Good afternoon everyone. Good afternoon. We are on the record. Today is Monday, the 8th day of September, 2025. This is a municipal council caucus meeting. We had a scheduled 4 p.m. start
and my watch is showing 4:02 p.m. May we have a roll call for the commencement of this meeting? Council person Ridley here. Council person Huings present. Council person Biano. Council person Cle.
Council person Solomon. I know council person Gilmore is here. Council person Deise here. Council person Rivera and council president Waterman. We have six council members pres uh sorry, seven council members present at
4:02 p.m. We have achieved a quorum. On behalf of council president Waterman and the members of the municipal council in accordance with the New Jersey Public Laws of 1975, chapter 231, the open public meetings act, also known as the sunshine law. Adequate notice of this
meeting has been provided by posting on the bulletin board on the first floor of city hall the annual notice which is a schedule of meetings and caucuses of the municipal council for calendar year 2025 which was also filed in the office of city clerk on Friday November 15th 2024.
In addition, at the time of its preparation, the agenda of this meeting was similarly disseminated on Friday, September 5th, 2025 at 6:54 p.m. to the mayor, municipal council, business administrator, corporation council, and
the local newspapers, as well as posted on the city's website so I can certify as to our total compliance with the Sunshine Law. Council President, I turn it over to you. Good afternoon. First one up is Kyle. Good afternoon everybody. I have uh few
items. Um most importantly, I'll start with uh 10.1, a resolution authorizing amendments to the 2025 uh municipal budget. Uh I did share some additional information with the council ahead of this meeting. Uh in in short before we I
open up to questions, the amendments are being introduced to the council this week. Uh assuming they are approved, the following meeting we will be able to have a public hearing on the proposed amendments uh in addition to adoption of those amendments and formally adopting
the budget uh as a whole for the year. So that is the current schedule. Um I did like I said I did provide some detail if there's um specific questions on the budget. I have our budget uh director here as as well Danny Beijn. Um
but in summary um these are some statemandated uh amendments that we had to make. Um the overall tax impact will be uh 0.97% on the for the for the year and that on the average assessment will be
approximately $38 uh on the average assessment of uh $480,000. So if there's any questions on what's included in the amendment, you know, I'm open to answering them here.
They put it up. All right. Uh again, we'll have a public hearing next meeting if something comes up. Uh the next item would be 10.3 uh authorizing temporary appropriations. That is just to get us to the adoption
date in the event there's any other delays to cover payroll and you know contractual obligations. Uh any questions on 10.3? Uh the next item 10.4 authorize an acceptance of funds from national opioid
settlements administered by Brown Greer PLC. Uh the am this is just to uh accept the award. the amount for the year. Sorry, I have a a lot of papers here. The amount of this award is $428,000.
Uh total received today for opioid settlements is 1.5 million. So this would bring us to approximately 2 million overall. Any questions? Right. 10.5 uh resolution authorizing cancellation
of unexpended budget appropriation and grant receivable balance. So this was just a uh a duplicate grant acceptance. We received the funds in 2024. At the end of the year, submitted the chapter 1 uh 59 resolution to the council. Um we
then proceeded to set up the bud uh the grant in the 2025 budget which was not necessary. So we're just canceling that balance is just a dup a duplicate on our books. Um there's no impact financially here. Next item 10.8 8. A resolution
authorizing uh the replacement of lost third party tax sale uh certificate 20007-1711 sold to Gregory Judge. Any questions? 10.9 resolution authorizing accelerated
tax sale. Uh this is routine business. This is just so we can have a tax sale in the current year for current year delinquencies and anything else opposed to having it take place next year. So this would, you know, help the city
recoup some cash due for this calendar year so there's no shortfalls in collections. 10.28 28 a resolution authorizing payment of a claim submitted by NW Financial for providing financial advisory services. Uh this
is currently going out to bid uh via an RFP. So this is for services that have been rendered uh this calendar year. Yep. Thanks. real quick. Um, just to address it kind of overlays one of the finances items
for the bond ordinance. We're going to, you know, officially pull it on Wednesday, but the administration wants to pull that ordinance. There's a settlement meeting on Thursday with the embankment coalition. So, depending what happens during that meeting, it might change some of the stuff in that ordinance. So, we're proposing to pull it, reintroduce it the following meeting, and that way we can move
forward with this. We have all the language specifically that the council requested and any updates based on the settlement agreement. I would just note Councilman Solomon arrived at 4:05 p.m. Good afternoon, Council President, members of city council. I have two
items for your consideration. Item one, resolution 25584, item 10.20. This is a resolution author authorizing the award of a contract to Witson's to provide Witson's food service to provide
2025 child and adult care food program meals for the Department of Health and Human Services. One bid was submitted. Uh these meals will feed approximately 200 children. That number will grow and pending approval will begin next week.
Your name, sir? I'm sorry. Of Cohen. You just spell that just for the record? Sure. O F E R. Last name C O H E N. Thank you. All right. Item number two, resolution 25585,
item number 10.21. This is a resolution authorizing the city of Jersey City to accept the grant award from screen cancer prevention education and detection. This will be used for samples for selfch
check and brochures for early detection in breast cancer. Thank you. Good afternoon, council, council president. Um, I have one agenda item. It's resolution 25-583,
agenda number 10.19. This a resolution authorizing an award of a contract to Foley Power Systems aka Foley Incorporated for the renter of the chiller system and preventative maintenance at Persian Ice Rink uh through source well purchasing cooperative for the uh Department of
Recreation. Director, thanks for your work in moving this forward. Uh assuming it's get approved on Wednesday, uh would we expect ice to be ready, you know, at the start of the season in early November? We're looking at second week in October. Okay, great. You can get that early.
Beautiful. Thank you. No problem. And uh we're going to have a um a conversation tomorrow just to hash out any small details that we might have missed. I don't think that's any I can't hear you. Mike Brown, didn't we approve something
for them to take care of the ice ring about a year ago? Uh have to check back. I mean, there was some stuff for the ice rink. Um, Councilman, we've done several upgrades to facility, including a new net, repainting, sensor roof repairs, HVAC
repairs. We did the chiller last year. So, this is an ongoing process. We're upgrading the whole facility. So, we did we did do that last year. Yeah. So, rent to lease. However, until the facility is fully upgraded, we want to purchase everything and put it in there
yet because we have to make sure that can fit everything. So, we're continuing that rental until we're ready to purchase it when the facility can accept it. Thank you, Council DJ. Good afternoon, Council President, members of the council. Uh, I'm Gigi
Gason, the director for the division of affordable housing. I have one item for your consideration today. It's resolution 25-586, agenda item 10.22. And this is a resolution designating companies and individuals eligible to serve as
administrative agents in connection with the city of Jersey City's municipally mandated affordable housing program. Uh so basically this certifies a list of administrative agents that we direct developers uh to use. As you know, most of the units that we monitor uh are in
mixed income units and a lot of the developers are smaller for-profit developers. So, they don't necessarily understand all of the intricacies of affordable housing compliance. Uh and so we do ask them to use administrative agents as per the ordinance. Uh and this is just a list. We certify it every
year. Any questions? Okay. Thank you for your support and your consideration. It is here. He was just here. Thank you, Council President, members of
the council. I'm Diana Jeffrey. I'm the director of the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency. I'm here to discuss um ordinance 25-097. That's item 3.3 on the agenda. This is an ordinance that requests uh the
council um authorized the discharge of a deed restriction in connection with the medical center. This deed restriction was entered into between the medical center and the EDA about in the early 1990s. It set
restrictions on the use of the land and the city was a third party beneficiary of that deed restriction. Now this the hospital is contemplating a major expansion which Evans McCann is here to discuss that includes increasing
ambulatory care for the citizens as well as the number of beds and other services provided by the hospital and parking in exchange for the project that they're contemplating can only be undertaken if
the dis if the deed restriction is discharged. because the limitations on the land will interfere with the redevelopment project in terms of financing and other things. Because of the redevelopment agreement that we have with the hospital, the JCA
negotiated a $26.75 million payment to the JC, which we will then pass on to the city. So, the benefits of this project is that you get an expanded hospital with more services to the community plus a payment of $26.75 million.
