning time. Uh for the record, myself and the assessor are cold [laughter] here for uh three items today. Uh excuse me, I do have a little bit of allergies, so bear with me. Uh 3.1 on the agenda,
which is first reading, and this is to remove data centers as a principal use from industrial districts. Um 10.28, 28 which is to open the central a redevelopment plan and 10.29 which is to open the Morris
Canal redevelopment plan that's specific to 417 uh communal. So we can go through each one of those um unless you want to unless you got a jump on question that you want me to ask. Okay, let's take it from the top. >> So So with the data centers, hotel data
centers, >> what did he say >> it? It said hotel data centers. >> It's a I >> cyber hotel hotel cyber centers. >> For whatever reason in the year 2001 they decided to call it a cyber hotel. I have yet to see anywhere in my search of
the internet what a cyber hotel is and what it has anything to do with the actual data center that we know it as today. It sounds like some place I would not let my daughter go anywhere within 100 ft of. But hotel, cyber hotel, at least within our definition standards
within chapter 345, when you go look to the definition, it says C data center. So it is really just a data center. >> Yeah. I mean, yeah, it sounds like uh hotel.com or something like that. >> Yeah. Um so it slightly confusing at
least why we have the the wording in there, but I didn't want to mess up too much. Uh the 2000 master plan did suggest that we start to consider uh infrastructure for um basically dealing with all of the internet that was coming
our way. Um and the idea was that always it would be coll-located within the building that the offices that it was serving. Um never that it would be a permanent principal use. And so this last amendment uh this last master plan update in 2020 just recommended that we
eliminate it as a principal use from our industrial districts. If you are familiar with what's happening um I'd say almost nationwide a lot of the data centers are these larger structures within industrial areas or just abandoned kind of areas. Um they are
huge principal structures where the only thing that happens is they became basically like a server farm. um this would prohibit something like that happening in Jersey City within our industrial district. >> So, so then um this is the only
cyber center, data center, anything written into law hotel like there's no other >> within the industrial district is the only place that we permit it as a principal use. It is permitted as a colloccated use. So for example in
Newport in a lot of the offices maybe one or two of the floors will be basically data centers cyber like the a room full of servers and it serves the the the other offices within the building >> my office has been working on the
resolution for that for next time we'll have it just opposing that we do not need any data centers in Jersey City because of the side effects. So, thank you for doing it. I think we'll be introducing that next meeting
resolution on data center. >> Um, what would the what what would the process be? Uh, should we pass this? I mean, would there be a timeline of when these data centers have to shut down by? So this is the your your process is the first
reading, second reading and then it just gets removed from my zoning ordinance. There are no existing principal primary data centers anywhere within Jersey City. Within my staff report, I I list existing ones. They are colllocated
within office buildings. Mo almost all of them, yes, all of them are downtown. Um, and they are, like I said, one was is within Newport, one is in Colgate, and they only are one or two floors of an of an office building. So, there's
nothing that would um stop anything from existing. Um, it would just prohibit the ability for a new uh center to come up. Not not prohibited because that's not how obviously due process works. They can still apply for variance if they wanted to. Um, but this certainly moves
the intention of the master plan forward by eliminating it as the principal use. >> Any other questions? 3.1. Okay, next one. >> Great. So, that's 10.28 and that's the central redevelopment plan. Um, we've been working with Councilman Afro. Thank
you again so much for working with us on this. Um we have been um approached by a developer who would like to be able to develop um affordable senior housing. Um but because of the way that the existing plan is written, it makes it very difficult to kind of separate out um at
least the the larger requirement for the lock consolidation and the ability to provide um the affordable housing. So, uh, Councilman Efos has been working with the SID, and I I'm not 100% sure you could speak more about the neighborhood. Um, and they've agreed to
at least allow us to to move the resolution forward to open the plan to allow the conversation to move forward with the community and the SID to incorporate um, basically what it would be is a subdivision so that the large lot doesn't have to be developed as a as
a whole and we can develop the affordable senior housing separately. So I'm I'm I'm Okay. So what amendments need to be made to bring senior housing to Central Avenue? >> Yes. So the way the plan was so the
parking lot up on Central Avenue um the way the plan was written is that the entire lot has to be developed as a whole. >> Okay. >> There are requirements within that development. Some of them are um affordable housing. Some of them are
actually there's no affordable uh give me >> parking lot right >> remember my brain but I think there is a minimum affordable housing in it yes there's 20% affordable housing in it I apologize um parking garage 450 parking spaces and a set aside space for
recreation kind of open plaza >> and and variances won't work >> variances won't work >> no not in a redevelopment plan >> okay the the reason the reason why I asked this is because you know I I fear
when redevelopment plans are opened because you know other things may get tweaked that shouldn't have to. Um, and you know, I just, you know, want everybody to be mindful to just that's
that's, you know, just focus on that because, you know, I've I've seen it happen where redevelopment plans are open and then you have other people with another agenda and say, "Well, we need to talk about this and um, we need to
change this um and and so um yeah, so when It's open. You want to be on top of that? >> I I appreciate the concern there. I think this um specific instance where it
seems like we're doing the right thing here. Talked with the central a SID um and so I gave them the heads up about this resolution and they they totally understand this is a first step. Um not as locking us in to this particular development. I spoke with the Central
Heights Neighborhood Association leaders and the Riverview Neighborhood Association development folks about the same thing and they all understand this as a first step. Um my understanding, Tanya, please correct me if I'm wrong, is that really this would just subdivide
um the majority of the lot and this is the lot behind the Burger King uh lot 49, right? um the majority of that lot would remain uh with the redevelopment plan specifications as they stand right now. Um and then one part of the lot,
the about like 60 out of 160 parking spaces, uh would be eligible for discussion for this proposed 100% affordable senior housing site. Um and that that site would also nothing within
that uh proposal and you know that proposal still is up for discussion but nothing within the the proposal that we've been given so far is in violation of the redevelopment plan specifications. It's just not using the entire space. Is that accurate?
>> That's accurate. >> But I appreciate Yeah. the concern about reopening and it being, you know, haywire from there. But I think this is the right move. Councilman, thank you so much for doing it. There are so many seniors have been waiting for years and we need to think about them. So, thank
you. Thank you, Tanya. >> And um Tanya, so the the developer is opening his plan, correct? >> The request came from the developer. Correct. >> Okay. And is he being charged the the fee to open the plan? >> We can and we will.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Let's do that. Thank you. Who is the developer? Debellis deises >> Franklin development develis. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Um so just a couple of questions. Um my memory's
uh not great on this at this point. It's been a long time. This is the the the plan where there was some density bonuses I think for um parking parking garage affordable housing. I don't remember exactly what the what triggered
it. Um if I could get a copy of the redevelopment plan and the map um with regard to that, that'd be helpful. Um and then what's the timetable um moving forward in terms of um doing the study and coming back to the going to the
planning board and then the council? >> I we'll be working with the councilman's office um any public hearings. I know that I'd rather um the councilman's office work with us and kind of lead that so that it's not really developerled and the developer can come to those meetings and we can have a
little bit more of a an easy conversation as to what the neighborhood will really be okay with along with the SID because there's a couple different stakeholders here, not just the neighbors, um but it's also the SID. So I I mean I don't want to put a like a I don't want to put a tight time frame on
it because I think there's a few things that need to be done. Okay. >> I'll just add to in our discussion of this um the the space uh beyond what the developer develops is proposing here um the space that would remain just the
redevelopment plan as is. Um there's a lease there that expires in a year and change uh October 2027 I believe. So I think as we consider the proposal uh that's being given to us for this 100%
affordable senior uh development, we can start to think about what we want to do with the rest of the space and with the rest of the site. So these community meetings that we'll hold can just generate that kind of discussion of the the vision for the entire site which I look forward to talking with the
community about. >> Forgot about that but yes you're correct. >> Yeah. And then last one. >> Yep. Sorry. Finally is the Morris Canal very specifically for 17 commun um and we've been here before to ask to open the plan to do the study. I believe
since the last time uh Matt was here, Matt Ward, I believe the developer has reached out, at least that's what they've told us um to both council folks uh Ridley and Gilmore and have met with um Morris Canal uh to kind of at least
discuss some of the preliminary ideas that they had for the grosser and the um proposal moving forward. So again this is just a resolution to authorize the study to open to have the conversations about the amendment. >> Oh just item was this
>> 10.29 >> or 17. So just so we clear that I was under the impression that we were continuing to have dialogue. This is new
to me that um this being on this agenda. Now, when you say when when they articulated our communication, all they said was that they reached out to my office. Correct. >> Uh, yes. I mean, I can look at the email
very Matt. Unfortunately, Matt's been away for two weeks. So, I've been relying on the communication that the developers had saying that they >> because Gilmore um people um and also actually spoke with June Jones and the Morris
Canal CDC. So, so I think what what might have happened was they got uh the councilman and I confused. People tend to do that. I know Sean does it a lot. >> Um so, >> oh about to say, yeah, cuz we we still was having dialogue. I don't know.
