The meeting began with the mayor urging civility in the discussion of the 2024 municipal budget. The conversation quickly turned to specific discrepancies within the budget documents. Notably, an individual pointed out that only $43 had been realized from parking meter revenue in 2023, compared to a budgeted $65,000. This discrepancy led to further questions about a $31,000 transfer from parking revenue intended for the beach utility, which had not been executed. Additionally, the anticipated revenue from interest and deposits showed a significant increase from $42,700 to $118,000 for the coming year, raising questions about the basis for this projection.

The discussion also highlighted concerns about a $30,000 charge for outside employment administration related to police off-duty services, which had not been recognized in the 2023 budget. A notable reduction in the Department of Public Works (DPW) budget from $572,700 in 2023 to $400,000 in 2024 was attributed to a resignation and changes in workload, sparking further debate among attendees.

Transparency issues were a recurring theme, with participants questioning the clarity of financial reporting. One individual highlighted the ambiguous categorization of “other expenses,” suggesting that a large portion of reserves had been allocated to this unclear category. The conversation underscored the need for more precise financial categorization in future budgets.

Further discussions centered around the 2023 audit and its implications for the 2024 budget. A council member inquired about the delay in completing the 2023 audit, which had been expected by the end of August. The audit was still in progress due to outstanding information, leading to concerns about the relevance of the 2023 audit to current budget considerations. One resident expressed anxiety about proceeding without the audit results, emphasizing the material misstatements found in the 2022 audit. Despite these concerns, the CFO assured attendees that the current budget was adequately accounted for.

Public comments also addressed the borrowing from the surplus, with one resident questioning the nature of borrowing $700,000 and whether it would be replenished. The balance of $614,000 mentioned was confirmed to be before any replenishment. The absence of the assistant CFO was noted, and a council member questioned why she was not present to provide data.

The DPW budget saw significant scrutiny, particularly regarding salary and wage adjustments. One council member pointed out inconsistencies in the figures provided, revealing a potential discrepancy of either $102,000 or $161,000. The member emphasized the need for accurate and timely data to avoid misunderstandings in future budget discussions. Concerns were also raised about the adequacy of staffing levels within the DPW, especially in light of recent personnel changes. The member mentioned that while the administration expressed confidence in maintaining service levels with the proposed budget, there was a notable gap in staffing due to recent resignations.

The budget for the police department also came under review, with discussions about the adequacy of resources, particularly in relation to equipment such as license plate readers and radar guns. The chief of police confirmed that while such equipment would be beneficial, budget constraints limited their procurement. The importance of communication between the council and the police department was emphasized, highlighting that requests for equipment must be formally communicated by the chief to be considered in budget discussions.

The meeting included a discussion regarding the adoption of the 2024 budget, identified as Resolution 2024-174. Multiple council members expressed their support for the budget while highlighting concerns about the budgetary process and previous financial management. One council member criticized the approval of a temporary emergency appropriation after months of deliberation. Another council member suggested that future meetings be streamlined by meeting with the CFO in advance of budget discussions to clarify questions and avoid lengthy meetings.

Public comments reflected dissatisfaction with the transparency and management of the recent budgetary process. One resident criticized the administration for not addressing budgetary issues earlier and emphasized the importance of clear financial descriptions in budget documents. Additionally, concerns were raised about the incomplete status of the 2023 audit and the implications of previous material misrepresentations.

The council also addressed various administrative tasks, including the approval of the consent agenda and individual resolutions. One resolution involved the appointment of firefighter Christopher Sher Shinger, while another addressed the certification of compliance with employment opportunity statutes. The council proceeded to authorize an application to the New Jersey Department of Agriculture for pest control related to the reduction of the lanternfly population.