The meeting began with a focus on the town’s financial health, spotlighting a budget surplus of $6.7 million, representing 20.9% of the estimated $31 to $32 million budget. A council member voiced reluctance to support a tax increase given this surplus, contrasting Vernon’s financial strategy with the state governor’s practice of maintaining a 10.9% surplus on a much larger budget. The council member highlighted the auditor’s conservative inclination towards higher surplus amounts, pointing out a disconnect between desired and actual fund balances.

Debate ensued over the appropriate use of the surplus, with some members advocating for its use to avoid tax increases, while others cautioned against depleting the fund balance. Calculations were called for to determine the impact of utilizing the surplus in this manner, with concerns that it could reduce the surplus to 16% or less. The council member highlighted the challenge of regenerating the fund balance once spent, emphasizing the need for a sustainable financial strategy to prevent future fiscal difficulties.

The budget discussion also covered significant inflationary pressures impacting the township’s finances. A council member detailed substantial increases in health, liability, and workers’ compensation insurance costs since 2022, alongside rising expenses for road repairs, police operations, and recycling. Despite these challenges, the council has maintained a zero-increase policy for municipal taxes over the past three years, contributing to the ongoing financial strain.

Public comments highlighted additional community concerns, with resident Steve Dunlop questioning the appointment of an acting zoning officer. Dunlop criticized the recruitment process, suggesting that the individual lacked necessary training and experience, and urged the council to reconsider the decision. He also raised issues with a sidebar agreement regarding a nutrition officer, questioning the necessity of the role and advocating for clarity in the township’s staffing needs.

The council responded to Dunlop’s concerns by clarifying that the nutrition officer role was not new but rather a formalization of an existing position. The acting zoning officer’s appointment also prompted procedural scrutiny, with a council member expressing dissatisfaction over delays in addressing the matter. The absence of a timely discussion on the appointment raised procedural concerns, as the acting officer had been performing duties since March 17 without formal council approval.

Discussions on infrastructure concerns also took place, as residents addressed water drainage issues affecting their properties. One resident requested the town’s assistance in creating a natural water passage to prevent landscape damage, emphasizing the urgency of addressing local infrastructure challenges. The council acknowledged the need to determine responsibility for the repairs and the importance of timely responses to resident concerns.