What the city does with that payment is not up to the JC or the hospital. It's completely and solely in your decision and discretion. So with that, unless I you have any questions for me, um I'd like to call up Neans McCann who can discuss briefly in more detail what the
hospital will be doing for the community. Question. Yeah. Uh how big is the parking garage? Oh gosh. Neans, that's for you. I don't know. I don't remember the detail. I'll stand here.
I'm Neans McCann. I'm a partner at Connell Foley. Uh I've had the good pleasure of serving the city uh as a member of the board of the Jersey City Medical uh center for many years now. Uh the specific answer to your question uh
Councilman Bojaniano is we're building a garage of approximately 12-,400 parking stalls. It's going to be a several story parking garage. Tremendously expensive. Having been watching the hospital expand and meet the needs of the community all
these years, one of the biggest problems we've had is parking. If anyone's been there, unfortunately I have. Uh parking is very difficult. Uh this is something that's been in the works for a decade. We actually bought this property from the JC about eight years ago, but we've
worked in partnership with the state and the city to make this incredible medical center a possibility. We're the largest charity care hospital in Hudson County. We are the the the place of last resort. We turn no one away and the need grows
every year. We have invested year overyear in our campus and and and we invest for the people of not just Jersey City but everybody in the county. As you've seen, we have invested throughout
the city approximately $500 million by putting ambulatoratory care in in the Heights in Greenville in downtown. It's something that we feel very important uh to to accomplish. We expanded our
emergency room a few years ago because when the when it was built, it was to to service 35,000 people a year when we were getting over a 100,000. The needs of this community keep growing. This was always the plan was on
our 15 acre parcel was to sell off a small portion of it to finance the expansion and build this garage and three more medical office buildings. One we have planned with O physical therapy,
occupational therapy, oncology, every use you can imagine because this city's big, vast, and diverse. Uh this this request is is so important but really a feather in the cap to this city to have
an an organization like this work so tirelessly through thick and thin to service the needs of this community um is something you should all be proud of. I know that I'm proud to come forward with this. Uh so I don't know if you have any
questions but to to this is something that is imperative to the growth of the services of this of this city. I don't know if you realize this but Jersey City Medical Center services three time it services more than all three other major
hospitals in Hudson County combined. So the role that we play is staggering. It's never ending and the expansion is necessary. So, we hope you find support for this. If you have any questions, please ask. Yeah. Um, just by way of just trying to
understand exactly. So, this parcel you guys already own, correct? Yes. Um, but something in the D has some type of contingency with the city that they have to to to release a restriction.
When when the property was purchased in conjunction with the state economic development authority, there was a deed restriction put across all of the property that it had to be used for medical use. in developing our strategic plan for the
future. We've spoken with the city and the EDA and they all understand why we need to sell a small portion of it and lift that restriction because it's financing the garage and the buildout of additional care facilities for the
community. So if and when you guys as a body approve this lifting of the restriction, we will be going next to the meeting at the state EDA where they're prepared to do the same thing. Everyone believes in this investment and feels it's for the most. Oh, okay. Now and I got a little more
clarity. So yeah, that I also just want to add that um when they sell this parcel, the JC negotiated a a payment to the city as well. So, the city's going to get that 26.75 million
from our negotiation. Just to bring some clarity to that, we bought the property in 2014, I believe, or 2016. And we sat on it while we did this plan and built it out and really it's it's well thought out
with the the data we get to see what the needs are. But when we sold it for the profit, we're splitting the profit with the city. So that's what Diane is is speaking of and we're taking the other half to build into the garage and all the other facilities. So, um, you're
selling a portion of the land that you guys purchased in 14. Um, what's the what was the purchasing price if I'm $24 million? 24. And subsequently, the deal will net 26 to the JCA, back to the city, and the
other, I would imagine, will go to financing for the medical garage and all that stuff. Correct. Okay. 5050 split. All right. I I just have a question, Ne, and it's more of like a concern, right? So, um I
love the project, you know, and the fact that it's expanding, you know, medical care. I'm I'm with that 100%. Uh a couple of years back uh they had that road uh diet or that traffic and
engineering change on Jersey Avenue and it took probably 120 spots away from teachers that teach in that local uh schools. It's 1, two, three, four schools in that area and those teachers used to use that. Is there any way that
being that you're going to have so much parking that the hospital can give those teachers those spots, you know, for the time that they're there? It's it's I think it's uh 10 months out of the year. They're not there in the summer, but um
those teachers are racking up a whole lot of tickets and stuff like that going to their to their classes late because those spots have been taken away. I would really appreciate if the hospital can say, "Hey, you know, uh, as a give back to our local teachers there, we'd
give we can do this for support." Certainly something I I'll bring back. I can't I can't commit to it, but but that that triggered one thing that I wanted to share. We've been renting parking spots all around to cover our shortfall
of parking to the tune of probably a million dollars and change a year. That's no way to run a hospital in where people are coming in to be cared for. We need to have our own garage, you know what I mean? Where people can come in be be close to the the medical center. But I will bring that up and before
Wednesday I'll get back to you. Is is there parking on the land the city intends to sell at the medical center? I don't I don't believe so. No. No. It's it's it's financing the building of
a parking center. Very small piece we're we're siphoning off to allow for the construction of the rest. And it was put out to public bid. Um um and we we had and 10 10 responders
and we picked the highest um responder for the for the project. Hospital did. Any other questions? Thank you. Thank you, Laura. I would just note for the record,
Councilman Cle is now present at 4:24 p.m. Hi. Good afternoon, council members and council president. Um, I'm here for two resolutions. The first one is um resolution 25-570 item 10.6
a resolution to cancel a portion of the 2024 and 2025 real estate taxes on a black A4 LA 23 qualifier C00001 due to the tax ab granted in 2023 and omitted from the tax list for both
years. This property is a condo unit. Uh the property was on brand new construction back in 2022 in July. Um they applied for a tax abayment in October 2022 which is more than 30 days um window which is allowed uh by when
they when they apply for the tax abatement they have 30 days to apply for a for an abatement. So they pass almost four months. So we denied the payment and they took the case to the county board and they appealed in the county board and they granted that a payment in
the county board. So we took it to the tax court trying to dispute the decision. But after reviewing the files, we find out that we be better just to keep it a tax abayment because it's a one unit condo. And when it comes to the CUI inspections, that's how we decided
to grant it the abatement based on the county decision in 2023. So therefore, I'm asking the municipal council to authorize a collector to refund to cancel the taxes in the amount of $7,393 cents for two years, 2024 and 2025.
What Laura? What's the What's the exact address? The property is on 11 Irving Street. 11 Street Vine Street in the Heights. Oh, Irvin Street. Okay.
So initially we denied them. They appealed they won. We looked to try to consider to oppose the appeal but in the best interest of I guess finances of the city. We're just going
to oblige to give uh No, actually it was um we took it to the tax court trying to fight it the decision of the county but um we investigated the property how the inspections were issued the certificate of occupancy is timing about the dates. So we knew there was no word to fight it
in the court because it's only one unit. So we didn't have enough backup since um it has to do something with the certificate occupancies inspection cos dates. So we decided just to keep it based on the county board in 2023. And how long will the the property be
abated? So it's just five years. Five years. Yes. It's a short-term abatement. So it is the two that just passed with the refund and then three more. Yes. So actually they have 2023. We giving 2024 five. So they had two more years to go. Two more years.
