Regarding my previous post, although I have no problem opening the link using "PowerPoint" in the latest incarnation of Microsoft Office, others seem to have trouble. I apologize and will try to find a solution.
In the meantime the Agenda for Monday night's Council meeting is up on the City site.
There are two Resolutions overriding the Mayor's veto and a third Resolution calling for an investigation of the City's payment of ($20000 plus) bills to Station WBLS of NYC in July 2010.
I doubt if there will be any no votes cast.
The Resolution to reduce the authorized bond issue for the Senior Center has been further reduced from the $1.500,000.00 as presented last Tuesday to$800,000.00. In addition there will be the first reading of the Ordinance on this matter. I suspect that this will either be defeated or tabled due to unanswered questions about a bill presented and tabled in April.
Regarding the Resolution Authorizing a request to the State Local Finance Board to approve an Ordinance for $1,000,000.00 to purchase "a gunshot location system" and a bond issue of $950,000.00 for down payment on same should be subject for questioning by the Council membership. Mr Jack Pontious of Shotspoter will give a presentation of the system and statistics (loaded?) of success in the reduction of crime in various New Jersey municipalities. I doubt that there will be any mention of cities that found it ineffective. Nor, will he present a list of necessary ancillary modalities need for it to be worthwhile. At this time I think that the money could be better spent on increase police presence and active prosecution of known gang members.
There is a Resolution authorizing a "Global Agreement" with Landmark Developers for LLC including designation as developers for the North Ave. Extension. Also a Resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute a PILOT agreement with West 2nd Street Urban Renewal, LLC for the West 2nd Street Commons". I hope to have a chance Monday to review the documentation prior to the meeting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I hear the Council is getting ready to approve a tax abatement for the new development - this Monday. Something they refused to do for the Senior Citizen condos.
ReplyDeleteIf they do vote for a reduction in taxes, I want to know when will I get a tax reduction?
Or is this limted to the politically connected?
Doc, your anon at 10:56am is right. I too will want a tax abatement if this is given to this developer when this was refused for Monarch.
ReplyDeleteI hope Mapp leads another protest against this one like he did for Monarch.
This is wrong, wrong and wrong. A protest is being organized right now.
Anons; There is a difference between a tax abatement which is a percentage of the tax rate ant a PILOT which is a set yearly payment instead of taxes. What is important is how low the payment is in reference to potential taxes. Since I have not seen the resolution I can not comment. PILOTS are usually given to encourage commercial development, rather than residential. I had in my blog and at the Council objected to teh awarding a new PILOT to the purchasers of the Ceaderbrook Senior Citizens apartments. The original investors had recoup their investment and had needed the original PILOT to meet Federal requirements for I believe HUD funds. The new owners got a gift at our expense.
ReplyDeleteThe 2nd Street Commons is different and has the potential to hasten renewal downtown. This is unlike the Landmark projects and other developers. It is the terms that the Council should do due diligence.
A correction; the West 2nd St. Commons is a Lndmark projectas are the bank and other Park Ave renovations. As for PILOT, the Council must consider its impact on all elements of our local taxes.
ReplyDeleteI doubt if there will be any no votes cast.
ReplyDelete---------- Doc, seriously?????
Here's 3 NO VOTES for you -- Rivers, Reid and Carter. Sharon and Jerry tell them what to do.
Burney...as I have stated..anyone's guess.