SHARE:  


Moving Toward Final -

2023 Township Municipal Budgets



PUBLISHED BY TEANECK VOICES

5/15/2023

Contents:


  • Moving Toward Final - 2023 Municipal Budgets
  • Respect
  • Update on the Council’s Zoning Subcommittee
  • This Week in Teaneck
  • Municipal Revaluation Meeting - 5/25


Announcements:


  • Teaneck Creek Conservancy - Reopening - 5/15
  • County Public Hearing - Needs of Older Adults - 5/18
  • Applying for the Site Plan Review Advisory Board?
  • Career Exploration Internships - 5/19
  • Teaneck's 5K Race - 5/21
  • Memorial Day - 5/29


Contacting Teaneck Voices

Moving Toward Final -

 2023 Township Municipal Budgets

Teaneck residents have watched the slow evolution in 2023 of the various components that will eventually make up their 2023 property tax obligations. 

As most residents know, their property taxes levels are made up almost entirely of three separate public entity budgets: the Teaneck Board of Education; the Township Municipal Budget and the County Budget


The Teaneck Board of Education has not only finished its budget work for 2023-4, but has also produced a very helpful User-Friendly Budget to explain its budget. This year’s BOE increase is 3.53%.  Click Here for the final BOE budget presentation, Click Here for the User-Friendly version. 


As usual, the County budget for the year is moving more slowly, but as introduced, County Executive Tedesco's proposed County budget will show a significant increase for the first time in several years and, if so, the Teaneck piece will reflect its portion of that increase.


Teaneck Voices as always focuses most of its reporting and work on tracking the Teaneck municipal government and correspondingly we have followed its budget processes more closely.


The Town's Municipal budget, introduced by Township Council on April 18 (Click Here) includes a nearly identical (3.49%) increase in the tax levy. Council must now await state Local Finance Board approval before conducting the final muni budget public hearing prior to the Council vote to adopt or reject this introduced budget.


The hearing and vote on Municipal budget adoption had been scheduled for the next (May 23) Council meeting. But Manager Kazinci indicated during his May 9 Manager’s report (Click Here and move the cursor to min23&sec25) that, due to state review of the Town’s “Covid-loan” and the every 3rd year review process, state approval of the Town’s introduced budget may be delayed and thus Council’s final budget vote may have to wait (presumably until June 13 at the earliest).


Closely related to this Council budget vote will be a final vote on the two 2023 bond ordinances (26-2023 and 27-2023). Both were introduced on May 9 and scheduled for a June 13 final adoption that normally follows the muni budget adoption.


 A separate $1.8M bond ordinance (27-2023) would approve purchase commitment in 2023 rather than 2024 of the new Fire Department ladder truck. Council approved its introduction by only a 4-3 margin.


Bond ordinance 6-2023 for the nearly $10M in other capital projects won unanimous Council approval on 5/9. However, there are many moving parts of the various capital commitments in this larger bond ordinance.


On the plus side, for example, Manager Kazinci informed the Municipal Open Space Trust advisory committee on 5/10 that the Township had just received programmatic approval from Green Acres for a grant of $750K to help finance the Herrick Park Improvement project. That should allow the Town to reduce by nearly half what it has currently scheduled to pay for its portion of the Herrick Park project.


And there may actually be some possibility that Teaneck can soon actually collect state funding on this Herrick grant. PB Chair Bodner for 3+ years has refused to schedule Planning Board agenda attention to the 2019 draft Open Space Recreation Plan (OSRP) and its delineation of the Town’s current Recreation Open Space (ROSI) shortcomings.


Rumor has it that after intense pressure from at least 3 Town advisory entities and now Council members, the fact that Teaneck can receive none of this new Herrick grant unless it reconciles its ROSI with the state’s has finally been demonstrated to the Chair. Look for this ROSI reconciliation effort to begin no later than June 8.  


·      The last time Teaneck reached full agreement on a Green Acres grant/loan [in 2010 for the Sportsplex], it took 5 years - until December 2015 – for Teaneck actually to get the check from Green Acres for the sole reason that the state and town could not agree as to what properties had been designated as protected recreation/open space property. (See Council minutes 12/15/2015 Click Here and go to p. 5, Item 4.)  

