20160427 Village Council Work Session

A REGULAR WORK SESSION 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 27, 2016 AT 7:30 P.M.

 

1. CALL TO ORDER – OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT – ROLL CALL – FLAG SALUTE – MOMENT OF SILENCE

 

Mayor Aronsohn called the meeting to order at 7:32 P.M., and read the Statement of Compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act.  At roll call, the following were present: Councilmembers Hauck, Knudsen, Pucciarelli, Sedon, and Mayor Aronsohn.  Also present were Roberta Sonenfeld, Village Manager; Donna Jackson, Deputy Village Clerk; Matthew Rogers, Village Attorney; and Matthew Jessup, Bond Attorney.

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 serving as first responders.

2. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC

 

Mayor Aronsohn asked if anyone from the public wished to speak regarding any of the agenda items.

 

Gary Cirillo, 260 S. Pleasant Avenue, he tried to watch “Meet the Candidates” online, but the audio is not working properly.  Project Pride will be working on May 14^th at 9 A.M.  and the committee is looking for volunteers to beautify the downtown area.  He believes the election signs should be off-limits in the planters of the CBD as they have crushed all the flowers.  He wants to mention that we are losing Marybeth Lane and her husband.  They are leaving town and he would like to pay honor to them.  At the intersection of Spring and Maple there is a musty smell which has puzzled him for quite a while.  He has discovered that smell emanating from the new telephone poles.  He asked the Village Council to consider a basketball court to be constructed.  He thinks it would be used a good deal and would require little maintenance.  It is his opinion that 5 minutes is too long for a person during public comment.  Three minutes is long enough at the podium.  Lastly, he wanted to thank the Council members that are leaving office for their time.

Lorraine Reynolds, 550 Wyndemere Road, advised the Village Council that there are some political signs at the train station that should be removed.  She read the petition:

“We the undersigned registered voters of the Village of Ridgewood, County of Bergen, State of New Jersey, seek to protest and repeal Ordinance No. 3521 – A Bond Ordinance. Providing for the Hudson Street Parking Deck in and by the Village of Ridgewood, in the County of Bergen, New Jersey, appropriating $11,500,000 therefor and authorizing the issuance of $11,500,000 bonds or notes of the Village to finance the cost therefor – consisting of 6 pages, which is annexed hereto and made part hereof, under the power of

VILLAGE COUNCIL WORK SESSION – APRIL 27, 2016 – PAGE 1

referendum granted to voters of the Village of Ridgewood by N.J.S.A. 4:49-27.  If the same is not repealed by the Township Council, the undersigned voters demand that the same submitted to the electorate for a vote at the next general election in accordance with N.J.S.A. 40:49-10, unless the governing body shall call a special election therefor, with the question to be put to the voters in this manner: Shall Ordinance No. 3521 authorizing the Council of the Village of Ridgewood to issue $11,500,000 bonds or notes to finance the cost of constructing the Hudson Street Parking Deck, currently contemplated as a 4 story, 5 level Parking Deck, be ratified?”.  She also mentioned that the petitioners’ lawyer wrote a letter saying this should go to the general election unless the Village Council decides it should go to a special election which Ms. Reynolds feels is a waste of money.

