Village Council Special Budget Hearing Minutes 20140319

A SPECIAL PUBLIC BUDGET MEETING OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD HELD IN THE SYDNEY V. STOLDT, JR., COURTROOM OF THE RIDGEWOOD VILLAGE HALL, 131 NORTH MAPLE AVENUE, RIDGEWOOD, NEW JERSEY, ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 2014, AT 5:00 PM.

1. CALL TO ORDER – OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS LAW – ROLL CALL

Mayor Aronsohn called the meeting to order at 5:05 P.M., and read the Statement of Compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act. At roll call, the following were present: Councilmembers Hauck, Pucciarelli, Walsh, and Mayor Aronsohn. Also present were Heather Mailander, Acting Village Manager/Village Clerk; and Stephen Sanzari, Chief Financial Officer (CFO). Councilman Riche was absent.  

Mayor Aronsohn led those in attendance in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and asked for a moment of silence in honor of the American men and women serving in our Armed Forces, as well as those serving as first responders.

2. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC

Mayor Aronsohn stated that they would now have comments from the public and advised anyone wishing to address the Village council to come forward.

Boyd Loving, 342 South Irving Street, commented regarding the guilty plea that was accepted this morning in the Bergen County Superior Court in Hackensack, concerning the coin theft of parking meter monies suffered by the Village. Mr. Loving prefaced his remarks by saying that he understood there was a plea agreement, and that all of the money that was reportedly taken would be returned to Ridgewood taxpayers. However, Mr. Loving said he did not think the Village Council took an active leadership role with respect to the parking meter revenue. He referred to a letter he wrote to the Village Council in June 2011, when Mayor Aronsohn, Councilman Riche, and Councilwoman Walsh served on the Village Council. The letter detailed Mr. Loving’s observations concerning how the meter revenue was collected and stored. He received a response from the Village Manager at that time, Dr. Gabbert, who indicated that no changes would be made as a result of his comments. In January 2013, after an arrest was made in the coin theft occurrences, Mr. Loving wrote again to the present Councilmembers, to which he received no response. Although it seems that one change has been made in the process used to store the money since that time, Mr. Loving pointed out that the money is still collected in the same manner, and it is all cash money that is being collected. Mr. Loving is upset because nothing was done, although he pointed out what he believed were some security flaws. Now, nearly a half-million dollars has been stolen from the Village by one employee. Although part of the plea agreement provides for the return of the money that was stolen, Mr. Loving hoped that the Village Council would take more of a leadership role in resolving the issue to keep the cash secure so that nothing like this can happen again. In his email of 2011, Mr. Loving cited an example of how the money is collected in Paterson, New Jersey, where the process is entirely secure. After witnessing the process used in Ridgewood, Mr. Loving observed people walking up and down the street with buckets full of quarters that are wide open and clearly visible. Mr. Loving cannot understand why such a procedure is followed, nor can he understand why he received an email from Dr. Gabbert indicating that the process had been reviewed and no flaws were found. In addition, Mr. Loving said he is disturbed that one of the department supervisors has recommended that the Village should not accept credit cards, but the only form of payment that should be used for parking meters and kiosks is cash. Due to what has happened as a result of having too much cash around, Mr. Loving cannot understand why credit cards and other payment options are not explored. He referred to a recent newspaper article which stated that the Borough of Palisades Park will be installing parking meters that will accept a variety of different payment options. Mr. Loving pointed out that Ridgewood is in the forefront of so many things, and he asked why the issue regarding parking meter revenues cannot be straightened out. He reminded the Councilmembers that the Village Manager works for the Village, and serves by vote of the Village Council. If the Village Manager is given a specific direction about what the Councilmembers want him/her to do, s/he should follow those directions.

Mayor Aronsohn clarified three points made by Mr. Loving. One is that Mr. Loving referred to the Village Manager in 2011 as “she,” and Mayor Aronsohn pointed out that Ms. Mailander was not the Village Manager at that time. The second clarification is in response to Mr. Loving’s statement that no additional steps have been taken since January 2013, which is not true. In fact, Mayor Aronsohn stated that a series of steps have been taken toward better security measures. The third clarification is that Mayor Aronsohn did not recall any department supervisor recommending that credit cards should not be accepted, and in fact, the current Councilmembers have said on several occasions that they want to move forward and use new technologies.

Councilman Pucciarelli said he agreed with Mr. Loving’s idea that other forms of payment should be accepted by the Village, including smart phones, credit cards, and other ways to pay. However, as has been discussed at previous Village Council meetings, as the opportunity for a new parking garage is explored, parking revenue will have to go toward servicing those bonds. That will require the Village to be smarter about how parking revenue is collected. Councilman Pucciarelli believes at that point, there will be another opportunity to revamp the entire parking rate system, and the way people are allowed to pay at the meters. Councilman Pucciarelli pointed out that the same situation exists with commuter parking, which also needs to be updated.

There were no other comments from the public at this time, and Mayor Aronsohn closed the time for public comment.