Yes. Now, when this refund is is going to like they they're receiving a check, they're not receiving a credit. We apply a credit to the account. A credit? Yes. And that's what they they've agreed they
they're okay with that. It's usually the way that has been done. Okay. I just when I when my money do, I I want my money. I don't want no credit. Well, and we don't have a complaint for the taxpayer yet, so they okay being uh
um put it for the next future quarters. Oh, okay. No, but I want to pay them when I want to pay. $5,000 a day and $5,000 in 90 days is two different $5,000. I didn't hear you. I'm sorry. No, I was talking to Danny. He don't
understand numbers that I was Go ahead. Go ahead, Dora. Okay. Sorry. So, the next resolution is resolution 25-571, item 10.7, a resolution to reject all the proposals received by the city for the real property appraisal service for
the tax assessor office under July 28, 2005 that RFP um to issue and revise for a longer term. So um I requested to be change the term of the appraisal companies from 12 months to two years with a 3 years extension. So that's the
reason that I'm requesting to be um basically rejected so we can reissue them again. Okay. Thank you Asia. Good afternoon, members of the municipal council. My name is Deja Anderson. I'm the director of the Division of
Community Development. I have five resolutions for you today. Um the first one is agenda item number 10.23 23 and that's resolution 25-587 and it is a resolution authorizing the business administrator to execute the
discharge encumbering the mortgage located at 60 Martin Luther King Drive in Jersey City. Um, this property was a recipient of home investment partnership funds in the amount of $288,000
and the mortgage was recorded in July of 2002. All the conditions of the mortgage have been satisfied and the city is obligated to discharge. The next one that I have for you is 10.24 24 and that's resolution 25-588
and it's a resolution authorizing the business administrator execute the discharge of the mortgage encumbering 156 Columbia Avenue in Jersey City. Um this property is a recipient of firsttime home buyer funds in the amount
of $13,500. The mortgage was recorded on March 14th of 2000. um all the terms of the mortgage have been satisfied and no payment is due and therefore the city is obligated to discharge.
Okay. Um the next item that I have for you is 10.25 25. And that's resolution 25-589. And it's a resolution authorizing the business administrator to execute the mortgage discharge encumbering 422-424
Holiday Street in Jersey City. Um, this property received home investment partnerships funds in the amount of $52,000. Um, this occurred on a mortgage dated June 25th of 1993.
Um, this borrower does intend to sell to another qualified borrower. So, there is a payment amount of $110,13759. Um once payment is received, the discharge will be contingent upon
receipt of the payment. The next item that I have for you is 10.26. That's resolution 25-590. And this resolution will authorize the business administrator to execute um a mortgage discharge on the property
located at 709 Garfield Avenue. This property received $50,000 in regional contribution agreement funds. Um, this occurred on May 25th of 2000. Um, all
conditions of this program have been satisfied and there is a payment due in the amount of $183,397.99. Um, and that will be deposited into the 955 program income account. All right. And the last resolution that
I have for you today is agenda item 10.27. That's resolution 25-591. And this is a resolution um for council to authorize the submission of fiscal year 2026 community service block grant
application to the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs. Again, this is for our CSBG grant that operates for a one-year period and it commences on January 1st, 2026 and will run through December 31st of 2026.
Um, consistent with the city's needs and via our assessment, the city has applied and requested $976,320. And again, our CSBG funded is focused on our extremely low population that have
incomes at 200% or less of the federal poverty guidelines. Um, I did receive some questions from Councilman Gilmore's office. I'm prepared with those answers or I can follow up with writing if you would like. Yes,
you um either or. It doesn't matter. Um, if you want to discuss some on the record, you can. or if you can uh send the well I would prefer to email response for my recollection. Absolutely. Uh but if you want to discuss them you could also
um so the first question all these questions were in reference to this resolution submission for CSBG. Um and you wanted information on our community engagement and notification and how we alerted the community. um notice went out to the community about three months
ago. Um that application would be open for these grant lines. Um over a month ago, DCD hosted an orientation session that was created based on the feedback that we received from the agencies. This orientation session allows them and
educates them on the threshold requirements so that they can be successful when placing an application. Um just last Wednesday we had our pre-application seminar. Um, and this is an opportunity for us to go through the application line by line. It was
attended by about 78 individuals representing um, all of the agencies that are involved in providing services to our vulnerable populations. We also sent out notice that these applications were going out using our mailing list where we have over 7,000 unique email
addresses. We also advertise via the city's website, city's social media. Um and all of our advertisement is done in accordance with our HUD approved participation plan. Um you wanted to know um about any issues that we're
having with the distribution of the funding um and about agencies maybe not being in receipt of promised funds. Um just as a point of clarification, I think that um that terminology is a little bit of a mischaracterization
of our division's operations. Um, if we withhold funds, it's typically due to compliance issues. And if there are delays in our ability to disperse funds, typically those complaints are coming from the federal appropriations timeline, not necessarily the work of
the team here in DCD. However, you did ask on what measures will we take to kind of improve this going forward. Um, again, these measures are kind of built into all these steps we've already taken, whether that is providing robust compliance. We also have a postawward
seminar. So any agency that is uh approved by municipal council for funding will receive information and guidance on how to submit these vouchers and for us to get through a prompt payment process. We provide them with clear guidelines and we also provide
them access to the division's policy and procedure manuals. And again, for me to be responsive to the community, um, at the pre-application seminar, multiple agencies requested a timeline extension for this current application cycle,
which I did grant by providing all agencies an additional two weeks to submit um, applications for this competitive grant cycle. Um, you had questions about again how we help them navigate the applications and I think I kind of clarified some of those
questions for you. Um, in reference to payment, we also provide them with the calendar of reimbursement which are tied to municipal council meetings. Additionally, our team and the technical assistance that we provide, we're mostly reimbursing agencies for payroll. So
what we need from them is the prompt receipt of their paid out payroll time logs that are accurate for the employees and that are appropriately aortioned for the work that they're doing for the agency as a whole to the amount of time
they actually spend dedicated doing the grant work that we're funding. Um and all of this uh we just again train them on staying within their cost allocation plans and staying within the budget guidelines. Um, and then the other
question was about how do we make decisions on allocating funds? And I mean again, we can talk about that a little bit more offline, but I would say that it starts with the development of our five-year consolidated plan and our annual action plan, which is a collaborative process, not only with the
community that requires 30-day community feedback, feedback and input. Um, but also goes up for council approval and vote. Um, each time we make these decisions or if I have to make changes to allocations or things we decided in
the plan, it always requires me to go back to the community to notify them and come back to council for a goal. Yeah. Thank you, DJ. You're very welcome and you guys enjoy the rest of your afternoon. Good afternoon, council. I'm here on behalf of Director Kierce,
agenda number 10.29, resolution 25-593. This is a resolution authorizing the award of a contract to Continental Hardware to provide lumber and assorted building materials for the Department of Public Works Division and the building and street for maintenance.
