Village of Ridgewood

Ordinance 4094, concerning the rescission and replacement of ordinance 4087 regarding blade signs, was introduced and read for the first time. A public hearing was scheduled for April 8, 2026.

Ordinance 4088, a bond ordinance appropriating $1,600,000 for soil remediation at the Shedler property and authorizing the issuance of $1,350,000 in bonds, was read for the second time and adopted after a public hearing. The ordinance is a financial mechanism to support a loan from the Bergen County Joint Insurance Fund for the cleanup.

Ordinance 4089, which repeals and replaces Article 13 of the village code concerning affordable housing, was read for the second time and adopted after a public hearing with no public comment.

Three resolutions were adopted by consent agenda: awarding a professional services contract for traffic engineering at Oak Street and East Glenn Avenue, authorizing 2025 budget reserve transfers, and approving revisions to the field policy.

A request to appropriate up to $500,000 for the purchase of diesel fuel and gasoline through the New Jersey state contract was discussed. Council members expressed concern about the high cost, but acknowledged it was a necessary preparation for potential future expenses.

A discussion item regarding a partnership with the New Jersey Institute of Technology for flood mitigation efforts was postponed to the next Monday's agenda to address outstanding questions.

A resolution to endorse the submission of the recycling tonnage grant, as prepared by Sean Hamlin's office, was discussed. A clarification was made regarding the calendar year referenced in the resolution.

A memorandum from the Ridgewood Police Department declaring multiple police cars surplus property was presented, along with an attached resolution.

The council adopted a bond ordinance to fund the cleanup and development of the Shedler site, specifically for soil remediation. This ordinance is a mechanism to utilize a loan for this purpose.

J.C. strongly objects to the proposed placement of picnic tables and trash receptacles in Looney Park, citing its natural beauty and use as a tranquil space. She believes it would disrupt activities and change the park's purpose from an open space to a picnic ground, advocating for the 'leave no trace' principle.

A.L. noted that empty flower pots downtown are collecting trash and suggested planting pansies. She also commented that the current trash cans are not effective due to small openings and suggested returning to older models. She also inquired about the status of safety mirrors in the train tunnel and the removal of advertising signs.

G.M., husband of Jackie Crane, echoed his wife's concerns about picnic tables in Looney Park, emphasizing the potential negative impacts such as increased noise, traffic, parking congestion, and sanitation issues. He believes the park is a gem that should be left as is.

A.L. expressed concern about the $44,000 cost for designing a traffic light at Oak Street and East Glenn Avenue, deeming it outrageous for what she perceived as a simple intersection.

E.G., representing the Subriski Shedler House, objected to the bond ordinance, citing concerns about community disruption, safety, noise, and the process by which the plan was approved. She argued the ordinance was premature due to ongoing appeals and questioned the lack of a plan for a cultural center.

M.N. thanked the council for addressing the sandbar issue in the Saddle River near Grove Street and expressed relief that the bell system was apparently removed. He also raised concerns about the reassessment process, questioning how changes in neighborhood conditions and the quality of kitchens/bathrooms are factored into valuations.

C.O. inquired about communication methods for the Shedler neighborhood meeting and the wider community, emphasizing the need to reach those not on social media. She also questioned the decision to remove the entire berm at the Shedler site, citing cost and the presence of large boulders.

C.O. noted that council members were having side conversations while speakers were addressing the council, making it difficult to hear. She suggested this be avoided for better acoustics and to show respect to speakers.

B.L. asked how changes in neighborhoods, such as the absence of Valley Hospital and the construction of high-density housing, will be accounted for in the reassessment process. He also questioned whether anticipated future developments, like Kensington, would be considered.

E.G. clarified that her previous comments were based on the initial wording of the bond ordinance posted, which included 'development of the Shedler site,' and noted that the wording was changed for the final vote.

C. asked about the communication plan for the Shedler Field meeting on April 6th, emphasizing the need to reach residents not on social media. She also questioned if the berm removal was a Matrix recommendation and if the cost of removing boulders was considered.

An unnamed resident inquired about how changes in neighborhoods since the 2008 revaluation, such as the closure of Valley Hospital and new housing projects, would be accounted for in the current reassessment. They asked who would ensure the reassessment team is aware of these changes.

E.G. stated that the wording of the bond ordinance presented for adoption tonight was different from the original notice posted last week, which she felt was disingenuous. She clarified her previous comments were based on the initial wording regarding cleanup and development of the Shedler site.

S.W. clarified that the council has not suggested placing picnic tables in Looney Park, and that the idea originated from the public. She stated that no funds have been allocated for this in the current budget and she personally does not support it, citing reasons similar to those expressed by the public. She also mentioned that Habernickle Park has underutilized picnic benches and tables.

P.P. thanked the public for raising the issue of picnic tables in Looney Park and reiterated S.W.'s point that any such proposal would require a council vote. She agreed with the concerns raised about the ripple effects of adding picnic tables and the considerations involved.

