HILLSDALE, N.J.—After a nearly four-hour contentious budget meeting, where several council members accused the mayor of misleading the public about tax increases, the council voted, 5–1, to approve a $15.6 million budget and increase an average homeowner’s municipal taxes by $138, or 5.33%, mostly to pay for a down payment on a possible bond issue.
Opposing the budget was Councilman Zoltán Horváth, who called for a referendum on possible bond spending, which he and Mayor John Ruocco estimated at about $10 million, to cover costs for turfing and improving Centennial Field as well as construction of a community center.
Approximately 60 residents were tuned into Zoom at points throughout the hearing, which featured heated exchanges between the mayor and council members about a future bond issue.
No final project cost estimates for bonding had been formulated by the council, and most members said more feasibility studies and analyses on a future community center need to be done. A couple draft studies have been done on field improvements but further discussion needs to occur before any bonded debt is approved, said officials.
Ruocco, who opposed the increase, only votes in case of a tie.
Ruocco spent the nearly four-hour session alternately criticizing the increase and future bonding down payment, while defending his right to criticize the council for not being transparent about future bonding costs, which he estimated could reach up to $350 annually over a 10-year period.
He said the council was moving ahead with “the biggest tax increase since 2008” without having done the necessary homework to know what both future bond projects, specifically Centennial Field and a new community center, would cost taxpayers and where a potential community center might be located.
The council’s other five members, including Council President Abby Lundy, councilwoman Janetta Trochimiuk and councilmen John Escobar, Frank Pizzella, and Anthony DeRosa, took turns rebu tting the mayor.
In a head to head exchange, Escobar accused Ruocco of “a lot of fear-mongering and misinformation. I don’t think it was fair to residents and not fair to us.”
Later, Ruocco criticized Escobar’s interjected quips as he addressed Escobar’s concerns.
Ruocco spent much of the meeting calling out council members for taxing residents an extra $138 yearly, based on a 5.33% increase to set aside a bond down payment of $500,000 that they had not fully informed the public about. He called for more transparency and a better understanding and more details on any future bonding proposals.
Ruocco said increasing local taxes following a pandemic and with uncertain economic conditions was not a smart move until more information was known about both projects to be bonded.
However, both Ruocco and most members agreed that the referendum could only be held when more details were available on both projects.
Estimates for Centennial Field improvements were about $2 million for a new artificial turf field, and Trochimiuk said a cap of $7 million had been placed on a future community center cost by finance committee members.
Most council members voting in favor of the budget and bond down payment said they would “consider” a future referendum, most likely in 2022, as the deadline for notifying state officials about holding a November bond referendum is mid-August.
However, most council members did not feel a referendum was needed until further information such as costs, location, amenities, and tax impacts were known about a future community center.
Ruocco and most council members were uncertain whether a feasibility study on a community center could be completed before mid-August, though most felt enough studies had been done on field improvements that that might be able to move forward.
In response to Ruocco’s repeated criticism that the council was going to bond without doing the adequate advance studies and analyses needed, five council members approving the budget took turns rebutting the mayor, with several charging the mayor was being unduly negative about both projects.
Council members noted countless hours were spent discussing details of potential bonding for both projects that the mayor was discounting.
Ruocco pressed for members to look into a shared service with Bethany Community Center, at 605 Pascack Road in neighboring Township of Washington, but several council members said that the facility was not likely to serve Hillsdale’s needs.
Lundy, who toured the facility with Ruocco, said it was not adequate to meet local recreational program needs.
Councilwoman Janetta Trochimiuk, along with Lundy and Escobar, went back and forth with Ruocco, with Trochimiuk saying Ruocco’s repetition of a nearly $340 future increase was “a misrepresentation” of the 2021–2022 budget, which only has a $138 increase, all due to a $500,000 increase in capital for a possible bond down payment.
“Why tax residents now when we don’t know what we’re taxing them for?” said Ruocco, noting council has not publicly discussed either field improvements or a community center in detail.
Members favoring the down payment set aside pointed out no funds had yet been spent and that the down payment was legally required.
They stressed future ordinances on bond debt needed to pass the full council before any funds could be spent that would incur further indebtedness.
Lundy said Ruocco’s harping on tax increases represented a “constant flow of different delay tactics” and criticized him for telling them to bond for a community center during redevelopment plan debate due to low interest rates and now telling them not to bond due to a future tax increase.
Lundy said the council did not raise taxes last year, and noted that the municipal budget represents only 20% of local property taxes, while schools represent nearly 80%, which includes a small county tax rate.
Ruocco pointed out that should council decide to bond for $10 million over a 10-year period, that would cost about $3,500 or $350 per year, while a 16-year bond may cost the average taxpayer $3,700, or about $230 more per year.
During the public comment period, members heard from residents and local professionals about the need for funding for the library and ambulance corps.
About a dozen residents pushed for funding to go either to the public library or the ambulance corps, specifically noting $125,000 allotted for twice-weekly garbage pickups would be better spent providing more radios for emergency services staff as well as resources for the library.
Many residents mentioned that they did not want to pay higher taxes, with some noting future items such as field improvements and a community center should take second place behind helping the ambulance corps as it transitions to county dispatch services. Moreover, some residents said that helping the library maintain services by providing more funds than required by state law (approximately $670,000 annually) would make more sense while coming out of the pandemic.
While many residents pushed back against a future tax increase based on a community center not yet discussed, Pizzella explained that putting aside the $500,000 down payment on a future $10 million bond issue was only the first part of a long process to determine whether or not to bond for both the recreational field improvements and a community center.
He said setting aside the $500,000 will “give us the time to educate and build consensus on whether a community center is the right thing to do.” He said only after that process is completed could the council decide whether to go out to public referendum on a $10 million bond.
Ruocco called the budget increase “taxation without justification,” and repeatedly stated that increasing taxes now without a plan in hand to improve the fields or build a community center “doesn’t make a great deal of sense.”
Ruocco wondered what happened to initial suggestions for a “modest” community center, originally priced by th borough engineer around $500,000 to $2.5 million.
He said all the new amenities suggested by council (such as rock walls and kitchens) cost much more, plus costs to sustain the center with staff and programs need to be accounted for.
He also repeated further exploration of Bethany Community Center for possible use was needed.
As well, 30-year resident Scott Raymond told the governing body he did not support twice-weekly garbage pickups and wanted to see a referendum on any future community center.
“What I have a big problem with is this community center. It’s a lot of money and we don’t know what’s going on,” he said.
Bethany Community Center describes itself as a multi-purpose facility that enriches and strengthens life in the community through services, partnerships and programs.
“Our center also facilitates physical activities such as basketball, volleyball, pickleball, Group Fit classes (Cycle, Zumba, Boot Camp, HIIT) and more,” it says.
It adds that in coming months it will “be used for socio-economic development classes (ELL, GED, SAT, computer, financial, health and wellness seminars). Our center is available to individuals and organizations in the area who are looking to host their own events.”