a discussion emerged regarding the replacement of well number 10, which had been taken out of service due to its production of undesirable water quality. Tom Joseph, a council candidate, raised concerns about the absence of engineering studies prior to the decision to drill a new well. Joseph questioned the justification for drilling at the Desert Palm property, a site he described as valuable and costly. He argued that a thorough engineering analysis should precede such a decision to ensure the location would be cost-effective and suitable. The council acknowledged the need for careful consideration but noted that the site was not owned by the borough at the time, implying that discussions were still in progress.

Joseph’s insistence on evaluating alternatives underscored a broader debate about resource management in Seaside Park. He highlighted the importance of exploring other options beyond the Desert Palm property, stressing the potential long-term implications of the council’s decision. The dialogue revealed a lack of consensus on whether adequate planning and studies had been conducted, prompting further examination of the process surrounding the replacement of the well.

Flooding along the Bayfront also dominated public commentary, with residents expressing concerns over the council’s approach to managing this persistent issue. A resident criticized the lack of studies addressing flooding problems, arguing that decisions were being made without a clear understanding of the costs or objectives. This sentiment was echoed by Mike Spino, another council candidate, who questioned the status of the Bayfront committee. Spino highlighted the absence of updates or meetings since a prior presentation on flood mitigation, urging for greater transparency and communication.

They also mentioned exploring options with the county if assistance from other sources was not forthcoming. Despite these assurances, the call for more decisive action and clearer communication remained a prominent theme throughout the meeting.

The meeting further addressed other topics, including a $10,000 grant from the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities for a community energy plan. During the public comment section, Mike Spino sought clarification on the grant’s purpose. It was explained that the funds would be used to hire a consultant to develop an energy plan for the town, which would facilitate access to additional grant funding for implementation.

Additionally, a budget increase of over $200,000 for a project on South Bay View Avenue was scrutinized by a resident named Karen. She questioned whether the $207,000 figure represented the entire cost or just the borough’s share. The council moved forward with the resolution, incorporating it into a consent agenda that was approved unanimously.

Further discussions included details about the Clean Ocean Action annual Beach Sweeps event and the approval of a PTA Halloween parade, contingent upon obtaining an Ocean County permit. These items, while important to community engagement, were overshadowed by the broader infrastructure concerns raised by residents.

The meeting also covered routine administrative matters, such as the approval of minutes and the payment of claims. Several resolutions were summarized, including renewals of shared service agreements with Ocean County for programs related to drug recognition and intoxicated driving enforcement.

In the work session, discussions touched on shared services agreements with Ocean County for the GWID grant program and recycling. The council emphasized the necessity of trained personnel for DWI prosecution and addressed the financial implications of recycling, noting a potential 50% cost-sharing arrangement with the county.

A proposal for power washing the Southside water tank at a cost of $21,200 was discussed, with an emphasis on maintenance to prevent mold growth. The council confirmed that the work would be conducted using specialized equipment, and any issues would be reported post-cleaning.

A change order related to ongoing improvements on South B Avenue prompted questions about transparency and necessity, with potential costs rising by 20%. The council clarified that the additional work request originated from their initiative, not the contractor’s suggestion, and promised further updates as the situation developed.