Ocean Grove, NJ. Dec. 9, 2012. Paul Goldfinger photo. Left click to enlarge
EDITOR’S NOTE: Our December 23rd story on whether the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will reimburse Ocean Grove for repairs to our storm-damaged boardwalk raised as many questions as it answered.
Many Grovers are wondering why disaster relief for our boardwalk is in doubt while relief for damaged boardwalks in neighboring towns is not. The answer is that our boardwalk is owned not by a local government but by the Camp Meeting Association, a private, non-profit organization.
A FEMA official assigned to Monmouth County hurricane relief has been following our discussion of this issue. Today, she weighs in with an explanation of some of the main considerations on which FEMA’s decision will rest. Although she makes no prediction as to which way that decision will go, she frames the issue in some detail. We present her analysis here.
-0-
By Robin E. Smith, FEMA Media Relations
Public Assistance grants from FEMA may be given to state, local and tribal governments, as well as to certain qualifying private non-profit organizations, to cover 75 percent of the cost of disaster repairs.
The criteria for approving the grants, set by the Stafford Act, differ for governmental entities and private non-profits.
State, tribe or local governments may apply for disaster-related damages to public facilities they own that provide flood control, navigation, irrigation, reclamation, public power, sewage treatment and collection, water supply and distribution, watershed development, or an airport facility. They may also apply for disaster-related damages to non-federally funded streets, roads or highways, and any other public building, structure, park or system, including those used for educational, recreational, or cultural purposes, that is owned by a state, tribe or local government.
In general, a private non-profit facility may qualify for FEMA Public Assistance grants if it provides educational, utility, irrigation, emergency, medical, rehabilitational, or custodial care resources to the community.
In certain cases, private non-profit organizations that provide essential, non-recreational services of a governmental nature to the general public may also be eligible. Examples include some museums, zoos, performing arts facilities, libraries, homeless shelters, senior citizen centers, and similarly purposed facilities.
For a form that helps determine the eligibility of private non-profits for FEMA Public Assistance grants, see http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=2726. Additional information about FEMA Public Assistance grants for non-profit cultural institutions may be found at https://www.heritagepreservation.org/federal/index.html.
Ed. note: Of particular interest to Ocean Grovers is this link.
The idea of Neptune acquiring the beach and boardwalk has been suggested, but there is almost no serious interest at City Hall. I’d say it’s not going to happen.
The boardwalk doesn’t generate any revenue and costs a lot to maintain. Why would Neptune want to take it over?
Where is it written that Neptune Township and the tax paying citizens it represents wants to, or even would, buy the boardwalk from the CMA?
I don’t think the CMA will have trouble receiving funds to rebuild once their applications are completed and filed.
Since there’s no indication thus far that the CMA is doing anything to effectuate any resolution, I don’t think we need to speculate about what other groups might do or say in the event that the CMA does try to actually do something. One thing at a time. The boardwalk is in the CMA’s court — for now.
Another thing to think about given the private ownership of the boardwalk is what (beyond applicable zoning) would prevent the CMA from subdividing and selling off for development some or all of the boardwalk space and the grassy area east of Ocean Avenue? There certainly are other towns that have oceanfront houses. Doesn’t the CMA’s ownership give it total control over that possibility (again, subject to the zoning and permitting rules of the Township)?
Sal: Ocean Grove United didn’t use taxpayer funds to advance illegal discrimination against those very same taxpayers — that was the Camp Meeting Association that did that. Maybe your comment should be directed at the CMA if you are concerned about how credible the CMA is with regard to the issue of public use. Part of the paying public wanted to use the Pavillion and the CMA said “no.” I want them to get funding. But they should present themselves as having facilities open to all of the public, and ending their Pavillion case and their association with the Alliance Defense Fund is a good indicator that they are committed to a lawful path.
You can rest assured that if anyone goes to the Feds and tries to exert influence that Ocean Grove United will step in and muddy the waters even further with their agenda. Before people lash out at my comment just remember to take it at face value, not as a reference for or against having ceremonies on the boardwalk. There’s no way that OGU would let the opportunity pass. So this is going to get a lot more confusing before it gets resolved and lots of time will go by with legal battles as that’s already been proven. Kiss a 2013 resolution goodbye and hope for something by 2014.
The above discussion raises many questions regarding CMA’s status and ability to tap into available federal/state funds. My understanding is that it is not a church, but a 501c3–a non-profit organization.
In the past it has received funds from the State’s Green Acres fund for facility restoration. As a nationally-recognized historic district, one can only assume there are available State/Federal funds for restoration purposes.
As a unique 501c3 that conducts “unrelated business” (and pays an “unrelated business income tax” for specific ground rentals from increasingly new condos), it would seem that it might also wish to explore long-term, low-interest bank loans.