3. DISCUSSION ITEMS

                    A. BUDGET OVERVIEW– DEPARTMENTAL MEETING PROCESS:  Ms. Mailander explained the process of the budget. The 2014 Village budget process began in December 2013, with budget reviews with the various Department Directors, Mr. Sanzari, and Ms. Mailander as the Acting Village Manager. During these discussions, the budget requests were reduced. The next step was for Mr. Sanzari and Ms. Mailander to meet with members of the Financial Advisory Committee (FAC) to discuss the budget process. The FAC developed new sheets to show the total expenditures by department, including such things as benefits costs, vehicles, gasoline usage, as well as revenues realized from each department. Ms. Mailander and Mr. Sanzari also met with Mayor Aronsohn, Councilman Pucciarelli, and members of the FAC several times to discuss the budget, with recommendations for where reductions in expenses, or increases in revenues, could possibly be achieved. Mr. Sanzari and Ms. Mailander met again with some of the larger departments in order to get additional reductions in their budgets, which they were able to do. The goal is a 0% tax increase, which has not yet been achieved for the 2014 budget. Beginning with this meeting, the Department Directors will be discussing their budgets with the Village Council, and members of the FAC are also in attendance at this meeting. In discussing the department budgets, the Village Council is able to gather information about department requests; learn about new programs or revenues; and ask questions, which will allow final decisions to be made about the individual department budgets.

This evening, three sections within the Department of Community Services will be presenting their budget proposals, including the Building Department; the Zoning Department; the Health Department, which includes Animal Control; and the Tax Assessor. The second budget meeting is scheduled for Friday, March 21^st, at 5:00 P.M.

                 B. REVIEW OF DEPARTMENTAL BUDGETS

                             1. Building Department

 Michael Barker, Director of the Department of Community Services; and Tony Merlino, the Village Code Official/Zoning Officer, presented the budget for the Uniform Construction Code Enforcement Department. Mr. Barker provided a chart showing the realized revenues and expenditures for 2012 and 2013, as well as anticipated revenues and expenditures for 2014. The vast majority of the revenues come from fees and permits. He noted that 2013 was a “banner year” for the Building Department, both in volume and in revenue. Mr. Barker pointed out that in 2009, revenues were approximately $638,000, and the number of permits processed was approximately 1,572. Since that time, revenues and the number of permits issued have increased significantly. Mr. Barker commented that one of the tasks performed in 2009 was a review of the fees charged, with the results that fees were restructured over a two-year period. Prior to 2009, it had been quite a while since fees had been adjusted. That fee restructuring has made quite a difference in revenues over the past four years, although the economy has not been strong, and new home starts have not been as high as they could have been. However, the renovation world seems to be doing quite well, according to Mr. Barker. Mr. Merlino just informed Mr. Barker that in the first two months of 2014, the trend seems to be continuing.

As far as the 2014 budget is concerned, Mr. Barker said they are asking for one additional part-time Building Inspector to help with the increased volume, because the department has been unable to meet the required timeframes for inspections. Another inspector would help alleviate that situation. It would also help if the part-time Inspector holds multiple licenses to aid in inspections for the various sub-Codes, in addition to Building Codes. That is the most significant change that is requested for 2014. Mr. Barker noted that there was also a change in the expenses from other professional services, having to do with software maintenance due to a billing mix-up between the software company and the Village. The Village has not been billed for software maintenance for several years, and it must be paid in 2014. Otherwise, the budget remains the same as that of 2013.

Councilman Pucciarelli asked Mr. Barker if he said that the projected revenue of $935,000, which is the revenue that was realized in 2013, is based on the same fee structure without any increase in fees, which Mr. Barker confirmed. Mr. Barker added that fees have not been increased, but have reached their maximum level approximately three years ago when the fees were restructured. There are some minor fees that can be increased, but that will not generate any significant revenue increase. The projected revenue for 2014 cannot be more than what was actually collected in the prior year. Councilman Pucciarelli clarified that there is no anticipated fee increase for 2014, and Mr. Barker confirmed this, saying that the current fee structure is adequate to cover costs. Mr. Merlino said he has made comparisons, and the Village fees are close to the maximum that can be charged, and are higher than some other comparable communities. In addition, the current fee structure meets the financial needs of the Village. Councilman Pucciarelli observed that this department is one of the few that makes a profit in the Village, gaining net revenue of $175,000 in 2013, which is approximately $20,000 less than the previous year. He asked if there is some way to target the same profit for next year or for this year. The answer may not be immediately available, but Councilman Pucciarelli thinks it would be worthwhile to set a goal of at least making the same profit this year. It is possible that the volume of permits, which cannot be projected due to the laws regarding budgets, would help to realize that revenue. Mr. Barker said it is difficult to predict such trends, but once the spring calms, it is possible to get a better idea of how busy this department will be. The only other indication of an increase in permits would be if the real estate market were to suddenly make an upswing, and people were to start looking for homes to purchase, and would thus be interested in renovating their present homes in order to sell them.

Councilwoman Walsh recalled that Mr. Barker mentioned that the software company has not been billing the Village for the past several years, and she asked where that obligation is shown in the budget. Mr. Barker responded that the past obligation is not shown in there, but the current amount of $2,500 is shown under the line item of “Other Professional Services”. Councilwoman Walsh asked if that amount includes the rolled over charges from previous years, and Mr. Barker explained that $2,500 is the annual fee. Councilwoman Walsh wondered if the software provider did not ask to be paid for the years in which the Village was not billed for the software. Mr. Merlino responded that there were no updates during those years, and the department did not encounter any problems with the software necessitating service calls or any other type of contact. Councilwoman Walsh assumed that was why they were no charges from the software provider, but Mr. Merlino said there should have been charges assessed, but his department was informed at the beginning of this year that the software provider was under the impression that the Village was not using the software any longer, so they did not contact the Village, nor did they send any invoices. Mr. Merlino added that it did not occur to anyone to question why no invoices were being received, mainly because no problems had been encountered with the software. He also pointed out that the software fees were removed from the budget, although he does not know why. Mr. Barker believes it was removed because there were no expenditures made. However, the Village does have to pay the $2,500. This was the result of a problem that was encountered during the past year, and the billing situation was negotiated. Mr. Barker said both parties have agreed to move forward. Councilwoman Walsh clarified that there would be no other obligations to the software provider, and Mr. Barker answered that there would be no other obligations in the 2014 budget for this software provider.

