Dear Editor: I submit my prepared remarks from the January 5 city council meeting regarding Hoboken’s 2000 budget. The public hearing was postponed until January 19 because budget amendments were introduced that night. The following are my remarks: I am very disappointed in my city government. I was so looking forward to coming up here to congratulate and thank you for finally passing along to the taxpayers some meaningful benefit from the development boom. Alas, I can only chastise you for participating in another fiscal charade. You cannot possibly deliver the much-touted municipal tax “cut” of $1.40, according to the FY 1999 financial statement. The FY 2000 budget requires $16.3 million of municipal tax revenue. For the July-December 1999 period, you have already billed about $9 million. For the January-June 2000 period, you must bill $7.3 million. The value of the tax base was certified at $1.8 billion in September 1999. Since that time, $99 million of additional ratables have come on line bringing the current tax base to $1.9 billion. A six-month municipal tax bill of $7.3 million divided by the $1.9 billion tax base produces an annualized rate of $7.72, a mere 18 cents lower than last year=s rate of $7.90. These are real numbers printed in black and white. There is no documentation and no amount of arithmetic manipulation to support the proclaimed $6.50 tax rate. After all, this is an estimated tax bill. Perhaps I am wrong. Maybe there’s some information or logic that I am missing. I wish it was so – I’d love to get a bonafide, significant tax cut! In FY 1999 the city required $14.3 million for municipal purposes. For FY 2000 which is already half over, the city requires $16.3 million. It would have required $19.6 million except that you got permission to cut the reserve for uncollected taxes by $3.3 million because of a one-time accounting adjustment. Sounds OK for this year but the following year, FY 2001, the city will require a whopping $21.5 million in municipal revenue. That is an increase of $7 million in municipal taxes over two years. Let’s put that $7 million dollar figure in perspective. This past year, we have all witnessed the frenzied construction activity (and endured the associated “growing pains”) in every part of Hoboken. Our tax base increased by $171 million, which generates $1.4 million of additional municipal tax revenue. On the other side of the ledger, municipal spending excluding the reserve for uncollected taxes is increasing by almost $4 million. Even if you allowed the developers to build a few more Century Towers and Shipyards in our little mile square city, we would still be stuck with a “structural” deficit because City Hall keeps spending more than it earns. Forget about tax cuts. This administration seems incapable of even stabilizing the tax levy. The fact is that the Hoboken taxpayers’ burden has more than doubled under this administration. In 1992, taxpayers as a group contributed $7.4 million toward city spending of $45 million, or 16 percent of the budget. In 2000, taxpayers are paying $16.3 million, or 31 percent of the proposed $53 million budget. What are we getting for all these extra tax dollars that we pay? Where is our town pool? Where are the playing fields? Where is our cross-town transportation system? How about extended library hours and upgraded facilities? How about parks and playgrounds on the west side of town? Hoboken is in the midst of an unprecedented development boom. How much more development can we absorb? For four consecutive years, the city collected many millions more in tax revenue than it budgeted. Two years ago, City Hall had a surplus of almost $6 million. It’s long gone, plugged to fill prior year budget gaps. At this very moment, federal and state governments are pondering how to invest their huge surpluses. Now, when times are good, is when the city should be embarking on ambitious programs and projects for the betterment of all our residents. Instead, this administration is resorting to every manner of accounting and fiscal gimmick just to preserve the patronage machine that sustains it. The most glaring deficit in the value I receive for my local tax dollar is the absence of affordable off-street parking. The parking crisis is not just about personal inconvenience. The failure of the parking authority, the mayor and the city council to address the acute parking shortage threatens the viability of Hoboken as a commercial center and the economic well-being of all our residents. The mayor claims that extracting cash from the parking authority will allow him to give us a tax cut. Even if that were true, the benefit from a paltry tax cut is more than offset by my having to spend over $2000 a year to park my car in a private garage. The Parking Authority PILOT gimmick is the most ill-conceived one-shot revenue scheme in this budget. I am asking the council to take this budget back to the Finance Committee and find a way to chop at least $2 million from the municipal tax levy so that you can make good on your “stable taxes” promise. I urge you to take advantage of every resource available to you at the state level to help you identify prudent spending cuts. Finally, I urge Hoboken residents to attend the January 19 budget hearing and tell your elected representatives what your spending priorities are. Phyllis Spinelli