Newark Municipal Council Minutes 1993

1569 Pages·1993·63.9 MB·

Newark, New Jersey, January 6 , 1993
Prior to the regularly scheduled meeting various presentations were
made by Members of the Municipal Council.
A regularly scheduled meeting of the Municipal Council of the City of
Newark, New Jersey, was held on the above date in the Council Chamber,
Second Floor, City Hall, Newark, New Jersey, at 1:12 P.M. .
The audience arose for the National Anthem.
The invocation was offered by Reverend Benjamin Piazza, St. Francis
Xavier Church.
President Bradley called the meeting to order and asked for roll call.
Present: Council Members Branch, Carrino, Grant, Harris, Martinez,
Tucker, Villani, President Bradley, City Clerk Robert P. Marasco, Clerk of the
Municipal Council, Legislative Research Officer Elmer Herrmann, First Assistant
Corporation Counsel JoAnn Watson, Assistant Corporation Counsel
Gwendolyn Blue, Public Relations Consultants Delores Wheat and Lois
Redisch, Lieutenant William Burgess, Sergeant-at-Arms.
Absent: Council Member Rice.
City Clerk Marasco stated, "In accordance with New Jersey P.L. 1975,
Chapter 231, Section 5, adequate notice of this meeting has been provided by
notifying by mail the Star Ledger and the Jersey Journal, by posting on the
designated bulletin board in the basement of City Hall and by filing in the Office
of the City Clerk on December 22, 1992, the schedule of regular meetings and
conferences of the Newark Municipal Council.
In addition, the agenda of this meeting was disseminated on December
29, 1992, at the time of its preparation. All persons who prepaid for advance
notice of meetings also received copies of the schedule and agenda as
required by law."
(Copies of these Reports and Recommendations are available for
perusal upon application to the Office of the City Clerk)
4-a. The City Clerk presented Copy of Minutes of Meeting of North
Jersey District Water Supply Commission, Wanaque North, held
November 23, 1992.
A motion that the Copy of Minutes be received was made by the Council
of the Whole and adopted by the following votes:
Yes: Council Members Branch, Carrino, Grant, Martinez, Tucker, Villani,
President Bradley.
Absent During Roll Call: Council Member Harris.
Absent: Council Member Rice.
The City Clerk presented Copy of Minutes of Meeting of North
Jersey District Water Supply Commission, Wanaque South, held
November 23, 1992.
A motion that the Copy of Minutes be received was made by the
Council of the Whole and adopted by the following votes:
Yes: Council Members Branch, Carrino, Grant, Martinez, Tucker, Villani,
President Bradley.
Absent During Roll Call: Council Member Harris.
Absent: Council Member Rice.
January 6, 1993
4-C. The City Clerk presented Copy of Minutes of Special Meeting of . q
North Jersey District Water Supply Commission, Public Bond
Hearing, Wanaque South, held December 4, 1992.
A motion that the Copy of Minutes be received was made by the Council
of the Whole and adopted by the following votes:
Yes: Council Members Branch, Carrino, Grant, Martinez, Tucker, Villani,
President Bradley.
Absent During Roll Call: Council Member Harris.
Absent: Council Member Rice.
4-d. The City Clerk presented Certificate of Determination and Award
in accordance with Bond Ordinance 6-S & F-b (S-1), July 21, 1992,
and Local Finance Board of Sitate of New Jersey, regarding
$8,500,000., Refunding Bond Anticipated Notes.
. (Copy of correspondence submitted to each Member of the Council)
The City Clerk stated, "Pursuant to the Local Finance Board of the State
of New Jersey, the Certificate of Deterrnination and Award be placed in full in
these minutes."
CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION AND AWARD
I, Ronald W. Jean, Treasurer of the City of Newark, in the A
County of Essex, New Jersey (hereinafter referred to as the
"Issuer"), HEREBY CERTIFY as follows:
1. I hereby determine to issue the Refunding Bond
Anticipation Notes hereinafter described by virtue of the authority
conferred upon me by a bond ordinance of the Issuer finally adopted
July 21, 1992 hereof and in anticipation of the issuance’o f bonds
of the Issuer.