Councilwoman Hauck had questions regarding the overtime charges, which are minimal. Mr. Barker responded that the majority of the overtime charges are from property maintenance issues. Greg Moritz performs property maintenance for the Village, which includes issuing summonses for sidewalks that have not been shoveled by property owners; grass that has not been mowed by property owners; and removing garbage from properties. The costs involved in the overtime are the court costs incurred by Mr. Moritz when he has to go to court for the summonses issued. Councilwoman Hauck noted that the overtime costs increased slightly this year, and Mr. Barker explained that Mr. Moritz has been busier than in the past, with more court appearances involved.

Councilwoman Hauck also noticed an increase in the private permit fees, and a decrease in public permit fees. Because it is such a good revenue source, she wondered if Mr. Barker had also noticed the trend, and if there is any explanation for it. Mr. Merlino responded that the public permit fees are for schools and other Village-owned properties, for which revenue is not generated, although a percentage of what the permit would cost is collected from the Board of Education to pay for Planning Board review. The Village is not permitted to collect any other types of permit fees from government entities. Public permit fees are for any permits issued to the Village or Board of Education. Councilwoman Hauck asked if they had noticed any big difference between residential versus commercial permits. Mr. Merlino asked if she was talking about permit revenue or the number of permits, and Councilwoman Hauck answered that she was referring to revenue. Mr. Merlino said that is difficult to assess, because fees are calculated in different ways, including such factors as estimated costs and volume. He said he could get that information together for Councilwoman Hauck, but at this time, it depends on how many jobs are occurring, and what the costs of those jobs are for commercial jobs, while volume is the bigger consideration for residential permits.

Mayor Aronsohn followed up Councilwoman Hauck’s question about overtime, because Mr. Barker explained that most of the overtime fees were incurred because of the necessity for Mr. Moritz to appear in court, and he asked if it was necessary for Mr. Moritz to go to court every week, and if it would be possible to include the court appearances as part of the job, rather than paying overtime for weekly court appearances. Mr. Barker explained that the property maintenance job had already been folded into another job, so Mr. Moritz works as an inspector supervising some of the various Village sites, including the Recycling Center. Before the former Animal Control Officer, Steve Wyder, retired, he took care of property maintenance, because he was on the road most of the time doing dog inspection work. Mr. Barker explained that this has been a long-time practice in the Village, by taking advantage of people who spent most of their time on the road to perform multiple functions, but only being compensated for one of those functions. Therefore, when Mr. Moritz has to appear in court, it is in addition to his normal working hours, making it difficult to include that time and the wages paid as part of his job. Mayor Aronsohn said he could appreciate that, but overtime costs more than normal hourly wages. Therefore, if it is known that an employee must appear in court on a regular basis, perhaps that issue could be revisited to try to reduce some of those expenses. Mr. Barker agreed that the situation could be reviewed. He added that during the summer months, Mr. Moritz appears in court fairly often, perhaps once a week at least, for approximately 1.5 hours each time. At other times of the year, his appearance is not required so often. Mayor Aronsohn asked Mr. Barker to revisit that situation.

Next, Mayor Aronsohn said he had a more general question. He noted that over the last few years, and particularly in 2013, when department supervisors had to formulate their budgets, they were asked to think differently in terms of ways to do their jobs faster and more efficiently. Mayor Aronsohn asked Mr. Barker to give examples of things he has done in his department toward those goals, including things that have worked, as well as things that have not worked, and any savings in time or money that have been realized as a result. Mr. Barker responded that for this particular department, it is simply a matter of keeping the flow moving, because there is a lot of activity. There were many unanticipated personnel changes over the past year, including one part-time employee moving to a full-time job. In addition, Mr. Barker noted that he has received many ideas for ways to use technology, as well as other ways to look at what his department does, and how other states are doing the same things. Mayor Aronsohn recalled that one of the attempts made toward efficiency was to make a tracking system available on-line, and he asked Mr. Barker how that was going. Mr. Merlino responded that the process has been streamlined, so when a permit application is received, it is routed through this department via individual reviewing officials. It has been possible to track the permits much more efficiently using this process, and the public has also been able to go on-line to see the current status of each permit. He added that the larger problem is that there are things for which permits cannot be issued, such as missing information, which requires a phone call and then waiting for the information to come back. The Building Department is not allowed to issue any permit if the paperwork does not indicate that everything is Code-compliant. That is the main reason why some paperwork sits in the office for long periods of time. It also interrupts the smooth flow of the permit process. Mr. Barker added that one of the things for which he has met with Councilmembers is process itself, involving going through approvals, and he sought input from members of the Ridgewood business community for help in making that process flow more smoothly. In addition, Mr. Barker noted that this department has addressed how things are done; looked to see whether the processes were being followed; if there were any ways to improve, which led to some modifications made by the Site Plan Exemption Committee to expedite the process of getting everything to the permit phase; and communications with other departments, because there is a lot of interaction with the Village Engineer, Recycling Center, and in some cases, the Health Department. Mayor Aronsohn asked if emphasis could be placed on putting as many services as possible on-line.

