[0:01] All right, everyone. We're about to get started. If we can find our seats,

[0:04] silence our cell phones as I'm doing. Hint hints.

[0:10] If we can close the side doors, I greatly appreciate it as well.

[0:19] Thank you very much. Good evening. We are on the record. Today is Tuesday, the

[0:23] 8th day of September in the year 2026. This is a city council caucus meeting of

[0:29] the Jersey City Municipal Council. We had a scheduled 400pm start. The clock

[0:33] on my cell phone is showing 4:03 p.m. May we have a roll call for the

[0:38] commencement of this caucus. Council person Brooks

[0:41] » present. >> Council person Zupa

[0:45] present. See him. Council person Efos >> present.

[0:49] » Council person Little will be absent. Council person Gilmore.

[0:55] Council person Gilmore >> present.

[0:59] » Council person Sing is not here yet. Council person Griffin

[1:06] » here. >> Council person Lavaro

[1:09] » and Council President Ridley >> here. And Sean uh Councilwoman Singh

[1:14] will be absent for the entire meeting. >> Very good. So that's both Little and

[1:19] Sing. >> Correct.

[1:22] » Thank you. So, we have seven council members in attendance at 4:03

[1:28] p.m. On behalf of Council President Ridley and the members of the Municipal

[1:32] Council in accordance with New Jersey Public Laws of 1975, chapter 231, the

[1:37] open public meetings act, also known as the Sunshine Law. Adequate notice of

[1:41] this meeting has been provided by the posting on the bulletin board of first

[1:45] floor of city hall, the annual notice, which is the schedule of meetings and

[1:48] caucuses of the municipal council for the calendar year 2026. and filed in the

[1:53] office of the city clerk on Tuesday, November 25th, 2025. In addition, at its

[1:57] time of its preparation, the agenda of this meeting was similarly disseminated

[2:00] on Wednesday, September 2nd, 2026 at 10 a.m. to the mayor, municipal council,

[2:07] business administrator, corporation council, the local newspapers, and

[2:10] posted on the city's website so I can certify as to our total compliance with

[2:15] the sunshine law. Council President, I'm going to turn it over to you.

[2:20] » Good evening, everyone. I hope everyone enjoyed the long weekend. We will jump

[2:25] right into our agenda as we have a lengthy one today. And we will start

[2:30] with HHS Paul Bellen Boyer.

[2:42] Thank you, Council President. Council members, I am here.

[2:48] I wasn't uh 10 point

[2:57] um

[3:02] I'm sorry uh >> 10.40 poll.

[3:05] » Okay, thank you. Yes, the claims resolution for helping where I am needed

[3:10] LLC.

[3:13] This is to pay a contractor whose uh whose payment was not made in a timely

[3:18] fashion. We had a number of problems getting uh the uh getting things done.

[3:23] Uh he works for our peaceful families program and has done great service over

[3:28] the years. We'd simply like to pay him what we owe him

[3:34] » 40 1040 >> 40 10.40

[3:40] » The amount is just over 15,000 >> questions.

[3:44] » Yes. Was was the work done out of contract?

[3:47] Uh no it was not. It was the contract properly approved by this body. Uh the

[3:52] fiscal side was lacking and we've taken multiple corrective actions in including

[3:58] uh me being here as the new manager of that division.

[4:02] » Okay. And and you said 15,000 >> 15,000. Yes.

[4:07] » So So why does it appear as a claim as a resolution as opposed to a claim in

[4:13] claims? Oh. Um because uh no purchase order was

[4:18] obtained in a timely fashion, we had a number of fiscal problems in uh getting

[4:24] started this year and this is uh one which just slipped more than others.

[4:34] Yeah, we have taken as I say multiple corrective actions to ensure that this

[4:38] does not happen again in in our division or department.

[4:43] director, what are um some of the multiple corrective actions you guys

[4:47] have taken out in place? >> So, some of them involve uh people most

[4:53] responsible for seeing that. Uh I think the the biggest single corrective action

[4:58] was actually um an action that you took which was to

[5:03] pass the temporary budget and then get money into our budget line.

[5:08] Um uh but also we put put in place new fiscal and management practices to make

[5:15] sure that every item is reviewed and and nothing escapes attention. There is a

[5:20] there is a delay in this of several months in in handling it in a timely

[5:25] fashion.

[5:30] » Any other questions? >> All right. Thanks, Paul.

[5:35] » Thank you very much.

[5:38] Director Kaplan, infrastructure.

[5:44] » You, Council President, council members. Um, so I guess from infrastructure

[5:49] first, uh, I'll ask Director Diamond to, uh, speak to some tree planting items

[5:55] that are before you.

[6:00] » Hi, good evening, council members. My first resolution is agenda number 1026,

[6:07] resolution 26-562.

[6:11] This is the author, this is authorizing the extension of an open-ended contract

[6:15] with Rucker Cooperative Extension water resources program for the NJ DP water

[6:22] quality restoration project uh for 12 months from February 8th of 2026 through

[6:28] February 7th of 2027. So, this project is a fully grant-f

[6:34] funded project. Um, Ruckers is working with us on the design and uh through the

[6:41] construction, which is also included with this project. They're going to be

[6:45] overseeing um uh the the construction of um uh com uh reducing combined sewer

[6:53] overflows through tree trenching and hopefully uh curb extensions with

[7:00] pollinator gardens or open space to reduce the amount of uh infrastructure

[7:06] in the city. >> Questions?

[7:09] » Yes. Um

[7:13] are there any plans to work with um MUA or does does this have anything in there

[7:21] where it addresses our sewer systems? >> Uh while it is diverting storm water out

[7:30] of the combined sewer systems and reducing um uh the the overflow. Uh we

[7:37] have been in contact and worked with uh the MUA throughout the life of this

[7:43] project. We've also hosted um community meeting a couple years back and we'll

[7:47] probably need to host another community meeting after the designs are actually

[7:51] complete. These are engineering designs so they can take a while and we need a

[7:56] um engineer to actually sign off on them which we don't have a mutable engineer

[8:00] in the city right now. So that's been a part of the delay of the process, but

[8:04] we've um included conversations with um other directors within infrastructure,

[8:10] the MUA, and um uh aligning with previous safety um requirements when

[8:16] looking at the possibility of expanding or installing constructed uh curb

[8:21] extensions. >> Okay. Um thank you for that. Um, you

[8:26] know, I just I just want to say that over the years, um, just growing up

[8:31] here, I can tell you over the years, the flooding has got a lot worse. Um, and it

[8:36] it definitely needs to be addressed by whether it's tree trenching or or um

[8:43] working with the MUA to address um the the issues we have with our sewer system

[8:49] and in other ways. Um, but yeah, it's it's it's a real problem. Um, I mean,

[8:56] when you see firemen and boats on I think Pacific Avenue, that that's

[9:04] that's an issue. Um, and so I I do thank you guys for trying to address it as

[9:13] urgently as possible. >> Thank you, Councilman.

[9:18] » Question. I mean, similar to the last one, this is retroactive to February of

[9:22] this year. Um, what's the work that's been done through this contract since

[9:27] February? And can you talk a bit more about the grant funding that's coming

[9:30] in? Is the grant funding coming in exclusively for the use of this project

[9:35] or could it be used for other projects as well?

[9:38] » It is specifically for this project um this uh design and then construction uh

[9:45] throughout the the life of the project. Um while we have not uh we have not

[9:51] finalized the designs but we have been actually working internally with um our

[9:56] other engineering consultants to review the designs that were originally con uh

[10:02] developed by Ruckers so that we could move forward with the approval on our

[10:07] end. Additionally we thought that we were going to move forward with um you

[10:10] know hopefully a municipal engineer. So while this has been certainly delayed,

[10:15] the uh D is fully kind of aware of how our progress is going and then working

[10:20] with Rugers as well um over the summer. You know, they don't have uh the the

[10:25] staff that they normally do. So that also added to the delay of the project,

[10:29] but we are still in communication. And we are still moving forward with the

[10:32] designs and um uh given that this is um this is not like delayed the the project

[10:39] entirely because of this um because we're backdating it.

[10:44] » Thank you. >> Any other questions on 10.26?

[10:51] » I'll just ask um so so what's the final outcome of all of this after it's

[10:56] completed? uh installing tree trenches and planting

[11:02] new trees along Martin Luther King Drive from Bram Hall down to Forest. Oh

[11:10] » um

[11:13] » um so uh uh so that is inherently a part of the project and then we are also

[11:20] adding in optional um uh we're adding in the the option to include the

[11:26] construction of curb extensions which have uh uh constructed curb extensions

[11:32] on Oak and Bram Hall but we don't know how much that's going to cost. So

[11:37] instead of you know putting out or like creating a design where they have to

[11:40] include every aspect, we're going to add that as like an option. So can include

[11:45] one additional uh constructed curb extension with the the bids that we

[11:50] eventually get back um because we're going to have to put this out to bid for

[11:53] a construction contractor. So we're trying to be as uh efficient as possible

[11:58] while also maximizing the amount of opportunities that we have.

[12:02] » This is for the divi design services. This is for design services. So, Ruckers

[12:07] is helping us complete the engineering designs which then need to be approved

[12:11] by uh an engineer within the city as well as uh the state and then we can

[12:16] move on to bidding out a construction contractor.

[12:20] » Can you just clarify for me what does curb extension mean?

[12:24] » Oh, um so uh concrete curb extension is the

[12:32] actually I don't know the technical terms. I'm not a traffic engineer, but

[12:36] we have some here. If you

[12:45] » and have the question repeated for me, please. I could try and elaborate a

[12:48] little bit more. >> Define curb extension

[12:50] and the viewing public. >> Define curb extension.

[12:54] » Curb extension. Okay. So, that would be um anything penetrating from the base

[12:59] curb line. So, typically a curb line runs straight. know if it deviates out

[13:04] towards the carriageway roadway out and then back in again.

[13:11] Anything that sort of constitutes deviating from that straight line path

[13:15] that would be considered a bow. >> So So we're talking about bumpouts.

[13:19] » Yes. I thought

[13:23] looking to do bumpouts on MLK Drive and >> MLK Drive and Bram Hall as well as MLK

[13:28] Drive and Oak Street if the uh construction bids come back at a

[13:36] reasonable cost. Um this was uh a part of a project that started all the way

[13:41] back in 2023. In 2024, we had uh community engagement uh we held

[13:48] community engagement um uh seminars where we invited people uh uh folks from

[13:52] the neighborhood to um the Bthoon Center where we we talked about the designs and

[13:58] we'll probably likely have another community engagement after we have uh

[14:03] more or less finalized the designs. But during that transition period when

[14:07] they're not completely final, we wanted to to work with the engineering staff to

[14:12] to finish them out. >> Does this lead to to lane reductions?

[14:19] » Lane lane >> reductions. The number of lanes

[14:22] » lane reductions. No. >> No. It um it would be in the area in

[14:28] front of park cars where you can't park in the crosswalk there.

[14:31] » Yeah. So that's where the the bumpouts don't impede the travel of vehicles.

[14:37] » So Councilman >> Monaceel at Emory.

[14:41] » Yeah. >> Those bumpouts. So basically what it is

[14:44] that there's enough room for for the traffic to go through but no there's no

[14:47] parking. >> I think you're talking about MLK though

[14:52] as well. >> Yeah. Yeah. But I was just saying that's

[14:54] that's an example because

[14:58] Okay. Next one. Okay. The next agenda item I have is 1027 uh

[15:05] resolution 26-563. Uh the resolution authorizing the

[15:09] renewal of the open-end contract with uh Kevin DS tree service for the citywide

[15:15] tree planting for sustainability. Uh are there any questions? Questions.

[15:22] 10.27.

[15:28] Okay. Next one. The next agenda item 10.28,

[15:34] resolution 26-564. Uh, this resolution is authorizing the

[15:39] renewal of the open-end contract with Shikl's nursery for the citywide supply

[15:44] and delivery of various trees for the division of sustainability. This is also

[15:48] a part of the citywide tree planting project.

[15:51] » Questions 10.28. Oh,

[15:54] » same question for 28 and 27. These are open-end contracts. Yes.

[15:59] » Yes. >> Okay. And what's the source of funds?

[16:03] » Uh for this project right now, it's our tree restitution fund. So

[16:08] » restitution. >> Yeah.

[16:10] » Can can you explain what that is from? >> Sure. So um when it comes to applying

[16:16] for tree permits, uh any application fees that are associated go into this

[16:21] tree fund. They're dedicated funds. as well as um any uh uh restitution for

[16:29] damage or tree removals that happen whether it's by residents or developers

[16:35] um for both uh for for for trees in Jersey City

[16:42] » the administration to you Amanda right um the uh if we can get the balance on

[16:47] that tree restitution fund >> the balance should be here So

[16:55] for for Kevin Tree Downs service the balance

[17:01] is $200,000

[17:04] give or take and then the uh shikl is 45

[17:11] and so that those are uh what's been collected over the past year and a half

[17:17] since the establishment of that dedicated tree fund. The total funds in

[17:21] the tree restitution is 45,000. >> Um,

[17:25] » it's a the bucket of money is separated into two different contracts. So, I'm

[17:31] putting um some funds towards the uh towards, you know, paying the the

[17:37] contractors who are actually planting the trees, but we also need to purchase

[17:40] the trees. So, these are just two separate contracts that go into the same

[17:43] project. >> Or that's Councilman. Yeah. Sure.

[17:49] » Um for the 10.27, the not to exceed is a bit over a million. And then for 10.28,

[17:58] it's um just around $140,000.

[18:03] We anticipate this money being made available in the tree restitution funds

[18:08] within the next year or so, or what? Can you explain?

[18:11] » Sure. That goes into actually open-ended contracts as well. Sorry, not to cut you

[18:14] off. So, when it comes to open-ended contracts, especially when it comes to

[18:19] planting trees, however much money we can get towards dedicating to tree

[18:24] planting is how much we put into these accounts and we dedicate to and put into

[18:29] the POS for these contracts. We uh when we put out a bid originally or we like

[18:36] um put out uh contract bids, the lowest price that we got uh in terms of Kevin

[18:42] Tree Downs was the $1 million. That was the lowest bid for planting 500 trees.

[18:48] Given that it's an open contract, that allows us to just fund into the uh um

[18:54] the PO for this contractor whatever funds are made available. So, we don't

[18:58] need to go up to 100. It's not like we're um a way I like to describe it is

[19:03] that it's not building a building like we don't have to stick with every single

[19:08] element. We are planting as many trees as we possibly can with the funding

[19:12] available and it's just how we dedicate um we break up the funding that's

[19:17] available into either purchasing the trees oursel which allows us to have the

[19:22] option to uh send trees back if they don't have if they're not good enough of

[19:26] quality. we um are able to completely oversee the species that we purchase and

[19:32] the contractor itself that is doing the planting including the um uh contract or

[19:37] excuse me the uh the concrete um removal and tree bed expansion.

[19:43] » Thank you. So then anything above the 200,000 or the 45,000 respectively

[19:49] would also come from whatever funds are available from the tree restitution fund

[19:54] itself or from other sources. >> It could come from other sources but we

[19:59] don't have a dedicated operating fund for tree planting. So this is a way that

[20:03] we can um certainly use the funds that are dedicated to plant for planting

[20:07] trees. That's the purpose of them. Um and then in the future if funds were

[20:12] made available whether it's you know next year um you know we would be able

[20:16] to it could be capital or operating we'd be able to create POS and then move

[20:21] forward and still use that contractor with different sources of funding.

[20:26] » Thank you. >> And um so I know initially I think I

[20:30] don't know if it was I think it was last year we did receive a fund to do some

[20:35] trees on MLK and pits. So this is essentially just going to marry that

[20:41] that grant in a sense that it's going to do the areas that was left out.

[20:46] » Um so because uh grant funds are very particular, we actually have separate

[20:52] contracts and the two next resolutions I'm about to introduce are for the MLK

[20:58] project actually. So we're doing the exact same thing with citywide our tree

[21:03] planting and tree purchasing contracts that are citywide. where I'm about to

[21:08] present the USDA's uh urban community forestry which is the MLK projects tree

[21:13] planting and tree purchasing. So we separate those and designate those out.

[21:22] » I can get the um spend it's a renewal. So uh going dating back to 24 so there's

[21:29] two years prior. Is that correct? >> This will be the final renewal. I could

[21:34] get to spend on each year for the last two years prior to this. Then also the

[21:40] the first one is um effective April 29th, second one July 1st as I've asked

[21:47] with other vendors, other contracts come before us. Is there a reason why we're

[21:52] seeing this after the effective date the renewal effective date?

[21:56] Um well as to why it's being presented after I think uh you know there are

[22:03] certain limitations that get us on to the council meetings that uh sometimes

[22:07] can can lead to those delays but it's not affecting the delay of actually

[22:12] planting this fall. So that's um our main goal. Additionally, in um I think

[22:19] you talked about earlier when it's like uh two different dates, we're putting

[22:23] these contracts out to bid at different times. So, they can come back at

[22:27] different times and they can be executed at different times. So, that's one of

[22:30] the reasons why they're uh while it's all the same project and they're a

[22:33] couple months apart.

[22:37] And then just to the administration on the law department tree restoration fund

[22:42] is that established through ordinance municipal code or is that state law? I'm

[22:47] not familiar with it. >> It's done through an ordinance and this

[22:51] council earlier this year approved a dedication by Ryder to authorize the use

[22:55] of those dedicated funds out of that account.

[22:59] » Can I get a copy of the ordinance? >> Yes. I was just going to say if you

[23:05] could put in the request through the council request process, we can keep

[23:08] track of that and y >> the urgency of sharing that with you.

[23:15] » Okay, next one. >> Uh the next one, resolution 26-565,

[23:21] agenda 1029. It's the renewal of the open-ended contract for ship's nursery

[23:26] for the USDA supply and delivery of various trees. So this would be the MLK

[23:32] grantf funed tree project. Um the the purchasing contract

[23:37] » questions on purchasing contract. >> The different source of funds.

[23:42] » Yes. >> What what source is it?

[23:45] » Grant. >> Grant.

[23:48] What's the grant? >> The USDA urban community forestry grant.

[23:59] I can just get the spend on this as it's a renewal as well.

[24:03] » The spend >> uh prior year spends. We'll put this on

[24:06] » Oh, >> council requests as well.

[24:11] » Okay. Next one. >> Similar answers as to why it's starting

[24:14] April 1st. >> Similar answer is that it needs to or

[24:20] when putting out these bids, they uh were put out at different times. They

[24:24] have come back at different times. So that's the that's the difference there.

[24:29] Uh and then finally, so resolution 26-566,

[24:33] agenda 10:30, um the renewal of the open-ended contract watch us grow for

[24:38] the USDA tree planting project. So again, the USDA MLK UCF urban forestry

[24:45] grant uh the planting contractor renewal.

[24:52] I just have a question about this um these extensions. Roughly how long have

[24:56] we been working with uh these uh >> we have been working with uh Downs Tree

[25:04] Service for 2 years. Um and then watch us grow I

[25:10] think a year. Um and then Shikals was the supplier for

[25:18] our trees. Um they just always bid the lowest. That's kind of how it works. Um

[25:23] so we've been working with them prior to my start in 2023.

[25:29] » Okay. Um and how long um are these grants for? Is it over the next year?

[25:34] The next two years? >> One year. They're all one year.

[25:38] » One year. Okay. Um, the only thing I'd like to say um about these I think is

[25:42] great, but um the trees, we have a lot of trees on a lot of

[25:48] streets growing in people's homes. They're growing out instead of up. And

[25:54] if we can work on getting proper trees where they're going, especially if

[25:58] they're going on MLK, so they're not blocking um business signage

[26:05] um stop signs and things like that. Um, you know, that's just my two cents.

[26:12] » Um, so when we originally did the MLK tree planting, I think, you know, we we

[26:17] worked with um the Jackson Hill Main Street SID, uh, when talking about the

[26:22] species. Um, they are going to while they are growing out, they're also going

[26:27] to be able to provide shade, cool down that area. Um, and then additionally, in

[26:32] general, we do like to try to focus on putting the right tree in the right

[26:36] location. Um, and then after a two-year guarantee period with our contractor, we

[26:42] then move into um or then uh the the trees become more or less the

[26:47] responsibility of forestry for pruning and maintenance needs once they become

[26:51] mature. >> Okay. cuz um I'm 6'5 and I I I find

[26:58] myself ducking a lot of branches when I walk down the street.

[27:02] » And um Councilman Gilmore said he's willing to plant the trees on MLK.

[27:10] » Thank you. Thank you.

[27:18] » Thank you, council. So, next we'll go into some um curbside and parking. So,

[27:23] uh next I'll ask Doug Carluchi, who oversees our permit group, to speak to

[27:27] ordinance uh 26074 or item 3.5, which is the expansion of parking zone 8 for

[27:34] Culver Avenue.

[27:41] » Good afternoon, council members. Uh this is an expansion of a parking zone that

[27:47] was requested by residents via Councilman Brook's office. Uh this

[27:52] extends

[27:55] I just want to make sure I have the correct

[27:56] » 3.5. >> Yeah, it extends zone 8 um on Culver

[28:02] from west side to 440.

[28:06] questions on 3.5

[28:13] » me if I you already gave me the answer not on top of all my emails. Did we get

[28:18] a copy of the petition? >> I sent it to I sent it to the uh council

[28:23] inquiry. Okay, >> we got it. Thank you.

[28:29] » Questions, comments? Okay, next one. Doug,

[28:32] » no questions. Um

[28:36] and Doug together will um sorry uh Doug and Director Soffield together will

[28:42] present um some ordinances and resolutions clarifying

[28:47] curb usage um at the areas around Christopher Columbus Drive and Bergen

[28:51] Square that we're looking to advance the camera assisted uh parking program.

[28:59] » Good afternoon, council president, members of council. Um these next uh

[29:04] ordinance, there's one ordinance and then there's two resolutions that we can

[29:07] address together. Um the first is item 3.4 ordinance 26 26-073

[29:16] uh which is an ordinance supplementing chapter 332 vehicles and traffic article

[29:20] 3 parking standing and stopping amending sections 3322

[29:26] no parking any time. 33223 no stopping or standing. 33224

[29:32] parking prohibited certain hours. 33226 no stopping or standing certain hours.

[29:37] And 33257 on street permit parking zones to modify the parking stopping standing

[29:43] and permit parking regulations on Bergen Avenue and Academy Street. Um, for the

[29:47] most part, this is cleaning up regulations that have been in the code

[29:51] that haven't actually been signed or operating in reality on the street. Um,

[29:57] so a lot of it is preparing for the camera assisted parking enforcement. We

[30:01] want to make sure that the ordinance and the municipal code matches what will be

[30:06] enforced. Um, so those are primarily the changes within that ordinance. Um but

[30:11] I'll pause there for the ordinance in case there are any questions.

[30:15] » Just on on the camera issue, did we confirm about how the data will be

[30:18] stored by the company? >> So uh the we do have data or information

[30:24] about how data will be secured. Um they both companies that we've selected do

[30:29] have protections in terms of what data is stored, where it's transmitted, who

[30:34] has access to it. So we can follow up with more detail about all of that. Um

[30:39] but there are definitely precautions around um the data particularly um the

[30:46] uh they're not collecting um like things like license plates or faces or things

[30:53] um not related to the actual violation being captured and that violation being

[30:58] captured only needs to be stored based on whatever the um state requires for

[31:04] violations for record retention purposes.

[31:07] Yeah, I'm satisfied by um the collection process, but I know a lot of people in

[31:11] the in the community are concerned about >> Absolutely.

[31:16] Any other questions about the ordinance? >> Questions 3.4.

[31:22] » All right, the next one. >> The next ones are resolutions. Um, and

[31:26] these are resolutions that will deal with loading zone regulations, bus stop

[31:30] regulations, um, and taxi stand regulations, uh, for the areas of, um,

[31:36] Christopher, Columbus Drive, Gro Street. Sorry, I'll actually read the items.

[31:40] It's item 10.19 and 10.20.

[31:44] Um, resolution 26-555 and then resolution 26-556.