Gail McCarthy, 153 Hope Street, mentioned that quite a few people wanted to know who our attorney was.  He sent a letter to Heather Mailander after the petition was certified.  She read “Dear Ms. Mailander, My name is Renee Steinhagen, and I am the Executive Director of New Jersey Appleseed Public Interest Law Center, a nonprofit legal advocacy organization, that inter alia represents residents and community-based organizations with respect to their rights of initiative and referendum under New Jersey law.  My clients, the Committee of Petitioners in the aforementioned matter (and, in the successful Petition to Repeal Ordinance #3519) have asked me to write to you in response to the conclusion expressed in the advisory legal opinion posted on the Village’s website on March 30, 2016.  In that opinion, The Village’s bond counsel has concluded that the Faulkner Act’s general referendum provisions, N.J.S.A. 40:69A-185 et al., and not the Local Home Rule Act specific governing bond referendum, N.J.S.A. 40-49-27 govern my client’s recent petition….  It is New Jersey Appleseed’s opinion that specific referendum provisions always prevail over the general referendum found in the Faulkner act, the Walsh Act or the Optional County Charter Act, (“Musto Act”) N.J.S.A. 40:41A-1 et seq¹ concerning the right of certain county residents to repeal ordinances enacted by their respective Board of Freeholders when they are adopted.  New Jersey statutes are replete with specific initiative and referendum provisions governing the right of citizens to initiative or repeal ordinances concerning among other things, county Blue Laws, changes in the salary…In many of these instances the form of petition, the number of signatures needed and the timing and nature of the election at which time the referendum will be held differs from the general municipal and county referendum statutes that otherwise govern initiative and referenda petitions in Walsh, Faulkner or Musto Act entities…As a result, New Jersey Appleseed always directs its clients to satisfy the requirements of the specific referendum statute implicated by their petition, and not the form requirements of the Faulkner Act or Walsh Act if they reside in such municipalities. Given our opinion tha the our client’s petition is governed by the Home Rule Act, and not the Faulkner Act, if their petition is found sufficient, the referendum must occur at the next general election, unless the Village Council specifically and affirmatively decides to hold a special election.  See N.J.S.A. 40:49-10.  If you have further questions regarding this matter, do not hesitate to contact me.”  Ms. McCarthy asked that the Village Council not spend the money on a special election especially when some of the Council were at the end of their term of office.

VILLAGE COUNCIL WORK SESSION – APRIL 27, 2016 – PAGE 2

Saurabh Dani, 390 Bedford Road, asked the Village Council why the resolution #16-110 listed on the Special Public Meeting Agenda is titled differently than the discussion item regarding certification of the petition which is on the Work Shop Agenda.  He asked how the petition can be listed as certified unless the Village Council has not already had a previous conversation to do so.

Claude Bienstock, 39-11B Broadway, Fairlawn, expressed his opinion that the Village Council is doing an excellent job and protecting the property values of the Ridgewood residents.  He has full confidence in their abilities.

Anne Loving, 342 S. Irving Street, agrees with that the political signs in the flower pots look terrible and are now being left as an example.  She believes the problem started in the Fall when the signs were first placed in the flower pots for the parking referendum.

Boyd Loving, 342 S. Irving Street, wants to remind everyone that the ordinance would need to be changed prohibiting the political signs in the flower pots in the Central Business District. He does not want to change the time spent at the podium for public speaking.  He believes five minutes is sufficient and would need to be changed by ordinance. Mr. Loving congratulated the Fire Department for the outstanding job they did on the fire over the weekend at the pizza parlor.

Ellen McNamara, 120 W. Ridgewood Avenue, sees the political signs as a form of support and believes they should be limited to lawns.

Councilwoman Hauck responded to the public comments expressing that the signs are a long-standing tradition in the Village that is difficult to regulate.  Matt Rogers, Village Attorney, advised that there has been an unwritten rule that we don’t allow political signs on public property, but it is not regulated by ordinance.  He did agree that the matter needs attention.  Councilman Sedon feels the signs disrespect the work of the volunteers.  Councilwoman Knudsen claims her email was a very nice request and she will send another even though the decision to remove the signs, or not, is an individual one.  Councilman Pucciarelli feels there is an implication that there is a wrong-doing and encourages the Council to change the topic of discussion immediately.  On that note, Mayor Aronsohn ends the time for public comment.

3. DISCUSSION

 

1. Parking

 

Certification of Results by Village Clerk of Petition to Rescind/Not Ratify Ordinance #3521 – Bond Ordinance for Hudson Street Parking Deck

 

Ms. Sonenfeld notes that there were two components to this.  The Deputy Clerk will certify that the petition contains at least 814 legal voter signatures and the second point is

VILLAGE COUNCIL WORK SESSION – APRIL 27, 2016 – PAGE 3

the discussion of resolution for referendum for the bond ordinance to be placed on the ballot for the June 21, 2016 special election.  She also spoke of the ten day period that the

petitioners can withdraw starts immediately and that June 21, 2016 falls within the time required to hold the election.  Also, the resolution contains the question that would be on the referendum.

