Village Council Special Public Meeting Mnutes 20140423
A SPECIAL PUBLIC 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, APRIL 23, 2014, AT 7:30 P.M.
1. CALL TO ORDER – OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT – ROLL CALL
Mayor Aronsohn called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M., and read the Statement of Compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act. At roll call, the following were present: Councilmembers Hauck, Pucciarelli, Riche, Walsh, and Mayor Aronsohn. Also present were Roberta Sonenfeld, Village Manager; Heather Mailander, Village Clerk; and Matthew Rogers, Village Attorney.
2. 2014 BUDGET INTRODUCTION
a. Budget Message
Ms. Sonenfeld commented that the budget has already been presented twice, with a few changes each time. She said it was considered important to apprise the public and begin the discussion on the budget, which is why it is being brought forward at this Special Public Meeting.
Ms. Sonenfeld, with assistance from Stephen Sanzari, Chief Financial Officer, described the budget process in detail. Initially, the Village Council directed the Village Manager to formulate a budget with a 0% tax increase, and with $3 million in the capital budget. There were many rounds of budget reviews, including internal reviews with the Councilmembers. The overall approach, as mentioned by Ms. Johansen in the public comments, was rather different than previous budget processes. Revenue was taken as far as municipal accounting would allow; and actual expenditures were utilized as guidelines, rather than appropriated amounts. Ms. Sonenfeld felt that would be a more realistic approach to take. In addition, it was assumed that there would be no diminution of services. It should also be noted that the capital and operating budgets are being presented at the same time, and they were formulated together. In the past, they were processed and adopted separately, which precluded the completion of some capital projects. Two scenarios have been recommended. One is for a 0% tax increase; and the other is for a 1% tax increase. The majority of the Councilmembers endorsed the 0% tax increase at the last public budget meeting.
From the beginning, Ms. Sonenfeld said they were challenges that had to be met. One of the first ones was that there were some significant supplemental expenses that had to be addressed. One of the largest of those amounted to $3.8 million. The yearly increase in debt service is approximately $835,000. There are also contractual salary increases that have to be considered, as well as health insurance increases. Terminal leave increases add another $100,000 to the budget. Yearly increases in compensatory time must also be included, and there was a large expense incurred this year for snow removal costs, which were estimated at $360,000, but Ms. Sonenfeld believes the actual figure is higher. There were some FEMA grants over the past two years that allowed the Village to have, in essence, “free” employees during that time. In 2014, the Village has a Municipal Election scheduled, which will cost an additional $50,000. Salary raises for non-union management personnel must also be taken into consideration, and the two new police officers hired recently add an additional $80,000 to the budget, including uniforms and training. Grass disposal and NJDEP licensing at the Recycling Facility have led to additional costs. The Planning Board has incurred some legal fees, and the fine levied by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) required budgeting. Ms. Sonenfeld also reminded everyone about the forensic review as a result of the recent coin theft, and some Six Sigma training that is planned to prepare everyone for changing the way business is done and restructuring in the Village budgeting process. Overall, those additional expenses totaled more than $6 million that had to be covered in the budget before anything else could be considered.
In addition, there were supplemental expenses that Ms. Sonenfeld believed should be covered in the budget, such as new police vehicles; support in the zoning area and Zoning Board of Adjustment which will indirectly help the Building Department; $40,000 for snow removal; technology, including an e-ticket system to be implemented in the Police Department; increased funding for the Community Center, which is being well-used; and replacing tree mulch. The total for all of those supplemental expenses is $262,000.
The Village realized some savings and expenditures this year. In the Fire Department, there were a couple of retirements, leading to a small surplus of $160,000. The Village Manager’s office has created a savings of $56,000, and there are further savings due to tax assessments. Additional budget cuts have also been made in the past week. The total of all of the savings is approximately $161,000.
Anticipated revenues were maximized, and Ms. Sonenfeld believes there may be a couple of risks in that area, as well as a couple of opportunities. Some members of Ridgewood government feel that the maximum revenues can be achieved, and it is possible that revenues could be more than expected.
