The Jersey City Council indicated that they plan to set the third quarter tax bills after receiving an exemption from the state, as well as making budget changes after a meeting with the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs (NJDCA).
By Daniel Ulloa/Hudson County View
“I want to give a quick recap of our morning meeting with the DCA. That’s why we moved this caucus back,” began Council President Denise Ridley, acknowledging that the start time was moved from 10 a.m. to 12 noon.
After noting that the governing body unanimously voted down (0-9) a 15 percent rate hike for the third quarter tax bills at a July 1st special meeting, Ridley said that state officials gave the council as a whole the ability to set that rate.
” … I believe that is the pleasure of the council, but we will discuss that, and we will then add that to the agenda for Wednesday as the Q3 tax bills have not gone out yet and we will want those bills to go out so the city can pay their bills. So we will revisit that,” she noted.
“As far as the budget, I know a lot of people had questions in regards to us having the ability to We still have the ability to go through the budget and make or propose any cuts or changes that we see fit. Us accepting an MOU (memorandum of understanding) at this next meeting on Wednesday does not change that fact, so the council is still expected to do it’s legislative duties and it’s governing duties and go through that budget.”
Ridley added that the DCA did not want them to tap into their rainy day fund, aka the city surplus, since it is smaller than they would like it to be, as well as decide what terms they are accepting for the $105 million state loan that requires an MOU on Wednesday.
When Ward D Councilman Jake Ephros asked for clarification on the state loan, she said that Trenton leadership was not going to offer a no interest loan to Jersey City.
“Did you talk to them about land sales?” Councilman at-Large Michael Griffin later asked.
“They don’t suggest that we do that,” Ridley responded, to which Councilman at-Large Rolando Lavarro interjected briefly.
“ … The land sale, or diffusing or retiring bonds … They did not recommend it, but it was asked very pointedly ‘could we do it?’ They said we could do it and clear that it’s at our discretion, but there would be potential implications actually if we changed the [tax] levy in a way that could affect the terms of the loan, including the amount of the loan.”
Ward F Councilman Frank “Educational” Gilmore then sought more details on the MOU and the state loan as a whole.
CFO and Finance Director Bill Viqueira said he recently received the loan agreement and shared it with Business Administrator Ruby Choi.
“There is a potential if we move the tax levy from the agreed upon point that subsequently, we can have a reduction in the 105 [million] of the state aid. Is that correct, Bill?” Gilmore asked.
Viqueira said the DCA would only accept the property tax increase being set at 15 percent or 20 percent and they were not open to any additional cuts for this year’s municipal spending plan.
“Any other savings would benefit 2027 and/or they would look to reduce the size of the loan,” he explained.
“This whole situation would have been a lot better if what we received was put in the public. The administration, they spent so much time on explaining how we got there versus trying to find a path forward,” Gilmore expressed.
Viqueira noted that civil servant restructuring to reduce the budget usually takes four to five months and is therefore difficult to do on the fly.
“They made it clear we have two options: 15 percent or 20 percent,” he added.
Viqueira also spelled out that the DCA did not believe the council could find reductions that would lower the need for such a property tax increase.
“ … We’re kind of like locked in. If we’re taking the loan, there’s terms associated with the loan, right? DCA’s position is we can’t agree on the terms of the loan and then try to operate outside the terms of the loan,” Gilmore said.
“… We have to know this in the beginning. We have to be a part of the negotiating phase. We have to be consulted … For me, it makes my job extremely hard.”
Griffin agreed that it was frustrating, adding that the council shouldn’t have to negotiate with their backs against the wall, to which Ridley reiterated that the nine council members just received the MOU today.
From there, Viqueira then explained the budget itself: a $886,546,594.16 spending plan with a 15.5 percent tax increase.
“It’s nominally an increase over the 2025 budget. However … the headline figure is loaded by over 100 million in unpaid obligations by the previous administration,” he said, a point that has been repeated many times in recent weeks.
Viqueira also noted that salaries and wages are 34 percent of expenses and represent only a four percent growth from last year. Most of it is for the Department of Public Safety salaries and benefits.
Additionally, group health insurance is another significant expense, with debt service represents nearly 10 percent of budgeting.
He said an estimated $459 million will be generated from property taxes at a 15.5 percent tax increase.
Viqueira explained that with that proposed tax rate, a house worth $500,000 would equate to $634 more a year, or $53 a month, while the $105 million loan term is tentatively 10 years at 2.7 percent interest.
Lavarro lamented that the budget wasn’t released until around 11 p.m. Friday night before his colleagues weighed in.
“Would it be possible to share a copy … for each department that shows line items?” Ward E Councilwoman Eleana Little asked, to which Viqueira said they would.
“The council does usually have an itemized budget. We have not received that yet. Finance is planning to get that to us,” Ridley added, noting they would push budget hearings if necessary.
Ridley noted she asked for a list of new hires and the 31 people laid off on Friday that caused the council majority to take aim at Solomon, as HCV first reported, and has not received it yet. She also wanted to review the payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) audit.
“This is information the council would like as we review the budget,” Ridley noted.
Lavarro demanded the same information, as well as a five-year plan for the city’s finances and he also echoed a point Ridley made earlier about their relationship going forward with the state.
“One thing I just want to say, a quote that I was left with, is the Division of Local Government Services is a compliance division, not a policy decision. That policy is still for the city council to determine.”
Later, Griffin noted that an organizational chart was requested and he has not received yet either.
Ward C Councilman Tom Zuppa noted that a memo on specific salary increases has not been distributed to the council, either. At that point Lavarro, said he wanted to compel the administration to release all of the aforementioned information.
“The legal mechanism to compel the administration would be to sue. I would encourage the council and administration to do more talking … escalating to litigation is very expensive,” declared Corporation Counsel Sarah Levine.
She noted some of these documents might not exist, therefore it will take time to compile that information, which Assistant Business Administrator Peter Horton seconded.
“It’s mostly time. These documents mostly don’t exist in these parameters,” he said.
Lavarro wanted the list of the laid of provisional employees, to which Horton said he sent it to Ridley, Griffin, and Ephros.
“It doesn’t list the salaries,” Ridley noted.
“At the very least, in 72 hours we should have an answer as to when we’ll receive it,” Gilmore said.
Zuppa also thought the list of new hires could be assembled quickly.
Horton said the volume of requests from the City Council makes it hard to process them all, adding that their current organizational chart needs to be updated.
“The Council, as part of their process, has the ability to make changes to the city budget, that has always been true. As part of the MOU associated with the aid being provided by the state, the city’s tax rate will be set at either 15% or 20% depending on what the city chooses,” said city spokesman Nathaniel Styer.
“Regarding Q3 taxes, we are currently past the statutory deadline for approving and sending Q3 estimated tax bills. To help preserve the city’s liquidity, the state is providing an exemption that allows Jersey City to send a Q3 estimated tax bill as soon as possible.”