Donna Jackson read the following resolution:  Certification of Village Clerk With Respect to Petition For Referendum

Matt Jessup, Bond Attorney for the Village, was introduced by Mayor Aronsohn.  Mr. Jessup explains that the Deputy Village Clerk just advised the Council that the petition for the referendum of the parking utility bond ordinance was presented before the Council.  They also heard during public comment that the petition calls for a review under the Home Rule Act.  He reminds the Council that he has advised this body and has put out to the public numerous times that the Village should act under the Faulkner Act.   The Clerk has been advised to accept the petition and that there is legal precedent for doing this and to continue to proceed under the Faulkner Act by which the Village Council has been advised to follow. 

Next, Mr. Jessup, announces, the Council has twenty days to repeal, or not repeal the ordinance.  The resolution concludes the Village is not going to repeal the ordinance and will accelerate the period in which that is done.  The twenty days has effectively passed.  The Committee of the Petitioners has ten days within which four of the five members can withdraw their petition.  In order for the Committee of Petitioners to understand their ten day period is beginning immediately, the resolution directs the Clerk to send notice to the five members at their addresses on the petition tomorrow indicating that their ten day period has commenced.

Mr. Jessup, continues to say that once the ten day period is over, the Faulkner Act requires an election to be held not less than 40, not more than 90 days from the end of ten day withdrawal date at the next regular or general election.  If there is no regular or general election held less than 40, not more than 90 days from the end of the ten day withdrawal date, the Faulkner Act requires that a special election be held not less than 40, no more than 60 days following the ten day date when the petitioners have the right to withdraw their petition.  He advises that June 21^st, 2016, the date Ms. Sonenfeld

VILLAGE COUNCIL WORK SESSION – APRIL 27, 2016 – PAGE 4

mentioned earlier, falls within that time period.  The resolution authorizes the special election to be held on that date.  In an effort to avoid costly and unnecessary litigation which may end up being unavoidable, given the letter the Village received on Monday from the law firm, Brach Eichler, which represents a group of concerned citizens indicating an intention to instigate a litigation against individual members of the Committee of Petitioners. I don’t know that litigation will be avoided.  In an effort to avoid that and to bring this question to the public as quickly as possible, the resolution schedules a special election under both the Home Rule Act and under the Faulkner Act.  If the committee does not withdraw their petition in the next ten days, then based on the terms of this resolution and the requirements of the statute, the Village Council will take all action required to put the bond ordinance to the public in a special election on June 21^st.

Councilwoman Knudsen also asks Mr. Jessup for further explanation on the differences between the Faulkner and Home Rule Acts and that there is no ten day withdrawal period under the Home Rule Act.  Matt answers that there is no twenty day period where the Council could consider rescinding the ordinance nor is there a ten day period for withdrawal for the Committee of Petitioners.  There are more specific provisions governing the referendum process under the Faulkner Act that allow for those particular intricacies.

