Jersey City Municipal Council Special Meeting on Budget Amendment - August 27, 2026

This special meeting of the Jersey City Municipal Council was convened to hold a public hearing and vote on amendments to the Calendar Year 2026 municipal budget. The council considered two resolutions: a resolution authorizing additional amendments to the budget (26-535) and a resolution to adopt the budget as amended (26-536). The meeting included extensive public testimony and council debate, culminating in the adoption of a budget with a 15.15% tax increase, supported by a $105 million state loan and $15 million grant.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Yvonne (former resident) : Criticized the absence of a "friendly budget" (detailed budget summary), questioned the increase in deferred charges from $46 million to $47 million despite a $105 million state loan, and the reduction in the reserve for accumulated absences. She opposed the tax increase and argued the budget unfairly burdens long-term homeowners while subsidizing affordable housing.
• Stephanie Starz: Questioned the use of the $120 million in state aid, noting that only $57 million in deferred charges are being paid off in 2026. She highlighted discrepancies between the mayor's claims and the audit, and criticized the city for not applying for available state grants. She also raised concerns about the funding sources for the Right to Counsel program and potential conflicts of interest.
• Washington: Asked whether the budget includes funding for community recreation, youth programs, and after-school activities, noting he raises his own money for local kids' sports. He urged the city to help the poor and middle class.
• Tina (Education at Gilmore) : Emphasized the need for housing assistance and eviction prevention, called for community solutions rather than blame, and thanked the council for their efforts.
• Megan Nabb: Asked a process question about why speakers do not receive immediate answers from the council.
• Peter Carter: Opposed the 15% tax increase, warning it would lead to more homelessness. He urged the council not to pass the budget and accused the mayor of breaking campaign promises on affordability.
• Additional public speakers (during regular public requests): Laverne, Tina, Yvonne, and Stephanie reiterated concerns about tax increases, deferred charges, and the need for community support.

Discussion Items

• Budget Amendment Reading: The city clerk read the full amendment into the record, detailing changes to revenues and appropriations, including increases in local revenues (e.g., ABC fees, parking fees, scrap material sales), adjustments to state aid, and changes to various departmental appropriations. The amendment also included a $3 million increase for a 2019 tax overpayment as required by the Division of Local Government Services (DLGS).
• Councilmember Statements on Vote:
  • Councilperson Brooks: Voted yes, noting the budget funds public safety, right to counsel, restores some jobs, and consolidates debt. He acknowledged it does not fix all problems.
  • Councilperson Zupa: Voted yes, stating the tax increase was necessary due to the structural deficit, but expressed frustration over lack of funding for library, museum, and workers' rights. He emphasized the need for better prioritization.
  • Councilperson Efros: Voted yes, calling the tax increase regressive but necessary given state constraints. She highlighted modest cuts to police overtime, funding for right to counsel, mental health crisis response, and restoration of low-paid positions.
  • Councilperson Little: Voted yes, noting the DLGS mandated a minimum 15% increase. She emphasized the amendment reduced the increase from 15.5% to 15.15%, and allocated funds to right to counsel, mental health, recreation, and senior transportation.
  • Councilperson Gilmore: Voted yes reluctantly, calling it a "barely aye" vote. She stressed the need for measurable benchmarks and public reporting to prevent future mismanagement.
  • Councilperson Singh: Voted yes with a "sad heart," expressing concern over losing longtime residents. She highlighted positive outcomes like restoring the senior bus driver and funding for mental health and park maintenance.
  • Councilperson Griffin: Abstained, explaining that many residents are unfairly burdened and that he had a meeting with DCA to explore relief options for homeowners. He noted the loan and grant prevented a 30% tax increase.
  • Councilperson Lavaro: Voted yes to stay at the table, but disagreed with the administration's approach. He emphasized ongoing work to bring direct service programs and to fix the city's finances for the 2027 budget.
  • Council President Ridley: Voted yes, thanked the council and administration, and outlined next steps including forming a council finance committee, establishing a fund balance policy, and pushing for better loan terms and state assistance.

Key Outcomes

• Resolution 26-535 (Additional Amendments): Approved unanimously 9-0. The amendments included a $3 million increase for a 2019 tax overpayment, adjustments to reserves (e.g., reducing reserve for bargaining agreements and accumulated absences), and detailing of deferred charges.
• Resolution 26-536 (Adopt Budget as Amended): Approved 8-0-1 with Councilperson Griffin abstaining. The budget includes a 15.15% tax increase, a $105 million state loan, and a $15 million grant. Key allocations: $200,000 moved from police overtime to other services; increased funding for right to counsel by 50%; expanded mental health crisis response; restored a senior bus driver; and added two park maintenance staff.
• Next Steps: The council will form a finance committee, establish a fund balance policy, and begin work on the 2027 budget immediately. They will also push for improved loan terms and state resources for residents.