Candidate Statement: Berkeley Heights Can Support Its Library And Still Demand A Real Spending Audit

Candidate Statement
Berkeley Heights Town CouncilElections

-Edmund Tom Maciejewski

Berkeley Heights should have a strong public library. But the records now raise a basic taxpayer question: is the library matching spending to actual public use, or is the state funding formula becoming a spending target? The library’s 2026 budget materials show one-third-mill funding of $1,737,267.48. The 2024 state library data shows 47,888 annual visits. Using that visit baseline, the 2026 library funding equals about $36 per reported visit; using the 2026 monthly-summary total budget line of $1,853,291, the cost is closer to $39 per visit. If usage has grown, the library should publish the updated numbers. If usage has stayed flat or declined, residents deserve to know why payroll, new positions, marketing, postage, summer reading, reimagining, and capital reserves are all demanding more money.

The biggest red flag is the movement of operating money into capital reserve: $300,000 approved in December 2024 and another $250,000 proposed and approved in December 2025, for a total of $550,000. Capital planning can be legitimate, but Berkeley Heights Public Library is housed inside the municipal complex. That makes the obvious question harder to avoid: which costs belong to the library, which belong to the Township, and which should be covered by insurance, warranty, contractor responsibility, or a shared-services agreement? This is a governance issue for the Library Board: Mary Jean Barnes, Athena Sapir, Chris Reilly, Diane O’Halloran, Duane Wilcox, Elizabeth “Liz” Gosen, Patricia Pinies or Patricia Lansberg – a name discrepancy that should be corrected publicly – Mayor Angie Devanney, and Superintendent Dr. Kim Feltre. These may be well-intentioned public servants, but they are responsible for oversight of a public institution funded by tax dollars.

This is not an anti-library argument. It is a pro-accountability argument. A funding formula should not become a blank check.

The legal funding structure matters

Most residents probably do not realize how New Jersey municipal libraries are funded. Under N.J.S.A. 40:54-8, a municipality with a free public library must annually raise a library tax equal to one-third of a mill on assessable property, unless a higher voter-approved rate applies. The money is collected like other municipal taxes and paid to the library treasurer quarterly.

For 2026, Berkeley Heights Public Library’s budget presentation says that one-third-mill amount is $1,737,267.48. For a town of roughly 13,000 to 14,000 people, that is a serious appropriation. Using approximately 13,426 residents, it equals about $129 per resident per year. Using a 13,900-resident denominator, it is about $125 per resident per year.

That cost is paid by everyone: frequent users, occasional users, and residents who never use the library.

If only 10 percent of residents are active users, the public cost is not about $125 per user. It is closer to $1,250 to $1,300 per active user per year, or roughly $100 to $108 per month. That 10 percent figure is a scenario, not a proven usage rate. The point is that residents should not have to guess. The library should publish active-cardholder, visit, circulation, program-attendance, database-use, and cost-per-use numbers.

The Township also cannot simply seize library money. State regulation requires the mandatory library appropriation to be paid to the library treasurer or held in a library-controlled account for eligible library purposes. So the Township cannot casually take library money for roads, drainage, police, recreation, or ordinary municipal work.

But New Jersey also has an excess-funds law. N.J.S.A. 40:54-15 requires a municipal library board’s annual report to identify public revenue, State aid, expenditures, fund balance, and excess funds. The statute generally defines transferable excess as unrestricted money above the most recent audited operating expenditures plus an additional 20 percent, excluding capital-project funds, grant funds, and certain donations, devises, or bequests. The transfer process requires library board action and State Librarian approval.

So the proper question is not whether the Township can casually grab the library’s money. It cannot. The question is whether the Library Board is properly identifying unrestricted excess funds and returning what the law requires, or whether budget growth, new hires, operating projects, and capital-reserve transfers are absorbing money that should first be tested under the excess-funds law.

What the records show

The library’s 2026 budget presentation lists:

  • 2026 one-third-mill funding: $1,737,267.48.
  • Projected total spending: $1,801,200.
  • Staff salaries and wages: $872,700 in the presentation.
  • Library contribution/shared-service cost: $280,000.
  • A projected deficit of $63,933 to be funded from unrestricted operating account balance if necessary.

The 2026 monthly financial summary separately lists:

  • Salaries: $944,691.
  • Library expenses paid directly from the Township: $260,100.
  • Operating expenses: $583,500.
  • Total: $1,853,291.

Those figures need reconciliation. The salary number in the budget presentation does not match the salary number in the monthly financial summary. The total projected spending figure also does not match cleanly across documents. That does not prove wrongdoing, but it does show why a public, line-item audit is needed.

