Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Utility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rahway residents press council over consultant spending and possible water-utility sale
Summary
Residents accused the city of spending taxpayer money on a PR firm linked to local campaign donations and urged the council to disclose reports about a possible sale of the Rahway water utility; city counsel said internal reports were not deliberated and county funding covers a pending property acquisition.
Council President opened the Rahway City Council meeting on June 8 with a public-comment period that centered on concerns about the future of the city’s water utility and the city’s use of consultants.
Resident Alan Levy told the council he reviewed public records and “learned the city spent $200,000 … to TNM Associates for essentially a PR campaign to sell our water utility to a private for-profit corporation.” He also said TNM donated $14,000 to campaign accounts for incumbents and questioned whether that presented a conflict of interest. “Is it just political patronage?” Levy asked.
Levy and other residents urged the council to release any reports or analyses prepared by TNM or other consultants so the public can see what information underlies a possible referendum or sale. “If you have developed information from the PR company and TNM Associates … you should release [it] to the public as soon as possible,” Andrew Garcia Phillips said.
Residents warned that a sale to a private utility could mean higher rates. Phillips noted recent large rate requests before the state Board of Public Utilities for other suppliers and said, “When we sell it to them, that’s exactly what they’re going to do. They’re going to raise our rates.”
City representative Mr. Lindolie said the council has obligations when acquiring property and defended the use of appraisals in purchase decisions (see related story on the Hamilton Avenue property). He did not assert that the council has decided to sell the water utility; he described the consultant materials as deliberative and said purchase funding for a separate transaction would come from Union County.
The council did not vote on the future of the water utility at the June 8 meeting. Several council members later approved a consent agenda of routine resolutions and advanced two ordinances on first reading; the mayor and staff encouraged residents to follow the city website for upcoming hearings.