In her comments, Ms. Johansen alluded to the fact that the Village runs a fund balance, and Ms. Sonenfeld noted that the fund balance is usually generated by revenues that are over budget, or expenses that are under budget. That helps to maintain the fund balance every year. In reviewing the fund balances over past years, Ms. Sonenfeld pointed out that $2.9 million was taken out of the fund balance to offset the budget. This year, in order to get to a 0% tax increase, Ms. Sonenfeld suggested using $2.983 million of the fund balance, which would leave a larger surplus than last year ($1.45 million), and Ms. Sonenfeld added that it is anticipated that $300,000 will be coming from FEMA very soon. That will bring the surplus to $1.75 million. Ms. Sonenfeld cautioned that it is important to remember that once the fund balance is depleted, because of the way budgeting was done in prior years, it was easier to refill the fund balance. However, because actual expenditures are now being used for budgeting purposes, it creates a risk in refilling the fund balance if it should be depleted. This will also be important in future years when the fund balance will have to be filled again.
There is also a Recycling Trust Fund in the Village, all of which are being used, with some of them being allocated to the budget to offset expenses, and other monies being used to offset the tax levy, which will bring the Recycling Trust Fund down to zero. The Snow Removal Trust Fund had $211,000, which helped to absorb some of the snow removal costs, but it will be reduced to zero after this budget is passed. FEMA money is also being used in 2014, as well as a Green Acres grant that expires after this year. Ms. Sonenfeld noted that the deferred-charge parking has to do with the coin issue. The Parking Utility, which is maintained separately from Village funds to a degree, showed a deficit in 2011 and 2012. The taxpayers had to fund that deficit. Ms. Sonenfeld pointed out that in 2013, the Parking Utility made money, because the coins were no longer being stolen. As a result, the Parking Utility made approximately $400,000, which is now being given back to the taxpayers from the Parking Utility. That is a one-time occurrence, which will not happen next year.
In comparing 2014 budget with the 2013 budget, the Village is currently using approximately $1.3 million in revenues, compared to $877,000 in 2013.
Regarding debt service, the principal and interest payments on bonds have increased 21% annually, and it is now $835,000 more. The total debt service is currently approximately $4.8 million. This has also been offset by some one-time bonuses in 2014. Ms. Sonenfeld pointed out that long-range debt forecasting and planning must be considered, as well as long-range capital planning.
In summary, there are approximately $6.5 million in supplemental expenses in the current budget, which has been funded with approximately $4.8 million in one-time revenue sources and bonuses. The total appropriation for 2014 is approximately $46.2 million. The 2014 budget shows an increase of approximately 1.9% over that of 2013. The budget as introduced assumes a 0% tax increase, as requested by the Village Council. The average household savings is approximately $5 per year.
This past Monday evening, two budget scenarios were presented. One of them called for a 0% tax increase, and the other called for a 1% tax increase, which would cost the average household $50 for the year per property, and would increase revenues by approximately $450,000. Ms. Sonenfeld wanted to point out that there are positive aspects to both scenarios. They were based on a revised approach to budgeting, which was more accurate and realistic; both of them have some meaningful but modest investments; and both of them speak to budget discipline. The 1% tax increase scenario mitigates the risk involved with not building up the fund balances, leading to a bigger challenge in 2015. The 1% tax increase also could be used to fund unfunded liabilities, or it could be used to begin multi-year funding of other accounts. It could also be used for capital projects. The 0% tax increase scenario provides continued needed tax relief to an already beleaguered public. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, there will be opportunities throughout 2014 in which other expense savings and revenue opportunities can be identified. In addition, the Ridgewood Schools budget is increasing 1.9% for the average property in Ridgewood, which equates to $172 annually. The municipal budget is not increasing at all. Ms. Sonenfeld said she and Mr. Sanzari made numerous attempts to get information about Bergen County taxes, but the tax increase has not been approved by the Freeholders. Ms. Sonenfeld believes it will be 1.8% or 1.9%, but that is not official.