Any questions? Okay, thank you. Anyone else? I think nobody. All right, our first reading ordinances. Agenda item 3.1, ordinance 25-095,
a a bond ordinance providing for various capital improvements by and in the city of Jersey City in the county of Hudson in the state of New Jersey reappropriating 79,713,282 excess bond or note proceeds from various bond ordinances not needed for
their original purpose to finance the cost thereof. of Oh, um Oh, go ahead, James. Sorry, Peter. I misunderstood what you said earlier. You you withdrawing this or what? We're going to withdraw this one. Correct. Got it. Okay. Well, Peter, if you can um I know we're
going to withdraw it um when you bring it back or before you bring it back if we can get like a um by ward. Yeah. Just just to see. Oh, refinance to do that for you, C. Agenda item 3.2, 2. Ordinance 25-096,
an ordinance amending chapter A352 enabling ordinances of the Jersey City Municipal Code commemoratively designating Bentley Avenue from John F. Kennedy Boulevard to Westside Avenue as Walter R. Lzinski Way.
Agenda item 3.3, we already discussed. Agenda item 3.4, 4, ordinance 25-098 and ordinance amending chapter 218, multiple dwellings, section 12 of the code of ordinances of the city of Jersey
City by adding subsection 3, mandatory disclosure for rent increases. Agenda item 3.5, ordinance 25-099, an ordinance amending and supplementing
chapter 260, rent control of the code of ordinances of the city of Jersey City to clarify the scope of state level exemptions. Agenda item 3.6, 6. Ordinance 25-100,
an ordinance amending and supplementing chapters 218, multiple dwellings, chapter 260, rent control, and chapter 254, property maintenance of the code of ordinances of the city of Jersey City to
establish mandatory minimums for violations of housing related ordinances. Sure. So this is um 3.4, 3.5, 3.6 are ones that uh we're introducing. Um briefly on 3.4
um this is in relation to the banning of AI algorithms that we uh passed a couple months ago. Uh we've been continuing to talk to folks about the best way to enforce it. And one of the ideas was to just mandate in leases that landlords affirmatively disclose that they're not
using the software. uh in this case obviously if they were to be using it and then uh uh you know falsely disclose that they're not using it in the in the lease uh it does create sort of uh issues with uh consumer fraud. So we just think this strengthens the enforcement of the ordinance. Um the
second one 3.5 is um amending and supplementing chapter 260 uh to clarify the scope of state level exemptions. And what we believe we're doing here is is simply clarifying the pre-existing rule uh that says if landlords don't properly
follow a number of disclosure rules as well as other rules in in 260 that they're not entitled to rental increases. Uh so you know there's there was some vague language and we wanted to clarify that. And then the last one 3.6
six. Um, this we are entitled by law to establish a mandatory minimum fine uh of $100. And uh what you hear sometimes from the port side tenants as well as others is that a bunch of fines gets issued and then they all get thrown away. And so this would set the
mandatory minimum of $100 if a summon is ultimately uh you know deemed to be valid. Uh we think that creates again a disincentive to engage in bad actions as landlords. So those are the three ordinances and the three descriptions. Um and obviously happy to answer questions or provide more information
before first reading. Um it get away if it's in the courts. I I don't understand it. Agreed. I mean that and it's something what the judges do we can't control, but we don't want the prosecutors throwing it out. But but do we know that they're doing that that they're throwing it out?
So it is our understanding that what happens a lot of times the cases get all rolled up and so the violations do get dismissed. Uh and we again the trying to set that and try trying to set a minimum. It doesn't uh eliminate all of that, but it does set the minimum that if there is a summon that's ultimately
adjudicated that it can't just be no money. It has to be a minimum of $100. Yeah, it's nothing. I know, but we can't go more than that. It's lit. It's literally the the is the most we can do. I wish we could do more, but that is the most we can do. Are we
allowed to do 100 per tenant? $100 violation per tenant per infraction. That's what it calls for in the ordinance, proposed ordinance. I'll let the law department speak about a little bit, but Councilman, it's also
$100 a minimum they're looking at. They could potentially go up to $2,000. That discretion is up to the prosecutor, the judge, everyone else. So, it doesn't have to be a minimum dollars, correct? It can be a lot more than that. But they throwing it out now. What is going to prevent them from doing this?
That's the problem. It's obviously it's not my office, but I would push back on saying that items are just thrown out. Obviously, when there's a bunch of tickets written, they have attorneys, there could be plea agreements. Uh I don't know the specifics offhand. Obviously, that is
something that happens quite often. Um so, I don't know. can get more specifics from the prosecutor if you're worried about any particular let's have a meeting with the prosecutor because this makes no sense. I think part of the part of the issue as I've
been watching this going on um there have been several violations. Um and for whatever reason, I mean I'm not in a negotiation room but plea agreements is if they plead to this then
they'll throw the remainder out. But the problem with that is like it's not enough to deter the behavior the law is implemented and intended to do. Um, we can have a meeting with the
prosecutor, okay? VA set it up cuz um it's defeating our purpose to be perfectly honest. Even if we put this in place if if they feel like, oh, let's make a plea and we just going to throw out, the behavior doesn't change and that's part of the problem in this
city. The behavior is out of control. Okay, moving on to our second reading ordinances. Agenda item 4.1, ordinance 25-086, an ordinance of the municipal council of the city of Jersey City, adopting
amendments to the Journal Square60 redevelopment plan and the St. John's redevelopment plan. Sean, uh, John, I mean, uh, you look like Sean from the back. Uh I was asked to make an amendment to this
here for Cottage Street and Van Ripen, but uh I was just told in a message that this might be a major uh change and nobody is here from planning at this time. There's nobody here from planning.
So uh I'm going to propose an amendment uh for Cottage Street Ren. Can it be put on? Is the lawyer here? Councilman, if you want, why don't you email the planning department after this and then we can make sure they get a response from them. We didn't discuss
it. Is the lawyer here? They told me they would have a lawyer here to discuss this. Come and discuss this. Yeah, Chuck, I thought we had settled this shoe. Yes. I uh further echo Charles Harrington of Connell Foley on behalf of
um property owner um of uh lots 15 15 and 49 uh in block 7903. These are these are lots on uh Cottage Street and and and Van Ripen. Um, and my client owns those
two properties. And he's in discussions with the uh the the property owners directly next door, lot 16 and lot 48 to request that they be remapped as uh zone 3. We had made this uh request at
the at the planning board uh as well. It involves some additional lots. Um you know you know um you know full disclosure you know planning board did not recommend uh the change um and planning did not recommend the change. Um but uh we are requesting um the
reason we we are requesting it and the reason we put before the the uh planning board is that while these are zone 4 um the properties and I know you don't have the map in front of you the properties between them can be developed under the
homestead place extension which allows them to be uh developed as zone 3 properties. Um so the idea uh there is these these are separated from them uh from the homestead place extension. So it would give these
properties the ability to to uh be developed uh under the zone 3 uh regulations um which again would the the affordable housing provisions would apply. So you'd have 10% correct affordable for all projects 30 units and above. Uh so you
would get you know a larger development consistent with the homestead uh developments that are already there. Um but uh we we see a benefit that that you'd have the 10% affordable as well. So we just think these are kind of outliers um that and I and I can provide
a map you know to the council between now and and Wednesday so it's a lot more clearer. But councilman, we did have we did have a discussion uh and my client advised me that he's he'd still like to pursue it but on a smaller scale just these these particular properties um to
uh be part of this. So, uh, knowing this was coming on, you should have had to somebody from planning here because planning is against it. And, uh, I think that, uh, it's a major change in the, uh, whole
plan, the whole redevelopment plan. Chuck, let me let me ask you this. Um, if this if these lots are not included, how can he build? What could he build? Because this based on what you're saying, it's just like these two lots are left out. Correct.
