During the public comment session, resident David Viscan criticized the council’s recent amendment to the property maintenance ordinance, voicing concern that reduced fines and a prolonged process for addressing violations would undermine the town’s efforts to maintain cleanliness and order. Viscan argued that the revised procedure, requiring a notice of violation followed by a summons months later, could lead to a lack of accountability for property owners neglecting their responsibilities. He emphasized, “It seems like we’re wiping the noses of property owners who don’t know how to cut their grass,” expressing frustration over what he deemed burdensome changes. Viscan also sought clarity on rumors of an audit targeting code enforcement employees.

Another resident addressed the council with concerns about disparities in code enforcement actions. Highlighting the number of violations issued by officers, the resident noted that Superior Andrew Cheney and Jose Rivera had issued a comparable number of citations, raising questions about departmental consistency and effectiveness. This speaker pointed out that the root of these issues lies within the department rather than with the council.

In another discussion, a resident named Jim Selia questioned the rationale behind annual adjustments to salary ranges for township officials and employees, as outlined in Ordinance 02-2025. Selia expressed confusion over the frequent updates, noting a typographical error indicating the ordinance was effective for 2019 instead of 2025. Responding to Selia’s concerns, a council member explained that these updates are legally required and reflect contractual provisions. This explanation highlighted Jackson’s efforts to maintain transparency and compliance, contrasting with towns where wider salary ranges might obscure public understanding of salary adjustments.

Land use changes also drew public scrutiny, with resident Elanor Hatam voicing concerns over Ordinance 125. Hatam criticized perceived inconsistencies in fines for minor infractions compared to more serious violations. She cited previous land use ordinances that allegedly benefited developers and expressed skepticism over the council’s transparency, questioning the president’s authority over town employees and accusing the council of fostering a hostile work environment.

Amid these discussions, the council addressed various ordinances and resolutions, with several requiring reintroduction due to advertising errors. Ordinance 01-2025, amending land use and development regulations, was unanimously approved, as were Ordinances 02-2025, 03-2025, and 04-2025, which respectively covered salary ranges, land donations, and regulations for low-speed electric bikes and motorized bicycles. Ordinance 05-2025, concerning architectural designs for single-family subdivisions, and Ordinance 06-2025, allowing the towing of illegally parked vehicles, also received unanimous approval.

In addition to ordinance discussions, the council decided to reschedule the next meeting to February 27th to ensure a quorum, with notification updates delegated to the town clerk. The council also approved a consent agenda, including resolutions relisted due to a publication error, and authorized bills and claims with noted extensions.

The meeting concluded with a resident named Charles noting the rescheduling of a public hearing related to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, with the clerk tasked with re-noticing this change. Following these discussions, a motion to close the public comment session was unanimously approved by council members present.