I think it's important to remember a budget is directive, not (in most cases) the actual expenditures, so refinements, corrections, etc. are all possible. That said, this appears to be based on foolishness. $6000 from liquor revenues? Really? Just couldn't close the door the whole way, so let's plug the hole with money based on pending lawsuits? Lazy and silly.

Trimmed $253k in appropriations. What's that mean? Rob did you ask for details of what they were finally willing to cut at 11:59 before the carriage turned pumpkin and they had to write checks using their own money?

Final thought...July 23rd? Why not have a special meeting this week.

At the time this story was filed, attempts to receive a breakdown from the township members were not answered. When that information becomes available, I will update the story. Thank you for reading.

As spelled out by the township, the more significant cuts were $48,500 in public works, $25,000 from the capital improvement fund, $25,000 in gasoline expenses, almost $21,000 from the finance department, and $10,000 in street lighting.

So the taxpayers get the $25 fine after all. Some didn't want a tax increase, others didn't want to raid the water utility surplus thinking it was a gimmick, and lastly some thought we shouldn't use any liquor monies since no liquor licenses have been sold yet, and we assume that money in advance. Well, all that was agreed to by all town
council. What do those naysayers say now?

No mr nice, you kept picking fun at others that they were wrong if they thought using money from the water surplus, or placing liquor revenues into the budget because they were both gimmicks. And now you are applauding those three councilmen that just went ahead and did just that. "using the gimmicks" And still we have a tax increase or as said earlier a "fine".
LOL!! Laughable!! So you are for a tax increase after all!
Sounding a bit hypricitical don't you think?

No, they wanted to just use those two things to make the budget work. In tough times it pays to do the work. Now, even though they are still using those 2 items, the amount that is needed to be taken from them is much lower and more acceptable. It's was obvious that the people that are paid to work the numbers didn't want to take the time to crunch the numbers until they were forced to do so. Now it's a much easier number in tax increase to swallow while losing no services and not taking as big a risk with the water surplus. Liquor is happening so where is the risk. Point was that money shouldn't be used for anything but capital improvements. 6 grand isn't ruffling my feathers.

Mr nice you just can't admit that you're wrong on the comments you said earlier. It's a shame that you dogged some to think using "any gimmicks" is a poor choice and unacceptable. Regardless, the three councilman you applaud still used "the gimmicks" and you say it isn't that bad. You kept looting at those who were ok with a very small tax increase saying things like "you're ok for a tax increase LOL". or someone was ok to use water surplus, and you went off on him but yet these three councilman now agreed to it.
As someone said earlier "Stand down!". or now that we are using "the gimmicks" you could ask "what's the downside?"

So the Mayor raised taxes..... Again. And wants to be elected..... Again. No thanks.

It may have taken awhile for three of these councilmen to realize that these measures (not gimmicks) can be used. It appears that coucilmembers Chiacchio and Jordan get it. Perhaps they should be applauded for their standing. This budget circumstance did not need to drag on this long. Most Budgets in the past have been met and agreed to by May, some as early as march.
We could guess that this won't happen again?

Hey wait a minute didn't those two budget experts say just a week or two ago that there was nothing left to cut from the budget but yet the manager did in fact find cuts as requested.

Hey observes, since seniors are underfur Rec dept, you may have some validity in that we heard at least one of them wanted to privatize the rec dept and abolish it? Maybe that's what someone may have been thinking about this budget? Complete nonsense to think of abolishing the Rec dept! Have no idea what they were thinking they could cut further? Apparently know the three other councilmen Don't think using the monies iate a "gimmick" now. Do recall reading councilman chaiscchio and treata getting heated over taxes before, seems like chaccjio won this one.

Ed,
I didn't call you a name. I said you were miserable and self-serving. You, on the other hand, have called people liars. Why can't you disagree respectfully, allowing folks the right to have their own opinion? I don't want to do battle with you, I just want civility.

The cuts hit the rec department, huh? Funny how it impacts the the kids who cant afford to join the other sports teams. Is this payback to the sports teams for turf? For their support of Button and his nonexistent campaign? Seems like they are taking this war for their precious fields out on our children. What a shame. Guess the only "KIDS" Mr. Mayor cares about are the ones who play for the teams bankrolling his foolish run for office. Shame on him.

Once again that is not true. Any child that wants to play on any of the teams in the town has a chance to do so. If that child is not as good as other children playing that level they will place the player in an appropriate level with in the organization. My son was cut from a travel A team and went to the B level in baseball and ended up being much more successful and was able to contribute at a higher level because of being placed in the correct group. Once again do everyone a favor and stop trying to clam fire when there isn't even any smoke!