Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Works Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident asks why nearly $60,000 in DPW improvements at Bethany Church were made before lease was finalized
Summary
At the Dec. 15 Township of Washington Council meeting, resident Kevin Janos asked why a driveway, fence and windscreen (totaling about $59,500) were installed at Bethany Church before a lease and final ordinance were completed; administration said prior resolutions and reappropriated DPW funds covered the work and pointed to an online table showing ordinance attributions.
Kevin Janos, a resident, pressed the Township of Washington Council on Dec. 15 about a set of capital improvements at Bethany Church that he said were completed before a lease or final ordinance took effect. Janos recited the line-item costs given to the council — fence $18,000, windscreen $3,500 and a rear access driveway $38,000 — and said the total was $59,500. He asked the council to explain how the work was authorized and to provide written documentation of the expenditures.
Mayor/Administrator (Speaker 1) replied that a unanimous resolution passed in early October authorized the lease and that, procedurally, the issue later moved to an ordinance. The administrator said the driveway and fence were needed to make the site ready to commence a lease and that the work used funds already appropriated through earlier capital ordinances, described as auxiliary DPW reappropriations (the administrator referenced possible ordinance numbers 25-22 or 25-24 and said the website’s DPW capital-project spreadsheet shows the specific ordinance attributions). He stated the township did not borrow new money and that the improvements were made while weather permitted.
Council members and the administration reiterated that the township posted a table on its website that links each listed expense to the authorizing ordinance and funding source. Multiple council speakers urged Janos and other residents to view the spreadsheet and submit formal open-records requests if they wanted additional paperwork; Janos said he would pursue written authorizations to verify the timing and source of the funds.
The matter remained presented as a transparency concern from members of the public. No formal vote or reversal of the expenditures was recorded at the meeting. The council and administration said they would make the supporting ordinance and payment records available online and through an open-records process for residents seeking detailed proof of authorization and dates.