>> Absolutely. No love. >> Sorry. >> The returning clerk. >> So, so that [laughter] so you know that that may be the issue. Um I I did meet with them, spoke with them. I think Peter um you know um and I know that they had
the community meeting about a week or two ago. Um but what from my understanding is that the community meeting went well and the and basically you know they the community is um
most of the requests um they're like taking in a heavy consideration and they're looking to do it. And also you know it made me think like does the redevelopment plan need to be open? like what what what does this
development plan need to be open for again? the the amendment the proposal is something different than what was originally recently I don't know if I'd say recently everything is recent right now to me but was last approved for which was the I believe it was 17
stories the community rec center um and 5% affordable housing and subsidized um retail I believe that that was what the amendment was the amendment today and the last form that I saw it I believe
was six stories um affordable housing and a potential at least the conversation was after meetings with the community retail space like a grosser specifically. >> Okay. And and so even though the 17 stories is no longer
and it's six stories, it's it's still um from my understanding um is still the same density. Correct. >> I I'm I'm honestly not sure. >> Okay. I it I believe yes, but I'm not sure. I know that the units in the 17 story were larger
>> um than >> I mean yeah in scale. Yeah. But >> just larger in size unit wise. Um the developer who did the 17 stories was the developer who was >> typically doing much larger units like the ones you see in um like a Cano and all of that,
>> right? >> Uh they might have been larger, but let me check. I >> think they're the same number of units. >> Councilman Thank you. Go ahead council. I >> just want to say that I attended the meeting. So now what they are uh
community is asking for a grocery store. Also developer is giving uh 2,000 square ft approximately not the rec center just a area open for public but comm. I'm
sorry. >> Yes. Yes. Uh but that's the what they are saying that they can have that as sort of open area to just play for kids and all of that and
community was sort of pretty u I mean I did not feel lot of negativity there about this project but of course they have some concerns they are happy about affordable uh I think
it's I'm forgetting the number but I can it was uh 10%. Right? >> That's the current uh inclusionary zoning requirement. I don't know if they proposed more as a part of their original conversation. >> 10% >> 10% is currently
>> in the plan >> and and then the proposed or the concept >> to be very honest with you. I'm not sure 10% would be the requirement as the inclusionary zoning ordinance stands today. I don't know if they met with the
community and proposed more or not. >> Again, I mean, I know that you're you've been more used to seeing Matt Ward have these conversations with you, but this is just the authorization study. So in the interim from the last time we were here till today the developer did reach
out to us and asked us to have another follow-up conversation which we told them no because we didn't have the authority to do so. So [laughter] um we are we take we take your word very seriously. Um but even for us to continue to have those conversations on
what the amendment looks like and to be a part of that we do have to have the authorization from the council to do that. >> Okay. So, let's um I guess get our questions answered. Uh Councilman Gilmore, I know Councilwoman Singh was at the meeting. Um so, let's try to get
some clarity before Wednesday of exactly, I guess, where the council is going with this. For >> the record, I I have a few more questions. I'll I'll reach out to you directly, Tanya. >> Yeah, you can absolutely. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I'll definitely reach out to because this I don't know this.
>> Yes, reach out. I'm sorry. Yes. said. >> No, I said I'll um continue to reach out because I I wasn't prepared for this to be on this uh upcoming agenda uh just based on the conversations I've been having. So, I don't know. Um so, I I'll
definitely reach out to um to you, Tanya, your office, and uh with the administration. >> Okay. Whatever you need. >> Thank you. Uh Director Woodson. Good afternoon, council president and
council members. I have six resolutions before you today. Uh starting out with agenda number 1030, resolution 26-454. It's a resolution concerning local
support for Warrior Weed LLC to operate a class 5 retail cannabis business at 415 Mammoth Street. Uh this resolution came before the council on February 25th and 2026. uh because there was no reason for uh
reason stated um or documented I should say on record. The court has ordered uh the return of this resolution and for reconsideration >> questions. >> Next one. >> Next is uh agenda number 10.31
resolution 26-455. It's a resolution concerning renewing local support for Downtown Flower LLC, previously Oceanfront Holdings LLC, to operate a class 5 retail cannabis business at 141 North Avenue. This is
just for the renewal of the license. Do we um check to any compliance checks with regard to paying their taxes? any other issues with I don't know um code violations,
anything else? Do we do any of that stuff before we >> We always check to make sure they're in compliance and their taxes paid. >> We get a compliance report on them or is that already available? >> We can give we can supply one. Sure. >> For each of them, that's all. >> Sure. Okay.
Next is agenda number 10.32, resolution 26-456. It's also a resolution concerning renewing local support for Greentop Wellness LLC to operate a class 5 retail cannabis business at 516 Tunnel Avenue.
>> Questions? >> I'm sorry. These are for them to renew their license. >> Yes, it's required for the state renewal. >> Oh, it's required by the state that the council >> Yes. >> support. Okay. All right. Okay. Thank you. You answer my question.
Next is agenda number 10.33, resolution 26-457. It's a resolution concerning renewal local support for Jersey Leaf LLC to operate a class 5 retail cannabis business at 554 Westside Avenue.
>> Questions? Uh question to corporate council. Do we have to for public uh we have to say it right here? >> So the appellet court has clarified that the council is supposed to share its
reasons on the record with the public for voting to provide or decline support. The law department will help the council memorialize those reasons that it shares on the record on Wednesday into a written correspondence that will be incorporated into the meaning minutes. I will say if council
is going to vote yes, it's highly unlikely that anyone would challenge that decision, but we'll still dot our eyes and cross our tees and make sure you share your reasons on the record. If council is inclined to deny any resolution of support, then it's especially important that we've given everyone a wholesome explanation of why.
Council cannot be arbitrary or capricious. Um, so you cannot provide any reason under the sun. It needs to be a thoughtful reason that's principled. Feedback from the community, for example, is is almost always a a non-arbitrary and reasonable basis for
your decision-making. But if you're ever not sure if you're considering lawful or unlawful reasons, just ask me for a sidebar and we can talk about it before you share your thoughts on the record. >> I think one or two were approved by previous council,
so we will be approving that again. Director Woodson can explain further, but these are annual renewals that are required by state law. >> State law just requires that that to continue this. >> So, we're going to vote yes likely because practically no one would
challenge it. But we don't need to give reasons other than rejecting a renewal. Right. >> If you're going to renew, I would encourage you to give some reason, even if it's very brief, even if it's just a few council people saying no concerns. Then we're going to need a report to
that I can vote in good conscious that there are I have no concerns because I'm not a customer of any of these places. >> Absolutely. >> Could I get um a map of um all of the current um licenses
for retail and do we have that at uh >> addresses? There was a rule at one time about proximity, right? like uh I don't know if that still exists today. >> It's no longer in the in the ordinance. >> Um and it was that was the previous
council got rid of that requirement. >> When when the cap was added, that's when it was removed. >> I see. >> Did I >> Is there a map anyway? >> Yes, we can supply you with a map. Absolutely. >> Next one. This one is item number 10.34,
resolution 26458. It's also a resolution concerning renewing local support for MMD New Jersey Incorporated to operate a class 5 retail cannabis business at 655 Newark Avenue. >> Next one.
>> And last is item number 10.35, resolution 26-459. It's a resolution concerning renewing local support for RIP Ripped Dispensary LLC uh located at 220 Broadway.
>> Any other questions? Council. >> Thank you, Director. >> Thank you. >> Director Vincent, Recreation. >> Good afternoon, Council President, City Council. Pete Finson here today representing the Department of Recreation. I have two items uh for
consideration. First one is agenda item 3.8, ordinance 26-064. Uh this is an or ordinance amending chapter 160 fees and charges amending the fee schedule for city-owned and
operated parks to allow for the rental of athletic fields, public spaces, and the operation of adult athletic leagues and various other fees. >> Questions? >> Who who are we looking to rent uh
these uh spaces to? Currently, we rent these spaces. Right now, we're not charging for them. So, who uses our fields? Uh we have our own recreation programming that uses the fields. We have uh schools that use the fields. We
have little leagues that use the fields. Um but we also have other groups that come in, whether they're adult groups, third party organizations. We're looking to charge a permit fee for those groups. We're not charging uh obviously our
recreation programming uh and we're not also charging like indirect city um groups such as like little leagues and other organizations. These would be for uh there would be two types of uh fees.
There would be uh resident fee and a non-resident fee. Um, and they would be for organizations that come in and just want to run their own things, uh, different events on our spaces such as birthday parties, pickup games, other
activities. >> Yeah. So I remember back when I was in recreation some time ago um individuals like organizations will come from New York rent in the fields I mean using the
fields um and part of me was upset in the sense that a lot of times when these people from outside are using our fields it takes away access from the local groups and then also part of me was upset because some of these leads was charging good money for people to
participate in these leagues and we weren't getting any revenue from the fields. You got to understand every time these fields are played on, practice on, it takes wear and tear. Um, so I think that it's it's responsible government to
make sure that we're getting some form of revenue for the utilization of our fields. That way we'll have the ability to upkeep them. we have the ability to generate funds that can, you know, help our program and things of that nature.
So, I think this is this is this is great. >> Can I add one thing to that too, Councilman Gilmore? Uh, as of now, 10 to 15% of individuals that we grant permits to uh end up being no shows. So, they're
actually holding up field space. And so, charging a permit fee would then be a non-refundable fee that we would at least recoup. So, right now, I know there's been a lot of uh push back about people using fields and seeing fields empty. It doesn't necessarily mean it
wasn't permitted out or scheduled out. It just means maybe that group that >> went to use that field and got that permit did a no-show. So, at least we would get something out of that. >> And do you have a >> I have a couple of questions.
So under section D schedule says that all participants in um in a recreation program offered by Jersey City will be required to pay these fees. So does that mean that residents will have to pay on an hourly
basis or sign their kids up for our recreation programs? >> Well that well this is just changing the fee schedule. So for example, that is specific to the implementation of the adult recreation league only. So it's
it's saying that with that fee um the payment there needs to be a payment schedule, right? So a lot of the recreation program we have for youth now is free. Uh there are some programs where we do charge that's just an upfront cost. It's like $5, $10.
