**Lightning Detection System Hours**

One of the most discussions revolved around the operational hours of the newly implemented lightning detection system. A council member voiced dissatisfaction with the current hours, which are active only from 9:30 AM to 5 PM during the beach season. Emphasizing the need for extended hours to cover early morning and evening activities, the member argued, “To me those hours are inadequate for the activity that we actually support and promote here in town.” Concerns were also raised about the system’s reliability, as residents had criticized its performance during recent storms on social media.

The debate included suggestions to start the system’s operation earlier, at 9 AM, to accommodate beachgoers and lifeguards who arrive before the official hours. There was consensus among council members and residents that the current timeframe does not adequately protect the community, particularly during popular evening events like kite nights.

Liability concerns were an aspect of the discussion. One member expressed frustration about potentially exposing the borough to risk by not having lifeguards present when the system is operational. A proposal to adopt the current plan while revisiting the operational hours in future work sessions was put forth. Members stressed the importance of balancing safety with practical use, noting that an effective plan must be both functional and implementable.

**Flooding Management and Stormwater Issues**

The council also delved into the persistent flooding issues affecting Seaside Park, particularly along the Bayfront. One resident highlighted the various types of footwear residents resort to using due to flooding. The conversation focused on the potential use of pump systems to manage excess water and the inadequacies of the current low concrete curbs and bulkheads that allow water to overflow into the streets.

The council discussed the need for a robust pump system and the challenges of relying solely on one approach. Maintenance issues with existing pump stations, especially during hurricane months, were cited as concerns. One member pointed out that the DOT’s pump stations were not designed to handle additional stormwater influx, creating substantial obstacles. The idea of temporary storage solutions for runoff, involving underground piping and water quality management, was proposed as a potential mitigation strategy.

A significant portion of the discussion centered on the borough’s relationship with state and county agencies, emphasizing the need for collaboration to develop effective long-term solutions. The council recognized the necessity of engaging with experts in coastal management and the importance of a streamlined permitting process to advance the Bayfront project.

**Opposition to Offshore Wind Projects**

Another topic was the resolution opposing industrial offshore wind projects. One council member criticized the resolution’s framing, describing it as “full of propaganda and innuendo and exaggerations.” This member advocated for a more straightforward statement that would accurately reflect the council’s and residents’ objections without inflammatory language. Their sentiment was echoed by an audience member who expressed similar concerns about the resolution’s wording and its potential impact on Seaside Park’s reputation.

In contrast, some residents supported the resolution, viewing it as essential to taking a stand against the perceived industrialization of natural spaces. One speaker cited a recent cell tower installation in a nearby state park as an example of state disregard for natural habitats. They argued that wind farms would not benefit the local economy or reduce energy costs for residents and urged the council to vote in favor of the resolution.

**Bayfront Project and Infrastructure Improvements**

The council also addressed the ongoing challenges related to the Bayfront project, particularly the lack of a final permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. This situation has caused funding to be withdrawn on two occasions, impeding progress. The council noted that the issues surrounding the permit are described as “somewhat fluid” and a “moving target,” complicating efforts to advance the project.

Proposals for enhancing the existing sheathing along the Bayfront and improving the effectiveness of the pump stations were discussed. The mayor highlighted ongoing issues with these pump stations, particularly their performance during flooding events. There was mention of a recent turnaround for another town, raising hopes for Seaside Park’s request for tie-ins to these pump stations.

Pamela Hilla, a professional engineer, provided insights into the Bayfront issues, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to permitting requirements to ensure the project’s viability. The council’s objective was to develop a project that would require minimal permitting while addressing the community’s needs. Members stressed the importance of a natural Bayfront that would enhance accessibility and mitigate flooding issues.

**Public Comments and Resident Concerns**

During the public comment portion of the meeting, residents expressed frustration over the perceived lack of effective action regarding storm drains and flooding. One resident suggested holding a public meeting to allow residents to voice their concerns and receive information from the council. Another participant highlighted the need for maintenance and suggested renting equipment from the county to clean the storm drains, as existing resources appeared insufficient.

Concerns about the height of proposed infrastructure were raised, with assurances that minimizing runoff was a primary concern. A unique solution involving a glass wall designed to be bulletproof and generate electricity was proposed.