Right. Now, if they're left out and everybody else is building around him, what option does he have to build? He then he then has the option to build under the current zoning, which is zone 4, uh, which I believe is max, it's like
8 to 12 stories. I'm not I'm not sure off the top of my head, but he still has the right to build. Uh, and I know the planning planning has um a their their idea for zone four, which are not part of these amendments before you, are to provide for 10 additional stories to
accommodate the affordable housing in and hopefully the next round of amendments. This would bring it up to zone three, which would allow you to go up to 27 stories and then another accommodation. So um those are um and and if he goes up it changes the
presented for afford for affordable housing. Correct. He does. Yeah. It' be a requirement of 10% affordable housing as as part of that. Chuck, why don't you arrange have Tanya come to city hall and Mike Manzela and you and me and we'll sit down and we'll
discuss this whole issue like we have in the past because I mean you have to do that by Wednesday. I mean, I I I would love to to amend that because it almost seems a little blatant there, you know. I mean, I really would like to amend that, you know, so it could be on the But these adjust the redevelopment plan
in the future. The the problem, this is the problem I have because the planning board disagrees. They don't say it shouldn't be built, but then there's another way in which they can go around the planning board. They can come to us directly to
get it done. Now, my concern is though, if we put this forth, all right, he can go up how many additional stories? And that's why I want Tanya here, too. She got to explain that pretty much to us because Chuck and uh you represent your
client, which is great. That's right. But we need somebody to represent us to give us really a clarity of all of this because Rich is saying one thing and we want to make sure we're not doing any harm to this developer that wants these put on here too. That
that's all. We just need clarity because we make that decision. This this kind of this discussion with my client just kind of came together in the last couple of days. So that's why planning it was not aware that I'm even I'm here tonight. I was I was here really to
listen to the to the uh redevelopment plan amendments and and and possibly have a discussion about it which I'm I'm here and I'm happy to discuss it with planning so that you the council members can can talk to talk to them as well because as the councilman noted there I
guess a legal question would be whether it's a substantial change or not uh to the pending ordinance and if it's a substantial change does that does that move move you back to first reading it moves us So that's why I want to know if it moves
us back to first base will affect what is in the process of you know this going on now cuz we don't want to invite anybody but we got two wins. Yep. Understood. So these two parcels you you want them included in the zone and they're not
currently included. They're they're zone four right now. We're we're requesting that they be remapped as zone three. So there's everybody everybody else except for but planning knew this though, right? And then they they it involves
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. That's why we want to know. Chuck, what is the current affordable housing percentage for these lots? So if you develop them now under zone 4, there is no affordable housing requirement. So there's no plans for it either. The developer isn't thrown in any.
No, not under zone 4. If it were changed to zone three, you would have to have 10% on any projects that are 30 units or more. I know planning, you know, again, in spirit of full disclosure, I know planning has has has ideas of changing zone 4 so that it's a 10% requirement as
well for 30 uh units or more and then and a separate accommodation for zone 4 properties. Oh, so is so is that's so so that must be planning position. That's right. Oh, they think their future
Yeah, I see what I see what you're saying now. Interesting. Yeah, Rich, you guys got to meet, Rich. What? You guys got to have a meeting. Yeah. Well, this is what uh I see what I see what planning's position is. They're basically saying that they're going to get around to
doing it. It's going to mandate affordable clause anyway. Councilman, if there are proposed amendments, we don't have a copy of them yet. So if you have them, if you can send them to us and the clerk so we can review them to see if they would be a substantial change.
This is just a convers. See, that's what I'm saying. It's a conversation. We don't have anything in front of us again. And you know, we need something in front of us and know how to proceed. So even though you here to represent your client accidentally, I don't know,
uh we don't have nothing. Understood. Chuck, later on in the week, get a hold of Tanya if you can arrange a meeting with her and Mike Manzel and we'll sit down and talk again. I mean, this affects an area that affects more than
just those two lots. It affects an area which a lot of one and two family homes and I think one of the reasons the people are, you know, are against it. But if Conor and uh Mike go along with some sort of a an amendment to the
redevelopment plan in the future, we could do it. Understood. And uh thank you. I just have to go back, James, to your three um ordinance. Um we want um I just got texts because
um the director Shyon said he wasn't informed. So he just want to know how this is going to affect his department because this goes back to him. So um Oh yeah. And the enforcement who That's right. He just text me because he didn't know this was coming. So
sure. So I think 3.6 it's mandatory fine with the prosecutor's office. Okay. Um 3.5 is clarifying the scope of the existing resol regulations. Um we didn't get a memo to him so he knows exactly.
And uh 3.4 Four would just be that he would then um his office if some you know a tenant said look the lease doesn't have the mandatory disclosure then that could be a violation uh that his office uh could find but we can get him a memo the next 24 hours on on 3.4
four and 3.5. And I think this too um because we still going through this budget hearing um I think his office somehow or another we're going to have to increase his enforcement um his staff. I don't we are we've been changing you know certain um
ordinance especially when it come to tenant and landlord and um the problem is is the enforcement. I I think we're writing good legislation to be perfectly honest. It's just that we don't have no enforcement and until that department
get enforced it's like this is just you know it it has no power it has no teeth to it so to say so I think uh part of the priority is that we need to make sure during this budget process he at least get two more staff members and the
reason why I'm saying this BA is because it pays for itself it it will pay for itself positions like that will pay for itself Right. We we can't move any further without that disinforcement because people are
hurting throughout the whole city when it comes to tenant and landlord. Shall I continue with the second reading ordinances, council president? Yes. Yes. Okay. Agenda item 4.2, 2. Ordinance 25-087, an ordinance of the municipal council
amending the Faget Broadway redevelopment plan. Uh Sean, uh John, another issue, and I just got two calls before I came in here, that the neighborhood and the organizations down there are deadly against this. So, I
think this I think this should be pulled. I know people are going to come here and speak on Wednesday night. wife too. Uh I just want to let the rest of the council know there's a lot of opposition opposition to this change.
My understanding was there's supposed to be outreach in between because you know we had talked about pulling it at first reading and then the thought was it would happen between first and second reading and has that happened council? Nope. They haven't they gone. Okay.
Um you here Jean to discuss this 4.2 to before we pull it. My name is Eugene Powino from Genova Burns. I'm representing the developer on this application.
Um, this, you know, is an a I don't know what to address, but if you're asking Councilman Solomon's question as to outreach, we've had about uh four community meetings. I reached out to try to schedule another community meeting,
but was unable to get it done. Um I have uh spoken with Mr. with Councilman Bojano just very briefly. Um but we we've gotten uh nowhere. I think at the end of the day uh the council president seemed
quite correctly that the objections uh because this is an objection to a redevelopment plan amendment need to be presented. It's not clear to me even what the objections are. I have some idea, believe me, but I I they're not I don't want to state them. That's for
somebody else to do. And I think we were waiting for the hearing um to do that at the at the at the when the when the issue was raised. They said no arrangement was made for another meeting. We spoke about this. I was trying with Pam to do that. Uh
you don't arrange it through Pam. You arrange it through the people down there at Mount Carmel. Not with Pam, you know. I I the only point I'm trying to make is that I tried to do that, right? No one reached out to me, by the way.
