Berkeley Heights Can Support Its Library and Still Demand a Real Spending Audit

Berkeley Heights Public Library is valuable. A strong local library can support children, seniors, students, job seekers, readers, families, and residents who need access to books, digital resources, research help, public computers, meeting space, or a quiet place to work.

But value is not a blank check. The library is funded with public money. Its budget is not a private donation account. When a small-town library receives more than $1.7 million through a dedicated tax formula, sits inside the municipal complex, carries major personnel costs, creates new full-time positions, spends on marketing, moves operating surplus into capital reserve, and asks residents to trust that all of this is necessary, residents have a right to ask harder questions.

This is not an anti-library argument. It is a pro-accountability argument.

A funding formula should not become a spending target. Just because state law requires money to be raised for the library does not mean every extra dollar should be absorbed into payroll, marketing, postage, reimagining, capital reserves, or new positions without a clear public explanation.

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 own budget presentation says the one-third-mill funding amount is $1,737,267.48. That is a serious appropriation for a town of roughly 13,000 to 14,000 people.

Using approximately 13,426 residents, that equals about $129 per resident per year, or about $10.78 per resident per month. Using a 13,900-resident denominator, it is about $125 per resident per year.

That cost is paid by everyone: residents who use the library every week, residents who use it once a year, and residents who never use it.

The real accountability question is sharper. If only 10 percent of residents are active users, then the 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 stress-test scenario, not a proven usage rate. But that is exactly why active-user data matters.

Before the library asks taxpayers to accept larger payroll, new positions, large operating categories, and recurring capital-reserve transfers, residents should see the numbers that answer one simple question:

What are we buying, and who is actually using it?

The Township cannot simply seize library money - but excess funds still matter

The library tax does not simply sit inside the Township budget for general municipal use. 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 and use it for roads, drainage, police, recreation, or ordinary municipal work.

But that is not the end of the story.

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.

That means the proper question is not, "Can the Township casually seize the library's money?" It cannot.

The proper question is this:

Is the Library Board properly identifying unrestricted excess funds and returning what the law requires, or is it using budget growth, new hires, operating projects, and capital-reserve transfers to absorb money that should 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 usage numbers show the library is used. They also show why cost-per-use reporting is necessary.

Cost per visit

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

This does not mean 2026 visits will be the same as 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, the library should publish the updated number. If visits have stayed flat or declined, residents deserve to know that too.

A simple 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 needs 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.

Raises should be benchmarked, not buried

The salary records also deserve review. The published salary budget materials include 2024 raise scenarios, including a 5 percent option, and a 2025 salary/wage budget column labeled 4 percent. For 2026, the increase cannot fairly be described only as an across-the-board raise because the budget presentation also says the library planned to hire three new librarian positions.

Still, the public deserves a plain explanation: what usage data, labor-market benchmark, retention need, performance measure, or service expansion justified the raises, new positions, and higher payroll?

In a year when many residents are facing higher taxes, recurring 4 to 5 percent public payroll increases should be justified with clear benchmarks, not buried in budget worksheets.

Marketing, postage, summer reading, and "reimagining" need receipts

The 2026 monthly financial summary includes these budget lines:

• Books: $80,000.
• Digital materials: $80,000.
• Periodicals and subscriptions: $40,000.
• Database: $20,000.
• Programs: $28,000.
• Summer reading: $10,000.
• Museum passes: $8,500.
• Supplies: $32,000.
• Marketing: $10,000.
• Tech and equipment: $55,000.
• Reimagining: $40,000.
• Professional development: $27,000.
• Professional services: $45,000.

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

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 is already above the annual budget halfway through the year. This may be a timing issue, coding issue, reclassification issue, or approved transfer. Residents should not have to guess. The library should publish the ledger and invoices behind that line.

Marketing is not the only midyear issue. The 2026 monthly financial summary also 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. Again, these could be coding, timing, or posting artifacts. But the public should not have to infer an explanation from a summary sheet.

The "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.

Some of that may be legitimate. But a recurring "Reimagining" line is too vague for taxpayer oversight. It should be 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 the 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 the 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/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, or properly reimbursed. The Township and library should publish the shared-services agreement, allocation formulas, invoices, reimbursements, insurance correspondence, warranty claims, and project responsibility chart.

The April 13, 2026 minutes show exactly why this matters. The Facility Committee discussed HVAC access and HVAC cleaning, Township RFIs concerning building repairs, suggested mold inspection dates sent to the Township, the Township's request that the library pay for the mold inspection, a new procedure for ongoing and new building leaks, outdoor signage, and staff review of the shared-service agreement. Later in the same 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.

So why would the library need an Extended Capital Plan?

There are legitimate reasons for a library capital plan, even inside a municipal building. A capital plan could cover:

• Security cameras and related technology.
• Library-specific furniture, shelving, service desks, and collection fixtures.
• Public computer equipment, self-check systems, scanners, printers, networking, and technology refreshes.
• Library signage and wayfinding.
• Access-control systems or doors that are specifically needed for library operations.
• Equipment for meeting rooms, children's areas, teen areas, study rooms, or programming spaces.
• Outdoor lockers, book drops, or pickup systems.
• Mobile outreach equipment or delivery-related service expansions.
• Replacement of library-owned items damaged by leaks, mold, or other building problems.

But 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, and a clear explanation of why each project improves efficient and effective library service.

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, 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 article 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 article 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. If money is truly excess under New Jersey law, the process should identify it and return it to the municipality for taxpayer relief.

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.