Councilwoman Knudsen asks Matt Jessup for an explanation about the letter that was received on Monday and wonders who received it.  Mr. Jessup explained that the letter was delivered to the Clerk’s Office and informs the Councilwoman that it does not in any way indicate an intention to instigate litigation against the Village.  The letter indicates an intention to instigate litigation against the Committee of Petitioners.  Councilwoman Knudsen asks if a copy of the letter is available.  Councilman Pucciarelli wants to clarify that the object of the letter was the five petitioners, the Committee that sponsored the petition.  Mr. Jessup confirmed that yes, those five persons would be the five members that are identified on each petition page.  Councilman Pucciarelli mentions that the Clerk has been put on notice that a group of citizens may be considering suing another for alleged improprieties in connection with the petition.  He expressed that he was not alarmed as he or the Village is not party to the proceeding.  Matt says that the Clerk had a job.  The petition was filed and the Clerk was a time period to review the signatures and to compare them to the voting records and to certify a number of petitions.  The Clerk had a job to do and the Clerk did that job.  Once that job is complete, by statute, the Village Council has a job to do.  You either have to rescind your ordinance or you put your ordinance to the public and let the people vote.  Mr. Jessup said that he didn’t think the letter would slow down that process or change your obligation within certain time periods to take certain actions.  You are trying to place you in a process that led you to where you need to be while insulating you against any potential litigation whether that litigation is avoidable or not remains to be seen.  Mayor Aronsohn mentions that everyone should have copies of the letter, but regardless of what that letter said, it has no impact on what we are doing.  Matt Jessup agreed that until a judge or prosecutor comes in and says we must have to stay the election, we have an obligation to move forward. 

VILLAGE COUNCIL WORK SESSION – APRIL 27, 2016 – PAGE 5

Councilman Pucciarelli wondered why someone would want to notify the Clerk that she is about to certify petitions that they believe include improprieties.  They know the Clerk has an obligation and must move forward until the letter turns into something more.

Councilman Sedon asked Matt Jessup if the election must be on June 21, 2016 or can it be July 7, 2016 during the primary election.  Councilman Sedon asked if there could be another voting booth for independents.  Matt answered that there is absolutely no possibility that a special election can be held on a primary day. 

Ms. Sonenfeld thanked the Clerk’s Office for their hard work checking signatures for many days to certify the petitions and they have been putting in long hours. Heather Mailander, Village Clerk, was working on Saturday to keep up with the demand of the work.  Mayor Aronsohn thanked Matt Jessup.

1. Policy

Establish Ridgewood Community Action Network

Ridgewood Community Action Network – Mayor Aronsohn reported that in 2008 Access for All was started by James Thebery, the Bergen County Director of Disability Services to serve two purposes: to serve as a resource for families with disability related issues; and to serve as a platform for addressing disability related issues.  Mayor Aronsohn then showed a video to the Village Council and audience.  When the video was complete, the Mayor asked that Jim Thebery speak.

Jim Thebery began the Action Network10-15 years ago when not all communities were in favor of it.  Today, he said, things are totally different.  They now have a county website starting.  He mentioned that Mayor Aronsohn has always been receptive and the three-day Access Ridgewood has always been exceptional.

Janet Fricke spoke briefly to say that she is motivated to participate as she is has a disabled brother and has learned that there is no other place in Ridgewood like this that includes “all”.

Ines Bunza worked in our schools and realized the support that was missing in the next step after school.  She knows well the challenges that face those with handicaps all around town including ramps and post office boxes.  This committee can take action in three areas: education, entertainment, and enlightening.  She believes our Village has really good people whether they are a little different or very different.

Anne Burton Walsh spoke of her friend Leslie Linker, who is afflicted with MS, and her need for wheelchair- accessible three bedroom housing.  Because of the wonderful networking, within several weeks Anne was in touch with an attorney, social worker, marriage counselor, and social security benefits.

VILLAGE COUNCIL WORK SESSION – APRIL 27, 2016 – PAGE 6

Mayor Aronsohn informed everyone that the Village would formalize the committee at the May Village Council meeting.  His fellow councilmembers voiced their support.

Councilwoman Knudsen announced that Inez’s son Douglas set up a “Go Fund Me Page” for the La Bella Pizzeria which was recently destroyed by a significant fire.  Soon after Douglas started the page, he received some unkind comments and took the page down out of embarrassment.  When Inez discovered what her son had experienced, she spoke with some people who encouraged Douglas into starting up his page again.  At the present time, we can report that Douglas has raised over $5,000 for the pizzeria.

1. BUDGET

 

Award of Contract – Electrical Subcode Official/Inspector

Roberta Sonenfeld informed the Village Council that there that in order not to delay inspections for electrical subcodes she recommends the contracting of an outside third party service for the Building Department not to exceed $10,000.00.

