Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement And Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Union County commissioners on contracts, ambulance buys and playground spending
Summary
Public commenters questioned multiple agenda items — including alleged non-bid contracts, a $2.4 million playground contract and ambulance purchases — and the county manager responded that bids and cooperatives were reviewed and staff will follow up on specific procurement and traffic questions.
Public commenters at the Union County Board of County Commissioners meeting raised questions about several contracts and purchases on the agenda, asking commissioners to explain scope, procurement and costs.
Bruce Patterson of Garwood urged the board to review what he called a pattern of non–competitive contracts, saying “that’s 16 non bid contracts that appear to be in progress or outstanding, given out by the county to CME over the last few years” and asking what the county was receiving in return for a $2,400,000 playground contract (Reso 4‑38) and other items listed on the agenda. Christopher Bassey, a GOP candidate for the board, questioned a change labeled as a large CVS Caremark health‑plan adjustment, calling a roughly $345,000,000 figure he’d read “a large amount” and asking whether the county had examined alternatives. Ron McCray of Rahway pleaded for traffic mitigation on East Hazelwood Avenue—arguing heavy trucks were shaking nearby houses—and proposed installing speed bumps rather than relying on short‑term speed monitors.
The county manager responded to the public comments, telling the board that the Dill Avenue contract had been folded into a Trenton Avenue project and that the ambulance procurement had been put out for bid and that the cooperative used yielded the lowest price. On the playground work, he said the county’s package includes playgrounds, shade structures, bathrooms and lockers. He also said the $119,000 cited for the Alfieri property is a common annual CAM (common area maintenance) charge in that contract. Regarding the vo‑tech funding increase, the manager said the vo‑tech receives state grants and other revenue sources in addition to tuition, calling the claim that they receive tuition only “untrue.” He said the county engineer would follow up on specific road and speed‑bump protocols.
The public comments and the manager’s responses were followed by routine action on the agenda. The board did not take additional public testimony on these procurement or traffic items at the meeting; the manager offered to have staff pursue more detailed answers.
Why it matters: The remarks put procurement and budget items on record and requested follow‑up from staff that could prompt additional review or disclosure of bidding records and contract scopes. Several speakers asked the board to delay or further scrutinize awards and renewals they tied to long‑running contracts.
What’s next: The county manager said staff would provide follow‑up information on the road engineering process and procurement clarifications; no new motions to table or re-open the listed contracts were made during the meeting.