Councilman Pucciarelli noted that Janet Willet from the FAC was present at the meeting, and he reminded everyone that the FAC had proposed a format for presenting the budget. Because this was the first time this new format was being implemented, he asked Ms. Willet if this new format was implemented in the way the FAC had advised. Ms. Willet responded that compared to previous years, there has been good progress made. There has been more transparency, especially in pension numbers and health care costs, by each department. The process is not quite where the members of the FAC had envisioned it would be, but it is coming along.

                            2. Zoning

Mr. Barker explained that the Zoning Board of Adjustment primarily deals with residential and business applications for variances seeking relief from zoning ordinances. The Zoning Board of Adjustment is independent of the Zoning Office, but the Zoning Office provides services to the Zoning Board, such as clerical services. There is really no revenue in the Zoning Office, because any monies taken in are deposited into escrow accounts that cover the costs of the professionals that are required, including the Zoning Board Attorney. For the past couple of years, the Zoning Office has not had any staff. Mr. Merlino, as the Zoning Board Secretary, as well as serving as the Zoning Officer, has shouldered all of the responsibilities, including putting together the meeting packets; ensuring that applications are complete; ensuring that public notices are prepared and distributed; and preparing the agendas and minutes for the Zoning Board meetings. Mr. Merlino has encountered some problems in getting all of that done due to a lack of time to do all of the jobs he must do. In the past, a full-time clerical position has been associated with the Zoning Board to handle many of these administrative tasks, freeing Mr. Merlino to review the meeting minutes, as well as ensuring that applications are correct and complete, and legal advertisements are properly done. Therefore, Mr. Barker said he was again requesting in 2014 that a dedicated clerical person be hired to provide these functions for the Zoning Board. He also requested a part-time Assistant Zoning Officer. Mr. Barker noted that the position titles currently reflected in the budget need to be modified because the position listed as “Secretary Board/Commissions” is actually the Zoning Board clerk, and the Zoning Board Secretary is actually an Assistant Zoning Officer. When talking about efficiencies and inefficiencies within the Building Department, which includes the Zoning Office, there seems to be a delay in the Zoning portion of the building process. It is taking longer to get the applications out of the Zoning Office and move them into the permit phase. That is an area that has been identified as one in need of an assistant to allow more time to perform inspections, because at this time, the Zoning Office has not been able to be proactive in performing the zoning processes around Ridgewood. Ms. Mailander pointed out something that people may not realize, which is that every application that comes into the Building Department must first be processed by the Zoning Office, and Mr. Merlino is the only Zoning Officer in the Village, which means that he must review every application, after which time it goes out to other officials for action. Adding another person, even on a part-time basis, would allow this process to proceed more quickly and the applications could be given to other inspectors more quickly. Mr. Barker noted that there are applications that come in for roofs, which do not need approval from the Zoning Office. However, it is still necessary for Mr. Merlino to review those applications to determine whether a full Zoning review is warranted.

Mayor Aronsohn asked why Mr. Merlino is reviewing every application. Mr. Merlino explained that the job must be done, and Mayor Aronsohn asked if he had always done it. Mr. Merlino responded that when an application comes into the Zoning Office that is easily reviewed and approved, there is a staff member who can deal with it. However, if it is not a simple application, Mr. Merlino must take care of those. Mr. Barker answered that Mr. Merlino has been doing this for a very long time. Before Mr. Merlino became the Construction Code Official, he was also doing the Zoning reviews, as well as building inspections. Mr. Merlino added that he has been the Zoning Officer since 1988. Councilman Pucciarelli asked why Mr. Merlino must also be the Secretary to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. Merlino responded that he was given both titles when he became the Zoning Officer. At the time, those were the only two tasks he had. That was how it had been done in the Village for many years before Mr. Merlino stepped into the positions. Mr. Merlino commented that he made a comparison of Ridgewood to eight or nine other communities, and with the exception of Fair Lawn, no other community has a Zoning Office, Zoning Officer, or Zoning Board in their Building Departments. They only do what is required by the Uniform Construction Code for new construction. Councilman Pucciarelli stated that Mr. Merlino is an expert on building codes, and the Uniform Construction Code in particular. However, it seems to Councilman Pucciarelli that it would be a distraction, and a possible cause of inefficiencies in the Building Department, for Mr. Merlino to also be required to prepare packets for the Zoning Board, which meets twice a month, as well as having the responsibility for the minutes of those meetings. Mr. Merlino must also attend those meetings. Councilman Pucciarelli said the Councilmembers need to evaluate whether that is an appropriate use of Mr. Merlino’s time.

Mayor Aronsohn clarified that the proposal is to have another position created for Secretary to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. Merlino responded that attending the Zoning Board meetings does not interfere with his Zoning work, and he enjoys being able to wear the three hats that he currently wears. The position that is being proposed is basically an administrative one, for clerical work for the Zoning Board. That person would be the one to prepare the packets for the Zoning Board meetings. Mr. Merlino refers to the position as a “clerk,” but the official title is “secretary”. The administrative title used in the Village is “Board Clerk”. Ms. Mailander explained that the position requested is a full-time clerical one, for someone to assemble the Board packets; accept applications; prepare the minutes of the Zoning Board meetings, and attend the Zoning Board meetings to assist with the recording system. If the Building Department gets busy, the Zoning Clerk could also help out in the Building Department. In addition, the Zoning Office is requesting a part-time Zoning Officer, because every application that comes into the Building Department must be reviewed by a Zoning Officer. This will help move the applications along to be processed more quickly. Mr. Barker offered clarifications for the titles shown in the budget report, because they did not get fixed. The first title shown as “Zoning Board Secretary” should read “Assistant Zoning Officer,” which is a part-time position for $26,000 annually. The “Secretary Board/Commission” is a full-time position at $35,348, which is budgeted for seven months of 2014, in anticipation that the budget would be adopted in May. Mayor Aronsohn asked if the part-time Assistant Zoning Officer would take on some of the clerical work that Mr. Merlino is now doing, which Mr. Barker said was not the case. The full-time Secretary Board/Commission would take on the clerical work. The Assistant Zoning Officer would assist in the Zoning reviews for every application received.

