WESTWOOD—The borough remains open to a shared service agreement on recreation with the Township of Washington, months after the Borough Council said it had not heard back on its proposal for just that in advance of summer signups of its popular offerings.
A borough resolution May 18 rescinded the township’s borough rate for rec activities. The rate out of borough is $25 more per signup, with borough taxpayers keeping fees lower for their participants.
(See “Westwood regroups on rec fees; Township of Washington youth lose ‘courtesy’ rate,” Pascack Press, June 21, 2021.)
On July 28, Township of Washington Mayor Peter Calamari took to his “Political Candidate” Facebook page to share a memo he said he’d just sent officials in both towns, which share a school district.
He asked Westwood for a refund of out-of-town fees charged to township families since “thus far … and to work together towards a fair and appropriate agreement.”
Calamari said, “As our programs begin accepting fall registrations, I would like to bring to your attention some things about your recently changed ordinance as it regards to charging of out-of-town rates to Washington Township participants in the Rec programs.”
He acknowledged Westwood’s proposed $20,000 annual subsidy for three years from the township to cover costs, and says he presented it to both the township’s Recreation Board and “council members,” “who both declined the request.”
The Township rejected the offer on May 4 and did not then follow up until July 28 on Facebook. Calamari said it was not clear in the agreement if the $20,000 payment was based on a true cost increase breakdown or a perceived increase in expenses due to increased participation.
“Unfortunately, no detailed cost breakdown for these increases was ever provided,” Calamari said.
He added, “It is my firm conviction that shared services are and should be between municipalities sharing in expenses to provide a given service or level of service to each of their respective residents. I do not believe shared services should create a situation of one municipality profiting in any way from the other.”
Calamari used the same platform shortly after to praise the township’s summer rec camp under Chris Pinto.
Westwood Councilman Chris Montana, who documented his efforts to meet with Township officials on a shared service proposal over months, including meetings at which his counterparts were no-shows, told Pascack Press on Aug. 4 that Calamari’s assertion that the borough aims to profit off a shared service is “factually untrue.”
He also said that Calamari and the township council and recreation department “should be familiar” with the costs associated with operating and supporting fields, programming and facilities.”
He said, “We have worked diligently to avoid implementing these fees to Township residents and sport associations as required by ordinance. At no time did township officials request further information, back up or provide a counter proposal. We made attempts to schedule a meeting to discuss their position and received no response.”
On Aug. 3, Montana replied to Calamari by email, a copy of which township Councilman Michael DeSena forwarded to us.
Montana tells Calamari, “As you are aware, our conversation regarding field/facility use and fees began in February via email followed by a face-to-face meeting along with our rec directors on March 31, 2021. I recall that being a positive discussion. All agreed that the current use of predominantly borough fields and facilities (supported by our recreation staff and DPW) had the borough shouldering much of the workload and financial burden.”
He says, “We discussed that any agreement would be reciprocal (using the agreed shared service template, e.g. lacrosse). I was clear that the borough must be in compliance with its own ordinance and that doing nothing is not an option.”
Montana says, “You seemed enthusiastic and agreeable to working something out and wanted input from your Recreation Board and council. This seemed reasonable to us. Agreed next steps were to provide you with a shared service proposal, sent on April 9.”
He says, “We received your proposal rejection email on May 4 with a caveat to meet. Our requests to meet went unanswered. With summer program registrations approaching, we notified you and Mr. [Daniel] Scudieri on May 17 of our intent to implement our non-resident fee ordinance for Township residents covering summer recreation programs and use of fields. We left the door open to meet to discuss options for an agreeable shared service for the fall programs.”
Montana says, “We heard nothing from Township representatives until your July 28 letter. This letter came 12 weeks after your proposal rejection email and 10 weeks after our email notice of intent to charge nonresident fees. During this interval we received no requests for documentation or information, no counter proposal… nothing.”
He says, “I will take your letter of July 28 and subsequent social media post as a request for more detail and a meeting. That might have been a more sensible and timely request had it been asked in May and prior to your email on May 4. Nevertheless, we appreciate the opportunity to provide it to you.”
Then he proposes any of five meeting dates in August.
Montana says, “It should be noted that the $25/participant fee does not even cover a truly equitable allocation of Township’s utilization towards costs. Far from providing a profit to the Borough, $25 per participant fee is a generous discount off the actual costs.”
He says, “None of this should come as a surprise to you or your team” as the borough had approached Calamari and his council three years ago for a similar shared service to offset the borough’s cost for Westwood’s senior fitness program, where 20% to 30% of the participants were Township senior residents.
Westwood’s rec director, Gary Buchheister, requested the township contribute $3,000 to defray the cost of its program, “spreading the cost across your taxpayers so your seniors might be spared paying a non-resident fee solely out of pocket,” says Montana.
“In similar fashion, our request was initially met with positivity and understanding but was eventually rejected. Subsequently, in accordance with our ordinance, your seniors were charged a non-resident fee to participate,” he adds.
And he says, “As I stated when we first met in March, the Borough’s objective is to find a fair and reasonable solution and you seemed to agree with this. After we meet and discuss options that both parties feel are reasonable, I can present those options to our governing body for reconsideration. I look forward to hearing from you with a date to meet.”
— With John Snyder