One notable matter of the meeting was the debate over the tree preservation ordinance and its associated fee structure. Council members discussed the $500 fee for tree replacement, which many found excessive compared to neighboring municipalities that charge $250 to $300 for similar services. Concerns were raised about the financial burden this fee could impose on homeowners, especially those on smaller lots who may need to replace nonviable trees. The council emphasized the importance of balancing environmental protection with the residents’ financial capabilities.

Council members debated the fairness of the fee structure, considering how it might disproportionately impact homeowners compared to developers. Suggestions were made to adjust the fees based on average costs for tree replacement and planting in the area, which ranged from $200 to $700. There was also a proposal to table the ordinance until further information could be gathered about fee structures in comparable municipalities, though no consensus was reached.

The conversation then shifted to the administration of the ordinance, particularly the communication strategy to ensure residents are aware of their responsibilities and the potential financial implications. Enhancing communication through the town’s website, social media platforms, and digital billboards was suggested to better inform residents about the ordinance and any changes to it.

The council also addressed the implications of the tree replacement ordinance on property values and environmental quality. Council members expressed deep sympathy for residents affected by tree removals, emphasizing the need for the township to manage environmental concerns more responsibly. There was a commitment to investigate why healthy trees had been targeted for removal and to ensure adherence to the township’s tree ordinance, which prohibits the removal of healthy trees without following a specific process.

Budget discussions were another issue, particularly the amendments related to reducing spending. The council debated financial adjustments related to the Department of Public Works (DPW) and legal fees, including the proposal to eliminate three open truck driver positions within the DPW, which was anticipated to save approximately $92,900. There was also debate regarding the legal budget, with council members expressing differing views on the appropriate level of funding given past expenditures and ongoing litigation.

The council also discussed the financial implications of delaying the hiring of a deputy department head for the health department until 2025, which would result in savings of $523,199.46. The director of the health department emphasized the need for immediate hiring due to the department operating at minimal capacity, highlighting the statewide shortage of registered Environmental Health Specialists. Council members debated the merits of granting the health department the hires advocated for by the director, considering the minimal impact on the overall budget since they were discussing the final quarter of the year.

Additionally, the council deliberated on the forensic audit of town finances, which garnered unanimous support. The council agreed on the importance of understanding the value and cost associated with the audit before making any budget amendments. A Request for Proposals (RFP) would be issued to gather pricing, with the council collectively deciding on the course of action, including whether to amend the budget based on the responses.

Public comments also highlighted community concerns regarding tree management, proposed developments, and public safety. Residents expressed frustration over the township’s approach to tree preservation, with calls for a commitment to protect trees during road repairs and to enforce the existing tree ordinance. Concerns were also raised about the proposed development on Main Street, particularly regarding public safety issues stemming from the building’s size and the requested variances related to parking and pedestrian safety.