Going forward, Ms. Sonenfeld said she wanted to give everyone an idea of the challenges that must be faced. When one takes into account salaries, including Police and Fire Department salaries, as well as other employees’ salaries; pensions; health insurance; and terminal leave, those items comprise 58% of the current budget. Ms. Sonenfeld believes that percentage is rather low, and that all contractual obligations are not included in that figure. It is also important to remember that the unfunded liabilities total approximately $7 million at this time. There are 11 confirmed retirements expected in 2014, with an expected payout of $420,000 just for sick days. The anticipated payouts will be $271,000 in 2015; and $99,000 in 2016. Payments to Fire Department personnel for compensatory time in 2014 totaled $142,700. However, Ms. Sonenfeld cautioned that those payouts do not give the total picture, because other compensatory time payouts were made in other budget areas.
The risk is that the trust fund currently has a balance of $479,000, which is offsetting the $7 million in unfunded liabilities. It will be necessary to use monies from the trust fund if there are any unexpected retirements in 2014. There are some anticipated retirements from the Police Department in 2015, which may be seven or eight people. Those retirements will, on average, cost more than the ones already mentioned.
In thinking about how things can be done differently, Ms. Sonenfeld commented that it is becoming less likely that small revisions can be made in the budget. The Village needs an Interest Cap Arbitration Law, which caps all arbitration at 2%, as a tool for contractual obligations. It is also essential that the Village find ways to deliver services differently, perhaps in collaboration with the County, as well as with other municipalities. Insourcing and outsourcing opportunities must be found to deliver services differently; and the use of Six Sigma methodologies to help streamline the process. Ms. Sonenfeld commented that it is also necessary to focus on people, because they are a big part of the equation, and focus on staff and leadership development, as well as empowerment of staff. Of course, the focus must also be placed on the customers, who are Ridgewood residents. Customer satisfaction must be measured, and identification of critical customer requirements is necessary.
The Village Council had directed that the capital budget is to be $3 million, and Ms. Sonenfeld said the budget came in at that level. It includes approximately $1.3 million for paving, as well as some equipment purchases.
Mayor Aronsohn thanked Ms. Sonenfeld for her presentation, and noted that it was the third time that the Councilmembers had seen it. He also thanked Ms. Sonenfeld, Ms. Mailander, and Mr. Sanzari for all of their time and efforts in working on the budget, as well as all of the department supervisors for their input. In addition, Mayor Aronsohn expressed appreciation to the members of the Financial Advisory Committee (FAC) for their assistance. He added that the budget is different in many aspects, including the latest presented, and the way it is formatted, making it much easier for people to understand what is included in the budget, as well as what is not included.
Councilwoman Walsh noted that at a previous budget meeting, she expressed her concern about some additional things in the budget for which she had some questions. She said she was on the fence when it came to deciding between the 0% tax increase or the 1% tax increase. One of the concerns that Councilwoman Walsh expressed was she believes there has been a diminution of services in the Village, and the 0% tax increase budget assumes no diminution of current services, which Councilwoman Walsh felt were already diminished. She asked what assurance, if any, does the public have that services will not be diminished any further. For example, Councilwoman Walsh reminded Ms. Sonenfeld about her comment that there is only enough money in the snow removal fund for one round of snow removal, and she wondered what would happen if the winter of 2014-2015 should bring numerous snowfalls. Ms. Sonenfeld replied that snow removal would be implemented, and the funds would have to be found elsewhere to cover the costs. She added that there has already been discussion about snow removal; leaf removal; and Christmas tree pickup in the Village, and Ms. Sonenfeld has already obtained information about leaf removal services in other states. In addition, Ms. Sonenfeld believes that there were several reasons for the snow removal issues that were encountered last year, and she does not think they were budget-related. When she and the various department supervisors met, it was agreed that the Village would have a budget that did not diminish services. However, Ms. Sonenfeld believes the bigger question is how the budget will be funded. So far, the budget is being funded by a combination of one-time revenue sources, which has been done before.