There was a motion to suspend the worksession and go into the Special Public Meeting.

4. MOTION TO SUSPEND PUBLIC WORKSHOP AND CONVENE SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING

At 8:44 P.M., upon a motion by Councilman Sedon, seconded by Councilman Pucciarelli, and carried by unanimous voice vote, the Village Council suspended the Work Session. 

5. MOTION TO RECONVENE WORK SESSION

 

At 8:56 P.M., upon a motion by Councilwoman Hauck, seconded by Councilman Pucciarelli, and carried by unanimous voice vote, the Village Council reconvened its Work Session. 

6. DISCUSSION

 

1. Parking

                       

1. Changes to Parking Regulations for Brookside Avenue

 

Ms. Sonenfeld informed the Council that letters were sent out to the residents regarding the three-hour parking on Brookside Avenue and there were only two responses.  She noted that the issue had been brought up in front of the Citizens Safety Advisory Committee and Councilman Sedon voiced that it made sense for them to opine on the issue and they were all in agreement.

VILLAGE COUNCIL WORK SESSION – APRIL 27, 2016 – PAGE 7

1. Budget

           

1. Award Extraordinary Unspecifiable Contract – Bellair Pump Station Repairs

 

Roberta Sonenfeld explained that an emergency cleaning out of the pump station’s well of grit and sludge was necessary and to restore the Bellair Pump Station.  The cost of the repair is $6,295.00.

2. Award Professional Services Contract – Certified Forester to Prepare Community Forestry Management Plan

Ms. Sonenfeld announced that we would like to award a five-year forestry plan to Ronald Farr.  His quote was for $3,500 which will mostly be offset by a grant from the DEP.  Mr. Farr will inventory sick and diseased trees in the Village and open us up to more grants.  The Village Parks Department is very understaffed and this will assist them greatly.

3. Award Contract – Infrared Asphalt Surface Repair, Trench Patching, and Miscellaneous Curb and Sidewalk Repair

 

The Village Manager advised that we will award to the lowest responsible bidder, but there has been a change since this was added to the agenda and the Village Attorney will need to opine on this.

4. Removed from the Agenda

 

5. Award Contract – Furnishing, Delivering, and Maintenance of Emergency Equipment, Radios, Vehicle Computer Systems

 

There was one registered plan holder and one bid package.  We have worked with Regional Communications in the past and Ms. Sonenfeld recommended we award the contract.   Councilman Sedon asked if the total was $57,000 and Chris Rutishauser explained that the contract did not have a NTE for Fire and Police.  The contract established fixed prices through the bid process with a price of items commonly used on the extensive list with items to be purchased on an “as needed” basis.  Ms. Sonenfeld added that the Department requesting the purchase would check with Finance on the line item to check if budget monies remained.  The Village Fleet Department has operated in this manner in the past.

6. Award Contract – Repair of Garage Wall – Water Department Distribution Garage

Roberta Sonenfeld explained that the Village received three quotes and she was recommending that we accept the lowest responsible quote.

VILLAGE COUNCIL WORK SESSION – APRIL 27, 2016 – PAGE 8

7. Reject Bids – Janitorial Services – Various Village Facilities

 

The Village Manager explained that this was a resolution to reject the RFP or bids for outsourcing the janitorial services as there were various problems with the bid documents and the Village will repeat the bid process.

1. Operations

 

1. Establish Parking Restrictions on Pomander Walk

 

Ms. Sonenfeld mentioned that a group of residents visited the Village Manager and they were concerned about the changes on Pomander Walk.  Councilwoman Hauck worked with them and field observations were done.  The Citizens Safety Advisory Committee and the Engineering Department were involved.  Letters were sent out and some responses were received supporting the new restrictions of 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.   Mr. Rutishauser has updated the ordinance accordingly.  Some think Sherman Place will be impacted and we will monitor the situation carefully.  It will be a few weeks before we introduce the new ordinance.  Councilman Sedon added that there are some concerns related to the passing of service vehicles on the streets and also that sometimes the issue passes problems further out to another street.  Again, the situation will be monitored.

