One notable issue addressed during the meeting was the public hearing on the proposed 2025 municipal budget. The mayor opened the floor for residents to express their concerns, and the session quickly became charged with emotion. A resident named Jim raised multiple issues, expressing dissatisfaction with how the budget was presented to the public. He argued for better accessibility. Jim questioned the approval process and sought clarification on the expected tax increase for homeowners. He also expressed concerns about the allocations for the firehouse, emphasizing that historical designation could unlock funds for restoration, a proposal previously denied.

Jim’s scrutiny extended to specific budget line items, notably the projected surplus usage, which he claimed was $2 million higher than the previous year. He criticized the council for using surplus funds instead of making cuts, emphasizing that the surplus had been painstakingly built over time. Additional concerns were raised about trash collection costs, the budget for school crossing guards, and cuts to programs for seniors, questioning how these would affect the community’s most vulnerable residents.

Adding to the budget controversy, an anonymous speaker vehemently opposed the entire budget, citing alleged corruption within the local government and linking their disapproval to broader misconduct allegations. They particularly objected to any funding for the police department, referencing ongoing legal issues and asserting, “I think the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office is going after an innocent man.” Despite the mayor’s attempts to refocus the discussion, the speaker maintained that their objections were valid and insisted on their right to express dissatisfaction with the council’s actions.

As the public comments continued, the atmosphere grew increasingly contentious, with the mayor attempting to manage disruptions. A different resident accused the council of fostering a disrespectful environment, particularly highlighting Councilwoman Novak’s behavior during public comments. They criticized the council for allegedly dismissing critical feedback, comparing it unfavorably to the previous administration’s more receptive approach.

Once public comments concluded, the council moved to discuss the budget amendment resolution 2025-112. The mayor clarified that the resolution was an amendment to the previously introduced budget, noting a surplus of $9,400,000 and various adjustments in revenues and appropriations. A council member confirmed that some appropriations had been reduced, resulting in a marginal tax decrease. Despite these changes, the adoption of the budget amendment faced resistance, with some council members voting against it due to concerns about fiscal management and the removal of a shared service agreement.

Beyond the budget, the council faced criticism over the handling of the Shade Tree Commission. A proposed ordinance to dissolve the commission in favor of an advisory committee was pulled from consideration after significant public backlash. Arthur Writtenhouse, chairman of the Sayreville Shade Tree Commission, strongly opposed the ordinance, arguing it violated borough rules and state law. He highlighted the commission’s achievements and the importance of maintaining transparency and public involvement in environmental stewardship.

Residents echoed Writtenhouse’s concerns, emphasizing the potential loss of transparency and accountability if the advisory committee replaced the commission. Alberto Rios and Heather Yani Poski were among those who articulated their opposition, stressing the need for public participation in decisions affecting the community’s green spaces.

In addition to these major topics, the meeting addressed various administrative updates and community initiatives. The council discussed improvements to the recycling system, with plans to implement covered automated bins to reduce litter. Councilman Sinarski reported on recent community events, including the successful Memorial Day parade, and ongoing maintenance efforts by the water department. A discussion also ensued about water restrictions due to drought conditions, with calls for increased public awareness.

The meeting concluded with a heated exchange during the public comment section, where residents criticized the council’s management of meetings and decision-making processes. Accusations of misconduct and lack of decorum were directed at council members and the mayor, highlighting a perceived gap between the council and the community.