A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to the controversial audit of the Board of Education. One council member expressed strong opposition, labeling it a “blatant act of retaliation” aimed at silencing dissent and suppressing political opposition. They emphasized that the Board of Education had previously sought involvement in various development deals but were ignored. According to this council member, the audit was an abuse of government authority, targeting individuals with differing views on pilot agreements. They highlighted that the Board had effectively managed its finances, ranking in the top 20% of state districts and filing documents on time.

Another council member sought clarification on the procedural aspects of the audit, questioning whether multiple bids were solicited or if a single entity would be awarded the contract. This led to a broader discussion of town issues, including stormwater management, infrastructure challenges, and ongoing development projects. Calls were made for more collaboration among council members to address these matters rather than focusing on the audit.

One resident alleged a conspiracy involving the mayor and the Board of Education, accusing the mayor of orchestrating the audit to uncover issues within the school district’s budget. They claimed the mayor’s intentions were political, designed to protect his position, and criticized his negotiation skills with developers.

Richard Suarez, another resident, echoed these concerns, questioning the delay in finalizing a funding agreement between the town and the Board of Education regarding tax money from Pilot properties. Suarez emphasized the urgency of resolving this issue to avoid additional financial burdens on homeowners. He also criticized the mayor’s call for an audit, describing it as unnecessary given the positive results of previous school district audits.

The council meeting also focused on the fair share housing lawsuit and the accompanying legal strategies. Concerns were raised about the timing of the lawsuit, especially in relation to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) issuing Municipal housing obligation numbers. The town has until the end of January to accept or challenge these numbers. Questions were posed about whether the town’s plan aligns with this timeline and whether it would wait for DCA numbers before filing a lawsuit or pursue a separate legal track. Clarity on the specific claims to be made in the lawsuit was also sought, with references to other towns that faced significant legal fees due to weak cases.

In addition to these discussions, the meeting featured updates from the township attorney regarding a legal matter with Glenmont Commons developers. The developers had submitted an Open Public Records Act request for a sewer report, which was denied. A subsequent lawsuit was unsuccessful, with the judge ruling in favor of the township.

The council moved on to several procedural motions related to ordinances and resolutions. Among these was the introduction of a bond ordinance for various sewer utility capital improvements and another for wastewater treatment plant upgrades. These ordinances were scheduled for further consideration at a later date. Several resolutions were passed, including those granting moving permits, authorizing grant applications, and awarding contracts for projects like the Mountain Way tank rehabilitation and new vehicle purchases.

During the public session, various residents raised concerns and questions. Maran O’Brien, affected by the waterline replacement project, inquired about trenchless technology to minimize property disruption and questioned the potential rehiring of Regal Contracting. Another resident, Nany Ch, pointed out a discrepancy in the naming of the contractor for the Mountain Way water tank rehabilitation project, which the council clarified.

Discussion also turned to the condition of a sidewalk along Hy Road, with a representative from Fire District 3 expressing frustration over the lack of progress and communication regarding repairs. The council assured that securing funding was a priority, but the timeline for completion remained uncertain.