During the meeting, one notable issue discussed was the borough’s upcoming tax bill, as presented by Councilman John Zimmerman. The Chief Financial Officer (CFO) provided a comprehensive letter that outlined the components of the tax increase, which will amount to $1,100 for the average home. This increase is broken down into $32 for the municipality, $267 for the county, and $67 for the school board. The council emphasized that they had no control over the county or school budgets. It was noted that the Board of Education experienced a significant loss of $774,500 in state aid for the 2024-2025 budget.

The municipal portion of the tax increase was further attributed to a reduction in net taxable valuation for the Merc property due to an appeal, which accounted for $195 of the overall impact. appropriations contributing to the budget increase included employee group health insurance, debt service, and costs associated with the Rahway Valley Sewer Authority, totaling $825,000. The overall municipal budget saw an increase of $666,666, representing a 3.42% rise. Zimmerman also informed residents about property tax relief programs available in New Jersey, including deductions for veterans and senior citizens, and the Senior Freeze program for eligible residents. He also mentioned the upcoming notice for the Anchor program, which would assist property owners with tax increases.

An issue raised during the public comments section was the condition of the sidewalks on Veron Avenue and Michigan Avenue. A concerned resident emphasized the potential hazards, describing the sidewalks as “a lawsuit waiting to happen.” The resident recounted an incident involving their grandchildren who struggled to ride their bicycles safely due to the uneven pavement. The Department of Public Works (DPW) informed the resident that the sidewalks were not under Kenilworth’s jurisdiction but were the responsibility of the Parkway. However, the Parkway also denied responsibility, leading to confusion and a lack of maintenance.

The resident highlighted the dangers posed to older pedestrians, stressing that “there’s a lot of older people on my street that walk and they’re going to fall and something serious is going to happen to them.” The council discussed the matter, considering formalizing a request to the Parkway for sidewalk maintenance. It was suggested that a letter from the borough’s attorney might prompt a more serious response from the Parkway. The issue of pigeon droppings on the sidewalks was also mentioned, adding to the urgency for consistent maintenance.

Other updates included a report from the Department of Public Works (DPW) on their activities. The DPW was thanked for their efforts during a recent fireworks event and noted for their ongoing clean-up operations. They collected 132 yards of mixed vegetation at a cost of $2,970 and received revenue from recycled electronics and grease.

The department completed 141 hours of training and issued 167 traffic summonses. Additionally, license plate recognition cameras generated 390 official hits, resulting in 13 arrests. The police chief emphasized the importance of community vigilance regarding vehicle security and urged residents to lock their vehicles and avoid leaving valuables visible. He also reminded the public to drive cautiously with the reopening of schools.

The council also discussed several ordinances. The adoption of the 2000 Galloping Hill Road Redevelopment plan was a key topic, with an amendment suggested to include specific prohibitions on the manufacture, distribution, and sale of cannabis. This amendment was approved, and the ordinance was scheduled for further consideration on September 18.

Another ordinance, 20247, proposed amendments to Chapter 142 concerning peace and good order to include provisions on camping. Concerns were raised about the language in the ordinance, particularly regarding exemptions for community-based charitable volunteer organizations. The council decided to table the ordinance for further discussion and to clarify its language.

Ordinance 20248, which proposed amendments to Chapter 150 regarding property maintenance to establish regulations for privately owned salt storage, was also pulled for further review. The council debated the potential implications for residents and agreed that the ordinance needed more clarity before moving forward.