The council deliberated on the potential closure and relocation of the violations clerk window to Saddle River, weighing the impact on court proceedings against anticipated cost savings. A detailed debate ensued on the financial logistics, such as funding the salary and FICA taxes for the violations clerk and the possibility of indirect cost savings from shared services, including office supplies and furniture. The council underscored the importance of transparency in the floating staff budget and agreed to revisit the budget line to ensure accurate allocation of funds.

Another topic was the discussion of hiring a purchasing assistant for 20 hours a week at $21 per hour. This led to a broader debate on salary equity among town employees, considering the tax assistant’s salary and the potential ripple effects on other salaries. The council approved a motion to fund the purchasing assistant position and adjust another line item, resulting in a net reduction of $7,972. Additionally, a motion was approved for the salary of the Township Clerk.

Further discussions on budget line items for various town positions unfolded, with focus on the Chief Financial Officer, tax assessor, zoning officer, and other roles. The council debated recommended versus requested amounts and discussed the appropriateness of compensation based on workload and job responsibilities. The meeting also addressed the overtime policy for non-union employees and the need for consistency and adherence to policies.

Concerns were raised about the salary of an employee named Dan, who often works beyond his scheduled hours. The council agreed to have their attorney review the legal implications of paying for the additional hours. The discussion also covered the proposed salary increase for the Public Affairs Coordinator role, considering the responsibilities and the decline in volunteer support necessitating paid management for events.

The council also endeavored to align the approved budget with actual expenses, discussing the roles of the OEM coordinator, deputy coordinator, director of the fire department, and police dispatchers. The necessity of a supervisor role for dispatchers and its impact on the police command structure was debated, as was holiday pay and benefit time for dispatchers.

The meeting included deliberation on whether to reduce the salaries of the mayor and council members to remain under the pension payment threshold. The motion proposed to reduce all salaries to $4,996 did not pass. Budget discussions extended to tax appeals appraisers, public affairs director position, and the planning department’s office supplies and subscriptions, with the council seeking more precise financial information before finalizing decisions.

Long-pending matters such as the proposal for the master plan, overdue for over three years, and various funding requests for the planning department were deliberated. The council showed concern about the delay in addressing these essential items and emphasized the need for timely action.

Health benefits budget was another contentious topic, with the council debating the appropriate allocation and considering factors like employee contributions and waivers. A detailed presentation on projected health benefits costs led to a discussion on potential areas for savings and the need for a flexible budget that accounts for possible changes.

Lastly, the council scrutinized the health insurance plan, discussing the potential impact of changes to employees’ coverage and the difference card program’s actual savings. Confusion over projected savings figures prompted a motion to enter a closed session for further discussion.