But I I He tried to meet. That's what he said. In the in the past, could you say you guys, right? In the in the past, you guys met four times. You said three or four times. So the the last
time we had a meeting was uh at the U Mount Carmel basement. Mhm. Before that, we had a meeting in the old empty puchinis building. And before that, there were there were two uh street meetings on the corner of of
of Broadway and and near West Side. How were you? There were there were countless uh discussions with me and um with me and my associate with Mike Manzo um and discussions with Council Bojano's office. So, how did you guys coordinate
those meetings? That's the problem. How did you guys coordinate? Here's here's the interesting thing. The the the the complaints that Councilman may have gotten and the complaints that I heard at those meetings uh was generally not about this amendment. It was about
an adjacent project in which my client was working on was building uh and they had complaints about it. Uh my my client uh the developer has no violations as appointed has had uh the construction
people all over the place trying to control everything that's going on. There was concern about truck noise. There was concern about uh sidewalk shedding for instance. The pedestrian walkway is shedded on top so it's protected from falling debris. The
community couple of members from the community Mr. Manzo predominantly uh asked that the sidewalk shedding be removed except that that's a requirement of the building department. So I contacted the building department and you know and asked you know can we are we entitled to
remove this this sidewalk shedding and the answer is that I knew would be the answer was no because we're subject to liability if something falls down. Right? So you can't you can't just simply tell the developer remove the sidewalk shedding and expect that there be no repercussions. there would be
repercussions. So there were those kinds of issues. Uh there was issues relating to the number of trees. Uh there's 29 trees being planted. Um there was there was issues with respect to it was all related to the ongoing project, not to the amendment to the
redevelopment plan, which leads me to the statement that I made that I'm not quite sure what the objections to the redevelopment plan are. Amen. The building of the new building. They want to put up another building and they objected to it because on the prior building I was at another meeting last
week with the people uh the they the the developer didn't listen to the neighborhood and you said they had three meetings. I was at I think two of them and nothing was accomplished and he or developing it just doesn't listen to the people in the community and they're
tired of it. People in this city are tired of being shoved around. So the developer that wants to do the redevelopment have already previously done work and having Oh, so Oh, so they're frustrated because he's he's
essentially in their eyes reneged on the first part of the contract. So they want to make sure that we we don't get in a position where that's done again. But even if all that's true or false, I just know that at the last council meeting, I
was under the pressure at least that a meeting was going to take place. And if a meeting didn't take place, then in good conscious I can't vote for it. I'm not familiar with the actual logistics of how up or anything, but I'm sorry. I I didn't mean to
interrupt you, but yeah, that's that's that's the impression that I was under that that a meeting was going to take place between 1 and two and now I'm here at a dance. That's my and I know um Mr. Manzo was here last time and I know he said he was going to reach out to my office. I didn't receive
anything from him neither. So all day today and uh if that's the wall against it and has I think I I you know I just recollected uh there was between that uh the first reading and today there was one phone
call um instituted by uh Mr. Pizzill of my office and Mr. Pazillo called at the request of Councilman Moano that he reach out to Mr. Manzo. Okay. And my understanding is Mr. Pazilla is
here. He could fill you in more if you wish. But my understanding is that Mr. Manzo's complaints were all related to that other project. Other project, but you could hear from the, you know, the horse's mouth if you wish.
It's uh it's both projects. They're just uh you know, they're just tired over there of a lot of the things going on. The the only person I've heard a lot about is Mr. Manzo is Oh, it's not only him. Genie, you if you come to the church when they have the meetings down there, it's not him. It's
a a lot of elder older women are furious about this and speak to them. You know, they've lived in the neighborhood all their lives. They're tired of what's going on. And it's a, you know, uh, what you should have done is contacted Manzo
and, uh, the I can't think of his name, the guy that runs the meetings over there and sat down and discussed all these issues with them and that that hasn't happened. You know, I know you said they had three meetings. I was at two of them as I said nothing. I think
they had about four as a matter of fact. But you know the issue is the project in in in existing now based on to my understanding people are not happy with the project now the community there evidently the developer is not
communicating with the community based on the project that he have existing now that's going up. I can only say this. Uh there is there was a a community meeting um three community meetings ago on the
street in which certain uh things were requested that there be a website that there be a sign signage for complaints. All of those were done. the developer has never received a violation from from
the city uh at all with respect to the violation of any of the permits, the building permits. None of those. There's no violations here. So, I don't I understand the community is upset about development construction going on. I would be upset if there's construction
going on adjacent to my house, right? But I don't know th this is a big city and people live nearby and the the the intent is always among as far as I know for clients I've represented get them done get the the work done quickly so
that there is no more upset within the community. Yeah. You can do what you can in terms of giving them, you know, lo, uh, to giving them, uh, avenues to respond to to to deal with issues that that come up, but if they're not used, uh, or if
they are used and they are repaired, you never sat there there's no satisfaction. would they have they have about I don't know at least four guys out around the the property whose only job is to make sure that the trucks get in and out quickly that there that there's
no upset with respect to you know blockage of any paths that the pedestrians are safe I I don't know what more they could possibly do Jean Jersey in a city like Jersey City Jean it has to do with the Puchini project uh basically and the changes
that were made and a lot of the people over there uh are really annoyed. Uh they heard some of the changes they want and uh Puchinis is going to be gone probably. You know, we thought they thought there was going to be a restaurant there. They thought this was
going to be done, that was going to be done. Why don't you just have your developer himself come sit down with the people in the neighborhood? The developer was at that meeting as was the architect, the engineer, the planner and me and nothing has been accomplished. They
didn't everything the people asked. Nothing was done. What was asked? I'm just Well, they have a load of questions. So, you'd have to There was So, it'll be here. They'll be here. Can we get a list of like concrete
what the requests from the community were? And if there are no requests that are concrete, then if it's just general like, you know, the construction is bothering us, like I get it. Like that's upsetting to everyone. Yeah. You know, but it has to we have to deal
with this amendment to the redevelopment plan, you know. I I sympathize. I empathize with them. I've gone through it, you know, but if if they need to change something, like let's get a list from the community and send it to Jean. They're going to be here. Uh they're
coming here Wednesday night because uh let them let them come on this. Yeah. I can tell you one thing that I could recall if if you want to hear it. Uh there was Mike Manzo was concerned about the width of the sidewalks in front of the new development. The one
that's proposed. It's it's not even proposed. This is an amendment to a redevelopment plan. This is not a site plan. Site plan. I still have to go to different. Yes. So there was a question as to as to the width of the sidewalk. It's supposed to be, I think, 15 feet. You know what the
width of the sidewalk is? 23 feet. It's 23 feet wide. I don't think so, Jean. I I know. So, I know it was 23. Jean, you said something else about enforcement. Well, Sunday morning there was
construction going on in Ward C on a Sunday morning and there's no enforcement of anything in the city. Jean, this I can see that this is more concerned about the building that's going up versus this redevelopment plan and this is getting crossed because it's
the same developer. I I I'm assuming so um what you can do is ask um I guess you've been at the meeting just send us a list on that concern what's going on with that project and we can kind of that yeah with that project but this is a separate
entity with this redevelopment plan. I got it. It's two different things. Yeah. Well, Rich, isn't there any way you can call a meeting and then invite all the parties to come? Because we can't. Huh? Well, we I mean, we at some point we either got to vote on it or not. We
can't We can vote on it. Yes or no? But this is a separate issue. These people are upset about what's going on and I want to address that. They upset. I see what Rich is saying. They're upset. This is a different issue with the redevelopment plan. They upset about the people
working. They're upset about the trucks going in and out. The people are out there early in the morning probably doing they upset. So I want to see how we can address them because they're upset about the product that's being built. This has nothing to do with this re that's what my concern is. Right.
They have every reason to be upset about illegal construction. However, there's an avenue to iron that stuff out. The redevelopment zone is a separate incident is a separate instance. And I'm saying Rich as the council person can
have a meeting specifically as it relates to what they agree or disagree in the redevelopment zone. And if you want to bring up the external stuff, I fine. But for the sake of the council for us voting, how many meetings? Because they said that they had the meeting already and
the developer was there, he was there, the councilman was there. Like what where are we going with that? But the but they had the meeting but they keep bringing up the other that's what I'm saying. Send us a list with the other issues and we'll see how could we address that.