Councilman Walsh pointed out that it may be necessary to make a capital adjustment, and she wondered if that would make it impossible to get a true sense of the capital budget. Ms. Sonenfeld answered that she believes the capital budget is fine as it is. She noted that the amount budgeted for paving has been increased, and that while it would be possible to pave more roads if $1 million could be added to the budget for paving, that does not follow in the scope of the $3 million capital budget. More money would have to be put aside if the capital budget were to be increased. A $3 million capital budget requires putting aside $140,000 in funds as a down payment for the bond. That amount is already in the budget. Ms. Sonenfeld reminded everyone that, as she pointed out before, she believes it is essential to have a five-year capital plan, which must be matched to infrastructure investments and then discussed. She is confident that, as far as the capital budget is concerned, she has been able to fulfill many departmental requests. Councilwoman Walsh asked if it would be safe to say that Ms. Sonenfeld is more confident in the capital budget or the operating budget. Ms. Sonenfeld responded that there is no risk associated with a capital budget, because the capital is already put aside. Councilwoman Walsh question what would happen should the winter bring five severe storms, and Ms. Sonenfeld and Mr. Sanzari responded that such situations would require emergency appropriations, and it might be necessary to transfer funds from other departments to cover those expenses. Mayor Aronsohn pointed out that the fund balance gets replenished over the year with various grants in revenue sources, such as the expected FEMA amount of $300,000. Mr. Sanzari added that there is actually $452,000 of revenue from FEMA for 2014. FEMA owes the Village an additional $600,000, but that is a mix of current fund monies and capital fund monies in that $600,000. This is due to the fact that two years ago, the Village approved a bond ordinance for Hurricane Sandy cleanup, which was all allocated to capital expenditures. Therefore, Ms. Sonenfeld pointed out that with the $1.45 million in the surplus, an additional $300,000 will be coming from FEMA. She is concerned that if revenues are not more than expected, and expenses are not lower than expected, it would make the financial situation very tight.
Next, Councilwoman Walsh stated that the Councilmembers go over the figures and how they are calculated. She noted that anyone can access the Village website to see the breakdown of how tax dollars are spent. The mil rate is currently 2.356, and the portion of that which goes to the Village budget is .542. With the suggested 1% tax increase, Councilwoman Walsh pointed out that the Village’s portion increases to .547 out of that 2.356 mil rate. She made that point to illustrate that the largest portion of each tax dollar does not go into the Village budget. Therefore, Councilwoman Walsh said it is her opinion that adopting the 1% tax increase, which is approximately $50 per year, would not be an extraordinary expense.
Mayor Aronsohn interjected that he believes that Ridgewood taxpayers have shouldered a great tax burden over the last several years, and if there is an opportunity for the Village Council to provide some relief to the taxpayers, they should make every effort to do so. In 2013, the budget provided a 0% tax increase, and it is hoped that 2014 can provide the same relief. In the years prior to 2013, the tax increases were significant. That was compounded by the Board of Education tax increases, as well as County tax increases. On top of that, families bear other general burdens, and it all adds up. Mayor Aronsohn pointed out that $50 may not sound like too much, but every little bit adds up, and when the Village Council can provide relief, it should. Every year, serious concerns are raised about services being diminished, which are addressed. One of the ways in which this has been addressed was through hiring a new Village Manager, who will do things differently and run Village government in a different way, which will hopefully be more efficient and effective. Mayor Aronsohn thinks this is a very responsible budget, and provides relief to taxpayers who deserve such relief. Ms. Sonenfeld’s approach has been to recognize that the Village must consider its residents as clients or customers, and needs to be more customer-friendly. Village staff is regarded as professionals, who need development and other tools to be able to do their jobs. Mayor Aronsohn ended by saying that he is very comfortable with the 0% tax increase.