Sometimes it's the max is like $20 for a program. Um the adult leagues however would be a much higher cost it's an average of $15 a week. Um but for a 10w week season um and so really it's just
an implementation of the payment fee schedule when we would collect those fees and like this much money needs to be paid to participate in the league before you can participate. >> Okay. Um how about nonprofit
organization? Are you going to charge them same money or it will be different fee structure for nonprofit organizations? >> Right now the differentiation that we have is only resident versus
non-resident. I mean that's something I think we can discuss if you guys want to add that. um you know uh nonprofit organizations do account for rental fees and and do build that into most of their budgets. So um they are
equipped to handle that. So, I think putting the focus on resident versus non-resident um to Councilman Gilmore's attitation of having these outside groups come in from New York City to utilize our spaces is um is where we
should focus more on rather than pro forprofit and nonprofit. >> Right. I sorry, can I continue? >> Go ahead. So the reason I'm suggesting uh I mean I will suggest to have that fee structure because even culture affair has a fees for nonprofit and
for-profit organization even they there when they are organizing events at the city property that is something to consider because like JCSA they are nonprofit I believe they are nonprofit they are uh they charge really nominal
fees just you know running programming throughout the the year. So, something to think about. >> Okay. So, I get um Sarah, would that be considered as a major change if we adjust um for nonprofit fees?
Would that be considered as a major change? >> So, this is a first reading ordinance. So, we can change anything before the vote on Wednesday and then any changes after that point can only be minor. It has to go back to first reading. I just do want to also point out there are some
edits that need to be made because there was something that was supposed to be removed that's not couple verbiage here. We're calling uh basketball courts fields. So there just needs to be some uh edits made as well. So I'll make sure that that's done and sent to you Pete. Um so you have it >> director actually if you can send that
to me. >> Oh yeah sure. >> And I'll make those corrections for you. >> Yes sir. >> Thank you. And also when it comes to to nonprofit, I I think we need to be careful with that because a lot of sports clubs are nonprofit. Um because they have to collect money. So I think
the the local versus out of town is is is is better verbiage than profit versus nonprofit because, you know, we don't want these adult clubs coming and taking advantage of a a um a reduced rate when
they should be paying a full rate. And that was the total thought process behind that. >> But I mean, if we can specify I mean because there's a difference between nonprofits that Jersey City recipients benefit from. So we could say Jersey Citybased
nonprofits um versus opening it up to nonprofits in general because I mean I understand what the intent is and I agree, but I don't want any unattended consequences to be placed on those nonprofits. um that's local. Um some of
these nonprofits is no profit. They don't like they they don't even bring anything in. Um so we just want to make sure you know we consider >> that and absolutely >> director Vincent that is absolutely fine. They can be nonprofit based in
Jersey City. They they are just getting discounted fees. They still paying. Nobody is asking them not to charge because then they'll be misusing it for sure. Also just to clarify all of them will be submitting their insurance liability insurance and all the documents
>> as stated here. Yes. So the the thought process these are below standard municipal wages um fees that we found. Um so they're very low to begin with. Um the plan is to look at how to standardize these in the future. Um but
then we wanted to avoid breaking it down into like six different categories of cost or or fees of saying forprofit, nonprofit, in resident, out of resident, in ward, out of ward, uh youth, adult, right? So upon further discussion, we can have
eight different fees, you know, for one baseball team. So we just tried to keep it as simple as possible for this um you know new this is the first time we're ever doing this so we wanted to try to keep it as simple as possible. I get that point. Maybe that can be the starting but in future you want to
consider and also culture affair has a form to reserve the city park maybe something if you uh want to explore what are the options can be chosen from there you don't have to do anything right away it's just a suggestion for future
>> thank you director >> thank you >> I have a question director >> yes >> how do you define and distinguish between resident versus non-resident >> well when they fill out the form to um request the field. We utilize a software
that they um can uh fill out the request for a permit. They do have to fill out that information and it does include their address. So we will have that information. >> Address of the applicant. >> Yes. So, so for example, it's a it's a organization
from Elizabeth, New Jersey, and they're doing a program that has 100% Jersey City kids in it. Right. YMCA from New Act, let me just YMCA from New York is doing a program in Jersey City
and it's Jersey City is 100% of their kids. Are they are they paying non-resident rates? >> So, we have that that that has happened in the past. So we would partner with those groups. So we have other groups that we do that like for example the New Jersey Devils. They come in, they do a
program at one of our facilities. Uh sometimes there is a cost, sometimes no cost to our kids. Uh and we don't we wouldn't charge them a permit fee because they're work like an extended vendor program within the city. So if is that what you're referring to? Are you referring to someone who it just has
their LLC or organization based in Elizabeth but services the youth of Jersey City? Um, I mean, there's an organization out in Bergen County just um and they want to do a program at the Bthoon Center with Jersey City Kids. Um, this is
actually real example right now for me. So, um, and you they're they're non-resident and the applicant is non-resident, but they're they're working with Jur City kids and Jersey City public schools possibly. I'm not sure exactly how they're going to get
their kids. Um, but it is Tur City youth. Um, are they considered non-resident? I just want to understand they would be they would be um we would need more detail, but they would be considered non-resident because that's the address that they're providing to
us. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Um, and do we define that in the um the ordinance in terms of how resident or non-resident So there's no ambiguity and there's no misunderstanding. But for applicants who
come before the uh >> I think it's just solely based on the address they provide to us, the information they provide to us. >> The ordinance does not define that specifically, but it leaves up to director to work on an administrative
definition of what a resident or not would be, which I'm happy for him to collaborate with the council to make sure that comports to your understanding of that. The other thing I want to point out too is we're not including all facilities on this just yet. What we've introduced is a specific list of
facilities that we feel are the like hot commodity of uh and most used spaces >> um where there is a um an ask of the public to use more so than other spaces and we want to you know do this test run
with these facilities first. Okay. >> Yeah. Um and then for for local organizations um I know it says that you have they have to well any organization looking to apply any applicant has to provide 30
days at least minimum 30 days um application. So, if uh a local youth organization applies um 45 days out, but some
for-profit organization applies 60 days out, is it just a first come, first serve? Is that how that works? Looking for the same date? >> It's a great question. So they are made aware that any fields or spaces that they would like to request
um the permit can be terminated for I think two or three different reasons. One, if Jersey City Public Schools needs to use the certain field, it depends on the field that they're requesting. For example, if it's Caven Point, Jersey City Public School System has priority. Uh and then obviously our recreation
programs have second priority. And then it's the it's the um the person who's um requesting the permit for mostly all of our facilities. That's the company line we give them when they request the permits now. >> Okay.
So, okay. So, when it comes to priority, um I mean I I I can understand thinking about the about the kids and and and wreck, but there's no way to like um reschedule. I mean, yeah, you know,
I mean, I I hate to say it, but you know, I think, you know, at this time trying to find ways to generate revenue um should be the priority. >> Yeah. uh in in a situation that we're in. Um I mean, unless it's like something hard,
right, like like uh like a 20 or or a playoff, I can see something being cancelled or moved, but you know, if it's like a field day or something like that, if something >> Yeah, it's very rarely if they can accommodate, you know.
>> Yeah, this Councilman Griffin, that very rarely happens. We usually plan this stuff well in advance and we know from Jerry City public school system when all their high school events are going to take place. We kind of know now. Um and what we're doing right now is we're not
we're trying our best not to book anything through to outside um groups [clears throat] after September 1. We're just doing a lot of booking now, right? >> Because we're preparing for this. We want to try to prepare properly for this so we can schedule everything
accordingly. So the the there's a lot of groups in the queue right now kind of waiting >> or or or just like don't don't let anybody um schedule before like
the school athletics and everybody put their schedules out. >> Correct. >> Um try to close the window on on the um for profits. If you're thinking 90 days it should be >> Yeah. >> Right. because we know other we know that the nonprofits, the schools, uh,
recreation won't wait until, you know, the 11th hour to schedule a plan something. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. You have one more, right, director? >> Yes. The next one is >> what? >> Do you have do you have revenue estimates?
>> Well, that's a great question. And so currently we the software we use for permits and for people to book parks and space um charges us an annual fee and they have ran a cost analysis and and
they kind of did like an estimation for us. um it doesn't meet the amount we're paying out right now annually in the fee for that website, but it can generate up to that amount, which would then negate that fee and we won't have to pay that
fee anymore. Um and so the plan is to exceed that amount uh annually um by three times. >> And what what's the fee? $10,000 a year, which is about eight something a month.
>> To the business administrator, is is [clears throat] this ordinance factored into the budget and what um revenue projections in the budget? >> So, when it comes to fees for this year, you can't budget for what you haven't
received yet. So essentially meaning that we will potentially the quicker we get this done the potentially we have to collect revenue that we can utilize for next year's budget. But because these fees were not adjusted prior to 2026 we can't use these exact fees for the 2026
budget. >> Okay. Next one. >> Uh the next item agenda item is 10.39. Um that is a resolution rejecting all bids received by the city of Jersey City on May 19th, 2026 to provide general
maintenance of various parks for the Department of Recreation and Youth Development and the Division of Park Maintenance. >> Okay, thank you. >> Thank you for your time. Have a great day. >> Laura, Tax Assessor's Office. Good afternoon, Council Presidents and
Council members. I'm Laura Takuri from the Jersey City Tax Assessor Office. I have one resolution uh item number 1025 resolution number 26-449 a resolution to grant veterans exemptions from local property taxation
pursuant to the NJSA 5443.30 for four properties. Uh the four properties are 222 Cambridge Avenue, 95 Lexington Avenue, 378 EGI
Avenue, and 275 Coaster unit 2 236. All properties owned by 100% disabled veterans are eligible for 100% tax exemption on their primary residence. Therefore, I'm requesting the municipal council to authorize the tax collector to credit or refunded the total amount
of 14,432.35 for the four properties, >> questions. >> Can I ask a question unrelated to the particular resolution? No. Um just wondering in terms of um assessing
values, property values um and taxing them ultimately, right? So if a property is zone is reszoned um and to something to be built uh currently an empty lot or vacant lot but
then it's reszoned to allow for I don't know 15 stories x number of units. Um at what point does the assessed value um impact and ultimately allow for the city to collect? Is it after construction um
and CO or is it a time of zoning and the zoning taking effect? >> Well, it's based on the site plans. So, whatever the site plans is approved, we will we will reassess the land based in the price per unit. So, let's say they have a vacant land
that says in $500,000 and they pull um um site plans to build like a 100 units. So if they pull the site plans in July, we can assess the property for 2027 for the 100 units the land only. >> So it's contingent upon site plan
approval. >> Yes. >> That's when the reassessment occurs, >> right? For the specific property. We cannot just change the assessment because the zone change for the entire lots has to be something to make us change the specific property. We cannot just change for the entire uh block or
zone. Um could could we get a list of um all open site plan approvals? I don't know if we maintain a list of uh um properties that had site plan
approvals that have completed and then I just want to make sure that um are we regularly checking the uh plan approvals? my department do because planning actually approve them. Once they done, we have the list and then we reassess the properties based on what
what date were approved. Again, if it's July or June, we can assess it for 2027 because 2026 is closed. So, anything after October the 1st, it will be for the following year because our assessing day is October 1st of the pre-tax year.
