The council’s primary focus was on the first amendment to the 2025 budget, which required adjustment due to new state requirements. Initially, the council had aimed to reduce the property tax increase. However, the state mandated a net increase of over $290,000, affecting the council’s efforts to control tax burdens for residents. The original budget had proposed a more than 6% increase in taxes, but through collaboration with the administration and the Citizens Budget Advisory Board, the council reduced the increase to $31.56 for the average homeowner.

A critical aspect of the budget amendment was the state’s directive to bolster the township’s reserve for uncollected taxes (RUT), which saw an increase from approximately $2.45 million to over $3 million. This non-spending appropriation acts as a financial cushion. The RUT adjustment was based on a lower collection rate required by the state, which differed from the township’s proposed high collection rate of 99.006%. By increasing the RUT, the council aimed to secure a substantial fund balance for future budgets, potentially reducing property tax levies in the following year.

The council reviewed specific figures within the budget amendment, which included changes in appropriations across various departments. Notable adjustments included reductions in expenses for the Health and Welfare Division, the Senior Citizen Health Center, and unclassified utilities such as gasoline and water. The garbage and trash removal contract expenses saw a slight increase, while salaries and wages for the Department of Recreation Parks and Playgrounds were adjusted upwards.

Inquiries were raised about the existence of a surplus in the budget, with a confirmation that a surplus of approximately $3 million was anticipated. This surplus was being utilized as a revenue item, prompting questions about the rationale for increasing the RUT given the existing surplus. It was explained that the RUT adjustment was necessary to accommodate the growth in appropriations, which included obligations to external entities such as the board of education, county, and library. The anticipated collection percentage for the current year was conservatively set at 98.84%.

Concerns were raised regarding the timing of the budget adjustment and the communication of fourth-quarter tax bills. Residents had reportedly experienced confusion over tax bills indicating a zero balance, which could lead to delinquencies. Suggestions were made to accompany tax bills with explanatory letters to clarify payment obligations. Improved communication was deemed essential to prevent misunderstandings about tax payments and budget amendments in the future.

The council discussed the current state of tax bill notifications, noting that approximately three-quarters of the town’s residents had contacted the tax office in recent weeks. The tax office staff was commended for their dedication during a stressful year, and residents were assured of a grace period for tax payments. Calls for better updates on the town’s website were made to alleviate confusion.

A proposal was introduced to schedule a long budget meeting on a Saturday in January or February. The previous year’s process was described as lengthy and cumbersome, with 16 workshops conducted. The proposal received agreement. Additionally, a suggestion was made to use a robocall system to alert citizens about tax payment information, though concerns about increased call volume to the tax office were noted.

There was consensus on the need to reform the budget process, with acknowledgment of past inadequacies. The council had started working on the budget too late in the fiscal cycle, and the Chief Financial Officer committed to providing the draft budget from the mayor in January for an earlier start. The importance of delivering a timely budget to prevent estimated tax bills in the future was underscored.