River Vale ‘dumps’ shared DPW services with Montvale

[slideshow_deploy id=’899′]

BY MICHAEL OLOHAN
OF PASCACK PRESS

PASCACK VALLEY, N.J. — After four years of sharing services—and saving significant taxpayer dollars in a combined Pascack Valley Public Works Department—River Vale notified Montvale it wants out of the arrangement.

The eventual dissolution of the combined DPW may occur by as late as Jan. 1, 2020, according to Montvale, or as early as April 1, 2019, according to River Vale, but the bottom line is the savings—estimated for Montvale and River Vale at up to $400,000 yearly—will disappear too.

The agreement termination notice by River Vale leaves Montvale in a tough position as it disbanded its DPW, laying off five employees, and relied on a reconfigured River Vale DPW—the newly named Pascack Valley Public Works Department—to handle all its public works duties.

It appears the two municipalities are heading to court to dispute who is at fault for the dissolution of the shared services pact—an agreement which initially appeared unique and a possible model for Bergen County municipalities.

River Vale Mayor Glen Jasionowski appeared to lay fault with Montvale for not fulfilling its legal obligations.

“It’s unfortunate that leadership of Montvale is unable to govern in a manner that is fiscally sound or in compliance with its legal obligations,” said Jasionowski in a statement emailed to Pascack Press April 12.

Jasionowski’s statement refers indirectly to court battles initiated by Montvale’s former DPW employees who were laid off when the borough and River Vale forged a shared services agreement over four years ago.

“Given the extensive litigation that Montvale was involved in very recently on this same issue, their recent conduct is not surprising,” said Jasionowski.

“Thankfully, River Vale is not governed in that fashion and as a result, we will be pursuing all legal remedies to extricate ourselves from involvement with Montvale. Since this is a matter of possible litigation which counsel will be dealing with, I cannot comment further,” wrote Jasionowski.

Asked about the River Vale mayor’s comments, Ghassali on Thursday emailed, “His statement is laughable.” On Friday morning, Ghassali emailed a revised comment, noting: “His statement is laughable, unsubstantiated and unprofessional.”

Ghassali’s April 12 email update to residents said River Vale “decided to terminate the DPW shared services agreement with Montvale. Effective Jan. 1, 2020, we will have a new provider for DPW services…we are currently exploring all options to maintain, and hopefully improve, the quality of services provided to our residents. Be assured that all current services will continue as is during this transition.”

Ghassali’s email said he and Councilman Douglas Arendacs will be preparing options for council to consider.

“I know you have many questions for us. We still own our original equipment, we have the mechanic shop and its equipment, and we will do our due diligence to put forth the best of the options,” wrote Ghassali Thursday.

“I will keep you posted as we progress with this project,” he added.

Reached April 12, both Ghassali and Arendacs declined to elaborate on Ghassali’s email or answer any questions related to how or why the agreement was ending.

After much turmoil in 2013, Montvale dissolved its DPW, with Councilwoman Rose Curry and then-Councilman Ghassali voting against dissolving the department.

During a public meeting then, Ghassali said he did not think the shared services agreement was sustainable for more than a year.

The original shared services agreement was signed in late 2013, following a study that found both towns could save almost $400,000 each by sharing DPW services.

Currently, the combined DPW has 17 employees.

While $400,000 annual savings was mentioned in the 2013 shared services study, officials in River Vale have said savings ranged to as low as half of that over the course of the agreement so far.

Either municipality could “opt out” after three years, but officials said that either community could terminate the agreement by legal action if it wanted to pursue that option.