The discussion on affordable housing was notably comprehensive, with a presentation by the city’s planning consultant outlining the city’s strategies to comply with state housing laws. The consultant emphasized the necessity of developing a housing plan, which is set for review by the planning board soon. The plan aims to address the city’s compliance with affordable housing mandates, particularly focusing on the rehabilitation of existing units rather than new construction due to Asbury Park’s classification as an urban aid municipality. The city faces a rehabilitation obligation for 214 units, managed by the affordable housing administrative agent, CGPNH. The program provides loans or grants for essential home improvements in exchange for deed restrictions to maintain affordability, supporting low- and moderate-income families.

The council also discussed efforts to meet the outstanding Regional Contribution Agreement (RCA) obligations. This involves utilizing the Lincoln Village development and the home plate site for new affordable housing. The home plate site is an undeveloped area intended to provide housing for current Lincoln Village residents, who will relocate as the existing Lincoln Village is slated for demolition and replacement. The developments aim to enable compliance with state requirements while improving living conditions for residents.

Public participation highlighted a variety of concerns. Resident Frank Coojinatada voiced issues with the infrastructure improvement plan, particularly the lack of communication with residents near the project area and potential health impacts from increased car exhaust due to proposed angled parking. He also questioned the replacement of grassy aprons with permeable pavers, citing maintenance challenges and the loss of green space for pets. Another resident, Nina Sumlin, inquired about the timeline for the Lincoln Village development, seeking clarity on the status of the development agreement.

Further concerns were raised by Linda Brophy regarding bicycle safety amidst infrastructure changes on Kingsley and 6th and 7th Avenues. She pointed out risks posed by the current setup of curbs and aprons and questioned driver awareness of laws allowing bicycles to share lanes with vehicles. The council responded by explaining plans for signage to inform drivers, though Brophy remained skeptical about the effectiveness of this safety measure.

Sewer billing practices were another notable topic, with residents expressing confusion and dissatisfaction. One resident reported receiving a $2,400 sewer bill, questioning the fairness of charges based on an ordinance they believed inapplicable to their long-term residence. They argued that the billing methodology seemed to unfairly burden longstanding residents while newcomers enjoyed incentives. Another resident, Steven Wright, highlighted inconsistencies in the application of sewer charges, questioning the legality of the billing practices. The council acknowledged these concerns, encouraging residents to provide further documentation to address the issues.

Amidst these discussions, the council managed routine administrative tasks, including the approval of minutes and a series of resolutions related to city services. These included authorizing payments for summer programs and the wastewater treatment plant, alongside procurement for valet parking services and vending machines. Liquor license applications were also addressed, with specific conditions imposed on establishments to ensure compliance with local regulations.