.

Bills to Benefit New Rochelle Introduced in Albany

The bills would give New Rochelle the ability to raise revenue.

Two items on New Rochelle's legislative wish list are working their ways through Albany.

Assemblywoman Amy Paulin, D-Scarsdale, filed A02191, which was co-sponsored by Assemblyman Steve Otis, D-Rye. If passed, the bill would give New Rochelle the option of increasing its utility gross receipts tax, which is currently capped at 1 percent.

The legislation would add New Rochelle to the list of cities—Rochester, Buffalo and Yonkers—that can impose up to a 3 percent tax to energy, water, telephone and other utility service bills. The tax is paid by utility providers and passed along to its customers.

The other legislation was submitted by George Latimer, D-Harrison.

He sponsored a bill that would extend New Rochelle's ability to impose an additional 1 percent local sales tax rate. 

Latimer said he expects the bill to pass.

"If it were not to pass," he said, "it would represent a big loss of revenue to the city"—about $10 million annually.

Latimer said most communities are looking for alternate ways of increasing revenue.

"The cost of doing business year over year increases," he said, "and people do not want to pay any more property taxes. Who want to advocate cutting cops and firefighters?"

Other items in the city's 2013 Legislative Program include distributing the cost of fire hydrant maintenance and access to all water ratepayers, providing a state retirement incentive for local employees and reducing pension contribution rates.

The city is exploring whether or not any intersections might qualify for the installation of traffic signal cameras before it pursues state legislation.

One item originally requested—the local real estate transfer tax of 1 percent—was not included in the final version.

Fifth Ave Guy February 01, 2013 at 08:22 PM
No increase in the sales tax, its a continuation.
warren gross February 02, 2013 at 03:23 PM
George and Amy are friends and I am a strong supporter. They have both made serious errors is not understanding sufficiently that their actions simply reinforce on-going errors and abuses involving property tax assessment (Korn's support of Certirorari as an a posteriori) reassessment of property, not seeiing the clear fact that micro actioins to avoid the inevitable need for a proper City wide Assessment program will continue the backslside toward Mt Vernon and Yonkers as sister cities, the failure of nuisance fees, taxes, etc. instead of proper expense management, so much more is actually a failure to stand up for the taxpayer. Common sense should indicate that the few remaining commercial businesses will suffer; it is only a ashort bus ride to pelham manor and eastchester for example evven for poor peoople, new businesses and residential prospects will avoid a city that has no stability in developing a reasonable tax base and the continued deterioratioin of downtown will contribute too that immensely. so you ought to use your NYS powers to work on ways to improve mandates, equivalency to IDA zoning, even asking the State to take over the management of the City if needed rather than these incremental and damaging entitiees. I am sorry to see both of you capitulate to common sense and you made Astorino's job a hell of a lot easier in the future. waren gross
mike kaye February 02, 2013 at 09:52 PM
what a joke! More taxes is not the answer.......
Billy February 04, 2013 at 08:41 PM
Plenty of companies want to do business in New Rochelle, but it depends on how big their tax abatement is. No tax abatement, no new business or companies.
Stephen I. Mayo February 06, 2013 at 08:33 AM
How the headline writer and the article author could get the subject so wrong is astonishing. And how an experienced scribe like Woyton could add so little light on the subject, and an old Albany hand like Latimer could provide nothing better by way of reason or pretext for the authorization is baffling. Are these guys getting tired and soft? They certainly seem to be coasting. An increase in a locality's authority to raise any tax, personal or commercial can in no way be presumed to be a "benefit" without some context or reference to a particular essential municipal service at-risk without the added revenue. Where are all the voters who so decisively obliterated the Cohen campaign last fall? Do these witless boobs actually concur that any and all taxes can only be described as a "benefit" as seems to be the import of this article? And did the news agency interview any civilians for the article or did they only speak to the government-side partisans? I know that there exists a journalistic code of ethics covering such matters; has anybody at Patch ever read it or something like it?

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »