The primary focus of the meeting was the proposal to increase construction permit fees, which ignited a debate among council members and city officials. The proposed fee adjustments, which have not been updated since 2010, aim to impose a 10% increase on certain fees associated with construction permits. The city had previously collected approximately $1.2 million from such fees in the past year. However, council members questioned the rationale behind the fee increases, expressing concerns about the impact on residents and the necessity of aligning with state-mandated fee structures.

The construction department’s budget was scrutinized, with officials disclosing salaries within the department, including $120,000 for the director and $100,000 for the assistant director. Several positions remained unfilled, contributing to a backlog in processing permits, which currently takes 90 to 120 days—far exceeding the state’s 21-day requirement. The assistant director attributed these delays to understaffing, admitting that the department operates at less than half its required capacity.

A council member challenged the assistant director’s qualifications and the accuracy of the information presented, demanding specific details on the proposed fees and questioning the compliance with state guidelines. The assistant director suggested consulting the Department of Community Affairs for further clarity but faced criticism for not providing immediate answers, leading to accusations of unpreparedness and evasiveness.

Further complicating matters, a council member highlighted the city’s lack of responsiveness to complaints about illegal construction activities, questioning the justification for increasing fees without addressing these violations. The speaker demanded transparency in the department’s revenue projections, suggesting discrepancies between the reported $1.6 million revenue and actual figures, which they estimated should be closer to $5 or $6 million.

The meeting also addressed the Garden State Growth Zone program, with a council member expressing frustration over the city’s inaction in voting to extend its participation in the program, which allows for a 30-year tax abatement for developers. The council member argued that this inaction rendered projects entering the growth zone since 2023 ineligible for the program, contrasting Paterson’s approach with other municipalities that had taken affirmative votes.

Speakers addressed issues, including the treatment of historical figures in Paterson, the need for genuine public service, and criticism of council members’ actions. The discussions were emotionally charged, with calls for change in leadership and governance practices.

The meeting concluded with council members expressing their positions on upcoming elections and the need for continued engagement with the community. Some members welcomed the new business administrator, Mr. Ba, expressing optimism about his potential contributions to the city. Acknowledgments were also made about ongoing improvements in the city and the importance of maintaining open communication with residents.