[31:51] Um, so, uh, 26-555 is, uh, addressing the, uh, loading

[31:59] zones around Christopher Columbus Drive, Grove Street, Mercer Street, Wayne

[32:04] Street, Morgan Street, Jersey Avenue, Montgomery Street, and Bay Street. So,

[32:08] essentially, it's the area around the Grove Street path, and the New York

[32:12] Pedestrian Plaza. Um again, a lot of the um bulk of this uh resolution is

[32:19] actually cleaning up the code. There were a lot of outdated loading zones

[32:24] from the 80s. Um bus stops that were uh in the code but not actually in

[32:31] operation. Um so Doug has done a deep dive and we also met with the special

[32:37] improvement districts um in both areas and uh got some feedback around loading.

[32:43] Um, so for any of the loading zones that exist, we are setting a a one-hour time

[32:49] period. Um, and that will allow us, you know, the businesses to have time to

[32:54] load. It'll also as part of the camera assisted enforcement, the cameras will

[32:59] be con um giving us data on how much those loading zones are being used, how

[33:05] long they're being used for, and our plan is to take that data in, and if we

[33:09] need to make any adjustments to the loading zones, you know, if we don't

[33:14] need an hour, if we need 45 minutes, we might come back to council a, you know,

[33:18] after the pilot period and propose some changes. But um this is intended to get

[33:23] us started with the enforcement program trying to be fair, meet the business

[33:28] needs and um and so that's primarily what's in that or uh resolution. And

[33:34] then for 10.20 26-556, um same kind of thing but along Bergen

[33:40] Avenue, the Bergen Square area. And for that one, it will also include uh the

[33:45] area in front of PS11 where the school buses drop off. Any questions? Yes. Um,

[33:52] regarding um, Christopher Columbus Street, um, I know that, you know, now

[33:58] that we have the pedestrian plaza, um, and, uh, a lot of people are

[34:03] dropping off there and they have to go around the corner. Um,

[34:12] can you guys anticipate their time or anything like that? because if it's a

[34:15] drop off and they have multiple deliveries um to that business, they're

[34:21] going to be out there for a long time. >> That yeah, that that was something that

[34:25] the special improvement district, some of the businesses did mention. Um the

[34:29] consensus was that an hour should meet most businesses needs along the area.

[34:34] That said, um this is going to be part of the pilot program is actually seeing

[34:39] are there some uh deliveries that take longer than an hour and we'll be able to

[34:45] um potential some of the solutions we're thinking about are um if it's the same

[34:50] sort of local vendor, we can actually whitelist them and and anticipate that

[34:55] they're going to be needing that extra time and kind of put their license plate

[34:59] into the system. um kind of register them as being allowed to use the loading

[35:03] zone for that amount of time. Um or if it's, you know, a widespread kind of a

[35:09] thing where most of the businesses need more than an hour, then we would look to

[35:13] make some adjustments to the regulations and have them match the actual demand of

[35:18] the curb. Um, and then looking even further into the future, uh, the

[35:22] technologies that we're going to be piloting, um, they offer other, um, sort

[35:27] of add-ons if we're interested in them in the future where businesses will

[35:31] actually even be able to reserve loading zones ahead of time. So, that becomes

[35:36] even more efficient because then, you know, you can sort of guarantee the spot

[35:39] that you need for however long you need it and um, sort of pay accordingly.

[35:44] » Okay. And also um just thinking about the pedestrian plaza,

[35:52] there's a a through street on each side. I know you have Grove Street, then you

[35:57] have Barrow Street. Have we thought about maybe those streets for like

[36:01] smaller? >> We uh I think we did add um Do you

[36:05] remember offhand? I think we did add um loading along Bay Street um and Eerie

[36:12] right north of the plaza. Um, so that is to sort of capture that mid area and

[36:18] then um otherwise the ones closest to Barrow will be along Columbus Drive.

[36:27] » Other questions? All right, next one.

[36:31] » Right. Uh, that was all for us.

[36:38] » While we're on the topic of curbs, um, Drew is here to speak on item 3.6. 6.

[36:44] First reading of an ordinance uh item 26075 on ADA parking.

[36:52] Hello, Council President, council members. Um as the director said, agenda

[36:57] item number 3.6, ordinance 26-075.

[37:03] This is the ordinance for the reserve parking. So, these are spaces that were

[37:08] approved by the committee and now are going to go into effect. They were um

[37:13] observed in the field by our staff and located and we will work with the sign

[37:17] shop to get these in place. >> Questions?

[37:22] » Is there um you maintain a database of the applications for these and um what's

[37:29] the the backlog there or is there a backlog?

[37:34] » Uh there is a database. Yes. And there is certainly a backlog that um the

[37:38] committee has been working through. I know they're going to meet I think next

[37:41] week is their next meeting um with some of our staff and infrastructure

[37:45] um to get through that backlog.

[37:49] » Can can you give us some sense of the numbers? You don't have to do it today

[37:52] but share something in >> Yeah, I I can get you how many are kind

[37:56] of waiting, you know, to be reviewed. We'll have a couple different um buckets

[38:01] of of data. There are some that have been reviewed by our city doctor and

[38:05] awaiting the committee and there are some that will be um still waiting for

[38:09] the doctor's review. >> It would be helpful if it was grouped by

[38:13] like I know one year pending application 9 months 6 months 3 months something

[38:20] like that and >> okay hopefully we don't have any that

[38:23] are over a year >> but I'll get you that information.

[38:27] » Yeah I could speak to that councilman. We we don't have any that are over a

[38:31] year. We've we worked from when the committee started meeting, we worked

[38:35] from the oldest, right? Yep. Um and so we're we're we worked from the oldest.

[38:41] We're coming we we're not present. We're not current. That's accurate. We're

[38:46] we're uh well, I guess current is a kind of a moving target because there's

[38:49] always um applications, but we've met four times, five times.

[38:57] » Yeah, I think it's it's four or five. I forget exactly but uh it's de definitely

[39:01] coming at a point in time too when we're exiting the summer months when there was

[39:05] one meeting in a month. So it's you know the backlog does stack up a little bit

[39:08] during this time too. >> Right. And the committee did not meet in

[39:11] the last two months of last year. So

[39:17] » next one >> I'll move on to uh resolutions. I have

[39:22] two today. I guess keep rolling. Okay. Okay. Um, we'll jump to item number

[39:29] 10.35, resolution 26-571.

[39:35] This is a resolution authorizing the extension of an existing contract using

[39:40] the remaining funds for our citywide striping contractor, which is statewide

[39:46] striping. Um, we're looking to rebid that very soon, and there was funding

[39:52] left over. We just wanted to do a four-month extension, use up some of

[39:56] those remaining funds while we kind of revamp the the process we're using for

[40:00] striping and splitting it up a little bit differently.

[40:04] » Questions? 10.35. >> This is an open-end contract.

[40:09] » Yes, open-end contract. It's in its in its final renewal year.

[40:16] Um, we're just looking to extend that. Um, we worked with purchasing. They said

[40:19] that's fine as long as we're in the process of preparing new specs and

[40:23] getting it ready for bid. >> And these this vendor does striping for

[40:29] streets are repaved and resurfaced. And then how about the garage stuff? Is this

[40:34] » Yeah. Um any kind of pavement marking pretty much is is everything they do. Uh

[40:40] it's maintenance related. if there's faded striping or crosswalks, center

[40:44] lines, um different mile per hour designations that are in the street. We

[40:49] don't have many of those, but yeah, any any maintenance or or new installs, and

[40:53] they do the driveway markings as well. >> Does the administration have any

[40:58] intention to increase like delineated parking spots um through the striping

[41:02] contract? >> Not to my knowledge. And

[41:07] » delineated >> sort of some of the the traffic

[41:09] engineers. I think that opens up some other issues

[41:12] » as far as ADA. >> So, sorry. What do you mean by

[41:14] delineated, Councilman? >> Uh, like striped parking spots along uh

[41:20] street parking. >> So, so typically,

[41:23] you know, we can have a conversation with the community on a corridor by

[41:26] corridor basis, but outside of metered areas where there's a spot defined by a

[41:32] meter, um, you actually get more vehicles parked if you don't define

[41:36] them. And it can be a little bit frustrating when you know vehicles come,

[41:40] vehicles go, and now there's a half spot and it looks like someone didn't park

[41:43] properly, although it's unclear which vehicles came and left first, right? So

[41:48] there is some inefficiency, but overall you're able to get more vehicles in than

[41:51] if you f standardize. There's a standard for how far apart each spot can be. So

[41:56] typically we don't do that outside of meters. Um, but if there's a specific

[42:00] example or block or community that is interested in that, we're open to the

[42:04] dialogue.

[42:08] And what's the balance remaining on this?

[42:11] » Uh the remaining funding for this is a little over $2.4 million.

[42:19] » This will get us through the remain.

[42:22] » Yeah, this will certainly get us through. We're we're working against uh

[42:26] the weather once we get later on in the year. Um we're not going to put down the

[42:30] thermoplastic material when it gets too cold. It just won't adhere and it won't

[42:34] last. will kind of be a waste of money unless there's there's something very

[42:37] urgent, you know, we'll be wrapped up with this contract in um November, early

[42:42] December. >> I It's four months, right? So, August

[42:46] through December. >> Yep.

[42:48] » And we think we're going to spend two 2.4 million in that period.

[42:51] » I I don't anticipate it. No, it's just the amount remaining was there. I I

[42:56] don't anticipate we're going to get through all that money in that amount of

[42:58] time. And I I assume any remaining funds we

[43:02] would um you know cancel that PO and and refund uh the next round when we put

[43:08] this out to bit use some of those funds. Uh I would um encourage the

[43:14] administration to look into uh um two options. shared services. Um, you know,

[43:20] for the county, I talked about this with traffic light maintenance. Um, and doing

[43:25] the shared services with the county, which does the the traffic lights for

[43:30] West New York and Union City and North Bergen, I believe. Um, so they I think

[43:36] Bayon's inquiring with doing it themselves with county as well. Um, and

[43:42] uh some cost savings around that. And then there's a I don't know what they do

[43:46] for their their striping. Um but as we continue to look for cost savings um if

[43:53] they're doing it inhouse because if instead of us going out to a vendor and

[43:56] then the second option I would say is if if it's not a shared services explore

[44:02] the idea of doing in-house services as well. That's what I would say. I would

[44:06] just like to point out some of this does include the Endura blend material which

[44:10] is in the bike lanes and some of the painted curb extensions or bumpouts. So

[44:14] I don't know if the county has that ability or not, but uh just something to

[44:18] keep in mind when when we do this. >> Just suggesting people explore that

[44:22] conversation, have it um and if not then I'll have it. So

[44:29] » okay, next one. Drew >> one more resolution.

[44:35] This is item number 10.24 resolution 26-560.

[44:44] This is a resolution renewing the open-end asphalt resurfacing contract.

[44:50] It'll be retroactive to the beginning of 2026.

[44:56] What will the procedure be for selecting roads and which priority? Because I

[45:01] think Councilman Brooks and I will fight anyone if we don't get Westside Avenue.

[45:04] David first. >> Um, you know, we certainly are looking

[45:08] at pavement age and, you know, its deterioration and what state of affairs

[45:15] it's in right now. We look at the pothole data that we do have to see if

[45:19] it was a location that has numerous pothole fills based on DPW's efforts and

[45:23] and target those areas. Um, we certainly have a list of what we think are

[45:29] priority and we will have those conversations.

[45:34] Uh which section of westside if you don't mind me asking?

[45:38] » Essentially all of it from uh I say from from Greenville to Journal Square in bad

[45:44] shape. >> We are wrapping up a project from

[45:46] » Damn North Avenue. >> Uh now when you say conversations you

[45:51] mean with the council people as well. Correct.

[45:54] » Thank you. Luke, just to kind of give a little bit more color on all this, um

[45:58] the reason why we're asking the council to approve a retroactive agreement here

[46:04] is because the last administration did not have capital funding or any funding

[46:08] set aside for this contract. So, the proper time to really renew this would

[46:12] have been November of 2025, but the funding wasn't available. So, this

[46:17] council, you guys reallocated funds back in June, which allowed us to fund this

[46:22] contract. Um, so up until then we haven't been doing the MUA and other

[46:27] people have been doing repaving, but the city funded paving hasn't been

[46:29] happening. Um, now we have uh are looking to extend that contract

[46:33] retroactively to allow us to kind of get that paving back. Um, the contract is as

[46:38] directed. So the 3.5 million is funded out of capital. So any money that we

[46:43] don't use by the end of the year, we're not going to spend all of it. Will be

[46:47] available because it's capital dollars. So, won't expire at the end of the

[46:50] calendar year and can be used for future 2027 and other years repaving. Um, so

[46:56] just a little bit of background on pavement. There's currently five ways

[47:00] that roads get repaved in the city, kind of five buckets. Uh, the first is this

[47:04] program or the city pavement program where we do the repaving. Uh, the second

[47:08] is the MUA. Uh, they'll restore roads uh following underground utility work. Um

[47:14] sometimes it may be a year or two after that work where they need to let a

[47:17] trench settle but then they'll come back and they'll do the repaving or restore

[47:20] it. Uh similarly PSEG or other underground utilities is the third

[47:24] bucket. They will be required to do trenching or replace their trenches or

[47:28] repave um if they do underground utility work. The fourth bucket is uh

[47:33] development. So we'll have developers put in a a new development construction

[47:38] and at the end before that construction is complete before they get their co

[47:41] they have to repave curb to curb in in the area that they've disturbed. And

[47:45] then the fifth bucket is grant funds. We do a lot of our major capital

[47:48] improvements currently with grants such as NJTPA safety grants, things along

[47:52] those lines. Um starting in 2027, we're looking to add a sixth bucket.

[47:58] That bucket uh is going to be in alignment with vision zero. We're just

[48:02] to give it another name, we're going to call it roadway reconstruction, similar

[48:05] to this paving program. It'll be funded through envisioned to be funded through

[48:09] city capital. Um, but the idea is not just repaving the road curb to curb and

[48:13] putting it back as it is, but doing a repavement to fix the paving and also

[48:17] putting in some other safety infrastructure such as concrete

[48:20] bumpouts, um, other things like that so that when we we do address a road, uh,

[48:24] there'll be additional cost, but it'll be less costly than retrofitting and

[48:29] coming back separately, repaving it one year and then coming back with safety

[48:31] improvements in a future year. Additionally, it it helps us this

[48:36] program would be prioritized in our high injury network. So, in alignment with

[48:39] vision zero, um it wouldn't be putting down new pavement on a road that people

[48:44] speed on and now there's less potholes and they go faster. It would let us

[48:48] restore the pavement and improve safety at the same time. Um, we also can

[48:54] realize cost efficiencies as I mentioned by having multiple improvements at the

[48:57] same time and it would reduce construction and parking impacts because

[49:01] there would only be one construction project when we do this. So that's kind

[49:05] of our goal in the future is to look at higher injury network areas that need

[49:08] roadway reconstruction. But we also recognize that there's roads not on the

[49:11] higher network that the pavement is deficient based on datadriven

[49:16] um things. We have a list of the pavement age. We have a significant

[49:20] amount of pavement, almost half the pavement in the city is beyond its its

[49:23] envisioned useful life. So, we're going to be able to look at the oldest

[49:26] pavement and we'll be able to look at the um potholes and other issues as well

[49:30] as community um responses, council person offices, cclick fixes, and other

[49:35] concerns to help us prioritize those sites. Uh where we're going to pick

[49:40] sites. So, we're going to use that data to identify the need. We'll then remove

[49:44] locations that we are have conflicts. So areas that we know are waiting for the

[49:49] MUA to pave it, we're not going to use city paving. We'll let the MUA come back

[49:53] and do that. Areas where future work of the MUA or PSCG, we're we don't want to

[49:57] pave a road and then have it dug up if we can prevent that. Um and lastly, we

[50:02] would not prioritize locations that have a grant coming. So if, for example, if

[50:06] we have a a grant on Marin and that may be a year or two out, we're not

[50:10] necessarily going to focus on repaving that because the grant will be digging

[50:14] that up and and and making other improvements and providing new pavement

[50:17] at the end as well. Once we have that, we'll split the locations into the high

[50:22] network for areas that we would want to to receive more than just pavement and

[50:26] then non-highing network, so more of the local streets. Um, so we'd be using that

[50:31] to establish a citywide program and then we would make sure that it represents

[50:36] with equity um, areas across the entire city so that we're not leaving any area

[50:41] out even if that's kind of where we're walking to. We'll make sure that this

[50:45] program covers all wards, all parts of the city. Um, so that's our longer term

[50:50] goal and this contract would enable us to kind of more short-term and

[50:53] immediately start to repave some of these roads in the remainder of this

[50:58] year and the fall. So, I know that's a little bit more than

[51:02] just the ordinance, but I I thought there'd be a lot of questions since we

[51:04] all know the roads are very uh not in great shape.

[51:08] » Yes. Um, director, quick question. Um, so is there like a

[51:17] like a code once because I've seen instance where we

[51:21] repave the entire road either PSNG or

[51:28] it's those people that work for the city over there uh

[51:32] uh no uh people that do the plumbing mua

[51:37] » mua >> where the guys to come and they'll go

[51:42] back into the street after we've repaved it and then subsequently they will

[51:48] repave it but it wouldn't be as night neat and even as it was before they

[51:55] encountered it. So is there is there like a code in which the repair should

[52:00] be up to? Yes. So there is a code when we allow trenching you know typically

[52:07] so our intent is to avoid that as much as possible first and foremost. So for

[52:11] we know where the MUA is planning their next 5-year program worth of underground

[52:15] work and we try not to repave that. That's the first way to avoid that. When

[52:20] there is a property owner where you have a lateral tie-in, right, that we don't

[52:24] necessarily know where that work is going to take place because that's

[52:26] between the property owner and and their lateral tie. They have to get permits,

[52:29] but we don't know ahead of time. So there are cases where they'll dig in.

[52:33] There are also cases where there's like a failure. So like if a sewer collapses

[52:36] or a water main break, all those will result in trenches even if we try to

[52:41] minimize them. The trench is supposed to be level with the roadway and the person

[52:46] filling that trench has a responsibility under their permit to restore it if it

[52:51] starts collapsing or is making a a big bump. So we have a process. Someone in

[52:56] our office will receive requests. So, I please, if you get these, you're welcome

[53:01] to give them from your council offices over to us. We'll make sure that we can

[53:05] investigate who received a permit to install the trench and we'll direct them

[53:08] to restore it. It's still will never be the same as curb to curb paving, but it

[53:13] will be able to restore it if there's a deficiency. Um, and the last piece, and

[53:17] I think we mentioned this at a prior meeting, I'm not the expert in it, but

[53:20] we have an infrared. So if there is a need, we'll be able to use kind of an

[53:24] have them, you know, at their expense, have an infrared to kind of melt the

[53:28] trench back into the pavement to try to blend it a little bit better.

[53:31] » Okay. Um, and my next question is not necessarily with this, but is related to

[53:37] this. Um about I don't know a couple years ago there was something that came

[53:42] up as it relates to the MLK restoration project where the city received I

[53:50] believe two or three trenches of money to enhance MLK from a pedestrian safety

[53:57] standpoint. Um do you know anything about that grant? Do you know where we

[54:02] at with it? I know when I read it in its entirety, there were certain things that

[54:07] the grant clearly specified should not be considered uh things that need to be

[54:14] done. Specifically, they pointed out you cannot hire police officers and pay them

[54:19] via this grant. Um and I do know the grant was supposed to cover in or around

[54:25] the proximity of Bidwell to Claremont. Um, and I also noticed in that same

[54:33] grant that money were taken from that grant to place stop to place

[54:40] signal lights elsewhere. So, I just want to see if we can get an update on that

[54:46] or mainly do you know anything about that? So, so the one grant that I'm

[54:50] aware of on MLK, um, and I believe Amanda's still here, the exact limits is

[54:55] what she presented a contract design for, which was for bumpouts and street

[54:59] drainage. Um, so that included kind of the curb side improvements as well as

[55:05] some safety improvements related there, too. Um, I don't

[55:09] Is this an old federal maybe Drew? >> Yeah, it's an old federal. I think Drew,

[55:13] you know, you was you were here. >> I was around. But I didn't I didn't run

[55:16] it and unfortunately the >> Okay. So off of anything that could have

[55:20] potentially went wrong. You're putting a disclaimer on the record that you

[55:26] » that Sorry, repeat that please. >> Cuz you said you was around or you

[55:29] wasn't around. I >> I was around working for the city but I

[55:32] didn't run the project. So I'm aware of it. I just don't know the intimate

[55:35] details of it. >> Oh, okay. If we can get an update on

[55:38] that. Um I think the grant um was it Viven? I think Vivian uh

[55:46] » most likely from the grand. >> Yes. If we could just

[55:49] » Yeah, Drew. If we could see if we could do some research and get with the

[55:53] councilman offline so we can see if we can figure that out.

[55:57] » Yeah, I I'll get that information and contact Vivian as well.

[56:01] » Thank you.

[56:07] » Sorry. Can you just send that request to council request so we're clear on what

[56:11] we're looking for? >> Say that again. You send the request to

[56:14] the council requests inbox. So >> Oh, put it in. Yeah. Okay.

[56:19] » Thank you. >> Oh,

[56:25] go ahead. I mean, >> I was just going to ask if there's

[56:28] anything else on this item. Yeah. >> So, so w with this contract

[56:33] um which is retroactive given it's retroactive, we're currently

[56:38] paving roads. Is that >> the city is not currently paving roads.

[56:43] We are doing um pothole repairs and the MUA is currently paving roads. This will

[56:49] now that the city did not allocate any funding for paving roads until June when

[56:55] the capital dollars were reallocated to this by this council. This would be a

[56:59] contract. So now that we have the funding, we can issue a contract. Those

[57:03] are the two pieces we need in place to now start doing the work. We're

[57:06] » going to start doing the work. >> Correct. Yeah.

[57:10] » So, um, which roads are we doing?

[57:14] » So, we're still finalizing that list. >> Yeah.

[57:17] » Based on kind of that long criteria, but we're going to be looking at doing

[57:21] paving on roads that have older pavement, large number of potholes, or

[57:26] other requests that were addressed over this this spring, as well as requests

[57:30] from the constituents, communities, and council offices. Um, so we're going to

[57:33] be putting that together and then as I kind of mentioned, making sure it

[57:37] doesn't overlap with planned underground utility work or planned potential

[57:41] capital work upcoming. Um, and that will then make sure that it's representative

[57:46] across the entire city across all ws um to certain capacity. So once we have

[57:52] this list, we're going to be finalizing this in the coming weeks. Um, we will

[57:56] share that with with the council members for feedback before we start doing the

[58:01] work. Um yeah, I look forward to seeing the

[58:04] list. Um you mentioned the five different buckets and then the sixth

[58:09] buck bucket being entered. Um yes. So would like to see what what what streets

[58:15] are falling within each bucket pre- prioritization if that's that's

[58:19] available. So what are the MUA streets that they they're responsible for? which

[58:24] are the um PSCG developers um like to see just who's who

[58:32] we're holding accountable around all this um the dates in which if you have

[58:36] them dates in which they tore up our roads and um and kind of what their

[58:41] timetable is to be able to restore our roads back to uh back to drivability and

[58:49] uh yeah >> and just to clarify we have a

[58:52] forwardlooking and a retroactive Right. So forward looking where the work's

[58:56] going to happen. We're avoiding paving today where it's going to get ripped up

[59:00] tomorrow. But we're also separately, which I think is what you're alluding to

[59:04] as well is the past work in our roads where we have permits um holding them

[59:10] accountable, right? When there is a degregation of that trench.

[59:15] » So we can certainly, you know, maybe it's better as a conversation. there's a

[59:19] lot of information to show, but we're certainly happy to have this

[59:22] conversation with you, other council members, um, to kind of clarify the

[59:26] process and, you know, what's on the books.

[59:29] » I can only imagine given all of the development, road work, MUA work, uh,

[59:35] PSCG work, all that stuff. As as you mentioned, all the buckets,

[59:40] um, it doesn't leave many roads left outside of those three those those three

[59:45] buckets. There's two other buckets. Um and then the vision zero bucket. But um

[59:50] uh so so all of those roads, this is what people are complaining about and

[59:55] they're they've degraded them. They've left them in uh awful condition. Um we

[1:00:01] need to hold them accountable. Um and and get them to ante up and and uh

[1:00:06] repair these roads. Um, I I I'm just wondering, I guess, also in having this

[1:00:11] conversation later, what kind of resources you have to be able to hold

[1:00:15] them accountable? Like just after they do a job or a project, do we have staff

[1:00:20] who go back out to check the condition of the road and sign off and say, "Okay,

[1:00:25] you're done. You're off the hook." Or, um,

[1:00:28] at what point do we do that? You don't have to answer me now, but if you want

[1:00:31] to, that's fine. And I can only imagine that you don't because I' I've seen your

[1:00:35] budget. No. >> Yeah.

