Wednesday, September 2, 2020

Thinking About the City Budget

This morning, the Board of Estimate and Apportionment (BEA), which is made up of the mayor, the Common Council president, and the city treasurer, met to discuss the city budget and the anticipated budget shortfall this year as a consequence of the pandemic. The BEA met previously, on August 19, a meeting that Gossips missed, but what was decided at the meeting was reviewed today. Here are the actions from that meeting:
  • A hiring freeze has been imposed for all city departments until the end of 2021
  • Updated 10 percent cuts were requested from all departments
  • Expenditures of more than $1,000 must be approved by the BEA
Today's meeting began with an executive session, during which the members of the BEA discussed appropriating $23,000 from the general fund to pay a consultant who will manage the City's efforts to achieve ADA compliance. It will be remembered that last year the City entered into a settlement agreement with the Department of Justice in a lawsuit brought by three Hudson residents over the City's lack of ADA accessibility.

The updated budget cuts were the major topic of discussion at today's meeting. Mayor Kamal Johnson had directed the department heads to propose budget cuts that did not involve laying off or furloughing any workers. The budget cuts for 2020 now being considered, two thirds of the way through the year, amount to:
  • $49,000  Police Department
  • $20,000  Department of Public Works
  • $24,000  Fire Department
  • $25,000  Youth Department
  • $3,000  Treasurer's Office
  • $11,000  Clerk's Office
It was determined that nothing could be cut from the budgets for the mayor's office, the Common Council, or the code enforcement office. The total cuts amount to $132,000. At the last Common Council Finance Committee meeting, city treasurer Heather Campbell projected a revenue shortfall for 2020 of between $1.3 and $1.9 million. All the budget cuts proposed amount to only a tenth of the best case scenario of lost revenue. Johnson concluded: "None of this is enough. We'll have to go to the fund balance." He indicated that he was still hoping for a bailout from the federal government.

Council president Tom DePietro suggested that the fund balance could be built back up by the sale of City-owned property. DePietro caused a bit of a brouhaha last week when he suggested at the Common Council Fire Committee meeting that the time may have come to sell the Hoysradt firehouse on Warren Street. The J. W. Hoysradt Hose & Chemical Company resisted consolidation back in 2005, when the Central Fire Station was built, and there is no indication that sentiments have changed. Nearly 50 percent of Hudson's volunteer fire fighters are members of the Hoysradt company. In today's meeting, DePietro stated emphatically that Hoysradt "is not on the chopping block." 

DePietro seemed to have other properties in mind--properties owned by the City that stand vacant and properties the City leases to others. He mentioned specifically the house at the Churchtown Reservoir, which was once occupied by a DPW employee who was charged with "watching the water." Campbell spoke of the leased buildings, noting that there was an issue with the City being a landlord "when we are not charging market rate rent." DePietro said he had a list of City-owned properties and suggested that the sale of property be discussed that the next meeting of the BEA, which will take place on Wednesday, September 9, at 11:30 a.m.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CAROLE OSTERINK

33 comments:

  1. STOP granting pilot grants to rich people perhaps ...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Carole, did anyone mention the income impact of the proposed Short Term Rental law?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nope, but so far as I can see, they haven't determined the amortization period yet, so I'll guessing they're hoping we are out of the pandemic woods by then.

      Delete
    2. Note that even if the amortization period is set at a long period like 5 years, the proposed STR law would still reduce tax revenue because it would prohibit new short-term rentals of non-owner-occupied residencies for more than 60 days a year. The amortization period would only allow continuing use up to a certain period of time for people who previously rented their homes out as STRs and paid a lodging tax prior to March 2020. - Mark S

      Delete
  3. Watched today as the DPW foreman was doing something in the 7th street park while his city-issued pickup truck sat nearby with its engine idling for at least ten minutes before I walked away. They are obviously not serious about saving money - a $20,000 cut in the budget? 5 grand less than the Youth Dept? It's obscene, just like the cavalier WE CAN IDLE OUR TRUCKS AS WE PLEASE attitude is. Department of Public Waste. Bill Huston

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just stop paying the DPW to torture all the spirea in all the parks would probably save the budget AND beautify the town - as it was intended to look !!!

