- short-term rentals
- the status of the Tourism Board and its finances
- raising the parking meter fees on Warren Street
- raising the City fee schedule
Several of the issues mentioned by DePietro were the subject of resolutions and a local law introduced during the informal meeting that immediately followed. On the subject of ADA compliance, there was a resolution transferring $5,000 from the contingency fund to provide additional compensation to mayor's aide Michael Chameides, who has been designated the ADA Coordinator, a position required by the settlement agreement with the federal government.
On the subject of short-term rentals, the local law imposing a "moratorium on the registration or operation of any short-term lodging facility in the City of Hudson" was reintroduced. This time, the proposed moratorium is not for nine months, as it was in the past, but for six months.
On the subject of the Tourism Board and its finances, a local law was proposed that would amend the law that created lodging tax. The amendment would not eliminate the Tourism Board, but it would eliminate its funding. At the present time, a portion of the revenue from the lodging tax, up to $250,000 a year, is set aside for the use of the Tourism Board, and Section 275-41 of the law empowers the Tourism Board "to take all steps it determines desirable, necessary and proper to market the City of Hudson as a destination for overnight and day-trip visitors by making use of the funds set aside." Last summer, when the Tourism Board wanted to use some of its money to hire a consultant to help craft a strategic marketing plan, the Council refused to give its approval. The proposed amendment that was introduced on Monday states:
The City of Hudson finds that the dedicated revenue from the short-term lodging tax unnecessarily constrains the ability of the City to meet the other fiscal needs of the City to protect the health, welfare and safety of City residents. This local law provides for the revenues from the short-term lodging tax to be deposited in the City's general fund and be allocated during the regular budget process to support the efforts of the Tourism Board as the City deems appropriate and necessary.The proposed amendment does not alter the makeup of the Tourism Board. As before, the chair of the Economic Development Committee, now Calvin Lewis, serves as the chair of the Tourism Board, which is made up of four members who are appointed by the mayor and four members who are appointed by the Common Council. The amendment, however, does not define the terms of those serving on the Tourism Board.
On the issue of the Youth Department, a resolution was introduced to transfer a total of $72,983 from the fund balance "to pay for the projected staffing needs of the Hudson Youth Center and Oakdale Summer Camp." The money requested to pay part-time personnel had been cut in the budget process in November.
In the discussion of the proposed resolution, Alderman Eileen Halloran (Fifth Ward) suggested it was "premature in January to ask for it to be the number you wanted . . . just because you didn't get it in the budget." Alderman Jane Trombley (First Ward) observed that the amount requested was "almost 10 percent of the entire budget" for the Youth Department. (It's actually more than 10 percent. The 2020 budget for the Youth Department is $580,150.) Halloran continued, "We need to see what happens as the year goes on. Every department could come in and ask for what they didn't get." Youth Director Nick Zachos explained that he was "going through the process of building an employee structure" and argued that he would "have to start cutting people right now" if he didn't get the money.
DePietro suggested that the money might come from the contingency budget instead of the fund balance, since the fund balance is currently as low as it has been in recent memory, and, according to the City's own policies, no more money can be taken from it. Trombley asked Zachos if the money from Friends of Hudson Youth figured into the budget and was told that money was used for programming. (Two resolutions regarding the not-for-profit Friends of Hudson Youth were also introduced: one authorizing the acceptance of donations from the organization; the other authorizing the mayor to execute a memorandum of understanding with Friends of Hudson Youth for future donations to the Youth Department.) Alderman Rebecca Wolff (First Ward) observed "the idea is to provide a stable budget not something that has to be raised."
