Jersey City Municipal Council Special Meeting – September 18, 2025: Budget Amendment Hearing and Adoption

This special meeting of the Jersey City Municipal Council was held on September 18, 2025, at 6:01 p.m. to conduct a public hearing on the 2025 budget amendment and to consider final adoption of the municipal budget. The meeting was called to order with eight council members present. After public testimony and a vote to close the hearing, the council adopted the 2025 municipal budget by a vote of 6-2.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Anthony Migliori (Ward F, member of Traffic Reform Warriors) described his “Project Safe Turn,” which identified at least 61 intersections missing required “no turn on red” signs and an additional 42 intersections awaiting signs from earlier this year. He argued that the real barrier is staffing, not cost, and expressed support for investing in the Department of Infrastructure to add engineering positions. He noted a proposed $1.2 million amendment to fund such positions did not pass. He urged the council to shift from reactive, ticket-driven maintenance to proactive safety improvements and to avoid underfunding infrastructure, stating that it “costs lives and leaves residents paying more for less.”
• Danielle Didamo (lifelong resident, public school teacher, member of Environmental Commission) expressed concern about tax increases and underfunded departments. She called for four actions: 1) a full independent audit of the finance department, 2) directing surplus to infrastructure and quality-of-life projects (safe intersections, tree canopy, stormwater systems), 3) transparency on tax increases including alternatives considered, and 4) multi-year budgeting with realistic forecasts. She argued that raising taxes without fixing inefficiencies erodes trust and that fiscal health and environmental health are inseparable.
• Anne-Marie Zarrow (Jersey City Together, Our Lady of Sorrows Parish) commended the city for achieving 35% affordable housing at Bayfront but questioned the number of PILOTs (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) for market-rate and commercial developments (91) versus affordable and mixed-income (56). She asked what percentage of affordable housing is required when PILOTs are granted for market-rate projects and requested a spreadsheet showing the breakdown. She also advocated for a mental health and addiction crisis outreach program, noting that police are not equipped for such crises.
• Bill Lillis (Jersey City Together, parishioner at Our Lady of Sorrows) noted the anniversary of Drew Washington’s death and urged the council to establish a 24/7 mental health outreach program that pairs workers with police. He referenced a $1.2 million RFP that has been issued and urged the city to spend it effectively. He also called for better attention to the public safety budget and for community policing that listens to community needs.

Discussion Items

• Councilperson Solomon (voting no) characterized the budget as “kicking the can down the road,” citing a $25+ million one-time land sale used to plug a budget gap, which he said will lead to a larger tax increase next year. He argued that the city has used one-time revenues for eight years and that core priorities—traffic enforcement, engineering, landlord-tenant and housing preservation, sanitation, recreation—remain underfunded.
• Councilperson Gilmore (voting no) said the council “failed on multiple fronts” and that the timing (September 17) forced a vote under pressure. He highlighted the depleted Department of Recreation and argued that investing in youth enrichment upfront prevents later costs. He said he could not support a budget that does not look out for regular Jersey City residents.
• Councilperson Soleil (voting yes) noted the budget has a marginal tax increase (less than 1%) and that the city faces rising health care costs ($25.4 million increase) and market pressures. He explained that he voted against the proposed $1.2 million infrastructure amendment because the Department of Infrastructure said hiring new staff with only three months left in the year would be a hindrance, not a help.
• Councilperson Ridley (voting yes) acknowledged the budget is not perfect but said he appreciated efforts to make changes. He noted that holding up the budget at the final hour would not be productive.
• Council President Waterman (voting yes) clarified that the budget increase is $5.5 million over the introduced version, with a total budget of $750 million and a tax rate of 0.819 (0.97% increase). On an average assessed home of $481,000, the increase is $3 per month ($37 per year). He noted that the city is losing money from uncollected fees and permits and argued that better enforcement could recoup revenue. He also mentioned that the county and school district tax increases also affect residents.

Key Outcomes

• Public hearing closed on the 2025 municipal budget amendment: motion carried 8-0 (Councilperson Tejis absent).
• Resolution 10.1 adopted (calendar year 2025 municipal budget): approved 6-2, with Councilpersons Solomon and Gilmore voting no. The budget totals $750 million with a 0.97% tax increase.
• The meeting was adjourned at 6:34 p.m.