Thank you. This is enough. This is enough. We got it. This is enough. We got it. Thank you. Go ahead. Go ahead, John. This is it. Okay. Need the list. All right. Agenda item 4.3. Ordinance
25-088. a a franchise ordinance granting permission to 88 Region Street LLC, its successors and assigns to have private improvements in the public right ofway at Regent Street adjacent to the property located at 88 Region Street,
Jersey City, New Jersey, identified on the tax map of the city of Jersey City, as block 14002, lots 1.02 and 1.06. Agenda item 4.4, Four. Ordinance 25-089,
a franchise ordinance granting permission to Ian Gutch and Shannon Smith pursuant to resolution of the planning board of the city of Jersey City under case number P2024-0135 allowing the installation of a common
entry stoop and stair that extends into the right of way beyond the boundary lines of lot 30 block 1 9 07 and are for the benefit of lot 30 block 1 19007
commonly known as 328 Holiday Street Jersey City, New Jersey. Agenda item 4.5, Ordinance 25-090, an ordinance authorizing the city of Jersey City to execute an extension of a
lease with the New Jersey Public Schools Development Authority on real property located at block 21102, lot 52 on the city's tax map, located at 70 EGI Avenue for the purposes of
temporary parking for the via IA JC service agenda item 4.6 ordinance 25-091 an ordinance supplementing chapter 332 vehicles and traffic article 9 parking
for the disabled of the Jersey City Code designated a reserved parking space at various locations throughout the city. Agenda item 4.7, ordinance 25-092, an ordinance supplementing chapter 332,
vehicles and traffic, article 2, traffic regulations, amending section 332-9, stop intersections to designate various intersections in the Heights neighborhood into multi-way stop intersections.
Agenda item 4.8, 8. Ordinance 25-093, an ordinance supplementing chapter 332, vehicles and traffic, article 3, parking, standing and stopping, amending section 332-24, prohibited parking prohibited certain
hours along Van Winkle Avenue between Tunnel Avenue and Liberty Avenue. Agenda item 4.9, Ordinance 25-094, an ordinance supplementing chapter 332, vehicles and traffic, article 8, permit
parking, amending section 332-58, parking restrictions in residential zones to extend parking zone 2 to include Clifton Place between Fairmont Avenue and Summit Avenue. There will be a special hearing on the
2025 2026 Westside Avenue special improvement assessment role and budget. Uh, as far as our public request for hearing, we're up to about 28. Well, as of the printing this afternoon, we have 28 speakers. I suspect we will have more
before 6 pm on Wednesday. petitions and communications. There's any questions on those? Hearing none quite a bit. So, pardon me as I bear
with me as I leave through these. The reports of directors section 8 of the agenda. Unless there are any questions on this, I'll move on to the next item of business. Section nine of the agenda, claims list.
Is there any questions? Moving on to our resolutions. We went through items 10.1 through 10.9. Item 10.10, 10 resolution 25-574, a resolution of the municipal council of
the city of Jersey City in support of 32BJ SEIU security officers in their 2025 contract campaign. Agenda item 10.11, resolution 25-575,
resolution designating block 13103, lot 1, also known as 155 Montgomery Street, as an area in need of redevelopment without the power of condemnation or more specifically a non-condemnation
redevelopment area. Agenda item 10.12, resolution 25-576, a resolution reappointing Naen Kilibru from part-time judge to full-time judge of the Jersey City Municipal Court.
Agenda item 10.13, resolution 25-577, a resolution reappointing Irwin Rosen as a part-time judge of the Jersey City Municipal Court. Agenda item 10.14,
resolution 25-578, a resolution reappointing Mark C. Curtis as a part-time judge of the Jersey City Municipal Court. Agenda item 10.15, resolution 25-579,
a resolution reappointing W. Neans Macccan as a member of the Jersey City Medical Center Board of Trustees. Agenda item 10.16, resolution 25-580, a resolution reappointing John Manila as a member of the Jersey City Medical
Center Board of Trustees. Agenda item 10.17, resolution 25-581, a resolution accepting the assessment role of the 2025-2026 Westside Avenue Special Improvement
District of the City of Jersey City. Agenda item 10.18, resolution 25-582, a resolution adopting and ratifying the 2025-2026 budget of the Westside Avenue Special
Improvement District of the City of Jersey City. We've already discussed items 10.19 through 10.28, uh, sorry, 10.29. Agenda item 1030, resolution 25-594,
a resolution awarding an access agreement to Pacific Outdoor Advertising to enter city property at 111 Chapel Avenue to install a billboard display. Agenda item 10.31,
resolution 25-595, a resolution awarding a professional services agreement with the law firm of Light Palma Greenberg and Aphanador Aphanador LLC to represent the city of Jersey City in various litigation
matters. Agenda item 10.32, resolution 25-596, a resolution authorizing a lean against the properties listed herein for the cost of removing litter, debris, etc. in
accordance with NJSA 4048-2.14 and Jersey City Municipal Code section 287-4. Agenda item 10.33, resolution 25-597, a resolution authorizing the settlement of a of the consolidated actions
entitled uh Dvika D. Suku versus city of Jersey City at all. Docket number HUD-L-3656-21 consolidated with Narin Pasram versus City of Jersey City at all. Docket
number HUD-L-3997-21. Agenda item 10.34 resolution 24-598. A resolution authorizing that the calendar year 2025 municipal budget shall be read by title in accordance with NJSA4A
4-8. Agenda item 10.35, resolution 25-599, a resolution reappointing Donald Brown as a member of the Jersey City Housing Authority. Agenda item 10.36,
resolution 25-600, a resolution appointing Mera Princeari as a member of the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency. Resolution 10 agenda item 10.37 resolution 25-601
a resolution call for calling for a fair negotiated settlement agreement between the interns at Christ Hospital represented by SEIU/CIR and Hudson Regional Hospital.
Agenda item 10.38, resolution 25-602, a resolution honoring the 30th annual Jersey City West Indian Caribbean American Carnival. Uh, Deputy Clerk, I think we accidentally skipped 10.2 because it's two budgets. They had the
same name. What was that? I'm sorry. 10.2. 102. It's the Councilman's budget amendment. Oh, did I not read that into the I'm sorry. Um, yeah, sure. So, we mentioned this
briefly at the last one. Um, and I think we had sent an email to everyone at the council. Um so uh we were proposing shifting uh roughly a million dollars from the city council line for aids that we have not hired uh into the engineering traffic engineering
department to help deal with the backlog of uh vision zero requests and specifically uh to hire engineers so that they have the full-time team and staff. And then we did receive some requests from other council members to uh provide some funding for other line
items. So, we shifted 300,000 out of traffic and engineering, 100,000 to the city clerk's line item, 100,000 to the quality of life line item, and 100,000 to the sanitation line item. Um, so, and then it includes uh still the 900,000
for traffic and engineering uh in the department of infrastructure and uh primarily to fund the uh missing salaries uh for the positions that are not funded. And then um as I understand the logistics of this is you know we have 10.1 which is what's introduced uh
by the administration 10.2 is everything is the same as 10.1 except what's in this memo. So it's taking that money out of the city council line item and putting it in these other line items. And then my understanding and I defer to the clerk a little bit law department on procedure but is that the the council
should approve one or the other either 10.1 or 10.2 too and then there'll be a public hearing and final vote in two weeks after that is my understanding of it. That is my understanding as well but I defer to the lawyers on that point. Makes sense to me. Yep.