Going back to the point raised by Mayor Aronsohn and Councilman Pucciarelli about the best use of Mr. Merlino’s time, Mayor Aronsohn recalled that the suggestion was to take some of the clerical work away from Mr. Merlino and give that work to a part-time staff member. He wondered if, as the Zoning Board Secretary, Mr. Merlino receives an additional stipend for doing that work. Mr. Merlino responded that his salary is one amount that covers all of the positions he holds. It is not divided up between the Building Department and Zoning Office. He receives no stipend for anything that he does.

Councilwoman Walsh commented that the plan presented in the budget makes a lot of sense. She noted that there have been previous discussions in which it was acknowledged that Mr. Merlino, as the Zoning Official, has been spread pretty thin. However, helping to alleviate that situation always depended upon the budget status at the time. She believes it will be a good move forward to hire extra staff to take some of the pressure off Mr. Merlino, and will help to make the process smoother.

Councilman Pucciarelli pointed out that no revenues are shown for the Zoning Board of Adjustment, and he asked if there are any application fees or escrow fees, or any other fees, as there are in the Planning Board, and why those fees are not reflected in the budget. He also noted that there is some revenue generated by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. Sanzari explained that he did not include the Zoning Board escrow fees on the sheets that he prepared, because they support the other fees that are charged to the applicants, such as engineering and attorneys’ fees. Those fees come out of the trust fund. There might be some application fees which Mr. Sanzari said he could not separate from the other fees in the current computer system used by the Village, but he will go back and look at those fees. He added that there is a significant amount in the trust fund from the Zoning Board applicants. Councilman Pucciarelli asked if those fees are reflected elsewhere in the budget, and Mr. Sanzari responded that they are shown in the trust fund. Councilman Pucciarelli pointed out that the monies paid for those fees are allocated to the various Village departments, and Mr. Sanzari noted that they are not always allocated to Village departments, but are also paid to the attorneys involved, or any special professional consultants who might be required to be engaged in a particular job. Councilman Pucciarelli said the bottom line is that those fees are not used to absorb the net costs of the Zoning Department, which are shown to be approximately $64,000, which Mr. Sanzari confirmed. In addition, Mr. Sanzari suggested that perhaps that could be something that is reviewed in the future, so a fee could be charged by the Zoning Board, just as the Planning Board charges a fee to review applications. The work done by the Engineering Department, and that of Blais Brancheau, Village Planner, are charged to the applicants. At a minimum, Councilman Pucciarelli believes the application fee itself for the Zoning Board of Adjustment should be charged to offset the $64,000 in expenditures. Mr. Barker, after consulting with Mr. Merlino, said that they could try to isolate what the actual application fee is. Councilman Pucciarelli pointed out that the Zoning Board deals with many more applications than the Planning Board. He also pointed out that there is some revenue generation in the form of application fees that could show that the real costs of this department may not be as high as $64,000. Mr. Merlino said he would go back and get that information.

Councilwoman Hauck commented that she is looking forward to further scrutiny of the Building Department, because she understands that there are some issues with customer satisfaction, which could be due to the fact that the department is understaffed. However, Councilwoman Hauck also believes the tracking process needs to be scrutinized to find out why it is not working, and to make it more accurate. She is willing to work with everyone in the Building Department in order to streamline things, and she is not sure if simply increasing staff is the solution to the problem. Councilwoman Hauck believes that management could be part of the problem, and she hopes that the new Village Manager will have an opportunity to work with the Building Department to try to resolve such issues. Regarding the tracking system, Mr. Barker commented that it was found that the majority of permits that are issued are going to the contractors, so when information is given, it is not always passed on to the homeowner, who might also want to keep track of what is going on. He believes that what should be addressed is a better way of educating the public about tools that are available to them, and perhaps finding a better way to deliver information to them. The system has been in place for well over a year, and it has come to Mr. Barker’s attention that many homeowners do not know about it. As soon as they find out about it, they are surprised that it exists.

Mayor Aronsohn stated that he thinks the point is that there should be a better way to do things in this department. The current staff is very frustrated, because they believe they need more staff and are constantly working against deadlines, and Village residents are also very frustrated, because they are not kept abreast of what is happening. Mayor Aronsohn believes the focus should be on figuring out what is wrong and fixing it, for the sake of everyone.