[1:00:37] » Um, >> so we're not proactive, but we are

[1:00:40] responsive. So when we get complaints and concerns from the constituency or

[1:00:44] council office, we are very good at being able to respond to those concerns,

[1:00:48] investigate who was responsible for the work, and then issue them a letter to

[1:00:52] rectify. And so far, because the firms that did those trenches yesterday are

[1:00:57] the trying to get permits to do trenches tomorrow, they've all come back.

[1:01:01] Sometimes they've said, "It's not me, it's this guy." And took a while to

[1:01:04] figure out who it was. But once we do, they've come back and restored the work.

[1:01:08] Um, so far, knock on wood. >> Okay. Appreciate it. I'm looking forward

[1:01:13] to our meeting. I know we're going to get something on the schedule soon. So,

[1:01:15] » I'm sorry, just so so quickly, maybe I missed this, but um, could you point

[1:01:20] toward where it is in the municipal code or where else it says that the trench

[1:01:24] has to be even with the roadway? The roadway.

[1:01:28] » I will have to get back to you on the exact language and the exact location.

[1:01:30] Um I'm not sure if it's in the code or it's in the permit but I know that or

[1:01:35] Drew knows just like Drew >> I don't know the exact number but I can

[1:01:39] definitely share. It's an ordinance um you know recently updated I think four

[1:01:44] or five years ago. >> Great. Okay. Thank you so much.

[1:01:48] » Okay. Next one. >> Thank you.

[1:01:52] So the the next item I have is item 1018 resolution 26554.

[1:02:02] Um this is

[1:02:06] related to the New Jersey DOT 139 parks jurisdictional agreement.

[1:02:11] Um, so I have a a note here on it, but long story

[1:02:17] short, um, back in 2015 when Route 139 was rebuilt by NJ DOT,

[1:02:27] they agreed to construct some of these these two areas adjacent to Upper 139

[1:02:32] into public parks. Um, however, they required the city would take maintenance

[1:02:36] responsibility of that before they were willing to kind of open them up and turn

[1:02:39] them over to the public. U, those parks have now been completed and law and the

[1:02:44] DOT lawyers have worked through the jurisdictional agreement. um questions

[1:02:48] and I'll I'll defer to law if you have any questions on exactly the legal piece

[1:02:52] of it, but what's before you today is kind of a resolution authorizing the

[1:02:56] entering into this agreement where the city would take over the maintenance

[1:02:59] responsibilities and that would then allow the parks to be opened. Um the DOT

[1:03:05] once we have this agreement in place will do some landscaping and they'll

[1:03:08] work with PSNG to power the lights. So, it'll still be about a month or so

[1:03:12] before the parks are open, but this is the major hurdle that will allow us to

[1:03:16] get that opening date. >> So, director, um

[1:03:22] the what exactly does the maintenance responsibilities look like? Is it just

[1:03:29] the regular maintenance upkeep as it relates to landscaping and cleanliness

[1:03:34] of the park or does it refers to I guess broken infrastructure or something of

[1:03:40] that nature or everything? So these parks are on the ground. They're not

[1:03:46] like on structures. There's not like buildings in them. It's really pavement,

[1:03:50] seating, lighting, and plants. So my understanding is that um it would not be

[1:03:58] what they call highway maintenance. It would be streetscape maintenance or park

[1:04:02] maintenance. So things outside of the street out um and there's a map in the

[1:04:06] or uh in the agreement here that explicitly delineates the two parks. Um,

[1:04:11] and it would require the city to take on. Um, so yeah.

[1:04:16] » In your assessment, is this a huge burden or because I know a couple months

[1:04:22] before this council, we were entertaining, I don't know, a million

[1:04:26] dollars for a company to maintenance just the grass. So, I'm just saying from

[1:04:32] budgetary standpoint, you know, everybody know what the numbers are. Um,

[1:04:37] so I just want to make sure that we've done our due diligence as it relates to

[1:04:42] having a checklist what this is going to look like. What is the financial burden?

[1:04:46] Is it a financial burden or what? So there is I mean we spoke to parks. I

[1:04:51] don't know if you guys want to say anything but we spoke to them and they

[1:04:55] pretty much said there is going to be a cost but we'll figure it out because

[1:04:59] we're going to be given a new public asset a new park. Also they did so they

[1:05:04] the um the they built the part they did

[1:05:09] everything from the work standpoint. Correct. NJ dot paid for the entire

[1:05:14] construction. NJ dot will plant this make this beautiful for a ribbon cutting

[1:05:19] and then they will hand over the nonstructural maintenance

[1:05:22] responsibilities to the city. >> Okay. And then

[1:05:24] » so from a cost standpoint it's just that operation and maintenance cost which is

[1:05:28] not nothing but it's small compared to the cost of a new

[1:05:30] » what they've done. Okay. Well, strike that question.

[1:05:34] » Any other questions? >> Um, I'm I'm just wondering, there's a

[1:05:38] lot of community demands and concerns about 139 and the area around it in

[1:05:43] terms of street safety that I I know our offices have talked about. Um, I'm

[1:05:48] wondering if just one of the kind of lowhanging fruit ones would be the speed

[1:05:52] limit on the stretch of 139 between the boulevard and and Palisade at least. Um

[1:06:00] and if this is an opportunity to ask the DOT because my understanding is even

[1:06:06] with this the speed limit there would remain out of our control that would

[1:06:10] still be in the highway control of the state. Um if this is an opportunity to

[1:06:14] ask for a lowering of the speed limit um or other kinds of lowhanging fruit

[1:06:20] street safety improvements that could be made in the area. So, I I I'd love to

[1:06:25] take credit, but uh before I started, the state DOT came out and met with

[1:06:30] former director Menzela um and other and and director Wong, and they did a number

[1:06:35] of improvements following a few tragic fatalities on that stretch of roadway um

[1:06:39] where they changed the signal operations. They did lower the speed

[1:06:42] limit, though I believe it's was only lowered to 35 if I'm not mistaken.

[1:06:46] » That's right. >> Um and they did do a number of

[1:06:50] improvements. Um, separate from this park, there's going to be some geometric

[1:06:54] improvements that DOT is undertaking to reduce some of the curb to to narrow the

[1:06:59] corners and reduce some of the curb cutouts for traffic. Um, I think the

[1:07:05] longer term vision of this corridor is still something that needs to be

[1:07:09] discussed. I think the community wants to see more traffic calming. Um, I think

[1:07:13] the city wants to as well. I don't know that the state opposed, but I don't know

[1:07:19] there's clear funding or vision yet. So, there's still some work to be done to

[1:07:22] determine exactly what this looks like. Um, and there's also, you know, the

[1:07:25] Bergen Arches right here. There's a transit way. There's a number of moving

[1:07:28] pieces. So, I I think it's a important point and we're committed to advancing

[1:07:33] the conversation of safety both short term and then I think some of what

[1:07:37] you're speaking of is really a longer term conversation. And

[1:07:40] » you said there's a some improvements slated to come already. Um,

[1:07:45] » yes, I believe there's some minor uh, let me apologize. The old slip ramps um,

[1:07:52] are going to be removed and they're going to be doing a bump out for a few

[1:07:56] corners at Oakland and 139.

[1:08:01] Um, that may be the only intersection. I thought there might have been a second

[1:08:05] one, but >> what was going to be removed directly?

[1:08:08] So the the slip ramp or so if you're making a right turn, you'll be able to

[1:08:12] make it at a higher speed and there's kind of an island separating the right

[1:08:14] turn lane from the rest of the intersection. That would be modified so

[1:08:18] that vehicles would come to the intersection and make a sharper right

[1:08:20] turn at a lower speed. >> And NJ dot is doing that work.

[1:08:25] » Thank you.

[1:08:29] » Yeah. Um, so, so we don't have a cost estimate of this agreement will cost the

[1:08:36] city >> from the maintenance standpoint. I I

[1:08:38] would have to get back to you. I I did speak to the parks department a while

[1:08:41] ago about it, but I don't have that information in front of me.

[1:08:45] » Then just to follow up on the councilman efoses so so this it reads the city

[1:08:50] agrees to assume jurisdiction for highway maintenance and highway control

[1:08:56] upon completion of construction and final acceptance.

[1:09:00] They define highway control as uh the regulation and management of the

[1:09:04] highway area. It includes is not limited to controlling access, reviewing permits

[1:09:09] for roadway openings, driveways, and utilities,

[1:09:13] reviewing all proposed geometric changes, and setting speed limits. So,

[1:09:16] we can set the speed limit after this is all done. So, I I'll defer to law on the

[1:09:22] exact interpretation, but that is specific to the areas cross-hatched on

[1:09:25] the following sheets, which I do not believe covers the roadway geography. It

[1:09:30] it's cross-hatched over the areas of the park. So, if you continue to the back of

[1:09:35] the jurisdictional agreement, there's there's two plan sets. Um those will

[1:09:39] show which geographic areas we would assume those responsibilities in. Um,

[1:09:47] technically we could set a speed limit inside the park, but I don't, you know,

[1:09:50] it's a little bit confusing the way it's written to me, but my understanding is

[1:09:53] we would not be able to set the speed limit on the roadway. We'd only be

[1:09:56] taking responsibility of the uh areas that are cross-hatched of the park.

[1:10:06] I will admit I think this is a good idea, but um and I didn't give it the

[1:10:10] attention it deserves, but uh I am concerned about the the cost long term

[1:10:16] the city just kind of giving where where we are financially. So, it would be

[1:10:20] helpful to have that uh some sort of estimate of what we think we're going to

[1:10:25] be taking on here going forward. >> Yeah, I I think if you submit that

[1:10:29] through council requests, Ruby's giving me the look. If you submit that through

[1:10:32] council request between myself and our recreation department, we'll be able to

[1:10:36] put some numbers together for you.

[1:10:41] » Okay, next one. >> Okay, thank you. Uh the next two items

[1:10:45] are from Director Truch uh for traffic engineering related contracts.

[1:10:56] Uh and in the spirit of continuing to clean up and play catchup uh not having

[1:11:01] had a department of traffic engineering for several uh months, uh the

[1:11:06] resolutions before you are item 10.36, resolution 2672,

[1:11:12] which is a resolution authorizing an award to extend the professional

[1:11:16] services contract with French and Pillo to provide engineering design services

[1:11:22] for Franklin Street safety. the improvement project

[1:11:27] which is underway. Open the floor to questions.

[1:11:32] » Questions 10.36. >> So this is to extend the award. What's

[1:11:38] so the initial amount was how much? It was the initial amount

[1:11:45] uh for their contract with FBA is 162,13.

[1:11:51] Uh there was 101,000 remaining on that contract. Uh this should have been

[1:11:58] before council several months ago. Uh we're applying this retroactively.

[1:12:02] They've actually done a fair amount of the work. Uh the design is actually

[1:12:06] currently with NJ dot for review and then once they get that and we are able

[1:12:12] to award a construction contract, uh then they will also be responsible

[1:12:16] for construction inspection services. So that's why it's a bit of a higher

[1:12:20] amount. Uh that's that's owing.

[1:12:23] » So they've >> remaining sorry

[1:12:25] » they've completed most of the work that's going to be included in this new

[1:12:31] round of money. >> They are so it's not new money. It's the

[1:12:36] same money zero cost. Yeah. >> Not new money. But my point in saying is

[1:12:41] is that they've already completed work outside of approval is my main point.

[1:12:48] » Yeah. Councelor Gmer. So, there's two components to this contract. The first

[1:12:51] is the design work that has mostly been spent. The second component is once

[1:12:55] construction begins that they would also be responsible for construction

[1:12:59] inspection on on the city's behalf.

[1:13:03] And that that's the that's the component that the large amount of the 101,000

[1:13:07] that's remaining. That's mostly that component.

[1:13:10] » Confused because earlier you so initially there was how much? 160.

[1:13:17] Correct. 162 >> 162 of the 162

[1:13:23] » roughly 60,000 is designed and then 100,000 for construction.

[1:13:27] » Say that again. >> Roughly speaking

[1:13:30] roughly 65,000 was for design >> and then about 95,000 to 100,000

[1:13:35] somewhere in those plus or minus a couple of thousand.

[1:13:38] » So this the same company is doing the design and the construction right?

[1:13:43] » Yes. And that it >> construction inspection not construction

[1:13:48] construction inspection on behalf of the city.

[1:13:50] » Yes. Yes. >> Yes.

[1:13:51] » And so the it would be a hund uh the 160 is broken down between

[1:14:03] 95 and then I guess 65. >> I'm I'm out on my numbers area, but it

[1:14:09] it totals to the sum of the the 162. >> Okay. And now where are they at now and

[1:14:14] as it relates to the construction? >> Uh so as I had said the design is in

[1:14:21] review right now >> construction has not begun. Uh once NJ

[1:14:26] do uh comes back with final comments on the proposed final design, then we can

[1:14:33] go and I'll be back in front of council again to uh find a uh to issue an RFP,

[1:14:40] award a contract for the contractor to actually complete to do the work.

[1:14:48] » Any other questions? >> Next one.

[1:14:53] » Thank you. Uh and in again in similar fashion uh item 1037

[1:14:58] resolution 26-573

[1:15:02] uh in similar fashion res a resolution to uh award an for an award to extend uh

[1:15:09] the professional traffic engineering services contract with Stantech

[1:15:13] Consulting Services Inc. or our on call traffic engineering services for uh my

[1:15:19] division. This is a zerocost contract. It is

[1:15:24] retroactive again. It should have been done a few months ago. Um they've been

[1:15:28] working in good faith with us. Uh there is a residual amount of money there that

[1:15:33] we would like to try and now effectively uh spend uh to close up a number of the

[1:15:40] items that have been worked on over the last few months, including councils.

[1:15:44] » Less 10.37.

[1:15:49] These two contracts, they're both capital dollars, correct?

[1:15:59] It is just I wanted to make sure. So, capital. Yes.

[1:16:07] » Any other questions?

[1:16:10] » Okay, next one. You have two more, right, Andy?

[1:16:14] » Two more, maybe three more, but they're all related. Um, the next one is item

[1:16:19] 3.8. Uh, I'm sorry, item 10.7, resolution 26, uh, 533 for the award of

[1:16:28] CDBGPF funds for the property acquisition of 128 Glenwood. Um, so

[1:16:33] Isaac is going to be, uh, speaking with me to this one.

[1:16:40] » What was that number again? >> Said 10.7. 10.17

[1:16:47] » 10.17 right >> there council members forunately this

[1:16:53] will not be the last I'm up here before you again today uh here just to give

[1:16:57] some I placed a memo on your desk for you all to sort of give you context here

[1:17:03] on a project that me uh Brian Weller deputy mayor Bryant and it's unfortunate

[1:17:09] first have been working on for quite a while

[1:17:11] » bring the mic closer >> close all I'm short sorry Um, we have

[1:17:15] been working to try to get a hold the a grasp of the situation with the city's

[1:17:21] parks and the various proposals and various u projects that have been uh

[1:17:29] proposed and money allocated to over the last few uh half a decade. Uh,

[1:17:35] unfortunately this is harder than it should have been. We've been working on

[1:17:38] this for a little while now. The issue we face is that the previous

[1:17:44] administration dedicated money to or proposed more many more projects than

[1:17:48] there was funding for and as a result we had ended up with a lot of partially

[1:17:53] funded or partially uh or proposed but not feasible projects. The

[1:18:01] issue that where we're trying to resolve is to basically make sure that we have a

[1:18:04] parks plan for parks that can actually be feasibly done in the next 12 to 18

[1:18:10] months. We've sat down and gone through most of what has been proposed over the

[1:18:15] years. The problem we face is that uh similarly the last administration did

[1:18:20] not do very good recordkeeping on what was spent, what was uh done and what was

[1:18:25] not done. So what you have in front of you is a proposal and it's a proposal of

[1:18:31] projects that we think are viable to move forward in the next 12 to 18 months

[1:18:38] based on their current status and what funds they

[1:18:43] may be eligible for. When we went through this, we were making sure that

[1:18:47] our goal was to minimize city spending. Uh try to invest broadly across the

[1:18:54] city. In particular, a targeting those parks that have not been invested in for

[1:19:00] quite some time. Making sure the projects can actually be completed. The

[1:19:04] meaning that there is a funding stack and that there is work that can be done.

[1:19:09] And finally um trying to breach our previously done commitments that have

[1:19:14] been sitting. The problem we face is there are numerous ways to fund

[1:19:20] projects. Some of them have different eligibilities

[1:19:23] that is going through them is a little bit difficult when you have minimal or

[1:19:28] incomplete information on what was proposed in 2019 or 2024. So what you

[1:19:34] have in front of you is this list of what we think. These are products that

[1:19:37] we have confirmed their current status. We've confirmed what they're eligible

[1:19:41] for. We've confirmed, you know, where they're moving, what, if any, money has

[1:19:45] been spent on them. And we are coming to you and we've spoken to the parks

[1:19:50] coalition already to confirm that this is a vision that you're good with.

[1:19:56] We uh want to meet with you over the next month in order to confirm that and

[1:20:01] then prepare to move forward with these. Uh again the key issue here is trying to

[1:20:07] confirm as much of these of this as possible is eligible for grants of

[1:20:11] various types Hudson County open space CDBG UE to limit taking on new city

[1:20:17] bonds or reallocating existing city bonds. This will be a piece of a bigger

[1:20:23] uh discussion for capital and CDBG coming to you. But I just wanted to make

[1:20:27] sure that you understood this was going forward. Uh again, we'll be reaching out

[1:20:32] to all of you to set up meetings. I've already spoken to the council president

[1:20:35] about this to discuss uh this proposal and move plan to move forward

[1:20:42] with it hopefully October. >> So Isa just um very low-level review uh

[1:20:51] as we just got this. So just specifically as it relates to

[1:20:58] number three park uh renovation as I understand it they have excuse me number

[1:21:05] four um there have already been grant there have already been a grant and more

[1:21:12] to do this. So I'm just trying to figure out

[1:21:17] » what exactly are we are are you looking is the administration looking to do with

[1:21:22] this ordinance. So >> resolution

[1:21:26] » um mo some mo almost all these parks have funds dedicated to and the problem

[1:21:30] is they tended not to have enough funds dedicated to complete them. So the idea

[1:21:35] is to prioritize those projects that we think are feasible if you can reallocate

[1:21:39] some funding and make sure there is uh something other funding they're eligible

[1:21:42] for. Now Arlington Park is one of those that it's on this list that is ready to

[1:21:47] go. We are moving forward on some of these already. Arlington is in fact we

[1:21:52] got our fees back. We are I think we're ready to reward on Arlington but even

[1:21:56] then you there to fully finalize the vision there will still probably be some

[1:22:00] extra funds necessary because once again it was situation we're not 100% of the

[1:22:05] funding was uh allocated previously and so there are a number of these that are

[1:22:11] preparing to move forward. Martin and you know Martinique Enright is about 75%

[1:22:15] ready to go on design. uh Skinner Park is ready to go out to bid very shortly.

[1:22:20] So, some of these are ready to go. It's just making sure we have the correct

[1:22:23] combination of funds to ensure they can actually be completed. And that's sort

[1:22:27] of the goal here to come up with a list that we can prioritize to get done

[1:22:31] rather than just once again going, you know, making pronouncements that end up

[1:22:35] with park sitting for four or five years because there's not a complete funding

[1:22:38] stack. >> Okay.

[1:22:43] So, um I'm looking at this list. Um and so

[1:22:50] are we also looking at grant funding? For example, um

[1:22:55] the old cemetery where there are um federal historic grants that restore

[1:23:01] cemeteries. >> We are looking at UE funding for

[1:23:04] historic various different historic grants. Again, trying to make sure we

[1:23:08] can up as many as possible. Well, when we sit down with you guys, we'll go

[1:23:12] through what we think each of these fun is eligible for. There are some time

[1:23:15] constraints. There are some details. For example, park that's CDBG. There are

[1:23:20] certain eligibility requirements on the scope of the project. There's some

[1:23:23] requirements on they can't have started yet to be eligible for CDBG. There's

[1:23:26] certain specific eligibilities, but yes, we're looking for as much as possible

[1:23:30] state UEZ, federal government funding to move these forward.

[1:23:34] » Okay? We want to make sure that this is, you know, what you guys want in your

[1:23:38] neighborhoods and represent what people >> and this isn't um looped into

[1:23:45] the funds with 1017, right? >> You just wanted you just want us to be

[1:23:52] aware. >> This is the general outline of what

[1:23:54] we're planning to do for getting parts to completion. Yeah.

[1:23:57] » You're here to talk about 10.17. >> I am not really in detail. Yeah.

[1:24:00] » So, can we um >> This is context for you.

[1:24:05] » Connect it all. Um >> say that again, director.

[1:24:09] » Certainly. Uh just to connect it all. We're here because we're putting

[1:24:14] together this overall plan for multiple parks, but it's not 100% finalized to

[1:24:21] present to council. We don't have all the resolutions and ordinances before

[1:24:24] you, but we do have one project that is advancing sooner than the others on this

[1:24:28] list. And you know, we can talk about that as well. Um, but that has a

[1:24:32] timeline that is pretty, you know, tight in order to ensure that we're able to

[1:24:36] close an acquisition of a property um, while the seller still has it up for for

[1:24:41] sale. >> Okay. So, if we for the document that

[1:24:44] Isaac gave us, council, if we could make some time to uh, get with Isaac offline

[1:24:50] with any of the parks in here with questions, um, then that would be

[1:24:54] helpful. And then we'll let unless Isaac has something else then we'll let uh

[1:24:59] director Kaplan move on with 1017. >> Sure. So then then what I would ask

[1:25:04] madame uh council president is if we could also discuss item 3.8 8 uh which

[1:25:09] is ordinance uh 26077 and deputy mayor mayor Podar and I

[1:25:15] believe Solo possibly as well can speak specifically about the acquisition of

[1:25:20] this property both the award of the grant and the uh ordinance before you

[1:25:26] » can I just say something real really quickly if I mean

[1:25:30] it's great that we are look that that you know guys are putting a plan

[1:25:35] together but I I don't know just um that whole conversation, it just

[1:25:42] sounded to me like we're putting the cart before the horse

[1:25:47] when you said we're moving sooner than later as far as acquiring property.

[1:25:53] Um I just wanted to get that out because that's that's just how I felt.

[1:25:58] » Sure. And if it helps to clarify, we're putting together a program with those

[1:26:01] multiple parks that were able to advance this year, including 128 Glenwood. Um

[1:26:06] and we're confident that we'll be able to make progress on all of them, you

[1:26:10] know, this year and and getting it towards construction using the funds

[1:26:12] available. Um and 128 Glenwood is on the agenda today, but we wanted the context

[1:26:20] to be there. So, I don't think the other projects coming into more clarity and us

[1:26:25] getting contracts in place is going to impact our ability to move forward. Um

[1:26:30] this one project uh today. >> It's a quick edit to the agenda, Sean.

[1:26:35] 128 Glenwood is in ward C, not W B. 1017 should be reflect W C.