Yep. Yes. And administration keep telling me that there is funding to hire one. That is correct. Council President, the positions and the director of infrastructure has been told that, you know, she can hire them. We have funding to hire them. Currently, we have a uh
outside contract that's handling most of the emergency items. Um but has always been our intention to hire one. I think she's has issues getting one. Okay. So, and if that's in it's in the budget, it's in the updated budget from
the administration. To my knowledge, it is correct. Councilman, as I understand it, so the chief engineer position is in the current budget at staffed at 150,000. We're increasing that just to 10,000 by 160,000. So there's a little more salary
to try to entice someone to take the job. But then the other positions that are vacant, there's two principal engineer positions that are not funded. There's one engineering aid position, there's one supervising engineer position, and then in the traffic department, there's a senior engineer
position, two traffic engineering positions, one engineering aid, and one traffic analyst. So, there is the money in the budget for the the chief engineer uh trying to increase that, but the other engineering positions uh I believe I believe it's uh nine uh th those do
not have money. Do we give them a certain amount of time, you know, so that they can fill these positions or what happens if these positions don't get filled? Does this go back to the uh Yes. So, they've been in a temporary budget up till now, they haven't been
filled up till now. So, that's why for the remainder of the year, the intent was to, you know, use the money as it's currently in the budget versus what we're currently or the councilman's proposing to use it as. Now the next year if they want to change it and you know hire these positions we can actually find individuals that can be
addressed in next year's budget. Um but up till now the positions were open. They just haven't been able to hire anyone. Does it go back to the budget from the council or does it stay like right what what because the next council should have the right to do what they need to do with who comes in. So that no we just
because this won't happen till November with this change too. Correct. Right. It' be for the remainder of the year. It takes four to six months to even hire anybody, right? I'm not, you know, I think it's a nice
proposal, but it's, you know, we're at the 11th hour here doing this and there's going to be a change in administration. And I also question the efficacy of like hiring people at the end of the year when their positions won't be guaranteed.
you know, if it this was done last year or the year before, then, you know, I think it would have had like a super big impact. But as of right now, like we're literally at the end game. And for them to devote resources to interviewing and
then on boarding and then the year's over and then new council, new administration comes in and those positions aren't guaranteed. I think someone would be crazy to want to jump on board an uncertain future like that.
I I would just say that I I don't think we can operate a city with with basically one engineer, which is what we've been operating on. Um and so uh I I think putting more money in to get the chief engineer, putting more money to hire some of these engineering positions
would be in the start of next year's budget. Uh but obviously any position that's funded by the city could be changed by the future mayor and and council uh whoever they may be. So like my view is just we don't have the capacity. We should shift the money there. Um obviously when we originally
intended this we were under the impression we get to the budget amendments in July so we have more time. But um you know I I still think it important to shift the money over. You know if folks think it's it you want to shift a little less money than what's being shifted that certainly we can we can amend that before Wednesday. Uh but
I do think you know there are really important engineering position like we have to fund some of these positions. They just have to be funded and the only one that's funded in this year's budget is the chief engineer and it obviously hasn't been enough to get someone to say yes and whoever the next mayor is is going to have a chief engineer. I mean
that's just a thing you need. Um I have a question then. So, um I didn't know that we were even maybe discussing, you know, giving other departments um some of this uh some of
this money. I mean, uh like would would you would you consider even giving the Department of Recreation$100,000 or $200,000 because they're on life support as well? Yeah. Yes. I think we we tried to There's a lot of divisions that's on
life. Everybody that's that's the issue here, right? Agreed. So you can't give it. But yes, we had asked every council member for opinions. It was via memo, but for Wednesday, we're happy to to take a couple more before now and then. I just again Yeah. But so yes, I'm happy to take more, but you're not going to get
everyone if that makes sense. So I guess my question is because you just said we have to choose one or the other, 10.1 or 10.2. Did I understand that correctly? So, the changes that Councilman Solomon
uh is proposing to make with the extra money in our council budget, why couldn't that just be, I guess, wrapped up into all the amendments? The amendments, whatever amendments are in 10.1, like why is it a one or the other type deal? The administration had certain funding
priorities to make sure other positions were filled. That's what 10.1 comes from. 10.2 too was Councilman Stallman's response where you know he wanted to reallocate that money to different areas and I think the other just the other issue that the administration raised was they they didn't want in case there were objections to this amendment they just
wanted to make sure that a budget passed to advance going forward which I understand okay um but you know so so the thing is to have one budget move forward at the next meeting for a public hearing and final adoption um but the thing that just to keep in mind the only difference between
the two amendments is the shifting of money from the council correct to these other priorities. And obviously again as we pointed out in both 2022 and 202 sorry 2023 and 2024 that money was in the council line item and then ultimately in 23 was shifted I think into insurance and 24 public.
So it's not as if that money and been shifted right. Yeah it got shifted anyway just got shifted in November. Um and we didn't really get a say in it. So my thought was it's more important for us to get a say in the shifting of that money than, you know, waiting until November and somebody over spent their money and they
they're going to try to claim it. Yeah. I think bang for your buck, you know, going from a part-time sanitation inspectors like increasing their hours or more programming for kids. That's
probably where you're gonna see the most impact in the in the last four months that we've got. So, hopefully you guys get reelected though. But, you know, I I just think that, you know, I I agree with Councilman Solomon. We should have a say if they're going to shift our money out of our budget. Number one, I
do believe that. But, um I think when it comes to uh traffic and engineering, I believe they do need a chief engineer that's priority. Um, but there's so many other departments that is in in a dying need also. So when you look at it, I can see giving something to traffic and
engineering. I can see giving something to recreation. I can see giving something to the clerk's office. I can see giving something to um tenant and landlord. These areas are thirsty, you know. So if that's the case, then we should have a say that those are
departments that should get something. Now, I I may can't fulfill all of traffic engineer with all that they need, but they should get something. Recreation should get something. Tenant and landlord should get something. You know, the city clerk need to get his um clerk replaced because they doing a lot
down in that office. And also DPW with the laborers um because we still have to maintain this cereal. So, if it's going to be shifted out of our budget, then we should have a say in it where it goes. Yep. And I think, and correct me if I'm
wrong, I want to put words in. That's correct. Yeah. I think what Councilman Som is saying is he is open to shifting some of that around. I know I did specifically ask for uh more money to go towards sanitation and cleaning, some other issues, and he did do that.
So, if we have some other stuff, I believe, you know, the council, like you said, should have a say. Should have a say. So, I guess it's going to just raffle this budget. All right. All right. But yeah, please reach out in the next uh you know uh
by like noon on Tuesday if you have other changes that we can incorporate. Okay, good. Just to speak to the budget um kind of Thanks for the introduction there. Uh, as a council president and I discussed, what we would like to do ideally as far as a timeline goes, have the introduction this Wednesday and then the
following Wednesday, which would be the 17th, we'd like to have a special meeting where the council could vote on the amendments and then assuming the amendments are passed, we can immediately vote on the budget to adopt it afterwards. Um, as you guys are all aware, you received the letter from the state. They're pressuring us to get this done as quickly as possible. We want to
make sure we do that not only to go in accordance with them, but of course also we have a lot of finance and funding things that need to be contingent upon the adoption of the full budget. So we don't want to delay those any longer if possible. Um so as of right now we're proposing next Wednesday the 17th at 6 p.m. to have a special meeting. We
obviously have to induce that and discuss it at the council meeting, but I just want to make you all aware now while we're at caucus together. Okay. Thanks Peter. Unless anything else, uh, can I entertain a motion to adjurnn at 5:37 p.m.? Motion.
Motion. I think that was Sole that made the motion. That's seconded by River. Okay. All in favor? Any opposed? Any abstensions? Okay. Clearly a pass. We will see everyone same at 6 PM on
Wednesday, same location for the council meeting. Be well, everyone.