Trenton council questions Stacy Park contracting, seeks resolution after $195,000 in work

Trenton city council members on March 18 pressed administration officials for details about contracting, permitting and future work at Stacy Park after staff disclosed roughly $195,000 in payments to vendors for clearing and vegetation removal.

Council members raised procurement and oversight questions during a presentation and question-and-answer period led by Paul Harris, interim director of recreation, and Maria Richardson, the city's business administrator.

Harris said the parks department solicited proposals from vendors that do business with the department and that accepted proposals were entered into the city's purchasing system. "The process is we receive proposals, and those proposals are considered. And then if they're accepted, they're entered into the system, and then a purchase order is issued," Harris said.

Councilwoman Williams pushed for dollar details and for whether the council had been asked to approve the vendor contracts. Harris said the total paid to the contractor(s) for the work described as Stacy Park clearing and vegetation removal was $195,000 and that "each individual item" was under the $44,000 bid threshold. He added the average per smaller work order was about $19,000.

Richardson explained state and local procurement limits and compliance checks. She told the council that pay-to-play rules trigger at $17,500 for certain political-contribution disclosures and that "that number would be 44,000" when the city evaluates aggregate service procurements against the public bid threshold. Richardson said the administration collects vendor documentation (business registration, W-9, certifications) before vendors are added to the Edmonds purchasing system and that sometimes invoices use slightly different wording, which can mask aggregate spending in the system.

Council members said that while several tree-removal items had previously come to council as resolutions for contract approval, the aggregate amount reaching $195,000 now indicates the expenditure should be reported to council. Richardson concurred: "Because of the aggregate, at a certain point, it needs to come before it comes," and later said the administration "need[s] to put a resolution indicating the amount of money that we spent." The council did not vote on a resolution at the March 18 meeting.

Council members also asked about environmental permits after the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) issued a letter raising concerns about restoration steps. Harris said the work was performed in phases, that Phase 1 (clearing) is complete and that the city has submitted a draft restoration plan to DEP. "DEP now is reviewing what our draft restoration plan is, and that includes these phases," he said, describing follow-on steps such as light grading, hydroseeding and licensed applicator work to address invasive species. Harris said the city did not import soil and denied placement of new permanent structures on the riverbank, and that the riverbank itself was "solid."

On the timeline, Harris said DEP sign-off is the gating item: "If DEP responds to our thing, we're gonna begin within the next couple weeks," he said, adding the administration intends to hire a DEP-approved vendor for restoration work and that the city will "definitely" come to council for approvals where expenditures exceed the statutory threshold.

Council members also asked for records and invoices. Harris said invoices from the tree companies (identified in the discussion as Rich Tree and Fair Tree) itemize quantities removed; he said vegetation-clearing work was done by a vendor identified as ENE. Councilwoman Williams asked for those vendor invoices and for clarity about which work had been authorized by council and which had been processed at the department level.

Business administrator Richardson said the city maintains a consulting contract (she cited a most recent contract amount of $450,000) and that consultants advise the city about when permits are necessary. She told the council that in past practice, large clearing operations at Stacy Park had occurred without permits when similar work took place decades ago, and that the administration acted on precedent while submitting the current restoration plan to DEP: "We acted based on past precedent. That's the best answer I can give you."

The exchange included an initial public comment by a council member who said a reporter had been given a personal cell number by an administration member; the council member said they did not appreciate the disclosure and asked for the matter to be put on public record.

The council made no formal policy change at the meeting. Administration staff said they will prepare and present a resolution reporting aggregate expenditures on Stacy Park work and that DEP approval of the restoration plan is required before the next phase of restoration begins.

Why it matters: Stacy Park is a 32-acre public waterfront area. Council members framed the issue as both a parks-restoration and a procurement-transparency matter: residents told council members they felt safer where visible clearing has improved sightlines, while elected officials pressed staff to ensure statutory procurement thresholds, pay-to-play disclosures and environmental permits are followed.

The council directed staff to provide the vendor invoices and to present a resolution documenting aggregate spending; DEP review and vendor selection under DEP-approved lists remain required next steps.