One of the most noteworthy discussions revolved around the call for a forensic audit of the township’s finances. A council member highlighted the need for such an audit to evaluate the township’s financial integrity and assess internal controls. Concerns were raised about historical spending discrepancies and a potential lack of transparency in financial management. A forensic audit was seen as a necessary step to restore trust among residents and provide the township’s Chief Financial Officer with the backing needed to address inherited financial issues effectively. The audit was suggested to cost less than past estimates, potentially around $100,000, and would cover the past three years, offering a roadmap for future improvements.

The discussion on fleet management also took center stage as council members debated the necessity of replacing aging vehicles, some of which date back to 1987. The idea of gradually allocating funds for vehicle replacement, rather than relying on bond ordinances for immediate large expenditures, was proposed. This approach aims to prevent costly breakdowns and ensure that the township’s fleet, including vital services like fire engines and police cars, remains operational. The director of public works emphasized the need for reliable equipment, noting that patching old vehicles was akin to “throwing good money after bad.”

In terms of budget allocations, a portion of the meeting was dedicated to the recreation department. The department’s budget, originally set at $157,314, faced proposed reductions. The council ultimately agreed to a $17,000 cut, setting the new budget at $140,314.86. This decision came after much debate over the feasibility of maintaining quality programming while adhering to budget constraints. The council discussed specific line items, such as the costs associated with trophies, aerator maintenance, and porta-potties for events. The necessity of these expenses was questioned, with some members proposing alternatives like using medals instead of trophies to cut costs.

Employee compensation also garnered attention, with discussions about longevity payments and the fairness of current salary structures. Concerns were raised about certain non-union employees receiving longevity payments despite only one being deemed eligible. The council deliberated on how to rectify this, considering options such as salary reductions or freezes. The conversation highlighted the complexities involved in adjusting compensation and the potential backlash from employees.

The topic of part-time staffing levels, particularly at local facilities like the pool, was another focal point. Residents had reported seeing unnecessary staffing during slow hours, prompting a proposal to cut $13,000 from the part-time workers’ budget. While the motion passed, it was met with concerns about the potential impact on service delivery. The administration opposed the reduction, citing the importance of staffing for community events and activities.

Finally, the meeting concluded with discussions on procedural matters related to budget amendments. A proposal for a forensic audit to be added to the finance budget sparked debate over the legalities of such an addition without a full council present. The council decided to adjourn and reconvene the following day to seek further clarification on the procedural requirements.