NEW LIFETIME HEALTH BENEFITS
At the August 18, 2026 Council Meeting, Ordinance 2026-13, "Amending Section 2-60 of the Ringwood Code to Limit Retiree Healthcare Benefits," was introduced. It returns for a final vote on September 15th.
We agree health care costs are rising and taxpayers deserve responsible budgeting. But the Mayor and Council have not proven this ordinance does what they claim. It may not limit future liability. It could increase it. Before this moves forward, residents deserve the proof. Read on.
WE NEED A REAL LIMIT ON RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS. THIS ISN'T IT.
We’re being told this ordinance will "limit" retiree health benefits. However, ordinance 2026-13 actually creates a new lifetime retiree health benefit for seven high-level and highly-paid positions:
Borough Manager
Director of Public Works
Chief Financial Officer
Municipal Clerk
Police Chief*
Police Captain*
Police Lieutenant*
This isn’t limiting the pool, it’s building something new and handing taxpayers the bill
*These three positions already have negotiated health benefits through their union contracts.
GASLIGHTING 101
At the March 12 council meeting, residents packed the room. Republicans, Democrats, people who had never attended before. They heard that Borough Manager Scott Heck had accumulated over $813,000 in comp time, and that instead of taking it, he would take lifetime health insurance. It was a shakedown! As stated by the Borough Attorney Mark Semeraro at the March 12, 2026 meeting, “However, Mr. Heck does have the right, if this contract is not awarded this way, to walk away with the $813,240.07 and pay for them on his own… By virtue of this contract, Mr. Heck is actually waiving $488,943.94 in comp time that you have concluded he's otherwise entitled to.”
Now we're told the $813,000 and this ordinance are unrelated! That the real reason they are passing this ordinance is to save us money, to "limit" the pool. That's insulting.The Mayor has repeatedly dismissed this scrutiny as an "online narrative." That's the playbook: tell residents what they saw and heard wasn't real. Transparency isn't an "online narrative." It's accountability.
A DEFINITION WRITTEN FOR ONE PERSON
The ordinance does not just create a new benefit. It also rewrites the definition of qualifying service in a way that is hard to explain unless you are trying to fit one specific person's work history. Under the new language, qualifying service can include: 1) Time spent as a part-time elected official, such as a councilperson; 2) Time as a borough employee, and 3) Time that does not need to be continuous.
This appears to have been structured around a single individual's career history while leaving the majority of borough employees who worked full-time for decades without this benefit.
This isn't a retiree benefit plan. It's the Council rewarding one of their own, dressed up as policy.
The Borough Manager has not had a contract since 2014. Lifetime benefits like this are typically negotiated before the work is performed, not created afterward by ordinance. You don't get a new law written around your service history on the way out. Every taxpayer in Ringwood should be asking why this is happening now.
THIS IS YOUR MONEY. DEMAND ANSWERS.
Before Council votes in September, show us the math:
Who gets benefits now vs. who will qualify under the new ordinance? Show the current number of recipients and the number of additional people who could qualify under this ordinance.
What will those benefits actually cost taxpayers? Break out medical, prescription, dental, vision and spouse/domestic-partner coverage, including projected costs over 5, 10 and 20 years.
Does this ordinance actually reduce the Borough's liability, or expand it? Show the projected retiree-health costs under the current system versus under Ordinance 2026-13. If the new ordinance adds eligible positions, explain how adding people to the pool can possibly be described as "limiting" costs.
A Council that answers only to itself, overseeing an administration that oversees itself, isn't how government is supposed to work. When the same group can create benefits, rewrite eligibility rules, and block records requests without a single dissenting vote, residents should ask one question: who is this government working for?