NUMBER DENOMINATION
TOTAL PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT: $8,500,000 No. 1992-S1 to
1992-8585, inclusive $100,000
DATE: December 9, 1992
MATURITY: December9 , 1993
INTEREST RATE .
PER ANNUM: 3.94% per annum, payable at maturity
PLACE OF PAYMENT: First Fidelity Bank, N.A., New Jersey, Newark,
New Jersey A
rs January 6, 1993
2. Pursuant to the authority so conferred upon me, I have
awarded and sold the notes to First Fidelity Bank, N.A. New Jersey,
Newark, New Jersey at the price of $8,500,000, plus an amount
equal to the interest on the notes accrued to the date of payment
of the purchase price.
3. No bonds of the Issuer have heretofore been issued
pursuantt o the ordinances referred to in Section 1.
4. The date of the first note or other obligation issued in
. anticipation of the issuance of bonds (in anticipation of which the
instant notes are issued), whether or not now outstanding, is
a
[December 9, 1992].
5. No notes or other obligations in anticipationof the
issuance of bonds have heretofore been issued pursuant to the
ordinance referred to in Section 1 and now remain outstanding and
unpaid.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 9th day
of December, 1992.
Ronald W. Jean/ Treasurer
A motion to receive the Certificate of Determination and Award was made
by the Council of the Whole and adopted by the following votes:
Yes: Council Members Branch, Carrino, Grant, Martinez, Tucker, Villani,
President Bradley.
Absent During Roll Call: Council Member Harris.
Absent: Council Member Rice.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL
A-1. TCPclroooherncapndar.sit,imte taidIino cAo nypnata palhtll eoi nc2u a2mHsn4aoeFtt-u i t2rse3saiart4pn n pgdrF o oSlfvou fOaosowarlrspn ; epe txlarhin ,secdu a bAtjtHvinoeoeoo cnmtntpu e eelmro,teemfo s ei sttSNs iiuentswieagnsa n erdpaxkt l h,ae SDn Aoe vcNcrateeoeponqnwpruud rsei o r JveieaOnrmlUfdse,rfue nibsyctat.oesnr n i aalfRpno erdrn oZ poeenwreat,ly
((CCeonptyr alo f Watrradn)s cript submitted to each Member of the Council)
(((BTMrro.aa nrsEdcd ruoiafpr tA ddofji lueEsdst pmDoesenictte om,h beeMarrr. i nJ8g,o hh1ne9 l9dC2 u)rO ccitoo,b eMrr . 1G4,a r1y9 9P2inr)y lis and Ms. Rachel
Sibio, Appellants)
The Board of Adjustment at its regular meeting held October 14, 1992,
approved the application by 5 ayes and 2 nays.
JNoohvne mCbuAernrc i ao,3p 0p,eM ar1l.9 9Gi2na, r tyhbi sy P imIraryvtlitinse rSa onwldao snd Mzsf,.i leaRd taitcnoh retnlhee y SOiffbofirio c,Me r .Ao pfpE etdlhuleaa rnCtdisot.y ECslpeorski toon, Mr.
1992, aTnhde etarcanhs crMiepmt bienr coonfn etchet ioCnou nwciitlh wthaiss mfautrtneirs hweda s wirteh ceai vceodp yD eocf etmheb er 8,
transcript and other parts of the record.
-3-
January 6, 1993
On December 9, 1992, the City Clerk notified the applicant's attorney, the
applicant, the appellants’ attorney and the appellants that arı appeal in this
matter would be heard by the Municipal Council at its regular rneeting January
6, 1993, at 1:00 P.M., in the Council Chamber, Second Floor, City Hall, Newark.
President Bradiey stated we will now hear oral argument on the appeal
from the decision of the Board of Adjustment In the Matter of Application of
Sussex Avenue Urban Renewal Corp., Applicant and Owner, to permit in a
Second industrial Zone, Transitional Housing for the Horneless and Doctors
Office and Pharmacy on First Floor and not meeting the requirements for
conditional use approval; subject to site plan approval, on property located at
224-234 Sussex Avenue, Newark, New Jersey. We may hear argumenat only
from the parties to the appeal, that is the person or persons who filed the appeal
and the one who was granted the variance. Either party may be represented by
an attomey. No testimony will be heard by the Municipal Council, only
argument based on the record macle before the Board of Adjustment. For the
benefit of the parties who are not represented by an attomey, that means that
they may state the reasons for their position on the variance and they may point
to testimony before the Board to support their position. However, they cannot
bring in new testimony or other evidence.