7. MANAGER’S REPORT

 

After lengthy negotiations since last winter, Roberta Sonenfeld was happy to announce a signing of a Memo of Agreement with the Ridgewood PBA Local 20 and the Superior Officers Association.  Their contract expired December 31, 2015.  The terms as the Village Manager explained them are: 2 year agreement; raise in year 1=0%; raise in year 2=0% increase the hourly fee on side-jobs from $89 to $95 (administration fees to remain the same); memorializing 2 days of mandatory range-training compensatory (does not involve overtime); longevity is moving from a maximum of 10% to a maximum of 3% for new hires; increase steps to get to maximum from 10 steps in 10 years to 13 in 13 years; capped terminal leave to $15,000 - the same that we capped the Fire Department – which represents a whole year of sick days and will help us in the future in unfunded liabilities.  It has been estimated that the savings will be approximately $250,000 per officer over his or her life.  The contract is not been signed yet, Ms. Sonenfeld added.  The Mayor congratulated everyone for their hard work and a good contract.

Ms. Sonenfeld introduced Chris Rutishauser to review his report with the Village Council on Central Business District Environmental Activity/Issues.  The written report was emailed to the Council and a hard copy was provided to them, as well.  Mr. Rutishauser asked Council to consider the problems/issues occurring in the Central Business District and nearby.  Many of the problems originate on private properties and then have plumes that migrate onto Village property.  The projects are listed by location and impacted Village property.  Mr. Rutishauser reviewed more than a dozen issues with a brief

VILLAGE COUNCIL WORK SESSION – APRIL 27, 2016 – PAGE 9

explanation of each.  Roberta Sonenfeld asked if Mr. Rutishauser might visit the Council every six months to review the issues and update them on changes that might have taken place. 

Ms. Sonenfeld made everyone aware of the survey for the Summer Season to ask residents what can be improved at Graydon Pool.  It will be released through Survey Monkey.

The PSE&G Gas Replacement Modernization Project is causing detours in traffic flow.  They are sending out letters to residents advising them of the improved reliability with the new pipes.  They will need to dig trenches and have access to homes starting on

May 2, 2016.  They will repave the roads after the roads settle.

Roberta reports that we were declined the annual DOT Grant for our paving projects which supplements our budget.  We were surprised last year when we received the grant.  This year we applied for a grant for S. Broad, Passaic & Hudson Streets.  The Engineering Department will compose and post a draft list of streets to be paved.

Ridgewood High School Students of Congress is sponsoring Spring-Fling.  The Village will provide transportation for the fourteen Ridgewood Seniors attending the dance.

Bergen County Utilities Education will be holding a Backyard Composting seminar from 8:30 to noon on April 30, 2016 and the class is free at Habernickel Family Park.

Ms. Sonenfeld announced the Holocaust Memorial Service on May 2, 2016 at Temple Israel at 7:30 p.m.

There will be a Family Promise outdoor event from 11:00 to 2:00 at Memorial Park at Van Neste Square on May 1, 2016.

The Village Manager wanted to congratulate the Fire Department on the work they performed containing the fire of the pizzeria.  Thankfully, due to the skill of our firefighters, the fire did not spread to the surrounding stores.

Ridgewood Water Forum was a Q & A for residents with a broad set of topics with an intention to rebuild the community’s trust in Ridgewood Water.  We have now held two sessions and they have gone very well. 

8. COUNCIL REPORTS

 

Councilman Pucciarelli wanted to say farewell to Christine Yurgelonis, the Assistant Library Director who is leaving and going to a position as Head Librarian in the town of Fort Lee.  She has added a lot of personality and leadership to the Ridgewood Library and has served our community very well.  Councilwoman Hauck agreed with Councilman Pucciarelli.

