PORT JERVIS, NY — Six new laws were passed by the Port Jervis Common Council at its February 8 meeting, although many residents came to voice their objections and concerns over two of those? Some suspected they were just disguised first steps to raise the taxes, or to cut the water to any house built before 1970s, when the new certificate-of-occupancy regulations went into effect. Others expressed fears the new laws could also be used inhumanely to evict people who had nowhere to go from their rental units.

Local law number six allows the denial of water service if a building has no certificate of occupancy (CO). A resident who found the law disturbing questioned why the law was passed.

Mayor Kelly Decker said, “If there’s no CO, there are no people there. There can’t be.” A back-and-forth discussion followed about what the law actually means.

The resident said, “In the best interest of humanity, we need to make sure human beings are safe. My worry and concern is the impact on human life. It should supersede any other interest. Laws are important, but not always; the truth is, human lives are displaced, and the worry is you’re shutting off water in order to force them to leave their homes. It is not humane.”

Decker said, “If there’s no CO, it’s unsafe to live there. You can look at this in another way. What if an unscrupulous person wants to rent the place and there’s no water there already?”

Councilmember Stan Siegel added, “We have a responsibility to take care of residents of Port Jervis. If there’s no water, we cannot let anyone live there.”

Another law was passed that allows the common council to raise taxes in the future above the state-mandated limit of 2%, if the increase is needed. This law also prompted many comments.

Residents argued the 2% increase is required by New York State to make it more attractive to live in the state, and because Port Jervis is close to Pennsylvania, it doesn’t make any sense to raise taxes higher. Some thought it could chase businesses that are already struggling out of town.

Decker said, “This is to allow us to raise it in next budget; it’s a local law. By July 12, you have to pass this, or you absolutely cannot go above the 2%.”

Tony Faggione, an Orange County legislator, added his voice to ask the council to reconsider the law, or at least to table it until July. He said, “You worked very hard, but to impose it on our citizens is hard. If we’re willing to go above the limit set by the state, a very hard year is set. If you table it, you might find you don’t need it, or at least citizens have more time to consider it.”

Other residents agreed, saying if the law was passed now, the intent is already to go above the cap.

Councilmember Sarah Hendry read out loud her own statement, saying she opposes the 2% tax cap, but recognizes the reality. She added the solutions needed are to increase revenue and/or to cut services.

Siegel said, “I will vote two percent no matter what.”

Councilmember David Bavoso explained further that the reason was to have flexibility. “We have no idea what’s going to happen in the city, a flood or hurricane, to take us out of budget. DPW and police is where cuts happen, and they are already pressed. It’s better safe than sorry.”

Finance chair Frank Bell stated, “We stayed within two percent over the last four years. I would have to support this.”

Resident Edwin Baker asked, “If we have to increase the tax, will it be permanent?”

Decker replied the taxes are passed each year, but, “Our fund balance should be $1.1 million according to state, but because our taxes have been so low, it’s now below $250,000.”

The council voted to table the law.