Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves one-year redevelopment-attorney contract after split vote
Summary
After debate and requests to circulate RFQ materials, the Waldwick council approved a one-year, fair-and-open contract for redevelopment counsel (the firm was selected from five RFQ submissions) in a narrow roll-call vote; supporters cited specialized experience while opponents urged more review.
The Waldwick borough council voted to approve a one-year fair-and-open professional-services contract for redevelopment attorney services after a divided debate that split the council. Staff said five firms responded to an RFQ, a committee reviewed submissions and recommended a firm experienced with municipalities of varying sizes; the selected attorney will focus on ongoing redevelopment projects and work alongside borough counsel.
Borough staff described the review process: "We did receive 5 submissions through the RFQ process, that were reviewed internally by myself, Kelly, Tatiana, and Colleen," an administrator said, explaining the committees scoring criteria included municipal experience and municipal-size matches. Staff emphasized the appointed firm would focus on redevelopment tasks and coordinate with the boroughs regular attorney.
Several council members asked for the RFQ packages and candidate CVs to be circulated for broader review before awarding the contract. Councilmember S12 said, "I don't feel comfortable voting on a contract that I haven't seen the candidates," requesting time to review the materials. Supporters countered that the committees review was sufficient and that a specialist could reduce future legal risks associated with redevelopment projects.
The motion to accept the recommendation passed on a roll-call vote (yes: 4, no: 3). The resolution authorizes a one-year engagement limited to redevelopment-project advice and representation; the contract amount listed in the consent materials was not fully detailed in the public discussion but the staff read an amount for a professional-services line item during the consent reading.
Residents asked clarifying questions during public comment; borough counsel and staff reiterated the scope is limited to advice on current redevelopment projects and not business development or outreach.
The council did not adopt an ordinance related to redevelopment at the meeting; the contract is to be administered under the borough's fair-and-open professional-services procurement process. Members in favor said the appointment offers specialist capacity for redevelopment work; dissenting members said the borough's longtime counsel has adequately handled similar matters and that the RFQs should be shared with the full council prior to award.