Mayor Vagianos addressed the train tunnel concerns, stating that an analysis of the profitability of advertisements was conducted and they were removed in preparation for tunnel rehabilitation. He also mentioned that grant applications for the tunnel will be reviewed and he will look into the matter of the third safety mirror.

S.W. discussed the trash can issue, explaining that the current design with a cover was recommended by Parks, Signal, and Sanitation to prevent rain from filling them and making them too heavy to lift. She also mentioned that older plastic trash cans were not salvageable and that the village has extra trash cans available.

E.W. asked a clarifying question about the reassessment process, inquiring if a third of properties typically go up in value, a third go down, and a third stay the same. He also emphasized the importance of transparency and clarity regarding the revenue-neutral nature of the reassessment.

P.P. asked about how to address public skepticism regarding the legitimacy of the reassessment letters, noting that some residents have questioned if it's a scam. She sought suggestions on how to ensure the public understands the process is legitimate.

S.W. inquired if the reassessment presentation would be posted on the village website for public access.

P.P. provided feedback on the reassessment presentation, suggesting larger font sizes for future meetings and the availability of paper copies for attendees.

P.P. clarified that the $44,000 contract is for the design of the traffic signal, not the installation itself, and that the previous work on the yellow light was done with this next step in mind, which is expected to save costs.

E.W. clarified that Ordinance 4088 is exclusively for the financing mechanism related to the loan from the Bergen Joint Insurance Fund for soil remediation and is not for park development, addressing E.G.'s concerns about park development.

F.M. stated that the bond ordinance is for cleaning up contaminated soil, which is a required action, and that the funds are necessary because prior administrations placed the contaminated dirt. He emphasized that this step is separate from park development debates.

K.C. thanked M.N. for his comments on the Saddle River sandbar and confirmed it has been identified for the flood mitigation project. Regarding the reassessment, K.C. suggested M.N. ask specific questions about visitation flexibility and fixture counts at the upcoming Tuesday meeting.

K.C. informed C.O. that all residents in the Shedler neighborhood will receive a letter outlining the project scope, police presence, and an invitation to the April 6th meeting, including a QR code for contact information. He also explained that the berm removal recommendation was based on soil testing results indicating contamination in nine out of fourteen sections.

K.C. addressed E.G.'s concern about council members talking during her comments, explaining he was conferring with bond counsel Matt Jessup about whether her comments were on topic for the bond ordinance hearing.

K.C. stated he would ask about neighborhood changes and their impact on property values at the upcoming Tuesday meeting, but noted that the reassessment is a snapshot in time and cannot predict future developments.

M.J., bond counsel, read from section 3A of the bond ordinance to confirm that the purpose of the financing is exclusively for soil remediation at Shedler Field, as described in a previous bond ordinance, and does not include further development improvements.

E.W. asked M.J. to explain the interface between the loan from the Bergen Joint Insurance Fund and the bond ordinance mechanism for processing that loan.

M.J. explained that municipalities need a bond ordinance to authorize borrowing money, even for loans, and that this ordinance serves as the necessary authorization for the loan from the GIF.

P.V. added that existing developments will be visible on tax maps, allowing the assessor to see their financial impact. He also clarified that the village relies on recommendations from their LSRP regarding remediation choices and that the loan is strictly for soil remediation, not park development.

P.P. addressed C.'s concerns about communication by stating that every resident in the Shedler neighborhood will receive a letter by the end of the week outlining the scope of work, police presence, and inviting them to the April 6th meeting. The letter will also include a QR code for residents to sign up for notifications.

P.P. explained that Matrix recommended removing the entire berm because nine out of fourteen tested sections came back with soil that needed excavation. Delineating specific areas would have made it difficult to remove only the contaminated sections.

P.P. apologized to E.G. for talking over her, explaining that she leaned to Matt because the conversation was specifically about the bond ordinance and the remediation piece, and she was asking Matt if they were off-topic during the public hearing.

P.P. stated she would ask about neighborhood changes for the reassessment but could not answer the specific question. She clarified that the reassessment is a snapshot in time and cannot project future developments, but she would pose the question about significant neighborhood changes to be addressed at the next public meeting.

Mayor Vagianos explained to the council and public that the bond ordinance is a mechanism to utilize a loan, and the loan only covers soil remediation at Shedler Field, not park development. Using it for anything else would violate the loan terms.

S.W. explained that the tax assessor can see developments on the tax map, such as at Broen Cadillac, and is qualified to see the financial impact. She noted that areas past the point of development will have new assessed values, similar to how Valley Hospital will now be on the tax map.

S.W. addressed E.G.'s comment about the 'clamoring' by explaining that public hearings are limited in scope, and they cannot discuss topics outside the specific hearing subject. She apologized if it seemed rude, but they were seeking clarification on whether E.G.'s comment was relevant to the bond ordinance.

E.W. added that much of the data used in the reassessment process comes from prior property sales. He explained that if properties in the Valley Hospital area have sold for more due to reduced traffic, this will be reflected in comparable sales. He also noted that there is a process to address assessment increases.