Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Services Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public comment highlights broadband progress, volunteer interest in addiction services and year‑end transfer questions
Summary
Residents at the Nov. 5 Salem County meeting raised volunteer interest in substance‑use disorder services and asked about year‑end fund transfers; county staff gave contact points (naming Chance Vandover for MOUD) and said transfer/resolution schedules and contract details will be posted on the county website.
During the public‑comment portion of the Salem County Board meeting on Nov. 5, several residents asked questions about county services and project timelines and staff provided procedural clarifications.
One resident asked how year‑end transfers work and requested the transfer schedule; county staff said the transfer schedule and resolution listing would be posted on the county website “tomorrow or Friday” and explained that in‑year transfers are limited by law and that November is when some transfers are commonly processed.
Another attendee expressed interest in volunteering with county substance‑use disorder services. County staff directed the person to the health department addiction services and identified Chance Vandover as the head of the county’s MOUD (medication for opioid use disorder) program and recovery‑coach activities, noting the division is small but active and that Chance Vandover could provide more information.
County staff also reported progress on the county broadband work: the middle‑mile project is being supplemented with a last‑mile effort, bids for equipment and construction are being considered, and the service was targeted to be in service by December 2026. Staff noted that Congressman Van Drew has been active in advancing the grant through channels.
Separately, a resident raised questions about trees on private property near county roads and the county’s authority; staff responded that the county generally cannot order a private owner to remove a tree simply because the county considers it dangerous but that the county can work with property owners on rights‑of‑way issues.