Toward the end of the meeting, Alderman Malachi Walker (Fourth Ward), who has been appointed chair of the Youth Committee, opined that the Youth Department should be "our primary focus" and said he didn't understand "why there is such tension" over the department's budget. He offered to donate $50 from his monthly Council salary to the Youth Department. Alderman John Rosenthal (Fourth Ward) suggested that the $300,000 set aside, under the original lodging tax law, for the Tourism Board, "that we can't touch," should go to the Youth Department.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CAROLE OSTERINK
This past summer I noticed that an employee of the Youth Department was cutting the grass at Oakdale Park with a ride-on mower, whereas in previous years it was always done by the DPW. I asked Nick about this at a recent public meeting and he claimed that DPW was not mowing the grass often enough while camp was in session, so they took it on themselves. I think that his claim about DPW is bunk, but nonetheless Nick and his underfunded department now has a brand new looking ride-on mower stored outside at the park in a cheap tarp covered structure, a mower that is used for one park with not a whole lot of grass during a two month summer camp. Presumably they used budgeted money to purchase that mower and the structure and of course they now have to pay someone to mow the grass every week while DPW continues to mow every other blade of City-owned grass weekly. It's one thing DPW does well and consistently. Where's the oversight for unnecessary spending like this? It's absurd.
ReplyDeletebb, your comment is particularly damning! I keep mulling it over and shaking my head.
DeleteCity taxpayers deserve an explanation.
Thanks for keeping an eye on this.
get this, unh -- I noticed early last year that the bath house at Oakdale had no downspouts attached to the gutters and so all the rain water off the roof lands at the base of the walls, forming lakes of water that eventually drain into the foundation (go have a look for yourself at the next rain). We all know this is to be avoided, esp. at a building like this that already has numerous issues and smells musty to begin with. So I ask Nick at a meeting why this is so and he says that OSHA laws prevent Youth Dept employees from getting on a ladder, and that they will have to hire a contractor to install the downspouts and diverters. I ask, "What about DPW, why haven't they done anything about it? It is a City-owned property, can't they handle it?" His reply: "Bill, you'll have to ask DPW that question." And he stared at me as if to say that there was nothing else to say about the issue.
DeleteOn a historic and important City building the Youth Dept. takes its sweet time to fix a simple problem by paying a contractor to do the work instead. This is beyond absurd. I think it is also called disfunction.
DPW spent $18,000 this past fall to have a company, ALWAYS SAFE SIDEWALKS, inspect and remove the smallest of the tripping hazards on City property and (mostly) the sidewalks abutting them. 7 sites were chosen for actual work. The so-called tripping hazards removed were the smallest of the small -- only a business that survives by pointing out tripping hazards would call them such. Since the company doesn't replace concrete, the worst of the worst hazards (usually where concrete pads are pushed up by tree roots) we all have to deal with and can inflict major harm are still with us $18,000 later. Go to the back of the pocket park next to Mexican Radio and see the hazard that $18,000 got us -- it's been there for years and it's slowly getting worse, now about a 2 inch lip 3 feet across. Go to the municipal lot on Union Street's 600 block and notice the hazards on the sidewalk on each side of the entrance. This is what DPW's investment got us. $18,000 spent, like it's play money. Who okays this?
ReplyDeleteIn August I watched an approximately 60-year-old man trip and fall right where you describe, at the entrance of the Union Street municipal lot on the 600 block.
DeleteI waited in my car until he stood up, brushed himself off, and limped away.
un -- I saw a similarly-aged male fall there, too, but in November. He was already not too steady on his feet, had a bag or two of produce from the indoor farm market, turned his head to say something to me as I bicycled by and next thing he was on the ground struggling to get on his feet. He eventually walked away after about 30 seconds, shaking his finger at the hazard that dropped him. I said, "Sue the City," and we parted. Of course, if someone did sue the City for falling there, the hazards would be cordoned off or repaired immediately. I guess the DPW's thinking is that it's best to WAIT AND SEE what happens and then act.
DeleteIn view of the new high taxes on properties ($38,000) purportedly for one on Allen Street alone, I should think the City's
ReplyDeletetreasury is flush with funds, not short.
I doubt that figure is just for city taxes. It is the total property tax bill, which includes city, county, and school district. Typically, the school district tax is more than twice the city and county combined.
Delete
ReplyDeleteSince BB’s post is being qualified as “damning” by some, I will comment here to clarify the issue for everyone.