The New Jersey State Library’s 2024 public library data shows Berkeley Heights reported:

  • Population: 13,285.
  • Local government revenue: $1,329,169.
  • Total available funds: $1,800,339.
  • Total operating expenditures: $1,212,577.
  • Personnel costs: $858,390, including $598,290 in wages and $260,100 in benefits.
  • Total paid staff FTE for national statistics: 8.56.
  • Total staff headcount: 24.
  • Annual library visits: 47,888.
  • Total circulation: 102,810.
  • Registered resident borrowers: 7,294, plus 99 non-resident borrowers.
  • Total library-sponsored programs: 445.
  • Total program attendance: 6,646.

Those numbers show the library is used. They also show why cost-per-use reporting is necessary.

Cost per visit should be front and center

Using the reported 47,888 annual visits from 2024, Berkeley Heights taxpayers should see the cost in plain English:

  • 2024 operating expenditures: $1,212,577, or $25.32 per reported visit.
  • 2024 local government revenue: $1,329,169, or $27.76 per reported visit.
  • 2026 one-third-mill library funding: $1,737,267.48, or $36.28 per reported visit.
  • 2026 projected spending from the budget presentation: $1,801,200, or $37.61 per reported visit.
  • 2026 monthly-summary total budget line: $1,853,291, or $38.70 per reported visit.

This does not mean 2026 visits will match 2024 visits. It means that, using the latest available visit baseline, the library may now cost roughly $36 to $39 per reported visit depending on which 2026 budget figure is used.

If visits have increased, publish the updated number. If visits have stayed flat or declined, residents deserve to know that too. A basic public dashboard should show cost per visit, cost per checkout, cost per active cardholder, cost per program attendee, cost per database use, cost per museum pass use, and cost per open hour.

Berkeley Heights looks expensive compared with similar libraries

Using the 2024 New Jersey State Library data for municipal libraries serving 10,000 to 14,999 residents, Berkeley Heights ranked high on spending:

  • Local government revenue per capita: about $100, ranking 9th highest out of 41 peer municipal libraries.
  • Operating expenditures per capita: about $91, ranking 9th highest out of 41.
  • Personnel spending per capita: about $65, ranking 8th highest out of 41.

But Berkeley Heights did not rank similarly high in visits:

  • Visits per capita: about 3.6, roughly around the peer median.
  • Circulation per capita: about 7.7, above the peer median but not near the very top.
  • FTE staffing per 10,000 residents: about 6.4, roughly in line with the peer average.

That pattern is the core audit issue. Berkeley Heights appears to be spending like a high-cost library, while the available public statistics do not clearly show usage that explains the higher cost.

Staffing and raises need a hard look

The 2025 monthly financial summary lists salaries at $797,925. The 2026 monthly financial summary lists salaries at $944,691. That is an increase of about 18.4 percent.

The 2026 summary also lists $260,100 in library expenses paid directly from the Township, described as taxes, health benefits, pension, and common expenses such as DPW and insurance. Salaries plus that Township-paid/shared-services line total about $1.2 million, or roughly 65 percent of the 2026 total budget line.

Libraries are service organizations, and staffing is naturally a major cost. But staffing should be tied to measurable public use. Residents should not have to guess whether staffing matches actual traffic, circulation, program attendance, desk activity, and community demand.

The library’s 2026 budget objectives include hiring three new librarian positions. The library’s employment page recently listed two newly created full-time roles:

  • Outreach Librarian, 35 hours per week, salary listed at $66,000 with flexibility up to $69,000, plus benefits.
  • Programming and Marketing Librarian, 35 hours per week, salary listed at $66,000 with flexibility up to $69,000, plus benefits.

These may be worthwhile roles. But taxpayers deserve to see the operational case. What are the daily traffic counts? How many patrons are in the building during non-event times? How many questions are handled per desk hour? How many people attend each program? How much staff time is spent on circulation, reference, youth services, programming, marketing, outreach, social media, administration, and internal projects?

The question is not whether library staff work hard. The question is whether the staffing model is matched to actual public demand.

The salary records also deserve review. The 2024 salary document presents 2, 3, 4, and 5 percent raise options; the final total appears to align with the 5 percent column. The 2025 salary document shows a 4 percent column. For 2026, the increase cannot fairly be described simply as an across-the-board raise because the budget presentation also references new positions. But the public still deserves a plain explanation: what usage data justified the raises, new positions, and higher payroll?

