The Hoboken City Council delayed their budget vote, setting an informal deadline of about one month from now, as they continue to work to reduce the municipal tax increase that was nearly 19 percent last month in the initially approved spending plan.
By John Heinis/Hudson County View
“One, I think it would be great to have some clarity as to what the process is if we approve this tonight, if we move forward, but just for everyone’s benefit, because I think we’re gonna spend a second talking about it, I think some people want to see this carried, and I’m not opposed to it, but I think we should all level set,” began 2nd Ward Councilwoman Tiffanie Fisher.
“What I can tell you is we’re really working hard to bring the tax rate down. You heard [6th Ward] Councilwoman [Diane] Imus at the last meeting say ‘it’s incumbent upon all of us to have that be the top priority’ and we’re trying to get there … We set the budget, but we don’t spend the money.”
Fisher said that she, Imus, and Council President Ruben Ramos came up with a municipal spending plan that brings the tax increase down to 10.5 percent, a sizable drop from the 18.9 percent the council approved in their preliminary $152 million budget last month.
Indicating that the budget is still fluid and acknowledging that four of their colleagues had already asked to carry the resolution, she asked what the implications of approving it tonight would be (essentially a reintroduction).
Business Administrator Jennifer Gonzalez said the council had the ability to vote on budget amendments immediately, though they would be subject to state review, with items increasing or decreasing appropriations by more than 10 percent requiring a public hearing.
“If that hearing is required, we have to provide at least three days notice to the public, which has actually been changed, we can now do that entirely online, which expedites that process. We host the hearing and then adopt the budget. That said, again, that adoption would have to occur after state approval.”
Fisher than asked if further changes could be made between after approval Wednesday evening and before state approval or if nothing could be changed until the next City Council meeting.
Gonzalez said that the council would need to vote on the resolution in this scenario twice either way.
Ramos assured residents that “the work is getting put in to lower it [the tax increase] as much as we can,” which 5th Ward Councilman Phil Cohen agreed with.
He also noted he appreciated the effort Ramos, Fisher, and Imus took on digging into their municipal finances, adding that since the full council didn’t receive it until late in the afternoon, it was difficult to give everything they proposed a thorough review.
For that reason, Cohen felt that it made sense to carry the measure so that further discussions between the council and administration could be had.
Councilman at-Large Joe Quintero said “I do believe there is some serious work happening,” but still wanted to see the resolution carried since he did not have time to look it over in detail just yet.
He also acknowledged the proposals from 1st Ward Councilman Paul Presinzano and 3rd Ward Councilman Mike Russo, who said on Friday they could get the tax hike down to 2.9 percent in a best case scenario (Mayor Emily Jabbour essentially called them pie in the sky ideas).
“With respect to the next resolution, there’s some cuts, I’d like to look at cuts too. From my perspective, I want to put it through an analysis,” Quintero expressed.
“If it’s a legitimate cut, i.e. one that we can legally do, right, because there’s some that we can’t without opening contracts and a bunch of other of things, then I want us to have a conversation to say ‘is this a service people are willing to live without in Hoboken, either for a year or multiple years, or not?'”
Ramos then said he would the measure would be carried, adding that they’re “working diligently to get to a better place,” noting that their starting point was a 24 percent tax increase, telling his colleagues reaching the best outcome requires some serious homework.
He also vowed to get the budget complete by the council’s second meeting in June.
Presinzano then explained why he and Russo have been so vocal about cutting expenses.
“If we don’t do structural cuts, we’re gonna be back at the table next year saying the same thing, and we’re gonna be fighting again, discussing again, the same things that we are this year,” he asserted.
“It’s pretty simple: across the state, COVID money – when you give politicians a pot of gold, they waste it. Alright, simply said. 50 percent went to revenue regeneration in this city, 18 percent, went to COVID itself, supplies and everything behind it, and the rest – creative ways.”
He added that the council is elected to make difficult decisions, going as far as telling voters not to elect him if he’s going to take the easy way out and say budgetary issues aren’t in his control.
Quintero said that while he remains in favor of a tax increase while remaining fiscally responsible, he didn’t feel comfortable setting the tax increase between 3.2 and 5.3 percent, and overall feeling it was vague and that the revenue generators wouldn’t have an impact this year.
“This is just another example of how we’re trying to find creative ways to reduce costs, and basically, that’s all really this is, a framework of ideas, and similarly, I’m not sure I agree with all of them, but overall, I agree with the concept of sitting down the administration and maybe going through some of these ideas,” Fisher stated.
Cohen said he didn’t hear about the Presinzano/Russo budget concepts until late Friday after it had been published.
“If we’re talking about working together in an apolitical way to solve the city’s problems about serious issues, then the first time I’m asked for comment about this shouldn’t be from a reporter, it should be from the people who are presenting this.”
Russo responded in kind, beginning by saying that he felt is was bs that when the mayor and council members aligned with her communicate with the public and that when everyone else do it, it’s political.
“As far as tough decisions, as far as what was presented to this council in the form of a resolution, I followed the framework of what was presented: I spoke to council president, I spoke to the business administrator, I found out very early in the process what exactly is required of the council to get an amendment on,” he detailed.
“This resolution is in the same vein as Councilwoman Imus’ and Councilwoman Fisher’s and and Council President Ramos’, just to say this is our framework. This is what we believe. So Joe, I appreciate that you don’t agree with that [tax increase] range. Absolutely. We can all disagree, I have no problem with that. But to say we’re not doing the work is an absolute lie.”
The resolution was approved 5-4, with Presinzano, Fisher, Russo, Ramos, and Imus voting yes.