  • Voices’ recent review of state administrative code regulations (See Title 7.36 – Click Here) finds that 96 separate ROSI references demonstrate that the state is absolutely precluded from actually funding Green Acres grants to towns until state/municipal agreement on what belongs on a town’s ROSI is achieved.

 

It is simply inexplicable that our Town has for so long allowed itself to be excluded from this huge pool of potential grant support.  Presumably this problem can now be addressed.

RESPECT

Aretha sang it! Aretha Spelled it! Aretha meant it!

Margaret Baker, the Dynamo of Decatur, once again reminded us of it at the Council Meeting on Tuesday, May 9. RESPECT – is what we are all owed.

Please listen to Ms. Baker:

What Margaret Baker is talking about is what Aretha Franklin was singing about: RESPECT!


We probably all claim to know what RESPECT is. We learned it in pre-school, in kindergarten, in primary school all the way through high school. We were taught it is “The Golden Rule – Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”


But somewhere along the way, many Teaneck leaders and many would-be leaders seem to have forgotten those early lessons.


Over the last 20 years or more, we have seen residents desirous of speaking at G&W actually insulted by members of Council; we have seen councilmembers bully other councilmembers, we have seen statutory and advisory board members yanked from membership because of their honest opinions or beliefs; we have seen a former mayor physically try to attack a resident at a Freeholders (now Commissioners) meeting.


And in the past 10 years or more, we have seen former councils exercise their Big Brother Development plans that have dramatically and traumatically made clear that “The Golden Rule” does not apply in Teaneck.


These councilmembers have called many of our homes and businesses physically and morally blighted, they have intruded on our living spaces, they have changed our quality of life, deprived of us sunlight, and fresh air – and almost never asked for our opinion, listened to our requests, nor informed us of what in secret they were planning to do. To quote Margaret Baker, ”WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY?” And she is right about the answer: Our leaders DO NOT RESPECT ALL THE RESIDENTS.


Let’s take a moment to look at what that word, RESPECT, actually means.


               Respect for persons is the concept that all people deserve the right to fully exercise their autonomy. Showing respect for persons is a method of interaction in which one entity ensures  that another has the right to be able to make a choice.


An autonomous person is defined as an individual who is capable of self-legislation and is able to make judgments and actions based on their particular set of values, preferences, and beliefs. Respecting a person's autonomy involves considering their choices and decisions without  deliberate obstruction. It also requires that persons be treated in a non-degrading manner out  of respect for their dignity. To respect an individual’s autonomy is to allow an individual to develop opinions, make choices, and act as they please, unless their actions are clearly detrimental to others. 

"Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research"Washington, DC: April 26, 2012. 


If you took an introductory philosophy course in high school or college, you probably learned the following:


A philosophical basis for treating individuals as autonomous “persons” can be found in the  writings of Immanuel Kant. Kant argued that respect for persons is required due to our inherent dignity….


People must never be used simply as a means to the ends of others, but always as ends in themselves. Respect for persons, in Kantian terms, implies that what is crucial is that a person  be free to act for the sake of reasons they believe are right.


Thus, a person’s  autonomy is violated if that decisional process is denied or subverted. A person denied   decisional involvement is denied something essential to having moral dignity.   

     YALE UNIVERSITY: Human subjects Protection: Respect for Persons


At Tuesday’s council meeting, at the end of G&W, councilmember Mark Schwartz answered Ms. Baker’s Why is a six-story apartment building being built across from her lovely single-family home. His answer was that there had been nothing across the street from her but an ugly abandoned industrial lot.


 A literally erroneous (and disrespectful) answer!!


Across the street from the Bakers’ home was another single-family home. It was a chocolate brown Dutch Colonial with meticulous white trim, a front door with white storm/screen door, and a lovely green grass front yard.


What is Teaneck? Who are its leaders? Who are its residents?

Trite as the phrase may be – Teaneck, its time to walk the talk! 

R E S P E C T!


