Teaneck council debates $12.74 million capital plan as pool repairs and grant‑funded parks drive spending

Teaneck Township Council members debated a proposed $12,740,000 capital improvement budget on April 7, focusing attention on park upgrades, a newly acquired community pool and a mix of grant‑funded projects that require up‑front spending.

The council’s draft capital plan lists roughly $1,133,769 in grant awards. Acting Recreation Superintendent Sean Powers presented multiple recreation projects including ball‑field upgrades, splash pad installations and short‑term capital requests. “The Teaneck Community Pool is a wonderful addition to the township,” said Allen Sohn, a Teaneck resident during public comment, but he urged caution and asked, “Why is this pool different from all other pools?” Sohn also recounted past maintenance shortfalls at other pools and cited earlier operating deficits reported by the private swim club.

CFO Issa Abbasi told the council the capital package includes several grant‑backed items and explained debt timing: “Principal, I believe, is 3,000,000 on the bonds,” Abbasi said, noting the finance team plans to introduce a bond ordinance April 22 and seek adoption May 6 so departments can begin work in June. Abbasi and the manager emphasized that some projects must be paid up front and later reimbursed when grants are processed.

DPW Director Trevon Romeo described required safety and code updates at the town’s recently acquired pool that help explain the capital placeholder. “When we started…they were doing a lot of stuff different, but as a township, we are required to do things differently,” he said, adding that the township had to install emergency shutoffs and run new electric lines; one item “was, like, $40,000” for emergency shutoffs and a roof evaluation later identified roughly $180,000 in roofing work.

Councilors pressed staff for specifics on large line items and whether some purchases could be deferred or scaled back. One council member called the overall capital number “too high” and urged a line‑by‑line review; others said much of the spending represents necessary maintenance or grant opportunities the township should pursue. Council members discussed options such as splitting vehicle purchases, using forfeiture funds for communications upgrades and deferring discretionary items.

Major capital items identified in the presentation include Phelps Park field and splash‑pad work (grant awards noted), Sagamore Park improvements tied to a $750,000 Greenacre matching grant, a Bell Avenue detention project funded in part by roughly $1.1 million from the EPA, and a proposed $1.5 million synthetic turf ball‑field redevelopment (funding to be confirmed). The manager and CFO said some listed amounts are placeholders; departments recently took ownership of some sites and detailed quotes remain pending.

The council did not vote on the capital ordinance at the session; staff asked members to return with specific cuts or priorities for discussion under old business at the next meeting. The manager and CFO said they would circulate more detail and that the bond ordinance timeline is intended to enable departments to begin capital work by June if council adopts the ordinance in May.