City Council 10/15/2008 – Preview

10/15/2008:

Tonight the Dave Roberts budget deficit is going to hit Hoboken like a ton of bricks, but you won’t find much information about it on the city website. All you will find there is an agenda with no backup, despite the fact that resolutions and ordinances are supposed to be posted on the city website for public view on the Friday before a meeting.

hoboken-city-council-meeting-october-1-2008.jpg

Here is what is on the agenda, and what is known about it:

  • Second Reading and Public Hearing on ordinance DR-378 amending chapter 20A of the code of the City of Hoboken, “Professional Services Contracts”. This is the result of a settlement of litigation launched by People for Open Government, who challenged the fact that the city (Mayor Roberts) was not enforcing the Pay-to-Play ban for public contractors properly.
  • Resolution 1: Councilwoman Beth Mason drafted this resolution urging the Port Authority Trans-Hudson System (PATH) to increase evening, weekend and holiday train service to and from Hoboken. Mason has been working on this with Jersey City councilman Steve Fulop, and is joined on the resolution by co-sponsors Dawn Zimmer and Theresa Castellano.
  • Resolution 2: Authorizing emergency temporary appropriations for the SFY 2009 budget (because one again no budget has been adopted, and the process has been held up by the state.)
  • Resolution 3: Awarding a contract for the SFY 2009 Audit “based on the lowest responsible bidder”. Those are the words directly from “The State” which is apparently throwing out earlier bids in favor of a contractor known as a huge Democratic Party campaign contributor. Shouldn’t be much of a surprise when you read the Hoboken411 story about “The State.”
  • Resolution 4: Authorizing estimated tax bills for the first and second quarter of SFY 2009.

    THIS IS THE BIGGY!! New “Fiscal Monitor” Judy Tripodi is telling the council to set a tax levy that would pay for the massive Dave Roberts budget deficits accrued in both the 2008 and 2009 budget years. This could mean a tax levy that could nearly double from 2007 levels. All this thanks to the Roberts overspending that has pushed the budget from $52 million in 2001 when he was elected Mayor to well over $100 million today.

Will the council go along with it?
Will Tripodi even be at the meeting to answer the council’s questions about her plan?
Will the council grow some cohones and start using it’s powers to put people under oath for some real budget hearings to find out where all this money is really going?

The meeting starts at 7pm at City Hall. The agenda is short, but the faces will be long.

Leave a Reply

31 Comments on "City Council 10/15/2008 – Preview"

UrbanRose
Member
UrbanRose

[quote comment=”112274″][quote comment=”112268″][quote comment=”112267″]Seriously – why aren’t we reassessing? Is it fair to raise taxes across the board without looking at the disparity in property values? This is insane![/quote]

For the same reason some people want to cut taxes for people that don’t pay taxes. It is called buying votes.[/quote]

they are not going to buy many votes with a 47% increase[/quote]

Sure they will, they will pay the 47% for them, get there vote, and then they are on their own
😳

dawnrose
Member
dawnrose

I don’t know what to say. I am a renter. My rent is increasing next month. I am a landlord. My condo taxes will also increase. If there is a reassement, my landlords are longterm property owners. My rent may increase again. If I’m going to get screwed I at least want to enjoy it.

oceanbloo
Member
oceanbloo

[quote comment=”111947″][quote comment=”111940″]i should be at the meeting right now instead of posting, but anyway…at some point, people will decide that it is simply not worth it to live here, especially if you know that your kids will never attend public school. the threshold decreases in this economy. at least that is what i hear from my neighbors in the 5th ward.[/quote]

i don’t know why people with kids would live here, the school sucks and the property taxes are high. if you’re gonna pay these taxes, you might as well be in a better school district.[/quote]

Have you seen the taxes in places like Livingston? Parts of Bergen County? You think Hoboken is bad…and it is…but there are far worse places in the state for taxes than Hoboken.

Indiecom@aol.com
Member
[quote comment=”112349″][quote comment=”112346″][quote comment=”112334″] Excuse me, but everyone EXCEPT the PILOT properties owners will get the 47% increase if that is the amount that the tax increase is.[/quote] It’s not that simple. Thanks to lobsided sweetheart assessment deals there are people paying $6000 a year on a three-family rowhouse while condo owners pay $10,000 a year on a two bedroom apartment. Do the math and you will see the tax burden is not fairly shared by any means.[/quote] Indie is very bad at math. He is so fixated on PILOTs that he can’t pay attention to anything else. Just b/c everyone but PILOT payers gets the increase, doesn’t mean the burden of the increase falls on properties w/ artificially low taxes b/c they haven’t been reassessed in 20+ years. The burden falls on non-PILOT properties that were built and assessed recently. Or do you not get that?[/quote] Matt & Red: There are a couple of different issues colliding here. First, the property assessments. It is correct that if there were a reval, in theory, the newer or more recently assessed property taxes would go down. Red, as you probably know, the reason that condos pay more is because they are more recently assessed, (assessed at the time that they were condo’d). Of course, a reval would not take into account the added cost attributable to the newer properties (services, infrastructure, etc.) which I personally believe should be taken into account. However, had the city’s budget not gone out of control,… Read more »
matt_72
Member

[quote comment=”112346″][quote comment=”112334″] Excuse me, but everyone EXCEPT the PILOT properties owners will get the 47% increase if that is the amount that the tax increase is.[/quote]

It’s not that simple. Thanks to lobsided sweetheart assessment deals there are people paying $6000 a year on a three-family rowhouse while condo owners pay $10,000 a year on a two bedroom apartment.

Do the math and you will see the tax burden is not fairly shared by any means.[/quote]

Indie is very bad at math. He is so fixated on PILOTs that he can’t pay attention to anything else.

Just b/c everyone but PILOT payers gets the increase, doesn’t mean the burden of the increase falls on properties w/ artificially low taxes b/c they haven’t been reassessed in 20+ years. The burden falls on non-PILOT properties that were built and assessed recently. Or do you not get that?

wpDiscuz