Update on the Council’s Zoning Subcommittee

Tracking municipal land use decision-making currently ranks very high among Township residents.


Hence land use decisions made by official Township bodies should be widely and timely communicated. Yet at Council’s 5/9 meeting, Councilmember Schwartz made no report about the 4/28 Council zoning subcommittee. Instead he referenced his minutes of the subcommittee’s meeting as being on-line.


In fact those minutes had only been embedded in the Council agenda that very afternoon. Teaneck Voices has, therefore, reproduced them in italics below. Our critical commentary on what is found there follows.  

Note, order of agenda can be modified based on arrival of attorney/ presenter(s)/developer(s). Breakfast to be provided.


1.    Conditional Use Zoning – HG- this is being punted to be discussed under the new Master Plan (under way)


2.    Bischoff’s – DK- Bischoff owners presented and stated their intentions are to open a pop up from Memorial Day until Labor Day with just a few quick modifications such as a paint job. Should it be successful they will then close for the winter, sign a long-term lease and renovate. They detailed some items needing town consent such as awnings, service windows, outdoor dining and others, which will be reviewed upon their formal request.


3.    Gil Rivera – River Commons New Bridge Road- wanted Council to change the site’s zoning to allow for first floor medical. He also stated he has a pending application before the BOA in June. ZSC advised him to advise Council after they make their determination and if further action is still needed we can circle back then.


4.    East Restaurant – DK- operator of the restaurant is looking for space to re-open. Very limited space available in town


5.    Accessible dwelling units- Will be discussed at next meeting and/or punted to the Master Plan.


6.    54 West Englewood – MS- applicant met with us and presented plans for a 5 story building. Planner suggested less parking and CM Schwartz suggested to move down some units to ground floor to change the building to a 4 story. Applicant requested three weeks to fine tune and circle back. Part of the application is for the builder to widen the town street at his expense and with his land.


7.    American Legion Drive community meeting- developer to porcine [sic.] dates at which he can present to the community his renderings.


8.    Cedar Lane business owners’ breakfast (9:30 AM)- no owners showed. Subsequent email from CM Schwartz to hold a council retreat to discuss the future of Cedar Lane. DM Belcher stated we should provide incentivization to ownership to either develop or sell etc.


9.    Chase Cedar Lane meeting- meeting to be set with ownership.


NEXT MEETING FRIDAY JUNE 2ND 830AM

Respectfully submitted,

Mark J Schwartz, Council member

 

Voices Commentary on these Zoning Subcommittee Minutes

Three concerns:

a) The Zoning subcommittee is a Council Subcommittee. Yet its minutes appear here in the Council agenda on the Manager’s letterhead. When asked by Voices, the Clerk could not explain why.


b) Minutes of official town bodies invariably include names of the participants and their roles. In these subcommittee minutes, participants – presumably Council members and town administrative personnel - are identified for the most part only by their initials. Some participants are identified only as unnamed “developers” or “applicants”. Why?

c) The discussion of  “plans for a 5-story building“ at 54 W. Englewood Ave. is woefully incomplete and misleading. Neither the name nor the role of the person appearing before the subcommittee as “applicant” for this proposal is identified.

But there is a much more substantial flaw here. Not noted in these minutes is the fact that the proposed building clearly violates the current R/S [residential/single] zoning for this property.

 

In fact, a proposal for a much smaller (3-story; 20 unit) facility on this same lot was considered from 2020-2022 by the Board of Adjustment(BofA) in 7 separate hearings which culminated in a 2+ hour hearing on July 21, 2022 (Click Here for the Town video). At the conclusion of this 7th hearing, the BofA voted decisively (5-2) to DENY the application.

 

The BofA members who made the motion to deny this multi-family application stated that the applicant’s proposal was much too large for the proposed lot.

 

What the applicant did at the zoning subcommittee mtg. on April 28, 2023 was to draw up an even much larger building proposal than the 3-story one that the BofA had just last July rejected.