Regarding Councilman Pucciarelli’s point about absorbing some of the costs, Mayor Aronsohn said he appreciates the idea of going back to see if some of the costs can be absorbed by the fees, but he noted that some of the additional expenses requested would be helping the Building Department, not just the Zoning Department. He asked if Mr. Barker or anyone else in the Zoning Department had thought about absorbing some of those costs within the Building Department itself. Mr. Barker responded that they are currently re-examining one of the ways in which Zoning review fees are charged, because at this time, there is no separate Zoning fee charged when someone comes in to apply for a building permit. If someone asks for a simple Zoning review, the Zoning Department can charge for that according to its fee structure. Mr. Barker pointed out that they are trying to set up a fee structure wherein the fee charged for a Zoning review is not a flat fee, but could perhaps be on a sliding scale, depending upon how involved the Zoning review process is. Mayor Aronsohn thought that was a good idea, because as Councilman Pucciarelli pointed out, since they are asking for more staff, it would be a good idea if that could be paid out of Zoning Department funds, instead of possibly having another department fund those costs. Mr. Barker reiterated that they are working on it, but they do not yet have any hard numbers to provide.

                3. Health Department

 Dawn Cetrulo, Supervisor of the Health Department, spoke about the budgets for the Health Department and the Division of Animal Control. Ms. Cetrulo started by discussing some of the ideas she has in mind for 2014 to increase revenue. They include increasing the licensing fees for food establishments and restaurants, which have not been increased in seven years. Ms. Cetrulo said she hopes to increase the fees by approximately $50 per establishment. Another proposed increase is in dry cleaning fees, which have not been increased in approximately nine years. There are currently more regulations associated with dry cleaning that must be evaluated, causing more time to be spent on those inspections. Ms. Cetrulo also pointed out the reductions in expenses in her department, including the three-year dog licensing fees, which has saved her department a lot of time while increasing revenue, and has been more efficient overall. Another savings has been realized through the use of email for the dog licensing renewals. Ms. Cetrulo noted that she is now trying to start using emails for the restaurants regarding food handling classes; restaurant renewals; recalls; or for any other reason. In addition, due to the overwhelming success of the three-year dog licensing system that is been implemented, Ms. Cetrulo now wants to apply that same system to cat licensing. There are not as many cats that are licensed in Ridgewood, but that has proven to be a much more efficient system with dog licenses, and Ms. Cetrulo believes it will be the same for cats. Emails would also be applied to cat license renewals, as with the dog licenses. Ms. Cetrulo said she has also been discussing with Dylan Hansen, Network Administrator, the possibility of accepting credit cards, which has been previously discussed. At one time, there was an ATM in Village Hall, so Ms. Cetrulo said it was necessary to send applicants who wished to pay by credit card downstairs to get cash. However, if her department could accept credit cards, it would save a lot of time and be more convenient for everyone, especially since there is no longer an ATM in Village Hall. There is a way to accept credit cards using PayPal.

Mr. Barker interjected a comment about reviewing the revenue of the Health Department. He noted that the Health Department is actually made up of a number of different tasks: the Division of Vital Statistics; the division that takes care of retail inspections; and the animal licensing division. The revenue shown for the Health Department does not include revenue generated by dog and cat licenses. However, the office time, energy, and supplies come out of the Health Department. That is because the money goes into a trust, and the Animal Control Officers and any costs associated with licensing of dogs and cats are paid out of the trust. So Mr. Barker wanted to point out that the revenues are not included in the budget, because they must be put into the trust, although the Animal Control/Health Department staff are utilizing and collecting that money. Ms. Cetrulo added that the fees collected amounted to approximately $60,000.

Regarding staffing, Ms. Cetrulo stated that there is a part-time Deputy Registrar who works 27 hours per week for the Village, and Ms. Cetrulo has requested that her hours be increased to 35 per week. She currently receives health benefits from the Village, since her husband also works for the Village, so she would not be entitled to the stipend. Her husband also works for the Village. Increasing the hours for the Deputy Registrar would eliminate the need for a part-time temporary assistant, as long as the current crossing guard program could be maintained, which has been very successful. There are employees who come in during the summer to help process dog licenses, as well as employees from other departments who help with various tasks.

Ms. Cetrulo stated that she would like to continue the Responsible Pet Ownership Committee, which has been very successful. There are also some other upcoming pet care programs to be hosted in the Village, which have not cost the Village anything. Information is sent via email, and volunteers help with these programs. There are also some wellness initiatives with Village employees and residents that Ms. Cetrulo is hoping to continue, such as the weight loss challenge; lunching-in programs; monthly blood pressure checks; and the walking club. They have also been very successful for the Village, while costing the Village nothing.

Councilman Pucciarelli commended Ms. Cetrulo for doing a great job with a very small amount of money, while noting that there is a $24,000 budget increase for 2014, and the net cost to the Village will have doubled in two years. He also mentioned that there is an increase of approximately $5,500 budgeted for “Other Expenses,” and he does not know what those expenses are. Ms. Cetrulo explained that money is put in the budget for such things as septic inspections, but the money is not always used. Councilman Pucciarelli explained that when a budget increase of $24,000 is shown, it would be helpful if that number could be reduced to zero. However, because it is not clearly shown where the $24,000 is to be spent, there is no way to evaluate where cuts could be made. He also pointed out that the net cost to the Village has more than doubled over the past two years, and he believes it could be due to the fact that the fee levels are too low. Ms. Cetrulo responded that many of the fees charged by the Village are already at a maximum level. Mr. Barker added that, as with the Building Department, there is reliance on fees that are decided by other people. For example, fees are only paid if someone gets married, has a baby, passes away, or opens up a business. He pointed out that there was a tremendous drop in revenue from 2012 to 2013. Ms. Cetrulo also noted that there was a 10% decrease in deaths in 2013. There has been an increase over the past two years in the amount of birth certificates issued, because insurance companies, the Division of Motor Vehicles, and the United States Passport Offices were audited. Now that those audits are nearly finished, the number has no longer been increasing. However, birth registrations in the Village have increased.