Councilman Pucciarelli stated his reasons why he supported the 0% tax increase, and would vote accordingly. He knows there is an issue regarding services, and then he specifically mentioned the leaf pickup, saying that if he thought a 1% tax increase, or an additional $450,000 in revenue, would result in better leaf pickup, he might be persuaded to support a 1% tax increase. However, it is not apparent that this would be the case. More money does not always translate into better services, and that has become a habit in the Village for far too long. This budgetary approach has been a highly disciplined one, and of the two budget years in which Councilman Pucciarelli has participated, this budget has been the best by far. Every line has been reviewed, and the Department supervisors have been highly sensitized to the need to scrutinize every budget. Moreover, collective bargaining agreements have been carefully scrutinized so that going forward, it is a certainty that things cannot continue as they have been. It also means that there will no longer be automatic tax increases every year in Ridgewood which Councilman Pucciarelli believes will translate to an equity dividend for every homeowner in the Village. Ridgewood will no longer be seen as the place where taxes are growing outrageously, and a place that people cannot afford to live in unless they are extremely wealthy. Councilman Pucciarelli cautioned that he is not sure if it will be possible to have a 0% tax increase in 2015, but he does not rule it out. However, any tax increase will have to be accompanied by structural changes on the operating side, as well as a long-range capital expenditure plan that clearly determines where capital expenditures will be made. Finally, Councilman Pucciarelli believes that the 0% tax increase will help to dilute the 1.9% increase in taxes due to the Board of Education budget. He appreciated the work done by all of the department supervisors who worked with Ms. Sonenfeld in coming up with this budget, and he believes this bodes well for the future, because it makes everyone aware that in order to do this again, there must be some changes in the way the Village does business.
Councilman Pucciarelli asked what the final cost would be for the 0% tax increase. In looking at the supplemental expenditures, Councilman Riche said he reviewed it as if it were his own personal budget, and he found some red flags in the supplemental expenditures that made him wonder if they were responsible or irresponsible expenditures. In government, if there is not enough money to pay for events that are not anticipated, the law requires that those must be the first items that get paid out of the succeeding budget. There is nearly $4 million in one-time, unanticipated expenses from 2013 in the current budget. Those are expenses that were not covered in the 0% tax increase from last year. That is the first red flag. Councilman Riche said he considered that to be a lot of money. Moreover, the Recycling Trust Fund and Snow Removal Trust Fund will be emptied, which Councilman Riche stated is basically emptying savings accounts on hand in the hope that they will be refilled at some point during this year or the next. That is the second red flag. Regarding debt service, Councilman Riche noted that the payments will go from $3.9 million to $4.8 million for principal and interest, because debt service will be increased by $835,000, or 21%. That is the third red flag, and Councilman Riche said it is huge. It is putting off until tomorrow what should be paid today.
Councilman Riche explained that a 1% tax increase would, at a minimum, pay more than half of that increase in the debt service. Therefore, Councilman Riche said he supports the alternate recommendation for a 1% tax increase. He said that a 0% tax increase is good for headlines, and no one wants to pay more taxes, but he is certainly willing to give $50 more out of his pocket for 2014 so that the debt service will not have to be increased by 21%. Councilman Riche noted that the Village has always had the benefit of a AAA bond rating, which is very rare in municipal government. Mr. Sanzari agreed with that statement. Councilman Riche then stated that he could only assume that, as the debt service increases, it might affect that bond rating, and he asked Mr. Sanzari where the Village currently stands as far as its bond rating is concerned. Mr. Sanzari said that in determining bond rating, Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s look at such things as income capita per resident for the municipality; as well as surplus and fund balance regeneration and how they are replenished. Councilman Riche pointed out that depleting the two trust funds might therefore be considered a negative as far as the bond rating would be concerned, which Mr. Sanzari confirmed. However, he pointed out that the Village’s surplus balances have been somewhat level, and the bond rating assessors look at the fact that the Village has nearly two months of operating expenses in the fund balance. Councilman Riche noted that there is also a reserve for uncollected taxes, which is a percentage based on anticipated tax revenues to be collected, and is allowed by law. Those uncollected taxes are increasing in 2014.
