TOWNSHIP OF WASHINGTON—The Township Council unanimously approved accepting a $438,750 county Open Space grant, Feb. 6, to help reimburse acquisition costs for the former Washington Township Swim and Recreation Club.
Steven Cascio votes yes on the condition that the money be used only for property improvements.
Mayor Peter Calamari had suggested that the council might accept the grant and “repurpose” the funds to purchase a 3.2-acre mostly wooded tract at 450 Pascack Road. The Township put in a $430,000 bid in summer 2021 for the property — under threat of condemnation — and has been negotiating for more than 18 months.
The town bought the 6.1-acre swim club property on Ridgewood Boulevard North for $750,000 in April 2022 to expand recreational opportunities for residents.
At the last meeting, council approved applying for a $68,300 grant from the state Department of Community Affairs to investigate the swim club’s topography, drainage and environmental constraints.
Cascio asked township grant consultant, David Biunno of GLD Associates, where funds would go after the township receives them. Biunno said the funds would go into the general treasury since the township had already purchased the swim club.
He said the funds come with no restrictions on their use, except that their acceptance requires an easement on the swim club property to only be used for open space and recreation.
Biunno said that by accepting the acquisition funds, the township becomes eligible for future Open Space grants for park development and improvements.
He said the $438,750 could be used as matching funds for future grants, noting the township might likely receive more grants of $100,000 or more to develop the swim club property.
He noted should the council decide later to purchase 450 Pascack Road it could apply for another grant to defray that cost.
However, Biunno said that not accepting the grant “puts you at the bottom of the line for park development funds.”
Cascio said he wanted the nearly $439,000 put into a line item to only be used for swim club property grants and improvements. “I don’t want to use it in any other area.”
However, discussions on whether the council will purchase the 450 Pascack property are ongoing — mostly held in closed session — with only two members (vice president Stacey Feeney and Daisy Velez) on record as supporting the purchase.
On Feb. 6, councilman Tom Sears chastised both Feeney and Velez for speaking their opinions on 450 Pascack’s purchase, saying that they were warned not to discuss the matter “out of closed session.”
Later, Township Attorney Ken Poller said the councilwomen could discuss their opinions on 450 in public as long as neither revealed closed-session details.
Following several residents pressing council members to support 450 Pascack’s purchase, and Feeney and Velez expressing support, Council President Desserie Morgan said she has not said yes or no to the purchase.
Morgan said she has received emails and phone calls from residents opposed to 450 Pascack’s purchase and again decried “scare tactics” pressuring its purchase. She did not name the mayor but has singled him out previously for suggesting the 450 Pascack might be developed for multifamily, affordable housing while no such application is ongoing or imminent.
She said she’s looking at possible property purchases “globally” and to which will have the most benefits for the most residents.
When Calamari asked to speak on 450 Pascack, Morgan said she wanted to “move on” and Calamari noted he was only an “invited guest” at council meetings.
Previously, Calamari strongly advocated for 450 Pascack’s purchase, asking the council recently to put aside funds for its purchase.
Denied an opportunity to speak by Morgan, Calamari went into the audience and rose to speak as a citizen.
“I think it’s a shame that I am forced to come down here and speak from the pulpit as a citizen, that I have lost my mayor privilege to join the council in its discussion,” Calamari said.
He said in “fairness” he wanted to point out that people advocating 450’s purchase were “quite limited” to five minutes speaking time while another speaker got 15 minutes to discuss a drainage issue. “It seems like we’re cherry-picking if we don’t like a certain topic we hold those people to their timeline. If we do like a certain topic we let those people discuss way past five minutes.”
He said a couple council members were noted for speaking out of a closed session and said he believed that “writing a letter to a newspaper is also potentially discussing what was said in a closed session.” referring to Morgan’s recent letter to Pascack Press about 450 Pascack Road. He said all council members should be held “to the same standard.”
He said, “I’m stating this all as a resident because my mayor (privilege) to talk has been withdrawn tonight.”
He said he hoped “we can get past it” noting that had been done once before early in his prior term as mayor. “And I don’t appreciate it. I think it shows very poorly on the council.”
Morgan asked borough clerk Susan Witkowski to verify that she was stopping and starting during prior speakers “so nobody got more than five minutes” and Witkowski agreed.
“What I don’t appreciate is if I don’t follow your agenda you punish me” she said to Calamari. “Okay this is all punishment. Trying to sour what I did with the public doesn’t look well for you, it doesn’t look good.”
She said she was “not being unfair to anyone” and that “sometimes that is not the most popular thing to do. But I am fair. I cannot say the same thing about you,” Morgan said, before going on to another speaker.
Replied Calamari, “I’ll let the residents decide.” Morgan said, “That’s fine, let them decide.” Calamari did not speak publicly for the rest of the meeting.
In a letter we published Jan. 16, Morgan wrote, “I think it is unfair to ask us to force township residents to purchase this private residence. Are we going to do that for every prime location that hits the market? We already own the swim club. Let’s build that up before we go around purchasing other properties that we have no solid plan for. That is irresponsible.”