HILLSDALE—Over the objections of the mayor and one councilman, the Borough Council approved up to $100,000 in funding July 13 for a proposal by DMR Architects to provide feasibility studies on a community center and the addition of a turf field in town.
However, within 24 hours, Mayor John Ruocco partially vetoed the funding ordinance for the feasibility studies, noting the council’s 4-1 vote to approve the funding for such studies “circumvent(s) sound and usual business practices, raise public transparency issues and disrespect proper rules of conduct that council members should observe.”
A special meeting is set for Wednesday, July 21 at 6:30 p.m. via Zoom for the council to consider the mayor’s partial veto and possibly override it.
For the council to override Ruocco’s veto, Borough Clerk Denise Kohan said, two-thirds (four of six members) of council must vote to overturn it. The funding vetoed was included in a $1,121,909 capital ordinance approved by a 4-1 council vote on July 13.
In a section titled “Administration” under the capital ordinance, the funding for two feasibility studies on a community center and turf field was included in a section that also included funding for computer equipment to be used by various borough departments, with an estimated amount of $149,909.
No dollar amounts were listed for specific items, although Ruocco told Pascack Press that the computer equipment was estimated to cost approximately $49,000, leaving about $100,000 for the feasibility studies, if needed.
Ruocco said he was only vetoing the capital funding up to $100,000 that he believed was set aside for feasibility studies. However, Pascack Press learned that the actual DMR Architects’ proposal — submitted to council June 18 — for field and community center feasibility studies totaled $24,600, according to the document.
Councilman Zoltán Horváth opposed the funding ordinance. Councilwoman Janetta Trochimiuk was absent.
Ruocco votes only in case of a tie but can veto a council action. He previously vetoed portions of a redevelopment plan ordinance that called for possible density bonuses for developers who also propose providing a community benefit such as a park or open space.
The council overrode that veto and kept the density bonuses option for future redevelopers.
The issue of a community center, along with a new turf field, has stirred up council debates over several months among Ruocco and the council majority, generally five members, who favor moving forward on these priorities in 2021.
However, Ruocco charged that the July 13 vote was not in the best interests of taxpayers or transparent.
Ruocco charged that three previous studies were already completed; two on a new turf field and one on a community center, for a total cost of about $24,000.
He questioned why the council majority was moving ahead with another feasibility study on both without being fully transparent with the public and discussing its plans in public.
Council estimates had cited possible costs of up to $10 million for a community center and turf field, which became a source of friction between Ruocco, Horváth, and the council majority during budget discussions.
Ruocco repeatedly charged the majority were boosting local taxes 5.33% partly to fund a down payment on both capital expenditures without fully knowing what they were doing or whether the projects were really needed or wanted.
Councilman Frank Pizzella said that his regular reports to the council provide transparency and that the reports have repeatedly mentioned updates on possible feasibility studies as well as progress on any efforts to advance redevelopment and downtown revitalization.
Pizzella’s full reports are linked to the council agenda.
Pizzella said that he was “in no way not transparent” and had gone out of his way to be transparent with residents about discussions related to redevelopment and prospects for a new community center.
Pizzella said he was unaware that Ruocco had met privately with school board members to discuss a possible shared-service arrangement related to a community center. He said he wished that he knew of those talks previously and the board’s interest in working with council.
‘Partial veto’ explained
“My partial veto is based on the fact that the council received several studies prepared by the borough engineer and borough planner focused on improving such fields and exploring the building of a community center, at a combined expense of approximately $24,000 to the Borough’s taxpayers,” Ruocco wrote Pascack Press.
Ruocco said the council had yet to discuss these previous studies, which he urged, and that “alternative outsource arrangements” were not fully explored for a potential community center.
Moreover, Ruocco said his partial veto was because the council did not seek out competitive bids on the feasibility studies’ cost and decided to adopt “a hurried and unscheduled last-minute resolution” to hire DMR Architects, of Hasbrouck Heights, “without requiring the Business Administrator to follow the fairer, more competitive and transparent practice of seeking proposals from more than one provider.”
Ruocco said the resolution to hire DMR Architects passed in June even before funding was allocated to implement it by the July 13 capital funding ordinance.
He charged that the council majority knew of DMR Architects proposal but only informed him and the business administrator in mid-June, “despite intense public discussions in March, April, and May about how the construction of a community center would affect property taxes.
“It also points to the fact that individual council members had made their request of DMR without observing or respecting the role of the Borough Administrator, without observing proper channels and procedures, and without being transparent with the public.”