A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to addressing requests for new employee positions within various departments, including the Department of Public Works (DPW) and the Department of Community Services. One of the discussions revolved around the request for an office assistant for the DPW, with a total cost of $84,000, to alleviate the workload on the current staff. The council also considered requests for a DPW buildings and grounds worker, a roads and recycling worker, an engineering construction observer, and a public information officer. Each of these positions was scrutinized for their potential impact on the township’s budget and service quality.

The council members explored various options for the proposed public information officer role, debating whether it should be a part-time or full-time position and whether it might be more efficient to hire a firm for the task. The need for an accounting assistant in the finance department was also discussed, with turnover and internal control challenges cited as reasons for the new hire. The potential for cost savings through in-house fixed asset inventory management was a point of interest in the conversation.

Another topic that received considerable attention was the reevaluation of reporting structures within the DPW and the Department of Community Services. The council members expressed differing views on the appropriate reporting lines for a new custodian position proposed for cleaning community services buildings. Additionally, the allocation of $40,000 for the cleaning of park bathrooms and Porta Johns was questioned, as was the necessity of the service.

Financial discussions extended to the town’s revenue sources, where increases in interest on deposits and cannabis revenue were highlighted against concerns over declines in municipal relief aid and cable TV franchise fees.

In the context of federal funds, the handling of FEMA money and the American Rescue Plan funds sparked debate among the council members. The possibility of using FEMA money to offset an accelerated payment demanded by the state was weighed against other expenditures, such as capital projects. Discussions surrounding the American Rescue Plan funds centered on the prospect of allocating the entire amount to the capital improvement fund, thus reducing the need for future borrowing. The council also considered the use of these funds for specific projects, including infrastructure improvements and building upgrades.

The allocation of American Rescue Plan funds also led to a conversation about a $1.2 million project and the risks of using one-time revenue for operating expenses. Concerns were raised about the possibility of losing the funds if not spent by the deadline, and the council examined strategies to address a shortfall in pool revenues, partly attributed to reduced membership fees and the impact of minimum wage increases on salary expenses.

The council discussed potential reallocations within the budget, such as moving funds from the recreation budget to the pool budget, and strategies to address budget shortfalls. Additionally, there was debate on the appropriate allocation of funds for the master plan implementation and the “S Two Towns” initiative, which faced a proposed reduction from $335,000 to $15,000.