The council faced a discussion on the borough’s financial strategies, particularly the use of one-time revenues and their implications for future fiscal health. Concerns were raised about a potential $1.4 million budget shortfall in the coming years. Participants expressed apprehension about relying heavily on one-time revenues, citing the past use of $3.2 million in surplus funds compared to only $700,000 this year. The current budget includes a $100 tax increase for the average home, which some consider precarious given the borough’s fiscal trajectory.

The budget’s allocation for the local school district also sparked debate. This year’s budget includes a $230,000 payment to the schools, reinstating a pilot share payment omitted the previous year due to a tax increase by the school district. A participant questioned the rationale behind this payment given the $4.5 million tax increase by the schools. Others argued the payment acknowledges the financial dynamics of the pilot program, highlighting a fundamental disagreement on the borough’s role in supporting school finances. Calls for more public dialogue about these budget decisions were made, emphasizing transparency and thorough public engagement.

Public safety concerns, particularly the proposal to add two firefighters to the budget, were scrutinized. This proposal, not initially requested by the fire department, raised questions about its necessity and alignment with the department’s needs. With the majority of calls being EMS-related, some participants suggested delaying the addition until a consultant’s report provides clearer guidance on staffing requirements.

The meeting also addressed potential changes in the borough’s alcohol licensing framework. Discussions centered on introducing new liquor licenses through a referendum, allowing residents to vote on the matter. If passed, licenses would be bid out, potentially generating additional revenue for the borough. Specific restrictions could be attached concerning location and hours of operation. An alternative historical application review method was also discussed, which would allow for a more subjective selection process. The council explored the possibility of using both methods simultaneously, each with distinct regulations and processes.

Additionally, the council considered a proposal from the Shade Tree Commission to amend tree removal fees. The commission aims to increase replacement fees to encourage responsible tree management. Proposed changes include tripling current fees based on tree diameter, with discussions highlighting the need for structured monitoring to prevent abuse of removal provisions. The council plans further review of the commission’s recommendations, integrating community feedback and aligning with broader environmental goals.