>> Yes. And also um they have a pretty good system because there's been instance where developers have took out site plans and got in trouble like with construction cost and the building never
came to fruition. Uh but the system triggers after a certain period to increase the taxes and some developers actually withdrew their site plans because they were being taxed at the new right the new rate in the building that never come up.
>> That's true. It's only like but for them to do that they had to go in front of the council to cancel the site. I cannot remove the >> No, no, no, no. I know that they've that's why I'm saying they've reached uh developers have reached out. >> Okay. because it was >> so that's basically the steps because I have a lot of people that they have site
plan approvals for the past two three years they couldn't build because of the financing issues. So we we say yes we can reassess the land based on the highest and best use not based on the prior assessment just based on the highest use for the prior year once they um receive.
>> Oh it goes it goes back to it doesn't goes back it doesn't go back to the original amount. No, because um just to keep in mind the reevaluation happens in 2018 based on the market of 2016 and 17 which is totally different market of days. So basically we assess based on
the highest market of we talking about 2027. I had to check the market of 2026 for me to be able to reassess the property 2007. That's the same cases for any properties under construction or any renovations. We check the pre-tax year
assessment. I mean market value. >> Okay. Yes. >> So 2026 was based on the market of October 1st of 2025. 2027 would be based on the market of October 1st, 2026. >> So if someone um if someone had a lot uh because a lot
of people have these lots that they've had for a while. So once they embark on a journey of uh submitting the plans. So let's say if you had a lot in 2007 and then you decide you want to develop that lot in 2026
and then in 2027 you don't have the finances to develop said like the the the tax structure goes back to the prior year versus the 2007 mark >> if I follow what you're saying. So if
they got approvals in 2016 and they didn't build, >> yes, >> they trying to appeal it in 20127 and we use the market of 2026. >> So the prior year, >> prior year, no matter when they start, >> no matter what. Yes. That's basically
taxation is stating that whatever is there has the pre-tax year October 1st, that's the market value that I had to use for the following year and any type of property. >> That is that is great. Now, here's the problem I have. There's some people that
have had lots forever, never taken out plans or anything. It's clearly that the the the inventory of houses have drastically increased, but for some reason, like they're stuck at
the rate in which they initially purchased it, which is drastically low. And like there's no in there's no incentive to build. Oh yes, because but we cannot assess them if it's any if there's no reason for us to do so. That's kind of we will have to find a
reason for us to reassess a lot because um if it's only site plans or new construction or anything like that, that's the only way that we can reassess the property. We can just not reassess because the house next door sold for a million, I can reassess the other house. That's not something that taxation
allows. It's not under the law. So the only way will be when they do a city um revaluation when everything goes to the 100% of the market value then that would be when everything is done equally assessed and done but in one property cannot trigger everybody to use I mean
to reassess so we cannot do that. >> Okay. So so basically you're saying a vacant lot cannot be reassessed until there's a reval. >> Yes. Ina also sometimes when we see that it's multiple lats there and it's something u that we can have let's say
10 lats and we know that one of them is not reassessed properly we have the right to file an appeal also every year um my office review assessments yearly so we can file serial appeals for different type of properties can be commercial use office use warehouses
hotels so we basically re review the chapter 91s on the market to see how the equalize to see if it's worth for us to file an appeal If it is, we file in at the county board. >> If they don't increase in the county board, we usually move to the tax court, but we also we always review the market
and and the income. So that's the way that we can actually trig any increase in the future. >> So So I Okay. So, I have a question in regards to um if someone have site plans, right, and
then their taxes go up and then they decide not to build, their taxes will go back down to whatever it is. But are they allowed they're not they're not are they allowed to file a tax appeal or no? Yes, they can do it every year >> and try to
>> trying to appeal it based on >> try to appeal what the what the rate was when it kicked in when we knew that they were going to build >> depends what year they're appealing also. um they had to go through the planning to cancel the site plans right
>> in the year that they appealing because if they doing for 2027 then I had to go back to the market 2026 but if they had the sign approvals from 2024 uh no matter what I had to use the 26 market >> okay and the taxes remain the same okay
so once they get site plan approvals and the taxes go up they remain that way they have to come they have to come and cancel. Correct. >> They have to file an appeal. >> They have to file for the cancellation and and how long >> plan approvals they file with the
planning board once depending the assessment value. If the assessment is over a million dollars they file straight to the tax court. If they want to file for the county board right now is it the deadline was April 1st of 2026. So they had to file the uh 2027.
So, council members, we're getting way off the agenda at this point. I'm going to ask if we have more uh questions about the vacant lots that we talked to Laura offline um so that we can circle back. We still have a few directors that need to go. >> Okay.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh, Deputy Director Bangghard and Director Kaplan, Infrastructure. >> Good afternoon, Council President, council members. Um, the Department of Infrastructure has five items in total
between myself and Director Kaplan. Uh, I'll start with agenda item number 4.12. This is ordinance 26-056. It's an ordinance supplementing chapter 332
um the otherwise known as the parking for the disabled. This is a second reading ordinance for spaces that were approved by the committee. >> Questions. Next one. >> Before you move on, I believe director
we have to make um an amendment to this ordinance. Correct. slight amendment. >> We removed a name um before last meeting. I don't know if there's anything. >> Oh, we did. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Unfortunately, um Fred Johnson's wife
passed away and we did remove her name from the ordinance. >> I recall there was something else, but I I could be mistaken. I'm I have been out. >> If there is something that you know does come to mind, certainly reach out to me.
>> Um Next, this is this is 56, correct? >> Yeah. 26-056. >> There was Dorothy Johnson was listed before. >> I I think it was the problem was we need to um Terrace Avenue. Um I think it had
the wrong address and it should say 227-225.5 Terrace Avenue. I don't think it has that currently. And that was after the first read. >> Okay, I'll I'll double check that those are >> if that's the case, we'll just make that minor change. And I don't believe that's
a substantial change. >> A purely administrative error, then that's not substantial. >> Thank you. >> I think that was an issue with a hydrant. >> I think so. >> Okay. Yep. You're correct. >> Thank you. >> Your memor is still great.
>> Thank your son too, Sean. Next item is uh agenda item 10.24 resolution 26-448. Um this is a resolution supplementing the manual of loading zone designations.
Um would be adding a loading zone at 136 Summit Avenue which is the primary address. The loading zone itself would be on Fairmount Avenue. Um, I know that when we were first uh
reached out about this, Councilman Brooks's office and Councilman Gilmore's office um were engaged and uh meeting did take place at the business or one of the businesses hosted a meeting uh about a month and a half ago and um we had
since been told that we could move this forward. >> Which item is this? I'm sorry. >> 1024. Well, um, okay. I know this building very well. It's, uh, up the block. Um,
I know they have a I don't recall seeing a curb cut on Fair View. It's on Summit. Um, but I mean, Summit that I mean Fair Mount, I'm sorry. Fair Mount is very narrow. um
and a loading zone there. I'm I'm just >> there are existing parking spaces there. So, this would be, you know, for for the time that the loading zone is approved to convert those, you know, for loading zone use only and they would revert back. >> And this is for All right. And they want this for like tenants moving in and
>> Yeah. No, no specific use. There's um an adult daycare facility there that would wishes to use it as well for loading and loading of the you know people that use that facility. >> You got you're going to put the loading zone right there on Summit?
>> No, it's on Fairmont around the corner. >> Oh, on the side's too narrow. >> Well, don't don't they have a garage entrance on that side on the garage entrance is on >> not for access to the ground floor facilities. Any other questions on this one?
>> No, but for the record, this developer that owns this owes about $300,000 in violations. >> I think this is, you know, related to the business, not the developer, too. So >> developers tenants.
>> All right. Next one. >> Uh next one which is the final one that I have for you today is item number 10.26. This is resolution 26-450. This is a resolution authorizing an
amendment to an existing professional services contract with Ingenuity Infrastructure as it relates to the design and construction administration for the Christopher Columbus Drive improvements. Um we've received two
years of DOT funding for these improvements. Um, we've since being approved those uh realized that some of the sewer and water infrastructure underneath the roadway is in much worse
disrepair than um the MUA had thought. So they are accelerating one of their projects they had in place to align with our project. So they can put that infrastructure underground and then we could build on top of it, not have to rip out anything new that we do.
So, we just need to extend our contract with our professionals due to the >> questions. I adittly I I haven't looked at the details on this resolution. So, the the plans and specifications um for your is it summarized in there or
is it uh do we have an idea of what those the improvements are for this area? >> I Yes, there's sidewalk um definitely major sidewalk improvements on the west end of that Columbus drive. Um, as it as it turns into
Mercuri's uh, bike lane traffic safety improvements, we are preparing to sit down and and go over those improvements with everyone. >> And I just wanted to do add this is a a no cost. This is just a time extension.
