The meeting opened with discussion on resolution 2024-86, which pertains to the introduction of the 2024 Municipal budget. The council president emphasized the importance of civility, while residents raised concerns about the level of collaboration between the council and the budget team, including the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), the mayor, and the business administrator. One resident, identified as Sharr, questioned the collaboration, noting, “I’m asking not just for my own self personally but I’m asking for all of the residents and taxpayers of Bradley Beach who are concerned about this budget.” The mayor responded that there had been minimal communication, primarily via emails, leading to further frustration from residents about the lack of direct access and clarity from the CFO.

Another resident, N. Meadow, criticized the budget’s bill list as “quite lazy” and highlighted specific expenditures, such as $195 for refrigerator repairs at the Gaz Center and continued spending on lifeguards, questioning their necessity and legality. Meadow also pointed out a $1,600 charge for payroll services and a lack of transparency regarding office supply costs.

The debate intensified with comments from Thomas J. Coan, who supported resolution 2024-68 concerning the Silen Lake Restoration Team but criticized the attempt to place resolution 2024-86 on the agenda without public comment. Coan emphasized the need for a corrective action plan from the 2022 audit, highlighting accountability issues. Another resident, J. Titus, questioned the council’s access to the CFO and pointed out financial discrepancies in the budget, including a missing million dollars from the 2022 audit, raising concerns about the management of public funds.

The atmosphere during public comments was charged, with residents expressing dissatisfaction with administrative practices surrounding the budget. One resident accused the council of punishing residents due to personal grievances and called for accountability in the budget process. Concerns were also raised about the timeline for notifying the council regarding the 2023 budget filing and the absence of the business administrator from meetings since May.

Mary Backstrom emphasized the strong mayoral powers under the Faulk Act and criticized the mayor for not ensuring the CFO’s attendance at council meetings, which she deemed critical for budget discussions. Backstrom expressed concern over potential substantial tax hikes, noting a current estimate of a 3.39% tax increase.

Further debate ensued regarding the council’s awareness of the budget and the adequacy of responses from the finance team. One council member expressed frustration with the administration’s evasive responses, describing them as “embarrassingly simple” and inadequate for addressing core issues.

The meeting also saw a heated exchange over the council’s ability to engage with the assistant CFO, with a council member expressing discontent with the current state of affairs. Public applause followed the acknowledgment of certain council members for their contributions despite the challenges. The discourse transitioned to a discussion about the municipal budget, with a motion to introduce the budget by title only, leading to further debate.

Financial penalties imposed by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) due to delays in budget approval were also discussed. One council member highlighted discrepancies in the borough’s financial management, including a significant surplus depletion and a reported $7 million in cash when only $4 million was available. The council member criticized the DCA’s fines.

Concerns about the timeline of the audit process and the council’s access to necessary financial statements for the 2023 audit were raised, with apparent discrepancies between the mayor’s assertions and the auditor’s communication. The council member emphasized the need for transparency and accountability, hoping to integrate formal statements into the public record.

Other notable discussions included a brief update from Councilwoman Mahoney on the land board meeting and ongoing projects, such as the restoration of a lake and a proposed mixed-use building on Main Street. Concerns about the Local Union 52 contract, unresolved for 19 months, were also highlighted, emphasizing the need for updates on this matter and the status of the church property on Lorraine.