Why does the CMA feel the need to hold onto the boardwalk? Seems like they want the rights but not the responsibilities. It’s time they need to back off and let a municipality take over or perhaps they also want to take over Ocean Avenue and be responsible for snowplowing.
I know that. The law is subject to interpretation and is flexible….that is my point.
OG is different from other applicants in that our boardwalk is owned by the Camp Meeting Association, which puts it in a different legal category than boardwalks owned by municipalities. Whatever arguments the CMA makes need to be based on the law.
LOL! Charles! You can’t possibly be that naive! All of FEMAs regs are subject to interpretation. They will argue they don’t have to pay and CMA and those with influence on their behalf will definitively fight for their rights to receive funds. Why should OG be any different from any other applicant. If my tax dollars are funding FEMA, then I say my town needs it, pay up! If it takes Pallone, Christie or Obama to hold the bat, then someone better start swinging it against the money tree soon! Just think of it like a PAC for hurricane victims!
I fully agree with JCo and Newto town- action is needed given these FEMA developments.
I agree that the situation is dangerous; we cannot have rusty nails sticking up out of the boards in the summertime. It is sort of odd that the CMA would not have budgeted for at least some of this expense, given that the boardwalk has been destroyed by storms in the recent past. I just visited http://www.guidestar.com, a site that publishes IRS forms and financial information for non-profit organizations, and I discovered that the CMA is not required to file any IRS forms or publish any information at all, because it is a church. So we are left to rely on what the CMA chooses to release to the public. It says it is running at a deficit and that it cannot obtain this money by means other than public donations to a general fund, and that it needs $3MM for this repair. Many folks are reluctant to give money to the church for philosophical reasons that have been discussed on this site at length, so this fundraising effort seems doomed from the start. To me, this means that the Township will have to take over the boardwalk and beach maintenance responsibilities; nothing else makes sense.
Regarding watershed development, flood control and water run-off, how about the sinkholes forming around the damaged east end of Wesley Lake. The egress system of the lake is completely broken, and if the erosion continues it looks to me like everything will collapse. Wesley Lake was once linked directly to the ocean, and it could get that way again. Although not a “bridge,” the continuous boardwalk from Ocean Grove to Asbury Park has implications for the tourist industry and stability of the flow of water into the ocean. It really is essential that the area south of the lake have funds.
What would be the object of this political pressure? To have FEMA officials disregard the law and give Ocean Grove something we might not be entitled to, at taxpayer expense, just because we’re special? Senators and representatives should write the laws, not pressure bureaucrats to break them.
We need some intervention by our senator and representative. They should either be pressuring FEMA or getting us an earmark. Also, where is Govenor Christie on helping us? Has the CMA been contacting these individuals? Does this town have any political connections?
The language in the FEMA regs that caught my eye is that referring to “recreational” facilities. I would imagine our boardwalk would be considered recreational, as opposed to educational, medical, rehabilitational etc.
Ms. Smith’s analysis — and the documents to which she links — list “recreational purposes” among those for which a government “may” be eligible for federal reimbursement. However, her analysis — and the linked documents — pointedly exclude recreational resources from the list of things for which private non-profits (read: the CMA) may be eligible.
But it gets worse. If you follow the final link at the bottom of the posting, and scroll down a bit, you’ll find a list of things owned by private non-profits that are specifically “no longer eligible under the governing statues and regulations.” At the top of that list is “recreational facilities.”
On the face of it, this looks bad for us. We can hope for the best, but we should plan for the worst.
There are multiple solutions here. Ask Neptune, or a state authority (e.g., EDA) to float a municipal bond. Government entities do this for private organizations all the time. Over 30 years, a $3m loan (at 3.5% or some such figure) is entirely manageable, even for the CM. If FEMA then kicks in a portion, all the better — retire some of the debt early. I open the papers and read every day about part-time mayors in Belmar, Asbury, Avon, Bradley, Spring Lake, &c., approving bond issues and hiring engineers and contractors to get their boardwalks up by May. These aren’t professional city managers. They’re regular folks who display competence at running public accommodations and facilities.
Are the people running the CM really not able to figure this out as well? They’re playing with homeowners’ property values here. If they can’t figure it out, the state should exercise eminent domain and buy the boardwalk for a fair price, and then sell it to Neptune (allowing Neptune to float a bond to pay for it.) Why eminent domain? Because a lack of boardwalk poses erosion and storm risks for the entire community; it depletes property values and threatens local businesses; and, when last I saw it a few weeks ago, the boardwalk (such as it is) is dangerous. Would you let your kids play around a scrap of rusty nails, splintered boards and steep, hole-ridden walkways? If the CM can’t handle this, they need to admit it and step away.