This is the time and place for the appeal to commence.
MR. JOHN CURCIO, 30 DURYEA STREET, NEWARK NEW
JERSEY.
MS. STEPHANIE CURCIO, 30 DURYEA STREET, NEWARK,
NEW JERSEY.
The above-mentioned speakers addressed the Members of the
Municipal Council requesting a deferral until January 20, 1993, at 7:00 P.M., so
their attorney and other residents and objectors could be present to address the
Council.
City Clerk Marasco stated that the attorney for the applicant had been
notified of the request for deferral by the appellants' attorney but had not agreed
upon same.
First Assistant Corporation Counsel Watson indicated to the Members of
the Municipal Council that anyone who appeared before the Board of
Adjustment on October 14, 1992, as an objector was permitted to testify before
the Council. However, no new testimony could be heard.
MR. JOSE VASQUEZ, 29 DURYEA STREET, NEW JERSEY,
addressed the Members of the Municipal in opposition to the granting of this
variance.
Council Member Harris requested all objectors present to stand and
raise their hands for the Council's information.
MR. MICHAEL OLIVEIRA, ATTORNEY FOR APPLICANT,
addressed the Members of the Municipal Council in support of this application.
Council Member Harris asked who was the principal owner of this
property.
MR. JAMES DOLNICK, APPLICANT, AND OWNER, 555
PASSAIC AVENUE, WEST CALDWELL, NIEW JERSEY, addressed the
Members of the Municipal Council stating that he owns five other shelters in the
City of Newark and that they are all efficient and well-kept.
There was a lengthy discussion held by the Members of the Municipal
Council.
January 6, 1993
A motion to affirm the decision of the Board of Adjustment was made by
Council Member Grant, seconded by President Bradley and declared adopted
by President Bradley by the foliowing votes:
Yes: Council Members Branch, Grant, Harris, Martinez, Tucker, Villani,
President Bradley.
No: Council Member Carrino.
Absent: Council Member Rice.
President Bradley requested Mr. Dolnick to forward the addresses of his
other shelters in the City of Newark and the number of persons residing within
each.
Council Member Grant requested those residents and objectors present
to register their names and addresses with the City Clerk’s Office.
A motion to consider Ordinances 6-S & F-m, 6-F-d and 6-F-c at this time
was made by Council Member Tucker, seconded by Council Member Grant and
declared adopted by President Bradley by the following votes:
Yes: Council Members Branch, Carrino, Grant, Harris, Martinez, Tucker,
Villani, President Bradley.
Absent: Council Member Rice.
ORDINFORA RENCONCSIDEERASTIO N,
President Bradley called for ordinances for reconsideration.
6-S & F-m.
The City Clerk read An ordinance repealing Section 6 of
Ordinance 6-S & F-p, adopted September 25, 1990, thereby
prohibiting the automatic pass-through of any Increased
water/sewer costs incurred to comply with any federal or state laws
and regulations.
(Copy of ordinance and correspondence submitted to each Member of
the Council)
(Ordinance vetoed by the Mayor December 28, 1992)
The City Clerk stated: The question before the Council is “Shall the
Municipal Council override the Mayor's veto of ‘An ordinance repealing
Section 6 of Ordinance 6-S & F-p, adopted September 25, 1990,
thereby prohibiting the automatic pass-through of any increased
water/sewer costs incurred to comply with any federal or state laws
and regulations?’”
January 6, 1993
The City Clerk read the following veto message from Mayor Sharpe
James:
SHARPE JAMES
MAYCOF
NEWARK, NEW JERSEY
07102
December 28, 1992
Mr. Robert P. Marasco, City Clerk
* Newark Municipal Council
920 Broad Street
Newark, New Jersey 07102
Re: MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE 65&FA ADOPTED DECEMBER 16, 1992
Dear Mr. Marasco:
The abovementioned Ordinance has been presented to my attention for
review and consideration. Please be advised that I must veto this
Ordinance because it unfairly shifts the responsibility for the
cost of sewer operation from the sewer users to the City’s
taxpayers. In addition, this change will have a negative effect
upon the City’s financial position.