Mayor Aronsohn asked a question about the three-year dog licenses, because he thought that all of the revenue was collected upfront. Ms. Cetrulo pointed out that there is no discount for the three-year license. Mayor Aronsohn asked if the revenue is divided over the three years when that license is purchased, and Ms. Cetrulo responded that the entire amount is included in the revenue for the year in which it was collected. She did note that the licenses are issued on a rolling basis, and people become eligible to purchase those licenses for their pets every year. Mayor Aronsohn explained that the point he was trying to make was that when the three-year licenses were implemented, there must have been a spike in the amount of licenses purchased that first year, which Ms. Cetrulo confirmed. Mr. Barker added that at this point, there has not been a significant drop in the number of licenses purchased. He believes it will be easier to track the actual number of licenses sold once the first three-year cycle is completed, which will be in 2015.

Councilman Pucciarelli stated that the Health Department has shown an 18% increase in costs over 2013, and more than 100% increase in costs from 2012. While he understands that those are relatively small amounts of money, they do add up for each department. Mr. Barker suggested that perhaps the budgets for the Health Department over the past five years could be reviewed to see if the changes in the past two years might be an anomaly, as well as to determine what happened in the years prior to 2012, and perhaps it could quantify what happened in 2012.

Councilwoman Hauck had a question about the money held in escrow for licensing. She asked what payouts are made from the funds in escrow. Ms. Cetrulo explained that those funds are paid to the Animal Control Officer. Councilwoman Hauck asked what percentage of those funds are recouped by the department, and when. Mr. Sanzari responded that in the Animal Control budget, there is a $30,000 allocation for the Dog Trust Fund, which offsets the Bergen County Contract that the Village has with the County to pick up stray animals. Councilwoman Hauck asked if the Village ever gets that money back. Mr. Sanzari explained that the Village is entitled to a specific amount of money from each dog or cat license that is issued, which is deposited into the Trust Fund. The other portion of the license fee goes to the State of New Jersey. The Village’s share offsets operations for Animal Control. There is no allocation of those funds that goes to the Health Department for issuing those licenses. Councilwoman Hauck pointed out that those funds could never be included in the budget. Mr. Sanzari answered that historically, based on the contract, what is taken from the Trust Fund is approximately equal to what the Village collects for the fees. Councilman Hauck noted that it would be wonderful if some of that money could be allocated back to the Health Department.

Councilwoman Hauck also noticed that there was a big spike in contractual services, and she asked if there was anything notable in that. Ms. Cetrulo answered that those figures are the ones she referred to earlier, which included the septic inspections. Those funds must be included in the budget, although they are not always spent. For example, she did not spend those funds in 2012, but they were spent in 2013.

Mayor Aronsohn recalled that Ms. Cetrulo had discussed the possibility of increasing restaurant licensing fees, and he asked if those proposed increases were reflected in the 2014 budget. Ms. Cetrulo said they were not. Mr. Barker added that the numbers shown in the budget are carried over from the previous year, reflecting the same fees being charged. Mayor Aronsohn asked what the current restaurant licensing fee is. Ms. Cetrulo responded that a restaurant/food establishment licensing fee is commonly $380 annually, which she proposes to increase by $50 to $430 annually. In addition, Ms. Cetrulo noted that restaurants/food establishments also pay an ice license fee of $25, which causes a lot of confusion and incurs a lot of extra paperwork, and she proposes to include the ice license fee with the new restaurant/food establishment licensing fee. Mayor Aronsohn asked how much the dry cleaner fee is. Ms. Cetrulo responded that it is $75, which she proposes increasing to $125. Mayor Aronsohn then asked if she had calculated how much additional revenue that would bring into the Health Department. Ms. Cetrulo estimated that it would mean an additional $2,000 for the restaurants, and approximately $500 for the dry cleaners.

4. Building Department

 Tony Merlino, Director of the Building Department, stated that their operating budget has decreased by $2,050, but the rest of their financial situation remains the same. Mr. Merlino noted that his department is no longer reimbursed for such things as attending conferences, so they cut down their expenses in that area. However, Mr. Merlino said he is requesting some additional full-time staff due to the increased workload. He pointed out that his department suffered when all the layoffs occurred, but the workload has not decreased. In fact, the opposite appears to be true. Every year, the number of permit applications and reviews that must be done has increased. The increase in staff will also help to make the response time in performing the reviews and responding to permit applications much faster. Mr. Merlino said that in the past, there were four full-time administrative staff members in his department, which was reduced to one person in 2010-2011, and two more part-time staff members have been hired since 2010.

5. Tax Assessor 

Mr. Barker commented that, from a housing market standpoint, 2013 was a very good year. The reassessment put the Village in a good position moving forward, so the assessment base can be defended. However, there will be appeals, because residents have the right to appeal all tax assessments. Mr. Barker said he anticipates a lower number of appeals. In 2013, there were only 74 appeals, of which one-third were withdrawn when the owners discovered that their appeal was based on the previous year’s assessment, rather than the current one. The Tax Assessor’s Office is still working on a backlog of commercial cases from 2009-2010. Mr. Barker said that he and Mr. Rogers work on these cases together, and try to get them resolved in the most efficient way. They are also going to reevaluate the process to see if it can be streamlined, and to avoid duplicating procedures.