>> Understood. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Director Keer. Everybody, um I just have two items that I'll cover on behalf of the department. These are both second reading ordinances. Uh the first is uh ordinance
26-050 and it is the second reading agenda item 4.6. This is an ordinance to establish uh the under the environment commission and environmental justice task force. Um there was some discussion about this at the first introduction and I think the
only thing that I'll add to that since it was uh since the prior council meeting there's been some feedback from some of the stakeholders um about the structure of a commission things like that they you may hear they may have reached out to you um and we think that some of them is actually really valuable
input. Um but what we're suggesting to do is to uh continue this moving forward so that we can establish an environmental justice task force and then once it starts it can recommend um any potential changes or enhancements um that it thinks is is warranted once it's
established. So that's kind of our recommendation. There's a number of feedback. Some of it's very good. Um, but we think it would be best handled kind of after establishing this on second reading and then if needed, we can always amend um an ordinance and and come back to the council with, you know,
some good ideas for your consideration. >> Questions? >> Uh, would you just share some of those kind of key points of feedback that you all would be excited to integrate into this once it is established? So I will defer to uh well director
Diamond who's uh out of the office today has all the details but I believe some of them may involve specifying the charge alignment with other initiatives or documents. Um I'd have to get back to you on some of the specific uh suggestions that were brought up by some
of the community groups that reviewed this um and will be part of this commission um and had some ideas on how to make it even more effective which we support. >> If you wouldn't mind sharing those before Wednesday that would be helpful. Yeah, the one that comes to mind I believe was sustainable Jersey City, but there may have been others and I'll um
can follow up with you on that. >> Certainly. Yeah, I've seen um you know concerns and suggestions from community groups and I know folks brought up on council via session. Um we just love to see what infrastructure is thinking having received all of those suggestions. Yeah. what would love to
see what you all are thinking of um incorporating and what your assessment of those kinds of suggestions is to >> totally and I think my perspective you know this is a little bit me personally and and director Diamond's not here to speak to her perspective but we have a few groups that are extremely proactive and extremely excited about this who are
key stakeholders and they've already submitted feedback and there's additional groups that we intend to engage that I think will provide additional valuable input and rather than kind of come back in multiple waves I think we'd like to really our recommendation from infrastructure is to get this task force created and then to
have the groups come together and discuss some of their input and I think it'll be additive to each other hopefully um and then we'll be able to kind of come back if it's warranted with with any potential changes. >> Thank you. >> Okay, next one.
>> Thank you, Madam President. Um, the other item I have is ordinance number 26055, which is up for second reading and final passage as agenda item 4.11. And this is an ordinance uh establishing
additional hallway stop locations >> questions. Okay, thank you. >> Thank you, council. Salo Diaz, deputy director community development. Afternoon council. I have two items for
you today from community development regarding the holiday project. Uh first one being agenda number 10.22 resolution 26-446. Uh this is an agreement to give the
developer a certificate of completion. um they finished the project and have been already well over their 15 years of affordability >> questions. So, just just to clarify, um the Holiday Project was an affordable housing
development agreement um dated July 26, 1990, and it was supposed to there was 15 years of affordability built into that. Um but we never issued them a certificate of completion. So, are those units still
right now operating under that agreement? Are they still affordable right now? >> Uh they are until we process the discharge. Yes. So by processing this we are making them no longer affordable >> um in a sense but that is a part of the
agreement. We uh give them the money to make the uh the second so it was nine uh two family homes. They were sold to firsttime homeowners. Their second unit um by the rules of the program had to be affordable units for Jersey City
residents. Um they did that for well over the 15-ear mark. And you know now uh they have the right to get a discharge then those become regular units. Yes. >> Were the tenants currently in those affordable units? Um is there any
anything in place? I would hate to see these tenants get displaced. >> I would have to look into that and I could get back to you. But um as far as I'm aware, I know no one is planning on selling so far and that the tenants are continuing their lease. Is this these
are not the 955s, right? >> No, no, there's not. There's affordable housing trust fund. Um, nothing to do with 955 >> and these were in 1990. I mean, I guess to the council woman's point, most of these houses, uh, these
two family, most of the second units are occupied by family members, uh, relatives and people that they know. Um I know a big issue we had down there was at one point
the tax rate have drastically increased because they were providing the affordable units and then once that time have clipped they started getting taxed at the market rate.
So that's that's part of the issue. I thought these were the 955. Uh, is the I think the 955 is on here. So, Councilman, just just to make sure I understand what you're saying. So, when the 15 years expired, even though they
were never issued the certificate of completion, when the 15 years were expired, um, their property then became reassessed as if their rental unit was market. And so they are now their property value increased as a result of that. So they're paying higher
taxes than they would have been otherwise. And so this is to this is to help them offset that. >> Well well I mean it's a it's a combination of a few things. Um first is a combination of them just clearing the
record up. I always thought that there was like some type of automatic clause that will like do away with um when affordability period went went away. But apparently you have to reach out to to
>> community development. Yeah. >> Yeah. To um that office in order to have the clause removed. Now a lot of people I don't know want to say they got themselves in trouble but they ran into trouble because no one no one for seen
the affordability affordability affordability period ending and the taxes going so high. I know in particular one young lady me and Michael was working with her tax was like four or five,000 and shot to 12,000 or
something like that. >> Like 15. Yeah. Um, so to your question, I know we we've asked if they're going to obliged to continue to rent the second unit out as
affordable. Um, then we should keep their taxes at affordable rate, >> right? There should be >> some people opted in, some people opted out, some people was like, "Oh, we want to sell." Some people's like, "We don't ever want to sell. We want to keep it." Um, but this right here is essentially
just clearing up the bush. It's something that should have been done already. >> And if this is not uh 955, what? >> So, these are these are the separate ones. So, they have the 955s down there and then they have a there's a bunch of different home buyer programs down the
>> Okay. >> So, so to clarify what you're saying is that they did have the option to continue renting their extra unit at an affordable rate. And if they did that, then they would have been reassessed down to the lower value.
>> Well, that's I know that's something that we were trying. It's being worked on. >> Oh, that's aspirational. Okay. >> Yes. I don't know if it ever came to fruition, but I >> So, is is there something that And maybe Peter can answer this. I don't know. Um,
is there something that we can do um with these homeowners um specifically the ones who want to remain um renting out their units at affordable housing since there's a need for it here in
Jersey City like a contract um you know um stipulating that there'll remain affordable housing as as long as we're >> is the assumption that they're they're currently I mean this started in 1990
the affordability restriction was lift should have been lifted in what 2005 right >> so it's late >> could be I don't know anybody >> have they registered their rents with the city um even though they're just two
family homes I believe the law requires everyone to register their rents city regardless they're not subject to rent control because it's it's less than five units. Um, so in theory, as of 2005,
they could have upped their rents, right? And >> they didn't. >> I don't know if they did or not. >> Well, some did. May have some may have, but there are a lot of people who are um running at like I mean $1,200 for like
two bedrooms like who haven't gone up. Council member, I think there's a lot of legal nuances with this one. So, I I think the best thing to do is maybe have the law department just review like what we could or couldn't do as a city and what restrictions we may or may not be. I'm happy if there's any specific questions that council have. We could
forward those to the law department and try to get a response by Wednesday just so we know like, you know, what powers the council would or would not have and what powers the city do or do not have in these respects. >> And if you guys can put the actual addresses because I see it's it's the holiday projects. I get mixed up with
these things because it's like different phase and then there was different developers. So, if we could put the addresses. Um, you said it's eight is eight different houses. >> It's nine different ones. The second item has the addresses listed.
>> Yeah. The last page, exhibit A, it's 241. I'm sorry, I shouldn't even say it. The addresses are listed on exhibit A. >> Yes. >> This is a question for corporation council. Um, is there any harm in right
say say some of these families like Councilman Griffin was saying, some of them are renting to family members and maybe they do want to keep their extra unit affordable and would willingly take a lower assessed home value if they could continue renting their second unit
as affordable or maybe they just, you know, they like their tenant and their tenant can only pay the affordable rate. Is there something we can look into? um before we pass this like like would it make sense to withdraw this and and reintroduce it along with a companion
resolution at a subsequent meeting um just to to allow homeowners who choose to take advantage of that and and create this program that Councilman Griffin and Gilmore have been talking about. >> So the city definitely cannot use the tax assessment process to on a
case-byase basis decide how it wants to treat specific properties. It needs to use a standardized formula and approach for all properties. So, we can't say we want to incentivize a certain type of behavior and so we're going to, you know, adjust your assessed value in
order to do that. There may be other levers that the city can pull to incentivize um quote unquote voluntary, you know, maintenance of affordable units and we can help look into that, but assessment is almost certainly not one of those levers. Did one property owner come forward and
ask for a discharge and then we just discovered this and discharged everyone's is that >> um it was requested by the developer our office. See, >> wait. So, the
>> they're probably looking to acquire >> Well, what does the I'm confused if there's nine homes that's owned by nine different families presumably. Why is the develop what like what skin does the developer have if the
restriction is lifted or not? I think they just wanted their certificate of completion to say that they, you know, uh, used our funding to construct and >> after 30 years, they just wanted that >> um, from what they told us. But also, we have them and the title company all
requesting for the discharge. Yeah, >> it's probably a transaction involved here and that's what's going on. >> Yeah, I think um, I don't know. I would I know we've been working with uh Deja and them
on those 955s. Uh I am privy a little bit to to the other affordable units. I haven't had any discussions with this group of tenants. Um but just so the record is
clear, here's what I'm scared of. I'm scared of that a developer is looking at that area. that area is drastically increasing. In fact, right on Pacific and Johnson, they just tore down two of these things and put up a fivestory
building or a four-story building or they're in a process of doing that. Um, I would really like to to hear these residents perspective as it relate. Now, have have you been in contact with any
of these uh owners outside of the developer? Uh my staff has yes >> going to ask Mr. Diaz forwards the agreement that's at issue here to our office. I highly suspect that this is something that they have a contractual
right to that can be separate and apart from any questions that the council might have as to what could happen differently in the future for these individuals or to preserve uh affordability on this site. Um but I suspect we're not just doing this out of the goodness of our hearts. So, we'll we'll confirm that and give the council
an update. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Suspect that they have a legal right to do this and they >> strong suspicion. I don't have the agreement as an attachment in front of me, but we'll put eyes on that and confirm by Wednesday. >> Okay.