This proposed Ordinance would remove the authority of the
Administration to pass on any increase in sewer costs related to
any Federal or State mandate. The responsibility for paying such
increases would be assumed by the taxpayers rather than the users
of the sewer systems. This result would partially insulate many of
the tax abated properties from paying such mandated increases.
The Ordinance is also defective because it repeals Section 6 of
Ordinance 6S&FP adopted September 25, 1990. It is my understanding
that the Council justification for repealing this section was to
remove the automatic pass through for Federal and State mandates.
The repeal of this section goes further, however, because it
reverts the current sewer rate from 16.89 per 1000 cubic feet in
1992 back to the rate of 6.70, which was in effect from January
1990 to October 21990 and 12.06 from October to December 1990.
The ramifications of such action leaves the rate at 12.06 and
without modifications, requires a refund to all users from October
1990 to present. In recognition of this deficiency, the
Corporation Counsel has suggested amending language to make the
effective date of this Ordinance prospective rather than
retroactive. Unfortunately, the Ordinance does not contain such
language.
The adoption of this Ordinance leaves the City with a sewer rate
which does not accurately reflect the true cost of operation. This
could lead to a significant liability of approximately $25,000,000
on the part of the City to our users for the three months of 1990
and the full years of 1991 and 1992. The attempts to shift the
financial responsibility to fund sewer operations to taxpayers is
both inequitable and not in the best interest of the City.
January 6, 1993
In consii deratioi n of the facts stated a bove and in the bess t interest
of all of the Citizens of Newark, I have no other choice than to
VETO Municipal Ordinance 6S&FA.
Council Member Tucker, through the Chair, directed the City Clerk to
pmleaectei ntgh:e following letter of response to Mayor James in the minutes of this
DONALD TUCKER
COUNCILMAN-AT-LARGE
CENTER CITY HALL
329 SOUTH ORANGE AVENUE CITY HALL ROOM 304
NEWARK. NEW JERSEY 07103 December 30 ; 1992 N92E0W ABRRKO,A DN ESWT REJEETR SEY 07102
@01) 733-6427
The Honorable Sharpe James
Mayor
920 Broad Street
Newark, New Jersey 07102
Re: MAYORAL VETO OF ORDINANCE 6-S & F-A ADOPTED DECEMBER 16, 1992
Dear Mayor James
AaPaI.rdf tmoaiirmcn eMuimailsenratn atrtseaircdetoo cin,eoe indbp' yts iont orhfde ip nwoyhaosinBuiccurthes i .io nlnee stysto ueP rlc eoAandsdcemeaexi trpnenlidiab sniet gnDr eeadact deovmrtib hseyierosd u i rn 28to,phr rardteei1 van9is9aoo2Inun csse ta om mCefcwieoohtrtgi yicn nhigC zsvla eentrtohk ria,ens g goa Rfro dbbieettnrehhgtnee
aSneuywn efral iarnlugysue argses hiwfthtoi sc ht htehs et aCtiertsey s poortn asxiipmbapiylleiiretssy . " thfiosr Notwtohh eer bee cotshiten ctoahfs ies. sewoerrd inoapnecrea tiiosn thferroem
January 6, 1993
If the Administration has determined, after an analysis of city
administrative costs and costs associated with federal and state mandates,
that the sewer rates need to be increased to cover these costs, then, as
in the past, it should prepare the appropriate ordinance for the Council's
consideration with the detailed back-up documentation to support the need
for a specific rate increase. These sewer rates, whether negotiated up
or down, would then be deliberated and voted upon by this Council after
affording the resident users the opportunity to speak at a public hearing
on same.
