Jersey City Municipal Council Special Meeting on Tax Increase – July 6, 2026

A special meeting of the Jersey City Municipal Council was held on July 6, 2026, starting at 6:22 p.m. and adjourning at 11:04 p.m. The sole business item was Resolution 26-424, which sought authorization from the Director of the Division of Local Government Services (DLGS) to increase the estimated third-quarter property tax levy by 15% to spread the 2026 tax increase across Q3 and Q4. After extensive public comment and deliberation, the council voted unanimously (9-0) to defeat the resolution, citing lack of a complete budget, insufficient transparency, and the need to explore all alternatives before burdening residents.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Dozens of residents spoke overwhelmingly against the proposed 15% tax increase. Many described it as unaffordable and warned it would drive long-term residents out of their homes.
• Jeannie Stallman (Ward F) stated her taxes would reach $20,000 with the increase and called for deeper cuts and for the city to challenge the Board of Education budget.
• Sue Haas expressed disappointment that a 20% increase was even considered and urged the council to reduce city expenses through attrition and state appeals.
• Sarah Bernal emphasized fiscal responsibility and called for an audit of city finances from 2020–2025, noting that residents deserve a clear explanation of how decisions are made.
• Jonathan Kay questioned the lack of emphasis on raising revenues (e.g., short-term debt financing, PILOTs) and argued that the city could have raised $115 million through tax anticipation notes.
• Charlene Burke proposed voluntary furloughs and vacation buybacks to reduce payroll, and requested a line-item budget showing year-to-date expenditures.
• Yvonne Balser accused the mayor of breaking a campaign promise not to raise taxes and contrasted the 15% tax hike with the 4% rent control cap, calling rent control “privileged.”
• Esther Whitner and Pam Johnson asked whether the council had been told that a 15% increase was a condition of state aid; council members referred the question to the mayor.
• Albert Harari, Eric Connor, Meng Wu, and others demanded a line-item budget before any tax vote and warned of a “recall” campaign if the council passed the increase.
• Sonia Kirchner and Kevin Weller highlighted the city’s failure to collect millions in fines from landlords violating local laws, arguing that enforcement could cover the deficit without raising taxes.
• Adrian Orozco (32BJ SEIU) and Shane Mitchell (Hotel & Gaming Trades Council) supported the tax increase as necessary to avoid layoffs and service cuts, while emphasizing the need to protect workers.
• Several speakers, including Donna Risurucci and Jeff Vorkheimer, acknowledged the difficulty of the situation and urged the council to prioritize long-term solutions.

Discussion Items

• Resolution 26-424 – The council considered a resolution to request DLGS approval to exceed the 105% estimated billing cap and mail estimated Q3 tax bills reflecting a 15% increase. The administration argued that without this, the entire 2026 tax hike would be concentrated in the Q4 bill (due November 1), creating a severe burden for homeowners.
• State Aid Conditions – Mayor James Solomon reported that the city secured a $120 million state aid package ($105 million loan, $15 million grant) to address a $255 million deficit. He stated that the DLGS had concluded a 20% tax increase was necessary to balance the budget without mass layoffs, but after listening to the public and the council, the administration reduced it to 15% through $11 million in cuts (e.g., park maintenance, VIA program).
• DCA Authority – Corporation Counsel and Finance Director Bill explained that the DLGS has broad authority to set tax rates if a municipality fails to adopt a budget. The council was informed that the DLGS offered two options for the loan: a 15% increase with a 10-year repayment at 2.75% interest, or a 20% increase with a 15-year repayment at 2.25% interest.
• Attempt to Amend – Councilmembers Gilmore and Ridley moved to amend the resolution to 12%, but the Finance Director stated he could not recalculate the exact levy numbers on the spot. Corporation Counsel cited NJSA 54:4-66.3a2 requiring consultation with the tax collector and CFO, so the amendment was voted down (0-9).
• Closed Session – The council voted 9-0 to enter closed session from 9:30 p.m. to 10:19 p.m. to discuss litigation and contract negotiations related to the MOU with the state. Corporation Counsel noted that discussions would be narrowly focused and likely become public soon.

Key Outcomes

• Resolution 26-424 was defeated by a unanimous vote of 9-0. Councilmembers who spoke before the vote explained they could not support the resolution without a full budget, and they wanted to exhaust all other options, including spending cuts, revenue enhancements, and enforcement of existing fines.
• Budget process moving forward: The council will hold budget hearings starting the week of July 13, with the final budget to be introduced in July and adopted in August. A final tax rate will be set at that time, with the full year's increase likely falling on the Q4 bill (due November 1).
• Next meeting: The council will reconvene on July 15, 2026, at 6:00 p.m.
• Call for action: Several councilmembers urged residents to prepare for a substantial Q4 tax increase and committed to pursuing all available measures to reduce the burden, including exploring revenue from traffic enforcement, land leases, and potential state legislation to allow a municipal income tax on high earners.