>> Next one. >> Um, second item is 10.23 resolution 26-447. Um, same project and this is requesting the discharge for the addresses below
from 226 Holiday to 247B. >> 247 what? >> Uh, 226 to 247B. There's 247 AM. >> There's two units at 247 AMB. questions.
All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay, Sean, take it from the top. >> All righty. [clears throat] Item 3.1 was touched on earlier. Items 3.2 through 3.7 are community gardens.
Um, does any council member have a question on any of those ordinances? Hearing none, 3.8 was touched on earlier. On to our second reading ordinances. Item 4.1 is being brought back from the June 24th
meeting. Any questions? >> Just continuing to move forward >> is carried over. >> 4.1 4.1 to 4.3 were carried. These are the tax exemptions. >> Yes. So the intent for these are to carry them and not to review, not to
have the council vote on them at this meeting. Um, obviously there's a lot to unpack there for the council. I know the budget was introduced. So, you know, the budget is the most critical timeline for the council. We want to give you adequate time to focus on that and then once the budget's done, you know, we can move on to the uh these items and have a
longer conversation about them. >> So, the intention is is to carry the ones that were carried over from June 24th is to carry them over to the uh August 19th meeting. Hello. There we go. Uh, I don't know if
you want to put a date on it right now. I would be more comfortable potentially September just because I want the council to be able to vote on the budget without having to worry about these items. >> So, when I take the motion, I'll I'll make the uh motion to say September the first meeting in September or the second.
>> Yeah. Let me get back to you on that one though, Sean. Okay. >> And I'm I'm sorry. While while we're touching on these ordinances also, um can the council get if it was done um
the the the pilot audit? So, when I last checked with the deputy mayor, the pilot audit was not concluded yet. He was anticipating getting it done mid to late July. So, I've been checking with him weekly to see if any updates, but my last check-in as a council president knows he did not have anything
new for us. >> Okay, >> great. So, that takes us to item 4.5. Any questions on the Jackson Hill redevelopment plan? >> Sorry, what about 4.2? >> All of them are being carried. >> No, 4.2 is different.
>> I thought that's what you said. No, that's not his or that's the council president's orders. >> Yeah, he said 4.1, 4.3, and 4.4. >> Correct. The ones related to the pilot are being carried, not 4. All >> righty then. >> I'm back, Sean. >> Yeah.
>> Thank you. >> All right. So, any questions on 4.2? >> 4.2, >> uh, this is for establishing the position of legislative counsel. We have discussed this uh several times openly on the floor um in caucus and both
council meeting. The corporation council has uh disagreed with the council in the legality of us seeking our own attorney for the council, but uh as stated publicly is okay with the council hiring
uh someone in their office under our own staff to conduct those services and serve as legislative advisor. And that's how we are going to move forward in the council office for now. Um, and I believe
we would need to defeat 4.2 because we are already hiring for this position. >> So, you'll you'll move to defeat item 4.2. Mr. President, is that your >> And that's correct, right, Sean? That's the proper way to do it. We would have defeat 4.2 since it's no longer needed.
If it's no longer needed, we'll motion to defeat the ordinance without conducting a public hearing. >> Okay. >> And then what's the I'm sorry. What is the process for hiring uh legislative
council within our staff? Now, >> it would be a um another position within the council office. So, it would be uh at our own discretion of hiring. It would be up to the council president to hire um for the position.
>> Okay. And and you said that that process is already underway. >> We are starting that process. Yes. This week. And so I'll send a memo around to the council with all of that information. >> I look forward to seeing. And council president, that that money for that position is already allotted to our budget and would not increase it at all.
Is that correct? >> Right. There's already a line item, a vacant line item in our budget for 70,000 and uh we would utilize that at this time. >> No additional expenses for any kind of social media charts from the council budget. >> No, no new social media charts on the
council [laughter] budget. Okay, now back to 4.5. Any questions on the Jackson Hill redevelopment plan? Hearing none. 4.6 was touched on earlier. 4.7 is the fees and charges. Any questions?
>> Sorry, was 4.6 was touched on? >> Yes, it was. >> Okay. I'm I'm sorry, Sean, that you moved a little too fast. I have a question um in regards to amending 4.5 cuz it's at 1750
ft for the transit area and I would want I'm wondering if 1850 ft would be >> a substantial change. >> I didn't hear the rest of what you're saying.
>> 1750 ft. That's the amendment to expand the transit hub and would 1,850 ft be a substantial change? >> Generally, any increase in a regulation that increases its burden. So, an
increase in the number here would be substantial. >> So, but to clarify, this would decrease the >> we would have to open it again >> because it would it would make it more permissible for a larger area. So that would decrease the burden.
There was on on 4.5. Sorry, I'll let you finish on this. I >> I was just going to say we'd like the chance to look at the ordinance and the Wi-Fi in the room isn't pulling it up quickly enough. So, this is something we can follow up with you all on and let you know before Wednesday. >> Okay. And if it is not a substantive change, then Councilman Griffin, would
you move to make that change? or >> if it's not substantial, the amendment would have to be made on Wednesday. >> But if it is substantial, you would be reintroducing the ordinance and it would go back to sec first
reading and then a public hearing would be held um on the um August meeting which is the 19th. Okay, thank you. Um, >> so, so are we done with 4.5?
>> The law department is >> I'm not sure. >> The law department is going to get back to us. >> Sorry. No, we already did 4.6. Uh, but um I I received from one of the proposed committee members, sustainable
Jersey City has requested certain amendments. I don't know if that uh made its way to the administration that familiar to you. >> I'm not aware of any amendments. >> I'm going to forward that over to the appropriate parties. I think Councilwoman Singh might have gotten
that as well. >> Council, >> can you please include Director Kaplan in that? >> Sure. >> Because he's the one that actually went over the the ordinance. >> Yeah. Councilman, the director Kaplan said that they did receive I don't know
if it's uh regarding the specific amendment talking about um but he said that oh he's coming back in the room but said that he um received [clears throat] a number of suggestions from groups like sustainable dirty city uh and that
>> the administration's recommendation for course of action was to pass this and then incorporate feedback once it's established but director Kaplan's in the room. I don't know if you want to hear it directly from the horse's mouth. >> Horse's mouth. >> Director Kaplan, just so you're aware,
we are re talking about item 4.6, which is amending chapter 31, the environmental commission. >> Thank you, clerk. >> Of course. >> Yeah. Yeah, and just to kind of reiterate what was said before, there was I anticipate that if they haven't reached out, there was some feedback
that we were provided from some organizations who've reviewed this and are interested in seeing it succeed, as are we, that would potentially be additive or change what's in the written ordinance. Um, those are some groups that are being very proactive, right? They're they're reading the ordinance.
They're vested. They're interested. Um and I and frankly we got their feedback and I think some of it is very valuable and some of it we should incorporate but our recommendation from infrastructure is that we shouldn't amend the ordinance based on like one constituent group's feedback. What we would recommend is we
pass the ordinance, allow the task force to be established with the diverse broad perspectives and then have that organization discuss the various potential amendments and come to a, you know, kind of agreement on what they should recommend because there may be
other ideas that have not yet surfaced that we'd like to incorporate. And then we could, if appropriate, we would bring back an amendment to kind of the charter um to the council for consideration. >> Now, we're talking about um the environmental justice
ordinance. So, so the other comment I'll just make is I I I recall in first reading I'd asked about Jury City Together being included. Was there any efforts to reach out to them as being part of this um commission? I will confirm with Director Diamond
who's um out today. Um but I believe there was further outreach to a number of the groups. That was my understanding, but I would I would have to confirm and get back to you to be 100% certain. >> Okay. Yeah. Uh yeah, because I did ask about uh Greco. >> Um
so in this ordinance, I don't see anything where All right. All right. We're putting this this um we're putting this this panel or We're putting them together, but there's nothing that that um
gives them like a legislative power like um to write ordinances, resolutions um as they suggest. So, as they would suggest um [clears throat] to see um
any anything that needs to be done environmentally um or towards environmental justice, do they have that power? >> I'll I'll jump in here, councilman, just to say that the city council cannot delegate its legislative functions to any other entities, but it can invite
recommendations from them, which is what this ordinance does. So they can certainly submit recommendations to the council as to what legislation they want you all to pass or or >> Okay. So they'll recommend and we either take heed or >> correct >> it. Okay. Thank you.
>> And just to further clarify I believe the way this is structured as proposed this organization would be a task force underneath the environmental commission which also has some of those you know standings and and requests to kind of make those recommendations.
