Residents and council members press city over rising taxes, call for clearer budget process ahead of Sept. 25 hearing

Dozens of residents used the council's public-comment period on Sept. 17 to press elected officials about rising local taxes and to demand clearer review opportunities and stronger fiscal oversight ahead of the council's scheduled budget hearing on Sept. 25.

"Mark the date September 25 to come down here for the budget hearing," said Lisa Mitchelson Parker, a commenter who urged a forensic audit and said she believed recent tax changes and other city revenue shortfalls show mismanagement. Parker cited what she described as prior increases and proposals for next year: "7.8% last year, 7% in the third quarter this year, and a proposal for 9% in 2026." She said residents deserve night and weekend hearings and a full 30-day public review window.

The administration and council responded that the budget reflects competing needs and constrained revenues. Melvin Waldrop, chief of staff in the business administrator's office, said the administration sees many unmet needs and that the budget is driven by those needs as well as by revenues. "A budget is driven by needs," Waldrop said, and the administration will continue to review the revenue side to relieve pressure on property taxes.

Council members and members of the public repeatedly urged more transparency about tax abatements and other revenue tools. Several speakers asked the council to freeze or reexamine existing tax-abatement policies; at least one public commenter urged a moratorium on new abatements until Newark can show measurable returns to residents. Councilmembers acknowledged those concerns and said questions and written requests about the budget should be routed through the clerk's office so departments can respond in time for the Sept. 25 hearings.

Why it matters: multiple residents described what they called substantial, recent increases in local tax and utility bills and said the city should offer more time and accessible meeting options for residents to review the budget. The council and administration said they will continue to pursue revenue options and noted specific revenue proposals on the agenda (for example, a change to soil erosion fees), but they did not change the hearing schedule during the Sept. 17 meeting.

What officials said they will do next: Waldrop said staff will continue to look for miscellaneous revenue increases to mitigate property-tax pressure. Council members said they will circulate written questions to departments and asked the clerk to forward responses before public hearings. Residents repeatedly urged a formal forensic audit; the administration did not commit to one on Sept. 17.

Context and public reaction: Public commenters framed the budget discussion as part of a broader set of concerns about the administration's fiscal stewardship, including questions about festival spending, vendor revenues, borrowing and the use of state loans. Several commenters tied those fiscal concerns to housing and public-service complaints raised at the same meeting.

Ending: The council's formal budget hearing remains scheduled for Sept. 25; residents and some council members said they plan to use that hearing to press for additional detail, night/weekend hearing times and documented follow-up on revenue sources and abatements.