Pompton Lakes council tables shared-service garbage deal with Oakland after questions over costs and oversight

Pompton Lakes, N.J. — The Pompton Lakes Borough Council voted to table a proposed five-year shared-service agreement with the Borough of Oakland that would have Pompton Lakes Public Works provide full solid-waste, recycling and vegetative-waste collection for Oakland.

Council members said they needed clearer financial detail and confirmation from the borough superintendent who would run the operation before approving a multi-year contract that includes new vehicles, staffing and an early-termination repayment clause.

The measure drew extended discussion at the May 28 meeting after public commenters and several council members said the packet they received on Friday left unanswered questions about who buys equipment, how costs are calculated and whether the borough has the staff and vehicles required for the service.

Borough Administrator Michael Corelli told the council the arrangement was negotiated to include equipment and staffing costs rolled into an annual fee Oakland would pay Pompton Lakes. Corelli said the borough had found a cooperative purchasing vendor that made purchasing terms comparable to leasing and that bonding the vehicles over 10 years produced an estimated annual debt-service line that had already been included in the financial analysis presented at an earlier workshop. He said the agreement includes an early-termination clause that would require Oakland to reimburse Pompton Lakes for unamortized vehicle costs if Oakland ends the contract early.

Several council members said they had spoken with Superintendent Dan O'Rourke (the borough public-works supervisor) and received conflicting accounts about unit pricing. One council member said a quoted figure of $363,000 appeared in the materials as the combined price for two trucks but that the superintendent told them the figure was per truck. Corelli responded that the vendor quote indicated a higher purchase price for two trucks (approximately $650,000), that the earlier $363,000 number factored into a bonding calculation, and that the reported annual bonding cost used in the financial model was about $72,625 over a 10‑year repayment schedule.

Residents who spoke during public comment asked that the agreement be made available for public review before any vote so taxpayers could see the revenue, expense and risk assumptions. Council members likewise asked for written email confirmations and supporting documents showing that the superintendent had reviewed and approved the numbers before the council acted.

After debate the council approved a motion to table the shared-service resolution to the June 11 meeting and asked that Superintendent Dan O'Rourke attend and that the administrator provide the documentary evidence of the communications and the final financial figures.

The mayor seconded the motion to table; council members said tabling would not prevent procurement or contract deadlines but would allow the superintendent to confirm assumptions and for the council to resolve apparent discrepancies. Council members and staff agreed to circulate the superintendent’s review and related emails prior to the next meeting.

Next steps: the item will return to the council agenda on June 11 with the superintendent available to answer technical questions; staff were directed to provide the revised cost breakdown and the vendor quotes that underlie the financial model.