One notable issue discussed was the budgetary adjustments, which revealed a substantial deviation amounting to over half a million dollars from the original budget. This financial discrepancy was primarily attributed to unexpected increases in payments, reportedly 200% more than initially budgeted, due to ongoing litigation that was anticipated to conclude the previous year. The council underscored the gravity of these financial adjustments, particularly with the municipal prosecutor’s salary, which had been found to be below the expected rate due to increased court appearances aimed at alleviating congestion. In response to these concerns, a plan for a meeting was proposed to explore these financial matters in greater depth, with a recommendation to involve the chief financial officer (CFO) and additional council members. The dialogue also emphasized the necessity for the finance committee to review payroll information before any further discussion of salary increases to ensure proper governance and transparency.

Another prominent discussion point was the introduction and amendment of several ordinances. Ordinance 2025-27, concerning rental properties, proposed the creation of Article Two titled “Proper Rental License” in Chapter 234. The ordinance discussion had been limited due to prior executive session discussions. Alongside this was Ordinance 2025-28, which mandates the illumination of residential address plates to enhance visibility and safety. The council emphasized that illuminated address numbers are crucial, especially for new constructions, to prevent confusion and accidents. Existing homes were noted to have a grandfather clause, exempting them from immediate compliance. Additionally, the second reading of Ordinance 2025-26 addressed the establishment of an affordable housing district (AHD-1), with amendments correcting previous oversight about setback measurements to align with prior agreements from a builder remedy case settlement. This ordinance invited public comments, though the session returned to work quickly after a motion to close the public input phase.

The meeting also highlighted several resolutions, with particular attention to Resolution 2025-294, which involved submitting an award extension request for a $249,000 grant from the New Jersey Department of Transportation for streetscape work on Broadway Avenue. The resolution was necessary as the initial acceptance of the grant had not been properly executed, leading to delays. The work aligns with broader improvement efforts on the avenue. Resolution 2025-299, which proposed salary increases for certain employees, sparked concern due to discrepancies in salary figures, notably for the violation club position. The absence of the CFO due to vacation delayed clarification, prompting the council to seek answers before proceeding.

Another item of interest was the confusion surrounding Resolution 323 about hiring Mr. Panborn Kim, clarifying his role as a code enforcement officer rather than a traffic enforcement officer. Additionally, resolutions numbered 300 to 304 were scrutinized for the significant payment increases, which were explained as necessary due to ongoing litigation issues. The meeting further delved into the ramifications of a charging station access agreement, which, contrary to initial misunderstandings, would generate revenue for the borough rather than incur costs. The council also addressed ongoing negotiations between two property owners, FAM Associates and Leans Corporation, considering a resolution extension to avoid monthly council returns while negotiations continued.