VILLAGE COUNCIL WORK SESSION – APRIL 27, 2016 – PAGE 10

Councilman Sedon mentioned that at a recent Citizens Safety Advisory Meeting, the topic of bi-laws came up as a discussion.  He thought that the Village Council might consider approving a template for the various Village boards and committees for consideration – especially as some of the boards and committees have small budgets.

Councilman Sedon announced that the Daffodil Festival was held at Memorial Park at Van Neste Square and it was a great day with beautiful weather.  Thousands of people attended.  Nancy Bigos, Tim Cronin and the Ridgewood Conservancy for Public Land all put in a huge effort.

Mayor Aronsohn, was recently at Orchard School when they celebrated Holi, and he joined the students in this festival to welcome Spring. 

The Mayor was very excited to tell everyone about Tyler’s Suite which was held at West Side Presbyterian Church this past Sunday.  It was a wonderfully emotional tribute to Tyler Clemente and anyone that is a victim of bullying.

Councilwoman Hauck mentioned Community for Responsible Dog Ownership who sponsored the parade at Earth Day.  There were many Village Department Directors present – which shows that they are always there for our residents.

9. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC

 

Mayor Aronsohn asked that anyone wishing to comment, please come forward.

Leonard Eisen, 762 Upper Boulevard, agreed that Christine Yurgelonis will be terribly missed.

Lorraine Reynolds, 550 Wyndemere Road, asked Matthew Rogers, Village Attorney, if the political signs were permitted on the green space at the train station.  Ms. Sonenfeld responded that they are permitted on the right-of-way, but if it was questionable, Lorraine should contact the Village Clerk to make a report.

Saurabh Dani, 390 Bedford Road – commented that the resolution listed for the Special Public Meeting was listed differently than the item for discussion on the Public Meeting Agenda item and was a source of confusion.  He also asked if the Village Council had at any time considered the option of the Home Rule Act to save the $45,000 and hold the election in November.  His third comment was regarding the Electrical Subcode Official and why the Village had not planned in advance for this occurrence.

Anne Loving, 342 S. Irving Street – wondered if the Village officials attending Earth Day in the park were in violation of an ordinance that prohibits dogs in the park if they attended and brought their pets. 

VILLAGE COUNCIL WORK SESSION – APRIL 27, 2016 – PAGE 11

Melanie McWilliams, 431 Bogert Avenue – asked the Village Council if Pomander Walk was going to be discussed again.  Mayor Aronsohn informed her that it would be discussed again on May 11, 2016.

Jacqueline Hone, 30 Carriage Lane – brought up Mr. Dani’s question regarding the items on the agenda being listed differently.  She thought the items be considered void or nullified if adequate public notice was not given and the public was not notified properly.  Ms. Hone asked why the referendum question must go to the May ballot as a special election and not on the November election. Her last comment was regarding a May 28, 2016 County hearing regarding the Schedler property, including the house and land.  In case the Mayor did not report this, she has the minutes and can forward them to the Village Council.  It is a migratory act saying nothing can be done until after July 31, 2016, by Federal Law.  It has been a month and she has not heard anything and wonders if anything has been done in response.

Mayor Aronsohn closed the session for public comment.

Matthew Rogers, responded to the question of the discrepancy of an item listed on the public meeting agenda differently than the special public meeting resolution was titled. He noted that nothing is nullified unless a court says it is nullified, otherwise it is presumed to be a viable action.  It is subjective in the sense that the Open Public Meetings Act with regard to agendas that says it does not have to be word for word the same as long as the meaning is understood or as there is an awareness of what the meeting is about.  This is about the certification of the petitions and if the wording had something to do with the certification of the petition which was done tonight by vote it is basically the same as what appears on the agenda.  Then, it probably passes the test.  He asked Matt Jessup to expound on the subject.

