Enacting an amusement tax, updating its Internet website and completing a zoning ordinance update are among the goals Summit Hill Borough Council plans to accomplish in 2025.

At a meeting of the council on Tuesday, the council said other goals are enacting an ordinance governing short-term rental units and providing council members with individual, borough e mail addresses.

The goals were outlined by David Wargo, president of the council.

Two other suggestions were improving the entrances to the town and projects involving the borough’s parks.

Of the latter two, council member Lacey Gonzalez suggested that only planning occur since money hasn’t been budgeted for such expenditures.

She said the borough could work on developing a plan on what improvements it wants for the parks and decide how to raise money for such improvements.

Last month, a member of council said an amusement tax would be for games of chance located in gas stations and other establishments.

Wargo said he would like to have wording included in the ordinance that would apply the tax to other things, too, such as if a movie theater was to locate in the town.

He said that maybe the recreational tax would raise funds to apply to park projects.

In other business, council member Marlene Basiago asked if rental inspections have begun.

Wargo said council members will be meeting with the inspector, and the inspections will start this month.

The ordinance requiring formal inspections of all residential rental properties took effect on January 1. The council had hired a records clerk for the rental inspections.

An amendment being passed by the borough will absolve property owners who rent or lease their homes to direct relatives.

A rules for a relative pertaining to the rental ordinance are the same as the definitions by the IRS as a relative, said Wargo.

This includes child, grandchild, brother, sister, father, mother, brother or sister.

A question was asked of the council if a first cousin could be considered as a relative for rental license exemption.

The council unanimously voted “no.”