TAKING A STAND ON TAX INCREASES
Factional Conflict Hinges On Cost Cutting And Revenue Calculations
SUMMARY An 8 PM council meeting on Tuesday, April 28th produced conflict about a proposed 9.7% ($600,000) tax increase. Council members Tara Astor and Kim Burkus objected to the tax hike in the budget, citing over-estimated expenditures, under-estimated revenues and multiple areas of spending that could be cut. After a heated debate regarding State mandated budget deadlines and the absence of key professionals (Township Manager and Chief Financial Officer [CFO]), the Council reached a stalemate on the budget introduction, ultimately tabling the first reading of the budget resolution in favor of a public work session which was scheduled for 3 PM on Monday, May 4th at 17 Pine Street. But that meeting was canceled by Township Clerk Marnell with almost no notice to the public and with no new date announced.
Key Township Professionals Absent
The April 28, 2026 council meeting introduced the “first reading” of the 2026 municipal budget [resolution 2026-69]. But the township professionals who wrote the budget and could answer questions about it were not present. Their absence became a glaring problem as Astor and Burkus raised budget issues. Town Clerk Sherry Marnell resorted to texting the missing CFO, but that proved insufficient to resolve mounting questions and suggestions about the budget.
Points Of Information, Points of Order
Due to the administrative power granted to the Mayor and Deputy Mayor, the meeting was set up as a Yes or No vote for the “first reading” of the budget. However, Council Members Astor and Burkus have parliamentary powers to force debate by making “points of order” and “points of information” regarding budget specifics.
The first “Point of Information” was made by Ms. Burkus who asked
“Who is prepared to answer specific questions about the budget?”
Clerk Marnell shook her head NO and Mayor Banks said:
“We’re not here to answer any particular items, that will be provided on May 27th” [the anticipated second reading]
But Astor and Burkus were unwilling to vote on a first reading resolution without having their questions and suggestions addressed. The Mayor, Clerk and Solicitor tried to focus debate on state budget deadline requirements with Mayor Banks stating:
“We have to introduce [the budget] to allow the township to operate”
A quizzical Councilmember Burkus then stated:
“We have to introduce it to allow the town to operate? That is not true.”
Ms. Astor pushed back against the notion of a hard deadline, recounting that the 2024 budget was not submitted to the state until June 2024 without consequence.
The Mayor asked for the Township Solicitor Tom Coleman to explain the budget deadlines and its affect on the operation of the township. Solicitor Coleman said:
“Mayor, I believe we are still operating on a temporary budget. And I don’t know when that expires, but we must adopt a budget, however you all collectively decide to do it.”
Councilmember Astor then inquired whether amendments to the first reading could be introduced.
This prompted the Mayor to question why Council should amend the budget to which Ms. Burkus responded:
“Because there is a $600,000 increase in taxes. And I don’t want this to go one step further with that type of increase on our taxpayers. So, the first reading of the budget is important. Don’t try to undersell the importance of the first reading. And while I understand that we have deadlines, I only got this budget 8 days ago and I’m not going to be backed into a corner with a 9.7% increase for 2026.”
The debate continued for some time and delayed the vote. There were multiple, noisy cross-talking episodes. Mayor Banks sought to cut off debate and force a vote.
The Mayor said:
“Are we going to introduce this tonight or not?”
Mayor Banks pointedly asked whether Ms. Astor had scheduled a sit-down meeting with the Township Manager to discuss her questions and suggestions.
Reached for comment after the meeting, Ms. Astor told The Reporter she was initially provided with only a budget summary. When she contacted the Manager about a sit-down meeting to go over the full budget, his response was to email the full budget and state that he was on extended personal leave but would be available by email for questions.
Astor said that she and Ms. Burkus chose to respect the Manager’s leave. So instead of emailing him, they studied the 2026 budget and prior budgets so they could discuss it at the meeting.
The Reporter reached out to Mayor Banks and Deputy Mayor DiFolco for comment but has not heard back as of the publication date.
Budget Tabled, Public Work Session Scheduled, Then Canceled With Almost No Notice To The Public
Solicitor Coleman provided legal guidance during the debate. Opposing arguments were offered by Banks and DiFolco regarding why the first reading should be passed. This prompted Ms. Astor observed that Council was engaging in the “public work session” which is what she believed should have happened all along.
But the two council factions were deadlocked and it was clear that Astor and Burkus would not vote to approve the first reading of the $600,000 budget increase.
And so Deputy Mayor DiFolco made a motion to table budget resolution 2026-69. Astor and Burkus voted Yes, while DiFolco and Banks abstained.
Abstention is treated as a vote of “present”, meaning the member counts toward the quorum, but the vote is not added to the tally for or against a measure. So, essentially the resolution was tabled with a 2-0 vote.
After the budget was tabled, Township Clerk Marnell initially offered council members public “work session” dates of Saturday May 2nd or Monday May 4th. The May 4th date was selected and noticed to residents on the township web page. But an email from Clerk Marnell to council members said the meeting had to be postponed.
Public notice of the cancelation was provided on the web page with almost no lead time before the meeting was to take place. Some residents who did not get that late notification showed up to the meeting location to find a notice of the cancelation posted on the door. No alternative date has been offered yet.
Additional Significant Points From The Meeting
• Ms. Astor “walked on” a Council Salary Ordinance. A motion to pass an ordinance to reset council salaries from $4,500/yr to $0 was introduced by Ms. Astor. DiFolco and Banks voted it down due to procedural objections. It will be formally re-submitted for a future meeting.
• Astor and Burkus say they identified approximately $596,000 in potential savings, including Eliminating council salaries ($22,500 total), removing travel/hotel reimbursements for the League of Municipalities conference ($6,000).
• PILOT Programs: Some residents linked the tax increase to “PILOT” (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) agreements given to corporate landlords, which they claim shift the tax burden onto long-term residents. The notion behind a PILOT is that it gets underutilized properties renovated and boosts economic activity. Arguments against granting “too many” PILOTs is that it severely reduces revenue, especially to the school district. It should be noted that the school district had proposed a large tax increase. [A story is being produced on the school budget]