Um, so I I have one question for the corporation council on this. So the all of the appointments are subject are are made by the mayor. Um, is is there state statutes or or other
um statutes that uh that require this to be a mayoral appointed as opposed to mayor with say council approvals. Um and that includes also the environmental justice leazison. >> Not to my knowledge there aren't any statutory limitations. I I can take a
look and confirm but my understanding is it was just drafted that way at the request of the department. >> I would suggest to our council members that in these sort of situations and we um we often we have conceded the authority to be able to provide um um again that check and balance in that
that regard. And I would uh encourage us, I'm not looking to hold this up. Um but if there's going to be future amendments as well, the amendment include uh that the appointments be subject to council approval um for both the members of the commission but also the
the liaison itself. >> All right, Sean. Okay. Item 4.7, the fees and charges. Any questions? Hearing none. Item 4.8. Um, that's amending chapter 122 regarding the required bond for the permit event
special event permits. Item 4.9 is amending chapter 160 regarding the reduced licensing fees for nonprofit organizations. Anyone have any concerns? >> Again, >> I'm just asking if any of my colleagues
have any concerns about 4.9. Any questions? >> Wait one second. 4.9 is just left. Okay. No, not right now. >> Item 4.10 10 is repealing uh chapter 304
taxation article 10 medical cannabis transfer tax in its entirety. Can't hear you. >> Okay, there we go. I I can't open it now, but when I was reading it earlier, there were a lot of strikethroughs and one of them was community benefits. Um
I'm just trying to figure out um you know what what what's happening here? Why why is the language changing so drastically? >> So, I can address this. I'm not sure I'll 100% answer your question, but previously the municipal code had two
different sections that were largely redundant. One created and created the enforcement mechanisms for the medical cannabis tax. The other created the enforcement the tax and the enforcement mechanism for the recreational cannabis tax. What these edits do is they they harmonize. So a lot of the strikeout
that you're seeing is just because it's eliminating duplicative language and it's in one foul swoop creating both types of taxes and creating just a uniform enforcement mechanism for both. >> So nothing's changing. We're just killing the duplications. >> There are a few things that are changing
that I believe were discussed at the last caucus. So in particular, we are now sending these taxes straight to the operating fund, which is actually what state statute contemplates. Previously we were segregating them for specific uses. Uh it's the view of the law department that that's not authorized by
state statute and so this is coming into compliance. >> Thank you. >> So um 304-50 um part of the resolution or part of the municipal code being struck um has 100%
of the revenues collected from tax imposed under this article should be deposited into the affordable housing trust fund. So, is it the case that should this be passed and the law should be amended this way, none of that money from this tax would be going into the trust fund anymore? It would all be
going into operating expenses directly. >> That's correct. And that is what the law requires. As a general matter, any revenue that is received by the city from any source, whether it's taxes or anything else is supposed to go into the general operating fund unless a state
statute specifically authorizes segregating those funds in a separate account like a trust fund for a particular purpose. Here, KRMA, which is the state framework for cannabis taxes, does not have any language that authorizes segregating these taxes for a specific purpose. So, this is largely a
compliance measure. >> Okay, understood. So, we've by by putting money into the affordable housing trust fund from this tax in the past, we've been out of compliance essentially. >> No one has told us so, but there hasn't been any express state authorization to
do that. And so, we think this is the best practice. >> Awesome. Some questions there. Thanks. >> Okay, Sean. >> Items 4.11 and 4.12 were touched on earlier. We are going to have a public
hearing on the 2026 2027 Central Avenue SID assessment role and budget and then we'll have our public request for hearings. We currently have 70 speakers listed but I know that's increasing as we speak.
Any questions or comments on petitions and communications item 6.1 through 640? Uh, can I get um 6.2? Okay. Anyone else? None. There are no officer
communications. There's one report of director 8.1. Any questions or comments? We have our claims and on to our resolutions. Items 10.1 and two were touched on earlier. Just a just a quick question on the claims. Um earlier uh
asked if there was any way that we could try and attach in our claims um the the resolution that authorizes those payments to be made in the first place. And I understand that this will probably
take some time to get software that is able to just like produce claims in a way that can see exactly where that expenditure is authorized from. Um but has there been any progress in in that regard so we can be able to connect what
claims to what resolution? >> There is currently not. This comes from Edmmonds, which is a new software that the city obtained recently to do all of our financial um accounting and processing. And they currently do not have a feature that would allow us to do that. Um we'd have to contract them to
potentially build out a feature. We've had some preliminary conversations with it, but you know, with the current budget, you know, there hasn't really been uh too many fruitful conversations in that regard. >> Okay. And then um then specifically on page 31 uh the Toro Sand Pro which was
just upwards of $25,000. Um what what what exactly was that for the that's for the care of the maintenance of the baseball fields. Uh we currently do not have the equipment to manage all of them. That comes from capital so it's not going to affect the operating budget >> capital funds. Okay. Thank you.
>> I have a question too just if the administration can get me a respon an answer on page 10. Looks like the construction code department has a lot of mileage reimbursement requests. Just one confirm it's not uh they're not using their personal vehicles uh to do the work during the city and putting in
mileage reimbursements and two just confirm if there was some sort of conference they went to. >> They are using personal vehicles per the contract they're allowed to and they're allowed to get mileage reimbursements for using those vehicles. >> Glad you brought that up. >> So,
okay. Uh two things on that then. Where are we on our motor vehicle audit? >> Uh, director Levy is still going through everything. We had some of an update the other day. Um, we do not have it finalized yet. I'm hoping the next week to two weeks we'd have it completed for you.
>> All right. And so, are these build monthly or or or um every six months? >> So, they're supposed to be build monthly. Um it requires the employees to submit timely mileage reimbursements which doesn't always happen. So
sometimes it happens you know every other month or you know uh one to three months but they are granted a reimbursement monthly per their union contract. >> Does does their union contract require them to give their receipts in monthly? >> They do require them to give receipts
monthly. Um, but we've always been a little lenient with it depending on what calls and, you know, out call outs and that kind of stuff they have. >> Is there any way to to to to manage how or or to, I don't know, have some sort
of oversight over where they're going? I mean, Jersey City is not that large of a place to have a 5 $5,600 worth of mileage reimbursements. There is the 5600 is based on I think several uh months of backlog that they didn't process but uh every how it's
supposed to work is just for the entire council is every month the employee is supposed to submit a mileage reimbursement to be reviewed by the department the director and their fiscal person that reimbursement is based off the number of stops that they make. So there is a record of it based on the cclick fix and based on their call logs
where they're supposed to be going those months for inspections. um the director and the department would then verify that they actually were there. They went to the stops, you know, all that kind of auditing that they would need to do and then they give that to the fiscal officer who would then submit for the reimbursement from the finance department. We do budget for these and
you'll see when the workbooks are provided that every department does have a um mileage, you know, or not every department, but every department who uses this would have a mileage line and that's where we account for the union contract and obligations for that. And uh Peter, what what do we have on
the books to um mitigate city employees from taking the cars, city cars out of the city, like if they live out of town. >> So we have in the employee handbook, it describes every employee the obligations
for personal use of city vehicles or use of city vehicles. Uh we also have a directive that was issued by a previous administration that applies to every employee and is included in all the employee information in their uh internet and then public safety also has
a separate directive for all their employees and how they should utilize those vehicles. >> All right. Um I think that needs to be reiterated. Um I mean I I know that there are a lot of cars leaving the city um when people are just going home.
um that needs to stop. Uh you know, because we're talking liability, gas, all that stuff. >> Yeah. If you have any information on specific vehicles, I'm happy to run those down because depending for public safety or civilian, they should either go through the public safety director or through the DA's office. So, if I'm not
authorized, I can definitely verify those if you have specific instances that we should follow up on. >> All right. Well, okay. Okay. So, if you have a list of employees or staff that can that are able to take cars out of out of town, I
that would be great to see that. Um, and what which cars they are and and also um we need to limit cars uh to one per person. >> I'm not sure what you mean by one per person, Councilman.
>> If if if someone has a city car, they should only have one. have mult they shouldn't be driving around in multiple they should be limited to one >> understood so as far as a list about who's authorized to do it to my extent from the civilian side no one is
authorized to take any vehicles home public safety we're waiting on the audit that I mentioned for the councilman to see who's assigned what vehicle and what the stat vehicle >> and when I mean home I mean outside of Jersey City and and also um there's there are cars
being used uh without GPS from my understanding and I think we need to make sure that whatever cars need GPS they should have them. >> Yeah, there are certain vehicles related to public safety that do not have GPS but vast majority of our fleet does have
GPS um and they're mandated to have that. >> Are we checking the GPS records? >> We do do audits of GPS records. Correct. Okay, Sean. Um, >> if I can, Council President 10.2
um to the Corporation Council when we get to the pro the point of uh budget hearings and then a potential opportunity for amendments to the budget. Just want to know and you can give me the answer later, but uh how many votes are needed to approve an
amendment to the budget? It depends on whether the amendments increase or decrease the spend, I believe, per department, but I don't want to speak out of school. Let me confirm that. But for an increase, it's six votes. For a decrease, it's five votes. >> And just to clarify on procedure, um,
ordinances usually if a change would be substantial, then it has to go back to first reading. But for the budget, that doesn't apply necessarily. We can make amendments. >> That's correct. So, it's a resolution. It doesn't need to go back to a first
reading. The budget does need to be balanced under state law. So council um should work together to propose their amendments and then it it will be expected to cooperate with the administration to ensure that any requested increases or decreases still result in an overall balanced budget
within state legal requirements. >> If you could also just um advise and all of this in a in a memo of some sort. Um but also um um ask um if about the the question of and
the clerk already provided me some guidance on this but I would like a official legal memo about um any sort of uh public hearings that are required on amendments as well if if it's required or not. So when you introduce the budget,
there's a public hearing that has to be done. 28 days must elapse between introduction and the public hearing. And if you make an amendment, we have to hold the public hearing on the amendments as I explained to you in the email.
>> Yes, you did. Are we moving forward? >> Yes. >> Item 10.3 is authorizing a closed session of the municipal council on Wednesday, August 19th, 2026 at 5:00 p.m. to discuss issues related to pending litigation. Item 10.