Marketing, postage, summer reading, and “reimagining” need receipts

The 2026 monthly financial summary includes major operating lines: $80,000 for books, $80,000 for digital materials, $40,000 for periodicals and subscriptions, $20,000 for databases, $28,000 for programs, $10,000 for summer reading, $8,500 for museum passes, $10,000 for marketing, $55,000 for tech and equipment, $40,000 for reimagining, $27,000 for professional development, and $45,000 for professional services.

Some of those lines may produce real public benefit. But the records reviewed so far do not make it easy to see cost per user, cost per checkout, cost per program attendee, or cost per subscription use.

Marketing is one example. The 2026 budget line is $10,000, but the 2026 monthly financial summary shows marketing year-to-date through June at $17,447. That may be a timing issue, accounting issue, reclassification issue, or a real overrun. Residents should not have to guess. The library should publish the ledger and invoices behind that line.

The same issue appears elsewhere. The 2026 monthly financial summary shows Postage budgeted at $1,000 but $22,832 spent year-to-date by June, and Summer Reading budgeted at $10,000 but $25,632 spent year-to-date by June. Those figures may have explanations, but the public should not have to infer them from a summary sheet.

The recurring “Reimagining” line also needs detail. Records reviewed for this article show a $100,000 Reimagining budget line in 2024, $50,000 in 2025, and $40,000 in 2026. The 2026 monthly financial summary shows $28,624 spent by June. The capital plan describes a broad reconfiguration of physical space, technology, signage, access doors, furnishings, outreach services, and other upgrades.

A recurring “Reimagining” line is too vague for taxpayer oversight unless it is backed by invoices, purchase orders, vendor names, board approvals, quotes, bids, project timelines, and explanations showing why each expenditure was necessary.

The municipal building issue

Berkeley Heights Public Library is housed in the municipal complex. That does not mean the library has no capital needs. It can still need library-specific technology, security equipment, shelving, furniture, signage, book lockers, access-control equipment, programming-room equipment, public-service desks, collection equipment, and interior layout changes.

But being inside the municipal building makes a large Extended Capital Plan more questionable, not less. It raises a basic allocation issue: what belongs to the library, and what belongs to the Township or the municipal complex as a whole?

If a project involves library-owned furniture, public computers, self-check equipment, signage, collection fixtures, meeting-room equipment, security cameras, or library service technology, it may be a library capital item.

If a project involves the building shell, roof, HVAC access, mold inspection, water intrusion, leaks, structural repairs, building-wide insurance, DPW work, or municipal-complex infrastructure, residents need to know whether the cost is properly a library cost, a Township cost, a shared cost, a warranty or contractor claim, or an insurance claim.

That distinction matters because the library already reports $260,100 in expenses paid directly from the Township for taxes, health benefits, pension, DPW, insurance, and common expenses. The records also show separate library budget lines for facilities and utilities.

Residents should not have to guess whether building-related costs are being double counted, misallocated, reimbursed later, or properly assigned. The Township and library should publish the shared-services agreement, allocation formulas, invoices, reimbursement ledger, insurance correspondence, warranty claims, construction-defect claims, and a project responsibility chart.

The April 13, 2026 minutes show why this matters. The Facility Committee discussed HVAC access and HVAC cleaning, Township RFIs concerning building repairs, mold inspection dates sent to the Township, the Township’s request that the library pay for mold inspection, a new procedure for building leaks, outdoor signage, and review of the shared-service agreement. Later in the meeting, the Board agreed that staff should continue logging mold-inspection costs for eventual reimbursement from the Township.

That is not a clean system. It needs an audit trail.

The public question should be direct: Who is financially responsible for building problems in the library area – the Township, the library, a shared-services formula, an insurer, a contractor, or some combination of those?

So why such a large Extended Capital Plan?

There are legitimate reasons for a library capital plan, even inside a municipal building. A capital plan could cover security cameras, library furniture, shelving, service desks, public computers, self-check systems, scanners, printers, networking, signage, access-control systems, meeting-room equipment, book drops, pickup lockers, mobile outreach equipment, or replacement of library-owned items damaged by leaks, mold, or other building problems.

But the size of the reserve is the issue. A large Extended Capital Plan should not be a vague bucket. It should be a project-level document with costs, timelines, ownership, procurement method, vendor quotes, shared-service allocation, reimbursement expectations, and a clear explanation of why each project improves efficient and effective library service.

The Board should answer these questions before moving or holding large balances in capital reserve:

  • What is the target capital-reserve balance?
  • Who set that target, and on what analysis?
  • Which projects are planned for each year from 2024 through 2029?
  • Which projects are library-specific, and which are building-related?
  • For building-related projects, who is responsible: the Township, the library, a shared-services formula, insurance, warranty, contractor, or another party?
  • Which projects are legally restricted capital projects for excess-funds purposes?
  • Which projects have quotes, bids, vendor proposals, board approvals, or State Librarian approval?
  • Which projects are optional upgrades rather than safety, accessibility, compliance, or service-continuity needs?