Mr. Barker noted that his office does not have a “traditional” revenue source that can be relied upon every year, such as fees, permits, and other construction-related sources of revenue. The method by which revenue is generated is when projects are completed in the middle of the year, those assessments have to be modified, and the owners are billed for the additional portion when the work is complete. That revenue is unanticipated revenue, and goes into surplus for the following year. In a sense, Mr. Barker said that is “creating” revenue. There is no way to predict such revenue gains, because it is generated from and affected by construction permits. Mr. Barker said they try to keep expenses as stagnant as possible. He pointed out that his department shows a decrease in its budget request, primarily because the first year of the reassessment payment was in the budget in 2012, so they did not need as much money in 2013. There are some slight increases in the 2014 budget, due to such things as postage increases; an increase in the cost for software maintenance; an anticipated increase in the cost of toner; and other such increases. The staff remains the same, with no additional staff requested. Mr. Barker commented that the Assistant Tax Assessor now assists other departments, including the Finance and Health Departments, and in whatever other locations where help is needed.

Councilwoman Walsh asked for clarification that the 74 appeals mentioned by Mr. Barker were for 2013 assessments. Mr. Barker responded that they are all County Tax Board appeals. Councilwoman Walsh then asked if any of those appellants received any refunds, and what was the total of any refunds paid. Mr. Barker said there were some refunds, and he did not have the total amount, but he could get the information. Finally, Councilwoman Walsh noted that the Councilmembers receive a monthly statement of Mr. Rogers’ services, which is broken down by department. She wondered why the fee for services rendered for the Tax Assessor’s Office was not included in this budget, because she believes it would give a better picture of how much it costs for the Village to defend itself in the tax appeals. If that amount shows a steady increase, it might be something that needs to be re-evaluated.

Councilman Pucciarelli asked for clarification on the point that, according to the added value chart Mr. Barker provided, the budget shows that annually, the Village realizes approximately $250,000 in added assessed valuations, or added revenue. Mr. Barker responded that it is added revenue. Councilman Pucciarelli recalled his comments during the discussion about the Health Department budget that their expenditures far exceeded their revenue, especially over the past two years. He pointed out that the Tax Assessor’s Office is in the opposite position, with a decrease of approximately $50,000 over the past two years. Councilman Pucciarelli wondered if the figure from 2012 was inflated due to the amounts of tax appeals, or if there had been any kind of efficiencies made in the department. Mr. Barker responded that 2012 was the down payment on a five-year emergency appropriation for that account for the reassessment. Mr. Sanzari explained that the rest of the payments are being funded out of a five-year special emergency appropriation. The payment is $48,000 per year. Councilman Pucciarelli estimated that the tax assessment appeal process costs the Village approximately $300,000 annually, and he does not see any way to reduce that expense. Mr. Barker agreed, saying that he and Mr. Rogers have reviewed and re-evaluated to see where any savings could be found, and they have determined that so far, it is being handled in the most efficient manner possible. There is not a lot of money spent on appraisal fees and other expenses.

Finally, Councilman Pucciarelli noted that the recent reassessment has reallocated the tax burden, which might be considered to be unfair in some cases, and overly generous in others. Since 2013, when the reassessment was done, the market has been rather robust, and Councilman Pucciarelli asked us to Barker when he anticipates the next reassessment might be required. Mr. Barker answered that historically, reassessments have followed a 7 or 8-year cycle. They are traditionally more frequent when the market takes a downward turn, and less frequent when the market is growing. There was a revaluation in 2001 and another in 2008, when the housing market was in a peak growth period. In a rising market, Mr. Barker explained that municipalities reap the benefit of something called the “assessment corridor,” which is a 15% plus-or-minus range off of the average, which gives added protection to municipalities. An appellant would have to be outside of the corridor in order to prove his/her case. Councilman Pucciarelli noted that the number of successful tax appeals should also be an indicator that it might be time to do a revaluation. Mr. Barker responded that in a rising market, the number of appeals is fewer, because it is more difficult for people to prove their cases. That is what occurred in 2006-2007.

Councilwoman Hauck clarified that Mr. Barker was not asking for any additional employees in the Tax Assessor Department, which Mr. Barker confirmed.

Ms. Mailander announced that there were no more departments scheduled for this evening, and reminded everyone that the next budget meeting is on Friday, March 21, 2014, at 5:00 P.M. She also reminded the Councilmembers that one of the documents given to them was regarding the capital budget, and they should bring that document with them to each budget meaning. Some departments will have capital budget requests. Mayor Aronsohn asked that the capital budget requests be reflected in the up-coming budget discussions, and Mr. Sanzari responded that the capital budget requests will be on separate forms from the operating budget requests, and will be discussed separately, after each operating budget is discussed. Mayor Aronsohn commented that, as recommended by the FAC, it would be nice to have some type of sheet indicating the actual costs incurred by each department, including such costs as Mr. Rogers’s fees; depreciation of vehicles; and other pertinent expenses. Mr. Sanzari explained that each department does have that information available, and it is provided to the Councilmembers as part of their budget presentations. Councilman Pucciarelli noted that it is also good for the taxpayers to have an indication of what it costs to provide services to the residents.

4. ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the Village Council, on a motion by Councilwoman Walsh, seconded by Councilwoman Hauck, and carried unanimously by voice vote, the meeting was adjourned at 6:39 P.M.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    _____________________________

                                                                                                 Paul S. Aronsohn

                                                                                                         Mayor

_________________________________

            Heather A. Mailander

                Village Clerk