As you know, this ordinance removes authority from the Administration to
automatically pass on any increases in sewer charges related to
administrative costs or any federal or state mandate. The Municipal Council
repealed this administrative authority for several reasons. First of all,
numerous citizens complained about exorbitant increases in their water/sewer
bills. While the Municipal Council was fully aware o^ the rate increases
when it adopted Ordinarice 6-S&F-p 092590 establishing the sewer rate at
$12.06 for 1990 and $13.51 for 1991, it was not fully aware that the "pass
through" clause would automatically increase the rates to $16.89 in 1992.
If the Council had known the impact of this clause would send sewer bills
Skyrocketing, it would have never approved of that provision. In addition
to these increases, the Administration arbitrarily and unilaterally added
certain administrative costs, which theretofore were not included, into
the cost of the water/sewer operations, thereby further increasing the
bills of. the City's resident users far and above any federal or state
mandate.
The "pass through" clause was also repealed because it diluted the statutory
authority of the Governing Body to establish water ünd sewer rates. In
addition, the Administration utilized the "pass through" clause to usurp
the Municipal Council's authority to consider the policy of whether or
not certain administrative costs pertaining to the water and sewer operations
Should be paid for by water/sewer users or by municipal property taxes.
The deletion of the "pass through" clause does not preclude approval of
any justifiable Sewer rate increases which the Administration may recommend
to the Council. In addition, insofaras the tax burden is concerned, the
Municipal Council has the authority to review your annual spending plan
by making the necessary dollar adjustments either upward or downward, and
striking a local property tax rate accordingly. So once again, the deletion
of the "pass through" clause does not automatically correspond to a shift
of the sewer operation from sewer users to the tax payers.
Your letter has indicated that the repea! of the "pass through" clause
makes ordinance 6-S&F-a 121692 defective and that its impact reverts the
current sewer rate from $16.89 in 1992 back to the rate of $6.70 which
was in effect from January to December 1990. I am of the opinion that
the repeal „Of the "pass through" clause does not make the ordinance
defective, it reinforces the Municipal Council's authority to establish
Sewer rates. In reality the impact of the ordinance upon the sewer rates,
as stated publicly at the Special Conference of December 8, 1992, by
Corporation Counsel Michelle Hollar-Gregory, reverts the current sewer
rate from $16.89 in 1992 to the 1991 rate of $13.51 which was effective
January 1991 until January 1992 as specified in Ordinance 6-S&F-p adopted
September 25, 1990.
January 6, 1993
r to address the concerns of Corporation Counsel Michelle
Mallar Gregory in her lega] opinion dated December 11, 1992, this ordinance
was further amended to include the suggested language changes and to ees
harmless the 1992 sewer rates at $16.89. The amended Ordinance 6-F-d 0 :
(clarifying and accurately reflecting legislative intent of the rene
of Section 6 and identifying the 1992 sewer rates and user charges) w l
be voted on First Reading at the regular Council meeting of January :
1993. Also on First Reading is Ordinance 6-F-c 010693 (to adjust sewer
and user charges by establishing an amended rate schedule for sewer users}
which will further amend the sewer rate schedule to $14.31 for the ye r
1993. Thus, any analysis of the sewer rates must take into considera on
all three ordinances, 6-S&F-a 121692 (prohibiting the automatic pass through
of any increased water/sewer costs incurred to comply with any fe er
or state laws and regulations), 6-F-c 010693 (to adjust sewer an A
charges by establishing an amended rate schedule for sewer users) and "ihe
010693 (clarifying and accurately reflecting legistative intent ne
repeal of Section 6 and identifying the 1992 sewer rates and user charges),
in order to have the proper perspective of where rates were and where the
‘rates are going.
OcooiTrofrno s tddt eic tns naottann aynoct €c flee ou fdi ensl,ce6at rw-wheeFseraO - srded adirno endp0pa ee1nraw0cla6are t9te i3ge our6onl/-fsasS ( te&ciwFSloe-eafnarcrrs toi)imf o1 yc2nio1 dns6sotg9ees 62ws e rAaa (ninnpdndor c tuou shreaiirrscdbeshceid iunt frtitiant fttogyeo i tlh ytetn hc hgeoe mrrpaeetluhfstyetlpa oexomcpnawtas1ityii9tien9bhcr2gi s l.i Pastalneyseyw sg e irP sfrftoloehrapdrr toeaoisrtutvaeeghelsdhe
maintain the 1992 sewer rates at $16 e necessary 4 amended lang[u9a9 2^ Prdo nawi
DT/FBcq
CC: TMhr.e MReombbeerrts P.o f Matrhea scMou,n icCiiptaly ClCoeurnkc.i l
A motion to override the Mayor's veto of this ordinance was made by
Council Member Tucker, seconded by Council Member Harris and declared
adopted by President Bradley by the following votes: s
Yes: Council Members Branch, Carrino, Grant, Harris, Martinez, Tucker,
Villani, President Bradley.
