Opinion ID: 2365614
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Other Necessary and Proper Ordinances

Text: Any municipality may make, amend, repeal and enforce such other ordinances, regulations, rules and by-laws not contrary to the laws of this state or of the United States, as it may deem necessary and proper for the good government. Order and protection of persons and property, and for the preservation of the public health, safety and welfare of the municipality and its inhabitants, and as may be necessary to carry into effect the powers and duties conferred and imposed by this subtitle, or by any law. The terms used in the section  ordinances, regulations, rules and by-laws  have been held to be synonymous, requiring enactment by ordinance, as opposed to merely be a resolution. Eckerson v. Englewood, 82 N.J.L. 298, 301 (Sup. Ct. 1912); Levy v. Elizabeth, 81 N.J.L. 643, 647 (E. & A. 1911); McQuillin, supra, § 15.04 at 49. Although there may be occasions where a delegated power may be exercised by a resolution in the absence of any indication in the statue otherwise, Fraser v. Teaneck, 1 N.J. 503 (1949); Halsey v. Rapid Transit Co., 54 N.J.L. 102 (Sup. Ct. 1891); McLaughlin v. Millville, 110 N.J. Super. 200 (Law Div. 1970) we are convinced that both the statutory language in the enabling act and the nature of the regulation involved in the fixing of rents lend support to the conclusion that the appropriate form of enacting a rent control measure is by ordinance and not resolution., See e.g., Levy v. Elizabeth, supra , (listing various subjects of regulation under a similar enabling statute which are unsuited to control by resolution). Compare also, the collection of cases annotated in McQuillin, supra, § 15.04 at 49, with those id. at § 15.06 at 56. Moreover, this conclusion is supported by the apparent assumption in Inganamort v. Bor. of Fort Lee, supra , that enactment of rent control measures would be by ordinance. See 62 N.J. at 536 (We are satisfied that N.J.S.A. 40:48-2 confers upon municipalities the power to adopt rent control ordinances.). The defendant borough, however, argues that even though the adoption of a rent control measure must be by ordinance, the extension of the ordinance in this case was an administrative act which is capable of being carried out by a resolution; it maintains that the findings of fact necessary to sustain the continuation of the ordinance involve only an administrative determination. The defendant's argument would allow it to accomplish indirectly what it had no power to do directly. Clearly, the duration of the regulation involved an important aspect of the legislative judgment and should be subject to the same procedural safeguards which were required to attend the passage of the rent measure in the first instance. Thus, the court in Albigese v. City of Jersey City, 129 N.J. Super. 567 (App. Div. 1974) held that a reenactment of rent control legislation which initially was required to be enacted by ordinance may not be accomplished by resolution. Relying upon reasoning which we find to be persuasive, the court stated: Obviously, the municipality did not acquire a power denied to it by incorporating in the original enactment the provision for an extension by resolution rather than by the adoption of a new ordinance.    We add that to require extension only by ordinance in a matter of public importance such as this serves the salutary objectives of public office and participation and affords the opportunity for unhurried deliberation. [129 N.J. Super. at 570.] Accord, Gardens v. City of Passaic, 130 N.J. Super. 369, 380 (Law Div. 1974); Kessler v. City of Passaic, 113 N.J. Super. 59 (Law Div. 1971). These important interests  public notice and participation  are also embodied in the established rule that a statute requiring that an action be taken by ordinance cannot be accomplished by a mere resolution. See Chasis v. Tumulty, 8 N.J. 147, 153 (1951); Public Service Ry. Co. v. Camden, 95 N.J.L. 190 (E. & A. 1920); Roselle v. South Orange, 21 N.J. Super. 598 (App. Div. 1952); McLaughlin v. Millville. 110 N.J. Super. 200 (Law Div. 1970); Kessler v. City of Passaic, 113 N.J. Super. 59, 62 (Law Div. 1971). In effect, a contrary result in this case would allow the municipality to remove from the ordinance process an important aspect of the regulatory measure  its duration. [2] Finally, the use of a resolution to extend the duration of the ordinance would conflict with the policy behind the well-settled rule that an ordinance may not be amended or modified by a resolution. See American Malleables Co. v. Bloomfield, 83 N.J.L. 728, 734-735 (E. & A. 1912); Antonelli Construction, Inc. v. Milstead, 34 N.J. Super. 449, 456 (Law Div. 1955); 1 Antieau, supra, § 4.40 at 4-76, n. 3; 6 McQuillin, supra, § 21.04 at 199, n. 46; C. Rhyne, Municipal Law § 9-7 at 234 (1957). While the inclusion of section 20 in the ordinance, allowing it to be extended by resolution, arguably might lead to the conclusion that the ordinance had not technically been modified, a reenactment of the ordinance would certainly involve the same type of legislative judgment which is involved in either a modification or a repeal of an ordinance. Albigese v. City of Jersey City, supra, 129 N.J. Super. at 569. Cf., Kessler v. City of Passaic, supra, 113 N.J. Super. at 63.