The commission faced a rejection for their application to the Joint Insurance Fund (GIF), a move that raised concerns about the timeline for the grant. One member expressed frustration over the state’s refusal to accept the GIF’s insurance coverage for the commission, emphasizing that the commission, unlike municipalities, was being treated differently. The state’s stricter interpretation of insurance regulations compared to past instances was a point of contention, with discussions seeking clarity on the requirements and the possibility of extensions due to these delays. A member requested that the regulations be circulated for further review to understand the exact stipulations.

Another topic was the ongoing goose management program. A member mentioned speaking with the “goose girl,” although no detailed report was available at the meeting. The commission planned to pay the bill for the goose management program and send out the bills to each town involved. Communication issues were highlighted, as one individual had not received necessary information about an upcoming meeting.

The commission also discussed the distribution of a pamphlet intended for lake residents. It was suggested to send out the pamphlet to all residents, not just new ones, either at the beginning of summer or spring, depending on residents’ availability. The pamphlet addressed maintenance issues, primarily focusing on homeowners’ responsibilities. There was consideration regarding renters, but it was noted that landlords typically manage maintenance, minimizing the pamphlet’s relevance for tenants.

Updates on other environmental efforts included a report on the weed management program for the upcoming year. A request was made to create a two-year program to encourage vendor participation. Shoreline protection was another point of discussion. A member noted difficulties in contacting Robert Clark to address this issue, planning to follow up via email.

The commission also addressed a proposal to correct the voting rights outlined in the commission’s governing documents. A resolution to strike the problematic paragraph was proposed and accepted, clarifying that only designated members could vote.

Administrative items included an upcoming cleanup scheduled for November 9th, involving the lowering of the lake level. Deal School, which had participated enthusiastically in past cleanups, was expected to join again. Coordination with Asbury Park to clean out municipal stormwater management devices (MTDs) at Comto and Colonial was also discussed, emphasizing the importance of maintaining cleanliness post-summer events.

Financial matters were briefly covered, confirming that Asbury Park had paid their fair share for 2024, positively impacting the commission’s budget. A new resolution was presented to change a meeting date in July 2025 to improve attendance, with plans to finalize the schedule during the January reorganization meeting.

Communication improvements were a recurring theme. It was suggested to add appropriate email addresses to ensure commissioners could respond to town-specific inquiries while maintaining privacy using blind carbon copy (BCC) when communicating with the public.

Public comments brought additional issues to light. A resident raised concerns about a retention area west of Route 35, filled in over the years. Another resident updated on a project at the Asbury Park Circle, transformed into a pollinator habitat with local politicians’ assistance, planting native trees and shrubs to support pollinators. The project was seen as a pilot, with hopes for expansion.

A representative from the Green Team in Asbury Park expressed a desire to collaborate on green infrastructure and environmental protection initiatives, referencing successful past efforts like the installation of an MTD to reduce oil contamination. The Green Team offered assistance in removing invasive bushes along the lake.