The Jersey City Council debated whether they should amend or reintroduce their ordinance regarding regulating e-bike deliveries during yesterday’s caucus meeting as they prepare for tomorrow’s public session.
By Daniel Ulloa/Hudson County View
Jersey City Commerce Department Director Maynard Woodson told the council that they don’t have the capacity to oversee the implementation of the food delivery ordinance.
“This particular ordinance really falls under HHS (Health and Human Services). I was actually a little surprised and expressed my concerns with the councilman why it was assigned to commerce. We’re a very small division,” he explained.
“I only have six employees. I currently handle 29 different licenses, two quarterly tax collection accounts, two boards with an annual revenue of $12 million.”
Woodson added he was surprised no one contacted HHS Director Stacey Flanagan on the matter.
“We put it in commerce because it had enough similarities to programs that commerce runs, such as entertainment licenses,” Ward E Councilman James Solomon, the primary sponsor of the ordinance, explained.
He said he noted Woodson’s concerns and discussed them with Business Administrator John Metro and Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop, who has come out in support of the proposal after is was approved on first reading.
“If you would like it to be in another division, we are happy to work with you. We are not fighting for it to be here. We’re going to reintroduce this. Before Wednesday … let us know. We’ll adjust the ordinance,” Solomon said, showing a willingness to delay the vote.
Ward C Councilman Rich Boggiano said the ordinance was “illegal” in its current form and asked Woodson if it would lead to a lawsuit.
“I have not heard anything,” Woodson replied.
“It’s going to happen probably,” Boggiano stated.
Solomon said they have already planned amendments to address any potential legal liabilities, along with other community concerns.
“We would either have to amend the second reading or we would reintroduce this at first reading and defeat the second reading,” he also noted.
“The cleanest way to do it is to introduce this ordinance and we’ll defeat the second reading. If you want to amend it at the meeting on Wednesday, it would be a substantial change. So, we then would have to reintroduce it. It’s totally up to the council,” stated City Clerk Sean Gallagher.
“We met with the app companies and we met with a lot of the biking kind of advocates. Their requests were different. We did our best to hear from everybody and incorporate changes. The core of the ordinance remains the same,” Solomon replied.
He noted that they will regulate how the food delivery apps operate in the city, including a minimum price floor.
“The app companies object to that,” Solomon added.
He said they cited a New York law as a precedent against, but their ordinance also includes a maximum price, and the lawsuit is still pending.
“I think we need to move forward and take action. It includes some regulations in worker protections. We do think it is important to put them in writing,” Solomon said.
Additionally, the ordinance would assign each deliverista with a three-digit ID number and photo ID card, with the number being displayed on a vest worn by the delivery driver, as well as the establishment they work for.
Businesses are also expected to maintain a roster of delivery drivers, who must carry their ID card while working.
He explained Hoboken is working on a similar ordinance that will be up for second reading at their council meeting on Wednesday.
“Their version really puts the onus on the delivery folks to register to take tasks. We understand why they’re doing it that way,” Solomon added.
He said registering the hundreds of delivery workers in the city would be an overly burdensome bureaucratic task for Jersey City.
“We want to make sure the responsibility falls on both parties. If the apps companies are encouraging drivers … to move really quickly, that’s a shared responsibility,” Solomon argued.
“If we can get clarification on where this is going to live, I agree with Director Woodson’s point. This is too much for Commerce. Health and Human Services handles, they’re already working with the food establishments. Director Flanagan, I would like to hear your thoughts,” Ward B Councilwoman Mira Prinz-Arey said.
She also asked if anyone had reached out to their colleagues in Hoboken on this.
Solomon responded that he met Hoboken’s lead ordinance sponsor, 1st Ward Councilman Paul Presinzano, back in January.
“We’ve been sharing drafts back and forth. Our ordinances take different approaches but they’re compatible with one another,” he said.
Solomon also questioned the Hoboken ordinance for putting the onus of compliance on the workers versus the corporations.
“I don’t disagree about it being shared. They’re going to be ordering for Jersey City in Hoboken and back and forth. You also don’t want to create more confusion for people who want to do their work,” Prinz-Arey noted.
Ward A Councilwoman Denise Ridley asked if they would be getting a universal ID or an alternative ID, to which Solomon replied that creating any city ID would be difficult.
“Is the third party app the one responsible for the worker to wear the correct vest? Or is it going to be on the rider?” Councilwoman-at-Large Amy DeGise asked.
Solomon said the corporations would provide the vests and that the city will work with the food apps on implementation.
“Who would ultimately be in charge of compliance and enforcement?” DeGise later questioned.
Solomon said the JCPD would be, along with either commerce or HHS.
“Commerce doesn’t have any inspectors,” Woodson answered.
Prinz-Arey was curious about enforcement as well, to which Solomon said it would start with education and the legislation could be enforced with a summons.
The ordinance approved on first reading said that the Jersey City Police Department and Division of Quality of Life have the ability to ask to see the ID cards and/or issue fines, which are $50 a piece.
Prinz-Arey further inquired about where the biennial registration fee comes into play, while DeGise wanted to hear from the Public Safety Department on enforcement, noting that they cannot pull over bicyclists.
“We can speak, before a second reading, with them. We’ll speak between now and Wednesday,” Solomon said, with Metro indicating he would be in touch about it.
“Once you guys have the conversation, you’ll let me know which way we’re going to add a first reading ordinance or we’re just going amend it,” Gallagher stated.
If you have vests with corresponding eateries reflected on them, maybe the e-bike drivers wouldn’t be so blatant about riding the OPPOSITE direction on the JC bike path.
When you pass telling them they’re going the wrong way, they get hostile. There’s going to be an accident bad enough JC gets sued and then you will regret not doing minimal action to encourage better.