1. Lawn mowers and weed wackers are loud and can sometimes fling projectiles long distances so they can’t be used during regular work hours while our camp is in session. For this reason we undertake the majority of mowing responsibilities at the park on our own schedule but we work closely with the DPW to coordinate these services and are grateful for all the help that we get from them.
3. We have NOT purchased any new riding lawn mowers. I decided last summer to put some energy into fixing up the old diesel tractor (with help from the DPW) that our Department has owned for the better part of two decades. With the mowing deck attached we found we could finish the roughly 2 acres we mow in under half the time of push mowers, resulting in some small but real savings for the tax-payers. For someone to mistake this tractor for a newly purchased model is beyond belief. I will post a photo with a link below so that readers can judge for themselves.
We have gotten used to fielding comments that seemed aimed at smearing the Youth Department rather than bringing up real issues. Rest assured we will not let this keep us from happily striving to answer all questions and concerns raised by the community.
We love Oakdale and we know you all do too.
http://cms3.revize.com/revize/hudsonny/Youth%20Center/IMG_20200116_130527%20(1).jpg
Good answer. I take it back. No need to post photos.
ReplyDeleteYou didn't address the gutter issue though, and the fellow's right that gutters are important for a number of reasons. So what's true?
The gutters absolutely need fixing. We are NOT allowed to be up on ladders that high per federal OSHA regulations, so contractors will be neccessry. That is all true. As in BB's other comments, the details, quotes and presentation bare no connection to reality. We do not have any funds allocated for gutter repair at Oakdale this year unfortunately. We are hoping to do major renovations to the building in the years to come in collaboration with Friends of Oakdale.
ReplyDeleteHere was the question again:
Delete"What about DPW, why haven't they done anything about [the gutters]? It is a City-owned property, can't they handle it?"
I don't know that there isn't a perfectly good answer, but what is it?
I want to expand my use of the word "disfunction" and not lay it all on the Youth Department. If you own a house with several issues that need attention and you can't afford to pay for them all, if you know what's good for you you start with the simplest and cheapest, don't you? In the case of the bathhouse that low hanging fruit would be the downspouts and diverters (the gutters are okay Nick - they are capturing the water off the roof). Youth isn't allowed to do the job themselves, and DPW with its ladders and bucket lift has either not been asked to do it, refuses to do it or cannot do it for whatever reason. And yet City Hall (Mayor, common council, etc) can't get a few hundred dollars together to do a prudent thing to keep water away from a historic building that is open to ALL Hudson residents, not just the Youth Dept. This should not be solely the Youth Dept's problem to fix. So the gutters, downspouts, etc. MAY get done next year? It should have been done by now -- not the entire roof, but the simple, effective first step. It's systemic disfunction that allows this to happen, as well as maybe Nick not asking forcefully enough to get a few hundred dollars in his budget for this. And then Youth spending several hundred dollars on a wooden platform in the back of the park woods for a few kids who are afraid to sit on the ground, a platform which sits unused for 10 months of the year while every drop of rain and snow throughout the entire year that falls on the roof seeps into the foundation of a once lovely bath house, exacerbating an already deteriorated structure. After all that ballyhoo about Oakdale last year and all the plans and ideas and yet we/Youth/City Hall can't figure out how to install simple downspouts. What else explains it besides disfunction?
ReplyDeleteMy last word on Oakdale: Nick was correct that I was not correct about a few things. The mower is definitely not new, as I did not take a good look at it originally. It's easy now to see my mistake because the mower is currently no longer covered by the tarp structure I mentioned (my second misstatement) -- it's just sitting out in the open behind the bball courts. Last night it got snowed on. Should it surprise anyone that a department that doesn't see the urgency in downspouts and diverters to keep moisture away and out of a building decides that storing a mower outside uncovered is not a problem? And what about all the lumber stored outside uncovered -- does that have any value, Nick? The canoes left outside -- were those paid for with tax dollars? You built a structure to protect and secure a bunch of unrideable bicycles that MAYBE some day will get worked on (a project you have been talking about for years..), but a lawn mower gets snowed on? Would it have been okay if it had rained last, too? And the pile of trash that has been at the entrance for months -- how does that reflect your "love" for this public park?
ReplyDelete