[1:26:46] Uh, good evening members of the council. Deputy Mayor Quesar speaking to items

[1:26:50] 10:17 and 3.8. Um, so what you have before you is two items here. Uh, agenda

[1:26:57] item 3.8 8 is an ordinance to authorize the purchase and sale of the property

[1:27:02] known as 128 Glenwood. And then the resolution is uh an item allowing us to

[1:27:08] accept $1 million in federal CDBG funding to defay the acquisition cost

[1:27:14] for that property. So, to refresh everybody's memory, this is a follow on

[1:27:19] to a resolution that was before you back in the spring, uh, where this council

[1:27:24] approved a resolution to apply for Hudson County Open Space Trust Fund

[1:27:28] money for the acquisition of 128 Glenwood, uh, as a as a new public

[1:27:33] pocket park in, as as Councilman Zeppa said, Ward C. Um, it's right on the

[1:27:38] border of Ward B and W C and Mcinley Square. Um, so as you all may recall,

[1:27:43] there was a very significant outpouring of community support uh for the

[1:27:47] acquisition of this parcel as a pocket park. Um, as you all know, there's very

[1:27:51] limited green space in Mcinley Square and WC in general. Um, that support

[1:27:57] included the local neighborhood association, but also the parks

[1:28:01] coalition as a whole, various elected officials, including obviously, as you

[1:28:05] all know, some members of the council and various other elected officials who

[1:28:09] represent the city. Um, so what has changed since then and now? Um, well,

[1:28:15] we've realized that because this park is in an LMI census tract, we can use

[1:28:20] federal CDBG funding to defay the vast majority of the cost. So, as you might

[1:28:25] all recall, back when we came before you the last time, uh, on the record, we

[1:28:30] estimated the city's capital obligation to acquire this parcel would would be

[1:28:35] roughly $400 to $600,000. Um, with the, uh, use of CDBG funds, we

[1:28:41] are able to use $1 million in CDBG funds for the acquisition, there is a

[1:28:46] remaining balance of $200,000, which will be covered by city capital funds.

[1:28:50] So, the total purchase price for the property will be $1.2 million, of which

[1:28:55] $1 million will come from CDBG and 200,000 will come from city capital

[1:29:00] funds. Um and and as uh director Kaplan noted before, you know, we would ideally

[1:29:07] love to advance this in in in conjunction with a number of other

[1:29:11] items. Um but the seller here uh already has permits to proceed with a

[1:29:16] construction project. Um and so we are on a very very tight timeline to move

[1:29:22] forward with this acquisition. Otherwise, we will lose the opportunity

[1:29:25] to purchase this asset for the community. So I'm available to take any

[1:29:29] questions and we also have Solo here from DCD if there are specific questions

[1:29:33] on CDBG question. >> Yes. Um so few questions. Um one I

[1:29:40] remember earlier this year we were all in support of the park but grants were

[1:29:47] supposed to be secured via Hudson County. What specifically happened with

[1:29:52] that breakup? What what what happened there? So, our original plan was to use

[1:29:57] Hudson County Open Space Trust funds. As you said, Councilman, um, while we were

[1:30:03] going through this process, we realized that CDBG funds could be used for the

[1:30:07] acquisition because this parcel is in a low to moderate income census tract. So,

[1:30:12] that allows us to do a few things. First, it allows us to use a funding

[1:30:16] source um that we need to draw down relatively quickly. We actually need to

[1:30:20] draw down CDWGPF funds pretty rapidly, otherwise we will lose them. Second,

[1:30:25] that allows us to free up those Hudson County open space trust funds for other

[1:30:30] projects. So that is why we made the decision to switch to using the CDBG

[1:30:34] funding source for this project. >> Oh, for other projects in Jersey City.

[1:30:38] » Correct. Okay. >> Because uh

[1:30:40] » now when I hear CDBG funds, immediately my thinking go to affordability. You

[1:30:47] just spoke about the low and moderate income areas. I love parks. I prefer

[1:30:53] housing over parks if I had to choose between the two. Um I am a little

[1:31:00] concerned at the price point seeing that the last transaction of the land was

[1:31:07] about 24 months ago and now it's double plus.

[1:31:14] I understand the real estate market in Jersey City have ballooned out of

[1:31:19] control. Um, so, uh, how did you guys arrive at 1.2 million?

[1:31:27] » Yes, Councilman, it's a very fair question. I appreciate the chance to

[1:31:30] clarify this for the record. Um, I believe the last transaction on this

[1:31:35] property was in 2022. Uh, at the time, there were no zoning approvals for the

[1:31:40] development that is going in. So, the current developer since then has

[1:31:45] acquired uh zoning approvals to build, I believe it's a 4-unit residential

[1:31:49] property on the site. Um, when those entitlements come forward, it

[1:31:53] significantly increases the value of the property. Um, so the uh independent

[1:31:59] appraisal that the city conducted for this property yielded a purchase price

[1:32:03] of uh yielded an appraisal value of $1 million. we are very happy to um uh

[1:32:10] provide that appraisal uh uh for the council's review. Um and then 1.2 was

[1:32:16] ultimately after back and forth with the seller where the seller was willing to

[1:32:19] go. Um like I said uh the seller has full permits to proceed with

[1:32:24] construction. Um so if the transaction weren't to to fall weren't to move

[1:32:29] forward then they would be able to move forward and build and build their

[1:32:33] property >> in 2022. Just sorry if I clarify 2022

[1:32:36] the St. Peters University sold this parcel along with several other parcels

[1:32:39] that was offloading at the time. Correct.

[1:32:41] » I believe that's correct. >> So it's your it's your testimony that

[1:32:47] there's an appraisal somewhere that's in or around a million dollars for that

[1:32:53] current lot. >> Correct. It is $1 million. Exactly. I

[1:32:56] believe. >> Lord Jesus.

[1:32:59] Um and the developer back and forth with

[1:33:05] the administration have I guess settled upon 1.2.

[1:33:12] » That's correct. Now, initially,

[1:33:18] so initially when we were embarking on a journey of getting the grant from the

[1:33:24] county, what what price point at at what point was the land valued at that point?

[1:33:32] » What was that? >> We didn't do the appraisal value at So,

[1:33:35] there was a previous appraisal that was not up to date. I forget what I I don't

[1:33:40] recall exactly what that >> 15,000

[1:33:43] » 750 >> 750. Yeah, that sounds about right. Um

[1:33:47] so that was a more outdated appraisal. We conducted an up-to-date appraisal. I

[1:33:51] believe that was finished in May and that yielded the 1 million value. Yeah.

[1:33:56] Now, as it relates to the CDBG funding, was this funding applied in a separate

[1:34:02] grant specifically for the purchase of of the lot for the park or was it

[1:34:10] or was it the money was there and you figure that we can use it because it

[1:34:15] meets the requirements? >> Correct. I I believe it's a second

[1:34:19] councilman. Uh this is a pool of funding that can be used to meet the

[1:34:22] requirement. Um there's various HUD regulations that specify a procedure for

[1:34:29] how you can use the funding. So just to give one example, um one reason we were

[1:34:34] able to use it for this project is because it's a brand new project. No

[1:34:40] work has been done on it yet. Um we had to complete an environmental review

[1:34:44] under federal law before we could bring this purchase and sale agreement before

[1:34:48] before the council to use. So there are steps you have to take to use the

[1:34:52] funding, but it is a pool of funding that we identified to use for this

[1:34:56] project. I just want to say like on the surface I support support the park. The

[1:35:03] problem for me right now is that it's a it's a it's a high price to pay

[1:35:10] for the park, but I get it. The cost of business and real estate in Jersey City.

[1:35:14] The bigger issue is that we have foregone

[1:35:19] applying via the county and looked at money that we already had. This is money

[1:35:26] that could be poured into affordable units or that should have been poured in

[1:35:31] to affordable units. So for me it's like it's almost like I'm choosing between

[1:35:38] bringing affordable units to fruition or bringing about a park. I would really

[1:35:44] much rather have seen us go through the necessary hurdles of going through the

[1:35:51] county applying for the grant hopefully getting that grant. I would imagine that

[1:35:56] although this developer have plans and he wants to move forward at the price

[1:36:00] point which we which we've agreed with him, I would imagine he would have

[1:36:05] waited um until we secure them funds. Now it's it I don't it's it's awkward

[1:36:13] position to be in uh because again those CDBG funds were already applied for.

[1:36:19] Correct. this project just happens to meet the requirements.

[1:36:25] » So that's not quite right, Councilman. There are two separate CDBG pots, so to

[1:36:31] speak, that you're referring to. Um, this is specifically for public

[1:36:35] facilities. These are not the funds that we allocate, for example, to new

[1:36:40] affordable housing units. These this is a different pot of money that is

[1:36:44] specifically for public facilities. Okay? So there was no um

[1:36:49] there were a few applications in for this funding but it wasn't a a massive

[1:36:53] pipeline of funds. >> Okay. Thank you for that clarification.

[1:36:56] But the bigger issue is that those funds were already secured. Correct versus us

[1:37:03] just going to get it now or they wasn't? >> Sorry, which funds were already secured?

[1:37:09] This no the CDBG funding was already secured before we even looked into this.

[1:37:16] We just happened to say, "Hey, it meets the criteria. Why don't we use these

[1:37:21] funds?" Correct. >> That's correct.

[1:37:23] » That's So that's for me. I'm I'm I'm confused as to why aren't we applying

[1:37:29] for new money versus using money that's it's it's already we've we've already

[1:37:34] received those grants. Correct. >> Yeah. chime in.

[1:37:38] » Want to speak to the county, then I'll speak to the PF.

[1:37:40] » Can I chime in on this point before you? Um, so it's my understanding that we're

[1:37:46] non-compliant with our CDPG public uh public funding

[1:37:51] um public facilities funding, I should say. And because I looked into this

[1:37:56] because we got complaints myself and Congressman Zupa, um, Kennedy dancers

[1:38:00] were not not being paid uh among a bunch of other grantees. It's my understanding

[1:38:06] that the payments were held up because we have not expended CDBG public

[1:38:12] facilities funding that this pot of money um has been sitting and gone

[1:38:18] unspent for years now, right? Um and I'd like you to speak to that because in

[1:38:22] terms of it's yes, it's secured, but there's to your I think you alluded to

[1:38:28] it the idea that there's a timeline. I'm not sure what that timeline is. I'd like

[1:38:31] to get clarity about that. Um because I would agree with the councilman that

[1:38:35] there's um there are uh potentially other uses for CDBG public facilities uh

[1:38:43] dollars that could be contemplated and used. But um here we are again and not

[1:38:47] this is not in your administration. The prior administration did not spend these

[1:38:51] dollars down. And so um they used to spend things on paving streets on MLK

[1:38:57] Drive or something like that to like uh use that for public facilities funding.

[1:39:01] They used to do it to um do do other things in other parks and

[1:39:06] other neighborhoods um that just qualified when they could they could use

[1:39:10] that for other things like building a community center or uh or or building a

[1:39:14] job center or something like that that would actually amilarate the impact of

[1:39:19] uh poverty and other things like that conditions like that. Uh but if you

[1:39:22] could speak to that I'd appreciate that get some clarity on on our timing and

[1:39:25] what what the issue is here. >> Yes. Thank you Councilman. I appreciate

[1:39:29] the opportunity to clarify that. So, as you said, you're right. We are under the

[1:39:32] gun with the CDBGPF funding because the previous administration was very slow to

[1:39:38] spend it down. Um, so my understanding, and Solo is here, can correct me if I'm

[1:39:43] wrong, is we need to obligate roughly 11 million in this funding uh by April of

[1:39:49] next year. Um, so this is the type of project that is relatively quick, right?

[1:39:54] It's an acquisition. We can move forward on our own relatively quickly.

[1:39:59] um uh which is why we're accessing this this fund for it. I believe actually we

[1:40:03] are at risk of penalties um or some penalties may have already been levied

[1:40:07] on this pot of money because as you said councilman we have been very slow to to

[1:40:12] spend >> no other funds not being released like

[1:40:14] these other >> EDBG dollars to grantees are being held

[1:40:18] up because of this.

[1:40:25] » Thank you council. I just want to provide some context. So, for this $1

[1:40:28] million, this is uh 2022 money that um does expire at the end of this year, I

[1:40:35] believe, and needs to be uh acquisition is the fastest way um to get rid of

[1:40:40] federal dollars when they're in danger of being recaptured.

[1:40:43] » So, question, right, these funds, when we acquire these funds, are they

[1:40:47] acquired for a specific purpose or is this just money that's given to us for

[1:40:53] » So, these are entitlements. We're given this money every year. um it's up to us

[1:40:57] to accept applications and kind of award it out. Okay.

[1:41:01] » Um there's been projects that haven't been moving for several years. So, what

[1:41:04] we're doing is kind of recapturing that award from um an organization that was

[1:41:09] previously awarded and kind of using it internally before we you know don't meet

[1:41:13] the deadline. >> So, I I just want to say um you know

[1:41:17] this this is a game changer for me because when we talk about public

[1:41:20] facilities, we're saying that we had the money since 2022.

[1:41:25] Communities have been crying for rec centers, which is a public facility.

[1:41:29] Correct. Mhm. >> for years

[1:41:33] and to forego

[1:41:37] county open space dollars that we could use for this um Glenwood

[1:41:45] property and not use the the uh CDBG funds for what has been a public outcry

[1:41:56] for for years. Um, it's concerning to me >> and and it it feels like almost like

[1:42:05] it's like this is the easy way out to spend the money and show that we did

[1:42:09] something. >> I mean, um, a money is not off our

[1:42:12] books. Federal grants money until a project is completed. So, they would

[1:42:16] have like three months, >> right? But we're completing a project

[1:42:20] that can be completed by county dollars. And the money that we have, we can't use

[1:42:26] county dollars for a rec center or anything like that. We have the money.

[1:42:31] This is stuff we we need to start investing. We need to start investing in

[1:42:34] our children. Um, and listen, I don't have anything against parks. I love

[1:42:39] parks, right? And but this is why I'm saying

[1:42:42] this is a gamecher for me because it it can still get done but we don't

[1:42:48] have to use the money that can be used for

[1:42:52] community

[1:42:55] and and needed public facilities. >> So councilman I just wanted to council

[1:43:00] members I just wanted to clarify one thing about the Hudson County Open Space

[1:43:03] Trust. It is correct that we were looking to apply for funding for this

[1:43:07] acquisition from that source and that we no longer are seeking funds from that

[1:43:11] source. Instead, when we spoke to the county and we uh withdrew our

[1:43:16] application, they invited us to submit additional parks for the Hudson County

[1:43:21] Open Space Trust fund. So, it's not like we left that money on the table. The

[1:43:26] Hudson County Open Space Trust has funded uh the 2. Well, to clarify, the

[1:43:32] recommendation of the Hudson County staff to the county commissioners. I

[1:43:35] believe it is up to the county commissioners to vote, but the

[1:43:37] recommendation includes $750,000 to Leonard Gordon Park, $750,000 to La

[1:43:44] Point Park, $350,000 to Marinak Enrich Park, and $650,000 to the Terrace Avenue

[1:43:51] Park. So many of those awards would not happen from the county if we were

[1:43:57] seeking the funds instead for the Glenwood Act.

[1:44:00] » So, so it's not that we're leaving external money on the table by using the

[1:44:04] the PF funds, the CDBGPFs. We're trying to identify the funds that

[1:44:09] are most at risk of being clawed back in this case by the federal government and

[1:44:13] allow us to then you advance other park priorities across all the entire city,

[1:44:18] the Hudson County Open Space Trust. So the challenge and I think we alluded to

[1:44:22] this at the beginning is we're getting these awards but they're not the full

[1:44:26] capital stack of the project. So Leonard Gordon for example was broken into

[1:44:30] multiple phases. Some work was done. This is the next phase. There's still

[1:44:34] more money needed to fully remake that park soup to nuts. So what we're doing

[1:44:38] is we're working to scope a project to the money we have across all these parks

[1:44:42] and or pair them with additional funding from capital stacks or additional

[1:44:46] grants. Um that's kind of the whole exercise and that's what Isaac was

[1:44:50] alluding to that full memo of trying to piece together these puzzles. But the

[1:44:54] more immediate need was um to avoid clawback or loss of the CTBGPF funds.

[1:45:01] And this was an eligible expense that this that we believe is good for the

[1:45:05] city, good you know for parks and open space. And the county funds weren't

[1:45:10] lost. they were just uh we applied for other uh parks in le of

[1:45:15] » right but I wasn't I I wasn't talking about the loss of the money I'm talking

[1:45:19] about the the non-use of it and and I'm I'm confused is this a park or is it a

[1:45:27] community garden?

[1:45:31] » Yes, it yes it is a pocket park in the way that we look at them and define

[1:45:36] them. But the use of that park, just like we have some parks that have dog

[1:45:39] runs and splash plaids and playgrounds and the use of this park would be a

[1:45:43] community garden within the public pocket park.

[1:45:47] » So, can we um and I'll ba choy I'll submit this to a council request, but

[1:45:53] can we get I guess a breakdown of the fundings

[1:46:01] that we have for public facilities. You mentioned we have to spend this million

[1:46:06] by the end of the year. There's another 11 million we have to spend by April.

[1:46:10] Can we get a breakdown of all of the uh funds we have available and the dates we

[1:46:15] need to spend them by? And also what the policy is for us to use that money

[1:46:20] because if there's money sitting out there for public facilities, um I feel

[1:46:24] similar to my council people and everybody knows I feel similar about

[1:46:28] this because I'm advocating for a new rec center. But if we have recreation

[1:46:33] centers that we could be building, we have uh firehouses that need repairs, we

[1:46:37] have police stations. I don't know if that falls under this or not, but

[1:46:41] there's a lot of things that we can be doing with that money instead of having

[1:46:44] it sit there. >> And libraries. Yeah. So, I was going to

[1:46:48] request, can we get a list of all eligible buildings you and all uses for

[1:46:53] CB CBDG money, please? >> Just the one challenge that I'll I'll

[1:46:58] highlight. Um, I think this is a good exercise and conversations we've been

[1:47:02] having. Um, by the end of the calendar year, if we want to do something like

[1:47:06] build a new rec center, we would need to have I I'll defer to Solo, but I believe

[1:47:11] we need to have the project reviewed, approved, designed, put out to bid.

[1:47:15] There's a lot of tasks that would be required before the bearded

[1:47:20] and count towards the spend. Um, and that's challenging to advance all of

[1:47:26] these very important priorities by the end of the calendar year.

[1:47:30] » I think I I hold on. I just think with the intellectual capacity of this

[1:47:36] administration, I think we could get it done. I believe

[1:47:40] in you guys. >> Well, we have consultants that have paid

[1:47:42] to work on the rec center. That's what they're paid to do. So, they are

[1:47:46] currently under contract. >> Yes. Yeah. My question is related like

[1:47:50] is it the administration's estimation that there is no project that

[1:47:55] could get a million dollars that we need to spend by the end of the year and have

[1:48:00] that actually like go through successfully

[1:48:05] demonstrate that we've drawn down on that million dollars before December

[1:48:09] 31st. >> I would say it's not that there's no

[1:48:13] project. It's that as director Kaplan mentioned as Salo has mentioned there

[1:48:17] are very significant challenges with and a lot of nuances to which projects are

[1:48:22] eligible to begin with and the timeline for each and when the money needs to be

[1:48:26] spent on different activities. Um so council president we will provide that

[1:48:31] information you're requesting. I would also really strongly encourage anyone

[1:48:34] who's interested to meet with Solo and with the DCD staff who can go through

[1:48:40] those nuances because they are quite quite complex.

[1:48:43] If I could jump in just um on the the the memo that is attached um I think

[1:48:51] part of it says it's 2024 funds but then deputy mayor you said it was 2022 or

[1:48:57] maybe director um Diaz you said it's it's actually

[1:49:01] 2022. >> It's 20 2022. Yes.

[1:49:04] » Okay. >> Memo should be 202.

[1:49:06] » And when does when do those funds expire? Um so all our CDBG funds we have

[1:49:12] about uh three years but due to the government shutdown we got an extension

[1:49:15] so about the end of this year for 2022. >> And um the 1 million what what uh what's

[1:49:22] the balance of the 2022 funds remaining to be spent?

[1:49:25] » Um this is the final $1 million in that pool. Yeah.

[1:49:29] » Okay. And so we we have 2023 CDBG funds that that are available.

[1:49:35] » Um so we have 2023 and 24. We have 25 coming later this month. Um possibly 26

[1:49:42] in December. Um they're a bit behind in awarding it. Um but do keep in mind that

[1:49:47] 2023 and 2024 we already received applications that was already awarded

[1:49:52] out. It's just now identifying the projects that are unable to move

[1:49:56] forward. So we could kind of cancel that award and then find where else we could

[1:50:00] use it internally. >> Got it. So there there

[1:50:04] but okay. Is there a balance of either 2023 or 2024 CDBG funds that might be

[1:50:11] available for some of the projects that my colleagues have have raised?

[1:50:17] » Yes. And we also have all of 2025 coming in later this month, which is 4.1

[1:50:21] million. So, yes. Got it. >> Will be funding available. Yeah.

[1:50:24] » Got it. So, this is not the uh the last piece of pizza.

[1:50:28] » No. No. For 2022, yes, but we have more. >> Okay. Yeah. And I just, you know, I was

[1:50:33] quiet through the questions, but I do want to reiterate the community's

[1:50:38] support for this project. Um, I I hear, you know, the balancing other things we

[1:50:46] need to do in this city, but it sounds like, uh, you know, there's more pizza.

[1:50:52] Um, this is a metaphor I use when when we're when I'm doing union negotiations

[1:50:57] is how do we slice up the pizza? But um there's additional funds that that are

[1:51:01] available, but this particular pot, this is it for 2022. Okay. Thank you.

[1:51:12] Well, I'll just close with um my formal requests I'll send out by via council

[1:51:16] requests. Um trust, but verify. Um I'd like a copy of the appraisal. um the

[1:51:25] eligibility requirements for this LMI tract if you can provide that specific

[1:51:30] information unless it's already located in the resolution and I'll just uh find

[1:51:35] it in there. Um

[1:51:41] the

[1:51:45] a question about um has the have these dollars this tranch of dollars already

[1:51:53] been kind of pre-approved by HUD at this point

[1:51:59] specifically 128. >> Yep. Uh yes, we did conduct an

[1:52:03] environmental review and that was approved by HUD. Um they did say it did

[1:52:07] qualify uh see the correct uh they did say it

[1:52:14] benefits the low and mod income community by uh improving recreation

[1:52:20] opportunities.

[1:52:23] And um and then going back to my original um remarks about CDBG uh kind

[1:52:29] of the public service and grants, are they all taken care of at this point? Is

[1:52:33] everyone paid or >> um No. So most of the the calls you've

[1:52:36] been fielding, those are about our 2025 that's going that should be on our next

[1:52:42] council meeting for accepting. And then uh once it's accepted by council, we

[1:52:46] just have to internally set up the accounts and then we could start

[1:52:50] distributing their funding. And the last thing I'll just say is

[1:52:56] appreciate your work on this solo. I'm trying to clean this all up, but um uh

[1:53:02] there is a huge non-compliance issue here that uh I'm not sure if I mean I

[1:53:09] know there's been changes in leadership at this point. Um but uh everyone else

[1:53:14] needs to be held accountable in this should be held accountable um because

[1:53:18] there are impacts, opportunities lost ultimately um even though there's

[1:53:24] there's more pizza, there's more slices out there and all that stuff going on,

[1:53:27] but uh there's still opportunities lost um over time. So

[1:53:33] um I will look into this with the administration holding these folks

[1:53:38] accountable. >> Okay. Thank you. Director, you have

[1:53:43] anything else? All right. >> Thank you.

[1:53:48] » Okay, council. Keep in mind we are 6 o'clock and we are going to speaker

[1:53:55] number three, director Kier.

[1:54:10] Good evening, President Ridley and members of the city council. I'm here

[1:54:13] tonight to speak on item 107, resolution 26543.

[1:54:20] Resolution will authorize the Department of Public Safety, Office of Emergency

[1:54:23] Management, Homeland Security to accept a grant in the amount of 1,531,000

[1:54:29] from the United States Department of Homeland Security, and the New Jersey

[1:54:32] Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness through the FY2025

[1:54:38] Urban Area Security Initiative Program. There is no uh incline match with this

[1:54:44] grant. >> What was the number? I'm sorry. 10.7.

[1:54:50] » Any questions on 10.7?

[1:54:56] » Next one, director. >> Next item is uh resolution, it's item

[1:55:02] 1033, resolution 26569. Resolution will authorize the payment of

[1:55:08] a claim submitted by King Towing for providing emergency towing services

[1:55:12] associated with the winter storm and snow removal operations that we had in

[1:55:16] January and February. Total amount of this claim is $124,200

[1:55:22] which is available in account 60126 292314.

[1:55:28] The reason for the delay with this is that there was some issues with the

[1:55:32] billing. they had to be reverified and at the time there wasn't sufficient

[1:55:37] funds in the account to uh move it forward.