Absent: Council Member Rice.
The City Clerk: The Mayor's veto of this ordinance is overriden. This
ordinance will be advertised according to law
January 6, 1993
6-F-d. The City Clerk read An ordinance amending Ordinance
6.8 & F-a, adopted December 16, 1992, amending Title Twenty-
One, Sewer and Sewerage Disposal, Chapter 5, User Charges,
Section 3, Rates for Sewer User Charges, of the Revised
Ordinances of the City of Newark, (1966), as amended and
supplemented, by clarifying and accurately reflecting the
legislative intent of the repeal of Section 6 and identifying the
1992 Sewer Rates and User Charges.
(Copy of ordinance submitted to each Member of the Council)
(Business Administrator Grant, Assistant Corporation Counsel
Watson, Mr. Joseph Faccone, External Auditor, Samuel Klein and Company
and Mr. J. Robert Mclain, Manager of Utility Rate Practice, David M. Griffith
and Associates, Ltd. met with the Council January 5, 1993)
A motion to amend the ordinance by adding thereto, "Any credit or
daficit received by the City of Newark from the Regional Wastewater
Authorities (Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners, Joint Meeting of
Essex and Union Counties, and Second River Joint Meeting) shall be
allocated among all eligible sewer users in such a manner that the sewer
users' rates are adjusted in arnount proportionate to the credit or deficit" was
made by Council Member Tucker, seconded by Council Member Harris and
declared adopted by President Bradley by the following votes:
Yes: Council Members Branch, Carrino, Grant, Harris, Martinez,
Tucker, Villani, President Bradley. l
Absent: Council Member Rice.
A motion to adopt the ordinance, as amended, was made by Council
Member Tucker, seconded by Council Member Harris and declared adopted
by President Bradley by the following votes:
Yes: Council Members. Branch, Carrino, Grant, Harris, Martinez,
Tucker, Villani, President Bradley.
Absent: Council Member Rice.
President Bradley: The yeses are eight, the noes are none and one
absent. This ordinance, as amended, is declared adopted on first reading
and the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to advertise said
ordinance, as amended, and give public notice of its introduction and
passage on first reading as provided by law. This ordinance, as amended,
will come up for a public hearing and be considered for further action on
January 20, 1993.
6-F-c. The City Clerk read An ordinance to amend Title 21, Chapter
5, Section 3 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Newark,
New Jersey (1956) as amended and supplemented (To adjust
Sewer and User Charges by establishing an amended rate
schedule for sewer users).
(Copy of ordinance submitted to each Member of the Council)
(Business Administrator Grant, First Assistant Corporation Counsel
Watson, Mr. Joseph Faccone, External Auditor, Samuel Klein and Company
and Mr. J. Robert McLain, Manager of Utility Rate Practice, David M. Griffith
and Associates, Ltd. met with the Council January 5, 1993)
A motion to defer action on the ordinance; further, directing the City
Clerk to place this legislation on a Special Meeting to be called for January
12, 1993, at 11:00 A.M., or as soon thereafter as practical, in the Council
Conference Room/Council Chamber City Hall; further, directing the City
Clerk to invite Business Administrator Grant and Finance Director Jean to
meet with the Council at its January 20, 1993, Pre-Meeting Conference to
discuss this matter was made by Council Member Tucker, seconded by
Council Member (3rant and declared adopted by President Bradley by the
following votes:
Yes: Council Members Branch, Carrino, Grant, Harris, Martinez,
Tucker, Villani, President Bradley.
Absent: Council Member Rice.
- 10-