The most notable issue revolved around the assistant business administrator’s salary increase. Council members unanimously opposed the raise, citing fiscal responsibility and consistency with previous decisions to deny similar requests in other departments. Legal concerns were raised about the validity of the assistant business administrator’s position without a supporting ordinance, as state law restricts such roles in townships with populations below 300,000. This legal ambiguity fueled frustration among council members, who felt inadequately supported by legal counsel.

The debate underscored the broader issue of the mayor’s authority to adjust salaries without explicit council approval. It was revealed that the assistant business administrator’s salary had been increased from $139,484 to $168,731 based on the mayor’s directive. This prompted questions about the procedural legitimacy of such changes and whether they required formal council consent. The Citizen Budget Advisory Board recommended limiting the salary to $69,666 for the remaining months of the year, advocating for a cautious approach to fiscal management.

Additionally, the council faced challenges with litigation expenses, particularly involving lawsuits initiated by the mayor against the council. The litigation budget had already exceeded initial projections, prompting discussion about increasing the allocation by $25,000 to $50,000 to cover anticipated costs. Concerns were expressed about the potential for further escalations in legal expenses, especially those related to affordable housing disputes. The council considered proposals to create separate line items for different legal services to improve transparency and financial oversight.

The meeting also addressed the fire department’s need for new turnout gear, costing $15,000. This expenditure, initially excluded from the budget, was deemed essential for maintaining safety standards. The council unanimously approved a motion to allocate funds for the purchase, emphasizing the urgency of equipping newly hired personnel with compliant gear.

Discussion on the police department’s budget revealed differing views on maintaining a $45,000 cushion for unforeseen expenses. While some members advocated for its reduction, emphasizing fiscal prudence, others cautioned against compromising public safety services. A proposed $30,000 budget cut failed to gain support.

Other discussions included adjustments to various line items, such as reducing the litigation budget from $348,134 to $70,000 for labor matters and increasing the ABC matters budget from $45 to $8,000. The necessity of clear budget communication to taxpayers was emphasized, particularly regarding library tax levies mandated by state law.