Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Participation Budget Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council on First Aid funding, no‑bid rescue vehicle and personnel confidentiality
Summary
During public comment residents pressed the council for transparency on a $140,000 First Aid Squad appropriation and a proposed no‑bid $76,300 rescue vehicle purchase; the council said the split of funds is decided by the council, fuel provision was confirmed, and personnel matters are confidential.
Residents used the Feb. 11 public‑comment period to press the Long Branch City Council on funding, procurement and personnel matters.
Vincent Lepore (33 Ocean Terrace) asked whether a $140,000 line item in the city budget for "First Aid Squad" is split 50/50 between the Long Branch First Aid Squad and the Elberon First Aid Squad and why the split would be equal when, he said, Elberon has lower call volume. He asked whether the city provides free fuel to those squads and sought the status of the city’s health director, including whether any discipline or probationary action is pending. He also urged the council to reject what he described as a no‑bid purchase: "Resolution 2026, purchase without bids of a high water rescue vehicle" for about $76,300, saying "the emergency is over" and arguing the public should have a chance to bid.
Lepore made several pointed historical remarks about redevelopment and tax abatements in the city, asking why officials involved in redevelopment did not remain in town and charging that residents were harmed by redevelopment; he said, "Never let it be understated how the people of this city got raped by this redevelopment." The council did not debate those historical claims during the meeting.
In response, counsel addressed Lepore’s budget questions, saying the 50/50 split is a council decision and confirming that the squads receive fuel. The council president said personnel issues involving the health department are "personal matter[s]" that cannot be discussed publicly.
Another resident, Patty Perillo (70 North Beth Avenue), praised the Department of Public Works for snow removal and then asked whether the city enforces the "no parking when snow covered" ordinance, whether property owners must clear sidewalks, and why some traffic signals (including at North Bath Avenue and Ocean Boulevard) have long cycle times. City staff explained traffic signals are set to engineering standards and that some signals are coordinated with county timing; staff also said the snow‑removal ordinance places sidewalk clearance responsibility on property owners and that the city prioritizes emergency routes and issues public notices when clearance is required.
The council closed the public‑comment period after the time limits were observed.
