.

Despite Apprehension, Ridgewood Council Passes 2012 Budget

Average resident to pay $3,973 in municipal services in 2012 after council passed $45 million budget in a 3-2 vote Tuesday night.

The Ridgewood Village Council narrowly passed its Tuesday night after two members expressed concerns over a depreciating surplus and potential liabilities in tax appeals.

The average resident with a home valued at $794,550 will see a tax hike of $129, a 3.79 percent increase. Rebuilding its workforce with a piecemeal strategy after cutting too deeply in 2010, the upcoming budget does not call for any layoffs in 2012.

"We have heard complaints for the budget, against the budget, we've heard complaints if we cut too much, we've heard complaints if we cut too little," outgoing Councilman Steve Wellinghorst said prior to the vote. "We were elected to make tough decisions for the village and that's what we're going to do."

, Deputy Mayor Tom Riche and Councilman Paul Aronsohn voted in favor of the budget. Mayor Keith Killion and Councilwoman Bernadette Walsh voted against its passage.

Major expenditures in 2012 include an increase in police salaries by 6.4 percent ($356,712), a spike in health care insurance costs at 5.5 percent ($264,973), a tax assessment ($69,965) and . The village expects 2011 emergency appropriations for and to account for all but $75,000, though Ridgewood must still raise $1.16 million in 2012 to cover costs. About $46 of the $129 tax increase is attributed to the storm cleanup, Village CFO Steve Sanzari said.

Councilwoman Walsh – who previously voted to not introduce the budget in late May – expressed unease with anticipated revenue projections. Citing real estate sales data in 2011 and 2012, the real estate professional said a small sample of homes are selling at 93 percent of their asking prices. When extrapolating that out to the 8,500 homes in the village, Walsh said a real problem could emerge.

"These are the concerns I have for the budget, that we're not out of the woods in terms of property value, the fact that the [average] estimated property in Ridgewood is $800,000 [and] I'm not confident that estimate is going to stay in the coming years, which could cause some potential problems going forward."

A reassessment is scheduled to be conducted later in 2012 and though it will not , officials say it will mitigate some of the losses. The village lost more than $1.3 million due to successful tax appeals in the last year.

Walsh and Killion also found the declining village surplus a troublesome point given the recent unpredictability of storms. The village surplus is down just over $102,000, to $2,567,129 in the upcoming budget.

The capital budget include plans to finish the Village Hall renovations, advancing at the Saddle River and Ho-Ho-Kus Brook, as well as vehicle upgrades and road pavings.

Walsh also spoke against the council , remarking that the council can't direct negotiations with the union staff, so citizens could be on the hook for future escalating expenditures. A few residents also spoke out against the appropriation to the library, telling the council they felt the Parks & Recreation Department should have had a larger share of the pie.

Councilman Aronsohn – – said the budget is "clearly not a perfect" one, but better than the initial projections (at over 7 percent). Aronsohn alluded to his push for a hybrid zero-based-budgeting (ZBB) approach for 2013 during his brief remarks.

"We've already started thinking about next year's budget," he said. "We're going to get a jumpstart on that and we're going to do even better."

Have a question or news tip? Contact editor James Kleimann at James.Kleimann@patch.com, or find us on Facebook and Twitter. For news straight to your inbox every morning, sign up for our daily newsletter.

News Man June 27, 2012 at 10:49 AM
Too bad a five yes vote wasn't made after all knowing the same facts? It explains the lack of understanding and the political personal views by some in the past.
Anne LaGrange Loving June 27, 2012 at 12:32 PM
I sincerely appreciate that Mayor Killion and Councilwoman Walsh voted no. They recognized what is obvious to all of us, that a 3.79% increase is too much in the current economy.
News Man June 27, 2012 at 01:02 PM
Using "too much in the current economy" is always a lame excuse. Being specific as to what should or not be approved, takes real leadership.
maureen June 27, 2012 at 04:27 PM
Exactly right Frank R ! Walsh & Killion are interested in a higher tax rather than a lower one . These people need a reality check on escalating costs
Bernadette Walsh June 27, 2012 at 05:23 PM
@ Frank R and Maureen - I voted no because I felt we could trim the budget much more. Before casting aspersions and remaining anonymous, email or call me I'm always available to discuss village matters.
jp1 June 27, 2012 at 08:39 PM
I did not think under 4% was bad, we have had many layoffs already that have effected services.
News Man June 27, 2012 at 09:39 PM
Any views on lowering the amount further could/should have been made by the (2) similar thinking dissenters at that time. If they had done so, I am certain Editor James would have posted the remarks and shared with our readers. Referring readers to write a Council member for more detail. would not be the process to use. .

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something