Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Township Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council adopts ordinance approving St. Mary’s Township budget and capital improvement plan amid conflict‑of‑interest rule
Summary
Adams County Council approved Ordinance 2025‑13 to adopt St. Mary’s Township’s 2025 budget during a public hearing required because volunteer firefighters and family members sit on the township advisory board. The township presented a capital improvement plan that includes cemetery ground‑penetrating radar and recreation improvements.
Adams County Council adopted Ordinance 2025‑13, formally accepting the budget submitted by St. Mary’s Township after a public hearing and review required by statute when a township advisory board includes volunteer firefighters and family members.
Julie Marie drafted the ordinance and explained the statutory trigger: when a township advisory board’s majority are volunteer firefighters or include family members of firefighters, the township’s budget must come before the county fiscal body for approval. The ordinance text presented to the council stated that the fiscal body “held a public hearing on the proposed budget of Saint Mary’s Township” and adopted the budget “as submitted.” The ordinance number recorded in the meeting materials was 2025‑13.
Megan, representing St. Mary’s Township, presented the township’s capital improvement plan (CIP) and budget detail. The CIP documented funds and proposed projects across general and recreational accounts. Key projects described included ground‑penetrating‑radar (GPR) work for older cemeteries (Mount Tabor and Mount Haber were mentioned), site drive improvements at Mount Tabor and Mount Haber, ball‑diamond improvements and new hitching posts for Amish buggy parking. Megan said a GPR quote of $15,000 had been obtained and that the township planned to start GPR work at Mount Tabor. She reported cash balances of roughly $28,822 in the general account and $58,077 in the recreation account and showed how planned spending would leave small residual balances under the listed four‑year CIP assumptions.
Members questioned whether the council should see last year’s figures for comparison before final approval; several council members said they preferred to review details against prior budgets. Megan provided a printed packet and said she had emailed materials and would provide additional documentation as requested.
The council moved to approve the ordinance and the township budget and voted in favor. The motion to adopt the ordinance and accept the township budget passed with an affirmative vote recorded in the transcript. Council members also approved the township’s capital improvement items described in the presentation by motion and vote.
The council and township clarified the distinction between the township budget adoption (the ordinance on the record) and a separate statutory requirement to deliver a cumulative capital improvement plan (CUMCAP) to the auditor’s office for digital archiving; the latter does not require council action but must be filed with the county auditor for record keeping.
The council’s approval was procedural oversight under state law; the recorded action adopted the budget “as submitted” rather than making line‑item changes.