Councilman Riche reiterated that he cannot support a 0% tax increase, but he thinks the 1% tax increase budget is a much more responsible one. He is not at all happy with increasing the debt service by 21%, and taking the trust funds down to zero balances.
Mayor Aronsohn asked Councilman Riche a question about how he identified the red flags in the budget. He pointed out that the reason the debt service is increasing by $835,000 is because all of the Councilmembers supported projects that drove that increase. Mayor Aronsohn asked Councilman Riche if he would apply all of the $450,000 that could be realized by a 1% tax increase to debt service, or if he would want a 2% tax increase in order to address the other red flags that he raised. A 1% tax increase does not really address all of the concerns raised by Councilman Riche, and Councilman Riche responded that it addresses some of his concerns, the most serious of which is the increased debt service. He added that there are unanticipated events, with associated expenses, every year. It is not possible to anticipate every expense in the budget. Councilman Riche explained that although a 1% tax increase is not any kind of panacea that would take care of everything, he believes it is a reasonable alternative when Ms. Sonenfeld has already pointed out that in 2015, the budget will be more difficult, and she is concerned about the impact the 0% tax increase will have on future budgets. According to Ms. Sonenfeld, the 1% tax increase, to a certain extent, does mitigate the risk of not building up fund balances. The 1% tax increase could also be used for capital expenses. Councilman Riche considers that $450,000, when broken down as an investment of $50 per resident, is a great investment.
Councilwoman Hauck said she agrees with everything Councilman Riche said, except for the part about passing the cost on to the taxpayers. She believes that the Village Council must “get its house in order”. That is what the FAC has been talking about, and what Ms. Sonenfeld addressed in her presentation. Councilwoman Hauck stated that when she speaks to residents, she tells them that this is something with which she has grappled, because she does not want to diminish services and cut employees, nor does she want the infrastructure to crumble. However, she believes that the Councilmembers are in the habit of passing expenses along to the taxpayers, because they will pay for them. When the Village operates in the red, the taxpayers have been asked to continue financing expenses. That is not how the private sector operates, and Councilwoman Hauck believes it is necessary to rethink the business model, figure out what is wrong with the “company,” and restructure the business accordingly. It is also necessary to evaluate the “business” from the top down, including talking with management to determine what is wrong, and what the new plan will be going forward. Councilwoman Hauck noted that the reason she is voting for the 0% tax increase is to show that the Councilmembers are not going to make the residents responsible again, and to show that the Village Council’s biggest mandate is to show fiscal discipline, while still providing good municipal services.
Mayor Aronsohn elaborated on the point made by Councilwoman Hauck regarding the private sector versus the public sector, and how business is conducted in those areas. He pointed out that all of the Councilmembers have had the opportunity to work in both realms, which are very different. In the private sector, when there are expenses to be met, it is not possible to simply raise the revenue necessary. Efficiencies must be found. On the other hand, governments, whether at a municipal or county level or higher, seem to be in the habit of increasing taxes in order to meet expenses, leading to a lack of discipline. It makes governments recession-proof, because people will always have to pay taxes. Mayor Aronsohn said the Village must break that habit, and it started last year with the 0% tax increase budget, as well as setting up the FAC, and bringing someone into the Village Manager’s position with a strong background in private sector management and budgeting, to try to think and act differently in trying to create a government that provides services differently. Mayor Aronsohn believes the Village is well on the road to doing that. While governments will never be the same as private companies, there is a lot to be learned from budgeting and management practices in the private sector.