      Delete
    2. Wow, that idling engine probably cost us all 15 or 20 cents!

      Delete
    3. We're in it quite a bit deeper than that.

      Delete
    4. Defintely, save the spirea, leave it alone.

      Delete
  4. Let's face reality. Unless something major - MAJOR - is done from a budget reduction standpoint the City is going to deplete the General Fund and subsequently go bankrupt. You have no money to pay people they either work for free, quit or are let go. The first two options don't seem possible and the last (the City) won't happen. This should have been addressed in April/May as a "worst case scenario". It's here now with no plan. Hudson, once again, continues to live in the moment with no advanced planning or forethought. Cue the Darth Vader theme song.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The City Treasurer has been sounding the alarm for months. The mayor seems to be wishing his way out of the problem, while the Common Council President proposes selling off what little financial cushion we have as a way to avoid a harsh reality

      If we are rescued from this calamity, it will be in spite of Johnson and DePietro's poor stewardship.

      Delete
    2. "Poor stewardship' is a kind assessment. In reality "blatant incompetence and horrific ignorance" might be a better choice of words.

      Delete
    3. Or it could be because of them...

      Delete
    4. In fairness to the Mayor and Common Council President, neither of them expected to have to step up to this moment. As Michelle Obama put it, it is what it is.

      Delete
    5. "Neither of them expected to have to step up" and neither of then have.

      Delete
  5. Does the mayor really need his feckless Aide (I'm sure $30K-$45K per year)? Do we really need a mostly useless, virtually incompetent, homophobic and anti-business, anti-middle class common council president and common council? Do we really need to pay 2 council members for each ward and a so called "ward supervisor"for each(one also being the mayor's aide)? The powers that be all seem to stupid to realize the city is in a MAJOR BUDGET CRISIS and drastic and unfortunately painful budget cuts need to be made immediately. But guess they are all too busy passing non-binding resolutions, doling out $ for dance parties, working against tourism, and lining Galvin's pockets. "All hands on deck" looks more like a confederacy of dunces set on burning Hudson to the ground. Their only plan seems to be to raise property taxes. Some brilliant minds and leaders at work. So sad!! So pathetic!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're always so on point.
      The snake-in-the-grass Aide is a grifter.
      This administration is like trump, oblivious to the crisis

      Delete
    2. In a time when everyone in town will be expected to tighten their belts to make ends meet, it's shameful for the mayor to insist he needs a full-time aide. The position should be eliminated from the 2021 budget.

      Delete
  6. the solutions ? Tax the entities not on the tax rolls. it is 40 % of the buildings in Hudson. it just makes sense. All these buildings should pay PILOTS.

    they consume more services than the single family owner. they cost more, and they do not pay.

    "AFFORDABLE" housing is not affordable, as Hudson will soon find out the hard way as it goes broke. Not much is affordable in NYS anyway.

    AIRBNBS created a huge amount of income for the county and the City. But, in their unwise way, the new boys on the block want to kill the goose that laid the golden egg and go bankrupt.

    It is easy to come up with dumb ideas that everyone buys into. Hudson leads the way --in the wrong direction.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Is a $20,000 budget cut at DPW even one percent of it's overall budget? $20,000 is less than twice of what the clerk's office has proposed to cut. It makes no sense and it's insulting, as if Rob Perry just picked a number out of a hat. Kamal and Tom should not have accepted that amount from Rob. Suggestion that might actually help the City's bottom line: Get the DPW/City of Hudson out of the cemetery business. Bill Huston

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, Bill, the cuts proposed by DPW were a great deal more than $20,000. In fact, they were $70,000, but they involved things that the BEA found unacceptable, such as stopping weekend trash pickup on Warren Street, removing municipal trash cans, laying off one of the part-time garbage bag ladies, and curtailing some middle of the night snow plowing.

      Delete
  8. No fat in either the Mayor's or Council's budget? The former includes 5 lawyers (up from 1.5 in prior administrations). And the Council that does nothing is spending $100k/year on what, again? Instead of taking a hard look and doing the real work that entails, the BEA resorts to micromanagement. Granted these are difficult and uncharted waters -- but the lack of forethought, research and planning (with the exception of the Treasurer and her staff) is telling and yielding predictably poor results.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Is that "Nearer My God to Thee" I hear playing?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I believe the correct phrase is "Abandon Ship."

