When the budget was introduced earlier it was $501 million but at adoption, it was $516 million. However, I saw, most of the increase was due to programs founded by grant money. But that wasn't entirely true. The city should have close to $30 million in reserve but the budget only showed $18 million. When I questioned the figure, I was told the city placed $10 million from the reserve to cover the grant money. Instead of funding these grants, the city should have placed that money in reserve for terminal leave. There is no guaranteed these grants would come in. The mayor/council obligation is to taxpayers, it is not to fund grant programs. Plus the line items for grant programs should have been in the introduced budget.

Quote:

Low interest is a good reason for issuing municipal debt - in fact it would be a good time to refi all existing debt to lower rates if that's possible.

But the implications of bonding should be made more explicit. For example last Moody's rating on the City was contingent on issuing no more than $20m new debt, or risk a downgrading (and higher interest on new debt).

The bigger question is why is any of this a surprise? The City can predict it's future obligations to retirees. It should also be capable of managing it's yearly operating expenses. Why does it give the appearance of lurching year-to-year, out of control, and expecting the taxpayers to pick up the tab for it's continual financial incompetence?

At the last caucus meeting, Shea said the city is hiring more cops but in reality the increase will be about 15 new officers. More than 100 officers can retire this year. Are we going to fund this in the next budget for terminal leave or will we continue bond? In the early 1990s, we put $20 million in bonding debt each year towards the budget. It is now $60 million and the interest is the lowest it has ever been.

Jersey City Council approves $7.5 million retirement bonding, Osborne/Yun not happy Hudson County View Posted on October 25, 2014 by Michael Shurin An ordinance approving emergency bonding worth $7.5 million to pay for contractually required severance liabilities resulting from the retirement of city employees was unanimously approved by the Jersey City Council. Ward D Councilman Michael Yun made it clear he wasn?t happy to continue the practice of borrowing to pay for retirement costs, citing Mayor Fulop?s opposition as Ward E Councilman to the questionable budgeting practice. Ward E Councilwoman Candice Osborne, who wasn?t happy to vote Yes either, once again brought up overtime costs in the municipal budget which she claimed used money set aside for potential retirement payments. http://hudsoncountyview.com/jersey-ci ... bonding-osborneyun-happy/