Council debated the borough’s auditor selection at length before approving a one-year appointment to preserve compliance with statutory filing deadlines.

Several council members criticized the procurement process and the value received from the more expensive contracted auditor. One council member said, "We only have 1 quote from 1 auditor," and asked why the borough was paying more when promised deliverables—trainings and presentations—had not materialized. Members pressed staff for clarity on timelines and the risk of fines if the audit filing dates are missed.

Borough staff and the solicitor clarified the deadlines referenced in the discussion. The transcript records mention a DCED/PCED component with a March 31 due date and a separate year-end filing; staff warned that failing to complete the full audit by the end of the year could jeopardize eligibility for certain state funds and risk fines.

To avoid missing filing requirements, council voted to designate the auditor for a single year so the audit work would proceed and the March/annual submissions could be completed. Several members said they want the finance committee to research other auditing firms and to prepare a more robust procurement process for future years.

What was decided
• One-year appointment of the borough auditor to ensure audits and required filings proceed and to provide time for a fuller procurement process in 2026.

Why it matters
The audit ensures compliance with state program requirements and can affect the borough’s eligibility for state grant funding; members raised concerns about paying higher fees without receiving the additional services that were promised.

What remains unresolved
Council agreed to a one-year appointment but also asked staff to research alternative auditors and to bring procurement options for future years.