[1:55:40] » Question. >> I I just feel like um

[1:55:44] feel like we voted on this already. >> It wasn't king to it was how many towing

[1:55:50] how many how many towing companies do we use?

[1:55:53] » Off the top of my head count was at least five of them.

[1:55:58] » Okay, >> that's all of them. This is the last one

[1:56:02] of all of them. >> Yes, this this should be the last one.

[1:56:09] » Hope so. >> I think Gilmore had um

[1:56:13] » Griffin got about >> 250k. Is it um

[1:56:18] Are we using emergency funds here or surplus or what? I don't know what the

[1:56:23] word is at this point anymore.

[1:56:26] » What does that count? >> We're using emergency funds.

[1:56:31] Um I'm sorry. >> Emergency funds.

[1:56:34] » Emergency funds >> for this particular item.

[1:56:36] » Yes. >> Uh I believe the fund has been uh

[1:56:39] replaced with you know that to ensure that the money is in the in the uh

[1:56:43] account. >> I guess to finance was this part of the

[1:56:47] emergency calculation when we we budgeted from surplus in the

[1:56:52] budget. Um we pulled some of it from surplus. I forget exactly.

[1:56:59] We can follow up with you on that one. >> I can put on council requests.

[1:57:03] » Yes. Thank you. >> Appreciate that. Thank you.

[1:57:04] » Director Kes, offhand, would you know roughly how much we're spending on

[1:57:08] towing total >> for all of the towing?

[1:57:11] » Yeah. >> Uh I can get that information for you,

[1:57:13] Councilman. >> Okay.

[1:57:18] » Any other questions? >> Okay. Thank you, director.

[1:57:22] » Thank you.

[1:57:26] Next up, uh, Deputy Director of Human Resources, Joanna Rosa.

[1:57:37] » Evening, members of the council. I have the agenda item 10.25, 25 resolution

[1:57:45] 26-561

[1:57:48] is a resolution ratifying an award of a contract to carasoft technology

[1:57:53] corporation for the workforce management annual software licenses through the US

[1:57:59] community government purchasing alliance known as Omnia partners for the

[1:58:04] department of administration human resources. This is an annual contract

[1:58:09] for the period of July 9, 2026 to July 8, 2027

[1:58:15] in the amount of 149,492 with.70 and this is for our software for

[1:58:24] the onboarding and training virtual training platform.

[1:58:30] Questions 10.25 25 >> since this is a company we use overorn

[1:58:37] is a unicorn the workforce payroll is this part of that

[1:58:42] » no this is especially on boarding and virtual training

[1:58:50] » Joanne I I think you can clarify this is for neo gov

[1:58:54] » yes gov

[1:58:56] » yes

[1:59:00] okay next The next item is agenda 10.31 resolution

[1:59:07] 26-567 is a resolution authorizing the payment

[1:59:12] of a claim submitted by Kai strategic for consulting services. They are our

[1:59:18] broker for liability insurance and we need to pay this claim so we avoid

[1:59:25] interruption or coverage of our premiums.

[1:59:31] question. >> Was there a contract prior to this or?

[1:59:40] » Yes. It was just expired and then we spent

[1:59:45] beyond it or how's that? >> So I I believe we have someone from the

[1:59:49] IFC to speak to this. Not here.

[2:00:04] Sorry. >> Could you speak to the Kai strategic

[2:00:09] insurance? >> Yes.

[2:00:16] » My name is Peter Serrero with KIA Strategic Insurance Partners. We are the

[2:00:20] uh insurance brokers for the city of Jersey City.

[2:00:26] » Was that There was a question. I missed it. I'm sorry. I was

[2:00:29] » Yeah. So, it's a claim. So, we had a contract with Kai Strategic for

[2:00:33] consulting services. Um, is this services that expired and then um and

[2:00:39] then we were just continuing to >> utilize their services without uh being

[2:00:45] under contract. Is that how >> So, these were invoices that were built

[2:00:48] to the city back in March and April of this year and had not been paid. Um we

[2:00:55] were getting uh cancellation notice from the insurance companies because the

[2:00:58] invoices were unpaid. Um so at the last insurance fund meeting the commissioners

[2:01:04] uh voted to finally pay those invoices. So the these were for policies that

[2:01:11] expired on uh June 30th, 2026. >> Insurance policies.

[2:01:18] » Yes. >> What what type of insurance policies we

[2:01:21] talking about? >> I'm sorry. What insurance policies are

[2:01:23] we? >> So, that would be um your liability

[2:01:25] insurance, works compensation, uh property insurance, uh I got a list. I

[2:01:30] have the list right here. Um uh d uh public officials and employment

[2:01:34] practices liability insurance. >> Say March 2026 through April 2026.

[2:01:40] » That's when that's when they were invoiced to the city. The policy period

[2:01:43] was July 1st, 2025 through June 30th, 2026.

[2:01:50] These are installment payments. Uh we negotiated with the insurance companies

[2:01:54] to allow the city to pay them quarterly instead of having to pay the premiums

[2:01:57] all at once at renewal time. >> I guess the question is why did you not

[2:02:01] pay them? >> I I can't answer that question.

[2:02:07] There's a there's also a discrepancy between the first whereas clause that

[2:02:12] states March 2025 through April 2026 and then later on the third whereas clause

[2:02:18] March 2026 April 2026. >> Yeah, I think the first one was a typo.

[2:02:23] We're referring to 2026. Um there's a combination of different issues here

[2:02:29] with um the IFC one as well as this second one. Um the payments are late

[2:02:37] partially due to our budget 2026 budget not being approved earlier. So we have

[2:02:43] payments to pay for the the insurance contracts but also internally with the

[2:02:48] IFC we have to put together some policies and procedures to ensure that

[2:02:53] all the paperwork goes through the proper channels for us to make these

[2:02:57] payments. So we are working internally to put together those governing

[2:03:02] documents so that we do not have this issue again in the future.

[2:03:10] » Thank you. >> Is this what account is it coming from?

[2:03:14] It's uh T-14.

[2:03:19] » This is coming out of our IFC account. >> IFC

[2:03:25] Any

[2:03:29] other questions? Okay, thank you.

[2:03:36] Director Dublin.

[2:03:47] Good evening, council president and council members. I have a few items to

[2:03:51] present for the department of public works. First one is agenda item 10.23

[2:03:56] resolution 26559 resolution authorizing the award of a

[2:04:01] contract to Henderson products for the purchase and delivery of a brime machine

[2:04:06] for the division of automotive >> questions.

[2:04:10] » Yes. What's a brine maker? >> That is um a brine maker. It's what we

[2:04:15] put a solution together to treat icy conditions before snow.

[2:04:19] » Okay. >> It treats the road. So it makes it uh

[2:04:22] keeps it black top longer before it starts to stick and we have to start

[2:04:25] salting. It helps get ahead of the snowstorm.

[2:04:27] » Okay. And this is a machine at its head. >> Yes. We would make the brine right at

[2:04:30] DPW. >> Okay. Oh, okay.

[2:04:33] » Yeah, you did.

[2:04:37] » Yeah. He count He didn't know what that neither did you.

[2:04:42] » Next one. Directive. >> Okay.

[2:04:46] » Next item is agenda of 10.4. 41 resolution 26-577

[2:04:54] resolution authorizing the payment for $14,470

[2:04:59] to AM for an outstanding claims related to professional building services

[2:05:04] provided to the city in 2023. >> How did this how did this get overlooked

[2:05:10] for so what happened here? >> So what happened was that our former

[2:05:13] fiscal officer was emailing for an updated bill once we received the um

[2:05:18] quotes. What happened was we were communicating with a person who was

[2:05:21] terminated. Um, so those emails weren't being bounced back. So after doing an

[2:05:26] audit and checking all of our outstanding bills after our fiscal

[2:05:29] officer moved on to a different position, we found that we had

[2:05:32] outstanding bills still not paid. >> So we did an audit to find out that we

[2:05:37] » kept communicating. We went through all of our outstanding bills in DPW once um

[2:05:42] Andres moved on to a different position and the new fiscal officer took on and

[2:05:45] we saw that this was still um not um this wasn't paid as of yet. So we

[2:05:50] communicated again with the person Andre was communicating with. We didn't get

[2:05:54] any. So we contacted finally was able to get a live person and letting them know

[2:05:57] that we have outstanding bills with you and we needed updated invoices to make

[2:06:01] sure that that was all outdated. >> I I understand that. I'm just perplex

[2:06:06] perplexed as to a company having an outstanding amount out there to the tune

[2:06:12] of >> 14,000

[2:06:13] » almost $15,000. They could have fired the whole company

[2:06:18] and the owner would have been checking where's the money that's supposed to be

[2:06:21] coming in. That's why I'm just >> Yeah, it was it was a little um

[2:06:26] also surprising for us that they weren't contacting us. We were contacting them.

[2:06:30] Now have we verified that the service have everything was rendered and all um

[2:06:36] that's all we owe them? >> Okay.

[2:06:41] » Next one. >> So the next one is agenda item 10.34

[2:06:46] resolution 26-570 resolution authorizing the third party

[2:06:51] renewal of an open-ended contract to TUX cleaning service for janitorial

[2:06:56] services. questions.

[2:07:02] » What do we pay them annually?

[2:07:08] » Tux is contract is for one. It's an open-ended contract. We hope not to go

[2:07:13] over in uh 1.9 and that also it increases because the cost of living

[2:07:19] increases for the janitorial um members with their union 32BJ. I know. Have we

[2:07:26] um have we thought about um an internal service?

[2:07:31] » We do half internal, half contractual. This actually works very well for us

[2:07:35] because what happens is when we do half um internal and someone calls out, we

[2:07:40] have 56 55 buildings that we have to service. That backfill becomes extremely

[2:07:45] difficult. We have we have FMLA, ADA. We don't have to worry about that with this

[2:07:51] company. If someone calls out, it's their responsibility to make sure that

[2:07:54] someone is there to backfill. >> They've been one of the best companies

[2:07:59] that we've had >> in the entire um 23 years I've have of

[2:08:03] service. >> They're very easy to work with.

[2:08:06] » Grace. >> And how how many um

[2:08:11] employees do we use from them on a daily basis?

[2:08:13] » 26. >> 26. Okay.

[2:08:18] » Next one. The last one is item 10.39 resolution 26-575

[2:08:26] resolution authorizing the awardment bid to all American recycling corpse which

[2:08:31] is the location where we take all of our paper and cardboard recyclables for the

[2:08:35] entire city >> questions 10.39

[2:08:42] » the flat >> again sir

[2:08:44] » sorry is it a flat fee >> no it's not so recycling is a fluctuated

[2:08:49] market. There are months that we don't pay um and there are months that we end

[2:08:53] up paying them. So, it can fluctuate from let's say for example January of

[2:09:00] 2025, we were paying $5 a ton. Uh in January 2026, we were paying $0. So,

[2:09:08] it's a fluctuated market. It depends where their end market is is what they

[2:09:11] determine that they require us to pay them per ton.

[2:09:15] » So, you said $5 a ton. >> It can be $5 a ton. It can be $10 a ton.

[2:09:19] It can be zero dollars a ton and we break even. It's a recycling is very uh

[2:09:23] finicky right now.

[2:09:28] » Thank you, director. >> Thank you.

[2:09:31] » Next up, our CFO, Bill.

[2:09:43] » Bill has been patiently wait. You've been pacing around all day. bill.

[2:09:47] » I I was told I was number four. What I wasn't told is that there were 400 items

[2:09:51] in the first three. >> Oh, that's why you Oh, okay.

[2:09:56] So, good evening. I just have two. First one is 10.1

[2:10:02] resolution 26537. Resolution superseding resolution 26-425

[2:10:10] authorizing the city of Jersey City to enter into revised loan agreement with

[2:10:13] the state of New Jersey Department of Community Affairs Division of Local

[2:10:17] Government Services $45 million in transitional aid to localities in a

[2:10:23] loan. I want to spend just a minute comparing the existing agreement

[2:10:28] approved by council to the new loan terms.

[2:10:33] As you know, the loan amount does not change. It's $105 million.

[2:10:39] Both loans specify a minimum tax levy of $457,972,500.

[2:10:46] That was the equivalent of a increase in the tax rate of 15%. That did not

[2:10:50] change. The interest rate of 2.75%

[2:10:56] does not change. I'll come back to that and provide you some metrics, some

[2:11:01] benchmarks to compare that to in a moment.

[2:11:04] What does change significantly is the duration of the loan from a period of 10

[2:11:10] years and 3 months to 16 years and 3 months.

[2:11:15] Importantly, the loan defers a payment

[2:11:21] in 2027. So rather than making what would have

[2:11:26] amounted to be a $13.4 million payment in 2027 in September, next year we will

[2:11:32] have no payment on the loan at all. The first payment will be the following year

[2:11:36] in 2028 to approximately $9.9 million. Overall, the total interest payments

[2:11:44] because of the extension of the duration of the loan increased from $15.9 million

[2:11:51] in total to $23.1 million in total. However, the average annual payment

[2:11:58] again because of the extension of the duration alone drops from a little bit

[2:12:01] over 12 million a year to $8.5 million a year.

[2:12:10] the interest rate at 2.75% just to give you some benchmarks. I

[2:12:14] asked our financial advisor to give me an idea of what Jersey City could issue

[2:12:19] an a taxable note of a similar duration and the estimate for that would be

[2:12:24] 5.34%. Again, compared to the 2.75%.

[2:12:30] Just as another benchmark, not entirely comparable, a 10-year Treasury currently

[2:12:34] trades at about 4.8%. 20-year Treasury trades at over 5% at 5

[2:12:40] and a quarter percent. And then just totally different secured

[2:12:44] loan, a 15-year fixed mortgage term today is on average about 6.3%. So the

[2:12:50] 2.75% is significant discount to any form of

[2:12:55] debt. Not to mention if we wanted to, we really could not borrow for this purpose

[2:13:00] on our own. But I think I wanted to give you a sense of uh how the 2.75% compares

[2:13:06] to other debt instruments uh in the market.

[2:13:11] The key changes that are not necessarily financial come in the form of increased

[2:13:17] oversight by uh DGS, Department of Local

[2:13:21] Government Services over the city. And those include, importantly,

[2:13:28] a requirement to develop a comprehensive 5-year fiscal recovery plan

[2:13:33] that identifies specific structural reforms including but not limited to

[2:13:37] workforce reduction, shared service consolidations, revenue diversification,

[2:13:43] and debt restructure that are sufficient to achieve structural balance within the

[2:13:47] loan term. And that's a quote from the loan agreement.

[2:13:51] The fiscal recovery plan will have to be approved by DGS,

[2:13:56] updated annually, and we're also required to provide a

[2:14:00] comprehensive diagnosis of the structural causes of the municipal

[2:14:04] municipalities fiscal distress, including identification of recurring

[2:14:08] revenue expenditures and imbalances.

[2:14:17] The consequences for non-compliance include potential acceleration of loan

[2:14:24] payments,

[2:14:27] interest rate increase penalties, and referral to the director of the LGS for

[2:14:31] heightened intervention authorized under existing fiscal distress statutes.

[2:14:37] Importantly, beginning in calendar year 2027 and for a period of five years, the

[2:14:44] city must submit its annual municipal bud budget to the state's local finance

[2:14:48] board for review and approval after the budget is introduced

[2:14:56] for the duration of long term. This is not a change, but the city shall provide

[2:14:59] quarterly budget reports to DGS and they will continue to have oversight as they

[2:15:05] did over other matters such as bond or note issuances,

[2:15:10] collective bargaining negotiations, use of surplus, and a host of other items

[2:15:16] that did not change from the original agreement.

[2:15:23] Concludes my remarks on the topic. Happy to take questions.

[2:15:27] » Yeah, Bill. Sorry. >> Yeah, go time.

[2:15:30] » Thank you. The other option initially was 20 20%

[2:15:35] tax increase. What was what was the interest rate that was? Was that 2.25?

[2:15:38] That's correct. >> All right. So, the state was saying,

[2:15:40] "Okay, if you tax your residents more, we'll give you a better interest rate."

[2:15:43] We chose obviously the 15% at a higher interest rate. And in and in the city's

[2:15:47] negotiations with the state, uh, obviously we're grateful that we don't

[2:15:51] owe any money next year, but the state was not willing to budge under the 2.75.

[2:15:56] » Not to not to my knowledge. I was not directly involved, councilman, in

[2:16:00] negotiations on the new loan terms, but I will say with the original the 20% tax

[2:16:06] rate increase, I I know that was their way of trying to incentivize us to do

[2:16:12] more to close the structural gap sooner. So that was part of the motivation on

[2:16:17] their part. >> Hey Bill, quick question. So as it

[2:16:21] relates to raw numbers because you you put out the percentages, how much more

[2:16:26] interest will we be paying um how much will we have been paying in

[2:16:32] 10 years and subsequently how much will we be now be paying after 16 years?

[2:16:39] » Yeah. So the total increase the the increase in total payments over the

[2:16:44] course of the loan is $7.2 million. >> 7.2 million

[2:16:47] » spread out over the duration of the loan.

[2:16:50] » Now another question, Bill, if you know if the loan payments agreement, the

[2:16:57] payments don't have to be paid until 28. Correct.

[2:17:03] » Correct. So why what what like why would they set

[2:17:09] on us raising the taxes this year? >> So the I think they're what they are

[2:17:17] attempting to do, what they are encouraging us to do and advocating for

[2:17:20] us to do is to close the structural gap that we have in our budget and the need

[2:17:27] for doing that at least in part through the increase in taxes. I think they also

[2:17:32] recognize that 2027 is going to be a difficult budget year again for Jersey

[2:17:37] City and that providing a $13 million relief in 27 is a meaningful deferral of

[2:17:45] what would otherwise have been an expense we would had to have budgeted in

[2:17:49] the 27 budget. >> 27 but

[2:17:51] » yeah. >> So, so Bill, I have a question. These um

[2:17:56] these payments 2028

[2:18:00] we have to make them. I don't know if you look as far ahead

[2:18:04] um but how will this affect our tax levy moving forward from paying the money

[2:18:11] back? >> So we we have been modeling and looking

[2:18:16] at a five-year forecast as we've been developing the budget. Obviously the

[2:18:20] further we get away from where we are today, the harder it is to to forecast.

[2:18:24] Um I will say a $13 million payment on the size of our budget is a material

[2:18:29] payment. $10 million is still a material payment. I'll put it into uh context,

[2:18:34] right? We have talked about how a 1% increase in the tax rate generates

[2:18:41] roughly $4 million. So, I think that's one way you could look at it if you had

[2:18:45] a $10 million payment in 2028. Now, the the math will change as we get three

[2:18:51] years out, but that gives you some sense of what kind of if it was solely raised

[2:18:56] through tax levy increases, how much it would take to cover that $13 million

[2:19:01] next year would have certainly put added to the pressure I think we're already

[2:19:06] going to face in 27 to close the budget gap.

[2:19:11] » And Bill, um, another question. So with this increase

[2:19:16] um to 16 years, the it looks like the state is is going

[2:19:23] to be requesting more oversight. Um, so can you just speak to

[2:19:30] um the normal transactions as it relates to what what the municipal government

[2:19:36] would be able to do versus with the stipulations and how does that either

[2:19:42] complicate or prolong things. >> Sure.

[2:19:46] Difficult to say with specificity. So far relationship with ECA has has worked

[2:19:51] really well. I think we've been able to operate the city um keeping them largely

[2:19:56] informed in a somewhat informal manner. I think this agreement I think they are

[2:20:03] indicating that you know they expect more structure to how that oversight

[2:20:06] will work as well as this fiscal recovery plan. Um I have not yet had an

[2:20:12] opportunity to have a meaningful discussion with them about what the

[2:20:16] fiscal recovery plan might look like. I have asked um and I think at sometime

[2:20:21] soon I think we will have to have that conversation and determine you know what

[2:20:25] what's the content of that going to look like. Um with respect to for example

[2:20:31] collective bargaining agreements that's been a topic that that didn't change.

[2:20:36] They had that same same level oversight in the current agreement as they have in

[2:20:40] the new loan proposal. Um there they for example they have asked us to submit to

[2:20:46] them in advance of negotiations financial information for them to review

[2:20:53] comment on and and provide direction that will certainly slow things down if

[2:20:58] we didn't have that level oversight. I think that is you know part of the the

[2:21:01] cost of of having the meaningful uh state aid to help us through the the

[2:21:08] budget. I have

[2:21:10] » Thank you. Um that note, workforce reductions is part of this financial

[2:21:17] plan. Um just gives me a little pause in agreeing to any kind of blanket yeah a

[2:21:26] blanket agreement to workforce reductions when we just went through

[2:21:29] this budget process and worked really hard to make sure that we could have a

[2:21:34] balanced budget. um that that also restored some really critical jobs that

[2:21:40] were cut. So yeah, if you could just speak to I know there is no specific

[2:21:45] plan right now, but could you speak to some forecast of what the administration

[2:21:50] is is looking toward in terms of staffing adjustments and workforce

[2:21:54] reductions that's spelled out in this version of theou?

[2:21:58] » I think it's early to to be specific on that. I at the same time when you know

[2:22:04] looking at 27 we know we are facing a budget gap again right and then at a

[2:22:09] high level and that's why I think it's appropriate to to list these out at a

[2:22:13] high level we have relatively few levers to pull to close the budget gap we

[2:22:18] either generate revenue cut expenses or some combination of the two right um

[2:22:24] when you look at the city budget the vast majority of the city budget are

[2:22:29] salaries wages health benefits associated with city staff. So if the

[2:22:33] mandate from the administration the council is to look at the cost

[2:22:39] structure, it has to involve workforce reductions. I think that is

[2:22:44] just the logical conclusion when you look at a budget that is very very heavy

[2:22:49] on and very labor intensive. On the other hand, the biggest lever for

[2:22:55] increasing revenue is the tax levy. we have others in terms of, you know, local

[2:22:58] revenue sources, lots of them, but they're much smaller. We're finding new

[2:23:02] revenue sources. So, I think some combination of those things, you know,

[2:23:06] will make sense for us to take a close look at and to look at um as soon as

[2:23:10] possible going into 2027, having a a clearer view of how do we

[2:23:15] want to balance those things. >> Thank you. And what are what what what

[2:23:22] type of uh gap are we looking at in in 27

[2:23:30] » in excess of 50 million

[2:23:35] » the um the five-year financial plan that you provided us bill um with this newou

[2:23:43] assuming it's approved I assume it will be um can you fill in the blanks on that

[2:23:49] modeling and share that with us as to what that fiveyear looks like with these

[2:23:54] terms in there. >> Abs. Absolutely. Uh and so the biggest

[2:23:58] change obviously in that 5-year plan will be the relief in uh in 27 and then

[2:24:03] the lowering of the average payment in 28 through the the forecast period.

[2:24:09] That'll be the the the most significant uh impact. um and the 27

[2:24:14] being the closest and also a year where we know we still have deferred charges

[2:24:19] in 27 that are carrying over from previous years. Those drop off

[2:24:23] significantly in 27. So 28, 29, 30 in general start looking much more

[2:24:28] manageable than 27. >> I I just want to go through a series of

[2:24:32] questions. I I sent this to you via email and I don't know if you are able

[2:24:38] to answer them at this point, but um the first one, the five-year fiscal recovery

[2:24:43] plan. So, the question is uh this is really for the administration and not so

[2:24:49] much for DGS, but will the council be reviewing and approving the plan before

[2:24:54] it's submitted to DGS? Um, will it come before the city council for approval

[2:25:00] before it comes goes to DGS for approval? I

[2:25:05] » I have not had an opportunity to discuss that. I have to ditch your your

[2:25:08] questions, Councilman. And so, first of all, um, I did send the others that are

[2:25:12] more specific to DGS over the weekend to them and ask them to provide guidance

[2:25:17] hopefully before the council meeting so you can have as much information before

[2:25:20] you vote on this as possible. And I'll share that as soon as I get it. I think

[2:25:24] with respect to working with council, I know that uh council president uh had

[2:25:29] mentioned the idea of having uh or kind of activating the finance committee. Um

[2:25:34] I do think it would make sense my my perspective to find a mechanism to

[2:25:39] collaborate to discuss share information um so that council is not uh surprised

[2:25:47] or decisions being made between the administration and DLGS that council uh

[2:25:51] might might object to. So it would make sense to me to do that in a

[2:25:55] collaborative way. >> Okay. I just want to put out for the

[2:25:58] record um that I shared a number of questions um that I that you sent back

[2:26:04] to DGS also shared them with the council president and um the

[2:26:10] three other questions um does division of local government

[2:26:15] service review and approval authority over renegotiated pilots also extend to

[2:26:20] new new pilots um and then um to what Councilman Efro said what we're first

[2:26:27] reductions does DLGS contemplate Jersey City will have to undertake and then the

[2:26:32] third question which is um in the same way that the revised terms spell out

[2:26:39] consequences for non-compliance such as accelerated repayment and

[2:26:43] interest rate increases. Is it possible to include here um terms that include a

[2:26:49] reference that opens a door to a pathway toward loan forgiveness um or better

[2:26:55] terms interest rate um based on meeting or exceeding compliance um benchmarks.

