A key point of contention was the layoff of five DPW employees, which residents, including Joshua from Sherman Avenue, argued would not yield the anticipated cost savings. Joshua estimated the savings at $600,000 if employees were retained, asserting that local workers, who care deeply for their community, should be prioritized over outsourcing to other municipalities. Ken, presumably a council member or staff, confirmed that the current costs for DPW operations were less than the projected expenses of contracting with Kennorth, causing tensions to rise during the meeting.

Concerns were echoed by Wayne Malone, who criticized the lack of transparency in the borough’s sewer billing and questioned the financial rationale behind the layoffs. Malone demanded clarity on the cost comparisons between Kennorth’s services and the existing DPW. This sparked a heated exchange, with some attendees accusing council members of being unresponsive to public concerns.

John Devito, a former DPW employee, shared a notable narrative about his family’s history with the department, emphasizing the personal and emotional toll of the council’s decision on employees and their families. Devito highlighted the pride he felt in his work and expressed disappointment over the lack of professional development opportunities, which contributed to his departure from the department. His testimony emphasized the community’s sense of loss and the human consequences of the layoffs.

The financial implications of the shared services agreement with Kennorth were scrutinized, particularly the $1.4 million payment. Residents questioned why current DPW employees were not integrated into the new arrangement, given their experience and service. Concerns about the absence of a financial cap in the contract with Kennorth were raised, with residents fearing potential fiscal burdens if the agreement required significant expansions or facility upgrades.

Adding to the controversy, Charlene Comr criticized the perceived inefficiency of the DPW and expressed frustration over the current state of local streets.

In response to these issues, the mayor attempted to clarify the council’s position, stating that the layoffs were necessary to serve the best interests of Roselle Park’s 14,000 residents. The mayor emphasized the financial pressures the borough faced, such as rising costs for garbage and recycling services, and underscored the need for fiscal responsibility.

Aside from the DPW and shared services discussion, the meeting also addressed the borough’s obligations regarding affordable housing mandates. The council debated the inclusion of language in a resolution to maintain flexibility in meeting the state’s requirement for 75 affordable housing units. This proposal received unanimous support.

Public comments during the meeting revealed additional resident concerns, including the approval of a marijuana dispensary near schools and community centers, which one resident feared would lead to a lawsuit. The resident criticized the council’s financial decisions, referencing a potential $100,000 savings from the DPW layoffs against a previously considered $150,000 expenditure for a statue.

As the meeting progressed, Councilman Johnson provided updates on local infrastructure projects and announced a Juneteenth celebration aimed at fostering community spirit.