 

·       Voices reminds its readers that the BofA is the only entity in town statutorily empowered to approve/disapprove proposals that require a D1 variance (Change of Use variance)

 

Therefore, when the previous Town Council designated this 54 W. Englewood Ave. property as part of its most recent blighted Area in Need of Redevelopment (AINR) less than five weeks (August 30, 2022), after the BofA had said no, Council was seizing the redevelopment statute both to circumvent the normal state Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL) statute requirements and to violate both the Town’s current zoning rules and its current Master Plan. Both promise to protect existing single-family residential housing.


Apparently, the new Council’s new zoning subcommittee – or at least one of its members - is negotiating in secret to give a 54 W. Englewood “applicant” another way around the Town’s zoning rules. Mr. Schwartz’s subcommittee minutes surely owed the public its recognition of this fact. 

 

All of these closed zoning subcommittee land use matters should make the renewed discussion of a revised Master Plan (MP) more important. Apparently, this time Council is taking the “new Master Plan” rhetoric sufficiently seriously to have begun to form a committee of 10 persons which will first meet (in closed session?) on June 14 and will engage the Town’s Phillips, Preiss planning firm as its consultant.


 Whether the frequently stated commitment to seek public input at every stage in this new MP development process actually occurs will need active resident surveillance. 

 

·       P.S. As Voices previously noted (5/7 edition Click Here), the very successful May 2 Town Development Forum at the Rodda Center had featured significant opportunity for public input – both in-person and virtual. The Forum had been zoom videoed but the Town had not successfully saved the video tape for post-Forum watching and review.  There had still been some hope for days that the tape might still be recovered but that effort has not been successful. When residents are finally given a chance to express their views, the public record disappears?


" Whoops, we lost the video" is a too frequent occurrence in the Town’s own taping of public meetings that all agree must nottcontinue. 

This Week in Teaneck – May 15-21, 2023

!Advisory Board on Community Relations (ACBR) Monday May 15, 2023 at 8:00 pm access by zoom go to Town's website' ACBR zoom address and agenda (not otther wise available)


Planning Board Special MeetingTuesday May 16, 2023 at 7:00 pm In-person only at the Rodda Center, MP-1 Agenda is Continued Hearing on Application Number PB2022-14 for preliminary and final site plan for Holy Name's proposed child care center.


  • This meeting may be cancelled due to a failure to provide adequate legally-required notice and/or sufficient progress in the ongoing litigation mediation process to merit a hiatus in the site plan hearings process


Youth Advisory Board (YAB) Wednesday May 17, 2023 at 7:00 pm in the Rodda Center. No Agenda available


Environmental Commission (EC) Wednesday May 17, 2023 at 7:30. No access or agenda information currently available


Teaneck Board of Education Regular Meeting (BOE) Wednesday May 17 at 8:00 pm. In person (at THS) and virtual (virtual access information not yet available)


Senior Citizen Advisory Board (SCAB) Thursday May 18, 2023 at 1:30 pm In person only at the Rodda Center. Go to Town website for agenda - inexplicably not otber-wise available.


Municipal Revaluation Information Meeting

Teaneck Property Revaluation / Revaluación de la Propiedad

As directed by the Bergen County Board of Taxation and the New Jersey Division of Taxation, the Township of Teaneck is revaluing all taxable real estate for the 2024 tax year to ensure uniform and equitable assessments. The Township has entered into a contract with Appraisal Systems, Inc. to conduct the revaluation program. 

There will be one more public meetings held regarding the revaluation at the Richard Rodda Community Center on May 25th, 2023 from 7pm-9pm. 

For more information on the revaluation program, visit the Appraisal Systems website here. or Revaluation Brochure-Spanish.pdf 

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Creek Registration Required - To Register Click Here

Township of Teaneck New Jersey - Advisory Board and Statutory Board Application (teanecknj.gov)

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at Click Here. More information & the application are here: Click Here

Contacting Teaneck Voices


By Email: teaneckvoices@gmail.com

By Phone: 201-214-4937

By USPS Mail: Teaneck Voices, PO Box 873. at 1673 Palisade Ave. 07666

Teaneck Voices' Website is www.teaneckvoices.com


Sign Up Now
Send a Comment
Submit an Article
Editorial Policies
LinkedIn Share This Email