[2:27:01] So, if we're we're doing the things that uh um they say we need to do to close

[2:27:05] the structural deficit, um then can we be rewarded rather than just kind of uh

[2:27:13] penalized for non-compliance? >> Understood. Councilman, I'll uh await. I

[2:27:18] did said I I did share your questions with them and I'll avoid, you know,

[2:27:23] speaking for them without having any insight on those, but uh certainly good

[2:27:27] questions I shared with them. As soon as I get a response, I'll make sure to

[2:27:30] share with council. >> So, um, just I'm sorry, one one final

[2:27:35] question. So, we received $105 million loan

[2:27:39] and a $15 million grant, um, which equals $120 million.

[2:27:45] Um, so you're saying that 27 we're going to

[2:27:50] be looking at a $50 million gap.

[2:27:54] So this money was only used for 2026. >> That is correct. The entire

[2:28:03] state aid package is included in the 2026 adopted budget.

[2:28:08] » Okay. So, with that being said, I don't understand

[2:28:13] why we aren't looking at the options of selling property because to me, if we

[2:28:19] took $120 million and it just covered one year, that's what

[2:28:25] that would basically do, right? If we sold $50 million in land, if we had it,

[2:28:30] I'm not saying that we have it, but if we did that, it would just cover the

[2:28:36] 2027 right? Like this loan didn't help us out

[2:28:40] over an entirety of years. It's just helping us out in one year. So, I don't

[2:28:45] know what the issue is why we can't, you know, work on work on on things. I mean,

[2:28:51] some people call them one-time gimmicks, but they're not when you're trying to

[2:28:54] help property owners who are looking to lose their homes

[2:28:58] um at least gave off that year. You know what I'm saying? Because the 12

[2:29:05] » question, right? And I I wouldn't say anything's been taken off the table. I

[2:29:10] think that on the other hand, one-time sources of revenue are exactly that

[2:29:14] onetime sources of revenue, which means the next year we then have to f figure

[2:29:18] out another way to replace that revenue. So I think that we just have to be

[2:29:22] mindful. >> If we use out source that is a one-time,

[2:29:26] we need to think about how do we replace it the following year. And that's an

[2:29:30] area where I would fault past practices. They there were lots of one-time

[2:29:34] revenues without a plan for replacing them,

[2:29:37] » right? But that's what this loan looks like, a one-time revenue.

[2:29:42] » Well, I would I would argue not in that this loan is actually being paid over

[2:29:47] the life of the loan. Um, it is deferring $105 million and

[2:29:54] spreading out those costs over the life of the loan.

[2:29:57] » Yeah, I mean, understood. But I'm I'm I'm just saying if if all that money was

[2:30:01] used for one year, right, and the sale of property or anything like that would

[2:30:06] be used for one year, that's, you know, I mean, after, you know, just explaining

[2:30:12] and finding out all that information, talking about the one year, that's

[2:30:14] that's what it seems like to me. I mean, I would I mean, that's a great

[2:30:20] point, but I I I would make the argument that

[2:30:25] if we look at the city and we're trying to get out of financial crisis, I'm

[2:30:31] grateful of the 105. Um but the bigger thing is that the city has to get its

[2:30:37] spending under control and it has to generate more revenue

[2:30:42] right outside of these one-time gimmicks or whatever you want to call them. We

[2:30:48] need to have some sustainable forms of revenue and also we have to be

[2:30:54] responsible. We have to act our way, right? we can't be spinner in a manner

[2:30:59] which is not indicative of a city that's in distress. Um so I think that's that's

[2:31:05] the bigger challenge that's ahead of us for 27. Again I'm grateful of the the

[2:31:12] money that came in. It helped us show up a lot of things. Um, but the bigger

[2:31:17] question and the bigger challenge is how do we ensure that we're being

[2:31:22] responsible as a municipal government as it relates

[2:31:27] to our spending, right? There's just going to be some things we have to go

[2:31:31] without and then we have to find some other

[2:31:36] forms of meaningful revenue. I don't know what that is and I hope it's not,

[2:31:42] you know, finding these alternative taxes, which I

[2:31:48] call them, on residents by over policing certain areas, putting a bunch of fees

[2:31:53] on things, interfering with the quality of life. Um, I I just think that with

[2:32:00] the with the level of expertise our this administration have, I think we can come

[2:32:06] up with some meaningful ways to cut back on spending and generate uh new revenue.

[2:32:11] » And you know, Councilman, I put it slightly differently. I agree with what

[2:32:15] you said is that our goal needs to be to bring recurring expenses in line

[2:32:20] recurring recurring revenue. Right? Those two things need to be as close as

[2:32:25] possible so that whatever that gap is in any given year can be filled without the

[2:32:30] amount of brain damage that we had to go through this past year to do that. With

[2:32:34] respect to cutting expenses, I completely agree with you. I think the

[2:32:39] way we should think about it, the way I think about it is what services do we

[2:32:43] think are important to provide our residents? How do we prioritize those?

[2:32:47] And how do we make decisions, difficult decisions around making those choices?

[2:32:54] Okay, we're still 10.1, right? >> Yes, I have one more.

[2:32:59] » Let's move on to 10.2.

[2:33:06] » 10.2 is a resolution authorizing the insertion of special items or revenues

[2:33:11] and appropriations into the uh current calendar year 2026 budget. Uh this is a

[2:33:17] more administrative um resolution. Uh given that we've already adopted the uh

[2:33:23] the budget for this year, we're required to uh and by statute to add certain uh

[2:33:31] forms of revenue in this case grant from grants um which if council approves then

[2:33:38] I will submit to DGS and these grant uh funds will be added to our budget. um

[2:33:45] the total amount being added to the budget in grant funding.

[2:33:54] second

[2:33:57] did want to bring up I'm having trouble finding the exact number but it does

[2:34:01] include I'm sorry here it is um grant revenue is1439,56.36

[2:34:08] there is matching funds of $38,000 $38,500

[2:34:13] required uh that is in the budget. So the matching funds um in case you were

[2:34:18] looking at this and uh wondering where the matching funds would come from that

[2:34:23] is budgeted. Um so again this is mostly an administrative function

[2:34:28] » questions 10.2 too. >> Just um a statement and a question I

[2:34:32] guess but um so with the inclusion of these grant funds in the budget then the

[2:34:36] the monies that were allocated or that we approved in the budget that were

[2:34:40] essentially operating dollars um they now move essentially move to surplus. Is

[2:34:45] that fair to say? So these grants um I believe are already you know targeted

[2:34:51] for specific programs. Um, and I apologize that Vivian's uh on vacation

[2:34:56] this week or otherwise she could have probably spoken in more uh detail on to

[2:35:01] the about the exact uh grants, but I think these are already um for specific

[2:35:07] uh programs. >> What I'm saying is when we approved the

[2:35:10] budget, they were using operating dollars. Um and now with the insertion

[2:35:14] of these, these become offsets against those uh costs, right? So the insertion

[2:35:19] of these grant dollars essentially making those

[2:35:23] dollars in the budget that were initially

[2:35:26] approved and allocated by the council. Uh they become become surplus at that

[2:35:31] point for for the city. >> Let me get back to you with the answer

[2:35:33] to that because my instinct is that I'm probably not going to be that lucky, but

[2:35:39] um let me look at into that and I I'll get back to you. I I don't know.

[2:35:43] » Gotcha. >> Okay. Thank you.

[2:35:48] » Thank you, Isaac. Mayor's office

[2:35:57] back. All right. So, I'm here to speak on two

[2:36:02] items. Uh point2 and 3.3. I will, if the council

[2:36:07] president permits, I'll talk about 3.3 first because that's the big one. Um

[2:36:11] this is a let me get formal title.

[2:36:17] uh ordinance amending chapter 160 fee and charges, chapter 122 public

[2:36:22] assemblies, chapter 1, chapter 175 food handling establishments, uh 329

[2:36:29] parks, and chapter 345 zoning. I've spoken to the majority of you guys about

[2:36:33] this already. What this is is a continuation. In July, we passed an

[2:36:38] ordinance amending a number of fees. This is round two of that. Um

[2:36:44] I went over this all with you. you have a document that's slightly updated with

[2:36:48] u some slight modifications but essentially what this is is you know no

[2:36:54] one has done a comprehensive look at our whole fee structure in quite a long long

[2:36:58] time I've worked with a number of the department directors division directors

[2:37:02] that are here director Smith uh Miss Vanessa Rodriguez director Woodson to

[2:37:07] basically go through their sections and determine what um probably needs to be

[2:37:12] updated the largest chunks here are under commerce, recreation,

[2:37:19] and that it's not in this one, but you've all seen it. The UCCC fees, which

[2:37:23] are getting a total rewrite, those have not been updated since 2001.

[2:37:28] Um, the commerce fees, some of them have not been updated since 1999. Property

[2:37:33] maintenance, we think it's 2005 was the last time some of these were updated.

[2:37:38] Um, based on the c feedback from council members Lavaro and Little, we did take a

[2:37:45] look at the vacant lot registration fees which were previously flat. Um, we

[2:37:51] realized that we took a look at it. Newark and Elizabeth have graduated fees

[2:37:54] over time. Working with Director Smith, we came up with a system that we believe

[2:37:59] will um policy-wise both disincentivize people from keeping lots vacant while

[2:38:06] also not in incentivize um demolition of buildings rather than bring them online.

[2:38:12] Um since we have discussed many of these

[2:38:17] already with most of you, um I'll just wait to see if anyone has questions. or

[2:38:23] anything particular >> questions. 3.3

[2:38:28] » I don't have any questions. I'll just make a statement. Um

[2:38:32] I have not had an opportunity just to thoroughly review it and I appreciate

[2:38:35] you taking the time with me, Isaac. And so I may have questions later on just to

[2:38:39] put it on the record. Okay. Missed it. Absolutely. Um right then. Um

[2:38:47] » else has questions. I can >> just go ahead.

[2:38:50] » Sorry. Just just on the athletic fee issue, I know Director Bitson and I

[2:38:54] spoke and we're trying to get a meeting with some of the other stakeholders who

[2:38:57] wanted to be heard. I don't know if we're going to do that by Thursday, but

[2:39:00] we're working on it. Um, can you can you speak to what outreach was done to some

[2:39:05] of the coaches and uh athletic leagues? I see the director here. I don't know if

[2:39:10] he if he >> come up. That was my question too.

[2:39:13] Council member >> here. I have a list of people he spoke

[2:39:16] to, but that was a little bit older. if he wants to he beats me to the answer.

[2:39:21] » We brought up a couple rows, Pete. That's good.

[2:39:26] » So,

[2:39:32] you you can you can share with me offline. I just want to make sure we we

[2:39:36] uh >> Yeah, I just want to add that I've

[2:39:41] probably been meeting I know for a fact I've been meeting with situins since May

[2:39:45] 19th. only like the first day of my third week here uh about this issue and

[2:39:51] I've met with several little league presidents um Jerry City Soccer

[2:39:55] Association, Global Soccer Association, almost a dozen programs uh and

[2:40:01] associations in the city regarding this. This is probably just for the recreation

[2:40:05] side of it. It's probably the fourth version of this since May. So, we have

[2:40:11] made a lot of adjustments to this uh to to what you see today in front of you.

[2:40:16] » Have you resolved all of their concerns or is there anything lingering?

[2:40:20] » All of their concerns. I think I we've adjusted to all of their concerns and I

[2:40:26] think this is I believe that this is the best version we've had since May 19th.

[2:40:31] » Like I said, I appreciate you that you made yourself available to me. We'll

[2:40:34] again I don't know if we'll be um be able to connect before Thursday with

[2:40:39] them, but I'll make sure we schedule something.

[2:40:41] » Sounds good. Thank you. >> Yeah, Pete. Um thank I just want to

[2:40:45] thank you for reaching out um to all the different organizations trying to

[2:40:50] address as many of the needs as possible. It's I mean everybody's not

[2:40:55] going to like everything. Um but I honestly think that you know something

[2:41:01] had to be done. Uh there were people taking advantage. There were people

[2:41:06] taking advantage. Um and when that happens, you have to have rules

[2:41:11] implemented to protect the city. Um so I mean they've reached out to as many

[2:41:18] people as possible and tried to change as many things as possible. And again

[2:41:22] this has been a overarching theme in recreation for for so long. Um and

[2:41:28] something has to be done about it. still keeping in mind organizations that's

[2:41:35] doing a work that we don't want to harm. >> I've got a partial list of who he spoke

[2:41:39] to. This is a little bit old, but SEIFA, Jersey City Soccer Association,

[2:41:43] Washington Park, Jersey City Lacrosse, Protoer Clemente, Global Soccer Academy,

[2:41:48] Jackie Robinson Little League, Pfield Field Little League. Those just some of

[2:41:51] the ones he's spoken to already. >> Any other questions through my three?

[2:41:57] » I have uh Yeah, thank you, Isaac. Um with regard to the UCCC

[2:42:03] um that is chapter 345. Is that >> No, no, no. That's sounding 345 is Oh,

[2:42:11] 345 is

[2:42:15] » 345 is the actual chapter. Yeah, but it's in 160. Yes.

[2:42:18] » Okay. Um, is there I I I know um part of the

[2:42:25] rationale for the proposed increases is to reflect the amount of work uh that it

[2:42:32] takes to inspect larger um buildings, larger developments. Um

[2:42:40] is there any way we could do a carveout for single family or owner occupied one

[2:42:46] to two family home uh homes? So some of the fees are graduated so that for

[2:42:51] example the the CO for a water two family will stay at just 150 whereas if

[2:42:58] it's more than two units it will go up you know um $20 per unit per additional

[2:43:03] unit. There are a number of those uh fees that are like that which will be

[2:43:07] you know after a certain number x because just an x increase on the on the

[2:43:13] item to do it just to carve out one and two families is difficult you know for

[2:43:18] example I've got you know we have for example you know um fuel oil piping

[2:43:26] currently to get that inspected is $10. it it's not a realistic even for a small

[2:43:32] family house it's not $10 to go out and have an inspector go out and do the work

[2:43:36] and review. So the part of it is some of these fees you just need to cover the

[2:43:41] cost of the inspection. So increasing that $25 that's you know a basic way to

[2:43:45] increase to cover the cost of an inspector going out and reviewing

[2:43:47] certain fees. Even for a small house, they still have to go out, you know, the

[2:43:51] drains, the the another one here, the grease trap or the even a the

[2:44:00] um catch basins, right? These are all

[2:44:04] things that even if you're a small house, it still takes an inspector to go

[2:44:07] out, take the time, inspect it, view the plans, do the whole thing.

[2:44:12] » Got it. And is there anyone from HDC who could speak to some of these changes?

[2:44:18] This is one of those sectors that of the code. I'll be honest, at some point it

[2:44:22] got so technical that I was just like, Vanessa, save me.

[2:44:27] Save him, Vanessa. >> Hi, Vanessa Rodriguez from Construction

[2:44:32] Code. >> Thank you. Yeah. Could you I guess where

[2:44:35] I'm coming from with this is um you know like I said the

[2:44:43] I understand the rationale for you know if you have to inspect a high-rise going

[2:44:48] up um but for a one to two family home I mean

[2:44:54] could you maybe expound on the or expand on the example that Isaac used in terms

[2:44:58] of the the actual cost or the time to to do some of these inspections?

[2:45:03] First, I'll speak on something simple like say a water heater. You want to

[2:45:06] change out the water heater in your house. Right now, I think the permit

[2:45:09] fees for that are about $90 to $100 in the current fee schedule. In order to do

[2:45:14] that, we have to take in the permit. A clerk has to review that. It goes to

[2:45:17] three different subcode offic.

[2:45:22] And then three inspectors have to go out and inspect that project for a fee of

[2:45:26] $100. Um I think in the new fee schedule it's going up to like 1520 which is

[2:45:31] still pretty reasonable but it will help us cover some of that additional cost

[2:45:34] and maybe hire some more inspectors. >> Got it. So it's I mean it's not uh

[2:45:41] actually capturing the cost of the time of our employees but it's um mitigating

[2:45:47] it. >> Correct. And the lower cost on the

[2:45:49] smaller projects, the higher cost on the bigger projects. We're hoping it's all

[2:45:52] going to balance out and help cover those costs.

[2:45:55] » Okay.

[2:46:00] Any other questions? >> One thing just to make the point is that

[2:46:04] even though we're increasing them, we're not increasing them, you know, more or

[2:46:08] even equal to some of our neighbors. They forunately this was 25 years of not

[2:46:13] increasing it. So we're increasing but not re not coming to the par with some

[2:46:18] of the surrounding towns. >> Correct. We're It seems like a big

[2:46:23] increase for us, but when you compare it to comparable towns, we're nowhere even

[2:46:26] near where their permit prices are. Like I give an example for renovation, we're

[2:46:31] charging $15 per thousand of work. We're bringing that to 18,000 where Hobok and

[2:46:37] Norc and Bayon are charging between 21 and 28.

[2:46:42] » So where we're going up, we're still significantly below other towns.

[2:46:49] Do um do we have um I guess a calculation of estimated

[2:46:55] projected revenue with these increases? >> We did an initial one with for both fees

[2:47:01] combined. I'll work on that councilman of to get one that's updated with you

[2:47:05] know just for this one and for you know a lot of there were a lot of edits and

[2:47:08] changes. We didn't have the full UCCC list at the time. The issue though,

[2:47:12] Councilman, is that a number of our revenue items, the way that they're

[2:47:17] listed would be they don't like match one to one here. So, for example,

[2:47:22] something so simple as the the entertainment licenses are just listed

[2:47:26] as entertainment license. And so, you can't break them up and say, well, this

[2:47:30] entertainment licensing brings in this much, this much over this much. It's

[2:47:33] harder to do that. It takes time. And the finance system tends to clump a

[2:47:37] number of our items together. It's very hard to get an exact number for you

[2:47:43] » now. Um, okay. So,

[2:48:00] » good. >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I just there's a few

[2:48:04] few other things I'll speak to you u offline. I mean, I would really like to

[2:48:10] have seen it like broken down like each department versus like all of it on one.

[2:48:16] Um, but there's a few things I'll reach out to you.

[2:48:21] » Okay, Isaac. Next one. >> The second ordinance is 3.2. This is

[2:48:26] related, but you know, because it's basically creating something entirely

[2:48:29] new, kept it separate. >> Up a little bit.

[2:48:33] » 3.2 Two is an ordinance that would be creating a um license fee for

[2:48:37] billboards. This is something that New York, Elizabeth, Bertham, Boy, Trenton

[2:48:41] have helps the city keep track of who's the actual owner versus the property

[2:48:44] owner, keep you know over offset cost of things like inspecting them as oh

[2:48:48] Councilman Zuba stepped away but he knows this year we had an issue with a

[2:48:52] billboard in his award. This is something that a number of other missies

[2:48:56] have. We're basically adopting the same structure. New York has almost the exact

[2:48:59] same uh language in their code. questions.

[2:49:08] Okay, thank you.

[2:49:12] And I think uh Director Diaz left, but um Keith, are

[2:49:20] you doing 10.22?

[2:49:27] No. Okay. So, we'll move on to uh Morgan. Health

[2:49:32] and Human Services.

[2:49:40] Good evening, Council President, members of the council. I have one item for your

[2:49:44] consideration. Resolution 26-578, agenda number 10.42, 42 resolution

[2:49:51] authorizing up to a three-month extension of a contract with Witson's

[2:49:55] Food Service Bronx LLC to provide the childhood adultare food program for the

[2:50:00] Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Food and Nutrition. So, our

[2:50:05] one-year contract with them ends next week. Um, and this is just for a

[2:50:10] three-month extension while we go out to bid

[2:50:14] and the funds will be reimbursed because it is still covered by the grant.

[2:50:20] Morgan, I just want Morgan, I just want to thank you uh for coming before the

[2:50:25] council before the contract expired. Oh, >> no problem.

[2:50:30] » We appreciate that. >> No problem. My pleasure. Any other

[2:50:34] questions? >> Thank you very much.

[2:50:39] » Thank you. Next up, uh

[2:50:45] Lieutenant Cogleton.

[2:50:49] is

[2:50:59] good evening, council president and council members. Lieutenant Colin

[2:51:02] Congleton from the Jersey City Police Department here on behalf of Director

[2:51:05] Anthony Ambrose and the public safety department to speak on agenda item

[2:51:10] number 4.3 which references ordinance 26-068.

[2:51:15] This is an ordinance authorizing a lease with Newport Center Mall LLC for the use

[2:51:19] of a police substate in Newport Mall. >> I'd be happy to answer any questions you

[2:51:24] have about that. >> Questions? 4.3.

[2:51:27] » Yeah. How how much do they charge us for that?

[2:51:29] » Uh that that's zero cost. I think had to put $1 in the lease, but it's a very

[2:51:33] favorable lease to us. And in fact, they've actually invested $50,000 into

[2:51:37] that space uh to run our secure network for the police department in there so

[2:51:41] that we can take reports for anybody that should come into that location and

[2:51:45] we can also dock our body more cameras there.

[2:51:47] » Yes. I think this is this is a no-brainer.

[2:51:51] Yeah. We thank all involved for this.

[2:51:57] » Okay. Thank you, Lieutenant. >> Thank you,

[2:52:00] » Director Vincent Recreation. What?

[2:52:11] » Good afternoon. Good evening. Sorry. Good evening, council president and

[2:52:14] council members. I have two items today for you. Oh, I have two, but we already

[2:52:19] kind of spoke on 3.3. Uh, agenda item 3.3, the fee structure and agenda item

[2:52:26] 10.5. Uh, I'll talk about 10.5 first. So, this

[2:52:30] is a resolution authorizing the city of Jersey City to apply for and accept

[2:52:36] grant funding uh from the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs under

[2:52:40] fiscal year 2027 for recreational opportunities for

[2:52:45] individuals with disabilities, the ROID program for a specific program called

[2:52:50] Buddy Baseball in Jersey City. This is a program that we are actually starting uh

[2:52:55] this month um this year with pre-existing funds uh both from approved

[2:53:01] budget funds and from pre-existing roy funds for this year and we're asking to

[2:53:07] make this an annual uh thing an annual program. Uh currently we we set the

[2:53:14] capacity for this program at 40 individuals.

[2:53:18] Uh right now we have 31 signed up. So, we're extremely excited about it. Uh,

[2:53:23] and if you guys have any questions, any further questions?

[2:53:26] » I I just have a statement. Um, again, coming from recreation, this is so much

[2:53:32] a need. So many parents, you know, always asking for programs for their

[2:53:37] teens um with disabilities to participate in. So, this this is great.

[2:53:43] I hope we can grow the program next year to multiple sports with more individuals

[2:53:48] to participate. This is great right here.

[2:53:51] » Yeah. So, we we actually this fall we have two adaptive sport programs. We're

[2:53:56] doing adaptive soccer at Marti Field and we're doing adaptive baseball. We're

[2:54:01] calling it buddy baseball. It's kind of like Bayon just completely imitating

[2:54:06] that program uh at McGovern Park College Little League Field.

[2:54:09] » Yes. And I I even want to push the envelope a little more. Um

[2:54:15] summer programs for this same demographic.

[2:54:18] Um, I just think I know at one point we were

[2:54:22] doing uh what they call it um Project Glad is I forget what they

[2:54:29] called it, but it was our special needs program um in the summer for for kids.

[2:54:34] So, um I'm happy to see this. I really am.

[2:54:40] » Okay. >> Any other questions?

