WOODCLIFF LAKE, N.J.—The Borough Council voted, 4–2, to approve a $3.45 million appropriation, including a $2.7 million bond, to fund public improvements such as municipal building upgrades, new vehicles and new communications equipment.
The bond issue totals $2,689,000. The total appropriation includes aggregate grants appropriated at $626,061, and an aggregate down payment of $134,979.
Requests for the bond’s affect on the annual property tax on an average home were not answered by press time.
The move comes on the heels of the Pascack Valley Regional High School District school board voting to increase yearly school taxes here by $545, based on the state’s school funding formula.
(See “Schools levy passes: Budget up 2%; Woodcliff Lake taxes up $545,” Pascack Press, Page 1, May 3.)
Several residents weighing in to the May 3 council meeting criticized the spending as excessive and lacking specificity.
One council finance member said bond term length and more detailed line item specifics should be determined soon.
Council President Angela Hayes and councilman Craig Marson voted against the appropriation and bond issue. Borough Attorney John Schettino said that two-thirds of the council (or four members) must approve for the bonding ordinance to pass.
Members approving the bonded spending cited historically low interest rates for borrowing now and much-needed facilities and road improvements postponed due to the pandemic.
Improvements to be funded by the bond include a pickleball court ($85,000), a pavilion at Old Mill Pond ($95,000), new and replacement equipment for the Fire Department ($170,000); a community information sign and building improvements at the DPW, fire and police departments ($145,000); and a truck and garbage truck with leaf chute for DPW ($545,500).
Other improvements: sanitary sewer system upgrades ($317,000), and improvements to Winthrop Drive ($188,000), Woodmont Drive ($440,000), and Woodcliff Avenue Causeway ($300,000).
A 2021 roads improvement program carries a tab of $599,700. Some projects are funded partially by county or state grants.
Marson, a Finance Committee member, criticized a lack of detail provided to him despite repeated questions about line item specifics he had requested over months leading up to the vote.
He called some expenditures “wasteful and inappropriate spending at this time.”
Hayes said she previously voted to approve every road improvement program presented to council over her five years, but said residents were complaining about constant road work and closures.
She called the bonded appropriation “a bit high” and saw it as a “really aggressive” bond issue and questioned whether it could all be done.
Councilwoman Jacqueline Gadaleta noted she was supportive of current low interest rates, and that two years worth of capital spending were contained in the bond issue.
She said she was “all in favor” of proposed road improvements, noting these were good for young and older drivers alike.
She also noted previously obtained grants to improve certain areas, such as the Causeway, could be funded by matching dollars included in the bond, She said council members do not have to use the full amount of bonded funds.
“It’s having money available at an extremely low [interest] rate to make educated decisions,” Gadaleta said.
Veronica Appelle, a member of a local citizens group that fought against a proposed and ultimately rejected 60-unit apartment complex at 188 Broadway two years ago, told Pascack Press she alerted over 900 members of SHINE to the council’s vote on the multi-million-dollar expenditure.
“This proposed ordinance does not provide an itemized list for items above $17,500. Note: for all expenses above $17,500, the council must pass individual resolutions, which they are not doing now,” she told residents in a mailing that also went to Pascack Press.
During the public hearing, however, both Mayor Carlos Rendo and Administrator Tom Padilla said that the council must consider future resolutions on items exceeding $17,500.
Moreover, though items and amounts are approved under the ordinance and bond issue, the council must vote on expenditures that exceed that amount and may not be approved.
Appelle in her email criticized line items such as a “Line D” that bundled an SUV (sports utility vehicle), computer equipment and police body cameras for $125,000, while she noted another line item listed an SUV, with rescue equipment for $170,000.
Several residents criticized the bonding and improvements listed as “a wish list” and requested more detail on the items being purchased.
Others wondered if current outstanding local bonds had been recalled and were reissued at lower interest rates to save the borough long-term. Padilla confirmed that had occurred a couple years ago.
Resident Ann Marie Borelli called the multi-page listing of improvements a wish list and questioned what the taxpayers were agreeing to spend with its approval. She requested a spreadsheet previously produced on the costs and Padilla said he would check to see if that document could be publicly released.
Padilla said the lack of specifics under line items “allows some flexibility in what can be done.” However, he repeated that items over $17,500 must still be approved by council vote.
Borelli repeatedly noted she wanted assurances “there will not be a spending spree” by council members and Schettino assured her that bonded items and costs must be approved by council members and that bonded funds are tightly managed.