Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget And Bonds topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rahway council adopts $2.75 million bond ordinance for property purchases amid questions about price and appraisals
Summary
The council adopted a $2.75 million bond ordinance (O-12-26) to acquire two properties tied to an amphitheater project after public questions about prior sale prices; city attorneys said purchases are at appraised value and that the county will share costs.
The Rahway City Council voted May 4 to adopt a bond ordinance (O‑12‑26) authorizing the appropriation of $2.75 million to acquire certain real property and related soft costs for an amphitheater-related project.
During the second-reading public hearing residents asked whether the bond amount represents only acquisition or also demolition and construction. Andrew Garcia Phillips asked directly whether “the $2,750,000 [is] the full total cost to build the amphitheater and acquire those properties,” noting two properties were previously sold in 2022 and 2023 for roughly $475,000 and $430,000 and asking why the city would expend many times those sums.
Alan Levy raised a related concern, citing prior sale prices and noting the seller’s donations to local Democratic committees; he asked the council why it would approve the purchase without more detail. In response City counsel (Landolfi) and administration said the city obtained two independent appraisals and is paying appraised value, that soft costs (due diligence, contamination checks, title work) are included in the ordinance, and that the County of Union is negotiating reimbursement to reduce the net cost to Rahway taxpayers.
After the public comment and the attorney’s response, council members moved and seconded adoption of the bond ordinance; roll call reflected a majority vote in favor and the ordinance passed. Council also adopted a separate 2026 capital improvements bond ordinance (O‑13‑26) later in the meeting.
What was not disclosed on the record: the administration said appraisals were performed but did not read appraised values into the public record during the meeting; the county reimbursement agreement was described as ‘‘not in final form yet.’’
Next steps: The administration indicated it will continue negotiation with the county on cost-sharing and will proceed with required due diligence. Detailed appraisal figures and the final county agreement were not provided during the meeting; those documents would be the appropriate source for verifying purchase price and net taxpayer cost.
