During the meeting, one of the most contentious issues was the council’s use of executive sessions. A resident, Jesse Paladini, questioned the justification for entering into a closed session without a clear contract to discuss. Paladini expressed further dissatisfaction with the council’s lack of transparency, particularly regarding the absence of a resolution to amend the budget for a donation from the historical society. This lack of direct response from council members and the CFO to his queries heightened his frustration.

Adding to the transparency concerns, a resident from Glenwood inquired about the council’s closed-session discussions on reassessments, emphasizing the necessity for public involvement when taxpayer money is at stake. In response, a council member assured that no contracts would be finalized in these sessions, explaining that closed gatherings are sometimes required for handling sensitive information. However, they affirmed that any decisions made would ultimately be presented in regular sessions for public scrutiny.

Residents also raised issues about financial burdens imposed by the local government. One speaker criticized the council for introducing a $40 fee for checking open building permits, a service previously accessible for free through the Township website. This resident argued that such fees, along with penalties outlined in Ordinance 24-14 for lacking documentation during property transactions, were excessively punitive and could hinder fast-paced real estate dealings. They also warned against potential new regulations that might lead to increased taxes on unrealized gains, describing the situation as overly burdensome for taxpayers.

Concerns about local infrastructure were highlighted by Terina, who reported significant water drainage problems affecting her property due to a city pipe. She expressed her dissatisfaction with the Department of Public Works’ dismissive response to her complaints. A council member suggested arranging a meeting with Terina to facilitate communication with the appropriate authorities to address the issue.

The meeting also touched on inconsistencies in how public comments are managed. Stephanie, a resident, pointed out the uneven opportunities for dialogue between council members and the public, noting a discrepancy in how some residents, like Mrs. Paladini, were not allowed to engage in back-and-forth discussions during the meetings. The chair acknowledged these concerns and recognized the frustration residents feel when their questions remain unanswered.

The council also addressed several operational matters during the session. They reviewed the bills list, where a discrepancy in state unemployment expenditures was identified, prompting a referral to staff for clarification. The council approved minutes from both an executive and a regular session held in October, introduced a bond ordinance for new equipment acquisition for the Department of Public Works, and approved another ordinance related to clothing allowances for volunteer emergency services personnel. Furthermore, the council passed resolutions for a cooperative purchasing contract for cleaning supplies and addressed tax cancellations for a disabled veteran. A bid for tanker repair services was separated for discussion, confirming insurance coverage for costs due to a change in protocol.