MONTVALE/RIVER VALE, N.J.—A dispute over snow-removal costs nearly 18 months ago—which nearly ended River Vale and Montvale’s shared public works department—was resolved by both towns in September with the signing of a new decade-long shared services agreement.
The new agreement was officially executed Sept. 24 by Montvale’s council, and was previously signed by River Vale Mayor Glen Jasionowski earlier last month.
The new Pascack Valley Department of Public Works was initially begun by both towns in 2014 with cost savings estimated at up to $400,000 yearly although it’s unclear what savings have accrued so far.
The shared-services DPW pact is unique in Bergen County, which was formed after Montvale disbanded its local DPW.
“Everybody wants the new agreement to work and to the extent that we could improve upon the existing agreement we took the opportunity to do so,” said Joseph Voytus, Montvale’s borough attorney Oct. 2. The agreement covers Jan. 1, 2020 to Dec. 31, 2029.
Costs were in dispute
In April 2018, River Vale filed a breach of contract suit in Superior Court against Montvale for its failure to pay a $42,222.62 invoice for snow-removal costs incurred during a series of March 2018 nor’easters.
To address that concern, the new plan sets up a Snow Storm Trust Fund jointly funded by an initial $50,000 contribution from each town to be held by River Vale.
“Funds in the trust fund may be utilized by River Vale to address unplanned or extraordinary costs incurred by the DPW in addressing storm-related response and/or clean-up,” states the new agreement.
“Such funds may only be utilized if the current year’s budget for snow or storm-related costs has been exhausted,” it adds.
Before expending storm trust funds, the agreement notes River Vale “shall notify Montvale and refer the matter to the Advisory Committee, which may approve or reject the planned expenditure of such funds.”
The advisory committee consists of two representatives from each town, the mayor and another municipal representative, and River Vale’s administrator.
A new provision allows each town to have its chief financial officer attend advisory meetings as a non-voting participant.
The committee meets quarterly, second Tuesdays in March, June, September and December at 5:30 p.m. The committee can meet at other times “as deemed necessary…and shall be responsible for raising and addressing questions or concerns related to shared DPW services delivery and long-term planning,” notes the agreement.
Getting on the same page
Voytus said one major issue between the two towns that was clarified in the new agreement was what each municipality’s expenses and costs will be for services provided. “It was all about being on the same page with expenses,” said Voytus.
Shared DPW funding will be split between the two towns, with each town’s percentage of costs based on total population and households.
Both towns agreed the percentages of costs based on the funding formula may be readjusted in 2023, 2026, and 2029.
Montvale’s agreement, posted in the Sept. 24 agenda, states it will now pay 46.4% of shared DPW costs, or $1,796,178 in 2020. The annual base fee for services will increase 2% in 2021 and 2022, the agreement states.
While the original agreement offered only one option to resolve disputes by heading to Superior Court, the new agreement offers two alternatives prior to court.
The new agreement said disputes “shall first be referred to the Advisory Committee” to attempt to resolve the matter informally.
If that fails, the agreement states the towns “shall engage in mediation in good faith.”
The agreement requires the towns to agree upon a mediator. “If the muncipalities cannot agree on a mediator they shall each select one mediator and those two individuals shall confer and appoint a third individual who will serve as mediator in this matter,” says the pact.
It further states if the towns are unable to resolve the dispute “after at least [one] mediation session of at least two hours may a municipality file an action in Superior Court.”
According to Voytus, “The thing that came out of this was much more increased communication between all the council members. We want to be able to sit down and work things out before winding up in court. This is about dialogue and constructive discussions.”
What do you think? See our letters policy and sound off!