The proposed municipal garbage collection program became a focal point of the meeting, with council members and residents expressing varied opinions on its feasibility and financial implications. Some council members questioned the program’s viability, citing concerns about operational logistics and costs. A notable discussion point was the purchase of compactors, which some members argued should be included in the program’s financial assessment. Disagreements arose over whether the compactor’s costs were an afterthought and how they factored into the overall budget.

Concerns about personnel and operational costs were also prominent. The program’s potential to alleviate high waste management fees was acknowledged, but questions persisted about whether existing staff could manage the increased workload without additional hires. The council debated the legality of charging residents for the program without an ordinance and the necessity of hiring new staff to support the increased responsibilities.

Public comments further fueled the debate, with residents expressing both support and skepticism. Some advocated for the program as a cost-saving measure, while others criticized it for lacking adequate research and transparency. There was a call for a trial period to assess the program’s effectiveness and financial impact before full implementation.

Equally contentious was the proposed housing development plan, which includes a 27-unit building by Omega Drive Redevelopment Urban Renewal LLC, with six affordable units. While some council members emphasized the economic benefits and alignment with the town’s redevelopment goals, residents raised concerns about the potential impact on property values and community character.

Public comments revealed a deep divide among residents. Some feared the development would lead to overburdened schools and infrastructure, arguing that the town already faces low home values and an oversupply of housing. Others supported the initiative, citing the need for affordable housing and economic development.

The public’s concerns extended to the financial implications of the pilot program associated with the development. Residents questioned the fairness of tax exemptions for developers and the potential financial burden on taxpayers.

In addition to these primary issues, the meeting addressed several other topics, including the rejection of bids for a gazebo project, vehicle leasing for the Department of Public Works, and appointments to the Vernon Township Municipal Utility Authority.