Hoboken Revolt

The Hoboken Tax Reform Coalition

Administrator

HOBOKEN POLICE DEPARTMENT AUDIT

Hoboken Revolt applauds the Governor's office for releasing the Hoboken Police Department audit. This is a tremendous step in making our local government more transparent and accountable. You can read the full audit below.

Views: 17

Attachments:

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

FAPPermalink Reply by FAP on February 25, 2010 at 4:23pm
Dave in your opinion how should we pay for the 4.2 Million dollar Dave Roberts early retirement tax penalty? Should it be paid this year or should we spread it over multiple years and pay interest on the balance?
Dave KaplanPermalink Reply by Dave Kaplan on February 25, 2010 at 9:20pm
I would preface this by saying I'm no Municipal finance expert, but my personal opinion would be to pay for it all immediately. I think it sets the right precedent to not push expenses off into the future, which is what got Hoboken into this mess in the first place.

However, I do understand that it is technically NOT an operating expense. Therefore I do see the reasoning why it can be spread out.

Perhaps a good compromise would be to pay for a majority of it this year, (55-60%), and then spread the smaller remainder out over an additional two years.

Whatever they decide to do on that issue, it is small potatoes compared to the great big elephant in the room that is personnel expenses. I'm much more concerned with cutting these expenses, as any cuts will help Hoboken in every FY from now into the future.



FAP said:
Dave in your opinion how should we pay for the 4.2 Million dollar Dave Roberts early retirement tax penalty? Should it be paid this year or should we spread it over multiple years and pay interest on the balance?
Kathy L. MallowPermalink Reply by Kathy L. Mallow on February 25, 2010 at 9:43pm
I might suggest Chief Falco's initial response might be more related to what I can only imagine is managing "agita" amongst the PBA. After all, he has to manage his workforce, to continue services, while this gets sorted out. I offer that as a possible explanation in response to some of the comments here. Thus far, my experience with Chief Falco is that he's very responsive to the community. (I don't recall his predecessor scheduling neighborhood meetings to seek community input, for ex.)

If you haven't, visit the threads on NJ.com. & you'll see some of the frenzy the audit is apparently generating w/in the PBA. There are several posters who reveal being on the force. It's quite an interesting read.
FAPPermalink Reply by FAP on February 25, 2010 at 10:04pm
Dave I favor your first approach, pay for it all now and get it out of the way. Paying for it now avoids added interest and let's us start with a clean slate next year. However this is 4.2 Million in spending that Judy decided not to put in the budget and will eat up a lot of any hoped for tax cut.

Why Judy didn't budget for it we may never know but in the end we're the one left holding the bag for these screw ups.
georgiaPermalink Reply by georgia on February 26, 2010 at 11:11am
I believe that the council will fight this 4.2 mil (as per Nino Ghiacci -see the last council meeting). Apparently the state is playing dirty games; this was the first time that I've heard Ghiacci attempting to do something constructive.

FAP said:
Dave I favor your first approach, pay for it all now and get it out of the way. Paying for it now avoids added interest and let's us start with a clean slate next year. However this is 4.2 Million in spending that Judy decided not to put in the budget and will eat up a lot of any hoped for tax cut.

Why Judy didn't budget for it we may never know but in the end we're the one left holding the bag for these screw ups.
Dave KaplanPermalink Reply by Dave Kaplan on February 26, 2010 at 11:34am
Certainly if there are any legal grounds on which to fight the $4.2 million charge to Hoboken, they should be explored before simply paying.

georgia said:
I believe that the council will fight this 4.2 mil (as per Nino Ghiacci -see the last council meeting). Apparently the state is playing dirty games; this was the first time that I've heard Ghiacci attempting to do something constructive.

FAP said:
Dave I favor your first approach, pay for it all now and get it out of the way. Paying for it now avoids added interest and let's us start with a clean slate next year. However this is 4.2 Million in spending that Judy decided not to put in the budget and will eat up a lot of any hoped for tax cut.

Why Judy didn't budget for it we may never know but in the end we're the one left holding the bag for these screw ups.
SmartyJonesPermalink Reply by SmartyJones on February 28, 2010 at 5:15am
The 4.2MM wasn't budgeted because it was anticipated to be paid over three years. Judy Tripodi mentioned that as a way to deal with the pension problem in the interview in January with MSV.

The likelihood of any change in challenging it with the State is not likely. There's really not a high expectation in that regard based on some conversations with government folks here. The mechanism will result in the full amount being tallied into the final end of our fiscal year ending June 30th.

The City Council is aware of the appeal's less than likely favored outcome but is going to take the hit now. If there was a way to approach the State on the problem it would have been uncovered already.

FAP said:
Dave I favor your first approach, pay for it all now and get it out of the way. Paying for it now avoids added interest and let's us start with a clean slate next year. However this is 4.2 Million in spending that Judy decided not to put in the budget and will eat up a lot of any hoped for tax cut.

Why Judy didn't budget for it we may never know but in the end we're the one left holding the bag for these screw ups.
FAPPermalink Reply by FAP on February 28, 2010 at 11:25am
SJ, but Judy decided not to budget ANY money for it, at all. If Judy Tripodi thought the penalty would be spread over three years I would have expected her to appropriate some money in the current budget, a third perhaps. Judy tried to put money in for a contract that doesn't exist so it seems reasonable. Also it seems some on the council, and this forum, favor paying all of the penalty in this year's budget. Did Judy consult with the Council and work with them to find an answer that was prudent and satisfactory to all. My guess is no.

BTW I just check Hoboken411 and if there was any thought that Perry wasn't courting the old guard check out the how he describes the audit today.

"AUDIT!
The so-called big bad Police Audit released. Many residents call BS on it. Don’t count your chickens just yet"

▶ Reply to Discussion

RSS

Events

© 2012   Created by Administrator.   Powered by .

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service