[2:54:43] » No, we're good. >> Okay. And then if anyone else has

[2:54:45] questions on uh agenda item 3.3, the fees, um you can email me. I

[2:54:52] » think we beat that one. >> Yeah. So, um with with the fees, um

[2:54:58] is there a limit on how many people can rent monthly?

[2:55:05] It's it's per facility or per location, per field. Um, I can

[2:55:12] probably put something together for you per location.

[2:55:16] Um, but usually it's, you know, the window we're looking at really is like

[2:55:21] from 3:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. or 10 p.m. and then how many groups you can fit in

[2:55:26] that time frame. Um, per location. There's about 108 rentable locations.

[2:55:35] Um, so we have data. If you want, I could share it with your your office.

[2:55:39] » That'd be great. >> Yes, not a problem.

[2:55:42] » Thank you. >> Thank you, director.

[2:55:44] » All right. Have a nice evening. >> HC. Uh, Colleen Smith, division

[2:55:50] director.

[2:55:59] » Hi, council. Good to meet you. Colleen Smith. I am the new director of the

[2:56:02] division of housing preservation and I'm here to talk about item 10.3

[2:56:07] resolution 26539. Um this is in relation to the DCA lead

[2:56:13] remediation and abatement program. We are seeking a an adjustment to the

[2:56:19] grants receivable and grants reserve appropriation from $1.5 million to $1

[2:56:26] million. questions. 10.3,

[2:56:32] » welcome. Uh, and good to finally meet you. Um, just a a question. It sounds

[2:56:38] like we got more grant money than we had even applied for um for the uh lead

[2:56:44] mitigation program. Is that right? >> Correct. So, the original application

[2:56:48] was for something around $1.6 million. We were awarded $2 million. Um, and we

[2:56:54] are spending down as much as we can by the end of the grant term.

[2:56:59] » I know we have a limited time for the rest of the grant term. I'm just

[2:57:02] wondering given there's some extra funds um and given the kind of struggle with

[2:57:07] communication to a lot of homeowners about the lead remediation program. um

[2:57:13] wondering if there's we can use those funds creatively to do different kinds

[2:57:17] of communication, do different kinds of programming to make sure that homeowners

[2:57:22] get the communication uh that they need about um yeah, what they need to do for

[2:57:28] lending their homes. And I know it's been a struggle with a lot of people

[2:57:32] getting these final notices um and thinking that that's the very first

[2:57:36] notice they got. So just getting curious about like what could do,

[2:57:39] » right? So this is um specifically there's a couple different lead programs

[2:57:43] that are operating out of the division and this is related to funding that was

[2:57:46] made available to uh remediate or abate lead in specific homes. Uh so when the

[2:57:52] program started the restrictions were limited to people who were making um at

[2:57:56] or tenants who were at 80% of AMI or uh who were in a 1 to four unit dwelling.

[2:58:02] And it seems like the the DCA had expanded some of the eligibility

[2:58:06] criteria at the start of the year. Um and so we've been trying to socialize

[2:58:09] the new and expanded um eligibility criteria. So we had a team out in um a

[2:58:14] couple different zones. So one of the things that the DCA did recently is um

[2:58:18] they allowed us to uh look at their community assessment uh zoning and uh

[2:58:24] automatically qualify certain households if they're falling in those zones. And

[2:58:28] so we've been doing postings in bodeas and laundromats and other community

[2:58:32] centers in the areas where we can expedite uh approval because we have

[2:58:36] about five weeks or so to identify new households to continue spending and then

[2:58:42] um get those those um jobs scheduled. Um so that is is where we are. But any

[2:58:49] other questions? >> So do do the owner reach out or the

[2:58:53] tenant? Uh either >> either or

[2:58:58] interesting. Okay. I know I remember when this first came down and I guess in

[2:59:03] part of the problem with the funds were we didn't have I guess capacity in house

[2:59:11] to really to to one manage it. Um, so I mean I I just think that whenever it's

[2:59:22] whenever it's services that people really need, we just have to go above

[2:59:25] and beyond with regards to advertising and getting it out. And I get it. It is

[2:59:30] a challenge. Um, but I just think we need to do everything in our power. Um,

[2:59:35] and also I'll be setting up a meeting to come. Your office is right next to mine.

[2:59:40] Normally I just walk in, but you're new, so I'll I'll give you a call. Thank you.

[2:59:44] » Um I look forward, >> you know, I look forward to it as well.

[2:59:47] And I think um one of the things that you should all be expecting is we've

[2:59:49] crafted out um an email with the revised and expanded eligibility criteria and

[2:59:54] information about some of the zones that we're specifically targeting and we can

[2:59:57] get those out to the aids in all of your um all of your offices. And so if

[3:00:01] there's constituents who identify who we can quickly get somebody out there, do

[3:00:05] the assessment, collect the paperwork. Um we've got about 25 applications that

[3:00:08] are pending that we're still reviewing and trying to push through. Uh, but we

[3:00:12] have room for for more and welcome any referrals that you might be able to make

[3:00:16] to us directly.

[3:00:20] » Thank you. >> All right. Thank you,

[3:00:23] » Director Woodson Commerce.

[3:00:32] Afternoon, Council President and Council members. I have one resolution for your

[3:00:37] consideration. It's item number 10. 21 resolution 26-57.

[3:00:45] It's a resolution for local support for Earth Company LLC to operate a class 5

[3:00:51] retail cannabis business. It will be located at 260 Martin Luther King Jr.

[3:00:56] Drive >> questions 10.21 21

[3:01:03] » 60 >> near Wilkinson.

[3:01:07] Oh, what was that? Between Wilkerson and Boswick.

[3:01:10] » Oh, good luck.

[3:01:15] Um, did we do a com may art? We do a

[3:01:20] compliance check with the applicant to see if they're compliant with all taxes,

[3:01:27] regulations. >> This is not for a renewal. This isn't an

[3:01:30] initial application. >> Yeah. I'm asking mean there's a

[3:01:35] location, right? >> Yes. Actually, the applicant owns the

[3:01:38] building. He purchased the building for this.

[3:01:40] » Yeah. Have we checked do we check their compliance with applicable laws paying

[3:01:47] pay payroll taxes with that venture or something else or

[3:01:52] » that's not something that we would check whenever

[3:01:54] » we don't check any of that stuff >> especially not for an initial

[3:01:57] application. >> Okay.

[3:02:03] » Okay. Thank you >> Sean. Just a reminder on this one. will

[3:02:08] need to vote on the rest of the items on the page first so that the council has

[3:02:12] the opportunity to read their reasons into the record.

[3:02:15] » Thank you for that reminder. >> Thank you.

[3:02:19] » Can I ask a question for the administration just um

[3:02:23] the whole cannabis um framework here in Jersey City? are does the administration

[3:02:29] have plans to um to examine do a comprehensive examination of kind of our

[3:02:36] cannabis market here and uh I mean we're oversaturated some would say and um but

[3:02:43] then I think in this area particular there's not um terribly so um and and

[3:02:49] then we've got as I understand it applicants out there um who have pending

[3:02:54] applications that uh may be waiting for them to come before us and

[3:03:00] so forth around that. Um, are are we do we have plans to to address all of this

[3:03:04] in some way?

[3:03:10] » I'm happy to take that back to speak with um the head of HEDC um whether

[3:03:16] that's part of her perview to review this. Um, I also understand that there's

[3:03:21] a cannabis control board, so there may be input there on, you know, the ideas

[3:03:26] of doing this review. Um, if you have specific ideas that we should be looking

[3:03:31] at, >> send us a note and council request and I

[3:03:36] can I can follow up on it.

[3:03:43] » Mike is on. Okay. uh Matt planning and council members. Matt is here for

[3:03:50] 3.1. And I just want to uh remind you that Councilwoman Little's office gave

[3:03:58] out a handout with some of the questions, answers to some of the

[3:04:02] questions you might have. Go ahead, Matt.

[3:04:06] » Uh I don't know if I received that, but um I'll just wing it. Hopefully I get

[3:04:12] the answers. All right. Ordinance 26-070,

[3:04:18] an ordinance of the municipal council of the city of Jersey City adopting an

[3:04:22] amendment to the powerhouse arts district redevelopment plan. Uh this is

[3:04:27] a ordinance that began with a resolution uh passed last fall uh by the prior

[3:04:35] council. Um that was resolution 25-545.

[3:04:42] who is authorizing the planning board to study an amendment to the powerhouse

[3:04:47] district redevelopment plan. And uh the ordinance before you comes with a

[3:04:54] favorable recommendation uh from the planning board u to re to

[3:05:01] adopt the this ordinance. Um the substance of the ordinance is to update

[3:05:09] standards in the transition zone of the redevelopment plan and establish the

[3:05:14] block 13002 transition bonus. This bonus uh

[3:05:21] if utilized would result in the creation of on-site

[3:05:26] affordable housing at 15% of all units and the creation of an art ccentric

[3:05:33] space to a Jersey uh artcentric space on site that would be reserved for a Jersey

[3:05:40] city-based nonprofit. The uh bonus in the amended amendment uh language or

[3:05:49] the proposed text um includes uh includes the requirement for designation

[3:05:57] in an RDA by the JCA, the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency. It includes uh the

[3:06:04] requirements of that onset affordable housing, the consolidation of the

[3:06:08] property and that the the creation of that artentric space. Uh it also

[3:06:13] includes some sort of some uh parameters around the creation of that space. um

[3:06:19] like like being 4,300 square ft as well as listing um the fact that this would

[3:06:27] be $0 for a period of 30 years in perpetuity to be um renewed on a 30-year

[3:06:34] basis. Um, and it requires the the selected entity

[3:06:42] um to serve and promote the arts community

[3:06:46] within Jersey City and the youth of Jersey City. And it requires the uh

[3:06:52] redeveloper to to advertise and complete an RFP process um for that space.

[3:07:02] Anyone have any questions? >> Yes. Um, so, uh, Matt, without, um, I

[3:07:07] know Elena, uh, council person little, she's not here, uh, but she she does

[3:07:12] have a Lord Jesus, I'm not going to read all of this. Yeah, she have a lot of

[3:07:18] questions. I know, um, we are looking to host a joint meeting uh, wards effing.

[3:07:28] Um, so we'll be in contact with everyone as it relates to this.

[3:07:33] » Okay. Anyone else? Any um questions? >> I think I sent a series of questions.

[3:07:41] » Yeah. Yes. Uh so I've received uh information request 183-2026.

[3:07:49] Um I'm in uh I am preparing a response to that. Um

[3:07:55] several of the items we can upload to the ordinance. Um some of the items I

[3:08:01] think would be best to um maybe address tonight. I we do have uh representative

[3:08:09] the petitioner here. Uh Mr. uh Harrington from Connell Foley is

[3:08:13] representing Exchange Towers LLC. I believe that there were some questions

[3:08:18] that came along in that information request that might be best um addressed

[3:08:22] towards them or they could maybe answer some of those questions here tonight.

[3:08:28] » I I have a a question. Um, just one. Is

[3:08:33] there a community group written into the redevelopment plan?

[3:08:37] » Who's talking right now? Oh, ultimate Griffin. I didn't see your mouth moving.

[3:08:42] You were right behind the mic. >> Can you say that again? I had trouble.

[3:08:46] » Uh, is there any community groups written into the redevelopment plan?

[3:08:52] » Are there any redevelopment groups? >> Is there any community group written

[3:08:56] into the redevelopment plan? >> No. There's not. Okay.

[3:09:03] » Any other questions? >> Now, with regard to my questions, you're

[3:09:05] just going to respond to them on email or

[3:09:08] » Yeah, I was preparing to do a uh written response and um will come encompass

[3:09:16] enclosed attachments uh to address some of the items that we can deliver. I

[3:09:20] think there were some questions that went to but that might be in the item

[3:09:26] provided from council person little. Um uh or or you could hear from the

[3:09:34] petitioner uh or council >> hear from the petitioner director.

[3:09:38] » Yeah like I'm happy to talk to you offline or we can talk now whatever

[3:09:42] works for you guys. Um yeah I'll I'll put out three questions if I may.

[3:09:47] » Okay. Um, those are the ones that are bold in my I I gave a series of about 10

[3:09:52] questions, maybe 12 to 15. I'm not sure exactly. Um,

[3:09:57] » yeah. So, the uh I see the bold ones. I'm sorry. I didn't realize um those

[3:10:03] were had a more importance. Uh the petitioner is exchange um powers LLC.

[3:10:11] I'll upload a 10% disclosure statement um that will list the names behind the

[3:10:17] LLC. Um the property owner, I not sure, they can correct me if I'm wrong, I

[3:10:23] don't believe they're the property owner at this time. Um, and the developer

[3:10:30] presumably at this point in time would be the same uh LLC that is petitioning

[3:10:38] for these, but they would be subject to designation in an RDA by the JC. So,

[3:10:44] » yeah, >> that's hard to say. Um,

[3:10:48] regarding the next uh bold statement, has the city and/or JC checked to see if

[3:10:55] the applicant is compliant with the city's rules and regulations?

[3:11:00] Um, that's unknown. I don't know if the JC has done that. Um, we wouldn't do

[3:11:05] that. Uh, that >> we don't check their compliance with

[3:11:09] » No, that could be maybe that could be considered arbitrary or capricious. uh

[3:11:14] they are going through a process that was authorized by city council. We are

[3:11:20] supposed to study this amendment. It's a I assume it's a kind of a due process

[3:11:25] that point. >> Um so I'm not sure if that was done for

[3:11:32] tonight. Um and then to please explain the process that was employed to

[3:11:38] determine the community benefits. Please include who was involved in the process.

[3:11:42] I believe that the affordable housing well that's required by the ICO as part

[3:11:48] of any sort of increase to the zoning capacity of a redevelopment area or zone

[3:11:54] district. So that that's baked in. Um and then the art ccentric uh space the

[3:12:02] inclusion of that is similar to uh other goals and objectives of the powerhouse

[3:12:09] arts district redevelopment plan. I believe that was part of the the

[3:12:12] resolution that came before the council last fall. Um, now there was uh some

[3:12:20] back and forth um about the other items that go in there such as the the terms

[3:12:28] of that lease, what kind of language would um should be in there regarding

[3:12:33] how it should be fitted out. uh to ensure that uh whatever nonprofit is

[3:12:39] selected gets a facility that's going to serve um their mission um so that

[3:12:46] they're not left with a bill at the end of the day or a white box that

[3:12:50] essentially doesn't serve the purpose of that nonprofit. Uh so there was language

[3:12:55] put in with regards to that. Um, I can point those paragraphs out if you would

[3:13:02] like. >> And the last one is just um if I could

[3:13:07] get information about the other from the other redevelopment plans that

[3:13:12] have these similar um conditions for artentric type spaces

[3:13:18] that being the redevelopment plans that um house the art house productions,

[3:13:24] Nimbus Dance. Um, uh, yeah, that that's going to take a little more research and

[3:13:31] time, uh, to pull those things together. Uh, I can speak from the I can speak

[3:13:37] from the my memory. Um, don't hold me if I'm exactly wrong. Where did I put your

[3:13:43] item? It's over here. Yeah, I mean you could

[3:13:47] see where I'm going with that, which is just that

[3:13:50] » I don't believe that there was an RDA for the what's called Provos Square,

[3:13:56] which is where one of the phases is where the New Jersey Symphony is now

[3:14:01] located. Um, with regards to Art House Productions, I

[3:14:08] similarly don't recall there being an RDA on that project, but a perhaps a

[3:14:13] developers agreement. Um, I will have to double check and I

[3:14:20] memory serves me I do believe that there might have been a project or an RDA for

[3:14:24] the for the building called the Lively uh where the Nimbus Arts Center is. I

[3:14:30] don't know what the creative center is. >> I don't either.

[3:14:35] » Is that it came up in our It came up in a uh a previous meeting about um some um

[3:14:44] funds. Is that a Is there an address on that property?

[3:14:46] » There was some space in downtown Juria City.

[3:14:49] » Is that on Washington? >> I think it's supposed to be on

[3:14:51] Washington. >> Okay. I I I'll look into that one as

[3:14:53] well. >> Yeah,

[3:14:54] » I know. I know what you're talking about.

[3:14:55] » Okay. >> I I didn't know it had a name.

[3:14:59] » Okay. And and with these RFPs, um,

[3:15:06] is the city any way involved in a selection process to ensure a fair

[3:15:13] process, fair selection? >> I I do not know that. What I do know is

[3:15:19] that subject that that uh if there are concerns that the council has regarding

[3:15:26] an RFP process that that could be incorporated perhaps into a condition of

[3:15:31] approval or any sort of site plan moving forward or perhaps into the performance

[3:15:36] standard of a redevelopers agreement with the JC. And my my understanding is

[3:15:41] that the

[3:15:45] how these different arts organizations can bid for the arts space in the

[3:15:50] building that that is a private matter between the developer and those arts

[3:15:57] organizations as opposed to going through the city. I'm just wondering if

[3:16:01] that process could be taken over by the city, that that process could be made a

[3:16:07] public RFP process as opposed to living in the private sector exclusively. Is

[3:16:11] that is that something that could be written into the redevelopment plan or

[3:16:16] otherwise? >> I I mean I do think there's opportunity

[3:16:21] for the JC to include that in their designation and RDA. So the creative

[3:16:30] centers my vague recollection it's very vague um that the city was received a

[3:16:36] shell that's why it was in our capital budget right so we received a shell of a

[3:16:41] white space a white box and then we build it out and build something called

[3:16:46] the creative center >> um I only learned when I took a tour of

[3:16:49] New Jersey Symphony that they said their their landlord is the city of Jersey

[3:16:53] City um so I didn't realize that we had we owned that physical property there.

[3:16:59] I'm not sure if that's the same case with uh the creative center. I know

[3:17:02] that's not the case with art house or the lively. Right. So, um there's

[3:17:08] different models there and just kind of looking at what the different

[3:17:11] » models are that can work best for Jersey City in that sense.

[3:17:19] » Did you receive your answer? >> I'll I'll ask some more detailed

[3:17:24] question offline. Okay. >> Yeah.

[3:17:27] I do have one other question has goes to the affordability and this is more for

[3:17:33] the administration and all the way up to um the deputy mayor um and director

[3:17:40] Chilon um the commitment coming in for me and I believe for for the

[3:17:46] administration and mayor Solomon is 20% affordable housing as the minimum to

[3:17:52] like achieve. Um, I know in some cases, uh, that may may not necessarily not

[3:17:58] necessarily be achievable, but we we may not have as much control over that. Um,

[3:18:03] but this is a case where we're kind of reopening the plan. Um, and

[3:18:08] and in doing so, the inclusionary zoning ordinance, what does it require? 10 10%.

[3:18:14] Is that >> this location? It would require 15

[3:18:18] » with through the re amendment or just as just through the ICO

[3:18:22] » through an amendment to the by pursuant to the ICO it would require 15 on site

[3:18:27] » require 15. Um so you know we ran on the idea that we would do 20% um regardless

[3:18:35] like whatever the like kind of that would be the minimum and I I guess my

[3:18:40] question to the administration and Matt you can answer it as well if you want

[3:18:43] but um uh are is there a commitment to to

[3:18:49] achieving that goal and and how are we going to realize that um if we're

[3:18:53] reopening redevelopment plans um and allowing these changes to come in under

[3:18:58] that threshold. So, I I'll put it on the record for myself already because I made

[3:19:04] I made a promise for affordability. Um, and that uh wasn't achieved with the

[3:19:09] current budget um outcome, but um uh and and we had a promise around 20%

[3:19:15] affordability. And so, um my my commitment is to keep that promise

[3:19:20] around this. So, uh, I'm going to ask the administration where where they

[3:19:25] stand on this and whe what what their rationale and logic is for, um,

[3:19:30] reopening this plan, um, and allowing the, uh, the amendments to move forward

[3:19:35] in this way, um, if we're not achieving the 20% we want to see um, as a goal for

[3:19:42] the city.

[3:19:47] Know, that's not an that's not an answer today for sure.

[3:19:53] Okay. If we don't have an uh answer for the councilman, can we uh can

[3:19:58] administration get back to him on that? Um if we don't have an answer tonight,

[3:20:03] » could I could I just briefly address some of the comments since

[3:20:06] » Okay. >> Okay. And I'll get out of the way. Uh uh

[3:20:10] yeah, for record, Charles Harrington of Connoy on behalf of the applicant. Uh

[3:20:14] first one with regard to the uh RFP. Um, uh, Councilman, I believe the answer is

[3:20:19] yes because a little different here in that the the, uh, developer will need to

[3:20:24] be designated by the JCA. So that that can be something that could be

[3:20:28] incorporated into the redevelopment agreement and how that process works.

[3:20:33] Uh, and, you know, they can they can put into it that it's, you know, you know,

[3:20:36] the review, you know, the city gets gets a say, the the the JCA gets a say as to

[3:20:42] who they think is qualified or not qualified in the best use for for the

[3:20:45] space. So I think that is something you you can achieve through the

[3:20:48] redevelopment agreement. It's a little different from some other projects where

[3:20:52] like the the Lively I'm not I worked on that. I don't recall if there was a

[3:20:56] redevelopment agreement or not uh with regard to the RFP process there. Um and

[3:21:03] uh you know we have been working you we've had a lot of community meetings to

[3:21:06] to get to where we are. Uh and just to Councilman Lavaro to to address the the

[3:21:10] affordable housing. uh it is 15% that's what's required under the ICO but I'd

[3:21:16] note that currently the zoning only permits what's called work live units

[3:21:22] these are these are types of units that went back to when this plan was created

[3:21:26] where the idea was to create uh these these units a minimum of 900 square ft

[3:21:32] that have your slop sinks you'd have all is it had to be equipped for artists

[3:21:37] right um not not your necessarily your typical residential unit so you can't

[3:21:42] have your typical residential unit here under the current zoning. Um like the

[3:21:47] Lively next door is that that um that uh zoning was changed so that you could

[3:21:53] permit residential units. So what we're doing here is we're going to it would it

[3:21:57] would permit straight you know typical residential units and of those 15%

[3:22:02] affordable. So you are creating 15% of your standard you know uh residential

[3:22:08] units within the area and then also as part of this you know the 4,300 square

[3:22:14] ft um that's going to be provided for the local uh Jersey City based

[3:22:18] nonprofit. It's at a zero cost uh to the ultimate user. So that's going to be

[3:22:24] built out uh by the owner and then in perpetuity. that's there there's no

[3:22:29] revenue to to the uh uh to the owner, current owner, future owner. It runs

[3:22:34] with the land. And then uh there's also commitment in in the redevelop in the

[3:22:38] zoning um to make um improvements to the intersection and the immediate area

[3:22:44] because that intersection's offset. Uh so uh that is part of the requirements

[3:22:50] under the zoning too that that the developer would work with the department

[3:22:53] of infrastructure to come up with a plan to to make that a better situation.

[3:22:59] » Okay. >> Thank you Chuck.

[3:23:01] » So Matt, what's what's the height what's the height um threshold in this

[3:23:07] redevelopment plan?

[3:23:11] » So it's currently 125 ft.

[3:23:17] And I believe it's going to 210 ft should a project utilize this bonus.

[3:23:24] Them numbers again >> the maximum under the existing zoning.

[3:23:30] So they could apply for a project right now that is up to 125 ft

[3:23:39] and the double check. Give me the moment here.

[3:23:49] Yes, it would. The maximum height pursuant to the proposed bonus, the

[3:23:55] subject of this ordinance would go up to 210 ft.

[3:24:00] » How many more units does that? >> It's roughly 12 to 13 stories to

[3:24:07] » 20 >> 20 to 21 stories. Yeah.

[3:24:10] » How many more units? Yeah, it writes in 20 stories is max

[3:24:18] » the number of units. >> How many units?

[3:24:22] » There isn't uh there isn't a density standard. So, um it it is un it's not in

[3:24:32] it's not written hardcoded into the language. Um, I don't know. Did you

[3:24:39] » The the reason why I asked is because we're talking about 20 stories. Um, and

[3:24:45] then we're talking about 15 versus 20%. Now, I could see if it was like eight

[3:24:50] stories or something like that. 15 10%. But 20 stories, that's that's a lot. And

[3:24:56] an additional 5% I don't see any harm in in that doing

[3:25:01] 20%. It's uh councilman. It would be going from 12 stories to 19 stories. The

[3:25:07] 20 stories is limited to a uh an amenity use level only. So it's uh seven seven

[3:25:14] additional stories. >> Okay. 19 stories.

