The most significant portion of the meeting revolved around the council’s deliberations on whether to resubmit a referendum regarding the allowance of marijuana retail establishments in the borough. This topic sparked a discussion among council members and attendees, reflecting shifting opinions and a call for more comprehensive public engagement on the matter.

One council member initiated the conversation by highlighting the evolving perspectives within the council, pointing out that a colleague had changed their stance following an open discussion. This council member stressed the importance of transparent communication and teamwork, asserting that effective decision-making hinges on collaboration among council members.

A detailed presentation followed, exploring the borough’s budgetary challenges and the potential revenue streams from integrating cannabis-related businesses. Data from other municipalities and figures from the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory Commission were cited. The council member advocating for the referendum emphasized the need for a broader community dialogue on the potential benefits and drawbacks of retail cannabis.

The discussion then turned to the previous referendum on the matter, which saw low voter turnout and a perceived lack of adequate communication with the public. It was noted that the council did not hold any public information sessions before the last vote, contributing to feelings of disconnection among constituents. A council member expressed gratitude for the constituents who engaged in discussions about the referendum.

Concerns about the rushed nature of the previous vote were also articulated, with one council member suggesting that misinformation about the implications of allowing marijuana retail in town might have contributed to confusion. They proposed hosting Town Hall-style informational sessions to foster a more robust and balanced community debate. However, another council member argued that placing the question on the ballot again the year following its defeat could be perceived as disrespectful to constituents.

A contrasting viewpoint was presented by a council member who defended the borough administrator’s efforts to keep the council informed about ongoing matters, highlighting a disagreement regarding the sufficiency of communication surrounding the issue. The council member who had shifted their position reiterated the importance of gathering more community feedback and refining the ballot question based on expert opinion and public discussions.

Some council members emphasized the urgency of putting it back on the ballot, while others called for comprehensive community engagement before making such a decision.

Public comments further highlighted the community’s divided opinions on the issue. Frank Wilson, a resident, raised concerns about the validity of claims made regarding property value increases associated with cannabis sales. He referenced a report from Rutgers University that suggested insufficient evidence to definitively link these increases to cannabis sales. Wilson criticized the projected revenue figures, emphasizing the necessity of thorough research before making decisions concerning cannabis regulations.

Julia Seagull, another resident, shifted the discussion towards public health, advocating for the installation of a permanent drug drop-off location. She pointed out the environmental and health implications of improper drug disposal and emphasized the need for more consistent and accessible disposal options. Seagull also addressed a zoning ordinance variance request related to development near Dort Park, urging the council to protect the local ecosystem, particularly for migratory birds.

David Labruno expressed dissatisfaction with the council’s communication regarding voter turnout and community education. He argued that the voters who do participate are well-informed and emphasized the need for better communication from the council. Labruno also questioned changes made to parking requirements under discussion, highlighting the implications for tax abatements.

Colen Fensi raised concerns about a parking resolution being introduced for Bford Avenue, emphasizing the challenges faced by teachers at Union School due to limited parking options. He suggested the possibility of permits for teachers to alleviate parking difficulties. Tim Joyce echoed similar sentiments, questioning the necessity of revisiting the parking issue and raising concerns about traffic safety and speeding vehicles in the area.

Bonnie Corkin directed her comments toward the council’s responsiveness to residents, criticizing the perceived failure to provide educational resources regarding cannabis businesses. She highlighted the financial struggles faced by cannabis businesses in neighboring municipalities and the potential for revenue fluctuations in Rutherford.

The meeting also featured a proclamation acknowledging the 20th anniversary of the Speak and Lead Toastmasters Club of Rutherford, celebrating its contributions to public speaking and leadership development in the community. This moment was marked by a request for a group photo to commemorate the occasion.

Additional agenda items included a proposed adjustment to an agreement with St. Mary’s, allowing access to a field until 4 PM on Saturdays instead of 3 PM, and the tabling of an ordinance related to the West Erie Avenue redevelopment plan for further review. The council also discussed an ordinance concerning the white-collar union salary, which passed with a roll call vote after prompting no public comments.

The council president reminded attendees of the significance of every meeting and decision, urging members to take their responsibilities seriously.