Hoboken council takes up eight-year police memorandum amid mixed support and public comment

The Hoboken City Council on March 5 considered and recorded a vote on a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the Hoboken Police Benevolent Association Local 2, drawing both public support from the union and concern from several council members about long-term fiscal impacts.

The MOA was introduced during the public-comment period, when Andrew Perez, president of the Hoboken Police Benevolent Association Local 2, urged the council to approve what he described as “a fair 8 year agreement” that would help recruit and retain officers amid sharply lower applicant numbers in recent years. “This contract is not just about numbers, it’s about the future, the quality of policing in Hoboken,” Perez said.

Council members expressed contrasting views in the subsequent discussion. Councilmember Fisher said the council received the contract terms late in the week and raised concern that an eight-year agreement with material backloaded costs should be reviewed in greater detail before final approval. “We should have a full understanding … this is one of the biggest contracts,” Fisher said, and she asked that the council consider carrying the item so budget implications could be examined in advance of the fiscal process.

Other speakers in public comment split between support and caution. Penny Ahmed and Dini Ajmani urged the council to address underlying recruitment and retirement issues beyond salary alone; Ajmani specifically raised the city’s Police and Fire Retirement System (PFRS) contributions and warned that rising PFRS costs could strain the city budget.

Council members recorded roll-call votes on the item during the meeting. Several members voted in favor while others abstained; some members said they would like additional time to review the contract details before final ratification. The transcript records multiple Aye votes and at least two abstentions during the recorded roll call.

The council did not finalize an extensive public explanation of all fiscal projections on the record at the meeting. Members asking for more time cited late receipt of contract terms and a desire to understand starting salaries, step increases and effects on retirement obligations before permanently binding the city to a multi‑year commitment.

The council’s recorded discussion and the public comments make clear the MOA will proceed through the council’s normal contract-approval process; several members asked staff for additional financial detail and for the item to be returned so the next council action can reflect a full budgetary review.

Community members and union leaders framed the issue as one balancing recruitment and retention against long-term municipal costs; the council’s next steps are expected to be guided by the additional fiscal information staff provides and any follow-up public input.