A capital plan is not automatically improper. But capital planning inside a municipal building can become a convenient place to park surplus unless the Board publishes the excess-funds calculation, project list, cost allocation, bids, timing, reimbursement trail, and State Librarian approval trail.

Capital reserves should not become a hiding place for surplus

The clearest accountability issue is the movement of operating money into capital reserves.

The December 9, 2024 Library Board minutes reviewed for this draft record approval of the Extended Capital Plan 2024-2029 and a transfer of $300,000 from the Operating Account to the Capital Reserve Account. The capital-plan resolution states that the Board had determined there would be a year-end surplus in the Operating Account.

The December 8, 2025 draft minutes reviewed for this draft then record a proposed and approved transfer of $250,000 from the Operating Account into the Capital Reserve Account.

Together, that is $550,000 moved from operating funds into capital reserve across those two actions. For scale, $550,000 equals about $11.49 for every reported 2024 library visit.

Capital planning can be legitimate. But when a library is funded through a dedicated tax formula, accumulated operating surplus should not become a blank check for discretionary projects or a substitute municipal-building repair fund. If money is truly excess under New Jersey law, the process should identify it and return it to the municipality for taxpayer relief.

The Board should explain why the capital reserve needs to be this large now, especially when the library does not maintain a standalone library building. If the reserve is for library-specific improvements, publish the project list. If it is for building problems in the library area, publish the legal and financial basis for charging those costs to the library rather than to the Township, insurance, warranty, or the responsible construction or building party.

The public should be able to see:

  • The audited operating expenditures used for the excess-funds calculation.
  • The fund balance before and after each transfer.
  • What portion of fund balance was unrestricted.
  • What portion was restricted for capital, grants, donations, or legally protected purposes.
  • What portion qualified as excess under N.J.S.A. 40:54-15.
  • Whether the Board adopted any excess-funds resolution.
  • Whether State Librarian approval was requested or obtained.
  • Whether transferring operating money into capital reserve reduced funds that otherwise would have been identified as excess.
  • Which specific project, vendor, quote, bid, schedule, public-use metric, or building-responsibility analysis supported each reserve transfer.

Without those answers, residents are left with an obvious concern: the library may be using a broad capital plan to absorb surplus rather than testing whether money should be returned through the statutory excess-funds process.

Why was the money not returned to the municipality?

There are two possible answers, and the public deserves to know which one is true.

The first possibility is legitimate: the money was not legally excess because the Board had a valid, restricted capital plan, sufficient documentation, and a State-Librarian-acceptable long-term funding plan showing that the money was needed for efficient and effective library services.

The second possibility is concerning: the money would have been excess or close to excess, but was moved into capital reserve or absorbed into new spending before residents ever saw a transparent excess-funds calculation.

The records reviewed here do not prove funds were illegally withheld. But they absolutely justify the question. The Board should publish the calculation. The Township should ask for it. Residents should not have to file repeated OPRA requests to understand whether a public entity is holding money that should legally be returned for municipal taxpayer relief.

Who governs the Berkeley Heights Public Library?

This should not be personal. Many library trustees serve because they care about books, children, learning, and public service. That is admirable. But once someone serves on the Library Board, the role is not merely ceremonial.

The Township says the Library Board manages and governs the Free Public Library, supports growth of services, advocates for funding, devises a strategic plan, assesses community needs, and implements responses to those needs. Public service comes with public accountability.

The public should be able to see who serves, when terms expire, who appointed each member, when the Township Committee consented to each appointment, whether members attend meetings, and how they vote on budgets, salary increases, new positions, capital transfers, and contracts.

  • Mary Jean Barnes, President; term expires Dec. 31, 2028.
  • Athena Sapir, Vice-President; term expires Dec. 31, 2029.
  • Chris Reilly, Trustee; term expires Dec. 31, 2029.
  • Diane O’Halloran, Secretary; term expires Dec. 31, 2030.
  • Duane Wilcox, Trustee; term expires Dec. 31, 2029.
  • Elizabeth “Liz” Gosen, Treasurer; term expires Dec. 31, 2027.
  • Patricia Pinies / Patricia Lansberg, Trustee; name discrepancy needs verification. The Township page lists Patricia Lansberg with a term expiring Dec. 31, 2026; the library page lists Patricia Pinies.
  • Angie Devanney, Mayor / ex officio board member; statutory mayor seat.
  • Dr. Kim Feltre, Superintendent of Schools / ex officio board member; statutory school-official seat.