Matt Jessup said to the Village Council that it is clear to Bond Counsel that any petition with respect to this bond ordinance is governed by the Faulkner Act.  Being governed by the Faulkner Act and not the Home Rule Act, there is a specific time period within which actions have to be taken.   There is a certain time period in which the Clerk must certify the signatures on the petition.  The Clerk must without delay present that petition to the Council at the next Council meeting.  From then, there is a twenty day waiting period where the Council could or could not take action to rescind the ordinance.  If you decide not to take action, the petitioners have a ten day period where four of the five members can withdraw voluntarily.  If that does not happen within that ten day period, then the Faulkner Act requires that an election be held at the next general or regular municipal election with not less than 40 not more than 90 days after the end of the ten day withdrawal period that the petitioners have.  It is my understanding that there is no general or regular municipal election in the Village of Ridgewood in that time period.  In that case, the Faulkner Act goes on to say a special election must take place not less than 40 and not more than 60 days following the date where the petitioners could withdraw their petition. 

VILLAGE COUNCIL WORK SESSION – APRIL 27, 2016 – PAGE 12

Mayor Aronsohn asks Matt if we have any other choice but to hold the election within that time period. Matt responds that again the opinion of Bond Counsel is that the Village is governed under the Faulkner Act and obligated to follow that statutory time frame and that strict process.  The Home Rule Act does allow you to hold a special election in lieu of a general election and only for purposes of avoiding litigation or additional cost of litigation.  It was Bond Counsel’s suggestion that you continue to follow the Faulkner Act.

Mayor Aronsohn asked if the petitioners filed the BCIA petition under the Faulkner Act, why does Matt think the petitioners would now file under the Home Rule Act.  Mr. Jessup answered that it is his sense that they believe bond ordinances under the Faulkner Act are subject to the petition and referendum provisions of the Home Rule Act whereas other ordinances are subject to the petition and referendum provisions of the Faulkner Act.  It is the view of Village Bond Counsel that a Faulkner Act municipality provides for petition and referendum for all ordinances and the Faulkner Act applies - not the Home Rule Act.  I agree, as quoted in the “Appleseed” letter or memo, this helps Walsh Act municipalities, for example, where the Walsh Act specifically says Walsh Act towns have the right to referendum and ordinances, but not bond ordinances.  New Jersey legislature finds referendum incredibly important and wants every municipality to have the power of referendum.  Under Walsh Act municipalities, the Home Rule Act assures they have the power of referendum.

Councilwoman Knudsen wanted to say that her no vote was due to the $45,000 cost.  She asked Matt if the petitioners and their attorney suggested a November election to avoid a $50,000 bill, she is not sure how that would have avoided litigation.  Mr. Jessup explained that there were two issues.  If that was not there and you simply acted under the Faulkner Act, it is likely that any group could file an action that you are acting outside your capacity under the Home Rule Act and challenge that in court.  Likewise, if you followed the Faulkner Act only, you could have a lawsuit by the other group.

Councilman Pucciarelli asked if there were no Faulkner Act, would the Village still have the option to have a special election under the Home Rule Act on June 21, 2016.  Matt agreed that the Village would still have that option.  Councilman Pucciarelli declared the Village had no choice but to follow the Faulkner Act.  Councilman Sedon and Councilwoman Hauck were in agreement.

Ms. Sonenfeld wanted to respond to the Electrical Subcode Official comments.  The Village was aware that there was a retirement pending and prepared for it.  We took actions: two advertisements for placement with no appropriate candidates responding.  We tried shared services along with a variety of other tactics.  Hiring an outside consultant was our last approach.   Also, there were some Human Resource issues involved that cannot be commented on at the present time.

VILLAGE COUNCIL WORK SESSION – APRIL 27, 2016 – PAGE 13

10. RESOLUTION TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION

The following resolution, numbered 16-112, to go into Closed Session, was read in full by the Deputy Village Clerk, as follows:

11. ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the Village Council, on a motion by Councilwoman Knudsen, seconded by Councilman Sedon, and carried unanimously by voice vote, the meeting was adjourned at 10:28 P.M.

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                               

                                                                        Paul S. Aronsohn, Mayor

                                                                                   

Donna M. Jackson, Deputy Village Clerk