    ReplyDelete
  11. While not-for-profits may not be subject to taxation, the municipality could require them to pay user fees for city services.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly --and this is something that cities are going to have to require. they have to get reimbursed for what they spend on all the not-for-profits.

      Oh, by the way, did anyone mention that you can have a " Not for Profit" that is really a tax dodge and a way to hold real estate and operate without the penalty of any taxes.

      and all of the managers and directors can get paid stipends, and have many of their expenses under-written. Wake up to the ways smart lefties avoid the tax system -- the not for profit scam.

      Delete
    2. No. They can’t. Not in NYS. A tax by any other name ...

      Delete
  12. Describing the same Common Council two months ago:

    "On July 1, the Council approved grants totaling $63,625, and on July 13, the Council approved a second round of grants total $66,800."

    https://gossipsofrivertown.blogspot.com/2020/08/also-on-agenda-for-tuesday.html

    Yes, they'd take that figure down a few notches, but it indicates a lack of sobriety about the situation.

    On August 23, Gossips posted a follow-up "Following Up with the Tourism Grants":

    https://gossipsofrivertown.blogspot.com/2020/08/following-up-with-tourism-grants.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That the Common Council approved Tourism Board recommendations is irrelevant to the budget discussion- the funds collected through the Lodging Tax and allocated to the Tourism Board need to be spent a certain way as written in the law. Those funds collected after the law was changed earlier this year go directly to the general fund.

      There is a reasonable argument to be made that much of that money has been funnelled as patronage to political allies for requests that have nothing to do with tourism at a time when this sector of our economy (that provides one of our strongest and most important revenue streams) is facing an existential crisis, but that's another discussion, albeit one we really should be having.

      Delete
    2. "The funds collected through the Lodging Tax and allocated to the Tourism Board need to be spent a certain way as written in the law."

      Thanks JK, I wondered if that was possible before I posted, but figured I'd be correct if so. Thus, I stand corrected.

      I agree that your second paragraph returns us to another, and former, discussion which is eminently reasonable. My sense of outrage had conflated the two subjects.

      Delete
  13. There is a bit too much piling on here, and I am as concerned about the probably pending insolvency of the city absent substantial property tax increases, and the apparent innumeracy of the bulk of the current municipal regime, but the tourism board money cannot be used for non tourism promotion purposes, or at least that was the intent.

    Granted the law could be changed to dissolve the tourism board and seize its remaining cash hoard, and that might allow the head in the sand, we have no plan that is viable or sensible and the choices are just too painful to face, so let's all stay in bed in the fetal position attitude, to carry on for a few more weeks before the municipal checks start bouncing.

    I know it is a lot of work, and complicated, but there is a much better way to address this all. When I have a better handle on all the facts, I hope to take off my legal hat, and put on my MBA hat, and write a white paper about the ebb and flow of municipal money in Hudson, and how best to navigate that tide without hitting the rocks, where the only way out is a municipal bankruptcy filing.

    And yes, you can only increase the property tax mill rate by so much before the law of diminishing returns sets in. Economics is a harsh mistress. That is why so many people prefer to pretend she is not there for as long as possible. In fact that is what I am going to do myself right now, and close my laptop, to savor this glorious day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nevertheless, just the kind of creative thinking that's needed right now:

      "dissolve the tourism board and seize its remaining cash hoard."

      Delete
  14. If you look at the string of $100K+ cars parked on Warren St every weekend and the lack of available rooms in the hotels, it's obvious the idea of using the lodging tax to promote tourism is no longer needed and that money should go to the general fund. Also seems if city properties are to be sold there should be a way devised to sell them on the open market, not at auction as a much higher sale price would be obtained. Perhaps it's better to mortgage the properties to obtain cash and rent them out to make the payments? Aside from that, time to tighten the belt in every department. Get rid of some of those lawyers, scale back to one alderman per ward, get rid of the assistants, review the insurance policies. I recently changed insurance carriers and reduced my cost by 50%. Cutting back on road maintenance and picking up garbage isn't really an option.

    ReplyDelete