>> I just want to make a record that that is a closed session to discuss pending litigation, >> not general legal questions. So in the event you have other legal questions including around the budget that come up, don't look forward to that close session as your opportunity to ask them. Make time make sure that we find a time
separately to address those. >> No problem. Unfortunately, I'm not able to attend that. That's I usually use one of my deputies because I'm still preparing the agenda uh due to the timing issues. Uh item 10.4 Four is a resolution honoring the life and legacy
of Dyson T. Haley. Item 10.5 is honoring Mrs. Lorena Blanco on the occasion of her 100th birthday. Item 10.6 is a resolution authorizing the city of Jersey City to accept a gift from the flow initiative for the
placement of up to two menstrual products dispensing kiosks to be installed at city hall and other public spaces. Item 10.7 is a resolution requesting permission for dedication by Ryder for donations received pursuant
under NJSA 4DA col 5-29 for the purpose of supporting the department of public safety senior community outreach program. Items 10.8 through 10.11 were touched on earlier. Item 10.12 is a resolution approving the appointment of
James Carol as PDAM assistant municipal prosecutor for the Jersey City Municipal Court. >> Councilman, I mean Sean, sorry. Uh we received communication from Mr. Carol that he wants to withdraw his application. Um right now he's not able to do it. So we'll have to roll that
withdraw that one on Wednesday. >> Noted. Thank you. Item 10.13 was touched on earlier. Item 10.14 is a resolution authorizing the closure of certain public rights of way for the
Jersey City Marathon Amarathon scheduled for Sunday, April 18th, 2027 pursuant to ordinance 25-073. Item 10.15 is a resolution accepting the 2026 2027 assessment role of the Central
Avenue Special Improvement District of the City of Jersey City. And 10.16 is a resolution adopting and ratifying the 2026 2027 budget of the Central Avenue Special Improvement District of the City of Jersey City. Item 10.17 is a
resolution introducing and approving the 2026-2027 budget of the Westside Avenue and Special Improvement District, directing the city clerk to publicly advertise the budget and schedule a public hearing and directing the tax assessor to prepare an assessment role for properties within
the district based upon the budget. Item 10.8 8 is a resolution introducing and approving the 2026 2027 budget of the Mcinley Square special improvement district, directing the city clerk to publicly advertise the budget and scheduled public hearing and directing
the tax assessor to pair assessment role of the properties within the district based upon the budget. Items 10.19 through 10.26 were touched on earlier. Item 10.27 27. It's a resolution rejecting all bids
received pursuant to NJSA48 11-13.2E regarding a public bid to procure a mobile outreach center recreational vehicle >> just going back out to bid. What is what
can someone talk to this? >> So I'll let law department cover the process if need be. But for this one, this was those vehicles they want to use for the homeless individuals. Um, right now we currently do have some vehicles that they can't operate during the winter. So, these are supposed to be mobile responses that they could use
year round to accommodate, you know, individuals in those situations that might need help from the city. Um, we did not receive bids that comported to the prices and everything else that we need. I don't think we received bids period. So, uh, we'd have to potentially go out to rebid for this one. To
clarify, Councilman, what actually happened here was a process vowel. And so the city posted that it would receive bids until a very specific time, 11:00 a.m. on a date certain. Usually bids are handd delivered to the city and they go directly to purchasing. In this case,
there was a bid that was timely delivered to the city. Due to what I understand to be mail room confusion, even though it was delivered at 9:00 a.m., it was not received by purchasing and formally considered until after the deadline has passed. that potentially could be a violation of our competitive
requirements under the local public contracts law. So what we need to do to cure that and make sure that the playing field is totally fair and even is reject all bids and do it all over again. So this is a compliance measure. What else?
Okay. Items 10.28 through 10.40 were touched on earlier. Item 10.41 41. It's a resolution authorizing request for proposals for contract to perform debt collection services for outstanding municipal court judgments related to civil offenses, including but not
limited to city code violations, quality of life violations, building violations, housing violations, and various civil other civil offenses subject to approval by the New Jersey Administrative Office of Courts.
What's the Sorry, go ahead. >> Um, so these debt collections, these are cases that's already like up up until when >> that that's correct. These are this is debt collection of judgments that have already been issued and docketed with
the superior court. So this has come out of questions that were asked by the rent protection special investigation committee to make sure that the city is following through on actually collecting any judgments that are awarded by the municipal court. the process to be able to go out to bid for debt collection
services and and here it's on a contingency to anticipate your question Councilman Lavaro is regulated by the state. >> Okay. Okay. I'm sorry. Were you done? >> Go ahead. Oh. So, um,
based on the responses to this, right, um, [clears throat] do we have the power to then put leans on the properties that were in violation? >> So, in many instances, there are already
leans on these properties. So what happens when the municipal court awards a judgement let's say penalties fines it goes after some period where the municipal court itself tries to collect that debt the law department which dockets it with superior court at which
point it becomes converted into a lean on the property. That doesn't mean automatically that additional steps keep being made to try to collect that amount. And so that's what this is. This is a next step to say even if we already have a lean on the property let's do everything we can to try to get that
money as soon as possible. Thank you. Thanks. >> I think one of the questions there that wasn't answered or wasn't fully asked was does this cost us anything? This is a concession contract so it does not. Basically the debt collection services or whoever would be selected would take
a portion of their collection and that would be their compensation. >> Is is that arrangement standard? Um it it sounds like you're saying this is what happens throughout the state. Um but is are most cities that are struggling with these kinds of backlogs
like in initiating this process? So go to a thirdparty contractor. >> It is there is a process by which cities can elect to use third party contractors to gather debt. In this case, we've decided to focus strictly on civil infractions. There are other municipalities that avail themselves as
that option. It's up to us to decide how we want to pay for it, but given the current fiscal crisis, doing it on a contingency basis so that it pays for itself is what the city has deemed prudent. >> Thanks. >> Okay, Sean. >> Okay, next one. 10.42 is a resolution
authorizing the settlement of the action John Doe number two versus Jersey City Recre Recreational Affairs. Item 10.43. 43 is a resolution authorizing the execution of a settlement agreement with River Northransit LLC, commonly known as VIA,
to resolve a contract dispute regarding appropriations. Item 10.44 44 is a resolution authorizing the city of Jersey City to accept a gift of two plaques from the conser conservation committee of the contain memorial and historic objects to
be placed or on or near the Cine Memorial. >> I'm I'm I'm sorry Sean. Um uh Sarah, are we in litigation with VIA? >> We are not in litigation with VIA. We
engaged in pre-litigation negotiations to resolve a bonafide legal dispute. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um also for the the Cotton Memorial 10.44, um we will we we don't have the final mockups yet. So, um we will be
pulling we will be withdrawing 10.44 and reintroducing it at a future meeting. >> Can I just bring us back to 10.43 43 in the VIA. Um, so, so the contract term continues through the second quarter of 2028.
That's the existing contract today. It's not an extension. >> That's correct. That is the date at which the contract that was um originally considered by the former council in August would have extended through. So, it was through a competitive process through an RFP. So,
there's a maximum of 5 years. Um the term under the settlement agreement is two years with two additional one-year renewals, but all of this remains subject to annual appropriations by the council >> and and it it says um account number six-01,
etc. Then parenthesis IFC settlements. Um someone explain to me what that account is. >> Sure. So the city and via had a dispute as to the viability, the legality of the former contract that was awarded in August 2025. There was a dispute over
what that contract called for and what amounts were owed under it. And so this settlement agreement is structuring a payment to VIA that resolves VIA's claims as to what it's owed to date as a settlement and then clarifies the party's understanding as to what the monthly payments will be uh moving
forward. >> That's $1,000 cost. But the resolution text identifies two accounts because state law requires that any resolution that authorizes a contract award identifies the accounts that have the amounts to cover the
contract that the council is voting on. Here it's a little bit complicated because the entire agreement is conditional on the introduction and passage of the upcoming budget because the amounts that are contemplated in this contract need to be appropriated through the budget process. So, as a
formality, we have identified accounts that have funding in them. Um, but again, these amounts won't come due until the final budget is adopted. >> And my final question is, I vaguely recall again that um that the the
contractors via included um trip data and writership data. Um do we still have that that some of that data could be utilized to develop things like bus routes and things of that nature? Um, do we still have that with this current
agreement and are we have we accessed it and and utilize that if it's available? >> Yes, all of those reporting obligations persist under this settlement agreement. The city has through the department of infrastructure been receiving regular reports from VIA. Um, so Director Kaplan
can provide any information that the council would want on what those reports have been to date, but those will continue moving forward. Okay. >> Okay. Sean, >> as far as 1044 goes, the the administration is will be withdrawing
that or is the council taking a vote to withdraw? >> I defer to the council. She wants to draw or she wants to have us draw withdraw it. >> Yeah. Um our our office worked with the law department to put this together and
um I believe the intent is to withdraw. Um I I don't know if we need to take a vote to >> you withdraw. >> Thank you. >> I'm I'm sorry. Uh Councilwoman, why why are you with withdrawing? >> Um I I think the the final mock mockups
of the plaques that are going to be donated are not it's not finalized yet. And so we just >> do we have to with I mean can't we vote it in and just the mockups I mean the the everything goes up whenever. Do we have to withdraw
it? might as well wait till we till we have it just in case. >> I mean, I will defer to corporation council. >> That's waiting until we have it just in case something goes wrong and we never get it. >> Okay, gotcha. >> It usually goes back to the value. The council would want to identify how much of the value of the items are receiving
and depending how the mock-ups go, I think the value could change. >> Okay. Sure. >> Okay. Items 10.45 and 46 were touched on earlier. Item 10.47 47 is a resolution authorizing the settlement of the action
entitled Renee Hester versus the city of Jersey City. 10.48 is a resolution authorizing the settlement of action John Doe 3 versus Jersey City Recreation Affairs. And
item 10.49 was touched on earlier. I do not have anything further. May I have a motion to adjourn at 4:02 p.m.? I believe the motion was made by Council Person Griffin, seconded by Council Person Singh.
>> All in favor of the motion, all council members present by acclamation, please say I. >> I. We are out of here at 4:02 p.m.