The water meter replacement project emerged as a central issue, with the council deliberating Ordinance 251576, which proposed a $250 monthly fine for residents failing to comply with the meter replacement regulations. Concerns were raised about the fairness and legality of such a fine, with some council members expressing apprehension that it might be excessive and create undue financial burdens, particularly for those already struggling to pay their water bills. The borough attorney clarified that the fine was intended as a compliance incentive, but the discussion revealed a broader tension between ensuring compliance and acknowledging residents’ financial constraints.

Adding to the debate was a preliminary estimate indicating that about 8-9% of residents had not yet replaced their meters, prompting questions about whether these non-compliant households were also those delinquent on water bill payments. This discussion was further complicated by concerns about potential zoning issues, such as illegal boarding houses, which could impede efforts to enforce meter replacements. The meeting also highlighted feedback from senior residents worried about losing their homes or having their water shut off.

Alongside the meter replacement debate, the council addressed the introduction of Ordinance 251577, which proposed adjustments to water rates. The ordinance passed, but not without dissent from members who voiced sympathy for residents facing increased utility costs. The necessity of the rate hike was explained as a measure to prevent more substantial increases in the future, though this justification did not assuage all concerns about the immediate financial impact on households.

The council also tackled Ordinance 251578, proposing amendments to electrical service rates. Public comments during this discussion revealed apprehension about the frequency of rate hikes and their timing, with residents questioning the lack of alternative energy options like solar power. Borough officials explained that the adjustments were preemptive steps to cope with anticipated future increases. Despite these explanations, council members acknowledged the significant burden these changes would place on residents.

In addition to these issues, the council considered Ordinance 251579, which suggested altering the qualifications for the business administrator position. The proposal to allow candidates with an associate degree and five years of experience sparked debate over the adequacy of such qualifications for a position with a substantial salary. Some council members expressed skepticism, pointing out that the standard expectation for management roles typically involves a four-year degree. This discussion illustrated broader concerns about maintaining high standards for borough leadership positions.

Another point of discussion was the proposed amendments to the rules of council, particularly regarding the time allocated for council comments. A member expressed strong opposition to limiting speaking time, arguing that it would undermine the council’s ability to effectively serve the public and provide essential information. However, another member suggested aligning council speaking time with that of public comments, raising questions about the consistency and fairness of time limit enforcement. Ultimately, the motion to amend the rules failed to pass, maintaining the status quo for the time being.

The meeting also touched on the ongoing water service line replacement project, addressing concerns about unscheduled accounts and the efficiency of replacement strategies. The engineer advised that replacing lines by neighborhood, rather than sporadically, would reduce road damage and streamline the process. This project, with an estimated cost of $1 million, aims to replace lead and galvanized lines using cost-effective techniques.

Residents emphasized the importance of accountability and cooperation in improving the town’s infrastructure and property values, noting that high utility rates could negatively impact the community’s reputation.