[3:25:18] » Well, no. So it's still 20. It's still 20 stories in

[3:25:25] what's just the other story is not housing.

[3:25:28] Correct. >> Right.

[3:25:30] » Yeah. So it's 20 stories. 20 stories is 20 stories regardless of

[3:25:36] the functionality of what it is. It's it's a distinction where every

[3:25:44] every building is entire is is allowed an amenity level on the roof level, but

[3:25:48] you're you're restricted as to uh the square footage of it. So in in in in uh

[3:25:53] instead of trying to comply with the smaller amenity level, we the idea was

[3:25:58] to create a bigger amenity level level and that that then gets defined as a

[3:26:02] story. That's that's how that came about.

[3:26:04] » Yes. And it makes sense. >> So are the units we're seeing now with

[3:26:08] this amendment more in line with the residential unit that you mentioned,

[3:26:12] Chuck, or or back to the the artist studio?

[3:26:17] » It's it's a mix. It would be a mix of market rate. I mean a mix of of units

[3:26:21] not 900 square feet minimum. You'd have a mix of studios ones, twos, and threes

[3:26:27] as well as in the uh uh the affordable units be a mix of the studios ones,

[3:26:33] twos, and threes as as required by the the

[3:26:37] uh the concept plan that that we had put together and presented was 240 units. So

[3:26:42] it would create 36 affordable units. Do you have a a breakdown of percentage

[3:26:46] of how many studios versus the >> Well, that you could uh not more than

[3:26:51] 20% could be ones or twos. So that's three. No, uh it's uh seven. Seven,

[3:26:59] right? 10 out of 36. >> So you couldn't have more than seven of

[3:27:03] those units could be studios or ones. And then the majority have to have four

[3:27:07] one-bedroom and three studios. >> Okay. I I think we do need to see more

[3:27:11] development like that. Um, and and Matt, I I'll I'll talk to you offline about

[3:27:15] it, but we're having projects of majority studios being built and we're

[3:27:20] talking about affordability. Council Lavaro's point of we want to be at 20%.

[3:27:24] But 20% of of what for whom is really the question. If we're only only build

[3:27:29] building for people who aren't uh if our families need affordable housing, we

[3:27:34] need to start looking at affordable one, two, and threebedroom apartments. So

[3:27:39] » and and a minimum of those 36 a minimum of 20% of the 36 have to be three

[3:27:44] bedrooms. That's that's eight. Has anyone um conducted a a fiscal

[3:27:51] analysis of uh the benefits for the upzoning and um tried to

[3:28:00] do a financial valuation of the >> I don't I'm not aware of a contract that

[3:28:05] we hold that we we don't >> so so I would put that to the

[3:28:08] administration whether um to the business administrator Troy and um

[3:28:15] to um others of the administration deputy mayor and others. Um I I I would

[3:28:22] frankly I'm I'm probably going to write it seek to do an ordinance on this

[3:28:26] stuff. Um but we don't have to wait for an ordinance. um that that these sort of

[3:28:31] accompanying any sort of uh amendments to redevelopment plans that they be

[3:28:36] accompanied with some sort of financial valuation so we know what the financial

[3:28:41] benefit is to the developer and and what the give back and community benefit is

[3:28:46] uh to the city and be able to compare that uh cost um valuation. Uh

[3:28:54] it's not just a straight numbers game as as Councilman Zupa said, depends on what

[3:28:57] the home is and who's who's living in it. But um at the same time, uh we

[3:29:02] should know that we're getting uh fair value back to the people of Jersey City.

[3:29:08] » Yes, I second council person. >> Agreed.

[3:29:13] » Because they always tell us it's not financially feasible. We don't ever see

[3:29:18] the numbers. Huh? Thank you.

[3:29:23] » Um, I want to say because we're going to take it from the top.

[3:29:25] » No, we're not. We still got No, I would like to take it from the top.

[3:29:30] I said we have director uh Diaz back with us.

[3:29:34] » Oh, he came back again.

[3:29:38] » I'm sorry about that, council. Um, I have one more item for you. Item 10.22,

[3:29:44] resolution 26-558. This is uh requesting permission to

[3:29:50] amend anou between DCD and the department of recreation. Um was

[3:29:56] originally requested I believe at 165 and now we are requesting to amend that

[3:30:00] to 220 to cover the cost to repair the uh the Persian Field Park.

[3:30:09] » Any questions? 10.22. >> This go comes with the the bond

[3:30:15] ordinance reallocation. No, >> no. So, there's actually two separate

[3:30:21] things. This is for the Persian field repairs, building repairs. The

[3:30:28] improvements, the the capital bond um sorry, capital project reappropriation

[3:30:34] is incorrectly labeled as field, but it's the Pavonia pool that needs to be

[3:30:40] repaired. So, two different things. Gotcha.

[3:30:43] » Okay. >> Is the ice rink.

[3:30:45] » Yes. is the ice rink. >> Yes, ice rink is included in these

[3:30:49] improvements. Yeah.

[3:30:53] » Okay. Thank you. >> Um

[3:30:57] » uh wait, we still Yeah, I'm trying to clear the room so then we can start from

[3:31:01] the top. Um director Hart, you have you want to speak to 3.7?

[3:31:10] » We appreciate your um patience sitting back there.

[3:31:14] » My pleasure. Nice to you, too.

[3:31:17] » And evening, >> council president Ridley and council

[3:31:21] members. Uh, acting deputy director Lauren Hart, public safety, division of

[3:31:24] fire, here to speak on two funding items for your consideration. Agenda item 3.7.

[3:31:30] This is an ordinance 26-076.

[3:31:34] This is a bond ordinance reappropriation in excess of bron proceeds not needed

[3:31:38] for their original purposes. I have two items that we're looking uh for

[3:31:42] consideration. These were previously requested uh in the August council

[3:31:46] meeting. Uh they were removed. One of them relates to the SCBAs, the air packs

[3:31:52] that our firefighters wear in their back when they go into the fire buildings

[3:31:56] that are on on fire to rescue our residents.

[3:31:59] I'm respectfully requesting appropriation of approximately 1.2

[3:32:03] million to be used towards replacement of our SCBA packs which are out of

[3:32:08] warranty at the end of this month. As I've previously highlighted to you, we

[3:32:12] were successful in securing 650,000 in grant funding from the Department of

[3:32:18] Homeland Security 2025 assistance to firefighter grant program. This $1.2

[3:32:25] million appropriation coupled with this grant money will be sufficient to

[3:32:28] purchase new SCBA packs, which now are coming with lifetime warranties

[3:32:34] for approximately $1.8 million. It should be noted that this

[3:32:39] grant money must be utilized by the beginning of 2027.

[3:32:45] I have one other item to discuss and if you have questions on that

[3:32:48] » question 3.7 um so director if we can get um a breakdown of where all this

[3:32:55] money is coming from the different um the different bonds

[3:33:01] » that would be from me. Um so this is another capital reappropriation. It

[3:33:07] comes from and I can send you the specific line item, but it was bundled

[3:33:13] in 2022 as miscellaneous building approve improvements that were never

[3:33:18] used. >> Okay. Yeah, we can just see exactly

[3:33:23] um the projects that it came from. Um that'll be

[3:33:29] » there were no there were no projects tied to it.

[3:33:33] » What do you mean there was no projects? So I again I can share this with you um

[3:33:38] separately but whenever there are uh capital projects that didn't spend all

[3:33:43] the money capital money allocated it falls into this miscellaneous building

[3:33:49] bucket that acrews over time and that is where

[3:33:54] this money is coming from. That's why I was Okay. So, they come from

[3:33:58] » projects already finished. >> Projects already completed.

[3:34:02] » That's what I was say. I want I want to see where what projects did it come

[3:34:05] from. That's >> We can send you that list.

[3:34:08] » Thank you. Please. >> So, so out of curiosity because it's in

[3:34:11] the building fund. Um, and not saying I'm not agreeing with this question. Um

[3:34:18] » so these could have been these funds could have been used for different

[3:34:22] building projects like for instance uh five corners library or like uh south

[3:34:30] district east district police departments and things like that.

[3:34:33] Correct. >> So there are separate um and I think we

[3:34:36] shared this with the council before different line items under the capital

[3:34:42] projects plan for those projects. This is just a miscellaneous catch all of

[3:34:47] everything left over from projects that have been completed. So I can send you

[3:34:51] the full list. Um we shared it during the budget conversations.

[3:34:59] » Okay. Next one. >> Second item we're hoping to include in

[3:35:02] this funding is um in 2024 the city agreed to purchase a multi-story

[3:35:07] training facility valued at $1.7 million through a lease finance program. Uh the

[3:35:12] containers for this Lion Training Tower were delivered to the site on August of

[3:35:17] 2025, over a year ago. However, those containers are still sitting there

[3:35:21] unassembled because we require funding to do the site work as part of the

[3:35:25] foundation so we can have the builder come back and assemble the project. Uh

[3:35:29] the fire department needs approximately 700,000 uh for the pilings for the

[3:35:33] foundation and for the installation of both electrical and propane gas

[3:35:38] infrastructure.

[3:35:41] This is all tied to uh 3.7, right? The funding,

[3:35:44] » correct? Yep. >> Any other questions?

[3:35:48] » Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you so much. Have a good night.

[3:35:51] » And in the essence of clearing everyone out, I see Chris, so I'm assuming you're

[3:35:56] here for the Can I just add one more thing? Go ahead. Avoid confusion. This

[3:36:02] uh ordinance is a total of 2.6. So fire department talked about the 1.2

[3:36:08] two for the fire breathing apparatus, 600 for the training tower. Um there's

[3:36:16] an additional 250 which is what I was talking about with Persian Field. It's a

[3:36:21] pool, the Pavonia pool that needs to be repaired. So that's an additional 250.

[3:36:27] Um and then there's the 15% contingency section 20 costs that we talked about

[3:36:33] last time when there was a capital um uh ordinance. So, in total, all of those

[3:36:39] those three projects total the 2.6. We're going to make a small edit just to

[3:36:44] clarify. It's the Persian Field Park at Pavonia Pool. Um I think in the

[3:36:50] ordinance it's flipped. >> Just want to uh correct you. Pavonia

[3:36:54] pool is at Pavonia and Westside. Persing Field is in the Heights. So, it's two

[3:36:59] different locations. Two different locations.

[3:37:02] » Two different >> heights. Is that on the first reading

[3:37:06] one? It's the first rating. Yeah. Okay. >> So, we'll make those edits.

[3:37:09] » Yep. Perfect. >> Sorry about

[3:37:12] just just to clarify 1022 then. So, it it says Persian Field Ice Rink. Is that

[3:37:16] not what's being from the >> 1022 is correct.

[3:37:21] » It's uh 3.7. >> 3.7. Yes. I think correct.

[3:37:24] » All right. So, Persing Field Ice Rink and also Pavonia Pool are getting

[3:37:30] repairs. Correct. Big W Seed Day. >> Yeah.

[3:37:33] » Yeah. I think we should pull >> video cut a deal.

[3:37:40] » All right, Sean, can we defer to uh >> So, yes, go ahead. You had

[3:37:44] » Chris is here for 10.12 10.13. >> Let me just do 10.12 to 10:15.

[3:37:52] » That is correct. So he's here for both the Mcinley Square and the Westside

[3:37:56] Avenue special districts, their budgets, assessment roles, and obviously, you

[3:38:02] know, we're going to have a public hearing on both,

[3:38:04] » right? Any questions on those uh SID roles, West Side and McGinley Square.

[3:38:16] » Thank you guys. Have a good night. >> Good night. Good night, Chris.

[3:38:21] All right. Now we can take it from the top.

[3:38:23] » Yes. I have to I have to depart early. I have

[3:38:27] to pick my um kids up. I do just want to I handed um

[3:38:32] » Can we I'm sorry. Can Can we just add one more thing? I think Bill wants to

[3:38:36] explain something about the claims list. >> This I should have done this uh earlier,

[3:38:43] but I left it off. I wanted to just raise that in right in the context of

[3:38:49] this being our first council meeting cycle on a new schedule. Uh one of the

[3:38:54] things that came up last week is that uh it it did create uh some issues with

[3:38:59] processing claims and making vendor payments. Um and so what I would like to

[3:39:05] do is to uh ensure the clerk will have an agenda item for claims on all f you

[3:39:12] know future um agendas. Uh but we will provide council with the actual claims

[3:39:18] list on Fridays prior to the meeting as we did before. That gives the finance

[3:39:22] department more time to actually process the claims and to make payments. Uh I

[3:39:26] think the the result of um trying to accelerate that for this particular

[3:39:32] uh issue is more vendors will get paid late um or we will have to provide

[3:39:38] addendum which creates work for both us and for and for you. So I did wanted to

[3:39:43] just uh let you all know uh we uh would like to continue to provide you the

[3:39:48] claims list on the Friday before the meeting. Make sure we're paying as many

[3:39:51] vendors on time as possible. >> Thank you. Yeah,

[3:39:56] » thank you. >> Um,

[3:39:58] » Councilman Gilmore. >> Yes. Um, so there there's an item. It's

[3:40:03] already in I compass. Um, it's it's actually just an update. I believe late

[3:40:10] late last year. Um the prior council we voted on zone parking for

[3:40:17] Clifton Place and I don't know somehow we missed

[3:40:23] making sure we were addressing it with appropriate time. It should have

[3:40:27] reflected 3 to 11 but somehow it reflected 8 to 4. Um, so it's a it's a

[3:40:35] late item in a sense that it's not on the agenda, but it's something that

[3:40:39] we've been working tirelessly on. Um, and it's just a it's amendment. It's

[3:40:44] amendment. It's a update to reflect the actual time for the residents in that

[3:40:49] area. I've sent out a

[3:40:54] print out to each of the members >> as far as zone parking.

[3:40:57] » Is it time sensitive? >> Yeah. Yes. timesensitive in a sense that

[3:41:02] um we're actually wasting city resources because people were issuing people were

[3:41:07] getting tickets issued and all of that other stuff. So, we just want to make

[3:41:11] sure we get this uh cleared up. Something that we've been meaning to to

[3:41:18] put it on, but dealing with the budget and stuff, uh we wanted to focus

[3:41:22] specifically on that. Uh but it's time in a sense that uh people are getting

[3:41:27] tickets and wasting resources with the courts with the parking authority

[3:41:32] residents having to take off for work and things like that.

[3:41:37] » So you're going to um motion add it at the council meeting. Okay. And can you

[3:41:42] um >> circulate the petition

[3:41:47] » um for infrastructure or whoever took the petition in place.

[3:41:54] That's going to be an additional first reading ordinance. Correct.

[3:41:59] » Well, he's going to um make a motion to add it as a late item.

[3:42:04] » Understood. But I'm saying it's a first reading ordinance. Correct.

[3:42:07] » Um yeah, I would assume this would be a a a first reading ordinance since it's

[3:42:11] establishing a parking zone. Um >> we're amended. Yes. So it will have to

[3:42:16] Yeah, essentially we have to Yes.

[3:42:23] Okay. >> And that's already in IC compass.

[3:42:26] » Yes, it's already everything. >> And did we did it go through the

[3:42:31] process? Uh, BHO. >> So, it went through this morning when we

[3:42:36] were flagged. Um, but I don't know procedurally how we add a late item.

[3:42:43] » So, we add a late item by um council. Council member making a motion to add

[3:42:49] and you get a second and then you need six votes out of the nine in order to

[3:42:54] add the item. >> Okay.

[3:42:58] » Learn something new today. Welcome aboard.

[3:43:04] » Hey. Hey Sean. Uh I also have a a late item I'd like to

[3:43:10] add. It's a resolution. Um it's it's a resolution for Miss uh

[3:43:15] Jacqueline Jeter who is a resident in a Heights who in May was crowned Miss New

[3:43:22] Jersey senior um 2026.

[3:43:27] It was originally on this agenda but it was moved to the 23rd. I would like to

[3:43:31] bring it back to this agenda.

[3:43:36] » So that would be the uh same process. you would have to make a motion to add

[3:43:42] it back at the council meeting and then as a late item and then uh get the votes

[3:43:48] to add it. So, council, I know we're on a new schedule, but um and this was was

[3:43:55] added in um because of the amount of presentations that we've had and that

[3:44:02] the residents request, we are looking to limit the honorary resolutions to two

[3:44:08] per meeting. We already have two on this meeting. Um so that's why we moved Miss

[3:44:13] Jeter to the 23rd. Um it is my understanding that

[3:44:19] um she reached out or some of her representatives reached out to the

[3:44:23] councilman um because she has a conflict on the 23rd. So he is recommending that

[3:44:28] we add it back. I would also recommend that we follow the same procedure we

[3:44:34] followed over the summer of making sure that we take the pictures before the

[3:44:37] meeting. I would ask that whoever is available here uh before the meeting

[3:44:42] that we get those pictures out the way uh when we do these resolutions. But

[3:44:46] let's be mindful of the new schedule and make sure we have things in on time so

[3:44:50] that we don't have a bunch of late items. Our agendas are always packed as

[3:44:54] we see it is 7:47 and we are not through this whole agenda yet at the caucus

[3:44:59] meeting. So let us keep the schedule and the amount of things on the agenda in

[3:45:05] mind as we're moving through so we can be um as efficient as possible.

[3:45:14] » Thank you council president. I appreciate that.

[3:45:17] So just um on the burst reading ordinance, it's a parking zone. What do

[3:45:23] you um which zone are we talking about? So I can make sure that um I have that

[3:45:29] in I compass. >> Councilman has left. I believe it is

[3:45:34] zone 12.

[3:45:38] » Zone 12. Thanks. >> I believe so. Oh, wait, wait, wait,

[3:45:41] wait.

[3:45:45] It has two different ones here. One's one one part says 12, one says two. So,

[3:45:48] we'll confirm for you. >> So, it's it's both.

[3:45:51] » I'm not sure, but we'll I'll have the councilman confirm for you.

[3:45:54] » Okay.

[3:45:59] Okay. I have it marked, so I'm good. Um, am I

[3:46:04] taking it from the top? >> Take it from the top. So, I'm happy to

[3:46:08] say that all first readings were touched on 3.1 to 3.8 with now 3.9 being the

[3:46:16] late item. On to our second reading ordinances. Any questions or comments on

[3:46:20] item 4.1, which is a franchise ordinance for 117 N

[3:46:26] Street. Any questions or comments on 4.2, which

[3:46:31] is a bond ordinance?

[3:46:35] Hearing none. 4.3 was touched on earlier. 4.4. Any questions or comments

[3:46:40] on the police offduty program? Hearing none. We're going to have a

[3:46:48] public hearing on the 2026 2027 Westside Avenue special improvement district and

[3:46:53] assessment role and budget. Same thing for the 2026 2027 Mcinley Square special

[3:46:59] improvement district and assessment role. There'll be two separate hearings

[3:47:02] on that. Then we'll go to our public speaking portion of the meeting. 27

[3:47:07] speakers and counting. Any questions or comments on petitions and communications

[3:47:12] items 6.1 through 6.46.

[3:47:20] If you have anything that you would want me to send you, just please send me an

[3:47:24] email and I'll get them to you as soon as I can. There are no officer

[3:47:27] communications. Any questions or comments on reported directors 8.1

[3:47:31] through 8.2? Hearing none, on to our claims and addendums

[3:47:36] number one and two. Now to our resolutions. Items 10.1

[3:47:43] through 10.3 were touched on earlier. 10.4 Four is a resolution 26-540 is a

[3:47:49] resolution authorizing the city of Jersey City to apply for and accept

[3:47:53] grant funding from the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs under

[3:47:57] the fiscal year 2027 New Jersey state budget appropriation operating a 2027

[3:48:05] 10.5 was touched on earlier 10.6 6. Resolution 26-542.

[3:48:10] It's a resolution in honor of remembering the legacy and impact of

[3:48:14] Mayor Glenn Dale Cunningham on the 16th of September.

[3:48:20] Item 10.7 was touched on earlier. Item 10.8, city resolution 26-544.

[3:48:26] It's a resolution honoring Kira Bar, also known as B girl crazy, for her

[3:48:32] achievements in breaking and as she represents the United States at the 2026

[3:48:37] youth Olympic Games in Dar Synagal. >> And Sean,

[3:48:41] » yep. >> 10.6 and 10.8. And if we vote to add um

[3:48:46] Councilman Griffin's resolution, those will will defer to after the first

[3:48:51] readings. >> So 10.6 10.8 8

[3:48:55] not uh 10.9 or 10.10. Correct. >> Correct.

[3:49:00] » And then it would be 10.43 if we add it. >> Correct.

[3:49:04] » Got it. Okay. We can make a compound resolution. I mean motion. Um next 10.9

[3:49:11] city resolution 26-545 is a resolution celebrating the life of

[3:49:16] Miss Mrs. Beatus Staggers. Item 10.10 10 resolution 26-546 is a resolution

[3:49:23] commemorating the 110th anniversary of the Rotary Club of Jersey City and

[3:49:28] honoring 110 years of service above shelf self excuse me. Item 10.11 city

[3:49:36] resolution 26-547 I believe is being withdrawn just to

[3:49:40] confirm with the business administrator. >> That's correct. We're withdrawing that

[3:49:45] one. >> 10.11 we're withdrawing.

[3:49:52] 10.12

[3:49:55] through 10.15 was touched on earlier. 10.16 city resolution 26-552

[3:50:03] is a resolution to cancel and refund tax sale certificate number 2025-0298

[3:50:10] and refund the lean holder pursuant to the tax order vacating the full judgment

[3:50:15] on block 5103 lot 1, more commonly known as 178 Ogden Avenue, Jersey City, New

[3:50:22] Jersey. Items 10.17

[3:50:26] through 10.31 were touched on earlier. Item 10.32,

[3:50:32] city resolution 26-568 is a resolution authorizing the

[3:50:36] dispersement of funds from the city of Jersey City Insurance Fund Commission

[3:50:41] for the payment of premiums and policies of excess risk lines.

[3:50:48] Items 1033 through 1037 were touched on earlier.

[3:50:53] Item 10.38, city resolution 26-574 is a resolution authorizing an award of

[3:51:01] professional service agreement with the firm Plankton LLP to represent the city

[3:51:07] in affirmative action litigation on contingency basis of 15%.

[3:51:12] » Sean, could I just address that briefly? So, council, as you have heard the

[3:51:17] director of finance speak about several times over this year, the city has been

[3:51:22] engaged in a process of auditing all claims that were submitted by Horizon

[3:51:27] prior to our switch over to Etna. Um, Platkin LLP is a firm that is recognized

[3:51:33] not just in the state but nationwide for do doing exactly that kind of

[3:51:37] comprehensive audit of claims and of contracts with Horizon specifically. And

[3:51:43] so we're engaging the firm on a contingency basis, which means we don't

[3:51:46] pay anything unless they successfully lead us through a process, litigation or

[3:51:51] otherwise, that results in a recovery for the city, in which case they take a

[3:51:56] percentage of that. And so we're engaging them, still at preliminary

[3:51:59] stages, to assist with that investigation and exploration in the

[3:52:03] event that we find any claims that we want to pursue, we are confident that

[3:52:07] they are the firm that can help us pursue that. So that's why we're

[3:52:09] engaging them in this way. >> Okay. Okay. So, the 15% is what they

[3:52:14] would claim if they find anything. >> That's correct. If they recover money

[3:52:19] for the city, they get 15% of that. >> I applaud the administration for this.

[3:52:25] Thank you. >> Okay. Items 10.39 through 10.42 were

[3:52:31] touched on earlier and 10.43 late item if it added. We touched on that. May May

[3:52:37] I ask the magical question? May I have a motion to motion

[3:52:40] » at 7:55 p.m. I think the motion was made by

[3:52:44] council person Griffin. May I have a second?

[3:52:47] » Second. >> Second.

[3:52:49] » You can't do the second too. >> Second.

[3:52:52] » Second was on council per council president Ridley. On the motion to

[3:52:56] adjourn at 7:55 p.m. All council members present by acclamation, please say I. I.

[3:53:02] We are out of here at 7:55 p.m.

Jersey City Municipal Caucus Meeting September 8, 2026

Transcript