b. RESOLUTIONS
The following Resolution, #14-106, to approve the Emergency Temporary Budget Appropriation, was read in full by the Village Clerk:
The following Resolution, #14-107, to approve the 2014 Municipal Budget, and set May 28, 2014, as the date for the public hearing thereon, was read in full by the Village Clerk:
3. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES
a. Introduction – # 3412 – Establish a CAP Bank
Mayor Aronsohn moved the first reading of Ordinance 3412. Councilman Pucciarelli seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote
AYES: Councilmembers Hauck, Pucciarelli, Riche, Walsh, and Mayor Aronsohn
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The Village Clerk read Ordinance 3412 by title:
CALENDAR YEAR 2014 ORDINANCE TO EXCEED THE MUNICIPAL BUDGET APPROPRIATION LIMITS AND TO ESTABLISH A CAP BANK
Councilwoman Hauck moved that Ordinance 3412 be adopted on first reading and that May 14, 2014, be fixed as the date for the hearing thereon. Councilman Pucciarelli seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote
AYES: Councilmembers Hauck, Pucciarelli, and Mayor Aronsohn
NAYS: Councilmembers Riche and Walsh
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
b. Introduction – # 3413 – General Capital Ordinance
Mayor Aronsohn moved the first reading of Ordinance 3413. Councilman Pucciarelli seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote
AYES: Councilmembers Hauck, Pucciarelli, Riche, Walsh, and Mayor Aronsohn
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The Village Clerk read Ordinance 3413 by title:
BOND ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR VARIOUS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS IN AND BY THE VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD, IN THE COUNTY OF BERGEN, NEW JERSEY, APPROPRIATING $2,836,500 THEREFOR, AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $2,700,000 BONDS OR NOTES OF THE VILLAGE TO FINANCE PART OF THE COST THEREOF
Councilwoman Hauck moved that Ordinance 3413 be adopted on first reading and that May 14, 2014, be fixed as the date for the hearing thereon. Councilman Pucciarelli seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote
AYES: Councilmembers Hauck, Pucciarelli, and Mayor Aronsohn
NAYS: Councilmembers Riche and Walsh
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
c. Introduction – # 3414 – Water Capital Ordinance
Mayor Aronsohn moved the first reading of Ordinance 3414. Councilman Pucciarelli seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote
AYES: Councilmembers Hauck, Pucciarelli, Riche, Walsh, and Mayor Aronsohn
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The Village Clerk read Ordinance 3414 by title:
BOND ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR VARIOUS WATER UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS IN AND BY THE VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD, IN THE COUNTY OF BERGEN, NEW JERSEY, APPROPRIATING $2,126,500 THEREFOR, AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $2,000,000 BONDS OR NOTES OF THE VILLAGE TO FINANCE PART OF THE COST THEREOF
Councilwoman Hauck moved that Ordinance 3414 be adopted on first reading and that May 14, 2014, be fixed as the date for the hearing thereon. Councilman Pucciarelli seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote
AYES: Councilmembers Hauck, Pucciarelli, Riche, Walsh, and Mayor Aronsohn
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
- d. Introduction – # 3415 – Parking Utility Capital Ordinance
Mayor Aronsohn moved the first reading of Ordinance 3415. Councilman Pucciarelli seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote
AYES: Councilmembers Hauck, Pucciarelli, Riche, Walsh, and Mayor Aronsohn
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN:None
The Village Clerk read Ordinance 3415 by title:
BOND ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PARKING UTILITY IN AND BY THE VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD, IN THE COUNTY OF BERGEN, NEW JERSEY, APPROPRIATING $127,200 THEREFOR, AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $100,000 BONDS OR NOTES OF THE VILLAGE TO FINANCE PART OF THE COST THEREOF
Councilwoman Hauck moved that Ordinance 3415 be adopted on first reading and that May 14, 2014, be fixed as the date for the hearing thereon. Councilman Pucciarelli seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote
AYES: Councilmembers Hauck, Pucciarelli, Riche, Walsh, and Mayor Aronsohn
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
4. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Village Council, on a motion by Councilman Riche, seconded by Councilwoman Hauck, and carried by voice vote, the Special Public Meeting was adjourned at 8:50 P.M.
_____________________________
Paul S. Aronsohn
Mayor
_________________________________
Heather A. Mailander
Village Clerk
- Hits: 2522