Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ordinances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges council to rescind vacancy and corporate-registration ordinances, citing legal concerns
Summary
Theresa Monroe, a city resident, urged the council to rescind two ordinances (chapters 156 and 226) that impose registration fees and third-party collections, arguing they violate New York municipal law and could expose the city to lawsuits and large repayments.
During the public-comment period Theresa Monroe, who identified herself as a resident of the City of Amsterdam, urged the council to rescind two recently passed ordinances: one establishing a vacant building registration and another requiring corporate owners to register an agent. Monroe said both ordinances rely on a third-party online company to collect fees and that the agreements channel 60% of registration fees to the private company and 40% to the city.
Monroe warned the council that municipalities lack authority to third-party the collection of taxes and fees and cited past litigation as a cautionary example. "They get 60% of the registration fee. The city gets 40% of the registration fee... And if a resident doesn't pay it within 30 days, it escalates," she told the council. Monroe called the vacancy fee structure "illegal under New York law" and referenced a prior court case she described as "telephone versus the city of Amsterdam" to illustrate municipal limits on outsourcing fee collection.
After the comment several council members and residents thanked Monroe and urged a full review by the city attorney. One council member said a formal review with corporation counsel and council members should occur and commended the research provided to the council; councilors said they would follow up with legal staff.