This article should not state as fact that funds were illegally withheld. The records reviewed here do not prove that. But the records absolutely justify the question.

The Board should publish the calculation. The Township should ask for it. Residents should not have to file multiple 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 their terms expire, who appointed them, when the Township Committee consented to each appointment, whether they attend meetings, and how they vote on budgets, salary increases, new positions, capital transfers, and contracts.

Current board and term information

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 April 2026 minutes important. The library's Board of Trustees page listed the Mayor's Alternate as N/A and the Superintendent's Alternate as N/A, but 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 public-facing board directory should match the minutes.

Attendance matters

The latest regular meeting minutes posted on the library's Board Meeting Agendas & Minutes page, as of this review, are the April 13, 2026 minutes posted on May 12, 2026. The page lists agendas for May and a June 8 legal notice, but it does not show approved regular minutes for May or June 2026.

Based on the posted regular minutes from January through April 2026:

• Mayor Angie Devanney's last posted attendance was March 9, 2026. She was listed present in January, February, and March, and not present on April 13, 2026.
• Dr. Kim Feltre's last posted attendance was April 13, 2026, but she arrived after roll call at 7:13 p.m. Her last posted full-meeting attendance was March 9, 2026. She was not present in January, arrived during executive session in February at 8:33 p.m., was present in March, and arrived late in April.

Posted attendance summary, January through April 2026

The posted regular minutes show the following attendance pattern:

• Mary Jean Barnes: present January, February, March, and April; 0 full misses.
• Diane O'Halloran: present January, February, March, and April; 0 full misses.
• Athena Sapir: present January, February, March, and April; 0 full misses.
• Chris Reilly: present virtually in January, not present in February, present in March and April; 1 full miss.
• Duane Wilcox: not present at initial January roll call but arrived at 7:18 p.m.; present February, March, and April; 0 full misses, 1 late arrival.
• Liz Gosen: inducted and present in January; present February, March, and April; 0 full misses after induction.
• Patty / Patricia Pinies: inducted and present in January; present February, March, and April; 0 full misses after induction.
• Angie Devanney: present January, February, and March; not present April; 1 full miss in the posted January-through-April regular minutes.
• Dr. Kim Feltre: not present in January; not present at February roll call but arrived during executive session at 8:33 p.m.; present March; not present at April roll call but arrived at 7:13 p.m.; 1 full miss and 2 partial/late attendances.
• Louisa Grossman: inducted as Mayor's Alternate in April; too little posted record to calculate attendance.

The point is not to shame volunteers. The point is that these trustees and ex officio members oversee a public institution with a 2026 one-third-mill funding amount of $1,737,267.48. Attendance, votes, alternates, committee assignments, and financial oversight should be easy for residents to see.

What the Board approved while attendance varied

The attendance records matter more because the Board was making significant financial and governance decisions.

At the January 12, 2026 meeting, the Board approved a 4 percent salary increase for all staff after executive session. Mayor Devanney seconded that motion.

At the February 9, 2026 meeting, the Board approved the 2026 operating budget. Liz Gosen moved the approval and Mayor Devanney seconded it. The same meeting minutes state that Dr. Feltre arrived during executive session at 8:33 p.m., after the regular budget discussion and approval.

At the April 13, 2026 meeting, Mayor Devanney was not present, Dr. Feltre arrived late, and the Board discussed HVAC access, building repairs, mold inspection costs, signage, shared-service-agreement review, job descriptions for new positions, security camera priority, and purchasing options for larger projects.

That is exactly why the article should include names, roles, and attendance. Not as a personal attack, but because residents deserve to know who is overseeing the money.

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 the 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 in the building on a normal weekday morning, afternoon, and evening?
• How many physical items were checked out?
• How many 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?
• How many 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.

The study should count:

• Door traffic by hour.
• Non-event occupancy.
• Event attendance separately from ordinary library traffic.
• Checkouts by physical, digital, interlibrary loan, museum pass, and Library of Things category.
• Active resident cardholders, not just total cards ever issued.
• Computer sessions, Wi-Fi sessions, scanner use, and meeting-room use.
• Subscription and database usage, including cost per use.
• Staff hours by function.
• Program cost per attendee.
• Peer-library comparisons for budget, staff FTE, hours, visits, circulation, cardholders, and program attendance.

The library should then publish a 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 and renewal terms.
• 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.
• Annual usage and performance metrics.
• Board attendance, alternates, committee assignments, 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. If the library is located inside the municipal complex, 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 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 the 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

• N.J.S.A. 40:54-8, library tax / one-third mill
• N.J.S.A. 40:54-15, annual report and excess funds transfer procedure
• N.J.S.A. 40:54-9, trustees, appointment, terms, alternates
• N.J.A.C. 15:21-12.4, annual municipal or joint free public library funding
• BHPL Board of Trustees page
• Berkeley Heights Township Library Board page
• BHPL Board Meeting Agendas & Minutes page
• BHPL January 12, 2026 regular meeting minutes
• BHPL February 9, 2026 regular meeting minutes
• BHPL March 9, 2026 regular meeting minutes
• BHPL April 13, 2026 regular meeting minutes
• NJ State Library statistics page and 2024 public library data spreadsheet
• OPRA-produced records reviewed for this article: BHPL 2026 Budget Proposal; 2024 and 2025 operating budgets; 2024 and 2025 salary records; 2025 and 2026 monthly financial summaries; December 9, 2024 and December 8, 2025 board minutes; Extended Capital Plan 2024-2029.