New Jersey law provides for a library board that includes the mayor or chief executive officer, a school official, and citizen trustees appointed by the mayor or chief executive, with governing body consent except in cities. The law also allows the mayor and superintendent to appoint alternates.

That makes the public-facing board directory important. The library’s Board of Trustees page listed the Mayor’s Alternate as N/A and the Superintendent’s Alternate as N/A, while the April 13, 2026 minutes say Louisa Grossman was inducted as the new Mayor’s Alternate and that the Board Directory would be updated. The directory should match the minutes.

What does the average library user actually use?

The library offers books, digital borrowing, databases, museum passes, a Library of Things, public computers, Wi-Fi, scanning, printing, story times, programs, meeting spaces, book groups, reference help, and newsletters. Those are real services.

But the average taxpayer still needs to know scale. How many Berkeley Heights residents have active library cards? How many unique residents used the library in the last year? How many people walk into the library during normal non-event hours? What is the average headcount on a normal weekday morning, afternoon, and evening? How many physical and digital items were checked out? How many people used museum passes, the Library of Things, computers, Wi-Fi, scanner, meeting rooms, and databases? How many program attendees were Berkeley Heights residents? Which paid subscriptions had low usage? How many staff hours were spent on circulation, reference, youth services, programming, administration, marketing, cataloging, and internal meetings?

Those are not anti-library questions. They are normal public-management questions.

The study Berkeley Heights needs

The Township Committee, Library Board, or an independent reviewer should commission or publish a 60- to 90-day usage and spending study. It should count door traffic by hour, non-event occupancy, event attendance separately from ordinary library traffic, checkouts by category, active resident cardholders, computer sessions, Wi-Fi sessions, scanner use, meeting-room use, subscription and database usage, staff hours by function, program cost per attendee, and peer-library comparisons for budget, staff FTE, hours, visits, circulation, cardholders, and program attendance.

The result should be a public dashboard showing cost per visit, cost per active cardholder, cost per checkout, cost per program attendee, cost per open hour, and cost per database or subscription use.

What should happen next

The Library Board should publish a full financial packet without making residents file repeated records requests. That packet should include adopted line-item budgets, budget-to-actual reports, general ledger, check registers, vendor ledger, payroll totals and FTE by function, benefits and Township shared-service charges, contracts, invoices for large payments, reserve and fund-balance reports, excess-funds calculations, capital reserve restrictions and project plans, State Librarian submissions and approvals if any, a capital reserve target balance, annual usage metrics, board attendance, committee assignments, alternates, and recorded votes.

The Township should also insist on a clear public explanation of the library’s relationship to the municipal building and shared services. Residents deserve to understand what costs the Township absorbs, what the library reimburses, what belongs to the municipal building, what belongs to library operations, and whether the arrangement is financially fair to taxpayers.

The Township should answer the building question plainly: when there is a roof leak, HVAC access problem, mold inspection, water intrusion issue, building repair, or library-area facility problem, is the cost absorbed by the Township, charged to the library, reimbursed later, shared under an agreement, or recovered from insurance, warranty, or contractors? That answer should not change from meeting to meeting.

The goal is not to weaken the library. The goal is to stop treating the library as an untouchable budget silo.

Berkeley Heights can support a strong public library and still demand discipline. If the library can prove that spending matches actual public use, it should publish the proof. If it cannot, the budget should be reduced, surplus should be tested under the excess-funds law, and legally excess money should be returned to the municipality instead of being absorbed into more spending.

Bottom line

A library can be beloved and still need an audit.

A trustee can be well-intentioned and still be responsible for public oversight.

A capital plan can be legitimate and still require project-level proof.

A dedicated tax can be legal and still create incentives to spend money simply because it is available.

Berkeley Heights residents should not have to choose between supporting the library and asking whether the library is spending too much. They can, and should, do both.

Source notes

This statement was submitted by the candidate and does not necessarily reflect the editorial position of NJ21st.

See Our Policy on Political Endorsements, Candidate Statements and Editorial Independence

Waiting for a Match: Andrea's Need for a Lifeline

Andrea Is Searching for a Living Kidney Donor

Andrea is a young EMT facing a high-stakes search for a living donor. NJ21st spoke with Andrea and her family about her story, what living with kidney disease looks like and how the community can help her story reach the right person.

Visit Andrea's Page

NJ21st is sharing Andrea's story as a community service feature. Donor screening information, the full interview, financial support links and contact information are available on Andrea's page.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply